# How many dates before sex



## Girl_power

Just getting a poll... how many dates do you wait till you have sex. And obviously this is with men you are interested in.


----------



## Edo Edo

Oh honey, you know full well the answer to that question depends on what kind of car he drives and shoes he wears. Silly you...


----------



## Girl_power

Edo Edo said:


> Oh honey, you know full well the answer to that question depends on what kind of car he drives and shoes he wears. Silly you...




But does it really?


----------



## Bananapeel

Girl_power said:


> But does it really?



:slap:
YES!


----------



## Ynot

Besides the cars and shoes, it really depends on what you are comfortable with. Who cares what a poll says. Everyone is different.


----------



## Yeswecan

Girl_power said:


> Just getting a poll... how many dates do you wait till you have sex. And obviously this is with men you are interested in.


None. Get married first. :grin2:


----------



## Girl_power

I’m curious to see what the trend is.


----------



## CharlieParker

Technically we had sex before our first date.


----------



## TJW

Edo Edo said:


> Oh honey, you know full well the answer to that question depends on what kind of car he drives and shoes he wears.





Girl_power said:


> I’m curious to see what the trend is.


Actually, you need to state at the top of the poll that only "beta" men need to reply. For "alpha" men, the answer is either 1, or maybe none.

But for "beta" men, the answers will have variation. Many of them will be waiting for marriage, and some may be as early as date # 14.


----------



## Married but Happy

EVERY woman I dated beyond one date, _initiated_ sex on the second or third date. A few wanted to have sex on the first date. I'd have waited longer, but I never needed to. I sometimes turned them down, if I wasn't interested in them after that second or third date.


----------



## Tron

Let's see how honest our resident TAM women are.


----------



## personofinterest

Girl_Power, you do you and stay with what is in line with your values. A man who "requires" sex within a date or two is not relationship material, IMO. I get that times have changed and sex is as casual and meaningless as ordering pizza or changing our socks now, but if it is still something special to you, do not compromise because of some man's impatience. And yes, I would give the same advice to a man who values himself enough not to just toss it out there like a handshake.

I actually slept with my current husband on our first "official" date (though we'd known each other for many many years. But, had I suspected he had a policy of "nexting" any girl who didn't put out within 3 dates....there never would have been a first official date.


----------



## Haiku

Married but Happy said:


> EVERY woman I dated beyond one date, _initiated_ sex on the second or third date. A few wanted to have sex on the first date. I'd have waited longer, but I never needed to. I sometimes turned them down, if I wasn't interested in them after that second or third date.



Do you, by chance, live next to the Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee?


----------



## I shouldnthave

Second meeting, first real date - we kept each other up all night long, it was beautiful. October will mark 17 years together.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Honestly the answer depends on the individual, and how they view intimacy. Do what feels right for you. Don't worry about others judging you. Its your body, so you get to decide when you feel like sharing it with someone else. If you want to wait until you are in love then do that, if you have amazing chemistry with a guy and want to give it a go on the first date (provided you understand its just for fun) then do that. Honestly, this isn't a question you should be asking us. Only you know the answer.


----------



## LeananSidhe

Fortunately/unfortunately, I’ve never casually dated. I have no idea how many dates it would take me. 
I was FWB with my husband before we actually made it official so he likes to say I put out before our first date but we had been friends for a year before we started messing around.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Whenever I want. I did not realize I was waiting.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

One a lot.
Two a whole lot.
Three a few.


----------



## FieryHairedLady

1st relationship (and marriage): 

When I was 16, first bf, etc. We met in Feb and started hanging out every day and being friends for 2 months before I would go "steady" with him. I was a virgin. 2 months after going steady we started having sex. Married 1 1/2 years later. Married for 11 years or so. Kids. Divorce.

No one else in between. 

2nd relationship (and marriage): 

I was about 30. Met online. Talking every day for hours and hours for about 4 months. He lived out of state. We agreed to meet in person and with "no expectations". We were both very nervous, but we clicked just like we did online. Within 4 nights we were seriously fooling around, but I had told him no penetration.

He wound up moving to my state to be with me, and yes we did fool around, but no penetration for about 6 weeks. 

It took me a while to be comfortable with another person sexually. Also I had kids, so I know how easily getting pregnant can happen. I wanted to make sure it was serious and not some fling for him before I had sex.

We married roughly 18 months later and have been together ever since. We have been married over 12 years now. We have one little boy of our own now too. He will be 6 soon.


----------



## karole

First date, married almost 33 years! Never had sex on the first date with any other guy I dated.


----------



## Cletus

Yeswecan said:


> None. Get married first. :grin2:


I can't tell if this was tongue-in-cheek.

So I'll just say to the OP - if you follow this advice, I will personally come hunt you down and slap you.


----------



## arbitrator

*As the Official Resident Old Fart here at TAM, Ol' Arb would tell you that the proper answer would be "whenever you're ready enough and responsible enough for it!"

As a young man, I always envisioned waiting for marriage with Cinderella. Well, College and frat life (TKE) changed all of that!

Having lived a rather full life and having had more than my fair share of sexual fun, let me say that sex in a mutually committed relationship far surpasses the "wham, bam, thank you, Ma'am's," or the "here's the fur, thank you, Sir" of life!

Some gals came on to me like a freight train on date number one! Some, I didn't get the first sniff even after wining and dining them for months!

In my dotage, I prefer sex with one woman whom I'm committed to and knows that she, in turn, is equally committed to me!

You'll sense that from the chemistry of the talks and intimacy all the way into the make-out sessions! And when it feels totally right between the two of you, you just end up going for it!*


----------



## Evinrude58

personofinterest said:


> Girl_Power, you do you and stay with what is in line with your values. A man who "requires" sex within a date or two is not relationship material, IMO. I get that times have changed and sex is as casual and meaningless as ordering pizza or changing our socks now, but if it is still something special to you, do not compromise because of some man's impatience. And yes, I would give the same advice to a man who values himself enough not to just toss it out there like a handshake.
> 
> *I actually slept with my current husband on our first "official" date *(though we'd known each other for many many years. *But, had I suspected he had a policy of "nexting" any girl who didn't put out within 3 dates....there never would have been a first official date*.


LOLOLOLOL
You consider what his "policy " was appalling, but can't get enough of him......... The mind of a woman I will never understand. 
GEEZ.
Perfect example of how women on average think. And why passive nice guys never get laid.


----------



## personofinterest

Evinrude58 said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Girl_Power, you do you and stay with what is in line with your values. A man who "requires" sex within a date or two is not relationship material, IMO. I get that times have changed and sex is as casual and meaningless as ordering pizza or changing our socks now, but if it is still something special to you, do not compromise because of some man's impatience. And yes, I would give the same advice to a man who values himself enough not to just toss it out there like a handshake.
> 
> *I actually slept with my current husband on our first "official" date *(though we'd known each other for many many years. *But, had I suspected he had a policy of "nexting" any girl who didn't put out within 3 dates....there never would have been a first official date*.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> You consider what his "policy " was appalling, but can't get enough of him......... The mind of a woman I will never understand.
> GEEZ.
> Perfect example of how women on average think. And why passive nice guys never get laid.
Click to expand...


LOLOLOL
@Evinrude58

He DIDN'T have that policy. Hence the word "if."
Know what they say about ASSuming.

My husband has never had that policy because he's a grownup whose never had to worry about it prove to himself he had "game."


----------



## chillymorn69

By three dates if theres no sex theres no chemistry.

Next.

Its not a 3 date rule its practical thinking. If theres strong chemistry then sex flows easier.

If theres not why waste time on a relationship with no chemistry!


----------



## personofinterest

chillymorn69 said:


> By three dates if theres no sex theres no chemistry.
> 
> Next.
> 
> Its not a 3 date rule its practical thinking. If theres strong chemistry then sex flows easier.
> 
> If theres not why waste time on a relationship with no chemistry!


This totally disregards that not everyone have your same set of "values."

You can have crazy chemistry and still choose to control yourself due to personal values.


----------



## uhtred

One woman I dated: 0. A bunch of friends from college were on a driving trip, all sharing a single hotel room to save$. She crept into my bed..... 

My wife: about 6 years in. 


So that there is no misunderstanding: I might have married the first woman - we dated for a while but we just wanted very different things out of life (she wanted kids, house etc, I didn't). We are still friends, >30 years later. For my wife her lack of interest in sex should have been a huge red flag if only I had had enough experience to recognize it. 

