Women waiting for sex to avoid being used

[poppyfields]

17 minutes ago, Lance Mannion said:

But it's not your place to decide what is important to men, just as it's not their place to decide for you what is important for you to know about them.

Not sure what you mean by "not my place to decide," but since he is my boyfriend (now fiancé), I certainly DO know what's important to him, and vice versa.

When in a serious relationship, you don't know what your girlfriend considers important?  That's sad mate.

Edited December 22, 2020 by poppyfields

[Lance Mannion]

1 minute ago, poppyfields said:

Every couple has a different dynamic, meaning the way I behaved with one partner, may not be the way I behave with another.  It has no relevance to my feelings or my intentions.  It's also not about keeping secrets or hiding anything, it's simply not relevant to the current atmosphere I share with my partner. 

We all learn and grow from one relationship to the next.   Mistakes we made in the past, like say having sex too soon or with many men (for women), we learn from, so as to not make those mistakes again.  Not that I believe having sex too soon is even a mistake, I do not. I am simply using that as an example since it seems to be an issue with you LM.

This notion that a woman is "playing" her current partner because she failed to own past transgressions or mistakes, I simply cannot relate to.  I feel sorry for people who feel that way, because we all have done things we might feel ashamed for, and to have our partner(s) judge us and hold that against us and actually dump us, speaks more to them and their overly judgmental attitude and insecurity than to their partner not owning their past mistakes.

Sad really.

 

I agree with much of what you've written about how the dynamics play out, where I disagree with you is that it's not really your place to tell your partner what he must find important. He has his standards and he decides how important they are to him, just like you have your standards. Would you date a guy who had every woman in his past file a restraining order against him, and if you found out because he kept it a secret, how would you take it if he told you "I decided for you that this information was not important for you to know, my past is my business, not your business, and you have no right judging me for my past, you have to accept me as I am and on the basis of how we interact together."

[poppyfields]

9 minutes ago, Lance Mannion said:

I agree with much of what you've written about how the dynamics play out, where I disagree with you is that it's not really your place to tell your partner what he must find important. He has his standards and he decides how important they are to him, just like you have your standards. Would you date a guy who had every woman in his past file a restraining order against him, and if you found out because he kept it a secret, how would you take it if he told you "I decided for you that this information was not important for you to know, my past is my business, not your business, and you have no right judging me for my past, you have to accept me as I am and on the basis of how we interact together."

Where did I say that I think it's my place to "tell" my partner what's important to him?  I never said that, and I agree it's not my place to tell my boyfriend what he finds important, or how he should feel about anything.

What I said is that because he is my fiancé, and we are emotionally close, I DO know what's important to him, and vice versa.  Through communicating, the sharing of information about many different topics and values and spending time with each other.

It's a knowledge developed organically, NOT by me "telling" him what he should find important or how he feels about about anything. 

And my past sexual history is simply not important to him, nor is his sexual history important to me.  What's important to us is our own sexual experiences with each other.

Edited December 22, 2020 by poppyfields

[Lance Mannion]

3 minutes ago, poppyfields said:

And my past sexual history is simply not important to him, nor is his sexual history important to me.  What's important to us is our own sexual experiences with each other.

I never meant to imply that we were talking about your life, throughout I've been trying to convey that I'm speaking in general terms, about relationships in general, about how men and women have their own interests in their relationships.

That said, I don't really subscribe to this model of "This is what I believe, therefore everyone else is like me." Your own personal experiences in your relationship don't really inform us much about broad trends we see playing out in society. It's long, long been known that men are very interested in the past of the women they want and that women are very, very interested in the futures of the men that they want. That's still playing out in millions of relationships today, just not your relationship.

[poppyfields]

18 minutes ago, Lance Mannion said:

Would you date a guy who had every woman in his past file a restraining order against him, and if you found out because he kept it a secret, how would you take it if he told you "I decided for you that this information was not important for you to know, my past is my business, not your business, and you have no right judging me for my past, you have to accept me as I am and on the basis of how we interact together."

LOL, well notwithstanding your restraining order example which is a bit extreme, no I don't judge my boyfriends/fiancé's past.  Nor does he judge mine.  We've both learned from our past, grown, evolved.  What we experienced in our past has made us the people we are today, so we are actually thankful for each other's pasts.  That's the truth, we've been together three years and come a long way.  We have learned forgiveness.

How would I take it if he said what's bolded?  I would dump him.  For the simple reason, it's rude and arrogant and I don't get on well with men who posses such qualities.

