Andy_K Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I would never judge someone negatively for having sex on the first date. I would (and have) done it myself, and yet I've never cheated and I'm awesome relationship material. If anything, I could take a whole lot of positives from a girl sleeping with me on the first date: - She's not going to play 'power games' with sex - She's sexually compatible with me (assuming it was halfway decent) - She's not inhibited, prudish, or shy - She's trusting/not afraid to take a chance on getting hurt - She has her own mind, and doesn't feel the need to conform to society's expectations and pressure - She's spontaneous and fun This isn't to say that NOT having sex means the opposite of any of the above, just that having sex early on gives an earlier indicator of them.
Untouchable_Fire Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I would never judge someone negatively for having sex on the first date. I would (and have) done it myself, and yet I've never cheated and I'm awesome relationship material. If anything, I could take a whole lot of positives from a girl sleeping with me on the first date: - She's not going to play 'power games' with sex - She's sexually compatible with me (assuming it was halfway decent) - She's not inhibited, prudish, or shy - She's trusting/not afraid to take a chance on getting hurt - She has her own mind, and doesn't feel the need to conform to society's expectations and pressure - She's spontaneous and fun This isn't to say that NOT having sex means the opposite of any of the above, just that having sex early on gives an earlier indicator of them. I held those beliefs at one point as well. You will learn the hard way just as I did that most of your list is wrong. I've made all the same assumptions in the past as you make here.... and found myself to be very foolish in it. You will find many times the women who like to go all the way on the first date do so because of massive insecurity not the other way around. It's very likely she us using sex to get you to like her... and will play power games with it... because she views sex as a tool. Additionally, she can be VERY prudish and shy in private and public especially if you begin to date her. First date sex does not really imply the opposite. Along with that thought just because she does something with you behind closed doors doesn't mean she feels free of social pressures. She can still expect Gucci everything and hold you to very traditional standards.
climbergirl Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Interesting topic as my fiance and I had this conversation recently... First date and we spent the whole day together and he was at my house watching movies... End of the night goes like this (after a lot of making out)... (him)"you want me to stay the night, don't you?" (me)"yes, I do. But you're not." A bit more of back and forth, but he went home and we did not have sex until a few weeks later. So I asked him what he would have thought if I did. He said it would make him question me. So I asked why he would ask what he did and he said he was testing my integrity. I think it's kind of a bullsh*t thing to do, but I would have to agree with him. I would question my integrity, too. Kind of scary to think that sleeping with him on the first date would have been the demise of a great relationship. Double standard? Absolutely. But I think the majority of men think along the same lines. But the thing is this; I didn't refuse because I was worried about what he would think. I refused because I can only sleep with someone I am solidly emotionally connected to.
Kamille Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 In a way, I think the honest answers on this thread are helpful. Some guys wouldn't think less of a girl for it, others hold a double standard and would disqualify her as relationship material. Since you can never tell on a first date if a guy holds progressive or antiquated views in this regard, your strategy has to match your personality. I'm definitely progressive, so I would probably do what feels right and think less of a guy who ditched me or thought less of me just because we did what came naturally. If we had sex on the first date and the guy ditched me, yes, i would think :"good riddance, glad I found out early he's sexist". If however, being with someone progressive isn't a priority to you (or if you attach easily), then you have your answer: No sex on the first date. Since it's impossible to tell whether or not your date holds progressive or antiquated views of female sexuality, your best bet is to hold off until enough trust has been built in the relationship, and you know he won't think less of you for sleeping with him.
WellLetsSee Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Most mature, relationship-oriented guys I know wouldn't "write a girl off" for sex on the first date, if everything flowed towards that naturally. . . but then, being relationship-oriented, they also aren't exactly the type to be pressing for it. I do find that there are the immature guys who press and try to get sex, and they totally are the ones who are like, "She slept with me that fast? What a skank!" Meanwhile, they were doing everything in their power to get in her pants----so they're even easier. Silly, silly . It's those guys who expect women to be the brakes and have no self-control themselves. No, thanks. And, in the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that. Very well said and thank you, I enjoy how clear you are on this. But I think there also exceptions to this rule in both cases. I know at least of one guy who isnt pushy and has married has gf, but claims that girls who have sex on their first date are no relationship material.
Thedude22 Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I've never gone all the way on a first date, but I have gotten several blowjobs on first dates. Needless to say I never spoke to them again or I made it clear I was just using them for my sexual amusement. If I have sex with a girl before I know them as a human being (which is around 3-6 dates) I tend to objectify them more as a piece of meat than a person I want to have meaningful sex with. For whatever reason I just seem to lose respect 75% of the time, not sure why that is. As a person who whole-heartedly supports sexually free women and hedonistic lifestyle choices, I hate that I feel this way, but I do. Maybe I have a conservative, traditional streak in me I don't know about.
notuneak Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I enjoy the sexual tension of knowing that we are going to have sex at some point. Having sex on the first date would ruin it for me. After IM'ing and meeting a guy, I usually know quickly that the attraction is there. But I like to make that feeling last, at least a little while.
Untouchable_Fire Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Kind of scary to think that sleeping with him on the first date would have been the demise of a great relationship. Double standard? Absolutely. But I think the majority of men think along the same lines. Yup... this is the truth. Double standards may suck, but we all have to deal with them. Guy like Tiger Woods cheats and everyone beats him over the head for life... woman cheats like Elizabeth Gilbert and everyone wants to pay millions to read her book about it... ala "Eat, Pray, Cheat"
climbergirl Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Yup... this is the truth. Double standards may suck, but we all have to deal with them. Guy like Tiger Woods cheats and everyone beats him over the head for life... woman cheats like Elizabeth Gilbert and everyone wants to pay millions to read her book about it... ala "Eat, Pray, Cheat" Haha! I may get beat over the head, but there you go! A man cheats and he's a pig. A woman cheats and it is her SO's fault. Yep. We all have a cross to bear, but you're right. Deal.
zengirl Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 So I asked him what he would have thought if I did. He said it would make him question me. So I asked why he would ask what he did and he said he was testing my integrity. I think it's kind of a bullsh*t thing to do, but I would have to agree with him. I would question my integrity, too. This is fine because you both share the same values. You attach withholding sex to integrity just as he does. If you only attach it to a woman's integrity and not a man's, you still share his values, though it is -- by nature -- a gender hypocritical one. People can have the values they like; if a man said to me what your fiance views, I couldn't marry him because that wouldn't be in line with my values. This doesn't mean I'm going to start sleeping with men on first dates (for all of the reasons I stated above) but I certainly want to know if they think women should be chaste but men should play around, if they think (as the old saying goes) men should be the gas and the woman the breaks in regards to sex. I've no interest in those guys. I'm a sexual being. I have just as much a right to my sexuality as any man. I'd, frankly, prefer men not be eager to sleep with any gal they meet (just like me) though it's not a big deal because the reason I don't do it has nothing to do with morality and more to do with my personal boundaries. Since you can never tell on a first date if a guy holds progressive or antiquated views in this regard, your strategy has to match your personality. I'm definitely progressive, so I would probably do what feels right and think less of a guy who ditched me or thought less of me just because we did what came naturally. If we had sex on the first date and the guy ditched me, yes, i would think :"good riddance, glad I found out early he's sexist". If however, being with someone progressive isn't a priority to you (or if you attach easily), then you have your answer: No sex on the first date. Since it's impossible to tell whether or not your date holds progressive or antiquated views of female sexuality, your best bet is to hold off until enough trust has been built in the relationship, and you know he won't think less of you for sleeping with him. Well, I still don't want to sleep with guys and be ditched OR find out he's a dud in some way (which is kind of the reason I don't sleep with him right away anyway) because it sounds like needless emotional mess, but other than that, I agree with you and I think this is a very good point. The two people's values have to line up, and that's absolutely the most important. Very well said and thank you, I enjoy how clear you are on this. But I think there also exceptions to this rule in both cases. I know at least of one guy who isnt pushy and has married has gf, but claims that girls who have sex on their first date are no relationship material. Of course there are exceptions! People are complicated. I hope I didn't imply differently. Again... you assume in this statement that men and women are the same... which we are not. Equality and being the same are different. Unless they legislate against it, it's not an equality issue. It's a hypocrisy issue. If you see female and male sexuality as so vastly different, it's a gender hypocritical value (whether you justify it or not). Fine. And then you layer on top of it that most of the guys who are hypocritical about this issue are also the angriest about when women are gender hypocritical (say, assuming men should pay for first dates)! I find this very amusing and silly.
