marlena Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 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. Just want to point out that having sex at a later date is no guarantee that he will be always be there for you and care about you. It is not a question of time but compatibility on all levels... and you don't need heaps of time to establish this. Actually, if you pay attention to the signs, you will see if you are right for eachother rather early on.
Trialbyfire Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 Just want to point out that having sex at a later date is no guarantee that he will be always be there for you and care about you. It is not a question of time but compatibility ... and you don't need heaps of time to establish this. Actually, if you pay attention to the signs, you will see if you are right for eachother rather early on. marlena, I strongly disagree with this. People are on their best behaviour during the honeymoon phase. When you rip off the veil, HOLY DINAH, what kind of crap is underneath!
You'reasian Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 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. He obviously likes you. If the two of you have had sex before, you've probably caused him to lose a part of something that he valued with you - so its going to be a challenge to keep him, not to mention that you may put him in 'friend territory'. Should you find another man sexually or romantically attractive while befriending him, you will have suceeded in wiping off one more nice guy from the planet... If you want to know him more, go see a movie, hang out for coffee afterwards and just talk spontaneously. Spend more time hanging out with him so you can see who he is - workout together, do a chore or two together to see how his mind words how he handles pressures etc.
marlena Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 marlena, I strongly disagree with this. People are on their best behaviour during the honeymoon phase. When you rip off the veil, HOLY DINAH, what kind of crap is underneath! Hi TBF and Merry Christmas! Yes, I agree that they are on their best behaviour but if you keep your head about you and use your intelligence and experience, trust your instincts and are perspicacious enough, you can see through them, even when they are peddling their "best" self. There are always telltale signs. Now whether we choose to heed or dismiss these little warning bells is a different story altogether. Sex has nothing to do with this. Delaying or expediting sex is not going to change who the person REALLY is.
Trialbyfire Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 Yes, I agree that they are on their best behaviour but if you keep your head about you and use your intelligence and experience, trust your instincts and are perspicacious enough, you can see through them, even when they are peddling their "best" self. There are always telltale signs. Now whether we choose to heed or dismiss these little warning bells is a different story altogether. Sex has nothing to do with this. Delaying or expediting sex is not going to change who the person REALLY is. Happy Holidays to you, marlena! Sex is an important component to bonding, if you can't compartmentalize. I can't. When in a situation of infatuation, I do agree that we ignore the warning signs. Add in further bonding through sex, and it only gets worse. I like to keep a relatively clear head, until I've had the chance to get to know the person better. Notice the bolded relatively? It's almost impossible to keep a completely clear head!
marlena Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 It's almost impossible to keep a completely clear head! Don't I know? Maybe one day we will get it straight!! With time and experience, it does get easier to read the signs. Regardless, I never regret some good ol' wholesome sex whatever the turn out. However, to be honest, it did take me years and years to learn how to compartmentalize. And I feel all the more empowered for it. I would never want to go back to those years when sex was the equivalent of everlasting love. ..although that is the ultimate goal...'til then... I will do as my heart or body desires.... By the way, you are beautiful if that is you in the pic!!
Trialbyfire Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 Don't I know? Maybe one day we will get it straight!! With time and experience, it does get easier to read the signs. Regardless, I never regret some good ol' wholesome sex whatever the turn out. However, to be honest, it did take me years and years to learn how to compartmentalize. And I feel all the more empowered for it. I would never want to go back to those years when sex was the equivalent of everlasting love. ..although that is the ultimate goal...'til then... I will do as my heart or body desires.... By the way, you are beautiful if that is you in the pic!! Bonded sex for me, when I'm heavily into someone, is always mindblowing. It's a lesson I learned with my first love. We were incredible together for years, until, for assorted reasons, I fell out of love. After that, while the body got off, it felt completely empty to me afterwards. It seems I can't rebond, once trust and respect are gone, regardless of sex. Strange that it makes me bond so hard at the beginning. Thanks. You've seen pics of me before.
