Are a lot of women sleeping with guys on the first date?

[Philetus]

Our own judgment of what is right and wrong is often flawed. That is why we often make mistakes and learn from them. There is no perfect person. Engaging in activities of our own freewill have proven again and again to be detrimental to our whole race as humanity. Sometimes what is good for you is not the easy thing to do. Sometimes it isn't the popular thing to do. Sometimes its just not what you FEEL like doing. Doing whatever you feel like doing is not always the BEST thing to do for your own good or the good of others.

 

I don't know if I am getting any point across...perhaps not. If I think of a better way to put this I'll be back.

 

Yes, people make mistakes. But, you're projecting your values onto other people as if you're right and they can't possibly be.

 

You said yourself, 'our judgment is often flawed'. Maybe it's YOUR judgment that is flawed in this case? How do you know? What evidence do you have that you are right and the women who've commented on this thread that they have first-date-sex, are wrong? What unknown consequences have they suffered as a result of their actions? I see no evidence of any.

 

These women don't believe they are making mistakes. They are making choices that are right FOR THEM and are doing fine.

 

I agree, there is NO perfect person. So, again I ask, what makes your judgment superior? Because you believe it's what God wants for us? I am asking an honest question, I'm being sincere.

 

Yes, we all make choices that turn out to be bad (I really thought Beta was gonna stick around ), ALL of us. That would include, I assume, you, too.

 

So, I ask you again... what makes your choice superiour to the choice of people who engage in casual, first-date sex? If you're also fallible, HOW can you make a determination of what is right, or good, for anyone except you? Is it because you rely on your religious beliefs?

 

Finally, of course there are limits to 'do what you feel like doing'. Generally, we shouldn't do things that negatively impact on others and I agree that people who have pathologies need to get straightened out. I'm talking about people who choose to engage in an activity with full understanding of the risks and pitfalls involved in their choices.

 

I would never jump out of airplane with a parachute, that's my choice. I think people who are suicidal should be prevented from doing it. However, adults who understand the risks, are of sound mind, and still choose to do it only have to answer to themselves and I don't judge them for their choice. It's their life.

 

I can list dozens of things that I wouldn't do, think certain people with underlying issues should be prevented from doing, but for the majority of people who wish to do them (knowing the risks), they're fine and it's none of my business.

[caramel c]

Yes, people make mistakes. But, you're projecting your values onto other people as if you're right and they can't possibly be.

 

You said yourself, 'our judgment is often flawed'. Maybe it's YOUR judgment that is flawed in this case? How do you know? What evidence do you have that you are right and the women who've commented on this thread that they have first-date-sex, are wrong? What unknown consequences have they suffered as a result of their actions? I see no evidence of any.

 

These women don't believe they are making mistakes. They are making choices that are right FOR THEM and are doing fine.

 

I agree, there is NO perfect person. So, again I ask, what makes your judgment superior? Because you believe it's what God wants for us? I am asking an honest question, I'm being sincere.

 

Yes, we all make choices that turn out to be bad (I really thought Beta was gonna stick around ), ALL of us. That would include, I assume, you, too.

 

So, I ask you again... what makes your choice superiour to the choice of people who engage in casual, first-date sex? If you're also fallible, HOW can you make a determination of what is right, or good, for anyone except you? Is it because you rely on your religious beliefs?

 

Finally, of course there are limits to 'do what you feel like doing'. Generally, we shouldn't do things that negatively impact on others and I agree that people who have pathologies need to get straightened out. I'm talking about people who choose to engage in an activity with full understanding of the risks and pitfalls involved in their choices.

 

I would never jump out of airplane with a parachute, that's my choice. I think people who are suicidal should be prevented from doing it. However, adults who understand the risks, are of sound mind, and still choose to do it only have to answer to themselves and I don't judge them for their choice. It's their life.

 

I can list dozens of things that I wouldn't do, think certain people with underlying issues should be prevented from doing, but for the majority of people who wish to do them (knowing the risks), they're fine and it's none of my business.

 

I would consider replying to this, but if you'd pay more attention to my previous replies you'd find the answers there. If you don't, I can assure you this is a fruitless argument as I do not have the patience anymore.

 

So, just assume what you will...

 

I wish you good luck!

[Philetus]

I am not defending the right to judge. Like I said none of us have that right. Eating an entire choc cake at once has many possible health risks besides feeling sick for one day, including weight gain. Especially if you do it regularly.

