SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I understand. I just don't know how I will ever "know" for sure. I was thinking today about this, and was trying to run a thought experiment of my own. I've had a MFM threesome before, and I was thinking, if my wife had asked for that (before the A) would I have done it with her. If not, why not? Well, I kind of think the answer is "no, I wouldn't have" (I'm really not sure, it's hard for me to think back to that time), but, the "why" is the more interesting thing in my mind. I've done it before, why not with her. Well, there are hosts of reasons, as you might expect, lots of "issues" doing that in a serious relationship, lot's of potential very serious downsides that don't exist in casual encounters. But then I started to expand that thought in my mind, what if she had been more adventurous in bed? The few times I did that in the past, it was always with girls I'd slept with that were gangbusters in bed. So, would I have done it with her if she'd been more like that? Well, it would have played into it, that's for sure. What if she was more attractive or I was less attractive (a bigger disparity between our looks)? Well, that would have played into it too, doing more for her because I felt like she was "out of my league". I guess you could say, I've "held that back" from my W, and while I could give you lots of "good sounding" reasons, there are ALSO other reasons, simply put "I don't feel like I have to". IDK, this was just a little thought experiment I had running around, trying to imagine myself in the "yes for her, no for you" situation with something that's not very high on my sexual desires list, but that I'd done before with other people. It's complex, but there is certainly a "hot enough" component in there for me (which encompasses stuff like looks, sexual skill, enthusiasm, etc).

RIO, I've seen you post this before and I never fail to be absolute revolted by it. It completely reduces the value of human beings to what they look like or how they can make you feel.

I don't relate to "the right person" stuff. I am the same sexually pretty much with any of the people I have been with, at least in a long term relationship. There are things I withheld earlier in a relationship as trust was built, but that's really the only line I can think of. I am who I am no matter who I am with, so I don't relate. I am not interested in an MFM, so I am unlikely to do that with anyone. There was a time that H and I were both interested in FMF, and we did those things at the time. Stopping had more to do with what it entailed rather than limiting it from one another.

That's interesting, hikingout. I've always found that sex is different with different people, not because of their value or any nonsense like that, but just because our combined chemistry and sexual energy is different. There are acts I enjoy, and I enjoy them regardless of who I'm with. And then there are activities that I might be neutral or slightly positive to with one partner but very positive to with another because of the energy that exists between us. It's not the same experience just because it's the same activity.

Sex is different with every new partner, which is one of the reasons why I always recognize that sex with a new person is never as good as it will become, with time. Sure, there's novelty and that's all well and good, but someone who takes the time to learn what you like and lose the awkwardness? Can't beat that.

I guess I just don't get the idea of sex being a menu that is the same with every person. Half the fun with someone new is going over the limits of that menu! And absolutely, it changes over time. Certainly some of the activities I enjoy require trust on the part of my partner and I don't recommend jumping right in. But everyone does things a little differently and creates that different sexual energy, and that's a huge part of the fun for me.

RIO, I've seen you post this before and I never fail to be absolute revolted by it. It completely reduces the value of human beings to what they look like or how they can make you feel.

Well, if it helps, that makes 2 of us. I'm revolted by humanity most of the time; but I call it like I see it, and I try to be honest with how I've acted/operated in the past. Is it ugly/awful? Sure, you won't get me to disagree. Am I an awful person for having thought that/acted that way? Sure, why not. Am I alone? I seriously doubt it. Shoot, there are scads of research on it, comparing how "the world" relates to people based on their appearance or how "the world" relates to people based on income or status. There's a reason people pay 10K for a Rolex and a reason people pay 10K for a boob job. And it's not because they are (just) vain idiots, it matters, a lot in some situations. Should it? I think we all probably agree, "no, it should not".

But everyone does things a little differently and creates that different sexual energy, and that's a huge part of the fun for me.

I'll try not to barf in my mouth when applying this to my personal situation.

[This message edited by Rideitout at 4:50 PM, July 28th (Tuesday)]

I guess I just don't get the idea of sex being a menu that is the same with every person.

