Salicious Crumb Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 Then at what point do men label a girl as a sl*t or a H*? so are you saying there is no reason for women to hold out on sex? And that we should just HOPE we get lucky with each guy that comes along that wants to get in our pants? (provided that he's passed some of our requirements)????? I think the problem is that MEN and WOMEN both have all been hurt. As a result, everybody has on their MASK. This mask is then viewed as "playing games". When in actuality, both men and women have on their mask as an attempt to "test" the other parties intentions. Speak for yourself.
Author SouthernT Posted April 17, 2007 Author Posted April 17, 2007 Speak for yourself. Ok....meaning what? Care to elaborate?
DutchGuy Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 Then at what point do men label a girl as a sl*t or a H*? so are you saying there is no reason for women to hold out on sex? And that we should just HOPE we get lucky with each guy that comes along that wants to get in our pants? (provided that he's passed some of our requirements)????? I think the problem is that MEN and WOMEN both have all been hurt. As a result, everybody has on their MASK. This mask is then viewed as "playing games". When in actuality, both men and women have on their mask as an attempt to "test" the other parties intentions. It's you own responsabillity to choose the men you have sex with. Having sex with a lot of guys in the hope one of 'em will turn out to be a keeper makes you look desperate, unattractive and a sl*t. All men want sex, even the good ones. But the good ones will wait untill you're ready, and treat you well in the meantime. Don't mistake my post for criticism. I'm just saying that a lot of nice girls become "sl*ts" because they can't say "no" for their own good. And once you have the reputation, nice guys won't bother (the creeps will flock you however).
nicki Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 I think you hit on a good point, DutchGuy. A lot of women sleep with men for the wrong reasons. Reason #1 being they hope to catch the man with sex. T When the guy bails, the woman then feels used. So I have a rule. I sleep with a guy when I really, really want to. That way I do it for me. I do because I want to. I do it because I am evaluating HIM and deciding if I want to continue in a relationship with him. Of course, I must feel that emotional bond, too, but I don't wait until a big commitment to sleep with a guy. I think sexual compatibility is an important factor in deciding IF you want a longer term commitment with someone. I don't care if I have sex with a guy and we break up soon after. I'll care a whole lot, though, if he just has casual sex with me without any thought to a possible relationship. I don't have casual sex. I will only have sex in the context of an exclusive relationship, even if the relationship only lasts a short time. Sex can make you grow closer as a couple, or show you that maybe there isn't enough chemistry to continue on. Either way, it's an important piece of information. Wait too long and you've spoiled the natural progression of a relationship. Do it too soon, and maybe you've spoiled the natural emotional progression of a relationship. So, that's why I only have sex when I want to, and never to just get a guy. I don't feel any remorse later if things don't work out. After sex, maybe he turns out to be a loser, or maybe he turns out to be Mr. Wonderful. There's always a risk. I do wait after the initial sparks, though, to see if I am seeing the guy clearly for who he is (like TrialByFire said.) That's important.
Author SouthernT Posted April 17, 2007 Author Posted April 17, 2007 It's you own responsabillity to choose the men you have sex with. Having sex with a lot of guys in the hope one of 'em will turn out to be a keeper makes you look desperate, unattractive and a sl*t. All men want sex, even the good ones. But the good ones will wait untill you're ready, and treat you well in the meantime. Don't mistake my post for criticism. I'm just saying that a lot of nice girls become "sl*ts" because they can't say "no" for their own good. And once you have the reputation, nice guys won't bother (the creeps will flock you however). No offense taken. (I've only had two patners and I'm 27 yrs old.) I guess I just feel like screaming because the second I say the words "no casual sex" to a guy...they take off. Maybe I'm making a mistake by even saying "no casual sex". Mabye I shouldnt bring it up at all untill the guy starts to bring it up. I just do it right off the bat so that they know how I feel about the subject and that they are wasting their time if that is their plan. But obviously its not working for me. Because when I say those words, to some men, that is an automatic challenge to try and prove me wrong. Obviously I still have ALOT to learn about dating. Thats why I come here alot... Just trying to get it right.
