Single life as a guy...

Trebor176 · 03-01-2016 1:34am

brianregan09 wrote: »

So tinder what do ye all make of it ? Anyone have success on it ?

Zero success after countless swipes for those I'm interested in, and despite starting over again at least three times.

Confucius say · 03-01-2016 1:38am

POF was OK in getting dates but I had to throw in the towel after a while. I must have went out with 10 birds or so over the summer and zero sexual chemistry with any, bar one maybe but that fizzled out after a while. I'm not going near tinder I've heard it's full of women just trying to boost their self esteem with no interest in actually meeting.

brianregan09 · 03-01-2016 1:40am

I've no problem getting matchs etc , Its just after that I struggle some people don't message back at all which I don't see the point of atal and others it goes grand and then eventually just fizzles out , I've met 2 off it and one turned out to be a psycologists wet dream and the other we met once and then she was going backpacking so obviously no good to me

seanaway · 03-01-2016 1:50am

seachto7 wrote: »

Cons: You get so used to your own time, and doing things to suit yourself, that it is a shock to have to curb this, or sacrifice this to spend time with someone else. Of course, if they are worth it, it won't be such an ordeal, but I do think you can get very used to your own company and your own schedule.

If you see this as a con then you shouldn't be in a reationship/

To the OP ....I've been where you are now when I was your age (sounds like grandad but I'm not that far off your age)

It's the same question I asked myself then....

I found I had been asking the question and not looking for the answer.

I stopped asking and started looking outside myself...and I found my dream in a woman I could not believe existed ....

So my answer is..if you are happy being on your own..Go for it..there is so mcuh you can do and be happy with

If you ask yourself the question of whether you want to be alone and cannot answer...then you probably want to be with someone.. in that case..take a chance and if you get hurt it at least shows you have a heart

tashiusclay · 03-01-2016 10:32am

Pac1Man wrote: »

That's why that conversation should never be had. Partner or no partner, that information is nobody's business but your own. I would never disclose it to anyone. No good can come from it.

I'd come from the same school of thought about previous partner counts, if I was told of, or it was let slip in some way, that my potential future long term girlfriend/wife had what I would deem as a high casual sex partner count, then it would severely diminish my interest in committing to her long term. I may be called old fashioned in my thinking, but I think it's ignorant at best to think that a highly emotional act that sex is, that the majority of woman who have experienced an above average amount of it in their time before choosing to commit to a long term possible life partner, isn't going to find it that bit more difficult to bond on certain emotional levels with their partner than a woman with a low to average partner count of, imo, one to two per year. And a persons past does generally tend to shape their mindset going into the future.

I might be called fickle for this, but I don't care, choosing a life partner is a huge and high stakes decision when you consider the downsides when you end up getting it wrong, and as I said, my view would probably be seen as old fashioned by many modern women and certain men, but I believe it is a view shared deep down among many fellow men these days. That's just the way it is, we can't help how we may feel about certain things, and I believe it's important most of all to be honest to yourself and your standards, not cast them aside because they're seen as anti progressive to modern life.

dissed doc · 03-01-2016 10:45am

Confucius say wrote: »

Men are just wired differently. A gf I had once told me something like 80 partners, and she brought up the topic not me! Freaked me out tbh mine wouldn't even be half that. I guess maybe it made me feel less special or something really immature like that. Double standards at their finest considering I've had tonnes of random partners myself.

A woman can have sex basically whenever she wants, it requires zero effort. A man has to actually do something. It is not double standards, as women control 100% who has sex with them.

A woman can decide she will go to a bar or Tinder hook up whenever she likes, careless or not.

A man cannot.

Pocoyo · 03-01-2016 10:55am

I have a young kid that i get on weekends i work all the time im only 30 i drink maybe once a month i can eat steak constantly sleep on my sofa if i feel like it watch porn and any tv i want, no more soaps... 4 years in and im fecking loving it!!!

tomwaterford · 03-01-2016 10:58am

brianregan09 wrote: »

So tinder what do ye all make of it ? Anyone have success on it ?

It is what you make of it!!

Like I was on it...no bother getting matches etc....but it's the easy come/easy go nature of it.....I found it hard to stay msging the same person as you'd flick through and be getting matches/msgs off other wans and it's a pure headmelt then

But I do know of three couples who'veet through it and would never have crossed paths otherwise all three going out with between 6-18 months and seem to be good matches for each other

tomwaterford · 03-01-2016 11:03am

dissed doc wrote: »

A woman can have sex basically whenever she wants, it requires zero effort. A man has to actually do something. It is not double standards, as women control 100% who has sex with them.

A woman can decide she will go to a bar or Tinder hook up whenever she likes, careless or not.

A man cannot.

