Posted on 06/20/2019 10:03:45 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
“My boyfriend can’t get over how many people I’ve slept with. I shouldn’t have told him, but he pressed me for the info. He was 'nerdy’ for most of high school and college, and just started coming into his own in his mid to late 20s. I have been dating consistently for years, and have had my fair share of hookups and relationships. And while I don’t think my number is crazy at all, he can’t deal with the discrepancy. We’ve been dating for two years and we’re serious. I don’t want to break up. How can I handle this?”
I agree that you probably shouldn’t have told him, but lots of people fall into the trap of discussing their sexual history with their current partner, and I get it. If you trust someone, it’s natural to want to talk about what you’ve learned from past relationships and sexual experiences. That said, numbers really aren’t necessary, and rarely do anything aside from making one person feel bad.
But you can’t go back, and his reaction may have provoked an important conversation. After all (and as you well know), this isn’t an issue of who has slept with more people. It’s about his comfort with his past, and it’s about both of you establishing that your needs are being met by this relationship.
First, you have to figure out the problem you’re tackling, because it will change the course of action.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
The nice person. The honest one. Woman or man - it doesn’t matter which.
So some degree, I will agree with this. The difference is nice women choose the bad boys on purpose - because they are attracted to them because they are somewhat dangerous and very exciting and because they think they can change them. Men go out of their way to avoid the "bad" women except for one night stands.
That’s because those of us to whom it matters aren’t likely to discuss it with you.
“Every girl I dated in college was bisexual. I asked for sex, and they said, “Bye!”
Hey-oooooooooooo! (in Ed McMahon voice)
I wouldn’t want to marry anyone who would want to sleep with me on the first date. I would question their judgment!
Might become a great marriage.
the laws strongly protect women from bad males (alimony, child support, jail, split of assets, shame etc) but almost nothing from poor behaving women - in fact they actually get rewards (child support, alimony, split of assets, child custody, sympathy, etc).
Lots of people believe that. But that's not really the case - at least not in my state. In my state, the court doesn't care whether you're a woman or man. It bases decisions on these other factors:
(1) The higher-earner pays alimony, whether man or woman.
These days, many women earn more than their husbands, and those women pay alimony.
(2) If the receiver remarries or moves in with an S/O, the alimony stops.
(3) Whoever stays with the children receives primary physical custody, and the other parent pays child support.
Some fathers have primary custody. But I noticed most divorced fathers want only visitation. They'd rather pay child support and keep their freedom.
(4) Whoever remains in the house may continue to live there, but must cough up half the equity in the house (thus reducing the alimony) and take over the mortgage payments.
(5) What's also split in half is debt - even debt hidden by one spouse from the other. It's very difficult to prove debt is cheating debt. (Many a cheating husband has driven his wife into financial ruin this way.)
Of course, your lawyers probably told you all these things and more. The point is, divorce isn't as clear cut as many here believe.
nice women choose the bad boys on purpose
It looks to me as if nice guys choose the bad girls. Anyway, somehow, too many nice girls end up with bad guys, and too many nice guys end up with bad women. And that's a shame. Sometimes you don't really know about a person until much later.
Religious Jews typically all three. Religious Christians maybe a tat on the wrist or ankle.
Why sure, little lady; anything for the weaker sex. As an added bonus I'll even start with a definitive demonstration of your myopic chauvinism!
In post #350 you ask for "proof" that "wife beating...certainly wasn't anywhere near as frequent as feminists have tried to portray" without offering anything what-so-ever to support the veracity of the feminist claim.
You want him to prove something wrong that you accepted without any kind of critical review, or reference to same.
Furthermore, after the infamous "Superbowl Sunday" hoax, it is fair to conclude that women as a distinct social group are loathe to let truth stand in the way of a good story...particularly when that story allows them to vicariously cast themselves as "Cinderella."
That is "chauvinism" by definition.
