movingonandon Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I thought the concept of "holding out for sex" was just a myth, but reading the posts here, it seems to be the prevailing mindset... I would have no problem with it, except that it makes no sense whatsoever, none at all, the logic is whack The rarionale usually is that if you see that the relationship has "potential" (i.e. the possibility of being long term i presume, more multi dimensional, etc.), then it's not a good idea to have sex "too soon" (i.e. within furst couple of dates) ad this would devalue it in some way, or will make the guy think that you're a ho . The problem I see with this that (from my point of view), the timing of sex has absolutely nothing to do with how I view the relationship potential... I.e. if I'm genuinely interested in a woman having sex early will do nothing to change that, and if I'm not genuinely interested (in a LTR, the girl might be just fine otherwise), waiting for sex wan't change that either (but it's not a problem at all to 'wait' as much as necessary.... i.e. who said I wouldn't be willing to wait, even if it is just for a casual hook up...) So, what's the point???
amaysngrace Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I don't understand it either. It's like a control situation to me. Giving the woman the upperhand (or so she thinks) like this relationship could be controlled by her putting out or not. It's lame.
berrieh Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I think the idea is: You get to know the person and develop trust. (Some people do this instantly, or early on, like myself, but many people have to examine and re-examine a person to trust them; it depends on how much you leave to instinct, how you judge people, how much you trust your judgement, etc).The myth that "A guy who just wants sex will get bored and leave. A guy who really likes you will stay." Yes, the guy who likes you will always stay - but many men who just want to have sex actually get revved up by "the chase" and will stay, too. Only lazy guys will leave and those who respect you but know they don't want to be with you, therefore won't try to sleep with you, will leave.A woman is afraid to look like she sleeps around. Or to actually sleep around. I've had sex at various points, but if you always had it early, I suppose you would wind up with more partners, unless it always worked out for you -- just statistically speaking.Personally, I think people should wait until they're ready. For me, that's been as early as the 2nd date and as long as 4 months...depending on the guy, my life, and the situation.
xjadex Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 If he aint into you, then sex early on or not, he aint gonna stick around... If he's 'into you', he will stick around, no matter how early sex takes place.. Simple as.
Bells Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I thought the concept of "holding out for sex" was just a myth, but reading the posts here, it seems to be the prevailing mindset... I would have no problem with it, except that it makes no sense whatsoever, none at all, the logic is whack The rarionale usually is that if you see that the relationship has "potential" (i.e. the possibility of being long term i presume, more multi dimensional, etc.), then it's not a good idea to have sex "too soon" (i.e. within furst couple of dates) ad this would devalue it in some way, or will make the guy think that you're a ho . The problem I see with this that (from my point of view), the timing of sex has absolutely nothing to do with how I view the relationship potential... I.e. if I'm genuinely interested in a woman having sex early will do nothing to change that, and if I'm not genuinely interested (in a LTR, the girl might be just fine otherwise), waiting for sex wan't change that either (but it's not a problem at all to 'wait' as much as necessary.... i.e. who said I wouldn't be willing to wait, even if it is just for a casual hook up...) So, what's the point??? I think an attitude such as this is a feeble attempt to guilt women into sleeping with them. "Oh, you won't put out after X amt of dates? See ya!" A person like yourself isn't worth it, just because you want to get your "rocks off". This is more of the ADULT version of, "IF you love me, you'll have sex with me!"
amaysngrace Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I think an attitude such as this is a feeble attempt to guilt women into sleeping with them. "Oh, you won't put out after X amt of dates? See ya!" A person like yourself isn't worth it, just because you want to get your "rocks off". This is more of the ADULT version of, "IF you love me, you'll have sex with me!" I think he doesn't understand the logic of waiting X amounts of dates to begin with so why would he use that as his basis at all? It's not a factor to him. You must be one of the ones who follows the X amount of dates rule, huh?
monkey00 Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 The problem I see with this that (from my point of view), the timing of sex has absolutely nothing to do with how I view the relationship potential... I.e. if I'm genuinely interested in a woman having sex early will do nothing to change that, and if I'm not genuinely interested (in a LTR, the girl might be just fine otherwise), waiting for sex wan't change that either (but it's not a problem at all to 'wait' as much as necessary.... i.e. who said I wouldn't be willing to wait, even if it is just for a casual hook up...) So, what's the point??? While I agree with that, I think a more plausible explanation would be that we as humans place more value on things we work hard for. Granted we don't view the woman as easy after sleeping with her on the 2nd date, I don't see any reason for that statement not to apply here.
