KathyM Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Here is a study that shows that delaying sex in a relationship makes for a more lasting and solid relationship. It shows that couples who have sex too early on before an emotional connection is established end up breaking up a lot more often than couples who delay a sexual relationship. Delaying Sex Makes Better Relationships, Study Finds | LiveScience 2
clia Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 What a sad thread. This poor guy wanted to know you in person longer than two weeks before having sex with you and you think something is wrong with him? Ugh. Don't worry, I'm sure there are plenty of women out there who will appreciate a guy like that. 2
kaylan Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 lol guys dont get much more benefit of the doubt than women when it comes to waiting for sex. Girls can bail just as quickly as men. I could share a story about one ex-chick friend I used to date who tried to get with me because her new guy wasnt putting out yet, but thatd just make some posters even more disenchanted with dating. Ill save the details, but long story short, I kept her at bay because I dont condone cheating...and we are no longer friends because of a related matter.
Author dsw31 Posted July 7, 2013 Author Posted July 7, 2013 He texted me this morning saying he is sorry that things didnt work out between us & that he never meant to reject me or make me feel bad.He said sorry that I can't wait for sex.He said he loves sex too but he was just trying to refrain from sex because he actually cares about me & wanted to do things differently this time.I told him that I am sorry to & I think I left yesterday because I wanted to reject him before he could reject me & I said I am sad & regret it.I said I wish we could just start over & take things even slower. Then he said he never meant to hurt me,that's why he wanted to wait & he said I am beautiful & he never wanted to hurt me.He said he always ends up hurting himself or others & he is sorry. I didn't hear anything back for about 30 minutes so I texted him that I also wanted to tell him that I respect him even more for being strong & having self awareness & for trying to do thing differently.I told him I just couldnt grasp it at the time.I asked him is that it then? He said he would hope we could move past this. I said me too.I am sorry for acting childish.I am working on my communication. And that was it.....I really hope we can work this out. 1
Author dsw31 Posted July 7, 2013 Author Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Oh wait...he texted me back again.He said he is also trying to work on his communication.He said he felt so stupid yesterday when I was leaving that he didnt know what to say about how he was feeling. I replied that I am sorry he felt dumb & it was all my fault.I told him I am an imbecile sometimes & I'm glad we are still talking.I told him that I hope we can just get better & better from here on out & that I am sorry. I'll keep you guys posted but I think we may have a chance.I sure hope so anyway.Thanks for all the replies & support! Edited July 7, 2013 by dsw31 2
kaylan Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Im getting the filling that even if you guys make it to sexy time, I doubt there will be much chemistry or compatibility there. The guy comes off awkward and inexperienced in my view.
RedRobin Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Here is a study that shows that delaying sex in a relationship makes for a more lasting and solid relationship. It shows that couples who have sex too early on before an emotional connection is established end up breaking up a lot more often than couples who delay a sexual relationship. Delaying Sex Makes Better Relationships, Study Finds | LiveScience I especially love this part... "Curiously, almost 40 percent of couples are essentially sexual within the first or second time they go out, but we suspect that if you asked these same couples at this early stage of their relationship – 'Do you trust this person to watch your pet for a weekend many could not answer this in the affirmative' – meaning they are more comfortable letting people into their bodies than they are with them watching their cat," Busby said." Yep "He added that those couples who wait to be sexual have time to figure out how trustworthy their partner is, how well they communicate, and whether they share the same values in life..." Which is what some of us have been saying for awhile.... Sounds like the guy in this thread is making some positive changes in how he approaches relationships. Hopefully he and the OP can move forward with better communication... Edited July 7, 2013 by RedRobin 2
ThaWholigan Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Here is a study that shows that delaying sex in a relationship makes for a more lasting and solid relationship. It shows that couples who have sex too early on before an emotional connection is established end up breaking up a lot more often than couples who delay a sexual relationship. Delaying Sex Makes Better Relationships, Study Finds | LiveScience There's no related study on whether the sex between the couples was any good or not . That's going to be a worry at some point. Some people don't wanna wait all that time and be underwhelmed 1
KathyM Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 There's no related study on whether the sex between the couples was any good or not . That's going to be a worry at some point. Some people don't wanna wait all that time and be underwhelmed Actually, the study said that the couples that waited reported that they were more satisfied with the quality of their sex life than those that had sex early on.
