Anyone else enjoy being single?

joeguevara

Fifty grades of shay. wrote: »

I'm not single, I wouldn't or didn't enjoy one bit of it. Being married or having a partner is only repressive if one or both don't trust the other.
It's fine to enjoy being single if that makes you happy too, but I think if you seek others company for any reason, then it's a sign that being single isn't all its cracked up to be.

Maybe I misunderstood your post and got the wrong end of the stick but are you implying that a single person who seeks another's company for sex doesn't want to be single? You did say 'seek other's company for any reason'. Do you not think that a person could want no strings company (whether that includes sex or not) and then go back to not having to worry about being in a partnership and all that entails? Is it a relationship or live like a hermit with nothing in between?

Yermande

For those of you that enjoy the freedom of being single, simply make that a core tenet of your relationship if/when you find yourself involved with someone again.

I'm in a relationship for the past 17 years and each person's freedom to do what they want, and when they want, has been central to that (the obvious exception is being with other people, as we're both faithful).

I'm not suggesting that my life is as free as that of a single person, but when compared to my friend's relationships and marriages, my girlfriend and I's relationship looks like a loose bargain, except we're still very much in love and intend on spending the rest of our lives together.

We're approaching our mid 30s and hope to start a family soon and of course we will have very tight responsibilities to each other then. But hopefully the spirit of our relationship will survive.

lainey_d_123

BBFAN wrote: »

Don't do a lot to protect you?? Only 99.5%. Yeah, I'll take my chances thanks, lasted 50 years so far. :rolleyes:

I'm plenty educated thanks.

You're not, and the more you say, the more obvious it is how poorly informed you are. Condoms do little to prevent HPV transmission. HPV can cause cervical cancer in women and there are strong links with other cancers as well. Genital warts are commonly found on areas not covered by condoms and so is herpes. You obviously pulled that number out of your arse because condoms are never 99.5% effective, even for preventing pregnancy.

I'm not saying condoms aren't worth using. Obviously when used properly, they protect you from an awful lot. But if you think using a condom means you're having totally safe sex, you're woefully misguided.

mvl

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

You're not, and the more you say, the more obvious it is how poorly informed you are. Condoms do little to prevent HPV transmission. HPV can cause cervical cancer in women and there are strong links with other cancers as well. Genital warts are commonly found on areas not covered by condoms and so is herpes. You obviously pulled that number out of your arse because condoms are never 99.5% effective, even for preventing pregnancy.

I'm not saying condoms aren't worth using. Obviously when used properly, they protect you from an awful lot. But if you think using a condom means you're having totally safe sex, you're woefully misguided.

The funny part is that this has been discussed again and again on a number of threads on AH ...
Each with their own of course; and for some it is OK not to care about own health. But would I trust what "new" ppl might say to me about their sexual habits ? The answer is No, and I would have no problem asking them to get tested, same as polyamorysts do.

- guess one night stands never worked for me, even when singleish

fin12

The biggest bastards/evil in history have been able to be in relationships so I think ultimately everyone can get a relationship doesn’t mean it’s a good one so I actually don’t care anymore.

I just don’t think it really reflects anything about a person whether you can have a relationship or not.

Charles Ingles

Casual sex and multiple partners is a bad way to live not good for society.
And if men are honest we they dont want a relationship with a lady who has had multiple sexual partners.
So ladies think twice,
And men if you love her marry her don't sleep around

Charles Ingles

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Casual sex and multiple partners is a bad way to live not good for society.
And if men are honest we they dont want a relationship with a lady who has had multiple sexual partners.
So ladies think twice,
And men if you love her marry her don't sleep around

Thanks for the advice, I'll make a note and pin it to a helium balloon.

Charles Ingles

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thanks for the advice, I'll make a note and pin it to a helium balloon.

You know I'm right

fin12

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Casual sex and multiple partners is a bad way to live not good for society.
And if men are honest we they dont want a relationship with a lady who has had multiple sexual partners.
So ladies think twice,
And men if you love her marry her don't sleep around

That’s only if you tell them, how would they know how many partners you have slept with unless you tell them?

fin12

Charles Ingles wrote: »

You know I'm right

Not really cause you would never be able to find out.

