Is there "something wrong" with a guy if he...

Bepolite · 08-10-2014 4:47pm

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I've changed my mind. I'll now be eagerly seeking a partner with as many sexual partners as possible as obviously they'll be the best in bed and completely comfortable experimenting with me since they'll be choosing to settle with me and not one of the other hundreds of partners they had failed or purely sexual relationships with. Hopefully I can find one who has partaken in lots of threesomes but I'm feeling lucky, so maybe I can snag one who has been in multiple orgies and gang bangs as clearly this is a highly respectable and desired kind of partner. She will definitely help me raise my children and instill good morals on them as they mature and grow up. Who knows, maybe if I have a daughter she can grow up to be just like my partner, sexually liberated and free to do whatever she likes as possessing these opinions means that I am completely open minded and a liberal thinker.

Thank you all for showing me the way. Please accept me.

Why would someone's sexual preferences impede on their morals?

Why do you specifically cite a daughter? Are you suggesting that a different standard applies to male and females?

Does this standard change if your child/children are gay/bisexual?

Why do you equate doing whatever someone likes with being liberal?

walshb · 08-10-2014 4:49pm

I am sure that there are many happily married men and women out there who got together on a one night stand. Some, maybe plenty of people wouldn't dream of going out with someone whom they've had a 1 night stand with. Plenty would consider a relationship.

Bepolite · 08-10-2014 4:57pm

Can I just also tackle something head on. If you're someone who enjoys sex you generally know the risks. In my personal opinion you're much more likely to be careful, not pissed out of your head when doing it, and much more likely to get regularly tested. If you're finding like minded individuals (or groups :pac:) are, IMHO much safer than some bird you've pulled in a club or even a girl/guy you meet under 'ideal' circumstances and eventually shag.

You're also (again imho) much more likely to be able to identify vulnerable individuals and know to steer well clear and not end up with some bunny-boiler, a girl who is looking to get pregnant (it does happen) or someone who for whatever reason is seeking out casual sex to satisfy anything else than a desire for sex.

Bepolite · 08-10-2014 5:00pm

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Can women enjoy sex and one night stands? Obviously. But don't forget that most men engaging in them do not give a single sh!t about the woman once they've used them for what they wanted and got.

Has it ever occured to you that the woman might feel the same way?

Wibbs · 08-10-2014 5:01pm

Barely There wrote: »

I wonder would any single man have similar stats? - I doubt it.

I would have been quite choosy myself when single - I certainly wouldn't have been like some of my 'every hole's a goal' friends, but I can't imagine any guy turning down 50 random women who would offer him sex.

Just thinking more on this area; the idea that a woman can go out anytime and get sex on tap, whereas a man can't. Yes it is a "sellers market" so women have the advantage there, however and it's a big however if I was a woman and wanted a guaranteed ONS tonight, 9 times outa 10 I'd be lowering my personal standards to get it. The male equivalent of the homely lass a half hour before last orders kinda thing. As for men? Harder for say 20 year old guys, but a 30 year old guy who doesn't look like he should be up a steeple in Notre Dame ringing the bells has a pretty damn good chance of a ONS if that's what he wants. Again he may have to lower his personal standards.

When it comes to trying to get a halfway decent relationship, I would say if anything women have it harder. The number of women I've known who were attractive all the way to objectively good looking who went through long lean periods between relationships is remarkably high, even though they were looking for that sorta thing and none were loopers, or otherwise dodgy in personality.

So I'd say as a generalised thing women may have it easier if they want a ONS(but less than you might imagine if you're after quality), but men have it easier if they're looking for relationships.

UnitedWeStand · 08-10-2014 5:09pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Wow.

Just...wow.

Why not just spit out what you intend to say than just showing your distaste for my opinion?

Wibbs · 08-10-2014 5:13pm

Bepolite wrote: »

Can I just also tackle something head on. If you're someone who enjoys sex you generally know the risks.

Ohhh BP I dunno about that. At all. In my personal manslut phase I was surprised, nay shocked how few women even mentioned condoms on a one nighter, never mind insisted it on one. Like I can think of 3 or 4 who brought them up. Even women who told me they weren't on the pill/implant/injection were scarily blase about their use.

Now if you mean those folks who are into the sexual thing more than the average and get organised into clubs

. Yes I'd agree they're defo more clued in, but the general populace? I really don't buy that. The rise of the various forms of the clap in the last decade would back me up. Chlamydia is up near 10% and that's in folks tested and beyond the interweb heros claiming to be tested regularly any doc in a clap clinic will tell you that the vast majority have never been checked out.

TBH it would be a reason why I'd be highly dubious of a high number individual. And biology plays a part here. Transmission rates of various claps, poxes and dreaded lurgies are far higher from male to female than the other way around. Men can get away with more shenanigans if they're dopey bastards who don't take precautions.

