# For those jealous of his/her past



## Darkstar71 (Aug 27, 2014)

I've read quite a few posts on those who are jealous of their SO's past. What's mind blowing is when a woman posts that she's jealous of her man's past the (presumably) female members rush to post what a cheater and pig the guy is and how they should ditch the guy immediately. But when it's a guy posting about being jealous of his wife's past, he's told he's being irrational, a jerk, that he should be happy and grateful for her past because that's what led her to him in the first place. The guy is also told to get counseling to fix his "problem".

Here's my take on it...

If your SO has had a promiscuous past, they are one day going to want to revisit that past. You've heard the saying "History repeats itself"? Truer words were never spoken. A spouse that needed such a diverse array of bedfellows in their past is likely carrying a ton of baggage; baggage that led them to be so promiscuous in the first place. 

Some will dismiss what I'm saying, calling me crazy, jealous, looney, whatever. The point is - if you are bothered by your SO's past then there is a reason for it. He/she has done something to trigger these thoughts in your head. And they will NOT go away, even if you want them to go away. 

You may be in a marriage for 2 years, 5 years, 8 years, 14 years - before it happens. But trust me, folks, it WILL undoubtedly happen. He/she will eventually become so bored with their mundane existence that they will inevitably relive their past exploits - first in their minds. Then they start masturbating to those thoughts. Maybe it even escalates to viewing pornography. Then they "casually" check out online dating - yes, even if they are "happily" married to you! They will say "oh I was only curious of what kinds of people were out there looking for love". No! That excuse is utter BS!

Eventually, it escalates into casual exchanges with a stranger - emails, chats, just going for lunch or coffee... and then it becomes physical. Before you know it - your SO is cheating on you.

Hear my words - how do you know if your SO was promiscuous in a bad way and likely to do it again? There is ONE way to know for sure. If they say they are super ashamed of their past and wish they could take it back and ONLY be with you, and they mean it, then your fears of their past are unjustified. 

But if your SO says they aren't ashamed of their past, that they are proud of where they came from, that "my past led me to you so why be ashamed of it?" BS explanation - then you have justifiable reason to be afraid. A SO that doesn't regret their sexual deviance before meeting the "so-called" person of their dreams is nothing but a liar to you and the vows they took (probably with their fingers crossed or laughing silently in their mind as they said those vows). These are the partners who WILL cheat on you. And for those men or women who have an SO like this - my advice is simple: get out now. Make a clean break, cut the cord and don't look back. You will be saving yourself a TON of heartache and sleepless, tearful nights to come. Yes, the initial shock of disowning the deviant SO will hurt, but remember - time heals ALL wounds. And this, too, will heal.

Peace.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Huh.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Darkstar71,

Is there something about your situation that you would care to share, instead of making blanket statements about others?


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

Woman should never EVER share the details of her past, unless we are talking nudes, porn or STD.

Nothing good can EVER come of that.

I would not ask if I was to date again. Keep that **** to yourself. I'm only concerned about our relationship, what happened before is irrelevant.

And I'm sorry to hear OP


----------



## rubymoon (Jul 21, 2014)

LOL. OP must be 15.


----------



## tulsy (Nov 30, 2012)

k.....

So what happened, dude?


----------



## Fender_ (Aug 27, 2014)

Every situation is different but I understand the OP's reasoning. The people who step out of their marriage usually had promiscuous pasts.

One thing I definitely agree with is that men who come here and mention that their wive's past bothers them are always greeted with hateful comments saying they're pigs. At the same time women who have the same complaint are treated the complete opposite.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

Fender_ said:


> Every situation is different but I understand the OP's reasoning. The people who step out of their marriage usually had promiscuous pasts.
> 
> One thing I definitely agree with is that men who come here and mention that their wive's past bothers them are always greeted with hateful comments saying they're pigs. At the same time women who have the same complaint are treated the complete opposite.


Sure

But then you have the whole thing of "why in the world would you date/get into relationship with a person that was promiscuous to begin with"?

History is a great indicator of the future. IF someone has a poor track record of relationships, well........what does that tell ya?

:scratchhead:


----------



## barbados (Aug 30, 2012)

OP,

Just because someone was promiscuous when they are younger does not mean they are guaranteed to be so in the present or future. People can and do change, especially with age and emotional maturity. 

Couldn't you just as easily argue that a person who did not have a lot of previous sexual partners is then going to cheat because they will feel they "missed out on something" ?


----------



## Coffee Amore (Dec 15, 2011)

Lila said:


> Wow, 1 post and Fender_ was banned  Is that a record?


Not when people have multiple accounts here.


----------



## Faeleaf (Jul 22, 2014)

It takes a great deal of emotional maturity and reflection to realize that the lessons we've learned from our experiences should begin with the word "_Sometimes_" instead of "_Always_".


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

I smell a troll.

Or someone who does a lot of projecting.

I've been here a while and I've never seen a bunch of women call an ex with lots of sexual history a pig unless he's a misogynist as shown by other facets of his personality, too.


----------



## melw74 (Dec 12, 2013)

Coffee Amore said:


> Not when people have multiple accounts here.


Why do people do this?.... I am just curious to understand whats the point...

Also, Just a question, If someone creates a new account..... Like you have said...

Do all their accounts get banned?. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Darkstar71 (Aug 27, 2014)

DoF said:


> Sure
> 
> But then you have the whole thing of "why in the world would you date/get into relationship with a person that was promiscuous to begin with"?
> 
> ...


This is what I'm saying. The SO's past should be discussed up front. Maybe not on the first few dates, but definitely before getting into a serious relationship and absolutely before marriage! If you find out about their past now and have a problem with it, it will be much easier to cut ties with that person now. So much easier than after 10 years of marriage and two kids.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Darkstar71 said:


> But if your SO says they aren't ashamed of their past, that they are proud of where they came from, that "my past led me to you so why be ashamed of it?" BS explanation - then you have justifiable reason to be afraid. *A SO that doesn't regret their sexual deviance before meeting the "so-called" person of their dreams* is nothing but a liar to you and the vows they took (probably with their fingers crossed or laughing silently in their mind as they said those vows).


Most people don't consider it sexual deviance if their partner has had sex before marriage with other people. Seriously. We really, really don't see that as deviant. 

