bluenightowl Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 I personally haven't seen that. IME, a great way to stay single is to be relationship/marriage centric. Wanting a LTR/M is a great way to get rid of women these days. That's a slightly jaded way to think. i.e don't act like you want a LTR to get a LTR. I think even women who love sex eventually want a relationship with the right one.
rafallus Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 (edited) To make it less clear: What about: For now I only want sex, but let's see, what happens (ie. not excluding relationship, but not making any promises - you turn me on in the moment, but I don't know you well enough to see, if I want to get into relationship with you) ? Edited August 7, 2011 by rafallus
Disillusioned Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 A lot of people especially women seem to despise men who just want sex and nothing else. But what is inherently wrong with that? Why is wanting sex any worse than wanting a relationship? I think wanting relationship from men who only want sex is no less selfish than wanting only sex from women who want relationship. That's why Matt McMullen invented Realdolls. No drama, no whining, no withdrawal symptoms.
Eeyore79 Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 I don't mind in the slightest if men just want sex, as long as they make their intentions clear and ensure their partner is happy with that. What annoys me is when they only want sex but act like they're interested in a relationship in order to persuade a relationship minded woman to have sex with them. It's wrong to deceive someone to get what you want.
carhill Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 That's a slightly jaded way to think. i.e don't act like you want a LTR to get a LTR. I think even women who love sex eventually want a relationship with the right one. More precisely, wanting an LTR and finding the reaction to be one of avoidance. I just report results of my real life experiences here on LS. Married women do hit on me for sex but I'm interested in intimate relationships rather than fornicating.
GoodOnPaper Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 That's a slightly jaded way to think. i.e don't act like you want a LTR to get a LTR. I think even women who love sex eventually want a relationship with the right one. I think the idea is that the guys with whom women want relationships the most are the guys who don't need to have relationships in order to be with women. Unfortunately, I'm one of those guys who doesn't meet the physical standards to attract anyone for casual sex so to get any sex, intimacy, and companionship with a woman, I had to go the LTR (or attempted-LTR) route. Is this really deceitful? I don't think so -- my parents married at 19, so even in my teens I was never averse to the idea of an LTR. Unlike the attraction phase, I always felt more comfortable in the relationship phase anyway. Of course, this approach to dating was a total attraction killler. What I don't understand is why women seem to be squeamish about the fact that "relationship guys" -- the ones that are considered secondary sex options -- want sex just as much as the successful players do. It's been made quite clear that women value a certain degree of sexual experience in a guy -- for those of us that can't get that experience through ONS's, FWB's, etc., we have to try and get that experience through relationships.
thehead Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 If you make your intentions clear, there shouldn't be a problem. You'd think this would be true but IME, it's not. You can meet women at parties, clubs, w/e, spend the night together with no promises made, and they'll STILL get butt hurt that you're not interested in parlaying it into a relationship. Suddenly, I'm the bad guy, though I never promised anything. It was crystal what we were off to do. It's sometimes THEIR idea. Then I'm the ******* player when I'm not interested in continuing? Sorry. I don't get it.
Cypress25 Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 Suddenly, I'm the bad guy, though I never promised anything. It was crystal what we were off to do. It probably wasn't as crystal clear as you thought it was. Did you actually come right out and say "I'm not interested in seeing you again after tonight" before you had sex? Or did you just assume that it was understood? You say you never promised anything, but that doesn't mean you made your intentions clear. You probably thought she wouldn't have sex with you if you were honest from the start, so you just kept your mouth shut. What I don't understand is why women seem to be squeamish about the fact that "relationship guys" -- the ones that are considered secondary sex options -- want sex just as much as the successful players do. I don't know what you mean by this. Why are "relationship guys" considered secondary sex options? Are you talking about the guys who want a relationship because they actually like the girl, or guys who want a relationship because it's the only way they can get sex? There's a big difference between the two.
