SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

He's going to decide if it's important to him or not. But even if he decides it's not, if he DOES happen to end up with a virgin, for him it's going to be a +1 (on whatever scale) than if she wasn't. That's just a truism for all red blooded males, excepting male feminists, of course.

If he decides it's important, that's fine. His choice. He's not going to get that from myself or his father though.

Rideitout makes a good comparison. If your daughter finds a man who makes six figures, that will be a +1 (on whatever scale) than if she found the same man who didn't make six figures.

This would likely only be true for many if 100% of everything else down to the exact way they looked, etc., were 100% equal. Not everybody automatically gives a +1 to a paycheck. Not all men, regardless of the color of their blood, are going to give a +1 just because a cherry hasn't been popped.

[This message edited by landclark at 3:29 PM, August 17th (Monday)]

That's just a truism for all red blooded males, excepting male feminists, of course.

You're getting SOOOO close to getting it.

SOOOO CLOSE.

I agree, I don't think things are going "back". What I do think is that we're in the "transition period" right now. And the future I see ahead, well, it's muddied. Marriage is a dying institution, births have fallen off the map low in most first world countries, men and women have both weaponized against one another to a degree that shocks me, even today, when I read hard core feminist or "red pill" message boards. The future, right now, looks like "apart" more than together. And that's before we get some "sex topping" technologies (things so much better than sex physically that actually having sex loses appeal) before prostitution is legalized (IMHO, only a matter of time) which will just further exacerbate the situation.

You see it as us moving farther apart and I see it as us moving closer together. There are many men in my life and work who see me as not some second-class citizen but as an equal human being. That brings me closer to men as human beings than I would be if I were viewed as property of a man or any other less-extreme variation of how differently I should be treated due to my gender. We're less weaponized than we were when women were property of their husbands to be loved or beaten depending upon the husband in question. Things are better for women than in any time in history. Are they better for having more kids? No. I have two kids, not eight. I'm okay with that. I'd be a day-drinking pile of misery and depression if I were a SAHM with eight kids. That's not for me. Thankfully, I didn't have to worry about being forced into that life. It works for some women and not others.

And hey, if you men get sex robots, so do we. I don't think we'd stop having sex with one another, but the earth could do with lowered birth rates. The sex robots (before they rise up and destroy us ala Westworld) will at least give us all lower bodycounts and end this argument, lol.

however, when "lots of" or "most" women put the "gotta have a good job" hurdle out there, men get pissed because it's something they "have to do" to have access to a broader dating pool. It "controls" male behavior, and that grates on our sense of fairness/freedom of choice.

I think it's more that we want the man to have "a job". I've known a shocking number of men who want to marry a mommy to take care of them. If we make enough money to support ourselves, we don't need a man to pay our bills. Any woman who won't date a man who doesn't make more money than she is is being sexist and throwing a double-standard out there that should be challenged.

I don't get this paycheck stuff. I really don't. I am not a spring chicken, and even in my day I always made more than enough to support myself.

I doubt highly I would have ever taken on a man without a job, or some stability. But, not to add to my own, just not to subtract from it. I am not saying I would have ditched an SO who lost his job and was looking for another one, but someone who came across doless or instable, no. I am not carrying someone else's weight in that way.

I didn't know how much my husband made until we were at engagement level. I did know what he did, so it wasn't as if I was clueless to it. And, he did make more money than me because he was 10 years older, and let's face it also probably because he was male. But within 5 years of our marriage I was making what he was making, and outside of taking some time out when I had a baby, I have consistently made the same and sometimes more than he has.

To me, a partnership is about having some equality. I am not a point counter, I did this so you do that. But, generally speaking someone who has similiar sensibilities.

I am always at a loss when these conversations devolve into valuing people over their genitals, wallet, willingness to take on the domestic work, looks, rather than the person as a whole. If something ever happened to my husband, and if I really ever decided that I would want another serious relationship, it would be someone who I enjoy spending time with...period.

