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

ancapailldorcha

AndreaCollins wrote: »

I can understand guys wanting to be with girls with a low number of partners for long term relationships. Just like girls have preferences.

I wouldn't begrudge anyone their preferences but it's the hypocrisy that irks me.

Mike747

Perhaps women, and the white knights, should just accept that some men (a lot?) find the idea of virgin women incredibly attractive. Of course the chances of finding a virgin woman over the age of 16 in the western world is one in a million, so a woman with few sexual partners is the best alternative.

This is how I feel and all the feminism and political correctness in the world isn't going to change that.

Ave Sodalis

Mike747 wrote: »

Perhaps women, and the white knights, should just accept that some men (a lot?) find the idea of virgin women incredibly attractive. Of course the chances of finding a virgin woman over the age of 16 in the western world is one in a million, so a woman with few sexual partners is the best alternative.

This is how I feel and all the feminism and political correctness in the world isn't going to change that.

Again that is not the issue. The issue is the insults and degrading comments made towards single woman who enjoy sex.

AndreaCollins

sup_dude wrote: »

Again that is not the issue. The issue is the insults and degrading comments made towards single woman who enjoy sex.

I think the degrading comments made were made towards the men who said they prefer long term partners to have as low a number as possible.

Everybody is entitled to do what they want. However if a guy wants a long term relationship with a girl with a low number of partners, he is perfectly entitled to have this preference and not be deemed as having something wrong with him.

I don't see the issue. Other than some people imposing their beliefs on others. I think a lot of the men were saying that women are free to do as they want but they are also free to be in relationships with women they want. That's fair enough to me.

Ave Sodalis

AndreaCollins wrote: »

I think the degrading comments made were made towards the men who said they prefer long term partners to have as low a number as possible.

Everybody is entitled to do what they want. However if a guy wants a long term relationship with a girl with a low number of partners, he is perfectly entitled to have this preference and not be deemed as having something wrong with him.

I don't see the issue. Other than some people imposing their beliefs on others. I think a lot of the men were saying that women are free to do as they want but they are also free to be in relationships with women they want. That's fair enough to me.

Have you read the thread? Mike himself said that woman with a high sexual partners count has either mental issues or a drug/alcohol problem. Other pleasant words were "a real whore", "tarnished", "empty and devoid", "isn't worth pissing on", "no dignity", "selling herself out", "giving in", "devalue", "doing that to her body", "more likely to cheat", "nobody respected her". There's only been about two posters who have said it's just a preference, the rest have said it's a preference because they see woman was a high count as sluts and devalued as a human being.

RDM_83 again

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't hold that view at all but Paddy does so its odd that he would take her refusal to have sex on the first date as an insult seeing as he has said multiple times he isn't into women like that. You can't have it both ways, you can't want a woman who is selective about who she sleeps with but then get pissed when she won't sleep with you.

Isn't that the classic problem with what men men want though, the Maddona/Whore complex its not exactly a new idea

eviltwin wrote: »

You must have known about the ONS's before you went out if you were insulted by her knock back. Why after saying you had no time for women who have ONS's would you go out with one Kinda contradicting yourself there.

Very true, if you have different views on this you have different views, you don't match anyway why should either party get insulted over it.

BUT if you take that initial post you responded to at face value another double standard does seem to be coming into play and ignore any of the bitterness or the trolling side, the idea that you don't sleep quickly with someone thats special or you want a relationship with but at the same time have ONS with people your not so keen on is just weird when you look at it.

Can you see where I am coming from with this, on one hand we're being told, sex is a physical act that in no way diminishes either person and it doesn't really matter who someone does it with and whats their past and/or number, but at the same time being told sex is a really important thing and waiting to have sex is a sign that

eviltwin wrote: »

Maybe the fact that she wasn't trying to jump your bones the first night was more of a compliment than anything else. She obviously felt you were special enough to get to know before you took things to the next level.

.

I know logic goes out the window when it comes to love and sex but can you see that its just another more socially acceptable double standard to say, Sex is essentially meaningless it doesn't matter how quickly it happened in the past with other people, your special so sex is of the table for a while because sex is really important so don't get annoyed if you have to wait

dissed doc

A lot of women don't sleep around, and a lot of guys don't either. The result of the "you can have it all, any way you want it" (without quoting any Journey) is that some people, that includes women, can sleep around, have countless drunken one night stands, etc., etc., . Sure, do what you want, that is fine. But, it does not mean that someone else, including a man who doesn't have the same attitude to physical intimacy, has to accept you as a partner, or would even be interested in you as a partner.

Now, the consequences for men are minimal, because men can settle down, get married later, have kids at older ages, despite the endless positive reinforcement of the have-it-all doctrine; you cannot have it all. The sooner people realise this (that includes women) the better.

