acceptable physical timeline

[iheartlavalamps]

was reading a post, about a woman who was thirty and wouldn't go any farther than kissing for like a minute. a bunch of people were saying if you weren't sleeping together by such and such a date. . . move on.

 

So I've been on 3 dates with this guy, and we have yet to kiss because we're shy. BTW, he's a bit older than me. And while I'm sure we'll kiss the next time I see him, I have no intentions of going straight from kissing to sex? Why would you do that? No judgment.

 

So is it no longer socially appropriate among those in their 20s and early 30s to take things steps at a time, so long as things aren't halted at a stand-still? Because if it's not. . . well, it sucks to be my SO.

[Eeyore79]

I'm thirty, and if I like a guy and he likes me, I'm happy to kiss and hug him and hold hands. It would take a few dates to progress to heavy kissing and touching breasts etc, and several more dates to progress to any kind of intimate contact like touching genitals. Sex would be a few months down the line, in order to weed out the guys who don't really have feelings for me and just want sex. A decent guy who genuinely likes me would be happy to wait a few months and get tested before we have sex. How am I supposed to know if I even like the guy enough to have sex with him, if we haven't already dated for a while?

 

As long as you're both happy with the pace, then I don't see a problem with either having sex on the first date or not even kissing by the third date (though the first approach is more open to abuse by unscrupulous partners). If a guy dumps me because I don't put out soon enough, then he wasn't the right guy for me anyway - I want a guy to date me because he likes me as a person and enjoys my company, not because I put out.

[Rorschach]

I don't think either of your timelines sound unreasonable from this man's point of view.

[Citizen Erased]

With me it's on a how comfortable am I with the guy basis. You're both shy, if he hasn't even kissed you yet I doubt he will be too unhappy with waiting.

 

I didn't wait long at all with my SO but we are long distance so it is a little different. But I doubt if I'd asked to take things slowly once we met he would have told me to hop on the next plane back. Wouldn't have been entirely thrilled but he would never want me to be uncomfortable. My ex on the other hand wouldn't have found it acceptable. It really depends on the guy...and probably how they feel about you. Maturity...

[EasyHeart]

I'm thirty, and if I like a guy and he likes me, I'm happy to kiss and hug him and hold hands. It would take a few dates to progress to heavy kissing and touching breasts etc, and several more dates to progress to any kind of intimate contact like touching genitals. Sex would be a few months down the line, in order to weed out the guys who don't really have feelings for me and just want sex. A decent guy who genuinely likes me would be happy to wait a few months and get tested before we have sex. How am I supposed to know if I even like the guy enough to have sex with him, if we haven't already dated for a while?

This.

 

I'm in my 40s now, but I can tell you that even in my 30s, if I really liked a woman, I would wait however long she wanted. In fact, finding a woman who I was attracted to and who treated sex as something serious was (and is) a huge, huge turn-on and made me even more attracted to her.

 

If I was attracted to someone but knew it was never going to be a LT or serious kind of relationship, then I'd expect sex by date #3. If it took longer than that, I was wasting valuable time that I could be using to chase easier women.

 

The general rule: The more a man likes you, the less anxious he is to have sex with you.

[Eeyore79]

The general rule: The more a man likes you, the less anxious he is to have sex with you.

Yeah, I agree. A man who just wants an easy lay will move on pretty quickly when he doesn't get it, whereas a man who wants a serious relationship is usually happy to wait. That's why withholding from sex for a few months weeds out the users and the losers.

[sagetalk]

ATTENTION ALL WOMEN (advice from a guy)

 

Guys who go after sex early are looking for a loose Lucy, they just want in your pants. Do not let them do it unless you are trampy/don't care.

 

That statement above will save you ten oceans of tears. Print it out and put it on your door. Real men value you, value your feelings, and value your heart. Any man thats tries to have sex with you before establishing commitment should be dumped.

[janie423]

ATTENTION ALL WOMEN (advice from a guy)

 

Guys who go after sex early are looking for a loose Lucy, they just want in your pants. Do not let them do it unless you are trampy/don't care.

 

That statement above will save you ten oceans of tears. Print it out and put it on your door. Real men value you, value your feelings, and value your heart. Any man thats tries to have sex with you before establishing commitment should be dumped.

 

 

Very nice post, thanks!

[marsle85]

ATTENTION ALL WOMEN (advice from a guy)

 

Guys who go after sex early are looking for a loose Lucy, they just want in your pants. Do not let them do it unless you are trampy/don't care.

 

That statement above will save you ten oceans of tears. Print it out and put it on your door. Real men value you, value your feelings, and value your heart. Any man thats tries to have sex with you before establishing commitment should be dumped.

 

 

yeah, actually -- thanks

[ADF]

No, you cannot chart the progression of physical intimacy on a strict timeline. But many of the posters who haved complained about the progression of physical intimacy in their relationships had valid points.

 

There is this huge lie in our culture that says sex shouldn't be that important, that if you really love someone you'll wait almost any length of time, blah, blah, blah. It is total rubbish. Wanting sex doesn't make you bad; wanting sex makes you human. And sexual rejection hurts. When someone rejects you sexually for weeks or months at a time, they send a clear message: "I don't want you. You're not good enough for me." How much of that are people supposed to take?

 

I am not saying people should have sex if they don't want to. But if someone believes in delaying sex until marriage or for some uncommonly long amount of time, they have an obligation to confine their dating to people who feel the same way they do. And such people exist. Stop stringing the rest of us along, please.

[Agent Thomas]

It pisses me off when people have pre-conceived time lines for when they should be ****ing.

 

Seriously. Come on.

 

Don't follow some **** rule, you need to follow your heart and how well you two are connecting.

 

 

"Omg, she didn't **** me in 3 weeks yet. SHE DIDN'T EVEN GIVE ME A **. This has been 3 weeks. COME ON AMERICA, come on people! This is 2010! If someone else doesn't give me a ** or more by week 3, then (insert complaint/un-educated belief)"

[iheartlavalamps]

"Omg, she didn't **** me in 3 weeks yet. SHE DIDN'T EVEN GIVE ME A **. This has been 3 weeks. COME ON AMERICA, come on people! This is 2010! If someone else doesn't give me a ** or more by week 3, then (insert complaint/un-educated belief)"

 

Ha ha! Exactly tho that's what I was talking about! Like, if there are those rules I completely missed the memo, you know?

 

And the thing that I was confused most about, is every time they'd say it, they would jump STRAIGHT to sex, like there is nothing in between.

 

Oh, America, how I love thee.

[iheartlavalamps]

How am I supposed to know if I even like the guy enough to have sex with him, if we haven't already dated for a while?

 

That's what I want to know, too. But then again, a lot of people don't care anymore.

 

I just won't have sex with someone I don't KNOW I actually have a meaningful interest in, and there's no way I can know that after THREE dates, or however many people are saying lol.

[Agent Thomas]

Oh, America, how I love thee.

 

 

I love what America was founded on, I love our constitution and freedom.

 

But I hate Americans and our society in 2010. (Not all American's, but the ignorant youth that I am unfortunate to be a part of due to my age)

[eraser]

ATTENTION ALL WOMEN (advice from a guy)

 

Guys who go after sex early are looking for a loose Lucy, they just want in your pants. Do not let them do it unless you are trampy/don't care.

 

That statement above will save you ten oceans of tears. Print it out and put it on your door. Real men value you, value your feelings, and value your heart. Any man thats tries to have sex with you before establishing commitment should be dumped.

 

Needs to be quoted.

 

"Timelines" exist only to make it easier for men (and women!) to be dogs. Period.

[mrt336]

ATTENTION ALL WOMEN (advice from a guy)

 

Guys who go after sex early are looking for a loose Lucy, they just want in your pants. Do not let them do it unless you are trampy/don't care.

 

That statement above will save you ten oceans of tears. Print it out and put it on your door. Real men value you, value your feelings, and value your heart. Any man thats tries to have sex with you before establishing commitment should be dumped.

 

 

This is just false.

 

Sexual compatibility is a necessary component of commitment. Is it really commitment if a person will be forced to end a relationship due to discovering sexual incompatibility?

 

I will not commit myself to a monogamous relationship with a girl who I haven't had sex with. It's jut not going to happen, and the relationship won't work unless we have good sexual chemistry.

