[GoodGuy]

Hmmm.... Well the health angle certainly plays into it in real life, and I've always seen it as a potential reason for people, but it doesn't seem to be a counter-question raised. I'm primarily concerned with and seeing emotionally based attitudinal norms.

What's interesting is that I'm encountering women who are themselves drawn to men to that hold women to [fair or unfair] exacting standards regarding their pasts. Women are still even now the harshest of judges of women. That took me by surprise in my personal life. Had I known this earlier I would have been quick to dump a woman once "I found out".

Would have saved me and all of them enormous agony. What I found surprising later on in life was the large number of highly sexual women with limited past experiences. Or so they claim. Which I believe, more or less, you have to trust your own instincts on what people tell you.

[spurzzz]

Please excuse my expression here ladies; I will not get involved with someone proven to be the village bike....that would be a turn off for me

And generally I wouldn't shag or get involved with anyone my mates have shagged.

But other then that I am easy.

[ItsASecret]

I'm primarily concerned with and seeing emotionally based attitudinal norms.

If you are then you cannot quantify that other than saying there is a bell curve distribution of opinions with outlier values in emotional reasoning. People are going to have different opinions and finding some generalization is impossible leading to the regular normal distribution that covers the entire spectrum. You ask a group of highly religious individuals and they are going to say no way to any possibility of being with someone who has engaged in any sort of behavior that relates to promiscuity based solely on their religious beliefs of sex. You ask a group of swingers and they are going to be all for the idea of being with someone who has had a history of threesome behavior. Ask general population and you will get a general distribution of answers. What matters is your personal opinion, if it something bothers you then it bothers you, if it does not then no reason to concern about it.

[GoodGuy]

If you are then you cannot quantify that other than saying there is a bell curve distribution of opinions with outlier values in emotional reasoning.

Absolutely incorrect. There is no bell curve distribution of opinions UNTIL you have gathered information on the topic and determined that. I, nor you, should just assume that ideas are spread in any way other geometric way than what sampling shows. Further, in order to *have* a bell curve you first need a horizontal axis of non-discretes. A smooth transition say, from left to right. There is no such thing here----I'm not measuring against age, nor height, nor amount of peanut butter consumed.

Further, all population venues (these are discrete in nature---there is no 2/3 of a forum) are always noted carefully when taking samples. (As I have pointed out here: these are the opinions of the denizens of a health forum.) Sure, as you suggest, it's obvious that asking about topic X at an X haters rally will possibly produce results different from at, say, a star trek convention. .....And.....? All this means that if you're interested in figuring out what is likely to form what opinion, you wander around. How interesting it would be to find that the topic X haters were primarily Star Trek enthusiasts, for example.

All this said and aside, this is an informal search on my part. In fact I didn't want to take it to this technical a level here anyway, but it was needed to show why your response doesn't apply.

[ItsASecret]

Absolutely incorrect. There is no bell curve distribution of opinions UNTIL you have gathered information on the topic and determined that. I, nor you, should just assume that ideas are spread in any way other geometric way than what sampling shows. Further, in order to *have* a bell curve you first need a horizontal axis of non-discretes. A smooth transition say, from left to right. There is no such thing here----I'm not measuring against age, nor height, nor amount of peanut butter consumed.

It is not assuming, it is asking the public and gaining general public opinion which sorts itself into a gradient. Everyone can have a different stance. A general majority opinion can be that it does not matter about threesomes "past is the past", then from general public you get the people that say " it does matter I do not want that" and then some that may say they absolute want nothing more than someone who has engaged in a threesome in the past and maybe even prefer those people. Combine them all and you get a distribution containing various opinion with the axis of "opinion yes, no, maybe, somewhat, very" vs how many. That is not assuming, that is based purely on what people say. All of which will go into a distribution unless you choose a venue of opinion that has a clear bias, like people who love threesomes which would obviously have a skewed distribution....or a person is only looking for one opinion and ignores all others. But public opinion is a good place to look for general opinion as long as many people reply, you can get obvious result or maybe even totally different from expected.

