- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Assuming he hasn't done the same things and isn't being a hypocrite, this boyfriend has *every right* to be upset about this. If the LW's sexual mores differ significantly from his, it doesn't make him a self-righteous inhibited prig to realize someone he thought was compatible with him in this regard, isn't. But he should have been a man, stood up, acknowledged this as a deal-breaker, and dumped her, so that both parties could go out and find more compatible partners.
Someone who sleeps around has no right to be picky about the sexual past of partners, and no woman should tolerate hypocritical judgments from a man who has himself been sexually promiscuous prior to their relationship. But everyone also has to acknowledge that other people are going to judge them for their pasts, and if those people haven't slept around, it's their prerogative to do so. My attitudes toward sex sound similar to the boyfriend's - I assign a sort of secular sacredness to it and haven't slept around in my life (I'm 27, with three partners to date). I have zero interest in dating a woman who's slept around, and it has nothing to do with some patriarchal concept of ownership. It's about compatability - it's exactly the same as not wanting to date a fundamentalist Christian or an Ayn Rand idealizer or a Communist for me. I consider sexual/emotional values a large part of compatibility. I suppose some women would think me sexually backward or judgmental or whatever for my stance and refuse to date me because of it, but since I'm likely to have no interest in those women in any case, so what? Virgins can marry other virgins, and sluts can marry other sluts. Everybody's happy.
