SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Artfully said, I think. By way of contrast to your story, I have always ONLY been marriage/permanent partner minded, had no urge for sowing wild oats at all whatsoever, and as a result not only was sexual inexperience in a mate desirable, but it added many, MANY points to SMV of the woman-- could turn a 4 into a 9 for me.

I ignored these "personal standards" in my first partner and that's why I am even here working out old trauma. :)

That sounds more about compatibility in worldviews than about whether or not women should have casual sex. It's only weird and hypocritical to me when I see a man who has sown a great deal of wild oats only wanting relationships with a low-partner woman.

And it's funny, I was the one with more sex partners than my XWH and if he is to be believed, he had more sex partners during our marriage than he did before we met. I dated someone I thought with a different level of wild oats sowing and didn't care about his number (and still wouldn't care about it with another person), and I wound up with the cheater. Of course, he could have been lying. I'll never know.

That makes no sense to me.

This is perhaps an artifact of living in the suburbs of a major metropolitan area in the USA, but I have known a distressing number of women, all of them "experienced" whose response when a partner eventually annoyed them (and we're not talking about abuse here) was "break up, trade up."

It worked when they were young, but I don't know that any of them are married now (my cohort is in their late 40's).

In at least one case, one of the women I knew with the "break up/trade up" mentality slowly refined her "expectations" of a man upward until only an dedicated and experienced liar or politician could appear attractive to her.

That sounds more about compatibility in worldviews than about whether or not women should have casual sex

I WOULD agree with you-- except I knew too many very sweet and even religious girls in my youth who went to college, got into the casual sex life lifestyle, and re-adjusted their core philosophies so that they hadn't "done wrong." When they re-adjusted the core philosophies, they of course also re-adjusted the compatibility of what they now were with what they wanted to have.

It's not true for every single person, but I think a lot of people who are NOT interested or meant for casual sex are being persuaded that it's the normal, right, growth thing to do now... and it's breaking them.

I was the one with more sex partners than my XWH

This will not be a popular opinion, but I think it can be a "hidden factor" in these situations: On a deep primal level, some men can feel that yes, it's possible for a woman to cheat on him before he's ever met her, or for her to emasculate him by having more partners. When I hear of a situation like yours, I picture male pride "evening the score." Not even on a conscious level.

I was not "settled for" by my stbxw.

At least until she rewrote history after I helped her get her life together and succeed beyond her wildest dreams.

All of a sudden I wasn't "good" (read: financially successful) enough and she felt the need to go play the field and see what was out there.

Thank God, I had no idea I had shackled myself to a narcissistic, materialistic shallow piece of crap. I'm much happier and better off without her.

Anyone remember Legally Blonde?

Personally I feel I married way above of my league and the funny thing is my wife feels she married way above her league too.

Rio,

But, when it comes to marriage, it's an entirely different story, there were always two "tracks" that a woman could get on, the "sex for fun" track or the "girlfriend/wife" track. And the 2 kind of went in opposite directions after leaving the station, you could be excused, looking out the windows, for thinking you were heading the same place because the scenery was similar, but one train was heading north, the other due south.

That is a pretty broad overgeneralization IMHO. My late husband played in a band locally for a few years (before I met him) and had quite a few partners - a LOT of ONS. And while he was active duty (again - before we met) he actually refused to commit to a LTR. He said it would not be fair when he could be deployed for up to 18 months at a time. He got married when he separated...and his first wife betrayed him less than six months later.

And I was that party girl for a while. I had a pretty wild college experience and had quite a few partners of both sexes before I settled down with a girl I would have married had we been able. This was in the 80s - all we could have done was move to California or Massachusetts and get a civil union. Which was not an option. And I am glad we did not after her betrayal.

Then I met my late husband. And, somehow, we married, raised two awesome kids and stayed together faithfully for 32 years! And we never strayed. Both of us, after experiencing the devastation of infidelity, were clear with each other up front - infidelity would be a dealbreaker.

And I am glad we both had 'sowed our wild oats' earlier in life, had matured and knew what we wanted in a life partner. We had a fantastic marriage. But a normal one - ups and downs included. And we had a wonderful sex life as well...which is where the prior experience came in handy!

