SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

In the past year or so, I have seen soooo many posts about this at....another place (LOL).

It's almost always the guy that finds out his female SO settled for him when the guy (or guys) that she'd have preferred to be with didn't want her other than for sex. Usually the guy is ready to bail over this, with several instances being over 20 years together and having kids. I've seen just one thread by a female that wasn't quite the same...she was more just paranoid bc she thought her H's ex was way hotter than her.

In some cases, I agree with the guy, where they hear her talking with a friend and she says something to the effect of "...but he'll never be like Brad. Brad gave me mind blowing orgasms time after time after time. I wish he would've taken me seriously. Hubby tries, and he's a good man, and it's not his fault he doesn't measure up to Brad. He only has what hev was born with." Stuff like that...you get the idea.

The next scenario...I don't know if I consider these as "settling", where the guy finds out that EVERY guy she ever had sex with before him was 6'2" or taller, 6 pack, bodybuilder. Or they're all bad boys" or whatever. Then after sowing her wild oats but realizing these guys all suck and have nothing beyond physical appearance, she marries the nice, hard working, loving father and husband. There are many of these posts where the guy leaves bc after learning of her past lovers feels he's nothing more than someone to take care of her after her wild phase is over. Again...did she settle for him? Or did she mature and figure out what she really wanted? Or was it just that what she really wanted wasn't available so she enacted plan B and went for the nice, stable guy? Idk...

My wife used to think I settled for her, but she didn't really care as long as I loved her and was faithful. I never quite understood her thinking that until I started reading these threads. She is waaay different than my past SOs. But to me, she's the hottest girl ever, from the day I met her until now.

This is why I think couples should be aware of their partner's sexual history. Figure out if there's any dealbreakers before you get serious.

[This message edited by GoldenR at 4:49 AM, August 17th (Monday)]

If you reverse the sexes this has always happened and was generally both expected and accepted. How many times have we heard that young men were encouraged to go out and spread their wild oats then find that dependable, respectable girl to marry?

How many times have we heard girls or women described as not someone you'd bring home to meet mother or the family.

So the situation you've described is as old as the hills, it's just that now that women have more sexual freedom they are just as able to be as pragmatic in their choice of life partners as men are.

Yup - what Carissima said.

I have a complex about this a mile wide.

ahem:

There are a lot of posts on all the forums/web-sites where "we were each onlies/firsts" and then life goes over a cliff.

Well, if everyone "sowed their oats" before settling into marriage - seems this "elephant in the room" could never be and a lot of infidelity wouldn't happen as I think people already know "what is out there." They would know already that the newness wears off and then -

I think the majority of marriage splits would be due to personality issues (alcohol/drugs/finances,various psychoses) - and sometimes "just fall out of love" no other person involved on either side.

boys and girls both have experiences with the opposite gender where they are either mesmerized by the experience or just plain disappointed/sick to their stomach/disgusted - they would be better for the experiences knowing their fantasy paramour could have a lifetime disease or buried/hidden personality issues that don't metastasize until after a bond of some kind is formed

So better both genders sow oats and have experience to fall back on when those hormones get triggered, Yes? No?

If you reverse the sexes this has always happened and was generally both expected and accepted. How many times have we heard that young men were encouraged to go out and spread their wild oats then find that dependable, respectable girl to marry?

Often, it's certainly still a "thing" as far as I know. When I heard it as a young man, it's wasn't "sleep with wild girls" it was more "sleep with lots of girls" that was being implied there (at least to me). Wild or mild, didn't really matter, but I agree, it's pretty similar.

So the situation you've described is as old as the hills, it's just that now that women have more sexual freedom they are just as able to be as pragmatic in their choice of life partners as men are.

While it's the same thing being encouraged in both sexes today, the actual implementation of that is quite different. Women offering NSA sex are able to sleep with guys they'd never get to commit to them as long as they make sex "easy enough". A relatively plain woman can sleep with "pick your rock star/sports figure/rich guy" as long as they make it "easy enough". In fact, we even have a word for this, "groupies" who throw themselves at rich/famous/powerful men. None of these women stand a chance of getting that guy to commit to her, but they can all sleep with him if they want to. Women offering NSA sex can have sex with a guy way "out of her league" where a man cannot. In fact, it's the reverse for men, if you want NSA sex regularly with different women, well, "lower your standards" is probably the best advise that I can give. A man offering marriage is more valuable than one just offering a roll in the hay to many women, where a woman offering a roll in the hay has value to just about everyone (hence the reason we can easily put a price on it and cannot for men, no matter how attractive, because why pay for something that's freely available).

I, also, wonder how many WS that reconcile, are merely settling for their BS with consequences and guilt being the only reason they stay. Or, they stay because the AP is no longer an option, having withdrawn from the WS.

Carissima said

If you reverse the sexes this has always happened and was generally both expected and accepted. How many times have we heard that young men were encouraged to go out and spread their wild oats then find that dependable, respectable girl to marry?

