Emilia Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 Yes, I agree. But the way he expressed it is that that's the only acceptable way for a woman not to have sex early on. What's gonna happen later if she gets an illness? He'll dump her because she's not entertaining enough? I think people post glib comments for effect sometimes. You can take it seriously only to a degree
RedRobin Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 People who go with it when they feel sexual are in NO way less likely to have love and relationships in their lives than those who won't. That is different than saying that a woman has to have sex by the third date or sooner (even if they are a stranger) or else she isn't interested. ... and we'll just have to agree to disagree about the timing thing. If BOTH people are already relationship oriented, then I imagine that early(er) sex may not change anything. If they aren't relationship oriented, or are not looking for one, I'd say odds are less likely that early sex will end up in a relationship... since there is really no way to know in advance... I advise those looking for a relationship to wait. If they aren't... then when sex happens is of no consequence. Correct. Let's look at it this way... ratio of sex partners to LTR... mine is pretty even. My record is nearly 1/1 or 100%... meaning that nearly all of the men I have slept with ended up in a relationship lasting a year or more... Now, let's compare the ratio of those who have lots of casual sex and their ratio. 10 partners and one LTR = 1/10 = 10% 25 partners and one LTR = 1/25 = 4% 50 partners and one LTR = 1/50 = 2% What does that mean? That means that, among those who have higher partners, the odds that their next partner will end up in a LTR is substantially less than the person who tends to wait... ...oh, ok... who tends to wait AND is able to maintain a LTR. This is not rocket science. 1
therhythm Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 How about the 3-date RULE? The 3 date rule is not even a rule and it is MY preference and I said 3 like I could have said 2 o 7... I mean early in the relationship... I am not imposing anything to anyone with it... I am a very sexual person and I like passion and to be sexually desired ... what is wrong with that? It is MY point of view, and is what the OP has requested ... our points of view... Have you seen me saying something like "waiting to have sex is going to lead you to bad sex" or "waiting to have sex is just a control game".... That are sentences that try to distinguish other people's approach to relationships... and they are not correct because simply people have different approach to everything in life and sex is one of them!
Emilia Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 10 partners and one LTR = 1/10 = 10% 25 partners and one LTR = 1/25 = 4% 50 partners and one LTR = 1/50 = 2% What does that mean? That means that, among those who have higher partners, the odds that their next partner will end up in a LTR is substantially less than the person who tends to wait... ...oh, ok... who tends to wait AND is able to maintain a LTR. This is not rocket science. ... but by the same logic as the other person who waits isn't likely to put out therefore there will be no LTR anyway? 3
Mme. Chaucer Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 And it's annoying because such people simply waste the LTR-oriented people's time, most of the times, by promoting their own lifestyle and making the serious LTR-people feel that there's something wrong with them if they wait. I don't really think that's true. I thought about this a bit, and I realized that MY personal perspective and pattern was just about the polar opposite from what you and RR are expressing. I was never promiscuous. It was uncommon for me to feel like having sex with somebody was the right thing for me to do. That was for a reason. When I was wary sexually, I had doubts. Maybe a few, maybe big red flags. When I did get around to having sex with someone, it was for very good reasons of my own, and you know what? I NEVER regretted. I did get my feelings hurt once or twice, but I took a risk and still, many years later, feel that it was a worthwhile risk to have taken. My sexuality, emotions, intuition and intellectual brain are all tied up. So, for me, the feeling of wanting to have sex with somebody and doing it was closely tied to a certainty that this was "right." The only way "time" (as in either 3 date rules, or "making them wait," which are equal IMO) came into it was in the sense that I was not a sexually impulsive person … due to inherent shyness and modesty, which would not be thrown off with new people easily. So, especially after I quit drinking, I had to wait until I was very comfortable. Which varied. Not because I thought that waiting longer would be a better guarantee of future outcome. 2
somedude81 Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 Ten dates seems like a super long time to wait. Honestly I think the key factor is how long we've known each other. If we met at a club and date one was a week later, or we met on OLD and date one was the first time we saw each other; then I'll be more comfortable waiting a longer period of time. Though if we met in school or work or some other function and have known each other for a couple of months or more, it doesn't make any sense to have two to three months of dating to finally have sex. It really shouldn't take 5 months to decide if you can trust somebody.
silvermercy Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 The 3 date rule is not even a rule and it is MY preference and I said 3 like I could have said 2 o 7... I mean early in the relationship... I am not imposing anything to anyone with it... I am a very sexual person and I like passion and to be sexually desired ... what is wrong with that? It is MY point of view, and is what the OP has requested ... our points of view... Have you seen me saying something like "waiting to have sex is going to lead you to bad sex" or "waiting to have sex is just a control game".... That are sentences that try to distinguish other people's approach to relationships... and they are not correct because simply people have different approach to everything in life and sex is one of them! To me it looked like a universally unfair rule: "Have sex early in the relationship or else... I'm dumping you and moving on. To hell if we are compatible in everything else". This is reflected in the OP's post: that these "rules" exist. And these posts serve as "advice" to the OP or they wouldn't be posted here.
