Chances are it's just different humour.  Or some physical reflection of some deep hidden repressed desire.  Girls take things more seriously than guys, so it might also be something he was just joshin' about.

As long as you put your foot down guys will learn. For example, I no longer say rape, or gay in negative connotations.  Like "stop raping me!" if someone is hugging me or something thing or "thats so gay". 

I have my rape victim and gay friends to thank for that ^^.

As-Salaamu Alaikum

-Omni

 I make S&M jokes but only with friends. First dates? NOT cool.

Turn the tables on this uncouth clod with, "No, I won't spank you, but your boyfriend is quite a hunk.  Can I spank him instead."  Then, walk out and tell him to get a life.

S&M jokes show a lack of respect I think.  You really don't know whether he is a creep or not but he certainly seems to be actng like one.

Run!

S&M? I thought that stood for Symphony and Metallica. That is one sweet CD.

S&M is hardly a perversion ...

But it sounds like you would not be his cup of tea (open minded)

No harm no foul

But guys love women who have a sense of humour

On a first date?  Not cool.  My advice is run and hide.

Creeper alert!

My first impression is that he isn't a pervert. It actually sounds like something I'd say - just a joke, probably in bad taste. Although perhaps that means something about my own character...

I have to agree with Moderation, and maybe this is a place where women and men just don't understand each other, seeing as the majority of responses from women have been "Creeper!!" and men have been "Bad man-humour..." lol.

I'd say give him a second chance, I mean at least he did shut up when you told him too, thats a good sign, it means he respects you.  My girlfriend lets me know when I go outta bounds, which is a good thing lol.

As-Salaamu Alaikum

-Omni

 we all get a taste of our own feet from time to time. (I always keep mine clean for that reason )

A second chance might be an idea.

I agree. I think a second chance wouldn't be out of order.

He has phoned and I have chatted with him twice since Sunday.  He did ask me out for New Years Eve but I had plans already so if I asks me out again and I am available I will give him another chance.  In the last two phone conversations he has been polite and avoided the topic of S&M.

A glimmer of hope !!

As-Salaamu Alaikum

-Omni

I think you should be very careful - if you are determined to see him again - to make sure it stays in a public place.  I've met a lot of people in my life.  What concerns me about your conversation with him is not him asking to be spanked, but his suggesting that he might abuse you if your behavior displeases him.  I would be worried, if I were you, about his use of the word 'abuse.'  It would be different if he'd suggested that he might have to spank you.  Then I would just say that he is aggressive and horny.  The word 'abuse' is loaded.  And it is not a word that men ordinarily use - especially on a first date.  Very often when people run into serious trouble with someone, they look back and they see signals that they wish they'd paid closer attention to.  This is one of those signals, in my opinion.  The very fact that you feel concern and that you need to ask others if you should take his words as being a bad sign is itself a bad sign regarding his intentions.  I recommend that you drop into Coles and get a copy of a book, "The Gift of Fear," by Gavin DeBecker.  You will learn strategies for determining when and how to heed the impulse of fear in situations where an adequate amount of hard data is unavailable.

I've been in the same position as this guy, and I would never seriously say something like that and mean it. I don't know his intentions, but that is something guys joke about. Almost excessively.

and yet there is a lot to be said for a guy who has learned 'discretion'.  Especially on a first date.  Nerves or no, he should err on the side of caution & gentlemanliness (Word??).  And if you're having fun and teasing about lots of stuff, and it comes up, well, you have to judge how relaxed he may have felt.  Though "abuse" is not a word I hear tossed about - it is too frightening for most men with a brain.

the handcuff jokes & spanking - that might come up in a guy who is relaxed and sensing a fun-loving, easy-going girl with a backbone, albeit still lacking discretion on the first date. 

Tread carefully, Aerogal.  Maybe he's a lot of fun, and so are you, and so things will be terrific.  Or maybe not- give yourself some space. 

Birthstone, I absolutely love that new avatar of yours ^^

As-Salaamu Alaikum

-Omni

re Omni's "birthstone I absolutely love that new avatar of yours"

Ditto.

