You don't sit down one day with a check list and decide that since this person has X, Y, and Z, I am going to marry him/her. Rather, you marry despite absence of X, Y, and Z.
Perhaps, but some issues are more important than others, and moral character is a big one. A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof). It's the one area of life where people are easily pushed to do awful things to themselves and each other.
Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion? Do you want your teenage daughters to be raised by a woman who dated the football team, and to learn about respecting themselves from such a person? Is sex with a woman special if it used to be available to any guy with a six-pack and a nice car?
If a person gets into the habit of casual sex when young, that person's almost certain to cheat in a long-term relationship, even if the relationship is otherwise going well. It's not a habit that people break easily.
These are tough topics. I'm not sure you will find answers here as each has to find comfort on these issues within themselves.
You clearly feel that sexual history is highly correlated to moral character. This is a common position. Its not that you may be wrong (neither position can be proven) but more importantly if that's how you "feel" then you know what kind of woman to exclude from your search. Its great to find a "nice girl" and live happily ever after. Please be careful though to not brand people as immoral simply because their past is different than yours. Its better to simply talk about "compatible" instead of moral. Character judgment like this is a slippery slope.
From my perspective, I do not find a strong correlation between "sexual history" and "morality". I do find a strong correlation between "sexual history" and "sexual 'fitness'". This doesn't make me correct. Its my perspective and I don't project moral character with it.
Bringing up the topic of sexual history with a woman is generally a huge turnoff. When you do so, you are clearly judging her and telling her she must fit some predetermined notion of what you, a man, thinks a woman's place is in the world. It doesn't matter if you actual think you think so. Its what most women hear when you bring up this topic.
Additionally, I have found that many men that feel as you do have internal feelings of sexual inadequacy and/or "control issues" and in turn project these feelings into a moral dilemma on others. My only training on this matter is from living my own life and having to grow out of some of these issues myself. To put is bluntly, this is the common story of the geek who didn't get laid in high school and has evolved a blanket of morality around the reasons why.
How do you determine "sexual fitness?" What does that mean anyways? Does it mean someone who has lots of sex? Then all you've said is a tautology. Do you mean someone who has pleasurable sex? Most people who have a lot of promiscuous sex find it loses its appeal, and they have to have more of it to get the same "buzz." Then, you have to consider how you measure pleasure. Are you measuring it by who has a lot of sex? I.e. someone who can get laid with a lot of people must give the other a lot of pleasure? Given my alternate analysis, these people may have a lot of sex because they've lost the real pleasure behind sex.
At any rate, such a criteria is much more subjective and open to a wider variety of interpretations than "morality." Whether you believe morality principles are based on objective reality or not, moral principles are codified in certain behavioral standards that are measurable, unlike something such as "sexual fitness."
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I mean "fitness" in the Darwin sense. One person can't define fitness. Its a collective attribution. But if you ask a random group of 100 men to pick the "hot girl" in a room, the results are what shape fitness.
I feel there is more correlation between "sexual history" and "sexual fitness" as opposed to a correlation between "sexual history" and "morality".
Why think that? Uglier people are more willing to sleep around indiscriminantly, since it is harder for them to attract others. Attractive people have a significant advantage if they are hard to attain.
> Please be careful though to not brand people as immoral simply because their past is different than yours.
> From my perspective, I do not find a strong correlation between "sexual history" and "morality".
I doubt that your definition of “niceness” is right. Morals (to me at least) is the basic rules that you live your life by – so it is inherently a personal concept.
So whatever morals you live by – he may live by a different set of morals and feel that excessive intercourse may be immoral. There is no reason for you to blankly dismiss his moral values (just because your personal morals are not the same as his). Whether you agree with his morals or not – the fact remains that it is real to him and he chose to live his life by them.
> Bringing up the topic of sexual history with a woman is generally a huge turnoff.
