Jump to content

What are your views on this?


While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!

Recommended Posts

Posted
Yes. But are you all REALLY faulting him for the first attempt?

 

She accepted an invitation over to his house. 99% of guys are gonna make a move. She says no, it should be done then.

 

I'm really baffled by the amount of women saying he should not even have made a move. Yet she basically accepted a "netflix and chill" date... :o

 

OP still has not answered my questions. The second move/attempt from the guy was terrible, and he was wrong for that, and she was correct in leaving. But i'm really kind of surprised at the reaction to his initial attempts

 

The OP specifically told him, when he asked her to come over, that she was not ready for anything physical. He specifically answered that he just wanted to eat and hang out. So yes, the first attempt was wrong no matter how you try to defend it. She didn't leave any ambiguity there, and he shouldn't be saying one thing and doing the complete opposite.

  • Like 11
Posted
Yes. But are you all REALLY faulting him for the first attempt?

 

She accepted an invitation over to his house. 99% of guys are gonna make a move. She says no, it should be done then.

 

I'm really baffled by the amount of women saying he should not even have made a move. Yet she basically accepted a "netflix and chill" date... :o

 

OP still has not answered my questions. The second move/attempt from the guy was terrible, and he was wrong for that, and she was correct in leaving. But i'm really kind of surprised at the reaction to his initial attempts

 

I'm not sure anyone is "faulting" him for the first move. Even the OP give him a pass on that, otherwise, the second one wouldn't have occurred.

 

However, she did tell him before going there she didn't want to get physical, so really, he shouldn't have even tried the first time and she should have left on the first attempt. She blurred things too. She said no physical involvement, made out with him, declined attempt to go further and then had to decline a second attempt.

 

If no means no, and she should have left after the first attempt really. No means no and none . . . no making out either. Making out is physical contact and she made an imaginary line for herself and he was not privy to that. "I told him I didn't want to get physical, but I'll make out with him and hope he reads my mind that that's as far as I want to go or that that's not considered physical contact in my mind".

 

It's kinda like the Clinton debacle -- "I did not have sex with that woman . . . I just let her give me a bl*w j*b . . . "

Posted

I didn't read any mutual make-out-ery in ES's OP.

 

Anyway, you go there and he attempts to make out and more. You stop him and go back to talking and hanging out. He tries making out and taking it further the second time; as in taking your top off. You stop him and at this point just go home. He continues to text and so on as if everything is fine.

 

Anyway I'm puzzled by this notion of entitlement some ppl seem to have ....you're not entitled to lie about your intent to someone, even once. The notion that an invite to someone's house means sth other than what's stated is very juvenile and practiced only by ppl who either are or wish they were still in school and have that mentality and that level of maturity. Grown-ups don't do this stuff.

  • Like 6
Posted

So Eternal, it isn't clear to me. Are you saying he tried to make out the first time and you stopped him, as in no making out even started?

 

And are you saying the 2nd time he tried to make out, and before any kissing began he tried to take your top off??

 

If that is what happened, i would say he is extremely aggressive.

 

In fact, if that is what happened, and I will likely be stoned for saying this from some guys, it would legally be considered sexual assault.

  • Like 2
Posted
Honestly, if you tell a guy upfront that you don't want to get physical and he tries to anyway (regardless of where you are) he's a pervert and a loser. If he tries and you have to stop him multiple times, that's borderline sexual assault.

 

Men of quality don't do things like that. You can go over to his house and tell him you just want to talk and that's all that will happen because he respects your boundaries.

 

I don't believe this is a thing that all men do, just the wack ones that nobody wants anyway. You can go to a guy's place and not have sex, you just have to find a decent man.

 

Yes and thank you thank you thank you! I just started reading this thread and the first few replies had me thinking I had entered the twilight zone. Throwback to the days when women were blamed for being sexually assaulted. "if you didn't want that attention, why were you dressed like that? Why were out alone at that time of night? Why did you do this and why did you do that? blah blah blah.

 

 

the first replies seem to imply that the OP knew he wanted sex and so just by accepting his invitation she was asking for his unwanted sexual advances, except she had a frank upfront conversation with him and he agreed to just eat and be a gentleman. How is it okay that he outright lied to her to get her into his house and how is it okay to blame the OP for this azzh*le's behaviour? Are we still in the days of thinking men simply can't act like civilized human beings around women? That they are not in control of their actions when an attractive women is in their presence and whatever manipulations and tactics they use to bed women is A-Okay because they are poor helpless men simply driven by their hormones?