 

And if I tell you that eating the whole cake is not good for you, that is not judgement. I understand that it is quite tempting, and perhaps I have done it too myself. I'd just be pointing out that you could make a better decision of what to eat, and that you might want to consider what the consequences might be.

 

Judgment would be attacking your character for it, such as calling you a nasty name or assuming a character or personality flaw. Harassing you over it, telling you what you deserve for doing it, that kind of thing.

 

I have a problem with the 'chocolate cake' metaphor if we assume that one who eats it regularly is going to gain weight. That's because you're assuming that 'negative consequences' are inevitable. As I've pointed out, I see NO evidence from the women who've posted in this forum of ANY negative consequence from their actions. That's an assumption you're making and it's not necessarily true.

 

Perhaps a better metaphor is the skydiving one. Each year, some people are killed because of it but most people get a thrill and are fine. Negative consequences are not inevitable in each case.

 

In your analogy, you would NEVER eat chocolate cake, would you? (I guess you could say you could have a piece of the cake but your analogy breaks down again.) That would be a shame if you were an otherwise healthy person who really, really, really loved chocolate cake. Why should a healthy person deny themselves something they love so much?

 

I'm sorry but this statement reeks of judgment. You can call it 'judging the activity' if you like, but it's still judgment. Like those who judge homosexuality as a sin but love the sinner.

 

"However, I don't think that it is right or good for anybody to sleep with anybody on the first date. There are consequences to doing so, whether or not these consequences are seen or felt or heard, they exist. I am a believer in waiting. "

[caramel c]

I have a problem with the 'chocolate cake' metaphor if we assume that one who eats it regularly is going to gain weight. That's because you're assuming that 'negative consequences' are inevitable. As I've pointed out, I see NO evidence from the women who've posted in this forum of ANY negative consequence from their actions. That's an assumption you're making and it's not necessarily true.

 

Perhaps a better metaphor is the skydiving one. Each year, some people are killed because of it but most people get a thrill and are fine. Negative consequences are not inevitable in each case.

 

In your analogy, you would NEVER eat chocolate cake, would you? (I guess you could say you could have a piece of the cake but your analogy breaks down again.) That would be a shame if you were an otherwise healthy person who really, really, really loved chocolate cake. Why should a healthy person deny themselves something they love so much?

 

I'm sorry but this statement reeks of judgment. You can call it 'judging the activity' if you like, but it's still judgment. Like those who judge homosexuality as a sin but love the sinner.

 

"However, I don't think that it is right or good for anybody to sleep with anybody on the first date. There are consequences to doing so, whether or not these consequences are seen or felt or heard, they exist. I am a believer in waiting. "

 

We strongly disagree on many things. Honestly, I don't have the desire to go back and forth with you on all of this. If you do not believe there are consequences to casual sex then that makes this argument a chore for me.

[meerkat stew]

Perhaps their findings are flawed because of the source of their funding?

 

Could be if they are selling consulting or other products or services to churches or trying to fear-monger a certain political result among religious groups.

 

My issue with the studies like this is generally causal. Don't you find it interesting that the high divorce rates occur in lower income and lower education level states, and the lower rates occur in higher income, higher education states? Yet of course it's a matter of religion. A good study would focus on subcultures rather than on a state level, and would massage out differences in income and education.

 

Also, like the terms "conservative" and "liberal," the terms "red state" and "blue state" are overgeneralizing and misleading, mainly because there is so much historical flip-flop between them. Those terms have only been used to categorize states during the last twenty years to my knowledge, and are convenient for TV news but dispositive of little else. Pre 1990s, the red/blue map would look completely different, and the difference between a "red" state and a "blue" state is often only a small percentage of votes. Personally, I feel the distinction is used in media primarily to derogate conservatives, but don't have hard evidence of this, just anecdotal observation over the years.

[bac]

 

So, all your assumptions about me have been wrong. Maybe the assumptions you're making about why women to have sex on the first date are equally incorrect?

 

I also took pains to point out that I didn't know WHY they chose to have sex on the first date but that it COULD be the same reason I did. That is, because it's thrilling.

 

Sure, my assumptions about you are wrong because I do not have sex on the first date with guys like you. In other words, I have never had a chance in my life to deal sexually/emotionally with guys like you.

