My girlfriends past 0_0

[Woggle]

If I dated men I would hold the same standard to them. Are men not allowed to minimize our chances of being burned in a relationship?

[aerogurl87]

If I dated men I would hold the same standard to them. Are men not allowed to minimize our chances of being burned in a relationship?

 

Well Woggle that means it's not an insecurity for you but that you have high standards, which I greatly respect.

[Woggle]

Well Woggle that means it's not an insecurity for you but that you have high standards, which I greatly respect.

 

Most insecurity's are about that. People want to protect themselves. I do not think that a woman should be a virgin but a substance abuser plus somebody with a history of promiscuity just sends a bunch of red flags up. Maybe this is unfair but what I went through in my first marriage I would not wish on my worst enemy and I advise men to protect themselves. It is very easy for women who buy into the whole sexual empowerment thing to cross the line into cheating.

[Mad Max]

A promiscous past would be a dealbreaker for me. No emotionally healthy perso sleeps around for any reason. But I hold both genders accountable and I hold myself to the same standard. I may be a lot of things, but hypocritical is not one of them.

[NoLongerSad]

yeah, right.

 

Avoidance, and neatly side-stepped.

 

I'm not avoiding anything. Your frequent response pattern on many threads is an attempt to derail the discussion to your own idea of what's theoretically appropriate and what's not, but with no reference to the original poster's actual situation.

 

This is not a theoretical discussion of how things "should" be, in your mind, anyway. It's a discussion about what an actual person, the OP, should do in an actual situation.

 

You want to make him feel guilty for drawing the very reasonable conclusion that his gf may be an unreliable companion because she is sexually promiscuous, because that doesn't accord with your political viewpoints. But experience shows that extremely promiscuous women do make risky relationship partners, whether you think people "should" talk about that, or not. So, we will talk about it, to support the OP, and not suppress/derail the conversation simply because it doesn't accord with your personal prejudices.

 

That's about as "direct" as I can make it.

 

Thanks for making my point so well.

Double standards.

 

The only "point" I made was that sexually promiscuous young women often are very risky as serious relationship partners. Are you now saying that's "your" point?

 

As far as "double standards," what exactly are you talking about? You can criticize OP all you want for ALSO being promiscuous, but that doesn't CHANGE the fact that HIS GIRLFRIEND is likely to be an unreliable relationship partner because of HER track record.

 

If you are saying that, simply because OP might also be promiscuous, he should disregard his gf's promiscuity, then you would have to explain how that even makes sense, double standard or not. You can't, because it doesn't, and that's why you consistently seek to derail these kinds of threads.

 

 

 

I rest my case.

 

Please take a very long rest.

[NoLongerSad]

I didn't say sleeping with lots of people makes a woman "strong" but hey it's her body so she's free to do whatever she wants with it

 

Actually that's not even close to being literally a true statement. We are not completely free to do whatever we want with our bodies. And the issue isn't what she has the literal "ability" to do an action, it's whether she would be well advised to do it. Being able to restrain ourselves when we have the ability to take an action is one of the things that separates children from adults. It's called "self control."

 

So one of the issues involved when a potential partner has been extremely promiscuous is whether they have sufficient self control to overcome temptation when it strikes so as to remain faithful in a relationship. Young women/girls who make a habit of getting drunk and having sex with random men on a repeated high frequency basis do so precisely because they typically lack the necessary degree of self control required to sustain a successful, monogamous relationship.

 

If you want to argue that it's hypocritical for a man who is promiscuous to worry about his gf's promiscuity, as a matter of principle, then you and taramaiden can start another thread about it, but it's really a separate discussion entirely.

 

Even assuming OP is a promiscuous hypocrite, that still doesn't make his promiscuous gf a good relationship risk. So the correct "answer" is to dump the gf and shape himself up if he expects to find better gf material in the future. But the correct answer cannot possibly be to ignore his gf's promiscuity. Or to pretend it doesn't exist. Or to pretend that women who behave this way do not cheat frequently and readily, because they do.

 

 

like a man is free to stick his penis in whoever will open her legs to him.

that still doesn't make his gf a good relationship risk. Yes she can do "whatever she wants." It is PRECISELY the attitude that you describe that many woman DO share with you--"I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT. YOU CAN'T STOP ME. I CAN HAVE SEX WITH WHOEVER I WANT." that makes such a woman a very bad relationship risk. She has no internal controls on her behavior. Like an unsocialized child, she believes she is "entitled" to behave with absolute "freedom." So in a way--you've just proved the point.

