Prior sex history, women don't complain, why?

[Guildford]

While I have no personal experience with this issue, I have noticed in countless postings and a few letters to Dan Savage, that while many men have a difficult time dealing with the prior sexual history of their girlfriends and wives, I have never seen a posting by a woman complaining about the prior sexual history of her boyfriend or husband. Does anyone have some insight on the complete gender divide in the approach to this problem?

 

On a related issue, I have noticed that a number of young women in high school or college have engaged in “adventure sex” racking up many sex partners through ONS and three-sums and more-sums. Later they plan to settle down with one man and raise a traditional American family. Now I realize that there has been a shift in acceptable American sexual practices over the decades. My father told me that he did not have sex with my mother until their wedding night, though he certainly tried earlier. (1930s) I asked him if he would have married mother if she had given into his earlier advances and he said, “Probably not.” I was intimate with my wife prior to my proposal, and I don’t believe I would have proposed if we were platonic. (1960s) Have we reached the point where more than a few women are engaging in adventure sex, and then settling down with one man to raise a traditional American family? Is this becoming acceptable practice?

[snowboy91]

Have we reached the point where more than a few women are engaging in adventure sex, and then settling down with one man to raise a traditional American family? Is this becoming acceptable practice?

 

I can't speak for broader American culture, but from my observations I get the feeling that ship sailed at least a couple of decades ago. Aside from religious communities, I think it's very rare a woman will only sleep with one man over her lifetime these days. Which means the "adventure sex" (I guess you mean ONS) is becoming more frequent, but there's a lot of middle ground as well where women will only have sex in exclusive relationships, but they go through many relationships before finding the right one. Many guys do this too though.

 

As to the question about the gender divide regarding reactions to sexual history, to be honest I never really understood why men are so concerned about women's past partners. Maybe because I feel that if I was to sleep with or enter a relationship with someone, there is a reason why they're not still with a previous partner.

[basil67]

I'm inclined to follow Snowboy's comments. I had a lot of sexy fun back in the 1980's. Some with boyfriends, some casual.

 

A 40 something friends of mine refers to the BUGS and LUGS she went to Uni with in the late 80's (Bi until graduation or lesbian until graduation). They'd leave Uni and then settle down into a more normal life.

[Andy_K]

Have we reached the point where more than a few women are engaging in adventure sex, and then settling down with one man to raise a traditional American family? Is this becoming acceptable practice?

 

In so much as most men either will never find out about it, or have little choice but to put up with it. If one guy isn't happy with it, the next one will be willing to look past it simply because in the age of Tinder and OLD, women hold a lot of power in the dating market.

[losangelena]

I personally think that it's because women have a better grasp on reality than men. Who the eff cares if a sexual partner has had previous partners? Are they faithful and loyal to me now? That is all I care about. Same too with women "these days." Sorry, you're give examples of your parents from the 1930s? That is nearly 100 years ago. Times change; culture changes. I think a man hung up on his partners' prior sexual experience is frankly a troglodyte. Get over it. It is 2018. You can't expect a woman you meet/date/court to be pure and virginal. That is not the culture we live in. If I met a man who expected that of me, I would say, "boy, bye," and leave the situation. Who the eff cares? Jesus.

[salparadise]

...many men have a difficult time dealing with the prior sexual history of their girlfriends and wives, I have never seen a posting by a woman complaining about the prior sexual history of her boyfriend or husband. Does anyone have some insight on the complete gender divide in the approach to this problem?

 

Evolutionary Psych 101- Women never have to worry that the babies they birth aren't biologically their own because they conceive internally. Men are never one-hundred percent certain. Therefore men have developed a strong preference for virtuous women.

 

Women have a strong preference for the best genes, the most resources, and a man that will make the long-term familial investment to ensure success of the progeny. Because of the reproductive ambiguity, these things don't necessarily have to all be obtained from the same man... as long as they all believe themselves to be the dude. So there is some advantage to angling and subterfuge, along with the attitude and appearance of supreme virtue.

 

As losangelena says, women usually believe themselves to have a better grasp on reality than men... certainly true in terms of knowing the parentage of the progeny.

[somanymistakes]

Women worry about their partner's sexual pasts too, just differently.

 

I've had many girlfriends talk about their fears regarding their partner's past sex life. However, the specifics of what they're worrying about is different. Here are the most common things people bring up:

 

He has more sexual experience than I do. What if I'm not good enough in bed?

I think his past girlfriends were prettier than I am. Does that mean he's just settling for me in a slump?

I think his past girlfriends were ugly. Does that mean I'm ugly too and I just don't realise it?

