Married guys

[+ quoththeraven]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37853719/ns/health-sexual_health/t/surprising-sex-statistics/#.V4mOvbgrLIU

 

Well there's the fact that the median number of sexual partners for men is something like double that for women. Not possible unless a smaller number of women have multiple partners, and those women have way more. Which means that the bulk of women are more selective than the bulk of men.

There's also the fact that males lose their virginity at a younger average age than females, despite the fact that puberty typically starts a couple of years earlier for females. Now I suppose one could argue that has something to do with parents being less protective of their sons in that regard.

 

Again, I am not challenging your experience, just stating that it's not the norm. Nobody on this board is likely in the "normal" range of experience if we're talking about population-wide trends.

 

That suggests who is saying no, but doesn't prove it.

 

There's a larger issue here about sexual and gender equality summed up in this essay, which I've linked to before.

 

https://goodmenproject.com/noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz/on-sexual-aggressiveness/

 

An excerpt (it also mentions the conquest model of sex, which ties into the concept of women as gatekeepers or sentries rather than as equal negotiators; this uses the image of a besieged castle where the woman is the castle and its defenders):

 

There are two models– one could call them the “rape culture” and the “consent culture” models. Very few people are pure rape-culture or pure consent-culture; nevertheless, I’ll describe them in their purest forms, so you can see them clearly.

 

Rape culture: Sex is about a man, who is the only one who actually desires sex, pushing a woman as far as she is willing to go. Sex occurs in a rigid set of steps: kissing, then breast-groping, then manual, then oral, then PIV; any other sex acts are signs that the man has Super Won (or that he’s a pathetic loser). Any tactic, short of ignoring a direct no (and even then) is allowable. Rape is basically like committing a foul: as long as you don’t do anything that’s technically against the rules, it’s all good, and calling someone a rapist for ignoring a “I’d rather not” is like the ref calling the ball out of bounds when it was clearly inside. If they have intercourse, the man has won and the woman has lost: he’s awesome, and she’s a slut who needs to learn to respect herself. The woman’s goal is to get a man into a relationship; if she gets his commitment, he’s pussywhipped and she’s a Smug Married/Be-boyfriend-ed (God I love Bridget Jones). Queer people can, with some straining, be fit into this model; the general idea is that one is the ‘man’ and another is the ‘woman.’

 

Consent culture: Some people decide that sex (whatever that means to them) would be fun and then have mutually enjoyable sex with each other. The end.

(Emphasis added.)

 

I know which paradigm I prefer, but it's not the culturally-favored one.

[instudiocity]

Why the "warning"? Besides I don't look at monogamy as some high virtue anyways. Being honest with your partner is the only high virtue. If you can't do that then you don't have a real relationship.

The 'warning' was sarcastic re: Mrylndr'40's declaration that 100% of gay men in gay marriages are promiscuous. Just a complicated way to point out the broad declaration of fact that ain't.

[instudiocity]

Well strictly speaking he said 100% MORE likely. So that means double the odds, not 100% odds. e.g if straight men have sex outside the relationship at a 20% rate, it's 40% among gay couples. I'm not sure of the exact rate of male vs female straying, but it does seem to be higher for men. So I don't think that's entirely wrong. OTOH it depends on your definition. Male-male couples seem WAY more likely to either be open or have a tacit agreement that the occasional dalliance will be overlooked. More men seem to want the option, so it stands to reason that male-male couples are more likely to exercise it.

And frankly because same-sex fucking around is not going to result in a baby and child support obligations, it is less of a "threat" to a lot of people. (HIV on the other hand...but there are now means to reduce that risk to effectively zero).

Either way you slice it, it's a broad declaration of fact with zero evidence. My basic point is "you cannot possibly say that with any authority at all."

[Becket]

Many escorts have said that they have many married (to women) clients. Some say the majority of their clients are married. It just reminds me of the fluidity of sexual orientation, and how useless and outdated the terms "gay" and "straight" have become. Kinsey's (sic) scale of 1-6 (better to google it than let me try to explain) is a closer approximation, but even it doesn't capture the variety. The fact is I don't know anyone who is 100% anything.

[oscarkin]

Many escorts have said that they have many married (to women) clients. Some say the majority of their clients are married. It just reminds me of the fluidity of sexual orientation, and how useless and outdated the terms "gay" and "straight" have become. Kinsey's (sic) scale of 1-6 (better to google it than let me try to explain) is a closer approximation, but even it doesn't capture the variety. The fact is I don't know anyone who is 100% anything.

I agree. And I think a great deal of time could be saved and personal anguish avoided if people stopped thinking about the question in binary terms. With all due respect to Kinsey et. al., even the idea of trying to place oneself at some numerical position on a sliding scale between "entirely straight" and "entirely gay" is artificial. I've been around long enough to recognize how much a given person's position on that scale can shift over time. Married to a woman, btw, but that's never stopped me from also liking men.