Emilia Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 To me it looked like a universally unfair rule: "Have sex early in the relationship or else... I'm dumping you and moving on. To hell if we are compatible in everything else". but this is just another measurement of compatibility, isn't it? It's like arguing that you want to have children when the other person says they don't. Surely shared values that matter so if they don't wait it means you are not compatible. Why is that a problem? 1
ASG Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 How about the 3-date RULE? What rule? Speaking for myself (and I'm one of the people saying I wouldn't wait) I don't have a rule. Sex might happen on the first date. Hell, it might even happen before there is any kind of date. I doesn't have to be by the 3rd date or whatever. But if it doesn't happen soon, then it means we're not meant to be. This is the way *I* view things. 1
silvermercy Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 Ten dates seems like a super long time to wait. Honestly I think the key factor is how long we've known each other. If we met at a club and date one was a week later, or we met on OLD and date one was the first time we saw each other; then I'll be more comfortable waiting a longer period of time. Though if we met in school or work or some other function and have known each other for a couple of months or more, it doesn't make any sense to have two to three months of dating to finally have sex. It really shouldn't take 5 months to decide if you can trust somebody. I think that's a fundamental difference indeed. It should be taken into account when advising people. I would even go to say that if you know someone for a year then 3 dates would be more acceptable. Because you KNOW each other. But a practical stranger who might have murdered his own mom the night before? I seriously don't know how people do that... 1
silvermercy Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 What rule? Speaking for myself (and I'm one of the people saying I wouldn't wait) I don't have a rule. Sex might happen on the first date. Hell, it might even happen before there is any kind of date. I doesn't have to be by the 3rd date or whatever. But if it doesn't happen soon, then it means we're not meant to be. This is the way *I* view things. What you're describing sounds like a rule to me.
Mme. Chaucer Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 To me it looked like a universally unfair rule: "Have sex early in the relationship or else... I'm dumping you and moving on. To hell if we are compatible in everything else". But … the perspective you've just described is that of a coercive creep. It's not a question of "waiting" or not, it's a question of a person putting pressure on another person to do what THEY want and to abandon their own values, feelings, etc. Anyone who does that is an ass and I feel for whomever gets involved with them. But sexual compatibility is very important to a successful relationship for MANY people. And it seems to cement bonding for many of us too, including men. Exploring all of that when the time is right for BOTH people is positive, IMO. All you have to do is to be true to yourself. If you do not feel like having sex with a new guy in your life, I really think you should NOT. I don't think that "waiting" has anything to do with whether a relationship actually happens or not. Nor do I think that promiscuous sex has anything to do with it. When people connect in the way that means that they can forge a life together, when they first had sex is not that much of a thing. 2
therhythm Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 To me it looked like a universally unfair rule: "Have sex early in the relationship or else... I'm dumping you and moving on. To hell if we are compatible in everything else". This is reflected in the OP's post: that these "rules" exist. And these posts serve as "advice" to the OP or they wouldn't be posted here. No one is telling you to don't give advise... I am the first one to say to OP that she should wait to have sex till she feels comfortable! I also told her that if someone try to push her for sex she should not allow it and dump his ass... pushing someone for sex is disgusting! But since OP asked about our approach I said that I need to feel physical and sexual desire (chemistry) early on in the relationship... If by then she is not as willing to have sex with me as I am with her... I move on... You can always give positive advise by saying what you would do... but criticizing what others do just make you look a judgmental person who believes possess the only truth... 3
KathyM Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 The good thing about waiting is that you weed out the losers who are only interested in sex. You also enable the relationship to be built on an emotional connection, rather than just a chemical one. My husband respected my wish to wait, even though he came from a country where waiting is not the norm, because he valued me and respected my values. He showed himself to be relationship material by respecting my wishes on this, and we've been happily married now for many years. I never regretted waiting, and enjoyed getting to know the real person on an emotional and intellectual level. The previous boyfriend I had before him I dumped because he pressured me for sex. 2
ASG Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 What you're describing sounds like a rule to me. Yes, I do have an "early" rule. But early can be lots of things. If we're going out every day of the week, it might even be date 7 or 8! But usually, as someone mentioned earlier, a "date" is something that tends to happen once a week. I'm not waiting 14 weeks to sleep with someone. I'm just NOT. But I don't have a 3rd date rule. I don't go into a 3rd date thinking "this is it. If we don't have sex now, it's over". But if it's still not any closer to happening in the next couple of dates, then it's probably not going to work out. Someone mentioned that there would be kissing and making out... Well, I don't do kissing and making out and stop before sex. That's not true. If it's the first time we're kissing and making out, then yes, I do accept stopping before sex. But if it keeps happening, then I will expect sex to follow fairly quickly. I don't like getting "blue balls" and my teenage years are past me. And if there isn't any kissing and making out... then they'll be friendzoned, because, like I said before, guys I go out with 10 times or more and don't have sex with are my friends. And I have a fair amount of those. They're great! But I don't get into relationships with them. 1
silvermercy Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 But … the perspective you've just described is that of a coercive creep. It's not a question of "waiting" or not, it's a question of a person putting pressure on another person to do what THEY want and to abandon their own values, feelings, etc. Anyone who does that is an ass and I feel for whomever gets involved with them. But sexual compatibility is very important to a successful relationship for MANY people. And it seems to cement bonding for many of us too, including men. Exploring all of that when the time is right for BOTH people is positive, IMO. All you have to do is to be true to yourself. If you do not feel like having sex with a new guy in your life, I really think you should NOT. I don't think that "waiting" has anything to do with whether a relationship actually happens or not. Nor do I think that promiscuous sex has anything to do with it. When people connect in the way that means that they can forge a life together, when they first had sex is not that much of a thing. I don't understand this?? They will be pressuring me to "cement" the "relationship" with sex but then I will be the one devastated if this "relationship" doesn't work out in the end! For them it will be nothing important but for me it would be an emotionally devastating experience! If I tried to conform to this notion of early sex that people seem to insist these days (for checking sexual compatibility FIRST) I would be totally destroyed emotionally! Not only that, but I would have also abandoned my own values, feelings to do the "right" thing. Simply because they couldn't be bothered to wait 4 or 5 more dates without sex...
