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

Buona Fortuna

For me it comes down to a simple question.

Do you like pre-marital sex?

In my teens and twentys I feckin l loved it. If it was good enough for me then so what?

We don't sit around comparing notches on the belt on long winter evenings. Hell no not when there's Strictly, and I'm a Celeb on the tele:D

walshb

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Do you like pre-marital sex?

Should that be just sex?

DoYouEvenLift

Edit: thank god there are at least some men who are aware of the situation and understand ITT. Was beginning to think every man on boards was a beta cuckold.

Blacktie. wrote: »

You do see the flaw in this argument right...

No. Spell it out.

Barely There wrote: »

An interesting point, that perhaps partially explains the societal differences in the way the two sexes are treated in the matter of sexual promiscuity.

I would imagine that pretty much any woman would be able to go out on a random night of the week and find some guy who would bring her home for sex. Perhaps I'm wrong, but there's a saying - 'Most men would have sex with most women', that I reckon is broadly true.

The same is not true of men - in fact women can usually smell desperation from a man a mile off and it seems to be a major turn-off for them - so it's harder for a man to hit a high number of sexual partners.

Therefore 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.

I'll more than likely go off on tangeants here but I want to get my point across so I don't care anymore.

Exactly. Hence why I think a lower number relates to better self control which is an ideal trait for anyone to have, not just women. They also say 20% of the men are sleeping with 80% of the women, which is believable if you know any men who are considered the top 20-10% lookswise as they're usually the ones who find it easiest to regularly pull. Now, consider the average man and his process of trying to do the same. He can't rely solely on looks. He HAS to compensate by having various other desirable points including personality. He can go out week after week and drop his standards and preferences time after time before he'll finally find someone and then repeat the process. The average man would be better off trying to form actual relationships instead of being someone trying to needlessly exert themselves to compete with men more attractive than them for women who simply want the more attractive man.


Even then, the average man has to be the one to put in the effort of contacting the girl, asking her out, taking her on multiple dates which he'll usually have to pay for, wine and dine her etc. before he even gets a chance to get sexual. Meanwhile, that same girl could easily have been in a club last week, or even in the off time she isn't dating her prospective partner, giving it up to another man and having a one night stand where she was basically used by one of the top 20% men who literally do not care about her and women they have one night stands with and toss aside for the average man to pick up the scraps. It's perfectly fine for women to have one night stands just as it is for men just as long as the women understand that the men they're doing it with see them as literally nothing else but a sexual object for their pleasure and the next morning and thereafter want absolutely nothing to do with the woman. I know some guys actually pull, bring the girl back and after they're done just kick the woman out. If the woman thinks she's a winner or achieved something to be proud of in that situation then she's an idiot. She was just used. And the thing is this won't put them off continuing to repeat the same process, being used by men in different leagues and tossed aside until she realises she has to settle with guys in a lower league and along comes average Joe who wines and dines her for multiple dates before probably even getting a kiss.


Women who partake in multiple one night stands also need to understand that men are perceived as "legends" for doing this as it takes actual effort and they're confident about it. I've explained the effort it can take for some men above and now I'll explain the issue with confidence. A man with a high number can be more desirable for a lot of women as it shows he obviously has something going for him to have attracted previous the number partners he has. Even then, they should also realise that he has more than likely been one of the men to purely use women and toss them aside without a second thought about the other human being and their feelings. A man with a high number will be confident about it, totally. You can shame him about it and degrade him about it but he will not care but even if he does he will just disregard it laugh it off as haters gonna hate. A woman with a high number will try to appear confident about it but in reality, any bit of shame or degradation about it will reveal they at least feel a bit guilty about it, otherwise why would they get emotional about something they enjoy doing? Many women with high numbers will get defensive or lie about it and dekude themselves into thinking the reassurance is that the man is insecure or some other bullsh!t to make themselves feel better.