Tolerating abusive and suggestive language is a choice.  You can choose to remain and listen, or you can choose to leave.  It's a good indicator that if the person is doing this on a first date, they might be testing the waters to determine whether you would go along with that behaviour.  When the TV becomes obnoxious, you can change the channel or turn it off.  You can do the same with a tasteless date.

We joke around a lot at work like that and so it really depends on the circumstances and the people and how comfortable you are.  Its all about power and control.  If I know that I am in control and the person I am with cannot hurt me and respects me then I can goof around a little more and take liberties.  If on the other hand I do not have a trusting relationship wtih that person (yet) then we both have to be much more careful.  First date, that trust has not been established.

I think that you put your foot down and told him that you did not appreciate that kind of humor.  The really impressive thing that I read from your post is that this guy took the criticism well and stopped.  To me that means that he has allowed you to retain your power and all will be fine.  If on the other hand he goes back to that kind of teasing then you know that he does not respect you and I would drop him before the relationship progresses any further as you have made your boundaries clear, he knows them and he is pushing them which does not bode well for the future.  Good luck.

I say go with your gut. And I suspect your gut tells you somethings a little off.

My gut told me that he might be a creep and we are probably incomaptible.  After six dates he turned out to be less creepish but not a lot of fun to hang out so if I get better at reading guys then I will not need to waste my time after the first date.

I know this seems to have reached a conclusion, but my assessment is not necessarily that this guy is a creep, just that he's lame. His weak sense of humor has likely been reinforced by too many insecure and/or polite chuckles.

If you didn't ask him if he was into S&M and he just spilled out "I'm not into it" on his own, he could be into it.

Think of it this way, someone stole your sandwich in the refrigerator. When you go take a look, you're in devastation and scream your room mate's name. She comes in alarm and you ask, "Do you know where my sandwich is?" She replies, "I didn't steal it!" She could have said that she would help her look or that it might be in the corner somewhere. I don't know if this is a good example, but the fact he was so defensive is quite suspicious. 

In any case, we can all agree that S&M on the first date is not a good idea.

Your theory is entirely possible Ergo... but in my dating experience from my 20's - choosing between lame and sexually twisted is not an ideal place to be in. Generally a good sign that it's time to move on

Hi jeshica, re "If you didn't ask him if he was into S&M and he just spilled out "I'm not into it" on his own, he could be into it."
 

Very interesting comments for one so young.  You sound like you've had training in truth detection.  BTW, have you seen the new Fox TV show "Lie to me?"  You'd like it, I am sure.  I'm a member of the ACFE: www.acfe.com/home.asp  One of their members and frequent conference speakers is Don Rabon.  He's written a number of books on truth-detection strategies, for example, the reasonably-priced "Investigative Discourse Analysis."  I've got a feeling you would like him, the book and the ACFE.

Tossing my 2 cents in: 

I agree with Fakirs. Lighthearted jokes about spanking - lets be honest - is a mild form of sexual innuendo/overture. Some people are more open sexually, some less so. Where it gets a little disturbing, especially on a first date, is where he alluded to "abuse". As a man, there are a few words that completely shatter any sexual intimacy in my mind - the first is "No" and the second is "abuse". And again, on the first date? Shambles.

Alot of people here are remarkably quick to judge and that is awfully unfair and biased.  But I also see that most of the responses are from women with a woman's perspective.  We're not necessarily getting the whole story here.

The first date was the first date for both Aerogal and her new male friend and while I have no doubt Aerogal has relate the experience accurately, we don't know if the conversation prior to the spanking remark (hardly S&M, by the way) led the young man to be at ease and comfortable with her so much that he felt such a remark would not offend her.  Or maybe he was nervous and was trying to lighten things up.  He was testing the waters as much as she was, trying to determine where Aerogal is at, what her limits are with humour and even, perhaps, gain a hint about her sexual interests, find out if she's adventurous or prudish.  From her reported response, I guess he knows now.  But he may have berated himself over and over afterward for his faux pas, wishing he'd never said it.  From the follow-up reports, it seems he turned out to be a nice guy after all and likely was embarassed by his mistake.