You're also (again imho) much more likely to be able to identify vulnerable individuals and know to steer well clear and not end up with some bunny-boiler, a girl who is looking to get pregnant (it does happen) or someone who for whatever reason is seeking out casual sex to satisfy anything else than a desire for sex.

Hmmm maybe, I dunno. I suppose that would depend on the individual and how quick they learn. I took my time I can admit.

UnitedWeStand · 08-10-2014 5:16pm

reprazant wrote: »

I may be wrong but this seems to read as you don't want any future possible girlfriend to have much experience so that you don't get insecure about if her previous fellas were better than?

Not for that reason. We are all the product of our experiences, and for me with my ex we were both virgins before we got together. Perhaps I'm so fond of the idea of a low sexual count as a result of this in future partners. But for both of us we both admitted it felt like an additional bit of intimacy and closeness for us thanks to be virgins beforehand.

As "feminine" as it sounds sex is damn intimate and an emotion filled act when it's with a long term partner. For me at least, it would be blighted if instead of waiting for love to have sex, they have just given in a screwed loads of guys.

Ave Sodalis · 08-10-2014 5:18pm

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Not for that reason. We are all the product of our experiences, and for me with my ex we were both virgins before we got together. Perhaps I'm so fond of the idea of a low sexual count as a result of this in future partners. But for both of us we both admitted it felt like an additional bit of intimacy and closeness for us thanks to be virgins beforehand.

As "feminine" as it sounds sex is damn intimate and an emotion filled act when it's with a long term partner. For me at least, it would be blighted if instead of waiting for love to have sex, they have just given in a screwed loads of guys.

Although I can kinda see where you're coming from, the way you refer to girls who don't comply with your ideals is what's causing problems.

UnitedWeStand · 08-10-2014 5:18pm

Wompa1 wrote: »

That's probably more rare than a Unicorn for girls around your age but good luck with that. Also not sure what you mean about her doing that to her body? You mean risking an STD or do you mean something more?

By the body bit I mean it feels like if a future partner of mine has paraded around in multiple one night stands, it would for me devalue her for. Just as I would hope she would see me if I did the same thing.

eviltwin · 08-10-2014 5:19pm

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Not for that reason. We are all the product of our experiences, and for me with my ex we were both virgins before we got together. Perhaps I'm so fond of the idea of a low sexual count as a result of this in future partners. But for both of us we both admitted it felt like an additional bit of intimacy and closeness for us thanks to be virgins beforehand.

As "feminine" as it sounds sex is damn intimate and an emotion filled act when it's with a long term partner. For me at least, it would be blighted if instead of waiting for love to have sex, they have just given in a screwed loads of guys.

Would it be a deal breaker and what would your limit be? I know you're young but as you get older you'll find it harder to meet someone who doesn't have a history.

UnitedWeStand · 08-10-2014 5:19pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Although I can kinda see where you're coming from, the way you refer to girls who don't comply with your ideals is what's causing problems.

Yup! Worded it awfully, but hopefully someone can look past the bare semantics of it all and see a deeper point ha.

Ave Sodalis · 08-10-2014 5:21pm

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Yup! Worded it awfully, but hopefully someone can look past the bare semantics of it all and see a deeper point ha.

Not when you're talking about how you will see her as being devalued and giving in to something or the other, and saying she has no self respect. I think it's not just about bad wording, it's about bad attitude.

Macavity. · 08-10-2014 5:23pm

If the number was very high I'd be put off, I don't know why I just would be. Call it irrational, sexist, a complex etc... I don't particularly care.

UnitedWeStand · 08-10-2014 5:24pm

eviltwin wrote: »

Would it be a deal breaker and what would your limit be? I know you're young but as you get older you'll find it harder to meet someone who doesn't have a history.

True point. It wouldn't be a total deal breaker. I'm fine with sex if the person was in a relationship at the time. That's justified for me and I'd let that be history and leave it in the past. By that rationale I'd assume say if I met someone ideal at 25 or 26 their sexual partner count would be anywhere from 2-5.

If they've had multiple one night stands etc then it would be a deal breaker. It could cause issues later on.

chessman · 08-10-2014 5:25pm

virgins,as rare as rocking horses ****.

mariaalice · 08-10-2014 5:25pm

strobe wrote: »

You have quite a negative way of viewing ONS's, have you ever had any out of curiosity?

While I didn't love deeply girls I've had ONS's with (or them me, I'm sure), I certainly liked most of them, to a lesser or greater degree, and while quite a few I would have never seen again (others I became friends with or ended up in a relationship with), I certainly gave a single sh1t, maybe even two or three sh1ts about them, as I do most of the people I meet and like and make some sort of a connection (sexual or not, brief and insubstantial or a little more than that) with.

