I told him I didn't want to have sex

[dnm]

I STRONGLY disagree with enema. I have this issue a lot because I'm Christian but I'm not perfect so I have had sex but i don't take it lightly at all. If I was a virgin I think guys would get that, but since Im not they're like...sooo....what's the problem... I know this is a little different than the post but I get annoyed when guys get impatient. THere are other ways to get off without getting prematurely intimate. The guys that have really been into me have been cool enought to wait. The one time I gave in to shut the guy up he didn't call me after...conquest...And the sex had been pretty darn good...You should never have to have sex before you feel up to it. And personally, I think if YOU were more into him, itd be hard for YOU to wait...so reconsider how into HIM you are....

 

yeah, one should never do it out of pressure or to 'keep' the guy. In all my relationships, I never felt comfortable having sex early on, and each of the guys except one waited.

[MichelleS1983]

Anyway he seems to think that sex takes things to another level etc and that's just how he always does things. Meets someone he likes then has sex....

Yeah - and how's that been working for him? Since he says that's how he 'always' does things, apparently his little 'method' of getting close obviously doesn't work.

 

Stick to your guns and tell him to buy a Hustler since he can't seem to control his hormones. He sounds like a 16 year old boy.

[movingonandon]

And personally, I think if YOU were more into him, itd be hard for YOU to wait...so reconsider how into HIM you are....

 

It's really that simple, and that's exactly why it's perfectly sensible thing to ditch a woman who still can't make up her mind about whether she likes you enough to have sex with you within a month or so (at the most). Nobody's pressuring nobody - you're just not into it, sweetie, and that's okay

[Benique]

It's really that simple, and that's exactly why it's perfectly sensible thing to ditch a woman who still can't make up her mind about whether she likes you enough to have sex with you within a month or so (at the most). Nobody's pressuring nobody - you're just not into it, sweetie, and that's okay

 

 

Pressuring would never help .

But why not to desire sex ?

[Adri Ana]

I have been dating this guy that I am attracted to, but I am not interested in having sex at this point. I've only known him a month. We have gone out quite a bit, I enjoy his company and many things about him, but then I also feel pressured because he wants me to sleep over with him all the time. I am in my mid thirties and I am looking for someone who wants something serious, someone who is looking to get married. Anyway last night we were making out etc, but I stopped him again and explained to him again that I don't yet want to I don't feel like I know him well enough or trust him enough and am wanting something more that just sex and good times. Anyway he seems to think that sex takes things to another level etc and that's just how he always does things. Meets someone he likes then has sex, I guess I have done the same, but now I want to know the person more, because I'm looking to settle down I want to make sure they will be there and really care about me. So he left and we decided we think different. I guess I wont hear from him again, but it is a little hurtful that he really did not care. . What do yall think about what I did. Will any guy be ok with waiting? I feel like I will never find someone I am attracted to that is willing to wait.

 

 

 

I agree with you . A woman in her thirties really wants something serious and not just lay-hug-f*ck-get up .

But if your desire is not to have sex yet ,

you need to explain him this an understandable way .

If he is mature ,he will understand you well ..

If he is not , then you just do not need to waste your time with him .

[Perry]

For all you girls looking for that right, mature, understanding guy, reading movingonandon's posts is a perfect example on why you need to wait, and, to think before getting serious about a guy.

 

Too many little boys out there.

 

No offense, movingonandon, but you are a perfect example for women to learn by.

[redant]

He did not leave.

[Star Gazer]

He did not leave.

 

Didn't he? Isn't that what your OP said?

[Meet 4 Coffee]

I think she meant it was a mutual decision after talking.

[movingonandon]

For all you girls looking for that right, mature, understanding guy, reading movingonandon's posts is a perfect example on why you need to wait, and, to think before getting serious about a guy.

 

Too many little boys out there.

 

No offense, movingonandon, but you are a perfect example for women to learn by.

 

Great, now I'm a posterchild , and my style is oh so crimped now . So, what did we learn? I got it: god loves you and you will burn in hell, and sex is a horrible thing and you should only save if for somebody you really, really love . Just kidding!