Men make mistakes when it comes to women.  We often say the wrong thing or do the wrong thing.  Maybe he's inexperienced, maybe awkward with women, maybe intimidated by Aerogal's attractiveness and under normal circumstances he'd never say such a thing, but it slipped out.  Yet, few here seemed willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, to find out the whole story, to see things from his perspective and instead, he's faced a panel of harsh judges who have written him off and condemned him for what I see as  harmless remark.

We should all hope we're not judged so quickly without all the facts being known.

to WayOutThere:  "Alot of people here are remarkably quick to judge and that is awfully unfair and biased.  But I also see that most of the responses are from women with a woman's perspective.  We're not necessarily getting the whole story here."

The suggestion in that paragraph is that "a lot" of the responses "here" are "awfully unfair and biased" because "most of the responses" are from "women with a women's perspective."

Let me just give you something to cry about, WayOutThere:  In my opinion, the comments of yours which I have just quoted reveal hostility towards women - which makes your stated refusal to be faithful to just one of them all the more interesting.  I suspect there is a meaningful connection.

I'm not hostile to women in any sense.  With 5 sisters, 4 of whom are older and each a significant influence in my life and a loving mother, I have only positive feelings toward women.  My observation was just that, an observation: look at the first several responses: instant judgements that just happen to be by women.  I had a feeling someone would remark on that observation, but look at it objectively and you'll see I am simply pointing out the obvious.

I stated in a previous thread that I do not believe in monogamy.  that does not mean I refuse to be 'faithful.'  In 35 years of relationships with 5 significant women, I succumbed to desire once and only once and that was when we were separated.  I have remained 'true' to my commitments otherwise.

It's curious that it isn't acknowledged in your post that a number of folks were quick to judge without knowing the circumstances or all the facts.  That could be regarded as hostility toward men.  I didn't notice you calling them on the carpet for that.  Interesting, huh.

reply to way out there re "instant judgements that just happen to be by women.  I had a feeling someone would remark on that observation,"

You wouldn't have made and pointed out the connection between your opinion of the posts and the fact that the ones you made a point of taking exception to "just happened to be by women" - if you didn't think the connection was a meaningful one.

Moreover, you totally ignored the post preceding yours, which shared the opinion of the women's posts you took exception to, and which happened to be by a man.

I stand by my conclusion regarding the totality of your remarks on other people's posts here:  your refusal to ascribe any objective value whatsoever to monogamy is very likely meaningfully connected to an unconscious hostility towards women. 

I don't write this for you; because I know you won't listen. 

I am pointing out to other readers that there may be a possible connection between chronic infidelity and hostility towards the other sex. 

I do think the connection was meaningful, absolutely: I think it demonstrates a possible bias against men by those who were quick to condemn the guy and while other posts by both men and women were not judgemental and certainly proposed giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, they were not in the majority in the first number of responses.  I did say 'alot' as opposed to 'all.'  And I said 'most' of the posts, not 'all.'  The male that agreed with the quick judgement was simply one.  Now, maybe that is because there may be more women on these forums than men or that the question itself was directed more toward women, but I have seen alot of men and was surprised the responses were, for the most part, similar and, initially, mostly by women.

Why would you think I won't listen?  I haven't engaged in many conversations here---still new to WC---but I don't think I've given the impression that I won't listen, have I?  If so, it's unintentional. 

I still think it's interesting that the clearly instant condemnation of the guy by the majority of the first respondents is not worthy of being labelled hostile toward men when you are pretty quick to jump on me for a perceived hostility toward women.  I showed that remark to my ex, by the way (we're still very good friends) and she chuckled.  During our 20 year marriage, we rarely argued, never ever fought and usually resolved issues with rational discussion (we're both pretty level-headed people).  Sorry, but I am probably among the least hostile toward women man you're likely to meet.  I'd put money that my female supervisors and co-workers would conclude that, anyway. 

