hotgurl Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 I guess my main objection is to someone who holds out as a test. If feel things should progress naturally. But if someone holds out purposely as a test than it seems like it is preventing the relationship from moving forward.
Trialbyfire Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 And I don't French kiss on the first date either, so don't be getting any ideas! Ok, you're seriously cracking me with your French over here. Hotgurl, you said you understand waiting to get to know each other first but at the same time you say you don't hold out. I'm not sure what you're saying. If you're not holding out and you're having sex with a guy right away, is that working for you? If not, maybe try waiting a little longer and getting to know the guy first. But you know I have a girl crush on you. The response was actually to the figmentary male we were both parler..ing with. Ma français est très mal. IF you allow the guy to get to know you as a person first, perhaps he won't dine and dash, when things get rough or he gets scared.
Cobra_X30 Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 I agree. I wasn't making that assumption. I was saying that an action taken to prevent additional emotional investment is another form of being emotionally unavailable. True, and I understand what your saying here, its just I dont feel that you can hold it against a girl for playing safe emotionally. The only time I'm going to get upset is if she jumped in hard and fast with the other guys and then wants to take things slow with me. Well, it can be. In previous posts TBF has stated that she not only waits to prevent additional emotional attachment but as a test to weed guys out. Are you trying to say that this test does not work? Or is innaccurate in some ways? Or that you object to using this as a test in the first place? Sure. I'm not saying a woman has to jump into bed on the first date. Nor does the guy have to wait around for 6 months for the girl to alleviate her suspicion of the guy's motives. So are you saying that you would not wait for someone who felt they needed 6 or 7 months? It would seem to me that if you really connected with the girl on a deep level it would be worth waiting... right? My ultimate point is that women's needs are no more important or noble than men's needs. If women want their needs respected and catered to they should do no less for men and not dismiss them as being the needs of a "boy". I agree with this wholeheartedly!
JamesM Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 It's never been an issue. When the relationship is progressing, sex has always happened. It is difficult to extrapolate outside of my experiences. I have a hard time imagining that I could feel a relationship is progressing without sexual progression. But in general, no, if everything is good in a relationship EXCEPT sex, then the relationship is not good or going well. That is one of the things I really look for. Within the first 3 dates, I kind of expect the woman to anty up. Sex is a REQUIREMENT of a relationship that is going good? Would you consider a relationship good because the sex is good? Again, in my opinion...since that is all I can give, I do not think there is any set time that sex should have happened. Sexual chemistry can be felt long before sexual intercourse has taken place. Intercourse should not have to happen as an indication that the relationship is good. Personally, I would want a lot more time than three dates or even three months set as the deadline for sex. For me I can say that once sex began in a relationship, this be came more of the focus than delving into the mind of the person I was getting to know. Yet the ironic part is that the better I got to know the person, the better the sex was. Sex should come when the time is right. As cliched as this is, it is the best way to put it. If a guy or gal has a set time for sex..."put up or I am out of here," then I think it says where that relationship was heading anyhow.
tanbark813 Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Are you trying to say that this test does not work? Or is innaccurate in some ways? Or that you object to using this as a test in the first place? It will work in some cases, it's just inaccurate. Tests are tricky to use in dating anyway. If I knew a girl was waiting to have sex because she didn't want to get attached, then that I can respect. But if I knew she was waiting because she didn't trust my intentions, then I'd be a little to a lot offended, depending on how long we had been seeing each other. Nobody likes not being trusted. So are you saying that you would not wait for someone who felt they needed 6 or 7 months? It would seem to me that if you really connected with the girl on a deep level it would be worth waiting... right? 6 or 7? Probably not. And if she needs that long how deeply connected can you really be? But it's hard to say for sure because the longest I've ever had to wait was about 7 weeks and it did start to become an issue (although she ultimately ended it, not me).
Cobra_X30 Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 I guess my main objection is to someone who holds out as a test. If feel things should progress naturally. But if someone holds out purposely as a test than it seems like it is preventing the relationship from moving forward. As long as she is honest and upfront about it... I dont see a problem with this. I'm a competative guy and typically I'm going to want to be there a day before the last guy. So if your droppin it on the first date... Thats tough cause your makin me start counting hours and minutes and stuff.
