FabSwingers.com forum: 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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *amissCouple
over a year ago

chelmsford

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

Why is it always about married guys

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *hostheman1972Man
over a year ago

tipperary

We do get such bad press

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uzukiNo1Woman
over a year ago

Rhyl

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

2 but nothing is set in stone

Peach x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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)

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ily WhiteWoman
over a year ago

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ady LickWoman
over a year ago

Northampton Somewhere

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *SAchickWoman
over a year ago

Hillside desolate

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *electableDalliancesCouple
over a year ago

leeds

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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!"

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *hortieWoman
over a year ago

Northampton

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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*

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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?"

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ewBurtonMan
over a year ago

Derby

I’m a 4. But I don’t count lol

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inful xWoman
over a year ago

In a sleepy little village

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

You should have had an "other" option KP.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ebjonnsonMan
over a year ago

Maldon

Are you Sydney University?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

OK let's get back to the OP please

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

1 for us

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ink Panther.Woman
over a year ago

Preston

I WAS a 3

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eefdoddusCouple
over a year ago

Scottish Borders

1 for us too.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uriousCouple999Couple
over a year ago

edinburgh

1 for us to

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *wisted999Man
over a year ago

North Bucks

Only on Fab

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eal Deal PartiesWoman
over a year ago

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *layfulCouple86Couple
over a year ago

Lancashire

We're a 2

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *issmorganWoman
over a year ago

Calderdale innit

1 for me.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arah_kieran_ukCouple
over a year ago

Greater London

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *lik and PaulCouple
over a year ago

cahoots

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *r n Mrs NaughtyCouple
over a year ago

eccles

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *oul BrothaMan
over a year ago

A Galaxy far far away

Looking forward to the detailed statistical analysis

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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%?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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%

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

You have interpreted your data wrong.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

So its only 39% that definitely wouldnt't.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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 ??

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

Whoever was it that said statistics were definitive

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

"Whoever was it that said statistics were definitive

They can be manipulated so easily

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

Always no 1

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ink Panther.Woman
over a year ago

Preston

‘Lies, damned lies and statistics’

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *dam1971Man
over a year ago

Bedford

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eliWoman
over a year ago

"‘Lies, damned lies and statistics’"

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

Anyway it could be worse you could be bi and married

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

i am a 3 or a 4

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By * and M lookingCouple
over a year ago

Worcester

It's a 1 from us.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abs..Woman
over a year ago

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *sGivesWoodWoman
over a year ago

ST. AUSTELL, CORNWALL

Late joining but it's a 1 for me.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *pider-WomanWoman
over a year ago

Exeter, Bristol, Plymouth, Truro

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iamondCougarWoman
over a year ago

Norfuck! / Lincolnshire

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iss SinWoman
over a year ago

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *oxy_minxWoman
over a year ago

Scotland - Aberdeen

1 - Not interested

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

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

The end

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *osie xWoman
over a year ago

wolverhampton

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

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately