# Regret and Shame



## Lila

Several threads have popped up recently by men asking for help on processing their partner's sexual past. A sexual past that was understood on some level but the details of which have now come to light. 

One common question that I see asked is whether or not the partner regrets her sexual past or feels shame over her wanton behavior at that time. I often see these behaviors cumulatively described as 'youthful indiscretions', 'escapades/wild adventures', or 'acting out'. These types of questions insinuate that the only way to judge these experiences as acceptable is to invalidate them with regret and/or shame. This is baffling to me. 

I know that there are women who do genuinely regret something in their sexual past, but I don't think this is true of the majority. I think many women unknowingly (or possibly purposefully) feel they have to suppress these positive sexual experiences or replace them with negative feelings in order to make their sexual history palatable to a future partner. Clean the slate, so to speak.

I personally do not regret any of my sexual past. I enjoyed my sexual experiences and remember them as positive events in my life. It was _history_. A history that I enjoyed and one where I was happy.

Luckily, my lack of regret did not disqualify me as a good long term partner for my husband, just as his lack of regret over his sexual history didn't disqualify him as a good long term partner for me.

I know that I'm cut from a whole other piece of cloth but would like to hear the ladies of TAM thoughts on the subject. 

Do you regret parts or the whole of your sexual history? Why/why not.

Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners? If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly?


----------



## *LittleDeer*

I don't regret much, I do regret one relationship. But it wasn't a one night stand it was over a year long, and it's embarrassing to me that I was ever with this person. I put it down to being in a bad place at the time. 

But as for the rest no, and I'm not embarrassed to tell people. I enjoy sex, and it's natural and normal.


----------



## Lila

@*littledeer* have you ever been asked by a partner/date if you regret any part of your sexual history? 

That's the question I don't get. If the person asking the question finds the act immoral or counter to their beliefs then why ask about regret? The person either accepts them as is or not. Ykwim?


----------



## jld

This is mainly a problem for men, right? I have not heard many women bring it up, anyway.

Those guys are just insecure, imo. They need to feel they are the best or the only one or something like that. It is really their issue to work through, not the woman's.

Probably a good idea for a woman to leave a guy who makes an issue out of stuff like that, though. Unless he takes himself in hand and works through his insecurity, she will probably hear about it forever.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I don't regret anything because it's all combined to make me the person I am. There are aspects that part of me wishes had been different but even then you enter "what if" territory, and that's one of the most pointless questions ever.

I've never been asked about my history by anyone, not even my hb. Which is strange considering he's stuck all kinds of details about his exes and past that I didn't want to know in my face and made comments to make me think that he doesn't want to know about mine. 

I think the past belongs in the past anyway and if I was asked I'd answer exactly what was asked and nothing more.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

Lila said:


> Do you regret parts or the whole of your sexual history? Why/why not.


Nope, I do not regret my sexual past. There are a relationship or two that I regret. But not the sex. Why would I? Sex is a normal part of human life. 

The only thing that I do regret is something that I did not choose… being raped. I regret trusting a ‘friend’ to walk me home at night so that I would be ‘safe’. I would have been safer to walk home alone in the dark.


Lila said:


> Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners?


No. I think that anyone who would expect that a woman do this has serious problems and should be avoided. Women need to realize that a man who shames her for her sexual past has serious problems. It’s a HUGE red flag.


Lila said:


> If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly?


Yes I do think it’s common for women to believe that they have to regret their sexual past in order to be accepted by some particular man. The sad thing is that if the woman does this, it causes serious damage to their new relationship. If she has to be ashamed of her sexual past, then it holds that she must be ashamed of her sexual present/future. Then their partner wonders why she does not initiate, or want sex often…. Well it’s because every sex act is an act that is meant to cause shame. Why would a woman want sex if sex intrinsically brings her shame?

I also believe, and know, that there are plenty of men out there who do not expect the woman that they are with to do this. So.. women would be wise to avoid men who need for her to find shame in her sexual past and/or who suffer retroactive jealousy. These are head trips that destroy self-esteem and relationships.


----------



## Holland

No regrets or shame here and it was a pretty wild ride some of the time.

Totally agree with JLD that this issue is on the other partner (usually the male) it is their insecurity that is the main problem. I would advise any woman to move on from a man like this asap.


----------



## ConanHub

It depends Lila.

Mrs. Conan and I are both part of a religious community.

We both hold certain views on sex and I absolutely fit your description of a man that would not be pursuing a relationship with a woman who wasn't like minded.

I am uber confident and don't suffer from RJ. I wouldn't hold a woman's sexual history against her but, if her views hadn't changed, we couldn't go forward.

The shame and regret that we both feel is because we did not live according to an ideal we believe to be good.

The individual sex acts were not horrible. The fact we were having sex outside of marriage was horrible to us.

I get what you are saying in general but everyone has some standards and if a woman, or man, still thinks Craigslist hookups or being passed around at a party is a positive experience and something to be promoted as positive to your children, there are many who wouldn't be interested.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

P.S. Mrs. Conan is also far more to the right on the conservative scale than me as well.

I almost think conservatives might cheat at a higher rate than liberals but I don't know.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> It depends Lila.
> 
> Mrs. Conan and I are both part of a religious community.
> 
> We both hold certain views on sex and I absolutely fit your description of a man that would not be pursuing a relationship with a woman who wasn't like minded.
> 
> I am uber confident and don't suffer from RJ. I wouldn't hold a woman's sexual history against her but, if her views hadn't changed, we couldn't go forward.
> 
> The shame and regret that we both feel is because we did not live according to an ideal we believe to be good.
> 
> The individual sex acts were not horrible. The fact we were having sex outside of marriage was horrible to us.
> 
> I get what you are saying in general but everyone has some standards and if a woman, or man, still thinks Craigslist hookups or being passed around at a party is a positive experience and something to be promoted as positive to your children, there are many who wouldn't be interested.


I rather doubt that Lila is talking about craigslist hookups and/or being passed around at a party.

There are plenty of threads here on TAM where guys talk about being upset because a woman had any sex at all before them, or had one or two short relationships.


----------



## Truthseeker1

EleGirl said:


> I rather doubt that Lila is talking about craigslist hookups and/or being passed around at a party.
> 
> There are plenty of threads here on TAM where guys talk about being upset because a woman had any sex at all before them, or had one or two short relationships.


I think each individual has their "deal breakers" - I knew a woman wh was very promiscuous - in the way you described and was also unfaithful to several previous boyfriends (she was heading towards the triple digits).....she was dating a guy and found out he went to a hooker once at a bachelor party or something...deal breaker for her...she went nuts over it...that was her deal breaker..

I think many people are most comfortable with a person who has a sexual past similar to their own...that is how I am...


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> P.S. Mrs. Conan is also far more to the right on the conservative scale than me as well.
> 
> *I almost think conservatives might cheat at a higher rate than liberals* but I don't know.


It's interesting that you would have this bias. My guess would be that a person's political leaning would not make a difference. And we are both wrong apparently.

"The GSS are the only national surveys that ask specific questions about marital fidelity. Americans who consider themselves to be extremely liberal are twice as likely to have an extramarital affair as those survey respondents who are listed as extremely conservative. The most recent GSS results determined that 26.4% of liberals admitted to having an affair while only 13% of their conservative brethren responded in the affirmative.

The GSS also confirmed that the two-to-one relationship of extramarital affairs between liberals and conservatives holds true for women as well as men. Another interesting fact brought out by these surveys is that, while men are much more likely to have an extramarital affair, liberal-leaning woman are more likely to stray outside their marriages than conservative men."

Who Cheats More: Liberals or Conservatives?


----------



## EleGirl

Truthseeker1 said:


> I think each individual has their "deal breakers" - I knew a woman wh was very promiscuous - in the way you described and was also unfaithful to several previous boyfriends (she was heading towards the triple digits).....she was dating a guy and found out he went to a hooker once at a bachelor party or something...deal breaker for her...she went nuts over it...that was her deal breaker..
> 
> I think many people are most comfortable with a person who has a sexual past similar to their own...that is how I am...


I have never had a guy ask me about my sexual past.. nor I about his. What has always mattered to me is his present.


----------



## Truthseeker1

EleGirl said:


> It's interesting that you would have this bias. My guess would be that a person's political leaning would not make a difference. And we are both wrong apparently.
> 
> "The GSS are the only national surveys that ask specific questions about marital fidelity. Americans who consider themselves to be extremely liberal are twice as likely to have an extramarital affair as those survey respondents who are listed as extremely conservative. The most recent GSS results determined that 26.4% of liberals admitted to having an affair while only 13% of their conservative brethren responded in the affirmative.
> 
> The GSS also confirmed that the two-to-one relationship of extramarital affairs between liberals and conservatives holds true for women as well as men. Another interesting fact brought out by these surveys is that, while men are much more likely to have an extramarital affair, liberal-leaning woman are more likely to stray outside their marriages than conservative men."
> 
> Who Cheats More: Liberals or Conservatives?


That is interesting thanks for sharing!!


----------



## Truthseeker1

EleGirl said:


> I have never had a guy ask me about my sexual past.. nor I about his. What has always mattered to me is his present.


Different things matter to different people...


----------



## MJJEAN

Lila said:


> @*littledeer* have you ever been asked by a partner/date if you regret any part of your sexual history?
> 
> That's the question I don't get. If the person asking the question finds the act immoral or counter to their beliefs then why ask about regret? The person either accepts them as is or not. Ykwim?


I don't regret my sexual past.

There were some things that DH did that were a bit..out there, IMO. I did ask him if those things, understood more fully with time and maturity, were something he regretted and wouldn't do again or if he still found them acceptable. I had to know because they were dealbreakers for me. He said he didn't regret doing them because he learned from the experiences, but that he didn't find those acts acceptable any longer. I was ok with that. 

So, to answer your question, I guess I asked because I could accept DH did those things in the past, but I couldn't accept it if he would still do them.


----------



## MEM2020

Jealousy - is an insecurity driven fear. 

So this negative focus on prior partners seems typically driven by a short list of distinct factors:
- I'm not as 'special or important' as I want to be, since this is something you've done with many other partners. FWIW: 
The definition of MANY: runs the gamut from one other partner to a number larger than one. 
- I'm very afraid of being compared to other men. Penis size. Endurance. Hotness. 

It's a funny thing - this jealousy theme. I went to one of M2's work events - at a hospital. Met a few of her prior - boyfriends. They were all handsome Devils. Surgical residents or surgeons. With one exception being a male nurse who looked like those guys do solo flex adds. Perfect body, handsome face. 

I had absolutely no reaction to them. None. As far as comparison goes, I like that M2 has enough basis for comparison to have an informed view of me. 

The scary thing about a virgin is this. How could she not wonder what 'normal' is. What bad sex, average sex, good sex and great sex feel like. Wouldn't she likely be at least somewhat curious?





jld said:


> This is mainly a problem for men, right? I have not heard many women bring it up, anyway.
> 
> Those guys are just insecure, imo. They need to feel they are the best or the only one or something like that. It is really their issue to work through, not the woman's.
> 
> Probably a good idea for a woman to leave a guy who makes an issue out of stuff like that, though. Unless he takes himself in hand and works through his insecurity, she will probably hear about it forever.


----------



## MJJEAN

EleGirl said:


> I have never had a guy ask me about my sexual past.. nor I about his. What has always mattered to me is his present.


I asked. I'd rather know about any...quirks...before I get attached and shyte gets real.

Besides, there are things that I think people should know about a persons sexual history before they decide to commit. It does make a difference.

I know people who have done porn professionally. Two acted and one did make-up and costumes. 

I have another few people in my life who have had various levels of homosexual sexual contact. 

Others I know have been in open relationships where 3-ways and sex parties were the regular weekend activity.

Those are all examples of things I'd like to know about a potential partner before I get emotionally and/or physically involved. I'm not judging, but I know what I can handle and what is just too much for me. If a potential did something that's just too much, maybe we're not a good combination and should move on.


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> It's interesting that you would have this bias. My guess would be that a person's political leaning would not make a difference. And we are both wrong apparently.
> 
> "The GSS are the only national surveys that ask specific questions about marital fidelity. Americans who consider themselves to be extremely liberal are twice as likely to have an extramarital affair as those survey respondents who are listed as extremely conservative. The most recent GSS results determined that 26.4% of liberals admitted to having an affair while only 13% of their conservative brethren responded in the affirmative.
> 
> The GSS also confirmed that the two-to-one relationship of extramarital affairs between liberals and conservatives holds true for women as well as men. Another interesting fact brought out by these surveys is that, while men are much more likely to have an extramarital affair, liberal-leaning woman are more likely to stray outside their marriages than conservative men."
> 
> Who Cheats More: Liberals or Conservatives?


Maybe they just admit it more. I have seen a LOT of so called conservative Christians cheat. But again, I don't know.

The most recent thread about a woman's past did include Craigslist hookups.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Dude007

I've slept w close to 50 women and my wife maybe 5 men so how the hell can I ask her to regret those lil penis dudes before big daddy came along. Ha
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Dude007

Libertarians are the most promiscuous cuz we the smartest and know republic and demo a rigged wrestling theatric game.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TheTruthHurts

Some pretty derogatory and dismissive responses here...

Read his needs her needs (or is it her needs his needs?)

For many / most guys sex is #1 need. For many women it is "meh". For these women, men's concerns might be erroneously thought of as weakness or jealousy.

Far far far from a thoughtful analysis.

By far the most destructive thing a woman can do is engage in sexual acts in a prior relationship that they are unwilling to do in their current relationship.

"What? Am I not good enough? "

Only a fool would say this is jealousy if one understands the importance of sex to men.

A better approach is "I tried anal and didn't like it. Let's try it and see. But I'm not really into it but maybe I'll like it with you." Then if it's no good most guys will be MUCH more able to believe this.

If you enjoyed something with someone else but not with your current partner, what are you truly saying?

(If you enjoyed sex in the past and still enjoy it with your current partner that's totally different)


----------



## TheTruthHurts

Btw only a foolish woman would talk about performance or size and not expect to at least lie and say current partner is better.

Remember sex for men = talking and connecting for most women. What woman would accept talking a few times a month or only when he's not tired or busy with work or the kids? And what woman would like being told "I used to have really nice, deep, meaningful and emotional talks with Gina..., but I do like talking to you about the kids"

Think....


----------



## MEM2020

This theme is very common but I admit to not really getting it. 

My sole criteria for a partner is how 'into me' they are. If they are into me and we are sexually compatible - great. 

If not, then we aren't and that is that. 

Perhaps this is, what you might call a 'minority report' but I say with certainty that M2 loved a fellow in college more intensely, more crazily and more lustfully than she loves me. It was truly borderline madness. 

And that's ok. It just didn't work out between them. And by the time we met she hadn't seen or heard from him in 4+ years. She seemed completely over him. 

I guess some guys would see that and say: well that's a non starter she loved him more than me.

Maybe none of this bothers me because M2 is so into me. Maybe I just lack the jealousy trait. 




TheTruthHurts said:


> Some pretty derogatory and dismissive responses here...
> 
> Read his needs her needs (or is it her needs his needs?)
> 
> For many / most guys sex is #1 need. For many women it is "meh". For these women, men's concerns might be erroneously thought of as weakness or jealousy.
> 
> Far far far from a thoughtful analysis.
> 
> By far the most destructive thing a woman can do is engage in sexual acts in a prior relationship that they are unwilling to do in their current relationship.
> 
> "What? Am I not good enough? "
> 
> Only a fool would say this is jealousy if one understands the importance of sex to men.
> 
> A better approach is "I tried anal and didn't like it. Let's try it and see. But I'm not really into it but maybe I'll like it with you." Then if it's no good most guys will be MUCH more able to believe this.
> 
> If you enjoyed something with someone else but not with your current partner, what are you truly saying?
> 
> (If you enjoyed sex in the past and still enjoy it with your current partner that's totally different)


----------



## lifeistooshort

I do think there can be a somewhat find line between shaming/judging someone for their past and simply preferring someone who holds similar values. If I decide not to be with someone who has a past I find unacceptable am I judging them? Or am I simply deciding that we have different values? 

As I said in my earlier post I'm one who believes the past is in the past and has no place in the present. I don't ask question I don't want the answer to. Of course things that affect the present are excluded from this.....ie STD's you've had or have, kids you have, ex spouses you have, things like that. My husband barely knows anything about my past because he's never asked and I've not offered.....if he asked I'd answer his questions honestly but I'd answer what was asked. He, on the other hand, had diarrhea of the mouth when it came to his exes, to the point where I shared some of the things he said with a few people close to me and the reaction was one of WTF????? 

Needless to say hb has a much more extensive past then I do, and I was obviously not a virgin as I was divorced with two kids, and my ex wasn't my first. Still, I feel sometimes like husband doesn't share the same values as I do where sex is concerned simply because he got around so much, and his constant need to level the playing field emotionally (I'm 19 years younger) by sticking his past in my face has left me feeling like I'm one in a long line. The thing is that I don't think I'm judging him of shaming him for his past but I do wonder how I can really be an different than the long line before me, especially if said long line was so great he felt the need to constantly bring it up. I've since put a stop to this oversharing and let's just say it took some new ahole ripping on my part. But his constant need to share told me that he thinks about exes a lot, probably when he's with me so how can I really be that special? He hasn't done this for a few years now but it still bothers me.

I do have mixed feelings about the whole "what they did with others they must do with me" attitude a lot of guys seem to have. People and circumstances changes as people get older.....hb had sex on the beach (how do I even know that? Because it's one of the many unsolicited past experiences he's brought up for absolutely no reason) but he and I have never had sex on the beach. I don't have a big desire for this but if I asked and he was now uncomfortable (because he's a lot older now) should I throw a hissy fit? I wanted to have sex in the car a long time ago and he wanted to wait until we were home so it would be more comfortable. Ok then. But one new year's eve we were relaxing and literally out of nowhere he proclaims "I had sex in a car on new year's even once. It was so cold we had to keep the heater one". WTF? What was the purpose of even bringing that up? So should I now throw a hissy fit because he didn't want to have sex with me in the car that one time? People change as they get older, so doing something once doesn't obligate you to continue to do it forever.

But you know what? Even though I keep it to myself I suppose I do think just a little bit less of him for all of this. Maybe I am judging him in this way, but I know how sh!tty all of the unsolicited sharing has made me feel. I don't bring it up with him and our sex life is pretty good but it's still there. So maybe it's not so much that he has x in his past but the fact that he was such an insensitive pr!ck with the oversharing that I'm really judging. I'll have to think on it.

Any, just my 5 cents and probably more than anyone was interested in. But I type fast so sometimes I get going and before I know it I've written a novel.


----------



## eastsouth2000

no problem about a very sexually active past life. so long as you're "HONEST" about it.
so long as you don't "HIDE" it. OMISSION of such is a lie in itself.
LIES are the problem, not being TRUTHFUL is the core of issue.

your "PAST" is still part of you and you cant deny that. But again no problem so long as you were "TRUTHFUL" about it.

If you lie to get into a relationship, then that relationship is bound to fail.

"HONESTY" and "TRUST" are the core foundation of any relationship and that is a UNIVERSAL TRUTH.

you make decisions to be in a long term relationship based on who that person is.
if that person were to omit something then that person is not the same person you fell in love with.


----------



## TheTruthHurts

OMG lifeistooshort...

I love your posts most of the time btw

But this sounds like a cry for attention from hubby 

Sex is how many men judge their masculinity I'm afraid to admit. Now understand I am in Mensa and am really not a he man cave man. But I understand the primitive nature of men that we can't (shouldn't?) suppress.

I'm sorry to tell you but I hear hubby thinking "Gina was so into me she was willing to give me a hj on the beach" and "Hannah couldn't keep her hands off if my c*ck so she gave me a BJ in a bedroom at a friends house"

Women do these things for reasons men don't get. Men assume it is their sexuality and masculinity and not some emotional connection and s glass of wine.

I hear him sadly saying "how come you're not that into me?"

And please don't dismiss me - I've had this talk with my wife. We are stoic and act like an emotional rock -?but if we have emotional vulnerabilities this is the place.

So don't assume he's running your nose in it - he is asking for it but knows you don't think it's appropriate or fun but he is still hurt.

Just a possibility


----------



## MEM2020

Truth,

This is the 'real' truth. Let's be graphic for a moment. Somehow your partner let's you know they did oral to completion on a regular basis with one or more previous partners. 

And they won't do oral at all with you. 

That my man is what I call a message. If you break it down, sex has two discrete pieces: physiology and psychology. 

Giving oral, can be a hybrid act in the sense that you might have a sort of loose reciprocity of giving and getting. 

But reciprocity aside, in the moment - giving oral is mostly driven by psychological factors. In a healthy relationship it's a positive: I'm making my partner feel crazily good and THAT is intensely pleasurable. In an unhealthy R, it might be: I'm doing this because my partner - who I love or need has made it clear that lack of this act is a deal breaker. 

If however you aren't that 'into' your partner then, oral has no reward. And you just don't do it. 

That doesn't mean it isn't a a turn on to 'do it'. But for most folk, I believe the 'turn on' comes from knowing the effect it's having on their partner. 

So back to your point. It is useful to know if your partner did things 'under duress' so to speak because they didn't want the previous relationships to end. Or if they did it for the positive psychological wallop. 

It's also helpful to triangulate on that. Some folks are mildly positive on the physiology some are neutral and some don't especially care for it. 

Even though it generally gives you some sense of how 'into you' they are in a relative basis, its also true they may have matured. At 20, your partner might have been willing to do anything, even if it required biting the pillow, to keep their lover happy. 

At 30, they might immediately end it with a partner who is pressuring them to do something that is either painful or that they dislike. 





TheTruthHurts said:


> Btw only a foolish woman would talk about performance or size and not expect to at least lie and say current partner is better.
> 
> Remember sex for men = talking and connecting for most women. What woman would accept talking a few times a month or only when he's not tired or busy with work or the kids? And what woman would like being told "I used to have really nice, deep, meaningful and emotional talks with Gina..., but I do like talking to you about the kids"
> 
> Think....


----------



## TiggyBlue

Lila said:


> Do you regret parts or the whole of your sexual history? Why/why not.


I don't regret any of my sexual history, not all of it was amazing but I don't regret it because it taught me things about myself.
I think I probably would have had incidences I regretted if I had sex for a alternative motive and it backfired (hoping it would make someone like me more ect).



> Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners?


Depends on the partner. Not something I would personally want to do.


> If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly?


I think it's pretty common.


----------



## lifeistooshort

TheTruthHurts said:


> OMG lifeistooshort...
> 
> I love your posts most of the time btw
> 
> But this sounds like a cry for attention from hubby
> 
> Sex is how many men judge their masculinity I'm afraid to admit. Now understand I am in Mensa and am really not a he man cave man. But I understand the primitive nature of men that we can't (shouldn't?) suppress.
> 
> I'm sorry to tell you but I hear hubby thinking "Gina was so into me she was willing to give me a hj on the beach" and "Hannah couldn't keep her hands off if my c*ck so she gave me a BJ in a bedroom at a friends house"
> 
> Women do these things for reasons men don't get. Men assume it is their sexuality and masculinity and not some emotional connection and s glass of wine.
> 
> I hear him sadly saying "how come you're not that into me?"
> 
> And please don't dismiss me - I've had this talk with my wife. We are stoic and act like an emotional rock -?but if we have emotional vulnerabilities this is the place.
> 
> So don't assume he's running your nose in it - he is asking for it but knows you don't think it's appropriate or fun but he is still hurt.
> 
> Just a possibility



I appreciate your suggestion but the truth is that he gets a lot of attention from me. ....we've had talks about our various needs. I know what his kinks are and have no issue enjoying them with him. .... he's getting all he can handle.

And he's a wonderful lover, but I fail to see what he's asking for. I wanted sex in the car with him and he's the one who wanted to wait. 

As for he beach I can honestly say that opportunity has never presented itself. We have a great sex life and he gets all kinds of stuff me.
In fact, he's said he's always loved how great our chemistry is and how great our sex life has always been. 

Let's just say I have reason to think he was sticking my nose in it. When he realized how much damage he was causing he stopped.

I hope for your sake you don't talk to your wife like this. 

My comment was really more geared toward whether I'm judging him for his past as opposed to viewing his values as different.

If he needs something from me and the only way he can ask is to stick exes in my face that's his problem. What if I wasn't getting my needs met and just commented on how big the c0cks were on my exes? Or how much i used to suck ex's c0ck? Would you tell him it was a cry for attention from me or that I was being an inconsiderate jerk? If you have unmet needs speak up. There are some things you just don't say to your spouse. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> Maybe they just admit it more. I have seen a LOT of so called conservative Christians cheat. But again, I don't know.


I figured that this was what you would say. I know a lot of conservative Christians who have cheated. I know a lot of liberals who have cheated. Shoot a lot of people cheat. A lot of people lie. I still think that a person's political and religious leaning makes no difference. There are just some people who lie and cheat.



ConanHub said:


> The most recent thread about a woman's past did include Craigslist hookups.


What gets me is that when a thread like this comes up, it gets taken to the extreme behaviors.. it's another way to shame women IMHO... well of course men need to know if she's done Craigslist hookups, porn staring, and gang bangs at parties.. because you know if any woman has ever had any sex before him.. she surely did something to be ashamed of.


.


----------



## EleGirl

TheTruthHurts said:


> Btw only a foolish woman would talk about performance or size and not expect to at least lie and say current partner is better.





TheTruthHurts said:


> Remember sex for men = talking and connecting for most women.


Clearly you do not understand women. To women sex = sex just like sex = sex for men.

Talking and connecting is does not meet a woman's needs for sex. What you apparently do not get is that in a long term relationship, women will lose interest in having sex with a partner who could care less about treating her well, spending time with her, sharing non-sexual intimacy, dating & romancing her. Why would she want sex with someone like that? This is the precursor to sex. It's not equal to sex.



TheTruthHurts said:


> What woman would accept talking a few times a month or only when he's not tired or busy with work or the kids? And what woman would like being told "I used to have really nice, deep, meaningful and emotional talks with Gina..., but I do like talking to you about the kids"


Clueless



TheTruthHurts said:


> Think....


Yep, think


----------



## EleGirl

TheTruthHurts said:


> Some pretty derogatory and dismissive responses here...
> 
> Read his needs her needs (or is it her needs his needs?)
> 
> For many / most guys sex is #1 need. For many women it is "meh". For these women, men's concerns might be erroneously thought of as weakness or jealousy.
> 
> Far far far from a thoughtful analysis.
> 
> By far the most destructive thing a woman can do is engage in sexual acts in a prior relationship that they are unwilling to do in their current relationship.
> 
> "What? Am I not good enough? "
> 
> Only a fool would say this is jealousy if one understands the importance of sex to men.
> 
> A better approach is "I tried anal and didn't like it. Let's try it and see. But I'm not really into it but maybe I'll like it with you." Then if it's no good most guys will be MUCH more able to believe this.
> 
> If you enjoyed something with someone else but not with your current partner, what are you truly saying?
> 
> (If you enjoyed sex in the past and still enjoy it with your current partner that's totally different)


The topic of this thread is asking women if they have experienced being shamed for sex that they had previously.

It's not about whether or not some guy is all upset because his partner does not like a sex act that she tried before. There is a huge difference in the two topics.

And ... to address your point.. no if a woman has found that she does not like a sex act, there is no reason for her to have to do it to placate the guy she's with. Anal is a good example because it can be good. Or it can be horrible, painful and cause damage. No one should feel that they have to do something now that they know that they do not like.. that is a form of shaming her to get what the guy wants.


----------



## lifeistooshort

EleGirl said:


> The topic of this thread is asking women if they have experienced being shamed for sex that they had previously.
> 
> It's not about whether or not some guy is all upset because his partner does not like a sex act that she tried before. There is a huge difference in the two topics.
> 
> And ... to address your point.. no if a woman has found that she does not like a sex act, there is no reason for her to have to do it to placate the guy she's with. Anal is a good example because it can be good. Or it can be horrible, painful and cause damage. No one should feel that they have to do something now that they know that they do not like.. that is a form of shaming her to get what the guy wants.


And the idea that sex is a "meh" for women is far from a thoughtful analysis.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

lifeistooshort said:


> And the idea that sex is a "meh" for women is far from a thoughtful analysis.


Yep.... amazing isn't it?


----------



## EleGirl

Sadly this thread is going in a direction that takes it away from the original purpose.... for women to talk about whether or not they have been put in a position where they feel that they have to have regret/shame about their sexual experience in order to be accepted.


----------



## lifeistooshort

EleGirl said:


> Yep.... amazing isn't it?


By that logic men don't need an emotional connection with their wives as long as they get sex. I suspect a lot of men would take issue with that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> I figured that this was what you would say. I know a lot of conservative Christians who have cheated. I know a lot of liberals who have cheated. Shoot a lot of people cheat. A lot of people lie. I still think that a person's political and religious leaning makes no difference. There are just some people who lie and cheat.
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is that when a thread like this comes up, it gets taken to the extreme behaviors.. it's another way to shame women IMHO... well of course men need to know if she's done Craigslist hookups, porn staring, and gang bangs at parties.. because you know if any woman has ever had any sex before him.. she surely did something to be ashamed of.
> 
> 
> .


Not in that camp. But just pointing out that not all people in my shoes, having shame or regrets about past sexual experiences are bad or even unhealthy. Mrs. Conan and I are quite healthy by most standards and very satisfied with each other.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> Sadly this thread is going in a direction that takes it away from the original purpose.... for women to talk about whether or not they have been put in a position where they feel that they have to have regret/shame about their sexual experience in order to be accepted.


Many posters were claiming men like me were mental and should be avoided.

I'm actually a catch by most standards. I was pointing out that there are circumstances where being regretful or ashamed of sexual history is not ugly or unhealthy.

I'm in agreement about RJ and fretting over the marriage or two that a woman of 30 or 40 may have had or a couple of boyfriends in high school and college.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Just as a data point, I would not care at all what a woman had done before a relationship started. If her sexual lifestyle was something I didn't like, all I would ask is that she not continue it during a relationship, not that she renounce past actions.

The only thing I would ever expect someone to regret was actions that intentionally caused harm to others.


----------



## Vega

lifeistooshort said:


> By that logic men don't need an emotional connection with their wives as long as they get sex. I suspect a lot of men would take issue with that.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Unfortunately, there are a number of men who feel EXACTLY that way. They have more of an emotional connection with WHAT (sex) than with WHOM (their wife).


----------



## lucy999

Lila said:


> Do you regret parts or the whole of your sexual history? Why/why not.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners? If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly?


I don't regret my sexual history, either in part or in whole. That said, I wasn't super duper wild, but I've had my fair share of shenanigans. There are still a few on my sexual bucket list. Why don't I regret my past? Those experiences helped shape me as a woman. They solidified what I like and don't like, how I mentally feel about sex as I age, and what my boundaries are. 

I would never invalidate my sexual history with regret. It's who I am, take it or leave it. I feel sad for women who do this. That said, I believe in full disclosure.

I'm not sure if it's common among women, but I will say this: I have a friend who was pretty sexually wild in her younger years. She's recently found religion and I really do believe it's to mitigate, in her mind, the guilt she feels over her past. She's a totally different person now. Not judging, just a development I find interesting.


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> It depends Lila.
> 
> *Mrs. Conan and I are both part of a religious community.*
> 
> We both hold certain views on sex and I absolutely fit your description of a man that would not be pursuing a relationship with a woman who wasn't like minded.
> 
> I am uber confident and don't suffer from RJ. I wouldn't hold a woman's sexual history against her but, if her views hadn't changed, we couldn't go forward.
> 
> *The shame and regret that we both feel is because we did not live according to an ideal we believe to be good.*
> 
> The individual sex acts were not horrible. The fact we were having sex outside of marriage was horrible to us.


I was not thinking about religion based regret when I wrote the OP. I don't mean to exclude those who devoutly practice a particular religion but I would think prior to asking questions about sexual histories there would be a conversation about religious beliefs and the level at which each person observes the tenets of the religion (devout or not). This discussion alone would determine a compatible match or not. 

I believe you and Mrs. Conan are devout Christians. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate but repentance of past sins is one of the basic 'requirements' of the Christian faith, which you and Mrs. Conan have done. The question of regret would be foregone assuming you both have adopted your faith devoutly. I understand and respect your faith and it's requirements, but few people who ask on TAM "Does she regret her past sexual history?" are basing their question on religious belief, otherwise they'd start out by asking "Are you a devout _____[insert faith here]?"





ConanHub said:


> I get what you are saying in general but everyone has some standards and if a woman, or man, still thinks Craigslist hookups or being passed around at a party is a positive experience and something to be promoted as positive to your children, there are many who wouldn't be interested.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


True, and I can respect people for being upfront and admitting they have issues with a potential partner's sexual history. As you said, people are entitled to their standards. But the point of my OP was to discuss the apparent need or question of 'regret' and/or 'shame' to invalidate a woman's sexual history.


----------



## Lila

EleGirl said:


> No. I think that anyone who would expect that a woman do this has serious problems and should be avoided. Women need to realize that a man who shames her for her sexual past has serious problems. It’s a HUGE red flag.





EleGirl said:


> Yes I do think it’s common for women to believe that they have to regret their sexual past in order to be accepted by some particular man. The sad thing is that if the woman does this, it causes serious damage to their new relationship. If she has to be ashamed of her sexual past, then it holds that she must be ashamed of her sexual present/future. Then their partner wonders why she does not initiate, or want sex often…. Well it’s because every sex act is an act that is meant to cause shame. Why would a woman want sex if sex intrinsically brings her shame?
> 
> I also believe, and know, that there are plenty of men out there who do not expect the woman that they are with to do this. So.. women would be wise to avoid men who need for her to find shame in her sexual past and/or who suffer retroactive jealousy. These are head trips that destroy self-esteem and relationships.


I love your response Ele. It hit right to the heart of the question I was asking. 

Setting religious beliefs aside, it's baffling to me to ask about regret over sexual histories. I would never do it but I don't have issues with those who ask about sexual history, it's their prerogative. Regret implies a negative so making the decision to accept or reject someone's history based on how much they enjoyed those experiences boggles my mind. People should base those types of decisions without having to ask "Well, did you like it?".


----------



## Lila

MJJEAN said:


> I don't regret my sexual past.
> 
> There were some things that DH did that were a bit..out there, IMO. I did ask him if those things, *understood more fully with time and maturity*, were something he regretted and wouldn't do again or if he still found them acceptable. I had to know because they were dealbreakers for me. He said he didn't regret doing them because he learned from the experiences, but that he didn't find those acts acceptable any longer. I was ok with that.
> 
> So, to answer your question, *I guess I asked because I could accept DH did those things in the past, but I couldn't accept it if he would still do them.*


I liked your post because of the two bolded statements. Rather than people asking about regret, the better question would be "Is this something you would consider in the future?". 

You and your husband recognized that as people mature so do their opinions about things. I don't think one should invalidate their sexual history with regret in order to support their current, more mature opinions.


----------



## samyeagar

I think there is a fine line between judging and shaming someone for their past, and then turning around and judging and shaming someone for having different views and standards. Sort of like calling someone shallow if they don't want to date someone because they find the other person physically unattractive.

Based on most of the responses, I think the idea of this thread is as it applies to relatively "normal" pasts and behaviors, and with that, I agree with wholeheartedly...people shouldn't be shamed, or or made to feel regret by others. However, in some of the more outlier situations, I think there is a whole big grey area...


----------



## Lila

TheTruthHurts said:


> By far the most destructive thing a woman can do is engage in sexual acts in a prior relationship that they are unwilling to do in their current relationship.
> 
> "What? Am I not good enough? "
> 
> Only a fool would say this is jealousy if one understands the importance of sex to men.
> 
> A better approach is "I tried anal and didn't like it. Let's try it and see. But I'm not really into it but maybe I'll like it with you." Then if it's no good most guys will be MUCH more able to believe this.
> 
> If you enjoyed something with someone else but not with your current partner, what are you truly saying?


I don't wish to derail my thread discussing who's needs are more important in a relationship (so I cut that part out of the quote) but I did want to address the rest of it because I think it plays a part in the 'regret' topic of the thread.

I disagree whole-heartedly with you that the "most destructive thing a woman can do is engage in sexual acts in a prior relationship that they are unwilling to do in their current relationship". Relationships are comprised of each partner's specific attributes, boundaries, and personalities shaped by their life experiences. When you combine all of these things together, you get a very unique relationship dynamic specific to those two partners. It would not be duplicated with different partners. 

What works within one relationship may or may not work within another relationship. IOW, sexual acts that were done in relationship A should not be a requirement in relationship B because they may not be conducive to that specific relationship dynamic. 

Let me give you an example, a woman is in a relationship where she is the Dominant. Her partner is the sub and she enjoys the sexual experiences that go along with that dynamic. They break up and she moves on to a relationship where her partner is very Dominant. Should she expect her new dominant partner to participate in submissive sexual activities because she did it with her previous partner? No. The relationship dynamic is different and therefore has it's own boundaries and expectations.

A woman may not 'regret' a sexual activity previously performed but her opinions on it may have changed or matured. Demanding sexual acts _is_ destructive regardless of whether they were done previously for others or not.


----------



## D.H Mosquito

I couldn't care less what she done with an old lover but I took the firm line that everything she done with her affair partner she would then do with me and then some, Am I being petty or childish? Who cares I see it as she said she wanted wild sexual spontaneous excitement then she can help kick start it


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> Many posters were claiming men like me were mental and should be avoided.
> 
> I'm actually a catch by most standards. I was pointing out that there are circumstances where being regretful or ashamed of sexual history is not ugly or unhealthy.
> 
> I'm in agreement about RJ and fretting over the marriage or two that a woman of 30 or 40 may have had or a couple of boyfriends in high school and college.


If you do not shame your wife for her previous sexual life, then you are not in the camp of what the women on this thread are talking about.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MEM11363 said:


> The scary thing about a virgin is this. How could she not wonder what 'normal' is. What bad sex, average sex, good sex and great sex feel like. Wouldn't she likely be at least somewhat curious?


Oh come on MEM....I find this just a little insulting to be honest...that's its scary and how could we know what normal is.. some of us very much appreciate that we've only had one partner...the man or woman we married. 

I was nice to see a thread asking if a man could be happy with 1 woman for a lifetime just a week ago, to learn we weren't the only TAMers with this sort of history, that others find it very special.. 

Sure I have wondered...BUT.. how can I express .... Sex, pleasure, what it means, the bonding I attach to it...it's never been about experience or would someone else be better...it's about what this person brings to our lives -in so many ways, it's deeply treasured.. it's like a feeling of sacredness to me, total surrender and trust...a place to give my ALL to the man who gave me his ALL. 

Sure we missed it in some ways in the past, my not indulging in oral as I had some hang ups here , yet despite this.. we were very satisfied ! ... I am a woman who would make a ruckus otherwise..he's never failed to give me an orgasm either .. if a slip, he's happy to do it again, what more could a woman ask for ?? ...

I am sure this aspect of our sex lives is one of the reasons we've both been very satisfied.. 

Instead of asking myself what I may have missed... I ask this *>>* Would another man have loved, cared & cherished me like HE - all these years, been that attentive Love ? I just know that answer MEM.. 

Now True... IF he wasn't an affectionate attentive man, didn't care about my pleasure , a wham Bammer, if I didn't feel desired ..(Gawd that means a lot to [email protected]#)....I'd surely have dumped him a** a long time ago, I would have been wholly frustrated.... 

ANYONE would not be happy & start wondering what is over that fence...when our emotional needs are not being met, the sex life shortly follows, our enthusiasm for each other is also lost.. .but this would FEEL the same whether one had previous partners or not.. we're no different.. 

When a man or woman is emotionally & sexually fulfilled, it IS our enthusiasm...one just isn't wondering what they missed. 

And I say this all.. even if he could be a little more aggressive in bed .. that's not a need... it's a bit of a fantasy.. but I can live with that....:smile2:


----------



## EleGirl

lucy999 said:


> I would never invalidate my sexual history with regret. It's who I am, take it or leave it. I feel sad for women who do this. That said, I believe in full disclosure.


I think that the issue could be what does 'full disclosure' mean? I think it means different things to different people.

There are things that I would want to know about a man.. for example did he 'act' in porn movies? ever prostituted? has he had sex with hundreds, thousands of women? Or has he had sex with other men? is he a swinger? has he ever raped anyone or molested any children? Any convictions for anything? Any past or present drug addiction. Any previous long term relationships?

to me that's full disclosure. Are any of these deal breakers? It depends on who is he today... except for rape and child molestation, and certain other criminal activities. Those are deal breakers.

These things come out in normal conversation .. dating is the process of finding out if a person is a good match for a long term relationship. And if I know something and decide that that the person has moved on from it and it in a good place ... so I stay with them, I would never for them to express shame for their past.

To some (based on reading threads on TAM) full disclosure means the names of ever person you have ever had sex with and a list of every sex act you have ever done and with whom. And then the shaming starts. What also starts is the coercion.. if you had anal with someone else.. even if you hate it, even if it hurt, even if it injured you.. you have to do with them.


----------



## Cosmos

My only regret is buying into the teachings of my time - virginity until marriage. If I had my time over again things would have been very different.


----------



## EleGirl

Lila said:


> I was not thinking about religion based regret when I wrote the OP. I don't mean to exclude those who devoutly practice a particular religion but I would think prior to asking questions about sexual histories there would be a conversation about religious beliefs and the level at which each person observes the tenets of the religion (devout or not). This discussion alone would determine a compatible match or not.
> 
> I believe you and Mrs. Conan are devout Christians. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate but repentance of past sins is one of the basic 'requirements' of the Christian faith, which you and Mrs. Conan have done. The question of regret would be foregone assuming you both have adopted your faith devoutly. I understand and respect your faith and it's requirements, but few people who ask on TAM "Does she regret her past sexual history?" are basing their question on religious belief, otherwise they'd start out by asking "Are you a devout _____[insert faith here]?".


Very good topic... in religion, repenting it followed by absolution and freedom from guilt and shame. It allows a person to learn from their 'sin' and to move on without the need to live in shame and regret. 

A person who claims to be religious and who then would require their spouse to show shame/regret .. when their spouse has already repented is not following their religious very well. 






Lila said:


> True, and I can respect people for being upfront and admitting they have issues with a potential partner's sexual history. As you said, people are entitled to their standards. But the point of my OP was to discuss the apparent need or question of 'regret' and/or 'shame' to invalidate a woman's sexual history.


----------



## lucy999

EleGirl said:


> I think that the issue could be what does 'full disclosure' mean? I think it means different things to different people.
> 
> To some (based on reading threads on TAM) full disclosure means the names of ever person you have ever had sex with and a list of every sex act you have ever done and with whom. And then the shaming starts. What also starts is the coercion.. if you had anal with someone else.. even if you hate it, even if it hurt, even if it injured you.. you have to do with them.


True. It's quite subjective. The example you cite above is waaay more 'full disclosure' than I would ever require. I don't need to know the names of each person, every position, everything they ever did. 

ETA: do you think globally, men have a harder time with this issue than women? As a loose parallel, when I was dating, a mere mention of my going out with someone else would garner the WHAT? YOU'RE NOT DATING ONLY ME? diatribe. I found it humorous. Kind of like, oh, his poor widdle ego can't take the fact that I'm 'shopping'? Whereas here, it's oh, his poor widdle ego can't handle the fact that I've been with other men before him and have done perhaps more wild things with them?

To be fair, I've _never_ been challenged as to my sexual past so this is unchartered waters for me. Sure, my partners and I have discussed it, of course, and vice versa, but I've never been put in a position where I felt shame, or the need to explain.

That said, I'm not super duper hot so maybe my partners didn't expect high numbers or really crazy sexual antics?


----------



## EleGirl

This thread reminds me of a young woman I know. She's 25. When she was younger she got into drugs and did some sexual stuff to get drugs.. not outright prostitution, but sleeping with guys knowing that it would lead to her getting the drugs. She's been clean for about 5 years now and has really around her life around.

Recently she met a guy who as it turns out has about the same history... yes he has sex with guys and women in exchange for drugs.

Apparently they were both very open with each other about their past right away. (They had no yet had sex with each other). After a few dates and all this very open discussion he told her that he could not go out with her because she's a slvt and despicable. Yep, he has the same history, but she's not good enough for him. 

She called me very upset about this . After talking with her for a while I got her realize that she was lucky that she found out what a horrible, judgmental person he is up front. I also pointed out to her that she learned a very big lesson... be very careful what you tell people you hardly know. She could have told him a little bit or even just asked him about his attitudes. I have no doubt that if she has asked him, he would have let her know that he's an a$$ right up front. And she could have dumped him.

Apparently she opened up to him because he presented himself in such an open and caring way, divulged all his own sins... and as it turns out, his being open, caring, and sharing was only a way to get her to follow suit... a way to trick her.

While her past is not stellar, he is not better than she. And he is apparently quite a hypocrite.


.


----------



## ConanHub

D.H Mosquito said:


> I couldn't care less what she done with an old lover but I took the firm line that everything she done with her affair partner she would then do with me and then some, Am I being petty or childish? Who cares I see it as she said she wanted wild sexual spontaneous excitement then she can help kick start it


While I agree with you, affairs are in a different universe than the OP.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> This thread reminds me of a young woman I know. She's 25. When she was younger she got into drugs and did some sexual stuff to get drugs.. not outright prostitution, but sleeping with guys knowing that it would lead to her getting the drugs. She's been clean for about 5 years now and has really around her life around.
> 
> Recently she met a guy who as it turns out has about the same history... yes he has sex with guys and women in exchange for drugs.
> 
> Apparently they were both very open with each other about their past right away. (They had no yet had sex with each other). After a few dates and all this very open discussion he told her that he could not go out with her because she's a slvt and despicable. Yep, he has the same history, but she's not good enough for him.
> 
> She called me very upset about this . After talking with her for a while I got her realize that she was lucky that she found out what a horrible, judgmental person he is up front. I also pointed out to her that she learned a very big lesson... be very careful what you tell people you hardly know. She could have told him a little bit or even just asked him about his attitudes. I have no doubt that if she has asked him, he would have let her know that he's an a$$ right up front. And she could have dumped him.
> 
> Apparently she opened up to him because he presented himself in such an open and caring way, divulged all his own sins... and as it turns out, his being open, caring, and sharing was only a way to get her to follow suit... a way to trick her.
> 
> While her past is not stellar, he is not better than she. And he is apparently quite a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> .


She should divulge her history or at least outline it for a serious relationship. She should not feel bad. This guy was not only an ass but a hypocrite.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MJJEAN

EleGirl said:


> These things come out in normal conversation .. dating is the process of finding out if a person is a good match for a long term relationship.


You'd be amazed at what people don't discuss before getting seriously involved. They just take what they know, fill in the blanks with what they assume, and then get bent out of shape and post on forums when the facts come to light.



EleGirl said:


> This thread reminds me of a young woman I know. She's 25. When she was younger she got into drugs and did some sexual stuff to get drugs.. not outright prostitution, but sleeping with guys knowing that it would lead to her getting the drugs. She's been clean for about 5 years now and has really around her life around.
> 
> Recently she met a guy who as it turns out has about the same history... yes he has sex with guys and women in exchange for drugs.
> 
> Apparently they were both very open with each other about their past right away. (They had no yet had sex with each other). After a few dates and all this very open discussion he told her that he could not go out with her because she's a slvt and despicable. Yep, he has the same history, but she's not good enough for him
> .


I had a very close male friend as a teenager. By the time we were 16 and 17, respectively, we had been very, very close for years. His siblings played with my siblings, he was close to my parents, we'd even gotten into fights at school and in the neighborhood backing each other up. 

Over the years of our friendship, he slept with girls and I slept with guys. We cried on each others shoulder when teen romance went wrong.

One night, something changed and there was all of a sudden sexual tension between us. Not too long after, we slept together. I became infatuated.

A few weeks later, I overheard him saying that he really had a thing for me, in fact loved me, but that he couldn't date me because I'd been with too many guys we knew.

Really? Freakin really?!??!?! He slept with so many more girls I knew that I had slept with guys, but ok. Sure. And I was fine to screw, but not date? WTFever.

He got married, became a swinger, his wife got knocked up by someone else, had an abortion, and then left him for his best friend. He used drugs hardcore off and on for years and has been married and divorced 3 more times.

Whew! Dodged a bullet there! So grateful he was too much of a hypocrite to date me.


----------



## MEM2020

SA,

Sorry that I offended you. That was not my intent. 

You clearly show zero signs of the curiosity of which I spoke. I do believe you and S2 are about as compatible as anyone I know. In every sense of the word. 

M2 sometimes goes on Catholic guilt trips about her sexual history before meeting me. Says she wishes she had waited. 

Maybe you don't believe this but - there's no way M2 is the same - adventurous, sometimes rule breaking - person - if she was still a Virgin at 26. 

I know a couple like you and S2. They are still happily married at 75. Met and started dating sophomore year in highschool. So they have been together 60 years, married 53. 

I'm sorry for implying that - people who wait - are more tempted by the idea of novelty. 





SimplyAmorous said:


> Oh come on MEM....I find this just a little insulting to be honest...that's its scary and how could we know what normal is.. some of us very much appreciate that we've only had one partner...the man or woman we married.
> 
> I was nice to see a thread asking if a man could be happy with 1 woman for a lifetime just a week ago, to learn we weren't the only TAMers with this sort of history, that others find it very special..
> 
> Sure I have wondered...BUT.. how can I express .... Sex, pleasure, what it means, the bonding I attach to it...it's never been about experience or would someone else be better...it's about what this person brings to our lives -in so many ways, it's deeply treasured.. it's like a feeling of sacredness to me, total surrender and trust...a place to give my ALL to the man who gave me his ALL.
> 
> Sure we missed it in some ways in the past, my not indulging in oral as I had some hang ups here , yet despite this.. we were very satisfied ! ... I am a woman who would make a ruckus otherwise..he's never failed to give me an orgasm either .. if a slip, he's happy to do it again, what more could a woman ask for ?? ...
> 
> I am sure this aspect of our sex lives is one of the reasons we've both been very satisfied..
> 
> Instead of asking myself what I may have missed... I ask this *>>* Would another man have loved, cared & cherished me like HE - all these years, been that attentive Love ? I just know that answer MEM..
> 
> Now True... IF he wasn't an affectionate attentive man, didn't care about my pleasure , a wham Bammer, if I didn't feel desired ..(Gawd that means a lot to [email protected]#)....I'd surely have dumped him a** a long time ago, I would have been wholly frustrated....
> 
> ANYONE would not be happy & start wondering what is over that fence...when our emotional needs are not being met, the sex life shortly follows, our enthusiasm for each other is also lost.. .but this would FEEL the same whether one had previous partners or not.. we're no different..
> 
> When a man or woman is emotionally & sexually fulfilled, it IS our enthusiasm...one just isn't wondering what they missed.
> 
> And I say this all.. even if he could be a little more aggressive in bed .. that's not a need... it's a bit of a fantasy.. but I can live with that....:smile2:


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> If you do not shame your wife for her previous sexual life, then you are not in the camp of what the women on this thread are talking about.


Well, I don't have to. She is already ashamed and regrets her sexual history.

If she didn't, she wouldn't be a good match for me.

We both believe things she did, things I did too, were shameful and not positive in the least.

I have encouraged her greatly in that, she is no longer that woman.

Just because you enjoyed something at one point in your life does not make it positive. I think the most shame and regret does occur when you previously enjoyed something that you hate yourself for later.

But Lila already excused religious persons. That does not exclude your young friend. Quite positive she hates how she use to behave and desires something better.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

Cosmos said:


> My only regret is buying into the teachings of my time - virginity until marriage. If I had my time over again things would have been very different.


Funny. I regret the exact opposite. If it feels good, do it. Just don't get anyone pregnant. Worst advice I ever received.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> Well, I don't have to. She is already ashamed and regrets her sexual history.
> 
> If she didn't, she wouldn't be a good match for me.
> 
> We both believe things she did, things I did too, were shameful and not positive in the least.
> 
> I have encouraged her greatly in that, she is no longer that woman.
> 
> Just because you enjoyed something at one point in your life does not make it positive. I think the most shame and regret does occur when you previously enjoyed something that you hate yourself for later.
> 
> But Lila already excused religious persons. That does not exclude your young friend. Quite positive she hates how she use to behave and desires something better.


Yes, I'm proud of my young friend as she has some a long way and she did it on her own. A few years back she put herself in rehab. It was a year long program where she had to work full time and pay her own way. 

About you and your wife (and even my friend), I don't think that Lila is taking about a situation like your, religion aside, where someone arrives on their own at the conclusion that what they did in the past was not good because it does not live up to the person they have grown to become.


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> Very good topic... in religion, repenting it followed by absolution and freedom from guilt and shame. It allows a person to learn from their 'sin' and to move on without the need to live in shame and regret.
> 
> A person who claims to be religious and who then would require their spouse to show shame/regret .. when their spouse has already repented is not following their religious very well.


Shame and regret for past sins is fine. We are not weighed down by our pasts but certainly not proud and them.

We are happily different now. If I ever ran across a person who didn't regret something that we both believed to be evil they would never become an associate, much less friend of mine.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

Sorry if I got off track. Lila. Are you talking about simple nice relationships that just didn't work?

It seems kind of weird to be ashamed of something like that.

There can't be a high number of men, or women, that think that way is there?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MEM11363 said:


> SA,
> 
> Sorry that I offended you. That was not my intent.


 I know you were not speaking to me.. :smile2: I just like to counter and give another spin on things from the other side. 



> You clearly show zero signs of the curiosity of which I spoke. I do believe you and S2 are about as compatible as anyone I know. In every sense of the word.
> 
> M2 sometimes goes on Catholic guilt trips about her sexual history before meeting me. *Says she wishes she had waited.
> 
> Maybe you don't believe this but - there's no way M2 is the same - adventurous, sometimes rule breaking - person - if she was still a Virgin at 26. *


 I assume you are saying her experience was an *enthusiastic plus* -you are more than pleased she was a rule breaking adventurous diva -as you got all the benefits -likely why you lasted even, it started in the bedroom (?) 

So her feeling guilty about it over religion is* worthless* to you, a hang up.. you are thankful for the WILD yrs you shared -even if she learned all that from other men. 

I know some men feel THIS WAY...I've seen it in others posts...My husband would not, however ..not at all. 

From my perspective.. I think it's very Sweet, commendable, validating even, showing how much she loves you -her saying if she could do it all again, she'd save it all for you...but really...it's all so futile for her to feel any of this if is means nothing to you ... 

Other husbands WOULD appreciate that a woman FELT this way though, this could make the difference for them.. .. this is something being lost on this thread.. as none see any value in this at all.. 

All women see is Insecurity, how men need their widdle ego's stroked ....

I have been thinking of doing a thread on men & their Ego's...our role as wives in being that stroker.. I'm for validating our Good men... those who are worthy of our respect, admiration.. nothing resembling the hypocrite stories here , of course... 



> I know a couple like you and S2. They are still happily married at 75. Met and started dating sophomore year in highschool. So they have been together 60 years, married 53.
> 
> *I'm sorry for implying that - people who wait - are more tempted by the idea of novelty*.


 It's true.. there are couples who fit what you say....I've seen the threads here ....but in all of these cases, something IS missing in the marriage.. emotionally and/ or sexually. The majority will not throw away a GOOD thing for a little novelty.. something is missing.. and needs addressed.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

samyeagar said:


> I think there is a fine line between judging and shaming someone for their past, and then turning around and judging and shaming someone for having different views and standards. Sort of like calling someone shallow if they don't want to date someone because they find the other person physically unattractive.
> 
> Based on most of the responses, I think the idea of this thread is as it applies to relatively "normal" pasts and behaviors, and with that, I agree with wholeheartedly...people shouldn't be shamed, or or made to feel regret by others. However, in some of the more outlier situations, I think there is a whole big grey area...


Yep. I've known people with prostitution in their past, sex with relatives, affairs that span a decade...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jdawg2015

EleGirl said:


> I have never had a guy ask me about my sexual past.. nor I about his. What has always mattered to me is his present.


I'm curious how old you are?

If you found out your current BF has cheated on several GFs before you, would that not weigh on your mind?

Sex is not just sex when there are decisions involved. I think that's where this discussion falls into. 

I think it's situational. If a woman told me she had been in an orgy, done a threesome, etc those are absolute deal breakers to me. No need to be jealous as those are character issues I'd have issues with that could not get past.


----------



## EleGirl

jdawg2015 said:


> I'm curious how old you are?
> 
> If you found out your current BF has cheated on several GFs before you, would that not weigh on your mind?
> 
> Sex is not just sex when there are decisions involved. I think that's where this discussion falls into.
> 
> I think it's situational. If a woman told me she had been in an orgy, done a threesome, etc those are absolute deal breakers to me. No need to be jealous as those are character issues I'd have issues with that could not get past.


I'm 66. How old are you?

In a later post I listed some things that are deal breakers for me and things I would want to know about. I did leave serial cheating off the list I think.. and no I would not date a serial cheater.

If you have deal breakers, then it's a good idea to let the person know up front what your deal breakers are. Why waste time?

This thread is about women who are in a relationship and are made to feel that in that relationship they have to exhibit guilt and remorse for having sex before their current partner to make their partner feel ok. That's a lot different than a person having deal breakers. A deal breaker ends the relationship.. it does not require ongoing shame/remorse.


----------



## MEM2020

SA,
I agree with the main theme on this thread which is - it's perfectly fine to have a 'threshold' beyond which you don't want to be in a LTR with someone. 

Some of the most appalling behavior I've seen on this site comes from men who knowingly married someone with a history and then routinely used that knowledge to **** shame their own partner. The men all claim they 'believed' they could get over it. But they can't and therefore feel compelled to subject their spouse to a repetitive and toxic conversation about why they were so loose. 

In the abstract this is clear cut emotional abuse. 

On a personal level I always have the same reaction. I desperately hope these women will find a predatory divorce lawyer who eviscerates the husband on her way out the door. 

One of my happiest (in a vindictive and mean spirited sort of way) moments was when a guy who'd been doing just that for YEARS, came back to complain bitterly that his wife told him she hated him and promptly divorced him. 

Back to M2 and her Catholic guilt. I feel bad for her on the rare occasion this comes up. I mainly stick to this:
- You went to confession, got absolution. 
- Despite an awful lot of temptation after we got married, you've never strayed. 

The former means you're right with God, the latter makes you right with me. 





SimplyAmorous said:


> I know you were not speaking to me.. :smile2: I just like to counter and give another spin on things from the other side.
> 
> I assume you are saying her experience was an *enthusiastic plus* -you are more than pleased she was a rule breaking adventurous diva -as you got all the benefits -likely why you lasted even, it started in the bedroom (?)
> 
> So her feeling guilty about it over religion is* worthless* to you, a hang up.. you are thankful for the WILD yrs you shared -even if she learned all that from other men.
> 
> I know some men feel THIS WAY...I've seen it in others posts...My husband would not, however ..not at all.
> 
> From my perspective.. I think it's very Sweet, commendable, validating even, showing how much she loves you -her saying if she could do it all again, she'd save it all for you...but really...it's all so futile for her to feel any of this if is means nothing to you ...
> 
> Other husbands WOULD appreciate that a woman FELT this way though, this could make the difference for them.. .. this is something being lost on this thread.. as none see any value in this at all..
> 
> All women see is Insecurity, how men need their widdle ego's stroked ....
> 
> I have been thinking of doing a thread on men & their Ego's...our role as wives in being that stroker.. I'm for validating our Good men... those who are worthy of our respect, admiration.. nothing resembling the hypocrite stories here , of course...
> 
> It's true.. there are couples who fit what you say....I've seen the threads here ....but in all of these cases, something IS missing in the marriage.. emotionally and/ or sexually. The majority will not throw away a GOOD thing for a little novelty.. something is missing.. and needs addressed.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

What this thread is really about, retroactive jealousy.

Just my analysis on this subject.

In large part, this mostly has to do when females have casual sex with low level of committed types of encounters and relationships. Most cases of RJ comes when females have an extremely high level of attraction to a casual bf or a ONS. They do not sometimes produce the same level of sexual attraction and sexual response, so it injures ego.

To stop feeling threatened, some will resort to abusive behavior, neglect, and passive-aggressive behavior in order to punish or control and manipulate the emotion of their partner.

This will often cause feelings of shame, lower self worth, and a need to supplicate the current partner. There may also be a need to override the memories and experience, replacing it.

Btw, the male sex drive is more of a reward/risk system, than a bonding system. Males in general will have more sexual fixation or kinks. This is in part due to the reward/risk system. It wires the brain to get what is most rewarding and dopamine is needed to help form habits. It is how addiction works as well. Habituation causes there to be a need for higher level of stimulus to produce the same results.

Okay, so the risk system. In order to limit the risk, because more sexual partners in some's mind will cause a reaction of anxiety and fear. Because another can so highly trigger the sex drive of the partner suffering from RJ, the actions in response is a way of controlling that situation. Hence the shaming, neglect, and abusive behavior. It is a punishment to keep one in line.

Sex , the act, is important because controlling it means higher probability of reproduction. It gives a higher level sense of security. Reason why some males want the same sexual acts. It is a way of competing and beating out the past partner and over-writing the experience to soothe the ego.

Again, some of these threads with retroactive jealousy is mostly aimed at flings, FWB, and ONS.

So I hypothesize that when your man finds out that someone really rocked your world,he gets threatened and his reaction shows as much. After all, he had to get a commitment. So when you try telling him that with him it is much more, the emotional aspect, it does not matter sometimes because well why should he have to get that emotional bond for that type of response. You females are sometimes to blame because you did not have that response and the sexual acts you experimented with, some feel like it is due to them because you did it before.

And that is why females will lower the number of sexual partners and males will incrase theirs. In one case, it is a form of control and the other, EGO!


----------



## norajane

Lila said:


> Do you regret parts or the whole of your sexual history? Why/why not.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners? If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly?


No, I don't have regrets. I enjoyed my sex life and don't feel ashamed about any of it. 

No one has expected me to feel bad about having enjoyed sex with other partners, or to feel ashamed about it. 

My SO would be disappointed for me if I hadn't enjoyed my sex life in the past, and if I regretted having sex in the past - he'd think that was sad and would be sad for me.

I feel sorry for women who feel they have to invalidate their past and say they didn't enjoy it. I don't know anyone who has had to deal with a partner who is upset at thinking they had a sex life they enjoyed prior to them, though. Just what I see here on TAM.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
one "like" didn't seem enough.

If you enjoyed what you were doing at the time, then be happy that you have that enjoyment. If you don't want to live the same way now that is also fine, but that doesn't make living that way in the past bad.

Life is short, remember the good parts.




norajane said:


> No, I don't have regrets. I enjoyed my sex life and don't feel ashamed about any of it.
> 
> No one has expected me to feel bad about having enjoyed sex with other partners, or to feel ashamed about it.
> 
> My SO would be disappointed for me if I hadn't enjoyed my sex life in the past, and if I regretted having sex in the past - he'd think that was sad and would be sad for me.
> 
> I feel sorry for women who feel they have to invalidate their past and say they didn't enjoy it. I don't know anyone who has had to deal with a partner who is upset at thinking they had a sex life they enjoyed prior to them, though. Just what I see here on TAM.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Personal said:


> If it wasn't for the break up of my first marriage I would probably have had very low numbers and been perfectly happy with that.
> 
> Yet that wasn't to be so I had at it without regret with plenty of women who I hope had no regrets either.
> 
> Then I met my wife who was with respect to sex open about it just like all the others, except we kept going together and have had a great life since.



Oh, I am not implying all males, but we all vary due to our genetics and environment. We range in our levels of jealousy.

I too, had a lot of casual sex after my failed engagement. My first gf was a recovering crack addict at age 16. She was used by a lot of men for sex so can score.

Kind of like how we all vary in our levels of being monogamous or promiscuouss behavior.

I did not mean my post to be an absolute statement. I too, had a low number prior to my engagement ending.

In high school and college, it is more common for males to brag about sexual conquest and numbers. There is still a societal stigma against females showing the same level of promiscuity.

If you recalled the steubenville rape case, the victim was shamed by the majority of the school. The rapist suffered less repercussion at the time. Not until it became a national headline was there an investigation. Those boys were placed on a pedestal.

There was a recent thread where the wife gave a 45 minute blowjob to a casual partner while the husband had a foursome with three other female, and yet, he sufferes RJ. There were some males stating that she had to make it up to her husband. I was the only one who suggested at the time if that is the case, then she should be allowed to have a foursome with three other males if equivilency is the case. Btw, RJ tends to happen when females have casual sex. If it was an ex-husband, it is less often RJ occurs.


----------



## Cosmos

Mr.Fisty said:


> There was a recent thread where the wife gave a 45 minute blowjob to a casual partner while the husband had a foursome with three other female, and yet, he sufferes RJ. There were some males stating that she had to make it up to her husband. I was the only one who suggested at the time if that is the case, then she should be allowed to have a foursome with three other males if equivilency is the case.


The irony of the above wasn't lost on me either, Mr Fisty. Quite bizarre when you really think about it!


----------



## Marduk

I've had problems with this kind of stuff with my wife a few times.

Mostly because I really didn't want to know the details about her past -- beyond what her relationships were like, what she liked to do and didn't like to do, and if there was stuff she wanted to talk about. But the rest of it, why would I care? She has a past, I have a past.

My wife though, HAD to tell me everything in gory details. I think part of it was she wanted me to really know her and accept her, and part of it is the way she is wired, especially when it comes to sex. Honestly, she could be a sex therapist.

But none of those triggered RJ for me.

Two or three times she's thrown stuff out at dinner parties or camping or whatnot in front of friends -- usually when she's been drinking. This stuff I find horribly embarrasing (not jealous)... why talk about other dude's junk to my friends?

Once I got RJ bad. We were away for our anniversary, at a romantic restauraunt, all dressed up and lovey dovey. And she randomly started talking about a fling she had... and I got it bad.

I don't think it was so much thinking about the fling that bothered me, it was how flippantly she said it (and that made me think maybe she thinks that way about sex with me), and the context she had said it in -- a night where I was trying to be romantic with her. It wrecked the night, it wrecked the trip.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a time and place for everything -- so pick the right time and place. Be intentional about it.

And choose how you say what you're going to say carefully -- be affirming as much as you can to your partner and your relationship rather than undermining it if possible. Again, be intentional about it.


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> Well, I don't have to. She is already ashamed and regrets her sexual history.
> 
> If she didn't, she wouldn't be a good match for me.
> 
> We both believe things she did, things I did too, were shameful and not positive in the least.
> 
> I have encouraged her greatly in that, she is no longer that woman.
> 
> Just because you enjoyed something at one point in your life does not make it positive. I think the most shame and regret does occur when you previously enjoyed something that you hate yourself for later.
> 
> *But Lila already excused religious persons.* That does not exclude your young friend. Quite positive she hates how she use to behave and desires something better.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Conan, I didn't* excuse *religious persons but for the purposes of this conversation, I* excluded* them. The last thing I want is to turn this thread into an atheist v. religion discussion. :surprise:


----------



## lifeistooshort

marduk said:


> I've had problems with this kind of stuff with my wife a few times.
> 
> Mostly because I really didn't want to know the details about her past -- beyond what her relationships were like, what she liked to do and didn't like to do, and if there was stuff she wanted to talk about. But the rest of it, why would I care? She has a past, I have a past.
> 
> My wife though, HAD to tell me everything in gory details. I think part of it was she wanted me to really know her and accept her, and part of it is the way she is wired, especially when it comes to sex. Honestly, she could be a sex therapist.
> 
> But none of those triggered RJ for me.
> 
> Two or three times she's thrown stuff out at dinner parties or camping or whatnot in front of friends -- usually when she's been drinking. This stuff I find horribly embarrasing (not jealous)... why talk about other dude's junk to my friends?
> 
> Once I got RJ bad. We were away for our anniversary, at a romantic restauraunt, all dressed up and lovey dovey. And she randomly started talking about a fling she had... and I got it bad.
> 
> I don't think it was so much thinking about the fling that bothered me, it was how flippantly she said it (and that made me think maybe she thinks that way about sex with me), and the context she had said it in -- a night where I was trying to be romantic with her. It wrecked the night, it wrecked the trip.
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a time and place for everything -- so pick the right time and place. Be intentional about it.
> 
> And choose how you say what you're going to say carefully -- be affirming as much as you can to your partner and your relationship rather than undermining it if possible. Again, be intentional about it.



Given that my husband has done many of the same things to me, are you sure it's RJ for you? Or just a reaction to extreme rudeness?

In my case I do not think it was an attempt to get me to accept all of him. I already did that, I knew he had a past as did I and I was fine with that. But I did not want all of the details and my hb seemed to have this pressing need to bring them up an ridiculous times. In my case I believe it was to stick my nose in it to balance insecurities he has over our age difference.

But it's just plain rude. It's one thing to sit down and exchange things about your pasts to better understand each other but quite another to be out on a date with your spouse and start going on about your exes. I think it's a pathetic was to make them feel good about themselves and to try to keep the emotional upper hand.

My hb and I had just finished having a great sex session and I commented on how great he was. He started on with how he'd had so many women and each one made him better and I pretty much tune it out after that because the mood was ruined.

So are you jealous or offended by the extreme rudeness? For me it's the latter.


----------



## Marduk

lifeistooshort said:


> Given that my husband has done many of the same things to me, are you sure it's RJ for you? Or just a reaction to extreme rudeness?
> 
> In my case I do not think it was an attempt to get me to accept all of him. I already did that, I knew he had a past as did I and I was fine with that. But I did not want all of the details and my hb seemed to have this pressing need to bring them up an ridiculous times. In my case I believe it was to stick my nose in it to balance insecurities he has over our age difference.
> 
> But it's just plain rude. It's one thing to sit down and exchange things about your pasts to better understand each other but quite another to be out on a date with your spouse and start going on about your exes. I think it's a pathetic was to make them feel good about themselves and to try to keep the emotional upper hand.
> 
> My hb and I had just finished having a great sex session and I commented on how great he was. He started on with how he'd had so many women and each one made him better and I pretty much tune it out after that because the mood was ruined.
> 
> So are you jealous or offended by the extreme rudeness? For me it's the latter.


I think it was a mixutre of both, maybe. 

And the root of that was - I think - it was at a time where we were great friends as a couple. Maybe too good of friends, she had been talking to me as a girlfriend for a few months, not as a husband.

If that makes sense. She was being open and random, like with a girlfriend, I guess.

She didn't understand my reaction at all. If that trip comes up in conversation, her response is that I overreacted, which is probably true. Mine is that I overreacted for a reason, which is also true. But she doens't see.

So we leave it be.


----------



## ConanHub

Lila said:


> Conan, I didn't* excuse *religious persons but for the purposes of this conversation, I* excluded* them. The last thing I want is to turn this thread into an atheist v. religion discussion. :surprise:


Hard to exclude a belief system from a persons makeup. Everyone has some ground rules, whatever they call them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> Sorry if I got off track. Lila. Are you talking about simple nice relationships that just didn't work?
> 
> It seems kind of weird to be ashamed of something like that.
> 
> There can't be a high number of men, or women, that think that way is there?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ele did a great job of summarizing what was my intended purpose for this thread.



EleGirl said:


> This thread is about women who are in a relationship and are made to feel that in that relationship they have to exhibit guilt and remorse for having sex before their current partner to make their partner feel ok. *That's a lot different than a person having deal breakers. A deal breaker ends the relationship.. it does not require ongoing shame/remorse.*


Everyone has standards and deal breakers, there's no argument with that statement. My advice is to express them emphatically and early on so as to avoid wasting your and their time. It's the follow on question about whether one regrets their past that bothers me. 

Like Ele stated above, "a deal breaker ends the relationship". Again, keeping religion out of the conversation, asking a woman if she regrets a partner's/date's deal breakers is absurd. 

When a man asks a woman if she regrets having had a sexual experience he finds unacceptable, it comes off as granting forgiveness when there is nothing to forgive. I also think he won't forgive unless she admits she hated the experience.


----------



## lifeistooshort

marduk said:


> I think it was a mixutre of both, maybe.
> 
> And the root of that was - I think - it was at a time where we were great friends as a couple. Maybe too good of friends, she had been talking to me as a girlfriend for a few months, not as a husband.
> 
> If that makes sense. She was being open and random, like with a girlfriend, I guess.
> 
> She didn't understand my reaction at all. If that trip comes up in conversation, her response is that I overreacted, which is probably true. Mine is that I overreacted for a reason, which is also true. But she doens't see.
> 
> So we leave it be.



Interesting, I guess I could see that. My hb definitely doesn't see me as a buddy, in fact the whole thing was very one sided. He made comments to suggest that he didn't want to know about my details.....if you're sharing with a buddy you're both sharing. In fact, one of the ways I put a stop to it was to start in about the huge c0ck on my first.....and it WAS huge. Since we're sharing and all, that shouldn't have been a problem. 

My younger son's birthday falls on his former anniversary, so for about the first 6 years of our relationship every year on my son's birthday that had to be brought up. When we finally had our blow up I said "I bet you don't even know when my anniversary was". He responded with he had no idea, so I said well it's X and from now on every year on X I'm going to bring it up and make sure you realize it. I said a lot of of other things too that I won't get into now.

Well guess what? His "sharing" stopped.

Do you think your wife would've been ok with you sharing your own details? Because if she saw you as a gf as opposed to a hb she should be.


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> Hard to exclude a belief system from a persons makeup. Everyone has some ground rules, whatever they call them.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree, but as I stated earlier, those that _devoutly_ practice their religion will get all of the information they need by asking the question "What is your faith?" and " Are you devout?". In the Christian community, assuming they aren't hypocrites and observe their religion's tenets, then the question of regret and remorse is an unspoken understanding.


----------



## ConanHub

Lila said:


> Ele did a great job of summarizing what was my intended purpose for this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has standards and deal breakers, there's no argument with that statement. My advice is to express them emphatically and early on so as to avoid wasting your and their time. It's the follow on question about whether one regrets their past that bothers me.
> 
> Like Ele stated above, "a deal breaker ends the relationship". Again, keeping religion out of the conversation, asking a woman if she regrets a partner's/date's deal breakers is absurd.
> 
> When a man asks a woman if she regrets having had a sexual experience he finds unacceptable, it comes off as granting forgiveness when there is nothing to forgive. I also think he won't forgive unless she admits she hated the experience.


So I'm still curious just how many people want to beat someone up emotionally over it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> So I'm still curious just how many people want to beat someone up emotionally over it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, based on the stuff I see posted in TAM....quite a few. It's the reason why I started this thread. I've seen the "does she regret it" question more than a few times. It irks me to no end. Why not just ask her "Are you still interested in doing that?" or "Have your opinions on the matter changed?".


----------



## Marduk

lifeistooshort said:


> Do you think your wife would've been ok with you sharing your own details? Because if she saw you as a gf as opposed to a hb she should be.


When she's in that friend 'mode' she wants to know everything. Because she finds it fascinating.

When she goes back into wife 'mode' she gets very insecure and jealous and wants to know from that angle. And usually is pretty distant for a while.

What she has the hardest time understanding is that I honestly don't remember what some random girl I had sex with almost 20 years ago was like. I don't remember her name, I don't remember her body, and I don't remember what kind of sex we had. I just remember that I dated some girl for a time, maybe what she kinda looked like.

Honestly I don't really think about my past.


----------



## Thundarr

Retroactive jealousy is mostly a guy's problem and it's absolutely driven by insecurity. It happens because the guy is looking for validation; that his wife/gf would never leave or stray because he's the only one to curl her toes. 'Sexual past' threads usually have the guy saying he was deceived and that's really why he's angry or hurt. I'm guilty of buying into that argument but I think it's really insecurity that drives this stuff the most. For example, my wife said she liked watching football when we were first dating because she knew I liked it. Somehow that didn't turn into a show stopping betrayal though once I figured out that she just tolerated it.


----------



## Buddy400

There are quite a few things I'd like to say, so I won't respond to just one comment.

Regretting one's past has two aspects. One, if I'm happy with where I am at the moment, then all of my life experiences helped make me who I am and, in that meaning, I don't regret anything. However, that doesn't mean that I'm totally happy with all the choices I ever made or that I would make the same choices today.

My wife had a fairly lurid sexual past. That never really bothered me, I was always of the opinion that what happened before I was in her life doesn't concern me. I never asked for details (although I had a general knowledge of her history). Very occasionally, a "mind movie" will pop into my head, but I'm very good at chasing those away. So, I really don't have a problem.

My wife does "regret" many aspects of her past sexual life. Primarily because she used to have sex as a way to boost her self-esteem and convince herself of her worth. It didn't work out that way and actually had the opposite effect in the long run. Is she "wrong" to regret this? If she ever brings this up to me, I assure her that the past is the past and, as long as she's in a good place now, not to obsess about it.

As far as a partner enjoying sex with previous partners; hopefully they enjoyed it. But is it necessary to focus on how *much* they enjoyed it, especially when reminiscing about it with their current partner? My first wife was a deep throat expert. My current wife has given it a go but isn't able to manage it. Should I make a point of telling her how much I enjoyed what some other woman was able to do? (I've never mentioned it to her). If my wife wants to go to France, should I mention what a great time I had going to France with a previous girlfriend (and, in particular, why it was so much fun with that particular woman)? Or should I just acknowledge that I went previously and go easy on the details? 

My current wife was friendly with my ex-wife for quite a while after we met. My ex mentioning an intimate detail from our past in her presence ended that; which seemed appropriate. Did my wife over-react? Was there no reason for this to have bothered her?

Whenever we mention a positive attribute of someone of the opposite sex we say "that's the *second best * (whatever) I've ever seen". We know it's a joke, but it makes things easier and let's us each know how much we appreciate each other while acknowledging reality.

I've heard of situations where one person (almost always a guy) expects their partner to have never enjoyed sex with another. That's just plain stupid and ignorant. But, I don't think that means that one needs to dwell on what a good time one had with others in the past. Sure, he may have been well endowed, lasted forever and given you the most intense orgasms that you ever had, but is it really necessary to tell your husband, who you apparently prefer "overall", about this?

As to the "acts done with others" issue. If my wife had enjoyed (or at a minimum, not minded) doing something with a prior partner that I enjoyed and requested and she wouldn't do the same with me; that would bother me. I would think that she found it more important to make another man happy then she does me. 

If I had money and spent it freely on other women in the past but did not do so with my wife (even though I could afford it and my wife would like me to), it might be that I appreciate having found a woman who doesn't need me to do nice things for her. But, I wouldn't expect her to be happy about it.

Obviously, I would never want her to do anything that she disliked or hated (I would question why she did those things for someone else even though she disliked or hated them). If she was okay with it then and isn't with me now, a "that was then, this is now" answer wouldn't cut it. That may make me a bad person, but that's the way I'd feel (this has never come up as an issue for me IRL).


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> Well, based on the stuff I see posted in TAM....quite a few. It's the reason why I started this thread. I've seen the "does she regret it" question more than a few times. It irks me to no end. Why not just ask her *"Are you still interested in doing that?" or "Have your opinions on the matter changed?".*



Hmmmm, I know that individual interpretations differ. But to many, saying the bolded is essentially the same thing as saying "do you regret?". Maybe we're getting too worked up about semantics.


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> Retroactive jealousy is mostly a guy's problem and it's absolutely driven by insecurity. It happens because the guy is looking for validation; that his wife/gf would never leave or stray because he's the only one to curl her toes. 'Sexual past' threads usually have the guy saying he was deceived and that's really why he's angry or hurt. I'm guilty of buying into that argument but I think it's really insecurity that drives this stuff the most. For example, my wife said she liked watching football when we were first dating because she knew I liked it. Somehow that didn't turn into a show stopping betrayal though once I figured out that she just tolerated it.


When my wife thinks about my past she gets retroactive jealousy quite a bit. 

So do several buddy's wives. 

It's a human problem, not a male problem.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane

Buddy400 said:


> Hmmmm, I know that individual interpretations differ. But to many, saying the bolded is essentially the same thing as saying "do you regret?". Maybe we're getting too worked up about semantics.


I agree with you that those questions are almost the same as "do you regret?"

If someone asked me: *"Are you still interested in doing that?" or "Have your opinions on the matter changed?" *I'd be puzzled. 

Still interested in doing what? Having sex with the man in my life? Yes, I hope so! Lots of good sex!

Have my opinions changed? On what? Whether I should have sex with a partner and enjoy it? Yes, I hope to enjoy it! 

Asking those questions implies I did something that I considered wrong and wouldn't do again. I didn't do anything wrong. I had sex with previous partners and enjoyed it.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> Hmmmm, I know that individual interpretations differ. But to many, saying the bolded is essentially the same thing as saying "do you regret?". Maybe we're getting too worked up about semantics.





norajane said:


> I agree with you that those questions are almost the same as "do you regret?"
> 
> If someone asked me: *"Are you still interested in doing that?" or "Have your opinions on the matter changed?" *I'd be puzzled.
> 
> Still interested in doing what? Having sex with the man in my life? Yes, I hope so! Lots of good sex!
> 
> Have my opinions changed? On what? Whether I should have sex with a partner and enjoy it? Yes, I hope to enjoy it!
> 
> Asking those questions implies I did something that I considered wrong and wouldn't do again. I didn't do anything wrong. I had sex with previous partners and enjoyed it.


Let me give you a personal but non-sexual example of what I meant. I'm a child of the 90's popping X and Raves were 'the thing'. I had my share of both and I don't regret it one bit. 

If someone were to ask me today if I still had any desire to pop X and dance, non-stop, for 8+hours at a Rave my response would the HE!! NO!. My life has changed. I have different responsibilities and things on which I want to spend my free time. Today I would find it a complete waste of my time to participate in such an activity.

People might have participated in sexual experiences previously which they don't regret but due to maturing, changing preferences, more responsibilities, or whatever, have no desire to participate in again. 

Could be semantics but I see regret as judging the past where "are you still interested" looks at the future. I'd rather have someone decide if we're compatible based on who I am today, than whether I regret a past that may not have any bearing on the future.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> Let me give you a personal but non-sexual example of what I meant. I'm a child of the 90's popping X and Raves were 'the thing'. I had my share of both and I don't regret it one bit.
> 
> If someone were to ask me today if I still had any desire to pop X and dance, non-stop, for 8+hours at a Rave my response would the HE!! NO!. My life has changed. I have different responsibilities and things on which I want to spend my free time. Today I would find it a complete waste of my time to participate in such an activity.
> 
> People might have participated in sexual experiences previously which they don't regret but due to maturing, changing preferences, more responsibilities, or whatever, have no desire to participate in again.
> 
> Could be semantics but I see regret as judging the past where "are you still interested" looks at the future. I'd rather have someone decide if we're compatible based on who I am today, than whether I regret a past that may not have any bearing on the future.


Not judging here, I spend a good deal of time in my youth trying to take *all* the drugs. And, of course, it's a cool story if you're Keith Richards. Not so much if you're Brian Jones.

Would you recommend "popping X and raves" (as a child of the 70's I missed that. It looks like it was fun). to your child or a young person today? (or whatever the modern equivalent is).

If not, then it seems like perhaps there could/should be some regret there (I'm sure that it didn't work out well for more than a few people).


----------



## Thundarr

marduk said:


> When my wife thinks about my past she gets retroactive jealousy quite a bit.
> 
> So do several buddy's wives.
> 
> It's a human problem, not a male problem.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I said it's 'mostly' a guy issue because most retroactive jealousy we see here is guys. I've actually never seen a woman's thread asking for help for dealing with her mind movies of her guy's past.


----------



## Woodchuck

Leaving out a year of ONS's might leave a guy scratching his head....:surprise:


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> I said it's 'mostly' a guy issue because most retroactive jealousy we see here is guys. I've actually never seen a woman's thread asking for help for dealing with her mind movies of her guy's past.


Maybe the go to their girlfriends?

That's what my wife does.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> Not judging here, I spend a good deal of time in my youth trying to take *all* the drugs. And, of course, it's a cool story if you're Keith Richards. Not so much if you're Brian Jones.
> 
> Would you recommend "popping X and raves" (as a child of the 70's I missed that. It looks like it was fun). to your child or a young person today? (or whatever the modern equivalent is).
> 
> If not, then it seems like perhaps there could/should be some regret there (I'm sure that it didn't work out well for more than a few people).


I wouldn't recommend it nor would I dissuade him. Just as my parents couldn't live my life for me, I won't attempt to live my son's life for him. That's what life experiences are for.

When that time comes, I'm going to use the same advice that my parents used on me when I left the nest. My mom's advice was something like "This is your life and it's up to YOU to make the most of it. You will be presented with many opportunities to make choices. Use the wonderful intelligence God blessed you with to make good decisions." 

My dad gave me several speeches but the general topics were "Be the leader not the follower" a.k.a. don't succumb to peer pressure, "Own your mistakes" a.k.a. Don't expect us to fix your problems, "Depend on no one but yourself" a.k.a Be careful who you trust, and of course "We raised you right, don't disappoint us"  a.k.a We love you and have faith you'll do fine.


----------



## MEM2020

Buddy,
Your post below is very insightful and shows the double edged sword of experience. 

Volunteering unfavorable comparisons between your current partner and prior partners is every bit as unkind as interrogating and then slvt shaming a partner. 

And those type of comparisons are equally hurtful regardless of gender. 





Buddy400 said:


> There are quite a few things I'd like to say, so I won't respond to just one comment.
> 
> Regretting one's past has two aspects. One, if I'm happy with where I am at the moment, then all of my life experiences helped make me who I am and, in that meaning, I don't regret anything. However, that doesn't mean that I'm totally happy with all the choices I ever made or that I would make the same choices today.
> 
> My wife had a fairly lurid sexual past. That never really bothered me, I was always of the opinion that what happened before I was in her life doesn't concern me. I never asked for details (although I had a general knowledge of her history). Very occasionally, a "mind movie" will pop into my head, but I'm very good at chasing those away. So, I really don't have a problem.
> 
> My wife does "regret" many aspects of her past sexual life. Primarily because she used to have sex as a way to boost her self-esteem and convince herself of her worth. It didn't work out that way and actually had the opposite effect in the long run. Is she "wrong" to regret this? If she ever brings this up to me, I assure her that the past is the past and, as long as she's in a good place now, not to obsess about it.
> 
> As far as a partner enjoying sex with previous partners; hopefully they enjoyed it. But is it necessary to focus on how *much* they enjoyed it, especially when reminiscing about it with their current partner? My first wife was a deep throat expert. My current wife has given it a go but isn't able to manage it. Should I make a point of telling her how much I enjoyed what some other woman was able to do? (I've never mentioned it to her). If my wife wants to go to France, should I mention what a great time I had going to France with a previous girlfriend (and, in particular, why it was so much fun with that particular woman)? Or should I just acknowledge that I went previously and go easy on the details?
> 
> My current wife was friendly with my ex-wife for quite a while after we met. My ex mentioning an intimate detail from our past in her presence ended that; which seemed appropriate. Did my wife over-react? Was there no reason for this to have bothered her?
> 
> Whenever we mention a positive attribute of someone of the opposite sex we say "that's the *second best * (whatever) I've ever seen". We know it's a joke, but it makes things easier and let's us each know how much we appreciate each other while acknowledging reality.
> 
> I've heard of situations where one person (almost always a guy) expects their partner to have never enjoyed sex with another. That's just plain stupid and ignorant. But, I don't think that means that one needs to dwell on what a good time one had with others in the past. Sure, he may have been well endowed, lasted forever and given you the most intense orgasms that you ever had, but is it really necessary to tell your husband, who you apparently prefer "overall", about this?
> 
> As to the "acts done with others" issue. If my wife had enjoyed (or at a minimum, not minded) doing something with a prior partner that I enjoyed and requested and she wouldn't do the same with me; that would bother me. I would think that she found it more important to make another man happy then she does me.
> 
> If I had money and spent it freely on other women in the past but did not do so with my wife (even though I could afford it and my wife would like me to), it might be that I appreciate having found a woman who doesn't need me to do nice things for her. But, I wouldn't expect her to be happy about it.
> 
> Obviously, I would never want her to do anything that she disliked or hated (I would question why she did those things for someone else even though she disliked or hated them). If she was okay with it then and isn't with me now, a "that was then, this is now" answer wouldn't cut it. That may make me a bad person, but that's the way I'd feel (this has never come up as an issue for me IRL).


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> I wouldn't recommend it nor would I dissuade him. Just as my parents couldn't live my life for me, I won't attempt to live my son's life for him. That's what life experiences are for.
> 
> When that time comes, I'm going to use the same advice that my parents used on me when I left the nest. My mom's advice was something like "This is your life and it's up to YOU to make the most of it. You will be presented with many opportunities to make choices. Use the wonderful intelligence God blessed you with to make good decisions."
> 
> My dad gave me several speeches but the general topics were "Be the leader not the follower" a.k.a. don't succumb to peer pressure, "Own your mistakes" a.k.a. Don't expect us to fix your problems, "Depend on no one but yourself" a.k.a Be careful who you trust, and of course "We raised you right, don't disappoint us"  a.k.a We love you and have faith you'll do fine.


My advice to the kids (now 21, 21 & 24) was:

Don't shoot heroin. 

No crystal meth. 

If someone gives you a pill, watch them take it and wait an hour before taking one yourself.

It's all fun as long as you live through it.

So far, so good.


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> I said it's 'mostly' a guy issue because most retroactive jealousy we see here is guys. I've actually never seen a woman's thread asking for help for dealing with her mind movies of her guy's past.
> 
> 
> marduk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the go to their girlfriends?
> 
> That's what my wife does.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting thought Marduk. So ladies Lounge, what do you think about women-RJ versus men-RJ.


----------



## MEM2020

To be fair - drugs and sex are totally different. 

Drugs reflect a type of gender neutral wildness. I've never seen gender skew in response to a person's drug history.

Slvtiness is a very different matter. 

That said I've told the kids that where drugs are concerned, needles tend to be the first definitive step in the direction of premature expiration. 




Buddy400 said:


> My advice to the kids (now 21, 21 & 24) was:
> 
> Don't shoot heroin.
> 
> No crystal meth.
> 
> If someone gives you a pill, watch them take it and wait an hour before taking one yourself.
> 
> It's all fun as long as you live through it.
> 
> So far, so good.


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> That's an interesting thought Marduk. So ladies Lounge, what do you think about women-RJ versus men-RJ.


I think it's pretty much the same thing. 

Just swap out ****s, height, abs, and money for boobs, assess, hair, and cellulite. 

Everybody's insecure about something. 

I would assume for women the emotional end may also be a somewhat larger factor sometimes than for men - if you loved someone else more, supported them or doted on them more, etc.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,

What you describe is not even close to the same. Sure - your wife has RJ. 

But she has NO expectation that you ought feel embarrassed or ashamed about your prior behavior. 

While she feels jealous, she is ALSO comforted by the idea that other - attractive - women slept with you. It confirms your value. It proves she has good taste and is able to attract a man with a lot of options. 



QUOTE=marduk;13918010]I think it's pretty much the same thing. 

Just swap out ****s, height, abs, and money for boobs, assess, hair, and cellulite. 

Everybody's insecure about something. 

I would assume for women the emotional end may also be a somewhat larger factor sometimes than for men - if you loved someone else more, supported them or doted on them more, etc.
_Posted via Mobile Device_[/QUOTE]


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> What you describe is not even close to the same. Sure - your wife has RJ.
> 
> But she has NO expectation that you ought feel embarrassed or ashamed about your prior behavior.
> 
> While she feels jealous, she is ALSO comforted by the idea that other - attractive - women slept with you. It confirms your value. It proves she has good taste and is able to attract a man with a lot of options.
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE=marduk;13918010]I think it's pretty much the same thing.
> 
> Just swap out ****s, height, abs, and money for boobs, assess, hair, and cellulite.
> 
> Everybody's insecure about something.
> 
> I would assume for women the emotional end may also be a somewhat larger factor sometimes than for men - if you loved someone else more, supported them or doted on them more, etc.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


[/QUOTE]

Wait, what?

She's proud I banged a bunch of hot babes, because I chose her, therefore she's the best out of a bunch of hot babes?

Hmm.

Chicks are weird.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane

Thundarr said:


> That's an interesting thought Marduk. So ladies Lounge, what do you think about women-RJ versus men-RJ.


I think women learn that men are expected to seek and to have lots of sex before settling down with a wife. The assumption is they enjoyed it and it's perfectly normal and they get high-fived for it by their buddies. Women may get RJ, but probably don't get much sympathy since men are supposedly "wired to spread their seed." We see that written on TAM all the time.

Many men, on the other hand. seem to want their wives to have had very little sexual experience, if any. And if they had previous sex partners, they must have been a sl*t and ashamed of it, certainly not something to be high-fived about. So I think more men get hit with RJ than women because their expectations of women have that whole double-standard thing at play.


----------



## MJJEAN

norajane said:


> Many men, on the other hand. seem to want their wives to have had very little sexual experience, if any. And if they had previous sex partners, they must have been a sl*t and ashamed of it, certainly not something to be high-fived about. So I think more men get hit with RJ than women because their expectations of women have that whole double-standard thing at play.


And this is one of the reasons I love my DH. He was happy that I had a goodly amount of sexual experience with a variety of partners because, to him, that meant I could choose him with confidence.



intheory said:


> Beware, beware, beware of people who *demand* honesty.
> 
> In my experience, they are ALWAYS wanting to collect "dirt" on you. To be used against you at a later date.
> 
> Truth as a weapon.
> 
> They do not desire honesty as a means to unite with you deeply and closely. That comes slowly and gradually, over years. If it ever comes at all.


Anyone that has ever had a relationship with a chronic liar is going to *demand* honesty right up front from future partners. Trust me, being closely involved with a person who lies about lying makes one extremely.... sensitive. Even a white lie can be a dealbreaker.


----------



## Thundarr

intheory said:


> Beware, beware, beware of people who *demand* honesty.
> 
> In my experience, they are ALWAYS wanting to collect "dirt" on you. To be used against you at a later date.
> 
> Truth as a weapon.
> 
> They do not desire honesty as a means to unite with you deeply and closely. That comes slowly and gradually, over years. If it ever comes at all.


You're name fits on this one. In theory someone asks for honesty because they are looking for a closer connection. In reality though once opening up is thrown in your face then some you become guarded. I've opened up and it's never come back to bite me because women are really good about just appreciating the honesty. Or..... maybe me opening up was seen as a ploy to get dirt .


----------



## samyeagar

intheory said:


> Women can get retroactive jealousy. Not about the number of partners; or the particular sex acts, necessarily.
> 
> But being told that he "lasted forever" with his first love; and premature ejaculation has been an ongoing thing your entire relationship?
> 
> I don't know if it's jealousy exactly; but it's not a good feeling.


Oh, I've dealt with this from my wife. Maybe once every 100 times we have sex, either I can't get it up, or its up, and then falls, and it really upsets her. Mind you, we have sex ten times a week, so things work pretty well most of the time, and sometimes I think it just needs a break. Well she asked me once if it ever happened with my ex wife, and I answered honestly that it hadn't, and yes, she has angrily thrown it back in my face when it has happened since asking me...and then when she's calmed down, tries to explain that it is just something different for her to deal with that she's never had that happen with any other partner before me.


----------



## Marduk

intheory said:


> Beware, beware, beware of people who *demand* honesty.
> 
> In my experience, they are ALWAYS wanting to collect "dirt" on you. To be used against you at a later date.
> 
> Truth as a weapon.
> 
> They do not desire honesty as a means to unite with you deeply and closely. That comes slowly and gradually, over years. If it ever comes at all.


Well, I demand honesty. If I ask, I expect an honest and appropriate answer. 

I'm just careful about what I ask - because of what I want to know.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

intheory said:


> Women can get retroactive jealousy. Not about the number of partners; or the particular sex acts, necessarily.
> 
> But being told that he "lasted forever" with his first love; and premature ejaculation has been an ongoing thing your entire relationship?
> 
> I don't know if it's jealousy exactly; but it's not a good feeling.


With my wife and others it's been about hotness, fitness, ability to capture and retain my attention, and openness in the sack.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

intheory said:


> (crawls off under a rock)


Sorry did I trigger something?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

intheory said:


> No, it's just me.
> 
> I think I can see how your wife might be feeling just a teeny-weeny bit like she's standing in front of a flamethrower.
> 
> Hence, she's just gotta let you know (inappropriately) how many other guys wanted her, all of her other romantic rendezvous, etc. etc.


I don't try to make her feel that way. 

In fact, I try not to talk about my past at all. The last thing I want to do is make her feel insecure or like I would trade her for any other woman in the world.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Thundarr said:


> I said it's 'mostly' a guy issue because most retroactive jealousy we see here is guys. I've actually never seen a woman's thread asking for help for dealing with her mind movies of her guy's past.


 Here is one of those differences in the sexes! (statistically speaking)...but yeah.. the weight of caring is higher/ much more of an issue in males over females....it's really just another reason the Double standard will never fully die out.... seems to be something embedded in men.. that pesky male ego again ....that drive to know they are "THE BEST".. 

The day women START CARING as much as men do (laugh cough laugh)... men may just have to rethink all their philandering.. but until then.. why worry about it.. the lifestyle serves them well... the more they bed.. the greater in demand some of them seem to be = the typical American Alpha male in modern culture. 










Long gone poster Caribbean Man...his wife had RJ.... .he spoke on it a # of times, he had a wild past, many women... he was her only..... I always appreciated his way of helping her through that...


----------



## MEM2020

In theory,
There is often a lot of ugly manipulation that goes on both in the inquiry and in the voluntary sharing. 

I hope to never be back in the 'dating pool'. If I was though, my response to very personal questions about - history and partner count would likely be something like this. 

"That's not how this works. At least not with me. If you want to know something specific about me, you open the door to that conversation by first sharing the answer to that specific question as it relates to you."

For example:

"Some folks have a big issues with partner count. I don't. I had a couple partners a year up to the time I got married at 27."

That opens the door to this topic, without trying to drag the other person through it. If they want to share, they can. If not, that's fine to. If THEY have a big issue with my partner count, then it's game over and that is ok also. Better to find that out early. 

What this also does is it creates a frame for comparison. Someone whose in the same neighborhood will likely not worry about it. If they are at a much higher number they might throw out a question like: have you ever dated anyone with a far higher partner count? 




intheory said:


> Beware, beware, beware of people who *demand* honesty.
> 
> In my experience, they are ALWAYS wanting to collect "dirt" on you. To be used against you at a later date.
> 
> Truth as a weapon.
> 
> They do not desire honesty as a means to unite with you deeply and closely. That comes slowly and gradually, over years. If it ever comes at all.


----------



## Buddy400

intheory said:


> I don't think once every 100 times is what I'm talking about.
> 
> In fact, I know it's not what I'm talking about.
> 
> It's a 98/100 times; so it's definitely something that took a lot of adjusting to.
> 
> And the adjustment would have been easier if he hadn't triumphantly told me (25 years into the relationship) that it never happened with-love-of-his-life; (who dumped him for his "best friend")
> 
> Or, maybe he always stayed up with her _because_ she was the kind of woman who would dump a guy for his best friend?


I know I'm not supposed to dump on people's SO that they're (sort of) happy with, but yours seems like a d!ck.


----------



## Buddy400

I was just thinking last night; if you asked a guy with quite a bit of experience if he had any regrets about his sexual past, I think he'd say "yes". No big deal.

So, why is it so important for some women with a sexual past to say "no"? Is it a overreaction to the slvt shaming? One has to go to the opposite extreme?


----------



## MEM2020

Perhaps I'll name your H: In Practice

Either way, I don't like how he treats you. 




intheory said:


> I don't think once every 100 times is what I'm talking about.
> 
> In fact, I know it's not what I'm talking about.
> 
> It's a 98/100 times; so it's definitely something that took a lot of adjusting to.
> 
> And the adjustment would have been easier if he hadn't triumphantly told me (25 years into the relationship) that it never happened with-love-of-his-life; (who dumped him for his "best friend")
> 
> Or, maybe he always stayed up with her _because_ she was the kind of woman who would dump a guy for his best friend?


----------



## WandaJ

EleGirl said:


> It's interesting that you would have this bias. My guess would be that a person's political leaning would not make a difference. And we are both wrong apparently.
> 
> "The GSS are the only national surveys that ask specific questions about marital fidelity. Americans who consider themselves to be extremely liberal are twice as likely to have an extramarital affair as those survey respondents who are listed as extremely conservative. The most recent GSS results determined that 26.4% of liberals *admitted* to having an affair while only 13% of their conservative brethren responded in the affirmative.
> 
> The GSS also confirmed that the two-to-one relationship of extramarital affairs between liberals and conservatives holds true for women as well as men. Another interesting fact brought out by these surveys is that, while men are much more likely to have an extramarital affair, liberal-leaning woman are more likely to stray outside their marriages than conservative men."
> 
> Who Cheats More: Liberals or Conservatives?



the key word "ADMITTED"....


----------



## MEM2020

Buddy,

That is a wholly and entirely different matter. Slvt shaming comes from the outside. 




Buddy400 said:


> I was just thinking last night; if you asked a guy with quite a bit of experience if he had any regrets about his sexual past, I think he'd say "yes". No big deal.
> 
> So, why is it so important for some women with a sexual past to say "no"? Is it a overreaction to the slvt shaming? One has to go to the opposite extreme?


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> I was just thinking last night; if you asked a guy with quite a bit of experience if he had any regrets about his sexual past, I think he'd say "yes". No big deal.
> 
> So, why is it so important for some women with a sexual past to say "no"? Is it a overreaction to the slvt shaming? One has to go to the opposite extreme?


I think it's important to separate out actions that are regretful and shameful, and those that aren't, but yet you (one) are still shamed for them.

It isn't important for women to say "no" if they actually have done something that they regret and feel shame about. It's important that they don't feel this regret and shame *just because* they have a sexual past.

Men are, as one poster said, high-fived for their sexual pasts. Women, on the other hand, (almost) never get these accolades. Why not? Why are they told that even just having a sexual past is (for example) the "worst" thing they can do to a guy?

Women are told that they should be "comforted" by the fact that their man has a high partner count because, supposedly, it makes them "special" that they were "chosen". Why aren't men (typically) told this?

To my mind it's important that we don't shame one gender for exactly the same things that we praise the other for. That doesn't mean, though, that some of us (from both genders) haven't done something that we have come to regret or feel ashamed about. Hopefully, though, we've learned something from those mistakes.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> It isn't important for women to say "no" if they actually have done something that they regret and feel shame about. It's important that they don't feel this regret and shame *just because* they have a sexual past.


I very much agree with the above.

It just seemed like the reaction to slvt shaming was to refuse to regret anything (i.e. "I don't regret giving all those blindfolded blowjobs at frat parties one bit!").

EDIT: Not that there's anything wrong with giving blindfolded blowjobs at frat parties (just getting my Seinfeld-like disclaimer in).


----------



## lifeistooshort

always_alone said:


> I think it's important to separate out actions that are regretful and shameful, and those that aren't, but yet you (one) are still shamed for them.
> 
> It isn't important for women to say "no" if they actually have done something that they regret and feel shame about. It's important that they don't feel this regret and shame *just because* they have a sexual past.
> 
> Men are, as one poster said, high-fived for their sexual pasts. Women, on the other hand, (almost) never get these accolades. Why not? Why are they told that even just having a sexual past is (for example) the "worst" thing they can do to a guy?
> 
> Women are told that they should be "comforted" by the fact that their man has a high partner count because, supposedly, it makes them "special" that they were "chosen". Why aren't men (typically) told this?
> 
> To my mind it's important that we don't shame one gender for exactly the same things that we praise the other for. That doesn't mean, though, that some of us (from both genders) haven't done something that we have come to regret or feel ashamed about. Hopefully, though, we've learned something from those mistakes.


I suspect one reason men are high fived and women aren't is because it's not that big of an achievement for women to bed a bunch of men. It's a little tougher for men to get sex, or at least traditionally it was. Then you factor in the double standard of morality created because men controlled everything and it's seen as a positive achievement for men to screw a bunch of women.

And because men have a harder time getting sex this idea that men who couldn't were somehow less valuable was created. Since women could easily get it they were expected to control themselves lest they be viewed as cheap.

Since men controlled everything and wanted to have sex, they created this stupid notion that it somehow made them more valuable. 

Very antiquated thinking. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> I very much agree with the above.
> 
> It just seemed like the reaction to slvt shaming was to refuse to regret anything (i.e. "I don't regret giving all those blindfolded blowjobs at frat parties one bit!").


I don't see it as a refusal to regret anything; I see it as a refusal to regret things that the person *actually* doesn't regret.

Maybe the blindfolded blowjobs were the height of turn on, exciting, adventure. A fantastic experience. Why would you regret that? Just because someone else thinks it's "dirty" or wants to shame you for it?

Even if you never ever want to do it again, it doesn't mean that you need to regret it. Sometimes people do things just to try them, just to see what it's like, and if it works out well for everyone, why not?

For me, personally, there are things that I have done that I do regret and do feel shame about. Times when, for example, I have treated someone else badly. Times when, for example, I have harmed myself, even though I knew better in advance. I think we all have at least some things that we wish we had done differently (regret), but mostly try to learn from them and not repeat those mistakes.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Maybe the blindfolded blowjobs were the height of turn on, exciting, adventure. A fantastic experience. Why would you regret that? Just because someone else thinks it's "dirty" or wants to shame you for it?


If I discovered the above prior to marrying and had a problem with it, would I just be another slvt-shaming, insecure, misogynist male with a small penis?


----------



## norajane

Buddy400 said:


> If I discovered the above prior to marrying and had a problem with it, would I just be another slvt-shaming, insecure, misogynist male with a small penis?


No. But you would be an assh*le if you stayed with her and then held it against her and constantly brought up what a sl*t she was and expected her to regret it just because you have a problem with it if she didn't have a problem with what she did.

Most women aren't pulling blindfolded bj's at frat parties. Most women have bf's they have had sex with, maybe a summer fling or two, and maybe one or more ONS's. Most guys have that kind of sexual past, too. Most guys wouldn't have a single regret about having had sex with those wonderful women who wanted to have sex with them. Why do we expect women to have regrets about the exact same thing? 

Why is that question even asked when it's not asked of men? Why is it necessary for a woman to regret her sexual history in order to be accepted? Why must she feel she did something wrong in order to be "forgiven" for it, when men are not considered having done something wrong with a need to be forgiven for the same behavior?

Why does a woman need to regret having a perfectly ordinary, average sex life in order for her perfectly ordinary, average sex life to be acceptable? I believe that's the point of this thread.


----------



## Cosmos

Buddy400 said:


> If I discovered the above prior to marrying and had a problem with it, would I just be another slvt-shaming, insecure, misogynist male with a small penis?


Certainly not. We all have our dealbreakers and this would be one of yours.


----------



## Adelais

Lila said:


> Do you regret parts or the whole of your sexual history? Why/why not.


I regret all of it. I realized that I was mostly looking for love, and giving sex in exchange for closeness, which never turned into love. I realized I had allowed myself to be used.

The few times I tried to "use" men for sex, I felt trashy afterwards for going along with the men's agenda to just use me. That was just not who my core person was.

Also, even the quality of sex wasn't good with men who didn't love me, and whom I didn't love. It takes time for a man to learn what a woman likes and vise versa. The men I was with didn't love me or care about how to please me, like my husband does. The lack of commitment made me uncomfortable, and sometimes it showed as me doing things I wouldn't normally do, as well as not telling them what I really prefer.

The relationships felt illicit. I wish I hadn't done that to myself.




Lila said:


> Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners?


No. Some guys could care less about a woman's past. All they care about is what they are getting.

All one has to do is read her at TAM. Many men are turned on by their wife's past, as long as she is committed to only being with him now that they are in a committed relationship.



Lila said:


> If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly?


I don't know about other women, just myself.


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> Why does a woman need to regret having a perfectly ordinary, average sex life in order for her perfectly ordinary, average sex life to be acceptable?


She shouldn't.



norajane said:


> Most women aren't pulling blindfolded bj's at frat parties.


True. I was wondering if there were limits about what we're expected to accept with a smile and a pat on the back.


----------



## Adelais

Thundarr said:


> Retroactive jealousy is mostly a guy's problem and it's absolutely driven by insecurity. It happens because the guy is looking for validation; that his wife/gf would never leave or stray because he's the only one to curl her toes. 'Sexual past' threads usually have the guy saying he was deceived and that's really why he's angry or hurt.


