Why do some guys get upset by the idea of a girl having wild/fun/crazy relationships in her youth and then falling in love with a stable/dependable man later? (self.AskWomen)

{AskWomen}

9 ups - 2 downs = 7 votes

For reference, I am that girl (sort of). I dated the whole smorgasbord of crazy men back in my high school and college days, because well that's what happens when you're young and want excitement. But the relationships never worked out because of lack of stability.

I'm 28 now and have absolutely fallen head-over-heels for this one guy, we've been dating for about 1.5 years. He's nothing like my previous boyfriends; he's quieter, calmer, has an interesting job, and honestly perhaps not on the same level of physical well-being. But I'm absolutely in love with him anyway because I've started to admire those qualities more and more.

I was talking to him about my ex's a while ago and mentioned this stuff, and he got pretty upset. He won't tell me why and I'm a bit perplexed as to why his reaction was so negative when I told him. I thought he'd be proud of the fact he's the one I want to keep and eventually marry, and not those other men.

So my question is... have you noticed a prevalent attitude like this among guys in your social circle? Why do a lot of guys get hurt by this idea?

51 comments submitted at 18:03:16 on Apr 6, 2014 by seattlenostalgia1

  • [-]
  • flosstradamu5
  • 1 Points
  • 18:08:55, 6 April

Maybe he feels that you settled for him. That he's less fun than your exes but that you're with him because he's stable. Not saying that that is how it actually is, but he might feel that way.

  • [-]
  • Capn_Crunchtime
  • 1 Points
  • 18:50:57, 6 April

Yeah, I think that's the way I'd feel. I'd want her to be excited to be around me and I'd want to be really desired and sexy.

It would really bother me if she'd "gotten her fill" of feeling that kind of desire and ended up with me because she admired me and offered stability for building a family.

It's insecurity probably, but damn, I want to be sexy and desired like the exciting guy rather than "rewarded" like the family man

  • [-]
  • bhavini_married
  • 1 Points
  • 18:54:59, 6 April

You made a big mistake by telling him those things. I hope you did not talk to him in similar words, about wanting excitement in the past tense. You see how it would be obvious to him you consider him not exciting, yes? I chuckle to think if my husband had told me, "Bhavini, you must know that when I was younger I was in love with this one pretty woman who was desired by all the men. But now I am more mature and have grown to appreciate the plain woman like you that can cook. Maybe you are proud I selected you?"

What makes it more funny is then he asked all his friends, "Is it prevalent for a woman to not be appreciated for being plain?"

You should find other ways of convincing him he is exciting to you if he really is exciting or let him find someone who will do that. That is my sincere advice for you.

  • [-]
  • Barbara_Booey
  • 1 Points
  • 19:00:58, 6 April

That was a gray analog Bhavani. Very insightful.

  • [-]
  • knowses
  • 1 Points
  • 18:15:06, 6 April

He is probably thinking that he would have wanted you back then, when you were younger and perhaps more sexy, and that you would have simply ignored him. Now you are older, and maybe he feels you have lowered your standards, but you would still go after those wild guys if you could.

Oh sorry, not a woman, just now noticed what subreddit I was in.

  • [-]
  • Danianne
  • 1 Points
  • 18:21:31, 6 April

Yeah, this is what a friend of mine who felt the same way as OPs boyfriend told me. That he felt his girlfriend had a wild, fun youth full of sex and escapades, yet he didn't.. and he thought that if he had met his girlfriend back then, she wouldn't be interested in him as he felt many (hot) women weren't. As a result, he felt both bitter about the fun she had and that she might have settled for him to the point of almost 'using' him.

Pointed out that even though she was older, she obviously didn't have to settle for anyone. There were still many 'crazy/fun' men who wanted her (shes gorgeous). He wasn't settled for, he was chosen, and of course as people mature and calm down themselves they start to look for those qualities in partners too.

They're still going strong so I assume he got over it.

  • [-]
  • knowses
  • 1 Points
  • 18:24:42, 6 April

You are right on the mark. Everyone usually carries a little insecurity in relationships.

  • [-]
  • AprilLambName2014
  • 1 Points
  • 18:31:11, 6 April

It's funny that they'd think a go-nowhere-wild guy is guy you choose when you have high standard

  • [-]
  • alaska_jane
  • 1 Points
  • 19:25:19, 6 April

Isn't it, though? Those are the guys you want for a minute, not a lifetime.

