FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Married/attached men : a survey

Married/attached men : a survey

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

My gut feeling is that for a man to state openly that he has a wife or partner who doesn't know he is on here will significantly reduce his chances of a meet with women and couples, so I thought I would see if that feeling was borne out evidentially

So, if you are a woman or couple open to meeting single men, please say which of the following applies to you.

If you get a message from man stating he is married or attached and his partner doesn't know he is on here would you

1. Definitely not meet him

2.,be less likely to meet him

3. It wouldn't make any difference

4. Be more likely to meet him.

Please just state a number. We're a 2.

I'll keep this going until 430, then announce the results.

Note this is not a married man bashing thread, I am genuinely intrigued. I am restricting it to men as I don't think married women with unknowing partners will have a significant handicap given the ratios. Obviously someone can do a married woman survey if they like

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elma and ShaggyCouple over a year ago

Bedworth

Most definitely 1

If he were married/attached and playing with consent of his partner it would be a different answer

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *amissCouple over a year ago

chelmsford

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why is it always about married guys

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"Why is it always about married guys

As I say, there's no judgment about married men, it's just something I find interesting.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hostheman1972Man over a year ago

tipperary

We do get such bad press

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uzukiNo1Woman over a year ago

Rhyl

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *c1989Woman over a year ago

Manchester

There are various factors that put me off. It would be hypocritical of me to say absolutely not though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

2 but nothing is set in stone

Peach x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ornylittlesubWoman over a year ago

Grangemouth

Definitely a 1. And do you think there is any link to someones morals? Oh wait, i got crucified before for suggesting that swingers can indeed still have morals. My bad

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

4 less likely to become a pest and stalker if married no one knows anyone else's circumstances ( and i was a wife of a cheat)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ily WhiteWoman over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ady LickWoman over a year ago

Northampton Somewhere

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *SAchickWoman over a year ago

Hillside desolate

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *electableDalliancesCouple over a year ago

leeds

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

I will add though I find it easier if the person is single just for logistical reasons usually.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!"

no because it completely depends on the individual and their circumstances and how I feel about them and on any particular day so no there is no number. Sometimes I will look at a profile and I will think no I'm not interested in because he's married other days I will look at a profile and think it's not an issue. That is how I feel and I don't have to put a number to it.

I don't understand why prills on this site seems so keen but everybody in a little box or category.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody."
m

Still number 3 though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?"

and no it's not number 3 because sometimes it does make a difference.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?"

Because you're saying that someone's marital status makes no difference to you. Hence a 3.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hortieWoman over a year ago

Northampton

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody."

No that face was to him lovely not you. Your choice totally

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?"

Cause I’m very needy and insincere, but doesn’t change the fact it’s 3. I might take a while to reply to your next comment cause I’ve got to put up some dry wall.

*cough* still 3 *cough*

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?

Because you're saying that someone's marital status makes no difference to you. Hence a 3.

no it's very clear that I have said that sometimes it makes a difference I'm sometimes it doesn't.

So again why does this matter this is exactly what I'm saying you all seem so upset about the fact I'm not prepared to pigeonhole somebody and put someone in a category or a box.

The fact I'm being goaded into doing Eso says far more about you than it does about me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?

Cause I’m very needy and insincere, but doesn’t change the fact it’s 3. I might take a while to reply to your next comment cause I’ve got to put up some dry wall.

*cough* still 3 *cough*"

Like I said says more about you than it does about me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.

No that face was to him lovely not you. Your choice totally

I know and I appreciate that.

but I think people have probably gathered now when I get passionate about something I'm not going to let it drop. Lol

I know I should but the point I'm trying to make is there are many factors at play and I don't like the fact everybody seems to think people need to fit in a certain box or category when actually they don't.

But that's just me I guess and I'm not going to change.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?

Because you're saying that someone's marital status makes no difference to you. Hence a 3.

no it's very clear that I have said that sometimes it makes a difference I'm sometimes it doesn't.

So again why does this matter this is exactly what I'm saying you all seem so upset about the fact I'm not prepared to pigeonhole somebody and put someone in a category or a box.

