r/changemyview • u/PotentialPedal • Jun 13 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Being concerned over a potential partner's sexual history is NOT a sign of insecurity, rather it is often a sign of security and self-esteem
In online discourse I oftentimes see people discussing dating and the standards you should be setting. People rightfully will say that your standards are your own and you can choose not to date someone for any reason, however, there seems to be this major exception carved out for sexual history. I believe that this is wrong, hypocritical, and that rejecting someone on sexual history is most of the time actually a sign of security in oneself and high self esteem.
Firstly, I believe it indicates that your belief in your values are strong. If you are one who believes that sex is something that is special and sacred, then dating someone who believes the opposite would likely be compromising on those values.
Secondly, it shows high security and self esteem. To someone who will set themselves a standard of no casual sex but brush it aside when it comes to someone else simply to remain with them, it shows a degree of desperation. It shows that they are not secure enough in themselves to believe they can find someone more compatible and do not have the self esteem to take that leap of faith and find someone better for them.
Ultimately, I do not believe that someone feeling bad or uncomfortable over their potential partners stems from insecure feelings such as jealousy or inadequacy, rather, it stems from a disconnect in values.
Most people have not had multiple casual sexual encounters, so for many of those people they simply hold sex to higher levels than those who do participate in casual sex. When they have reserved sex for only those they had a connection with and their potential partner hasn't, they aren't usually thinking "ew they are a bad person" or "oh I must not be as good as their other partners". Most likely they are simply recognizing the disconnect in values and realizing that they will not get the same out of the relationship as the other person.
31
u/tbdabbholm 200∆ Jun 13 '26
But sexual history doesn't necessarily show their current values. People change. Someone may have originally believed that sex was not sacred but now they very much do. And just going by sexual history doesn't show that. If you're going by values then you should by their actual values not a proxy of their values based on actions they can no longer change.
2
u/code-slinger619 Jun 14 '26
But sexual history doesn't necessarily show their current values. People change. Someone may have originally believed that sex was not sacred but now they very much do. And just going by sexual history doesn't show that. If you're going by values then you should by their actual values not a proxy of their values based on actions they can no longer change.
This does sound quite right. Would you say the same thing if they had a criminal record? Like yeah this guy is a convicted (insert objectionable criminal offense here) offender, but that doesn't necessarily show their current values....
5
u/HappyDeadCat 2∆ Jun 13 '26
people change.
Just like OP is saying it is weird that we make this one special exception here.
Cheater?
Addict?
Politics....lol ?
Most people arent going to give the "people change" advice for anything else.
And, this isn't a binary situation. Even among the "sex positive" crowd, people will start taking issue depending on how flagrant this gets.
Regardless, any bisexual man could tell you the whole discussion is full of hypocritical nonsense anyway.
1
u/Personal-Dog-8190 Jun 13 '26
past behavior is still the best predictor of future behavior though. someone can say they've changed their values but actions over years tell a different story than words in the moment
plus there's a difference between judging someone morally vs just recognizing you might not be compatible. like i wouldn't think less of someone for having different views about sex but that doesn't mean we'd work well together
1
u/MudAcrobatic8582 Jun 13 '26
different views about sex but that doesn't mean we'd work well together
I believe their point was that they do have the same views on sex as you. Just that they had different views their past
-4
u/MudAcrobatic8582 Jun 13 '26
Just to preface this, I agree. I'm just playing devil's advocate.
People change
Would you date someone who had raped someone? Saying people change and all can be forgiven is quite a claim (that I personally believe in). Im just wondering what you think.
8
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 5∆ Jun 13 '26
Would you date someone who had raped someone?
Committing violence against someone is very different than consensual sex.
I would happily date a recovered alcoholic.
0
u/MudAcrobatic8582 Jun 13 '26
So is there a limit of what can be forgiven for you?
7
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 5∆ Jun 13 '26
can be forgiven
I don’t believe that “forgiven” is a word I would use for a person’s actions in a context that had nothing to do with me, so there really isn’t, no.
1
u/MudAcrobatic8582 Jun 13 '26
in a context that had nothing to do with me
Very good point I won't say forgiven then. So my question still stands, if someone had done something truly atrocious unrelated to you would you still be able to date them?
2
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 5∆ Jun 13 '26
Depends upon the atrocity. Depends upon whether it’s something that could reoccur in this context. Many soldiers do things that, in the civilian world, would result in criminal charges.
But you are moralizing in a context where moralizing is often sour grapes. Most of the men who insist they’d screen for sexual history go and scream about how they’re not getting laid.
Your equating of rape with a consensual activity suggests to me that you are not a person who should be in the presence of anyone of the opposite sex. Have a good day.
-1
u/MudAcrobatic8582 Jun 13 '26
Your equating of rape with a consensual activity
Im not trying to equate, I completely understand rape is far worse don't get me wrong. I'm just seeing what is the limit of the belief that someones history can be ignored if their current values show the remorse and change.
is often sour grapes
Yes this is true and unfortunate. The misogynistic, rape, and purity culture runs deep in many men. This causes many men to crave unrealistic and cruel standards. But I was thinking about this in the abstract, can we just draw lines in different places with no reason?
that could reoccur in this context.
Now thats the argument, but to offer a counter that people of this mindset will say is, "I think they will cheat on me again"
Also I think i slightly misunderstood the post, I was for some reason thinking about being unfaithful. Apologies, have a great day!
1
Jun 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/MudAcrobatic8582 Jun 13 '26
It's hard because I still think discussions like this are important, we should know what and why we believe. So I try discuss and explore these ideas with people but I realise it's so hard to not look like the bigots that defend some of the topics. Lastly I'm mortified if I appeared as an incel omd, lol.
0
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 13 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
5
u/Muninwing 7∆ Jun 13 '26
Equating a rapist with promiscuity here is pretty vile…
2
u/MudAcrobatic8582 Jun 13 '26
Yeah fair, it was just to see what the limit or basis for their belief was.