  • [-]
  • feralbox
  • 1 Points
  • 19:13:10, 6 April

Why don't you just ask him?

  • [-]
  • kidkvlt
  • 1 Points
  • 19:59:08, 6 April

The guys I hang out with had wild/fun/crazy relationships in their teens/early 20s and they don't suffer from deep insecurities related to the opposite sex so no, I haven't encountered this kind of thinking in real life.

  • [-]
  • Revenue_and_Customs
  • 1 Points
  • 20:09:41, 6 April

OP probably better off just asking him directly but going off just what you've said:

> I dated the whole smorgasbord

If you're referring to a large number of partners its not unreasonable to think there might be some jealousy, yeah its not fair to expect people to not live their lives before they meet their current partner but its understandable that some might want to feel at least a little special rather than the latest notch on a bedpost which is what he might have taken away from it. This might go extra if there's a significant difference in your "numbers" what with ego and all that.

>wild/fun/crazy relationships

Again pure extrapolation here, but if you were describing your previous relationships as such you can see how someone might take the implication that the current relationship has none or lesser versions of those qualities.

In general talking about exes, especially if you're going to compare them to your current relationship is never really a prospect with a freeze frame high five ending. As a feeble attempt to put in context what if he said to you "Previously I dated with an eye towards the long term and perhaps even marriage, but now I just want someone who knows how to get freaky".

Disclaimer: I'm a man, this is all guesswork and most likely I don't know what I'm talking about.

  • [-]
  • Doobiddydoo
  • 1 Points
  • 18:47:41, 6 April

I'm not a woman, but as someone who is currently very inexperienced with women and relationships I would prefer to date someone more experienced with relationships for my first relationship.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 18:59:22, 6 April

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • peppermind
  • 1 Points
  • 20:18:17, 6 April

This comment has been removed from AskWomen for disrespectful commentary.

Please read the rules here, and take a look through our FAQ while you're there. If you'd like to talk about the removal of your comment, message the moderators.

  • [-]
  • imruinyoucunt
  • 1 Points
  • 19:41:50, 6 April

They feel threatened, I think.

I only see this attitude on reddit actually. In real life guys don't seem to care because they did the same thing.

  • [-]
  • yself
  • 1 Points
  • 18:54:48, 6 April

Guy here. I see relationships as similar in some ways to politics. Imagine someone running for office, man or woman, it doesn't matter, but let's say she's a woman. You listen to her political rhetoric and you like her ideas. She seems like just the sort of person you want to support with your vote. Then, you find out that she has a history of political corruption, taking bribes, laundering money, covering up scandals. She faces the press, admits to her past mistakes and says she has changed. Do you still want to vote for her? Suppose another candidate comes along who has similar ideas and a clean record. Now, who do you want to support with your vote? As I said, I don't think it matters if it's a man or a woman.

  • [-]
  • imruinyoucunt
  • 1 Points
  • 19:40:03, 6 April

Except that dating around is a whole lot different than political corruption. If she had cheated a lot in the past and done unethical things then I can see the analogy. But just having fun? What's so bad about that?

  • [-]
  • yself
  • 1 Points
  • 19:45:02, 6 April

So, why change then? Why not just keep having fun?

  • [-]
  • imruinyoucunt
  • 1 Points
  • 19:48:29, 6 April

She found someone she could see building a life with?

  • [-]
  • AprilLambName2014
  • 1 Points
  • 20:04:05, 6 April

My life before the age of ~25, I did not know where I was going to be one year to the next. Therefore I did not start any relationships with any men. And during this time I attended many going away parties for other people who needed to follow their edu or career opportunities.

  • [-]
  • Svataben
  • 1 Points
  • 19:48:20, 6 April

Are you seriously comparing her sexual history with crime?

  • [-]
  • Barbara_Booey
  • 1 Points
  • 19:00:06, 6 April

And, the politician has herpes.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 18:29:26, 6 April

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • tooshy4realnames
  • 1 Points
  • 18:32:20, 6 April

What the fuck are you even talking about? Her tastes have changed over the years, or she's learned more about what she's interested in in a long term relationship. It's a common thing.