 

 

 

And yeah it is a sign of insecurity UNLESS you hold this standard to both men and women.

No it's not. You're making the same mistake as taramaiden. A man can be a totally secure, hypocritical "player" but if he recognizes his promiscuous gf is not a good bet to be faithful, he is just being realistic. That's not "insecure." Even if he doesn't wish to hold himself to the same standard of behavior. It's just hypocritical. Maybe.

 

 

 

My boyfriend holds it to males and females which I respect. But calling a girl a whore because she went wild for a bit but then keeping your mouth shut when a man does the same thing, is pure bs. Don't hold others to a standard you yourself can't live by.

Excuse me, but each of us get to choose whatever standards we want to live by and judge others by. You don't get to pick other peoples' standards. You also don't get to distort objective reality by pointing out that people are fallible, often use double standards, and are hypocritical. If a woman is sexually promiscuous she is very likely to cheat on her bf. That's an objective fact, and just because her bf may also be a player, does nothing to change that objective fact.

[lkjh]

I didn't say sleeping with lots of people makes a woman "strong" but hey it's her body so she's free to do whatever she wants with it like a man is free to stick his penis in whoever will open her legs to him. And yeah it is a sign of insecurity UNLESS you hold this standard to both men and women. My boyfriend holds it to males and females which I respect. But calling a girl a whore because she went wild for a bit but then keeping your mouth shut when a man does the same thing, is pure bs. Don't hold others to a standard you yourself can't live by.

 

 

 

Apparently you have trouble with basic English

 

 

Here: Insecurity by definition is "Lacking self-confidence; plagued by anxiety"

 

It has nothing to do with our self-confidence, it has to do with the fact that women who sleep with so many partners are flat out disgusting.

 

 

 

 

tara, nobody answered your question because it is irrelevant.

[TaraMaiden]

No, nobody answered my question because they're hypocrites.

 

Which is quite honestly no more than I expected.

 

How anybody can sit there and openly condemn the woman for what they perceive to be inappropriate behaviour, but ignore the question of how they would feel in the same peredicament, is beyond me.

 

It's not threadjacking, it's not off-topic. It's a genuine question directly related to the OP and to their subsequent scathing and condemnatory remarks.

 

I simply asked men to tell me then, how they would feel if such a judgement was made upon them, and what they feel would therefore be an appropriate time or situation to evolve, before they earned the right to be happy.

 

(and I still don't get the "at someone else's expense" put-down.....).

The question is not irrelevant.

 

But it's obviously an uncomfortable one for men to deal with.

Who knows?

perhaps it's a bit too close to the mark.

But who am I to judge.

 

 

Eh?

 

 

 

Ciao.

[PegNosePete]

A promiscous past would be a dealbreaker for me. No emotionally healthy perso sleeps around for any reason. But I hold both genders accountable and I hold myself to the same standard. I may be a lot of things, but hypocritical is not one of them.

This post gets the PegNosePete stamp of approval. Agreed 100%!

 

But I do think "promiscuous" is a bit subjective. Most people would consider 17 in 1 year to be promiscuous. But how about 10 a year, or 5? How about 50 in 5 years? I guess the line is drawn in different places for different people, and it's a hazy line, not a solid one.

 

At my stage in life I would not want to be with someone who has never been in a serious relationship. Therefore I would exclude anyone who has only had NSA sex. I think if someone is aged 28+ it is reasonable to assume that if they haven't been in at least one LTR, they are not emotionally mature.

[NoLongerSad]

No, nobody answered my question because they're hypocrites.

 

OK let's assume everyone who believes the gf in question is a bad risk, is a hypocrite. That there's a double standard at work.

 

Does that change the fact that the gf is a bad risk? If so, how?

 

 

Which is quite honestly no more than I expected.

 

No one but you is responsible for your expectations, and no one else has any obligation to try to meet whatever they might be.

 

 

How anybody can sit there and openly condemn the woman for what they perceive to be inappropriate behaviour, but ignore the question of how they would feel in the same peredicament, is beyond me.

 

It's not a matter of morally condemning her, it's a matter of deciding whether she is a risky person to be in a serious relationship with. Yes you are entitled to be offended at hypocrisy and moral condemnation and what not. But it doesn't change the fact that women such as the gf are not good relationship risks. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on ignoring the key point of the thread--other than your personal sympathies for the gf's lifestyle, which actually don't count at all in this discussion, because it's really not about what you are willing to tolerate in your relationships, and it isn't about what kind of conduct you are willing to engage in in your own relationships.