Bells Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I think he doesn't understand the logic of waiting X amounts of dates to begin with so why would he use that as his basis at all? It's not a factor to him. You must be one of the ones who follows the X amount of dates rule, huh? No...not at all. I'm one of those, "Until I'm Ready" kind of guys. It's just guys like him refers it as something as a "Myth" when it's really not even in that category at all. Getting laid is more his priority than establishing a healthy relationship.
amaysngrace Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 No...not at all. I'm one of those, "Until I'm Ready" kind of guys. It's just guys like him refers it as something as a "Myth" when it's really not even in that category at all. Getting laid is more his priority than establishing a healthy relationship. I don't think so. I think he was saying that sex has no bearing on if he thinks the girl is relationship-worthy or not. If he likes the girl enough to want to a relationship with her then sex is something to enjoy with her as well. Not having sex with her isn't going to spark his interest in a girl he's not interested in to begin with. And having sex with a girl he's not interested in won't happen because he's not interested. So having sex whenever that happens is going to be an added bonus because the interest is already there. I don't put a number on the amounts of dates I wait. Who says how many dates you should wait anyway? Why are they right to know my situation better than I know my situation? And who are they to put a number to apply to everyone anyway? It sounds like some rule society says we should follow instead of doing what's right to each person. I'm a non-conformist in that way. I do what's right for me. And I don't feel anything about it just because someone who doesn't even know me says I should.
Bells Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 It sounds like some rule society says we should follow instead of doing what's right to each person. That's good to hear.... I think society these days places way too much emphasis on sex that people are thinking it's very important to them.
manugeorge Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I think if you are the type who views sex as something very intimate to be enjoyed with someone you genuinely care about, then you are more likely to wait to have sex. This is based on the assumption that intimacy and genuine care are not things you can develop by the 2nd or 3rd date. For those of us who view sex as something deeper than mere physical connection, we tend to wait until we attain a certain level of closeness to a man or woman before we engage in sex. This is not to say there is anything wrong in having sex on the first date or having a one night stand. It all depends on how you view sex to begin with.
GoodOnPaper Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 . . .I think he was saying that sex has no bearing on if he thinks the girl is relationship-worthy or not. If he likes the girl enough to want to a relationship with her then sex is something to enjoy with her as well. Not having sex with her isn't going to spark his interest in a girl he's not interested in to begin with. And having sex with a girl he's not interested in won't happen because he's not interested. So having sex whenever that happens is going to be an added bonus because the interest is already there. That's how I took it, and that's my philosophy as well. As a shy, "nice" guy, the biggest compliment a woman can pay me is that she is physically attracted early on. Unnecessarily waiting is counterproductive -- I assume that I am being friend-zoned.
amaysngrace Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 For those of us who view sex as something deeper than mere physical connection, we tend to wait until we attain a certain level of closeness to a man or woman before we engage in sex. I agree. But who is to say when a couple reaches that level of connection? I think it varies from couple to couple.
moonmoon Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I think the factors that are being left out of the X amt of Dates=sex argument here are that 1. us men are programmed to have to get off, unless youve been neutered its the cold hard truth 2. us men can only afford a limited number of dates. its not much different to be a guy that moves around trying to get laid in as few dates as possible, as it is to be a girl that moves around leaving a path of blueballed, poor, nice guys...
ThisGuy85 Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I view it like this. If a girl were to tell me that they wanted to wait, And get to know me before putting out, I'd be fine with that. But if this waiting game drug out for months, It would effectivly just become a distraction in the relationship. A guys mind is wired for sex, Plain and simple. So over time it would consume us. Every time we were with the girl, we would be thinking of how to get them to put out, Why she won't put out, How good is she in bed, How much longer are we going to have to wait? So in other words, While she's talking to us about her hopes and feelings, We're thinking about how much we HOPE to FEEL her very soon. I do agree with what Movingonandon said, If we like a girl we like her, sex or not. If we don't like her holding out sex is not going to change that.