marlena Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 It seems I can't rebond, once trust and respect are gone, regardless of sex. Strange that it makes me bond so hard at the beginning. Again agreed. You can't compartmentalize with someone that you have strong feelings for over a long period of time. That can only be done in the beginning before emotions run too deep. Still, the animal attraction can be there even when trust and respect have gone out the window... although, I admit, it is not a wise road to trodd... as it will most certainly backfire and cause more damage... best not play with fire... What I am trying to say is that having sex early on is not the determinative factor in the development of relationship. If the right ingredients, so to speak, are there from the start, yielding will not make the difference.... at least not with the right person.. Yes, I have seen pictures of you a long time ago.. seeing you again just reminded me of your lovely features .... I see the sensitivity there...
grogster Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 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... That's a good summary of the candid male perspective. Why waste resources wooing when you're unsure your object of desire is worth it. And yes, sex matters to most men.
marlena Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 And yes, sex matters to most men. And most women, groggie! I, for one, know that I would not stay with a man for long if he didn't want to have wild, uncontrollable, passionate sex with me. Surely, you remember my first posts. You were there every step of the way!!
johan Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 It's ok to tell him that you don't want to have sex. The problem for him is that you're letting that stop you from having sex.
fishtaco Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 I mostly agree with what you're saying, except for the following: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.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. I guess I should clarify my example. What I meant is eventually both men and women will reach say a trust level 20, which is an exclusive and serious relationship. But while dating, and on they way there (and everyone progresses at a different rate), the guy was ready for sex at 10, but the woman won't be until 15. If they have a bit of understanding and compromises a bit, both sides, maybe they get can get pass this out-of-sync progression roadblock and eventually reach 20. And of course like we both said, it's also never wrong to bail out at this point because of this sync issue. This brings your second point. How do you know the guy is going eventually reach 20? So if she compromised at 13, she took a risk because normally she's not ready until 15, then finds out he stops at 16. Then that would be a bad decision obviously. Well, the guy has the same questions in his mind. There are just as many women that are users as there are men that are players. Crappiness in people is not gender specific. Whatever awful things women face in the course of dating and the frequency they encounter them, men are faced with the same. So women would wait for sex in order for the man to prove his is worthy. Then like-wise, men would use sex to prove women is ready to move on to the next step. I mean if a woman won't have sex with me, which is an integral part of a relationship, why should I invest more into it? Maybe she's just using me as a back-up. Maybe she's just using me for attention. Maybe she just likes to be treated to lots of dinners and I'm paying. Who knows what kind of games she's playing. Whatever risk the woman feels like she's taking, the man feels the same. Like I said, percentage of encountering a crappy person is the same for both genders. I'm not saying this is what I do, I'm just trying to draw a parallel for men that's equivalent to women waiting for sex to test the man. So if it's okay for women to use no sex to test men, then it should be okay for men to use sex to test women. So this goes back to your point that I like a lot - Sex should be a natural progression. IMHO it shouldn't be used as a prize, it shouldn't be used as a test. It's nothing but an indicator of how far the relationship as gone. It's like waking up in the morning and feeling great, and you use that to predict if you're going to have a good day or not. Well, sometimes by mid-day it'd turn into one of those crappy days regardless. Because waking up with energy is only an indicator that you had a good night's sleep. Just like sex is only an indicator of physical attraction, trust & comfort level. Using it as a prediction mechanism for what the future holds is about as accurate as reading tea leaves. Just want to point out that having sex at a later date is no guarantee that he will be always be there for you and care about you. It is not a question of time but compatibility on all levels... and you don't need heaps of time to establish this. Actually, if you pay attention to the signs, you will see if you are right for eachother rather early on. I agree with this. Yes, people need to be tested. This is what dating is for. You weed out the crap. But when to have sex doesn't add value to this testing process. Anyway, now I see - Camp #1 which believes in using sex as a test. The women that practice this shouldn't be surprised if they encounter a man that believes in this practice as well, but the opposite way. They are just two sides of the same coin. - Camp #2 which goes with the flow and have sex when they feel like it. And use other testing mechanisms to evaluate their mate. I also believe there's no right and no wrong in dating. I'm not going to say which camp is right and which camp is wrong. But I will say maybe people from these two camps shouldn't date each other.