The fact I'm being goaded into doing Eso says far more about you than it does about me."

I started this thread to do a survey. If you reject the whole premise of the survey (which is about putting people in categories or "boxes" if you like), perhaps you should avoid it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

May I ask why this is only open to women and couples?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?

Because you're saying that someone's marital status makes no difference to you. Hence a 3.

no it's very clear that I have said that sometimes it makes a difference I'm sometimes it doesn't.

So again why does this matter this is exactly what I'm saying you all seem so upset about the fact I'm not prepared to pigeonhole somebody and put someone in a category or a box.

The fact I'm being goaded into doing Eso says far more about you than it does about me.

I started this thread to do a survey. If you reject the whole premise of the survey (which is about putting people in categories or "boxes" if you like), perhaps you should avoid it? "

And I answered your survey!

just not in a way that you wanted me to so perhaps you should accept when you start a thread everybody has the right to reply in the way they choose as long as it is respectful and not breaking any rules

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hostheman1972Man over a year ago

tipperary

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

Just do what you feel comfortable with .

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?

Because you're saying that someone's marital status makes no difference to you. Hence a 3.

no it's very clear that I have said that sometimes it makes a difference I'm sometimes it doesn't.

So again why does this matter this is exactly what I'm saying you all seem so upset about the fact I'm not prepared to pigeonhole somebody and put someone in a category or a box.

The fact I'm being goaded into doing Eso says far more about you than it does about me.

I started this thread to do a survey. If you reject the whole premise of the survey (which is about putting people in categories or "boxes" if you like), perhaps you should avoid it?

And I answered your survey!

Well absolutely. It just seems a little strange if your whole point is to deny the validity of putting people in boxes, that you should decide to participate in a thread that does precisely that.

But each to their own.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ewBurtonMan over a year ago

Derby

I’m a 4. But I don’t count lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Are you doing one for married women to balance outthe forum thingy?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?

Because you're saying that someone's marital status makes no difference to you. Hence a 3.

no it's very clear that I have said that sometimes it makes a difference I'm sometimes it doesn't.

So again why does this matter this is exactly what I'm saying you all seem so upset about the fact I'm not prepared to pigeonhole somebody and put someone in a category or a box.

The fact I'm being goaded into doing Eso says far more about you than it does about me.

I started this thread to do a survey. If you reject the whole premise of the survey (which is about putting people in categories or "boxes" if you like), perhaps you should avoid it?

And I answered your survey!

Well absolutely. It just seems a little strange if your whole point is to deny the validity of putting people in boxes, that you should decide to participate in a thread that does precisely that.

But each to their own. "

What you have written doesn't make any sense!

I commented because I have an opinion and I'm allowed that opinion just because I don't fit into a category does not make my point any less valid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?

Because you're saying that someone's marital status makes no difference to you. Hence a 3.

no it's very clear that I have said that sometimes it makes a difference I'm sometimes it doesn't.

So again why does this matter this is exactly what I'm saying you all seem so upset about the fact I'm not prepared to pigeonhole somebody and put someone in a category or a box.

The fact I'm being goaded into doing Eso says far more about you than it does about me.

I started this thread to do a survey. If you reject the whole premise of the survey (which is about putting people in categories or "boxes" if you like), perhaps you should avoid it?

And I answered your survey!

You can't tick a box that isn't there.

When I find that problem on a survey I close the tab, with a miffed look on my face

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inful xWoman over a year ago

In a sleepy little village

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?

Because you're saying that someone's marital status makes no difference to you. Hence a 3.

no it's very clear that I have said that sometimes it makes a difference I'm sometimes it doesn't.

So again why does this matter this is exactly what I'm saying you all seem so upset about the fact I'm not prepared to pigeonhole somebody and put someone in a category or a box.

The fact I'm being goaded into doing Eso says far more about you than it does about me.

I started this thread to do a survey. If you reject the whole premise of the survey (which is about putting people in categories or "boxes" if you like), perhaps you should avoid it?

