The Flat Hat

Article Tools
Share on Facebook
Seed Newsvine
Send Article
Print

Calculating relationship stats

8 April 2008 | By Maya Horowitz, Flat Hat Behind Closed Doors Columnist | The Flat Hat » behind-closed-doors

When you’re considering a new mate, it’s pretty common to wonder about his or her sexual history. Whether you’re dealing with some chick you met at the frats or a man who you want to bring home to mom, the question always seems to arise. It’s a fair question — but do you really want to hear the answer?

Learning people's sexual histories makes us feel entitled to make value judgments about who they are without much information. Graphic by Olivia Walch

It can be a very shocking experience to learn where he or she has been — figuratively and literally. In fact, many relationships can’t endure the process. But why is it that our first reaction is to ask this question and then, when supplied with the answer, to cringe?

It could be an anxiety left over from purer times, when virginity was of utmost importance. That would mean that when we ask this question, we’re all just crossing our fingers and hoping for, “I don’t have a sexual history.” But that answer is also upsetting. Unless you affectionately refer to yourself as the De-Virginator, this response probably brings up feelings of hesitance at corrupting someone. Or, if your morals don’t come into play, you may simply worry about going to bed with a less-than-able partner.
With that logic, it would seem simple to just lay out your sexual past and move on.

If only.

Many people find themselves struggling, asking, “What’s the right number?” At what point is the number too high? You could become a player, or worse, a slut. There’s also the potential for competition with your partner. If I say 15, and he says three, I must be a hussy. But if I say 15, and he says 15, are we a match made in heaven? There’s no way of knowing.

But why worry? Or, to get the heart of the matter, why ask? Unfortunately, in the modern sexual world, which abounds with sexually transmitted infections, rape and all other things unpleasant that deal with your happy places, it seems irresponsible not to wonder what you’re getting yourself into. In this light, the question is rational. But the response is often irrational.

This medically based (and recommended) question, “Are you STI free?” becomes the moral question, “Are you pure?”
I’m sure some of you have had the experience of learning that someone you’re interested in had previously hooked up with someone you dislike. Even if that was years ago and this person is STI-free, this fact still seems to taint your perception of him or her. Surely it is unfair to judge in this way, given that you probably know little or nothing of the circumstances or motivation for the hook-up, but most of us probably still would make an assessment.

And what if this person has not hooked up with someone who you dislike, but rather, a close friend of yours? Did your friend sign her guestbook and forbid your entry? Obviously, it depends on whether she dated or just hooked up with your friend, but there are no clear boundaries. If they were friends with benefits and your friend broke it off, is it more acceptable to get in bed with her than if they dated but he never really liked her in the first place? There’s no definitive answer.

All of this is to say that sexual history is a complex, important issue. Understandably, it’s at the forefront of most of our minds when we begin seeing someone. But, we must acknowledge that beyond our good intentions, this question is very much a trap.
Learning people’s sexual histories makes us feel entitled to make value judgments about who they are without much information. I am by no means implying that you should not ask — this is a valuable question. I just hope that the next time you feel compelled to ask, you consider all the baggage that comes with the question.

Maya Horowitz is the Flat Hat sex columnist. She affectionately refers to herself as the De-Virginator.

1. Maya — Is it inconceivable that someone could meet a virgin, date her, and leave her a virgin? Does dating or “a relationship” have to include sex? “No sexual history” is a wonderful thing to find in one’s marriage partner and I hope we can value it here at the College.

   
   — Paul Daley    Apr 8, 01:06 PM    #

2. Paul- You make a great point. For some people, virginity until marriage is a favorable option. In that case, “no sexual history,” would definitely be preferable. What I was trying to express in this column was the idea that there is rarely a ‘correct’ answer to a question about your sexual history. In the example you give, there perhaps is. And certainly, we can value this concept at the College. For those who choose to be sexually active however, sexual history becomes a little more of a sticking point, as I discuss above. I urge you to read my other columns- I do not advocate that sex is for everyone at all times. Virginity can also be valuable. Thank you for your comment.

   
   — Maya Horowitz    Apr 8, 03:52 PM    #

3. Let me ask this — are there any men reading this who would prefer that the woman you marry be “de-virginated” by someone else? If so, please speak up and make that case. I am not in that group. I have great respect for women who maintain their virtue in spite of the widely-held expectation that “a relationship” comes with “de-virgination” as its price.

