Having sex on the first date...

[WellLetsSee]

I think the only useful way in which to view this thread is as an honest, subjective catalogue of people's individual feelings and impressions. I mean, are we really trying to debate this in any sort of objective sense? I hope not.

 

You are totally right. I guess this urge to find a universal standard of what is good or bad sex, good behaviour bad behaviour etc. is the need of everyone to be respected with their own choices and needs. And that apparently does not happen, so this is why the invalidation of each other seems to get worse the longer this thread gets.

[Untouchable_Fire]

I get it, in that I understand[/u] what you're saying, and it's patronizing of you to claim otherwise. I simply disagree[/u] with you.

 

You know, this double standard has never even come up in my life --- even in conversation! --- except on LS.

 

I respect you more because of it.

[acrossthemiles1]

So, my question would be to you. . .

 

What do you find meaningful about it?

I think the question of "meaning" is sort of erroneous. And to clarify, I don't think I have ever had sex with a guy I LITERALLY had just met and had never interacted with or had a conversation with before - by "first date" hookup, I mean more that it was our first physical encounter that culminated in sex. That said, it's not like I'd had long, drawn-out platonic relationships with them either, so I do classify it as somewhat casual.

 

In any case, "meaning" is not really the best word to me. I enjoyed the spontaneity of it, the circumstances were erotic and exciting. I was extremely physically (and usually in some other sense too - intellectually, personality- or humor-wise) attracted to the other person. Plus sometimes you just need to blow off steam, lol.

 

In time, some of those encounters became more heavily emotionally-invested relationships and some of them remained as just the memory of a really great, fun one-off. I think both outcomes are equally valid and perfectly acceptable to me.

[EasyHeart]

You know what that makes you in my book? Progressive.

Awwww! Now you're just being MEAN!!!!

[zengirl]

I think the question of "meaning" is sort of erroneous. And to clarify, I don't think I have ever had sex with a guy I LITERALLY had just met and had never interacted with or had a conversation with before - by "first date" hookup, I mean more that it was our first physical encounter that culminated in sex. That said, it's not like I'd had long, drawn-out platonic relationships with them either, so I do classify it as somewhat casual.

 

In any case, "meaning" is not really the best word to me. I enjoyed the spontaneity of it, the circumstances were erotic and exciting. I was extremely physically (and usually in some other sense too - intellectually, personality- or humor-wise) attracted to the other person. Plus sometimes you just need to blow off steam, lol.

 

In time, some of those encounters became more heavily emotionally-invested relationships and some of them remained as just the memory of a really great, fun one-off. I think both outcomes are equally valid and perfectly acceptable to me.

 

My point is that I think calling it "meaningless" is a good description of that kind of sex. That doesn't mean it's "bad" for you in some way. "Blowing off steam" sexually is making it a less meaningful act, but everyone has different views about how 'meaningful' vs. 'casual' sex should be. My point is that early on, you don't really know the other person, if it's a first/early encounter.

[acrossthemiles1]

"Blowing off steam" sexually is making it a less meaningful act,

I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion.

 

My point is that I think calling it "meaningless" is a good description of that kind of sex.

But doesn't this contradict the following sentence?...

 

but everyone has different views about how 'meaningful' vs. 'casual' sex should be.

My point is that the definition of what is "meaningful" is (as you have yourself indicated in the above statement) inherently subjective. And therefore useless for the purposes of objective debate, which is what a lot of us seem to be trying to engage in.

[zengirl]

I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion.

 

But doesn't this contradict the following sentence?...

 

My point is that the definition of what is "meaningful" is (as you have yourself indicated in the above statement) inherently subjective. And therefore useless for the purposes of objective debate, which is what a lot of us seem to be trying to engage in.

 

The word would suggest attaching meaning to the act of sex rather than doing ONLY it for the act itself and the short-term pleasure. If you are attaching meaning to sex with near-strangers, I would say that's unhealthy. Most casual sex does not have tht added layer.

[proactivedreamer]

If you were not sarcastic I would agree with you here. However the fact is that a good majority of women don't think this way.