In order for a woman to "pull" or "score" a man, they pretty much just have to choose who on any given day as the majority of men will sleep with any woman, i.e. closing time at any club where you'll see men leaving with girls who are honestly below their league. This is hypergamy. If you are a woman and above 4 or 5 or definitely above on a scale of attraction, you can sleep with basically ANY man you choose to by just being there. You don't have to do anything. You just have to be available and consent and the man will more than likely do all the work in the bedroom also. That's why a woman is accomplishing nothing and is considered easy when sleeping with multiple men but a man has to go through a whole lot of trouble to do the same. And even with this, its definitely more common for women to have higher numbers than men, yet they'll claim that men are the players?...lol.

keane2097

It seems there are nearly as many incorrect assumptions about men here as there are about women.

"the majority of men will sleep with any woman"

FFS, what a load of rubbish.

walshb

keane2097 wrote: »

It seems there are nearly as many incorrect assumptions about men here as there are about women.

"the majority of men will sleep with any woman"

FFS, what a load of rubbish.

Few beers and mens standards are almost non existent. Sure, there will be fussy men, just like women, but seriously, let's not pretend they are in any way comparable. On average men will rarely refuse a chance to have sex. Women refuse much more.

DoYouEvenLift

keane2097 wrote: »

It seems there are nearly as many incorrect assumptions about men here as there are about women.

"the majority of men will sleep with any woman"

FFS, what a load of rubbish.

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

keane2097

walshb wrote: »

Few beers and mens standards are almost non existent. Sure, there will be fussy men, just like women, but seriously, let's not pretend they are in any way comparable. On average men will rarely refuse a chance to have sex. Women refuse much more.

Citation needed. Absolute rubbish IMO.

Men in general probably have lower standards than women but the idea that the majority (i.e. 51% of men) would sleep with practically anyone is laughable.

Barely There

keane2097 wrote: »

It seems there are nearly as many incorrect assumptions about men here as there are about women.

"the majority of men will sleep with any woman"

FFS, what a load of rubbish.

For one thing you shouldn't put quotation marks around something you're not directly quoting, and for another you should offer some reasons or point to some studies as to why you think the proposition is "rubbish".

Other than that - great post.

DoYouEvenLift

keane2097 wrote: »

Citation needed. Absolute rubbish IMO.

Men in general probably have lower standards than women but the idea that the majority (i.e. 51% of men) would sleep with practically anyone is laughable.

Are you a man?

keane2097

Barely There wrote: »

For one thing you shouldn't put quotation marks around something you're not directly quoting, and for another you should offer some reasons or point to some studies as to why you think the proposition is "rubbish".

Other than that - great post.

It's a direct quote actually, but tytyty for the advice.

keane2097

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Are you a man?

Are you serious?

the evasion_kid

walshb wrote: »

Few beers and mens standards are almost non existent. Sure, there will be fussy men, just like women, but seriously, let's not pretend they are in any way comparable. On average men will rarely refuse a chance to have sex. Women refuse much more.

I wouldnt say non existent,but If a woman has anything going for her in my observations whether it only be a nice ass,a nice chest or decent enough looking they'll pull no bother especially if you add alcohol into the mix

Barely There

keane2097 wrote: »

It's a direct quote actually, but tytyty for the advice.

A direct quote from who or what?

Or do we have to guess?

reprazant

Barely There wrote: »

A direct quote from who or what?

Or do we have to guess?

From the post directly above his.

You'd probably know if you had read it instead of trying to be smart.

Wibbs

Blacktie. wrote: »

You do see the flaw in this argument right...

Well... yes and no BT. I dunno about 10% of men getting with 80% of women or any of that stuff(and I seriously doubt it), but historically and this is in our genetic heritage, there appears to have been some percentage of men who reproduced with a larger percentage of women. Far more female genetic lines survive than male*.