acrossthemiles1 Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I would never judge someone negatively for having sex on the first date. I would (and have) done it myself, and yet I've never cheated and I'm awesome relationship material. If anything, I could take a whole lot of positives from a girl sleeping with me on the first date: - She's not going to play 'power games' with sex - She's sexually compatible with me (assuming it was halfway decent) - She's not inhibited, prudish, or shy - She's trusting/not afraid to take a chance on getting hurt - She has her own mind, and doesn't feel the need to conform to society's expectations and pressure - She's spontaneous and fun This isn't to say that NOT having sex means the opposite of any of the above, just that having sex early on gives an earlier indicator of them. I know previous posters have disagreed with this assessment, but I consider most of these to be true about myself. I have done the "first date hookup" thing and have enjoyed it. Obviously, I haven't had every single one of those partners rushing back to me at the drop of a hat, but I have had several fairly serious relationships result from these encounters, with no lingering doubts on the part of the other person concerning my integrity or "morality" (whatever that means). I have a fairly high sex drive and I can enjoy sex without having to decorate it with all sorts of emotional implications. That doesn't mean I am incapable of also having loving, trusting sex with a partner to whom I am psychologically and emotionally committed - it just means I can have fun with it when the circumstances are appropriate.
acrossthemiles1 Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I would not know someone well enough to sleep with them. I won't sleep with anyone till a relationship has been firmly established, as I'm not interested in all the stomach flips and guesswork I imagine would come from that, "Do they really like me or just like sleeping with me?" situation. Funny thing is...I have never really worried about this sort of thing. I would like to imagine that every guy who has sex with me does it because he DOES like me (otherwise why would he want to stick his d*ck in me, right? lol...kidding, sort of) but in the event that he is "just" sleeping with me for sex...well, oh well, at least I got mine out of it too. (That obviously assumes that the sex was worthwhile, but I can only count one or two instances where it wasn't.) Not to mention safety, pregnancy issues, etc, in terms of all of that happening with a man you barely know. Not to state the obvious, but you can get knocked up any time, by any guy, in any situation. It's up to me to make sure I take the pill correctly and regularly and up to me also to make sure the dude has it wrapped up before he goes to town. Responsible adult women should be able to properly manage their uteruses (uteri?) no matter what their relationship to the guy is.
Kamille Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Well, I still don't want to sleep with guys and be ditched OR find out he's a dud in some way (which is kind of the reason I don't sleep with him right away anyway) because it sounds like needless emotional mess, but other than that, I agree with you and I think this is a very good point. The two people's values have to line up, and that's absolutely the most important. Exactly. And please note, I never actually slept with a guy on a first date. Generally, I don't feel, after a first date, that the guy and I have quite the level of intimacy and playfulness I need in order to enjoy sex. But I'm far from being someone for whom sex is equivalent to emotional attachment. I can have sex because I feel like it, and not feel like an emotional mess if it's a one time thing. Mostly, I don't ever think that I'm demeaning myself when I choose to have sex with someone. If they think that I am, that's their issue, not mine.