Yeah, I was a little confused by that but I thought maybe it was due to a low overall number of partners on my part. I think of sexual compatibility more like a Venn diagram than a menu.

If someone is having casual sex/short-term not serious relationships, like RIO describes his single days, why on earth is it a bad thing or make one an awful person for them to base their attraction to and sexual “menu” with a particular partner on their looks? Ok, from the outside it looks shallow, but that’s the whole POINT of casual relationships or hookups—not deep conversations about the meaning of life or a periodic table of compatibility. Who cares if RIO (or anybody else in the singles-scene situation) cares about whether their partner is a good person or would be on the rocking chair with you when you’re old? If you’re just looking for a good time, good sex, etc., then yeah, it’s going to be based on looks.

[This message edited by Darkness Falls at 7:25 PM, July 28th (Tuesday)]

make one an awful person for them to base their attraction to and sexual “menu” with a particular partner on their looks?

Allow me to change this a bit:

make one an awful person for them to base their attraction to and sexual “menu” with a particular partner on their attraction to the partner?

Don't we ALL pretty much do this? Sure, I might rate "looks" higher than the ability to quote the group 8 elements in order off the periodic table, but, looks, smarts, "game", money, clothes, whatever it is for you.. Isn't that what we all do? Set our "menu" for a person depending on our level of attraction to them? I mean, maybe I'm a complete outlier here, but if I find a woman unattractive, I'm not "offering her" anything sexual at all. And for me, maybe looks weigh heavier than they do for others, but, are there people out there who really offer "whatever they want" to anyone who asks for it? I think we ALL make that determination depending on our level of attraction to the other person, kind of like them, maybe a kiss on the cheek, really like them, sex, really, really like them, well.. Use your imagination.

And again, I reiterate, this isn't me saying "This is how the world is, and it's great!"; not at all. It's me observing the world and seeing how people operate and honestly looking at my past and how I've operated. Am I proud of it? No, I'm not, I'd like to sit here and tell you that I'm totally blind to it and it doesn't matter. And I could say that, it just would happen to be a lie (for me personally). But where I really have the question, isn't this true for most of us?

Yes, most of us do it, I would have thought “all” but there are exceptions to everything.

That's interesting, hikingout. I've always found that sex is different with different people, not because of their value or any nonsense like that, but just because our combined chemistry and sexual energy is different. There are acts I enjoy, and I enjoy them regardless of who I'm with. And then there are activities that I might be neutral or slightly positive to with one partner but very positive to with another because of the energy that exists between us. It's not the same experience just because it's the same activity.

Sex is different with every new partner, which is one of the reasons why I always recognize that sex with a new person is never as good as it will become, with time. Sure, there's novelty and that's all well and good, but someone who takes the time to learn what you like and lose the awkwardness? Can't beat that.

I guess I just don't get the idea of sex being a menu that is the same with every person. Half the fun with someone new is going over the limits of that menu! And absolutely, it changes over time. Certainly some of the activities I enjoy require trust on the part of my partner and I don't recommend jumping right in. But everyone does things a little differently and creates that different sexual energy, and that's a huge part of the fun for me.

I think you misunderstand me.

I wasn't referring to the menu. I wasn't even referring to sex being the same. I was saying that I am the same sexually. To me, that meant that I am adventurous, and I don't turn that on and off based on who I am having sex with? Like, I am not going to be vanilla with one and a freak with the other?

I will say it might take some time to build trust and I might not go all out initially, but for the most part my sexuality doesn't change based on who I am with - meaning I don't do something with someone because they are more attractive. Every time I say this you always think I am saying sex is the same no matter who I am with or that I have some rigid menu.

I think the only place that I was sexually inauthentic was with the AP. I did limit the menu at first, and had the A continued I would have been desperate for him to see me a certain way. That's another way I know that I was so unhealthy during that time.

[This message edited by hikingout at 8:24 AM, July 29th (Wednesday)]

I'm revolted by humanity most of the time; but I call it like I see it, and I try to be honest with how I've acted/operated in the past. Is it ugly/awful? Sure, you won't get me to disagree. Am I an awful person for having thought that/acted that way? Sure, why not.

