Husband keeps bringing up sexual past

[schlumpy]

The one glaring thing I noticed from your post was the lack of obvious affection for your husband. It didn't come across.

 

You say he married you because you waited till the second date for sex? So what was your reason for marrying him?

 

Then you make the rookie mistake (despite your VAST experience) of talking about past conquests instead of reassuring him that he is the one.

 

This isn't a marriage, it's a competition.

[Kitty Tantrum]

What I don't understand is why he didn't initiate this inquisition PRIOR TO MARRIAGE if it's that important to him.

 

If someone doesn't want to marry someone who has exceeded an arbitrary partner count...

 

(I have to pause for a moment though and LOL at the people who eagerly contribute to this casual sex phenomenon in the context of dating but then insist on something totally different from what they've been doing all along for their marriage... lolololol)

 

You find out that information before you marry them. You don't assume. You ask questions. If they say it's not your business and you can't agree with that - well then, you find someone else to marry, full stop.

 

You don't marry someone and THEN tease the information out of them after building up a false sense of security with them thinking it wouldn't be a big deal because of the things you've shared yourself - and then get your panties all in a wad over it.

 

People are saying all sorts of stuff about "lying," and "hiding," and I missed something, I don't see where that happened. He didn't ask! Right?

 

You can disqualify someone as a potential spouse on ANY GROUNDS YOU PLEASE, but the time to do that is before the wedding.

 

If it's a case where he knew about her past and married her anyway (still not totally clear on the timeline of the discovery), and is throwing it in her face NOW... yeah, no. That's even worse.

 

"You're not worthy of being my wife but I'm going to marry you anyway because I can use that as leverage for emotional manipulation."

 

Edit to add: makes me glad I met my fiancé while I was in an open relationship with someone else, rather than after I left that lifestyle behind. He was never under any illusion with me. He knows where I've been and where I am now. Sad to think I could have married someone who thinks that who I am NOW is good enough to marry but might later blow it all up because of something I did in the past. I guess if I ever had to marry again my approach would be to just be really blunt and upfront about my history. If he runs for the hills, that's a whole lot of time and heartache saved!

Edited November 15, 2019 by Kitty Tantrum

[elaine567]

You find out that information before you marry them. You don't assume. You ask questions. If they say it's not your business and you can't agree with that - well then, you find someone else to marry, full stop.

 

You don't marry someone and THEN tease the information out of them after building up a false sense of security with them thinking it wouldn't be a big deal because of the things you've shared yourself - and then get your panties all in a wad over it.!

 

Exactly.

If it is important to you that you marry a virgin or someone with a number less than 5 or someone who has only dated men/women you approve of, or someone who has only ever had missionary sex, then it is your job to find out for certain where the land lies and chose accordingly.

Assume nothing.

 

I also believe that some men, do use the past as a stick to beat their wife/partner with.

Shame is a perfect weapon, the past cannot be unwritten or rewritten, so it can be used again and again and again whenever he feels like venting his spleen or winning the fight...

[elaine567]

The one glaring thing I noticed from your post was the lack of obvious affection for your husband. It didn't come across.

 

I guess something died the day he brought up her sexual past as a means to win an argument.

Most of us have affection for people who think we are great.

We lose that feeling of affection fairly rapidly when we encounter hostility and come up against people who think we are "less than".

[schlumpy]

I guess something died the day he brought up her sexual past as a means to win an argument.

Most of us have affection for people who think we are great.

We lose that feeling of affection fairly rapidly when we encounter hostility and come up against people who think we are "less than".

 

Hello Elaine with the cheery avatar.

 

I can only know what the OP wrote. As Kitty noted the timeline here is blurred. The OP states he married her because she chastely waited until the 2nd date to have sex. As a top ten romantic notion, I find it ludicrous but she obviously said yes.

 

Please note that she didn't state her reasons for saying yes.

 

I don't think these two are going to make it. I see the OP's post as opening gambit towards divorce.

[mark clemson]

... the past cannot be unwritten or rewritten, so it can be used again and again and again whenever he feels like venting his spleen or winning the fight...

 

 

This is my sense of what's going on here too, esp. the winning the fight part.

 

 

...he married her because she chastely waited until the 2nd date to have sex. As a top ten romantic notion, I find it ludicrous...

 

[rjc149]

The thing is, directly asking a woman how many dudes she's banged will not yield a truthful answer, unless it's pretty low or she knows it's a lot lower that yours. And she likely won't be truthful if she wants to marry you. Assumptions are often all you have. But, that assumption should be more or less accurate depending on how well you know the woman before deciding to marry her.

