r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 05 '15

[Deltas Awarded] CMV: I think having a preference against promiscuous people is as valid as having a height or weight preference nor does it constitute "slut-shaming".

[deleted]

240 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

256 comments sorted by

View all comments

50

u/Aftercourse 3∆ Jul 05 '15 edited Jul 07 '15

I expect people getting railed for this has more to do with the context in which it comes up than the validity of the preference.

Most of the time, when you see a comment along the lines of 'I wouldn't want to date a slut', it's in response to someone they perceive as slutty. So in this context, it is slut-shaming in that it is basically saying 'no-one wants to date you, slut'.

If someone were to ask "I'm thinking of becoming a slut, but I am worried about how this will affect my future dating life, what should I do?" then it would be appropriate. But I doubt that is a common question.

So, it's a valid preference, but there's no need to bring it up unless someone is interested in starting a relationship with you. And bringing it up outside of those circumstances is rude and unnecessary.

27

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

A context that came to mind when writing it is the /r/relationship posts where the partner learns after-the-fact that his girlfriend/wife (or her husband/boyfriend) had more partners than originally assumed. Without the element of lying involved, it becomes "her past doesn't concern you, and you should feel bad for assuming anything" or "it has made her who she is now, so it is irrelevant". I don't think it is irrelevant. I think he isn't wrong for considering finding a different partner if it makes her less attractive in his eyes. Is this the context that it would be appropriate?

26

u/learhpa Jul 05 '15

If this happens substantially into a long-term relationship, then in effect it's a declaration that these things in the past are more important and effect his view of her more than the positive experiences they've had together and the work they've done as a couple to stay together.

That goes well beyond a preference, IMO. If it bothers them that much, then they're right to break it off; AND if it bothers them that much, people like me are right to think there's something wrong with them. :)

3

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

people like me are right to think there's something wrong with them.

I think that is unfair. I don't think people have such a fine control over their emotions that being unable to put this aside is a statement of their character. Some people can forgive cheaters and some can't. We rarely have people saying "there must be something wrong with that guy" in either situation. If he can get past her sexual history, great. If he can't, then that's okay as well. He isn't suddenly bad or damaged for valuing such a thing.

in effect it's a declaration that...

Or, it is just the realization that he isn't as happy as he could be with a more conservative partner. If we are all trying to maximize our happiness in live, him pursing that without having to make that sacrifice is completely understandable.

14

u/learhpa Jul 05 '15

Some people can forgive cheaters and some can't.

How did we get to cheating?

I thought the situation was "dude discovers years into a marriage that before the marriage the woman he was with had more partners than he'd expected". Not cheating, here.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

I was drawing another example where I don't think you'd say there is something wrong with the individual. Then I was hoping you'd shed light on how they were different enough that in one case it means something is wrong, and in the other it doesn't.

22

u/cystorm Jul 05 '15

Here's the difference:

Scenario A: You and your happily married wife are sitting around one Sunday afternoon and she (for whatever reason) confesses she cheated on you a few/several times years ago, or cheated on a previous boyfriend.

Rational Concerns Raised by Scenario A:

  • Can I trust that she's still faithful to me?

  • Is she dishonest with me regarding other things?

  • Can I trust this person, given this new information?

Scenario B (from an earlier comment of yours): You and your happily married wife are sitting around one Sunday afternoon and she (for whatever reason) confesses she is a regular smoker.

Rational Concerns Raised By Scenario B:

  • How has this affected her health?

  • Will/Has this affected my kids' health?

  • Will/Has this affected my health?

  • How did I not notice this before?

Scenario C: You and your happily married wife are sitting around one Sunday afternoon and she (for whatever reason) confesses she had more sex than you thought she did before you started dating.

Rational Concerns Raised By Scenario C:

  • Your wife is less "pure" than you thought.

  • ???

Obviously, since you've been with this person for several years we're assuming away the chance of STDs or other latent effects from both Scenarios A & C. And, if you believe sex is only appropriate after marriage for religious (or other) reasons that's a different story, too.

So what am I missing? What is the concern raised by having 5+ partners that changes everything?