[caliguy]

The 'warning' was sarcastic re: Mrylndr'40's declaration that 100% of gay men in gay marriages are promiscuous. Just a complicated way to point out the broad declaration of fact that ain't.

I'm with you man and I agree.

Many escorts have said that they have many married (to women) clients. Some say the majority of their clients are married. It just reminds me of the fluidity of sexual orientation, and how useless and outdated the terms "gay" and "straight" have become. Kinsey's (sic) scale of 1-6 (better to google it than let me try to explain) is a closer approximation, but even it doesn't capture the variety. The fact is I don't know anyone who is 100% anything.

Yeah, but funny how many of those married guys will identify as straight.

[instudiocity]

Not meaning to pick a fight with you, but I really hate the "women are sentries" paradigm. I prefer something more egalitarian, less push and pull.

Egalitarian with a gal at the very beginning. How does either spouse become a sentry when both spouses (spice?) vowed something like "Forsaking all others, I take you, to have and to hold from this day forth till death do us part"?

[Rudynate]

Both my daughter and I have been in situations where it was the guy who said "no," in her case to over-clothes genital fondling (they were 15 and he didn't feel ready for it) and in my case to a kiss (and more, pretty obviously). How does that fit within the "men are all horndogs" paradigm?

 

A man who says "no" isn't a horndog? Couldn't he be a choosy horndog?

[+ glennnn]

This has been an interesting thread. I had my mind opened even wider, which can be a little painful, but necessary every now and then. Thank you to you all for sharing and for being so respectful and generous. I love this forum. Good night!

[+ quoththeraven]

A man who says "no" isn't a horndog? Couldn't he be a choosy horndog?

 

That's not the typical interpretation of horndog.

 

How do you know women aren't choosy horndogs and evidence to the contrary is due to the effect of patriarchal norms that hurt all of us?

[BaronArtz]

I will say that I am surprised at how many posters here profess to be married. Married to women, in particular. I had no idea.

[+ sniper]

That suggests who is saying no, but doesn't prove it.

 

There's a larger issue here about sexual and gender equality summed up in this essay, which I've linked to before.

 

https://goodmenproject.com/noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz/on-sexual-aggressiveness/

 

An excerpt (it also mentions the conquest model of sex, which ties into the concept of women as gatekeepers or sentries rather than as equal negotiators; this uses the image of a besieged castle where the woman is the castle and its defenders):

 

There are two models– one could call them the “rape culture” and the “consent culture” models. Very few people are pure rape-culture or pure consent-culture; nevertheless, I’ll describe them in their purest forms, so you can see them clearly.

 

Rape culture: Sex is about a man, who is the only one who actually desires sex, pushing a woman as far as she is willing to go. Sex occurs in a rigid set of steps: kissing, then breast-groping, then manual, then oral, then PIV; any other sex acts are signs that the man has Super Won (or that he’s a pathetic loser). Any tactic, short of ignoring a direct no (and even then) is allowable. Rape is basically like committing a foul: as long as you don’t do anything that’s technically against the rules, it’s all good, and calling someone a rapist for ignoring a “I’d rather not” is like the ref calling the ball out of bounds when it was clearly inside. If they have intercourse, the man has won and the woman has lost: he’s awesome, and she’s a slut who needs to learn to respect herself. The woman’s goal is to get a man into a relationship; if she gets his commitment, he’s pussywhipped and she’s a Smug Married/Be-boyfriend-ed (God I love Bridget Jones). Queer people can, with some straining, be fit into this model; the general idea is that one is the ‘man’ and another is the ‘woman.’

 

Consent culture: Some people decide that sex (whatever that means to them) would be fun and then have mutually enjoyable sex with each other. The end.

(Emphasis added.)

 

I know which paradigm I prefer, but it's not the culturally-favored one.

 

Ok I'm not sure we're really disagreeing on anything here except the question of who typically says no more in practice - and in a world of billions there will be a wide range of experiences and observations. I certainly prefer the consent culture paradigm as well. Interesting excerpt. I'll check out the article later.

[Rudynate]

That's not the typical interpretation of horndog.

 

How do you know women aren't choosy horndogs and evidence to the contrary is due to the effect of patriarchal norms that hurt all of us?

 

 

I never said anything about women. I was speaking only of men. I wouldn't presume to make such a generalization about the sexual lives of women because I don't know much about the sexual lives of women. I think if a woman wants to be a horndog, she should be horndog. It's nobody's business but hers.

[LADoug1]

Warning to all Gay Men married to a Gay Man, he's fooling around outside your marriage! Monogamy is non-existent in Gay marriages! After all 100% is the maximum of the group. Thus saith Mrylndr'40.

 

Isn't posting a profile on Grindr the very definition of 'openly bragging' about everything you're posting about yourself?