In every relationship you must discuss several things that may or may not be a turn-off (e.g. religion, politics, views on certain things such as abortion – basically everything that we do not discuss on HN). This may not be always pleasant – but it still is important.
> When you do so, you are clearly judging her and telling her she must fit some predetermined notion of what you, a man, thinks a woman's place is in the world.
No. It is important to discuss all of those things in a serious relationship. If you have a notion of a girl that differs from reality it is important that you know that. If the relationship ends because your notion of her is different than reality then it is ultimately a good thing.
If you have ever been in a relationship and your partner did or said something and you thought “WTF??” you will know this to be important.
> My only training on this matter is from living my own life and having to grow out of some of these issues myself. To put is bluntly, this is the common story of the geek who didn't get laid in high school and has evolved a blanket of morality around the reasons why.
Maybe. My take on this is as follows (I am not a US citizen): The USA became sexually liberal extremely quickly – and even now there is huge encouragement from media to engage in casual sexual intercourse (+). IMHO I don't think that this is the right approach – and sexual intercourse should preferably go hand in hand with stable monogamous relationships.
I don't know what this USA view is that you 'have to get laid' in high school and that it is a shame to be a virgin. It is stupid (Paris Hilton stupid).
Even if the past was too conservative, I think the pendulum swung to much to the liberal side – and the good position is somewhere in the middle.
---
(+) If I sound like your father/grandfather forgive me – it was not the intent.
Good thoughts lalaca. I'm part of the over 40 crowd here on HN ;). I was raised with strong conservative and religious values and still hold on to most of them.
My words to the OP were mostly about understanding that his values are personal to him and his needs are about compatibility. I asked him to worry more about "compatibility" than morals.
I agree, I feel pendulum has swung too much the other direction in the last 30 years. Does this mean that all the children growing up now have less an inherit ability to know right from wrong just because they may have had more sexual partners than someone of a prior generation?
For what its worth, I find that most women, regardless of their past, are more likely to not stray when in a committed relationship as opposed to men in a comparable situation. Also, women usually stray for different reasons than men.
I do not agree with the view that "you have to get laid in high school". But the environment, as it is, makes it such that those who do not feel very strongly about other's sexual past. Its a complex set of problems.
> Good thoughts lalaca. I'm part of the over 40 crowd here on HN ;).
I'm actually in my mid 20ies, but I noticed that I sound a lot like an older person on moral issues (because I tend to be a tad bit more conservative).
> I do not agree with the view that "you have to get laid in high school"
That is unfortunately the view among young people. A virgin is looked upon as someone with a type of disease.
> inherit ability to know right from wrong just because they may have had more sexual partners than someone of a prior generation?
The problem is that stable relationships (that eventually leads to marriage &&/|| children) aren't being formed any more. People like instant gratification (like 2 minute oats, etc...) anything that takes a tad bit commitment is ignored.
---
I am also amazed at some morals of younger people (including most of my friends) - but this is a whole other topic.
That is unfortunately the view among young people. A virgin is looked upon as someone with a type of disease.
I really don't think this is true. I was a virgin until I was 19, wasn't secretive about it (which is not to say I broadcast the information) and no one ever seemed to care. I have friends who are still virgins and don't think of them differently at all.
My use of the word "quality" refers to their personal qualities that are relevant to relationships. I don't mean that people who do this can't be interesting and worthwhile people, but they're certainly not the type of people you want to marry.
That's how I was using "quality" too. I'm not sure that I would refuse to marry someone simply because she had engaged in casual sex from time to time when she was younger.
A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof).
To a degree, I agree with you - it can be in some cases. But I'm not convinced that occasional casual sex necessarily indicates lack of character.
If a person gets into the habit of casual sex when young, that person's almost certain to cheat in a long-term relationship
And there's the rub. I totally disagree with this statement.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I've never had casual sex. I've only had one partner, and we dated for two years.