But I will say this. We were having the very best sex of our lives as time went by. When we knew each others likes and dislikes. We could communicate sexually without words - just a look or a moan could speak large.

So - when I DO mentally compare sexual partners (and I really have never thought about this before) NONE of them could come close to what I had with him. The only other sex that was even in the same ballpark was with my long term girlfriend. So, for me, the emotional side of sex directly affects the physical side as well.

And I did things sexually with my late husband that I had never done with anyone else. And never would have. And enjoyed every minute of it - because of the love and trust we had. And that is the key - trust. I trusted him to stop if I said no (and the only time I did - he stopped immediately - no questions asked). I trusted him to honor our vows. And I gave just as much back - again because of the love and trust.

But I still wonder why she sought out a sexual relationship with another girl. We had a damn good sex life. We had shared values (I stupidly thought), had surprisingly few arguments and I would have stayed with her for life. I loved her - and showed her that love for 6 years. Everything I did I did for her. Then I walk in after a business trip ended early and found them in our bed. That moment is literally burned into my brain

I still have the age old question in my head. "Why did she do this?" and "How could she do this to me?". And, like many of you here, NEVER got a satisfactory answer.

Sorry - I am rambling and a bit uptight from even typing this. It still bothers me after 36 years. Funny how we carry our scars sometimes.

This is perhaps an artifact of living in the suburbs of a major metropolitan area in the USA, but I have known a distressing number of women, all of them "experienced" whose response when a partner eventually annoyed them (and we're not talking about abuse here) was "break up, trade up."

It worked when they were young, but I don't know that any of them are married now (my cohort is in their late 40's).

In at least one case, one of the women I knew with the "break up/trade up" mentality slowly refined her "expectations" of a man upward until only an dedicated and experienced liar or politician could appear attractive to her.

That sounds like a shallow woman. That isn't my experience with women I know. Shallow people will break up with someone for any reason at all. Selfish and entitled people will look for only what the other person can bring to the table. Number of sex partners doesn't seem to matter in that case. If fewer sex partners meant that the woman would stay with someone who disappointed her, that's not so great either for her or the man in question.

I WOULD agree with you-- except I knew too many very sweet and even religious girls in my youth who went to college, got into the casual sex life lifestyle, and re-adjusted their core philosophies so that they hadn't "done wrong." When they re-adjusted the core philosophies, they of course also re-adjusted the compatibility of what they now were with what they wanted to have.

So they went to college and changed their worldviews? That's not unusual at all. Sweet doesn't mean virginal, btw. It's not like a woman goes from sweet and kind to flaming bitchy whore when she crosses a threshold of sex partners.

It's not true for every single person, but I think a lot of people who are NOT interested or meant for casual sex are being persuaded that it's the normal, right, growth thing to do now... and it's breaking them.

That would be sad, because normal and right are what work for the individual. If it doesn't feel right to have casual sex, then good lord don't do it. If it doesn't feel right to save yourself for marriage, don't do it.

This will not be a popular opinion, but I think it can be a "hidden factor" in these situations: On a deep primal level, some men can feel that yes, it's possible for a woman to cheat on him before he's ever met her, or for her to emasculate him by having more partners. When I hear of a situation like yours, I picture male pride "evening the score." Not even on a conscious level.

If this was any part of his motivation, that is as pathetic and stupid as any other motivation he could have had.

And it's funny, I was the one with more sex partners than my XWH and if he is to be believed, he had more sex partners during our marriage than he did before we met. I dated someone I thought with a different level of wild oats sowing and didn't care about his number (and still wouldn't care about it with another person), and I wound up with the cheater. Of course, he could have been lying. I'll never know.

Oh, right there with you Dee, I had many more sex partners (like take her number and multiply it by itself a few times) than my W. And yes, she cheated. Check out the IFS study, link between premarital sex and marital stability. It's pretty interesting research, but it's only about women. And it has been changing, used to be that "2" was the worst possible number, now it's 10+. But it's a huge effect, 0 partners, 5% risk of D after 5 years, 10+ partners, 33% risk of D. That's a shocking result, and it's also why chastity continues to have value when you're looking at marrying someone.

