True or False: Most men who fantasize about NSA sex with women can't handle it IRL

[elklindoxxx]

I'm curious what people think about this. I've noticed that a lot of men tend to claim they wish it were easier to not only get most women into bed, but also to agree with a casual NSA arrangement.

However, I've witnessed these same men (anecdotal evidence) actually get involved in such arrangements with women and after a few months, they start getting either possessive or "in their feelings" because she's actively, and openly, with other men besides them. This applies to both straight and bi men. They seem to entertain the fantasy about women having the same uninhibited attitudes as men with regards to sex, but when put into practice and they realize that whenever they're with her it's "just their turn" because they agreed to be part of "the rotation" they start to get buyer's remorse.

So which is it? Do men who go on about wishing most women were more willing to agree to NSA arrangements sincerely have no problems about being no more than her dick appointment for that week? Or, are they more likely to think it's cool in the beginning and then start to feel less enthusiastic once reality sets in? If so, why?

I have literally seen this play out with a few female friends and the outcome was the same; the dudes started getting possessive, emotional, and clingy. One actually got a little dangerous/violent. I also noticed two opposing viewpoints in the "online manosphere" wherein a bunch of dudes lament about women being too difficult to hook for casual sex and then in the same breath complaining about women casually sleeping with/dating multiple men. Figuring out what these kind of men actually want is very confusing, yet fascinating to pick apart.

Can someone make it make sense, please?

My partner and I go with other couples. So we have a lot of experience with NSA sex.

First of all, don't go into the manosphere looking to get an insight into NSA sex. That is a brew of toxic masculinity which has no basis in reality. It is a community of absolutely sexually frustrated males who have very little to no sexual success or having the capability of cultivating relationships with females. And getting sex advice from misogynists and incels is like getting advice on how to be a firefighter from an arsonist. And I'll leave it as that.

So I can only speak for myself. Having sex with my partner is one thing (intimacy and bonding) and when we go with other couples it is something else (recreational). And in order for you to enjoy yourself, you need to have the proper expectations. When we are having recreational sex, it's not about the long term compatibility or being soul mates. This is about 100% pure sexual gratification. It's not boyfriend/girlfriend sex. Where I one woman who I know had a whole laundry list of requirements that had to be met before having sex. And she would not have NSA because she had to be emotionally intimate with someone before having sexual relations. Whereas to me any my partner, going with other couples allows us to indulge in a guilt free rendezvous.

You simply need to realize that you are there for sexual activity not for emotional bonding. Keep the two separate. if you can't then there is going to be a problem.

 

[Sagittarius84]

Dude. The guys I'm talking didn't have, and still don't have, issues getting women. I don't know what else to tell you.

And I'll repeat, just because a man can successfully get women, doesn't mean it doesn't require lots of effort or he doesn't have issues to overcome.
Lots of people think I'm some sort of math savant, because the speed, accuracy, and perceived ease by which I solve problems. Truth is I'm just really thorough and put forth a lot of unwanted effort and oversight into a subject I hate, because I want to succeed at it and it helps in in my everyday life. If I could help it, I wouldn't calculate anything beyond simple multiplication/division.

Feel free to list the plethora of other consequences that aren't obvious (STD/STI) which would cause these men to have issues with their female fuck buddies sleeping with other men besides them.

I mean there's a spectrum, on the low end, access becomes an issue, time you're fucking other men is potentially time you could be fucking him. Further along just because a NSA guy has no personal issues with paternity/disease fears, doesn't mean another "NSA" guy doesn't; the more fuck buddies you have besides him the higher likelihood he may be unwittingly drawn into a conflict with another guy about to crash out.
Also the action of "actively and openly" pursuing can be translated in a variety of different ways a lot of which can be inadvertently or intentionally disrespectful; I imagine prior to Ice Spice's revelatory song there were a lot of guys perfectly happy orally pleasuring women on a NSA basis only to find out they were basically cleaning out these women for and from(yuck) whom they really wanted to fuck.

 

[AllieHeidi]

doesn't mean it doesn't require lots of effort or he doesn't have issues to overcome.

This vague statement can and does apply to anyone alive who is intentional on seeking a partner. I'm sure a lot of men think it's "easy" for women to get men into bed. In reality, most women have to become the equivalent of a National Security Agency intelligence analyst to ensure the man they decide to fuck is the least likely to be, at minimum, a risk to her personal safety. That'd be their "issues to overcome."

Also the action of "actively and openly" pursuing can be translated in a variety of different ways

Seems like he'd want to stay informed of her sexual activity outside of him for health reasons and should take her being candid with him about it as being respectful, but ok.

 

[kahlua123]

I never had trouble sharing a woman. That's most of my sexual history - friends with benefits. I had very few one-night stands, very few "fuck buddies" who basically fucked but nothing else, and very few monogamous relationships. It was almost all women who I had existing friendships with, or developed friendships with, but we also slept together, knowing that there was zero commitment. I'd be upset if a girl violated a commitment we made, like if we agreed to be monogamous and then she cheated, but I couldn't care less who she sleeps with if that's our agreement. I never "caught feelings" for a girl I was in that situation with except maybe one, and that was mutual. But we both knew it was better not to be committed to each other, in that case, so nothing bad happened as a result. And I only had to "cut off" one woman who caught feelings for me. Otherwise, it always went super smoothly and made great memories!