The difference is, RIO, that when we make bad choices, that we DO BETTER next time. Actually putting in the time to do the self analysis and realize that you are treating people poorly and make the decision to be a better person.

Continuing to spout this kind of stuff, even if you're only saying it's what you hear other guys say? It's not good; it's harmful. It provides validation to treat people in this manner, and that is not doing better.

I think you misunderstand me.

I wasn't referring to the menu. I wasn't even referring to sex being the same. I was saying that I am the same sexually. To me, that meant that I am adventurous, and I don't turn that on and off based on who I am having sex with? Like, I am not going to be vanilla with one and a freak with the other?

I will say it might take some time to build trust and I might not go all out initially, but for the most part my sexuality doesn't change based on who I am with - meaning I don't do something with someone because they are more attractive. Every time I say this you always think I am saying sex is the same no matter who I am with or that I have some rigid menu.

Perhaps I do? I'm not sure. Because I absolutely can be vanilla with one partner and a freak with the other- it depends on them. My interests are fairly broad so I can be happy with a wide variety of sexual experiences. It depends a great deal on what my partner is into and again, the energy and chemistry between us.

So I'm not sure if we're describing the same thing or not, to be honest with you. Also, when I say menu... I don't mean a rigid order of things like a Prix fixed. I mean like one of those twenty page things that gives you all the options under the sun lol. With my kink partners, we actually go over an 11 page checklist before we play to find out our mutual likes and dislikes and to establish limits.

With my kink partners, we actually go over an 11 page checklist before we play to find out our mutual likes and dislikes and to establish limits.

I think this is so great and so healthy. My partner and I exhaustively discussed boundaries before we ever did anything outside the vanilla realm. We constantly discuss what's going on, what's working, what we want to try next. That NEVER happened in my marriage and the high level of communication and openness makes everything work so much better.

Sorry. Total sidebar but I love this checklist idea.

Continuing to spout this kind of stuff, even if you're only saying it's what you hear other guys say? It's not good; it's harmful.

Yep.

It reminds me of the joke where you say something like, "She said she thinks you are ugly, mean, and a total loser. I didn't say that. She did."

You get to put forth very negative or hurtful comments yet supposedly distance yourself from them.

Continuing to spout this kind of stuff, even if you're only saying it's what you hear other guys say? It's not good; it's harmful. It provides validation to treat people in this manner, and that is not doing better.

I try not to distance myself from it, in fact, what I said (and you quoted):

I try to be honest with how I've acted/operated in the past. Is it ugly/awful? Sure, you won't get me to disagree. Am I an awful person for having thought that/acted that way? Sure, why not.

I'm not putting myself "above" anyone here. Yes, I've done it, and yes, I think that many other people do it. As another poster said:

Yes, most of us do it, I would have thought “all” but there are exceptions to everything.

Should we do this? Well, I think it's obvious, NO, we should not, least of all with our partners! But DO we? Yes, certainly some of us, and I'd argue that most of us do.

The difference is, RIO, that when we make bad choices, that we DO BETTER next time. Actually putting in the time to do the self analysis and realize that you are treating people poorly and make the decision to be a better person.

Yes, I agree, but I also think it's very important not to focus on the "how it should be", but the "how it is".

Also, maybe I'm confused, but I'm not even sure exactly what it is we're arguing about. I was trying to explain is that my "menu" of sexual options that I'd offer to a partner vary based on how I feel about them and my level of attraction to them. Not attracted at all, I'm not going to kiss them, very attracted, they'll have a lot more offered to them. And yes, for me personally, a lot of "attraction" is physical appearance, right, wrong, simple minded, ugly, reasonable or otherwise, that's just what it is for me (and a vast number of other people). Would it be "better" if my attraction level, and therefore sexual access meter was based on the ability to quote the periodic table? Or ability to recite entire speeches from Shakespeare? Well, maybe; I guess you could argue that, but then I'd be dating my high school chemistry teacher and my college English lit professor. And my HS chem teacher was a 70 year old woman, and my EL prof was a guy. Soo... I'm just going to say that I think there's something to using "sexual attraction" as a barometer of what you're going to offer another person in terms of a relationship seems to be a reasonable sorting criteria.