Charles Ingles

fin12 wrote: »

That’s only if you tell them, how would they know how many partners you have slept with unless you tell them?

No man wants a woman who has had a lot of sexual partners

fin12

Charles Ingles wrote: »

No man wants a woman who has had a lot of sexual partners

Ya fair enough but my point is you will never know unless they tell u.

Charles Ingles

fin12 wrote: »

Ya fair enough but my point is you will never know unless they tell u.

You always find out

Gimme A Pound

Pac1Man wrote: »

I wouldn't go out with any of you.

Continuously arguing on the internet even when presented with facts that disprove your 'opinion', only to get the last word in is pathetic.

Could be said about any discussion here ever. Throwing in a snide dig like you have, hardly covers you in glory either.

Gimme A Pound

joeguevara wrote: »

There is nothing in the post that you quoted that would infer that the poster meant anything but consensual and legal sex. To suggest otherwise is unfair and disingenuous. Everybody has a different value that they place on sex. To some it is a physical and emotional act with special importance and to others it is a purely physical act with no emotional attachment. Neither is right or wrong and it is purely dependent on the person. To argue that a persons opinion is wrong and use illegal and heinous acts as an explanation is mean. In my opinion all that was meant is sex is enjoyable whether with a partner or a one night stand and shouldn't be overthought.

All I was saying to the tedium of "it's just sex" is that no, sex actually is more of a big deal than people pretend it is.

joeguevara

Tucker Hot Bell wrote: »

All I was saying to the tedium of "it's just sex" is that no, sex actually is more of a big deal than people pretend it is.

Which is an opinion that you are completely entitled to hold. But it doesn't make it true for other people. Your beliefs and values about sex, while true for you, does not give you the right to disregard other people's beliefs and values. The word 'pretend' infers that other people are living a lie. You cannot espouse what other people value simply because it is different to your beliefs.

TerrorFirmer

Tucker Hot Bell wrote: »

All I was saying to the tedium of "it's just sex" is that no, sex actually is more of a big deal than people pretend it is.

That's kinda an arrogant view to take?

Sex is exactly what individuals make of it. It's not for you to police their take on it, or infer that it's more of a big deal than they themselves realise.

Contextually, sex can be a big deal, or no big deal at all, even to the same person.

Casual sex to me is just sex and not a big deal at all. Anyone's entitled to feel otherwise, but they're not entitled to imply I'm wrong for not feeling how I feel.

Gimme A Pound

It's not a big deal in a relationship obviously, or with someone you just know, or even after just a couple of dates, but getting naked with a stranger and they being inside you or you being inside them - you're kidding yourself if you claim that's no big deal or a healthy thing to be doing extremely regularly with multiple strangers.

TerrorFirmer

You're trying to conflate two separate issues. No-one is logically arguing that 'extremely regularly with multiple strangers' is healthy. Obviously there are increased risks.

That's not the fundamental argument though. What is being argued is that some people believe that casual sex is not a big deal. is a fact.

To some people, casual sex is a big deal. To others, it is not. Both are simple facts.

You're coming across as an incredibly intolerant and condescending person.

This is it

Tucker Hot Bell wrote: »

It's not a big deal in a relationship obviously, or even after just a couple of dates, but getting naked with a stranger and they being inside you or you being inside them - you're kidding yourself if you claim that's no big deal or a healthy thing to be doing extremely regularly with multiple strangers.

Well it is no big deal if that's how that individual, or individuals, see it. It's not for you to decide what sex means to someone else. Just the same as you saying it's not a big deal in a relationship, it is if that's how those in the relationship see it. Again, not for you to decide.

Gimme A Pound

Lot of social conditioning though since the sexual revolution to view sex as no big deal or else you're a prude or not open minded.

TerrorFirmer

Tucker Hot Bell wrote: »

Lot of social conditioning though since the sexual revolution to view sex as no big deal or else you're a prude or not open minded.