 

But, I would strongly disagree that my assumptions about why women have sex on the first date are incorrect. I have personal experience to live in female's body and I experience everything related to females' way of thinking and feeling in the females' shoes. Also, I have the same information from my close female friends. Being a male, you will never be able to understand females' mind and sexuality at the level that I do.

 

From my female's point of view, what is thrilling about sex with a man on the first date?

There are tons of kind of good-looking males who are looking for sex on the first date. All of them are the same to me because they have no soul/personality to me, but the only thing they are going to show me is their d...k. I saw many many d...ks. What is thrilling about seeing his d...k? unless it is something unusual like a micropenis of 2,5 inches. All the dicks are the same and kind of boring because of that.

What is thrilling about the stuff that the guy is going to do next? I mean this stuff I have seen many many times before and the stuff is all the same which is the boring sexual routine of a ONS. The routine includes the following parts, first eating my p...y, then, he would want to receive oral and, finally, we would do the vaginal penetration. Why would it be so thrilling for a female if she had it all many times before or quite recently? Repeating the same physical routine once and once again can not be so thrilling unless you have the balls which produce testosterone to make a male follow his instincts.

 

From my female's point of view, if a woman has sexual needs, she can masterbate to address her needs because it is much more sexually satisfying at least in terms of a real orgasm and much safer for some obvious reasons.

Edited August 24, 2010 by bac

[Philetus]

We strongly disagree on many things. Honestly, I don't have the desire to go back and forth with you on all of this. If you do not believe there are consequences to casual sex then that makes this argument a chore for me.

 

Yeah, I suspect we probably do strongly disagree on many things, which is totally cool. I think the difference is I would never categorize your choice to behave in such-and-such a manner as not 'right or good'. That's really it.

 

I never said there aren't consequences to casual sex. I said the evidence on this thread is that the three women who engage in this activity seem to be suffering no ill effects from it nor have I seen any evidence that others suffer because of it unless they have some underlying pathology.

 

Also, if people choose to engage in an activity with full understanding of potential consequences (and do it anyway) I have no issues with it. Individuals are the best judge of what is 'right or good' for them.

[Philetus]

Could be if they are selling consulting or other products or services to churches or trying to fear-monger a certain political result among religious groups.

 

My issue with the studies like this is generally causal. Don't you find it interesting that the high divorce rates occur in lower income and lower education level states, and the lower rates occur in higher income, higher education states? Yet of course it's a matter of religion. A good study would focus on subcultures rather than on a state level, and would massage out differences in income and education.

 

Also, like the terms "conservative" and "liberal," the terms "red state" and "blue state" are overgeneralizing and misleading, mainly because there is so much historical flip-flop between them. Those terms have only been used to categorize states during the last twenty years to my knowledge, and are convenient for TV news but dispositive of little else. Pre 1990s, the red/blue map would look completely different, and the difference between a "red" state and a "blue" state is often only a small percentage of votes. Personally, I feel the distinction is used in media primarily to derogate conservatives, but don't have hard evidence of this, just anecdotal observation over the years.

 

I provided links, so you can investigate them if you want and see if there are ulterior motives.

 

Good studies control for other factors and don't assume correlation equals causation. If you looked at the teen pregnancy study I linked to, they controlled for such issues as income level. I used to work in medical research, I'm very familiar with the pitfalls of bad research.

 

The whole red state/blue state thing is as you say. The point of neither study was to compare states. The Barna study recapped that info at state level, but the raw data was nationwide. Invoking red state/blue state was my wording.

 

My point in posting this was not to bash conservatives, Republicans, or religious practitioners. If I wanted to do that, I would have built a much more compelling case.

 

My point was only to refute Spanks claim that it was 'common sense' that first-date-sex was responsible for the increase in divorce rates and teen pregnancy. I'm not sure if you agree with her point or not, but you can certainly see the correlation/causation problem with her statement?

[Philetus]

Sure, my assumptions about you are wrong because I do not have sex on the first date with guys like you. In other words, I have never had a chance in my life to deal sexually/emotionally with guys like you.

 

I'm saying you assumed a lot who I am. First that I was young, then that I was never married (or for no more than a year or two). All wrong.

 

Also, while I DO often have sex on the first date, I have no problems waiting. I dated someone a couple of months ago and we didn't kiss until the end of the third date. I'm flexible.