As for the rest,


----------



## Darkstar71 (Aug 27, 2014)

barbados said:


> OP,
> 
> Just because someone was promiscuous when they are younger does not mean they are guaranteed to be so in the present or future. People can and do change, especially with age and emotional maturity.
> 
> Couldn't you just as easily argue that a person who did not have a lot of previous sexual partners is then going to cheat because they will feel they "missed out on something" ?


No - and here's why: Not everyone is prone to wild sexual behavior. Just about everyone likes sex, but many people aren't driven to sleep with as many people as they can. 

People who are prone to wild sexual behavior who then adopt a lifestyle of monogamy and rules will absolutely return to their promiscuous ways, either sooner or later. But it will happen. The only exception to that statement are those who totally regret their pasts. Some go through dark times and deal with those demons through sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. They may totally regret their actions and that speaks volumes for their character.

Those who don't, the ones who are proud of their sexual conquests and deviance, are nothing but trouble and heartache just waiting to happen. Anyone seeking a quality, monogamous relationship should steer clear of those kinds of people.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

What about people that had minimal pasts and cheat because they felt like they missed out? Should you not marry someone that hasn't had a certain number?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

melw74 said:


> Why do people do this?.... I am just curious to understand whats the point...
> 
> Also, Just a question, If someone creates a new account..... Like you have said...
> 
> Do all their accounts get banned?. Thanks in advance.



I guess some people like having an alter ego that can post things that they otherwise wouldn't post. I can't think of any other reason so who knows but it's definitely weird.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

lifeistooshort said:


> What about people that had minimal pasts and cheat because they felt like they missed out? Should you not marry someone that hasn't had a certain number?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't think statistics bear that out though. Again, statistically speaking, I believe the data suggests that most cheaters had some sort of promiscuous past.

To me though, what defines a promiscuous past? I think everybody has a different definition after you get past the numbers like 40 or 50 past lovers that pretty much everyone would agree is promiscuous.

Is 20 too many? How about 15 or 10? Some would think 5 was too many so I think you must define promiscuous first.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Darkstar71 said:


> This is what I'm saying. The SO's past should be discussed up front. Maybe not on the first few dates, but definitely before getting into a serious relationship and absolutely before marriage! If you find out about their past now and have a problem with it, it will be much easier to cut ties with that person now. So much easier than after 10 years of marriage and two kids.


This I totally agree with and is what my W and I did before we got to the Engagement stage of our relationship. To me, it's part of due diligence to determine if you have a compatibility match in this area.

Like DoF said though, I didn't expect to hear anything awful but if I had, I could have backed out. If I had heard that she was a former porn star, stripper or some other such "not very good wife material" stuff, I could have ended the relationship.

I think of it kind of like a home inspection on a house you've purchased. You love the way it looks and have made a decision to buy it "pending the home inspection". If you find anything too egregious, you can walk away.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Mostlycontent said:


> I don't think statistics bear that out though. Again, statistically speaking, I believe the data suggests that most cheaters had some sort of promiscuous past.
> 
> To me though, what defines a promiscuous past? I think everybody has a different definition after you get past the numbers like 40 or 50 past lovers that pretty much everyone would agree is promiscuous.
> 
> Is 20 too many? How about 15 or 10? Some would think 5 was too many so I think you must define promiscuous first.


Interesting point. Maybe it depends partly on why someone has a limited past. promiscuous people are that way because for whatever reason they want to be. If your past is limited because that's how you roll you're probably not a risk, but if it's because of lack of opportunity that could be different. Particularly for men, who in general have a little harder time finding sex. Seems to me I've seen one poster who had this happen and was walking around pretty p!ssed off about it even though he had a lovely wife.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Coffee Amore said:


> Not when people have multiple accounts here.


So does their other account(s) get banned too?


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

What do you do with the ones who had a very minimal past and then Get divorced and go wild?


----------



## rubymoon (Jul 21, 2014)

Entropy3000 said:


> So does their other account(s) get banned too?


If they are banned by IP address - yes, unless they change location. If they are banned by account name - no. Not sure what this forum is capable of in terms of ID recognition.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> What about the ones who only had sex with sheep dressed in drag? Are they at higher risk of wanting to bang cows?


Ask the cows.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Darkstar71 said:


> No - and here's why: Not everyone is prone to wild sexual behavior. Just about everyone likes sex, but many people aren't driven to sleep with as many people as they can.
> 
> *People who are prone to wild sexual behavior who then adopt a lifestyle of monogamy and rules will absolutely return to their promiscuous ways, either sooner or later. But it will happen. The only exception to that statement are those who totally regret their pasts. Some go through dark times and deal with those demons through sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. They may totally regret their actions and that speaks volumes for their character.
> 
> Those who don't, the ones who are proud of their sexual conquests and deviance, are nothing but trouble and heartache just waiting to happen. Anyone seeking a quality, monogamous relationship should steer clear of those kinds of people.*


Bull****.

I have no regrets about my very active past. But when in a serious relationship I am completely loyal and trustworthy. I was in a sexless marriage and even then I remained loyal. Having an extensive sexual history, Being a very HD woman and being a loyal partner are not mutually exclusive.

Good luck with life OP, you're going to need it.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Holland said:


> Bull****.
> 
> I have no regrets about my very active past. But when in a serious relationship I am completely loyal and trustworthy. I was in a sexless marriage and even then I remained loyal. Having an extensive sexual history, Being a very HD woman and being a loyal partner are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Good luck with life OP, you're going to need it.


An active sexual past does not mean that you had several hundred sexual partners where most of it was one drunken one night stands.

You might have just had a couple of relationships where you had a ton of sex.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

treyvion said:


> An active sexual past does not mean that you had several hundred sexual partners where most of it was one drunken one night stands.
> 
> You might have just had a couple of relationships where you had a ton of sex.


Who defined what is considered promiscuous? I have not seen a definition.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

treyvion said:


> An active sexual past does not mean that you had several hundred sexual partners where most of it was one drunken one night stands.
> 
> You might have just had a couple of relationships where you had a ton of sex.


Yeah well I am not talking about having a couple of relationships that involved a ton of sex. I have had plenty of ONS, a very active sexual past with different, short term partners. When I met my partner I was dating 2 others at the same time.

