(May 2, 2015 at 4:30 am)paulpablo Wrote: But then if you care about your womans past sex life in the sense that you're not interested in prudes or virgins then wouldn't you say that means you are judging them based on that?

If you're already judged them to be unworthy of any of your personal interest based on either a lack of sexual contact with other people or no sexual contact with other people.

You just made your poll question meaningless by equivocating consideration and "care". That's what you are now arguing right, if anyone considers any aspect of a partner's sexual history they must "care"?

I agree with PT and I don't care. I just need some assurance that I'm not going to get an STD. The first five minutes of fornication will tell me everything else I need to know; dossiers are not required when auditioning is the means of evaluation.

(May 2, 2015 at 5:46 am)Cato Wrote:

(May 2, 2015 at 4:30 am)paulpablo Wrote: But then if you care about your womans past sex life in the sense that you're not interested in prudes or virgins then wouldn't you say that means you are judging them based on that?

If you're already judged them to be unworthy of any of your personal interest based on either a lack of sexual contact with other people or no sexual contact with other people.

You just made your poll question meaningless by equivocating consideration and "care". That's what you are now arguing right, if anyone considers any aspect of a partner's sexual history they must "care"?

I agree with PT and I don't care. I just need some assurance that I'm not going to get an STD. The first five minutes of fornication will tell me everything else I need to know; dossiers are not required when auditioning is the means of evaluation.

No I'm using the word care in the usual way anyone would use the word.  Meaning will it cause significant interest to you and possibly change the way you act around them or if you want to be with them or not.

Parkers tan I think seems to be contradicting himself because he's basically saying that he doesn't judge people based on sexual history yet he's saying based on a virgin's sexual history or a prude's sexual history of having no partners or very few partners he judges them to be not interesting.

I  think other people have made this contradiction too, saying they don't care about a partners sexual history but they want to be with someone experienced.  Care doesn't have to be negative, it can be positive, like a boss interviewing someone for a job cares if the person being interviewed has sufficient experience in the job role.

(May 2, 2015 at 4:22 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I think conversations about partners sexual history never go well.

Best left alone.

"Are you frigid or a slag?"

As to the poll question, if you're going to include stuff like sexual abuse in "sexual history" then it's obviously going to be yes for almost everyone so it's kind of pointless.

(May 2, 2015 at 7:12 am)robvalue Wrote:

(May 2, 2015 at 4:22 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I think conversations about partners sexual history never go well.

Best left alone.

"Are you frigid or a slag?"

As to the poll question, if you're going to include stuff like sexual abuse in "sexual history" then it's obviously going to be yes for almost everyone so it's kind of pointless.

Ok I'll do a recap to clarify the point of the thread because it may have become a bit blurred or misunderstood to anyone who's only just seen this thread.

Some guy came on here and posted this....

Quote:My girlfriend and I were watching some romantic comedy the other day (not my idea, trust me), and the topic of sexual history came up. So we ended up talking about it, and it turns out that she's got quite a past.

Ok so he's about to tell everyone some of his girlfriends sexual history that she told him.

Quote:Her first time was when she was 17

When I asked her how many men she's had sex with she couldn't tell me but when I asked if it was over 20 (jokingly) she said oh yes, way more
The first time she did anal was at the age of 18
She has had a threesome on 3 separate occasions
She has kissed girls in clubs many times
She was a member of fetlife for a couple of years
She mentioned something about doing porn

So let's look at the list.  Only one of the things on the list actually talk about the numbers of people she slept with. The rest of the sexual history is what she did sexually, when she did it, who she did it with, where she did it.  No one disagreed that this (the previously quoted text) is all a part of her sexual history, it isn't just a polite code word for the number of people she's had sex with, it is what it is, an all encompassing sexual history.  It even includes what sex websites she was on.

The general response to this was asking why is he judging her, people saying they don't care about sexual history, then another thread was started and mostly everyone was unified in their opinion that sexual history is not important to them.

So my response to that is, surely everyone cares about their partners sexual history if the word sexual history is being used in the standard way and the way it was being used in the original post everyone was talking about.

I'll give an example.

A part of his girlfriends sexual history was she kissed two girls in a nightclub and she mentioned something about doing porn.

