fishtaco Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Message to the ladies: You can't win either way. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Of course. If you simplify things down to one single attribute that determines if a relationship is going to work out or not, of course it'll seem like either way you lose. That's like basing how well your day is going to go by your morning drive. Sure, crappy traffic can put anyone in a bad mood, but there are so many other determining factors, it'd be silly to make that assumption. Unless you have road rage, anger management issues, and you hate the world. But in that case how well your day is going is probably the least of your problems. I thought Sam Spade's post should have ended this thread. It was pretty clear I thought - sex or no sex, it's the person that matters.
tanbark813 Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 I thought Sam Spade's post should have ended this thread. This is LS, man. Threads don't have endings.
fral945 Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Now my answer is changed. The one who doesn't put out as easily is preferable. That's perfectly reasonable. Hard to know someone and get comfortable enough with someone on a 1st date. But once she is comfortable and knows she likes me, I do expect sex to happen.
fishtaco Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 This is LS, man. Threads don't have endings. LOL tru dat.
collegekid491 Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 OOOOHHH, just for me!! lol One that doesn't put out easily. Its like getting a rental car as Jeff Foxworthy would say, "anything thats been driven that hard, by that many people, you really don't wanna put your key in it". I would hook up with a chick maybe, but if she puts out easily 'commitment' isn't what's on my mind to start
You'reasian Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Would you prefer to commit to a woman who puts out easily or one who doesn't put out so easy? Commitment has nothing to do with how fast a girl puts out - atleast for me. I'll admit that getting it more regularly is awesome, but commitment has more to do with maintaining that attraction, having explosive chemistry, building trust and being able to communicate freely.
fball522001 Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 For something serious, definetly one that doesn't put out easy.
Author mr.dream merchant Posted March 13, 2009 Author Posted March 13, 2009 Commitment has nothing to do with how fast a girl puts out - atleast for me. I'll admit that getting it more regularly is awesome, but commitment has more to do with maintaining that attraction, having explosive chemistry, building trust and being able to communicate freely. Read my other post explaining easy and not so easy.
samiam143 Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Guys, you do NOT want a chick who puts out easily. Nothing good will come of that or her.
samiam143 Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 AND it's understandable if you don't want a priss who doesn't put out eventually, but you def shouldn't want an easy chick.
sxyNYCcpl Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Guys, you do NOT want a chick who puts out easily. Nothing good will come of that or her. Really? Why is that? Seems to me if you pick one who doesn't, the next step is courtship when, maybe, if you're lucky the sex will increase a bit, and finally marriage. After which her true feelings about sex will be known (because deep down inside it's not really her thing) and 10 or 15 years down the road you'll find yourself on a message board like this one bemoaning the lack of sex in your marriage. BTDT. I vowed I would never even date a woman a second time unless it was crystal clear to me that she loved, wanted, and needed crazy monkey sex on a regular basis. That plan worked perfectly and I am now a happy camper.
Untouchable_Fire Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Would you prefer to commit to a woman who puts out easily or one who doesn't put out so easy? If she puts out easy for you... she puts out easy for everyone. Few guys wants that. Besides... All women who throw down that quick, have self esteem issues. ALL! Even the ones that are "liberated" or whatever crap you want to call it. I will take the challenge every time. Some just don't like sex... I can weed those out. The more comfortable they are in the relationship... the more they will show this trait. The rest have self respect, and self esteem. That's what I like in a woman!
samiam143 Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Really? Why is that? Seems to me if you pick one who doesn't, the next step is courtship when, maybe, if you're lucky the sex will increase a bit, and finally marriage. After which her true feelings about sex will be known (because deep down inside it's not really her thing) and 10 or 15 years down the road you'll find yourself on a message board like this one bemoaning the lack of sex in your marriage. BTDT. I vowed I would never even date a woman a second time unless it was crystal clear to me that she loved, wanted, and needed crazy monkey sex on a regular basis. That plan worked perfectly and I am now a happy camper. Sounds like you're the one rushing. If you go on a date with a girl and she screws you right off the bat, she's easy. Easy for you, easy for all. If she waits and you two start dating it's OKAY TO COMMUNICATE. Find out her likes and dislikes. If she digs "monkey sex"... If she plans to wait until marriage etc etc. If you like what you hear, then voila! No issues. If you don't, then man up and say so. Just because she doesn't jump on her first chance to screw you doesn't mean she doesn't dig sex. You really need to learn alot more about the opposite sex.