But I totally disagree with the OPs view that this means someone will then be unfaithful. I have never cheated while in a relationship and never will.
Was with my ex for almost 20 year with much of it being sexless towards the end but never once considered cheating.

The OP has no clue about people.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Darkstar71 said:


> I've read quite a few posts on those who are jealous of their SO's past. What's mind blowing is when a woman posts that she's jealous of her man's past the (presumably) female members rush to post what a cheater and pig the guy is and how they should ditch the guy immediately.


This post is full of hysterical hyperbole. 
It’s untrue that when a woman is jealous of her SO’s past that female members rush to post and call him a cheater, pig and tell her to ditch the guy. A cheater is a person who is committing adultery. No one.. not a man or a woman… can cheat on another person in their past before they even met. 



Darkstar71 said:


> But when it's a guy posting about being jealous of his wife's past, he's told he's being irrational, a jerk, that he should be happy and grateful for her past because that's what led her to him in the first place. The guy is also told to get counseling to fix his "problem".


More hysterical nonsense. 



Darkstar71 said:


> Here's my take on it...
> 
> If your SO has had a promiscuous past, they are one day going to want to revisit that past. You've heard the saying "History repeats itself"? Truer words were never spoken. A spouse that needed such a diverse array of bedfellows in their past is likely carrying a ton of baggage; baggage that led them to be so promiscuous in the first place.


The word “promiscuous” is ambiguous. IN order to know if a person was promiscuous in the past we need to know how many sex partners makes a person promiscuous. Until you define that there is nothing to discuss here.

It’s flat out untrue that all people who were promiscuous prior to marriage will cheat and as you say “revisit the past”. You are making stuff up here and passing it off as fact. It’s not fact.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

rubymoon said:


> OP, you are neither mature, nor smart. Sexual behavior is driven purely and only by hormones, which change greatly throughout lifetime. Some one who is promiscuous at the age of 25, may suffer from hormonal **** at the age of 55, and become completely disinterested in sex all together. All people are prone to that at some point of life. Even smaller ****s in hormonal balance can turn a promiscuous person into a 100% faithful individual! and vise versa!! Someone who is totally faithful earlier may experience sexual peak at 35 and go crazy!
> 
> Your assumptions are wrong and completely unsupported by science.


Not sure if you intended to or not but you missed the very main point OP was making and that is moral character. Hormones aren't the issue in this discussion, at least as OP defined it, but moral character is. He is suggesting that someone of lower moral character, or promiscuous in nature, is more likely to stray in a marriage.

I'm not privy to the statistics but my guess is that he would be correct in his assertion. Now the sweeping statement that everyone with a "questionable" past is going to cheat is a bit misguided. I think you can make some generalities as it relates to behavior but you can't paint everyone with the same brush.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> Not sure if you intended to or not but you missed the very main point OP was making and that is moral character. Hormones aren't the issue in this discussion, at least as OP defined it, but moral character is. *He is suggesting that someone of lower moral character, or promiscuous in nature, is more likely to stray in a marriage.
> *
> I'm not privy to the statistics but my guess is that he would be correct in his assertion. Now the sweeping statement that everyone with a "questionable" past is going to cheat is a bit misguided. I think you can make some generalities as it relates to behavior but you can't paint everyone with the same brush.


Having an extensive sexual past does not mean someone has lower moral character or do you think you are the one to decide this?

People that are at one with their sexuality and have experimented are not necessarily of lower moral character. Lower moral character to me is someone that harms another.


----------



## RClawson (Sep 19, 2011)

I have come to realize I do not have the energy to discuss this topic ever again.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Holland said:


> Having an extensive sexual past does not mean someone has lower moral character or do you think you are the one to decide this?
> 
> People that are at one with their sexuality and have experimented are not necessarily of lower moral character. Lower moral character to me is someone that harms another.


Your definition of moral character is not something I've ever heard before. Someone who is mean or inconsiderate of others could be incredibly principled but emotionally damaged. That does not make them of low moral character.

Most people would define someone who was very promiscuous as having lower moral character, which means that you aren't or weren't very discriminatory in choosing partners. Someone who would cheat would also have lower moral character.

And yes, I and other men, get to choose how to define that. Everyone has their own limits on what they find morally acceptable or not. I would not pursue, date or marry someone with an extensive past but others may not mind.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Mostlycontent said:


> Your definition of moral character is not something I've ever heard before. Someone who is mean or inconsiderate of others could be incredibly principled but emotionally damaged. That does not make them of low moral character.
> 
> Most people would define someone who was very promiscuous as having lower moral character, which means that you aren't or weren't very discriminatory in choosing partners. Someone who would cheat would also have lower moral character.
> 
> And yes, I and other men, get to choose how to define that. Everyone has their own limits on what they find morally acceptable or not. I would not pursue, date or marry someone with an extensive past but others may not mind.


Each of us get to decide for ourselves what we will and will not accept in a SO/spouse in every aspect to include their sexual past. That's not even being argued here.

The point that is being argued/discussed here is the OP's categorical statement that anyone who was promiscuous at any point in their life before marriage will end up cheating on their spouse eventually.

And the OP does not even bother to provide the magic number of sexual partners and types, that determines that a person was promiscuous and that will lead to the outcome of infidelity 100% of the time.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> Each of us get to decide for ourselves what we will and will not accept in a SO/spouse in every aspect to include their sexual past. That's not even being argued here.
> 
> The point that is being argued/discussed here is the OP's categorical statement that anyone who was promiscuous at any point in their life before marriage will end up cheating on their spouse eventually.
> 
> And the OP does not even bother to provide the magic number of sexual partners and types, that determines that a person was promiscuous and that will lead to the outcome of infidelity 100% of the time.


I already commented on that aspect of OP's post. Statistically speaking what he says has some merit but I would never make the assumption that everyone who had a promiscuous past will cheat because that isn't the case.

Clearly OP has had some sort of experience to make him start a thread on this but didn't offer much to work with other than a blanket statement.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> Your definition of moral character is not something I've ever heard before. Someone who is mean or inconsiderate of others could be incredibly principled but emotionally damaged. That does not make them of low moral character.
> 
> Most people would define someone who was very promiscuous as having lower moral character, which means that you aren't or weren't very discriminatory in choosing partners. Someone who would cheat would also have lower moral character.
> 
> And yes, I and other men, get to choose how to define that. Everyone has their own limits on what they find morally acceptable or not. I would not pursue, date or marry someone with an extensive past but others may not mind.