Author SouthernT Posted April 17, 2007 Author Posted April 17, 2007 It's you own responsabillity to choose the men you have sex with. Having sex with a lot of guys in the hope one of 'em will turn out to be a keeper makes you look desperate, unattractive and a sl*t. All men want sex, even the good ones. But the good ones will wait untill you're ready, and treat you well in the meantime. Don't mistake my post for criticism. I'm just saying that a lot of nice girls become "sl*ts" because they can't say "no" for their own good. And once you have the reputation, nice guys won't bother (the creeps will flock you however). No offense taken. (I've only had two patners and I'm 27 yrs old.) I guess I just feel like screaming because the second I say the words "no casual sex" to a guy...they take off. Maybe I'm making a mistake by even saying "no casual sex". Mabye I shouldnt bring it up at all untill the guy starts to bring it up. I just do it right off the bat so that they know how I feel about the subject and that they are wasting their time if that is their plan. But obviously its not working for me. Because when I say those words, to some men, that is an automatic challenge to try and prove me wrong. Obviously I still have ALOT to learn about dating. Thats why I come here alot... Just trying to get it right and still be myself.
tanbark813 Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 Mabye I shouldnt bring it up at all untill the guy starts to bring it up. Yes, that's the way to go. Bringing it up right off the bat sounds bitchy because you're kind of implying that the guy might only be after sex. And if you accuse a guy of that, it's lose-lose: If he is only after sex, he'll just laugh it off. It's not like he's going to admit it. And if he's into you and isn't only after sex, then you're just going to insult him and possibly drive him off.
nicki Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 I know what you mean, SouthernT! I've learned to show a guy that I am sexual, sensual, passionate, BUT only when he's my man and I feel completely comfortable with him. (That means no other men or women in the picture.) I might give him a taste of what it would be like to be with me. Maybe a smoking hot kiss, or a nice flash of skin, or the knowledge that I love my body and pampering my senses. Basically, I let him know I LOOOVE sex, but I have my conditions. Most guys will wait if they know that. I sometimes say "I don't have casual sex." But most of the time I tell them when I WILL have sex. That seems to be a better way to put it. It seems that to a guy, the promise of sex, especially hot passionate sex from a woman who adores only him, is very alluring. And most guys will wait. You just have to let them know they are still in the game by being affectionate with them.
DutchGuy Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 No offense taken. (I've only had two patners and I'm 27 yrs old.) I guess I just feel like screaming because the second I say the words "no casual sex" to a guy...they take off. Maybe I'm making a mistake by even saying "no casual sex". Mabye I shouldnt bring it up at all untill the guy starts to bring it up. I just do it right off the bat so that they know how I feel about the subject and that they are wasting their time if that is their plan. But obviously its not working for me. Because when I say those words, to some men, that is an automatic challenge to try and prove me wrong. Obviously I still have ALOT to learn about dating. Thats why I come here alot... Just trying to get it right. Maybe instead of focussing on the "no sex for now" you can focus on "for now, I want romance" kind of feeling in a fresh relationship. I'm a guy (consider myself as a "good" guy) and would react better to a girl that asked for romance instead of telling me that there will be no sex for now. And if the guy initiates sex, you can always say that you want to wait for the right moment, since you already portrayed yourself as a romantic person. Good guys will understand, the bad ones will flee. Tell yourself you don't want sex, not the guy.
Author SouthernT Posted April 17, 2007 Author Posted April 17, 2007 Yes, that's the way to go. Bringing it up right off the bat sounds bitchy because you're kind of implying that the guy might only be after sex. And if you accuse a guy of that, it's lose-lose: If he is only after sex, he'll just laugh it off. It's not like he's going to admit it. And if he's into you and isn't only after sex, then you're just going to insult him and possibly drive him off. Thanks for the advice Tan!
Salicious Crumb Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 Ok....meaning what? Care to elaborate? Meaning some of us don't put on a facade or play games to "test" people.
