# Revisited: Making A Man Wait For Sex



## Vega

When I read an interesting thread here on TAM, many times I'll visit some other (random) forums to read about other people's experiences in the same/similar situation(s). Time and time again, I will read about how some man is angry because the woman he is dating is "making" him wait for sex. 

This couldn't be further from the truth. 

While it's true that SOME women will consciously "make" a man wait, for the sole purpose of deliberately trying to frustrate him, the majority of women are _not_ doing this for that reason. 

I resent the term that a woman is "making" a man do anything. She's not holding a gun to his head, threatening him with bodily harm or forcing him to remain celibate while dating her. He's free to go find someone else to have sex with, especially since sex is so easy to get these days. (I actually read a complaint from a man who felt a certain woman was "making" him wait...for 3 weeks...while he was involved in a LTR FWB situation!)

The second issue I have with this is the reason behind her decision to wait before having sex. Seems that some men think they already have it all figured out that women "who do this" are "playing games" with him. 

As a woman who is interested in a LTR, I want to get to know a man _before_ having sex with him. I want to learn his character...to see if his words match his actions...to observe him in different situations...to discover if his beliefs about life in general coincide with my own. I want to see if he's _trustworthy_. And I'm sorry to generalize, but it's been my experience that many men will LIE in order to get laid. They can tell you they want an LTR (with YOU) when the whole time, they just want to have sex. They can tell you that they are 'Christian', but it might take you several more weeks or months before discovering how non-Christian they really are.

Just like a man wants to "test drive" a woman before committing to her, she also wants to "test drive" a man...

...and not be pressured into signing on the dotted line by some smooth talking used car salesman! She wants the time to do her homework/research. She wants to kick the tires, see how it handles in the rain and test the brakes. She wants to make sure she's getting_ value _for her 'investment'. When she walks away, she'll be thinking about all of the information she's learned (so far) and she doesn't want to make the wrong decision. 

All of this takes _time_. 

I'm writing this in order to encourage you (men) to please understand that women have a LOT more to lose by jumping into the sack with a man too soon. It's a reason why she wants to take her time evaluating her situation before making a decision. 

Can you understand that? It really isn't about YOU.


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband

Vega said:


> When I read an interesting thread here on TAM, many times I'll visit some other (random) forums to read about other people's experiences in the same/similar situation(s). Time and time again, I will read about how some man is angry because the woman he is dating is "making" him wait for sex.
> 
> This couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> While it's true that SOME women will consciously "make" a man wait, for the sole purpose of deliberately trying to frustrate him, the majority of women are _not_ doing this for that reason.
> 
> I resent the term that a woman is "making" a man do anything. She's not holding a gun to his head, threatening him with bodily harm or forcing him to remain celibate while dating her. He's free to go find someone else to have sex with, especially since sex is so easy to get these days. (I actually read a complaint from a man who felt a certain woman was "making" him wait...for 3 weeks...while he was involved in a LTR FWB situation!)
> 
> The second issue I have with this is the reason behind her decision to wait before having sex. Seems that some men think they already have it all figured out that women "who do this" are "playing games" with him.
> 
> *As a woman who is interested in a LTR, I want to get to know a man before having sex with him. I want to learn his character...to see if his words match his actions...to observe him in different situations...to discover if his beliefs about life in general coincide with my own. I want to see if he's trustworthy.* And I'm sorry to generalize, but it's been my experience that many men will LIE in order to get laid. They can tell you they want an LTR (with YOU) when the whole time, they just want to have sex. They can tell you that they are 'Christian', but it might take you several more weeks or months before discovering how non-Christian they really are.
> 
> Just like a man wants to "test drive" a woman before committing to her, she also wants to "test drive" a man...
> 
> ...and not be pressured into signing on the dotted line by some smooth talking used car salesman! She wants the time to do her homework/research. She wants to kick the tires, see how it handles in the rain and test the brakes. She wants to make sure she's getting_ value _for her 'investment'. When she walks away, she'll be thinking about all of the information she's learned (so far) and she doesn't want to make the wrong decision.
> 
> All of this takes _time_.
> 
> I'm writing this in order to encourage you (men) to please understand that women have a LOT more to lose by jumping into the sack with a man too soon. It's a reason why she wants to take her time evaluating her situation before making a decision.
> 
> Can you understand that? It really isn't about YOU.


I agree with you. I was dating a woman in college that broke up with me because she wanted to "test drive" me. I told her that I wanted to wait as I wanted to get to know her better. Even as a virgin, I felt that it was something that would bond me to her, and I wanted to be sure before we went that far.

She sent me on my way.


----------



## Personal

Although I have never had any expectation of having sex early and still don't, most of the women I have had sex with asked me out and offered me sex within hours of meeting or more usually the first, second and less often sometimes the third date. No pressure from me, lies or impatience at all, in fact sometimes I would be asked why I didn't have sex with them earlier.

One of the thing that stands out the most to me, is that with almost all of the people I have had sex with and some people I haven't had sex with. There's a lust/love at first sight thing going on, you know the old cliché, of where our eyes first met bam!

That said I've dated women who I haven't had sex with. Which is all pretty simple if we don't click, and I don't get the coincident all pervasive buzz/thickness in the air of overwhelming mutual sexual attraction I move on. There's little point wasting time trying to establish a sexual relationship absent having that mutual and overwhelming sexual desire. So for me it isn't about time at all, it's always about whether one has that all pervasive sexual connection or not.

When it comes to investing in a long term *sexual* relationships, some men and women simply prefer to test sexual compatibility first, lest they invest themselves emotionally in a sexual relationship with a sexual partner that is either rubbish in bed or sexually incompatible.

Some men and some women variously (because it depends in part upon who you're with) bond sexually first and the rest follows, while some men and women variously bond emotionally first and the rest follows. Neither is right or wrong, better or worse, they are just different and can both lead to equally positive or not so positive outcomes.


----------



## frusdil

Great thread OP! I totally agree. 

I'm not someone to have sex early, or for the sake of it either. Sex complicates things and clouds judgement, lol. Plus I have to have feelings for a man before I could even consider sleeping with him...it's just who I am. I need to feel safe and I need to trust him and know that he values me. My husband and I both wanted to take that part of our relationship slowly, get to know each other first...build our relationship on a solid foundation.

I know myself when I was dating, I wasn't "withholding" sex, or "making him wait" or "testing him" or anything like that. It was simply my boundary, for myself, which I had every right to set, just as the men I dated had every right to next me if they wanted a fast shag


----------



## Vega

frusdil said:


> I know myself when I was dating, I wasn't "withholding" sex, or "making him wait" or "testing him" or anything like that. It was simply my boundary, for myself, which I had every right to set, just as the men I dated had every right to next me if they wanted a fast shag


Exactly! 

And geez luuEEZ, how I despise that term "withholding"...as if sex is something that's "due" to someone, especially someone you're not even in a relationship with!


----------



## Palodyne

My first girlfriend was 2 years younger than me, I was 17 and she was 15. Her family would only let me see her at their house so there was no opportunity, besides the fact that she said she wanted to wait till later. I was fine with that. Oops, the 16 year old boy across the street knocked her up a year later. Her step brother told me about it. GREAT! 

So I moved on. Later I met the young woman that would become my fiancé. She was religious and said we should wait till we were married to have sex. Ok, I was on board for that. She was everything I had been looking for. As you may have guessed, she had a guy on the side she was banging, and she dumped me for him.

So you say it's my own fault, I could have just went out and got some strange because the woman I loved and trusted told me to wait. What would that have said about me? That I'm going to cheat if I don't get it right now? Maybe I was stupid, I damn sure was young. That was nearly 30 years ago. I stopped dating completely after that and gave up. Which is what has driven me to SI and here, along with some time in therapy in 2010-2011, trying to figure out what broke in me.

I do not blame those two girls for asking me to wait back then. I thought it proved they were good girls and worth waiting for. I blame them for telling me to wait while they indulged their carnal needs elsewhere. Then for the next 25 years I assumed there was something wrong with me.


----------



## the guy

Dip me in in honey and tie me to an ant hill...cuz this is just crazy!

From were I'm sitting ...sex is the glue...why wait for it when it is so much fun for both parties?

I mean even if one doesn't know how to phuck ..isn't that much more fun teaching the other how?

I mean if one doesn't have the "itch" ...I mean is it to let your partner go with out...isn't meeting your partners need the best part?

I mean ...who is running the show here?

Granted I let my old lady on top, but at the end of the day she is the one telling me "DON'T STOP"!!!!!


I REGRESS......no matter how I cut it...I still have to wait!!! I am so phucking bete!


----------



## AliceA

The only guys I ever jumped into bed with straight away were ones I *wasn't* interested in developing a relationship with. My DH would claim I jumped into bed with him pretty quick, but in reality, we'd known each other for a few months before actually deciding to form a relationship.

So if a girl is holding off and you want sex NOW, then just drop it because she's looking for something more than a casual fling, and you aren't worth the wait.


----------



## manfromlamancha

Vega said:


> When I read an interesting thread here on TAM, many times I'll visit some other (random) forums to read about other people's experiences in the same/similar situation(s). Time and time again, I will read about how some man is angry because the woman he is dating is "making" him wait for sex.
> 
> This couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> While it's true that SOME women will consciously "make" a man wait, for the sole purpose of deliberately trying to frustrate him, the majority of women are _not_ doing this for that reason.
> 
> I resent the term that a woman is "making" a man do anything. She's not holding a gun to his head, threatening him with bodily harm or forcing him to remain celibate while dating her. He's free to go find someone else to have sex with, especially since sex is so easy to get these days. (I actually read a complaint from a man who felt a certain woman was "making" him wait...for 3 weeks...while he was involved in a LTR FWB situation!)
> 
> The second issue I have with this is the reason behind her decision to wait before having sex. Seems that some men think they already have it all figured out that women "who do this" are "playing games" with him.
> 
> As a woman who is interested in a LTR, I want to get to know a man _before_ having sex with him. I want to learn his character...to see if his words match his actions...to observe him in different situations...to discover if his beliefs about life in general coincide with my own. I want to see if he's _trustworthy_. And I'm sorry to generalize, but it's been my experience that many men will LIE in order to get laid. They can tell you they want an LTR (with YOU) when the whole time, they just want to have sex. They can tell you that they are 'Christian', but it might take you several more weeks or months before discovering how non-Christian they really are.
> 
> Just like a man wants to "test drive" a woman before committing to her, she also wants to "test drive" a man...
> 
> ...and not be pressured into signing on the dotted line by some smooth talking used car salesman! She wants the time to do her homework/research. She wants to kick the tires, see how it handles in the rain and test the brakes. She wants to make sure she's getting_ value _for her 'investment'. When she walks away, she'll be thinking about all of the information she's learned (so far) and she doesn't want to make the wrong decision.
> 
> All of this takes _time_.
> 
> I'm writing this in order to encourage you (men) to please understand that women have a LOT more to lose by jumping into the sack with a man too soon. It's a reason why she wants to take her time evaluating her situation before making a decision.
> 
> Can you understand that? It really isn't about YOU.



Yes I understand. Good advice. I agree that men who feel the strong urge after some time while investing in a potential LTR should not expect sex but when they feel the urge, they should simply go and fvck every prostitute and one night stand floosy they come across so as not to jeopardise the potential great LTR they are working on. Totally agree that no one is holding a gun to their head. And I am sure that, as you said, the female in this LTR scenario would not mind that one bit. After all its the relationship that matters not the sex!

Really ?


----------



## tripad

Vega said:


> When I read an interesting thread here on TAM, many times I'll visit some other (random) forums to read about other people's experiences in the same/similar situation(s). Time and time again, I will read about how some man is angry because the woman he is dating is "making" him wait for sex.
> 
> This couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> While it's true that SOME women will consciously "make" a man wait, for the sole purpose of deliberately trying to frustrate him, the majority of women are _not_ doing this for that reason.
> 
> I resent the term that a woman is "making" a man do anything. She's not holding a gun to his head, threatening him with bodily harm or forcing him to remain celibate while dating her. He's free to go find someone else to have sex with, especially since sex is so easy to get these days. (I actually read a complaint from a man who felt a certain woman was "making" him wait...for 3 weeks...while he was involved in a LTR FWB situation!)
> 
> The second issue I have with this is the reason behind her decision to wait before having sex. Seems that some men think they already have it all figured out that women "who do this" are "playing games" with him.
> 
> As a woman who is interested in a LTR, I want to get to know a man _before_ having sex with him. I want to learn his character...to see if his words match his actions...to observe him in different situations...to discover if his beliefs about life in general coincide with my own. I want to see if he's _trustworthy_. And I'm sorry to generalize, but it's been my experience that many men will LIE in order to get laid. They can tell you they want an LTR (with YOU) when the whole time, they just want to have sex. They can tell you that they are 'Christian', but it might take you several more weeks or months before discovering how non-Christian they really are.
> 
> Just like a man wants to "test drive" a woman before committing to her, she also wants to "test drive" a man...
> 
> ...and not be pressured into signing on the dotted line by some smooth talking used car salesman! She wants the time to do her homework/research. She wants to kick the tires, see how it handles in the rain and test the brakes. She wants to make sure she's getting_ value _for her 'investment'. When she walks away, she'll be thinking about all of the information she's learned (so far) and she doesn't want to make the wrong decision.
> 
> All of this takes _time_.
> 
> I'm writing this in order to encourage you (men) to please understand that women have a LOT more to lose by jumping into the sack with a man too soon. It's a reason why she wants to take her time evaluating her situation before making a decision.
> 
> Can you understand that? It really isn't about YOU.


Spot on.

It's NOT NOT about You. !!!!!!


----------



## chillymorn

I guess everybody gets to decide what crap to put up with when dating. If shes a cold fish and has to wait until shes know your favorite color,religious beliefs,character,political views, thats all good. But were not teenagers here. I think theres room for some hanky panky along the way. so don't be surprised when after a few dates he stops calling because as women want to test drive the character of the man, the man want to test drive the sexual character of the woman. especially if he was in a long term relationship with a woman who had to have the sun moon and stars align before she would have sex. or a woman who is very selfish sexually. 

middle ground


----------



## thefam

manfromlamancha said:


> Yes I understand. Good advice. I agree that men who feel the strong urge after some time while investing in a potential LTR should not expect sex but when they feel the urge, they should simply go and fvck every prostitute and one night stand floosy they come across so as not to jeopardise the potential great LTR they are working on. Totally agree that no one is holding a gun to their head. And I am sure that, as you said, the female in this LTR scenario would not mind that one bit. After all its the relationship that matters not the sex!
> 
> Really ?


This is why we need a "thumbs down " button


----------



## zookeeper

Personally, I have no problem with your idea. As long as you are upfront and honest from the get-go with the man, it's his choice to wait or look elsewhere. I assume you tell a man that you will not be having sex with him until you have vetted him as a suitable partner for you, right? I would have an issue if you tell him nothing, flirt, kiss, heavy pet or otherwise lead him to believe that you are willing to have sex when you are not.

I would ask one question, though. I assume you are not a virgin, so why make sex into the Excalibur sword that can only be possessed by the chosen one? Do you not enjoy sex? Why would you choose to deprive yourself of pleasure just to test a man? If you don't like sex, that's an entirely different ball of wax and I think it would be reprehensible to conceal that fact from a man you are seeking to gain a long-term commitment from. 

Give it some thought. Just are there are some men who care about nothing but getting laid, there are women who only have sex to "land" their man. The guy who lies to and manipulates a woman just to get in her pants is no better or worse than the woman who lies to and manipulates a man for her own interests. If men and women were completely honest with one another, there would be fewer divorces. Probably fewer marriages, too. Definitely fewer bad marriages.


----------



## zookeeper

chillymorn said:


> I guess everybody gets to decide what crap to put up with when dating. If shes a cold fish and has to wait until shes know your favorite color,religious beliefs,character,political views, thats all good. But were not teenagers here. I think theres room for some hanky panky along the way. so don't be surprised when after a few dates he stops calling because as women want to test drive the character of the man, the man want to test drive the sexual character of the woman. especially if he was in a long term relationship with a woman who had to have the sun moon and stars align before she would have sex. or a woman who is very selfish sexually.
> 
> middle ground


I've always been a sexual camel of sorts. I can go for long periods without sex, no sweat, but if I have a woman in my life...I'm not going to wait six months. After about a month, I would just simply lose interest. 

I have never cheated and never dated multiple women past about the second or third date. I truly am a one woman man, or at least one woman at any given time. If the chemistry isn't strong enough in the beginning to make sex natural and easy, it's not likely to develop later. At least not in my experience. 

If my wife told me on our first date that she wouldn't be having sex until some undetermined time at which I had "proven" myself to her there would not have been a second date. Fair enough, we would both be free to find someone else. The fact that she jumped my bones on the second date made that a bit of a moot point.


----------



## thefam

@zookeeper I can understand your sentiments. But I think some men don't understand the vulnerability a woman feels when she gives herself sexually. In my situation (18 year old virgin, 22 year old reformed playa ) I did not want to be phucked and tossed aside. The chemistry between us was overwhelming but how could I be sure that it was not fleeting for him? I half believed him because he didn't start pressuring me for a couple of months into the relationship. I gave in after a couple more months but it probably wasn't until 6 months or so that I truly felt my heart was "safe" with him.


----------



## samyeagar

Everybody get to choose what they want to test drive, what is important to them. It is totally up to them to leave the relationship if they don't like what they see, or don't get the chance. For me, ideally, both people would be able to test drive what is important to them at the same time.

In the scenario laid out above, if one person had sex as a high priority, it seems as if one partner is getting to vet, test drive, while the other is not...sort of a what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. Neither is right or wrong, but this points to a basic incompatibility, and both should be upfront about their intentions.


----------



## Wolf1974

For the most part I agree that if looking for something serious sex shouldn't happen immediately. That said it can lead to a what will come first the chicken or the egg. No sex = no committed relationship for me. So if we were going to be waiting months and months to get to that place I also wouldn't be dating her exclusively.

I think timeframes are important but matching timeframes are critical to make the beginning stages of relationships work.


----------



## zookeeper

thefam said:


> @zookeeper I can understand your sentiments. But I think some men don't understand the vulnerability a woman feels when she gives herself sexually. In my situation (18 year old virgin, 22 year old reformed playa ) I did not want to be phucked and tossed aside. The chemistry between us was overwhelming but how could I be sure that it was not fleeting for him? I half believed him because he didn't start pressuring me for a couple of months into the relationship. I gave in after a couple more months but it probably wasn't until 6 months or so that I truly felt my heart was "safe" with him.


I see no problem with that, an 18YO virgin would understandably assign some level of mystique to sex. I don't think anyone should do something they don't want to because they feel pressured. 

But just look at your choice of words. You say a woman "gives" herself to a man. As if sex is some one-sided thing. If sex is not a mutually enjoyable and rewarding endeavor, why engage in it at all?

I know there are many expectations forged by society and we all hold at least a few. Pressure goes both ways.

Man: It's been 6 months! When are we going to have sex? 
Woman: Stop pressuring me!


Woman: It's been two years! When are we going to get engaged?
Man: Stop pressuring me!


Can any of us claim we don't have a pretty good idea of what the other is interested in? Honesty and full disclosure would save a lot of hear ache. If the man is honest that he just wants sex and fun and has no intention to get serious, the woman can make an informed decision. If the woman just wants a long-term partner but has no desire to have sex, the man can make his. Please don't kid yourself that deception and manipulation are unique to one gender. 

Funny thing, in my experience most men and women actually want similar things, at least as they mature. If there was less game playing and jockeying for position they would see that. They might also see that getting what you think you want at the cost of the other person's needs rarely end in long term happiness for either party.

One question. Why is getting dumped after having sex with someone (assuming you wanted sex with this person) worse than not having sex and getting dumped?


----------



## Vega

zookeeper said:


> One question. Why is getting dumped after having sex with someone (assuming you wanted sex with this person) worse than not having sex and getting dumped?


If you get dumped AFTER having sex, chances are, you were _used_ JUST for sex.


----------



## nirvana

thefam said:


> @zookeeper I can understand your sentiments. But I think some men don't understand the vulnerability a woman feels when she gives herself sexually. In my situation (18 year old virgin, 22 year old reformed playa ) I did not want to be phucked and tossed aside. The chemistry between us was overwhelming but how could I be sure that it was not fleeting for him? I half believed him because he didn't start pressuring me for a couple of months into the relationship. I gave in after a couple more months but it probably wasn't until 6 months or so that I truly felt my heart was "safe" with him.



Agree with you.
This is where men and women are different in my observation even if the ultra-feminists insists that it is not the case.

Men are less distressed about being tossed aside than women in general. Women are more careful about who they sleep with and the man has to reach certain thresholds of attributes before she sleeps with him. For most men, the thresholds are way lower.

Exceptions always exist.


----------



## chillymorn

Vega said:


> If you get dumped AFTER having sex, chances are, you were _used_ JUST for sex.


or your just not very good in the sack. your penis is too small or large, you don't smell very pleasant, you don't like the same things sexually, etc


----------



## zookeeper

Vega said:


> If you get dumped AFTER having sex, chances are, you were _used_ JUST for sex.


Not necessarily. Perhaps you were dumped because the other person discovered you were not compatible sexually. Perhaps waiting for a long time only extended a doomed relationship because the other person was so fixated on having sex that they overlooked that the relationship was flawed. 

Even if you're right, so what? How can you be "used" if you are engaging in a activity you wanted to engage in? If you had sex when you didn't want to, that's where the real problem exists. Sex doesn't need to me so mystified. It is a normal, healthy physical act that both men and women enjoy. It's not something you need to guard to protect your integrity. It's not some currency in short supply that can only be exchanged for something of like value. The older and more experienced we are, the more (I hope) we learn to understand this. 

I'm not trying to argue with you, I just think it is way beyond time our society begins to view sexuality in a positive light. It should be something empowering for both men and women. I challenge these age-old ideals. I believe that making sex a prize that is only awarded at the end of a course of covert tests only sets couples up for an increased chance of a bad marriage.

All that said, I'll reiterate. I don't object to any woman who refuses to have sex with a man for whatever period of time as long as she is open and honest about her intentions. A man should be able to make an informed choice, just a woman should be.


----------



## Vega

chillymorn said:


> or your just not very good in the sack. your penis is too small or large, you don't smell very pleasant, you don't like the same things sexually, etc


Well, since I'm a woman, I can honestly tell you that I've never EVER heard any complaints about my penis being too small..


----------



## SadSamIAm

Vega said:


> When I read an interesting thread here on TAM, many times I'll visit some other (random) forums to read about other people's experiences in the same/similar situation(s). Time and time again, I will read about how some man is angry because the woman he is dating is "making" him wait for sex.
> 
> This couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> While it's true that SOME women will consciously "make" a man wait, for the sole purpose of deliberately trying to frustrate him, the majority of women are _not_ doing this for that reason.
> 
> I resent the term that a woman is "making" a man do anything. She's not holding a gun to his head, threatening him with bodily harm or forcing him to remain celibate while dating her. He's free to go find someone else to have sex with, especially since sex is so easy to get these days. (I actually read a complaint from a man who felt a certain woman was "making" him wait...for 3 weeks...while he was involved in a LTR FWB situation!)
> 
> The second issue I have with this is the reason behind her decision to wait before having sex. Seems that some men think they already have it all figured out that women "who do this" are "playing games" with him.
> 
> As a woman who is interested in a LTR, I want to get to know a man _before_ having sex with him. I want to learn his character...to see if his words match his actions...to observe him in different situations...to discover if his beliefs about life in general coincide with my own. I want to see if he's _trustworthy_. And I'm sorry to generalize, but it's been my experience that many men will LIE in order to get laid. They can tell you they want an LTR (with YOU) when the whole time, they just want to have sex. They can tell you that they are 'Christian', but it might take you several more weeks or months before discovering how non-Christian they really are.
> 
> Just like a man wants to "test drive" a woman before committing to her, she also wants to "test drive" a man...
> 
> ...and not be pressured into signing on the dotted line by some smooth talking used car salesman! She wants the time to do her homework/research. She wants to kick the tires, see how it handles in the rain and test the brakes. She wants to make sure she's getting_ value _for her 'investment'. When she walks away, she'll be thinking about all of the information she's learned (so far) and she doesn't want to make the wrong decision.
> 
> All of this takes _time_.
> 
> I'm writing this in order to encourage you (men) to please understand that women have a LOT more to lose by jumping into the sack with a man too soon. It's a reason why she wants to take her time evaluating her situation before making a decision.
> 
> Can you understand that? It really isn't about YOU.


I agree with everything that you are saying. This is the type of woman I would be looking for. 

At the same time, if she was the woman for me, we would hold these values, but we would be so into each other that we wouldn't be able to help ourselves. Even though our intention is to not have sex, we would be having sex within a couple of weeks or a month of starting to date. 

The chemistry would have to be there and it would have to be strong. If we were able to date for months without having sex, then I don't think the relationship would work.


----------



## Married but Happy

I could and would wait a while to have sex if I meet someone with whom I'd want a lasting relationship, and their goal is the same. However, _they've_ never wanted to wait - and the relationship continued anyway. I can see that if a woman has difficulty discerning the players from the keepers, she may need to employ the delaying strategy.


----------



## joannacroc

Palodyne said:


> My first girlfriend was 2 years younger than me, I was 17 and she was 15. Her family would only let me see her at their house so there was no opportunity, besides the fact that she said she wanted to wait till later. I was fine with that. Oops, the 16 year old boy across the street knocked her up a year later. Her step brother told me about it. GREAT!
> 
> So I moved on. Later I met the young woman that would become my fiancé. She was religious and said we should wait till we were married to have sex. Ok, I was on board for that. She was everything I had been looking for. As you may have guessed, she had a guy on the side she was banging, and she dumped me for him.
> 
> So you say it's my own fault, I could have just went out and got some strange because the woman I loved and trusted told me to wait. What would that have said about me? That I'm going to cheat if I don't get it right now? Maybe I was stupid, I damn sure was young. That was nearly 30 years ago. I stopped dating completely after that and gave up. Which is what has driven me to SI and here, along with some time in therapy in 2010-2011, trying to figure out what broke in me.
> 
> I do not blame those two girls for asking me to wait back then. I thought it proved they were good girls and worth waiting for. I blame them for telling me to wait while they indulged their carnal needs elsewhere. Then for the next 25 years I assumed there was something wrong with me.


Your being cheated on was not your fault. But it also had nothing to do with these women wanting to wait. People get cheated on the whole time, sadly. By partners of all different persuasions. So the waiting doesn't seem to really have anything to do with it. You just happened across 2 untrustworthy people. Which I'm sorry you experienced. But I'm not sure it has much bearing on the question of whether waiting for the right girl is a good move.


----------



## joannacroc

chillymorn said:


> I guess everybody gets to decide what crap to put up with when dating. If shes a cold fish and has to wait until shes know your favorite color,religious beliefs,character,political views, thats all good. But were not teenagers here. I think theres room for some hanky panky along the way. so don't be surprised when after a few dates he stops calling because as women want to test drive the character of the man, the man want to test drive the sexual character of the woman. especially if he was in a long term relationship with a woman who had to have the sun moon and stars align before she would have sex. or a woman who is very selfish sexually.
> 
> middle ground


I get what you're saying, but I think the *middle ground* bit is important here.

It's not like there's a checklist. More that I want to know I like and can trust a man on a basic level before I sleep with him. 

Of course once you like a man, you want to know if they are selfish in bed, or that you have compatible tastes, so there's no sense in waiting endlessly.


----------



## thefam

zookeeper said:


> Not necessarily. Perhaps you were dumped because the other person discovered you were not compatible sexually. Perhaps waiting for a long time only extended a doomed relationship because the other person was so fixated on having sex that they overlooked that the relationship was flawed.
> 
> Even if you're right, so what? How can you be "used" if you are engaging in a activity you wanted to engage in? If you had sex when you didn't want to, that's where the real problem exists. Sex doesn't need to me so mystified. It is a normal, healthy physical act that both men and women enjoy. It's not something you need to guard to protect your integrity. It's not some currency in short supply that can only be exchanged for something of like value. The older and more experienced we are, the more (I hope) we learn to understand this.
> 
> I'm not trying to argue with you, I just think it is way beyond time our society begins to view sexuality in a positive light. It should be something empowering for both men and women. I challenge these age-old ideals. I believe that making sex a prize that is only awarded at the end of a course of covert tests only sets couples up for an increased chance of a bad marriage.
> 
> All that said, I'll reiterate. I don't object to any woman who refuses to have sex with a man for whatever period of time as long as she is open and honest about her intentions. A man should be able to make an informed choice, just a woman should be.


Again I understand your sentiments but that is NOT the way I view sex. First of all I would not want casual sex. I only want sex with someone I love. I consider myself to be pretty high drive kinky but only in the context of a loving relationship. As an 18 year old however I even though I was pretty aware of the type of man I wanted (had to have edge but not a .hoodlum and not a jerk) I had no clue as to how a relationship with a man should develop. I had preconceived notions of how I THOUGHT men are and what they wanted but no experience.


----------



## zookeeper

thefam said:


> Again I understand your sentiments but that is NOT the way I view sex. First of all I would not want casual sex. I only want sex with someone I love. I consider myself to be pretty high drive kinky but only in the context of a loving relationship. As an 18 year old however I even though I was pretty aware of the type of man I wanted (had to have edge but not a .hoodlum and not a jerk) I had no clue as to how a relationship with a man should develop. I had preconceived notions of how I THOUGHT men are and what they wanted but no experience.


As long as you were honest and upfront with the man, I'd say you acted in the right way for your belief system. He could freely decide if he wanted the same thing.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Vega said:


> If you get dumped AFTER having sex, chances are, you were _used_ JUST for sex.