I said someone that harms others is of low moral character, I would not necessarily put a mean person in that category although meaness can harm in some cases.
So yes a cheater has low to no morals because they harm others. I totally disagree that people that enjoy a variety of sexual experiences and partners are low in morals.

And NO you and other men do not get to chose how to define anything, this is not a single gender world we live in.
You can set your own definitions but it is quite absurd to think you can decide for all men and that men decide for women. 

It is fully your right to not date a woman that has lots of sexual history and all power to you. I would not date a man that has a low number or a closed mind. BTDT and it is not for me.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist (Jul 26, 2010)

Darkstar71 said:


> No - and here's why: Not everyone is prone to wild sexual behavior. Just about everyone likes sex, but many people aren't driven to sleep with as many people as they can.
> 
> People who are prone to wild sexual behavior who then adopt a lifestyle of monogamy and rules will absolutely return to their promiscuous ways, either sooner or later. But it will happen. The only exception to that statement are those who totally regret their pasts. Some go through dark times and deal with those demons through sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. They may totally regret their actions and that speaks volumes for their character.
> 
> Those who don't, the ones who are proud of their sexual conquests and deviance, are nothing but trouble and heartache just waiting to happen. Anyone seeking a quality, monogamous relationship should steer clear of those kinds of people.


I do not agree.

My dad was a playboy in his youth. When I was a young teen I once asked him how many women he had been with. His answer was "I dont know". He was a gypsy alpha male and he wasnt shy about who he was.

Then he met my mom. They were married 15 years before he died of cancer and I know for a fact he didnt cheat. He loved her and he was loyal, and she did the same. He was always there as a father and didnt return to wild or self-serving ways.

I understand there may be a _propensity_ to be promiscuous, but to paint it as a definitive eventuality is a generalization that cannot account for the widely varied aspects of human character.


----------



## rubymoon (Jul 21, 2014)

rubymoon said:


> OP, you are neither mature, nor smart. Sexual behavior is driven purely and only by hormones, which change greatly throughout lifetime. Some one who is promiscuous at the age of 25, may suffer from hormonal **** at the age of 55, and become completely disinterested in sex all together. All people are prone to that at some point of life. Even smaller ****s in hormonal balance can turn a promiscuous person into a 100% faithful individual! and vise versa!! Someone who is totally faithful earlier may experience sexual peak at 35 and go crazy!
> 
> Your assumptions are wrong and completely unsupported by science.


Interesting, that it put stars where I typed 's h i f t'... Unless, I consistently mistyped. LOL.


----------



## GA HEART (Oct 18, 2011)

The last person I heard spouting something like this (and he cited religion as well) was a boyfriend of a friend of mine. He belittiled her and "slvt shamed" her, and when I spoke up, he belittled me too (didn't even know me.) 

Turns out he was a meth addict, and said friend is in rehab as I type since he got her hooked on it too. 

I am VERY leery of overly judgemental people.


----------



## rubymoon (Jul 21, 2014)

Mostlycontent said:


> Not sure if you intended to or not but you missed the very main point OP was making and that is moral character. Hormones aren't the issue in this discussion, at least as OP defined it, but moral character is. He is suggesting that someone of lower moral character, or promiscuous in nature, is more likely to stray in a marriage.
> 
> I'm not privy to the statistics but my guess is that he would be correct in his assertion. Now the sweeping statement that everyone with a "questionable" past is going to cheat is a bit misguided. I think you can make some generalities as it relates to behavior but you can't paint everyone with the same brush.


Hormones partly form your character. And that was my point. 

By the logic of OP, never marry those who 
were ever promiscuous
ever stole anything 
ever lied about anything
ever hurt someone
ever hit someone
and the list can go on...

It's all about moral character, isn't it? 

However, quite often I feel that "moral character" is just a label used to feel better about oneself's shortcomings.


----------



## rubymoon (Jul 21, 2014)

Mostlycontent said:


> I would not pursue, date or marry someone with an extensive past but others may not mind.


LOL! Unless you live in a tiny town/village, how would you even know? Really... we share only what we want to share. And the more judgement you impose, the higher the chance that you will be lied to.


----------



## Miss Taken (Aug 18, 2012)

You get robbed by a black person, then become suspicious about all black people. 

You get bit by a German shepherd, then you're afraid of all German shepherds.

Get food poisoning from a burrito and never eat another in your life.

Your previously promiscuous spouse cheats on you and then you believe ALL people with promiscuous pasts are destined to cheat.

People often become unreasonably hyper-vigilant about things when they've been hurt. I think this may be the case here. OP, you sound like you're hurting and if you are, I'm sorry for your pain and wish you the help you need.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist (Jul 26, 2010)

Miss Taken said:


> You get robbed by a black person, then become suspicious about all black people.
> 
> You get bit by a German shepherd, then you're afraid of all German shepherds.
> 
> ...


Very good point. I have a friend who gets nervous driving whenever a certain song comes on the radio; she got in a car accident while that song was playing. Hadnt considered this angle on this thread :smthumbup:


----------



## Darkstar71 (Aug 27, 2014)

rubymoon said:


> OP, you are neither mature, nor smart. Sexual behavior is driven purely and only by hormones, which change greatly throughout lifetime. Some one who is promiscuous at the age of 25, may suffer from hormonal **** at the age of 55, and become completely disinterested in sex all together. All people are prone to that at some point of life. Even smaller ****s in hormonal balance can turn a promiscuous person into a 100% faithful individual! and vise versa!! Someone who is totally faithful earlier may experience sexual peak at 35 and go crazy!
> 
> Your assumptions are wrong and completely unsupported by science.


So let me get this straight - you take exception with what I wrote (which is fine), call ME immature but then open your reply with a personal attack? Tell me again who isn't mature...


----------



## Darkstar71 (Aug 27, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> Who defined what is considered promiscuous? I have not seen a definition.


Obviously a single definition of promiscuity according to one person isn't going to cover everyone. I would say the answer to this question is that it's up to each individual to decide what is an acceptable level of sexual activity with their SOs past.

