Hi again OP. FYI only my first paragraph was aimed at you particularly. My further 3 paragraphs were for the PPs who were denying that one's pee and other secretions are affected by how much water they drink. I was only giving that information to those who think that pee and/or secretions are not affected by how much, or little water we drink.
@Goldijobsandthe3bears I am sorry that my laziness seems to have been brought out during this thread, for otherwise I could give you countless references that explain how a lack of water in our bodies leads to nearly - if not all - bodily functions being adversely affected, including all of our secretions, relatively quickly.
There is a good reason why (depending on our own health to begin with, outside temperature, etc) we as humans can only survive up to about 5 to 7 days without drinking unsalted water - salted water can actually hasten our deaths - whereas, of course once again depending on quite a few different circumstances, we can usually survive an average of about 4 to 5 weeks without food. Some people in the right circumstances could last a lot longer, but that is not usual. Despite all of that, I will not be so rude as to either, or both, laugh at your opinion, and/or to say it counts for nothing - in fact if you are not as lazy as me, I am interested to see your references backing up your opinion. I am always open to learning, or at least contemplating, new reasonably substantiated, facts or theories.
Sorry, back to you for a minute @Limebazil I am very glad to hear that your pee is both light yellow and clear, so thank you for that information.
Please bear with me while I just give you a conclusion I have come to from reading many Opening (and of course, Original) Posts. Which is that many of us (which includes me - hence me saying "us") cannot just concentrate on the question that the OP asked, or thought she asked, in her OP.
I believe that many of us humans take in more than one piece of information at a time, and in doing so we might see a rather larger picture than the OP might have intended us too. But to be fair to those of us that this happens to, we could not do that if the OP had not furnished us with certain information in the first place.
For example, in your OP, you told us that your new sexual partner told you after he had performed oral sex on you, that you should drink more water as you tasted kind of strong (or words similar to that?), and you wanted to know if you were being unreasonable to see that as a red flag?
Now of course without giving us that information you couldn't have asked us if you were being unreasonable, but I don't think that the fact that some of your responders then felt the need to take on board his suggestion (that you may need to drink more water as he felt that that was the 'culprit' for the stronger taste) was unfair of them, as IMO they were just thinking about how their answer to you could be of most help.
However, you replied to them (and me) that you hadn't asked for advice on the medical part of his comment, unfortunately that was part of his comment, and you hadn't stipulated that under no circumstances were any of your responders supposed to, or indeed, allowed to, take the "pee being strong" part into account.
I can obviously only speak for myself here, but when giving my vote, I also took into account the fact that before he made that comment, you said that the sex was great, and he was very generous (presumably sexually) during it. So maybe some of the 30% who voted that YABU, also took that into account, and maybe some of them thought like I did, that if you are comfortable enough with someone to have sex with them - whether it is the first, or one hundredth time - then either of the participants should feel close enough to the other one to make a comment that might help either, or both of them, to enjoy themselves even more next time.
It could/should also mean that the other (sexual) partner to whom the comment was made, would then feel even more comfortable in telling their partner if there was something that they felt a little uncomfortable with, or would prefer a different way.
I hope it is obvious that I am not referring here to definite one-night stands. I am also not saying that you shouldn't have felt embarrassed - in fact, just right now, I can't think of many feelings that we shouldn't have, as most humans, including me, have either no, or little control of their feelings. Of course you were entitled to feel embarrassed, he was probably embarrassed too, but it sounds as if he really liked you, really enjoyed the sex and closeness to you, and really thought you would be doing it a lot more.
I am sorry, but I don't actually think he was trying to gas light you, I think that his reaction to your reaction at his comment, was unfortunately one that many inadequate males will have when they think they are in trouble for something. They backtrack, they lie (hopefully not too seriously, as they are usually easily caught out in their lies), and yes, I do believe that some of them have this internal defense mechanism that makes them actually forget that their misdemeanor ever happened at all! Because I believe the above to be such a wide spread adult male failure, I think we need to come to our personal conclusions about whether we can accept their childish behaviour on odd occasions, or whether we have no interest in finding out how often that type of thing happens. No adult woman should tell another adult woman what their tolerance levels should be.
I think that I should add here that I believe as children we probably all lie on occasions, to stop ourselves from being in trouble ("he hit me first" type of scenario), but I think that as we become women, we often realise both the long term futility in telling lies, and we also learn how unhealthy and unhelpful it usually is.
As for his last email - if it was actually from him - I don't and can't condone that, even male inadequacies should not go that far. So it looks as if you are well rid OP.