Green Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 I don't think this guy was a jerk for dumping you infact he was quite honest with you. You were also honest with him and it didn't work out. Will you lose guys if your not into having sex until an engagement or some kind of mariage... YES of course. I wouldn't date a woman if she wasn't going to have sex. Am I dating my current gf just because she has sex with me... NO. Would I marry my current gf... I dunno Maybe I will Maybe I won't what I do know is that if she had told me she doesn't have sex I would have told her I do have sex and eventualy if the no sex thing kept up it would be over. With the no sex thing I'm sure you will find a man it just won't be the European man who wanted to be in a sexual relationship.
animo Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 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. Well then lets say that hypothetically there was no chance of STD's or pregnancy and you had enough spine to move on from a bad thing at the drop of a hat... Would you still think it's a good idea?
Scottdmw Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 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. Unfortunately Loveshack doesn't allow me to post external links to most sites. But, if you really doubt that sex has been proven to create emotional bonding, I suggest you Google the subject. Sex may not equal love, but it tends to create feelings of being in love. Maybe not the very first time, and maybe not in every single person, but I really don't see how you can with a straight face say this isn't so. If nothing else you must recognize that any intense pleasure creates associations with the source of the pleasure. How else do people get addicted to drugs, gambling, etc? 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. It sounds like it must have been a difficult experience for you. Were you married? I can understand how if a man was married and his wife never wanted to have sex that would be terribly hard. 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. My numbers come from Planned Parenthood's website. Are you really sure there were never any pregnancies? How could you be when some of these are women whose names or faces you don't remember? Even if there weren't, you could simply have gotten lucky. I challenge you to provide another site which shows the statistics are lower than what I list. To be exact I'm claiming the condom failure rate with typical use is 15% and the Pill failure rate with typical use is 8%, per year of use by a couple. With "perfect use" the rates are 2% and 1%, but "perfect use" is called that because in practice it's more than most people can do. 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. That is your choice. It sounds like you feel sex is very important to you. To me I feel quite qualified to say that for the woman I'm with now, sex is very important to her, but other things are even more important such as not bringing a baby into a situation where it's not right nor resorting to abortion, and not having both of us get unnecessarily heartbroken if we don't end up together permanently. That is the decision I choose to make. Scott
Scottdmw Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Well then lets say that hypothetically there was no chance of STD's or pregnancy and you had enough spine to move on from a bad thing at the drop of a hat... Would you still think it's a good idea? Hypotheticals are great but that's not the world we live in. If I did live in a fantasy world where it was truly the case that no one would ever get hurt by sex, or at least where the positives of easy sex really outweighed the negatives, then sure I would do it. Why not? What you're talking about is a fantasy world though, not the real one. Spine is only one issue for moving on. I eventually developed the spine to do it, though not as quickly as I should have. The greater problem was that "spine" can't cure heartbreak. If you have a cure for heartbreak I suggest you check out the "breaking up and coping" section of this site, there are hundreds of people whose hearts are _broken_, who live in misery every day, who could use a good cure for that. Scott
sxyNYCcpl Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Unfortunately Loveshack doesn't allow me to post external links to most sites. But, if you really doubt that sex has been proven to create emotional bonding, I suggest you Google the subject. Apologies if I wasn't clear, I don't doubt that in many cases that is true, but I believe that is because of how we teach and deal with our sexuality. We put it up on a pedestal an declare it's so special that it's only acceptable behavior from people who love and are married to each other. Some even go so far as to declare sex not specifically intended to create a baby as bad. Which is all codswallop of course. The idea of recreational sex is rejected as inappropriate, but after I did some soul searching on the subject I came to the conclusion that pretty much most of what we've all been taught is simply wrong. It sounds like it must have been a difficult experience for you. Were you married? I can understand how if a man was married and his wife never wanted to have sex that would be terribly hard. Yes, I was. That experience was one of the reasons I'm so no-nonsense about it now. Are you really sure there were never any pregnancies? How could you be when some of these are women whose names or faces you don't remember? Even if there weren't, you could simply have gotten lucky. Well, I suppose I must acknowledge that it is at least hypothetically possible, but between use of protection, as well as let's say careful aim, I would say the chances, while greater than zero, are infinitesimal. I challenge you to provide another site which shows the statistics are lower than what I list. To be exact I'm claiming the condom failure rate with typical