 

Sexual chemistry is JUST as important as emotional chemistry is. Ladies, would you "commit" to a man you've only had sex with and don't know anything about emotionally? Of course not.

 

Sex isn't a predator/prey game. Sex is mutually beneficial, it should be viewed as such. You can't live your dating life by judging a persons genuine interest in you by how long they'll wait to have sex.

[eraser]

This is just false.

 

Sexual compatibility is a necessary component of commitment. Is it really commitment if a person will be forced to end a relationship due to discovering sexual incompatibility?

 

I will not commit myself to a monogamous relationship with a girl who I haven't had sex with. It's jut not going to happen, and the relationship won't work unless we have good sexual chemistry.

 

Sexual chemistry is JUST as important as emotional chemistry is. Ladies, would you "commit" to a man you've only had sex with and don't know anything about emotionally? Of course not.

 

Sex isn't a predator/prey game. Sex is mutually beneficial, it should be viewed as such. You can't live your dating life by judging a persons genuine interest in you by how long they'll wait to have sex.

 

That's a whole lot of justification for a whole lot of BS.

[mrt336]

Really? So you could marry someone who would never have sex with you?

[eraser]

Really? So you could marry someone who would never have sex with you?

 

What does not having sex have to do with this thread? This thread isn't about celibacy, abstinence or asexuality. It's about having respect for a relationship and its potential.

Edited April 17, 2010 by eraser

[sagetalk]

Sex isn't a predator/prey game. Sex is mutually beneficial, it should be viewed as such. You can't live your dating life by judging a persons genuine interest in you by how long they'll wait to have sex.

 

In a way it is. Sure there are guys who would have sex early and be great partners, but those guys are in the minority. If a women wants to be sure a guy is in it for her and not sex, she must wait and find out. Too often women throw their bodies at men hoping it will be the tipping point to get the guy into a relationship, or a man has sex with her early in the relationship and she thinks it's because he's into her.These mistakes can lead to tragic results. Results far more tragic than finding out someone isn't that great at sex.

 

You can live your dating life like this, and it is much healthier and will lead to long lasting, safer (less heart break), relationships more often than the alternative of knocking boots ASAP.

[mrt336]

What does not having sex have to do with this thread? This thread isn't about celibacy, abstinence or asexuality. It's about having respect for a relationship and its potential.

 

A sexless relationship has no potential. A relationship with poor sexual compatibility has no potential.

 

So if you're going to attack my comment as BS, answer my question. Would you marry someone who wouldn't have sex with you?

 

I'm gonna assume the answer is no. Therefore, would you be in a monogamous relationship with someone if the sex wasn't satisfying? Either not enough, poorly done, none, etc. Most people won't. Anyone who wants a real, complete relationship won't.

 

If you want more opinions just do a google search for "is sexual compatibility important." You'll find that there are a lot more people who say it is than there are who say it isn't.

 

Why would I commit to someone who I have NO idea whether about sexually? I certainly wouldn't commit to a girl I've never seen, because physical attraction is important. I wouldn't commit to a girl who I've never spoken to, because our personalities must mesh. Sex is important enough to make or break a relationship, and therefore it's too important to just assume you're going to be compatible and decide you're going to exclusive with this person.

 

 

I'm not saying I have multiple sexual partners at one time. I only have sex with 1 person at one time, but honestly if there weren't STDs I probably would. So I guess in that sense I'm "committed." However, I'm not going to enter into an exclusive relationship without having had sex first.

[eraser]

A sexless relationship has no potential. A relationship with poor sexual compatibility has no potential.

 

So if you're going to attack my comment as BS, answer my question. Would you marry someone who wouldn't have sex with you?

 

I'm gonna assume the answer is no. Therefore, would you be in a monogamous relationship with someone if the sex wasn't satisfying? Either not enough, poorly done, none, etc. Most people won't. Anyone who wants a real, complete relationship won't.

 

If you want more opinions just do a google search for "is sexual compatibility important." You'll find that there are a lot more people who say it is than there are who say it isn't.