That sounds more about compatibility in worldviews than about whether or not women should have casual sex. It's only weird and hypocritical to me when I see a man who has sown a great deal of wild oats only wanting relationships with a low-partner woman.

Oh hypocritical as hell, no doubt. But, that's not gonna stop anyone. It's like fat men only wanting thin women or poor women only dating well off men. It just "is what it is". And, frankly, all of it makes sense, it's not that people are making these preferences up to punish promiscuous women, poor men or heavy women. It's biology and statistics at work governing our partner selections.

Oh, right there with you Dee, I had many more sex partners (like take her number and multiply it by itself a few times) than my W. And yes, she cheated. Check out the IFS study, link between premarital sex and marital stability. It's pretty interesting research, but it's only about women. And it has been changing, used to be that "2" was the worst possible number, now it's 10+. But it's a huge effect, 0 partners, 5% risk of D after 5 years, 10+ partners, 33% risk of D. That's a shocking result, and it's also why chastity continues to have value when you're looking at marrying someone.

Given some of the issues that cause marriages to end in divorce, I don't think it's a bad thing that a higher number woman feels more comfortable divorcing. No one gets married wanting a divorce, but having lived a bit more likely did make me more likely to choose divorce in my own situation. Both times. And good for me. Had I only known one man either time, likely it would have been harder for me to leave.

Oh hypocritical as hell, no doubt. But, that's not gonna stop anyone. It's like fat men only wanting thin women or poor women only dating well off men. It just "is what it is". And, frankly, all of it makes sense, it's not that people are making these preferences up to punish promiscuous women, poor men or heavy women. It's biology and statistics at work governing our partner selections.

As I'm not interested in being anyone's ideal anything and am much more interested in being who I am than being a fake cultural ideal, I am happy for those who would consider anything about me a dealbreaker to keep on walking and leave me alone. I would truly rather be single than deal with any of that hypocritical nonsense.

Welp, guess I am just fucked on marriage then. I didn't know I was supposed to put myself in tupperware at age 15 and never do anything in order to snag me some man to take care of me

I just cannot even with that line of thought.

I'm with Dee - if a guy is THAT insecure that they feel emasculated that I *gasp* had sex with someone 20 fucking years ago, then they can just go waaaaaaay over there with that bullshit and leave me to my slutty single existence

Ellie and Dee, can I sit with you?

My "number" is pretty low for my age (I was horribly insecure about that, I guess ironically given the turn this has taken), but the double standard at play here is just making my head explode.

Sounds like the mindset of the guys who'll sleep with a woman on the first date but disqualify her as "girlfriend" material for doing the same damn thing he did. I want zero part of that mentality.

[This message edited by JanaGreen at 11:38 AM, August 17th (Monday)]

but the double standard at play here is just making my head explode.

I'd never defend it as anything but (a double standard). I don't really care, TBH, people's selection in women to marry has exactly 0 impact on my life, but, it's clearly a double standard. I guess the only thing I'd point out, if "double standards" are a problem, you've got a LONG, LONG list to go after. The guy who won't bother to use a razor but won't date women who are anything but immaculately presented. The woman who can't hold a job but won't date anyone who makes under 200K a year. The heavy guy who will only date thin women. The woman who's had bisexual experiences but would instantly "next" any guy who's slept with men.

Guess what? This is reality. Men value certain things about women, one of which, for a lot of men is chastity, and women value certain things about men. And that list isn't even CLOSE to being the same. Many women would instantly disqualify a guy without a job where, for me, I probably wouldn't even ask (dating), it's just a total non-issue for me. Make 10K or 100K, wouldn't make a lick of difference. Pick up trash or hammer out contracts as an attorney? Do not care, not one bit. Where, for a lot of women, that would be a deal maker/breaker. And you know what? There are good reasons a woman might feel that way, just like there are good reasons that I don't care at all. Marrying a rich guy does have it's advantages, just like marrying a less experienced woman has it's advantages. Both are valid/reasonable choices, personally, I think it's silly to marry for money, just make your own if you want it, but I can also understand why people do it.