How many times have we heard girls or women described as not someone you'd bring home to meet mother or the family.

But it's not quite the same when you reverse it.

In the "male sowing his oats" example, he's having his fun with females he DOESN'T want to wind up with permanently.

In the reverse scenario, the girls are trying to land someone that they'd prefer to be with over who they wind up with.

[This message edited by GoldenR at 6:49 AM, August 17th (Monday)]

So better both genders sow oats and have experience to fall back on when those hormones get triggered, Yes? No?

No. People only have so much "bonding muscle" and tearing it over and over again weakens the muscle. The people that tell others, especially women, to go out and party have a specific agenda.

Am I just a prude nutcase? Not really:

First Comes Love Then Comes Marriage? Women With 2 Or More Premarital Sex Partners Face Higher Divorce Rate

SI won't let me link, but just google "divorce rates previous partners" and you can see the studies. The only people who raise the question about it are people who have a vested interest in bringing others down to their level so they can feel better.

In the reverse scenario, the girls are trying to land someone that they'd prefer to be with over who they wind up with.

I think GoldenR really puts it well. I suspect ALMOST EVERYONE would prefer in an IDEAL SITUATION to only ever have one partner. The closer you can keep the ideal, the better the outcome. But remember, men are not taking nearly the same biological risk as a woman since a man always has the option of saying "Darling, I must leave you now" when oopsie.

And for women, a lower-experience female will ALWAYS have some bonus (to men) over a high-experience female, even to male feminist creepers. My wife tells me there is a similar phenomenon for females, but argues that while men see a tremendous value in "zero partners" in their mates, for women it's more that they see a value decline after "too many partners" in their mates.

[This message edited by Sunspot at 7:38 AM, August 17th (Monday)]

I am sure that there are scenarios like you say where a woman marries a wallet or someone dependable after having been more drawn to "bad boys" in the past.

However, I do not think it's not that the man can not satisfy his wife or be everything to her, it's her willingness to allow it. Successful marriage is so much attitude of gratitude, effort, communication, and mutual respect. The reality is the BH in that scenario married someone who is not capable of those things.

For the most part, I think the majority of people do get married with the good intentions rather than marrying a wallet or a housekeeper. But, people expect too much to come naturally in a marriage. You want someone to curl your toes? Well, then you need to teach them what you like and be experimental so that it doesn't get stale. Everyone has different preferences anyway. Make sex a priority and communicate.

If you are a person who expects your spouse to do everything for you and read your mind, and some how magically make you happy - then it's you that is the lousy spouse and the poor guy/gal that you married is really the one who settled.

I think most affairs happen after a long time of the WS taking their spouse for granted rather than investing in their spouse. And, I will tell you that passion comes from investment in that other person. The times when sex is the best is when you are connected and close because you have been spending quality time together and communicating, it translates into being vulnerable and communicating in the bedroom.

If you married someone who just wanted your wallet or a domestic assistant, and they do not invest in you...that is not a YOU problem.

[This message edited by hikingout at 8:14 AM, August 17th (Monday)]

Successful marriage is so much attitude of gratitude, effort, communication, and mutual respect.

But, people expect too much to come naturally in a marriage.

I will tell you that passion comes from investment in that other person.

I really wish I had a class to teach me these things when I was younger. Beautifully said.

I would have settled for a loving, caring, faithful, loyal Partner.

The only people who raise the question about it are people who have a vested interest in bringing others down to their level so they can feel better.

I think people raise questions/attack this research because they don't like the logical conclusion that comes from it. Also, I think our society wants "men and women to be the same" in every way, and research that shows it's not the case is not well accepted. There's identical research showing that men aren't "as good" at some things as women which is equally reviled by many; but you know, most of it, honestly, follows "cultural norms". It's almost like those "norms" were/are there for a reason?

I am sure that there are scenarios like you say where a woman marries a wallet or someone dependable after having been more drawn to "bad boys" in the past.

However, I do not think it's not that the man can not satisfy his wife or be everything to her, it's her willingness to allow it.

I agree with you, but I also think you're kind of saying the same thing with both statements. Yes, a woman has to allow a man to satisfy her, but if she only allows bad boys to do that, well.. Kind of a tautology, or a distinction without a difference.

And for women, a lower-experience female will ALWAYS have some bonus (to men) over a high-experience female, even to male feminist creepers.

Depends what the man wants from the woman. Speaking for myself, when I was looking for sex, I couldn't care less, lots of experience, none, little... Didn't matter, all had their "upside" and "downside" in my eyes. I think, if anything, simply for ease, I gravitated to women who had a lot of experience, I didn't get much personal "ego validation" by being "the guy" who got her to go that far. I was much more interested in a woman who was sexually confident and ready to go nuts in bed with me than the girl I could "show the ropes" to. I know that a lot of my friends were different in this aspect, but, certainly in my more recent experience, for sexual stuff (ONS/affairs/etc), the "more experience the better" seems to be the primary desire. 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.

