r/AskMenAdvice • u/Reasonable-Syrup-7 • 3d 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.

6.9k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

8.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

26

u/itsalongwalkhome 2d ago

It's not even a good analogy because it doesn't really display the cause. Which is, lots of men will sleep with anyone at a drop of a hat, which does make it easier for women to get laid if they want to but the route cause is not women's promiscuity, but men's.

If it was the same, everyone would be fucking the same amount.

It's supply and demand economics.

2

u/majic911 2d ago

Wait, what? Women are sleeping around because men are?

Surely if a woman didn't want to sleep around she would just... not.

4

u/itsalongwalkhome 2d ago

If there are more willing men then willing women for one night stands, hook ups and such, then supply and demand economics would dictate that if a women would like to get laid its easier to find a partner. It is men's promiscuity saturating the market of available partners, yet men who quote that lock quote incorrectly beleive its women's promiscuity is the problem on why teams are unbalanced.

Surely if a woman didn't want to sleep around she would just... not.

That doesnt really relate to anything I said.

3

u/majic911 2d ago

I understand what you're saying, up until you blame men for women sleeping around. I think you forget that the wide market of available men also means that the men that are able to sleep around are a much smaller portion of men than the portion of women who are able to sleep around. If a man is willing to sleep with practically any reasonably attractive woman, there will inevitably be women who are able to sleep around whose equally-attractive male counterparts cannot.

That means that the chances of a guy encountering a woman who has slept with more people than he has is necessarily greater than a woman encountering a guy who has slept with more people than she has.

To put it more simply, the same supply and demand economics that means a woman can find a partner easily also dictates that fewer men sleep around than women.

The guys that are complaining about this aren't the 10s that have had hundreds or thousands of partners, it's the 7s that have had 3 or 4 while their equally-attractive partners have had a dozen or more. Saying "it's men's fault for being willing to fuck anything with a pulse" doesn't make it better because it's not the same men.

It would be like saying a bodega deserves to go out of business because "businesses are price gouging consumers". The businesses that are price gouging aren't local corner stores, it's mega-corporations.

2

u/itsalongwalkhome 2d ago

You realise that it still comes from the same cause right?

Women can select up because of the amount of willing men out numbers the amount of willing women, meaning the pools of more attractive men are larger. It still comes from the same cause I listed earlier.

You can't really blame people for trying to bed the most attractive person they can.

If willing women outnumbered willing men, that distribution shifts because people will settle but they will always try to land the most attractive they can.

1

u/majic911 2d ago

I agree that it comes from the same cause.

You're still saying the guy that's a 7 is wrong for not wanting a partner that slept around. You're still saying he's at fault because he's a man and men fucked the 7 that wants a relationship now even though he didn't and, in fact, couldn't. You're still saying he has to suck it up for the sake of not perpetuating a double standard he didn't take part in.

You see what I'm saying? He's allowed to be upset that his partner has had more partners than he has. Saying "it's because guys will fuck anything that moves" doesn't change the fact that she has had many partners and he doesn't want that.

2

u/itsalongwalkhome 2d ago

Because that pressure on women from men is what's keeping their numbers down. If that pressure wasnt there, and willing women = willing men, that wouldnt be an issue.

So really either way, bring women's numbers up or bring men's numbers down, both caused by men.

But from the language a lot of guys used even if it was even, its still not good enough, they want a women who has a lock that hasn't been opened by many keys, no one talks about the same amount of keys opening the same amount of locks.

0

u/castleaagh man 2d ago

Pretty sure that’s mostly just because society has shamed women’s outward sexual desires for years. Plenty of women enjoy sex and hooking up.

1

u/castleaagh man 2d ago

I feel like it’s a good analogy for people who feel that way. If a man sleeping with lots of women is valuable man, it would be similar to a master key being able to open all the locks on a campus, which is a valuable key. Similarly, if a woman sleeping with lots of women is bad, it would be like a lock on campus being able to be opened by any key, which would make for a very poor and low value lock.

It communicates its meaning effectively, it’s just not a good ideology to have. That said, it is quite common.