 

Why would I commit to someone who I have NO idea whether about sexually? I certainly wouldn't commit to a girl I've never seen, because physical attraction is important. I wouldn't commit to a girl who I've never spoken to, because our personalities must mesh. Sex is important enough to make or break a relationship, and therefore it's too important to just assume you're going to be compatible and decide you're going to exclusive with this person.

 

 

I'm not saying I have multiple sexual partners at one time. I only have sex with 1 person at one time, but honestly if there weren't STDs I probably would. So I guess in that sense I'm "committed." However, I'm not going to enter into an exclusive relationship without having had sex first.

 

Again, a whole lot of justification for a whole lot of BS. Who said anything about sexless relationships? Once again, this thread isn't about sexual compatibility or any of the other things you insist on rambling upon. Based on the title of the thread and the OP's original post, it's about the random timelines for relationship milestones that people impose on each other. In this case, it's about the physical milestone. Are you inclined to dump someone because they haven't put out within an arbitrary time frame (one month? two months? three months, five days, 12 hours and 35 seconds?)? That is what the issue is here.

[marsle85]

A sexless relationship has no potential. A relationship with poor sexual compatibility has no potential.

 

So if you're going to attack my comment as BS, answer my question. Would you marry someone who wouldn't have sex with you?

 

I'm gonna assume the answer is no. Therefore, would you be in a monogamous relationship with someone if the sex wasn't satisfying? Either not enough, poorly done, none, etc. Most people won't. Anyone who wants a real, complete relationship won't.

 

If you want more opinions just do a google search for "is sexual compatibility important." You'll find that there are a lot more people who say it is than there are who say it isn't.

 

Why would I commit to someone who I have NO idea whether about sexually? I certainly wouldn't commit to a girl I've never seen, because physical attraction is important. I wouldn't commit to a girl who I've never spoken to, because our personalities must mesh. Sex is important enough to make or break a relationship, and therefore it's too important to just assume you're going to be compatible and decide you're going to exclusive with this person.

 

 

I'm not saying I have multiple sexual partners at one time. I only have sex with 1 person at one time, but honestly if there weren't STDs I probably would. So I guess in that sense I'm "committed." However, I'm not going to enter into an exclusive relationship without having had sex first.

 

I'm interested in your opinion. I was seeing a guy over a span of a few months, he took me out three times (all reeally nice places), drove 30+ mins to see me - and then made dinner for me on our fourth date. I didn't have sex with him, despite wanting to on our fourth date... It came off as me being a tease. I shot him a text the following day explaining that I had my period, blah blah.

 

Haven't heard from him since.

 

So. Was sex the deal breaker? Looks like it.

[mrt336]

Are you inclined to dump someone because they haven't put out within an arbitrary time frame (one month? two months? three months, five days, 12 hours and 35 seconds?)? That is what the issue is here.

 

THE ANSWER IS YES. Jesus christ. Yes, I, and many other people, are inclined to dump people after a certain time, specifically because of my "justifications" above. Dating someone for 3 months and not having sex is essentially a "sexless relationship." There ARE variables that determine what that time frame one is willing to wait is, BUT there is a time frame. No one with an average sex drive will wait "as long as you want if they really love you!" It's not true. Not for people who respect themselves as much as you want them to respect you. Why should I sideline my personal wants/needs to accommodate yours? That's not the way to love. If I don't even love myself enough to be vigilant about what I want out of a relationship, how can I love someone else?

 

Furthermore, I wasn't responding to the OP specifically. I was responding to the quote I included in my original response.

 

Disregarding this as "justifications" is ludicrous. Do the google search. Read some literature from relationship counselors. View some statistics about reasons behind divorce. You'll find out how important sex is in a relationship.

[nothappyjan]

I like taking the small steps, and i think its more fun. Why do we need to rush it and have it over and done with in 3 dates.

 

I like the hugs, hand holding and kissing. Then the making out then the heavy petting etc and i think its nice to experience all of those things without rushing straight to sex.

 

I cant rush past a level i need to slowly feel more comfortable with my partner. But to the people talking about sexual chemistry doing the above things involve sexual chemistry as well and it can be fun and cheeky and brilliant, if u plan on being with the person long term...whats the rush ??

 

If a guy rushes me he's out the door, thats his choice but i value sex and need emotional connection.