Next, "blatant hyperbole," and "histrionic cliches" can both be demonstrated by you post #253. "So the only way to have a solid family...etc," is a perfect example of hyperbole. While "for women to be...like in Islam...," demonstrates histrionic cliche on the level of AOC's "concentration camp" comments.
Finally, I'll point out your willingness to "diagnose and prescribe" for HIM, based entirely on what was related by HER demonstrates a strong likelihood your identification with this story is at least partially autobiographical.
It is also clear you have absolved yourself of any wrongdoing by placing the onus to act on him, conveniently ignoring the tendency to "hold something over" an indiscrete partner is by no means a solely male tactic.
Nonsense. If marriage was a "cage," it was at least somewhat self-fulfilling. How else do you explain widows who can't drive, bank, or conduct official business while their daughters have no such impediment.
You can't blame men for making the "cage" so comfortable women didn't want to leave it.
Perfect!
Sorry, but here are the facts. 75% of divorces are initiated by women in the US, 90% of child support is paid by men and 97% of alimony is paid by men. Yes, the laws in theory are neutral in most states but judges have extremely broad discretion and generally speaking the only way a man can get custody of his kids is if the wife doesn’t want them (party girl) or can be proved beyond a doubt that they are drug addicts. Alimony is the same way, despite the fact that women make the most money in 35% of households today, only 3% of alimony payers are women.
“Three. He told me.”
Surely you jest...?
Weren’t there some zero’s behind the 3?
30? 300? 3000?
Complete and utter BS. While I'm sure there are a smattering of men out there like this, most dont aggressively pursue because the legal cost and time can run into the multiple five or even 6 digits with just a very small chance of success and the wife frequently will threaten to go after more assets, alimony and child support if the guy doesn't give up custody. A friend of mine who paid all the bills spent over $50k trying to get his kids, and his wife was a train-wreck alcoholic and pill popper with severe depression mental history, and the wife was still granted custody with only weekend visitation for my friend.
The burden of proof lies on he who makes the claim. I thought a big smart man like you knew that.
Furthermore, after the infamous "Superbowl Sunday" hoax, it is fair to conclude that women as a distinct social group are loathe to let truth stand in the way of a good story...particularly when that story allows them to vicariously cast themselves as "Cinderella."
So one untruth condemns the entire sex as liars? Does one violent rape make all men rapists? Just checking.
That is "chauvinism" by definition.
Well, I've never seen anyone more qualified than you to lecture on chauvinism, I'll admit that.
Next, "blatant hyperbole," and "histrionic cliches" can both be demonstrated by you post #253. "So the only way to have a solid family...etc," is a perfect example of hyperbole.
No, that was me trying to get another poster to clarify his stance. I said that women were financially trapped in the past, and he seemed to be saying that freeing them resulted in the destruction of the family, so I was asking him if those were the only two choices.
While "for women to be...like in Islam...," demonstrates histrionic cliche on the level of AOC's "concentration camp" comments.
No it isn't. Remember that Islam and ISIS are not quite the same. That is, all crows are birds but not all birds are crows. In most Muslim countries, women have fewer rights than men, but they aren't all as extreme as Saudi Arabia and ISIS. In Malaysia, Indonesia, UAE... even in Iran under the Shah, women's status was lesser than mens but not any worse than in Victorian England and post-Civil War America. You forget that until the 20th century, women couldn't vote, and had no laws insuring they could get credit, have bank accounts, get a university education, or be gainfully employed above the level of secretary.
Finally, I'll point out your willingness to "diagnose and prescribe" for HIM, based entirely on what was related by HER demonstrates a strong likelihood your identification with this story is at least partially autobiographical.
It is. My second husband had very little experience with women before he met me, whereas I had already been married once and was older than he, and he obsessed over my past (mild as it was, it was still a bit more extensive than his.) He was an angry fellow. His own family admitted it. Now, that was 30 years ago, but in that time I've talked to quite a few other women and I have come to the conclusion that it's pretty safe to say that a man who obsesses over a woman's past has some issues.