ThaWholigan Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Actually, the study said that the couples that waited reported that they were more satisfied with the quality of their sex life than those that had sex early on. Interesting......maybe they had more scope for an emotional/mental element to their sex lives before physical. Having said that, I do not think this works for everybody - I do think there are some who are inherently more physical than others in a variety of ways, and although a waiting period may be beneficial for some of them against their nature, it wouldn't guarantee success.
salparadise Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Ofcourse I can care about him as a person.I'm just afraid of rejection & abandonment & I think he is too & I was afraid from the start because we are so similiar in that aspect.Having BPD means you dump someone before they can dump you.I'm just sad cause he was the first guy I've actually been into in a very long time. He said that usually what happens is that after sex he never talks to the woman again. That's fear of engulfment. He knows he'll get attached and is afraid of losing control, losing himself, so he rejects or runs away after sex. He said he doesn't want that to happen. You said you have fear of rejection/abandonment and your tactic is to reject first to avoid being rejected. Normally I wouldn't give a relationship between two BPDs much of a chance because of too much similarity. Each is looking to fill a void, but the problem is they have the same void and neither has any surplus of that particular area to fill the other's void. So the BPD will usually be a fit with some who does have an abundance of what they lack... that would be the narcissist. They sort of become the yen for each other's yang, complementary and compatible in their unique sort of way. But since the two of you are opposites with regard to the abandonment/engulfment fears, perhaps there will be enough offset in the overall needs to make it work out. Hope so. Best of luck.
KathyM Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Interesting......maybe they had more scope for an emotional/mental element to their sex lives before physical. Having said that, I do not think this works for everybody - I do think there are some who are inherently more physical than others in a variety of ways, and although a waiting period may be beneficial for some of them against their nature, it wouldn't guarantee success. Waiting doesn't guarantee a more successful relationship, but it makes it much more likely than if you didn't wait.
BradJacobs Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Actually, the study said that the couples that waited reported that they were more satisfied with the quality of their sex life than those that had sex early on. No mention whether this was due to waiting for sex or due to sexual activity decreasing in frequency. If you're used to starving then most foods taste like great banquets. If you feast in the beginning and then go through a period of famine ... well you miss the feasts. There are way too many variables at play that this study did not consider or, if they did, are not included in the article linked above.
ThaWholigan Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Waiting doesn't guarantee a more successful relationship, but it makes it much more likely than if you didn't wait. So the study says. I'm not so sure this is a rule for everyone though..... Maybe a majority, I don't know.
PlumPrincess Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 I especially love this part... "Curiously, almost 40 percent of couples are essentially sexual within the first or second time they go out, but we suspect that if you asked these same couples at this early stage of their relationship – 'Do you trust this person to watch your pet for a weekend many could not answer this in the affirmative' – meaning they are more comfortable letting people into their bodies than they are with them watching their cat," Busby said." My example was lending a guy after a couple of meetings money, like 10 000 Dollars. Maybe too much, but what about 100 Dollars? If you don't trust someone enough to do this, you shouldn't be sleeping with them. They might have all kinds of diseases they didn't tell you, they might be married, with girlfriends, unstable mentally, etc. You think you know that person, because you're in love (or lust), but if you make an objective assessment, you would have to admit that you don't. 1
KathyM Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 waiting works but society frowns upon it and especially has it in for the inexperienced. Not really. There are plenty of women out there who would not mind at all if the man was not a manwhore, and had fewer sexual partners. In fact, many prefer a man who hasn't slept around a lot. Here is one woman's opinion on the subject. I think a lot of women would agree with her. [COLOR=#0066cc] [/COLOR] by Seeker of truth Member since:January 22, 2011Total points:788 (Level 2) Add ContactBlock Best Answer - Chosen by Asker First off, most women can smell low self esteem or lack of confidence from miles away and THAT is whats unattractive to us. Not the fact that you are "inexperienced" and in fact, unless you said something or acted that way (unconfident) we would never know the difference. You may be misjudging yourself, some woman might think you are decent in the sack and never know about your experience. You just need to find the right type of woman, a woman who isnt going to give two sh*ts if its been awhile. My husband is 27. When we met, he hadnt slept with a woman in over 2 years and had only ever been with 2 woman and only had sex with them a handful of times. Yeah he needed some practice to get into the groove of things, but i was understanding and in fact i found his sexually inexperience to be very attractive. I liked the fact that he wasnt a man-whore, i liked the fact the had only been with a couple women and I liked the fact that the reason for that was the same as yours, he couldnt just bang a chick, he needed an emotional connection, he needed to FEEL something before giving himself to someone and that said a lot to me about the type of person he was. For some women, we look at an sexually inexperienced man as someone that can be easily trained to fit our sexual tastes, and that is a plus.
kaylan Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 so what so what so what Um...chemistry matters. Thats what.