So by most people's standards on this forum these things aren't important but what about if the variables are changed?

Let's say your boyfriend/girlfriend is talking about their sexual history and they say they had sex with two children at home and they are involved in violent snuff porn.

Everyone on this forum (i assume) would care about that, therefore everyone on this forum would care about their partners sexual history.

The only way you could say you don't care about it is if you change what the definition of sexual history was in the original post and say it's just a code word for how many people they have slept with. 

Even then like I said people seem to be saying they don't care about it but they care about it because they like to be with someone with experience and aren't interested in people with no experience.

I don't get what point you're trying to make. It's up to whoever asks such a question to define what sexual history means, it's not exactly precise.

If you clarify it by saying their sexual history (which is all legal) then it's fine. But I would assume that's what the term meant anyway. It seems like a trick questions otherwise. If you said to me "do I care about their sexual history, and they didn't do any crimes/adultery/whatever while doing any of it" then I'd say no.

If you include any crime they may have committed by nature of their sexual activity, who it was done with, what circumstances and what they did during it... that includes people robbing a bank or going on a murder spree while feeling each other up.

So I would hope everyone would agree that legal and non-legal is the minimum requirement for the question to be a sensible one to ask. You seem to be conflating this with their criminal/adulterous past. I'm not too sure why. It's not the sexual acts people would necessarily object to, but the context. "Having sex with someone" can be good or bad depending with who and in what circumstance. The "sex" part on its own isn't objectionable as such. For example, I don't care that they had sex, but I do care that it was with a child.

(May 2, 2015 at 4:30 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(May 2, 2015 at 4:23 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I care about my woman's past sex life in the sense that I'm not interested in prudes or virgins.

I don't care about their past sex life in the sense that I'm not interested in judging them for it.

But then if you care about your womans past sex life in the sense that you're not interested in prudes or virgins then wouldn't you say that means you are judging them based on that?

If you're already judged them to be unworthy of any of your personal interest based on either a lack of sexual contact with other people or no sexual contact with other people.

The judgement I'm rendering is about personal compatibility, not moral rectitude. "Unworthy" is an entirely inapt word for my point. I don't want a woman who is sexually neurotic or inexperienced, but that doesn't mean that I regard them as "unworthy". It means that I think the likelihood of our relationship being sexually satisfying is reduced.

I suppose I should have added the modifier "morally" in front of the word judging in my original post. I had assumed my meaning would be understood.

---

(May 2, 2015 at 7:09 am)paulpablo Wrote: Parkers tan I think seems to be contradicting himself because he's basically saying that he doesn't judge people based on sexual history yet he's saying based on a virgin's sexual history or a prude's sexual history of having no partners or very few partners he judges them to be not interesting.

See my reply above to address your misunderstanding.

---

(May 2, 2015 at 7:44 am)paulpablo Wrote: Let's say your boyfriend/girlfriend is talking about their sexual history and they say they had sex with two children at home and they are involved in violent snuff porn.

Everyone on this forum (i assume) would care about that, therefore everyone on this forum would care about their partners sexual history.

The only way you could say you don't care about it is if you change what the definition of sexual history was in the original post and say it's just a code word for how many people they have slept with. 

Sexual abuse is most often about power, and psychological issues with esteem and impotence, rather than sex. No matter the age of the abuser, I wouldn't want to have sex with someone like that, on the basis of mentality, not sexual score-keeping.

And snuff porn would disturb  me not because of the porn part, but because I'm not really cool with murderers.

My son's mother did a lot of stuff before we were together. I didn't care because she was a good woman, a good lover, and later, a good mother.

(May 2, 2015 at 8:09 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't get what point you're trying to make. It's up to whoever asks such a question to define what sexual history means, it's not exactly precise.

If you clarify it by saying their sexual history (which is all legal) then it's fine. But I would assume that's what the term meant anyway. It seems like a trick questions otherwise. If you said to me "do I care about their sexual history, and they didn't do any crimes/adultery/whatever while doing any of it" then I'd say no.

If you include any crime they may have committed by nature of their sexual activity, who it was done with, what circumstances and what they did during it... that includes people robbing a bank or going on a murder spree while feeling each other up.