Salicious Crumb Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 No offense taken. (I've only had two patners and I'm 27 yrs old.) I guess I just feel like screaming because the second I say the words "no casual sex" to a guy...they take off. Maybe I'm making a mistake by even saying "no casual sex". Mabye I shouldnt bring it up at all untill the guy starts to bring it up. BINGO..there is your problem. If a guy brings it up and you say "no casual sex" and he then bails...then to hell with him because it was obvious thats all he wanted. But if a guy is genuinely interested in you and from out of nowhere you say "no casual sex" you come off as not being into him and basically telling him, "I think you just want sex". I wouldn't blame a decent guy from being offended by that and walking away with a bad impression of you. Because when I say those words, to some men, that is an automatic challenge to try and prove me wrong. Or its the guy that is interested in getting to know you is insulted and he walks away thinking you aren't worth his time if you are that standoffish to begin with.
DanielMadr Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 It's you own responsabillity to choose the men you have sex with. Having sex with a lot of guys in the hope one of 'em will turn out to be a keeper makes you look desperate, unattractive and a sl*t. All men want sex, even the good ones. But the good ones will wait untill you're ready, and treat you well in the meantime. Don't mistake my post for criticism. I'm just saying that a lot of nice girls become "sl*ts" because they can't say "no" for their own good. And once you have the reputation, nice guys won't bother (the creeps will flock you however). Yes, that's the way to go. Bringing it up right off the bat sounds bitchy because you're kind of implying that the guy might only be after sex. And if you accuse a guy of that, it's lose-lose: If he is only after sex, he'll just laugh it off. It's not like he's going to admit it. And if he's into you and isn't only after sex, then you're just going to insult him and possibly drive him off. I sign both of this. Well written gentlemen. Are you really from Holland, DutchGuy?
Author SouthernT Posted April 17, 2007 Author Posted April 17, 2007 Tell yourself you don't want sex, not the guy. Ok, I get now. What you said sounds soooo simple and it makes sense. These are the little things that women have to learn through trial and error. And I think I will eventually get what I want. And the guy will get what he wants too!
sweetscarlet Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 You have to offer more of other things when you are not offering intimacy. This makes it sound like a bartering agreement, not a relationship and when women hear that kind of talk, they run. Women don't want to feel like they are exchanging their body for something or have to compensate when not exhanging their body for something. This makes women feel like objects. If you are afraid to strip, just tell him - no big deal. Confusing him by making out on sofa and then run home when he tries to pull down your blouse, wont make him happy. I think this could be a big problem for a lot of women. Many women like to go into intimacy gradually....not all or nothing. Women can enjoy making out without going further....and making out might get them ready to go further the next time. Problem is the men that want all or nothing. With nothing, a woman can't feel close in the stages that she needs to. I think that men should be more accomodating to women in this respect.
Author SouthernT Posted April 18, 2007 Author Posted April 18, 2007 Many women like to go into intimacy gradually....not all or nothing. Women can enjoy making out without going further....and making out might get them ready to go further the next time. Problem is the men that want all or nothing. With nothing, a woman can't feel close in the stages that she needs to. BINGO!! Guys simply dont understand the benefits to GRADUAL progression to intimacy. Women have the need to feel that we are connecting with a man emotionally along the way. Thats why we can make out with a guy without it going too far. If that emotional connection is not there, typically we won't sleep with a guy. (unless she is simply getting what she needs physically at that moment) Classic case of: Guys want sex before love and women want love before sex.
DutchGuy Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 BINGO!! Guys simply dont understand the benefits to GRADUAL progression to intimacy. Women have the need to feel that we are connecting with a man emotionally along the way. Thats why we can make out with a guy without it going too far. If that emotional connection is not there, typically we won't sleep with a guy. (unless she is simply getting what she needs physically at that moment) Classic case of: Guys want sex before love and women want love before sex. I don't think that guys really want sex before love. It's more that, a lot of guys are willing to fake love in order to get sex fast. And a lot of girls are willing to give sex in order to get love fast. DanielMadr: Yes I'm Dutch, living in the Netherlands.
Pink Amulet Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 Women have the need to feel that we are connecting with a man emotionally along the way. Do we? What about women who flaunt their sexual dominance? Submission and dominance are really important factors in this argument. I am a firm believer that women can only be defined as "a slut" if they let themselves be treated as one. Who says men "just want sex" wheras women "want intamacy". These gender roles are so outdated.