My general thought: its entirely up to you do to what feels right. If I were dating again, I would not expect sex on the 1st or on any "number" of dates, but if I were dating someone who didn't want sex when it seemed reasonable given the situation, I would be concerned. Sexual compatibility is vital for a happy relationship.


----------



## chillymorn69

personofinterest said:


> This totally disregards that not everyone have your same set of "values."
> 
> You can have crazy chemistry and still choose to control yourself due to personal values.





Cool ! Then we are not compatible!

Our personal values are too different.

Thats cool also.


----------



## Tron

Vast majority of ladies on here doing on the first date or before...










Then again, according to that other poll, 90%+ of this group of ladies are doing it 3 or more times a week too. With a hubby no less. So maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.


----------



## Evinrude58

uhtred said:


> One woman I dated: 0. A bunch of friends from college were on a driving trip, all sharing a single hotel room to save$. She crept into my bed.....
> 
> My wife: about 6 years in.
> 
> 
> So that there is no misunderstanding: I might have married the first woman - we dated for a while but we just wanted very different things out of life (she wanted kids, house etc, I didn't). We are still friends, >30 years later. For my wife her lack of interest in sex should have been a huge red flag if only I had had enough experience to recognize it.
> 
> My general thought: its entirely up to you do to what feels right. If I were dating again, I would not expect sex on the 1st or on any "number" of dates, but if I were dating someone who didn't want sex when it seemed reasonable given the situation, I would be concerned. Sexual compatibility is vital for a happy relationship.


Wait, did I get this right? You dated your wife for 6 years before having sex with her?
Damn, dude. Just, damn.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Evinrude58 said:


> LOLOLOLOL
> You consider what his "policy " was appalling, but can't get enough of him......... The mind of a woman I will never understand.
> GEEZ.
> Perfect example of how women on average think. And why passive nice guys never get laid.


That sure as **** is not "women" on average at all. It is a f-ed mindset. But they got divorced.


----------



## KM87

For what it’s worth, I had sex on a first date once - I know he was surprised about it. Otherwise, I usually waited a while - maybe a few weeks? My husband claims it was two months for us, but I know it wasn’t that long. Ha!


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

No matter the chemistry, if you tried to have sex with me on ghe first date, I would turn it down and ghost you. Weather its right or wrong to judge you in this mannor, I would think you are loose for wanting to bang on the first date. I'm not in to that, or one night stands and such. Its just not my style personally. I'm not in to a girl who would be in to that style either. I have rosy palm for casual "sex" 

If I'm going to park my car in your garage, I have to see it as a garage I plan on coming home to night in and night out. And I'm a one house kind of guy.


----------



## uhtred

Yup. This was rather a long time ago. Guys weren't supposed to pressure women for sex. Girls were told not to have sex before marriage. Love will make everything work. etc etc.



Evinrude58 said:


> Wait, did I get this right? You dated your wife for 6 years before having sex with her?
> Damn, dude. Just, damn.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> Evinrude58 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> You consider what his "policy " was appalling, but can't get enough of him......... The mind of a woman I will never understand.
> GEEZ.
> Perfect example of how women on average think. And why passive nice guys never get laid.
> 
> 
> 
> That sure as **** is not "women" on average at all. It is a f-ed mindset. But they got divorced.
Click to expand...

You people need to learn how to read.

My CURRENT husband, from who. I am NOT divorced, did NOT have this policy.

I said IF

I already corrected this once.

Good lord people.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> You people need to learn how to read.
> 
> My CURRENT husband, from who. I am NOT divorced, did NOT have this policy.
> 
> I said IF
> 
> I already corrected this once.
> 
> Good lord people.


I know, the one you are divorced from was the partnership with the games. I was not referring to his policy that was the f-ed mindset.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people need to learn how to read.
> 
> My CURRENT husband, from who. I am NOT divorced, did NOT have this policy.
> 
> I said IF
> 
> I already corrected this once.
> 
> Good lord people.
> 
> 
> 
> I know, the one you are divorced from was the partnership with the games. I was not referring to his policy that was the f-ed mindset.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The one I divorced was my first husband, and we were both virgins. I was not referring to him in ANY of my posts. It was ALL about my current husband.

So sorry, no.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

This question is a good step 1.

Step 2 question: How much sex before marriage?


----------



## Mr.Married

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> This question is a good step 1.
> 
> Step 2 question: How much sex before marriage?


Plenty .... but that is a given as we dated 6 years before marriage. Needed to finish college first and buy a house.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Slight thread jack...but the one thing that ALWAYS irked me about this topic is that many people don't respect how others feel about this issue and tend to be judgemental. On one side of it you have those like myself, that don't see first date sex as all that big of deal if it happens, and ....yet many with the same attitude I have about sex view those that choose to wait as uptight, or prudish, etc. etc. 

On the other hand many of those that prefer to wait view those of us that don't wait long for sex as morally flawed, or you feel sorry for us because somehow we must be "broken" if we are that free sexually. In the words of the late Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?". I did not say get it on! :rofl: How we feel about this doesn't mean either side is/are bad people. It really is a personal preference, simple as that.


----------



## FieryHairedLady

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> This question is a good step 1.
> 
> Step 2 question: How much sex before marriage?


1.) After I started having sex with my ex, I gave it up whenever and where ever he wanted. This continued thruout the entire marriage, til we split.

2.) After I started having sex with my husband (bf at the time), I gave it up whenever and where ever he wanted. Still do. Hubby # 2 is a much better lover then # 1 and I initiate too. Love this guy!


----------



## PigglyWiggly

For me, I need an emotional connection. However long that takes is when I am ready. If you start throwing vajayjay at me without me feeling the connection, I feel rushed and uncomfortable. For whatever reason, I need romantic and passionate lovemaking before I can move on to wild jungle sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Usually before the first date, I have texted and called a person several times. Sometimes a week or two of texting and calling every day, if we are both interested equally. My schedule is usually tight and I can’t have a first date for a week or two usually. I use that time and the communication to determine if this seems like a sexually compatible endeavor or not. If a red flag appears during this communication, I’ll usually cancel the first date before having it. If things seem luke warm, I will sometimes take the chance and meet him anyway. If things seem red hot, sometimes he is already joking about taking me home at the end of the date. If he is just authentic and like me, is interested but not committed to anything one way or the other, that is the type I enjoy a first date with the most.

My main reason for dating anyone is to have sex and companionship, at this time. So a good sexual match is important, but all the other stuff has to align first, too. I can never imagine knowing on a first date that I would for sure sleep with the guy, and have never done that. The real life chemistry may not be there even if the texting and other communications seemed hot. So I don’t even commit to a kiss on a first date, I may get to the date after a week of anticipation only to find I just can’t deal with his mannerisms or voice or his breath or his attitude. I never allow real anticipation to build until after that first in person date.

When the stars have aligned and the first date is awesome, I may feel ok to have sex on a second date because I will back date my attraction and the level of safety I feel towards him to all of the previous communications. More usual is around the 5th date, with lots of making out in between.


----------



## arbitrator

PigglyWiggly said:


> For me, I need an emotional connection. However long that takes is when I am ready. If you start throwing vajayjay at me without me feeling the connection, I feel rushed and uncomfortable. For whatever reason, I need romantic and passionate lovemaking before I can move on to wild jungle sex.


*This so aptly describes Ol' Arb's regimen. Once I'm emotionally in to her, there is virtually nothing that I wouldn't do for her!

But I've got to feel some bi-lateral empathy and love first, or it's just yucky biological sex!

I can do that all alone! *


----------



## Tatsuhiko

TheDudeLebowski said:


> No matter the chemistry, if you tried to have sex with me on the first date, I would turn it down and ghost you.


This. Many of us view sex as a sort of sacred thing that you only do with someone you're really close to. If a woman was eager to have sex after knowing me for a brief time, I'd look at her as not long-term relationship material. I'd see her as giving it up too easily and realize that her core values were different than mine.


----------



## Personal

Tatsuhiko said:


> This. Many of us view sex as a sort of sacred thing that you only do with someone you're really close to. If a woman was eager to have sex after knowing me for a brief time, I'd look at her as not long-term relationship material. I'd see her as giving it up too easily and realize that her core values were different than mine.


Well I hope you haven't or won't ever have sex with a woman who was eager to have sex with you after a brief time. Lest you be a hypocrite and as a consequence of that hypocrisy also be less ethical than the woman you have sex with.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I want to preface this with, my second wife, though I did not know at the time, has had more partners than anyone I know IRL.

When we went out on the first date, she said, "No, I don't want you to lose respect for me". bahahahaha

I bet I'm the only man she's ever said that to. 