And I answered your survey!

You can't tick a box that isn't there.

When I find that problem on a survey I close the tab, with a miffed look on my face

I just use the other comments section. Lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

A fifth category of ‘It depends’ may well have prevented this argument

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?

Because you're saying that someone's marital status makes no difference to you. Hence a 3.

no it's very clear that I have said that sometimes it makes a difference I'm sometimes it doesn't.

So again why does this matter this is exactly what I'm saying you all seem so upset about the fact I'm not prepared to pigeonhole somebody and put someone in a category or a box.

The fact I'm being goaded into doing Eso says far more about you than it does about me.

I started this thread to do a survey. If you reject the whole premise of the survey (which is about putting people in categories or "boxes" if you like), perhaps you should avoid it?

And I answered your survey!

Well absolutely. It just seems a little strange if your whole point is to deny the validity of putting people in boxes, that you should decide to participate in a thread that does precisely that.

But each to their own.

What you have written doesn't make any sense!

I commented because I have an opinion and I'm allowed that opinion just because I don't fit into a category does not make my point any less valid."

I'm treating to ascertain general attitudes re meeting attached men. Everyone else has been able to fit into the four boxes I said out. Of course you can tell us how special and individual you are and how you don't fit in any of the boxes, but you will see that contributes nothing to the point of the thread.

Anyway, this silly argument has derailed the thread, so you can have the last word and I'll carry on with the survey.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

To be fair they did say comment 1 2 3 or 4. If I wasn’t able to do that I’d have probably moved on.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?

Because you're saying that someone's marital status makes no difference to you. Hence a 3.

no it's very clear that I have said that sometimes it makes a difference I'm sometimes it doesn't.

So again why does this matter this is exactly what I'm saying you all seem so upset about the fact I'm not prepared to pigeonhole somebody and put someone in a category or a box.

The fact I'm being goaded into doing Eso says far more about you than it does about me.

I started this thread to do a survey. If you reject the whole premise of the survey (which is about putting people in categories or "boxes" if you like), perhaps you should avoid it?

And I answered your survey!

Well absolutely. It just seems a little strange if your whole point is to deny the validity of putting people in boxes, that you should decide to participate in a thread that does precisely that.

But each to their own.

What you have written doesn't make any sense!

I commented because I have an opinion and I'm allowed that opinion just because I don't fit into a category does not make my point any less valid.

Anyway, this silly argument has derailed the thread, so you can have the last word and I'll carry on with the survey. "

I was absolutely no need for you to get personal.

You have said you wanted people's views and opinions and I have given mine.

Rather than being fixated on me maybe you should reply to some of the other people who have not commented with a number.

yes I think differently to a lot of other people I am aware of this however I am not going to be told by you or anybody else but I am wrong.

You asked for opinions I gave one and I am not going to apologise just because you didn't like it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"To be fair they did say comment 1 2 3 or 4. If I wasn’t able to do that I’d have probably moved on.

Other people have put different comments so this is now becoming rather personal.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"A fifth category of ‘It depends’ may well have prevented this argument

But that's my point we're not allowed a fifth opinion on these threads without being shot down.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hongman1Man over a year ago

Mansfield

"Are you doing one for married women to balance outthe forum thingy?"

Married women don’t sleep with other men my dear!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hostheman1972Man over a year ago

tipperary

"Are you doing one for married women to balance outthe forum thingy?

Married women don’t sleep with other men my dear!

They dont sleep at all

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"A fifth category of ‘It depends’ may well have prevented this argument

But that's my point we're not allowed a fifth opinion on these threads without being shot down."

Survey design errors occur quite frequently I find the feedback useful when I’m doing them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?

Because you're saying that someone's marital status makes no difference to you. Hence a 3.

no it's very clear that I have said that sometimes it makes a difference I'm sometimes it doesn't.

So again why does this matter this is exactly what I'm saying you all seem so upset about the fact I'm not prepared to pigeonhole somebody and put someone in a category or a box.

The fact I'm being goaded into doing Eso says far more about you than it does about me.