Edited December 22, 2020 by poppyfields

[poppyfields]

10 minutes ago, Lance Mannion said:

I never meant to imply that we were talking about your life, throughout I've been trying to convey that I'm speaking in general terms, about relationships in general, about how men and women have their own interests in their relationships.

That said, I don't really subscribe to this model of "This is what I believe, therefore everyone else is like me." 

Since you just joined, you don't know me or my posts, but I am a huge proponent of "different strokes for different folks," and often advise posters that just because they feel a particular way about something, that does not necessarily mean that everyone should feel that way.

To each his own.  

Yes I 100% agree that every couple has their own dynamic and should do what's right for them, individually and as a couple.  I never intended to suggest otherwise, I was only pointing out that not all men are interested in their girlfriend's sexual history, some are yes, but there are many who are not.

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by poppyfields

[Lance Mannion]

18 minutes ago, poppyfields said:

LOL, well notwithstanding your restraining order example which is a bit extreme, no I don't judge my boyfriends/fiancé's past.  Nor does he judge mine.  We've both learned from our past, grown, evolved.  What we experienced in our past has made us the people we are today, so we are actually thankful for each other's pasts.  That's the truth, we've been together three years and come a long way.  We have learned forgiveness.

How would I take it if he said what's bolded?  I would dump him.  For the simple reason, it's rude and arrogant and I don't get on well with men who posses such qualities.

I'm glad that you found that example funny. I think it nicely highlights what is going on. Every woman does seem to care about whether her guy has a history of restraining orders with his past women and, damn right, they believe that they have a right to know about his past.

Look, I understand that you're saying that this is not your relationship, and understand that it's also not my relationship we're talking about here, these are not my troubles, I've long been off the market, I was taken off after being on only a few short years and I had no problems, I was pulling 18 year old girls when I was 14.  That's long ago though.

As to how you would react, you'd dump him, and that's exactly what those 3 guys I referenced earlier did with their women, dumped them, for exactly that same attitude.

[poppyfields]

6 minutes ago, Lance Mannion said:

As to how you would react, you'd dump him, and that's exactly what those 3 guys I referenced earlier did with their women, dumped them, for exactly that same attitude.

So they didn't actually dump their long time girlfriends for having fast sex with other men but making them wait but rather because of their attitudes when their boyfriends asked about it?  Is that what you posted earlier?  If so, I missed it, my apologies.

Anyway, I enjoyed the spirted discussion, I hope you stick around for a bit.  

[Lance Mannion]

1 minute ago, poppyfields said:

So they didn't actually dump their long time girlfriends for having fast sex with other men but making them wait but rather because of their attitudes when their boyfriends asked about it?  Is that what you posted earlier?  If so, I missed it, my apologies.

Anyway, I enjoyed the spirted discussion, I hope you stick around for a bit.  

There objections were, surprisingly, unified being that there were 3 events spread over a decade. They wanted to know WHO they were building a life with. These guys were not seeking virgins or anything like that, they simply felt it was their right to know the women that they were attaching themselves to. The women held firm to misleading them about their past, they made these men "invest" in them, they slowly allowed intimacy, the painted a picture of themselves as this was who they were, doing the same with past boyfriends. OK, dudes respected that, if past guys were made to wait, they were down for that too. The women painted a picture of themselves as being considerate of the men they chose, having strong impulse control and waiting for more intimacy, assigning value to waiting thus making sex a more special act, a loving act.  Then the dudes find out that their women had no problem with screwing guys they just met, had had relationships with other guys which began with hot sex very early on. They felt played, I suppose just like many women feel played in the reverse, when the guy pretends he wants a relationship in order to get her in the sack and then ghosts on her.

If these guys weren't looking for virginal, pure, women, then this means that they knew their woman had histories and were OK with that, they simply hated being lied to and played. Honesty is the best policy. If a woman's past is too storied, lots of guys will give her a hard pass, but not all guys. If women want to play, they should own their choices. Let men go in with their eyes open, just like women go in with their eyes open with dudes who have violent histories.

[poppyfields]

1 hour ago, Lance Mannion said:

There objections were, surprisingly, unified being that there were 3 events spread over a decade. They wanted to know WHO they were building a life with. These guys were not seeking virgins or anything like that, they simply felt it was their right to know the women that they were attaching themselves to. The women held firm to misleading them about their past, they made these men "invest" in them, they slowly allowed intimacy, the painted a picture of themselves as this was who they were, doing the same with past boyfriends. OK, dudes respected that, if past guys were made to wait, they were down for that too. The women painted a picture of themselves as being considerate of the men they chose, having strong impulse control and waiting for more intimacy, assigning value to waiting thus making sex a more special act, a loving act.  Then the dudes find out that their women had no problem with screwing guys they just met, had had relationships with other guys which began with hot sex very early on. They felt played, I suppose just like many women feel played in the reverse, when the guy pretends he wants a relationship in order to get her in the sack and then ghosts on her.