Can you define "chronic" infidelity as you see it? 

Statistically, women are almost as likely as men these days to cheat. However the social perception is largely that married women who "cheat" do so because of an absentee husband - whereas the man cheats because he doesn't respect his wife, or more simply, is a womanizer. I find the stereotype comical in its bias.

Getting back to the point - are "chronic" female cheaters, in your eyes, considered to be hostile towards men? 

How about a man or a women in a loveless marriage? Can we say either one of the individuals in such a situation are "hostile" towards the other sex when they seek out a more loving, satisfying relationship? 

@ Goodskeptic re your: "Statistically, women are almost as likely as men these days to cheat."

Is that so?  Which statistics would that be??

reply to Goodskeptic:  okay, you are right.  My info was older than yours, but then, I'm older, too.  And yes, I am shocked.  I had no idea it had become so high. 

reply to Goodskeptic re your questions to me:

A "chronic" cheater would be an habitual cheater, not a one-time-flinger.  More loosely, it would be someone who cheats casually, without remorse.

Yes, I would say that "chronic" female cheaters are hostile towards men.  Further, I would say that anyone who cheats is evincing hostility towards their spouse or partner in a committed relationship, because there is nothing you can do that is more hurtful.

In this country, divorce is an option.  Therefore, people in "loveless marriages" have a moral responsibility to get out of it before they get involved with someone else. 

I am not willing to moralize about marriages in other countries where someone is truly trapped with no real possibility of getting free.

I do realize that it can be very tempting to try on a new relationship without letting go of the old one first.  The consequences are inevitably a  lot of pain, spiritual, economic, moral and often, life-threatening.  Cheating turns you into a liar.  How could that be a good thing?

Thats a fair definition of chronic. I'm loath to say chronic cheaters are hostile towards the opposite sex though - as that almost sounds like it could be mysoginistic (from the man) behaviour, and that seems excessive. 

With respect to the loveless marriage comment - I agree that divorce is the option - but the point was to illustrate that marriages that "persevere" for the sake of children, at the expense of the parents emotional health, create very real circumstances that diminishes the pain of the individuals who do actually find happiness elsewhere - but for their commitments at home.

I was just playing devils advocate - I dont think its fair to generalize all cheaters are being hostile towards the opposite sex. Chronic cheaters however, I agree, have some serious issues.

Hi "way out there". I didn't interpret your comments as hostile toward women, but I did want to point out a flaw in your logic re: majority of posts being from women/being judgemental/being unfair/not getting the whole story.

I can see where you are coming from, and if this guy had made a joke about something that didn't involve a woman's physical safety, I might agree with you. But I am willing to bet most of the women came out saying things like "I'd be careful" and "I wouldn't pursue this one" and "go with your guy", because women are so often victimized physically by men.

In a society where violence against women is still so common, women owe it to themselves to protect their well being - they don't owe a second chance to some guy who gives them the creeps.

With all due respect to the "other side of the story", this is really the only one that counts, when we're talking about not putting ourselves into dangerous situations. Women need to trust their instincts about men, and need to feel free to err on the side of caution, even if it means we might look "judgemental" or "unfair".

Yes, I agree with everything you just said, Goodskeptic.  I don't think I said, however, that all cheaters are being hostile towards the opposite sex.  I think I said that cheaters are showing hostility towards their spouse, whether they admit it or not.  They are knowingly committing the most hurtful act possible, if that's not hostile, what is? 

I believe I said that wayoutthere's comments suggested that there was a connection between chronic cheating and hostility towards the opposite sex - and I suggested that there was "likely" such a connection in him, in my opinion.  I made that comment based on everything he said, in particular, his suggestion that fidelity was an objectively invalid value - for anyone.

cate:  when you're right, you're right, and I think your last comments are dead on.

cheers.