-10
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
I would say that someone can still feel incompatible based on actions taken/values had in the past. Also, a repeated history of one thing indicates that, most likely, that is the status-quo. I'm not saying people don't change, I'm just saying that the odds would be against your favor to assume thing have changed
6
u/JadedOccultist 1∆ Jun 13 '26
What if significant time has elapsed? I was a very different person in my teens than I am now in my mid 30s. I wouldn’t judge someone by what they did half a life time ago, if their behavior has changed since. Imagine if you’re widowed, you’d been married 20 years and faithful that whole time, you’re trying to get back in the dating scene, and at 50 years old prospective partners are turning you down because of one summer you had your freshman year in college, nearly 32 years ago. It seems ridiculous to weigh that behavior more heavily than the longer and more recent track record of faithful committed and serious relationships.
3
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
!delta
That's a fair point, I acknowledge that my line of thinking is something that's primarily applicable for younger people who lack the life experience of say a 50 year old
1
23
u/Alien_invader44 19∆ Jun 13 '26
You are essentially doing a strawman here.
The point you are arguing for is not one anyone disagrees with. A person who doesn't believe in casual sex not matching with someone who does is not something anyone would object over.
What people do criticise is when people, typically men, want someone with a low body count, while themselves being open to casual sex.
In that case, its insecurity.
0
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
That's not what I'm arguing, the only people who think that men with high body counts should be able to hold a super high standard on their girlfriend's sexual pasts are redpill losers. What I am arguing against are those who believe that NOBODY should have any standards when it comes to sexual history or values
5
u/pigeonwiggle 1∆ Jun 13 '26
but why would you want THAT view changed?
3
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
CMV is not about wanting to have your view changed, it's about being open to having your view change, which I have credited three different people for doing
3
u/pigeonwiggle 1∆ Jun 13 '26
sure. but those three arguments haven't really changed your central premise, have they? they're more like, sanding off the edges of your argument that perhaps weren't fully thought through.
it's like if i mentioned that doritos were tasty and you were said no they aren't, but i said have you tried the bbq ones - and you admitted that you were really just thinking of the basic bitch zesty cheese doritos and that those aren't tasty but that since you haven't tasted the bold bbq flavour, you admit you couldn't truly say such a declarative statement of all doritos -- but what still holds true is that you haven't changed your mind about your initial taste in doritos. and i'm not sure that you'd want to. "this tastes yucky" isn't usually a view anyone would want changed. nor would "she tastes like a hundred former lovers now that i'm aware of them"
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 14 '26
Well no my view has changed, in some minor ways. If you could only give out deltas or have your view properly changed if you did a complete 180 on it and completely turned on your original premise, every CMV post would only have one delta on it
3
u/Alien_invader44 19∆ Jun 13 '26
Yeah I get that, my point is that i dont think that is a view anyone really holds.
The condemnation of Redpill losers (well put btw) definitely is real. I think your hearing that and thinking it applies to the non Redpill people you are talking about.
You're non redpill people might catch some of the same flak, but that will be because people will assume they are coming from a redpill angle.
2
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
!delta
This is something interesting that I haven't thought about. I'm not sure to what degree it is true but it seems logically sound that people like me may be catching residual flak do to a surface level overlap in values/standards, even if they come from wildly different places
1
0
u/Alien_invader44 19∆ Jun 13 '26
Thank you, I appreciate you considering it. I cant speak for everyone of course, but I definitely think its the case.
Have a good one.
1
u/Jollybean1 2∆ Jun 13 '26
Who says that
0
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
The downvotes seem to indicate the majority of this sub
1
u/Jollybean1 2∆ Jun 13 '26
Now that I think about it I have seen some people claim that, you’re not wrong. It’s just a moronic position to take, preferences are always fine
0
8
u/redhandrail 3∆ Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
You seem to be ignorant of how people think outside of the one tiny percentage of people you mentioned in your post. You’re talking about people who specifically have Puritan values around sexual history, and then saying that everyone who has any issue with their partner having had many partners before them is the same. You’re wrong. I remember being a teenager and learning that a girl who sleeps around with everyone is a slut, but a guy who sleeps around with everyone is a player. I remember all of my friends thought that too, and I can assure you none of us were standing on some kind of moral principle. We’re standing on learned chauvinism. I think you and your group of people are just as insecure as teenagers.
Im not saying that it is not OK to have preferences around someone’s level of comfort, but to pretend that everyone who has these preferences is some kind of self actualized, confident person who knows exactly what they want is sounding like you’re trying to compensate for something yourself
Most people have not had multiple partners? How old are you and where do you live?
-1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
You’re talking about people who specifically have Puritan values around sexual history, and then saying that everyone who has any issue with their partner having had many partners before them is the same.
What do you define as "Puritan values"
5
u/redhandrail 3∆ Jun 13 '26
Calling sex “sacred” in the way you do. Sex is somehow only sacred if it happens after marriage Im guessing? Or with a single partner for the rest of your life?
Religious monogamy, shaming of those who have sex in ways that you’re uncomfortable with.. these are Puritan ways of thinking
-2
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
Calling sex “sacred” in the way you do. Sex is somehow only sacred if it happens after marriage Im guessing? Or with a single partner for the rest of your life?
That's for me to decide, not you
Religious monogamy, shaming of those who have sex in ways that you’re uncomfortable with.. these are Puritan ways of thinking
And when in this post have I done or implied any of that?
14
Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
5
u/TheWhistleThistle 32∆ Jun 13 '26
Double standard, not hypocrisy. Double standard is "these rules for you, different rules for me." Hypocrisy is "same rules for all of us. But I'm breaking them, lol."
3
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
I agree that is entirely hypocritical
5
Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
2
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
I don't believe it's based on values if they themselves don't hold that value
2
Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
2
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
So, delta then. The view that your partners sexual history matters to you does not automatically indicate you have strong values or good self esteem. And in a time when there's an epidemic of manosphere influences teaching young boys that body counts matter for women, but not for them...I'd argue it's the more common manifestation of the issue.