Author movingonandon Posted December 1, 2008 Author Posted December 1, 2008 No...not at all. I'm one of those, "Until I'm Ready" kind of guys. It's just guys like him refers it as something as a "Myth" when it's really not even in that category at all. Getting laid is more his priority than establishing a healthy relationship. I never said there's anything wrong with 'waiting until ready', whatever that means in people's personal situations/values. Attraction builds over time, and nobody should have sex before that/before they know the person/ etc. etc. etc.. But I'm referring specifically to a *strategic* thinking about timing that is also not necessarily consistent with the underlying desires of the woman in question. Just look at the large number of posts saying something like "Oh s**t, we made out too soon!" "Oh, s**t, we had sex on a 2nd date, is this a dealbreaker!?" etc. That's clear evidence of strategic thinking and trying to "time" sex. All I'm saying is that this does not accomplish much. Moreover, being strategic in this way is actually one of the most insulting things you could possibly do to a guy because the implicit message of such strategic "witholding" is: "I won't sleep with you too soon because i think you're cute, but also a good catch/long hauler. If you were just cute, I might have messed up with you sooner". Thanks, but I'm not having any of that :cool: P.S. Also, I'm not bent on getting laid, and that's precicely why I can wait unlimited time *even if* my only intention is to get laid. That's why timing of sex has pretty much nothing to do with the potential for a healthy relationship. Of course, few guys will turn down sex if it is easily available, but all I'm saying that this is a very poor heuristic for discerning or building relationship potential.
Author movingonandon Posted December 1, 2008 Author Posted December 1, 2008 I think if you are the type who views sex as something very intimate to be enjoyed with someone you genuinely care about, then you are more likely to wait to have sex. This is based on the assumption that intimacy and genuine care are not things you can develop by the 2nd or 3rd date. For those of us who view sex as something deeper than mere physical connection, we tend to wait until we attain a certain level of closeness to a man or woman before we engage in sex. This is not to say there is anything wrong in having sex on the first date or having a one night stand. It all depends on how you view sex to begin with. That's absolutely true, but can be easily exagerated, in a sense that people will start worrying about that connection only after the initial treshold of attractiveness it passed with flying colors. Be honest with yourself (and here's a general question to all women that kindly responded), and let me know: thinking of your last couple of boyfriends, how long did it take you to figure out that you're attracted to the men in question and are happily open to the possibility of naughty times with them? . My point is that women KNOW if a man is a desirable partner for them within 5 minutes of meeting him or less . Beyond that point, some minimal interaction to establish some sort of comfort/rapport is requisite, but going on on an unlimited number of dates without at least wondering how he looks without a shirt on basically says that you had nothing better to do on that particular night . So yes, in this sense attraction builds over time, but it is merely a validation of the initial assessment, usually made very quickly, of whether the guy is desireable. In other words, if a woman likes you, it almost doesn't matter what you'll do. And if she doesn't like you, it doesn't matter if you're gentleman extraordinaire and master romancer. No woman who genuinely likes and respects a man will think of him in terms of "you're doing ok buddy, but you ain't getting some just yet :)"). So the waiting game is basically another way of saying 'I'm not that into you' (which is fine, let's just not try to color it in brighter colors than it deserves :lmao:)
Stockalone Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I would have no problem with it, except that it makes no sense whatsoever, none at all, the logic is whack I don't believe the logic is whack. Granted, if a guy is willing to wait as long as it takes and all he wants is to get into a woman's pants, waiting won't "save" the woman from that kind of man. However, some of the guys who only want to get laid, don't want to put too much effort in it. They might move on to a woman who doesn't make them wait too long. In that case, waiting was the right thing to do. The rarionale usually is that if you see that the relationship has "potential" (i.e. the possibility of being long term i presume, more multi dimensional, etc.), then it's not a good idea to have sex "too soon" (i.e. within furst couple of dates) ad this would devalue it in some way, or will make the guy think that you're a ho . There are guys who think that a woman is too "easy" when sex is available "too soon". Personally, I found it disturbing that a woman wanted to have sex with me after our first date. I was wondering if she was prone to making uninformed decisions in other areas of her life too. That was not the kind of woman I was looking for to have a relationship with. I doubt she was looking for a relationship, but that also meant we wanted different things. Besides, if she was prepared to have sex with me after the first date, how many other guys had received the same treatment? That turned me off. So I didn't have sex with her and never went out with her again.