I started this thread to do a survey. If you reject the whole premise of the survey (which is about putting people in categories or "boxes" if you like), perhaps you should avoid it?

And I answered your survey!

You can't tick a box that isn't there.

When I find that problem on a survey I close the tab, with a miffed look on my face

I just use the other comments section. Lol"

Not if there isn't one

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You should have had an "other" option KP.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

Are you Sydney University?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

OK let's get back to the OP please

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

1 for us

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"None of the above.

I try and treat everybody as an individual and it depends entirely on the situation and if I'm honest my mood on that particular day.

So number 3 then, even I worked that one out!

This is really irritating I am an individual and I treat people as such and I'm not going to pigeonhole anybody.m

Still number 3 though.

You are clearly very desperate to be proved right!

Why should it matter to you?

Because you're saying that someone's marital status makes no difference to you. Hence a 3.

no it's very clear that I have said that sometimes it makes a difference I'm sometimes it doesn't.

So again why does this matter this is exactly what I'm saying you all seem so upset about the fact I'm not prepared to pigeonhole somebody and put someone in a category or a box.

The fact I'm being goaded into doing Eso says far more about you than it does about me.

I started this thread to do a survey. If you reject the whole premise of the survey (which is about putting people in categories or "boxes" if you like), perhaps you should avoid it?

And I answered your survey!

You can't tick a box that isn't there.

When I find that problem on a survey I close the tab, with a miffed look on my face

I just use the other comments section. Lol

Not if there isn't one

You mean like your reply?

you asked if another thread was going to be started so my point is this is all become rather personal and unnecessary simply because I dared to have a different opinion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"You should have had an "other" option KP."

Only one person thinks four options are not enough, so I am fine with my survey design

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ink Panther.Woman over a year ago

Preston

I WAS a 3

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eefdoddusCouple over a year ago

Scottish Borders

1 for us too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You should have had an "other" option KP.

Only one person thinks four options are not enough, so I am fine with my survey design

Actually if you read my original comment I didn't say that it not enough options, was only when I was questioned and asked to explain myself that this continued. If people didn't like my response they could have simply ignored it I haven't felt the need to defend myself because it all got a little bit personal.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

"OK let's get back to the OP please"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are you doing one for married women to balance outthe forum thingy?"

Now that would be interesting

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hostheman1972Man over a year ago

tipperary

"Are you doing one for married women to balance outthe forum thingy?

Now that would be interesting

Very

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uriousCouple999Couple over a year ago

edinburgh

1 for us to

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are you doing one for married women to balance outthe forum thingy?"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"To be fair they did say comment 1 2 3 or 4. If I wasn’t able to do that I’d have probably moved on.

Me too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"Are you doing one for married women to balance outthe forum thingy?

Now that would be interesting

Very"

I'll do that tomorrow and we can compare the results

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 13/02/19 15:27:46]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are you doing one for married women to balance outthe forum thingy?

Now that would be interesting

Very

I'll do that tomorrow and we can compare the results

That will be as dodgy a vote as the brexit one that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *wisted999Man over a year ago

North Bucks

Only on Fab

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *viatrixWoman over a year ago

Redhill

Most men I’ve met are married and their wives don’t know. Their reasons are varied. We don’t discuss marriages- theirs or mine.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eal Deal PartiesWoman over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *layfulCouple86Couple over a year ago

Lancashire

We're a 2

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *issmorganWoman over a year ago

Calderdale innit

1 for me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arah_kieran_ukCouple over a year ago

Greater London

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

1. Thankyou to everyone who was honest enough to say 4. I know who to avoid in future.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lik and PaulCouple over a year ago

Flagrante

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You should have had an "other" option KP.

Only one person thinks four options are not enough, so I am fine with my survey design

Ah, but other people who couldn't tick 1, 2, 3 or 4 might have ticked other instead of not commenting.

You have to cover all bases on a survey

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"1. Thankyou to everyone who was honest enough to say 4. I know who to avoid in future. "

You’re very welcome

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r n Mrs NaughtyCouple over a year ago

eccles

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"You should have had an "other" option KP.