I guess my husband and I broke the mold then. He was a 29 year old virgin when we married, and I had had many (I can't remember all their names to begin to count) sexual partners. He didn't ask, but I told him everything I could remember so he would never feel like I had lied to him. I expected him to get upset, leave and never call me again. He didn't even flinch. He has never brought them up, and has never wanted to know anything more than what I told him before we were married. (I told him about my past sexual relationships when I realize we were serious about each other and probably not going to remain just friends.)

Before we were married, Mr. IMFAR had a few girlfriends, and apparently got naked with a couple, but didn't do much else. I know I am above average in attractiveness, so even if they were pretty, I could care less. However, I *hate* the idea that he kissed, felt and was naked with anyone but me, because I know my husband loved them, and he is HOT! I am not insecure, it's that I don't like to share. I don't want those women ever having a mind movie about my husband's body, because it is for me only.

My husband knows that he rocks my boat sexually and that his "important part" is more than enough for me, so he could care less about previous men's junk size or performance. He also knows* why* I had been with so many other men, and that he also fills that space (my heart) better than anyone ever has.


----------



## MEM2020

Norajane is QFT




norajane said:


> No. But you would be an assh*le if you stayed with her and then held it against her and constantly brought up what a sl*t she was and expected her to regret it just because you have a problem with it if she didn't have a problem with what she did.
> 
> Most women aren't pulling blindfolded bj's at frat parties. Most women have bf's they have had sex with, maybe a summer fling or two, and maybe one or more ONS's. Most guys have that kind of sexual past, too. Most guys wouldn't have a single regret about having had sex with those wonderful women who wanted to have sex with them. Why do we expect women to have regrets about the exact same thing?
> 
> Why is that question even asked when it's not asked of men? Why is it necessary for a woman to regret her sexual history in order to be accepted? Why must she feel she did something wrong in order to be "forgiven" for it, when men are not considered having done something wrong with a need to be forgiven for the same behavior?
> 
> Why does a woman need to regret having a perfectly ordinary, average sex life in order for her perfectly ordinary, average sex life to be acceptable? I believe that's the point of this thread.


----------



## MEM2020

Buddy,

I seriously doubt ANYONE is going to give a guy grief for having a consistent moral viewpoint. 

For instance: I'll only marry a virgin, coming from:
- A man who is waiting until marriage - is neither surprising nor hypocritical 
- A man who has had numerous partners - makes him a hypocritical a hole





Buddy400 said:


> She shouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> True. I was wondering if there were limits about what we're expected to accept with a smile and a pat on the back.


----------



## Buddy400

MEM11363 said:


> Buddy,
> 
> I seriously doubt ANYONE is going to give a guy grief for having a consistent moral viewpoint.


I doubt it as well.

Just like to probe the boundaries occasionally to make sure I still know where they are.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Norajane is QFT


The only thing I would point out is that perhaps women are asked this far more often, but I've been asked this by every LTR, and with every LTR there has been issues with my past, too. 

I can honestly say that I believe I have been **** shamed far more BY women than I have TO women. 

Maybe I'm an anomaly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> The only thing I would point out is that perhaps women are asked this far more often, but I've been asked this by every LTR, and with every LTR there has been issues with my past, too.
> 
> I can honestly say that I believe I have been **** shamed far more BY women than I have TO women.
> 
> Maybe I'm an anomaly.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I have been called names, and been met with hostility by women who wanted to sleep with me, that I turned down. I have also been met with more derision than anything else by women I have turned down, who know of my extremely selective intimate past. I think the key being that they tend to lash out when I do not fall into line with what they want.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> I was just thinking last night;* if you asked a guy with quite a bit of experience if he had any regrets about his sexual past, I think he'd say "yes". No big deal.*
> 
> So, why is it so important for some women with a sexual past to say "no"? Is it a overreaction to the slvt shaming? One has to go to the opposite extreme?


I had lunch with H today and asked him this question. His response falls in line with what I was thinking. 

He believes that most guys, himself included, rarely regret any part of their sexual history, but some do regret how they treated their sexual partners after the fact.


----------



## Anon1111

here is a difference between men and women that is relevant to this discussion:

women can pretty easily sleep with men who are out of their league. she can't get the captain of the football team to be her boyfriend, but he will sleep with her if she throws herself at him at a party.

in their youth, many women throw themselves at guys like this. they try desperately to land the big fish and pull out all of the sexual stops.

guys know this. sometimes because they have been that guy. sometimes because they are friends with that guy. but we know.

guys are perplexed and hurt by the idea that their shining princesses-- the girls to whom they've given their undying commitment and love and all that-- were, at one time, so desperate to get the affection of this matinee idol that she arguably went to lengths she would never go for you.

no one wants to feel as though they are a consolation prize.

you can easily imagine scenarios where the genders were reversed and the same concepts hold.

sex is the one area that is now apparently off limits to male judgment and criticism. which is convenient because it is typically the area that men care about the most.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> here is a difference between men and women that is relevant to this discussion:
> 
> women can pretty easily sleep with men who are out of their league. she can't get the captain of the football team to be her boyfriend, but he will sleep with her if she throws herself at him at a party.
> 
> in their youth, many women throw themselves at guys like this. they try desperately to land the big fish and pull out all of the sexual stops.
> 
> guys know this. sometimes because they have been that guy. sometimes because they are friends with that guy. but we know.
> 
> guys are perplexed and hurt by the idea that their shining princesses-- the girls to whom they've given their undying commitment and love and all that-- were, at one time, so desperate to get the affection of this matinee idol that she arguably went to lengths she would never go for you.
> 
> no one wants to feel as though they are a consolation prize.
> 
> you can easily imagine scenarios where the genders were reversed and the same concepts hold.
> 
> sex is the one area that is now apparently off limits to male judgment and criticism. which is convenient because it is typically the area that men care about the most.


I suddenly feel very guilty.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> I had lunch with H today and asked him this question. His response falls in line with what I was thinking.
> 
> He believes that most guys, himself included, rarely regret any part of their sexual history, but some do regret how they treated their sexual partners after the fact.


I regret sleeping with that girl that threatened to kill herself when I broke up with her. 

I regret sleeping with that crazy girl that broke into my locker and stole my stuff. I'd rather have my stuff than those memories. 

I regret sleeping with my ex wife that first time -- I may not have ended up marrying her. 

I regret sleeping with that girl at her parents house while they were away. Well, specifically, I regret having her mother walk into the kitchen while I was naked and looking for whipped cream to use on her daughter. That must have been really embarrassing. 

I regret sleeping with that girl at her parents Christmas party in front of their family's tree. That seems... Odd now. 

I regret sleeping with that aerobics instructor. Sure, the sex was great, but when I discovered she was living with her boyfriend at the time I felt pretty ****ty about that. 

I regret sleeping with that one girl that had STDs and I didn't know it. Going to the clinic and getting tested sucked. Getting the all clear was good, but the waiting was awful. 

I regret sleeping with that one girl who just broke up with her boyfriend, and went back to him right after. She pined over me for years and they ended up in MC. 

And after reading Anons last post I wonder how many times I've been that guy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TiggyBlue

FrenchFry said:


> I still don't see why this action should be regarded with shame or regret.



Makes no sense to me either.


----------



## Anon1111

FrenchFry said:


> The thing is, if you could do it, you would.
> 
> That pisses some men off, that some women can do it and get away with it.
> 
> I still don't see why this action should be regarded with shame or regret.


I agree- it's totally understandable why women do this. 

It's also understandable when guys react negatively when they perceive themselves to be a consolation prize.

There is nothing really to be ashamed about if you really own your decisions. 

The problem comes in when things get reframed. 

What was actually a case of "I thought that guy was amazingly hot and I really wished he wouldve committed to me so I did x, y, z but it didn't work out" becomes "I did a lot of things I regret when I was younger and I'm just not into that now."

Well, do you really regret the "things"? Or do you only regret them because they didn't have the desired result with the other guy?

I know not all women play these games but some do and it is not just male insecurity talking to mention that it happens.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> I regret sleeping with that girl that threatened to kill herself when I broke up with her.
> 
> I regret sleeping with that crazy girl that broke into my locker and stole my stuff. I'd rather have my stuff than those memories.
> 
> I regret sleeping with my ex wife that first time -- I may not have ended up marrying her.
> 
> I regret sleeping with that girl at her parents house while they were away. Well, specifically, I regret having her mother walk into the kitchen while I was naked and looking for whipped cream to use on her daughter. That must have been really embarrassing.
> 
> I regret sleeping with that girl at her parents Christmas party in front of their family's tree. That seems... Odd now.
> 
> I regret sleeping with that aerobics instructor. Sure, the sex was great, but when I discovered she was living with her boyfriend at the time I felt pretty ****ty about that.
> 
> I regret sleeping with that one girl that had STDs and I didn't know it. Going to the clinic and getting tested sucked. Getting the all clear was good, but the waiting was awful.
> 
> I regret sleeping with that one girl who just broke up with her boyfriend, and went back to him right after. She pined over me for years and they ended up in MC.
> 
> And after reading Anons last post I wonder how many times I've been that guy.


Do you feel that you have to have that regret/guilt in order for your wife to accept you and love you? Does your wife forgive you for all of that? What has your wife required that you do to make up all those things to her? How often does she rub your face in all those things?


----------



## EleGirl

Anon1111 said:


> here is a difference between men and women that is relevant to this discussion:
> 
> women can pretty easily sleep with men who are out of their league. she can't get the captain of the football team to be her boyfriend, but he will sleep with her if she throws herself at him at a party.
> 
> in their youth, many women throw themselves at guys like this. they try desperately to land the big fish and pull out all of the sexual stops.
> 
> guys know this. sometimes because they have been that guy. sometimes because they are friends with that guy. but we know.
> 
> guys are perplexed and hurt by the idea that their shining princesses-- the girls to whom they've given their undying commitment and love and all that-- were, at one time, so desperate to get the affection of this matinee idol that she arguably went to lengths she would never go for you.
> 
> no one wants to feel as though they are a consolation prize.
> 
> you can easily imagine scenarios where the genders were reversed and the same concepts hold.
> 
> sex is the one area that is now apparently off limits to male judgment and criticism. which is convenient because it is typically the area that men care about the most.


Let's look at this imaginary scenario.....

So she has sex with some foot ball guy who basically just wanted sex with her.

So now years later you and she are going out and/or marriage. But because she had sex with some football guy you feel like a consolation prize?

What lengths did she go through with the football guy that she would not go through with you? 


.


----------



## lifeistooshort

If we're going to argue about consolation prizes couldn't any woman argue that her husband is with her only because he couldn't get a hotter woman? Because according to TAM men are programmed to go after the hottest woman they can get.

Just look at Poida's thread.....he has a perfectly good gf yet he's convinced she's just not hot enough for him. So she's his consolation prized unless he really convinces himself he can get hotter.

There's always someone better so the consolation prize argument can go on forever.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Anon1111 said:


> I agree- it's totally understandable why women do this.
> 
> It's also understandable when guys react negatively when they perceive themselves to be a consolation prize.
> 
> There is nothing really to be ashamed about if you really own your decisions.
> 
> The problem comes in when things get reframed.
> 
> What was actually a case of "I thought that guy was amazingly hot and I really wished he wouldve committed to me so I did x, y, z but it didn't work out" becomes "I did a lot of things I regret when I was younger and I'm just not into that now."
> 
> Well, do you really regret the "things"? Or do you only regret them because they didn't have the desired result with the other guy?
> 
> I know not all women play these games but some do and it is not just male insecurity talking to mention that it happens.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Not to be confused with "gee, I really wish I could have that model but since she's interested in someone hotter and with more money than me I guess I'll go for you since you seem willing to sleep with me".

To some degree everyone is a consolation prize.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Personal said:


> I don't, I guess mine is a different crowd than yours.


Mine is not a different crowd, which is exactly my point. Of the examples above, all but one come from unbroken homes, work for fortune 500 companies, have bachelors or masters degrees or better. They are managers, neighbors, the people you joke with and like.

Don't be so naive as to not ask. I know I won't have sex with someone before I know their sexual past! STD anyone?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> Do you feel that you have to have that regret/guilt in order for your wife to accept you and love you? Does your wife forgive you for all of that? What has your wife required that you do to make up all those things to her? How often does she rub your face in all those things?


No, not at all. I haven't told her most of those things. Why would I?

It's not a secret, but nor do I offer it.

What I'm saying is that guys can regret their sexual past, just like women can have RJ.

I don't really regret doing them, I just kinda now regret what their partners feel about these women doing these things for me.


----------



## ConanHub

Anon1111 said:


> here is a difference between men and women that is relevant to this discussion:
> 
> women can pretty easily sleep with men who are out of their league. she can't get the captain of the football team to be her boyfriend, but he will sleep with her if she throws herself at him at a party.
> 
> in their youth, many women throw themselves at guys like this. they try desperately to land the big fish and pull out all of the sexual stops.
> 
> guys know this. sometimes because they have been that guy. sometimes because they are friends with that guy. but we know.
> 
> guys are perplexed and hurt by the idea that their shining princesses-- the girls to whom they've given their undying commitment and love and all that-- were, at one time, so desperate to get the affection of this matinee idol that she arguably went to lengths she would never go for you.
> 
> no one wants to feel as though they are a consolation prize.
> 
> you can easily imagine scenarios where the genders were reversed and the same concepts hold.
> 
> sex is the one area that is now apparently off limits to male judgment and criticism. which is convenient because it is typically the area that men care about the most.


Well what men would be attracted to women like that?

If a woman wasn't all in for me she wouldn't get me.

Mrs. Conan held nothing back when she went for me and that sealed it for me. I was already attracted to her and she didn't disappoint.

Don't the men you are describing settle?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

ConanHub said:


> Well what men would be attracted to women like that?
> 
> If a woman wasn't all in for me she wouldn't get me.
> 
> Mrs. Conan held nothing back when she went for me and that sealed it for me. I was already attracted to her and she didn't disappoint.
> 
> Don't the men you are describing settle?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Perhaps that's the root of it.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> I have been called names, and been met with hostility by women who wanted to sleep with me, that I turned down. I have also been met with more derision than anything else by women I have turned down, who know of my extremely selective intimate past. I think the key being that they tend to lash out when I do not fall into line with what they want.


I've had men do the same thing to me.. get angry when they wanted me to sleep with them. It's very usual for a surprisingly large number of men to behave that way when a woman does not fall into line with what they want.

My bet is that most women have experienced this.


----------



## jld

intheory said:


> Thank-you, lifeistooshort
> 
> My husband is definitely with me, because he couldn't (financially, at least) get the "hotter" woman.
> 
> Yes, poida's thread. Look at it, if you think that you can stomach it. Now that probably IS a trigger for me. But as least he (and my H) are/were honest to an extent. I think a lot of guys are really in denial that they settled for a "nice" woman. A "good" woman. A woman who is "so easy to be with". A "wonderful mother" and so on and so forth.
> 
> I absolutely believe that the "consolation prize" syndrome applies to both men and women.


Intheory, are you sure your husband feels this way?

I think you are a wonderful lady. Always kind, always listening, so patient and humble. I think your husband was very lucky to get you for a wife.

Are you sure you are not just imagining something that he would contradict if he knew that is what you thought?


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> No, not at all. I haven't told her most of those things. Why would I?
> 
> It's not a secret, but nor do I offer it.
> 
> What I'm saying is that guys can regret their sexual past, just like women can have RJ.
> 
> I don't really regret doing them, I just kinda now regret what their partners feel about these women doing these things for me.


Doing those things for you? Maybe they were doing those things for themselves. They probably were.

You don't tell your wife what you did. What makes you think that those women told their husbands about you?

If I felt that I had used and/or abused someone, then I would most likely feel regret for it. But I never did. So I have not guilt or remorse. Sure women can do things that they have guilt/remorse for. That's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is that sometimes women are made to feel that the only way that their partner will accept them is if they show guilt/remorse for their past. And often those men will use this is emotionally beat up on the women time and time again.

I've read a lot of threads/posts on TAM written by men who do this. I'm not even sure that it's RJ... instead I think that often it's a tool used by abusive people to emotionally abuse their partner.


.


----------



## MountainRunner

Wow...Just came into this thread and I got triggered kinda hard. We had an argument last week, pretty heated too, and I blurted out how I firmly believe that she "settled for me" when she could've chosen better. I still have self esteem issues and I'm still working on them.


----------



## jdawg2015

FrenchFry said:


> I am less confused now. I had a different interpretation of "land the big fish" by which you meant "commitment" and I translated to "sex."
> 
> I don't regret sleeping with hot dudes but I didn't want commitment. Wasn't my goal, my goal was sex and/or making out.
> 
> Where I have had issues in the past is that I have to lie about my motivations to prevent the endless loop of questions when the answer is "I like sleeping with hot dudes."
> 
> That is the stuff of regret and shame.


Yup, and let me tell you as a guy, I would dump you in a hot minute if you told me you were so casual with sex. Not that you were wrong in doing it, but being so casual would be extrapolated by me to mean things like easy, loose, etc. 

May not be right, but your post is exactly what the OP talks about.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
You know that I'm a believer in transparency. That said, it is sometimes painful. 

Ballpark - M2 has a list of about a dozen - requirements. 

That said, during the peak of her intense attraction for Dan (the OM) she mentioned that he was:
- Hotter
- Christian
- Way better handyman than me (this last was 100% true, as were the two items above)

I responded a few weeks later by being transparent in a similar though more limited manner. My comments, like hers, were absolutely true. And every bit as hurtful. They were delivered in the same low key tone as hers were. 

The only difference between us was that I left out the real bone crusher. 

When it's used for good, transparency is a beautiful thing. When it's used without any judgement at all, not so much. 



jld said:


> Intheory, are you sure your husband feels this way?
> 
> I think you are a wonderful lady. Always kind, always listening, so patient and humble. I think your husband was very lucky to get you for a wife.
> 
> Are you sure you are not just imagining something that he would contradict if he knew that is what you thought?


----------



## EleGirl

jdawg2015 said:


> Yup, and let me tell you as a guy, I would dump you in a hot minute if you told me you were so casual with sex. Not that you were wrong in doing it, but being so casual would be extrapolated by me to mean things like easy, loose, etc.
> 
> May not be right, but your post is exactly what the OP talks about.


Yep, there is that double standard, shaming thing going on... 

And no, her post is not what the OP is talking about. Your post is however.


----------



## jdawg2015

FrenchFry said:


> I never minded being dumped by guys like you because they judged me completely incorrectly, though I think that this is interesting.
> 
> The fact that I like sex with hot guys (which, you know includes my husband) says nothing about why, how many partners I've had nor any other criteria for sleeping with anyone. Yet, one fact and you believe you have enough to extrapolate loose and easy.
> 
> You'd have done me a favor dude. :grin2:
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Your missing something though. If you have casual sex with many partners, BOTH people have a right to decide.

If I extrapolate that you have one night stands with guys as being loose, etc that my prerogative. Like I said neither is right or wrong as your post implies.

My job during dating is to do just that, JUDGE if you are a worthy partner...


----------



## TiggyBlue

What does this have to do with the OP topic ?


----------



## TiggyBlue

EleGirl said:


> I've read a lot of threads/posts on TAM written by men who do this. I'm not even sure that it's RJ... instead I think that often it's a tool used by abusive people to emotionally abuse their partner.
> 
> 
> .


Some of the replies on threads about wife's past ect seems more like entitlement issues rather RJ, I'm sure RJ has a part to play but the way someone deals with it seems to biggest problem IMO.


----------



## Anon1111

The consolation prize concept can work both ways, definitely. 

This phenomenon plays out differently though between the genders because of the detail I mentioned above-- the fact that women can sleep with men who are out of their league. 

So in the area of sex, men will see potential threats from other higher value men whereas women will not see potential threats from other higher value women. Women know that higher value women are unlikely to want her man. Men cannot rely on this.

Women will face threats from other women but the potential pool is much smaller and the potential competition is more likely to be similar in status. 

All of the above is deeply unsexy and lame, obviously, but I'm simply offering it as an explanation of the phenomenon.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> You know that I'm a believer in transparency. That said, it is sometimes painful.
> 
> Ballpark - M2 has a list of about a dozen - requirements.
> 
> That said, during the peak of her intense attraction for Dan (the OM) she mentioned that he was:
> - Hotter
> - Christian
> - Way better handyman than me (this last was 100% true, as were the two items above)
> 
> I responded a few weeks later by being transparent in a similar though more limited manner. My comments, like hers, were absolutely true. And every bit as hurtful. They were delivered in the same low key tone as hers were.
> 
> The only difference between us was that I left out the real bone crusher.
> 
> When it's used for good, transparency is a beautiful thing. When it's used without any judgement at all, not so much.


I know Dug is much more careful with what he says to me than I am with him. I do not focus on sparing his feelings at all, but on being as open and honest as possible.

And Dug prefers it that way. He says a man needs to know how his wife really feels about things, including him, because that is valuable raw data. He can use it to understand her better and more effectively resolve conflict with her.

It is much harder if she is hiding for any reason, perhaps out of fear of how he might hurt her if he knew her true feelings. He needs to reassure her, through word and deed, that it is always safe to be transparent with him. That will earn her trust.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There are men who don't feel a woman should have shame or regret for her past, and they don't feel shame for their past, either. There are men who don't see it as a competition of who could get sex from someone out of their league and who couldn't. There are men who see having sex with others in the past as a personal choice that requires no explanation to any other human being. 

And even though some of the examples given here (prostitution, being passed around at parties, etc) do occasionally apply to a person's past, usually the type of jealousy and demand for regret and shame we hear about are NOT about that type of thing but rather are just simple sexual choices that are fairly usual and normal. So it is clearly just more shaming to bring up the most absurd examples anyone can think of and create straw women who did those things and then make her a punching bag. This is all just to keep women aware of that double standard some men have. Thankfully, other men don't have that double standard and don't want to punish a woman or expect her to have regret.

The same men who don't feel a woman should feel shame and regret may also feel jealousy if they specifically think about their own woman's past....and so they just don't think about it. They put it out of their minds. They don't think about their own past constantly, either. They just realize it is in the past and isn't currently active in their partner's life or mind, just like their own past isn't.

If you are spending time ruminating about your partner's past sex life, you are simply trying to find a way to hurt yourself and then projecting it upon them, and feeling justified about it doesn't make you justified.

Jealousy is a normal and natural feeling. It doesn't mean you also have to focus on that feeling until it makes you crazy, and it doesn't mean you have the right to try to make your partner feel bad about themselves. If it makes you feel bad, you have the responsibility to work on that inner feeling yourself and find a way to make peace with it. You can feel jealousy while recognizing that the other person does not need to feel regret or shame just because you feel this way.


----------



## lifeistooshort

intheory said:


> Thank-you, lifeistooshort
> 
> My husband is definitely with me, because he couldn't (financially, at least) get the "hotter" woman.
> 
> Yes, poida's thread. Look at it, if you think that you can stomach it. Now that probably IS a trigger for me. But as least he (and my H) are/were honest to an extent. I think a lot of guys are really in denial that they settled for a "nice" woman. A "good" woman. A woman who is "so easy to be with". A "wonderful mother" and so on and so forth.
> 
> I absolutely believe that the "consolation prize" syndrome applies to both men and women.


I'm so sorry you are left to feel like this. Because of my hb's ridiculous oversharing I know what it feels like to be one in a long line but I can say that he's very into me and I don't feel like he settled. 

I personally think the whole settling thing is stupid, you'll drive yourself crazy constantly wondering if you can do better and you're never happy. The real question is whether what you have makes you happy, if yes then who cares of there MIGHT be something to make you happier? 

Do you ever wonder what it might be like to find someone who's really into you? 

Your hb sounds like kind of a jerk. Sorry 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Anon1111 said:


> This phenomenon plays out differently though between the genders because of the detail I mentioned above-- the fact that women can sleep with men who are out of their league.
> 
> So in the area of sex, men will see potential threats from other higher value men whereas women will not see potential threats from other higher value women. Women know that higher value women are unlikely to want her man. Men cannot rely on this.
> 
> Women will face threats from other women but the potential pool is much smaller and the potential competition is more likely to be similar in status.


Threats from other women? If my SO wants another woman he should go get her, no? And if he can't, if he doesn't have what it takes to attract her, maybe he should re-evaluate himself, rather than judge me (or other women) as "less valuable".

What does that even mean? A higher status woman? Or higher status man? Does anyone really care so much what other people think that they will rank everyone they meet according to some arbitrary "social value"?

This whole fixation on ranking people and judging them as more or less valuable is baffling to me. Maybe it is this tendency to rank that makes people also want to shame others? A way to boost one's own ego by putting others down?

If so, then yes, it's completely lame, and explains nothing but who to avoid when dating. At least IMHO.


----------



## always_alone

lifeistooshort said:


> Your hb sounds like kind of a jerk. Sorry


Intheory, I have to agree with life's assessment here. Don't let your h put you down so he can boost himself up thinking he "deserves better". He is lucky to have you, and if he can't see that, it only reflects on his own blindness and stupidity.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I guess I'm different from a lot of people. I would prefer if my wive had had an active and varied sex life before me. I'd like to believe that the picked me after having seen all the options, because I'm so awesome. If I were her only partner I'd worry that she didn't have much to compare to and might find someone better.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> The consolation prize concept can work both ways, definitely.
> 
> This phenomenon plays out differently though between the genders because of the detail I mentioned above-- the fact that women can sleep with men who are out of their league.
> 
> So in the area of sex, men will see potential threats from other higher value men whereas women will not see potential threats from other higher value women. Women know that higher value women are unlikely to want her man. Men cannot rely on this.
> 
> Women will face threats from other women but the potential pool is much smaller and the potential competition is more likely to be similar in status.
> 
> All of the above is deeply unsexy and lame, obviously, but I'm simply offering it as an explanation of the phenomenon.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Again, I just don't see this gender bias at all.

My wife has repeatedly made comments that she worries a younger/hotter woman will 'steal me away' from her.


----------



## Buddy400

Anon1111 said:


> sex is the one area that is now apparently off limits to male judgment and criticism. which is convenient because it is typically the area that men care about the most.


Very well said. I've been feeling that for a while but couldn't quite figure out how to say it.


----------



## Buddy400

FrenchFry said:


> That pisses some men off, that some women can do it and get away with it.


True.



FrenchFry said:


> I still don't see why this action should be regarded with shame or regret.


If they pretend to regret it, it makes it easier for us.


----------



## MountainRunner

intheory said:


> Did the feeling that she "settled" for you; cause you to try and shame her for her past boyfriends and sex life, Mountain?


No. If you don't mind my asking, why would you think I would do something like that? In the 11 years we've been together, I've never once brought up her previous relationships...even when I finally had to tell her old boyfriend to go away....or I would deal with him in my own manner.

I'm dealing with some issues right now and I know I need some help desperately but I'm between therapy sessions and I feel I am spiraling downward. I hope I don't crash. I tend to want to scorch the earth when I get in those moods.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> Let's look at this imaginary scenario.....
> 
> So she has sex with some foot ball guy who basically just wanted sex with her.
> 
> So now years later you and she are going out and/or marriage. But because she had sex with some football guy you feel like a consolation prize?
> 
> What lengths did she go through with the football guy that she would not go through with you?
> 
> 
> .


Because women view commitment as the prize and men view sex as the prize (unless one doesn't believe that whole "men and women" are different thing).


----------



## Anon1111

marduk said:


> Again, I just don't see this gender bias at all.
> 
> My wife has repeatedly made comments that she worries a younger/hotter woman will 'steal me away' from her.


well, I think it tends to even out with age.

when men and women are younger, the balance often tips in the direction of men being paranoid about women's sexual access to other higher value men.

When you are older, it might reverse somewhat as men gain status.


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> If it makes you feel bad, you have the responsibility to work on that inner feeling yourself and find a way to make peace with it. You can feel jealousy while recognizing that the other person does not need to feel regret or shame just because you feel this way.


I generally agree with this, but the other possibility is you just decide you're not cool with whatever it is. That can be one variation of being open and honest and "making peace with it" too.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> well, I think it tends to even out with age.
> 
> when men and women are younger, the balance often tips in the direction of men being paranoid about women's sexual access to other higher value men.
> 
> When you are older, it might reverse somewhat as men gain status.


While I think that effect is very overstated in red pill thinking, I know that my wife has had a harder time aging than I have. 

As an example, I don't care about my grey hairs or hers, but she sure does care about hers.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> There are men who don't feel a woman should have shame or regret for her past, and they don't feel shame for their past, either. There are men who don't see it as a competition of who could get sex from someone out of their league and who couldn't. There are men who see having sex with others in the past as a personal choice that requires no explanation to any other human being.
> 
> And even though some of the examples given here (prostitution, being passed around at parties, etc) do occasionally apply to a person's past, usually the type of jealousy and demand for regret and shame we hear about are NOT about that type of thing but rather are just simple sexual choices that are fairly usual and normal. So it is clearly just more shaming to bring up the most absurd examples anyone can think of and create straw women who did those things and then make her a punching bag. This is all just to keep women aware of that double standard some men have. Thankfully, other men don't have that double standard and don't want to punish a woman or expect her to have regret.
> 
> The same men who don't feel a woman should feel shame and regret may also feel jealousy if they specifically think about their own woman's past....and so they just don't think about it. They put it out of their minds. They don't think about their own past constantly, either. They just realize it is in the past and isn't currently active in their partner's life or mind, just like their own past isn't.
> 
> If you are spending time ruminating about your partner's past sex life, you are simply trying to find a way to hurt yourself and then projecting it upon them, and feeling justified about it doesn't make you justified.
> 
> Jealousy is a normal and natural feeling. It doesn't mean you also have to focus on that feeling until it makes you crazy, and it doesn't mean you have the right to try to make your partner feel bad about themselves. If it makes you feel bad, you have the responsibility to work on that inner feeling yourself and find a way to make peace with it. You can feel jealousy while recognizing that the other person does not need to feel regret or shame just because you feel this way.


Insightful and pretty much nails where I'm at and what I was trying to say.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

ConanHub said:


> Well what men would be attracted to women like that?
> 
> If a woman wasn't all in for me she wouldn't get me.
> 
> [/size]


A woman like what?

One that would put out more effort for a football guy than you? 

I agree.

But that's kind of the idea, right?

She wouldn't put in the effort for you that she did for some other guy.


----------



## Marduk

Can I offer a more complete scenario?

There's this great guy named Sid who is in his 20's, has been dating a while, and is somewhat successful with women, but finds them also a bit intimidating and is unsure what to do. One day he meets Nancy at a party and he discovers that he _really_ likes her. So he pulls out all the stops persuing her -- flowers, expensive dinners, and Nancy obliges after some hesitation. They start seeing each other more often. Nancy discovers that Sid is a really nice guy and isn't like the other boys that she usually dates -- he's considerate and caring and nice and seems to really value her as a person. They have good sex, get along well, and are both friends and lovers.

One day, Sid proposes to Nancy and she accepts. They get married, have a couple kids, and while the sex life continues with it's own momentum of years past, flags somewhat naturally under the strain of kids, mortgages, and adult life. Their good sex is now OK sex.

They both notice they don't have the same kind of zest for life or each other as they used to, and Sid approaches Nancy about improving their sex life. Nancy obliges, but her heart just isn't in it. She's past that part of her life, she tells herself, and while she wants to make Sid happy, she wants to re-find and reconnect with her pre-child self and spend time going to yoga with the girls, maybe take a class or two at the local colledge, and maybe go out with the girls occasionally.

And so they go. Sid is feeling increasingly like maybe Nancy wasn't so into him after all, and Nancy is feeling like she needs a little space to rediscover herself as not defined as a wife and mother. Sid is very eager to please Nancy, and so he tries to show her that he loves and respects her, and is attracted to her. He goes back to flowers, and expensive dinners, and while they work sometimes, the effect isn't quite the same as when they were dating. He ups his game, showing her even more and more how much he loves her, and experiences a deminishing returns effect the more he does so. He now has to work _very_ hard to get Nancy to notice him sexually, and respond to him.

One day, at a party, Sid and Nancy are having some drinks with some of Nancy's old friends, and the topic of one of her old boyfriends comes up. Laughing with her girlfriends, they joke about how crazy Nancy was with Johnny, her ex, and how into him she was. Anything he wanted, she would do. She would do anything for him, including that crazy night where she had sex with him in a public place just because he wanted to. 

He ended up breaking her heart with another woman, and a dejected young Nancy went her own way and finally found Sid.

Now Sid compares himself to Johnny. Nancy would have sex with Johnny however and whenever he wanted to and in crazy ways. For Sid, though, he has to work very hard to turn her head at all, and even then sometimes it doesn't work. Even though he's given Nancy his whole world and years of effort...

Maybe he's second (or third) fiddle to Johnny.

Does that resonate with people?


----------



## Anon1111

OK, to show my ability to empathize here, from Nancy's perspective, her relationship with Johnny was completely different from her relationship with Sid. She was young, focused on having a good time above all else. She wasn't a mom. Different time in her life, different priorities.

BUT from Sid's perspective, young-Nancy sounds pretty awesome. He'd like some more of THAT Nancy in his life. 

Sid didn't think he was committing to a lifetime with sort-of-interested mom-Nancy. 

Sid can't help but wonder whether this is REALLY just about a "different time in her life" and more about the difference between him and Johnny. 

Sid doesn't really know who Johnny is, so it is very difficult to eliminate the possibility that there are major differences between him and Johnny. 

Then, the more Sid thinks about it, the more he realizes that he NEVER had young-Nancy in the way Johnny apparently did. So it seems to Sid that Nancy held some part of herself back from Sid or maybe even RESERVED some part of herself PERMANENTLY for Johnny.

Then Sid runs out to cry in the lap of a hooker. the end.


----------



## Buddy400

Buddy400 said:


> She wouldn't put in the effort for you that she did for some other guy.


Cool. I can quote myself!

And how do you determine that she wouldn't put in the effort for you that she did for some other guy?

Unfortunately, by asking if she's ever done anything sexually for some other guy that she won't do for you.

EDIT: Just noticed Marduk's expert description of the situation. I'm guessing that STILL no chick will get it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> OK, to show my ability to empathize here, from Nancy's perspective, her relationship with Johnny was completely different from her relationship with Sid. She was young, focused on having a good time above all else. She wasn't a mom. Different time in her life, different priorities.
> 
> BUT from Sid's perspective, young-Nancy sounds pretty awesome. He'd like some more of THAT Nancy in his life.


Nancy is not the only half of the equation that is different. 


> Sid didn't think he was committing to a lifetime with sort-of-interested mom-Nancy.


So he wants a Nancy that is different than the one he AC
ACTUALLY married? 

Ew. 



> Sid can't help but wonder whether this is REALLY just about a "different time in her life" and more about the difference between him and Johnny.


What difference does it make? I mean what can she DO about it?


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> I've read a lot of threads/posts on TAM written by men who do this. I'm not even sure that it's RJ... instead I think that often it's a tool used by abusive people to emotionally abuse their partner.


If it's abusive people, then it's the people; not the tool they use to inflict the abuse. Take this tool away and they'll just find another one.


----------



## norajane

NobodySpecial said:


> Nancy is not the only half of the equation that is different.
> 
> So he wants a Nancy that is different than the one he AC
> ACTUALLY married?
> 
> Ew.
> 
> 
> What difference does it make? I mean what can she DO about it?


I guess she's supposed to feel shame and regret for having fun with Johnny, and if she shows enough regret and shame that will make Sid feel better?


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> I guess she's supposed to feel shame and regret for having fun with Johnny, and if she shows enough regret and shame that will make Sid feel better?


Truly, can no woman here even begin to understand what's going through Sid's mind?

It doesn't mean you have to think he's right, or that there's much Nancy could or should do about it. 

But... Really? Just don't get it at all?


----------



## BetrayedDad

Buddy400 said:


> Truly, can no woman here even begin to understand what's going through Sid's mind?


You're asking for male understanding in the ladies' lounge?

Good luck.

Sid's wife married him because he was a nice guy security blanket. His wife wanted a stud but he rejected her so she settled for plan B unbeknownst to him. Sid got screwed.


----------



## samyeagar

This is really getting into the nuances of sex and the "value" on places on it. For some it is primarily physical, for others it is primarily emotional, and sometimes it is a combination of both with some partners, but not other partners, or at different times with the same partner. I think the base meaning one ascribes to sex is at the root of a lot of sexual mismatches, and misunderstanding and can be very hard to over come, especially when one is looking for objective measure to gauge how into them their partner is.


----------



## techmom

Buddy400 said:


> Truly, can no woman here even begin to understand what's going through Sid's mind?
> 
> It doesn't mean you have to think he's right, or that there's much Nancy could or should do about it.
> 
> But... Really? Just don't get it at all?


Nope we don't get it, because all we see is a man pining for a less mature female than the one he married. He was satisfied enough with the mature Nancy enough to marry her, now he wants the insecure, immature version of her because of what she was to Johnny.

She had no kids, house, or life with this Johnny. Seems as if Sid would want to throw that away for some girl who is insecure in herself.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

techmom said:


> Nope we don't get it, because all we see is a man pining for a less mature female than the one he married. He was satisfied enough with the mature Nancy enough to marry her, now he wants the insecure, immature version of her because of what she was to Johnny.
> 
> She had no kids, house, or life with this Johnny. Seems as if Sid would want to throw that away for some girl who is insecure in herself.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So imagine how much more fun, excitement and creativity she could have with her husband now that she is older and more mature and more secure


----------



## I Don't Know

Buddy400 said:


> Truly, can no woman here even begin to understand what's going through Sid's mind?
> 
> It doesn't mean you have to think he's right, or that there's much Nancy could or should do about it.
> 
> But... Really? Just don't get it at all?


No. Some people don't get it. No example will help them get it. There is no equivalent feeling they will ever have about any thing. No matter how you try to describe it, they come back with then he shouldn't have married her if he didn't like what he was getting. 

What they will not entertain is that Sid never knew his wife would do things like that. He would have loved to have sex with her in semi public places, in fact he asked her early in their relationship, but she said no and he didn't push. So he just goes with it. Everything else is great. Having sex in public is not the Holy Grail, and if it makes her uncomfortable it's not worth it. Then he finds out she was doing that same thing with Johnny, 3 months before he met her and it crushes him.


One thing that I agree with is that Nancy isn't the only one who isn't the same. There's also the fact that it's Sid asking and not Johnny.

In short, Sid is good enough to (probably better than Johnny) marry and raise a family but not good enough to get freaky with.


----------



## techmom

What we forget is that Sid didn't have much luck with women before Nancy, does that mean he settled for her because he couldn't get the others who were probably more better in his opinion?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

norajane said:


> I guess she's supposed to feel shame and regret for having fun with Johnny, and if she shows enough regret and shame that will make Sid feel better?


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm telling a story that maybe resonates with people that have been in that kind of situation. I'm not one of those people, so I'm just throwing out a scenario.


----------



## ConanHub

Buddy400 said:


> A woman like what?
> 
> One that would put out more effort for a football guy than you?
> 
> I agree.
> 
> But that's kind of the idea, right?
> 
> She wouldn't put in the effort for you that she did for some other guy.


That woman would be a fool to think she could get me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

OK so let's flip the story around from Nancy's perspective (hypothetically). Starting with the party where her ex came up as a topic of conversation.

She's at this party and Johnny's name comes up. She's been trying really hard to regain a sense of herself after being married, having kids, and turning 40, and these stories remind her of herself at another time that she forgot. She used to be young, she used to be free-spirited, and she used to be really open and into this stupid guy named Johnny.

She would never want to go back to Johnny because he screwed Sally and Jane and maybe even Billy, and broke her heart and left her devastated. But, the sex was really good and out there, right? She learned a lot about herself, what she liked and didn't like, and she sure learned a lot about what she wanted in a man emotionally.

Then along came Sid and her whole world changed. He made her feel valued and safe and while she liked having sex with him, it wasn't what the relationship was all about. It was the big picture, and made her feel like a grown up, and they moved on with their life.

Maybe at the party she gets red in the cheeks with embarassment over the silly things she did with Johnny, but hey -- the past is the past and it's no big deal. They laugh, and go on to other topics. 

And then on the way home Sid starts acting all weird and distant. He's not all clingy and wants to know how I'm doing. He's certainly not trying to get me to have sex with him tonight, which is nice, because after those drinks and the kids keeping us up last night I'm exhausted and just want some peaceful sleep.

But he keeps asking me about Johnny, and it's clear he's being insecure. This goes on for days and maybe weeks, and he's really starting to turn me off. I mean, does he want me to be ashamed about what I did before I even met him? And why does he want to compete with Johnny? I'm not that 22 year old girl any more, I'm 40 and married and with kids -- chasing boys isn't the center of my life any more.

If only Sid would get that I've spent the last 10 years building a home and having kids and I just need my own space and time and if he'd get off my back about sex everything would be so much nicer... And especially if he'd stop acting so insecure and wanting to know everything about Johnny and where I'm going all the time like he's my dad. Honestly, if he doesn't grow up I may think about separating from him just to clear my head about it and stop being shamed for having sex with someone else before we even met. I mean, it's really none of his business...

Ladies, am I close?


----------



## Lila

NobodySpecial said:


> What difference does it make? I mean what can she DO about it?





norajane said:


> I guess she's supposed to feel shame and regret for having fun with Johnny, and if she shows enough regret and shame that will make Sid feel better?


Bingo! I brought this up on another thread. There is NOTHING Nancy could say, short of admitting regret, that would make her husband feel better. She's screwed because she has a sexual history. That's it.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> Bingo! I brought this up on another thread. There is NOTHING Nancy could say, short of admitting regret, that would make her husband feel better. She's screwed because she has a sexual history. That's it.


I have some ideas but I want to make sure I get Nancy's angle first.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Truly, can no woman here even begin to understand what's going through Sid's mind?
> 
> It doesn't mean you have to think he's right, or that there's much Nancy could or should do about it.
> 
> But... Really? Just don't get it at all?


I do get it. It is similar to the way my exBF used sex and sex acts as a series of weights and scales of how awesome HE was and how much I loved him. To the exclusion of almost everything else.


----------



## Anon1111

I Don't Know said:


> In short, Sid is good enough to (probably better than Johnny) marry and raise a family but not good enough to get freaky with.


Bingo!!


----------



## Anon1111

Nancy should not feel shame about her PAST or regret it.

What she should feel shame about is that she does not bring her A game for her husband.

Sid thought he was getting her best, but he realized he is not.

It's like buying a car and after driving it for 10 years being told there is an overdrive button but you can't push it.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> Nancy should not feel shame about her PAST or regret it.
> 
> What she should feel shame about is that she does not bring her A game for her husband.
> 
> Sid thought he was getting her best, but he realized he is not.
> 
> It's like buying a car and after driving it for 10 years being told there is an overdrive button but you can't push it.


I think Nancy might say that she's been bringing her A game the whole time, and that the demands on her as a wife, mother, and woman are legion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

Lila said:


> Bingo! I brought this up on another thread. There is NOTHING Nancy could say, short of admitting regret, that would make her husband feel better. She's screwed because she has a sexual history. That's it.


no, this is not it.

it's not about what she did in the past per se.

it's about what she's NOT doing in the present. the past just reveals her present limitations.


----------



## Lila

@Marduk, I can't speak for nancy because my response to Sid would have been very different. I value time above almost everything else. Passive aggressive behavior like Sid's would not fly with me beyond about a day. I'm a "p!ss or get off the pot" type of person. Let's get down to resolving this issue so we can move on with life.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> Nancy should not feel shame about her PAST or regret it.
> 
> What she should feel shame about is that she does not bring her A game for her husband.
> 
> Sid thought he was getting her best, but he realized he is not.
> 
> It's like buying a car and after driving it for 10 years being told there is an overdrive button but you can't push it.


You liked the car when you bought it. Do I recall correctly that you had a bazillian page thread about how your wife does not want to have sex with you? Or am I mistaking you for someone else?

You can't fake your a game. He either brings it or he doesn't. She can try to fake her a game. Then he is then thinking, I don't just want the sex, I want the connection. I want her to be as into me as she was with Johnny. But she isn't. ****ty place to be, I suppose. But nothing Nancy should be ashamed of.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> @Marduk, I can't speak for nancy because my response to Sid would have been very different. I value time above almost everything else. Passive aggressive behavior like Sid's would not fly with me beyond about a day. I'm a "p!ss or get off the pot" type of person. Let's get down to resolving this issue so we can move on with life.


Ok I can appreciate that. 

From what you've heard here and from other women am I maybe in the ballpark?

Because I'm starting to think this is all about something quite different.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

I WAS hotter for some previous BFs before my husband. 25 years later, there is no one I will ever be hotter for. And it did not come from him telling me I should be ashamed that I did not bring me a game.


----------



## Anon1111

here's a flip of the scenario:

Nancy always wanted kids. Sid said he's never wanted kids. Never has, never will. 

Sid and Nancy had some discussions about this early on in their relationship but Sid seemed to have a firm line so Nancy didn't push it. It wasn't ideal, but she just accepted it. Over time, she grew comfortable with the fact that it would just be Sid and Nancy.

Then, years later, Nancy learns that Sid had an earlier marriage and he actually had a child.

Nancy confronts Sid about it and Sid says, well, that was an earlier time in my life. I was in a different place and had different priorities. I'm still the same guy you married so I don't see what the problem is.

*******

I doubt anyone would say that Nancy should just be cool with Sid's explanation.


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> I WAS hotter for some previous BFs before my husband. 25 years later, there is no one I will ever be hotter for. And it did not come from him telling me I should be ashamed that I did not bring me a game.


we can agree to disagree. I don't imagine I will convince you.


----------



## Buddy400

Anon1111 said:


> Nancy should not feel shame about her PAST or regret it.
> 
> What she should feel shame about is that she does not bring her A game for her husband.


That


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> Nope we don't get it, because all we see is a man pining for a less mature female than the one he married. He was satisfied enough with the mature Nancy enough to marry her, now he wants the insecure, immature version of her because of what she was to Johnny.
> 
> She had no kids, house, or life with this Johnny. Seems as if Sid would want to throw that away for some girl who is insecure in herself.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I saw a quote here that "women can't have empathy for men because....", I forgot the rest/ Maybe "because then they couldn't respect them"?


----------



## Lila

Anon1111 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo! I brought this up on another thread. There is NOTHING Nancy could say, short of admitting regret, that would make her husband feel better. She's screwed because she has a sexual history. That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> no, this is not it.
> 
> it's not about what she did in the past per se.
> 
> it's about what she's NOT doing in the present. the past just reveals her present limitations.
Click to expand...

She doesn't DO something now because she's not the Nancy she was 20 years ago. People mature and change their preferences based on life experiences. That's called learning. Sid met nancy at a specific time in her life after she had life experiences that changed her. Sid accepted her as she was at that time. 

I don't understand this obsession with wanting people to be "Peter Pan" and never grow up.


----------



## Buddy400

marduk said:


> OK so let's flip the story around from Nancy's perspective (hypothetically). Starting with the party where her ex came up as a topic of conversation.
> 
> She's at this party and Johnny's name comes up. She's been trying really hard to regain a sense of herself after being married, having kids, and turning 40, and these stories remind her of herself at another time that she forgot. She used to be young, she used to be free-spirited, and she used to be really open and into this stupid guy named Johnny.
> 
> She would never want to go back to Johnny because he screwed Sally and Jane and maybe even Billy, and broke her heart and left her devastated. But, the sex was really good and out there, right? She learned a lot about herself, what she liked and didn't like, and she sure learned a lot about what she wanted in a man emotionally.
> 
> Then along came Sid and her whole world changed. He made her feel valued and safe and while she liked having sex with him, it wasn't what the relationship was all about. It was the big picture, and made her feel like a grown up, and they moved on with their life.
> 
> Maybe at the party she gets red in the cheeks with embarassment over the silly things she did with Johnny, but hey -- the past is the past and it's no big deal. They laugh, and go on to other topics.
> 
> And then on the way home Sid starts acting all weird and distant. He's not all clingy and wants to know how I'm doing. He's certainly not trying to get me to have sex with him tonight, which is nice, because after those drinks and the kids keeping us up last night I'm exhausted and just want some peaceful sleep.
> 
> But he keeps asking me about Johnny, and it's clear he's being insecure. This goes on for days and maybe weeks, and he's really starting to turn me off. I mean, does he want me to be ashamed about what I did before I even met him? And why does he want to compete with Johnny? I'm not that 22 year old girl any more, I'm 40 and married and with kids -- chasing boys isn't the center of my life any more.
> 
> If only Sid would get that I've spent the last 10 years building a home and having kids and I just need my own space and time and if he'd get off my back about sex everything would be so much nicer... And especially if he'd stop acting so insecure and wanting to know everything about Johnny and where I'm going all the time like he's my dad. Honestly, if he doesn't grow up I may think about separating from him just to clear my head about it and stop being shamed for having sex with someone else before we even met. I mean, it's really none of his business...
> 
> Ladies, am I close?


Marduk,

Impressive. You're a Johnny and can still see things as they might appear to Sid.


----------



## Anon1111

Lila said:


> She doesn't DO something now because she's not the Nancy she was 20 years ago. People mature and change their preferences based on life experiences. That's called learning. Sid met nancy at a specific time in her life after she had life experiences that changed her. Sid accepted her as she was at that time.
> 
> I don't understand this obsession with wanting people to be "Peter Pan" and never grow up.


OK. Please see my post above. Do men also get this privilege to completely compartmentalize their past?


----------



## Marduk

Guys I didn't want to stir the pot.

Can you indulge me for the next little bit?

Am I close to a reasonable guess to Nancy's headspace?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## I Don't Know

NobodySpecial said:


> You liked the car when you bought it. Do I recall correctly that you had a bazillian page thread about how your wife does not want to have sex with you? Or am I mistaking you for someone else?
> 
> You can't fake your a game. He either brings it or he doesn't. She can try to fake her a game. Then he is then thinking, I don't just want the sex, I want the connection. I want her to be as into me as she was with Johnny. But she isn't. ****ty place to be, I suppose. But nothing Nancy should be ashamed of.


We could extend that to anything. Trunk not big enough on the car? Shouldn't have bought it. Washing machine doesn't spin well? Shouldn't have bought it. Husband's a cheater? Shouldn't have married him. Wife doesn't do anal? Shouldn't have married her. Husband is a workaholic? Shouldn't have married him.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> @Marduk, I can't speak for nancy because my response to Sid would have been very different. I value time above almost everything else. Passive aggressive behavior like Sid's would not fly with me beyond about a day. I'm a "p!ss or get off the pot" type of person. Let's get down to resolving this issue so we can move on with life.


So let's forget the whinny behavior after the party.

Let's say he tells you what's bothering him.

What's your response? Get over it? Or something else?


----------



## ConanHub

The moral of the story is be Johnny!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TiggyBlue

Anon1111 said:


> here's a flip of the scenario:
> 
> Nancy always wanted kids. Sid said he's never wanted kids. Never has, never will.
> 
> Sid and Nancy had some discussions about this early on in their relationship but Sid seemed to have a firm line so Nancy didn't push it. It wasn't ideal, but she just accepted it. Over time, she grew comfortable with the fact that it would just be Sid and Nancy.
> 
> Then, years later, Nancy learns that Sid had an earlier marriage and he actually had a child.
> 
> Nancy confronts Sid about it and Sid says, well, that was an earlier time in my life. I was in a different place and had different priorities. I'm still the same guy you married so I don't see what the problem is.
> 
> *******
> 
> I doubt anyone would say that Nancy should just be cool with Sid's explanation.


If she wanted children so bad she should have found someone who wanted the same thing as her (or sperm donor). Don't settle on things that are important to you.

On the other hand had a child she didn't know about he is either a dead beat dad or has kept the child a secret from her, that probably would be a problem but would be a problem whether Nancy had children with Sid or not


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> She doesn't DO something now because she's not the Nancy she was 20 years ago. People mature and change their preferences based on life experiences. That's called learning. Sid met nancy at a specific time in her life after she had life experiences that changed her. Sid accepted her as she was at that time.
> 
> I don't understand this obsession with wanting people to be "Peter Pan" and never grow up.


Let's say that she would still like to do all the things that she used to do with Johnny, she just doesn't feel like doing them with Sid.

Is it okay for *that* to bother Sid?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> I saw a quote here that "women can't have empathy for men because....", I forgot the rest/ Maybe "because then they couldn't respect them"?


I, personally, think that is crap. But let me ask you this. Do you want a wife who "brings her a game" out of empathy? Does that seem like a sustainable motivation over the course of a life? 

My husband is a very sensitive man. If I push his back to the wall on an issue, he will step up. He is not weak. But most of the time I try to be delicate with his emotions. We had a conversation very recently about the fact that I am the stronger of the two. No loss of respect there. He continues to be an amazing partner, lover and father.

You know what the real problem is, I think? People get married for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time, to the wrong person. I am a super freak in bed. But past the initial newness, if I were to date again, I think that would fade in very short order. I was lucky enough to marry the right guy FOR ME. Sex is like a component in the soup of life. If the life does not have all the ingredients of mad love, the sex can only be great when the fire is new. (And if the sex was not great when the fire is new, then good luck with that.) Without mutual respect, forgiveness, like mindedness in the soup, then the trust and devotion that can really make her feel alive can't happen. And neither can the connection. Because connection is not something that just HE can get from a set of sex acts. Without her feeling connection, well, it isn't a connection.

All of these things that people say on the boards happen. She baited and switched to get a husband. You married the wrong woman who married you for the wrong reasons. She was hotter for him than he. As sucky as it is, the ONLY viable solution that has any chance to work is get busy getting hotter or get busy getting our who thinks you are the bees knees. I recommend the latter.

Women might put out for money, "providers", cars. But women are not hot for these things.


----------



## Buddy400

ConanHub said:


> The moral of the story is be Johnny!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But are there enough Johnnys for all the women that want one (for an extended period of time)?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> OK. Please see my post above. Do men also get this privilege to completely compartmentalize their past?


I am not sure I understand this. Do men have the right to be themselves? Absolutely. Should men feel guilt that they did something in the past. Absolutely not. Should women get ticked that their man did something in the past that he does not do with her. No damned way.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ConanHub said:


> The moral of the story is be Johnny!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There is no Johnny. There is only Johnny FOR NANCY.


----------



## Anon1111

TiggyBlue said:


> On the other hand had a child she didn't know about he is either a dead beat dad or has kept the child a secret from her, that probably would be a problem but would be a problem whether Nancy had children with Sid or not


The point is that you present yourself as one thing and then your past reveals another dimension. We could spin examples all day long. What is weird is that apparently sex is the only thing that is supposed to be completely "in the past" but this doesn't seem to apply to anything else. Why is that?


----------



## Lila

Anon1111 said:


> here's a flip of the scenario:
> 
> Nancy always wanted kids. Sid said he's never wanted kids. Never has, never will.
> 
> Sid and Nancy had some discussions about this early on in their relationship but Sid seemed to have a firm line so Nancy didn't push it. It wasn't ideal, but she just accepted it. Over time, she grew comfortable with the fact that it would just be Sid and Nancy.
> 
> Then, years later, Nancy learns that Sid had an earlier marriage and he actually had a child.
> 
> Nancy confronts Sid about it and Sid says, well, that was an earlier time in my life. I was in a different place and had different priorities. I'm still the same guy you married so I don't see what the problem is.
> 
> *******
> 
> I doubt anyone would say that Nancy should just be cool with Sid's explanation.


Are you seriously comparing a hidden love child past sexual activities?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> here's a flip of the scenario:
> 
> Nancy always wanted kids. Sid said he's never wanted kids. Never has, never will.
> 
> Sid and Nancy had some discussions about this early on in their relationship but Sid seemed to have a firm line so Nancy didn't push it. It wasn't ideal, but she just accepted it. Over time, she grew comfortable with the fact that it would just be Sid and Nancy.
> 
> Then, years later, Nancy learns that Sid had an earlier marriage and he actually had a child.
> 
> Nancy confronts Sid about it and Sid says, well, that was an earlier time in my life. I was in a different place and had different priorities. I'm still the same guy you married so I don't see what the problem is.
> 
> *******
> 
> I doubt anyone would say that Nancy should just be cool with Sid's explanation.


Ok for realsies, if he has spawn from many years ago that is not in his life, he does not have a child. But in any event, I have no problem with his explanation. I do have a problem with getting married with someone whose desire around children is so wide.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Marduk, I can't speak for nancy because my response to Sid would have been very different. I value time above almost everything else. Passive aggressive behavior like Sid's would not fly with me beyond about a day. I'm a "p!ss or get off the pot" type of person. Let's get down to resolving this issue so we can move on with life.
> 
> 
> 
> So let's forget the whinny behavior after the party.
> 
> Let's say he tells you what's bothering him.
> 
> What's your response? Get over it? Or something else?
Click to expand...

My response would be "what do you want from me?" Simple. I'd also reiterate that I'm giving him everything I possibly can at this point in time. If there is a specific need that I'm not meeting, then let's talk about it but please don't come at me with the sour grapes argument. Take me as I have always been with you or leave me. Don't torture me with passive aggressive b.s.


----------



## techmom

To answer Anon's scenario, suppose he regretted having that child? I wouldn't want to make a guy have a child he doesn't want.

By the way, no one addressed my last post, Sid had no luck with women and Nancy gave him the relationship he wanted and was willing to marry him. Does he still regret not being able to get with the other women he desired before? Did he settle for Nancy?


----------



## Anon1111

Nancy really wants to hike the Appalachian Trail. Sid says he hates the woods. No interest in that.

5 years later Nancy goes with Sid to his college reunion. Sid introduces Nancy to Abby. Abby launches into a story about how she and Sid spent 6 months after graduation hiking the entire Appalachian Trail together.

Nancy says to Sid, what's this about you hating the woods? Sid says, that was in the past. I was interested in doing that with Abby, but I like you in a different way.

*******

Should Nancy be cool with this?


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I, personally, think that is crap. But let me ask you this. Do you want a wife who "brings her a game" out of empathy? Does that seem like a sustainable motivation over the course of a life?


That wasn't my point. The idea is that women can't have empathy for men because, if they did, the men wouldn't be the emotional rock they need. A man needing empathy is a man who is weak. 

Not really sure I buy all of that, but, occasionally, I wonder.

I'm certainly not saying that the above applies to you.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> Nancy really wants to hike the Appalachian Trail. Sid says he hates the woods. No interest in that.
> 
> 5 years later Nancy goes with Sid to his college reunion. Sid introduces Nancy to Abby. Abby launches into a story about how she and Sid spent 6 months after graduation hiking the entire Appalachian Trail together.
> 
> Nancy says to Sid, what's this about you hating the woods? Sid says, that was in the past. I was interested in doing that with Abby, but I like you in a different way.
> 
> *******
> 
> Should Nancy be cool with this?


Yup.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> She doesn't DO something now because she's not the Nancy she was 20 years ago. People mature and change their preferences based on life experiences. That's called learning. Sid met nancy at a specific time in her life after she had life experiences that changed her. Sid accepted her as she was at that time.
> 
> I don't understand this obsession with wanting people to be "Peter Pan" and never grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say that she would still like to do all the things that she used to do with Johnny, she just doesn't feel like doing them with Sid.
> 
> Is it okay for *that* to bother Sid?
Click to expand...

Depends on the why. Is this due to a physiological issue or a relationship dynamic issue?

Frankly i don't know any woman who denies doing something that is pleasurable without a solid reason.


----------



## Buddy400

Anon1111 said:


> Nancy really wants to hike the Appalachian Trail. Sid says he hates the woods. No interest in that.
> 
> 5 years later Nancy goes with Sid to his college reunion. Sid introduces Nancy to Abby. Abby launches into a story about how she and Sid spent 6 months after graduation hiking the entire Appalachian Trail together.
> 
> Nancy says to Sid, what's this about you hating the woods? Sid says, that was in the past. I was interested in doing that with Abby, but I like you in a different way.
> 
> *******
> 
> Should Nancy be cool with this?


Another nice try, but I've never seen anything work.

I wonder if it's only because we're always having this discussion with the same group of women?


----------



## ConanHub

NobodySpecial said:


> There is no Johnny. There is only Johnny FOR NANCY.


I'm saying get what you want.

Johnny did. I would never be a sid.

Nancy never went for Sid with the same effort she went for Johnny even when she was young and without children.

I wouldn't go for it. I give my all and expect the same. Anything else isn't worth my time.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

Some men regret not being able to score the hot "chicks" when they were young, then have the audacity to want their wife to feel shame when they feel the were cheated out of a glorious sex life out of their wife's past.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Lila said:


> Depends on the why. Is this due to a physiological issue or a relationship dynamic issue?
> 
> Frankly i don't know any woman who denies doing something that is pleasurable without a solid reason.


The analogy is kind of weak. Better would be to state, I was more motivated to tolerate the woods with (is it ok if I don't remember the hypotheticals names) so and so because I would lose her if I didn't... or whatever. Is that a fun thing to hear? Maybe not.

My husband called me comfortable the other day. Like a well broken in pair of jeans. Ouch! I did not get it then. I get it now. I am home. I like being at home.


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> Yup.


Credit for consistency!

Doubt most women would agree.

BTW, if I was Nancy, I would have a problem with it. So again it's not just about sex.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> You liked the car when you bought it. Do I recall correctly that you had a bazillian page thread about how your wife does not want to have sex with you? Or am I mistaking you for someone else?
> 
> You can't fake your a game. He either brings it or he doesn't. She can try to fake her a game. Then he is then thinking, I don't just want the sex, I want the connection. I want her to be as into me as she was with Johnny. But she isn't. ****ty place to be, I suppose. But nothing Nancy should be ashamed of.


You can't fake your A game but you can be too lazy or comfortable to bring it.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Anon1111 said:


> The point is that you present yourself as one thing and then your past reveals another dimension. We could spin examples all day long. What is weird is that apparently sex is the only thing that is supposed to be completely "in the past" but this doesn't seem to apply to anything else. Why is that?


So having had sex in a public place ect is akin to having secret children?


----------



## NobodySpecial

ConanHub said:


> I'm saying get what you want.
> 
> *Johnny did*. I would never be a sid.


Do we even know that? I think we don't. He got some hot sex. We have no idea what he got for the rest of his life. And honestly, if all a guy wants out of a long term relationship is hot sex, he can go f himself.


----------



## Buddy400

marduk said:


> Because I'm starting to think this is all about something quite different.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Let's hear it (unless I'm to impatient to wait through the nest couple of pages that I haven't read yet).


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> You can't fake your A game but you can be too lazy or comfortable to bring it.


I can't effort myself into my a game.


----------



## Anon1111

TiggyBlue said:


> So having had sex in a public place ect is akin to having secret children?


No. It's just an example. You're missing the point.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> No. It's just an example. You're missing the point.


Honestly, I think you are retreating to accusation of lack of understanding because you don't like that people don't agree with your attempts to make yourself clear.


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> I can't effort myself into my a game.


Fair enough.

This is what is really sad though about these situations. 

It's not that she just won't do it for you. It's that she really can't.

In actuality, she feels less for you (with that part of her) than she did for some random guy who really cared for her about as much as the cheeseburger he ate for dinner.


----------



## ConanHub

NobodySpecial said:


> Do we even know that? I think we don't. He got some hot sex. We have no idea what he got for the rest of his life. And honestly, if all a guy wants out of a long term relationship is hot sex, he can go f himself.


You're reading more into it than me.

Johnny definitely got what he wanted. 

Sid missed on a couple of his wants.

If I wanted sex with Nancy in a public place, or any other act, I would get it as well as marriage and kids.

I'm very generous as well as demanding. I give as good or better than I get.

Sid could use a little more selfish.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> Depends on the why. Is this due to a physiological issue or a relationship dynamic issue?
> 
> Frankly i don't know any woman who denies doing something that is pleasurable without a solid reason.


She says it's neither.

If we're going to have this discussion, it's necessary to be able to imagine hypothetical situations.

If you responded with something like "He'd have a point, I just don't think things like this happen very often", then we'd be able to move on.


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> Honestly, I think you are retreating to accusation of lack of understanding because you don't like that people don't agree with your attempts to make yourself clear.


No, sorry.

I'll resist trying to tell you what your motivation is for arguing.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ConanHub said:


> You're reading more into it than me.
> 
> Johnny definitely got what he wanted.
> 
> Sid missed on a couple of his wants.
> 
> If I wanted sex with Nancy in a public place, or any other act, I would get it as well as marriage and kids.
> 
> *I'm very generous as well as demanding. I give as good or better than I get.*
> 
> Sid could use a little more selfish.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Sid did not value his wants and then whined when someone else got his cheesecake. Um turbo button.


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> Some men regret not being able to score the hot "chicks" when they were young, then have the audacity to want their wife to feel shame when they feel the were cheated out of a glorious sex life out of their wife's past.


Do you think that this applies to most of the men that have been participating in this thread?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> No, sorry.
> 
> I'll resist trying to tell you what your motivation is for arguing.


I am not arguing. I am discussing. This is where I get told that I am throwing the fact that I am in a happy marriage I'm people's faces? Not sure why I would do that. Aside from avoiding peeling the potatoes, which is the next thing on my list. Which I am clearly avoiding. 

I discuss on topics that are of interest to me. That's it. Feel free to explain whatever you like.


----------



## ConanHub

NobodySpecial said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Sid did not value his wants and then whined when someone else got his cheesecake. Um turbo button.


Hahaha! You and I agree on that one.

Cheesecake....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

Buddy400 said:


> Do you think that this applies to most of the men that have been participating in this thread?


If the shoe fits.....


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> My response would be "what do you want from me?" Simple. I'd also reiterate that I'm giving him everything I possibly can at this point in time. If there is a specific need that I'm not meeting, then let's talk about it but please don't come at me with the sour grapes argument. Take me as I have always been with you or leave me. Don't torture me with passive aggressive b.s.


How about if he said "I could use some reassurances that I am the best man you've ever had". *

* I know the urge will be to bring up fathers, priests, sons, etc. I spent a while try to figure out how to phrase it so that it couldn't possibly be misunderstood and deflected but I'm just not up to it at the moment.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Do you think that this applies to most of the men that have been participating in this thread?


I don't know about people on this thread. There are few people I remember well enough to remember their story. SENILE. But it is definitely present on TAM.


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> If the shoe fits.....


I've often disagreed with you, but it wasn't personal.

Now it is.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> How about if he said "I could use some reassurances that I am the best man you've ever had". *


How so? Sexually? If he had asked me that at year 2, I would not have been able to answer that honestly in the affirmative. Hell, not sure I would have been relating to other matters either. Should I lie? That would have been very detrimental to the growth that made it possible for me to say, unequivocally, hells yes, today.


----------



## techmom

NobodySpecial said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Sid did not value his wants and then whined when someone else got his cheesecake. Um turbo button.


Sid waited until he me a girl who would give him the time of day to dump his wants on her. He would dare bring them to the " hot " chicks who rejected him or placed him in the friend zone.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> How so? Sexually?


Generally.


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not arguing. I am discussing. This is where I get told that I am throwing the fact that I am in a happy marriage I'm people's faces? Not sure why I would do that. Aside from avoiding peeling the potatoes, which is the next thing on my list. Which I am clearly avoiding.
> 
> I discuss on topics that are of interest to me. That's it. Feel free to explain whatever you like.


OK.

I think many women are very sensitive to being labelled as promiscuous. There are worse ways to say this, obviously.

Women are in a sort of weird position. On one level they have the social freedom to be promiscuous and the opportunities readily present themselves.

On another level, there is still some social consequence for being promiscuous.

Some of this social consequence is a relic of a time when women were not understood to have sexual freedom.

Some of this social consequence is something else. I believe what we are discussing here is this "something else."

When some women react to the promiscuity thing, they think they are reacting to the relic thing. The push back on this is totally understanable.

On the other hand, in the reaction to this relic, some women don't want to recognize that there are different types of social consequences to promiscuous behavior and they are not all based on a view that women should be subservient virgins.

That's fine, people can agree to disagree on this.

What is not cool is when people get on a moral high horse in either direction.

That's my perspective.


----------



## Fozzy

NobodySpecial said:


> Do we even know that? I think we don't. He got some hot sex. We have no idea what he got for the rest of his life. And honestly, if all a guy wants out of a long term relationship is hot sex, he can go f himself.


Does the same apply to a person who only wants intimacy but NO hot sex?


----------



## Buddy400

Anon1111 said:


> OK.
> 
> I think many women are very sensitive to being labelled as promiscuous. There are worse ways to say this, obviously.
> 
> Women are in a sort of weird position. On one level they have the social freedom to be promiscuous and the opportunities readily present themselves.
> 
> On another level, there is still some social consequence for being promiscuous.
> 
> Some of this social consequence is a relic of a time when women were not understood to have sexual freedom.
> 
> Some of this social consequence is something else. I believe what we are discussing here is this "something else."
> 
> When some women react to the promiscuity thing, they think they are reacting to the relic thing. The push back on this is totally understanable.
> 
> On the other hand, in the reaction to this relic, some women don't want to recognize that there are different types of social consequences to promiscuous behavior and they are not all based on a view that women should be subservient virgins.
> 
> That's fine, people can agree to disagree on this.
> 
> What is not cool is when people get on a moral high horse in either direction.
> 
> That's my perspective.


This is what happens when a group of people have been hyper sensitized by past wrongs.

I get that.

But, really, we're going to have to be able to have a conversation eventually.


----------



## Marduk

Ok. For Sids successful conclusion and reintegration I will borrow heavily from Kubrick's brilliant movie "eyes wide shut."

A couple weeks later and Sid is on the brink of collapse. He's not eating right, sleeping well, and Nancy is hardly speaking to him. He can't get the image out of his head of Nancy having sex with Johnny outside like that, and wanting to when she would never want to do that with me. 

One night he decides to go out by himself. He has a couple beers at a pub downtown, and then stumbles out and starts to walk the city streets and contemplate his fate. 

Briefly he considers calling up Betty, that one crazy girl he used to date. She was always a demon in the sack, and maybe that way he could get even with Nancy. But now that he thinks about it, even though Betty was very open sexually, she was also very unstable, and kinda turned him off emotionally. 

And besides, that was 20 years ago. Would one last crazy fling with Betty be worth throwing away what he has with Nancy?

And then it dawns on him. Even though the sex was very sexy with Betty, he'd rather be having connected sex with Nancy. What if... Betty was his Johnny?

And what was Betty to him? Well, she taught him a lot what he didn't want, that's for sure. In a way, she helped set him up for a relationship with Nancy. 

So... Maybe he would never have married Nancy if she hadn't dated Johnny first. Maybe that's why she really liked doing certain things and not others. Maybe that's why they connected emotionally with sex. 

Maybe, in a way, he should be happy that she was with Johnny. 

And just like he would never go back to Betty, maybe she would never go back to Johnny, either. 

So he comes home. Sits down with Nancy. And he says "wife, I need to get some stuff off my chest. I've been acting like an insecure idiot. But I've done that because I love you, not because I don't respect you. I felt like you gave him great sex that you never gave me, even though I also gave you respect and love. I realize now that I can't make you live up to he person you were 20 years ago with someone else. What I also realize now is that I'm not so much jealous of what you gave Johnny, I'm jealous that I never really got to experience the side of you that Johnny did. I would like to explore whatever that sexy side of you has become, if you'll let us, and I would like you to see me as a sexual man like you saw Johnny. I don't just want to be a stable boring husband and father. Can we do that together?"

Ladies, how would that sit with you?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Fozzy said:


> Does the same apply to a person who only wants intimacy but NO hot sex?


To a person who wants hot sex? Of course.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Not for me, sorry.


Can you be more specific?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy

NobodySpecial said:


> To a person who wants hot sex? Of course.


I agree.

So why is a guy who still wants hot sex expected to be cool with it?


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Ok. For Sids successful conclusion and reintegration I will borrow heavily from Kubrick's brilliant movie "eyes wide shut."
> 
> A couple weeks later and Sid is on the brink of collapse. He's not eating right, sleeping well, and Nancy is hardly speaking to him. He can't get the image out of his head of Nancy having sex with Johnny outside like that, and wanting to when she would never want to do that with me.
> 
> One night he decides to go out by himself. He has a couple beers at a pub downtown, and then stumbles out and starts to walk the city streets and contemplate his fate.
> 
> Briefly he considers calling up Betty, that one crazy girl he used to date. She was always a demon in the sack, and maybe that way he could get even with Nancy. But now that he thinks about it, even though Betty was very open sexually, she was also very unstable, and kinda turned him off emotionally.
> 
> And besides, that was 20 years ago. Would one last crazy fling with Betty be worth throwing away what he has with Nancy?
> 
> And then it dawns on him. Even though the sex was very sexy with Betty, he'd rather be having connected sex with Nancy. What if... Betty was his Johnny?
> 
> And what was Betty to him? Well, she taught him a lot what he didn't want, that's for sure. In a way, she helped set him up for a relationship with Nancy.
> 
> So... Maybe he would never have married Nancy if she hadn't dated Johnny first. Maybe that's why she really liked doing certain things and not others. Maybe that's why they connected emotionally with sex.
> 
> Maybe, in a way, he should be happy that she was with Johnny.
> 
> And just like he would never go back to Betty, maybe she would never go back to Johnny, either.
> 
> So he comes home. Sits down with Nancy. And he says "wife, I need to get some stuff off my chest. I've been acting like an insecure idiot. But I've done that because I love you, not because I don't respect you. I felt like you gave him great sex that you never gave me, even though I also gave you respect and love. I realize now that I can't make you live up to he person you were 20 years ago with someone else. What I also realize now is that I'm not so much jealous of what you gave Johnny, I'm jealous that I never really got to experience the side of you that Johnny did. I would like to explore whatever that sexy side of you has become, if you'll let us, and I would like you to see me as a sexual man like you saw Johnny. I don't just want to be a stable boring husband and father. Can we do that together?"
> 
> Ladies, how would that sit with you?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm good with it.

One other things, connected sex, and red hot fire sex are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Anon1111

marduk said:


> I don't just want to be a stable boring husband and father. Can we do that together?"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think NobodySpecial's post above (paraphrasing: "I can't force my A game") really nailed the sadness of this dynamic. 

It's just a disconnect for both people.

It's not really a choice for the woman. It's not really a choice for the man. 

She married you BECAUSE you're stable and boring. You are not Johnny for her. You will never be Johnny for her. That is not your identity to her.

Conversely, Nancy IS your ultimate in that department. She IS that for you. You thought it was mutual. It's not. That is devastating to realize.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Fozzy said:


> I agree.
> 
> So why is a guy who still wants hot sex expected to be cool with it?


Cool with what?


----------



## Fozzy

With a relationship with someone who no longer desires hot sex.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Generally.


Let me ask you this. What if you aren't? What if you just aren't the best she has ever had sexually? She should, what? Lie? Because that is what that reassurance would be. What does that get either of you? For the next day, you feel better. She feels like she has been supportive of you. And that's nice. But then, over time, you recognize that that reassurance did not yield the bedroom firestorm. What THEN? You do it again about a zillion times over the next how ever many years you are together. Is that fun?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Fozzy said:


> With a relationship with someone who *no longer *desires hot sex.


No, of course not. Not sure what that is in the context of shaming someone being shamed for their previous relationships.


----------



## Buddy400

marduk said:


> Ok. For Sids successful conclusion and reintegration I will borrow heavily from Kubrick's brilliant movie "eyes wide shut."
> 
> A couple weeks later and Sid is on the brink of collapse. He's not eating right, sleeping well, and Nancy is hardly speaking to him. He can't get the image out of his head of Nancy having sex with Johnny outside like that, and wanting to when she would never want to do that with me.
> 
> One night he decides to go out by himself. He has a couple beers at a pub downtown, and then stumbles out and starts to walk the city streets and contemplate his fate.
> 
> Briefly he considers calling up Betty, that one crazy girl he used to date. She was always a demon in the sack, and maybe that way he could get even with Nancy. But now that he thinks about it, even though Betty was very open sexually, she was also very unstable, and kinda turned him off emotionally.
> 
> And besides, that was 20 years ago. Would one last crazy fling with Betty be worth throwing away what he has with Nancy?
> 
> And then it dawns on him. Even though the sex was very sexy with Betty, he'd rather be having connected sex with Nancy. What if... Betty was his Johnny?
> 
> And what was Betty to him? Well, she taught him a lot what he didn't want, that's for sure. In a way, she helped set him up for a relationship with Nancy.
> 
> So... Maybe he would never have married Nancy if she hadn't dated Johnny first. Maybe that's why she really liked doing certain things and not others. Maybe that's why they connected emotionally with sex.
> 
> Maybe, in a way, he should be happy that she was with Johnny.
> 
> And just like he would never go back to Betty, maybe she would never go back to Johnny, either.
> 
> So he comes home. Sits down with Nancy. And he says "wife, I need to get some stuff off my chest. I've been acting like an insecure idiot. But I've done that because I love you, not because I don't respect you. I felt like you gave him great sex that you never gave me, even though I also gave you respect and love. I realize now that I can't make you live up to he person you were 20 years ago with someone else. What I also realize now is that I'm not so much jealous of what you gave Johnny, I'm jealous that I never really got to experience the side of you that Johnny did. I would like to explore whatever that sexy side of you has become, if you'll let us, and I would like you to see me as a sexual man like you saw Johnny. I don't just want to be a stable boring husband and father. Can we do that together?"
> 
> Ladies, how would that sit with you?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So, that's Sid doing all the work.

What could Nancy do?


----------



## ConanHub

Fozzy said:


> Does the same apply to a person who only wants intimacy but NO hot sex?


I am having a time today! I am absolutely hearing Fozzy bear say "Hot sex!" 

Wakka wakka.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Buddy400 said:


> So, that's Sid doing all the work.
> 
> What could Nancy do?


I'll get to that. 

I haven't heard if I have a plausible version of Nancy's perspective or not.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> I think NobodySpecial's post above (paraphrasing: "I can't force my A game") really nailed the sadness of this dynamic.
> 
> It's just a disconnect for both people.
> 
> It's not really a choice for the woman. It's not really a choice for the man.
> 
> She married you BECAUSE you're stable and boring. You are not Johnny for her. You will never be Johnny for her. That is not your identity to her.
> 
> Conversely, Nancy IS your ultimate in that department. She IS that for you. You thought it was mutual. It's not. That is devastating to realize.


Dh was not my Johnny. He is way better than Johnny was EVER now. How do we explain that?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> So, that's Sid doing all the work.
> 
> What could Nancy do?


I have no patience with the old he has to "do all the work" argument. You've got the problem. You have 2 choices. Do the work. Or whine. I can promise you(the rhetorical you) that the latter will yield no positive benefit.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Let me ask you this. What if you aren't? What if you just aren't the best she has ever had sexually? She should, what? Lie? Because that is what that reassurance would be. What does that get either of you? For the next day, you feel better. She feels like she has been supportive of you. And that's nice. But then, over time, you recognize that that reassurance did not yield the bedroom firestorm. What THEN? You do it again about a zillion times over the next how ever many years you are together. Is that fun?


I'd be happy with the reassurance that I was the man she always wanted and that she couldn't imagine spending the rest of her life with anyone but me. I could deal with the possibility (probability?) that I wasn't the best in the sack as long has she had the decency not to point it out to me.


----------



## Fozzy

NobodySpecial said:


> No, of course not. Not sure what that is in the context of shaming someone being shamed for their previous relationships.


Perhaps I misunderstood the point of the thread. In confess to not reading the entire thing. I thought it was more about RJ in a situation where a wife no longer wants the hawt secks (that's for you Conan) that she previously engaged in but husband was not part of.

For my part, I see that as a separate issue from shaming someone. Shaming to me would be more like "I can't believe you ever did that in the first place".


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> I have no patience with the old he has to "do all the work" argument. You've got the problem. You have 2 choices. Do the work. Or whine. I can promise you(the rhetorical you) that the latter will yield no positive benefit.


If I'm right, Nancy has work to do here, too. 

Because Sid isn't jealous or insecure about what she did with Johnny at all. 

He's sad that there's a side to his wife that he never got to experience, and worried it's because he isn't enough for her.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> I'd be happy with the reassurance that I was the man she always wanted and that she couldn't imagine spending the rest of her life with anyone but me. I could deal with the possibility (probability?) that I wasn't the best in the sack as long has she had the decency not to point it out to me.


I am kind of confused by this. How does this square with being angry that she is too "lazy" (hope I am not misquoting here) to "bring her a game"? Also, would you be at all interested in what you could do to change her opinion that you are the best she ever had so that you could get an unequivocal yes the next time she asked?


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> If I'm right, Nancy has work to do here, too.
> 
> Because Sid isn't jealous or insecure about what she did with Johnny at all.
> 
> He's sad that there's a side to his wife that he never got to experience, and worried it's because he isn't enough for her.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, it's a marriage. Everyone has work to do here. What does she do? What does "enough" even mean?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Fozzy said:


> Perhaps I misunderstood the point of the thread. In confess to not reading the entire thing. I thought it was more about RJ in a situation where a wife no longer wants the hawt secks (that's for you Conan) that she previously engaged in but husband was not part of.
> 
> For my part, I see that as a separate issue from shaming someone. Shaming to me would be more like "I can't believe you ever did that in the first place".


Sorry yeah. You have the thread right. But there is a lot of content mising.


----------



## Starstarfish

> I could deal with the possibility (probability?) that I wasn't the best in the sack as long has she had the decency not to point it out to me.


The difficulty is that some guys straight up ask, and then are pissed by the answer.


----------



## Fozzy

NobodySpecial said:


> Maybe I am the one who is confused. I thought it was not about what was formerly had with the husband but what was "offered" (got that makes my gut hurt) to another dude that was not "offered" to the husband.


Right. RJ. I think we're on the same page here.

I don't see that as shaming. I see that as wanting to be a part of it.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Well, it's a marriage. Everyone has work to do here. What does she do? What does "enough" even mean?


Ok. Let's assume I'm in the plausible ballpark for Nancy's internal state. 

Her husband comes home after acting like a **** for a couple of weeks and unloads all this on her. 

She looks at him with annoyance and irritation for a moment. I mean, he's still on about Johnny? I'm not that girl anymore!

And then she pauses for a moment and really listens to what he is saying. 

Being really honest with herself and him she says "Sid I love you and I've built my life around you. I chose you. I don't want Johnny. I didn't chose you because you were safe and boring, I chose you because I fell in love with you and all that you bring. I'm not that girl any more and don't want to go back to that place. But I have let that side of me go, and I get that when I did that I let that side of us go, too. Maybe I haven't always noticed you as a man. Maybe I haven't really let you in to my sexual side, either. I guess I didn't think it was so important with everything else going on. If you want, and if you'll give me some space on it, and won't put a ton of expectations on me, I will spend the next few days trying to reconnect with that side of myself. Maybe we can talk about things I'd like to do or try with you in a few days when I've had time to get my bearings about all this?"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy

NobodySpecial said:


> Sorry yeah. You have the thread right. But there is a lot of content mising.


Yeah, I skipped like 17 pages.

Who the hell are Sid and Nancy anyway?


----------



## Marduk

Fozzy said:


> Yeah, I skipped like 17 pages.
> 
> Who the hell are Sid and Nancy anyway?


You didn't pick up on my whole Sex Pistols/PIL subtext?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Fozzy said:


> Yeah, I skipped like 17 pages.
> 
> Who the hell are Sid and Nancy anyway?


Noooooooooo!


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Ok. Let's assume I'm in the plausible ballpark for Nancy's internal state.
> 
> Her husband comes home after acting like a **** for a couple of weeks and unloads all this on her.
> 
> She looks at him with annoyance and irritation for a moment. I mean, he's still on about Johnny? I'm not that girl anymore!
> 
> And then she pauses for a moment and really listens to what he is saying.
> 
> Being really honest with herself and him she says "Sid I love you and I've built my life around you. I chose you. I don't want Johnny. I didn't chose you because you were safe and boring, I chose you because I fell in love with you and all that you bring. I'm not that girl any more and don't want to go back to that place. But I have let that side of me go, and I get that when I did that I let that side of us go, too. Maybe I haven't always noticed you as a man. Maybe I haven't really let you in to my sexual side, either.


Right here, I was going to condemn Nancy.



> I guess I didn't think it was so important with everything else going on. If you want, and if you'll give me some space on it, and won't put a ton of expectations on me, I will spend the next few days trying to reconnect with that side of myself. Maybe we can talk about things I'd like to do or try with you in a few days when I've had time to get my bearings about all this?"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am good with this. One thing though. What is Sid going to do to up his game? To help bring the raw out? He spoke honestly about his feelings. And kuddos for him. But if he wants to be the hawt man, what does he do to achieve that? She tells him a bunch of stuff she likes. Ok, he does those things. What can she say? Rub me this way? It just isn't about that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Personal said:


> Yes! Who knew some men could turn out to be such whiney, needy, man children, just because a woman might actually have enjoyed sex with someone else?


I confess to not understanding what A wrote. Maybe you can help me understand through your response. I am clearly missing something here. What she may or may not have previously enjoyed can clearly give important information into your current relationship. What is the correct response and from whom?


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> How about if he said "I could use some reassurances that I am the best man you've ever had". *
> 
> * I know the urge will be to bring up fathers, priests, sons, etc. I spent a while try to figure out how to phrase it so that it couldn't possibly be misunderstood and deflected but I'm just not up to it at the moment.


My reassurances would be genuine and from my heart. I would tell him of my love for him and how I chose to _share_ the last 20 years of my life with him because of all of his great qualities. I would tell him how I think he's a sexy man and a wonderful husband and father. 

If my genuine, heart felt reassurances were not good enough for him, then there's really little else to talk about, no?


----------



## NobodySpecial

FrenchFry said:


> Why it doesn't connect with me:
> 
> 
> This is false.
> 
> Because I have changed sexually doesn't mean I'm no longer in touch with that side.


This brings me to some clarity about what was not perfect in Marduk's expression. The frank sincerity struck a chord. And that is how I roll. But the thing that DH never did was ask me to be what I WAS. But asked us to be our best together. He did not want me to grow BACK into something I was before. He asked me to grow forward into what we could become.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

When I was recently new to this site, there was a thread where the OP was pressured into giving her partner anal because he found out she experimented with it in the past. She does not like the act, but he was acting passive-aggressively, and sometimes just threw tantrums as well.

There was posters stating that she did not love her BF because she did not give him anal as well, and she was attack by some for not placating him.

Breaking it down simply,he acts like an ass and she has to give him anal so he stops being an ass. That does not help him with his insecurity issues, and she loses some of her boundaries so someone will treat her better. No one suggested that he understands her, but she should understand why he feels the way he does and to give in to make him feel love.


----------



## MountainRunner

intheory said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by intheory
> Did the feeling that she "settled" for you; cause you to try and shame her for her past boyfriends and sex life, Mountain?
> 
> 
> 
> @MountainRunner
> 
> I apologize if I have hurt you.
> 
> I don't think you would do something like that, necessarily.
> 
> The thread topic is wives being made to feel regret and shame for having a sexual past.
> 
> If a person feels that their spouse "settled for" them. Then sometimes that inadequacy and jealously might cause them to lash out at their spouse and try to belittle them for their past.
> 
> I'm not saying YOU did it. I was just wondering if that was something that might have happened.
> 
> Please don't answer if it is an unpleasant issue for you.
> 
> I just wanted you to know that in no way was it a personal attack against you. I was just asking in light of the subject matter of the thread.


No worries my friend. I'm just in a bad way at the moment and getting worse. Perhaps for another thread if I can summon enough strength to talk about it. It's all good.


----------



## Starstarfish

God, I hated that thread. Some of the posts were aggressive to the point of suggested he "get what was owed him."


----------



## NobodySpecial

MountainRunner said:


> No worries my friend. I'm just in a bad way at the moment and getting worse. Perhaps for another thread if I can summon enough strength to talk about it. It's all good.


Hope you get better, MR.


----------



## EleGirl

Mr.Fisty said:


> When I was recently new to this site, there was a thread where the OP was pressured into giving her partner anal because he found out she experimented with it in the past. She does not like the act, but he was acting passive-aggressively, and sometimes just threw tantrums as well.
> 
> There was posters stating that she did not love her BF because she did not give him anal as well, and she was attack by some for not placating him.
> 
> Breaking it down simply,he acts like an ass and she has to give him anal so he stops being an ass. That does not help him with his insecurity issues, and she loses some of her boundaries so someone will treat her better. No one suggested that he understands her, but she should understand why he feels the way he does and to give in to make him feel love.


I have seen this on a few threads here on TAM. It's very disturbing to read.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> So he comes home. Sits down with Nancy. And he says "wife, I need to get some stuff off my chest. I've been acting like an insecure idiot. But I've done that because I love you, not because I don't respect you. I felt like you gave him great sex that you never gave me, even though I also gave you respect and love. I realize now that I can't make you live up to he person you were 20 years ago with someone else. What I also realize now is that I'm not so much jealous of what you gave Johnny, *I'm jealous that I never really got to experience the side of you that Johnny did.* I would like to explore whatever that sexy side of you has become, if you'll let us, and *I would like you to see me as a sexual man like you saw Johnny. *I don't just want to be a stable boring husband and father. Can we do that together?"
> 
> Ladies, how would that sit with you?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I would be super angry if my spouse came to me with that b.s. Jeez Louise, just reading it gets my blood boiling and it's all a hypothetical. 

Relationships are unique and special for a multitude of reasons. SID is the man Nancy CHOSE to share her life with. HE'S the man she chose to create life with. HE'S the man she pledged her fidelity to. HE'S the man she intends to grow old with. Her best was fine for the LAST 20 YEARS, but NOW overnight it's not enough? All because he's comparing himself to some nimrod who got a little more action than he got.....20 YEARS AGO!!!! So what they shared for the last 20 years is all a lie? Stop with the comparison! This is not a competition. 

Gawd, this reminds of kids who have a fit because they didn't notice there was double chocolate cake available for dessert. They were happy with their fruit salad until they saw that the person next to them had the last slice of chocolate cake. Now the fruit salad taste like crap and they're pi$$ed that they didn't see the last slice before the other dude grabbed it.

Seriously, this isn't a competition. If Sid wanted to ask her to improve their sexual relationship, make it more exciting, then address it independently. Don't start the conversation with "but I now know what you gave to Johnny and I want some of that too".


----------



## NobodySpecial

Personal said:


> I think the social consequence is as follows.


Like DILIGAF?

Consequence of what? What is the cause that does the effect? Really not trying to be dense. Just not getting it.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Mr.Fisty said:


> When I was recently new to this site, there was a thread where the OP was pressured into giving her partner anal because he found out she experimented with it in the past. She does not like the act, but he was acting passive-aggressively, and sometimes just threw tantrums as well.
> 
> There was posters stating that she did not love her BF because she did not give him anal as well, and she was attack by some for not placating him.
> 
> Breaking it down simply,he acts like an ass and she has to give him anal so he stops being an ass. That does not help him with his insecurity issues, and she loses some of her boundaries so someone will treat her better. No one suggested that he understands her, but she should understand why he feels the way he does and to give in to make him feel love.


That thread always comes to mind when reading RJ threads. Some of the replies in that thread where awful and sounded like entitled princes.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> Because women view commitment as the prize and men view sex as the prize (unless one doesn't believe that whole "men and women" are different thing).


There are many women on this thread who have made it pretty clear that 'commitment' is not always the prize for women. It very often is not. There are many other posts here on TAM that make this pretty clear as well.

Men and woman are different in many ways. But that does not mean that commitment is the prize for women even most of the time. 

If commitment were the prize for women and sex the prize for men, women would never have sex with a man until they were married. It was like that at one time because a woman knew that the only way that she could survive and her children survive was to have a man support her. So she had to hold off on the 'prize' that the man wanted. And her parents and all the men in her family made very sure that she did not give the guy the 'prize' prematurely.

Today most women in the west do not have to play this game. We can prevent pregnancies. We can go after what we want and not entice a man until he commits.


----------



## NobodySpecial

FrenchFry said:


> @Personal can correct me if I'm wrong here @NobodySpecial
> 
> but what I think what he is saying is that the new social consequence for women isn't that they will be ****-shamed by getting called names and being socially isolated.
> 
> The new social consequence will be dealing with the subset of men who for whatever reason feel like they were cheated out of previous sex from the woman's past.


I don't actually think that is what he meant.


----------



## EleGirl

Anon1111 said:


> sex is the one area that is now apparently off limits to male judgment and criticism. which is convenient because it is typically the area that men care about the most.


"Sex" is a HUGE topic. So what about sex is it that men care the most about? Apparently whatever it is about sex that men care about, it has to with judging women for their sex life (slvt shaming)? 

Why is that?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Personal said:


> I think he's implying that there are still social consequences for a woman being promiscuous.
> 
> I am saying that the social consequences are that one may encounter a needy man child, who wants their ridiculous self-entitlement to be pandered to.
> 
> Whereas my perspective is as follows.


Wow. I remarkably misunderstood.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Ok. I am starting to get it.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Why it doesn't connect with me:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.
> 
> 
> 
> This is false.
> 
> Because I have changed sexually doesn't mean I'm no longer in touch with that side.
> 
> That is where you lose me, unfortunately. That change=loss or is for the worse, not better.
> 
> I personally like myself way more now than when I was with Johnny. Because I like myself more, I don't have to do things I don't really like anymore to placate my partner.
> 
> To want me to go back to when I didn't like myself to make Sid feel better about himself seems absurd.


Can you talk more about that?

Are you still sexually as open with your spouse as when you were dating?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Right here, I was going to condemn Nancy.
> 
> 
> 
> I am good with this. One thing though. What is Sid going to do to up his game? To help bring the raw out? He spoke honestly about his feelings. And kuddos for him. But if he wants to be the hawt man, what does he do to achieve that? She tells him a bunch of stuff she likes. Ok, he does those things. What can she say? Rub me this way? It just isn't about that.


I was going to broach that next, but only if I'm representing Nancy properly. 

I'm a dude so this is taking effort.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

Personal said:


> I think he's implying that there are still social consequences for a woman being promiscuous.
> 
> I am saying that the social consequences are that one may encounter a needy man child, who wants their ridiculous self-entitlement to be pandered to.
> 
> Whereas my perspective is as follows.


Dude, not everyone agrees with you. 

There is such a thing as principled disagreement. 

Different people value different things. 

Your needs might not be my needs but it doesn't mean they're invalid. 

Have a good one.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> This brings me to some clarity about what was not perfect in Marduk's expression. The frank sincerity struck a chord. And that is how I roll. But the thing that DH never did was ask me to be what I WAS. But asked us to be our best together. He did not want me to grow BACK into something I was before. He asked me to grow forward into what we could become.


Keep going, make it better.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> I would be super angry if my spouse came to me with that b.s. Jeez Louise, just reading it gets my blood boiling and it's all a hypothetical.
> 
> Relationships are unique and special for a multitude of reasons. SID is the man Nancy CHOSE to share her life with. HE'S the man she chose to create life with. HE'S the man she pledged her fidelity to. HE'S the man she intends to grow old with. Her best was fine for the LAST 20 YEARS, but NOW overnight it's not enough? All because he's comparing himself to some nimrod who got a little more action than he got.....20 YEARS AGO!!!! So what they shared for the last 20 years is all a lie? Stop with the comparison! This is not a competition.
> 
> Gawd, this reminds of kids who have a fit because they didn't notice there was double chocolate cake available for dessert. They were happy with their fruit salad until they saw that the person next to them had the last slice of chocolate cake. Now the fruit salad taste like crap and they're pi$$ed that they didn't see the last slice before the other dude grabbed it.
> 
> Seriously, this isn't a competition. If Sid wanted to ask her to improve their sexual relationship, make it more exciting, then address it independently. Don't start the conversation with "but I now know what you gave to Johnny and I want some of that too".


The point I was trying to get to was that it actually isn't a competition. 

It comes out as one and as jealousy when what it really might be about is a sense of longing and missing what has been lost.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> The point I was trying to get to was that it actually isn't a competition.
> 
> It comes out as one and as jealousy when what it really might be about is a sense of longing and missing what has been lost.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


How was it lost?


----------



## EleGirl

BetrayedDad said:


> You're asking for male understanding in the ladies' lounge?
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Sid's wife married him because he was a nice guy security blanket. His wife wanted a stud but he rejected her so she settled for plan B unbeknownst to him. Sid got screwed.


But this is YOUR interpretation and not Nancy's reality.

She thought that she was into that guy. Then she met Sid and fell head over heals for Sid. After all dumped the guy, dated Sid and married him. She's had children and a life with Sid for a long time.

But Sid changed after they married. He stopped doing romantic things. Stopped dating her. When she would ask to set up a date he'd say yes.. but then forget about it. After years of having children, a full time job, having most of the responsibility for the children and the home she's realized that she lost herself.

It seems that Sid moved out of the relationship emotionally a long time ago as well. Well except that he's constantly complaining that he wants more sex. But between job, children and house she's exhausted. Plus she no longer feels close to him because he's basically pulled away for a long time.

So now she's doing exactly what the MMSLP tells men to do.. she's making a life, becoming a more interesting person, working out, etc. 

And now suddenly Sid is buying your flowers, and doing romantic things like he did when they dated. But those things no longer impress her... too little too late. She knows that they are all a covert contract to get sex.. that's his intent. Not because he loves her but for sex. If he was about love, wouldn't he have been spending quality time with her all these years? Wouldn't he have taken more responsibility with the children and the home so that she was not so exhausted?

Now they went to this party and some stupid old friend of hers spouts off about some guy that Nancy dated way back when.. some guy who Nancy realized was a jerk. But this girl friend was jealous of Nancy, jealous that she had Sid. Jealous of her children. Jealous that Nancy had that other guy way back when.. the guy that the jealous friend really wanted. So after a few drinks, this false friend starts saying things that she knows will make Nancy look bad. Saying them even in front of Sid. And the jealous 'friend' even exaggerates about what Nancy did and did not do.

But hey, Sid is looking for the excuse. He's had an eye on some new chick in the office. She has been smiling at him. So now he has the excuse. 

After that party, Sid starts haranguing Nancy about how she tricked him. She's a slvt and has been hiding is all these years. She will bang the old boyfriend but she does not want sex with Sid now. And on and on. Then he stomps out of the house... 

And so he feels justified to start an affair with the new chick in the office.

Moral of the story: There are always more than one side to a story.


----------



## Anon1111

Last attempt:

Sex is not different from any other thing you might share about yourself with your partner. 

Anyone who wants to insist what I'm talking about is sl?t shaming or whiny childish neediness, have it it but you're missing the point.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Personal said:


> It's alright, I was probably as clear as mud. :smile2:



Sounds like a good business idea, muddy sunglasses. Your vision may be obscured, but you will look awesome! I tried creating inflatable dart boards, but that idea popped!


----------



## EleGirl

I Don't Know said:


> No. Some people don't get it. No example will help them get it. There is no equivalent feeling they will ever have about any thing. No matter how you try to describe it, they come back with then he shouldn't have married her if he didn't like what he was getting.
> 
> What they will not entertain is that Sid never knew his wife would do things like that. He would have loved to have sex with her in semi public places, in fact he asked her early in their relationship, but she said no and he didn't push. So he just goes with it. Everything else is great. Having sex in public is not the Holy Grail, and if it makes her uncomfortable it's not worth it. Then he finds out she was doing that same thing with Johnny, 3 months before he met her and it crushes him.
> 
> 
> One thing that I agree with is that Nancy isn't the only one who isn't the same. There's also the fact that it's Sid asking and not Johnny.
> 
> In short, Sid is good enough to (probably better than Johnny) marry and raise a family but not good enough to get freaky with.


Are you saying that if Nancy had sex in public once with someone, then she has to have sex in public with her husband just because she did it once before? If you are saying that, then you are saying that she has no right to grow and change.

Having sex in public is actually a crime. She could end up with a sex offender conviction and even have her children taken away for doing that.

Maybe she did it once... maybe she had too much to drink and did something profoundly stupid. Then after she sobered up she is horrified by what she did. 

If we go by your post, she loses the right to set her own boundaries because she did something pretty stupid one time.

That's an attitude that is very disturbing.

It's like the idea that if she had anal sex with anyone in the past, she has to have it with the guy she's with now... regardless of her not liking it, or finding it too painful, etc.


----------



## McDean

Fun to watch the ongoing debate, this one kicked off a storm. My one and a half cents is as follows: I don't' think people should be shamed for past scenarios - in the case of men this may be easier to judge differences because sex is more specific in terms of acts and frequencies. But I have seen the same shaming thrown at men for their 'promiscuity' and for how they may 'have been' in past relationships- maybe when they were 20 they went out more and did more with a previous gal, more so than now, leaving the current gal wondering why she isn't ' good enough' to merit the same excitement...when it may simply be that he is older with more responsibilities and doesn't have the energy he once did. In the end the last is the past. 

I don't shame women for their past conquests, I would offer that some of my male friends and I have discussed how an 'easy' women poses no challenge and in the end does not make us feel any different from any other man she chooses, so it makes the scenario less special.


----------



## techmom

marduk said:


> The point I was trying to get to was that it actually isn't a competition.
> 
> It comes out as one and as jealousy when what it really might be about is a sense of longing and missing what has been lost.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It comes across as a sense of entitlement to access the younger immature version of your wife instead the one you married. It would be different if she did things with Sid prior to the marriage and "ate the wedding cake". But she is still the person Sid felt worthy of marriage.

Seems as if some men want to make up for time lost chasing the women they never could take to bed. Very unfortunate that they take this longing out on the person who chose to marry them. They should have stayed single and continued to chase if this mattered so much to them. But they know that they never got to be that guy, never got to be a Johnny. So they snared the first woman who enjoyed their company. And how do they thank her? By reminding her that they are owed those things she gave Johnny, regardless of the state of mind or condition she was in back then.

Sid wants to transport her to a time when she was less than her full integrated self. But, I guess, at least Sid can experience what it was like to be Johnny...


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> It comes across as a sense of entitlement to access the younger immature version of your wife instead the one you married. It would be different if she did things with Sid prior to the marriage and "ate the wedding cake". But she is still the person Sid felt worthy of marriage.
> 
> Seems as if some men want to make up for time lost chasing the women they never could take to bed. Very unfortunate that they take this longing out on the person who chose to marry them. They should have stayed single and continued to chase if this mattered so much to them. But they know that they never got to be that guy, never got to be a Johnny. So they snared the first woman who enjoyed their company. And how do they thank her? By reminding her that they are owed those things she gave Johnny, regardless of the state of mind or condition she was in back then.
> 
> Sid wants to transport her to a time when she was less than her full integrated self. But, I guess, at least Sid can experience what it was like to be Johnny...


I can see your point.

I do sometimes miss the wife I used to have when we were dating. Sometimes I think we've lost some stuff along the way that we can never get back, and that makes me sad.

I mean, we have gained a bunch of other stuff that is great, and that makes me happy.

But I confess I like to sometimes sweep her off her feet and try to transport us back to a time when we would leave clothing strewn from my front door to my kitchen counter because we couldn't wait long enough to actually get to the bedroom.

You know?

And to think that maybe I never got to experience the side of her that was like that at all would really make me sad.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> How was it lost?


Because she isn't that person any more, so he will never get to experience that part of her.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Dh was not my Johnny. He is way better than Johnny was EVER now. How do we explain that?


Does DH feel that way?

If not, why not?


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Does DH feel that way?
> 
> If not, why not?


Feel what?


----------



## EleGirl

Anon1111 said:


> Nancy should not feel shame about her PAST or regret it.
> 
> What she should feel shame about is that she does not bring her A game for her husband.
> 
> Sid thought he was getting her best, but he realized he is not.
> 
> It's like buying a car and after driving it for 10 years being told there is an overdrive button but you can't push it.


So having sex in public is her A game? Really? That's all that matters?

Marrying him, having children with him, spending years with him all of that does not matter. What matters is that she did not have sex in public with him? Really?

And what about Sid? He did not bring in A game into the marriage. Apparently he stopped romantic things, stopped dating her, etc. How do we know this? Because now all the sudden he's doing it again in an attempt to get more sex.


----------



## EleGirl

Anon1111 said:


> no, this is not it.
> 
> it's not about what she did in the past per se.
> 
> it's about what she's NOT doing in the present. the past just reveals her present limitations.


What is it about her past, that in your imagination is better than she has been for years and is now?


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> Are you saying that if Nancy had sex in public once with someone, then she has to have sex in public with her husband just because she did it once before? If you are saying that, then you are saying that she has no right to grow and change.
> 
> Having sex in public is actually a crime. She could end up with a sex offender conviction and even have her children taken away for doing that.
> 
> Maybe she did it once... maybe she had too much to drink and did something profoundly stupid. Then after she sobered up she is horrified by what she did.
> 
> By if we go by your post, she loses the right to set her own boundaries because she did something pretty stupid one time.
> 
> That's an attitude that is very disturbing.
> 
> It's like the idea that if she had anal sex with anyone in the past, she has to have it with the guy she's with now... regardless of her not liking it, or finding it too painful, etc.


I think, for me, and perhaps for most dudes, it wouldn't be about the specific thing.

It would be for me that I missed out on her being open that way.

And maybe I'd be worried that she's not that way with me not because she's moved from that but because I don't do it for her that way -- I don't inspire her to take that journey there.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Feel what?


Feel that he's better for you than any Johnnys that are out there?


----------



## techmom

]


marduk said:


> I can see your point.
> 
> *I do sometimes miss the wife I used to have when we were dating*. Sometimes I think we've lost some stuff along the way that we can never get back, and that makes me sad.
> 
> I mean, we have gained a bunch of other stuff that is great, and that makes me happy.
> 
> But I confess I like to sometimes sweep her off her feet and try to transport us back to a time when we would leave clothing strewn from my front door to my kitchen counter because we couldn't wait long enough to actually get to the bedroom.
> 
> You know?
> 
> And to think that maybe I never got to experience the side of her that was like that at all would really make me sad.


The bolded part is key, she was still that person when you dated, so it was not involving doing sex acts she did which she might have regretted BEFORE she met you.


----------



## EleGirl

Anon1111 said:


> here's a flip of the scenario:
> 
> Nancy always wanted kids. Sid said he's never wanted kids. Never has, never will.
> 
> Sid and Nancy had some discussions about this early on in their relationship but Sid seemed to have a firm line so Nancy didn't push it. It wasn't ideal, but she just accepted it. Over time, she grew comfortable with the fact that it would just be Sid and Nancy.
> 
> Then, years later, Nancy learns that Sid had an earlier marriage and he actually had a child.
> 
> Nancy confronts Sid about it and Sid says, well, that was an earlier time in my life. I was in a different place and had different priorities. I'm still the same guy you married so I don't see what the problem is.
> 
> *******
> 
> I doubt anyone would say that Nancy should just be cool with Sid's explanation.


Why wouldn't his explanation be ok? He told Nancy upfront that he did not want children. She accepted that. So he was honest and up front.

Now what would bother me in this scenario were I Nancy is why he hid a child for years. Why has he not a big part of his child's life. That could give the answer of why he does did not want more children.

Maybe he found out that he really dislikes children.

Maybe his ex ran off to Siberia and hid the child for all these years. 

But I have no problem at all with him not wanting children with Nancy. I would have a problem if she threw a hissy fit about him not having children with her.... because she stayed with him and accepted his boundary.


----------



## EleGirl

Anon1111 said:


> Nancy should not feel shame about her PAST or regret it.
> 
> What she should feel shame about is that she does not bring her A game for her husband.





Buddy400 said:


> That


Is Nancy the only one in the marriage who is required to being what you consider an "A" game to the marriage?

Is sex the only thing that counts as an "A game"?


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> ]
> 
> The bolded part is key, she was still that person when you dated, so it was not involving doing sex acts she did which she might have regretted BEFORE she met you.


I'm trying to connect it to a sense of loss and a sense that maybe my wife settled for me.

Because I love her, and want the best for her, the thought that I might not be 'it' for her...

Well, that would really bum me out.

I'm really trying to build a scenario here to draw people out about it, to get into that headspace, and explore it without it being about specific people on this thread. To see it more objectively and compassionately, from both sides.

I'm not Sid. Well, I'm Johnny who became Sid. There are actually things my wife has done with other dudes, but I don't want to do them. They actually make me laugh. 

But I know she would if I asked her to. We have a deal that we made when we became serious -- that anything sexually that involved just us and didn't damage each other, we would try, if one of us wanted to. As long as we hadn't tried it before and totally not liked it.

So nothing is really off the table. But I can kinda get where guys come from sometimes with RJ, and maybe I'm getting where the girls who have been on the other side of if are coming from, too.

But I need help with that. So keep helping please!


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Feel that he's better for you than any Johnnys that are out there?


He has never once compared himself to anyone else. He knows that he is the best for me sexually, romantically, practically, familily (had to make it up). And he doesn't care.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> I saw a quote here that "women can't have empathy for men because....", I forgot the rest/ Maybe "because then they couldn't respect them"?