 

 

But, I would strongly disagree that my assumptions about why women have sex on the first date are incorrect.

 

Well, there were three women who contributed to this thread who don't seem to have any mental health issues. What do you say to them?

 

I also took pains to say I didn't know why the women I've slept with on a first date did it. I suspect they do it 'cause it's fun but I don't know.

 

 

From my female's point of view, what is thrilling about sex with a man on the first date?

There are tons of kind of good-looking males who are looking for sex on the first date. All of them are the same to me because they have no soul/personality to me, but the only thing they are going to show me is their d...k. I saw many many d...ks. What is thrilling about seeing his d...k? unless it is something unusual like a micropenis of 2,5 inches. All the dicks are the same and kind of boring because of that.

What is thrilling about the stuff that the guy is going to do next? I mean this stuff I have seen many many times before and the stuff is all the same which is the boring sexual routine of a ONS. The routine includes the following parts, first eating my p...y, then, he would want to receive oral and, finally, we would do the vaginal penetration. Why would it be so thrilling for a female if she had it all many times before or quite recently? Repeating the same physical routine once and once again can not be so thrilling unless you have the balls which produce testosterone to make a male follow his instincts.

 

Wow, I don't believe it but you've made sex sound boring.

 

What is thrilling about seeing a man's dick? I couldn't tell you. I can tell you that it is thrilling to see a woman's naked body though and it never gets tiring.

 

Honestly, that 'routine' you stated above, sounds just that, 'routine'. Fortunately, there are those of us out there who know how to treat a woman. I not only know where the clitoris and g-spot are, but I know what to do with them. I know all women are different and like different things. I know some women don't climax during penetration but need to do it some other way. Why do I get excited when I see a woman's naked body? Because I enjoy figuring out what drives her wild. I'm very good at it.

 

Maybe it's not thrilling for you because you've just had terrible lovers?

 

 

 

 

 

From my female's point of view, if a woman has sexual needs, she can masterbate to address her needs because it is much more sexually satisfying at least in terms of a real orgasm and much safer for some obvious reasons.

 

Again, it sounds like you've just had lousy lovers. I know many men, especially young men, wouldn't know their way around a woman's body if they were shown a colour-coded road map. That's their loss.

 

Clearly, it seems to be your loss as well.

[meerkat stew]

Religiosity was MY word.

 

Did you in fact author the teen pregnancy study? If you did, you should have disclosed that by now. If not, reconcile the above statement please with the fact that the term "religiosity" is found in the study repeated dozens of times.

 

Now, having wasted my time actually scanning the entirety of it, it appears that the indicia of "religiosity" are indeed as I had previously posted in assumption without reading, a list of "fundamentalist" traits, a relatively precise term with a well-settled definition. Why, then, do researchers create terms such as "religiosity" when other better, more precise terms such as "fundamentalism" exist? We all know the answer, to massage other, presumably conflicting studies out and away from the desired result.

 

I imagine MANY studies have been done concluding a lesser incidence of teen pregnancy in "fundamentalist" households, but that conflicts with the desired result, right? Most interestingly the conclusion doesn't mention "religiosity" at all, but rather "conservative religious beliefs." So the researchers don't use the more precise term "fundamentalism," in favor of a made-up term that likely does not even appear in conflicting studies concerning fundamentalism, then in the end, when it's time to give the "newsworthy" soundbite of a conclusion, the term "religiosity" miraculously disappears, and is replaced with "conservative religious beliefs" a politically charged term. I smell dogma-doo.

 

There is lots of repetition in this study also, it's basically a rehash, suggesting the house of cards supporting studies get juggled around every few years and this particular hunk of -bad- is regurgitated afresh for a new headline as if it is a fresh topic. The entire study is just an official looking stamp on a dishonest soundbite to be repeated after a "studies have shown" qualifier.

 

I didn't dig into the "income controlling" claim in the teen pregancy study, and was replying more to the second statewide divorce source you cited than the teen pregnancy study in complaining about that. But I also noticed that the teen pregnancy study did not control for ethnicity, race, education level or cultural differences, just lumped everyone together who answered the questions a certain way under "religiosity," and in the end "conservative religious values." Convenient.