zengirl Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Funny thing is...I have never really worried about this sort of thing. I would like to imagine that every guy who has sex with me does it because he DOES like me (otherwise why would he want to stick his d*ck in me, right? lol...kidding, sort of) but in the event that he is "just" sleeping with me for sex...well, oh well, at least I got mine out of it too. (That obviously assumes that the sex was worthwhile, but I can only count one or two instances where it wasn't.) I mean like me in a meaningful way, not just the chemical "I got off and it felt good" type feeling. I'm not really judging anyone who views sex as something more casual than I do (at least I'm not saying they're wrong or bad or whatever -- I do 'assess' it, I guess, to see where people fall if it's applicable) but to me, just having fun with some guy sexually isn't all that interesting. I'm looking for something WAY different than that. And I love sex. Just not with people I'm not in Very Serious Like/Love with. Not to state the obvious, but you can get knocked up any time, by any guy, in any situation. It's up to me to make sure I take the pill correctly and regularly and up to me also to make sure the dude has it wrapped up before he goes to town. Responsible adult women should be able to properly manage their uteruses (uteri?) no matter what their relationship to the guy is. Right. I take BC when having sex (just tossed mine since I'm single again) and use condoms at first, as well, and sometimes as a backup. I'm pretty responsible, but there's always a chance it'll fall. I know two friends were were FWB (and are sincere friends, luckily) and had some fun one night, and now they have a 3 year old. They used a condom; if it broke, they had no idea. She may or may not have been on BC (never asked her). It's rare, but stuff happens. I want to make sure that if something like that happens it's with someone I know and trust. . . that was my point. Not that a commitment somehow creates a magical birth control barrier of some kind. Exactly. And please note, I never actually slept with a guy on a first date. Generally, I don't feel, after a first date, that the guy and I have quite the level of intimacy and playfulness I need in order to enjoy sex. But I'm far from being someone for whom sex is equivalent to emotional attachment. I can have sex because I feel like it, and not feel like an emotional mess if it's a one time thing. Mostly, I don't ever think that I'm demeaning myself when I choose to have sex with someone. If they think that I am, that's their issue, not mine. See, I do have an emotional attachment to sex. . . or rather I find sex without a strong emotional attachment pretty boring. It's not that I'm worried it'd create some kind of bond, but more, I don't see the point in being that intimate with another human being without an emotional bond. I think I'd feel pretty bad if I ever had one time sex (never have) because in order for me to want to have sex, I'd have to be falling for the guy. Demeaning? No. Don't think that. But I don't see the point in sex without an emotional connection. I don't see the point in most 'fake food' (like Oreos or Big Macs and the like, made without actual ingredients) either, though so that's more a taste/style thing than anything else.
acrossthemiles1 Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 See, I do have an emotional attachment to sex. . . or rather I find sex without a strong emotional attachment pretty boring. It's not that I'm worried it'd create some kind of bond, but more, I don't see the point in being that intimate with another human being without an emotional bond. I think I'd feel pretty bad if I ever had one time sex (never have) because in order for me to want to have sex, I'd have to be falling for the guy. Demeaning? No. Don't think that. But I don't see the point in sex without an emotional connection. I don't see the point in most 'fake food' (like Oreos or Big Macs and the like, made without actual ingredients) either, though so that's more a taste/style thing than anything else. That makes sense. On both the deeper level and in terms of your analogy. I love junk food - I also like me a good filet mignon too though.