 

Sexual dynamics are VERY different for women than they are for men. The fattest ugliest woman ever can walk into a bar and take a guy home on any given night. I've seen that happen. However, she will struggle to get a relationship. It simply isn't that way for most men... and it shouldn't be.

 

 

 

Again... you assume in this statement that men and women are the same... which we are not. Equality and being the same are different.

 

Because of those differences the consequences from sex can be wildly different between men and woupermen... it is something we know by instinct.

 

I think a good chunk of women fail to understand the meaning of being sexually liberated. It doesn't mean freedom from responsibility...

 

What the ****?!!! You are right, we clearly have not been liberated from patriarchal values that superimpose our capacity to think alternatively about sex. The consequences of sex varying between men and women are only that way because we still hold on to patriarchal values. A woman is subject to being called a slut and man isn't because of what is called MALE PRIVILEGE. Men have the great fortune of being able to sleep with whomever and whenever they please. It really saddens me when I hear statements like the above and it is unfortunate that we are still living in a time in which women are faced with repercussions when exercising female agency in regards to sex. The world will never have peace until women are fully liberated from patriarchy.

[acrossthemiles1]

The word would suggest attaching meaning to the act of sex rather than doing ONLY it for the act itself and the short-term pleasure. If you are attaching meaning to sex with near-strangers, I would say that's unhealthy.

You're right, I would also say that's unhealthy. Hence my point that not ALL sex has to be emotionally and psychologically fraught. I guess my disagreement comes from your conflating "meaningful" sex with "healthy" sex. Again, this all comes down to what the individual is comfortable with - this really is not at all about how others perceive us as sexual beings but how we perceive ourselves as sexual beings. That is what is driving this entire debate and yet we keep couching it in these objective, external terms. It's silly.

[zengirl]

You're right, I would also say that's unhealthy. Hence my point that not ALL sex has to be emotionally and psychologically fraught. I guess my disagreement comes from your conflating "meaningful" sex with "healthy" sex. Again, this all comes down to what the individual is comfortable with - this really is not at all about how others perceive us as sexual beings but how we perceive ourselves as sexual beings. That is what is driving this entire debate and yet we keep couching it in these objective, external terms. It's silly.

 

I never conflated meaningful sex with healthy sex. I assumed those having sex with strangers were having meaningless sex (lest they be unhealthy -- as I said, attaching meaning to that sort of sex is unhealthy) for the most part. I feel YOU in objecting to the term "meaningful" seemed more interested in claiming it was the same as healthy.

 

For me, meaningful sex is the only healthy kind of sex because it's the only kind of sex I desire. I've been very clear on that. I've no issues with others having casual or meaningless sex (many of my friends do). I suppose I'd prefer a man who viewed sex as, at the very least, more interesting when it was meaningful and meaningless sex as not terribly exciting. I've met men like this. It is not a "must" for me in a relationship, but a strong preference. I have simply met wonderful men who, like me, view sex as a way to express love and true affection, rather than just a simple pleasure-mash-up. Everything else pales in comparison. HOWEVER, I am in no way saying this is the "one right" way to view the world, and I thought I'd made that clear. All of that was subjective, surely.

 

Yet still that does not change the fact that "meaningless sex" still seems a good description of what we were discussing (even objectively), so I don't see your objection to the term.

[amk]

well sex on the first date depends on your relationship with each other. If you already know each other very well like working in the same office or relative or neighbours then may b it dosnt make any difference.

Edited April 12, 2011 by amk

[acrossthemiles1]

Yet still that does not change the fact that "meaningless sex" still seems a good description of what we were discussing (even objectively), so I don't see your objection to the term.

Fair enough. I guess, then, my objection stems more from its negative connotations than from the meaning of the word itself. One assumes a woman who engages in "meaningless sex" has low or nonexistent self-esteem, is "easy" and desperate for attention, etc etc. In reality, what I would find most markedly unhealthy is the situation I was trying to describe earlier: unattached sex that is emotionally or psychologically fraught. By that I mean, you screw the guy and then afterwards you're all like "Oh wow he slept with me therefore he must totally love me! Or wait, DOES he love me? Was he just using me? But he said such nice things to me!" When in reality, the healthy reaction to such an encounter should be, "That was a great lay. He was really hot. He has a great sense of humor too. Wow, we really had a laugh. How fun!" I see the latter as totally healthy, the former as completely unhealthy.