What if he has a crazy ex who comes after us?

What if he got someone pregnant and she'll be after us forever?

His past girlfriend was kinkier than me and did all these wild things with him and I don't want to do those things. Does that mean we're doomed to break up?

How do my naked bits compare to all the other girls he's been with? What if my bits look funny? Maybe I should have surgery to make it prettier! (People actually do that!)

I'm not his first girlfriend... which means he's broken up with someone before... which means he might break up with me too!

He's slept with 50 people? So I'm probably just another belt notch...

 

Basically there are a TON of questions and insecurities women have regarding their boyfriends prior sex histories.

 

However, due to cultural conditions, they are phrased slightly differently and discussed in different environments.

[BarbedFenceRider]

I get what Los is saying, but there IS a limit...When the college Bukake choke slammer decides to hang up the hat and settle down, most guys that know her are a little more hesitant to dedicate themselves to her. Just a fact of life. She gave herself on the carousel, and is now a used up piece of leather...Don't be surprised when she gets the ewww factor.

 

Guys were rightly called cads and dogs waaay long ago. As such, girls have their respective societal castings too...

 

Sometimes too much of a good thing is just that. Too much. Did I do some crazy stuff with gals in my youth. Hell ya. Did I ever think I was going to bring them home to mommy....Nope.

[thefooloftheyear]

May not be fair, but women with vast sexual history are often seen by men to have loose boundaries, lack of self control, etc, while men who have vast sexual history are seen as virile, dominant, "in demand", experienced, etc...

 

One thing that is worth noting is that generally speaking, guys that have had a lot of sexual encounters would qualify them as in demand....A guy can't just "put himself out there" for the taking like women can..For women, it can mean they are in demand, but not necessarily so...

 

This aspect is probably the primary reason for the differences in attitude...

 

TFY

[stillafool]

Most women don't end up marrying the guys they went to school with but go out into the world to pursue a career. The majority of women are pretty closed mouthed about their sexual history especially with a man she wants to marry. Sorry but it's the truth. He will never know it all.

[carhill]

Have we reached the point where more than a few women are engaging in adventure sex, and then settling down with one man to raise a traditional American family? Is this becoming acceptable practice?

 

Yes, it started back in the 70's, perhaps a bit earlier but was in evidence when I became sexually mature. I wasn't into casual sex so was largely oblivious until getting married and my then wife sharing 'war stories' from what she termed 'sport fcking'. AIDS put a bit of a damper on it but that changed in time.

 

Since none of we mortals are mind readers, men and women both can be as sexually adventurous as they like, especially in recent decades in a very mobile world, and their spouse/life partner may never know.

 

Myself, I never asked. Women volunteered what they chose. I expected every woman to have a casual sex background so that leveled things out. No expectations of chastity. Then was then, now is now.

 

I have never seen a posting by a woman complaining about the prior sexual history of her boyfriend or husband. Does anyone have some insight on the complete gender divide in the approach to this problem?

 

I've read a lot to make over 47,000 posts so have seen some, perhaps not daily, but often enough to remember. However, in general, parameters similar to the generalizations about affairs are in play. Women care about emotions. Men care about sex. Hence, generally, women don't care about a man's prior sausage play except if/when his genes were replicated and how that situation is going. They do care about who he's emotionally attached to and the nuances of that.

[central]

The old double standards for men's and women's sexuality are still alive and well, but becoming less prevalent. It used to be either praised or ignored when men were such "studs" that they bedded numerous women, but women were slut-shamed if they did the same.

 

It's only been in the past 50 to 60 years that this has started to change, with the invention of the Pill and reliable birth control for women. They can now follow their own sexual urges, usually with no unwelcome consequences - other than being judged negatively, of course, by those who haven't adopted modern thinking.

[road]

In so much as most men either will never find out about it, or have little choice but to put up with it. If one guy isn't happy with it, the next one will be willing to look past it simply because in the age of Tinder and OLD, women hold a lot of power in the dating market.

 

The power of the "P".

 

Women always had the power. Still do.

[road]

I personally think that it's because women have a better grasp on reality than men. Who the eff cares if a sexual partner has had previous partners? Are they faithful and loyal to me now? That is all I care about. Same too with women "these days." Sorry, you're give examples of your parents from the 1930s? That is nearly 100 years ago. Times change; culture changes. I think a man hung up on his partners' prior sexual experience is frankly a troglodyte. Get over it. It is 2018. You can't expect a woman you meet/date/court to be pure and virginal. That is not the culture we live in. If I met a man who expected that of me, I would say, "boy, bye," and leave the situation. Who the eff cares? Jesus.