Emilia Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 I don't understand this?? They will be pressuring me to "cement" the "relationship" with sex but then I will be the one devastated if this "relationship" doesn't work out in the end! For them it will be nothing important but for me it would be an emotionally devastating experience! If I tried to conform to this notion of early sex that people seem to insist these days (for checking sexual compatibility FIRST) I would be totally destroyed emotionally! Not only that, but I would have also abandoned my own values, feelings to do the "right" thing. Simply because they couldn't be bothered to wait 4 or 5 more dates without sex... I don't think anyone is implying that you should do what upsets or hurts you. 1
silvermercy Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 I don't think anyone is implying that you should do what upsets or hurts you. They sure do!
Southern Cal Dude Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 What you're describing sounds like a rule to me. Rule #1 in life- there are no rules.
Emilia Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 They sure do! No we are giving our point of view. Why do you see it as pressure? You didn't reply to my post about the different values thing.
silvermercy Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 No we are giving our point of view. Why do you see it as pressure? You didn't reply to my post about the different values thing. See post right above me... Another example... I mean... Seriously? Bail-time? What do you mean by different values??
Emilia Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 See post right above me... I mean... Seriously? Bail-time? What do you mean by different values?? my post on the previous page: "but this is just another measurement of compatibility, isn't it? It's like arguing that you want to have children when the other person says they don't. Surely shared values that matter so if they don't wait it means you are not compatible. Why is that a problem? "
ASG Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 I don't understand this?? They will be pressuring me to "cement" the "relationship" with sex but then I will be the one devastated if this "relationship" doesn't work out in the end! For them it will be nothing important but for me it would be an emotionally devastating experience! If I tried to conform to this notion of early sex that people seem to insist these days (for checking sexual compatibility FIRST) I would be totally destroyed emotionally! Not only that, but I would have also abandoned my own values, feelings to do the "right" thing. Simply because they couldn't be bothered to wait 4 or 5 more dates without sex... Did you actually *read* the post? I said YOU should do what YOU feel is right. And neither YOU nor the OTHER person should put pressure on sex. If you want to wait, then you better find someone who also wants to wait. What Mme Chaucer was saying was, it's not fair for me to pressure a guy into sex, but it's also not fair of a guy who want to wait to make me wait. We're not compatible, so it's time to move on. That is what is being said here. Do what you want, but accept that some people will view things differently and, as such, will not be compatible with you! 2
kaylan Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 This is such a silly thread. Just find someone with the same beliefs as you. Sometimes its hard, sometimes you get lucky and its not. But as someone said earlier, Ive known even the more conservative girls to want to get it in quickly with a guy they are very attracted to. Id personally want to have sex within the first 6 weeks of dating. Id rather not invest more time than that. Why get attached to someone I may not have the right chemistry with in bed or who may have a different sexual appetite than I? 3
silvermercy Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 my post on the previous page: "but this is just another measurement of compatibility, isn't it? It's like arguing that you want to have children when the other person says they don't. Surely shared values that matter so if they don't wait it means you are not compatible. Why is that a problem? " I agree that we're not compatible. It's a great indication actually. They will be doing me a favor if they bail out early on to be honest. As I said before, it gets annoying for people looking seriously for LTRs that other people (supposedly looking for LTR, too) place more importance on sexual chemistry FIRST rather than personality. Someone who is trully looking for an LTR will be looking at personality first by default. (Not saying that chemistry is not important, but if I was basing everything on that FIRST, I would have serious problems maintaining an LTR). 1
Recommended Posts