DanielMadr Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 This makes it sound like a bartering agreement, not a relationship and when women hear that kind of talk, they run. Women don't want to feel like they are exchanging their body for something or have to compensate when not exhanging their body for something. This makes women feel like objects. No its not a bartering agreement if you see it out of context of Gender Battles. Actually when you take sex out of mutual connection you are making vacuum which you have to fill. Exchanging their body for what? Are you talking about sexploitation? When you start to separate sex and love as two different things, you are actually making yourself sexual object yourself or at least you set this frame of mind that there is mutual connection and there is a sex too sometimes. Its altogether actually. I think this could be a big problem for a lot of women. Many women like to go into intimacy gradually....not all or nothing. Women can enjoy making out without going further....and making out might get them ready to go further the next time. Problem is the men that want all or nothing. With nothing, a woman can't feel close in the stages that she needs to. I think that men should be more accomodating to women in this respect. But it has its limits. You cant go like that for too long.
Author SouthernT Posted April 18, 2007 Author Posted April 18, 2007 What about women who flaunt their sexual dominance? Submission and dominance are really important factors in this argument.I am a firm believer that women can only be defined as "a slut" if they let themselves be treated as one. Who says men "just want sex" wheras women "want intamacy". These gender roles are so outdated. This had nothing to do with dominance and submission, thats a WHOLE different conversation & topic in itself. If a woman wants to flaunt her "sexual dominance" (if thats what you want to call it...) then by all means....she should go for it. Now whether or not it gets her the REAL thing that she will eventually want...thats another story... I think that is part of the problem: The confusion about GENDER ROLES. In todays world, the roles have been reversed and it shouldnt be that way at all. Thats why women are so aggresive now and to SOME (not all) men, thats a turn off.
Trialbyfire Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 This had nothing to do with dominance and submission, thats a WHOLE different conversation & topic in itself. If a woman wants to flaunt her "sexual dominance" (if thats what you want to call it...) then by all means....she should go for it. Now whether or not it gets her the REAL thing that she will eventually want...thats another story... I think that is part of the problem: The confusion about GENDER ROLES. In todays world, the roles have been reversed and it shouldnt be that way at all. Thats why women are so aggresive now and to SOME (not all) men, thats a turn off. Whoah, whoah, hold your horses. While I disagree with PAs definition and agree that it's not the way I perceive a healthy relationship, I also strongly disagree about stereo-typical gender roles. Relationships of any kind, casual or otherwise, are based on individuals. It's a compromise between individuals to compliment the whole. Parachuting yourself into a box will leave you feeling unsatisfied, if it's not who you are. Define from within, not what you think society wants you to be.
Author SouthernT Posted April 18, 2007 Author Posted April 18, 2007 Whoah, whoah, hold your horses. While I disagree with PAs definition and agree that it's not the way I perceive a healthy relationship, I also strongly disagree about stereo-typical gender roles. Relationships of any kind, casual or otherwise, are based on individuals. It's a compromise between individuals to compliment the whole. Parachuting yourself into a box will leave you feeling unsatisfied, if it's not who you are. Define from within, not what you think society wants you to be. Right, and I completely agree with you. Definitley define from within. My only point is that is a difference between a woman being confident in her sexuality without being agressing about it and chasing a man by USING this aspect.
Trialbyfire Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 Right, and I completely agree with you. Definitley define from within. My only point is that is a difference between a woman being confident in her sexuality without being agressing about it and chasing a man by USING this aspect. I agree that using her sexuality to keep a man in check isn't the most healthy attitude. Whether a woman chooses to pursue a man in an aggressive manner is up the individuals involved. Some men are flattered by all out pursuit and want a woman to prove to them that they want them with a no-holds barred attitude. I'm not certain if this should be made to be a gender-specific role taking, as opposed to individual choice. It's not a devaluation of gender.
kaien Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Hey, all this dating and relationship thing is ultimately tied to our DNA. If men didn't want sex from a relationship, the human race would have been extinct waaay back in time.
Recommended Posts