Again just from personal observation I knew no women who were virgins at 30, but I knew a few men who were. I suspect two guys were/are nearer 40. Put it another way, if the OP was a woman who wanted to wed a virgin, or very inexperienced bloke she'd find it significantly easier to find one. I'd reckon the women I've known overall(though there were outliers at either end of the scale) had more sexual partners than the men overall(again allowing for outliers). Of course because this is from personal experience it's hardly conclusive by any means, but I would suspect that it would hold true as an average.

Depending on cultures of course. Some cultures have more of a casual sex/"hook up" culture than others.









*Unusually in England Male Saxon lines survive though in very small numbers but female Saxon lines are extinct.

walshb

keane2097 wrote: »

Citation needed. Absolute rubbish IMO.

Men in general probably have lower standards than women but the idea that the majority (i.e. 51% of men) would sleep with practically anyone is laughable.

The average man and woman on the street. There is no way you can say that they are equally as free and easy about jumping into bed with someone that they have just met. It's a DNA thing. Men are the ones who hunt and seek sex. It's no different in the animal kingdom. Yes, women crave it too, but the way men behave is so much more forceful and demanding. They hunt. I still firmly believe that almost no man will refuse sex on the basis that he would rather wait. Sure, they may refuse it because the woman or man is just not in the slightest bit attractive to them, but even then, many men will "dip the wick." Women are a lot more fussy IMO. And they are a lot more likely to wait before committing to a sexual encounter with a man.

walshb

the evasion_kid wrote: »

I wouldnt say non existent,but If a woman has anything going for her in my observations whether it only be a nice ass,a nice chest or decent enough looking they'll pull no bother especially if you add alcohol into the mix

So true. Any half decent woman could get laid in an instant if she so wanted to. Many men can too, but it takes the right woman to be selected. More women will refuse a one night stand than men.

reprazant

walshb wrote: »

So true. Any half decent woman could get laid in an instant if she so wanted to. Many men can too, but it takes the right woman to be selected. More women will refuse a one night stand than men.

That's possibly because people like you call them a "slag" for having them.

Bepolite

Wibbs wrote: »

The mod bit has jack to do with anything really. Mods are caretakers, forum janitors and nothing more.

Fair comment and I apologise there was no need to point that out.

Wibbs wrote: »

As for boxes, I was just giving my opinion based on my personal experiences, which I made clear. One can have differing opinions I would have thought, or are we all supposed to fall in behind one fence or other, or whichever fence is "acceptable"?

For all the talk from some of "old fashioned thinking", that's precisely how old fashioned thinking had weight back in the day. It was culturally acceptable and woe betide anyone suggesting otherwise. The sexual revolution turned that on its head and suggested sexual freedom. And that's great, however freedom should go both ways. If someone, male or female wants to marry a virgin for their own reasons then that should be just as acceptable as someone who seeks out a partner with 50 exes. Thats how true freedom from "culturally acceptable" works, or should work.

I took issue more with you suggesting that anyone who had large number of sexual partners was screwed up in the head. I realise you're speaking from your own point of view only but I have to contest this point, and perhaps should have done more directly. While I'm sure promiscuity is a symptom with some people other people just like sex and are perfectly balanced.

Wibbs wrote: »

You say on the one hand that there's nothing weird with the OP's views, yet on the other attach his "personal hang ups" to the argument. Do you see how that might be seen as both contrary and judgmental?

Every single one of us attaches our personal hang-ups to our relationships, sexual or otherwise; the alternative would be a much nicer world. Their is nothing weird about the OP attaching his.

Wibbs wrote: »

What I do agree with along with most of us in the thread is I can't abide the hypocrisy when it comes to gender. The "oh as a man I can wear my willie away sowing wild oats but want a virgin wife" stuff. That I can't go along with at all.

Well at least we agree there.

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually BP, I'd kinda disagree. People tend to preselect who they fall for quite a bit, based on childhood and adolescent experiences, cultural influences, social position, education, biological compatibility, personal worldview and relationship history etc. It's a complex interaction I grant you, but it's usually present in selection.