If these guys weren't looking for virginal, pure, women, then this means that they knew their woman had histories and were OK with that, they simply hated being lied to and played. Honesty is the best policy. If a woman's past is too storied, lots of guys will give her a hard pass, but not all guys. If women want to play, they should own their choices. Let men go in with their eyes open, just like women go in with their eyes open with dudes who have violent histories.

Ah, ok now I understand, they felt deceived by these women.  Yeah that's definitely not cool. 

Had these women simply owned they were more sexually carefree (i.e promiscuous) in earlier days versus claiming to be these virtuous creatures who wouid NEVER even consider engaging in fast sex, their boyfriends wouid have been cool with it. That's what I'm hearing you say, correct me if I'm wrong.  

It's a form of bait and switch, and yeah it happens.  It's deception and I wouldn't like it either.

If it was a LTR, I'm not sure I would dump him though, I'd talk to him and find out why he felt he needed to lie to me.  That's more my style.

Depending on what he had misrepresented to me of course. Restraining orders, arrests, domestic violence or committing a serious crime?   Probably a straight dump. 

Anyway, thanks for clarifying LM, I totally get it.

Edited December 22, 2020 by poppyfields

[Lance Mannion]

6 minutes ago, poppyfields said:

Had these women simply owned they were more sexually carefree (i.e promiscuous) in earlier days versus claiming to be these virtuous creatures who wouid NEVER even consider engaging in fast sex, their boyfriends wouid have been cool with it. That's what I'm hearing you say, correct me if I'm wrong. 

I don't actually know any details of the women's sexual histories, we never talked about that, so I can't say whether they would have been cool with that. If I was in their shoes and the women confessed to being promiscuous, I would have given those women a hard pass while massively respecting them for being honest. I wouldn't say a bad word about them, but I would never tie my life to them.

These guys were made to be fools, that was the primary complaint and they lost all respect for their women because they didn't actually KNOW these women. I suspect that they would have been Ok with some sexual history, because they actually knew of some sexual history, they knew about past boyfriends, so that says to me that a sexual past in itself was not the dealbreaker, but I never heard stories of whether promiscuity played a part in the decision to bail.

Honesty somewhere near the start of the relationship would have been the best policy for all involved. It's a shame that women don't think about this issue when they're in their "fun years" - every guy they screw means the pool of future men that they want will shrink to some degree. There's always a trade-off in play - the guy of tonight comes at the cost of some potential guys, the keepers, in the distant future. Make your choice, choose wisely, be honest and have a good life.

[Miss Spider]

That’s really not how it works though...the more guys you sleep with the smaller the eligible pool becomes.  That’s not what you see play out. What I see is if the woman is even the least bit attractive in general, she can have 100s of guys under her belt and she will never have a shortage of men to date. I have one friend who was pretty promiscuous in high school.. she had a rep: she’s married to a very nice man with kids now. Not sure if he knows about her past or not but that’s not an issue. It’s ok you value that, but not a lot of men in the 21st-century do. At least not to that extent 

Edited December 22, 2020 by Shortskirtslonglashes

[Lance Mannion]

1 minute ago, Shortskirtslonglashes said:

That’s really not how it works though...the more guys you sleep with the smaller the eligible pool becomes.  That’s not what you see play out. What I see is if the woman is even the least bit attractive in general, she can have 100s of guys under her belt and she will never have a shortage of men to date. I have one friend who was pretty promiscuous in high school.. she had a rep: she’s married to a very nice man with kids now. Not sure if he knows about her past or not but that’s not an issue. It’s ok you value that, but not a lot of men in the 21st-century do. 

Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile wifebeaters tell themselves that women don't care about being punched.

Let's not misunderstand each other, every guy I know will hit it with a woman with an extensive past, they're not going to marry her though, no way, no how, never. There are guys though who don't care, but they want the benefit of all of her experience, these guys will not stand for vanilla in the bedroom, everything she did with all of those other guys, that had better be on the menu for the guy who commits to her.

Hey, why not test out your hypothesis that men don't care? Go tell the husband of your friend of her 100s of guys history. Let's see what happens in this experiment.