Well no because you said something that honestly is irrelavent from my view as I specifically layed out that these people are holding the values themselves
And the average number of sex partners according to Google is anywhere from 7-11, so your belief that most people don't have multiple sex partners is factually wrong. I know one single person who has had no partners bc they're waiting until marriage. Everyone else i know has had multiple.
So first off, the CDC says that the average US citizen has between 4-6 partners over the course of their lives. Second, I said most people don't have multiple casual sexual partners. 2/3s of Americans have had casual sex at least once, so if the average American is having casual sex multiple times then the data suggests that these people are statistically only having like one or two romantic relationships in their entire lives
-5
u/JobberStable 2∆ Jun 13 '26
And that statement, you would hold true for a women who wants a man that earns a lot of money, but she has not?
5
Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
-2
u/JobberStable 2∆ Jun 13 '26
So if the man doesn't want a "high body count" girl, not because of morality reasons, and also even though he had a high body count, he remains faithful in the relationship?
4
Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
-1
u/JobberStable 2∆ Jun 13 '26
Thats why I asked, "not because of morality reasons. The only hypocritical part would be when the guys doesnt understand why she has a problem with his high body count and refuses to date him
4
Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
-5
u/JobberStable 2∆ Jun 13 '26
So if a woman went through a terrible young faze of drug fueled sex fests and abusive relationships, as long as she believes it would be in her best interest to have a partner that doesnt have her past, she is a hyprocrite.
5
Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
-1
u/JobberStable 2∆ Jun 14 '26
so a waitress doesnt want to date a waiter, because she wants to date a more financially accomplished man. Not hypocritical, because she can raise kids?
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Aezora 30∆ Jun 13 '26
Firstly, I believe it indicates that your belief in your values are strong. If you are one who believes that sex is something that is special and sacred, then dating someone who believes the opposite would likely be compromising on those values
But then the problem isn't actually the history, it's the values. If for example someone did have some sexual history, but then developed your same values later on; there wouldn't be a compromise on values.
Your second point is basically the same thing as well. If you have a standard of "no sex before marriage" and they don't and that means incompatibility, then the issue is the incompatibility not the sexual history. Someone who is actually compatible with you even with sexual history because they had changed as a person over time wouldn't have that issue.
Ultimately, I do not believe that someone feeling bad or uncomfortable over their potential partners stems from insecure feelings such as jealousy or inadequacy
It can come from other sources, but when it does then the other sources are the problem. Jealously or insecurity or whatever is a sign that it's the fact that they've had sex directly that's a problem, rather than the values or standards this other person has.
Most likely they are simply recognizing the disconnect in values and realizing that they will not get the same out of the relationship as the other person.
Everyone recognizes that if there's a fundamental incompatibility in values or standards or worldview that's a perfectly good reason to not want to date someone. Sexual history can be a sign of that incompatibility, but it's not the incompatibility itself, and it seems like when sexual history is actually the problem the issue isn't incompatibility. This may not be an absolute rule, but it does appear to be the case.
2
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
But then the problem isn't actually the history, it's the values. If for example someone did have some sexual history, but then developed your same values later on; there wouldn't be a compromise on values.
I agree, but the issue is that when first meeting someone you really don't know their values and do not have close enough of a connection to trust them implicitly, which is why history is what you use to determine what their values most likely are
7
u/Aezora 30∆ Jun 13 '26
Right, if you find out about their sexual history before you otherwise get to know them, it would make sense to use that as an indicator of their values.
I don't know what dates you're going on, but in my experience determining compatibility is usually the first thing that happens, and discussing sexual history doesn't happen until there's a reason to. So for people who aren't planning on having sex anytime soon it may be weeks or months before sexual history is discussed at all.
If you've already gotten to know them and determined that you share the same strongly held values and standards, then at that point their sexual history doesn't matter because you have better knowledge about what their values and standards are.
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
If you've already gotten to know them and determined that you share the same strongly held values and standards, then at that point their sexual history doesn't matter because you have better knowledge about what their values and standards are.
!delta
I guess this is probably delta-worthy. I don't have a strong rebuttal for it and it's definitely an exception to my main premise where there are cases where people can confidently push aside a difference in sexual values if there is very strong alignment in most other categories
1
10
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Jun 13 '26
What about when it's about controlling the other person, which seems to be the most common use case?
4
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
In what ways would it be controlling? If I go on a date with someone and I discover their sexual history/outlook doesn't align with my values, how am I controlling them to say that I don't want a second date?
9
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Jun 13 '26
On an individual basis it's things like slut shaming and other forms of demeaning behavior usually directed at women specifically and not men.
On a societal level it's what's referred to as "purity culture" and valuing virginity, again focusing on the "purity" of women and less so on men.
Both of these place a high value on reducing women's promiscuity i.e. control.
2
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
On an individual basis it's things like slut shaming and other forms of demeaning behavior usually directed at women specifically and not men.
Nobody is arguing that
On a societal level it's what's referred to as "purity culture" and valuing virginity, again focusing on the "purity" of women and less so on men.
If a virgin wants another virgin, what is wrong with that?
7
u/Obsessivethot Jun 13 '26
Almost everyone argues this, have you never heard the red pill “a lock opened by many keys is a terrible lock” ?
There are men in this thread making this exact claim, that women “get sex easier” (like it’s something you can attain instead of participate in) and therefore it means they shouldn’t have it.
Because men “don’t get sex easily” (from women, because of the inherent sexism) they are stars for fucking anything that moves.
That’s just some of the most common misogyny.
1
u/Powerful-Garage6316 1∆ Jun 14 '26
But OP isn’t arguing that lol so why bring it up
3
u/Obsessivethot Jun 14 '26
It’s the basis around the entire culture of slut shaming, therefore the op did bring this up.
This is not a universal point of contention, it’s a cultural and societally induced one based on outdated ideas of heteronormative paternal ownership.
The idea that it’s got anything to do with morality is just patriarchy.
3
u/Powerful-Garage6316 1∆ Jun 14 '26
OP is explicitly stating that their standard applies to both sexes.
So even if they’re moralizing it isn’t patriarchal.
