Do you care about your significant others sexual past with a poll.

[paulpablo]

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.

---

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.