Mad Max Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 No one ever suffered consequences from waiting to have sex. Having sex too soon can have severe repercussions.
Author OceanGirl Posted October 18, 2010 Author Posted October 18, 2010 (edited) I haven't gotten around reading all the replies, I have been running around doing errands.. But, where I seem to be failing is with turning dating into a relationship. I feel that after going to the movies and to dinners and repeat x times, the only way to build more intimacy is to have sleep-overs (and involve sex). Maybe that would push things towards the realtionship rather than just dating. I feel that I lack the ability to form a solid conection with anyone and am wondering if sex would help. Before sex, I am really stiff and awkward and overly polite. I only start to relax and be myself after sex is out of the way. With the way I act on the first few dates, it is pretty unlikely that ANY guy would start falling for me. Edited October 18, 2010 by OceanGirl
sanskrit Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 Before sex, I am really stiff and awkward and overly polite. I only start to relax and be myself after sex is out of the way. This is where you need to focus, and having sex early is not the best answer, overcoming the above and learning to enjoy flirtation, dating and buildup over time is. People jump into bed for the exact reason you cite above when they should be working on their basic social skills if the desired result is a relationship and not just sex. Moreover, once some emotional foundation is built, sex can become much more fun instead of becoming just another stressor or opportunity to feel insecurities. Sex is best when you know that no matter how any particular sexual experience turns out, it won't affect your view of the other person or vice versa. Inhibited people screwing relative strangers aren't assertive, surprising or knowledgeable of their partner's body enough to have great sex.
GoodOnPaper Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 Agree, but also disagree. For me, sexual compatibility is mostly a matter of consideration and communication unless dealing with a real outlier, not something that simply "is" or "is not." On my list, it's far and away the easiest thing to achieve in a relationship, with other more important things being much more difficult. Of course, we have all run into "outliers" in that department, but those outliers tend to find each other somehow. My experience has been the opposite. The attraction and sex part has always been way more difficult -- the rest of the relationship stuff is easy. For guys like me, intentionally delaying the first sex is problematic. I would likely think that the woman isn't really that attracted to me and is waiting for someone more attractive to come along.
Author OceanGirl Posted October 18, 2010 Author Posted October 18, 2010 I could have predicted that response. Fact is, he told you he had doubts about your compatibility. So having sex with him earlier or later would have had no bearing on the success of that relationship. And I don't think initiating sex with him for the FIRST TIME in his car did you any favors. Overall, I don't that having sex has helped or hurt the relationship with him. I really don't think that the car thing had any negative effect on anything. I am still amazed how resptful this guy has been to me through the break-up and now staying friends. I texted him that I bought a house yesterday and he called right away and congratulated me. If I am bored at work and feel like e-maling him multiple times, he responds immediately and at length..He is not even trying to get sex or trying to get back with me..he is just a nice guy. Too bad we aren't compatible. I considered setting him up with my best friend who is also crazy about sports. But I am afraid that watching them together will somehow hurt me so I am leaning against it.
Ichi-boned Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 I have always waited for a while to have sex with a new guy. At least around a month or so of dating and I think it has been working against me. Usually there will be a third date where things get more sexual and invite to sleep over at my or his place will hang in the air. Usually, I would just ignore it and go home (alone). I would notice a guy cool off considerably after that moment. It has become a pattern. I now wonder if I had let things progress naturally if the outcome of my raltionships would have been different. I think that men also experience some level of bonding and attachment after sex. Especially if sex is good and you spend the night together, wake up together have breakfast etc. It can increase intimacy and closeness and that is where I have been falling short. ALL of my male friends and my brother have had their current long terms girlfriends sleep with them within the first 3 dates. Basically, I feel that a guy with options is likely to start looking for alternatives if sex comes too late. Delaying sex may work for women who are super-confident unattainable goddesses but is not really working for me. I am going to change things up and go with the natural flow of events next time.I don't think relationship satisfaction is a function of sex within three dates. (If that sentence makes sense.) Anyhoo, what I'm trying to say is you can feel comfortable sleeping with someone in a short amount of time as long as you two disclose enough information about yourselves. Self-disclosure generates liking, and with liking you feel more comfortable. On the flip side, you can find someone attractive, and not be willing to sleep with him for months or even years because his personality type doesn't like to disclose information about himself. And there is no reciprocity when he doesn't disclose any important details about himself, meaning you are less likely to disclose information about yourself.