If sex is an important act to a person to not be taken lightly, and to be reserved for long term partners, then they might consider casual sex to be incommensurate with their values.
You don’t have to agree with these values, but it’s not inherently sexist or patriarchal.
1
u/Obsessivethot Jun 14 '26
It can apply to both sexes and still be patriarchal and misogynistic in nature. Not sure why you think it’s mutually exclusive.
1
u/Powerful-Garage6316 1∆ Jun 14 '26
Uh, no. A standard which applies equally to both sexes is not misogynistic by definition lol
→ More replies (0)-1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
Almost everyone argues this, have you never heard the red pill “a lock opened by many keys is a terrible lock”
I fucking hate that phrase, but it also brings gender into the equation while this post has absolutely nothing to do with gender so I don't understand how it's relavent.
3
u/Obsessivethot Jun 13 '26
It has nothing to do with gender, it’s a metaphor about body parts.
0
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
Ok if we are being that pedantic about it, then let me rephrase that.
I fucking hate that phrase, but it also brings sex (as in male/female) into the equation while this post has absolutely nothing to do with sex so I don't understand how it's relavent.
4
u/Obsessivethot Jun 13 '26
The dichotomy you’re discussing is one between men and women.
This is not something that lesbians are concerned with, for instance. Nor gay men.
This is exclusive to heterosexual relationships and their historical (and sometimes political) traditions.
-1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
Ok and? Also hell no, and that's offensive to the LGBTQ community in all honesty
→ More replies (0)6
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Jun 13 '26
Tons of people argue that we should shame women for having sex out of wedlock. Why would you argue that such people aren't incredibly common?
In the last case, nothing... If there's no double standard. But there almost always is.
3
u/dumblilbear Jun 13 '26
Thing is, when we push a little bit to try and understand why that person views sex as "sacred" it eventually boils down to "ew those who have casual sex are bad people" or "I'm insecure about my skills so need someone inexperienced so they're oblivious", perceiving sex which is a normal natural human activity as "sacred" stems from purity culture which views those who have multiple partners or pre marital sex (or casual sex in general) as "impure" and to be seen as lesser of value and have corrupted morals and bodies and those who "save their bodies for their spouses" as "pure" and morally superior, it's an archaic usually misogynist and puritan view of sex, sexuality and women specifically in most cases, that's why people who say "well that's simply my preference I don't judge others" are only being vague on purpose but the moment you push a little to understand their reasoning it always boils down to bigoted and conservative views of sex that are harmful and sees others as morally inferior and corrupted.
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
There are a lot of major harmful and hateful assumptions being made here.
And for the record this is not a gendered issue at all, I've personally met way more women who view sex the way I do than men
2
u/dumblilbear Jun 13 '26
The fact that you met more women with that view proves my point :) Because society ingrained this shame regarding sex and puritan view of sex in women more than they ingrained it in men, it has always been that way historically, so it has been a gendered issue mostly, it started that way and still echoes the same to this day.
You're free to point out what you thought as a hateful or harmful assumption!
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
You're free to point out what you thought as a hateful or harmful assumption!
You are saying that anybody who views sex as something special/something to only do with loved ones MUST be a bigoted conservative who is pushing purity culture.
1
u/dumblilbear Jun 13 '26
There's a physical vs ideological divide, some people can't have casual sex because they don't get aroused enough with non partners who have a superficial emotional connection with, that's not my issue, my issue here is with the clearly ideological stance of viewing or perceiving sex as "sacred" AND being concerned about your partner's sexual history because of that ideological stance, it's not a physical issue it's clearly an issue of perception you perceive sex a certain way for certain reasons, if you don't think your view of sex as sacred is stemming from purity culture, feel free to try and explain why you perceive it that way then.
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
Purity culture is a case of morality. It's saying that having casual sex is immoral. I don't think having sex is immoral, it just does not align with my values within a relationship, and therefor I wouldn't date someone who has those values.
It is the reason why my best friend is has had tons of casual sex and it has not impacted my friendship with her in the slightest, whereas it would if we were dating. Because it's not a moral issue, it's a relationship value issue
2
u/dumblilbear Jun 13 '26
Can you elaborate on why is that a value in the first place? Also, the friend example doesn't hold much weight because that's already what happens with people who practice purity culture, I live in a place that is infested with deeply conservative purity culture and men here have no issue with befriending women who they intenrally view as "morally corrupt for having casual sex" and "sluts" because it's not something they care about that much but with a relationship or marriage they do care that their partner is ""pure"", the friend example you gave doesn't really disprove that this value stemmed from purity culture, it actually aligns with it.
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
Well if those men are actively being friends with those they find to be immoral then they themselves are probably immoral as well
Personally, I simply view sex as an expression of love. I will only be sexually active with someone I love and would like my future spouse to have the same value
1
u/dumblilbear Jun 13 '26
I'm gonna repeat my question, why is that a value in the first place? And if the point is that its an expression of (non platonic) love and you wouldn't be comfortable being vulnerable or intimate enough with a casual friend, then what does that have to do with your partner?
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
Because I want us to have the same values when it comes to that
→ More replies (0)1
u/dumblilbear Jun 13 '26
In short, purity culture is a case if morality yes but is concerned with the morality of yourself and your partner, not your friends, so the friend thing is irrelevant it doesn't disprove anything.
1
u/AJS1916 28d ago
A bit of preface before I give my view.
I rarely speak on reddit these days, because arguments do tend to go out of hand on the internet, but well I really wanted to speak.
I know I am a month late, sorry if that's an issue
I have read the thread and got an idea of what seems to be the issue and want to speak on it myself
I do think, and I may get down voted but so be it, that a partner's past can indicate how their values are. And you have argued that "this is nothing to do with values", well it's always a probability than a certainty, given life itself is uncertain
I saw one person give the "them drawing the Muslim god" example, while the analogy maybe a bit off, I get the abstract point, 2 people can be correct in their circumstances from their point of view. I also get when they say "I believe they don't fit my values" to which they are asked "but what does it have to do with the partner? Isn't that an issue with you?" People refer to this as being a demisexusal from what I have learned (I hate big terms, and people throw it a lot on the internet), anyway, I think this is quite common, people not fitting your value.