 

BTW, to get this in here, I'm a atheist too, with little love for the cultural effects of fundamentalism throughout history. The endless stream of dishonest "research" spewing forth from the politically motivated mental sewers our universities have become, though, is a much more damaging trend in American discourse and culture than fundamentalism has been or ever will be.

 

"Religiosity" sounds like "truthiness" to my ear.

[Philetus]

Did you in fact author the teen pregnancy study? If you did, you should have disclosed that by now. If not, reconcile the above statement please with the fact that the term "religiosity" is found in the study repeated dozens of times.

 

I erred. Thank you for pointing it out.

 

Again, if my goal was to build a strong case for a positive correlation between the 'faith' of 'fundamentalism' of families and teen pregnancy rates, I would have taken more care to build my case.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3803557

 

"A series of multivariate analyses that controlled for the percentage of the state population that was black, poor and metropolitan showed that social factors tend to be more important determinants of state differences in teenage pregnancy, birth and abortion levels than are policy-related variables, particularly for whites....The percentage of a state's population that belongs to fundamentalist religious groups is positively associated with adolescent birthrates."

 

The Barna research was done by a religious group and from what I can see stuck to your more accepted terms. I don't know... maybe this group crawled out of a 'politically motivated mental sewer', too?

 

 

BTW, to get this in here, I'm a atheist too, with little love for the cultural effects of fundamentalism throughout history. The endless stream of dishonest "research" spewing forth from the politically motivated mental sewers our universities have become, though, is a much more damaging trend in American discourse and culture than fundamentalism has been or ever will be.

 

When 'research' as you pejoratively refer to it, walks into a crowded market and blows itself up killing innocent people, or threatens to decapitate someone for not converting to Christianity, get back to me on that.

[BlackLovely]

It depends what I'm looking for hon. If I wanted a relationship, first or even fourth date sex is out. If it's just for fun, it doesn't matter when it is.

[mr.dream merchant]

I find it insulting that people would outright assume I have low self-esteem because I've had first-date sex, and I also take offense at the idea that I "gave it up", that I "let my body be used", that I don't "respect myself more". That's implying that I don't have a choice in what I do, and this is the 21st century, where--correct me if I'm wrong!--people do have a choice to engage in sex whenever, however, with whomever. I don't let my body be used by anyone. I engage in mutually pleasurable sex. The day I let my body be used is the day a necrophiliac gets hold of my corpse.

 

I believe that I would be showing myself disrespect if I denied myself pleasure all for the sake of trying to convince a guy that I'm "worth the effort". A guy who really thinks I'm worth the effort will think that if I have sex with him on the first, second, or tenth date. I've had enough experience so far to realize that.

 

if anything the effort would be worth it if you put out easy, but past that nah. i'd just blow you off for a far more conservative woman, thanks for the sex though?

[Ruby Slippers]

I have found no difference in the people who I've slept with on the first date and those that wanted to wait. So, unless there are a huge number of people out there who unknowingly suffer from emotional problems, I reject your hypothesis.

 

Are there people out there with emotional problems to turn to anonymous sex? Sure there are. However, to class all women who have sex on a first date as somehow 'damaged' is insulting, belittling, and downright incorrect.

I notice that you are in Toronto.

 

Even in these modern times, American culture still promotes a puritanical view of sex.

[bac]

I think about the fear of rejection and how it is related to sex on the first date.

 

Men do choose females to have sex.

After sex on the first date, a woman wants to know if she is good enough and a guy wants to repeat sex with her. Obviously, if a man does not contact her after a ONS, he does not want her anymore. That means that she is not good enough. There is a sense of rejection if a guy does not want to have sex with her. It is especially painful if a woman loved sex and liked a guy. In other words, the better sex was for a girl, the more painful sense of rejection she is going to experience.

 

It is a fact that a man decides if he wants to continue to have sex with the woman after a ONS. A man has the power to reject a female in the situation.

 

It is a fact that if a man does not want to have sex with the woman more than once, there is high probability that the woman was not good enough for him.

A man has the power to lower her self-esteem and self-image.

 

It is a fact that if the woman really enjoyed sex on the first date and liked the guy, she would want to repeat the amazing sexual experience.

But, she has no power to repeat it unless a man wants to.

As result of it, the greater sex was on the first date, the greater pain of rejection and disappointment.

 

IMO, if a woman has sex on the first date, she puts herself at high risk of being rejected, being hurt, and feeling insecure about herself.

[meerkat stew]

Thank you.