 

But, if you're the OP's husband, most people in their 30's will have had far more sexual experience than you. You're going to feel insecure about your sexual experience regardless of who you marry, unless you find yourself a nice Afghan village girl to be comfortably inferior to you.

[DKT3]

I guess something died the day he brought up her sexual past as a means to win an argument.

Most of us have affection for people who think we are great.

We lose that feeling of affection fairly rapidly when we encounter hostility and come up against people who think we are "less than".

 

This is true, which is why I advocate for honesty in all aspects so that the person you choose to marry knows everything, good and bad, and decided to accept it and marry you based on that knowledge.

 

What happens with both genders is we hide or mislead them in certain areas of our lives, information which usually drips out over the course of a relationship only to find that this person doesn't accept ones past which I gather is what happened here.

[preraph]

Women who ever were into casual sex are much like the vast number of guys who are. They eventually get bored with it, or they fall in love with someone and casual sex seems like a waste of time to them compared to being with someone they love who loves them. Most guys most women sleep with casually, they at least hope it might turn out to be a guy they really love, but it's a lot of frogs.

 

Doing casual sex does not equal infidelity. I had casual sex like most everyone else in the 70s and I never once cheated on anyone. When I was in love, I had no interest in anyone else. But even if I had slept with someone else while dating either of the guys I was in love with, it wouldn't be cheating, because neither one of them was being exclusive but were carrying on relationships either right in front of me or behind my back. I finally learned that despite the fact I was solely focused on a guy I fell for, that if they weren't solely focused on me, to MAKE myself keep pursuing other guys and keep it moving, and I'm glad I did.

 

Number does not equate to cheating with women. There are lots of factors that can be problematic, such as anyone, male or female who does things drunk they wished they hadn't or in any other way loses control over themselves or has some issues that make them keep acting out. But for many women, once they are in love, they are not looking around. I can't say the same for most men, who never seem to stop looking.

 

Other red flags include being careless and not using condoms and birth control and ending up diseased or pregnant. And that goes for both men and women. These are the things which are red flags, carelessness, lack of control. But plenty of women with control over all that and have their crap together can have casual sex if they want to and still be faithful. I know because I'm from that generation that did.

[vla1120]

I went back and read the OP's original post (is that redundant??)

 

He was a crazy party guy who spent his time drinking and hanging with buddies, but not picking up women. She was an introvert avid reader who liked sex, so she had some flings as well as a few serious relationships. Now, her husband has a problem because she had more partners than him. It's not like she was a raging whore, sleeping with everything on two feet with a penis. She liked sex and acted upon it. He apparently liked drinking more than sex (his loss, in my opinion.)

 

As a society, if a woman likes sex (and therefore, has more partners than usual), she's a wh***. If a man has a lot of sexual partners, that's perfectly acceptable. In that case, perhaps society should judge her husband for being "non-sexual" having had so few sexual partners before they got married.

 

I still say that, when you decide to build a future with someone, you have to decide whether you can accept their past. The number of sexual partners on either side would not be a deal breaker for me. If this was SO important to him, he should have made that very apparent BEFORE they took their vows.

 

Based on the varying responses, I guess the bottom line is that it's up to the individual.

[rjc149]

In that case, perhaps society should judge her husband for being "non-sexual" having had so few sexual partners before they got married.

 

The reason why is he so insecure is because society *does* judge him for his lack of sexual experience. Saying he was a party boy who liked drinking but not picking up girls basically means he couldn't get girls. This likely has a negative impact on his confidence as a man and his self-esteem. His wife having more partners than him, despite herself have a pretty low number, rubs salt into his insecurity. Hence his resentment and growing contempt for his wife.

[vla1120]

The reason why is he so insecure is because society *does* judge him for his lack of sexual experience. Saying he was a party boy who liked drinking but not picking up girls basically means he couldn't get girls. This likely has a negative impact on his confidence as a man and his self-esteem. His wife having more partners than him, despite herself have a pretty low number, rubs salt into his insecurity. Hence his resentment and growing contempt for his wife.

 

Well, that's why I don't understand this whole thing. I like to look at people as individuals instead of gender, race, religion, etc. Why do we have to pigeon-hole people into boxes based on societal expectations? This man is punishing his wife because (for whatever reason) he had less sexual experiences than her before they met and we suspect he has a growing contempt and resentment toward his wife, and why? Because society dictates.....

