# Lesson to learn



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

There is a discussion on another thread about the timing of having sex for the first time. Some say early is best, others say waiting for a period of time is best. The lesson is that it really doesn't matter. Women or men that want to wait will (hopefully) meet someone who is OK with this time table. Women or men who jump in early will also hopefully meet some one who is OK with this as well. It is called finding compatibility. Both options present problems, and those that choose them do so for various reason (or what others might call issues). The bottom line is that regardless of the option, it is a choice that one side or the other made and it is ultimately up to you to decide if this acceptable to you or not. Sexual compatibility is but one aspect of overall compatibility. For some people sexual compatibility is not even a consideration, for others it is very important. It comes from whatever our experiences were and our expectations are. Waiting doesn't mean a woman is frigid or a man is timid. Jumping in does mean a woman is promiscuous or that the man is player. It is just who they are. The best policy regardless of which option works best for you is honesty. Both with yourself and others. Because either way you can (and usually will get burned at least a few times). So in the end you will always be able to say you did the best you could.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I've never liked the idea of intentionally waiting because it implies that (usually the woman) is *providing* sex to their partner, as opposed to enjoying sex with their partner. My feeling is that when you are dating, you should have sex whenever you both feel like it. 

If your date only wants sex, then you might as well find out early rather than late. Intentionally waiting may eliminate some people who only want sex, but will also eliminate some high drive people who might be wonderful long term partners.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

uhtred said:


> I've never liked the idea of intentionally waiting because it implies that (usually the woman) is *providing* sex to their partner, as opposed to enjoying sex with their partner. My feeling is that when you are dating, you should have sex whenever you both feel like it.
> 
> If your date only wants sex, then you might as well find out early rather than late. Intentionally waiting may eliminate some people who only want sex, but will also eliminate some high drive people who might be wonderful long term partners.


I agree. I feel the same. When I go out on a date with a woman, I am very open and honest. I am not into playing games and dancing around the issue. If she wants to continue to date, she has made the decision that she is fine with this. If she isn't fine with that, then she has lied. Not only to me but to herself, and that is on her, not me. OTOH if she decides I am too forward, or direct, that is her decision as well. Either way I am OK with it. I don't force myself on women, nor do I expect sex from them. But, I would rather know upfront than waste a lot of time, effort and money on a relationship with such a glaring incompatibility (when she wants to wait)


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

uhtred said:


> I've never liked the idea of intentionally waiting because it implies that (usually the woman) is *providing* sex to their partner, as opposed to enjoying sex with their partner. My feeling is that when you are dating, you should have sex whenever you both feel like it.
> 
> If your date only wants sex, then you might as well find out early rather than late. Intentionally waiting may eliminate some people who only want sex, but will also eliminate some high drive people who might be wonderful long term partners.


There is a problem? with this. When dating, you could potentially date a lot of people before you find someone right for you. If you have sex with most of the people you date a few times (per the "have sex a couple dates in if you are attracted to them but before you know them well and are in an established relationship" dynamic) you could have tens of sexual partners in a year. That's gross to me. And extremely problematic is that MEN don't usually want women as future wives who have had tons of sexual partners.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Livvie said:


> There is a problem? with this. When dating, you could potentially date a lot of people before you find someone right for you. If you have sex with most of the people you date a few times (per the "have sex a couple dates in if you are attracted to them but before you know them well and are in an established relationship" dynamic) you could have tens of sexual partners in a year. That's gross to me. And extremely problematic is that MEN don't usually want women as future wives who have had tons of sexual partners.


:iagree:

If a girl that you date readily jumps in the sack with you, you will naturally assume that she did the same with other men.

This may be true or may be false. It is a no-win situation for women.

Women who are passionate and love sex have the most problems with this.....

Or maybe the least....I dunno :scratchhead:

I have the most problem with this :grin2::grin2:


----------



## Jessica38 (Feb 28, 2017)

The fact that many women emotionally bond to a man they have sex with also presents an added issue. For obvious reasons, it doesn't serve a woman to emotionally bond with a man who doesn't return the feelings, or who isn't ready/certain he wants to commit to her.

Quality men will respect that this is an added factor for many women, and understand that her decision to hold off on sex with him until she's sure it's the right time for her and the relationship has more to do with self-protection and self-respect than playing games.

I'd advise any single woman to hold off on having sex with a guy until she's sure he's the right one for her going forward, especially if she's had low-quality relationships in the past. Once an emotional bond is formed, it can be very hard to stay discerning when red flags show up. I believe this is a major reason why a woman will continue dating a guy who is not right for them- even stay in a relationship with a married man for years.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

When I dated I believed in getting to sex soon, on second dates. But I was definitely looking for long term relationships, and not playing games with girls. I was young and foolish, and didn't realize just how many problems girls faced with guys who did this to them.

Since then I think it is imperative that women do something to protect themselves from the guys who are just in it to make a score and move on. Those idiots ruin it for everyone. It makes me think of the statement, "See why we can't have nice things?"

If a guy can't handle a woman telling him she would really like to jump his bones right away because she is horny as hell but is going to wait to make sure he isn't some inconsiderate idiot player, then I figure he's an inconsiderate idiot of some sort anyway, and she is best rid of him.

I have not dated since the fall of 1973.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

The Red Pill crowd has a name for this behavior ... i.e. women holding off sex ... they call it ASD, Anti **** Defense.

:lol::rofl::lol::rofl: ... idiots.

For this woman it has nothing to do with being ****ty or even self-respect. It is purely about self-interest/protection. So, if you "next" me because I don't have sex with you on the first/second date (or whatever manosphere is selling) I figure it's a WIN-WIN.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

I'm amazed how easy sex is to come by now with online dating. Really don't need to even be a player to get it......I had plenty of women offer sex after a beer or two on a first date.

For those who are looking for someone not just wanting sex my suggestion is to just slow things down. What i have learned is that sex = a committed relationship to me. So unless I want you as my gf we won't be having sex. This also comes with a discussion about expectation which I think many people miss. If you tell a player that if we have sex we are boyfriend and girlfriend most will think stage 5 clinger and run anyway lol

So I don't do timelines and won't stay around for those who do as I find them unrealistic. What I do instead is wait a few dates, varies depending on person, and if we click and I want to see if a relationship will work talk about being exclusive. If we aren't on the same page then maybe we will keep seeing each other or not but I will be continuing to date others same as they are. If we are on the same page profiles come down and we give it a go, sex happens soon after...

Not going to say my method is the best, probably wouldn't work for everyone, but it has helped me establish compatibility early on to save wasting each other's time.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Red Sonja said:


> The Red Pill crowd has a name for this behavior ... i.e. women holding off sex ... they call it ASD, Anti **** Defense.
> 
> :lol::rofl::lol::rofl: ... idiots.
> 
> For this woman it has nothing to do with being ****ty or even self-respect. It is purely about self-interest/protection. So, if you "next" me because I don't have sex with you on the first/second date (or whatever manosphere is selling) I figure it's a WIN-WIN.


Aside from the childish name calling, I agree. It is a win-win. That was the point of my post. Because you see you get to choose. It doesn't make them wrong, it just means they aren't compatible with you. Instead of calling them idiots and casting aspersions, be glad you found out their intent before spinning your wheels. Because I have news for you, you not wanting to have sex right of away, will not have any affect on how somebody else feels. Just because you want to wait, doesn't mean the guy you are dating doesn't still want it now or vice versa.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

I already contributed in the other thread, and clearly stated it was my opinion and experience coloring my response. However, I will add one more thing... 