 

 

It is not okay that this guy didn't keep his word. It's not the OP's fault and she wasn't asking for it because she should have known that men can't control themselves and act like respectful adults. Some of these replies really got me worked up because it's like turning back the clock 50 or so years.

  • Like 4
Posted

he's a pig :|

you told him no, so he should have respected that!

it doesnt matter that you went to his home, it's not your fault. you agreed to eat, not to remove your shirts!

  • Like 1
Posted
Its all about choices. We all have choices to make in life and those are as they are.

 

If you do not want to take drugs or get involved in the drugs scene then you don't go to places where there are drugs nor do you socialise with drug takers...

 

 

 

 

Same principles apply here. When dating goes behind closed doors clothes start hitting floors... Its that simple. You want your clothes on then keep to public places... except for nudist beaches... :D

 

I have had friends that are drug users, yet I do not take drugs nor am I part of the drug scene. I am no spring chicken and so far none of my drug using friends have forced their drugs on me.

 

 

I would probably not be going to a man's house until I had developed a sense of trust for him simply because I am cautious that way but this notion that every man is going to act like an animal the moment he's alone with a woman is simply not true.

Posted

In a perfect world us women should be able to walk down the street naked without being attacked or sexually harassed....BUT the reality is, it is not a perfect world regardless of your option that women shouldn't have to worry about the possibility of being hit on, etc. The threat is very real no matter how you slice it. It's about protecting yourself and avoiding the situation.

 

You can get pissy all you want about the comments, it will not change the fact that there are a lot of men who still will find any opportunity to prey on women, ruining it for others,..... You just can't be oblivious to it.

  • Like 5
Posted
Yes and thank you thank you thank you! I just started reading this thread and the first few replies had me thinking I had entered the twilight zone. Throwback to the days when women were blamed for being sexually assaulted. "if you didn't want that attention, why were you dressed like that? Why were out alone at that time of night? Why did you do this and why did you do that? blah blah blah.

 

 

the first replies seem to imply that the OP knew he wanted sex and so just by accepting his invitation she was asking for his unwanted sexual advances, except she had a frank upfront conversation with him and he agreed to just eat and be a gentleman. How is it okay that he outright lied to her to get her into his house and how is it okay to blame the OP for this azzh*le's behaviour? Are we still in the days of thinking men simply can't act like civilized human beings around women? That they are not in control of their actions when an attractive women is in their presence and whatever manipulations and tactics they use to bed women is A-Okay because they are poor helpless men simply driven by their hormones?

 

 

It is not okay that this guy didn't keep his word. It's not the OP's fault and she wasn't asking for it because she should have known that men can't control themselves and act like respectful adults. Some of these replies really got me worked up because it's like turning back the clock 50 or so years.

 

It's not about fault, it's about accepting the reality that some men will force themselves on a woman or attempt to become sexual with them and not putting oneself in a position for that to happen. And, you can't know which ones will or which ones won't, who will lie and who won't. Which is a primary reason for not going to any man's house until you have had a chance to get to know them. Yeah, he was wrong, yet it could have been avoided that's all. A woman needs to hold herself accountable for her safety.

 

Everyone thinks this guy was wrong.

 

Are we still in the days of thinking men simply can't act like civilized human beings around women? -- There's this guy . . .

Posted
I'm not sure anyone is "faulting" him for the first move. Even the OP give him a pass on that, otherwise, the second one wouldn't have occurred.

 

However, she did tell him before going there she didn't want to get physical, so really, he shouldn't have even tried the first time and she should have left on the first attempt. She blurred things too. She said no physical involvement, made out with him, declined attempt to go further and then had to decline a second attempt.

 

If no means no, and she should have left after the first attempt really. No means no and none . . . no making out either. Making out is physical contact and she made an imaginary line for herself and he was not privy to that. "I told him I didn't want to get physical, but I'll make out with him and hope he reads my mind that that's as far as I want to go or that that's not considered physical contact in my mind".

 

It's kinda like the Clinton debacle -- "I did not have sex with that woman . . . I just let her give me a bl*w j*b . . . "

 

 

I do not see these blurry lines you are talking about. First of all the OP never said she made out with the guy, she says she pushed him away the first time. But even if she was making out with him, even if she was sticking her tongue down his throat, when she pushed him away that was a clear NO. The pushing him away was not an imaginary line in her head, it was an action that obviously meant NO. Where is the confusion. Please watch the video below to educate yourself on consent.

 

 

Posted
I do not see these blurry lines you are talking about. First of all the OP never said she made out with the guy, she says she pushed him away the first time. But even if she was making out with him, even if she was sticking her tongue down his throat, when she pushed him away that was a clear NO. The pushing him away was not an imaginary line in her head, it was an action that obviously meant NO. Where is the confusion. Please watch the video below to educate yourself on consent.

