Am I being unfair? (Holding off on sex)

[jujube]

In June, I broke up with my boyfriend of two years, after he bailed out on me when I had a pregancy scare.

 

Though it was a false alarm, it made me realize that I'm at a point in my life where I could definitely NOT handle a pregnancy or raise a child. There is too much going on with my education and career, and I'm just not financially stable.

 

So, after much thinking, I've decided not to have sex again until I can handle an accidental pregnancy. I don't mean wait until marriage; just until I'm done with school, have a steady job, and could raise a child in a good environment.

 

But now that I'm single again, and back on the dating scene, that decision is bringing me some trouble.

 

So far, I've dated three guys, all of which started out as very promising relationships. When I told the first guy I am holding off on sex until my life is more stable, he seemed to support the decision, but I never heard from him after that (he stopped calling me and didn't return my calls). Guy #2 looked totally shocked and said it was unfair to not let him have sex with me, since it's such a normal part of relationships. Guy #3 said pretty much the same thing, that "denying him something as intimate as sex is unfair."

 

Then I started asking my male friends about this. The vast majority agreed that it isn't fair to be in a relationship and deny the other person sex--at least when there aren't religious issues involved. Though condoms aren't foolproof, the chance of pregnancy while using them is still very small. And since I've already had sex, it's not like I'm a virgin waiting until marriage.

 

What do you guys (and gals) think? Am I being unfair in waiting for sex until I could successfully raise a child? Should I just not get involved with anyone for the time being, until I feel ready for the responsibilites of sex again?

 

Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks.

[SoCalCatman72]

Sex is a very personal decision.

It's YOUR body.

Fair doesn't enter into it.

IMO, it is more unfair to pressure a person who doesn't want to into sex using the 'it's a part of a relationship' whine.

Emotional intimacy does not equal a right to physical intimacy.

Anyone who can't understand that is IMO being selfish.

 

 

*ok I'll get off my soapbox now*

[bunnee]

dont bring up the info first... wait til the situation arrises... thats what i would do.. and if you decide that sex is somthing you want to do .. get on birth control and ask him to use a condemn... the likley hood of you getting pregnant under these conditions is about0.00001 %.. and if you dont want to dont... if i guy really wants to be with you he will wait...

[bluechocolate]

Celibacy is certainly a fool proof method of birth control.

 

The vast majority agreed that it isn't fair to be in a relationship and deny the other person sex--at least when there aren't religious issues involved.

 

The vast majority isn't a totality. I'm sure there are some men out there who would respect your decision. I'm also pretty sure that you're going to have a hard time finding them. Having said that, there are many ways for a couple to enjoy themselves sexually with minimum or no risk of pregnancy. Maybe these guys just don't have good imaginations.

[DarkMessenger]

No.. you're not being selfish at all!

 

You don't have to have sex to have a good relationship...

 

When I first got with my girlfriend I told her that I didn't want to have sex with her until I felt that I could spend the rest of my life with her... She wasn't happy at first, but she stuck with me through it... after 6 months we had sex, but by this time we had a really stable relationship... We don't have sex that often now, only when the mood is right...

 

Sex is NOT important, if anyone tries to convince you that it is, then they're probably not worth being with...

 

If you really want a guy though, and you still don't want to have sex when her does, there's plenty of other things you could do for him until you feel you are ready...

[norajane]

It's your body and your decision, and the only fairness you need to concern yourself with is whether you are being fair to yourself. As long as you're honest with others about your wishes, you are being fair to them.

[kulyok]

This is fair, I think. I've been where you are, and I totally support you. If a guy loves you, he would want you to be the one in your life, and support your decision, although of course it will be hard.

 

But if you do enjoy sex and have no religious issues, like waiting until marriage, and your only problem is possibly having a child, why not try the Holland method(pills+condoms), after taking the issue up with your doctor, of course?

 

You seem to know what you want. Good luck.

[tanbark813]

I don't think it's a matter of fair or unfair. It's up to you whether or not to have sex. It's also nice that you're giving the guys a heads up about your stance. It was lame of Guy #2 and Guy #3 to try to guilt you into it. I think it would only be unfair if you entered a relationship with a guy, were having sex with him, and then decided to hold off.

 

But on the flip side: Yeah, you're going to have a tough time finding a guy who's okay with no sex in a relationship. It's nice and PC to say "Sex isn't important" but it's not reality. To a lot of people it is. Sex, emotional intimacy, and companionship are three major, common things that people get/want out of a relationship.

 

It's like if a guy you were interested in said to you, "I'd like to be with you but I'll be holding off on emotional support and intimacy." How many girls would want to pursue something like that?