You get to put forth very negative or hurtful comments yet supposedly distance yourself from them.

The only comments I actively "distance" myself from are those of the cheaters that I know of personally who spew some things that I really do not agree with. If I've "distanced" myself from something you feel is an offensive or incorrect viewpoint, please, let me know and I'll clarify if I intended to do so or did it accidentally. But reading through my posts in this thread, I don't see a lot of "I know guys who" from me, I see a lot of "I's".

Soo... I'm just going to say that I think there's something to using "sexual attraction" as a barometer of what you're going to offer another person in terms of a relationship seems to be a reasonable sorting criteria.

For real though! I also don’t understand what the argument is about—I really want to know, who DOESN’T do this?

Perhaps I do? I'm not sure. Because I absolutely can be vanilla with one partner and a freak with the other- it depends on them. My interests are fairly broad so I can be happy with a wide variety of sexual experiences. It depends a great deal on what my partner is into and again, the energy and chemistry between us.

I think that we are saying the same thing. The difference you hear is probably just because I have been monogamous for a couple of decades now. Most all my experience with having various partners is so far in the past that it probably does sound more generalized. Also, you may just have had a lot more partners with a lot more variety of preferences. No idea. I know I have never engaged in something that requires a checklist, so, I am sure that your depth of knowledge is just broader. I say that with no judgment.

You have to take what I said in the context, RIO said he would do more with someone he was more attracted to. If I was willing to have sex with someone I didn't have a barometer of their worth being expressed by me sexually. I was just openly myself and being authentic in my own sexuality rather than anything else. I was always open to what the other person was interested in, and most of the time they were open to what I was interested in. All I was saying is I don't relate to what RIO is talking about. There was never - he is hotter so I will do more than I would because someone is less hot. In fact, I am honestly not sure I even categorized people I slept with that superficially . That was the extent of which I was speaking. I was not trying to describe or encompass every sexual experience I have ever had or in what variety into one short paragraph as to why I don't understand why RIO feels this way.

PSTI and RIO said the same.thing in my opinion...what is the issue?

PSTI does more depending on chemistry.

RIO does more depending on physical chemistry.

In my pre-marriage I had a one night stand in the bathroom at club because the guy was so damn hot to me. He had a condom, we had a stall...and it was ON.

Later..he opened his mouth and was a dumb as a box of rocks. Never screwed him again.

My next serious boyfriend...our chemistry came from our conversation. We were polar opposites in damn near everything...we debated for weeks..then had the most boring sex ever.

Yeah..like Darkness Falls...I have sex with men based solely on my attraction to them.

IMO...it's the lens your looking thru. Older Prissy would never...younger Prissy was down for the get down depending on how excited I got looking at a guy. I practiced safe sex and was always honest.

And before the arm chair therapists start in...no I wasn't looking to validate myself, or had daddy issues. I was young, a size 6, in college and horny.

There was never - he is hotter so I will do more than I would because someone is less hot

I don't know about most women, but I don't think most men would be able to make the following statement:

"There was never - she is hotter so I will do more than I would because someone is less hot"

In fact, I think most men would probably have to admit:

"There was ALWAYS - she is hotter so I will do more than I would because someone is less hot"

Really, Cheatstroke? That's interesting. Maybe I am a weirdo but if I was willing to sleep with someone it was because I was already attracted to them in some way. If I wasn't, I probably wouldn't have slept with them to begin with?

So, to be clear - if she was less hot - you would do less acts with her? Like nah, she's a 5 so no oral sex? It's funny, I knew guys in ccollege that sometimes targeted less attractive females because they said "they are mmore desperate to please you than the hot ones". I generally find that to be abhorrent, but I did know that was a thing.

As I said, if it was the first few times or something I might not be busting out with something over the top. But, as trust built or whatever, I never created a menu or withheld things. It's a bit foreign to me, but it's interesting. I mean, for example I wouldn't have done anal in a one night stand, but that to me just takes more trust. It wouldn't matter how hot the guy was?

