[heattemp99]

Because I don't want to feel like a fool for sticking with and supporting this woman from 40-70, when she was giving it up easily at 18-30. Luckily I'm tall and decent looking and do fine for myself, but I still have a gut feeling for reality.

Regarding the beauty.. idk what to tell you. Same reason why some people hold onto their first car, or a car they bought new and love it. Or restore old cars. But if you buy an old beat up car, you use it while you can and move on when you feel like it. Nostalgia and memories are important to many people.

[aschearer]

I appreciate that you stand by your words.

I don't understand why you would feel like a fool assuming you entered the relationship eyes-wide-open.

Regarding your second point, you switch from first person to saying what is important to many people. But: 1) why should I believe you on that count? 2) in the context of a _personal_ relationship, why does it matter what's important to others? (Minus, of course, _one_ other.)

Without trying trying to put too many words in your mouth, perhaps you are seeking a trophy more than a partner? Someone you can support and be proud of -- just like you might feel pride for an old car you restored. And who won't embarass you by her past conduct?

Have you considered approaching relationships from a different angle? For example, you might consider love to be an incredible gift that can only be given freely. Or you might consider a relationship as the ultimate trust-building-game, and a fun one too. Or that the unit of significance isn't the individual but the couple. To name some examples.

In my opinion, you are viewing a relationship in instrumental terms. That is, "what will it give _me_." But such a view is inherently incompatible with the project of love, I believe.

[mensetmanusman]

It’s possible he is just more protective of his soul. True love is signing up for extreme loss and sacrifice either through death or otherwise.

If the ‘otherwise’ column is too risky due to past behavior, it is super-rational to behave as stated.

[racked]

There's another way to look at this. When your partner has had many previous partners, it means that you are extra special, because even after all that prior experience, they choose you!

And about longevity, if you ask me, the most important factors for a solid relationship are:

1. Being completely comfortable around each other. No grudges. Being able to talk about anything, even if you don't always agree.

2. (related to #1) Having a mechanism for resolving conflict. Avoiding things like the silent treatment.

[distant_hat]

Knowing many women who had north of 50-100 partners, 'extra special' certainly isn't the case. Usually they are settling down because no one wants to stick with them and you are likely to be the next one who will abandon them. If this logic made sense, sex workers would be the most sought after partners.

[quotz]

I know a few girls who had more than 50 partners and they are all basically girls you would not even consider for a one night stand, let alone date.

[drekipus]

I say that for every house plant that died in my care. "You're the special one, #237, it's you and me bud."

[kaba0]

If there were 23 relationships that is indeed a red flag. But casual sex is not a relationship, no sin and no one should be condemned for that.

[Levitz]

This points to another worrying trend I've seen among teenagers and 20-something people. I've often seen them commenting how they have had absolutely ridiculous amounts of relationships, like a 24 year old saying she has had 11 boyfriends.

It's like casual sex has become to prevalent that they think that's what a stable relationship is. I can't really fathom the logic.

[kaba0]

You are extrapolating way too much from your limited data — in fact, younger generations have less sex than those before, as per a study linked in this thread.

[wiseowise]

> When your partner has had many previous partners, it means that you are extra special, because even after all that prior experience, they choose you!

…that’s not how it works.

[heattemp99]

They did not "choose you". They could not get any of the others to commit.

[Cthulhu_]

That's... really making a lot of assumptions. What do you mean by "get any of the others to commit"? That's saying the woman in question had to apply force, and that it was ultimately the other's fault they didn't settle.

I can go on, but, it sounds like you and many others in this subthread have some really weird and ingrained manosphere-sounding ideas about women and relationships.

[Levitz]

Let's cut it 50/50, let's say she has broken up in 11 occasions. Does it really make sense for you to consider that she has a good eye for compatibility? To trust her judgement that she will stay with you?

[fakedang]

It just means that you were the easiest one she could settle with, and likewise who chose to settle down with her.

[wruza]

A popular statistical advice is to meet N people (30..100), determine the level of “bestness” (ignoring extraordinary anomalies) and then to continue until you find something like that again. Calculating chances of being that last person is left as an exercise to the reader.

[331c8c71]

Somewhat interesting as a model, completely irrelevant as a guiding principle in real life (imo)...

[TRiG_Ireland]

"giving it up easily"

Ugh. Some people like casual sex. Some people don't. Neither of these are worse people. And the idea that sex is something that women "give up" to men is weird, gross, misogynistic nonsense.