To at least appease RIO it isn't that I would not have requirements - I am probably more likely to be compatible with a man who can support himself because he has a good work ethic. But, I would not be with someone because they made some less than me or a lot more than me. That's silly. And if he is the type of man who measures me in sex - past sex, current sex, etc...that's a no from me. These conversations make me feel like we go back in time somehow. I don't understand how they devolve to this.

Marriages die because of a myriad of reasons ie abuse mental diseases economic stress addiction etc I see a total of zero articles being furiously quoted here on all the well established risks.

Perhaps those reasons dont insult women enough , hence the need to dredge the internet for sillier material

And as i keep explaining to my crazy uncles who in their defense are over 80 - cognitive dissonance is believing something is so entirely acceptable that all your friends ( and therefore the world ) think so. And then lamenting at the same time that ” noone “allows you to say it out loud

[This message edited by siracha at 4:10 PM, August 17th (Monday)]

These conversations make me feel like we go back in time somehow. I don't understand how they devolve to this.

We'll eventually degrade to arguing about women's suffrage.

Reading some of the antiquated views about women's sexuality being expressed in this thread is REALLY making me appreciate my partner. Am I right ladies?

Gee that is really frustrating and irritating when a whole other group of folks of the opposite gender try to control you and limit your choices, isn't it... not that me and my ovaries and my birth control would know anything about that of course.

Sure, it's frustrating. It's also reality. I can rail against it all I want, I can support changing it, but, it's the world we live in today. Seems to be a lot of "should be like" and burying head in sand reactions to a lot of this stuff. Look, I agree with you, "It shouldn't be like this" is a statement I can apply to tons of things, starting with, of course, my wife cheating on me. But it IS. Sadly, that's the reality.

Any woman who won't date a man who doesn't make more money than she is is being sexist and throwing a double-standard out there that should be challenged.

In the same line of thought as the above comment, by all means, be my guest. Shame away on women who want to date wealthy men. I'll be here waiting for some change to happen. :) However, that said, I have a lot of issues with this "doppleganger" approach to dating. I'm not a blonde, but I like blondes, does that make me a hypocrite? I have no artistic talent at all, but I've always found myself attracted to artists.. Hypocrite? We don't need to date our twins, do we? I honestly have no issue with a woman deciding income is an important criteria to her while it's less then 0 in my priority list. It's not my list to make; yes, I think it's shallow, just like my hypothetical preference that leads me to only date blondes is shallow, but it's not "wrong", at least not in my eyes. And, even if it IS wrong, well, good luck policing/stopping this behavior. The best thing that we can do, IMHO, is understanding what drives desire in the opposite sex and adapting appropriately (which, incidentally, is EXACTLY what we've done as a society, we learn the things the other sex likes and we do them). In this area, I'll state two things, first, I suck at it, and 2nd, women have a LOT of head start on men here!

I doubt highly I would have ever taken on a man without a job, or some stability. But, not to add to my own, just not to subtract from it. I am not saying I would have ditched an SO who lost his job and was looking for another one, but someone who came across doless or instable, no. I am not carrying someone else's weight in that way.

I think you're kind of proving the point here HO; to me looking for a new partner, that would be a complete "0" in the consideration scale. I just couldn't care less if she had a job or not, lived with her parents, didn't have her own car, or any of the other "markers" that I tried to achieve as a young man to be more successful with women. There's no joke about women "living in Mom's basement" for good reason, it's just doesn't matter to a lot of men. There was never an expectation my wife would "keep up" with my financially; it was just a complete non-issue for me.

But, I would not be with someone because they made some less than me or a lot more than me. That's silly.

I argue it's "pragmatic" more than silly. But, either way, is it any more silly than "he makes me laugh"? Or "I like the way she walks"? Or he/she has a great smile? It's all "silly" when it comes down to it, the cocktail that gets us to want to pair bond and mate is, at the core of it, pretty "silly". I think that marrying for money is just as silly as other reasons.

These conversations make me feel like we go back in time somehow.