This is something I've long wondered about as I know young wans who'd be fairly good looking and have a woeful time getting dates etc off these sites

Though unless your a complete horror most people if they wanted to...could hook up with someone in a pub etc,...I never had problems meeting wans and I'm not anything approaching good looking....it's just I don't usually go in for ONS...for personal reasons

(though I'm near worked through them and may venture back for 2016)

Wibbs · 03-01-2016 11:20am

Dial Hard wrote: »

It's bizarre. And every time it comes up on Boards it's a guy who has the issue. I've never once seen a thread started by a girl who had a problem with her boyfriend's "number".

I've certainly seen women say they avoid players alright and in my own life I've known a couple of women who expressed a problem with a guy and his high notch count, but generally yes it does split broadly along gender lines. Though I would suspect quite a few women out there are put off by it, but don't want to say it out loud.

tashiusclay wrote:

I may be called old fashioned in my thinking, but I think it's ignorant at best to think that a highly emotional act that sex is, that the majority of woman who have experienced an above average amount of it in their time before choosing to commit to a long term possible life partner, isn't going to find it that bit more difficult to bond on certain emotional levels with their partner than a woman with a low to average partner count of, imo, one to two per year. And a persons past does generally tend to shape their mindset going into the future.

TBH and IMH I'd see little "old fashioned" about that thinking. Being called old fashioned is one of these so called "shaming" tactics. Ironics all over the place. Oh and it seems there may be some basis to it too.

Now this study is from America so cultural biases abound… That it was reported in the Huff post surprises me. Anyway the upshot was; "We further found that the more sexual partners a woman had had before marriage, the less happy she reported her marriage to be." Now there are issues all over the place with the "study". For a start and like I said it is America where the sexual and dating dynamic is all over the place and different to Ireland(or at least was, we're importing some of their guff). People who are commitment averse are more likely to have more partners and more likely to feel unsatisfied in a relationship. Still it's not a bad way to make a call. Especially when younger, under 30 say. High count types are much more likely to want, or think they want commitment at 35 than at 25, especially women who want a family. You see this with men with high counts too, though it usually comes later, in their forties and fifties.

The sexual revolution and all that was to bring sexual freedom, but like all revolutions it decided what was seen as freedom and brought it's own set of restrictions too. So you are free to swing from chandeliers with a feather duster up your gusset, but the man or woman who states that they want nothing of that kinda thing is sniffed at, even derided. It can get to what I would see as atomic powered WTF levels. I read another thread recently where the question was asked would you go out with an ex "sex worker" and the Right On were falling over their keyboards in their haste to type yes, how dare you suggest otherwise, nobody's past matters and I was Da fuq? *facepalm* I doubt I was alone in that, but it can be hard for people to go against such a flow. TBH if I was 22 I probably wouldn't either, but after I reached 30 my levels of not giving a toss rose exponentially.

I might be called fickle for this, but I don't care, choosing a life partner is a huge and high stakes decision when you consider the downsides when you end up getting it wrong, and as I said, my view would probably be seen as old fashioned by many modern women and certain men, but I believe it is a view shared deep down among many fellow men these days.

I would agree. There is the reticence to say it out loud(and not just among men either) and you show a little of that reticence yourself. It would be my humble that the rise of these red pill gobshítes is fuelled at least in part by men who see that they will say this sorta thing out loud. Most don't buy into the rest of the misogynist bullshít they're peddling(though that's a danger) but they do feel some affinity to it. Like all nasty movements in history there's always that element of truth in it.

Wibbs · 03-01-2016 11:31am

dissed doc wrote: »

A woman can have sex basically whenever she wants, it requires zero effort. A man has to actually do something. It is not double standards, as women control 100% who has sex with them.

A woman can decide she will go to a bar or Tinder hook up whenever she likes, careless or not.

A man cannot.

I don't buy this to nearly the same degree that most appear to. Yes a woman has it easier all things equal, as it is to a degree a sellers market. However IMH and IME it's more a male fantasy/imagining that it's so simple.

1) women generally have to at least appear passive, as most men are put off by women being too "forward" and yes even for a ONS. Ask women they'll tell you this.

2) Quality of choice. If I just wanted to get laid over the next few days/nights as a man I could, if I lowered my standards to the floor(and before anyone has right on knicker bunches, we ALL have standards). So sure an average woman is more likely to get a proposition, but she will have to lower her standards 9 times outa 10. Again ask women they will tell you this.

3) Women have to appear passive, but men don't. We do have to generally make the first moves. Boo hoo. Big deal. This is an advantage. We are active agents and don't have to stand around waiting for someone to approach us, it's in our hands, if we chose to take it. So you get rejected more than you succeed. Boo Hoo Part Deux.

Pocoyo · 03-01-2016 11:32am

tomwaterford wrote: »

This is something I've long wondered about as I know young wans who'd be fairly good looking and have a woeful time getting dates etc off these sites

Though unless your a complete horror most people if they wanted to...could hook up with someone in a pub etc,...I never had problems meeting wans and I'm not anything approaching good looking....it's just I don't usually go in for ONS...for personal reasons

(though I'm near worked through them and may venture back for 2016)

Tinder is a strange one you know yourself you have to be up for the reality of driving up to meet someone sober,I met people off it twice and both times i asked the women do you want to meet up right now,But 99% of the time your not bothered and their not bothered i couldnt care if they are 10/10 gorgeous i just couldnt be arsed to make the effort.

the evasion_kid · 03-01-2016 12:06pm

pretty sure i came across a study that showed the amount of pre-marital partners someone had the increase in likely hood of divorce and infidelity aswell as trouble bonding in a relationship.

fits · 03-01-2016 12:12pm

It always surprises me when this no. of partners thing comes up. Its just not an issue for me or any woman I know and definitely has Madonna/ whore undertones whatever way you slant it.

ancapailldorcha · 03-01-2016 12:13pm

fits wrote: »

It always surprises me when this no. of partners thing comes up. Its just not an issue for me or any woman I know and definitely has Madonna/ whore undertones whatever way you slant it.

Same here. Once we're not talking about a magnitude of hundreds of partners then it wouldn't be an issue and I'd apply that to both genders.

Pawwed Rig · 03-01-2016 12:26pm

fits wrote: »

It always surprises me when this no. of partners thing comes up. Its just not an issue for me or any woman I know and definitely has Madonna/ whore undertones whatever way you slant it.

Different folks different strokes. Great that it is not an issue with you. It would be something that is an issue for lots of people though.
I am not sure why you would be surprised about it? It is hardly unheard of?

Pawwed Rig · 03-01-2016 12:28pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Same here. Once we're not talking about a magnitude of hundreds of partners then it wouldn't be an issue and I'd apply that to both genders.

So what is the cut off point? 80? 120? 200?

Pawwed Rig · 03-01-2016 12:34pm

Wibbs wrote: »

3) Women have to appear passive, but men don't. We do have to generally make the first moves. Boo hoo. Big deal. This is an advantage. We are active agents and don't have to stand around waiting for someone to approach us, it's in our hands, if we chose to take it. So you get rejected more than you succeed. Boo Hoo Part Deux.

That is all fine and dandy where you are a guy who is inclined to do the approaching. Many many guys aren't and haven't the heart for the rejection you talk about so it is a big deal for them.

I also don't agree that women have to be passive. I think that is a cop out by girls who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives.

Wibbs · 03-01-2016 12:35pm

fits wrote: »

It always surprises me when this no. of partners thing comes up. Its just not an issue for me or any woman I know and definitely has Madonna/ whore undertones whatever way you slant it.

Well it wouldn't be the same issue for a woman and there would be strong cultural and biological reasons why. You're coming at it from a different angle and that's why you're surprised.

Numero uno, paternity. Until relatively recently, last week in human history terms, a man was never 100% sure about the paternity of his children. A woman always was. Short of the vanishingly rare swapped at birth at the hospital scenario, the very notion of a "maternity test" is a fantastical one. So it makes sense that men would have throughout history sought to maximise the chances that his children are actually his, this double standard was much of it and it didn't spring from nowhere. Therefore virginity was praised in women and something to be discarded in men. Contraception and paternity testing etc have essentially removed such doubts, but the core feelings will take a lot longer. Other factors would have been more medical. EG a woman is at far higher risk of HIV infection from an unprotected encounter with an infected partner than a man is. Same goes for other STDs, a few of which can screw with fertility.

In the end of the day it does down to choice. If a man(or woman for that matter) doesn't want a partner with a large number of previous sexual partners then fair enough. they shouldn't be belittled for that personal choice. And I say that as a man who would have a fair number, too many TBH under my belt. And yes I've had women who were put off by it and looking back, at the time they had very valid reasons for that reticence. I would have been a very bad bet for any long term commitment.

ancapailldorcha · 03-01-2016 12:38pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So what is the cut off point? 80? 120? 200?

A bit arbitrary, no? X is fine but X+1 and sorry but this simply isn't going to work? It would depend on the woman in question, how serious we were, how I felt about her, etc...

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is all fine and dandy where you are a guy who is inclined to do the approaching. Many many guys aren't and haven't the heart for the rejection you talk about so it is a big deal for them.

I also don't agree that women have to be passive. I think that is a cop out by girls who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives.

Unfortunately, I'd chuck myself in here. I'd also agree with the latter half of your post. Even on dating sites, one sees plenty of women (possibly men as well, I don't know) just say "Ask me" instead of putting in a description of themselves.