I believe that personally for me, I want to be emotionally connected to my partner in the strongest possible way. It is fundamentally important to me. This bond primarily happens (for me) through sex. I do not wish to intentionally weaken the "glue" of bonding to that (possibly correct for me) man by having sex *prematurely,* because I know that if he dumps me or turns out to not be the right man in the end I have now weakened the ability of that bond. I have now allowed a part of myself to be taken by an unworthy non-partner and am now "less than" for the next man I may meet. (Emphasizing that this specifically how SATYA feels.)

I also believe that many women have an issue bonding strongly with a man when they've had multiple partners, but how they live their lives is their choice. I have watched good women struggle to accept their sexual preferences (which are in line with mine) because sex can be so easy for men to get, it now becomes a competition to hope you can snag a man if you give him sex fast enough. Does that mean women don't enjoy sex early on? Of course not, they do. Sex is enjoyable. But I'll be dammed if that 5 seconds of orgasmic bliss harms me emotionally when I find out that man isn't in my life tomorrow.

So I say to any man here who doesn't like to wait, I have no issue with your preference. I'm still going to hold on to my ways because they work (have worked) for me. I've had a total of 4 partners in my life and I intend to stay at 4 until I die. My ex H, two bf's post-divorce, and Constable Odo. None of them told me that I moved to slow (~3 months + for all) and my relationship with each was (is) strong and stable and NOT lacking in passion. What lacked prior to Odo was: ability to tell me the truth, readiness to enter a committed relationship, and sobriety, respective to the first 3 men in my life. 

I don't mind if others disagree with me, in the other thread I supported people's unique views on timing and what works for them. I agree with some others here that most men I've known in my life have preferred a woman who is sexually uninhibited, enthusiastic, and passionate... WITH THEM. I did nothing with my preference and choices but ensure that very outcome for my husband by respecting and protecting my ability to bond.

This will be my final contribution to this topic.


----------



## Cooper (Apr 18, 2008)

As a man, even when I was a young and horny man, I always took cues from the woman's behavior, signs and body language are easy enough to read. I never once pushed, pressured or deceived a woman into having sex with me. In my mind the best sex is when both of you want it and can enjoy it inhibition free. Sometimes the lust can overtake you the first date, and sometimes the connection can take months. 

I just don't understand how any one can try and pin a time line on when is right. Our emotions don't work off a time clock or some charted out itinerary.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

I can see there being a minimum time. Sounds fine to toss out a few potentials if they won't listen to reason in order to weed out the players.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Ynot said:


> Aside from the childish name calling, I agree. It is a win-win. That was the point of my post. Because you see you get to choose. It doesn't make them wrong, it just means they aren't compatible with you. Instead of calling them idiots and casting aspersions, be glad you found out their intent before spinning your wheels. Because I have news for you, you not wanting to have sex right of away, will not have any affect on how somebody else feels. Just because you want to wait, doesn't mean the guy you are dating doesn't still want it now or vice versa.


I seem to have angered you, I apologize. You have misunderstood my point; I will try to state it more clearly.

The ASD rule of the manosphere crowd is based on the _assumption _that all women hold off having sex because they do not want to be thought of as a "****". That _assumption _is not based on _facts or evidence_ (hence the idiot label, that is what idiots do by definition). I don’t know where they got this misguided idea but it is patently false. The laughter was because the name of the rule (Anti **** Defense) is just funny.

Labeling an idea as idiotic because it is formed with no rational evidence is not "name-calling" or "casting aspersions".

Waiting for sex is not what I "want"; it is rather me acting in my own best interest.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

Red Sonja said:


> I seem to have angered you, I apologize. You have misunderstood my point; I will try to state it more clearly.
> 
> The ASD rule of the manosphere crowd is based on the _assumption _that all women hold off having sex because they do not want to be thought of as a "****". That _assumption _is not based on _facts or evidence_ (hence the idiot label, that is what idiots do by definition). I don’t know where they got this misguided idea but it is patently false. The laughter was because the name of the rule (Anti **** Defense) is just funny.
> 
> ...


Well stated.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Red Sonja said:


> I seem to have angered you, I apologize. You have misunderstood my point; I will try to state it more clearly.
> 
> The ASD rule of the manosphere crowd is based on the _assumption _that all women hold off having sex because they do not want to be thought of as a "****". That _assumption _is not based on _facts or evidence_ (hence the idiot label, that is what idiots do by definition). I don’t know where they got this misguided idea but it is patently false. The laughter was because the name of the rule (Anti **** Defense) is just funny.
> 
> ...


You didn't anger me in the least bit, the childish name calling I am referring to is in reference to your dismissal of those who would like sex earlier as being duped by the "manosphere" ie "idiots". The issue has nothing to do with the "manosphere" it is just some people's preference to know sexual compatibility sooner rather than later. You see to some people (especially those who had been in sexless or near sexless relationships) sexual compatibility may be more important than it is to some one who may have been in a sexually active relationship before and therefore simply take sexual compatibility for granted or assign it a lesser place in their algorithm of relational decisions. Perhaps the idea of labeling all men who want it sooner as idiots, is just as irrational as the "manosphere" sayin all women who want to wait are only doing so due to not wanting to be called ****s. 
So the question is, why do you get to act In your own best interest, but men and other women are being irrational or idiots when they act in what they consider their best interests?


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

As a man, I have found this equally problematic. 

I have been looking for a long term, monogamous, committed relationship. As someone else said above, I don't really want a woman that is willing to have sex immediately, because then I'm thinking, how many other men has she done this with? Yes, I guess I am judgemental, or at least selective. In any case, it isn't what I want. 

So a few times I have dated women from online dating (*******), and what happens is, when I don't "make a move" in the first few dates, I get the "lets just be friends" speech. Even though there has been kissing etc, if I don't "close the deal", they assume something is wrong. 

I am in the UK, it is possible the rules are different here, it is a different society.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Ynot said:


> You didn't anger me in the least bit, the childish name calling I am referring to is in reference to your dismissal of those who would like sex earlier as being duped by the "manosphere" ie "idiots". The issue has nothing to do with the "manosphere" it is just some people's preference to know sexual compatibility sooner rather than later. You see to some people (especially those who had been in sexless or near sexless relationships) sexual compatibility may be more important than it is to some one who may have been in a sexually active relationship before and therefore simply take sexual compatibility for granted or assign it a lesser place in their algorithm of relational decisions. Perhaps the idea of labeling all men who want it sooner as idiots, is just as irrational as the "manosphere" sayin all women who want to wait are only doing so due to not wanting to be called ****s.
> So the question is, why do you get to act In your own best interest, but men and other women are being irrational or idiots when they act in what they consider their best interests?


You clearly did not understand a word I said. ** sigh ** 

I did not say anything about "all men". Perhaps the "manosphere" term is misleading you ... it's an internet term for a loose collection of those _particular _men who follow Red Pill, PUA and Alpha Game thinking (etc.)


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Red Sonja said:


> You clearly did not understand a word I said. ** sigh **
> 
> I did not say anything about "all men". Perhaps the "manosphere" term is misleading you ... it's an internet term for a loose collection of those _particular _men who follow Red Pill, PUA and Alpha Game thinking (etc.)


No I think you did not understand a word I said. Because it doesn't matter why they think the way they think. I am sure that guys who subscribe to the "manosphere" do so because they think that is in their best interest, just as you think what you do is in your best interest. Just be glad when they are open and honest with how they feel, because they have saved you the pain of discovering it before you get hurt.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

Oh the games people play...