[IcyClAyMptHe]

women are the traditional gatekeepers for sex. All the "misogyny" handwaving in the world does not alter that fact. It's why the response numbers for men and women on dating apps are what they are

[bungeonsBaggins]

> I don't want to feel like a fool for sticking with and supporting this woman from 40-70, when she was giving it up easily at 18-30

jesus

[ZephyrBlu]

What he's saying is that women are generally at their hottest and get the most attention from 18-30. They have the position of power in attracting a mate. If they have 20+ partners they clearly took advantage of that.

If you're a 40yr old man who has worked his ass off to reach a position where you are an attractive mate, you probably now have the position of power instead of a women of the same age.

The usually unsaid part of this is that the woman in question wouldn't have given you the time of day when you were in your 20s. It's only when you are in the position of power they start to consider you as an option, at which point it makes less sense for you to consider them an option.

That is why this feels like a slap in the face for a man, and also why men go after younger women. When they were a young man, they had no power. When they get older, they have more power.

[hef19898]

If you realy think, that power is everything that attracts women to men, you should try to reduce the dosis of red pills.

[ZephyrBlu]

That's not at all what I said. I'm talking about the relative power in the dating market.

A beautiful woman has a lot of power in the dating market. A successful, mature man has similar power in the dating market.

[hef19898]

Dating market... That sounds a bit like a potential problem to me, treating dating as a market place one competes in.

[IcyClAyMptHe]

dating apps have reduced dating to a marketplace. The view that promiscuity is ok or even encouraged only exacerbates things

[input_sh]

Threads like these are always eye-opening about the kind of person that frequents this place.

[hgomersall]

It's actually good news we've discovered a portal to 1955.

[andrepd]

Literally incel meme material. Unfortunate that after the sexual revolution many people want to revert back to repression and self-shame for our sexual desires.

[hypertele-Xii]

Repression and self-shame for our primitive desires is at the core of civilized society. Use your brain for a moment to think about how our world would look like if everyone blindly followed their instincts, including violent outbursts, sexual desires, and what have you.

You discard our achieved Christian stability at your own peril. You sure you want to go back to jungle rules? That's what will happen when all women mate with a select few men - what do you think the rest of the men are going to do? Be content dying alone, invisible, and unloved?

[andrepd]

There are "base urges" that are beneficial to suppress, and others not; this is the criterion. You would not suppress the base urge to eat (ironically, fasting for no reason is another prominent feature of many religions) just for its sake, why would you do the same with sex?

I will not respond to the Christian stability claim because that would require more paragraphs than I care to write right now. Suffice to say a cursory look at worldwide religious demographics shows that many of the countries with a higher standard of living are the least religious, and many of the most religious countries are the poorest and most underdeveloped.

[hef19898]

So, all non-Christian societes are unstable? They live in a primitive state?

What happens as soon as women have the power to decide about their bodies, their sex and love life so is that a certain sub-set of men all get wrapped into brezel shape over this outragious independence. There seems to be a huge overlap of those men and religious conviction. And seeimg themselves as victims of whom or whatever. And then they wonder why they don't get laid or find fulfilling relationships.

[hypertele-Xii]

Please mention a stable non-Christian society you would like to migrate to.

The power to make decisions includes the power to make mistakes. Having more power doesn't automatically mean that every decision made with said power is for the better. Women aren't above criticism for their bad decisions.

[hef19898]

Japan, would be one option. Singapore as well. Marocco maybe. I would never migrate to the US so, not that I would consider the US particularly stable so.

And no amount of wrong decisions of one person gives another person the right to decide for them. That's what laws, courts and a legal system is there for.

Edit: Other countries: Taiwan, Malaysia. The problem is less religion and stability, it is more that free democracies are somewhat far between globally. Add in somewhat economical stability as a requirement for me migrating, which was the question, and the list gets even shorter (it would also exclude the vast majority of Latin America by that measure alone, not that these countries are particularly stable despite being staunchly Christian).

[input_sh]

> Please mention a stable non-Christian society you would like to migrate to.

The Netherlands and the UK, both solidly >50% nonreligious.

[rrgok]

I don't understand why people are trying to make you feel bad for having simple emotions. I'm with you, if you feel this way it is perfectly valid.

People are so triggered for men having preferences these days. We are humans too.

[TRiG_Ireland]

It's not about "having preferences"; it's about the fact that this man clearly despises women. And normal people find that disturbing and distasteful.