  • [-]
  • Captain-unfiltered
  • 1 Points
  • 18:39:24, 6 April

Ask a question, get an honest answer. That's how this whole AskWomen thing is supposed to work, right? She was using people. You use people. I use people. You can interpret "use" as always a negative thing if you want, but that would be pretty simplistic thinking. People use each other. That's how all human relationships work. That's how society works. No one ever does anything for absolutely nothing. It's HOW people are used and for what purpose that determines if it's acceptable or not. And it could very well be that the OP's SO either disproves of her use of those men before or her use of him now. Other posters pointed out that it may be that the OP simply settled for him. It could also be that she actually prefers the lifestyle of before, but now needs a stable man to support her wants now where he is just a means to an end. I don't know. I'm just saying that it might be that he disapproves of the way she uses people, either others or him.

I've thought of something else. Maybe he believed that she had high standards, and that makes him special. When it is revealed that her standards actually have not been high at all, why is he to think that he is actually special to her?

  • [-]
  • Svataben
  • 1 Points
  • 19:50:43, 6 April

>It could also be that she actually prefers the lifestyle of before, but now needs a stable man to support her wants now where he is just a means to an end.

No it couldn't. She said the exact opposite. Why are you so eager to paint her as the bad user?

  • [-]
  • Captain-unfiltered
  • 1 Points
  • 19:58:09, 6 April

I didn't paint her as a bad in any way. Why are you so eager to get yourself in a bunch over nothing.

  • [-]
  • Svataben
  • 1 Points
  • 19:59:50, 6 April

You were guessing that she actually only sees her boyfriend as a means to an end. How is that not negative?

  • [-]
  • Captain-unfiltered
  • 1 Points
  • 20:06:44, 6 April

I guessed no such thing. She asked why her partner might have a problem with her past, and I answered that he might suspect that as a possible answer.

  • [-]
  • Svataben
  • 1 Points
  • 20:09:07, 6 April

In that case, it's just a matter of unclear writing. I'm glad it isn't what you think. :)

  • [-]
  • Captain-unfiltered
  • 1 Points
  • 20:10:36, 6 April

Happens.

  • [-]
  • Svataben
  • 1 Points
  • 20:12:59, 6 April

Truth.

  • [-]
  • Barbara_Booey
  • 1 Points
  • 19:04:08, 6 April

He's steady, I can see myself having kids with him. He makes good money from his good job.

The other guys were only good for having nookie with.

I can't understand why he doesn't appreciate that I had sex with all those other fun guys that were hot.

  • [-]
  • Svataben
  • 1 Points
  • 19:47:07, 6 April

Yeah, she didn't say that.

If that's what he reads into it, it's his issues. And we don't know that that's even the case.

  • [-]
  • Revenue_and_Customs
  • 1 Points
  • 19:55:53, 6 April

To be fair if OP is asking an internet forum instead of her actual partner guesswork is the best she's gonna get.

  • [-]
  • Svataben
  • 1 Points
  • 20:00:23, 6 April

It should still be guesswork based on the OP.

  • [-]
  • Revenue_and_Customs
  • 1 Points
  • 20:13:46, 6 April

Aye you can only go on what you're given but she is asking for an idea of what her partner is thinking and hasn't given all the details (and can't really without things turning a wee bit creepy). We can only play amateur detective until OP gets it straight from the horse's mouth.

  • [-]
  • Svataben
  • 1 Points
  • 20:16:05, 6 April

I do wonder why he won't talk to OP about it.

It's possibly irrational insecurities and/or sexist views of what kind of girl has a wild youth, and he's embarrassed.

  • [-]
  • Revenue_and_Customs
  • 1 Points
  • 20:20:27, 6 April

Yeah, guessing maybe a difference in life experiences, more "traditional" view of sex and relationships, or just classic human jealousy.

Whatever it is lets hope they can at least talk it out.

  • [-]
  • Svataben
  • 1 Points
  • 20:21:58, 6 April

Yeah. If they do it right, it can be a growing experience for both of them.

  • [-]
  • safewinter
  • 1 Points
  • 18:14:33, 6 April

Its biological. Its in a male's interest (in terms of spreading genes) to have a woman who has not had sex with other men.

There's also the social element. You mentioned about him being the guy you actually chose to stay with, but it doesn't work like that for a guy; a guy will feel like you "settled" for him. Also a guy likes to feel that the 'access' to you is private. The reason people get VIP boxes at football matches? Other people aren't allowed in. Doesn't feel very VIP if there's other people in the club.