 

Lastly, you have an additional problem regarding the guys that are up for a relationship with no sex (assuming it's not for religious reasons). They're most likely either:

 

A. Desperate.

B. Getting it somewhere else.

[Touche]

I agreed with everything you said, Tan up until the last part. You should have added:

 

C: Respectful of your wishes.

[tanbark813]

I agreed with everything you said, Tan up until the last part. You should have added:

 

C: Respectful of your wishes.

 

Well yes, but Guy #1 was respectful of her wishes too. He just never called her back.

[Touche]

Well yes, but Guy #1 was respectful of her wishes too. He just never called her back.

 

Then he WASN'T respectful of her wishes. Action speak louder than words you know.

[tanbark813]

Then he WASN'T respectful of her wishes. Action speak louder than words you know.

 

Yes he was. She said he was supportive of it. Just because he wasn't interested in pursuing things doesn't mean he wasn't respectful of what she wanted. If that were the case, you could just as easily make the counter (and equally incorrect) argument that she wasn't respectful of his wishes to have sex. You can be respectful of someone's opinion without agreeing with it. One is not a requirement for the other.

 

Guys #2 and #3 were disrespectful of her wishes in that they tried to guilt her into changing her mind. Guy #1 didn't do anything wrong. He was simply not interested. He's just as entitled to want sex in a relationship as the OP is to not want sex in a relationship.

[Touche]

OP said and I quote, "He seemed to support the decision..." and she goes on to say that she never heard back from him. SEEMED to and BEING supportive are two different things. He was as bad as the other two in my book.

 

We can argue the semantics of this all day long, but the fact is is that guy number one was no better than the other two in my book. I mean the end result was the same right? They ALL said sayonara!

 

Sure they're all entitled to want sex. That's not what we're arguing. I think guy number one DID do something wrong. He was dishonest. He pretended to be supportive when in reality he WASN'T. I mean he split. That's not supportive or respectful in MY book.

[tanbark813]

Sure they're all entitled to want sex. That's not what we're arguing. I think guy number one DID do something wrong. He was dishonest. He pretended to be supportive when in reality he WASN'T. I mean he split. That's not supportive or respectful in MY book.

 

That's ridiculous. Following that logic then if a guy wants a threesome and his gf doesn't then the gf is not being supportive or respectful.

 

Once again, you don't have to agree to be respectful.

 

edited: And also, how can you say guy #1 was as bad as the other two? So all guys have to agree with the OP otherwise they're jerks? Since when does one person get to decide the desires and opinions of everyone else?

[Touche]

That's ridiculous. Following that logic then if a guy wants a threesome and his gf doesn't then the gf is not being supportive or respectful.

 

Once again, you don't have to agree to be respectful.

 

edited: And also, how can you say guy #1 was as bad as the other two? So all guys have to agree with the OP otherwise they're jerks? Since when does one person get to decide the desires and opinions of everyone else?

 

Ok, maybe they're not jerks, Tan. But they're not gentlemen in my book either.

 

And I thought your analogy was a bit off the mark. Wanting a threesome is not in my book, the same as holding off on sex so she doesn't get pregnant or catch some disease.

 

And you're right you don't have to agree to be respectful. But you don't have to split either.

 

They were all very low-class in my book. She's lucky to be rid of all of them.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Tan.

[tanbark813]

Ok, maybe they're not jerks, Tan. But they're not gentlemen in my book either.

 

And I thought your analogy was a bit off the mark. Wanting a threesome is not in my book, the same as holding off on sex so she doesn't get pregnant or catch some disease.

 

And you're right you don't have to agree to be respectful. But you don't have to split either.

 

They were all very low-class in my book. She's lucky to be rid of all of them.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Tan.

 

So say Guy #1 stuck around. But let's say he never complimented her, never hugged her, never discussed his thoughts or ideas, etc... basically no emotional connection. In your book, the OP would then be low class and disrespectful if she didn't like that and split.

 

Walking away when your needs aren't met is not low class. No one should be forced to go along with something they disagree with.

[michelangelo]

He respected her wishes when she clearly knew he wanted sex in a relationship.

 

Is he supposed to keep calling her? Seems to me that if he did keep calling her he would be giving tacit agreement that he would abide with her wishes AND stay in a relationship with her.

 

That would be misleading.

 

The unreturned phone call? Hmm, how many women have done that? Should we label them with some hostile attitude?

[Touche]

So say Guy #1 stuck around. But let's say he never complimented her, never hugged her, never discussed his thoughts or ideas, etc... basically no emotional connection. In your book, the OP would then be low class and disrespectful if she didn't like that and split.

