fishtaco Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 First you laugh at me and then incinuate I'm not a well adjusted person. Next! Oops, sorry about that. I didn't mean it as an attack on you.
serendipity_2008 Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 The problem with this is that youre assuming every guy that doesnt wait three months for sex is only looking for sex and sex alone. Thats not true at all. I would love to be in a LTR, and am so not about going from girl to girl looking for some action. At the same time, I dont want a precedence to be set early on that the girl controls sex and that I have no say over it whatsoever. I'm also not going to deny my sexual desires because someone else seems to be paranoid that as soon as we have sex, Im going to be out the door. Plain and simple, if you wait at least 3 months after dating someone to have sex, most guys are going to lose interest or think youre getting it from somewhere else. This is not about guys being sleazy, there are plenty of women that think 4+ dates is enough getting to know someone to sleep with them. And it doesnt make you a dirty whore because you had sex with a guy you've been seeing for a month, its pretty much the norm with dating. There is no right or wrong answer here. And I think its unfair to label any guy who doesnt think waiting 3+ months to have sex is neccesary or what they want. Its a personal choice, and if you want your views respected, you have to respect others, too. Hi BCCA, I am not assuming that every single man who doesn't wait wants sex. I am just careful about these types of things. I disagree with some of the posters viewpoints about have sex after a few dates. However each person has their own preference. This sort of thing is solely up to the individual. On this board quite a few people standards vary when discussing this particular topic. I am just simply agreeing with the OP and am commending her decision. Although I am only 21 years and attend college I am a very old fashioned kind of girl and because of this I do not get lots of prospects from the men here on campus because quite a few.. (not all) want a FWB and that's just not for me. I've had several gfs who have got involved with this type of relationships and the result was that one ended up pregnant and he talked her into aborting their twins. Now he has totally disappeared from her life and she is left with that emptiness. I am just cautious and try to use my head. But hey everyone does as they pleases, that's what makes everyone unique and what works for one person won't work for the next.
movingonandon Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 Hahaha! okay. One of my female friends is always complaining that men get clingy after sex. There is more symmetry between genders than you realize. To well adjusted people, sex only matters as ONE of many factors if a relationship will work out. If the sex check box is marked, whether it is to have sex or to wait to have sex, the rest of the equation can still make or break a relationship. Looking at sex as the single point of failure to if a relationship is going to work out is... well, people have the right to believe what they want to believe. Anyway again, only people that have similar views should date each other. I would never date a woman with this sort of views about sex. And that's a good thing, for me and for her. Yes, exactly. Too much emphasis is put on sex for *all the wrong reasons*, and THAT's the true cause of why most guys will walk away from a situation like this, NOT because they're not getting the sex . It' just sex, it's not such a horible thing to do, you know .
Author conehead Posted February 25, 2009 Author Posted February 25, 2009 I personally enjoy waiting because it is in my experience that guys tend to lose interest if the sex card is on the table too soon. It is also my experience that men are able to more easily compartmentalize sex from love and for this reason have no difficulties walking away. Since we are all probably referencing different internal timelines, I'm referring to "too soon" as ANY time before I love you's are spoken. Or six months, whichever comes first Just curious, do you just put off actual sex until you're very serious, or do you put off all forms of sexual contact? Because now I'm wondering if it's worse that I strip down to my panties without sex (since alot of guys here call that torture haha). I wonder if it would be easier/better to just do nothing except for make out until we are serious enough.
BCCA Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 Just curious, do you just put off actual sex until you're very serious, or do you put off all forms of sexual contact? Because now I'm wondering if it's worse that I strip down to my panties without sex (since alot of guys here call that torture haha). I wonder if it would be easier/better to just do nothing except for make out until we are serious enough. It is somewhat cruel, but if thats the best you can do right now, then maybe thats working for him. You should talk honestly about it with him, and see how he feels. Maybe he understands and this works for him in the meantime. For me personally, yeah, it would be worse, but to each their own. Are you waiting until youre engaged/married to have sex with anyone, or have you before and are just more cautious now? Ive just known people who got married, had sex, and then realized they werent a good match, but the guy stuck it out because he already had 2 years invested, and wasnt going to throw away his chance at sex after all that. lol Kind of silly if you ask me
carona716 Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 I am a guy, and i would not mind waiting untill marriage to have sex. I never had sex with my GF of 2 years, but we had sexual contact. She would 'model' for me, touch me and such, while I pleasured myself. Frankly, it was 10x more satisfying than doing it alone, and I still got the intimacy factor. I dont know if I am strange for my standards, or lucky that I found a girl who would be willing to do those things, but she was also opposed to sex before marriage, but fully supportive of the things we did.