LOL... hardly. Empathy does not over ride respect.


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> Guys I didn't want to stir the pot.
> 
> Can you indulge me for the next little bit?
> 
> Am I close to a reasonable guess to Nancy's headspace?


It's plausible. Though we do not know for sure.


----------



## Cosmos

intheory said:


> Anal sex is an exception. If a woman tried this and hated it for _whatever _reason:
> 
> It hurt like hèll
> It gave her a hemorrhoid
> It has the potential to involve fecal material
> It doesn't even remotely produce an orgasm
> 
> Then she absolutely never, ever has to do it again.
> 
> That men claim not to understand those reasons, is frightening.


Oh they _understand_ alright... If they don't, just start lubing up the 7 inch strap-on whilst eagerly chanting "Me first! Me first!"


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> The moral of the story is be Johnny!


Why? That was the last time Johnny had sex. He's a raging alcoholic how been living an skid row ever since. >

(Hey imagination is fun, isn't it?)


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Because she isn't that person any more, so he will never get to experience that part of her.


This is a personal issue that he needs to address for himself.

He's essentially asking for a different person than the one he married. Yes, she's still Nancy on the outside but her preferences have changed. 

Based on the responses on this thread, men take this very personally but put yourself in Nancy's shoes for a minute. She thought she was delivering the goods exactly as she promised on their wedding day only to find out he's not happy with the person he married. He now wants the person she _was_ who no longer exists. If I were Nancy, I would be DEVASTATED.


----------



## Marduk

OK. So if it's plausible, maybe that's a better conversation for Sid and Nancy to have -- about exploring a part of Nancy that they haven't explored before.

My hope for these two is that it would include Nancy's fantasies, boundaries, and ways that Sid could turn her on more. Maybe there are things that Johnny did that triggered stuff for Nancy that they could talk about -- not in terms of Johnny at all, but in terms of "I like it when you try to seduce me by kissing me and tearing my clothes off without asking me" or "To be honest, you dress like my dad. Could we go to the mall and maybe get you some sexier non-dad clothes for when we go out?" 

Or whatever.

Create a space for some sexual tension, and triggers to heighten it, and then let nature take it's course, you know?

What I would tell Sid is to take it slow, and ramp things up over time. You don't just jump to crazy sex act X. You start with A and B, and work your way up to sex act X being willing to hear "stop" or "no" at any time, and if so, give up act X.

What I would tell Nancy is that being honest with Sid and herself about what turns her on, and being open to what turns him on, can do wonders for both of them.


----------



## EleGirl

Anon1111 said:


> The point is that you present yourself as one thing and then your past reveals another dimension. We could spin examples all day long. What is weird is that apparently sex is the only thing that is supposed to be completely "in the past" but this doesn't seem to apply to anything else. Why is that?


You are comparing a person's sex life to someone who hides the existence of their child... a real live human who lives, breaths and has feelings.

If you do not understand how profoundly wrong it is to hide the existence of a child... (hiding = being ashamed of the child) ... then I just do not know what to say.


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> Why? That was the last time Johnny had sex. He's a raging alcoholic how been living an skid row ever since. >
> 
> (Hey imagination is fun, isn't it?)


Nah.

Johnny went on to marry Toni Halliday from Curve who was way hotter and wilder than Nancy ever was and he had kids and lived (mostly) happily ever after.

That is, if I'm Johnny.


----------



## techmom

Some men are actively seeking validation of their masculinity through sex and women giving them certain sex acts. It is not the sex act itself, but the validation of your wife doing this for you. Sid is competing with Johnny, Nancy is just the vessel being used. You can sugarcoat it all you want, but before the mention of Johnny , Sid didn't know he was missing these things? Did he mention having sex outside to Nancy previously and she refuse?

Johnny represents every other guy that got the girl instead of Sid. Johnny hit home runs while Sid sat on the bench . Thus, Sid needs this validation, this is what he longs for. Not the more sexy and uninhibited wife. And you know what? Nancy knows this, she dredded that Sid would be another one of those guys. 

For women, the past never dies, this is what my mom taught me. Which is why she insisted on teaching me to steer clear of sex until I was married.


----------



## EleGirl

Anon1111 said:


> Nancy really wants to hike the Appalachian Trail. Sid says he hates the woods. No interest in that.
> 
> 5 years later Nancy goes with Sid to his college reunion. Sid introduces Nancy to Abby. Abby launches into a story about how she and Sid spent 6 months after graduation hiking the entire Appalachian Trail together.
> 
> Nancy says to Sid, what's this about you hating the woods? Sid says, that was in the past. I was interested in doing that with Abby, but I like you in a different way.
> 
> *******
> 
> Should Nancy be cool with this?


Yes, Nancy should be cool with it. He no longer wants to do that. It's his prerogative to grow and change. 

.


----------



## Fozzy

Lila said:


> This is a personal issue that he needs to address for himself.
> 
> He's essentially asking for a different person than the one he married. Yes, she's still Nancy on the outside but her preferences have changed.
> 
> Based on the responses on this thread, men take this very personally but put yourself in Nancy's shoes for a minute. She thought she was delivering the goods exactly as she promised on their wedding day only to find out he's not happy with the person he married. He now wants the person she _was_ who no longer exists. If I were Nancy, I would be DEVASTATED.


One of the ways I helped my marriage was by realizing that my wife really wanted the old me that no longer existed. And bringing him back to life.


Just sayin.


----------



## TiggyBlue

EleGirl said:


> Why? That was the last time Johnny had sex. He's a raging alcoholic how been living an skid row ever since. >
> 
> (Hey imagination is fun, isn't it?)


I've heard Johnny is Janie now :x


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband

EleGirl said:


> Let's look at this imaginary scenario.....
> 
> So she has sex with some foot ball guy who basically just wanted sex with her.
> 
> So now years later you and she are going out and/or marriage. But because she had sex with some football guy you feel like a consolation prize?
> 
> What lengths did she go through with the football guy that she would not go through with you?
> 
> 
> .


Your example is my life. My wife was used & abused by HS quarterback. When I met her at church about 4 years later, and was doing the pre-marital counseling, she said she was a virgin & had no hangups. 

Within a year of being married, she was pushing me away alot.

No oral, no showering together, basically made me feel like crap.

After she told me that having intimacy was reminding her of a bad relationship, I wouldn't say that I had RJ.

BUT, I got married with the expectation that, as both virgins, (supposedly), we would learn & grow together in intimacy. To be told, "Did that, don't want to again" is not what I wanted to hear.

Now, almost 30 years later, (kids are almost grown so she can't threaten to take them away), we had a "Come to Jesus moment".

I found TAM. Started working out hard, spoke to a counselor. She asked why I was working out so hard. I stated that I wanted to be in a relationship with someone who wanted to be with me. I said "I hope that's you" 

I wouldn't say I am expecting too much in wanting oral both ways, a shower together once in awhile, an sex 2-3 times a week. She has agreed to once a week. Still working on oral.

My question to you is this -- 

Is it RJ to say to her "You gave these wifely gifts to a guy that treated you like crap, but the guy who has been with you thru everything life has thrown at us, you tell me NO?

Addition - I'm also having to deal with regret that I don't like feeling. At times I wish that instead of keeping my pants shut & looking for a committed relationship, I should have been out being a total horndog f------ anything female, so I could have experienced the things I am denied now. Not a good place to be for a christian. 

I've heard it preached about that Satan uses what is most important to you against you. 

I wanted to be in a intimate relationship, not married to the Heisman trophy. She's the running back, intimacy is the football, and I'm the stupid sob on the other end of the stiff arm.

My wife has referred to it as "Just sex", to me it is an intense bonding mechanism. It is NOT "Just sex"


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> I'm saying get what you want.
> 
> Johnny did. I would never be a sid.
> 
> Nancy never went for Sid with the same effort she went for Johnny even when she was young and without children.
> 
> I wouldn't go for it. I give my all and expect the same. Anything else isn't worth my time.


It is 100% in your imagination that Nancy never went for Sid in the same way. 

why, oh why, is it so necessary to make up this dynamic?


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> This is a personal issue that he needs to address for himself.
> 
> He's essentially asking for a different person than the one he married. Yes, she's still Nancy on the outside but her preferences have changed.


I struggle with this one.

I mean, I 100% buy that sexual preferences can change.

But I also 100% have been in relationships that develop deep ruts that take a ****-ton of work to get out of.

For example, with my wife, we had a very serious relationship in the beginning. No laughing or joking. Just very intense and serious and intense sex and intellectual debate and that.

It was like listening to nothing but NIN "Pretty Hate Machine."

I mean, I really like "Pretty Hate Machine" but sometimes I also like to chill the hell out and listen to "Strange Brew" and have a laugh, you know?

It took a while to bust out of the hyper-intense and serious groove and just have a laugh.

Same goes for sex I think. You can get 'locked in' to a certain mindset and then just think 'I'm over oral' or whatever. When in reality, if you split, with mr new guy you'd suddenly be back into oral.

If something's off limits because you tried it and hated it, gotcha.

If something's off limits because 'you never were that couple' then I say BS to that.


> Based on the responses on this thread, men take this very personally but put yourself in Nancy's shoes for a minute. She thought she was delivering the goods exactly as she promised on their wedding day only to find out he's not happy with the person he married. He now wants the person she _was_ who no longer exists. If I were Nancy, I would be DEVASTATED.


Like I said, it's a stretch for me. I'm very high maintenance. I demand everything. I'm sure it's like listening to the Sisters of Mercy "More" on infinite repeat for my wife.

I must be a difficult husband.


----------



## Lila

Fozzy said:


> One of the ways I helped my marriage was by realizing that my wife really wanted the old me that no longer existed. And bringing him back to life.
> 
> 
> Just sayin.


She asked you to become the person you were before she met you?:surprise:

How did she know what you were like before you two met?


----------



## Cosmos

Anon1111 said:


> here's a flip of the scenario:
> 
> Nancy always wanted kids. Sid said he's never wanted kids. Never has, never will.
> 
> Sid and Nancy had some discussions about this early on in their relationship but Sid seemed to have a firm line so Nancy didn't push it. It wasn't ideal, but she just accepted it. Over time, she grew comfortable with the fact that it would just be Sid and Nancy.
> 
> Then, years later, Nancy learns that Sid had an earlier marriage and he actually had a child.
> 
> Nancy confronts Sid about it and Sid says, well, that was an earlier time in my life. I was in a different place and had different priorities. I'm still the same guy you married so I don't see what the problem is.
> 
> *******
> 
> I doubt anyone would say that Nancy should just be cool with Sid's explanation.


You're equating Sid _hiding a previous marriage and a child _with Nancy having experimented with a certain sex act before she met him?


----------



## Fozzy

Nope, not before we met. Just the guy that no longer existed.


----------



## McDean

There is an assumption running under the radar, maybe Sid is not bummed that Nancy won't do these things with him now, maybe he is bummed because he is realizing now that he would rather be Johnny? And, while we have been having fun at Johnny's expense I would propose we look at him as if his life has turned out great...then how does Nancy look/cope and where does that leave Sid?


----------



## norajane

marduk said:


> OK. So if it's plausible, maybe that's a better conversation for Sid and Nancy to have -- about exploring a part of Nancy that they haven't explored before.
> 
> My hope for these two is that it would include Nancy's fantasies, boundaries, and ways that Sid could turn her on more. Maybe there are things that Johnny did that triggered stuff for Nancy that they could talk about -- not in terms of Johnny at all, but in terms of "I like it when you try to seduce me by kissing me and tearing my clothes off without asking me" or "To be honest, you dress like my dad. Could we go to the mall and maybe get you some sexier non-dad clothes for when we go out?"
> 
> Or whatever.
> 
> Create a space for some sexual tension, and triggers to heighten it, and then let nature take it's course, you know?
> 
> What I would tell Sid is to take it slow, and ramp things up over time. You don't just jump to crazy sex act X. You start with A and B, and work your way up to sex act X being willing to hear "stop" or "no" at any time, and if so, give up act X.
> 
> What I would tell Nancy is that being honest with Sid and herself about what turns her on, and being open to what turns him on, can do wonders for both of them.


WWJD? 

Johnny: Nancypants, you haven't had enough orgasms lately. Let's do something about that.

Nancy: Ok, but I'm not doing it in the car. It's too awkward, and I'll need to pee first.

Johnny: You should have married Sid.


----------



## EleGirl

Anon1111 said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> This is what is really sad though about these situations.
> 
> It's not that she just won't do it for you. It's that she really can't.
> 
> In actuality, she feels less for you (with that part of her) than she did for some random guy who really cared for her about as much as the cheeseburger he ate for dinner.


See this is what bothers me... the assumption that if she did X in her past, then if she does not do X now... it's because she feels less for you.

Do you realize that women have real feelings and real thoughts. She might have done it and found that that she HATES it.

But now you have turned something that she HATES into the only way that she can prove her love to you. And you have all this imagination going on in your head that makes whatever this thing is into the MOST IMPORANT think the world.


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> Some men are actively seeking validation of their masculinity through sex and women giving them certain sex acts. It is not the sex act itself, but the validation of your wife doing this for you. Sid is competing with Johnny, Nancy is just the vessel being used. You can sugarcoat it all you want, but before the mention of Johnny , Sid didn't know he was missing these things? Did he mention having sex outside to Nancy previously and she refuse?


Maybe it's this way for some guys. But I think that is just the surface level -- the "I'm better than Johnny" level.

When in reality it's maybe more about "I'm missing the part of you I never got to have."

Why does he want to have what Johnny had? Because Johnny got a part of Nancy that Sid never did. And that's kinda sad when you think about it, right?

Good sex is like art. I think it's the highest representation of your true self with all the pretence and BS stripped away.

If some other dude got to see parts of my wife's sexual personality that were walled off forever to me "just because" I would be sad about that.


> Johnny represents every other guy that got the girl instead of Sid. Johnny hit home runs while Sid sat on the bench . Thus, Sid needs this validation, this is what he longs for. Not the more sexy and uninhibited wife. And you know what? Nancy knows this, she dredded that Sid would be another one of those guys.


Hmm.

Maybe. Never thought about that. 

Why is it hard for Nancy to give Sid that validation (unless of course she really doesn't want to do X and in that case substitues Y instead).


> For women, the past never dies, this is what my mom taught me. Which is why she insisted on teaching me to steer clear of sex until I was married.


I think that's stretching a bit. I set up the scenario such that Sid didn't really even think about Nancy's past until Nancy's friend brought it up, and it started to bug him, because Nancy didn't seem interested in him any more sexually.


----------



## Marduk

McDean said:


> There is an assumption running under the radar, maybe Sid is not bummed that Nancy won't do these things with him now, maybe he is bummed because he is realizing now that he would rather be Johnny? And, while we have been having fun at Johnny's expense I would propose we look at him as if his life has turned out great...then how does Nancy look/cope and where does that leave Sid?


Never considered that.


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> You're reading more into it than me.
> 
> Johnny definitely got what he wanted.
> 
> Sid missed on a couple of his wants.
> 
> If I wanted sex with Nancy in a public place, or any other act, I would get it as well as marriage and kids.
> 
> I'm very generous as well as demanding. I give as good or better than I get.
> 
> Sid could use a little more selfish.


So if you were with a woman who did not want sex in a public place, you would do whatever it took to get her to do that? Really?


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> See this is what bothers me... the assumption that if she did X in her past, then if she does not do X now... it's because she feels less for you.
> 
> Do you realize that women have real feelings and real thoughts. She might have done it and found that that she HATES it.
> 
> But now you have turned something that she HATES into the only way that she can prove her love to you. And you have all this imagination going on in your head that makes whatever this thing is into the MOST IMPORANT think the world.


I think it was in relation to things she liked with Johnny, but not with Sid.

Not that she didn't like it with Johnny or anybody else, including Sid.


----------



## Fozzy

marduk said:


> I struggle with this one.
> 
> I mean, I 100% buy that sexual preferences can change.
> 
> But I also 100% have been in relationships that develop deep ruts that take a ****-ton of work to get out of.
> 
> For example, with my wife, we had a very serious relationship in the beginning. No laughing or joking. Just very intense and serious and intense sex and intellectual debate and that.
> 
> It was like listening to nothing but NIN "Pretty Hate Machine."
> 
> I mean, I really like "Pretty Hate Machine" but sometimes I also like to chill the hell out and listen to "Strange Brew" and have a laugh, you know?
> 
> It took a while to bust out of the hyper-intense and serious groove and just have a laugh.
> 
> Same goes for sex I think. You can get 'locked in' to a certain mindset and then just think 'I'm over oral' or whatever. When in reality, if you split, with mr new guy you'd suddenly be back into oral.
> 
> If something's off limits because you tried it and hated it, gotcha.
> 
> If something's off limits because 'you never were that couple' then I say BS to that.
> 
> 
> Like I said, it's a stretch for me. I'm very high maintenance. I demand everything. I'm sure it's like listening to the Sisters of Mercy "More" on infinite repeat for my wife.
> 
> I must be a difficult husband.


Agree. If it's a matter of "I always hated it, but did it because I was stupid", fine. But if it's just a matter of "Meh, I just don't want to anymore, just because"....well ya know

I'm seeing a lot of using extreme examples here to paint this as completely foolish. Yeah, I agree that if a guy is pressuring you for public anal with clowns because of that one time you were on drugs and didn't know what was going on---ok, that's bad. But I don't think the majority of these situations measure up to that level of crazy.


----------



## TiggyBlue

marduk said:


> I think that's stretching a bit. I set up the scenario such that Sid didn't really even think about Nancy's past until Nancy's friend brought it up, and it started to bug him, because Nancy didn't seem interested in him any more sexually.


It's all Nancy friends fault, what kind of friend brings up ex's (especially sex antics) in front of husbands.
I don't trust her I think she has ulterior motives.


----------



## techmom

marduk said:


> Maybe it's this way for some guys. But I think that is just the surface level -- the "I'm better than Johnny" level.
> 
> When in reality it's maybe more about "I'm missing the part of you I never got to have."
> 
> Why does he want to have what Johnny had? Because Johnny got a part of Nancy that Sid never did. And that's kinda sad when you think about it, right?
> 
> Good sex is like art. I think it's the highest representation of your true self with all the pretence and BS stripped away.
> 
> If some other dude got to see parts of my wife's sexual personality that were walled off forever to me "just because" I would be sad about that.
> 
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> Maybe. Never thought about that.
> 
> Why is it hard for Nancy to give Sid that validation (unless of course she really doesn't want to do X and in that case substitues Y instead).
> 
> 
> I think that's stretching a bit. I set up the scenario such that Sid didn't really even think about Nancy's past until Nancy's friend brought it up, and it started to bug him, because Nancy didn't seem interested in him any more sexually.


Why doesn't marriage serve as validation for Sid? Sid had no one and Nancy was there for him. Marriage and kids vs. young inexperienced sex. This is why certain men should stay single if they would put their wives through this.

How do we know that Johnny is not in a sexless marriage himself? And sees Sid as lucky that he married Nancy?


----------



## EleGirl

Fozzy said:


> With a relationship with someone who no longer desires hot sex.


I don't think that anyone here is suggesting this.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> I struggle with this one.
> 
> I mean, I 100% buy that sexual preferences can change.
> 
> But I also 100% have been in relationships that develop deep ruts that take a ****-ton of work to get out of.
> 
> For example, with my wife, we had a very serious relationship in the beginning. No laughing or joking. Just very intense and serious and intense sex and intellectual debate and that.
> 
> It was like listening to nothing but NIN "Pretty Hate Machine."
> 
> I mean, I really like "Pretty Hate Machine" but sometimes I also like to chill the hell out and listen to "Strange Brew" and have a laugh, you know?
> 
> It took a while to bust out of the hyper-intense and serious groove and just have a laugh.
> 
> Same goes for sex I think. You can get 'locked in' to a certain mindset and then just think 'I'm over oral' or whatever. When in reality, if you split, with mr new guy you'd suddenly be back into oral.
> 
> If something's off limits because you tried it and hated it, gotcha.
> 
> If something's off limits because 'you never were that couple' then I say BS to that.
> 
> 
> Like I said, it's a stretch for me. I'm very high maintenance. I demand everything. I'm sure it's like listening to the Sisters of Mercy "More" on infinite repeat for my wife.
> 
> I must be a difficult husband.


I'm not arguing that sex should be stagnant in a relationship. Far from it. But I do think that people should a) respect each other's sexual boundaries and b) create a sexual dynamic that is unique to them (as a unit). The first part is set, for the most part. The second part is variable. The personalities, boundaries, and values each person brings to the relationship makes each one special. It's why I see no reason to compare previous relationships to current ones. Apples and oranges.


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> Why doesn't marriage serve as validation for Sid? Sid had no one and Nancy was there for him. Marriage and kids vs. young inexperienced sex. This is why certain men should stay single if they would put their wives through this.
> 
> How do we know that Johnny is not in a sexless marriage himself? And sees Sid as lucky that he married Nancy?


Because Sid isn't just one thing. Neither is Nancy and neither am I or you.

We're a collection of loosely integrated 'things' that relate very semiotically to one another (forgive me I'm on a William Gibson kick).

Sid's sexual identity may be very unlike mine -- integrated and coupled to every step and breath. 

Sid is seeking sexual validation. This is a tough thing for a guy to go through. Who can he talk to about it except his wife, if even then? Nobody.

And, anyway, in a monogamous LTR, I think I take some accountability for my wife's sexual validation. She only (I hope) expresses her sexuality to me, so I'm the only external validation she's ever gonna get.

And everybody needs external validation sometime. My wife sure lets me know when I rock her world. And that sure helps me through the times when I feel like I don't.


----------



## Cosmos

I really can't understand why any self-respecting woman would tolerate this sort of nonsense from her H.

The time for asking questions is before marriage, not interrogating someone years later. If my SO started cross-examining me about specific sex acts at this stage of the game (which he wouldn't), I'd tell him to mind his own business. The time for all that was when we discussed our sexual histories etc early on in the relationship.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> I'm not arguing that sex should be stagnant in a relationship. Far from it. But I do think that people should a) respect each other's sexual boundaries and b) *create a sexual dynamic that is unique to them (as a unit). * The first part is set, for the most part. The second part is variable. The personalities, boundaries, and values each person brings to the relationship makes each one special. It's why I see no reason to compare previous relationships to current ones. Apples and oranges.


Help me understand the bolded bit. I find myself simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with it.


----------



## EleGirl

Fozzy said:


> Perhaps I misunderstood the point of the thread. In confess to not reading the entire thing. I thought it was more about RJ in a situation where a wife no longer wants the hawt secks (that's for you Conan) that she previously engaged in but husband was not part of.
> 
> For my part, I see that as a separate issue from shaming someone. *Shaming to me would be more like "I can't believe you ever did that in the first place"*.


That is what the thread is about (the underlined part)


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> I really can't understand why any self-respecting woman would tolerate this sort of nonsense from her H.
> 
> The time for asking questions is before marriage, not interrogating someone years later. If my SO started cross-examining me about specific sex at this stage of the game (which he wouldn't), I'd tell him to mind his own business. The time for all that was when we discussed our sexual histories etc early on in the relationship.


I agree that you should discuss such things beforehand if they're important to you. 

But you can't wall off someone's past forever just because you have a ring on their finger.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> II'm having a hard time placing myself in this kind of relationship. I don't know it's lack of self-respect but a very low tolerance for emotional badgering.
> 
> I fully accept I have an extremely low threshold for it. I'd rather **** off which has its own set of problems. Which is why ever single scenario @anon111 brings up my response is "deal with it or move on."
> 
> :grin2: My dad told me that guilt never worked on me as a kid. It still doesn't.


I dunno, FF.

I struggle with you ejecting your spouse and disrupting your kids because there was a brief moment of insecurity.

I think you'd try to get at the heart of it quickly and deal with it, and I suspect you'd be a lot more sensitive about it than you give yourself credit for.


----------



## McDean

Putting on my Johnny hat- I would read all of this and immediately blow it off because it is too complicated. I would know what I want and don't want and if the women I meet don't want it I would simply move on. Shoot 100 baskets to make 10 as they say. 

This being said, how many of the ladies reading this just now did so 'without' a judgement popping into their heads and I am sure shaming would be coming my way from men and women alike especially if I am still Johnny in my 40s. 

Tell me I am wrong?


----------



## Marduk

Personal said:


> On the other hand she may well have enjoyed it every time at that time, that doesn't mean she desires the same now. Even then that still doesn't oblige anyone to revisit such activities if they don't feel like doing them now.


Let me give you an example that I CAN relate to.

When my ex wife left, we hadn't had sex for months.

Yet she was gladly having sex with another guy.

I felt pretty crappy about that. She wouldn't have it with me, who she said she loved, and who I gave everything to, but she would with some loser that didn't care about her... and she didn't care about him.

That took months to peel myself off the pavement about.


----------



## Marduk

McDean said:


> Putting on my Johnny hat- I would read all of this and immediately blow it off because it is too complicated. I would know what I want and don't want and if the women I meet don't want it I would simply move on. Shoot 100 baskets to make 10 as they say.
> 
> This being said, how many of the ladies reading this just now did so 'without' a judgement popping into their heads and I am sure shaming would be coming my way from men and women alike especially if I am still Johnny in my 40s.
> 
> Tell me I am wrong?


I was Johnny. 

I still got married and had kids and was successful and monogamous.

Hell, I still _am_ Johnny. I just _also_ love, care for, and respect my wife.


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> I agree that you should discuss such things beforehand if they're important to you.
> *
> But you can't wall off someone's past forever just because you have a ring on their finger*.


It isn't a case of walling off the past. What possible purpose can there be in asking for details of sex acts that happened years previously?

I really can't imagine doing that to my SO. It would feel disrespectful and abusive.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

I was visiting another site where the wife was bragging about how she had the most fulfilling, intimate, bonding sex ever with her husband and she did not even orgasm.

It was not the hottest, but she found it profound and it made them stronger as a couple. The goal of that sex was not orgasm, but focusing on the bonding aspects. It made her love even stronger.

But But there are other components to a relationship where sex is not the main component. Why is someone's worth just on sexual acts? I am okay if I am not the best ever, the most attractive, and my gf is okay with it as well. Her confidence is what I admire about her as well. She cherishes the way I make her laugh, how she acts offended by my crass jokes, but laughs anyways. I joke if she is laughing about it, she is no better. Those are things that add to our relationship, making it strong.

We may not have the best sex ever, but we still have exciting sex where we still get powerful orgasms.

Over the summer, I suffered a concussion and she help nurse me back to health. I am grateful for that. Even though she was angry that I gotten injured car surfing. It was dumb, and even through her anger, she cared. She would not hold her life on pause for a casual lover like that.


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband

EleGirl said:


> Let's look at this imaginary scenario.....
> 
> So she has sex with some foot ball guy who basically just wanted sex with her.
> 
> So now years later you and she are going out and/or marriage. But because she had sex with some football guy you feel like a consolation prize?
> 
> What lengths did she go through with the football guy that she would not go through with you?
> 
> 
> .





FrazzledSadHusband said:


> Your example is my life. My wife was used & abused by HS quarterback. When I met her at church about 4 years later, and was doing the pre-marital counseling, she said she was a virgin & had no hangups.
> 
> Within a year of being married, she was pushing me away alot.
> 
> No oral, no showering together, basically made me feel like crap.
> 
> After she told me that having intimacy was reminding her of a bad relationship, I wouldn't say that I had RJ.
> 
> BUT, I got married with the expectation that, as both virgins, (supposedly), we would learn & grow together in intimacy. To be told, "Did that, don't want to again" is not what I wanted to hear.
> 
> Now, almost 30 years later, (kids are almost grown so she can't threaten to take them away), we had a "Come to Jesus moment".
> 
> I found TAM. Started working out hard, spoke to a counselor. She asked why I was working out so hard. I stated that I wanted to be in a relationship with someone who wanted to be with me. I said "I hope that's you"
> 
> I wouldn't say I am expecting too much in wanting oral both ways, a shower together once in awhile, an sex 2-3 times a week. She has agreed to once a week. Still working on oral.
> 
> My question to you is this --
> 
> Is it RJ to say to her "You gave these wifely gifts to a guy that treated you like crap, but the guy who has been with you thru everything life has thrown at us, you tell me NO?
> 
> Addition - I'm also having to deal with regret that I don't like feeling. At times I wish that instead of keeping my pants shut & looking for a committed relationship, I should have been out being a total horndog f------ anything female, so I could have experienced the things I am denied now. Not a good place to be for a christian.
> 
> I've heard it preached about that Satan uses what is most important to you against you.
> 
> I wanted to be in a intimate relationship, not married to the Heisman trophy. She's the running back, intimacy is the football, and I'm the stupid sob on the other end of the stiff arm.
> 
> My wife has referred to it as "Just sex", to me it is an intense bonding mechanism. It is NOT "Just sex"



Elegirl, Marduk, please comment on my post. Your comments may help me deal! There was a post discussing not bringing up past, but what if you tried to have those discussions before marriage, and information was not revealed. I know my wife was/is dealing with shame. I just want a "normal" marriage with intimacy.


----------



## TiggyBlue

marduk said:


> I was Johnny.
> 
> I still got married and had kids and was successful and monogamous.
> 
> Hell, I still _am_ Johnny. I just _also_ love, care for, and respect my wife.


You cheated on and left a girl who had freaky sex with you?


----------



## sapientia

Lila said:


> I personally do not regret any of my sexual past. I enjoyed my sexual experiences and remember them as positive events in my life. It was _history_. A history that I enjoyed and one where I was happy.


Ha, if anything I regret that I didn't indulge more when I was single. Except I really don't. I guess I just got lucky quickly finding compatible long-term partners.



> Luckily, *my lack of regret did not disqualify me as a good long term partner for my husband,* just as his lack of regret over his sexual history didn't disqualify him as a good long term partner for me.


I think this kind of term "disqualify" is a lot of people's problem in thinking about sexual history. Wrong thinking which leads to wrong conclusions.



> I know that I'm cut from a whole other piece of cloth but would like to hear the ladies of TAM thoughts on the subject.


Nah, you aren't very unique in this regard. Most of my women friends hold this very healthy attitude.


----------



## EleGirl

McDean said:


> Fun to watch the ongoing debate, this one kicked off a storm. My one and a half cents is as follows: I don't' think people should be shamed for past scenarios - in the case of men this may be easier to judge differences because sex is more specific in terms of acts and frequencies. But I have seen the same shaming thrown at men for their 'promiscuity' and for how they may 'have been' in past relationships- maybe when they were 20 they went out more and did more with a previous gal, more so than now, leaving the current gal wondering why she isn't ' good enough' to merit the same excitement...when it may simply be that he is older with more responsibilities and doesn't have the energy he once did. In the end the last is the past.
> 
> I don't shame women for their past conquests, I would offer that some of my male friends and I have discussed how an 'easy' women poses no challenge and in the end does not make us feel any different from any other man she chooses, so it makes the scenario less special.


That last bit....

So you want conquests to play harder to get so that it's more 'special' for you? What is that? That's definitely a 'slvt shaming' statement you made there.

Do you think that maybe men being so easy to get makes women feel like they are not any more special than all the other women the guy's been with?


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> It isn't a case of walling off the past. What possible purpose can there be in asking for details of sex acts that happened years previously?
> 
> I really can't imagine doing that to my SO. It would feel disrespectful and abusive.


Mmm.... I've _kinda_ done it.

It was more about "have you ever tried X and how did you feel about that" than it was "OMG we've never done X you better not have with some other penis!"


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> I can see your point.
> 
> I do sometimes miss the wife I used to have when we were dating. Sometimes I think we've lost some stuff along the way that we can never get back, and that makes me sad.
> 
> I mean, we have gained a bunch of other stuff that is great, and that makes me happy.
> 
> But I confess I like to sometimes sweep her off her feet and try to transport us back to a time when we would leave clothing strewn from my front door to my kitchen counter because we couldn't wait long enough to actually get to the bedroom.
> 
> You know?
> 
> And to think that maybe I never got to experience the side of her that was like that at all would really make me sad.


I can understand that feeling. People change over time.

I'll bet that your wife has similar feelings about you... wanting to go back and have that guy you were when you first were dating.


.


----------



## Marduk

TiggyBlue said:


> You cheated on and left a girl who had freaky sex with you?


lol!

Yes. Well, no. Well there was the time I had sex with a girl's best friend, but I was clear that I was not going to be exclusive with both of them...

But that friendship didn't survive. 

Oh, add that to the "regret" list.


----------



## TiggyBlue

EleGirl said:


> That last bit....
> 
> So you want conquests to play harder to get so that it's more 'special' for you? What is that? That's definitely a 'slvt shaming' statement you made there.
> 
> Do you think that maybe men being so easy to get makes women feel like they are not any more special than all the other women the guy's been with?


Plus women wouldn't have wild pasts if men didn't sleep with them,
so really it's all men's fault RJ exists :laugh:


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> I think, for me, and perhaps for most dudes, it wouldn't be about the specific thing.
> 
> It would be for me that I missed out on her being open that way.
> 
> And maybe I'd be worried that she's not that way with me not because she's moved from that but because I don't do it for her that way -- I don't inspire her to take that journey there.


So it would upset you that you do not inspire her to do things that she regrets? Very strange.


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> Mmm.... I've _kinda_ done it.
> 
> It was more about "have you ever tried X and how did you feel about that" than it was "OMG we've never done X you better not have with some other penis!"


That's different, Marduk, and there was an element of playfulness to it...


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Help me understand the bolded bit. I find myself simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with it.


The way I see it, each sexual relationship is like a recipe. It has specific ingredients (each partner's personality, value, life experiences, and boundaries) at specific quantities (or levels) which creates an end product (sexual dynamic) that is wholey unique to that couple. 

So using Sid and Nancy....if Sid were to hook up with a different woman, the sexual dynamic would be different than it was with Nancy because his new partner's ingredients (and levels) combined with his ingredients (and levels) would create a unique recipe. 

I don't believe recipes can be duplicated with different partners. Too many variables. Can the couple work on making their recipe the best it can be? Of course. Can the couple completely change or copy another recipe? Not with the ingredients they own.


----------



## TiggyBlue

marduk said:


> lol!
> 
> Yes. Well, no. Well there was the time I had sex with a girl's best friend, but I was clear that I was not going to be exclusive with both of them...
> 
> But that friendship didn't survive.
> 
> Oh, add that to the "regret" list.


But that's not Johnny, Johnny is the guy she bent over backwards to please sexually and was heartbroken when dumped her (from what I understood).

You were a guy 2 friends were bonking at the same time, I don't see how the two scenario's compare.


----------



## Marduk

FrazzledSadHusband said:


> Your example is my life. My wife was used & abused by HS quarterback. When I met her at church about 4 years later, and was doing the pre-marital counseling, she said she was a virgin & had no hangups.
> 
> Within a year of being married, she was pushing me away alot.
> 
> No oral, no showering together, basically made me feel like crap.
> 
> After she told me that having intimacy was reminding her of a bad relationship, I wouldn't say that I had RJ.
> 
> BUT, I got married with the expectation that, as both virgins, (supposedly), we would learn & grow together in intimacy. To be told, "Did that, don't want to again" is not what I wanted to hear.
> 
> Now, almost 30 years later, (kids are almost grown so she can't threaten to take them away), we had a "Come to Jesus moment".
> 
> I found TAM. Started working out hard, spoke to a counselor. She asked why I was working out so hard. I stated that I wanted to be in a relationship with someone who wanted to be with me. I said "I hope that's you"
> 
> I wouldn't say I am expecting too much in wanting oral both ways, a shower together once in awhile, an sex 2-3 times a week. She has agreed to once a week. Still working on oral.
> 
> My question to you is this --
> 
> Is it RJ to say to her "You gave these wifely gifts to a guy that treated you like crap, but the guy who has been with you thru everything life has thrown at us, you tell me NO?
> 
> Addition - I'm also having to deal with regret that I don't like feeling. At times I wish that instead of keeping my pants shut & looking for a committed relationship, I should have been out being a total horndog f------ anything female, so I could have experienced the things I am denied now. Not a good place to be for a christian.
> 
> I've heard it preached about that Satan uses what is most important to you against you.
> 
> I wanted to be in a intimate relationship, not married to the Heisman trophy. She's the running back, intimacy is the football, and I'm the stupid sob on the other end of the stiff arm.
> 
> My wife has referred to it as "Just sex", to me it is an intense bonding mechanism. It is NOT "Just sex"
> 
> Elegirl, Marduk, please comment on my post. Your comments may help me deal! There was a post discussing not bringing up past, but what if you tried to have those discussions before marriage, and information was not revealed. I know my wife was/is dealing with shame. I just want a "normal" marriage with intimacy.


OK OK OK OK OK.

OK. 

Lemme think about this.

I am not down with the whole Christian sex before marriage is bad vibe so I _may_ accidentally trigger some bad ****.

But here goes.

For you -- if she doesn't want to go down on you and doesn't want you to go down on her, and it's 100% off limits, respect that.

That's a giant bummer and for me a deal breaker, but I would respect that as a boundary.

If, however, she has a very negative connotation with oral sex either way because of mr football, then she's got issues that should be worked through.

Is it that it was a negative experience for her because she didn't like it? Was it technique? Was it feeling pressured about it?

Or was it that she did it and now feels really ****ty about it because of the whole Christian sex guilt thing?

Or -- deep breath -- is it that she's just not that into you and it's a good excuse she's found for that?

Because for many women (my wife included) spontaneously giving me oral is a pretty damn good bellweather for how turned on I make her.


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> So it would upset you that you do not inspire her to do things that she regrets? Very strange.


Exactly! Minus the regrets part. Remember we are *specifically not talking about stuff she did and didn't like with anyone again ever, we're talking about stuff she did and liked with another dude but doesn't want to do with me.*

Because if I were mr awesome to her, I'd inspire her naturally do be wild and funky, right?

And if I'm not, and another guy did, I must not be mr awesome to her at all.

Now, what I realized, is that I used to be mr awesome and had stopped working at being mr awesome.

So I became mr awesome again.


----------



## Marduk

TiggyBlue said:


> But that's not Johnny, Johnny is the guy she bent over backwards to please sexually and was heartbroken when dumped her (from what I understood).
> 
> You were a guy 2 friends were bonking at the same time, I don't see how the two scenario's compare.



My point was that there was a time in my life where I was very much like Johnny, and we very much sometimes want to cast Johnny as some loser when he's in his 40s when he might not be.


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband

Mr. Football forced her to give/receive oral is how she put it. Along with many other things. After she revealed that she wasn't a virgin, I asked if we could try oral sex. She said, "Just don't cum, I don't like it. Maybe after I TRUST you more". This was years ago. I didn't say it then, but I did ask her recently, "If you didn't trust me, why did you marry me?"

All of her issues seem to come from Mr. Football. I didn't bring up issues for many years, hoping, (like a fool), that my showing her love, kindness and respect with break thru the walls. Took me getting hardnosed to make any progress.


----------



## sapientia

Marduk, said differently, why would I orderi haggis and brussel sprouts when dining out with my new partner when I discovered I hated haggis and brussel sprouts with my last partner?

Just go and try something new and different from the menu that is delicious for both of you.


----------



## McDean

EleGirl said:


> That last bit....
> 
> So you want conquests to play harder to get so that it's more 'special' for you? What is that? That's definitely a 'slvt shaming' statement you made there.
> 
> Do you think that maybe men being so easy to get makes women feel like they are not any more special than all the other women the guy's been with?


Definitely not slot shaming, just stating a point of view that exists. On your second question, absolutely no doubt in my mind that is true and I have heard so many women basically say that I can't help but believe it. 

Perfect example, someone pointed out earlier in the thread that women can have sex with men out of their league more often than the reverse, and why wouldn't over the average joe if they have the option? So then, even though they may still entice him despite his 'rank' I suspect they feel better about it than if they went with guy they 'knew' they could have any time. Does that mean that thinking that way they are 'loser' shaming the average Joe?

Not much worth having comes easy or cheap...


----------



## TiggyBlue

marduk said:


> My point was that there was a time in my life where I was very much like Johnny, and we very much sometimes want to cast Johnny as some loser when he's in his 40s when he might not be.


I'm confused :scratchhead:
Is every guy a woman's bonked before her current partner like Johnny?


----------



## sapientia

Lila said:


> I had lunch with H today and asked him this question. His response falls in line with what I was thinking.
> 
> He believes that most guys, himself included, rarely regret any part of their sexual history, but some do regret how they treated their sexual partners after the fact.


My H is much more experienced than I will ever be. We discussed this once, in the context of a fun "sex quiz". LOL.

He pretty said the same as your H, Lila. No regrets but no interest to repeat. A different time in his life. Shrug.

(well, I suppose I shouldn't say "ever"...)


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> I can understand that feeling. People change over time.
> 
> I'll bet that your wife has similar feelings about you... wanting to go back and have that guy you were when you first were dating.
> 
> 
> .


Well, he was pretty awesome.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Exactly! Minus the regrets part. Remember we are *specifically not talking about stuff she did and didn't like with anyone again ever, we're talking about stuff she did and liked with another dude but doesn't want to do with me.*


Could you give me an example of the bolded part? 

When I answered Buddy's question asking about this same scenario, he seemed surprised that I didn't know any women IRL who avoid doing stuff they like with their spouses without a legitimate reason (physiological or psychological). 

I've heard women say that although they enjoyed certain acts in the past, they don't do it now because it's not conducive to their current lifestyle (ie. public sex) or their current partner is not physically equipped for the act (too big for anal sex), or the relationship dynamic is not conducive to the act (BDSM type stuff).


----------



## Cosmos

FrenchFry said:


> I think all of the guys understand not doing something someone hated or disliked.
> 
> Why would I continue eating haggis and Brussels sprouts because I did so in my last relationship when I discovered the joys of broccoli and headcheese in this one?
> *
> Furthermore, if I have grown to be indifferent to the taste of Haggis but still really like broccoli what does ordering Haggis actually prove?*


That you're prepared to subjugate yourself and do penance for _ever _ordering haggis!


----------



## EleGirl

FrazzledSadHusband said:


> Your example is my life. My wife was used & abused by HS quarterback. When I met her at church about 4 years later, and was doing the pre-marital counseling, she said she was a virgin & had no hangups.
> 
> Within a year of being married, she was pushing me away alot.
> 
> No oral, no showering together, basically made me feel like crap.
> 
> After she told me that having intimacy was reminding her of a bad relationship, I wouldn't say that I had RJ.
> 
> BUT, I got married with the expectation that, as both virgins, (supposedly), we would learn & grow together in intimacy. To be told, "Did that, don't want to again" is not what I wanted to hear.
> 
> Now, almost 30 years later, (kids are almost grown so she can't threaten to take them away), we had a "Come to Jesus moment".
> 
> I found TAM. Started working out hard, spoke to a counselor. She asked why I was working out so hard. I stated that I wanted to be in a relationship with someone who wanted to be with me. I said "I hope that's you"
> 
> I wouldn't say I am expecting too much in wanting oral both ways, a shower together once in awhile, an sex 2-3 times a week. She has agreed to once a week. Still working on oral.
> 
> My question to you is this --
> 
> Is it RJ to say to her "You gave these wifely gifts to a guy that treated you like crap, but the guy who has been with you thru everything life has thrown at us, you tell me NO?


I think that your situation is a lot different than what this thread is about. Your wife out and out lied to you before marriage. That’s just wrong. 
But you have stayed with her and are trying to make it work. So I think that leaving off the “You gave these wifely gifts to a guy that treated you like crap, but the guy” part of that would get you a lot further towards your goals. You have obviously spoken to her about her relationship with that guy and her lying to you. So if you have had your say, then leave it out of the rebuilding of your relationship. If you don’t, it could back fire on you.

And by the way, I completely agree with you that either she become a loving wife or you should find someone who will be just that.



FrazzledSadHusband said:


> Addition - I'm also having to deal with regret that I don't like feeling. At times I wish that instead of keeping my pants shut & looking for a committed relationship, I should have been out being a total horndog f------ anything female, so I could have experienced the things I am denied now. Not a good place to be for a christian.
> 
> I've heard it preached about that Satan uses what is most important to you against you.
> 
> I wanted to be in a intimate relationship, not married to the Heisman trophy. She's the running back, intimacy is the football, and I'm the stupid sob on the other end of the stiff arm.
> 
> My wife has referred to it as "Just sex", to me it is an intense bonding mechanism. It is NOT "Just sex"


I get all of this, having been married to men who decided to end the sex in our marriages. I do have to say that I never once had things like RJ go through my head. I guess I just saw my relationship a standalone relationship that had nothing to do with their previous ones.


----------



## sapientia

Cosmos said:


> That you're prepared to subjugate yourself and do penance for _ever _ordering haggis!


I'm semi-embarrased to report that I've eaten haggis and enjoyed it.

>


----------



## McDean

Continuing my role as Johnny, " I am personally offended by women moving into my 'territory' - the promiscuity landscape. For one, I have had to perfect my game and risk far more rejection than any women by virtue of my gender. Two, I have been with enough women that told me the night before we danced that they had no expectations only to wake up the next morning wanting more (which I told them up front wasn't going to happen), that I know it's a game few of them should, or even can, play"....and so 10 years from now when they marry the Sids of the world they will have a conversation about their time with me and their current husband will misread it and feel bad not realizing that in fact their current wife hated my guts and 'slvt' shamed me to everyone they met for months after our adventure....but because the mind has a funny way of remembering things as supposedly better than they really were, their current relationship will suffer because Nancy will forget to mention that part as well as the sexual acts we engaged in.


----------



## sapientia

marduk said:


> My point was that there was a time in my life where I was very much like Johnny, and we very much sometimes want to cast Johnny as some loser when he's in his 40s when he might not be.


Young people f- like rabbits. Rabbits aren't losers for it. Its just what they do.


----------



## EleGirl

McDean said:


> There is an assumption running under the radar, maybe Sid is not bummed that Nancy won't do these things with him now, maybe he is bummed because he is realizing now that he would rather be Johnny? And, while we have been having fun at Johnny's expense I would propose we look at him as if his life has turned out great...then how does Nancy look/cope and where does that leave Sid?


It does not matter if Johnny's life has turned out wonderful. It's his life. Nancy and Sid are not part of his life.

I don't get the question "how does Nancy look/cope?". She copes find. She's married to the man she wanted. She also looks fine. 

She is not diminished if Johnny turned out of have a great life. Sid's life is not diminished either.

Past... past is in the past.

Such strange outlooks on things.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> Could you give me an example of the bolded part?
> 
> When I answered Buddy's question asking about this same scenario, he seemed surprised that I didn't know any women IRL who avoid doing stuff they like with their spouses without a legitimate reason (physiological or psychological).
> 
> I've heard women say that although they enjoyed certain acts in the past, they don't do it now because it's not conducive to their current lifestyle (ie. public sex) or their current partner is not physically equipped for the act (too big for anal sex), or the relationship dynamic is not conducive to the act (BDSM type stuff).


And that would be examples of the kind of stuff I'm getting at. The latter bit.


----------



## sapientia

Personal said:


> :surprise::surprise::surprise::wink2:


Hahaha, I knew that would get a response.

Anyway, back to rabbits doing their thing... 

I have a teenage son. I think we have done a good job (so far) of instilling in him respect for others. But I also know that healthy, young people f- so...

I'd be a fool to try to interfere with biology. So instead, I roll with the tide and teach him to set his lines and anchors safely.

Wow, I'm Metaphor-Queen tonight.. :x


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> See this is what bothers me... the assumption that if she did X in her past, then if she does not do X now... it's because she feels less for you.
> 
> Do you realize that women have real feelings and real thoughts. She might have done it and found that that she HATES it.
> 
> But now you have turned something that she HATES into the only way that she can prove her love to you. And you have all this imagination going on in your head that makes whatever this thing is into the MOST IMPORANT think the world.





marduk said:


> I think it was in relation to things she liked with Johnny, but not with Sid.
> 
> Not that she didn't like it with Johnny or anybody else, including Sid.


 Someone can like something for a while and grow to not like it.

Why did she never have public sex with Sid? Did he not ask? Or did she say no? If she said no, it's probably because she tried it and now does not like it. 

It does not matter if she liked it at one point. She does not like it now.


----------



## Marduk

FrazzledSadHusband said:


> Mr. Football forced her to give/receive oral is how she put it. Along with many other things. After she revealed that she wasn't a virgin, I asked if we could try oral sex. She said, "Just don't cum, I don't like it. Maybe after I TRUST you more". This was years ago. I didn't say it then, but I did ask her recently, "If you didn't trust me, why did you marry me?"
> 
> All of her issues seem to come from Mr. Football. I didn't bring up issues for many years, hoping, (like a fool), that my showing her love, kindness and respect with break thru the walls. Took me getting hardnosed to make any progress.


OK.

Your wife was raped (or at least sexually assaulted then) and that's horrible.

You both need to get to counselling right away.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Why long for a relationship dynamic that isn't there?
> 
> Also, I love haggis, headcheese, broccoli and Brussels Sprouts. Especially headcheese.


Maybe I haven't said it enough times.

I only want everything.

I'm kidding. I know what you mean -- I've learned how to shrug my shoulders and move on to the next thing if my wife honestly doesn't like something and I do... even if I REALLY REALLY REALLY DO.

The focal area specifically is around stuff she liked with other dudes, but not with you.

And I would think that whole "I'm not that person anymore" stuff would probably diminish pretty quickly if she found herself single again.


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> Someone can like something for a while and grow to not like it.
> 
> Why did she never have public sex with Sid? Did he not ask? Or did she say no? If she said no, it's probably because she tried it and now does not like it.
> 
> It does not matter if she liked it at one point. She does not like it now.


EDIT: reread what you said.

So... even if she broke up with hubby and a hot mr sixpack came along... sex outside would be off limits? Forever?

I struggle with that.

Having been mr hot sixpack a couple of times.


----------



## EleGirl

McDean said:


> Putting on my Johnny hat- I would read all of this and immediately blow it off because it is too complicated. I would know what I want and don't want and if the women I meet don't want it I would simply move on. Shoot 100 baskets to make 10 as they say.
> 
> This being said, how many of the ladies reading this just now did so 'without' a judgement popping into their heads and I am sure shaming would be coming my way from men and women alike especially if I am still Johnny in my 40s.
> 
> Tell me I am wrong?


You are wrong. Sure some might judge you. Some won't.

Why would I, or most women, care if you are out partying and chasing skirts at age 40? or 50? or 60?

Each person gets to live their life the way they want.


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> Let me give you an example that I CAN relate to.
> 
> When my ex wife left, we hadn't had sex for months.
> 
> Yet she was gladly having sex with another guy.
> 
> I felt pretty crappy about that. She wouldn't have it with me, who she said she loved, and who I gave everything to, but she would with some loser that didn't care about her... and she didn't care about him.
> 
> That took months to peel myself off the pavement about.


I think that cheating in marriage is something very different. 

My husband ended our sex life. Then I found out that he was cheating all over the place.

It's a completely different situation.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> And that would be examples of the kind of stuff I'm getting at. The latter bit.


ARRGH! Now I'm totally confused. You said that you wanted to inspire her to "naturally want to be wild and funky", and "do the things she did and liked with another dude but doesn't want to do with you", however you admit there are legit reasons why she won't do them, so why are you still asking for something that is legitimately outside her boundaries? 

Using my examples.....some are physiological - there's not enough "inspiration" to make a 'large' man 'smaller'. Some are psychological - she's older now and getting busted by the po po for indecent exposure and having her entire community know is not something she's willing to risk, even if you are Mr. Awesome. Some are dynamic based - regardless what 50 Shades says, BDSM is not for everyone. What works in one relationship may be a mess in another. For example, a new partner may be too sadistic for her or too masochistic or too heavy handed or not dominant enough or not submissive enough.....so many variables.


----------



## EleGirl

FrazzledSadHusband said:


> Mr. Football forced her to give/receive oral is how she put it. Along with many other things. After she revealed that she wasn't a virgin, I asked if we could try oral sex. She said, "Just don't cum, I don't like it. Maybe after I TRUST you more". This was years ago. I didn't say it then, but I did ask her recently, "If you didn't trust me, why did you marry me?"
> 
> All of her issues seem to come from Mr. Football. I didn't bring up issues for many years, hoping, (like a fool), that my showing her love, kindness and respect with break thru the walls. Took me getting hardnosed to make any progress.


Sadly, a lot of us take way too long to learn that being hardnosed is actually the right approach.

Seems like your wife would benefit from some counseling to work through these issues. She should have done this years ago.

I'm sorry you have been put through this. Life is often just not fair.


----------



## EleGirl

McDean said:


> Definitely not slot shaming, just stating a point of view that exists. On your second question, absolutely no doubt in my mind that is true and I have heard so many women basically say that I can't help but believe it.
> 
> Perfect example, someone pointed out earlier in the thread that women can have sex with men out of their league more often than the reverse, and why wouldn't over the average joe if they have the option? So then, even though they may still entice him despite his 'rank' I suspect they feel better about it than if they went with guy they 'knew' they could have any time. Does that mean that thinking that way they are 'loser' shaming the average Joe?
> 
> Not much worth having comes easy or cheap...


Well, calling people cheap and easy is about a close to slvt shaming as it gets.

If you want to use those terms go for it.


----------



## EleGirl

TiggyBlue said:


> I'm confused :scratchhead:
> Is every guy a woman's bonked before her current partner like Johnny?


Apparently, in the minds of some men... YES!


----------



## EleGirl

McDean said:


> Continuing my role as Johnny, " I am personally offended by women moving into my 'territory' - the promiscuity landscape. For one, I have had to perfect my game and risk far more rejection than any women by virtue of my gender. Two, I have been with enough women that told me the night before we danced that they had no expectations only to wake up the next morning wanting more (which I told them up front wasn't going to happen), that I know it's a game few of them should, or even can, play"....and so 10 years from now when they marry the Sids of the world they will have a conversation about their time with me and their current husband will misread it and feel bad not realizing that in fact their current wife hated my guts and 'slvt' shamed me to everyone they met for months after our adventure....but because the mind has a funny way of remembering things as supposedly better than they really were, their current relationship will suffer because Nancy will forget to mention that part as well as the sexual acts we engaged in.


Well now Johnny, I see that you have some deep seated issues. I think it would be beneficial for you to get into some serious therapy and work through all of this. You clearly have a way of restructuring memories to fit into your framework of self loathing.

I do wish you well! >


----------



## sapientia

McDean said:


> Continuing my role as Johnny, " I am personally offended by women moving into my 'territory' - the promiscuity landscape. For one, I have had to perfect my game and risk far more rejection than any women by virtue of my gender. Two, I have been with enough women that told me the night before we danced that they had no expectations only to wake up the next morning wanting more (which I told them up front wasn't going to happen), that I know it's a game few of them should, or even can, play"....and so 10 years from now when they marry the Sids of the world they will have a conversation about their time with me and their current husband will misread it and feel bad not realizing that in fact their current wife hated my guts and 'slvt' shamed me to everyone they met for months after our adventure....but because the mind has a funny way of remembering things as supposedly better than they really were, their current relationship will suffer because Nancy will forget to mention that part as well as the sexual acts we engaged in.


Fabio! Dah-ling! I knew I would find you again somewhere you crazy, sexy man-ho...

(j/k for those who don't grok dry humour)

>


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> EDIT: reread what you said.
> 
> So... even if she broke up with hubby and a hot mr sixpack came along... sex outside would be off limits? Forever?
> 
> I struggle with that.
> 
> Having been mr hot sixpack a couple of times.


The words used earlier were sex in public. That's very different from just sex outside. I've had sex on a deserted beach, and many times in a forest with no one else within miles. That's very different from sex in public.

Sex in public might very well be off limits forever... even with Mr. sixpack... sex in public is a crime. She's probably smart enough now to know the consequences of that going wrong.

Even Mr. Hot Sixpack is not worth having a criminal record for.


----------



## EleGirl

I cannot believe that this thread is what I did after work this evening.. now my head hurts :crying:


----------



## sapientia

Ele - this is always best done with a full glass of a nice Italian red.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I am kind of confused by this. How does this square with being angry that she is too "lazy" (hope I am not misquoting here) to "bring her a game"? Also, would you be at all interested in what you could do to change her opinion that you are the best she ever had so that you could get an unequivocal yes the next time she asked?


Why would I expect my wife to make her best effort (bring her A game) when it comes to making me happy?

I'm bringing my A game (and it takes a good deal of effort on my part). She can bring hers.

Being my wife's "best sexual partner" isn't an issue for me IRL. I might be or I might not be. Of course I'm doing whatever I can to be the best I can be. That's bringing my A game.


----------



## sapientia

Buddy400 said:


> I'm bringing my A game (and it takes a good deal of effort on my part). She can bring hers.


She probably thinks she does. On other issues that she values but apparently you do not.

#lovelanguages...


----------



## Buddy400

Personal said:


> Since people change, of course she should be cool with it. So one should either accept the person as they are today or they ought to move on.
> 
> I used to skydive as well as abseil and I used to do caving plus I even sailed racing dinghies, yet even though I used to enjoy such activities I don't do that anymore and so far have no interest in doing it again either.
> 
> Although I remember such activities fondly that doesn't mean I want to do them again, or that I should be obliged to do them again because my partner hasn't experienced the same with me or otherwise at all.
> 
> The same applies to sex as well for example I was in a sexual relationship with one woman. Who during the first time we had sex before we got started, told me she won't do anal sex because she had already given it a good go and decided it wasn't for her. I made it clear that was fine and never tried that with her at any point during our relationship. I didn't resent her for it, and I didn't bother her about it either. Since I've enjoyed sex just as much with women who don't do that, just as much as I have with women who do.
> 
> Likewise there are things my wife and I have done with others yet we have not done together. For example before I met my wife I have had sex with a woman in a nightclub, as it turns out my wife has had sex with a man in a nightclub before we started dating. Yet fun though it was for both of us, we have never done the same together nor been inclined to want to either.
> 
> At the same time there are things we have done together that we haven't done with others and things we have done with others that we've never done together.
> 
> Chances are if you're having sex with someone who isn't a virgin, they've done all sorts of things with another or others and have probably plus hopefully enjoyed it as well. Yet that doesn't mean they owe you their past or that they should cater to your insecurities. There is far more merit in expecting someone to get over themselves, than in feeding their insecurity by letting them think it's justified at your expense.
> 
> It's just sex, so get over it!


I believe that, because sex has always been easy for you to obtain you share the same opinion as the women here.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> Why would I expect my wife to make her best effort (bring her A game) when it comes to making me happy?
> 
> I'm bringing my A game (and it takes a good deal of effort on my part). She can bring hers.
> 
> Being my wife's "best sexual partner" isn't an issue for me IRL. I might be or I might not be. Of course I'm doing whatever I can to be the best I can be. That's bringing my A game.


What bothers me about the Sid/Nancy story is that there is the clearly stated dynamic that she is having a hard time and sex frequency is down. That implies that she's the problem. It's a scenario in which it might be easier to understand her husband questioning things.

This thread is not specifically about that kind of scenario.

It could be a relationship where everything is fine... except for the husband keeps dragging info out of his wife and then shaming her about her sexual past... a rather normal sexual past. It's like there is a HUGE effort on this thread to find the one scenario where it might be a bit ok ... when she is not giving her A game.

That story also ignores that Sid has clearly not given his A game for a long time.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> I believe that, because sex has always been easy for you to obtain you share the same opinion as the women here.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: OMG


----------



## Buddy400

FrenchFry said:


> I personally like myself way more now than when I was with Johnny. Because I like myself more, I don't have to do things I don't really like anymore to placate my partner.
> 
> To want me to go back to when I didn't like myself to make Sid feel better about himself seems absurd.


It wasn't part of the narrative that Nancy did those things even though she didn't want to just to placate Johnny.

It wasn't part of the narrative that Nancy didn't like herself then.

Why do you like yourself better now? Do you regret your past?

Why are you inserting those thing?


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> My reassurances would be genuine and from my heart. I would tell him of my love for him and how I chose to _share_ the last 20 years of my life with him because of all of his great qualities. I would tell him how I think he's a sexy man and a wonderful husband and father.
> 
> If my genuine, heart felt reassurances were not good enough for him, then there's really little else to talk about, no?


That would be good enough for me.

When was it implied that a woman had said that...... and the man was continuing to whine about it?


----------



## Buddy400

intheory said:


> *I can agree with and sympathize with a guy wanting the same intensity and passion that earlier boyfriends got.*


Thank you


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> ARRGH! Now I'm totally confused. You said that you wanted to inspire her to "naturally want to be wild and funky", and "do the things she did and liked with another dude but doesn't want to do with you", however you admit there are legit reasons why she won't do them, so why are you still asking for something that is legitimately outside her boundaries?
> 
> Using my examples.....some are physiological - there's not enough "inspiration" to make a 'large' man 'smaller'. Some are psychological - she's older now and getting busted by the po po for indecent exposure and having her entire community know is not something she's willing to risk, even if you are Mr. Awesome. Some are dynamic based - regardless what 50 Shades says, BDSM is not for everyone. What works in one relationship may be a mess in another. For example, a new partner may be too sadistic for her or too masochistic or too heavy handed or not dominant enough or not submissive enough.....so many variables.


I guess what I'm getting at is that with so many variables in play, why can't we adjust them?


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> What bothers me about the Sid/Nancy story is that there is the clearly stated dynamic that she is having a hard time and sex frequency is down. That implies that she's the problem. It's a scenario in which it might be easier to understand her husband questioning things.
> 
> This thread is not specifically about that kind of scenario.
> 
> It could be a relationship where everything is fine... except for the husband keeps dragging info out of his wife and then shaming her about her sexual past... a rather normal sexual past. It's like there is a HUGE effort on this thread to find the one scenario where it might be a bit ok ... when she is not giving her A game.
> 
> That story also ignores that Sid has clearly not given his A game for a long time.


Hmm.

I guess I was thinking that most guys would only really get bent out of shape if they're not happy with their sex life.

Am I wrong?


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> It's like the idea that if she had anal sex with anyone in the past, she has to have it with the guy she's with now... *regardless of her not liking it, or finding it too painful,* etc.


This is a strawman.

Sure, clowns on other threads may have said things like that.

But guys on this thread have almost universally made it a condition that, whatever the act was, she liked it at the time. And it's not necessarily about a particular act, it's about an attitude.


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> It is 100% in your imagination that Nancy never went for Sid in the same way.
> 
> why, oh why, is it so necessary to make up this dynamic?


You are blind Ele and no help for it. She showed far more sexual effort for Johnny than Sid.

Regardless of any specific act. Ask Marduk. That was his illustration. Nancy showed more sexual enthusiasm for Johnny than Sid.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> You are comparing a person's sex life to someone who hides the existence of their child... a real live human who lives, breaths and has feelings.
> 
> If you do not understand how profoundly wrong it is to hide the existence of a child... (hiding = being ashamed of the child) ... then I just do not know what to say.


You are WAY too literal


----------



## Buddy400

Fozzy said:


> One of the ways I helped my marriage was by realizing that my wife really wanted the old me that no longer existed. And bringing him back to life.
> 
> 
> Just sayin.


Well, that's a really weird attitude!

I think she should have just realized that you've grown and you're not the same person that you used to be. Asking you to be the person you were 20+ years ago is unacceptable. 

She can take it or leave it!


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> Hmm.
> 
> I guess I was thinking that most guys would only really get bent out of shape if they're not happy with their sex life.
> 
> Am I wrong?


Yes you are wrong.

ETA: I said "yes" here a bit too quickly. I don't know if most guys would only get bent out of shape if they were not happy with their sex life... and then what? They start picking at their wife's sexual past?

What I do know is that some significant number of men put a guilt trip on their wife/partner and the women feel that they have to be ashamed of their past to maintain the relationship. This is usually not relative to the quality of their sex life.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> Do you realize that women have real feelings and real thoughts. She might have done it and found that that she HATES it.


You do this All.The.Time.

You constantly talk about making women do something they HATE when no one is talking about this.


----------



## Fozzy

marduk said:


> Hmm.
> 
> I guess I was thinking that most guys would only really get bent out of shape if they're not happy with their sex life.
> 
> Am I wrong?


No, you're not.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Ladies have any of you been Nancy in marduk's scenario?
I personally haven't so maybe that's why I can't really relate.


----------



## Buddy400

marduk said:


> Why is it hard for Nancy to give Sid that validation?


That's a REALLY good question


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> So if you were with a woman who did not want sex in a public place, you would do whatever it took to get her to do that? Really?


Don't misconstrue my nature. The women I have been with, including my wife, have wanted very much to please me. The feeling has been mutual and I have never been pushy.

If a woman was with me the preliminary bvllshyt was over and they were in for everything they had.

I gave the same.

I'm an advocate for getting what you want out of a relationship but extortion or any other pathetic measure is far removed from what I am talking about.

I'm not the type of man that is said no to because the enthusiasm level is kept very high. I have not been with a sexually reserved woman ever. Which lead me to believe women were not sexually reserved given the right circumstances.

Someone is far more likely to go animal on you sexually if they are very excited and enthusiastic.

Enthusiasm not extortion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> You are WAY too literal


I'm sorry, but a literal example was given. So I gave a reply in the literal.


----------



## Fozzy

EleGirl said:


> Yes you are wrong.


Wow, Ele.

You're saying MOST guys would have a problem with this, regardless of whether they were satisfied with their sex life?

Can't you give us a little more credit than that?


----------



## Buddy400

marduk said:


> Let me give you an example that I CAN relate to.
> 
> When my ex wife left, we hadn't had sex for months.
> 
> Yet she was gladly having sex with another guy.
> 
> I felt pretty crappy about that. She wouldn't have it with me, who she said she loved, and who I gave everything to, but she would with some loser that didn't care about her... and she didn't care about him.
> 
> That took months to peel myself off the pavement about.


But you don't understand. That's just about who she was THEN, it had nothing to do with who she was before or after.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> This is a strawman.
> 
> Sure, clowns on other threads may have said things like that.
> 
> But guys on this thread have almost universally made it a condition that, whatever the act was, she liked it at the time. And it's not necessarily about a particular act, it's about an attitude.


I do recall one guy on this thread saying that even if she had a good reason to not like anal, she still had to try it with her husband.. that's the right thing to do (according to him.)

Plus, the topic of this thread is not only about what's posted on this thread. The conversation on this thread keeps being pulled to that Nancy/Sid thing that is not really what's it's about.

This thread is about whether or not women have had their partner/spouse shame them for their past sex history. 

There have been a lot of things said on threads here in TAM that are quite disturbing. Brining that up here is valid since they do apply to the topic.


----------



## EleGirl

Fozzy said:


> Wow, Ele.
> 
> You're saying MOST guys would have a problem with this, regardless of whether they were satisfied with their sex life?
> 
> Can't you give us a little more credit than that?


No, I'm not saying most guys have a problem.

I'm saying that there is a significant number of guys that have a problem with their partner/wife having a sexual past and use it to shame the woman.. even though they have a good sex life. This is the situation that this thread is about.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> You do this All.The.Time.
> 
> You constantly talk about making women do something they HATE when no one is talking about this.


All.The.Time???? 

Really?????? 

I'm talking about it on this thread because that's often part of the dynamics of the shame game... to shame a woman into doing what the guy wants.

Now I'm not talking about all men doing this. I'm talking about the men who do this... it's some subset of men.

There is a guy who posts here who said on a thread that if his wife/partner has ever done anything with any other man she HAS to do it with him. He said that even if the sex act was something that was forced on her during CSA, during rape or severe abuse.. if she did it before she HAD to do it with him. And he expected her to give him a list of every man she ever did anything with and what was done. 

That's what this thread is about. It's not about the softer stuff that keeps being talked about.

I'm sorry if you do not like the topic.


----------



## sapientia

EleGirl said:


> I do recall one guy on this thread saying that even if she had a good reason to not like anal, she still had to try it with her husband.. that's the right thing to do (according to him.)


LOL, I know another story where she had anal with her ex and wouldn't with her new H. She apparently didn't like it. Too bad for new H but if he wanted anal, he should have either got it before they got married, or checked if this was a deal breaker before getting married.

My H hates carnival rides. He gets vertigo. Is it "fair" that I have to go on the latest Yak-Master ride with my teenager all the time?

Nowhere in marriage does it say "fair and equitable". Relationships aren't fair, they are transactional and at will. People can leave anytime they wish. Those who forget how to ask nicely, cajole and negotiate don't stay married for too long.


----------



## Buddy400

FrenchFry said:


> Hey! Using hyperbole doesn't make it any less true!


Hyperbole is the best thing ever!


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> The conversation on this thread keeps being pulled to that Nancy/Sid thing that is not really what's it's about.


We're trying to discuss an issue, Sid & Nancy is a story set up to highlight specific situations so that the ensuing discussion can be worthwhile.

We all know that it's not EXACTLY like Sid & Nancy in real life. Really, we know.


----------



## MEM2020

Life,
This type of over sharing has a subtext: I'm really hot. Women find me very attractive. 

I think you are right, he's compensate for a 19 year age gap. Frequently volunteering information like this isn't nice. Most folks would not want to be on the receiving end of a stream of this sort. 




lifeistooshort said:


> I do think there can be a somewhat find line between shaming/judging someone for their past and simply preferring someone who holds similar values. If I decide not to be with someone who has a past I find unacceptable am I judging them? Or am I simply deciding that we have different values?
> 
> As I said in my earlier post I'm one who believes the past is in the past and has no place in the present. I don't ask question I don't want the answer to. Of course things that affect the present are excluded from this.....ie STD's you've had or have, kids you have, ex spouses you have, things like that. My husband barely knows anything about my past because he's never asked and I've not offered.....if he asked I'd answer his questions honestly but I'd answer what was asked. He, on the other hand, had diarrhea of the mouth when it came to his exes, to the point where I shared some of the things he said with a few people close to me and the reaction was one of WTF?????
> 
> Needless to say hb has a much more extensive past then I do, and I was obviously not a virgin as I was divorced with two kids, and my ex wasn't my first. Still, I feel sometimes like husband doesn't share the same values as I do where sex is concerned simply because he got around so much, and his constant need to level the playing field emotionally (I'm 19 years younger) by sticking his past in my face has left me feeling like I'm one in a long line. The thing is that I don't think I'm judging him of shaming him for his past but I do wonder how I can really be an different than the long line before me, especially if said long line was so great he felt the need to constantly bring it up. I've since put a stop to this oversharing and let's just say it took some new ahole ripping on my part. But his constant need to share told me that he thinks about exes a lot, probably when he's with me so how can I really be that special? He hasn't done this for a few years now but it still bothers me.
> 
> I do have mixed feelings about the whole "what they did with others they must do with me" attitude a lot of guys seem to have. People and circumstances changes as people get older.....hb had sex on the beach (how do I even know that? Because it's one of the many unsolicited past experiences he's brought up for absolutely no reason) but he and I have never had sex on the beach. I don't have a big desire for this but if I asked and he was now uncomfortable (because he's a lot older now) should I throw a hissy fit? I wanted to have sex in the car a long time ago and he wanted to wait until we were home so it would be more comfortable. Ok then. But one new year's eve we were relaxing and literally out of nowhere he proclaims "I had sex in a car on new year's even once. It was so cold we had to keep the heater one". WTF? What was the purpose of even bringing that up? So should I now throw a hissy fit because he didn't want to have sex with me in the car that one time? People change as they get older, so doing something once doesn't obligate you to continue to do it forever.
> 
> But you know what? Even though I keep it to myself I suppose I do think just a little bit less of him for all of this. Maybe I am judging him in this way, but I know how sh!tty all of the unsolicited sharing has made me feel. I don't bring it up with him and our sex life is pretty good but it's still there. So maybe it's not so much that he has x in his past but the fact that he was such an insensitive pr!ck with the oversharing that I'm really judging. I'll have to think on it.
> 
> Any, just my 5 cents and probably more than anyone was interested in. But I type fast so sometimes I get going and before I know it I've written a novel.


----------



## MEM2020

Ele,
I'm confused. You're saying this thread is about the subset of men who are complete nut jobs? Because the guy you reference below is clearly psycho. 





EleGirl said:


> All.The.Time????
> 
> Really??????
> 
> I'm talking about it on this thread because that's often part of the dynamics of the shame game... to shame a woman into doing what the guy wants.
> 
> Now I'm not talking about all men doing this. I'm talking about the men who do this... it's some subset of men.
> 
> There is a guy who posts here who said on a thread that if his wife/partner has ever done anything with any other man she HAS to do it with him. He said that even if the sex act was something that was forced on her during CSA, during rape or severe abuse.. if she did it before she HAD to do it with him. And he expected her to give him a list of every man she ever did anything with and what was done.
> 
> That's what this thread is about. It's not about the softer stuff that keeps being talked about.
> 
> I'm sorry if you do not like the topic.


----------



## norajane

Lila said:


> Several threads have popped up recently by men asking for help on processing their partner's sexual past. A sexual past that was understood on some level but the details of which have now come to light.
> 
> One common question that I see asked is whether or not the partner regrets her sexual past or feels shame over her wanton behavior at that time. I often see these behaviors cumulatively described as 'youthful indiscretions', 'escapades/wild adventures', or 'acting out'. These types of questions insinuate that the only way to judge these experiences as acceptable is to invalidate them with regret and/or shame. This is baffling to me.
> 
> I know that there are women who do genuinely regret something in their sexual past, but I don't think this is true of the majority. I think many women unknowingly (or possibly purposefully) feel they have to suppress these positive sexual experiences or replace them with negative feelings in order to make their sexual history palatable to a future partner. Clean the slate, so to speak.
> 
> I personally do not regret any of my sexual past. I enjoyed my sexual experiences and remember them as positive events in my life. It was _history_. A history that I enjoyed and one where I was happy.
> 
> Luckily, my lack of regret did not disqualify me as a good long term partner for my husband, just as his lack of regret over his sexual history didn't disqualify him as a good long term partner for me.
> 
> *I know that I'm cut from a whole other piece of cloth but would like to hear the ladies of TAM thoughts on the subject.
> 
> Do you regret parts or the whole of your sexual history? Why/why not.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners? If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly?*


This is what the thread was about. 

The guys then developed the Sid & Nancy stories, and embellished as posts went on, in order to explain why a guy might get all jealous and upset if he learned that a young Nancy once went after a young Johnny before they ever met. Sid's sad that he didn't get a chance to experience young and experimental Nancy, just boring Nancy of today. Sid doesn't get it that Nancy's passion as a 40 year old woman is of immensely greater capacity than she was capable of at 20, and that focusing on "what Johnny got" isn't going to get him any closer to experiencing that deep intimacy with that Nancy of today. That, in fact, his fixation on "what Johnny got" will push Nancy away.

I'm not sure what Sid and Nancy have to do with Lila's questions. Sid didn't expect Nancy to regret going after Johnny, and it wouldn't make Sid feel any better if she did. Sid is upset that she didn't go after him like that. 

But maybe Nancy ended up feeling like it would have been best if Sid had never known of her crush on Johnny and her mad pursuit of him back in the day. Maybe she ended up feeling regret that Sid can't stop obsessing about Johnny long enough to give her an orgasm.


----------



## EleGirl

MEM11363 said:


> Ele,
> I'm confused. You're saying this thread is about the subset of men who are complete nut jobs? Because the guy you reference below is clearly psycho.


Well, he's an active poster here. He got likes on the posts where he said that. His point was that his ego could not take it. The whole thread was pretty disgusting. I wish I could remember it... it was some time ago. 

This is the worse one of these types of attitudes that I've seen on TAM. But I've seen quite a few... enough to be concerned that it's not unusual at all for women to be pushed to feel that it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> That would be good enough for me.
> 
> When was it implied that a woman had said that...... and the man was continuing to whine about it?



The passive aggressive behavior he was exhibiting was what I considered whiney. If he had a problem, then speak up. Don't expect a woman to read minds. 

If dude needs reassurance then no problem. As the poem goes... "let me count the ways".


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> I guess what I'm getting at is that with so many variables in play, why can't we adjust them?


How?


----------



## McDean

This thread still fascinates me even a day later. Whether its the OP original question or the myriad questions/conversation points made since the thread began. It's turned me into a fence rider in that I can't seem to resolves a 'final thought' on where I land on the subject. I even played Johnny for awhile to elicit additional insight, but to no avail. So, I will provide the landscape on both sides of the fence as I see it today:

1) "Shaming women for their sexual past"....IMO - not healthy and certainly not fair since it happened at a different time, place, person etc...

on the other hand....

2) "Men having an 'ego' reaction to the info about their current women's sexual past and as a result possibly shaming them as a result"....well, if as many men have the reactions we're all talking about throughout this thread then maybe it is how we're built and if so, then here again is another case of shaming men for being men...IMO -also not healthy....

Possible Fence Description: 3) "Men and women are 'not' as similar as many in the TAM community would like us all to believe - it's a defense mechanism thrown up by either gender when it helps explain (ie. deflect) a behavior/reaction/comment/approach that is not widely well received and so they feel 'called out' for it"....IMO- saying women and men are the same sexually (generalized) and they are the same in what they desire from relationships (generalized) is not supported by a single thing I have read, heard or observed.....but, that is just IMO!

The Point: If something you're about to tell someone has no material impact on the present situation, is no longer relevant in your life, can not advance the current scenario in any positive direction - then don't share it (women) and/or don't ask it (men) or vice/versa! Just because someone you love asks you a stupid question doesn't mean you have to be stupid enough to answer it in full color detail.....


----------



## lifeistooshort

MEM11363 said:


> Life,
> This type of over sharing has a subtext: I'm really hot. Women find me very attractive.
> 
> I think you are right, he's compensate for a 19 year age gap. Frequently volunteering information like this isn't nice. Most folks would not want to be on the receiving end of a stream of this sort.


Thanks MEM. I've never really had a guy's input on it......my husband is very passive aggressive so he likes to get little digs in instead of letting you know there's an issue, which frankly I don't respect at all. I've changed the way I respond to these little digs so they do seem to happen a little less but they are still there.

And what I shared is but the tip of the iceberg.....there are many more examples and your mouth would open in disbelief a little more with each example. 

But running your mouth like this fosters an adversarial environment where you should be a team and does not make your wife feel safe and secure with you. 

And there is the little detail that people who live in the past can't fully live in the present because they've always got one foot stuck in the past. My hb also has a lot of trouble with this.

I did tell him during our blowup that if he couldn't be in such a relationship without being a rude pr!ck then it wasn't for him and he should find someone his own age. He didn't like that. Then I shared lots of details about my past that he didn't want, including the huge c0ck on my first, since we're sharing. After that I told him that people who constantly talk about exes are insecure and pathetic, nobody cares, and the next time it came up I was getting him a cookie.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Hmm, the three drive, lust, attraction, and attachment.

What everyone wants from their partner is the highest level of attraction love where the dopamine is so high that people lose their inhibition and the drive to please the other.

That type of love tends to be fleeting and comes in spurts for most couples. I am realistic enough to know that I may not trigger the highest levels ever in my gf. Hell, I have a higher level of attraction to the actress Bonnie Wright, the one who played Ginny in the Harry Potter movies. But that is just it, my level of attraction may be higher but it is just the surface.

With my relationship, I strive for all three to some extent. Without a strong bond, during a lull, the bond that is strong will keep us together to work things out.

There was a research done and I am sure that EleGirl read the same research before as I remember her referencing it in the past. Partners were given oxytocin in one group and none in the other. The group used attractive researchers for this experiment. The ones with the artificially higher levels of oxytocin made less of a move towards the attractive researchers in general. They were less likely to act on that attraction.

So, I may not trigger the highest levels of attraction ever, but at least it is a healthy all three.

There are some on here that proclaim that there current partner is the most attractive, best in bed they ever had. If that relationship cease to be for whatever reason, is the next person suppose to be the best ever, and possibly the next after that.

Just because my gf is not the most attractive gf I ever had, and my most attractive gf was a recovering cocaine addict, nor is she the best sexual partner ever, I should let her go because the relationship is so fulfilling.

There are some posters stating that if they are not number one in the sex department, then they have settled. NO one knows the strain of dating a recovering drug addict, and how superficial that relationship was. I am not the same broken person I was back in high school. I would not leve my current gf for my ex due to many complications. The bond I have for her is caring for her well-being at best.

The bond I have for my gf is strong, stronger than it was with my ex.

Btw, my ex's sexual past did not bother me either. She used her body for protection and money.

Settling is sometimes an absurd comment to me. Should I go for pure physical attraction, then I would settle not having the other aspects of a healthy relationship I currently enjoy. Should I give up my gf for a sexual freak of an ex, then I would lose the person who loves my brand of humor and someone who is more nurturing. If I am with the sexual freak, I would settle in other aspects.

Posters are told to cherish what they have and improve the other areas to a acceptable level. I am grateful for all three drives being really great. If one should flag, then hopefully as a couple we will work on it.

There are both male and female posters who are in love with their partner but the sex is blah, but they will not leave their relationship for the possibility of better sex. They just want it to improve. They have not let their partner go for someone more attractive that shows interest. Some might, but there is usually other relationship issues as well or personal ones.

So, did I settle, I do not see it that way. That would be unrealistic expectations placed on another person to be the best in everything.


----------



## always_alone

The problem with the whole Sid and Nancy story is that it is a caricature based on a set of preconceptions and yet is somehow supposed to explain everything.

Just because Nancy was attracted to Johnny and enjoyed sex with him does not mean that she is comparing him to Sid, that she is still pining for him, or that she thinks one way or the other about him.

Just because she married Sid doesn't mean she is less attracted to him, that she looks down on him, or that he is somehow inferior to Johnny or a consolation prize (indeed, I find it utterly bizarre how many people here seem to think this is obviously true).

Just because Johnny had sex with Nancy doesn't make him a stud, or anything special. He doesn't know Nancy better, didn't get more from her. Maybe he was better in bed, maybe she loved him once, but that's probably it.

The whole scenario is basically Sid making stuff up in his head in order torture himself and shame his wife for having a sexual past. What he really needs go do is let go of it. And maybe up his skills in bed.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ConanHub said:


> You are blind Ele and no help for it. She showed far more sexual *effort *for Johnny than Sid.
> 
> Regardless of any specific act. Ask Marduk. That was his illustration. Nancy showed more sexual enthusiasm for Johnny than Sid.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Enthusiasm, yes. Effort, no. Being funky does not require effort. What no one here will say is what do you (ANYONE husband or wife) DO with that information?


I guess what I am getting at here is that she is being held responsible for a fact of her feelings that she has no control over. As if somehow she is acting in an unloving and disrespectful manner.


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> Yes you are wrong.
> 
> ETA: I said "yes" here a bit too quickly. I don't know if most guys would only get bent out of shape if they were not happy with their sex life... and then what? They start picking at their wife's sexual past?
> 
> What I do know is that some significant number of men put a guilt trip on their wife/partner and the women feel that they have to be ashamed of their past to maintain the relationship. This is usually not relative to the quality of their sex life.


I think I would struggle doing that unless I was actually secretly dissatisfied.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> How?


I'm not into tiring bdsm with you because you don't act like a Dom. 

Ok how would you need that to happen?

That kind of thing. 

Sex is pretty malleable and infinitely learnable.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> The problem with the whole Sid and Nancy story is that it is a caricature based on a set of preconceptions and yet is somehow supposed to explain everything.
> 
> Just because Nancy was attracted to Johnny and enjoyed sex with him does not mean that she is comparing him to Sid, that she is still pining for him, or that she thinks one way or the other about him.
> 
> Just because she married Sid doesn't mean she is less attracted to him, that she looks down on him, or that he is somehow inferior to Johnny or a consolation prize (indeed, I find it utterly bizarre how many people here seem to think this is obviously true).
> 
> Just because Johnny had sex with Nancy doesn't make him a stud, or anything special. He doesn't know Nancy better, didn't get more from her. Maybe he was better in bed, maybe she loved him once, but that's probably it.
> 
> The whole scenario is basically Sid making stuff up in his head in order torture himself and shame his wife for having a sexual past. What he really needs go do is let go of it. And maybe up his skills in bed.


I wasn't necessarily trying to explain everything, I was trying to explore it with a believable scenario that everyone could be objective about. 

Because I don't really get it, and because it obviously triggers a lot of people, I thought a conversation about a hypothetical couple might lead to some insights.

And for me anyway, it has.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Enthusiasm, yes. Effort, no. Being funky does not require effort. What no one here will say is what do you (ANYONE husband or wife) DO with that information?
> 
> 
> I guess what I am getting at here is that she is being held responsible for a fact of her feelings that she has no control over. As if somehow she is acting in an unloving and disrespectful manner.


Ok good - we kinda glossed over that point.

I think part of Sid's anguish is that he has to jump through a ton of hoops to have sex with his wife, after devoting his life to her. 

And Johnny basically just had to say "get naked" and Nancy would.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Ok good - we kinda glossed over that point.
> 
> I think part of Sid's anguish is that he has to jump through a ton of hoops to have sex with his wife, after devoting his life to her.
> 
> And Johnny basically just had to say "get naked" and Nancy would.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ok he has a problem. So... what? It seems the point is she is somehow to BLAME for this and should be doing something about remedy and amends.


----------



## samyeagar

One of the things some people run into, both men and women, is the desire to have something they can objectively measure. When it comes to sex, things like enthusiasm, frequency, variety...those can be objective measures for how into someone a person is. Once objective measures are determined, they are meaningless unless there is a point of scale and comparison. An example for simplicity's sake... "I have 437" Is that a lot? Is that good? Bad? Successful? A person can't answer those questions because there is no point of comparison.

Some people have a difficult time compartmentalizing things from the past, and when things like "the past is the past" coupled with "my past made me who I am today", then add in "my relationship stands on its own, and is independent of any other relationship" it is difficult to reconcile those things without it sounding like trying to have it all ways.

It is also true that memories naturally change over time, and are seen through the filter of the present, and all too often ones present memory of things past no longer resembles what it was at the time.

Many of you know some of the issues my wife and I have faced regarding her past, and I fully acknowledge that we are not the normal situation, certainly towards an extreme. The vast majority of things, I don't even consider because it is all the normal, mundane stuff people do in relationships, crazy hormone driven teen years, and such. Those things don't bother me in the least. There was one thing though that was particularly difficult to process because it really seemed to be a huge contradiction between present words and past actions...

When my wife and I were talking about sex, and sexual attitudes early in our relationship, she told me that oral was something she didn't mind doing in a reciprocal sort of way. That it wasn't something she would give without getting. She didn't overly enjoy giving giving, but didn't have a strong aversion to it either, but loved receiving good oral, and would feel selfish if she didn't reciprocate. She also expressed that because of how things had been with her abusive, serial cheating, ex husband, that she would never allow herself to be pressured into giving by another partner. That sounded reasonable to me.

We had been dating about a year and a half, when I oversaw her having a Facebook conversation with one of her friends, where she mentioned that she had just been using her ex husband for sex. I made the mistake of not addressing that right then and there. I did not know the full context of the conversation, but it did bother me that my then girlfriend was still talking with her friends about sex with her ex husband of four years. A clear example of the past not being the past. It finally got into my head so badly, that the ED hit pretty hard, and I asked her about that conversation. In our discussion that followed, I found out that she had been having sex with him up until a few months before we started dating, and that she had no intention of ever telling me. It also came out that she had given him oral, with no pressure or reciprocation. This became a situation of one thing not being like the other, and regardless of what she had said, her recent actions did not match up, and clearly I was operating under far more restrictions and conditions than her ex. The thing is, I never would have thought to ask about any of that if it hadn't been for her talking about it with a friend. So much for the past being the past.


----------



## BetrayedDad

marduk said:


> Ok good - we kinda glossed over that point.
> 
> I think part of Sid's anguish is that he has to jump through a ton of hoops to have sex with his wife, after devoting his life to her.
> 
> And Johnny basically just had to say "get naked" and Nancy would.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Because Nancy had the HS stud every girl wanted so she would do ANYTHING to please him and was all too eager. This straw man argument about how she "hated it" and was "pressured into it" is laughable. She's LOVED getting plowed by Johnny, it make her feel SO special that this "bad boy" who could have any woman would choose her. She couldn't drop to her knees fast enough just to get a glimpse of that six pack while bobbing up and down.

Sid, meh. He's a nice guy but Sid is a dime a dozen. He treats her well but he's vanilla cake. She didn't have to chase after him, he pursed her aggressively. He was there beta orbiting after the breakup to console her so why should she put much effort in? The difference is she HAD to bring her "A" game with Johnny to keep him interested. Sid THOUGHT she had no "A" game. She has one alright but its too much effort and frankly overkill to keep Sid around. 

Why make a filet mignon when you can whip up a hamburger and shut Sid up? Johnny don't eat hamburgers.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> When my wife and I were talking about sex, and sexual attitudes early in our relationship, she told me that oral was something she didn't mind doing in a reciprocal sort of way. That it wasn't something she would give without getting. She didn't overly enjoy giving giving,


Oh! I know this is only marginally related. One of the best things my DH ever did was suggest we read Dan Savage together. The concept of Good, Giving and Game is the KEY to a happy marriage. It makes someone ease of when the other is uncomfy and makes someone strive past their discomfort.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Ok he has a problem. So... what? It seems the point is she is somehow to BLAME for this and should be doing something about remedy and amends.


So it's all on Sid to keep jumping through Nancy's ever increasing number of hoops?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> So it's all on Sid to keep jumping through Nancy's ever increasing number of hoops?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


To achieve what? Something Nancy does not want? What does "all on Sid" even mean? It's all on him to want her to feel some way she doesn't? Yes, it is. He married her THE WAY SHE WAS. And all of the sudden, that is not good enough for him. He changed the game. She didn't.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> To achieve what? Something Nancy does not want? What does "all on Sid" even mean? It's all on him to want her to feel some way she doesn't? Yes, it is. He married her THE WAY SHE WAS. And all of the sudden, that is not good enough for him. He changed the game. She didn't.


The scenario specifically said that their sex life wasn't what it once was, and Sid didn't like that. But it wasn't a priority for Nancy.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> The scenario specifically said that their sex life wasn't what it once was, and Sid didn't like that. But it wasn't a priority for Nancy.


If that is the case, what the hell does Johnny even have to do with it? I swear to god, you guys are making up scenarios just to have a dude pity party. In the ladies lounge.

You get married. Things are new. New is easy. New gets old. Old is harder. Things are different when old happens. Married people deal with it. You know NO ONE thinks that Nancy should not address her husband's concerns about their sex life. Just that shaming her because she used to be freaky with someone else is wrong. To boot, it is terribly ineffective. Those 2 things might be related.


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> The scenario specifically said that their sex life wasn't what it once was, and Sid didn't like that. But it wasn't a priority for Nancy.


But this isn't what the OP is all about, and it's confusing people. The OP mentioned nothing about a flagging sex life and a W who doesn't care, but this seems to have become the focus of the thread!


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> If that is the case, what the hell does Johnny even have to do with it? I swear to god, you guys are making up scenarios just to have a dude pity party. In the ladies lounge.
> 
> You get married. Things are new. New is easy. New gets old. Old is harder. Things are different when old happens. Married people deal with it. You know NO ONE thinks that Nancy should not address her husband's concerns about their sex life. Just that shaming her because she used to be freaky with someone else is wrong. To boot, it is terribly ineffective. Those 2 things might be related.


I think the point is that it would suck knowing that you devoted years and all you had to a woman who shows little interest in you sexually knowing she enthusiastically and freely to someone else. 

And I don't think it's so much jealousy about someone else as to not getting that Nacy. 

It's very painful, at least for me, when my wife doesn't show interest in me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> But this isn't what the OP is all about, and it's confusing people. The OP had nothing to do with a flagging sex life and a W who doesn't care!


And you've heard from several guys including me who think that this happening would be far more likely connected to not being satisfied with their sex life. 

I would really struggle to understand a guy who walks around on top of the world because his wife rocks his world often would suddenly get jealous about some ex. 

Maybe it could happen, I just think it's less likely.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> The scenario specifically said that their sex life wasn't what it once was, and Sid didn't like that. But it wasn't a priority for Nancy.


Do you even know why their sex life is not a priority for her anymore?

Sure, maybe she's grown into a selfish bit!ch...

But I can also think of several scenarios of why there might be a problems in the marriage. Some of those scenarios of both of them drifting apart. Some having Sid being the one who drifted away from her. Even with him being the one who did the bait on switch with marriage. In these scenarios, he romanced her like crazy when they were dating. Then after they got married he stopped the romancing, spent next to zero quality time with her.

According to the way you told the story... he stopped doing things that he did while dating a long time ago.

Why is the only scenario that some can think of is that she's a bad wife?

Does Nancy's point of view, needs and desires count at all here?

Or is Sid's desire for sex with her the only thing that matters in their relationship? Because that's what is sounds like from a lot of the posts here.

.


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> I think the point is that it would suck knowing that you devoted years and all you had to a woman who shows little interest in you sexually knowing she enthusiastically and freely to someone else.
> 
> And I don't think it's so much jealousy about someone else as to not getting that Nacy.
> 
> It's very painful, at least for me, when my wife doesn't show interest in me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Earlier in this thread, laziness and complacency was mentioned and I wonder if a lot of people's natural state of being is to do the least they can to get and keep what they want, and that is the real root of many mismatches, and sex just happens to be an area where it manifests itself.


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> *And you've heard from several guys including me who think that this happening would be far more likely connected to not being satisfied with their sex life. *
> 
> I would really struggle to understand a guy who walks around on top of the world because his wife rocks his world often would suddenly get jealous about some ex.
> 
> Maybe it could happen, I just think it's less likely.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So they try to spice things up by interrogating their W's about their pasts? :surprise:


----------



## Cosmos

EleGirl said:


> Do you even know why their sex life is not a priority for her anymore?
> 
> Sure, maybe she's grown into a selfish bit!ch...
> 
> But I can also think of several scenarios of why there might be a problems in the marriage. Some of those scenarios of both of them drifting apart. Some having Sid being the one who drifted away from her. Even with him being the one who did the bait on switch with marriage. In these scenarios, he romanced her like crazy when they were dating. Then after they got married he stopped the romancing, spent next to zero quality time with her.
> 
> According to the way you told the story... he stopped doing things that he did while dating a long time ago.
> 
> *Why is the only scenario that some can think of is that she's a bad wife?*
> 
> Does Nancy's point of view, needs and desires count at all here?
> 
> Or is Sid's desire for sex with her the only thing that matters in their relationship? Because that's what is sounds like from a lot of the posts here.
> 
> .


Because it allows the frustrated to project and get their angries out!


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> Earlier in this thread, laziness and complacency was mentioned and I wonder if a lot of people's natural state of being is to do the least they can to get and keep what they want, and that is the real root of many mismatches, and sex just happens to be an area where it manifests itself.


That is really sad. Probably the case. But still sad.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> I'm not into tiring bdsm with you because you don't act like a Dom.
> 
> Ok how would you need that to happen?
> 
> That kind of thing.
> 
> Sex is pretty malleable and infinitely learnable.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Marduk, the reason I'm having such a difficult time wrapping my head around this is because the physiological and psychological examples I gave are the 'ingredients' I spoke about earlier. I don't really want to get into a discussion about Dom/sub behaviors but to use it as an example, you can't 'teach' someone to be more dominant or more submissive. There's no 'what do you need from me to make that happen'. They either have that 'ingredient' or they don't. I say this from experience. 

One of my first relationships was with a _very_ dominant man. He was the leader, ALWAYS in EVERYTHING. I was young, naive, and more submissive than I am today. At the time, I enjoyed that kind of dynamic however, that's not who I am today. Life's experiences have molded me into someone who is no longer interested in having that type of relationship. Honestly, I would probably hate him today. 

I am missing the ingredient to make that type of dynamic possible with my husband. If H came to me today and said he wished to explore BDSM, I would tell him No. Asking me what he would need to do to make it happen would be a waste of his time. There's nothing he _can_ do. I am no longer that person.


----------



## Fozzy

samyeagar said:


> Earlier in this thread, laziness and complacency was mentioned and I wonder if a lot of people's natural state of being is to do the least they can to get and keep what they want, and that is the real root of many mismatches, and sex just happens to be an area where it manifests itself.


People forget that love is a verb.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Cosmos said:


> Because it allows the frustrated to project and get their angries out!


Or because it is far more they likely they were BOTH lazy spouses (about her emotional needs and about his physical) than, "she hated freaky sex with Johnny"... yeah okay....

Like when you hear from a WS how they hated the boring sex they had with the AP and they were bad in bed. That makes sense why they did it 100 times.


----------



## Lila

NobodySpecial said:


> If that is the case,* what the hell does Johnny even have to do with it*? I swear to god, you guys are making up scenarios just to have a dude pity party. In the ladies lounge.
> 
> You get married. Things are new. New is easy. New gets old. Old is harder. Things are different when old happens. Married people deal with it. *You know NO ONE thinks that Nancy should not address her husband's concerns about their sex life. Just that shaming her because she used to be freaky with someone else is wrong. *To boot, it is terribly ineffective. Those 2 things might be related.


AMEN!!! This is what I don't get either. What do her previous relationships have to do with anything? Why can't Sid just worry about getting back to what he and Nancy had at the beginning of THEIR relationship?


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> That is really sad. Probably the case. But still sad.


Isn't that essential the base psychology that dread games exploits? And for a lot of people, especially younger ones, they almost reflexively respond to it. Going to greater and greater lengths because they are afraid of losing something they want. Those types of relationships seldom last long, but it does show what a person is capable of doing when they feel motivated to do so. Obviously, it is very unhealthy to do things that compromise ones health, safety, and morality, and mental state, but it does show great effort out of fear, so why not the same effort, not necessarily the same acts, out of love.


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> Do you even know why their sex life is not a priority for her anymore?
> 
> Sure, maybe she's grown into a selfish bit!ch...
> 
> But I can also think of several scenarios of why there might be a problems in the marriage. Some of those scenarios of both of them drifting apart. Some having Sid being the one who drifted away from her. Even with him being the one who did the bait on switch with marriage. In these scenarios, he romanced her like crazy when they were dating. Then after they got married he stopped the romancing, spent next to zero quality time with her.
> 
> According to the way you told the story... he stopped doing things that he did while dating a long time ago.
> 
> Why is the only scenario that some can think of is that she's a bad wife?
> 
> Does Nancy's point of view, needs and desires count at all here?
> 
> Or is Sid's desire for sex with her the only thing that matters in their relationship? Because that's what is sounds like from a lot of the posts here.
> 
> .


I never once said she's a bad wife. 

What I said sounds pretty typical of my wife and her friends - you have kids, want to regain some sense of self, and maybe sex slips down a few notches in priority as you regain connections to friends, career, and grow with kids.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

samyeagar said:


> Earlier in this thread, laziness and complacency was mentioned and I wonder if a lot of people's natural state of being is to do the least they can to get and keep what they want, and that is the real root of many mismatches, and sex just happens to be an area where it manifests itself.


Ya, that was a bunch of it, I think. 

And that's a human thing, not a man or woman thing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> Marduk, the reason I'm having such a difficult time wrapping my head around this is because the physiological and psychological examples I gave are the 'ingredients' I spoke about earlier. I don't really want to get into a discussion about Dom/sub behaviors but to use it as an example, you can't 'teach' someone to be more dominant or more submissive. There's no 'what do you need from me to make that happen'. They either have that 'ingredient' or they don't. I say this from experience.
> 
> One of my first relationships was with a _very_ dominant man. He was the leader, ALWAYS in EVERYTHING. I was young, naive, and more submissive than I am today. At the time, I enjoyed that kind of dynamic however, that's not who I am today. Life's experiences have molded me into someone who is no longer interested in having that type of relationship. Honestly, I would probably hate him today.
> 
> I am missing the ingredient to make that type of dynamic possible with my husband. If H came to me today and said he wished to explore BDSM, I would tell him No. Asking me what he would need to do to make it happen would be a waste of his time. There's nothing he _can_ do. I am no longer that person.


I question your limiting beliefs of what your husband can or cannot do. 

It's his choice. I think people can choose to do almost anything.

Whether they want to or not is up to them. 

I don't buy the assertion that people are 100% naturally sexually a certain way, and that remains fixed throughout their life. 

For example, one of the reasons I'm very sexual is that I had some very good teachers along the way. But I am also naturally hd I think.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> So they try to spice things up by interrogating their W's about their pasts? :surprise:


Ya, not a good path I'm thinking.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

marduk said:


> I never once said she's a bad wife.
> 
> What I said sounds pretty typical of my wife and her friends - you have kids, want to regain some sense of self, and maybe sex slips down a few notches in priority as you regain connections to friends, career, and grow with kids.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Depend partly on what she gets out of sex. If she's getting a lot out of it she's more likely to find a place for it, as opposed to it being a chore for a hb who's stopped doing a lot of things he did when they were dating because he feels marriage entitles him to sex.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> AMEN!!! This is what I don't get either. What do her previous relationships have to do with anything? Why can't Sid just worry about getting back to what he and Nancy had at the beginning of THEIR relationship?


That's what I would like to get Sid to a place of. Nancy, too. 

I would just add that it's easy to get into sexually limiting beliefs because it's always been one way in the relationship. 

Let's use role play as an example. Maybe Sid and Nancy has never done it, but Nancy was open to it with Johnny. But she couldn't imagine it with Sid because she's a grown up now, would feel silly about it with Sid, and couldn't imagine him being able to pull it off. 

But maybe Sid is in a similar place - wanting to, but not thinking it's something Nancy would be open to.

Why not bust out of that rut?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

lifeistooshort said:


> Depend partly on what she gets out of sex. If she's getting a lot out of it she's more likely to find a place for it, as opposed to it being a chore for a hb who's stopped doing a lot of things he did when they were dating because he feels marriage entitles him to sex.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yup. A two way street. 

What a great conversation they could make it if they had the courage to go there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane

marduk said:


> I question your limiting beliefs of what your husband can or cannot do.
> 
> It's his choice. I think people can choose to do almost anything.
> 
> Whether they want to or not is up to them.
> 
> I don't buy the assertion that people are 100% naturally sexually a certain way, and that remains fixed throughout their life.
> 
> For example, one of the reasons I'm very sexual is that I had some very good teachers along the way. But I am also naturally hd I think.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think you missed her point. She said that SHE is no longer that person. You're right - sexuality does not remain fixed. Hers changed and it's not changing back because, for her, the change was GROWTH in her perspective and she's not going backwards to being the less confident person she was when she was led into BDSM.


----------



## Marduk

norajane said:


> I think you missed her point. She said that SHE is no longer that person. You're right - sexuality does not remain fixed. Hers changed and it's not changing back because, for her, the change was GROWTH in her perspective and she's not going backwards to being the less confident person she was when she was led into BDSM.


Oh I'm good with that part. Everybody gets to choose what they're open to. 

I'm just fussed with the whole "my spouse couldn't or wouldn't do x" without letting the spouse decide for themselves.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy

I'm really surprised nobody has brought affair partners into this discussion.



**steps back with popcorn**


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> I think the point is that it would suck knowing that you devoted years and *all you had to a woman who shows little interest in you sexually knowing she enthusiastically and freely to someone else. *
> 
> And I don't think it's so much jealousy about someone else as to not getting that Nacy.
> 
> It's very painful, at least for me, when my wife doesn't show interest in me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Instead of wishing he had experienced the pre-Sid Nancy, why not seek to restore the enthusiasm they shared at the beginning of their relationship? Comparing his relationship with Nancy to her relationship with Johnny is comparing apples to oranges. It will gain him nothing. 

Your post reminded me of my BIL. He was a professional body builder for a few years before he met his wife. After he quit the sport, he gained A LOT of weight and lost his body builder physique. His wife met him when he was at his heaviest and most out of shape. His weight has fluctuated over the years but he's never been able to get his body anywhere near the shape he was in during his body building years. During the summer my SIL and I were looking through an old box of photos that my MIL had found in the attic. Lo and behold there were tons of pics of my BIL (and his gf at the time) during his body building days. 

Using Sid's logic, should my SIL be upset that her husband did not try to get back into his bb physique for her? I'd probably be the first person to tell her she's crazy for thinking like that.


----------



## Cosmos

Fozzy said:


> I'm really surprised nobody has brought affair partners into this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> **steps back with popcorn**


Patience, Fozzy, patience... There's plenty of time for that...


----------



## Buddy400

marduk said:


> I wasn't necessarily trying to explain everything, I was trying to explore it with a believable scenario that everyone could be objective about.


That only works when you're dealing with people capable of abstract thought.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> *I question your limiting beliefs of what your husband can or cannot do.*
> 
> It's his choice. I think people can choose to do almost anything.
> 
> Whether they want to or not is up to them.
> 
> I don't buy the assertion that people are 100% naturally sexually a certain way, and that remains fixed throughout their life.
> 
> For example, one of the reasons I'm very sexual is that I had some very good teachers along the way. But I am also naturally hd I think.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's not about what _he_ can or cannot do. It's about what _my_ boundaries are now and how they fit into the relationship dynamic we currently share.

I'm sure he could go out and try to swing from trees if he felt like it....but it wouldn't be with me.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Ok he has a problem. So... what? It seems the point is she is somehow to BLAME for this and should be doing something about remedy and amends.


But, maybe Nancy does have some responsibility for this. Maybe she thinks that she only needs to make an effort if she's trying to attract a guy. Maybe she figures that that sort of effort isn't necessary when she's already got a guy locked down.

Kind of like a husband who figures he doesn't have to "date" his wife, because he's already got her.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> Instead of wishing he had experienced the pre-Sid Nancy, why not seek to restore the enthusiasm they shared at the beginning of their relationship? Comparing his relationship with Nancy to her relationship with Johnny is comparing apples to oranges. It will gain him nothing.
> 
> Your post reminded me of my BIL. He was a professional body builder for a few years before he met his wife. After he quit the sport, he gained A LOT of weight and lost his body builder physique. His wife met him when he was at his heaviest and most out of shape. His weight has fluctuated over the years but he's never been able to get his body anywhere near the shape he was in during his body building years. During the summer my SIL and I were looking through an old box of photos that my MIL had found in the attic. Lo and behold there were tons of pics of my BIL (and his gf at the time) during his body building days.
> 
> Using Sid's logic, should my SIL be upset that her husband did not try to get back into his bb physique for her? I'd probably be the first person to tell her she's crazy for thinking like that.


100% agree that they should talk about why Nancy's enthusiasm is flagging -- and she should be honest with him about why that is. And he should be introspective and hear that feedback.

It just may not happen if Nancy doesn't tell him. For example, my wife didn't tell me that me gaining weight had turned her off -- she always told me the opposite -- that "it didn't matter."

When, in fact, it very much did matter.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> It's not about what _he_ can or cannot do. It's about what _my_ boundaries are now and how they fit into the relationship dynamic we currently share.
> 
> I'm sure he could go out and try to swing from trees if he felt like it....but it wouldn't be with me.


I 100% get that you may not want to do the BDSM thing ever again.

I 100% disagree with your statement that your husband isn't capable of it. He might be capable of it, or not. It's his decision to try.


----------



## I Don't Know

EleGirl said:


> Are you saying that if Nancy had sex in public once with someone, then she has to have sex in public with her husband just because she did it once before? If you are saying that, then you are saying that she has no right to grow and change.
> 
> Having sex in public is actually a crime. She could end up with a sex offender conviction and even have her children taken away for doing that.
> 
> Maybe she did it once... maybe she had too much to drink and did something profoundly stupid. Then after she sobered up she is horrified by what she did.
> 
> If we go by your post, she loses the right to set her own boundaries because she did something pretty stupid one time.
> 
> That's an attitude that is very disturbing.
> 
> It's like the idea that if she had anal sex with anyone in the past, she has to have it with the guy she's with now... regardless of her not liking it, or finding it too painful, etc.


Reductio ad absurdum much?

Nope. If any of the things you proposed as an explanation are correct, fine. If we're talking 20 years later, fine. If we're talking 1 year later fine. If she really did grow as a person during those 3 months before she met Sid, fine. And lastly, if she just doesn't want to, fine.

What I was under the impression was being discussed here is an act that neither partner finds objectionable, but for some reason one partner doesn't want to do. 

But here's where these discussions go wrong. It always has to be taken to extremes. From our side the guy has to find out that she was swinging from the ceiling fan with the X. And from your side the woman always has to have been coerced or forced into it by the X. But what we are really trying to convey is just that we want to be the guy that makes our wives WANT to swing from the ceiling fan. 

And thanks for jumping to the "you believe women have no say over their own bodies" end of the argument, even though I don't see how anything I said implied that in any way.


----------



## Buddy400

samyeagar said:


> When my wife and I were talking about sex, and sexual attitudes early in our relationship, she told me that oral was something she didn't mind doing in a reciprocal sort of way. That it wasn't something she would give without getting. She didn't overly enjoy giving giving, but didn't have a strong aversion to it either, but loved receiving good oral, and would feel selfish if she didn't reciprocate. She also expressed that because of how things had been with her abusive, serial cheating, ex husband, that she would never allow herself to be pressured into giving by another partner. That sounded reasonable to me.
> 
> We had been dating about a year and a half, when I oversaw her having a Facebook conversation with one of her friends, where she mentioned that she had just been using her ex husband for sex. I made the mistake of not addressing that right then and there. I did not know the full context of the conversation, but it did bother me that my then girlfriend was still talking with her friends about sex with her ex husband of four years. A clear example of the past not being the past. It finally got into my head so badly, that the ED hit pretty hard, and I asked her about that conversation. In our discussion that followed, I found out that she had been having sex with him up until a few months before we started dating, and that she had no intention of ever telling me. It also came out that she had given him oral, with no pressure or reciprocation. This became a situation of one thing not being like the other, and regardless of what she had said, her recent actions did not match up, and clearly I was operating under far more restrictions and conditions than her ex. The thing is, I never would have thought to ask about any of that if it hadn't been for her talking about it with a friend. So much for the past being the past.


Is there a woman that can understand this and acknowledge it and not be a hardass and dismiss it out of hand?


----------



## Marduk

Maybe we should talk about a scenario involving Debbie and Chris. Debbie was always a bit shy with boys and Chris was a player in his early days. He's now pretty unenthusiastic about persuing Debbie sexually even though he used to persue other women all the time. She would like to know why he no longer persues her and yet was a hound dog for other women... especially this one girl named Anne.

Debbie is shocked to hear the lengths that Chris used to go to have sex with Annie, including wining and dining, expensive gifts, and being willing to go down on her for hours -- something he shows no interest in with Debbie.


----------



## Adelais

Mr.Fisty said:


> Posters are told to cherish what they have and improve the other areas to a acceptable level.


"like"


----------



## norajane

I Don't Know said:


> *What I was under the impression was being discussed here is an act that neither partner finds objectionable, but for some reason one partner doesn't want to do. *


That wasn't what the thread was about. It was about whether women have been shamed by their partners or felt they needed to express regret for their past sex lives.

It turned into men being upset about some fictional act that she enjoyed with someone else but doesn't want to do now. That really bothers guys and it seems it always gets back to that fictional act in these kinds of threads. Never mind that this has never actually happened to any of the guys posting here. They can't stand the idea of it, though.

Nowhere in her OP did Lila talk about not wanting to do something a woman used to do with other partners. She's asking about women who may be swinging from the chandeliers with her current partner, but her partner wants her to regret swinging from chandeliers with other guys in order to feel better about knowing that she enjoyed her sex life with other people. 

NOW, yes, we're talking about not wanting to do something anymore with her current partner that she did before. But that actually wasn't the purpose of the thread, which was to get women's experiences. It's all about the men's views on those experiences now, and related assumptions about them.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> I 100% get that you may not want to do the BDSM thing ever again.
> 
> *I 100% disagree with your statement that your husband isn't capable of it. He might be capable of it, or not. It's his decision to try.*


I think we are agreeing to the same thing but either my post was confusing (it's possible - english is not my first language) or we're getting caught up in the minutia. I agree 100% that my H is capable of doing whatever he wants, but where I was trying to get at is that it wouldn't be with me. He'd have to find a different partner with the 'ingredients' needed to create the 'recipe' he wants to create.


----------



## norajane

marduk said:


> Maybe we should talk about a scenario involving Debbie and Chris. Debbie was always a bit shy with boys and Chris was a player in his early days. He's now pretty unenthusiastic about persuing Debbie sexually even though he used to persue other women all the time. She would like to know why he no longer persues her and yet was a hound dog for other women... especially this one girl named Annie.


That's a whole other thread topic, isn't it?


----------



## Marduk

norajane said:


> That's a whole other thread topic, isn't it?


Is it?

Is it different because the sexes are reversed?

I've been **** shamed quite a bit by women.


----------



## norajane

marduk said:


> Is it?
> 
> Is it different because the sexes are reversed?
> 
> I've been **** shamed quite a bit by women.


I guess I'm disappointed that this thread has devolved from the original question posed to women into all kinds of contrived hypotheticals that keep changing or being added to when another guy wants to make a point about how Nancy isn't making an effort for Sid. 

If you want to start a thread about men being shamed by women, I think you should. But it is a different topic from this one asking women about THEIR experiences.


----------



## McDean

marduk said:


> I never once said she's a bad wife.
> 
> What I said sounds pretty typical of my wife and her friends - you have kids, want to regain some sense of self, and maybe sex slips down a few notches in priority as you regain connections to friends, career, and grow with kids.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You may have another thread here marduk - just as this one started out with a question about men and their SO's past 'history' why does it keep coming up from women on TAM and other that they need to regain their 'sense of self'? I've seen a few men of TAM say that as well - but based on everything in this thread, self changes and morphs over time so you by definition will never 'regain' the self of 20 years ago and as for the 'self' that typically is described as needing to be regained 'doing things for me instead of kids, jobs, hubby- reconnecting with friends etc.' - why do so many women and some men feel this is 'lost' by choosing to take care of kids, jobs and SOs?....The irony of our goofy Sid/Nancy/Johnny dynamic is that Sid wants Nancy from 20 years ago in the sack but Nancy today in terms of marriage and Nancy wants to be Nancy today until she wakes up a few more years down the line and wants to 'regain herself' which will most likely look more akin to Nancy with Johnny and guess what - the only one who may have ended up happy and as himself regardless is Johnny..:surprise:


----------



## Buddy400

Resolved: Women should never be expected to do things that they hate or cause them pain just because they did it with another man.

Resolved: Women should not be expected to feel shame or regret for having a sexual life before being with their current partner.

Any one disagree?

I don't think anyone does.

If those points are resolved, then can we focus on the areas where disagreement (or lack of understanding) exists? Or, if that's not cool, let's close down this thread and start up another one.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TAM makes me appreciate what I have so much more. I sometimes can't believe some of the attitudes we see around here. But then I have to believe it because it gets said over and over. 

The things is though, TAM is still a select group. It does not represent the average. I wonder if anyone sees a correlation between this RJ issue and the other reasons men are here at TAM and how those things create the select group. I mean, think about it. What do the guys at TAM have in common? Sexless marriages or infrequent/unenthusiastic sex, RJ (to the point of sl*t shaming), wives who aren't into them....there is a thread tying these things together.

There's never been one moment I haven't been totally enthusiastic about having sex with my husband and never one moment (in this marriage) when I wistfully thought of some dude in my past. At the same time, my husband has never EVER made me feel anything but beautiful, wanted, sexy, and that nothing in my past meant anything to him. These two things are strongly related to each other.


----------



## Lila

I Don't Know said:


> What I was under the impression was being discussed here is an act that neither partner finds objectionable, but for some reason one partner doesn't want to do.


I posted a response to this very question earlier in the thread. I'm posting it again because it speaks directly to comment above.



Lila said:


> I've heard women say that although they enjoyed certain acts in the past, they don't do it now because it's not conducive to their current lifestyle (ie. public sex) or their current partner is not physically equipped for the act (too big for anal sex), or the relationship dynamic is not conducive to the act (BDSM type stuff).





Lila said:


> The way I see it, each sexual relationship is like a recipe. It has specific ingredients (each partner's personality, value, life experiences, and boundaries) at specific quantities (or levels) which creates an end product (sexual dynamic) that is wholey unique to that couple.
> 
> So using Sid and Nancy....if Sid were to hook up with a different woman, the sexual dynamic would be different than it was with Nancy because his new partner's ingredients (and levels) combined with his ingredients (and levels) would create a unique recipe.
> 
> I don't believe recipes can be duplicated with different partners. Too many variables. Can the couple work on making their recipe the best it can be? Of course. Can the couple completely change or copy another recipe? Not with the ingredients they own.






I Don't Know said:


> But here's where these discussions go wrong. It always has to be taken to extremes. From our side the guy has to find out that she was swinging from the ceiling fan with the X. And from your side the woman always has to have been coerced or forced into it by the X. *But what we are really trying to convey is just that we want to be the guy that makes our wives WANT to swing from the ceiling fan.*


And I think what many of the women here are saying is that instead of focusing on 'swinging from the fan' because that's what the other guy got, why not work towards getting back to 'wrestling in the mud' like you used to do when you first started dating?


----------



## Marduk

norajane said:


> I guess I'm disappointed that this thread has devolved from the original question posed to women into all kinds of contrived hypotheticals that keep changing or being added to when another guy wants to make a point about how Nancy isn't making an effort for Sid.
> 
> If you want to start a thread about men being shamed by women, I think you should. But it is a different topic from this one asking women about THEIR experiences.


ah. OK. I'll bow out then.

I think there' related if you want one man's opinion.


----------



## norajane

Faithful Wife said:


> TAM makes me appreciate what I have so much more. I sometimes can't believe some of the attitudes we see around here. But then I have to believe it because it gets said over and over.
> 
> The things is though, TAM is still a select group. It does not represent the average. I wonder if anyone sees a correlation between this RJ issue and the other reasons men are here at TAM and how those things create the select group. I mean, think about it. What do the guys at TAM have in common? Sexless marriages or infrequent/unenthusiastic sex, RJ (to the point of sl*t shaming), wives who aren't into them....there is a thread tying these things together.
> 
> There's never been one moment I haven't been totally enthusiastic about having sex with my husband and never one moment (in this marriage) when I wistfully thought of some dude in my past. * At the same time, my husband has never EVER made me feel anything but beautiful, wanted, sexy, and that nothing in my past meant anything to him. These two things are strongly related to each other.*


QFT


----------



## Lila

norajane said:


> That wasn't what the thread was about. It was about whether women have been shamed by their partners or felt they needed to express regret for their past sex lives.
> 
> It turned into men being upset about some fictional act that she enjoyed with someone else but doesn't want to do now. That really bothers guys and it seems it always gets back to that fictional act in these kinds of threads. Never mind that this has never actually happened to any of the guys posting here. They can't stand the idea of it, though.
> 
> Nowhere in her OP did Lila talk about not wanting to do something a woman used to do with other partners. She's asking about women who may be swinging from the chandeliers with her current partner, but her partner wants her to regret swinging from chandeliers with other guys in order to feel better about knowing that she enjoyed her sex life with other people.
> 
> NOW, yes, we're talking about not wanting to do something anymore with her current partner that she did before. But that actually wasn't the purpose of the thread, which was to get women's experiences. It's all about the men's views on those experiences now, and related assumptions about them.


You are 100% correct Nora. Even I got caught up in the Nancy/Sid hypothetical stuff. I threadjacked my own thread :laugh:


----------



## norajane

marduk said:


> ah. OK. I'll bow out then.
> 
> I think there' related if you want one man's opinion.


No, don't bow out! It's been an interesting discussion despite the tangents!

I don't agree or relate to a lot of the Tales of the Sex Pistols, but it has provided insights.


----------



## Marduk

norajane said:


> No, don't bow out! It's been an interesting discussion despite the tangents!
> 
> I don't agree or relate to a lot of the Tales of the Sex Pistols, but it has provided insights.


ok then.

Here's what I'm landing on. As a guy who can honestly say he thinks he's never **** shamed a woman ever -- even though I'm sure I've heard things I didn't want to hear from women I love about other guys.

I think it's reasonable to think that a guy that is over the moon about his sex life has a lower liklihood of even having it occur to him to think about who she's had sex with before him.

I think it's also reasonable to believe that if he's unsatisfied with his sex life, then both partners need to discuss that. And where that might get thorny is around stuff that one partner used to enjoy with other partners but isn't so open to enjoying with the spouse -- and why.

If it's because sexual preferences have changed and that's a closed door, then fine. As long as that actually includes some introspection and openness on the part of the person that has the door firmly held shut.

But if it's because that partner is assuming that her spouse 'aint got it' then that's a pretty limiting belief, and would hurt.

Or if that's because that partner no longer wants a wild 'n crazy sex life for reasons nothing to do with her spouse, that would be a bummer but probably hurt less if she was honest about it.

Or if it's because that partner is no longer (or never was) so into her spouse but still wants to be with him... that would hurt, but probably needs to be discussed openly. But respectfully and sensitively.

All of that should be done, I think, with some introspection on both sides on their wholistic total sexuality across their entire life -- because _personally_ I think it's very easy to say "I'm not that person any more" when in reality if the spouse was run over by a car and they found themselves shopping for a new partner, they may be very open to such things again.

And that would suck, because some of those things can be fun, and enjoyed inside the marriage if everybody would get over their own preconceptions and ruts about it.

Excluding 'no fly zones' like 'I tried it and hurt' or 'I tried it and felt disrespected' which means THEY NEVER DO IT AGAIN AND SHOULDN'T FEEL PRESSURED TO.

Basically, the 'GGG' concept.


----------



## Anon1111

ad hominem attacks just reveal that you are unable to address the substance of the discussion. you might as well be talking to a wall.

I like to spin hypotheticals so here's another one:

*********

Sid and Nancy lived in a small studio apartment. They never went out on expensive dates or on vacation. They had 1 beat up old car which they shared. Nancy worked as a secretary. Sid worked at a surf shop.

When they met, in their early 20s, Nancy thought Sid was cute. He only worked in a surf shop but she thought he had potential. 

As the years went by, Nancy started to wonder whether Sid might not be all that great. Her boss, Johnny, started to seem more and more appealing. Johnny was kind of an @sshole, but he did have ambition, which Sid seemed to lack.

Nancy felt troubled by these thoughts. She knew there was more to Sid. But he just didn't seem motivated to live up to his potential.

When she suggested that maybe Sid should go back to school to find a career path, Sid just laughed. I like working at the surf shop, he said.

This conversation played out several more times over the coming year with increasing urgency on Nancy's part. But Sid's answer was always the same.

Finally, one night after an office party, Nancy and Johnny were both drunk and found themselves alone in a hallway. Johnny kissed Nancy and Nancy let him. It was hot. She instantly realized what she was missing.

The next day she broke up with Sid. When Sid asked why, she told him that she couldn't see a future with him. Living in the small apartment had been nice while they were young, but she wanted a family and Sid didn't seem like he would ever be in a position to provide for that. 

Sid said he understood. Nancy was kind of surprised that Sid didn't seem too broken up about it, but he had always been a pretty laid back guy.

A year later, Nancy was single again. The thing with Johnny hadn't worked out. She had to find a new job too since continuing to work for Johnny was too awkward. It had kind of been a disaster all around.

Nancy was walking down the beach one day feeling a bit sorry for herself when she ran into one of her old acquaintances from high school, Abby. Abby was in a bikini and looked really nice, Nancy had to admit. 

Just then Abby turned toward the water and waved. Nancy was surprised to see Sid emerging from the ocean carrying his surfboard. He ran up to Nancy but then passed her and gave Abby a kiss.

Nancy immediately thought: How nice that Sid ended up with someone who can appreciate him for who he is!

Then Sid said, hey Nancy, are you busy? You should stop by our place and have a drink. Abby nodded. Nancy said, sure. Are you still living in the old apartment?

Sid laughed. No, he said. We moved. That's our house over there. 

He pointed to a mansion directly on the beach.

Nancy's jaw dropped. Wow, she said. How did that happen?

Sid said: Well, after you broke up with me, I got to thinking. I had all of this money invested, like half a billion dollars. My grandfather left it to me back when we were living together. At the time, I liked my life and didn't really see the point in touching it. But after you said what you said to me, I realized that I should probably use the money to put myself in a better situation.

So, Sid said, do you like champagne? We've got an awesome bottle that I've been waiting to pop open.


----------



## Cosmos

This is now beyond ridiculous. I'm out of here.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> That only works when you're dealing with people capable of abstract thought.


I am trying to understand the point of this comment. Do you believe that you have been discussing particularly well with people who have not? Is there more value to abstract thought than to concrete thought?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> But, maybe Nancy does have some responsibility for this. Maybe she thinks that she only needs to make an effort if she's trying to attract a guy. Maybe she figures that that sort of effort isn't necessary when she's already got a guy locked down.
> 
> Kind of like a husband who figures he doesn't have to "date" his wife, because he's already got her.


Why? Because Johnny? If the reason is because marriage, I am all good with that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Is there a woman that can understand this and acknowledge it and not be a hardass and dismiss it out of hand?


You just went in my ignore list. Having discussed with sensible people, not you, for pages, being told we are dismissing out of hand is obnoxious. You win for today.


----------



## Marduk

GGG:



> Dan Savage coined the abbreviation "GGG."[24][25] It stands for Good, Giving, and Game, and it means one should strive to be Good in bed, Giving "equal time and equal pleasure" to one's partner, and Game "for anything—within reason."[25][26] The term has inspired a ****tail and the "How GGG Are You? Test" on the popular Internet dating site *******.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> TAM makes me appreciate what I have so much more. I sometimes can't believe some of the attitudes we see around here. But then I have to believe it because it gets said over and over.
> 
> The things is though, TAM is still a select group. It does not represent the average. I wonder if anyone sees a correlation between this RJ issue and the other reasons men are here at TAM and how those things create the select group. I mean, think about it. What do the guys at TAM have in common? Sexless marriages or infrequent/unenthusiastic sex, RJ (to the point of sl*t shaming), wives who aren't into them....there is a thread tying these things together.



I tried to allude to that earlier in thread. That just makes me holier than thou.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Why? Because Johnny? If the reason is because marriage, I am all good with that.


Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you saying it's ok to stop dating or perusing your partner because you're married?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you saying it's ok to stop dating or perusing your partner because you're married?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Of course not.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> ok then.
> 
> Here's what I'm landing on. As a guy who can honestly say he thinks he's never **** shamed a woman ever -- even though I'm sure I've heard things I didn't want to hear from women I love about other guys.
> 
> I think it's reasonable to think that a guy that is over the moon about his sex life has a lower liklihood of even having it occur to him to think about who she's had sex with before him.
> 
> I think it's also reasonable to believe that if he's unsatisfied with his sex life, then both partners need to discuss that. And where that might get thorny is around stuff that one partner used to enjoy with other partners but isn't so open to enjoying with the spouse -- and why.
> 
> If it's because sexual preferences have changed and that's a closed door, then fine. As long as that actually includes some introspection and openness on the part of the person that has the door firmly held shut.
> 
> But if it's because that partner is assuming that her spouse 'aint got it' then that's a pretty limiting belief, and would hurt.
> 
> Or if that's because that partner no longer wants a wild 'n crazy sex life for reasons nothing to do with her spouse, that would be a bummer but probably hurt less if she was honest about it.
> 
> Or if it's because that partner is no longer (or never was) so into her spouse but still wants to be with him... that would hurt, but probably needs to be discussed openly. But respectfully and sensitively.
> 
> All of that should be done, I think, with some introspection on both sides on their wholistic total sexuality across their entire life -- because _personally_ I think it's very easy to say "I'm not that person any more" when in reality if the spouse was run over by a car and they found themselves shopping for a new partner, they may be very open to such things again.
> 
> And that would suck, because some of those things can be fun, and enjoyed inside the marriage if everybody would get over their own preconceptions and ruts about it.
> 
> Excluding 'no fly zones' like 'I tried it and hurt' or 'I tried it and felt disrespected' which means THEY NEVER DO IT AGAIN AND SHOULDN'T FEEL PRESSURED TO.
> 
> *Basically, the 'GGG' concept.*


Marduk, I think your post is a great OP for a new thread. 

I would love to participate in that conversation but I think it's going to get lost in the craziness of this thread. Some of the hypothetical scenarios are interfering with the message you are trying to relay and I think it's an important message. It would make for a great thread topic.


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> You just went in my ignore list. Having discussed with sensible people, not you, for pages, being told we are dismissing out of hand is obnoxious. You win for today.


I am genuinely interested in your thoughts about my real world experience that he was referring to.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> Marduk, I think your post is a great OP for a new thread.
> 
> I would love to participate in that conversation but I think it's going to get lost in the craziness of this thread. Some of the hypothetical scenarios are interfering with the message you are trying to relay and I think it's an important message. It would make for a great thread topic.


Can you help me craft it so I capture what you're going after?

Is it to encourage both spouses to be GGG to firewall off feelings of jealousy, insecurity, and the like?


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> That only works when you're dealing with people capable of abstract thought.


You mean, of course, people who share exactly the same set of preconceptions and will only shift the ground in approved of directions.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> I am genuinely interested in your thoughts about my real world experience that he was referring to.


I guess that I would say that your wife is just dishonest. I don't know why she would do that. But that is what I think she did. There was something that she actively attempted to hide from you. I would be asking myself some fundamental questions about your relationship, if I were you, and you weren't already. What does she value me FOR? And am I ok with that.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess that I would say that your wife is just dishonest. I don't know why she would do that. But that is what I think she did. There was something that she actively attempted to hide from you. I would be asking myself some fundamental questions about your relationship, if I were you, and you weren't already. What does she value me FOR? And am I ok with that.


Insightful.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Can you help me craft it so I capture what you're going after?
> 
> Is it to encourage both spouses to be GGG to firewall off feelings of jealousy, insecurity, and the like?


I think identifying what GGG looks like in a healthy relationship is a good place to start. As you explained it in your post, the first part of GGG is open communication, followed by honesty and respect, right? I think it would be interesting to find out from others what their experiences and results have been with applying or attempting to apply GGG in their relationship. I could see some good and some bad times implementing GGG.

I'm just thinking out loud here but I think most people would agree that G = Giving is the easiest one to adopt since it's commonly regarded as as part of a successful relationship. The other two are a bit tougher to swallow, depending on personality types. 

G = Good requires folks to be open to criticism. Yikes! I can see this blowing up in a partners face quick.

G = Game requires open mindedness and lots of trust. IMO is only possible when the relationship is in good standing and the other 2 Gs are in place. IOW, it shouldn't be attempted unless the other 2 have been achieved. This is where the whole RJ and he got what I haven't gotten issue comes into play.

But I could be completely wrong on all of these. It would be interesting to see how others interpret the Gs and how it affects their lives.


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess that I would say that your wife is just dishonest. I don't know why she would do that. But that is what I think she did. There was something that she actively attempted to hide from you. I would be asking myself some fundamental questions about your relationship, if I were you, and you weren't already. What does she value me FOR? And am I ok with that.


And how does one reconcile what you just said about dishonesty through omission of something seemingly mundane, with the fact that according to many here, this is one of those prime examples of something in the past, before me, nothing extreme, but still none of my business?

For the record, we have long since worked past this, so this is not a current or ongoing issue.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Lila said:


> I think identifying what GGG looks like in a healthy relationship is a good place to start. As you explained it in your post, the first part of GGG is open communication, followed by honesty and respect, right? I think it would be interesting to find out from others what their experiences and results have been with applying or attempting to apply GGG in their relationship. I could see some good and some bad times implementing GGG.


As much focus on giving as good and game worked for us. Each of us STROVE to achieve GGG. That meant that he strove to cut me slack as much as I strove to challenge my boundaries. That means he strove to UNDERSTAND me as much as I strove to give to him.




> I'm just thinking out loud here but I think most people would agree that G = Giving is the easiest one to adopt since it's commonly regarded as as part of a successful relationship.


See I think it is the hardest. For my husband to get to the point that I wanted him to understand the understandable, that even if he failed, the attempt was huge took a huge amount of giving on his part. Something like game can be achieved by just doing a thing.



> The other two are a bit tougher to swallow, depending on personality types.
> 
> G = Good requires folks to be open to criticism. Yikes! I can see this blowing up in a partners face quick.


Yup. Scary stuff. But when your honesty is gently handled, it is the stuff that trust, connection and love are made of. But I have thought of good differently. I thought of good as joyful.




> G = Game requires open mindedness and lots of trust. IMO is only possible when the relationship is in good standing and the other 2 Gs are in place. IOW, it shouldn't be attempted unless the other 2 have been achieved. This is where the whole RJ and he got what I haven't gotten issue comes into play.
> 
> But I could be completely wrong on all of these. It would be interesting to see how others interpret the Gs and how it affects their lives.


You rock.


----------



## Marduk

I guess what I'm trying to grasp is if your spouse was GGG with others but isn't interested in being GGG with you.

Because maybe that's what the RJ is about?


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> And how does one reconcile what you just said about dishonesty through omission of something seemingly mundane, with the fact that according to many here, this is one of those prime examples of something in the past, before me, nothing extreme, but still none of my business?



I cannot reconcile what I have not said. I have never said that there is anything that is not your business with your wife. So you can ask someone who has said as much. The problems is not that your wife did a thing. But that she lied. What I would have a problem with is your deciding that she owed you un-reciprocated oral because she did that with someone else.





> For the record, we have long since worked past this, so this is not a current or ongoing issue.


Glad to hear that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> I guess what I'm trying to grasp is if your spouse was GGG with others but isn't interested in being GGG with you.
> 
> Because maybe that's what the RJ is about?


I can't grasp what you want the remedy to be. You want to be the guy that rocks her world. And you aren't. (Rhetorical you here.) How is that her fault? Reality sucks. But it is what it is.


----------



## norajane

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess that I would say that your wife is just dishonest. I don't know why she would do that. But that is what I think she did. There was something that she actively attempted to hide from you. I would be asking myself some fundamental questions about your relationship, if I were you, and you weren't already. What does she value me FOR? And am I ok with that.


If I were sam, I'd be asking myself and her, "If she *used *her ex-H for sex, what is she *using *me for?"

Use and value are two different things.


----------



## MEM2020

Lila,
This captures the essence of GGG better than anything else I've read. 





Lila said:


> I think identifying what GGG looks like in a healthy relationship is a good place to start. As you explained it in your post, the first part of GGG is open communication, followed by honesty and respect, right? I think it would be interesting to find out from others what their experiences and results have been with applying or attempting to apply GGG in their relationship. I could see some good and some bad times implementing GGG.
> 
> I'm just thinking out loud here but I think most people would agree that G = Giving is the easiest one to adopt since it's commonly regarded as as part of a successful relationship. The other two are a bit tougher to swallow, depending on personality types.
> 
> G = Good requires folks to be open to criticism. Yikes! I can see this blowing up in a partners face quick.
> 
> G = Game requires open mindedness and lots of trust. IMO is only possible when the relationship is in good standing and the other 2 Gs are in place. IOW, it shouldn't be attempted unless the other 2 have been achieved. This is where the whole RJ and he got what I haven't gotten issue comes into play.
> 
> But I could be completely wrong on all of these. It would be interesting to see how others interpret the Gs and how it affects their lives.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> I can't grasp what you want the remedy to be. You want to be the guy that rocks her world. And you aren't. (Rhetorical you here.) How is that her fault? Reality sucks. But it is what it is.


I think a guy would have an easier time accepting that if he had a path to follow to learn how to rock her world rather than a shrug and the door being closed to him ever being that guy.

As I said with Sid, a response to that closed door for some dudes might be finding a woman in which that door is open to him rather than trying to pick the lock and kick out the doorjam that his wife has firmly in place.

Which, in general, makes me unhappy.

What would make me happy is if she took out the doorjam, unlocked the door, and just cracked it open a smidge to see if her husband can throw it open and walk through it.

That seems like a win-win scenario.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> I think a guy would have an easier time accepting that if he had a path to follow to learn how to rock her world rather than a shrug and the door being closed to him ever being that guy.
> 
> As I said with Sid, a response to that closed door for some dudes might be finding a woman in which that door is open to him rather than trying to pick the lock and kick out the doorjam that his wife has firmly in place.
> 
> Which, in general, makes me unhappy.
> 
> What would make me happy is if she took out the doorjam, unlocked the door, and just cracked it open a smidge to see if her husband can throw it open and walk through it.
> 
> That seems like a win-win scenario.


He does not rock her world. Why is it her that has the door closed? Very much NOT ggg that we have been discussing.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> He does not rock her world. Why is it her that has the door closed? Very much NOT ggg that we have been discussing.


You're saying that she's not GGG because he doesn't rock her world, right?

I'm hoping he can learn to rock her world. If she can be open to it, and he is open to learning and trying.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> Is there a woman that can understand this and acknowledge it and not be a hardass and dismiss it out of hand?


I think absolutely everyone can understand that it's extremely hurtful to be compared to an ex, or to have one's partner constantly dreaming of/ remembering / comparing you to past partners or other people. This has been said again and again by women (and men) on this thread who know all too well what it feels like. And ultimately, that's probably most of us. 

But what is being argued against isn't that point, not even close. No one is saying that this is a reasonable way to treat a partner. No one is saying that if someone is doing gis to you, man or woman, that it isn't cruel and selfish, and reasonable grounds for leaving. What is being said is that just because a woman has a past partner in no way means that she is doing these things to a man. 

And if all he needs is some reassurance that she is not doing these things, that she does love him, etc, then fine. But if he is going to continue to put words in her mouth and thoughts in her head and be absolutely determined to read everything in her sexual past in this light, then all he is doing is torturing himself and driving her away.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> You're saying that she's not GGG because he doesn't rock her world, right?


No I am saying he is not being good by pressuring her to open a door that is his to over come because HE has RJ over something that has nothing to do with him.

As long as he is focused on what cheesecake he did not "get" off of her, he is being neither good nor giving. He will not achieve any improvement would be my guess.


----------



## Fozzy

marduk said:


> I think a guy would have an easier time accepting that if he had a path to follow to learn how to rock her world rather than a shrug and the door being closed to him ever being that guy.
> 
> As I said with Sid, a response to that closed door for some dudes might be finding a woman in which that door is open to him rather than trying to pick the lock and kick out the doorjam that his wife has firmly in place.
> 
> Which, in general, makes me unhappy.
> 
> What would make me happy is if she took out the doorjam, unlocked the door, and just cracked it open a smidge to see if her husband can throw it open and walk through it.
> 
> That seems like a win-win scenario.


There's a new member in SiM right now attempting this very thing for her husband. PrettyRibbon.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> No I am saying he is not being good by pressuring her to open a door that is his to over come because HE has RJ over something that has nothing to do with him.
> 
> As long as he is focused on what cheesecake he did not "get" off of her, he is being neither good nor giving. He will not achieve any improvement would be my guess.


Ok I can buy that. 

How should he approach that?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Ok I can buy that.
> 
> How should he approach that?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Given that I know exactly nothing of either Sid or Nancy, there is no way I could possibly answer that. I have no idea what rock's Nancy's world. I have no idea what stressors might be in their lives. I have no idea what resentments are bubbling just below the surface.


----------



## NobodySpecial

^^ I can say that in my husband's case, what worked for us, over time, is his willingness to REALLY listen to me. And strive to understand where I was coming from.


----------



## Lila

MEM11363 said:


> Lila,
> This captures the essence of GGG better than anything else I've read.


Thank MEM. I have to admit that I didn't know what GGG was until I read about here on TAM. Dan Savage seems to be really popular but I've never had the chance to listen to his podcasts. Might have to change that soon. :smile2:


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Given that I know exactly nothing of either Sid or Nancy, there is no way I could possibly answer that. I have no idea what rock's Nancy's world. I have no idea what stressors might be in their lives. I have no idea what resentments are bubbling just below the surface.


No I mean how should a guy who's getting twinges of RJ because his wife was GGG with other guys but isn't interested in being GGG with him approach that?

I get that it shouldn't be about comparisons or **** shaming. 

So what should it be about?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane

Lila said:


> Thank MEM. I have to admit that I didn't know what GGG was until I read about here on TAM. Dan Savage seems to be really popular but I've never had the chance to listen to his podcasts. Might have to change that soon. :smile2:


My SO and I listen to his podcasts during road trips. It sparks great discussions!


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> *I cannot reconcile what I have not said. I have never said that there is anything that is not your business with your wife. So you can ask someone who has said as much*. The problems is not that your wife did a thing. But that she lied. What I would have a problem with is your deciding that she owed you un-reciprocated oral because she did that with someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to hear that.


Point taken.

I can see how one would see a type of dishonesty, but it certainly is a muddy one. I do think her saying that she never intended to tell me was more reactionary as opposed to deliberate witholding. I think her reasoning for not saying anything, other than the fact that she honestly thought it was none of my business, I know that because she later told me as much, was that the fact that she was uncomfortable admitting to herself that she continued sleeping with him in the ways she was after everything he put her through, that it was an unhealthy guilty pleasure.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> I guess what I'm trying to grasp is if your spouse was GGG with others but isn't interested in being GGG with you.
> 
> Because maybe that's what the RJ is about?


This v----v



NobodySpecial said:


> I can't grasp what you want the remedy to be. You want to be the guy that rocks her world. And you aren't. (Rhetorical you here.) How is that her fault? *Reality sucks. But it is what it is.*


It's this part of honesty that can get one in trouble in these types of cases. Sometimes, no matter how gentle we try to deliver the news, negative feedback is NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. There's no way to get around hurting your partner.


----------



## Marduk

norajane said:


> My SO and I listen to his podcasts during road trips. It sparks great discussions!


He's hit and miss tho. His idea about cheating not being really a bad hing is pretty way off base.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> No I mean how should a guy who's getting twinges of RJ because his wife was GGG with other guys but isn't interested in being GGG with him approach that?


Stop thinking that it is about her not being GGG with him? 



> I get that it shouldn't be about comparisons or **** shaming.


Except that is just was.



> So what should it be about?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Love. Caring. Acceptance. Safety. Unless she is just not worth it. Then leaving.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> He's hit and miss tho. His idea about cheating not being really a bad hing is pretty way off base.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't remember him saying anything of the sort. I thought he was very pro RESPONSIBLE non-monogamy.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> This v----v
> 
> 
> 
> It's this part of honesty that can get one in trouble in these types of cases. Sometimes, no matter how gentle we try to deliver the news, negative feedback is NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. There's no way to get around hurting your partner.


What I'm getting at is why that position is so entrenched.

It's basically saying "I married you but I'm never gonna be into you, so deal with that."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> What I'm getting at is why that position is so entrenched.
> 
> It's basically saying "I married you but I'm never gonna be into you, so deal with that."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What if that is the case? What if turd brain made her crazy horny and she ONLY loves the crap out of you?


----------



## Marduk

... Which I have to say is pretty surprising coming from women. I had a vision in my head that women's sexuality was very nuanced, contextual, and flexible. 

Meaning, there's always an undiscovered country there waiting.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy

NobodySpecial said:


> What if that is the case? What if turd brain made her crazy horny and she ONLY loves the crap out of you?


How many people have ended up in affairs because of this very thing?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Fozzy said:


> How many people have ended up in affairs because of this very thing?


I am not saying I would choose this marriage.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> ... Which I have to say is pretty surprising coming from women. I had a vision in my head that women's sexuality was very nuanced, contextual, and flexible.
> 
> Meaning, there's always an undiscovered country there waiting.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I can only speak for myself. This person I care for. This person has the power to hurt me. I used to have to protect myself from this person in a way I did not have to previously since previously no one had the power to hurt me.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> What if that is the case? What if turd brain made her crazy horny and she ONLY loves the crap out of you?


Then I would leave and find someone who would be both. 

But I think it's a false dichotomy. I've met women who I'll never be attracted to. I've met women who I'm instantly attracted to. 

And I've met women who became attractive to me. 

My wife can be attractive to me sometimes and less attractive to me other times. She could learn to trigger my sexuality in different ways if she wanted to (and has). 

Is that not the case the other way around? Do your partners get assigned a sexual box to sit in forever?

What if they gain weight? Lose weight? Make a million dollars? Lose a million dollars? Learn to be more confident? Learn a great technique that makes your eyes cross when he does it?

Why is it a fixed position?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> I can only speak for myself. This person I care for. This person has the power to hurt me. I used to have to protect myself from this person in a way I did not have to previously since previously no one had the power to hurt me.


So you closed the door forever?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> So you closed the door forever?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Have you been reading this thread at all? No, I did not close the door forever. He opened it.


----------



## MEM2020

AA,
Significant unmet marital desires of any sort - create doubt about whether or partner loves us as much as we want them to. 

Knowledge that a spouse willingly met those desires with a previous partner - amplifies that doubt. 




always_alone said:


> I think absolutely everyone can understand that it's extremely hurtful to be compared to an ex, or to have one's partner constantly dreaming of/ remembering / comparing you to past partners or other people. This has been said again and again by women (and men) on this thread who know all too well what it feels like. And ultimately, that's probably most of us.
> 
> But what is being argued against isn't that point, not even close. No one is saying that this is a reasonable way to treat a partner. No one is saying that if someone is doing gis to you, man or woman, that it isn't cruel and selfish, and reasonable grounds for leaving. What is being said is that just because a woman has a past partner in no way means that she is doing these things to a man.
> 
> And if all he needs is some reassurance that she is not doing these things, that she does love him, etc, then fine. But if he is going to continue to put words in her mouth and thoughts in her head and be absolutely determined to read everything in her sexual past in this light, then all he is doing is torturing himself and driving her away.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> No I mean how should a guy who's getting twinges of RJ because his wife was GGG with other guys but isn't interested in being GGG with him approach that?
> 
> I get that it shouldn't be about comparisons or **** shaming.
> 
> So what should it be about?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I've admitted that I don't know a whole lot about GGG, just what's been discussed here, but could the G - Game and G - Good be that she's no longer a Jack of all trades, instead she's a master of some?


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Have you been reading this thread at all? No, I did not close the door forever. He opened it.


Easy, tiger.

I ask to be sure that I understand. Not because I'm not paying attention.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I am trying to understand the point of this comment. Do you believe that you have been discussing particularly well with people who have not? Is there more value to abstract thought than to concrete thought?


This is regarding the Sid & Nancy exercise.

Some just couldn't seem to grasp the idea or the purpose behind thought experiments.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> I've admitted that I don't know a whole lot about GGG, just what's been discussed here, but could the G - Game and G - Good be that she's no longer a Jack of all trades, instead she's a master of some?


Aha, maybe?

Meaning, she found "good old faithful" stuff to do with Sid, and it works, so why mess with it?


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> What I'm getting at is why that position is so entrenched.
> 
> It's basically saying "I married you but I'm never gonna be into you, so deal with that."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Do you mean like "I married you knowing exactly how you are but hope that I can change you down the road"?


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> Do you mean like "I married you knowing exactly how you are but hope that I can change you down the road"?


That's fair if it was "I will never be GGG and I hope you can live with that."

I'm not sure it's fair if "I have never been GGG" and it turns into "I used to be GGG but just not with you."

And I think all of that is mostly bunk.

I think everybody can be GGG, just to a greater or lesser extent depending on how much they decide to do that.

With a base assumption that I'm not specifically talking about being fixated on any particular act which one party may find distasteful or uncomfortable.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Aha, maybe?
> 
> Meaning, she found "good old faithful" stuff to do with Sid, and it works, so why mess with it?


Yeah, maybe. I like to think that people don't intentionally want to hurt their partner's feelings so they do things to avoid doing so. 

As an example, maybe Nancy doesn't believe Sid is going to come close to hitting the bulls eye on some activity based on previous but similar performance. She's not willing to go down that road because his personality is such that he'd be incredibly hurt is she criticized his performance. Does that make any sense?


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> Yeah, maybe. I like to think that people don't intentionally want to hurt their partner's feelings so they do things to avoid doing so.
> 
> As an example, maybe Nancy doesn't believe Sid is going to come close to hitting the bulls eye on some activity based on previous but similar performance. She's not willing to go down that road because his personality is such that he'd be incredibly hurt is she criticized his performance. Does that make any sense?


Ya, I get it, super insightful.

Meaning, MAYBE if she found a way to say it, and he found a way to hear it, they could go there?


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> That's fair if it was "I will never be GGG and I hope you can live with that."
> 
> I'm not sure it's fair if "I have never been GGG" and it turns into "I used to be GGG but just not with you."
> 
> And I think all of that is mostly bunk.
> 
> *I think everybody can be GGG, just to a greater or lesser extent depending on how much they decide to do that.*
> 
> With a base assumption that I'm not specifically talking about being fixated on any particular act which one party may find distasteful or uncomfortable.


But now you get into the question of defining what GGG means to each partner within their specific relationship dynamic (personality, boundaries, values, and life experiences)


----------



## Anon1111

no one liked my "Sid was a secret billionaire" schtik.

I thought that was kind of interesting.

Would "Sid used to be a real life pimp" have any appeal?


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> But now you get into the question of defining what GGG means to each partner within their specific relationship dynamic (personality, boundaries, values, and life experiences)


I guess I'm making the assumption that Sid wouldn't care so much about the sex in public thing if Nancy was good exploring other stuff.

That's the way I'd feel.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> AA,
> Significant unmet marital desires of any sort - create doubt about whether or partner loves us as much as we want them to.
> 
> Knowledge that a spouse willingly met those desires with a previous partner - amplifies that doubt.


No argument from me on that point.

But focusing on that doubt and amplifying it even further by obsessing about every past partner of your spouse, presuming that it *must* have been so much better with that person, insisting that somehow they aren't as entitled to their history as you are to yours because "gender differences" -- all of this is basically wallowing and does no one any favours.

If you're feeling insecure and vulnerable in a relationship, why waste so much energy in conjuring up ways to feel even worse? Why not just own it and get the reassurance that you need? Or, if that isn't possible because it turns out your fears are realized, then just end it.


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> I guess I'm making the assumption that Sid wouldn't care so much about the sex in public thing if Nancy was good exploring other stuff.
> 
> That's the way I'd feel.


And we come back around to the idea that these questions and conflicts are rarely even thought of unless some issue actively triggers them, or another way, if everything is good, this isn't an issue.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Ya, I get it, super insightful.
> 
> Meaning, MAYBE if she found a way to say it, and he found a way to hear it, they could go there?


However sometimes there's just no way to say something without it hurting on some level. 

I think this goes back to what Nobody Special stated early on in this discussion. "You want to be the guy that rocks her world. And you aren't. (Rhetorical you here.) How is that her fault? *Reality sucks. But it is what it is.*"

Here's a good example. This topic hurts me to even think about but I'm going to share it with you anyway. During the second trimester of pregnancy with my son, I noticed that my husband was becoming less and less sexual with me. We had an argument about the decline in sex when I was about 4 1/2 months pregnant with my son where he admitted that he didn't find my pregnant body sexually attractive. He TRIED to avoid telling me anything by avoiding any sexual contact with me. He truly felt like sh!t after the words left his mouth but the truth is the truth. 

I heard him loud and clear. It didn't change the fact that what he said was incredibly hurtful to me.


----------



## Marduk

samyeagar said:


> And we come back around to the idea that these questions and conflicts are rarely even thought of unless some issue actively triggers them, or another way, if everything is good, this isn't an issue.


Which I'm now thinking GGG is a great firewall or fail-safe for such things.

I mean, maybe it's why I laughed when I heard something that we had never done together that she'd done with someone else.


----------



## MEM2020

Touché 

Maybe I'm wrong, seems to me that often a man will marry a woman because he loves her a lot, regardless of the field of red flags in front of his eyes. Let's call him Sid - for convenience. 

Sid sees a bunch of red flags but instead of addressing them he PROPOSES to Nancy. Nancy, seeing that as a huge vote of approval from him, for how she treats Sid, now displays some more red flags. Sid sees them and proceeds anyway. 

On the honeymoon and during the first year, the marital field virtually blossoms with red flags. It's like that scene in the Wizard of Oz with the poppies. 

And still Sid marches on. 

First child comes and Sid starts to complain. Second child and he complains even more. 

But here's the thing. Nancy wasn't ever that attracted to Sid. He just chose to wait until they were tethered together by kids to start pressing for what he wanted. Because he knew from that start, that if he'd pressed on their sex life before kids, she would have left him. 

Who's really responsible for Sid's unhappiness? 




Lila said:


> Do you mean like "I married you knowing exactly how you are but hope that I can change you down the road"?


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> However sometimes there's just no way to say something without it hurting on some level.
> 
> I think this goes back to what Nobody Special stated early on in this discussion. "You want to be the guy that rocks her world. And you aren't. (Rhetorical you here.) How is that her fault? *Reality sucks. But it is what it is.*"
> 
> Here's a good example. This topic hurts me to even think about but I'm going to share it with you anyway. During the second trimester of pregnancy with my son, I noticed that my husband was becoming less and less sexual with me. We had an argument about the decline in sex when I was about 4 1/2 months pregnant with my son where he admitted that he didn't find my pregnant body sexually attractive. He TRIED to avoid telling me anything by avoiding any sexual contact with me. He truly felt like sh!t after the words left his mouth but the truth is the truth.
> 
> I heard him loud and clear. It didn't change the fact that what he said was incredibly hurtful to me.


I'm kind of reeling.

I'm like your husband. I'm not sexually attracted to pregnant women. Any women. Maybe that makes me a jerk.

I never told her because I didn't want to hurt her. Should I have?


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> ? Is there more value to abstract thought than to concrete thought?


Hmmm.. I think you might have set me to ignore but, no, there's not more value to abstract thought than concrete thought. Depends on what one is trying to accomplish. 

But, you can't have an abstract discussion with people who either refuse to or are incapable of an abstract discussion.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Touché
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, seems to me that often a man will marry a woman because he loves her a lot, regardless of the field of red flags in front of his eyes. Let's call him Sid - for convenience.
> 
> Sid sees a bunch of red flags but instead of addressing them he PROPOSES to Nancy. Nancy, seeing that as a huge vote of approval from him, for how she treats Sid, now displays some more red flags. Sid sees them and proceeds anyway.
> 
> On the honeymoon and during the first year, the marital field virtually blossoms with red flags. It's like that scene in the Wizard of Oz with the poppies.
> 
> And still Sid marches on.
> 
> First child comes and Sid starts to complain. Second child and he complains even more.
> 
> But here's the thing. Nancy wasn't ever that attracted to Sid. He just chose to wait until they were tethered together by kids to start pressing for what he wanted. Because he knew from that start, that if he'd pressed on their sex life before kids, she would have left him.
> 
> Who's really responsible for Sid's unhappiness?


I hear what you are saying.

My answer is _they both are._

I know you're pointing at the fact that Sid shouldn't have ignored the red flags. But the fact is, neither should have Nancy.

And I fundamentally believe that once you agree to be monogamous and committed, you share accountability for each other's sexual and emotional satisfaction.

Maybe not 50/50 -- but it's shared. Because you don't want them to go to someone else to fulfill it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> That's fair if it was "I will never be GGG and I hope you can live with that."
> 
> I'm not sure it's fair if "I have never been GGG" and it turns into "I used to be GGG but just not with you."
> 
> And I think all of that is mostly bunk.
> 
> I think everybody can be GGG, just to a greater or lesser extent depending on how much they *decide *to do that.


It has to do with a LOT more than that. It has to do with love, caring, trust.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> I'm kind of reeling.
> 
> I'm like your husband. I'm not sexually attracted to pregnant women. Any women. Maybe that makes me a jerk.
> 
> I never told her because I didn't want to hurt her. Should I have?


Depends. Did it become a problem in your relationship? Or were you able to 'soldier on', so to speak? 

I know that I'm going to disappoint some of my friends on TAM with this statement, but I think there is a limit to honesty. The pros and cons of it should be weighted. IMO, if an honest answer is going to devastate a loving partner, then it's not worth it.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> You mean, of course, people who share exactly the same set of preconceptions and will only shift the ground in approved of directions.


No. I'd be happy to have you set up a thought experiment, set the conditions and engage in a discussion of it on your grounds.

The problem with concrete thought is that one can always insert (but maybe he/she did/said x). In an abstract situation, the one setting the parameters can say "no, he/she didn't, he/she said y" and then that issue can be put aside and we can continue moving forward. If we're allowed to veer of the issue constantly, we'll never get anywhere.


----------



## MEM2020

Absolutely not. 

Nancy WAS ok with the meh attraction factor. She placed a higher value on the 'stability and co parenting' factors, and Sid nailed those. 

Sid was the one with increasingly unmet needs. He was far more deceptive regarding his view of the relationship than she was. 




marduk said:


> I hear what you are saying.
> 
> My answer is _they both are._
> 
> I know you're pointing at the fact that Sid shouldn't have ignored the red flags. But the fact is, neither should have Nancy.
> 
> And I fundamentally believe that once you agree to be monogamous and committed, you share accountability for each other's sexual and emotional satisfaction.
> 
> Maybe not 50/50 -- but it's shared. Because you don't want them to go to someone else to fulfill it.


----------



## Buddy400

samyeagar said:


> And how does one reconcile what you just said about dishonesty through omission of something seemingly mundane, with the fact that according to many here, this is one of those prime examples of something in the past, before me, nothing extreme, but still none of my business?
> 
> For the record, we have long since worked past this, so this is not a current or ongoing issue.


Now we might be getting somewhere


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> Depends. Did it become a problem in your relationship? Or were you able to 'soldier on', so to speak?
> 
> I know that I'm going to disappoint some of my friends on TAM with this statement, but I think there is a limit to honesty. The pros and cons of it should be weighted. IMO, if an honest answer is going to devastate a loving partner, then it's not worth it.


She knew something was up -- I wasn't chasing her around the house any more. I just tried to keep up appearances as best I could.

But I never really owned up to why because I don't think she'd ever understand, I mean I don't really understand it.

And she'd be devastated. Maybe now that we're done having kids?


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> Nancy WAS ok with the meh attraction factor. She placed a higher value on the 'stability and co parenting' factors, and Sid nailed those.
> 
> Sid was the one with increasingly unmet needs. He was far more deceptive regarding his view of the relationship than she was.


Nancy also owned that she was "meh" about Sid to begin with, and that she wasn't 100% clear with him about it.

And anyway, people are allowed to change their sexual interest levels and desires, right?

I don't expect my wife to stay the same. She doesn't expect me to stay the same.

And if I want her to stay monogamous, I better keep up with her if her drive goes up.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> I think absolutely everyone can understand that it's extremely hurtful to be compared to an ex, or to have one's partner constantly dreaming of/ remembering / comparing you to past partners or other people. This has been said again and again by women (and men) on this thread who know all too well what it feels like. And ultimately, that's probably most of us.
> 
> But what is being argued against isn't that point, not even close. No one is saying that this is a reasonable way to treat a partner. No one is saying that if someone is doing gis to you, man or woman, that it isn't cruel and selfish, and reasonable grounds for leaving. What is being said is that just because a woman has a past partner in no way means that she is doing these things to a man.
> 
> *And if all he needs is some reassurance that she is not doing these things, that she does love him, etc, then fine.* But if he is going to continue to put words in her mouth and thoughts in her head and be absolutely determined to read everything in her sexual past in this light, then all he is doing is torturing himself and driving her away.


I think we could all converge on the bolded.

But something seems to be holding us back for some reason. To me it seems like a belief that to give ANY ground is to admit defeat.


----------



## MEM2020

Lila,
I'll second that with a small but important caveat: 

Communicating a devastating message is only justifiable in cases where your partner can actually DO SOMETHING about it. 




Lila said:


> Depends. Did it become a problem in your relationship? Or were you able to 'soldier on', so to speak?
> 
> I know that I'm going to disappoint some of my friends on TAM with this statement, but I think there is a limit to honesty. The pros and cons of it should be weighted. IMO, if an honest answer is going to devastate a loving partner, then it's not worth it.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> She knew something was up -- I wasn't chasing her around the house any more. I just tried to keep up appearances as best I could.
> 
> But I never really owned up to why because I don't think she'd ever understand, I mean I don't really understand it.
> 
> *And she'd be devastated. *Maybe now that we're done having kids?


What's the point of telling her now?


----------



## Steve1000

lifeistooshort said:


> Not to be confused with "gee, I really wish I could have that model but since she's interested in someone hotter and with more money than me I guess I'll go for you since you seem willing to sleep with me".
> 
> To some degree everyone is a consolation prize.


I'm not sure about that. When I was in serious relationships, it seems I always thought that the lady that I was emotionally attached to was very attractive and a top-level beauty. Nobody else thought so, so it must have been cases of thinking my partners were beauties because I was attached to them. Physically, I did not consider my ex-girlfriends or my wife to be a consolation prize.


----------



## TiggyBlue

marduk said:


> Nancy also owned that she was "meh" about Sid to begin with, and that she wasn't 100% clear with him about it.


How do we know Nancy is/was "meh" about Sid to begin with?
Was it because she had different sex with Johnny?


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Lila,
> I'll second that with a small but important caveat:
> 
> Communicating a devastating message is only justifiable in cases where your partner can actually DO SOMETHING about it.


Ya that was my thinking. Besides, it was temporary.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> What's the point of telling her now?


I dunno. She brings it up sometimes. I mean, once or twice over the past few years.

I want to be honest, but don't want to hurt her when it's all pointless and moot now.


----------



## Marduk

Am I picking up on a theme here that Sid can't ask Nancy for more or better or different sex than they have had together?

Is that somehow bad and locked in once married?


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> Am I picking up on a theme here that Sid can't ask Nancy for more or better or different sex than they have had together?
> 
> Is that somehow bad and locked in once married?


He can, but there is a default motion in limine entered and granted.


----------



## Marduk

samyeagar said:


> He can, but there is a default motion in limne entered and granted.


Why the animosity about renegotiating that?

Is it HOW it happens or THAT it happens?

Does nobody else feel joint accountability for their spouse's sexual happiness even if they change?


----------



## Buddy400

TiggyBlue said:


> How do we know Nancy is/was "meh" about Sid to begin with?
> Was it because she had different sex with Johnny?


Because it's Marduk's story and he gets to decide what happened.:smile2:


----------



## Marduk

Buddy400 said:


> Because it's Marduk's story and he gets to decide what happened.:smile2:


Actually, I didn't make that assumption. I believe that came from Lila and NS.

I was thinking they had a good (but 'vanilla') sex life when they hooked up and they just kinda got into a sexual rut after having kids.

And then Sid learned she wasn't always so vanilla, and enjoyed that, and he wanted to explore that part of her.


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> Why the animosity about renegotiating that?
> 
> Is it HOW it happens or THAT it happens?
> 
> Does nobody else feel joint accountability for their spouse's sexual happiness even if they change?


What I was getting at is the fact that some feel he can certainly try, so long as he does not use anything from the past to justify wanting the change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_in_limine


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> I think we could all converge on the bolded.
> 
> But something seems to be holding us back for some reason. To me it seems like a belief that to give ANY ground is to admit defeat.


From where I sit, it sounds like the reassurance isn't good enough. He, for whatever reason, is not to be consoled. Either the reassurance aren't "honest" enough, or along with the reassurance, she still faces the onus of making it better.


----------



## Buddy400

marduk said:


> Why the animosity about renegotiating that?
> 
> Is it HOW it happens or THAT it happens?
> 
> Does nobody else feel joint accountability for their spouse's sexual happiness even if they change?


Two things bother me.

1) That no one can ask a partner to change anything. It's either accept them or let them go. I'm not saying that the partner HAS to change, just that I don't see anything wrong with the request.

2) It often seems that, even if changes are allowed to be requested, requesting changes in sexual behavior from the woman is off the table. Here, I don't think the actual opinion is as deeply held as the reluctance to give any ground makes it appear.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> From where I sit, it sounds like the reassurance isn't good enough. He, for whatever reason, is not to be consoled. Either the reassurance aren't "honest" enough, or along with the reassurance, she still faces the onus of making it better.


I don't believe that.


----------



## Marduk

Buddy400 said:


> Two things bother me.
> 
> 1) That no one can ask a partner to change anything. It's either accept them or let them go. I'm not saying that the partner HAS to change, just that I don't see anything wrong with the request.
> 
> 2) It often seems that, even if changes are allowed to be requested, requesting changes in sexual behavior from the woman is off the table. Here, I don't think the actual opinion is as deeply held as the reluctance to give any ground makes it appear.


So did I just luck out with my wife (and every other LTR) that I've always put #2 on the table and that was OK?


----------



## always_alone

Lila said:


> Depends. Did it become a problem in your relationship? Or were you able to 'soldier on', so to speak?
> 
> I know that I'm going to disappoint some of my friends on TAM with this statement, but I think there is a limit to honesty. The pros and cons of it should be weighted. IMO, if an honest answer is going to devastate a loving partner, then it's not worth it.


I'm not disappointed, but I do disagree.

Learning the truth was devastating, and much more painful than living a lie. But I just feel stupid, used and manipulated for all the times I lived the lie.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Does nobody else feel joint accountability for their spouse's sexual happiness even if they change?


I very, very much do. Because I love the snot out of him. Not because we got dressed up and said I do some day in July many years ago.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> Two things bother me.
> 
> 1) That no one can ask a partner to change anything. It's either accept them or let them go. I'm not saying that the partner HAS to change, just that I don't see anything wrong with the request.
> 
> 2) It often seems that, even if changes are allowed to be requested, requesting changes in sexual behavior from the woman is off the table. Here, I don't think the actual opinion is as deeply held as the reluctance to give any ground makes it appear.


I'm not seeing either of these things on this thread. What I am seeing is that anyone can ask for change but it doesn't mean that the request will be granted. Furthermore, rejecting a request for change is a valid response and should be respected.

The issues start to arise when the request is made, the partner rejects it, and the requestor turns to passive aggressive behavior and whining to get what he wants. That's torture in my book. If the choices are accept my request for change or I'll torture you with PA and whining, I'm going to opt to exit the relationship.


----------



## MEM2020

No - this is a whole different theme. 

I call this scenario the stability staircase. I've read versions of it over and over on TAM. 

For purposes of fairness, there is another scenario. I call that the stability cliff. That's where, as soon as one spouse feels the marriage is sufficiently stable, they stop making an effort to be a good partner. That is actually more rare. 

But for now, let's stick with the staircase scenario. In that scenario Sid has a huge problem. I'll call it emotional momentum. 

While traversing the staircase there was a huge amount of implicit communication. 
Nancy: Is this ok? 
Sid: Yes. 
Nancy: How about this (lower level of effort) 
Sid: Reluctantly yes. 
Nancy: How about this, even lower level of effort?
Sid: Do I have a choice?

Finally - after a few children....

Sid is unhappy and starts making mischief. He 'thinks' he's being assertive but isn't. 

He has to learn how to be assertive, which is difficult in a vacuum and doubly so in what is now an openly conflicted marriage. 

His first move is typically to complain about frequency. And then he admits being unhappy for a long time. 

The frequency theme comes across as selfish, and the comment about long term unhappiness creates trust issues. 





marduk said:


> Am I picking up on a theme here that Sid can't ask Nancy for more or better or different sex than they have had together?
> 
> Is that somehow bad and locked in once married?


----------



## Lila

always_alone said:


> I'm not disappointed, but I do disagree.
> 
> Learning the truth was devastating, and much more painful than living a lie. But I just feel stupid, used and manipulated for all the times I lived the lie.


Total random question but....did your partners keep the truth from you out of love for you (to protect you from hurt) or because they wanted to use and manipulate you?


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> No - this is a whole different theme.
> 
> I call this scenario the stability staircase. I've read versions of it over and over on TAM.
> 
> For purposes of fairness, there is another scenario. I call that the stability cliff. That's where, as soon as one spouse feels the marriage is sufficiently stable, they stop making an effort to be a good partner. That is actually more rare.
> 
> But for now, let's stick with the staircase scenario. In that scenario Sid has a huge problem. I'll call it emotional momentum.
> 
> While traversing the staircase there was a huge amount of implicit communication.
> Nancy: Is this ok?
> Sid: Yes.
> Nancy: How about this (lower level of effort)
> Sid: Reluctantly yes.
> Nancy: How about this, even lower level of effort?
> Sid: Do I have a choice?
> 
> Finally - after a few children....
> 
> Sid is unhappy and starts making mischief. He 'thinks' he's being assertive but isn't.
> 
> He has to learn how to be assertive, which is difficult in a vacuum and doubly so in what is now an openly conflicted marriage.
> 
> His first move is typically to complain about frequency. And then he admits being unhappy for a long time.
> 
> The frequency theme comes across as selfish, and the comment about long term unhappiness creates trust issues.


All fine and good.

So was my solution for Sid (about a billion pages ago) a reasonable one?

Basically, own up to him being a jerk about it and that he is sad he never got to experience that side of Nancy?

And express a desire to?


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Not if it's at the expense of my boundaries.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Super. We're in agreement.

Would you have different boundaries with someone else? Or the same?


----------



## Fozzy

MEM11363 said:


> No - this is a whole different theme.
> 
> I call this scenario the stability staircase. I've read versions of it over and over on TAM.
> 
> For purposes of fairness, there is another scenario. I call that the stability cliff. That's where, as soon as one spouse feels the marriage is sufficiently stable, they stop making an effort to be a good partner. That is actually more rare.
> 
> But for now, let's stick with the staircase scenario. In that scenario Sid has a huge problem. I'll call it emotional momentum.
> 
> While traversing the staircase there was a huge amount of implicit communication.
> Nancy: Is this ok?
> Sid: Yes.
> Nancy: How about this (lower level of effort)
> Sid: Reluctantly yes.
> Nancy: How about this, even lower level of effort?
> Sid: Do I have a choice?
> 
> Finally - after a few children....
> 
> Sid is unhappy and starts making mischief. He 'thinks' he's being assertive but isn't.
> 
> He has to learn how to be assertive, which is difficult in a vacuum and doubly so in what is now an openly conflicted marriage.
> 
> His first move is typically to complain about frequency. And then he admits being unhappy for a long time.
> 
> The frequency theme comes across as selfish, and the comment about long term unhappiness creates trust issues.


I feel you staring at me, Mem.


----------



## techmom

MEM11363 said:


> No - this is a whole different theme.
> 
> I call this scenario the stability staircase. I've read versions of it over and over on TAM.
> 
> For purposes of fairness, there is another scenario. I call that the stability cliff. That's where, as soon as one spouse feels the marriage is sufficiently stable, they stop making an effort to be a good partner. That is actually more rare.
> 
> But for now, let's stick with the staircase scenario. In that scenario Sid has a huge problem. I'll call it emotional momentum.
> 
> While traversing the staircase there was a huge amount of implicit communication.
> Nancy: Is this ok?
> Sid: Yes.
> Nancy: How about this (lower level of effort)
> Sid: Reluctantly yes.
> Nancy: How about this, even lower level of effort?
> Sid: Do I have a choice?
> 
> Finally - after a few children....
> 
> Sid is unhappy and starts making mischief. He 'thinks' he's being assertive but isn't.
> 
> He has to learn how to be assertive, which is difficult in a vacuum and doubly so in what is now an openly conflicted marriage.
> 
> His first move is typically to complain about frequency. And then he admits being unhappy for a long time.
> 
> The frequency theme comes across as selfish, and the comment about long term unhappiness creates trust issues.


Thank you Mem for illustrating this dynamic. We need to understand that Sid's problem is his to own. He does not know how to own his needs, and he was one of those guys who never had luck with women and was frustrated by sex. Or lack there of. Never got a chance to ask for his needs with the other women because they never stayed around long enough and never established that type of relationship. 

Yet, he saw these same women date the other "alpha" type of men. That pissed him off, and he wondered how to be that type, but was too intimidated by the whole thing. Until he met Nancy who liked him for who he was, and he felt that he finally found his girl who will give him the sex he wants. They start a sexual relationship which is very satisfying, but not like the fantasies he has from porn. He feels Nancy's love but there is a gaping hole created by all of the other women who rejected him and he reassures himself that Nancy is the one for him and she loves him. They marry. He still wants more but is too afraid to ask for fear that he is not as desirable as those alpha guys so he might as well enjoy what she offers because he may not get any from any one else outside of this relationship. He seeks validation from Nancy that he is just as good as those other guys who got all of the women, but is afraid he will never be satisfied with just Nancy's reassurance. Not only that, he wouldn't know how to ask her.

After this man finds out about Johnny, his world collapses and he becomes angry and bitter at Nancy. How could she deny him that validation that he sorely needed after being denied this in his life for so long. When he approaches Nancy about this she feels that the goalpost to satisfying this man has moved yet again, now he wants the teenage, insecure part of her which she tried to move past and heal from. Now she is enjoying being a mom and wife. She feels that she gives 100% to everyone in her life, now this is just one more burden. How can Sid ask for more reassurances of her love? Isn't this marriage and all she done for him enough?


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> Thank you Mem for illustrating this dynamic. We need to understand that Sid's problem is his to own. He does not know how to own his needs, and he was one of those guys who never had luck with women and was frustrated by sex. Or lack there of. Never got a chance to ask for his needs with the other women because they never stayed around long enough and never established that type of relationship.
> 
> Yet, he saw these same women date the other "alpha" type of men. That pissed him off, and he wondered how to be that type, but was too intimidated by the whole thing. Until he met Nancy who liked him for who he was, and he felt that he finally found his girl who will give him the sex he wants. They start a sexual relationship which is very satisfying, but not like the fantasies he has from porn. He feels Nancy's love but there is a gaping hole created by all of the other women who rejected him and he reassures himself that Nancy is the one for him and she loves him. They marry. He still wants more but is too afraid to ask for fear that he is not as desirable as those alpha guys so he might as well enjoy what she offers because he may not get any from any one else outside of this relationship. He seeks validation from Nancy that he is just as good as those other guys who got all of the women, but is afraid he will never be satisfied with just Nancy's reassurance. Not only that, he wouldn't know how to ask her.
> 
> After this man finds out about Johnny, his world collapses and he becomes angry and bitter at Nancy. How could she deny him that validation that he sorely needed after being denied this in his life for so long. When he approaches Nancy about this she feels that the goalpost to satisfying this man has moved yet again, now he wants the teenage, insecure part of her which she tried to move past and heal from. Now she is enjoying being a mom and wife. She feels that she gives 100% to everyone in her life, now this is just one more burden. How can Sid ask for more reassurances of her love? Isn't this marriage and all she done for him enough?


Ya that was pretty much what I was aiming at.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

Sid sounds like a "nice guy" with an entitlement attitude who makes covert contracts.

It also sounds like he settled for Nancy because he couldn't get the really hot girls he wanted and Nancy seemed willing, yet he's now po'd because he's not getting what he wants from Nancy even though in the back of his mind he feels he was entitled to better. 

So since he settled for her the least she can do is get freaky for him. Nancy should pay for the sins of all the hot women who passed him over.

That's another way to look at it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CuddleBug

Lila said:


> Several threads have popped up recently by men asking for help on processing their partner's sexual past. A sexual past that was understood on some level but the details of which have now come to light.
> 
> One common question that I see asked is whether or not the partner regrets her sexual past or feels shame over her wanton behavior at that time. I often see these behaviors cumulatively described as 'youthful indiscretions', 'escapades/wild adventures', or 'acting out'. These types of questions insinuate that the only way to judge these experiences as acceptable is to invalidate them with regret and/or shame. This is baffling to me.
> 
> I know that there are women who do genuinely regret something in their sexual past, but I don't think this is true of the majority. I think many women unknowingly (or possibly purposefully) feel they have to suppress these positive sexual experiences or replace them with negative feelings in order to make their sexual history palatable to a future partner. Clean the slate, so to speak.
> 
> I personally do not regret any of my sexual past. I enjoyed my sexual experiences and remember them as positive events in my life. It was _history_. A history that I enjoyed and one where I was happy.
> 
> Luckily, my lack of regret did not disqualify me as a good long term partner for my husband, just as his lack of regret over his sexual history didn't disqualify him as a good long term partner for me.
> 
> I know that I'm cut from a whole other piece of cloth but would like to hear the ladies of TAM thoughts on the subject.
> 
> Do you regret parts or the whole of your sexual history? Why/why not.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners? If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly?


I see it this way. Everyone has a sexual past. When married, that remains just that, the past.

I would say, everything you learned and did in the past, should be used for the present, Experience talks.

I never talk about my sexual past with Mrs.CuddleBug and she doesn't bring up hers. Once in a while we both do but that's extremely rare.

Mrs.CuddleBug is my wife and not my partner. I am her hubby and not her partner.

Do I have past sexual regrets? Sure, we all do. But the past is the past and if we've learned from it and even used those experiences, I don't see the issue.

If I wound up having sex with 12+ women before I met Mrs.CuddleBug, she wouldn't of married me. She wanted a man that has some sexual experience but not a lot and grow with her. I am the same way. If Mrs.CuddleBug slept with 12+ guys before meeting me, I wouldn't of married her either and I don't mind some sexual experience.

But if you've been around the block many times, and your other half hasn't gone down the street, I can see the problem.


----------



## techmom

CuddleBug said:


> I see it this way. Everyone has a sexual past. When married, that remains just that, the past.
> 
> I would say, everything you learned and did in the past, should be used for the present, Experience talks.
> 
> I never talk about my sexual past with Mrs.CuddleBug and she doesn't bring up hers. Once in a while we both do but that's extremely rare.
> 
> Mrs.CuddleBug is my wife and not my partner. I am her hubby and not her partner.
> 
> Do I have past sexual regrets? Sure, we all do. But the past is the past and if we've learned from it and even used those experiences, I don't see the issue.
> 
> If I wound up having sex with 12+ women before I met Mrs.CuddleBug, she wouldn't of married me. She wanted a man that has some sexual experience but not a lot and grow with her. I am the same way. If Mrs.CuddleBug slept with 12+ guys before meeting me, I wouldn't of married her either and I don't mind some sexual experience.
> 
> But if you've been around the block many times, and your other half hasn't gone down the street, I can see the problem.


Thanks for this post, qft.


----------



## MEM2020

Techmom,
This is very good. 



techmom said:


> Thank you Mem for illustrating this dynamic. We need to understand that Sid's problem is his to own. He does not know how to own his needs, and he was one of those guys who never had luck with women and was frustrated by sex. Or lack there of. Never got a chance to ask for his needs with the other women because they never stayed around long enough and never established that type of relationship.
> 
> Yet, he saw these same women date the other "alpha" type of men. That pissed him off, and he wondered how to be that type, but was too intimidated by the whole thing. Until he met Nancy who liked him for who he was, and he felt that he finally found his girl who will give him the sex he wants. They start a sexual relationship which is very satisfying, but not like the fantasies he has from porn. He feels Nancy's love but there is a gaping hole created by all of the other women who rejected him and he reassures himself that Nancy is the one for him and she loves him. They marry. He still wants more but is too afraid to ask for fear that he is not as desirable as those alpha guys so he might as well enjoy what she offers because he may not get any from any one else outside of this relationship. He seeks validation from Nancy that he is just as good as those other guys who got all of the women, but is afraid he will never be satisfied with just Nancy's reassurance. Not only that, he wouldn't know how to ask her.
> 
> After this man finds out about Johnny, his world collapses and he becomes angry and bitter at Nancy. How could she deny him that validation that he sorely needed after being denied this in his life for so long. When he approaches Nancy about this she feels that the goalpost to satisfying this man has moved yet again, now he wants the teenage, insecure part of her which she tried to move past and heal from. Now she is enjoying being a mom and wife. She feels that she gives 100% to everyone in her life, now this is just one more burden. How can Sid ask for more reassurances of her love? Isn't this marriage and all she done for him enough?


----------



## McDean

I must live under a rock, I have never heard of this being a problem for anyone, though I was not surprised by the post and fact it happens. There is no magical number either but time and again I see numbers from both genders as 'cut-offs' at which point a potential long-term partner is no longer considered such. 

By the way if you go back to the beginning of this thread and start counting the number of women pointing out how either they or the imaginary Nancy, was at one point potentially ashamed of some 'act' they did or did with Johnny, maybe the 'shaming' is actually women on women or even self inflicted? I lost count after 20....


----------



## BetrayedDad

Hey Sid...

If you're out there. Dump Nancy and go find a woman whose actually into you. She will give you the passion Nancy is content to let die with her cherished memories of Johnny.

Good Luck bud. She's out there and you deserve better.


----------



## always_alone

Lila said:


> Total random question but....did your partners keep the truth from you out of love for you (to protect you from hurt) or because they wanted to use and manipulate you?


Given what I said, your question isn't random at all, but totally on point. But since I can't actually know what his intentions are, let me answer indirectly.

To my mind, these "little white lies" that we justify as protecting someone's feelings are actually much more about controlling someone, of lulling them into seeing things as you (one) want them to. It is a way of avoiding confrontation, a way of pushing someone else to accord to your vision, of not giving them the space to make their own choices. 

Truth, on the other hand, sets me free. Knowing where I stand, I can then make my own determination about what I'm willing to accept or not.

Don't get me wrong: I do believe there is merit in being considerate of another person's feelings. I don't think, for example, there is any reason to be overly harsh, to put someone down just to make them feel small. But I think a lot of times people pretend they are protecting someone else, when really they are just manipulating the situation to protect themselves from the fall out.


----------



## Anon1111

Nancy doesn't owe Sid the freaky sh-t she did with Johnny. 

Sid doesn't owe Nancy the nice guy security. 

Simple.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Fozzy,

When I stare at you I see first class 'son in law' material. And that is the God's honest truth. 




Fozzy said:


> I feel you staring at me, Mem.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Fozzy,
> 
> When I stare at you I see first class 'son in law' material. And that is the God's honest truth.


Fozzy is a nice person.


----------



## farsidejunky

Wow. Just started reading this thread today and am now caught up.

I have been Sid most of my life.

There have been times when I was Johnny, but that was mostly during angry periods that women saw as edge, but really was anger combined with an IDGAF attitude. It resulted in being with a lot of different women.

My wife **** shamed me shortly after we were married because she assumed I just did not have a lot of partners. When she asked, I told her. She didn't like the number and held it over my head for a few weeks. But I digress.

Last year, I figured out how not to be Sid anymore. It started with owning my needs, knowing my self worth, being assertive and not being a victim.

That is why Mem is staring at me as well, Fozzy. I allowed things to go too far through the slow boil.

But here is the thing that is so frustrating. I was so busy being Sid for so much of my life that I did not ever believe I was attractive or capable. Funny thing is that others thought I was until they got to know me. Then I convinced them otherwise through my demonstrated lack of faith in myself. 

But there was a major component to that, and it really just came to light today in counseling. I seek validation from others. I still do it, even though I now recognize it. A 37 year habit is hard to break.

When you have that mentality, you are no longer in charge of your own worth. Then you worry about why your wife won't sleep with you; whether her partners previous to you were better; why she won't please you; if she is using you for security.

If your self worth is measured where it should be, this entire conversation changes. 

"I am not okay with..."

Then give your partner the space to do something about it. If it is a deal breaker, allow it to be broken. If it is not, fulfill it with something else.

But put validation where it belongs; with self.


----------



## zzzman99

Anon1111 said:


> Nancy doesn't owe Sid the freaky sh-t she did with Johnny.
> 
> Sid doesn't owe Nancy the nice guy security.
> 
> Simple.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



That is exactly on. But I'm betting the same people that say Nancy doesn't owe Sid anything will see Sid's commitment to Nancy differently. Women control the sex and Men control the commitment. No Sex, no commitment, it's really simple. Limited Sex, Limited Commitment.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

Nice - Yes

More important Fozzy is a good person. And that is obvious based on how he has dealt with his challenges. 






jld said:


> Fozzy is a nice person.


----------



## TiggyBlue

zzzman99 said:


> That is exactly on. But I'm betting the same people that say Nancy doesn't owe Sid anything will see Sid's commitment to Nancy differently. Women control the sex and Men control the commitment. No Sex, no commitment, it's really simple. Limited Sex, Limited Commitment.


So Sid puts more value on his commitment as than Nancy commitment?


----------



## zzzman99

TiggyBlue said:


> So Sid puts more value on his commitment as than Nancy commitment?


Sorry, don't understand your text. But it seems you missed the point. In a relationship, women control the sex, men control the commitment. It is not a question of value. The basic need for a man is sex and for women it is commitment. Since they desire it most, their partner controls that aspect of the relationship.


----------



## TiggyBlue

zzzman99 said:


> Sorry, don't understand your text. * But it seems you missed the point*. In a relationship, women control the sex, men control the commitment. It is not a question of value. The basic need for a man is sex and for women it is commitment. Since they desire it most, their partner controls that aspect of the relationship.


No I understood your view point, just don't really agree.


----------



## MEM2020

Far,
And the best gauge of where you are on the spectrum is raw physiology. 

If your vitals don't change when you are in conflict or even when F2 has escalated to combat, you have pinned the meter on the spectrum. 

This is not detachment. It's acceptance of yourself. 

M2 fights dirty. And that's ok. It's what a weaker person or group does. 

Simple example that happened very recently. We had a disagreement. Afterwards when discussing it I repeatedly said: This was mostly my fault, and it's also true you escalated very fast and in a way that you wouldn't like in reverse. 

M2 replied: Great, so as usual you did nothing wrong. 

Ten years ago - that would have instantly spiked my blood pressure. I would have gotten very angry that M2 was twisting my words. 

But here's the thing, right or wrong M2 believes she isn't as smart and doesn't debate as well as I do. She has always compensated for that by attempting to disregulate my emotions. That tactic, when it works, lowers my IQ significantly and impairs my ability to engage in conflict. 

But it doesn't work anymore. So when I heard: great, so as usual you did nothing wrong.

I smiled and said: As usual it's mostly my fault. 

And realizing I wasn't trying to use superior firepower to WIN, M2 relaxed. Ten minutes later she was laughing. Twenty minutes later she was apologizing for her contribution - voluntarily. 

And a few hours after that she took me to bed. 

Looping back to her attempt to destabilize - this is what she was really saying. 

1. You aren't taking responsibility for your actions 
2. And your normal modus operandi is to avoid taking responsibility for your actions 

But those two statements are patently false. I not only know that in my head, I believe it in my gut. So why would that bother me? Answer is, it doesn't. If M2 believes something bad about me 'in the moment' - that's about her. 

And if she doesn't believe it and is simply fighting dirty - that's about her too. 




farsidejunky said:


> Wow. Just started reading this thread today and am now caught up.
> 
> I have been Sid most of my life.
> 
> There have been times when I was Johnny, but that was mostly during angry periods that women saw as edge, but really was anger combined with an IDGAF attitude. It resulted in being with a lot of different women.
> 
> My wife **** shamed me shortly after we were married because she assumed I just did not have a lot of partners. When she asked, I told her. She didn't like the number and held it over my head for a few weeks. But I digress.
> 
> Last year, I figured out how not to be Sid anymore. It started with owning my needs, knowing my self worth, being assertive and not being a victim.
> 
> That is why Mem is staring at me as well, Fozzy. I allowed things to go too far through the slow boil.
> 
> But here is the thing that is so frustrating. I was so busy being Sid for so much of my life that I did not ever believe I was attractive or capable. Funny thing is that others thought I was until they got to know me. Then I convinced them otherwise through my demonstrated lack of faith in myself.
> 
> But there was a major component to that, and it really just came to light today in counseling. I seek validation from others. I still do it, even though I now recognize it. A 37 year habit is hard to break.
> 
> When you have that mentality, you are no longer in charge of your own worth. Then you worry about why your wife won't sleep with you; whether her partners previous to you were better; why she won't please you; if she is using you for security.
> 
> If your self worth is measured where it should be, this entire conversation changes.
> 
> "I am not okay with..."
> 
> Then give your partner the space to do something about it. If it is a deal breaker, allow it to be broken. If it is not, fulfill it with something else.
> 
> But put validation where it belongs; with self.


----------



## zzzman99

Personal said:


> :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> Seriously???!!!
> 
> :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> What you wrote is comic gold!
> 
> You do realise there are plenty of men who withhold sex for a variety of reasons, often or all of the time?
> 
> Lest rape is involved, both men and women control sex.
> 
> Since women are just as capable of sexual fidelity and infidelity as men are, let's not pretend that men only control commitment in sexual relationships either.
> 
> Whenever I had sex with woman within an hour of meeting them, up through to the third date. Not one of them presumed that they would get a lasting commitment from me. So it's pretty damned obvious they were after sex.
> 
> This man chooses to have sex only with whom he wants, when and if he wants to.
> 
> If I wanted to ensure I ended up having less sex or maybe even no sex, I'd start by thinking that women control sex and men control commitment.
> 
> :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


I mentioned nothing about fidelity or infidelity, or hookups, or rape. You read more into this than I wrote. If you wanted to understand male/female relationship dynamics you'd understand this as a basic tenet. 

First off, if you believe that men and women are the same, just stop reading here because first you are ill informed, (but politically correct), and you are never going to get this next part. 

Biologically, women are wired to find a relationship partner who will be around with them to raise kids. This requires a committed man. Men are wired differently and are more interested in sex with as many women as possible. This is primitive brain stuff. A man's need is different than a woman's.

Sex is easy for a woman to get, not so much for a man. As noted in this thread, women will often try to get Johnny Football player to commit and he won't do it. He will more readily have sex with a woman than commit to her. If you don't understand the concept of SMV or Sexual Market Value, perhaps you should look it up. Men of high value will typically have sex with women of lower value, but not the other way around. But that same high value man won't necessarily commit to the lesser value woman. 

What do you really think this analogy about Johnny and Sid and Nancy is all about? It's about Johnny being a higher value man that Sid and Nancy settling for Sid because she couldn't lock Johnny in. Johnny was a higher value than Nancy. Nancy could only get a "nice guy" like Sid to commit as hers and Sids value are both lower than Johnny.

Therefore, as previously stated, women control sex in a relationship and men control commitment. 

And sorry if you don't agree; I don't agree with you either, but the difference is that I'm not a complete tool about it.


----------



## EleGirl

zzzman99 said:


> Sorry, don't understand your text. But it seems you missed the point. In a relationship, women control the sex, men control the commitment. It is not a question of value. The basic need for a man is sex and for women it is commitment. Since they desire it most, their partner controls that aspect of the relationship.


I disagree.

Men are as likely to make a marriage near sexless or sexless. So apparently it's not true that for all men sex is a basic need for men. Nor is it true that commitment is the strongest need for women.

For example I would not care how committed a man is to me, if he did not want sex in the marriage, I will not stay I the marriage. My bet is that most women would not. 

We have women posting here all the time married to men who are committed but not interested in sex, or who have very low sex drives. These women are on their way out of the marriage because of the lack of sex.


.


----------



## Thundarr

Oh boy. I just got back from business travel which I hate-HATE-hate). So it's 2:48AM and I'm wide awake and twenty pages behind but I already see a gender posturing instead of objectivity. Marduk threw out a hypothetical scenario and then pontificated about how a guy is thinking during it and asked is this accurate? After a page or two he attempted to see it from a woman's point of view and asked is this accurate? Remember that these hypothetical characters (Nancy and Sid) are in a relationship and are trying to love each other the best they know how to. But they are both fallible and vulnerable. It's a man and a woman trying to love each other rather than men versus women.


----------



## EleGirl

zzzman99 said:


> I mentioned nothing about fidelity or infidelity, or hookups, or rape. You read more into this than I wrote. If you wanted to understand male/female relationship dynamics you'd understand this as a basic tenet.
> 
> First off, if you believe that men and women are the same, just stop reading here because first you are ill informed, (but politically correct), and you are never going to get this next part.
> 
> Biologically, women are wired to find a relationship partner who will be around with them to raise kids. This requires a committed man. Men are wired differently and are more interested in sex with as many women as possible. This is primitive brain stuff. A man's need is different than a woman's.
> 
> Sex is easy for a woman to get, not so much for a man. As noted in this thread, women will often try to get Johnny Football player to commit and he won't do it. He will more readily have sex with a woman than commit to her. If you don't understand the concept of SMV or Sexual Market Value, perhaps you should look it up. *Men of high value will typically have sex with women of lower value, but not the other way around. But that same high value man won't necessarily commit to the lesser value woman.
> *
> 
> What do you really think this analogy about Johnny and Sid and Nancy is all about? It's about Johnny being a higher value man that Sid and Nancy settling for Sid because she couldn't lock Johnny in. Johnny was a higher value than Nancy. Nancy could only get a "nice guy" like Sid to commit as hers and Sids value are both lower than Johnny.
> 
> Therefore, as previously stated, women control sex in a relationship and men control commitment.
> 
> And sorry if you don't agree; I don't agree with you either, but the difference is that I'm not a complete tool about it.


I see you are into the PUA nonsense.

Johnny is not a 'high value' male. He's some high school football player type who Nancy left behind. Sid is the guy who Nancy saw/sees as worth spending her life with. This is what some of the men on this thread do not get... women as a general rule do not hang on to high school crushes on boys and guys in our past. They are ex's for a reason.

It seems that some guys are building Johnny into something that few, if any males, can life up to. He's apparently an icon representing the bugaboo in the heads of some men who worry about such things.


.


----------



## EleGirl

Thundarr said:


> Oh boy. I just got back from business travel which I hate-HATE-hate). So it's 2:48AM and I'm wide awake and twenty pages behind but I already see a gender posturing instead of objectivity. Marduk threw out a hypothetical scenario and then pontificated about how a guy is thinking during it and asked is this accurate? After a page or two he attempted to see it from a woman's point of view and asked is this accurate? Remember that these hypothetical characters (Nancy and Sid) are in a relationship and are trying to love each other the best they know how to. But they are both fallible and vulnerable. It's a man and a woman trying to love each other rather than men versus women.


His scenario is not really what this thread is about. This thread asked women a question. Women cannot even talk about their experiences no this thread because men took it over.


----------



## Thundarr

EleGirl said:


> His scenario is not really what this thread is about. This thread asked women a question. Women cannot even talk about their experiences no this thread because men took it over.


I was just thinking if the (Nancy/Sid) scenario was a thread jack then it wouldn't still be the topic of discussion a couple of days later.


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> Why the animosity about renegotiating that?
> 
> Is it HOW it happens or THAT it happens?
> 
> Does nobody else feel joint accountability for their spouse's sexual happiness even if they change?


People change. So in marriage there has to be room for both to grow with that change. There should be no problem with renegotiating when on or the other changes.

It's in how that renegotiation happens. It's in how much the couple shows their care, respect and love for each other in the process.

I believe very much that both spouses should feel a strong accountability for each other's sexual happiness.

.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> Two things bother me.
> 
> 1) That no one can ask a partner to change anything. It's either accept them or let them go. I'm not saying that the partner HAS to change, just that I don't see anything wrong with the request.
> 
> 2) It often seems that, even if changes are allowed to be requested, requesting changes in sexual behavior from the woman is off the table. Here, I don't think the actual opinion is as deeply held as the reluctance to give any ground makes it appear.


I don't think that there is even one woman no this thread who agrees with ether 1 or 2. 

Somehow, a woman being shamed for past sex life has now been morphed by some into your #1 & #2. Makes no sense how that happened.


----------



## EleGirl

Thundarr said:


> I was just thinking if the (Nancy/Sid) scenario was a thread jack then it wouldn't still be the topic of discussion a couple of days later.


It's a thread jack that took off and grew legs of it's own. It's an interesting discussion... just the wrong thread for it. And I would be surprised is the thread could get back on topic now.


----------



## EleGirl

Personal said:


> On that note I feel I should bow out of this one, and hope other men here do the same. Since us guys would do well to actually hear what women say on this, rather than keep telling them how many ways they are wrong.


Not trying to run you away...


----------



## techmom

zzzman99 said:


> That is exactly on. But I'm betting the same people that say Nancy doesn't owe Sid anything will see Sid's commitment to Nancy differently. Women control the sex and Men control the commitment. No Sex, no commitment, it's really simple. Limited Sex, Limited Commitment.


Damn, can't women talk about their experiences about this topic without being told they are wrong. We get enough of this in real life without having to deal with this on TAM. For the guys who are triggering from the Sid/Nancy example, please. It was an example of a couple, that's it. The mere mention of Johnny blew this discussion out of the water, then we got the angry posts. This is demonstrating what happens irl when this gets discussed, the man gets angry and shames the woman by getting angry feeling deprived of whatever.

For the guys who actually tried to stick to the original intent of the thread, thanks for attempting to give women a space to discuss thes things. To the guys who are becoming angry at the mention of Johnny, you are the reason why your sex life is not all it can be. You are the reason women lie and cover up their sexual history. You make women cover up their full sexual potential in order to avoid being shamed due to your insecurities.

Your wife does not owe you plenty of wild sex to make up for the wild sex you missed during your life. If you got rejected often in the past, get therapy and learn self-validation as Far posted. Your wife is not at fault and she does not deserve to be humiliated for her past by a husband who vowed to love her for who she is. 

Women are becoming more independent, and as such we don't have to stick around men who don't mature past the hurt they experienced in their pasts and attempt to make up for it by humiliating us. We can simply leave and find the mature men who don't have time for such foolishness. Thus leaving you to wallow in your self-pity.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> Nice - Yes
> 
> More important Fozzy is a good person. And that is obvious based on how he has dealt with his challenges.


Fozzy is humble and down to earth. He can listen. And because of that, he can grow.

Not sure about Sid. And that Johnny sounds like a lost cause.

Poor Nancy.


----------



## McDean

techmom said:


> Damn, can't women talk about their experiences about this topic without being told they are wrong. We get enough of this in real life without having to deal with this on TAM. For the guys who are triggering from the Sid/Nancy example, please. It was an example of a couple, that's it. The mere mention of Johnny blew this discussion out of the water, then we got the angry posts. This is demonstrating what happens irl when this gets discussed, the man gets angry and shames the woman by getting angry feeling deprived of whatever.
> 
> For the guys who actually tried to stick to the original intent of the thread, thanks for attempting to give women a space to discuss thes things. To the guys who are becoming angry at the mention of Johnny, you are the reason why your sex life is not all it can be. You are the reason women lie and cover up their sexual history. You make women cover up their full sexual potential in order to avoid being shamed due to your insecurities.
> 
> Your wife does not owe you plenty of wild sex to make up for the wild sex you missed during your life. If you got rejected often in the past, get therapy and learn self-validation as Far posted. Your wife is not at fault and she does not deserve to be humiliated for her past by a husband who vowed to love her for who she is.
> 
> Women are becoming more independent, and as such we don't have to stick around men who don't mature past the hurt they experienced in their pasts and attempt to make up for it by humiliating us. We can simply leave and find the mature men who don't have time for such foolishness. Thus leaving you to wallow in your self-pity.


Liked your post Tech, and despite my earlierpostsi actually agree. My point was to drive the conversation full circle on OPs question, not all men care about past experiences and less than the question implied in my opinion. 

That being said, most of us are not threatened by your growing independence, I for one welcome it because I really don't need another child to raise.


----------



## zzzman99

EleGirl said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Men are as likely to make a marriage near sexless or sexless. So apparently it's not true that for all men sex is a basic need for men. Nor is it true that commitment is the strongest need for women.
> 
> For example I would not care how committed a man is to me, if he did not want sex in the marriage, I will not stay I the marriage. My bet is that most women would not.
> 
> We have women posting here all the time married to men who are committed but not interested in sex, or who have very low sex drives. These women are on their way out of the marriage because of the lack of sex.
> 
> 
> .


You totally miss the point. Sorry but studies in Behavioral Psychology back this up. Whether they choose to have sex or commitment is irrelevant. The fact remains that even in situations where a women is not getting sex, a man and women would not be in a sexual relationship to begin with if the woman was not open to it. She is the gatekeeper. The man is always open to it. (And, yes you can find an instance where they are both asexual or something like that, but this is about generalities). The same applies for commitment to a man. Commitment is going to happen because of him not her. Women seek out higher status men who commit (or don't) to long term relationships.

This is easy to observe in social settings. Men will pickup willing women who are under their status for sex only, but very often will not commit to them for anything long term. By and large, and this is in general as to not be would be a logical fallacy, Women will not pickup lower status men for sex only, but they will for higher status men. Regardless, they have to be open to it.

Your disagreeing about it doesn't change what social scientists have long determined.


"I see you are into the PUA nonsense."

I have never used it. However, as much as you would hate to believe it, it works. And it works because people who understand basic gender behaviors use it to their advantage.


----------



## BetrayedDad

techmom said:


> To the guys who are becoming angry at the mention of Johnny, you are the reason why your sex life is not all it can be. *You are the reason women lie* and cover up their sexual history. You make women cover up their full sexual potential in order to avoid being shamed due to your insecurities.


Wow, you get the gold star for blame shift of day. Congrats!

_You're the reason I lie...._ Interesting. Must not be your fault you lie, a man made you do it. Tell us what other horrible things men force women to do. Cheat perhaps? Use us? Please. We're all ears.



techmom said:


> Thus leaving you to wallow in your self-pity


The fact that people like a post riddled with blameshifting and vitriol for men is enough for me to bow out of this thread. Likewise, enjoy YOUR pity party as well.


----------



## Lila

zzzman99 said:


> You totally miss the point. Sorry but studies in Behavioral Psychology back this up. Whether they choose to have sex or commitment is irrelevant. The fact remains that even in situations where a women is not getting sex, a man and women would not be in a sexual relationship to begin with if the woman was not open to it. She is the gatekeeper. The man is always open to it. (And, yes you can find an instance where they are both asexual or something like that, but this is about generalities). The same applies for commitment to a man. Commitment is going to happen because of him not her. Women seek out higher status men who commit (or don't) to long term relationships.
> 
> This is easy to observe in social settings. Men will pickup willing women who are under their status for sex only, but very often will not commit to them for anything long term. By and large, and this is in general as to not be would be a logical fallacy, Women will not pickup lower status men for sex only, but they will for higher status men. Regardless, they have to be open to it.
> 
> Your disagreeing about it doesn't change what social scientists have long determined.


Look, as the OP of this thread I going to ask that you not move the thread in the PUA direction. If you want to debate your 'findings' on the subject of human mating selection and rituals, please start a new thread.

Thanks.


----------



## UMP

Lila said:


> I think identifying what GGG looks like in a healthy relationship is a good place to start. As you explained it in your post, the first part of GGG is open communication, followed by honesty and respect, right? I think it would be interesting to find out from others what their experiences and results have been with applying or attempting to apply GGG in their relationship. I could see some good and some bad times implementing GGG.
> 
> I'm just thinking out loud here but I think most people would agree that G = Giving is the easiest one to adopt since it's commonly regarded as as part of a successful relationship. The other two are a bit tougher to swallow, depending on personality types.
> 
> G = Good requires folks to be open to criticism. Yikes! I can see this blowing up in a partners face quick.
> 
> G = Game requires open mindedness and lots of trust. IMO is only possible when the relationship is in good standing and the other 2 Gs are in place. IOW, it shouldn't be attempted unless the other 2 have been achieved. This is where the whole RJ and he got what I haven't gotten issue comes into play.
> 
> But I could be completely wrong on all of these. It would be interesting to see how others interpret the Gs and how it affects their lives.


German Goo Girls ?

Sorry, couldn't resist :grin2:


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't remember him saying anything of the sort. I thought he was very pro RESPONSIBLE non-monogamy.


Nope.

His view is that people can be "monogamish." That it's like smoking or drinking, one cigarette every few months doesn't make you a smoker.

Basically, if someone hasn't cheated on you for 5 years, and then cheats on you once or twice, well, that's pretty good.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Nope.
> 
> His view is that people can be "monogamish." That it's like smoking or drinking, one cigarette every few months doesn't make you a smoker.
> 
> Basically, if someone hasn't cheated on you for 5 years, and then cheats on you once or twice, well, that's pretty good.


Monogamish does NOT mean dishonest.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Just googled. Stand corrected.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Wait I read more. He uses the word cheating. But if he is ok with it, it isn't cheating.


----------



## Marduk

OK.

Far and MEM, I'm with you 100% on the 'own your ****' vibe. I'm down with that.

But I think we _kinda_ lost touch with a couple things that never really got at the heart of Sid's anguish or Nancy's hesitation.

Sid now knows there's a part of Nancy that she isn't sharing with him. He has no right to it; it's hers. But... he wants to know that part of her. Because he loves her. How does he get her to see that?

I could see that driving me crazy.

Nancy is probably now feeling like she's got a husband that wants her to be 22 and single again, and she doesn't want to be that person, nor does she think she needs to be held to account for that. How does she get him to see that?

My underlying agenda and hope is that they can _both_ see that and get wild and freaky together (even if it's not a specific act).

Because what it really is about is _longing and loss._ Everybody can get that, right?

Sid is longing for the Nancy he never got. Nancy is longing for the pre-wife and pre-mom version of herself. They're actually longing for much the same thing.

These things can come together, I hope.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Monogamish does NOT mean dishonest.


I've heard him say that everybody is monogamish and cheating is to be expected in long term relationships. Even ones where monogamy is committed to.

And finding out that your partner is having an affair isn't the worst thing in the world, and perhaps both of them agreeing to look the other way and lying to each other about it is maybe a good way to go.

He's also big on the "if you're unhappy and not able to divorce, then cheat to stay sane" bandwagon. Which I don't buy at all.


----------



## UMP

Here is the way I look at this stuff. Currently, my wife does not want anal. We are progressing and she is liking finger play, tongue play and small vibrator, but not my penis.

After 24 years of denial, if she came up to me in a moment of mental fog and said, "30 years ago Johnny did my Anus a couple times and I actually liked it" I would not be upset.

I would try to look at it as an opportunity. If she did this in the past with someone else, perhaps I can too. 
NOT by coercion, but by becoming the type of guy that she will "allow" this from.

Does this mean I have to become a different person? Maybe not completely, but yes, sometimes if you want something bad enough you WILL change.

Our sex life sucked for years and years. The only reason it's been great for the past 4 years is because I have changed. I can become "Johnny" without sl$t shaming and without losing my core beliefs and values of who I am. I am doing it now and it works.

If it never works, I'm OK with that too. If my change is acceptable to me, regardless of it's effect on my wife, I'm good.


----------



## Marduk

UMP said:


> Here is the way I look at this stuff. Currently, my wife does not want anal. We are progressing and she is liking finger play, tongue play and small vibrator, but not my penis.
> 
> After 24 years of denial, if she came up to me in a moment of mental fog and said, "30 years ago Johnny did my Anus a couple times and I actually liked it" I would not be upset.
> 
> I would try to look at it as an opportunity. If she did this in the past with someone else, perhaps I can too.
> NOT by coercion, but by becoming the type of guy that she will "allow" this from.
> 
> Does this mean I have to become a different person? Maybe not completely, but yes, sometimes if you want something bad enough you WILL change.
> 
> Our sex life sucked for years and years. The only reason it's been great for the past 4 years is because I have changed. I can become "Johnny" without sl$t shaming and without losing my core beliefs and values of who I am. I am doing it now and it works.
> 
> If it never works, I'm OK with that too. If my change is acceptable to me, regardless of it's effect on my wife, I'm good.


Ya, ya, exactly how I think about it. How does Sid get there?


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> My underlying agenda and hope is that they can _both_ see that and get wild and freaky together (even if it's not a specific act).


Your underlying agenda is to change Nancy so Sid gets what HE wants while failing to understand Nancy.



> Because what it really is about is _longing and loss._ Everybody can get that, right?


It just isn't. You can't lose what you never had. Too bad all Nancy is is a piece of flesh to be used. She was good enough to marry the way she was. And now she isn't anymore. Bottom line.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Lila said:


> Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners? If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly?


Maybe not palatable but I'm now wondering if for some regret would need to be expressed for some so that their partner doesn't try to change them into someone they're not (because they've created idea of who their partner was before they me her and want's to bring this person into the present).


----------



## Lila

TiggyBlue said:


> Maybe no palatable but I'm now wondering if for some regret would need to be expressed for some so that their partner doesn't try to change them into someone they're not (because they've created idea of who their partner was before they me her and want's to bring this person in the present).


Could you elaborate more on what you meant this post? I think you might be onto something.


----------



## UMP

marduk said:


> Ya, ya, exactly how I think about it. How does Sid get there?


NOT by changing Nancy. Johnny did not change Nancy. All Johnny did was bang her in the asss and she liked it.

Sid should start by getting a life. After that, he should try and understand Nancy and her sexuality. No sl$t shaming allowed.
To me, understanding my wifes sexual past, all of it, enables me to understand her better. Given that she is with me and not Johnny, why would it should it bother me now?

I can be all that Johnny was and much more.

Hell, I can even make my penis grow.:smile2:


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Fozzy is humble and down to earth. He can listen. And because of that, he can grow.
> 
> Not sure about Sid. And that Johnny sounds like a lost cause.
> 
> Poor Nancy.



Sid is an insecure whiner with an overactive imagination, and takes that out on everyone around him. Johnny is a fiction, a caricature. He is that cartoon bully who kicks sand in the face of the "weakling", making that "weakling" want to buy (ineffective and scam) instant solutions to grow his penis and build muscles. Nancy is the whipping post that is held accountable for everyone's problems.

Fozzy, on the other hand, is awesome.

The moral of this threadjack is that slvt shaming is 100% projection by someone who feels sexually inadequate and would rather boost themselves up by putting someone else down rather than actually addressing the problem.


----------



## EllisRedding

Just started reading this thread, no clue who the heck Sid, Nancy, Johnny, Daniel LaRusso, etc... are. Going back to the OP and actually something @ConanHub said, I would gravitate towards someone who shared the same views/values/morals as me. If someone I was with had a past that included gang bangs, swinging, sleeping with other women, etc... that would undoubtedly be a huge turnoff for me. It has nothing to do with jealousy or insecurity. I have no issue if those are experiences that someone chose to participate in, they just simply do not line up with my views in terms of someone I want to build a relationship with. No different, I could never be with someone who cheated.


----------



## UMP

always_alone said:


> Sid is an insecure whiner with an overactive imagination, and takes that out on everyone around him. Johnny is a fiction, a caricature. He is that cartoon bully who kicks sand in the face of the "weakling", making that "weakling" want to buy (ineffective and scam) instant solutions to grow his penis and build muscles. Nancy is the whipping post that is held accountable for everyone's problems.
> 
> Fozzy, on the other hand, is awesome.
> 
> The moral of this threadjack is that slvt shaming is 100% projection by someone who feels sexually inadequate and would rather boost themselves up by putting someone else down rather than actually addressing the problem.


Why all the hate on Johnny? I like him

He did not rape Nancy and is completely out of the picture now.
He is just a fond memory, I think.

Hell, Johnny probably died of a heart attack in his 40's

Don't hate on the dearly departed :grin2:


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> OK.
> 
> Far and MEM, I'm with you 100% on the 'own your ****' vibe. I'm down with that.
> 
> But I think we _kinda_ lost touch with a couple things that never really got at the heart of Sid's anguish or Nancy's hesitation.
> 
> *Sid now knows there's a part of Nancy that she isn't sharing with him. He has no right to it; it's hers. But... he wants to know that part of her. Because he loves her. How does he get her to see that*?
> 
> I could see that driving me crazy.
> 
> Nancy is probably now feeling like she's got a husband that wants her to be 22 and single again, and she doesn't want to be that person, nor does she think she needs to be held to account for that. How does she get him to see that?
> 
> My underlying agenda and hope is that they can _both_ see that and get wild and freaky together (even if it's not a specific act).
> 
> Because what it really is about is _longing and loss._ Everybody can get that, right?
> 
> Sid is longing for the Nancy he never got. Nancy is longing for the pre-wife and pre-mom version of herself. They're actually longing for much the same thing.
> 
> These things can come together, I hope.


I don't think you could pick apart a person and selectively choose the parts you want without accepting the whole. IOWs, the good comes with the bad. So the only way for Sid to get the wild and freaky Nancy (good) is to also get the Nancy who was immature, and/or irresponsible, and/or impetuous, and/or was self centered, and/or was entitled, and/or lacked empathy, and/or was lazy, and/or any other trait associated with youth. I just don't think this is possible.

Which brings us back to the original topic about regret. Do you think Sid would be able to let go of his desire to have the 'old' Nancy if she admitted regret over her sexual history with Johnny? If she called it all a big mistake and one that she wishes never to repeat?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Lila said:


> I don't think you could pick apart a person and selectively choose the parts you want without accepting the whole. IOWs, the good comes with the bad. So the only way for Sid to get the wild and freaky Nancy (good) is to also get the Nancy who was immature, and/or irresponsible, and/or impetuous, and/or was self centered, and/or was entitled, and/or lacked empathy, and/or was lazy, and/or any other trait associated with youth. I just don't think this is possible.
> 
> Which brings us back to the original topic about regret. Do you think Sid would be able to let go of his desire to have the 'old' Nancy if she admitted regret over her sexual history with Johnny? If she called it all a big mistake and one that she wishes never to repeat?


Yes, IMO.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Your underlying agenda is to change Nancy so Sid gets what HE wants while failing to understand Nancy.


Nope. Please don't tell me what my agenda is.



> It just isn't. You can't lose what you never had. Too bad all Nancy is is a piece of flesh to be used. She was good enough to marry the way she was. And now she isn't anymore. Bottom line.


Project much?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Lila said:


> Could you elaborate more on what you meant this post? I think you might be onto something.





> I don't think you could pick apart a person and selectively choose the parts you want without accepting the whole. IOWs, the good comes with the bad. So the only way for Sid to get the wild and freaky Nancy (good) is to also get the Nancy who was immature, and/or irresponsible, and/or impetuous, and/or was self centered, and/or was entitled, and/or lacked empathy, and/or was lazy, and/or any other trait associated with youth. I just don't think this is possible.


You ended up elaborating for me lol.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Nope. Please don't tell me what my agenda is.



Did I miss the part of your story in which Nancy was unhappy with the sex life?


----------



## Marduk

UMP said:


> NOT by changing Nancy. Johnny did not change Nancy. All Johnny did was bang her in the asss and she liked it.
> 
> Sid should start by getting a life. After that, he should try and understand Nancy and her sexuality. No sl$t shaming allowed.
> To me, understanding my wifes sexual past, all of it, enables me to understand her better. Given that she is with me and not Johnny, why would it should it bother me now?
> 
> I can be all that Johnny was and much more.
> 
> Hell, I can even make my penis grow.:smile2:


Ya, but how to change the headspace to one of introspection, optimisim, and openness rather than trying to 'beat' Johnny?

I think -- maybe -- I would tell Sid to try to honestly connect with his own sexuality. Maybe think about what he actually wants from his sex life, how he feels about that, and why?

I know I went on a bit of a journey on that a few years ago. I tried to rediscover why I liked the things I liked, why I didn't like the things I didn't like, and what my early sexual experiences were like (even before I was having sex).

It was pretty eye opening for me. I think I brought a better man to our bedroom as a result.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Did I miss the part of your story in which Nancy was unhappy with the sex life?


No.
I get what you're going after -- that Sid is trying to change Nancy.

But Nancy _has_ let go of some stuff, right? Has she not?

Is she not trying to refind her identity after being a wife and mother? Isn't that part of what happens after you are done having kids?

Is your sexual identity not part of that equation? 

Honest question. I think if I deprioritized sex in my life (and hence in my wife's) and she reawakened me to what I was missing, I'd be happy about that.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> I don't think you could pick apart a person and selectively choose the parts you want without accepting the whole. IOWs, the good comes with the bad. So the only way for Sid to get the wild and freaky Nancy (good) is to also get the Nancy who was immature, and/or irresponsible, and/or impetuous, and/or was self centered, and/or was entitled, and/or lacked empathy, and/or was lazy, and/or any other trait associated with youth. I just don't think this is possible.


Hmm.

I'd want to experience those parts of Nancy, too. In a more mature way, maybe.

It's why I take my wife to Vegas every once in a while -- so we can be young and stupid again together.

Valid point, though.


> Which brings us back to the original topic about regret. Do you think Sid would be able to let go of his desire to have the 'old' Nancy if she admitted regret over her sexual history with Johnny? If she called it all a big mistake and one that she wishes never to repeat?


Maybe. I think maybe he could let go of it, then. 

But I don't think she regrets what she did with Johnny at all, right? I wouldn't want her to pretend like she did.

I guess what I'm getting at is that there's something there that is fun and joyful and can be regained with a sense of play about it. That implicit in this situation is maybe an opportunity that is being treated like a problem.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> No.
> I get what you're going after -- that Sid is trying to change Nancy.
> 
> But Nancy _has_ let go of some stuff, right? Has she not?


I certainly did not feel I had let go of some stuff. The stuff of then was not interesting. The stuff of now is totally different. 



> Is she not trying to refind her identity after being a wife and mother? Isn't that part of what happens after you are done having kids?


I can't say. My experience was before kids. But I would guess no since he NEVER experienced "that" Nancy in your story.



> Is your sexual identity not part of that equation?
> 
> Honest question. I think if I deprioritized sex in my life (and hence in my wife's) and she reawakened me to what I was missing, I'd be happy about that.


The deprioritization categorization is yours, not Nancy's.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> I certainly did not feel I had let go of some stuff. The stuff of then was not interesting. The stuff of now is totally different.


So what you're saying is that there is NOTHING in your previous sexual history that you haven't done with your husband that you'd ever want to do or be willing to do with anyone every again?



> I can't say. My experience was before kids. But I would guess no since he NEVER experienced "that" Nancy in your story.


