The original poster (OP) met a girl online, and after some interaction, they made out and engaged in some physical touching. The girl communicated that she enjoyed the physical contact but wanted to clearly state that she intended to wait before going further sexually.
The OP, drawing from past negative experiences where partners waited but engaged in sexual activity with others, asked the girl if she was sleeping with other people. When the OP clarified that he would not continue dating her if she was sleeping with others while they were waiting together, the girl became very upset and stated that his question was none of his business, leading to the apparent end of the relationship and the OP questioning his actions.
AITAH for asking a girl who wanted to wait for sex if she’s sleeping with anyone else?
As renowned relationship expert Dr. David Schnarch explains, “Intimacy requires vulnerability, and vulnerability requires boundaries.” In this scenario, both parties attempted to establish boundaries, but they clashed over the definition of exclusivity in a newly forming, non-sexually-consummated relationship.
The OP’s motivation stems from a place of self-protection rooted in past trauma where perceived commitment was violated. His request for information about her sexual activity was an attempt to enforce a boundary of sexual exclusivity, essentially defining their relationship as exclusive in all ways, including sexual access, even though they had not yet reached the point of having sex. The girlfriend’s reaction, stating it was “none of your fucking business,” indicates she viewed their arrangement as non-exclusive up to that point, and she felt her autonomy over her body was being challenged by a demand for information she felt was intrusive.
While the OP has the absolute right to decide what he is comfortable with in a relationship—and leaving if his boundary is not met is appropriate—demanding a partner confirm their sexual activity status before they have established a formal, committed relationship can sometimes be perceived as controlling or overly demanding, especially if the expectation of abstinence has not been mutually agreed upon. A more constructive approach would have been to state clearly, “I need to be the only person you are intimate with, physically and sexually, if we are to continue dating,” without demanding proof or detailed disclosure about past or concurrent activities, focusing instead on the *future* commitment required by the OP.
AFTER THIS STORY DROPPED, REDDIT WENT INTO MELTDOWN MODE – CHECK OUT WHAT PEOPLE SAID.
The original poster is struggling with the conflict between his established boundary regarding sexual exclusivity during a committed waiting period and his partner’s strong reaction asserting privacy over her sexual activity outside of their relationship. The core issue centers on whether the OP’s expectation of sexual fidelity, even before becoming sexually active, is reasonable within the context of their dating arrangement.
The central question is whether the OP was wrong to establish this condition for continuing the relationship, or if the girlfriend was wrong to refuse to confirm her status and react defensively to a boundary concerning exclusivity. Readers must weigh the OP’s need for security against the girlfriend’s claim to sexual autonomy during the dating phase.