I do not think anyone is really negatively judging women who have 50+ sex partners, one night stands, etc., . It is simply that other people, who view long term emotional and physical intimacy as more ultimately rewarding, are unable to see the others perspective. Likewise, the "the past is her own business" are also a bunch of very naive people. The past is very much your business and you are as entitled to judge and make your own assessment of anybody, on your own wants and needs.

Around 1 in 10 children are not fathered by the man they think is their biological father. A certain group of around 5 or 10% of women like to screw around, hook up easily, commit adultery, etc., . JUst like the men do it, a percentage of guys are seemingly endlessly hooking up, and most guys are not. Furthermore, the rate this varies with socioeconomic status; lower status means much higher chance of "secret" non-paternity; this has become much more understood with genetic testing for inherited diseases. So, if a guy is looking to settle down and have kids, he needs to make sure not to pick someone from a socioeconomic status that leads to cuckolding or where is is unsuspectingly raising a child who has really a different father, (who looks like the postman).

So any guy who is not in that group, has every right to skip over the women that have displayed the type of behaviour in her past that is likely to lead to problems in the future. A women who has 30 or more one night stands and now decides she wants a relationship, is someone who doesn't give a damn about the guy and has probably decided "I am too old to be single". You are next on the list but unfortunately the merry-go-round is close to closing time.

Skip over the women who sleep around easily in the past, and find one with the same values as you; be it cleveland steamers and fisting, or handholding while picniking in a meadow. The two are not mutually exclusive but compatibility for the long term success of a relationship does come down your own temperament with regard to physical and emotional intimacy. Someone who is similar (whatever those similarities actually are) will be better for you and for them in the long term.

Feel free to judge any women who is a potential partner critically and if you see warning signs, move on. It is your life, and you probably do not matter as much to her as you think (she has probably got a lot more experience with guys, than you have with girls).

There might be too much of a reality check here for the white knights and supporters of "the past is the past, I don't care what she has done". You don't have to care, but don't say you weren't warned. Nothing is fixed in stone anyway, and people do change, but not as often or as much as you might think.

Ave Sodalis

dissed doc wrote: »

I do not think anyone is really negatively judging women who have 50+ sex partners, one night stands, etc., .

So any guy who is not in that group, has every right to skip over the women that have displayed the type of behaviour in her past that is likely to lead to problems in the future. A women who has 30 or more one night stands and now decides she wants a relationship, is someone who doesn't give a damn about the guy and has probably decided "I am too old to be single". You are next on the list but unfortunately the merry-go-round is close to closing time.


Feel free to judge any women who is a potential partner critically and if you see warning signs, move on. It is your life, and you probably do not matter as much to her as you think (she has probably got a lot more experience with guys, than you have with girls).

Skipping over the rest of the post, the first part of the quoted is not true. The majority are judging negatively, as are you.

It is not more likely to lead to problems in the future and the idea that they think they're too old to be single is a load of rubbish. It means they found someone they're more compatible with that just sexually.

You probably do not matter as much to her as you think?? What?! With this mindset, no wonder we're being judged so badly. It is completely and utterly untrue!

EDIT: I see you have edited your post to make it even more ridiculous. Woman with a high sex count are no more likely to cheat and that's a dangerous way to think. There's so much wrong with your post it would take a long time to go through it all but it would be pointless because I doubt very much you actually care about what it is you're typing, you just wanted to fit as many backwards, sexist, random, and completely untrue statements into one post as possible, in order to insult and downtrod a particular set of women. Oh, and people change all the time, a hell of a lot more often than you think.

Ankhyu

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I know logic goes out the window when it comes to love and sex but can you see that its just another more socially acceptable double standard to say, Sex is essentially meaningless it doesn't matter how quickly it happened in the past with other people, your special so sex is of the table for a while because sex is really important so don't get annoyed if you have to wait

I get what you're saying to an extent but not everyone views sex the same, and a lot of people view sex differently depending on the stage of life they're at, or who they're with at the time.

A girl could go through a phase of one night stands with guys she thinks are hot but doesn't have a deeper connection with. She could then meet a guy who she really likes and gets along with, and whether it's her own logic, or this age-old theory of the "three date rule" that girls are told if they "give it up" on the first date that the guy will feck off as soon as he's gotten what he wants, so they wait a few dates in the hope that he'll view them as relationship material.

I don't subscribe to the "rule" myself as I think it's a load of crap and akin to playing games. It happens when it happens, and if that's the first date then so be it. But a lot of girls take it as gospel, so I reckon that's where your contradiction is coming in.

desertcircus

It's fine to have an ingrained preference for women with little sexual experience. But it's not fine to simply accept that and refuse to consider whether it's a justifiable preference, no more than it's fine to refuse to reconsider an ingrained wariness of black or gay people. A horrible and socially damaging attitude isn't okay just because it's someone's unthinking default; it's still a horrible and socially damaging attitude.