Only one person thinks four options are not enough, so I am fine with my survey design

Ah, but other people who couldn't tick 1, 2, 3 or 4 might have ticked other instead of not commenting.

You have to cover all bases on a survey

I did think of adding

5. Would definitely meet them

But I thought it extremely unlikely anyone would have a married man fetish to that extent

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oul BrothaMan over a year ago

A Galaxy far far away

Looking forward to the detailed statistical analysis

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"1. Thankyou to everyone who was honest enough to say 4. I know who to avoid in future. "

Glad to have been of service

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Wow that’s a shocker haha.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It’s not a landslide victory for seeing it as a complete negative looking at the total score for 3 & 4.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It’s not a landslide victory for seeing it as a complete negative looking at the total score for 3 & 4."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?"

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ady LickWoman over a year ago

Northampton Somewhere

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

I see those results slightly differently.

39% definitely wouldn't

50% quite possibly would and

11% definitely would.

Which is a surprise given the backlash married guys often experience in these here forums!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"It’s not a landslide victory for seeing it as a complete negative looking at the total score for 3 & 4."

If the survey is representative he'll put off about seven times more people than he'll attract. Even if we like include the not bothereds it's still over three to one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not. "

So there were 2 negative options but only 1 positive?

Saying it wouldn't matter one or the other would put them in the positive category.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

I see those results slightly differently.

39% definitely wouldn't

50% quite possibly would and

11% definitely would.

Which is a surprise given the backlash married guys often experience in these here forums!"

Exactly!!

The only definite negative answer is the 39%

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

I see those results slightly differently.

39% definitely wouldn't

50% quite possibly would and

11% definitely would.

Which is a surprise given the backlash married guys often experience in these here forums!"

Are you Peter Mandelson

No one ever said that there were not people OK with married men, but 71% of people see it as a negative.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You have interpreted your data wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not.

So there were 2 negative options but only 1 positive?

Saying it wouldn't matter one or the other would put them in the positive category. "

Eh?

How do you work that out.

There was only one positive category because no one would say they would definitely meet a man who said he was married.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

I see those results slightly differently.

39% definitely wouldn't

50% quite possibly would and

11% definitely would.

Which is a surprise given the backlash married guys often experience in these here forums!

Are you Peter Mandelson

No one ever said that there were not people OK with married men, but 71% of people see it as a negative. "

But they don’t, it’s not 71% if 32% are in the “less likely” category - less likely still means it’s a possibility.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not. "

Less likely doesn't mean won't meet.

Less likely to meet than who? Less likely depending on where they meet them.

It has a lot of variables and you're only looking at one: the one that suggests they won't meet.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

I see those results slightly differently.

39% definitely wouldn't

50% quite possibly would and

11% definitely would.

Which is a surprise given the backlash married guys often experience in these here forums!

Are you Peter Mandelson

No one ever said that there were not people OK with married men, but 71% of people see it as a negative.

But they don’t, it’s not 71% if 32% are in the “less likely” category - less likely still means it’s a possibility."

It's a possibility but less likely. Hence its a negative attribute. If people in that category fancy two blokes equally and one is single and one is married, by definition they will choose the single.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not.

Less likely doesn't mean won't meet.

Less likely to meet than who? Less likely depending on where they meet them.

It has a lot of variables and you're only looking at one: the one that suggests they won't meet.

"less likely" means everything else being equal, a single will be preferred to a married.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Also- and I don't want to seem a pedant here- You didn't state whether it's a sex meet, or a social

I would 100% meet a married man for a social, if I liked him.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So its only 39% that definitely wouldnt't.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not.

So there were 2 negative options but only 1 positive?

Saying it wouldn't matter one or the other would put them in the positive category.

Eh?

How do you work that out.

There was only one positive category because no one would say they would definitely meet a man who said he was married. "

It's positive because they will meet them either way. How is saying their marital status doesn't matter not a positive position?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not.

Less likely doesn't mean won't meet.