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

uhtred said:


> I've never liked the idea of intentionally waiting because it implies that (usually the woman) is *providing* sex to their partner, as opposed to enjoying sex with their partner. My feeling is that when you are dating, you should have sex whenever you both feel like it.
> 
> If your date only wants sex, then you might as well find out early rather than late. Intentionally waiting may eliminate some people who only want sex, but will also eliminate some high drive people who might be wonderful long term partners.


Intentionally waiting doesn't imply that at all. It shows that they have strong moral values and want to wait till they are committed. It's nothing to do with being HD or LD or not enjoying sex. HD people are well able to go without having sex for a time, and many do.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Laurentium said:


> As a man, I have found this equally problematic.
> 
> I have been looking for a long term, monogamous, committed relationship. As someone else said above, I don't really want a woman that is willing to have sex immediately, because then I'm thinking, how many other men has she done this with? Yes, I guess I am judgemental, or at least selective. In any case, it isn't what I want.
> 
> ...


Surely its best to be honest with them and say what you are wanting. If a man I was dating ended it because I wanted to wait for sex he wasn't worth having. To me, if a man respects me and my views on this he is worth having. If he pressures me he isn't worth bothering with. I know a young lady who ended a shortish relationship because he was pressuring her to have sex even though she had said she wasn't ready and wanted to wait. I had great respect for her.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Cooper said:


> As a man, even when I was a young and horny man, I always took cues from the woman's behavior, signs and body language are easy enough to read. I never once pushed, pressured or deceived a woman into having sex with me. In my mind the best sex is when both of you want it and can enjoy it inhibition free. Sometimes the lust can overtake you the first date, and sometimes the connection can take months.
> 
> I just don't understand how any one can try and pin a time line on when is right. Our emotions don't work off a time clock or some charted out itinerary.


Its not about emotions for some though, it's about waiting till there is a real commitment and that can take many months or even years. For some like us it was when we married.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

As can be seen from the various points of view presented here. some people don't realize that what they want may not work for others. Rather than condemning them as immoral or idiots for not feeling the same way you do, why not just learn the lesson that everyone is different. When a man or a woman says they want to wait or let's get to it, they are doing the other side a huge favor. You don't have to waste your time trying to develop a "commitment" if all they want is sex and if all they want is sex, they don't have to waste their time by pursuing someone that isn't going to happen with due to their view on the matter. 
Personally I would rather have a woman tell me she wants to wait upfront, then I know not to waste my time, because it is obvious we are not compatible. OTOH if she is open to having sex, I am willing to see where it goes. Sex is important to me, it is a primary decision point in my personal relationship algorithm. So rather than bypassing this and later finding out there is no sexual compatibility I have the discussion early and soon after take the plunge. But one thing I do not do is play holier than thou. It is cool if you want to wait, it just isn't for me.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

In this case I don't think it's a holier than thou case.

I don't see eye to eye with most religious views. But I do see the wisdom of self protection. 

I think it's pretty petty to stoop to saying someone who doesn't agree, in what I see as benign language, is saying holier than thou.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> Surely its best to be honest with them and say what you are wanting. If a man I was dating ended it because I wanted to wait for sex he wasn't worth having. To me, if a man respects me and my views on this he is worth having. If he pressures me he isn't worth bothering with. I know a young lady who ended a shortish relationship because he was pressuring her to have sex even though she had said she wasn't ready and wanted to wait. I had great respect for her.


Well, I agree, but it seems a bit more complicated. I would like, eventually, a sexual relationship, but not with someone who takes that lightly or easily - and I want someone who wants the same. But it seems I have to keep indicating my sexual interest, from the start, or the woman assumes I want to be just friends. I guess she wants to know, just like I do, that I am having to make an effort to restrain my attraction for a while. How to indicate that level of interest, without her feeling it as what you call "pressuring". I can say "_I want to wait_", but they seem to hear "_I'm not actually very sexual_".


----------



## Cooper (Apr 18, 2008)

Diana7 said:


> Its not about emotions for some though, it's about waiting till there is a real commitment and that can take many months or even years. For some like us it was when we married.


And that can certainly be easily understandable, it depends on what your perspective of sex is. For me sex didn't necessarily come with long term commitment, it was more of enjoying what we had when we had it. For those that believe sex is saved for long term committed relationships or marriage you still need to come to that place emotionally, maybe it's just a bit deeper of an emotional connection based on trust and security. 

When I was early twenties I dated a girl for a year that was saving herself for marriage, as much as I loved her and respected her decision and never ever pressured her about it as someone who had already been sexually active I felt I needed sex to make that ultimate connection. The more she hung sex out there like a prize after marriage the more my emotions shut down and eventually I broke up with her. 

My point being for me personally sex is simply part of the evolution of a relationship that should happen naturally. I just don't understand how if I met someone today she could tell me we won't have sex until Oct. 9th, that just seems cold and calculating to me. But that is very different than someone who grows into a relationship slowly and needs that deeper connection before sex, the natural growth I understand, the assigned time line I couldn't live with.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Cooper said:


> And that can certainly be easily understandable, it depends on what your perspective of sex is. For me sex didn't necessarily come with long term commitment, it was more of enjoying what we had when we had it. For those that believe sex is saved for long term committed relationships or marriage you still need to come to that place emotionally, maybe it's just a bit deeper of an emotional connection based on trust and security.
> 
> When I was early twenties I dated a girl for a year that was saving herself for marriage, as much as I loved her and respected her decision and never ever pressured her about it as someone who had already been sexually active I felt I needed sex to make that ultimate connection. The more she hung sex out there like a prize after marriage the more my emotions shut down and eventually I broke up with her.
> 
> My point being for me personally sex is simply part of the evolution of a relationship that should happen naturally. I just don't understand how if I met someone today she could tell me we won't have sex until Oct. 9th, that just seems cold and calculating to me. But that is very different than someone who grows into a relationship slowly and needs that deeper connection before sex, the natural growth I understand, the assigned time line I couldn't live with.


We had a very strong connection from the start. I knew I wanted to marry him after a week. Not having sex didn't stop us from being close. We talked about sex quite a lot, so we were aware of what we both thought and felt about that aspect of the relationship. Yes setting a specific date seems crazy, unless it's the date you marry.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think it depends on your individual moral standards. Personally, I don't see sex as immoral as long as its consensual and no one is cheating or otherwise deceiving anyone. If two people want to have a one night stand, I think that is fine as long as they both understand what they are getting in to. Other people are welcome to have their own moral codes. 



Diana7 said:


> Intentionally waiting doesn't imply that at all. It shows that they have strong moral values and want to wait till they are committed. It's nothing to do with being HD or LD or not enjoying sex. HD people are well able to go without having sex for a time, and many do.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I understand that point of view, and it has advantages, but it also has disadvantages. Once you are committed it is (sort of by definition) difficult to leave the relationship. What if the sex is bad? 

If I had learned early on that my future wife and I were sexually incompatible would things have changed? Might they have been better? I don't know - but I think learning about incompatibility early on might save some people from unhappy marriages. (mine isn't unhappy -but our sexual issues are a continuing cloud over everything).



Diana7 said:


> Its not about emotions for some though, it's about waiting till there is a real commitment and that can take many months or even years. For some like us it was when we married.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Laurentium said:


> As a man, I have found this equally problematic.
> 
> I have been looking for a long term, monogamous, committed relationship. As someone else said above, I don't really want a woman that is willing to have sex immediately, because then I'm thinking, how many other men has she done this with? Yes, I guess I am judgemental, or at least selective. In any case, it isn't what I want.
> 
> ...


It's possible that they've actually just decided that you aren't a good match ... or perhaps that you yourself would judge them as not being "what you want."