What's interesting to me is how upset men here on FR have gotten over me calling him "angry." I didn't call for his death, or condemn his character, I didn't call him scum, or a bastard, or anything else. I just said he was angry and BOY DID MEN GET ANGRY at me saying that. I clearly touched a major nerve. Meanwhile, men on here are tossing around words like "bitch" and "slut," ... I swear, it's been almost a caricature of what liberals think conservative men are like: foul-mouthed misogynists who judge every women who dares to open her mouth, but if you say, "Wow, you're angry" they flip out. How DARE a woman call them ANGRY.
It is also clear you have absolved yourself of any wrongdoing by placing the onus to act on him,
Well, yes, if he wants out of the relationship, he should put on his Big Boy pants and break up with her. Is that controversial? (Is any criticism of any male by a woman controversial? It seems to be.)
conveniently ignoring the tendency to "hold something over" an indiscrete partner is by no means a solely male tactic.
Oh, no, I know women remember things forever. That just wasn't the topic of the thread. I'm surprised to have to point that out to a big strong smart alpha male like you. Or is your screen name more appropriate even than mine?
But they did leave it. As you pointed out, the daughters do not want to be like the mothers. Usually it's because... I hate to tell you this, but mothers and daughters talk when the husband/father is not around. If the daughter is turning out very different from the mother, it's usually because the mother has said, in private, "don't do what I did."
The infection of American leftist feminazi culture has spread to the south as well.
Precisely, but do you even know what that means? Where is your *critically reviewed* evidence to validate feminist claims?
So one untruth condemns the entire sex as liars?
It only takes one untruth, that spread throughout society like wildfire, to DEMONSTRATE how even highly educated, professional, and academic women will uncritically propagate an utter fraud, so long as it panders to their conceits.
No, that was me trying to get another poster to clarify his stance. I said that women were financially trapped in the past, and he seemed to be saying that freeing them resulted in the destruction of the family, so I was asking him if those were the only two choices.
No, THIS is you being duplicitous. I can read. Your candy coating is not plausible. You wrote a challenge, not a request for clarification. Contrary to popular female practice, you DO NOT get to go back and "redefine" everything to give yourself a presumption of reasonableness.
You forget that until the 20th century, women couldn't vote, and had no laws insuring they could get credit, have bank accounts, get a university education, or be gainfully employed above the level of secretary.
Nope, that's just more "Superbowl Sunday" nonsense. Martin Van Creveld, world renound military historian and PhD in Economics, meticulously documents and confutes such "old wives tales" in his "The Privileged Sex." You might want to read it before continuing to propagate popular fantasy.
What's interesting to me is how upset men here on FR have gotten over me calling him "angry."
I guess it didn't occur to you men might be offended you so seamlessly co-opted the writer's experience with your own. YOUR guy's actions say NOTHING about the guy in the OP. While you say you only had a few more than he, you don't know she might have had a few HUNDRED more than her guy. YOU were not the subject of the post, but having a discussion with someone who insists on insinuating herself into the stream of discussion with unwarrented presumptions is most annoying.
For the record, there is little more repugnant to a man than a woman who "makes it all about 'me.'"
Then why doesn't the mother stop doing it?
This question IS for clarity: are you proposing a man would encourage his daughter to aquire skills he denies to his wife?
I don't have to, I'm not the one who made those claims. But if you are calling for critical reviews of claims from the late 1800s and early 1900s about violence against women, I'd be very surprised if there WERE any "critically reviewed" studies, as all the accepted critics of the day were men, and they were no more likely to publish peer-reviewed confessionals about beating their wives than today's Muslims. In fact, I doubt it would occur to them as smacking your wife around was not illegal nationwide till 1920, and raping her wasn't illegal in all 50 states until 1993.
