One issue with making a man wait for sex

[phineas]

Thanks for the apology - I appreciate it.

 

I'm not a total ass-hat.

 

I can admit when i'm wrong.

[musemaj11]

I can't agree here. It doesn't make you feel any better. I'm one of those women who HAS to wait before sex for security reasons, that I'm not being played. How does that give me power over a man? I'm not doing it to play him. If a real psychic ever told me the man was indeed relationship material for me, then I wouldn't wait. No reason.

Ironically though women on the other hand are unforgiving toward men who refuse to pay on dates for the similar security reasons that they fear of getting taken advantage of financially instead of sexually.

 

Women are so inherently self centered that they are incapable of understanding other people's concerns, only their own.

Edited January 27, 2012 by musemaj11

[aj22one]

 

I've had similar experiences as Phineas. It is very real, and very common.

 

 

Me too. First girl I ever dated told me she was "waiting until marriage for sex". I respected her choice, but eventually found out she was sleeping with a old high school "friend" of her's. After that I learned that women aren't "sugar and spice and everything nice" and learned how to detect signs of suspicious behavior and keep women at arm's length until they earn my trust.

 

Having sex with a girl isn't the only way to figure out if she's truly interested, but it's probably the best way.

[serial muse]

That men who won't wait around for sex are not always players or only interested in sex.

 

That men have legitimate reasons for not waiting around & shouldn't be raked over the coals for it.

 

Sure, I absolutely and wholeheartedly acknowledge that. I do understand your viewpoint. You're doing what is best for you based on your past experiences.

 

So can you, in turn, acknowledge that women who want to wait to have sex are not always doing it just to string a man along or to play a power game? That they, themselves, are doing what is best for them?

 

By the way, I want to say that I have met women who play that particular game, so yes, gentlemen, I know it happens. I also know plenty of women who wouldn't do that and who don't look at it that way at all. So I also know it quite often doesn't happen. There are a lot of people in the world; both approaches are likely "common."

 

Women are so inherently self centered that they are incapable of understanding other people's concerns, only their own.

 

This is the sort of shxt-stirring statement that is solely aimed at derailing any detente we were about to come to. Thanks a heap. Seriously, why???

Edited January 27, 2012 by serial muse

[Oxy Moronovich]

Ironically though women on the other hand are unforgiving toward men who refuse to pay on dates for the similar security reasons that they fear of getting taken advantage of financially instead of sexually.

 

Women are so inherently self centered that they are incapable of understanding other people's concerns, only their own.

The first sentence definitely is interesting. I never thought of that.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Ironically though women on the other hand are unforgiving toward men who refuse to pay on dates for the similar security reasons that they fear of getting taken advantage of financially instead of sexually.

 

Women are so inherently self centered that they are incapable of understanding other people's concerns, only their own.

 

Ironically again, this entire response also shows a certain amount of self centeredness and an incapability in understanding other people's converns, only their own.

 

Funny how those things work out sometimes.

[LittleTiger]

Ironically though women on the other hand are unforgiving toward men who refuse to pay on dates for the similar security reasons that they fear of getting taken advantage of financially instead of sexually.

 

Women are so inherently self centered that they are incapable of understanding other people's concerns, only their own.

 

You really would do well to rethink the connection you make between women, sex and money - either that or just get yourself a prostitute and forget about relationships altogether.

 

A man losing a few dollars/pounds on a good meal really doesn't equate in any way to a woman allowing a man to touch her intimately and penetrate her body. Seriously - there is zero comparison.

 

Your final paragraph is another indication that you would be better off forgetting about a romantic relationship with a real woman - respect is the cornerstone of any relationship and, sadly, it seems you have none.

 

........and all this just as we were finally wrapping this one up!

[phineas]

Sure, I absolutely and wholeheartedly acknowledge that. I do understand your viewpoint. You're doing what is best for you based on your past experiences.

 

So can you, in turn, acknowledge that women who want to wait to have sex are not always doing it just to string a man along or to play a power game? That they, themselves, are doing what is best for them?

 

By the way, I want to say that I have met women who play that particular game, so yes, gentlemen, I know it happens. I also know plenty of women who wouldn't do that and who don't look at it that way at all. So I also know it quite often doesn't happen. There are a lot of people in the world; both approaches are likely "common."

 

This is the sort of shxt-stirring statement that is solely aimed at derailing any detente we were about to come to. Thanks a heap. Seriously, why???

