"So what if your girlfriend wanna have sex with me , is it ok for you to see me fucking her . .. i mean if she wants that .. is it going to bother you or not ?"

Generally speaking, this would absolutely not be considered the norm at all, but there are exceptions to everything.

Some months back, my brother called me asking about a woman he was interested in. He said that he liked her, but all of his friends warned him not to get into a long term relationship with her because she is a "whore". I asked him what that meant exactly and apparently she is what some would consider promiscuous. To me, whether you are a male or female, a whore would be someone who goes around sleeping with other peoples spouses or something. Someone who doesn't have any regard for how their sexual behavior affects others negatively. This kind of behavior is not considered acceptable here. I know men like this as well, and they're essentially sociopaths that by most anyone's standards would not be considered a decent suitor for anyone

As to whether a man or woman's sexual history has any bearing on their sexual future I guess it could. But, generally speaking I only see this being a major foreseeable problem in nymphomaniacs, or the like. I know of multiple cases of folks that went from being very sexually active in the casual sense in their early years to being absolutely loyal to a spouse once they were in love with that person.

Hope this helps.

Guys, I think you might just be stuck in the "rebuttal" mode.
From what I have read, he's indeed a guy from some 'patriarchal backwater' with some of those values instilled in him, trying to wrap his head around the way we do things in the West. We mustn't focus on saying why he is wrong here, aside from the arguments he brings up. There is no such thing as a 'wrong' question. There may be stupid questions, but not wrong ones. We must never attack a question, for that act undermines every value we hold dear.

Jo:

I think the principal difference here is that you are used to a highly _institutionalised_ system of relationships. Things follow a uniform order, maybe even set in law, and every relationship fits into that, Here in the West, we don't have that. Everybody is out for themselves, out to represent their own values, and tries to look for a mate that has similar values.

Some people are very liberal about sex. They are not concerned with their partners having sex with others, some of them might even enjoy the thought. These are the sort of people who live in "open relationships", where there is *no obligation* of exclusivity, and both people are fine with (and expected to) have sex with others, too. Sometimes these branch out into polyamorous communities, but these cases are the MINORITY.

Some go to the other end of the spectrum. With or without a religious conviction, they strictly believe that sex should be a marital act, no less. These people are not going to get involved with the stuff the most liberal people do, they go out and look for someone who has a similar view on sex, and partner with them. These, too, are a MINORITY.

Then there is the middle ground, where most westerners are. While they are fine with casual sex in principle, it is unlikely to be a very common occurance for them. Indeed, many go through their lives without ever engaging in such activities, even though they are perfectly fine with the idea. They tend to seek sex within a stable relationship, but are fine with having at least a handful of partners in their lives. They look for someone who is compatible with them both sexually and otherwise, and then, as a symbolic act of commitment (as well as a practical tax arrangement), enter marriage. The aim of a marriage is for it to be permanent. Sometimes it fails at that, especially if the people got married too quickly or their life changed dramatically, but often times enough it does not.

In summary: NO, most westerners are not fine with their partners cheating on them, NO, most westerners aren't rampaging around having casual sex, NO, most westerners do not expect their partners to be virgin.
See the "most" in each of these? That's the true beauty of Western liberalism - we all have the right to lead the life that we want, and some people take radically different paths to the majority. And that's fine with us.

I hope this gave you some insight into the Western mind, and if you have any questions, feel free to leave them below.

I like to think shame wouldn't be my predominant feeling if I had a child that was a porn star/prostitute. That suggests a kind of ego based selfishness. If ones concern upon learning that their child has taken on a lifestyle that concerns them, they should be just that. Concerned for how these lifestyle choices may affect said child, and absolutely not on how it may reflect on themselves. This would be pure vanity, nothing more.

Well, perhaps what keep your women in line is the fear of bodily harm or murder. Without that I can see why they would run. I mean, someone with such backward thoughts couldn't possible understand anything about sexual relationships other then to stick it in. Maybe you should get of your knees for that god of yours and learn a few things. Something most men, and women, could benefit from.

Highly conservative views can be borne out of things other than religion. If the man claims to be secular, let us assume that. No matter what he thinks, just saying that still works as a promise not to justify things based on specific scripture.
That should make our job simpler.

Jo, since you are having some trouble making your points clearly, allow me to help. Should at least improve the quality of the debate. If there is anything here you _disagree with_, please correct me immediately. You may also feel free to expand upon any of these points if you want to, but try to keep that separate from any straightforward corrections you want to make.

He has pointed out that it is a logical fallacy to assume a religious value is wrong simply *because* it is religious, something that I think we can accept.

Jo has made clear that he believes in a woman's right to choose their partner, as a right to get away from an abusive husband. Jo does, however, believe that it is important to have official documents detailing her sexual history, as it is important when judging a woman's character. His previous statements about gender neutrality lead me to assume that he is just as convinced that this tracking should be applied to men, too.
(While he hasn't explicitly said that in the case of tracking, if he once says he doesn't hold a double standard, let us mirror the things he forgot to.)

Jo believes that sex, if not restricted to appropriate circumstances, is a tool with a potential for violence. This is achieved through the mechanism "jealousy => hatred => violence".

Because of this great negative potential, but also because of its great positive potential, Jo sees sex as something to be respected and ideally practised only by a couple committed to a permanent relationship, with the only caveats to the permanence being things like divorce rights.

In conclusion:
What we are hearing from Jo is that sex is:
a) a force for jealousy
b) an irresistible desire (especially if one lets it take hold of oneself)
c) something that needs to be respected

Where a) is assumed
Where b) is assumed

Where c) is based on a) and b)

In order to defeat the conclusion c), one must either give a convincing case against the assumptions a) or b), or defeat the implied link between them and the conclusion c).

Well I think it is pretty obvious that b is false.

He has repeatedly told us that once you have sex, you lose all self control. Telling us that we will cheat, and that all of us will leave our spouses.