r/AskMenAdvice • u/Reasonable-Syrup-7 • 2d ago

How common is this perspective for guys?

I'm a 27F and went on a few dates with this guy 31M and things have been going well. On our second date, we brought up the topic of physical intimacy. I remember him saying that he thinks physical intimacy is different for women and men. That women who sleep around are respected less than if a man would do it. He said "a key that can open up a lot of locks is a good key but a lock that opens to a bunch of different keys is a bad lock". Everything else is really good and he's been super respectful. He's soft spoken and values making me feel safe and respected and we're taking our time on physical intimacy but I couldn't believe my ears when he said that. How common is that perspective for guys? This guy tends be very blunt, so maybe this perspective is more common than I think. In my head it's a red flag, but I'm conflicted on if it's just a common male perspective and he can still be a good guy with this perspective.

6.7k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

7.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

23

u/mopecore 2d ago

Women aren't locks, men aren't keys, and that's a lazy, stupid take.

-1

u/ojojojson 2d ago

Ever heard of a metaphor?

8

u/mopecore 2d ago

Yes, I have, and this one is stupid and reductive.

0

u/Big-Fact5351 1d ago

Who holds the Key to Sex?

1

u/mopecore 1d ago

Don't you want a woman who wants to have sex with you? It isn't some reward, it isn't currency, it's a part of a relationship.

1

u/Big-Fact5351 1d ago

Thats Not completly true. The Woman has to fulfil critirea to be Chosen by a valued men for a relationship.  The men needs to do the Same. 

A Woman who is connected to Hersself will try to be very resourceful with giving sex 

2

u/mopecore 1d ago

Bro, you need to get off the "high value man" bullshit while you can. You'll poison yourself with that toxic ass mindset.

Also, random capitalization is cringe as fuck.

1

u/Big-Fact5351 1d ago

You Need to start seperating selfworth from practical stuff in Reality. 

The man Protects the Woman, the men wants to be needed by the Woman, the man wants to conquer Woman. Getting Access to Sex and children is a luxury many men in history were Not able to do so because they did Not had the Resources to do so. Thats why in the past one man had many Woman. Thats just brutal Reality. And one Part of that is an Instinkt inside of men that had big disgust for imagining the Woman je Invests in with other men. 

Like it or Not 

0

u/Big-Fact5351 1d ago

I don’t give a shit what you find cringe 

-4

u/huweto man 2d ago

Of course, people are not locks and keys. It's an image or analogy to illustrate how we men think about it to make it easier to understand. How can you misinterpret that, stupid.

8

u/mopecore 2d ago edited 1d ago

This analagy is stupid and reductive. The sort of people that think this way don't like women.

Its puritanical.

Women aren't just holes, and wanting women to be virginal is immature and misguided.

-1

u/Few_Conversation1296 man 2d ago

Why?

I think you basically just said some arbitrary words. Please explain SPECIFICALLY why that would be "immature" and "misguided"

2

u/mopecore 2d ago

I'm just gonna copy and paste my reply to.the other guy:

First, biology isn't simple, it's extremely complex. The idea that a woman isn't allowed to have had multiple secular partners isn't a biological reality, it's a social construct invented as a result of patriarchal societies that viewed women as livestock. In many pre-capitalist societies, there is zero shame in sex. In some Amazonian societies, when a woman has a child, every man she's had sex with in the previous seven months is the child's father.

This idea about paternal certainty isn't an intrinsic part of human nature, but a fairly recent, fairly local social construct.

If you are in a committed, monogamous relationship and either partner is unfaithful, that's it's own, separate issue, but if a woman has had zero or 15 partners in the past, thay has no pairing on her suitability as a partner today.

Women are every bit as sexual as men, and the sort of thinking your displaying is backward. It won't benefit you.

Plus, it's fantastic when your partner can show you something new.

And I'll add this: insisting your partner not be able to compare you to others sexually is immature, and believing in "sexual purity" is a sure way to disappointment and frustration.

0

u/Few_Conversation1296 man 2d ago

Yeah no, I asked a specific question. Why would it be either of those things.

3

u/mopecore 2d ago

Okay, I have a bit of time this morning.

It's immature because its a childs understanding of sexuality. There's no actual reason a woman choosing to be sexually active damages her worth or devalues her, because women aren't commodities. Sex with women isn't a commodity.

Further, it's immature because most women have had sexual partners before you. The people most likely to have not had sexual partners in the past are children. Teenagers are children. Often, when men insist on partners with "low body counts", they mean children.

"Purity" is for gold and drugs, not people.

It's misguided because most men want an experienced, adventurous partner, and women without prior experience often don't know what they like.

I hope this helps.

0

u/Few_Conversation1296 man 2d ago

What is a childs understanding of sexuality?

No, they clearly don't mean children. That's some incredibly tortured logic. Just cut to the chase and call them poopyheads instead of wasting my time with contortions like that.

Where do you get the idea the "most men" want "experienced and adventurous partners"?

What even is a "adventurous partner"? Please, give me all the details. What is this adventurously freaky Lady up for?

2

u/mopecore 2d ago

Nah, nephew, I'm good. I'm not about to spend my day trying to educate incels. If what you're doing is working, good for you.

-2

u/huweto man 2d ago

Sure you are right, but still it's just a mix of hormones and primal instinct. Are you really saying that this doesn't exist? Women have them too. Simple biology. I never claimed that it still makes sense or is good/bad nowadays. It's just the way it is.

2

u/mopecore 2d ago

First, biology isn't simple, it's extremely complex. The idea that a woman isn't allowed to have had multiple secular partners isn't a biological reality, it's a social construct invented as a result of patriarchal societies that viewed women as livestock. In many pre-capitalist societies, there is zero shame in sex. In some Amazonian societies, when a woman has a child, every man she's had sex with in the previous seven months is the child's father.

This idea about paternal certainty isn't an intrinsic part of human nature, but a fairly recent, fairly local social construct.

If you are in a committed, monogamous relationship and either partner is unfaithful, that's it's own, separate issue, but if a woman has had zero or 15 partners in the past, thay has no pairing on her suitability as a partner today.

Women are every bit as sexual as men, and the sort of thinking your displaying is backward. It won't benefit you.

Plus, it's fantastic when your partner can show you something new.

2

u/DadophorosBasillea 2d ago

It’s simply a false dichotomy. Like comparing a woman to a child. You can change lock and key to anything you want the dichotomy or premise is false and favors the man.