use is 15% and the Pill failure rate with typical use is 8%, per year of use by a couple. I don't have numbers, I just know that in my lifetime I have personally known hundreds of people who routinely have sex for recreational purposes only and am personally aware of not a single unplanned pregnancy, nor case of STD transmission. It's absolutely true that of those people I am not in constant contact with them, so I wouldn't necessarily know if it had happened, but it is equally true that were it a common, frequent occurrence it's unlikely I would have never encountered it. To me I feel quite qualified to say that for the woman I'm with now, sex is very important to her, but other things are even more important such as not bringing a baby into a situation where it's not right nor resorting to abortion, and not having both of us get unnecessarily heartbroken if we don't end up together permanently. That is the decision I choose to make. I don't want you to feel like I'm questioning your choices or telling you that you should do things differently. I'm not. If that works for you and yours, super! My original point was merely to point out to the OP and anyone else interested enough to read this thread that, yes, the mere act of refraining from sex during the early stages of a relationship will cause some guys to exit stage left. That is nether good nor bad, and it is neither right or wrong, it simply is what it is. Armed with that information, it leaves her with a choice. Would I rather change my position so I'm not in a situation where that subset of men is not available to me, or is it important enough to me to accept that? I will opine that as our society becomes generally more comfortable with the idea that recreational, casual sex is acceptable behavior finding men who will accept that will become harder and harder, but that is purely my opinion. That said, I have said over and over that what we teach ourselves about sexuality, especially the sillyness that "good girls" are supposed to act in certain ways, and not enjoy sex too much lest they be labeled "easy" or "slutty" is a load of pure bovine excrement. But perhaps that is a discussion for a different place.
Scottdmw Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Apologies if I wasn't clear, I don't doubt that in many cases that is true, but I believe that is because of how we teach and deal with our sexuality. We put it up on a pedestal an declare it's so special that it's only acceptable behavior from people who love and are married to each other. Some even go so far as to declare sex not specifically intended to create a baby as bad. Which is all codswallop of course. The idea of recreational sex is rejected as inappropriate, but after I did some soul searching on the subject I came to the conclusion that pretty much most of what we've all been taught is simply wrong. You talk here about "what we've been taught". So, I'm 36 years old. When I consider my life, and the messages I've received about sexuality from various sources, I come to a different conclusion. It seems to me like the vast majority of messages I've seen in my life have been pro-recreational sex, with only a very small handful going the other way. Movies, TV, music, news, casual talk with people, the message is always that recreational sex is a given. By contrast, I've heard very very few people take the opposite view. The reason I've taken the oppositve view was that those very few people seemed to me to be right. What I'm trying to say here is I feel like if I've been "taught" anything by society it's that recreational sex is okay. Kind of a tangent to the original points but I thought I'd mention it. I don't have numbers, I just know that in my lifetime I have personally known hundreds of people who routinely have sex for recreational purposes only and am personally aware of not a single unplanned pregnancy, nor case of STD transmission. It's absolutely true that of those people I am not in constant contact with them, so I wouldn't necessarily know if it had happened, but it is equally true that were it a common, frequent occurrence it's unlikely I would have never encountered it. Out of these hundreds of people, do know whether the women had abortions? That's not something that people are usually too eager to share, and you probably wouldn't know unless they did. Right now in our country the "abortion ratio" is around 25%. That means that out of every 4 pregnancies, 1 ends in abortion. the statistic comes from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood. That comes to about 1 million abortions per year. You either have to assume that an awful lot of people are not using birth control at all, or that the statistics I quoted are roughly correct over the general population. I personally find it unlikely that there are that many people that don't know about birth control, or that have sex unprotected when they don't want to conceive. I'm not making any point about abortion per se here, simply that the number of abortions seems to me to indicate that there are a lot of contraceptive failures going on. I don't want you to feel like I'm questioning your choices or telling you that you should do things differently. I'm not. If that works for you and yours, super! My original point was merely to point out to the OP and anyone else interested enough to read this thread that, yes, the mere act of refraining from sex during the early stages of a relationship will cause some guys to exit stage left. That is nether good nor bad, and it is neither right or wrong, it simply is what it is. Armed with that information, it leaves her with a choice. Would I rather change my position so I'm not in a situation where that subset of men is not available to me, or is it important enough to me to accept that? I understand. Likewise, I wanted to let the OP know that there were also men around who believed in waiting. Scott
Recommended Posts