Yes of course you do to some degree, most people chose another human for example. The point I'm making though is if you start attaching a huge set of conditions to the person you fall for you're probably going to be a lonely person or worse; you'll pick that perfect person that you're not actually in love with at all because it's what you think you wanted. I'd wager there's a fair few more of them out there with serious marital problems than there are because one of the couple has had more sexual partners than the other.

Wibbs wrote: »

Or people have differing opinions to yours?

People are welcome to have a different opinion to me. I simply find some of (what I would consider) very conservative views expressed here to be odd as I'm sure many find mine odd. What I do find a bit amusing is the fact that many people consider that to be a dirty word but are so well described by it.

walshb

reprazant wrote: »

That's possibly because people like you call them a "slag" for having them.

I didn't call them slags. Be careful.

And, whatever the reason, I don't care. Point still stands.

DoYouEvenLift

keane2097 wrote: »

Are you serious?

If you are, have you or do you not know many men who in their younger years regretted sleeping with women they didn't deem attractive once they sobered up? Basically every lad I know will admit to this, the most common one being "slept with a fat girl, wish I hadn't"

Ardillaun

Business Cat wrote: »

I have a two fold question for those that say the amount of partners someone had had would be an issue.

Firstly, say you meet the girl of your dreams, someone that ticks the boxes in every conceievable way based on your own preferences but you find out she had had intercourse with <insert your own cut off point here> partners.

Would you over look it if she had slept with 1,2,3 or what ever more partners than you would deem normally acceptable?

What's the cut off point, if any?

Secondly, if the conversation came up with a partner and it turned out you had slept with twice as many people as she had. She decides based on your number that you have been too promiscuous for her tastes and bins you, I presume that would be 100% acceptable?

The idea that there is a specific number is misleading but the notion that, statistically, there may be correlates between number of partners and other behaviours deserves more serious consideration. We don't want it to be true but it may be. It deserves to be considered just like any other idea.

Humans are naturally conflicted on this issue. Notions of female honour are deeply embedded in nearly every surviving society on the planet and are probably inherited - the survival advantage is clear. As we move into a different value set, we can't fully leave this old one behind. I suspect a different standard for judging male and female sexual behaviour will persist for a long time to come no matter what we would like to think.

walshb

This arbitrary figure is too subjective. Too many permutations and scenarios and circumstances. Let's say it was 30, added to the fact that she went out and about 30 times. That's a 100 percent "slut" rating, or if a man, jack the lad rating. But if you knew that she slept with 30 but refused twice as many men then it may ease the pain a little!:P

Wibbs

Bepolite wrote: »

Fair comment and I apologise there was no need to point that out.

Ah cheers.

I took issue more with you suggesting that anyone who had large number of sexual partners was screwed up in the head. I realise you're speaking from your own point of view only but I have to contest this point, and perhaps should have done more directly. While I'm sure promiscuity is a symptom with some people other people just like sex and are perfectly balanced.

Sure, but I have found it to be very contextual to the individual and have personally noted high number folks(male and female) to be more likely to be more "screwed up". Ditto for very low number folks. Like I said originally "average" seems to be the sweet spot. Put it another way if I met a woman of say 30 with only 1 ex sexual partner(or none) I'd raise an eyebrow just as much as I would with the same women rocking a figure of 50+

Every single one of us attaches our personal hang-ups to our relationships, sexual or otherwise; the alternative would be a much nicer world. Their is nothing weird about the OP attaching his.

I meant your qualification of his worldview, he said nothing about any hangups in his posts(maybe I missed them?); paraphrasing "oh you're not weird OP, but you possibly have sexual hangups for holding such a view" kinda thing.

To be fair though you didn't illustrate this even close to the level of others in the thread as far as the OP's position goes.

Examples from different people included:

"Daft outlook to have."

"Virginity fetish is it"

"So someone with the same experience as yourself then?

Understandable."