So I would hope everyone would agree that legal and non-legal is the minimum requirement for the question to be a sensible one to ask. You seem to be conflating this with their criminal/adulterous past. I'm not too sure why. It's not the sexual acts people would necessarily object to, but the context. "Having sex with someone" can be good or bad depending with who and in what circumstance. The "sex" part on its own isn't objectionable as such. For example, I don't care that they had sex, but I do care that it was with a child.

I fail to see how it would be seen as a trick question.  Why would you make assumptions leaning towards any specific definition?

If I asked you to describe what you know about the sexual history of John Wayne Gacy, would you instantly assume unless told otherwise that the question was asking you to describe only the legal things which John Wayne Gacy did in relation to sex?  I don't think you would.  

Also which countries laws would you be relating to when only including legal sexual activities in a conversation about sexual history? Homosexuality is illegal in 76 countries, some places still ban sodomy, there's so many blurred lines when it comes to age of consent laws.

I'm guessing based on what you have just said, if you were asked to describe the sexual history of Peter sutcliffe (you might not know him but he was an English serial killer.)  You wouldn't describe his interest in prostitutes since that's illegal and you wouldn't mention the fact he liked to kill them for sexual pleasure since that's also illegal.
So your account of the sexual history of Peter Sutcliffe would basically be that he was a married man who enjoyed sex with his wife, because you're going to instantly assume that sexual history includes nothing out of what your standards are of being ordinary or sensible or anything that's illegal.

---

(May 2, 2015 at 12:34 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(May 2, 2015 at 4:30 am)paulpablo Wrote: But then if you care about your womans past sex life in the sense that you're not interested in prudes or virgins then wouldn't you say that means you are judging them based on that?

If you're already judged them to be unworthy of any of your personal interest based on either a lack of sexual contact with other people or no sexual contact with other people.

The judgement I'm rendering is about personal compatibility, not moral rectitude. "Unworthy" is an entirely inapt word for my point. I don't want a woman who is sexually neurotic or inexperienced,

---

Ok but besides any moral judgement, you have just said that you don't want a woman who's inexperienced.  I think by anyone's definition of care that would mean you do care about your partners sexual history.  You care enough so that you wouldn't want to be with a woman if they are inexperienced.

My curiosity extends only so far as me knowing exactly what they're up for. If they've done LOTS...jackpot, baby. A fun evening is to be had, with many more to follow
If they've not done much...jackpot, baby. I get to introduce them to stuff. A fun evening is to be had, with many more to follow

OK so... we agree questions should be carefully worded. Is this your point? This can all be sorted out by explaining exactly what you mean by "sexual history" when asking a question, can it not? It is up to the person asking the question to be as clear as possible, not for those answering it to try and work out what the question asker was thinking.

When is this a problem in the real world? Confusion in an Internet discussion is hardly cause for concern over a vague phrase. I'm failing to imagine the kind of conversations that would realistically occur. If I want to know how many people my partner has slept with, I ask them that. If I ask about their sexual history, and I don't make it clear I'm including crimes in that description, then for them to assume I am talking about crimes is... weird. People don't usually jump to "crimes" in polite conversation about pasts without being explicit. Are you suggesting this should be a phrase which is accepted as a polite way of asking about sexual crimes? And even if I flat out ask, "What is your criminal history?" there's no guarantee I'll get the truth. It's kind of something people have to feel ready to tell you.

If someone refuses to explain exactly what their question means and then jumps all over the answers for being "wrong" then that is just being difficult.

This all applies to any sort of question, and I fail to see the relevance of sexual stuff in any of this. The only other thing I can think is that you are asking for people to generally interpret "sexual history" in a different way to how they may currently do, and again if both parties are clear what the terms mean (they are not concrete) then there is no problem.

For example, if I ask about your education, am I also asking about whether you killed anyone in the classroom while getting your education? I could be, but if so I need to be clear about it. To expect people to know that is what I mean without making it clear seems pointless and inevitably leads to me having to explain what I mean anyway to make my "point".

But I've been round the houses already with this and made my points, so I'll sign off. Thanks for the discussion

Care to an extent about it.