 

I've acknowledged there are genuine "good girls" out there. I sure haven't met one though & I'm sure it has to do with my age.

[fishtaco]

If a real psychic ever told me the man was indeed relationship material for me, then I wouldn't wait. No reason.

 

So women need to be aware of men, but men don't need to be aware of women because all women are as well behaved as you? I wish that were true.

 

Think back in your dating experience. How many percentage of men that you've met/have made a move on you, were not date-able or had questionable intentions? That percentage, is the same for men when we look at women. If you even try to suggest that one gender is more well behaved than the other, I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong. People are equally bad/good, just in different ways.

 

As with the other female posters here, I was also surprised to hear there are female players, because nobody in my circle is like that either.

 

Well we are telling you this is the case. If you just think about it with simple logic, how can an entire gender be better behaved than the other? That is simply an impossibility. I practice questionable dating strategies when I date. I'll be the first to admit. I prize ends over means, to a certain extent, and I have flexible principles. But I wasn't always this way. The how-I-became-a-villain story is basically, I learned from the women I've came in contact with. They punch me in the face, oh look, now I learned how to punch. So yes, I date like a chick. And they in turn, probably learned from the men from their past. It's how the world works.

 

So, why make it about sex?

 

It's not all about sex, it's one of the many red flags one may choose employ in their filter. And filters are important. I bet you do it too yourself. If a woman doesn't consider me physically attractive, why would I want to keep pushing for a romantic relationship? Let's be friends and I'll go hit on someone else. Or worse yet, the woman is an emotional vampire and is just dangling the carrot. It happens and you know it happens. Men have to be on guard as much as women have to be on guard.

 

And yes, you will say but it's not always because we are not physically attracted or we are emotional vampires, there could be many other reasons. Hence my point -- we can't tell. Men are NOT psychics. If you want to wait, make sure you dispel any doubts in the men's minds. If you earned my trust, and I like you enough, I may wait around for you.

 

If I read between the lines, all I can figure is: Because it's fine if she puts nothing else in so long as she puts out? That seems excessively gross to me, and it makes relationships all about sex. . . which is what the mentality I think many women have say turned them off about certain posters styles.

 

Yes I know. To talk to women you have to say the same thing, but dress up your words with flowers. Hence one of the most wide spread and common communication difficulties between genders.

 

Sex is not the only thing, but it's certainly important. Just because a woman puts out it doesn't mean all is well. And women know that. It all comes to compatibility, but sex is a factor in that compatibility, and I would say sex is important enough to be a deal breaker, even to women. Would you be in a long term relationship with a man that loves you but will not have sex with you? Most women will say no.

 

So this is a matter of just because one say "sex is important", it doesn't mean nothing else is. Why make that assumption? It drags down the discussion because now every time someone says anything, they have to go back and cover their bases and mention everything else.

 

 

I think most people don't even SEE it as "withholding" sex though. I think they see it as waiting, getting to know someone, and moving at their own pace, and I think it's the premise that sex is set up as something women "withhold" that many female posters have objected to.

 

If you are saying female posters agree with the concept but not with the words that were used, I'm fine with that. Then it is simply an issue of the choice of words. I'll use whatever euphemisms you want. My point remains the same.

 

Really. I never assumed the men I dated were the lowest common denominator! I certainly wanted to get to know them before being intimate or over-investing in them---investment should happen over time---but I never thought people were creeps till they prove otherwise. That seems an unhealthy way to approach it.

 

Funny, I'm the exact same way. I don't want to over-invest. But the only difference is that my view about sex is more casual than yours. So we had sex, and things didn't work out, not a big deal. That's not over-investment. Spending two months courting a woman only to find out I was the back burner guy, or I'm just the emotional stop gap, that is what I want to avoid. To me, quality time is a more expensive currency than sex. Your view may differ, but that doesn't make you or me wrong.

 

So basically you are treating men as the the lowest common denominator -- you don't over invest in your own ways, because you don't want to accidentally invest in a lowest common denominator guy. And that is the absolutely right approach, except, putting things this way is not dressing them up in flowers, hence you disagree with my choice of words. But principle is the same.

 

It does a lot, though. It helps a woman (and a man, if he's so inclined) avoid having sex with someone who is not a viable relationship partner, either because he (or she) is not interested in a real relationship OR because he (or she) is simply not relationship material. That's the point that's been re-stated in this thread many times and missed by many of the male posters. It has a purpose, a very clear purpose, and it works to prove that purpose, and when a guy leaves because he doesn't get sex quickly enough, it's actually WORKING right then!

