[heattemp99]

Because I don't want to feel like a fool for sticking with and supporting this woman from 40-70, when she was giving it up easily at 18-30. Luckily I'm tall and decent looking and do fine for myself, but I still have a gut feeling for reality.

Regarding the beauty.. idk what to tell you. Same reason why some people hold onto their first car, or a car they bought new and love it. Or restore old cars. But if you buy an old beat up car, you use it while you can and move on when you feel like it. Nostalgia and memories are important to many people.

[aschearer]

I appreciate that you stand by your words.

I don't understand why you would feel like a fool assuming you entered the relationship eyes-wide-open.

Regarding your second point, you switch from first person to saying what is important to many people. But: 1) why should I believe you on that count? 2) in the context of a _personal_ relationship, why does it matter what's important to others? (Minus, of course, _one_ other.)

Without trying trying to put too many words in your mouth, perhaps you are seeking a trophy more than a partner? Someone you can support and be proud of -- just like you might feel pride for an old car you restored. And who won't embarass you by her past conduct?

Have you considered approaching relationships from a different angle? For example, you might consider love to be an incredible gift that can only be given freely. Or you might consider a relationship as the ultimate trust-building-game, and a fun one too. Or that the unit of significance isn't the individual but the couple. To name some examples.

In my opinion, you are viewing a relationship in instrumental terms. That is, "what will it give _me_." But such a view is inherently incompatible with the project of love, I believe.

[mensetmanusman]

It’s possible he is just more protective of his soul. True love is signing up for extreme loss and sacrifice either through death or otherwise.

If the ‘otherwise’ column is too risky due to past behavior, it is super-rational to behave as stated.

[racked]

There's another way to look at this. When your partner has had many previous partners, it means that you are extra special, because even after all that prior experience, they choose you!

And about longevity, if you ask me, the most important factors for a solid relationship are:

1. Being completely comfortable around each other. No grudges. Being able to talk about anything, even if you don't always agree.

2. (related to #1) Having a mechanism for resolving conflict. Avoiding things like the silent treatment.

[distant_hat]

Knowing many women who had north of 50-100 partners, 'extra special' certainly isn't the case. Usually they are settling down because no one wants to stick with them and you are likely to be the next one who will abandon them. If this logic made sense, sex workers would be the most sought after partners.

[drekipus]

I say that for every house plant that died in my care. "You're the special one, #237, it's you and me bud."

[wiseowise]

> When your partner has had many previous partners, it means that you are extra special, because even after all that prior experience, they choose you!

…that’s not how it works.

[heattemp99]

They did not "choose you". They could not get any of the others to commit.

[wruza]

A popular statistical advice is to meet N people (30..100), determine the level of “bestness” (ignoring extraordinary anomalies) and then to continue until you find something like that again. Calculating chances of being that last person is left as an exercise to the reader.

[TRiG_Ireland]

"giving it up easily"

Ugh. Some people like casual sex. Some people don't. Neither of these are worse people. And the idea that sex is something that women "give up" to men is weird, gross, misogynistic nonsense.

[IcyClAyMptHe]

women are the traditional gatekeepers for sex. All the "misogyny" handwaving in the world does not alter that fact. It's why the response numbers for men and women on dating apps are what they are

[bungeonsBaggins]

> I don't want to feel like a fool for sticking with and supporting this woman from 40-70, when she was giving it up easily at 18-30

jesus

[ZephyrBlu]

What he's saying is that women are generally at their hottest and get the most attention from 18-30. They have the position of power in attracting a mate. If they have 20+ partners they clearly took advantage of that.

If you're a 40yr old man who has worked his ass off to reach a position where you are an attractive mate, you probably now have the position of power instead of a women of the same age.

The usually unsaid part of this is that the woman in question wouldn't have given you the time of day when you were in your 20s. It's only when you are in the position of power they start to consider you as an option, at which point it makes less sense for you to consider them an option.