I don't see either the "use" or the "just". If someone is a consenting adult, how are they being used? And what is "just" about sex? Is something else besides sex somehow valued to be more or better? This attitude makes no sense to me.


----------



## Marduk

I will say that either having sex too early or too late in the relationship doesn't work. 

I've waited and invested time in a person only to realize that sex didn't work with them. 

I've not waited and then realized that our relationship didn't work. 

Do it when it feels right. But don't play games either way.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Rowan

I'm simply of the opinion that, in general, no one really "makes" another consenting adult do much of anything. A woman is not _making_ a guy wait for sex. If he's not getting the sex he wants on a time table that suits him, but he's still hanging around, then he's _choosing_ to hang around. Similarly, a guy is not _making_ a woman give him sex before she's ready - unless we're discussing rape. If she feels he's expecting sex on a time table that doesn't suit her, but she's still hanging around, then she's _choosing_ to hang around. 

I have no problem with anyone, male or female, who wants sex quickly. I have no problem with anyone, male or female, who does not. I do have a problem with people complaining about a situation that is entirely within their own control. Not happy with how fast or slow things are going? Move on and find someone who wants to move at a pace you're happy with. There's zero reason for any amount of butthurt at your partner, or the opposite sex in general, because of a situation you're actively choosing to participate in.


----------



## As'laDain

Strange...

I have dumped a lot of girls that pressured me for sex when I wasn't ready, and I have been dumped several times because I wouldn't "put out". 

I have only had sex with two people, and the first one cheated on me and was unremorseful, so I dumped her. The second one I married. 

In my experience, this is an issue that goes both ways. 

That said, I didn't dwell on it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

As'laDain said:


> Strange...
> 
> I have dumped a lot of girls that pressured me for sex when I wasn't ready, and I have been dumped several times because I wouldn't "put out".
> 
> I have only had sex with two people, and the first one cheated on me and was unremorseful, so I dumped her. The second one I married.
> 
> In my experience, this is an issue that goes both ways.
> 
> That said, I didn't dwell on it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Oh yeah, I've had plenty of women who have gotten all butthurt because I wouldn't sleep with them. Called all kinds of names, snyde comments, broken up with. One would think women are just a bunch of pigs that want to get laid.


----------



## Marduk

As'laDain said:


> Strange...
> 
> I have dumped a lot of girls that pressured me for sex when I wasn't ready, and I have been dumped several times because I wouldn't "put out".
> 
> I have only had sex with two people, and the first one cheated on me and was unremorseful, so I dumped her. The second one I married.
> 
> In my experience, this is an issue that goes both ways.
> 
> That said, I didn't dwell on it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I've said no to sex plenty of times on a first date. A couple times minutes into the first date. Because I wasn't into them, or I wasn't looking for a fling, or whatever. Not that first date sex can't turn into an LTR, but sometimes it's clear that what she wants is just to get laid.

And I've broken up with women who after a few weeks refused or showed disinterest in sex with me. Because either she wasn't into me, or she had some kind of hangup that I wanted to avoid. And if you're dated someone 5 or 6 or 7 or more times and it's clearly not going there, well... It's probably not going to go there. Or it's not going to be good if it does. Because for me that is a natural next progression to get to know somebody.

I once had a girlfriend that I was head over heels in love with. Right after I broke up with my ex. And she would come over to my place, make out, get naked... And refuse sex. And then stay overnight, or even the weekend. She even left a toothbrush at my place.

But refused sex. So I broke up with her -- by simply asking her to leave. Because why sleep at my place on the weekends if we're not going to have sex?

She was coming out of a bad relationship, and we managed to remain friends, even after we did have sex and do the whole on again/off again/FWB dance. But it didn't really ever have a chance partly because we moved forward in kind of a ****ed up pretend way.


----------



## Vega

Rowan said:


> I'm simply of the opinion that, in general, no one really "makes" another consenting adult do much of anything. A woman is not _making_ a guy wait for sex. If he's not getting the sex he wants on a time table that suits him, but he's still hanging around, then he's _choosing_ to hang around. Similarly, a guy is not _making_ a woman give him sex before she's ready - unless we're discussing rape. If she feels he's expecting sex on a time table that doesn't suit her, but she's still hanging around, then she's _choosing_ to hang around.
> 
> I have no problem with anyone, male or female, who wants sex quickly. I have no problem with anyone, male or female, who does not. I do have a problem with people complaining about a situation that is entirely within their own control. Not happy with how fast or slow things are going? Move on and find someone who wants to move at a pace you're happy with. There's zero reason for any amount of butthurt at your partner, or the opposite sex in general, because of a situation you're actively choosing to participate in.


DING! DING!! DING!!! FOR THE *WIN*!!!! 

My point _exactly_, Rowan! :allhail:


----------



## Vega

As'laDain said:


> Strange...
> 
> I have dumped a lot of girls that pressured me for sex when *I wasn't ready,* and I have been dumped several times because I wouldn't "put out".
> 
> I have only had sex with two people, and the first one cheated on me and was unremorseful, so I dumped her. The second one I married.
> 
> In my experience, this is an issue that goes both ways.
> 
> That said, I didn't dwell on it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Just curious but...

WHY weren't you 'ready'?


----------



## samyeagar

Vega said:


> Just curious but...
> 
> WHY weren't you 'ready'?


I know this wasn't directed at me, but I am going to answer as well...

Simply put, I wasn't feeling that physical spark, wasn't physically attracted enough.

I have been pretty self sufficient most of my life when it comes to practical matters. I can cook, clean, laundry, earn enough to support myself and a family. I have always been self motivated to make sure all those things are done, so I have no need for a partner to take care of practical, day to day things for me. So long as I feel appreciated and don't feel taken for granted, I am fine with picking up some of the slack for my partner too.

I guess I am lucky in that I really don't feel as if I need to have a partner for much of anything beyond just that I want one, and enjoy having one.


----------



## As'laDain

Vega said:


> Just curious but...
> 
> WHY weren't you 'ready'?


Because without their mind and soul, I have no use for their body. That is how I want a woman to view sex with me. If I dont have their mind and soul, I might as well have a prostitute. 

And I'm no prostitute. 

If I were to do it again, I wouldn't have had sex with the first girl. I don't really regret it today, but looking back it just seemed... pointless. Like I was wasting my time with her. 

Make sense?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Love love love your thread @Vega... I feel the same.. always have from my youth, always will... very close to my heart.. you described it beautifully... 

I bought a book yrs ago on the various sexual views.. because I see SO MUCH MISUNDERSTANDING on these forums.. especially how I've felt....some belittle & think lowly -like we are all Prudes & low drive, like this is automatic if a woman doesn't put out by the ___ date..

It's just NOT always the case.. So I did a thread on the 6 sexual views laid out in the book...we can partake in all of these views, but everyone has a PRIMARY view...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...exual-views-have-they-changed-over-years.html 

Just as some do not get it when we speak of being "USED"...or that it's "just sex"... there is a "Plain Sex" view , causal in nature, it's foremost about Pleasure alone & consent. 

We, on the other hand.. want the strings.. we want the "after glow".. a hot man who desires us for a night just isn't going to satisfy our souls, our lust for authentic connection, something real... no matter the temptation in the heat of the moment .... his walking out the door afterwards, not really knowing if he's even going to call again.. no thank [email protected]#

What you describe is the "Romantic View"... it requires intimacy, exclusiveness, a desire for "oneness".. it's special, it seeks to please each other.... 



> *3. ** Romantic View *~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "save yourself for the one, your beloved"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> Sex should be reserved for those who are deeply in love with the strings of emotional attachment/commitment. Loveless sex is not appropriate, People should be sexually faithful as long as love lasts. Those who hold the romantic view often talk in terms of sex as sacred, as a Gift to be preserved & given to someone of profound significance.
> 
> Romantic view holds that sex should be connected with a thirst for deep psychological & bodily knowledge, Mutually reciprocated gift-giving & intimacy are it's purpose.
> 
> The feeling of being in love is a feeling that one’s beloved is an irreplaceable soul mate.
> 
> Complications arise, however, when romantic feelings do not last or when someone who has made a commitment to sexual exclusivity finds himself or herself in love with someone else.
> 
> The romantic view emphasizes interpersonal intimacy, but sees the duration of commitment as contingent. Commitment lasts for as long as romantic love lasts. But commitment is a must. A one-time encounter with a stranger may be consensual -but it would not be appropriate for those who hold the Romantic view.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Everything is a test designed to make you fail. If you continue to play you fail and you've been dominated. If you refuse to play you still fail.


----------



## bkyln309

as someone who lived in a sexless marriage(and a woman), I will tell you Im not into playing games with the men I like. If I find them attractive, I am not playing a game by making them wait. Life is too short to be sexually restricted. And I refuse to hold off only to find out the sex is terrible. UGH. Usually a couple of dates in, we go for it. I have not regretted it once.


----------



## EllisRedding

Interesting topic, and I generally agree with @Vega opening post. I think @Rowan pretty much nailed my thoughts on the matter as well, so no need to repeat lol. The challenge (whether it is the male or female who wants to wait) is how to keep the line of communication open over a "target date" that even the "waiter" doesn't know (unless they actually set a specific date, but I imagine most would rather let nature take its course). At some point the "waitee" would probably feel dragged along, but as others have said, it ultimately is their choice whether to stick around or not.

Now the question, you have been dating this female who wants to wait until she is ready (open ended). You get to the point where you don't want to wait anymore and tell her you are moving on. She doesn't want to lose you so even though she isn't ready she bites the bullet. Do you go in for the kill knowing that her offering sex is more a function of a "flight or fight" response and not necessarily that she wants to have sex with you (worse case you still get laid), or would that be a turn off (obviously gender roles could be reversed)?


----------



## samyeagar

EllisRedding said:


> Interesting topic, and I generally agree with @Vega opening post. I think @Rowan pretty much nailed my thoughts on the matter as well, so no need to repeat lol. The challenge (whether it is the male or female who wants to wait) is how to keep the line of communication open over a "target date" that even the "waiter" doesn't know (unless they actually set a specific date, but I imagine most would rather let nature take its course). At some point the "waitee" would probably feel dragged along, but as others have said, it ultimately is their choice whether to stick around or not.
> 
> Now the question, you have been dating this female who wants to wait until she is ready (open ended). You get to the point where you don't want to wait anymore and tell her you are moving on. She doesn't want to lose you so even though she isn't ready she bites the bullet. Do you go in for the kill knowing that her offering sex is more a function of a "flight or fight" response and not necessarily that she wants to have sex with you (worse case you still get laid), or would that be a turn off (obviously gender roles could be reversed)?


For me, if it got the point where I was ready to move on because of lack of sex, I would do just that. Any desire to have sex with her would have become be non existent, so it wouldn't matter if she threw herself at me, bit the bullet, or what have you. We would not have sex, and I would move on.


----------



## Marduk

As'laDain said:


> Because without their mind and soul, I have no use for their body. That is how I want a woman to view sex with me. If I dont have their mind and soul, I might as well have a prostitute.
> 
> And I'm no prostitute.
> 
> If I were to do it again, I wouldn't have had sex with the first girl. I don't really regret it today, but looking back it just seemed... pointless. Like I was wasting my time with her.
> 
> Make sense?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm less all-or-nothing about it than you are but I can say that I've been approached cold by women in my younger days. As in a girl just walking up to you at a party or a bar and just "wanna ****?"

And while you might think that sounds awesome, when it happened to me those few times I always thought "uh... No thanks."


----------



## Marduk

samyeagar said:


> For me, if it got the point where I was ready to move on because of lack of sex, I would do just that. Any desire to have sex with her would have become be non existent, so it wouldn't matter if she threw herself at me, bit the bullet, or what have you. We would not have sex, and I would move on.


I have had that happen once, too. One girl insisted we wait until she knew me better. Which was all fine and good until I realized that what she meant was jump through a whole ton of hoops and maybe she'd let me see her naked. And it just seemed all exhausting and like a game.

So I told her I wanted a more adult relationship with someone who wanted sex to be a part of that, too, and broke up with her.

And then of course she offered me sex instantly. And that just seemed really pitiful.


----------



## EllisRedding

samyeagar said:


> For me, if it got the point where I was ready to move on because of lack of sex, I would do just that. Any desire to have sex with her would have become be non existent, so it wouldn't matter if she threw herself at me, bit the bullet, or what have you. We would not have sex, and I would move on.





marduk said:


> I have had that happen once, too. One girl insisted we wait until she knew me better. Which was all fine and good until I realized that what she meant was jump through a whole ton of hoops and maybe she'd let me see her naked. And it just seemed all exhausting and like a game.
> 
> So I told her I wanted a more adult relationship with someone who wanted sex to be a part of that, too, and broke up with her.
> 
> And then of course she offered me sex instantly. And that just seemed really pitiful.


You two guys aren't exactly helping with the whole "All men are dogs" mantra lol. :grin2:


----------



## GuyInColorado

In my experience, girls that wait a long time (2 months+) to have sex are horrible in bed. They are scared to be sexual. They either grew up in a religious home were sexed was looked down or they have no self confidence (image issues). The never initiate sex, which a person can only take for so long. They aren't into changing up the sex to make it fun. 

That's just my observation. I'm sure it goes the same with men who are scared to be sexual.


----------



## Marduk

GuyInColorado said:


> In my experience, girls that wait a long time (2 months+) to have sex are horrible in bed. They are scared to be sexual. They either grew up in a religious home were sexed was looked down or they have no self confidence (image issues). The never initiate sex, which a person can only take for so long. They aren't into changing up the sex to make it fun.
> 
> That's just my observation. I'm sure it goes the same with men who are scared to be sexual.


Ditto now that you say that. 

Now that I think about it, every woman that wanted me to wait for it for months was a total dud in bed. And kinda all "here I am as a prize for you" about it... And then laid there.

Probably why I stopped waiting for it.


----------



## badsanta

Vega said:


> Just like a man wants to "test drive" a woman before committing to her, she also wants to "test drive" a man...


I remember in college I was only interested in LTR and I had a girlfriend that made me wait a while before we were intimate. As soon as we were I saw that ALL my feelings for her were based mostly on lust and that after I got what I wanted that I no longer wanted her around until my desire came back. 
@Vega women need to be careful exactly *what* it is they are test driving! 

In my opinion a woman should make a man wait for PIV, but she should be willing to be sexually active with him in other ways (outercourse and other forms of nonpenetrative sex), and make sure that all parts of the relationship are natural and loving. 

If a woman wants to "test drive" a man, she really needs to see how he treats her AFTER he has had two or three orgasms in one day! This can be accomplished without PIV.

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## As'laDain

I just straight up told women that I'm not having sex with them unless I am married to them. 

I remember one conversation in high school where a girl told me I am an idiot and asked me how on earth I could know if I am compatible with someone. I asked them what makes someone compatible? I already knew at that time that what turned me on the most was seeing a girl get turned on. So, in my mind, all I really needed was to know how to turn the girl on. 

We whent round and round about "techniques" and sexual knowledge, etc. I asked her if there was ANYTHING I couldn't learn as a married man. She basically said no, but she wouldn't waste her time "holding my hand" through sex. 

That told me all I needed to know about her. Even if she had someone willing to do anything to blow her mind, she wasn't even willing to put in the slightest amount of effort. I found that view to be incredibly entitled and pathetic. No way would I waste my time with someone who damands everything be perfect from the get go. 

My wife and I spent time learning each other. We whent from terrible sex to mind blowing sex. 

Unless you aren't willing to work and learn, there is no need to test drive anything. 

Cars are the same way. The only cars that don't typically get test driven are the ones that people buy for their potential, the cars that end up with the most sentimental value. The ones they want to restore. They look forward to the work and the reward at the end. 

That's how I view relationships and sex. I don't care where they came from, I am looking forward to the work, the journey, and the reward at the end. They aren't just to fill a purpose. They ARE the purpose. 


I guess you could call me a romantic.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> Ditto now that you say that.
> 
> Now that I think about it, every woman that wanted me to wait for it for months was a total dud in bed. And kinda all "here I am as a prize for you" about it... And then laid there.
> 
> Probably why I stopped waiting for it.


Wouldn't know, because I never waited that long. That said, I've also never had dud sex either...


----------



## jb02157

frusdil said:


> Great thread OP! I totally agree.
> 
> I'm not someone to have sex early, or for the sake of it either. Sex complicates things and clouds judgement, lol. Plus I have to have feelings for a man before I could even consider sleeping with him...it's just who I am. I need to feel safe and I need to trust him and know that he values me. My husband and I both wanted to take that part of our relationship slowly, get to know each other first...build our relationship on a solid foundation.
> 
> I know myself when I was dating, I wasn't "withholding" sex, or "making him wait" or "testing him" or anything like that. It was simply my boundary, for myself, which I had every right to set, just as the men I dated had every right to next me if they wanted a fast shag


Agree 100%. That's the way I did things to, I wanted to make sure that I had a solid relationship before going forward. Unfortunately I still ended up with a bad marriage.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

zookeeper said:


> Give it some thought. *Just are there are some men who care about nothing but getting laid, there are women who only have sex to "land" their man. The guy who lies to and manipulates a woman just to get in her pants is no better or worse than the woman who lies to and manipulates a man for her own interests. If men and women were completely honest with one another, there would be fewer divorces. *Probably fewer marriages, too. Definitely fewer bad marriages.


I agree with this.. *it IS Just as bad*.. both are manipulating -for selfish gain...which is WRONG.. it's foundation is built upon *lies*....never the way to start any relationship. It all comes to light soon enough.. 

I am all for honesty upfront..showing some vulnerability to *the WHY's *we feel as we do...if the other doesn't care, belittles us, trying to change us.. we're not a good match.. just move on..

I shared my








fully with my husband when we met... I was very young, in 10th grade...if I ended up pregnant to some Playboy who didn't give crap about me.. It could have ruined my life..I watched my mother "self destruct" inviting USER men into it.. a number of then, I was taken off of her even by my father... then shortly after she had a nervous breakdown.. she lost her job, the little house we shared, all her self esteem.. then ran off with an alcoholic .. she was pretty messed up after that.. a very sad thing to say. but I FEARED turning out like her.

Then I had a step Mom telling me she'd throw me out on the streets if I got pregnant.. 

I didn't have support of family.. I needed someone I could rely on...someone I could trust...truth is.. I was always horny.. always fantasized about the boys, dreaming of "the One" to share it all with (this included sexual fantasies), but I also wanted a family of my own..... 

@badsanta said:



> *In my opinion a woman should make a man wait for PIV, but she should be willing to be sexually active with him in other ways (outercourse and other forms of nonpenetrative sex), and make sure that all parts of the relationship are natural and loving. *
> 
> If a woman wants to "test drive" a man, she really needs to see how he treats her AFTER he has had two or three orgasms in one day! This can be accomplished without PIV.


 This is how I think.. that was my LINE drawn in the sand.. 

I wanted touched, some things can't be contained.. or what fun would dating be.. it would be like utter "torment"!.. .. my husband cared about me.. he wanted to be my ROCK.. which he's always been...but yeah.. we agreed on that line drawn in the sand.. to save "intercourse" for our wedding night.. 

I often feel meeting my husband "saved me" from a lot of relationship heartache / rejection.... He made it all so easy... he didn't have to go home having cold showers either.. we could have been pumping each other sooner, and maybe that was stupid.. I asked him one night.. if he regrets that we waited.. he told me no.. he loves our story, he felt we did it the right way.. 

Truth is.. we greatly anticipated getting married.. it still means the world to me that sexually ...we think so much alike....we both have a strong desire to please each other... we also think like this:


----------



## Anon1111

GuyInColorado said:


> In my experience, girls that wait a long time (2 months+) to have sex are horrible in bed. They are scared to be sexual. They either grew up in a religious home were sexed was looked down or they have no self confidence (image issues). The never initiate sex, which a person can only take for so long. They aren't into changing up the sex to make it fun.
> 
> That's just my observation. I'm sure it goes the same with men who are scared to be sexual.


the more likely answer is they're waiting so long because they're actually not very interested in you in that way.

if it was George Clooney, there wouldn't be a 2 month long runway.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

GuyInColorado said:


> In my experience, girls that wait a long time (2 months+) to have sex are horrible in bed. They are scared to be sexual. They either grew up in a religious home were sexed was looked down or they have no self confidence (image issues). * The never initiate sex, which a person can only take for so long. They aren't into changing up the sex to make it fun. *
> 
> That's just my observation. I'm sure it goes the same with men who are scared to be sexual.


 Just saying.. not always true.. guess who is more sexually aggressive between the 2 of us.... 

I've always initiated when I was feeling it.. I initiated enough that husband knew if he laid low for a few days...I'd be all over him reaching for his joy stick... I get a bit of a HIGH turning him on... I like feeling "that power" the only thing that saves me for being a down right sl** is my need for the emotional, how strongly I feel about the act, it's meaning to me.. which is a blessing I am sure...

I ran across this Lover style test years ago.. CLICK HERE  ....I came out *the pursuer*.. he would rather be pursued.. 



> ....*These 1st 4 Lover Styles prefer their Romance & Love to be "TRADITIONAL" rather than daring or out-of-the-ordinary*...
> 
> *1*. *The Classic Lover*- you would rather be pursued than do the pursuing and, when it comes to physical love, you concentrate more on enjoying the experience rather than worrying about your performance.
> 
> *2*. *The Suave Lover*-you would rather pursue than be pursued and, when it comes to physical love, you concentrate more on enjoying the experience rather than worrying about your performance.
> 
> *3*. *The Devoted Lover *- you would rather be pursued than do the pursuing and, when it comes to physical love, your satisfaction comes more from providing a wonderful time to your partner than simply seeking your own.
> 
> *4.* *The Romantic Lover*- you would rather pursue than be pursued and, when it comes to physical love, your satisfaction comes more from providing a wonderful time to your partner than simply seeking your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....*These last 4 Lover Styles prefer their Romance & Love to WILD & Daring rather than typical or boring*...
> 
> *5*. *The Exotic Lover *- you would rather be pursued than do the pursuing and, when it comes to physical love, you concentrate more on enjoying the experience rather than worrying about your performance.
> 
> *6*. *The Carnal Lover *-you would rather pursue than be pursued and, when it comes to physical love, you concentrate more on enjoying the experience rather than worrying about your performance.
> 
> *7*. *The Surprising Lover*- you would rather be pursued than do the pursuing and, when it comes to physical love, your satisfaction comes more from providing a wonderful time to your partner than simply seeking your own.
> 
> *8*. *The Liberated Lover*- you would rather pursue than be pursued and, when it comes to physical love, your satisfaction comes more from providing a wonderful time to your partner than simply seeking your own.





Anon1111 said:


> the more likely answer is they're waiting so long because they're actually not very interested in you in that way.
> 
> *if it was George Clooney, there wouldn't be a 2 month long runway.*


I have never found George Clooney the least bit attractive.. never felt that way about Harrison Ford either.. 

I get that you are all speaking out of your personal experiences.. just as I tend to see Playboy men in a very bad light, using sex like changing shoes....I doubt I will ever shake this.. just as those who have been burned by a so called virgin - to you.. they are all the same.. 

But still (& I have to remind myself of this).. we should be careful how we box & label someone until we know their particular story...WHY they feel as they do, what have they experienced , how were they burned, betrayed, what is their back story.. as this so influences us, shapes & molds our views , our perceptions, how we go about seeking a relationship...

I didn't want used & thrown away by a man... but I love sex.. some men have been put on hold by low drive women -only to see them F**k some popular football player behind their backs ... I can understand a man's DISTRUST after an experience like that.. or someone coming out of a sexless marriage.. OMG yes [email protected]# 

In such a situation.. if we had interest in that person.. we'd have to do some deep soul searching to accommodate each other so trust can be built. 

Many times such guys started out with good intentions till they got burned.. then ended up with an "I don't give a sh**" attitude, after that.. Romance was dead to them... and they reasoned.. "If she doesn't put out by the __ date, she's history".. it is unfortunate that so many people LIE and play games.. 

I would absolutely hate the rat race of dating today.. it is these awful experiences that create so much dysfunction, and lack of trust in relationships today..


----------



## Vega

Personal said:


> When it comes to investing in a long term *sexual* relationships, *some men and women simply prefer to test sexual compatibility first, lest they invest themselves emotionally in a sexual relationship with a sexual partner that is either rubbish in bed or sexually incompatible.
> *


The irony about this is that BOTH men and women have the ability to become emotionally "attached" through sex, even the FIRST time they have sex. So while "you" may not want to invest yourself emotionally BEFORE having sex with someone, the person you're having sex with _may_ become emotionally invested THROUGH sex with _you_. 

Many of us here on TAM (and in the world at large) are aware of 'bonding' through sex and that it can happen the very first time we have sex. Just because YOU might not become attached right away (or at all) doesn't mean the other person won't. 

It would be important for me to know if a man I'd be dating already knows about the potential for 'bonding' through sex. If he knows that it's a possibility that the woman can bond with him from a first sexual encounter, and doesn't seem to care if she 'bonds' with him or not (basically putting the onus on HER), that would tell me something significant about his character, and that he doesn't feel a sense of responsibility TOWARD others...

...which would mean that *I* wouldn't be having sex with him.


----------



## MEM2020

Vega,

In the event M2 has a second heart attack and leaves this mortal plane far ahead of me in time....

I would be averse to hopping quickly into bed with someone. 

From the guys standpoint, the advantage of taking it slow is you can gauge her relationship:
- With money 
- With her family
- With her friends 

And her contribution to - your time together. 

Lot of folks have a 3 date rule - you get to the third date means they expect to sleep with you. 

I have a 3 date rule is a bit different. By the end of the third date you are either starting to act like a partner - or third date is last date. 

Partner doesn't mean we go Dutch, unless we are financial equals. But it does mean you start to contribute. Not in a position to easily pick up a dinner tab - cook. Do something that shows some skill and interest. 

Zero interest in pursuing someone who thinks that their role is solely to evaluate me. 





Vega said:


> When I read an interesting thread here on TAM, many times I'll visit some other (random) forums to read about other people's experiences in the same/similar situation(s). Time and time again, I will read about how some man is angry because the woman he is dating is "making" him wait for sex.
> 
> This couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> While it's true that SOME women will consciously "make" a man wait, for the sole purpose of deliberately trying to frustrate him, the majority of women are _not_ doing this for that reason.
> 
> I resent the term that a woman is "making" a man do anything. She's not holding a gun to his head, threatening him with bodily harm or forcing him to remain celibate while dating her. He's free to go find someone else to have sex with, especially since sex is so easy to get these days. (I actually read a complaint from a man who felt a certain woman was "making" him wait...for 3 weeks...while he was involved in a LTR FWB situation!)
> 
> The second issue I have with this is the reason behind her decision to wait before having sex. Seems that some men think they already have it all figured out that women "who do this" are "playing games" with him.
> 
> As a woman who is interested in a LTR, I want to get to know a man _before_ having sex with him. I want to learn his character...to see if his words match his actions...to observe him in different situations...to discover if his beliefs about life in general coincide with my own. I want to see if he's _trustworthy_. And I'm sorry to generalize, but it's been my experience that many men will LIE in order to get laid. They can tell you they want an LTR (with YOU) when the whole time, they just want to have sex. They can tell you that they are 'Christian', but it might take you several more weeks or months before discovering how non-Christian they really are.
> 
> Just like a man wants to "test drive" a woman before committing to her, she also wants to "test drive" a man...
> 
> ...and not be pressured into signing on the dotted line by some smooth talking used car salesman! She wants the time to do her homework/research. She wants to kick the tires, see how it handles in the rain and test the brakes. She wants to make sure she's getting_ value _for her 'investment'. When she walks away, she'll be thinking about all of the information she's learned (so far) and she doesn't want to make the wrong decision.
> 
> All of this takes _time_.
> 
> I'm writing this in order to encourage you (men) to please understand that women have a LOT more to lose by jumping into the sack with a man too soon. It's a reason why she wants to take her time evaluating her situation before making a decision.
> 
> Can you understand that? It really isn't about YOU.


----------



## MEM2020

Anon,

That is quite likely true. Thing is, I don't want someone to sleep with me because they think I'm hot. I want them to sleep with me, because they really like me. 

Do I ALSO want them to feel raw attraction? Sure. But - if they don't really like ME - nothing else matters. 




Anon1111 said:


> the more likely answer is they're waiting so long because they're actually not very interested in you in that way.
> 
> if it was George Clooney, there wouldn't be a 2 month long runway.


----------



## Vega

MEM11363 said:


> Vega,
> 
> 
> I have a 3 date rule is a bit different. By the end of the third date you are either starting to act like a partner - or third date is last date.
> 
> Partner doesn't mean we go Dutch, unless we are financial equals. But it does mean you start to contribute. Not in a position to easily pick up a dinner tab - cook. Do something that shows some skill and interest.
> 
> *Zero interest in pursuing someone who thinks that their role is solely to evaluate me*.


I dunno, MEM. I'm now (as in, over the past year or so...) leaning toward getting to know someone even BEFORE the first date. 

The kind of job I have enables a number of us to 'mingle' for about an hour or so before we're allowed inside. This gives us opportunities to either become involved in whatever conversations are going on, or stand back and observe, or both. My, my, you sure can learn a LOT about someone just from LISTENING! 

When I hear some of the men talk, I hear what they say. I watch their mannerisms, facial expressions, hear their tone of voice, etc. Although a man may be physically attractive, if he's dropping f-bombs all over the place, his overall attractiveness sinks. I wouldn't _date_ him, let alone have sex with him. 

Meanwhile, there may be another man who's fairly physically attractive. He may be quieter than the first. But if everything that comes out of his mouth is a complaint, once again, he won't be in *my* bed anytime soon. 

Neither of those men did I have to sleep with to figure that out. And it didn't take weeks or months to do so. I wouldn't care if they were both super-studs in bed, I wouldn't be interested. 