 

Sure, and from my perspective, my filters are WORKING right as well. My current GF had sex with me before we even went on the first date. And in fact, because of the filter I have put in place, most of my relationships, sex happens fairly quickly. Some worked out to be LTR, some didn't. Some because I was being stupid and screwed up, some because the woman was being stupid and screwed up. And some just vanished for no reason. All part of this complete breakfast.

 

Like I said, if you are having success, if it ain't broke, why fix it. You do your wait filter, I'll do my no wait filter.

 

But the wait filter doesn't get you higher quality men. As many posters have mentioned, some men can get sex somewhere else, and they will stick around because they want to conquer you. The longer you make them wait, the more they want to dominate. And when they get it, they will leave just the same.

 

My filter is just as ineffective. I know I walked away from many good women before. But, guess what, I have fun.

[joystickd]

The funny thing here is some of the women think the man will show his true colors early on but its not always true and that goes for both genders.

[zengirl]

Funny, this thread got bumped, and I never saw these back in January.

 

If you are saying female posters agree with the concept but not with the words that were used, I'm fine with that. Then it is simply an issue of the choice of words. I'll use whatever euphemisms you want. My point remains the same.

 

I was not. I was saying some people are not withholding sex (which has a transactional connotation) but actually seeing if the person is someone they want to have sex with. Both men and women may do that OR withhold sex (though women are likely to play that game more often), but doing so is not the same thing.

 

Funny, I'm the exact same way. I don't want to over-invest. But the only difference is that my view about sex is more casual than yours. So we had sex, and things didn't work out, not a big deal. That's not over-investment. Spending two months courting a woman only to find out I was the back burner guy, or I'm just the emotional stop gap, that is what I want to avoid. To me, quality time is a more expensive currency than sex. Your view may differ, but that doesn't make you or me wrong.

 

I'm not suggesting it does. I am suggesting anyone who would think having sex with partners before knowing them well and having things just "not work out" may not be compatible with someone who feels otherwise. That person may be compatible with someone who feels seriously about sex being a big step, but they'd have to recognize and align with that view.

 

I view quality time spent with people as very important, but quality time can build all kinds of things not exclusive to a R. So, if I spend some time with someone, but we never have sex, that person may still be in my life and I in his to some beneficial degree. Or we may learn something from each other. I wouldn't suggest that just because one views sex as part of a R only that they view it as more important than the quality time or are withholding it. They may simply view it as part of a specific type of dynamic that must be built over time, whereas quality time is part of MANY dynamics I'd have with strangers, acquaintances, and friends.

 

So basically you are treating men as the the lowest common denominator -- you don't over invest in your own ways, because you don't want to accidentally invest in a lowest common denominator guy.

 

No, a guy could be VERY high quality (not the lowest common denominator, meaning out to only 'get' something) and yet not be someone I'm compatible enough to have sex with. I was always of the idea I'd rather keep sex out of it until I know the guy is all --- precisely NOT for the reason many people and this thread cite (that the guy might be a sleazeball -- that stuff is easy to spot) but because he may simply not be for me, and I might not be for him, and sex (to me) is like glue that keeps you stuck together, sometimes even after you realize those things and know you should move along.

 

But the wait filter doesn't get you higher quality men.

 

I actually think it does. Not because it weeds out 'bad guys' per se, but because it allows me (and many women and even many men have told me the same) to focus on key aspects of compatibility and make better choices, based out of something more permanent than lust.

 

As many posters have mentioned, some men can get sex somewhere else, and they will stick around because they want to conquer you. The longer you make them wait, the more they want to dominate. And when they get it, they will leave just the same.

 

Sure, but I've never been fooled by one of those. It's easy to tell if a guy wants to dominate/control you (which is really what that is, generally) or truly wants to get to know you and wants a serious R.

[fishtaco]

Ha I know. I don't even remember this.

 

Anyway, hope you don't mind zengirl. I'm not interested in re-reading this novel of a thread to remind myself what I was talking about. Although my large post seemed to have contributed to its novel-like characteristics.

 

We usually agree to disagree anyway.

[carhill]

I did re-read the whole novel thread to assist with clarity about a few things and thank the OP for bumping it up.