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

I understand why a lot of women want to wait ... or at least slow things down. Women take a lot more risks than men do when it comes to sex and relationships. 

But personally, I would never wait for the sake of waiting. It's actually not all that helpful in weeding out the good from the bad, at least IMHO.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Gatekeepers make bad partners. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

wild jade said:


> *Women take a lot more risks than men do when it comes to sex and relationships*.


Bingo. That is why I don't sleep with anyone until I know them well enough to feel PHYSICALLY safe with them. For me the decision to have sex in a new relationship has nothing to do with emotions or commitment.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

uhtred said:


> I understand that point of view, and it has advantages, but it also has disadvantages. Once you are committed it is (sort of by definition) difficult to leave the relationship. What if the sex is bad?
> 
> If I had learned early on that my future wife and I were sexually incompatible would things have changed? Might they have been better? I don't know - but I think learning about incompatibility early on might save some people from unhappy marriages. (mine isn't unhappy -but our sexual issues are a continuing cloud over everything).


It's not about sex being 'bad' or 'good', it's something that can be worked on and improved over the years. I would far rather marry a man who hadn't slept around and who was initially inexperienced than one who has had multiple partners who therefore claimed that he knew a lot about sex. 

Besides that, so many have sex early and that changes over time and gets less and less. We see that on this forum. Having sex early in a relationship guarantees nothing.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

30 years of failure makes me convinced that sometimes sex can't be fixed, even if everything else is great. Its not a matter of lack of technique, it an issue that some people simply are not interested in sex, and others have very different ideas of what is a reasonable sex life. 



Diana7 said:


> It's not about sex being 'bad' or 'good', it's something that can be worked on and improved over the years. I would far rather marry a man who hadn't slept around and who was initially inexperienced than one who has had multiple partners who therefore claimed that he knew a lot about sex.
> 
> Besides that, so many have sex early and that changes over time and gets less and less. We see that on this forum. Having sex early in a relationship guarantees nothing.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think women are at much more risk of being sexually assaulted, but delaying sex doesn't change that risk - you have to avoid being anywhere alone with your date. 

Otherwise, I think the risks are not that different. In the modern world with pregnancy tests, both are taking risks of needing to support a child for the rest of their lives, risks of STDs etc. I don't see that much difference there. 



wild jade said:


> I understand why a lot of women want to wait ... or at least slow things down. Women take a lot more risks than men do when it comes to sex and relationships.
> 
> But personally, I would never wait for the sake of waiting. It's actually not all that helpful in weeding out the good from the bad, at least IMHO.


----------



## ericthesane (May 10, 2013)

There is, I suppose, also a matter of signals, and communication, and failure to do both, particularly if you are not a very seasoned dater/poor at signal reading/'playing the game':

1 'OK, this was the 4th date, and no sex; she obviously have no interest in me beyond that of a platonic acquaintance; better call it quits now. 

vs.

2 'OK: This was the 4th date, and no sex; she obviously has standards and high expectations, and that, is great; it will make it even better when it does happen because she is obviously interested in me beyond mere conversations.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

uhtred said:


> 30 years of failure makes me convinced that sometimes sex can't be fixed, even if everything else is great. Its not a matter of lack of technique, it an issue that some people simply are not interested in sex, and others have very different ideas of what is a reasonable sex life.


it can be fixed and improved if both are determined and willing to put that effort into it. Compromise is important as well.


----------



## Jessica38 (Feb 28, 2017)

uhtred said:


> 30 years of failure makes me convinced that sometimes sex can't be fixed, even if everything else is great. Its not a matter of lack of technique, it an issue that some people simply are not interested in sex, and others have very different ideas of what is a reasonable sex life.


I'm not so sure. You're talking about 30 years with the same person, right? I often hear Dr. Harley say that he is usually able to fix the sexual issues a couple has once they improve the marriage. And sex therapists typically say the same thing. I don't deny your experience, and I think it's true that it's often not a matter of technique, but more about creating an atmosphere of desire for the spouse with a lower-drive. Many women are not interested in sex until they've had their higher-ranked emotional needs met first (intimate conversation, affection, and companionship). Unfortunately, many couples don't make time for this in a long-term marriage, so a woman's sex drive is perpetually very low.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

uhtred said:


> I think women are at much more risk of being sexually assaulted, but delaying sex doesn't change that risk - you have to avoid being anywhere alone with your date.
> 
> Otherwise, I think the risks are not that different. In the modern world with pregnancy tests, both are taking risks of needing to support a child for the rest of their lives, risks of STDs etc. I don't see that much difference there.


Actually delaying sex does change the risk of physical danger, quite substantially, because it gives you more time to get a read on the type of person you are with.

I'm pretty good at reading people and fairly quickly, but it can be hard to see through the smoke and mirrors. Time fixes that. 

As for pregnancy, perhaps this is just my experience as a woman, but in most instances that I know of where a single woman gets herself knocked up, she is the one left holding the whole bag. Certainly it isn't just a matter of dishing out a check.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I believe "usually". I think in many cases a bad sex life is the result of other marriage issues - but not all. You will find several posters here who's relationships are fine (at least as far as they can tell) but where there is severe sexual incompatibly - either in desired frequency or in the sorts of activities that they enjoy.

People with typical levels of desire often can't imagine not wanting sex when everything else in a relationship is great, but it does happen. The result is a bad situation where one partner feels constantly rejected, and the other constantly pressured. No one is at fault, but its miserable for both. 

Having sex before there is a permanent commitment can let people find out about this sort of problem before its too late. Otherwise wanting to "wait" for sex is indistinguishable from "not really wanting much sex". 




Jessica38 said:


> I'm not so sure. You're talking about 30 years with the same person, right? I often hear Dr. Harley say that he is usually able to fix the sexual issues a couple has once they improve the marriage. And sex therapists typically say the same thing. I don't deny your experience, and I think it's true that it's often not a matter of technique, but more about creating an atmosphere of desire for the spouse with a lower-drive. Many women are not interested in sex until they've had their higher-ranked emotional needs met first (intimate conversation, affection, and companionship). Unfortunately, many couples don't make time for this in a long-term marriage, so a woman's sex drive is perpetually very low.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Not arguing, but I don't see how sex changes the risk. I'd think its being alone with someone that presents a potential danger, even if you don't have sex. Of course in order to have sex, you need to be alone together, so maybe that is what you mean.

Don't paternity tests mean that women can now get child support? I don't mean to be naive, I just thought that's how it worked. 

The woman is suck actually raising the child - even if she gets support money. OTOH, the woman has (depending on her beliefs) the option of an abortion, while the man doesn't. 

In any case, "who's risk is worse" isn't really important, both are at significant risk. 






wild jade said:


> Actually delaying sex does change the risk of physical danger, quite substantially, because it gives you more time to get a read on the type of person you are with.
> 
> I'm pretty good at reading people and fairly quickly, but it can be hard to see through the smoke and mirrors. Time fixes that.
> 
> As for pregnancy, perhaps this is just my experience as a woman, but in most instances that I know of where a single woman gets herself knocked up, she is the one left holding the whole bag. Certainly it isn't just a matter of dishing out a check.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

uhtred said:


> Not arguing, but I don't see how sex changes the risk. I'd think its being alone with someone that presents a potential danger, even if you don't have sex. Of course in order to have sex, you need to be alone together, so maybe that is what you mean.
> 
> Don't paternity tests mean that women can now get child support? I don't mean to be naive, I just thought that's how it worked.
> 
> ...