 

It's simply about whether a promiscuous woman is a good relationship risk. Say "yes, a promiscuous woman is a good relationship risk" if that's how you feel, then try to back that up if you think you can. (But you can't, obviously.)

 

 

 

It's not threadjacking, it's not off-topic. It's a genuine question directly related to the OP and to their subsequent scathing and condemnatory remarks.

 

This thread is not about the OP's character or lack of it, or about anyone else's remarks which you don't agree with. It's about whether a promiscuous gf such as OP's is a good relationship risk. Yes or no? Most people who say "yes" are saying so based on personal experience. They've dated women like this in the past and have paid the price.

 

That's all there is to it. Anything else is basically threadjacking.

 

 

I simply asked men to tell me then, how they would feel if such a judgement was made upon them, and what they feel would therefore be an appropriate time or situation to evolve, before they earned the right to be happy.

 

And this confirms your efforts to threadjack. If you want to start a thread about hypocritical men, that's fine, go and do that. This thread is not about that. This thread is about whether a promiscuous woman represents a relationship risk for a man considering entering into a serious relationship with her. You haven't answered that question, you've simply pointed out that if men are promiscuous, then in your opinion, women should be allowed the same latitude. OK we get that. It still doesn't make a difference as to whether or not a promiscuous woman represents an unacceptable relationship risk.

 

(and I still don't get the "at someone else's expense" put-down.....).

The question is not irrelevant.

 

It's obviously not irrelevant to YOUR agenda. But you seem to have some degree of difficulty with the notion that no one else really cares much about your agenda on this topic. Except maybe for other like minded females, that is. You've already had people like MadMax clearly state that he agrees with you on the hypocrisy issue. There's no use belaboring your point infinitely, except as a t/j diversion from the core issue: Are promiscuous women good relationship risks? Simple answer taramaiden: Yes? No? Maybe?

 

 

But it's obviously an uncomfortable one for men to deal with.

Who knows?

perhaps it's a bit too close to the mark.

But who am I to judge.

 

 

Eh?

 

You can make all the judgments that you please, but no one really cares about them. I think that's what's irritating you actually. But the reason no one cares about them is because they're completely irrelevant to the thread topic, which is why I suggested you start a new one to discuss what you want to discuss.

[TaraMaiden]

Well, all I can say is that if you've made it your life's ambition to be my LoveShack Mentor, judge, Jury and executioner, all I can say is you might have your work cut out for you

 

Good luck, knock yourself out.

 

Since no other male is brave enough to put their money where their mouth is on being hypocritical and judgemental, especially when so many men, have so many more lovers, but feel double standards are acceptable, I'll leave you all to your

holier-than-thou soapboxes and just hope that nobody finds you out ....

 

My opinion remains unchanged.

[karnak]

Well, I think a promiscuous guy is a relationship risk. And it's probably better for women to avoid them until they have emotional stability.

[reservoirdog1]

Well, all I can say is that if you've made it your life's ambition to be my LoveShack Mentor, judge, Jury and executioner, all I can say is you might have your work cut out for you

 

Good luck, knock yourself out.

 

Since no other male is brave enough to put their money where their mouth is on being hypocritical and judgemental, especially when so many men, have so many more lovers, but feel double standards are acceptable, I'll leave you all to your

holier-than-thou soapboxes and just hope that nobody finds you out ....

 

My opinion remains unchanged.

 

I referred to that very double standard in my first post on this thread. It IS a double standard. And a glaring one at that.

 

The girl likes sex. Or she's insecure. Either way, the most important consideration here is whether or not this girl has cheated on the OP during their relationship. (I'm going to operate on the assumption that she's been faithful, since the OP hasn't said anything to indicate otherwise.) If she hasn't, that demonstrates that, much as she likes sex, she's quite capable of being monogamous when in a relationship. THAT's the "past behaviour" we should be looking at in this case.

 

Apparently this girl DOES have some respect for appropriate boundaries, since she's capable of adhering to them when she's in a relationship. When she's NOT in a relationship -- what's the magic cutoff in terms of casual sex partner in a given year, beyond which she's suddenly a slut? One? Three? Five? Ten? Fifteen?

 

And again, WHY does the same logic not apply equally to guys?

 

Yes, one could conceivably argue that, because of this girl's past, she isn't a "good relationship risk". But her fidelity during the last year has to be weighted very heavily, for the consideration to have any basis in reality and not simply be based on a blanket generalization.

