LiveWell Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 his problem is women are setting things up as if you want sex give me a relationship and he doesn't want sex to be used as a bargaining chip in his relationships. I think that's a pretty fair concern.... Wrong. Odds are most of these women have no real interest in being in a relationship with OP, at least not that early; they don't even know him that well. Besides if you've never had sex with someone you don't really know that you want to be in a relationship with them. What if the sex is no good? What's going on is a little kabuki ritual in which girl has to establish she's "not that kind of girl." That requires her to pretend that a relationship is a predicate to having sex. It's part of the "games people play." She has to overtly verbalize this and he has to overtly verbalize acquiesence. This establishes she is a "good girl"--not because she is actually "good", of course. For all anyone knows she could be banging a different guy every day of the week and three more on Sunday. This also is a method of establishing her social value, i.e. as someone who is not "easy," not "a slut." I understand that OP being a horny little fella wants to cut to the chase and not have to play that particular game, but it actually sounds like one of those little courtship rituals that has persisted through the decades. This is the same type of game that women pull all the time, it's even reflected here on love shack. There've been a couple of threads about women asking whether they should invite someone over to their place "to watch a movie." And the dilemma, the way they phrase it, is, "Will the guy expect sex if I invite him to my place?" IOW the woman knows that the invitation has a sexual connotation. SHE knows that--but she wants to attribute the sexual connotation to the guy, not to the fact of her inviting the guy. And play this game of inviting the guy over, but leaving things that sex might happen or not happen, depending on how she feels at the time of the date, but it's never going to be a deliberate plan, it's never going to be an intentional outcome, even though in reality--it is! If the guy guesses wrong and makes a move that she doesn't want, he's an ogre/beast, she's "not that kind of a girl." If the sex happens (because she decides she wants it to), it was "unplanned," it just happened, she got drunk she got carried away or whatever, because: "I'm not that kind of a girl." So OP when one of these babes tells you they want a relationship first, don't you believe it, it's not true. But they have to ask it, and you have to agree to it, so they don't have to think of themselves as slutty little cheerleaders.
LiveWell Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 1. Sounds like girls with working brains! Really? Why would someone with a functional brain think that exchanges of words with someone they don't really know is a meaningful way to establish that a "relationship" exists? All these girls really want is to hear the guy SAY that he values them enough to be in a relationship with them as a predicate for sex. Because they rightfully believe if they just overtly do sex for the enjoyment of it, they will be looked upon as slutty. 2. I think it's disrespectful to think girls should sleep with you just because that's what you want. You don't think it's demeaning to have them give it up without any commitment at all? That is the definition of demeaning. No, the girl should have sex with him, if they have it, because they enjoy having sex, and think it will be a fun experience. That's not demeaning at all. What's demeaning is when girls like OP is dating pretend that they want relationships with men they don't even know to justify having some sex with those men. Just like the example another poster gave, he was 17, the girl asked for a relationship, they had sex, and of course broke up two days later. The girl blamed it all on the guy??? LOL. So typical. SHE had sex too, right? It's a 50-50 proposition but the woman never wants to take responsibility for the sex happening. If he broke up with her after two days, so what? What did she expect was going to happen? All these chicks OP is dating are exactly the same as the chick in that anecdote. They are perfectly happy to f*ck someone they don't know from Adam as long as lip service is given to the "relationship." That gives them an "out" to blame the man for everything so they don't have to perceive themselves as "slutty" girls who just wanted to have some sex because, well...girls just wanna have fun, you know? 3. I certainly hope there isn't. I think if a woman wants to have sex she should have it. If she doesn't, she shouldn't. If she wants to be in a relationship, fine. If not, also fine. There is nothing wrong with a woman asking OP to be in a relationship first before having sex, as long as she is aware that two people who are essentially strangers giving lip service to having a "relationship" as a predicate to sexual activity is simply that, meaningless lip service, and if a relationship does result from the interaction, it is largely a function of random chance.