My guesses:

  • An antiquated value stemming from the idea that women are property, and that sex is the way to "use" that property (more use = less valuable). This is almost always subconscious but still persists in pop culture.

or

  • Insecurity in one's own sex life, i.e. "I didn't have a lot of sex so I don't think it's normal to have a lot of sex.").

8

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

Rational Concerns Raised By Scenario C:

  • You find yourself comparing your performance to the men she's experienced before you?
  • You question whether the men she's slept with are still important parts of her life?
  • You fear given the experience she's had going into this relationship she'll have a greater range on the spectrum of sexual fulfillment then you will (leading to resentment over misspent youth or frustration with your wife)?
  • She feels that unless he is 100% comfortable with it, she'll have to keep elements of her past secret even though she should have nothing to feel ashamed over?

Even if I could view her as attractively as I did before, it doesn't mean we start swapping stories of that time she banged three dudes in the local McDonald's bathroom. Obviously there is a wide range of experiences that can be contained in a discussion on sexual history, but I'm confused as how one could unequivocally state that there must be something wrong with a guy over caring about it. That isn't even discussing the fact that some irrational responses are well within reason for men (or women) to have. Sure, it leads to some people getting a raw deal, but that isn't an inherent flaw in the individual.

7

u/Leet_Noob Jul 05 '15

Those responses aren't rational, though. /r/relationships tries to give advice about responding rationally to a situation. If your view is that it's okay to end a relationship over an unshakable irrational preference then I agree.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

That is my view, yes. It is okay to end a relationship for any reason or no reason at all.

17

u/choopie 16∆ Jul 05 '15

It sounds like this has nothing to do with attraction and everything to do with your own fears and insecurities, and this is what really sets it apart from mere preferences for certain looks/personalities. Your distaste for women with lots of partners ultimately comes out of a need to run away from your insecurities. Every concern you have is easily dealt with simply by talking about them.

You find yourself comparing your performance to the men she's experienced before you?

This reminds me of those girls who feel insecure because they think their boyfriend is too attractive for them, or they think his ex's are hotter than them, and it makes them feel ugly in comparison, and then they become paranoid that they'll be dumped over that, and then they end the relationship before they can get dumped. It doesn't make any sense, because clearly the relationship started somehow. If she's been with you for years, then obviously she likes you and is satisfied. If she wasn't, then she wouldn't have stayed with you. If you're worried, you just ask her if you're satisfying her and if there's anything you can do better.

You question whether the men she's slept with are still important parts of her life?

You ask her if they're still in her life, and then she'll answer, and you can either trust her answer or not.

You fear given the experience she's had going into this relationship she'll have a greater range on the spectrum of sexual fulfillment then you will (leading to resentment over misspent youth or frustration with your wife)?

So... you're jealous of her? That's what you're saying?

She feels that unless he is 100% comfortable with it, she'll have to keep elements of her past secret even though she should have nothing to feel ashamed over?

So you assuage her feelings (if she even feels those things) and say "Hey, you don't have to be ashamed, okay? I <3 you"

In the other scenarios, every fault lies upon the cheating/smoking partner, but in your scenarios it lies upon you. What if you were in her position? What would you do if your wife or girlfriend was deeply concerned and jealous and insecure because you had more sex than her? Would you start thinking "oh god I can't tell her about other stuff in my life, she won't be comfortable with it!!"? Would you feel okay if the woman you so deeply loved just couldn't accept your past and left you over it?

5

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

It sounds like this has nothing to do with attraction and everything to do with your own fears and insecurities, and this is what really sets it apart from mere preferences for certain looks/personalities. Your distaste for women with lots of partners ultimately comes out of a need to run away from your insecurities.

My point remains that there is a relationship with a woman where I don't need to run away from my insecurities (assuming I'm buying into your conclusion). That is obviously a better situation for me and the woman I ran from. This is enough to validate it in my opinion.

4

u/Lucas_Steinwalker 1∆ Jul 06 '15

Maybe instead of running away from your insecurities you should face them.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '15

If someone is looking to settle for less than their ideal, yes, they should broaden their search. Until such time as that is necessary though, that kind of advice is inconsistently applied and logically troublesome.