 

 

 

I misunderstood the make out part, so perhaps no blurring. I think she should have left the first time he attempted, frankly. Why wait for a second. One strike, you're out. If a guy hits me, I'm gone. I don't wait to see if he might hit me again. I assume he will because that's the only way to ensure my safety.

Posted
From a guy's perspective, if you accept the invitation over to my place, you are at least "leaving the door open" to sex. Despite what you may or may not have said ahead of time.

 

That's not always the case. If anything, it's an opportunity to let her know that you are trustworthy and respect her boundaries.

  • Like 4
Posted
In a perfect world us women should be able to walk down the street naked without being attacked or sexually harassed....BUT the reality is, it is not a perfect world regardless of your option that women shouldn't have to worry about the possibility of being hit on, etc. The threat is very real no matter how you slice it. It's about protecting yourself and avoiding the situation.

 

You can get pissy all you want about the comments, it will not change the fact that there are a lot of men who still will find any opportunity to prey on women, ruining it for others,..... You just can't be oblivious to it.

 

 

This is I can agree with. Unfortunately we do still have to teach our girls how to keep themselves safe from sexual assault or unwanted sexual advances. I agree with you that it's not an ideal world and the most important think is for women to protect themselves. What I had a problem with was that the first couple of replies seemed to say that a woman agreeing to go to a man's house is the same as consenting to sex, even if the woman has already stated "no sex". If we go by that reasoning then that means the moment she walked into his place he could do everything and anything he wanted to her with no consequences because she consented just by being there in the first place. That is what I was objecting to. I wasn't objecting to women keeping themselves safe by exercising caution.

Posted
Its all about choices. We all have choices to make in life and those are as they are.

 

If you do not want to take drugs or get involved in the drugs scene then you don't go to places where there are drugs nor do you socialise with drug takers...

 

Same principles apply here. When dating goes behind closed doors clothes start hitting floors... Its that simple. You want your clothes on then keep to public places... except for nudist beaches... :D

 

It's all about self-discipline, self-control.

 

You could hang around weed smokers and not partake. You could go to bars and not take a sip of alcohol. You could enter clubs and choose not to dance. Not spending all of your money, the second you get paid, etc.

  • Like 1
Posted
What I had a problem with was that the first couple of replies seemed to say that a woman agreeing to go to a man's house is the same as consenting to sex, even if the woman has already stated "no sex". If we go by that reasoning then that means the moment she walked into his place he could do everything and anything he wanted to her with no consequences because she consented just by being there in the first place. .

 

 

I didn't see any comments like that. Nobody even came close to saying that if you go to a guy's house he can rape you without consequence or that it is automatic consent for sex.

Posted
That's not always the case. If anything, it's an opportunity to let her know that you are trustworthy and respect her boundaries.

 

See, some guys get it. ;)

 

I agree about not doing stupid stuff that puts you in danger in general, but ....I dunno, I personally see that as more don't walk down dark alleys alone at 2:00 a.m. or get on creepy service elevators in decrepit buildings w creepy looking ppl. If that has to also extend to assuming your dates might be rapists, that's pretty sad. I know sad doesn't mean illegit but personally I've never lived that way and I've been around the block many times and gotten this far on a lot more than just luck so I'm no ingenue living in an imaginary fantasyland of bunnies and butterflies. There's a world out there where you don't have to be fearful to quite that extent imo.

  • Like 3
Posted

I think going for her shirt after being told no the first time is scary.

 

I don't think it's a big leap from - I was just pushed away and told "no", yet I am going to try to remove your shirt - to date rape.

 

It's not normal male behavior. It isn't just disrespectful or even overly aggressive, it's downright scary.

 

Most men I know wouldn't behave that way.

 

It's probably best to not go to a guy's house for dinner until you know him well.

Posted

In my younger days, I used to never make a move when a woman told me she wasn't ready for sex. Those relationships never became sexual and the women in question moved on to other men. Now, I always make one attempt when I have a woman over. If she resists, stops me, or says no, then I keep myself physically separated from her for the rest of the evening.

Posted

Here is the thing. Even if only a quarter percent of guys are date rapists (just throwing out a number), it only takes that small amount to ruin it for everyone else. Both men and women have to deal with the consequences of the bad apple. I've had women who don't want to be alone with me until she got to know me better and I accept that. You can have 100 good experiences with guys but it just takes that one to do damage to your life. Of course, we should use our intuition but sometimes people can hide who they really are. We can't live our lives in fear, but we can balance caution and trust. Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? I shudder when I hear people say I should be able to do whatever I want, go wherever I want any time. It sucks but that's just not our real world. The vast majority of people are not criminals, yet we all lock our cars, homes, bikes, everything just for those few that are.