Me, personally, I understand that couples have sex when involved in a relationship with one another. That's not something I would hold against a woman. What I have a big problem with is a woman that had a number of one night stands or experimented with wild/bizarre sexual acts. I consider those things to be a reflection of poor moral character. And yes, I would absolutely want to know about those things before I decided entered into a relationship with her, because it would likely affect my decision.


----------



## Darkstar71 (Aug 27, 2014)

Miss Taken said:


> You get robbed by a black person, then become suspicious about all black people.
> 
> You get bit by a German shepherd, then you're afraid of all German shepherds.
> 
> ...


I appreciate the sentiment but I'm not hurting in any way because I've learned to protect myself as best I can from dishonest and unloyal women. I'm not saying my methods are fool-proof because nothing is ever 100% accurate, but I believe I'm far less likely to be burned again.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist (Jul 26, 2010)

Darkstar71 said:


> So let me get this straight - you take exception with what I wrote (which is fine), call ME immature but then open your reply with a personal attack? Tell me again who isn't mature...


So let me get this straight- you take exception with what he wrote (which is fine), call HIM immature as a response to him calling you immature, and then make your whole reply one big attack and do so thinking the result is different for you than it supposedly was for him? Tell me again who isn't mature...

Also, while you could easily cite his attacks at the beginning as being an ad-hominem attack, he did make a logical argument (whether you agree or not) for his case- you completely ignored it.

Were more than willing to listen to your perspective, but IMO you come off as someone who is hurt and lashing out at a stereotype. This saves you the pain of having any part in a failed relationship instead being able to blameshift to a generalization. Not all people fit your initial statement- Ive simply known 1 that proves you are wrong. Its alright, we're all wrong- but instead of flaming, post your story and get help dealing with it instead of festering with hatred. 

And dont try to turn this around on me- I never claimed I was mature


----------



## Darkstar71 (Aug 27, 2014)

Holland said:


> Yeah well I am not talking about having a couple of relationships that involved a ton of sex. I have had plenty of ONS, a very active sexual past with different, short term partners. When I met my partner I was dating 2 others at the same time.
> 
> But I totally disagree with the OPs view that this means someone will then be unfaithful. I have never cheated while in a relationship and never will.
> Was with my ex for almost 20 year with much of it being sexless towards the end but never once considered cheating.
> ...


Based on the description of your past there's no way I would ever get into a relationship with someone like you. I would consider you extremely high risk for being unfaithful and I doubt I would ever trust you. That's not meant as an insult, it's just my opinion.

Also, people who make statements in absolutes like "I never will" are often the worst offenders.


----------



## Darkstar71 (Aug 27, 2014)

OptimisticPessimist said:


> So let me get this straight- you take exception with what he wrote (which is fine), call HIM immature as a response to him calling you immature, and then make your whole reply one big attack and do so thinking the result is different for you than it supposedly was for him? Tell me again who isn't mature...
> 
> Also, while you could easily cite his attacks at the beginning as being an ad-hominem attack, he did make a logical argument (whether you agree or not) for his case- you completely ignored it.
> 
> ...


Actually, I stopped reading their post at the personal attack. If that's how they want to open a reply then I won't bother to read the rest. This entire thread is entirely capable of being discussed in a civilized manner.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Darkstar71 said:


> *Obviously a single definition of promiscuity according to one person isn't going to cover everyone. I would say the answer to this question is that it's up to each individual to decide what is an acceptable level of sexual activity with their SOs past.*
> 
> Me, personally, I understand that couples have sex when involved in a relationship with one another. That's not something I would hold against a woman. What I have a big problem with is a woman that had a number of one night stands or experimented with wild/bizarre sexual acts. I consider those things to be a reflection of poor moral character. And yes, I would absolutely want to know about those things before I decided entered into a relationship with her, because it would likely affect my decision.


If each of us decides what is acceptable and what is promiscuity, then how does that relate to what you are saying - that _everyone _who is promiscuous will eventually cheat, sooner or later?

Whose definition of promiscuity triggers that "eventually will cheat" prediction you are making?


----------



## Darkstar71 (Aug 27, 2014)

OptimisticPessimist said:


> I do not agree.
> 
> My dad was a playboy in his youth. When I was a young teen I once asked him how many women he had been with. His answer was "I dont know". He was a gypsy alpha male and he wasnt shy about who he was.
> 
> ...


Then your dad was a rare exception. Those do happen.


----------



## Darkstar71 (Aug 27, 2014)

norajane said:


> If each of us decides what is acceptable and what is promiscuity, then how does that relate to what you are saying - that _everyone _who is promiscuous will eventually cheat, sooner or later?
> 
> Whose definition of promiscuity triggers that "eventually will cheat" prediction you are making?


Again, that's my opinion based on my own personal experience. I will not retract nor apologize for what I've said because I believe it to be the absolute truth. As far as I'm concerned people would do well to follow my example.

And I realize that what I'm saying may offend some people, but quite frankly that's not my problem. Those who get personally offended want their cake and eat it too. They want to have the freedom of behaving badly sexually AND still be called a loyal, fine, morale and honest person.

Funny, I thought this was a discussion forum about marriage where members are free to share their opinions and experiences. If this forum doesn't welcome "unpopular" opinions then I'll gladly remove myself.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Darkstar71 said:


> Again, that's my opinion based on my own personal experience. I will not retract nor apologize for what I've said because I believe it to be the absolute truth. As far as I'm concerned people would do well to follow my example.
> 
> And I realize that what I'm saying may offend some people, but quite frankly that's not my problem. Those who get personally offended want their cake and eat it too. They want to have the freedom of behaving badly sexually AND still be called a loyal, fine, morale and honest person.
> 
> Funny, I thought this was a discussion forum about marriage where members are free to share their opinions and experiences. If this forum doesn't welcome "unpopular" opinions then I'll gladly remove myself.


You started out making a blanket statement as though you had facts and statistics and peer-reviewed studies to back you up: Everyone who is promiscuous will cheat eventually, sooner or later.

Now you're saying it's only your experience and your opinion. And that's fine - you are entitled to form your own conclusions and opinions and to express them. But the way your OP was written, you didn't leave any room for anyone else's opinions and conclusions and different experiences - you just told everyone that something was true which is actually only your opinion.

That's why you're getting the responses you're getting.