You sound like a very nice and insightful person both very attractive qualities in anyone.

UnitedWeStand · 08-10-2014 5:27pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Not when you're talking about how you will see her as being devalued and giving in to something or the other, and saying she has no self respect. I think it's not just about bad wording, it's about bad attitude.

What makes it a bad attitude? An attitude is just that an attitude and it helps me lead the life I want. I never said anything about respect and never insulted her character. It's the acts that she has performed that have devalued her to me as a partner.

It's not as sexist as it seems, women should and a lot do have the same attitude towards men I.e."lads".

eviltwin · 08-10-2014 5:29pm

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

What makes it a bad attitude? An attitude is just that an attitude and it helps me lead the life I want. I never said anything about respect and never insulted her character. It's the acts that she has performed that have devalued her to me as a partner.

It's not as sexist as it seems, women should and a lot do have the same attitude towards men I.e."lads".

What is it about a one night stand that devalues a person? I can't understand what you mean by that.

the evasion_kid · 08-10-2014 5:29pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Actually, in my own experience, it's the other way around more so. Out of all the guys I've slept with (and I keep bringing me into it because I can only speak for myself), I've fallen for one. The rest were clearly one night stands. Some, if they were good enough and could hold boundaries, may have even become **** buddies. However, I've had guys who wouldn't let me leave the next morning, ones that won't stop asking to go on dates, even one I had to threaten with a restraining order before he would leave me alone, despite in all cases, it was made very clear that I was not looking for anything more. Except some guys don't get that and just assume that all girls want something more. The only exception was my current boyfriend because I had eye on him before we started sleeping together. Even then, it was almost a year before anything came of it.

Eh wut? Also, you do know that you don't have to worry about STDs if they test clean... and that you're still not safe, even if you've had only one partner...

You'd be wrong in that last part,there is no known test for men with genital warts unless they appear on the genital area,it can be in your system for weeks,months,years before making an appearance.

UnitedWeStand · 08-10-2014 5:34pm

eviltwin wrote: »

What is it about a one night stand that devalues a person? I can't understand what you mean by that.

Devalues as a partner.

Who knows. It's my opinion that serves me, and has probably come from my own experiences esp. my last relationship, but I wouldn't as able to enjoy a sex life with someone who engages in them.

Maybe it's a feeling they've a lack of intimacy in sex, maybe it's the "ancient" idea that sex should be reserved for love etc. It's something deep routed in me anyway that's unlikely to change.

Ave Sodalis · 08-10-2014 5:34pm

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

What makes it a bad attitude? An attitude is just that an attitude and it helps me lead the life I want. I never said anything about respect and never insulted her character. It's the acts that she has performed that have devalued her to me as a partner.

It's not as sexist as it seems, women should and a lot do have the same attitude towards men I.e."lads".

Because whether you're devaluing the acts or the person, it's still not a particularly nice way to see someone when it's about something so natural. You didn't say respect but you did talk about "doing that to her body" and "selling herself out" and not having dignity when that is not what it's about at all.

the evasion_kid wrote: »

You'd be wrong in that last part,there is no known test for men with genital warts unless they appear on the genital area,it can be in your system for weeks,months,years before making an appearance.

Yes but we're talking about females.

Bepolite · 08-10-2014 5:37pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Ohhh BP I dunno about that. At all. In my personal manslut phase I was surprised, nay shocked how few women even mentioned condoms on a one nighter, never mind insisted it on one. Like I can think of 3 or 4 who brought them up. Even women who told me they weren't on the pill/implant/injection were scarily blase about their use.

Run.

Alternatively it takes two to tango. One needs to be responsible for one's self.

Wibbs wrote: »

Now if you mean those folks who are into the sexual thing more than the average and get organised into clubs . Yes I'd agree they're defo more clued in, but the general populace? I really don't buy that. The rise of the various forms of the clap in the last decade would back me up. Chlamydia is up near 10% and that's in folks tested and beyond the interweb heros claiming to be tested regularly any doc in a clap clinic will tell you that the vast majority have never been checked out.

That's down to a lack of education, perhaps because of certain view-points expressed in this thread. Unfortunately I would have to agree with you on the populous as a whole thing, collectively people are stupid.

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH it would be a reason why I'd be highly dubious of a high number individual. And biology plays a part here. Transmission rates of various claps, poxes and dreaded lurgies are far higher from male to female than the other way around. Men can get away with more shenanigans if they're dopey bastards who don't take precautions.

The majority of these diseases are easily treated and with regular testing caught early and are not damaging. People seem to think getting something like syphilis makes you some sort of lepper when all you're talking about is a few needles in the hind-quarters.