 

[Sagittarius84]

This vague statement can and does apply to anyone alive who is intentional on seeking a partner. I'm sure a lot of men think it's "easy" for women to get men into bed. In reality, most women have to become the equivalent of a National Security Agency intelligence analyst to ensure the man they decide to fuck is the least likely to be, at minimum, a risk to her personal safety. That'd be their "issues to overcome."

Bad comparison, the "hard" of being a NSA(clever, I see see you did there) analyst in discernment of a sexual partner only exists in the privilege of having the easy ability to get the men in the bed in the first place, a big part of the issues with men in their selection is that they don't have access to even discern from. Metaphorically, sure I can understand women's "struggle" in getting a good glass of tap water, or discerning if any individual brand of bottled water is best or not, but its going to fall on deaf ears to men in the desert whose only water source is cloudy, can't really sympathize with your "Fiji vs Dasani struggles"

Seems like he'd want to stay informed of her sexual activity outside of him for health reasons and should take her being candid with him about it as being respectful, but ok.

There's "I'm seeing other people" then there's parading other men in front, often comparing experiences. Anything being shared beyond simply her "dating" and she being clean is her laying strings to feed her ego or assuade her trauma.

 

[FrankieGuile]

I think it's a matter of "don't know I like, if I never try it".

For example, if I have never tasted a banana, how will I know if I like it or not?
Where the woman wouldn't even want to taste the banana.
But when she tasted it, she would get a taste for it.

Maybe the ratio of women that do try NSA don't like it either and freak out too. Is it a one way situation?

Does this make sense?

Since there is a lot less women that do want to try NSA, the pool is by default a lot less possible for men.
So men tend to be frustrated by this situation, not the "she's getting more men then me".

We are going back to the : men view sex as a pleasure/game and woman view sex as anchor for her emotions.

Whereas it does not obviate your conclusion (though I'm not quite sure of it), one does not have to try something to know it is not for them. Claiming otherwise, as you did, is a logical fallacy. Our brains have been hardwired over thousands and thousands of years to judge, and avoid, danger, translating to preferences, including a preference for many for secure, committed, loving relationships, without the need to "try" the alternative first, or at all.

 

[AllieHeidi]

can't really sympathize with your "Fiji vs Dasani struggles"

Perhaps if most men gave fewer statistical reasons for women to exercise caution in the first place, they'd have the same luxury.

 

[Sagittarius84]

We do, can't fault us for being more effective at violence when you guys are more prone to perpetrate it.

 

[Sagittarius84]

Perhaps if most men gave fewer statistical reasons for women to exercise caution in the first place, they'd have the same luxury.

And logically, you think the men least likely or able, or willing to be violent, make up the majority of whom women select for in the mating and dating market?

 

[Sagittarius84]

Personal anecdote: I had a nice little run of NSA situations from entry into college to about 20-21. Sure, some girls left a bigger impression than others, which may have had me think a little more whom else besides myself they were hooking up with, but the availability of other situations always outweighed that. The only issues that would come up would be when that availability was hindered and in simply inquiring why, I'd get an itemized description of the guy(and some vague inference of what he did), as if I was expected to compete with that in order to get my time "back". I imagine more than a couple of them went back to their friends talking about I couldn't "handle" an NSA situation, when I opted to not become entangled in those strings.

 

[iamjustme65]

Uh... yeah... hell no.
That is practically every straight/bi man's dream.
My first marriage absolutely sucked for over 10 years while I stayed home to raise the kids.
I had sex with one gal, almost a 2nd, and then add to that the ones that wanted to that I wouldn't do - all the reasons why I didn't/stopped was because they couldn't just have sex. They wanted more.
I would have jumped through a ring of fire to have a couple friends with bene's at the time!!

 

[AllieHeidi]

We do, can't fault us for being more effective at violence when you guys are more prone to perpetrate it.

This bullshit says all we need to know about you. Not like we didn't already, though.

 

[Sagittarius84]

This bullshit says all we need to know about you. Not like we didn't already, though.

It's bullshit that women are more prone to initiating or committing domestic violence, against men or each other, or is it bullshit that I dare bring that up as a retort to your weak reasoning...?
I like to know if im being reviled for spreading falsehoods, or if it's because I'm simply not supporting your world view, which tends to be par for the course for how men that don't adhere to gynocentric amicability are received.

 

[AllieHeidi]

It's bullshit that women are more prone to initiating or committing domestic violence, against men or each other, or is it bullshit that I dare bring that up as a retort to your weak reasoning...?
I like to know if im being reviled for spreading falsehoods, or if it's because I'm simply not supporting your world view, which tends to be par for the course for how men that don't adhere to gynocentric amicability are received.