Now had I met them online (let's say) and we chatted on the phone a few times and agreed to go out on a date, I might not have found _any_ of this out for a few dates. People tend to put their best foot forward when it comes to dating. 

But if we DID go out on a first date...which led to a second date--and we slept together--, I'd be KICKING myself if on the third date I discovered that he had a mouth like a truck driver. 

You say that you would expect someone to start acting like a 'partner' by the end of a third date. To me, that's too soon. I wouldn't have any problem sharing the expense of dating, but "partner"? I dunno. Maybe it's the way you worded your sentence that sounds a bit too 'demanding' and inflexible to me that would be a turn off. 

You're right. The third date would be the last, and thank GOD I didn't sleep with *you* on the first or second date!


----------



## MEM2020

We all have our preferences.

I find it tiresome when folks jump to negative conclusions - by default. 

Questions are welcome. Negative assumptions - show a negative bias towards men. 







Vega said:


> I dunno, MEM. I'm now (as in, over the past year or so...) leaning toward getting to know someone even BEFORE the first date.
> 
> The kind of job I have enables a number of us to 'mingle' for about an hour or so before we're allowed inside. This gives us opportunities to either become involved in whatever conversations are going on, or stand back and observe, or both. My, my, you sure can learn a LOT about someone just from LISTENING!
> 
> When I hear some of the men talk, I hear what they say. I watch their mannerisms, facial expressions, hear their tone of voice, etc. Although a man may be physically attractive, if he's dropping f-bombs all over the place, his overall attractiveness sinks. I wouldn't _date_ him, let alone have sex with him.
> 
> Meanwhile, there may be another man who's fairly physically attractive. He may be quieter than the first. But if everything that comes out of his mouth is a complaint, once again, he won't be in *my* bed anytime soon.
> 
> Neither of those men did I have to sleep with to figure that out. And it didn't take weeks or months to do so. I wouldn't care if they were both super-studs in bed, I wouldn't be interested.
> 
> Now had I met them online (let's say) and we chatted on the phone a few times and agreed to go out on a date, I might not have found _any_ of this out for a few dates. People tend to put their best foot forward when it comes to dating.
> 
> But if we DID go out on a first date...which led to a second date--and we slept together--, I'd be KICKING myself if on the third date I discovered that he had a mouth like a truck driver.
> 
> You say that you would expect someone to start acting like a 'partner' by the end of a third date. To me, that's too soon. I wouldn't have any problem sharing the expense of dating, but "partner"? I dunno. Maybe it's the way you worded your sentence that sounds a bit too 'demanding' and inflexible to me that would be a turn off.
> 
> You're right. The third date would be the last, and thank GOD I didn't sleep with *you* on the first or second date!


----------



## Holland

Vega said:


> I dunno, MEM. I'm now (as in, over the past year or so...) leaning toward getting to know someone even BEFORE the first date.
> 
> *The kind of job I have enables a number of us to 'mingle' for about an hour or so before we're allowed inside. This gives us opportunities to either become involved in whatever conversations are going on, or stand back and observe, or both. My, my, you sure can learn a LOT about someone just from LISTENING!
> 
> When I hear some of the men talk, I hear what they say. I watch their mannerisms, facial expressions, hear their tone of voice, etc. Although a man may be physically attractive, if he's dropping f-bombs all over the place, his overall attractiveness sinks. I wouldn't date him, let alone have sex with him.
> 
> Meanwhile, there may be another man who's fairly physically attractive. He may be quieter than the first. But if everything that comes out of his mouth is a complaint, once again, he won't be in *my* bed anytime soon.
> 
> Neither of those men did I have to sleep with to figure that out. And it didn't take weeks or months to do so. I wouldn't care if they were both super-studs in bed, I wouldn't be interested. *
> 
> Now had I met them online (let's say) and we chatted on the phone a few times and agreed to go out on a date, I might not have found _any_ of this out for a few dates. People tend to put their best foot forward when it comes to dating.
> 
> ................


Hold off having sex that is fine, it is your prerogative. Doing it for the right reasons and to protect from past hurts is fine.

However what you seem to be doing is judging people and considering them to be unfit men with very little to actually go on. You don't like swearing, fine but maybe this guy is a fantastic human and was just at ease around mates. For all you know he could be Mr Fantastic, be extremely respectful of your wishes should you be wit him and stop swearing if he is shown it is a bit uncouth. 

The other guy might be super unhappy in his job, his Dad might be dying, he might be in a miserable marriage, no one is happy all the time.

You are so wrapped up in judging these men, did you stop to consider that you were in a work environment and the act of weighing them up as potential bed mates is in itself a very uncouth thing to do?

Your man picker is broken, this we know from past posts, that is not an accusation but part of the story. Seems that you are now going completely OTT on this and finding any reason to dismiss a man. Do you see a counselor?


----------



## EllisRedding

Vega said:


> When I hear some of the men talk, I hear what they say. I watch their mannerisms, facial expressions, hear their tone of voice, etc. Although a man may be physically attractive, if he's dropping f-bombs all over the place, his overall attractiveness sinks. I wouldn't _date_ him, let alone have sex with him.


I can understand first impressions but you do understand in the specific point you made above, people may very well adjust how they speak depending on who they are around. I know at work it is not uncommon to start dropping f bombs with other co workers venting. When I am around some of my friends once again it isn't uncommon for us to curse. On the other hand my W or really any of my family has rarely ever heard me curse. I don't do it at home, I don't do it around the kids, etc... There are times where it is appropriate and times where it isn't.

If a guy cursing is a turn off for you, it is what it is, just so you understand that just b/c he dropped some f bombs in a conversation that you may not even be a part of doesn't mean he runs around all day acting like Andrew Dice Clay lol.


----------



## Shoto1984

As others have eluded to, this is not a male vs female issue. Its a style, preference, experience....maybe self awareness issue. Modern dating is online/app dating for many. In these situations you're basically meeting a stranger and starting from scratch to see if there is something there or not. In my experience the women are the ones in a hurry. More often then not I'm getting signals way before I've decided if I like them or not. My theory on this is that women have a greater desire to move quickly toward a relationship and "happily ever after" and they see sex as an early step on this path. Even past childbearing years (I'm 50) there seems to be a drive for commitment and stability.


----------



## Rowan

EllisRedding said:


> I can understand first impressions but you do understand in the specific point you made above, people may very well adjust how they speak depending on who they are around. I know at work it is not uncommon to start dropping f bombs with other co workers venting. When I am around some of my friends once again it isn't uncommon for us to curse. On the other hand my W or really any of my family has rarely ever heard me curse. I don't do it at home, I don't do it around the kids, etc... There are times where it is appropriate and times where it isn't.
> 
> If a guy cursing is a turn off for you, it is what it is, just so you understand that just b/c he dropped some f bombs in a conversation that you may not even be a part of doesn't mean he runs around all day acting like Andrew Dice Clay lol.



This!

My boyfriend is among the most respectful, caring, mannerly men I've ever met. He's also retired military, still works with and for the military, and most of his employees and coworkers are current or former military. I am sometimes left in awe of his highly proficient, and exceptionally creative, use of profanity in his work life. However, I've only heard him use mild swear words a scant handful of times in our personal and social life. He's very clear on the fact that there's a time and place for some really colorful language - and that around your lady, children, family and mixed-company friends is _not_ that place.


----------



## Vega

Holland said:


> Hold off having sex that is fine, it is your prerogative. Doing it for the right reasons and to protect from past hurts is fine.


Good! Glad we agree! 



> However what you seem to be doing is judging people and considering them to be unfit men with very little to actually go on. You don't like swearing, fine but maybe this guy is a fantastic human and was just at ease around mates. For all you know he could be Mr Fantastic, be extremely respectful of your wishes should you be wit him and stop swearing if he is shown it is a bit uncouth.


LOL! I wouldn't say that these *hypothetical* men are "unfit". Just not someone I'd want to hang around with, sleep with or get into an LTR with. Besides, if he was a "fantastic human", he probably wouldn't be swearing in the first place. 

I have already been married to someone like *him*. Believe me, he didn't tone it down around me, even though I asked him (nicely) to do so. Instead, I got raged at. Not. Happening. Again. He was over 50 years old, and I'll be darned if I'm going to TEACH a grown man how to speak _respectfully_. 



> The other guy might be super unhappy in his job, his Dad might be dying, he might be in a miserable marriage, no one is happy all the time.


Or, he might just be an overall unhappy person who believes that he got a "bum deal" in ALL of life. 

My "picker" _was_ broken because I TOLERATED this crap in my life before. I basically ended up being a doormat because my standards were so low. 

Now I have a handful of "deal breakers". I have been told in the past that I'm "easy to live with". I don't come unglued if *he* leaves the toilet seat up or leaves his socks on the living room floor. Little things like that don't bother me. 

But certain aspects of someone's personality or character _will_ bother me. Cursing grates on my nerves. To me, it's unnecessary. You can make your point without using the colorful language. It's one thing to curse occasionally. It's another matter to curse and swear just about every time you open your mouth.



> You are so wrapped up in judging these men, did you stop to consider that you were in a work environment and the act of weighing them up as potential bed mates is in itself a very uncouth thing to do?


I'm not looking at these *hypothetical* men as potential "bed mates"; I'm looking at them as potential _long term partners_. 

As it is, I won't date anyone I work with. Like the saying goes, I'm not about to sh*t where I eat! BTDT. Didn't end well. 



> Your man picker is broken, this we know from past posts, that is not an accusation but part of the story. Seems that you are now going completely OTT on this and finding any reason to dismiss a man. Do you see a counselor


I'm not finding _any_ reason to dismiss a man. But I have *raised the bar* so to speak. What I used to tolerate I no longer tolerate, and I used to tolerate a LOT. That's probably what drew these men to ME, and I ended up being hit, choked, lied to over and over again, insulted, put down, spit at, had my hair pulled and dragged on the floor, kicked, punched, screamed at for the smallest thing, cheated on and left to take care of everything in the house. 

Not. Any. More. 

I am not currently dating. I probably get asked out a few times a month, but I'm just not interested. I don't care if they're the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'm just not in the right frame of mind to do so right now, and I KNOW that. 

But when I AM ready to date, I'll be looking for a certain kind of man. 

And I REFUSE to settle. 

Don't see a counselor any more, but I did for 2.5 years (my dad passed away during that time). She helped me to get away from my abusive late husband.


----------



## Palodyne

joannacroc said:


> Your being cheated on was not your fault. But it also had nothing to do with these women wanting to wait. People get cheated on the whole time, sadly. By partners of all different persuasions. So the waiting doesn't seem to really have anything to do with it. You just happened across 2 untrustworthy people. Which I'm sorry you experienced. But I'm not sure it has much bearing on the question of whether waiting for the right girl is a good move.


 After therapy, due to becoming suicidal, and lots of time on SI, I have come to realize that it really didn't have anything to do with me. And I agree, them asking me to wait for sex had nothing to do with me being cheated on.

The OP was saying a man shouldn't get upset if the woman wants to wait a while to have sex. And that a woman can't force a man to wait, he can go find it elsewhere if he feels that strongly about it.

My point is, if you have feelings for the woman, which I did. She can make you wait, because you want her. I am not complaining about the wait. I loved that pretty blue eyed blonde, and if I had to wait over 24 months, which I did, I was fine with that. It was just unfortunate that at the end of all that waiting the arms I saw her in weren't mine.

Maybe my situation is out of touch with the way things are today. I haven't dated since late 1989. But my point is, I found a woman asking me to wait till marriage a very desirable trait. But in hindsight, maybe it just made me a chump.


----------



## Vega

Palodyne said:


> The OP was saying a man shouldn't get upset if the woman wants to wait a while to have sex. And that a woman can't force a man to wait, he can go find it elsewhere if he feels that strongly about it.


Yes. Exactly my point. 



> But my point is, I found a woman asking me to wait till marriage a very desirable trait. But in hindsight, *maybe it just made me a chump
> *


...which is exactly why I DO want to wait. When I didn't take time to really get to know the man FIRST, *I* became the "chump"!

In all of my LTR's/marriages I ended up 'falling in love' within the first month and started sleeping together immediately after professing our 'love' to each other. 

Had I waited another few months, and REALLY got to know them better, I never would have 'fallen in love' with them, let alone slept with them. 

I was _way_ too trusting _way_ too quickly. When I discovered their lies (and ALL of them lied to me within the first 3 months, and we're not talking about 'little white lies'; we're talking about lying about MAJOR issues, such as STILL BEING _MARRIED_!) I made the mistake of forgiving them, _and continuing the relationship. 
_
Looking back NOW, I was a chump. Not only in THEIR eyes, but *mine* as well. 

I'm done making the same mistakes over and over again.


----------



## bandit.45

I think where a lot of men get bent out of shape is when they are asked to wait by a women they really are into, only to find out that she put out for her previous boyfriends on the first or second dates. 

Even though that is the woman's prerogative, some guys feel they were required to wait and work for the right to have sex with her. Kinda hurts a guy's ego.


----------



## Vega

bandit.45 said:


> I think where a lot of men get bent out of shape is when they are asked to wait by a women they really are into, only to find out that she put out for her previous boyfriends on the first or second dates.


See, if and when I DO begin to date again, I would be honest with them either BEFORE accepting the date. I would tell them that although I DID have sex early in most of my previous relationships* that I was WRONG for doing so. I would tell him that I made the mistake of not knowing them as much as I should have and I don't want to make that mistake again. 

If he can handle that, great. If not, also GREAT! It means we're not on the same page and we won't be having sex. 



> Even though that is the woman's prerogative, some guys feel they were required to wait and work for the right to have sex with her. Kinda hurts a guy's ego


Umm...the "right" to have sex with her? Since when is sex a "right" when you're only _dating_?

Again, this attitude/belief would mean that we're not compatible and we wouldn't be having sex.


----------



## MEM2020

Bandit,

The guys I know don't compare speed to bed - against their predecessors. 

The 'truly' bad mating behavior we see - and this is the same behavior, just expressed differently - has to do with intentional and self serving deception. 

The male expression of this typically is: I'm going to pretend I am really into YOU to get you in bed. This is predatory ego gratification. 

The female expression typically is: I'm going to pretend I'm attracted to you, because I like the attention, dinners, dates etc.

Both leave the other person feeling used.

For a guy, the fools play is to accept a totally unbalanced effort level. If a woman really likes you, but just wants to go slow, she will make an effort to SHOW you that through actions. There are plenty of non sexual ways to show someone, you like them. 

Why - you get to the end of the third date your best move is to say: three good dates in a row - so now your mission should you choose to accept it - is to plan our fourth date. 

A woman who is 'letting you chase her with little interest in being caught' will not go for that. A woman who is genuinely interested will gladly take over the next date. 







bandit.45 said:


> I think where a lot of men get bent out of shape is when they are asked to wait by a women they really are into, only to find out that she put out for her previous boyfriends on the first or second dates.
> 
> Even though that is the woman's prerogative, some guys feel they were required to wait and work for the right to have sex with her. Kinda hurts a guy's ego.


----------



## joannacroc

I overheard conversations when I was in college and working in restaurants between guys about girls they had been out with. Let's just say I would NEVER want to be discussed in the way they talked about these women. It's not that the women did anything wrong in sleeping with them. It's more that the thought of being fodder for water cooler/locker room talk after sleeping with someone you thought cared about you is sort of repugnant. Many of these guys were dating multiple women, but the women had NO IDEA. Who knows, maybe some of the women were dating multiple men too and didn't care. Who knows. I guess beyond sussing out whether a man is trustworthy, on the level etc, that you enjoy their company, have chemistry etc., share common values, have interests in common, the ideal would be to make sure you don't prematurely sleep with someone like that. I need time to figure out if someone is on the level. It's just not going to happen immediately. 

Of course, as many here have discovered, you can choose to wait, even end up marrying the guy/girl and then have your ass handed to you. Nothing's guaranteed. But it's more about feeling comfortable that you're making the right decision.

Thought some of the comments about bringing this up early were really interesting. On a first date, I wouldn't dream of bringing up sex or waiting for sex. We haven't kissed yet. I really don't know them that well. I don't really even know if there's a second date in store. So it's too early, in my opinion to discuss it. Perhaps you're right, and there is a kink in the system though, as it seems like conversations about when both people want to have sex don't seem to happen until you're making out. 

Being somewhat reserved until I really know a person, for example, I am uncomfortable discussing certain proclivities I have until we are already pretty intimate. Perhaps it's better to bring those up earlier?


----------



## Satya

I've posted about this before, in various iterations around the board, so it's going to be a rehash for some. It's completely from my POV regarding "making" a man wait for sex.

My personal boundary is that I do not have sex in under 3 months with any man I want a relationship with. I have never been into casual relationships. I don't have any issues with anyone that is, (male or female), but I also believe that there are risks and consequences that may arise from taking a more casual approach to sex, (especially if the ultimate "goal" is to be in a long-term relationship) and that life's not fair in this respect: there are astounding double standards and unfair criticisms. There are people saying they want one thing and living a life that seeks another. I'm no exception, I have gone through some very painful and necessary learning experiences, and as a result, I have some very strong feelings that I know won't sit well with a certain populace of posters here. Truth and experience has molded me into what I am.

In the end, it's a truth that I've come to understand, witness countless times, and accept completely. I can see the rational viewpoints from both a male and female perspective and I can say in either case, "you know, you're right." But, since I'm female, my personal opinion is my strongest. 

Going back to the 3 month thing, all of my intimate relationships (4) have always had a 3-4 month dating and getting-to-know-you period before sex happened. My partners were (and are) men that understood my boundary and accepted it - agreed to it and followed through. In the case of Constable Odo, he expressly told me that HE preferred to wait so that he did not leave me feeling insecure or taken advantage of, and that knowing what he could have with me was too important to him to "mess it up." He actually PRIED me off of him once during our early dating days, because I was ovulating badly and he was simply irresistable. To this day, we joke about him rejecting me that time, but he always says that had he given in, I may have respected him less... Which is true... At that time, I would have respected him and myself much less! Looking back, I respect him MORE for having that restraint at that time. The wait was so worth it, for both of us. +100 on the manliness scale for Constable Odo.

I look at this matter pretty simply. Find a person with similar values to your own when it comes to the things that matter, this includes dating and intimacy. Don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole. Decide what you want and then LIVE LIKE IT. Don't say you want a serious, deep relationship and then shag anything with a pulse. What you'll likely find is Mr./Ms. Right NOW. You'll be left feeling empty and wondering why you can't have what you really want. Don't say you want a casual, no-strings sex life and allow emotional intimacy to seep in from your FWB. That will lead them on and put you in a position where you have no choice but to end things.

Be honest with yourself and those you date. Accept other people's honesty and how they choose to live their intimate lives. Realize that incompatibilities exist no matter how great other aspects are and that it can be a challenge to find what is perfect for you. Never be afraid to walk away. There are always plenty of fish in the sea.


----------



## Wolf1974

I find some of these posts interesting about different timelines for different people. I had to think about what bandit said in wanting to have sex but having the woman wants to wait only to find out she had had sex with others earlier than what she is willing to with you. I have never had that happen, guess I have been lucky in only dating women with similar timelines. I can only speculate that it wouldn't bother my ego but I also wouldn't be dating her exclusively either. So she would have the right to determine any timeline she wanted and I will be doing the same. Interesting discussion


----------



## bandit.45

Wolf1974 said:


> I find some of these posts interesting about different timelines for different people. I had to think about what bandit said in wanting to have sex but having the woman wants to wait only to find out she had had sex with others earlier than what she is willing to with you. I have never had that happen, guess I have been lucky in only dating women with similar timelines. I can only speculate that it wouldn't bother my ego but I also wouldn't be dating her exclusively either. So she would have the right to determine any timeline she wanted and I will be doing the same. Interesting discussion


We have had several threads over the course of the last four years I have been here where a guy will come on and say how he quietly waited weeks or months to have sex with his partner, only to find out after they got engaged or married that she put out on first or second dates with regularity before meeting him. The guy almost always feels cheated and betrayed, and to an extent emasculated.

Then the gender war would launch, the males and females of TAM would square off throw insults like Maori tribesmen. Oh it is fun to watch. 

I don't date anymore, so this issue doesn't even show on my radar anymore. But I could see how a young guy would be pissed off finding this out. I'm not saying a woman is necessarily doing anything wrong. Again, it is her body and her prerogative to have sex with whom she wants, when she wants.. 

And I think men have this same option. Just because a guy may have bedded dozens of women on first dates, doesn't mean he can't wait for several weeks or months before consenting to sex with a particular gal he is really into and considering a candidate for marriage. And she would really have nothing to say about it if she found out later how promiscuous he had been before meeting her.


----------



## Vega

joannacroc said:


> Thought some of the comments about bringing this up early were really interesting. On a first date, I wouldn't dream of bringing up sex or waiting for sex. We haven't kissed yet. I really don't know them that well. I don't really even know if there's a second date in store. So it's too early, in my opinion to discuss it. Perhaps you're right, and there is a kink in the system though, as it seems like conversations about when both people want to have sex don't seem to happen until you're making out.


Most of the men I've dated I've actually 'known' before going out with them. I either met them at work or at school and we would get to know each other somewhat before they would ask me out. 

But part of my problem was that I THOUGHT I "knew" them better than I did. I didn't know what to look for, what questions to ask and I certainly didn't know how to observe their behavior. For example: I wouldn't have dreamed about looking to see if his words matched his behavior, even in the work place. So imagine my *surprise* when I discovered this after a few months of dating! 

So, if that same situation presented itself NOW, I WOULD observe him before he asked me out. I've never gone out with someone who I literally 'just met' like an hour earlier. I've usually associated with these people on a regular basis for several months before it was clear that there was enough of an attraction between the us.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## MEM2020

Satya,

What do you do, while dating, to show the man you are interested in him? 





Satya said:


> I've posted about this before, in various iterations around the board, so it's going to be a rehash for some. It's completely from my POV regarding "making" a man wait for sex.
> 
> My personal boundary is that I do not have sex in under 3 months with any man I want a relationship with. I have never been into casual relationships. I don't have any issues with anyone that is, (male or female), but I also believe that there are risks and consequences that may arise from taking a more casual approach to sex, (especially if the ultimate "goal" is to be in a long-term relationship) and that life's not fair in this respect: there are astounding double standards and unfair criticisms. There are people saying they want one thing and living a life that seeks another. I'm no exception, I have gone through some very painful and necessary learning experiences, and as a result, I have some very strong feelings that I know won't sit well with a certain populace of posters here. Truth and experience has molded me into what I am.
> 
> In the end, it's a truth that I've come to understand, witness countless times, and accept completely. I can see the rational viewpoints from both a male and female perspective and I can say in either case, "you know, you're right." But, since I'm female, my personal opinion is my strongest.
> 
> Going back to the 3 month thing, all of my intimate relationships (4) have always had a 3-4 month dating and getting-to-know-you period before sex happened. My partners were (and are) men that understood my boundary and accepted it - agreed to it and followed through. In the case of Constable Odo, he expressly told me that HE preferred to wait so that he did not leave me feeling insecure or taken advantage of, and that knowing what he could have with me was too important to him to "mess it up." He actually PRIED me off of him once during our early dating days, because I was ovulating badly and he was simply irresistable. To this day, we joke about him rejecting me that time, but he always says that had he given in, I may have respected him less... Which is true... At that time, I would have respected him and myself much less! Looking back, I respect him MORE for having that restraint at that time. The wait was so worth it, for both of us. +100 on the manliness scale for Constable Odo.
> 
> I look at this matter pretty simply. Find a person with similar values to your own when it comes to the things that matter, this includes dating and intimacy. Don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole. Decide what you want and then LIVE LIKE IT. Don't say you want a serious, deep relationship and then shag anything with a pulse. What you'll likely find is Mr./Ms. Right NOW. You'll be left feeling empty and wondering why you can't have what you really want. Don't say you want a casual, no-strings sex life and allow emotional intimacy to seep in from your FWB. That will lead them on and put you in a position where you have no choice but to end things.
> 
> Be honest with yourself and those you date. Accept other people's honesty and how they choose to live their intimate lives. Realize that incompatibilities exist no matter how great other aspects are and that it can be a challenge to find what is perfect for you. Never be afraid to walk away. There are always plenty of fish in the sea.


----------



## EllisRedding

OliviaG said:


> That is some really faulty reasoning, IMO. And yet another reason why nobody should talk about past sexual experiences with current partners.


I was thinking about this wondering how would the topic even come up? I mean, I understand maybe disclosing a #, but do people really go into that kind of detail where you disclose how many dates you went on before you had sex with each person  Or maybe these people are finding this out from others?


----------



## Wolf1974

bandit.45 said:


> *We have had several threads over the course of the last four years I have been here where a guy will come on and say how he quietly waited weeks or months to have sex with his partner, only to find out after they got engaged or married that she put out on first or second dates with regularity before meeting him. The guy almost always feels cheated and betrayed, and to an extent emasculated.*
> 
> Then the gender war would launch, the males and females of TAM would square off throw insults like Maori tribesmen. Oh it is fun to watch.
> 
> I don't date anymore, so this issue doesn't even show on my radar anymore. But I could see how a young guy would be pissed off finding this out. I'm not saying a woman is necessarily doing anything wrong. Again, it is her body and her prerogative to have sex with whom she wants, when she wants..
> 
> And I think men have this same option. Just because a guy may have bedded dozens of women on first dates, doesn't mean he can't wait for several weeks or months before consenting to sex with a particular gal he is really into and considering a candidate for marriage. And she would really have nothing to say about it if she found out later how promiscuous he had been before meeting her.


think I have missed some of those threads then. I have seen more heated threads about sexual acts not done in the new relationship but was done in the old. Not so much about timelines. On the timeline front I would think that if it bothered you probably should bring that up early and clarify this is the standard that was always set. Now if someone is lied to or deceived I think that's a whole other ballgame and can totally understand the hurt betrayed feelings.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Vega

bandit.45 said:


> We have had several threads over the course of the last four years I have been here where a guy will come on and say how he quietly waited weeks or months to have sex with his partner, only to find out after they got engaged or married that she put out on first or second dates with regularity before meeting him. The guy almost always feels cheated and betrayed, and to an extent emasculated.
> 
> Then the gender war would launch, the males and females of TAM would square off throw insults like Maori tribesmen. Oh it is fun to watch.
> 
> I don't date anymore, so this issue doesn't even show on my radar anymore. But I could see how a young guy would be pissed off finding this out. I'm not saying a woman is necessarily doing anything wrong. Again, it is her body and her prerogative to have sex with whom she wants, when she wants..
> 
> And I think men have this same option. Just because a guy may have bedded dozens of women on first dates, doesn't mean he can't wait for several weeks or months before consenting to sex with a particular gal he is really into and considering a candidate for marriage. And she would really have nothing to say about it if she found out later how promiscuous he had been before meeting her.


If the guys' focus is mostly on sex, then yeah...I could see him getting pissed off. 

But if his goal I having a committed, stable, loving relationship, he might discover that she have valid reasons for waiting with _him_. 

The reasons matter.


----------



## bandit.45

OliviaG said:


> That is some really faulty reasoning, IMO. And yet another reason why nobody should talk about past sexual experiences with current partners.


I'm not arguing the faultiness, or legitimacy, of this way of thinking. It is neither wrong or right.

I am pointing out that this is the way many men think and feel, regardless of whether women think it should be a legitimate concern. It does cause problems and it can be a potential landmine in a relationship.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## samyeagar

EllisRedding said:


> I was thinking about this wondering how would the topic even come up? I mean, I understand maybe disclosing a #,* but do people really go into that kind of detail where you disclose how many dates you went on before you had sex with each person*


Nope.



> *Or maybe these people are finding this out from others?*


Yep.


----------



## bandit.45

Vega said:


> If the guys' focus is mostly on sex, then yeah...I could see him getting pissed off.
> 
> But if his goal I having a committed, stable, loving relationship, he might discover that she have valid reasons for waiting with _him_.
> 
> The reasons matter.


Why does he have to discover it? Why cannot she be up front and tell him at the beginning that she wants to wait with him?


----------



## Wolf1974

EllisRedding said:


> I was thinking about this wondering how would the topic even come up? I mean, I understand maybe disclosing a #, but do people really go into that kind of detail where you disclose how many dates you went on before you had sex with each person  Or maybe these people are finding this out from others?


I agree I have had conversations about numbers or acts but never how long do you take before you sleep with a guy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## samyeagar

OliviaG said:


> *Exactly*, and MANY women have overheard many similar conversations between men. It's these guys that you want nothing to do with and trying to avoid getting involved with these guys is a major reason why women find it necessary to thoroughly screen potential partners before having sex with them. These guys also make it difficult for wives to understand their husband's sexual needs as needs and not merely as wants or game-playing, after marriage. *All good men everywhere should rise up against these type of guys and shut them down; it would do relationships in general a world of good *(after a few generations have passed...).


And all good women should put aside the banal ramblings of those guys, and listen to, and believe their husbands instead.


----------



## joannacroc

bandit.45 said:


> Why does he have to discover it? Why cannot she be up front and tell him at the beginning that she wants to wait with him?


Because what does she say? I want to wait to have sex until I know and trust you? That automatically puts him on the defensive. It's also a how-long-is-a-piece-of-string type question: how long until you can really trust somebody new? I don't have a set number of dates or hours in mind.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## NobodySpecial

OliviaG said:


> That is some really faulty reasoning, IMO. And yet another reason why nobody should talk about past sexual experiences with current partners.


I kinda disagree with this. If someone has that attitude, I want to KNOW. That would be a full stop deal breaker for me. And I don't want to live my life wondering if some dude from my past is going to show up and make my current all butt hurt.