 

Any young man that wants sex before marriage to accept that

women want it to.

 

Though best for women to not talk about past to prevent retroactive

jealousy. Though if asked how many partners, they both need to be

honest.

 

A woamn having sex 100 times with one partner verses a woman that

100 ONS, even though it was the same amount of sex it is not the

same.

 

Most men do not want to marry the woman that only had sex

with half of the high school because she was not bi.

[road]

Most women don't end up marrying the guys they went to school with but go out into the world to pursue a career. The majority of women are pretty closed mouthed about their sexual history especially with a man she wants to marry. Sorry but it's the truth. He will never know it all.

 

Is that why he is still a fool?

[road]

The old double standards for men's and women's sexuality are still alive and well, but becoming less prevalent. It used to be either praised or ignored when men were such "studs" that they bedded numerous women, but women were slut-shamed if they did the same.

 

It's only been in the past 50 to 60 years that this has started to change, with the invention of the Pill and reliable birth control for women. They can now follow their own sexual urges, usually with no unwelcome consequences - other than being judged negatively, of course, by those who haven't adopted modern thinking.

 

Being modern does not mean being good.

 

Ugliest furniture, modern.

Ugliest houses, modern.

Worst food, modern (fast food, chain restaurants).

[central]

Most men do not want to marry the woman that only had sex

with half of the high school because she was not bi.

 

Would it be okay if a man had sex with half of the high school? Would it be okay if he didn't and wanted to, but only because he couldn't attract many women?

 

In part, it may be envy that women can easily get sex if they're willing, whereas most men can't even if they're willing.

[salparadise]

Women care about emotions. Men care about sex. Hence, generally, women don't care about a man's prior sausage play except if/when his genes were replicated and how that situation is going. They do care about who he's emotionally attached to and the nuances of that.

 

Yea, pretty much. Women care about dedication, mostly to ensure the continuance of resources and familial investment since they don't have to worry about whether they are dedicating their lives to propagating another woman's genes. This is the strategic perspective, which they need not be aware of as long as the conscious motivation (emotions) achieves the desired result (from the gene's perspective). Strategy and motivation need not be consciously connected; it's only important that behavior supports the strategy. For instance, evolution has given us strong sex drives that endure even if we consciously do not desire to reproduce. The drive produces behavior that supports natures ultimate goal, not that of the individual organism. We need not even be aware of a causal relationship between sex and genetic replication––it manifests entirely through the biological urge.

 

The old double standards for men's and women's sexuality are still alive and well, but becoming less prevalent. It used to be either praised or ignored when men were such "studs" that they bedded numerous women, but women were slut-shamed if they did the same.

 

Still alive and well because it's in our DNA. In fact, women have a preference for men who've bedded a lot of women... not necessarily BECAUSE he has, but because what makes a man desirable to many makes him desirable to the each individual woman as well, and she doesn't have any concerns about her progeny being her's biologically. Her concern is obtaining the best genes to combine with her own. The motivation to obtain the best genes overrides her concerns about dedication or exclusivity.

 

Research has shown that women choose mates differently when ovulating; they prefer the best physical specimen at that time, vs. a more devoted, nurturing, providing type at other times.

 

Also, in non-monogamous populations it's pretty much universal that one man will have many wives, and the women accept this willingly and openly. The most desirable women gravitate to the top of the socio-economic food chain, leaving large numbers of less wealthy men (with whom they could have exclusivity) unpaired.

Edited March 7, 2018 by salparadise

[littleblackheart]

Being modern does not mean being good.

 

It doesn't always mean good, but at least it means choice.

 

I do care a little bit about a guy's sexual past in the sense that I'd rather a guy who has no hang-ups irrespective of how many sexual partners either if us have had (minimal for me). Men who care about a woman's sexual past do often seem to have insecurities or hang-ups - maybe inexperience, maybe the size of their junk, maybe the lack of opportunity, maybe something is thst is not really a 'virtue' issue.

[Agonistes]

Some women do complain.

 

I know the last lover I took was not happy at all about my number. After sex, she asked if I had been with a lot of women. I said define a lot. She defined it as more than twenty. So I told her yes, more than twenty. She was visibly disappointed and said she guessed it was to be expected.

 

She claims I was her fifth. She's 51, very hot for her age, and has been divorced for 12 years. Given all that, her number is almost too low to be believed. It is almost virginal given the way every guy at the bar where we met tries to get into her pants. And she sure as heck didn't act like a virgin in the bedroom. Far from it.