Welp, guess I am just fucked on marriage then. I didn't know I was supposed to put myself in tupperware at age 15 and never do anything in order to snag me some man to take care of me.

That's not at all what this says nor what the research indicates. All it indicates is that marriages are more successful for women who have a lower partner count. Read that anyway you want. Don't care (I sure as SH*T wouldn't if I were a woman)? Totally your right. Where it get's sticky for me is when we say it's wrong for OTHER people to care. Well, I don't really get to make the rules for everyone, nor am I the thought police AND their position is backed by data as to why they should care. Want to pass on girls who were "slutty" (as some of my friends did), well guess what? Your loss, my gain (and, I used to believe, her gain too, you know, when I believed women had sex for something other than kibbles).

A whole lot of this comes down to personal choice and preference. I equate this to the "big is beautiful" movement and how you're "not supposed" to say you would like to date a thin woman anymore.. Well, that's what I'm attracted to, that's what I like, why on earth is that wrong? And there are plenty of stats here to back the assertion that selecting someone of healthy weight is a good idea, longevity, chronic problems from obesity, etc. I feel I'm completely within my right to only date women who have the body type I find attractive, or only women with <10 partners, or only women with 3 boobs and 9 toes if I so desire. We can say "Ugh, RIO, that's going to greatly limit your choices in women and probably going to make you overlook a lot of great partners" and you'd be right, but it's not something "wrong", it's just my personal preference as to what I want/like in a partner. Nobody, despite society seeming to decide it's the "new role", gets to determine what I want and will accept in a partner. Would I miss a lot of good women if I said "10 is the limit". Absolutely, no doubt, just like I'm sure my W missed a lot of good men because she wouldn't date anyone under 6' tall. I think it's silly, but that is honestly not at all my call to make.

In many ways, I think the issue reflects our throwaway culture. These younger people that report having previous partners in the multiple 100s? That doesn't leave a lot of time to learn the basics of creating and maintaining a real, lasting relationship. I've seen the arguments that suggest this is ruinous to a woman's ability to pair-bond, but I think it is far more likely a combination of the "throwaway culture" phenomenon (both genders), combined with women realizing they can support themselves alone.

Circling back to the GoldenR's original point - I think it is natural for a BS to wonder if our partners "settled". Until a couple of years ago, I was unaware that my wife cheated while we were engaged. Looking back, I can recall multiple instances over the years where she referred to OM with what I would now describe as "pining", including in front of our children. Red-pillers would call that "alpha widow", and others might say looking back with "rose-colored glasses". Terminology aside, it appears my wife feels she settled in some way. Knowing what I know now, I'm 100% certain that I did.

All it indicates is that marriages are more successful for women who have a lower partner count.

I have a higher count than my WH. I wasn't the one who cheated though. So how does my count cause him to cheat? I am completely confused on how his cheating or choices is now somehow my fault because I've slept with more people?

Rideitout, you seem to project a lot of your feelings and thoughts on to others. You present your opinions as facts, when they're really just your opinions. You don't speak for all men folk, just like I don't speak for all women folk. Maybe try speaking for yourself, and stop trying to make it out like everybody is like you and thinks like you.

if a guy is THAT insecure that they feel emasculated that I *gasp* had sex with someone 20 fucking years ago

This is a young guy thing-- when I was in the position where this was a factor, I was about 22. I don't think it's an issue for older men, since it's a different stage of life and people don't have the same growth post 35 as they do age 16-30.

Young guys want to grow sexually and experience new things WITH their wives. If god forbid something happened to my current marriage, I wouldn't hold a new woman to the same standard; innocence is a form of female beauty that young men appreciate.

when I believed women had sex for something other than kibbles

LOLOL I can one thousand percent promise you that women have sex for something other than ego kibbles

I totally agree with RIO’s last post.

People like what they like, are attracted to what they are attracted to. Yeah, they might “pass” on someone great, but that’s their loss—and their valid choice.

[This message edited by Darkness Falls at 12:18 PM, August 17th (Monday)]

I have a higher count than my WH. I wasn't the one who cheated though. So how does my count cause him to cheat? I am completely confused on how his cheating or choices is now somehow my fault because I've slept with more people?