Less likely to meet than who? Less likely depending on where they meet them.

It has a lot of variables and you're only looking at one: the one that suggests they won't meet.

"less likely" means everything else being equal, a single will be preferred to a married. "

But it doesn't mean they won't meet them. It's not a definitive no.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ady LickWoman over a year ago

Northampton Somewhere

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

I see those results slightly differently.

39% definitely wouldn't

50% quite possibly would and

11% definitely would.

Which is a surprise given the backlash married guys often experience in these here forums!

Are you Peter Mandelson

No one ever said that there were not people OK with married men, but 71% of people see it as a negative. "

No I'm not, I'll agree to differ seeing as it's your thread

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

I see those results slightly differently.

39% definitely wouldn't

50% quite possibly would and

11% definitely would.

Which is a surprise given the backlash married guys often experience in these here forums!

Are you Peter Mandelson

No one ever said that there were not people OK with married men, but 71% of people see it as a negative.

But they don’t, it’s not 71% if 32% are in the “less likely” category - less likely still means it’s a possibility.

Maybe it’s me but I find your reasoning isn’t on the same track as mine...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpair OP Couple over a year ago

London

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not.

So there were 2 negative options but only 1 positive?

Saying it wouldn't matter one or the other would put them in the positive category.

Eh?

How do you work that out.

There was only one positive category because no one would say they would definitely meet a man who said he was married.

It's positive because they will meet them either way. How is saying their marital status doesn't matter not a positive position? "

Because there's no preference to them being married. It's neither positive nor negative.

I was trying to establish how far being married was a negative. It is for 71%. 11% see it as a positive, so perhaps the best way is to say being married is a net negative of 60%.

Which is probably a round about way of saying the same thing..

I'm off now

Women tomorrow ??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *amissCouple over a year ago

chelmsford

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not.

So there were 2 negative options but only 1 positive?

Saying it wouldn't matter one or the other would put them in the positive category.

Eh?

How do you work that out.

There was only one positive category because no one would say they would definitely meet a man who said he was married.

It's positive because they will meet them either way. How is saying their marital status doesn't matter not a positive position?

Because there's no preference to them being married. It's neither positive nor negative.

I was trying to establish how far being married was a negative. It is for 71%. 11% see it as a positive, so perhaps the best way is to say being married is a net negative of 60%.

Which is probably a round about way of saying the same thing..

I'm off now

Women tomorrow ?? "

Looking forward to the women one!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not.

So there were 2 negative options but only 1 positive?

Saying it wouldn't matter one or the other would put them in the positive category.

Eh?

How do you work that out.

There was only one positive category because no one would say they would definitely meet a man who said he was married.

It's positive because they will meet them either way. How is saying their marital status doesn't matter not a positive position?

Because there's no preference to them being married. It's neither positive nor negative.

I was trying to establish how far being married was a negative. It is for 71%. 11% see it as a positive, so perhaps the best way is to say being married is a net negative of 60%.

Which is probably a round about way of saying the same thing..

I'm off now

Women tomorrow ??

Looking forward to the women one!

Me too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 13/02/19 17:01:36]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Whoever was it that said statistics were definitive

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

I see those results slightly differently.

39% definitely wouldn't

50% quite possibly would and

11% definitely would.

Which is a surprise given the backlash married guys often experience in these here forums!

Are you Peter Mandelson

No one ever said that there were not people OK with married men, but 71% of people see it as a negative.

But they don’t, it’s not 71% if 32% are in the “less likely” category - less likely still means it’s a possibility.

Not necessarily. I might choose both at the same time

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Whoever was it that said statistics were definitive

They can be manipulated so easily

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not.

So there were 2 negative options but only 1 positive?

Saying it wouldn't matter one or the other would put them in the positive category.

Eh?

How do you work that out.

There was only one positive category because no one would say they would definitely meet a man who said he was married.

It's positive because they will meet them either way. How is saying their marital status doesn't matter not a positive position?

Because there's no preference to them being married. It's neither positive nor negative.

