Johnny M Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 I'm sorry I didn't clarify. This was in reference to your women/rape comments. So yes, I was addressing you. In that case, you've lost me. How am I "telling how women should be, feel, act and react" through my rape analogy? I only brought up rape to show that "bonding" is an psychological rather than chemical process. A woman who's getting raped is releasing oxytocin just like a woman who's engaing in consensual sex. So why doesn't the rape victim get bonded to the rapist the same way another woman gets bonded to her lover if it's all about chemical release? Can someone address this from a logical, scientific standpoint, without throwing a hissy fit?
littlewhiterose Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) In that case, you've lost me. How am I "telling how women should be, feel, act and react" through my rape analogy? I only brought up rape to show that "bonding" is an psychological rather than chemical process. A woman who's getting raped is releasing oxytocin just like a woman who's engaing in consensual sex. So why doesn't the rape victim get bonded to the rapist the same way another woman gets bonded to her lover if it's all about chemical release? Can someone address this from a logical, scientific standpoint, without throwing a hissy fit? Aye aye aye.Again with the put down? You were fine up until that last sentence! Dude, seriously are you trolling? I'm not offended but you do realize it was unnecessary, right? YOU ARE RIGHT, we can agree to disagree but there are greater topics at hand that probably should be addressed and they don't directly have to do with this thread. Edited October 29, 2009 by littlewhiterose
Johnny M Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 This is my guess and just a guess. He likes the option of sex without commitment, and he's actually one of the guys that has sex with a girl and then walks off. So basically if all women asked for guys to be exclusive with them before sex happens then his game gets crushed. So he's getting defensive in this post. He's not picking the best option for women, but the defending his way of life.Give me a break . Why on earth would I feel compelled to "defend my way of life" to a bunch of anonymous people on the internet? You may live vicariously though the internet; I don't.
Author BookerT Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) Give me a break . Why on earth would I feel compelled to "defend my way of life" to a bunch of anonymous people on the internet? You may live vicariously though the internet; I don't. You're defending yourself without even realizing it, that's the interesting part. I mean I'm just Quote: "a sexually frustrated "nice guy" upset that girls are giving it up to easily to the wrong kind of guys instead of sleeping with "decent" guys like" myself. You're obviously not sexually frustrated but the wrong kind of guy. No? Just reading between the lines, people say more about themselves inbetween the lines than what's actually being said. People like to defend their own lifestyles, that's what you and dreamgirl were actually doing, not necessarily debating the best options for a woman that falls for players. Edited October 29, 2009 by BookerT
boundaryproblem Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 People move in and out of exclusivity by simply picking up the phone. The "gold standard" to determine if someone is going to be around in six months, and whether they will add value to your life, is to tell them that you have a serious problem, and then sit back see how they react. That reaction will tell you everything you need to know about your so-called "in love" hot-to-trot boyfriend. I don't find the "will you be my boyfriend" discussion useful at all in determining if/when I will have sex with someone. Because as I said, losing exclusivity is only a phone call away. A quality person on the other hand will remain a friend for life regardless of which week you started having sex with him when you first met. Years later these things don't signify.
Author BookerT Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 People move in and out of exclusivity by simply picking up the phone. The "gold standard" to determine if someone is going to be around in six months, and whether they will add value to your life, is to tell them that you have a serious problem, and then sit back see how they react. That reaction will tell you everything you need to know about your so-called "in love" hot-to-trot boyfriend. I don't find the "will you be my boyfriend" discussion useful at all in determining if/when I will have sex with someone. Because as I said, losing exclusivity is only a phone call away. A quality person on the other hand will remain a friend for life regardless of which week you started having sex with him when you first met. Years later these things don't signify. What you say is true. Problem is most people cannot detect who's a quality person. Most people look for attractive people and either can't detect deception or as posters here said, lie to themselves. Yes what you're saying is what happens later on. I agree with you it takes 6 months before the all clear is signalled, but most people are emotionally attached well before 6 months. Exlusivity is the best second option. I mean people here are balking at just a month of two. Six months to filter someone out is beyond most people's limits.