Touche Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 But you know I have a girl crush on you. Likewise ma petite chou! The response was actually to the figmentary male we were both parler..ing with. I know..i'm just in a silly mood today. Ma français est très mal. Non, pas mal du tout. IF you allow the guy to get to know you as a person first, perhaps he won't dine and dash, when things get rough or he gets scared. James, you remind me of my H. He thinks like you do on this subject. Your wife is a lucky woman.
oppath Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Sex should come when the time is right. As cliched as this is, it is the best way to put it. If a guy or gal has a set time for sex..."put up or I am out of here," then I think it says where that relationship was heading anyhow. My 3-date anty up remark has nothing to do with sex, it was regarding money; I'm a poor graduate student. The least a girl could do if I pick up dinner is pick up the drinks at the bar afterwards. No-one here is arguing a set time for sex. What we are arguing is that an undefinable amount of time to wait is not appropriate either. Sex is a REQUIREMENT of a relationship that is going good? Would you consider a relationship good because the sex is good? Yes, a relationship that is going good, for me, will be one with good sex. For me to be in a relationship, I expect sex to be a part of it. If that means waiting to be a woman's boyfriend until sex, so be it, as long as things are progressing towards a relationship at a pace I feel is acceptable. However, within a relationship, I do expect sex. I can't imagine a relationship that is going well, when the sex is not. Usually sex is the first thing to go when a relationship starts turning south. If sex is suddenly not happening or cut off, it means something is wrong in the relationship. I can't have a good relationship without good sex. Good sex is an indication that other things in the relationship are going well.
Trialbyfire Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Why do people view sex as a bartering tool? It's not. People have the right to not indulge for assorted reasons and to indulge for assorted reasons, if goals are the same between individuals. The difficulty is, who's being honest and who isn't. More often than not, guys tend to focus on the physicality without bothering with the rest, which is why it makes it easy for them to dine and dash.
Darkzen Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Sex is as important in a relationship as any other aspect. Hell, it's the primary difference between friendship and a relationship. People that don't get it out of the way will have problems down the road. In-fact, I believe there's scientific evidence that the more that a couple has sex, the stronger the bond becomes between them. Would you get into a relationship without finding out if you enjoy the other person's company first? I wouldn't because that's a big risk... same goes for sex. If you don't like having sex with the other person, you might as well just be friends. I say the sooner the better, but my personal preference is to wait long enough to find out a little about the person... i.e. if they have diseases, if they are compatible personality-wise, if you enjoy being around them, etc... People need to stop being so 1950's with sex, it's a major piece of the relationship puzzle. Waiting until marriage is utterly retarded if you want a healthy relationship... I understand religious beliefs, but that's pretty out-dated IMHO. P.S. practice makes perfect. I've only had 4 different sexual partners in my life, but have had sex thousands of times. I'm not saying to sleep around, because that can be dangerous... but have sex and have it frequently IMHO. Get good at it and please your partner, otherwise I think you're selfish. The point is to mutually please one another after all (aside from reproduction).
oppath Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Why do people view sex as a bartering tool? It's not. People have the right to not indulge for assorted reasons and to indulge for assorted reasons, if goals are the same between individuals. The difficulty is, who's being honest and who isn't. More often than not, guys tend to focus on the physicality without bothering with the rest, which is why it makes it easy for them to dine and dash. It is not a bartering tool. Within an exclusive relationship, I want to be having sex. It is something I want to do and enjoy with the woman of my affections. If a woman's values are to wait until we are bf/gf, maybe I can wait for that. It depends on the woman and it depends on how the dating-relationship as a whole progresses. I honestly don't know how long I'd wait. In all my relationships, sex happened. I know I wouldn't wait 6 months. I don't see a need to wait longer than 2, for example, because at that point I'd know if I wanted to risk greater intimacy (a relationship) with that woman. If our paces/desires didn't match at that point, I'd take it as a sign we have different values and needs and ultimately weren't compatible.
Cobra_X30 Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 It will work in some cases, it's just inaccurate. Tests are tricky to use in dating anyway. If I knew a girl was waiting to have sex because she didn't want to get attached, then that I can respect. But if I knew she was waiting because she didn't trust my intentions, then I'd be a little to a lot offended, depending on how long we had been seeing each other. Nobody likes not being trusted. I'm the opposite. I'd rather the girl not trust my intentions, because I wouldnt take that personal. In fact I would probably respect that allot. Mostly because she is respecting herself and putting a high importance on her sexuality. If a girl is easy, doesnt that kind of turn you off? I mean it wouldnt stop me from going there... but I just wouldnt invest as much. If she didnt want to get too involved emotionally? That might upset me. Like I'm only good for emotional support? C'mon, isnt that called bieng friends? 6 or 7? Probably not. And if she needs that long how deeply connected can you really be? But it's hard to say for sure because the longest I've ever had to wait was about 7 weeks and it did start to become an issue (although she ultimately ended it, not me). I typically dont have to wait long because even though I may respect the fact that a girl wants to wait... that doesnt stop me from pushing and trying. . As a guy I'm never going to be ashamed of wanting sex! Its part of what I am. However... if she could hold out for 6 months... and I was really into her... I wouldnt dump her just because of that.