Titania22 Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 I recently was dating a woman that had sex with me by the second date and it certainly peaked my interest in her. I wanted to continue to date her but she eventually lost interest seemingly out of nowhere. That situation is what brought me to LS. Is it because she got what she wanted and was no longer interested? Just because the timeline coincides doesn't give me the right to jump to that conclusion. I just accept that I will never no why she stopped wanting to date. I can't know why she lost interest, but in my case, when I have great intimate sex with a guy, I stay interested, and if the sex isn't great, I lose all interest. In my mind, the only real difference between a friend and a boyfriend is sex.
Titania22 Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 sure seems like some folks are forgetting the bonding part, if sex is bonding and a core part of the relationship. Perhaps that aspect was relevant in my own shared story; that I hadn't bonded sufficiently at that early stage for the sex to be the impetus to a more committed monogamous relationship. I think the bold is a key point. I am really curious what has to occur in a relationship, that we could say 'sufficient bonding' has occured. I feel if I could crack this one, I would be in a much better position to have a mutually satisfying relationship.
Titania22 Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 If both paticipating agree that sex is the only mutual reason that they're having sex to begin with, the act alone doesn't warrant a " bond". I don't think both gender feels any differently about this subject. The only exception is that women are catching up and replicating the same behavior that men has done- that it's okay to have sex without attachment. This may be true for many women, but my experience is that when the sex is wonderful, I automatically form a bond (attachment). I am not saying I have to pursue the man afterwards. But I would be lying to myself if I pretended I didn't care about the guy. This attachment doesn't form if I don't enjoy the sex. But why on earth would I want to have sex that I wasn't enjoying.
phineas Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 well, if a woman is dirty texting me early on, getting me all horned up then i'll assume she must want to have sex. Then, if she doesn't want to have sex next time I see her, I will think she's just a tease playing games & will loose interest. OP, do you dirty text these guys or talk dirty to them on the phone?
Author OceanGirl Posted October 18, 2010 Author Posted October 18, 2010 This may be true for many women, but my experience is that when the sex is wonderful, I automatically form a bond (attachment). I am not saying I have to pursue the man afterwards. But I would be lying to myself if I pretended I didn't care about the guy. This attachment doesn't form if I don't enjoy the sex. But why on earth would I want to have sex that I wasn't enjoying. I agree. I know that women are supposed to get attached after sex. For me, I only get attached after GOOD sex. Bad sex makes me much less attached.
Tim The Enchanter Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 It's a bit of a cliche that women are the ones who get emotionally bonded after sex. However, I know that in my case, and also some of my friends, it depends on whom we're having sex with. If it's someone we're strongly attracted to, having sex with them plays havoc with our minds. We think that that must be it, and that this girl is going to be our partner. One of my housemates at uni was a player - he was quite successful with women and must have had sex with about four or five per year at least, not to mention the ones he simply got off with. Then at the end of the second summer term, he pulled this stunner at a nightclub and ended up going back to hers. Because she was so fit, he obviously wanted to make this a regular thing, so kept on calling her and trying to hang out with her. He clearly overdid it, but she apparently had no intention of making it anything but a one night stand. My point is that it's not always the woman who gets emotionally attached after sex. If anything, women have a lot more power over men than they care to admit, especially if they are particularly attractive.
Titania22 Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 If anything, women have a lot more power over men than they care to admit, especially if they are particularly attractive. Thankyou Tim
Author OceanGirl Posted October 18, 2010 Author Posted October 18, 2010 OG has to decide who she is before deciding what works best for herself. I don't agree with the way she minimalizes herself and maximizes men who appear to be low interest. At the same time, I wish she wouldn't minimalize men who are interested in her but I'm guessing this is an extension of self-minimalizing. "If they like me, they might not be so great". I missed this response. It could be that those men with whom I didn't have sex with and things fell apart - were really low interest to begin with (and having sex wouldn't have changed that). I need to somehow see myself as being the prize (it makes it hard to even write this down) rather than seeing men as being the prize.