----------



## Vega

bandit.45 said:


> Why does he have to discover it? Why cannot she be up front and tell him at the beginning that she wants to wait with him?


I think you missed the point, Bandit.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## NobodySpecial

EllisRedding said:


> I was thinking about this wondering how would the topic even come up? I mean, I understand maybe disclosing a #, but do people really go into that kind of detail where you disclose how many dates you went on before you had sex with each person  Or maybe these people are finding this out from others?


So.... it may be different for me. I am not a very conventional female. If "giving it up" "too early" renders me non-relationship material, then I want to know about it. And it does not hurt my feelings in the least if all he wanted is "just sex". That is likely all I knew I wanted at that stage of the game either.

DH and I were definitely having sex "early". I think we made it 8 hours. Not for lack of trying! We talked about EVERYTHING about our history but not timelines until since we were both pretty much on the same page... there was never a timeline for either of us.


----------



## bandit.45

Vega said:


> I think you missed the point, Bandit.


Explain it.


----------



## MEM2020

Wolf,
I've never had a 'competitive' view of sex. 

I do have some thresholds - below which - someone simply wouldn't be a compatible partner. 

Most of those relate to 'mindset', as opposed to mechanical proficiency. 
The mindset stuff mainly relates to 'interest level'. 

A low interest level creates the feeling that I'm doing this 'TO' you and not 'WITH' you. 

That expresses via a gate keeping approach to sex during initiation, and a 'are we done yet' vibe during.





Wolf1974 said:


> think I have missed some of those threads then. I have seen more heated threads about sexual acts not done in the new relationship but was done in the old. Not so much about timelines. On the timeline front I would think that if it bothered you probably should bring that up early and clarify this is the standard that was always set. Now if someone is lied to or deceived I think that's a whole other ballgame and can totally understand the hurt betrayed feelings.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

OliviaG said:


> Well in that case, there's nothing stopping you from telling your partner any detail that you want to. I'd want to know if someone had that attitude as well, but I'd know he had that attitude if he was asking me questions about my sexual past. If he wanted info about it, or if he told me details about his past with other women, we would be over.


I guess the difference is that I have not experienced history being used as a weapon since meeting my DH all those years ago. There was no reason NOT to discuss our experiences.


----------



## samyeagar

OliviaG said:


> They should. And men should believe that size doesn't matter and that making you wait for sex doesn't mean she's not into you.
> 
> See the problems with the above? When we're asked to believe things that sharply contrast with our actual experience (and our collective experience as a gender) it's not so easy to do.


No doubt it can be difficult, and the harder a person finds it to let go of their preconceived notions, the harder it is for them to truly trust their partner, to recognize and accept their partner for who they are.

In the end, some people are just not able to ever see what is right in front of their own eyes.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## MEM2020

Joanna,

That's why this takes time. Everybody has their own approach. I'm kind of allergic to interrogations. They tend to promote an adversarial tone. 

Echolocation - is a kinder gentler path to the truth. I mention a story about a friend, colleague or even character on a tv series. I lay out their situation, say what they did and then say: Pretty mixed reaction to that type behavior. Some folks think what he/she did was fair, others wanted to burn him at the stake.

In submarine parlance - that's a ping. It's a burst of sound, that echoes back showing the lay of the land (or other vessels) nearby.

Beauty of this is that the other person only has three (echoes) moves. 
1. Honest response
2. Deceptive response 
3. Stealth mode - where they avoid the topic entirely 

Stealth mode either fades over time as trust grows. Or it doesn't. 

I respect your right not to show me your true self. Just not interested in sleeping with anyone who remains a closed book over time. 





joannacroc said:


> Because what does she say? I want to wait to have sex until I know and trust you? That automatically puts him on the defensive. It's also a how-long-is-a-piece-of-string type question: how long until you can really trust somebody new? I don't have a set number of dates or hours in mind.


----------



## Wolf1974

MEM11363 said:


> Wolf,
> I've never had a 'competitive' view of sex.
> 
> I do have some thresholds - below which - someone simply wouldn't be a compatible partner.
> 
> Most of those relate to 'mindset', as opposed to mechanical proficiency.
> The mindset stuff mainly relates to 'interest level'.
> 
> A low interest level creates the feeling that I'm doing this 'TO' you and not 'WITH' you.
> 
> That expresses via a gate keeping approach to sex during initiation, and a 'are we done yet' vibe during.


I have never felt competitive about sex either. But being as important as it is I feel it should be discussed to eliminate ANY possibility of a suprised or hurt feeling later when it all comes out. That's part of an adult relationship .....the ability to have real conversations and share these things with your significant other. All about emotional maturity
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

OliviaG said:


> Well in that case, there's nothing stopping you from telling your partner any detail that you want to. I'd want to know if someone had that attitude as well, but I'd know he had that attitude if he was asking me questions about my sexual past. If he wanted info about it, or if he told me details about his past with other women, we would be over.


And I think that is part of the issue, maybe not so much keeping everything hidden, but how much detail is too much detail? I am content with knowing a number (mainly b/c a large # is a turn off for me), but outside of that I have no interest to hear any further details. The key is that both people are on the same page in terms of how much detail to share. That has been one of the issues I have seen posted about on TAM, where one person goes well above providing details the other person didn't ask for (which then brings up why are they doing it, is it meant to make the person feel bad, one up, manipulate, etc...).


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## EllisRedding

OliviaG said:


> I personally feel that any detail is too much detail. I can't trust what people say until I learn if they're trustworthy anyway. And I don't learn that they're trustworthy by what they say. So to me a conversation about the past is futile.


Agreed, and I honestly rather find out on my own experience what "Susie" (please note the quotes in case my W ever does find this post, there is no Susie in my life and there never has been lol) likes and doesn't like, and not base it on the fact Susie told me that Sal used to tie her up like a pretzel and bang her in a shopping cart right outside of Target...


----------



## NobodySpecial

OliviaG said:


> I personally feel that any detail is too much detail. I can't trust what people say until I learn if they're trustworthy anyway. And I don't learn that they're trustworthy by what they say. So to me a conversation about the past is futile.


I confess that that does not make a lot of sense to me since so much of how we feel today is formed by things that happened in the past.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## samyeagar

EllisRedding said:


> And I think that is part of the issue, maybe not so much keeping everything hidden, but how much detail is too much detail? I am content with knowing a number (mainly b/c a large # is a turn off for me), but outside of that I have no interest to hear any further details. The key is that both people are on the same page in terms of how much detail to share. That has been one of the issues I have seen posted about on TAM, where one person goes well above providing details the other person didn't ask for (which then brings up why are they doing it, is it meant to make the person feel bad, one up, manipulate, etc...).


The big complication with this, and one that is usually at the root of those threads, the more of those types of details there are, the more likely they are to come out over time, and not by either ones choosing.


----------



## EllisRedding

OliviaG said:


> Exactly - why would you want images of "Susie" in that position with another guy...lol...(please tell me you haven't seen this depicted in porn...)


If I said I saw that in a porn and didn't just make it up in my head now, that would probably make me seem less weird ... sooo .... umm ... yeah, let's go with the porn answer. :grin2:


----------



## EllisRedding

samyeagar said:


> The big complication with this, and one that is usually at the root of those threads, the more of those types of details there are, the more likely they are to come out over time, and not by either ones choosing.


I could definitely see that. I have been off the dating market for quite a long time, so I am probably a little oblivious to the information that gets shared.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## MEM2020

Certainly an important topic.

Maybe the art is in - deciding when and how to approach this.

For instance, I want to know if she has 'The one that got away syndrome'. That's a deal breaker. Can't compete with romantic fiction. Not going to try. 

Other than that, my view of history is this: You are welcome to tell me anything you want me to know about your history.





Wolf1974 said:


> I have never felt competitive about sex either. But being as important as it is I feel it should be discussed to eliminate ANY possibility of a suprised or hurt feeling later when it all comes out. That's part of an adult relationship .....the ability to have real conversations and share these things with your significant other. All about emotional maturity
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## NobodySpecial

OliviaG said:


> I guess I can only see negative consequences of telling someone details of the past and no upside.


Well I can only tell you my experience. The upside for us was in being able to tell him not only what I had experienced but how it worked out for me. How this experience was positive because x or this one was negative because y. It helped both of us understand how I felt at that time.




> He might have images in his head of me with the other guy, he might be constantly comparing our current relationship to the *idea* he has of what my past relationship was like (whether inflated in his mind or not) and feel jealous (as lots of guys seem to post about feeling, on TAM).


Yah I hear you. But, for me, I would rather know he was going to have these reactions. Rather than having the details swept away and ignored, I would rather have the knowledge of his attitudes up front. So I could have nothing to do with them! A guy who is going to get jealous of something I did with someone else, is not a guy for me. A guy who would play the well you had anal with so and so (regardless of how the experience was for me) but not me, is not the guy for me. 



> Plus, if he's a guy who talks about other women, then he'll be talking about me if our relationship ends, and that's just the ultimate in low-life, to me.


What do you mean "talk about"? 



> Then there's the issue of whether or not you can trust what someone tells you anyway; if they want you they may tell you just what they think you want to hear (like a low number, or I make men wait for months, or whatever).
> 
> Why not just enjoy your relationship without comparing it to the past? What's the downside of that?


I would not enjoy the "relationship" you describe.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## NobodySpecial

OliviaG said:


> Discuss verbally? Convey intimate information about another partner?


Shrug. I don't get it. How can you get to know someone without talking to them about themselves? Yes I know my husband's ex girlfriend cheated, dumped him and stiffed him for $200.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Anon1111

I don't want to know up front. I'd like to think the girl is perfect, at least initially.

If she proves to be unenthusiastic about the relationship after a while I would start to wonder if it was just me, or if she was like that generally.

That's the only time the past history would become interesting.

At that point, the shopping cart story would become relevant, because it would indicate her relative lack of enthusiasm for me.

Otherwise, it doesn't matter.


----------



## samyeagar

OliviaG said:


> They're going to come out because...you associate with your exes and they're likely to talk about sexually explicit details of your past relationship with others? If so, then you do have a problem. You either made a big mistake choosing partners in the past or you haven't made keeping private stuff private an important quality in a partner.


Oh, not necessarily exes, but friends, and even more...circumstances that bring things from the past into the future.

That college roommate you haven't seen in ten years looks you up because they are going to be in town, and you all go out for drinks, and the reminiscing starts...


----------



## Buddy400

OliviaG said:


> That is some really faulty reasoning, IMO. And yet another reason why nobody should talk about past sexual experiences with current partners.


I'm curious as to why you think this is faulty reasoning.

If a woman says that she believes that it is important wait several months before having sex with me and yet it turns out that she has had sex on the first date with other guys, doesn't that show that she isn't "in to me" as much as she was with those other men? Shouldn't that be a warning sign to me? 

At a minimum it would seem to mean that sex and love weren't connected in her mind. I don't have any interest in having a woman love me but not want to have sex with me.

Now, if she'd done that in the past, realized that it was a mistake and had decided to change her "rules" going forward (as long as this change didn't happen the day after she had a ONS and the day before she met me!). I'd probably understand that.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Buddy400

EllisRedding said:


> I was thinking about this wondering how would the topic even come up? I mean, I understand maybe disclosing a #, but do people really go into that kind of detail where you disclose how many dates you went on before you had sex with each person  Or maybe these people are finding this out from others?


I don't think this would happen while the guy is waiting.

Usually I would expect it to come up later in the relationship; she says that she slept with Fred; a couple of months later she says that she only went on one date with Fred; your brain starts processing this and then "Wait a minute, I thought........."


----------



## bandit.45

OliviaG said:


> It wouldn't be a potential landmine for me. Any guy who even entertained that line of thinking would be out of the running with me. It's an indication of a guy who focuses on trivial, superficial stuff and not on what really matters.


Good for you. Stay that tack.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## samyeagar

OliviaG said:


> I guess it's hard for me to imagine a grown man or woman getting too hung up on college reminiscences. I mean how graphic and detailed are your friends likely to be in front of your SO? And even if your friends had so little regard for your relationship with your SO as to be talking that way in front of him/her, I'm not sure why s/he'd care what went on in college. There are lots of wild stories (not sexually explicit in nature) about my H from college. I couldn't care less - what matters to me is how he is with me now.


We don't have to imagine it, or understand it to acknowledge that once something is done, it can't be undone, and if even one other person knows about it, we have no way of controlling if or when it rise to the surface again...and things usually do, in one way or another, often at the most inopportune times.

Everything a person says or does exists in the context of an entire lifetime.


----------



## Anon1111

Buddy400 said:


> I'm curious as to why you think this is faulty reasoning.
> 
> If a woman says that she believes that it is important wait several months before having sex with me and yet it turns out that she has had sex on the first date with other guys, doesn't that show that she isn't "in to me" as much as she was with those other men? Shouldn't that be a warning sign to me?
> 
> At a minimum it would seem to mean that sex and love weren't connected in her mind. I don't have any interest in having a woman love me but not want to have sex with me.
> 
> Now, if she'd done that in the past, realized that it was a mistake and had decided to change her "rules" going forward (as long as this change didn't happen the day after she had a ONS and the day before she met me!). I'd probably understand that.


some women have categories for men.

Category 1: men for whom the rules apply 

Category 2: men for whom the rules don't apply.

These women would like you to accept that you should feel lucky that their rules apply to you.

In their mind, applying these rules is an indication that they take you seriously.

However, this is an ex post rationalization, because, for Category 2, the rules don't apply not because the woman thinks the man is _less _worthy, but because he is _more _worthy and is unlikely to accept any pre-conditions to his interest.

The gate is lowered without collecting the toll because the lady in the castle knows the black knight will just ride on to the next castle before paying.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Divinely Favored

breeze said:


> The only guys I ever jumped into bed with straight away were ones I *wasn't* interested in developing a relationship with. My DH would claim I jumped into bed with him pretty quick, but in reality, we'd known each other for a few months before actually deciding to form a relationship.
> 
> So if a girl is holding off and you want sex NOW, then just drop it because she's looking for something more than a casual fling, and you aren't worth the wait.


Problem is if the good guy finds out you have jumped some guys but are shooting him down....that tells the good guys they are not worthy and do not get her all hot and bothered like the last guy did.


----------



## bandit.45

OliviaG said:


> First of all, it probably is because she's realized that what she did in the past didn't get her what she wanted but got her what she didn't want instead. And she now realizes that a lot of guys are hung up on "high numbers" and she is worried about her number getting too high.
> 
> Second of all, no matter what she tells you to explain why she's treating you differently, if you know about her past you are going to always have a doubt in your mind and be wondering if you don't measure up in her eyes and if she's just stringing you along because she's not attracted to you.
> 
> *It's just best that you don't know those details to begin with*.


But isn't that a time bomb? What if one of her girlfriends gets drunk at a party or something, and tells the fiancee how his girlfriend did a threesome with two anonymous men at a swinger's party a month before she met him? 

That's kind of information suppression is just asking for trouble. It is best to be up front about that stuff. If he has a problem with her past, and she has a problem with him having a problem, then it is out there in the open, and then they both can make informed decisions.


----------



## EllisRedding

Buddy400 said:


> I don't think this would happen while the guy is waiting.
> 
> Usually I would expect it to come up later in the relationship; she says that she slept with Fred; a couple of months later she says that she only went on one date with Fred; your brain starts processing this and then "Wait a minute, I thought........."


Very good point, I could definitely see your scenario happening. I think in my case I would just look at it as a ONS which is a different scenario (I wouldn't be looking to have sex on the first date so I guess I wouldn't really compare Fred's situation to mine in this example). 

I would then bury my sorrows in a big bowl of ice cream :grin2:


----------



## Wolf1974

MEM11363 said:


> Certainly an important topic.
> 
> Maybe the art is in - deciding when and how to approach this.
> 
> For instance, I want to know if she has 'The one that got away syndrome'. That's a deal breaker. Can't compete with romantic fiction. Not going to try.
> 
> Other than that, my view of history is this: You are welcome to tell me anything you want me to know about your history.


Yeah that wouldn't work for me. Some things I am going to know or we won't be together. Everyone is different in what they need. Has never been an issue and suspect it never will be either


----------



## samyeagar

bandit.45 said:


> But isn't that a time bomb? What if one of her girlfriends gets drunk at a party or something, and tells the fiancee how his girlfriend did a threesome with two anonymous men at a swinger's party a month before she met him?
> 
> That's kind of information suppression is just asking for trouble. It is best to be up front about that stuff. If he has a problem with her past, and she has a problem with him having a problem, then it is out there in the open, and then they both can make informed decisions.


And tying this back into something earlier in this thread...I have overheard many a group of women being just as open, descriptive, and vulgar as the men.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> some women have categories for men.
> 
> Category 1: men for whom the rules apply
> 
> Category 2: men for whom the rules don't apply.
> 
> These women would like you to accept that you should feel lucky that their rules apply to you.
> 
> In their mind, applying these rules is an indication that they take you seriously.
> 
> However, this is an ex post rationalization, because, for Category 2, the rules don't apply not because the woman thinks the man is _less _worthy, but because he is _more _worthy and is unlikely to accept any pre-conditions to his interest.
> 
> The gate is lowered without collecting the toll because the lady in the castle knows the black knight will just ride on to the next castle before paying.



Why would you (rhetorical) even deal with this "type" of person?


----------



## Buddy400

OliviaG said:


> First of all, it probably is because she's realized that what she did in the past didn't get her what she wanted but got her what she didn't want instead. And she now realizes that a lot of guys are hung up on "high numbers" and she is worried about her number getting too high.


I get that. A permanent change of "rules" based on the prior set not working is an acceptable reason (as long as the timing of the "rule change" isn't _too_ convenient).



OliviaG said:


> Second of all, no matter what she tells you to explain why she's treating you differently, if you know about her past *you are going to always have a doubt in your mind and be wondering if you don't measure up in her eyes *and if she's just stringing you along because she's not attracted to you.


The bolded is exactly what I'd think.



OliviaG said:


> It's just best that you don't know those details to begin with.


I agree that I'd be best off not knowing. I wouldn't ask, but I might find out in other ways, such as described above.




Anon1111 said:


> some women have categories for men.
> 
> Category 1: men for whom the rules apply
> 
> Category 2: men for whom the rules don't apply.
> 
> These women would like you to accept that you should feel lucky that their rules apply to you.
> 
> In their mind, applying these rules is an indication that they take you seriously.
> 
> However, this is an ex post rationalization, because, for Category 2, the rules don't apply not because the woman thinks the man is _less _worthy, but because he is _more _worthy and is unlikely to accept any pre-conditions to his interest.
> 
> The gate is lowered without collecting the toll because the lady in the castle knows the black knight will just ride on to the next castle before paying.


Right or wrong, that's what I'd think as well. 

And I kind of think that's what Olivia thinks as well, which is why she thinks men would be better off not knowing.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Why would you (rhetorical) even deal with this "type" of person?


You didn't know what type of person they were?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> You didn't know what type of person they were?


I guess I was agreeing. There are all sorts of things we are NOT supposed to say to each other whose entire point seems to be to not know what type of person they are. I don't know why anyone would want to do that.


----------



## bandit.45

OliviaG said:


> It would be an extremely small percentage of the female population who has ever been involved in something like that. A minute number. Are you really worried about a woman having done that? If so, do you worry about being knocked out by a meteorite while walking down the street or dying in a plane crash?
> 
> Yes, in the remote chance that you are involved with a swinger or a porn star, she should disclose that to you.


I guess I'm using an extreme example, but if a woman has not disclosed to her fiancee that she had many ONSs before she met him, and that information comes out in some way other than hearing it from her first, he's going to be one pissed-off boyfriend. 

I'm not arguing whether he is right or wrong to feel that way, I am stating that that is the way most guys would react, if they had to wait weeks or months before getting to sleep with her. 

A guy would ask himself "Why should I have to wait so long and pay a such a high price for something that she gave away to other guys cheaply on the first date?"


----------



## NobodySpecial

bandit.45 said:


> I guess I'm using an extreme example, but if a woman has not disclosed to her fiancee that she had many ONSs before she met him, and that information comes out in some way other than hearing it from her first, he's going to be one pissed-off boyfriend.
> 
> I'm not arguing whether he is right or wrong to feel that way, I am stating that that is the way most guys would react, if they had to wait weeks or months before getting to sleep with her.
> 
> A guy would ask himself "Why should I have to wait so long and p*ay a such a high price for something that she gave away* to other guys cheaply on the first date?"



And THIS is why full disclosure is a win-win for all concerned because if anyone looked my feelings or sexuality that way, they would not be for me.


----------



## Froggi2

chillymorn said:


> I guess everybody gets to decide what crap to put up with when dating. If shes a cold fish and has to wait until shes know your favorite color,religious beliefs,character,political views, thats all good. But were not teenagers here. I think theres room for some hanky panky along the way. so don't be surprised when after a few dates he stops calling because as women want to test drive the character of the man, the man want to test drive the sexual character of the woman. especially if he was in a long term relationship with a woman who had to have the sun moon and stars align before she would have sex. or a woman who is very selfish sexually.
> 
> middle ground


If a man (childish) is so determined to get his **** wet, then I would tell him to move along then. No worries! For every one who won't wait, there is one who will, who respects women and cares about their feelings and for whom sex is not the end all, be all.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Divinely Favored

Palodyne said:


> My first girlfriend was 2 years younger than me, I was 17 and she was 15. Her family would only let me see her at their house so there was no opportunity, besides the fact that she said she wanted to wait till later. I was fine with that. Oops, the 16 year old boy across the street knocked her up a year later. Her step brother told me about it. GREAT!
> 
> So I moved on. Later I met the young woman that would become my fiancé. She was religious and said we should wait till we were married to have sex. Ok, I was on board for that. She was everything I had been looking for. As you may have guessed, she had a guy on the side she was banging, and she dumped me for him.
> 
> So you say it's my own fault, I could have just went out and got some strange because the woman I loved and trusted told me to wait. What would that have said about me? That I'm going to cheat if I don't get it right now? Maybe I was stupid, I damn sure was young. That was nearly 30 years ago. I stopped dating completely after that and gave up. Which is what has driven me to SI and here, along with some time in therapy in 2010-2011, trying to figure out what broke in me.
> 
> I do not blame those two girls for asking me to wait back then. I thought it proved they were good girls and worth waiting for. I blame them for telling me to wait while they indulged their carnal needs elsewhere. Then for the next 25 years I assumed there was something wrong with me.


They were fake ass women!

Never fails they usually want the fun bad boy and the decent good guy gets screwed over. After they are wrecked and used up the same girls come sniffing around wanting the good guys. That's when it feels good to say "Hell to the No!" You wanted to be bad boy drunk party boy's play toy. Now it's time to accept your choices. You chose the alcoholic that can't hold a decent job while I take my college educated azz to work.

I feel you. I was a good guy too. Waited and looked for the one till I was 22 and was screwed over by few. Girl I took to prom got knocked up by my older cousin. He used to go after them. Then I started using him as test. If they went for him they were *****s that I did not want around me. They made the bad choice and were left to raise a kid by their self.

My wife despises my arrogant cousin. She thought I did not like her because after the first date I did not try to kiss her. I was being a gentleman and it confused her.

If I had found out she would jump in the sack fairly quickly and then threw me hard stop....i would feel she liked the others more as she was willing to give herself to them but not me. I'm the type that the physical is joined with the emotional.


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> Why would you (rhetorical) even deal with this "type" of person?


good question.

As soon as I started seeing this type of checklist behavior, I would lose interest.


----------



## Buddy400

bandit.45 said:


> A guy would ask himself "Why should I have to wait so long and pay a such a high price for something that she gave away to other guys cheaply on the first date?"





OliviaG said:


> And she would be wondering why he didn't value her heart and her lifelong commitment to him, which she never gave to another guy, over easy (and for her, crappy) casual sex.


And the unbridgeable chasm between men and women opens up again.

This will never be resolved.

But at least men and women don't need to understand the other's position, but they do need to realize that they exist.


----------



## Wolf1974

NobodySpecial said:


> And THIS is why full disclosure is a win-win for all concerned because if anyone looked my feelings or sexuality that way, they would not be for me.


Exactly right. How else do you know if you are compatable if you don't even communicate about this stuff . Mind boggling to me


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> And the unbridgeable chasm between men and women opens up again.
> 
> This will never be resolved.
> 
> But at least men and women don't need to understand the other's position, but they do need to realize that they exist.


I don't think this is a male/female thing. My husband just does not think of buying sex with a relationship. He just doesn't. And for that matter, I don't think of buying a relationship with sex. The whole idea is just kinda squicky.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Buddy400

OliviaG said:


> And she would be wondering why he didn't value her heart and her lifelong commitment to him, which she never gave to another guy, over easy (and for her, crappy) casual sex.


But maybe she would have given her "her heart and her lifelong commitment" to the other guys as well, except he wouldn't reciprocate. And who knows that the sex was crappy?


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> And another thing, you men have to realize that you want two mutually exclusive things. You want a woman who is uninhibited and sexually adventurous with HD, but who has had very limited sexual experience with few partners.
> 
> Does anyone see anything diametrically opposed in these two requirements?


Nope. I have only dated and married a woman with low numbers and I have never been nor would I ever be in a sexless relationship.


----------



## Buddy400

OliviaG said:


> And another thing, you men have to realize that you want two mutually exclusive things. You want a woman who is uninhibited and sexually adventurous with HD, but who has had very limited sexual experience with few partners.
> 
> Does anyone see anything diametrically opposed in these two requirements?


No. don't (didn't) want a woman with very limited sexual experience. 

I would just question how much she is into me if she'd done things with others that she wouldn't do with me (that I wanted and with which she did not have a bad experience). There are things I'd understand but not necessarily be happy about.

So, yes, I'd be better off not knowing. I'd just hope I didn't find out accidentally.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Delete


----------



## Buddy400

Divinely Favored said:


> They were fake ass women!
> 
> Never fails they usually want the fun bad boy and the decent good guy gets screwed over. After they are wrecked and used up the same girls come sniffing around wanting the good guys. That's when it feels good to say "Hell to the No!" You wanted to be bad boy drunk party boy's play toy. Now it's time to accept your choices. You chose the alcoholic that can't hold a decent job while I take my college educated azz to work.
> 
> I feel you. I was a good guy too. Waited and looked for the one till I was 22 and was screwed over by few. Girl I took to prom got knocked up by my older cousin. He used to go after them. Then I started using him as test. If they went for him they were *****s that I did not want around me. They made the bad choice and were left to raise a kid by their self.


I'm not sure how often this (the Red Pill nightmare) really happens.

But I can guarantee that a lot of guys are worried about it.

And I don't think the fear is entirely unfounded.


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> Just curious: did you ever complain about how "vanilla" she was? How old were you when you married? If you married her when she was early 20s she wouldn't have had too much of a chance to get up to high numbers.


I married when I was 26. She was my third and I was her second. And no we never had vanilla or boring sex with any of the women I have been with. Sexuality is more than just slapping of body parts together. A lot of its just how open you are with each other and as intimacy grows so long as the communication is strong sex should get better not more mundane and boring


----------



## RainbowBrite

Delete


----------



## bandit.45

OliviaG said:


> And she would be wondering why he didn't value her heart and her lifelong commitment to him, which she never gave to another guy, over easy (and for her, crappy) casual sex.


Because to him, her past actions do not match up to her purported feelings about him. 

In a man's mind, she should be wanting to have sex with him constantly if she loves him so much, because to men sex IS love. 

A man feels loved when his girlfriend or wife has sex with him. When there is no sex, or if he has to wait for it, he does not feel loved, no matter how much he may try to trick himself into believing. His woman telling him she loves him only goes so far with a man...he needs sex.

A woman feels loved when her husband or boyfriend listens to her, empathizes with her feelings, understands her, and tells her he loves her and will always love her. Sex can be a part of this intimacy, but is not always necessary.


----------



## Buddy400

Divinely Favored said:


> Problem is if the good guy finds out you have jumped some guys but are shooting him down....that tells the good guys they are not worthy and do not get her all hot and bothered like the last guy did.


The breeze statement: 

"The only guys I ever jumped into bed with straight away were ones I *wasn't* interested in developing a relationship with."

I know that many women have this viewpoint, but it would be a huge problem for me.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## bandit.45

NobodySpecial said:


> And THIS is why full disclosure is a win-win for all concerned because if anyone looked my feelings or sexuality that way, they would not be for me.


That's great. But I'm telling ya....most men would feel that way. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.


----------



## bandit.45

OliviaG said:


> Stereotypes. I know they aren't true. To believe them would be to torture yourself, I think.


Nope. You can take what I've said to the bank about how men think. 

And I don't torture myself, by the way. Not in the least.


----------



## NobodySpecial

bandit.45 said:


> That's great. But I'm telling ya....most men would feel that way. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.


I wonder why people think that they know this. I am married to a guy who doesn't, as I mentioned. I know something of the relationship and attitudes of close family and friends. What is this yah well because I think it, most men/women do. Does that make you feel better somehow?


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> Okay, so she would naturally have low numbers if she married young. Now take a HD, sexually adventurous woman (the kind most men say they want) and expect her to have low numbers and limited experience at age 35 or 40, and you are asking for something unlikely to exist. So either give up on the uninhibited sex and HD or relax your worries about her numbers. Because you aren't likely to get both.


That has NEVER been my experience with women. Just doing something on repeat with multiple men does not make you good at it. The hands down best sexual partner I ever had was 36, two partners from two marriages, and she was amazing in bed. Contrasted to one of the worst sexual partners I had was over 20 in number. I have never found that number of partners makes you good at sex


----------



## NobodySpecial

Wolf1974 said:


> That has NEVER been my experience with women. Just doing something on repeat with multiple men does not make you good at it. The hands down best sexual partner I ever had was 36, two partners from two marriages, and she was amazing in bed. Contrasted to one of the worst sexual partners I had was over 20 in number. I have never found that number of partners makes you good at sex


I agree. Sexuality is in the brain, not technique.