Cobra_X30 Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Sex should come when the time is right. As cliched as this is, it is the best way to put it. If a guy or gal has a set time for sex..."put up or I am out of here," then I think it says where that relationship was heading anyhow. This is very true! Artificial time limits are not the way to go.
Trialbyfire Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 It is not a bartering tool. Within an exclusive relationship, I want to be having sex. It is something I want to do and enjoy with the woman of my affections. If a woman's values are to wait until we are bf/gf, maybe I can wait for that. It depends on the woman and it depends on how the dating-relationship as a whole progresses. I honestly don't know how long I'd wait. In all my relationships, sex happened. I know I wouldn't wait 6 months. I don't see a need to wait longer than 2, for example, because at that point I'd know if I wanted to risk greater intimacy (a relationship) with that woman. If our paces/desires didn't match at that point, I'd take it as a sign we have different values and needs and ultimately weren't compatible. No doubt we all want to express our affection through physicality within an exclusive relationship. Whether it's 2 months or 12 months, when someone is ready for it, they will know. Both sides of the equation risk losing someone worthwhile, when they act in a hurry or they wait too long. As long as they're willing to risk this, it's on their own time and judgement call.
tanbark813 Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 If a girl is easy, doesnt that kind of turn you off? Not at all, and I personally don't refer to it as "easy". I don't have a problem having sex on the first date so it would be hypocritical to judge a girl for doing the same. And, IME, the length of time before sex happens is a poor indicator of how the relationship will be overall.
tanbark813 Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Both sides of the equation risk losing someone worthwhile, when they act in a hurry or they wait too long. Now this I will totally agree with. Moderation is typically the way to go.
JamesM Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 People that don't get it out of the way will have problems down the road. In-fact, I believe there's scientific evidence that the more that a couple has sex, the stronger the bond becomes between them. Would you get into a relationship without finding out if you enjoy the other person's company first? I wouldn't because that's a big risk... same goes for sex. If you don't like having sex with the other person, you might as well just be friends. I say the sooner the better, but my personal preference is to wait long enough to find out a little about the person... i.e. if they have diseases, if they are compatible personality-wise, if you enjoy being around them, etc... People need to stop being so 1950's with sex, it's a major piece of the relationship puzzle. Waiting until marriage is utterly retarded if you want a healthy relationship... I understand religious beliefs, but that's pretty out-dated IMHO. Get good at it and please your partner, otherwise I think you're selfish. The point is to mutually please one another after all (aside from reproduction). Actually, people that get it out of the way have problems in a different way. If sex is too important, then communication is put to the side. If sex is a requirement for a good relationship, then having lots of it will take away from the time of learning about the person you want sex with. And yes, there is statistics that show that sex is important...but let's use statistics correctly. This is in regards to marriages...not within the first few moths of a relationship. Why pick on the 50s? Actually the fifties was when the sexual revolution began. It kicked in full gear in the sixties. But speaking of statistics, I believe that many websites will show you that cohabitation leads to more divorces than relationships that get married before living together. In fact, google premarital sex and divorce. I think you will find that those who have a lot of sex before marriage don't have better marriages. And this comes not from "religious" websites. Plus those that DO have premarital sex with someone have a greater chance of not getting married to that person. These are statistics...not me. Don't shoot the messenger. So, sex without love is not good. And expecting that sex must be given to you or the relationship is done....well THAT is actually selfish. Not performing sex for a partner because he "requires" it is not only brave but wise for your own long term relationship. Yes, exactly...the point IS to mutually pleasure each other. It is NOT to be given for the pleasure of just one person. It is an expression of love.
Trialbyfire Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Yes, exactly...the point IS to mutually pleasure each other. It is NOT to be given for the pleasure of just one person. It is an expression of love. Ba da bing... Well said.
oppath Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Quoting Nathaniel Brandwn: To be sexually desired, in the context of romantic love, although not necessarily in the context of more casual relationships, is to be seen and wanted for what one is as a person, including what one is as a man or a woman. The essence of the romantic love response is: “I see you as a person, and because you are what you are, I love and desire you, for my happiness in general and my sexual happiness in particular.” If I sleep with a woman I would like to develop a relationship with, it means I see her as a person, and I desire her for who she is as a person, because that person gives me happiness. I desire sex because being intimate in that way makes me feel close to her as a person. It is not the only way to feel close, but ultimately, it comes down to...I see in her values and traits that I admire, that I treasure, and those values and traits, being alive in another person, give me psychological visibility. In a sense it is purely selfish. I want to mutually please her only because her happiness make those values and traits I treasure live in her more fully, and that gives me greater visibility and greater happiness. Now, if a woman needs to wait to gauge my intentions, I am insulted, because I don't lie to women, period. I am honest about who I am and what I want. If she wants to wait to remain unattached so she is sure of HER intentions with me, then that is something completely different.