There are a couple of layers here. First off, definitely the public/private thing. People are usually very well behaved when there are witnesses, but many are much less so in private, in a "your word against mine" scenario. IME, the difference between public and private can be huge, and I've seen plenty of guys act in ways that they most assuredly wouldn't in a restaurant or movie theater, particularly when the prospect of sex is involved. This is why women are always, always advised to have first dates, even second ones, in very public places with lots of people around. 

Second, guys that are trying to get into your pants are, generally speaking, more likely to treat you well, but once sex has been had once, the facade - where there is a facade - drops. So quite a number of women will try to delay sex to get a better sense of whether it is a facade and what lies behind it before having to wake up beside it and be surprised. 

This isn't a pissing contest as to who takes on more risk in dating. No doubt guys do take some risks, but IME, they absolutely never worry about what might happen if they find themselves alone with a strange woman. Most would probably laugh at you if you suggested they think about it. And they also don't seem to worry too much about waking up next to a witch. Perhaps they should. But they don't. 

As for the pregnancy thing, yes, DNA can allow you to track down a father (assuming you can get him to do the test) and then file for child support. If you are lucky, you will get a check. But there's a whole lot more to raising a child than writing a check. And yes, abortion is an option, but for a lot of women this is a very difficult procedure. I don't mean technically, I mean emotionally. 

IME most guys do take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancy and realize it as a risk, but are, generally speaking, much less invested in the ramifications if birth control should fail. It's much more likely that they can think of it as the sort of thing you can throw a bit of money at and the problem will go away.

And my only real point with all of this is, IMHO, these are the sorts of reasons that explain why women are much more likely to want to wait longer before having sex.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I am one of those women who felt strongly to wait till I was married to go "all the way"... this didn't mean we didn't have our fun... this didn't mean we were lacking hormones, that either one of us didn't care about this aspect of a relationship, or I was frigid... QUITE THE CONTRARY.. we are both highly touchy feely... and it's one of the reasons we are so dang compatible.. it's just that we felt strongly about Marriage, what it represented.... it's something I promised myself, to weed out the users when I was young & innocent, when I dreamed of "the one". ...I guess I was lucky to find the perfect guy for me...it's something my husband deeply valued, how I felt on this... but true.... we were young.. we had time on our side...and still.. we had our FUN ...while we slowly built the foundation for what we share today... emotionally/ physically.. all of it.. 

I often feel for those who still care or try to hang on to the beautifulness of this.... in today's society...any sort of waiting is associated with being a cold fish or readily mocked, worthy of a dumping sooner over later.... why waste your time..... it's like some people can not comprehend that fusing our bodies with another human being is something deeply meaningful, it's intimacy at it's core, something very very special , set apart.. not to be shared with just anyone....one can have a high sex drive and still yearn for this aspect ..

It would be so much easier to separate love & sex and just boink everything we met... but in our hearts.. for some of us.. this is not OK.. it's not what we want for our lives.. we believe some things are worth waiting for.. when the time is right.. when we can physically express what is in our hearts too. It's so much more than just Pleasure...it's intimacy.... it's a giving of ourselves and the receiving is full of meaning as well... it's all encompassing..

Look... I am a romantic.. that's my perspective...It's never been "just sex" to me.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am one of those women who felt strongly to wait till I was married to go "all the way"... this didn't mean we didn't have our fun... this didn't mean we were lacking hormones, that either one of us didn't care about this aspect of a relationship, or I was frigid... QUITE THE CONTRARY.. we are both highly touchy feely... and it's one of the reasons we are so dang compatible.. it's just that we felt strongly about Marriage, what it represented.... it's something I promised myself, to weed out the users when I was young & innocent, when I dreamed of "the one". ...I guess I was lucky to find the perfect guy for me...it's something my husband deeply valued, how I felt on this... but true.... we were young.. we had time on our side...and still.. we had our FUN ...while we slowly built the foundation for what we share today... emotionally/ physically.. all of it..
> 
> I often feel for those who still care or try to hang on to the beautifulness of this.... in today's society...any sort of waiting is associated with being a cold fish or readily mocked, worthy of a dumping sooner over later.... why waste your time..... it's like some people can not comprehend that fusing our bodies with another human being is something deeply meaningful, it's intimacy at it's core, something very very special , set apart.. not to be shared with just anyone....one can have a high sex drive and still yearn for this aspect ..
> 
> ...


So beautifully put. :smile2:
The treatment of those who want to wait or have waited is often not good. Some will laugh at a man or woman who is still a virgin into their 20's or even 30's. People are accused or being gay, or that they have 'issues' or 'hang ups' about sex, or have no sex drive or whatever and that is SO wrong. 
Many can't understand how we can wait if we are normal hot-blooded people, well we can and do and like you said, it's because sex for us is so important and precious, all connected with complete commitment. Yes we needed self-control and discipline, but that's important in all aspects of life and to me it shows character and strength to go against the flow and wait. 

The fact that someone may dump another who refuses sex, just proves that they have very different values and aren't right for each other anyway. I know a young lady who ended 2 relationships for that reason. She was being pressured into sex far soon and thankfully she didn't give in and realized that if they didn't respect her values they weren't worth carrying on with.

I have nothing but respect for people who have those values, a moral man is a massive attraction to me. An immoral man is a complete turn off to me.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

wild jade said:


> There are a couple of layers here. First off, definitely the public/private thing. People are usually very well behaved when there are witnesses, but many are much less so in private, in a "your word against mine" scenario. IME, the difference between public and private can be huge, and I've seen plenty of guys act in ways that they most assuredly wouldn't in a restaurant or movie theater, particularly when the prospect of sex is involved. This is why women are always, always advised to have first dates, even second ones, in very public places with lots of people around.


Agreed, there are many layers to this subject. One layer than I think perhaps men are not seeing is the potential to be *physically hurt during the sexual act* ... bites, hitting, hard pounding, etc.

This has happened to me and other women I know.


----------



## Phil Anders (Jun 24, 2015)

Diana7 said:


> The fact that someone may dump another who refuses sex, just proves that they have very different values and aren't right for each other anyway. I know a young lady who ended 2 relationships for that reason. She was being pressured into sex far soon and thankfully she didn't give in and realized that if they didn't respect her values they weren't worth carrying on with.
> 
> I have nothing but respect for people who have those values, a moral man is a massive attraction to me. An immoral man is a complete turn off to me.


It's great if potential partners respect each other's boundaries. Even better if they actually see eye to eye on "values" regarding the timing of sex. 

But it would also be great if people could refrain from casting those who prefer to move faster as "immoral".


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am one of those women who felt strongly to wait till I was married to go "all the way"... this didn't mean we didn't have our fun... this didn't mean we were lacking hormones, that either one of us didn't care about this aspect of a relationship, or I was frigid... QUITE THE CONTRARY.. we are both highly touchy feely... and it's one of the reasons we are so dang compatible.. it's just that we felt strongly about Marriage, what it represented.... it's something I promised myself, to weed out the users when I was young & innocent, when I dreamed of "the one". ...I guess I was lucky to find the perfect guy for me...it's something my husband deeply valued, how I felt on this... but true.... we were young.. we had time on our side...and still.. we had our FUN ...while we slowly built the foundation for what we share today... emotionally/ physically.. all of it..
> 
> I often feel for those who still care or try to hang on to the beautifulness of this.... in today's society...any sort of waiting is associated with being a cold fish or readily mocked, worthy of a dumping sooner over later.... why waste your time..... it's like some people can not comprehend that fusing our bodies with another human being is something deeply meaningful, it's intimacy at it's core, something very very special , set apart.. not to be shared with just anyone....one can have a high sex drive and still yearn for this aspect ..
> 
> ...