carhill Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 Why are "relationship guys" considered secondary sex options? Are you talking about the guys who want a relationship because they actually like the girl, or guys who want a relationship because it's the only way they can get sex? There's a big difference between the two. I think the honest answer would come from the women. IME, they've been looking for validation rather than an equal and balanced relationship, which is just a different path. Having had LTR's and a M, my path is sex as an expression of intimacy within a committed relationship or M. Those women who are not on that path disengage with that disclosure. It may be the disclosure itself or it might be a plethora of other reasons which, combined with the disclosure, make the man 'unattractive'. IDK for sure. It's similar to a man moving on if he discovers a woman is interested in serious dating and a relationship versus casual sex/FWB. He's not going to bother drilling a dry hole so he moves on. No harm, no foul. Nothing 'wrong'.
thehead Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 (edited) It probably wasn't as crystal clear as you thought it was. Did you actually come right out and say "I'm not interested in seeing you again after tonight" before you had sex? Or did you just assume that it was understood? You say you never promised anything, but that doesn't mean you made your intentions clear. You probably thought she wouldn't have sex with you if you were honest from the start, so you just kept your mouth shut. That's quite an assumption to make. Are you trying to be rude or does it come naturally? When a girl you know for a couple of hours ago is leaning into you, sliding her hand up and down your crotch in the darkness of a club, and she whispers in your ear "Let's get out of here" would you say SHE'S being clear? Because when I say "Are you sure?" and she continues and says yes, I think that's pretty crystal. She's not saying she wants a relationship. She's saying she wants to get laid. So, should I save her from herself, Cypress25? Should I treat her like she's a manipulative moron using sex as her vehicle to getting into a relationship? Because the way you paint women, they need to be saved from themselves. They're all secretly wanting to put dudes on lock down and aren't capable of wanting something more casual. It's pretty insulting to them actually. Edited August 8, 2011 by thehead
Eeyore79 Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 Human beings tend to have a way of assuming that other people think like they do. When I was younger I tended to assume that if a man expressed an interest in me, he wanted a relationship. It didn't make sense to me that someone would want sex with no emotional involvement, because I could never do that myself. A lot of women think like that; they find it much harder to separate sex from emotion than men do, so they think that a man who wants sex with them must also desire emotional involvement. I only learned through bitter experience that some men just want sex. At least the (relatively) honest ones will hump you and dump you; the worst ones are those who keep seeing you repeatedly and act like you're sort of in a relationship so they can continue having sex with you. Also, as thehead noted, women sometimes use sex to capture a man's interest and draw him into a relationship. It's a silly thing to do since there's no guarantee that the man wants anything more than sex, but women tend to think "if he has sex with me he must have feelings for me". One the one hand you could say that men who aren't clear about their intentions are using these women, but on the other hand you could equally say that it's the womens' own fault for having sex before a relationship has been established.
denise_xo Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 There is nothing wrong with it as long as you are honest & upfront about your intentions. This. [ten ch].
Els Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 You'd think this would be true but IME, it's not. You can meet women at parties, clubs, w/e, spend the night together with no promises made, and they'll STILL get butt hurt that you're not interested in parlaying it into a relationship. Suddenly, I'm the bad guy, though I never promised anything. It was crystal what we were off to do. It's sometimes THEIR idea. Then I'm the ******* player when I'm not interested in continuing? Sorry. I don't get it. To be fair, a guy and girl might get together with no promises made, and the guy would get hurt when some time down the line the girl says she doesn't want to have sex til marriage. To the girl, she never 'promised' sex, and the guy 'assumed' that they would be getting some. Then the girl would be considered a frigid, deceptive bitch. I think the issue here is that the unspoken 'rule of thumb' in our current society is that both sex and a relationship are considered as a package, and one party feels deceived and deluded when the other person does not explicitly state that they are not looking for the full package when they get what they want. I guess that you could say both parties are wrong - the one who assumed, and also the one who did not make it perfectly clear.