Heeeeyy! Wait a minute... ?!


----------



## Ynot

personofinterest said:


> This totally disregards that not everyone have your same set of "values."
> 
> You can have crazy chemistry and still choose to control yourself due to personal values.


Um, no that actually takes everyone's values into consideration. Why do you assume that the one who wants it should allow someone who doesn't to control them. If he wants it and she doesn't, he is totally taking her "values" into consideration by walking away.


----------



## FieryHairedLady

I didn't stop to add it in the first post, but yes, I needed to feel intense chemistry, emotional connection, feel like I am in love, feel like this guy understood me and was crazy about me, before I was with either of my 2. 

With both guys I wanted to make sure this was something serious on both our parts and that this would be a lasting relationship before I committed to sex with either of them.

Even back when I was 16, I knew I was the kind of girl who gets very attached and hopping around wasn't for me.

That is a good thing, but kind of a bad thing at the same time.

It is a good thing in that once I commit, it is serious, I don't take it lightly and I will move heaven and earth if I can to make it work and not throw in the towel during rough times.

But at the same time it bit me in the ass with my ex. I should of left him in the first 2 years. 

A 16 y/o has no business making such a big life decision at that age. 


My mom always told me if a man ever hits you to leave him. I wish I had listened.


I got pregnant when I was 17 and had our 1st daughter 2 weeks after my 18th birthday. We married later that year.


The first time my ex hit me I was a few months pregnant with our first daughter. I was so scared I peed my pants. I ghosted him for a few days and he hunted me down at a friends house and apoligized.


I should of told my parents. My dad hated him, but I had too much pride to tell him he was right and I was wrong.

I felt like it was too late because I was already pregnant.

He wasn't abusive all the time, it was random, not frequent. But even once is too much. The abuse escalated over a period of time and by the end of our marriage it accelerated and was constant emotional, verbal, sexual and mental abuse, with some physical abuse escalating. I wish I would of got out sooner. 

Anyhow, don't want to thread jack more.


----------



## clb0208

No magic number here, but generally if I don't want to have sex with a guy within the first 4 dates, then there is no reason to continue seeing him. For me, sexual chemistry is a huge part of what I am looking for in a relationship. I spent 13 years in a relationship that had "meh" sex. I think that it was a huge contributor to the demise of the relationship. Now, I go into every first date with that at the forefront of my mind. Obviously, that isn't the only scoring criteria... but even if a man is perfect on paper and not amazing in bed then I have to reply with "thank you for your time, but we are all done here". I waited until the 4th date with the guy that I am currently dating (about 5 months now), but knew I wanted to sleep with him after our first kiss on date 2. However, drawing out the anticipation over the course of another 2 dates made it crazy good. 

I think the main thing you have to sense is if the guy you are with is picking up your cues of comfort level. If he is pushy and wanting to sleep with you on date 2, but you aren't there yet and he isn't willing to wait until you are ready, then its on to the next one.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Ynot said:


> Um, no that actually takes everyone's values into consideration. Why do you assume that the one who wants it should allow someone who doesn't to control them. If he wants it and she doesn't, he is totally taking her "values" into consideration by walking away.


I think placing values in quotes implies that not placing value on ... what was up thread? not sanctity, um something uber important in a potentially religious respect, implies that it is not part of a good value system. I am guessing you are not intending to denigrate that different value system. I only mention it because historically it has been equated with a LACK of values, a part of the discussion that I do not agree with.


----------



## Yeswecan

Cletus said:


> I can't tell if this was tongue-in-cheek.
> 
> So I'll just say to the OP - if you follow this advice, I will personally come hunt you down and slap you.


Nope, not tongue in cheek.


----------



## Cletus

Yeswecan said:


> Nope, not tongue in cheek.


Then it was absolutely terrible advice. Unless you're looking for the absolute surest means of discovering sexual incompatibility _after_ the ring is on.


----------



## personofinterest

Ynot said:


> Um, no that actually takes everyone's values into consideration. Why do you assume that the one who wants it should allow someone who doesn't to control them. If he wants it and she doesn't, he is totally taking her "values" into consideration by walking away.


Walking away is absolutely fine. However, you misread his initial post that I replied to. The implication of the initial post was that if sex had not happened in a few dates, that means there is no chemistry. However, a couple can have crazy chemistry but still wait if they both have a values system that encourages waiting.

The poster I quoted and responded to understood my point and was not bothered by it at all. Not sure why you are. I agree that someone who wants sex quickly should not be forced to stay with someone who wants to wait, just as someone who values waiting should not be pressured to violate their values. It's really NOT some sort of offensive either/or proposition.


----------



## BioFury

Cletus said:


> Then it was absolutely terrible advice. Unless you're looking for the absolute surest means of discovering sexual incompatibility _after_ the ring is on.


These boards are resounding evidence that having sex before marriage isn't any more successful of a methodology.


----------



## 2&out

Depends on the woman. With the crap of a man being a man these days, have to let them initiate or big risk. But my experience lately is a Tesla S is the right date car for tonight, or very soon.


----------



## TJW

BioFury said:


> These boards are resounding evidence that having sex before marriage isn't any more successful of a methodology.


I agree with your conclusion. I think both methods have their own set of particular problems. However, I think the problems that two virgins face do not carry the "hurt factor" which is imposed by premarital sexual involvement.

Having sex before marriage guarantees "incompatibility". One partner is nearly always more experienced than the other, one has had better experiences than the other.... attitudes of superiority and inferiority come into the mix....

Two people who have both maintained virginity to their marriage are, in this sense, compatible. Will one have higher "drive" than the other ? Most likely. However, the HD person has no "standard" of comparison to make him/her extremely dissatisfied.....and the LD person will not necessarily feel inadequate....

These two people can, at least, discuss their sexual relationship without "bringing in" others. The problems are therefore, more tractable. The partner who has married someone sexually active prior to marriage will always feel "competition", and sometimes competition with a "ghost".


----------



## personofinterest

> However, the HD person has no "standard" of comparison to make him/her extremely dissatisfied.....and the LD person will not necessarily feel inadequate....


As someone who was a virgin and married a virgin who dealt with the soul crushing hell of a sexless marriage for years....the above gave me a sad chuckle.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

TheDudeLebowski said:


> No matter the chemistry, if you tried to have sex with me on ghe first date, I would turn it down and ghost you. Weather its right or wrong to judge you in this mannor, I would think you are loose for wanting to bang on the first date. I'm not in to that, or one night stands and such. Its just not my style personally. I'm not in to a girl who would be in to that style either. I have rosy palm for casual "sex"
> 
> If I'm going to park my car in your garage, I have to see it as a garage I plan on coming home to night in and night out. And I'm a one house kind of guy.


I would take the sex, then ghost her. I'm not into that kind of girl either, but for a pump and dump, eh, why not? Just wear a condom.


----------



## Fozzy

personofinterest said:


> As someone who was a virgin and married a virgin who dealt with the soul crushing hell of a sexless marriage for years....the above gave me a sad chuckle.


Ditto.


----------



## NobodySpecial

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I would take the sex, then ghost her. I'm not into that kind of girl either, but for a pump and dump, eh, why not? Just wear a condom.


Wait. Aren't you the one who called sex sacred up thread?


----------



## Cletus

BioFury said:


> These boards are resounding evidence that having sex before marriage isn't any more successful of a methodology.


It's not a _guarantee_ of success. Never said it was. Does anyone actually believe that this board would become less active if people stopped having sex before marriage? That's a pretty hard sell.

It's like buying a car without getting the CarFax. Caveat Emptor. Having sex before marriage will not guarantee you a blissful marriage of eternal sexual compatibility. Discovering that you're sexually incompatible before marriage will save you from a lifetime of frustration.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ursula

Ynot said:


> Besides the cars and shoes, it really depends on what you are comfortable with. Who cares what a poll says. Everyone is different.


^^^ This. My personal experiences range from a one-night stand to a year+ long relationship with no sex. Nothing has worked out, so I really don't know what the answer is. Despite the one-night stand, I try to get to know a man first before jumping in the sack because I find that sex tends to cloud judgement, and puts rose coloured glasses on a person pretty fast. Plus, I want to make sure I'm comfortable with him before either inviting him into my home or me going to his.


----------



## Ursula

TheDudeLebowski said:


> No matter the chemistry, if you tried to have sex with me on ghe first date, I would turn it down and ghost you. Weather its right or wrong to judge you in this mannor, I would think you are loose for wanting to bang on the first date. I'm not in to that, or one night stands and such. Its just not my style personally. I'm not in to a girl who would be in to that style either. I have rosy palm for casual "sex"
> 
> *If I'm going to park my car in your garage, I have to see it as a garage I plan on coming home to night in and night out. And I'm a one house kind of guy.*


You got a way with words, Dude, I like the analogy!


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

NobodySpecial said:


> Wait. Aren't you the one who called sex sacred up thread?


I don't think so, but I do value women who aren't promiscuous. I am taken now, but when I was single, I'd try to get in their pants on the first date. If it succeeded, then I'd get sex then I'd never contact them again. If I failed, I'd see them as LTR material. Its a win win.

There is really no such value attached to men that way, so I simply enjoyed the double standard.


----------



## NobodySpecial

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I don't think so, but I do value women who aren't promiscuous.


So you value women who are not promiscuous but would be yourself in the same circumstance?




> I am taken now, but when I was single, I'd try to get in their pants on the first date. If it succeeded, then I'd get sex then I'd never contact them again. If I failed, I'd see them as LTR material. Its a win win.
> 
> There is really no such value attached to men that way, so I simply enjoyed the double standard.


Thankfully someone like me is old enough to smell someone like you a mile away!


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

NobodySpecial said:


> So you value women who are not promiscuous but would be yourself in the same circumstance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully someone like me is old enough to smell someone like you a mile away!



Someone like what? If you are willing to jump in bed on the first date, what are you expecting? There is nothing underhanded about it. Got to weed out the bad bets to get to the good ones.


----------



## personofinterest

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I don't think so, but I do value women who aren't promiscuous. I am taken now, but when I was single, I'd try to get in their pants on the first date. If it succeeded, then I'd get sex then I'd never contact them again. If I failed, I'd see them as LTR material. Its a win win.
> 
> There is really no such value attached to men that way, so I simply enjoyed the double standard.


You're really.....not a good guy, are you?


----------



## NobodySpecial

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Someone like what? If you are willing to jump in bed on the first date, what are you expecting? There is nothing underhanded about it. Got to weed out the bad bets to get to the good ones.


True enough, you likely would not have passed muster to jump into bed with.


----------



## FieryHairedLady

Aren't a lot of guys like UpsideDownWorld11 ? 

Not saying it is nice or whatever. It is cruel. 

Isn't the thinking behind that if a girl will give it up that quick, that she would not be faithful?

Which is not always the case. Some people on these forums have talked about virgin wives later cheating.

Some people say women have an easier time "getting" sex, so they need to be the "gate keeper". Where the theory is that men have to "work at it", so if he gets in her pants "he is the man".

I don't condone those ideas. Very worldly, and very sad to use people.


----------



## Bananapeel

Inloveforeverwithhubby said:


> Aren't a lot of guys like UpsideDownWorld11 ?
> 
> Not saying it is nice or whatever. It is cruel.
> 
> Isn't the thinking behind that if a girl will give it up that quick, that she would not be faithful?
> 
> Which is not always the case. Some people on these forums have talked about virgin wives later cheating.
> 
> Some people say women have an easier time "getting" sex, so they need to be the "gate keeper". Where the theory is that men have to "work at it", so if he gets in her pants "he is the man".
> 
> I don't condone those ideas. Very worldly, and very sad to use people.


Some guys are like USDW and some aren't. I am absolutely not and believe that sexual standards for men and women should be equal. I don't care how many people a woman has had sex with before me, instead I only care if we are having good sex with each other. I never ask a woman how many people she's been with because I don't care and likewise I don't volunteer that information either because past history has no reflection in how I view a new relationship. I also don't view having sex on the first date as a bad thing or a good thing, but if it happen it just means we're really attracted to each other. My "standard" for attraction, if you want to call it that, is I have to at least kiss on the first date or there is no second date. If I get a hug or the dreaded cheek when I try to kiss then I assume she's not that into me and I won't ask her out again. 

Now in actuality my experience has been that most women that kiss me will want to have sex on the first or second date, and they also try to impress me in bed and will do anything I want. I'm not sure if it is my age group, the fact that I'm really fun to date, the lack of successful/attractive single guys in my age group, or that they are competitive and trying to lock me down that causes this. I know that might not be other people's experiences but I'd be a hypocrite if I accepted their advances and then faulted them for it. 

As far as women cheating, it really has far less to do with number of sexual experiences than their attraction level to a man and their character. Women that are highly attracted to their man aren't usually looking for someone else and aren't open to it either. Women with good character will at least have an open conversation and end the relationship before moving onto a new one. The whole virgin wives thing being less likely to cheat is a myth. My XW was a virgin when I met her and she had at least two affairs when we were married (I caught her during the second and found out about the first after the divorce). I never cheated and wouldn't even date anyone else until the divorce had been finalized in the court because it violated my morals regarding marriage vows, while she was hooking up with guys as soon as she moved out and before the divorce was final. I don't hold that against her because my standards are for me and her standards are for her to choose. 

So, nope, not all guys think the same way.


----------



## Personal

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I don't think so, but I do value women who aren't promiscuous. I am taken now, but when I was single, I'd try to get in their pants on the first date. If it succeeded, then I'd get sex then I'd never contact them again. If I failed, I'd see them as LTR material. Its a win win.
> 
> There is really no such value attached to men that way, so I simply enjoyed the double standard.


By your own standards, you aren't long term relationship material either.


----------



## Personal

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Someone like what? If you are willing to jump in bed on the first date, what are you expecting? There is nothing underhanded about it. Got to weed out the bad bets to get to the good ones.


There is plenty that's underhanded about it, including your hypocrisy.


----------



## lovelygirl

Not only does it depend on the stage of your dating situation and what you want out of this, but also on the type of guy you're dating. 
Have you known him for a very long time before switching to dating? 
Or did you just get to know him yesterday? 

You can't act the same with someone who's already a friend as with someone you had never heard of, until yesterday.

However, I've NEVER EVER had sex on the first 5 dates. So the earliest time was on the 5th date. That was with someone I know for over 5 years. 

To each their own though. I'm not saying you have to know someone 5 years so that you can have sex on the 5th date. 

But I'd suggest you wait longer if you really want to make him know you expect more from him than just sex. There are no set rules. 

The most important thing is to have sex if *YOU REALLY *feel it, and not just because he wants it or so that you can keep him around. 

A man can't be kept even if you're the most beautiful, sexy girl on Earth! A man is kept ONLY if he wants to be kept! 

Nor sex, nor beauty will make him stay with you, unless he wants you too.


----------



## oldshirt

Girl_power said:


> Just getting a poll... how many dates do you wait till you have sex. And obviously this is with men you are interested in.


As a guy, my perspective on this whole issue is, if you desire someone and both are mutually respectful and responsible, then I find the whole idea of arbitrarily "waiting" a specified period of time utterly absurd if not even a bit offensive.

If you aren't feeling it and don't want to, then you of course should not.

But if there is a mutual attraction and and it is mutually respectful and responsible consenting adults, then what is the purpose of "waiting" at all???

What will waiting accomplish????

What would be the purpose of waiting?


----------



## Thor

As a 50+ yr old divorced guy, my view is different than it was as a college student.

These days I would be open to a NSA encounter. I would be open to FWB. I would be open to a long term romantic relationship including sex. I would be open to dating casually with someone over a period of time but not having sex for a while.

But in all cases according to my morality there needs to be honesty in the transaction. If a woman makes it clear she wants NSA sex on the first meeting, there is no deception if we do it. What I would not do is present myself as looking for marriage and then having sex within the first few dates with the plan to dump her if she puts out.

Some women just want to have some fun sex, and that's ok. Even if it is early in a relationship, and even if that relationship becomes deeper with time. In my age group I don't believe there is a meaningful correlation with infidelity and how soon someone has sex. But on the flip side there are some crazy ones out there who will try to lure in a catch with some immediate hot sex.

So ultimately my preference would be to date several times to see if there is chemistry and some belief in compatibility before having sex. Unless it is clearly just a hit-and-run she wants.

The average 20 yr old male is hoping to avoid anything long term and would prefer ONS and short term sexual relationships. There's no secret about that.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Inloveforeverwithhubby said:


> Aren't a lot of guys like UpsideDownWorld11 ?
> 
> Not saying it is nice or whatever. It is cruel.
> 
> Isn't the thinking behind that if a girl will give it up that quick, that she would not be faithful?
> 
> Which is not always the case. Some people on these forums have talked about virgin wives later cheating.
> 
> Some people say women have an easier time "getting" sex, so they need to be the "gate keeper". Where the theory is that men have to "work at it", so if he gets in her pants "he is the man".
> 
> I don't condone those ideas. Very worldly, and very sad to use people.