[TheBigQuestion]

Until men and women have an equally difficult (or easy?) time at getting sex, the double standard will not go away. The playing field is simply not level. I'm never one to act like men are truly handicapped or constrained because women are essentially the gatekeepers of sex (by virtue of them usually always turning down more advances than accepting them). They can make their own way, but it's way harder. That's the bottom line. Ladies, you can go out tonight, on a Monday, and get any date or sex from a good portion of the guys you fancy with a relatively minimal amount of effort. You could, with moderate effort, set up 4 or 5 dates in a single week (and I'm sure some of you have). For these reasons, a man is going to be compelled to view a woman who has a lot of promiscuous sex as a glutton. Why? Because there really aren't many men who can pull that off.

 

One slightly irritating characteristic about the posters on this message board is their tendency to completely shun generalizations despite their anecdotal validity. I haven't engaged in much promiscuous sex, but most of the women who had any kind of sexual contact with me within a very short period of knowing me usually had a tendency to not be very bright and also had a tendency to do the same thing with a lot of other guys. Most men I know can corroborate this. Most guys on here agree. It's a pattern. Most men simply do not want to seriously date a woman who sleeps with him on the first date. Then again, a lot of the women who do that are also not relationship minded anyway.

 

It's also false that men are cheered for being "players" on a widespread level. There's a very substantial amount of people both male and female who look down on promiscuous men.

[zengirl]

Fair enough. I guess, then, my objection stems more from its negative connotations than from the meaning of the word itself. One assumes a woman who engages in "meaningless sex" has low or nonexistent self-esteem, is "easy" and desperate for attention, etc etc. In reality, what I would find most markedly unhealthy is the situation I was trying to describe earlier: unattached sex that is emotionally or psychologically fraught. By that I mean, you screw the guy and then afterwards you're all like "Oh wow he slept with me therefore he must totally love me! Or wait, DOES he love me? Was he just using me? But he said such nice things to me!" When in reality, the healthy reaction to such an encounter should be, "That was a great lay. He was really hot. He has a great sense of humor too. Wow, we really had a laugh. How fun!" I see the latter as totally healthy, the former as completely unhealthy.

 

I agree with most of your point. To me, all meaningless sex seems a bit hollow (but that is from my perspective) and I think that -- if one is in a relationship stage, it doesn't generally contribute to relationship health (in males or females). Personal health, eh, that can go either way, but engaging in playing around when you're looking for something serious (male or female) generally backfires. At least from what I've seen.

 

Which is not to say that I've not known couples who've gotten very far, even married with kids, from first date sex, as I have; however, in all those cases, they had kind of turbulent courtships that just happened to work out. I don't think the turbulence was so much caused by the sex, but rather than people who will have sex without meaning are generally not in a fully formed relationship stage (They are still okay with casual relationships and either ambivalent or purely not ready for real, solid, forever type relationships; or maybe they don't yet know precisely what they want from a fully realized relationship). I don't think (based on observation) it makes for the easiest, clearest, or most healthy start to a relationship in most cases. This is, of course, assuming the two people don't know each other well yet. If the couple has known each other awhile, we're dealing with an entirely different scenario.

 

(paraphrased) blahblahblah-justifying-my-hypocrisy-cakes

 

Yeah, UF already said this stuff. Justify your hypocrisy if you like, but that's all it is. And it isn't as widespread a thought process amongst my peers as on LS. I've no desire to be a "gatekeeper" of sex any more than the man I date, nor do the men I associate with think this way in general. I think all people should have boundaries and work together to find a place where their boundaries collide in positive ways, rather than negative ones. Putting a "gatekeeper" label on it makes the sexual relationship between a man and a woman adversarial in nature. You can have an adversarial sex life if you like; I say a resounding "No!" to that.

 

At any rate, any man who expressed such opinions and was someone I was dating. . . Well, I'd kick him to the curb. So we all have our own particular views and boundaries.