Trialbyfire Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 I also believe there's no right and no wrong in dating. I'm not going to say which camp is right and which camp is wrong. But I will say maybe people from these two camps shouldn't date each other. I couldn't agree more!
marlena Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 But I will say maybe people from these two camps shouldn't date each other. Absolutely. I wouldn't mesh with a man who had conservative/puritanical ideas about sex.
Phateless Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 This is a tough call. I think sex is part of the developmental process of a relationship and should happen when both people are ready. This should not be discussed when you've just turned him down for the 3rd time. This should be discussed at a much more neutral moment. If you discuss this when it's hot and heavy he's likely to tell you what you want to hear because you're both horny and he feels pressured to give you "the right answers." If you stall it longer than necessary because you have a theory that "if I make him wait he'll want a relationship and if I give it up he'll never call me again" you're only going to come across as defensive. As a man, I want to see that a woman is willing to put in some effort and invest in me as well.
amerikajin Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 That's a good summary of the candid male perspective. Why waste resources wooing when you're unsure your object of desire is worth it. And yes, sex matters to most men. It absolutely does matter.
norajane Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 As a man, I want to see that a woman is willing to put in some effort and invest in me as well. As a man, is sex the only thing she could do to show you she was putting effort into the relationship and was investing in you?
Phateless Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 As a man, is sex the only thing she could do to show you she was putting effort into the relationship and was investing in you? If she's procrastinating and judging me on one of her theories instead of how we are together, I might lose interest. No. Sex is not the only thing, but it is important. A relationship is not complete without sex.
animo Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 abstinence=happiness Ignorance = bliss But hey, whatever works for you. If you find that abstinence leads to happiness FOR YOU, then go ahead and be abstinent all you want. There's no need to 'bug' (pun intended) anyone else with it though.
sxyNYCcpl Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 This thread has been an interesting read. I don't wander over to the dating forum very much so I missed it. For me, it's quite simple. I want a woman who likes sex, isn't afraid to admit it, and isn't afraid to get her freak on. Ergo, any woman who would consider it reasonable to ask herself to sacrifice having sex for no discernible reason, much less asking it of me, probably doesn't like sex enough (or more likely, has bought into the whole flawed notion that "good girls" are supposed to act a certain way with regard to their sexuality), and would not be someone I'd spend a lot of time on. That is not to say that I'd bail after a single date with no sex, but it likely means I would bail after the first reasonable opportunity to have sex if it were denied simply because it's "too soon". It would most certainly mean I'd bail after being told outright that someone intended to wait to have sex for some arbitrary measure to have expired. Either she doesn't like sex enough to consider it an unreasonable sacrifice for herself, or she's using it as a weapon and/or incentive. Either way is a no go. I mean just look at some of the language used on this very thread. She's "better off" because she didn't "put out". Really? What if she would have had the most mind blowing sex of her entire life? Wouldn't she then be worse off having missed that? And why is it "putting out" or "giving it up" instead of simply a mutually enjoyable encounter? Things that make you go hmmm...
Phateless Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 This thread has been an interesting read. I don't wander over to the dating forum very much so I missed it. For me, it's quite simple. I want a woman who likes sex, isn't afraid to admit it, and isn't afraid to get her freak on. Ergo, any woman who would consider it reasonable to ask herself to sacrifice having sex for no discernible reason, much less asking it of me, probably doesn't like sex enough (or more likely, has bought into the whole flawed notion that "good girls" are supposed to act a certain way with regard to their sexuality), and would not be someone I'd spend a lot of time on. That is not to say that I'd bail after a single date with no sex, but it likely means I would bail after the first reasonable opportunity to have sex if it were denied simply because it's "too soon". It would most certainly mean I'd bail after being told outright that someone intended to wait to have sex for some arbitrary measure to have expired. Either she doesn't like sex enough to consider it an unreasonable sacrifice for herself, or she's using it as a weapon and/or incentive. Either way is a no go. I mean just look at some of the language used on this very thread. She's "better off" because she didn't "put out". Really? What if she would have had the most mind blowing sex of her entire life? Wouldn't she then be worse off having missed that? And why is it "putting out" or "giving it up" instead of simply a mutually enjoyable encounter? Things that make you go hmmm... Completely agree. The entire concept of "making him wait" instead of "having sex when you're ready" flies in the face of feminism.
