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

Bepolite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

strobe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.