No. People only have so much "bonding muscle" and tearing it over and over again weakens the muscle. The people that tell others, especially women, to go out and party have a specific agenda.

Am I just a prude nutcase? Not really:

First Comes Love Then Comes Marriage? Women With 2 Or More Premarital Sex Partners Face Higher Divorce Rate

I would venture a guess as to why this second paragraph is. Women who have experienced a sufficient number of men know that they don't have to stay with a bad partner because there really are other options. They don't stay out of fear as often.

The first part sounds like nonsense to me. I had plenty of experience and had zero trouble bonding hard to my XWH. If my ability to break the bond when things went very far south has something to do with me having experienced other men, then I say we should all sow some wild oats before marriage.

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.

Lord but that's tiresome from a woman's point of view. I've dated guys like this. Literally, "well, the sex was really great but that means you have too much experience for marriage. How many guys have you been with? More than 2? So we aren't going to be dating but we can be FWB.". Literally. Actual words. A woman interested in playing such games would have to pretend that she didn't do certain acts or enjoy them in order to be seen as "pure" enough to be wife material. Fortunately, I don't play games and that dude was dropped immediately. Not marriage-material for me either with that worldview.

I think that's incredibly dumb and self-defeating. "Man, she's fun in bed, how horrible to have a girlfriend/wife who's fun in bed for years and years!". lol

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.

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. :)

Women who have experienced a sufficient number of men know that they don't have to stay with a bad partner because there really are other options. They don't stay out of fear as often.

It can also mean, you don't bother to stay to work through minor things with a GOOD partner.

[This message edited by Sunspot at 8:51 AM, August 17th (Monday)]

In my case it wasn't the number of partners my STBXWW had. I knew when I married her there had been many other men before me, just as I had slept with dozens of women. I was no saint and neither was she. Our problem was she preferred men from a different race from me. So I was doomed the moment I put that ring on her finger.

Since filing for divorce and moving to my own place, I have been having occasional relations with a FWB, and she has told me that I am great in bed. So I think it is more about sexual compatibility than actual sexual skill. I'm very sexually compatible with this woman... far more than I was with my WW, but then again I was not aware my WW only gave herself 100% to men she was actually attracted to.

I agree with you, but I also think you're kind of saying the same thing with both statements. Yes, a woman has to allow a man to satisfy her.

but if she only allows bad boys to do that, well.. Kind of a tautology, or a distinction without a difference.

I completely disagree with you.

I didn't expound on that thought, but when I said allow it - I didn't just mean sexually.

I have a lot of female friends who have always romanticized the wrong thing in men and in relationships. To the extent that what they feel as cues for love is often disfunction.

I should not have used the word "allow" because that is passive. What I should have used is "actively allow" which would indicate healing their perceptions of what makes a relationship good to where they want something healthy.

A woman who wants a true bad boy and thinks that they are a suitable partner for them romanticizes the wrong things. It can come from past relationship luggage or it can be a self-worth thing.

A woman (or man) who is getting married to someone for security but pines for chaos is unhealthy. So my choice of words were shorthand....allow was meant to imply she stands in her own way - thus why I brought up an attitude of gratitude.

[This message edited by hikingout at 9:06 AM, August 17th (Monday)]

Also as an add-on to that - it goes back to what GoldenR is saying - his wife is sexy to him because he invests in her, he sees her and appreciates her. You do not have to be an adonis or a goddess to be cherished and loved, but you do have to have a partner that is of a matured mentality that they can see the prize in front of them and not take them for granted.

Again, shitty behavior and taking someone for granted is because there is no effort or regard or respect for the relationship.

I don't think there is such thing as soulmates, a lot of people can be compatible with you, you can love a variety of people. I am not saying one does not have standards when selecting a mate, but I don't think only classically beautiful or handsome or sexually gifted? people experience profound love. Passion is something that has to be manufactured in any long term relationship. And, don't mean by pretending, I mean by putting effort and investing in the relationship.

It can also mean, you don't bother to stay to work through minor things with a GOOD partner.

That makes no sense to me.

Ugh. I had WAY more partners in my past than my exdouche. Who cheated again?? Oh, yeah - NOT ME. Despite my experience and enjoyment of sex, I was told I was 'boring' and that I was 'limiting' him - and yes that he 'settled' for me (Just saying, funny how he didn't see it as settling when I was paying all the bills and buying him his truck and taking us on vacations and and AND ad nauseum). Because sex partner numbers have not one damn thing to do with why he wanted to fuck an 18 yo. He did that for the same reason a dog licks it's balls. And then said whatever he had to to justify his shit.

I find it really sad and ridiculous that some guys continue to limit themselves to viewing women as either 'whores' or 'wifes', when the vast majority of women I know are a delightfully complex mix of a lot of things.