Well LC, according to the logic being presented on this thread, apparently us girls who have fun in their twenties are emasculating any man we meet in the future EVER. Shame on us then for not realizing that and not properly fawning over our wh's precious fragile little egos hmmm?

I am just over here shaking my head in complete disbelief honestly.

You know - people ARE allowed to believe whatever they want. Conversely, other people are allowed to call bullshit on outmoded, outdated, and ridiculous beliefs. Just a couple examples; there are still people who believe that homosexuality is wrong, and people who believe that interracial relationships are wrong. Fine, have those beliefs. I reserve the right to believe that someone who holds those beliefs is imho, stuck in a way outmoded way of thinking.

Like I said earlier, if a guy is so insecure in his own damn self that he cannot handle that a FORTY YEAR OLD WOMAN HAS A PAST, then that is not a guy I would waste any of my time on. *shrug*

Young guys want to grow sexually and experience new things WITH their wives. If god forbid something happened to my current marriage, I wouldn't hold a new woman to the same standard; innocence is a form of female beauty that young men appreciate.

Thanks for qualifying that Sunspot - this thought does make more sense to me.

Ellie, Dee, Jana, I'm with you.

I get that the double standard exists. Doesn't mean I have to be cool with it.

With XH, we didn't talk numbers until we were already committed. I didn't think it was really necessary considering I had my legs wrapped around him on his kitchen table after the first date. Call me naive I guess, but I figured the guy who was down for that kinda figured I was DTF as well.

I mean as a woman in the same scenario, if a guy is DTF on the first date with me, I don't assume that I'm the only one who has been sexy or beguiling enough to get him to cross that threshold. I'm going to assume that same rule applied to all others he had a reasonable connection to before me. Even if that connection was purely physical. If a more serious, committed connection were to grow out of it, great. But I'm not walking out of a quick sexual encounter expecting that.

When we finally did talk numbers, he balked at mine. One of his go-to sayings was, "Don't let someone see your naked body if they haven't seen your naked soul." His interpretation of that is that you should have serious feelings for someone before having sex with them. He claims that he only had sex with 5 women before me, 1 being his ex wife. Stating the above naked body/naked soul argument as his reasoning.

Again, referring to the sex on the kitchen table after the first date, I asked, ummmmm, what??? I was like sorry dude, if I'm being honest, I was not thinking to myself "Oh my universe, this man is such a unique soul, we are star crossed lovers who are meant to be together, we must join our spirits in a naked embrace!" I thought "Damn, he's fine as hell, and he lives three doors down from me so I have easy access to NSA sex whenever I want? Sign me up!" Yes, it developed into a relationship as time went on, but it wasn't expected.

Turns out Mr. Low Numbers is a sex addict who was entertaining escorts at our house any chance he could. Mrs. DGAF About Her Numbers (me) didn't cheat. My brain is so hard-wired to be faithful to one person once I'm committed that I can't even masturbate to thoughts of anyone else. My fantasies were literally of him doing things to me. But yeah, more than 2 partners and I can't pair bond apparently

Naked body/naked soul is not at all a bad belief to have by the way. I'm just pointing out how he clearly did NOT believe that, but still tried to use that belief to shame me. If I feel we have a connection and you really want to go slow and get to know me before we get intimate, I'm down for that. I'm not going to force sex on someone if they're not ready for it. But don't fuck me on a table after we've had one meal together and then tell me that you've only ever slept with people you had a deep connection with. I was born in the morning, but it wasn't this morning.

This is why I've decided to be up front from day 1 about shit like that. Like seriously, date 1 questions include: Here is my number, what is yours? Whether theirs is low or high doesn't really matter, but how they respond to mine in comparison to theirs definitely does. Expose the double standard immediately, and move the fuck on.

[This message edited by HeHadADoubleLife at 12:35 PM, August 17th (Monday)]

You know - people ARE allowed to believe whatever they want. Conversely, other people are allowed to call bullshit on outmoded, outdated, and ridiculous beliefs.

Yup yup yup. That's why I'm glad my current partner sees women as whole actual humans. That sounds silly but after my 15-year-marriage, it's refreshing.