 

You are disturbingly even-tempered, have never been able to master that myself. No wonder you get laid so much.

[SpanksTheMonkey]

 

IMO, if a woman has sex on the first date, she puts herself at high risk of being rejected, being hurt, and feeling insecure about herself.

 

I have to agree with this as its just logically sound like I've said earlier women and men are wired differently we as women can try to tell ourselves other wise we can fight nature in this way. But more times then not we will prob fail and as a result we end up feeling disappointed to some degree if things don't go as we would have liked.

[Philetus]

In other words, the better sex was for a girl, the more painful sense of rejection she is going to experience.

 

It is a fact that a man decides if he wants to continue to have sex with the woman after a ONS. A man has the power to reject a female in the situation.

 

I can't speak for women, or even for other men (FTR- I know how abominably men can act), but the same thing has happened to me. I've been rejected after ONSs. In one case, it was an incredibly beautiful Spanish woman and the sex was amazing/romantic/inventive and yeah, it hurt. But, if she had dumped me after two weeks instead of one night, it would've hurt more.

 

Every relationship carries risks. A ONS carries it's own risks but so does falling in love. Anytime you put your faith in someone, or care about them, you're putting yourself on the line. The value of being older is you know this and you know how to put yourself out there while protecting yourself at the same time. I LOVE being in my 40s.

 

I suspect, it is as you say. For some women they feel like they've been used a cum rag after they put their faith and trust in a guy. I can see how that can be devastating.

 

My point is only that the women who engage in ONS, knowing the risks that you state, and choose to do it anyway shouldn't be judged or belittled by anyone. They are their own person and the best judge of what's right for them, is themselves.

 

 

It is a fact that if a man does not want to have sex with the woman more than once, there is high probability that the woman was not good enough for him.

A man has the power to lower her self-esteem and self-image.

 

It is a fact that if the woman really enjoyed sex on the first date and liked the guy, she would want to repeat the amazing sexual experience.

But, she has no power to repeat it unless a man wants to.

As result of it, the greater sex was on the first date, the greater pain of rejection and disappointment.

 

IMO, if a woman has sex on the first date, she puts herself at high risk of being rejected, being hurt, and feeling insecure about herself.

 

Well said. I totally get what you're saying and I respect your desire to wait and your reasons for not engaging in ONS, or taking a dim view of them. Of course, people (even men) risk getting hurt whenever sex/emotion are involved.

 

It's like sky diving. If you choose to engage in an activity, KNOWING THE RISKS, it's nobody's business but your own what you do. We all have to make choices that are right for us. Of course, certain people (suicidal people) should be prevented from skydiving but in that case the problem isn't the skydiving, it's their underlying issues.

 

It is the same w/ ONS. If you are emotionally vulnerable, use sex to build self-esteem/gain acceptance, or have some other mental issue, it's probably not a good idea for you. But that describes the minority of people.

 

One question... how are you magically protected if you wait until the third, sixth, or tenth date? The man may still decide you aren't good enough for him and reject you. At that time, the emotional connection likely has grown. I'm not saying this is a reason to have sex on the first date, I'm just curious how this is protective?

[Philetus]

You are disturbingly even-tempered...

 

I'm totally going to steal that. I love that quote.

 

Meh, I can get into pissing contests, especially on online forums where anonymity can lessen my threshold for being an egotistical *******.

 

But, on the whole, you are right. When my 19 year marriage ended it I underwent a transformation. I felt like I faced the greatest emotional challenge of my life and since then, I feel like I can handle anything and very little gets to me.

 

Walking away from my marriage turned out to be the greatest thing that's happened to me since the birth of my youngest child.

[Philetus]

I have to agree with this as its just logically sound like I've said earlier women and men are wired differently we as women can try to tell ourselves other wise we can fight nature in this way. But more times then not we will prob fail and as a result we end up feeling disappointed to some degree if things don't go as we would have liked.

 

All interpersonal relationships carry risks. ONS, falling in love, even being friends, carries a risk of rejection.

 

A natural extension of your argument is the following.... Since the vast majority of relationships end, we should protect ourselves by not having any.

 

Don't we all know people (I do) who've said, "that's it, I'm done. I'm not looking anymore, I'm too tired of the bull**** or of being hurt". Do we admire those people? I feel sad for them.