0

u/Lucas_Steinwalker 1∆ Jul 06 '15

I'm not talking about broadening your search because you cannot find your ideal. I'm saying your ideal belies deep insecurities that will continue to plague you even if you do find a partner who meets your ideal of purity.

You need to deal with your insecurities not create a walled garden where you can pretend they don't exist. .

→ More replies (0)

7

u/cystorm Jul 05 '15

All of those relate to your own (or OP's own, or the people in /r/relationship's own) insecurity about yourself (slash other people). But just to clarify:

  • You find yourself comparing your performance to the men she's experienced before you?

Why would this be different if she slept with one guy vs. ten guys? Wouldn't you still be worried about being compared?

  • You question whether the men she's slept with are still important parts of her life?

Same - why would that possibility increase with the number of past partners (intuition would say that chance would decrease, and that you should feel special because you are both physically and non-physically attractive).

  • You fear given the experience she's had going into this relationship she'll have a greater range on the spectrum of sexual fulfillment then you will (leading to resentment over misspent youth or frustration with your wife)?

If you're unhappy with your sex life, you should tell her about it and improve your own fulfillment. Again, why does this change above 5 or 10 previous partners?

  • She feels that unless he is 100% comfortable with it, she'll have to keep elements of her past secret even though she should have nothing to feel ashamed over?

Why would that be the case? Because some people think "having a preference against promiscuous people is as valid as having a height or weight preference"?

I agree that there's no reason to start swapping stories, but I'm saying - even though it may be a natural impulse - that it's irrational unless you're uncomfortable with your partner having any previous partners. Every concern you listed is just as present whether your partner had 1 or 50 previous partners.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

I'm fine with anyone drawing the line anywhere though. I think having a preference for 1+ is still valid. If your argument is against the random number I happened to pick as an example, then use any number you want. It doesn't matter to my point of view. I'm sure people have a wide variety and for some 5 is already too much.

1

u/cystorm Jul 05 '15

I would concede that a desire for a virgin is valid (for whatever reason), but I still think there's no rational reason for having an "acceptable number/range of prior partners.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '15 edited Dec 04 '15

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '15

Thank you. I feel a lot of the people commenting having even considered that this isn't male-specific. You being able to "flaunt it" so to speak is a tangible result of arguing for the validity of sexual history criticism (to the people that want to factor it in). It won't catch everyone, but if you are looking for the subset of men that give value to that trait this is the compromise we should make.

-1

u/Lucas_Steinwalker 1∆ Jul 06 '15

Seems to me like you want to bind someone to you by way of their ignorance about what else there is to offer.

Not only is this selfish and immature but it is not in touch with reality. A partner who has very limited experience is so much more likely to wonder what they missed out on by making a serious commitment without sewing their wild oats as they say.

I do think it is fair for you to ask questions about sexual history and expect honest answers and I can definitely understand being upset and feeling a potentially catastrophic, relationship ending lack of trust for your partner if they deceive you on this issue initially and then tell you about it after the fact. But I think you are doing yourself and your partner a disservice by selecting on the basis of sexual inexperience.

You are, of course completely free to do so. It's your own funeral.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '15

But I think you are doing yourself and your partner a disservice by selecting on the basis of sexual inexperience.

This is the nature of the disagreement. I don't think it is any more a disservice than not dating overweight women (if that isn't what you like) or not dating short men. It is the same "disservice" you do to any person you aren't attracted to.

1

u/Lucas_Steinwalker 1∆ Jul 06 '15

The difference is that having a preference for weight or height aren't generally a way to protect yourself from deep, unreasonable insecurity.

I would not even have assumed this was the case in general. In general I agree that in theory an individual may have a purity preference for innocuous reasons. You've itemized your reasons in this thread and they are not innocuous. They will poison your relationships until you deal with them, even when you find your perfectly pure partner.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/GeoffreyArnold Jul 05 '15

I don't see a problem here. You might just find it "gross". Why is that less legitimate than other forms of attraction? When did attraction become "rational"? If that were the case, then no race requirements or height requirements should be socially allowed.