LOL, well, I do agree with you there. You read magazines from the 50's and 60's, you'll see this stuff in there. But, I guess the question here is "why"? And what was more correct, the "old advice" or the "new advice"? IDK, honestly I don't. But I think a large part of it is the disconnect from what our evolutionary "lizard brain" tell us to do vs what our more modern mind and world expects of us. We, as a society, are struggling greatly with squaring our instinctive desires with the reality of modern life. There are countless examples I could give of this, but I'll pick one of my favorites.. Why do women wear makeup? Or color their hair? Now, you'll get all kinds of answers to this, "to look pretty" (why is that pretty though), "for themselves" (why don't I paint my face then?), etc. But keep digging, what's actually going on here?? Keep digging until you wind up at the lizard brain; because that's what's actually at play here. Women's makeup simulates sexual excitement, eyes appearing more open, cheeks more flushed. It also simulates youth, smooth skin, imperfections hidden, etc. It's basically a way to hit the lizard brain with signs of sexual receptiveness and youth. Now, of course, we've buried all that REAL deep, so it just feels like "this looks nice" but, if you dig deep enough, it all winds up back at sexual selection pressures and mating strategy. High heels, huge biceps, a Rolex/Ferrari.. It's all subtle signs back to the lizard brain. Right/wrong really doesn't matter there, just "works" or "does not work".

I just want to say, I didn't give a shit how many people my stbxw slept with before we got together. It mattered not at all to me.

I DID care how many people she slept with after we got together.

That was a problem.

I DID care how many people she slept with after we got together.

That was a problem.

ROFL, gotta agree with you there man!

Reading some of the antiquated views about women's sexuality being expressed in this thread is REALLY making me appreciate my partner. Am I right ladies?

SO much

Reading some of the antiquated views about women's sexuality being expressed in this thread is REALLY making me appreciate my partner. Am I right ladies?

It's sure making me appreciate being single

"It shouldn't be like this" is a statement I can apply to tons of things, starting with, of course, my wife cheating on me. But it IS. Sadly, that's the reality.

Well thank goodness there are plenty of people that won't accept 'it is what it is' when faced with social 'normality' that's some bullshit. Like slavery, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, child exploitation, animal abuse, the nazi party and soooo many others that were once 'the way it was'. I'm not naive. Things of course won't change overnight. And no matter what changes, there will still be people who don't agree. But I personally will not sit idly by and wring my hands because 'it is'. I will call it out and challenge it. I will defend those who can't defend themselves. I Will remain open to learning and changing when presented with evidence.

I do NOT believe that is just 'how men are'. SOME yes, but not all.

"I have used the phrase, "in despair of finding better game." What I mean is this that not one woman in a hundred ever marries her first choice among marriageable men. That first choice is almost invariably one who is beyond her talents, for reasons either fortuitous or intrinsic. Let us take, for example, a woman whose relative naivete makes the process clearly apparent, to wit, a simple shop-girl. Her absolute first choice, perhaps, is not a living man at all, but a supernatural abstraction in a book, say, one of the heroes of Hall Caine, Ethel M. Dell, or Marie Corelli. After him comes a moving-picture actor. Then another moving-picture actor. Then, perhaps, many more—ten or fifteen head. Then a sebaceous young clergyman. Then the junior partner in the firm she works for. Then a couple of department managers. Then a clerk. Then a young man with no definite profession or permanent job—one of the innumerable host which flits from post to post, always restive, always trying something new—perhaps a neighborhood garage-keeper in the end. Well, the girl begins with the Caine colossus: he vanishes into thin air. She proceeds to the moving picture actors: they are almost as far beyond her. And then to the man of God, the junior partner, the department manager, the clerk; one and all they are carried off by girls of greater attractions and greater skill—girls who can cast gaudier flies. In the end, suddenly terrorized by the first faint shadows of spinsterhood, she turns to the ultimate numskull—and marries him out of hand.