----------



## devotion (Oct 8, 2012)

I know DoF and others believes that what happened in the past (sexually) remains in the past and should be dont' ask, don't tell. I prefer to (respectfully) disagree and believe it should be discussed. Now, I don't want to know many details, but yes, I ask about number of sexual partners. And for me personally, a high number is disconcerting. That's just my own hangup, for better or for worse. My low number may be disconcerting for my partners (in my case, my number and my girlfriend's number is exactly the same, and just fine with us both) and that is their right. 

On another forum I read a girl post that she had 29 sexual partners and her current boyfriend is making her feel guilty about it (she's not cheating, this was guys BEFORE this guy). That is wrong. The boyfriend is in his right to not be able to accept someone who's been with 29 men. But its wrong to make her feel guilty for her life before, as long as they are now both monogamous (assuming that they don't have an open relationship). 

If I was dating a girl with 29 sexual partners I would not be comfortable with that long term. I would not consider her a bad person, just not the right person for me. Just like I would probably not be able to date a smoker. Not a bad person, just not right for me.


----------



## Darkstar71 (Aug 27, 2014)

devotion said:


> On another forum I read a girl post that she had 29 sexual partners and her current boyfriend is making her feel guilty about it (she's not cheating, this was guys BEFORE this guy). That is wrong. The boyfriend is in his right to not be able to accept someone who's been with 29 men. But its wrong to make her feel guilty for her life before, as long as they are now both monogamous (assuming that they don't have an open relationship).


I agree. Making her feel guilty is going to accomplish nothing. She can't change her past, and with 29 previous sexual partners I doubt she regrets anything. Since it's bothering the guy so much he should make a clean break and dump her and find someone better. Otherwise he will have daily trust issues.


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

no problem, more slvts for me


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

OptimisticPessimist said:


> I do not agree.
> 
> My dad was a playboy in his youth. When I was a young teen I once asked him how many women he had been with. His answer was "I dont know". He was a gypsy alpha male and he wasnt shy about who he was.
> 
> ...


I, too, could share a story.. My Mother was best friends with a neighbor lady (back in the 60's).. who was known as the town ____ (My mom never spoke like this...it was a brother in law who told her to not hang with her)......

This woman had a child she gave up for adoption in her teens... and guess who she ended up marrying... the shy town VIRGIN... they had a love for horses.. and I grew up with their daughter & son... many nights spent in that house..playing in their barn, in the yard... I never seen them fight, never heard of any marriage issues at all... stable... happy ...She was the feisty boisterous loud one.. this is true, my mother found her hilarious/ so much FUN......and he was laid back & quiet, you wouldn't know he was there... but it worked... He must not have had a problem with her..

I heard he died so many years ago, and SHE collapsed.. she was a very devoted wife to her husband.. ..I got a tear when I heard that...

Then on another note...is my own mother.. she didn't fare so well.. she had a decent guy (my father), wasn't in love and after the divorce...feeling lonely ..a good looking younger man working on our little house...he didn't want her money, he wanted something else...she gave in..... it led to her sleeping with many men, he started bringing them around.....some were married... she didn't know it...she was raped, beat up for sex.. 

She was emotionally damaged by this.. (a more extreme situation)..... she told me after these experiences sex meant NOTHING to her....her 2nd husband made a comment she could take her clothes off "like peeling a banana".. (nice huh)...He didn't care, he was an alcoholic.....She always said she never believed in love again.. I ALWAYS found this very very sad.  

I looked at the downward spiral of her life / her choices..and there was *a fear* in me to be very very careful with men... I refused to walk her path.....so I was a bit extreme on the other end.. to wait for the man I would marry.. Sometimes it doesn't even have to be our experience ..but witnessing what has happened to someone very close to us...

I didn't want the type of men who slept with a variety of women either...as this reminded me of the type of men my Mother opened her doors to.... (I was only 9 back then).. it put a very sour taste in my mouth.... I wanted better for my own life..and future... and I was pretty stubborn about it..


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

wife was a virgin when we dated

she cheated on me in the 11th year of marriage

go figure


----------



## Reluctant_Doubter (Apr 11, 2013)

Darkstar71 said:


> This is what I'm saying. The SO's past should be discussed up front. Maybe not on the first few dates, but definitely before getting into a serious relationship and absolutely before marriage! If you find out about their past now and have a problem with it, it will be much easier to cut ties with that person now. So much easier than after 10 years of marriage and two kids.


Here's the Catch 22. If the SO is not honest about her past when questioned early in the relationship, but the truth comes out later via other sources of information (in my case, many years later), you have a problem.

When I learned about my wife's past, which she now admits was promiscuous, I was almost destroyed. It wasn't so much her behavior before we met that mattered, but rather that she had lied to me about it during the "discussion" you refer to above, and then maintained that lie through the next two decades.

When finally exposed, during a crisis in our marriage, she claimed she had not told me the truth because she was ashamed, wanted to forget her past behavior and did not want to threaten our (then new) relationship. I understand and accept that this may fairly represent her feelings at the time and may have directed her behavior.

But I also know that she lied to me about things that were important to me, and I based life decisions on those lies. Would I have decided differently? Who knows? But she stole from me my right to make an informed choice.

So when a marriage threatening crisis comes up, and it is revealed that your SO has a history of lying to you (whether or not she thinks she had good reason) it throws everything she says and has ever said into doubt.

Her answer for why she maintained a lie for two decades? She said that it was easier to maintain a lie than own up to the truth, and that she thought I would never find out.

That doesn't exactly instill me with confidence that her lying days are over.

We are a year and a half into reconciliation and this is still an issue between us.

So by all means have that discussion early in the relationship, but you may not be getting the truth. I believed my wife completely.

I was wrong in my belief.

I can handle my wife's past promiscuity in her youth. I can talk about it and think about it without feeling emotional. But when I think about her lying to me, and the possibility that she is still doing so, I go to pieces. The past is the past - but the lying is "now".

So rather than get too hung up on past behaviors, I'd advise others to discuss them and explore the reasons for them. Through this perhaps you can judge whether behaviors have changed and there is minimal chance of a repeat within the marriage, or otherwise. Of course this is easier said than done, by a young couple in love and afraid to threaten their relationship in any way. We can't always expect a calm and mature discussion.