 

If i didn't just spend a pleasant night with my girlfriend (who, as I just learned, was getting mildly annoyed that I didn't even bother to kiss her until date # 4), I'd be irritated, rather than amused by the persistent misinterpretation of my posts . For all the slow, though otherwise sufficiently loveable persons out there, let me summarize once again that the whole "wait for sex" issue ticks certain people off (including yours truly) only insofar it involves some sort of explicit calculations and/or control tendencies - like the ones described by the OP - that get in the way of a healthy process of attraction between two consenting adults. There are two common explanations for such mind games: insufficient attraction to begin with or some psychological issue (abandodnment/trust issues, insecurity, whatever). Whichever the case, it is a sensible thing to put an end to the interaction if such behavior surfaces. (And if it is the latter type of reasons - you need a counselor, not a boyfriend.)

 

But, if singling me and men like me out just because this type of self-righteous manipulation apparently won't work on us makes you feel like you have the moral high ground, hey, that's one less good deed I have to worry about doing today .

 

P.S. Eat it !

[fishtaco]

Women seem to hold sex as the last thing they surrender. Men seem to hold emotional connection as the last thing they surrender. Maybe it's because women think sex is more important and men think emotional connection is more important, I don't know. But both sides are taking risks. There is a lot of symmetry in dating.

 

What if the woman spends months having sex with the guy and then he goes, sorry babe, I'm seeing someone else now? What if the man spends many months reaching out and establishing emotional connection only to have her go sorry babe, I'm seeing someone else now?

 

What if a guy doesn't give up any emotion connection during the course of going on dates? Good idea, or is he paranoid? Maybe you won't stick around to date a guy like that. Well this is exactly the same as women not giving up sex during the course of going on dates. Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's being paranoid. Maybe some guys won't stick around to date a woman like that. But in order to not be a hypocrite, you have to believe in the same thing for both men and women. I.e. if it's a good idea for women to not give up sex, then it should be equally good idea for men not to give up emotional connection.

 

BTW, using sex as the "prize" to win doesn't ensure getting a good man. There are men out there are are willing to go as far as getting married just to get sex. Willingness to put up with a lot of crap just to get sex isn't exactly a virtue.

 

Personally I prefer women with a more relaxed attitude toward sex. Maybe that makes me a crappy man. Well if having a relaxed attitude toward sex makes a person crappy, the women that I find with the same attitude must be crappy too. And us crappy people can hang out together and be happy in our crappy relationships.

 

And that's what dating is about. You separate into groups that believe in similar things. Being holy and having moral high ground doesn't do crap other than make you feel righteous when you insult people. Compatibility is the key. I've known swinger couples whose marriages are happier and longer lasting than traditional monogamous marriages. Who's to say what's right and what's wrong?

 

If you're a no-sex gal, find a no-sex guy. Done. Are all no-sex guys great guys? Nope. Percentage of douchebags is the same as the general population. Risk is still the same. But at least you get the no-sex compatibility. This breaks down when a yes-sex guy tries to pretend he's a no-sex guy in order to get laid... due to his high tolerance for crap and desperation for sex. That won't end well. Again symmetry. If a no-sex gal pretends she's a yes-sex gal so she can get that man, that's going to end badly as well.

[Trialbyfire]

Women seem to hold sex as the last thing they surrender. Men seem to hold emotional connection as the last thing they surrender. Maybe it's because women think sex is more important and men think emotional connection is more important, I don't know. But both sides are taking risks. There is a lot of symmetry in dating.

 

What if the woman spends months having sex with the guy and then he goes, sorry babe, I'm seeing someone else now? What if the man spends many months reaching out and establishing emotional connection only to have her go sorry babe, I'm seeing someone else now?

Actually, you're looking at this in a lopsided fashion. It's not as if women are emotionless or are disinterested in sex. During the course of the dating experience, many women reach out for that emotional connection. If there's no emotional connection, for some women it doesn't lead to the natural progression of sex, which once again, causes further bonding.

 

For some men, sex is pretty meaningless, just an outlet. He blows his wad and that's all there is.

 

Do you wonder why some women are disinterested in bonding with someone who just wants to blow his wad?

[elaina]

but I want it with someone I love not just know for a month.

 

I think that's great that you want sex with someone you love!!! There's nothing wrong with that!

 

It seems that many men have a completely unhealthy understanding of sex. They do not see sex as a wonderful amazing experience between two people who love each other, but rather just a "get laid" thing that involves no love, no commitment, nothing noble or true.

 

There are men though who do have a higher purpose in relationships with their significant other than just getting laid. They understand sex to be a continual awesome experience with someone they are willing to even die for, they love so much! These men are like gold!!!

[MN randomguy]

He did not leave.

 

 

Update?? Where are things now?