Author conehead Posted February 25, 2009 Author Posted February 25, 2009 It is somewhat cruel, but if thats the best you can do right now, then maybe thats working for him. You should talk honestly about it with him, and see how he feels. Maybe he understands and this works for him in the meantime. For me personally, yeah, it would be worse, but to each their own. Are you waiting until youre engaged/married to have sex with anyone, or have you before and are just more cautious now? Ive just known people who got married, had sex, and then realized they werent a good match, but the guy stuck it out because he already had 2 years invested, and wasnt going to throw away his chance at sex after all that. lol Kind of silly if you ask me I've had sex before and if you read above perhaps I'm more cautious now because I've had a pregnancy scare with an ex. Well, currently my bf does come during intimacy and has not yet complained, so hopefully for him it works?
LovieDove24 Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 Just curious, do you just put off actual sex until you're very serious, or do you put off all forms of sexual contact? Because now I'm wondering if it's worse that I strip down to my panties without sex (since alot of guys here call that torture haha). I wonder if it would be easier/better to just do nothing except for make out until we are serious enough. I usually do engage in other sexual acts once I feel emotionally secure enough to do so. Some people will call this being cruel or a double standard but I do whats right for me, and so should you. Given my personal history surrounding sex, if a man doesn't understand why I want to wait on that particular act, well then hes simply no good for me. Period.
Nagini Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Guys, if your gf of a few months wants to wait until the relationship is very serious (ie engaged or close to being engaged) before having full blown sex with you, how would you feel? She however is willing to do alot of other intimate things with you just no oral sex or actual intercourse and you've seen her completely naked except she always keeps her panties on. Her reason for this is because she sees sex as something special she'd only want to do with someone she sees as a serious partner. Would you respect her decision? Would it not bother you at all? Or would you say 'forget her, there are other fish in the sea!'? Im waiting to have sex until things become more serious with my bf. But have no problem with oral or dry humping. Why does have problem with oral ?
Nagini Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Actually, quite the opposite. My mom is probably what gave me such a loose view on abortion. For example, when I lost my virginity, I obviously wasn't prepared (and was pretty drunk) and didn't use a condom. Dumb idea. I felt horrible. A few days later I talked to my mom about it and she was concerned about me having an STD (which I didn't, thank god). I then asked her, very tensely, about the pregnancy aspect of it. Her response was something like, "Oh, you're worried about THAT? Tell her to take a morning after pill, and if that doesn't work then she can get an abortion. Plain and simple. What isn't so plain and simple is if that dame gave you herpes." Your Mother is selfish Instead of teaching you responsibility she's put the onus on the girl. Disgusting.
Nagini Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Sex is all just fun and games until somebody gets pregnant. As a female, this would be my main argument for waiting to get to know someone a little bit before doing the deed. Reality is, birth control is not always foolproof. You really do not see a person’s true colors in the first couple months, and would you really want to chance an unwanted pregnancy with some selfish d-bag? Men can easily walk away from the situation, women not so much. It becomes our problem to deal with. So understandable that a man would be very lax in his values/views on sex…what does he have to worry about. I am the product of a 'pull out' so Ive been paranoid about how easy it is to get pregnant for long time plus i cant use birth control pills. so I only want to be with a guy who would be pro keeping the baby.
Author conehead Posted February 26, 2009 Author Posted February 26, 2009 Im waiting to have sex until things become more serious with my bf. But have no problem with oral or dry humping. Why does have problem with oral ? Just curious, how long have you been dating your bf? Has he said I love you to you yet? How much longer do you intend to wait and does he have an issues/complaints about waiting? Currently my bf and I only do dry humping and breast fondling (wow, sounds so graphic! lol) No oral yet because to be honest, I don't really like it.
movingonandon Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Im waiting to have sex until things become more serious with my bf. But have no problem with oral or dry humping. Why does have problem with oral ? If you think that you are not having sex right now, you're sorely mistaken, vagina'o'gold .
shazam Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Well this is the George Bush & Co. school of sex. ed. talking - nobody competently using birth control (i.e. pill + condom) will get pregnant. The likelihood of a freak accident still exists, yes, but the probability is so small that it is silly to base your whole life on it. Have you stopped flying planes because of the 1:1000000 probability of an accident? George Bush & Co.? Rude. First of all, not all women can physically handle the side effects of the pill, and regular condom use in a committed relationship is just not realistic. I'm speaking from my own experience, Ive had 2 kids using some method of protection. Obviously not everyone has such luck. Its like drinking and driving, a lot of people do it but not everyone gets nabbed. Im not advocating waiting until marriage, that is insanity...maybe just long enough to make sure he's a decent guy and not some a-hole
Scottdmw Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Well this is the George Bush & Co. school of sex. ed. talking - nobody competently using birth control (i.e. pill + condom) will get pregnant. The likelihood of a freak accident still exists, yes, but the probability is so small that it is silly to base your whole life on it. Have you stopped flying planes because of the 1:1000000 probability of an accident? You wish it was 1:1000000. Even for your rather optimistic example (how many couples do you know that really do this), 1% risk of failure for pill and 2% risk for condom gives you 1:5000. That's for "perfect use". Would you fly a plane that had a 1 in 5000 chance of crashing? Then again if you use the "typical use", realistic for most people numbers, it's even worse. 8% failure for pill and 15% for condom gets you just about a 1% risk of combined failure per year, even assuming a couple really did use a condom and pill every single time for the year. Maybe they need an IUD too? How many health risks are you going to saddle the woman with? Why do you think 1 out of every 4 pregnancies in this country ends in abortion? It's because people aren't in practice capable of doing "perfect use" and birth control is far from perfect. Don't blame George Bush, just about everyone knows what contraception is and they know how it's supposed to be used. Show me a person over the age of 16 (the ones under that make up a small fraction of pregnancies) who doesn't know about birth control. It's not enough. BTW, all my stats come from Planned Parenthood, if you don't believe them. Scott
Scottdmw Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Women can go into deep depression over having a kid too. They can go into a deep depression because their boyfriends didn't comment on their lingerie on valentine's day. In other words, a woman going into a depression is pretty inevitable...so you might as well have a depression without an unwanted kid. And yeah, abortions are that simple. Granted, it gets different in later months/trimesters when it's been with a woman for a while and has an effect on her (not to mention it's pretyt much the size of a baby), but seriously, if you found out you've been pregnant for a month and get an abortion you're essentially just getting rid of a a little bundle of tissue...kind of like getting a tumor removed. People need to stop putting so much value on fetuses or cells that could eventually become another human. I mean, I get rid of hundreds of MILLIONS potential lives every day, usually in a napkin or down a toilet. I'm pretty much a horrible insane tyrant responsible for all those lives, but you don't see me crying. /tongue in cheek Kashmir, to say that your post is insensitive doesn't quite do it justice. Imagine having a vacuum cleaner stuck up your a** and you may get a slight glimmer of what going through an abortion is physically like for a woman. Consider what it would be like to be a member of a firing squad. You believe the person deserves death and you don't even know if yours was the bullet that does it, but it still keeps you up at night, wondering. You may get a little idea of what a woman might go through emotionally. Then consider that many, many women sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the "little bundle of tissue" is a baby the same as any born infant. You may not agree. You may find this belief extremely inconvenient to your desires. But it doesn't go away because you want it to. If a woman is pregnant and believes this, it is _extremely_ difficult for her to have an abortion. Telling her to "get over it" is not useful. A sperm is not a fertillized egg. Saying one is the same as the other is simply wrong. To compare the experience you have "destroying sperm" with what a woman goes through having an abortion is beyond insensitive. Scott
movingonandon Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 You wish it was 1:1000000. Even for your rather optimistic example (how many couples do you know that really do this), 1% risk of failure for pill and 2% risk for condom gives you 1:5000. That's for "perfect use". Would you fly a plane that had a 1 in 5000 chance of crashing? Then again if you use the "typical use", realistic for most people numbers, it's even worse. 8% failure for pill and 15% for condom gets you just about a 1% risk of combined failure per year, even assuming a couple really did use a condom and pill every single time for the year. Maybe they need an IUD too? How many health risks are you going to saddle the woman with? Why do you think 1 out of every 4 pregnancies in this country ends in abortion? It's because people aren't in practice capable of doing "perfect use" and birth control is far from perfect. Don't blame George Bush, just about everyone knows what contraception is and they know how it's supposed to be used. Show me a person over the age of 16 (the ones under that make up a small fraction of pregnancies) who doesn't know about birth control. It's not enough. BTW, all my stats come from Planned Parenthood, if you don't believe them. Scott Fair enough, but 1:5000 is still a negligibly low probability (so yes, I'd fly a plane with this probability of crashing). One thing to be remembered repeated uses do not increase the probability, since we're talking about an independent draw each time. My last committed relationship of 5 years relied on condom alone (so it's realistic), and never had an accident. My previous relaitonship had 1 *possible* incident (will never know for sure), based on sloppy condom use, resolved with the morning after pill. Yes, accidents will happen, but mostly because of improper use or special cases. All I'm saying is that the pretty small probability of unwanted pregnancy probably does not justify rearranging your love life around the question "what will happen *if* i get pregnant". It is an important question of course, but there are probably other issues involved here, projected on the objectively small possibility of pregnancy.