 

If the OP has a problem with her past, he has two choices: (1) get over it/keep it to himself, or (2) break up with her. As long as she's been faithful to him so far, she doesn't owe him any explanation for her past. None.

[mr.dream merchant]

Double standard or not, that is disgusting. Why would you want a cheap, easy chick as your GF/Wife? Obvious enough, the women on this thread defending this dude's slutty GF were probably this same girl not too long ago. Go figure.

[loverofloveandstuff]

Double standard or not, that is disgusting. Why would you want a cheap, easy chick as your GF/Wife? Obvious enough, the women on this thread defending this dude's slutty GF were probably this same girl not too long ago. Go figure.

 

boys, let's be honest here, MOST of you single men would've had far more sex with different people than this girl if given the opportunity. I guess that makes you all man whores or wannabe man whores. Definitely not girlfriend material and definitely should be shunned out of the potential dating pool for women as you guys are very risky business.

[mr.dream merchant]

boys, let's be honest here, MOST of you single men would've had far more sex with different people than this girl if given the opportunity. I guess that makes you all man whores or wannabe man whores. Definitely not girlfriend material and definitely should be shunned out of the potential dating pool for women as you guys are very risky business.

 

Oh ok, so I guess that's why most women flock to me under the presumption that I'm taken and/or seeing other people. But guess what, they still go for me. Women love that ****, they love a guy who's highly wanted among females.

 

Yeah...sit down. And roll your eyes at the wall.

[loverofloveandstuff]

Oh ok, so I guess that's why most women flock to me under the presumption that I'm taken and/or seeing other people. But guess what, they still go for me. Women love that ****, they love a guy who's highly wanted among females.

 

Yeah...sit down. And roll your eyes at the wall.

 

exactly, you don't like it when the same notion is applied to men, do you?

[Woggle]

exactly, you don't like it when the same notion is applied to men, do you?

 

The thing is that the same notion is not applied to men and women are the main ones enforcing this view. Don't blame men because players who get a lot of action are considered the cream of the crop by many women in the dating world. I tell women all the time not to chase after players and that they are no good as boyfriends but they do not listen. Don't get mad at men when we apply logic and reason to our love lives.

[aerogurl87]

Apparently you have trouble with basic English

 

 

Here: Insecurity by definition is "Lacking self-confidence; plagued by anxiety"

 

It has nothing to do with our self-confidence, it has to do with the fact that women who sleep with so many partners are flat out disgusting.

 

 

 

 

tara, nobody answered your question because it is irrelevant.

 

And how do you feel about men who do it? Think it's ok because he's a guy, I think not. It is an issue of insecurity for most men. If most women held men to the same standards they hold for women, many would still never end up in a relationship. I personally don't care how many people someone sleeps with, it's not my business as long as they are STD free and that goes for everyone in my opinion.

[aerogurl87]

Actually that's not even close to being literally a true statement. We are not completely free to do whatever we want with our bodies. And the issue isn't what she has the literal "ability" to do an action, it's whether she would be well advised to do it. Being able to restrain ourselves when we have the ability to take an action is one of the things that separates children from adults. It's called "self control."

 

So one of the issues involved when a potential partner has been extremely promiscuous is whether they have sufficient self control to overcome temptation when it strikes so as to remain faithful in a relationship. Young women/girls who make a habit of getting drunk and having sex with random men on a repeated high frequency basis do so precisely because they typically lack the necessary degree of self control required to sustain a successful, monogamous relationship.

 

If you want to argue that it's hypocritical for a man who is promiscuous to worry about his gf's promiscuity, as a matter of principle, then you and taramaiden can start another thread about it, but it's really a separate discussion entirely.

 

Even assuming OP is a promiscuous hypocrite, that still doesn't make his promiscuous gf a good relationship risk. So the correct "answer" is to dump the gf and shape himself up if he expects to find better gf material in the future. But the correct answer cannot possibly be to ignore his gf's promiscuity. Or to pretend it doesn't exist. Or to pretend that women who behave this way do not cheat frequently and readily, because they do.

 

 

that still doesn't make his gf a good relationship risk. Yes she can do "whatever she wants." It is PRECISELY the attitude that you describe that many woman DO share with you--"I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT. YOU CAN'T STOP ME. I CAN HAVE SEX WITH WHOEVER I WANT." that makes such a woman a very bad relationship risk. She has no internal controls on her behavior. Like an unsocialized child, she believes she is "entitled" to behave with absolute "freedom." So in a way--you've just proved the point.