 

Very interesting thread. One thing I'd like to add too. I have no problem waiting with a woman who is waiting. However, I was the one who originally posted this:

 

 

!. It sucks that I have to work harder than any other guy she's slept with. It creates quite the disincentive for being the LTR potential guy.

 

 

One thing I'd like to add, you might look unjust to the first guy that you make wait. If he leaves you for it the next guy you meet you can honestly say, look, I don't have sex in the first 6 months and that's why my ex dumped me. Then it wouldn't be as hard to wait if you weren't singled out.

[ABrokenWing]

you never have to do anything you aren't comfortable doing. The "right" guy, will understand and support that.

[fishtaco]

Actually, you're looking at this in a lopsided fashion. It's not as if women are emotionless or are disinterested in sex. During the course of the dating experience, many women reach out for that emotional connection. If there's no emotional connection, for some women it doesn't lead to the natural progression of sex, which once again, causes further bonding.

 

For some men, sex is pretty meaningless, just an outlet. He blows his wad and that's all there is.

 

Do you wonder why some women are disinterested in bonding with someone who just wants to blow his wad?

 

No, I don't wonder. I stressed compatibility in my post. Some men are disinterested in bonding with women that are just looking for ONS as well. That's just a clear cut case of wanting different things.

 

I'll accept what I posted was lopsided. But I'm wasn't trying say women should give up sex regardless. I just disagree with putting so much stress on sex, as if it magically means something else. Sex = physical attraction + enough trust/comfort level, and that varies by people, and by situation. Like you said, natural progression, and that's it. It's an indicator rather than a source of something evil.

 

Also risk. It's not like women are the only ones taking a risk. Normally the person that want less out of the association is the one that's at risk less. It's not gender specific.

 

My post was lopsided, but my point remain the same. It goes back to compatibility. If given 10 points of trust, the man is ready for sex but the women isn't, I see an incompatibility. The woman isn't wrong for "not ready for sex"... maybe she requires 15 points of trust. Well at the same time the man isn't wrong for having a threshold of 10 either. They are just not compatible in this matter. Can they work it through? Maybe. With a bit of understanding and compromise from both sides this can be worked out. Eventually the relationship will get pass this stage anyway. Or alternately, either side can decide to call it quits. That's not wrong either. But balking at the "low" 10 point threshold of the man and having a "moral high ground" fit, I can't say I agree with that.

[DMoon]

People rhapsodize about the good ole days of the 40's through early 60's as some golden renaissance of marriage in which couples stayed together for years and toughed it compared to modern times, when in fact the de rigueur standard was to wait for sex, in most circumstances, until after marriage. Sure they may have done heavy "petting" etc, but they didn't go all the way. And women were vilified for being too easy back then.

 

Thus, how did these couples, who supposedly can stand the test of time in a marriage, were able to figure out their sexual compatibility without consummating until they were married. Is a modern woman’s standard to wait any different then what women did back then when it was sanctioned and men were supposedly willing to wait.

[animo]

What do you hope to accomplish?

 

I mean you can say it's about "not being ready", and "not feeling it" and you don't trust him enough and blahblahblah...

 

But really, let's cut the bullshyt shall we?

 

That's not the real reason, maybe it's 'part' of the reason... a small part, a small part that you've been thinking about and decided it's going to be a larger part than it really is. The REAL reason is that you want to get into a relationship, maybe even get married, you want a companion, not another part time lover. You want 'love', you want to find that lovey dovey happiness.

 

So I ask again... what do you hope to accomplish?

 

You see because I fail to see the logic in what you are doing.

 

So say you 'make the guy wait'... Let's just assume for a second that you meet a guy, and all is well, and you figure I'm not going to have sex with this guy for 2 months or maybe X amount of dates BECAUSE I WANT A RELATIONSHIP.

 

Now the obvious question would be... How does not having sex secure your relationship? I mean really, how? Is it supposed to make the guy stick around because he still wants soemthing from you? Then what happens when you eventually do have sex? You know, eventually, give him the one thing he's still waiting for? What makes you think he wont take off THEN? Or are you hoping that you can maybe, get into his head while you make him wait? I guess that can work, if he's a chump, but then how 'real' is your relationship actually going to be? Will this lead to the kind of relationship where people truly respect and admire each other, and that's why they're together, because they WANT TO be together? No... No because you are using 'sex' as a way to keep him for wandering off somewhere. You going to keep his sexlife on the edge of it's seat forever? How is that going to lead to a happy relationship?! It wont... it can't...

 

Now I know what you're getting at here... I don't want to get 'used for sex' all the time.