[DiggyJohnson]

That's not clear at all, and the only reason you feel that way is that you disagree so strongly with their perspective that you are comfortable making assumptions without basis.

[mensetmanusman]

It sounds like despise behavior versus the person per se.

[wiseowise]

> Because I don't want to feel like a fool for sticking with and supporting this woman from 40-70, when she was giving it up easily at 18-30.

Tough luck. Either find some 20 year old without 5 partners or relax and make peace with idea that you lost your chance in this life.

[heattemp99]

I'm 38. It's superficially easy to find a 28 year old, and would take a slight bit of effort to get with a 23 year old. And all bets are off if someone is ok going to eastern Europe or Asia. "Lost your chance in life" is retarded.

[wiseowise]

> It's superficially easy to find a 28 year old, and would take a slight bit of effort to get with a 23 year old. And all bets are off if someone is ok going to eastern Europe or Asia.

Yeah, sure, buddy. If you think taking advantage of desperate woman from second/third world country with whom you have generational and culture gap so big that it’s like adopting a daughter for sex, who’s ready to leave with first foreigner, is the same as meeting your life’s partner at 18-20s and living and experiencing whole life with them - then good luck, you have all your chances, haha.

> "Lost your chance in life" is retarded.

Why did I even bother replying. Did you find your way from Reddit, Blind or 4chan?

[heattemp99]

I'm from Eastern Europe and speak the language. But beyond that, I didn't say THAT part would be easy, but it's doable, especially if you stay there instead of bringing them to the US. Personally I think it would be easier than keeping the average American 28 yr old happy.

[wiseowise]

That explains the attitude, fellow Eastern European. The point still stands, cultural and generational gap. You were born when USSR was still there (or maybe in USSR, if you’re unlucky), for Christ’s sake. Do you seriously think you can find any meaningful relationship with girl raised on Instagram and TikTok? As other comment pointed out - you’re not looking for a relationship, you’re looking for a trophy wife. Which is completely fine, but you need to be honest with yourself.

Also, if you think 28 age old can’t have 23 previous partners - you’re in deep trouble.

[lossolo]

23 year old indeed might be too much of a difference IMO + there is a big gap of maturity between 23 and 28 years old, but 28 year old is totally fine in relation to his age (unless he behave and feels like a 50-60 year old). I was with around 10 years younger gf, she was very attractive and had many relationships before but couldn't connect with anyone as good as she did with me.

[pzo]

the reason he might be dating someone younger is not just for trophy but for things such as:

- younger woman for him is more attractive (doesn't mean it's just for trophy)

- 38+ woman have biological clock so they might be more desperate to get someone commit and have a kid fast

- if he date someone younger and after half a year they found out they both are not compatible then there is no guilt as much as when dating 38+ woman that wanna have a kid and you "wasted her half a year of maybe just 2 years left to have a healthy biological kid)

- might be for him easier to date younger divorced woman with kid (because many guys don't want to date those for long term), but that's not necessarily bad relation because she has a lot of experience.

[throwaway69123]

This could be the most incredibly offensive thing I’ve read on this site

[wiseowise]

Why?

[mathteddybear]

You wrote "adopting a daughter for sex", that's why.

Everything else is just garden variety reddit offensive.

[idiotsecant]

But you say you're having trouble finding a meaningful relationship? I just can't understand why?!

[zer8k]

Because one of the meaningful, intimate, things someone can give you was given up 23 times in a row. You're not special and that has an effect on one's psyche. You can certainly enjoy a person's company but you will never be able to connect to them on anything more than a surface level. If a person puts themselves in a very vulnerable position with numerous people it speaks volumes about their ability to maintain relationships and assess risk. Even without getting into the spirtuality of it the person is likely damaged goods. This goes equally for both genders - by the way.

Divorce rates correlate strongly with previous partner count. It's easy to find a meaningful relationship. It's hard to find a relationship where you're not going to be compared to 23 other men (or women). At 30+ you're also dealing with potential kids from the other person which in the case of fathers is a minefield should you stick around long enough to become "defacto" dad in the eye of the court.

[hef19898]

Sometimes HN has some serious Incel shit posts, one has to admit...

[heattemp99]

I didn't say I had trouble finding a meaningful relationship. I said I'm having trouble finding meaning in dating 38 year old women.

