trenino Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I wonder.. how soon or how many dates you go before you decide to sleep with the person? a male friend told me that if the girl makes him wait until 10 dates he would have run away. On the other hand, some people suggest to make the guy hold as long as possible. So which one is the better way?how many is considered not too soon nor too late? Do you guys talk about exclusivity afterward?
MusicChick24 Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I suppose it would depend highly on the two parties involved. Some believe it's an important first step and some want to wait longer. If the guy you mentioned with the ten day rule would have been dating me he would have left in a huff. My boyfriend and I have been dating steadily for 4 years, and never had sex. Why? We aren't waiting for marriage, though we are religious. Even though we are already committed, we want to wait until he puts a ring on my finger. To him that is the important step he needs to take as a man before HE can be ready to make another important commitment like sex to me. Yes, we do view sex as a COMMITMENT. <3
sxyNYCcpl Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 Wow, I have the exact opposite view as MusicChick. Sex is recreational, and I would never be with anyone who would deprive me, or more importantly deprive themselves of something that is fun for no good reason. A date or two would be all I would go absent some really good, and uncontrollable reason for it not to happen. Sex is not commitment, commitment is commitment and they are two completely different things.
MusicChick24 Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 Wow, I have the exact opposite view as MusicChick. Sex is recreational, and I would never be with anyone who would deprive me, or more importantly deprive themselves of something that is fun for no good reason. A date or two would be all I would go absent some really good, and uncontrollable reason for it not to happen. Sex is not commitment, commitment is commitment and they are two completely different things. Like I mentioned everyone has a different view. People make sex what it is to them. You believe in having sex recreationally when I believe in only having it with someone I'm going to commit to. Call me old fashion but that value of mine comes with the fact that often pregnancies happen even with multiple protection methods, and if I'm going to risk my body to pregnancy I would rather do it with a guy who wants to spend the rest of his life with me than with one who I might mean very little too.
sxyNYCcpl Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 Call me old fashion but that value of mine comes with the fact that often pregnancies happen even with multiple protection methods, and if I'm going to risk my body to pregnancy I would rather do it with a guy who wants to spend the rest of his life with me than with one who I might mean very little too. I don't need to call you anything, you are welcome to live your life anyway you choose and you have not asked for my advice. The OP did ask for advice, and she got mine and is free to do with it what she will. I would never in a million years wait over 4 years to be sexually active, but that's not your problem because you are not dating me, and apparently the person you are dating doesn't have a problem with it. However, the fact is that proper attention to birth control (for example pills plus condoms) can be 99.9%+ effective at preventing pregnancy so if you are really depriving yourself of something you want out of fear of an event that has <0.01% chance of happening you are either overly paranoid, grossly misinformed, or using the "pregnancy" issue to justify asexuality and prudishness. Again, if that's what you want, fine, but don't pretend it's something else.
Shock Me Sane Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 Depends on the person, but if you're not planning on waiting until marriage and are comfortable with sex... Three dates is pretty decent. Most girls know after the first date if they really like someone enough to sleep with them, so no one unworthy should really make it to the third date.
MusicChick24 Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I don't need to call you anything, you are welcome to live your life anyway you choose and you have not asked for my advice. The OP did ask for advice, and she got mine and is free to do with it what she will. I would never in a million years wait over 4 years to be sexually active, but that's not your problem because you are not dating me, and apparently the person you are dating doesn't have a problem with it. However, the fact is that proper attention to birth control (for example pills plus condoms) can be 99.9%+ effective at preventing pregnancy so if you are really depriving yourself of something you want out of fear of an event that has <0.01% chance of happening you are either overly paranoid, grossly misinformed, or using the "pregnancy" issue to justify asexuality and prudishness. Again, if that's what you want, fine, but don't pretend it's something else. This may suprise you but despite the fact that I'm currently on Birth control and have been on it since the beginning of the year, and I have condoms, my BOYFRIED chooses to wait until he can propose to me. He's the one uncomfortable.
sxyNYCcpl Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 He's the one uncomfortable. So be it. I'm not telling you that you are wrong, or that he is wrong, viva la difference. You view sex as commitment, I view it as recreation. As long as we are both happy with our lives it's all good. However, for some reason you seem to take great offense that I have a much different view. Go figure. To be brutally honest, I believe the chances are quite high that you will be dealing with a sexually dysfunctional relationship at some point, because you put sexual activity way too much importance, but that's not my burden to bear.