Wibbs wrote: »

Hmmm maybe, I dunno. I suppose that would depend on the individual and how quick they learn. I took my time I can admit.

Again I'd cite a lack of education and damaging (not all are) conservative views. How are you meant to distinguish between a woman who likes sex and a damaged individual when liking sex makes you a damaged individual?

eviltwin · 08-10-2014 5:39pm

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Devalues as a partner.

Who knows. It's my opinion that serves me, and has probably come from my own experiences esp. my last relationship, but I wouldn't as able to enjoy a sex life with someone who engages in them.

Maybe it's a feeling they've a lack of intimacy in sex, maybe it's the "ancient" idea that sex should be reserved for love etc. It's something deep routed in me anyway that's unlikely to change.

If you want to save sex for a serious relationship that is up to you. Nothing wrong with that. Its the running down of people, usually women, who chose to have them as though there is something wrong with them that's so objectionable. Some people don't want a relationship or aren't lucky enough to have found someone they like enough but they still have needs. Once you are responsible and take precautions I can't see the problem. Its a myth as well that a lot of one night stands are strangers meeting strangers in pubs, a lot of them would be people who know each other.

Bepolite · 08-10-2014 5:40pm

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Maybe it's a feeling they've a lack of intimacy in sex, maybe it's the "ancient" idea that sex should be reserved for love etc. It's something deep routed in me anyway that's unlikely to change.

It's not though - it's a relatively new idea born out of christian morality and more recently the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

You're completely entitled to who you fancy and for what reason though.

the evasion_kid · 08-10-2014 5:43pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Because whether you're devaluing the acts or the person, it's still not a particularly nice way to see someone when it's about something so natural. You didn't say respect but you did talk about "doing that to her body" and "selling herself out" and not having dignity when that is not what it's about at all.

Yes but we're talking about females.

Can still go undetected in females and is usually only discovered visually or shows up on pap smear tests for cervical cancer screening.

UnitedWeStand · 08-10-2014 5:47pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Because whether you're devaluing the acts or the person, it's still not a particularly nice way to see someone when it's about something so natural. You didn't say respect but you did talk about "doing that to her body" and "selling herself out" and not having dignity when that is not what it's about at all.

Yes but we're talking about females.

And what's wrong with me devaluing their acts personally? You say sex is natural, it is but so is finding certain things lesser than others. Devaluing and favouring things is just as natural, regardless of "nice".

I devalue a woman who has had one night stands to fulfill the role of being my next partner. I devalue that man who can't read who wants to work as my personal assistant. I devalue the 13 year old child over a parent for babysitting my children.

Certain things are more favourable that others to each of us personally. If not we wouldn't be different.

eviltwin · 08-10-2014 5:52pm

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

And what's wrong with me devaluing their acts personally? You say sex is natural, it is but so is finding certain things lesser than others. Devaluing and favouring things is just as natural, regardless of "nice".

I devalue a woman who has had one night stands to fulfill the role of being my next partner. I devalue that man who can't read who wants to work as my personal assistant. I devalue the 13 year old child over a parent for babysitting my children.

Certain things are more favourable that others to each of us personally. If not we wouldn't be different.

Devaluing in this case can be confused with judging. I know where you are coming from. I wouldn't date a smoker but that's not to say I think smokers are bad people or are lesser people than non smokers. Its just a personal choice. But comments about one night stands are often done in conjunction with words like slag, slapper etc, this one act is used to judge their entire character. Only having sex in relationships doesn't make you a good person or a good spouse or a good parent just as one night stands won't make you a bad one.

UnitedWeStand · 08-10-2014 5:53pm

eviltwin wrote: »

If you want to save sex for a serious relationship that is up to you. Nothing wrong with that. Its the running down of people, usually women, who chose to have them as though there is something wrong with them that's so objectionable. Some people don't want a relationship or aren't lucky enough to have found someone they like enough but they still have needs. Once you are responsible and take precautions I can't see the problem. Its a myth as well that a lot of one night stands are strangers meeting strangers in pubs, a lot of them would be people who know each other.

Good point! I'm still suffering from bad wording quite a few posts back that have made me come across as mysogynistic. For all its worth men who have one night stands should be seen in the same light.

Daveysil15 · 08-10-2014 5:55pm

Wibbs wrote: »

You'd be surprised J. Off the top of my head I can think of 2 women and 3 men(in their 40's now) that broke that barrier. I can think of quite a few more who broke the 50 barrier(more women than men in that group). On the other side of the coin I can think of a fair few men and women who are below 10(more men than women).

I'm surprised you know that many people who candidly expressed how many partners they've had. Is this something that comes up in conversation a lot? I must be hanging around with very conservative people as I can't recall many, (if any) conversations about it with my friends and peers, and even if I did I'd take it with a grain of salt.