I was trying to establish how far being married was a negative. It is for 71%. 11% see it as a positive, so perhaps the best way is to say being married is a net negative of 60%.

Which is probably a round about way of saying the same thing..

I'm off now

Women tomorrow ?? "

I thought the question you wanted answered was would being married lessen a man's chances with meeting women.

That "neutral" 18% clearly says no.

Anyway I look forward to tomorrow's thread

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

I see those results slightly differently.

39% definitely wouldn't

50% quite possibly would and

11% definitely would.

Which is a surprise given the backlash married guys often experience in these here forums!

Are you Peter Mandelson

No one ever said that there were not people OK with married men, but 71% of people see it as a negative.

But they don’t, it’s not 71% if 32% are in the “less likely” category - less likely still means it’s a possibility.

Not necessarily. I might choose both at the same time

Hahaha I like your style

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Always no 1

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

I see those results slightly differently.

39% definitely wouldn't

50% quite possibly would and

11% definitely would.

Which is a surprise given the backlash married guys often experience in these here forums!

Are you Peter Mandelson

No one ever said that there were not people OK with married men, but 71% of people see it as a negative.

But they don’t, it’s not 71% if 32% are in the “less likely” category - less likely still means it’s a possibility.

Not necessarily. I might choose both at the same time

Hahaha I like your style

I'm not wasting a man if there's one going spare

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

I see those results slightly differently.

39% definitely wouldn't

50% quite possibly would and

11% definitely would.

Which is a surprise given the backlash married guys often experience in these here forums!

Are you Peter Mandelson

No one ever said that there were not people OK with married men, but 71% of people see it as a negative.

But they don’t, it’s not 71% if 32% are in the “less likely” category - less likely still means it’s a possibility.

Not necessarily. I might choose both at the same time

Hahaha I like your style

I'm not wasting a man if there's one going spare

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ink Panther.Woman over a year ago

Preston

‘Lies, damned lies and statistics’

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dam1971Man over a year ago

Bedford

This is the closest I’ll get to women fighting over me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eliWoman over a year ago

"‘Lies, damned lies and statistics’"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Interesting thread OP.

Another interesting fact- yesterday I had less than 20 profile views. Today I've had over 100 since posting on this thread. Plus mail and winks from married men from all over the country.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Interesting thread OP.

Another interesting fact- yesterday I had less than 20 profile views. Today I've had over 100 since posting on this thread. Plus mail and winks from married men from all over the country. "

You have such a gorgeous silhouette

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 13/02/19 17:41:42]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Anyway it could be worse you could be bi and married

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I have met 3 women who will not have sex with married men. I have not had sex with any of them.

Depends how you interpret the question. Meet or fuck?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inful xWoman over a year ago

In a sleepy little village

"Anyway it could be worse you could be bi and married

That would be perfect

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Anyway it could be worse you could be bi and married

That would be perfect

Oh I’m pretty sure I could dispel any notions of perfection

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

i am a 3 or a 4

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *den-Valley-coupleCouple over a year ago

Cumbria

1..

If she knows it would be a problem for us just not wanting to hurt someone else is supposed to be fun.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Interesting thread OP.

Another interesting fact- yesterday I had less than 20 profile views. Today I've had over 100 since posting on this thread. Plus mail and winks from married men from all over the country.

You have such a gorgeous silhouette

I know right.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I’m not going to state any other your numbers Op, I can’t be chained to ‘the rules’, I’m a maverick and outsider if you will. Ok, it’s 3.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I’m not going to state any other your numbers Op, I can’t be chained to ‘the rules’, I’m a maverick and outsider if you will. Ok, it’s 3. "

*of not other

yours correctly X

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tingly ByronMan over a year ago

In a town Fab forgot

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not.

So there were 2 negative options but only 1 positive?

Saying it wouldn't matter one or the other would put them in the positive category.

Eh?

How do you work that out.

There was only one positive category because no one would say they would definitely meet a man who said he was married.

It's positive because they will meet them either way. How is saying their marital status doesn't matter not a positive position?

Because there's no preference to them being married. It's neither positive nor negative.