While I cannot comment upon violence against women, I just don't have any experience in that subject either through my family, at least that I know of  anyway, personal experience or any other association, and while I agree that instinct can make one err on the side of caution, the data offered was minimal and incomplete, yet caution flags and instant condemnation were offered up pretty quick.  Has no-one here ever had a slip-of-the-tongue?  has no-one out of nervousness or an attempt to be clever ever made an inappropriate comment?  I can't believe everyone here is so perfect that they're not willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt especially when it turns out he may simply have been not much fun to be with rather than some raging creepazoid as some alluded to.  All I was suggesting was that he wasn't given a fair shake and I stand by it.

Aerogirl concluded everything by saying the guy wasn't much fun but didn't get the feeling he was a pervert or creep, whatever those adjectives mean, but did anyone who called the guy a creep or a perv say 'wll, maybe I was wrong?  Maybe I was a little quick on the trigger?'  No.  Not that I read.

So, who's really being hostile toward the opposite sex?  Me, the one lone person suggesting fairness and due process or the hair-trigger Judge Judy's who all have had some direct or indirect experience with violence against women: an abhorent offence, in my opinion, but also one sometimes---and I mean sometimes, Fakir, not the genuine instances---invented or embellished to mask a closet resentment against men, whether justified or not.  It seems a convenient cop-out to claim instinct as a defence when we have no idea if anyone who commented so negatively right off the bat has any real experience with destructive relationships or not and whether a spanking comment has any link to a violent tendency in the first place.

There're so many unknowns in this whole thing, it is impossible to get a real handle on it.  I think it's about being fair to people and some of the comments that followed the first batch were fair and suggesting give the guy another chance.  That's all I was getting at: let's not be so quick to jump to conclusions when facts are scant, thats all.

But this wasn't "just a spanking comment". Read the original post. Even after aerogal said "that's not funny" he continued on with "I'll have to abuse you".

Abuse? Seriously? You think a woman doesn't have the right to judge a man at the point at which he chooses to use the phrase "I'll have to abuse you"?

Any guy who says this and doesn't mean it - who says it as part of his repertoire of inappropriate jokes - should THANK the women who dump him at this point. Because that's how all of us - men and women - learn what is appropriate and what is not - by the reactions of those around us.

Any guy who says this and does mean it - obviously deserves to be steered clear of.

Cate:  I want to personally thank you for your very impressive input and patience.

Cheers.

Once again, it depends on how things were said.  I can say 'I'll have to spank you' or 'I'll abuse you' in many different ways.  And how was 'that's not funny' delivered?  Serious, chuckling, wry or sardonic?  These are the unknowns.  How were the comments intended?  Provocative?  Nervous?  Socially awkward?  We don't know.  But you sure seem to have the guy all figured out---and you weren't there---so let's just hang him now and be done with it, eh?  Gotta love circumstantial convictions.

I gotta say, I'm new here, but I'm not finding the open-minded attitudes that everyone keep talking about in reference to this community.  I'm finding really close-minded, judgemental and self-righteous anal-retentiveness.  These are not just adjectives, guys, these are real attitudes that really are both unattractive and hypocritical of what everyone seems to say abou this place.  I'm not sure I'm comfortable in a place where everyone misrepresents themselves.  Maybe it's time to head on out and see if I can find truly open-minded, fair-minded people.  Don't know if I'll be back.  Take care everyone.

It's unfortunate that you can't see the safety issue for women on this subject. But if you think it's ok to go around saying you'll abuse women on the first date, it's a good thing you're not looking for monogamy... 'cause you'll never find it.

I'm inclined to think it's just nerves and a weak attempt at humor. Maybe be a little slow until you're completely sure it's o.k. but don't label him a freak over one bad joke.

The 'spank me' thing wouldn't offend me.  I would say 'not on a first date' and leave it at that, assuming it was a joke.   When he continued on with "lightly or I'll have to abuse you" that's getting into creepy territory, but I think it's awkwardness, not a sign he's abusive or deeply into S&M.   The conversation took a hairpin turn and he was slow on the uptake. People are awkward on first dates, especially when they are interested. 

The rules of normal behaviour are loosened-- you're on a date, sexuality is assumed where it can't be in a business or friendship relationship.   This is what makes dating so confusing and difficult.