Wibbs · 03-01-2016 12:43pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is all fine and dandy where you are a guy who is inclined to do the approaching. Many many guys aren't and haven't the heart for the rejection you talk about so it is a big deal for them.

Oh sure P, but I didn't exactly fall to earth active about it. Not even close. However I looked around me and saw how the land lay and figured I could feel bad about it and detach and hope for the best, or get active about it and put my head on the block. And yes rejection does bloody hurt, once or twice it cut me to the core TBH. At first anyway. The more you do it, the easier it gets, quite quickly too, though YMMV there. I wasn't obsessive about it or any of that, I just put myself out there a little more. I also realised the obvious that women weren't exactly a rare type of human, that they weren't "special", unless they showed themselves to be and had the same shít going on themselves(mostly, if from a different angle).

I also don't agree that women have to be passive. I think that is a cop out by girls who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives.

Indeed and that's a current attitude not just to be found in dating.

Pawwed Rig · 03-01-2016 12:45pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A bit arbitrary, no? X is fine but X+1 and sorry but this simply isn't going to work? It would depend on the woman in question, how serious we were, how I felt about her, etc...

That is the point though. Without putting words into your mouth you agree with me that the number of previous partners is an issue. The only place we disagree is the arbitrary figure we use. I might think 20 is too high, someone else 80, you 150 but it is an issue for most at some point. Like how about 1000? Or a person who previous to your relationship tackled 5, 6, 7 guys/girls at once?
I couldn't agree that these are not relevant details in a relationship as numerous posters have suggested.

Wibbs · 03-01-2016 12:46pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Even on dating sites, one sees plenty of women (possibly men as well, I don't know) just say "Ask me" instead of putting in a description of themselves.

"Next" should be your only consideration in such cases AC. They're either non serious about the whole thing, morons, or consider themselves special snowflakes. No matter how good they may look that gets really boring really quickly.

fits · 03-01-2016 12:48pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So what is the cut off point? 80? 120? 200?

You're not getting it. Its not that I don't mind a large number of partners, its that I wouldn't even consider it to be an issue in someone I was considering a relationship with.

If someone had sex addiction/insecurity /self esteem issues that resulted in dangerous promiscuous behaviour then I wouldn't be considering them as a potential partner in the first place -because of those issues - not because of a number.

tomwaterford · 03-01-2016 12:51pm

Wibbs wrote: »

"Next" should be your only consideration in such cases AC. They're either non serious about the whole thing, morons, or consider themselves special snowflakes. No matter how good they may look that gets really boring really quickly.

Only thing is....some/a lot of people are not good at writing about/describing themselves (I'm woeful at it)....,and for all intents and purposes are well meaning just don't know where to start (even googling it isn't very helpful)

Though there are also plenty of people not serious either....but it would be a pity to dismiss everyone over it.....as it's not the easiest thing to describe/talk about yourself

Pawwed Rig · 03-01-2016 12:52pm

fits wrote: »

You're not getting it. Its not that I don't mind a large number of partners, its that I wouldn't even consider it to be an issue in someone I was considering a relationship with.

Apologies fits but I really don't understand the point you are making

the evasion_kid · 03-01-2016 12:53pm

the evasion_kid wrote: »

pretty sure i came across a study that showed the amount of pre-marital partners someone had the increase in likely hood of divorce and infidelity aswell as trouble bonding in a relationship.

http://socialpathology.blogspot.ie/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

pew · 03-01-2016 12:55pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Apologies fits but I really don't understand the point you are making

I think what they mean is this.

The number of partners a person has doesn't matter unless it's an underlying issues such as low self esteem or sex addiction which may cause problems within the relationship.

However I could be wrong with this, it's just what I understand it to mean

tomwaterford · 03-01-2016 12:58pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Apologies fits but I really don't understand the point you are making

I think he/she (??) is trying to say that they are unlikely to be attracted to someone who has had a large number due to Not finding the usual type who've had large numbers (ego/sex addicts etc) attractive

But If She/he was going out with someone who used be like that but over came those issues the number wouldn't put them off (that's what I read!)

Wibbs · 03-01-2016 1:00pm

fits wrote: »

If someone had sex addiction/insecurity /self esteem issues that resulted in dangerous promiscuous behaviour then I wouldn't be considering them as a potential partner in the first place -because of those issues - not because of a number.

It would be my experience and contention that high numbers are pretty much always a sign of the above personality issues(even if it's a "phase"*) and I include myself in that BTW.

*that's a subgroup IMH. Some men and women(IE especially the latter) go through a hard time at the back end of adolescence and it can come out in promiscuity for a time, but they get past that phase. I'd see them as a very different animal to somebody pulling that stuff throughout their twenties and thirties and then hitting the brakes long enough to "settle down".

Single life as a guy...

Comments