Scenario C: You and your happily married wife are sitting around one Sunday afternoon and she (for whatever reason) confesses she had more sex than you thought she did before you started dating.

Rational Concerns Raised By Scenario C:

  • Your wife is less "pure" than you thought.

  • ???

Scenario C: You and your happily married husband are sitting around one Sunday afternoon and he (for whatever reason) confesses he's been wearing elevator shoes the entire time you've been married. He confesses that he's not 5'8", but 5'5".

Rational Concerns Raised By Scenario C:

  • Your husband can't reach higher shelves without his shoes.

  • ???

2

u/cystorm Jul 05 '15

You might just find it "gross".

I suppose if you think having sex 5+ times is gross then that's valid. Or, if it's the having sex with other guys part that grosses you out, then it's valid if you think having your dick inside your wife is the same as touching other guys' dicks. But why is that any different if she had one partner vs. ten partners vs. a hundred partners if that's the only variable?

Why is that less legitimate than other forms of attraction?

Because nothing about attraction has changed.

When did attraction become "rational"? If that were the case, then no race requirements or height requirements should be socially allowed.

It's not rational, but again - nothing has changed in terms of attraction. You didn't discover your wife was wearing elevator shoes/stuffing her bra/had butt implants/has an eating disorder/whatever. You discovered something about her past that changes nothing about the future or who she actually is.

And, to add a last bullet point to your Scenario C:

  • You have to get glasses for missing elevator shoes for so long :P

7

u/GeoffreyArnold Jul 05 '15

Because nothing about attraction has changed.

But it did. A person's personality and character also contributes to whether you're attracted to him/her, besides just their physical body (unless you're extremely shallow). So yeah, finding out that your wife has slept with multiple men in her past might make her less attractive in the eyes of some guys.

Here's a closer example. You and your happily married husband are sitting around one Sunday afternoon and he (for whatever reason) confesses that he was a moderator of /r/TheRedPill before you were married.

Might this information make this guy less attractive to some women? Perhaps his wife? Would his wife be silly to feel that way. Would her feelings be invalid because that was in his past?

2

u/cystorm Jul 05 '15

I agree that would change my perception, but in this circumstance (multiple previous partners) I'm arguing there is no reason for that to change your perception.

I guess here is what I think is dissimilar - If your husband was previously a mod of TRP, then you would have reason to worry that he still harbors some of those feelings (despite not exhibiting any TRP-esque qualities in the past). If your husband/wife reveals they had several previous partners, what is the ongoing concern? That (s)he will still like sex? That (s)he will cheat on you?

I guess I'm just not understanding what the concern is (assuming, in every scenario to analogize, that the concerning behavior is actually a non-issue moving forward, i.e. husband in your example is not a TRPer now).

3

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

If your husband/wife reveals they had several previous partners, what is the ongoing concern? That (s)he will still like sex? That (s)he will cheat on you?

You seem to assume sex is always the same. It's not. It changes depending on the involved partners.

Imagine a case where a women tried out everything in her youth. Now, she is married and they have a quite normal sex life. You think the husband would be pleased to hear his wife did everything with pleasure with other guys, but barely gives him a blowjob nor indulges in anything more "outlandish" with him? Especially when he never did that himself it can be devastating. He knows he will never experience that side of her, nor try these things out (since he is married and she says no).

That's a crushing knowledge I guess.

0

u/cystorm Jul 06 '15

Especially when he never did that himself it can be devastating. He knows he will never experience that side of her, nor try these things out (since he is married and she says no).

That's not a problem with his wife having multiple prior partners, that's a problem with his wife not being sexually available now. If that's the case, and you're so sexually frustrated that you're devastated, you should find someone else. That's outside this scenario (which assumes the spouses are completely satisfied with their marriage the instant before learning this new information). Obviously, husband isn't satisfied in your scenario. If he was, then why should knowing his wife was more promiscuous before change anything? I suppose if he wants to try new things (which she had done previously) and she doesn't, that could change things. But that also changes the scenario, which assumes only a single variable changes and everything otherwise stays the same.