 

Now let me ask you this... Have you ever had sex because you didn't want to? Why would have sex if you don't want to? That's called rape didn't you know? You have sex because you want to!

 

You're thinking about this in terms of time invested in a relationship... Time without sex. But obviously... time will pass EITHER WAY. Whether you have sex or not, time is still going to pass.

 

So you can not have sex, and wait around for 2months until some or other date 'blossoms' into a relationship, then have sex ands then face ALL THE SAME ISSUES you always have... Or you can just date, have sex, be open to a relationship for 2 months and face those same problems... But those two months are passing REGARDLESS.

 

I guess it comes down to this... Do you want to have sex? Or don't you? Because that's really the only question that MATTERS. All those other questions about wanting to get married, and wanting this and wanting that... those are SEPERATE issues, and you should handle those separately.

 

Seriously, I do not get, nor have a EVER understood why women have this 'make him wait' deal going on. IT DOES NOT WORK... it never works.

 

If it 'works' than that simply means that the guy was going to marry you REGARDLESS, and in fact by 'making him wait' you just annoyed him (and possibly yourself) for a couple weeks/months, he was gonna marry you ANYWAYS, whether you had sex with him on date 1 or date 100... He likes you enough to marry you, or he doesn't.

 

If a guy dumps you after a ONS, he was GOING TO DUMP YOU ANYWAYS... whether you had sex on date 1 or date 100, he was going to dump you anyways. Well maybe, he'll just stop bothering you, and then you wont have had sex, and then he's gone without you having sex with him... alright well, nice job i guess... what does it matter?! What do you have like... a stamp on your forehead that says "I managed to sex-starve 12 players and NONE got into my love-tunnel, HAH! 10 points, behold all single eligible men, I have TEN points, come marry me!"... errr WHAT?!

 

Or is your entire sense of self worth tied up in howmany (or little) guys you ***ed? If that's the case i suggest you find more worthy topics to invest your sense of self worth into...

 

See with this guy right now... It's actually kinda funny for me to read this... You're like sitting there on the couch, making out... for whatever reason other than getting horny for the ride back home or something... And you're both just sitting there and feeding each other BULLSHYT as to why you should or shouldn't have sex...

 

Oh but I need more trust, I need 'connection'... I'm not 'ready' (please, you're 30+, if you're not ready now, you'll never be)

 

And he's bullshytting you right back with stuff like... oh but it's going to take this whole relationship to 'the next level'... like it's some awesome epiphany that's going to happen when you both have this earth-shattering orgasms cause you managed to love-starve each other...

 

You know it's like... two kids bullshytting each other, as if you don't both know exactly what's going on. You know what he wants, you know what those excuses are really about... and he knows what you want, and what your excuses are all about...

 

So hey, let's get it over with! Let's get to shopping for a wedding ring, run to the nearest chapel, go home, *** each others brains out... there all done... If in a couple months form now the marriage doesn't work out you can just get a divorce... Takes a day if you had a prenup and no kids.

 

Or you can just... take a chance, run the risks...

 

Having or not having sex isn't going to affect your relationships in any other way then simply becoming more or less sexual. If you're not finding companions, the problem isn't in the bedroom, it's somewhere else... Or well it IS in the bedroom, just not in the department of whether or not there IS sex happening in there, but rather how good that sex is... ;-)

[Trialbyfire]

My post was lopsided, but my point remain the same. It goes back to compatibility. If given 10 points of trust, the man is ready for sex but the women isn't, I see an incompatibility. The woman isn't wrong for "not ready for sex"... maybe she requires 15 points of trust. Well at the same time the man isn't wrong for having a threshold of 10 either. They are just not compatible in this matter. Can they work it through? Maybe. With a bit of understanding and compromise from both sides this can be worked out. Eventually the relationship will get pass this stage anyway. Or alternately, either side can decide to call it quits. That's not wrong either. But balking at the "low" 10 point threshold of the man and having a "moral high ground" fit, I can't say I agree with that.

 

 

I mostly agree with what you're saying, except for the following:

1. As far as I'm concerned, better for the guy to walk because that trust level will never magically appear if he's unable or unwilling to invest. It is what it is.
   
2. As for moral high ground, it's applicable in situations of fraud or playarism. We both know the kind of guy who jack rabbits around, lying his way, just to add another bed post notch. In this scenario, you bet the woman has moral high ground and it's within her best interests to ensure that she waits. The sad reality is that only time will tell, if the guy's one of the decent guys or he's an outright liar. If you guys have issues with anyone, you should have issues with this type of guy.
   