That is why this feels like a slap in the face for a man, and also why men go after younger women. When they were a young man, they had no power. When they get older, they have more power.

[input_sh]

Threads like these are always eye-opening about the kind of person that frequents this place.

[hgomersall]

It's actually good news we've discovered a portal to 1955.

[andrepd]

Literally incel meme material. Unfortunate that after the sexual revolution many people want to revert back to repression and self-shame for our sexual desires.

[rrgok]

I don't understand why people are trying to make you feel bad for having simple emotions. I'm with you, if you feel this way it is perfectly valid.

People are so triggered for men having preferences these days. We are humans too.

[TRiG_Ireland]

It's not about "having preferences"; it's about the fact that this man clearly despises women. And normal people find that disturbing and distasteful.

[wiseowise]

> Because I don't want to feel like a fool for sticking with and supporting this woman from 40-70, when she was giving it up easily at 18-30.

Tough luck. Either find some 20 year old without 5 partners or relax and make peace with idea that you lost your chance in this life.

[heattemp99]

I'm 38. It's superficially easy to find a 28 year old, and would take a slight bit of effort to get with a 23 year old. And all bets are off if someone is ok going to eastern Europe or Asia. "Lost your chance in life" is retarded.

[idiotsecant]

But you say you're having trouble finding a meaningful relationship? I just can't understand why?!

[zer8k]

Because one of the meaningful, intimate, things someone can give you was given up 23 times in a row. You're not special and that has an effect on one's psyche. You can certainly enjoy a person's company but you will never be able to connect to them on anything more than a surface level. If a person puts themselves in a very vulnerable position with numerous people it speaks volumes about their ability to maintain relationships and assess risk. Even without getting into the spirtuality of it the person is likely damaged goods. This goes equally for both genders - by the way.

Divorce rates correlate strongly with previous partner count. It's easy to find a meaningful relationship. It's hard to find a relationship where you're not going to be compared to 23 other men (or women). At 30+ you're also dealing with potential kids from the other person which in the case of fathers is a minefield should you stick around long enough to become "defacto" dad in the eye of the court.

[heattemp99]

I didn't say I had trouble finding a meaningful relationship. I said I'm having trouble finding meaning in dating 38 year old women.

[tomcam]

These comments of yours help no one, especially yourself.

[kaba0]

Giving it up easily? You reek of that incel energy. I hope you have more respect for actual people in your life than that.

[wruza]

Never understood this “call them incel” movement. It neither earns you respect nor makes a point. Even if they are involuntarily celibate, what does that mean in this context? It’s involuntary. You being a jerk to a (figuratively) disabled person who complains that ramps only lead to places which have seen life.

[DiggyJohnson]

This comment is completely against our guidelines. Find some other way to communicate disagreement or find somewhere else.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[Levitz]

You can't shame someone for the worldview that women "Give up sex" in the same sentence you shame them for not managing to get sex as a man. It doesn't make sense.

[Nursie]

> Because I don't want to feel like a fool for sticking with and supporting this woman from 40-70, when she was giving it up easily at 18-30.

Misogyny shining though there. You feel you have to support someone rather than be equals. You resent that they may have slept with other people when they were younger (but presumably you did as well, as a tall, decent looking man). The very use of the phrase 'giving it up easily' implies you think it's a woman's role to not 'give it up'.

Your whole thread reeks of double standards. Did you never 'give it up' easily in your 20s? Or does that not apply to men?

[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

[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.

[volkl48]

This feels like it only makes much sense if you had an unsatisfying youth yourself or truly never wanted to do any of that exploring (you'd have turned it down even if the opportunity presented itself).

It takes two to play. I had some fun in my teens + 20s, I learned some things about myself and relationships, mostly pleasantly but occasionally not. I don't begrudge others for spending their youth exploring and learning the same sorts of things.

I'm not supporting someone I'm dating financially - they've usually got a decent career going, they don't need and aren't asking for my wallet.