I'm having trouble connecting that with my question -- can you elaborate?



> The deprioritization categorization is yours, not Nancy's.


Absolutely.

Just flip the genders around -- Sid is more interested in yoga and his friends than having sex with Nancy.

Nancy should just be cool with that?

And if Nancy tried to reawaken that in Sid, that makes her a bad person?


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> So what you're saying is that there is NOTHING in your previous sexual history that you haven't done with your husband that you'd ever want to do or be willing to do with anyone every again?


I am speaking from memory from back in the early days. At this point, there is nothing in my history that I have not done with my husband. I did not have any specific stand about things I would or would not do. I think your choice of the word "willing" is telling. He never wanted me "willing". He wanted me full in. BECAUSE of this, and because he did use tools of persuasion, I was able to grow in love and trust so that literally nothing is off the table.



> I'm having trouble connecting that with my question -- can you elaborate?


It does not have anything to do with being a mother. At least it did not for me.




> Absolutely.
> 
> Just flip the genders around -- Sid is more interested in yoga and his friends than having sex with Nancy.
> 
> Nancy should just be cool with that?


Is this a pattern change? Or did Nancy marry him that way? It has nothing to do with gender. If she married him that way, absolutely, she should be cool with that.



> And if Nancy tried to reawaken that in Sid, that makes her a bad person?


You keep saying REawaken. In your story, it was never there.


----------



## Anon1111

marduk said:


> OK.
> 
> Far and MEM, I'm with you 100% on the 'own your ****' vibe. I'm down with that.
> 
> But I think we _kinda_ lost touch with a couple things that never really got at the heart of Sid's anguish or Nancy's hesitation.
> 
> Sid now knows there's a part of Nancy that she isn't sharing with him. He has no right to it; it's hers. But... he wants to know that part of her. Because he loves her. How does he get her to see that?
> 
> I could see that driving me crazy.
> 
> Nancy is probably now feeling like she's got a husband that wants her to be 22 and single again, and she doesn't want to be that person, nor does she think she needs to be held to account for that. How does she get him to see that?
> 
> My underlying agenda and hope is that they can _both_ see that and get wild and freaky together (even if it's not a specific act).
> 
> Because what it really is about is _longing and loss._ Everybody can get that, right?
> 
> Sid is longing for the Nancy he never got. Nancy is longing for the pre-wife and pre-mom version of herself. They're actually longing for much the same thing.
> 
> These things can come together, I hope.


this would be ideal, obviously. 

It would take actual empathy on the part of both Sid and Nancy. Not a competition as to who is the biggest victim in this scenario.

As we can see in this thread, that level of empathy seems pretty rare.


----------



## techmom

Nancy feels no need to change, Sid is the one with the unmet needs. Therefore anything Sid says to Nancy regarding this will be heard as him wanting to change her back to the girl who dated Johnny. Bottom line. Anything else is sugarcoating as far as she is concerned.

And with that, you may be opening a Pandora's box...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Maybe. I think maybe he could let go of it, then.
> 
> But I don't think she regrets what she did with Johnny at all, right? I wouldn't want her to pretend like she did.


This points exactly to my OP.



Lila said:


> One common question that I see asked is whether or not the partner regrets her sexual past or feels shame over her wanton behavior at that time. * I often see these behaviors cumulatively described as 'youthful indiscretions', 'escapades/wild adventures', or 'acting out'. These types of questions insinuate that the only way to judge these experiences as acceptable is to invalidate them with regret and/or shame. *This is baffling to me.
> 
> I know that there are women who do genuinely regret something in their sexual past, but I don't think this is true of the majority. *I think many women unknowingly (or possibly purposefully) feel they have to suppress these positive sexual experiences or replace them with negative feelings in order to make their sexual history palatable to a future partner. Clean the slate, so to speak*


Nancy has to invalidate her "escapades/wild adventures" in order to 'clean the slate' for Sid, otherwise he'll always be looking back at it with self-doubt. It puts Nancy in a no win situation. She's damned if she does (forces herself to be someone she no longer is) and she's damned if she doesn't (refuses to relive her escapades with Sid). Her only out is to knowingly or unknowingly suppressing those positive experiences with negative ones to assuage Sid's self-doubt.



marduk said:


> I guess what I'm getting at is that there's something there that is fun and joyful and can be *regained* with a sense of play about it. That implicit in this situation is maybe an opportunity that is being treated like a problem.


Regained as in what Sid and Nancy had at the beginning of their relationship or regained as in what Nancy was in her youth pre-Sid? 

I think your post below is exactly what Sid should do if he wants to regain the sexual excitement he and Nancy shared earlier in their marriage. However, he shouldn't be doing it to try to mimic Nancy's relationship with Johnny. 



marduk said:


> Ya, but how to change the headspace to one of introspection, optimisim, and openness *rather than trying to 'beat' Johnny*?
> 
> I think -- maybe -- I would tell Sid to try to honestly connect with his own sexuality. Maybe think about what he actually wants from his sex life, how he feels about that, and why?
> 
> I know I went on a bit of a journey on that a few years ago. I tried to rediscover why I liked the things I liked, why I didn't like the things I didn't like, and what my early sexual experiences were like (even before I was having sex).
> 
> It was pretty eye opening for me. I think I brought a better man to our bedroom as a result.


I would tell Sid to improve his sex life with the tools he has on hand TODAY. Not the ones that someone else owned in the past and not the ones that he could potentially have tomorrow.


----------



## I Don't Know

Exes are exes for a reason. However in this case the reason is because Nancy couldn't get Johnny to commit to her, NOT that she decided she didn't want Johnny.

Tough luck Sid. Shoulda met Nancy sooner. Of course Nancy wouldn't have given you the time of day back then, she was too hung up on Johnny.


----------



## Lila

I Don't Know said:


> Exes are exes for a reason. *However in this case the reason is because Nancy couldn't get Johnny to commit to her, NOT that she decided she didn't want Johnny.*
> 
> Tough luck Sid. Shoulda met Nancy sooner. Of course Nancy wouldn't have given you the time of day back then, she was too hung up on Johnny.


How do you know this? Why are you so sure that it's because Nancy couldn't get Johnny to commit to her? Unless I missed something in @marduk's story?


----------



## Starstarfish

> So how do you do a better job of accepting someone for what they are instead of what they are not that you wish them to be? Does he still make you happy in the same ways he did before you got married? Has he materially changed? If not, then why has something that wasn't important then now become the center of your thinking about your relationship?


I'm just going to put this here as a comment made to a female OP on another thread. It seems like a natural answer when the OP is female, but when the complainer is male and it falls under the sacred category of RJ then all kinds of validations like psychology and biology start crawling out of the woodwork.


----------



## I Don't Know

Lila said:


> How do you know this? Why are you so sure that it's because Nancy couldn't get Johnny to commit to her? Unless I missed something in @marduk's story?


He kept cheating on her. Granted, I'm reading a bit into that, but one could infer that had he not cheated she would have been happy to stay with him. So is Johnny the one she wanted but couldn't have (or keep) or is he just a guy that taught her about cheaters and she's glad to be rid of him?


----------



## norajane

I Don't Know said:


> He kept cheating on her. Granted, I'm reading a bit into that, but one could infer that had he not cheated she would have been happy to stay with him. So is Johnny the one she wanted but couldn't have (or keep) or is he just a guy that taught her about cheaters and she's glad to be rid of him?


That's the thing about the Tales of Sid & Nancy. Everyone keeps making up stuff that happened to fit the story they want to believe in order to make Nancy look bad somehow and like she should regret having pursued and boinked Johnny 20 years ago.

Maybe Johnny and Nancy had a fun fling and realized they had nothing in common otherwise or it had run its course, and moved on. That's how it works for most people.


----------



## ConanHub

norajane said:


> That's the thing about the Tales of Sid & Nancy. Everyone keeps making up stuff that happened to fit the story they want to believe in order to make Nancy look bad somehow and like she should regret having pursued and boinked Johnny 20 years ago.
> 
> Maybe Johnny and Nancy had a fun fling and realized they had nothing in common otherwise or it had run its course, and moved on. That's how it works for most people.


That is a different tale than was told.

Nancy was very enthusiastic about Johnny. He broke her heart by sleeping around and she called it quits.

She meets Safe Sid and goes from there but never shows the same level of sexual pursuit and enthusiasm for Sid.

So is the tale as told by the old Babylonian god.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila

I Don't Know said:


> *He kept cheating on her*. Granted, I'm reading a bit into that, but one could infer that had he not cheated she would have been happy to stay with him. So is Johnny the one she wanted but couldn't have (or keep) or is he just a guy that taught her about cheaters and she's glad to be rid of him?


I think @norajane is correct. You are "making up stuff that happened to fit the story they want to believe in order to make Nancy look bad somehow and like she should regret having pursued and boinked Johnny 20 years ago."

Here's the part of the story that talks about Nancy and Johnny's relationship.



> One day, at a party, Sid and Nancy are having some drinks with some of Nancy's old friends, and the topic of one of her old boyfriends comes up. Laughing with her girlfriends, they joke about how crazy Nancy was with Johnny, her ex, and how into him she was. Anything he wanted, she would do. She would do anything for him, including that crazy night where she had sex with him in a public place just because he wanted to.
> 
> *He ended up breaking her heart with another woman, and a dejected young Nancy went her own way and finally found Sid*.


Johnny dumped her and she went on with life. That's what happens with young people who have dated more than one person throughout their life. Someone is going to get dumped and the dumper and dumpee will eventually date other people until they find the one that neither wants to dump. By your assumption, every other guy that dumped Nancy was "the one that got away". How about the girls that dumped Sid? Were those "the one that got away"? No! They're just people they dated in their youth before finding each other.


----------



## norajane

ConanHub said:


> That is a different tale than was told.
> 
> Nancy was very enthusiastic about Johnny. He broke her heart by sleeping around and she called it quits.
> 
> She meets Safe Sid and goes from there but never shows the same level of sexual pursuit and enthusiasm for Sid.
> 
> So is the tale as told by the old Babylonian god.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Keep stacking the deck against Nancy, and it still doesn't change a thing. She enjoyed bonking Johnny no matter how it ended. She enjoyed the sex even if she didn't enjoy Johnny in the end. Pretending to regret enjoying the sex or pretending to be ashamed of herself for enjoying sex with Johnny doesn't actually make her regret it or feel ashamed NOR does it give Sid anything except pandering to his RJ.


----------



## techmom

Since the Sid/Nancy story is Marduk's fictional story, and he evidently wants it to be about Sid getting Nancy to reawaken the more fun and sexy part of herself, here goes:

Nancy and Sid experiment with some things from Nancy's past with Johnny, Nancy does this out of trying to finally putting this whole issue to rest. Sid is satisfied, yet wonders why it took bringing Johnny to light for Nancy to try these things with him. He still has doubts about her devotion and love.

He looks at porn to get ideas on things she never tried with anyone else. He brings these things to Nancy so they can have something unique just for them. Nancy sees this as him trying to change her sexuality, She never does these new things because she does not like them and they don't turn her on. Her libido wanes and Sid gets angry and desperate trying to make up for all of the times he was denied sex, from Nancy and other women before her.

You guys and ladies can guess where I'm going with this. The point is that Nancy left the past in the past for a reason. There is no reawakening, there should be only acceptance of the Nancy who married Sid. Sid didn't marry the Nancy who dated Johnny, she left Johnny for a reason.

You guys who still think that she doesn't love Sid as much as Johnny should've never gotten married, if the woman will only love the ex boyfriend then what is the point of becoming her husband. Stay the boyfriend and love the single life if you hate marriage so much...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

LMAO - that is exactly what's happening




norajane said:


> That's the thing about the Tales of Sid & Nancy. Everyone keeps making up stuff that happened to fit the story they want to believe in order to make Nancy look bad somehow and like she should regret having pursued and boinked Johnny 20 years ago.
> 
> Maybe Johnny and Nancy had a fun fling and realized they had nothing in common otherwise or it had run its course, and moved on. That's how it works for most people.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> I am speaking from memory from back in the early days. At this point, there is nothing in my history that I have not done with my husband. I did not have any specific stand about things I would or would not do. I think your choice of the word "willing" is telling. He never wanted me "willing". He wanted me full in. BECAUSE of this, and because he did use tools of persuasion, I was able to grow in love and trust so that literally nothing is off the table.


Fantastic! I think we're the same way.

I guess I'm trying to get at the 'Game' part of GGG. As in, willing to try and see if it's fun and works. A sense of playfulness about it, maybe?



> You keep saying REawaken. In your story, it was never there.


Fair enough. Maybe I'm trying to steer it to that? That she used to have fun back with Johnny that maybe she could reawaken?

Is that bad?


----------



## NobodySpecial

techmom said:


> Since the Sid/Nancy story is Marduk's fictional story, and he evidently wants it to be about Sid getting Nancy to reawaken the more fun and sexy part of herself, here goes:
> 
> Nancy and Sid experiment with some things from Nancy's past with Johnny, Nancy does this out of trying to finally putting this whole issue to rest. Sid is satisfied, yet wonders why it took bringing Johnny to light for Nancy to try these things with him. He still has doubts about her devotion and love.
> 
> He looks at porn to get ideas on things she never tried with anyone else. He brings these things to Nancy so they can have something unique just for them. Nancy sees this as him trying to change her sexuality, She never does these new things because she does not like them and they don't turn her on. Her libido wanes and Sid gets angry and desperate trying to make up for all of the times he was denied sex, from Nancy and other women before her.
> 
> You guys and ladies can guess where I'm going with this. The point is that Nancy left the past in the past for a reason. There is no reawakening, there should be only acceptance of the Nancy who married Sid. Sid didn't marry the Nancy who dated Johnny, she left Johnny for a reason.
> 
> You guys who still think that she doesn't *love *Sid as much as Johnny should've never gotten married, if the woman will only love the ex boyfriend then what is the point of becoming her husband. Stay the boyfriend and love the single life if you hate marriage so much...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I don't think that is it. I think that they she thinks he is not her hottest lover.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> this would be ideal, obviously.
> 
> It would take actual empathy on the part of both Sid and Nancy. Not a competition as to who is the biggest victim in this scenario.
> 
> As we can see in this thread, that level of empathy seems pretty rare.


Ya!

Let's get them there.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Fantastic! I think we're the same way.
> 
> I guess I'm trying to get at the 'Game' part of GGG. As in, willing to try and see if it's fun and works. A sense of playfulness about it, maybe?


I would agree with the good description. 



> Fair enough. Maybe I'm trying to steer it to that? That she used to have fun back with Johnny that maybe *she *could reawaken?
> 
> Is that bad?


Not if you want to be telling her that SHE is broken rather than half of a two person relationship.


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> Nancy feels no need to change, Sid is the one with the unmet needs. Therefore anything Sid says to Nancy regarding this will be heard as him wanting to change her back to the girl who dated Johnny. Bottom line. Anything else is sugarcoating as far as she is concerned.
> 
> And with that, you may be opening a Pandora's box...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Absolutely.

Why wouldn't she be open to more great sex with Sid, tho? Why is that bad?

Assuming they both could get past the past, of course.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Why wouldn't she be open to more great sex with Sid, tho? Why is that bad?


It isn't. The notion of trying to compare her relationship with someone ELSE as an entitlement is. I have said this like 50 times. She was good enough for him before. Now she isn't.



> Assuming they both could get past the past, of course.


I don't see what is to get past. She has one. Big deal.


----------



## samyeagar

techmom said:


> Since the Sid/Nancy story is Marduk's fictional story, and he evidently wants it to be about Sid getting Nancy to reawaken the more fun and sexy part of herself, here goes:
> 
> Nancy and Sid experiment with some things from Nancy's past with Johnny, Nancy does this out of trying to finally putting this whole issue to rest. Sid is satisfied, yet wonders why it took bringing Johnny to light for Nancy to try these things with him. He still has doubts about her devotion and love.
> 
> He looks at porn to get ideas on things she never tried with anyone else. He brings these things to Nancy so they can have something unique just for them. Nancy sees this as him trying to change her sexuality, She never does these new things because she does not like them and they don't turn her on. Her libido wanes and Sid gets angry and desperate trying to make up for all of the times he was denied sex, from Nancy and other women before her.
> 
> You guys and ladies can guess where I'm going with this. *The point is that Nancy left the past in the past for a reason.* There is no reawakening, there should be only acceptance of the Nancy who married Sid. Sid didn't marry the Nancy who dated Johnny, she left Johnny for a reason.
> 
> You guys who still think that she doesn't love Sid as much as Johnny should've never gotten married, if the woman will only love the ex boyfriend then what is the point of becoming her husband. Stay the boyfriend and love the single life if you hate marriage so much...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The reason being that Johnny broke her heart, and it wasn't left in the past, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue now.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> This points exactly to my OP.
> 
> 
> 
> Nancy has to invalidate her "escapades/wild adventures" in order to 'clean the slate' for Sid, otherwise he'll always be looking back at it with self-doubt. It puts Nancy in a no win situation. She's damned if she does (forces herself to be someone she no longer is) and she's damned if she doesn't (refuses to relive her escapades with Sid). Her only out is to knowingly or unknowingly suppressing those positive experiences with negative ones to assuage Sid's self-doubt.


I'm with you so far.


> Regained as in what Sid and Nancy had at the beginning of their relationship or regained as in what Nancy was in her youth pre-Sid?


What I guess I'm getting at is that Nancy used to be more open than she is now... and perhaps prioritized her own zest for sex more then than now.

Regained I mean as in regaining that zest and openness for sex as a part of her life. It seems a bit lost for Nancy.

Now, of course, it's her choice as to if she wants to regain it or not. But I guess Sid could do a hell of a lot better job inspiring her to, you know?



> I think your post below is exactly what Sid should do if he wants to regain the sexual excitement he and Nancy shared earlier in their marriage. However, he shouldn't be doing it to try to mimic Nancy's relationship with Johnny.


100% with you. I think Sid needs to get past and off of Johnny at all.



> I would tell Sid to improve his sex life with the tools he has on hand TODAY. Not the ones that someone else owned in the past and not the ones that he could potentially have tomorrow.


Agreed. But I know in my sexual past is a goldmine of fantasy and stuff that was fun that maybe you could dig at to bring into the present with my spouse... without bringing the ex's with it, you know?


----------



## NobodySpecial

The thing that cracks me up is that I have BEEN Nancy. But my PoV makes no sense, especially in light of how badly things turned out.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> How do you know this? Why are you so sure that it's because Nancy couldn't get Johnny to commit to her? Unless I missed something in @marduk's story?


I was thinking more along the lines of an infatuation that she was really sexually chasing after, who then broke her heart and she left.

I wasn't thinking Nancy was 'pining after' Johnny or thought he was better at all. Just that she was more open with him sexually than Sid because of whatever dynamic they have.


----------



## norajane

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't think that is it. I think that they she thinks he is not her hottest lover.


You're right. These Tales have nothing to do with love. Love doesn't even enter the picture. That Sid and Nancy fell in love before they married doesn't matter. That Sid and Nance loved each other for 20 years and made a family together and lived through hurricanes, floods, fires, feast, famine and skid marks in Sid's underwear that needed to be washed for 20 years is of no consequence.

The ONLY thing that seems to matter is that young Nancy took a fancy to Johnny boy and enjoyed having sex with him, and it's ONLY Sid's perspective that seems to matter to the Tale tellers.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> It isn't. The notion of trying to compare her relationship with someone ELSE as an entitlement is. I have said this like 50 times. She was good enough for him before. Now she isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see what is to get past. She has one. Big deal.


I get what you are saying.

Imagine Nancy discovered Sid was a brilliant concert pianist as a child, and gave it up, and never told her.

Nancy might want Sid to play her a song or two, right?

More like that than 'being good enough' is what I'm trying to get at.

Maybe Nancy is a brilliant sexual partner and Sid never got to see that because of a combination of factors from them both. 

I'd want to see that side of my partner.


----------



## Marduk

norajane said:


> You're right. These Tales have nothing to do with love. Love doesn't even enter the picture. That Sid and Nancy fell in love before they married doesn't matter. That Sid and Nance loved each other for 20 years and made a family together and lived through hurricanes, floods, fires, feast, famine and skid marks in Sid's underwear that needed to be washed for 20 years is of no consequence.
> 
> The ONLY thing that seems to matter is that young Nancy took a fancy to Johnny boy and enjoyed having sex with him, and it's ONLY Sid's perspective that seems to matter to the Tale tellers.


Mmm... sorry I was trying to get Nancy's perspective, too.

And I've been focusing a lot on what Sid can do better. If you look at his response, his marriage DOES matter to Sid and he DOESN'T think she's not enough.

What he DOES think (from my perspective) is that there's a secret garden in Nancy that is walled of from him, and he struggles to understand why, and he wants to go for a stroll... and wants to learn if or how Nancy might let him.


----------



## NobodySpecial

norajane said:


> You're right. These Tales have nothing to do with love. Love doesn't even enter the picture.


Right? That is a very good point. WHY did it work out so well for DH and I? Because of the focus on love, trust, caring. NOT focus on weighing and comparing.



> That Sid and Nancy fell in love before they married doesn't matter. That Sid and Nance loved each other for 20 years and made a family together and lived through hurricanes, floods, fires, feast, famine and skid marks in Sid's underwear that needed to be washed for 20 years is of no consequence.
> 
> The ONLY thing that seems to matter is that young Nancy took a fancy to Johnny boy and enjoyed having sex with him, and it's ONLY Sid's perspective that seems to matter to the Tale tellers.


Yup.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> I would agree with the good description.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you want to be telling her that SHE is broken rather than half of a two person relationship.


In this scenario I think Sid has more work to do than Nancy, but Nancy also has work to do to see Sid's side.


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> Since the Sid/Nancy story is Marduk's fictional story, and he evidently wants it to be about Sid getting Nancy to reawaken the more fun and sexy part of herself, here goes:
> 
> Nancy and Sid experiment with some things from Nancy's past with Johnny, Nancy does this out of trying to finally putting this whole issue to rest. Sid is satisfied, yet wonders why it took bringing Johnny to light for Nancy to try these things with him. He still has doubts about her devotion and love.
> 
> He looks at porn to get ideas on things she never tried with anyone else. He brings these things to Nancy so they can have something unique just for them. Nancy sees this as him trying to change her sexuality, She never does these new things because she does not like them and they don't turn her on. Her libido wanes and Sid gets angry and desperate trying to make up for all of the times he was denied sex, from Nancy and other women before her.
> 
> You guys and ladies can guess where I'm going with this. The point is that Nancy left the past in the past for a reason. There is no reawakening, there should be only acceptance of the Nancy who married Sid. Sid didn't marry the Nancy who dated Johnny, she left Johnny for a reason.
> 
> You guys who still think that she doesn't love Sid as much as Johnny should've never gotten married, if the woman will only love the ex boyfriend then what is the point of becoming her husband. Stay the boyfriend and love the single life if you hate marriage so much...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


OK. Plausible.

Give me a happy ending from Nancy's perspective that includes a gret sex life and acceptance and love for each other inside their happy and long-lasting marriage.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> I get what you are saying.
> 
> Imagine Nancy discovered Sid was a brilliant concert pianist as a child, and gave it up, and never told her.
> 
> Nancy might want Sid to play her a song or two, right?
> 
> More like that than 'being good enough' is what I'm trying to get at.
> 
> Maybe Nancy is a brilliant sexual partner and Sid never got to see that because of a combination of factors from them both.
> 
> I'd want to see that side of my partner.


That "side"? He quit. That side is gone.


----------



## MEM2020

As far as - wanting to have a better (frequency, game quality, etc.) sex life - there is nothing wrong with that. 

It does seem to me, that there is a giant difference between wanting a better sex life and attempting to leverage your partners past against them. 

I would intensely dislike someone asking me: did you do x,y,z with a prior partner and if so why won't you do that with/for me? 

I do - what I do with or for you because I WANT TO. And don't do what I don't want to do. 

Maybe my viewpoint is a bit skewed because M2 treated me like 'Johnny'. But she didn't do that because I bootstrapped our sex life using guilt. She treated me like Johnny because I got her to WANT TO. 




techmom said:


> Since the Sid/Nancy story is Marduk's fictional story, and he evidently wants it to be about Sid getting Nancy to reawaken the more fun and sexy part of herself, here goes:
> 
> Nancy and Sid experiment with some things from Nancy's past with Johnny, Nancy does this out of trying to finally putting this whole issue to rest. Sid is satisfied, yet wonders why it took bringing Johnny to light for Nancy to try these things with him. He still has doubts about her devotion and love.
> 
> He looks at porn to get ideas on things she never tried with anyone else. He brings these things to Nancy so they can have something unique just for them. Nancy sees this as him trying to change her sexuality, She never does these new things because she does not like them and they don't turn her on. Her libido wanes and Sid gets angry and desperate trying to make up for all of the times he was denied sex, from Nancy and other women before her.
> 
> You guys and ladies can guess where I'm going with this. The point is that Nancy left the past in the past for a reason. There is no reawakening, there should be only acceptance of the Nancy who married Sid. Sid didn't marry the Nancy who dated Johnny, she left Johnny for a reason.
> 
> You guys who still think that she doesn't love Sid as much as Johnny should've never gotten married, if the woman will only love the ex boyfriend then what is the point of becoming her husband. Stay the boyfriend and love the single life if you hate marriage so much...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

norajane said:


> You're right. These Tales have nothing to do with love. Love doesn't even enter the picture. That Sid and Nancy fell in love before they married doesn't matter. That Sid and Nance loved each other for 20 years and made a family together and lived through hurricanes, floods, fires, feast, famine and skid marks in Sid's underwear that needed to be washed for 20 years is of no consequence.
> 
> The ONLY thing that seems to matter is that young Nancy took a fancy to Johnny boy and enjoyed having sex with him, and it's ONLY Sid's perspective that seems to matter to the Tale tellers.


Some guys just don't get it, Nancy was probably ashamed of how she behaved to keep Johnny. Now, she has to change again to keep Sid happy. That part is being left out and misunderstood, but the ladies get it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> OK. Plausible.
> 
> Give me a happy ending from Nancy's perspective that includes a gret sex life and acceptance and love for each other inside their happy and long-lasting marriage.


You said she was already happy with the sex life. At all points in time, having no relationship to Johnny, should be willing to grow if he isn't. But not because she did stuff with Johnny. But because she loves him.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> That "side"? He quit. That side is gone.


Why does it have to be?

What if he just got bored of it at 15? What if she encouraged him to try it once or twice and he fell in love with it again?

What if he saw that playing for her gave his wife great joy and he did it now and again because he loved her and it cost him nothing?

Why does it have to be walled off forever because of a decision he made decades ago?


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> As far as - wanting to have a better (frequency, game quality, etc.) sex life - there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> It does seem to me, that there is a giant difference between wanting a better sex life and attempting to leverage your partners past against them.
> 
> I would intensely dislike someone asking me: did you do x,y,z with a prior partner and if so why won't you do that with/for me?
> 
> I do - what I do with or for you because I WANT TO. And don't do what I don't want to do.
> 
> Maybe my viewpoint is a bit skewed because M2 treated me like 'Johnny'. But she didn't do that because I bootstrapped our sex life using guilt. She treated me like Johnny because I got her to WANT TO.


Ya, I'm trying to disentangle the two, because I think that's where the jealousy and insecurity enters in.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Agreed. But I know in my sexual past is a goldmine of fantasy and stuff that was fun that maybe you could dig at to bring into the present with my spouse... without bringing the ex's with it, you know?


LOL, I'm in 100% agreement with you here but having read some of the responses on this thread and several others, I've learned that women should never let their husbands' know where the 'fantasy stuff' originated. 

It's been said multiple times, a woman's sexual past is judged more harshly than a man's.


----------



## MEM2020

Techmom,

That may or may not be the case. In a way it doesn't matter to me. 

Either I can create a situation where you WANT to do stuff with me, or I can't. If I do, great. If not, that's ok too. I don't want you doing stuff for me that you don't want to do. That actually ruins any experience I have with you, be it across a board, a court or a mattress. 





techmom said:


> Some guys just don't get it, Nancy was probably ashamed of how she behaved to keep Johnny. Now, she has to change again to keep Sid happy. That part is being left out and misunderstood, but the ladies get it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Lets state that Johnny is a dom. He and Nancy had a bdsm relationship. For Nancy it was new and exciting, but the novelty wore off because she is not a true submissive. Later on, she marries Sid, and Sid finds out that Nancy at one time enjoyed bdsm. Sid is jealous, and wants to erase Johnny from her memories because she and Johnny shared something special, a part that does not include him.

So he tries being more dominate, but he lacks the make-up to trigger Nancy's submissive side, at least not like Johnny can. For Johnny, it is a part of who he is and Sid is trying to imitate those qualities. At first Sid throws tantrums, becomes passive-aggressive about it. Nancy has to either admit that it was a mistake and she is sorry that she had that experience with Johnny, or she gives in and fakes enthusiasm. At Sid's core, he lacks what makes Johnny, Johnny. The nature of Nancy and Sid is different.

Now lets try a different scenario. Johnny is a an Adonis, highly attractive. Nancy falls for that level of attraction and attraction brings forth dopamine needed for sexual excitement. It is a biological response to attraction.

Sid is a nice guy, just an average body, and plain face. He romances Nancy because he is really attracted to her but she does not have the same level of attraction for Sid. Nancy grows to love other aspects about Sid, qualities that bond them, and make Sid more attractive. They have sex, but not the same passionate sex that Johnny and Nancy had.

Sid finds out and grows jealous. He is jealous that Johnny can do that to her and it narrows his vision to only how Nancy responds to Johnny on a superficial level. He wants to bring out the super case of the hornies. Nancy loves Sid, and her love is deeper than skin. Sid makes her laugh, has intelligent conversations. Now Sid wants that passionate sex because he feels that Johnny or someone like him will steal Nancy away. He hates this feeling and takes it out on Nancy so he can feel his pain. But nancy loves Sid, and even though she is not that attracted to him like Johnny, there is more about Sid that Nancy loves and Nancy wants Sid to understand that.

Nancy will not go back to Johnny because even though there is the attraction there, Johnny is not as intelligent, funny, qualities that made Nancy want to bond with Sid and spend a lifetime experiencing those qualities. There sex life is not that bad, and sometimes they achieve that passionate sex, just not like what Johnny can do. But Nancy finds the sex more fulfilling because it strengthens the bond, bonding Nancy more strongly to Sid than it ever has for Johnny.

So, did Sid only fall for Nancy because of her attractiveness. Is it her beauty that Sid loves more than any other quality. After all, the reason why Sid pursued Nancy is because of his attraction, the same reason why Nancy pursued Johnny. Is there any other aspect that Sid loves about Nancy to bond her to him? Once beauty starts fading, will Sid fall for another person Sid finds attractive?

Some people need to build that attraction, even then, it can only go so far. Sometimes people have high levels of attraction and it is instant fire. That is just one part of what we know as romantic love. Sometimes the love built over time brings on higher level of attraction, but the emotional bond love may be stronger than the attraction love. Sid possesses all three types of drives when it comes to relationship. Nancy and Johnny only shared attraction, and with habituation, that attraction fades and they have nothing in common to keep them together.

Nancy and Johnny burn brightly like a giant star, expending its fuel in a short period of time, while Nancy and Sid share a love that endures, but it still burns. While Johnny and Nancy time together seems majestic, it burns out quickly. While Nancy and Sid have the right mix of fuel to power their love for a long time because Sid brings enough ingredients to keep a fire going. On occasions, their love might produce flares, but they need to keep adding the right mixture.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> LOL, I'm in 100% agreement with you here but having read some of the responses on this thread and several others, I've learned that women should never let their husbands' know where the 'fantasy stuff' originated.
> 
> It's been said multiple times, a woman's sexual past is judged more harshly than a man's.


Sure. 

I'd always recommend discussions of fantasies (if they were realized with others) be pretty abstract. 

Why bring other people into the bedroom if they don't have to be there. 

This goes for guys, too. If you've ever accidentally crushed a girl by talking about what you did with someone else, it's horrible.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

techmom said:


> Some guys just don't get it, Nancy was probably ashamed of how she behaved to keep Johnny. Now, she has to change again to keep Sid happy. That part is being left out and misunderstood, but the ladies get it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think a lot of us do get this part.

But there is a level that is deeper.

The question is WHY did Nancy feel compelled to go so far to please Johnny-- even so far that she might have felt ashamed.

I get it that a lot of women would answer that she was immature, didn't know how to stand up for herself.

OK. That's valid. But again, WHY did this maturity develop with Sid but not Johnny?

Didn't Nancy have the opportunity to draw these same lines with Johnny? But she didn't. Conversely, she did once Sid came along.

Now this could just be a coincidence or an effect of time and age. Probably is. But what is so hard about imagining that there is a part of Sid's fear that has some logic?

Why would it hurt so much for Nancy to say, hey Sid, I can understand how this might look to you.

Is that such a humiliating thing to do? If so, I really don't get that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Why does it have to be?
> 
> What if he just got bored of it at 15? What if she encouraged him to try it once or twice and he fell in love with it again?
> 
> What if he saw that playing for her gave his wife great joy and he did it now and again because he loved her and it cost him nothing?
> 
> Why does it have to be walled off forever because of a decision he made decades ago?


"Do it every now and again"? Do what now and again? Pretend to be super freaky? I would not have any problem with her doing that. What I have a problem with is his using but you did it with Johnny as some kind of entitlement. Any more than I would think she should use you USED to play as some sort of entitlement.


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> Some guys just don't get it, Nancy was probably ashamed of how she behaved to keep Johnny. Now, she has to change again to keep Sid happy. That part is being left out and misunderstood, but the ladies get it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Can you talk more about that?

Do you think she's ashamed at what she did, or ashamed that she did it for Johnny and he ended up being a ****?

I kinda was thinking she enjoyed what she did with Johnny. 

Why would she be ashamed about that?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> "Do it every now and again"? Do what now and again? Pretend to be super freaky? I would not have any problem with her doing that. What I have a problem with is his using but you did it with Johnny as some kind of entitlement. Any more than I would think she should use you USED to play as some sort of entitlement.


Ya, that's what I'm getting at right there. 

Need to get the ghost of Johnny out of the picture.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> Why would it hurt so much for Nancy to say, hey Sid, I can understand how this might look to you.


If it were me, I would say something like, I am trying to be empathetic to your PoV. Because I CAN'T understand that view point.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> If it were me, I would say something like, I am trying to be empathetic to your PoV. Because I CAN'T understand that view point.


Why not?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

I think a lot of people assume that they are getting their partners best effort, as much as they are capable of. They also assume that they are getting more and better effort than an ex, who after all is an ex for a reason right? They may or may not want more from their partner, but are fine with how things are because they assume they are getting their best effort, and then they find out the lengths they went through for the ex...


----------



## Marduk

samyeagar said:


> I think a lot of people assume that they are getting their partners best effort, as much as they are capable of. They also assume that they are getting more and better effort than an ex, who after all is an ex for a reason right? They may or may not want more from their partner, but are fine with how things are because they assume they are getting their best effort, and then they find out the lengths they went through for the ex...


Yes, this is at the heart of it, I think!

Well said.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

Mr.Fisty said:


> Lets state that Johnny is a dom. He and Nancy had a bdsm relationship. For Nancy it was new and exciting, but the novelty wore off because she is not a true submissive. Later on, she marries Sid, and Sid finds out that Nancy at one time enjoyed bdsm. Sid is jealous, and wants to erase Johnny from her memories because she and Johnny shared something special, a part that does not include him.
> 
> So he tries being more dominate, but he lacks the make-up to trigger Nancy's submissive side, at least not like Johnny can. For Johnny, it is a part of who he is and Sid is trying to imitate those qualities. At first Sid throws tantrums, becomes passive-aggressive about it. Nancy has to either admit that it was a mistake and she is sorry that she had that experience with Johnny, or she gives in and fakes enthusiasm. At Sid's core, he lacks what makes Johnny, Johnny. The nature of Nancy and Sid is different.
> 
> Now lets try a different scenario. Johnny is a an Adonis, highly attractive. Nancy falls for that level of attraction and attraction brings forth dopamine needed for sexual excitement. It is a biological response to attraction.
> 
> Sid is a nice guy, just an average body, and plain face. He romances Nancy because he is really attracted to her but she does not have the same level of attraction for Sid. Nancy grows to love other aspects about Sid, qualities that bond them, and make Sid more attractive. They have sex, but not the same passionate sex that Johnny and Nancy had.
> 
> Sid finds out and grows jealous. He is jealous that Johnny can do that to her and it narrows his vision to only how Nancy responds to Johnny on a superficial level. He wants to bring out the super case of the hornies. Nancy loves Sid, and her love is deeper than skin. Sid makes her laugh, has intelligent conversations. Now Sid wants that passionate sex because he feels that Johnny or someone like him will steal Nancy away. He hates this feeling and takes it out on Nancy so he can feel his pain. But nancy loves Sid, and even though she is not that attracted to him like Johnny, there is more about Sid that Nancy loves and Nancy wants Sid to understand that.
> 
> Nancy will not go back to Johnny because even though there is the attraction there, Johnny is not as intelligent, funny, qualities that made Nancy want to bond with Sid and spend a lifetime experiencing those qualities. There sex life is not that bad, and sometimes they achieve that passionate sex, just not like what Johnny can do. But Nancy finds the sex more fulfilling because it strengthens the bond, bonding Nancy more strongly to Sid than it ever has for Johnny.
> 
> So, did Sid only fall for Nancy because of her attractiveness. Is it her beauty that Sid loves more than any other quality. After all, the reason why Sid pursued Nancy is because of his attraction, the same reason why Nancy pursued Johnny. Is there any other aspect that Sid loves about Nancy to bond her to him? Once beauty starts fading, will Sid fall for another person Sid finds attractive?
> 
> Some people need to build that attraction, even then, it can only go so far. Sometimes people have high levels of attraction and it is instant fire. That is just one part of what we know as romantic love. Sometimes the love built over time brings on higher level of attraction, but the emotional bond love may be stronger than the attraction love. Sid possesses all three types of drives when it comes to relationship. Nancy and Johnny only shared attraction, and with habituation, that attraction fades and they have nothing in common to keep them together.
> 
> Nancy and Johnny burn brightly like a giant star, expending its fuel in a short period of time, while Nancy and Sid share a love that endures, but it still burns. While Johnny and Nancy time together seems majestic, it burns out quickly. While Nancy and Sid have the right mix of fuel to power their love for a long time because Sid brings enough ingredients to keep a fire going. On occasions, their love might produce flares, but they need to keep adding the right mixture.


I think this is a very nuanced description and really captures the sadness of this type of situation.

In real life, two people can actually fall in love with each other but for different reasons.

The "love" part can be enough for a while so that the "different reasons" part is hidden in the background.

But once the "love" part starts to fade, the "different reasons" part becomes more visible.

Then throw someone like Johnny into the mix (even if he is only a memory) and it will only serve to highlight the "different reasons" aspect even more.


----------



## MEM2020

So - here's the thing. 

I wasn't 'born' Johnny. He got the deluxe physical package. I didn't. 

And I'm just being objective here. Johnny made quite a good living as a male dancer. Plus he was a bad boy with a high end motorcycle and a physical risk tolerance way higher than mine. 

I had to develop a whole lot of skills to produce half the sexual response he got just by walking into the room. 

But there was one thing that M2 gradually figured out. In all the times she opened the door a bit wider with me by doing or telling me something wild - I never flinched. Never stepped back. Never frowned. 

Usually I'd smile and say - that sounds fun. In the couple cases where it was a 'bad outcome' type story I said what was true: That could have happened to anyone. It's not your fault. 





marduk said:


> Ya, I'm trying to disentangle the two, because I think that's where the jealousy and insecurity enters in.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> So - here's the thing.
> 
> I wasn't 'born' Johnny. He got the deluxe physical package. I didn't.
> 
> And I'm just being objective here. Johnny made quite a good living as a male dancer. Plus he was a bad boy with a high end motorcycle and a physical risk tolerance way higher than mine.
> 
> I had to develop a whole lot of skills to produce half the sexual response he got just by walking into the room.
> 
> But there was one thing that M2 gradually figured out. In all the times she opened the door a bit wider with me by doing or telling me something wild - I never flinched. Never stepped back. Never frowned.
> 
> Usually I'd smile and say - that sounds fun. In the couple cases where it was a 'bad outcome' type story I said what was true: That could have happened to anyone. It's not your fault.


Now imagine if M2 kept the door shut because she declared she "just wasn't that person anymore" and just carried the hell on with her life. 

That would bum me out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Anon1111 said:


> I think a lot of us do get this part.
> 
> But there is a level that is deeper.
> 
> The question is WHY did Nancy feel compelled to go so far to please Johnny-- even so far that she might have felt ashamed.
> 
> I get it that a lot of women would answer that she was immature, didn't know how to stand up for herself.
> 
> OK. That's valid. But again, WHY did this maturity develop with Sid but not Johnny?
> 
> Didn't Nancy have the opportunity to draw these same lines with Johnny? But she didn't. Conversely, she did once Sid came along.
> 
> Now this could just be a coincidence or an effect of time and age. Probably is. But what is so hard about imagining that there is a part of Sid's fear that has some logic?
> 
> Why would it hurt so much for Nancy to say, hey Sid, I can understand how this might look to you.
> 
> Is that such a humiliating thing to do? If so, I really don't get that.




Stronger attraction, it lowers inhibitions and is addicting. So, people give in more to please their partner. It lacks the use of the prefrontal cortex and is based more on a primal level. Plus, stronger attraction triggers sexual response to a higher degree. Lets say you give girl "a" a ten. Girl "b" an eight. You have more motivation to have sex with girl "a."

Lets say that girl "a" is boring to be around other than her beauty. With something called habituation, girl's "a" beauty affects you less. Girl "b" is still attractive, but you find hanging out with her is fun. You are not as attracted to girl "b" but you do not grow bored of girl "b" either. Sometimes doing those fun activities with girl "b" may bring out sexual excitement.

So girl "a" you have hot, passionate sex for a month before it fizzles out. Girl "b," you may have hot passionate love once or twice a month for the rest of your life, depending on how much energy the two of you expend into the relationship by dating, having great experiences together, traveling, whatever it takes to keep that fire going. And girl "b" may become a nine when you add in other qualities you learn about her.


----------



## ConanHub

norajane said:


> Keep stacking the deck against Nancy, and it still doesn't change a thing. She enjoyed bonking Johnny no matter how it ended. She enjoyed the sex even if she didn't enjoy Johnny in the end. Pretending to regret enjoying the sex or pretending to be ashamed of herself for enjoying sex with Johnny doesn't actually make her regret it or feel ashamed NOR does it give Sid anything except pandering to his RJ.


I didn't get that Sid had RJ and I really don't give a fig why Nancy didn't put it out there for Sid the way she did for Johnny.

If Nancy isn't as into Sid sexually then that is her problem. If Sid doesn't like it he can do something about it, hopefully positive, but both are selling themselves short and both probably settled to some degree.

I'm not impressed with people who don't give their all, enthusiasm, for their mate or people that don't expect their mate to lay it all down for them.

Your argument that Nancy wasn't into certain things anymore doesn't hold water because she met Sid soon after Johnny and did not approach her previous sexual enthusiasm with Sid.

Far too tepid a relationship for my tastes and unacceptable. Part of me thinks lukewarm people like this deserve each other.

Nancy for holding part of herself back from a man she chose to marry and Sid for accepting it.

If you're going to marry someone I believe they deserve the best you have in every aspect. Regardless of particular acts, Nancy was clearly less invested in landing Sid than Johnny. Actions speak volumes.

She should have waited for someone who she could feel fully enthusiastic about because safe old Sid clearly wasn't that man.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Now imagine if M2 kept the door shut because she declared she "just wasn't that person anymore" and just carried the hell on with her life.
> 
> That would bum me out.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And if my husband valued my sucking it up to perform some sexual service like a prostitute more than my feelings, I would be hurt.


----------



## Marduk

Mr.Fisty said:


> Stronger attraction, it lowers inhibitions and is addicting. So, people give in more to please their partner. It lacks the use of the prefrontal cortex and is based more on a primal level. Plus, stronger attraction triggers sexual response to a higher degree. Lets say you give girl "a" a ten. Girl "b" an eight. You have more motivation to have sex with girl "a."
> 
> Lets say that girl "a" is boring to be around other than her beauty. With something called habituation, girl's "a" beauty affects you less. Girl "b" is still attractive, but you find hanging out with her is fun. You are not as attracted to girl "b" but you do not grow bored of girl "b" either. Sometimes doing those fun activities with girl "b" may bring out sexual excitement.
> 
> So girl "a" you have hot, passionate sex for a month before it fizzles out. Girl "b," you may have hot passionate love once or twice a month for the rest of your life, depending on how much energy the two of you expend into the relationship by dating, having great experiences together, traveling, whatever it takes to keep that fire going. And girl "b" may become a nine when you add in other qualities you learn about her.


I get that. Let me make that less abstract for some readers with a true story: I once got two "meh" girls to make out with each other because I thought that was hot. 

And they did because they thought I was hot. 

A "meh" guy couldn't have done that. 

BUT! I firmly think a "meh" guy can become pretty f'ing hot if he works at it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> And if my husband valued my sucking it up to perform some sexual service like a prostitute more than my feelings, I would be hurt.


Why?

What's wrong with "this isn't my thing, but I'm not opposed to it, so I'll do it for you once in a blue moon?"

I do stuff like that for my wife. 

Does that make me a prostitute who's feelings don't matter?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

Anon1111 said:


> I think a lot of us do get this part.
> 
> But there is a level that is deeper.
> 
> The question is WHY did Nancy feel compelled to go so far to please Johnny-- even so far that she might have felt ashamed.
> 
> I get it that a lot of women would answer that she was immature, didn't know how to stand up for herself.
> 
> OK. That's valid. But again, WHY did this maturity develop with Sid but not Johnny?
> 
> Didn't Nancy have the opportunity to draw these same lines with Johnny? But she didn't. Conversely, she did once Sid came along.
> 
> Now this could just be a coincidence or an effect of time and age. Probably is. But what is so hard about imagining that there is a part of Sid's fear that has some logic?
> 
> Why would it hurt so much for Nancy to say, hey Sid, I can understand how this might look to you.
> 
> Is that such a humiliating thing to do? If so, I really don't get that.


She was much younger and naive with Johnny but she learned from that experience.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

Mr.Fisty said:


> Stronger attraction, it lowers inhibitions and is addicting. So, people give in more to please their partner. It lacks the use of the prefrontal cortex and is based more on a primal level. Plus, stronger attraction triggers sexual response to a higher degree. Lets say you give girl "a" a ten. Girl "b" an eight. You have more motivation to have sex with girl "a."
> 
> Lets say that girl "a" is boring to be around other than her beauty. With something called habituation, girl's "a" beauty affects you less. Girl "b" is still attractive, but you find hanging out with her is fun. You are not as attracted to girl "b" but you do not grow bored of girl "b" either. Sometimes doing those fun activities with girl "b" may bring out sexual excitement.
> 
> So girl "a" you have hot, passionate sex for a month before it fizzles out. Girl "b," you may have hot passionate love once or twice a month for the rest of your life, depending on how much energy the two of you expend into the relationship by dating, having great experiences together, traveling, whatever it takes to keep that fire going. And girl "b" may become a nine when you add in other qualities you learn about her.


totally agree, but I don't think that this is exactly what we're discussing here.

Sid's primary appeal to Nancy is non-sexual.

Nancy likes what she likes about Sid, but those things are not really what gets her hot.

Sid can up the nice stable guy stuff and Nancy will appreciate it, but it is not going to make her go crazy with lust.

Sid is in a well defined sexual box for Nancy. Always has been. To take him out of that box would be to undermine her entire perception of him.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Why?
> 
> What's wrong with "this isn't my thing, but I'm not opposed to it, so I'll do it for you once in a blue moon?"


There is nothing wrong with it. I have said that too.

What you are trying to do is remove the choice from Nancy. Nancy and Nancy alone knows what her feelings are. But Nancy should just put out because she put out with Johnny. Not because she loves Sid. But when you are in a sexual PARTNERSHIP, each person gets to own their own choices.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> There is nothing wrong with it. I have said that too.
> 
> What you are trying to do is remove the choice from Nancy. Nancy and Nancy alone knows what her feelings are. But Nancy should just put out because she put out with Johnny. Not because she loves Sid. But when you are in a sexual PARTNERSHIP, each person gets to own their own choices.


I would never try to take the choice away. 

But I do think one can approach it in a constructive way. I don't think Sid is trying to force her to do anything. 

If anything, I think it's Nancy forcing Sid to conform to her expectations. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> I would never try to take the choice away.
> 
> But I do think one can approach it in a constructive way. I don't think Sid is trying to force her to do anything.
> 
> If anything, I think it's Nancy forcing Sid to conform to her expectations.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's nonsense. She is the same Nancy she has been with Sid since the beginning.


----------



## norajane

I'm not picking on you, Mr. Fisty - just want to point out that Sid is projecting MAJESTIC sex on a 20 year old Nancy. 



Mr.Fisty said:


> Lets state that Johnny is a dom. He and Nancy had a bdsm relationship. * For Nancy it was new and exciting, but the novelty wore off because she is not a true submissive.* Later on, she marries Sid, and Sid finds out that Nancy at one time enjoyed bdsm. Sid is jealous, and wants to erase Johnny from her memories because she and Johnny shared something special, a part that does not include him.


See, that was not majestic sex. That was something Nancy tried and discovered wasn't really her thing. 

Also, Nancy hasn't been thinking about Johnny for 20 years. He may be in her memories because she didn't have a lobotomy, but so is the fact that she discovered she wasn't into BDSM. 

Sid is projecting how "special" this was onto Nancy. It was fun to try, but it wasn't "special" since it wasn't a turn-on for her. Sid is projecting because HE wants that experience because HE thinks it would be special.



> So he tries being more dominate, but he lacks the make-up to trigger Nancy's submissive side, at least not like Johnny can. For Johnny, it is a part of who he is and Sid is trying to imitate those qualities. At first Sid throws tantrums, becomes passive-aggressive about it. Nancy has to either admit that it was a mistake and she is sorry that she had that experience with Johnny, or she gives in and fakes enthusiasm. At Sid's core, he lacks what makes Johnny, Johnny. The nature of Nancy and Sid is different.


Nancy realized she wasn't turned on by being submissive, remember? Even Johnny couldn't get her to enjoy it now. Sid isn't listening to Nancy and what SHE finds hot and doesn't find hot. He just wants her to comply but that's not going to make her feel any passion for BDSM, nor for Sid. It will have the opposite effect. It will turn their sex life into a minefield and she will resent Sid all the more for it.



> Now lets try a different scenario. Johnny is a an Adonis, highly attractive. Nancy falls for that level of attraction and attraction brings forth dopamine needed for sexual excitement. It is a biological response to attraction.
> 
> Sid is a nice guy, just an average body, and plain face. He romances Nancy because he is really attracted to her but she does not have the same level of attraction for Sid. Nancy grows to love other aspects about Sid, qualities that bond them, and make Sid more attractive. They have sex, but not the same passionate sex that Johnny and Nancy had.


*Where does this belief come from that Nancy cannot feel passion for Sid unless it's the exact same kind of passion she felt for Johnny*? How does Sid know Nancy isn't as passionate for him as she could be for anyone at the time she fell in love with Sid?

Have people who think that way not fallen in and out of love a few times with different people before they married? Did they really just marry the first person that came along? Did they not feel passion for different women and did that passion not express itself differently? Not lesser, but different and equally strong? I love chocolate and pizza. Different, but not the same, equally passionate about them. 



> Sid finds out and grows jealous. He is jealous that Johnny can do that to her and it narrows his vision to only how Nancy responds to Johnny on a superficial level. He wants to bring out the super case of the hornies. Nancy loves Sid, and her love is deeper than skin. Sid makes her laugh, has intelligent conversations. Now Sid wants that passionate sex because he feels that Johnny or someone like him will steal Nancy away. He hates this feeling and takes it out on Nancy so he can feel his pain. But nancy loves Sid, and even though she is not that attracted to him like Johnny, there is more about Sid that Nancy loves and Nancy wants Sid to understand that.


Nancy has spent her adult life loving and building a life and family with Sid. She spent a few weeks with Johnny. Had Nancy spent a lifetime washing Johnny's skid marks, she might feel exactly the same way about Johnny as she does about Sid - according to Sid, that is. Sid is projecting onto Nancy how he thinks she felt about Johnny. Just because she agree to try something sexually with Johnny when she was young and trying new sexual things to learn about herself and her body as a newly sexual being, doesn't mean that was the kind of passion that Sid is imagining.

What Nancy wants Sid to understand is that BDSM is not her thing, and if Sid wants her to feel freaky and free, he should treat her like her thoughts and feelings are more important to him than Johnny. If he wants her to be super horny, he should focus on her pleasure and give her lots of orgasms the way she wants them NOW, not the way Johnny tried to give them to her 20 years ago.



> Nancy will not go back to Johnny because even though there is the attraction there, Johnny is not as intelligent, funny, qualities that made Nancy want to bond with Sid and spend a lifetime experiencing those qualities. There sex life is not that bad, and sometimes they achieve that passionate sex, just not like what Johnny can do. But *Nancy finds the sex more fulfilling* because it strengthens the bond, bonding Nancy more strongly to Sid than it ever has for Johnny.


Nancy will not go back to Johnny because she hasn't though of him in 20 years, and she wasn't into BDSM. What "Johnny could do" when she was 20 is not something Johnny could do today or ever again. He was a blip on her radar. 

Nancy, apparently finds their sex life fulfilling. Sid now wants her to be different in a way she won't find fulfilling. 



> So, did Sid only fall for Nancy because of her attractiveness. Is it her beauty that Sid loves more than any other quality. After all, the reason why Sid pursued Nancy is because of his attraction, the same reason why Nancy pursued Johnny. * Is there any other aspect that Sid loves about Nancy to bond her to him? *Once beauty starts fading, will Sid fall for another person Sid finds attractive?


Apparently not. 



> Some people need to build that attraction, even then, it can only go so far. Sometimes people have high levels of attraction and it is instant fire. That is just one part of what we know as romantic love. Sometimes the love built over time brings on higher level of attraction, but the emotional bond love may be stronger than the attraction love. Sid possesses all three types of drives when it comes to relationship. Nancy and Johnny only shared attraction, and with habituation, that attraction fades and they have nothing in common to keep them together.


And sometimes people discover that attraction isn't all you need for a relationship to succeed. 

[/quote]Nancy and Johnny burn brightly like a giant star, expending its fuel in a short period of time, while Nancy and Sid share a love that endures, but it still burns. While Johnny and Nancy time together seems majestic, it burns out quickly. While Nancy and Sid have the right mix of fuel to power their love for a long time because Sid brings enough ingredients to keep a fire going. On occasions, their love might produce flares, but they need to keep adding the right mixture.[/QUOTE]

I did not have Majestic sex when I was 20. I doubt any 20 year old has had Majestic sex. Women have majestic sex when they have matured into majestic women, not young girls experimenting with sex in their early days of having sex. Neither the boys not the girls are capable of majestic sex.

That Sid believes Nancy's sex was majestic back then is probably why their sex isn't majestic today.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> That's nonsense. She is the same Nancy she has been with Sid since the beginning.


I think Sid wants to be more Game and Nancy is saying more than "no thanks."

She's maybe saying a bit of "I don't want you to want to."

Everybody grows. He's got an opportunity to grow.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Now imagine if M2 kept the door shut because she declared she "just wasn't that person anymore" and just carried the hell on with her life.
> 
> That would bum me out.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If this was a situation between me and L2, I would express my love for him but I would not take any blame or criticism for his feelings on the matter. This would be on L2 to resolve for himself.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Anon1111 said:


> I think this is a very nuanced description and really captures the sadness of this type of situation.
> 
> In real life, two people can actually fall in love with each other but for different reasons.
> 
> The "love" part can be enough for a while so that the "different reasons" part is hidden in the background.
> 
> But once the "love" part starts to fade, the "different reasons" part becomes more visible.
> 
> Then throw someone like Johnny into the mix (even if he is only a memory) and it will only serve to highlight the "different reasons" aspect even more.


 It is up to Sid and Nancy to keep that love alive. Neglect is harmfl to any relationship. When you read posters threads, they will state I want the love we once had, or the relationship becomes so toxic, that there is another point of reference to draw upon. Like during the honeymoon phase, there is a lot more motivation towards one another. It is possible to bring that phase back as long as there is more aspect than attraction. Johnny would less be in Nancy's mind if Sid and Nancy are strong. Sid might consider a new female if the love fizzles out as well.

It does not even have to be Johnny that Nancy references when the love is fading, rather the exploration stage she went through with Sid. At that point in time was when the love was the strongest.

Sad, as it can be used as a double-edged sword as well. Lets say Sid becomes abusive. He can keep Nancy hooked that way as well. Sid can show glimpses of what Nancy wants to see, hyper bonding them again and Nancy believes that she has the old Sid back. Sid will only hold onto this type of behavior to keep Nancy. There were threads of RJ getting into abusive behavior territory. But the person suffering RJ will keep their partner hooked no matter how badly the partner suffering RJ treats them. Bonds can be used against another person as well. Why a child will put up more abuse from a parent and the child will yearn for love from that parent. There is a drive for the child to bond to the parental figure.


----------



## samyeagar

Closely analogous to this...my wife has an extremely difficult time vocalizing that she thinks I am hot, yummy, sexy, and so forth. I asked her why she couldn't spontaneously say those things even though when I ask about it, she assures me that they are true. She said it's just not something she has ever done, or had to do for a partner, and is just not in her makeup to do it naturally. So I asked her why she had no problems verbally gushing over how yummy some celeb is, or how they make her toes curl. She had no answer. To me, it is either I don't spark that reaction in her, or she just doesn't want to put in the effort. Not a good feeling either way.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> Closely analogous to this...my wife has an extremely difficult time vocalizing that she thinks I am hot, yummy, sexy, and so forth. I asked her why she couldn't spontaneously say those things even though when I ask about it, she assures me that they are true. She said it's just not something she has ever done, or had to do for a partner, and is just not in her makeup to do it naturally. So I asked her why she had no problems verbally gushing over how yummy some celeb is, or how they make her toes curl. She had no answer. To me, it is either I don't spark that reaction in her, or she just doesn't want to put in the effort. Not a good feeling either way.


OMG. I know why. Or maybe I do. Saying that to a real life human I COULD NOT do with a straight face. I would start cracking up. Then I would be fearful of hurting feelings.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

norajane said:


> I'm not picking on you, Mr. Fisty - just want to point out that Sid is projecting MAJESTIC sex on a 20 year old Nancy.
> 
> 
> 
> See, that was not majestic sex. That was something Nancy tried and discovered wasn't really her thing.
> 
> Also, Nancy hasn't been thinking about Johnny for 20 years. He may be in her memories because she didn't have a lobotomy, but so is the fact that she discovered she wasn't into BDSM.
> 
> Sid is projecting how "special" this was onto Nancy. It was fun to try, but it wasn't "special" since it wasn't a turn-on for her. Sid is projecting because HE wants that experience because HE thinks it would be special.
> 
> 
> 
> Nancy realized she wasn't turned on by being submissive, remember? Even Johnny couldn't get her to enjoy it now. Sid isn't listening to Nancy and what SHE finds hot and doesn't find hot. He just wants her to comply but that's not going to make her feel any passion for BDSM, nor for Sid. It will have the opposite effect. It will turn their sex life into a minefield and she will resent Sid all the more for it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Where does this belief come from that Nancy cannot feel passion for Sid unless it's the exact same kind of passion she felt for Johnny*? How does Sid know Nancy isn't as passionate for him as she could be for anyone at the time she fell in love with Sid?
> 
> Have people who think that way not fallen in and out of love a few times with different people before they married? Did they really just marry the first person that came along? Did they not feel passion for different women and did that passion not express itself differently? Not lesser, but different and equally strong? I love chocolate and pizza. Different, but not the same, equally passionate about them.
> 
> 
> 
> Nancy has spent her adult life loving and building a life and family with Sid. She spent a few weeks with Johnny. Had Nancy spent a lifetime washing Johnny's skid marks, she might feel exactly the same way about Johnny as she does about Sid - according to Sid, that is. Sid is projecting onto Nancy how he thinks she felt about Johnny. Just because she agree to try something sexually with Johnny when she was young and trying new sexual things to learn about herself and her body as a newly sexual being, doesn't mean that was the kind of passion that Sid is imagining.
> 
> What Nancy wants Sid to understand is that BDSM is not her thing, and if Sid wants her to feel freaky and free, he should treat her like her thoughts and feelings are more important to him than Johnny. If he wants her to be super horny, he should focus on her pleasure and give her lots of orgasms the way she wants them NOW, not the way Johnny tried to give them to her 20 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Nancy will not go back to Johnny because she hasn't though of him in 20 years, and she wasn't into BDSM. What "Johnny could do" when she was 20 is not something Johnny could do today or ever again. He was a blip on her radar.
> 
> Nancy, apparently finds their sex life fulfilling. Sid now wants her to be different in a way she won't find fulfilling.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> 
> 
> And sometimes people discover that attraction isn't all you need for a relationship to succeed.


Nancy and Johnny burn brightly like a giant star, expending its fuel in a short period of time, while Nancy and Sid share a love that endures, but it still burns. While Johnny and Nancy time together seems majestic, it burns out quickly. While Nancy and Sid have the right mix of fuel to power their love for a long time because Sid brings enough ingredients to keep a fire going. On occasions, their love might produce flares, but they need to keep adding the right mixture.[/QUOTE]

I did not have Majestic sex when I was 20. I doubt any 20 year old has had Majestic sex. Women have majestic sex when they have matured into majestic women, not young girls experimenting with sex in their early days of having sex. Neither the boys not the girls are capable of majestic sex.

That Sid believes Nancy's sex was majestic back then is probably why their sex isn't majestic today.[/QUOTE]


It is novelty. It may be more than it seems. Nancy can be new to sex and had never felt that level of attraction before and does not have the experience to handle it.


----------



## techmom

marduk said:


> I would never try to take the choice away.
> 
> But I do think one can approach it in a constructive way. I don't think Sid is trying to force her to do anything.
> 
> If anything, I think it's Nancy forcing Sid to conform to her expectations.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Nancy is being the same person Sid chose to marry. He should try to encourage what they had before. But everyone wants him to get what Johnny had, that's not fair to her, it doesn't take into consideration who she is NOW.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

NobodySpecial said:


> OMG. I know why. Or maybe I do. Saying that to a real life human I COULD NOT do with a straight face. I would start cracking up. Then I would be fearful of hurting feelings.


Nah, I say that to myself daily looking in the mirror with a straight face .... >


----------



## Anon1111

If Nancy and Sid were honest, they might have a conversation like this:

Sid: "I feel pretty confused about why you were interested in having sex in public with Johnny but not me. Why did you not seem to have all of these boundaries with him?"

Nancy: "Johnny and I had a different kind of relationship than you and I have."

Sid: "I don't think our relationship is any one kind. It is THE relationship in my life. The only one. It's supposed to be everything."

Nancy: "I'm sorry but it's not that for me. It's a great relationship and obviously one that I cherish, but it's not the only one. I have a history, just like you ,and that history has it's own meaning that is not subsumed by our marriage."

Johnny: "I look at our marriage differently. I think our marriage is supposed to be the best of everything."

Nancy: "We just don't see this the same way. I do think our marriage is the best of all of my relationships, but I don't compare it to them in bits and pieces. Particularly not for sex, but not just that. Each of these relationships had its own life. I see them each as a whole. I think ours is the best of all of them by a mile on balance."

Johnny: "It sounds like we each employ categories just in a different way. I categorize experiences. You categorize relationships."


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> OMG. I know why. Or maybe I do. Saying that to a real life human I COULD NOT do with a straight face. I would start cracking up. Then I would be fearful of hurting feelings.


This is very sad.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> This is very sad.


I think it was the "yummy" that got me. But I was not being super serious. It just tickled my funny bone.


----------



## Anon1111

FrenchFry said:


> Why is public sex the determination of "the best of everything?"


it's not that act per se (or any act in particular). that was just the act that was referenced in marduk's original story.


----------



## norajane

FrenchFry said:


> Why is public sex the determination of "the best of everything?"


Sid thinks so, so it must be true!


----------



## Anon1111

FrenchFry said:


> I'm not asking that ignoring the rest of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was everything, until public sex came up?
> 
> Or it wasn't everything and then public sex came up?


I read it to be the latter case.

If their relationship was already awesome, then the public sex with Johnny wouldn't have mattered.

Their sexual relationship was lukewarm, which is why the contrast with Johnny resonated.


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> Nancy is being the same person Sid chose to marry. He should try to encourage what they had before. But everyone wants him to get what Johnny had, that's not fair to her, it doesn't take into consideration who she is NOW.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think Sid wants deep down to grow because he realizes maybe he can, and still be married to Nancy. 

And I think Nancy wants Sid to go back to the same box he's been in since she married him.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> Your argument that Nancy wasn't into certain things anymore doesn't hold water because *she met Sid soon after Johnny* and did not approach her previous sexual enthusiasm with Sid.





ConanHub said:


> *If you're going to marry someone I believe they deserve the best you have in every aspect.* Regardless of particular acts, *Nancy was clearly less invested in landing Sid than Johnny. Actions speak volumes.*
> 
> *She should have waited for someone who she could feel fully enthusiastic about because safe old Sid clearly wasn't that man.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Marduk's hypothetical story stated that Nancy got dumped, she was heartbroken, and then _finally_ met Sid. We don't know how much time elapsed between Johnny and Sid, nor do we know how many people she dated between the two, nor do we know what life changing events happened in the interim. All of these things, plus a whole lot more, influence how we relate to people. It's why so many women here are focused on the maturity of Nancy with Johnny vs. Sid.

We don't know how enthusiastic Nancy was with Sid because that wasn't part of the story either. All we know was that they met and they liked each other enough to marry. Saying she settled is incorrect. We don't know if this was her 2nd or 30th relationship. 

In Nancy's mind, she's delivered the goods based on the terms they had at the beginning of the relationship. Sid accepted those terms when he married her. Is she breach of contract because she's not living up to those terms NOW? Yes, I think so. Is she breach of contract because Johnny had better terms that Sid was not aware of until now? No, absolutely not.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> I read it to be the latter case.
> 
> If their relationship was already awesome, then the public sex with Johnny wouldn't have mattered.
> 
> Their sexual relationship was lukewarm, which is why the contrast with Johnny resonated.


Yup that's why I made it part of the story. 

Because I think Johnnys dissatisfied.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

Lord have mercy, this story has a life of its own. Marduk could make money from it...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

FrenchFry said:


> Why is public sex the determination of "the best of everything?"


That's what I have been wondering too?


----------



## I Don't Know

Lila said:


> In Nancy's mind, she's delivered the goods based on the terms they had at the beginning of the relationship. Sid accepted those terms when he married her. Is she breach of contract because she's not living up to those terms NOW? Yes, I think so. Is she breach of contract because Johnny had better terms that Sid was not aware of until now? No, absolutely not.


I just want to know why in the world Nancy wouldn't WANT Sid, the man she married, to have the best terms she's ever given whether he knows about it or not? 

If I make 100k a year but tell my wife I make 75K and she was ok with that does that mean I can sock the other 25k away guilt free? Hey she was good with me only making 75K a year right?


----------



## Anon1111

FrenchFry said:


> @anon111, I'd agree and I I think why I'd push back against any notion of "You did it for him, but not me," is because it doesn't actually address the issue.


I think the idea is that Sid did not even know this was possible, but the interaction with Johnny showed him it was.

There was an information assymetry between Sid and Nancy in this regard.

Nancy could say, tough luck, you married me even when you didn't know this.

But you can't unlearn something.

Nancy may have no interest in doing anything different, but Sid still has to deal with his new knowledge.

Depending on Sid's level of dissatisfaction, the new knowledge could be a tipping point for him.

I personally see that as totally legitimate even if not necessarily the fault of either Sid or Nancy.


----------



## Anon1111

EleGirl said:


> That's what I have been wondering too?


it's a proxy for passion.


----------



## Lila

I Don't Know said:


> I just want to know why in the world Nancy wouldn't WANT Sid, the man she married, to have the best terms she's ever given whether he knows about it or not?
> 
> If I make 100k a year but tell my wife I make 75K and she was ok with that does that mean I can sock the other 25k away guilt free? Hey she was good with me only making 75K a year right?


Because when she made the agreement with Sid, the best terms she could provide were the ones she granted.

If you used to make 100K but then had to take a paycut to 75K, you spouse shouldn't be expecting you to miraculously come up with the missing 25 K, that you just don't have.


----------



## Anon1111

I Don't Know said:


> I just want to know why in the world Nancy wouldn't WANT Sid, the man she married, to have the best terms she's ever given whether he knows about it or not?
> 
> If I make 100k a year but tell my wife I make 75K and she was ok with that does that mean I can sock the other 25k away guilt free? Hey she was good with me only making 75K a year right?


see my "Sid Was a Secret Billionaire" version of the story above !!


----------



## norajane

I Don't Know said:


> I just want to know why in the world Nancy wouldn't WANT Sid, the man she married, to have the best terms she's ever given whether he knows about it or not?
> 
> If I make 100k a year but tell my wife I make 75K and she was ok with that does that mean I can sock the other 25k away guilt free? Hey she was good with me only making 75K a year right?


You are assuming or projecting that she gave Johnny the *best *terms. All she gave Johnny was some rolls in the hay.


----------



## Anon1111

Lila said:


> Because when she made the agreement with Sid, the best terms she could provide were the ones she granted.


I think this is a lot of where the disconnect is between some men and women on this thread.

a lot of men think, "what's the problem? just turn up the passion dial, Nancy."

a lot of women think, "well, Nancy obviously doesn't feel that way about Sid."

I think the women's viewpoint here is more accurate (really just a fact, actually). But this just makes it sadder from Sid's perspective (and Nancy's too because of the consequence of Sid's inevitable disappointment).


----------



## Lila

Anon1111 said:


> I think this is a lot of where the disconnect is between some men and women on this thread.
> 
> a lot of men think, "what's the problem? just turn up the passion dial, Nancy."
> 
> a lot of women think, "well, Nancy obviously doesn't feel that way about Sid."
> 
> I think the women's viewpoint here is more accurate (really just a fact, actually). But this just makes it sadder from Sid's perspective (and Nancy's too because of the consequence of *Sid's inevitable disappointment*).


But why does he have to be disappointed? That's what I don't understand.


----------



## Anon1111

Lila said:


> But why does he have to be disappointed? That's what I don't understand.


Because he wants her in a way she doesn't want him.


----------



## samyeagar

One thing I think most people can agree on, both male and female, is that one objective measure of how sexually into them that someone else is perceived enthusiasm. That can come in the form of initiation, willingness to do different things, enthusiastically engaging and not rejecting, even though things are good, actively trying to make things even better, not getting complacent, and things like that.

Along the lines of what I said earlier, we would all like to think we are getting our partners best, and are usually accepting and fine if we think we are getting their best effort. Many people do things in unhealthy relationships they would not ordinarily do out of fear of losing the unhealthy relationship. Fear makes them put in huge amounts of effort to keep something that was damaging. These efforts are often very visibly obvious.

In the context of where this discussion has gone, I don't think the specific acts previously done such as anal, threesomes, public sex, etc are the issue. It is the effort those things represent, an effort inspired out of fear. I think it is reasonable to expect at least as much visible effort inspired by love for ones partner.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> One thing I think most people can agree on, both male and female, is that one objective measure of how sexually into them that someone else is perceived enthusiasm. That can come in the form of initiation, willingness to do different things, enthusiastically engaging and not rejecting, even though things are good, actively trying to make things even better, not getting complacent, and things like that.
> 
> Along the lines of what I said earlier, we would all like to think we are getting our partners best, and are usually accepting and fine if we think we are getting their best *effort*.


See maybe this is just me. But I would be BUMMED if it required a great deal of effort on his part to be enthusiastic.


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> Yup that's why I made it part of the story.
> 
> Because I think Johnnys dissatisfied.


Nancy is dissatisfied too. That's pretty clear from the story.

But apparently to some the only thing that matters is the sex life and Sid's dissatisfaction about it.


----------



## Lila

Anon1111 said:


> Because he wants her in a way she doesn't want him.


Ugh, that's not true. He wants a Frankenstein of Nancy. He wants the good, mature, motherly, loving, responsible Nancy she is today with the wild and freaky sex fiend Nancy she was long ago. This person DOES NOT exist.

He was perfectly happy and content wanting her exactly as she was.....until he heard about Johnny's escapades. This is a snapshot of what she was in her youth. What he didn't hear were all of the bad things she was back then. Maybe if he had gotten a good overall picture, this wouldn't be such a huge issue?


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> See maybe this is just me. But I would be BUMMED if it required a great deal of effort on his part to be enthusiastic.


Effort does not have to be a bad thing. Many people put ridiculous amounts of effort into hobbies because they enjoy it, they are into it, they want to. How many times have we heard a person wishing their spouse put as much effort into their relationship, into them as they do other things? Most people would see the message sent is that they care more about the other thing than the spouse or relationship.


----------



## Starstarfish

How does one quantify what is "the best" with something as subjective as sex? Because what it often seems to come down to is the span of acts or level of kink. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the -best- sex.

Is the sex I have with my H the weirdest sex I've ever had, arguably no. (His choice, not mine, btw.) But that other sex wasn't -better.- it wasn't more passionate or more fulfilling. If anything it was less so, even if the sex now might be "vanilla."

(Which in itself is a nuanced term that means different things to different people.)


----------



## norajane

samyeagar said:


> One thing I think most people can agree on, both male and female, is that one objective measure of how sexually into them that someone else is perceived enthusiasm. That can come in the form of initiation, willingness to do different things, enthusiastically engaging and not rejecting, even though things are good, actively trying to make things even better, not getting complacent, and things like that.


I agree except for the trying of "new" things. As a young woman newly experiencing sex, I tried a lot of things. I figured out which ones actually turn me on and give me sexual satisfaction and fulfillment and do those now. Not trying those OLD things I already tried that don't turn me on doesn't make me less enthusiastic or passionate about sex with my current partner.



> Along the lines of what I said earlier, we would all like to think we are getting our partners best, and are usually accepting and fine if we think we are getting their best effort. Many people do things in unhealthy relationships they would not ordinarily do out of fear of losing the unhealthy relationship. Fear makes them put in huge amounts of effort to keep something that was damaging. These efforts are often very visibly obvious.


Hmm, I don't worry about best efforts. I look at how I feel when we're having sex, and what we can do for each other to turn each other on. I don't care if he danced like a monkey for someone else in a good or bad previous relationship.

Fear? Does not compute. I don't have and haven't' had relationships with people I fear and didn't do things sexually out of fear of losing those people. I tried what I wanted to try, kept what I liked and discarded the rest. 

Is this a thing? People perform like seals in order to keep a bad relationship going?



> In the context of where this discussion has gone, I don't think the specific acts previously done such as anal, threesomes, public sex, etc are the issue. It is the effort those things represent, an effort inspired out of fear. I think it is reasonable to expect at least as much visible effort inspired by love for ones partner.


Effort? Fear? How about sexual exploration and discovery?


----------



## samyeagar

norajane said:


> I agree except for the trying of "new" things. As a young woman newly experiencing sex, I tried a lot of things. I figured out which ones actually turn me on and give me sexual satisfaction and fulfillment and do those now. Not trying those OLD things I already tried that don't turn me on doesn't make me less enthusiastic or passionate about sex with my current partner.
> 
> Hmm, I don't worry about best efforts. I look at how I feel when we're having sex, and what we can do for each other to turn each other on. I don't care if he danced like a monkey for someone else in a bad relationship.
> 
> Fear? Does not compute. I don't have and haven't' had relationships with people I fear and didn't do things sexually out of fear of losing those people. I tried what I wanted to try, kept what I liked and discarded the rest.
> 
> *Is this a thing? People perform like seals in order to keep a bad relationship going?*
> 
> Effort? Fear? How about sexual exploration and discovery?


Oh hell yeah it is. The whole...if I don't do this with him, he'll break up with me. That's also part of the basis of using sex to get love.


----------



## norajane

samyeagar said:


> Oh hell yeah it is. The whole...if I don't do this with him, he'll break up with me. That's also part of the basis of using sex to get love.


Then it seems like it would be counterproductive to expect that level of "effort" as you call it in a good relationship where sex isn't about fear and loss. It is followed by a crash of one kind or another, no?


----------



## techmom

norajane said:


> Then it seems like it would be counterproductive to expect that level of "effort" as you call it in a good relationship where sex isn't about fear and loss. It is followed by a crash of one kind or another, no?


This conversation is really about power, who has the power to make Nancy do whatever. Whether it is from fear or love.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

norajane said:


> *Then it seems like it would be counterproductive to expect that level of "effort" as you call it in a good relationship where sex isn't about fear and loss.* It is followed by a crash of one kind or another, no?


And I think it should be the exact opposite.


----------



## norajane

samyeagar said:


> And I think it should be the exact opposite.


You won't get that level of desperation (not effort, IMO) unless you make her feel desperate. And then your relationship SUCKS.


----------



## Anon1111

Lila said:


> Ugh, that's not true. He wants a Frankenstein of Nancy. He wants the good, mature, motherly, loving, responsible Nancy she is today with the wild and freaky sex fiend Nancy she was long ago. This person DOES NOT exist.
> 
> He was perfectly happy and content wanting her exactly as she was.....until he heard about Johnny's escapades. This is a snapshot of what she was in her youth. What he didn't hear were all of the bad things she was back then. Maybe if he had gotten a good overall picture, this wouldn't be such a huge issue?


I appreciate your perspective and believe I understand where it is coming from.

I don't agree that this captures the full picture though. I am sure I'm unlikely to convince you, but that's OK.


----------



## samyeagar

norajane said:


> You won't get that level of desperation (not effort, IMO) unless you make her feel desperate. And then your relationship SUCKS.


Why would a loving relationshipand partner cause desperation? It should cause inspiration and not complacency.


----------



## Anon1111

techmom said:


> This conversation is really about power, who has the power to make Nancy do whatever. Whether it is from fear or love.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


that is definitely one way to look at it.

you could view it through the power lense the other way too: Nancy exercises her power to keep Sid in his box.

In reality, neither Sid nor Nancy has any power over the other, other than the power that each of them voluntarily gives away.


----------



## techmom

samyeagar said:


> Why would a loving relationshipand partner cause desperation? It should cause inspiration and not complacency.


How does a loving partner go about creating this "inspiration "?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Do guys regret going to strip clubs when they were younger (or now)?

Do guys regret imagining having sex with other women while they are having sex with their wives?

Do guys regret the porn they watch and the fantasies they have?

Do they regret "that one time" when they got a spontaneous bj from a stranger?

Do they regret the constant updates they make to their spank bank images from seeing beautiful women everywhere?

Do guys regret the pleasure they've felt from sex in their past?

Do guys regret their very NORMAL physical urges for sex?

Do guys regret how hard they jonesed to get with the hottest girl they could find anywhere, with no regard for whether that girl was someone they would respect or like?

I'm pretty sure the only thing guys (who have the issue talked about on this thread) regret is not getting MORE hot sex with MORE hot women.

Yet by these same guys' opinion, as a woman, if my only regret is that I didn't get MORE hot sex with MORE hot people, then there's clearly something "wrong" with me.


----------



## TiggyBlue

I Don't Know said:


> ?
> 
> If I make 100k a year but tell my wife I make 75K and she was ok with that does that mean I can sock the other 25k away guilt free? Hey she was good with me only making 75K a year right?



Wouldn't it be more like you make 75k a year but wife finds out you use to make 100k a year?
Unless Nancy is still doing whatever kink with Johnny it's past tense.


----------



## Thundarr

I Don't Know said:


> Exes are exes for a reason. However in this case the reason is because Nancy couldn't get Johnny to commit to her, NOT that she decided she didn't want Johnny.
> Tough luck Sid. Shoulda met Nancy sooner. Of course Nancy wouldn't have given you the time of day back then, she was too hung up on Johnny.
> 
> 
> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know this? Why are you so sure that it's because Nancy couldn't get Johnny to commit to her? Unless I missed something in @marduk's story?
Click to expand...

You didn't miss anything and your posts seem objective to me. A lot women (and men) did things when they were young out of insecurity, naivety, peer pressure, etc. Now I'm all for Nancy making an effort to make Sid feel special but that's a two way street.


----------



## I Don't Know

norajane said:


> You are assuming or projecting that she gave Johnny the *best *terms. All she gave Johnny was some rolls in the hay.


Was responding to a post from Lila that said Johnny got better terms, and that Sid shouldn't care about that because he negotiated his own terms.

I disagree that she gave Sid the best terms she could at the time. She gave him a combination of the best terms she was willing to give him and the least terms that he would accept. Why can't she do the things she did with Johnny with Sid? Not saying she has to or Sid is owed it. Just wondering why it's so impossible for her to do it without building a mountain of resentment for Sid.

I WANT to give my wife the best terms in all aspects of our marriage. I hope she wants to do the same. I don't feel like, I give her my best in terms of being faithful and holding up my end of the household duties so I am free to hold back on giving her flowers. If it's important to her I want to do it for her and to a level that tops what I would have done for any of the people who "didn't matter". Am I really crazy to think that way?


----------



## I Don't Know

TiggyBlue said:


> Wouldn't it be more like you make 75k a year but wife finds out you use to make 100k a year?
> Unless Nancy is still doing whatever kink with Johnny it's past tense.


Maybe, but I phrased it that way because it's been made a point that Sid was happy with the level of heat he was getting when he married her and should remain so after he discovers she is capable of more. So my wife should be happy with the level of income that she was getting before marriage and should be even after she discovers there is more to be had.


----------



## norajane

samyeagar said:


> Why would a loving relationshipand partner cause desperation? It should cause inspiration and not complacency.


A loving relationship partner would NOT cause a partner desperation. That's the point. She was in an unhealthy relationship and pretty messed up herself if she was so desperate that she performed like a seal out of fear and loss. You call it "effort" but it's desperation to stay in a bad relationship because she was f*cked up herself.

In order to get her to perform like a seal at the level of "effort" she did in her unhealthy relationship with unhealthy relationship dynamics related to desperation, fear and loss, you'd have to turn your relationship into an unhealthy one like that. You don't want f*cked up sex, do you?

As long as you keep thinking what she did with the douchebug was "effort," you are missing the point that she was f*cked up and unless she's f*cked up still, she's not going to perform like a seal.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Oh hell yeah it is. The whole...if I don't do this with him, he'll break up with me. That's also part of the basis of using sex to get love.


It could also be looked at as he is using her love for him to intimidate and use her.


----------



## Lila

I Don't Know said:


> Maybe, but I phrased it that way because it's been made a point that Sid was happy with the level of heat he was getting when he married her and should remain so after he discovers she is capable of more. So my wife should be happy with the level of income that she was getting before marriage and *should be even after she discovers there is more to be had.*


There's no more to be had. You don't make 100K any more. That was then, now you only make 75K. If your wife got mad at you because you no longer make 100K, then she's got serious issues. You can't give her what you don't have to give.


----------



## EleGirl

I Don't Know said:


> ?
> 
> If I make 100k a year but tell my wife I make 75K and she was ok with that does that mean I can sock the other 25k away guilt free? Hey she was good with me only making 75K a year right?


Do you know what I wish? I wish that men would stop trying to use money as though it's the most important thing to women.

Some seem to think that the only way to explain a man's desire surrounding sex is to bring up money.


----------



## samyeagar

norajane said:


> A loving relationship partner would NOT cause a partner desperation. That's the point. She was in an unhealthy relationship and pretty messed up herself if she was so desperate that she performed like a seal out of fear and loss. You call it "effort" but it's desperation to stay in a bad relationship because she was f*cked up herself.
> 
> In order to get her to perform like a seal at the level of "effort" she did in her unhealthy relationship with unhealthy relationship dynamics related to desperation, fear and loss, you'd have to turn your relationship into an unhealthy one like that. You don't want f*cked up sex, do you?
> 
> As long as you keep thinking what she did with the douchebug was "effort," you are missing the point that she was f*cked up and unless she's f*cked up still, she's not going to perform like a seal.


Comparing my ex wife to my current wife...I put in a whole sh1t ton of work and effort into the relationship with my ex wife in an attempt to keep it, motivated by desperation and fear, not out of love. In my current relationship, I am doing more than I did when I was with my ex wife. My wife doesn't expect nearly as much, but I am not going to drop down to her lowest expectations, because I have a wife who loves me, appreciates me, and matches the effort I put in to make things work, and keep our relationship happy, healthy, and stable.

So I am performing like a seal, and f*cked up?


----------



## Anon1111

EleGirl said:


> Do you know what I wish? I wish that men would stop trying to use money as though it's the most important thing to women.
> 
> Some seem to think that the only way to explain a man's desire surrounding sex is to bring up money.


money is easily quantifiable so it an easy way to compare more vs less.

there's also the fact that women tend to be attracted to men with money

so it's a bit hard for men to ignore the apparent quantitative relationship between sex and money


----------



## norajane

samyeagar said:


> Comparing my ex wife to my current wife...I put in a whole sh1t ton of work and effort into the relationship with my ex wife in an attempt to keep it, motivated by desperation and fear, not out of love. In my current relationship, I am doing more than I did when I was with my ex wife. My wife doesn't expect nearly as much, but I am not going to drop down to her lowest expectations, because I have a wife who loves me, appreciates me, and matches the effort I put in to make things work, and keep our relationship happy, healthy, and stable.
> 
> So I am performing like a seal, and f*cked up?


You're not doing it out of fear and desperation so no, I don't think you're f*cked up. You aren't performing like a seal - seals do it on command.


----------



## I Don't Know

EleGirl said:


> Do you know what I wish? I wish that men would stop trying to use money as though it's the most important thing to women.
> 
> Some seem to think that the only way to explain a man's desire surrounding sex is to bring up money.


Again, never said that. But you didn't like the example of a hidden child or any of the other examples. It was just a situation where something was understood to be one way but it turned out to be another way and should someone be ok with that.

If there are no possible examples that would suit you please just tell us so we can stop wasting our time.


----------



## Cosmos

I Don't Know said:


> Again, never said that. But you didn't like the example of a hidden child or any of the other examples. It was just a situation where something was understood to be one way but it turned out to be another way and should someone be ok with that.
> 
> If there are no possible examples that would suit you please just tell us so we can stop wasting our time.


How about simply comparing like with like, as FW did here? After all, it really is what this thread is (supposed) to be about...



> Faithful Wife posted:
> 
> Do guys regret going to strip clubs when they were younger (or now)?
> 
> Do guys regret imagining having sex with other women while they are having sex with their wives?
> 
> Do guys regret the porn they watch and the fantasies they have?
> 
> Do they regret "that one time" when they got a spontaneous bj from a stranger?
> 
> Do they regret the constant updates they make to their spank bank images from seeing beautiful women everywhere?
> 
> Do guys regret the pleasure they've felt from sex in their past?
> 
> Do guys regret their very NORMAL physical urges for sex?
> 
> Do guys regret how hard they jonesed to get with the hottest girl they could find anywhere, with no regard for whether that girl was someone they would respect or like?
> 
> I'm pretty sure the only thing guys (who have the issue talked about on this thread) regret is not getting MORE hot sex with MORE hot women.
> 
> Yet by these same guys' opinion, as a woman, if my only regret is that I didn't get MORE hot sex with MORE hot people, then there's clearly something "wrong" with me.


----------



## I Don't Know

Cosmos said:


> How about simply comparing like with like, as FW did here? After all, it really is what this thread is (supposed) to be about...


after 800 posts of it NOT being about that a few posters are told to keep it on topic. Odd.

OK. A guy goes to hookers several times when he is younger. He meets a woman and doesn't tell her this because he's not that guy anymore. She finds out and goes ape sh1t on him. Is she wrong?


----------



## Anon1111

Sid used to go out with Abby. Every Friday night for 3 years, Sid bought a dozen roses for Abby. Abby eventually dumped him.

Later, Sid married Nancy. Sid has never bought flowers for Nancy once. 

Every Valentine's Day and Mother's Day, Nancy is sad because she sees all of her girlfriends receiving flowers. Just once she wishes Sid would buy her flowers too. She doesn't understand what the problem is.

She asks Sid and he says he thinks buying flowers is a waste of money.

One day, Nancy runs into Abby. Sid comes up. Abby mentions that Sid used to buy her flowers every Friday. He was such a sweet guy, she says.


----------



## MEM2020

IDK,
This thread isn't about having standards. There must have been at least 40 posts all of which said: If someone's conduct violates your standards (whatever they are) it is perfectly fine to end it. 

This is about marrying/staying with someone KNOWING their history, and then bludgeoning them with it. 




I Don't Know said:


> after 800 posts of it NOT being about that a few posters are told to keep it on topic. Odd.
> 
> OK. A guy goes to hookers several times when he is younger. He meets a woman and doesn't tell her this because he's not that guy anymore. She finds out and goes ape sh1t on him. Is she wrong?


----------



## MEM2020

Anon,

Perhaps the better analog looks like this.

Jon (Johnny's half brother) worked like a madman for 20 straight years creating a lifestyle that far exceeded Nancy's expectations. 

Jon is now in a LTR with Susan who is aware of what kind of money he used to make and is now pressing him to do for her what he did for Nancy. 

*Jon who has zero interest in returning to a high stress job as a software exec resents the heck out of Susan who is hyper focused on him resuming his earlier hyper-ambitious ways. * 





Anon1111 said:


> Sid used to go out with Abby. Every Friday night for 3 years, Sid bought a dozen roses for Abby. Abby eventually dumped him.
> 
> Later, Sid married Nancy. Sid has never bought flowers for Nancy once.
> 
> Every Valentine's Day and Mother's Day, Nancy is sad because she sees all of her girlfriends receiving flowers. Just once she wishes Sid would buy her flowers too. She doesn't understand what the problem is.
> 
> She asks Sid and he says he thinks buying flowers is a waste of money.
> 
> One day, Nancy runs into Abby. Sid comes up. Abby mentions that Sid used to buy her flowers every Friday. He was such a sweet guy, she says.


----------



## Cosmos

I Don't Know said:


> OK. A guy goes to hookers several times when he is younger. He meets a woman and doesn't tell her this because he's not that guy anymore. She finds out and goes ape sh1t on him. Is she wrong?


We are all entitled to our personal boundaries and dealbreakers...

I certainly wouldn't have knowingly dated guys who frequented prostitutes, let alone slept with them. The risk of doing so isn't necessarily mitigated over time and if I suddenly found out that I had, ape sh1t would be an understatement of what my reaction would be.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I agree Cosmos...but none of that is what this thread is about. What you are responding to is the threadjack (as you know).

The only applicable comparison would be, does the guy feel shame and regret for going to sex workers? If so, why? Should he? Is it expected that he would feel shame about this? Would he tell his friends and would they shame him? Do other guys feel shame if they've gone to sex workers? Do they feel shame for that but not for going to strip clubs? Why or why not?


----------



## Starstarfish

There's a difference between hiding something that might indeed be a dealbreaker for a reasonable amount of people. (In this case - used to frequent prostitutes.) 

And ... 

You rewriting the entire history of your relationship with your partner considerably after the fact. (IE that you now see your relationship and sex life as inferior because you "only got vanilla" and someone else got "57 flavors.") 

That makes RJ like an EA with oneself complete with history rewriting and a fog wherein the boundaries of normalcy just cease to exist.


----------



## Anon1111

MEM11363 said:


> Anon,
> 
> Perhaps the better analog looks like this.
> 
> Jon (Johnny's half brother) worked like a madman for 20 straight years creating a lifestyle that far exceeded Nancy's expectations.
> 
> Jon is now in a LTR with Susan who is aware of what kind of money he used to make and is now pressing him to do for her what he did for Nancy.
> 
> *Jon who has zero interest in returning to a high stress job as a software exec resents the heck out of Susan who is hyper focused on him resuming his earlier hyper-ambitious ways. *


That is a very helpful illustration that puts Nancy's frustration in a more male context.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Anon,
You were the catalyst for this thought, so thank you. 
And I do think its a pretty good analog. 





Anon1111 said:


> That is a very helpful illustration that puts Nancy's frustration in a more male context.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

Anon1111 said:


> MEM11363 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anon,
> 
> Perhaps the better analog looks like this.
> 
> Jon (Johnny's half brother) worked like a madman for 20 straight years creating a lifestyle that far exceeded Nancy's expectations.
> 
> Jon is now in a LTR with Susan who is aware of what kind of money he used to make and is now pressing him to do for her what he did for Nancy.
> 
> *Jon who has zero interest in returning to a high stress job as a software exec resents the heck out of Susan who is hyper focused on him resuming his earlier hyper-ambitious ways. *
> 
> 
> 
> That is a very helpful illustration that puts Nancy's frustration in a more male context.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
Click to expand...

How about this real world examle...

One morning I made coffee for my ex wife. I always left for work before she was awake, and she mentioned that she hardly ever had time to make it, so I thought I'd do something nice for her and make it. She appreciated it, and I kept doing it. Then one morning, I was running late, and didn't do it. My ex wife was so pissed at me for throwing her whole day off,and I never missed another day of making it. 

I had told my wife about that when we were first dating and she had a similar experience with her ex husband. She would prepare his plate every night at dinner, and if she didn't for some reason, there was hell to pay. 

Fast forward to today...I make coffee every morning for my wife before work, as I leave before she is awake. The few times I haven't been able to, she doesn't mind, because she appreciates when I do it. 

I had a very negative experience with my ex, but I do the exact same thing for my wife because she appreciates it, and I enjoy doing nice things for her. My wife has yet to make my plate for me for dinner.


----------



## techmom

samyeagar said:


> How about this real world examle...
> 
> One morning I made coffee for my ex wife. I always left for work before she was awake, and she mentioned that she hardly ever had time to make it, so I thought I'd do something nice for her and make it. She appreciated it, and I kept doing it. Then one morning, I was running late, and didn't do it. My ex wife was so pissed at me for throwing her whole day off,and I never missed another day of making it.
> 
> I had told my wife about that when we were first dating and she had a similar experience with her ex husband. She would prepare his plate every night at dinner, and if she didn't for some reason, there was hell to pay.
> 
> Fast forward to today...I make coffee every morning for my wife before work, as I leave before she is awake. The few times I haven't been able to, she doesn't mind, because she appreciates when I do it.
> 
> I had a very negative experience with my ex, but I do the exact same thing for my wife because she appreciates it, and I enjoy doing nice things for her. My wife has yet to make my plate for me for dinner.


I don't think we can compare making coffee early in the morning to performing sex acts one doesn't like anymore...


----------



## lifeistooshort

EleGirl said:


> Do you know what I wish? I wish that men would stop trying to use money as though it's the most important thing to women.
> 
> Some seem to think that the only way to explain a man's desire surrounding sex is to bring up money.


Eh, they bring up commitment too because supposedly it's so much more important to women. To me that's laughable because if true men would be ok with their lady fvcking other men. ....because they're not worried about commitment, right? Well clearly men want commitment too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

techmom said:


> samyeagar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this real world examle...
> 
> One morning I made coffee for my ex wife. I always left for work before she was awake, and she mentioned that she hardly ever had time to make it, so I thought I'd do something nice for her and make it. She appreciated it, and I kept doing it. Then one morning, I was running late, and didn't do it. My ex wife was so pissed at me for throwing her whole day off,and I never missed another day of making it.
> 
> I had told my wife about that when we were first dating and she had a similar experience with her ex husband. She would prepare his plate every night at dinner, and if she didn't for some reason, there was hell to pay.
> 
> Fast forward to today...I make coffee every morning for my wife before work, as I leave before she is awake. The few times I haven't been able to, she doesn't mind, because she appreciates when I do it.
> 
> I had a very negative experience with my ex, but I do the exact same thing for my wife because she appreciates it, and I enjoy doing nice things for her. My wife has yet to make my plate for me for dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we can compare making coffee early in the morning to performing sex acts one doesn't like anymore...
Click to expand...

Is not about the sex acts. It's about the effort to show your partner that they got the best of you. It's the difference between doing something out of for or desperation, and love.


----------



## samyeagar

samyeagar said:


> techmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> samyeagar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this real world examle...
> 
> One morning I made coffee for my ex wife. I always left for work before she was awake, and she mentioned that she hardly ever had time to make it, so I thought I'd do something nice for her and make it. She appreciated it, and I kept doing it. Then one morning, I was running late, and didn't do it. My ex wife was so pissed at me for throwing her whole day off,and I never missed another day of making it.
> 
> I had told my wife about that when we were first dating and she had a similar experience with her ex husband. She would prepare his plate every night at dinner, and if she didn't for some reason, there was hell to pay.
> 
> Fast forward to today...I make coffee every morning for my wife before work, as I leave before she is awake. The few times I haven't been able to, she doesn't mind, because she appreciates when I do it.
> 
> I had a very negative experience with my ex, but I do the exact same thing for my wife because she appreciates it, and I enjoy doing nice things for her. My wife has yet to make my plate for me for dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we can compare making coffee early in the morning to performing sex acts one doesn't like anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is not about the sex acts. It's about the effort to show your partner that they got the best of you. It's the difference between doing something out of fearr and desperation, and doing it out of love.
> 
> We have settled it that it's not about sex acts that are dangerous, or that weren't liked.
Click to expand...

Stupid phone won't let me edit that to add. ..
We've all agree that dangerous acts and thing she tried and hated are not at issue.


----------



## Thundarr

Focusing on Nancy being more into Johnny misses the point a little. Most guys like Sid can remember a time when they were dating some girl and it was new and she was willing to do most anything they asked for. Maybe that's the root of the problem here. If we let mind movies play then we think about our wives being this way for some other guy and completely ignore that we had some good times as well. Why is it okay for us to have a past but not okay for the women we're with to have experienced similar? 

It's common to hear a married guy talk about sex becoming less available over time and it really taking a dive after kids come in the picture. Well that has zero to do with Johnny. Yes it's an issue that couples should try to resolve but it's more related to life and age than anything else. Focusing energy back on the wife's past love 5/10/20 years ago just takes things down a path driven by insecurity and RJ.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr said:


> If we let mind movies play then we think about our wives being this way for some other guy and completely ignore that we had some good times as well. *Why is it okay for us to have a past but not okay for the women we're with to have experienced similar?*


:allhail:


And further... even if she got to have good fun with someone else in the past and he didn't with anyone, it still is not ok to expect her to feel shame or regret.

He may feel jealousy. He may ask for reassurances. He may struggle with the information. He may feel insecure. He may even end the relationship if he can't get over it or wants another shot at getting more as a free man. But expecting her to feel shame or regret is a ridiculous double standard when he WOULD have done the same if he could have.*

If she does feel shame and regret, that's her own deal and she may or may not. And it is no one else's biz if she does or doesn't, unless she wants to discuss it.


(*note....this is not true for all men...some men, such as samyeager, were highly sexually active, but not with multiple partners...or other men who have decided to remain virgins or celibate between partners would not have gone for it even if/when they could have...for those men, this post is not meant to put you in the same box as other men who claim they would "do anyone who was reasonably attractive and willing")


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> Nancy is dissatisfied too. That's pretty clear from the story.
> 
> But apparently to some the only thing that matters is the sex life and Sid's dissatisfaction about it.


What's she dissatisfied about?


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> This conversation is really about power, who has the power to make Nancy do whatever. Whether it is from fear or love.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't see that.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Do guys regret going to strip clubs when they were younger (or now)?
> 
> Do guys regret imagining having sex with other women while they are having sex with their wives?
> 
> Do guys regret the porn they watch and the fantasies they have?
> 
> Do they regret "that one time" when they got a spontaneous bj from a stranger?
> 
> Do they regret the constant updates they make to their spank bank images from seeing beautiful women everywhere?
> 
> Do guys regret the pleasure they've felt from sex in their past?
> 
> Do guys regret their very NORMAL physical urges for sex?
> 
> Do guys regret how hard they jonesed to get with the hottest girl they could find anywhere, with no regard for whether that girl was someone they would respect or like?
> 
> I'm pretty sure the only thing guys (who have the issue talked about on this thread) regret is not getting MORE hot sex with MORE hot women.
> 
> Yet by these same guys' opinion, as a woman, if my only regret is that I didn't get MORE hot sex with MORE hot people, then there's clearly something "wrong" with me.


I don't see how that's connected.


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> Do you know what I wish? I wish that men would stop trying to use money as though it's the most important thing to women.
> 
> Some seem to think that the only way to explain a man's desire surrounding sex is to bring up money.


That's why I went with the art/music scenario.

I think sex is way more akin to performance art, music, or the like than money.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> :allhail:
> And further... even if she got to have good fun with someone else in the past and he didn't with anyone, it still is not ok to expect her to feel shame or regret.
> 
> He may feel jealousy. He may ask for reassurances. He may struggle with the information. He may feel insecure. He may even end the relationship if he can't get over it or wants another shot at getting more as a free man. But expecting her to feel shame or regret is a ridiculous double standard when he WOULD have done the same if he could have.*


Yes blame shifting, regret, and jealousy factor in. Personally I think it's more common for a guy to just fixate and let mind movies run his imagination into 'what if' land. What if she did this, what if she did that, what if ...... (all roads lead to) she doesn't love me as much. That's just insecurities getting the best of us. 

Most men experimented a little when young. It doesn't make sense that we experimented with only the bad girls. I mean If I can be a good guy now (I think I am) then why does anyone I messed around with have to be categorized as a bad girl forever? That' not logical.

EDIT: I wasn't a player but just an average guy with a few hookups and a few partners. Not Johnny Magic.


----------



## Thundarr

EleGirl said:


> Nancy is dissatisfied too. That's pretty clear from the story.
> 
> But apparently to some the only thing that matters is the sex life and Sid's dissatisfaction about it.
> 
> 
> marduk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's she dissatisfied about?
Click to expand...

Hypothetical Nancy and Sid really* need to read 'his needs / her needs'* lol.


----------



## techmom

marduk said:


> I don't see that.


I do, and most of the other women posting do. It would serve you well to find out why...


----------



## Thundarr

techmom said:


> This conversation is really about power, who has the power to make Nancy do whatever. Whether it is from fear or love.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> 
> 
> marduk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that.
> 
> 
> techmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do, and most of the other women posting do. It would serve you well to find out why...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I hope a lot of TAMERs see this as more than just a power play. It's a combination of a needs, insecurity, miscommunication, and more. In other words I don't think it's all about any one specific thing. Yes hypothetical Nancy feels pressured to do whatever but that's the symptom of the dynamic.


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> I do, and most of the other women posting do. It would serve you well to find out why...


That was the intent of my post.

Why?


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,
But we both know that's not really how this works. Before working on your first baby - you kind of KNOW where you're at. 

I guess I'm just not all that sympathetic to folks who engage in extended periods of denial regarding important stuff and then suddenly decide - that the status quo is a big fvcking problem.

That does NOT mean, Sid isn't entitled to try and improve his situation. 

It does mean that he needs to approach that effort - in a sensible way. 

So - for a moment - humor me. Let's say Sid's number one issue is frequency. 

Why doesn't he start out with some version of the truth. And not his truth - Nancy's. That might sound like this:

I wish - when we played THAT game - it was as fun for you as it is for me. 

That's the opener. Because the thing is - if it did feel as good for her as it does for him, frequency likely wouldn't be a big issue. 

This 'I wish' statement opens a door that Nancy might be afraid to have opened herself. The one allows her to give him some feedback on what she wants more/less/different....

I wish you'd tell me how to make it better for you. 




marduk said:


> Now imagine if M2 kept the door shut because she declared she "just wasn't that person anymore" and just carried the hell on with her life.
> 
> That would bum me out.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Techmom,
Dont you think a healthy marriage is typically characterized by: 

A lot of power, lightly used.
----------
And that's a symmetrical statement. Or a bidirectional statement if you prefer. 

For instance, M2 and I have the same magic phrase. It is not used in anger, or in spite. And it is used very sparingly. 

Babe, This is very important to me. Followed by some request. 

Truly cannot recall a case where that phrase did not produce a completely supportive response. 





techmom said:


> This conversation is really about power, who has the power to make Nancy do whatever. Whether it is from fear or love.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

How many here have experienced anything like in this thread? I find it interesting in that I can learn about other issues but I have never come close to anything here. Be it shaming or not getting everything and more from a sexual partner including the woman I have been with for 24 years.

Is this really an often occurring problem in marriages?

Especially something similar to the Nancy and Sid story?

Would not happen here or with anyone I'm giving advice to.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> The only applicable comparison would be, does the guy feel shame and regret for going to sex workers? If so, why? Should he? Is it expected that he would feel shame about this? Would he tell his friends and would they shame him? Do other guys feel shame if they've gone to sex workers? Do they feel shame for that but not for going to strip clubs? Why or why not?


There's no need to bring sex workers into this even. Do men regret their sexual history? From what I've seen, they revel in it.

Indeed, women here are routinely advised that their man will be watching porn, imagining fvcking their friends, sisters, neighbours, and random women on the street. That they've had hotter babes in the past that they still revisit, and that they will be less and less interested in us as we age. And all of this is *current*, not in some distant far away land. Yet, the response to women's insecurity around these issues is basically, "Deal. We're men. That's what we do."

Well, Sid, I got news for you. Women too are quite capable of being attracted to other men and fully enjoying sex with them. And you know what? She did Johnny because she *wanted* to. And should you split, she'll probably find someone else that she *wants* to have sex with.


----------



## always_alone

It is interesting how Johnny has morphed from comic book caricature to mythical demigod. Sid would do a lot better if he could just realize that Johnny is human. Just like him. There isn't really that much difference between them.

It is oddly reassuring though to see that those men bent on ranking, judging, and comparing women are just as bent on ranking, judging and comparing themselves.


----------



## Starstarfish

No matter what ... ?

As in, he should "cut her off from the money" if she won't do the Himalaya Backwards Goat Plow?

Sure, I guess if you are okay with making it clear your stance on your marriage is legal prostitution. That you paying bills is directly tied to whatever your sexual expectations are.

No, what I expect is if someone is that unhealthy, they divorce. Not use twisted mind games and "sh!t tests" to manipulate people into sex. Because that's abusive and twisted.


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> It's interesting that you would have this bias. My guess would be that a person's political leaning would not make a difference. And we are both wrong apparently.
> 
> "The GSS are the only national surveys that ask specific questions about marital fidelity. Americans who consider themselves to be extremely liberal are twice as likely to have an extramarital affair as those survey respondents who are listed as extremely conservative. The most recent GSS results determined that 26.4% of liberals admitted to having an affair while only 13% of their conservative brethren responded in the affirmative.
> 
> The GSS also confirmed that the two-to-one relationship of extramarital affairs between liberals and conservatives holds true for women as well as men. Another interesting fact brought out by these surveys is that, while men are much more likely to have an extramarital affair, liberal-leaning woman are more likely to stray outside their marriages than conservative men."
> 
> Who Cheats More: Liberals or Conservatives?


Or maybe conservatives are just less likely to admit it?

(Note: I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative.)


----------



## tech-novelist

MEM11363 said:


> Jealousy - is an insecurity driven fear.
> 
> So this negative focus on prior partners seems typically driven by a short list of distinct factors:
> - I'm not as 'special or important' as I want to be, since this is something you've done with many other partners. FWIW:
> The definition of MANY: runs the gamut from one other partner to a number larger than one.
> - I'm very afraid of being compared to other men. Penis size. Endurance. Hotness.
> 
> It's a funny thing - this jealousy theme. I went to one of M2's work events - at a hospital. Met a few of her prior - boyfriends. They were all handsome Devils. Surgical residents or surgeons. With one exception being a male nurse who looked like those guys do solo flex adds. Perfect body, handsome face.
> 
> I had absolutely no reaction to them. None. As far as comparison goes, I like that M2 has enough basis for comparison to have an informed view of me.
> 
> The scary thing about a virgin is this. How could she not wonder what 'normal' is. What bad sex, average sex, good sex and great sex feel like. Wouldn't she likely be at least somewhat curious?


Women who are virgins when they get married are happier when married and less likely to get divorced:

"Prior research suggests that if the only person you had sex with prior to marriage was your eventual spouse, your odds of marital stability are good. Data collected in the 1990s on women who married a generation ago (men weren’t included) howed that women who had sex with only their future spouse before marriage were at no greater risk for divorce than those who waited until marriage to have sex (Teachman, 2003). 