[This message edited by hikingout at 4:12 PM, July 29th (Wednesday)]

Oh what the heck, I'm already at the bottom of the barrel for love from most on here.

Maybe I am a weirdo but if I was willing to sleep with someone it was because I was already attracted to them in some way. If I wasn't, I probably wouldn't have slept with them to begin with?

There's "attracted" and "ATTRACTED!!" for me. There's "good enough" and "wow". She's my best option given the circumstances and "I'll cut off my arm to have a shot with her". I'd sleep with someone I'm "attracted" to, shoot, if it was easy enough, I'd sleep with people I wasn't attracted to, but they weren't going to get my best.

So, to be clear - if she was less hot - you would do less acts with her? Like nah, she's a 5 so no oral sex?

Exactly. But it's not as much to do with "her number" as it is the disparity between those numbers. If I'm a 5 guy, hooking up with a 5 girl, well, I'm probably going to be pretty giving. Same situation, I'm a 5, hooking up with a 2, yes, I'd likely hold things back. And I'm a 5, hooking up with an 8, she'll get whatever she wants. It's the difference in general "attractiveness" levels more so than someone being a 10 or a 1. What matters is the difference between those numbers more than the absolute rating. Also, "attractiveness" doesn't have to be just looks (although it often weighs heavily), it can be a host of things, looks, humor, common interests, power/money/status, etc.

It's funny, I knew guys in ccollege that sometimes targeted less attractive females because they said "they are mmore desperate to please you than the hot ones". I generally find that to be abhorrent, but I did know that was a thing.

Absolutely, I did it, as did most of my friends. Again, because intentionally entering into a relationship with a lopsided disparity means one person or the other has to "make it up" somehow. How do you think that 65 year old men with a beer gut can get 35 year old women to fawn over them? They are "making up the disparity", not with great sex, but generally with money/power. Someone who's looks are a "5" but who's wild as hell in bed may suddenly become a 9, they "made it up". Just like a guy who's raw looks are a 1 but who's rich as hell might be a 9 to some people, he's "making up for it" or closing the gap with money.

And, for the record.. Some of the most amazing sex I've ever had was doing exactly that. Because, much like my W in her A, those girls were often happy to do whatever it takes to keep the attraction coming. And often times it worked, there's a reason people pursue this strategy (for both genders) and it's not because they are desperate, sad or misguided. It's because it works. The geek who can't get a date aspires to wealth, gets a VP job at Google making 800K a year, and suddenly, he's got more dates than he knows what to do with. This is exactly the reason why so many men wind up in a ridiculous/dogged pursuit of money, because it's such an effective "rating adjuster". And also why, interestingly, when men stop that pursuit of women/sex, with it goes the drive for money/power/status/etc (herbivore men, etc). And there's also a reason that women get plastic surgery, starve themselves, dye their hair, and all the other routines; because it works. Lose a few sizes, get some surgery, great hair/makeup; now you, much like the rich nerd, can now climb up the ladder of desirability (for marriage/LTR, for NSA sex, women can always "cut the line" by making it easy enough; throw yourself at a few "10" guys, chances are good you'll find one to take you up on it). Men can climb the ladder when they are offering commitment and generally have to go down the ladder when seeking out NSA, for women it's generally reversed.

if she was less hot - you would do less acts with her?

I don't think most guys would necessarily do less acts with her if she was less hot Hikingout. I think it's more the time that it takes to decide to do those acts with her is longer if she is less hot.

Take the previous real-life example of sex in a public bathroom.

What man would ever want to have sex with a woman in a public bathroom? Just no strings attached, she says "are you dtf?", and you say "yep", and it's ON. Answer? EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Now, what does this woman look like in every single man's public bathroom fantasy? I can assure you she does not look like Mama Cass.

Now, what if she DID look like Mama Cass? I think most guys would probably still do it , but it would take longer to arrive at that decision than the 0.000002 seconds that it would take to arrive at that decision if she was "hot".

BTW, I don't think you're a weirdo for thinking that way Hikingout. Like I said, I have no idea how a woman would think about this.