"Are you 14 years old ?"

What I'm pointing out is that while the sexual revolution increased freedom of opinion, choice and action, it tends to do so in one direction. Indeed can be extremely "conservative" in the other.

Forget the OP and any history attached there which may skew things, but say a woman wrote "I've only had sex with two people in relationships and never did ONS and I'd like to meet men who were of a similar history and opinion". While they'd be less likely to be laughed at, they and their choices in sexuality would be seen as odd, old fashioned etc. Especially compared to a woman saying she slept with 30 people or whatever. Far more likely to get the "go girl!" replies. On the gender front I also suspect a man saying he had 60 sexual partners would get more static than a woman with the same number would.

For me sexual freedom and the sexual revolution should be about choice, choice without judgement of that choice, whether you're into ployamorous orgies or being a vestal virgin.

Yes of course you do to some degree, most people chose another human for example. The point I'm making though is if you start attaching a huge set of conditions to the person you fall for you're probably going to be a lonely person or worse; you'll pick that perfect person that you're not actually in love with at all because it's what you think you wanted. I'd wager there's a fair few more of them out there with serious marital problems than there are because one of the couple has had more sexual partners than the other.

Oh sure, I'd agree there. I was more commenting on the cultural and romantic idea that it's all something "magical", when it's actually quite predictable.

People are welcome to have a different opinion to me. I simply find some of (what I would consider) very conservative views expressed here to be odd as I'm sure many find mine odd. What I do find a bit amusing is the fact that many people consider that to be a dirty word but are so well described by it.

Aye but odd changes over time and place. Your worldview would be considered far more odd than say the OP's 30 years ago or in quite the number of cultures. Personally I prefer an environment where everyone is allowed to be odd in every direction without getting static for it.

Ave Sodalis

Self control? Really? It certainly isn't the case with me. Like I said before, my number is near 20 and the only reason for it was because I was single and liked sex but valued more than sex for a relationship. In fact, I'm incredibly fussy when it comes to picking people I want to spend time with. Now my number is not the number of people who have ever so much as looked at me with interest, nowhere near it. For every 1 I went home with, there were 50 I refused. Plus, self control can be measured far more accurately than that...

walshb

sup_dude wrote: »

Self control? Really? It certainly isn't the case with me. Like I said before, my number is near 20 and the only reason for it was because I was single and liked sex but valued more than sex for a relationship. In fact, I'm incredibly fussy when it comes to picking people I want to spend time with. Now my number is not the number of people who have ever so much as looked at me with interest, nowhere near it. For every 1 I went home with, there were 50 I refused. Plus, self control can be measured far more accurately than that...

A man I assume. You are saying to us that you refused a sexual encounter with a man or woman a whole lot more than you took up the offer? Was the reason mainly due to physical attractiveness?

Edit: You are a woman. That would explain the high refusal rate. Men's refusal rates isn't close to that.

Barely There

sup_dude wrote: »

For every 1 I went home with, there were 50 I refused.

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.

walshb

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.

Unless they were complete bowlers there is not a hope that the normal man would be so refusing. The lady above is typical of many ladies. A lady! Giving her a pass on the 20 men!:D

Ave Sodalis

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.

That's my point though, I'm not seeing how a high number makes someone an undesirable partner when it's not a case of them having a high number because they say yes to everyone.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

This arbitrary figure is too subjective. Too many permutations and scenarios and circumstances. Let's say it was 30, added to the fact that she went out and about 30 times. That's a 100 percent "slut" rating, or if a man, jack the lad rating. But if you knew that she slept with 30 but refused twice as many men then it may ease the pain a little!:P

So for you it a bit like how advertising works, a woman is more worthy/desirable if she attracts a lot of interest and has sex, but turns down a los of men as well, its the fact that she has turned down lots of men that's the crucial point in her attractiveness, she is all the more desirable because if you in a relationship with her you are getting something she turned down some for?

So basically its about your ego.