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

strobe

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

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

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

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

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

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

Wibbs

Bepolite wrote: »

Run.

I did once or twice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daveysil15 wrote:

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

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

UnitedWeStand

strobe wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Daveysil15

Wibbs wrote: »

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

You must have one of those trustworthy faces.

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

strobe

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or wondering if it was just poorly chosen wording again.

Is that any clearer?

UnitedWeStand

strobe wrote: »

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

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

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

Or wondering if it was just poorly chosen wording again.

Is that any clearer?

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

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

Hope that's cleared it! Liked your post

Bepolite

Wibbs wrote: »

I did once or twice.

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

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

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

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

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

Wibbs

Daveysil15 wrote: »

You must have one of those trustworthy faces.

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

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

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

Bepolite wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bepolite

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

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

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

Alf Veedersane

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

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

"Doing that to her body".

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

pwurple

Bepolite wrote: »

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

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

tigger123

paddy1990 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ancapailldorcha

tigger123 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

I have to disagree with you there.

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

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

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

dissed doc

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

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

Potatoeman

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

Barely There

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

Alf Veedersane

Barely There wrote: »

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

"She doesn't get how good that was"

*sigh*

UnitedWeStand

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

"Doing that to her body".

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

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

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

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

Alf Veedersane

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

She tells you hers is 2.

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

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

But you think it's 2.

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

UnitedWeStand

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

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

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

She tells you hers is 2.

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

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

But you think it's 2.

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

No worries, apology accepted.

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

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

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

Alf Veedersane

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

No worries, apology accepted.

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

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

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

I can't call into question anyone not feeling comfortable about a partner having a high number of sexual partners, even if I don't agree with it, because of the age-old adage 'to each his own'.

I just think we get bogged down in it when the reality is we may never know the number or may never know the true number.

I don't remember ever being asked and I don't know if I've ever asked. Maybe, I just never thought it important enough, I don't know.

UnitedWeStand

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I can't call into question anyone not feeling comfortable about a partner having a high number of sexual partners, even if I don't agree with it, because of the age-old adage 'to each his own'.

I just think we get bogged down in it when the reality is we may never know the number or may never know the true number.

I don't remember ever being asked and I don't know if I've ever asked. Maybe, I just never thought it important enough, I don't know.

Who knows, we are all the product of our own experiences. I used to be quite similar to you in terms of that viewpoint. I only changed my mind the last few years as of what I experienced with my ex girlfriend. It was one of the things I benefitted from in the relationship as I found a trait that I'd like in a future girlfriend (And some that I wouldnt!).

BlibBlab

paddy1990 wrote: »

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

I can understand not wanting too many sexual partners, but I've never understood the obsession with virgins. It'd probably be a bit of a turnoff for me to be honest, the older she was moreso.

Alf Veedersane

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Who knows, we are all the product of our own experiences. I used to be quite similar to you in terms of that viewpoint. I only changed my mind the last few years as of what I experienced with my ex girlfriend. It was one of the things I benefitted from in the relationship as I found a trait that I'd like in a future girlfriend (And some that I wouldnt!).

Like I said, to each his own. I just don't think that the perception that women who have had 20 sexual partners, or more, are devalued or degraded is fair.

I don't even think 20 is a massive number. Well, age dependent I suppose.

paddy1990

dissed doc wrote: »

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

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

Good post. That's how I see it.

Many women on boards have admitted to having f*ck buddies that they wouldn't be in a long term relationship with and having ONS with guys they wouldn't be in a relationship with.

Yet men don't seem to be allowed to have the same luxury?

eviltwin

paddy1990 wrote: »

Good post. That's how I see it.

Many women on boards have admitted to having f*ck buddies that they wouldn't be in a long term relationship with and having ONS with guys they wouldn't be in a relationship with.

Yet men don't seem to be allowed to have the same luxury?

Who says men don't Sex and relationships are totally different things. Not everyone wants a relationship, they still have needs though, should they just play with themselves until they are ready for something more serious? I think once you are upfront with the other person about your intentions and obviously take precautions then where is the harm? Consenting adults and all that. What they get up to in the privacy of their bedroom is no concern of anyone else.

paddy1990

eviltwin wrote: »

Who says men don't Sex and relationships are totally different things. Not everyone wants a relationship, they still have needs though, should they just play with themselves until they are ready for something more serious? I think once you are upfront with the other person about your intentions and obviously take precautions then where is the harm? Consenting adults and all that. What they get up to in the privacy of their bedroom is no concern of anyone else.

Women are allowed to have preferences for guys that tick boxes as "relationship material" vs guys that are just "f*ck material and nothing else".

Yet these women frown upon men having their own boxes that a woman needs to tick to be "relationship material".

These women need to accept that men have preferences just like women do. There is nothing wrong with a man for preferring a woman with few sexual partners as opposed to the women with large lay counts.

eviltwin

paddy1990 wrote: »

Women are allowed to have preferences for guys that tick boxes as "relationship material" vs guys that are just "f*ck material and nothing else".

Yet these women frown upon men having their own boxes that a woman needs to tick to be "relationship material".

These women need to accept that men have preferences just like women do. There is nothing wrong with a man for preferring a woman with few sexual partners as opposed to the women with large lay counts.

Who said guys need to be relationship material . If I'm just hooking up with a guy for sex I don't care about anything other than is he someone I want to sleep with. If I want a relationship of course I'm going to have more depth than that. Same goes for guys I'm sure. What's wrong with that I don't think anyone here has said its wrong to prefer a smaller number, its just the judging of people with a larger number as though that fact alone sums up their entire character and moral code that people object to, also the double standard of "she has to be a virgin but I can sleep around as much as I like".

paddy1990

eviltwin wrote: »

Who said guys need to be relationship material . If I'm just hooking up with a guy for sex I don't care about anything other than is he someone I want to sleep with. If I want a relationship of course I'm going to have more depth than that. Same goes for guys I'm sure. What's wrong with that I don't think anyone here has said its wrong to prefer a smaller number, its just the judging of people with a larger number as though that fact alone sums up their entire character and moral code that people object to, also the double standard of "she has to be a virgin but I can sleep around as much as I like".

Right or wrong doesn't come into it. Women that sleep with large numbers of guys have different mentalities than women that sleep with very few guys. I prefer the mentalities of the later for relationships.

eviltwin

paddy1990 wrote: »

Right or wrong doesn't come into it. Women that sleep with large numbers of guys have different mentalities than women that sleep with very few guys. I prefer the mentalities of the later for relationships.

Explain, what is the difference and how does it impact on a relationship bearing in mind you have no way of knowing how many lovers your partner has had.