 

We're judging her for having more sex drive than her husband had before they were married - assuming she was promiscuous, and why? Because society dictates.....

 

It's ridiculous, in my opinion, that their marriage would be put in the slightest bit of jeopardy because of this non-issue!

 

Wouldn't it be ironic if, in a decade or more, the husband is out here complaining that his wife (after menopause, etc.) has lost interest in sex??

[preraph]

Seems to me that if men want a woman who likes sex, they should like a woman who likes it well enough to have had it regularly before they met her. No such animal exists that ONLY likes sex with the guy who married her and didn't like it before and won't like it after. Delusional and ego think.

[vla1120]

This!!!^^^

[rjc149]

 

We're judging her for having more sex drive than her husband had before they were married - assuming she was promiscuous, and why? Because society dictates.....

 

The only person judging her for that is her husband. And it's not that her sex drive was higher -- it's that he couldn't get girls. No red-blooded young American male prefers drinking over having sex. It's because he couldn't get it. It's because even his introverted bookworm wife has more experience than he does. Men are judged by their sex appeal and ability to get girls. That's what he's so insecure about.

 

It's ridiculous, in my opinion, that their marriage would be put in the slightest bit of jeopardy because of this non-issue!

 

This is the consensus on this thread.

[preraph]

T Saying he was a party boy who liked drinking but not picking up girls basically means he couldn't get girls.

 

To me, what she said sounded more like he can't get it up after drinking, so that was why he said he didn't try. Sounds like he has some ED. Maybe not with her.

[Kitty Tantrum]

The thing is, directly asking a woman how many dudes she's banged will not yield a truthful answer, unless it's pretty low or she knows it's a lot lower that yours. And she likely won't be truthful if she wants to marry you. Assumptions are often all you have.

 

I think it would be fair to say that directly asking ANYONE (man or woman) how many things they've done which they suspect will paint them in a negative light, is not likely to yield an entirely truthful answer - but I'd advise against assuming that EVERYONE will lie about it. I've often seen it recommended to take the number a woman tells you and multiply it - I think by three - to get the actual number. My fiance never asked me how many men I'd been with - but if he had, I'd have told him 30 (including him). Does that mean he should assume it was actually 90+? Well, in my case, 30 is the most liberal interpretation - including anyone I so much as fooled around with a little bit. Not everyone hides or lies about their past. I'm pretty ashamed of my history, honestly - but I learned from it, and I'm an honest person.

 

But for those who are less... frank... there are many subtle and nuanced ways in which to uncover this sort of information without going on the offensive. If you're hung up on knowing the EXACT number (beyond requiring virginity for religious reasons - in which case YOU should be a virgin, too), I think that's a sign that you've got some issues you should work though before marrying anyone - but you can certainly screen for promiscuity and get a general idea.

 

It certainly doesn't sound like the OP was promiscuous, in the context of modern dating. I mean, she held out all the way to the second date!

 

That should have told her guy everything he needed to know. Has previous experience, does NOT require commitment before sex, but also not so loose as to immediately jump on every dick that comes her way. Like MOST women, she occupies the vast middle-ground in between "pious virgin" and "impulsive strumpet."

 

It makes sense to want to avoid the impulsive strumpets - but if a guy is okay with marrying a woman who isn't a virgin, then tallying and comparing numbers is really just an exercise in ego-gratification. Impulsive strumpets will continue to strumpet impulsively and can be weeded out based on their behaviors and attitudes in the relationship.

 

OP's hubby seems to have already ascertained that she is NOT, in fact, an impulsive strumpet - hence marrying her. From what has been described here, there is every indication that his taking issue with the number of partners she's had is nothing to do with any fears that she might stray or leave him - but rather, as others have pointed out, has everything to do with his own insecurities.

 

His ego has placed him in competition with his wife. This is pretty common of men who have participated in the marketplace of casual sex. It's not about sussing out a pattern of behavior to ensure fidelity and sexual health, it's about wanting to be the partner with the "higher value." It's about wanting to have the upper hand. It's about his ego. Hence why, when he determined that her number was higher, he HAD TO turn it into something negative. HE HAD TO make it out like, even though he was OK with marrying a non-virgin, the fact that her number is higher than his somehow makes her LESS desirable... even though, from the sound of it, HE was the one putting out on first dates, not her.

