Thread: wifes history
View Single Post
 
Old May 31, 2013, 07:45 PM
hamster-bamster hamster-bamster is offline
Account Suspended
 
Member Since: Sep 2011
Location: Northern California
Posts: 14,805
Maybe GG has mentioned morals, in whatever sense of the word, throughout the thread, but per the opening line of the OP, the issue was pure commonality:

Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinaguy View Post
Prior to marriage, I had not been very sexually active. It was a choice I made as my first experience was not a good one. It therefore was important to me to not be involved with someone who was very active and had a ton of experience.
That was search for commonality and not morals. To the extent that having lived happily otherwise for 14 years has proven the presence of ample commonality beyond any reasonable doubt, there is no point in going back in time. Clearly, 14 years of living together provide more data about commonality than one incidence of an FMM. I mean, the FMM part probably took a couple of hours total - and that is outweighing ... 14 years together?..

So that brings us back to the sole issue of misrepresentation.