No-ones arguing that you personally should see casual sex as no big deal. You're perfectly entitled to see it as a big a deal as you'd like.

The difference is you're actively arguing that everyone should see casual sex as a big deal, just because you do.

That's not how it works. It's what we call intolerance.

joeguevara

Tucker Hot Bell wrote: »

Lot of social conditioning though since the sexual revolution to view sex as no big deal or else you're a prude or not open minded.

It is equally despicable to judge someone who sees sex as a big deal and a special act with a partner. No one should say they are prudish or closed minded as that is their values and opinion. But equally the opposite is true.

Pac1Man

Tucker Hot Bell wrote: »

Could be said about any discussion here ever. Throwing in a snide dig like you have, hardly covers you in glory either.

You certainly can't accuse me of being snide.

pgj2015

Charles Ingles wrote: »

No man wants a woman who has had a lot of sexual partners

really? you asked all men then?

Gimme A Pound

Charles Ingles wrote: »

You always find out

No you don't.

Charles Ingles

pgj2015 wrote: »

really? you asked all men then?

Well not one man I know wants to settle down and marry a bike

Gimme A Pound

Pac1Man wrote: »

You certainly can't accuse me of being snide.

I only said your comment was, which it was. I don't barge into threads throwing vague blanket insults rather than engaging.

joeguevara

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Well not one man I know wants to settle down and marry a bike

Ok, let's say that your very limited control group is correct, what would your definition of a bike be? Does that number increase the older someone gets?

Charles Ingles

joeguevara wrote: »

Ok, let's say that your very limited control group is correct, what would your definition of a bike be? Does that number increase the older someone gets?

Less than five allowing for age/failed relationships any more is inexcusable

joeguevara

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Less than five allowing for age/failed relationships any more is inexcusable

Inexcusable by whom? Why 5? Let's say a girl had sex once with 5 guys and a girl who had sex 1000 times each with 3. In your opinion which one is less pure?

Charles Ingles

joeguevara wrote: »

Inexcusable by whom? Why 5? Let's say a girl had sex once with 5 guys and a girl who had sex 1000 times each with 3. In your opinion which one is less pure?

I'm only giving my own opinion so only speaking for myself.
And Im not only talking about women men also shouldn't be sleeping around

fin12

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Well not one man I know wants to settle down and marry a bike

But it’s ok for them to be a bike themselves.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Less than five allowing for age/failed relationships any more is inexcusable

The major Irish Times sex survey carried out a few years ago found that 40 percent of heterosexual men and 32 percent of women have had 11 sexual partners or more. To say that any more than 5 partners is "inexcusable" is very out of touch with modern life.

Gimme A Pound

Yeah Charles Ingles's posts are way over to the other extreme - certainly don't agree with that either.

If a person becomes sexually active at 18 and meets their eventual spouse at 30, they could easily have had sex with far more than five people and still not have been rampantly promiscuous. And that's taking into account two three-year relationships also.

joeguevara

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I'm only giving my own opinion so only speaking for myself.
And Im not only talking about women men also shouldn't be sleeping around

Well you specifically mentioned men not wanting a lady who sleeps around in a previous post and never talked about the other way around. And you mentioned about the opinion of every man you know which was meant to show that it's not only your opinion. So back to the question of whether you think a girl who sleeps once with five men is more or less pure than a girl who sleeps 1000 times each with 3. It was you who came up with the arbitrary number of 5 as the gauge of someone who wouldn't be considered as you put it 'a bike'.

Charles Ingles

fin12 wrote: »

But it’s ok for them to be a bike themselves.

No of course not , both men and women should keep their flowers for somebody special

Charles Ingles

fin12 wrote: »

But it’s ok for them to be a bike themselves.