 

Re: Generalizations

 

Most of the women I know who have 1st date sex are extremely smart. (But most of the women I know are extremely smart. I tend to hang out with only smart people.) I've no kneejerk issues with generalizations (I'm fine with real statistics from verifiable studies) but using only your own observations as a generalization and then seeing it as fact is silly. Perhaps the women who will have 1st date sex with YOU are mostly stupid (Why did you sleep with them then? Lame on you), but what does that say about dating in general? Not all that much. My generalization of knowing only very smart women who have first date sex is equally flawed --- since I mostly only associate with smart people, one would assume that would be the case. You have to consider all the variables in a generalization.

[TheBigQuestion]

I don't think describing women as "gatekeepers" of sex is adversarial. It's still true, whether you want to consciously believe it or not. A guy (generally) has to work to get laid. A woman (generally) does not. Could it be called envy? I'm sure there's an element of that. It's a pesky detail, it's deceptively simplistic, and it's unfortunate, but it's certainly one of the reasons why men would, in most circumstances, frown upon someone who is so willing to give it all up on the first date. Every guy on planet earth is aware of this reality, and unless other circumstances are present, it's usually a check mark in the "downside" box.

 

"Smart" is relative. If you speak of raw intelligence, the people that I've been with over the years have run the gamut. As to why I ended up in those situations with them? (1) I didn't realize that they weren't so bright until after spending more time with them and/or (2) College shenanigans. And I also said that it was anecdotal and not empirical. It's been factual in my experience and in the experience of many other men.

Edited April 12, 2011 by TheBigQuestion

[acrossthemiles1]

Which is not to say that I've not known couples who've gotten very far, even married with kids, from first date sex, as I have; however, in all those cases, they had kind of turbulent courtships that just happened to work out. I don't think the turbulence was so much caused by the sex, but rather than people who will have sex without meaning are generally not in a fully formed relationship stage (They are still okay with casual relationships and either ambivalent or purely not ready for real, solid, forever type relationships; or maybe they don't yet know precisely what they want from a fully realized relationship).

Busted. I mean, you got me there I guess, lol. That has definitely been my perspective on sex and dating and the romantic scene in general, since I ended my three-year relationship with my ex-husband (technically just "civil partner" but it's all semantics). However, even before I came to inhabit this particular psychological sphere, I was still relatively unencumbered by fears or expectations relating to the sexual experience. To me, taking what you want from a situation and being satisfied with that is an (albeit selfish) empowering action.

[mr.dream merchant]

Men and women are different, therefore, different standards can be applied to each gender.

 

Differentiating standards on sexuality between the genders is no different that other standards such as:

 

Woman wants man to make first move, but she never makes first move

Woman wants man to be confident, funny, secure but she shares none of these traits

Woman wants man that is intelligent, ambitious, well paid, again she shares none of these

 

Man wants woman who's in shape but he's a flab attack and a half and vice versa

Man wants woman to understand men but he never takes the time to understand women

 

Woman wants man to bend, damn near break (make sacrifices and change his lifestyle), for her needs but his needs are always questionable

 

 

Double standards exist everywhere. Why should the double standard on sex be the greatest of all evils? Besides, I don't see how it can even be called a double standard when the fields of gender are not of equal parameters.

 

Personally some women just want to be a floosey and not looked down on for it. I say if you're honest about the way you live most people won't look down on it, but if you're ploppin Tom, John, Charles, and his 2nd cousin in your mouth for little to nothing then sitting across the table with me the same night in a classy sophisticated dress trying to convice a good guy that you're the take home girl for him....lmao, well now you're just being a deceiving succbus.

 

I say live your life how you want it, and have the standards that naturally meet your taste. When it comes to serious dating, I'm not going to settle with a woman who opens her legs easier than driving through at McDonald's for a sloppy burger. I MAY have fun no strings attached sex with her, but that's as far as she'll ever get unless she totally wows me with her personality. Even then I'd be a major skeptic.

[WellLetsSee]

 

Personally some women just want to be a floosey and not looked down on for it. I say if you're honest about the way you live most people won't look down on it, but if you're ploppin Tom, John, Charles, and his 2nd cousin in your mouth for little to nothing then sitting across the table with me the same night in a classy sophisticated dress trying to convice a good guy that you're the take home girl for him....lmao, well now you're just being a deceiving succbus.

