I never implied or inferred that, but thanks for playing the straw man game.

Quote:I see what you're saying, that someone won't necessarily judge you based on their past sexual experiences. But, why don't they ask what would make me happier in bed? does the reverse situation not count? I

Of course you should both ask what each other likes. I directed my comment at you because I was talking to you. You were the one concerned with being compared to past lovers.

Quote:mean, what you're saying is that I should change to whatever my potential partner wants. I'm not for that kind of compromise of my whole sexuality or whatever aspect to make someone happy

You have a conversation. If something makes you uncomfortable don't do it. It isn't about changing your entire sexuality.

It is fine to want someone who isn't more experienced then you but if that is important to you be upfront with the other person. Just don't assume a more experienced person will automatically compare you to previous lovers

I am socially awkward myself and often wrongly assume that people will dislike or judge me. Could that be why a more experienced partner might concern you?

You don't want someone - including yourself - criticized for their opinion. I said that this isn't how this place works. Let me know how that adds up to being a straw man.

As long as they're disease free it's none of my godless-damned business.

Who knows, they might be able to teach me a thing or two . . .

Deidre: Yes I'm a lifer, my parents are shits but at least they didn't indoctrinate me so I'm very lucky on that account I often wonder what would have happened had I been indoctrinated. I feel, perhaps naively, that I would have broken out of it eventually, but I'm sure it would have been a hard and painful battle if I would have won it at all. I'm obscenely logical, so I think it would have taken a very serious level of indoctrination to hold me down for life. But I really can't know that for sure.

that guy in the other thread is an asshole, and his gf shouldn't have trusted him.

TO OP : I think you should've added a poll.

(April 20, 2015 at 3:30 pm)Marsellus Wallace Wrote: that guy in the other thread is an asshole, and his gf shouldn't have trusted him.

TO OP : I think you should've added a poll.

Yeah, I tried to add a poll after I made it, but it was too late. Biggest regret of my life.

(April 20, 2015 at 3:18 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: You don't want someone - including yourself - criticized for their opinion. I said that this isn't how this place works. Let me know how that adds up to being a straw man.

I never said I should have my opinions accepted nor should anyone else, thus the straw man. I love how I was saying I mostly agree with what you're saying and you throw out some comment about how I shouldn't just have my opinions accepted when that was never my argument not was inferred anywhere. I do address that I do accept hearing criticism and that nobody is above being criticized. Listen, I could give two shits if you want to complain about someone, just don't live in a glass house and throw stones, that was my argument...If they get to complain about his conduct, then I'm going to point out their obvious hypocrisy by doing nearly the same thing.

(April 19, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Exian Wrote: ... But something dawned on me, which was the idea that if they cheated on me, I wouldn't care, as long as it was safe, and no diseases were transmitted.

The thing is, nothing is 100% safe except abstinence.  Even if she only has sex with others with a condom, there is a chance she will contract an STD.  And, she is not going to immediately know if she has a disease or not, even if she is careful to be regularly checked for diseases, so you will have no guarantees of safety from any STD.  So, monogamy is safer than promiscuity.  (That, of course, does not mean that one must or should choose monogamy, but it is something to keep in mind when deciding about such things.)

(April 19, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Exian Wrote: At first I thought this was a reflection of how little I really cared for that person, how bonded I was, and I subsequently broke it off with many of them, but now I just think its an extension of having realistic expectations and ideals of what love means.

Neither my wife nor I have any difficulty with monogamy.  My wife and I have been married for over 20 years, and are still very happy with each other.  We expect to be happy together until one of us dies.  The fact that some people do not stick to one person has no bearing on the question of whether others find it difficult or not.

If other people wish to be promiscuous, that is not a problem for me.  I wouldn't marry such a person (or become lovers with such a person), because that is not what I want.  This compares with people being incompatible for other things, like one wants to live in a city, and the other in a forest.  Those people cannot be together and both have what they want.  There are many things like that, that make people incompatible, which does not necessarily involve a moral judgement, or a judgement about anyone's intelligence, or any other such thing.  People often have different, and incompatible, preferences.

(April 19, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Exian Wrote: I'm still not confident that this is the right way to go about things, so I thought I'd air it out. If a woman was honest with me and wanted to have other sexual partners, I'd say go for it and get tested. Am I wrong in viewing this as an extension of being at peace with your partners past?
...

I agree that it is conceptually an extension of being at peace with your partner's past.  It all depends on how one views sex, and how one feels about it.

Many people seem confused about this point, so I will state it explicitly.  Feelings are fundamentally not rational.  If you like chocolate,  and someone else likes vanilla, it isn't a difference of reasoning that separates the two.

So, if someone wants sexual fidelity, and someone else doesn't, the difference in feelings is just a difference in feelings.  Usually, the discussion of STDs is a rationalization for one's feelings that are not based on that at all.  I personally want monogamy, and expect it of my wife, which was our agreement in the beginning (which is when you need to make your agreements on such things).  I could pretend that it all had to do with STDs and, in the event of pregnancy, knowing who the father is, but it really isn't based on those things, though they do encourage me to not try to change my feelings on the subject.  It is a matter of what I want, and what my wife wants.  We also want to listen to Mozart occasionally, and so we do.  If you don't want to listen to Mozart, you don't have to.  (Of course, everyone should love Mozart!)

I suppose I might as well add, sometimes people do not really know what they want, and pretend that they don't care about things that they do care about.  I remember discussing some of this with someone who said he wanted open relationships, because he wanted to have sex with multiple women, and did not care if his girlfriends had sex with other people or not.  The thing is, when one of them told him about having sex with another guy, he did not like it.  He was basically okay with it as long as he did not know about it, which, of course, means he really did care (otherwise, the knowledge of it would not bother him).  My guess is that he thought he ought not care, because he could not think of a reason to care.  But feelings are fundamentally not based on reason.

Reason has nothing to do with ultimate goals; it is useful in determining intermediate goals, as reason is useful in determining means to ends.  But ultimate goals are a matter of feeling.  David Hume expressed this idea thusly: 

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/342#Hume_0213_877

And:

"Reason being cool and disengaged, is no motive to action, and directs only the impulse received from appetite or inclination, by showing us the means of attaining happiness or avoiding misery: Taste, as it gives pleasure or pain, and thereby constitutes happiness or misery, becomes a motive to action, and is the first spring or impulse to desire and volition."

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_603

It's simply stupid not to make it your business to know a partner's sexual history, as a general rule. I won't presume to butt into the private relationships of others to tell them this, yet it's true. Willful ignorance when potential dangers are extant is never a good thing. Political Correctness has categorically stated that making personal judgments about other persons based on their histories is bad, and then gone on to equate investigation with prejudice. But we all size up others constantly. We have to. Diseases aside, the types of personalities previously dated and reasons for breakups can be material to an assessment of how well joining up will work out now. Therefore there's nothing wrong with attempting to gain such information in a diplomatic way. What's wrong is when we can't keep our judgments to ourselves and start blowing our trumpets.