Perhaps, but some issues are more important than others, and moral character is a big one. A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof). It's the one area of life where people are easily pushed to do awful things to themselves and each other.
How did you reach this strange conclusion? It seems to me that a person's sexual activities are completely orthogonal to their moral character (excluding non-consensual stuff of course). Sex is a wonderful thing to do with someone, not an awful thing.
Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion?
What does that have to do with anything? It seems to me that being monogamous has more to do with keeping a promise than not being tempted. I suggest you find someone who will keep their promises in the face of temptation, not someone who won't be tempted at all.
Do you want your teenage daughters to be raised by a woman who dated the football team, and to learn about respecting themselves from such a person?
Some people take the view that sex is fun, and having fun is good for you. Respecting yourself might involve having sex, not repressing your natural desire.
Is sex with a woman special if it used to be available to any guy with a six-pack and a nice car?
Just because a person has a lot of sex doesn't mean they didn't find quality partners.
If a person gets into the habit of casual sex when young, that person's almost certain to cheat in a long-term relationship, even if the relationship is otherwise going well. It's not a habit that people break easily.
There's probably some reason based on objective reality that this has been the predominant belief in most cultures in most times. If you disagree, name such a belief that does not correspond to objective reality.
There was a commonly held belief that women were property.
This was held throughout large parts of the Western world, throughout history (Indeed, I have not heard of any sort of egalitarian society in the past, perhaps barring some special cases).
> Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion?
In this day and age, outright threats to our survival are rare unless we choose to seek them out. Food, shelter, and other basic necessities are easily within the grasp of nearly the entire population. Desirable sexual partners are not. Due to our nature, the majority of men and women cannot get the partner they want most of the time.
The pain of being betrayed or discarded by that one you thought you had found is considerable. Not only that, but it's visceral. It's hard-wired into our physiology that that will hurt in a way few other things can.
I certainly would not want my wife/serious gf to have been "around" a lot (i.e. knowing the football team). Maybe casual sexual encounters is American culture, but respectfully I think it is a bad thing.
Some things are unacceptable, though. Casual sex is one of them.
Would you marry an ex-child molester? Assume he claimed to be reformed, and that he didn't do it anymore, and that it was something he only did when he was intoxicated and "caught up in the moment" (whatever that means).
Obviously, the reasonable answer is no. Nobody wants to marry someone who's done something like that in his or her past. Experiences and past behaviors matter.
Now you understand how normal men feel about casual sex.
You're insane. Please, please, seek therapy. You clearly have a brain but something terrible must have happened to you, and I'm sorry for that, but you need to find help.
You cannot equate "Would you marry an ex-child molester?" and "Would you marry someone who has had casual sex?"
Cannot.
CANNOT.
One raped a fucking child, dude. RAPED. A. CHILD. Another had a consensual relationship with another willing adult. You cannot and should not equate the two just because you happen to disagree with both. That is plain and outright creepy.
The fact is that, if a woman's had a lot of casual sex, she's developed a taste for variety and you have no hope of being her ideal man. When you're in bed with her, she's wishing you had Biff's abs, Jethro's penis girth, and the "roughness" of that club promoter whose name she's forgotten. So she's likely to cheat after a while in search of those traits, and even if she doesn't go off and do it, she's going to be mentally cheating all the time by fantasizing.
I'm a guy of mostly above-average physical traits and skill, but it's humanly impossible for any man to be the best at everything, for every woman. I don't have, for example, a 10-inch dick that's 5 inches wide, and I wouldn't really want one, to be honest; I'm more than happy with what God gave me. But that's what it takes to please a woman who's had 20 partners, because she's taken a lot of huge dicks and is "stretched out".
A woman who's been with too many guys is always going to be missing that one thing that some other guy did or had, and nobody wants to be with a woman who's going to be constantly fantasizing about other men.
"The fact is that, if a woman's had a lot of casual sex, she's developed a taste for variety and you have no hope of being her ideal man."