Scottdmw Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 As I've said recently in another thread, I'm a guy and I believe in waiting for sex. I think it's a bad idea to do it early on, due to risk of pregnancy and STDs as well as becoming emotionally bonded to a person before you really know much about them. You may have sex and get that oxytocin flowing, become very infatuated with the person, and then find out after they are not really a very nice person at all. I will also say from personal experience that I have completely fallen in love with a woman and wanted to marry her without ever doing more than kissing and cuddling. So, it is possible. You just have to find the right guy, who has the same values you do. Scott
sxyNYCcpl Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 I think it's a bad idea to do it early on, due to risk of pregnancy and STDs as well as becoming emotionally bonded to a person before you really know much about them. You may have sex and get that oxytocin flowing, become very infatuated with the person, and then find out after they are not really a very nice person at all. If that happens, you simply move on. What difference does it make if you've had sex or not? You'd be less likely to leave? As for pregnancy and STD's, proper use of protection, while certainly not perfect, does bring the likelihood of this happening to acceptable risk levels. I guess I just don't get the paranoia, STDs, STDs, STDs!!! You talk as though most people are infected, and most infections will kill you. I will also say from personal experience that I have completely fallen in love with a woman and wanted to marry her without ever doing more than kissing and cuddling. And what if you actually married her and found out that "kissing and cuddling" was all she was interested in when it came to sex? Bit late to find that out, dontcha think?
Scottdmw Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 If that happens, you simply move on. What difference does it make if you've had sex or not? You'd be less likely to leave? As for pregnancy and STD's, proper use of protection, while certainly not perfect, does bring the likelihood of this happening to acceptable risk levels. I guess I just don't get the paranoia, STDs, STDs, STDs!!! You talk as though most people are infected, and most infections will kill you. Maybe you find it easy to leave a person you're sexually involved with. I don't. From personal experience I stayed with a woman who was very bad for me long after I should have left because of the sexual involvement and the bonding it created, which has been thoroughly demonstrated by science. What is an acceptable risk of pregnancy to you? The typical use failure rate of either condoms or the pill is around 10% per year. That's a pretty big risk if you ask me. And what if you actually married her and found out that "kissing and cuddling" was all she was interested in when it came to sex? Bit late to find that out, dontcha think? Do you truly doubt your ability to tell that without actually having sex? This is always held out as the huge boogeyman--if you don't test it out, you never know what you'll get!! I have had a number of sexual relationships in previous years, before deciding I thought waiting was better. I never once had anything approaching a situation where there was "sexual incompatibility" or "lack of interest" when the relationship was otherwise right. In any case, this has nothing to do with the question of sex early on in a relationship. If you're really that worried and actually planning to get married, by all means test before you take the vows. Scott
sxyNYCcpl Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Maybe you find it easy to leave a person you're sexually involved with. I don't. Why? Sex does not equal love. I've had sex with people who's names I don't even know, as has my wife. People whom I wouldn't even recognize if they knocked on my door. It seems to me you're making way too big a deal out of it. From personal experience I stayed with a woman who was very bad for me long after I should have left because of the sexual involvement and the bonding it created, which has been thoroughly demonstrated by science. I, too, stayed with a woman waaaaay longer than I should have, but it wasn't because I was having sex with her. In fact, our sex life was a part (but only a part) of the problem, as she just wasn't interested. For too many years, I went to bed hoping tomorrow would be better before realizing it never was. Once I did, my decision was easy. What is an acceptable risk of pregnancy to you? The typical use failure rate of either condoms or the pill is around 10% per year. That's a pretty big risk if you ask me. I don't have any idea where you get your numbers from, but I have had sex thousands of times with a multitude of women and not once has it resulted in pregnancy. Do you truly doubt your ability to tell that without actually having sex? Do I doubt my ability to tell?? No. But, if a woman is willing to go without sex for the duration of a courtship that simply tells me it's not important enough to her. I have no interest in being with a woman who is willing to voluntarily go that long without it.
Recommended Posts