But women are the gate keepers. Which makes total sense if you really think about what is going on here. 

I mean, a woman is letting a man enter into her body. That is a heavy decision to have to make. A guy? He's just sticking his **** into something. Those two things really aren't on the same level.

And of course women have an easier time getting sex. This isn't even a debate is it? The only differentiator is that women have higher standards, because they have to! That is biological. So adding in a woman's standards, her own "gate keeping" if you will, well then the playing field is probably even. 

Take away all standards from a man and a woman and send them to a different bar every night for a year with the sole intentions of leaving the bar with someone and having sex that night. Guess which gender is having 365 nights in a row of one night stands? Let me give you a hint, its the one without the twig and berries.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Inloveforeverwithhubby said:


> Aren't a lot of guys like UpsideDownWorld11 ?
> 
> Not saying it is nice or whatever. It is cruel.
> 
> Isn't the thinking behind that if a girl will give it up that quick, that she would not be faithful?
> 
> Which is not always the case. Some people on these forums have talked about virgin wives later cheating.
> 
> Some people say women have an easier time "getting" sex, so they need to be the "gate keeper". Where the theory is that men have to "work at it", so if he gets in her pants "he is the man".
> 
> I don't condone those ideas. Very worldly, and very sad to use people.


Who is using anyone? If a woman and man go on a date and the attraction is there and they end up having sex. 
1) Its purely consensual
2) No commitment or promise of commitement has been made (its the 1st date FFS)

Maybe she is using the man for sex...Why is it the man that can only use the woman? If you don't want to be treated as a piece of meat, don't jump in bed the first date. No one is being duped here. I don't understand why people think this is something awful...


----------



## lovelygirl

TheDudeLebowski said:


> But women are the gate keepers. Which makes total sense if you really think about what is going on here.
> 
> I mean, a woman is letting a man enter into her body. That is a heavy decision to have to make. A guy? He's just sticking his **** into something. Those two things really aren't on the same level.
> 
> And of course women have an easier time getting sex. This isn't even a debate is it? The only differentiator is that women have higher standards, because they have to! That is biological. So adding in a woman's standards, her own "gate keeping" if you will, well then the playing field is probably even.
> 
> Take away all standards from a man and a woman and send them to a different bar every night for a year with the sole intentions of leaving the bar with someone and having sex that night. Guess which gender is having 365 nights in a row of one night stands? Let me give you a hint, its the one without the twig and berries.


That is true.

Women set standards and if women don't keep these standards, why would men bother?

In this day and age, women have lowered their standards in order to adapt to men's instinct desires. This has become the norm and if a woman raises the bar, she's considered "PICKY"..., when in fact, she's within (_what I'd consider_) normal standards. 
Now, that is a wide rage of topic.

But, I'd say it works better for people* who share the same principles. * Therefore, if the two believe they need to wait before having sex, great! If the two believe it's not worth the wait, great! If the two think "no sex before marriage", again...great! 

It's about seeing on the same direction and sharing the same perspective.

OP, you need to find a guy who thinks it more or less like you. Or AT LEAST, one who UNDERSTANDS where you coming from. [not geographically, but mentally.]


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Personal said:


> There is plenty that's underhanded about it, including your hypocrisy.


So you expect a ring following a one night stand? Interesting...


----------



## personofinterest

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Personal said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty that's underhanded about it, including your hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> So you expect a ring following a one night stand? Interesting...
Click to expand...

 What an infant child black-and-white statement. If you can't see why your attitude about women stinks to high heaven then I just don't think I can even begin to explain it to you.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Bananapeel said:


> Some guys are like USDW and some aren't. I am absolutely not and believe that sexual standards for men and women should be equal. I don't care how many people a woman has had sex with before me, instead I only care if we are having good sex with each other. I never ask a woman how many people she's been with because I don't care and likewise I don't volunteer that information either because past history has no reflection in how I view a new relationship. I also don't view having sex on the first date as a bad thing or a good thing, but if it happen it just means we're really attracted to each other. My "standard" for attraction, if you want to call it that, is I have to at least kiss on the first date or there is no second date. If I get a hug or the dreaded cheek when I try to kiss then I assume she's not that into me and I won't ask her out again.
> 
> Now in actuality my experience has been that most women that kiss me will want to have sex on the first or second date, and they also try to impress me in bed and will do anything I want. I'm not sure if it is my age group, the fact that I'm really fun to date, the lack of successful/attractive single guys in my age group, or that they are competitive and trying to lock me down that causes this. I know that might not be other people's experiences but I'd be a hypocrite if I accepted their advances and then faulted them for it.
> 
> As far as women cheating, it really has far less to do with number of sexual experiences than their attraction level to a man and their character. Women that are highly attracted to their man aren't usually looking for someone else and aren't open to it either. Women with good character will at least have an open conversation and end the relationship before moving onto a new one. The whole virgin wives thing being less likely to cheat is a myth. My XW was a virgin when I met her and she had at least two affairs when we were married (I caught her during the second and found out about the first after the divorce). I never cheated and wouldn't even date anyone else until the divorce had been finalized in the court because it violated my morals regarding marriage vows, while she was hooking up with guys as soon as she moved out and before the divorce was final. I don't hold that against her because my standards are for me and her standards are for her to choose.
> 
> So, nope, not all guys think the same way.


Yea, banana, but you yourself have said you just sleep around with women with no commitment. If you are just after sex, I agree it doesn't matter if she has had 10 partners or 1,000. Actually high count females are probably better in that situation because they are commitment phobes, so you can keep that FWB thing going for awhile. But do you really want your future wife to have 1,000 partners???


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

personofinterest said:


> What an infant child black-and-white statement. If you can't see why your attitude about women stinks to high heaven then I just don't think I can even begin to explain it to you.


Its no different than any body else. We all have values and standards. I don't see any value in a woman with a high count that jumps in bed on the first date. I've already had sex with her, why would I want to take time to get to know her? Most men prefer a little bit of a challenge...


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

lovelygirl said:


> In this day and age, women have lowered their standards in order to adapt to men's instinct desires. This has become the norm and if a woman raises the bar, she's considered "PICKY"..., when in fact, she's within (_what I'd consider_) normal standards.


I disagree that women have lowered their standards because of men if that is what you are saying. Men haven't changed. Its presure from other women that has changed. Women who insist that men and women should be treated equally in regards to sex and sexual promiscuity. If you think you are sticking it to men and the "patriarchy" by telling women to be ****ty and coming up with the term "**** shaming" as a derogatory term for someone who looks down on female promiscuity, I promise you, you are mistaken. This entire thing doesn't hurt men in the least little bit. In fact, its hurting women a great deal more than it is helping them.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

lovelygirl said:


> That is true.
> 
> Women set standards and if women don't keep these standards, why would men bother?
> 
> In this day and age, women have lowered their standards in order to adapt to men's instinct desires. This has become the norm and if a woman raises the bar, she's considered "PICKY"..., when in fact, she's within (_what I'd consider_) normal standards.
> Now, that is a wide rage of topic.
> 
> But, I'd say it works better for people* who share the same principles. * Therefore, if the two believe they need to wait before having sex, great! If the two believe it's not worth the wait, great! If the two think "no sex before marriage", again...great!
> 
> It's about seeing on the same direction and sharing the same perspective.
> 
> OP, you need to find a guy who thinks it more or less like you. Or AT LEAST, one who UNDERSTANDS where you coming from. [not geographically, but mentally.]


I think you might be right in some respect. I went out with a woman that claimed that if you didn't have sex with a man early enough he would just ghost you. I guess I'm the opposite, I only ghosted women that were easy and seen a future with those that waited. But, apparently thats just me being a misogynist LOL.


----------



## Personal

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Its no different than any body else. We all have values and standards. I don't see any value in a woman with a high count that jumps in bed on the first date. I've already had sex with her, why would I want to take time to get to know her? Most men prefer a little bit of a challenge...


There would be nothing wrong with your standards, if you had the moral integrity to apply them to yourself.


----------



## lovelygirl

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I disagree that women have lowered their standards because of men if that is what you are saying. Men haven't changed. Its presure from other women that has changed. Women who insist that men and women should be treated equally in regards to sex and sexual promiscuity. If you think you are sticking it to men and the "patriarchy" by telling women to be ****ty and coming up with the term "**** shaming" as a derogatory term for someone who looks down on female promiscuity, I promise you, you are mistaken. This entire thing doesn't hurt men in the least little bit. In fact, its hurting women a great deal more than it is helping them.