GoodOnPaper Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 Why are "relationship guys" considered secondary sex options? I don't know, especially considering that most women say that what they really want is a relationship. I'm just going from my experience and the hundreds, if not thousands, of LS posts from women about how they look to the hot guys for no-strings sex but don't trust them for relationships. Apparently, the "relationships guys" aren't that good at sex? Then why go for relationships with them? Personally, I think women have their own version of the madonna/whore mindset that they apply to men, but that sort of digresses from the thread topic . . . Are you talking about the guys who want a relationship because they actually like the girl, or guys who want a relationship because it's the only way they can get sex? There's a big difference between the two. It's by no means this clear cut or premeditated. Guys who struggle to attract women can't afford to be so calculating. In my experience, I always thought I liked the girl at the time -- I definitely knew that I liked the relationship with her and I was always very good at extending it beyond the recommended shelf life. It was only long after in retrospect when I realized that I cared much more about the relationship than the girl. The problem is that with guys, the stigma is with not having enough sexual experience. So, we try to gain that experience however we can. The (few?) lucky ones are good at the attraction phase, so they can have all ONS's and FWB's they want and eventually a relationship will fall into place. The rest of us are more comfortable in the relationship phase, and although opportunities will be far fewer, that is where we have to try and gain our experience.
April72 Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 I don't get it. Anytime I've had sex it's been with someone I'm attracted too and was in hopes of it becoming something more. I have been clearly mislead by several men. And it leaves a bitter taste in ones mouth. I have several gf's though that could use men just as easy. They screwed for sport. I never got them either but I never judged. It's not wrong if no one is being mislead. I just wish I could fully understand how one engages in the act knowing it's this and nothing more. I can't. And how so many just hookup even if unattracted to the person. I can't wrap my brain around it.
Negative Nancy Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 A guy just wanting sex is the equivalent to a woman that just uses men for their wallets. No woman wants to be seen as "just a sex object", just as no guy wants to be seen as merely a "walking wallet". That should clarify the OP'S question.
Woggle Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 As long as you are honest about I see nothing wrong with it. I don't like people who mislead others. If you tell a woman who want sport funk and she says yes then no problem.
dasein Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 Freely accepting sex and then getting bent out of shape because a relationship does not automatically come about is the real dishonest, misleading conduct today in these situations. The default position today is "who knows what may result?" and this is smart and healthy. If someone has an expectation that sex must lead to a relationship, it is their obligation to state their expectation and modify their own behavior, not the other way around.
dasein Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 It's not unrealistic to expect the person who wants to have sex with you to like you. Once upon a time, people didn't have sex with each other unless they liked each other. If you just want meaningless sex, hire a hooker. Why I would want to have sex with a guy who doesn't even like me enough to date me is beyond me. Just because some men are pigs doesn't mean women should expect that behavior from all men. Ah, I see, a man is a "pig" merely for wanting what he wants and not what you want? BTW, we live in the "now" not in the "once upon a time."
Cypress25 Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 When a girl you know for a couple of hours ago is leaning into you, sliding her hand up and down your crotch in the darkness of a club, and she whispers in your ear "Let's get out of here" would you say SHE'S being clear? No. If she expects more than a one-night stand, she should say so. Because when I say "Are you sure?" and she continues and says yes, I think that's pretty crystal. She's not saying she wants a relationship. She's saying she wants to get laid. This may be hard for you to understand, but some women want both. I agree that this is not the best way to start a relationship, but it also sounds like she was a bit drunk. So, should I save her from herself, Cypress25? Should I treat her like she's a manipulative moron using sex as her vehicle to getting into a relationship? Because the way you paint women, they need to be saved from themselves. They're all secretly wanting to put dudes on lock down and aren't capable of wanting something more casual. It's pretty insulting to them actually. No, you should save you from yourself, by being honest with the girl before you have sex with her. You're the one who has to deal with the morning-after drama when you wake up next to a girl who wants more than you're willing to give. You could avoid that if you were honest the night before. Instead of assuming that she has the same intentions as you, verbalize it. You both have a responsibility to speak up before it goes too far. Maybe she does want something casual, but maybe she doesn't. The only way to find out for sure is to ask her. It doesn't have to be a big discussion. Something as simple as "You're OK with it just being tonight, right?" will do. That's not insulting to the woman. In fact, it's considerate. I'm guessing the only reason you don't say that is because you're afraid her answer would be no, and then you wouldn't get laid. So you conveniently wait until after the fact.
wheream_i Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 Also... just wanting sex will only last for so long. So will relationships.