----------



## bandit.45

NobodySpecial said:


> I wonder why people think that they know this. I am married to a guy who doesn't, as I mentioned. I know something of the relationship and attitudes of close family and friends. What is this yah well because I think it, most men/women do. *Does that make you feel better somehow?*


Why do get so defensive?


----------



## SadSamIAm

OliviaG said:


> Stereotypes. I know they aren't true. To believe them would be to torture yourself, I think.


Stereotypes aren't true 100% of the time. 

But I am guessing that what Bandit said is true at least 80% of the time. Probably more.


----------



## Buddy400

OliviaG said:


> And she would be wondering why he didn't value her heart and her lifelong commitment to him, which she never gave to another guy, over easy (and for her, crappy) casual sex.


Thinking about this again,

I think it comes back to the idea that men value sex and women value commitment. In this case, each gender is valuing behavior based on what they value themselves not what the opposite gender values.

You're assuming that what a man values most is a "lifetime commitment". 

Not that men don't value commitment and women don't value sex, they do, just not in the same order.


----------



## EllisRedding

Wolf1974 said:


> I married when I was 26. She was my third and I was her second. And no we never had vanilla or boring sex with any of the women I have been with. *Sexuality is more than just slapping of body parts together.* A lot of its just how open you are with each other and as intimacy grows so long as the communication is strong sex should get better not more mundane and boring


It is more like this


----------



## NobodySpecial

bandit.45 said:


> Why do get so defensive?


Why do you think I am defensive?


----------



## TX-SC

Perhaps it's just that I grew up in a rural part of the southern US, but there were several LTR that I had where sex didn't happen for several months. One, if I remember correctly, was four or five months of dating first. Other girls I dated, we had sex much earlier. My wife and I had sex after several dates. It was probably a month or maybe 6 weeks into the relationship before we did that.


----------



## bandit.45

NobodySpecial said:


> Why do you think I am defensive?


Why do you think I'm thinking you are defensive?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Thinking about this again,
> 
> I think it comes back to the idea that men value sex and women value commitment.


Why would this be an either or thing? To the degree that this is even true, it is entirely nurture IMO. If people could get these fabricated cobwebs out of their heads, then a lot more people could be happy.

Women are told from a young age that their worth is measure in NOT sex. Men are told from a young age that their worth is measure IN sex. What a brain fock.


----------



## NobodySpecial

bandit.45 said:


> Why do you think I'm thinking you are defensive?


I am guessing boredom.


----------



## SadSamIAm

NobodySpecial said:


> Why would this be an either or thing? To the degree that this is even true, it is entirely nurture IMO. If people could get these fabricated cobwebs out of their heads, then a lot more people could be happy.
> 
> Women are told from a young age that their worth is measure in NOT sex. Men are told from a young age that their worth is measure IN sex. What a brain fock.


I don't believe it has anything to do with what I was told. Or what I saw. Or what I learned.

It is just how I am.


----------



## bandit.45

NobodySpecial said:


> I am guessing boredom.


No.

Try incredulity.


----------



## bandit.45

NobodySpecial said:


> Why would this be an either or thing? To the degree that this is even true, it is entirely nurture IMO. *If people could get these fabricated cobwebs out of their heads, then a lot more people could be happy.*
> 
> Women are told from a young age that their worth is measure in NOT sex. Men are told from a young age that their worth is measure IN sex. What a brain fock.



And dogs would fart flowery smelling rainbows and Fred Rogers would be our next president. 

What IS and what you want usually never to align. Sad but true.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SadSamIAm said:


> I don't believe it has anything to do with what I was told. Or what I saw. Or what I learned.
> 
> It is just how I am.


I suppose we can argue nature vs. nurture for a while. But that does not sound like to much fun.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## NobodySpecial

bandit.45 said:


> And dogs would fart flowery smelling rainbows and Fred Rogers would be our next president.
> 
> What IS and what you want usually never to align. Sad but true.


What *I* want? Or is this a rhetorical you? I already have what I want. I have a husband who loves sex, has a great self esteem, does not measure himself by sex acts received or bought. I happen to have had quite a few lovers with those similar qualities. Qualities I like. Qualities I think a lot of women would like.


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> You thought I was saying that high numbers make you better at sex? No, I was saying that you shouldn't expect a HD, sexually uninhibited (unmarried) middle-aged woman to have low numbers. I didn't specify the unmarried part, but of course if she's been married since she was 20 she would hopefully have a very low number.


Actually if they are going to be with me I do expect that very thing. I don't compromise on things that are important to me and never had an issue finding them. My GF is 37 married once for only 3 years which means she had 18 years dating. Her number is lower than mine.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Anon1111

Buddy400 said:


> The breeze statement:
> 
> "The only guys I ever jumped into bed with straight away were ones I *wasn't* interested in developing a relationship with."
> 
> I know that many women have this viewpoint, but it would be a huge problem for me.


this is straight BS rationalization, of course.

they subjectively believe it, which means there is no point in arguing about it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

OliviaG said:


> No, but in yet another diametrically opposed set of male requirements, men require sex early on in a relationship before they know if they are suited for lifetime commitment and men *do not* see women who have sex early as women worth committing to. And men want women with low numbers to commit to.


This is a pile of stereotypes that are no more valid than the sex/commitment purchase stereotypes in my view. I know PLENTY of men who have no problem with "relationship material".


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> Okay. You're a very trusting person.


What do you mean trusting? What does that have to do with it?


----------



## Anon1111

OliviaG said:


> You thought I was saying that high numbers make you better at sex? No, I was saying that you shouldn't expect a HD, sexually uninhibited (unmarried) middle-aged woman to have low numbers. I didn't specify the unmarried part, but of course if she's been married since she was 20 she would hopefully have a very low number.


it's not the absolute number that matters, it's the relative past uninhibitedness vs present prudishness that matters


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## SadSamIAm

OliviaG said:


> No, but in yet another diametrically opposed set of male requirements, men require sex early on in a relationship before they know if they are suited for lifetime commitment and men *do not* see women who have sex early as women worth committing to. And men want women with low numbers to commit to.
> 
> So if you're a woman, you find out really quickly (hopefully you know this before you even start dating) that sex with a guy you hardly know rules out the potential of it developing into a LTR in the guy's mind (in general). Therefore, in order for you to be LTR potential for men, you *have to* withhold sex until you know if you have enough interest in the guy and he in you to have LTR potential.
> 
> Some women don't realize this at first and have some ONSs and are surprised at how they never hear from the guy again or become nothing more than a booty call to him until he finds someone with LTR potential (who has likely withheld sex from him for a while at the beginning). Then they learn. And they stop the ONSs. They have to or they will just be used and abused and run up high numbers and eventually get absolutely no respect from any man. These are the women that guys can be overheard trading stories about. They don't talk this way about their LTRs or wives.


My wife and I made out pretty heavily our first date. I think we had sex on our third date. We have been married almost 30 years.

Women that have had a bunch of sex have not been 'used and abused' unless we are talking about rape. Sex is good. For men and women.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> it's not the absolute number that matters, it's the relative past uninhibitedness vs present prudishness that matters


Why? That is what I cannot wrap my head around. Why was what someone did when maybe they were young and stupid, or had not found Jesus (Buddah, Krishna, Flying Spaghetti Monster) or had not learned what they wanted yet... have ANY reflection on you? And why refer to the latter as a pejorative (prudishness)? That is an incomprehensible attitude to me.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## NobodySpecial

SadSamIAm said:


> My wife and I made out pretty heavily our first date. I think we had sex on our third date. We have been married almost 30 years.
> 
> Women that have had a bunch of sex have not been 'used and abused' unless we are talking about rape. *Sex is good. For men and women*.


Sex has what value the individual chooses to place on it regardless of what value someone else chooses to place on it. Compatibility of value is key.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> You are trusting what she tells you in a new relationship. You're a trusting person.


Of course. Trust is given until you learn they are lying. Why do you assume all women lie?


----------



## SadSamIAm

OliviaG said:


> I had sex with my husband on the first date, but I knew him quite well before we went on a date. We've been married almost 30 years. That's a whole other thing to present dating where people go on first dates they meet online and know nothing about them.


I think the dating world has changed a bunch since we were dating (30 years ago). I think it is pretty common for people to meet online. To text back and forth for a few days before meeting. They meet if they connected by texting and if they felt attracted to each other from pics. They meet and sex happens very early. 

I think a bunch of the time the sex is casual. No intention of anything more. I don't think it has anything to do with the likelihood of marriage.


----------



## Anon1111

OliviaG said:


> Lots of guys come to TAM and say the absolute number matters. It's a deal-breaker they say.


I'll be honest and say at a certain point, the absolute number would matter. If it was like in the hundreds, let's say.

Within a normal range, I think most men are pretty understanding. Maybe they don't really want to think about their princess in that way, but most can be reasonable about this.

there are guys who are more extreme, but I think they're a distinct (but vocal) minority.


----------



## samyeagar

OliviaG said:


> No, but in yet another diametrically opposed set of male requirements, men require sex early on in a relationship before they know if they are suited for lifetime commitment and men *do not* see women who have sex early as women worth committing to. And men want women with low numbers to commit to.
> 
> *So if you're a woman, you find out really quickly (hopefully you know this before you even start dating) that sex with a guy you hardly know rules out the potential of it developing into a LTR in the guy's mind (in general). Therefore, in order for you to be LTR potential for men, you *have to* withhold sex until you know if you have enough interest in the guy and he in you to have LTR potential.*
> 
> Some women don't realize this at first and have some ONSs and are surprised at how they never hear from the guy again or become nothing more than a booty call to him until he finds someone with LTR potential (who has likely withheld sex from him for a while at the beginning). Then they learn. And they stop the ONSs. They have to or they will just be used and abused and run up high numbers and eventually get absolutely no respect from any man. These are the women that guys can be overheard trading stories about. They don't talk this way about their LTRs or wives.


I am not sure this is entirely true in a lot of cases, or at least in such a black and white way.

In some cases, they guy had no interest in a LTR with anyone.

In other cases, they had sex early, but down the line, there were other things about her that he found unappealing in a partner, and the sex had nothing to do with it. It's just easier to say he was using her for sex than to consider that there were things about her that he didn't like.

In yet other cases such as mine, two of the three women I have had sex with, we had sex on the first date, the third was shortly into the second date. All three of them had significantly higher partner counts than me, and yet all three turned into long term relationships.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon1111 said:


> I'll be honest and say at a certain point, the absolute number would matter. If it was like in the hundreds, let's say.
> 
> Within a normal range, I think most men are pretty understanding. Maybe they don't really want to think about their princess in that way, but most can be reasonable about this.
> 
> there are guys who are more extreme, but I think they're a distinct (but vocal) minority.


I would agree with minority or misunderstood what they are actually saying. Lots of over generalization here


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> Why? That is what I cannot wrap my head around. Why was what someone did when maybe they were young and stupid, or had not found Jesus (Buddah, Krishna, Flying Spaghetti Monster) or had not learned what they wanted yet... have ANY reflection on you? And why refer to the latter as a pejorative (prudishness)? That is an incomprehensible attitude to me.


it's because I want to be my woman's #1.

If I get the sense that she liked someone else better-- or even worse, many other guys better-- then that is a big downer.

What a woman considers her "young and stupid" period can be viewed through a different lens as her "hot and passionate" period.


----------



## Anon1111

Wolf1974 said:


> I would agree with minority or misunderstood what they are actually saying. Lots of over generalization here


It's all a matter of degree. Everyone has a different line, but I do think there is a range that is generally normal.

expecting adult women to be virgins is abnormal in my view.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> it's because I want to be my woman's #1.
> 
> If I get the sense that she liked someone else better-- or even worse, many other guys better-- then that is a big downer.
> 
> What a woman considers her "young and stupid" period can be viewed through a different lens as her "hot and passionate" period.



Whose lens is important? Only yours? If someone told me that my young and stupid period was REALLY my hot and passionate period, they would be

1. wrong - holy cow has it gotten better
2. really freaking insensitive to MY feelings. As if all that matters was the ***** I was putting up. But god help ME if the ***** my young and stupid did not know better than to give some cheap ass guy is different that the ***** you wish you got from my supposed hot and passionate.

It makes me really sad that people think like this.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> No, only the ones who are sorely tempted because they have something to hide from a guy they really like.


But this goes to the greater issue that was discussed earlier. So a women really likes me but knows that if she had treated sex causally or been in porn that this will be a deal breaker. So she lies but as time goes on those lies always break down and finally the truth gets revealed. Well now she has shot herself in the foot. Cause while I may have overlooked some things as young and foolish I will never overlook lying. So again it is always best to put your best foot and the truth forward


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> Whose lens is important? Only yours? If someone told me that my young and stupid period was REALLY my hot and passionate period, they would be
> 
> 1. wrong - holy cow has it gotten better
> 2. really freaking insensitive to MY feelings. As if all that matters was the ***** I was putting up. But god help ME if the ***** my young and stupid did not know better than to give some cheap ass guy is different that the ***** you wish you got from my supposed hot and passionate.
> 
> It makes me really sad that people think like this.


not everyone has to agree on everything, obviously.

I just want the best from any woman who I choose to invest in a relationship with.

if I sense I'm not getting her best, I'm not interested.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon1111 said:


> It's all a matter of degree. Everyone has a different line, but I do think there is a range that is generally normal.
> 
> expecting adult women to be virgins is abnormal in my view.


As is the opposite expectations that any woman past thirty has slept with 100 guys or more.


----------



## NobodySpecial

OliviaG said:


> The guys who care are the guys who are asking what her number is!


The guys who care are the guys who MEASURE their self worth in what they deem sexual prowess alone, not the whole relationship package.

When I first got together with my ex, sex was awesome. Mind blowing awesome. Over time, he forgot that it was more than for HIS ego stroke. (Actually he never thought it was ever for more than his ego stroke, but like any good narcissist, he gets his needs fed by being charming.) Over time, it became evident that everything was a measuring stick; the act(s), the frequency, the squirt. MY pleasure, presence, feelings were completely unimportant. 

Interesting juxtaposition.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> not everyone has to agree on everything, obviously.
> 
> I just *want the best from any woman who I choose to invest in a relationship with*.
> 
> if I sense I'm not getting her best, I'm not interested.


There are any number of units of measure of "best". And some of them are actually more likely to yield long term happiness in ALL areas of marriage than others.


----------



## samyeagar

For most guys, I really don't think it is about any specific acts. Yes, for some it is, and I disagree with them. But for most guys, it's about the feeling of being desired above all by a partner, and how those feelings are shown through action. I think most men could care less about her past so long as her past stayed in the past, and he felt beyond a shadow of doubt that he was her number one now, that she was giving her best.

While the above is written from a mans point of view, I don't think men and women are generally all that different when it comes to this.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> So she's weighing the risk of losing the chance of a relationship now, when you're not in love with her, with the chance of losing a relationship with you later, when you are in love with her.


Seems like a no brainier to me. Better to not waste each other's time


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## bandit.45

NobodySpecial said:


> What *I* want? Or is this a rhetorical you? I already have what I want. I have a husband who loves sex, has a great self esteem, does not measure himself by sex acts received or bought. I happen to have had quite a few lovers with those similar qualities. Qualities I like. Qualities I think a lot of women would like.


I'm glad you have a good man. Treasure him. 

It is unfortunate that he is among the minority.


----------



## samyeagar

OliviaG said:


> So she's weighing the risk of losing the chance of a relationship now, when you're not in love with her, with the chance of losing a relationship with you later, when you are in love with her.


And the choice she makes is the true demonstration of her character.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> No, not any woman, and 100 is an arbitrary number. But an unmarried, HD, uninhibited woman who has not been in a LTR by age 35 or so, probably doesn't have a low number.
> 
> If she claims to then one of those other criteria must be a lie. Otherwise, how do you reconcile the two things? With your HD, would you choose to be chaste? Would you be able to if you tried? Why would she, if she's HD and uninhibited?


Well I'm starting to see the flaws in your thought pattern. A 35 year old woman who has never had a LTR, not even talking about marriage, is probably not some I would look to pursue in the first place I can't even think of a single one that would apply to..

Number doesn't have anything to do with HD. Already stated I am HD and my number is low. When I am single I don't look to bang every woman I see just because I'm HD. You certainly have some strange notions about dating lol


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## NobodySpecial

bandit.45 said:


> I'm glad you have a good man. Treasure him.
> 
> It is unfortunate that he is among the minority.


I don't think there is anything wrong with men. I think most people are good people. And most men are good men. I think that our culture has shifted AWAY from so many things but has not had learned people who could vocalize healthy other things to move TOWARD. So people cast about without ideas of how to form relationships, raise kids, form character and integrity...

The ship is flopping about with is sails all billowy, and it does not know which way to go. 

I got LUCKY. My Dad was a natural modern man. No one needed to teach him. He lead the charge. He could be empathetic to Mom and we kids without ever losing his N.U.T.s. He could cook a mean dinner and sling a chain saw. He could tell you about his doubts in god while still insisting that character is the root of all happiness. Not everyone gets a model like that. So it formed what I looked for in a man.


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> Depends how likely it is that the truth will come out. How likely is it that you will meet all 30 of her past lovers and they will all identify themselves as such giving you a chance to count them...for example? I'm thinking not so likely. If she's had 30 or 40 partners and lies about it, how are you ever going to know?


You would be thinking incorrectly. Truth generally comes out eventually, just a matter of time. And the longer the lie is told the more consequences it will have. Since it's a minor thing and not worth lying about in the first place. You have a much lower view of your gender than I. I think most are very straight forward and honest not wanting to waste time. That has been my experience


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> Your number is low because you were married! Or else you're not as HD as you think.


I have been single and dating longer than I was ever married


----------



## EllisRedding

So given the # topic, thinking about it a little bit more... I have never had a set number per se (at least not that I can recall). I got married early on, so naturally it would be more expected that a lower number would be the norm at that point (and a high # would be alarming). I don't expect to ever be back on the market again so not really a concern, but hypothetically if I was, obviously I would need to readjust whatever this number in my head is vs 15 years ago. That being said, I personally would lose interest in someone who has not shared the same values as me in terms of sex (I am not one to sleep around or have ONSs). How that translates into a #, not quite sure, but fortunately not something I have to worry about :grin2:


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## EllisRedding

OliviaG said:


> Your number is low because you were married! Or else you're not as HD as you think.


Curious, this would seem to imply that HD people sleep around more than LD people? I know several single LD females who have active sex lives not b/c they crave sex but b/c of possibly low self esteem, they think that is what they need to do to get a guy, etc...

An HD person can still have boundaries that doesn't involve racking up a large number I would believe?


----------



## RainbowBrite

Delete


----------



## RainbowBrite

Delete


----------



## joannacroc

bandit.45 said:


> Why do you think I'm thinking you are defensive?


You guys crack me up. This dialogue reminds me so much of marriage counseling.


----------



## samyeagar

OliviaG said:


> If that's true Sam, and I think it is for many (but not for many on this thread), then they don't feel a need to know specifics about her past.


And I honestly think that most men don't feel a need to know specifics beyond general thoughts, feelings, and attitudes about sex. In my case with my wife, I didn't want to know, and never asked. Not that it would have made any difference if I had, because some of the things that have come out, I never in a million years would have thought to ask about.


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> You may have only dated people with nothing to hide; they would probably be the majority anyway. Now whether or not they are truly HD you wouldn't be able to confirm until you'd been married a few years.


I don't agree that it takes a few years to figure HD out. Seems evident in first few months what their attitude is about sex.

And yes I do think that I am naturally attracted to honest and up front women. I think people who have things to hide are going to figure out quickly they wound not work with me. I want to Know EVERYTHING as we progress. I think people feel that out really quickly and goes toward our subconscious picking of mates. I do and have always asked potential GF what thier # is and always share mine because I'm no hypocrite. But the dirty little secret is while an outlandish number would be a deal breaker her inability to share some of this simple and basic information would even more so. But like I said earlier I have never even had a woman really pause when asked this question if they don't ask me first.


----------



## samyeagar

OliviaG said:


> Your number is low because you were married! Or else you're not as HD as you think.


I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to respond anyway 

I actually laughed out loud at this  I am quite HD, and have spent most of my life in committed relationships. My number is 3. Considering the times where I have been unattached, the only reason it is not over 100 is by my own damned picky choices.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## EllisRedding

OliviaG said:


> They could. I believe it's much harder for an HD person to resist temptation though. I know I've battled it.


Yeah, I can't quite relate to an HD, I am more of a Medium Drive type of guy 

I would just think within a relationship / marriage drive might come more into play vs being single (as I mentioned in my example of those females with a high count not drive related but "self esteem / this is what a guy wants" related)


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## bandit.45

OliviaG said:


> No, but in yet another diametrically opposed set of male requirements, men require sex early on in a relationship before they know if they are suited for lifetime commitment and men **do not* see women who have sex early as women worth committing to*.


This is not always the case. As guys get older their pickers tend to get better (generally speaking). A man may indeed pursue a marriage-aimed relationship with a woman who slept with him on the first date. If she acts like she has a good head on her shoulders, has her sh!t together and has an authentic heart, then her being great in the sack is just icing on the cake.


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> Maybe not. It's all the posts about great sex drying up shortly after marriage that makes me think otherwise, but it could just be this particular population.


Honestly, not to detail this thread, but a lot of that is on the other person. We teach people how to treat us and those who choose to live sexless relationships are making the choice to do so. They always have the option to leave so they are as equally responsible for their "situation"


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## bandit.45

OliviaG said:


> How do they know if the woman has the bolded characteristics (above) or not on the first date? Assuming they didn't know the woman before?
> 
> They couldn't, right? So this means the woman has to take the risk of upping her number and him not finding her LTR potential because in his view, she doesn't "have an authentic heart" or some other subjective quality that he wants her to have.


They wouldn't. It would take subsequent dates. 

And yes...it would be a risk she takes. No argument from me on that. So, hopefully she dates a good man who does not expect sex on a first date. 

I personally never do. Although I have had sex with women on the first date, it is not a requirement for me, because I'm not really a player. Some men expect it, and I don't think that is right. 

But yeah, every person has to make a choice as to whether or not they want to take that risk..men and women both.


----------



## samyeagar

OliviaG said:


> How do they know if the woman has the bolded characteristics (above) or not on the first date? Assuming they didn't know the woman before?
> 
> They couldn't, right? So this means the woman has to take the risk of upping her number and him not finding her LTR potential because in his view, she doesn't "have an authentic heart" or some other subjective quality that he wants her to have.


Again, I think that for most men, the number thing is pretty minor depending on the context, and in the example you gave above, adding one more in that context would likely not even be a blip on the radar. Where it would likely matter would be say in the context of her regularly taking randoms home from the bar, and racking up a healthy few dozen that way...but again in this context, it's not so much the number, rather the number is just a statistic representing what could be seen by some as reckless behaviour.


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> What's that got to do with whether or not the woman was truly HD or not though?


Some claim they are HD and dangle it like a carrot and then change after marriage. What I was saying is that the person who stays is also responsible for that situation. You can be HD and not have sex for a miriade of reasons including punishment or becoming a mother or insert reason here ..........
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_hopefull

For me personally, it's not about anything more than being in a sexually exclusive relationship. I'm not going to sleep around and take the risk of getting an STI . If the guy is actively dating around that's fine, but I'm not ever going to sign up to be the Tuesday night special. I'm financially secure, independent, kind hearted, and I've been told I'm attractive. I'm looking for a quality man in my life, one who respects both myself and my body. When I find him, I will gladly give him my heart and body. If someone stops seeing me because I'm not willing to be casual regarding my body, then he's not right for me. I personally think I'm worth ones investment of time. 

Now if someone comes back and says "what about all the money he spends", well what about it? I will always offer to split the first dinner if I'm not interested, if I like him I still offer to pay half, if he refuses, I will offer to buy the next dinner.


----------



## ne9907

I completely agree with the OP. I am HD. 

If I just want a quick fvck, I will find someone and have it. I have several people I may call for just a romp.
However, if I am dating someone new and see LTR material, I will wait to ensure he is the right person.

I am not going to waste my time by having sex with someone just because I am horny, I have people for that, if the person is not LTR then I am glad not to have sex with them... might be disappointing!


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> The guys who care are the guys who MEASURE their self worth in what they deem sexual prowess alone, not the whole relationship package.


I think this is an overgeneralization. It's possible to care about this particular issue and the relationship package as a whole.

To be clear, in most cases, in healthy relationships, this is a total non-issue.

In relationships which are already unhealthy, things like this can take on importance. But it is more of a confirmation that the relationship is not what it should be than anything else.


----------



## Holland

OliviaG said:


> They could. I believe it's much harder for an HD person to resist temptation though. I know I've battled it.


Grossly unfair comment. Being HD and being of good character are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Delete


----------



## NobodySpecial

OliviaG said:


> Define "being of good character". I think it all depends on one's definition. Does it mean not sleeping with men you hardly know?


Character is certainly personal. But I think there are things that a lot of people would agree on like honesty, treating other people with kindness... Who a person sleeps with is not, by itself, a matter of character. Most acts are defined as actions of character or not based on whether their outcome is wholesome or destructive. I WOULD call allowing your hind brain to determine actions instead of front brain to be a matter of character.


----------



## Buddy400

OliviaG said:


> No, but in yet another diametrically opposed set of male requirements, men require sex early on in a relationship before they know if they are suited for lifetime commitment and men *do not* see women who have sex early as women worth committing to. And men want women with low numbers to commit to.
> 
> So if you're a woman, you find out really quickly (hopefully you know this before you even start dating) that sex with a guy you hardly know rules out the potential of it developing into a LTR in the guy's mind (in general). Therefore, in order for you to be LTR potential for men, you *have to* withhold sex until you know if you have enough interest in the guy and he in you to have LTR potential.


I'm responding before reading the next 5 pages, so......

Guys want sex. They don't mind a woman having sex with them early if it's because they find him so incredibly desirable (not that this is the reason, just if it is *perceived *to be the reason).

I really don't think many men would have sex with a woman and then dump her because she's "easy". That may have been the case in the past, but I don't think it happens very often anymore.

If a guy has sex with a woman and then vanishes, he was just a player that got what he wanted and moved on.

So, I don't think many men see themselves waiting as a good thing but are willing to deal with it if the same rules are applied to all men. 

I'm fine with a woman having sex on the first date (with me and others) or waiting (with me and others). 

I'm most comfortable with women who only have sex when they're emotionally attached. But, that's just my preference,

If women want to avoid players, then waiting a while is probably a good strategy.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Buddy400 said:


> *If a guy has sex with a woman and then vanishes, he was just a player that got what he wanted and moved on.*
> 
> ....
> 
> *If women want to avoid players, then waiting a while is probably a good strategy.*


If a man doesn't understand this or *cares* why a woman feels this way.. I'd want to do this.. :banghead::banghead::banghead:


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Why? That is what I cannot wrap my head around. Why was what someone did when maybe they were young and stupid, or had not found Jesus (Buddah, Krishna, Flying Spaghetti Monster) .


Finding Jesus(Buddah, Krishna, Flying Spaghetti Monster) the would be a pretty good explanations.

I'd buy that.


----------



## Buddy400

OliviaG said:


> Lots of guys come to TAM and say the absolute number matters. It's a deal-breaker they say.


I don't see that being as big a thing as you do.

I'd disagree with them.

We need to keep score


----------



## Anon1111

I'm skeptical of this whole "getting to know you" thing.

I think people pretty much decide within 10 seconds whether they want someone.

People then act on their instincts and come up with rationalizations afterwards.

They become heavily invested in their rationalizations after the fact to the degree that they feel primary.

But all you need to do is look at actions to understand whether there is real attraction or not.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> I'm skeptical of this whole "getting to know you" thing.
> 
> I think people pretty much decide within 10 seconds whether they want someone.
> 
> People then act on their instincts and come up with rationalizations afterwards.
> 
> They become heavily invested in their rationalizations after the fact to the degree that they feel primary.
> 
> But all you need to do is look at actions to understand whether there is real attraction or not.


If that is what "people" do then "people" are pretty unhealthy.


----------



## Buddy400

OliviaG said:


> How do they know if the woman has the bolded characteristics (above) or not on the first date? Assuming they didn't know the woman before?
> 
> They couldn't, right? So this means the woman has to take the risk of upping her number and him not finding her LTR potential because in his view, she doesn't "have an authentic heart" or some other subjective quality that he wants her to have.


A woman who often has sex early will find that a smaller percentage of her partners are interested in an LTR than a woman who "waits". 

But the cause isn't men shying away from women who have early sex, it's because guys that aren't interested in a relationship are less likely to wait.


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> If that is what "people" do then "people" are pretty unhealthy.


I don't think it's even a choice. It's not healthy or unhealthy.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> I don't think it's even a choice. It's not healthy or unhealthy.


Can't say I agree on either point. Not everyone abdicates their ability to choose. And I think it is a pretty unhealthy thing to do.


----------



## Anon1111

It's not about abdicating anything.

My point is that our rationality is largely an illusion, especially regarding primitive instinctual things like sex.

You can't control who you are attracted to.

I don't see this as a question of health.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Sounds like just another face of the stupid let's negotiate everything to make sure we're all justified in being outraged down the road world we live in now. Sure make him wait, a little. Do it once, maybe twice. After that that you're acting in a crazy play in your own head. Do you want to screw or just screw around because trust me, you're one in a million...so there's 1,300 clones of you in China alone.


----------



## Buddy400

ne9907 said:


> I completely agree with the OP. I am HD.
> 
> If I just want a quick fvck, I will find someone and have it. I have several people I may call for just a romp.
> However, if I am dating someone new and see LTR material, I will wait to ensure he is the right person.
> 
> I am not going to waste my time by having sex with someone just because I am horny, I have people for that, if the person is not LTR then I am glad not to have sex with them... might be disappointing!