I was trying to establish how far being married was a negative. It is for 71%. 11% see it as a positive, so perhaps the best way is to say being married is a net negative of 60%.

Which is probably a round about way of saying the same thing..

I'm off now

Women tomorrow ?? "

Don't forget to add a special category for people who can't tick 1 to 4.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not.

So there were 2 negative options but only 1 positive?

Saying it wouldn't matter one or the other would put them in the positive category.

Eh?

How do you work that out.

There was only one positive category because no one would say they would definitely meet a man who said he was married.

It's positive because they will meet them either way. How is saying their marital status doesn't matter not a positive position?

Because there's no preference to them being married. It's neither positive nor negative.

I was trying to establish how far being married was a negative. It is for 71%. 11% see it as a positive, so perhaps the best way is to say being married is a net negative of 60%.

Which is probably a round about way of saying the same thing..

I'm off now

Women tomorrow ??

Don't forget to add a special category for people who can't tick 1 to 4.

Not a necessary comment

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By * and M lookingCouple over a year ago

Worcester

It's a 1 from us.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abs..Woman over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tingly ByronMan over a year ago

In a town Fab forgot

"The results are in.... Drum roll..

Wouldn't meet 17 = 39%

Less likely to meet 14 = 32%

No difference 8 = 18%

More likely to meet 5 = 11%

So 71% view a man being attached with an unknowing partner as a negative attribute compared to 11% who see it as a positive.

If the sample is at all representative, I think my original thesis is confirmed

Should you not have added the 18% and the 11%?

No because the 18% is a neutral position. If a bloke says he's married he'll put off 71% and encourage 11%. The other 18%, it doesn't matter whether he says he's married or not.

So there were 2 negative options but only 1 positive?

Saying it wouldn't matter one or the other would put them in the positive category.

Eh?

How do you work that out.

There was only one positive category because no one would say they would definitely meet a man who said he was married.

It's positive because they will meet them either way. How is saying their marital status doesn't matter not a positive position?

Because there's no preference to them being married. It's neither positive nor negative.

I was trying to establish how far being married was a negative. It is for 71%. 11% see it as a positive, so perhaps the best way is to say being married is a net negative of 60%.

Which is probably a round about way of saying the same thing..

I'm off now

Women tomorrow ??

Don't forget to add a special category for people who can't tick 1 to 4.

Not a necessary comment

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *sGivesWoodWoman over a year ago

ST. AUSTELL, CORNWALL

Late joining but it's a 1 for me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *pider-WomanWoman over a year ago

Exeter, Bristol, Plymouth, Truro

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondCougarWoman over a year ago

Norfuck! / Lincolnshire

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss SinWoman over a year ago

portchester

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oupleNeedPlus1Couple over a year ago

Reading

"My gut feeling is that for a man to state openly that he has a wife or partner who doesn't know he is on here will significantly reduce his chances of a meet with women and couples, so I thought I would see if that feeling was borne out evidentially

So, if you are a woman or couple open to meeting single men, please say which of the following applies to you.

If you get a message from man stating he is married or attached and his partner doesn't know he is on here would you

1. Definitely not meet him

2.,be less likely to meet him

3. It wouldn't make any difference

4. Be more likely to meet him.

Please just state a number. We're a 2.

I'll keep this going until 430, then announce the results.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxy_minxWoman over a year ago

Scotland - Aberdeen

1 - Not interested

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I wouldnt care its not me commiting adultery it's them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So, if you are a woman or couple open to meeting single men, please say which of the following applies to you.

If you get a message from man stating he is married or attached and his partner doesn't know he is on here would you

1. Definitely not meet him

2.,be less likely to meet him

3. It wouldn't make any difference

4. Be more likely to meet him.

Please just state a number. We're a 2.

I'll keep this going until 430, then announce the results.

o be fair tho a lot of profiles do state weather or not they would meet an attached/married guy with the condition of being no drama

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The end

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osie xWoman over a year ago

wolverhampton

[Removed by poster at 20/03/19 20:41:14]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)