[Miss Spider]

 

I am not saying that there are no men that care. There are. But these types of people find each other. There’s no shortage of men who don’t care. Even porn stars even get married and have kids. You see a lot of friends who sleep around dating apps and go on to have meaningful relationships. You start to realize it’s not a serious handicap to be have had multiple casual sex partners as a woman in this dating landscape. In fact, to not sleep around and hold out for that special one might be even more detrimental. I have no dog in this fight. I am just an observer. I don’t sleep around and never have had casual sex. But that’s simply because I’m not interested in it. I would never do that to my friend. That is her business. He probably doesn’t know, though

Edited December 22, 2020 by Shortskirtslonglashes

[Wiseman2]

Past sexual history seems like a truth or dare game, for experienced people.

Once people are mature and have marriage, kids etc. it becomes irrelevant.

As far as when to have sex? Doesn't matter. Whatever two people want. 

People breakup/ghost for any variety of reasons. Could be after sex could be months into things, etc.

In general, game playing seems like kids stuff and for the insecure. Usually backfires and unfortunately becomes a reinforcement of the insecurities 

[redbaron007]

47 minutes ago, Wiseman2 said:

Past sexual history seems like a truth or dare game, for experienced people.

Once people are mature and have marriage, kids etc. it becomes irrelevant.

As far as when to have sex? Doesn't matter. Whatever two people want. 

People breakup/ghost for any variety of reasons. Could be after sex could be months into things, etc.

In general, game playing seems like kids stuff and for the insecure. Usually backfires and unfortunately becomes a reinforcement of the insecurities 

I agree - this discussion about guys resenting that they had to "work hard for it" vis-a-vis past ONSs shows lack of maturity, as is obvious for anyone who has been in a few relationships. Who the heck asked them to tag along and "work for it"? If I meet a woman and I like spending time getting to know her, I will.  At the same time, intimacy is very important to me in a relationship, and at some point if things don't progress in that space, I won't hesitate in moving on - her sexual history has no consequence on my relationship with her, what's important to me is that we have sexual chemistry.

[Lance Mannion]

42 minutes ago, redbaron007 said:

I agree - this discussion about guys resenting that they had to "work hard for it" vis-a-vis past ONSs shows lack of maturity, as is obvious for anyone who has been in a few relationships. Who the heck asked them to tag along and "work for it"? If I meet a woman and I like spending time getting to know her, I will.  At the same time, intimacy is very important to me in a relationship, and at some point if things don't progress in that space, I won't hesitate in moving on - her sexual history has no consequence on my relationship with her, what's important to me is that we have sexual chemistry.

I've not met one man who has agreed that his wife would be a better wife for him if she had only slept with an additional 100 men before he arrived in her life. If men really were indifferent to this, then husbands wouldn't give a damn.

[elaine567]

This is just slut shaming, under the guise of "men" want this, they don't want that.
Women SHOULD, do this, women SHOULD NOT do that.
Men are all different, some men do get hung up on their gf/wife's sexual post and therapy is probably the best place for them.
 

[Lance Mannion]

5 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

This is just slut shaming, under the guise of "men" want this, they don't want that.
Women SHOULD, do this, women SHOULD NOT do that.
Men are all different, some men do get hung up on their gf/wife's sexual post and therapy is probably the best place for them.
 

"Where have all the good men gone?"

[Emilie Jolie]

How are any of these guys finding out about their partner's past, though?

Have they stumbled upon their wives' private diary from 50 million years ago while cleaning the garage?

Or are they forcing the issue ever so subtly, going over the same story a million times just waiting for the woman to trip up on their word, then asking friends, colleagues, teachers and neighbours to corroborate? If so, I can't see how or why anyone would want to share anything in an atmosphere of paranoia, insecurity, distrust and judgement.

I know that would make me extremely recitent to share anything about my life.

I think people who want to get to know each other will organically open up to each other in good time, when some trust has been built, and reveal themselves to their partners in the natural flow of a respectful conversation. 

Forcing these kinds of intimate conversations very early on can backfire quickly.

Besides that, most people are looking for partners who are secure in themselves, happy in their own skin, with no skeletons in their own closet, with no hang-ups or crazy expectations - demanding to know the intimate details of a potential partner's past or even think they have a right to know (they don't - you don't own your partner) implies these guys are putting themselves in a situation where they themselves will be judged on their own past, whatever that may be. Unless they are all absolute saints (never met one), this sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[Emilie Jolie]

As for the OP, two consenting adults will have sex whenever they both feel it or want it. That's it.  

[Lance Mannion]

25 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

How are any of these guys finding out about their partner's past, though?

Have they stumbled upon their wives' private diary from 50 million years ago while cleaning the garage?

