[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!