 

[Sagittarius84]

Ahh so shaming, insults, guilting, need to be right with a splish splash of pale chivalry as the icing on the cake...guess we're all confirming for each other then....
You also realize the irony of whom was actually delusional in this scene, right?

 

[FrankieGuile]

It's bullshit that women are more prone to initiating or committing domestic violence, against men or each other, or is it bullshit that I dare bring that up as a retort to your weak reasoning...?
I like to know if im being reviled for spreading falsehoods, or if it's because I'm simply not supporting your world view, which tends to be par for the course for how men that don't adhere to gynocentric amicability are received.

You're not being "reviled," you're being challenged. One cannot know if you're "spreading falsehood," but rather questioning your credibility. That said, you walk close to the misogynistic line so one wonders if you're justifying how you might step over it.

 

[Sagittarius84]

You're not being "reviled," you're being challenged. One cannot know if you're "spreading falsehood," but rather questioning your credibility. That said, you walk close to the misogynistic line so one wonders if you're justifying how you might step over it.

A challenge entails some measure of logical retort, not a dismissal and an insult.

The very question this thread poses tiptoes into misandrist, specifically cis hetero misandrist waters and I don't think it is at all coincidental the instant someone offers a perspective that doesn't support the biases the question was formed under that some line is in danger of being stepped over.

 

[FrankieGuile]

A challenge entails some measure of logical retort, not a dismissal and an insult.

The very question this thread poses tiptoes into misandrist, specifically cis hetero misandrist waters and I don't think it is at all coincidental the instant someone offers a perspective that doesn't support the biases the question was formed under that some line is in danger of being stepped over.

I agree that conversation about sensitive subjects should not include dismissive remarks or insult -- foul language for that matter -- especially when accepted narratives are being challenged. You have my support there. Somehow the logic of your own point is not coming across, at least not as you intend, and certainly not to me. Perhaps a restatement of your point is in order.

 

[lapdog2001]

I'm curious what people think about this. I've noticed that a lot of men tend to claim they wish it were easier to not only get most women into bed, but also to agree with a casual NSA arrangement.

However, I've witnessed these same men (anecdotal evidence) actually get involved in such arrangements with women and after a few months, they start getting either possessive or "in their feelings" because she's actively, and openly, with other men besides them. This applies to both straight and bi men. They seem to entertain the fantasy about women having the same uninhibited attitudes as men with regards to sex, but when put into practice and they realize that whenever they're with her it's "just their turn" because they agreed to be part of "the rotation" they start to get buyer's remorse.

So which is it? Do men who go on about wishing most women were more willing to agree to NSA arrangements sincerely have no problems about being no more than her dick appointment for that week? Or, are they more likely to think it's cool in the beginning and then start to feel less enthusiastic once reality sets in? If so, why?

I chose False as I believe some men, and some women, can handle NSA sexual relationships. Personally, I've had some hookup sex, where I really didn't know the women well, but we both wanted to get laid, so we we had sex. Did any of those turn into relationships? No.

I've also had a friend who turned into a lover, and yes, I wanted a romantic relationship with her, but she wasn't sure. Were were exclusive for a short while, but she was a sexual free spirit if you will and a few months later started sleeping with other guys (but also with me, at least once or twice a week). We talked about our friendship (which was very good) or sex life (which was extremely good) and our lack of a true romantic relationship.

Once we were in agreement, we decided to stay friends, continue to hang out and do things together as friends, and that also included sex nearly every time we hung out. Sometimes it was the equivalent of today's "Netflix and chill", sometimes it was pure sexual desire, sometimes it was just enjoying time with each other, which included her sleeping over, which invariably led to sex.

We did have feelings for each other, but we both knew we weren't the right match for each other as a romantic married couple, having a family together. We genuinely loved each other as friends, and we had very strong sexual chemistry, so we greatly enjoyed giving each other pleasure. When she finally found a guy she saw a future with, I was the one that had to convince her to sleep only with him, and broke off the sexual part of our relationship.

 

[AllieHeidi]

I agree that conversation about sensitive subjects should not include dismissive remarks or insult -- foul language for that matter -- especially when accepted narratives are being challenged. You have my support there. Somehow the logic of your own point is not coming across, at least not as you intend, and certainly not to me. Perhaps a restatement of your point is in order.

He made a claim that men not having easy access to sex compared to women is a reason they wouldn't be sympathetic to the struggles that women experience when it comes to sex and romantic relationships. I responded to this by bringing up the fact that it's more dangerous for women to be less cautious when it comes to "making it easier for men to have sex with them."

Unfortunately, men are statistically more likely to commit acts of violence against women on a first encounter than the inverse. Hence, the caution that translates into "difficulty" for most men getting most women into bed without "jumping through hoops" (read: safety vetting). His response to this was to stamp his feet and blame women for men being violent towards them and that is why he received such a dismissive response and will continue to receive the same, moving forward.

Hope this clears things up.