 

We've all had relationships of varying lengths. We've all been hurt by other people. When my marriage ended, I was devastated for two months. Should I not get married again because of that? Should I judge the institution of marriage as a whole because I've personally had a bad experience?

 

I have a bunch of friends getting married this year. I don't project my opinions of marriage onto them, I don't warn them of the risks. I congratulate them and wish them all the best. Their eyes are wide open, they're adults, and I'm happy because they're happy.

 

Why are ONSs unique? Men face rejection after ONSs, too.

[tman666]

All interpersonal relationships carry risks. ONS, falling in love, even being friends, carries a risk of rejection.

 

A natural extension of your argument is the following.... Since the vast majority of relationships end, we should protect ourselves by not having any.

 

Don't we all know people (I do) who've said, "that's it, I'm done. I'm not looking anymore, I'm too tired of the bull**** or of being hurt". Do we admire those people? I feel sad for them.

 

We've all had relationships of varying lengths. We've all been hurt by other people. When my marriage ended, I was devastated for two months. Should I not get married again because of that? Should I judge the institution of marriage as a whole because I've personally had a bad experience?

 

I have a bunch of friends getting married this year. I don't project my opinions of marriage onto them, I don't warn them of the risks. I congratulate them and wish them all the best. Their eyes are wide open, they're adults, and I'm happy because they're happy.

 

Why are ONSs unique? Men face rejection after ONSs, too.

 

I agree with this. I think as long as both people are on the same page and understand the risks of what they're getting into (either a ONS, dating, relationship, marriage, etc.) then there's nothing especially wrong with it.

 

That being said, it seems like all too often there is a disconnect in communicating true intentions. Personally, I have seen more people get hurt with ONSs than get a good, pleasurable, self esteem boosting experience. Women especially seem to get the short end of the stick in this regard.

[Ruby Slippers]

All interpersonal relationships carry risks. ONS, falling in love, even being friends, carries a risk of rejection.

 

A natural extension of your argument is the following.... Since the vast majority of relationships end, we should protect ourselves by not having any.

 

Don't we all know people (I do) who've said, "that's it, I'm done. I'm not looking anymore, I'm too tired of the bull**** or of being hurt". Do we admire those people? I feel sad for them.

 

We've all had relationships of varying lengths. We've all been hurt by other people. When my marriage ended, I was devastated for two months. Should I not get married again because of that? Should I judge the institution of marriage as a whole because I've personally had a bad experience?

 

I have a bunch of friends getting married this year. I don't project my opinions of marriage onto them, I don't warn them of the risks. I congratulate them and wish them all the best. Their eyes are wide open, they're adults, and I'm happy because they're happy.

 

Why are ONSs unique? Men face rejection after ONSs, too.

You are so cool.

 

Men like you give me hope for the world. Seriously.

[Philetus]

You are so cool.

 

Men like you give me hope for the world. Seriously.

 

Thank you, I sincerely appreciate that.

[bac]

I can't speak for women, or even for other men (FTR- I know how abominably men can act), but the same thing has happened to me. I've been rejected after ONSs. In one case, it was an incredibly beautiful Spanish woman and the sex was amazing/romantic/inventive and yeah, it hurt. But, if she had dumped me after two weeks instead of one night, it would've hurt more.

 

One question... how are you magically protected if you wait until the third, sixth, or tenth date? The man may still decide you aren't good enough for him and reject you. At that time, the emotional connection likely has grown. I'm not saying this is a reason to have sex on the first date, I'm just curious how this is protective?

 

I disagree. For example, as a generalization, the Spanish woman was beautiful, amazing, romantic and inventive mostly because you did not know her at all. She was just the perfect fantasy in your mind. Rejection after ONS hurts because you are not IRL but in your fantasy world. The truth is that you do not know the real woman because you had no time for that.

 

There is a high probability IMO, if she had dumpted you after 2 weeks instead of one night, you would see that as a blessing because you would know the real her.

 

As for your question, it is not about protection, but it is about readiness for sex.

It is the question of getting pleasure from sex for myself. I need to make sure that the guy has some potential to provide sexual pleasure for me. I need to make sure that I feel chemistry for that guy. And, I need to have answers on the questions, even it is mindless sex with no serious emotional attachment.

[bac]

sex for women is not just about genitalia but it is about mind as well

Edited September 1, 2010 by bac
wrong post