If I were interested in an LTR with you, you were "waiting to ensure that I was the right person" and I found out that you hooked up for sex with people who you did not consider LTR material, I would no longer be interested in an LTR with you.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, just letting you know what would happen if you were envisioning an LTR with someone like me.


----------



## Anon1111

people say they have all of these standards, but when they meet a real live person, all of that goes out the window and the standards morph to whatever it takes to get the person they want.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> It's not about abdicating anything.
> 
> My point is that our rationality is largely an illusion, especially regarding primitive instinctual things like sex.
> 
> You can't control who you are attracted to.
> 
> I don't see this as a question of health.


I definitely disagree with this. We can be misguided by our hind brain for short periods. But not entering the game with our fore brain, instead making justifications, to make good choices IS a matter of mental health.


----------



## Buddy400

Anon1111 said:


> It's not about abdicating anything.
> 
> My point is that our rationality is largely an illusion, especially regarding primitive instinctual things like sex.
> 
> You can't control who you are attracted to.
> 
> I don't see this as a question of health.


Jonathan Haidt has a great metaphor for this:

A monkey is riding an elephant. 

The monkey is your rational brain.

When the elephant turns, the monkey thinks it's because he (the monkey) decided to turn.

But actually, what happens is that the elephant starts turning and the monkey comes up with reasons why turning is a great idea.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Delete


----------



## RainbowBrite

Delete


----------



## Anon1111

OliviaG said:


> Then how do you rationalize the women who fall for players?


easy. players are players for a reason. they are attractive. so women fall for them.


----------



## Anon1111

OliviaG said:


> You can control whether you sleep with them before you know them or not though.


depends on how attractive they are.

you may feel you really "know" someone instantly if they are very attractive.

For example, I knew I would marry my wife within the first 15 minutes of meeting her.


----------



## chillymorn

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

The chicken of course. The egg doesn't have a penis


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> depends on how attractive they are.
> 
> you may feel you really "know" someone instantly if they are very attractive.
> 
> For example, I knew I would marry my wife within the first 15 minutes of meeting her.


Look how well that worked out for you!


----------



## Buddy400

OliviaG said:


> Then how do you rationalize the women who fall for players?


You know if you want them sexually.

It takes a while to know if you want them as a partner.

So, if you don't want to have unattached sex, you've got to let the monkey decide what to do.

If you can manage not to eat the marshmallow for 5 minutes, you'll get two marshmallows.


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> Look how well that worked out for you!


Luckily, I'm very good at rationalization.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Buddy400 said:


> *You know if you want them sexually.
> 
> It takes a while to know if you want them as a partner.*


Yes we size people UP.. when I met my husband, young as I was.. I evaluated his body type.. it was a "GO"... he passed.. I didn't care for his glasses.. they concealed his good looks.. but I knew he was my type - for someday "getting it on"...therefore I was open to him, I showed enthusiasm for our conversations.. this is what allowed him to ask me to be his girl within a week.. 

I learned yrs ago.. he expected me to shoot him down when he asked.. I laughed hearing this.. yet felt it was so sweet that he put himself out there.. as he was surely on the introverted side - yet didn't waste any time at all ! 

He's always told me it was Love at 1st sight ... he just really wanted to get to know me, adding it "wasn't about getting into my pants".. hearing this I said.. "wasn't I hot enough?".. so I asked when he started to see me in a sexual way.... he says "When you stuck your hands down my pants"...









I knew early on.. I found a GOOD GUY, this one could be forever...he took great care to show me how much I meant to him...


----------



## Buddy400

OliviaG said:


> In other words: it's a good idea for women to make men wait a while for sex, until they know there's more to the attraction to each other than just (merely) sexual attraction.
> 
> Okay @Vega , we've got a consensus here...!
> 
> <running and ducking...>


But, if you wait too long, you end up with a bunch of stale marshmallows.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## TheTruthHurts

OliviaG said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, if you wait too long, you end up with a bunch of stale marshmallows.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...agreed.
Click to expand...

yikes! If I wait too long my kids eat them all! I'm not liking this analogy at all anymore


----------



## TX-SC

Wow, what a strange read this has been. I'm not sure what this thread is even about anymore.


----------



## MEM2020

Holland,
100% agree with that. There is zero correlation between drive level, and character. 

Zero. 

An HD spouse paired with a LD partner MAY be more determined to resolve their issues. But that is different than being deceptive and betraying their vows. 



=Holland;15709305]Grossly unfair comment. Being HD and being of good character are not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Vega

Wow.

First of all, thank you ALL for taking the time to respond to this thread! 

I really didn't expect this thread to get THIS MUCH attention! I work nights and when I came home this morning it was at 7 pages. In only a few hours it morphed into 17 and 2 more pages were added as I was reading through the responses! 

In a nutshell, it seems that the majority of people who responded don't mind waiting SOMETIMES and/or for a 'short' period of time. Of course, we all seem to have different definitions of what a 'short' period of time is, but most seem willing to wait for between a few weeks to a few months (1-3).

What I've noticed is that there also seems to be a _disconnect_ between waiting and WHY we're (both men and women) waiting. WHY we may be waiting didn't seem to be nearly as important as the fact that we're waiting _period_, especially if *she* didn't wait very long before becoming sexual with others before *him*. 

It seems that if *she* didn't have sex with him 'soon', *he* believed that *she* just wasn't "into him". 

But if *he* has sex with a number of women fairly quickly, couldn't that mean that he wasn't really that "into" any of them _other than _sexually? Either that or *he* lost interest in the rest of *her* (the non-sexual parts of her), even though the sex may have been outstanding. (Yes, I understand that a man could have sex with a woman fairly quickly, and SHE ends the relationship with HIM, but I'm not talking about those situations right now)

It also seems that a number of people want to have sex fairly quickly to see if they're sexually "compatible" with the other person. Yet, what's been demonstrated on TAM over and over _*and OVER*_ again, is that the kind of sex we have in the beginning of a relationship is *NOT* a _true measure _of the kind of sex we'll be having later on in the relationship. We can have no sex until marriage and end up having GREAT sex after marriage or...we can have GREAT sex BEFORE marriage only for the sex to dry up AFTER marriage. (seems to be most common) Of course, these dynamics can happen whether we're _married_ or not.

So, if we KNOW that having sex early in a relationship isn't reliable to determine if we're going to be sexually compatible at a later point in time, then why do we continue to use 'compatibility' as an excuse to have sex early? Hmmm...I'll have to think about that.

Personally, I can be _very _sexually attracted to someone but have enough self-control not to jump in the sack quickly. I need to know if I can trust you before sleeping with you. 

I'm only going to know that through the passage of time, and being able to _trust *MYSELF* _to know what to look for!

ETA: By the way....Buddy and Olivia, would you both mind sharing a few marshmallows with me while I'm ....um...."waiting"? :laugh:


----------



## Buddy400

Vega said:


> Wow.
> 
> First of all, thank you ALL for taking the time to respond to this thread!
> 
> I really didn't expect this thread to get THIS MUCH attention! I work nights and when I came home this morning it was at 7 pages. In only a few hours it morphed into 17 and 2 more pages were added as I was reading through the responses!
> 
> In a nutshell, it seems that the majority of people who responded don't mind waiting SOMETIMES and/or for a 'short' period of time. Of course, we all seem to have different definitions of what a 'short' period of time is, but most seem willing to wait for between a few weeks to a few months (1-3).
> 
> What I've noticed is that there also seems to be a _disconnect_ between waiting and WHY we're (both men and women) waiting. WHY we may be waiting didn't seem to be nearly as important as the fact that we're waiting _period_, especially if *she* didn't wait very long before becoming sexual with others before *him*.
> 
> It seems that if *she* didn't have sex with him 'soon', *he* believed that *she* just wasn't "into him".


Good summation



Vega said:


> Wow.
> But if *he* has sex with a number of women fairly quickly, couldn't that mean that he wasn't really that "into" any of them _other than _sexually? Either that or *he* lost interest in the rest of *her* (the non-sexual parts of her), even though the sex may have been outstanding.


A man wanting to have sex with a woman only tells you that he is physically attracted to her.



Vega said:


> It also seems that a number of people want to have sex fairly quickly to see if they're sexually "compatible" with the other person. Yet, what's been demonstrated on TAM over and over _*and OVER*_ again, is that the kind of sex we have in the beginning of a relationship is *NOT* a _true measure _of the kind of sex we'll be having later on in the relationship. We can have no sex until marriage and end up having GREAT sex after marriage or...we can have GREAT sex BEFORE marriage only for the sex to dry up AFTER marriage. (seems to be most common) Of course, these dynamics can happen whether we're _married_ or not.
> 
> So, if we KNOW that having sex early in a relationship isn't reliable to determine if we're going to be sexually compatible at a later point in time, then why do we continue to use 'compatibility' as an excuse to have sex early? Hmmm...I'll have to think about that.


I agree. I've never bought the claim that long term sexual compatibility can be predicted based on short term compatibility.

And, as to giving you some marshmallows; Nope.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## WorkingWife

Anon1111 said:


> I'm skeptical of this whole "getting to know you" thing.
> 
> *I think people pretty much decide within 10 seconds whether they want someone.
> 
> People then act on their instincts and come up with rationalizations afterwards.*
> 
> They become heavily invested in their rationalizations after the fact to the degree that they feel primary.
> 
> But all you need to do is look at actions to understand whether there is real attraction or not.


Yeah I don't know. I think people may be able to tell within 10 seconds if they're at all physically attracted to someone, but I don't think most mature adults act on that - at least not by having sex right away even if they want it.

I think we can all probably think of plenty of people who we liked, were attracted to, were impressed by, thought would be a dream mate, etc. in the first 10 seconds, but after knowing the person a few months we realized they were so not the way we first perceived them.

If your goal is a LTR, or even just not to catch an STI, it seems incredibly reckless and naive to have sex right away, regardless of how attracted you are. Which is why "when I was young and dumb" is probably when most people rack up the high scores, especially insecure women who believed on some level (possibly correctly) that sex was the only way to keep most men's interest.


----------



## NobodySpecial

TX-SC said:


> Wow, what a strange read this has been. I'm not sure what this thread is even about anymore.


Marshmallows!


----------



## Vega

Buddy400 said:


> And, as to giving you some marshmallows; Nope.


No???? But you GAVE some to OLIVIA!!! How come you'll give some to HER but not ME???? Are you gonna MAKE ME WAIT for your marshmallows??? Are you WITHHOLDING your marshmallows from me???

Or are you just a "one marshmallow for one woman" kind of guy?


----------



## Vega

Buddy400 said:


> A man wanting to have sex with a woman only tells you that he is physically attracted to her.


Buddy, you have just launched my next thread. Thanks!


----------



## EllisRedding

OliviaG said:


> I don't see how men (in general) can expect sex early in a relationship if they also will level judgement against women with "high numbers". That's not fair or reasonable and so you can see why women have to be careful.


Well, it depends on how you classify men in general? That would imply that a majority of men expect sex early. Also, what is the definition of early? Maybe not as many men as you think expect sex early, but the ones who do are more vocal about it?


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Delete


----------



## Vega

OliviaG said:


> I put out Vega. That's how I get the marshmallows..lol..


:lol::rofl:


----------



## MEM2020

The average man will do everything he can to 'speed bed' you. 

That same man considers you damaged goods for letting other men 'speed bed' you.

Why I don't ask questions about partner count or sexual acts performed with others. 

You are either into 'me' or not. I sincerely hope the guys preceded me, treated you fairly, and that you don't bring a lot of negative emotional baggage to the relationship. 





OliviaG said:


> You're right. I should have specified "the majority of the most vocal men in this thread and others on TAM where I've been involved in discussion of this topic".
> 
> Early: within the first 3 dates, say.


----------



## Vega

MEM11363 said:


> *That same man considers you damaged goods for letting other men 'speed bed' you.*


Heck, that same man will also consider you "damaged goods" and "too easy" if *HE* is able to "speed bed" you.


----------



## Buddy400

OliviaG said:


> Personally, I don't like to condemn a woman for the number of partners she's had any more than I would condemn a man. I think the realities of the "dating game" though are that *most* men want partners with as low a number as possible, so women who would like a LTR with a man should probably be mindful of that.
> 
> But then, that fact requires that women be careful about who they decide to bed. But this is in direct conflict with many of the men posting who think that they shouldn't have to wait for sex..! So the whole thing is a pretty difficult line for women to walk! They definitely can't meet all of the criteria that men (generally) say they want, as some conflict with others. So the best they can do is come out somewhere in the middle while trying to protect themselves from judgement of "too high numbers" from people who would label them as "not of good character".
> 
> I don't see how men (in general) can expect sex early in a relationship if they also will level judgement against women with "high numbers". That's not fair or reasonable and so you can see why women have to be careful.


I was going to finish reading a history of the Middle East tonight but, I made the mistake of logging on to TAM and I think this is a very interesting question. So.......

I'm going to assume I speak for the majority of guys. The guys can let me know if I'm wrong.

None of this is for the purpose of deciding what is RIGHT for women to do, it's only for the meant to give women a look into what guys are thinking (do with this as you please). 

A minority of men truly think of a woman with "too high" a number as "damaged goods". They might sleep with them but wouldn't get involved in an LTR with them. Or, they won't sleep with them at all (I think I've only seen one of these guys participating here).

There is at least one guy (samyeager) who will not sleep with a woman unless he is interested in an LTR.

Most men want to have sex with a woman who they are attracted to as soon as possible.

Most guys are willing to wait. How long is usually correlated with how many options he has for sex with other women, A man with lots of options is unlikely to wait for long (the woman would have to be VERY special). Guys with few options will wait as long as it takes (which may well be a warning flag).

We're okay with early sex as long as we think that the woman is choosy about who she'll do this with. We want to believe that the woman is "into us" more than she is with most men. If it turns out that she always has sex on the first date, then her having sex with us on the first date doesn't mean much. If she has sex on the first date with other men and makes us wait a couple of months, that tells us that she's NOT into us. So, maybe she's just looking to settle for us even though she doesn't desire us. Maybe she just wants to use us to provide support. Maybe, worst case scenario, she'll cheat on us with someone she is truly into. 

So, it's okay for guys to have sex on the first date but not women? From a woman's point of view the goal shouldn't be "fairness", the goal should be for women to get what they want.

If women are looking for a commitment, they should make all men wait for some amount of time as a method of weeding out the players. This also serves to give the woman time to evaluate the man's character. Hopefully, it's just as hard for them to wait as it is for the guy. It wouldn't hurt for her to let the man know how hard it is for her for her as well.

If they aren't interested in commitment and never will be and just want sex, then they're free to do what they want. There's a lot of evidence that women don't find casual sex fulfilling; but, obviously, it's her call. 

The tricky thing is if a woman isn't interested in commitment _at the moment _and sleeps around a lot but, at some time in the future decides she is looking for commitment and starts making relationship worthy men wait (or, more extreme, sleeps around with other men while making relationship worthy men wait). She may well find herself in a difficult position. I'm not saying that this is wrong, but women should go into this well aware of what the potential consequences are. They can say "well, I wouldn't want a guy like that anyway", but it could turn out that this narrows the field substantially. One way to handle this would be to change their rules for all men going forward.

All of that being said, you slept with your future husband on the first date. I slept with my future wife on the second date. Either we've got good instincts or we just got lucky


----------



## CuddleBug

Vega said:


> When I read an interesting thread here on TAM, many times I'll visit some other (random) forums to read about other people's experiences in the same/similar situation(s). Time and time again, I will read about how some man is angry because the woman he is dating is "making" him wait for sex.
> 
> This couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> While it's true that SOME women will consciously "make" a man wait, for the sole purpose of deliberately trying to frustrate him, the majority of women are _not_ doing this for that reason.
> 
> I resent the term that a woman is "making" a man do anything. She's not holding a gun to his head, threatening him with bodily harm or forcing him to remain celibate while dating her. He's free to go find someone else to have sex with, especially since sex is so easy to get these days. (I actually read a complaint from a man who felt a certain woman was "making" him wait...for 3 weeks...while he was involved in a LTR FWB situation!)
> 
> The second issue I have with this is the reason behind her decision to wait before having sex. Seems that some men think they already have it all figured out that women "who do this" are "playing games" with him.
> 
> As a woman who is interested in a LTR, I want to get to know a man _before_ having sex with him. I want to learn his character...to see if his words match his actions...to observe him in different situations...to discover if his beliefs about life in general coincide with my own. I want to see if he's _trustworthy_. And I'm sorry to generalize, but it's been my experience that many men will LIE in order to get laid. They can tell you they want an LTR (with YOU) when the whole time, they just want to have sex. They can tell you that they are 'Christian', but it might take you several more weeks or months before discovering how non-Christian they really are.
> 
> Just like a man wants to "test drive" a woman before committing to her, she also wants to "test drive" a man...
> 
> ...and not be pressured into signing on the dotted line by some smooth talking used car salesman! She wants the time to do her homework/research. She wants to kick the tires, see how it handles in the rain and test the brakes. She wants to make sure she's getting_ value _for her 'investment'. When she walks away, she'll be thinking about all of the information she's learned (so far) and she doesn't want to make the wrong decision.
> 
> All of this takes _time_.
> 
> I'm writing this in order to encourage you (men) to please understand that women have a LOT more to lose by jumping into the sack with a man too soon. It's a reason why she wants to take her time evaluating her situation before making a decision.
> 
> Can you understand that? It really isn't about YOU.




I think the ladies don't just give away sex as easily as having a beer.

Ladies want to make sure the man they're dating is serious and possibly the one to marry. Then they decide the time for sex is right and not before. Why give yourself right away to a man that isn't serious? Makes perfect sense to me.

When I started dating Mrs.CuddleBug, she gave me a lot of BJ's and swallowed from day one. We waited until we got married and she was on birth control for 6 months at that point before going all the way. Mrs.CuddleBug wanted to be sure and give the birth control time to take effect. She started taking the birth control when we got serious and engaged. Didn't bother me to be honest and it made sense.

So if the guy is not serious and not marriage material, why give him sex?

Now today ladies are sexually liberated and just the same as us guys. They can have sex on the first date and are horn dawgd just like us and they are. Not all are like this but many are today. Women know all about contraceptives and there are so many out there its amazing. Pick and choose.


----------



## Vega

Buddy400 said:


> Most men want to have sex with a woman who they are attracted to as soon as possible.


Why?



> Most guys are willing to wait. How long is usually correlated with how many options he has for sex with other women, *A man with lots of options is unlikely to wait for long *(the woman would have to be VERY special). Guys with few options will wait as long as it takes (which may well be a warning flag).


I don't completely agree with this. A man can wait FOREVER to have sex with a particular woman while having sex with another or multiple women. 



> We're okay with early sex as long as we think that the woman is choosy about who she'll do this with. We want to believe that the woman is "into us" more than she is with most men. If it turns out that she always has sex on the first date, then her having sex with us on the first date doesn't mean much. If she has sex on the first date with other men and makes us wait a couple of months, that tells us that she's NOT into us. So, maybe she's just looking to settle for us even though she doesn't desire us. Maybe she just wants to use us to provide support. Maybe, worst case scenario, she'll cheat on us with someone she is truly into.


I think a few assumptions are being made here. First of all, how are you going to know if a woman is being "choosy" about who she's sleeping with? In all of my dating years, no man has EVER asked me about who I've slept with BEFORE I've slept with HIM. He's not going to have any way of knowing (unless I tell him or he hears it from the grapevine) if I tend to sleep with a man on the first date. 

As for a woman having sex with you (early?) to show you that she's "into YOU", in reality having sex early doesn't prove that. Just like Buddy pointed out, a man can have sex with a woman because he's physically attracted to her. Doesn't mean he's "into HER"; just that's he's down for sex with her. 

Delaying sex doesn't mean that she's NOT "into you". In fact, she may delay sex because she IS into YOU (and doesn't want to mess it up by having sex too early). ALL of you; not just the sexual aspect. 



> If women are looking for a commitment, they should make all men wait for some amount of time as a method of weeding out the players. This also serves to give the woman time to evaluate the man's character


This is the crux of what I've been saying, but she's not "making" him wait. By taking the time to evaluate his character, she IS weeding out the players in the process. Most of the players probably aren't going to stick around for very long during this process, and there are so many things to look for. 



> The tricky thing is if a woman isn't interested in commitment _at the moment _and sleeps around a lot but, at some time in the future decides she is looking for commitment and starts making relationship worthy men wait (or, more extreme, sleeps around with other men while making relationship worthy men wait). She may well find herself in a difficult position. I'm not saying that this is wrong, but women should go into this well aware of what the potential consequences are. They can say "well, I wouldn't want a guy like that anyway", but it could turn out that this narrows the field substantially. One way to handle this would be to change their rules for all men going forward.


I HAVE slept with men too early, although in almost every case, it either turned into an LTR or marriage...and then, a break up or divorce. The issues I discovered in the early part of the relationship were still there at the end of the relationship and were the cause of the break up/divorce. For example: My last boyfriend of over 4 years told me in the first MONTH of us dating that he cheated on his DYING wife. We had a long talk about it. Four years later, he had cheated on ME. Another man I had an LTR with told me that he "rarely" used drugs and hadn't used in "quite a while". Turned out, he was a HEAVY drug user. 

By the time I found this stuff out, I had already slept with them and I was already 'bonding' with them. *shakes head in disgust*. What an idiot I was...


----------



## MEM2020

Vega,

Some will. Some won't.

While your comments are generally true, they lack balance. 

The average man has a different agenda than the average woman in terms of mating behavior. But each person you meet may vary greatly from the average. 

Both genders do stuff that is often self serving and sometimes predatory. 

Your negative generalizations and single minded focus on unattractive 'male' behavior will be a huge red flag for high quality partners. 

This is a common theme on TAM. Folks who have broken pickers have a stark choice. Own their broken picker. Or demonize the opposite gender to avoid having to take a hard look in the mirror. 








Vega said:


> Heck, that same man will also consider you "damaged goods" and "too easy" if *HE* is able to "speed bed" you.


----------



## Holland

OliviaG said:


> Define "being of good character". I think it all depends on one's definition. Does it mean not sleeping with men you hardly know?


In this instance being of good character simply means not cheating. 

You intimated that HD people are more likely that LD people to cheat ( therefore implying those that have a HD are of lower morals. The two are not related.

I am very HD but have never cheated and even remained faithful in a sexless marriage. I have had 3 LTRs in my adult life covering more than 30 years in total. 
If someone is HD and of low morals then yeah they may cheat but plenty of us are HD, lower numbers and do not cheat.

Your sentence came across as HD people are just out there to get laid, sorry but for many of us it is to have big volumes of sex with the one partner, the one we connect with and can be free with.

I in no way suggested the following............


> But @Holland seemed to equate having a larger number of partners to an indication of "bad character" in a woman, which is why I asked her for clarification.


You have twisted my words on this one.


----------



## Satya

MEM11363 said:


> Satya,
> 
> What do you do, while dating, to show the man you are interested in him?


Hi MEM, this post shot off like a rocket. I did see your reply but I was too busy with work to answer it yesterday. I'm on my phone so hope this isn't too disorganized in thought. 

I want to enjoy experiences with men (my love languages: equal physical touch and quality time), so I include them in my rituals. An example is, where I used to live, I had a trail near the house I'd walk along every day at lunch (when I'd be working from home). I would invite Constable Odo to meet me there and we'd walk holding hands and bond over all manner of things, laugh, joke. Luckily, he worked about 10 minutes from where I lived. It was only an hour, but it was our hour. 

Odo and I have fond memories of our set of knives. I told him I really wanted to cook him a nice meal in the lovely kitchen he never used. He had no good knives. We went out together during early days to crate and barrel and he introduced me to the salesman as "the Lady Satya" a "culinary master" who could have nothing less than "the finest knives" because "she wishes to prepare a delicious meal for me." He was completely serious and I was trying hard not to crack up. I played along and the salesman probably thought we were nuts. When we got home, I cleaned them and started chopping. He came in and hugged me from behind. I said without thinking, "that was fun. I love our knives." He pointed out that I said OUR and that I was already nesting and it made him feel incredibly happy in that moment. 

When I dated the man before Odo, he was really into F1 and all things mechanical engineering. He used to build solar cars and joke about taking me to one of those elaborate RC tracks. He'd tell me it was his inner hick coming out and was pretty shy about it because it was an expression of his inner little boy. Well, I researched a place that had the RC competitions not too far from us and we were going to make plans to go. Sadly we didn't last that long, but I always try to encourage my partner to stay involved in things he enjoys, and learn to enjoy them (and learn about them) as well. 

One man I dated from OKC had never been to a winery. He was from a culture that had great wine, so I was a bit surprised. I arranged a date to go to a wine tasting/pairing, and made a picnic lunch (he brought some food with him too) which we sat and ate on the Vinyard grounds. He worked a high stress job and was a very intellectual engineering type. He expressed it was very relaxing to experience something new with me. 

I believe in taking turns buying lunch or dinner. I believe in buying men drinks. This would often be a welcome shock to them. I am not a sponge and I never assume the man pays. This still manages to surprise Odo after 2 years. He is just from a totally different generation and always feels he has to pay. 

I bought him an expensive, hand crafted, hammered wedding ring, because it's what he wanted and I love him. I make far less money than him and he was very much against me buying it, but it was VERY important that it come from ME. So I budgeted, set aside some savings, contacted the artisan, and made it happen. I know he loves it. 

I suppose these are things from my pov that I do or have done. They may mean something different to the man, but from my memory, my "tactics" worked well. I try firmly to LISTEN, learn things about him, REMEMBER them, show him I remembered, then create a FUN experience to share around those things. I do it with the expectation of nothing in return. 

I do think that men remember how they FEEL when they're dating a woman, and if the feeling is a positive one, they will want to see where the relationship may lead. A woman is capable of showing that good time without opening the door to sex early imo, and if it's too slow for the guy, I would encourage him to move on with no hard feelings. 


MEM11363 said:


> Satya,
> 
> What do you do, while dating, to show the man you are interested in him?


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## EllisRedding

OK, maybe this is a bit of a simplistic view but... if two people want to have sex without really knowing each other for the sake of having sex (i.e. not with the idea of a LTR) more power to them. I guess the issue could arise where one person went into it purely for the sex but develops feelings where the other person got the sex they wanted and nothing else.

What drives me nuts, and not to pick on females as I am sure this happens to guys too (most likely guys would be too embarrassed to mention this) is when a female meets a guy, gives up sex right away b/c he says all the right things, and then gets all butthurt when he goes ghost afterwards (where she assumed by having sex it was hopefully the start of a relationship). Don't get me wrong, I think a guy is a dbag if he needs to lie just to get into someones pants. However, you know how you change the behavior of a "player", don't give it up just b/c he feeds you some line about how pretty you are. If you do give it up, learn your lesson and move on.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Holland

OliviaG said:


> @Holland, I too am HD and have only been in LTRs, have a low number and have never cheated. I in no way implied or intimated that HDs are likely to cheat. I in no way implied that HDs are more likely to have low morals. I did make the assumption, as I've already explained, that an HD person who has been single for the same amount of time as and LD person is more likely to have a greater number of partners. *I did assume, using myself as an example, that an HD person probably struggles more with temptation than an LD person does. I think that's only common sense and that it has no moral implications at all. * If you want to disagree with that, fine. But I *did not* intimate that this means that such a person would have lower morals. That was all your interpretation of what you thought I meant.


You are basing this assumption on yourself and your own struggles with temptation but it is only that, an assumption. 

Anyway my original comment was in relation to this statement 


> I believe it's much harder for an HD person to resist temptation though. I know I've battled it.


And my POV still stands, being HD and of good character are not mutually exclusive. 

IME it is not hard at all to resist temptation.


----------



## EllisRedding

OliviaG said:


> I totally agree with you and would add: don't let yourself believe that all men are players just because you've been played by one.
> 
> The first thing that popped into my mind when I read your comment was that what you invest in dating should maybe be treated the way you would treat any other investment in time or money: don't invest anything that you can't afford to lose.
> 
> If a guy walking away from you after you've had sex with him on the first date would emotionally cripple you, then don't do it.


So you are saying making a bad decision does not equate to all men being dogs :grin2:

Its funny, on that blown off segment on the radio, there have been numerous female callers who call in and all they talk about at first is how great the first date went with this guy they just met and how they see a future together (trying to figure out why he went ghost). The DJs have to pry a little further to get them to admit they slept with them and once they disclose that you almost sense that everyone now knows why he went ghost. The only thing I don't like, when they get the guy on the phone and inevitably he says he thought they just got together to hook up, the female DJs go after him (fair enough) but never go after the female, so she goes on believing she is the victim, all men are scum, blah blah blah ...