I didn't necessarily blame men for women's lowered standards. You got it slightly wrong.

All I was saying is that women's standards have changed, for worse. Whether it's because of men or other women, that's another issue. In that, I agree that it's a pressure from other women and men are simply using this to their own advantage. I don't blame them! 

Generally speaking, the more desperate a woman is, the easier sex-target she becomes. 

_*NOTE: * There are exceptions to this statement. No offence._


----------



## lovelygirl

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I think you might be right in some respect. I went out with a woman that claimed that if you didn't have sex with a man early enough he would just ghost you. I guess I'm the opposite, I only ghosted women that were easy and seen a future with those that waited. But, apparently thats just me being a misogynist LOL.


As much as I don't appreciate your double standards(earlier posts), I appreciate your honesty... because FINALLY a man admits to what we all have been thinking and known in silence. 

Sadly for us women, guys like you are in minority. Not because you're an angel fallen from heaven, but at least you don't put all women in the same category. At least, you have your own way of "dividing" those who'd be wifey-material and those who wouldn't. 

But most guys nowadays, they don't have care who's in-front of them. They are totally blind and all they care about is sex on first date. 
They only use the simple equation: If sex --> he'll give her "false" chances; If no sex ---> next woman. Right away!


----------



## NobodySpecial

I won't lie. I have never really gotten this whole standards thing with weights and measures. Go out with people you like and do things you like together. If it does not work for you, move along. If I did wind up sleeping with someone with this nasty gatekeeper standard I would 1) thank GOD if he did not come back for seconds (even though I don't believe in God, I would have to express my supreme gratitude to someone) 2) Be glad I used a condom so he did not get any of his yucky attitude on me.


----------



## BioFury

Cletus said:


> It's not a _guarantee_ of success. Never said it was. Does anyone actually believe that this board would become less active if people stopped having sex before marriage? That's a pretty hard sell.
> 
> It's like buying a car without getting the CarFax. Caveat Emptor. Having sex before marriage will not guarantee you a blissful marriage of eternal sexual compatibility. Discovering that you're sexually incompatible before marriage will save you from a lifetime of frustration.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


True, there are no guarantees. But, people who marry as virgins are statistically happier, and the least likely to divorce. They also, on average, rated their sex lives better than that of their non-virgin counterparts. In fact, the results showed that the more sex partners you have, the more likely you are to divorce. And by extension, are more likely to have an unhappy marriage.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

lovelygirl said:


> I didn't necessarily blame men for women's lowered standards. You got it slightly wrong.
> 
> All I was saying is that women's standards have changed, for worse. Whether it's because of men or other women, that's another issue. In that, I agree that it's a pressure from other women and men are simply using this to their own advantage. I don't blame them!
> 
> Generally speaking, the more desperate a woman is, the easier sex-target she becomes.
> 
> _*NOTE: * There are exceptions to this statement. No offence._


absolutely men are using it to their advantage. Of course if you are generally against abortion, and talk about the single motherhood rate in America as a man looking out for women, it is seen as a man trying to control women. If you point out that men and women are in fact different, and should act differently for their own prosperity, that is sexist and supports the patriarchy or whatever social constructs and all of that.


----------



## Buddy400

BioFury said:


> True, there are no guarantees. But, people who marry as virgins are statistically happier, and the least likely to divorce. They also, on average, rated their sex lives better than that of their non-virgin counterparts. In fact, the results showed that the more sex partners you have, the more likely you are to divorce. And by extension, are more likely to have an unhappy marriage.


I think the causation is probably wrong.

People who have a lot of sex partners usually have a lot of options.

People with more options are more likely to exercise them.


----------



## FieryHairedLady

Bananapeel said:


> Some guys are like USDW and some aren't. I am absolutely not and believe that sexual standards for men and women should be equal. I don't care how many people a woman has had sex with before me, instead I only care if we are having good sex with each other. I never ask a woman how many people she's been with because I don't care and likewise I don't volunteer that information either because past history has no reflection in how I view a new relationship. I also don't view having sex on the first date as a bad thing or a good thing, but if it happen it just means we're really attracted to each other. My "standard" for attraction, if you want to call it that, is I have to at least kiss on the first date or there is no second date. If I get a hug or the dreaded cheek when I try to kiss then I assume she's not that into me and I won't ask her out again.
> 
> Now in actuality my experience has been that most women that kiss me will want to have sex on the first or second date, and they also try to impress me in bed and will do anything I want. I'm not sure if it is my age group, the fact that I'm really fun to date, the lack of successful/attractive single guys in my age group, or that they are competitive and trying to lock me down that causes this. I know that might not be other people's experiences but I'd be a hypocrite if I accepted their advances and then faulted them for it.
> 
> As far as women cheating, it really has far less to do with number of sexual experiences than their attraction level to a man and their character. Women that are highly attracted to their man aren't usually looking for someone else and aren't open to it either. Women with good character will at least have an open conversation and end the relationship before moving onto a new one. The whole virgin wives thing being less likely to cheat is a myth. My XW was a virgin when I met her and she had at least two affairs when we were married (I caught her during the second and found out about the first after the divorce). I never cheated and wouldn't even date anyone else until the divorce had been finalized in the court because it violated my morals regarding marriage vows, while she was hooking up with guys as soon as she moved out and before the divorce was final. I don't hold that against her because my standards are for me and her standards are for her to choose.
> 
> So, nope, not all guys think the same way.


Nice response. Sorry to hear your wife cheated on you.  

Very commendable for you to wait til the divorce finalized. 

I think women in general are feeling alot more freedom sexually. Whether that is a good or bad choice is up to them to decide. They may also feel it is expected of them to try to lock a guy down quick. IDK

I think the standards are ridiculous though. I hate seeing it so one sided. But at the same time, I would caution anyone that it is good to be in a steady monogamous relationship first. 

I am very reserved in that I only will sleep with a man I am head over heels in love with and I need to wait until I feel he feels the same way about me. I need to feel that emotional connection and chemistry and have reasonable assurance that I am not just another notch on his belt. 

Only 2 partners, married both. Still happily married to #2. 

So I don't have alot of experience to know with other guys.


----------



## FieryHairedLady

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Who is using anyone? If a woman and man go on a date and the attraction is there and they end up having sex.
> 1) Its purely consensual
> 2) No commitment or promise of commitement has been made (its the 1st date FFS)
> 
> Maybe she is using the man for sex...Why is it the man that can only use the woman? If you don't want to be treated as a piece of meat, don't jump in bed the first date. No one is being duped here. I don't understand why people think this is something awful...


I don't jump in bed on the first date.

The way you are using someone is that you specifically said you will have sex and dump. 

Yes the woman had an equal oppurtunity to have sex with you and have fun, and it is on each party whether they should or not, or can handle the "game". 

But she wasn't necessarily looking down her nose at you form having sex and planning on ditching you immediately.


----------



## FieryHairedLady

TheDudeLebowski said:


> But women are the gate keepers. Which makes total sense if you really think about what is going on here.
> 
> I mean, a woman is letting a man enter into her body. That is a heavy decision to have to make. A guy? He's just sticking his **** into something. Those two things really aren't on the same level.
> 
> And of course women have an easier time getting sex. This isn't even a debate is it? The only differentiator is that women have higher standards, because they have to! That is biological. So adding in a woman's standards, her own "gate keeping" if you will, well then the playing field is probably even.
> 
> Take away all standards from a man and a woman and send them to a different bar every night for a year with the sole intentions of leaving the bar with someone and having sex that night. Guess which gender is having 365 nights in a row of one night stands? Let me give you a hint, its the one without the twig and berries.


I get what you are saying and I agree with most of it. 

I do think a man sticking his XXXX into a woman is a big deal though, for both of them.

I think everyone should have higher standards, men and women alike.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

NobodySpecial said:


> 2) Be glad I used a condom so he did not get any of his yucky attitude on me.


You can use a condom for the main course, and still get his yucky attitude all over your face for dessert :grin2:


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Inloveforeverwithhubby said:


> I get what you are saying and I agree with most of it.
> 
> I do think a man sticking his XXXX into a woman is a big deal though, for both of them.
> 
> I think everyone should have higher standards, men and women alike.


I agree with you mostly, but have you seen the stuff men do with their ****? Lol. I mean, we love our manhoods and all, but you wouldn't treat someone you love the same way a man treats his junk. Just saying...