Or are they forcing the issue ever so subtly, going over the same story a million times just waiting for the woman to trip up on their word, then asking friends, colleagues, teachers and neighbours to corroborate? If so, I can't see how or why anyone would want to share anything in an atmosphere of paranoia, insecurity, distrust and judgement.

I know that would make me extremely recitent to share anything about my life.

I think people who want to get to know each other will organically open up to each other in good time, when some trust has been built, and reveal themselves to their partners in the natural flow of a respectful conversation. 

Forcing these kinds of intimate conversations very early on can backfire quickly.

Besides that, most people are looking for partners who are secure in themselves, happy in their own skin, with no skeletons in their own closet, with no hang-ups or crazy expectations - demanding to know the intimate details of a potential partner's past or even think they have a right to know (they don't - you don't own your partner) implies these guys are putting themselves in a situation where they themselves will be judged on their own past, whatever that may be. Unless they are all absolute saints (never met one), this sounds like a recipe for disaster.

If a businessman signed a contract with 3 paragraphs of blacked-out, secret, text, he'd be an idiot for committing to a contract with secret provisions. Why would any man commit to a woman who is keeping secrets from him?

What is the problem with women being held accountable for THEIR OWN CHOICES IN LIFE? If a woman wants to sleep with an NFL team, have at it, but own your choice, stop lying to your future boyfriend or husband.

[Taramere]

3 hours ago, Shortskirtslonglashes said:

That’s really not how it works though...the more guys you sleep with the smaller the eligible pool becomes.  That’s not what you see play out. What I see is if the woman is even the least bit attractive in general, she can have 100s of guys under her belt and she will never have a shortage of men to date. I have one friend who was pretty promiscuous in high school.. she had a rep: she’s married to a very nice man with kids now. Not sure if he knows about her past or not but that’s not an issue. It’s ok you value that, but not a lot of men in the 21st-century do. At least not to that extent 

The friend of an ex boyfriend of mine was really promiscuous.  There's no way her husband wouldn't have known about her past, since she had a tendency to boast about her sex life and describe it in often pretty graphic details.  My ex and his friends all thought she was really cool and edgy (this was a couple of decades back).  When I told my ex that she was forever trying to delve into the details of our sex life and get me to tell her what size his penis was, he didn't even seem to mind that.  She was clearly a sort of alpha female in a lot of men's eyes due to her massive amounts of self confidence, and therefore they gave her a pass. 

I remember being less than keen about the idea of meeting her, because all these guys seemed to to be looking forward to her making mincemeat of me (her being such an alpha-female and all).  So I was pretty frosty and reserved when we did meet - and I've got to hand it to her, rather than being a b**** back her reaction to that was to pursue a friendship with me with the enthusiasm of a randy rake chasing after an unattainable virgin.  A bloke through and through, except for the bodily parts.   I couldn't help liking the woman, to be honest...but yeah.  It did surprise me a bit, the extent to which men were prepared to overlook her promiscuity when you know very well that they'd judge other women ten times as harshly for sleeping with half as many men.  

Ultimately a lot comes down to confidence.  A woman who's regarded as having fairly low social status is not going to be permitted to be promiscuous without being judged very harshly for it...but women with higher social status get far more of a pass.  I mean sure, there will always be lots of people b****ing behind their backs...but the same people will often kiss up to them on a face to face basis.  The man she married seemed like a pretty straight laced, self righteous sort of character, so it must have been a case of opposites attracting.  All that said, I can't imagine for a moment that she would have made him wait for sex.  In fact she's probably the only woman 've ever met who would not only welcome being bombarded with penis pictures from strangers, but likely devise a schedule to allow herself several hours intensive viewing time.

[elaine567]

How many men are completely honest about their past? 
Should men lay it all out on the line?
Every ONS, every dalliance, every woman they have ever been with or is that just silly thinking? 

[Emilie Jolie]

7 minutes ago, Lance Mannion said:

If a businessman signed a contract with 3 paragraphs of blacked-out, secret, text, he'd be an idiot for committing to a contract with secret provisions. Why would any man commit to a woman who is keeping secrets from him?

Seems you're missing the part where it works both ways. While sexual past might be important to you, other things are important to other people.

If a guy went to prison for putting someone in a coma as well as a multitude of violent incidents, for instance, that should be disclosed within the first 5 minutes of meeting - no?

On balance, I feel having an ONS and almost killing someone through physical violence, doesn't compare. But hey, to each their own as they say.

Basically, these are irreconciliable differences that don't need hashing out years down the line. Once you find out you are incompatible, you move on. The end.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Emilie Jolie