dispatch3d Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 Wrong. Odds are most of these women have no real interest in being in a relationship with OP, at least not that early; they don't even know him that well. Besides if you've never had sex with someone you don't really know that you want to be in a relationship with them. What if the sex is no good? What's going on is a little kabuki ritual in which girl has to establish she's "not that kind of girl." That requires her to pretend that a relationship is a predicate to having sex. It's part of the "games people play." She has to overtly verbalize this and he has to overtly verbalize acquiesence. This establishes she is a "good girl"--not because she is actually "good", of course. For all anyone knows she could be banging a different guy every day of the week and three more on Sunday. This also is a method of establishing her social value, i.e. as someone who is not "easy," not "a slut." I understand that OP being a horny little fella wants to cut to the chase and not have to play that particular game, but it actually sounds like one of those little courtship rituals that has persisted through the decades. This is the same type of game that women pull all the time, it's even reflected here on love shack. There've been a couple of threads about women asking whether they should invite someone over to their place "to watch a movie." And the dilemma, the way they phrase it, is, "Will the guy expect sex if I invite him to my place?" IOW the woman knows that the invitation has a sexual connotation. SHE knows that--but she wants to attribute the sexual connotation to the guy, not to the fact of her inviting the guy. And play this game of inviting the guy over, but leaving things that sex might happen or not happen, depending on how she feels at the time of the date, but it's never going to be a deliberate plan, it's never going to be an intentional outcome, even though in reality--it is! If the guy guesses wrong and makes a move that she doesn't want, he's an ogre/beast, she's "not that kind of a girl." If the sex happens (because she decides she wants it to), it was "unplanned," it just happened, she got drunk she got carried away or whatever, because: "I'm not that kind of a girl." So OP when one of these babes tells you they want a relationship first, don't you believe it, it's not true. But they have to ask it, and you have to agree to it, so they don't have to think of themselves as slutty little cheerleaders. I couldn't agree with you more. I think all this stuff happens under-the-radar. So I guess op can just agree to the relationship with the understanding of all the above. If she calls him on it later he could just say I wasn't sure if you were serious, or we have just met and are still feeling things out, etc. right?
marlena Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 Really? Why would someone with a functional brain think that exchanges of words with someone they don't really know is a meaningful way to establish that a "relationship" exists? All these girls really want is to hear the guy SAY that he values them enough to be in a relationship with them as a predicate for sex. Because they rightfully believe if they just overtly do sex for the enjoyment of it, they will be looked upon as slutty. No, the girl should have sex with him, if they have it, because they enjoy having sex, and think it will be a fun experience. That's not demeaning at all. What's demeaning is when girls like OP is dating pretend that they want relationships with men they don't even know to justify having some sex with those men. Just like the example another poster gave, he was 17, the girl asked for a relationship, they had sex, and of course broke up two days later. The girl blamed it all on the guy??? LOL. So typical. SHE had sex too, right? It's a 50-50 proposition but the woman never wants to take responsibility for the sex happening. If he broke up with her after two days, so what? What did she expect was going to happen? All these chicks OP is dating are exactly the same as the chick in that anecdote. They are perfectly happy to f*ck someone they don't know from Adam as long as lip service is given to the "relationship." That gives them an "out" to blame the man for everything so they don't have to perceive themselves as "slutty" girls who just wanted to have some sex because, well...girls just wanna have fun, you know? I think if a woman wants to have sex she should have it. If she doesn't, she shouldn't. If she wants to be in a relationship, fine. If not, also fine. There is nothing wrong with a woman asking OP to be in a relationship first before having sex, as long as she is aware that two people who are essentially strangers giving lip service to having a "relationship" as a predicate to sexual activity is simply that, meaningless lip service, and if a relationship does result from the interaction, it is largely a function of random chance. Finally, a mature post. Well said.
Surrealist Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 So then, the better, perhaps more noble thing for these women to do if they really don't want to have sex without some kind of commitment from the guy other than a ONS is to tell the OP to '**** off'?
Anela Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 Really? Why would someone with a functional brain think that exchanges of words with someone they don't really know is a meaningful way to establish that a "relationship" exists? All these girls really want is to hear the guy SAY that he values them enough to be in a relationship with them as a predicate for sex. Because they rightfully believe if they just overtly do sex for the enjoyment of it, they will be looked upon as slutty. Not true. There is nothing wrong with a woman asking OP to be in a relationship first before having sex, as long as she is aware that two people who are essentially strangers giving lip service to having a "relationship" as a predicate to sexual activity is simply that, meaningless lip service, and if a relationship does result from the interaction, it is largely a function of random chance. And what's wrong with waiting a little longer to *establish*a relationship before having sex? He didn't have to get into a relationship with these girls, he could have said no, and gone without the sex that came afterwards. I have more respect for men who aren't out looking to just 'hit that', and add to the notches on their mental bedpost. I don't like male 'sluts' any more than a lot of men seem to mistrust female 'sluts' when it comes to having a real relationship.
Anela Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 Finally, a mature post. Well said. I think there were other mature posts in this thread... and I'm not just talking about my own.
Recommended Posts