Do you have an inbuilt preference for women with little sexual experience? Fine. Are you unwilling to examine whether that preference is justifiable? Not fine.

Liam McPoyle

Perhaps one could argue that the reason some men would balk at a woman having <insert arbitrary number here> sexual partners as they see it as a threat to their own man hood.

Is my penis big enough?

Can I satisfy her?

Who was the best lover she ever had?

Am I the best she has ever had?

And so forth.

Being measured (figuratively & literally) against 5 blokes vs 30 (or whatever) blokes means they have less to be compared to which in turn means they are less likely to be deemed not as "good" in bed.

beks101

Business Cat wrote: »

Perhaps one could argue that the reason some men would balk at a woman having <insert arbitrary number here> sexual partners as they see it as a threat to their own man hood.

Is my penis big enough?

Can I satisfy her?

Who was the best lover she ever had?

Am I the best she has ever had?

And so forth.

Being measured (figuratively & literally) against 5 blokes vs 30 (or whatever) blokes means they have less to be compared to which in turn means they are less likely to be deemed not as "good" in bed.

I would have assumed this was one of the cornerstones of this kind of an obsession about a woman's 'number'.

I've never underestimated how huge the pressure to perform can be on a guy. Or the preoccupation with penis size. Both of those have featured commonly throughout my sex life over the years, and that kind of insecurity can be pervasive.

I think for some it might be easier to dress that up as a judgement call on the woman or an offensive 'lock and key' analogy about her value, as opposed to admitting to an actual sense of insecurity of fear of inadequacy when getting down to business.

Shakespeare's Sister

Tbh I wouldn't be into a guy who was going around ****ing everyone possible before I met him (I don't agree there's no risk of being cheated on by a person with this history; I think there is - as they seem like overly compulsive people incapable of self control, I also think there's the risk of manipulation involved when "bedding" so many people - this is something I have a massive issue with) so I understand guys who wouldn't be interested in a woman who has done the equivalent. I don't think it's always insecurity.

But having occasional casual sex when single - one-night stands and casual flings and FWBs (and all parties being on the same page): this is normal and natural and not a sign of anything underlying; it's just a sign of someone who enjoys sex but is single.

beks101

Louise Woodward wrote: »

Are you saying a lot of your previous partners would have been concerned about how their performance and pens size compares to previous partners? Just wondering how common this is.

Performance anxiety and penis size obsession would have featured, yes.

ancapailldorcha

Louise Woodward wrote: »

They should get therapy for that, it will probably poison their future relationships too.

Surely, it'd be resolved after the first few times sleeping together. Someone won't consistently sleep with you unless you're enjoyable I would think.

beks101

Louise Woodward wrote: »

They should get therapy for that, it will probably poison their future relationships too.

I'm saying this as a general thing, not something that would define every sexual encounter I'd have had with a particular guy. And women obviously will have their insecurities too.

Sex is fcuking amazing but has the potential to be massively awkward, anxiety-provoking, nerve-inducing and can make an individual feel quite vulnerable - it's kind of as physically (and for some, emotionally) vulnerable as a human being can be. It will often draw out any physical insecurities that are there - and worries about performance that may have resulted from previous bad experiences can come to the surface.

I think to top that off with the knowledge that a woman you're in bed with is experienced and has had X amount of sexual partners who may have not had such issues...probably could be an unsettling thing.

Shakespeare's Sister

Mike747 wrote: »

Perhaps women, and the white knights, should just accept that some men (a lot?) find the idea of virgin women incredibly attractive.

While "white knighting" is a thing (pretending to be all feminist/sensitive to the women to get laid - it's definitely out there) I wonder whether it could be actioned when it's bitterly used for no reason other than a guy simply agreeing with a woman's point of view? It's very nasty and anti men (even though it comes from men).

desertcircus

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

While "white knighting" is a thing (pretending to be all feminist/sensitive to the women to get laid - it's definitely out there) I wonder whether it could be actioned when it's bitterly used for no reason other than a guy simply agreeing with a woman's point of view? It's very nasty and anti men (even though it comes from men).

The words "white knight" being used as a term of abuse or to deride people is a tremendously effective shorthand: I find it means I can instantly disregard everything the user says.

Shakespeare's Sister

It is a thing IMO - the female equivalent is "I don't hang around with girls, they're so bitchy" (despite also being... girls) but a woman merely agreeing with a man's point of view/disagreeing with misandry and some feminism is miles off that, just like a man simply agreeing with a woman's point of view and disagreeing with misogyny is miles off being a white knight.

Although in fairness, just look at that poster's history - he haaaaaaaaates women.

Weird the way people who hate women or men still seem to want to be in a relationship with them...

Logic would dictate that they'd prefer being single?