Scottdmw Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Fair enough, but 1:5000 is still a negligibly low probability (so yes, I'd fly a plane with this probability of crashing). One thing to be remembered repeated uses do not increase the probability, since we're talking about an independent draw each time. My last committed relationship of 5 years relied on condom alone (so it's realistic), and never had an accident. My previous relaitonship had 1 *possible* incident (will never know for sure), based on sloppy condom use, resolved with the morning after pill. Yes, accidents will happen, but mostly because of improper use or special cases. All I'm saying is that the pretty small probability of unwanted pregnancy probably does not justify rearranging your love life around the question "what will happen *if* i get pregnant". It is an important question of course, but there are probably other issues involved here, projected on the objectively small possibility of pregnancy. Well, perhaps it's your choice if you are willing to take a 1 in 5000 risk, assuming you used both pill and condom and do so perfectly. It's worth asking though, in the context of this discussion: if you're having sex with a woman you've only known for a short time, how can you know whether she is the type of person to use the pill with "perfect use" or "typical use", (or maybe really sloppy use)? Conversely, how can a woman who has only known a man a short time know whether he is a "perfect use" with condoms kind of guy, or is instead the type to leave them in the hot car for long periods till they deteriorate? You can only get the 1 in 5000 stat if you can really rely on the other person to do things perfectly, otherwise you are stuck with the 1 in 100 chance even for doubled up birth control, and more like the 1 in 10 chance per year for typical use of a single type of birth control. You're entirely right that repeated use does not increase the chance. On the other hand, it is also possible for the woman to get pregnant on the very first time she takes a 1 in 5000 risk. I think for the average woman a 1 in 100 chance is still pretty scary, and again that's for _two_ forms of birth control used typically. For just condoms used typically your experience is right around what the stats say, 1 in 10 chance per year of use of an "accident". Scott
LovieDove24 Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Scott you have my vote for sexiest man on LS! Thanks for stickin up for us!
Isolde Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 In other words, a woman going into a depression is pretty inevitable...so you might as well have a depression without an unwanted kid. This is true (and the underwear on Valentines analogy was funny, I admit), but your implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that abortion is a better option than waiting a while longer to have sex (until you've figured out a birth control method and/or have made fairly certain that your BF would be able to deal with the eventuality of pregnancy in a mature way) is disrespectful to a lot of women's views. I couldn't have put it better than Scott did. Incidentally, most of my friends use only the pill, without the condom. *Shrugs*
LovieDove24 Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 This is true (and the underwear on Valentines analogy was funny, I admit), but your implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that abortion is a better option than waiting a while longer to have sex (until you've figured out a birth control method and/or have made fairly certain that your BF would be able to deal with the eventuality of pregnancy in a mature way) is disrespectful to a lot of women's views. I couldn't have put it better than Scott did. Incidentally, most of my friends use only the pill, without the condom. *Shrugs* Isolde, hopefully this isn't insulting if that picture really is you, but it looks like the little girl from little miss sunshine a bit! Especially with the tophat she wears at the end!
Isolde Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Isolde, hopefully this isn't insulting if that picture really is you, but it looks like the little girl from little miss sunshine a bit! Especially with the tophat she wears at the end! :laugh: I WISH that were me in the avatar. That's a young Catherine Deneuve.
moman Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 It depends. I would be fine waiting with a girl who's a virgin, but if some girl came out and told me she didn't want to do anything because she's a born-again virgin or that nonsense I would ditch her. Any girl who has true feelings for a guy is not going to hold out on pleasing him, even if it's only in ways other than actual intercourse. That's the key right there. NO always means NO, but if she tells me no in that way, I can say no in other ways.
Recommended Posts