RecordProducer Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Ummm... did somebody ever notice that a man's willingness to commit to a woman has NOTHING to do with the number of dates they went on before they ended up in bed? Questions for men: Are you more willing to commit to a woman who ordered red wine and fillet mignon on the first date or the one who ordered green tea and a salad? Are you more willing to commit to a kindergartne teacher or a theater actress? Are you more willing to commit to a blue-eyed or a brown-eyed woman? Pierced belly button or not? Sedan or SUV?
samiam143 Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 They may not be counting but it's kind of obvious if a girl hops in his bed the first chance she gets.
Untouchable_Fire Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Ummm... did somebody ever notice that a man's willingness to commit to a woman has NOTHING to do with the number of dates they went on before they ended up in bed? That is very naive. It is common for men to consider a woman as just a booty call. It's crude and mean, but it's part of life. How easy a woman is can be the #1 deciding factor between a GF and a FWB. Are you more willing to commit to a woman who ordered red wine and fillet mignon on the first date or the one who ordered green tea and a salad? Are we trying to compare that question to sex in terms of importance? Have you ever dated a man? I think you should know how our minds work at this point. Are you more willing to commit to a kindergartne teacher or a theater actress? Female public school teachers have the same reputation as catholic priests. I don't think working with Kindergartners makes it any more safe. Are you more willing to commit to a blue-eyed or a brown-eyed woman? I'm not picky about this. Pierced belly button or not? Depends more on the size of the belly. Sedan or SUV? Which make?
fishtaco Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 AND it's understandable if you don't want a priss who doesn't put out eventually, but you def shouldn't want an easy chick. A lot of men and women seem to think this way. I disagree personally. If finding the right one is as easy as observing when they put out, then most people would be with the right one. That's certainly not the case. Anyway, everyone is entitled to whatever they feel is right. But for someone that would use "when sex happens" as such important of a deciding factor, I would say this: Men - Then you don't try to get in women's pants until the time is "right". If you push for sex early on and she ends up having sex with you, then you judge her, you are just a hypocritical piece of crap. You just wanted ONS, but you have to make the woman feel like it was her fault. Classic projection personality defect. In fact, if she jumps you, it is your responsibility to say no and walk away. If women that have sex early is "no good" (which I disagree), then men that have sex early is also "no good". Women - If you don't want to have sex with the man because it's too early, then don't tease. You don't jump in bed with the guy, get naked, get the guy all riled up, then say... oh sorry, I don't have sex this early. If you're not going to have sex, then don't act like it. If the guy pushes for it (and they will), just say no. Any decent guy WILL respect you wishes. But still, personally I believe this "when sex happens" is such a minor factor compared to everything else, I can't agree with attaching so much importance to it.
fral945 Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Ummm... did somebody ever notice that a man's willingness to commit to a woman has NOTHING to do with the number of dates they went on before they ended up in bed? Questions for men: Are you more willing to commit to a woman who ordered red wine and fillet mignon on the first date or the one who ordered green tea and a salad? Are you more willing to commit to a kindergartne teacher or a theater actress? Are you more willing to commit to a blue-eyed or a brown-eyed woman? Pierced belly button or not? Sedan or SUV? Good observation, RP. I earlier said that I’d prefer someone who holds out on the first date, but that is just a personal preference for me. The timing of 1st sex is irrelevant and has no bearing on whether or not I will commit. Speaking strictly from a sexual standpoint, my commitment level is dependent on the quantity and quality of the sex that is actually happening (after we’ve had sex for the 1st time) and not when the 1st sex takes place.
Untouchable_Fire Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Men - Then you don't try to get in women's pants until the time is "right". If you push for sex early on and she ends up having sex with you, then you judge her, you are just a hypocritical piece of crap. You just wanted ONS, but you have to make the woman feel like it was her fault. Classic projection personality defect. In fact, if she jumps you, it is your responsibility to say no and walk away. If women that have sex early is "no good" (which I disagree), then men that have sex early is also "no good". That advice would only apply to gay men. When we say that men and women are equal... we dont mean they are the exact same. Somehow I think you missed that part. It is OK to have different expectations for a woman vs a man. That isn't hypocritical. I expect a woman to have different sex organs than me... that isn't hypocritical. I expect her to be more emotional about things... that isn't hypocritical. I expect her to shave body parts that I dont... that isn't hypocritical... ect. Bottom line. You can't call us hypocritical just because you don't like the way we apply our standards. It's the same thing as the "Who pays on the first date" argument. 90% of the women here say they expect the man to pay. Is that hypocritical? ... No.