Philetus Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 If someone isn't interested in long-term, nothing you do or don't do is going to make them interested in long-term. I agree with this. Withholding sex may make some guys appreciate/want/respect you more but it has no effect on me. One woman I dated, L., withheld intercourse for two months. It did nothing to change how I felt about her. Conversely, my current gf and I had sex on the first date and I'm nuts about her. I can only speak for myself but if I was dating someone who was withholding sex for a month, I'd be very likely to get it somewhere else.
EasyHeart Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 Whether you have sex on the first date or the 50th date is not going to "change" anything. The point of getting to know someone before you have sex with them is (1) to weed out the people who are not looking for LTRs (but say they are in order to sleep with you) and (2) to develop emotional intimacy BEFORE you develop physical intimacy. There's no such thing as 'bad' sex with someone you love.
irc333 Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 Chancs are, a person who is willing to have sex sooner than later is probably someone you really wouldn't want to have sex with, because there is more chance of them having an STD and they've been around the block considerably, as opposed to someone who is willing to hold out. I have always waited for a while to have sex with a new guy. At least around a month or so of dating and I think it has been working against me. Usually there will be a third date where things get more sexual and invite to sleep over at my or his place will hang in the air. Usually, I would just ignore it and go home (alone). I would notice a guy cool off considerably after that moment. It has become a pattern. I now wonder if I had let things progress naturally if the outcome of my raltionships would have been different. I think that men also experience some level of bonding and attachment after sex. Especially if sex is good and you spend the night together, wake up together have breakfast etc. It can increase intimacy and closeness and that is where I have been falling short. ALL of my male friends and my brother have had their current long terms girlfriends sleep with them within the first 3 dates. Basically, I feel that a guy with options is likely to start looking for alternatives if sex comes too late. Delaying sex may work for women who are super-confident unattainable goddesses but is not really working for me. I am going to change things up and go with the natural flow of events next time.
harmfulsweetz Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 I think the best way to go about the having sex mark is to do it when it feels natural. Like, when you feel you should/want to etc. Go with the flow over trying to follow some rule book on time length etc. Truth is, there's no right and wrong answer. I had sex with a guy once on the first date, we ended up seeing each other for three years. If a guy dumps you because you had sex too early, chances are, he weren't that interested in the first place. And vice versa. If you think you want to have sex on the third date, go for it. If not, don't. I'm sure a male poster on here had an interesting viewpoint he shared with me-at the time, I was completely the other side of it, but he made me change my mind. Not sure who said it, and this isn't verbatim, but it was something like: he wouldn't want to date someone who had ruled out sex before they'd worked out the chemistry, physical and otherwise on a date, he'd rather go on a date with someone who was open to it, and didn't follow the rule book. You know? If you have great chemistry, go for it. Having sex on a third date won't drastically alter his opinion of you, to the point of him not seeing you again, if he was sincerely interested in the first place.
carhill Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 I think the bold is a key point. I am really curious what has to occur in a relationship, that we could say 'sufficient bonding' has occured. I feel if I could crack this one, I would be in a much better position to have a mutually satisfying relationship. Every person is different. For myself, it's a combination of intimacy, meaning an open and honest sharing of cares, fears, hopes, dreams and sorrows, along with proactive care, concern, empathy and support. This does not happen in three dates, at least not any three dates I've ever been on. I'm not interested in casual sex nor STR's, so, like I said, everyone's parameters are their own. Further, I don't expect a potential to be all up into *me*, but I want to see her demonstrate the above characteristics in general. This is why I like to meet her friends and family; people she does love, care about and have long history with. There I can see her *actions*. As I see symmetry, and make similar investments of my own in her, my bonding begins. IMO, people always reveal themselves, even at the very earliest moments of a budding relationship. All one needs to do is *accept* that revelation; be open to it. Sensitive to it. Embracing of it. Of course, this perspective has been hard-won from many life mistakes. What I'm hearing from the OP is that she doesn't appear to have a clear road map of what *she* wants (which is necessarily different from what I outlined above) and is kinda bounding between the guardrails of her path. Smacking a guardrail hurts. How well I know
threebyfate Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 I missed this response. It could be that those men with whom I didn't have sex with and things fell apart - were really low interest to begin with (and having sex wouldn't have changed that).No matter how you spin it, a guy who's sincerely interested in all of you isn't going to walk away if sex has been delayed. The sex first guys lean towards superficiality and in my experience, it's been 100% proof positive. I need to somehow see myself as being the prize (it makes it hard to even write this down) rather than seeing men as being the prize.Not so much as a prize but an equal person. We're talking about a human being to human being interaction and the question of "Are we compatible over the long term?", rather than solely allowing our hormones to swamp us over sexual attraction or not. IME, it takes both compatibility and sexual attraction to make something long-term work.