It depends a little bit on just how long we're talking about waiting, don't you think? I mean, it's one thing to get married at, say 18 or 20, and another thing altogether if you wait until 30 (which is how old I was when I got hitched).

Honestly, there is no way on earth I was going to wait until I was 30 to have sex and there was no way on earth I was going to marry some guy just for the sake of being married. Not saying you did this of course, just pointing out that when we're talking about "waiting" we might be talking about a really, really long time.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Phil Anders said:


> It's great if potential partners respect each other's boundaries. Even better if they actually see eye to eye on "values" regarding the timing of sex.
> 
> But it would also be great if people could refrain from casting those who prefer to move faster as "immoral".


I was referring to sexual morals. I think that many would agree that those who sleep around, have one night stands, cheat, go to prostitutes, strip clubs etc have low sexual morals.

One of the dictionary meanings of the word moral is this.
3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

wild jade said:


> It depends a little bit on just how long we're talking about waiting, don't you think? I mean, it's one thing to get married at, say 18 or 20, and another thing altogether if you wait until 30 (which is how old I was when I got hitched).
> 
> Honestly, there is no way on earth I was going to wait until I was 30 to have sex and there was no way on earth I was going to marry some guy just for the sake of being married. Not saying you did this of course, just pointing out that when we're talking about "waiting" we might be talking about a really, really long time.


My husband was 25 when he first married and had sex. He has never had sex outside marriage. I know people who waited till they married in their 30's. One couple we are friends with got married age 39/41 and they waited for the marriage before they had sex. 25 years later, they have one of the happiest and strongest marriages I have ever known of.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> My husband was 25 when he first married and had sex. He has never had sex outside marriage. I know people who waited till they married in their 30's. One couple we are friends with got married age 39/41 and they waited for the marriage before they had sex. 25 years later, they have one of the happiest and strongest marriages I have ever known of.


It's a lovely story, and I'm happy for them. I too know one or two people who were virgins well into their twenties too, although they weren't actually waiting for marriage ....

Personally, I wasn't going to wait to 18, let alone 30. And I honestly don't see the point. If I had had sex with only one man, I'm quite sure I'd be wondering what others were like, and probably regretful that I didn't date around some. 

Of course, I was never terribly marriage-oriented either, so it's not like I was waiting for it. It just turned out that my husband was the right one for me. Meanwhile, there was no way I would even consider giving up a life of fun, love, and relationships because of some idea that marriage is the only place where it is "moral" to have sex. I pick immoral. >


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

People on both sides of the issue make negative judgements about the other and then protest when they are themselves judged negatively. I see no right or wrong position, as long as the person is honest and upfront with the other about their plans. And that's the problem. So many are not. 

For myself, I never dated a woman more than about a month before having sex. This is because if we had not had sex within that time period, I lost interest. I see sex as an integral part of any romantic relationship. For me, it's absolutely necessary to form the kind of bond that makes me want to escalate the relationship. I'm a passionate, emotional man. I want to be with someone who has the same qualities. Any woman who feels that physical attraction to me but can suppress it in order to vett me out for long term potential is not wrong, she is just very wrong for me. 

I suppose I can understand a woman's concerns about safety and physical vulnerability, but it also seems to me that if she is willing to get into a car alone with me or come up to my apartment by herself, she has already decided that I am not a threat. I don't believe I have had sex with a woman who didn't spend some time alone with me (and vulnerable) since I was in college. That being said, I can understand such fears if the woman has been a victim of sexual crimes in the past. I know it is unrealistic, but I would hope that she would be honest about this too. 

While there have been times that sex has been a very spiritual, significant event to me it is not always that way. Sometimes it is just something really enjoyable. Other times it is simply a need for a release. Someone who thinks that sex is a precious commodity that has to be saved for the "right time" would be wildly incompatible with me. Again, not a right or wrong but something that should be openly and honestly discussed. 

There's a recurring theme of a woman feeling used if she has sex and the relationship fades shortly after. I suppose I can see this if the sole purpose of dating is to find a spouse, but that seems just as manipulative as the man who pretends to have long term interest just to get in her pants. I want to be with a woman who enjoys sex. Such a woman would not feel used after sex because sex would not be a chess piece she was using strategically. She would want and enjoy it as much as I do. She may be disappointed and hurt if the relationship fizzled, but she wouldn't be upset that she enjoyed a night of sex with a man she was attracted to. 

If you want to avoid being hurt while dating, have the conversation early. Be upfront about what you want and don't want. If the other person appears to be reluctant or incapable of clearly communicating what they want, walk away. Poor communication is far more detrimental to a relationship than when you have sex anyway.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Diana7 said:


> My husband was 25 when he first married and had sex. He has never had sex outside marriage. I know people who waited till they married in their 30's. One couple we are friends with got married age 39/41 and they waited for the marriage before they had sex. 25 years later, they have one of the happiest and strongest marriages I have ever known of.


Yeah, if I waited to have sex until I was in my mid-20's or darn near 40, I'd be happy with my marriage, too. After waiting that long and only having the one partner, I imagine any sex would feel good and I would lack the knowledge and experience to know whether or not it was actually good sex as opposed to just good enough.

It's sweet that you and the friends you mentioned were willing to date and marry a virgin, but I couldn't do it. I have no interest in a man without a fair amount of experience. For me it would be a compatibility issue. I have had a varied and interesting sex life with many partners. I was adventurous and did lots of experimenting. Those experiences shaped me over the years and formed parts of who I am as a person and as a lover. I wouldn't be compatible with someone who hadn't been there and couldn't relate.

Not to mention, there are a few things a large number of people seem to really want to do sexually and some of them aren't exactly a good idea to do in a committed relationship. Best to get that out of the system before settling down to a LTR or marriage. 

Further proof there is a lid for every pot.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

zookeeper said:


> There's a recurring theme of a *woman feeling used if she has sex and the relationship fades shortly after*.


I don't get it and I'm a woman. I don't understand how having sex with a man means I have been used. I, presumably, got just as much out of it as he did.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

wild jade said:


> It's a lovely story, and I'm happy for them. I too know one or two people who were virgins well into their twenties too, although they weren't actually waiting for marriage ....
> 
> Personally, I wasn't going to wait to 18, let alone 30. And I honestly don't see the point. If I had had sex with only one man, I'm quite sure I'd be wondering what others were like, and probably regretful that I didn't date around some.
> 
> Of course, I was never terribly marriage-oriented either, so it's not like I was waiting for it. It just turned out that my husband was the right one for me. Meanwhile, there was no way I would even consider giving up a life of fun, love, and relationships because of some idea that marriage is the only place where it is "moral" to have sex. I pick immoral. >


I regret having sex outside marriage. It was only one man and also my first husband who I had sex with before marriage, but I wish I had waited. With my now husband we did wait, so glad we did. I never ever wonder what it would be like having sex with loads of men, because men who sleep around aren't sexually attractive to me anyway. I am 100% happy with having sex with my one man because I love him to bits, and no other man would interest me. 
For me marriage, faithfulness, complete commitment, and strong moral values are very important, maybe partly because so many people in my family didn't value those things and destroyed many lives. 
As I have got older the more I have seen the wisdom of these things in life.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> I regret having sex outside marriage. It was only one man and also my first husband who I had sex with before marriage, but I wish I had waited. With my now husband we did wait, so glad we did. I never ever wonder what it would be like having sex with loads of men, because men who sleep around aren't sexually attractive to me anyway. I am 100% happy with having sex with my one man because I love him to bits, and no other man would interest me.
> For me marriage, faithfulness, complete commitment, and strong moral values are very important, maybe partly because so many people in my family didn't value those things and destroyed many lives.
> *As I have got older the more I have seen the wisdom of these things in life*.