But if the SO is unable to talk openly about these things, and structures an alternative reality which you accept as the truth - hook, line and sinker, then I foresee trouble downstream.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

Darkstar71 said:


> Obviously a single definition of promiscuity according to one person isn't going to cover everyone. I would say the answer to this question is that it's up to each individual to decide what is an acceptable level of sexual activity with their SOs past.
> 
> Me, personally, I understand that couples have sex when involved in a relationship with one another. That's not something I would hold against a woman. What I have a big problem with is a woman that had a number of one night stands or experimented with wild/bizarre sexual acts. I consider those things to be a reflection of poor moral character. And yes, I would absolutely want to know about those things before I decided entered into a relationship with her, because it would likely affect my decision.


So wild/bizarre really should be defined by the person in the relationship, obviously. So sexual behavior makes someone immoral? I disagree unless it's harmful or non-consensual as in bestiality or child molestation. Because you may define 'wild' as something most think is average or tame. Perhaps you think anal is wild or bizarre. That doesn't make a woman immoral. Maybe she only did that in committed, monogamous relationships, regardless of how many partners. Maybe she is white and has a big black dildo. That doesn't mean she's going to find a well endowed black man to have sex with.

Also, the number of single years hasn't been considered. Someone who is single for 2 years is likely going to have far fewer partners than someone who is single for 15, but if their 'average' is 1 committed, monogamous partner per year, one woman has had 2 partners, one has had 15, but neither is more promiscuous than the other.


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

EnjoliWoman said:


> Maybe she is white and has a big black dildo. That doesn't mean she's going to find a well endowed black man to have sex with.


is this a confession?


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

Darkstar71 said:


> Based on the description of your past *there's no way I would ever *get into a relationship with someone like you. I would consider you extremely high risk for being unfaithful and I doubt I would ever trust you. That's not meant as an insult, it's just my opinion.





Darkstar71 said:


> Also, people who make statements in absolutes like "I never will" are often the worst offenders.


Really?:rofl:


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

Almostrecovered said:


> is this a confession?


Nope. Just an example. My ex bought a huge white one, though. I hated it. It hurt like hell. I never understood why he would want to stretch out a snug one.


----------



## Miss Taken (Aug 18, 2012)

Morality is subjective and capable of evolving.

A Hindu man in India would be appalled by the Christian man in Texas eating steak for dinner. The Catholic man in Ireland would be offended only if it was a Friday. The Muslim and the Jewish men wouldn't care so long as it wasn't pork.

So anyone who comes at me with absolutes about what they define to be moral gets a big sarcastic eye roll from me.


----------



## Idyit (Mar 5, 2013)

Discussions about moral relativism or absolutes are trench warfare.

While I don't agree with OPs apparent hysteria, caution while investing a portion of your life is warranted. 

"Carfax... Nah I'm sure you're telling me the truth"
"Home inspection.... Nah, I'm a handyman. If anything turns up I can fix it."

To me it makes sense to ensure that you're on equal footing where sex and intimacy are concerned. Because we're not talking floormats or curtains here.

~ Passio


----------



## OptimisticPessimist (Jul 26, 2010)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I, too, could share a story.. My Mother was best friends with a neighbor lady (back in the 60's).. who was known as the town ____ (My mom never spoke like this...it was a brother in law who told her to not hang with her)......
> 
> This woman had a child she gave up for adoption in her teens... and guess who she ended up marrying... the shy town VIRGIN... they had a love for horses.. and I grew up with their daughter & son... many nights spent in that house..playing in their barn, in the yard... I never seen them fight, never heard of any marriage issues at all... stable... happy ...She was the feisty boisterous loud one.. this is true, my mother found her hilarious/ so much FUN......and he was laid back & quiet, you wouldn't know he was there... but it worked... He must not have had a problem with her..
> 
> ...


I would have liked your post, but the latter part's so tragic I felt it would be in poor taste to do so. Man, thats terrible. It truly horrifies me what some people will do to each other...

It is good that you responded to it in the way that you did since you have such a great marriage/family. Unfortunately often when a parent has such a life, their child often follows the same pattern.

It really is different for different people though- my dad and the "shy town virgin" probably couldnt have been more different, and yet they both ended up loyal husbands. My dad was Navy back in the early 50s, raced cars in the late 50s, raced motorcycles in the early 60s, lived on a motorcycle for years going from town to town in the late 60s.. wild child through and through.

You know what? This actually brings up an idea. I really think the primary determinant of "loyalty" in a relationship is not based on sexual attitude or variety or or.. I think its based on a person's desire to give.

My dad used to always talk about that with me. "Giving is what makes life mean something". "When I gave I received, when I received I gave, when I took I was robbed." I think when you truly embrace that ideal, infidelity becomes impossible. Infidelity is about valuing yourself over your spouse; giving is about valuing others over yourself (while demanding enough respect so you can continue giving without being exploited). While my dad had dated multiple women at the same time before (and they knew/accepted it), he remained singularly loyal to my mom. She made it clear she needed that, and he had no problem with it.

Just some thoughts on the matter... OP, I really think the reasons for infidelity are more complex than sexual attitude.


----------



## devotion (Oct 8, 2012)

*Re: Re: For those jealous of his/her past*



Almostrecovered said:


> wife was a virgin when we dated
> 
> she cheated on me in the 11th year of marriage
> 
> go figure


Similar story except my ex wife cheated in her thirteenth year.

So past performance is no prediction of future results. 

I believe that if you talk about the past be honest. Its not fair to lie. It is OK if both parties feel they don't want to talk about sexual history.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Darkstar71 said:


> Based on the description of your past there's no way I would ever get into a relationship with someone like you. I would consider you extremely high risk for being unfaithful and I doubt I would ever trust you. That's not meant as an insult, it's just my opinion.
> 
> Also, people who make statements in absolutes like "I never will" are often the worst offenders.


Based on your posts on this topic there is no way I would be friends with someone like you let alone consider a relationship, I am not meaning to insult you but honestly your way of thinking seems so hysterical and out of touch with reality. I would wonder about the mental and emotional health of someone like you.

I see that the reason for your projecting is due to bad past experiences and I am sorry to hear that. Personally I have never knowingly been cheated on but I would find it devastating and life changing if it ever happened. 

But if you want to go on to have a healthy life you could consider getting some help. The other thing to consider is that you might just have a problem with who you are choosing for relationships, have a look at yourself and why you choose women that cheat.