WellLetsSee Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Unless they legislate against it, it's not an equality issue. It's a hypocrisy issue. If you see female and male sexuality as so vastly different, it's a gender hypocritical value (whether you justify it or not). Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? Not that I disagree I think - but since I like your mindset, I would love to hear what you think about it. Are you saying that you regard female and male sexuality as basically the same?
acrossthemiles1 Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? Not that I disagree I think - but since I like your mindset, I would love to hear what you think about it. Are you saying that you regard female and male sexuality as basically the same? I don't think she's saying that male and female sexuality are the same. I think she's saying it's hypocritical to assess male sexual activity one way and to assess female sexual activity of the same kind in a completely different manner. So many people are saying "Well, that's just how guys are - double standards exist everywhere." Fine, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we? ETA: However to be fair, in terms of honestly answering the OP's question (which was, I assume, to get a realistic impression of what people really think about the subject, regardless of hypocrisy or unreasonability or whatever) I suppose that position is just as valid as any other expressed in this thread. Edited April 11, 2011 by acrossthemiles1
Untouchable_Fire Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Unless they legislate against it, it's not an equality issue. It's a hypocrisy issue. If you see female and male sexuality as so vastly different, it's a gender hypocritical value (whether you justify it or not). Fine. And then you layer on top of it that most of the guys who are hypocritical about this issue are also the angriest about when women are gender hypocritical (say, assuming men should pay for first dates)! I find this very amusing and silly. You find it silly because you don't get it. I don't really like any double standards... though I can understand why they exist. I'm just saying if I have to live with mine... you should have to live with yours. Call it unfair all you like... it's true... it isn't fair. Now go back into the world and live with it. I know previous posters have disagreed with this assessment, but I consider most of these to be true about myself. I have done the "first date hookup" thing and have enjoyed it. Obviously, I haven't had every single one of those partners rushing back to me at the drop of a hat, but I have had several fairly serious relationships result from these encounters, with no lingering doubts on the part of the other person concerning my integrity or "morality" (whatever that means). I have a fairly high sex drive and I can enjoy sex without having to decorate it with all sorts of emotional implications. That doesn't mean I am incapable of also having loving, trusting sex with a partner to whom I am psychologically and emotionally committed - it just means I can have fun with it when the circumstances are appropriate. I was more saying that sleeping with a guy on the first date really doesn't say that much about a woman, other than she sleeps with guys on the first date. I will say that over the years I have seen a strong correlation between people who do one night stands and cheaters.
zengirl Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? Not that I disagree I think - but since I like your mindset, I would love to hear what you think about it. Are you saying that you regard female and male sexuality as basically the same? I'm saying that if you attach morality to sexuality, it is hypocritical to do so for one gender and not the other. If you're not really attaching morality to it, you're just reacting from random insecurity or self-justification, neither of which is any more attractive than hypocrisy. If you're just going with the masses (men are socialized to be sexual and women aren't), then (a) That view is pretty antiquated and (b) well, feeling some way because society told you to is just kind of gross in my opinion, especially if it is feeling a way that is judgmental or ugly towards a group of people. I've never gotten the justification for old people who are racist when people say "That's just how things were back then." Okay . . . but all of these people have ACCESS to the outside world and BRAINS to make choices. You decide what you believe; not "how things are" except in very extreme cases (very closed off societies). You find it silly because you don't get it. I don't really like any double standards... though I can understand why they exist. I get it, in that I understand what you're saying, and it's patronizing of you to claim otherwise. I simply disagree with you. I'm just saying if I have to live with mine... you should have to live with yours. Call it unfair all you like... it's true... it isn't fair. Now go back into the world and live with it. You know, this double standard has never even come up in my life --- even in conversation! --- except on LS.
EasyHeart Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 In a way, I think the honest answers on this thread are helpful. Some guys wouldn't think less of a girl for it, others hold a double standard and would disqualify her as relationship material. Since you can never tell on a first date if a guy holds progressive or antiquated views in this regard, your strategy has to match your personality. I'm definitely progressive, so I would probably do what feels right and think less of a guy who ditched me or thought less of me just because we did what came naturally. If we had sex on the first date and the guy ditched me, yes, i would think :"good riddance, glad I found out early he's sexist". If however, being with someone progressive isn't a priority to you (or if you attach easily), then you have your answer: No sex on the first date. Since it's impossible to tell whether or not your date holds progressive or antiquated views of female sexuality, your best bet is to hold off until enough trust has been built in the relationship, and you know he won't think less of you for sleeping with him.I find this sort of dogmatic nonsense very annoying. There is nothing "progressive" about engaging in meaningless sex. Nor is there anything "antiquated" about wanting to get to know someone before having sex with them. I have no interest in having sex with someone I don't know, so first date sex is not something I engage in. I have dated women who obviously felt differently and became sexually aggressive (or at least blatantly willing) on a first date, and it resulted in my losing interest in them. I don't have any interest in sex-as-sport, so I don't have any interest in dating someone who does. That does not mean I am sexist or have "antiquated" notions of sexuality or hold women to some double standard. It means that I have different goals and interests than someone who is dating in search of casual sex.