 

I say live your life how you want it, and have the standards that naturally meet your taste. When it comes to serious dating, I'm not going to settle with a woman who opens her legs easier than driving through at McDonald's for a sloppy burger. I MAY have fun no strings attached sex with her, but that's as far as she'll ever get unless she totally wows me with her personality. Even then I'd be a major skeptic.

 

I so much agree - I have to say it again. If a guy ends up sleeping with me on our first date Id never ever. EVER. Consider him relationship material. I certainly have fun with him - at least if he is a good looker, but more than sex never. Seriously any guy who is willing to give in to my seduction on our first date apparently would give in to any other goodlooking woman. And I certainly do not want to catch myself a cheater!

[zengirl]

Differentiating standards on sexuality between the genders is no different that other standards such as:

 

Woman wants man to make first move, but she never makes first move

Woman wants man to be confident, funny, secure but she shares none of these traits

Woman wants man that is intelligent, ambitious, well paid, again she shares none of these

 

Man wants woman who's in shape but he's a flab attack and a half and vice versa

Man wants woman to understand men but he never takes the time to understand women

 

Woman wants man to bend, damn near break (make sacrifices and change his lifestyle), for her needs but his needs are always questionable

 

Yeah, those double standards are all pretty lame as well, and I don't engage in any of them either, nor do most people I know. I suppose low quality people do, just as they view women and men as adversaries in sex and thus have to double-standard female sexuality.

[oldguy]

Isn’t the perception of sex on the first date one of; “this was a booty call”, “this is about sex & not a relationship”. Listen; if there is sex on the first date both people are having sex on that first date. It sort of sets the expectation, I would think, that this is a sexual relationship or a one nighter. I would also wonder if that relationship where to evolve into something more if either or both would always wonder if that was the others usual dating MO.

There will always be the; sex in a relationship / soul mates type of person & the, sex is no big deal sort of person and every level in between the extremes. It seems the problem arises when the two extremes meet in a relationship. And I don’t want to leave out the people who have unresolved issues who believe thay are either virtuous or corrupt due to their issues.

 

I wouldn’t think sex on a first date with any other expectations would be a good judgement call. That isn’t to say I don’t think it can not happen, I just don’t think it’s the best way to go about beginning a relationship.

[Untouchable_Fire]

I so much agree - I have to say it again. If a guy ends up sleeping with me on our first date Id never ever. EVER. Consider him relationship material. I certainly have fun with him - at least if he is a good looker, but more than sex never. Seriously any guy who is willing to give in to my seduction on our first date apparently would give in to any other goodlooking woman. And I certainly do not want to catch myself a cheater!

 

Actually... that just makes you trashy.

 

How many guys every year are raped by women? How about the reverse?

 

Like it or not, YOU as a female are basically the gatekeeper to sex. With that comes the responsibility to respect yourself. You will be most likely to suffer the consequences of any poor choices.

 

I'm stronger than any woman I know... which means I have the responsibility to be gentle when dealing with women.

 

What I see from women today is what I call the Paris Hilton trend, where women want all the benefits of gender roles but ZERO responsibility for anything. I remember the guys from southpark referred to it as "Stupid, Spoiled, Whore"

[TheBigQuestion]

Yeah, those double standards are all pretty lame as well, and I don't engage in any of them either, nor do most people I know. I suppose low quality people do, just as they view women and men as adversaries in sex and thus have to double-standard female sexuality.

 

I like how everyone on this board considers themselves high quality and most of their friends and acquaintances are also apparently high quality. "I only hang out with smart people." "None of my friends do that!" "I'd never think that way!" "I don't engage in any double standards ever." Right. Everyone on this board and all their real life friends are "high quality" (whatever that means) and the presence of "low quality" people in their lives is mythical. I suppose you have a bridge to sell me as well?