[GoodGuy]

It is not assuming, it is asking the public and gaining general public opinion which sorts itself into a gradient. Everyone can have a different stance. A general majority opinion can be that it does not matter about threesomes "past is the past", then from general public you get the people that say " it does matter I do not want that" and then some that may say they absolute want nothing more than someone who has engaged in a threesome in the past and maybe even prefer those people. Combine them all and you get a distribution containing various opinion with the axis of "opinion yes, no, maybe, somewhat, very" vs how many. That is not assuming, that is based purely on what people say.

It is based upon what people say yes, but it does not meter itself against an axis of the spectrum of yes to no like that. Why? Because you cannot "combine them all" as you say. The issues are connected only in that they are sexual pasts, but they are disparate in that they have radically different effects on people. Some would no problem with a woman having performed oral sex on 100 guys but could not stand the thought of a 3-way. Others might be the opposite. Despite the subject line (I could only fit one thing), the selections were varied because I was asking about WHAT would cause you to disqualify a woman. This is why a bell curve nor any shape is not applicable as stated.

Drawn out in 2 dimensions this is clear, but even if in 3 dimensions: imagine an x axis consisting of reaction (totally ok all the way to totally not ok), and then a y axis of issues (3-way, too much oral, too much sex overall, same gender curiosity, etc.), and a z axis of counts. There *still* can be no shape assumed because the items in the y axis can be reordered in any way you like altering the "shape" as you do so.

Moot though. The point is that

People are going to have different opinions and finding some generalization is impossible

...is not the point at all. As you do understand: there's a lot to learn from gathering data in many venues, so long as the venues are noted as I said.

That's as techie as I would like to take this though.

[elmst]

My GF was in a MFM threesome many years ago and she told me about it one night when she was drunk. At first I was pretty upset and almost broke it off with her. I thought I could never have a serious relationship with her after knowing that. I did some searching online on a few forums and over the last few months I have gotten kind of turned on by it and would now like to try it with her and another guy.
I now fantasize about her with another man doing all kinds of sexual things and me joining in. I used to have a fantasy for a FFM threesome but now I can only think about a MFM or maybe even a somewhat limited MMF threesome. I haven't told her I would be interested but when the time is right I will bring it up.
I've always been in long term monogamous relationships (married twice) but the women I have dated over the past several years have all had affairs with married men, threesomes, many sex partners with coworkers, etc. I don't plan on ever marrying again or even having any kind of permanent relationship so I will just enjoy doing whatever with whomever because I do disqualify most women from anything serious when they have a past like that.

[Claret]

Elmst, this original post was made in 2011, most of the persons that responded are no longer posting here. Why don't you start your own thread on the same subject, you may get more answers. There are numerous newer threads regarding this subject, all you have to do is a quick search and they should come up.

[bootsie]

(Not a real poll it's more complicated).

Please women, no emotional outbursts here. I'm just trying to get a sense on what other men feel. The men that are compelled to a sexual health forum like this are precisely who are valuable.

Does a prior 3-way disqualify a woman for a relationship with you?

Is there anything else sexual about a woman's past (or present) that disqualifies being serious with them? For example:

• [**] prior 3-way, or desire for one? MMF vs. MFF?
  [**] prior sexual experimentation or secret interest in other women?
  [**]anal sex, or anything else in her past?
  [**]Too many prior sexual partners for you?

And have you in someway been tormented by thoughts of such things? Or is it just that it makes you uncomfortable? Or does it not matter at all? Or are some or all of these things somehow a plus in your mind?

Thanks!

No,No and NO!!............I feel that if I am starting a TRUE! relationship with a woman who have did those things and know that she are wanting a true relationship with me.I wouldn't have a problem with any of that.I also know that everyone are going to have some kinda past or some skeletons in their closet as some say,so I feel that if the 2 other you really want this to work.Someone has to forgive and look beyond all of that,Now that if the 2 of you are wanting the relationship to work.

[muffin70]

no - doesn't bother me..... as others have said what is in the past is in the past..... if you lived in a small town and your GF had slept with all the other men in the small town that might be different, but if your GF has had a raunchy sex life before you came along - what's the big deal?
just means she has more experience, and knows what she wants / likes in the bedroom