Barely There wrote: »

An interesting point, that perhaps partially explains the societal differences in the way the two sexes are treated

a man hitting high numbers is seen as an 'achievement', whereas this is not the case with a woman as little effort is required on her part.

The thing about the whole slut vs. stud dichotomy is that it ignores the word creep. The man is only a stud if the woman says yes. Suppose a man approaches 10 women in a night, 9 of them turn him down while 1 has sex with him. To the other 9 women he may just be another creep looking for his hole.

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Have you never seen the inside of a club past 2am and towards closing time? It's quite a sight.

Yeah usually a bunch of people stumbling out looking for the nearest chipper.

strobe · 08-10-2014 6:12pm

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

What makes it a bad attitude? An attitude is just that an attitude and it helps me lead the life I want. I never said anything about respect and never insulted her character. It's the acts that she has performed that have devalued her to me as a partner.

It's not as sexist as it seems, women should and a lot do have the same attitude towards men I.e."lads".

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Good point! I'm still suffering from bad wording quite a few posts back that have made me come across as mysogynistic. For all its worth men who have one night stands should be seen in the same light.

This 'should' stuff seems to be undermining the 'personal attitudes are personal attitudes and they're ours to hold' thrust of your posts a little no? Or is it just more bad wording?

Wibbs · 08-10-2014 6:24pm

Bepolite wrote: »

Run.

I did once or twice.

Alternatively it takes two to tango. One needs to be responsible for one's self.

Well my cynicism level is high and my trusting level low,

so when I tango I take the precautions. No way would I go sans Jonny de Rubber on a ONS.

Unfortunately I would have to agree with you on the populous as a whole thing, collectively people are stupid.

Naive more than stupid I'd reckon. The it'll never happen to me mindset.

The majority of these diseases are easily treated and with regular testing caught early and are not damaging. People seem to think getting something like syphilis makes you some sort of lepper when all you're talking about is a few needles in the hind-quarters.

If caught early, if people are getting tested. Syphilis can be a real bastard with very real health consequences if not caught early and treated. Given primary syphilis can be remarkably asymptomatic especially in women not spotting it is quite the risk. Chlamydia? Very common and again more asymptomatic in women and can cause serious reproductive issues. Gonorrhea? Again more asymptomatic in women and is becoming more and more antibiotic resistant of late(as are some strains of syphilis). That's before we get to herpes and genital warts, both very common, very easily transmitted and untreated can lead to worse health issues. Obviously HIV infection is another level of screwed on top. Many of these diseases are "hidden" easily transmissible, some are becoming resistant to treatment(which will likely get worse not better) and aren't like a sore throat.

Daveysil15 wrote:

I'm surprised you know that many people who candidly expressed how many partners they've had. Is this something that comes up in conversation a lot?

People have always told me stuff, confided in me, ever since I was a kid. Women more than men too. I've no idea why TBH. Go figure. Well I never pass on that info. It goes in and stays in and that you can take to the bank so maybe that's it? And yep I realise, or came to realise that's unusual enough.

UnitedWeStand · 08-10-2014 6:24pm

strobe wrote: »

This 'should' stuff seems to be undermining the 'personal attitudes are personal attitudes and they're ours to hold' thrust of your posts a little no? Or is it just more bad wording?

Ah now are you that desperate to stifle me that you're just going to pick out one word and ignore the context it was used in?

"It's not as sexist as it seems, women should and a lot do have the same attitude towards men I.e."lads""

If you're going to slander me at least throw in the context, which should be easy enough to include if I'm that much of a bigot.

Daveysil15 · 08-10-2014 6:50pm

Wibbs wrote: »

People have always told me stuff, confided in me, ever since I was a kid. Women more than men too. I've no idea why TBH. Go figure. Well I never pass on that info. It goes in and stays in and that you can take to the bank so maybe that's it? And yep I realise, or came to realise that's unusual enough.

You must have one of those trustworthy faces.

Do you reckon you're getting the whole truth though? I could be wrong, but I reckon when it comes to numbers, men may overestimate while women may do the opposite.

strobe · 08-10-2014 7:01pm

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Ah now are you that desperate to stifle me that you're just going to pick out one word and ignore the context it was used in?

"It's not as sexist as it seems, women should and a lot do have the same attitude towards men I.e."lads""

If you're going to slander me at least throw in the context, which should be easy enough to include if I'm that much of a bigot.

I'm certainly not trying to 'slander' you, and I can't see how you can accuse my of removing context when I quoted your whole post?

Bigot? Not at all. You've clearly misunderstood me man.