----------



## FieryHairedLady

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I agree with you mostly, but have you seen the stuff men do with their ****? Lol. I mean, we love our manhoods and all, but you wouldn't treat someone you love the same way a man treats his junk. Just saying...


LOL


----------



## NobodySpecial

TheDudeLebowski said:


> You can use a condom for the main course, and still get his yucky attitude all over your face for dessert :grin2:


Just. No.


----------



## BioFury

Buddy400 said:


> I think the causation is probably wrong.
> 
> People who have a lot of sex partners usually have a lot of options.
> 
> People with more options are more likely to exercise them.


Most people who are virgins upon marriage aren't that way because they had no sexual options. They're that way by choice. After all, even the most hideous people find someone willing to have sex with them.

So while an extremely hot individual may have 100 people willing to have sex with them, and a below average individual may only have 5 people willing to have sex with them, the difference is statistically irrelevant. Because 1 willing partner is all it takes.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

NobodySpecial said:


> Just. No.


Lol, I would have never mistaken you for that type either. 

Just out of curiosity, what turns you off about the idea of women being the gate keepers? I guess I see it as a compliment to women for having much higher standards for themselves than men do when it comes to sex with multiple partners and one night stands and such. Basically saying, women are much better than men when it comes to this sort of thing. That women civilize men in this regard as a result of their standards. If women didn't have the higher standards, or had no standards at all, that there is little incentive for men to become better. Does that make sense? Or am I way off in your opinion?


----------



## NobodySpecial

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Lol, I would have never mistaken you for that type either.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what turns you off about the idea of women being the gate keepers? I guess I see it as a compliment to women for having much higher standards for themselves than men do when it comes to sex with multiple partners and one night stands and such. Basically saying, women are much better than men when it comes to this sort of thing. That women civilize men in this regard as a result of their standards. If women didn't have the higher standards, or had no standards at all, that there is little incentive for men to become better. Does that make sense? Or am I way off in your opinion?


"That sort of thing" being standards around partner numbers is not my thing. I don't want the responsibility of civilizing someone into be a ... PARTNER. Sexuality has a whole host of possible wonderful benefits, but its possible civilizing the neanderthals is not on my list of pleasures. There must be plenty of incentive for men to become "better" because many of them do and wind up pretty freaking awesome people.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

NobodySpecial said:


> "That sort of thing" being standards around partner numbers is not my thing. I don't want the responsibility of civilizing someone into be a ... PARTNER. Sexuality has a whole host of possible wonderful benefits, but its possible civilizing the neanderthals is not on my list of pleasures. There must be plenty of incentive for men to become "better" because many of them do and wind up pretty freaking awesome people.


I agree with you when we are talking middle age folks. In regards to Neanderthals, that word describes most men, or perhaps I should say boys, ages 16-25ish? If young women had no sexual standards, or even the equivalent standards of young men, we would probably have a mess on our hands. Do you disagree?


----------



## Personal

Girl_power said:


> Just getting a poll... how many dates do you wait till you have sex. And obviously this is with men you are interested in.


More often than not I had sex with women within hours and sometimes within minutes of meeting them before any first date, which also includes my ex-wife.

I have also waited until the first, second and third dates (my current 2nd wife), I can't recall waiting longer than that.

In my experience dating first then sex afterwards occurred less frequently, than sex first then dating afterwards with more sex.

Of the women that I dated there have only been two that I didn't have sex with, of which I dated one of them only once and the other around three times.

That said I've never applied an arbitrary time limit to waiting for sex, it's just happened that waiting for it hasn't been the norm.


----------



## NobodySpecial

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I agree with you when we are talking middle age folks. In regards to Neanderthals, that word describes most men, or perhaps I should say boys, ages 16-25ish? If young women had no sexual standards, or even the equivalent standards of young men, we would probably have a mess on our hands. Do you disagree?


No. I don't. The mess comes from expecting young men to be neanderthals. I know plenty of good men, young and old, who don't need someone to gate them into being the best human beings they can. They want to do that for themselves.


----------



## Red Sonja

TheDudeLebowski said:


> And of course women have an easier time getting *BAD* sex. This isn't even a debate is it?


With the inserted qualifier then, yes, it isn't a debate at all.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Red Sonja said:


> With the inserted qualifier then, yes, it isn't a debate at all.


:grin2: Touché. No argument from me on that one.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

NobodySpecial said:


> No. I don't. The mess comes from expecting young men to be neanderthals. I know plenty of good men, young and old, who don't need someone to gate them into being the best human beings they can. They want to do that for themselves.


I agree, and I see your point. Although i would say a parents guidance through childhood plays a much larger role in this. That the importance of having a good father figure in a young man's life plays a bigger part than the new wave of social acceptance for promiscuous sex amongst women would have you (not literally you) believe. Its sort of a domino effect in my opinion. 

In terms of the messages being sent to young men these days vs before, when the single motherhood rate was much lower, I see a clear difference. Even in small things like music for example. I can turn on a 90s r&b station and play it with my kids in the car no problem. Today's r&b, I can't at all. This messages sells as much to young women today as it does to men. The message is pleasure is the only important part of sex. It basically plays no other role in a relationship. Sex is to be used casually, simply for your own pleasure. "Take your girl" and "walking from side to side" and "gotta eat the booty like groceries" and all that.

Besides welfare, and social acceptance, what else do you attribute to the single motherhood rate? 

I just really dont see how social acceptance of promiscuous sex is helping women. I think teaching women and men both that sex is simply for pleasure hurts women way more than men. If men haven't changed all that much, but women's stances on promiscuity have, can we not tie this back in to a lack of "gate keeping?"


----------



## CharlieParker

Inloveforeverwithhubby said:


> Isn't the thinking behind that if a girl will give it up that quick, that she would not be faithful?
> 
> Which is not always the case. Some people on these forums have talked about virgin wives later cheating


Hypothetical. Sex on the first date, she is (technically) cheating, she has a really huge “number”, she is his first. How does that end?


----------



## Red Sonja

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Besides welfare, and social acceptance, what else do you attribute to the *single motherhood rate*?
> 
> I just really dont see how social acceptance of promiscuous sex is helping women. I think teaching women and men both that sex is simply for pleasure hurts women way more than men. If men haven't changed all that much, but women's stances on promiscuity have, can we not tie this back in to a lack of "gate keeping?"


None of this happened in a vacuum, males were also involved. It's a social problem that involves _men and women_ with plenty of irresponsible behavior on both sides.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Red Sonja said:


> None of this happened in a vacuum, males were also involved. It's a social problem that involves _men and women_ with plenty of irresponsible behavior on both sides.


Government policies and social acceptance pretty much implies both men and women have had their part in this I think. Whats with the "happened in a vacuum" saying on this forum? It doesn't even apply to my statement.


----------



## personofinterest

I feel sad for people who have to make everything into a gender war.


----------



## Bananapeel

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Yea, banana, but you yourself have said you just sleep around with women with no commitment. If you are just after sex, I agree it doesn't matter if she has had 10 partners or 1,000. Actually high count females are probably better in that situation because they are commitment phobes, so you can keep that FWB thing going for awhile. But do you really want your future wife to have 1,000 partners???


I do sometimes just sleep around without commitment, but I also sometimes date women. Either way I'm totally honest and upfront with my intentions, but my intentions can change as I get to know someone. As far as partner number, it honestly doesn't matter to me at all and has no influence on how I categorize them as a ONS, FWB, or committed dating. I mean, it's not like having 1000 partners wore out her ***** but 10 partners kept it alive. The way I choose whether I date or have a casual relationship is simply just a combination of my attraction level to the woman and whether she has the characteristics I'm looking for in a partner (I have a list with my top 10 criteria and it doesn't include partner number on it). And like I said before, I never ask about partner numbers so I wouldn't know if it was 10 or 1000.


----------



## Fredrick

Ask yourself how long you can wait without doing sex?


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

personofinterest said:


> I feel sad for people who have to make everything into a gender war.


A woman would say something like this... 
:wink2: > :x


----------



## personofinterest

TheDudeLebowski said:


> A woman would say something like this...
> :wink2: > :x


NO MORE SAMMICHES FOR YOU!!!!


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Personal said:


> There would be nothing wrong with your standards, if you had the moral integrity to apply them to yourself.


Why? Like I said its a win/win. My thought process was simply if she sleeps with me quick, great, I certainly appreciate getting laid. If she doesn't then great, either we didn't have chemistry or we did but she had her standards. More points if I escalated and she held firm. I'm not lying or leading anyone on here. So why does it have to be about morality? 