I can't disagree more. I'm certain there are truly monogamous relationships between two married gay men.

[Rudynate]

I can't disagree more. I'm certain there are truly monogamous relationships between two married gay men.

 

I know that there are.

[Rudynate]

That's not the typical interpretation of horndog.

 

How do you know women aren't choosy horndogs and evidence to the contrary is due to the effect of patriarchal norms that hurt all of us?

 

 

I reviewed a number of definitions on urban dictionary. I didn't find one that conveyed the notion that a horndog fucks all comers. Several definitions mentioned the idea that a horndog is a man who is always looking for sex. The fact that he's always looking implies some selectivity because, if he were just looking for somebody, anybody to fuck, he would have found them. It is, after all, pretty easy to find a sex partner if one will settle for anybody. Finding the right sex partner requires more searching. Think about the discussions on this site - all about finding the right escort.

[+ WilliamM]

I will say that I am surprised at how many posters here profess to be married. Married to women, in particular. I had no idea.

 

I would have been surprised too, but for a lengthy PM relationship with a married member of this forum. He left this site during the Rentboy crisis

 

I hope he is still doing well. Very nice guy.

[+ sniper]

When you think about it it makes sense. In many cases people are paying less for sex than for discretion/certainty. Or as someone else put it, "You don't pay them for sex - you pay them to go away after."

[+ quoththeraven]

I will say that I am surprised at how many posters here profess to be married. Married to women, in particular. I had no idea.

 

I think you can take them at their word, which makes it more than a mere profession.

 

It's a complicated world out there. Things aren't as much one thing or another (like straight/gay) as we've been led to think.

[+ quoththeraven]

I never said anything about women. I was speaking only of men. I wouldn't presume to make such a generalization about the sexual lives of women because I don't know much about the sexual lives of women. I think if a woman wants to be a horndog, she should be horndog. It's nobody's business but hers.

 

In a society that treats male and female sexuality as opposites, that's a somewhat disingenuous answer. You may not mean it that way, but others will see the characterization of men as horndogs as further reinforcement of what's masculine/manly as opposed to feminine/female.

 

If you tell me you're not aware of that and pay no attention to gender distinctions, I will find it difficult to believe you given your intelligence, self-awareness and past comments.

[+ Truereview]

Shit! I thought this ⬇️ was a horndog! 30+ years and I'm still learning the English language!

http://stuffonmymutt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/SOMM_47.jpg

By the way, for those arguing the term, could both be right?

 

Urban dictionary

horndog

not to be confused with corndog, a horndog is someone who desperately would like you in his/her pants. (yes, us girls can be horndogs too) horndogs tend to forget their natural surroundings because they are so horny they'll do anything to get inside you. The horndog is a mighty creature that will stop at nothing to fuck you, i gues is really what i'm really tryig to say. Now go out there and find yourself some condoms you naughty children

 

Merriam Webster

Definition of horndog

slang

1. : a lustful or sexually aggressive man
   

[Rudynate]

In a society that treats male and female sexuality as opposites, that's a somewhat disingenuous answer. You may not mean it that way, but others will see the characterization of men as horndogs as further reinforcement of what's masculine/manly as opposed to feminine/female.

 

If you tell me you're not aware of that and pay no attention to gender distinctions, I will find it difficult to believe you given your intelligence, self-awareness and past comments.

 

 

Truthfully, I don't pay much attention to questions of gender, not because I'm so evolved, but because it just isn't on my radar. I understand completely that I can afford to have this attitude because I am a man in a society dominated by men. I love being around women, I have female friends, I understand that questions around gender are important to them, and that they need to be important to them, but I don't particularly want to think deeply about gender issues or spend a lot of time talking about them.

[+ FreshFluff]

Can we get to talking about married men on the forum? I, for one, would be interested in hearing people's experiences and more importantly, so would married male lurkers.

[Rudynate]

Can we get to talking about married men on the forum? I, for one, would be interested in hearing people's experiences and more importantly, so would married male lurkers.

 

 

I'm all for that.

[BaronArtz]

For a client who is married to a man or to a woman, hiring an escort offers many advantages. You find somebody attractive or sexy, the escort agrees more or less to a scenario you are interested in, the price is 'right', you set it up so that your spouse is not likely to discover it. At the end of the session the escort 'goes away', as somebody observed. In most cases it is purely transactional and therefore not a direct threat to somebody's marriage. Hiring an escort is a relief of sorts for unmet needs in the marriage. Much simpler and easier than trying to date someone and engage in a courtship ritual. This is what it is to me. Or maybe I am just a hypocrite.

 

The reality of it can be quite different. The married client develops a crush on the escort. The married client spends too much money on escorts. The married client becomes careless and the spouse finds out. The married client is subjected to theft or blackmail. The married client becomes infected with contagious STDs as a result of hiring escorts ...

 

It is not that simple ...