I was querying as to whether you see an inconsistency or not, in on the one hand, replying to posters along the lines that your view on wanting to be with someone with few previous sexual partners is your personal attitude and opinion and people can't say it's bad as it applies to you and it's yours to hold as you see fit (Which I actually agree with you on), and then in posts saying men and women "should" feel the same way as you do about other men and women that do not have few previous sexual partners.

Or wondering if it was just poorly chosen wording again.

Is that any clearer?

UnitedWeStand · 08-10-2014 7:12pm

strobe wrote: »

I'm certainly not trying to 'slander' you, and I can't see how you can accuse my of removing context when I quoted your whole post?

Bigot? Not at all. You've clearly misunderstood me man.

I was querying as to whether you see an inconsistency or not, in on the one hand, replying to posters along the lines that your view on wanting to be with someone with few previous sexual partners is your personal attitude and opinion and people can't say it's bad as it applies to you and it's yours to hold as you see fit (Which I actually agree with you on), and then in posts saying men and women "should" feel the same way as you do about other men and women that do not have few previous sexual partners.

Or wondering if it was just poorly chosen wording again.

Is that any clearer?

In that case ignore my last post. Apologies my friend, as you can see my views have stirred a view people so I'm naturally defensive here.

The line you quote about where I said women should view men in the same way comes about from an answer to another poster. The just of our posts was that they thought I was implying women shouldn't have as much sexual freedom/should be viewed in a devalued way I.e "sluts". I replied what you quoted to say that mentally is correctly a bad one and shouldn't be around, and just as some men sometimes call a woman a degrading term and keep away from them, women should do the same to men with similar sexual behaviour.

Hope that's cleared it! Liked your post

Bepolite · 08-10-2014 7:57pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I did once or twice.

Well my cynicism level is high and my trusting level low, so when I tango I take the precautions. No way would I go sans Jonny de Rubber on a ONS.

Naive more than stupid I'd reckon. The it'll never happen to me mindset.

I'm not suggesting I'm whiter than white either. I'm not Irish but I wouldn't have been alone at unversity going through a dozen or so sexual partners. I thought it was the same here but I'm obviously wrong.

I have to admit not every encounter was as safe as I'd have liked it to have been but you live and learn I guess.

Wibbs wrote: »

If caught early, if people are getting tested. Syphilis can be a real bastard with very real health consequences if not caught early and treated. Given primary syphilis can be remarkably asymptomatic especially in women not spotting it is quite the risk. Chlamydia? Very common and again more asymptomatic in women and can cause serious reproductive issues. Gonorrhea? Again more asymptomatic in women and is becoming more and more antibiotic resistant of late(as are some strains of syphilis). That's before we get to herpes and genital warts, both very common, very easily transmitted and untreated can lead to worse health issues. Obviously HIV infection is another level of screwed on top. Many of these diseases are "hidden" easily transmissible, some are becoming resistant to treatment(which will likely get worse not better) and aren't like a sore throat.

Of course there are risks, of course nasty things happen. I wonder, though how many here have posted in relation to getting an STD while lighting up the 15th cigarette of the day. Everything carries risk, it's just a case of minimising that risk. It - again - goes back to education and destigmatisation; get tested kids!

Wibbs wrote: »

People have always told me stuff, confided in me, ever since I was a kid. Women more than men too. I've no idea why TBH. Go figure. Well I never pass on that info. It goes in and stays in and that you can take to the bank so maybe that's it? And yep I realise, or came to realise that's unusual enough.

I think everyones viewpoint needs to be taken with a certain degree of scepticism. I'm not aware of any large scale studies since Kinsey (I'm sure there has been) and none in Ireland (I'm sure there probably hasn't been!). That said as long as your views don't impinge on anyone else then I think people are entitled to believe what they believe on this without the need to back it up with that ever unquantifiable of 'people one knows'.

Wibbs · 08-10-2014 9:03pm

Daveysil15 wrote: »

You must have one of those trustworthy faces.

I must have. I suppose every social group has a "shrink", the confidant, the listener and sometimes advice giver and I was always that guy.

Do you reckon you're getting the whole truth though? I could be wrong, but I reckon when it comes to numbers, men may overestimate while women may do the opposite.

Oh these weren't coming from by the by "boastful", or "ashamed" type interactions. Some of the women were mini affairs, flingettes, a one week/month stand. In such cases there was less to gain or lose by upping or lowering numbers. Others were very close friends who often had very different private "figures" and experiences than public ones.

Bepolite wrote: »

I'm not suggesting I'm whiter than white either. I'm not Irish but I wouldn't have been alone at unversity going through a dozen or so sexual partners. I thought it was the same here but I'm obviously wrong.

I would say IME it can vary from culture to culture even in the Western nations. Some would be more conservative than others, some would be last days of the Roman empire. Sadly I missed the latter

Of course there are risks, of course nasty things happen. I wonder, though how many here have posted in relation to getting an STD while lighting up the 15th cigarette of the day. Everything carries risk, it's just a case of minimising that risk. It - again - goes back to education and destigmatisation; get tested kids!