[Cthulhu_]

And that's... fine? As in, if you're done with it, you can choose not to play. Stay single if it makes you happier. Just don't shift blame to others, they have their own life and choices that are completely out of your hands and concern.

[pzo]

he didn't say he is single or planning to stay single forever. He might as well dating someone younger. For woman its generally:

- harder to date someone younger

- it's harder to date when you are 35+ (smaller pool of single people) but even harder for woman (because guys take bigger importance into how someone look and because of woman biological clock)

- when someone is divorced with kid (even when young) is hard to date for anyone but for woman even more difficult

[idiotsecant]

It's startling how much self awareness it's possible to have.

[tomcam]

You really, really need to review this HN guideline from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:

    Be kind. Don't be snarky.

[kaba0]

That should extend also to people not present in the discussion, which parent poster absolutely fails to fulfill.

[tomcam]

Ow! Not arguing with you, but would like a few links to where I messed up.

[tomcam]

These comments of yours help no one, especially yourself.

[kaba0]

Giving it up easily? You reek of that incel energy. I hope you have more respect for actual people in your life than that.

[wruza]

Never understood this “call them incel” movement. It neither earns you respect nor makes a point. Even if they are involuntarily celibate, what does that mean in this context? It’s involuntary. You being a jerk to a (figuratively) disabled person who complains that ramps only lead to places which have seen life.

[kaba0]

Words change their meanings and it currently denotes a disgusting misogynistic group. The usage you refer to is only the dog whistle they run under, similarly to nazis.

[wruza]

This only makes it even more puzzling as the usage was yours. Having an opinion about whom you would marry and for which reasons isn’t mysogynistic, afaiu. If your main concern is wording “giving it up”, how could one rephrase it?

[kaba0]

Look at all the comments in this thread of the HNer in question. They are free to have an opinion on who to marry, or even of people. Nonetheless, I can also freely have the opinion of someone being a shitty human based on his beliefs, especially when that belief is objectifying women.

[wruza]

Could you please point to a comment where he does objectify women? I skimmed through all of them but not sure which one you could read this way. Or, if this term also drifted, I’d like to know what it means now.

I’m starting to suspect that you may be involuntarily gaslighting me looking through the lens of your own perception.

[roenxi]

If we're talking about some hypothetical woman with 23 partners, what is the issue with objectifying her a bit? She's obviously objectifying the men. Sees someone who looks nice, sleep with them, move on.

If neither side is in it for the long term relationship then they are in it for the hot body. That isn't being a "shitty human", it is just being realistic about the sort of relationship they are in.

[retwertett]

Ad hominem.

[DiggyJohnson]

This comment is completely against our guidelines. Find some other way to communicate disagreement or find somewhere else.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[Levitz]

You can't shame someone for the worldview that women "Give up sex" in the same sentence you shame them for not managing to get sex as a man. It doesn't make sense.

[Nursie]

> Because I don't want to feel like a fool for sticking with and supporting this woman from 40-70, when she was giving it up easily at 18-30.

Misogyny shining though there. You feel you have to support someone rather than be equals. You resent that they may have slept with other people when they were younger (but presumably you did as well, as a tall, decent looking man). The very use of the phrase 'giving it up easily' implies you think it's a woman's role to not 'give it up'.

Your whole thread reeks of double standards. Did you never 'give it up' easily in your 20s? Or does that not apply to men?

[katodna_cijev]

Don't you think partners should support each other? Equally? I am a tall, decent looking man as well and I did not give it up easily, why do you think it's OK to assume that about the parent commenter — after he stated his values? If sex is valued (by someone) as one of the most intimate interactions / experiences someone can share with a partner, then yes, it's a role of potential partners (and that someone if they don't have double standards) not to "give it up". Otherwise they aren't as good partners for that someone and it is fine to have that preference.

If I somehow messed up in my judgement and "gave it up" to the wrong person, I'd totally be fine with someone else valuing me less or even not considering me as a potential partner. Even if they had double standards in that regard, that's fine, our values are just not aligned and we're not meant for each other romantically.

No, without your assumptions this thread does not reek of double standards. Your comment reeks of toxicity, gender-based. And I don't think that's what an average person you interact with (online) deserves, regardless of their gender or the discussed topic.

Edit: clarified better

[Nursie]

> I did not sleep with other people while younger, why do you think it's OK to assume that about the parent commenter

"I'm 38. I date in my age group. Which means both of us are dating people that have been sleeping with others for two decades"

>If I somehow messed up in my judgement and "gave it up" to the wrong person, I'd totally be fine with someone else valuing me less or even not considering me as a potential partner.