Author movingonandon Posted December 1, 2008 Author Posted December 1, 2008 Personally, I found it disturbing that a woman wanted to have sex with me after our first date. Would you have found it disturbing if you just had hit it off beautifully and had the greatest time, ton of interests etc? Sure, it would be weird if you just had a bland run-of-the-mill date (which it sounds like) that all of a sudden ended with 'let's go to bed'. Also, not in relation to the question of waiting per se, but in relatoin to the examples given, things tend to be pictured in starkly contrast colors (i.e. geting laid vs. commited relationship), while many real encounters are in between. Case in point: I'm currently dating an atractive girl that I don't see as a serious potential. Does this mean that I don't want to "hm-hm" with her? Of course not (duh). Does the fact that I want mean that I don't care about her as a person? Of course not as well.
Untouchable_Fire Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I don't understand it either. It's like a control situation to me. Giving the woman the upperhand (or so she thinks) like this relationship could be controlled by her putting out or not. It's lame. It assists in weeding out men with short term intentions. I suppose it seems silly for those who enjoy feeling used and exploited. Most guys know that easy women should not be considered as long term partners. Sure there are some losers out there that would like to believe that they are just so attractive she couldn't wait. However, most of us know that it just means she has low or no standards.
amaysngrace Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I suppose it seems silly for those who enjoy feeling used and exploited. It seems silly to me too and I don't enjoy feeling used or exploited. I enjoy sex. And if I am with a guy I want sex with I have it. Shouldn't he feel used and exploited as well by your standards? Or do you do the double-standard thing?
Stockalone Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 Would you have found it disturbing if you just had hit it off beautifully and had the greatest time, ton of interests etc? Sure, it would be weird if you just had a bland run-of-the-mill date (which it sounds like) that all of a sudden ended with 'let's go to bed'. We met at a friend's party and spent almost the entire time together. I walked her home and then asked her out on a date. I actually had a great time during our first date and I absolutely would have taken her out on a second date. But I've never had an interest in casual sex (various reasons, among them moral objections), and her behaviour at the end of our first date completely turned me off. Case in point: I'm currently dating an atractive girl that I don't see as a serious potential. Does this mean that I don't want to "hm-hm" with her? Of course not (duh). Does the fact that I want mean that I don't care about her as a person? Of course not as well. As soon as it is clear that there is no potential for a serious relationship, I am done. I don't see the point in dating if that isn't the goal.
Author movingonandon Posted December 1, 2008 Author Posted December 1, 2008 It assists in weeding out men with short term intentions. I suppose it seems silly for those who enjoy feeling used and exploited. Most guys know that easy women should not be considered as long term partners. Sure there are some losers out there that would like to believe that they are just so attractive she couldn't wait. However, most of us know that it just means she has low or no standards. Wow, where do I begin . Let's start with long vs short term intentions. What determines if a woman is a long-term material is the evidence of her character, revealed over the course of ectended interaction in a relationship of at least 3 to 6 months. So, at what point the sex happened is irrelevant for making this decision. (and for the record, most guys will not think that they're in a relationship with a woman until they've had sex with her) Feeling exploited? Well, the only thing that determines whether this is the case is whether you have anything to offer other than booty . If you don't, why be surprised if guys are only after it? (And even so, why call it exploitation, rather than "appreciation" ). Witholding the booty won't cause any other character qualities to magically appear. (And, conversely, having sex will not cause them to disappear if they are there). re: standards. If waiting for a set number of dates before having sex is your primariy evidence of having standards... well... that's not a very strong evidence of any self-awareness to begin with, is it?
SoulSearch_CO Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I guess the big thing would be sleeping with a guy before knowing if he sees you as relationship material or not and losing your self-respect when he leaves after he got what he wanted. Rather than being worried about being SEEN as a "ho," it's important not to BE one. Besides, as has been discussed in numerous FWB threads before, women tend to get attached through sex whereas men do not. So it could deepen the woman's attachment to a man that she may have been fine with leaving previously. In addition, I've heard lectures from this self-proclaimed dating guru GUY that agrees that sex too early is a bad idea. I just think it's a slippery slope. Heck, maybe I'm old-fashioned. I just don't think it serves any purpose whatsoever to be getting jiggy with it really early on other than to make the guy happy in the pants.
amaysngrace Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I just don't think it serves any purpose whatsoever to be getting jiggy with it really early on other than to make the guy happy in the pants. What if the woman wants it?? My God you act as though men are the only ones getting something out of having sex! You'd be best not to be in a sexual relationship until you realize women derive pleasure from the act as well. No matter what your gender is.
Recommended Posts