I Told My Boyfriend How Many People I’d Slept with…and He Didn’t Like the Answer

Yahoo ^ | 06/19/2019

[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.

[KC_Conspirator]

This is TEXT BOOK, “Alpha Seed, Beta Need” hypergamy.

[papertyger]

Because the only people who cared enough to publish material on those events are feminist and liberal scholars, whom conservative men simply dismiss as liars.

Doesn't it get uncomfortable pulling demi-plausible excuses out of your poop chute like that, or does it get more comfortable with long practice?

Obviously "conservative men" would have no interest in publishing scholarly take-downs of liberals and feminists.

Your ability to imagine something is NOT evidence such a scenario transpired.

[Tired of Taxes]

or at least both agree on open marriage

Ugh. They shouldn't marry, either, and they shouldn't have children.

It'll set my retirement date back 2-3 years from 45-46 to 48-50 if I dont ever make CFO but I can cope with that.

Then it sounds as if you're going to do very well (and so will she). Divorces can be messy. But you'll be fine.

In most of the divorces I know about, the women got the shaft - whether the courts awarded them alimony or not. One in particular was heartbreaking - she was the main breadwinner for years, but then she became terminally ill, and her husband left without warning, draining all the accounts, including her youngest son's college fund.

I've also known a few men (acquaintances, coworkers) whose divorces were brutal. But only one guy was financially broke. Some of the others were collecting alimony from their ex-wives.

[A_perfect_lady]

If he’d asked at the beginning of the relationship, I’d agree he’s just vetting. But he started nagging about it after 2 years. Something’s up there.

[Tired of Taxes]

What proof is papertyger asking for? Proof of what?

Going back through the conversation... Does he want backup that women didn't "have access to education, credit, property rights, and employment" at one point?

I thought it was common knowledge, but maybe everyone here is very young.

Here's info on credit:

1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act
45 years ago, many banks required a single, divorced or widowed woman to bring a man with her to cosign for a credit card.

If he wants backup on something else, maybe I'll look for it later.

[A_perfect_lady]

I’m not a woman. Dismissing evidence, or criticism, I don’t like is not one of my coping mechanisms.

No, but you'll make excuses and demand that I find evidence to refute your hypotheticals. For example, I said women were denied education. You want an example. I could tell you that the College of William and Mary has, on its page 100 Years of Women the information that 1918 was the year they started admitting women. To any logical person that would mean that prior to 1918, they did not admit women.

Ah, but that won't be enough for you. You will say, "That doesn't mean they were denied, maybe no women ever applied there in the previous 225 years! Prove they did! Prove they applied and got turned down because they were women. I want original letters with William and Mary letterhead stating, Dear Agnes Winslow, we are sorry to inform you that we do not admit the weaker sex, and it better be notarized. And that would be only one, I'll need at least 100 before I accept that women were denied entrance to many universities."

And then what am I expected to do? Do I drive across country to the College of William and Mary, and ask if they have copies of every rejection letter they sent out over the last 225 years, maybe in their archive rooms?

Before I waste a lot of gas money, why don't you tell me exactly what you would accept as proof that women before 1920 were routinely denied education, credit, employment, etc? Oh, and can we take the 19th amendment as proof they couldn't vote in federal elections, or do I have to borrow Bill and Ted's time machine and take you for a whirl?

[A_perfect_lady]

Does he want backup that women didn't "have access to education, credit, property rights, and employment" at one point? I thought it was common knowledge, but maybe everyone here is very young.

Oh, he's already indicated that a court case or an Executive order or law isn't proof of anything except women manipulating the government into passing a law or setting a precedent that is... totally unnecessary, because women have never been disadvantaged in America! As far as I can tell, that's the stance.

And any feminist scholarship is lies, lies, lies... you saw the link rb22982 posted, right? Feminists (presumably) published a survey that states 5% of women who responded said they were raped on campus. Obama says the survey says that 1 in 5 women were raped on campus. Then Washington Examiner posts an article that uses the survey to debunk the politician, and he thinks it debunked the survey because he didn't read either the survey or the article, beyond the headline. He's refusing to comment on it now (the only wise decision he's made), but it does point to the uselessness of trying to have an intelligent conversation with men like this.

[KC_Conspirator]

Maybe he started after 2 years because the question of marriage came up and he had a realization about his investment? Not every one does these things up fron.

Heck, I have know wild stories where people did not know that their significant others/spouses had done porn/orgy videos and even prostitution 3, 4, up to 7 years into the relationship.

[KC_Conspirator]

That 'toxic' masculinity created the Western world, a safe place for the weak, that ironically gives them a forum to spew their venom and hatred of the environment created for them.

Absolutely, western society is a full of ingrates. Totally bereft of the history and evolution of built on blood, tears, and sweat of of better people before them.

[rb22982]

Eh, if people voluntarily agree, I personally don't care - open marriage or polygamy for that matter - its certainly not for me.