Don't say it is because of their pasts because there have already been men here say that their virgin brides cheated. I have given my own anecdotal evidence to show that people that had a healthy and fun sexual past do not automatically cheat.

You give advice here like it is fact, that you are a know it all in this area but you are incorrect in your assumptions. I am going to guess you are quite young and not overly self confident, I hope you can learn and grow a bit more before entering into your next relationship.

As for the blanket statement that I will never cheat, it really is sad that you think this means that I am the worst offender, it is a very sad indictment on your rationality.
I am late 40's and have never cheated. I have never knowingly been cheated on. I will never cheat and that is an absolute because I simply abhor cheating. Thing is I am a grown up adult, if I was in a relationship that was not right then I would end the relationship, not cheat my way out of it. Your understanding of people is all screwed up, that is going to impact your whole life unless you get a grip on reality.

By all means have your boundaries, it would be madness not to but don't go spouting rubbish that is unfounded and irrational just because you have been burnt.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Darkstar71 said:


> If your SO has had a promiscuous past, they are one day going to want to revisit that past. You've heard the saying "History repeats itself"? Truer words were never spoken. A spouse that needed such a diverse array of bedfellows in their past is likely carrying a ton of baggage; baggage that led them to be so promiscuous in the first place.


I don't really know what your definition is of "promiscuous".

My wife had several lovers before me, starting at a young age. By the standards of the time and place, she was more experienced than average (but by today's standards she was probably less than average). Some evidence suggests she was a lot more experienced than she admitted to me. She herself has recently used the word "promiscuous" to describe her teen years.

The baggage is what caused her to be promiscuous. An odd turn.

One of the things I liked about her was her attitudes and her skills in the bedroom. No, I wasn't thrilled with the idea of the other guys, but I was thrilled at the benefits I was reaping!

I don't think she has had any desire to add to her total. She has probably been attracted to other men, but I don't think she hit a boredom due to monogamy.

In a sweeping generalization, I think a promiscuous person probably has a psychological makeup which isn't compatible with a deeply intimate long term attachment. It isn't about the sex, it is about the ability to achieve close emotional bonds. People who don't bond are likely to have many shallow relationships, and thus are not likely to succeed easily at marriage.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

rubymoon said:


> Hormones partly form your character. And that was my point.
> 
> By the logic of OP, never marry those who
> were ever promiscuous
> ...



I'm honestly not sure if I should even respond to you because I don't know if this statement in your post is legitimate or made in jest. You can't possibly be suggesting that one's hormones determine whether they lie, cheat , steal or choose to be selfish or inconsiderate of others because that is a ridiculous assertion. By this logic, my hormones would render me powerless to choose right from wrong and that is utter nonsense.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

rubymoon said:


> LOL! Unless you live in a tiny town/village, how would you even know? Really... we share only what we want to share. And the more judgement you impose, the higher the chance that you will be lied to.


I think you'd have to be an idiot not to know of these things in your mate or potential mate because you would have to ignore or overlook so many clues. I do believe that it may be somewhat common, although who knows for sure, that some women may conceal, omit or lie about their sexual past, but I'm not ready to pronounce the entire female gender pathological liars in this area.

For someone to conceal most of their past, they would have to conceal a lot of themselves. That's difficult to do and over time, it would likely slip out.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Holland said:


> I said someone that harms others is of low moral character, I would not necessarily put a mean person in that category although meaness can harm in some cases.
> So yes a cheater has low to no morals because they harm others. I totally disagree that people that enjoy a variety of sexual experiences and partners are low in morals.
> 
> And NO you and other men do not get to chose how to define anything, this is not a single gender world we live in.
> ...


Your first statement makes absolutely no sense. Of course being mean is hurtful and probably 100% of the time.

The second statement I highlighted is also false. Of course men get to decide what they will accept from women. This will always be the case. Some will not mind a woman's more promiscuous past but many more will mind. That's just the way it is. There are always consequences for our actions. I sense that you want to be able to do what you want to do without judgment or consequence but that's not how things operate in this world.

You are free to do as you wish and others are free to not approve of it if they so wish. I can choose to get tattoos all over my body, for example, but more people than not are going to disapprove of how I look. That's just the way it is and I can't control what or how other people think. You should let go of that as it will make you happier.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Mostlycontent said:


> I think you'd have to be an idiot not to know of these things in your mate or potential mate because you would have to ignore or overlook so many clues. I do believe that it may be somewhat common, although who knows for sure, that some women may conceal, omit or lie about their sexual past, but I'm not ready to pronounce the entire female gender pathological liars in this area.
> 
> For someone to conceal most of their past, they would have to conceal a lot of themselves. That's difficult to do and over time, it would likely slip out.


The common advice used to be to double whatever number a woman told you. Nowadays people say to triple it. I don't think it is uncommon at all for women to conceal or lie about their sexual past. Especially things such as ONS hookups or short term relationships which only lasted a month. Other than a room mate, nobody else might know about these.

Over time clues might pop up, and eventually some of the truth might come out. For me it was long after we were married that some of the clues and truth started coming out.

One cannot be jealous of what they don't know about. So as far as the OP's post goes, what is concealed is not a factor.

The only thing I'd agree with the OP on is that if one is not comfortable with a person's past, they are most likely a bad match and should not get married.


----------



## Miss Taken (Aug 18, 2012)

Infidelity happens because of what's going on in the cheater's head. Not because of what once went on between their legs. 

Saying someone will cheat because they used to have a lot of sex is like saying someone will steal a car because they've owned a lot of vehicles.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

DoF said:


> Sure
> 
> But then you have the whole thing of "why in the world would you date/get into relationship with a person that was promiscuous to begin with"?
> 
> ...


Uh...because they lied about it/downplayed it/hid it/"forgot" about it?

I think that's pretty common.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> Who defined what is considered promiscuous? I have not seen a definition.


The definition of promiscuity in sex reminds me of the definitions of automobile drivers:

"The person who is driving slower than you in traffic is an idiot. The person driving faster than you is a maniac."


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Wolfman1968 said:


> The definition of promiscuity in sex reminds me of the definitions of automobile drivers:
> 
> "The person who is driving slower than you in traffic is an idiot. The person driving faster than you is a maniac."


:iagree: :rofl:


----------