We all have different values that we place in mates... Mine are mine and they work for me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Why? Like I said its a win/win. My thought process was simply if she sleeps with me quick, great, I certainly appreciate getting laid. If she doesn't then great, either we didn't have chemistry or we did but she had her standards. More points if I escalated and she held firm. I'm not lying or leading anyone on here. So why does it have to be about morality?
> 
> We all have different values that we place in mates... Mine are mine and they work for me.


You hypocritical judgement rings through when you ghost her. But whatever. I mean, hope you made it safely home... Whatever. You owe her nothing, as you said.


----------



## DustyDog

Hope it's OK that a dude makes a comment here...

One thing I noticed is a distinct age relationship. In my 20s, there was a lead-up...a slow succession of levels of intimacy, mostly in conversation. It would be a matter of months...half a dozen to a dozen dates. In the earliest days, a "date" was hard to define since in college, you simply saw each other on campus and said hey let's get coffee. But later, they were easier to define. 

I got into an LTR in my 20s, then moved on in m 30s. When I started dating again, I was amazed...if sex didn't happen on date #3, she'd end it on the grounds that I wasn't showing enough interest. Sex on the first date was common, and driven by her. I wondered if something was amiss and boring-looking me suddenly looked OK.

Not the case. Apparently, it's hormones, on the woman's part. Was at breakfast with current girlfrien (late 40s) and some of her friends the same age. The topic came up of how urgently they often "needed" sex from about age 35 to 45. One said "It's like, more often, it would be the GUY on the first date, saying, hey slow down let's get to know each other better" and all of the rest at the table agreed vociferously.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

DustyDog said:


> Not the case. Apparently, it's hormones, on the woman's part. Was at breakfast with current girlfrien (late 40s) and some of her friends the same age. The topic came up of how urgently they often "needed" sex from about age 35 to 45. One said "It's like, more often, it would be the GUY on the first date, saying, hey slow down let's get to know each other better" and all of the rest at the table agreed vociferously.


Yea, I've heard women reach their sexual peak in their 30's. I wonder if it some pre-menopausal biological urge to copulate (before its too late)?


----------



## personofinterest

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Yea, I've heard women reach their sexual peak in their 30's. I wonder if it some pre-menopausal biological urge to copulate (before its too late)?


Bless your ignorant little heart.

That number is incorrect. Now, many women BEGIN a sexual surge in the mid 30's. I'm 50 and have not peaked I don't think 



> More points if I escalated and she held firm.


And the above in view of the consent thread is downright disturbing. Gross


----------



## JustTheWife

With my husband it was after we got married.

With other guys I had many casual partners including ones where there was not ever even a date. Just met at a party or like a guy from school, someone giving me a ride home. Some were even more random and sl*ttier on my part. I guess that I had a problem that I couldn't help myself and had trouble saying "no". It's nice to see that I'm not alone with this here.


----------



## DustyDog

JustTheWife said:


> With my husband it was after we got married.
> 
> With other guys I had many casual partners including ones where there was not ever even a date. Just met at a party or like a guy from school, someone giving me a ride home. Some were even more random and sl*ttier on my part. I guess that I had a problem that I couldn't help myself and had trouble saying "no". It's nice to see that I'm not alone with this here.


This is the problem with some of our Puritanical attitudes. Sex is a GOOD thing. If you find physical pleasure, and nobody is being manipulated, abused, coerced, then it is a GOOD thing. If you feel guilt over being "too easy" or chose to call your behavior s----y, then you're only shaming yourself, and shame is not a beneficial feeling. Feel good that you are, and were in the past, a fully sexual human being, fully in touch with your physical desires and willing to act on them.

That doesn't mean everybody "should" engage in casual sex. If a person feels extremely vulnerable when doing so, and wants to not feel so vulnerable, then for them, it is a wise choice to not engage as such.

But eventually, we all have pasts, and any regret we feel about the past weighs on our psyches until we overcome the regret. The past is the past. Enjoy and appreciate it as something that makes you versatile and experienced and wise!


----------



## Deejo

This is of course a very standard question ... but the framing simply isn't correct.

The real question is, how long is it before YOU know you want to be intimate with a date?

That answer is not measured by number of dates.

I'll give you my perspective from post-divorce, and well north of 40. Many of the also divorced women I dated (*disclaimer and CYA statement* prior to committing to matrimony once again with my beautiful wife) who were comfortable in the dating ecosystem, and in that place of discovering who they were beyond wife and mom, did not waste a whole lot of time. The 3 date rule is a guideline, nothing more.

Bottom line for me? You know right and well in pretty short order if sex is in play. Nobody decides to date with a goal of finding a BINGO partner.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

JustTheWife said:


> With my husband it was after we got married.
> 
> With other guys I had many casual partners including ones where there was not ever even a date. Just met at a party or like a guy from school, someone giving me a ride home. Some were even more random and sl*ttier on my part. I guess that I had a problem that I couldn't help myself and had trouble saying "no". It's nice to see that I'm not alone with this here.


It sounds like the wilder phase was when you were younger and the waiting until marriage came later?

While younger meaning wilder is typical, it's unusual to wait until marriage after having had casual partners in the past. It's much more common that one waits until marriage first and then if the marriage dissolves to delve into sexual activity earlier in a relationship. 

I'm curious (assuming I've got the timeline correct here). How/why did you hold off on sex with the man who ultimately became your husband if you were used to having sex more quickly prior to that? Did you see that as a risk?


----------



## personofinterest

"The real question is, how long is it before YOU know you want to be intimate with a date?"

I like this question. It's sort of a dresses the underlying issue, which is kimustry. And having chemistry can sometimes be different from acting on chemistry. For example, I definitely had sexual feelings before I married the 1st time. I was definitely looking forward to having sex. I definitely WANTED to have sex with my first husband waaaaay before our wedding night.

However, my values at the time were that I wanted to wait for marriage.


----------



## JustTheWife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> It sounds like the wilder phase was when you were younger and the waiting until marriage came later?
> 
> While younger meaning wilder is typical, it's unusual to wait until marriage after having had casual partners in the past. It's much more common that one waits until marriage first and then if the marriage dissolves to delve into sexual activity earlier in a relationship.
> 
> I'm curious (assuming I've got the timeline correct here). How/why did you hold off on sex with the man who ultimately became your husband if you were used to having sex more quickly prior to that? Did you see that as a risk?


I'm very religious and had somewhat of a double life. My husband is very religious too. We got together after being friends for a while and committed to wait for marriage. He does not know about my sexual history.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

JustTheWife said:


> I'm very religious and had somewhat of a double life. My husband is very religious too. We got together after being friends for a while and committed to wait for marriage. He does not know about my sexual history.


Ahh, yes. I think I remember a thread on that topic. I understand. Thanks.


----------



## CharlieParker

Deejo said:


> (*disclaimer and CYA statement* prior to committing to matrimony once again with my beautiful wife)


I had to reread that and look back, phew, "once again" is referring to matrimony and your not your (ex)wife.


----------



## changingmale

Both of my ex wifes( well 1 ex and 1 separated) started it. The ex wife gave me a hand job on outside of my pants lying on the couch watching tv cant remember when had sex. The separated wife gave me oral on second date not sure when had sex. I told her i did not want sex bit ok with other stuff. I did not ask or push etc to do what ever


----------



## Ynot

Deejo said:


> This is of course a very standard question ... but the framing simply isn't correct.
> 
> The real question is, how long is it before YOU know you want to be intimate with a date?
> 
> That answer is not measured by number of dates.
> 
> I'll give you my perspective from post-divorce, and well north of 40. Many of the also divorced women I dated (*disclaimer and CYA statement* prior to committing to matrimony once again with my beautiful wife) who were comfortable in the dating ecosystem, and in that place of discovering who they were beyond wife and mom, did not waste a whole lot of time. The 3 date rule is a guideline, nothing more.
> 
> Bottom line for me? You know right and well in pretty short order if sex is in play. Nobody decides to date with a goal of finding a BINGO partner.


My experience as well. In fact I could probably have charged some of the women with raping me if I had been so inclined.


----------



## Deejo

CharlieParker said:


> I had to reread that and look back, phew, "once again" is referring to matrimony and your not your (ex)wife.


Yes, yes, remarried.

I will state as a guy, I honestly didn't much care about 'when' we had sex. I dated a woman for about 12 weeks and it was apparent she was in no hurry. I ended that relationship based on chemistry, not sex. 

I dated another woman where we met, spoke for about an hour, kissed and then made our way to the nearest bedroom.


----------