 

I experienced this exact same thing firsthand when my ex-husband wanted to open our marriage. He was TOTALLY FINE with me having sex with other men - especially if we were swinging and that meant he got a piece of strange himself. It ONLY (and ALWAYS) became a problem as soon as he perceived that I was "higher value" than he was (because it was way easier for me as a woman to get sexual attention - duh). Then suddenly he would start flipping out and accusing me of being a complete and utter trollop, even going so far as to accuse me of cheating on him one time when I had a pre-approved encounter... with someone he had already invited into our bedroom previously. The timing of this tantrum happened to coincide exactly with when he found out that this man's wife wasn't going to have sex with him.

 

Nevermind that I was a virgin before him, nevermind that I only got into that lifestyle because he wanted to; as soon as my number was higher than his, I was suddenly the pinnacle of female sexual immorality.

 

Ego ego ego. That's all it is.

[rjc149]

To me, what she said sounded more like he can't get it up after drinking, so that was why he said he didn't try. Sounds like he has some ED. Maybe not with her.

 

What is sounds like to me is that he would stand around with his buddies in his safety zone, beer held close to his chest protecting his heart and feelings, make furtive glances over at girls he wanted to talk to, but could never bring himself to approach. And maybe not good-looking or intriguing or socially fluent enough to have girls show him interest that he could easily pick up on, and maybe not confident enough to make a move when he was given a signal.

 

If you can't get it up after drinking, you're hammered. And you're getting hammered to numb your social anxiety and fear of women. Unfortunately at that point, you're too drunk to talk to girls anyway, and would rather just keep drinking with your buddies.

[elaine567]

I agree with rjc149, he was likely from an early age one of the guys who was stuck drinking in the pack. He was so scared to talk to girls he just kept drinking and fooling around with the guys.

When his friends went to talk to women, he was usually so drunk no woman would look at him.

[elaine567]

....he would stand around with his buddies in his safety zone, beer held close to his chest protecting his heart and feelings...

 

YES!

Well put.

[schlumpy]

It certainly doesn't sound like the OP was promiscuous, in the context of modern dating. I mean, she held out all the way to the second date!

 

Like MOST women, she occupies the vast middle-ground in between "pious virgin" and "impulsive strumpet."

 

BRAVO! What a writing tour de force. I had so much fun reading it. What a unique and special analysis. I assume you wrote this on the fly, right?

 

"Like MOST women, she occupies the vast middle-ground in between "pious virgin" and "impulsive strumpet." --- Indeed!

[Kitty Tantrum]

BRAVO! What a writing tour de force. I had so much fun reading it. What a unique and special analysis. I assume you wrote this on the fly, right?

 

Thank you! And yes... I tend to get on a roll when I start running my mouth.

[oldtruck]

Men approach women in bars and clubs, it's mostly the mans job to display initial interest.

 

"How does the key that opens many locks differ from the door that opens for many keys?"

 

Men and women are different especially when it comes to sex.

 

I know every woman here thinks im being a douche, but am I wrong? I think every woman here knows deep down she finds an experienced man far more attractive than a non experienced virginal boy

 

Life isn't fair, I didnt make the rules.

 

I agree about the key and door

 

however it is not about the women preferring men with more experience

over virgins.

 

virgins are not getting action because they lack experience. they are not

getting laid because they lack any combination of physical appearance,

wealth, social skills.

 

the men that are getting lots of partners is because they have the things

that women want in a partner.

[oldtruck]

And should that be true then how realistic is this marriages survival?

 

Again its amazing that so many women believe dishonesty is a foundation. Truth is it's not really up to her to decide what he could handle.

 

Would it be fair for a husband to withhold that his primary relationship past was with other men? Or that he had risky sexual practices? Of course not, but for whatever reason its different with women. Withholding information is withholding who you are, make no mistake a women sexual past is part of who she is, lying or misleading or withholding doesn't change that.

 

it is not about honesty

 

it is about preventing retro active jealousy which has destroyed many

relationships and marriages

[oldtruck]

Yes that is my point...hiding your sexual past is hiding a part of you. Yes there are men who will change their opinion of a woman based solely on the number of men she has been with...but being dishonest and marrying that guy is basing a marriage on a lie or misleading a man who would have otherwise made a different decision.

 

Dont we all want someone who will accept and love us for who we really are and not the image that we want to put out there. In this lays the root to today's society and why relationships fail.

 

the number of partners has no bearing on how faithful a wife will be

and how good of a wife and mother she will be