"But that’s not most people. In our sample, only 23 percent of the individuals who got married over the course of the study had had sex solely with the person they married. That minority of men and women reported higher marital quality than those who had had sex with other partners prior to marriage. We further found that the more sexual partners a woman had had before marriage, the less happy she reported her marriage to be. This association was not statistically significant for men."

from http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NMP-BeforeIDoReport-Final.pdf


----------



## Mr.Fisty

intheory said:


> I like this. Because at this time, my husband controls the sex. So, I sort of like it in reverse.
> 
> The commitment has probably always been 50-50, I think.
> 
> In Sid and Nancyland; I do wonder if most people still expect Sid to be the loyal provider; no matter what.



Both control the commitment since either can leave. It takes two to make that work.

As for the financial part, both should be capable of earning their own ways. So if Sid becomes emotionally abusive towards Nancy because Sid gets jealous, then Nancy should leave and find someone who better compliments her. Sid's best option is marrying a virgin so he is her only sexual partner.

And he should find someone young since he can better manipulate their emotions. Young adults, adolescence, lack the full use of their judgement. It does not happen to mid-twenties to late twenties. Someone young is still highly malleable in their development.

Youths are also more open to experimentation due to that lack of filter.

Also depends on Sid's motivation. Lets go to bdsm. Johnny has the make-up of a dom, Sid does not. Johnny can pull that part of Nancy out of her while Sid does not inspire the same. For Nancy, bdsm will not be as good as it once was with Johnny. Also, the novelty of trying bdsm may heighten the experience since it is part of the exploration stage.

That is why I suggest Sid finds a virgin, or someone who lacks experience.

Here is another thing to consider, what if the only reason why Sid wants bdsm is because he is jealous of Johnny and really does not have an interest in it. Lets say Sid wants to experiment with anal, but Nancy puts her foot down. Sid finds out that Nancy gave Johnny a chance to experience bdsm. He will compare and contrast why Nancy allowed Johnny the chance while he does not.

The whole thing is dependent on context.

In college, I enjoyed sex parties, now reaching my mid to late twenties, I find that idiotic since none of us did a background check on one another. It holds fond memories but it would not be as exciting as it was during that period.

As I posted earlier before about attraction. Attraction can lower inhibition and increase sexual desire. A recent thread where the wife gave an fwb a 45 minute BJ, and the husband experienced a foursome with three other females. He suffers RJ. See, and here most male posters will say that he should get a 45 minute BJ to get her best while deny the wife the experience of a foursome with three other men. She does not bring his sexual past into the relationship, he is the one who brought his past.

Lets state that Sid is excited about his engagement. This is to Jill, and he purchases her a 30k ring because this is his first time being in an engagement. Jill breaks up with Sid and Sid resells the ring at 1/10 the cost. Now Sid is engage to Nancy, does Sid owe her a 30k ring? Same with other posters on here, they done the big wedding and they prefer not to go through that again. That could be the same with sexual acts as well.

Lets say Nancy gives into Sid and she does not orgasm during bdsm. Who do most think that Sid will punish for the failure of that experience. Or should Nancy fake enthusiasm to protect Sid's ego? Sid is after all no Johnny. That is like asking Nancy to be attracted to Sid as Nancy is to Johnny. That is not going to happen. Johnny has the genetics that makes him seem like an Adonis to Nancy while Sid will have to put in more effort to appear attractive. Life is not fair.

Think about society. Both men and women have to stay in shape, except females have to battle weight loss after pregnancy. Females have to do more uncomfortable and time consuming things to appear attractive. My gf hates wearing thongs and she is happy that I am not attracted to thongs like her ex was.

If Sid is only with Nancy because of her attractiveness, and people do fall in love with the veneer of a person, then Sid himself needs to think why is he with Nancy. We see posters on here in love with shallow, narcissistic, attractive individuals. What if the only reason why Sid married Nancy is because he is an average guy married to an attractive female and that boost his ego, self-confidence? We have seen posters that go after younger females only. Some have an entitlement issue, thinking that they deserve an attractive female or male.

I hate the whole Nancy and Sid scenario since we can play around with background, persona, and reactions.

I prefer using old threads where we have realistic data to back up our exertions to a more plausible point.

So, does Sid become entitled to the same level of attraction that she had for Johnny? Because Johnny attraction level is capable of Nancy to respond sexually to a high degree, while Sid is not. Sid may have waited three weeks before he gotten sex. He had to take her out on dates, spend time with her to build that attraction to a sexual level. Boo hoo, so what, if he has to do all that to have a chance at Nancy, then that is what he has to do. Nancy cannot blink into existence the biological response of attraction. There might be a slightly overweight girl that was Sid's friend, hoping that Sid one day would ask her out, but Sid is not attracted to her, she is not entitled to have the same response as Nancy. It might take Sid being Drunk before he sleeps with his less attractive friend. Hey look, life is not fair!

There were two sisters that was attracted to me. One was my first gf, the recovering cocaine addict and her foster sister who is less attractive. The lesser attractive sister went out and put more effort in the pursuit, but in the end, I dated the hotter sister. I do not feel guilt since since I was more attracted to the recovering drug addict. The same happened to me and a friend, the girl found my friend more attractive and date him. I just moved on and remained friends with him. I accepted the facts.

This is why I detest posts like the partner is due to be the most attractive, the best sexual partner, or anything else that their partner should give them to boost their ego. If that is what people want, ask their partner to fake it. If a husband or wife is overweight and expects their partner to say that seeing them makes them the most sexually aroused that they have ever been, then live in fantasy land all they want. I have seen posters state if the current person that they are with is not the best ever, then why are they together. The answer is that a relationship comprises more than sexual excitement. We have threads where one partner is fit staying with an overweight, obese partner. It is not because of sexual attraction, because they love them. And Some even lie stating that they are still sexually attracted to them.


----------



## techmom

Mr.Fisty said:


> Both control the commitment since either can leave. It takes two to make that work.
> 
> As for the financial part, both should be capable of earning their own ways. So if Sid becomes emotionally abusive towards Nancy because Sid gets jealous, then Nancy should leave and find someone who better compliments her. Sid's best option is marrying a virgin so he is her only sexual partner.
> 
> And he should find someone young since he can better manipulate their emotions. Young adults, adolescence, lack the full use of their judgement. It does not happen to mid-twenties to late twenties. Someone young is still highly malleable in their development.
> 
> Youths are also more open to experimentation due to that lack of filter.
> 
> Also depends on Sid's motivation. Lets go to bdsm. Johnny has the make-up of a dom, Sid does not. Johnny can pull that part of Nancy out of her while Sid does not inspire the same. For Nancy, bdsm will not be as good as it once was with Johnny. Also, the novelty of trying bdsm may heighten the experience since it is part of the exploration stage.
> 
> That is why I suggest Sid finds a virgin, or someone who lacks experience.
> 
> Here is another thing to consider, what if the only reason why Sid wants bdsm is because he is jealous of Johnny and really does not have an interest in it. Lets say Sid wants to experiment with anal, but Nancy puts her foot down. Sid finds out that Nancy gave Johnny a chance to experience bdsm. He will compare and contrast why Nancy allowed Johnny the chance while he does not.
> 
> The whole thing is dependent on context.
> 
> In college, I enjoyed sex parties, now reaching my mid to late twenties, I find that idiotic since none of us did a background check on one another. It holds fond memories but it would not be as exciting as it was during that period.
> 
> As I posted earlier before about attraction. Attraction can lower inhibition and increase sexual desire. A recent thread where the wife gave an fwb a 45 minute BJ, and the husband experienced a foursome with three other females. He suffers RJ. See, and here most male posters will say that he should get a 45 minute BJ to get her best while deny the wife the experience of a foursome with three other men. She does not bring his sexual past into the relationship, he is the one who brought his past.
> 
> Lets state that Sid is excited about his engagement. This is to Jill, and he purchases her a 30k ring because this is his first time being in an engagement. Jill breaks up with Sid and Sid resells the ring at 1/10 the cost. Now Sid is engage to Nancy, does Sid owe her a 30k ring? Same with other posters on here, they done the big wedding and they prefer not to go through that again. That could be the same with sexual acts as well.
> 
> Lets say Nancy gives into Sid and she does not orgasm during bdsm. Who do most think that Sid will punish for the failure of that experience. Or should Nancy fake enthusiasm to protect Sid's ego? Sid is after all no Johnny. That is like asking Nancy to be attracted to Sid as Nancy is to Johnny. That is not going to happen. Johnny has the genetics that makes him seem like an Adonis to Nancy while Sid will have to put in more effort to appear attractive. Life is not fair.
> 
> Think about society. Both men and women have to stay in shape, except females have to battle weight loss after pregnancy. Females have to do more uncomfortable and time consuming things to appear attractive. My gf hates wearing thongs and she is happy that I am not attracted to thongs like her ex was.
> 
> If Sid is only with Nancy because of her attractiveness, and people do fall in love with the veneer of a person, then Sid himself needs to think why is he with Nancy. We see posters on here in love with shallow, narcissistic, attractive individuals. What if the only reason why Sid married Nancy is because he is an average guy married to an attractive female and that boost his ego, self-confidence? We have seen posters that go after younger females only. Some have an entitlement issue, thinking that they deserve an attractive female or male.
> 
> I hate the whole Nancy and Sid scenario since we can play around with background, persona, and reactions.
> 
> I prefer using old threads where we have realistic data to back up our exertions to a more plausible point.
> 
> So, does Sid become entitled to the same level of attraction that she had for Johnny? Because Johnny attraction level is capable of Nancy to respond sexually to a high degree, while Sid is not. Sid may have waited three weeks before he gotten sex. He had to take her out on dates, spend time with her to build that attraction to a sexual level. Boo hoo, so what, if he has to do all that to have a chance at Nancy, then that is what he has to do. Nancy cannot blink into existence the biological response of attraction. There might be a slightly overweight girl that was Sid's friend, hoping that Sid one day would ask her out, but Sid is not attracted to her, she is not entitled to have the same response as Nancy. It might take Sid being Drunk before he sleeps with his less attractive friend. Hey look, life is not fair!
> 
> There were two sisters that was attracted to me. One was my first gf, the recovering cocaine addict and her foster sister who is less attractive. The lesser attractive sister went out and put more effort in the pursuit, but in the end, I dated the hotter sister. I do not feel guilt since since I was more attracted to the recovering drug addict. The same happened to me and a friend, the girl found my friend more attractive and date him. I just moved on and remained friends with him. I accepted the facts.
> 
> This is why I detest posts like the partner is due to be the most attractive, the best sexual partner, or anything else that their partner should give them to boost their ego. If that is what people want, ask their partner to fake it. If a husband or wife is overweight and expects their partner to say that seeing them makes them the most sexually aroused that they have ever been, then live in fantasy land all they want. I have seen posters state if the current person that they are with is not the best ever, then why are they together. The answer is that a relationship comprises more than sexual excitement. We have threads where one partner is fit staying with an overweight, obese partner. It is not because of sexual attraction, because they love them. And Some even lie stating that they are still sexually attracted to them.


This is a very thoughtful, insightful post.


----------



## Lila

technovelist said:


> Women who are virgins when they get married are happier when married and less likely to get divorced:
> 
> "Prior research suggests that if the only person you had sex with prior to marriage was your eventual spouse, your odds of marital stability are good. Data collected in the 1990s on women who married a generation ago (men weren’t included) howed that women who had sex with only their future spouse before marriage were at no greater risk for divorce than those who waited until marriage to have sex (Teachman, 2003).
> 
> "But that’s not most people. In our sample, only 23 percent of the individuals who got married over the course of the study had had sex solely with the person they married. That minority of men and women reported higher marital quality than those who had had sex with other partners prior to marriage. We further found that the more sexual partners a woman had had before marriage, the less happy she reported her marriage to be. This association was not statistically significant for men."
> 
> from http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NMP-BeforeIDoReport-Final.pdf



And as has been stated many, many, many times, this study should be taken with a grain of salt. There were many experts who questioned the conclusions as well as the way the data was analyzed.



> "So why would more sexual or relationship experience be associated with worse outcomes later on?
> 
> *Rhoades and Stanley hypothesize in the report that "more experience may increase one’s awareness of alternative partners.*" In other words, people who have a number of prior relationships may become dissatisfied more easily.
> 
> *But isn't that another way to say they might be more aware of a bad relationship? *Isn't that a good thing?
> 
> Indeed, while the data presented in The Marriage Project's 418-person study is legitimate, *experts say that the conclusions drawn from it -- especially those which cast judgement on one's sexual history and incite sentiments of ****-shaming -- may not be entirely accurate.*
> 
> "There are a wide variety of reasons that may lead people to have multiple partners before marriage and, independent of how many partners they have, also be less satisfied in marriage," Dr. Jim McNulty, a social psychology professor from Florida State University who has published a plethora of research on the topic.
> 
> "For example, people who tend to avoid commitment in general may have more sexual partners and be less happy when they settle down. *It’s not the fact that they have more sexual partners that leads them to be less happy, it’s the fact that they don’t really like commitment.* I would be very surprised if having multiple sexual partners before marriage, independent of any other factor, has a direct causal influence."
> 
> *In other words, correlation should never be confused with causation.
> *
> 
> *"We cannot make any conclusions about cause-and-effect,"* says Justin Lehmiller, PhD, sex educator and researcher at Purdue University, adding, "Could it be that multiple premarital partners impacts marital happiness? Maybe. But i*t could also be that people who have more partners have different personalities or different attitudes toward marriage or relationships."*
> 
> Beyond that, Lehmiller says *there may be flaws in the way data was analyzed *-- the way in which good marriages were separated from bad marriages was "rather odd" he says. *"Even the authors admit that they were 'arbitrary' in their report. *They defined 'higher quality marriages' as those in which individuals scored in the top 40 percent ... Why the top 40 percent?"
> 
> McNulty also points out that though the authors are respected researchers, *the study was not reported by an academic journal nor was it peer-reviewed.*"


----------



## BetrayedDad

Cosmos said:


> I certainly wouldn't have knowingly dated guys who frequented prostitutes, let alone slept with them.





Faithful Wife said:


> I agree Cosmos...


I guess only guys can be slvt shamers.

Got it. Judge away.


----------



## techmom

marduk said:


> I don't see how that's connected.


Evidently there is a lot you need to learn about women.

The original intent of this thread was for us to explore how we felt about discussing our sexual past with our SO. Some of us were shamed for our pasts, we were going to discuss our feelings on that as well. Unfortunately this morphed into this Sid/Nancy discussion of why Sid didn't get what Johnny got from Nancy and how can Sid make (or "inspire") her to do it.

You want to know why we feel how we feel, but you aren't listening. I feel that all you are doing is trying to get us to feel what this fictious guy feels and suggest ways to get him to get what he wants. Please start another thread for that, and PLEASE LISTEN TO US WOMEN AND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAY. You may just learn something...


----------



## Lila

@Mr.Fisty, I really liked your entire post, but your bolded statement below brings up a great point. 



Mr.Fisty said:


> Also depends on Sid's motivation. Lets go to bdsm. Johnny has the make-up of a dom, Sid does not. Johnny can pull that part of Nancy out of her while Sid does not inspire the same. For Nancy, bdsm will not be as good as it once was with Johnny. Also, the novelty of trying bdsm may heighten the experience since it is part of the exploration stage.
> 
> Lets say Nancy gives into Sid and she does not orgasm during bdsm. *Who do most think that Sid will punish for the failure of that experience. Or should Nancy fake enthusiasm to protect Sid's ego? * Sid is after all no Johnny. That is like asking Nancy to be attracted to Sid as Nancy is to Johnny. That is not going to happen. Johnny has the genetics that makes him seem like an Adonis to Nancy while Sid will have to put in more effort to appear attractive. Life is not fair.


Nancy, or any other woman with a sexual history who is dealing with this type of partner, is stuck in a no win situation. In order to appease her partner and protect his ego she either

a) has to invalidate her sexual history with regret (truthfully or not)

or 

b) perform sexual activities from her past that she has no desire to do with her current partner AND, as you mentioned in your post, _* enjoy it*_ regardless of how she truly feels.

So her options for appeasing her partner now cause resentment and anger in her. 

Insecurity issues must be solved at the source. Appeasing a partner's insecurity issues is only feeding the monster or worse, creating in monster in you.


----------



## EllisRedding

techmom said:


> The original intent of this thread was for us to explore how we felt about discussing our sexual past with our SO. Some of us were shamed for our pasts, we were going to discuss our feelings on that as well. Unfortunately this morphed into this Sid/Nancy discussion of why Sid didn't get what Johnny got from Nancy and how can Sid make (or "inspire") her to do it.


Honestly this is the part that lost me with this thread as I don't see how discussing fictional characters (I am guessing fictional, they are being talked about as if they are real people ) ties in to the OP and TAMers discussing their real life experiences (if that was the intent of this thread)


----------



## techmom

To all of the ladies who liked my previous posts:

Please contribute your experiences on this topic, we have too many posts from there male perspective for it to be anything related to women's experiences.


----------



## I Don't Know

always_alone said:


> Well, Sid, I got news for you. Women too are quite capable of being attracted to other men and fully enjoying sex with them. And you know what? She did Johnny because she *wanted* to. And should you split, she'll probably find someone else that she *wants* to have sex with.


I agree. I haven't heard anyone say there is anything wrong with that. 

I guess I've done a horrible job explaining my view here. I'll try one more time and then I'll stop muddying up this thread with half baked ideas. I'll keep with Sid and Nancy, but I think this holds true for most cases where the past becomes an issue. 

Sid met Nancy. Nancy and Sid hit it off on many levels including sexually. Sid see's what he believes to be the depths of Nancy's passionate side. He is satisfied with that level as well as every other aspect of the relationship that is important to him. Life is good.

Now Sid hears the story of Nancy and Johnny. The ONLY reason it's a big deal to Sid is that it shows Nancy's passion can run much deeper than Sid has ever seen. He doesn't really care that she had sex before him. He knew she had. Frankly it'd be strange if she hadn't. What bothers him is that he does not bring Nancy into her full passion.

It's not Nancy's fault. She feels how she feels. She can't force it. 

Sid, being dumb, doesn't focus on how he can ignite Nancy's full sexual passion. He focuses on the guy that did. He wonders what this other guy had that he doesn't. And so the questions start. In a way Sid IS trying to become the guy that Nancy is over the top HOT for. But he is shooting himself in the foot. Rather than saying, "Hey, baby, what turns you on?" he asks, "what was it about John? What did you see in that guy?"

Again the ONLY reason Sid cares about the past is it has shown him, at least in his mind, that his wife is capable of greater depths of passion than he has seen. He desperately WANTS to be the guy to bring that out in her.

All he has to go on are her actions, then and now. Or even then and slightly later then. Remember they weren't always 40 with 3 kids and careers and reputations to worry about. 

We hear it here all the time. Look at your spouse's actions not their words.


----------



## techmom

Lila said:


> @Mr.Fisty, I really liked your entire post, but your bolded statement below brings up a great point.
> 
> 
> 
> Nancy, or any other woman with a sexual history who is dealing with this type of partner, is stuck in a no win situation. In order to appease her partner and protect his ego she either
> 
> a) has to invalidate her sexual history with regret (truthfully or not)
> 
> or
> 
> b) perform sexual activities from her past that she has no desire to do with her current partner AND, as you mentioned in your post, _* enjoy it*_ regardless of how she truly feels.
> 
> So her options for appeasing her partner now cause resentment and anger in her.
> 
> Insecurity issues must be solved at the source. Appeasing a partner's insecurity issues is only feeding the monster or worse, creating in monster in you.


This is the heart of the matter, it will never be good enough to solve his insecurity.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Lila said:


> [MENTION=165954]b) perform sexual activities from her past that she has no desire to do with her current partner AND, as you mentioned in your post, _* enjoy it*_ regardless of how she truly feels.


Great!

And Sid doesn't have to take her out anymore or buy her flowers for Valentine's Day or do anything for their anniversary.

Because he has no desire to do those things and frankly hates that sh!t and only it did it to make her happy. 

Sound like a fair trade to me. Give what you get.


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> Evidently there is a lot you need to learn about women.
> 
> The original intent of this thread was for us to explore how we felt about discussing our sexual past with our SO. Some of us were shamed for our pasts, we were going to discuss our feelings on that as well. Unfortunately this morphed into this Sid/Nancy discussion of why Sid didn't get what Johnny got from Nancy and how can Sid make (or "inspire") her to do it.
> 
> You want to know why we feel how we feel, but you aren't listening. I feel that all you are doing is trying to get us to feel what this fictious guy feels and suggest ways to get him to get what he wants. Please start another thread for that, and PLEASE LISTEN TO US WOMEN AND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAY. You may just learn something...


Is what you're saying is that this triggers every feeling of being ashamed for your sex life... _forever?_

That it's verboten and no getting past that?

Or is there a better way to approach it?

If you think I don't understand that women are **** shamed and under tremendous pressure to simultaneously 'be sexy' and 'give up sex' and also be virginal, I do get that.

If you think I don't understand that some wives have an echo of their past reappear intentionally or unintentionally, and then get their husband crawling up their ass about it making them feel like ****, I do get that.

I think women are basically in a no-win scenario with sex. I think it's changing, but I think it's still very much there. Especially when it gets wrapped up in religion, society, feelings of self-esteem and self-worth, and like if they were one way once, they are branded to be that person forever.

I get all that, because as a dude, I've felt that, too. 

Not in the same way as women -- I'm sure it's 1% or .1% of what some women have gone through. But all those things I just wrote applied at one time or another to me, too.

What I do not accept, is that that means a death sentence for relationships in this spot, or that it means that the wife has to lie to her husband to make him feel better, or her husband needs to "best" the other guy to make him feel better.

Or that the wife needs to do something she doesn't want to do to appease her husband. Or that the husband can't ask for things he wants to do just because of her past.

If it seems like I'm not listening, I get that. Honestly, I'm trying. I can be a brick.


----------



## Lila

BetrayedDad said:


> Great!
> 
> And Sid doesn't have to take her out anymore or buy her flowers for Valentine's Day or do anything for their anniversary.
> 
> Because he has no desire to do those things and frankly hates that sh!t and only it did it to make her happy.
> 
> Sound like a fair trade to me. Give what you get.


If he was doing all of that when they met, and they were the reasons why she fell in love with him, then not doing them now would be cause for concern....as in there's something in the relationship that's not working.

If he never did those things with her in the past, but she married him anyways, but later finds out he did it with previous partners, then that's her issue to deal with, NOT his.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> But we both know that's not really how this works. Before working on your first baby - you kind of KNOW where you're at.
> 
> I guess I'm just not all that sympathetic to folks who engage in extended periods of denial regarding important stuff and then suddenly decide - that the status quo is a big fvcking problem.
> 
> That does NOT mean, Sid isn't entitled to try and improve his situation.
> 
> It does mean that he needs to approach that effort - in a sensible way.
> 
> So - for a moment - humor me. Let's say Sid's number one issue is frequency.
> 
> Why doesn't he start out with some version of the truth. And not his truth - Nancy's. That might sound like this:
> 
> I wish - when we played THAT game - it was as fun for you as it is for me.
> 
> That's the opener. Because the thing is - if it did feel as good for her as it does for him, frequency likely wouldn't be a big issue.
> 
> This 'I wish' statement opens a door that Nancy might be afraid to have opened herself. The one allows her to give him some feedback on what she wants more/less/different....
> 
> I wish you'd tell me how to make it better for you.


I guess what I'm saying is that I've seen women close the door, shove a doorjam under it, and say "I'm over it."

And the dude on the other side is like... wait a second...

Which would get magnified if it was very open for other dudes, but not him.

What would help me? I'm not sure. I'm very much not in that spot. I learned early on, then again after my ex wife who very much went down the whole goofy madonna/***** path, that GGG is the way to go. Before I knew what GGG was.

I makes me sad that other people can't get there, especially dudes that are all whiny and insecure about their wife's past, and especially women that slam the door shut forever because their husband was whiny and insecure about her past.


----------



## techmom

My experience on this topic is this, I was a virgin when I married my husband. He had numerous sexual partners and has done various things(3-somes, etc.). He wanted to marry someone "pure", because despite having sex with HD women he didn't find them worthy of marriage because they were "used". Anyway, he marries me thinking that he could "inspire" me to be the sexual goddess he wants. Better yet, he could be the only one in my life (no RJ here folks!).

Well, didn't quite work as planned, I'm LD and at the present time we are not sexual. I have lots of built up resentments from various issues over the years. He is not a happy camper and neither am I. I don't know what may happen in the future, but I'll bet you that I'll probably be more sexual with my next partner, because I will be sure to choose someone with a better attitude regarding women and sex.

For people who think that marrying a virgin will ensure a lifetime of sexual happiness in marriage, get your head out of your as$ and consider marrying a woman who is into sex. Whether she has a sexual history or not.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Techmom,
> Dont you think a healthy marriage is typically characterized by:
> 
> A lot of power, lightly used.
> ----------
> And that's a symmetrical statement. Or a bidirectional statement if you prefer.
> 
> For instance, M2 and I have the same magic phrase. It is not used in anger, or in spite. And it is used very sparingly.
> 
> *Babe, This is very important to me. Followed by some request. *
> 
> Truly cannot recall a case where that phrase did not produce a completely supportive response.


Insightful.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> It is oddly reassuring though to see that those men bent on ranking, judging, and comparing women are just as bent on ranking, judging and comparing themselves.


Ya, I think many of us do that.

Society is kinda engineered that way.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> What I do not accept, is that that means a death sentence for relationships in this spot, or that it means that the wife has to lie to her husband to make him feel better, or her husband needs to "best" the other guy to make him feel better.
> 
> Or that the wife needs to do something she doesn't want to do to appease her husband. Or that the husband can't ask for things he wants to do just because of her past.
> 
> If it seems like I'm not listening, I get that. Honestly, I'm trying. I can be a brick.


Marduk, you mentioned earlier that you'd feel 'bummed' if knew your wife had done something in the past that you wanted to do with her but she refused. 

So here are some questions for you, 

Do you think that she wouldn't recognize your sadness or upset? 

Do you think it brings her joy to see you 'bummed'?

Do you think she should own a part of your 'bummed' state?

Is it her responsibility to make you 'unbummed'?

And if so, what can she do to make you 'unbummed'?


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> My experience on this topic is this, I was a virgin when I married my husband. He had numerous sexual partners and has done various things(3-somes, etc.). He wanted to marry someone "pure", because despite having sex with HD women he didn't find them worthy of marriage because they were "used". Anyway, he marries me thinking that he could "inspire" me to be the sexual goddess he wants. Better yet, he could be the only one in my life (no RJ here folks!).
> 
> Well, didn't quite work as planned, I'm LD and at the present time we are not sexual. I have lots of built up resentments from various issues over the years. He is not a happy camper and neither am I. I don't know what may happen in the future, but I'll bet you that I'll probably be more sexual with my next partner, because I will be sure to choose someone with a better attitude regarding women and sex.
> 
> For people who think that marrying a virgin will ensure a lifetime of sexual happiness in marriage, get your head out of your as$ and consider marrying a woman who is into sex. Whether she has a sexual history or not.


I never would, and wouldn't advise my sons too, either, for that reason.

Everybody's gotta figure out who they are, and I think it's pretty normal and OK to do that with other people. Within reason and safety, you know?

Same reason that I think you gotta know if you're sexually compatible early on in the relationship before you invest too heavily emotionally in it. If you get emotionally fixated on the person, and sex is "meh" you'll probably overlook it.

Until years later and you're posting on TAM because you're unhappy with your sex life and want to leave.


----------



## always_alone

Lila said:


> Nancy, or any other woman with a sexual history who is dealing with this type of partner, is stuck in a no win situation. In order to appease her partner and protect his ego she either
> 
> a) has to invalidate her sexual history with regret (truthfully or not)
> 
> or
> 
> b) perform sexual activities from her past that she has no desire to do with her current partner AND, as you mentioned in your post, _* enjoy it*_ regardless of how she truly feels.


What is interesting about this thread is how clearly it shows how common this, even while some are trying to pretend it isn't. The whole Nancy Sid scenario is basically an effort to extract either regret or compliance from Nancy without any concern whatsoever about what she feels.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> Marduk, you mentioned earlier that you'd feel 'bummed' if knew your wife had done something in the past that you wanted to do with her but she refused.
> 
> So here are some questions for you,
> 
> Do you think that she wouldn't recognize your sadness or upset?


I'm very much not great at hiding my emotions. Not in a "OMG I'm going to put on mascara and listen to the Cure and write bad poetry while smoking clove cigarettes" kinda thing, but I'd probably get quiet and introspective about it.


> Do you think it brings her joy to see you 'bummed'?


Absolutely not. Sometimes it brings her joy to piss me of, or hurt me if she's hurting (another story), but never for no reason.


> Do you think she should own a part of your 'bummed' state?


I don't think so, if it was unintentional.


> Is it her responsibility to make you 'unbummed'?


I don't think it's her responsibility. I do think she could help, but I wouldn't hang it on her to 'fix' me being bummed.

I do think she shares responsibility for me being sexually satisfied, because we've agreed to be monogamous, and I think that comes with that deal. 

And she works pretty damn hard at that, as do I for her.


> And if so, what can she do to make you 'unbummed'?


I think she could say (and we've had these kind of conversations):

- I did it but didn't like it because {it hurt, it made me feel degraded, it turned me off} -- which I just drop. Usually, though, she will come back with something like "if you wanted to try this thing that's like that thing, I'm willing to, or we can try it gently and see if it works now as long as you're willing to stop if it does". She's pretty Game, as am I.

- I did it and it was fun but I can't imagine me wanting to do it again because {teenage rebellion, I don't have that kind of body any more (topless beach), or inappropriate (won't do it on the kitchen counters because we have kids in the house)} -- all of which is pretty negotiable if approached the right way that isn't a **** shamey way.

- I did it and liked it but can't imagine us doing it because we have settled into a particular role. Only example I can think of here is non-sexual: we never really danced. I'm a crappy dancer who basically flails himself around like I'm having an apoplectic fit. So when I took her dancing the first few times over the past few years, she was pretty uncomfortable, and refused at first. Even though I know she really liked to dance with other guys. But we still work at it, and she's willing to, and willing to teach me.

Now, the only times I've felt jealous or insecure is when she shoved gory details down my throat when I was trying to be romantic with her, or when she did with my friends. And then it was mostly about "why do you want me to think about you having sex with someone else" and "why are you trying to embarrass me and come off like you think about sex with other guys to other people?"

Which I get is probably a totally separate topic.


----------



## techmom

marduk said:


> Is what you're saying is that this triggers every feeling of being ashamed for your sex life... _forever?_
> 
> That it's verboten and no getting past that?
> 
> Or is there a better way to approach it?
> 
> If you think I don't understand that women are **** shamed and under tremendous pressure to simultaneously 'be sexy' and 'give up sex' and also be virginal, I do get that.
> 
> If you think I don't understand that some wives have an echo of their past reappear intentionally or unintentionally, and then get their husband crawling up their ass about it making them feel like ****, I do get that.
> 
> I think women are basically in a no-win scenario with sex. I think it's changing, but I think it's still very much there. Especially when it gets wrapped up in religion, society, feelings of self-esteem and self-worth, and like if they were one way once, they are branded to be that person forever.
> 
> I get all that, because as a dude, I've felt that, too.
> 
> Not in the same way as women -- I'm sure it's 1% or .1% of what some women have gone through. But all those things I just wrote applied at one time or another to me, too.
> 
> *What I do not accept, is that that means a death sentence for relationships in this spot, or that it means that the wife has to lie to her husband to make him feel better, or her husband needs to "best" the other guy to make him feel better.
> 
> Or that the wife needs to do something she doesn't want to do to appease her husband. Or that the husband can't ask for things he wants to do just because of her past.*
> 
> If it seems like I'm not listening, I get that. Honestly, I'm trying. I can be a brick.


I bolded that part because it reflects that you are not looking at reality, you are engaging in wishful thinking. Women are in a bind, and the responses in this thread from some men reflect that. 

We either have to fake enjoyment or lie in order to keep the peace if our husband finds that we engaged in certain sex acts in our past which we didn't share with him. This is fact, no fantasy scenario will change this in real life.

Some men have real insecurities due to being rejected in their pasts by various women. Again, I ask you to look at some responses in this thread. PUA sites and MMSL reflect a growing number of men who feel disadvantaged in the dating scene. They feel that women find only 20% of men attractive, that leaves them in the 80% of undesirable "Incel" men. They hate the 20% of "alpha" men who get all of the women and have all of the wild sex.

If you take a man with that mentality and put them in a relationship with a woman with a sexual past, it's a train wreck. He will imagine only the worst scenarios despite what she says.


----------



## always_alone

techmom said:


> To all of the ladies who liked my previous posts:
> 
> Please contribute your experiences on this topic, we have too many posts from there male perspective for it to be anything related to women's experiences.


The first guy I really fell for was into some bdsm type activities, and wanted to do things that brought me a fair bit of pain and no pleasure. I was game enough to try these things, and into this guy enough to put up with them for the time we were together.

The fact that I would never do these things again with anyone, no matter what, does not in any way reflect how much passion I had for this first guy as compared to the next. And if anyone wanted to pull this feeling sorry for themselves because they can't "inspire" me into it trip, well I'm afraid all I got is a big fat FU. If you think my pain should be your pleasure, or worse, your ego soother, you need to find someone else.

ETA: Just to be clear, though, I in no way regret this relationship. Except for the one thing that I didn't like, he was awesome, hot, and I would've stayed with him longer. But he dumped me and broke my heart. Somehow, though, I managed to move on and become passionate for others.


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> I bolded that part because it reflects that you are not looking at reality, you are engaging in wishful thinking. Women are in a bind, and the responses in this thread from some men reflect that.


And I would say that I don't believe in the no-win scenario.

Maybe that's wishful thinking. Or maybe it's a refusal to give up. I dunno.


> We either have to fake enjoyment or lie in order to keep the peace if our husband finds that we engaged in certain sex acts in our past which we didn't share with him. This is fact, no fantasy scenario will change this in real life.


My hope is that this is a false dichotomy.

It's not that I'm not listening.


> Some men have real insecurities due to being rejected in their pasts by various women. Again, I ask you to look at some responses in this thread. PUA sites and MMSL reflect a growing number of men who feel disadvantaged in the dating scene. They feel that women find only 20% of men attractive, that leaves them in the 80% of undesirable "Incel" men. They hate the 20% of "alpha" men who get all of the women and have all of the wild sex.
> 
> If you take a man with that mentality and put them in a relationship with a woman with a sexual past, it's a train wreck. He will imagine only the worst scenarios despite what she says.


I dunno. I mean I went through that whole red pill schtick, and came out the other side of that.

And I never felt the need to **** shame women at any time in that.

What will make this better for you?

If I accept that it's a no-win scenario?


----------



## samyeagar

I think some of this may just be fundamental differences between people and how they approach life in general. As an illustration...

Someone has a bad day at work. Something went wrong, and they are frustrated by it, and it's on their mind. When they get home, their partner is there, and asks them to do something, or what not, and they are grouchy and snippy with their partner all night. From what I have seen, that is a pretty common scenario for most people from time to time. The thing is, the person who had the bad day stopped at the store on the way home, they didn't have exactly what they needed, the cashier was kind of rude, then said it had been a very long day, yet the person heading home was still civil to cashier, told them they understood having a bad day, and so on.

We see things like this all of the time...treating people who are virtual strangers to us better than our partners. Basic decency and respect. Yes, I understand many feel that thy have more leeway with their partners, that their partners are going to be more understanding and forgiving, but isn't that akin to taking them for granted?

I guess what I am getting at here, that may tie back into what I have already been saying is that the issue as I see it is broader than just sex, though symptoms commonly manifest themselves there, it's about being the best one can be for their partner, and one shouldn't be shamed for expecting the same in return.


----------



## Cosmos

> Originally Posted by Cosmos
> 
> I certainly wouldn't have knowingly dated guys who frequented prostitutes, let alone slept with them.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by Faithful Wife View Post
> I agree Cosmos...





BetrayedDad said:


> I guess only guys can be slvt shamers.
> 
> Got it. Judge away.


I don't believe that having personal values and boundaries is being judgmental...


----------



## Marduk

Hang on, a thought occurs to me.

Is the issue that some women feel an _expectation_ from men that they perform or comply instead of a _hope_ that they share themselves?

Just like they may feel an _expectation_ that they only discovered they liked sex with their husband, not a _hope_ that they are having the best sex possible between the two of them?

Is that it?


----------



## farsidejunky

techmom said:


> For people who think that marrying a virgin will ensure a lifetime of sexual happiness in marriage, get your head out of your as$ and consider marrying a woman who is into sex. Whether she has a sexual history or not.


QFT.


----------



## techmom

marduk said:


> And I would say that I don't believe in the no-win scenario.
> 
> Maybe that's wishful thinking. Or maybe it's a refusal to give up. I dunno.
> 
> 
> My hope is that this is a false dichotomy.
> 
> It's not that I'm not listening.
> 
> 
> I dunno. I mean I went through that whole red pill schtick, and came out the other side of that.
> 
> And I never felt the need to **** shame women at any time in that.
> 
> What will make this better for you?
> 
> If I accept that it's a no-win scenario?


Some male responses in this thread reveal a need for some men to invalidate women's viewpoints and experiences. Until that stops, it will be a no-win scenario...


----------



## samyeagar

Another thing I wonder is how much is just simple misunderstanding...

Take again for example my wife's unfiltered comments about hot guys, and her resistance to affording me the same. For me, I understand that there are attractive men everywhere, and I have no expectation that she won't notice them, in fact, the occasional comment wouldn't bother me at all. Where it became an issue for me however was when it dawned on me that she had no problems vocalizing about other men, but never really said anything about me. So where was her hangup, what was it about me that I couldn't bring that out in her. When we discussed it, I was coming from the point of view that I wanted the same treatment she was affording others, which I think was wholly reasonable. It didn't cost anything, wasn't painful, degrading or anything else. What she heard was that I didn't want her noticing other men.

Another thing that I think is fairly common, is how the past and the present are approached differently. My wife does have a pretty extensive past, and I have overheard a lot about it. More than I ever cared to. I know a lot of people, especially when around friends they have known for a long time like to talk about the past, and sex does come up sometimes in those conversations. What I found though, and I think again, similarly to what I said above, I had never overheard my wife talking to friends about our sex life, yet did about others before me. While I had no desire to hear about my wife having sex with other guys, especially in detail, I think what really bothered m the most is that essentially I was not getting at least equal time, equal treatment.


----------



## Thundarr

Cosmos said:


> Quote:
> I don't believe that having personal values and boundaries is being judgmental...


Personal values, boundaries, likes and dislikes are a good thing whether it's judging or not (It sort of is IMO). Also I've found that some dislikes become less important when the chemistry is there.


----------



## ConanHub

Cosmos said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that having personal values and boundaries is being judgmental...


So how about if the man had changed and was ashamed of having sex with prostitutes and regrets it? 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

BetrayedDad said:


> I guess only guys can be slvt shamers.
> 
> Got it. Judge away.


Nice try. That's not the part I was agreeing with Cosmos about. I have been with men and women who have frequented sex workers, as well as having sex workers who are friends. Consensual sex work is legitimate work and I'm all for it. Also I wouldn't shame someone who didn't want to date someone for any reason, such as what Cosmos said. However, Cosmos did not further go on to sl*t shame anyone, she simply stated her preference in partners.


----------



## Thundarr

marduk said:


> Hang on, a thought occurs to me.
> 
> Is the issue that some women feel an _expectation_ from men that they perform or comply instead of a _hope_ that they share themselves?
> 
> Just like they may feel an _expectation_ that they only discovered they liked sex with their husband, not a _hope_ that they are having the best sex possible between the two of them?
> 
> Is that it?


Lol, now you're stirring the pot. Women can be vicious about judging other women and I think that contributes to them being worried about sharing things with their partner. It must be a vulnerable position when a women opens up and then if a guy gets all squirrelly and insecure then it feels like an emotional gut punch. Something she doesn't want to feel again.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> What is interesting about this thread is how clearly it shows how common this, even while some are trying to pretend it isn't. The whole Nancy Sid scenario is basically an effort to extract either regret or compliance from Nancy without any concern whatsoever about what she feels.


We can't forget where we are though, Always. This is TAM. The TAM community does not reflect the general population. I have never seen or heard of this behavior being a rampant problem anywhere else but TAM. There is a high number of men here who have been cheated on, dumped, duped, or hurt. Many of their views are skewed because of this, and that is not meant to be mean or snarky, it is simply an observation.

I have never been expected to feel shame about any past, nor to give a current partner any sexual favor I ever gave any past lover, ever. I have not always picked good partners, but never picked one who acted or spoke this way. 

I think it keeps getting over looked that simply feeling jealous or insecure *IS* normal and natural. I know for sure my H and I have both felt that way about each other's pasts, to varying degrees. We can't stand the thought of the other being with anyone else. We both openly admit this. So how do we handle that? We simply put it out of our minds. We know that we have a choice in what to think about. We care about ourselves and each other enough to not make our insecurities the other one's problem. If the need arises, we give each other reassurances. And most importantly, we always make each other feel beautiful and wanted and sexy...and we honestly feel that way about each other so it is easy.

There is no expectation of providing each other with anything sexual we've done with previous partners, and no expectation that the other should feel shame or regret. I think we both do have a little shame and regret about specific circumstances in our pasts...but not the sexual part or the pleasure or the pursuit of another person. Only because some part of the circumstance may not have turned out well or someone got hurt somehow. We have not discussed this, however, only hinted at it and neither probed the topic.

It really does make for a better sex life to be happy with who you are and happy with who your spouse is. The cloudy muck that is being discussed here is the biggest c*ck block EVER in relationships. I could never get it up for someone who thought they had the right to look down on me, nor for someone I felt I had to right to look down upon.


----------



## samyeagar

And yet another thought just occurred to me...

Comfort zones

Most people's comfort zones are defined by where they feel safe. Stepping outside that comfort zone often brings feelings of fear and discomfort. The unhealthy relationship where a person is willing to step out of their comfort zone because they feel they have to in order to keep the relationship. The fear and discomfort of stepping out of the comfort zone would seem to be less than the fear of losing the relationship. So in a healthy, loving, safe relationship, why wouldn't that comfort zone expand, or why wouldn't a partner willingly step outside it, knowing it would be safe? That almost seems to be another mindset of basically doing the minimum required, and only responding when forced to out of fear, rather than voluntarily out of love.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> We can't forget where we are though, Always. This is TAM. The TAM community does not reflect the general population. I have never seen or heard of this behavior being a rampant problem anywhere else but TAM. There is a high number of men here who have been cheated on, dumped, duped, or hurt. Many of their views are skewed because of this, and that is not meant to be mean or snarky, it is simply an observation.


True. But I have been slvt-shamed, not by my current SO, but past bfs.

And I was just talking to a friend who is currently suffering an onslaught of slvt shaming, by of course, a guy who was more than happy to sleep with her and has his own sexual history.

The double standard is rife on TAM, but is also out here in the real world.


----------



## Faithful Wife

techmom said:


> My experience on this topic is this, I was a virgin when I married my husband. He had numerous sexual partners and has done various things(3-somes, etc.). He wanted to marry someone "pure", because despite having sex with HD women he didn't find them worthy of marriage because they were "used". Anyway, he marries me thinking that he could "inspire" me to be the sexual goddess he wants. Better yet, he could be the only one in my life (no RJ here folks!).
> 
> Well, didn't quite work as planned, I'm LD and at the present time we are not sexual. I have lots of built up resentments from various issues over the years. He is not a happy camper and neither am I. I don't know what may happen in the future, but I'll bet you that I'll probably be more sexual with my next partner, because I will be sure to choose someone with a better attitude regarding women and sex.
> 
> For people who think that marrying a virgin will ensure a lifetime of sexual happiness in marriage, get your head out of your as$ and consider marrying a woman who is into sex. Whether she has a sexual history or not.


Your voice is so needed here, techmom.

Can I ask a question? When you first got together with your H, did you realize he had a bad attitude toward "easy" women? Or did you realize that later? If you did know about it, did you just naively think he "didn't really mean it"?


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> True. But I have been slvt-shamed, not by my current SO, but past bfs.
> 
> And I was just talking to a friend who is currently suffering an onslaught of slvt shaming, by of course, a guy who was more than happy to sleep with her and has his own sexual history.
> 
> The double standard is rife on TAM, but is also out here in the real world.


That sucks. I am sorry you have endured this and that your friend has.

I still think there is way more of it at TAM than in the general population. But then again, I live in Portland. It's pretty acceptable to be a sl*t here so maybe I see less of it than others.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> Lol, now you're stirring the pot. Women can be vicious about judging other women and I think that contributes to them being worried about sharing things with their partner. It must be a vulnerable position when a women opens up and then if a guy gets all squirrelly and insecure then it feels like an emotional gut punch. Something she doesn't want to feel again.


Huh? I don't get what you are saying here. If a spouse is going to get tall squirrely over hearing about his wife's past, it is going to be difficult to talk to him about it. What does that have to do with "vicious" women (a common trope on TAM, but not something I have experienced)


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> Take again for example my wife's unfiltered comments about hot guys, and her resistance to affording me the same. For me, I understand that there are attractive men everywhere, and I have no expectation that she won't notice them, in fact, the occasional comment wouldn't bother me at all. Where it became an issue for me however was when it dawned on me that she had no problems vocalizing about other men, but never really said anything about me. So where was her hangup, what was it about me that I couldn't bring that out in her. When we discussed it, I was coming from the point of view that I wanted the same treatment she was affording others, which I think was wholly reasonable. .....
> 
> While I had no desire to hear about my wife having sex with other guys, especially in detail, I think what really bothered m the most is that essentially I was not getting at least equal time, equal treatment.


sam...I'm going to go out on a limb.

What if you are not as hot in her eyes as the beefcakes on social media, and what if you are not the "most gossip worthy" sex she's ever had?

What if that is why there is this unequal treatment?

Would that be ok with you? You've had this sinking gut feeling all during this relationship because these things bother you so much. Is there any way you could just assume what I said above, and deal with it? Or does she have to prove (beyond what she has already told you and done with you) that you ARE better and best and hottest?

And understand...I know about the sex lives you guys have and am positive it is the best she's ever had in every way. I'm just thinking maybe it is not the most gossip worthy, and maybe you aren't the beefiest.

Would that be something you could live with? And if so, maybe you could finally stop having that sinking gut feeling about it.


----------



## techmom

Faithful Wife said:


> Your voice is so needed here, techmom.
> 
> Can I ask a question? When you first got together with your H, did you realize he had a bad attitude toward "easy" women? Or did you realize that later? If you did know about it, did you just naively think he "didn't really mean it"?


Thank you. This topic hits close to home.

I didn't learn of his negative attitude until I asked him about the women in his past he would compare me to, saying things like " gee why don't you like to do this" or "such and such orgasms from this, why don't you?". I asked him, well why don't you marry her then? And he would call them used goods. I would say, well then you married ME, and I'm different.

This being my first sexual relationship, it took me awhile to assert my voice. This is why I get angry when male posters derail threads meant for women to voice their opinion and share their experiences.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> We can't forget where we are though, Always. This is TAM. The TAM community does not reflect the general population. I have never seen or heard of this behavior being a rampant problem anywhere else but TAM. There is a high number of men here who have been cheated on, dumped, duped, or hurt. Many of their views are skewed because of this, and that is not meant to be mean or snarky, it is simply an observation.


Forums in general aren't the best form of communication because there's so much hypothetical discussion, differing context, and projection. And then as you point out, there are many here going through or have gone through relationship problems. The only think I would add is that both genders bring plenty of baggage to these discussions.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> And yet another thought just occurred to me...
> 
> Comfort zones
> 
> Most people's comfort zones are defined by where they feel safe. Stepping outside that comfort zone often brings feelings of fear and discomfort. The unhealthy relationship where a person is willing to step out of their comfort zone because they feel they have to in order to keep the relationship. The fear and discomfort of stepping out of the comfort zone would seem to be less than the fear of losing the relationship. So in a healthy, loving, safe relationship, why wouldn't that comfort zone expand, or why wouldn't a partner willingly step outside it, knowing it would be safe? That almost seems to be another mindset of basically doing the minimum required, and only responding when forced to out of fear, rather than voluntarily out of love.



I think there are several things being run together here that are worthwhile separating out.

In an unhealthy relationship, when it is fear and/or desperation driving behaviour, this isn't really about "effort". It is fear and/or desperation and desperate people do desperate things. This is true in all realms, not just sexual ones. To "wish" for this level of desperation in a relationship (not saying you are doing this, just that it seems to be a common wish) is, to my mind, a kind of proof that all of this is all about score keeping and ego soothing, not about genuine compassion or care for a partner. I am alternately saddened and horrified by the number of posters here who seem to not care at all if what is driving their oartner's behaviour, as long as they get what they want. (Again, not saying this is you, just a common attitude).

In a healthy relationship, people will step out of their comfort zone, but a few things need to be in place first, primarily trust. And if you (one) are being slvt shamed or berated for something you did in the past, that trust is not likely to be there. Plus, there will still be boundaries. I am more than happy to expand my comfort zone, but I am absolutely not willing to do some things, even though I have done them in the past. 

As for what is driving your wife, I don't really have any insight into that. It strikes me, though, that she is less vocal about you, less chatty, has to do with the intimacy you have, the fact that you are current and present, and the others are just abstractions or in the past. The distance makes it easier to be open about, the closeness makes it more difficult. 

Does that make any sense?


----------



## always_alone

techmom said:


> I didn't learn of his negative attitude until I asked him about the women in his past he would compare me to, saying things like " gee why don't you like to do this" or "such and such orgasms from this, why don't you?". I asked him, well why don't you marry her then? And he would call them used goods. I would say, well then you married ME, and I'm different.


Yikes! I'm angry on your behalf. Talk about no-win. Those other women are shamed for having sex with him, and you are being shamed for not being those women.

What an a$$! I hope you are clear that this is all on him, and no reflection on you.


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> Lol, now you're stirring the pot. Women can be vicious about judging other women and I think that contributes to them being worried about sharing things with their partner. It must be a vulnerable position when a women opens up and then if a guy gets all squirrelly and insecure then it feels like an emotional gut punch. Something she doesn't want to feel again.
> 
> 
> always_alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? I don't get what you are saying here. If a spouse is going to get tall squirrely over hearing about his wife's past, it is going to be difficult to talk to him about it. What does that have to do with "vicious" women (a common trope on TAM, but not something I have experienced)
Click to expand...

It doesn't compute huh. Maybe you're looking for a slam in there but there's not one. I've just seen women be hard on them selves and other women IRL. It was a lot more common when I was younger though. Mainly what I was saying is that opening up can be scary and if you share something personal and are a little worried about being judged then a guy acting squirrelly and insecure likely re enforces that fear.

I can't explain it any better so I hope it makes sense and you aren't looking for where I'm trying to slam either gender because I'm not.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> sam...I'm going to go out on a limb.
> 
> What if you are not as hot in her eyes as the beefcakes on social media, and what if you are not the "most gossip worthy" sex she's ever had?
> 
> What if that is why there is this unequal treatment?
> 
> Would that be ok with you? You've had this sinking gut feeling all during this relationship because these things bother you so much. Is there any way you could just assume what I said above, and deal with it? Or does she have to prove (beyond what she has already told you and done with you) that you ARE better and best and hottest?
> 
> And understand...I know about the sex lives you guys have and am positive it is the best she's ever had in every way. I'm just thinking maybe it is not the most gossip worthy, and maybe you aren't the beefiest.
> 
> Would that be something you could live with? And if so, maybe you could finally stop having that sinking gut feeling about it.


Mm... There are many possible explanations for this. 

My wife does it, too. Used to drive me crazy, because she could laugh and giggle about some movie star and if I even said a word or took more than a glance, she would be upset. 

Turns out, for her, it's an expression of her individuality and rebellion against overly conservative parents, as well as actually feeling insecure. Trying to bump me down a notch, if you will. 

Whereas if I were to answer if a supermodel is hot honestly, she gets distraught - because of the insecurity. 

It doesn't seem to matter that she's smoking hot, or always has been.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> It doesn't compute huh. Maybe you're looking for a slam in there but there's not one. I've just seen women be hard on them selves and other women IRL. It was a lot more common when I was younger though. Mainly what I was saying is that opening up can be scary and if you share something personal and are a little worried about being judged then a guy acting squirrelly and insecure likely re enforces that fear.
> 
> I can't explain it any better so I hope it makes sense and you aren't looking for where I'm trying to slam either gender because I'm not.


Not looking for a slam, I just don't see what one thing has to do with the other. And honestly I still don't.


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> Thank you. This topic hits close to home.
> 
> I didn't learn of his negative attitude until I asked him about the women in his past he would compare me to, saying things like " gee why don't you like to do this" or "such and such orgasms from this, why don't you?". I asked him, well why don't you marry her then? And he would call them used goods. I would say, well then you married ME, and I'm different.
> 
> This being my first sexual relationship, it took me awhile to assert my voice. This is why I get angry when male posters derail threads meant for women to voice their opinion and share their experiences.


Ouch. I'm so sorry. 

He needs to mature, sexually.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

techmom said:


> Thank you. This topic hits close to home.
> 
> I didn't learn of his negative attitude until I asked him about the women in his past he would compare me to, saying things like " gee why don't you like to do this" or "such and such orgasms from this, why don't you?". I asked him, well why don't you marry her then? And he would call them used goods. I would say, well then you married ME, and I'm different.
> 
> This being my first sexual relationship, it took me awhile to assert my voice. This is why I get angry when male posters derail threads meant for women to voice their opinion and share their experiences.


Wow, he was destined to have marital issues and it sounds like he still doesn't get. I'm sorry you ended up in this quicksand.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> Not looking for a slam, I just don't see what one thing has to do with the other. And honestly I still don't.


Just read them as two points then. The important point to me is that I do think a lot of women are hard on themselves and then that adds some emotional baggage to the equation.


----------



## MEM2020

Techmom,
Oh - that is not good. Did he come fully loaded with the deluxe: angry judgemental person package? 

Not just about sex. About lots of things. 





UOTE=techmom;13965713]My experience on this topic is this, I was a virgin when I married my husband. He had numerous sexual partners and has done various things(3-somes, etc.). He wanted to marry someone "pure", because despite having sex with HD women he didn't find them worthy of marriage because they were "used". Anyway, he marries me thinking that he could "inspire" me to be the sexual goddess he wants. Better yet, he could be the only one in my life (no RJ here folks!).

Well, didn't quite work as planned, I'm LD and at the present time we are not sexual. I have lots of built up resentments from various issues over the years. He is not a happy camper and neither am I. I don't know what may happen in the future, but I'll bet you that I'll probably be more sexual with my next partner, because I will be sure to choose someone with a better attitude regarding women and sex.

For people who think that marrying a virgin will ensure a lifetime of sexual happiness in marriage, get your head out of your as$ and consider marrying a woman who is into sex. Whether she has a sexual history or not.[/QUOTE]


----------



## ConanHub

techmom said:


> Thank you. This topic hits close to home.
> 
> I didn't learn of his negative attitude until I asked him about the women in his past he would compare me to, saying things like " gee why don't you like to do this" or "such and such orgasms from this, why don't you?". I asked him, well why don't you marry her then? And he would call them used goods. I would say, well then you married ME, and I'm different.
> 
> This being my first sexual relationship, it took me awhile to assert my voice. This is why I get angry when male posters derail threads meant for women to voice their opinion and share their experiences.


WOW! Pretty clueless husband. I would have worked with you on our sexuality which every couple should do anyway. I have a hard time understanding that such ignorance exists.

Sorry for your experience. Ouch!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

always_alone said:


> Yikes! I'm angry on your behalf. Talk about no-win. Those other women are shamed for having sex with him, and you are being shamed for not being those women.
> 
> What an a$$! I hope you are clear that this is all on him, and no reflection on you.


I suspect this happens in lots of relationships with women who are virgins, more often than not. A man who is secure in himself would look for a woman with similar experience in sex.

I have a friend who was a virgin as well, she left her husband for similar reasons. Men who look for the "virgin bride" wants a life free from mind movies, RJ and hurt. They fail to realize that women are not defined by terms like s!ut and virgin, we are individuals with feelings and experiences. Either way, it doesn't guarantee she will never leave, or give you the most freaky sex.

We are who we are.


----------



## MEM2020

Techmom, 
This is fvcking appalling. 

And doing this to someone who is not yet secure, because they are inexperienced - is hateful. 

Is this why you mentioned the bit about the power dynamic. About the goal being to have power through love or fear?

In the beginning, it was love wasn't it? He took advantage of your love for him. 

I'm sorry if my analogy about working - offended. 

There is no analog for this. 





techmom said:


> Thank you. This topic hits close to home.
> 
> I didn't learn of his negative attitude until I asked him about the women in his past he would compare me to, saying things like " gee why don't you like to do this" or "such and such orgasms from this, why don't you?". I asked him, well why don't you marry her then? And he would call them used goods. I would say, well then you married ME, and I'm different.
> 
> This being my first sexual relationship, it took me awhile to assert my voice. This is why I get angry when male posters derail threads meant for women to voice their opinion and share their experiences.


----------



## ConanHub

techmom said:


> I suspect this happens in lots of relationships with women who are virgins, more often than not. A man who is secure in himself would look for a woman with similar experience in sex.
> 
> I have a friend who was a virgin as well, she left her husband for similar reasons. Men who look for the "virgin bride" wants a life free from mind movies, RJ and hurt. They fail to realize that women are not defined by terms like s!ut and virgin, we are individuals with feelings and experiences. Either way, it doesn't guarantee she will never leave, or give you the most freaky sex.
> 
> We are who we are.


Well, there are belief systems that determine virginity until marriage as well. Equal sexual experience is no indicator of success either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

techmom said:


> I suspect this happens in lots of relationships with women who are virgins, more often than not. A man who is secure in himself would look for a woman with similar experience in sex.
> 
> I have a friend who was a virgin as well, she left her husband for similar reasons. Men who look for the "virgin bride" wants a life free from mind movies, RJ and hurt. They fail to realize that women are not defined by terms like s!ut and virgin, we are individuals with feelings and experiences. Either way, it doesn't guarantee she will never leave, or give you the most freaky sex.
> 
> We are who we are.


A man who is secure wouldn't make references to exes either. THAT is something I know all about with my hb.

Your hb is extremely insecure and seeks to maintain the emotional upper hand by marrying someone with no experience (so he has nobody to compete with) and sticking exes in your face so you always feel like you have to compete. 

It's really a pathetic, unattractive quality and I'm so sorry you're dealing with it. You deserve so much better.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

ConanHub said:


> Well, there are belief systems that determine virginity until marriage as well. Equal sexual experience is no indicator of success either.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


All belief systems that require this are also misogynistic. Equal sexual experience indicates equal power imo.


----------



## ConanHub

techmom said:


> All belief systems that require this are also misogynistic. Equal sexual experience indicates equal power imo.


Bvllshyt.

I wasn't being gender specific and I have a lot of experience observing couples of all kinds of backgrounds.

I've a close friend who remained a virgin until marriage, he is a Christian, and he married an ex party girl.

She had loads of some of the most wild sexual experiences and he had none.

Her experience didn't translate into anything positive in their relationship and his inexperience didn't either. They had to learn each other and have one of the healthiest marriages, in all aspects especially sexual, that I have ever seen.

The difference between you and your H in experience isn't the issue.

The fact that he is an idiot jack ass is.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Techmom,

Still a bit stuck - on this post. 

Does T2 understand his contribution to the current state of your marriage? 

Has he ever had a moment where you can see on his face, that he realizes just how ugly he's been? 




techmom said:


> Thank you. This topic hits close to home.
> 
> I didn't learn of his negative attitude until I asked him about the women in his past he would compare me to, saying things like " gee why don't you like to do this" or "such and such orgasms from this, why don't you?". I asked him, well why don't you marry her then? And he would call them used goods. I would say, well then you married ME, and I'm different.
> 
> This being my first sexual relationship, it took me awhile to assert my voice. This is why I get angry when male posters derail threads meant for women to voice their opinion and share their experiences.


----------



## techmom

MEM11363 said:


> Techmom,
> This is fvcking appalling.
> 
> And doing this to someone who is not yet secure, because they are inexperienced - is hateful.
> 
> Is this why you mentioned the bit about the power dynamic. About the goal being to have power through love or fear?
> 
> In the beginning, it was love wasn't it? He took advantage of your love for him.
> 
> I'm sorry if my analogy about working - offended.
> 
> There is no analog for this.


Every woman has her first sexual relationship, so happens that instead of leaving him I stayed married for 20+ years. I had less power as far as sex, but I was a very intelligent girl and challenged him when I knew he was wrong. He's conservative and I'm a liberal feminist atheist. Proud too.

This is why I'm also against teaching girls that sex is for after marriage, it is for when you are ready and found a partner who is also in tune with your feelings and desires. That is important more than everything else.


----------



## samyeagar

techmom said:


> ConanHub said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are belief systems that determine virginity until marriage as well. Equal sexual experience is no indicator of success either.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> 
> 
> 
> All belief systems that require this are also misogynistic. Equal sexual experience indicates equal power imo.
Click to expand...

Aaaaand then how do you define sexual experience? It it defined by the acts done? Number of partners? What exactly are the criteria?


----------



## Cosmos

techmom said:


> Thank you. This topic hits close to home.
> 
> I didn't learn of his negative attitude until I asked him about the women in his past he would compare me to, saying things like *" gee why don't you like to do this" or "such and such orgasms from this, why don't you?". I asked him, well why don't you marry her then? And he would call them used goods.* I would say, well then you married ME, and I'm different.
> 
> This being my first sexual relationship, it took me awhile to assert my voice. This is why I get angry when male posters derail threads meant for women to voice their opinion and share their experiences.


I'm so sorry that you've had to contend with such revolting behaviour, Techmom...

I would have felt inclined to turn it around on him and say something along the lines of:-

"But, Sweetie... you _knew_ I was a virgin and that you were going to have the pleasure of teaching me all about sex... I hate to say it, darling, but perhaps you're just a lousy lover and an even lousier teacher!"


----------



## Cosmos

techmom said:


> This is why I'm also against teaching girls that sex is for after marriage, it is for when you are ready and found a partner who is also in tune with your feelings and desires. That is important more than everything else.


^^^ A like wasn't enough!


----------



## techmom

ConanHub said:


> Bvllshyt.
> 
> I wasn't being gender specific and I have a lot of experience observing couples of all kinds of backgrounds.
> 
> I've a close friend who remained a virgin until marriage, he is a Christian, and he married an ex party girl.
> 
> She had loads of some of the most wild sexual experiences and he had none.
> 
> Her experience didn't translate into anything positive in their relationship and his inexperience didn't either. They had to learn each other and have one of the healthiest marriages, in all aspects especially sexual, that I have ever seen.
> 
> The difference between you and your H in experience isn't the issue.
> 
> The fact that he is an idiot jack ass is.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Still, from what I experienced in my life and my friends, the power shifts to the person with more experience. The percentage of men who are virgins and marry party girls compared to it being the other way around... Most men don't marry when they are virgins unless their girlfriend is a virgin as well. To avoid the RJ factor as evidenced in this thread and others.


----------



## techmom

samyeagar said:


> Aaaaand then how do you define sexual experience? It it defined by the acts done? Number of partners? What exactly are the criteria?


Sexual experience = experience having sex


----------



## techmom

Cosmos said:


> I'm so sorry that you've had to contend with such revolting behaviour, Techmom...
> 
> I would have felt inclined to turn it around on him and say something along the lines of:-
> 
> "But, Sweetie... you _knew_ I was a virgin and that you were going to have the pleasure of teaching me all about sex... I hate to say it, darling, but perhaps you're just a lousy lover and an even lousier teacher!"


I've said things like that and worse...>


----------



## ConanHub

techmom said:


> Still, from what I experienced in my life and my friends, the power shifts to the person with more experience. The percentage of men who are virgins and marry party girls compared to it being the other way around... Most men don't marry when they are virgins unless their girlfriend is a virgin as well. To avoid the RJ factor as evidenced in this thread and others.


As stated earlier, this thread is not a good example of most people.

I have had the opportunity to observe many couples and I actually have not encountered men like described in this thread IRL.

I would believe that you are part of a certain social group if that is the only type of man you have encountered.

I have never seen men with that mindset personally.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Techmom,
LOL

This type response makes me think that, as time went on you learned to give as good as you got. That makes me smile. 

Ironic that the atheist came into the marriage a virgin, and the 'conservative/Christian/other' came in with a steamer trunk worth of experience. 




techmom said:


> Sexual experience = experience having sex


----------



## Mr.Fisty

I think perception about sex is also important. Luckily my parents were not around to teach me pretty much anything and it was advantageous to learn from a source that is not reliant on views of morality, but pure sexual facts.

For instance, if you learn that masturbation is bad, you will have hang ups in the future when it comes to it. Sex can be a positive experience. It allows you to explore and discover what your sexual likes and dislikes are.

Btw, I do not find divorce as failure. Perhaps the one whose behavior ended the relationship, neglect, abuse, infidelity, and so on. If you are in a terrible situation and leave, I call that success and quite frankly do not care what the divorce rate is. It should be how is your life's satisfaction.

@techmom, I wish you the best and hope you find a more positive partner. I can see his background and culture causing his dysfunction and how he views sex.

Our culture has terms like loose, one used in this particular thread, slvts, wh0res, and a whole slew of derogatory terms.

Reasons why we end up sometimes with dysfunction like the Madonna/wh0re complex. Why we have woman lowering their actual numbers, and men being shamed so they up their number.

I think that still a major part of our culture is why our sexual dysfunction is a reoccurring theme.

Like the Steubenville rape trial, where the majority of the school shamed the victim and placed the rapist on a pedestal. It took national condemnation for even a investigation to occur.

Sex in itself can be a fun experience without the whole emotional entanglement thing. It can reduce stress, increase mood,and surprising enough can help with focus. For instance, a high school student or college student can benefit a lot from a healthy sex life. It releases beneficial feel good hormones. During this phase of life, young adults tend to suffer stress and anxiety. Positive sex experience can help reduce those things. It is better than the alternate of drugs and alcohol. During this stage, there is a decent percentage of young adults that will experiment with drugs and self medicate. There is a lot of rapid growth in the brain during this stage and sex and a good amount of sleep can help.


----------



## Marduk

One thing I think is odd when considering #s of partners...

I could have one partner, and had kinky sex thousands of times.

Or I could have 100 partners, and have had quick missionary sex in the dark... 100 times.


----------



## lifeistooshort

MEM11363 said:


> Techmom,
> LOL
> 
> This type response makes me think that, as time went on you learned to give as good as you got. That makes me smile.
> 
> Ironic that the atheist came into the marriage a virgin, and the 'conservative/Christian/other' came in with a steamer trunk worth of experience.


A lot of conservatives like this have a low opinion of women in general and feel that we have a specific place inferior to them. Because we are inferior we need to have higher standards of behavior, so although he as a man is entitled we as women are not.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BetrayedDad

marduk said:


> Or I could have 100 partners, and have had quick missionary sex in the dark... 100 times.


How special is something you've done with 100 people? At that point doesn't sex becomes like shaking hands? I thought it was an expression of intimacy and affection. Apparently, that's a ridiculous notion around here.


----------



## ConanHub

marduk said:


> One thing I think is odd when considering #s of partners...
> 
> I could have one partner, and had kinky sex thousands of times.
> 
> Or I could have 100 partners, and have had quick missionary sex in the dark... 100 times.


I absolutely view one partner with thousands of times in a more positive light than one time with a hundred.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> Which brings us back to the original topic about regret. Do you think Sid would be able to let go of his desire to have the 'old' Nancy if she admitted regret over her sexual history with Johnny? If she called it all a believed her.ig mistake and one that she wishes never to repeat?


I think Sid would be able to get over it if she expressed regret and believed her.

I do not think Sid would be able to get over it if she talked about how fondly she remembered it.

However, that DOES NOT mean that Sid is making her lie about it. If she does, that would be her choice.

If I'd always wanted my wife to do anal (I don't) and I found out that she did it with the football jock in college: 

If she said she tried it once and regretted it (didn't like it, it was painful), I'd understand and lay off. 

If she said that she did it and really enjoyed it, I would be upset.

But, that's not ME making her lie about it.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings us back to the original topic about regret. Do you think Sid would be able to let go of his desire to have the 'old' Nancy if she admitted regret over her sexual history with Johnny? If she called it all a believed her.ig mistake and one that she wishes never to repeat?
> 
> 
> 
> I think Sid would be able to get over it if she expressed regret and believed her.
> 
> I do not think Sid would be able to get over it if she talked about how fondly she remembered it.
> 
> However, that DOES NOT mean that Sid is making her lie about it. If she does, that would be her choice.
> 
> If I'd always wanted my wife to do anal (I don't) and I found out that she did it with the football jock in college:
> 
> If she said she tried it once and regretted it (didn't like it, it was painful), I'd understand and lay off.
> 
> If she said that she did it and really enjoyed it, I would be upset.
> 
> But, that's not ME making her lie about it.
Click to expand...

Your response is pretty much in line with what others who have responded to the question have said. Just reinforces my OP about women having to 'clean the slate' after every relationship. 

------------------------

My advise to any woman that's dating now is don't share sexual history information except to state what specific activities you like or are open to. Understand that like Miranda rights, "anything you say can and will be used against you" so be very careful with whom you choose to share that information. If you choose to answer questions about your history, then do so directly. Stick to facts and don't offer extra information that doesn't specifically address the question.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Reminds me of a thread on this site or another one where the husband asks the wife what was the biggest penis she has ever experienced. Well, the answer made him shut down and then punish her by calling her a slvt. I guess she should apologize for having sex with said larger penis. And someone pays the price for being honest.

Imagine if the partner said that the other person was a better lover. Some of us could handle it and are happy that they had a positive sexual experience, while others will think they are terrible and go into extremes and punish the other. I am happy as long as the sex is great. Not every experience is the best ever unless I win at street fighter. It is the only time I am allowed to beat up my gf, LOL.


----------



## Cosmos

Personal said:


> I think Sid ought to pull his head out of his ar$e and get over himself!
> 
> Why on earth should Nancy have to express regret for something she enjoyed or alternatively didn't enjoy yet chose to do?
> 
> Why should Nancy be compelled to assuage Sid's self indulgent insecurities at the expense of her own self worth?
> 
> If Sid is unwilling to pull his head out of his ar$e, Nancy ought to do herself a favour and get a divorce.


I agree.

Talk about manipulative behaviour!

Sid would _only_ be able to get over it if Nancy expressed regret, yet it wouldn't be Sid's fault if she felt compelled to lie to him about feeling regret...

Unbefreakinlievable...:scratchhead:


----------



## Starstarfish

There's a difference between not enjoying something and regretting it. The two aren't mutually connected.

I didn't regret the time I went on that one roller coaster at Six Flags, it was a life experience. But I'm also sure as hell not doing it again either.

I've also enjoyed some things at the time but kind of regret them later when you are retroactively embarrassed thinking about it. (Drunk karaokee anyone? )

So this idea that a woman has to -regret- a sexual choice in the past to make someone else feel better. Yeah ... that's a if not the key issue in this thread. Forced regret is like making a little kid say sorry when they clearly aren't. Who really feels better with it? And can say you are not forcing it, but it's an impossible choice you are presenting.


----------



## techmom

Cosmos said:


> I agree.
> 
> Talk about manipulative behaviour!
> 
> Sid would _only_ be able to get over it if Nancy expressed regret, yet it wouldn't be Sid's fault if she felt compelled to lie to him about feeling regret...
> 
> Unbefreakinlievable...:scratchhead:


I can't like this post enough ....


----------



## Buddy400

Anon1111 said:


> It would take actual empathy on the part of both Sid and Nancy. Not a competition as to who is the biggest victim in this scenario.
> 
> As we can see in this thread, that level of empathy seems pretty rare.


This my main take-away from this thread.

Nobody cares that Sid is in pain.

He's a putz, he's insecure, he's a man and, besides, sex. What's to feel empathy about?

Does someone have to be a flawless human being to get empathy?


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> Nancy feels no need to change, Sid is the one with the unmet needs.


If my wife had unmet needs, I'd consider changing.


----------



## Thundarr

Cosmos said:


> I agree.
> 
> Talk about manipulative behaviour!
> 
> Sid would _only_ be able to get over it if Nancy expressed regret, yet it wouldn't be Sid's fault if she felt compelled to lie to him about feeling regret...
> 
> Unbefreakinlievable...:scratchhead:


Yes it is unbefreakinlievable on the surface. I suspect the guys who have indicated that regret would matter to them are fixated on a context where Nancy used to love *X* and Sid wants *X *and she never told him about *X* and he learned *X* by total accident while seeing Nancy talk about *X* in a dreamy state of nostalgia longing for *X*. That's not a very realistic scenario so I wouldn't read too much into those comments because they are built on 'what ifs' and not reality.


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> Some guys just don't get it, Nancy was probably ashamed of how she behaved to keep Johnny. ]


Really? I thought she wasn't supposed to have regrets.


----------



## Thundarr

techmom said:


> Some guys just don't get it, Nancy was probably ashamed of how she behaved to keep Johnny. Now, she has to change again to keep Sid happy. That part is being left out and misunderstood, but the ladies get it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Thank you for saying 'some' tech. You're right that some guys focus on their own thoughts and don't see that angle.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> There's no need to bring sex workers into this even. Do men regret their sexual history? From what I've seen, they revel in it.
> 
> Indeed, women here are routinely advised that their man will be watching porn, imagining fvcking their friends, sisters, neighbours, and random women on the street. That they've had hotter babes in the past that they still revisit, and that they will be less and less interested in us as we age. And all of this is *current*, not in some distant far away land. Yet, the response to women's insecurity around these issues is basically, "Deal. We're men. That's what we do."
> 
> Well, Sid, I got news for you. Women too are quite capable of being attracted to other men and fully enjoying sex with them. And you know what? She did Johnny because she *wanted* to. And should you split, she'll probably find someone else that she *wants* to have sex with.


Well, the problem here is that, 60 pages in, I haven't seen a man here say that women *should* regret their sexual history.

So let's just all just agree that women shouldn't have to regret their sexual history and transfer the last 59 pages to a new post that talks about something that's less clear.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> This my main take-away from this thread.
> 
> Nobody cares that Sid is in pain.
> 
> He's a putz, he's insecure, he's a man and, besides, sex. What's to feel empathy about?
> 
> Does someone have to be a flawless human being to get empathy?


Sid would get plenty of sympathy if he would just admit that he is in pain, that he's feeling jealous, insecure, and inadequate, in need of reassurance, instead of taking it all out on Nancy, determined to make her feel bad about herself for having the audacity to have had a life before he came into the picture.


----------



## techmom

always_alone said:


> Sid would get plenty of sympathy if he would just admit that he is in pain, that he's feeling jealous, insecure, and inadequate, in need of reassurance, instead of taking it all out on Nancy, determined to make her feel bad about herself for having the audacity to have had a life before he came into the picture.


Personally I think that discussing make-believe characters distracts from the real discussion, because we can hypothesize all day and night on what these characters are feeling to suit our agendas or biases.

Therefore I am going to refrain from even mentioning them.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> What is interesting about this thread is how clearly it shows how common this, even while some are trying to pretend it isn't. The whole Nancy Sid scenario is basically an effort to extract either regret or compliance from Nancy without any concern whatsoever about what she feels.


NOT AT ALL.

The whole Nancy / Sid scenario is an attempt to let women know why situations like Nancy / Sid can be a problem for some guys. I have not seen a single man claim that Nancy should regret her actions with Johnny.

I have no idea on what you base your statement that we are all "trying to pretend".

Here's an idea, you could give us the benefit of the doubt and assume that we actually mean what we say.


----------



## techmom

Buddy400 said:


> If I'd always wanted my wife to do anal (I don't) and I found out that she did it with the football jock in college:
> 
> If she said she tried it once and regretted it (didn't like it, it was painful), I'd understand and lay off.
> 
> If she said that she did it and really enjoyed it, I would be upset.
> 
> But, that's not ME making her lie about it.


Buddy, I think you forgot this post where you clearly state that a woman will make her SO upset if she states that she enjoyed doing certain sex acts in her past. So therefore, in order to make the hubby happy she has to state that she regrets it, right?


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> sam...I'm going to go out on a limb.
> 
> What if you are not as hot in her eyes as the beefcakes on social media, and what if you are not the "most gossip worthy" sex she's ever had?
> 
> What if that is why there is this unequal treatment?
> 
> Would that be ok with you? You've had this sinking gut feeling all during this relationship because these things bother you so much. Is there any way you could just assume what I said above, and deal with it? Or does she have to prove (beyond what she has already told you and done with you) that you ARE better and best and hottest?
> 
> And understand...I know about the sex lives you guys have and am positive it is the best she's ever had in every way. I'm just thinking maybe it is not the most gossip worthy, and maybe you aren't the beefiest.
> 
> Would that be something you could live with? And if so, maybe you could finally stop having that sinking gut feeling about it.


o

Well, let's say that she has two choices:

1) Modify her behavior in such a way as to alleviate his concerns, valid or not. Result, things that are good stay the same or improve.

2) Not do anything. Then sam can decide if he can live with her current behavior. He might decide he can't. Let's give this a 50% chance that he can't.

To be clear, she can choose either option. There is no moral reason why she should choose either. It's completely up to her.

What decision would be in HER best interest?

Reading sam's posts here might clarify for her where sam is coming from.

Reading sam's posts here might clarify for some women where some men are coming from. That could be helpful. To them. It would help them make an informed choice.


----------



## techmom

Buddy400 said:


> Reading sam's posts here might clarify for her where sam is coming from.
> 
> Reading sam's posts here might clarify for some women where some men are coming from. That could be helpful. To them. It would help them make an informed choice.


But, geez, don't you want to listen to what the women say and where we are coming from? After all, that would be keeping to the original intent of this thread. Then maybe you can make an informed choice to avoid becoming so hurt about these things and to grow and learn.

As my Mom used to say, you have two ears, two eyes and one mouth. So you can learn twice as much as you speak...


----------



## techmom

techmom said:


> To all of the ladies who liked my previous posts:
> 
> Please contribute your experiences on this topic, we have too many posts from there male perspective for it to be anything related to women's experiences.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

intheory said:


> But after all is said and done; don't marry someone who is "safe", for their money, or because they are a "pure virgin".
> 
> Let's be honest, that does happen. And I *don't* believe in equating sex with money.
> 
> But why would anyone marry someone whom they thought was a sexual dud? Or, sexually "adequate"? As frequently discussed here on TAM; monogamous marriage means you don't go elsewhere for sex. So you want to marry someone who is as "hot" as possible. This chemistry has to last.
> 
> So what would 'cause someone to settle for sex that didn't fire on all cylinders; especially when they were used to mind-blowing sex before with other partners? Let's be honest, when something gives you a tooth-grinding orgasm,you want more of that thing/person.
> 
> Friendship and a good personality is unlikely to 'cause someone to "settle". Besides, you can get friendship and personal interaction from many other people than your spouse.
> 
> I think money* is *such a thing. Plenty of money. Money makes life so much better. It's only natural. At this point in history, it will _usually_ still be the man who makes the most money.
> 
> So, I do think that women will "settle down" with Mr. NotSoHot if he is a superior financial provider, and looks to be a devoted, reliable husband and father. I have known women irl who have done this.
> 
> Plus I think it probably feels good to know that you are the hottest one. So, in addition to financial security, there is also emotional security. It's unlikely Mr. NotSoHot is gonna go elsewhere for sex.
> 
> But, part of the reason that Mr. NotSoHot got himself in this marital pickle is that SexyPastWife is *so* dammm gorgeous. He can't believe he scored her. She is a trophy. A prized possession. He finally "won". And his ego and pride won't let him admit he won because of his financial status and stable personality: not for his sex appeal and looks.
> 
> Mr. Fisty can go on and on about accepting that if you are "not all that" for your partner sexually, you should accept that life is not fair. And besides, your partner really enjoys sharing laughs and vacations and day-to-day life with you. Be grateful.
> 
> Human nature forbids that though. Sex is like nothing else. Everyone wants to be the best at it for someone. Hopefully your spouse, lol! If you never had it with anyone else. And you're not that for your spouse; then there's a definite sense of a door shutting in your psyche. One of the most satisfying, completing experiences of being a human, is being shut off to you. Unless you divorce and start hunting all over the place for it again.
> 
> I realize that you posters who have had the experience of being someone's "best ever", do not know how this feels. I am glad you don't know. But please try not to be callous and judgemental of people who live with this pain.
> 
> And to all the Sid Notsohots; when you play out of your league; you usually lose.
> 
> Then there's the emotional car-wreck of techmom's scenario. You just have to slow down and take a long hard look. Mr Techmom is a living cliche. Sorry, techmom, no offense to you.
> 
> The experienced, jaded person (usually a guy, but not always) whose had a lot of sexual experience. But *insists on* a virgin when they marry. To try and keep the upper hand sexually, and to make sure that they are never compared to someone else. Women do this too. Once again, saw it irl; a friend of my mother's was like this. The motivation may be different for women. Get married to a guy who is a virgin; blow his mind and maintain emotional control over him. Both male and female of this type are super insecure and have huge sexual egos. Not necessarily a lot of sexual skill (as techmom's situation illustrates).
> 
> There is one thing that I see that all of the above have in common: the need to get a lot of sexual validation and approval.
> 
> And that's because we all crave this. The desire to be someone else's sexual highpoint. Why are we even trying to deny this.
> 
> Nancy was sought after and chased by a Johnny or two. She loved it (even if it was just at the time). She may, or may not have regrets. But, overall, she knows she is a very sexy desirable woman.
> 
> Sid (poor bàštárd) has only been sufficient sexually. I know he's kind of a putz. But part of me hopes he quits his CFO position, and he goes to Hawaii and sells puka-shell necklaces from a roadside shack. Mahalo.
> 
> The I'll-only-marry-a-virgin person may very well have been someone's best. But they want to make sure that they *marry* someone who doesn't even have a _chance_ of being someone else's best.
> 
> The virgin trusted that their marriage partner would be their best; and probably vice-versa?? It does sometimes happen (yay), but it can backfire. So we have the ticking time bomb of techmom. Thanks for sharing techmom, that was gutsy.
> 
> Overall, this has been a great thread. I've agreed on some points with posters I wouldn't usually agree with, and I haven't felt agreement with a lot of posters that I'm normally in full agreement with. Which probably means that I learned something.
> 
> I realize this post is not quite on topic, Lila. But the whole thing has taken so many turns. It made me think of all the related stuff I yammered on about.


 Your mixing love and sex as if it is one thing. Sex and love are separate drives controlled by different hormones and neurotransmitter.

There are both females and males on this site who have crappy sex lives that are not dependent on their partner's money. EleGirl was the one with a job and her ex-husband gave her a crappy sex life. Doobie stayed for a long time until he got abusive. She was the income earner and gotten no sex from him. Yes, people settle, but it is not as common.

A great sex life, is still a great sex life without having to be the best ever. Eventually that attraction fades over time and without anything else bonding that relationship, it will dissolve.

Even research where they artificially increase the oxytocin, it made the bond stronger, which is the attachment hormone.

So, if you look up Karezza sex, there are females cutting out the wild sex, for bonding sex, because they prefer the fulfillment over the orgasm. What if Sid and Nancy had a great sex life still? It is great sex after all.

I dated females in terms of just looks alone and most had toomany issues. This time around I decided to be friends first. We decided not to get married nor move in together, and I am okay not being her best sexual partner, but the sex is great. And we are learning better to push each others sexual button over time.

I really detest using Sid and Nancy since we can plug in any possibilities and get any outcome.

Btw, the percentage of people that settle is around 20 to 30 percent. Even males and the Madonna/wh0re complex is more common than you think.

There are people who cannot even leave abusive relationship, and do not think they are staying for the sex. Here is a thought, should every successive relationship be the best sex ever? Do you know that RJ mostly stems from casual sex and ONS? Lets say Nancy and Sid have a great sex life, so did Johnny and Nancy, but Jack, Nancy's long tiem bf was her best sexual encounter, Sid is more likely to get RJ from Johnny because the attraction was more instantaneous. Fun research on RJ.

Lets say you divorce because you deserve to rock someone's world. Your next relationship is with a narcissistic person and you leave, then the next relationship is great, and a great sex life, do you quit knowing that you had better, or do you stay because most of it is great and you have a lot of compatibility outside the bedroom.

Even with a great sex life, people suffer RJ.

So, why are you staying with your husband if the potential for greener pastures are out there? Because, if you date enough, there is bound to be a better relationship for you if you play the law of averages. 

I could leave my gf and hope for a better sex life, but if it does not also have the quality times I cherish with her, someone who loves me enough to nurse me back to health, someone who does not demand a marriage from me,someone I play video games with and trash talk with,I think I would be an idiot to give up something that great and I would not go back to my ex-fiance for just more wild sex.

And isn't Sid using Nancy for her beauty in what you posted. He cares about his perception, that he gotten a beauty. People do fall in love with beauty after all. A lot of qualities that men post, beauty is usually at the top.

And don't think that there is a girl that may be attracted to Sid that he chooses Nancy over because of her looks. Sid can be just as shallow.

Swingers have a very low divorce rate, and most that participate are well off financialy. Given the law of averages, how many encounters will someone find that rocks their world. And yet, they have the lowest divorce rate in terms of marriage success.

Even so, there are people that have sex that form emotional bonds through it. Sex and love can be connected, but not always.

You are dissatisfied with your sex life, and you want to be someone's best ever. Why not divorce, or do you love him that you stay? Or is it for the financial stability as you state? What is your motivation to be in the relationship?

Just asking, but have you gone through the curious wife's thread, what is her motivation for staying? She is in love, but she is not fulfilled in her sex life. If all it was sex that kept her, she would have been gone long ago. As stated, she has a strong bond fostered outside the bedroom that keeps her stay bonded, even with the terrible sex, that she does not leave.


----------



## techmom

techmom said:


> Some male responses in this thread reveal a need for some men to invalidate women's viewpoints and experiences. Until that stops, it will be a no-win scenario...


Reposted for emphasis.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Also...

Some female responses in this thread reveal a need for some women to invalidate men's viewpoints and experiences. Until that stops, it will be a no-win scenario...


----------



## Buddy400

Personal said:


> I think Sid ought to pull his head out of his ar$e and get over himself!
> 
> Why on earth should Nancy have to express regret for something she enjoyed or alternatively didn't enjoy yet chose to do?
> 
> Why should Nancy be compelled to assuage Sid's self indulgent insecurities at the expense of her own self worth?
> 
> If Sid is unwilling to pull his head out of his ar$e, Nancy ought to do herself a favour and get a divorce.


I never said Nancy should be compelled to assuage Sid's insecurities at her expense.

I don't believe that Nancy should be compelled to assuage Sid's insecurities at her expense.

I never said that she should express regret if she doesn't.

I said that if Nancy said that she regretted it, Sid would probably be able to get over it.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> Your response is pretty much in line with what others who have responded to the question have said. Just reinforces my OP about women having to 'clean the slate' after every relationship. .


They don't HAVE to. It's their choice. They can make an informed choice or not.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Both sides are spinning the facts to defend their positions:

Women's side: Nancy did double penetration anal with Johnny because he pressured her and it hurt her badly so she regretted it but now Sid found out and wants to cause her more pain by demanding the same.

Men's side: Sid gets laid _maybe_ once a month missionary only and she claims she's LD. Sid finds out Johnny got laid everyday and twice on Sunday and she was still begging him for more. Sid just wants a little more normal sex.

Now, who here doesn't think Nancy is perfectly justified on the former point to say "hell no" and maybe she could try a tiny bit harder on the latter to be a little more into her husband sexually?


----------



## lifeistooshort

So since my husband has gone out of his way to stick lots of inappropriate details of his past in my face at ridiculously inappropriate times is he required to tell me he regrets these things to make me feel better?

Should he regret the car sex he was so happy to tell me all about when he didn't want to have car sex when I wanted to? What about the beach sex that he ran his mouth about? We haven't had beach sex so should I get p!ssy about that? 

I don't require him to regret anything, I just ask that he keep his mouth shut unless asked. To me that is reasonable. 

I can honestly say he is the best sex I've ever had. Am I the best he's had? I don't know. I do know that we have a great sex life that he seems happy with but given the copious amounts of sex he's let me know all about what are the odds I'm actually the best? Why am I not just one in a long line? Maybe I should get p!ssy about that and require him to feed my ego?


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> Buddy, I think you forgot this post where you clearly state that a woman will make her SO upset if she states that she enjoyed doing certain sex acts in her past. So therefore, in order to make the hubby happy she has to state that she regrets it, right?


No, No, No, No.

I said that, in that specific situation, I would be upset.

I did not say in any way that she had an obligation to *regret* having a sexual past.

I can do something that makes my wife unhappy. That is *NOT* the same as saying that I should regret doing it, or that I was wrong to do it.


----------



## techmom

BetrayedDad said:


> Also...
> 
> Some female responses in this thread reveal a need for some women to invalidate men's viewpoints and experiences. Until that stops, it will be a no-win scenario...


Too bad that the OP was not asking for men's viewpoints and experiences...maybe you could start a new thread based on that? And we women will promise not to troll...


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> But, geez, don't you want to listen to what the women say and where we are coming from? After all, that would be keeping to the original intent of this thread. Then maybe you can make an informed choice to avoid becoming so hurt about these things and to grow and learn.
> 
> As my Mom used to say, you have two ears, two eyes and one mouth. So you can learn twice as much as you speak...


To tell you the truth, and this is a bit harsh, the only thing I've learned from women on this thread is that most women really couldn't give a **** about how men feel about anything. It's all about themselves.


----------



## techmom

Buddy400 said:


> No, No, No, No.
> 
> I said that, in that specific situation, I would be upset.
> 
> I did not say in any way that she had an obligation to *regret* having a sexual past.
> 
> I can do something that makes my wife unhappy. That is *NOT* the same as saying that I should regret doing it, or that I was wrong to do it.


Well, wasn't the point of some male posters to point out how women can make the guy happy in this situation? After all, we need to care about your feelings right?

If not, then I must be missing the point of all of this?


----------



## lifeistooshort

techmom said:


> Too bad that the OP was not asking for men's viewpoints and experiences...maybe you could start a new thread based on that? And we women will promise not to troll...


Ha ha, any thread that asks for mens' opinions makes sure to go after the first female opinion that shows up. 

And there are often references to hens and other insulting terms involved.


----------



## BetrayedDad

techmom said:


> Too bad that the OP was not asking for men's viewpoints and experiences...maybe you could start a new thread based on that? And we women will promise not to troll...


Last I checked, the ladies lounge allowed male commentary and OP isn't a misandrist.


----------



## techmom

Buddy400 said:


> To tell you the truth, and this is a bit harsh, the only thing I've learned from women on this thread is that most women really couldn't give a **** about how men feel about anything. It's all about themselves.


Yes! You finally got it. This thread was for women to express WOMEN'S viewpoints and experiences. What I learned is that some men can't give us the space to express it.


----------



## techmom

BetrayedDad said:


> Last I checked, the ladies lounge allowed male commentary and OP isn't a misandrist.


Go back and read the op of this thread then get back to me regarding male commentary....


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> Personally I think that discussing make-believe characters distracts from the real discussion, because we can hypothesize all day and night on what these characters are feeling to suit our agendas or biases.
> 
> Therefore I am going to refrain from even mentioning them.


The reason why I made up hypothetical (however, I hope believable) characters is that quite honestly...

Discussing this kind of stuff objectively is kind of impossible when it triggers so much pain for some.

Many guys (and even some girls) have felt like Sid. And they _hurt._ And they feel that pain is being invalidated.

Many girls (and even some guys) have felt like Nancy. And they _hurt and feel the weight of expectation._ And they feel that pain is being invalidated.

When what I see is that everybody is longing -- longing, quite often, for the other that has made them feel invalidated.


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> Yes! You finally got it. This thread was for women to express WOMEN'S viewpoints and experiences. What I learned is that some men can't give us the space to express it.


So I guess I shouldn't have posted here at all then?


----------



## techmom

Lila said:


> Several threads have popped up recently by men asking for help on processing their partner's sexual past. A sexual past that was understood on some level but the details of which have now come to light.
> 
> One common question that I see asked is whether or not the partner regrets her sexual past or feels shame over her wanton behavior at that time. I often see these behaviors cumulatively described as 'youthful indiscretions', 'escapades/wild adventures', or 'acting out'. These types of questions insinuate that the only way to judge these experiences as acceptable is to invalidate them with regret and/or shame. This is baffling to me.
> 
> I know that there are women who do genuinely regret something in their sexual past, but I don't think this is true of the majority. I think many women unknowingly (or possibly purposefully) feel they have to suppress these positive sexual experiences or replace them with negative feelings in order to make their sexual history palatable to a future partner. Clean the slate, so to speak.
> 
> I personally do not regret any of my sexual past. I enjoyed my sexual experiences and remember them as positive events in my life. It was _history_. A history that I enjoyed and one where I was happy.
> 
> Luckily, my lack of regret did not disqualify me as a good long term partner for my husband, just as his lack of regret over his sexual history didn't disqualify him as a good long term partner for me.
> 
> *I know that I'm cut from a whole other piece of cloth but would like to hear the ladies of TAM thoughts on the subject.
> 
> Do you regret parts or the whole of your sexual history? Why/why not.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners? If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly?*


This is the original post, note the bolded text.


----------



## techmom

marduk said:


> The reason why I made up hypothetical (however, I hope believable) characters is that quite honestly...
> 
> Discussing this kind of stuff objectively is kind of impossible when it triggers so much pain for some.
> 
> Many guys (and even some girls) have felt like Sid. And they _hurt._ And they feel that pain is being invalidated.
> 
> Many girls (and even some guys) have felt like Nancy. And they _hurt and feel the weight of expectation._ And they feel that pain is being invalidated.
> 
> When what I see is that everybody is longing -- longing, quite often, for the other that has made them feel invalidated.


With all due respect, the scenario derailed the original intent of the thread and gave some male posters an excuse to derail it further.


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> With all due respect, the scenario derailed the original intent of the thread and gave some male posters an excuse to derail it further.


Mmm... OK, I'll say one more thing and then I'm out:

Validating someone's opinion/feelings on one side doesn't invalidate the other.


----------



## BetrayedDad

techmom said:


> This is the original post, note the bolded text.


Are you the OP? No? Are you the OP's thread police? No? So why don't you start a new thread about how "men are the devil" and "no men are allowed" and you can go to town. I promise to not "troll" that.

Otherwise, this thread has morphed several times since the OP posted her original question include a fictional situation about Nancy and Sid POSTED by a man. Which both genders have been actively engaged in.

What gives you the right to try to shut people down and intimidate them? Sad is all it is.


----------



## techmom

I really had hopes for this thread to give women a forum to express their thoughts and experiences on this important topic. Then it morphed to the "why can't she give the hubby what she gave the ex" discussion. Maybe if the men who are hurting can hear us and listen, all we ask is that we say our piece without having to scroll through pages of posts by disappointed male posters.

Many women liked my posts, but they don't dare post their experience because then some male posters will interrogate her. We don't need this, TAM is for everyone to learn, not just the women learning about the male viewpoint. 

Trust me, we hear you. Just take the time and hear us.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> To tell you the truth, and this is a bit harsh, the only thing I've learned from women on this thread is that most women really *couldn't give a **** about how men feel about anything. It's all about themselves*.


Now that's really funny. What I've heard from most of the men on this thread is that they do not care what women think and feel about much of anything. It's all about themselves. 

This is supposed to be a thread on which women talked about the experience of being made to feel that they had to be shamed of past sex. 

Funny how the men worked so hard to make sure that the actual topic was not discussed.


----------



## EleGirl

techmom said:


> I really had hopes for this thread to give women a forum to express their thoughts and experiences on this important topic. Then it morphed to the "why can't she give the hubby what she gave the ex" discussion. Maybe if the men who are hurting can hear us and listen, all we ask is that we say our piece without having to scroll through pages of posts by disappointed male posters.
> 
> Many women liked my posts, but they don't dare post their experience because then some male posters will interrogate her. We don't need this, TAM is for everyone to learn, not just the women learning about the male viewpoint.
> 
> Trust me, we hear you. Just take the time and hear us.


^^^ I agree. I was going to bring up things related to the original topic of the thread. There is no way in hell that I would post what I wanted to post on this thread. 

I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who would not even dare to actually post on the topic from personal experiences.


----------



## soccermom2three

BetrayedDad said:


> Are you the OP? No? Are you the OP's thread police? No? So why don't you start a new thread about how "men are the devil" and "no men are allowed" and you can go to town. I promise to not "troll" that.
> 
> Otherwise, this thread has morphed several times since the OP posted her original question include a fictional situation about Nancy and Sid POSTED by a man. Which both genders have been actively engaged in.
> 
> What gives you the right to try to shut people down and intimidate them? Sad is all it is.


Well, except about once a month we get a poster like Sid here so the topic has been beaten to death. Lila's OP was refreshing. 

One thing I've learned from reading here, if a women asked me for advice about telling a new guy about her sexual past, I would tell her to STFU.


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> The reason why I made up hypothetical (however, I hope believable) characters is that quite honestly...
> 
> Discussing this kind of stuff objectively is kind of impossible when it triggers so much pain for some.
> 
> Many guys (and even some girls) have felt like Sid. And they _hurt._ And they feel that pain is being invalidated.
> 
> Many girls (and even some guys) have felt like Nancy. And they _hurt and feel the weight of expectation._ And they feel that pain is being invalidated.
> 
> When what I see is that everybody is longing -- longing, quite often, for the other that has made them feel invalidated.


But, here is the issue that I have with the story.

It's based on Nancy withholding sex and being at a point in the relationship where it looks like she might have one foot out the door. 

What it does not address is the baseline situation where women very often are made to feel that they have to be ashamed of their past sexual experience... not because their husband feels ignored, or unloved... but because it's the baseline expectation of women.. very often in society at large and in our relationships.

How about a situation where the couple has a really good sex life. They are in love. etc etc But if she shows any interest new sexual things, she's shot down and accused of imaginary things that must exist in her past? 

She's not ashamed of her past. But she's getting beat up over it even though what he's imaging might not even be part of her past.

How about instead of being told that shaming does not exist, we be allowed to talk? What a novel idea.

And I will say that your Nancy/Sid/John story would make a great thread... of it's own. I know it was not your intent, but it created a huge thread jack.


----------



## BetrayedDad

soccermom2three said:


> One thing I've learned from reading here, if a women asked me for advice about telling a new guy about her sexual past, I would tell her to STFU.


With all due respect, isn't that condoning shame by telling her to hid it? I wouldn't volunteer my past either but if my girlfriend asked I would tell her. If she had a problem with it then she's not the girl for me. It's part of who I am and I can't change it. Kind of a package deal, almost everyone comes with the baggage of exs.

So how is that different for a woman? If your man has a problem with your past then he's not the one for you. Why is this even a gender issue? Believe it or not some guys are also smart enough not to ask questions they don't want the answers to.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> Well, the problem here is that, 60 pages in, I haven't seen a man here say that women *should* regret their sexual history.
> 
> So let's just all just agree that women shouldn't have to regret their sexual history and transfer the last 59 pages to a new post that talks about something that's less clear.


This thread has a small subset of the about 3 billion men who live on the face of this earth. So I don't think that no man came out and said exactly that women should regret their sexual history does not mean that women have not experienced this as a pretty common thing in their lives.

But apparently the actual intent of the thread is of no interest to some. Instead controlling the conversation is.


----------



## techmom

FrenchFry said:


> Well, we are already known as selfish *******s so maybe on page 68 we can get down to it.


Holla out loud ladies>


----------



## techmom

I posted my story to illustrate how the situation could be, even if you have no sexual history at all. Some men will find ways to shame their exes just because they had sex. Then find them not marriage material. I've heard terms like "used goods" and "been around the block" for women who only had a few partners. But if those partners were braggarts, the girl's reputation was ruined.

This is what influenced my decision to wait for marriage. I didn't want to be shamed for doing something with a guy who would later disrespect me. 

Why are women always shamed for sex, either for not giving it up or for giving it up? We can't win


----------



## BetrayedDad

FrenchFry said:


> This guy had awesome long hair and I mentioned very casually that I loved guys with long hair because it gives me something to grab onto.
> 
> We were listening to Stevie Wonder and he got really tense and I asked what was up.
> 
> He goes "So...you've had other guys with long hair?"
> 
> Huge fight. What a misfire.


So if we were dating and I was making out with you on your couch and I start touching your boobs and I was to casually say, "Wow, I really like your tits, they remind me of some of my ex gfs" this wouldn't bother you at all? 

Come on.... Even I, as a clueless man, know better than to compare my gf with an ex. Don't you think maybe that's why he got mad?


----------



## techmom

FrenchFry said:


> So, funnily enough this reminded me of a a guy I dated for a couple of months
> 
> 
> 
> This guy had awesome long hair and I mentioned very casually that I loved guys with long hair because it gives me something to grab onto.
> 
> We were listening to Stevie Wonder and he got really tense and I asked what was up.
> 
> He goes "So...you've had other guys with long hair?"
> 
> Huge fight. What a misfire.


Reminds me of the time I first gave oral to hubby, he was upset because I caught on quick. He was all like, where did you learn it from?

Unbelievable...


----------



## soccermom2three

BetrayedDad said:


> With all due respect, isn't that condoning shame by telling her to hid it? I wouldn't volunteer my past either but if my girlfriend asked I would tell her. If she had a problem with it then she's not the girl for me. It's part of who I am and I can't change it. Kind of a package deal, almost everyone comes with the baggage of exs.
> 
> So how is that different for a woman? If your man has a problem with your past then he's not the one for you. Why is this even a gender issue? Believe it or not some guys are also smart enough not to ask questions they don't want the answers to.



No it's not about shame, it's about not being anyone's business.. It's from reading many posts made by men that make it quite clear that they just can't handle their SO having a sexual past. I think I've only read one post here where woman had issues with their SO sexual past.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I'd go with "well I can grow my hair long if you would REALLY appreciate it". 




FrenchFry said:


> There are two different ways to approach this:
> 
> 1) Get tense thinking about the person's past.
> 2) Get excited thinking about your relationships future.
> 
> I didn't bring up any exes. I told him I loved long hair and there were two ways he could have gone.
> 
> He went with #1.
> 
> Now, there are women out there who would never say what I said and that guy is probably happily married to one of them.
> 
> I married a guy who (if he had long hair) would offer me his head and say "Oh yeah? Show me."


----------



## Nynaeve

OK so, I'll answer the OP.

I was a virgin until my husband. I had a few brief encounters involving making out and heavy petting in college. But I never had an actual relationship until I was 31. This was due to a number of factors, the main one probably being that I wanted to wait til marriage before having sex (mostly religious convictions).

Before my husband, I dated a guy that I went to church with for a few months. He was even less experienced than I. He had never kissed anyone before me. I don't think he intended it or knew it but from the way he talked about such things I definitely felt that if I were to tell him about making out with guys - and that I enjoyed it - he would reject me. So I downplayed my experiences, implied that the guys had been "pushy" and that I wasn't as eager as I actually had been. He ended up breaking it off with me and I definitely dodged a bullet there. 

I never felt the need to hide anything about my past with my husband. Maybe partly because he was more experienced than I. But I think mostly because he isn't threatened by my past and doesn't feel he owns me. He loves me for who I am. It was a huge relief to be with a man whom I did not feel the need to hide things from.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

Jealousy and insecurity is a total libido killer, makes me not want to do anything new. Just vanilla sex, if that.


----------



## techmom

Nynaeve said:


> OK so, I'll answer the OP.
> 
> I was a virgin until my husband. I had a few brief encounters involving making out and heavy petting in college. But I never had an actual relationship until I was 31. This was due to a number of factors, the main one probably being that I wanted to wait til marriage before having sex (mostly religious convictions).
> 
> Before my husband, I dated a guy that I went to church with for a few months. He was even less experienced than I. He had never kissed anyone before me. I don't think he intended it or knew it but from the way he talked about such things I definitely felt that if I were to tell him about making out with guys - and that I enjoyed it - he would reject me. So I downplayed my experiences, implied that the guys had been "pushy" and that I wasn't as eager as I actually had been. He ended up breaking it off with me and I definitely dodged a bullet there.
> 
> I never felt the need to hide anything about my past with my husband. Maybe partly because he was more experienced than I. But I think mostly because he isn't threatened by my past and doesn't feel he owns me. He loves me for who I am. It was a huge relief to be with a man whom I did not feel the need to hide things from.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Thanks for this post, happy to hear from another one who waited until marriage. Sounds like you were lucky to find your husband who is non-judge mental. 

Refreshing.


----------



## MEM2020

Techmom,

Does T2 accept that the consequence of this type behavior is a low intimacy and somewhat adversarial marriage? 




techmom said:


> Reminds me of the time I first gave oral to hubby, he was upset because I caught on quick. He was all like, where did you learn it from?
> 
> Unbelievable...


----------



## techmom

MEM11363 said:


> Techmom,
> 
> Does T2 accept that the consequence of this type behavior is a low intimacy and somewhat adversarial marriage?


He knows how I feel, and we discussed this numerous times so I can get my point across.

At this point in time, I don't care if he accepts it, he's going to have to live with it though....


----------



## BetrayedDad

soccermom2three said:


> It's from reading many posts made by men that make it quite clear that they just can't handle their SO having a sexual past.


"A sexual past" or a "certain kind of sexual past". If a man has a problem with her just having "a past" then he's a buffoon. I haven't seen anyone here disagree with that.

I dated my last girlfriend for a year before we broke up. I never asked her how many people she slept with. I didn't want to know. Honestly, I think it's an immature question to ask. Especially at my age, I assume everyone has a sexual history and these days it's more likely than not extensive. 

Probably why I'm smart enough not to ask.


----------



## Cosmos

EleGirl said:


> ^^^ I agree. I was going to bring up things related to the original topic of the thread. There is no way in hell that I would post what I wanted to post on this thread.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who would not even dare to actually post on the topic from personal experiences.


I was going to post something personal here, too, but once I saw how things were devolving decided it could be too risky...


----------



## Omego

BetrayedDad said:


> Probably why I'm smart enough not to ask.


Exactly this^^^^^^. Smart or enough, or self-confident enough not to ask.

I haven't read the entire thread, but in a nutshell I'd say that this 'shaming' issue comes from the man's own insecurity. The wife/partner can do absolutely nothing about this, except for exercising tact if questioned. If the situation is really pathological (ie. the guy going crazy, asking details, pouting, demanding) then there are much more important issues to be dealt with. 'Shaming' is just a symptom of the problem.

That being said, I would never, ever ask anything and neither would my H. H wouldn't ask because it wouldn't occur to him to and I wouldn't want to know because I do have insecurities, and it would hurt me to imagine him with another woman, simply put. I don't want any details.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

techmom said:


> I posted my story to illustrate how the situation could be, even if you have no sexual history at all. Some men will find ways to shame their exes just because they had sex. Then find them not marriage material. I've heard terms like "used goods" and "been around the block" for women who only had a few partners. But if those partners were braggarts, the girl's reputation was ruined.
> 
> This is what influenced my decision to wait for marriage. I didn't want to be shamed for doing something with a guy who would later disrespect me.
> 
> Why are women always shamed for sex, either for not giving it up or for giving it up? We can't win



Society and control. Damn if you do and damn if you do not. Some people are threatened by the female sexuality. AS previously posted, someone used the term loose which made me LOL. Valued for purity and may have a dysfunctional view of sex due to the value of purity.

Sex is often given too high of a pedestal. Casual sex can be fun. We place a lot of qualifiers on sex. Must be done with a partner, have to be in a relationship, must be married,your SO has to be the best ever experienced.

In school, there are some guys that call them slvts, and if they do not have sex with them either, they are still called a slvt. There is a notion to some, that if a girl had sex with another, some guys feel entitled to have sex with her as well. You hear lines well you gave it up for Jack, why not me as well. Sometimes there is a perception that if a girl has sex, she will have it with anyone.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Personal said:


> If Nancy has to tell Sid that she regrets something despite doing nothing at all wrong (it being consensual and all) in order for him to get over it, then she would be assuaging his insecurities at her expense.



That is what i dislike about irrational behavior. Giving in to soothe an irrational feeling does nothing o solve it. Sure Nancy can be sorry that Sid is in pain, but now Nancy has to be sorry that she is the source of that pain or that is what she believes.