 

 

 

No it's not. You're making the same mistake as taramaiden. A man can be a totally secure, hypocritical "player" but if he recognizes his promiscuous gf is not a good bet to be faithful, he is just being realistic. That's not "insecure." Even if he doesn't wish to hold himself to the same standard of behavior. It's just hypocritical. Maybe.

 

 

 

Excuse me, but each of us get to choose whatever standards we want to live by and judge others by. You don't get to pick other peoples' standards. You also don't get to distort objective reality by pointing out that people are fallible, often use double standards, and are hypocritical. If a woman is sexually promiscuous she is very likely to cheat on her bf. That's an objective fact, and just because her bf may also be a player, does nothing to change that objective fact.

 

I'm sorry you don't know what free will is, everyone is free to do whatever they want. They just have to face the consequences of their actions later, but it still stands that every person on this planet can do whatever they want with their bodies and their life. And the OP didn't even say she'd cheated in the past year or so they'd been together which shows apparently she's capable of keeping her legs closed when in a committed relationship.

 

If he felt this bad about her past, he should've never dated her in the first place. Would've saved both of them some time and energy. But now he's scared she's going to cheat because she has a high sex drive and used to be a party girl/slut? Unless she's still into going to bars every other night and getting drunk till she can't walk straight and blacks out, then he needs to man up and accept her for her or do them both a favour and end things with her. Like I said though, if he thought this badly about her in the beginning he should've never dated her.

[loverofloveandstuff]

The thing is that the same notion is not applied to men and women are the main ones enforcing this view. Don't blame men because players who get a lot of action are considered the cream of the crop by many women in the dating world. I tell women all the time not to chase after players and that they are no good as boyfriends but they do not listen.

 

Yeah, this is true. This doesn't make it right for somebody to impose their moral values on somebody else and judge them unfairly when they don't live up to these same moral standards. Yes, this is about double standards, but more importantly hypocrisy.

 

I will never be able to respect anybody who does not live up to what they believe in.

[dreamingoftigers]

I find my husband's past disgusting. I still thought that he would make a good partner. I still believe he will.

 

If the OPs gf has made signigicant strides to change the ways she copes with being "in a bad place" then she could very well be a reformed parter for the OP.

 

As with everything each person should be looked at like more of a case by case basis.

 

It think most of the men on this board would prefer to have a woman with a sexual history more like:

 

Had 2 partners, cheated on one, over a year ago to

 

Had 17 partners in one year, did not cheat on anyone.

 

Does anyone else here see the flaw in logic.

 

She may be very sexual, but that does not make her a cheater per se. OP, you have been dating her for a year, has her character been called into question? Other then her past before meeting you (which she could have simply lied about but chose to go out on a limb) do you have any reason to suspect she would betray you? Is she that type of person?

 

If she is and you have known it, why are you still in a relationship with her?

 

For the others to simply say she is "slutty" or "used-up" (how can one be used up for that anyways?) sounds very uneducated.

 

People can change and do better to themselves. Does she regret her past actions or is she proud of them?

[PegNosePete]

It think most of the men on this board would prefer to have a woman with a sexual history more like:

 

Had 2 partners, cheated on one, over a year ago to

 

Had 17 partners in one year, did not cheat on anyone.

Nope not me, I would prefer no track record to a bad track record. However I would prefer a proven good track record. As people have said earlier it is perfectly possible for someone to switch from "single mode" to "relationship mode", but a lot of people don't find this easy. If someone had 17 partners in a year and then had a relationship for a year with no cheating and then had 17 partners in the next year while single - I would have no problems whatsoever. She has proven she can switch to monogamous mode and I would be perfectly happy to trust her. However if she's had 17 partners every year for the past 3 years without any periods of being in a relationship, then I see no proven track record. Maybe she can switch mode but maybe she can't. I wouldn't want to take that risk. But I think that risk is lower than your first case, in which someone has cheated already, I would definitely not go there.

[GoodOnPaper]

boys, let's be honest here, MOST of you single men would've had far more sex with different people than this girl if given the opportunity.

 

The key word is "would've" -- there is no double-standard at play unless the guy's casual sex past is actually as extensive as the woman's and he still has issues with her past.

[Woggle]

Yeah, this is true. This doesn't make it right for somebody to impose their moral values on somebody else and judge them unfairly when they don't live up to these same moral standards. Yes, this is about double standards, but more importantly hypocrisy.

 

I will never be able to respect anybody who does not live up to what they believe in.

 

I agree that people should not be hypocrites but players of either gender do not make good relationship partners.