It only takes one untruth, that spread throughout society like wildfire, to DEMONSTRATE how even highly educated, professional, and academic women will uncritically propagate an utter fraud, so long as it panders to their conceits.
Yes, we saw that in the 19th century when male doctors convinced the Western world that women were too hysterical to be anything but housewives. The men ate that up like candy.
You wrote a challenge, not a request for clarification.
I challenged him to clarify. The two are not mutually exclusive.
(You forget that until the 20th century, women couldn't vote, and had no laws insuring they could get credit, have bank accounts, get a university education, or be gainfully employed above the level of secretary.)
Nope, that's just more "Superbowl Sunday" nonsense. Martin Van Creveld, world renound military historian and PhD in Economics, meticulously documents and confutes such "old wives tales" in his "The Privileged Sex." You might want to read it before continuing to propagate popular fantasy.
Women not being able to vote in federal elections is a myth? This is fascinating, I had no idea that the whole suffragette movement never happened, and there is no 19th amendment.
Oh, I admit, a few laws began to be passed in the mid 1800s in some states allowing unmarried women to own land. This is also about the time that married women began to get the right to manage their money independent of their husbands, although in some cases he had to be incapacitated before she would be accepted as a financial entity. But, in some states, yes. Gradually. Nevertheless, it wasn't until an EO by LBJ in 1967 that it became illegal to deny a woman a job merely because she was a woman, and it wasn't until 1972 that it became illegal to deny women entrance into a college based on sex. And if you look at what I wrote, I have been careful to be specific: that there were no laws protecting their rights. I should have gone a step further and said "no federal laws." Because some states did have them a good 50 years earlier than 1900. And worldwide, there have always been a handful of (usually wealthy) women who could hold positions of power. If the men in her family were powerful, and supported her, a woman could do anything. Ah, but if the men wanted to prevent her, it was very, very easy.
Many of the ways in which women have been trapped are not commonly thought about. For example, as an interesting little footnote, I just found this: 1961 In Hoyt v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that state laws which effectively exclude women from jury pools are not invidious discrimination, but rather, are an "inoffensive" attempt to accommodate the "special responsibilities" of women, and that women tried before the resulting all-male juries have no valid claims under the equal protection clause.
So as recently as 1961, women were regularly tried before all male juries. No wonder a woman who killed her husband, even in self defense, received longer sentences than a man who killed his wife. According to National Coalition Against Domestic Violence in 1989, the men got an average of 6 years, the women 15.
As for Martin Van Creveld, he argued that women have social protections and privileges. This is not the same as legal rights, and women have social protections only as long as they fulfill men's demands. The old "act like a lady and I'll treat you like a lady." (But act like anything else and you better hope you have legal protection.)
I guess it didn't occur to you men might be offended ...
Yes, I should have known. Men cannot take anything from women but praise, praise, praise. You're tough guys with each other, but let a woman say anything and you all turn to snowflakes.
she might have had a few HUNDRED more than her guy...
What was that you were saying about unwarranted presumptions? (That's how you spell it, by the way. Unwarranted.)
For the record, there is little more repugnant to a man than a woman who "makes it all about 'me.'"
Yes. She's supposed to think of HIS feelings and HIS perceptions and HIS experiences. Not her own. Mommy puts her little boy first and he never outgrows the expectation that all women should.
Yes, you did. You cited those claims as predicates to your conclusions. Therefore, it is incumbent on YOU to demonstrate the validity of those claims.
Furthermore, it is heinously disingenuous to impugn men for not criticizing claims they did not make while ignoring the lack of critical review by women for claims they DID make.
So far, your responses have been absolutely Pavlovian in their anti-male bias. The fact you have to reach back a hundred years to even begin to approach valid societal complaints apparently means nothing to you.
Finally, your two-faced “it wasn’t illegal to deny” even though “it” was common practice “legal theory,” with NO supporting evidence women were routinely denied those things that weren’t made illegal to deny them until long afterward only typifies your truculence and lack of intellectual integrity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.