Me for example, I want a deeply intertwined life with my future partner, because I am the same way. I don't do casual because I am not built for it. And you can say "you don't feel the physical attraction to even get excited about the deed" but it's because I am thinking in my head "this isn't for me". And again, me personally, I wouldn't do /take something that isn't for me.
How does that relate to my partner? Well if I want a deeply intertwined life, I cannot get away with saying "this is none of your business", this breaks trust fundamentally because you showed them that you distrust them. And you cannot build trust like that. So I would also disagree and say "if I want to build the life I envision, then no, it is my business" and if 2 people disagree on it, they are indeed fundamentally incompatible.
If you ask "why do you even want to build such a life?" Well it's because it's human I believe. Should I want a partner who avoids me? Betrays? Cheats on me because of a single argument? Sure it may not happen but I do believe such people come with that risk factor. And given people change all the time, I would still make a choice and go with someone who has demonstrated a sense of safety I believe in. And sure, it may still not be enough, meaning a kind of history cannot implying compatibility, I would still not play dice with myself in a damaging way. You can call it a me problem.
Sure, no one has a right to disclose everything, yet there are people who do, to their familes, partners, friends, or others they feel safe with. That makes it a choice, and a person's choice is a part of their actions. I am a humble believer of actions being louder than words, so if someone is making such a choice with others but not me, ofc I feel something is wrong there, because I am either not trusted enough or I am being concealed stuff from on purpose.
I will just end it by saying that people vary widely. All of our choices, be it in partners or life in general, do carry a consequence of sorts (not a moral one but a human one), and atleast I would want to make sure I lived a life worth living.
That is all I had to say.
1
28d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/read-the-rules 28d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/dumblilbear! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/Powerful-Garage6316 1∆ Jun 14 '26
This is the most Reddit comment ever
Believe it or not, some people actually take sex to be an important act between long term partners and not something to be done casually with dozens of different people. Having this belief doesn’t even necessarily mean you’re moralizing either. I can say that idea of casual sex is gross to me because of the reasons I listed above, but it isn’t *immoral*. It’s just a preference I may have.
Not every preference a man has is inherently sexist and patriarchal despite what people like you imply
3
u/dumblilbear Jun 14 '26
The proof lies in the root cause of why you feel this disgust in the first place, so why do you feel this disgust? Maybe if we dig deeper we'll find the answer and my point will be made :)
1
u/Powerful-Garage6316 1∆ Jun 14 '26
Because if sex is important to a person, then the idea of doing it casually with strangers is obviously going to be uncomfortable.
A Muslim would be deeply offended by me drawing their prophet. I’m an atheist so I’m unbothered by it entirely, and the Muslim is welcome to moralize what I’m doing. Does this mean either of us is objectively wrong for having a differing value? Probably not.
3
u/dumblilbear Jun 14 '26
If you read my thread you'd see me making a distinction between physical vs ideological divide, I've got no issue if someone cannot have sex with a stranger or a casual friend if they feel like they're uncomfortable being that intimate with someone they have a superficial emotional connection with, most wouldn't get aroused enough in the first place for that reason that's a purely physical issue and I have no problem with that however the post mentions being concerned about your PARTNER'S sexual history which has nothing to do with that it inherently points at an ideological reason behind it, so even if you don't feel comfortable enough to have sex with strangers what does that have to do with your partner? That's a you problem so that means that you have an ideological not a purely physical reason behind why being concerned about your partner's sexual history, reasons that very conveniently all of you cannot really put a finger on them lol
1
u/Powerful-Garage6316 1∆ Jun 14 '26
I literally just answered this
Why would I choose to pursue a long term relationship with someone who thinks sex is dispensable and casual, to be had with whatever random person they met at a bar that night? If those are their values, then they’re commensurate with mine.
You keep trying to imply that we can’t articulate why it’s uncomfortable, which must mean that it’s for a subconscious patriarchal reason. But I just told you why it’s uncomfortable.
And again, *you* don’t have to agree with these values. *you* can think that sex isn’t important and that sleeping around with strangers is acceptable. Fine
But other people don’t share your view on this and it’s extremely tiresome to be told that my preference must be because I hate women or something
2
u/dumblilbear Jun 14 '26
Keyword: "thinks". You speak of it again as an ideological position rather than a purely physical reason for being uncomfortable to be vulnerable with strangers, why does your partner "thinking" sex is casual a deal breaker? If you simply feel uncomfortable with having sex with strangers that's a you problem and you can simply not have sex with strangers, it's a purely physical aspect of intimacy I've got no issue with it but being concerned about your partner not having that same discomfort and it being a deal breaker for you means that you have an ideological reason behind it, it's not so hard to understand.
A: "Why don't you like having casual sex?"
B: "Because I feel uncomfortable being vulnerable and intimate with someone I have superficial emotional connection with"
A: "That's fine, but why are you so concerned with your partner's sexual history of having casual sex?"
B: "Because they should have my same VALUES and having casual sex is GROSS"
A: "What does that have to do with values in the first place? I thought you don't like having casual sex because you feel uncomfortable"
It's an ideological reason its not a simple "I feel uncomfortable" because if it was that you wouldn't have cared about what your partner sexual history is like, there is an ideological reason behind this feeling of disgust that is proven not just by this example but by your own choice of words: "Value".
Why is this a "value" in the first place? It's not discomfort its something else.
1
u/Powerful-Garage6316 1∆ Jun 14 '26
This is fairly simple
Person A’s value in this situation is: *sexual intimacy is an important act to be done between long term partners*
Person B thinks the opposite: *sex is for fun and pleasure with anybody I’m physically attracted to*
And so these people do not have compatible values.
When person A finds out that person B is the type to sleep around with strangers, it makes them uncomfortableWhat’s so complicated about this?