Oh I'd agree, but considering the very real at the moment risk of the clap or a screaming bundle of fun nine months later you'd think there would be more paranoia? Smoking will likely do you in, at best will lower your health radically, but for a say 21 year old smoker that risk is remote, down the line.

I think everyones viewpoint needs to be taken with a certain degree of scepticism. I'm not aware of any large scale studies since Kinsey (I'm sure there has been) and none in Ireland (I'm sure there probably hasn't been!).

Oh TBH BP I would throw huge lumps of hardcore scepticism at Kinsey all the day long. Some very dodgy sample biases and conclusions. IMH there is still a huge amount to be learned about human sexuality and how much it shifts, or stays the same across time and culture. Interesting area.

Bepolite · 08-10-2014 9:13pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I would say IME it can vary from culture to culture even in the Western nations. Some would be more conservative than others, some would be last days of the Roman empire. Sadly I missed the latter

From city to city I'd say, even in Ireland. I've heard tell Galway is the place to go! I was at university in Edinburgh and girls would be as aggressively on the pull there as the guys. I worked in Dundee for a while and that was scary.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I'd agree, but considering the very real at the moment risk of the clap or a screaming bundle of fun nine months later you'd think there would be more paranoia? Smoking will likely do you in, at best will lower your health radically, but for a say 21 year old smoker that risk is remote, down the line.

I'm not sure I agree with this line of argument. We've never lived at a time where sex has the potential to be safer and more treatments available. Even HIV isn't the death sentence it used to be.

Smoking is just one example, I was stood in a group there the other day and some lad was going on about how he's fallen asleep at the wheel after a heavy night's drinking - absolutely no point in saying anything to him - a complete idiot as are most people in their early twenties.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh TBH BP I would throw huge lumps of hardcore scepticism at Kinsey all the day long. Some very dodgy sample biases and conclusions. IMH there is still a huge amount to be learned about human sexuality and how much it shifts, or stays the same across time and culture. Interesting area.

It's not really my field so I can't really comment. It's just the study I'm aware of. I agree it's a very interesting area, (probably) vastly under-studied.

Alf Veedersane · 09-10-2014 7:48am

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Why not just spit out what you intend to say than just showing your distaste for my opinion?

"Doing that to her body".

I don't need to expand on anything when you talk about women enjoying sex as 'doing that to their body'.

pwurple · 09-10-2014 9:35am

Bepolite wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with this line of argument. We've never lived at a time where sex has the potential to be safer and more treatments available. Even HIV isn't the death sentence it used to be.

Crikey, I don't know if you know anyone with HIV, but I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. It's survivable for sure, but there's a serious price to pay (in terms of the number of seriously strong medications at the very least).

tigger123 · 09-10-2014 12:42pm

paddy1990 wrote: »

Doesn't want his future wife to have had sex with 20+ guys?

I was talking to some friends and this came up and the girls were all saying that any guy who has a problem with it (i threw out 20 as an arbitrary number) all had a complex and had issues and "something wrong" with them.

What was funny to me was that some men agreed with the women. I think there was an element of white knighting going on, as the girl that was the most outspoken is absolutely gorgeous, so some of the lads would have been white knighting in the hopes of keeping any hope alive of something happening between them and her on a drunken night. In fact one guy actually admitted this afterwards lol

Personally I would rather marry a girl with as low an amount of sexual partners as possible, with a virgin being absolutely ideal.

As a guy, it's stuff like this post (and some of the other attitudes on this thread) that turns me off TGC and keeps me away from it.

I honestly think a lot of the debate here (in TGC) focuses on a certain mindset, certain posters and their gender war against women/feminism. Instead of, ya know, guys talking about guy things.

I used boards for quite a while before I even knew this forum existed and was delighted when I found out about it. Then I read it.

As a man/gentleman/bloke there's nothing for me here.

ancapailldorcha · 09-10-2014 1:10pm

tigger123 wrote: »

As a guy, it's stuff like this post (and some of the other attitudes on this thread) that turns me off TGC and keeps me away from it.

I honestly think a lot of the debate here (in TGC) focuses on a certain mindset, certain posters and their gender war against women/feminism. Instead of, ya know, guys talking about guy things.

I used boards for quite a while before I even knew this forum existed and was delighted when I found out about it. Then I read it.

As a man/gentleman/bloke there's nothing for me here.

I have to disagree with you there.

Firstly, users expressing opinions similar to those of young paddy1990 there are very much a minority.

Secondly, a lot of the threads on TGC's first page are about life as a guy though a lot are relationship and sex orientated but then there are a few of these on TLL as well.