Yes, I will be fine, but the fact that I'm going to have to make around $1.2 million pre-tax over the next 13 years to pay her alimony is still very annoying considering I encouraged her to work (she quit working due to 'stress'), encouraged her to get a masters and she had nothing to do with me working my butt off up the corporate ladder. The only reason my wife didn't bankrupt me is because I averaged a 20% CAGR on income from when we got married. The credit card bill in December alone was nearly $10k, of which only $3-3.5k was legitimate stuff for both of us. The rest was designer handbags, hair stuff, makeup, etc.

[rb22982]

Sigh 5% or 25% (sexual assault, not much better than rape), the entire study was bogus. It focused on only 2 colleges and self selected response rates among many other issues. Other studies have shown fewer than 0.2% of women are raped (in that article it has .13%) so a 5% rate would still be 25x+ that. You really are terrible at straw-man arguments.

[A_perfect_lady]

No, that was a perfectly good survey for its kind, because it was transparent. Every flaw or possible weakness in it you know about because the authors revealed them and laid them out very openly. Here is our survey, they said. It's only two colleges, they said. We didn't even get that much feedback, they said. We aren't sure if the way we worded the questions might have affected the outcome, they said. We are going on what the respondents told us, they said. Some of the respondents admit they were inebriated and don't remember, they said. They were simply gathering the information and publishing it. They were careful not to jump to any conclusions, they pointed out all the possible variables that could affect the responses, they did just exactly what they should have done.

Then male politicians came along and twisted it. They took the information 28% of women on campus have been assaulted and turned it to 28% of women are assaulted on campus. They were the ones being deceitful, and you didn't catch it because you didn't read either the article or the study.

The article says "other" studies had a lower percentage? Let's look into that. What do you know about the 2 universities that were in this study? I'm certain you know nothing about them, because you didn't read it, but one was in the South and one in the Midwest. 16% of the respondents were black; that's higher than the normal percentage. They are almost certainly mostly from larger cities. This is going to affect the results. How do I know this? Because the study explained all this very carefully in their write-up.

So did you actually look at the other study that you have suddenly decided "must" be the right one? Was it the Bureau of Justice Statistics data? Where it says 2012 the rate of rapes and sexual assaults was 1.3 per 1,000 Americans ages 12 and up.

Okay, now think about this: they are counting men as well as women. Is it so hard to understand that if you take 1000 people ages 12-99, around half of whom are men, many of whom live in rural areas, didn't go to universities in large cities, you are going to get different numbers? Would you really expect that the percentage of women ages 18-20 at a university would have the same sexual assault rate as a population 12 and up, half of whom are MALE? You link things and you do not even read them. Then you talk about straw-man arguments... I don't think you even know what that means.

The facts remain:

1) That study did not say what MALE politicians claimed it said.

2.) That survey was perfectly transparent and made no claims.

3.) It proves exactly the opposite of what you thought it proved.

4.) You just tried to compare a group of college girls 18-20 to a group of Americans, male and female, 12-99.

5.) And you didn't realize any of this because you are referencing articles, surveys, studies, and data that you yourself didn't even look at.

With every post you reveal more and more an angry, foolish man who knows how to do nothing but hurl accusations and insults. And I doubt you will even read my post closely enough to absorb what it is you are doing wrong. But that's okay. I write this more for the lurkers who are watching your behavior and mine than I am for you.

[Tired of Taxes]

survey that states 5% of women who responded said they were raped on campus. Obama says the survey says that 1 in 5 women were raped on campus. Then Washington Examiner posts an article that uses the survey to debunk the politician

I found the link and tried reading the article myself, but the pop-ups were too annoying.

Anyway, if I understand your point, you're saying that the Democrats twisted the information to be used for their own agenda. Correct? And the article was debunking the Dems' claims.

[Tired of Taxes]

The credit card bill in December alone was nearly $10k, of which only $3-3.5k was legitimate stuff for both of us. The rest was designer handbags, hair stuff, makeup, etc.

That is terrible. I don't want to give personal details. But I never was a credit card user. I always was frugal. How about a spouse maxing out the other spouse's CC at $12,000. Or a spouse taking out multiple loans and hiding them. Alimony doesn't mean the payer is a victim. Sometimes the receiver was left with a load of debt.

[Tired of Taxes]

Sometimes it takes longer (10, 20, 30 years) before one spouse discovers the other spouse’s secrets.

People have even been married to serial killers and had no clue.

[rb22982]

You really think I’m going to read that babble?

[rb22982]

I get probably $4k worth of points/miles a year on my credit cards and pay in full every month.

[rb22982]

Also, while I have no doubt that some men rack up the credit cards and leave, I'd bet that's still a small fraction of the women that do it (I only wish my wife had wasted $12k in the last year - closer to $50k in just one year). According to this website, women make up 85% of consumer purchases, despite making up less than 40% of income.

[KC_Conspirator]

People have even been married to serial killers and had no clue.

Oh gawd, thats true. Dennis Rader, the BTK killer comes immediately to mind.

So another lesson learned, never stop vetting your partner. lolz

[KC_Conspirator]

Oh, speaking of, I am reading your posts.

My ex-wife ran up 20k+ in debt through forged credit cards and a loan in my name. Hid it from me by beating me to the mailbox after work every day. It put my career in jeopardy because my finances are checked by my employers.

That, and the conga line of latino men on the side, is why she is my ex.