 

In the interim, the perspective and boundaries I described have worked well in general, as I'm not dating any more. They've kept me well clear of inappropriate friendship areas as well as real or ersatz MW's. I further refined my boundaries regarding proactive and authentic emotional intimacy and support and will use them if/when I ever date again. Good stuff. Thanks again

[Teal]

I might just be keen, but I've never met someone who was able to keep it up for more than a few weeks or who didn't have me highly suspicious within that time. I'm confident that the number of people who could keep it up long enough for the relationship to become sexual are very few indeed, and it's kind of like dealing with the ridiculously unlikely fact that I could be struck by lightning and die when I step outside tomorrow.

[zengirl]

Ha I know. I don't even remember this.

 

Anyway, hope you don't mind zengirl. I'm not interested in re-reading this novel of a thread to remind myself what I was talking about. Although my large post seemed to have contributed to its novel-like characteristics.

 

We usually agree to disagree anyway.

 

Oh, no I don't mind. I didn't re-read the thread. Just saw this, and figured I'd answer you. Disagreement that is respectful never bothers me, and I always find your POV interesting even when I disagree, fish.

[maybealone]

I never posted in this thread back in January, so I'll throw in my 2 cents now.

 

Someone once told me, "Once the clothes come off, all common sense goes out the window."

 

In my experience, that's true. The biggest issue, for me anyway, is that things that should be red flags get overlooked. So in a way, sex too soon can make the relationship seem better than it is.

 

So for me, it is not an issue of "making a man wait," it's an issue of needed to get to know someone, at least to some degree, before letting sex cloud my judgment.

[FredRutherford]

If I had a dollar for every time a guy said he "wanted a relationship", yet all he really wanted was sex, I would have ALOT of money now. Like in another thread I just described. When I was 19 I went out with a 26 year old co worker. He said he "wanted a relationship", yet dumped me coz I didn't have sex with him on the first date. What's the rush? I was attracted to him, but after that sleazy behaviour I wasn't. I just don't sleep with anyone, unlike alot of people.

I wanted a relationship, not just sex. I wanted to actually get to know this person- what people used to do.

 

The irony is if he had of waited, god forbid- dated me, got to know me and became my bf, I would've done anything for him. But because he couldn't get instant gratification, he got cut. That's where I find men dumb. There's nothing more I can't stand than a liar. In the end that was this guys loss. He passed up something that could've been good.

Well-stated.

There are guys out there that won't pressure a woman for sex early on... and maybe even take it slow before moving that way... which is fine as well...

[FredRutherford]

The biggest issue, for me anyway, is that things that should be red flags get overlooked.

 

So in a way, sex too soon can make the relationship seem better than it is.

 

So for me, it is not an issue of "making a man wait," it's an issue of needed to get to know someone, at least to some degree, before letting sex cloud my judgment.

Spot-on.

Getting too sexual too soon clouds one's judgement. Speakin' from experience here....

[carhill]

For some people, sex does not cloud their judgment. For them, psychologically, it's an enjoyable activity completely separate from attachments, relationships and emotional intimacy. It is possible for such people to incorporate the two if/when they cognitively choose to. Some forever keep the boxes separate. IME, there are no hard and fast rules. IMO, the important factor for ultimate health of a relationship is synergistic styles. For example, if one person is completely integrated and the other discretely boxed, there will be a marked imbalance and/or potential disruptions in the flow of intimacy in the relationship. When one person is feeling, the other is thinking. In my own M, this manifested as my exW viewing sex as fµcking, meaning a pleasurable physical activity, and myself viewing it as lovemaking, meaning an elemental expression of love. This style difference came out over a long period of time. I think both viewpoints/styles are valid but incompatible.

 

One aspect of 'get to know' before sexual activity is, for those who have a style of attaching sex to intimacy and love seamlessly, getting to know if/how their potential partner views the dynamic. Actions, over time, reveal truth. Obviously, as my anecdote indicates, getting to know can fail. In my case, it was my ignorance of this issue (the psychological nuances) which was the cause of our failure. As they say, life teaches lessons.

[joystickd]

We all never know the intentions of another person. Some people are patient enough to wait to get what they want.

[AncientEchos]

We all never know the intentions of another person. Some people are patient enough to wait to get what they want.

 

 

Sure, there will always be people who are willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want and use other people. I don't believe that is the norm though.