IHateHypocrites Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 I'm 43 with no history of sex or long term relationships and have been turned down 25 times for lack of experience. even religious women have done so. You have only approached 25 times in your entire life, up to 43? Or was there more approaches, but rejections for other reasons?
KathyM Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 No mention whether this was due to waiting for sex or due to sexual activity decreasing in frequency. If you're used to starving then most foods taste like great banquets. If you feast in the beginning and then go through a period of famine ... well you miss the feasts. There are way too many variables at play that this study did not consider or, if they did, are not included in the article linked above. We don't know all the variables used in the study, we just know that the study found that people that had sex early on reported having a less satisfying relationship overall and were less satisfied with their sexual relationship with their partner than those who waited to have sex with their partner.
kaylan Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 yet you have made fun of my situation and referred to women using an unflattering term. Whats that have to do with chemistry? And I trolled you because you mentioned that I wasnt being civil earlier, when I in fact was. So I wanted to give you a perfect example of me when I choose not to be civil. Hence my earlier jokes. Other regulars here will tell you, I can be a stubborn d!ck when I want to. But for the most part I do try and present my viewpoints without attacking folks.
KathyM Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 I'm 43 with no history of sex or long term relationships and have been turned down 25 times for lack of experience. even religious women have done so. Your lack of ever having a long term relationship at the age of 43 is probably the red flag that these women are turning you down for.
kaylan Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Your lack of ever having a long term relationship at the age of 43 is probably the red flag that these women are turning you down for. Kathy, come on now. Lets be real with the guy. Its def the lack of sex. Though Im sure many women would have reservations about a guy whos never had an LTR, Im very sure that many would give a 43 year old man a chance if his situation was that he slept with 15 women and had no LTRs. Once a guy gets over a certain age, women are very cautious about virgins and expect a guy to know his way around a womans body. Nevermind the pressure of a man being a virgin can put on a woman. I normally dont advocate lying, but Im very conflicted in situations like this. Edited July 7, 2013 by kaylan
BradJacobs Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 We don't know all the variables used in the study, we just know that the study found that people that had sex early on reported having a less satisfying relationship overall and were less satisfied with their sexual relationship with their partner than those who waited to have sex with their partner. 2000+ heterosexual individuals. Average age was 36. First marriages (and it specifically mentioned this so they weren't even considering subsequent marriages) only. Three categories were created. Early sex = before dating up to one month. Late sex = one month up to marriage. Marriage only = self explanatory. If you found out that out of the 2000 individuals only 20 were marriage only types and they were within the first two years of their marriage would this effect how skeptical of their results you are?
KathyM Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Kathy, come on now. Lets be real with the guy. Its def the lack of sex. Though Im sure many women would have reservations about a guy whos never had an LTR, Im very sure that many would give a 43 year old man a chance if his situation was that he slept with 15 women and had no LTRs. Once a guy gets over a certain age, women are very cautious about virgins and expect a guy to know his way around a womans body. Nevermind the pressure of a man being a virgin can put on a woman. I normally dont advocate lying, but Im very conflicted in situations like this. It will be a lot more of a concern for a woman that the guy has never been in a relationship. A manwhore that has slept around until 43 years old but never had an actual relationship with someone is not appealing in any way. 1
Titania22 Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 My example was lending a guy after a couple of meetings money, like 10 000 Dollars. Maybe too much, but what about 100 Dollars? If you don't trust someone enough to do this, you shouldn't be sleeping with them. They might have all kinds of diseases they didn't tell you, they might be married, with girlfriends, unstable mentally, etc. You think you know that person, because you're in love (or lust), but if you make an objective assessment, you would have to admit that you don't. Well then I would never have sex with anyone. I already learnt the hard way, never lend money to anyone, either give it away or don't. No mention whether this was due to waiting for sex or due to sexual activity decreasing in frequency. If you're used to starving then most foods taste like great banquets. If you feast in the beginning and then go through a period of famine ... well you miss the feasts. There are way too many variables at play that this study did not consider or, if they did, are not included in the article linked above. This is a good point. Also, possibly some people don't want to admit (possibly even to themselves) the sex isn't wonderful, after they have already invested so much and have an attachment to their partner. Or they will make justifications, why it's good enough. It's not very popular to admit that you don't really like the sex with someone, especially when you are staying with them. It would also seem quite rude, to spend all this time getting attached to someone and then dump them right after sex. Many people in the world care about how other people see them, and want to fit in. For those people what's the benefit in being 100% honest, even with themselves.
Recommended Posts