Feminism is important as it affects men significantly as well as public opinion and should be discussed in both forums. That's what this forum is for, life as a guy, issues affecting men and so on.

dissed doc · 09-10-2014 1:18pm

Many women only choose certain types of guys for relationships, and pick other guys to hook up randomly with when drunk.

Why would a man be different in this regard? Maybe the sexual liberated and open-minded people who view the OP as prudish or naiive are simply not representative of others. Many women won't go near a guy who sleeps around when it comes to a relationship. Guys are just meant to take whatever is around and have not active decision making process in who the like or want? Maybe if you are a bottom feeder.

Potatoeman · 09-10-2014 1:53pm

If you dont sleep around or have many ons's yourself then I dont see the problem looking for someone with the same standards. Its a different thing if you done it and expect your partner not to have.

Barely There · 09-10-2014 2:12pm

I think another problem with marrying a women that had very few previous sexual partners, is that there'd be a considerable risk that she wouldn't be so appreciative of how much of a love-stud I am.

Alf Veedersane · 09-10-2014 2:17pm

Barely There wrote: »

I think another problem with marrying a women that had very few previous sexual partners, is that there'd be a considerable risk that she wouldn't be so appreciative of how much of a love-stud I am.

"She doesn't get how good that was"

*sigh*

UnitedWeStand · 09-10-2014 2:28pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

"Doing that to her body".

I don't need to expand on anything when you talk about women enjoying sex as 'doing that to their body'.

Ha first of all what you've quoted there is something I've never said. I did say however that her body is a lot more attractive to me, meaning having sex with her is a lot more desirable. A person who keeps there body and sex only for people they love makes sex and being with them intimately (hence there body) seem like a higher goal.

Secondly you're just putting my words into the same category as a sexist. My views apply to men just as much and I'm not having sex outside of relationships either.

But yeah go ahead bash me anyway as a sexist pretty much, or slay my character in another way by perhaps calling me old fashioned? You'll still get 'thanked' by the pro feminist users on this board who too have missed my point.

Alf Veedersane · 09-10-2014 2:42pm

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Ha first of all what you've quoted there is something I've never said. I did say however that her body is a lot more attractive to me, meaning having sex with her is a lot more desirable. A person who keeps there body and sex only for people they love makes sex and being with them intimately (hence there body) seem like a higher goal.

Secondly you're just putting my words into the same category as a sexist. My views apply to men just as much and I'm not having sex outside of relationships either.

But yeah go ahead bash me anyway as a sexist pretty much, or slay my character in another way by perhaps calling me old fashioned? You'll still get 'thanked' by the pro feminist users on this board who too have missed my point.

Actually, reading back you didn't say that. I misread it so apologies.

But here's the thing. You meet a girl, things are gooing great, so you really like her and one day 'the number' comes up.

She tells you hers is 2.

Cue sigh of relief. Things go even better and you fall in love.

But she lied. She had 2, had a boyfriend for 2 years, he did the dirt, he got dumped, she let off steam, had some casual sex with some guys because she wanted to and her actual number is 25.

But you think it's 2.

Do you have an innate sense for the number and immediately call 'shenanigans' or is it in fact possible that you can meet and fall in love with someone irrespective of the number of people they've slept with?

UnitedWeStand · 09-10-2014 3:05pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Actually, reading back you didn't say that. I misread it so apologies.

But here's the thing. You meet a girl, things are gooing great, so you really like her and one day 'the number' comes up.

She tells you hers is 2.

Cue sigh of relief. Things go even better and you fall in love.

But she lied. She had 2, had a boyfriend for 2 years, he did the dirt, he got dumped, she let off steam, had some casual sex with some guys because she wanted to and her actual number is 25.

But you think it's 2.

Do you have an innate sense for the number and immediately call 'shenanigans' or is it in fact possible that you can meet and fall in love with someone irrespective of the number of people they've slept with?

No worries, apology accepted.

You can fall in love with almost anyone I believe provided they don't violate a high social norm (i.e. has an obsession with hating homosexuals). Other personality traits, no matter what, I believe can grow on anyone.

This is why its important for me to find out the number sooner rather than later. People are lovable no matter there sexual number, that changes nothing about a persons character. If I did fall in love with them and then found out there number was high, it would then arise a probability of causing issues in how intimate I can be with them. Once intimacy is questioned in a relationship I find thats the day that the relationship is doomed.

So in essence if I wasn't told about how high her sexual number is, hypothetically we would go on fine as my intimacy towards her would not wane. I wouldn't be able to call or pick her out by guessing, that would be a sign of issues on my own count if I didn't trust her past and would question it. But hypotheticals are just that.

Is there "something wrong" with a guy if he...

Comments