Was it not second time around's husband who left her after having an affair, married the AP, then left the current wife for second time around. They get back together and when he asks her if she had any other sexual partner, he flips out, then punishes her and I believe cheat on her all over again. After he left her for another woman. To him, I am guessing she is now ruined, touch by another man, or he can handle the idea of another man having sex with her. Now, a real scenario that we can see.

There was the thread where the husband had a more extensive array of sexual experience, but when he finds out about his wife, he still suffers RJ. It had nothing to do with sexual acts, the fact that she just had past sexual partners. I think posters were still trying to make her apologize to her husband, just to mend the relationship. Luckily, that group was a minority, but some still related with the husband.

Even the irrationality of the penis size. No size queen has a partner with a well below average size penis, but she loves him and asks for how to make their sex life even better. She did not leave him because of it, she loves him and wants to be with him.

Some men have an irrational fear that their partner will leave them for a bigger penis. They neglect the emotional bond that is the real glue and believe sex is everything. I am all for making sex the best it can be,but also take into consideration that you have someone standing by your side that is showing patience so do not push them away. Perhaps it will never be super nova sex, but it can still be good.


----------



## EleGirl

Do you regret parts or the whole of your sexual history? Why/why not.


Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners? If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly? 

I think that it’s drummed into women from a very early age that they should be ashamed of their sex life and therefore regret a lot of things. This starts long before a woman is even old enough to have a relationship. And it is reinforced over and over. Smart women ignore this, or at least learn to turn it off. 

Even if a woman’s spouse/partner does not have an issue, a lot of women struggle with the trash tha they hear over and over. And part of the problem is that some men buy into this trash.

I found some comments on anther thread that is a pretty good representation of what I’m talking about. Note that I’m not even addressing things like the guilt/shame put on women by some religions. This is just typical American secular slvt shaming. I left off the names of the posters on purpose.



> *I wouldn't wife up a former freak. Short term relationship, maybe but nothing serious. Some will say that's because I'm insecure. I call bull$hit. I just have standards. *
> 
> So tired of the attempt at shaming men for not falling in line with sex positive feminism.


What is “sex positive feminism”? Is there “sex positive males” too? I would think so since men seem to really like sex as well. And what’s wrong with being positive about sex?

So here we have a guy who feels justified to use a woman for a short term relationship. He’s a user of people. But he deems himself morally superior to the woman/women he uses. He has standards? Apparently those standards do not extend to himself. I think that using someone for sex while looking down on them shows a true lack of standards/character.



> Why do people (men and women ) look more negatively at a woman with many partners than a man with a similar history?
> 
> Because it is MUCH easier for a woman to get laid. Even an average looking woman just has to walk into a bar and ask around and she'll find someone willing to go home with her. Thus, a woman with many partners may be seen as having poor judgment and lacking in self control.
> 
> A guy, on the other hand, even a good looking guy, more often than not has to have a fair amount of social skill and confidence to get laid. Since the hurdle to getting in a woman's pants is much higher than for a man, a guy with many partners is assumed to be more skilled and to have more of the qualities women desire, and as a result appears more attractive to other women.


Then there is the above gem. WTH? 

Men who get a lot of women are prized? Women who do the same are easy trash? Once again this sets the standard that men who use women are desirable. But the women they use are scum.



> I don't want to aggravate things but....if I am buying a used car I get a carfax. If its been through too many owners I won't buy it. If the current owner doesn't want me to see the carfax, I won't buy it.
> 
> 
> As soon as you drive a new car off the lot it loses value.
> 
> 
> Just sayin...
> 
> 
> Unless I plan to sell it right away then....never mind.


We hear this disgusting analogy form fairly often.. .women are like used cars. Does the guy who posted his realize that he too is like a used car? If women lose value by having sex, then men do too.

So let’s see.. as soon as you drive a NEW CAR off the lot, it loses value. Since the NEW CAR is an analogy for a female virgin human, this poster is saying that once a woman has sex once… she loses value. Not cool at all. What the hell do men who say things like this get off talking about humans like this? Like they are somehow so superior. That women lose value once they have sex one time.

And then guys who think like this wonder why their wives don’t want sex with them… well because she knows that they look down on her with distrain for having sex. After all once she has sex she loses value.. duh!


----------



## Lila

intheory said:


> I realize this post is not quite on topic, Lila. But the whole thing has taken so many turns. It made me think of all the related stuff I yammered on about.


No worries Intheory. I appreciate your honesty and passion on the subject. :smile2:


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> This my main take-away from this thread.
> 
> Nobody cares that Sid is in pain.
> 
> He's a putz, he's insecure, he's a man and, besides, sex. What's to feel empathy about?
> 
> Does someone have to be a flawless human being to get empathy?


It's not that no one cares that Sid is in pain. It's that _his_ pain is caused by _his _own insecurities. These are his issues to work through. It's not Nancy's responsibility to take ownership of _his_ insecurities by invalidating her history with regrets.


----------



## jld

Lila said:


> It's not that no one cares that Sid is in pain. It's that _his_ pain is caused by _his _own insecurities. These are his issues to work through. It's not Nancy's responsibility to take ownership of _his_ insecurities by invalidating her history with regrets.


Exactly. I think this could help every "Sid" out there:


*"It's crucial for you to understand that your feelings are YOUR feelings. They belong to you. So they're yours to work through.*_ Lots of us didn't get that memo. 

Here's the thing: we all have very unique personalities and triggers. What makes me feel bad is very different from what makes someone else feel bad. That's because my wounds greatly influence my uncomfortable emotions. 

My wounds (and subsequent feelings) are not caused by someone else (in the present moment). I know it feels like they are, but they aren't. 

Are my feelings provoked by someone else? Yes! All the time! But this doesn't make it their fault or their responsibility to fix. The sooner we recognize this, the happier we'll be in relationships. 

*When you take responsibility for your feelings, you don't have to deal with the madness of trying to get someone to make it better (which never works anyway)*."_

Are You Expressing Your Feelings, Or Just Creating Drama? - mindbodygreen.com


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> I never said Nancy should be compelled to assuage Sid's insecurities at her expense.
> 
> I don't believe that Nancy should be compelled to assuage Sid's insecurities at her expense.
> 
> I never said that she should express regret if she doesn't.
> 
> *I said that if Nancy said that she regretted it, Sid would probably be able to get over it.*





Buddy400 said:


> *They don't HAVE to. It's their choice. They can make an informed choice or not.*


So what you are claiming is that a woman is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. There is NO good outcome for a woman with a sexual past that's stuck in this situation. 

If she chooses to keep her integrity intact, she's sentencing herself to a life with a someone whose insecurity issues will not allow him to be happy. Living with an unhappy person who blames you for all of their problems is not conducive to a good marriage.

If she's someone of integrity who purposefully chooses to invalidate her sexual history in order to 'wipe the slate clean' for him (make his insecurities go away), then she may end of resenting him. She may even begin to look at him in a poorer light for forcing her to resolve his problems by admitting regret over something she regarded positively. 

However, this whole problem could be resolved if instead of putting it on the woman's back to fix the problem, he takes ownership for his insecurities. He can ask for her support, reassurance, and love, but he CAN NOT ask her to fix this problem for him.


----------



## Starstarfish

If a woman acted in the same manner as some guys with RJ, irrational, demanding, questioning, berating, unable to think about anything else, bordering on obsessed. 

Someone would post that she has BPD and there's no hope, that she'll always be crazy and his best plan is to run. 

No one would remotely suggest or strongly imply in any way that if her husband just fed it and apologized (for whatever phantom offense he supposedly committed) and demeaned himself to whatever level she requires she'd just stop being crazy. 

Why when men act one way does it get a special label and special treatment, but when a woman acts the same way people will immediately label her crazy and mentally deficient?


----------



## Starstarfish

And there's a parallel discussion to this going on over in the general forum, please go see some of the attitudes. "If anyone could have her ... that's just gross."


----------



## techmom

elegirl said:


> do you regret parts or the whole of your sexual history? Why/why not.
> 
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners? If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly?
> 
> I think that it’s drummed into women from a very early age that they should be ashamed of their sex life and therefore regret a lot of things. This starts long before a woman is even old enough to have a relationship. And it is reinforced over and over. Smart women ignore this, or at least learn to turn it off.
> 
> Even if a woman’s spouse/partner does not have an issue, a lot of women struggle with the trash tha they hear over and over. And part of the problem is that some men buy into this trash.
> 
> I found some comments on anther thread that is a pretty good representation of what i’m talking about. Note that i’m not even addressing things like the guilt/shame put on women by some religions. This is just typical american secular slvt shaming. I left off the names of the posters on purpose.
> 
> 
> What is “sex positive feminism”? Is there “sex positive males” too? I would think so since men seem to really like sex as well. And what’s wrong with being positive about sex?
> 
> So here we have a guy who feels justified to use a woman for a short term relationship. He’s a user of people. But he deems himself morally superior to the woman/women he uses. He has standards? Apparently those standards do not extend to himself. I think that using someone for sex while looking down on them shows a true lack of standards/character.
> 
> 
> Then there is the above gem. Wth?
> 
> Men who get a lot of women are prized? Women who do the same are easy trash? Once again this sets the standard that men who use women are desirable. But the women they use are scum.
> 
> 
> 
> We hear this disgusting analogy form fairly often.. .women are like used cars. Does the guy who posted his realize that he too is like a used car? If women lose value by having sex, then men do too.
> 
> So let’s see.. As soon as you drive a new car off the lot, it loses value. Since the new car is an analogy for a female virgin human, this poster is saying that once a woman has sex once… she loses value. Not cool at all. What the hell do men who say things like this get off talking about humans like this? Like they are somehow so superior. That women lose value once they have sex one time.
> 
> *and then guys who think like this wonder why their wives don’t want sex with them… well because she knows that they look down on her with distrain for having sex. After all once she has sex she loses value.. Duh!*


*
*

qft.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> To tell you the truth, and this is a bit harsh, the only thing I've learned from women on this thread is that most women really couldn't give a **** about how men feel about anything. It's all about themselves.


I'm sorry that's all you've taken from this OP. To be completely honest, reading the responses from some of the men on this thread is depressing. As much as they complain that we women are not sympathizing with them, I see very few male posters sympathize with the women. 

Honestly, from what I've read of the male replies is that female pride is secondary to male pride. Men's pride is paramount, even to the detriment of the relationship, but women are expected to discard theirs at the first signs of trouble.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> Exactly. I think this could help every "Sid" out there:
> 
> 
> *"It's crucial for you to understand that your feelings are YOUR feelings. They belong to you. So they're yours to work through.*_ Lots of us didn't get that memo.
> 
> Here's the thing: we all have very unique personalities and triggers. What makes me feel bad is very different from what makes someone else feel bad. That's because my wounds greatly influence my uncomfortable emotions.
> 
> My wounds (and subsequent feelings) are not caused by someone else (in the present moment). I know it feels like they are, but they aren't.
> 
> Are my feelings provoked by someone else? Yes! All the time! But this doesn't make it their fault or their responsibility to fix. The sooner we recognize this, the happier we'll be in relationships.
> 
> *When you take responsibility for your feelings, you don't have to deal with the madness of trying to get someone to make it better (which never works anyway)*."_
> 
> Are You Expressing Your Feelings, Or Just Creating Drama? - mindbodygreen.com


So very true, JLD, and thanks for the link!

Taking responsibility for our own 'stuff' is very liberating and empowering, and learning to recognize the truth really does set us free! :smile2:


----------



## jld

Lila said:


> I'm sorry that's all you've taken from this OP. To be completely honest, reading the responses from some of the men on this thread is depressing. As much as they complain that we women are not sympathizing with them, I see very few male posters sympathize with the women.
> 
> Honestly, from what I've read of the male replies is that female pride is secondary to male pride. Men's pride is paramount, even to the detriment of the relationship, but women are expected to discard theirs at the first signs of trouble.


I agree, Lila.

My takeaway is that these posters expect to be taken care of, emotionally protected, by the women they are with. 

And if those women are happy to do that, then good enough.


----------



## Omego

The double standard will always exist. 

I hear mothers from my children's school talking about such and such's daughter who acts inappropriately etc, who has been rumored to have slept with tons of boys, etc... and how it's such a shame. (I agree that it's a shame and wouldn't want my daughter to behave this way ). I also had a friend in high school who must have slept with dozens of boys, all because she was desperately needy and wanted to have a boyfriend and thought that was the best way to go about it. She's now married -- I suppose happily -- don't know. She wasn't happy about what she did at all -- not even enjoying herself. Said she felt embarrassed and cheap in retrospect. 

At the same time, I also hear, from moms at the school, about such and such boy who's grown up to be so handsome and how he has tons and tons of girls, etc. And the discourse is quite different.

The general theme is:
Men having lots of sexual experience = positive, proof of masculinity
Women having lots sexual experience = negative, lack of virtue, pathology, mistake, dysfunctional

We are taught to think this way, from a very young age. I was told by my mother that anyone who had sex before marriage was a slvt. No ifs ands or buts about it.


----------



## Anon1111

Both Sid and Nancy have feelings of insecurity.

Sid's insecure that Nancy might've liked someone else better.

Nancy's insecure that her past might blow up her status as some kind of pristine/ ideal person.

If Nancy wasn't insecure, Sid's judgement would be a non-issue.

Both Sid and Nancy are reacting to cultural gender stereotypes.

Sid is reacting to the gender norm that a guy is supposed to be the #1 stud.

Nancy is reacting to the idea that she is supposed to be pure.

Both stereotypes put unreasonable expectations on the respective genders. But even if we can objectively see this, it doesn't mean we don't all still individually feel this pressure.

The problem is that we only recognize the pressure we each individually feel. The pressure others feel to conform to these expectations is a pure abstraction. How could you be so concerned about that, we each say, that is so obviously BS.

yet when it comes down to our situation, we expect that others will sympathize.


----------



## Cosmos

Starstarfish said:


> If a woman acted in the same manner as some guys with RJ, irrational, demanding, questioning, berating, unable to think about anything else, bordering on obsessed.
> 
> Someone would post that she has BPD and there's no hope, that she'll always be crazy and his best plan is to run.
> 
> No one would remotely suggest or strongly imply in any way that if her husband just fed it and apologized (for whatever phantom offense he supposedly committed) and demeaned himself to whatever level she requires she'd just stop being crazy.
> *
> Why when men act one way does it get a special label and special treatment, but when a woman acts the same way people will immediately label her crazy and mentally deficient?*


Because historically it worked and it was a good way to make women 'behave!' In the Victorian days a rebellious wife was often committed to a mental institution for 'treatment' by her 'long suffering' husband (or father).



> ...Most people, psychiatrists included, believed a woman’s place was in the home. She should be subordinate to her husband and dedicated to maternal and domestic responsibilities....
> 
> A woman who rebelled against Victorian domesticity risked being declared insane and committed to an asylum. This was usually at her husband’s or father’s request, and she generally had no right to contest or appeal. Women were further disempowered by moral treatment once locked away. This cornerstone of Victorian psychiatry claimed male dominance was therapeutic. The doctor ruled the asylum like a father ruled his family.
> 
> Women and psychiatry


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Mmm... OK, I'll say one more thing and then I'm out:
> 
> Validating someone's opinion/feelings on one side doesn't invalidate the other.


Marduk, I don't want you to leave the conversation because I do think you bring up a good point which is what got me thinking about the OP in the first place......

I agree with you that validating someone's feelings on one side doesn't invalidate the other. 

The problem seems to arise with the _way_ one expects the other person to validate those feelings. It seems like words like "I sympathize with you" are not enough to satisfy men's need for validation. The validation must be proven with "action". 

Well to me all that says "do it my way or don't do it at all". What if 'their way' goes counter to my personal views? E.g. what if a man wants their woman to regret something in her sexual past that she doesn't regret. She can voice her sympathy for her partner's feelings but she is not going to self-flagellate while mumbling 'mea culpa', 'mea culpa' just to make him feel better.

The 'How' is exactly why I brought up the OP. Men want their feelings on the issue of their partner's sexual past heard, but what I seem to be reading is that listening and genuine verbal assurances are not good enough. They want action, and that's pretty much where I draw the line.


----------



## Lila

BetrayedDad said:


> With all due respect, isn't that condoning shame by telling her to hid it?


Actually, it's called self-preservation. 

I travel to Chihuahua, Mexico for work about 2 x per year. I'm a proud American but there is no way on this God's green earth that I'm going to go out of my way to tell people there that I'm an American. That's just asking to get kidnapped for ransom.

Same thing with sexual past. You may not be ashamed of it but it's not something I condone sharing for fear of having it used against you.


----------



## EleGirl

Omego said:


> The double standard will always exist.
> 
> I hear mothers from my children's school talking about such and such's daughter who acts inappropriately etc, who has been rumored to have slept with tons of boys, etc... and how it's such a shame. (I agree that it's a shame and wouldn't want my daughter to behave this way ). I also had a friend in high school who must have slept with dozens of boys, all because she was desperately needy and wanted to have a boyfriend and thought that was the best way to go about it. She's now married -- I suppose happily -- don't know. She wasn't happy about what she did at all -- not even enjoying herself. Said she felt embarrassed and cheap in retrospect.
> 
> At the same time, I also hear, from moms at the school, about such and such boy who's grown up to be so handsome and how he has tons and tons of girls, etc. And the discourse is quite different.
> 
> The general theme is:
> Men having lots of sexual experience = positive, proof of masculinity
> Women having lots sexual experience = negative, lack of virtue, pathology, mistake, dysfunctional
> 
> We are taught to think this way, from a very young age. I was told by my mother that anyone who had sex before marriage was a slvt. No ifs ands or buts about it.


I do think that things have changed a lot and will continue to change.

Things today have changed so much from when I was a kid, sometime I feel like I live on a different plant from back then.


Back then blacks were segregated.

Gays were cut out of society in every way.. they had to live in closets.

A girl or woman who got married out of wedlock was discarded by her family and society.

A woman who lived with a man before marriage, was a tramp and treated like one.

There were very few jobs above the most low level that any women was allowed to have.

Women were not allowed to pursue most majors in college.

I could go on for pages about the things that have changed.. changed in such a profound way that it's hard to believe that it's the same society/planet.

This too can change.


----------



## jld

Lila said:


> Actually, it's called self-preservation.
> 
> I travel to Chihuahua, Mexico for work about 2 x per year. I'm a proud American but there is no way on this God's green earth that I'm going to go out of my way to tell people there that I'm an American. That's just asking to get kidnapped for ransom.
> 
> Same thing with sexual past. You may not be ashamed of it but it's not something I condone sharing for fear of having it used against you.


The thing is, Lila, why would you want to be with someone you did not feel you could share your whole heart with, safely?

I ask that with tremendous respect, btw. I think you are an absolutely top shelf, highest possible quality human.

I cannot see "settling" for anything less than a man who can handle your transparency as being an option for a woman like you. You just don't have to.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> The thing is, Lila, why would you want to be with someone you did not feel you could share your whole heart with, safely?
> 
> I ask that with tremendous respect, btw. I think you are an absolutely top shelf, highest possible quality human.
> 
> I cannot see "settling" for anything less than a man who can handle your transparency as being an option for a woman like you. You just don't have to.


I can't believe it... I finally agree with JLD!  How did that happen?? 
Realky, though, you're right. Why would anyone want to be with someone who didn't share the same views, values, etc.? 
I don't think anyone should be made to feel ashamed of his or her past. As far as regret, I think it's OK to regret certain things, to an extent, but not to the point that your partner makes you feel ashamed.


----------



## EleGirl

Anon1111 said:


> Both Sid and Nancy have feelings of insecurity.
> 
> Sid's insecure that Nancy might've liked someone else better.
> 
> Nancy's insecure that her past might blow up her status as some kind of pristine/ ideal person.
> 
> If Nancy wasn't insecure, Sid's judgement would be a non-issue.
> 
> Both Sid and Nancy are reacting to cultural gender stereotypes.
> 
> Sid is reacting to the gender norm that a guy is supposed to be the #1 stud.
> 
> Nancy is reacting to the idea that she is supposed to be pure.
> 
> Both stereotypes put unreasonable expectations on the respective genders. But even if we can objectively see this, it doesn't mean we don't all still individually feel this pressure.
> 
> The problem is that we only recognize the pressure we each individually feel. The pressure others feel to conform to these expectations is a pure abstraction. How could you be so concerned about that, we each say, that is so obviously BS.
> 
> yet when it comes down to our situation, we expect that others will sympathize.


Something interesting pops out in the above.

Sid is insecure because he's supposed to be #1 stud. So Nancy's past now bothers him. The marriage is in bad shape because both of them let it degrade. But now Sid can pin his feelings on Nancy. So he does not have to take responsibility any more for his part of the neglect.

And Nancy, according to you, is insecure because she's supposed to be pure. And .. OMG... she's not. She's not pristine, she's soiled.

So from both Sid's point of view and from Nancy's point of view, the entire problem is now that Nancy is not pure. It's all her fault. As Lila said, it's a no-win for Nancy. There is nothing she can because she cannot change the past. 

This is what happens with the game that is played. It all becomes the fault of the woman who then has to carry the shame and regret. If only she had known that Johnny was going to dump her and that she was going to end up with Sid and that she would end up the scape goat for the marital problems. IF only she knew that the 3 days (sex or no 4th date) rule that a lot of guys have now was an emotional death trap.

Here's my suggestion. They are both mature adults now. So it's time that both of them take respopnslibty for their insecurity and not use it to hurt the other. How about they both take responsibility for their neglect of their relationship? What a novel idea.

You see a person cannot control their initial reaction. But within a few seconds of that reaction humans have 100% control over how they frame the issue and how they handle it and respond to it. Taking this respopnslibty is what we call maturity... it's also called being emotionally intelligent.

The way it's set up right now, Sid is going to ruin both of their lives over something that has zero relevance to the present. What on earth will he do if a real tragedy hits?


----------



## Nynaeve

Anon1111 said:


> If Nancy wasn't insecure, Sid's judgement would be a non-issue.


What utter nonsense. The most secure and self confident person in the world WILL be affected by their spouse's judgment of them. You can't have it both ways, Anon You want "Nancy" to be sympathetic for "Sid's" feelings but blame "Nancy's" insecurities when she's impacted by his feelings?

Also, you're rewriting the hypothetical again to suit your own agenda. No where has it ever been said that Nancy was trying to hide her past or pretend to be "pristine." 

AND! Pristine?! The words you choose betray your true views. Women who have a sexual past are not pristine? So they're dirty? You don't come out and just say that you think women should be ashamed of sexual history. But how else are we supposed to feel about making ourselves unclean by having sex?


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> The thing is, Lila, why would you want to be with someone you did not feel you could share your whole heart with, safely?
> 
> I ask that with tremendous respect, btw. I think you are an absolutely top shelf, highest possible quality human.
> 
> I cannot see "settling" for anything less than a man who can handle your transparency as being an option for a woman like you. You just don't have to.


This is the bottom line, isn't it? 

But what happens is that often a person gets too deep in a relationship so that by the time these issues come up they are emotionally stuck.

That's one of the problems with today's mode of dating. This whole bit of either sex by the 3rd date or he'll dump her is actually not conducive to a good healthy start to a relationship (in most cases). And yes I know that most people do not have a 3rd date rule. But most men do have a rule about some time limit. God forbid if a woman today wants to wait 3 months to make sure that she knows the guy and they have had a chance to discuss things like this.


----------



## EleGirl

Starstarfish said:


> And there's a parallel discussion to this going on over in the general forum, please go see some of the attitudes. "If anyone could have her ... that's just gross."


Do you mean this thread http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...ir-wives-girlfriends-past-sexual-history.html ?



Starstarfish said:


> "If anyone could have her ... that's just gross."


See, that's such a gross exaggeration that it is a huge slvt shame.... it's like if a woman has had any sex before, it's means that 'anyone can have her'.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> This is the bottom line, isn't it?
> 
> But what happens is that often a person gets too deep in a relationship so that by the time these issues come up they are emotionally stuck.
> 
> That's one of the problems with today's mode of dating. This whole bit of either sex by the 3rd date or he'll dump her is actually not conducive to a good healthy start to a relationship (in most cases). And yes I know that most people do not have a 3rd date rule. But most men do have a rule about some time limit. God forbid if a woman today wants to wait 3 months to make sure that she knows the guy and they have had a chance to discuss things like this.


I hear you, Ele. I know I have been emotionally stuck and subsequently have not been transparent or have done things I did not want to do at some time or another in order to keep a relationship going. I have total sympathy for that.

I can only speak for myself, but when I think back to those times, I really wish I had not given in. I wish I had had the courage to walk away.

Win/Win, or No Deal.


----------



## Lila

jld said:


> The thing is, Lila, why would you want to be with someone you did not feel you could share your whole heart with, safely?
> 
> I ask that with tremendous respect, btw. I think you are an absolutely top shelf, highest possible quality human.
> 
> I cannot see "settling" for anything less than a man who can handle your transparency as being an option for a woman like you. You just don't have to.


Thanks for the kind words JLD. 

I absolutely agree with you. Finding someone who makes a woman feel safe is the overall goal. I would never encourage a woman to choose to be with someone who believed the stuff that @EleGirl posted as examples in one of her posts. It would be difficult to respect that kind of person and without respect there is no solid foundation for a relationship. 

Here's the thing though, I believe in living in the present and I think there are many qualities and categories that have to be checked off before getting to the point of feeling safe enough of divulging things from the past. I want to be judged by who I am today. Anyone asking questions about my past, before even establishing compatibility with the person I am today, would not be someone I continue to have in my life. This person would not be someone I could trust and would therefore never feel safe opening up to. But that's just me.

It's why I said in an earlier post that I advise women to be very careful with whom they choose to share their sexual past. If all of the other pieces don't fall into place, then don't do it.


----------



## staarz21

All I can see from this conversation is that men would like for things to stay the same - women not have as much experience as them. That's fine, but stop coming to this forum to complain about how your W isn't have sex with you anymore, as much as you like, or in the kinky ways you want. SO many men say they are bored with the same old, why can't she just be into this and that...well....because she has been taught that it's naughty, dirty, women who do that are wh*res!!!! That's why! Seriously. You can't have it both ways. You want women as close to pure as you can get, and that's what it's like in most cases. 

Of course not all women who are pure, or close to it are vanilla lovers, but many, many of them are. 

To add as well, many women who have slept around and did dirty things with previous lovers aren't always going to do those same dirty things with their H's. Then of course, the H's feels entitled to those dirty things and starts throwing a fit about it, which is incredibly unattractive anyway. Here's why she may not want to do those dirty things - some of which I am sure some men won't even believe if she told him as has been witness here on TAM before:


It now hurts her

She never got anything from it

She did it when she was younger and more insecure...this is a big one here. Many girls are pressured into having sex or feel that they need to have sex to equate love. Young boys know this and they play on it. At that stupid, young age they might be willing to do anything to try and gain his love all the while he had no intentions of having a relationship with her at all (but he of course doesn't tell her this). In the end, doing those things that made her feel either pain or disgust (possibly both), didn't make him love her. So, she learns that she will never again do something that hurts her or makes her feel disgusting - and anyone she marries/falls in love with her wouldn't want her to do those things just because she did them when she was younger...because he loves her. 

It's not about doing those things to "win" that guy, at that time, those girls likely don't even know what the hell they are getting into. They think that no one else will want them, so they settle for being uncomfortable, hating themselves for doing things they don't like in the bedroom to try and keep a guy. It's not at all what these men are talking about here at TAM. The men here are like, "Well, she did it before with him, she needs to do it with me because she did it to win his love...she needs to prove to me she wants me just as bad...."


Uh no. What she did before might have made her feel degraded and used. You honestly want your W to feel degraded and used? Really? She has learned that she doesn't need to sell herself short, she found someone who loved her for her and what she brought with her, not what she did with other guys. It doesn't mean you're less of a man because of it. It doesn't mean you're missing out - and if you feel like you are...you need an MRI and a hooker.

On the flip side there are women who have had many partners and are damn proud of it!! Those are the women who wouldn't lie about their pasts anyway because they aren't ashamed of it. My H's ex W was this way after they divorced. She was proud of it. She was having fun, everything she did was for fun. She made sure she enjoyed every encounter. She would call me after every time talking about how much fun she just had...Yeah, I'm friends with her...Hey, we have something in common lol (my H). But whatever, more power to her. 

Either way, you're not "entitled" to have a certain kind of sex based on someone's past. You have no idea how it made them feel. I have read here on this forum that a man didn't believe his W when she told him anal hurt her...because she used to do it before having kids and liked it. After children, she rarely does it because it hurts. He didn't believe that even though there were plenty of medical reasons that could cause anal pain after children. He thought she was lying. That's horsesh*t. 

So, you have women who are pure (or close to it) and don't feel comfortable doing kinky things - 

You have women who are pure (or close to it) that LEARN to do kinky things and enjoy it - but that takes time -

You have women who are pure (or close to it) who PRETEND to like the kinky things you do and build resentment over it - 

You have women who are experienced and enjoy kinking things right from the start

You have women who are experienced and HATE kinky things due to the way OTHER men made them feel about it - 

You have women who are experienced and never want to have sex again.

NONE of that entitles YOU to kinky sex or doing things she did with previous lovers. Just because it happened before earlier in her life, doesn't mean she is going to enjoy it later in life. 

I guess if you can't understand that, then please explain to your W that you are leaving and/or giving her sh*t everyday (read guilt tripping her into) because she won't do a particular sex act...see how well that goes over. It shows just how shallow your love really is for your W. 

I don't know how to explain it to these men who can't see past their own issues. What happened with other men doesn't equate to your relationship in the present AT ALL!!!! 

I mean, do you compare your W to previous lovers? If so, that's a bigger issue. 

I accepted my H as he was. I don't care what he did with other people. He accepted me as I was - not what I did with previous people. My count of sexual partners is 6...and sometimes, I wish I had more because I feel like I'm not good enough for my H. How sh*tty is that? It's also ultimately why we are separated. Be careful, making someone feel like crap or second best long enough will take a toll.


----------



## Omego

EleGirl said:


> But most men do have a rule about some time limit. God forbid if a woman today wants to wait 3 months to make sure that she knows the guy and they have had a chance to discuss things like this.


Totally. I can't even stand the idea of the guy having a time limit -- the notion is so... well just so.... wrong. These things should just happen naturally. And if the guy doesn't want to wait until the woman is comfortable... buh bye.


----------



## Lila

jld said:


> Exactly. I think this could help every "Sid" out there:
> 
> 
> *"It's crucial for you to understand that your feelings are YOUR feelings. They belong to you. So they're yours to work through.*_ Lots of us didn't get that memo.
> 
> Here's the thing: we all have very unique personalities and triggers. What makes me feel bad is very different from what makes someone else feel bad. That's because my wounds greatly influence my uncomfortable emotions.
> 
> My wounds (and subsequent feelings) are not caused by someone else (in the present moment). I know it feels like they are, but they aren't.
> 
> Are my feelings provoked by someone else? Yes! All the time! But this doesn't make it their fault or their responsibility to fix. The sooner we recognize this, the happier we'll be in relationships.
> 
> *When you take responsibility for your feelings, you don't have to deal with the madness of trying to get someone to make it better (which never works anyway)*."_
> 
> Are You Expressing Your Feelings, Or Just Creating Drama? - mindbodygreen.com



JLD, this is an awesome post. Thank you for sharing this link. Taking ownership of our feelings is something universal. It goes hand in hand with the idea that we can't rely on others to make us happy. Happiness comes from within.


----------



## Thundarr

Omego said:


> The double standard will always exist.
> 
> I hear mothers from my children's school talking about such and such's daughter who acts inappropriately etc, who has been rumored to have slept with tons of boys, etc... and how it's such a shame. (I agree that it's a shame and wouldn't want my daughter to behave this way ). I also had a friend in high school who must have slept with dozens of boys, all because she was desperately needy and wanted to have a boyfriend and thought that was the best way to go about it. She's now married -- I suppose happily -- don't know. She wasn't happy about what she did at all -- not even enjoying herself. Said she felt embarrassed and cheap in retrospect.
> 
> At the same time, I also hear, from moms at the school, about such and such boy who's grown up to be so handsome and how he has tons and tons of girls, etc. And the discourse is quite different.
> 
> The general theme is:
> Men having lots of sexual experience = positive, proof of masculinity
> Women having lots sexual experience = negative, lack of virtue, pathology, mistake, dysfunctional
> 
> We are taught to think this way, from a very young age. I was told by my mother that anyone who had sex before marriage was a slvt. No ifs ands or buts about it.


I agree with all of this. And there's no way for us to know know how much of this double standard societal based versus innate tendencies. Clearly both genders participate so it's not very constructive to pin this on just men. At some point, I bet most people have been guilty of judging a girl for her sexuality but giving a guy doing the same thing a pass.


----------



## always_alone

I had one bf that out and out called me a slvt because I had had sex with other guys. Of course he too had previous relationships, had satisfying sex with other women, but in his mind, that made him a special catch, but my past made me a wh0re.

I learned from that to be very careful about who I got involved with, making sure that he wasn't one to hold double standards about women, to be inclined to put women down, before wasting any of my time.

Most of the slvt shaming I have experienced has been indirect. Not one person calling me names or giving me grief (although I have also been called a slvt by men who didn't even know me or my sexual history), but by the comments they make about women generally. This indirect shaming is very common, and it is so ingrained in some people, I don't think they even realize they are doing it. But the references to "town bicycle" or "damaged goods" or "used goods" or "cheap and easy" make it pretty clear that women who have sex are considered unworthy of respect or consideration. And hearing these sorts of comments repeated casually and constantly makes it pretty clear to me, and I'm sure to any woman who has listened to them her whole life, pretty cautious about who she will open up to, who she will want to be with --sexually and even just for company.


----------



## Lila

EleGirl said:


> This is the bottom line, isn't it?
> 
> But what happens is that often a person gets too deep in a relationship so that by the time these issues come up they are emotionally stuck.
> 
> That's one of the problems with today's mode of dating. This whole bit of either sex by the 3rd date or he'll dump her is actually not conducive to a good healthy start to a relationship (in most cases). And yes I know that most people do not have a 3rd date rule. But most men do have a rule about some time limit. God forbid if a woman today wants to wait 3 months to make sure that she knows the guy and they have had a chance to discuss things like this.


Begin T/J.......H and I were watching a show last night where the topic of discussions was Tinder. OMG, talk about today's youth's mode of dating!?!? With the advent of social media and instant communication, 'dating' is moving at warp speed. I guess our kids are used to it but it would make me wonky.....End T/J.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> The thing is, Lila, why would you want to be with someone you did not feel you could share your whole heart with, safely?


You wouldn't of course. But for me, the feeling of safety took some time to achieve. Well after love and commitment.


----------



## EleGirl

Omego said:


> Totally. I can't even stand the idea of the guy having a time limit -- the notion is so... well just so.... wrong. These things should just happen naturally. And if the guy doesn't want to wait until the woman is comfortable... buh bye.


When I first read here on TAM that some guys have these limits. A lot do. The idea is that if a woman does not have sex with them by the 3rd date, she's not into him enough. She's just using him.. or whatever. And very often these same guys will call a woman all kinds of names for having sex with a guy right away.

I hardly see the difference between a ONS and sex on the 3rd date. You cannot even know a person in 3 dates.

Now if people just want to have sex and a good time, then fine. But don't pretend it's anything more than that . Enjoy it and do not then act like the woman is a slvt for having sex with you.

.


----------



## Thundarr

Lila said:


> Which brings us back to the original topic about regret. Do you think Sid would be able to let go of his desire to have the 'old' Nancy if she admitted regret over her sexual history with Johnny? If she called it all a big mistake and one that she wishes never to repeat?


It probably would help him but I don't agree with it. If her pretending she regrets her (normal) past helps Sid then it probably means shows that he is coming from an emotionally weak place and needs to focus on what he has rather than pining for her validation. He needs to ask himself what he thought about their relationship yesterday. It's human nature to rationalize away things we don't like and mind movies suck so there's a lot of emotional motivation for Sid to re-write Nancy's past as something she didn't even like. It's a more palatable mind movie. But that doesn't solve the real problem. Sid has to evaluate what he has. Nancy; married him; maybe has kids with him; has slept with him hundreds or thousands of times; takes care of him when he's sick (and we are big babies when we're sick); etc. Now if he wasn't happy with these things yesterday then they have issues to work out. But if he was happy then he needs to stop keeping up with the Johnnies.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> Most of the slvt shaming I have experienced has been indirect. Not one person calling me names or giving me grief (although I have also been called a slvt by men who didn't even know me or my sexual history), but by the comments they make about women generally. This indirect shaming is very common, and it is so ingrained in some people, I don't think they even realize they are doing it. But the references to "town bicycle" or "damaged goods" or "used goods" or "cheap and easy" make it pretty clear that women who have sex are considered unworthy of respect or consideration. And hearing these sorts of comments repeated casually and constantly makes it pretty clear to me, and I'm sure to any woman who has listened to them her whole life, pretty cautious about who she will open up to, who she will want to be with --sexually and even just for company.


Yep. It's interesting that a woman is called 'damaged goods' where a guy is called a 'player'. It's reversed connotation implying that she's being used up but he's getting better at playing the game.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> When I first read here on TAM that some guys have these limits. A lot do. The idea is that if a woman does not have sex with them by the 3rd date, she's not into him enough. She's just using him.. or whatever. And very often these same guys will call a woman all kinds of names for having sex with a guy right away.
> 
> I hardly see the difference between a ONS and sex on the 3rd date. You cannot even know a person in 3 dates.
> 
> Now if people just want to have sex and a good time, then fine. But don't pretend it's anything more than that . Enjoy it and do not then act like the woman is a slvt for having sex with you.
> 
> .


Honestly never heard of this "limit" as well until I came to TAM. Now I just shake my head thinking about all the crap my daughter will have to deal with when growing up. Hopefully by then this mentality will change.

So are enough women caving in to the 3 date rule that it persists? Why would you even want to consider a relationship with a guy who would impose such a stupid deadline, for fear of being alone?


----------



## Starstarfish

> When I first read here on TAM that some guys have these limits. A lot do. The idea is that if a woman does not have sex with them by the 3rd date, she's not into him enough. She's just using him.. or whatever. And very often these same guys will call a woman all kinds of names for having sex with a guy right away.


And just like RJ in general, however "fast" you had sex with -any- previous person you dated that sets your bar -forever.- If you are -serious- about the next guy you need to "give him" sex that fast or even -faster- or obviously, you are only "using him" for free food at the Cheesecake Factory.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Only speaking myself of course but I don't mind some judgement as long as the same standards apply to the judger. In ok with a guy who himself waited until marriage desiring the same thing in a woman, and if he thinks my past is a little creepy that's ok because he's not a hypocrite. And my past really isn't that extensive, but to a guy with very limited experience it could still be too much. 

I personally think men with very extensive pasts are unappealing, but I would never apply standards that I don't apply to myself. And if I knowingly chose to be with one I wouldn't shame him for it. To repeat what I said in an earlier post I just ask that he have tact and not volunteer what I don't ask for. If I want to know I'll ask.....volunteering just makes you look insecure and unattractive. Like you want acknowledgement. That's why I told hb the next time he brought up an ex I was getting him a cookie.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

EllisRedding said:


> Honestly never heard of this "limit" as well until I came to TAM. *Now I just shake my head thinking about all the crap my daughter will have to deal with when growing up. Hopefully by then this mentality will change.*
> 
> So are enough women caving in to the 3 date rule that it persists? Why would you even want to consider a relationship with a guy who would impose such a stupid deadline, for fear of being alone?


I like to hear from guys with daughters. With Tinder and the hook up culture, I hope that changes men's expectations of "virgin brides". I also hope it takes away the s!ut shaming, young men hopefully don't have the rigid attitudes of their fathers.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> Marduk, I don't want you to leave the conversation because I do think you bring up a good point which is what got me thinking about the OP in the first place......
> 
> I agree with you that validating someone's feelings on one side doesn't invalidate the other.
> 
> The problem seems to arise with the _way_ one expects the other person to validate those feelings. It seems like words like "I sympathize with you" are not enough to satisfy men's need for validation. The validation must be proven with "action".
> 
> Well to me all that says "do it my way or don't do it at all". What if 'their way' goes counter to my personal views? E.g. what if a man wants their woman to regret something in her sexual past that she doesn't regret. She can voice her sympathy for her partner's feelings but she is not going to self-flagellate while mumbling 'mea culpa', 'mea culpa' just to make him feel better.
> 
> The 'How' is exactly why I brought up the OP. Men want their feelings on the issue of their partner's sexual past heard, but what I seem to be reading is that listening and genuine verbal assurances are not good enough. They want action, and that's pretty much where I draw the line.


If you want one man's opinion, it's because words are just words. 

Sexual identity and self worth for me exists in another plane, one of symbolism and primacy and pre-consciousness. 

When I have sex, good sex anyway, I go somewhere else. Hopefully with my partner.

And that's a place where words are just words. 

I suspect that's part of the problem. They both feel a deep symbolic wound filled with cultural overlays and norms that make everyone feel shame. What a better way to help heal her past feelings of shame than by releasing it in her marriage? What better way to feel empowered than with the support of her partner? I say these things because that is what my wife has said to me - she comes from a conservative religious family and yet is sexually experienced. So she worked (and works) these things out with me and helps to release them and feel empowered. If she feels shamed her partner, perhaps that trigger hurts not just because of his reaction, but all the past reactions - parental judgement, bad break ups, douchy boys, catty girls. If she needs to talk about this stuff, she should be able to with her husband. 

Perhaps the woman's shame is more than his. Perhaps he should wall this part of himself off and go to a place where he doesn't care if he's being his best for his partner... And vice versa. 

That's just not a place I want to go. I've been there. 

This isn't a competition where the person who hurts the most wins. 

If he wants a true resolution that includes intimacy and healthy self-esteem, he needs to not worry about comparing himself to phantoms from her past. He may need help along this journey that touches him on a symbolic level. I probably would. 

If she wants a true resolution, she needs to refuse to be shamed by her past, and not tolerate it. And yet, realize simultaneously that all he's really seeking is her. 

We can argue all day long. @EleGirl you clearly miss a key point of mine that I don't think you're going to understand: while I accept that there are d-bag men out there that **** shame every non-virgin women, I think that part of what is underlying most guys insecurity about her sexual past can be triggered by a dissatisfaction with his current sexual relationship. And that triggers a contemplation as to why; and one possible answer to his question is: I don't stack up to past partners. 

I really, really, struggle with a guy who walks around with a **** eating grin about his awesome sex life with his wife worrying about her past. 

And I know everyone's sexual relationship ebbs and flows naturally. Without having it be the partner who's throttling it be to blame.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane

always_alone said:


> I had one bf that out and out called me a slvt because I had had sex with other guys. Of course he too had previous relationships, had satisfying sex with other women, but in his mind, that made him a special catch, but my past made me a wh0re.
> 
> I learned from that to be very careful about who I got involved with, making sure that he wasn't one to hold double standards about women, to be inclined to put women down, before wasting any of my time.
> 
> Most of the slvt shaming I have experienced has been indirect. Not one person calling me names or giving me grief (although I have also been called a slvt by men who didn't even know me or my sexual history), but by the comments they make about women generally. This indirect shaming is very common, and it is so ingrained in some people, I don't think they even realize they are doing it. But the references to "town bicycle" or "damaged goods" or "used goods" or "cheap and easy" make it pretty clear that women who have sex are considered unworthy of respect or consideration. And hearing these sorts of comments repeated casually and constantly makes it pretty clear to me, and I'm sure to any woman who has listened to them her whole life, pretty cautious about who she will open up to, who she will want to be with --sexually and even just for company.


I think the first time I really started to be conscious of this sort of thing was in my late 20's. I hung out with a group of friends, and one of the guys dated a woman for 4 or 5 years. She broke up with him because he didn't want to get married, and she definitely wanted marriage and children for her life. He took it hard because he did love her though he didn't want to get married. He wanted things to stay the same, dating indefinitely.

Some time later, she dated another guy and they eventually got engaged. When we heard the news, _brother _of her ex-bf kept calling her "my brother's leftovers," as in, "Yeah, if that guy wants my brother's leftovers, he's welcome to her." and "Brother shouldn't feel bad that she's seeing someone else; he's getting brother's leftovers."

It never occurred to him that his brother could be considered HER leftovers, though, if one looked at _people _that way.

It was one of the most insulting things I'd ever heard and couldn't believe people thought that way.


----------



## always_alone

I remember this one time hanging out on the beach with a friend having a couple of drinks, and this guy decides he wants to hang out with us. He plops himself down beside us and starts talking to us, despite hints that we weren't really interested in his company. He thought it might be fun to have a threesome !!?!!

Imagine that! He doesn't even know us and there he is throwing himself at us, ready and willing to have sex whenever and with whoever he can. I wonder if anyone has called him a slvt or if he ever regrets how cheap and easy he was.

Come to think of it, over the course of my life, I've encountered lots of guys who wanted to be town bicycles, and were pretty indiscriminate about who and what they would stick it into. I wonder if *any* of them have ever been called slvts or have regrets for ruining their purity?


----------



## techmom

We need to teach our girls to be proud of their sexuality, every aspect of feminine sexuality is just as valuable as masculine sexuality. Also, we need to teach them that their sexuality belongs to them and she is free to share it with a man who she deems is worthy. It doesn't mean she has no standards, it just means she possesses her own being. She should avoid the man who wants to shame and guilt her for something that is a part of her naturally.

Hopefully, young men learn not to shame young women they lay with just to feel that they possess her so no one else can have her. Or want to be with her. Young men need to learn self validation, this comes from within. So they won't need to seek it through sex.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I remember this one time hanging out on the beach with a friend having a couple of drinks, and this guy decides he wants to hang out with us. He plops himself down beside us and starts talking to us, despite hints that we weren't really interested in his company. He thought it might be fun to have a threesome !!?!!
> 
> Imagine that! He doesn't even know us and there he is throwing himself at us, ready and willing to have sex whenever and with whoever he can. I wonder if anyone has called him a slvt or if he ever regrets how cheap and easy he was.
> 
> Come to think of it, over the course of my life, I've encountered lots of guys who wanted to be town bicycles, and were pretty indiscriminate about who and what they would stick it into. I wonder if *any* of them have ever been called slvts or have regrets for ruining their purity?


I have. 

It happens. Maybe not to the extent it happens for women, but it does happen.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> I remember this one time hanging out on the beach with a friend having a couple of drinks, and this guy decides he wants to hang out with us. He plops himself down beside us and starts talking to us, despite hints that we weren't really interested in his company. He thought it might be fun to have a threesome !!?!!
> 
> Imagine that! He doesn't even know us and there he is throwing himself at us, ready and willing to have sex whenever and with whoever he can. I wonder if anyone has called him a slvt or if he ever regrets how cheap and easy he was.
> 
> Come to think of it, over the course of my life, I've encountered lots of guys who wanted to be town bicycles, and were pretty indiscriminate about who and what they would stick it into. I wonder if *any* of them have ever been called slvts or have regrets for ruining their purity?


I don't think they see it in the same light, AA.

Years ago, I remember some guy I'd started dating _boasting_ to me about having lost his virginity to a prostitute in Amsterdam. I actually think I was supposed to be impressed, rather than immediately delete him from my little black book, which I did...


----------



## Bibi1031

marduk said:


> I have.
> 
> It happens. Maybe not to the extent it happens for women, but it does happen.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I hear it from my kids all the time...man HOs. If a guy sleeps around, he is now considered a man ho too. This is definitely changing for our teenagers. I have also noticed that sleeping around by both genders is considered wrong. Sex between two should be done only with a partner that you have strong feelings for. There is not a lot of sleeping around to put another notch on your belt. This goes for both genders. 

Kids are getting smarter, they need too with all the STDs going around. Condoms are used more often now too. Hopefully teenage pregnancies are going down too. I don't know anything about that though. 

Daughter did say that when she was a teen in high school, the kids used oral instead of penetration. She says now teens use anal for penetration, and girls consider themselves virgins if they are not penetrated through their vagina. That is left for a very special someone...eek!

Bibi


----------



## ConanHub

always_alone said:


> I remember this one time hanging out on the beach with a friend having a couple of drinks, and this guy decides he wants to hang out with us. He plops himself down beside us and starts talking to us, despite hints that we weren't really interested in his company. He thought it might be fun to have a threesome !!?!!
> 
> Imagine that! He doesn't even know us and there he is throwing himself at us, ready and willing to have sex whenever and with whoever he can. I wonder if anyone has called him a slvt or if he ever regrets how cheap and easy he was.
> 
> Come to think of it, over the course of my life, I've encountered lots of guys who wanted to be town bicycles, and were pretty indiscriminate about who and what they would stick it into. I wonder if *any* of them have ever been called slvts or have regrets for ruining their purity?


To be honest I think guys like that are a sub class of moron.

I've actually had women defend these idiots when I talk bad about them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

My youngest son has been slvt shamed, not by me, and he has only had two girlfriends and is very faithful.

He received lots of attention from young ladies so I guess that was enough.

A grown woman, married with children, was the one who tried to shame him. I had a talk with her husband about it and she apologized later.

He was maybe 18 at the time.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## staarz21

EleGirl said:


> When I first read here on TAM that some guys have these limits. A lot do. *The idea is that if a woman does not have sex with them by the 3rd date, she's not into him enough. She's just using him.. or whatever.* And very often these same guys will call a woman all kinds of names for having sex with a guy right away.
> 
> I hardly see the difference between a ONS and sex on the 3rd date. You cannot even know a person in 3 dates.
> 
> Now if people just want to have sex and a good time, then fine. But don't pretend it's anything more than that . Enjoy it and do not then act like the woman is a slvt for having sex with you.
> 
> .


I wish I could like this 1,000 times. I've also ready here (and only here) about that stupid standard. A woman must put out quickly or she is just using him....but if she sleeps with him too quickly, she's a wh*re.....ummm wtf. These guys that are like this want it both ways, and it's just possible.


----------



## Bibi1031

staarz21 said:


> I wish I could like this 1,000 times. I've also ready here (and only here) about that stupid standard. A woman must put out quickly or she is just using him....but if she sleeps with him too quickly, she's a wh*re.....ummm wtf. These guys that are like this want it both ways, and it's just possible.


I have read it before in other places. It's not exclusive to TAM. I saw this over 12 Years ago when I was actively dating back then. I just started online dating two or so weeks ago and things have gotten crazier. Men want you to put out quicker. They want French kissing after the first date...not with this gal for sure. Maybe they want the whole enchilada just because they paid for dinner...:surprise:

It's an instant gratification world out there!

Bibi


----------



## techmom

intheory said:


> And I'm only participating in this thread, and others like it; because, in a backwards way, I can understand where some of the RJ guys are coming from. Not the crazy, infuriated ogres who are demanding anal, no matter what. But the guys that feel that their wives could be really passionate, were really passionate; but that part of her is out of reach to them.
> 
> Sure it could be because he's a crummy lover or husband. But it could also be because the wife might need to be willing to explore or reawaken a part of herself. And yes, the husband needs to help her do that, but she needs to be willing to come forth.


I had to post on this part, because I think it is important to note one thing: How can a person fully accept their SO if he/she doesn't fully accept themselves? How can I show passion and uninhibited desire to someone who judges themselves harshly?

I'm in a marriage with a person who is judgemental , hard to let go of your inhibitions when you feel like it will come back to haunt you. This is what is not being fully explored, the spouse who wants more passion from the other has to let go of criticism, measuring, and score keeping of the other. They have to let the other be who they are.

Your husband probably let you in on that past hurt out of trust, and instead of acceptance he probably sensed judgement and insecurity from you. Which is why he walled off part of himself that you are trying to reach.


----------



## Cosmos

Bibi1031 said:


> I hear it from my kids all the time...man HOs. If a guy sleeps around, he is now considered a man ho too. This is definitely changing for our teenagers. I have also noticed that sleeping around by both genders is considered wrong. Sex between two should be done only with a partner that you have strong feelings for. There is not a lot of sleeping around to put another notch on your belt. This goes for both genders.
> 
> Kids are getting smarter, they need too with all the STDs going around. Condoms are used more often now too. Hopefully teenage pregnancies are going down too. I don't know anything about that though.
> *
> Daughter did say that when she was a teen in high school, the kids used oral instead of penetration. She says now teens use anal for penetration, and girls consider themselves virgins if they are not penetrated through their vagina. That is left for a very special someone...eek!*
> 
> Bibi


I find this _very _disturbing indeed. I do hope they're using condoms when indulging in oral and copious amounts of lubricant for their anal activities. 

How awfully sad that young women are learning about sex this way...


----------



## Marduk

intheory said:


> I realize I mix sex and love as one thing. Unapologetically. Very hard for me to separate the two. And, at this point in my life, I have absolutely no intention of separating them.
> 
> Yes there are people who have crappy sex lives, who don't depend on their partner's money; I am very aware of the posters you mention. But there are also many (real live acquaintances) who have crappy sex lives and DO depend on their partner's money.
> 
> Karezza sex sounds great; it has a definite emotional appeal. Not sure that has anything to do with either the original thread post, or the story of Sid and Nancy. Iow, I doubt many guys are experiencing RJ 'cause their wives had awesome Karezza sex with previous partners. And I doubt most younger guys (or girls for that matter) would be into it.
> 
> I think you've misunderstood my post. Admittedly, I rambled on quite a bit. I have zero desire to have sex with anyone other than my husband. I am still pretty smitten with him. I guess I'm the superficial one who got knocked out by physical attraction. For me, I love having sex with him; for all it's deficiencies and imperfections.
> 
> HE is the one that told ME that he could never be in love with someone ever again as deeply and intensely with the (much older) woman who dumped him (for his best friend).
> 
> I understand I can't reach that emotional intensity for him. But when you pair that together with him telling me (on more than one occasion) that I'm not what he really wanted _physically_, then it has caused a lot of pain.
> 
> Yes he "loves" me. Of course he does. I truly believe however that he has never been "in love" with me. In the sense of that expression that most of us understand.
> 
> He must have sexually bonded with me. Lots and lots and lots of orgasms with my 19 year old body. But his ability to lose himself emotionally, give himself up emotionally was gone. And people (men especially??) can have sex physically, without that person's body type/face, being what they really, really want.
> 
> There are *many* good things about our relationship; if you're wondering "why did you stay" It's sort of like a fabric that is intact; but has threadbare areas.
> 
> And I'm only participating in this thread, and others like it; because, in a backwards way, I can understand where some of the RJ guys are coming from. Not the crazy, infuriated ogres who are demanding anal, no matter what. But the guys that feel that their wives could be really passionate, were really passionate; but that part of her is out of reach to them.
> 
> Sure it could be because he's a crummy lover or husband. But it could also be because the wife might need to be willing to explore or reawaken a part of herself. And yes, the husband needs to help her do that, but she needs to be willing to come forth.
> 
> Yes, I have read the entire TheCuriousWife LD Husband thread. I'm not sure why you would cite that as an example. I think that if either Curious, or her husband, had had previous partner's; their marriage would be in much worse shape; it's far too sexually fragile. But yes, she loves him and has a bond with him, in other ways than sex - most married people do. That "other bonding" cannot take the place of a satisfying sexual experience; which Curious' thread seems to prove, actually.
> 
> Mr. Fisty; you have an open relationship with a girlfriend, iirc. So, in a sense, none of this applies to you. Either you, or her, can have sex with someone else if you decide to. Iow, I don't think you've experienced the emotional dynamic we're talking about. I very much appreciate your input and posts though. I learn a lot from the information you provide about psychology. I thank you for that.


This is one of the most insightful, open, vulnerable, and yet hopeful things I've read in a long time.

Thank you for this.


----------



## Bibi1031

Cosmos said:


> I find this _very _disturbing indeed. I do hope they're using condoms when indulging in oral and copious amounts of lubricant for their anal activities.
> 
> How awfully sad that young women are learning about sex this way...


Very disturbing. Now I have two grand daughters to worry about when they become teens...sigh

Bibi


----------



## techmom

intheory said:


> Why in God's name would I judge him, or any other human being; for trusting and loving and being dumped; for a "best friend", no less??
> 
> I am all sympathy for what he went through. A 15-year-old boy and a 30 year-old-woman. Are you kidding me?
> 
> But the things he told me that related to US, were very hard to get over. "I'll never be able to love anyone else like her, ever" (that's almost verbatim). Add to that the fact that she IS the physical type he adores (petite in height, tiny). Then I too have the right to my feelings. Or do I?
> 
> Why I stayed? I believe I enumerated the reasons in a previous post.


OMG, this is statutory rape we are talking about, this woman in your husband's life was a predator. This changes the whole conversation...


----------



## Thundarr

Cosmos said:


> I find this _very _disturbing indeed. I do hope they're using condoms when indulging in oral and copious amounts of lubricant for their anal activities.
> 
> How awfully sad that young women are learning about sex this way...


I was surprised to read that as well. I knew the trend of oral but I wouldn't have guessed anal. Looks like TAM is going to have a lot more of those "she did it for him but won't for me" threads in a few years. I'll try to find a silver lining and which is that anal sex doesn't create unwanted pregnancies. Still though, we have to assume young girls are searching for ways to be sexual and not be judged for it. It's actually very relevant to the topic of this thread IMO.


----------



## Bibi1031

Thundarr said:


> I was surprised to read that as well. I knew the trend of oral but I wouldn't have guessed anal. Looks like TAM is going to have a lot more of those "she did it for him but won't for me" threads in a few years. I'll try to find a silver lining and which is that anal sex doesn't create unwanted pregnancies. Still though, we have to assume young girls are searching for ways to be sexual and not be judged for it. It's actually very relevant to the topic of this thread IMO.


Whew, I'm glad you think it's relevant to this thread. I don't want another week of forced time out (banned). For derailing a thread.

Bibi


----------



## Thundarr

Bibi1031 said:


> Whew, I'm glad you think it's relevant to this thread. I don't want another week of forced time out (banned). For derailing a thread.
> 
> Bibi


Lol, it's hard to get banned for derailing in the ladies lounge or men's clubhouse. Most threads are perma-derails.


----------



## Bibi1031

Thundarr said:


> Lol, it's hard to get banned for derailing in the ladies lounge or men's clubhouse. Most threads are perma-derails.


Thanks! That's good to know.

Bibi


----------



## Cosmos

Thundarr said:


> I was surprised to read that as well. I knew the trend of oral but I wouldn't have guessed anal. Looks like TAM is going to have a lot more of those "she did it for him but won't for me" threads in a few years. I'll try to find a silver lining and which is that anal sex doesn't create unwanted pregnancies. Still though, we have to assume young girls are searching for ways to be sexual and not be judged for it. It's actually very relevant to the topic of this thread IMO.


Very sad, Thundarr, but definitely relevant.


----------



## Cosmos

Bibi1031 said:


> Very disturbing. Now I have two grand daughters to worry about when they become teens...sigh
> 
> Bibi


The only thing we can do is educate and enlighten youngsters about these things as much as we possibly can. Along with showing them what healthy self-esteem and boundaries look like, we can't do more.


----------



## ConanHub

Cosmos said:


> I find this _very _disturbing indeed. I do hope they're using condoms when indulging in oral and copious amounts of lubricant for their anal activities.
> 
> How awfully sad that young women are learning about sex this way...


Agreed.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Nynaeve

Cosmos said:


> I find this _very _disturbing indeed. I do hope they're using condoms when indulging in oral and copious amounts of lubricant for their anal activities.
> 
> How awfully sad that young women are learning about sex this way...


I think the thing that bothers me the most about teenage girls engaging in anal is that it seems so very likely they are doing it to try to please the boys and not for their own enjoyment. I get that some women find anal enjoyable. But it's not really one of those things that most women enjoy right away. And for a teenage girl to go straight to anal? Her enjoyment of it just seems soooo unlikely. 

I guess it's the same with oral. I mean, that probably means the girls are giving blow jobs to keep their boyfriends. It's not really that different than when I was in high school.

I'm so worried about how I'm going to to teach my kids about this stuff.


----------



## Thundarr

Nynaeve said:


> I'm so worried about how I'm going to to teach my kids about this stuff.


Having the conversations to begin with is the biggest difference. Moms and dads talking about sex in detail will make most kids avoid it like the plague.


----------



## Nynaeve

Thundarr said:


> Having the conversations to begin with is the biggest difference. Moms and dads talking about sex in detail will make most kids avoid it like the plague.


LOL, well that's good. I'm a pretty blunt person and I don't think anything is unfit for discussion. Maybe it will be easier than I think.


----------



## Thundarr

Nynaeve said:


> LOL, well that's good. I'm a pretty blunt person and I don't think anything is unfit for discussion. Maybe it will be easier than I think.


I had three boys and there was a mortified look any time I had talks with them about sex. My talks were generally focused more on consequences than details. It's obvious when the switch flips from them being kids to them being interested in the opposite sex and boys are a lot easier than girls because they aren't being pursued by older girls like young girls are pursued by older guys.

It's wasn't easy but there are a lot of things that are not easy for parents. We've got to do it so there's no point in worrying about it.


----------



## Thundarr

I just read the following quote by Will Smith posted by a friend on facebook;



> Boys laugh at what they put girls through but they wont be laughing when ... they're wiping tears off their daughters face for the same reason


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> We can argue all day long. @EleGirl you clearly miss a key point of mine that I don't think you're going to understand: while I accept that there are d-bag men out there that **** shame every non-virgin women, I think that part of what is underlying most guys insecurity about her sexual past can be triggered by a dissatisfaction with his current sexual relationship. And that triggers a contemplation as to why; and one possible answer to his question is: I don't stack up to past partners.
> 
> I really, really, struggle with a guy who walks around with a **** eating grin about his awesome sex life with his wife worrying about her past.


I did not miss the point that your story of Sid/Nancy/Johnny is about a particular type of situation where a guy is upset about his bad sex life only to find out that this wife once had a hot fling with someone. I can see how that happens, either a guy or a gal getting upset about dynamics like that. 

I can see why you find it hard to believe that some guys would slvt shame a woman they were with even when they have a good sex life. It speaks well of you that you find it hard to imagine. But it happens.

Plus, as I pointed out earlier, the attempt to shame women is not just in some relationships when things are going bad or not going bad. A few posts back, I posted some of the things being said just this week here that is basically slvt shaming women. Girls and women hear that kind of nonsense all the time. It can make an insecure and/or immature girl/woman feel a lot of shame…. Even if the girl/woman has a pretty tame sexual history. We can see on this thread for example that women who have said that they are not ashamed of their sex life gets turned into things like pulling a gang bang for a frat party… who said that? The woman just said that SHE was not ashamed of HER sex life. Why the assumption that it included a gang bang?

.


----------



## Omego

intheory said:


> HE is the one that told ME that he could never be in love with someone ever again as deeply and intensely with the (much older) woman who dumped him (for his best friend).
> 
> I understand I can't reach that emotional intensity for him. But when you pair that together with him telling me (on more than one occasion) that I'm not what he really wanted _physically_, then it has caused a lot of pain.


You're a strong person and I hope your H knows how lucky he is!


----------



## always_alone

Nynaeve said:


> I think the thing that bothers me the most about teenage girls engaging in anal is that it seems so very likely they are doing it to try to please the boys and not for their own enjoyment. I get that some women find anal enjoyable. But it's not really one of those things that most women enjoy right away. And for a teenage girl to go straight to anal? Her enjoyment of it just seems soooo unlikely.
> 
> I guess it's the same with oral. I mean, that probably means the girls are giving blow jobs to keep their boyfriends. It's not really that different than when I was in high school.
> 
> I'm so worried about how I'm going to to teach my kids about this stuff.


If there is anything to regret in one's sexual history, it is to have accepted one-sided pleasure, to have done things because you are "supposed to" and let someone else tell you what is and is not right for you.

Sadly lots of girls believe (and have believed) that sex for them is supposed to be mostly unpleasant, that the pleasure is for the boys that they need to impress. 

That these messages keep being reinforced is the biggest shame of all.


----------



## techmom

always_alone said:


> If there is anything to regret in one's sexual history, it is to have accepted one-sided pleasure, to have done things because you are "supposed to" and let someone else tell you what is and is not right for you.
> 
> Sadly lots of girls believe (and have believed) that sex for them is supposed to be mostly unpleasant, that the pleasure is for the boys that they need to impress.
> 
> That these messages keep being reinforced is the biggest shame of all.


These are going to be the future LD women in sexless marriages with disappointed husbands...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

It's the pressure the girls who chase after the jock feel, because they know that if they don't put out, there is a whole line behind them just waiting to do so. It's the pressure the girl who's never had a boy notice her feels when she finally gets one who does, and she's afraid she's going to lose him if she doesn't put out. It's the pressure girls feel that they have to trade sex for love.

However, I think it's way more common than some want to acknowledge, that there are girls who are doing all of those things because well, they are horny, and they know exactly what they are doing, and are going after it, just like the boys.


----------



## Cosmos

samyeagar said:


> It's the pressure the girls who chase after the jock feel, because they know that if they don't put out, there is a whole line behind them just waiting to do so. It's the pressure the girl who's never had a boy notice her feels when she finally gets one who does, and she's afraid she's going to lose him if she doesn't put out. It's the pressure girls feel that they have to trade sex for love.
> 
> *However, I think it's way more common than some want to acknowledge, that there are girls who are doing all of those things because well, they are horny, and they know exactly what they are doing, and are going after it, just like the boys.*


I hear you, Sam, but if they're so horny why are they indulging in the kind of sex acts that are unlikely to bring them any personal pleasure? When I was that age I was self-absorbed and selfish, and if I'd had sex it most certainly would have only been for what I would get out of it.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> It's the pressure the girls who chase after the jock feel, because they know that if they don't put out, there is a whole line behind them just waiting to do so. It's the pressure the girl who's never had a boy notice her feels when she finally gets one who does, and she's afraid she's going to lose him if she doesn't put out. It's the pressure girls feel that they have to trade sex for love.
> 
> However, I think it's way more common than some want to acknowledge, that there are girls who are doing all of those things because well, they are horny, and they know exactly what they are doing, and are going after it, just like the boys.


Yes, of course you are right that girls are doing these things because they are also horny. But until the stats even out, until women have orgasms at the same rate of men, until they start reporting that pleasure is for them too, and they don't *expect* sex to be painful and uncomfortable for them, yet pleasurable for the boys, then I will agree that the regrets are unnecessary.


----------



## EllisRedding

techmom said:


> I like to hear from guys with daughters. With Tinder and the hook up culture, I hope that changes men's expectations of "virgin brides". I also hope it takes away the s!ut shaming, young men hopefully don't have the rigid attitudes of their fathers.


I can actually think back to when I was in college (late 90s) and my roommate actually got "svut shamed" by females. IIRC he had hooked up with 1-2 girls early on Freshman year (just ONS). At some point after, messages were popping up online about him, telling girls to avoid him, etc... To my knowledge everything was consensual, it was the fact that things ended after sex that caused the outrage.

So with this, and I think this may tie in somewhat to the OP, the feeling that females need to please guys to get/keep them, etc... do you believe a female (or male) has a reason to be upset when a ONS turns out to be just a ONS (even though it was consensual)? On my way to work they always play this segment on the radio called "Blown Off", and on several occasions a female has called up, talks to the DJs about her date, they want back to his/her place after and got it on, and now he won't return her calls/texts. It usually ends up with her acting like the victim. Now, I am not letting the other person (in this case the guy) off the hook, but if she agreed to have sex after just meeting this guy, isn't she just as responsible as he is? Is playing the victim card a way to deflect the regret/shame of a ONS?

Also, I do understand the same can happen with guys where they have sex and then the female disappears. I would guess you hear about this much less often because the perception is the end goal of every guy is just to get laid, so if he actually complained about it he would open himself up to ridicule.

Hopefully my post/question comes off correct, not meant to target anyone specifically , just more so something that when I hear on the radio I can't help but shake my head.


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> I hear you, Sam, but if they're so horny why are they indulging in the kind of sex acts that are unlikely to bring them any personal pleasure? When I was that age I was self-absorbed and selfish, and if I'd had sex it most certainly would have only been for what I would get out of it.


I 100% think that there's likely a number of women in my past that have done such things just for me, or to get me, or keep me. Which sucks and I don't feel good about.

However, there is also one specific one where she did "out there" stuff for me (not that out there by my standards, but we were young at the time)... but I guarantee she enjoyed it. She liked that it was a bit "dirty," she liked that I went after what I wanted from her, and she liked the hookups that we had over a short period of time one weekend without the weight of a relationship on top of that.

Unbeknownst to me, she had just broken up with her long-time boyfriend the week before, persued me at a party, and then went back to him a week or two after that (she was a friend of a friend).

And she told him about me, and what we did, and that she never had sexual experiences like that before. And he couldn't "get her there."

They ended up marrying even though they both had sexual problems as a result, and ended up in MC and sex therapy... and I'm not sure if they ever got over that.

I still feel guilty about that. To me, it was just a fun fling, and to her it was a pivotal sexual experience... and to him, it set the bar that he felt he could never jump over.

I always felt like I should look that guy up and try to talk to him about it, but I thought that might just be salt in the wound so I didn't.

And all that was 20 years ago but I still think about it.

EDIT: to finish my point, I think the core issue that they had was that she did stuff and wanted to and liked it with me, and not with him. I don't think he would have had a big of a problem with it if she didn't want to do it, or didn't like it when she did.


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> I 100% think that there's likely a number of women in my past that have done such things just for me, or to get me, or keep me.


Low self-esteem and / or a history of abuse can sometimes cause individuals to behave in ways that are not in their best interests. The sad thing is that this just keeps the cycle going...


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> Low self-esteem and / or a history of abuse can sometimes cause individuals to behave in ways that are not in their best interests. The sad thing is that this just keeps the cycle going...


I don't think it was like that.

What I think was more likely was the scenario with the first girl I ever fell in love with:

It was my senior year in high school, she persued me because I belonged to a certain social strata. She was smart, pretty, determined, and I thought she actually liked me.

But once we graduated, it was dump city for me. Because I had served my purpose, and wouldn't serve it any longer -- her popularity.

Which sucked.


----------



## Anon1111

Nynaeve said:


> What utter nonsense. The most secure and self confident person in the world WILL be affected by their spouse's judgment of them. You can't have it both ways, Anon You want "Nancy" to be sympathetic for "Sid's" feelings but blame "Nancy's" insecurities when she's impacted by his feelings?
> 
> Also, you're rewriting the hypothetical again to suit your own agenda. No where has it ever been said that Nancy was trying to hide her past or pretend to be "pristine."
> 
> AND! Pristine?! The words you choose betray your true views. Women who have a sexual past are not pristine? So they're dirty? You don't come out and just say that you think women should be ashamed of sexual history. But how else are we supposed to feel about making ourselves unclean by having sex?


good job completely misreading the intent of my post.


----------



## Anon1111

most slVt shaming is woman on woman.

it is a means of gaining social dominance among women.

most men love slVts.

I know, I know, "men = bad" and all that. "men who disagree = losers" carry on.


----------



## Fozzy

"Sl*tty" is relative.






Especially in my family.


----------



## BetrayedDad

intheory said:


> HE is the one that told ME that he could never be in love with someone ever again as deeply and intensely with the (much older) woman who dumped him (for his best friend).
> 
> I understand I can't reach that emotional intensity for him. But when you pair that together with him telling me (on more than one occasion) that I'm not what he really wanted _physically_, then it has caused a lot of pain.
> 
> Yes he "loves" me. Of course he does. I truly believe however that he has never been "in love" with me. In the sense of that expression that most of us understand.


:frown2: You deserved someone who could give you his everything. Everyone does but I'm glad you are still happy with him despite this. You are an incredibly strong woman.



intheory said:


> But the guys that feel that their wives could be really passionate, were really passionate; but that part of her is out of reach to them.
> 
> Sure it could be because he's a crummy lover or husband. But it could also be because the wife might need to be willing to explore or reawaken a part of herself. And yes, the husband needs to help her do that, but she needs to be willing to come forth.


Intelligent and unbiased too. Your husband doesn't realize the treasure he has.


----------



## EllisRedding

Anon1111 said:


> most men love slVts.


Can you define what you consider a slvt? Unless it is something different than what I am thinking I guess I just don't fall into the "most men" group ...


----------



## norajane

intheory said:


> Why in God's name would I judge him, or any other human being; for trusting and loving and being dumped; for a "best friend", no less??
> 
> I am all sympathy for what he went through. A 15-year-old boy and a 30 year-old-woman. Are you kidding me?
> 
> But the things he told me that related to US, were very hard to get over. "I'll never be able to love anyone else like her, ever" (that's almost verbatim). Add to that the fact that she IS the physical type he adores (petite in height, tiny). Then I too have the right to my feelings. Or do I?
> 
> Why I stayed? I believe I enumerated the reasons in a previous post.


That is statutory rape, and if your H is still hung up on the "intensity" of his feelings for her, it's because he was sexually abused (though he doesn't see it that way). That woman took advantage of him and raped him.

Did your H ever seek therapy? Probably not because he thinks he was in love? It might help him to see a therapist now. It might help you both if he comes to terms what happened to him, and that he learned some messed up things about what love, sex and "intensity" (i.e., trauma) are about.


----------



## Anon1111

FrenchFry said:


> Straight up, no they don't.
> 
> There was literally a direct exchange between me and someone in this thread who thought I came off ****ty and that would be a deal-breaker.
> 
> I have encountered way more of that attitude than women trying to take me down a notch. Which I have encountered.


fair enough.

my experience is different. 

I honestly don't know any guys who think girls should be virgins or whatever. it's a non issue in my world.

by contrast, I have seen hundreds of time women call each other out in subtle and not so subtle ways, e.g., anytime a woman wears something sexier than the other girls in a particular environment, women are guaranteed to talk sh-t about her

but I can concede that others have had different life experiences than me.


----------



## Fozzy

FrenchFry said:


> Furthermore, this is what we keep telling you. Women talk out of two sides of their mouths because men say they love ****s but don't like it if you do ****ty things (not with them.)
> 
> You don't love ****s. You want to love yourself and loving yourself means making a woman be a **** for you.


Yep.

Lots of guys THINK they love "****s", but they really only want a woman to be their exclusive ****.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> It's the pressure the girls who chase after the jock feel, because they know that if they don't put out, there is a whole line behind them just waiting to do so. It's the pressure the girl who's never had a boy notice her feels when she finally gets one who does, and she's afraid she's going to lose him if she doesn't put out. It's the pressure girls feel that they have to trade sex for love.
> 
> However, I think it's way more common than some want to acknowledge, that there are girls who are doing all of those things because well, they are horny, and they know exactly what they are doing, and are going after it, just like the boys.


I agree, there is no one motivation for all girls and all boys for the things that they choose to do.

I do think that it's sad when both boys and girls, do these things because they think they have to in order to get love and attention.


----------



## Anon1111

EllisRedding said:


> Can you define what you consider a slvt? Unless it is something different than what I am thinking I guess I just don't fall into the "most men" group ...


first, I should clarify that I don't really use that word nor does anyone I know. It's really a non issue among men in my experience.

that said, I believe the conventional definition is a promiscuous woman.

in my experience, men love this type of woman provided that she is HIS woman.

they don't like it if she cheats (but that's a different scenario)

they don't like it if she was sexually liberal with other guys but not him.

but otherwise, the past is a net positive because it indicates she's open to stuff.


----------



## Anon1111

FrenchFry said:


> Furthermore, this is what we keep telling you. Women talk out of two sides of their mouths because men say they love ****s but don't like it if you do ****ty things (not with them.)
> 
> You don't love ****s. You want to love yourself and loving yourself means making a woman be a **** for you.


the point again is not what you DID in the past.

it's what you DO or DO NOT do in the present.

if you cheat in the present = busted

if you are a dead fish in the present = busted

in those circumstances, a man may look negatively on your past if he sees a connection to present behavior.

a woman would do the same, BTW, just maybe not for the same things.


----------



## Anon1111

Fozzy said:


> Yep.
> 
> Lots of guys THINK they love "****s", but they really only want a woman to be their exclusive ****.


I agree with this but don't really see why there is any inconsistency here, assuming that both people accept an exclusive relationship


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> I agree, there is no one motivation for all girls and all boys for the things that they choose to do.
> 
> *I do think that it's sad when both boys and girls, do these things because they think they have to in order to get love and attention*.


So long as they have no regrets.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> I can actually think back to when I was in college (late 90s) and my roommate actually got "svut shamed" by females. IIRC he had hooked up with 1-2 girls early on Freshman year (just ONS). At some point after, messages were popping up online about him, telling girls to avoid him, etc... To my knowledge everything was consensual, it was the fact that things ended after sex that caused the outrage..


I have had female friends who experienced something like this.
From their perspective, the guy pursued them, led them to believe that he was interested in pursuing a relationship. They have sex. Usually this is not sex within hours of meeting. Then she never hears from him again. And often times he’s spreading around that he had sex with her. At that point she realizes that he played her. 

Now if it was a one night stand in that they just met and within hours of meeting had sex, well then they both need to be adults about it and accept that it can a consensual ONS.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> So long as they have no regrets.


Why shouldn't they have any regrets.

Regrets are find when they come from a place within the person, a place from which they learn from the experience.

Regrets suck when the reason for the regret is pressure and shaming from external sources. When the person feels that they have shame and regrets to be accept my others in their life. This kind of shame/regret usually keeps a person from learning important lessons and growing emotionally.


----------



## Thundarr

Debating whether young men can be labelled as slvts or wh0res misses the point quite frankly. If a young man is labelled as 'a dog', 'a player', 'a man wh0re' then what does it matter if those labels don't carry negative consequences for him? On the contrary, when we are labelled as players/etc , we get more attention rather than rejection. It goes back to that messed up notion that our histories (guys) are making us better and more worthy but women's histories are making them more used up and less worthy. That's illogical nonsense.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Fozzy said:


> Yep.
> 
> Lots of guys THINK they love "****s", but they really only want a woman to be their exclusive ****.


lol talk about a oxymoron.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> I have had female friends who experienced something like this.
> From their perspective, the guy pursued them, led them to believe that he was interested in pursuing a relationship. They have sex. Usually this is not sex within hours of meeting. Then she never hears from him again. And often times he’s spreading around that he had sex with her. At that point she realizes that he played her.
> 
> Now if it was a one night stand in that they just met and within hours of meeting had sex, well then they both need to be adults about it and accept that it can a consensual ONS.


I know specifically with my friend/roommate he just met the girls at a party and things went from there that night.

With your female friends, so they actually went on several dates, finally decided to have sex, and then after he disappeared?


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
Your post below deserves its own thread. Because this type of sexual insecurity wreaks a special type of havoc over time. 

The insecurity package almost guarantees that the wife has to lie to her H on an ongoing basis. She has to assure her H it was great every time they have sex. Either that, or face an interrogation. 

If your partner orgasms and you often don't - and on top of it you feel pressure to lie and say you did - that's a very costly experience psychologically. 





jld said:


> I agree, Lila.
> 
> My takeaway is that these posters expect to be taken care of, emotionally protected, by the women they are with.
> 
> And if those women are happy to do that, then good enough.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> I know specifically with my friend/roommate he just met the girls at a party and things went from there that night.


If that's the case, and it was consensual, the women who then publically went after him are bullies.



EllisRedding said:


> With your female friends, so they actually went on several dates, finally decided to have sex, and then after he disappeared?


Yes. It's so common that it's a cliché.


----------



## techmom

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> Your post below deserves its own thread. Because this type of sexual insecurity wreaks a special type of havoc over time.
> 
> The insecurity package almost guarantees that the wife has to lie to her H on an ongoing basis. She has to assure her H it was great every time they have sex. Either that, or face an interrogation.
> 
> If your partner orgasms and you often don't - and on top of it you feel pressure to lie and say you did - that's a very costly experience psychologically.


QFT
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BetrayedDad

EllisRedding said:


> I can actually think back to when I was in college (late 90s) and my roommate actually got "svut shamed" by females. IIRC he had hooked up with 1-2 girls early on Freshman year (just ONS). At some point after, messages were popping up online about him, telling girls to avoid him, etc... To my knowledge everything was consensual, it was the fact that things ended after sex that caused the outrage.


Where did these messages pop up exactly? I guess AOL was blowing up huh? Fishy story man, I am very familiar with that time period. There was NO social media in the late 90s and no one really even had a cellphone. Half my friends didn't even use a computer unless it was to type up a paper. Most people were still on dial up with basic email addresses as the only method of online communication. There were "chat rooms" but they were filled with strangers and nerds. Come on....


----------



## EllisRedding

BetrayedDad said:


> Where did these messages pop up wear exactly? Fishy story man, I am very familiar with that time period. There was no social media in the late 90s and no one really even had a cellphone. Half my friends didn't even use a computer unless it was to type up a paper. Most people were still on dial up with basic email address as the only method of online communication. Come on....


Lol, at the university we had an intranet there where you could post messages. Likewise (i know, big shocker but keep calm), we had PCs as well, yikes!!! Our school was well equipped technologically. My roommate found out because one of his female friends saw the messages being posted on some of the intranet sites we used.

I am happy though to hear you are familiar with the late 90s :grin2:


----------



## techmom

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> Your post below deserves its own thread. Because this type of sexual insecurity wreaks a special type of havoc over time.
> 
> The insecurity package almost guarantees that the wife has to lie to her H on an ongoing basis. She has to assure her H it was great every time they have sex. Either that, or face an interrogation.
> 
> If your partner orgasms and you often don't - and on top of it you feel pressure to lie and say you did - that's a very costly experience psychologically.


QFT
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BetrayedDad

EllisRedding said:


> Lol, at the university we had an intranet there where you could post messages. Likewise (i know, big shocker but keep calm), we had PCs as well, yikes!!! Our school was well equipped technologically. My roommate found out because one of his female friends saw the messages being posted on some of the intranet sites we used.
> 
> I am happy though to hear you are familiar with the late 90s :grin2:


OK....


----------



## BetrayedDad

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> Your post below deserves its own thread. Because this type of sexual insecurity wreaks a special type of havoc over time.
> 
> The insecurity package almost guarantees that the wife has to lie to her H on an ongoing basis. She has to assure her H it was great every time they have sex. Either that, or face an interrogation.
> 
> If your partner orgasms and you often don't - and on top of it you feel pressure to lie and say you did - that's a very costly experience psychologically.


This honesty is the BEST policy mantra is soooo freshing!

I was getting REALLY tired of telling my gf she didn't look fat in this dress or looked great in some horrible looking pants. 

Now I don't have to lie anymore and protect her ego. I guess women do want the truth no matter how mean it is.


----------



## EleGirl

BetrayedDad said:


> This honesty is the BEST policy mantra is soooo freshing!
> 
> I was getting REALLY tired of telling my gf she didn't look fat in this dress or looked great in some horrible looking pants.
> 
> Now I don't have to lie anymore and protect her ego. I guess women do want the truth no matter how mean it is.


I always get a kick out of it when I hear the 'do I look fat' and 'does this look ok' cliché. Why on earth would anyone ask a question like that unless they were expecting the absolute truth? 


.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> I always get a kick out of it when I hear the 'do I look fat' and 'does this look ok' cliché. *Why on earth would anyone ask a question like that unless they were expecting the absolute truth?*
> 
> 
> .


And yet it happens all the time...


----------



## Anon1111

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> Your post below deserves its own thread. Because this type of sexual insecurity wreaks a special type of havoc over time.
> 
> The insecurity package almost guarantees that the wife has to lie to her H on an ongoing basis. She has to assure her H it was great every time they have sex. Either that, or face an interrogation.
> 
> If your partner orgasms and you often don't - and on top of it you feel pressure to lie and say you did - that's a very costly experience psychologically.


the situation you described is lame. I'm not sure why anyone would play that game.

on the other hand, almost nobody is actually compelled to lie. people make a choice to lie because it seems better than the alternative. but it is still a choice.

a woman who repeatedly lies in the situation you described surely compounds a negative situation.

surely she shouldn't feel pressure to say she enjoyed something when she didn't.

but she does have the freedom to say she didn't enjoy it. she just has to accept the consequence of speaking up.

this is another example of "owning your sh-t."


----------



## techmom

Anon1111 said:


> the situation you described is lame. I'm not sure why anyone would play that game.
> 
> on the other hand, almost nobody is actually compelled to lie. people make a choice to lie because it seems better than the alternative. but it is still a choice.
> 
> a woman who repeatedly lies in the situation you described surely compounds a negative situation.
> 
> surely she shouldn't feel pressure to say she enjoyed something when she didn't.
> 
> but she does have the freedom to say she didn't enjoy it. she just has to accept the consequence of speaking up.
> 
> this is another example of "owning your sh-t."


Ok, so it will be an argument after sex every time because the woman will be blunt and say he sucks in bed while the man has lingering insecurities. Some of you guys are talking out of both sides of your mouth. We had pages of posts saying that the wife should reassure the husband and now you say she should own her sh!t.

It will just guarantee that the guy gets rejected more often, because who will want to deal with that time and again.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> I always get a kick out of it when I hear the 'do I look fat' and 'does this look ok' cliché. Why on earth would anyone ask a question like that unless they were expecting the absolute truth?
> 
> 
> .


Because they're looking for reassurance and a kind word from their partner. 

and if something could look better, some gentle honesty. 

Is that surprising?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

techmom said:


> Ok, so it will be an argument after sex every time because the woman will be blunt and say he sucks in bed while the man has lingering insecurities. Some of you guys are talking out of both sides of your mouth. We had pages of posts saying that the wife should reassure the husband and now you say she should own her sh!t.
> 
> It will just guarantee that the guy gets rejected more often, because who will want to deal with that time and again.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


TM what would you like to see happen here?

If you're looking for an acknowledgement from a male that women get put into a no-win scenario by some men, and then get shamed for it, then you have it. 

It must be very tough to be a woman. And I think you're in a ****ty situation with a guy who needs to stop hurting you. 

And I'd help you with that, if I could.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WandaJ

Anon1111 said:


> the situation you described is lame. I'm not sure why anyone would play that game.
> 
> on the other hand, almost nobody is actually compelled to lie. people make a choice to lie because it seems better than the alternative. but it is still a choice.
> 
> a woman who repeatedly lies in the situation you described surely compounds a negative situation.
> 
> surely she shouldn't feel pressure to say she enjoyed something when she didn't.
> 
> but she does have the freedom to say she didn't enjoy it. she just has to accept the consequence of speaking up.
> 
> this is another example of "owning your sh-t."


NO, this is not about owning your sh..t. This is not busness transaction. This is about emotions. If she does not want to hurt his feeling, she would be saying whatever is expected. The more he asks the more obvious that's all he is looking is reassurance. Most people do not want to be cruel. But for sure this would be mood killer, and eventually it might be relationship killer.


----------



## Anon1111

OK, so cut to the chase. If the guy is so insecure, why do you want to be in a relationship with him?

I understand there are abusive situations where women are afraid to tell the truth. I would concede that "choice" is not really present in those situations.

Aside from that, if you need to constantly lie to maintain a relationship, then my question would be what is the relationship really worth.


----------



## Woodchuck

The fact that this thread lasted over 70 pages proves that women are hugely insecure about sex....Women do as much or more than men to perpetuate the double standard, and do little to out men who have stupid and immature attitudes about women. 

Young girls are forced by peer pressure and hormones to enter into sexual relationships that they cannot possibly support emotionally....I see no way of preventing this....Young people of every generation think they invented sexuality, and that old people cannot possibly understand FEELINGS and EMOTIONS....

There is no stigma placed on males having large numbers of sexual partners, but difficult to stigmatize males who treat women poorly....

Unfortunately, if you go on line and look at reviews of a product or service you like, many people do not....

An online review of a place where we dined this week, severely panned the wine, and the roast pig.....The establishment serves neither....

This all comes down to honesty and candor....If both partners in a relationship are honest one on one about past experiences, it would bring to light many issues that would be deal breakers in a LTR...


----------



## WandaJ

Anon1111 said:


> OK, so cut to the chase. If the guy is so insecure, why do you want to be in a relationship with him?
> 
> .


I would not I am just explaining mechanism behind it. The same mechanism that causes men to deny that their wife is too fat, even if she is.

chances are she loves the guy. and that she has her own insecurities. So she stays and says what he wants to hear. and they continue their live together, with more and more resentments on both sides.


----------



## Anon1111

techmom said:


> Ok, so it will be an argument after sex every time because the woman will be blunt and say he sucks in bed while the man has lingering insecurities. Some of you guys are talking out of both sides of your mouth. We had pages of posts saying that the wife should reassure the husband and now you say she should own her sh!t.
> 
> It will just guarantee that the guy gets rejected more often, because who will want to deal with that time and again.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't think I'm being inconsistent.

My point is that everyone should be honest and put in their best effort.

Then everyone has the info they need to evaluate whether the plus/minuses are good enough to meet the respective needs vs capacity to give.

I don't think this is sexist or unfair to anybody.

Sometimes it won't work out. That's OK.


----------



## WandaJ

Woodchuck said:


> The fact that this thread lasted over 70 pages proves that women are hugely insecure about sex....Women do as much or more than men to perpetuate the double standard, and do little to out men who have stupid and immature attitudes about women.
> 
> *Young girls are forced by peer pressure and hormones to enter into sexual relationships that they cannot possibly support emotionally...*.I see no way of preventing this....Young people of every generation think they invented sexuality, and that old people cannot possibly understand FEELINGS and EMOTIONS....
> 
> There is no stigma placed on males having large numbers of sexual partners, but difficult to stigmatize males who treat women poorly....
> 
> Unfortunately, if you go on line and look at reviews of a product or service you like many people do not....
> 
> An online review of a place where we dined this week, severely panned the wine, and the roast pig.....The establishment serves neither....
> 
> This all comes down to honesty and candor....If both partners in a relationship are honest one on one about past experiences, it would bring to light many issues that would be deal breakers in a LTR...


What happened to young boys in that picture?


----------



## Anon1111

marduk said:


> TM what would you like to see happen here?
> 
> If you're looking for an acknowledgement from a male that women get put into a no-win scenario by some men, and then get shamed for it, then you have it.
> 
> It must be very tough to be a woman. And I think you're in a ****ty situation with a guy who needs to stop hurting you.
> 
> And I'd help you with that, if I could.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Seconded.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> I don't think I'm being inconsistent.
> 
> My point is that everyone should be honest and put in their best effort.
> 
> Then everyone has the info they need to evaluate whether the plus/minuses are good enough to meet the respective needs vs capacity to give.
> 
> I don't think this is sexist or unfair to anybody.
> 
> Sometimes it won't work out. That's OK.


I think you guys are kinda saying the same thing with a different nuance.

Anon, you're a good guy. If you had to tell your wife something because she needed to know it, or it was building resentment, you'd do it. 

But you'd find a way to do it as respectfully and gently as possible that would still achieve what was needed. 

There's tactful honesty and then there's brutal honesty.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Woodchuck

WandaJ said:


> What happened to young boys in that picture?


As I said in the next paragraph...And in earlier poste...*No one cares.*...hence the double standard...


----------



## WandaJ

Anon1111 said:


> I don't think I'm being inconsistent.
> 
> My point is that everyone should be honest and put in their best effort.
> 
> Then everyone has the info they need to evaluate whether the plus/minuses are good enough to meet the respective needs vs capacity to give.
> 
> I don't think this is sexist or unfair to anybody.
> 
> Sometimes it won't work out. That's OK.


Honesty is one thing. Being insensititve to your partner's insecurities another. 

For me man who would continue asking this kind of question would be a big no-no. I would get out of that relationship but I would not tell him that he sucked big times, or was dull in bed, etc. No point in hurting his feeling. Just split and go on with your life.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Anon, you're a good guy. *If you had to tell your wife something because *she needed to know it, or *it was building resentment, you'd do it. *
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Is that true, anon?


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> And yet it happens all the time...


Yea, there are a lot of people out there who just don't think things through.

The other side of that coin is a guy who asks if he's the 'biggest' his wife/gf has ever had... or if he's the best sex.

I'm sure that a good number of both men and women ask their spouses things that are better left not asked.


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> I always get a kick out of it when I hear the 'do I look fat' and 'does this look ok' cliché. Why on earth would anyone ask a question like that unless they were expecting the absolute truth? .





marduk said:


> Because they're looking for reassurance and a kind word from their partner.


My question was sort of rhetorical. If a person has to fish for complements/reassurance, there is something wrong that has to be addressed. If they do this often, then either they are insecure or their partner is not meeting an important need. That’s my point… I should have been clearer.



marduk said:


> and if something could look better, some gentle honesty.
> 
> Is that surprising?


Note the underlined part of my quote above…. *"unless they were expecting the absolute truth"*

Now I can see a couple developing a dynamic where one asks a question fishing for a complement and the other picks up on the cue and gives one. As long as it works for them, all is good. But is one or both of them are not feeling good about this.. then it should be dealt with, with their spouse.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> I'm sure that a good number of both men and women ask their spouses things that are better left not asked.


Crap, knew I shouldn't have asked her to marry me ... >


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> Is that true, anon?


yes. I've done it. Just yesterday, in fact!


----------



## BetrayedDad

EleGirl said:


> Now I can see a couple developing a dynamic where one asks a question fishing for a complement and the other picks up on the cue and gives one. As long as it works for them, all is good. But is one or both of them are not feeling good about this.. then it should be dealt with, with their spouse.


This is a GREAT answer... on paper. ANY man, having spent ANY time with women will realize this will blow up in your face. I've had multiple women tell me they want to be LIED too. Don't you dare negatively critique them or it's hell to pay. Which is why this hypocrisy about women preaching that you shouldn't have to "lie" to your SO and it's "okay" to tell them you SUCK in bed is LAUGHABLE.

I was LOVE this to be the norm: "How was the sex last night? What?!? I svcked in bed? Okay hun... What can I do to please you better next time? By the way, DON'T wear that dress to work today, I can see your fat rolls in it..." This would be HEAVEN for me to be in that kind of relationship. HEAVEN! I've YET to meet a women who could take that kind of truth that you are all preaching you deserve to be able to dish out in this thread.


----------



## EllisRedding

BetrayedDad said:


> I was LOVE this to be the norm: "How was the sex last night? What?!? I svcked in bed? Okay hun... What can I do to please you better next time? By the way, DON'T wear that dress to work today, I can see your fat rolls in it..."


Sounds like an episode of Married With Children lol.


----------



## BetrayedDad

EllisRedding said:


> Sounds like an episode of Married With Children lol.


Maybe Al Bundy was onto something. He never got divorced.


----------



## Cosmos

EllisRedding said:


> Crap, knew I shouldn't have asked her to marry me ... >


Sadly, this is often the start of a very slippery slope, Ellis:smile2:


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> My question was sort of rhetorical. If a person has to fish for complements/reassurance, there is something wrong that has to be addressed. If they do this often, then either they are insecure or their partner is not meeting an important need. That’s my point… I should have been clearer.


I don't quite get what you're saying.

Every partner I've ever had, or my buddies say they've had, have ALWAYS done this.

And I give compliments -- lots of them. Unasked for.

I don't think it's because something's wrong. I think reassurance is a human need.


----------



## WandaJ

marduk said:


> I don't quite get what you're saying.
> 
> Every partner I've ever had, or my buddies say they've had, have ALWAYS done this.
> 
> And I give compliments -- lots of them. Unasked for.
> 
> I don't think it's because something's wrong. I think reassurance is a human need.


I think Ellegirl is talking about something different, insecure partners, who need reassurances all the time, looking for validation from the partner all the time.


----------



## BetrayedDad

FrenchFry said:


> I have that relationship...
> 
> but you dumped me because I told you I liked to grab long hair. :grin2:


I said your ex got mad about that. I've been scolded for saying similar things to women that's why I made that assumption.

Besides it would never work out between us. I shave my head.


----------



## Maricha75

FrenchFry said:


> I have that relationship...
> 
> but you dumped me because I told you I liked to grab long hair. :grin2:


So do I. I don't ask, "Does this make my butt look big" because he will answer, "No, your butt is what makes your butt look big. The outfit looks fine."


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> I have that relationship...


I have it, too.

Me: "Honey, you're a sex god and the sex has never been less than world rocking stellar, every single time".

Him: swoon

Him: "Honey, I love that big fat azz you got, come over here and sit it down on my lap so I can grab it and jiggle it".

Me: swoon


----------



## EleGirl

BetrayedDad said:


> This is a GREAT answer... on paper. ANY man, having spent ANY time with women will realize this will blow up in your face. I've had multiple women tell me they want to be LIED too. Don't you dare negatively critique them or it's hell to pay. Which is why this hypocrisy about women preaching that you shouldn't have to "lie" to your SO and it's "okay" to tell them you SUCK in bed is LAUGHABLE.


It goes both ways... on paper. ANY woman, having spent ANY time with men will realize this will blow up in your face. I've had multiple men tell me they want to be LIED too. Don't you dare negatively critique them or it's hell to pay. Which is why this hypocrisy about men preaching that you shouldn't have to "lie" to your SO and it's "okay" to tell them you SUCK in bed is LAUGHABLE. 



BetrayedDad said:


> I was LOVE this to be the norm: "How was the sex last night? What?!? I svcked in bed? Okay hun... What can I do to please you better next time? By the way, DON'T wear that dress to work today, I can see your fat rolls in it..." This would be HEAVEN for me to be in that kind of relationship. HEAVEN! I've YET to meet a women who could take that kind of truth that you are all preaching you deserve to be able to dish out in this thread.


If a person says that they want to be lied do, then lie to them.. I YOU CHOOSE TO STAY IN THAT RELATIONSHIP. Don’t hold it against the many woman who do not want that. As FF said, it depends on the kind of relationship you want.

I would LOVE this to be the norm: "How was the sex last night? What?!? I svcked in bed? Okay hun... What can I do to please you better next time? By the way, DON'T wear that shirt to work again today, I can see your fat rolls in it..." And you screwed up installing the dog door.. that’s why we had a huge, gaping hole in the wall that you never fixed. But don’t worry, I fixed it: rep-plastered the stucco, did the dry wall, famed it out, etc. This would be HEAVEN for me to be in that kind of relationship. HEAVEN! I've YET to meet a man who could take that kind of truth that you are all preaching you deserve to be able to dish out in this thread.

Apparently some people in both genders do this sort of thing.


----------



## MEM2020

I am solely posting as a 'contributor' here. 

I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why M2 DOES have fairly frequent sex with me. 

And this is what I've come to believe: For M2 it's MORE psychology than physiology. Despite my best efforts, she comes about half the time. 

I believe that from a purely physical standpoint - I'm decent in bed. But I am not in the same league as M2. She is truly phenomenal. And I've never pretended we were equals - in terms of sexual skill level. We aren't. Never pretended the experience is generally (physically) as good for her as it is for me - it isn't. 

And I'm going to add one last piece of information here, because it is relevant to this theme of shame/acceptance. 

I've never expressed any frustration with M2's orgasm pattern nor compared her to previous girl friends. Girl friends who I WAS able to get to orgasm every single time we had sex. 

The net result of this is that sex is bracketed by some fairly positive emotional triggers. 

Obligation or desire? 
At the moment of initiation, it's obvious to her I'm more worried about what she wants, than what I want. If she seems guilt driven, I laugh and tell her another day of anticipation won't kill me. 

Aftermath: 
I radiate gratitude and admiration at her. 




BetrayedDad said:


> This is a GREAT answer... on paper. ANY man, having spent ANY time with women will realize this will blow up in your face. I've had multiple women tell me they want to be LIED too. Don't you dare negatively critique them or it's hell to pay. Which is why this hypocrisy about women preaching that you shouldn't have to "lie" to your SO and it's "okay" to tell them you SUCK in bed is LAUGHABLE.
> 
> I was LOVE this to be the norm: "How was the sex last night? What?!? I svcked in bed? Okay hun... What can I do to please you better next time? By the way, DON'T wear that dress to work today, I can see your fat rolls in it..." This would be HEAVEN for me to be in that kind of relationship. HEAVEN! I've YET to meet a women who could take that kind of truth that you are all preaching you deserve to be able to dish out in this thread.


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> I don't quite get what you're saying.
> 
> Every partner I've ever had, or my buddies say they've had, have ALWAYS done this.
> 
> And I give compliments -- lots of them. Unasked for.
> 
> I don't think it's because something's wrong. I think reassurance is a human need.


I also think that reassurance is a human need. I think that spouses need to be cognizant of it and act on giving their spouse reassurance.

And yes sometimes a person will be down and ask for some reassurance.. sometimes in clumsy ways. That's ok.

An issue comes up with the person needs constant compliments, is constantly insecure about their appearance and constantly asking for that. That's what I understood that is being spoken in the posts I was responding to.

And there is a problem if one's spouse never gives complements, reassurances, etc. Or give them so seldom that it, basically non-existent.


----------



## MEM2020

Ele,
Can't speak for anyone else on this. 

The thing is, if you pay attention, really pay attention:

The truth comes at you through your partners actions, their tone of voice and most definitely their facial expressions and body language. 

When someone says one thing, and their actions, body language, and tone of voice say otherwise, it's sort of obvious that their words are untrue. 

In those situations I do the best I can to make the other person feel safe aligning their words with the rest of their comm channels. 

And I typically press them softly while reassuring them that 'whatever I'm reading the real truth to be' is:
- Fine with me and
- Fairly normal




EleGirl said:


> It goes both ways... on paper. ANY woman, having spent ANY time with men will realize this will blow up in your face. I've had multiple men tell me they want to be LIED too. Don't you dare negatively critique them or it's hell to pay. Which is why this hypocrisy about men preaching that you shouldn't have to "lie" to your SO and it's "okay" to tell them you SUCK in bed is LAUGHABLE.
> 
> 
> 
> If a person says that they want to be lied do, then lie to them.. I YOU CHOOSE TO STAY IN THAT RELATIONSHIP. Don’t hold it against the many woman who do not want that. As FF said, it depends on the kind of relationship you want.
> 
> I would LOVE this to be the norm: "How was the sex last night? What?!? I svcked in bed? Okay hun... What can I do to please you better next time? By the way, DON'T wear that shirt to work again today, I can see your fat rolls in it..." And you screwed up installing the dog door.. that’s why we had a huge, gaping hole in the wall that you never fixed. But don’t worry, I fixed it: rep-plastered the stucco, did the dry wall, famed it out, etc. This would be HEAVEN for me to be in that kind of relationship. HEAVEN! I've YET to meet a man who could take that kind of truth that you are all preaching you deserve to be able to dish out in this thread.
> 
> Apparently some people in both genders do this sort of thing.


----------



## Fozzy

MEM11363 said:


> I am solely posting as a 'contributor' here.
> 
> I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why M2 DOES have fairly frequent sex with me.
> 
> And this is what I've come to believe: For M2 it's MORE psychology than physiology. *Despite my best efforts, she comes about half the time. *
> 
> I believe that from a purely physical standpoint - I'm decent in bed. But I am not in the same league as M2. She is truly phenomenal. And I've never pretended we were equals - in terms of sexual skill level. We aren't. Never pretended the experience is generally (physically) as good for her as it is for me - it isn't.
> 
> And I'm going to add one last piece of information here, because it is relevant to this theme of shame/acceptance.
> 
> I've never expressed any frustration with M2's orgasm pattern nor compared her to previous girl friends. Girl friends who I WAS able to get to orgasm every single time we had sex.
> 
> The net result of this is that sex is bracketed by some fairly positive emotional triggers.
> 
> Obligation or desire?
> At the moment of initiation, it's obvious to her I'm more worried about what she wants, than what I want. If she seems guilt driven, I laugh and tell her another day of anticipation won't kill me.
> 
> Aftermath:
> I radiate gratitude and admiration at her.


LOL

I totally read that as you making your best effort to prevent it, and her coming half the time despite.

I was like "jeez, MEM, that's kind of a d!ck move."


----------



## MEM2020

Elegirl,

The post below was good. It helped me better compare two questions that were treated as similar. 

1. Do I look fat?
2. Did you have an orgasm? 

S1 is fit and works out
S2 has gained enough weight for it to be clearly noticeable 

If S1 has lost a significant amount of desire for S2, they ought to tactfully but honestly answer the question when asked. Ideally in a constructive way. 

If however the weight gain hasn't impacted S1's desire - they can honestly say: I think you're hot.





EleGirl said:


> I also think that reassurance is a human need. I think that spouses need to be cognizant of it and act on giving their spouse reassurance.
> 
> And yes sometimes a person will be down and ask for some reassurance.. sometimes in clumsy ways. That's ok.
> 
> An issue comes up with the person needs constant compliments, is constantly insecure about their appearance and constantly asking for that. That's what I understood that is being spoken in the posts I was responding to.
> 
> And there is a problem if one's spouse never gives complements, reassurances, etc. Or give them so seldom that it, basically non-existent.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Anything can be applied individually. This whole thread has been about generalizations.

Generally speaking, no one wants to be told they are fat or suck in bed.

With all these great people on TAM maybe the owners should consider turning the site into an OLD.

I sure as hell don't meet people like this IRL and if you haven't noticed I'm as blunt as they come.


----------



## Marduk

WandaJ said:


> I think Ellegirl is talking about something different, insecure partners, who need reassurances all the time, looking for validation from the partner all the time.


But that's what I'm saying.

Every woman I've been in relationships with -- including two wives -- have asked for reassurances if not daily, then at least every few days.

That they're loved, attractive, smart, whatever.

Is that just me?


----------



## BetrayedDad

Personal said:


> Generally speaking if someone is fat or sucks in bed, they're not likely to lose any weight or become better in bed by being encouraged to think neither applies to them.


Brilliant. And THERE is the rub....

Because most relationship problems are caused by what kids?

LACK OF COMMUNICATION


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> But that's what I'm saying.
> *
> Every woman I've been in relationships with -- including two wives -- have asked for reassurances if not daily, then at least every few days.
> *
> That they're loved, attractive, smart, whatever.
> 
> Is that just me?


We can attract similar personality types or repeat certain relationship behaviours that elicit similar situations...


----------



## MEM2020

Betrayed,

Would you really prefer not to know if your partner dislikes how you have sex with them? 





BetrayedDad said:


> Anything can be applied individually. This whole thread has been about generalizations.
> 
> Generally speaking, no one wants to be told they are fat or suck in bed.
> 
> With all these great people on TAM maybe the owners should consider turning the site into an OLD.
> 
> I sure as hell don't meet people like this IRL and if you haven't noticed I'm as blunt as they come.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I think the key is to phrase it as a "here is something you can do to make it even better...."






MEM11363 said:


> Betrayed,
> 
> Would you really prefer not to know if your partner dislikes how you have sex with them?


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> In my experience, this is false.
> 
> In my experience, they only like it if you are freaky for ONLY them--and not anyone else.
> 
> I'm glad your experience is different, but as a recipient of the attempted shaming I know that men categorically do not love anything that's even close to ****ty.


IME, when men they say love slvts, what they mean is they like to fvck them, but often will also hold them in contempt, have lots of derogatory things to say about them, absolutely do *not* want any sort of relationship with them, and generally look down on them.

IOW, they don't love slvts, they love having them to use. And look down on.


----------



## Thundarr

Personal said:


> Generally speaking if someone is fat or sucks in bed, they're not likely to lose any weight or become better in bed by being encouraged to think neither applies to them.
> 
> 
> BetrayedDad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant. And THERE is the rub....
> 
> Because most relationship problems are caused by what kids?
> 
> LACK OF COMMUNICATION
Click to expand...

I agree and am a fan of truthfulness. Of course there are limits and it doesn't have to be intentionally hurtful. When my wife had her hair cut short a few years back she asked me if I liked it. I told her that she's beautiful to me either way but I like it better long. I'm sure she wasn't surprised since I'd already told her this but the point is that since she has the ability to have her hair long or short then I felt okay being honest about not liking it short. Now on the other hand, if I had a fetish for Amazon women then it would be pointless for me to tell her I wish she were taller and it would be even more pointless for her to ask. Common sense really.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> IME, when men they say love slvts, what they mean is they like to fvck them, but often will also hold them in contempt, have lots of derogatory things to say about them, absolutely do *not* want any sort of relationship with them, and generally look down on them.
> 
> IOW, they don't love slvts, they love having them to use. And look down on.


IME, highly sexual men do love highly sexual women...and they don't view them as "sl*ts" they view them as they really are...which is simply highly sexual women (and being highly sexual does not point to partner count nor acts they are willing to do...highly sexual people vary a lot in this way so there's not just one type of them).

The men who claim to "love sl*ts" but actually just want to f*ck them are not necessarily highly sexual men. They are usually sexually needy men who are not self-actualized.

Same goes for "bad boys". If I hear a woman proclaim she loves (sex with) the bad boys, what she usually means is that she is not self-actualized and she relies on certain men with certain personality types to fuel her sex drive and desire. 