Wow, I would hate to be in your head, to have your own self-worth so bound up in the number of partners you have or haven't had.

> No, without your assumptions this thread does not reek of double standards.

It really, really does. The same poster is talking about dating college-aged girls until relatively recently, and tells us that he considers them promiscuous, clearly values women by the number of partners they have had, and views them as a financial drain to be put up with only if they're pure enough. It's pretty old-school, judging of women for who and how many they slept with, and placing the value of his relationship with them on that.

[katodna_cijev]

I do not read it as "giving it up _easily_" (clarified my comment, I realized my mistake in what I compared, and what I meant to say), but now I searched through his all comments and after seeing the comment about college girls being his favourite demographic, I do find that assumption more likely. I read that "both of us" quote as _not_ making difference in valuing people by the number of partners. If he really was a sugar daddy to multiple girls the way it appears to be, then he shouldn't feel like a fool supporting (and being supported by) someone as promiscuous as him.

Missing that one comment made me feel the same way as when I see others generalizing about the misogyny and judging the double standards (even without target or target's comments around, just a single one-sided claim) when my similar actions are totally not driven by it. I made a mistake and I apologize for sounding harsh while making it.

As for me, I'm monogamous because thinking about someone being intimate with my SO is not pleasant. And no, it's not about an insecurity like "does he have a bigger stick?". Sex and intimacy is an "old-school" way to show ultimate sign of love, merit and commitment. If it wasn't that way, there would not be much point in exclusivity and I would have been fine with her having safe sex while I'm out of town or something.

Are you in open relationship, then? Do you see significant difference between your SO sleeping with some girl when you can't, depending on the time it happened (whether it's before or after you two romantically connected)?

There are many dimensions on which one can value a person or a relationship. Not valuing sex the same way is just one dimension of worth, bound up in the numbers of people who have received that "sign". If someone (me included) is sleeping around, that doesn't mean they aren't great as a person, but by that dimension of worth differentiating a friend and a romantic partner they are valued less.

[Nursie]

> As for me, I'm monogamous because thinking about someone being intimate with my SO is not pleasant.

I'm also monogamous, and I'd suggest if you don't enjoy picturing that, then you shouldn't picture it :) I don't spend much time thinking about my partner of 7 years having sex with other people. That doesn't sound like much fun. Unless that's your thing, some people love that stuff. It's not for me though!

> it's not about an insecurity

It feels very much like it to me. Maybe not about silly things like penis size, but you fundamentally wouldn't trust that someone loves you unless they hadn't slept with anyone else in the past before they'd even met you? I find that odd.

> Do you see significant difference between your SO sleeping with some girl when you can't, depending on the time it happened (whether it's before or after you two romantically connected)?

Absolutely. Things that happened before we got together are things that happened before we formed a trusting, loving relationship. Going outside of that now would be a very different proposition. Women or men she may have slept with before are no business of mine nor of particular interest. And this goes both ways. At our ages (mid 40s) it would be weird to expect a clean slate, and frankly I'd be very suspicious of anyone that had one. It probably helps our levels of trust that we knew each other as friends for a long time before we got together.

Look, if you value your notion of sexual purity, OK, you do you. But apply it to yourself as well. The misogyny in the other poster's comments comes through when he says "we both did this thing, it devalues her as a person but it's fine for me".

> If someone (me included) is sleeping around, that doesn't mean they aren't great as a person, but by that dimension of worth differentiating a friend and a romantic partner they are valued less.

To you maybe, this is not universal. But if you judge them as worth less while you were doing the same damn thing, and whining about how they don't want to support someone who 'gave it up' when they were younger, even though you were doing it too ... that's hypocritical and where the misogyny comes in.

[pcthrowaway]

FYI, the convention with `>`-prefixed lines is to use them for other people's words you're responding to, not for your response.

In case you're quoting several levels of responses you can nest the `>`s

e.g.

    > > This is why I think we should get rid of minimum wage

    > Sure, have fun in your libertarian, mad max fantasy world

    To be fair, that does sound kind of fun

[Nursie]

FYI that’s what I did?

The prefixed lines are from katodna_cijev’s post above, unless I’ve messed up the formatting somewhere.