This, allowing for class modifications, is almost the normal history of a marriage, or, more accurately, of the genesis of a marriage, under Protestant Christianity. Under other rites the business is taken out of the woman's hands, at least partly, and so she is less enterprising in her assembling of candidates and possibilities. But when the whole thing is left to her own heart—i.e., to her head—it is but natural that she should seek as wide a range of choice as the conditions of her life allow, and in a democratic society those conditions put few if any fetters upon her fancy. The servant girl, or factory operative, or even prostitute of today may be the chorus girl or moving picture vampire of tomorrow and the millionaire's wife of next year. In America, especially, men have no settled antipathy to such stooping alliances; in fact, it rather flatters their vanity to play Prince Charming to Cinderella. The result is that every normal American young woman, with the practicality of her sex and the inner confidence that goes therewith, raises her amorous eye as high as it will roll"

-H.L. Mencken, In Defense of Women, Ch 19 "The Actual Husband"

Interesting that you don’t care about whether the woman works or lives at home RIO. I tend to think compatible work ethic or education levels speaks to someone’s sensibilities. Similar sensibilities tend to create compatibility. I actually find that less silly than what someone looks like. I know some men and women stay at home to raise the children and I think that is a different situation as that is probably mutually agreed upon based on ideals and situations.

But getting with someone who really just wants to be taken care of creates a dynamic. I think you could wonder depending on the person if they date you because of your wallet. Everyone picks their spouse differently. My commentary is more how much the assumption is made in these types of threads of old biases.

I don’t think that majority of men care tremendously about sexual past, nor do I think women do. Unless there were odd extremes or something. I am of the belief though that is also about having similar sensibilities. While you say most men have that as a preference I think most women are not looking for men with that attitude. If they do match up over her conservative sexual history it’s again about similar sensibilities. Overarching compatibility is most important in the success of a relationship. When people pick based on very narrow things that’s usually when it won’t last anyway. You can marry someone that is beautiful but has nothing else going for her to the point she looks ugly. You can marry a wealthy man but if he isn’t kind or generous he will not be attractive either. The full picture is important. Reducing people down to these things is where these conversations get pretty convoluted.

I don’t think that majority of men care tremendously about sexual past, nor do I think women do.

I really don't know. But I think it must be more than "rare" for it to kick off a discussion like this. If it was a "never happens" or "not important to just about everyone" I don't think we'd get the same level of engagement. Let's say, for example, I posted that "men will only date rich women" as a thread. I think it would peter out quickly because, well, very few of us have ever seen that be a selection criteria for a man. Just like someone posting "Women will only date men who have 6 pack abs", again, sure, some women I'm sure that is true, but, the vast majority, no, and I think that thread would end quickly.

The reason this gets debated and discussed at length, IMHO, is because it's a real thing, and it does have an impact on people that people select this way. Just like people who select based on weight, height, etc; there are legion of people hurt by that narrow selection criteria and, most importantly, a lot of people select based on those criteria, so.. It matters. Same way that women selecting for "good job" matters, if one person does it, who cares. If some significant fraction of the opposite sex do it, well.. Like it or not, it becomes important simply by nature of it's importance to the opposite sex.

I tend to think compatible work ethic or education levels speaks to someone’s sensibilities. Similar sensibilities tend to create compatibility. I actually find that less silly than what someone looks like.

I'm sure you do, because those are YOUR criteria. Of course they seem "reasonable" to you. Mine tend much more towards what they look like than their education levels or work ethic, and I could argue that's sensible/reasonable, and I believe they are, but that's because they are MY criteria. I've always thought women selecting for height was silly, but, a WHOLE lot of women do, with the wonder of Internet dating, we know that's a strong selector for women when they are seeking out potential matches. And, we also know guys lie about it online to meet the criteria. I think that's a hugely stupid reason to date someone, especially when you're 5'0" and only want to date 6'+, but, hey.. Who am I to judge, right? And, of course, this is also why shorter guys are often sensitive about their height. Because, right or wrong, it matters to some significant portion of other people, so, by proxy, it matters to them.

[This message edited by Rideitout at 5:42 PM, August 17th (Monday)]

RIO- Well actually the discussion was about settling. The generalities that ensued were independent of that. It devolved quickly into a gender based discussion rather than the original topic.