No, this is not a fact. Perhaps the real problem here is you don't know a whole lot about women. I'm not trying to be rude to you. Most women, regardless of sexual history, DO NOT marry and stay with a man for the same reasons as a man marries and stays with a woman.
Here is a fact: A woman can have many partners, search what feels to her a lifetime, find a man, fall in love and never, ever in her mind compare you with another man.
A woman can also have many partners, etc. etc., and then continue to compare you in her mind with other men. So I'm not sure how useful your fact is without data or context.
Agreed that a woman's reasons for infidelity are probably different than a man's reasons. But I don't think that is much consolation to the man she cheats on. So, I feel that time_management's desire to find a woman not prone to infidelity is wise, but he is embarrassing himself with an immature understanding of women (to put it kindly).
I would also say that this issue is covered in considerable depth in the movie "Chasing Amy", and I think that one of the conclusions in that movie is that, no, it is not psychologically easy for most men to set aside a woman's sexual history, even if he wants to.
flagged bc your formatting ruins this whole discussion because now i have to horizontally scroll. even if your formatting is hn's fault not yours. if enough people flag, then maybe this comment will disappear.
which is a shame, because i agree with your comment completely, quoted below:
No, this is not a fact. Perhaps the real problem here is you don't know a whole lot about women. I'm not trying to be rude to you. Most women, regardless of sexual history, DO NOT marry and stay with a man for the same reasons as a man marries and stays with a woman.
Here is a fact: A woman can have many partners, search what feels to her a lifetime, find a man, fall in love and never, ever in her mind compare you with another man.
You may be right-- you're older and more experienced than I am-- but I wouldn't be inclined to take the risk. All considered, I don't think I could marry a woman with a history of casual sex when there might be someone out there who is just as good and doesn't have that kind of history.
I hope you do find the right girl for you. Its very healthy to openly discuss these issues. You don't need to change how you feel about who the right girl is for you. In fact, you may not be able to change it. You just need to understand it.
My only advice to you is to not project this as an issue of morals. To be certain, there are times when what you would call "loose morals" come in to play and this is correlated to high sexual activity. But I have found this correlation does not extend to the majority of women. In fact, I have known women with low or no sexual activity who had questionable morals.
So let me get this straight. A woman who's had experience with better men than yourself isn't satisfied with your "assets", or lack of them, anymore. So you wish that women wouldn't shop around, that way they wouldn't know there was something better out there.
It's not about "better" or "worse". It's about the fact that a woman who's been with too many guys starts wanting to "have it all", even on traits that are contradictory (e.g. she wants the brutish alpha and the sensitive guy, even though they never occur in the same person) and can never be satisfied by one man, no matter how good he is.
A woman who can't be satisfied by one man is not going to "settle" for the best guy out of N available. She's going to date one and fuck the others on the side.
Just sounds like your whole strategy for winning the beautiful babies is to deny them the information they need to make an informed decision.
No. I think women would she able to make informed decisions, but I also think they ought to be ladylike, resolute, and discriminate, rather the enabling the asshole alphas who go on to become rapists. Also, a woman who has had a lot of casual sex is simply not going to be emotionally stable enough for a long-term relationships.
But you have no evidence for any of this. It's just your personal theory. To me at least, it sounds highly dubious. In my experience most people do not act like that.
Casual sex does not necessarily make people emotionally unstable. Alpha males do not need to become rapists. Nothing you say makes sense. And what on earth do you mean by "ladylike"? They are ladies, by definition they act ladylike.
Alpha male "badboys" become rapists because they feel entitled to whatever they see. Mike Tyson's behavior in 1991 is an example of this: the man was rich and famous, but did it anyway because he was arrogant.
A man who is successful in getting lots of casual sex stops seeing women as people, and starts seeing them as objects to be "acquired". At this point, bad behavior is likely to ensue.
They are ladies, by definition they act ladylike.