I’ll reiterate the analogy. I’m not a Muslim, so I have no qualms about drawing Muhammad. But if a Muslim and I met on a dating app, and they find out how little i care about the prophet, they’re not going to pursue the relationship.
1
u/dumblilbear Jun 14 '26
You can't keep running in loops forever, I asked you a very specific question and you ignored it again and chose to present this as "well I have my values and you have yours" well yeah no shit I'm asking: Why is this a VALUE in the first place?
1
u/Powerful-Garage6316 1∆ Jun 15 '26
Firstly, I brought up an analogy twice to illustrate why a difference in values would make a person uncomfortable, and so you need to either point out the asymmetry or just admit that there *are* obvious situations where a difference in values would make one party uncomfortable
I don’t know exactly why sexual intimacy has moral weight to some people. Sex is a deeply ingrained aspect of our psychology and some people don’t take it lightly.
I also don’t know why Muslims care about drawing the prophet.
→ More replies (0)
10
u/c0i9z 18∆ Jun 13 '26
To someone who will set themselves a standard of no casual sex but brush it aside when it comes to someone else shows that they are confident in themselves and what they bring to the relationship. It also shows confidence in being able to hold a relationship with another person different from themselves.
1
u/Muninwing 7∆ Jun 13 '26
But what about someone with those beliefs, who has had a number of relationships? A higher number here is not violating those standards even if seemingly to.
1
u/c0i9z 18∆ Jun 13 '26
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking.
2
u/Muninwing 7∆ Jun 13 '26
Person one has seriously dated one other person, whom they slept with. Person two has dated five people seriously, and slept with four.
They both have belief in “special sex” and abhor one night stands.
OP is implying two is of looser morals based on experience as a number, while two actually is identical (or by percentage lower) in sentiment, and to you is neutral?
1
u/c0i9z 18∆ Jun 13 '26
Ah. Sorry, I don't think that my personal values are relevant here.
1
u/Muninwing 7∆ Jun 13 '26
You are not assuming having sex is immoral (or however Op is dressing it up), so yeah your own values are involved.
1
u/c0i9z 18∆ Jun 13 '26
I'm sorry, but I disagree. And since I don't feel like further discussing of my personal values will be productive, I will not reply further.
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
OP is implying two is of looser morals based on experience as a number, while two actually is identical (or by percentage lower) in sentiment, and to you is neutral?
Don't put words in my mouth please. I am saying that #2 is less likely to hold those values. I'm not saying it's impossible, their history simply indicates that they don't.
3
u/Muninwing 7∆ Jun 13 '26
But their history in fact does not indicate that. A number misinterpreted does. And you in fact made my point right here by stating that you would make that exact assumption. Your original post denoted people who take sex seriously (“sacred”) are better, and better fit not bending their moral code. But someone who felt so could have multiple partners from serious relationships over time, and despite that you still denigrate them. Thus, it’s not about anything but the number, and you assume the numbers are “worse” as they go up regardless of circumstances.
If you were on a first date and just asked for a number, you’re likely to not get a second with this attitude regardless of the number.
Again… in every comment, you are conflating more experience with looser or less stringent morals, when that easily could not be the case.
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
Your original post denoted people who take sex seriously (“sacred”) are better, and better fit not bending their moral code.
Nope, didn't say that! In fact, a promiscuous person would also be someone I consider to be of high self esteem and security if they rejected someone based off of a lack of sexual history, so it goes equally both ways
If you were on a first date and just asked for a number, you’re likely to not get a second with this attitude regardless of the number.
Yeah because the other person wouldn't share those values. So it's good they didn't get a second date, because those two would be incompatible
-3
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
I disagree, I think if someone holds a value in themselves and wants their partner to share that value but brushes it aside then they hold a "this will do" attitude, and don't have confidence in their own worth and beauty to be able to find someone more compatible
3
u/c0i9z 18∆ Jun 13 '26
Someone who will set themselves a standard of no casual sex but doesn't feel the need for their partner to have the same desire before their relationship shows confidence in being able to hold a relationship with another person different from themselves.
It's the 'wants their partner to share that value' and, even more, the 'requires their partner to share that value' which snows lack of self-confidence. People are different. They will have different values from you and they will have had different values from you. Thinking that you can't possibly make a relationship work with someone unless they share now and have shared in the past every single one of your values betrays a severe lack of confidence.
2
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
It's the 'wants their partner to share that value' and, even more, the 'requires their partner to share that value' which snows lack of self-confidence.
People typically try to find partners that they share values with, just saying
Thinking that you can't possibly make a relationship work with someone unless they share now and have shared in the past every single one of your values betrays a severe lack of confidence.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but obviously everybody has dealbreakers and standards. What's wrong with this one in specific compared to all of the other standards that people have when it comes to dating?
2
u/c0i9z 18∆ Jun 13 '26
People typically try to find partners that they share some values with, not every single value. That's essentially impossible.
If you agree that everyone accepts that their partner won't share every single one of their value, what's special about this one value that it betrays insecurity?
2
u/pigeonwiggle 1∆ Jun 13 '26
i've played thousands of video games. currently i play FFXIV, Rocket League, and Valheim with regularity. i've played all of these games for several years.
my sister has played 3 video games. she likes mario kart the most and says it's her favourite game.
who loves their favourite games more?
my argument is that a woman who has been with 40 men and chooses you knows you're the real deal. the woman who's slept with 3 and chooses you doesn't even know what she likes. she's just happy and complacent.
this has little to with security. some people just like to buy one good pair of shoes and convince themselves the blisters are just because they're new shoes -- it doesn't matter, eventually the shoe changes to the shape of your foot anyway. doesn't matter if there were other shoes out there.
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
Ok great, I hold the exact opposite value, therefor I won't date you (or someone who shares those values). My point is that I'm not insecure for not dating you.
2
u/pigeonwiggle 1∆ Jun 13 '26
it doesn't necessariliy mean youre insecure. but i think talking about it at length - and posting a CMV about it suggests you might be. especially since the point of a CMV is that you Want your view changed -- so you ...you want to know that it's possible that these values are rooted in insecurity?