Cobra_X30 Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Not at all, and I personally don't refer to it as "easy". I don't have a problem having sex on the first date so it would be hypocritical to judge a girl for doing the same. And, IME, the length of time before sex happens is a poor indicator of how the relationship will be overall. No, I would say it can be a very good indicator! It will tell you many things about a woman. Odd. What kind of girl are you looking for? Ever see the character played by Eugene Levy in the movie 'Best In Show'? It kinda seems like maybe thats what your shooting for.
Cobra_X30 Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 So, sex without love is not good. And expecting that sex must be given to you or the relationship is done....well THAT is actually selfish. Not performing sex for a partner because he "requires" it is not only brave but wise for your own long term relationship. If not handled appropriately this can kill a relationship quickly. I understand the "requires" it part... but understand that may be situational. I read very quickly how someone decides to handle my needs. If I fail to see some kind of consideration and or respect... a pink slip will follow.
tanbark813 Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 No, I would say it can be a very good indicator! It will tell you many things about a woman. No, I'm saying in my experience, it hasn't been a good indicator. Odd. What kind of girl are you looking for? Ever see the character played by Eugene Levy in the movie 'Best In Show'? It kinda seems like maybe thats what your shooting for. While I find him hilarious, I don't want to have sex with Eugene Levy. Assuming you meant his wife in the movie, no, I'm not looking for that either. It's a rather progressive concept for some people but it is possible for a woman to enjoy and explore her sexuality and still be a person of good character and integrity.
Cobra_X30 Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 No, I'm saying in my experience, it hasn't been a good indicator. Hmmm... Any idea why that is so? Is it something you just havnt paid much attention to? While I find him hilarious, I don't want to have sex with Eugene Levy. Assuming you meant his wife in the movie, no, I'm not looking for that either. It's a rather progressive concept for some people but it is possible for a woman to enjoy and explore her sexuality and still be a person of good character and integrity. LOL.... Nice catch! Yeah I was asking if you want to be that guy... not be with him.... but you arlready know that... LOL . Are you posing that as a question? Because there is a difference in how its approached. A woman with a healthy dose of self-esteem is not typically going to start that enjoying or exploring process on the first date. In fact, more often than not the girls who get physical first are often the ones with emotional issues. So, while you may consider this idea progressive, I tend to look at human nature, and think that it is rarely so.
tanbark813 Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Hmmm... Any idea why that is so? Is it something you just havnt paid much attention to? It's something I haven't paid much attention to in the past but over the years I've taken a closer look at it, due in part to conversations with a couple of very insightful friends of mine. It basically boils down to dating girls who have their shyt together, to put it bluntly. I didn't make that as big of a priority in the past as it should have been. I also didn't have as much self-respect back then as I do now for a number of reasons. It varies a little from girl to girl but that's the gist of it. Are you posing that as a question? Because there is a difference in how its approached. A woman with a healthy dose of self-esteem is not typically going to start that enjoying or exploring process on the first date. In fact, more often than not the girls who get physical first are often the ones with emotional issues. So, while you may consider this idea progressive, I tend to look at human nature, and think that it is rarely so. Perhaps. A girl with low self-esteem is likely to bone down on the first date. But at the same time, just because she does bone down on the first date doesn't mean she necessarily has low self-esteem. And, personally, 90% of girls I've been with have boned down on the first or second date. And, realistically, is there really much difference if it's the first, second, or third date? IMO, it only seems to make a difference if you're talking about first or second date versus waiting a month or more.
Cad Rake Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Perhaps. A girl with low self-esteem is likely to bone down on the first date. But at the same time, just because she does bone down on the first date doesn't mean she necessarily has low self-esteem. And, personally, 90% of girls I've been with have boned down on the first or second date. And, realistically, is there really much difference if it's the first, second, or third date? IMO, it only seems to make a difference if you're talking about first or second date versus waiting a month or more. Fully agree, except in the case of the ones you get together with FOR the purpose of having sex. That is, an explicit agreement that that's why you're getting together at all. Otherwise I must say that the VAST majority of women will have sex within the first few dates except for maybe religious chicks who make it clear right off the bat. I don't think there's a whole lot of choice for chicks these days.. it's like when one airline lowers its prices pretty much all of the rest have to also. I think 3 dates is "standard." The women don't feel like sluts and the guys don't feel taken advantage of. Wait much longer and even the women think it's weird.
Recommended Posts