  • [-]
  • kanikkers
  • 1 Points
  • 18:28:41, 6 April

I really wish people would stop quoting pseudopsychology as "biology". Or just stop quoting it at all.

Also, just an fyi, some dudes wouldn't feel as though their girlfriend is "settling", because some dudes feel secure enough to not think everyone else is just playing them.

  • [-]
  • dsklerm
  • 1 Points
  • 18:40:02, 6 April

Seriously. There is no biology at play for this.

I've lived a crazy life of my own. At this point I want to settle in, and I can't imagine being self conscious because my partner also had a crazy youth. Hell I'd go so far as to say I look for that. I like life experiences, and while you don't have to have the same ones to be attractive to me, it will definitely be seen as a plus in my book. But then again I don't think I'm speaking "as a man" I'm just speaking for me.

  • [-]
  • LePew_was_a_creep
  • 1 Points
  • 18:49:43, 6 April

Actually, the way sex organs are shaped and function is more indicative of female promiscuity or both genders being promiscuous than just male promiscuity.

Female orgasms take longer to achieve orgams. One theory behind that was that in early human or proto-human society women had multiple sex partners in a row, so sex would go on for longer.

The male penis is shaped like a mushroom, which works to pull out sperm already in the vagina. In order for that to be the evolutionarily advantageous physiology to have, early human or proto human women must have been having lots of sex with different partners.

Prior to agriculture having lots of kids, for a man, isn't actually the best strategy because he can't dedicate the appropriate amount of time to ensure they make it to adulthood. Children are much more time intensive to care for because food gather and hunting take more energy than farming.

It took humans a fairly long time to figure out how paternity works. Prior to land ownership or property in general being 100% sure you're the only dad wasn't really a concern. People got sex lead to children but they weren't always sure how that worked. So it also makes sense, from an evolutionary standpoint, if a woman has sex with two men and both of them believe they are the one child's father they will both be contributing their energy to ensuring that child becomes an adult.

In areas of the world with extreme land shortages it's not uncommon to find men sharing one wife because it ensures the land doesn't become allotted to more and more people until there isn't enough to sustain children. Men don't know who's child is who's unless one had exclusive access to the wife for whatever reason which means given the scarcity of land those kids, again, have two or more men devoting their energy to ensuring they reach adulthood.

Who is better being promiscuous really depends on whether you're looking at having the highest number of babies or having the highest number of children make it to adulthood (reproductive age). If you have 20 kids and only two don't starve to death in childhood you're worse off than the guy who had 7 kids and 4 made it to adulthood because he had more time to care for them. He's going to have more grandbabies than you, so his genes are going to get passed on. Monogamy, or female promiscuity makes better sense under the second model. The second model works better with dads who are highly involved with their children, which means they can't be having tons and tons of kids - which means they aren't having sex with tons and tons of women.

Once we hit the agricultural period the logic for promiscuity changes, but once we hit that point you can't make simple biological arguments because already the social structures are too complex and being enforced in such a way that it's psychological, economic, anthropological or sociological explanations that are required because society has become too complex.

A lot of the "because biology" arguments are rationalizations not reasonable deductions. We start with "society is this way" then find an answer in biology.

I mean, they thought men were the only hunters for decades until someone did an analysis of cave paintings in france comparing the hand marks in the paintings to the hand sizes of the male and female bodies they found around those sites. The hand sizes were too small to be male, indicating women painted something like 75% of the cave paintings of hunting. Which is indicative of women engaging in hunting, but anthropologists who discovered the caves about a century ago assumed they must have been done by men because women in their society did not hunt. We project onto 'scientific' and anthropological research our own biases - something that we're getting better at as time passes but early research should be taken with a great deal of skepticism.

  • [-]
  • Svataben
  • 1 Points
  • 19:53:51, 6 April

This reply rocks!

  • [-]
  • Danianne
  • 1 Points
  • 18:30:30, 6 April

>Its in a male's interest (in terms of spreading genes) to have a woman who has not had sex with other men.

Source?

  • [-]
  • HeavenlyBlessdBeauty
  • 1 Points
  • 18:40:50, 6 April

Biotruths ftw!

  • [-]
  • Svataben
  • 1 Points
  • 19:53:23, 6 April

Read LePew's answer over and over, until you've learned to stop posting made up "facts".

  • [-]
  • thelastmindbender
  • 1 Points
  • 18:31:43, 6 April

Ehh..