v g Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 I realized/accepted that I get very attached to a man after having sex with him. It's like I'm wearing rose-colored glasses and don't see red flags. I would prefer to get to know him and for him to get to know me and that we're both ready before we have sex. Perhaps this is an effective way to weed out men that aren't into me enough to get to know me first. I was recently dating someone and explained this to him. I was very honest and frank from the beginning. Lo and behold, he's not ready for a relationship. He hadn't mentioned that while he was trying to talk me into sleeping with him. Now, I would have loved to have slept with him. No doubt it would have been fantastic. However, I am very, very happy that I waited. I would have been so disappointed and hurt had I found out he's not ready for a relationship after having slept with him. And if a woman doesn't get attached to a man after sleeping with him, this would clearly be a moot point for her. I know some men feel that if a woman doesn't sleep with him within three dates, that she's not into sex and that he's moving on. That blows me away. I suppose that could be true but doubt that's generally the case. IMO every individual has to do what works for him/her. It's all about knowing yourself and making good decisions for yourself.
Awesome Username Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 I realized/accepted that I get very attached to a man after having sex with him. It's like I'm wearing rose-colored glasses and don't see red flags. I would prefer to get to know him and for him to get to know me and that we're both ready before we have sex. Perhaps this is an effective way to weed out men that aren't into me enough to get to know me first. I was recently dating someone and explained this to him. I was very honest and frank from the beginning. Lo and behold, he's not ready for a relationship. He hadn't mentioned that while he was trying to talk me into sleeping with him. Now, I would have loved to have slept with him. No doubt it would have been fantastic. However, I am very, very happy that I waited. I would have been so disappointed and hurt had I found out he's not ready for a relationship after having slept with him. And if a woman doesn't get attached to a man after sleeping with him, this would clearly be a moot point for her. I know some men feel that if a woman doesn't sleep with him within three dates, that she's not into sex and that he's moving on. That blows me away. I suppose that could be true but doubt that's generally the case. IMO every individual has to do what works for him/her. It's all about knowing yourself and making good decisions for yourself. Wholeheartedly agreed.
v g Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 No pseudoscience please. There is no such thing as "bonding chemicals". Otherwise, a woman who got raped would instantly fall in love with the rapist. Bonding is a purely psychological process that can easily happen without any sex taking place. Johnny M, do you have any women in your life -- your mother, your sister, a female friend -- that agrees with your rape analogy? For that matter, I wonder if there's a woman on earth that would agree with your rape analogy. Perhaps you're confusing rape and bonding with Stockholm Syndrome: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/Stockholm%20syndrome and http://www.angelfire.com/vt/rcwn/Pagetwentyeight.html
Els Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 I couldn't disagree more. If it's been "a month or two" and there's still no sex, I'm calling it quits, even if I really like the girl (I'm basically in that situation right now with the girl I'm dating). If there's no sex after 5-6 dates, it either means that the girl is looking for a sexless relationship, wants to wait until marriage (god forbid!) or there's something else that is seriously wrong. It's better to cut your losses sooner rather than later and move on with your life. Utter nonsense. There is no arbitrary time limit, it's a personal thing. Some girls have sex after 3 dates. Some 10. Some a month. Some two months. Doesn't mean that the latter three are looking for a sexless relationship, wants to wait until marriage, or has something seriously wrong with her. It's fine if 5-6 dates is YOUR personal time limit for waiting, really, but I'd hate for other guys to buy into this nonsense and assume things that aren't necessarily true about the women they're dating. That being said, I don't necessarily agree with the OP, either. Not all women have sex just because they're afraid of losing the guy. I don't think a woman should hold off on the sex til they're in an exclusive relationship if she would be comfortable doing it by date 1. What's the point of false barriers like that? Do it when you want to do it - be it date 1, date 10, or marriage.
Author BookerT Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 That being said, I don't necessarily agree with the OP, either. Not all women have sex just because they're afraid of losing the guy. I didn't say all women. I was just throwing that out so any woman that did it can see the futility behind it. I also said well if a woman wants to have casual sex go for it. I'm just saying if a woman likes a guy, gets emotionally attached and then hurt, and it's because she's not making sure the guy will commit first, then she should change this aspect of mate selection. If a woman never gets hurt then that's great!
Lakeside_runner Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 ...wants to wait until marriage (god forbid!)... Good one!
Recommended Posts