Lady is a proper subset of woman. Look the word up.
There, I looked the word up. It means what I thought it meant, ie, a woman. What did you think it meant?
Your views on "alpha male rapists", which apparently descend entirely from Mike Tyson, are ridiculous. That is a single data point and is utterly meaningless. Where's the rest of it?
I can personally attest to the fact that in contrary to your blanket statement, men who have been "successful" in "getting" lots of "casual sex" do not, in fact, stop seeing women as people.
You think you know everything, but you know nothing. I don't know who told you this crap, but they were utterly wrong. The sooner you realise this, the better.
I know you're not long for subtlety, but many words have more than one definition. From the elusive and esoteric Dictionary.com:
Notice definition 1.
la⋅dy
/ˈleɪdi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ley-dee] Show IPA noun, plural -dies, adjective
–noun
1. a woman who is refined, polite, and well-spoken: She may be poor and have little education, but she's a real lady.
2. a woman of high social position or economic class: She was born a lady and found it hard to adjust to her reduced circumstances.
3. any woman; female (sometimes used in combination): the lady who answered the phone; a saleslady.
4. (Used in direct address: often offensive in the singular): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. Lady, out of my way, please.
5. wife: The ambassador and his lady arrived late.
6. Slang. a female lover or steady companion.
7. (initial capital letter) (in Great Britain) the proper title of any woman whose husband is higher in rank than baronet or knight, or who is the daughter of a nobleman not lower than an earl (although the title is given by courtesy also to the wives of baronets and knights).
8. a woman who has proprietary rights or authority, as over a manor; female feudal superior. Compare lord (def. 4).
9. (initial capital letter) the Virgin Mary.
10. a woman who is the object of chivalrous devotion.
11. (usually initial capital letter)
a. an attribute or abstraction personified as a woman; a designation of an allegorical figure as feminine: Lady Fortune; Lady Virtue.
b. a title prefixed to the name of a goddess: Lady Venus.
–adjective
12. Sometimes Offensive. being a lady; female: a lady reporter.
13. of a lady; ladylike; feminine.
Origin:
bef. 900; ME ladi(e), earlier lavedi, OE hlǣfdīge, hlǣfdige, perh. orig. meaning “loaf-kneader,” equiv. to hlāf loaf + -dīge, -dige, var. of dǣge kneader (see dough; cf. ON deigja maid); see lord
I think if you were to change that to "I want to become romantically involved with a woman who is ladylike, resolute, and discriminate" you would be getting a lot less grief. The rest of it is highly empirically questionable.
This is more of an indication of your insecurity than the actual opinions of people with multiple sexual partners.
Sex isn't the Olympics. You're not always going to hook up with the best person and if you find a new person move on to them. Looks aren't everything. As Ben Franklin observed about having sex with older women "All cats are gray in the dark"
I've been in relationships with girls who had multiple partners who thought this way. They were sluts. (same goes for guys on the other side of the deal). I've also been with girls who had multiple partners who were extremely loyal.
Yes -- people who are uninhibited, risk-takers, and have poor judgment skills are not the kind for long-term relationships. But that set of people does not include everybody who has had multiple sex partners, even though all of those people are probably promiscuous. You're being silly.
It's much wiser to spend your time creating boundaries about how you deserve to be treated, not about what somebody's past is. Get out. Meet people. Date. Have sex if that is what comes natural to you. If you don't feel like it, don't have sex. But don't go berserko over past sex partners. You'll never compare up to the best of 20 other guys -- and if you think you have to, you don't understand what having a relationship means.
You'll never compare up to the best of 20 other guys -- and if you think you have to, you don't understand what having a relationship means.
This is where I have to remain idealistic. I'd much rather have no relationship at all than one in which the woman's constantly pining for some other guy.
In any case, I'd dump a girl on the spot if I found out she'd had 20 partners, so that particular example's not very relevant to me.