----------



## Buddy400

Vega said:


> Why?
> 
> *Because men like sex.*
> 
> I don't completely agree with this. A man can wait FOREVER to have sex with a particular woman while having sex with another or multiple women.
> 
> *Would you date a man who was sleeping with other women at the same time he was dating you? And, if he had a choice of going on nice dates with someone he was having sex with or someone he was not having sex with, he'd have to be exceptionally enamored of the latter to choose that option.*
> 
> I think a few assumptions are being made here. First of all, how are you going to know if a woman is being "choosy" about who she's sleeping with? In all of my dating years, no man has EVER asked me about who I've slept with BEFORE I've slept with HIM. He's not going to have any way of knowing (unless I tell him or he hears it from the grapevine) if I tend to sleep with a man on the first date.
> 
> *He's doesn't know ahead of time. He assumes that the woman is choosy. He finds out later whether she actually was or not.*
> 
> As for a woman having sex with you (early?) to show you that she's "into YOU", in reality having sex early doesn't prove that.
> 
> *She doesn't have to have sex with him early to show that she's "into him". It's the comparison between what she has done with others and what she did with him that reveals how "into him" she was*.
> 
> Just like Buddy pointed out, a man can have sex with a woman because he's physically attracted to her. Doesn't mean he's "into HER"; just that's he's down for sex with her.
> 
> *True. For men, having early sex with a woman does not necessarily mean that he is "into her". It just means that he finds her sexually attractive.*
> 
> Delaying sex doesn't mean that she's NOT "into you". In fact, she may delay sex because she IS into YOU (and doesn't want to mess it up by having sex too early). ALL of you; not just the sexual aspect.
> 
> *If she usually does have sex early but doesn't with you because she "really likes you", he's never going to believe that. Few men are interested in women who demonstrate their attraction to a guy by NOT having sex with him. Try telling one of your kids that you didn't get them a present (even though all the other kids got one) because you REALLY like them most. *


If you'd had bad experiences in the past sleeping with men early and had now changed to making ALL men wait, most men would understand this. As long as it wasn't a rule that only went into effect the moment you met _them_.


----------



## Vega

OliviaG said:


> I totally agree with you and would add: don't let yourself believe that all men are players just because you've been played by one.
> 
> If a guy walking away from you after you've had sex with him on the first date would emotionally cripple you, then don't do it.


I agree that ALL men aren't players. But the problem is that players are very good as _appearing_ like 'regular guys'. 

A regular guy can tell you you're pretty. So can a player. There are plenty of regular guys on this thread alone who had sex with a woman early in the relationship...and went on to marry her. 

Some women have no idea how they would react if a guy walked away from her if she had sex with him on a first date. In fact, we may have a number of decent first dates and sex may have been involved early in the relationship. So, you don't even think about it happening because it may have never happened before.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Vega said:


> I agree that ALL men aren't players. But the problem is that players are very good as _appearing_ like 'regular guys'.
> 
> A regular guy can tell you you're pretty. So can a player. There are plenty of regular guys on this thread alone who had sex with a woman early in the relationship...and went on to marry her.
> 
> Some women have no idea how they would react if a guy walked away from her if she had sex with him on a first date. In fact, we may have a number of decent first dates and sex may have been involved early in the relationship. So, you don't even think about it happening because it may have never happened before.



I guess for me, neither one of you gets to know early whether or not it is a sticking relationship whether you have sex or not. So why is that such a huge decision? Either you want to or you don't.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## NobodySpecial

OliviaG said:


> I don't think anyone has said that being HD and of good character are mutually exclusive, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Nobody's arguing with you on that point.
> 
> Maybe you're judging me and calling me a person of bad character because of my "struggles with temptation" - is that what this is about?


Oh oh, pick me! I can explain it! Or make an ass out of myself trying. Your word struggle refers to early dating experiences where you wanna get your freak on and think you shouldn't. No character issue there. But some of us would think the only place this struggle would exist, given that there is nothing inherently wrong with sex whenever the hell you feel like it, barring other commitments, is in the context of infidelity.

Do I win?


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Anon1111

players are regular guys just with more options. also (related), players don't celebrate valentine's day.


----------



## larry.gray

OliviaG said:


> No, not any woman, and 100 is an arbitrary number. But an unmarried, HD, uninhibited woman who has not been in a LTR by age 35 or so, probably doesn't have a low number.
> 
> If she claims to then one of those other criteria must be a lie. Otherwise, how do you reconcile the two things? With your HD, would you choose to be chaste? Would you be able to if you tried? Why would she, if she's HD and uninhibited?


I'd be wondering how somebody could get to 35 and have zero LTRs? What wrong with her for that to happen.


----------



## Divinely Favored

Froggi2 said:


> chillymorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess everybody gets to decide what crap to put up with when dating. If shes a cold fish and has to wait until shes know your favorite color,religious beliefs,character,political views, thats all good. But were not teenagers here. I think theres room for some hanky panky along the way. so don't be surprised when after a few dates he stops calling because as women want to test drive the character of the man, the man want to test drive the sexual character of the woman. especially if he was in a long term relationship with a woman who had to have the sun moon and stars align before she would have sex. or a woman who is very selfish sexually.
> 
> middle ground
> 
> 
> 
> If a man (childish) is so determined to get his **** wet, then I would tell him to move along then. No worries! For every one who won't wait, there is one who will, who respects women and cares about their feelings and for whom sex is not the end all, be all.
Click to expand...

I was one of those men. I did not even try to kiss my wife on first date. Asked before on 2nd date.

If I found out a woman was quick before me, and was acting like little Ms good girl and being fake, I would walk away.


----------



## Wolf1974

larry.gray said:


> I'd be wondering how somebody could get to 35 and have zero LTRs? What wrong with her for that to happen.


Yep. Doubt I would even bother to as since it's so unusual


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Buddy400

OliviaG said:


> Lol...let's forget I ever brought it up, okay?
> 
> It was a hypothetical, just to illustrate the point that likely an HD woman would have more partners than and LD woman, all other things being equal. But I suppose nobody thinks an HD woman would have more partners? It seems not. I guess I must be way off base.


It's important to be very careful with the hypotheticals 

People have a tendency to focus on the the details instead of addressing the point that the hypothetical was obviously designed to address. I'm not entirely sure if it's on purpose or not.


----------



## Vega

Anon1111 said:


> players are regular guys just with more options. also (related), players don't celebrate valentine's day.


My late husband was a player. We got married on Valentine's day...


----------



## MEM2020

Satya,

The constable is a lucky man. You have a great approach. 




Satya said:


> Hi MEM, this post shot off like a rocket. I did see your reply but I was too busy with work to answer it yesterday. I'm on my phone so hope this isn't too disorganized in thought.
> 
> I want to enjoy experiences with men (my love languages: equal physical touch and quality time), so I include them in my rituals. An example is, where I used to live, I had a trail near the house I'd walk along every day at lunch (when I'd be working from home). I would invite Constable Odo to meet me there and we'd walk holding hands and bond over all manner of things, laugh, joke. Luckily, he worked about 10 minutes from where I lived. It was only an hour, but it was our hour.
> 
> Odo and I have fond memories of our set of knives. I told him I really wanted to cook him a nice meal in the lovely kitchen he never used. He had no good knives. We went out together during early days to crate and barrel and he introduced me to the salesman as "the Lady Satya" a "culinary master" who could have nothing less than "the finest knives" because "she wishes to prepare a delicious meal for me." He was completely serious and I was trying hard not to crack up. I played along and the salesman probably thought we were nuts. When we got home, I cleaned them and started chopping. He came in and hugged me from behind. I said without thinking, "that was fun. I love our knives." He pointed out that I said OUR and that I was already nesting and it made him feel incredibly happy in that moment.
> 
> When I dated the man before Odo, he was really into F1 and all things mechanical engineering. He used to build solar cars and joke about taking me to one of those elaborate RC tracks. He'd tell me it was his inner hick coming out and was pretty shy about it because it was an expression of his inner little boy. Well, I researched a place that had the RC competitions not too far from us and we were going to make plans to go. Sadly we didn't last that long, but I always try to encourage my partner to stay involved in things he enjoys, and learn to enjoy them (and learn about them) as well.
> 
> One man I dated from OKC had never been to a winery. He was from a culture that had great wine, so I was a bit surprised. I arranged a date to go to a wine tasting/pairing, and made a picnic lunch (he brought some food with him too) which we sat and ate on the Vinyard grounds. He worked a high stress job and was a very intellectual engineering type. He expressed it was very relaxing to experience something new with me.
> 
> I believe in taking turns buying lunch or dinner. I believe in buying men drinks. This would often be a welcome shock to them. I am not a sponge and I never assume the man pays. This still manages to surprise Odo after 2 years. He is just from a totally different generation and always feels he has to pay.
> 
> I bought him an expensive, hand crafted, hammered wedding ring, because it's what he wanted and I love him. I make far less money than him and he was very much against me buying it, but it was VERY important that it come from ME. So I budgeted, set aside some savings, contacted the artisan, and made it happen. I know he loves it.
> 
> I suppose these are things from my pov that I do or have done. They may mean something different to the man, but from my memory, my "tactics" worked well. I try firmly to LISTEN, learn things about him, REMEMBER them, show him I remembered, then create a FUN experience to share around those things. I do it with the expectation of nothing in return.
> 
> I do think that men remember how they FEEL when they're dating a woman, and if the feeling is a positive one, they will want to see where the relationship may lead. A woman is capable of showing that good time without opening the door to sex early imo, and if it's too slow for the guy, I would encourage him to move on with no hard feelings.


----------



## Satya

MEM11363 said:


> Satya,
> 
> The constable is a lucky man. You have a great approach.


Thank you for saying so, MEM. That's very kind. 

Truly, I am the lucky one.


----------



## MEM2020

Satya said:


> Thank you for saying so, MEM. That's very kind.
> 
> Truly, I am the lucky one.


The key thing about this - the tone.

You two were seeking to create a connection. Together. 

That is entirely different than a unidirectional 'evaluation period' during which you are the sexual gatekeeper.

And fwiw - this topic is particularly entertaining to me as M2 and I had a role reversal.

She had dated an LD guy. And at the six week point was becoming worried I was LD. 

So without explicitly saying so she let me know it was time to step up, or step off.

LD - ha ha. We had sex at least daily for months after. 



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Wolf1974

OliviaG said:


> Lol...let's forget I ever brought it up, okay?
> 
> It was a hypothetical, just to illustrate the point that likely an HD woman would have more partners than and LD woman, all other things being equal. But I suppose nobody thinks an HD woman would have more partners? It seems not. I guess I must be way off base.


It would seem so but I do recognize you have been married a long time and haven't been in the dating world recently. It's really not all doom and gloom :smile2:


----------



## larry.gray

OliviaG said:


> Lol...let's forget I ever brought it up, okay?
> 
> It was a hypothetical, just to illustrate the point that likely an HD woman would have more partners than and LD woman, all other things being equal.* But I suppose nobody thinks an HD woman would have more partners? It seems not. I guess I must be way off base.*


I think you're not off base completely.

I think it depends on how far out to the edges on the bell curve the HD and LD is. For the extreme HD ladies without a desire to limit the partner count sure could rack up a body count fast. Extreme LD women could date a long time and never have sex with a man so they will have a low body count.

But I don't see that as the case for being on one side or other of the middle. HD or LD means more about how often they do it with their partners that they are intimate with, not that they are intimate with more.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> The average man will do everything he can to 'speed bed' you.
> 
> That same man considers you damaged goods for letting other men 'speed bed' you.





Vega said:


> Heck, that same man will also consider you "damaged goods" and "too easy" if *HE* is able to "speed bed" you.


All very good reasons to stay away from average. 

Who needs that bs?


----------



## EllisRedding

larry.gray said:


> I think you're not off base completely.
> 
> I think it depends on how far out to the edges on the bell curve the HD and LD is. For the extreme HD ladies without a desire to limit the partner count sure could rack up a body count fast. Extreme LD women could date a long time and never have sex with a man so they will have a low body count.
> 
> *But I don't see that as the case for being on one side or other of the middle. HD or LD means more about how often they do it with their partners that they are intimate with, not that they are intimate with more.*


The bolded is more along the lines of what I am thinking of as well. I can see the HD/LD more coming out within a relationship (an HD having a more sexually active relationship vs an LD, not necessarily more partners). Also, it is at times hard to tell an LD from an HD. We have seen several posters here talk about someone they were with who acted HD but once they got into a committed relationship mysteriously converted to an LD, so odds are they were acting HD as a means to an end and not really who they are.


----------



## Wolf1974

EllisRedding said:


> The bolded is more along the lines of what I am thinking of as well. I can see the HD/LD more coming out within a relationship (an HD having a more sexually active relationship vs an LD, not necessarily more partners). Also, it is at times hard to tell an LD from an HD. We have seen several posters here talk about someone they were with who acted HD but once they got into a committed relationship mysteriously converted to an LD, so odds are they were acting HD as a means to an end and not really who they are.


Can also be relationship depending. If you are HD but with a partner you don't respect or are attracted to you may become LD. That realtionship ends and another begins and they go right back to HD


----------



## Vega

Wolf1974 said:


> If you are HD but with a partner you don't respect or are attracted to you may become LD.


I wonder how many HD partners would even _consider_ that THEY might be the problem, and not their partner.


----------



## larry.gray

EllisRedding said:


> Also, it is at times hard to tell an LD from an HD. We have seen several posters here talk about someone they were with who acted HD but once they got into a committed relationship mysteriously converted to an LD, so odds are they were acting HD as a means to an end and not really who they are.


It isn't necessarily malace / deceit at play there. Early on there is limerance (love butterflies) that can drive desire. Once that abates,their relationship level of drive kicks in.

Heck, I could see a LD woman have more partners because she can't keep men in a LTR.


----------



## Holland

OliviaG said:


> I don't think anyone has said that being HD and of good character are mutually exclusive, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Nobody's arguing with you on that point.
> 
> Maybe you're judging me and calling me a person of bad character because of my "struggles with temptation" - is that what this is about?
> 
> How does struggling with temptation make you a person of bad character? I've never (so far) given in to that particular temptation (cheating). I've never had casual sex, and I've never even slept with a man that I didn't already know quite well, even if it was on the first official "date" (in my husband's case). So I personally don't think you have any basis to judge me as a person of bad character.


OK I am not trying to be personal here, just replying based on your comments.

Not sure if I can articulate the thoughts. You said a HD person would have a harder time dealing with temptation and I disagree. Just bc someone is HD does not mean they cannot discriminate between right and wrong. Being HD is about enjoying and having a higher drive but it does not mean it is at the expense of a persons morals.

From a personal POV when I am single I am free to decide who, how many and how often I have sex. As long as no one is getting hurt and both are single then all is good.
When in a relationship there is simply no temptation because the switch has been flipped, my moral compass is now set to monogamy.


----------



## richie33

EllisRedding said:


> The bolded is more along the lines of what I am thinking of as well. I can see the HD/LD more coming out within a relationship (an HD having a more sexually active relationship vs an LD, not necessarily more partners). Also, it is at times hard to tell an LD from an HD. We have seen several posters here talk about someone they were with who acted HD but once they got into a committed relationship mysteriously converted to an LD, so odds are they were acting HD as a means to an end and not really who they are.


I have no idea what you wrote....your avatar is too distracting.:surprise:


----------



## EllisRedding

richie33 said:


> I have no idea what you wrote....your avatar is too distracting.:surprise:


Sigh ... I knew going with a shorter haircut was a bad decision ...


----------



## MEM2020

Why the 'desire to please' trumps - raw lust - any day. 

Raw lust is great stuff. But it's a fickle friend. And rarely a long lasting one. 

Desire to please - has no half life. 




larry.gray said:


> It isn't necessarily malace / deceit at play there. Early on there is limerance (love butterflies) that can drive desire. Once that abates,their relationship level of drive kicks in.
> 
> Heck, I could see a LD woman have more partners because she can't keep men in a LTR.


----------



## Wolf1974

Vega said:


> I wonder how many HD partners would even _consider_ that THEY might be the problem, and not their partner.


Well they certanly are part of the problem if they tolerate it and stay if the issues can't or won't be addressed


----------



## SimplyAmorous

OliviaG said:


> @Holland, I too am HD and have only been in LTRs, have a low number and have never cheated. I in no way implied or intimated that HDs are likely to cheat. I in no way implied that HDs are more likely to have low morals. I did make the assumption, as I've already explained, that an HD person who has been single for the same amount of time as and LD person is more likely to have a greater number of partners. I did assume, using myself as an example, that an HD person probably struggles more with temptation than an LD person does. I think that's only common sense and that it has no moral implications at all. If you want to disagree with that, fine. But I *did not* intimate that this means that such a person would have lower morals. That was all your interpretation of what you thought I meant.


I agree with you Olivia... speaking for myself.. had I been single in my early 40's.. even with my strong moral stance against Casual sex...I really Love the romance of commitment, oneness, etc...

I honestly don't think I COULD HAVE HANDLED not getting it.... I even told my husband when he couldn't keep up with me. I could have easily taken on 3 men. He never worried about these comments of mine since I was bothering the crap out of him ...I threw myself totally into him... and he was, for the most part.. taking good care of me. ... but really.. 

That was a Darn difficult time.. just imagining being REJECTED...I was so "antsy"... a perfect storm coming along.. .. We're only human. 
I never felt that sort of Intensity before... it may have "built up" in the past.. but it was "consistent" during that phase. 

I can understand the premises that it's more Frustrating , more of an antsy struggle for a Physically touching consistent high driver to remain steadfastly faithful -IF there is ongoing let downs & sexual rejection at home - over someone who doesn't crave touch on a regular basis, could easily live without it.. 

Then add raised Testosterone levels / dopomine levels.... Look out -it overtakes the mind... I often compare it to someone crawling on the desert floor thirsting for a sip of water.. temptation would over take many ... 

But true.. others may just throw themselves into porn for a release, or use toys, remaining faithful ..at the same time they will grow resentful , be angry inside for feeling cheated out of the passion that should be....some may even go on to loose their drives ...very sad really....but we all vary in how we may personally handle it..


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I suspect most HDs in HD/LD relationships HAVE considered that a lot, I certainly have. Its the obvious question - am I unattractive? A terrible lover? A slvt / horndog for wanting sex twice a week? Out of shape? Pathetic? 

Its one of the strongest motivations for HDs to cheat - to find out if they really are undesirable, or simply undesired by their partners. I know that I flirt more that I should, just to feel desired by someone. 







Vega said:


> I wonder how many HD partners would even _consider_ that THEY might be the problem, and not their partner.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## SimplyAmorous

OliviaG said:


> I know that you and I have felt very similarly and you get what I mean. I believe that you and I have both been more extreme HD than the average woman, so maybe someone who considers herself HD but is less than 1 sd from the norm would not understand what I meant. But even so, I *was not* talking about married HD women giving into temptation. I was talking about *single* HD women who would feel no moral restrictions against giving into temptation and therefore, I thought, would be more likely to have a higher number of partners than her LD, unmarried counterpart.


Even if you never meant to pull in the HD marrieds...I ran with that thought... and still...I DO feel that being HIGH DRIVE can be a real problem when married to a Low drive partner...anything even close to being sexless is pure torment, foreboding, would create hopelessness, a loss of self esteem, it's a very vulnerable place to be... 0ne especially needs to flee ANY temptation... I genuinely feel for them ALL.. I also feel the Grass can be plenty greener to leave those type marriages... finding happiness/ satisfaction with another.. 

I can outright admit that would have destroyed my marriage...this 1 thing ...as the saying goes...sex may only be 10% of a marriage but when you're not getting it.. it feels like 90% of your problems...

I didn't have the patience to be rejected.. I would cause outright FIGHTS even thinking he was going to reject me.... I know this sounds awful of me ...right! Thank God he's turned on by the woman coming after him , taking control !... I mean..I did everything to make it FUN, Exciting, turning up the novelty... I went out of my way.. but still... And maybe I should be ashamed to admit that.. He'd say better for me to get pi$$ed wanting to suck his ___ over not wanting to... 

I really loved this post by MEM here... 



MEM11363 said:


> *Why the 'desire to please' trumps - raw lust - any day.
> 
> Raw lust is great stuff. But it's a fickle friend. And rarely a long lasting one.
> 
> Desire to please - has no half life*.


This is what saved us.. why I adore my Husband & speak so highly of him...he's a Pleaser ... He's always been that way.. some may see that all as being a Nice Guy.. but it's so much more than that.. his attitude has always been "Your pleasure *IS *my pleasure"... I tested that for a time, he would get angry with me when I suggested he's just doing it - to keep ME happy (sometimes you wonder with Viagra)... I was all worried thinking I have to be a burden.. why can't I leave him alone.. poor man.. he laughed in my face when I suggested sex was a burden... that was a pivotal moment.. and a few others that I carry with me.. when he got moist eyes feeling I was slowing down.. 

We've joked if he lost the use of his pecker... he'd get a pump -just for me.

Back to what you said Olivia...

Yeah.. I think our experiences were "excessive" / insatiable compared to the norm...likely so.. 

I'm forever changed... I have found the most conflicting part for me was....admitting that my feelings against causal sex could have been out the window if I was single during that time frame... in this way.. I embraced more of an understanding of WHY people can't wait.. but still I know that sort of lifestyle would NEVER fulfill me.. 

I love being married and being a Sl** for 1 man.... but dang it.. I need that passion.. I'll forever be a Pleaser too.. I think I always was.. but I did get side tracked in the past, not realizing things I DO now..but that was all for the best.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## SimplyAmorous

OliviaG said:


> Yes, MEM nailed it there.
> 
> You know how much I love my husband and how during this period of unbalanced drive within our marriage I have struggled with thoughts and had to keep myself away from temptation at times. *It's not a sin to be tempted; it's normal if you have an appetite and your spouse does not, or has a much smaller appetite than you do. But hurting him in that way would kill me; it's not an option. We work on things and while I wait, I find ways to cope and I avoid temptation. And I most certainly do not feel that my struggle is in any way a black mark against my character.*
> 
> I could pretend I have never been tempted, I guess, but the only people I'd be fooling are people who have never been in such a situation and can't imagine what they haven't experienced.
> 
> The other side of the coin is that I do believe that if I were LD I would not have been tempted at all when my husband's drive diminished. I would probably have been relieved that we were now in sync with each other and I didn't have to worry any more about *him* being tempted.
> 
> This seems to be quite a controversial thought here though (not with you, SA). It boggles my mind as to why.


Love the honesty Olivia...In reality.. your struggle here & how you have handled it shows tremendous character, grounded and determined to get through this together.. you are living without your physical (& to some extent emotional) needs being met at this time.. and still you Love this man, you remain, you keep working with him.. doing all you can... 

If we can't speak how we REALLY feel here.... what good is sharing on a forum?.. It's like going to church and everyone is just speaking a bunch of positive dribble, keeping up appearances -meanwhile one of them may feel like they are dying inside, struggling with something.... they may need some help, someone to confide in, listen to them to help them get through the day ... Let's just be Real..


----------



## MEM2020

Olivia,
Imagine - if - your husband - had been LD all along. And imagine that all that time he was gas lighting you. Making up one excuse after another. Blaming you for his lack of desire. 

Imagine how crazy that would make you. 
@Holland is generally a calm and rational person. That said - I think her view of adulterers is: kill em all and let God sort them out.

The truth is that HD folks experience more temptation. All other thngs being equal - HD folks likely have more partners than LD folks. 




OliviaG said:


> I know that you and I have felt very similarly and you get what I mean. I believe that you and I have both been more extreme HD than the average woman, so maybe someone who considers herself HD but is less than 1 sd from the norm would not understand what I meant. But even so, I *was not* talking about married HD women giving into temptation. I was talking about *single* HD women who would feel no moral restrictions against giving into temptation and therefore, I thought, would be more likely to have a higher number of partners than her LD, unmarried counterpart.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
It just seems to make sense that a HD person who has a strong desire for sex would be more tempted than a LD person to have a physical affair. A physical affair just doesn't really offer something that a LD person is interested in.

The HD person in a HD/LD relationship is likely to be very tempted - I have been. The combination of wanting to be desired, along with the feeling that your LD partner is not fulfilling their part of the marriage provides both motivation and excuse. 





OliviaG said:


> Yes, MEM nailed it there.
> 
> You know how much I love my husband and how during this period of unbalanced drive within our marriage I have struggled with thoughts and had to keep myself away from temptation at times. It's not a sin to be tempted; it's normal if you have an appetite and your spouse does not, or has a much smaller appetite than you do. But hurting him in that way would kill me; it's not an option. We work on things and while I wait, I find ways to cope and I avoid temptation. And I most certainly do not feel that my struggle is in any way a black mark against my character.
> 
> I could pretend I have never been tempted, I guess, but the only people I'd be fooling are people who have never been in such a situation and can't imagine what they haven't experienced.
> 
> The other side of the coin is that I do believe that if I were LD I would not have been tempted at all when my husband's drive diminished. I would probably have been relieved that we were now in sync with each other and I didn't have to worry any more about *him* being tempted.
> 
> This seems to be quite a controversial thought here though (not with you, SA). It boggles my mind as to why.


----------



## samyeagar

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> It just seems to make sense that a HD person who has a strong desire for sex would be more tempted than a LD person to have a physical affair. *A physical affair just doesn't really offer something that a LD person is interested in.*
> 
> The HD person in a HD/LD relationship is likely to be very tempted - I have been. The combination of wanting to be desired, along with the feeling that your LD partner is not fulfilling their part of the marriage provides both motivation and excuse.


But most know that sex can be an effective means to an end, even if the end is not sexual. That is where I think the playing field levels a bit between HD and LD people, temptation, and partner count.


----------



## Marduk

samyeagar said:


> For most guys, I really don't think it is about any specific acts. Yes, for some it is, and I disagree with them. But for most guys, it's about the feeling of being desired above all by a partner, and how those feelings are shown through action. I think most men could care less about her past so long as her past stayed in the past, and he felt beyond a shadow of doubt that he was her number one now, that she was giving her best.
> 
> While the above is written from a mans point of view, I don't think men and women are generally all that different when it comes to this.


Let me tell you a story. 

Soon before I met wife #1 I went to a party. There was a girl there that I was not into at all. But she chased me and kept putting drinks in my hand, so eventually we had sex. 

What I did not realize at the time was that she was "taking a break" from her boyfriend of over a year who she made wait to have sex. Consequently, she had never had sex with this guy before we had sex. 

She was not a virgin, but I gave her her first orgasm. Several, in fact. 

After that weekend, they got back together. And when they did have sex, apparently it was not so mind blowing. And hey continued to have problems until about 5 years later after they were married, I heard it all came out in marriage counselling. With me as the central problem in all of it. The poor guy felt like he never measured up and the fact that she made him wait and yet had a fling with me really hurt him. 

When I heard that I was married to wife #1 and I felt horrible about all that. I mean, I had no idea I caused this guy so much pain and I actually ran into him one time and apologized to him. I even told him he could slug me if he wanted too, but the poor guy was just broken by all of this. 

I lost track of them when I split from my wife, but I have always felt guilt over that. 

It would really suck to be that guy. 

And I think that's kind of what some people are trying to get at.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

OliviaG said:


> The word temptation seems to be a trigger for you or you only understand it in the context of marriage and you think it has moral implications. Not the way I was using the word.


It does have moral implications, especially when used with your other language like "give in to". If there were no such implications there would be no need to even THINK about "giving in" or the flip side, resisting. Definition in any event

"a desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise."


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## samyeagar

OliviaG said:


> Honestly, that *would* make me crazy and I feel fairly certain that our marriage would have ended very early on if that were the case. It would be intolerable to me.
> 
> In my current situation we have a very firm foundation of over 25 years of a very mutually fulfilling, happy and loving marriage. We can withstand some bumps on the road now, knowing that there has never been any gas-lighting or excuse-making or manipulation of any kind (other than maybe something trivial, like manipulating the other person to get up and make you a cup of coffee when you want to stay in bed. ).
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a big fan of adulterers either. But I never was talking about adultery. For some reason she seems to think I was.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how anything else could be true, if the HD person and LD person have been correctly "diagnosed".


Definitions are also important...there is HD/LD and HD/LD. One being High Drive/Low Drive and the other being High Desire/Low desire. While they may seem to be the same situationally, they are completely mutually exclusive things that are often incorrectly interchanged. Drive is related to the individual. Desire is related to their partner.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## samyeagar

OliviaG said:


> I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I can see why a man who has never experienced a complete loss of drive might think they are though. But trust me, if you've completely lost your sex drive, you have no desire for your partner or anyone else. OTOH, if you have a high sex drive, you may have high desire for your partner and others, at the same time if your drive is high enough.
> 
> Basically if you lose your drive you stop having sexual thoughts. If you have high desire, you have high drive too.


Honeymoon phase...often people with low to no drive find a temporary burning desire for their partners, then over time, they settle back down to their base drive. Sometimes the sex will be very infrequent but when it happens, it is spectacular...low drive, but high desire for their partner.

I have a very high drive, and the final four years of my previous marriage were sexless by my choice. I was still very high drive, felt all the warm tinglies, but I had absolutely no desire for my ex wife or anyone else.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## samyeagar

OliviaG said:


> I agree that they are not always in sync, but not that desire and drive are mutually exclusive. Drive is the foundation for desire. *Without sex drive there is no sexual desire*.


I understand what you are saying here, but I disagree. The drive is what, well, drives a person to act on their desire. There are quite a few posters here who have spouses that fit that to a tee. Infrequent sex, but afterwards, not uncommon for the partner to say "Why don't we do that more often?" Then nothing. It is clear there is great desire there, just no drive to act on it.


----------



## Holland

OliviaG said:


> I'm not sure if this is the third or the fourth time I've explained this, but once again, I was *only* talking about the instance of the single (as in not married) HD person compared to the single (as in not married) LD person and saying that the single HD would be more likely to give in to the temptation to have sex than the LD. Which seems to be exactly what you're saying you felt okay about doing when you were single. So it seems that you agree with me.
> 
> *The word temptation seems to be a trigger for you or you only understand it in the context of marriage and you think it has moral implications. *Not the way I was using the word.
> 
> Hopefully you get what I meant now, but if you don't that's okay. I won't address it again after this.


Complete opposite. There is no trigger in any of this for me as it is not something that is an issue. 

When single there is no concern about temptation as being single means being free and making choices that are about what I want. The word temptations implies "forbidden" which then implies the person is doing something immoral. I don't view sex as immoral as long as people are consentual and both are single.

I just don't subscribe to the POV of women holding up sex as a gift and that most men just want to use women. This is certainly not my experience but then again I have (post idiotic teenage years) been mindful that I indeed enjoy sex and adore men. I am in control of my sexuality but I believe in a level playing field.