MusicChick24 Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 So be it. I'm not telling you that you are wrong, or that he is wrong, viva la difference. You view sex as commitment, I view it as recreation. As long as we are both happy with our lives it's all good. However, for some reason you seem to take great offense that I have a much different view. Go figure. To be brutally honest, I believe the chances are quite high that you will be dealing with a sexually dysfunctional relationship at some point, because you put sexual activity way too much importance, but that's not my burden to bear. Oh no I don't take offense to it I was just putting that info out there. Sorry for the wrong impression.
fabulous_chk Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I think after 4 or 5 dates? It definitely shouldn't happen on the first date (although I had sex on a first date with a guy who became my bf of 4 years). p.s. we broke up so maybe i'm not a person to ask lol!
fabulous_chk Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 My boyfriend and I have been dating steadily for 4 years, and never had sex. Why? We aren't waiting for marriage, though we are religious. Even though we are already committed, we want to wait until he puts a ring on my finger. To him that is the important step he needs to take as a man before HE can be ready to make another important commitment like sex to me. Yes, we do view sex as a COMMITMENT. <3 4 years, no sex? That is the biggest insult in my book lol! or I would really, really be suspicious of the guy's ability. hmm....i would see this as a red flag lol. I admire you guys for waiting but if it was me, i'd see this as a problem.
Jilly Bean Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I think it's important to at least get through entree...
fabulous_chk Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I think it's important to at least get through entree... AHAHHAHAHA:lmao:
mogul Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I'm a guy. I think it should usually happen by the 3rd date. There is no good reason why two perfectly able beautiful people who are attracted to each other should hold back or for any other reason not allow sex to happen.
Jilly Bean Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I'm a guy. I think it should usually happen by the 3rd date. There is no good reason why two perfectly able beautiful people who are attracted to each other should hold back or for any other reason not allow sex to happen. Rock on. OP, when I am dating someone new, I make it clear BEFORE we have sex, that doing so implies exclusivity to me, and means neither of us is continuing to date or sleep with others. That being agreed upon and understood - sex usually happens on date two or three. I don't meet many guys that are interested in sleeping around too much anymore, but I'm also not dating guys in their 20's. Er, anymore, that is. lol
pandagirl Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I'm a guy. I think it should usually happen by the 3rd date. There is no good reason why two perfectly able beautiful people who are attracted to each other should hold back or for any other reason not allow sex to happen. Third date? Really? I mean, that is fine, but my friends and I definitely wait longer than that -- especially if we really like a guy. As many of the guys have said on this thread, they don't see the point in waiting long to have sex, because they put little importance on the act. Women, as is the stereotype, are much more emotional when it comes to sex. We want the guy to like us at least somewhat for our personality and not just as a receptacle for a penis.
Lovelybird Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I would wait for marriage. Sex will tie a woman's spirit with the man in a deep level, that is why Bible calls it "become one flesh", when you have sex with a guy, you two become one spiritually emotionally and physically. BUT if you two don't commit with each other, sex can hurt your potential relationship than do good. Do you wonder why so many problems in today's dating world? engaging sex earlier in a date do no good. Especially for those who advice "jump onto him", there is a man who speaks man's truth: if a woman is more aggressive, she can less expect the man romance her, less expect moonlight walking on the beach. of course some men would love instant sexual satisfaction, but somewhere they still want full connection with another great woman in their eyes, that is spiritual, emotional. How can 3rd date bring true intimacy in all these areas? There are many instant materials today, instant noodle, instant rice, throwaway camera, instant date and sex (have sex on date 1st, then poof, disappear), instant marriage (happily married for 3 month, then divorce, all according to mood), instant divorce. If we don't want instant marriage, then we have to go slow
mogul Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 Third date? Really? I mean, that is fine, but my friends and I definitely wait longer than that -- especially if we really like a guy. As many of the guys have said on this thread, they don't see the point in waiting long to have sex, because they put little importance on the act. Women, as is the stereotype, are much more emotional when it comes to sex. We want the guy to like us at least somewhat for our personality and not just as a receptacle for a penis. Doing so does not mean that i am not interested in them. If anything, it is actually the contrary. It means that i have been out with them, value my time in their company, and sex is just another way to have fun. Usually the first few dates are pretty intense, as in the getting to know you and what you're about. If we later find out we are not compatible for a relationship or to be dating, but realize we have a good time hooking up, we would continue to do so. However, some of my closest female friends have at one point or another i have tried to pursue or had sex with. I feel that it is bonding and after we get that out the way and find out we are not compatible, we are very comfortable with each other and can talk about anything and everything as close friends. We would be able to give each other advice or what not but no one would know of our past if i were to be introduced to their current guy or vice versa.