[zengirl]

I like how everyone on this board considers themselves high quality and most of their friends and acquaintances are also apparently high quality. "I only hang out with smart people." "None of my friends do that!" "I'd never think that way!" "I don't engage in any double standards ever." Right. Everyone on this board and all their real life friends are "high quality" (whatever that means) and the presence of "low quality" people in their lives is mythical. I suppose you have a bridge to sell me as well?

 

I don't think everyone on this board has said that. I've said some of those things. (I've not claimed I never engage in any double standards ever.) But plenty of people here don't claim to hang out with smart or high quality people. To me, high quality means people who are educated, highly evolved, smart, tolerant, build strong lives, careers, relationships, and engage in the world in a thoughtful way. And yes, most of the people I know in life are like that because those are the people I get along with.

 

Why would I be friends with someone who demonstrated behavior I found abhorrent and adversarial?

 

I don't argue like I would on a message board in real life, because I'm part of the community, and it's easier to just ignore those you find distasteful (for the sake of career, etc) rather than confront them, unless you can effect real change or it actually matters. Whether Joe Blow on the street is ignorant or not doesn't matter, but if he's on LS, there's literally no fall out for calling him ignorant. In real life, he could be my boss's nephew for all I know. I'd rather just ignore him.

[TheBigQuestion]

I don't think everyone on this board has said that. I've said some of those things. (I've not claimed I never engage in any double standards ever.) But plenty of people here don't claim to hang out with smart or high quality people. To me, high quality means people who are educated, highly evolved, smart, tolerant, build strong lives, careers, relationships, and engage in the world in a thoughtful way. And yes, most of the people I know in life are like that because those are the people I get along with.

 

Why would I be friends with someone who demonstrated behavior I found abhorrent and adversarial?

 

I don't argue like I would on a message board in real life, because I'm part of the community, and it's easier to just ignore those you find distasteful (for the sake of career, etc) rather than confront them, unless you can effect real change or it actually matters. Whether Joe Blow on the street is ignorant or not doesn't matter, but if he's on LS, there's literally no fall out for calling him ignorant. In real life, he could be my boss's nephew for all I know. I'd rather just ignore him.

 

I disagree. Almost everyone here makes it a sticking point that they are high quality and that their friends and acquaintances are also high quality. Stating they are high quality assumes that they rarely or never engage in the behavior which is being criticized by someone on this board. My point was that most people turn a blind eye, consciously or unconsciously, when they realize they (or their buddies) have engaged in a criticized behavior (in this case a double standard). Most people don't even realize it. I just find it interesting how everyone here turns into Mr./Ms. Perfect.

 

The double standard concerning sexual behavior automatically assumes that the two genders are on an even playing field. The way sexuality is socialized nowadays, that's simply not true. It's ignorant to say that the difference of ease with which sexual activity can/is acquired between the sexes cannot or should not affect the way people judge others' sexuality. You stating that it's hypocritical without addressing any of the substance of the argument just makes you look dogmatic.

[oldguy]

Actually... that just makes you trashy.

 

How many guys every year are raped by women? How about the reverse?

 

Like it or not, YOU as a female are basically the gatekeeper to sex. With that comes the responsibility to respect yourself. You will be most likely to suffer the consequences of any poor choices.

 

I'm stronger than any woman I know... which means I have the responsibility to be gentle when dealing with women.

 

What I see from women today is what I call the Paris Hilton trend, where women want all the benefits of gender roles but ZERO responsibility for anything. I remember the guys from southpark referred to it as "Stupid, Spoiled, Whore"

 

You are right about responsibility. I think that is left out of the equation. I seem to be hearing a lot of proclaiming rights but nothing of responsibility. Should sex me more than JO in a warm body. Sorry for being so crude but isn't that what it comes down to for some? I've heard sex compared to a "spiritual" experience & I've heard it compare to something slightly more intimate than a foot massage. I'm not agreeing with much of what this thread is saying but I there are a few things that seem to be spot on; "the responsibility to respect yourself" or is that trumped by gratification. I have had one night stands & sex on the first date and in retrospect I'm not proud and that is what I'm thinking, I'm not proud of myself. As someone once crudely put it, "the pleasure wasn't worth the clean up" & not worth the memory or the way I feel now. Just my opinion after reading through most of these posts and feeling slightly confused.