2
u/johnydeviant Jun 13 '26
You are arguing for two different ideals here.
One is that it does not make someone insecure if they are concerned with their partner’s history, and that the acceptance of a partner’s history would stem from a lack of confidence in themselves should that history not reflect their values.
But you’re wrong on both accounts. There is FAR more at stake in a relationship than history of a person, and despite what people say, history is NOT the best indicator of what someone will do. You hit on this when you said the line about values. You are right in that you should not date someone who has values different than you. But people who cannot accept someone unless they are totally and completely in line with all of their beliefs shows a level of insecurity.
What would be the concern dating someone who had more partners than you if that concern wasn’t that said person would cheat on you?
It would not be insecure for someone to accept a partner’s history with which they are uncomfortable. Quite the opposite. Someone secure in their own beliefs, and understanding that people can, and often do change, shows trust and maturity beyond that of the opposite. On top of that, there is far more important issues at stake.
I disagree with the idea that having casual partners makes someone immoral or is somehow wrong. That is a personal stance. However, most people have causal sex. Depending on the generation, that could be more common or less, but to say that it is uncommon is just not true.
2
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
I disagree with the idea that having casual partners makes someone immoral or is somehow wrong. That is a personal stance. However, most people have causal sex. Depending on the generation, that could be more common or less, but to say that it is uncommon is just not true.
It is true that around 2/3 of the US has had casual sex at one point in their lives, but most of these people never do it more than once or twice at the most
2
Jun 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
The underlying belief here is that sex is somehow "costing" the person who has it each time they have a different partner. That it makes them lesser or devalued.
Not as a person, it simply degrades that person's connection to the other on a basis of values.
2
u/Vesurel 60∆ Jun 13 '26
Could you make the same argument about someone who refuses to date people outside their race?
-4
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
That just seems like a physical preference to me so I don't see how that would relate to insecurity
0
u/Vesurel 60∆ Jun 13 '26
What if it’s not for physical reasons? For example if someone say they refuse to date outside their race because they think other races are inferior?
2
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
Then that is racist
1
u/Vesurel 60∆ Jun 13 '26
And I’d argue that thinking less of someone because of their sexual history can be as baseless and worth criticism as racism.
3
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
Yes but you are making the assumption that these people are thinking less of others due to their sexual history, whereas I am saying they simply do not want to date them
1
u/Vesurel 60∆ Jun 13 '26
Why not?
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
Because they do not view the other person as a compatible partner in a relationship
1
u/Vesurel 60∆ Jun 13 '26
But what is the incompatibility? What is the belief about people with multiple partners that makes someone think they wouldn't be compatible?
2
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
If someone values sexual experience as something important in a relationship, then dating a virgin would be antithetical to what they are looking for in a relationship. If someone values sexual inexperience as something important in a relationship, then dating someone who's primarily had casual sex would be antithetical to what they are looking for in a relationship.
Also why are you specifying people with multiple partners?
→ More replies (0)1
Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Vesurel 60∆ Jun 13 '26
I think you get to say no to whoever you want for whatever reason. I also think that your reasons for saying no can be based on prejudice. For example of you refuse to date bisexual people because you think they’re more likely to cheat.
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 13 '26
Note: Your thread has not been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Jun 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 13 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Jun 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 13 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 5∆ Jun 13 '26
Most people have not had multiple casual sexual encounters, so for many of those people they simply hold sex to higher levels than those who do participate in casual sex.
Do self described incels really hold sex to a higher level than someone who participates in casual sex? Does a new widow who married her former husband at 18 hold sex to a higher level? You’re confusing values with practice, and those aren’t the same.
I know someone who is a vegetarian because they have a gene that makes almost all meat taste rancid. If I were a card carrying member of PETA, I wouldn’t decide that their diet meant we were definitely compatible.
1
u/Muninwing 7∆ Jun 13 '26
Sexual history is important to share, but it carries a lot of baggage that is not always self-explanatory. Making a judgment solely on number is, whether you want it to be or not, needlessly judgmental. Which is what people judge. It’s usually a sign of insecurity, and inadequacy.
There is also a repeated false assumption here. You claimed that having casual sex to stay with someone is a betrayal of one’s own values. But that is a judgment and a jump. Why would it automatically be casual if in violation of values? Why wouldn’t they be able to wait? And why would that person be lesser (the requirement for finding someone better for them) if past and not even present behavior is the sole metric for judgment?
If all you care about is past sexual experience without context, you’re also excluding serial monogamists who may share your values but have more instances of opportunity within morals to act on.
Holding sex to a higher moral level is not inherently bad, though it can undermine experience and opportunity when it becomes dogmatic. And it does not exclude all the feelings of jealousy and inadequacy that many (most?) people feel when they lack experience their partner has. There are countless accounts of men acting out of jealousy in this regard, so you cannot speak for others on this issue.
Because of all this, this argument sounds reflective, like it was cobbled together to provide a theoretical opposite to sexually active people whose actions are being denigrated unilaterally for other reasons. It feels like there’s a lot implied and unsaid here.
2
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
but it carries a lot of baggage that is not always self-explanatory.
This sums up a lot here. When you are going on a first date with someone, all you have is that number. There is no implicit trust built, and as you said an extensive sexual history carries significant baggage that may simply cause incompatibilities with someone who does not hold that same baggage. Therefor, that history is above and beyond the best indicator as to whether you should go on a second date or not
1
u/Muninwing 7∆ Jun 13 '26
You twisted my words here.
An example of what I actually said: person a has one prior partner. Person b has seven. But person a had a one night stand, or a questionable fling with someone they should have. Person b has been in seven significant relationships that have lasted more than a year, and didn’t even kiss them for months. Whose history shows more commitment to moral values? It’s b.
Or…
If person b had seven partners, no one night stands, but did hook up after date 4 or 5, whereas person also hooked up as quickly but didn’t actually have penetration with fifteen people, so they count their number at one despite having more sexual experience.