[Trialbyfire]

Oh, one thing I should add fishtaco. Not everyone is capable of the same depth of emotion or for that matter is comfortable with it. If so, one more reason to wait. Let's see what he's got inside of him. He can talk until he's blue in the face but that means diddly-squat when it comes to actions. If there's a substantial difference, then better that he walks, once again.

[norajane]

Having or not having sex isn't going to affect your relationships in any other way then simply becoming more or less sexual.

 

Yes, and some people don't want the relationship to become more sexual before they develop a non-sexual bond with the person.

 

Once you start having sex, a very new relationship then becomes all about the sex, and much less about discovering whether you are actually emotionally and intellectually compatible. I think it tends to keep people together - just for the sex - who wouldn't necessarily stay together if the sex hormones weren't acting in full force.

 

Some people would rather determine how compatible they really are and how into that person they really are before sex becomes the focus between them.

 

A lot of women DO bond more closely with men after having sex when the chemicals are released in their brains. And some of those women don't want that chemical bond to occur before they know whether that guy is someone they want to be in a relationship with.

[CBR_pilot]

From a man's perspective (also in my 30's), I would have to say that I would also be looking for sex early on in a new relationship. Not necessarily on the first few dates, but early enough to see if we're going to be compatible. I know that women typically see things differently, but for me, (and I assume most men) sex is a very important part of a relationship. I'm not looking for a conquest, but the sooner that I find out how we are in bed, the better. It would definitely suck to get deeply involved with someone and then find out that we're not very compatible sexually...

[animo]

Yes, and some people don't want the relationship to become more sexual before they develop a non-sexual bond with the person.

 

Once you start having sex, a very new relationship then becomes all about the sex, and much less about discovering whether you are actually emotionally and intellectually compatible. I think it tends to keep people together - just for the sex - who wouldn't necessarily stay together if the sex hormones weren't acting in full force.

 

Some people would rather determine how compatible they really are and how into that person they really are before sex becomes the focus between them.

 

A lot of women DO bond more closely with men after having sex when the chemicals are released in their brains. And some of those women don't want that chemical bond to occur before they know whether that guy is someone they want to be in a relationship with.

 

That's a nice anology there...

 

So how would you say that an overworked sex-drive affects emotions, and emotional bonding? As opposed to say a sexdrive that is being satisfied by said person...

 

Let's see... Fuzzy bonds based on sex... or fuzzy bonds based on sexual desire... which is the more fuzzy?

 

I guess in a perfect world sex really wouldn't be an issue. We'd all be these mystical beings and sex would be spiritual, clean and pure... Unfortunately we're just filthy animals that love to spread the love, and as long as that's true, it's affecting our interactions with each other, one way or another. Now if some women want to use it as a self protection mechanism, then that's just fine.. It's still a perfectly valid point that it might be causing as much damage as it is preventing.

[amerikajin]

I've dated two women who would not open up to me sexually despite other aspects of the relationship apparently being in sync. In both cases, the relationships lasted about three months before I started moving on. It didn't end just because of the lack of sex, but every time we'd get into an argument or something would come up in the relationship, the lack of sex would amplify things in my mind. It left me wondering what I really meant to my partner. And as bad as this sounds, the horny male in me started asking "Dude, what am I really getting out of this?"

 

I can understand it if a woman doesn't want to engage in sex right away, like within the first 4 to 6 weeks. But if we've spent a lot of time together and opened up a good level of communication, I may not demand that she have sex with me, but it will be an expectation. Sex is just the ultimate way of opening up to someone. It's becoming less vulnerable and expressing trust in a way that you can't do verbally.

 

If the guy has been pressuring you from the start, I can totally understand why you might be reticent to have sex. It has to feel like a natural progression, not coerced. But if time has gone by and there hasn't been any coercion, I would seriously begin to wonder if we were really compatible.

 

Just my take on the subject.

[marlena]

But if time has gone by and there hasn't been any coercion, I would seriously begin to wonder if we were really compatible.

 

In absolute agreement. If after being with someone for a time and still there was no urgent need on both sides to bond in that subliminal way that only two naked bodies can reach, I would seriously question my compatibility with that person. It is not just sex, it is a desire to "lay yourself bare", to place your vulnerability in that person's hands ... to say, I trust you, I want to reach "the height and breadth my soul can reach" with you. ..even if one day you hurt me ...it doesn't matter...what matters is that I want to strive for the ultimate connection with you.