[Els]

While I have no personal experience with this issue, I have noticed in countless postings and a few letters to Dan Savage, that while many men have a difficult time dealing with the prior sexual history of their girlfriends and wives, I have never seen a posting by a woman complaining about the prior sexual history of her boyfriend or husband. Does anyone have some insight on the complete gender divide in the approach to this problem?

 

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that women don't write to Dan Savage.

 

I'm a woman and my man's sexual past absolutely matters. I'm not nearly as conservative as the extent you mention later on in your post (requiring a virgin), but neither is my SO. It's unlikely that I would want to be with a man who has had a lot of casual sex and ONS, however. A few sexual partners in LTRs is totally fine in my books.

[Els]

 

Still alive and well because it's in our DNA. In fact, women have a preference for men who've bedded a lot of women... not necessarily BECAUSE he has, but because what makes a man desirable to many makes him desirable to the each individual woman as well, and she doesn't have any concerns about her progeny being her's biologically. Her concern is obtaining the best genes to combine with her own. The motivation to obtain the best genes overrides her concerns about dedication or exclusivity.

 

Assuming you are talking about men who simply "bedded" many women (as opposed to having many wives), there is no biological imperative that would cause such behaviour to be naturally selected for. In fact, that in and of itself would likely be selected against, as a solo mother's offspring is much less likely to survive than the offspring of a mother whose mate sticks around. Whatever genetic benefit such a man would have conferred would be lost against that huge disadvantage. There CAN be a biological imperative towards choosing a man who will protect her when she bears the children and who will (and can) provide for them, though, because such pairings increase the odds of the offspring surviving to multiply.

 

Also, in non-monogamous populations it's pretty much universal that one man will have many wives, and the women accept this willingly and openly.

Indeed, but here we are talking about WIVES, not just men who bed many women. In all of those populations, those men tend to be rich (or at least, relatively rich by their community's standards), because you have to provide for the women that you marry. 1/10th of a village chief's resources is more than 100% of a beggar's resources. It's a provider thing, not a "man who has slept with many women" thing. Edited March 7, 2018 by Elswyth

[somanymistakes]

Assuming you are talking about men who simply "bedded" many women (as opposed to having many wives), there is no biological imperative that would cause such behaviour to be naturally selected for. In fact, that in and of itself would likely be selected against, as a solo mother's offspring is much less likely to survive than the offspring of a mother whose mate sticks around. Whatever genetic benefit such a man would have conferred would be lost against that huge disadvantage. There CAN be a biological imperative towards choosing a man who will protect her when she bears the children and who will (and can) provide for them, though, because such pairings increase the odds of the offspring surviving to multiply.

 

Which is why the evopsych argument used to be that women were biologically driven to marry nice, stable provider-men and cheat on them with sexy, untrustworthy bad boys, in order to try and get the best of both worlds.

 

Personally I think most supposed-evopsych arguments are a complete line of hooey in which people try to make up just-so stories to excuse their own prejudices. There are cultures where one-man-many-wives was normal. There are cultures where it was expected for both men AND WOMEN to sleep around, and the husbands didn't mind a bit because any child born to his wife was a member of his household and increased his prestige. Officially polyandrous (one woman many husbands) cultures aren't that common among humans but did happen, and of course there are many poly women today with multiple boyfriends.

 

IMO humans are more influenced by social status than by secret biological imperatives. But I'm not a social scientist so it's just my opinion.

[thefooloftheyear]

If any ugly/undesirable (or even average) man could get sex any time they chose to the same way women can under the same conditions, then there would not be a double standard...

 

Its really not anything more than that, IMO....

 

If you want to add another dimension to it, despite what women say, a guys sexual desirability is also measured by the size of his dick...I'd imagine guys with small dicks would rather she had less partners as that would result in less a chance that he'd feel inadequate....Women don't really have that measuring stick to worry about...

 

TFY

[Agonistes]

If any ugly/undesirable (or even average) man could get sex any time they chose to the same way women can under the same conditions, then there would not be a double standard...

 

Its really not anything more than that, IMO....

 

If you want to add another dimension to it, despite what women say, a guys sexual desirability is also measured by the size of his dick...I'd imagine guys with small dicks would rather she had less partners as that would result in less a chance that he'd feel inadequate....Women don't really have that measuring stick to worry about...

 

TFY

 

 

I've been with many women who were just about as self-conscious about boob size as men are about penis size. And if they have large enough boobs then they are worried about how their weight, or height, or hair, or skin, or whatever measures up against others before them.

 

Women are often full of insecurities just like men.