 

Walking away when your needs aren't met is not low class. No one should be forced to go along with something they disagree with.

 

Well he showed NO class in acting like he respected (implying that he was going along with it) her decision and then splitting. He should have just come clean and told her that he can't do it. A real man would have handled it that way. But a gentleman would have stuck around. So yes, he was a loser in my book. But hey, I have VERY high standards when it comes to men and their behavior. I don't settle for mediocrity. And I hope the OP doesn't either.

 

Your example wasn't a good one. She had a LEGITIMATE reason to change the deal about sex. And he chose to dismiss that legitimate reason and walk away. Your example isn't comparable to her situation.

[tanbark813]

Well he showed NO class in acting like he respected (implying that he was going along with it) her decision and then splitting. He should have just come clean and told her that he can't do it. A real man would have handled it that way. But a gentleman would have stuck around. So yes, he was a loser in my book. But hey, I have VERY high standards when it comes to men and their behavior. I don't settle for mediocrity. And I hope the OP doesn't either.

 

You mean you only like men who are doormats and agree with everything you say. Again, respect has nothing to do with agreement. Guy #1 showed her respect by not giving her a hard time about it.

 

Your example wasn't a good one. She had a LEGITIMATE reason to change the deal about sex. And he chose to dismiss that legitimate reason and walk away. Your example isn't comparable to her situation.

 

It's supposed to illustrate the point that just because one partner wants things a certain way doesn't mean the other is required to go along with it.

[Touche]

You mean you only like men who are doormats and agree with everything you say. Again, respect has nothing to do with agreement. Guy #1 showed her respect by not giving her a hard time about it.

 

 

 

It's supposed to illustrate the point that just because one partner wants things a certain way doesn't mean the other is required to go along with it.

 

You're missing my whole point really. I didn't say he was required to go along with it. But the way he went about NOT going along with it was not right in my opinion. He was a coward. Of course, he would have shown a lot of class to have stuck by her. But he didn't. No problem. He just didn't do it in a nice way.

 

And NO, I don't like doormats. I like REAL men. Men who challenge me and stand up to me. Men who when they don't agree with a decision of mine calmly tell me so and explain why. Not men who yes you along and SAY they respect you when they don't at all. Not men whose actions show that they don't REALLY respect you.

 

As I said, his lack of respect for her wasn't in that he didn't agree with her, it was shown in the way he chose to let her know he didn't agree with her. By just disappearing. Ok, maybe he was SLIGTLY better than the other two because he didn't challenge her decision..but not much better. You put a little smiley icon next to the fact that he just didn't call her back. Is that how you think a gentleman handles things? Wow. Interesting.

 

Go read DarkMessenger's post. There's a GENTLEMAN wth class. In your book though, there's something wrong with him. What was it again? He's desperate? Or getting it somewhere else?

 

Sad, really.

[tanbark813]

You put a little smiley icon next to the fact that he just didn't call her back. Is that how you think a gentleman handles things?

 

I put that there because it was meant tongue-in-cheek. I agree that how he handled it was lame and that he should have told her why he was bailing instead of just disappearing. But that's a seperate issue from respecting her wishes. He did respect them by not trying to convince her to do something she didn't want to do.

 

Go read DarkMessenger's post. There's a GENTLEMAN wth class. In your book though, there's something wrong with him. What was it again? He's desperate? Or getting it somewhere else?

 

DM initiated holding off on sex. He wasn't going along with something he didn't agree with. Your example isn't comparable to her situation.

[Kittiecat]

So, after much thinking, I've decided not to have sex again until I can handle an accidental pregnancy.

 

Take the pill, make him wear a condom, and accidental pregnancies should not be a problem. However, like everyone else said, it is your body and your values, to thine own self be true!

[Touche]

I put that there because it was meant tongue-in-cheek. I agree that how he handled it was lame and that he should have told her why he was bailing instead of just disappearing. But that's a seperate issue from respecting her wishes. He did respect them by not trying to convince her to do something she didn't want to do.

 

 

 

DM initiated holding off on sex. He wasn't going along with something he didn't agree with. Your example isn't comparable to her situation.

 

SHYTE, you just don't give up do you? At least you agree that the way he handled it was lame.

 

And I kind of conceded that he was the better guy of the three in that he didn't try to convince her to do something she didn't want to do like the other two...so maybe we got somewhere. (Just not sure where exactly!)

[tanbark813]

SHYTE, you just don't give up do you?

 

NEVER!!!

 

[Touche]

NEVER!!!

 

 

Uh, yeah..I noticed!