 

Back to the original point of the post where you believe women should have sex with men sooner rather than later simply because they may get dumped anyway. Look, if you want to date women who have sex very early on, then do so. If you don't want to wait for sex, then walk away from any woman who is not willing to have sex on your timeline. Easy! Keep in mind, just because a woman has sex with you in the early stages of dating doesn't mean she isn't using you. She could still be stringing you along waiting for the next bigger, better deal to come along.

 

Personally, I do take time to get to know a man before I have sex. For me, sex has never been a purely physical act, it involves the mind, the body and the soul. Sharing your body with another human being is the ultimate way to open yourself and share yourself with another person. I cannot do that with someone I barely know. I have dated men that I wanted to rip their clothes off on the first date, the attraction level was that strong. I still didn't have sex with them until I got to know them on a deeper level. I don't have to be in love, but I at least need to care about the guy. I have to achieve a certain level of intimacy before I share myself in a sexual way and I have never achieved that level of intimacy with a stranger. This is what works for me, if it doesn't work for the guy I am dating, he is free to walk away.

 

For the guys who are worried about being used for free dinners and entertainment, the solution is simple. Tell the woman up front that she needs to pay her own way on the dates or find free forms of entertainment. There are plenty of ways to spend time together that don't involve a large bill. Keep your precious pennies in the bank and find the free activities. Go fly a kite in the park, go for a hike, go to a craft fair, find out what days the museums in your area are free to get into for the day, take a walk downtown and look at the buildings, find a park that does free movies under the stars or free concerts under the stars, find the scenic or historical spots in your area that the you never go see. In other words, be creative and go explore your own backyard! There are so many ways to spend time together that don't cost you anything but your time.

[ktya]

I keep seeing the threads about waiting for sex but have you ever thought that if a man wanted sex with you bad enough he would wait

 

If a woman makes me wait an unreasonable amount of time or refuses and pulls the plug when it gets hot and heavy enough to lead to sex, I walk.

 

Part of a healthy relationship is a healthy, compatible sex life. A woman who is willing to use her vagina as leverage is no woman I want to be with.

 

I'll cite an example that makes me feel this way. A long time ago I was dating this Indian girl. She was beautiful, she would booty call me and show up at my house drunk. I was really in love with her. But she had this thing about no sex until marriage because of her family beleifs. I respected it and tried to go along with it because the makeout sessions with this girl were almost as good as the real thing.

 

A few months later after I stopped dating her (it was on again off again) I heard she had sex with another guy through the grapevine. All that waiting wasnt worth it in the end anyway.

[TXGuy]

If a woman makes me wait an unreasonable amount of time or refuses and pulls the plug when it gets hot and heavy enough to lead to sex, I walk.

 

Part of a healthy relationship is a healthy, compatible sex life. A woman who is willing to use her vagina as leverage is no woman I want to be with.

 

I agree. A woman who uses sex as leverage to get what she wants early in a relation ship (often under the guise of 'getting to know you better') is almost certainly going to pull out that tool throughout the relationship. You can count on sex being pulled off the table anytime you displease her in the future. That is not LTR material and a guy serious about finding a good long term prospect should look elsewhere if a woman uses the prospect to get her way.

[JourneyLady]

1. I want to get to know him enough to be sure we are mostly compatible.

2. I want to know that I can trust him.

3. I want to be decently sure he isn't sleeping with others.

4. I want to be sure we will be exclusive.

5. Of course there's the attraction factor or I wouldn't date him.

6. IF I happen to be dating others (unlikely - I'm a one date at a time mostly)

I want to weed it down to one first.

7. I want to be sure he is at least likely to want a committed relationship with me.

8. Lastly... I want it to be a special night I won't feel bad about remembering,

not just a quick roll in the hay.

 

It seems like a lot of criteria maybe, but if you've been dating for two or three months or longer, most of these have probably been met.

 

I used to jump in to soon and my ex-bf just stuck with me because of the ease of sex he probably would not have had as much of if we hadn't been together. So there's that... he stayed with me for the sex (and maybe a bit of vice versa)...

 

More recently was the guy who "said" we were exclusive... but he was still looking. I feel I gave it up too soon in his case, because he turned out to be untrustworthy.

 

The next guy I am intimate with, I'd like it to be on a moonlit night with a nice meal and dessert afterwards. Having that glow means never feeling ashamed of letting it out and then finding you are wrong about the person.

 

Hurrried quick "giving it up" is crass and not as special as sex deserves... from both sides. Romance separates us from the animals...

[atlg8r]

Douchebags can wait if they are having sex with another women.

 

You must really date some idiot women, based on your posts.