acrossthemiles1 Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 There is nothing "progressive" about engaging in meaningless sex. Nor is there anything "antiquated" about wanting to get to know someone before having sex with them. See, this is the fallacy everyone seems to be falling for. Your definition of the bolded term above is completely different from someone else's - so the entire basis for both arguments here is a completely subjective notion of what makes for "good" or "meaningful" sex. One-night stands or first date sex =! meaningless sex for every person. 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.
WellLetsSee Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I'm saying that if you attach morality to sexuality, it is hypocritical to do so for one gender and not the other. Yes I get this part and I agree, but I thought that you were implying that male and female sexuality is basically the same in your post before. That is what I am curious about.
zengirl Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 See, this is the fallacy everyone seems to be falling for. Your definition of the bolded term above is completely different from someone else's - so the entire basis for both arguments here is a completely subjective notion of what makes for "good" or "meaningful" sex. One-night stands or first date sex =! meaningless sex for every person. 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. People have pointed out the exceptions (i.e. You knew the person long before this date), but other than that, how can sex with a person you just met and don't really know well be "meaningful." Any meaning is going to be attached to who you think they are, not who they really are and the connection between you would be purely chemical/physical, maybe a touch of intellectual, but an emotional connection takes time and knowing someone to build. So, my question would be to you. . . What do you find meaningful about it?
Kamille Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I find this sort of dogmatic nonsense very annoying. There is nothing "progressive" about engaging in meaningless sex. Nor is there anything "antiquated" about wanting to get to know someone before having sex with them. I have no interest in having sex with someone I don't know, so first date sex is not something I engage in. I have dated women who obviously felt differently and became sexually aggressive (or at least blatantly willing) on a first date, and it resulted in my losing interest in them. I don't have any interest in sex-as-sport, so I don't have any interest in dating someone who does. That does not mean I am sexist or have "antiquated" notions of sexuality or hold women to some double standard. It means that I have different goals and interests than someone who is dating in search of casual sex. I was merely mirroring the same kind of dogmatism Mr. Dream Merchant and others were advocating. And I think you're misreading me. I'm not saying progressive people should jump in the sack. I'm saying progressive people won't think less of a woman because they choose to have sex together on the first date. You don't want sex on the first date and you therefore decline the activity. You know what that makes you in my book? Progressive. You prefer to wait and you enforce your boundary, instead of blindly going along some double standard and thinking sexually precocious women deserve less respect. (Or thinking your mission as a man is to tap as much p*** as possible, and then treating those women with less respect because of it). The basic principle of both your and my approach is the same: You want someone who's approach to sex is in-line with yours. But duly noted, there is no reason to put categories on other's practices. To me, though, a man who loses respect for a woman because she "gave it up too easy" (to cite people here), holds a view that is antiquated. One who prefers to wait and enforces that boundary is progressive.
zengirl Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Yes I get this part and I agree, but I thought that you were implying that male and female sexuality is basically the same in your post before. That is what I am curious about. I mean the morals involved are basically the same. Obviously, I know women have their own kind of body part and fellows have another. We also have different chemical makeups. None of which impact morality, which is a code that should override physical conditioning (that's actually the exact purpose of morality, for better or worse).
Recommended Posts