[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?