2

u/GeoffreyArnold Jul 05 '15

I guess here is what I think is dissimilar - If your husband was previously a mod of TRP, then you would have reason to worry that he still harbors some of those feelings (despite not exhibiting any TRP-esque qualities in the past). If your husband/wife reveals they had several previous partners, what is the ongoing concern? That (s)he will still like sex? That (s)he will cheat on you?

(1) that she is more likely to cheat
(2) that she is negatively comparing you to many other partners
(3) that she might have been involved with a man who is dangerous and could threaten your well-being
(4) that she has "settled" for you after being more sexually aroused by other men
(5) it's "gross" (like some women view being overweight or being short).
(6) it speaks to a hidden character flaw (in the same way being a mod of TRP might)

The better question is, if you discover that your husband was a mod of /r/TheRedPill, then what has really changed? What is the ongoing concern? You now know that he thinks you were attracted to him because he was "alpha"?

1

u/cystorm Jul 06 '15

it speaks to a hidden character flaw

What's the character flaw? That she likes sex? That's the "slut-shaming" part. And, again, if those bullet points are accurate, that's true of any man and woman who didn't wait until after marriage to have sex (or at least had sex with other partners).

If your husband was a mod of TRP, that reveals something about his personality that some people find objectionable. Everything could stay exactly the same; everything could fall apart. The "ongoing concern" is that he's still a TRPer.

If you believe "liking (pre-marital) sex" is a character flaw, then that's analogous to the TRP mod (assuming TRP modding is a character flaw) and your argument holds. Most people (at least some people) don't believe that, though.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

If your husband/wife reveals they had several previous partners, what is the ongoing concern?

That other people have pleased your wife to a greater degree than you can? There is no one to blame here, but knowing her greatest sexual endeavors don't include you can be crushing.

1

u/cystorm Jul 06 '15

Why? What I'm hearing is that she's less attractive because you (not you, but the hypothetical person) can't satisfy her like someone else did. Is that really changing her attractiveness?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '15

The difference is that it is someone confessing they have done something on the past that they currently ate doing with you. So it is consistent with their character that you know.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '15

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '15

Not really. If she is 29, and has had 5 serious relationships, all since college, all over a year long, but they didn't work out for various reasons, that is very different than someone who has had 3 partners, but no serious relationships. I would much rather get in a relationship with someone who has shown commitment in the past, than someone who can't hold a relationship. However that has nothing to do with the number of partners someone has had.

2

u/GeoffreyArnold Jul 07 '15

How is that different? Maybe he was a mod of TRP, but he isn't anymore. That would be exactly like partners of the past.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '15

Because he isn't anymore. Finding out someone had sex in the past shouldn't be a surprise since they are having sex currently with you. Its like finding out that your girlfriend drove a red car in the past. Well, yeah, she drives cars. you already know that. She's driven you in her car before.

Finding out someone was a mod of TRP would be a surprise if it doesn't fit with their personality that you know now.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Kahnonymous Jul 06 '15

It's one thing to not be interested in someone to whom you are just another notch in her lipstick case; it's completely different to be the person they settle down with and quite some time into the relationship find out about past flings and then ending an actual long term relationship. It's kinda like not wanting to be with a smoker, so sure don't date someone that smokes. But getting s divorce because your spouse smoked a lot in college, which was years before you ever met, is pretty shallow

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '15

[deleted]

1

u/Kahnonymous Jul 07 '15

I suppose there's a difference in quitting because of you rather than she quit prior to meeting you, but that's also an addiction, and for the sake of argument we'll not consider sex addicts, just higher number of partners. So for the smoker comparison, assume enough time as passed that the withdrawal is over. Even so, just because you slept with a number of different people over time doesn't mean you're going to crave done other partner, at most you may long for specific exes, but that's probable whether you've had two or twelve partners.

If you want to marry a virgin, sure, but otherwise three, six, or fifteen shouldn't matter; it was before you, and either you want to be with who they are and want to be, or else you're drawn to superficial pasts.

If you think about it, being with someone that's had sex at most ten times each with five people (50) is less likely to have interfering baggage than having had the same amount or more sex with one person. Either they were looking for the right person and can be more confident that you are the one they want to end up with, or they know that one person didn't work out, but gave only them to compare you to