Scottdmw Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I wonder.. how soon or how many dates you go before you decide to sleep with the person? a male friend told me that if the girl makes him wait until 10 dates he would have run away. On the other hand, some people suggest to make the guy hold as long as possible. So which one is the better way?how many is considered not too soon nor too late? Do you guys talk about exclusivity afterward? I'm a guy and I believe in waiting till marriage. It varies greatly depending on the person. I'd say the most important thing is to think the issue over carefully yourself and decide what you believe, then find someone who is compatible with that rather than worrying about what they will think. Aside from the obvious pregnancy/STD issues, do give some thought to the emotional bonding sex creates--google the hormone oxytocin sometime. Make sure this is a person you want to be emotionally bonded to before you do it! There is a reason some people stay in abusive relationships with people who are obviously very bad for them--they didn't find out till after the sex. Scott
carhill Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I've been pretty conservative (4 partners in 50 years) and my pattern has generally been, with a new potential, two months or so of consistent contact, along with exclusivity, prior to sexual relations. All of my partners have been new to me (not existing friends/acquaintances which became romantic) so that has been consistent. Oops, I correct myself; there was one person I had really intense contact with for a few weeks and she was a great kisser, so I'll adjust to 75% at two months. Ultimately, as one can see by reading the thread, it's what the parties involved agree upon. IMO, it's real important that they be on the same page about such things. Sexual compatibility is real important in a healthy romantic relationship, assuming that's what the OP wants.
Jilly Bean Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I've been pretty conservative (4 partners in 50 years) and my pattern has generally been, with a new potential, two months or so of consistent contact, along with exclusivity, prior to sexual relations. All of my partners have been new to me (not existing friends/acquaintances which became romantic) so that has been consistent. Oops, I correct myself; there was one person I had really intense contact with for a few weeks and she was a great kisser, so I'll adjust to 75% at two months. Yes, but you were a virgin until you were 35, so I think your experiences are not really indicative of sexual norms. I don't think most people wait 35 years, let alone 2 months.
carhill Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 The point of my post is that the "norm" is as diverse as humanity is broad. No one, not I nor you, decides what is "normal" for others. I don't accept the opinion that my choices were "abnormal", nor would I pass such a judgement upon someone who slept with a person on their first date. If they felt concerned and asked for opinion, like the OP did here, I'd give them mine and hope they give it appropriate weight and acceptance
Jilly Bean Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 The point of my post is that the "norm" is as diverse as humanity is broad. No one, not I nor you, decides what is "normal" for others. I don't accept the opinion that my choices were "abnormal", nor would I pass such a judgement upon someone who slept with a person on their first date. If they felt concerned and asked for opinion, like the OP did here, I'd give them mine and hope they give it appropriate weight and acceptance I just think it's helpful if people understand where advice is coming from, is all. You may not view losing one's virginity at 35 as an atypical thing, but I think most people would. It just helps shape your frame of reference. And whether you want to agree or not, a person losing their virginity at 35 is highly atypical and unusual. I never said it was "abnormal", but it definitely is not a sexual norm, and that cannot be refutted.
39388 Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I just think it's helpful if people understand where advice is coming from, is all. You may not view losing one's virginity at 35 as an atypical thing, but I think most people would. It just helps shape your frame of reference. And whether you want to agree or not, a person losing their virginity at 35 is highly atypical and unusual. I never said it was "abnormal", but it definitely is not a sexual norm, and that cannot be refutted. So is losing virginity is better at 15 or 18 before someone has any idea who they are? I'm 35 and a virgin now (hoping that changes before I'm 40). I also agree with his timeframe of a couple months of consistent contact. He values sex more by waiting a bit. Why not ask those who sleep with someone they don't know on the 3rd date and end up with some disease? I'm sick of those who start late for whatever reason being attacked.
carhill Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 No worries, 39388, I don't feel attacked, nor did I when in my 30's and still a virgin. We each have our own path. I don't begrudge others theirs. BTW, I'm posting this whilst in the middle of a divorce, so, OP, take it (my opinion) for what it's worth. So far, it's an amicable one
Recommended Posts