Me, too. Saves a lot of headache and heartache.

But the relationships I had before my husband taught me things I may not have learned any other way. So there is value there, too.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

wild jade said:


> It depends a little bit on just how long we're talking about waiting, don't you think? I mean, it's one thing to get married at, say 18 or 20, and another thing altogether if you wait until 30 (which is how old I was when I got hitched).
> 
> Honestly, there is no way on earth I was going to wait until I was 30 to have sex and there was no way on earth I was going to marry some guy just for the sake of being married. Not saying you did this of course, just pointing out that when we're talking about "waiting" we might be talking about a really, really long time.


No... I didn't get married just to get married.. I doubt many feel this way today anyhow.. as marriage is deemed just a piece of paper.... who needs it...meanwhile Open marriages are gaining in acceptance .,. My views on this forum will always sound "old school" to many.. I've always gotten a warm feeling when I watch older movies where things were more innocent, or heard my Grandmother speak about her courtship with my Grandfather..... I don't care if they were cultural restraints... love seemed purer......intentions more sincere..... when men treated women like Ladies, when marriage meant something... this was what I wanted in life, my highest hopes.. I had no desire to fool around with the hot guys... I wanted something real... I felt very strongly about it back then.. I still do today... 

I am a huge proponent for "compatibility"... . without it.....Marriage WILL BE A continual UPHILL battle and resentment will inevitably set in... no matter what age any of us find that person ...each needs to know thyself, what is your deal breakers, what can you live with, or could not... Hanging out here for years now...reading the thoughts & feelings of countless men & women...maybe I was living under a rock.. but it's been enlightening to me how many women never cared about marriage to begin with.. (you said this yourself)... you wasn't going to miss having fun ... meanwhile add all the articles /books telling us we were never meant to be monogamous, why fight it.... I do believe there is a hormonal component to some of this (read a # of scientific articles on this).. but also how were were raised, what inspires us, our values play a huge role too... 

I've often looked at it this way... The more sensitive Romantic types, they've always seemed more "giving" to me, more wanting to share, to attach, seeking that lover/ companionship ideal... having higher hopes of something lasting... what they share with another is generally held precious and very special.... I simply could not be with a man who wasn't wired this way...if he could bang 'em and leave them, thinking little of it...this would bother me on a fundamental level , we'd have virtually nothing in common or to build upon.. 

For example.. @zookeeper said this


> While there have been times that sex has been a very spiritual, significant event to me it is not always that way. Sometimes it is just something really enjoyable. Other times it is simply a need for a release.


 Take my husband in comparison...he's told me it's never just a release for him.. he speaks of the bonding many times..... I never tire of sex because I always feel deeply loved..I crave it even... it doesn't matter if I am "feeling it" in that moment.. I still gravitate to him, desiring to go there.....combine the emotional with the pleasurable in this.... there is no greater high..

I suppose both sides are very misunderstood.. we have to be.. every time I read a post that would never put up with a woman like me (in my youth)... I feel they do not "GET ME".. .. as they can not express what sex means in my language.. they seem incapable of doing this.. 

One thing I wasn't though was manipulative, trying to hog tie a man ... if I didn't feel his WANT of me.. I'd not be fulfilled.. I am not a nag, I am sensitive after all and very in tuned to how a guy feels and if he's just "going along"... I was a pretty good looking girl back then.. I had options.. I was completely unabashedly open to my husband to how I felt.. WHY I felt as I did...(more to the story- how such things affected another in my life)... I laid it out.. what I got in return was -more of his trust, he respected me more so, I felt deeply understood .. which surely played into why I KNEW I found the right man for me.. he was a keeper.. 




> *MJJEAN said*: I don't get it and I'm a woman. *I don't understand how having sex with a man means I have been used. I, presumably, got just as much out of it as he did.*


 you will never understand this as you are not wired like those who feel this way.. I will attempt to explain.. even though you won't find any value in it, you may even find it silly... why anyone would pass up pleasure when it's there for the taking... 

I feel sharing one's body with another is the height of love , giving and bonding.. it is the physical expression of one's devotion, it has emotional strings ...so If I was to engage with a man I felt LOVED me the way I loved him.. only to find out.. as Zookeeper said.. it was just a "physical release, nothing more".. this would emotionally CRUSH ME as I felt it meant something... I would be so ANGRY, hurt after the fact for being so stupid, so blind... while still longing to be with the ass hole...meanwhile he's off boinking another... That's just messed up.. 

Also I felt (and saw beauty in this) that the man who willingly gives me his heart, his life, his hand in marriage.. he is the one deserving to have my ALL, my heart, my body.. (I never felt it wrong some fooling around while dating, pleasure is exciting [email protected]# ... just that I had a specific boundary reserved for the man I married... with that.. there would be no regrets.. 

Whether this is right , wrong or just plain stupid for others.. this is where I was..


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> I don't get it and I'm a woman. I don't understand how having sex with a man means I have been used. I, presumably, got just as much out of it as he did.


You may feel more empowered in general and less bound by conservative cultural expectations than a woman who felt she was used.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't mind waiting a while for sex, especially if I'm looking for a lasting relationship. A few months is okay - but any longer and I'd probably conclude we're simply not compatible in our sexuality or attitudes towards sex. Generally, the women have all initiated sex by the fourth date (or sooner), so I've never really had to test my willingness to wait. I'm also fine with casual sex, where the goal is primarily sex, having fun, or scratching that itch, with no relationship expected or implied. I also don't have a negative opinion of women who want the same - and if we happen to hit it off, they become relationship prospects, too.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

SimplyAmorous said:


> you will never understand this as you are not wired like those who feel this way.. I will attempt to explain.. even though you won't find any value in it, you may even find it silly... why anyone would pass up pleasure when it's there for the taking...
> 
> I feel sharing one's body with another is the height of love , giving and bonding.. it is the physical expression of one's devotion, it has emotional strings ...so If I was to engage with a man I felt LOVED me the way I loved him.. only to find out.. as Zookeeper said.. it was just a "physical release, nothing more".. this would emotionally CRUSH ME as I felt it meant something... I would be so ANGRY, hurt after the fact for being so stupid, so blind... while still longing to be with the ass hole...meanwhile he's off boinking another... That's just messed up..


I don't think it's silly. For me, sex CAN be about expressing feeling physically and an emotionally bonding experience. It can also be all about pleasure without anything other than a general liking and chemistry. It all depends on my feelings for my partner and what kind of relationship we have.





jld said:


> You may feel more empowered in general and less bound by conservative cultural expectations than a woman who felt she was used.


Probably.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> I don't get it and I'm a woman. I don't understand how having sex with a man means I have been used. I, presumably, got just as much out of it as he did.


I don't think it's the having sex. I think it's being misled as to what the sex was about. I've had guys outright lie to me about how they felt about me to get into my pants, and while I can see through all that crap now, there were times when I was younger that I actually believed it. And that made me feel used ... not because we had sex, but because I was conned.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

wild jade said:


> I don't think it's the having sex. I think it's being misled as to what the sex was about. I've had guys outright lie to me about how they felt about me to get into my pants, and while I can see through all that crap now, there were times when I was younger that I actually believed it. And that made me feel used ... not because we had sex, but because I was conned.


I NEVER trusted what a young man said to me.. if one is wired like me.... words are meaningless, I especially never trusted guys who find enjoyment in Flirting for a past time, to me, those were all players.... far too many are Grand liars & manipulators.. 