TaintedHeart Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 Just be clear that you want 'No strings attached fun' If she starts to develop feeling for you stop having sex with her, it will mess her head up if you carry it on. But no, I dont think it's wrong.
Abby88 Posted August 9, 2011 Posted August 9, 2011 Human beings tend to have a way of assuming that other people think like they do. When I was younger I tended to assume that if a man expressed an interest in me, he wanted a relationship. It didn't make sense to me that someone would want sex with no emotional involvement, because I could never do that myself. A lot of women think like that; they find it much harder to separate sex from emotion than men do, so they think that a man who wants sex with them must also desire emotional involvement. I only learned through bitter experience that some men just want sex. At least the (relatively) honest ones will hump you and dump you; the worst ones are those who keep seeing you repeatedly and act like you're sort of in a relationship so they can continue having sex with you. Also, as thehead noted, women sometimes use sex to capture a man's interest and draw him into a relationship. It's a silly thing to do since there's no guarantee that the man wants anything more than sex, but women tend to think "if he has sex with me he must have feelings for me". One the one hand you could say that men who aren't clear about their intentions are using these women, but on the other hand you could equally say that it's the womens' own fault for having sex before a relationship has been established. Eeyore79, I love this and this is so true. I am a 23 year old woman and I have just started to figure this out for myself in the past few years. So much of the anger and hurt feelings between men and women regarding sex is because of pure misunderstanding and the anger that follows. With us women (now this is extremely generalized), like you said, it is unfathomable to us to want sex without any sort of relationship either before or after. It doesn't even occur to us that a person could, at least not until we are older. This is why teenage girls especially need to be protected from men and boys who only want sex from them. I think on the other hand, men and boys grow up without it even occuring to them that the two could NOT be separated! There is nothing wrong with either, but you can see how terrible things could happen in this situation... Personally I wish I could sleep around without feeling sad and hurt afterward. It would be fun and a great release when you are not in a position for a relationship! I tried, very consiously and with a clear mind, and quickly learned it was not for me. But I harbor no hard feelings toward those two guys because they were very clear about what the situation was (even if they did not come right out and literally say so) and I was old enough to have learned by then the differences between how women and men think of sex. For any guys who are curious, the best analogy I can give is this: It's kind of like if someone showered tons of affection on you, kissed you, did the sweetest things for you, hugged you when you needed it most, and basically just showed you in many ways how much they cared, up until a certain point, and then it completely turned off and you meant nothing to them. And then they said something like "Well, I never actually said the words 'I care about you' did I? It just got me off." I know the analogy isn't perfect, but I think this is what a lot of women experience, and it does hurt, unfortunately. That's why we have to wait until we understand both ourselves and men before getting sexually involved. The answer? Sex ed that teaches the psychology of sex rather than just the anatomy is the best solution I can think of. Thoughts?
Cypress25 Posted August 9, 2011 Posted August 9, 2011 Abby, I agree with everything you said, but I don't think it's that hard for men and women to understand each other. I've always known that there are plenty of guys who just want sex, that's why I don't have sex outside of committed relationships. And I didn't have sex in high school because I knew that most of the guys in my school were jerks who only wanted one thing. It was never explicitly taught to me, it was just common knowledge, so I've always been careful not to rush into sex. Some girls are just more naive than others. I'm not blaming them, we all live and learn, it's just that some people learn the hard way. As for men, they get it. They understand that most women don't separate sex and emotion the way they do. It's not that they're genuinely baffled by this, it's just that they like to take advantage of it if they can. They're not as clueless as they pretend to be.
dasein Posted August 9, 2011 Posted August 9, 2011 I agree with Eeyore's post. Also, lots of generalizing of women going on in this thread. There are quite a lot of women who seek short term NSA type sexual relationships today, so it's not a given that women want a relationship with sex.
Recommended Posts