   
   — Paul Daley    Apr 8, 07:53 PM    #

4. Forget about this whole concept of “women maintaining their virtue.” Women are not the gate-keepers of virginity. There are plenty of people – both women and men- who want their partners to remain virgins until marriage. I’m sure comments above weren’t meant to be sexist, but it is time to start valuing male and female virginity on an equal basis.

   
   — Brett    Apr 8, 09:25 PM    #

5. Re: the speculation that there’s no man “who would prefer that the woman [he marries] be ‘de-virginated’ by someone else”:

   I can say with quite a bit of fervor that I would prefer my future spouse to be shall-we-say sexually experienced. Well-versed in any and all coital arts. With it, put together, free of carnal compunctions. Acquainted with matters of the flesh. Rearing and ready. Prodigiously talented in the bedroom and wherever else we deign to do the deed.

   I’m guessing she’ll be, in turn, the type of gal who expects the same of me. In fact, I’d have it no other way. Such stringent erotic standards will require, of course, that my spouse-to-be engage in lubricious behavior well in advance of our wedding day. And that, my friend, is just dandy.

   Just saying.

   
   — Dan Piepenbring    Apr 8, 10:00 PM    #

6. For those who share Dan’s view, do you want to have a monogamous marriage? If yes, why do you feel it’s OK to share your spouse with others BEFORE you get married?

   Or, to flip the question around, if you want an experienced mate, why would you insist on faithfulness AFTER you get married?

   
   — Paul Daley    Apr 8, 11:19 PM    #

7. Nice one, Dan.

   Paul, many people consider the concept of “virtue” to be false and anachronistic. Putting on my feminist hat, I for one believe the very idea is basically a tool of patriarchal oppression. Historically speaking, odds are guys didn’t lose their virtue with their virginity, but women did. I think moving away from this paradigm and the double standards which follow from it is a step in the right direction, and so I wholeheartedly agree with Dan. A healthy sex life can help you get to know yourself and your body, and it can inform what you look for in your future life-mate, which could easily lead to a healthy and happy marriage.

   That said, a choice made by two partners to keep an open mind about each others’ sexual histories doesn’t by a long shot change the fundamental dynamics of a monogamous relationship. There are practical reasons for this – one never can be too careful about STI’s nowadays— and also the same good old-fashioned reasons for keeping things one-on-one still apply that have always applied. Monogamy is attractive because it is emotionally safe, for all the reasons you might expect. This of course doesn’t change for people who have had multiple partners in their life. Some people of course swing, and power to them, but as far as I can tell they are the exception rather than the rule.

   The point: the sky is not falling. People who choose to have sex before marriage are not out to get the family or family values. In response to your first question to Maya, it of course isn’t inconceivable that two people might abstain from sex within the context of their relationship, but why address that here? This is the sex column. Maya is the sex columnist. You’ve brought your argument to the wrong forum.

   
   — Andy Henderson    Apr 9, 02:35 AM    #

8. Paul,
   You seem to be repulsed by the idea of having sex with a woman who has had sex with another man. But consider this: lets say you get married. Then you get divorced or your spouse dies. Terrible idea I know but it happens to the best of us in the real world. Now, suppose you get remarried, to a woman who was also previously married? OMG! You didn’t take her virginity, how can you ever trust her?

   My point: for most people, in the course of their life they will have more than one sexual partner, for whatever reasons, both inside and outside of the boundaries of marriage. I think that Maya was reflecting this fact of life in her article, and was giving very good advice on how to address it.

   But as for you, Paul, keep living the dream!

   
   — Greg W    Apr 10, 11:00 PM    #

9. Paul — is it your idea of progress to make today’s first marriages like yesterday’s second marriages? It’s not mine. Why shouldn’t we aspire to save sexual intimacy for our first spouse?

   
   — Edgar Holmes    Apr 11, 03:13 PM    #

10. I meant to address my question to Greg, not Paul.

    
    — Edgar Holmes    Apr 11, 03:14 PM    #

11. I completely agree with Andy. I see it as really possessive to think about women (or men) this way. What’s so wrong with falling in love with someone’s personality, or because you love to do the same things? I feel like with Paul this definately has to be a religious issue, but even though I am Christian I see the concept of “saving it” as outdated. If we were all married at the same age that they typically were in the bible, or when our grandparents got married, etc. then we’d probably all be married right now. You don’t have to think about saving yourself if you’re only 12.
    I understand the point that Maya’s making, and some of you boys obviously don’t.

    
    — Emily    Apr 18, 07:28 PM    #