tanbark813 Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Men - Then you don't try to get in women's pants until the time is "right". If you push for sex early on and she ends up having sex with you, then you judge her, you are just a hypocritical piece of crap. You just wanted ONS, but you have to make the woman feel like it was her fault. Classic projection personality defect. In fact, if she jumps you, it is your responsibility to say no and walk away. If women that have sex early is "no good" (which I disagree), then men that have sex early is also "no good". Agreed. My #1 deciding factor would have to be loyalty and it's been my experience that that characteristic is not tied to when a woman is ready to have sex.
sxyNYCcpl Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Sounds like you're the one rushing. If you go on a date with a girl and she screws you right off the bat, she's easy. Easy for you, easy for all. So what? Besides, you are assuming that willingness to have sex quickly with you implies a lack of standards in who someone would have sex with in general. It may be true, or it may not. Should someone prove to have no standards, and will literally have sex with any other human regardless of any mitigating factor, that can be a problem. That they are excited to have sex with someone they consider attractive is a different story. Keep in mind, I do not believe in monogamy, and therefore reject the idea that "sluts" are bad. A confident, sex loving woman is a wonderful thing. If she digs "monkey sex"... If she plans to wait until marriage etc etc. If you like what you hear, then voila! No issues. If you don't, then man up and say so. Just because she doesn't jump on her first chance to screw you doesn't mean she doesn't dig sex. You really need to learn alot more about the opposite sex. Let me clarify, a lack of sex on the first date (or even subsequent ones) is not a problem. Refusing sex that is available absent a valid reason would be indicative to me that a woman doesn't like sex enough for my tastes, or isn't sexually attracted enough to me. Either way is okay, different strokes, but would be a deal breaker for me. It's kind of like if I knew someone was hungry, and there was a big, juicy hamburger sitting on the table. If they declined to eat it, I would question if they liked hamburgers.
sxyNYCcpl Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Bottom line. You can't call us hypocritical just because you don't like the way we apply our standards. It's the same thing as the "Who pays on the first date" argument. 90% of the women here say they expect the man to pay. Is that hypocritical? ... No. Before I go off on you, let me clarify. Are you saying that if a woman has sex on a first date she is a "slut" and that's bad, but if a guy does it it's only "boys being boys" and that's okay? Because if you are saying that I'm going to take exception with it.
Author mr.dream merchant Posted March 13, 2009 Author Posted March 13, 2009 Before I go off on you, let me clarify. Are you saying that if a woman has sex on a first date she is a "slut" and that's bad, but if a guy does it it's only "boys being boys" and that's okay? Because if you are saying that I'm going to take exception with it. They both aren't people you'd consider being exclusive with seriously.
fishtaco Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 It is OK to have different expectations for a woman vs a man. That isn't hypocritical. I expect a woman to have different sex organs than me... that isn't hypocritical. I expect her to be more emotional about things... that isn't hypocritical. I expect her to shave body parts that I dont... that isn't hypocritical... ect. What are you talking about? I'm just saying this one specific situation, what does this have to do with sex organs? All I'm saying is if you think women that have sex early means she's a piece of crap, then you don't push her into it THEN judge her to be a piece of crap. When you promote double standards, it's dangerous. Because then it can easily be turned again you in a different situation. I've noticed that people who embrace double standards, tend to only do so when it benefits them. When the standard swings the other way, all of a sudden it's "unfair".
Author mr.dream merchant Posted March 14, 2009 Author Posted March 14, 2009 What are you talking about? I'm just saying this one specific situation, what does this have to do with sex organs? All I'm saying is if you think women that have sex early means she's a piece of crap, then you don't push her into it THEN judge her to be a piece of crap. When you promote double standards, it's dangerous. Because then it can easily be turned again you in a different situation. I've noticed that people who embrace double standards, tend to only do so when it benefits them. When the standard swings the other way, all of a sudden it's "unfair". Why would you assume the chick who's putting out easily is doing so because she's pressured? That wasn't part of the question. Adding all kinds of different factors into the question just makes things complicated. Its a simple question for guys, and they don't need a chick on here harping them for their preference. Like the title stated, guys, would you commit to a chick who puts out easily without getting to know you or one who doesn't put out easily until she knows you?
Recommended Posts