No of course not , both men and women should keep their flowers for somebody special

Charles Ingles

joeguevara wrote: »

Well you specifically mentioned men not wanting a lady who sleeps around in a previous post and never talked about the other way around. And you mentioned about the opinion of every man you know which was meant to show that it's not only your opinion. So back to the question of whether you think a girl who sleeps once with five men is more or less pure than a girl who sleeps 1000 times each with 3. It was you who came up with the arbitrary number of 5 as the gauge of someone who wouldn't be considered as you put it 'a bike'.

The number of sexual partners is the problem for me, not the frequency of sex.

pgj2015

Flowers lol

“If you ever start taking things too seriously, just remember that we are talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through the universe.” JOE ROGAN

mvl

Raelynn Pitiful Minion wrote: »

The major Irish Times sex survey carried out a few years ago found that 40 percent of heterosexual men and 32 percent of women have had 11 sexual partners or more. To say that any more than 5 partners is "inexcusable" is very out of touch with modern life.

What year was this on ? You got me looking into the results - and only found a survey from 2015 (was Tinder popular in here then ?) https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/sex-survey/let-s-talk-about-sex-the-full-survey-results-1.2263907
- Sounds like he might be referring to the 38% sexually active women who have had less than 4 partners - this can be contemporary too

joeguevara

Tucker Hot Bell wrote: »

Yeah Charles Ingles's posts are way over to the other extreme - certainly don't agree with that either.

If a person becomes sexually active at 18 and meets their eventual spouse at 30, they could easily have had sex with far more than five people and still not have been rampantly promiscuous.

Is there a difference between someone being rampantly promiscuous and someone being merely promiscuous.

Also, you brought health into it saying that it's not healthy to have multiple partners. What is your opinion of someone being completely monogamous and only having one partner but there partner engaging in unprotected sex with 1000 people. Is that more or less healthy than a person engaging in sexual activity with 20 people? Surely it is a flawed argument to simply state that more sexual partners isn't healthy. I presume when you mentioned health it was purely about contracting sexually transmitted diseases or are you arguing that having 10 different partners is in itself inherently unhealthy?

Charles Ingles

pgj2015 wrote: »

Flowers lol

“If you ever start taking things too seriously, just remember that we are talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through the universe.” JOE ROGAN

It's just a turn of phrase.
I prefer to look to Jesus for inspiration not not a so called comedian

joeguevara

Charles Ingles wrote: »

The number of sexual partners is the problem for me, not the frequency of sex.

That makes sense. So a 20 year old girl who has had 4 different partners in 1 night is more pure than a 30 year old woman who has had 5 long term committed relationships over 10 years.

Charles Ingles

joeguevara wrote: »

That makes sense. So a 20 year old girl who has had 4 different partners in 1 night is more pure than a 30 year old woman who has had 5 long term committed relationships over 10 years.

Yes

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

mvl wrote: »

What year was this on ? You got me looking into the results - and only found a survey from 2015 (was Tinder popular in here then ?) https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/sex-survey/let-s-talk-about-sex-the-full-survey-results-1.2263907
- Sounds like he might be referring to the 38% sexually active women who have had less than 4 partners - this can be contemporary too

Yes, it's the 2015 survey, the one you linked.

My point is that having had 5+ sexual partners is quite normal for modern Irish women. It doesn't make someone unusually promiscuous, per another poster's use of the derogatory term "bike."

pgj2015

Charles Ingles wrote: »

It's just a turn of phrase.
I prefer to look to Jesus for inspiration not not a so called comedian

For all you know Jesus had sex with 100+ people

joeguevara

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Yes

I admire the fact that you stick to your guns even though you must see how ridiculous it is.

mvl

joeguevara wrote: »

That makes sense. So a 20 year old girl who has had 4 different partners in 1 night is more pure than a 30 year old woman who has had 5 long term committed relationships over 10 years.

I'd suggest we can only certify this after STI testing results are revealed

joeguevara

Charles Ingles wrote: »

It's just a turn of phrase.
I prefer to look to Jesus for inspiration not not a so called comedian

You do know Jesus didn't judge Mary Magdalene, a prostitute and admonished so called pious hypocrites who looked down on her. If you look to Jesus for inspiration maybe you should do a slightly better job.