  • Like 2
Posted

True but we also get in those same cars and drive off when we know there's actually a really good chance we'll be killed in them. (Relatively speaking, cars are a loser in terms of calculated risks. And yet we still drive around in them bc we choose not to be held captive by the percentage game in elements of our lives that need some liberty in order to thrive.)

  • Like 3
Posted
The notion that an invite to someone's house means sth other than what's stated is very juvenile and practiced only by ppl who either are or wish they were still in school and have that mentality and that level of maturity. Grown-ups don't do this stuff.
This is an interesting thought. In my experience, direct, straightforward communication with women regarding sex has rarely worked positively. Saying something else has yielded better results. Example: I have texted more than one FWB/Girlfriend: "Want to come over and screw?". The vast majority did not respond positively. When I texted: "Want to come over and watch a movie?", I received more positive responses. I realize that my sample size is very limited, but are you saying more women would respond positively to the first text than the second?
  • Like 1
Posted
This is an interesting thought. In my experience, direct, straightforward communication with women regarding sex has rarely worked positively. Saying something else has yielded better results. Example: I have texted more than one FWB/Girlfriend: "Want to come over and screw?". The vast majority did not respond positively. When I texted: "Want to come over and watch a movie?", I received more positive responses. I realize that my sample size is very limited, but are you saying more women would respond positively to the first text than the second?

 

It's not really about what works so to speak (if that's all you're after you should just use whatever unethical method yields the best results) but what's appropriate. In OP's case, being in a 2nd or 3rd date situ or w/e, informing a date you'd like to come over but that you don't want it physical means just that and nothing else, and if the guy extended the invite w an unstated ulterior motive he's juvenile and inappropriate. (Particularly if he acknowledged her caveats.)

 

"Wanna screw" would rarely work for new romances (for most ppl ;)) but might be ok w a longer thing depending on context. Saying "wanna come over" is actually open-ended and non-specific, which means you're inviting sth that might include playing around, and if she says yes then she's onboard. That wasn't what happened w ES here.

  • Like 3
Posted
True but we also get in those same cars and drive off when we know there's actually a really good chance we'll be killed in them. (Relatively speaking, cars are a loser in terms of calculated risks. And yet we still drive around in them bc we choose not to be held captive by the percentage game in elements of our lives that need some liberty in order to thrive.)

Everything in life is a risk, but we can't just make a full equivalence of all risks without context. When you start driving, you do it gradually until you build up confidence. You don't eliminate the risk but you lessen your chances the better you drive. Likewise, you don't have to be at some guy's house for the third date. You can get to know the guy, maybe see his Facebook, maybe meet one of his friends before being alone with him, feel like you get to know him better by his actions. You don't eliminate it, but you lessen your chance at being a victim if you let the guy prove himself a bit.

Posted
In OP's case, being in a 2nd or 3rd date situ or w/e, informing a date you'd like to come over but that you don't want it physical means just that and nothing else, and if the guy extended the invite w an unstated ulterior motive he's juvenile and inappropriate. (Particularly if he acknowledged her caveats.)
That wasn't what happened w ES here.
To be clear, my question wasn't related to ES' situation. I was just curious as to what your experience with direct communication has been. I imagine you have a larger sample size of women than I do.
Posted
In my younger days, I used to never make a move when a woman told me she wasn't ready for sex. Those relationships never became sexual and the women in question moved on to other men. Now, I always make one attempt when I have a woman over. If she resists, stops me, or says no, then I keep myself physically separated from her for the rest of the evening.

 

All the guys I've been in a LTR with were respectful and left it up to me to decide when we would start having sex. I respected and loved them more for it (and yes, when I was ready we did start). Granted, this could again be a cultural thing since I have never dated in Western culture, but even there I would be very surprised if a man didn't meet one single woman who appreciated that.

 

I don't believe it's right to make an attempt if the woman has explicitly stated that she didn't want it and you had explicitly stated you weren't going to. If that had happened to me I would've left and blocked him immediately. I'm sure there are a few women who don't mean what they say, but why would you want such a woman in the first place? If she nexts you for that, you dodged a bullet.

 

I think it's okay to make one move if the woman hadn't specifically said she didn't want it prior to accepting the invitation. But if she had, don't. If you don't want a home date with no sex then don't press for a home date after she says that, and just go to a restaurant instead.

  • Like 4
While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...