But women like myself don't love "bad boys", we love highly sexual, self-actualized men. We usually describe them with something like "I love the sexually confident men" though, because describing it as self-actualized doesn't sound as fun when you are drinking with your girlfriends.


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> We can attract similar personality types or repeat certain relationship behaviours that elicit similar situations...


Hmm. 

I thought that was just a normal thing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

It is normal for some men and women to want a lot of reassurance. It is a personality thing, I think. I've known both men and women just as friends who need a lot of reassurance, too. Like they get slighted if you don't respond a certain way, or they want you (as their friend) to tell them they are hot/smart/pretty/funny/desirable. If they are a good friend I can usually do the little dance they are asking me to do and reassure them. I can't do it for very long though if their need for reassurances is too much. I will end up avoiding them or constantly changing the subject. The friends who do it in a way that I can handle show their humbleness or humility rather than their need to be stroked in order to feel good.

I admit to wanting and needing reassurance in my relationship, but not to some alarming degree. He needs it too and I'm happy to give it to him. We only need it on very specific small things that we acknowledge are coming from us, not anything the other one is doing. We both provide so much stroking (by our own choice to stroke) that the general am I hot/smart/pretty/funny/desirable enough? reassurances aren't needed. We both are very assured that the other is into us, hot for us, and desires us. But occasionally something comes up that triggers one of us to need some specific reassurance, so we tell the other what that thing is and ask for the reassurance, and the other provides it right away.

In the beginning of our relationship this happened more often. We blundered sometimes but then pretty quickly got it right. For example, my H is very tall. I am not. When we got together we discussed dating people of different heights. He had mostly dated average height women and only a few times had dated a really tall woman. Even though he did not say anything to spark this, I suddenly felt insecure that I wasn't tall enough for him. There are things that don't work as well sexually if you have a huge height difference and I imagined him having sex with a really tall girl and how that would probably be more ideal for him. Then I started asking for reassurances about my height.  Again this was all on me. He said nothing to provoke my insecurity. And truthfully, I've never been insecure about my height ever before...it was just a sudden thing that came on me because we were so new and I was so into him.

But he said so many wonderful things in response to my requests for reassurance that I did literally swoon. And very quickly got over my insecurity about it. He made me feel like there is nothing about me that he would change, and not only that, it was a bonus that I was shorter because I can get really tall really fast with huge high hooker heels, or I can get really small really fast by being barefoot, and that he likes this variety. 

And every once in awhile I'll just say it again ("gosh honey, it would probably be better for your big, tall body to have a lover who isn't so short") just to hear him say those amazing things again, and he always does. 

If I did this all the time, he'd tell me he wasn't going to play that game, or he just wouldn't respond. But since he knows I'm just occasionally doing it to hear those beautiful words, he is kind and just says them....and always just as heartfelt and beautiful every time.


----------



## tech-novelist

Cosmos said:


> We can attract similar personality types or repeat certain relationship behaviours that elicit similar situations...


+1000 internet points for using "elicit" rather than "illicit"!

But I'd guess that you are British, going by the spelling of "behaviours", so I guess I should expect proper English!


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> IME, highly sexual men do love highly sexual women...and they don't view them as "sl*ts" they view them as they really are...which is simply highly sexual women (and being highly sexual does not point to partner count nor acts they are willing to do...highly sexual people vary a lot in this way so there's not just one type of them).
> 
> The men who claim to "love sl*ts" but actually just want to f*ck them are not necessarily highly sexual men. They are usually sexually needy men who are not self-actualized.
> 
> Same goes for "bad boys". If I hear a woman proclaim she loves (sex with) the bad boys, what she usually means is that she is not self-actualized and she relies on certain men with certain personality types to fuel her sex drive and desire.
> 
> But women like myself don't love "bad boys", we love highly sexual, self-actualized men. We usually describe them with something like "I love the sexually confident men" though, because describing it as self-actualized doesn't sound as fun when you are drinking with your girlfriends.


I'll drink your kool aid. I'd like to add that as we get older a lot of us become much less judgemental and a whole lot more confident. Yes 'sexually confident' sound better than 'self actualized'. I might not like being called 'self actualized'.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr said:


> I'll drink your kool aid. I'd like to add that as we get older a lot of us become much less judgemental and a whole lot more confident. Yes 'sexually confident' sound better than 'self actualized'. I might not like being called 'self actualized'.


Yeah self actualized doesn't sound very sexy.

It definitely is, though!

But saying it out loud doesn't convey what it means very well so other descriptors are typically used instead.


----------



## BetrayedDad

MEM11363 said:


> Betrayed,
> 
> Would you really prefer not to know if your partner dislikes how you have sex with them?


No quite the opposite. I have really thick skin and prefer direct communication. I'd love to be told why I suck at anything frankly and hear suggestions for improvement. No women has ever told me I svcked in bed.

The problem I have is virtually all women I have dated, and I say women because I don't date men so maybe it is prevalent in the other gender as well, but these women not only do NOT want to be critiqued in any fashion but they refuse to critique me even when I practically beg them too. 

The will ask you how they look in a dress and I've been honest before and got reemed. And it's the SAME fight, "How could you say that?" "You asked me!" "So you lie!!!" They just want compliments not truth. I feel like I'm protecting them being truthful. I don't want her looking bad walking out the door. Maybe it's a trust thing like frenchfry said? I dunno.


----------



## always_alone

Hmmmm. I have never asked a single soul, man or woman, "do I look fat in this?" I guess I've always felt able to accurately assess my own fatness?

I've maybe asked about an outfit once or twice when I was younger.

I did ask my SO once if he thought I was "hot". It was a genuine question and I was looking for a genuine answer. Not sure I got it though :scratchhead: 

Reassurances are nice, I suppose, but I've always kinda felt like they are empty praise or little white lies, ultimately untrustworthy and not very useful. People say stuff all the time just to be "nice".

Same with insults. People who feel the need to tell you you're fat or look like a freak (or whatever) are usually just looking to take their insecurities out on you. Much like the word "slvt" is typically used.

Ultimately, external validation is a game you can't win. The more you chase it, the more it will elude you.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> IME, highly sexual men do love highly sexual women...and they don't view them as "sl*ts" they view them as they really are...which is simply highly sexual women (and being highly sexual does not point to partner count nor acts they are willing to do...highly sexual people vary a lot in this way so there's not just one type of them).


Yes. The giveaway for me was the expression "men love slvts". Who says that? Certainly not a highly sexual man who loves highly sexual women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Hmmmm. I have never asked a single soul, man or woman, "do I look fat in this?" I guess I've always felt able to accurately assess my own fatness?
> 
> I've maybe asked about an outfit once or twice when I was younger.
> 
> *I did ask my SO once if he thought I was "hot". It was a genuine question and I was looking for a genuine answer. Not sure I got it though* :scratchhead:
> 
> Reassurances are nice, I suppose, *but I've always kinda felt like they are empty praise or little white lies*, ultimately untrustworthy and not very useful. People say stuff all the time just to be "nice".
> 
> Same with insults. People who feel the need to tell you you're fat or look like a freak (or whatever) are usually just looking to take their insecurities out on you. Much like the word "slvt" is typically used.
> 
> *Ultimately, external validation is a game you can't win. The more you chase it, the more it will elude you*.



Always, I think you are a bit too humble and have a bit too much humility. I think your SO is a bit of an ass, too. 

There is a healthy way to be other-validated. It happens when the other is not making a little white lie and when you receive the validation rather than deflect it.

I agree with you that if all of our validation comes from outside ourselves and it is all based on our physical appearance, this is a very shaky foundation to place your self worth upon. But that doesn't mean that it cannot be done in a healthy way in a healthy measure. I just think you've (sadly) been with men who are clueless and not very healthy themselves in these areas, and therefore they cannot give you a dose of healthy validation. 

It isn't that we all need to validate each other constantly about our appearances...but the point I'm making is that when done honestly, lovingly and correctly, doing so can really bring people towards each other and feeling very affectionate and loving. There is nothing wrong with this. And we can be other-validated while also being self-validated.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
There is a lot of variation. I dated a self-proclaimed slvt. She had dated a lot of men, including most of my friends. The only reason we didn't stay together long term was that we had different life goals and she found someone who better matched her interests. If she hadn't wanted kids and a white picket fence I might well have married her. 

Many years later she told me I was the best lover she ever had. It was of course a complete lie, but very sweet of her to say so. 





always_alone said:


> IME, when men they say love slvts, what they mean is they like to fvck them, but often will also hold them in contempt, have lots of derogatory things to say about them, absolutely do *not* want any sort of relationship with them, and generally look down on them.
> 
> IOW, they don't love slvts, they love having them to use. And look down on.


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> There is a lot of variation. I dated a self-proclaimed slvt. She had dated a lot of men, including most of my friends. The only reason we didn't stay together long term was that we had different life goals and she found someone who better matched her interests. If she hadn't wanted kids and a white picket fence I might well have married her.
> 
> Many years later she told me I was the best lover she ever had. It was of course a complete lie, but very sweet of her to say so.


Self-proclaimed, though. That makes a difference! It shows it is not a judgment based in regret or shame, and isn't one person putting another down.

A lot of women want to reclaim the word slvt and turn it into something more positive. Power to them, I say. Although frankly, as far as I'm concerned, they can have it (the word, I mean).


----------



## Lila

There's only one scenario where I would ask H what he thought about my outfit....when I'm trying to impress him. Even then, the question is a simple 'Do you like it, Yes or No?' 

All other times, I go with whatever outfit makes _me_ feel confident and happy. "_Over the years I've learned that what is important in a dress is the woman that is wearing it_" Ives Saint Laurent.

As AA stated earlier "Ultimately, external validation is a game you can't win. The more you chase it, the more it will elude you." It's got to come from inside.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> There's only one scenario where I would ask H what he thought about my outfit....when I'm trying to impress him. Even then, the question is a simple 'Do you like it, Yes or No?'
> 
> All other times, I go with whatever outfit makes _me_ feel confident and happy. "_Over the years I've learned that what is important in a dress is the woman that is wearing it_" Ives Saint Laurent.
> 
> As AA stated earlier "Ultimately, external validation is a game you can't win. The more you chase it, the more it will elude you." It's got to come from inside.


Ok. I'll say this gently because I don't want to offend. 

I've thought about this since last night. It seems... That the more outwardly beautiful a woman seems, the more insecure she might actually be about that.

Is there a relationship there, that perhaps all of the women on this thread have overcome? Is it harder if you base a component of your self-esteem on your looks?

Please, I apologize if I offend with the question, because it's not intentional.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Betrayed,
M2 has never worn anything I viewed as 'ugly'. She absolutely asks if I like one outfit more than another. Or one pair of shoes more than another. 

And I'm totally honest about my preference. But it's always a case of liking both, just liking one more than the other. 

Hypothetically - if that did happen - I'd say this: 

I really like option (1), and don't really care for option (2). 

In my experience, you can be honest as long as it's obvious you are also trying to be kind. 

Perhaps I get a good reaction because it's obvious I'm trying NOT to be hurtful. 





BetrayedDad said:


> No quite the opposite. I have really thick skin and prefer direct communication. I'd love to be told why I suck at anything frankly and hear suggestions for improvement. No women has ever told me I svcked in bed.
> 
> The problem I have is virtually all women I have dated, and I say women because I don't date men so maybe it is prevalent in the other gender as well, but these women not only do NOT want to be critiqued in any fashion but they refuse to critique me even when I practically beg them too.
> 
> The will ask you how they look in a dress and I've been honest before and got reemed. And it's the SAME fight, "How could you say that?" "You asked me!" "So you lie!!!" They just want compliments not truth. I feel like I'm protecting them being truthful. I don't want her looking bad walking out the door. Maybe it's a trust thing like frenchfry said? I dunno.


----------



## MEM2020

Every - single - day. 

But M2 is rarely looking for reassurance that she is - smart, beautiful, etc. 

She is looking for confirmation that I LOVE HER. 

Since that is true, it's easily done. I don't find this tiresome. This has been the case from the beginning - so after 25+ years it seems totally normal to me. 





marduk said:


> But that's what I'm saying.
> 
> Every woman I've been in relationships with -- including two wives -- have asked for reassurances if not daily, then at least every few days.
> 
> That they're loved, attractive, smart, whatever.
> 
> Is that just me?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm not sure I get your question but I'll give you my thoughts.

I feel like a beautiful woman and have been told by others I am one all my life. The thing is though, I feel my inner beauty shines throughout my outer beauty, and so when people tell me this, I don't feel like they are just talking about my body, face, skin, etc. If someone says "you are a beautiful woman" to me, I take the "woman" part of it to mean more than just my outsides and feel they are talking about the person I am.

If on the other hand some dude hoots at me out a passing car window, I do not consider this to be a compliment nor to be personal. That's just something guys do. It isn't really about me, I'm just a passing form in the shape of a woman and a man reacted to my shape, not to "me".

In another context, let's say I enter a room where a bunch of men turn their heads at me to get a good look at me. Here again, I feel this is nothing personal because men just do that when women enter rooms. I know these same men are going to do the same thing when the next woman enters the room.

Neither the hoot out the window nor the men turning their heads increase my self-esteem. But a person who actually knows me, even if only for a little while, telling me I am beautiful, does make me aware of my good self-esteem, because I agree with them: I am a beautiful person, inside and out. I already feel this about myself, so it is not necessary to get it validated by someone else, but it still does make me aware of my good self-esteem.

Self-esteem or self-worth, I view as a sum total of many components. One small component is the way I look on the outside. Much larger components are how I value my mind, my sense of humor, my personal accomplishments, the way I am loved by those who I love, and my belief system. Taken all together, I find my self worth. And yes this is determined by me, no one else. However, others do come in and out of our experience who will either agree with your self-assessment of self-worth or they won't. They may make their comments about me of either agreeing or disagreeing with my assessment, but either way, I don't really move much off my assessment. The only times my self-worth or self-esteem drop a notch is when I let myself down in some way.

I have had insecurities like anyone and everyone...but they don't define me nor do they affect my overall self-worth because they are fleeting and unsubstantiated. In other words, nothing I've ever felt insecure about has been "proven" to me over time.

Having said all of that, I was raised in an environment that allowed me to appreciate and value myself. I was not torn down or told I was less than anyone else. I was built up just enough to then go forward and hold myself up. I would imagine that if others have encountered people or family who get into their heads to tear them down, especially while they were forming their self-worth, then they may have a difficult time of being self-validated. I feel blessed I was always allowed and encouraged to feel good about myself and feel like a beautiful person.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Every - single - day.
> 
> But M2 is rarely looking for reassurance that she is - smart, beautiful, etc.
> 
> She is looking for confirmation that I LOVE HER.
> 
> Since that is true, it's easily done. I don't find this tiresome. This has been the case from the beginning - so after 25+ years it seems totally normal to me.


Ya, that's what I mean. I don't find it tiresome, either. It usually doesn't register unless it meets some threshold where I realize she's feeling insecure about something.

Usually I just respond with something reassuring in the moment and move on without thinking about it.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not sure I get your question but I'll give you my thoughts.
> 
> I feel like a beautiful woman and have been told by others I am one all my life. The thing is though, I feel my inner beauty shines throughout my outer beauty, and so when people tell me this, I don't feel like they are just talking about my body, face, skin, etc. If someone says "you are a beautiful woman" to me, I take the "woman" part of it to mean more than just my outsides and feel they are talking about the person I am.
> 
> If on the other hand some dude hoots at me out a passing car window, I do not consider this to be a compliment nor to be personal. That's just something guys do. It isn't really about me, I'm just a passing form in the shape of a woman and a man reacted to my shape, not to "me".
> 
> In another context, let's say I enter a room where a bunch of men turn their heads at me to get a good look at me. Here again, I feel this is nothing personal because men just do that when women enter rooms. I know these same men are going to do the same thing when the next woman enters the room.
> 
> Neither the hoot out the window nor the men turning their heads increase my self-esteem. But a person who actually knows me, even if only for a little while, telling me I am beautiful, does make me aware of my good self-esteem, because I agree with them: I am a beautiful person, inside and out. I already feel this about myself, so it is not necessary to get it validated by someone else, but it still does make me aware of my good self-esteem.
> 
> Self-esteem or self-worth, I view as a sum total of many components. One small component is the way I look on the outside. Much larger components are how I value my mind, my sense of humor, my personal accomplishments, the way I am loved by those who I love, and my belief system. Taken all together, I find my self worth. And yes this is determined by me, no one else. However, others do come in and out of our experience who will either agree with your self-assessment of self-worth or they won't. They may make their comments about me of either agreeing or disagreeing with my assessment, but either way, I don't really move much off my assessment. The only times my self-worth or self-esteem drop a notch is when I let myself down in some way.
> 
> I have had insecurities like anyone and everyone...but they don't define me nor do they affect my overall self-worth because they are fleeting and unsubstantiated. In other words, nothing I've ever felt insecure about has been "proven" to me over time.
> 
> Having said all of that, I was raised in an environment that allowed me to appreciate and value myself. I was not torn down or told I was less than anyone else. I was built up just enough to then go forward and hold myself up. I would imagine that if others have encountered people or family who get into their heads to tear them down, especially while they were forming their self-worth, then they may have a difficult time of being self-validated. I feel blessed I was always allowed and encouraged to feel good about myself and feel like a beautiful person.


Mmm... I get what you're saying but it's not really what I meant.

What I meant is the pretty common and pretty constant stream of stuff like "do I look bad in this" or "am I gaining weight" or "am I looking too muscular" or "should I get my veins lasered" or "do you notice my grey hairs" stuff.

Which usually to me means "am I still attractive to you" to which I reassure "yes, you're still attractive to me."

The questions have changed since we're in our 40's but really there the same as when I was dating as a teenager. 

"Am I hot to you?"

"Yes, you're hot to me."

and we go on with our day.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> What I meant is the pretty common and pretty constant stream of stuff like "do I look bad in this" or "am I gaining weight" or "am I looking too muscular" or "should I get my veins lasered" or "do you notice my grey hairs" stuff.
> 
> Which usually to me means "am I still attractive to you" to which I reassure "yes, you're still attractive to me."


Guess I just can't relate. Don't know anyone like this (as far as romantic relationships) and haven't been like this myself. What you seem to be describing is someone who is severely insecure at their core. I do have one friend who is like this in her relationships and it seems to create a lot of problems.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Guess I just can't relate. Don't know anyone like this (as far as romantic relationships) and haven't been like this myself. What you seem to be describing is someone who is severely insecure at their core. I do have one friend who is like this in her relationships and it seems to create a lot of problems.


My point is that I just described perhaps 20+ women over the course of my life and every single one of my buddy's wives.

So it can't be all that uncommon.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> My point is that I just described perhaps 20+ women over the course of my life and every single one of my buddy's wives.
> 
> So it can't be all that uncommon.


It is quite possible that you and your friends attract and are attracted to a certain type of woman that fits this profile.

Being needy for reassurance and insecure isn't necessarily a good or bad thing. I don't think it is as common as you think it is, but in your circle it keeps happening because there is something in common about you and your friends (like attracts like).

I'm sorry you've not gotten to experience a self-assured woman though, just so you could see the difference.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> It is quite possible that you and your friends attract and are attracted to a certain type of woman that fits this profile.
> 
> Being needy for reassurance and insecure isn't necessarily a good or bad thing. I don't think it is as common as you think it is, but in your circle it keeps happening because there is something in common about you and your friends (like attracts like).
> 
> I'm sorry you've not gotten to experience a self-assured woman though, just so you could see the difference.


Sorry, I disagree.

It is statisticaly highly improbable that this is the case.

I've dated some pretty self-assured women. And they were still like that. 

For example, I dated a model: she was like that. I've dated a beauty pagent winner: she was like that. I've dated accomplished artists and writers, and they were like that. I've dated accomplished business leaders, and they were like that.

And I've dated morose alterna-girls, and they were like that, too.

I've got buddies who are good looking dudes with hot wives, and their wives are like that. I've got buddies who are super grounded, with granola girl wives who don't seem to care about their appearance, and they're like that. 

So it happens.

I'm not saying that women like you don't exist. I'm just saying it must be statistically pretty rare.

Which sucks, right?


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Ok. I'll say this gently because I don't want to offend.
> 
> I've thought about this since last night. It seems... That the more outwardly beautiful a woman seems, the more insecure she might actually be about that.
> 
> Is there a relationship there, that perhaps all of the women on this thread have overcome? Is it harder if you base a component of your self-esteem on your looks?


If you base your self esteem on your looks, then yes, you are going to worry a lot more about how you look. This privilege, however, is not reserved for the super hot, beautiful people though. Insecurity does not discriminate.

Of course, it's true, you may learn not to ask if you know you won't like the answer. 

But actually, really and truly, there are people, even very beautiful people who do not invest their self worth in their looks, and who do not really worry about it one way or the other.

Personally, I have seen that sort of looks anxiety in women on occasion, but wouldn't say it is that common. I'm pretty sure you see it more because of the way you are, and how you approach women, relationships, and attraction. I know I wouldn't have much patience for it myself.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> If you base your self esteem on your looks, then yes, you are going to worry a lot more about how you look. This privilege, however, is not reserved for the super hot, beautiful people though. Insecurity does not discriminate.
> 
> Of course, it's true, you may learn not to ask if you know you won't like the answer.
> 
> But actually, really and truly, there are people, even very beautiful people who do not invest their self worth in their looks, and who do not really worry about it one way or the other.
> 
> Personally, I have seen that sort of looks anxiety in women on occasion, but wouldn't say it is that common. I'm pretty sure you see it more because of the way you are, and how you approach women, relationships, and attraction. I know I wouldn't have much patience for it myself.


Ah, I get it now.

Doesn't everyone want to be hot to their partner tho?

If your partner -- FW, FF, or A_A said "you know what, I'm just not into you right now" you'd just smile and shrug and go on with your day?

You would't be hurt by that?


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> Doesn't everyone want to be hot to their partner tho?


Alright, looks like it is time to log off and head home from work when I read the above as "parent" and not "partner" ....


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Sorry, I disagree.
> 
> It is statisticaly highly improbable that this is the case.
> 
> I've dated some pretty self-assured women. And they were still like that.


You're the common denominator.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> If your partner -- FW, FF, or A_A said "you know what, I'm just not into you right now" you'd just smile and shrug and go on with your day?
> 
> You would't be hurt by that?


The only reason my H would say this would be to deliberately hurt me....and that isn't very likely (he's never said anything to deliberately hurt me before so why would he suddenly do this?) Therefore I would not be hurt, I'd wonder what is wrong with him.

I don't even get what it has to do with your question(s).


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> You're the common denominator.


You mean I'm super awesome at making women feel good so I attract women who like it when I make them feel good, right?

Because I'm so awesome?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Sorry, I disagree.
> 
> It is statisticaly highly improbable that this is the case.
> 
> I've dated some pretty self-assured women. And they were still like that.
> 
> For example, I dated a model: she was like that. I've dated a beauty pagent winner: she was like that. I've dated accomplished artists and writers, and they were like that. I've dated accomplished business leaders, and they were like that.
> 
> And I've dated morose alterna-girls, and they were like that, too.
> 
> I've got buddies who are good looking dudes with hot wives, and their wives are like that. I've got buddies who are super grounded, with granola girl wives who don't seem to care about their appearance, and they're like that.
> 
> So it happens.
> 
> I'm not saying that women like you don't exist. I'm just saying it must be statistically pretty rare.
> 
> Which sucks, right?


My wife was a 10 in her prime. She's still very good looking even without adjusting for age (Medicare eligible).

She is like that too.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> The only reason my H would say this would be to deliberately hurt me....and that isn't very likely (he's never said anything to deliberately hurt me before so why would he suddenly do this?) Therefore I would not be hurt, I'd wonder what is wrong with him.
> 
> I don't even get what it has to do with your question(s).


Because it would seem to me that "do these jeans make my ass look big" is really a test for "are you still into me"?

Maybe I have that wrong?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> You mean I'm super awesome at making women feel good so I attract women who like it when I make them feel good, right?
> 
> Because I'm so awesome?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It would be interesting for you to open a thread in mens to ask "how insecure is your wife?" and see how many other men have the same type of woman you are describing.

I really don't know how common it is, but I do think you've had more than the average number of this type of woman, and that has something to do with you and the women you attract and are attracted to. If you haven't had women who are not like this, I don't know if you can relate at all and you will apparently think it is quite common based on your own experience. I don't think it is that common though, it just is for you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Because it would seem to me that "do these jeans make my ass look big" is really a test for "are you still into me"?
> 
> Maybe I have that wrong?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't ask my H questions like this. And there's never a moment when I don't know he is into me. So I don't really get where you are going with this line of thinking.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> It would be interesting for you to open a thread in mens to ask "how insecure is your wife?" and see how many other men have the same type of woman you are describing.
> 
> I really don't know how common it is, but I do think you've had more than the average number of this type of woman, and that has something to do with you and the women you attract and are attracted to. If you haven't had women who are not like this, I don't know if you can relate at all and you will apparently think it is quite common based on your own experience. I don't think it is that common though, it just is for you.


I was kidding. 

I know I have a bias towards hot women, probably to the point of overlooking other qualities in them because of this. 

And it probably helps explain a lot of things in my current marriage that I'm still untangling. I just hadn't considered this component. 

So thanks for this.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> If this was ever in question, I'd ask 'are you still into me'
> 
> If I was to know if my ass is fat, I ask that.
> 
> Mostly because one may or may not be related to each other.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Right, I don't get how they are related. But again, I don't ask questions like that.

However, I might do something like "hey honey, how do you like my azz in these new tight jeans?" and wave it around in front of him, knowing he will come at me like an animal and carry me off to bed. But this is just for fun and show, not for reassurance. The fact that I know he will run at me like an animal shows that I am already assured enough to say it to begin with and get the desired result.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Ok. I'll say this gently because I don't want to offend.
> 
> I've thought about this since last night. It seems... That the more outwardly beautiful a woman seems, the more insecure she might actually be about that.
> 
> Is there a relationship there, that perhaps all of the women on this thread have overcome? Is it harder if you base a component of your self-esteem on your looks?
> 
> Please, I apologize if I offend with the question, because it's not intentional.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No offense taken .

I've posted this before on TAM....I'm not a classically beautiful woman or the girl next door. Actually, I'm pragmatic enough to know that I'm on the low side of average ( though I do 'clean up' really well). What I lack in beauty I more than make up for with an outgoing and fun personality. 

Did my lack of beauty affect my self esteem? Not much after my awkward teen years. I learned early on that physical beauty depreciates as we age so instead on focusing on a quality that I didn't have to begin with, and was going to lose anyways, I focused on the qualities that i did 'own' and could improve with age. You know. ...accentuate the positive, decentuate the negative. It's never failed me.

I will admit that I've never ever had a problem attracting people (men and women) to me. Why? Don't know really but I think it's because I've always walked into a room like I owned it. But that's just my assessment.


----------



## Thundarr

marduk said:


> Ok. I'll say this gently because I don't want to offend.
> 
> I've thought about this since last night. It seems... That the more outwardly beautiful a woman seems, the more insecure she might actually be about that.
> 
> Is there a relationship there, that perhaps all of the women on this thread have overcome? Is it harder if you base a component of your self-esteem on your looks?
> 
> Please, I apologize if I offend with the question, because it's not intentional.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't know Marduk. This theory seems very hit and miss to me.


----------



## WandaJ

marduk said:


> Is there a relationship there, that perhaps all of the women on this thread have overcome? Is it harder if you base a component of your self-esteem on your looks?
> 
> Please, I apologize if I offend with the question, because it's not intentional.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think it might be harder if you your self esteem is based mostly on your looks. I got twenty thrity years so far to accept that I am not a model type and move on. I don't loose my sleep over this.

As Amy Schumer said: "I like my body. It never had problem making ****s hard"..


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I was kidding.
> 
> I know I have a bias towards hot women, probably to the point of overlooking other qualities in them because of this.
> 
> And it probably helps explain a lot of things in my current marriage that I'm still untangling. I just hadn't considered this component.
> 
> So thanks for this.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I knew you were joking with the "I'm so awesome" thing.

Perhaps there is something about the way certain women who are hot and insecure/need reassurance that vibes in a way that is attractive to you. 

My friend I mentioned who needs constant reassurance and it has caused problems in her relationships...she is very hot. She has very low self-esteem. This is because her mother never built any esteem at all in her, and showed her an example of a very needy, reassurance needing woman. My friend is just like her now. But she is also a wonderful and beautiful woman, very worthy of a good man. 

She has certain types of men who are attracted to her. When I said it caused problems in her relationships, usually it was because eventually the men she was with couldn't keep up with her need for reassurance. Also because she has a string of men who had issues of their own so the relationship problems naturally occurred between their dual problems. 

However she has also been with and been pursued by wonderful, well balanced men who truly adored and cherished her and kept up with her need for reassurance. She is also very sweet and willing/ready to fill up anyone else's needs for reassurance. She always tries to communicate to her partners what she loves about them, builds them up, shows them off to her friends in cute ways, etc.

I can see you with a woman like her.


----------



## MEM2020

Lila,
This board is filled with men who married the prettiest girl who would have them. It's a strategy that appears to have a staggeringly high failure rate. 

Guys have a bad rap for being shallow. It's true for some. Maybe even half. But the rest of us - we see the whole person. 




Lila said:


> No offense taken .
> 
> I've posted this before on TAM....I'm not a classically beautiful woman or the girl next door. Actually, I'm pragmatic enough to know that I'm on the low side of average ( though I do 'clean up' really well). What I lack in beauty I more than make up for with an outgoing and fun personality.
> 
> Did my lack of beauty affect my self esteem? Not much after my awkward teen years. I learned early on that physical beauty depreciates as we age so instead on focusing on a quality that I didn't have to begin with, and was going to lose anyways, I focused on the qualities that i did 'own' and could improve with age. You know. ...accentuate the positive, decentuate the negative. It's never failed me.
> 
> I will admit that I've never ever had a problem attracting people (men and women) to me. Why? Don't know really but I think it's because I've always walked into a room like I owned it. But that's just my assessment.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I knew you were joking with the "I'm so awesome" thing.
> 
> Perhaps there is something about the way certain women who are hot and insecure/need reassurance that vibes in a way that is attractive to you.
> 
> My friend I mentioned who needs constant reassurance and it has caused problems in her relationships...she is very hot. She has very low self-esteem. This is because her mother never built any esteem at all in her, and showed her an example of a very needy, reassurance needing woman. My friend is just like her now. But she is also a wonderful and beautiful woman, very worthy of a good man.
> 
> She has certain types of men who are attracted to her. When I said it caused problems in her relationships, usually it was because eventually the men she was with couldn't keep up with her need for reassurance. Also because she has a string of men who had issues of their own so the relationship problems naturally occurred between their dual problems.
> 
> However she has also been with and been pursued by wonderful, well balanced men who truly adored and cherished her and kept up with her need for reassurance. She is also very sweet and willing/ready to fill up anyone else's needs for reassurance. She always tries to communicate to her partners what she loves about them, builds them up, shows them off to her friends in cute ways, etc.
> 
> I can see you with a woman like her.


I don't have a problem reassuring my partner.

I do have a problem emotionally carrying them... but reassurance? Is nothing. Everybody needs it at some point.

Perhaps that's why I struggle why it's an issue for anyone to give.


----------



## MEM2020

Yes 

Being asked to lie, especially being asked to lie repeatedly, in order to help someone feel better about a real issue - would be a no go. 

There was a young man - maybe 25 - who came to TAM seeking help. 

His GF was morbidly obese - 100+ pounds over her ideal body weight. He was adamant that: she wasn't fat, and that he frequently reassured her on this point. 




marduk said:


> I don't have a problem reassuring my partner.
> 
> I do have a problem emotionally carrying them... but reassurance? Is nothing. Everybody needs it at some point.
> 
> Perhaps that's why I struggle why it's an issue for anyone to give.


----------



## Holland

MEM11363 said:


> Lila,
> This board is filled with men who married the prettiest girl who would have them. It's a strategy that appears to have a staggeringly high failure rate.
> 
> Guys have a bad rap for being shallow. It's true for some. Maybe even half. But the rest of us - we see the whole person.


Have not read most of this thread except the first few pages (my you lot can talk), so I'm only commenting on the above.....

I am not/never been model, smoking hot but I am a very attractive woman, put together fairly well with the classic long and still beautiful hair, good skin and a curvy (not fat) figure. I know my smile can melt a man and I have always used that to my advantage. 

It has taken me a long time to fully understand how shallow men can be, not judging just saying that it is a foreign concept to how I think.

I learnt something interesting post divorce and then back out in the dating world, OLD mostly. Nearly every man that I asked the question "why did you contact me, ask me out?" answered with "because I wanted to try my luck with a beautiful woman, I thought you would say no". It might be flattering in some way but to someone like me that values the whole person more than just looks it is a very undermining mindset that men have.

I am more than my looks, I am a real person with real feelings and real needs/wants. To be valued for looks alone can undermine a persons self esteem. Some men seem to think that if they worship a woman's beauty then that is all that is needed, actually it is the opposite. Beautiful women need to be valued for who they are, not what they look like.


----------



## Cosmos

Holland said:


> I am more than my looks, I am a real person with real feelings and real needs/wants. To be valued for looks alone can undermine a persons self esteem. Some men seem to think that if they worship a woman's beauty then that is all that is needed, actually it is the opposite. Beautiful women need to be valued for who they are, not what they look like.


You make some _very _good points, Holland, and I do believe that becoming 'sensitive' about her looks can be a learned behaviour rather than an inherent part of a woman's personalty.

Things are different now that I'm older, but when I was younger I do remember how constant references to my appearance made me self-conscious.


----------



## Holland

Cosmos said:


> You make some _very _good points, Holland, and I do believe that becoming 'sensitive' about her looks can be a learned behaviour rather than an inherent part of a woman's personalty.
> 
> Things are different now that I'm older, but when I was younger I do remember how constant references to my appearance made me self-conscious.


When I was a Tween my Mum would tell people she was going to lock me away as I got older. This used to really worry me, I thought she meant I was so ugly that I had to be hidden away and it still upsets me today when I think about it. As an adult I can see now why a parent would say something like this but as a child I did not understand the humor/intent behind the words.

I am very careful with my girls, we talk about everything, beauty being part of a whole picture. There is so much more to them, they are amazing people.
I cringe when my sister pours affection over her younger boy who she deems to be the better looking of her kids, she lets him get away with some really poor behaviour because she thinks he is just sooooo gorgeous. What she does not see is that she is turning him into a very unattractive person.


----------



## mightbeover

Sounds like the original thread had evolved into a new thing.
I don't think any woman should be ashamed of her past sexual experiences.
I'm a guy who had ~20 partners prior to marriage and my wife had ~10.
Never cared at all about her x's. Always considered them the unlucky ones who missed the perfect woman.
I love her. Problem I have had has been her sharing details about the men and what they did etc.
I never asked for the information. She thought our sex was so good I wouldn't care.
Her stories about sex have almost ruined our marriage. Especially the ones with guys she didn't really like but she just wanted to get done.
I know this is all natural behavior. I've done it.
My only advice to women is NEVER tell a man you love an specifics about prior sex unless they are cool with it and asked to hear about it.
Yes...you can say grow a pair dude, man up, she's yours now blah blah.
That's my advice from a guy who has a ruined marriage from TMI.
Ride away when single. I's fun. Just don't share details.


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> I don't have a problem reassuring my partner.
> 
> I do have a problem emotionally carrying them...* but reassurance? Is nothing. Everybody needs it at some point.*
> 
> Perhaps that's why I struggle why it's an issue for anyone to give.


See and that's just it. My wife has had esteem issues her whole life, but she has mentioned on more than one occasion that she has never felt insecure or needing any kind of reassurance with me. Possibly because I've really never given her an opportunity to need reassurance.

I do find myself very consistently, as in multiple times a day, saying things to her about how happy I am am, hot hot she is to me, praising her accomplishments. I am certainly not over the top with it, nor do I go out of my way to find things to reaffirm in her, she provides me with enough of that all on her own. I just don't have a filter when it comes to things like that, I don't hold the thoughts in.

She has told me that she doesn't need the level of reassurance I give her, that so long as I am not telling her what she is doing wrong, she's happy. She has also said that she really appreciates it though, and doesn't feel as if I am over the top, so it's all good.

I'm going to keep letting her know the things I like in her, the attraction I feel towards her, the things I appreciate in her. They are simply words that convey what is already going through my mind. It doesn't cost anything to say them, takes minimal time, and seeing her glowing smile is soooo worth it.


----------



## EllisRedding

mightbeover said:


> Sounds like the original thread had evolved into a new thing.
> I don't think any woman should be ashamed of her past sexual experiences.
> I'm a guy who had ~20 partners prior to marriage and my wife had ~10.
> Never cared at all about her x's. Always considered them the unlucky ones who missed the perfect woman.
> I love her. Problem I have had has been her sharing details about the men and what they did etc.
> I never asked for the information. She thought our sex was so good I wouldn't care.
> Her stories about sex have almost ruined our marriage. Especially the ones with guys she didn't really like but she just wanted to get done.
> I know this is all natural behavior. I've done it.
> My only advice to women is NEVER tell a man you love an specifics about prior sex unless they are cool with it and asked to hear about it.
> Yes...you can say grow a pair dude, man up, she's yours now blah blah.
> That's my advice from a guy who has a ruined marriage from TMI.
> Ride away when single. I's fun. Just don't share details.


So she would just randomly tell you about things she did with other guys? Was it something meant to compare you against them (i.e. this guys did such and such, why won't you)? I guess I just don't see any reason to bring up specifics unless asked, otherwise it feels more like it is getting thrown in your face.


----------



## always_alone

My one big regret is not about having a sexual past, or having sex, or experimenting. It has to do with stupidly believing that a guy was into me when all he ever saw was a pair of tits, and when ultimately he despised me, but was willing to pretend otherwise to get some action.

Enough of this and now my default assumption is that no one is or ever will be into me, and so my only strategy is self-sufficiency.

It is one thing to be able to make c0cks hard. From what I have seen, they pretty much do this on their own. 

Personally I've always thought I had something to offer, and never really understood why no guy ever agreed. Now I'm resigned to it.


----------



## always_alone

Holland said:


> I am more than my looks, I am a real person with real feelings and real needs/wants. To be valued for looks alone can undermine a persons self esteem. Some men seem to think that if they worship a woman's beauty then that is all that is needed, actually it is the opposite. Beautiful women need to be valued for who they are, not what they look like.


Beauty is a funny thing. Beautiful people are treated differently, constantly rewarded for that beauty, constantly praised for that beauty, but so often no one even bothers to care what lies underneath. It doesn't matter. Beauty is its own reward.

Unless a person is really well grounded, I think it can be a pretty big head trip, and a totally awful thing to have to live up to.


----------



## Cosmos

mightbeover said:


> Sounds like the original thread had evolved into a new thing.
> I don't think any woman should be ashamed of her past sexual experiences.
> I'm a guy who had ~20 partners prior to marriage and my wife had ~10.
> Never cared at all about her x's. Always considered them the unlucky ones who missed the perfect woman.
> I love her.* Problem I have had has been her sharing details about the men and what they did etc.
> I never asked for the information. She thought our sex was so good I wouldn't care.
> 
> Her stories about sex have almost ruined our marriage...*


I'm sorry that your W thought that it was OK to go into _detail _about her sex life before she met you... Frankly, I can never understand why people do this to one another, because once something is known it can't be unknown, and what purpose can it possibly serve?


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> I'm sorry that your W thought that it was OK to go into _detail _about her sex life before she met you... Frankly, I can never understand why people do this to one another, because once something is known it can't be unknown, and what purpose can it possibly serve?


I think for my wife it served many things. Like this guy, I never asked because I didn't want to know. 

But she had a need to tell me. Again and again over the years. 

I think there was an element of power. In that "other guys wanted me and I wanted them so watch out."

I think there was also an aspect of rebellion. Her parents are very conservative. 

I think, as well, that sometimes it was an act of confession or I burdening- so I would understand her. 

Other times, like when she would say stuff at parties, was an act of pride and an assertion of her female sexual power and identity.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> My one big regret is not about having a sexual past, or having sex, or experimenting. It has to do with stupidly believing that a guy was into me when all he ever saw was a pair of tits, and when ultimately he despised me, but was willing to pretend otherwise to get some action.
> 
> Enough of this and now my default assumption is that no one is or ever will be into me, and so my only strategy is self-sufficiency.
> 
> It is one thing to be able to make c0cks hard. From what I have seen, they pretty much do this on their own.
> 
> Personally I've always thought I had something to offer, and never really understood why no guy ever agreed. Now I'm resigned to it.



I find this shocking, AA, because what you say here sounds utterly bizarre and at complete odds with how you come across in your posts. Of course I don't know you in IRL and haven't a clue what you look like even, but I sense a highly intelligent, _beautiful_, witty young woman.

I'm sorry that you've been hurt the way you obviously have been...


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> I think for my wife it served many things. Like this guy, I never asked because I didn't want to know.
> 
> But she had a need to tell me. Again and again over the years.
> *
> I think there was an element of power. In that "other guys wanted me and I wanted them so watch out."
> *
> I think there was also an aspect of rebellion. Her parents are very conservative.
> 
> I think, as well, that sometimes it was an act of confession or I burdening- so I would understand her.
> 
> Other times, like when she would say stuff at parties, was an act of pride and an assertion of her female sexual power and identity.


I think this sort of over-sharing is always about power and trying to make the other person jealous.

When I first met my SO he used to talk about other women a lot. I don't believe that I'm a jealous sort of person by nature, but eventually I'd enough of feeling disrespected so kicked him to the kerb. I told him sweetly:- "It will give you more time to concentrate your attention on all those women you obviously still care so much about." We ended up getting back together some time later, but I'm happy to say I no longer get to hear about the exes.


----------



## EllisRedding

Here is an article that ties in with the theme of this thread:

Here's Why Women Lie About the Number of Men They've Slept With | VICE | United States

Some interesting tidbits



> Even if things are changing, today, in all social classes, the belief remains that a man who's had many sexual partners is more valuable than a woman who's had many sexual partners."





> If you're not f$cking anybody, you're frigid; if you're only having sex with your partner, you're boring; and if you're sleeping around, you're still a *****.





> "I will tell you what I think," he declared. He likes it when girls are not "easy at first. I like knowing the girl is giving me something special when she agrees to sleep with me—it gives me more value. If she's slept with the whole of Paris, I feel stupid. Sleeping with her doesn't make me feel good about myself if she opens her legs in front of anybody. I'm not proud of it but that's how it is."


----------



## Fozzy

Cosmos said:


> I think this sort of over-sharing is always about power and trying to make the other person jealous.


Sort of like dread game, no?


----------



## Marduk

Fozzy said:


> Sort of like dread game, no?


It is dread game.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

This exact topic came up again today while I was driving to work, listening to the usual "Blown off" segment on the radio. Female called up, she had been dating a guy for months (around 3-4 months). Slowly he started to distance himself from her and then the last two weeks wouldn't even respond to her calls/texts (the reason why she called the radio station). 

They got him on the phone, he acknowledged that he liked her, but recently I guess she had revealed to him that she had a rather extensive "past" which he was just not comfortable with. The DJs did ask if his past was similar to hers (i.e. being a hypocrite), but he stated that his past wasn't anywhere near the ballpark of hers (he wouldn't state too many details about what she told him, just that it was very extensive). The female finally chimes in, acknowledges that she had a rather extensive past (once again, not a lot of details so can't say what this exactly meant), explains that it was a phase she went through when she was younger. He stated he understood and that was her business, but he just wasn't comfortable with. The DJs and the female then blast the guy for not looking past her past. I guess my comment/issue, why should he be blasted over this? If he is not being a hypocrite and if his view of sex doesn't line up with hers, than so be it. In the same manner she shouldn't be blasted for her views on sex nor should he. I found it interesting that the response from the DJs was almost the opposite if Svut Shaming.


----------



## Cosmos

EllisRedding said:


> This exact topic came up again today while I was driving to work, listening to the usual "Blown off" segment on the radio. Female called up, she had been dating a guy for months (around 3-4 months). Slowly he started to distance himself from her and then the last two weeks wouldn't even respond to her calls/texts (the reason why she called the radio station).
> 
> They got him on the phone, he acknowledged that he liked her, but recently I guess she had revealed to him that she had a rather extensive "past" which he was just not comfortable with. The DJs did ask if his past was similar to hers (i.e. being a hypocrite), but he stated that his past wasn't anywhere near the ballpark of hers (he wouldn't state too many details about what she told him, just that it was very extensive). The female finally chimes in, acknowledges that she had a rather extensive past (once again, not a lot of details so can't say what this exactly meant), explains that it was a phase she went through when she was younger. He stated he understood and that was her business, but he just wasn't comfortable with. The DJs and the female then blast the guy for not looking past her past. I guess my comment/issue, why should he be blasted over this? If he is not being a hypocrite and if his view of sex doesn't line up with hers, than so be it. In the same manner she shouldn't be blasted for her views on sex nor should he. I found it interesting that the response from the DJs was almost the opposite if Svut Shaming.


IMO, the BF should have told the DJ to take a hike and the GF sounds like a whack job. Who on earth would allow a radio station to play mediator over an issue like this?

Everyone is entitled to their dealbreakers, and the BF was just exercising his rights over his.


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> IMO, the BF should have told the DJ to take a hike and the GF sounds like a whack job. Who on earth would allow a radio station to play mediator over an issue like this?
> 
> Everyone is entitled to their dealbreakers, and the BF was just exercising his rights over his.


I just found it interesting that the guy was trying to be polite given this was being aired over the radio. He didn't call her any names, he didn't go into details and possibly embarrass her. As you said, it just was a dealbreaker for him. Maybe it is his loss, who knows, but still his choice.


----------



## Marduk

EllisRedding said:


> I just found it interesting that the guy was trying to be polite given this was being aired over the radio. He didn't call her any names, he didn't go into details and possibly embarrass her. As you said, it just was a dealbreaker for him. Maybe it is his loss, who knows, but still his choice.


Well, to be fair, he should have told her why he was dumping her rather than just ghosting.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> Well, to be fair, he should have told her why he was dumping her rather than just ghosting.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Agreed, they did call him out on this but mostly it was because he was unwilling to look past her past.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Cosmos said:


> I think this sort of over-sharing is always about power and trying to make the other person jealous.
> 
> When I first met my SO he used to talk about other women a lot. I don't believe that I'm a jealous sort of person by nature, but eventually I'd enough of feeling disrespected so kicked him to the kerb. I told him sweetly:- "It will give you more time to concentrate your attention on all those women you obviously still care so much about." We ended up getting back together some time later, but I'm happy to say I no longer get to hear about the exes.


I agree, it was about power when my hb did it too. It's a way to level the emotional playing field..... i think there are times when our age difference bothers him. 

But there is another message in there, and that is "i did a bunch of people before you so just in case you think you're so special remember that you're not. You fall into a long line". It's a sh!tty message to send your spouse and damages the marital bond. How can you be close to your spouse when it's made clear to you that you're not particularly special?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

lifeistooshort said:


> I agree, it was about power when my hb did it too. It's a way to level the emotional playing field..... i think there are times when our age difference bothers him.
> 
> *But there is another message in there, and that is "i did a bunch of people before you so just in case you think you're so special remember that you're not. You fall into a long line". It's a sh!tty message to send your spouse and damages the marital bond. How can you be close to your spouse when it's made clear to you that you're not particularly special?*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Unfortunately, this is a message that can be conveyed unintentionally as well.


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> Well, to be fair, he should have told her why he was dumping her rather than just ghosting.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Probably, but if it was a newish relationship he probably thought it would be kinder to just drift off into the sunset.


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> Probably, but if it was a newish relationship he probably thought it would be kinder to just drift off into the sunset.


After a few dates, sure. I've done that. 

After a few months?

D-bag move and weak. If you're gonna dump someone, tell them why.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> After a few dates, sure. I've done that.
> 
> After a few months?
> 
> D-bag move and weak. If you're gonna dump someone, tell them why.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I see now that Ellis did say they'd been dating 3 - 4 months, so he should've told her why rather than (presumably) just add to her 'numbers' then disappear.


----------



## Thundarr

EllisRedding said:


> They got him on the phone, he acknowledged that he liked her, but recently I guess she had revealed to him that she had a rather extensive "past" which he was just not comfortable with. The DJs did ask if his past was similar to hers (i.e. being a hypocrite), but he stated that his past wasn't anywhere near the ballpark of hers (he wouldn't state too many details about what she told him, just that it was very extensive). The female finally chimes in, acknowledges that she had a rather extensive past (once again, not a lot of details so can't say what this exactly meant), explains that it was a phase she went through when she was younger. He stated he understood and that was her business, but he just wasn't comfortable with. The DJs and the female then blast the guy for not looking past her past. I guess my comment/issue, why should he be blasted over this? If he is not being a hypocrite and if his view of sex doesn't line up with hers, than so be it. In the same manner she shouldn't be blasted for her views on sex nor should he. I found it interesting that the response from the DJs was almost the opposite if Svut Shaming.


This guy doesn't sound so bad. Sure he should have told her what the issue was instead of letting her wonder but he also could have gotten defensive when she called him out on the radio for everyone to hear. He didn't though. He didn't try to run her name through the mudd at any point like she was doing to him with the radio call. No, there were douche bags in this story but it's not him. Given that we don't actually know what the her past was he has issues with, we don't know if we'd agree with his thoughts or not. We do see their actions though and I'll bet this guy know now even more than before that it was a smart choice to fade away.


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> I see now that Ellis did say they'd been dating 3 - 4 months, so he should've told her why rather than (presumably) just add to her 'numbers' then disappear.


This just happened to a friend of mine. She was seeing this guy, who was plenty happy to add to her numbers, and then decided she was way too much of a wh0re for him. Of course, he did have the decency (?!?!) to tell her straight to her face that she was too much of a wh0re.  

Would've been more reasonable though if he had thought of that a bit earlier in the game.


----------



## lifeistooshort

samyeagar said:


> Unfortunately, this is a message that can be conveyed unintentionally as well.


I definitely think its unintentional, at least most of the time. I don't think people who use this tactic realize they're sending this message, which is why they don't understand how damaging it is. They claim it's their past but the reality is that they're making the past into the present and moving you from mr/ms right to mr/ms right now.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

lifeistooshort said:


> I definitely think its unintentional, at least most of the time. I don't think people who use this tactic realize they're sending this message, which is why they don't understand how damaging it is. They claim it's their past but the reality is that they're making the past into the present and moving you from mr/ms right to mr/ms right now.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But, but but...they chose you!


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> But, but but...they chose you!


For now!


----------



## lifeistooshort

samyeagar said:


> But, but but...they chose you!


Yup, lucky us!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## I Don't Know

samyeagar said:


> But, but but...they chose you!


After the others didn't work out anyway.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> This exact topic came up again today while I was driving to work, listening to the usual "Blown off" segment on the radio. Female called up, she had been dating a guy for months (around 3-4 months). Slowly he started to distance himself from her and then the last two weeks wouldn't even respond to her calls/texts (the reason why she called the radio station).
> 
> They got him on the phone, he acknowledged that he liked her, but recently I guess she had revealed to him that she had a rather extensive "past" which he was just not comfortable with. The DJs did ask if his past was similar to hers (i.e. being a hypocrite), but he stated that his past wasn't anywhere near the ballpark of hers (he wouldn't state too many details about what she told him, just that it was very extensive). The female finally chimes in, acknowledges that she had a rather extensive past (once again, not a lot of details so can't say what this exactly meant), explains that it was a phase she went through when she was younger. He stated he understood and that was her business, but he just wasn't comfortable with. The DJs and the female then blast the guy for not looking past her past. I guess my comment/issue, why should he be blasted over this? If he is not being a hypocrite and if his view of sex doesn't line up with hers, than so be it. In the same manner she shouldn't be blasted for her views on sex nor should he. I found it interesting that the response from the DJs was almost the opposite if Svut Shaming.


If someone has the point of view that he has, he really should have talked about it before they had any sex. Instead he added to her numbers and then dumped her because her number is too high. 

I do agree with she's an idiot for calling in and using the show to contact him. 

But's he a bit of an idiot and cruel. They date for a few months and then he disappears with not explanation, really? Pretty rude and bad.


----------



## EleGirl

I Don't Know said:


> After the others didn't work out anyway.


It seems that this is a 2 way street. You (rhetorical you) chose her too after the others did not work out. Should she look down on the relationship too?


----------



## I Don't Know

Personal said:


> Well I would hope so.
> 
> Why would they choose you or anyone else if one of those before had already worked out?





EleGirl said:


> It seems that this is a 2 way street. You (rhetorical you) chose her too after the others did not work out. Should she look down on the relationship too?


Right. But my point is there was never a straight up, head to head choosing. It's not like I competed against 20 guys a la The Bachelorette. I realize that's not how it works in real life and that's ok. I'm just saying that when someone says, "but I chose you" it's not really the ringing endorsement that it's meant to be. 

I sometimes wonder if my wife had met me and any of her exes at the same time, would she still choose me? Probably yes vs. some of them and no with others.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> If someone has the point of view that he has, he really should have talked about it before they had any sex. Instead he added to her numbers and then dumped her because her number is too high.
> 
> I do agree with she's an idiot for calling in and using the show to contact him.
> 
> But's he a bit of an idiot and cruel. They date for a few months and then he disappears with not explanation, really? Pretty rude and bad.


Although I do agree with your POV, I think in reality though the topic of sex is just not that easy for some(many?) people to openly talk about. Yes, the most adult thing to do would have been to talk to her before they got intimate. Maybe his approach was the less he knew the better? Maybe he was fine not knowing details and she is the one who brought up? Maybe she went into a bit too much detail (as we have discussed here)? Who knows, there wasn't enough information from that call to know. I would say he was an idiot/rude for just going ghost on her, but I would not say he was an idiot/cruel for not talking to her about her past. He might have very well thought he could handle it, and turns out he just couldn't, it happens.


----------



## Thundarr

EleGirl said:


> If someone has the point of view that he has, he really should have talked about it before they had any sex. Instead he added to her numbers and then dumped her because her number is too high.
> 
> I do agree with she's an idiot for calling in and using the show to contact him.
> 
> But's he a bit of an idiot and cruel. They date for a few months and then he disappears with not explanation, really? Pretty rude and bad.


I don't like the fade away approach either but outside of that, we don't know his point of view since we don't know what she told him about her past. It could have been minor or it could have been a bomb. We can't assume he didn't express his views while dating either. Maybe he didn't but no one entertains the idea that he did and she kept quite because she really liked him. Isn't that one the themes of this thread that women have learned to clam up and not tell their skeletons and especially not at first. In this case her "rather extensive past" wasn't labelled as sexual past. There are more things than sex to make us rethink things. Things like drug use, criminal records, etc.


Maybe you're assessment is right but I'd hate for this guy to be in front of a jury slamming him with so little facts to go on.


----------



## Starstarfish

Yet with no facts about her, we are guessing she's a former felon, drug addict, and super freak.


----------



## samyeagar

Starstarfish said:


> Yet with no facts about her, we are guessing she's a former felon, drug addict, and super freak.


We do know she doesn't handle relatively polite rejection well at all.


----------



## jld

This is obviously my own personal point of view, but I think if a man leaves you, you should let him go. Just let him go. 

And feel grateful.


----------



## I Don't Know

jld said:


> This is obviously my own personal point of view, but I think if a man leaves you, you should let him go. Just let him go.
> 
> And feel grateful.


Same can be said for women. Bottom li e is if someone, anyone, doesn't like what you're bringing or doesn't want to be with you... oh well, see ya around.


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> I don't like the fade away approach either but outside of that, we don't know his point of view since we don't know what she told him about her past. It could have been minor or it could have been a bomb. We can't assume he didn't express his views while dating either. Maybe he didn't but no one entertains the idea that he did and she kept quite because she really liked him. Isn't that one the themes of this thread that women have learned to clam up and not tell their skeletons and especially not at first. In this case her "rather extensive past" wasn't labelled as sexual past (So we don't even know that). There are more things than sex to make us rethink things. Things like drug use, criminal records, etc.
> 
> 
> Maybe you're assessment is right but I'd hate for this guy to be in front of a jury slamming him with so little facts to go on.
> 
> 
> Starstarfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet with no facts about her, we are guessing she's a former felon, drug addict, and super freak.
Click to expand...

No Starstarfish. That's not my point at all. If you read my comment you must see that I'm saying we don't know enough to judge either one and that's the point. The only things we know for sure are that 1. he didn't tell her why and 2. she aired their dirty laundry on the radio. Both of those are bad.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> This is obviously my own personal point of view, but I think if a man leaves you, you should let him go. Just let him go.
> 
> And feel grateful.


This is one of your best posts jld. If someone wants to leave then let them go and be grateful. Either grateful they're not wasting your time if that was the case or grateful to have been with them if that applies. I would let my wife go and feel loss and maybe hopelessness that I wouldn't find that kind of connection again. But I would be grateful for the past 19 years we've spent together.


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> This is one of your best posts jld. If someone wants to leave then let them go and be grateful. Either grateful they're not wasting your time if that was the case or grateful to have been with them if that applies. I would let my wife go and feel loss and maybe hopelessness that I wouldn't find that kind of connection again. But I would be grateful for the past 19 years we've spent together.


Well, thank you, Thundarr, but I really had women in mind when I wrote it. I think when a wife walks away, it is often a different story.

Reconciliation with a Hardened Wife


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> Well, thank you, Thundarr, but I really had women in mind when I wrote it. I think when a wife walks away, it is often a different story.
> 
> Reconciliation with a Hardened Wife


I'll have to agree to agree. That is with what I thought you meant lol.


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> I'll have to agree to agree. That is with what I thought you meant lol.


That's okay, Thundarr. If we all thought the same way, the forum would be very boring. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Personal said:


> Here's my personal point of view.
> 
> I think if a man or woman leaves you, you should let them go. Just let them go.
> 
> And feel grateful.


Yeah but while we're shutting the door behind their leaving....we can still call them an A-hole, in-grateful, home wrecker..... and a whole host of others ugly words while we say a prayer of thankfulness they are done with us.. 

Just saying.. Glad I haven't been in these shoes. I'd be pretty pizzed.


----------



## Tall

I realize I'm days behind everyone else getting caught up in this thread.

But I wonder what Nancy would say if one day Sid said;
"_I do love you Nancy, and I like our little chats. But the connection I felt with Carol was just more intense. The talks we had about life and love and the universe were ... just deeper, and more meaningful. I have never felt that intimate with another persons thoughts and feelings before, or after. 
But sorry, I digress. I'm not that kind of man any more.
You wanted to talk about mowing the lawn this Tuesday?_"


----------



## WandaJ

marduk said:


> Well, to be fair, he should have told her why he was dumping her rather than just ghosting.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But it sound like this woman knew exactly why he is not in touch with her, so she did get the message somehow. Chance are she just does not accept it, and keeps pursuing him.


----------



## EleGirl

Tall said:


> I realize I'm days behind everyone else getting caught up in this thread.
> 
> But I wonder what Nancy would say if one day Sid said;
> "_I do love you Nancy, and I like our little chats. But the connection I felt with Carol was just more intense. The talks we had about life and love and the universe were ... just deeper, and more meaningful. I have never felt that intimate with another persons thoughts and feelings before, or after.
> But sorry, I digress. I'm not that kind of man any more.
> You wanted to talk about mowing the lawn this Tuesday?_"


But Nancy never said anything like that to Sid. One of her friends spouted off some nonsense that may or may not be true. And Sid is now assuming all kinds of things.


----------



## sparrow555

EleGirl said:


> If someone has the point of view that he has, he really should have talked about it before they had any sex. Instead he added to her numbers and then dumped her because her number is too high.
> 
> I do agree with she's an idiot for calling in and using the show to contact him.
> 
> But's he a bit of an idiot and cruel. They date for a few months and then he disappears with not explanation, really? Pretty rude and bad.


Telling someone your numbers early in a relationship is generally a bad idea. You do not share such intimate information upfront. Your sexual partner count is something you discuss a few months into a relationship. It is not a first date discussion topic.


----------



## Cosmos

sparrow555 said:


> Telling someone your numbers early in a relationship is generally a bad idea. You do not share such intimate information upfront. *Your sexual partner count is something you discuss a few months into a relationship.* It is not a first date discussion topic.


IMO, discussing numbers is something that should be discussed before having sex. Which is probably one of the reasons why I would never have sex with someone until I'd taken sufficient time to get to know them.

Bottom line: If you're not ready to divulge your sexual history, you're not ready to have sex.


----------



## MEM2020

Ellis,

I do believe that in a healthy relationship there is this gentle push pull of information. For instance, if I choose to share something like this with you, I'm implicitly inviting reciprocity. 

So perhaps my simplistic view looks like this. 

Before they have sex he ought to be open about his mindset. And really most folks have a fairly binary viewpoint. The past either IS important or it is NOT important to them. This is real life, so you don't get to say: I only care about the past if it's bad. 

So BEFORE sleeping with someone the guy either says:
1. The past is just that - it's not important to me, so unless you have a need to know mine or share yours, my preference is to leave that topic alone. 
Or
2. It's important to me to be able to share my past and to KNOW yours. 

If you employ (1), and your not yet sexual partner replies: It is important to me to be able to share mine and know yours, you can shrug and say we ought to do THAT, before going further.

If (2) is true, than as the man you need say so before sleeping together. 

I'm more of a (2), M2 is more of a (1). So she showed me hers and then in the spirit of reciprocity I showed her mine. 







EllisRedding said:


> Although I do agree with your POV, I think in reality though the topic of sex is just not that easy for some(many?) people to openly talk about. Yes, the most adult thing to do would have been to talk to her before they got intimate. Maybe his approach was the less he knew the better? Maybe he was fine not knowing details and she is the one who brought up? Maybe she went into a bit too much detail (as we have discussed here)? Who knows, there wasn't enough information from that call to know. I would say he was an idiot/rude for just going ghost on her, but I would not say he was an idiot/cruel for not talking to her about her past. He might have very well thought he could handle it, and turns out he just couldn't, it happens.


----------



## EleGirl

sparrow555 said:


> Telling someone your numbers early in a relationship is generally a bad idea. You do not share such intimate information upfront. Your sexual partner count is something you discuss a few months into a relationship. It is not a first date discussion topic.


I find this to be just down right funny.

Let me get this right.... guys want sex by the 3rd date at the latest. 

But number of previous partners are not be to discussed until a few months into a relationship.

So sharing numbers is too intimate a topic to discuss for a few months.

But sex is not too intimate to share almost immediately??????

Something seems very backward in this line of thought.

To me, numbers are far less intimate than sex.

At least I want to know if a guy is going to get a freaked out with whatever number I might have.. so maybe the first date topic is "What is your limit? How man is too many? What is your take on a woman who is not a virgin? How about a woman who has 1, 2, 15, 40, 300? Do want to know every intimate detail of a woman's past sexual history?"

Discussing numbers is too intimate for first date? It's not too intimate a topic to discuss before there is ever any sex. What is absolutely not too intimate to discuss is attitude about things like previous sexual history.. and if a person has a magic number, then they need to tell the other person BEFORE they have any sex. It's only fair to let a person know if they are going to judged and thrown away because of some arbitrary number or personal 'judgement'.


----------



## sparrow555

EleGirl said:


> I find this to be just down right funny.
> 
> Let me get this right.... guys want sex by the 3rd date at the latest.
> 
> But number of previous partners are not be to discussed until a few months into a relationship.
> 
> So sharing numbers is too intimate a topic to discuss for a few months.
> 
> But sex is not too intimate to share almost immediately??????
> 
> Something seems very backward in this line of thought.
> 
> To me, numbers are far less intimate than sex.
> 
> At least I want to know if a guy is going to get a freaked out with whatever number I might have.. so maybe the first date topic is "What is your limit? How man is too many? What is your take on a woman who is not a virgin? How about a woman who has 1, 2, 15, 40, 300? Do want to know every intimate detail of a woman's past sexual history?"
> 
> Discussing numbers is too intimate for first date? It's not too intimate a topic to discuss before there is ever any sex. What is absolutely not too intimate to discuss is attitude about things like previous sexual history.. and if a person has a magic number, then they need to tell the other person BEFORE they have any sex. It's only fair to let a person know if they are going to judged and thrown away because of some arbitrary number or personal 'judgement'.


Don't make it a gender fight like you usually do. The mocking tone was totally uncalled for, especially for a moderator.


A guy asking a woman on the number of her sexual partners on their first date will probably be labeled a creep.

You do not tell the number the same reason you do not share your bank account details or your SSN. Or the same reason one shouldn't send nudes with their face in it. It can be misused or used against you. Even if you are having sex with the other person. Sometimes, certain information has to be shared immediately(STDs etc) but certain info is better shared when you know the other person a little more than a few dates.

People can have casual relationship in the mean time(which might include sexual activities) and both of them can enjoy it as they learn more about one another. A man and a woman can have casual relationship for sometime and then decide to end it due to incompatibilities. It is impossible to only have sex when you have 100% information on the other person

You seem to have a very negative view on sex. It is not something inflicted by one party over the other. It is a mutually pleasurable activity. 



> If someone has the point of view that he has, he really should have talked about it before they had any sex. Instead he added to her numbers and then dumped her because her number is too high.


Every sexual relationship does not have to end up in an actual relationship or marriage. A man having sex with a woman and not ending up in a relationship with her is not using her. A woman having ONS and FWB relationships is not using the men for her own selfishness.


----------



## sparrow555

Cosmos said:


> IMO, discussing numbers is something that should be discussed before having sex. Which is probably one of the reasons why I would never have sex with someone until I'd taken sufficient time to get to know them.
> 
> Bottom line: If you're not ready to divulge your sexual history, you're not ready to have sex.



Depends. To some sex is a very emotional. Some just do casual sex. Some have religious reasons. 

And just to be clear, my personal philosophy is similar to yours.


----------



## EleGirl

sparrow555 said:


> Don't make it a gender fight like you usually do.


You are the one brining 'gender fight' into this. I was addressing the issue of when to talk about numbers of partners. Just because you want to twist my post like this does make it so.



sparrow555 said:


> The mocking tone was totally uncalled for, especially for a moderator.


Ah... moderators are now not allowed to post opinions? News to me.



sparrow555 said:


> A guy asking a woman on the number of her sexual partners on their first date will probably be labeled a creep.
> 
> You do not tell the number the same reason you do not share your bank account details or your SSN. Or the same reason one shouldn't send nudes with their face in it. It can be misused or used against you. Even if you are having sex with the other person. Sometimes, certain information has to be shared immediately(STDs etc) but certain info is better shared when you know the other person a little more than a few dates.
> 
> People can have casual relationship in the mean time(which might include sexual activities) and both of them can enjoy it as they learn more about one another. A man and a woman can have casual relationship for sometime and then decide to end it due to incompatibilities. It is impossible to only have sex when you have 100% information on the other person
> 
> You seem to have a very negative view on sex. It is not something inflicted by one party over the other. It is a mutually pleasurable activity.
> 
> Every sexual relationship does not have to end up in an actual relationship or marriage. A man having sex with a woman and not ending up in a relationship with her is not using her. A woman having ONS and FWB relationships is not using the men for her own selfishness.


Sure if both parties just want to have some fun and have sex, that's one thing.

But this thread is addressing situations which are more relationship related. So I addressed the topic within the framework of a couple who are starting or have a relationship.


----------



## MEM2020

Sparrow,

I say this - male to male. 

What you are saying about casual sex is true. However when applied to this specific situation I find the notion massively hypocritical. 

It results in the woman either being a slvt or a tease. 

Basically - you want casual sex. You like the idea of casual sex. But a woman who has casual sex with OTHER GUYS, is solely there for sexual convenience. You wouldn't actually get serious with her because she's damaged goods. 



sparrow555 said:


> Don't make it a gender fight like you usually do. The mocking tone was totally uncalled for, especially for a moderator.
> 
> 
> A guy asking a woman on the number of her sexual partners on their first date will probably be labeled a creep.
> 
> You do not tell the number the same reason you do not share your bank account details or your SSN. Or the same reason one shouldn't send nudes with their face in it. It can be misused or used against you. Even if you are having sex with the other person. Sometimes, certain information has to be shared immediately(STDs etc) but certain info is better shared when you know the other person a little more than a few dates.
> 
> People can have casual relationship in the mean time(which might include sexual activities) and both of them can enjoy it as they learn more about one another. A man and a woman can have casual relationship for sometime and then decide to end it due to incompatibilities. It is impossible to only have sex when you have 100% information on the other person
> 
> You seem to have a very negative view on sex. It is not something inflicted by one party over the other. It is a mutually pleasurable activity.
> 
> 
> 
> Every sexual relationship does not have to end up in an actual relationship or marriage. A man having sex with a woman and not ending up in a relationship with her is not using her. A woman having ONS and FWB relationships is not using the men for her own selfishness.


----------



## MEM2020

And one more thing. 

Ele was 
Edit: NOT
posting as a 'contributor', not as a mod. She was invoking the rules, just sharing a viewpoint. 




sparrow555 said:


> Don't make it a gender fight like you usually do. The mocking tone was totally uncalled for, especially for a moderator.
> 
> 
> A guy asking a woman on the number of her sexual partners on their first date will probably be labeled a creep.
> 
> You do not tell the number the same reason you do not share your bank account details or your SSN. Or the same reason one shouldn't send nudes with their face in it. It can be misused or used against you. Even if you are having sex with the other person. Sometimes, certain information has to be shared immediately(STDs etc) but certain info is better shared when you know the other person a little more than a few dates.
> 
> People can have casual relationship in the mean time(which might include sexual activities) and both of them can enjoy it as they learn more about one another. A man and a woman can have casual relationship for sometime and then decide to end it due to incompatibilities. It is impossible to only have sex when you have 100% information on the other person
> 
> You seem to have a very negative view on sex. It is not something inflicted by one party over the other. It is a mutually pleasurable activity.
> 
> 
> 
> Every sexual relationship does not have to end up in an actual relationship or marriage. A man having sex with a woman and not ending up in a relationship with her is not using her. A woman having ONS and FWB relationships is not using the men for her own selfishness.


----------



## always_alone

sparrow555 said:


> People can have casual relationship in the mean time(which might include sexual activities) and both of them can enjoy it as they learn more about one another. A man and a woman can have casual relationship for sometime and then decide to end it due to incompatibilities.


Well, sure. But it's a bit rich (read impossibly hypocritical) for two people to "enjoy" casual sex as they "learn" about each other, and then one decides to end it because of the terrible "incompatibility" that the other enjoys casual sex.


----------



## always_alone

<snark>

OMG, like, I was at the club last night, and there was this guy there, and I'm like WOW is he ever *HOT*. I gave him the eye, and he eyeballed me right back, and my legs were like jelly, you know? We soool clicked, like magic, and I totally JUMPED those bones. And it was like the *hottest* sex ever.

But now, I don't know what to do. He's like texting me, and wants to see me again, and I'm like WTF? Get over yourself, dude. Sure it was some hot sex, but why the fvck would I ever want to see him again? I mean gawd, eww, what a gross wh0re! A girl would have to be crazy to date THAT!

</snark>


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> <snark>
> 
> OMG, like, I was at the club last night, and there was this guy there, and I'm like WOW is he ever *HOT*. I gave him the eye, and he eyeballed me right back, and my legs were like jelly, you know? We soool clicked, like magic, and I totally JUMPED those bones. And it was like the *hottest* sex ever.
> 
> But now, I don't know what to do. He's like texting me, and wants to see me again, and I'm like WTF? Get over yourself, dude. Sure it was some hot sex, but why the fvck would I ever want to see him again? I mean gawd, eww, what a gross wh0re! A girl would have to be crazy to date THAT!
> 
> </snark>


But what I really need help with is what do I do if my husband finds out...


----------



## techmom

samyeagar said:


> But what I really need help with is what do I do if my husband finds out...


Where did " the husband" come from? What if there is no husband or SO and the lady is just out for a good time as she is entitled to?>


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> Let me get this right.... guys want sex by the 3rd date at the latest.


My only issue with your post is this statement. Just b/c some guys have stated such, your post seems to imply that all guys view sex this way (which they do not). I am sure that is not what you meant, but how it reads to me so it is hard to take the rest seriously.

Aside from that though I do agree if the "number" or past is important then it should be discussed at some point before the deed is done. Someone's past or "number" may contradict my personal view on sex, so I would want to know before things went any further.


----------



## Starstarfish

I love that in any imagined hypothetical situation more and more details just have to appear out of nowhere to justify the double standard of hypocrisy. 

It comes down to the same thing, always. No matter what you do ladies, you can't win. And this is why if I'm ever divorced or widowed, I'm joining a convent.


----------



## Marduk

Starstarfish said:


> I love that in any imagined hypothetical situation more and more details just have to appear out of nowhere to justify the double standard of hypocrisy.
> 
> It comes down to the same thing, always. No matter what you do ladies, you can't win. And this is why if I'm ever divorced or widowed, I'm joining a convent.


And yet...

Somehow...

Millions of women have sex with pre-marital partners, still get married, and have husbands that love them without issue.

Ya, it's obviously convent time. Easier, I guess, than just finding a guy who's not so insecure.


----------



## joannacroc

Buddy400 said:


> I was just thinking last night; if you asked a guy with quite a bit of experience if he had any regrets about his sexual past, I think he'd say "yes". No big deal.
> 
> So, why is it so important for some women with a sexual past to say "no"? Is it a overreaction to the slvt shaming? One has to go to the opposite extreme?


You sound like you think some women say they aren't ashamed of their sexual past because they feel societal pressure to say that. I think what you aren't understanding is that some of us genuinely DON'T feel shame about something we have no reason to be ashamed of -having sex. Which is fun. And feels good. It seems like if you are with someone, you would want them to think sex is a good thing, and not something to be ashamed of, no?


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Lila said:


> Several threads have popped up recently by men asking for help on processing their partner's sexual past. A sexual past that was understood on some level but the details of which have now come to light.
> 
> One common question that I see asked is whether or not the partner regrets her sexual past or feels shame over her wanton behavior at that time. I often see these behaviors cumulatively described as 'youthful indiscretions', 'escapades/wild adventures', or 'acting out'. These types of questions insinuate that the only way to judge these experiences as acceptable is to invalidate them with regret and/or shame. This is baffling to me.
> 
> I know that there are women who do genuinely regret something in their sexual past, but I don't think this is true of the majority. I think many women unknowingly (or possibly purposefully) feel they have to suppress these positive sexual experiences or replace them with negative feelings in order to make their sexual history palatable to a future partner. Clean the slate, so to speak.
> 
> I personally do not regret any of my sexual past. I enjoyed my sexual experiences and remember them as positive events in my life. It was _history_. A history that I enjoyed and one where I was happy.
> 
> Luckily, my lack of regret did not disqualify me as a good long term partner for my husband, just as his lack of regret over his sexual history didn't disqualify him as a good long term partner for me.
> 
> I know that I'm cut from a whole other piece of cloth but would like to hear the ladies of TAM thoughts on the subject.
> 
> Do you regret parts or the whole of your sexual history? Why/why not.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners? If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly?


How much of a blank slate do you expect to get (or give)?

Easy to be the lay around town for attention and be in the social places, grab "Madonna" attention by being the ****tiest dresser, or to get dinner/show/invites by being known as a guaranteed lay - it's not like it's difficult to make it happens you just have to lower your standards enough until it works.
Anyone with the quipment can may a video short, but to make a classic that holds value and others respect takes more that slapping it out there... How many guys succeed if they just wore tight shorts and hung it out for all takers?
So why would you husband be upset that he's not special, just a mug that got stuck with the shop spoiled goods because she couldn't do better - to always be compared against her past memories. It's not like actually being a husband is actually fun ! It's hardwork, sacrifice, putting up with a lot of someone elses BullS - why would being reminded of her better times (that he didn't even qualify for) annoy him.... perhaps if you thought about it from his side, which I bet you don't or it would have been hot-sold, not cold-dumped, in his lap, which again just confirms that you really don't care about _your_husband_, just _your_relationship_ i.e. yourself (and your good times).
What on earth could he have a problem about?


----------



## joannacroc

Buddy400 said:


> Because women view commitment as the prize and men view sex as the prize (unless one doesn't believe that whole "men and women" are different thing).


That's just not accurate. As a HD someone happily exiting a sexless marriage (for me - as it turns out he was having plenty of sex, I just wasn't involved) BOTH sex AND commitment are valuable. When I'm ready again for a relationship, I wouldn't want one and not the other.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

techmom said:


> Where did " the husband" come from? What if there is no husband or SO and the lady is just out for a good time as she is entitled to?>


"entitled to"??

there's yer problem.

One beer is nice - having so many is anti-social and bad for yourself and others. especially if done for long periods. so sure you might be "entitled" to a beer every now and then but entitlement to over the top boozing and disregard for everyone else. (and if you sign up a sponsorship contract with one supplier you sure as heck better not get caught grabbing a competitors product)


----------



## joannacroc

Lila said:


> She asked you to become the person you were before she met you?:surprise:
> 
> How did she know what you were like before you two met?


The nerd in me is picturing some sort of Star Trek time loop in which this is possible...and possibly realizing this way of thinking is why I am single :grin2:


----------



## Starstarfish

> Millions of women have sex with pre-marital partners, still get married, and have husbands that love them without issue.
> 
> Ya, it's obviously convent time. Easier, I guess, than just finding a guy who's not so insecure.


How do you successfully determine if someone is insecure, given that on TAM some of these insecurity issues don't pop up until -years- after you are married? Where in apparently some "friend" of your reveals details about something you did with an X 15 years ago and all of the sudden you are faced with retroactive jealousy? Or that you feel you can trust your husband enough after long enough to talk about your past without it being an issue?

He'll likely get sympathy no matter how nuts he acts about it because obviously he wouldn't even be upset if I wasn't just "giving him vanilla" while someone else got "57 flavors." If I did anything in the past with anyone else and don't want to do it with him I have to explain -why-. And I have to come up with a good -why- otherwise, I'm clearly just "not that into him" and he's just my "beta provider." Wanting or doing something once means you are under some obligation to do it again for future partners. 

Just because your husband loves you without issue now isn't actually a guarantee that one day apparently he starts seeing you and your marriage in an entirely different light. Even if at one point he stated that the past didn't matter to him.

If I have pre-martial sex and it doesn't work out, I have to add that to my "number" that I am or am not supposed to reveal to a long-term relationship partner. If I don't tell him, I'm not being honest and giving him a fair chance to decide if he can "handle my past." If I do tell him and he dumps me, well he's just one -more- number to tell the next guy. And you know, you better multiple whatever number I tell you by 3 because women are all liars anyways. If I don't have sex before a certain point, I'm a prude. If I have it too fast, I'm a ho. I have to give every new partner sex and the same types and variety of sex as I gave the last guy as fast or faster.

But yes, it just all sounds so simple when you really think about it.


----------



## MEM2020

Starfish,

There's one scenario I DO have a big issue with and its a gender neutral type thing. 

It is EXTREMELY uncool to volunteer information to a partner, when said info could reasonably cause them distress. 

I gave Sue oral every day for 6 months - might just be a fact. 

But if we both know that:
1. You love oral
2. At best you get it once a year on your birthday, and even that isn't a 'sure thing'

That's called bludgeoning someone with the truth. A 'normal person' is going to be hurt by that. 

So man or woman, if you feel the need to 'unburden' yourself or merely take a stroll down 'parked car memory lane', you might stop for a moment and consider how said stroll will feel to your partner. 





Starstarfish said:


> How do you successfully determine if someone is insecure, given that on TAM some of these insecurity issues don't pop up until -years- after you are married? Where in apparently some "friend" of your reveals details about something you did with an X 15 years ago and all of the sudden you are faced with retroactive jealousy? Or that you feel you can trust your husband enough after long enough to talk about your past without it being an issue?
> 
> He'll likely get sympathy no matter how nuts he acts about it because obviously he wouldn't even be upset if I wasn't just "giving him vanilla" while someone else got "57 flavors." If I did anything in the past with anyone else and don't want to do it with him I have to explain -why-. And I have to come up with a good -why- otherwise, I'm clearly just "not that into him" and he's just my "beta provider." Wanting or doing something once means you are under some obligation to do it again for future partners.
> 
> Just because your husband loves you without issue now isn't actually a guarantee that one day apparently he starts seeing you and your marriage in an entirely different light. Even if at one point he stated that the past didn't matter to him.
> 
> If I have pre-martial sex and it doesn't work out, I have to add that to my "number" that I am or am not supposed to reveal to a long-term relationship partner. If I don't tell him, I'm not being honest and giving him a fair chance to decide if he can "handle my past." If I do tell him and he dumps me, well he's just one -more- number to tell the next guy. And you know, you better multiple whatever number I tell you by 3 because women are all liars anyways. If I don't have sex before a certain point, I'm a prude. If I have it too fast, I'm a ho. I have to give every new partner sex and the same types and variety of sex as I gave the last guy as fast or faster.
> 
> But yes, it just all sounds so simple when you really think about it.


----------



## Starstarfish

My husband used to do it repeatedly about non sexual things until I finally broke down and pointed it out. (IE tell the same moon-eyed story ... repeatedly about his honeymoon trip with his XW.)

So the idea of a trip down memory lane being painful to a partner isn't foreign to me. I discussed on this board once my own touch of RJ from all that (IE, I obviously didn't mean as much, etc.) I got considerably less sympathy. 

I think it's an emotional intelligence thing, myself. 

I personally have never discussed the details of my pre-marriage sex life with my husband. He has never asked me for details or a number beyond querying if I was a virgin the first time we did. I've never asked him about details about his XW, though at times I've been tempted, for various reasons.

I don't have any trips down memory lane to do. No fond memories of past lovers. But at some point would I like to feel safe enough to discuss my past sexual abuse? Yes. Not to rub it in his face, far from it. But because it's a burden to have triggers for certain things and keep them inside. Because he knows certain things bother me but he never knows why. But honestly, knowing what I know from reading this thread (and dozens like it), I'm not sure I ever really can.


----------



## Thundarr

Starstarfish said:


> It comes down to the same thing, always. No matter what you do ladies, *you can't win*. And this is why if I'm ever divorced or widowed, I'm joining a convent.


Ladies can win and ladies do win. So do men.

It's not hopeless just because it seems hopeless.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
"spoiled goods" :scratchhead:
That seems such an archaic - and to me rather offensive phrase. It harks back to when a woman's virginity was her only source of value. 

A woman with an active previous sex life is likely a woman who greatly enjoys sex (assuming there was no coercion), and that is a wonderful thing.






spotthedeaddog said:


> snip
> So why would you husband be upset that he's not special, just a mug that got stuck with the shop spoiled goods because she couldn't do better -
> snip


----------



## tech-novelist

Starstarfish said:


> My husband used to do it repeatedly about non sexual things until I finally broke down and pointed it out. (IE tell the same moon-eyed story ... repeatedly about his honeymoon trip with his XW.)
> 
> So the idea of a trip down memory lane being painful to a partner isn't foreign to me. I discussed on this board once my own touch of RJ from all that (IE, I obviously didn't mean as much, etc.) I got considerably less sympathy.
> 
> I think it's an emotional intelligence thing, myself.
> 
> I personally have never discussed the details of my pre-marriage sex life with my husband. He has never asked me for details or a number beyond querying if I was a virgin the first time we did. I've never asked him about details about his XW, though at times I've been tempted, for various reasons.
> 
> I don't have any trips down memory lane to do. No fond memories of past lovers. But at some point would I like to feel safe enough to discuss my past sexual abuse? Yes. Not to rub it in his face, far from it. But because it's a burden to have triggers for certain things and keep them inside. Because he knows certain things bother me but he never knows why. But honestly, knowing what I know from reading this thread (and dozens like it), I'm not sure I ever really can.


All of the RJ threads I have read have to do with things that the wife (at least supposedly) did voluntarily with others but not with the husband in question, not with sexual abuse.

And in fact I would be surprised to hear that a man would be critical of his wife for having been sexually abused. If that did happen, I would have very little sympathy for a man who had that reaction.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Starfish,
> 
> There's one scenario I DO have a big issue with and its a gender neutral type thing.
> 
> It is EXTREMELY uncool to volunteer information to a partner, when said info could reasonably cause them distress.
> 
> I gave Sue oral every day for 6 months - might just be a fact.
> 
> But if we both know that:
> 1. You love oral
> 2. At best you get it once a year on your birthday, and even that isn't a 'sure thing'
> 
> That's called bludgeoning someone with the truth. A 'normal person' is going to be hurt by that.
> 
> So man or woman, if you feel the need to 'unburden' yourself or merely take a stroll down 'parked car memory lane', you might stop for a moment and consider how said stroll will feel to your partner.


Don't you think it is better to know, even if it is temporarily painful, MEM? 

We can never be sure how our partner will react, after all. Being upfront right away gives them a chance to make a free will choice about staying with us, or moving on. 

And I think people can surprise us. People can sometimes react with extraordinary compassion if they feel sincerity coming from the other person. And having someone be upfront at the beginning might feel like they respect us enough to be open to rejection, if that is the choice we make.

I really don't think how people react to us is mostly about us. I think it is mostly about them, and where they are at that particular moment in life. It can be helpful not to take things too personally, if at all possible. Rejection, imo, is best viewed as one small window shutting, so that a door at some future time can open.


----------



## jld

Starstarfish said:


> I don't have any trips down memory lane to do. No fond memories of past lovers. But at some point would I like to feel safe enough to discuss my past sexual abuse? Yes. Not to rub it in his face, far from it. But because it's a burden to have triggers for certain things and keep them inside. Because he knows certain things bother me but he never knows why. But honestly, knowing what I know from reading this thread (and dozens like it), I'm not sure I ever really can.


I am so sorry you went through what you did, starstarfish. I think it would be very healing for you to feel safe enough with your partner to be able to share your heart with him. I hope he earns that trust from you. And I hope he responds with compassion and acceptance and great warmth.

(((starstarfish)))


----------



## jld

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> "spoiled goods" :scratchhead:
> That seems such an archaic - and to me rather offensive phrase. It harks back to when a woman's virginity was her only source of value.


Do you think this comes from the pov that women are a possession, Richard? 

Do you think it might be part of the reason some men might have a hard time forgiving a PA?


----------



## sparrow555

MEM11363 said:


> Sparrow,
> 
> I say this - male to male.
> 
> What you are saying about casual sex is true. However when applied to this specific situation I find the notion massively hypocritical.
> 
> It results in the woman either being a slvt or a tease.
> 
> Basically - you want casual sex. You like the idea of casual sex. But a woman who has casual sex with OTHER GUYS, is solely there for sexual convenience. You wouldn't actually get serious with her because she's damaged goods.




I disagree. 

Use this same scenario in a different context. Remove the sex part of it. 

How long would it be after you met someone, would you be comfortable sharing your house keys ?

What about your financial information, bank account passwords ?

Just because you let them use your computer or let them stay at your home does not mean you should give them your keys or share your passwords.

And yeah, damaged goods word is a bit unnecessary..


----------



## WorkingWife

Lila said:


> Several threads have popped up recently by men asking for help on processing their partner's sexual past. A sexual past that was understood on some level but the details of which have now come to light.
> 
> One common question that I see asked is whether or not the partner regrets her sexual past or feels shame over her wanton behavior at that time. I often see these behaviors cumulatively described as 'youthful indiscretions', 'escapades/wild adventures', or 'acting out'. These types of questions insinuate that the only way to judge these experiences as acceptable is to invalidate them with regret and/or shame. This is baffling to me.
> 
> I know that there are women who do genuinely regret something in their sexual past, but I don't think this is true of the majority. I think many women unknowingly (or possibly purposefully) feel they have to suppress these positive sexual experiences or replace them with negative feelings in order to make their sexual history palatable to a future partner. Clean the slate, so to speak.
> 
> I personally do not regret any of my sexual past. I enjoyed my sexual experiences and remember them as positive events in my life. It was _history_. A history that I enjoyed and one where I was happy.
> 
> Luckily, my lack of regret did not disqualify me as a good long term partner for my husband, just as his lack of regret over his sexual history didn't disqualify him as a good long term partner for me.
> 
> I know that I'm cut from a whole other piece of cloth but would like to hear the ladies of TAM thoughts on the subject.
> 
> Do you regret parts or the whole of your sexual history? Why/why not.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to invalidate sexual history with regret in order to make it palatable for future partners? If you don't, do you think it's common for women to do this whether knowingly or unknowingly?


I have some past sexual history that I definitely regret. And that would be times when I had sex I didn't really want to have because - why? I guess mainly because I was weak and felt I'd somehow led a guy on and was now obligated. Or I was young and insecure and thought that to have any value to a man I had to come across as some wanton sex hungry little nympho who expected nothing in return in order for him to want to spend time with me.

I look back on that now and feel so very sad for that messed up girl -- who had no idea she was messed up at the time!

With that said, there's plenty of hot awesome sex in my past too that I definitely do not regret!

As for my H - I'm actually encouraged by this conversation because he does NOT want to hear anything about my past but he's the first guy I've been with who is like that. All the others were interested in discussing past relationships as a way to know each other more intimately. (Not that I would go on about how good someone else was, but it was an easy, open conversation). 

With my current H, I felt he did not want to really know me because he so didn't want to hear any mention of past relationships. I feel better seeing on here that many men apparently are like that.


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband

Starstarfish said:


> I don't have any trips down memory lane to do. No fond memories of past lovers. But at some point would I like to feel safe enough to discuss my past sexual abuse? Yes. Not to rub it in his face, far from it. But because it's a burden to have triggers for certain things and keep them inside. Because he knows certain things bother me but he never knows why. But honestly, knowing what I know from reading this thread (and dozens like it), I'm not sure I ever really can.


My wife did not tell me about her abuse prior marriage. For 2 years into marriage, I felt she was rejecting me & I wondered if I needed to get a divorce due to how she was reacting to me. The "never knows why" is going to eat away at him. He will feel like you do not desire him, want to be with him, UNTIL he knows the reason you are pushing him away.

If both of you could go to counseling and work thru the triggers, it would make your marriage stronger.


----------



## Duguesclin

MEM11363 said:


> Starfish,
> 
> There's one scenario I DO have a big issue with and its a gender neutral type thing.
> 
> It is EXTREMELY uncool to volunteer information to a partner, when said info could reasonably cause them distress.
> 
> I gave Sue oral every day for 6 months - might just be a fact.
> 
> But if we both know that:
> 1. You love oral
> 2. At best you get it once a year on your birthday, and even that isn't a 'sure thing'
> 
> That's called bludgeoning someone with the truth. A 'normal person' is going to be hurt by that.
> 
> So man or woman, if you feel the need to 'unburden' yourself or merely take a stroll down 'parked car memory lane', you might stop for a moment and consider how said stroll will feel to your partner.


How should a man learn from his wife sexual past, from his wife directly or from some other folks?

It is far healthier to a man to learn about his wife's past from her directly. His pride may take a hit, but, if he is healthy, he will get over it.

Learning it from other folks will be a major trust killer.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Starstarfish

I won't make a big thread jack, and sorry to the OP if I already started one, but - I don't reject him. By descriptions on TAM, we are average or above average in the quantity department. ("Quality" is more subjective, but it's more a variety thing than an enthusiasm problem.)

As weird as it is, my triggers are more emotional (certain songs/smells) than really sexual. So I'm not sure if that's a positive or a negative, maybe it's a sign I'm repressing things. Anyways, I can start another thread (there's a few things I could discuss.)


----------



## Duguesclin

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> "spoiled goods" :scratchhead:
> That seems such an archaic - and to me rather offensive phrase. It harks back to when a woman's virginity was her only source of value.
> 
> A woman with an active previous sex life is likely a woman who greatly enjoys sex (assuming there was no coercion), and that is a wonderful thing.


I agree. But when it comes to women's sexual past or personal affairs, many men treat their wives as possessions. Yet men do not want to take of them. Somehow women are expected to take care of themselves as long as they are within the limits the husband considers acceptable. If a woman does not feel cared for by her husband, and develops a relationship with another guy, that would not be considered acceptable by her husband.

Men cannot have it both ways. If women are possessions, men should take care of them. If they are not, their sexual past or present should have no impact.


----------



## EllisRedding

Duguesclin said:


> How should a man learn from his wife sexual past, from his wife directly or from some other folks?
> 
> It is far healthier to a man to learn about his wife's past from her directly. His pride may take a hit, but, if he is healthy, he will get over it.
> 
> Learning it from other folks will be a major trust killer.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But to what extent? For example, in MEMs example, it would be better to tell his spouse that he gave ex oral every day for 6 months??? There is a point where depending on the person some detail can be too much detail, especially if the spouse in this example did not ask for it (I am making this gender neutral).


----------



## Marduk

Duguesclin said:


> I agree. But when it comes to women's sexual past or personal affairs, many men treat their wives as possessions. Yet men do not want to take of them. Somehow women are expected to take care of themselves as long as they are within the limits the husband considers acceptable. If a woman does not feel cared for by her husband, and develops a relationship with another guy, that would not be considered acceptable by her husband.
> 
> Men cannot have it both ways. If women are possessions, men should take care of them. If they are not, their sexual past or present should have no impact.


By that logic, women shouldn't care if a given guy has had 69 affairs on his previous 5 wives.

By your own words, you can't have it both ways.


----------



## Duguesclin

marduk said:


> By that logic, women shouldn't care if a given guy has had 69 affairs on his previous 5 wives.
> 
> By your own words, you can't have it both ways.


If I understand you correctly, you are saying that I am saying that someone's past should not matter. This is not what I am saying.

Of course she should care. This guy would be totally untrustworthy. 

If she felt like he was her possession, she would feel resentful that he was damaged/used. He did not come pure to her. Her pride would be hurt.

However, I never hear women talking that way. Men, on the other hand, seem to have real issues when they learn their wives were like porn stars before they met them.

Men need to be able to confront their pride. Women need to be able to trust the men they are with. Different issues for different genders.


----------



## MEM2020

Dug,

Yes 

And these disclosures should happen before marriage and certainly before kids. 

Not cool to lock someone into a deep, deep commitment and then share this stuff. 





Duguesclin said:


> How should a man learn from his wife sexual past, from his wife directly or from some other folks?
> 
> It is far healthier to a man to learn about his wife's past from her directly. His pride may take a hit, but, if he is healthy, he will get over it.
> 
> Learning it from other folks will be a major trust killer.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

It's really a combo of a 'timing thing' combined with some level of emotional intelligence. 

Why would I tell M2 comparative stuff that I know would make her feel bad?

To be fair, she did ask a few specific sex questions. I answered. 

But that's different than volunteering unflattering comparative stuff 
after having kids. 





jld said:


> Don't you think it is better to know, even if it is temporarily painful, MEM?
> 
> We can never be sure how our partner will react, after all. Being upfront right away gives them a chance to make a free will choice about staying with us, or moving on.
> 
> And I think people can surprise us. People can sometimes react with extraordinary compassion if they feel sincerity coming from the other person. And having someone be upfront at the beginning might feel like they respect us enough to be open to rejection, if that is the choice we make.
> 
> I really don't think how people react to us is mostly about us. I think it is mostly about them, and where they are at that particular moment in life. It can be helpful not to take things too personally, if at all possible. Rejection, imo, is best viewed as one small window shutting, so that a door at some future time can open.


----------



## Marduk

Duguesclin said:


> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that I am saying that someone's past should not matter. This is not what I am saying.
> 
> Of course she should care. This guy would be totally untrustworthy.
> 
> If she felt like he was her possession, she would feel resentful that he was damaged/used. He did not come pure to her. Her pride would be hurt.
> 
> However, I never hear women talking that way. Men, on the other hand, seem to have real issues when they learn their wives were like porn stars before they met them.
> 
> Men need to be able to confront their pride. Women need to be able to trust the men they are with. Different issues for different genders.


LOL!

I guess men don't need to trust the women they are with, and women don't need to confront their pride...

Sigh.


----------



## Duguesclin

marduk said:


> LOL!
> 
> I guess men don't need to trust the women they are with, and women don't need to confront their pride...
> 
> Sigh.


I would love to see men check their pride at the door and trust their wives instead. Their wives' past should be analysed to help determine trust, not to see how much shame their husbands might feel upon knowing it.

But, as many threads on TAM have shown, we are far from it.


----------



## EllisRedding

MEM11363 said:


> It's really a combo of a 'timing thing' combined with some level of emotional intelligence.
> 
> Why would I tell M2 comparative stuff that I know would make her feel bad?
> 
> *To be fair, she did ask a few specific sex questions. I answered.
> 
> But that's different than volunteering unflattering comparative stuff
> after having kids*.


Exactly. If you ask the question(s), you better be prepared to hear stuff that you may not like. Even then though, there should be some sort of understanding about what level of detail you should go in to.

That still brings up the question about what (or whether you should even) information you should disclose voluntarily (and to what extent) if your SO is not asking for that information.


----------



## Duguesclin

MEM11363 said:


> It's really a combo of a 'timing thing' combined with some level of emotional intelligence.
> 
> Why would I tell M2 comparative stuff that I know would make her feel bad?
> 
> To be fair, she did ask a few specific sex questions. I answered.
> 
> But that's different than volunteering unflattering comparative stuff
> after having kids.


Why would a man want to compare his wife to other women?

If she asks him specific questions, it is to know if he still loves her. So why not just saying it to her.

If he can't stop comparing his wife to other women, he may have issues he wants to deal with. If he doesn't, it will show up in other destructive ways in his relationship.


----------



## Marduk

Duguesclin said:


> I would love to see men check their pride at the door and trust their wives instead. Their wives' past should be analysed to help determine trust, not to see how much shame their husbands might feel upon knowing it.
> 
> But, as many threads on TAM have shown, we are far from it.


Whoosh!


----------



## MEM2020

Dug,

You are saying - if M2 asks a specific question about a particular sexual technique - I should tell her that I love her. Reassure her. 

And also that I should NOT answer the question. 

------
Reassurance is always a good thing. That said, she was genuinely asking and wanted to know. I answered. She wasn't agitated with the answer. I don't believe she was surprised by it. 





Duguesclin said:


> Why would a man want to compare his wife to other women?
> 
> If she asks him specific questions, it is to know if he still loves her. So why not just saying it to her.
> 
> If he can't stop comparing his wife to other women, he may have issues he wants to deal with. If he doesn't, it will show up in other destructive ways in his relationship.


----------



## Thundarr

Duguesclin said:


> I would love to see men check their pride at the door and trust their wives instead. Their wives' past should be analysed to help determine trust, not to see how much shame their husbands might feel upon knowing it.
> 
> But, as many threads on TAM have shown, we are far from it.


Checking our pride is something many of us figure out as we get older. Early in my first marriage, one of my ex wife's old boy friends passed away and I remember not wanting her to go to the funeral (and she didn't). I'm embarrassed to admit it now because he was a 21 year old kid who died too soon and she wanted to go for his family. That's how my young mind worked back then. I'm sure that type of thing left a mark on her opinion of how men cope with past.

I hope the ladies in this thread remember that a lot of us insecure young men grew up so don't judge the gender as being unchangeable. I don't think my wife believes me when I explain who I used to be.


----------



## MEM2020

Thundarr,

This is quite a good post. 




Thundarr said:


> Checking our pride is something many of us figure out as we get older. Early in my first marriage, one of my ex wife's old boy friends passed away and I remember not wanting her to go to the funeral (and she didn't). I'm embarrassed to admit it now because he was a 21 year old kid who died too soon and she wanted to go for his family. That's how my young mind worked back then. I'm sure that type of thing left a mark on her opinion of how men cope with past.
> 
> I hope the ladies in this thread remember that a lot of us insecure young men grew up so don't judge the gender as being unchangeable. I don't think my wife believes me when I explain who I used to be.


----------



## Buddy400

joannacroc said:


> You sound like you think some women say they aren't ashamed of their sexual past because they feel societal pressure to say that. I think what you aren't understanding is that some of us genuinely DON'T feel shame about something we have no reason to be ashamed of -having sex. Which is fun. And feels good. It seems like if you are with someone, you would want them to think sex is a good thing, and not something to be ashamed of, no?


Well, you get both an A and a D in reading comprehension. 

I did indeed mean "You sound like you think *some* women say they aren't ashamed of their sexual past because they feel societal pressure to say that."

But then you said " I think what you aren't understanding is that *some* of us genuinely DON'T feel shame about something we have no reason to be ashamed of -having sex."

In both cases, I agree with the use of the word *some*.


----------



## Thundarr

MEM11363 said:


> Thundarr,
> 
> This is quite a good post.


Thank you MEM. How I thought as young man versus now is so different and I bet it's that way for many of us. I hate to see the "we can't win" comments in threads like this because that implies that people haven't changed.


----------



## Buddy400

joannacroc said:


> That's just not accurate. As a HD someone happily exiting a sexless marriage (for me - as it turns out he was having plenty of sex, I just wasn't involved) BOTH sex AND commitment are valuable. When I'm ready again for a relationship, I wouldn't want one and not the other.


You apparently belong between the parens, which is fine.

However, this idea isn't just some manosphere propaganda. Go argue with Susan Walsh at Hookingupsmart.com


----------



## Buddy400

WandaJ said:


> I think it might be harder if you your self esteem is based mostly on your looks. I got twenty thrity years so far to accept that I am not a model type and move on. I don't loose my sleep over this.
> 
> As Amy Schumer said: "I like my body. It never had problem making ****s hard"..


That's a mistake many women make; thinking that it's anything about them in particular that makes d!cks hard (or not).


----------



## tech-novelist

WandaJ said:


> I think it might be harder if you your self esteem is based mostly on your looks. I got twenty thrity years so far to accept that I am not a model type and move on. I don't loose my sleep over this.
> 
> As Amy Schumer said: "I like my body. It never had problem making ****s hard"..


Her personality is a turn-off for me.


----------



## joannacroc

Buddy400 said:


> You apparently belong between the parens, which is fine.
> 
> However, this idea isn't just some manosphere propaganda. Go argue with Susan Walsh at Hookingupsmart.com


Thank you for sharing the site, but I have not sure arguing with her is going to yield much; she seems very interesting if you want a business-oriented approach to relationships, but does not have a background in psychology, so for this particular question, I'm not sure she's really equipped to offer any real insight. 

I do take issue, and this is not the first time it has happened on this forum, nor will it be the last, with men explaining to women how women think and feel and what motivates them. Can we draw some gross generalizations about what men and women want? Maybe. But they are just that. Generalizations. I would never presume to say what all men want. I have no idea. Maybe just ask? Because we're people. And we vary from person to person. I'm not sure the blanket statements are very productive.


----------



## Duguesclin

MEM11363 said:


> Dug,
> 
> You are saying - if M2 asks a specific question about a particular sexual technique - I should tell her that I love her. Reassure her.
> 
> And also that I should NOT answer the question.
> 
> ------
> Reassurance is always a good thing. That said, she was genuinely asking and wanted to know. I answered. She wasn't agitated with the answer. I don't believe she was surprised by it.


MEM, I think it is fine to answer her question. What I was addressing was the comparing idea. 

Comparison is just for penis sizes... Just kidding.


----------



## joannacroc

Buddy400 said:


> _*Well, you get both an A and a D in reading comprehension. *_
> 
> I did indeed mean "You sound like you think *some* women say they aren't ashamed of their sexual past because they feel societal pressure to say that."
> 
> But then you said " I think what you aren't understanding is that *some* of us genuinely DON'T feel shame about something we have no reason to be ashamed of -having sex."
> 
> In both cases, I agree with the use of the word *some*.


It doesn't come as any surprise at all to me that you grade women. I have marked the bit that comes across as particularly condescending in bold for your edification. You're welcome! 

What exactly about your statement did I misunderstand?


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> It's really a combo of a 'timing thing' combined with some level of emotional intelligence.
> 
> Why would I tell M2 comparative stuff that I know would make her feel bad?
> 
> To be fair, she did ask a few specific sex questions. I answered.
> 
> But that's different than volunteering unflattering comparative stuff
> after having kids.


I think it is good you answered her questions, MEM. I can also understand why you would not want to comment on certain body parts that can get worn out after having a few kids.

I don't know if it is right or not, but I cannot see Dug volunteering unflattering comments about my body. Any damage it has suffered has mainly been due to producing and caring for the children he wanted. 

And I think he genuinely loves it, however it is. I don't understand that, but I guess it is part of that idea that when a man loves a woman, he loves the whole package.

I have confidence that you know what to share and what to keep to yourself. You understand diplomacy very well.


----------



## Starstarfish

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...300922-wife-has-wiped-her-memory-past-bf.html

Like this thread ... you randomly and apparently willingly start discussing with your wife 20 years after the fact what she did or didn't do with an old BF and then she fakes amnesia to escape the questioning.

What inspires people to start these conversations 20 years in?


----------



## Buddy400

joannacroc said:


> Thank you for sharing the site, but I have not sure arguing with her is going to yield much; she seems very interesting if you want a business-oriented approach to relationships, but does not have a background in psychology, so for this particular question, I'm not sure she's really equipped to offer any real insight.
> 
> I do take issue, and this is not the first time it has happened on this forum, nor will it be the last, with men explaining to women how women think and feel and what motivates them. Can we draw some gross generalizations about what men and women want? Maybe. But they are just that. Generalizations. I would never presume to say what all men want. I have no idea. Maybe just ask? Because we're people. And we vary from person to person. I'm not sure the blanket statements are very productive.


Well, in my case, I don't know what women want. So I read women writing about what women want. Of course, they disagree, but *I'm* not saying what women want based on my personal experiences or MRA screeds.

BTW, Walsh is about as anti-MRA as can be, no social conservative and mostly just reads and passes on a lot of research.


----------



## Buddy400

joannacroc said:


> *It doesn't come as any surprise at all to me that you grade women*. I have marked the bit that comes across as particularly condescending in bold for your edification. You're welcome!
> 
> What exactly about your statement did I misunderstand?


C'mon, is that a joke? Are teachers misogynists for "grading women"?

You understood the first part perfectly (the A), I said "some women". Then you point out that not all women do this; what is meant when one says "some women do this" is that there are also "some women" who don't.


----------



## joannacroc

Buddy400 said:


> C'mon, is that a joke? Are teachers misogynists for "grading women"?
> 
> You understood the first part perfectly (the A), I said "some women". Then you point out that not all women do this; what is meant when one says "some women do this" is that there are also "some women" who don't.


Yes, it was a joke. Because your grading comment was pretty condescending. So I had a little poke at you for that. 

And again, I don't claim to know what all women do or don't do. You make a blanket statement about all women and all men. Maybe the opinion originated with a woman. But you should probably not take this woman's educated opinion as gospel. We are all motivated by different things.


----------



## EleGirl

spotthedeaddog said:


> How much of a blank slate do you expect to get (or give)?
> 
> Easy to be the lay around town for attention and be in the social places, grab "Madonna" attention by being the ****tiest dresser, or to get dinner/show/invites by being known as a guaranteed lay - it's not like it's difficult to make it happens you just have to lower your standards enough until it works.
> 
> Anyone with the quipment can may a video short, but to make a classic that holds value and others respect takes more that slapping it out there... How many guys succeed if they just wore tight shorts and hung it out for all takers?
> 
> So why would you husband be upset that he's not special, just a mug that got stuck with the shop spoiled goods because she couldn't do better - to always be compared against her past memories. It's not like actually being a husband is actually fun ! It's hardwork, sacrifice, putting up with a lot of someone elses BullS - why would being reminded of her better times (that he didn't even qualify for) annoy him.... perhaps if you thought about it from his side, which I bet you don't or it would have been hot-sold, not cold-dumped, in his lap, which again just confirms that you really don't care about _your_husband_, just _your_relationship_ i.e. yourself (and your good times).
> 
> What on earth could he have a problem about?


Did you have sex with anyone before you married your wife? If so, If so, the by what you said above, you are like a short video … not a classic.

Your wife should be upset because to you, she is not special.. she’s just a mug that got stuck with the shop spoiled goods because you couldn’t do better – always compared against your past memories. It's not like actually being a wife is actually fun ! It's hardwork, sacrifice, putting up with a lot of someone elses BullS - why would being reminded of your better times (that your wife didn't even qualify for) annoy your wife.... perhaps if you thought about it from your wife’s side, which I bet you don't or it would have been hot-sold, not cold-dumped, in her lap, which again just confirms that you really don't care about _your_wife_, just _your_relationship_ i.e. yourself (and your good times).

Your wife must really feel like she was cheated…

So you really spend energy thinking fondly about your past lovers and comparing your wife to them? You must. Why? Because where else but your own head would you get the idea that this is what all or most women do?


----------