Ave Sodalis

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Weird the way people who hate women or men still seem to want to be in a relationship with them...

Logic would dictate that they'd prefer being single?

Not saying it's about any poster but people who hate the opposite gender but still want to be in a relationship tend to be quite controlling and manipulative. They're fine with the opposite gender, as long as they act exactly as they want them to.

Liam McPoyle

desertcircus wrote: »

The words "white knight" being used as a term of abuse or to deride people is a tremendously effective shorthand: I find it means I can instantly disregard everything the user says.

+1

Oft found in the company of Feminazi, good markers indeed.

ancapailldorcha

Business Cat wrote: »

+1

Oft found in the company of Feminazi, good markers indeed.

Works well when used in conjunction of rape culture, manplaining and patriarchy.

Potatoeman

desertcircus wrote: »

It's fine to have an ingrained preference for women with little sexual experience. But it's not fine to simply accept that and refuse to consider whether it's a justifiable preference, no more than it's fine to refuse to reconsider an ingrained wariness of black or gay people. A horrible and socially damaging attitude isn't okay just because it's someone's unthinking default; it's still a horrible and socially damaging attitude.

Do you have an inbuilt preference for women with little sexual experience? Fine. Are you unwilling to examine whether that preference is justifiable? Not fine.

People have preferences for all kinds of different things in partners. There's no harm examining why you have a preference but you don't have to.

Shakespeare's Sister

Yeh I don't know that a preference for women who aren't very sexually experienced is a horrible or damaging one, so long as it's accompanied by the right attitude.

Definitely not up there with having a problem with homosexuality in terms of something that needs to be questioned.

Mike747

desertcircus wrote: »

It's fine to have an ingrained preference for women with little sexual experience. But it's not fine to simply accept that and refuse to consider whether it's a justifiable preference, no more than it's fine to refuse to reconsider an ingrained wariness of black or gay people. A horrible and socially damaging attitude isn't okay just because it's someone's unthinking default; it's still a horrible and socially damaging attitude.

Do you have an inbuilt preference for women with little sexual experience? Fine. Are you unwilling to examine whether that preference is justifiable? Not fine.

Lol at the outrage. This isn't Sweden, men are allowed have opinions on women. Deal with it.

Shakespeare's Sister

And people are allowed to have opinions on woman-haters.

AndreaCollins

sup_dude wrote: »

Have you read the thread? Mike himself said that woman with a high sexual partners count has either mental issues or a drug/alcohol problem. Other pleasant words were "a real whore", "tarnished", "empty and devoid", "isn't worth pissing on", "no dignity", "selling herself out", "giving in", "devalue", "doing that to her body", "more likely to cheat", "nobody respected her". There's only been about two posters who have said it's just a preference, the rest have said it's a preference because they see woman was a high count as sluts and devalued as a human being.

I agree that those comments are unnecessary. I agree with the guys who have the preference though, as is their right. And I disagree with people who negatively judge anyone.

Isn't this the problem with feminism though - you went through the thread and gave examples of all the negatives said about women who have lots of partners but why didn't you do the same for all the negatives said about guys who have a preference and didn't insult any women but got insulted themselves "living in the 1950s, need to grow up, immature etc etc". Where is the equality?

AndreaCollins

beks101 wrote: »

I would have assumed this was one of the cornerstones of this kind of an obsession about a woman's 'number'.

I've never underestimated how huge the pressure to perform can be on a guy. Or the preoccupation with penis size. Both of those have featured commonly throughout my sex life over the years, and that kind of insecurity can be pervasive.

I think for some it might be easier to dress that up as a judgement call on the woman or an offensive 'lock and key' analogy about her value, as opposed to admitting to an actual sense of insecurity of fear of inadequacy when getting down to business.

Again this is all conjecture and another way to negatively lable guys with this preference. If the same negative labelling was done with women who had multiple partners, there would be uproar.

Ave Sodalis

AndreaCollins wrote: »

I agree that those comments are unnecessary. I agree with the guys who have the preference though, as is their right. And I disagree with people who negatively judge anyone.

Isn't this the problem with feminism though - you went through the thread and gave examples of all the negatives said about women who have lots of partners but why didn't you do the same for all the negatives said about guys who have a preference and didn't insult any women but got insulted themselves "living in the 1950s, need to grow up, immature etc etc". Where is the equality?

They were told they need to grow up if they said any of the negative things, not if they just stated their preference. As I said.

RDM_83 again

AndreaCollins wrote: »

Again this is all conjecture and another way to negatively lable guys with this preference. If the same negative labelling was done with women who had multiple partners, there would be uproar.

Thats a valid point probably for some men, as I said in a previous post using that as an explanation completely discounts the fact that there is plenty of guys that are 'players' that will make the same judgement (and yes I know they are hypocrites but that doesn't explain their reasoning),