----------



## Holland

OliviaG said:


> Yes, MEM nailed it there.
> 
> You know how much I love my husband and how during this period of unbalanced drive within our marriage I have struggled with thoughts and had to keep myself away from temptation at times. It's not a sin to be tempted; it's normal if you have an appetite and your spouse does not, or has a much smaller appetite than you do. But hurting him in that way would kill me; it's not an option. We work on things and while I wait, I find ways to cope and I avoid temptation. And I most certainly do not feel that my struggle is in any way a black mark against my character.
> 
> I could pretend I have never been tempted, I guess, but the only people I'd be fooling are people who have never been in such a situation and can't imagine what they haven't experienced.
> 
> The other side of the coin is that I do believe that if I were LD I would not have been tempted at all when my husband's drive diminished. I would probably have been relieved that we were now in sync with each other and I didn't have to worry any more about *him* being tempted.
> 
> This seems to be quite a controversial thought here though (not with you, SA). It boggles my mind as to why.


So you are talking about temptation in the context of marriage? Before you said it was outside of marriage.


----------



## Holland

MEM11363 said:


> Olivia,
> Imagine - if - your husband - had been LD all along. And imagine that all that time he was gas lighting you. Making up one excuse after another. Blaming you for his lack of desire.
> 
> Imagine how crazy that would make you.
> 
> * @Holland is generally a calm and rational person. That said - I think her view of adulterers is: kill em all and let God sort them out.*
> 
> The truth is that HD folks experience more temptation. All other thngs being equal - HD folks likely have more partners than LD folks.


Pretty close, the only change I would make to that is to take out the references to killing them as I am a pacifist and god as I am an Atheist


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Holland said:


> *I just don't subscribe to the POV of women holding up sex as a gift and that most men just want to use women.* This is certainly not my experience but then again I have (post idiotic teenage years) been mindful that I indeed enjoy sex and adore men. I am in control of my sexuality but I believe in a level playing field.


Speaking of the "Gift giving" aspect of sexuality.. 

Never forget a female poster here ...she didn't care for my sexual views, so she Pmed me, felt I was WRONG to feel as I felt...

She wanted me to see there is freedom in having sex without expecting anything in return.. she went on to explain how she once felt like me... but learned she could change that mindset and felt it would be wise if I did also... but still .... 

It bothered me some that she felt it was WRONG, senseless for me to feel as I do.. that it holds zero value... or it never should to anyone, basically...

I was never a low drive/ low desire woman who was trying to manipulate a man into marrying me...which is often what we are accused of - when others bring up the "gift giving" -it's near always referred to in a negative way...but it's not always that cut & dried.. 

One can be Romantically geared who dreams of many "O"s with the love of their lives too... my ideal was always for far more than just pleasure / fun for a night.. I was more discriminating ...especially having witnessed the fall out a few of my close GF's have lived through...they were used, tossed aside, even raising babies alone..

I wanted to marry, build a family... . I always looked upon saving myself for the man who was willing to give me *HIS ALL*... only that man would be worthy of *MY ALL*.... this being the affirmation of what we shared...

I also sought a man who'd care about this, understand what it meant to me... If he didn't and felt it was nothing to sleep around with whomever.. he'd be an awful match for me.. 

I would have felt he trampled on something that was very precious to me...I don't think we can help how we are wired... where it all comes from probably has much to do with our personal experiences & our dreams combined...


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## SimplyAmorous

OliviaG said:


> I had been talking about it outside of marriage previously, but you'll notice that SA brought up the subject within marriage and I responded to her about that.


Yes... it's all my fault !  Olivia.. your explaining the Drive/ Desire thing.... sure makes good sense to me!


----------



## Holland

SimplyAmorous said:


> Speaking of the "Gift giving" aspect of sexuality..
> 
> Never forget a female poster here ...she didn't care for my sexual views, so she Pmed me, felt I was WRONG to feel as I felt...
> 
> She wanted me to see there is freedom in having sex without expecting anything in return.. she went on to explain how she once felt like me... but learned she could change that mindset and felt it would be wise if I did also... but still ....
> 
> It bothered me some that she felt it was WRONG, senseless for me to feel as I do.. that it holds zero value... or it never should to anyone, basically...
> 
> I was never a low drive/ low desire woman who was trying to manipulate a man into marrying me...which is often what we are accused of - when others bring up the "gift giving" -it's near always referred to in a negative way...but it's not always that cut & dried..
> 
> One can be Romantically geared who dreams of many "O"s with the love of their lives too... my ideal was always for far more than just pleasure / fun for a night.. I was more discriminating ...especially having witnessed the fall out a few of my close GF's have lived through...they were used, tossed aside, even raising babies alone..
> 
> I wanted to marry, build a family... . I always looked upon saving myself for the man who was willing to give me *HIS ALL*... only that man would be worthy of *MY ALL*.... this being the affirmation of what we shared...
> 
> I also sought a man who'd care about this, understand what it meant to me... If he didn't and felt it was nothing to sleep around with whomever.. he'd be an awful match for me..
> 
> I would have felt he trampled on something that was very precious to me...I don't think we can help how we are wired... where it all comes from probably has much to do with our personal experiences & our dreams combined...


I always respect your right to your own POV and lifestyle SA. We are different in many ways but so similar in others. I love your passion :x


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Buddy400 said:


> I'm going to assume I speak for the majority of guys. The guys can let me know if I'm wrong.
> 
> None of this is for the purpose of deciding what is RIGHT for women to do, it's only for the meant to give women a look into what guys are thinking (do with this as you please).
> 
> A minority of men truly think of a woman with "too high" a number as "damaged goods". They might sleep with them but wouldn't get involved in an LTR with them. Or, they won't sleep with them at all (I think I've only seen one of these guys participating here).
> 
> There is at least one guy (samyeager) who will not sleep with a woman unless he is interested in an LTR.
> 
> Most men want to have sex with a woman who they are attracted to as soon as possible.
> 
> Most guys are willing to wait. How long is usually correlated with how many options he has for sex with other women, A man with lots of options is unlikely to wait for long (the woman would have to be VERY special). Guys with few options will wait as long as it takes (which may well be a warning flag).
> 
> We're okay with early sex as long as we think that the woman is choosy about who she'll do this with. We want to believe that the woman is "into us" more than she is with most men. If it turns out that she always has sex on the first date, then her having sex with us on the first date doesn't mean much. If she has sex on the first date with other men and makes us wait a couple of months, that tells us that she's NOT into us. So, maybe she's just looking to settle for us even though she doesn't desire us. Maybe she just wants to use us to provide support. Maybe, worst case scenario, she'll cheat on us with someone she is truly into.
> 
> So, it's okay for guys to have sex on the first date but not women? From a woman's point of view the goal shouldn't be "fairness", the goal should be for women to get what they want.
> 
> If women are looking for a commitment, they should make all men wait for some amount of time as a method of weeding out the players. This also serves to give the woman time to evaluate the man's character. Hopefully, it's just as hard for them to wait as it is for the guy. It wouldn't hurt for her to let the man know how hard it is for her for her as well.
> 
> If they aren't interested in commitment and never will be and just want sex, then they're free to do what they want. There's a lot of evidence that women don't find casual sex fulfilling; but, obviously, it's her call.
> 
> The tricky thing is if a woman isn't interested in commitment _at the moment _and sleeps around a lot but, at some time in the future decides she is looking for commitment and starts making relationship worthy men wait (or, more extreme, sleeps around with other men while making relationship worthy men wait). She may well find herself in a difficult position. I'm not saying that this is wrong, but women should go into this well aware of what the potential consequences are. They can say "well, I wouldn't want a guy like that anyway", but it could turn out that this narrows the field substantially. One way to handle this would be to change their rules for all men going forward.
> 
> All of that being said, you slept with your future husband on the first date. I slept with my future wife on the second date. Either we've got good instincts or we just got lucky










... this surely speaks for many men...but not those who DON'T CARE ABOUT MARRIAGE, the MGTOW's, and Player types, these are happy to oblige & lay down with as many willing women as they can.... Feminism's "sexual Liberation" has surely done them a favor...now they get their fill of variety, EASILY....they have nothing to lose after all & everything to gain.

But for those who may not find that lifestyle so fulfilling.... who may actually care to settle down, have a family ....it's going to matter "statistically" more so to these types/ the more conservative males..

Everyone wants to feel we are the "Cat's Meow" to our significant other... the sincere intentioned women who wait have this in mind also. (Not saying all women are.. these ones who hang on to the good guy - then drop their panties behind his back for the popular stud.... she is the lowest form of female, there is NO integrity there, no honoring what she has spoken, she is a puff of smoke, a Liar.. It disheartens me to read such stories ...like the one @marduk shared.

I feel the lines of communication, and other ways we express ourselves are huge here ...to bring this all together so the woman & man is not feeling Played or neglected.. each's feelings & needs should be a part of the "growing" process..boundaries slowly being lifted as they grow closer emotionally...and physically too.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Holland said:


> I always respect your right to your own POV and lifestyle SA. We are different in many ways but so similar in others. I love your passion :x










Holland.. I appreciate that.


----------



## Marduk

SimplyAmorous said:


> ... this surely speaks for many men...but not those who DON'T CARE ABOUT MARRIAGE, the MGTOW's, and Player types, these are happy to oblige & lay down with as many willing women as they can.... Feminism's "sexual Liberation" has surely done them a favor...now they get their fill of variety, EASILY....they have nothing to lose after all & everything to gain.
> 
> But for those who may not find that lifestyle so fulfilling.... who may actually care to settle down, have a family ....it's going to matter "statistically" more so to these types/ the more conservative males..
> 
> Everyone wants to feel we are the "Cat's Meow" to our significant other... the sincere intentioned women who wait have this in mind also. (Not saying all women are.. these ones who hang on to the good guy - then drop their panties behind his back for the popular stud.... she is the lowest form of female, there is NO integrity there, no honoring what she has spoken, she is a puff of smoke, a Liar.. It disheartens me to read such stories ...like the one @marduk shared.
> 
> I feel the lines of communication, and other ways we express ourselves are huge here ...to bring this all together so the woman & man is not feeling Played or neglected.. each's feelings & needs should be a part of the "growing" process..boundaries slowly being lifted as they grow closer emotionally...and physically too.


I'm sorry it disheartened you. 

I had the benefit of a very experienced woman who taught me a lot about sex and women's bodies from a very young age. For men and boys that have never had that experience, it can be really ego-crushing. 

And for women that don't know how to teach their partners what they want, or know what they want, it can be very frustrating.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CH

marduk said:


> I had the benefit of a very experienced woman who taught me a lot about sex and women's bodies from a very young age. For men and boys that have never had that experience, it can be really ego-crushing.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Too many men now a days grew up on porn. So they think that's what every woman wants. Pull pants down and just pound away like no tomorrow.

Men are pretty easy to please overall (there are exceptions to the rules with the DIVA guys), put hand on thing, stroke, put mouth on thing (this is an added bonus but not necessary, BUT APPRECIATED) and go up and down, open up and let man pound you.

Women are like jig saw puzzles, just because you put one that has 10 pieces together doesn't mean it will work with the one that came with 5000 pieces!!!!!!! Can be VERY frustrating if a woman won't say, I like this, don't like that, do this, do that. WE CAN'T READ YOUR *BLEEPING* MINDS! If we could, no woman would ever NAG her man.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

marduk said:


> I'm sorry it disheartened you.
> 
> I had the benefit of a very experienced woman who taught me a lot about sex and women's bodies from a very young age. For men and boys that have never had that experience, it can be really ego-crushing.


 What I got from your story, what stood out to me was - the careless betrayal of the woman...how it hurt the man, someone trying to do right by her...

What stood out to you was -your feeling horrible for that sorry inexperienced nice guy - feeling he would have been better off being a man LIKE YOU...

I say...too bad he ever took her back -he certainly needed more balls in that case to kick her to the curb......unfortunate for him.. women weren't lining up to bed him...he didn't have the sexual experience you did with some Cougar teaching you...which you give credit to transforming you into a manly stud... confidence in check... 

So now you can get women to scream with O's.. but what the hell good are they - REALLY .. I ask... you didn't even LIKE that woman, *you said you wasn't into her AT ALL*..... how sad that she wasted her juices on you.. only to fVck up a relationship where the guy may have deeply cared for her. 

I find that Tragic... I wouldn't consider her a decent women in any way, shape or form for holding on to this guy for a year...dangling a carrot - then she goes & fu**s some stranger in a BAR ... REALLY [email protected]# meanwhile her boyfriend of a year wasn't worth exploring with... that's deplorable & despicable.. Obviously she was "Using" him for other reasons -certainly not because she wanted to get closer to him. 

Is this what men teach their sons then..the MAN CODE... screw whomever , hey if she's willing.. go for it son.. even if you're not into her at all... gotta think of your future...gotta know how to get them all to CUM when that one comes along you're INTO -who lights your fire... so it's Ok to use all those Unattractive body parts before her in the meantime... 

Then you see this guy out & about & bring this up... asking if he wants to punch you.. why would you even go there ?? Kinda questioning some of this -to be honest.. as I can't imagine someone doing this . 

When I was younger.. I read a book on the value of waiting -for someone we Love & want to share our all with .. anyway.. they spoke of this very scenario.. how when we have sex, these experiences can be etched in our memory... whether good or bad.. IF it was phenomenal but it doesn't last... then we marry another.... there will be comparisons.. how it could "haunt" us/ always in the back of our minds...yeah that could mess with a future marriage a little.. 

I am not one who feels a man needs various experiences to be good in bed.. if this is so.. my husband is surely Pathetic, the sorriest man on the planet.. I've been his ONLY LAY .. . I O'ed the 1st time he stuck his hands down my pants...and near every time after that...(but admittedly I'm an easy "O").... 

I just see it differently.. if /when you love someone.. these things are instinctive, being with someone who wants to feel you, KNOW you, eat up every part of you & come back for more.. there is great passion there all on it's own.. you want to please each other, you'll relish the time & effort to grow together.. that's your "special place".. 



> And for women that don't know how to teach their partners what they want, or know what they want, it can be very frustrating.


 Yes.. we shouldn't be passive here.. I'd just take charge, I always knew what would get me there.... and I'd position myself just so..


----------



## Marduk

SimplyAmorous said:


> What I got from your story, what stood out to me was - the careless betrayal of the woman...how it hurt the man, someone trying to do right by her...


Ya, I see that. But all I saw at the time was a confused girl that didn't really know what she wanted, or felt like she wasn't able to get it.



> What stood out to you was -your feeling horrible for that sorry inexperienced nice guy - feeling he would have been better off being a man LIKE YOU...


Not like me, but maybe the benefit of knowing how a woman's body functions? I mean, when I was growing up, it's not like anybody usually taught boys this kind of stuff.



> I say...too bad he ever took her back -he certainly needed more balls in that case to kick her to the curb......unfortunate for him.. women weren't lining up to bed him...he didn't have the sexual experience you did with some Cougar teaching you...which you give credit to transforming you into a manly stud... confidence in check...


I think what happened is that he didn't know about it when they got back together. But they had sexual problems which she told him wasn't about them -- it was about her not really being into sex. Which he accepted because he loved her. And married her. And it got worse until they went to MC about it and she admitted what happened with us, and that she wanted that kind of sex and that kind of guy. 

At least that's the story I remember being told.



> So now you can get women to scream with O's.. but what the hell good are they - REALLY .. I ask... you didn't even LIKE that woman, *you said you wasn't into her AT ALL*..... how sad that she wasted her juices on you.. only to fVck up a relationship where the guy may have deeply cared for her.


I think what happened was a mismatch between what she thought she could get or was easy to get (that guy), and what she wanted sexually (a more confident, aware guy, maybe?)

This seems kind of a common problem, no?



> I find that Tragic... I wouldn't consider her a decent women in any way, shape or form for holding on to this guy for a year...dangling a carrot - then she goes & fu**s some stranger in a BAR ... REALLY [email protected]# meanwhile her boyfriend of a year wasn't worth exploring with... that's deplorable & despicable.. Obviously she was "Using" him for other reasons -certainly not because she wanted to get closer to him.


It gets worse, to be honest. It was a bush party. We ended up in the woods in the rain, mucky and wet. It wasn't even respectable enough to be in a bar.



> Is this what men teach their sons then..the MAN CODE... screw whomever , hey if she's willing.. go for it son.. even if you're not into her at all... gotta think of your future...gotta know how to get them all to CUM when that one comes along you're INTO -who lights your fire... so it's Ok to use all those Unattractive body parts before her in the meantime...


Whoa there. She pursued me, not the other way around. For hours. She was the aggressor, she initiated, she took her clothes off before I even touched her. And mine.



> Then you see this guy out & about & bring this up... asking if he wants to punch you.. why would you even go there ?? Kinda questioning some of this -to be honest.. as I can't imagine someone doing this .


Because I actually knew him from when I was younger. And when I ran into him, it just kind of hung in the air and I had to say something. He looked haunted, tired, sad. Beaten. You know? I wasn't going to put on a smile and pretend nothing happened.



> When I was younger.. I read a book on the value of waiting -for someone we Love & want to share our all with .. anyway.. they spoke of this very scenario.. how when we have sex, these experiences can be etched in our memory... whether good or bad.. IF it was phenomenal but it doesn't last... then we marry another.... there will be comparisons.. how it could "haunt" us/ always in the back of our minds...yeah that could mess with a future marriage a little..


What I learned is that sex is a part of marriage, and if that part doesn't work, don't marry that person.



> I am not one who feels a man needs various experiences to be good in bed.. if this is so.. my husband is surely Pathetic, the sorriest man on the planet.. I've been his ONLY LAY .. . I O'ed the 1st time he stuck his hands down my pants...and near every time after that...(but admittedly I'm an easy "O")....


Awesome! Some women are not so lucky. 



> I just see it differently.. if /when you love someone.. these things are instinctive, being with someone who wants to feel you, KNOW you, eat up every part of you & come back for more.. there is great passion there all on it's own.. you want to please each other, you'll relish the time & effort to grow together.. that's your "special place".


That can be the intention, but the mechanics don't work. You can't love someone into a massive O or hot sex. In fact, sometimes love gets in the way for some women.

I knew a girl for example that the sex for her was great exactly because she didn't love me, or even like me. So she could free herself from all the emotional baggage and just free her sexuality.

I'm not saying that's the norm, or even a good thing, just for her it was a thing. With a guy she loved she just couldn't go there.

I think it's a similar thing for some guys where they are 'nice' in bed with their wife that they love and respect, and she wants something more aggressive. 



> Yes.. we shouldn't be passive here.. I'd just take charge, I always knew what would get me there.... and I'd position myself just so..


That's awesome!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *I think what happened was a mismatch between what she thought she could get or was easy to get (that guy), and what she wanted sexually (a more confident, aware guy, maybe?)
> 
> This seems kind of a common problem, no?*


 Ok @marduk...thanks for picking apart my reply.. Yes this sort of thing does seem a problem for many .. women and men.. none of us want to be "settled" for .. I guess I have a heart for the one who gets betrayed.. what can I say... SHE really snowed this guy... and it's very UGLY .....It didn't do her any favors to aggressively pursue what she did ..I'm sure you saw her as pretty pathetic even. 

Believe me.. I get MEN... if a woman is going to throw herself all over a guy, he's going to take advantage of it 9 times out of 10...



> It gets worse, to be honest. It was a bush party. We ended up in the woods in the rain, mucky and wet. It wasn't even respectable enough to be in a bar.





> Whoa there. She pursued me, not the other way around. For hours. She was the aggressor, she initiated, she took her clothes off before I even touched her. And mine.


 When I read this.. all I thought was.. why couldn't she do this with the guy who loved her, show him a thing or 2.... obviously she had it in her... then you added...



> In fact, sometimes love gets in the way for some women.
> 
> *I knew a girl for example that the sex for her was great exactly because she didn't love me, or even like me. So she could free herself from all the emotional baggage and just free her sexuality.
> 
> I'm not saying that's the norm, or even a good thing, just for her it was a thing. With a guy she loved she just couldn't go there.
> *


 I've heard this spoken of before.. .. but it's not something I understand...like at all.. I am the complete opposite ... I could not feel FREE & let loose unless I felt completely Loved, wanted, accepted by the man. 

What is the Psychology of this ...(there is surely detachment going on there)... that makes some of us THIS way.. and some the other way...interesting question I guess. 

I found this guy's experience here *>>* How well can you compartmentalize sex from emotion? 



> And in a weird way, I love the girl when we're having sex. But it's a very spiritual, open kind of love. Not love like I would have for a long-time SO.
> 
> That's the strange thing for me. Over time, sex can make me love someone a little more (romantic love), but love does NOT make me want to have sex with someone. Just the opposite.
> 
> I only like sex with new partners. Learning about them and exploring each other's bodies and senses and pleasures is really exciting. I'm extremely free spirited, and can feel a lot of love during sex, even with someone I just met. *But as I get closer to the person emotionally, I always lose sexual attraction for them. It gets boring, and they feel more like a close friend than someone who turns me on. The fact that they know me well, and know my faults well, makes me more inhibited.* Plus, they are like a puzzle I've already solved, a book I've already read. There's just nothing new and exciting about them, and there's only so many new things you can add to spice things up. I have no idea how people can keep having sex for years with the same person!
> 
> But I can also just **** some chick without any kind of romantic desire or love for her, too. It's not quite as good as sex with someone I am attracted to deeply, but it can still be really fun, and feel great, although afterwards I always feel like I "owe" her some kind of relationship.
> 
> That existential connection that exists during sex makes it awesome, but in a lot of ways love and emotion really ****s up what could be perfectly good sex. It's weird.
> 
> If I don't sound like a raving lunatic to anyone, I would really like to hear other people's thoughts about this. I've never really been able to figure out why sex is so much less enjoyable for me each time with a person. So many other people seem to think that sex with someone you love is so much better. It's very confusing to me, and it's kept me from ever having a long-lasting relationship.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## Marduk

SimplyAmorous said:


> Ok @marduk...thanks for picking apart my reply.. Yes this sort of thing does seem a problem for many .. women and men.. none of us want to be "settled" for .. I guess I have a heart for the one who gets betrayed.. what can I say... SHE really snowed this guy... and it's very UGLY .....It didn't do her any favors to aggressively pursue what she did ..I'm sure you saw her as pretty pathetic even.


I dunno. How many stories have you heard of a girl settling down with a 'nice guy' that would be a good provider and dad, but long for the bad boy she liked to **** like a maniac, but would never be the rest of it for her?



> Believe me.. I get MEN... if a woman is going to throw herself all over a guy, he's going to take advantage of it 9 times out of 10...


Lots of women do that, too. 



> When I read this.. all I thought was.. why couldn't she do this with the guy who loved her, show him a thing or 2.... obviously she had it in her... then you added...


Simple. He didn't turn her crank. It doesn't mean she didn't love him, or want him to turn her crank. It just means that he didn't.

I've really liked girls before, and wanted that spark to be there... And it wasn't. Don't know why.

Attraction and affection are two different things.



> I've heard this spoken of before.. .. but it's not something I understand...like at all.. I am the complete opposite ... I could not feel FREE & let loose unless I felt completely Loved, wanted, accepted by the man.


I imagine it might have something to do with 'nice boys (or girls) don't do things like that'. Or 'what would he think of me if I wanted to do X.' Or 'she'd leave me if I tried to do Y with her.'



> What is the Psychology of this ...(there is surely detachment going on there)... that makes some of us THIS way.. and some the other way...interesting question I guess.


I don't think it's detachment. Sex != love.



> I found this guy's experience here *>>* How well can you compartmentalize sex from emotion?


I try to avoid Reddit.


----------



## Marduk

OliviaG said:


> Marduk, I don't want to burst your memory bubble or hurt your ego about this experience, but after reading what you wrote, I strongly suspect that her pursuing you so aggressively under the circumstances and her enjoying the encounter so much was due to some kind of a hormonal surge that she was experiencing more than anything else. She would not have suspected that of course and therefore may have been pining after you and comparing her experience with her husband to that experience with you. If she had shared that burst of T with her husband, her marriage might have turned out much differently.


It could be. Hell, I HOPE it was that.

She sure was aggressive. And O'd super fast and easily.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## SimplyAmorous

marduk said:


> I dunno. How many stories have you heard of a girl settling down with a 'nice guy' that would be a good provider and dad, but long for the bad boy she liked to **** like a maniac, but would never be the rest of it for her?


 If a woman has lived that sort of lifestyle.. and is attracted to those sort of men.. .. Men who aren't like this should stay clear...as it may come to bite him badly down the road.. A man should know & feel greatly desired by her too.... I married the Good Guy.. so when I read these sorts of stories.. It bothers me... I don't like to see Good men with right intentions hurt & used like that.. this should explain WHY I personally seem to get my feather ruffled.. 

We have 5 sons.. they are like their Father...it's so obvious ....I don't want to see any of them fall in love with a woman like this.. (they would never consider a chick who went to parties like that though)... My prayer for them is to find a faithful loving women who adores them, desires them.. and is faithful to them...an added bonus would be if she "O's easily too- even if he's NOT the "bad boy" type... 



> Simple. He didn't turn her crank. It doesn't mean she didn't love him, or want him to turn her crank. It just means that he didn't.


 I don't think love is worth anything if your other half is wanting to f*** someone else. That Love needs dumped. 



> Attraction and affection are two different things.


 they do light up in different areas of the brain.. so they say.. one is pure LUST -when our eyes are popping out & we could lick that up ... but a satisfying relationship can't live on that alone.. it takes both of these to satisfy what we ultimately seek in a romantic long term lover...



> I imagine it might have something to do with 'nice boys (or girls) don't do things like that'. Or 'what would he think of me if I wanted to do X.' Or 'she'd leave me if I tried to do Y with her.'


It can be a conflict for some...I've experienced this myself... always loved sex though.. the feeling of "Oneness" with another .. with my explosive sex drive 8 yrs ago...I devoured books on sex, spicing, opening this all up... one doesn't have to throw away everything we've felt , the romanticism of loving /sharing with 1 man...

We WERE the Good guy/ Good Girl match.. we've had a rush of trying new positions, places, teasing, great times.. very exciting for us both...I treasure the fact we'd had that ride -just the 2 of us.. there is HOPE for even a couple like this.. 

My husband's flavor of porn has always been strippers... that's highly arousing to him.. he's more than happy if I act just like that for him & him alone.. he would never look down on me, the dirtier the better.. we both ascribe to the "lady in the streets but a sl** for her man".. I feel the same...I want a Gentleman who treats me like a Lady.. but yeah.. bring out some animal in the bedroom!











> I try to avoid Reddit.


 I don't really go there either... .just something I googled trying to find someone else speaking like that.. the point is.. if one THINKS like that.. they are less likely to be faithful to Love, but are more geared for sexual variety to hold their Excitement... 

What have we learned... to jump in with this type quickly.. we may get attached while he is slowly growing bored... he would only be a source of pain & disappointment -then he'd discard us for some new excitement.... I've always felt bad boys are only good to look at.. they may be funny too.. but outside of that.. no thank you.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

OliviaG said:


> I feel strongly about it because I've been monitoring my own hormones and it's been a pretty enlightening experience. When my T was exceptionally high, boy did I have to struggle to keep myself from doing something completely out of character for me. It was downright dangerous.


 I told my husband once..during that phase.. (I can be honest as sin- when I should put a rag in my mouth).. that if he wasn't taking care of me.. and some hot man came on to me.. OH my.. I really couldn't say if I could resist that.. I was trying to get across to him HOW STRONGLY this pull was on me.. it was seriously messing with my head ... 

Another thing I realized through that... which scared me a bit is.. I don't think I would have cared if there was Love.. I cared more about Hot Desire, Eroticism...

He told me he didn't believe I could do that to him.. Loved his faith in me... but hhmmmm ...let's just say good thing he was there for me...and I wasn't put in a vulnerable position during that time....it was like something , I too, have never experienced.. just keeping my hands off of him...it was almost painful... I could hardly sleep.. wanted it 3 times a day... I was wondering if I turned Bi-polar & had "hyper sexually".. did I need to see a Doctor!!


----------



## frusdil

OliviaG said:


> Okay, so she would naturally have low numbers if she married young. Now take a HD, sexually adventurous woman (the kind most men say they want) and expect her to have low numbers and limited experience at age 35 or 40, and you are asking for something unlikely to exist. So either give up on the uninhibited sex and HD or relax your worries about her numbers. Because you aren't likely to get both.


Not necessarily. I'm 43, met my husband when I was 38. I've only been with 3 men, including my husband. We are out there, lol.


----------



## alphaomega

I dated a lady that wanted to wait. 

"Whatevs", I said. I'm good with that. 

We did a lot of groping and kissing on the couch whenever she came to visit. We'd get really passionate and steamy, but I would always just stop after a while. I mean, just stop cold. Told her I didn't want to get too carried away as I understood her wishes. This went on for weeks. 

It was fun. Like being a teenager again. Lol. 

One day she just showed up and attacked me. Took what she wanted. Turned monkey on me and got the freak going on in the bedroom 

Waiting can be fun. It's not bad at all.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tortdog

Holland said:


> You said a HD person would have a harder time dealing with temptation and I disagree. Just bc someone is HD does not mean they cannot discriminate between right and wrong. Being HD is about enjoying and having a higher drive but it does not mean it is at the expense of a persons morals.


You didn't address the position. The argument is a person with HD has more temptation regarding sexual desires than a LD person. 

If the LD person has really low desire (none) then what temptation is it to not engage in immoral sexual conduct? 

I'm not seeing it. 

Merely pointing out the difference does not mandate that the HD cannot make a wise choice or excuse poor behavior.


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------



## RainbowBrite

Deleted


----------