LittleTiger Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 The simple answer to this is 'go with your gut instinct' and by that I don't mean 'if you feel like having sex do it'. What I mean is, if you're looking for a long term relationship (which you seem to be) and you think there is potential for that with the guy you've just started dating, then get to the know him first. He may, or may not, be put off by having sex quickly but that isn't really the issue. This is the issue - sex gets in the way of 'falling in love'. If you have sex too early, you fall in lust - hence the reason some guys on here have said they become more interested, not less. If the sex is good, a guy will hang around until he's bored. Which might be a while, even a very long while, but if it's just lust you can guarantee it will happen sometime. The same might happen to you too. Too many people base their relationships on lust and think that's what love is. They couldn't be more wrong. So, if the guy you're on a date with is potentially somebody you could really like a lot, forget about the sex (even if you're seriously hot for him - especially if you're seriously hot for him). Get to know who he is inside, what makes him tick, what are his values, what makes him happy, sad, angry etc. It may only take a few weeks, it make take a few months. That's when you use your instincts. When you feel there is a genuine mental and emotional connection that is the time to get physically closer. If you think the guy might be a keeper he's worth waiting for. If he thinks you're a keeper he'll be more than happy to wait.
dispatch3d Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 you're going to get a lot of hate on this post because it goes against the conventional dating advice. However, not sure if you noticed, but the conventional dating advice is ****. Lol it's literally terrible and following it will get (for a guy at least) you no where. I agree. I think when girls prolong the sex thing at the start they are only shooting themselves in the foot. Especially if the guy has a lot of options. Think about it, he could hang out with you, and you're cool and all, but wait a month to have sex. Or he could hang out with another girl whose prehaps a little less cool, but he can have sex now. Also, he doesn't have to fret or worry if you like him for a month. He will know. As in he will be less concerned with "messing up" etc. Since (from what you judge) the third date is ideal - and I agree - I think you have to start weeding out guys much earlier. Obviously by date three you should know for sure whether to go on the date and progress things or not. No more dating for MONTHS with guys who end up getting beta'd and you'll never sleep with.
dispatch3d Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 waiting a month also builds up the anticipation to bad levels. Its hard to say, but it's kinda like when you talk about a problem for 3 days. Things build up and get way out of porportion. Well, your expectations for a relationship after a month probably shoot through the roof. I'm not saying this happens to everyone, and it definitely seems to happen to mostly guys than girls, but the fact it does happen sucks and is another negative....
dispatch3d Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 I missed this response. It could be that those men with whom I didn't have sex with and things fell apart - were really low interest to begin with (and having sex wouldn't have changed that). I need to somehow see myself as being the prize (it makes it hard to even write this down) rather than seeing men as being the prize. To accomplish this you should look to change your internal thoughts. Like the thought "OMG does he like me?" should really be "I wonder if we click" or "Is this going to work out?". Even if you think the first thing, and say yes no or deny it, the thought has gone through your head and that's a negative. It's hard to describe how to do this. Reframing negative beliefs is one way (mindlines is a decent book, I found another better one but I can't remember the name). The other way is just be self-aware, and challenge yourself for a week, a couple weeks, whatever, to have no negative thoughts. I think tony robbins has some kinda challenge where you think only positive thoughts for 2 weeks, and if you ****up at any point, then you restart the challenge.
Recommended Posts