If a woman was pining for some other guy, you wouldn't want a relationship with her whether or not she was promiscuous.
You're conflating concepts that don't relate. I dated a girl once who was pining for some other guy and who wasn't promiscuous. I dumped her. Likewise I dated a girl who had had better sexual partners than me who did not pine for any of them. The relationship lasted a while until another unrelated event caused it to split.
I've dated girls and had sex with them and dated girls and didn't have sex. I've seen all of these combinations, and it really looks like you're taking shortcuts that don't always hold up.
You've got your cause and effect mixed up -- in my opinion only, of course.
The most risky relationship? One with someone who had never had sex or made any "moral" mistakes at all. Because everybody has to screw up sometime. I'd much rather have somebody who has sewn their oats and learned from it. To mangle an old phrase, if you're a kid and not promiscuous, you have a problem with your heart. If you're an old person and are promiscuous, you have a problem with your head.
I'm curious as to how the figures for young and promiscuous vs. old and promiscuous work out. Is there evidence that young people with many sexual partners have fewer partners when they are old than young people with few partners do?
What the hell kind of fucked-up childhood did you have that rendered you qualified to dispense sex-ed advice at 14? Don't answer this. I really don't want to know.
And unlike the other young people on the forum, I read a lot of scientific books, so I was able to counter such idiotic, voodoo-type teenaged beliefs such as "stretched out" vaginas.
You have no idea what my religious beliefs are, douchebag.
My objection to this sort of behavior isn't religious. It's that I value the preservation of civilization, and I have a real problem with a bunch of self-absorbed thugs who are trying to fuck it all up. It took thousands of years to get to a society even approaching one where men and women could relate on loving and mutually respectful terms, and the casual sexers want to throw all this progress away within one generation.
"It took thousands of years to get to a society even approaching one where men and women could relate on loving and mutually respectful terms, and the casual sexers want to throw all this progress away within one generation."
Dude.
They were saying that in the 60s -- 40 years ago when I was three.
And they were saying it in the roaring twenties when my grandma was twelve.
Hell they were saying it in the 1880s. The Victorians were convinced that the end of arranged marriages and free courting meant chaos and destruction was upon us all.
Just when is this easy-sex-kills-civilization event supposed to happen? I'm only planning on living another couple hundred years or so.
Don't have the quote, but someone pointed out all the people who seemed to be histrionic about the effects of Rock n' Roll, contraception, no-fault divorce, etc. on civilization were pretty much proved right in each instance.
So, yes, civilization as conceived by each of those groups clearly did die, just as they predicted. Whether the current incarnation of civilization is a net improvement, of course, is open for debate.
What a load of bollocks. Stop trying to dress up your crass superstitions in the clothes of learned sociology and demographics - they just don't fit. And your assertion that casual sex is something that only appeared in this last generation is laughably, provably wrong.
Give it up already, you and your stupid beliefs have been utterly trounced.
Perhaps God will take me over his everlovin' knee and spank my naughty, fornicating bottom when I die, but other than that, my life is looking pretty great from this side of the veil.
Women who have casual sex have a way of not being able to get married, and many of them discover that it's something that they actually did want to do, eventually. Funny, that. Thus they spend their 40s breaking into tears every time a school bus passes by.
You've already used that line. It wasn't funny the first time. However, the original was a bit more misogynist and even slightly sadistic: "i take pleasure in the thought of them ... sobbing"
Sex and the City bitches are disgusting. I hate to admit this, but I take pleasure in the thought of them spending their middle-aged years sobbing every time a school bus passes by.
I still do look down, reflexively, upon any "profession" connected to real estate. I can honestly say I'd never marry a woman who worked in RE, and only a woman from a real estate family if she had been purified through an elite college
Honestly? No. You've already run the score up against yourself without my help. It would be mean-spirited for me to visit any additional harm upon you, emotional or otherwise. I'm done with this dispute.