(Edit, I’m rate limited so can’t reply below, but yes, the ‘>’ are for stuff I’m responding to, the quoted stuff is from the poster we are both talking about and forms my response)

[pcthrowaway]

You said:

    "I'm 38. I date in my age group. Which means both of us are dating people that have been sleeping with others for two decades"

Which was a quote from heattemp99 above, so by the convention I was describing, that would be prefixed by a `> `

But

    > I did not sleep with other people while younger, why do you think it's OK to assume that about the parent commenter

I now realize was a quote from the poster above you, who must have edited it afterwards which is why it didn't show up when I searched for it, trying to follow the thread

[hef19898]

Can I ask you something? Assuming you didn't just radomly stumble over HN, and this submission, ehy do you use a newly created account for this discussion?

[lloeki]

> Misogyny shining though there

The way I read it (which may or may not be what GP meant) was person A speaking from their PoV about feeding supportive energy in a relationship with person B, with person B being less inclined or able to do so, especially when rough spots come up, and number of past person B relationships that failed possibly hinting at that (that, or person B had an unlucky streak of being with bad relationships they had to bail out of, which happens), when person A would expect the relationship to be symmetrical in commitment (especially through tough times, where the relationship is truly tested)

Men that desire long term balanced relationships do exist, and that does not mean they necessarily want to coerce women into a specific role borne out of patriarchy, as long as they expect to be held to the same standards themselves by their SO. I'll readily admit that sadly many men don't, but that does not mean we should blanket assume that of all people, and I hope we can all be a bit more careful not to project our own prejudices both ways, otherwise it's going to be a losing game for everyone.

[Nursie]

I think in the context of "both of us are dating people that have been sleeping with others for two decades", but then followed up with "how special should I feel that I'm her 23rd", and then in another comment specifically calling out women who were 'giving it up' in their 20s even though it appears he was doing much the same...

It reads to me a lot more like a double standard and some old school misogyny than it does anything about supportive energy.

To go to your analogy, person A and B have had about the same number of failed past relationships. Taking that in isolation there's no reason to think that either of them is going to be less inclined than the other to offer support or help work through rough patches in the relationship, even if we allow for the notion that having more partners is a negative there.

But Person A has just decided that Person B is worth less to him than someone who hadn't had previous partners, and judged them for their behaviour when they were younger, even though they did the same themselves.

[lloeki]

> To go to your analogy, person A and B have had about the same number of failed past relationships. Taking that in isolation there's no reason to think that either of them is going to be less inclined than the other to offer support or help work through rough patches in the relationship

Agreed. One of the critical bits in my comment was:

> as long as they expect to be held to the same standards themselves by their SO

Which I cannot stress enough.

> "how special should I feel that I'm her 23rd"

That, to me, could equally read as a failing to realise one's value comes from oneself (intrinsic), not others (neither in comparison to other men nor because someone else values you) (extrinsic). If anything, if after a streak of failed relationships, when someone commits to spending the rest of their life with you, then clearly it means that you are special to them in a way that all the others before weren't, but it takes time to make that jump, and some never even make it because they keep getting caught in man-man comparisons that have nothing to do with (and therefore no judgement of) the woman involved.

It also could possibly mean that they're buying into the myth that there's a "special one" that is meant to be just the right for you (and conversely, that you are the special one for the other), which is highly destructive and self-devaluating when you're not finding it however hard you try.

Since the poster has too suffered from failed relationships, it may very well be that they've been hurt repeatedly, and thus now have a hard time building trust, and lacking confidence in themselves, so they (mistakenly) look for extrinsic validation as a form of criteria to artificially bolster that confidence and trust when it should be intrinsic.

So under these hypotheses, the whole picture would be not that they devalue women (a.k.a misogyny) but that they devalue themselves and have an idealised view of women, which purported feminine partners fail to match (which is only normal because they are just human)

> even if we allow for the notion that having more partners is a negative there.

Agreed, that notion of it being negative per se is absurd as it's highly contextual in ways a simple number cannot carry any of that information.

And that's the thing here, we HN commenters don't know the first thing about all the contexts at play. Therefore my personal stance is to consider that there may be many things at play here, and not ascribe a value to "I'm a straight man and I'm stuck in a conundrum with my relationships with women" too soon because it appeared to be in conflict with my values from a superficial reading as "things said sound odd, and a straight man said them, therefore this is a misogynistic statement", which would be projecting my own prejudice upon someone else, in total contrast with the values I would be trying to uphold.