My point wasn’t to say my preferences were better- in fact I basically said he should be employed. I didn’t even specify good job but you are probably right- I would be less likely to date people under certain employment situations. But again that isn’t so they can support me. It has more to do with someone being autonomous. I think most any adult should be employed, actually. Unless they have made some sort of agreement about child rearing or they are just independently wealthy. But I digress.

But selecting people on looks alone is not going to be an indicator of any kind of compatibility for a long term relationship. I don’t even think you believe you would do that. Maybe to date for fun.

We tend to select spouses based on numerous and complex criteria, that was my point. Or at least we should.

But really I think this discussion is more geared towards whether the ws settles and then cheats because they settled. It is indicative of still thinking the BS was lacking. So I will go back to my original comments. Spouses are in the eye of the beholder. Having a grateful attitude and an open heart can do a lot towards cherishing your mate for their individual attributes. People who settle are about comparing and making the best deal. I think maybe that happens but again I think it’s more in the mind of the ws - not communicating their own wants or needs, being authentic, and choosing a worse perception rather than a better perception of their spouse. Threads like this tend to blameshift to the bs which is a load of garbage. I tend to see more bs’s here that have settled than ws’s.

[This message edited by hikingout at 6:19 PM, August 17th (Monday)]

My WH had about 8 sexual partners before me. I had 3, sort of. 2 of the guys tried to stick it in, I got uncomfortable and made them stop. 1 guy actually finished. That’s all I had before I met my husband. 3 very disappointing experiences.

My WH was not good at sex. I’m just going to be blunt. I never had the big O by penetration until 2019. We’ve been together since 2006. It took him a long time to master preheating the oven before sticking in the pie. I had nothing to compare it to, so I just accepted this for years. I was EXTREMELY dissatisfied with our sex life. He got his rocks off and I was left wanting ALL the time. I didn’t cheat. Sure, I had fantasies sometimes of being with other men, but I was happy to take the lackluster sex life for all the other redeeming qualities I thought my WH had to offer. One of those was fidelity.... let’s all laugh/cry together.

Anyways, I’m the one who spent the majority of our marriage not getting my needs met, and he’s the SOB who decided to cheat. It’s some bullshit.

Fortunately, he still sucked at sex when the A happened. Even the OW said so. Once he learned that a woman’s enjoyment in the experience makes for a more pleasurable one for him, things got pretty wild. I started getting my needs met and he started to enjoy sex way more. I can safely say I’m the best he’s ever had.

I know I have the good good. I could go into detail, but it’s not appropriate on this particular site. I KNOW it’d be the same for any other man, and I could probably find someone who’d do me better than my WH, even now. Him, not so much. And that’s that.

This is a very entertaining thread because the main argument about men wanting someone with a low number is actually more the way they talk than the way they act. What they really want, from all the research and what I have seen in real life, is the most attractive partner they can get.

I have two friends who are extremely attractive and highly sexual. (There are some FOO issues there, but whatever. They are who they are.) At no time in the 15 years they were single and dating did either of them EVER have a man reject them or break up with them. Ever. These men still pine for these women to this day, probably seeing them as the one who got away. So this conversation is silly. A man does not break up with someone who has a high number if he is really into her. Period.

The men that Rideitout knows are so cute the way they talk such a good game with each other, all bravado and banging on their chests. But it's bs, Rideitout. Guys lie to each other to impress. My friends' husbands think they won the husband lottery even though my friends have more exes than they can count. That has not messed with their marriages one tiny bit. And I am a female that has prided herself on her low count because I've always been kind of picky, but I can clearly see that low count or high count has not actually impacted anyone's chances for partnering well in a committed relationship. It has literally not mattered at all, even though my mom promised me it would. (Lol. FOO!!!)

Just because people say something is true doesn't actually make it true. Actions speak louder than words. Men happily marry the hottest chick they can snag and feel lucky to do it. "Number? Ah, whatever. She's hot and I love her!"

(**Hottest chick is a simplified term in the above paragraphs meaning--good looking + cool + my type + we connect = MY hottest chick.)