Actions, how a man treats you, if he shows he WANTS to spend time with you, you feel his care, over a stretch of time to where you feel you can open up to him like no other, and he's also showing some vulnerability.... for me.. this is essential...

It takes *TIME* to really get to know someone... this can't be rushed.. it's like peeling back the layers of an onion in showing our true selves, what we're made of... some never even get that deep..they start sex on the 2nd date... and it all fizzles, the emotional takes a back seat.. 

That's another thing I would not be satisfied with.. if I felt holding back from a man, some "wall" I could not penetrate in a relationship... I'd have to get out.. I'd long for someone who could go there with me..


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

wild jade said:


> I don't think it's the having sex. I think it's being misled as to what the sex was about. I've had guys outright lie to me about how they felt about me to get into my pants, and while I can see through all that crap now, there were times when I was younger that I actually believed it. And that made me feel used ... not because we had sex, but because I was conned.


 I've never imagined sex is about anything but sex unless/until an emotional attachment and committed relationship has developed over time. I'd guess part of that is I had mostly male friends growing up. Some of my guy friends growing up were just shameless in pursuit of sex. If any of you folks want to keep your daughters from swallowing whatever line some guy uses to separate her from her panties have her hang out with primarily boys from age 10 until about 18 or so. By then, she'll have seen and heard enough to know better.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

WilliamM said:


> In this case I don't think it's a holier than thou case.
> 
> I don't see eye to eye with most religious views. But I do see the wisdom of self protection.
> 
> I think it's pretty petty to stoop to saying someone who doesn't agree, in what I see as benign language, is saying holier than thou.


Caling some one immoral if they don't agree with you is far from benign language. It is judemental and condescending, hence "holier that thou"


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> it can be fixed and improved if both are determined and willing to put that effort into it. Compromise is important as well.


BOTH, that is the key word. You seem to ignore that word. In your mind you equate "both" with what ever it is you want. If they want something else, they are immoral. It is all cool, that you want what you want, but that doesn't make the other side wrong or immoral, it just makes them wrong for you.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> I've never imagined sex is about anything but sex unless/until an emotional attachment and committed relationship has developed over time. I'd guess part of that is I had mostly male friends growing up. Some of my guy friends growing up were just shameless in pursuit of sex. If any of you folks want to keep your daughters from swallowing whatever line some guy uses to separate her from her panties have her hang out with primarily boys from age 10 until about 18 or so. By then, she'll have seen and heard enough to know better.


Huh. None of my male friends were like that. Nor was my brother. I was raised in an environment where people said what they meant, not lines to get what they want. So I guess I was pretty unprepared for dating. 

Not that I was totally gullible. I had about 8 marriage proposals, for example, that I could only roll my eyes at. And the gushing "never met anyone like you" stuff, well, uh, yeah, sure. Tell me another one, dude.

It took me a while, though, to realize what @SimplyAmorous knew right away, that all the words were just meaningless. And most of the actions too, for that matter.

It's a shame, really, because the truth was that I wanted sex too, and so I really didn't need to be conned into it. Not that it changes anything for the guys, of course, but now I'm so jaded, I don't even hear compliments --


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

MJJEAN said:


> I don't get it and I'm a woman. I don't understand how having sex with a man means I have been used. I, presumably, got just as much out of it as he did.


 That is probably because, to you, sex isn't a tool or prize to hold over another to get what you want (whether that be a relationship, money or control). More often than not, those who feel "used" only feel that way because they didn't get what they wanted in return, so they feel cheated. As a man I applaud your honesty and openness.
PS, in fact as a man who has felt used himself, I am loath to involve myself with any woman who gives me the vibe that, that is all sex is to her - a treat to be given upon mastering some new trick.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> I was referring to sexual morals. I think that many would agree that those who sleep around, have one night stands, cheat, go to prostitutes, strip clubs etc have low sexual morals.
> 
> One of the dictionary meanings of the word moral is this.
> 3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.


I notice that your definition doesn't say, according to Diana7. People who want sex earlier are applying rules of conduct. They just are not the same rules of conduct you may choose to follow. That doesn't make them immoral, it just means they have different rules of conduct.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

I've said it before on this message board ..... but just in cast this is the only thread someone reads about "when is the first time optimal in a relationship" I'll say it again.

Men can use women for other things in addition to sex. Which means to me that just because the guy is avoiding sex with me does not mean that he thinks so highly of me and is just waiting to have that long term relationship with me ...... which just might "end in marriage." ..... as some people say.

So what can men use women for that might result in the withholding of sex

1. They could be looking for a beard. All the while very publicly and privately claiming that they are on the marriage track -- and therefore require exclusivity .... for all to see, the guy could be doing everything he can to avoid sex; to avoid certain sex acts as I encountered such as oral sex (even when he's getting his) or any kind of direct clitoral, labial, vaginal stimulation.......... 

imagine finding this stuff out on your wedding night.

2. the other is if you're dating someone who is multi dating you........ even if he does swear "she's just a friend........" After several weeks, valuable time that you could be seeing someone else, introducing him to your friends and possibly some other resources extinguished, you could be dumped and the guy could raise his open hands and sigh "well, at least I wasn't using you for sex." For those of you who are waiting until marriage / engagement / whatever, would that make you feel better?

At the same time, I sympathise with guys who are trying to figure out whether there is future with this woman or is he just a free meal ticket to her.

Both men and women need to show that there is some physical attraction by allowing open mouth kisses ... progressively more passionate..... and other forms of physical affection.

Nothing is fool proof but I think the above does help.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

@NextTimeAround, very true. It works both ways. As for myself, I would rather know sooner than later. Not to say it is fool proof, or without risks. Whatever those are I think knowing beats not knowing any day of the week and the benefits that come from knowing far outweigh whatever the risks are. Especially in today's world.


----------



## AVR1962 (May 30, 2012)

I am 57, divorced almost 4 years after a 24 year marriage. Dating in my 50's has been "something" for sure!!!! I have had men of all ages ask me out. I engaged in a relationship 3 years ago where he told me he was not ready to be in a relationship yet so we agreed to be friends first. We really enjoyed each other's company and it was freeing not to have sex on the plate. 5 1/2 months into this he claimed he was ready and it was crazy combustible and I fell hard for this man. He had taken the time to get to know me but unfortunately it was over just as quickly and I was heart broke...not sure I was the only lady in the picture.

Several men and I have had the discussion of sex in relationships, or dating. Many have told me that sex comes with dating, it is part of getting to know one another. However, when the brain is flooded with hormones it is easy to overlook the things that we should see as warning signs. One thing I always make clear to a man that I start seeing is I need to get to know them. I have had some who wanted to be exclusive on the first date and I tell them I cannot be. I let them know that ultimately I am looking for a long term relationship and for me it takes spending time together so we can get to know one another. I don't want to rush into sex but most men want it at the 3-4 date. One man and I had 10 dates and was always all over me and I told him I just wanted to get to know him but after 10 dates I didn't hear from him again which was fine.

Personally I don't think there is any magical answers far as when it is appropriate to become involved sexually. I struggle more with the hormones that connect us once involved. I have found I am the one whose brain gets flooded longer and of the men I have had relationships with they come out of the hormonal flooding and continue life and I am still in la la land wondering what happened that they are not the same. This puts us on different levels and then I have to try to reign back. I have even tried to keep telling myself that we have to get past this hormone stage to see what is left on the other side, as I do find I get attached and for me my age attachment seems the last thing they want.


----------