> for sticking with and supporting this woman from 40-70, when she was giving it up easily at 18-30

Rephrased the way I understood it to mean:

"I'd like to be in a relationship where we can be supportive of each other, and the other person's track record of bailing out in face of hardship would hint at the latter phase of life would be me being supportive but not the other way around"

Which felt to me as reflecting pain and fear and projecting anxiety in the future, not hate and disdain and projecting judgement on the other (which is what misogyny is). It struck me as such because at no point it is said that they would not be held in the same regard.

This seems corroborated by GP's desire to be:

> Can I find someone that doesn't just say "wtf am I doing here" if times get tough for health or financial or just plain old age? I'm not sure.

Which is questioning I think could be answered with: people are met once, relationships are built, continuously, endlessly; if there's a fear, a doubt, an issue, talk about it openly together; if it's not possible to talk openly then talk about why it appears to not be possible to talk openly; and if either person refuses to talk and work it out then that person is not open to building the relationship anymore (and they are completely entitled to that at any point in time, nothing is binding anyone irrevocably forever as described in fairy tales), so it's game over, and you can't do shit about that, you can only try your best that it does not reach that point. But if you do it early and practice it regularly for both the easy things and the hard things, so that you can see where there's agreement and where there's disagreement, and find common ground and balance, then the odds of that happening are low. But they're non-nil so you gotta trust that it works out, and trust is built, but it's also a leap of faith (otherwise it's not trust, it's guarantees).

All of that to say, if I may, that the elicited "wow this is a gross and misogynistic statement" reaction would IMHO be better approached as "careful, your statement X sounded judgemental in this or that way (and if so, it kinda hurt) and some may receive it as misogynistic, but I may have misunderstood, would you care to elaborate with more context?"

[Nursie]

> Rephrased the way I understood it to mean…

But your rephrasing doesn’t match the original. He says he would feel like a fool supporting a woman from 40-70 who was “giving it up easily” in her earlier years.

Can I ask if English is your first language? I don’t wish to be rude, but the idiomatic phrasing “Giving it up easily” does not mean walking away from relationships frivolously. It means she was having sex, giving up her virtue (or vagina, pick a v word). It is a phrase which presupposes that it is a woman’s job not to give ‘it’ up and that she is easy or a slut if she does. It means that when men came to her seeking sex, she did not turn them away as she should have (ignore the men though, that’s just natural and not to be judged).

It’s not about criticising someone for walking away from relationships, it’s shaming a woman, and specifically a woman, for having had sex.

This is classic misogynist rhetoric, casting a woman’s value as proportional to her sexual past, making it her role to limit access to sex.

And yes, this probably does come from insecurity, that doesn’t make it ok.

He also talks about the promiscuity of college-age girls, and how he is having trouble finding meaning in dating women his own age, and how he wants his partners to have had few sexual partners, where he himself talks about having been sexually active for two decades.

I think it’s fair to say there’s a lot going on here, but some of his comments reveal quite weird attitudes towards women. Wherever those come from, they manifest as misogyny and double standards.

[lloeki]

> Can I ask if English is your first language? I don’t wish to be rude,

Sure, no offense taken, and you are correct, I am not a native English speaker indeed, and while I know my share of idioms I was completely unaware that “Giving it up easily” was an idiom specifically referring to getting laid frequently, leaving no room for ambiguity. Thanks for the astute guess and subsequent clarification, happy to stand corrected!

100% on board here, whoever wants to have fun and explore their sexuality in whatever way or frequency they see fit is a perfectly normal thing to do, and it by and far does not mean that person would be unable to commit in a relationship on mutual agreement of exclusivity later on. So the double standard and badmouthing is not acceptable by any means in any way, shape, or form.

I don't even compute how person A would "look like a fool" being in mutual commitment with person B if person B had their share of fun and experimentation in a previous period of their life. If anything, person B now knows exactly who they want to be with and what they like, so they're more likely to keep their commitment since they chose to commit armed with that knowledge!

[volkl48]

This feels like it only makes much sense if you had an unsatisfying youth yourself or truly never wanted to do any of that exploring (you'd have turned it down even if the opportunity presented itself).

It takes two to play. I had some fun in my teens + 20s, I learned some things about myself and relationships, mostly pleasantly but occasionally not. I don't begrudge others for spending their youth exploring and learning the same sorts of things.

I'm not supporting someone I'm dating financially - they've usually got a decent career going, they don't need and aren't asking for my wallet.