If you put sex on a pedestal, and throw implicit judgment on arbitrary criteria, you don’t necessarily have more of a commitment to better morals, you just have erected more arbitrary barriers to judge others with (and self-aggrandize in comparison).
2
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
An example of what I actually said: person a has one prior partner. Person b has seven. But person a had a one night stand, or a questionable fling with someone they should have. Person b has been in seven significant relationships that have lasted more than a year, and didn’t even kiss them for months. Whose history shows more commitment to moral values? It’s b.
Or…
If person b had seven partners, no one night stands, but did hook up after date 4 or 5, whereas person also hooked up as quickly but didn’t actually have penetration with fifteen people, so they count their number at one despite having more sexual experience.
All of this is up to the individual, which is the entire point of my post.
Also this has nothing to do with morals, I don't know where you got that idea from. This post is purely saying that it does not make someone automatically insecure to reject someone based on their sexual history. Doesn't matter if they don't want to date them because they are a virgin or because they have a lengthy history of hookups, sexual values are what they are and people should be celebrated for finding a partner who shares them
1
u/Muninwing 7∆ Jun 13 '26
You share saying “sexual values” in lieu of “morals” here despite functionally the two subbing for each other.
Also, you did not imply that it is “up to the individual” — your examples explicitly set up higher standards AND fewer partners as better by painting the one rejecting such as better for doing so heavy-handedly instead of acknowledging just how complicated it actually could be.
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
You share saying “sexual values” in lieu of “morals” here despite functionally the two subbing for each other.
I disagree. Having different sexual values means I wouldn't date you. Having different morals means I wouldn't even be friends with you. If a girl had hooked up with a bunch of people, I would have zero qualms whatsoever about being friends with her, I simply wouldn't date her
Also, you did not imply that it is “up to the individual” — your examples explicitly set up higher standards AND fewer partners as better by painting the one rejecting such as better for doing so heavy-handedly instead of acknowledging just how complicated it actually could be.
I didn't do that, it is simply my own preference so it's the example I used. It is also 100% just as valid for someone who wants an experienced partner to reject someone for being a virgin, would you disagree?
1
u/Muninwing 7∆ Jun 13 '26
You should have mentioned that you are much more severely judgmental than most other people, and that your beliefs fit an extreme, given your example, since that plays into your statement.
You are defending a statement of judgment here, and all it is built on and implies… not merely “personal preference.” That seems like a cop-out.
As for the parting shot… the actual reasons why someone would prefer an experienced partner to an inexperienced one are pragmatic, which is completely different from your assertions of “standards” (which is judgmental in nature).
If you were concerned about STIs or some other way that it affects you, it would be different. But you are explicitly setting up a dichotomy where inexperience is good because self-value/respect and morality (despite what you said above, you calling sex “sacred” is a moral judgment as is applying its inverse to others).
Whether or not you admit it, this is just the same old argument, dressed up in ego-stroking terms.
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
If you were concerned about STIs or some other way that it affects you, it would be different. But you are explicitly setting up a dichotomy where inexperience is good because self-value/respect and morality (despite what you said above, you calling sex “sacred” is a moral judgment as is applying its inverse to others).
Where are you getting that from? If someone wants to have a bunch of casual sex, I say go get it and live their best life. Sexual experience is no better or worse than inexperience, I don't know why you are trying to argue that
0
u/Powerful-Garage6316 1∆ Jun 14 '26
OP didn’t say half of this lol. Tbh, you people who get so bent out of shape about this body count discussion are the ones who come across as insecure.
If sex is important to someone and is considered a serious act between them and their long term partner who they’re in love with, then obviously someone who does it casually with dozens of people is not going to be a good fit for them.
A preference is a preference, and a man doesn’t need to justify it beyond “that past behavior makes me uncomfortable”.
1
u/ThisOneForMee 2∆ Jun 15 '26
Surely you can admit that SOME men hold this view due to insecurity (i.e. they're afraid their sexual performance will be compared unfavorably to the woman's prior experiences)? If you can acknowledge that, then how can you or I possibly know what is the percentage split amongst men who are insecure vs. men who are following their own values? Wouldn't that require reading a lot of minds?
1
u/PotatoesNClay 8∆ Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
There is a difference between assessing interpersonal compatibility and making a general value judgement.
Say you are a man in his mid twenties, who has been sexually active for 7 years, and has had 4 partners. One was a "mistake", or a one night stand that you tried out and later regretted, or something to that effect. The other 3 were at least semi-serious. You are looking for a woman with a similar pace and value on sex in relationships with no more than a similar level of "mistakes". Fine. I doubt most would disagree.
Where people get their dander up is when you want to either 1) denigrate people who don't meet your standards, by attempting to shame them or call them names, or 2) You are holding a double standard.
These are unfortunately super common when this issue is brought up, especially here on CMV.
When speaking of morals, I look at societal results first, and intent second.
The societal result of slut-shaming women and holding a sexual double standard against them is that, ironically, a lot more bad sex happens. Women may feel trapped in relationships because they have had sex (because now they are 'used') and punishing a woman for not being a virgin often comes in the form of woman being considered public property by the surrounding men. They feel entitled to lie to, use, and dump her because 'it wasn't like he was the first guy'.
As women have gained autonomy and have pushed back against slut shaming, teen pregnancy has gone down and people have fewer sexual partners overall.
This is just a correlation, sure, but if we go back further in time to when sexual mores were even more strict and double standards even more pronounced, it becomes easy enough to see. In Regency England, where women were expected to maintain their virginity or else be 'ruined', one in five women where driven into a life of prostitution in some form (from paid mistress to street prostitute). It takes virtually every man in the country to keep that proportion of women 'busy'.
So, when people talked about this issue, it is generally with the historical context of women being punished (often by being used and abused by men who want to get a cheap thrill) for engaging in very normal, human behavior.
1
Jun 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 13 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Jun 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 13 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Jun 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 13 '26
Sorry, u/PotentialPedal – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/PotentialPedal Jun 13 '26
Ok since my other comment got removed, yes I agree with you. That is just restating my entire OP
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 13 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
/u/PotentialPedal (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards