# Your opi nion of women who have sex on the first date . . .



## lookinforhelpandhope

. . . asking for obvious reasons.

Would you still be interestred in the woman?
Is it a complete deal breaker?
Appreciate your thoughts and opinios :scratchhead:


----------



## Hicks

The better question is "is it a deal breaker if a woman does not have sex on the first date".


----------



## 2ntnuf

My opinion of them?

-they are horny
-they know what they want and aren't afraid to go after it
-they can compartmentalize easily
-they don't consider sex with relative strangers scary, dangerous, unacceptable, or problematic
-they will get what they want, when they want it
-they don't worry about what others think of them
-they have confidence in themselves

That's it for now.

As for the second question?

The answers will be all over the place. If you have to ask this, you are going after the wrong man. The man you want will not think it's a dealbreaker. He will think similarly to you, whatever that is. 

In my opinion, you are setting him up when you go for a man who isn't willing to marry a woman who has sex on the first date. If he does it, it's a double standard and you don't want to marry him, anyway. 

Communication and compatibility in all things is important.


----------



## Marduk

Fun, but generally not LTR material.

Date while looking for someone that is.


----------



## xakulax

Any woman who give it up on the first date is either one of two things desperate or desperate whether it's desperately looking for attention desperately looking for a relationship or desperately looking for sex no matter how you look at it It reeks desperation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lol!


----------



## Stevenj

xakulax said:


> Any woman who give it up on the first date is either one of two things desperate or desperate whether it's desperately looking for attention desperately looking for a relationship or desperately looking for sex no matter how you look at it It reeks desperation.


She could also be drunk.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

Thanks for the responses so far guys.

Hicks, lol, I like that perspective.

2ntnuf, to my way of thinking, that makes a lot of sense. Whether anything will come of this or not, I have no idea. Left the ball entirely in his court and just not sure which way it'll got yet.

marduk, I sort of expected quite a lot of people would say that.

xakulax, I do see where you're coming from but to set the record straight, I'm far from desparate. I've had quite a few opportunities of late to hookup with to start dating people have have declined each and every one of them because something was just missing. In the case of this weekend, it was just a meet someone new who seemed like we would get along and see what happens. After a few drinks and a lot of fun nobody was in anty fit state to drive home and it all just unravelled from there.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

Stevenj said:


> She could also be drunk.


Yup!!! That's exactly what happened although there was genuine sttraction, not just physically.


----------



## xakulax

So you where drunk and she was drunk and then :smthumbup: 



how did she act afterwords ?


----------



## GIM003

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> . . . asking for obvious reasons.
> 
> Would you still be interestred in the woman?
> Is it a complete deal breaker?
> Appreciate your thoughts and opinios :scratchhead:


For me I think that it would be a caution flag, but not an automatic deal breaker. Depending on the circumstances, she might be asking the same question (whatever it might say about her, it might also say about you...)


----------



## CharlieParker

xakulax said:


> So you where drunk and she was drunk and then :smthumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> how did she act afterwords ?


Yes, raises hand, that's how it worked for us. And technically it was before we actually had our first date. 

Afterwards we went on a real date and eventually got married. I think it worked out ok, been married for 21 years.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

xakulax said:


> So you where drunk and she was drunk and then :smthumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> how did she act afterwords ?


well, i'm the female but yes, we were both drunk. haha, me to a far greater extent tham him!!! 

next day we went to breakfast and he suggested meeting up again that night. he then seemed to really back off and long story short, we didn't meet up again the next night.

i just left it along the lines of no problem and let him know i had a good time.


----------



## karole

I had sex with my husband on the first date and we will celebrate our 28 year anniversary in the fall of this year...............absolutely no regrets. Oh, and we were not drunk.


----------



## Married but Happy

If they're having sex with me, who am I to judge them? I prefer to wait until the second date, though, but it's not a hard and fast rule.

It used to be that women had a lot more at risk from casual sex. That is far less true now in an age of reliable birth control, so those who use BC responsibly (as should the man, of course) have all the options and should be perceived just as all the men are who do the same.

Double standards and prejudices die a long and hard death, and this one is no different. Besides, I'd much rather find a woman who likes sex and isn't afraid to show it - and marry her - than one who is uptight about sex and would be happy with a sexless marriage. Been there, done that, and learned my lesson!


----------



## Mulligan

I think many people (guys and girls) will make assumptions under these circumstances (e.g., you're desperate, not LTR material, etc).

You may have dug yourself into a bit of a hole, but that's not necessarily the end of the story. As some posters above have shown, long term relationships can start this way. 

Good luck.


----------



## alexm

It all really depends on the date beforehand!

A good friend of mine had a first date with his now wife, and it lasted 10 hours (of actual date time, not the "other" stuff...!)

They obviously had a real good connection right off the bat. So in that case, one thing can lead to another, and sure, why not? I think one can actually have a first, second and third date all in one night!

On the flip side, if it's not that type of date, and it's dinner, drinks and then back to somebody's house... meh. Hookup city.

The big issue I can think of is that there will almost be an expectation of regular, and good, sex going forward. It would be difficult for either person to wrap their heads around why sex in year two of dating is down to 4 times a month, if they got down on the first date. You've now set the bar at that level, and it almost has to be maintained.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I'm a woman but my opinion of other women who have sex on the first date is the same opinion I have of men who do the same.

They like sex.They were lusty enough for their date to go for his dong.
They had on pretty underthings and didn't want to waste them. 
They felt such good vibes from their date that they couldn't go another minute without having his sexeh body

ETA : they may have developed an emotional connection to their date via emails,texts,telephone calls long before the first date ever happened so they went skipping into the date w/shaved legs and freshly groomed vajay thinking "it's ON"


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

GIM003 said:


> For me I think that it would be a caution flag, but not an automatic deal breaker. Depending on the circumstances, she might be asking the same question (whatever it might say about her, it might also say about you...)


:iagree:

It depends a great deal on the context. Generally speaking I think it is a "yellow flag" but not necessarily in every case.


----------



## SadSamIAm

I have a double standard. I don't like it, but it is there.

If a guy sleeps with someone on the first date it is 'because they can'.

If a girl sleeps with someone on the first date it is because:
- they found the guy sexy
- they felt a connection


So if I was to sleep with a woman on a first date, i would be flattered. I would feel like we had a real connection and that I should pursue this.

But if I was a woman and some guy slept with me on our first date, I would be worried that he just used me.


----------



## LongWalk

Sex on the first date is a negative sign because men fear that the woman is promiscuous and thus will more likely be unfaithful or bored in marriage. Not all men like the idea of being compared with many lovers. What if they don't come in first in the raw sexual chemistry department?

But since a couple of poster indicated that they hooked and ended up marrying, obviously this is not always a deal breaker. 

You know this, too.

Your real question is how to get date number two.

Appearing desperate is definitely not attractive. Do you have mutual friends?

Here is an article about why men don't call after sleeping together a second time after the ONS.

You can't win if you don't gamble. How many days has it been?


----------



## Cosmos

Not something I've ever done, but I'd say that whatever it says about her, it says exactly the same for the man she's having sex with.


----------



## Simulti

It establishes a certain promiscuity. Some men like promiscuous women. Some don't. Of those who do, some like such women for short-term relationships. Some like them for long-term relationships.

I wouldn't say that men who have an aversion to promiscuous women have a double standard. They just like what they like. Should men who like women with big boobs only date women who like men with big boobs, so as to avoid double standards? Can't men and women find different things attractive without worrying about how "fair" it is?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

If he's going to think badly of you for sleeping with him then it probably would be for the best to know that about him right away and move on. He made the same choice you did. 
I think people who have sex on the first date wanted to have sex. Simple as that.


----------



## Fozzy

Takes two to tango. Any woman who has sex on a first date is having it with a man who also has sex on a first date. Seems like there's an acceptable level of mutuallity there.


----------



## EleGirl

xakulax said:


> Any woman who give it up on the first date is either one of two things desperate or desperate whether it's desperately looking for attention desperately looking for a relationship or desperately looking for sex no matter how you look at it It reeks desperation.


Do you think the same thing about a man who has sex on the first date?


----------



## LongWalk

Was he a self confident guy? How did he act in the morning? Whose apartment did you wake up in? Did you sleep the night together?

Have your stalked him on Facebook?


----------



## JCD

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> . . . asking for obvious reasons.
> 
> Would you still be interestred in the woman?
> Is it a complete deal breaker?
> Appreciate your thoughts and opinios :scratchhead:


This is a complex question, but my attitude is actually pretty simple.

Am I Mr. Right or am I Mr. 'Right Now'?

As stated by a couple of posters (but not many) they were or knew people who had sex on the first date. One assumes 'sparks', 'blue birds', 'that magic moment', 'cosmic forces aligning' (insert own metaphor)

So if this woman convinced me that I filled this hole in her soul and the idea of her NOT sleeping with me on a first date seemed insane...well...that is a woman which makes you star in epics...

This sort of feeling has to be MUTUAL or one party is taking advantage, which isn't fair.

But...but...sparks are fragile things. All it would take is one date on her part with someone else to pretty much destroy that feeling. I am 'Next', not 'Him'. Not saying I would dump her, but our relationship would undergo a RADICAL reanalysis. First, it seems she either changed her mind rather quickly or was a good actress...either of which make me question her intentions.

Of course, one thing which serves me in good stead is that having someone who WANTS to have sex with me is almost as good as the actual sex. A little ego bump. It makes the second or third date a lot more fun.

For some people, it is a simple way to distress and I can't ding them for it...but this question doesn't apply to them. That being said, I think most men will take advantage of as much sex as they are offered (provided you are not desperate, crazy, or stupid). Whether they become a long term prospect probably has as much to do of how much THEY are seeking a LTR.


----------



## arbitrator

*I've only had it happen twice in this lifetime and they both came on to me! I think they both largely knew what they wanted and went after it.

The sex was rated "so-so" at best ~ at least for me! But neither would have really ever merited LTR status!

The better ones are those who let the relationship itself gradually take you there! All of those, with rare exceptions, were pretty memorable!*


----------



## papa5280

I have no issues with a woman having sex on the first date...BUT

If she were to have sex with ME on the first date, I'd have to consider what's wrong with her judgement and/or self-esteem.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

alexm, regular and good sex going foreward would be fantastic (assuming there is a going forward!). In fact, that's something that's important to me.

LongWalk, yes the real question is whether there may be a date number two. Date was Friday night, last contact was Saturday evening. And no, we don't have any mutual friends. Until Friday this perosn was a complete stranger!

Also, he seemed fairly confident. Not overly confident but not too shy either. In the morning, seemed fine. Not awkward at all and seemed keen to meet again that night although that didn't happen. And yes, we slept the night together. No facebook stalking, In fact, I don't really use Facebook at all.

And to whoever asked where we stayed, it was in a hotel. Met in a place that was a fir distance from where both of us live and neither of us should have been driving anywhere, so went to a hotel.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

papa5280 said:


> I have no issues with a woman having sex on the first date...BUT
> 
> If she were to have sex with ME on the first date, I'd have to consider what's wrong with her judgement and/or self-esteem.


Lol!!! :lol:


----------



## EleGirl

papa5280 said:


> I have no issues with a woman having sex on the first date...BUT
> 
> If she were to have sex with ME on the first date, I'd have to consider what's wrong with her judgement and/or self-esteem.


Maybe she just find your brilliant wit and mind irrespirable. Or is it your smile and your he-man physic?


----------



## Fozzy

papa5280 said:


> I have no issues with a woman having sex on the first date...BUT
> 
> If she were to have sex with ME on the first date, I'd have to consider what's wrong with her judgement and/or self-esteem.


This falls along the same lines as "I'd never consider belonging to a club that would have me for a member".


----------



## xakulax

EleGirl said:


> Do you think the same thing about a man who has sex on the first date?


Yes I do. 


I'm starting to see there may be exceptions to the rule if the parties involved have some prior history before the first date then it kinda of makes sense in a way


----------



## CharlieParker

xakulax said:


> Yes I do.
> 
> 
> I'm starting to see there may be exceptions to the rule if the parties involved have some prior history before the first date then it kinda of makes sense it in a way


For the record that was us. We worked together for 5 or so year and were pretty good friends just never interacted outside of work before.


----------



## DoF

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> . . . asking for obvious reasons.
> 
> Would you still be interestred in the woman?
> Is it a complete deal breaker?
> Appreciate your thoughts and opinios :scratchhead:


Opinion: if they are willing to sleep with me on day 1, they probably have slept with many others before me > turn off > STD test > no sex/rejection from my end



lookinforhelpandhope said:


> Would you still be interestred in the woman?


No



lookinforhelpandhope said:


> Is it a complete deal breaker?


For LTR, yes


----------



## Caribbean Man

Well I've had sex a few times on a " first encounters " and those relationships never really out.
In fact, they never lasted more than a few weeks , and the only thing that actually worked was the sex because we both liked the sex .
I got bored very easily, and I needed something more than just sex to keep me.
So I never really took time to go deeper.

In my opinion, sex on the first date / encounter is like willing the $100 million lotto , and having to figure out the correct numbers after.
Whether or not you figure it out, you already have the money.


Unless of course two people are actually interested in each other beyond the sex, or the sex was so good that both parties were instantly hooked.

I think it comes down to how the parties view sex. If their views are incompatible then there would be disappointments.

So it all comes down to communication before the actual date.


----------



## love=pain

xakulax said:


> Any woman who give it up on the first date is either one of two things desperate or desperate whether it's desperately looking for attention desperately looking for a relationship or desperately looking for sex no matter how you look at it It reeks desperation.


Don't really agree, I think it depends on how long you have know each other before the date and the date itself.

If you have been talking to a girl for a few weeks and have gotten to know one another or you have run in the same circles but never really have been friends then sure why not.

Meet a girl out somewhere then the next night go out or meet online then go out with out really knowing them that well and she sleeps with you well maybe.

But this world moves so much faster than it used to and women are much more empowered than before, if a guy can go out and pick up a girl because he is horny and sleep with her why can't a girl do it (single people that is).
Besides is there a set number of dates a girls must go on before she can sleep with a guy and who sets those rules.


----------



## JCD

Anyone who worked together or had a large internet presence aren't really 'dating for the first time'. There is history and some attraction. The person is a known quantity.

A real 'first night of sex' is like a cold call from a stock broker. And generally, what a stock broker is cold calling about is not good for a long term investment either.


----------



## EleGirl

DoF said:


> Opinion: if they are willing to sleep with me on day 1, they probably have slept with many others before me > turn off > STD test > no sex/rejection from my end
> 
> No
> 
> 
> 
> For LTR, yes


I'm confused about your answer. Would you sleep with a woman on the first date if she made it clear that she was willing?


----------



## xakulax

love=pain said:


> Don't really agree, I think it depends on how long you have know each other before the date and the date itself.
> 
> If you have been talking to a girl for a few weeks and have gotten to know one another or you have run in the same circles but never really have been friends then sure why not.
> 
> Meet a girl out somewhere then the next night go out or meet online then go out with out really knowing them that well and she sleeps with you well maybe.
> 
> But this world moves so much faster than it used to and women are much more empowered than before, if a guy can go out and pick up a girl because he is horny and sleep with her why can't a girl do it (single people that is).
> Besides is there a set number of dates a girls must go on before she can sleep with a guy and who sets those rules.




I kinda all ready alluded to that in a earlier post but I here what your saying.


----------



## Anon Pink

Simulti said:


> It establishes a certain promiscuity. Some men like promiscuous women. Some don't. Of those who do, some like such women for short-term relationships. Some like them for long-term relationships.
> 
> I wouldn't say that men who have an aversion to promiscuous women have a double standard. They just like what they like. Should men who like women with big boobs only date women who like men with big boobs, so as to avoid double standards? Can't men and women find different things attractive without worrying about how "fair" it is?


Promiscuity is not gender specific, both men and women can be promiscuous. Generally speaking though, it is women who have boobs, so men who like women with big boobs may or may not have man boobs themselves.

To answer your question of course men and women can find different things attractive in the other. But since women don't have penises, a woman who likes men with a big penis can't possible uphold that standard herself now can she?

I had sex with my husband on our first date. Oops! Sometimes a girl just knows when it's right.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Simulti said:


> It establishes a certain promiscuity. Some men like promiscuous women. Some don't. Of those who do, some like such women for short-term relationships. Some like them for long-term relationships.
> 
> I wouldn't say that men who have an aversion to promiscuous women have a double standard. They just like what they like. Should men who like women with big boobs only date women who like men with big boobs, so as to avoid double standards? Can't men and women find different things attractive without worrying about how "fair" it is?


Nope. Just the ones who will have sex with them on the first date and consider them not eligible for a LTR because they had sex on the first date. That, would be a double standard.


----------



## Fozzy

I guess I'm dense. If a guy has a problem with women who have sex on a first date, he's not going to have sex with her on their first date. Therefore, since no sex occurs on a first date, the problem never happened. 


Kind of like going back in time to murder your grandpa.


----------



## papa5280

Fozzy said:


> I guess I'm dense. If a guy has a problem with women who have sex on a first date, he's not going to have sex with her on their first date. Therefore, since no sex occurs on a first date, the problem never happened.
> 
> 
> Kind of like going back in time to murder your grandpa.


I don't think it's a question of a guy having a problem with women who have sex on the first date. It's a question of a guy not respecting a woman who "gave it up" to him on the first date (even though he "gave it up" to her, too).

That's where the double standard is.


----------



## Entropy3000

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> . . . asking for obvious reasons.
> 
> Would you still be interestred in the woman?
> Is it a complete deal breaker?
> Appreciate your thoughts and opinios :scratchhead:


Sex with me? No problem. Other guys? Not so much.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Fozzy said:


> I guess I'm dense. If a guy has a problem with women who have sex on a first date, he's not going to have sex with her on their first date. Therefore, since no sex occurs on a first date, the problem never happened.
> 
> 
> Kind of like going back in time to murder your grandpa.


As for the first part underlined, there are plenty of men out there who would want to have sex with women while they are young and adventurous and single on a first date and would not consider them for a LTR. 

Many of them used to call it, "sowing their wild oats". They would then try to find a socalled, "good girl", as if they, the men, are any different than anyone else.  

For the last sentence: Twilight Zone intro. - YouTube


----------



## LongWalk

Looking for the second date,

The odds of you getting married to him and having children are not good. But the chances are not zero.

First, there is some chance... say 50% that if you did marry him, you'd end up getting divorced. So, true happiness is not necessarily at stake.

What makes you want to fight the odds? Was the sex really great? You were drunk. Usually that makes for poor sex. For men anyway it can be hard to orgasm due to so-called "beer dıck".

So perhaps as another poster suggested it was the conversation prior to spending the night that made an impression on you.

Does he live far away?


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

LongWalk said:


> Looking for the second date,
> 
> The odds of you getting married to him and having children are not good. But the chances are not zero.
> 
> First, there is some chance... say 50% that if you did marry him, you'd end up getting divorced. So, true happiness is not necessarily at stake.
> 
> What makes you want to fight the odds? Was the sex really great? You were drunk. Usually that makes for poor sex. For men anyway it can be hard to orgasm due to so-called "beer dıck".
> 
> So perhaps as another poster suggested it was the conversation prior to spending the night that made an impression on you.
> 
> Does he live far away?


LongWalk,

It's not often I can find someone who really holds my attention. Very intelligent but in an understated kind of way. Laid back, easy going manner but not lazy, very easy to talk to, fun but not completely wild. Physically attractive but not a pretty boy or arrogant about it. Could say more but you get the idea.

And even drunk the sex was very good. Can only imagine what it would be like sober!!!!! :smthumbup:

Does live a bit far away though that doesn't really bother me because I used to travel 1000s of miles each week for work.


----------



## LongWalk

So right now you are trying figure out an opening message that won't be too needy and you want to make the timing right.

1) Is it better to call or text?

2) You don't have Facebook? You're a little bit of a rebel. Does he?

If I had had a hot ONS with someone whose conversation had distinguished her, I might not mind meeting up again.

Do you think writing a note and saying,


> "I enjoyed out conversation the other the night, a lot, in fact. It made me want to meet up again for more of the same"


Do you know where he lives? Maybe there is cool microbrewery in the vicinity?


----------



## Fozzy

2ntnuf said:


> As for the first part underlined, there are plenty of men out there who would want to have sex with women while they are young and adventurous and single on a first date and would not consider them for a LTR.
> 
> Many of them used to call it, "sowing their wild oats". They would then try to find a socalled, "good girl", as if they, the men, are any different than anyone else.
> 
> For the last sentence: Twilight Zone intro. - YouTube


Yeah, I guess I understand. My head just doesn't work that way I suppose.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

LongWalk said:


> So right now you are trying figure out an opening message that won't be too needy and you want to make the timing right.
> 
> 1) Is it better to call or text?
> 
> 2) You don't have Facebook? You're a little bit of a rebel. Does he?
> 
> If I had had a hot ONS with someone whose conversation had distinguished her, I might not mind meeting up again.
> 
> Do you think writing a note and saying,
> 
> Do you know where he lives? Maybe there is cool microbrewery in the vicinity?


Well, I had already made contact Saturday night to find out if he wanted to meet again. He said he would like to but something had come up so could we talk a rain check. I simple replied saying no problem, understand and let him know that i had enjoyed his company.

The fact that I already tried to make plans once, even though I'm sure he had a genuine reason not to meet up, make me reluctant to be the one to initiate that again.

Was just going to leave it at the and wait to see whether he gets in touch then started to think, hmmmm, maybe I screwed up by being drunk and f**king!

I do know where he lives and there's a small town fairly close by. His actual house is in the middle of nowhere.

Hahah, and no Facebook. Had an account while back and lost interest in it so deactivated it about two years ago. Don't even know the guys last name to look him up and I'm pretty sure I didn't mention my last name either!


----------



## Caribbean Man

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> Well, I had already made contact Saturday night to find out if he wanted to meet again. He said he would like to but something had come up so could we talk a rain check. I simple replied saying no problem, understand and let him know that i had enjoyed his company.
> 
> The fact that I already tried to make plans once, even though I'm sure he had a genuine reason not to meet up, make me reluctant to be the one to initiate that again.
> 
> Was just going to leave it at the and wait to see whether he gets in touch then started to think, hmmmm, maybe I screwed up by being drunk and f**king!
> 
> I do know where he lives and there's a small town fairly close by. His actual house is in the middle of nowhere.
> 
> Hahah, and no Facebook. Had an account while back and lost interest in it so deactivated it about two years ago. Don't even know the guys last name to look him up and I'm pretty sure I didn't mention my last name either!


Well that guy sounds like a looser.

Maybe you should just use this as an experience to guide you in the future.

1] Work on yourself, men can usually sniff out your insecurity.
2]Don't waste time with losers, learn how to spot them before.
3]Be very careful of imbibing excessive alcohol on first dates.


----------



## jaharthur

OK, misleading thread title. It should be:

Your opinion of women who sleep with YOU on the first date.

I have no opinion about that because it never happened. In all honesty, if there had been an occasion where it was headed that way, I would have said sayonara before it happened. And if I knew in advance that the woman was a sex on the first date kinda girl, there wouldn't likely have been a first date. 

But I'm an outlier whose views in this area are culturally mocked and mostly rejected, so you should ignore me.

I don't apply a double standard in my beliefs. But in the situation actually being asked about, if they guy has a problem with it, then HE most certainly does have a double standard.


----------



## 2ntnuf

jaharthur said:


> OK, misleading thread title. It should be:
> 
> Your opinion of women who sleep with YOU on the first date.
> 
> I have no opinion about that because it never happened. In all honesty, if there had been an occasion where it was headed that way, I would have said sayonara before it happened. And if I knew in advance that the woman was a sex on the first date kinda girl, there wouldn't likely have been a first date.
> 
> But I'm an outlier whose views in this area are culturally mocked and mostly rejected, so you should ignore me.
> 
> I don't apply a double standard in my beliefs. But in the situation actually being asked about, if they guy has a problem with it, then HE most certainly does have a double standard.


Did someone post something?

snicker...

With this post in mind, I had to think about this again. I have never slept with someone on a first date either. My thoughts are similar to yours jaha.

I was thinking I did, but if you consider that I knew the woman some before it ever happened, the thoughts are cancelled out. It was a first date, but I had talked with the woman beforehand several times, in a friendly way with nothing in mind other than wanting some company and conversation for a little while. 

For those who do not consider knowing them beforehand as I did a factor, then yes, I did and one of them, I stayed with for a while. The other, I knew and so did she, that really nothing would come of it, but there were other reasons that were overriding factors that had nothing to do with her being low enough to sleep with the likes of me on the first date.


----------



## hambone

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> . . . asking for obvious reasons.
> 
> Would you still be interestred in the woman?
> Is it a complete deal breaker?
> Appreciate your thoughts and opinios :scratchhead:


It would be a deal breaker for me as far as marriage material.


----------



## EleGirl

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> Well, I had already made contact Saturday night to find out if he wanted to meet again. He said he would like to but something had come up so could we talk a rain check. I simple replied saying no problem, understand and let him know that i had enjoyed his company.
> 
> The fact that I already tried to make plans once, even though I'm sure he had a genuine reason not to meet up, make me reluctant to be the one to initiate that again.
> 
> Was just going to leave it at the and wait to see whether he gets in touch then started to think, hmmmm, maybe I screwed up by being drunk and f**king!
> 
> I do know where he lives and there's a small town fairly close by. His actual house is in the middle of nowhere.
> 
> Hahah, and no Facebook. Had an account while back and lost interest in it so deactivated it about two years ago. Don't even know the guys last name to look him up and I'm pretty sure I didn't mention my last name either!


I was going to say that I've hear from some guys that they have a 3 day rule. They don't contact a women until at least 3 days after the first date so that they don't seem too needy. So I was going to say that might be the issue.

But this guy stood you up? Unless he was hit by the bus and is in the hospital... being stood up is a deal breaker if he ever calls you again.


----------



## oldgeezer

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> . . . asking for obvious reasons.
> 
> Would you still be interestred in the woman?
> Is it a complete deal breaker?
> Appreciate your thoughts and opinios :scratchhead:


They have a need they're trying to fill that won't be filled by you.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

oldgeezer said:


> They have a need they're trying to fill that won't be filled by you.


What sort of need?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LongWalk

If you have a phone number, you can reverse look up his name. But if he doesn't bother to call, then your time together did not mean that much to him.

Men love pvssy. You had fun and it would seem that he could hook up without risking pressure to buy a dog together or go to IKEA, so he is not motivated. 

He has your number. Don't bother FB stalking him.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

LongWalk said:


> If you have a phone number, you can reverse look up his name. But if he doesn't bother to call, then your time together did not mean that much to him.
> 
> Men love pvssy. You had fun and it would seem that he could hook up without risking pressure to buy a dog together or go to IKEA, so he is not motivated.
> 
> He has your number. Don't bother FB stalking him.


Thanks LongWalk!

No intention of looking him up or Facebook stalking. Jut a little miffed that I screwed up. Don't normally donations kinda thing and genuinely would like to have gotten to know him.

Oh well. Nothing I can do about it now!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wtf2012

I would assume that I wasn't the only first date hook up. I would assume that the other person is actively sleeping with other people.

In my experience the women who have given it up on 1st date/very early had problems staying faithful.

Ymmv
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

wtf2012 said:


> I would assume that I wasn't the only first date hook up. I would assume that the other person is actively sleeping with other people.
> 
> In my experience the women who have given it up on 1st date/very early had problems staying faithful.
> 
> Ymmv
> _Posted via Mobile Device_[/QUOT
> 
> Yeah, that's he irony of he situation. I normally wouldn't be that way. Was in a relationship for 10 years then married for 4 so just never been that way. Don't normally get drunk so easily either!!!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## P51Geo1980

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> . . . asking for obvious reasons.
> 
> Would you still be interestred in the woman?
> Is it a complete deal breaker?
> Appreciate your thoughts and opinios :scratchhead:


No problems with it. Many of my friends married women who they had sex with on the first date. They are still married and have great marriages. I married a woman who waited until marriage for sex. We are divorcing and I'm now dating someone else. We have had sex (yet) but she's not a virgin or waiting until marriage - THANK GOODNESS!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## heartsbeating

More than a couple of my friends had sex on or before the first date with their [now] husbands. 

One friend was recently discussing the origins of her relationship and with a laugh, asked _me_ when her and her husband first had sex... her and I were out that night and she'd arranged to later meet this man she was crushing on. We all got into the back of a taxi together. He put his arms around both of us and in broken English asked her, "We all go home together, yes?" With a laugh, she told him "No! She's married. We're dropping her home first.." Needless to say they continued on to her place afterwards. That was the first time I met him. That was the first time they had sex. I can help my friend count back to when that was. And it was before their first date. Years later, they are an adorable and passionate couple.


----------



## Cosmos

It takes a lot more than physical attraction for me to want to have sex with a man, so first date sex would be highly unlikely for me. However, double standards no longer work in today's society. Some might feel entitled to hold on to them, but they will only serve them as well as those who are held to them...

If we want a partner with 'high standards,' we need to adhere to similar standards ourselves.


----------



## LongWalk

So you are in your late 30s?

How old was he?

Age may make people more skeptical of relationships, especially if they have gone through divorce. Did you tell him you were divorced?

At least you are thoroughly over your ex. Good for you.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Lookingforhelpandhope, I think you compounded the situation by having sex on the first date and under the influence of alcohol. For some guys, the inability to control your drinking is a dealbreaker. Add to that what some may consider reckless behavior, he may have just thought oh, I'll hit it and quit it.

I wouldn't get into vilifying others for their double standards. Probably somewhere, you have a double standard as well that we don't know about. 

Plus I think most women who vilify men for their double standards don't really mean it ie, these women still wish they could date that guy who was "sleazy" enough to sleep with her on the first date. 

I know this goes against all that "you go girl" and "empowerment" stuff, but if you are really looking for a stable, exclusive, long term relationship with a certain kind or kinds of guys, understand what these men are looking for and accept that in order to get to subsequent dates, that you may need to change or at least tweak a few things about yourself.

Just as an example, here, calling a guy you don't know very well on Saturday night to go out that night does not leave the best of impressions.


----------



## LongWalk

NTA,

She is not a kid. I think she understands everything and did even before she posted.

The decision to ONS was made because it felt right at the time. She wasn't calculating how quickly she was emotionally involved.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I think based on what the OP wrote and her previous threads , she might be in a vulnerable state emotionally at this time , due to her divorce and past marital issues.

So OP , what matters is not what we think or what that man you had sex with thinks, 
But , what do you think?
How does it make you feel about yourself?

I think based on what I've read, wanting to meet new partners and have sex after a divorce might be quite normal for most people. 
But I think it might be better if you take some time , figure out yourself , so that the next time you decide to have sex, it would be with someone who probably shares the same feelings with you, and respects you enough to a least call.

Love yourself.


----------



## Caribbean Man

LongWalk said:


> NTA,
> 
> She is not a kid. I think she understands everything and did even before she posted.
> 
> *The decision to ONS was made because it felt right at the time. She wasn't calculating how quickly she was emotionally involved*.


Lol, yes^^^, basically what I was trying to say in my last post.


----------



## Omego

Caribbean Man said:


> So OP , what matters is not what we think or what that man you had sex with thinks,
> But , what do you think?
> How does it make you feel about yourself?


I agree with this. Any negative feelings you may have had about sleeping with him on the first date were/are probably felt or perceived by him. 

It doesn't matter what he thinks, however. The most important thing is how you perceive yourself. Just learn from this and move on... who knows, he may call and you may not be available then either!


----------



## Jellybeans

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> well, i'm the female but yes, we were both drunk. haha, me to a far greater extent tham him!!!
> 
> next day we went to breakfast and he suggested meeting up again that night. he then seemed to really back off and long story short, we didn't meet up again the next night.





lookinforhelpandhope said:


> Well, I had already made contact Saturday night to find out if he wanted to meet again. He said he would like to but something had come up so could we talk a rain check. I simple replied saying no problem, understand and let him know that i had enjoyed his company.


Since he backed off of your offer re: the second date and then when you attempted again he said "something came up" I would not reach out to him again. The ball is in his park. Chasing someone is never good.

He may think you are down to do that with any guy or that you have a drinking problem. Thing about that is, you could think the same thing about him since you both did it. My feeling is that if a guy is into you, he will want to see you again and make plans and not back out. So don't chase this guy. If he resurfaces, great but you've already tried twice to get him to hang out and he did not bite. Don't press.

I think it depends on whether both the people want more. Many couples did get all hanky panky on their first time together; others didn't. Again, this is couple-specific. If it works out, great. If they never hear from each other again, then it was not meant to be.

Just chalk it up to an experience.

I personally am not a first-date-sex kind of gal. I like to get to know someone a little bit. I do this because I feel more comfortable this way. You just have to do what feels right/comfortable for you.


----------



## arbitrator

papa5280 said:


> I have no issues with a woman having sex on the first date...BUT
> 
> If she were to have sex with ME on the first date, I'd have to consider what's wrong with her judgement and/or self-esteem.


*It also gave rise to the thought of just how many other guys that she "did it" on the first date with!*


----------



## sinnister

I'm embarrassed at the responses here. What is this the 1800's?

My opinion....she wanted to have sex with me at that time. Who the F cares why?


----------



## Omego

sinnister said:


> I'm embarrassed at the responses here. What is this the 1800's?


I was raised in the 1800s more or less if you will. It was strongly implied, if not said outright that a girl who would sleep with someone on the first date would be considered "trashy" and not marriage material. 

However, while this black and white thinking is never productive nor fair, once cannot deny that certain connotations are hard to get rid of. And you don't need to go as far back as the 1800s either. 

That being said, the issue is definitely as others have pointed out, how the OP feels about herself and her choices. I can understand that if you were raised to think about 1st date sex this way (bad behavior) that you'd have second thoughts about either doing it, OR feel bad about yourself if you did....


----------



## sparkyjim

2ntnuf said:


> -they don't consider sex with relative strangers scary, dangerous, or problematic


I don't have a problem with the idea of sex on a first date...

And despite what a few posters have said I don't think it leads to lasting relationships...

But I would be real concerned about the judgement of a woman who would have sex with a stranger on the same night she met him. It only takes one night with the wrong person to wind up the subject of a headline.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

NextTimeAround said:


> I know this goes against all that "you go girl" and "empowerment" stuff, but if you are really looking for a stable, exclusive, long term relationship with a certain kind or kinds of guys, understand what these men are looking for and accept that in order to get to subsequent dates, that you may need to change or at least tweak a few things about yourself.
> .


Changing and tweaking yourself, playing little games to try to get someone is why you end up with incompatible relationships. No one can keep up with all the little "tweaks" their whole life so once the partner is caught, they go back to being themselves. Wouldn't it be better if you were just always that person and if they don't like it you can find someone who does?

Some men will b*tch if we like sex, some will b*tch if we don't like sex. Just do what you want and you'll find someone who matches with you.


----------



## NextTimeAround

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> *Changing and tweaking yourself, playing little games to try to get someone is why you end up with incompatible relationships. *No one can keep up with all the little "tweaks" their whole life so once the partner is caught, they go back to being themselves. Wouldn't it be better if you were just always that person and if they don't like it you can find someone who does?
> 
> Some men will b*tch if we like sex, some will b*tch if we don't like sex. Just do what you want and you'll find someone who matches with you.


Why does changing one self have to be synonymous with gameplaying. If someone changes themselves to drink less alcohol -- which most people would agree is a good idea-- would you call them a game player?


----------



## Entropy3000

sinnister said:


> I'm embarrassed at the responses here. What is this the 1800's?
> 
> My opinion....she wanted to have sex with me at that time. Who the F cares why?


I the late 1800s many women were treated for hysteria by their doctors. Somehow that was ok? Oooops. Different thread.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

NextTimeAround said:


> Why does changing one self have to be synonymous with gameplaying. If someone changes themselves to drink less alcohol -- which most people would agree is a good idea-- would you call them a game player?


If you were doing it to try to impress someone and make your date think you are someone you aren't so they'll like you then yes. 

If you're someone who likes to go and and drink, be that person.


----------



## 2ntnuf

sparkyjim said:


> I don't have a problem with the idea of sex on a first date...
> 
> And despite what a few posters have said I don't think it leads to lasting relationships...
> 
> But I would be real concerned about the judgement of a woman who would have sex with a stranger on the same night she met him. It only takes one night with the wrong person to wind up the subject of a headline.


Yeah. I think you got my meaning. It's a double edged sword with that kind of thinking. On one hand, it's really great to be that self-confident and maybe slightly naive, and on the other, it's dangerous and well, naive.

Naivety is very endearing, but also foolishly blind to dangers. It's like wanting to hug and kiss your child for being so sweet and kind, and then sit them down and explain why they should never do that again. It's hard for me to explain how I feel about it.


As far as lasting relationships...

I think it can, if the two are of similar thoughts and values. I am beginning to see there are so many different ways of thinking about it, it's not what's right for society, but the individual, as long as they aren't hurting anyone. Hope that makes sense. 

If those two spend a little time together and take a bigger chance with their hearts, instead of thinking it's only for physical release, they might find how much they do think alike. The two would be more like each other than different. I think the trouble lies in their belief that they need to find someone who is, "respectable". I put that in quotes because it's an ideal based on norms which are usually learned and not inherent. 

As children, we accept anyone and are only turned away by something that naturally frightens. We learn many things which frighten us, from others. I think it's a loss of that naivety that causes a loss of the good parts of nature that allow us to be childlike in acceptance of others who we truly have no reason to be afraid of, but are taught that differences should frighten and be set on the pile of papers for the circular file or shredder. (circular file is the round metal trash cans that used to be used in offices and schools)


----------



## karole

intheory said:


> Hallelujah!


I asked my husband once if he thought less of me because we had sex on the first date, he told me that the only thing that he thought was that it was the best sex of his life. LOL!

We dated for 2 years and were then married. And by the way, I have never cheated on him or even thought about it - as someone's post above seemed to indicate of people having sex on the first date.


----------



## Pamvhv

I have sex on the first date if I want to. I don't if I don't. There's really nothing more about that than me knowing what I want sexually and not confusing a romp in the hay for love. This has to be the most sexist forum thread in history.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Naah. I think we pretty much all agree you could switch the title around to be either sex. That doesn't matter. It's just the title that's sexist and bull crap. 

I thought it was enlightening and helpful, because it shows how folks think. That helps folks find the right person to spend the rest of their lives with, and let go of the folks who aren't as compatible. 

Nothing wrong with sex on the first date. 

It's just not right for some. I don't think that has anything to do with gender, but fear. Something like this thread releases fear and allows acceptance, if not compliance to be most important. Isn't that really what we want?


----------



## jaharthur

sinnister said:


> I'm embarrassed at the responses here. What is this the 1800's?
> 
> My opinion....she wanted to have sex with me at that time. Who the F cares why?





Pamvhv said:


> I have sex on the first date if I want to. I don't if I don't. There's really nothing more about that than me knowing what I want sexually and not confusing a romp in the hay for love. This has to be the most sexist forum thread in history.


I'm embarrassed by these types of snide comments, which evidence gross intolerance.

On what authority do you get to determine the validity of belief systems?

There is nothing wrong with a belief system that a person should hold out for marriage. I can think of at least one member here who holds that belief yet can speak eloquently and helpfully to others who do not share the same belief. She does not condemn those with other beliefs.

There is nothing wrong with a belief system that does not advocate waiting for marriage, but does believe that sex should be in the context of a relationship with another person. One can hold that belief system and not condemn those with other beliefs.

There is nothing wrong with a belief system that sees nothing wrong with casual sex outside of the context of a relationship. But there should be no reason for persons with this belief system to condemn those who do not share those beliefs.

There is nothing inherently sexist about either of the first two beliefs. They can be applied in an equal-handed fashion, without a double standard. There is nothing inherently non-sexist about the third belief system, which can be applied in the most sexist ways imaginable.

The attitude that one belief system--MY belief system--is right and that others are OBVIOUSLY wrong, is far more like the 1800s than holding alternative beliefs is. I'd say such intolerance for others is more like the dark ages, or the time when someone who did not believe the sun revolved around the earth was subject to death.

I'll bet that if there were a comment about the OP that said, "What is this, Sodom and Gomorrah?", that commenter would be attacked as ignorant and intolerant--and rightfully so. The same can be said for those who make similar comments from the other end of the spectrum. And yet, around TAM, it seems often to be a one-way street, and comments like those I quote above are not called out for what they represent.


----------



## NextTimeAround

> Yeah. I think you got my meaning. It's a double edged sword with that kind of thinking. On one hand, it's really great to be that self-confident and maybe slightly naive, and on the other, it's dangerous and well, naive.


Agreeing to have sex with a guy isn't always about being confident. Some women fear that if they say no, the guy won't ask her for a second date or subsequent dates.


----------



## 2ntnuf

NextTimeAround said:


> Agreeing to have sex with a guy isn't always about being confident. Some women fear that if they say no, the guy won't ask her for a second date or subsequent dates.


Yeah, that's something I didn't consider. I guess I was thinking that the person, man or woman who was considering having sex, was mature enough to determine the best person to have that sex with. 

I agree with you. It's either rape, or a rather poor reason to give in to sex. A woman just lowers her value of herself, when she gives in so some guy can have his way with her. Women are worth more than that and they need to know it. 

Another guy will come along that will value what she has to offer and respect her for her convictions. Not just her sexual value.

ETA: Unless sex is all she and he want. That's different and as said before, there's nothing wrong with that. It's not the same as her giving in to a man because she is afraid she will lose his interest.


----------



## NextTimeAround

I think this idea of being a "free spirit" is really overplayed. And for those women who claim that they are mature / empowered / confident enough to have sex whenever they feel like it --even on the first day -- can also be the cause of sexless marriages later on.

Sounds like bait and switch to me........ How is that different from a woman who chooses to wait but is then every bit as HD as her husband?

And what would you men prefer?


----------



## karole

NextTimeAround said:


> I think this idea of being a "free spirit" is really overplayed. And for those women who claim that they are mature / empowered / confident enough to have sex whenever they feel like it --even on the first day -- can also be the cause of sexless marriages later on.
> 
> Sounds like bait and switch to me........ How is that different from a woman who chooses to wait but is then every bit as HD as her husband?
> 
> And what would you men prefer?


Why would having sex with someone on the first date cause a sexless marriage?


----------



## Jellybeans

NextTimeAround said:


> Agreeing to have sex with a guy isn't always about being confident. Some women fear that if they say no, the guy won't ask her for a second date or subsequent dates.


This is SO true! 

I was sharing a dating story with someone and that person told me told me because I DID NOT sleep with a guy I went out with, that is why he never called me back after a date.

And like was like, Well, F-CK that guy! (not literally).

Seems you can't win either way sometimes. 

Again, it just boils down to compatibility and if both want to pursue it. I personally am not going to re-adjust not wanting to sleep with a guy the first time we meet just because I am afraid I won't ever see him again just because I didn't go to bed with him. 

In OP's case, the guy has not reached out to her again and made no effort to take her up on two offers already to hang out again. I'd just forget about him if I were her.


----------



## 2ntnuf

NextTimeAround said:


> I think this idea of being a "free spirit" is really overplayed. And for those women who claim that they are mature / empowered / confident enough to have sex whenever they feel like it --even on the first day -- can also be the cause of sexless marriages later on.
> 
> Sounds like bait and switch to me........ How is that different from a woman who chooses to wait but is then every bit as HD as her husband?
> 
> And what would you men prefer?


Eh...I think you're generalizing too much. 

Bait and switch? Not sure about that. It's only bait and switch if you are doing it so you can win some guy and not because you like sex and sex with that particular guy. 

Men are all different, just like women, and some will have sex with a woman just to win her, like you described above. So, it's not gender specific. It's more a lack of integrity and a desire to get what you think you want at any cost. Then, the trouble can start after marriage, cause the person hasn't been honest with themselves or their spouse. 

It can happen in all scenarios.

ETA: Nothing wrong with waiting, but many think waiting indicates a lack of drive. Not sure if that's true or not? That's a whole different thread.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

LongWalk said:


> So you are in your late 30s?
> 
> How old was he?
> 
> Age may make people more skeptical of relationships, especially if they have gone through divorce. Did you tell him you were divorced?
> 
> At least you are thoroughly over your ex. Good for you.


LongWalk, I'm 33 and I think he was 39/40. There about.

So, to set another couple things straight. I didn't meet him alone. He brought someone with him and I was supposed to bring my friend but she couldn't make it. It was his suggestion to bring someone else along.

It was him who initially suggested meeting again the following night. The only reason I got in contact to check out plans is that a friend invited me for diner and I wanted to go catch up with her so, I checked in to see whether he still wanted to do something so that I could go see her if he didn't want to.

I don't feel bad about myself for sleeping with him, just wondered what guiys view as the general consensus of this kind of thing. If nothgin else that oart will always be a very pleasant memory! :smthumbup: Just annoyed at myself because he's for sure someone who I would like to have gotten to know better and I've probably ruined the chances of that ever happening. 

As to getting over the ex, it would be fair to sxay that relationship had become so nasty that I was over him before we even separated, I just didn't realize it until we had been apart for a couple weeks and I was kinda lke wow, life is so much better


----------



## NextTimeAround

karole said:


> Why would having sex with someone on the first date cause a sexless marriage?


Where di you get that from?


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

karole said:


> Why would having sex with someone on the first date cause a sexless marriage?


That's what I thought, if anything it shows both partied like to have sex. And, if it's good under those circumstances surely it'll only get better!


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

Jellybeans said:


> This is SO true!
> 
> I was sharing a dating story with someone and that person told me told me because I DID NOT sleep with a guy I went out with, that is why he never called me back after a date.
> 
> And like was like, Well, F-CK that guy! (not literally).
> 
> Seems you can't win either way sometimes.
> 
> Again, it just boils down to compatibility and if both want to pursue it. I personally am not going to re-adjust not wanting to sleep with a guy the first time we meet just because I am afraid I won't ever see him again just because I didn't go to bed with him.
> 
> In OP's case, the guy has not reached out to her again and made no effort to take her up on two offers already to hang out again. I'd just forget about him if I were her.


Once again Jelly, you make a lot of sense


----------



## 2ntnuf

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> LongWalk, I'm 33 and I think he was 39/40. There about.
> 
> So, to set another couple things straight. I didn't meet him alone. He brought someone with him and I was supposed to bring my friend but she couldn't make it. It was his suggestion to bring someone else along.
> 
> It was him who initially suggested meeting again the following night. The only reason I got in contact to check out plans is that a friend invited me for diner and I wanted to go catch up with her so, I checked in to see whether he still wanted to do something so that I could go see her if he didn't want to.
> 
> I don't feel bad about myself for sleeping with him, just wondered what guiys view as the general consensus of this kind of thing. If nothgin else that oart will always be a very pleasant memory! :smthumbup: Just annoyed at myself because he's for sure someone who I would like to have gotten to know better and I've probably ruined the chances of that ever happening.
> 
> As to getting over the ex, it would be fair to sxay that relationship had become so nasty that I was over him before we even separated, I just didn't realize it until we had been apart for a couple weeks and I was kinda lke wow, life is so much better



Sorry, I don't get how you ruined anything. That's his choice as much as yours. We don't want to control, coerce or trick someone into doing what we think is best. I'm not getting this...:scratchhead:


----------



## Runs like Dog

Am I dating Barbara Walters?


----------



## Jellybeans

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> Once again Jelly, you make a lot of sense


Thanks. I do what I can.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Runs like Dog said:


> Am I dating Barbara Walters?


Show us a pic. We can recognize her if you can't. Does she look anything like this?










:lol:


----------



## karole

NextTimeAround said:


> I think this idea of being a "free spirit" is really overplayed. And for those women who claim that they are mature / empowered / confident enough to *have sex whenever they feel like it --even on the first day -- can also be the cause of sexless marriages later on.*
> 
> Sounds like bait and switch to me........ How is that different from a woman who chooses to wait but is then every bit as HD as her husband?
> 
> And what would you men prefer?


----------



## treyvion

Married but Happy said:


> If they're having sex with me, who am I to judge them? I prefer to wait until the second date, though, but it's not a hard and fast rule.
> 
> It used to be that women had a lot more at risk from casual sex. That is far less true now in an age of reliable birth control, so those who use BC responsibly (as should the man, of course) have all the options and should be perceived just as all the men are who do the same.
> 
> Double standards and prejudices die a long and hard death, and this one is no different. Besides, I'd much rather find a woman who likes sex and isn't afraid to show it - and marry her - than one who is uptight about sex and would be happy with a sexless marriage. Been there, done that, and learned my lesson!


Took the words right out of my mouth. I'd rather a sex on the first date lady who is adventurous and goes after what she wants than someone who micromanages the entire sex proposal with a never ending laundry list of complaints to get out of it, with endless hurdles for you to jump basically making you sexless and even straining to remain in this sexless "seat" if you will.


----------



## sinnister

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Changing and tweaking yourself, playing little games to try to get someone is why you end up with incompatible relationships. No one can keep up with all the little "tweaks" their whole life so once the partner is caught, they go back to being themselves. Wouldn't it be better if you were just always that person and if they don't like it you can find someone who does?
> 
> *Some men will b*tch if we like sex, some will b*tch if we don't like sex. Just do what you want and you'll find someone who matches with you.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> And this is the exact point I was trying to make. Men need to get their head out of their buttocks' on this one. There are so many reasons why sex on the first date can be a positive thing and can also lead to a long lasting relationship.
> 
> What if the reverse were true? What if you meet a girl date for a while and don't have sex until your wedding night?
> 
> It's just stupid labels that society has yet to shed and men still buy into. All it says to me is that at that particular time I was lucky enough that she wanted to have sex with me right away.
> 
> If she shows no signs of being bad marriage material who the F cares? Just chaulk it up to the sex gods smiling upon you.


----------



## chillymorn

sex on the first date as young teeagers or 20 something is a lot different than sex on the first date after a failed marriage and well into your forties.


as a young dumb full of cum guy if I wasn't getting laid by date 3 I was out of there. with that said most girls who had a reputation as being easy were just the opposite. and the one with no reputation were easie a pie.

now with that said as a mature adult getting in a womans pants would be secondary to getting to know her personialty to be sure I even want to get in her pants.


----------



## DoF

Jellybeans said:


> This is SO true!
> 
> I was sharing a dating story with someone and that person told me told me because I DID NOT sleep with a guy I went out with, that is why he never called me back after a date.
> 
> And like was like, Well, F-CK that guy! (not literally).
> 
> Seems you can't win either way sometimes.
> 
> Again, it just boils down to compatibility and if both want to pursue it. I personally am not going to re-adjust not wanting to sleep with a guy the first time we meet just because I am afraid I won't ever see him again just because I didn't go to bed with him.
> 
> In OP's case, the guy has not reached out to her again and made no effort to take her up on two offers already to hang out again. I'd just forget about him if I were her.


Smart

IMO, getting intimate too soon is the worst possible thing for long term relationships (probably great for a fling though).

And I'm not going to say when one SHOULD have sex. I will just say that it's in the best interest of BOTH parties to prolong it as long as possible. 

Why? you might ask.

# of reasons

1. When you become intimate with someone you tend to be blinded to red flags that come along as the relationship progresses

2. You miss crucial steps of building a solid foundation of a relationship. It's a step process, miss one step and you can't recover. Go too fast and what you missed is skipped for good.

3. You are sharing your body with someone you don't know AT ALL. 

4. once intimate, feelings that were never there creep up and you just don't think clearly. 

I can probably keep going on into 100s here.....

Personally, if a woman tells me that she prefers to wait to be intimate, that would be an indicator of a smart/mature woman.

NOW, since I'm a complete nympho and sex is an important part of a relationship I would make my feelings/views very clear at the time. I would also share my size (since it's important to women and only when asked of course) and also expectations I have when it comes to intimacy.

But the act itself, better reserved for when I know you a LOT better.

Anyways, I'm a big believer to what has been done for many generation. Take your time and be patient.

I'm not talking about "NO SEX UNTIL MARRIAGE", no I don't agree with that.....or "NO LIVING TOGETHER UNTIL MARRIAGE".......

Just a nice healthy compromise of the 2 above. I think it's probably best to wait good 6 months to a year before sex (and if you feel you want to wait longer, that's fine). Same for living before marriage, I think that's important. when you live with someone you get to know them better/faster etc.

Also, THE BIGGEST mistake I see women make is not being able to filter out players. Just shutting the guy down first 2-3 dates and his action will tell you ENTIRE story and his goals.

If the guy likes you and wants a serious relationship, he will wait, trust me. 



Anyways, that's just me. Some say I'm prude and "woman" like.....or whatever. I don't really give a ****. It's simply what makes sense to me.

I do not want to put myself into a vulnerable position. And intimacy = automatically vulnerable and blind.

But I also realize that most man are unlike me and can **** away and have 0 feelings/attachments.......good for them!


----------



## RandomDude

Tis simple, if the chemistry is there, and strong enough, I think it justifies a first date romping. If it's not, and she puts out anyway... meh


----------



## U.E. McGill

As someone in his early 40's, if I had to date again I'd be more apt to consider someone long term who did than someone who held out for the 10th date so to speak.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

Runs like Dog said:


> Am I dating Barbara Walters?


Runs Like Dog, am I missing something here?? Guess your story sounds similar to mine?


----------



## DoF

lookinforhelpandhope - your likes are inconsistent. You can't like my post if you like RandomDude post.

Sorry 

:rofl:


----------



## LongWalk

U.E. McGill said:


> As someone in his early 40's, if I had to date again I'd be more apt to consider someone long term who did than someone who held out for the 10th date so to speak.


The 10th date? Come on. If both are working, presumably parenting as divorced singles, ten dates could take 6 to 7 weeks, but perhaps even longer if one or both of them travelled for work or had the kids every other weekend.

I would think that by the third date a couple would kiss and grope at least. This would have to escalate successively. By a fourth or fifth date if there was some attraction, wouldn't both be anxious get naked?

To my mind one of the biggest issues is condoms. Sex is not intimate with condoms for me anyway. So, there is risk with each partner.

I think the best way to find a good LTR is to know the person socially pretty well first.


----------



## sinnister

RandomDude said:


> Tis simple, if the chemistry is there, and strong enough, I think it justifies a first date romping. If it's not, and she puts out anyway... *bang it like a drum*


Fixed your post.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

DoF said:


> lookinforhelpandhope - your likes are inconsistent. You can't like my post if you like RandomDude post.
> 
> Sorry
> 
> :rofl:


Lol, I pretty much like every post. Irrespective of whether I agree with the content I appreciate the varied opinions and feedback


----------



## sinnister

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> Lol, I pretty much like every post. Irrespective of whether I agree with the content I appreciate the varied opinions and feedback


Does that mean you don't really "like" my bang it like a drum comment?


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

sinnister said:


> Does that mean you don't really "like" my bang it like a drum comment?


Lol, no, that was actually pretty funny.


----------



## Jellybeans

chillymorn said:


> now with that said as a mature adult getting in a womans pants would be secondary to getting to know her personialty* to be sure I even want to get in her pants*.


:iagree:


----------



## Wolf1974

intheory said:


> I'm glad there is some humor here, 'cause this thread was making me kind of mad. Many (not all) females who have sex quickly, like *you* and find it very easy to express it sexually.
> 
> The spiteful streak in me hopes that all you guys who look down on girls/women who have sex "on the first date"; I wish you a LD spouse who denies you sex. Serves you right.
> 
> The part of me that had Christian training, knows that it is wrong to wish anyone such misery. I wish everyone was happily married.


So wait wait wait...... Let me get this straight. So because I don't treat sex cavalierly and prefer to wait till I know someone is relationship material, which never happens by the end of date one, and expect the same from someone getting to know me that entitles me to a life of LD marriage. Ummm no

I could care less if women have sex on the first date. Could care less if men are having sex on the first date. But I'm not going to sleep with anyone before I'm ready. And anyone I was seeing who pushed for that date one would not be someone I would date again. My life my preference


----------



## Jellybeans

Wolf1974 said:


> I could care less if women have sex on the first date. Could care less if men are having sex on the first date. But I'm not going to sleep with anyone before I'm ready. And anyone I was seeing who pushed for that date one would not be someone I would date again. My life my preference


Female here and I feel the same way.


----------



## chillymorn

now if she wants to give a bj out of the goodness of her heart on the first date I think it would be horribly rude not to accept it.

I'm sensitive that way wouldn't want to offend anybody!


----------



## Wolf1974

chillymorn said:


> now if she wants to give a bj out of the goodness of her heart on the first date I think it would be horribly rude not to accept it.
> 
> I'm sensitive that way wouldn't want to offend anybody!


:rofl:


----------



## chillymorn

Jellybeans said:


> Female here and I feel the same way.


how did you get my name on wolfs post as a quote?

just courious.


----------



## Caribbean Man

chillymorn said:


> now if she wants to give a bj out of the goodness of her heart on the first date I think it would be horribly rude not to accept it.
> 
> I'm sensitive that way wouldn't want to offend anybody!



LMAO!

And what if instead ,she decided to ask you to give her some oral on the first date instead of sex?

Would you kindly oblige?


----------



## NextTimeAround

Alright, this thread asked for it......

Jermaine Stewart - "We Don't HAve to Take Our Clothes Off


----------



## chillymorn

Caribbean Man said:


> LMAO!
> 
> And what if instead ,she decided to ask you to give her some oral on the first date instead of sex?
> 
> Would you kindly oblige?


most likley. But I would definiatly say you gots to give to get! I love oral giving and recieving.........but only if we had the spark so to speak.


----------



## CharlieParker

Sex on the first date
She was cheating
She had a huge number
She was my first

By TAM logic there is no way we should still be together. YMMV.


----------



## Jellybeans

chillymorn said:


> how did you get my name on wolfs post as a quote?
> 
> just courious.


Trippy. I must have quoted both of you guys and deleted another one's name. Fixed it.


----------



## U.E. McGill

LongWalk said:


> The 10th date? Come on. If both are working, presumably parenting as divorced singles, ten dates could take 6 to 7 weeks, but perhaps even longer if one or both of them travelled for work or had the kids every other weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that by the third date a couple would kiss and grope at least. This would have to escalate successively. By a fourth or fifth date if there was some attraction, wouldn't both be anxious get naked?
> 
> 
> 
> To my mind one of the biggest issues is condoms. Sex is not intimate with condoms for me anyway. So, there is risk with each partner.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the best way to find a good LTR is to know the person socially pretty well first.



I think you misunderstood. I would next a woman if there was no sex by date 4-5. I'd never make it to 10. 

Your reasons are exactly why. Not a lot of time, and physical intimacy is one of the pieces not the last. 

I don't believe there has to be a script for a relationship.


----------



## ChargingCharlie

Wife and I all but had sex on our first date (got naked, fooled around, but no intercourse until a week later). Had lots of sex early on - now down to about once every three years. 

My not-so-valuable advice - don't do it.


----------



## Machiavelli

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> . . . asking for obvious reasons.


It all depends: Single, married, or divorced; age 16, 26, 36, or 66; is she hot; is she usually chaste, but just overcome by my animal magnetism as so many are. You need to know that stuff in context.



lookinforhelpandhope said:


> Would you still be interestred in the woman?


Interested with an eye to what purpose? There are several possibilities: a place in my harem; casual FWB; monogamous marriage. I might be interested in some, all, or none, depending on the circumstances above.


----------



## NextTimeAround

I think many of you men are being very PC here. I remember a few years ago there was a thread on askmen in which a woman said that she was going on a second date with this guy; she liked him a lot so she was planning to give him a blowjob. What did the guys think of that?

Whoa, about 4 or 5 guys at least admitted that they would accept the blowjob but then think that the woman was ****. When a couple women pointed out the double standard, they said they didn't care.

When these same women said, well, that's ok, because if a guy thought ill of them after accepting a blowjob from them, then they wouldn't want to be around that guy after all.

The response? Nice try on the new twist of the double standard...... but who cares?

And another guy pointed out, that with women being so promiscuous these days, there's no need to marry. And there's not even a need to be exclusive..........


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Doesn't affect my opinion of a woman whether she sleeps with me on the first date or not.


----------



## Runs like Dog

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> Runs Like Dog, am I missing something here?? Guess your story sounds similar to mine?


She wrote or book or something bragging how she banged just about everyone everywhere.


----------



## Machiavelli

NextTimeAround said:


> And another guy pointed out, that with women being so promiscuous these days, there's no need to marry. And there's not even a need to be exclusive..........


The need for males to be exclusive is a relatively new development in history. The double standard is the natural order of things.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Machiavelli said:


> The need for males to be exclusive is a relatively new development in history. The double standard is the natural order of things.



I think I had read that marriage was brought to the middle classes around the 19th century. That's long enough. There is no one living who has had experience with the old regime.

Regarding double standards, I have mellowed out from my days of youthful exuberance. My attitude these days is to understand what is and learn to work with it or work around it. 

Imagine if a guy started thread asking if it's okay to make women pay for the first date. I wonder how many women would say, not only, that's ok, but it would be immediately clear to that poster that a guy who invites her to dine with him at his favorite restaurant and then expects her to pay the bill is definitely a sign that he's her soulmate.


----------



## jld

NextTimeAround said:


> Imagine if a guy started thread asking if it's okay to make women pay for the first date. I wonder how many women would say, not only, that's ok, but it would be immediately clear to that poster that a guy who invites her to dine with him at his favorite restaurant and then expects her to pay the bill is definitely a sign that he's her soulmate.


:rofl:


----------



## CharlieParker

NextTimeAround said:


> expects her to pay the bill is definitely a sign that he's her soulmate.


Only if she doesn't use a coupon.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I think that for someone to say that sex on a first date doesn't affect their opinion of the person they're having that date with is highly inaccurate.

The purpose of a first date is to _create an impression_.

_Anything_ that person does would give you an impression of them..

How she dresses, how she walks, how he speaks ,if he's confident and the list goes on.

If a guy was rude, cheap and impolite on a first date , would you have sex or even go on a second date with him?

Lets say , like the OP you had sex with this guy on the first date and he didn't bother to call after, would you be inclined to have sex on the first date with the next guy who came after him?

I doubt it.

And the reality , he might just have been " Mr. Right" and because you had sex with " Mr. Wrong" , Mr. Right would have to wait a while before you say yes to having sex with him.

That too, is a double standard, but it is the natural order of things.

Sex on the first date is always risky, sometimes it works just fine , most times it doesn't, and obviously so because sexual chemistry is just a part of the whole that makes a person a good long term mate for you.

If you're into the dating game just for the sex alone, then sex on the first date is a must.
If you're in the dating game for a serious partner, then sex on the first date could be risky.

Only you can determine if it's a risk worth taking and I'm sure many of us have taken that risk, and like the OP,

Failed miserably.


----------



## NextTimeAround

CharlieParker said:


> Only if she doesn't use a coupon.



then you wouldn't like me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Machiavelli said:


> The need for males to be exclusive is a relatively new development in history. The double standard is the natural order of things.


Well, to be fair, I'm not sure we can say the "natural order" as opposed to just saying the prevailing order of the past. We're talking about people either way, so who's to say what's "natural" right?


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

Runs like Dog said:


> She wrote or book or something bragging how she banged just about everyone everywhere.


Ah, I see. 

Well, I'd like to think there's a difference between asking, anonymously, as to whether or not you may have given someone the wrong impression and publishing initmate details of your love or sex life for all to read. Sometimes it's best to pose a general question to a group of strangers than to reveal more specific details to those who know you personally.

Having read all the replies I have no regrets. My stance on this is if you feel comfortable with someone and there's a definate attraction then why not go for it, make them feel good, make yourself feel good and perhaps even discover compatability on a physical level. That doesn't necessarily indicate frequent promiscuity on either part. Just shows this person may be one of the rare few who is worth further investigation and you're happy to express that on a physical level.

It would just be a shame if that, in turn, rules out the opportunity to continue to get to know the person, enjoy their company and perhaps realise a connection on other levels too.


----------



## SpinDaddy

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> . . . asking for obvious reasons.
> 
> Would you still be interestred in the woman?
> Is it a complete deal breaker?
> Appreciate your thoughts and opinios :scratchhead:


Back in the day, I wished I knew more of them. Now that I have a daughter - not such a good thing.


----------



## larry.gray

Having sex on the first date isn't what bugs a guy.

What's bad for a guy is finding out is wife gave it up to lots of guys on the first date but made him wait a long time.


----------



## NextTimeAround

larry.gray said:


> Having sex on the first date isn't what bugs a guy.
> 
> What's bad for a guy is finding out is wife gave it up to lots of guys on the first date but made him wait a long time.


By the same token, a fair few women might be ok with going dutch on the first date....... until they heard how generous this same guy was with other women in similar circumstances.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> I think that for someone to say that sex on a first date doesn't affect their opinion of the person they're having that date with is highly inaccurate.


What opinion am I supposed to form of this information? The only thing I discern is that she's comfortable with sex in a way that some are not. The opposite of putting sex on pedestal only for those one is in love with. I don't consider that a positive or a negative. Just a trait, like "blonde hair".

I've noted no correlation of any attribute I'd ascribe positive or negative value with sex on a first date. The types that have done so with me have been all over the map.


----------



## Machiavelli

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Well, to be fair, I'm not sure we can say the "natural order" as opposed to just saying the prevailing order of the past. We're talking about people either way, so who's to say what's "natural" right?


The vast majority of societies since the dawn of time were polygynous except for the Geeks and Romans who, while being _legally_ monogamous, had no expectation of male practical monogamy. That concept appears to come from the English Puritans.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> What opinion am I supposed to form of this information?
> 
> *The only thing I discern is that she's comfortable with sex in a way that some are not. The opposite of putting sex on pedestal only for those one is in love with. I don't consider that a positive or a negative. Just a trait, like "blonde hair".*


Well that's what I'm saying.

You _have_ discerned and formed an opinion about her.

And that opinion is that she's comfortable with sex in a way that some others are not.

In other words she's compatible with you.

So you have thought about her decision to have sex and agree with it!

So it affected your opinion of her positively.


----------



## 2ntnuf

And that's what has to be done to have a good marriage or the best possiblity of it. 

The trouble is when we can't accept that others are different than us. In fact, we are all different. And...that's okay. It's good. You like sex on the first date? Great! She does too. Now, where else are we compatible.

You don't like sex on the first date? Great! Neither does she. Now, where else are we compatible. 

Not, oh, he or she is no good because they do or don't. It's not supposed to be like that. Unfortunately, it is sometimes.


----------



## LongWalk

larry.gray said:


> Having sex on the first date isn't what bugs a guy.
> 
> What's bad for a guy is finding out is wife gave it up to lots of guys on the first date but made him wait a long time.


What was the name of the young woman poster whose LTR boyfriend had discovered that he had been made to wait weeks into dating before she slept with him but had quickly surrendered to a player whom the BF knew and disliked?

Her BF was really disappointed. It seemed uncertain whether she managed to repair the massive hole in his ego.

And she was careful not to sleep with BF too quickly.

She took a lot of shxt here, I am sorry to say.


----------



## RandomDude

LongWalk said:


> What was the name of the young woman poster whose LTR boyfriend had discovered that he had been made to wait weeks into dating before she slept with him but had quickly surrendered to a player whom the BF knew and disliked?
> 
> Her BF was really disappointed. It seemed uncertain whether she managed to repair the massive hole in his ego.
> 
> And she was careful not to sleep with BF too quickly.
> 
> She took a lot of shxt here, I am sorry to say.


I would be impressed if she managed to repair it

Everytime he sees her now he's going to think 'that prick has been there'! I would be surprised if he even wishes to touch her! Funny though, really gives a whole new meaning to 'nice guys finish last'


----------



## heartsbeating

Caribbean Man said:


> I think based on what the OP wrote and her previous threads , she might be in a vulnerable state emotionally at this time , due to her divorce and past marital issues.
> 
> So OP , what matters is not what we think or what that man you had sex with thinks,
> But , what do you think?
> How does it make you feel about yourself?
> 
> I think based on what I've read, wanting to meet new partners and have sex after a divorce might be quite normal for most people.
> But I think it might be better if you take some time , figure out yourself , so that the next time you decide to have sex, it would be with someone who probably shares the same feelings with you, and respects you enough to a least call.
> 
> Love yourself.


I like this post!

My husband was my first and only. I knew that for me, sex had to be with someone who gave a damn about me and who I gave a damn about. Who really knows how I'd be if I found myself in a different circumstance now. I've a feeling I would probably be the same... but who knows. I agree this is all about how you feel about yourself in this scenario and recognizing whether it's something you're good with or not.


----------



## sinnister

larry.gray said:


> Having sex on the first date isn't what bugs a guy.
> 
> What's bad for a guy is finding out is wife gave it up to lots of guys on the first date but made him wait a long time.


Winner.

This is the issue.


----------



## GettingIt_2

I don't have any opinion of women who give it up on the first date because I don't think it's a reliable predictor of character. Nor do I think that a woman who gives it up for one guy on the first date is in any way obligated to give it up to the next guy on any date. Sex isn't always about how hot a woman is for the guy--hell sometimes it's got NOTHING to do with the guy. 

What I feel about some of the judgments in this thread . . . well, that's another matter.


----------



## larry.gray

sinnister said:


> Winner.
> 
> This is the issue.


Yep.

I had the opposite. My wife had a boyfriend through most of high school. He never got past kissing. She then had a two year relationship that never went past first base.

I made it to third on our first date and took her virginity a week later.


----------



## sparkyjim

larry.gray said:


> Having sex on the first date isn't what bugs a guy.


I know I have already stated that I have no problem with the idea of sex on a first date...

However I do not believe that is the best way to build a relationship. Most books I have read suggest waiting until you have a real emotional connection before having sex.

I tend to believe this, but also see where it can be a two edged sword. What if the sex is horrible and now you are emotionally attached to someone but you realize you made a mistake?

The truth is that I do not believe that sex on the first date is good for either the man or the woman.

While, in theory, I believe what they say, in practice I have rarely made it past date number three. And I do have a few first date and second date occurrences in that mix.

Now my wife and I met on the internet, and we were physically separated, so by the time we met we had gotten to know each other very well by email, and by Skype. To the point that when we did finally get together in real life we had sex that night.

The funny thing is that I had told her previously that we should wait at "least until the second day" and she had agreed.

So I don't practice what I believe... or maybe I do, because I want to make sure that the sex will be good. It's a conundrum for me, solved only by the fact that it worked out for us and I could not be happier...


----------



## wtf2012

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> wtf2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would assume that I wasn't the only first date hook up. I would assume that the other person is actively sleeping with other people.
> 
> In my experience the women who have given it up on 1st date/very early had problems staying faithful.
> 
> Ymmv
> _Posted via Mobile Device_[/QUOT
> 
> Yeah, that's he irony of he situation. I normally wouldn't be that way. Was in a relationship for 10 years then married for 4 so just never been that way. Don't normally get drunk so easily either!!!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the question becomes do you think it was out of character for him?
> 
> If not, does this mean your values mesh well?
Click to expand...


----------



## wtf2012

Jellybeans said:


> This is SO true!
> 
> I was sharing a dating story with someone and that person told me told me because I DID NOT sleep with a guy I went out with, that is why he never called me back after a date.
> 
> And like was like, Well, F-CK that guy! (not literally).
> 
> Seems you can't win either way sometimes.
> 
> Again, it just boils down to compatibility and if both want to pursue it. I personally am not going to re-adjust not wanting to sleep with a guy the first time we meet just because I am afraid I won't ever see him again just because I didn't go to bed with him.
> 
> In OP's case, the guy has not reached out to her again and made no effort to take her up on two offers already to hang out again. I'd just forget about him if I were her.


I would propose that you win when a guy doesn't call back after a sexless first date.


----------



## EleGirl

larry.gray said:


> Having sex on the first date isn't what bugs a guy.
> 
> What's bad for a guy is finding out is wife gave it up to lots of guys on the first date but made him wait a long time.


A lot of guys on here are saying that sex on the first date does bother them in that they would consider a women who did this not LTR material.

So apparently both things bother a lot of men.


----------



## LongWalk

Elegirl,

You are right as usual.
If a man invites a woman on a first date and doesn't pay that is also a bad sign. Women sure won't sleep with them and they won't go on a second date either.

Also, it is not enough for a man to pay. He should do it smoothly and without appearing to feel that it creates any obligation for the woman at all. He should be natural about dating. She doesn't want to date a guy who is awkward, the kind that other women wouldn't date or sleep with. Natural is a key word.

Which leads to the most important rule. If it the relationship feels natural, then you don't have to follow lots of rules. But somewhere people who date have to judge character. Is there a way to determine that behavior indicative of promiscuity is a false red flag?


----------



## LongWalk

LonnieHere was the young woman who gave her BF the wrong impression by being hard to get with him while hoping the sack quickly with his douche bag unknown rival.

There are exceptions to rules. But divorce statistics suggest that people who've had many partners have a higher divorce rate.


----------



## Wiltshireman

Just a quick response to the original question.

I can't identify with anyone (male or female) who had sex on the first date.

I believe that sex is gift best enjoyed as part of a LTR and it should not be "thrown away" in such a reckless fashion. 

I have never understood the mad rush to copulate, find the right person, get to know them and build a relationship before jumping each others bones.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Do we get married to a person for the same reasons we have sex with them?

I don't think so.

We have sex with a person because we feel sexual attraction, or we just want the sexual release or a number of other personal , most times selfish reasons.

The reasons we get into a LTR or marriage with a person are entirely different to the reasons we have sex. Relationships are about giving and sharing, not only taking.

Some people are big on willingness to sacrifice instant gratification for long term goals. A person who doesn't have sex too soon , even though they want to, would make them a good LTR partner in their opinion.

Some people see it differently, they don't see the need to sacrifice pleasure , and rather take chances based on how they feel. The question is, if they didn't have sex with their partner on the first date, would the relationship have worked?
Obviously, the answer is yes.
_But would they have given it a chance without sex on the first date?_
Hmmm.

So it can be said that the person who is unwilling to wait would be at a greater disadvantage of finding the right person _for them_ ,than the person who wanted to wait.

The key is finding out what type of person your date/ partner is , being honest and prepared to move on if your values are different.
Or,
Being flexible enough to understand your date/ partner's views and willing to compromise.


----------



## Jellybeans

Machiavelli said:


> The vast majority of societies since the dawn of time were polygynous except for the Geeks and Romans who, while being _legally_ monogamous, *had no expectation of practical monogamy*. That concept appears to come from the English Puritans.


Fixed it for you. I love the GEEKS' history.



LongWalk said:


> What was the name of the young woman poster whose LTR boyfriend had discovered that he had been made to wait weeks into dating before she slept with him but had quickly surrendered to a player whom the BF knew and disliked?
> 
> She took a lot of shxt here, I am sorry to say.


That situation wasn't the same. her thing was she was dating one guy and had not slept with him and never told him she was sleeping with someone else while he was courting her. The reason why she got so much sh*t was because of the lie. Or rather, her omission and purposely not telling the guy she was dating she had been sleeping with someone else, who happened to be someone he hated, and he didn't find out til like a year later or so. One could surmise she was NOT the one who told him. Just a lot of shadiness there.



wtf2012 said:


> I would propose that you win when a guy doesn't call back after a sexless first date.


Right?



LongWalk said:


> If a man invites a woman on a first date and doesn't pay that is also a bad sign. Women sure won't sleep with them and they won't go on a second date either.


Eh. You'd be surprised. Some women refuse to be paid for on a date and will sleep with the some guy on the first date. So many variables/different people.

As far as this thread goes -- some men are going to be ok with it and some aren't. Some do not want to bang on the first date, some do. Again, many different people and opinions in this world.

I would be remiss though if I said that women's sexuality didn't take more flack then men's in modern society. Women are expected to behave a certain way by societal standards and anything out of that box and many consider her a "sl-t." For males, it is not the same at all. Not even in the same ballpark.

With that said, people are always going to judge what you do, good or bad. Facts of life.


----------



## LongWalk

Women's sexuality will always be treated with a double standard because of the biological differences between the genders. The male strategy is to mate as much as possible. The female is to secure a provider. Modern society promotes equality but it cannot undo our fundamental hardwiring.

No one has lessons about sexual jealousy. It occurs naturally. Falling in love would mean nothing if there were not jealousy and possessiveness.

It is unimaginable that a person newly and deeply in love would accept their lover falling in love with someone else and say: "Oh, (s)he is just had sex with him/her and their eyes are shining: I am so happy for them because all the world loves a lover."


----------



## Jellybeans

LongWalk said:


> Women's sexuality will always be treated with a double standard because of the biological differences between the genders. The male strategy is to mate as much as possible.


It also goes much deeper than that. It is a societal thing, societal expectations of gender roles and women's expectations to fit in pretty little boxes.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Other things that support the double standard:

1. It's believed that women are offered sex constantly so the ability to be to turn it down shows a pickiness that fuels challenge.

2. Men are expected to be the aggressors..... so their asking for sex is a hard wired behavior.

Think about it.... isn't it a huge insult to a woman to offer sex to some guy and he turns it down.

Agreeing to sex early on truncates the hunt and its thrill.


----------



## Cosmos

LongWalk said:


> Women's sexuality will always be treated with a double standard because of the biological differences between the genders. The male strategy is to mate as much as possible. The female is to secure a provider. Modern society promotes equality but it cannot undo our fundamental hardwiring.


Women's sexuality has been treated with a double standard not because of biological differences, but because society has permitted it. This has little to do with the "hardwiring" of either gender, but because of our man made social structuring, societal 'norms' and prejudices.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Cosmos said:


> LongWalk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women's sexuality will always be treated with a double standard because of the biological differences between the genders. The male strategy is to mate as much as possible. The female is to secure a provider. Modern society promotes equality but it cannot undo our fundamental hardwiring.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Women's sexuality has been treated with a double standard not because of biological differences,* but because society has permitted it. * This has little to do with the "hardwiring" of either gender, but because of man made societal 'norms.'
> 
> 
> 
> So why has society permitted it?
Click to expand...


----------



## Jellybeans

And Machiavelli was right that these things became more of the "norm" with religion/puritanicals. That is when it really started getting hammered in.


----------



## Caribbean Man

NextTimeAround said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why has society permitted it?
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely.
> 
> For biological reasons.
> 
> Women get pregnant and bear children, men don't.
> 
> What we now see as a double standard was actually a safety measure before science intervened.
> 
> Before the advent of pharmaceutical grade birth control ,if a woman had sex with three men in one day and got pregnant , she wouldn't be able to tell who was the father.
> 
> If a man had sex with three women in one day and all three got pregnant, they knew that he was the father of all three of their kids.
> 
> The question is to what extent does science influence culture and social constructs , or vice versa.
> 
> Another example is religion.
> Does science make the religious construct obsolete?
Click to expand...


----------



## Cosmos

> NextTimeAround:
> 
> So why has society permitted it?


Because the history of society has generally been patriarchal.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Cosmos said:


> Because the history of society has generally been patriarchal.


Why has the history of society been patriarchal?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Caribbean Man said:


> Do we get married to a person for the same reasons we have sex with them?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> We have sex with a person because we feel sexual attraction, or we just want the sexual release or a number of other personal , most times selfish reasons.
> 
> The reasons we get into a LTR or marriage with a person are entirely different to the reasons we have sex. Relationships are about giving and sharing, not only taking.


Sex doesn't have to be for selfish reasons. You can get to know a lot about a person and have lots of sharing, giving and taking in bed. Sex is important on my list of things I want to get to know about a partner. I wouldn't wait to talk about religious views, children or other important deal breakers on the first date either. If I'm comfortable with it and feel it's the right choice, get it out of the way, figure out if you're compatible so you can decide to build it or move on.


----------



## Cosmos

> Caribbean Man
> 
> Precisely.
> 
> For biological reasons.
> 
> Women get pregnant and bear children, men don't.
> 
> What we now see as a double standard was actually a safety measure before science intervened.
> 
> Before the advent of pharmaceutical grade birth control ,if a woman had sex with three men in one day and got pregnant , she wouldn't be able to tell who was the father.
> 
> If a man had sex with three women in one day and all three got pregnant, they knew that he was the father of all three of their kids.
> 
> The question is to what extent does science influence culture and social constructs , or vice versa.
> 
> Another example is religion.
> Does science make the religious construct obsolete?


Absolutely. But this doesn't mean that women are "hardwired" to_ not_ be promiscuous (as the post I was replying to implied). Because of how our society is structured, it just wasn't a good idea for women to bear children they couldn't support. Now that that 'obstacle' has been removed (birth control and benefit/welfare) we're seeing no such constraints in this regard.


----------



## NextTimeAround

> Now that that 'obstacle' has been removed (birth control and* benefit/welfare*) we're seeing no such constraints in this regard.


This is not ideal which probably keeps the double standard alive.


----------



## Cosmos

NextTimeAround said:


> Why has the history of society been patriarchal?


In most species, the physically stronger usually have the most power.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> Absolutely. But this doesn't mean that women are "hardwired" to_ not_ be promiscuous (as the post I was replying to implied). Because of how our society is structured, it just wasn't a good idea for women to bear children they couldn't support. Now that that 'obstacle' has been removed (birth control and benefit/welfare) we're seeing no such constraints in this regard.


Agreed , it has absolutely nothing to do with " hardwiring."

But my hypothesis is that what we now call a double standard was actually a social construct designed for population control that went hand in hand with monogamous marriage before science made it obsolete.

Now, science has removed the obstacles, it became a " double standard" ,we applied some reverse rationalization and came up with the " harwiring " theory. But I don't believe it's that. That's why I compared it to religion.
Science has debunked many things that we have thought were acts " acts of God " , but yet still faith in God remains strong in the vast majority of even educated humans.

So my hypothesis is that science doesn't necessarily change human beliefs , our culture and social constructs are based on our beliefs.

Science seems to be moving fast and it affects the way we perceive the world around us, but it doesn't seem to be moving fast enough to affect the way we perceive each other.

What has to be done instead of the reverse rationalization on both sides of the gender divide, is to figure out exactly how do we fit into this " new reality" that we have created through science.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> Well that's what I'm saying.
> 
> You _have_ discerned and formed an opinion about her.
> 
> And that opinion is that she's comfortable with sex in a way that some others are not.
> 
> In other words she's compatible with you.
> 
> So you have thought about her decision to have sex and agree with it!
> 
> So it affected your opinion of her positively.


You've misinterpreted what I'm saying. It indicates she's more comfortable with sex, but that doesn't make me like her more than a woman who doesn't have sex on the first date. No greater or lesser compatibility. I'm totally good with waiting a few weeks. See what I'm saying?

There's no positive or negative to it for me. Like saying "blonde" vs "brunette", when I like them equally. Its a neutral trait.

Now, if 2 months go by and there's still no sex... THEN I have a negative opinion. haha


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *Now, if 2 months go by and there's still no sex...* THEN I have a negative opinion. haha


I suspect by then you wouldn't even remember her name?:rofl:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Machiavelli said:


> The vast majority of societies since the dawn of time were polygynous except for the Geeks and Romans who, while being _legally_ monogamous, had no expectation of male practical monogamy. That concept appears to come from the English Puritans.


I think its necessary to separate the institutional sense of monogamy from whatever we call "natural". When one speaks of "an expectation of male monogamy", one is speaking of culture, not nature.

The jealousy most people experience, even in polygamous cultures, would seem to argue that our natural state is somewhat hypocritical. *I* can be polygamous, but *you* should be monogamous. I think this is true of men and women.

It just happens that the vast majority of societies have been patriarchal, so it only stands to reason that polygamy would be practiced primarily by males.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> I suspect by then you wouldn't even remember her name?:rofl:


lol

Its important to always remember her name. You'd be surprised how often they come back and make a sexual advance AFTER you end exclusivity. Doesn't make sense to me, but ok.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

LongWalk said:


> If it the relationship feels natural, then you don't have to follow lots of rules.


I completely agree with this. Its all about it feeling natural. If I don't have that feeling that sex on the first date is the result of the natural flow and chemistry, then something's not right. Actually hard to describe, but you can feel when a woman is "using" sex outside of the natural course of things under the notion that it increases her appeal, or to conform to expectation - whether its having it too early, or holding out.

The key word is definitely "natural".


----------



## Machiavelli

Cosmos said:


> Women's sexuality has been treated with a double standard not because of biological differences, but because society has permitted it. This has little to do with the "hardwiring" of either gender, but because of our man made social structuring, societal 'norms' and prejudices.


Uh, no.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

LongWalk said:


> There are exceptions to rules. But divorce statistics suggest that people who've had many partners have a higher divorce rate.


This evidence is problematic imo. I'm not sure it informs what you think it informs.

One could make a reasonable case that someone who has had many partners simply has less "fear of the unknown/new" than someone who married their first. The latter may stay longer in a bad relationship solely because "God only knows what's out there." That innate fear of the unknown.


----------



## Faithful Wife

:lol: (whoops, that was for Mach, no you Dvls)


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> The question is, if they didn't have sex with their partner on the first date, would the relationship have worked?
> Obviously, the answer is yes.
> _But would they have given it a chance without sex on the first date?_
> Hmmm.
> 
> So it can be said that the person who is unwilling to wait would be at a greater disadvantage of finding the right person _for them_ ,than the person who wanted to wait.


I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I liked everything else in your post until I arrived at this. How do you reason that the relationship would have obviously worked if they didn't have sex with their partner on the first date? And how is having or not having sex on the first date an advantage or disadvantage? I don't follow.


----------



## onlylonelyone

Haha no need for a second date if the sex sucks... Grown adults don't need to waste that kind of time


----------



## Machiavelli

Machiavelli said:


> The vast majority of societies since the dawn of time were polygynous except for the Geeks and Romans who, while being _legally_ monogamous, had no expectation of male practical monogamy. That concept appears to come from the English Puritans.





Jellybeans said:


> Fixed it for you. I love the GEEKS' history.


Freudian slip. Geek is a good term for guys who came up with the idea of the seminar; a night out combining intense philosophical discussion and drunken group sex with highly educated hetairaii.

Actually, Greeks and Romans did expect female monogamy when it came to sex with men, which is why adultery (defined as a wife having sex with any man other than her husband) was proscribed legally. In the Empire, Augustus decreed mandatory divorce in the event of adultery by the wife. The big exception to this attitude was that older Spartans past the age of sexual performance would recruit young men to bull their young wives.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I liked everything else in your post until I arrived at this. How do you reason that the relationship would have obviously worked if they didn't have sex with their partner on the first date? And how is having or not having sex on the first date an advantage or disadvantage? I don't follow.


My rationale is simple.

If we ask those couples on this thread who've had sex on the first date and are still married , whether they would have still chosen their partner if they_ didn't_ have sex on the first date ,and most likely, the answer would be yes, 

They would have stayed , because obviously their marriage was based on much more than the sexual attraction they felt at that particular time.
So whether or not they had sex on that first date wouldn't have altered how they felt about their partner enough to decide to move on.

So if a person_ insists_ on having sex on the first date, then they're narrowing down their long term dating pool options significantly.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Caribbean Man said:


> Agreed , it has absolutely nothing to do with " hardwiring."
> 
> But my hypothesis is that what we now call a double standard was actually a social construct designed for population control that went hand in hand with monogamous marriage before science made it obsolete.
> 
> I disagree with this, CM. I really think it's ties are more to the ruling party seeing many children and women without fathers and husbands. I think, at that time at least, women made much less money, for whatever reasons. I think they were a burden to those who were expected to offer help with their own resources and so, they instituted marriage and monogamy, not for pop control, but to ease their financial burden and reduce the amount of homeless. I think it was a sign of a poorly run society when there were lots of vagrants. I think it also made disgusting living conditions because those folks had to live in towns where they could beg and find food, or steal, and likely went to the bathroom in public.
> 
> Now, science has removed the obstacles, it became a " double standard" ,we applied some reverse rationalization and came up with the " harwiring " theory. But I don't believe it's that. That's why I compared it to religion.
> Science has debunked many things that we have thought were acts " acts of God " , but yet still faith in God remains strong in the vast majority of even educated humans.
> 
> So my hypothesis is that science doesn't necessarily change human beliefs , our culture and social constructs are based on our beliefs.
> 
> I think science is a tool that gives us the ability to revert to being less concerned with things that used to cause hardship and diseases in human life.
> 
> Science seems to be moving fast and it affects the way we perceive the world around us, but it doesn't seem to be moving fast enough to affect the way we perceive each other.
> 
> What has to be done instead of the reverse rationalization on both sides of the gender divide, is to figure out exactly how do we fit into this " new reality" that we have created through science.


I agree with this last paragraph. It's why I wrote what I did, way back a few pages. I think we must realize we are each different in many ways. I think we must accept each other for who we are and, "live and let live". I doubt this will ever truly happen, though. 

Humans are meant for survival of the fittest, because we really are just animals. We are a higher order of animals, but we still want to survive, like all others and will do all we can to do so. The difference is, we can and do choose to have compassion, mercy, and empathy with those less fortunate, because we understand that all people have something to offer society, not just those who are at the apex of humanity. 

When we stop using that very human trait, our world loses something.


----------



## Machiavelli

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think its necessary to separate the institutional sense of monogamy from whatever we call "natural". When one speaks of "an expectation of male monogamy", one is speaking of culture, not nature.


Exactly. Men are not sexually monogamous by nature.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The jealousy most people experience, even in polygamous cultures, would seem to argue that our natural state is somewhat hypocritical. *I* can be polygamous, but *you* should be monogamous. I think this is true of men and women.
> 
> It just happens that the vast majority of societies have been patriarchal, so it only stands to reason that polygamy would be practiced primarily by males.


"It" doesn't "just happen that the vast majority of societies have been patriarchal." It's the natural 100% order of things once a society moves beyond the hunter-gatherer stage of development when personal/private property comes into play in the neolithic era. My Creek and Choctaw ancestors were matriarchal/matrilineal societies, but the concept of private land holdings was alien to them. Hunter-gatherer type societies don't have property and herd/flock inheritance issues, so matriarchy worked.


----------



## Caribbean Man

2ntnuf said:


> I disagree with this, CM. I really think it's ties are more to the ruling party seeing many children and women without fathers and husbands. I think, at that time at least, women made much less money, for whatever reasons. I think they were a burden to those who were expected to offer help with their own resources and so, they instituted marriage and monogamy, not for pop control, but to ease their financial burden and reduce the amount of homeless. I think it was a sign of a poorly run society when there were lots of vagrants. I think it also made disgusting living conditions because those folks had to live in towns where they could beg and find food, or steal, and likely went to the bathroom in public.


I think we might be saying the same thing 2ntnuf.

I probably used the term " population control " a bit loosely.

What I really meant was " public order" or " social order " instead of 
" population control."

So that paragraph should have read:

" _But my hypothesis is that what we now call a double standard was actually a social construct designed for social order that went hand in hand with monogamous marriage before science made it obsolete.._."


----------



## 2ntnuf

Caribbean Man said:


> I think we might be saying the same thing 2ntnuf.
> 
> I probably used the term " population control " a bit loosely.
> 
> What I really meant was " public order" or " social order " instead of
> " population control."
> 
> So that paragraph should have read:
> 
> " _But my hypothesis is that what we now call a double standard was actually a social construct designed for social order that went hand in hand with monogamous marriage before science made it obsolete.._."


I agree with that because, like today, I don't think most folks cared that much about how many children or wives or husbands someone had, as long as they could afford them and there wasn't a problem created for the ruling class or the masses. 

I also think religion was always thought of as a sort of sociatla hindrance because it forces humans to consider all others as part of humanity and worth considering when making decisions. It hinders the ability to recklessly increase wealth and power. Maybe, rightly so.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Agreed , it has absolutely nothing to do with " hardwiring."
> 
> But my hypothesis is that what we now call a double standard was actually a social construct designed for population control that went hand in hand with monogamous marriage before science made it obsolete.
> 
> Now, science has removed the obstacles, it became a " double standard" ,we applied some reverse rationalization and came up with the " harwiring " theory. But I don't believe it's that. That's why I compared it to religion.
> Science has debunked many things that we have thought were acts " acts of God " , but yet still faith in God remains strong in the vast majority of even educated humans.
> 
> So my hypothesis is that science doesn't necessarily change human beliefs , our culture and social constructs are based on our beliefs.
> 
> Science seems to be moving fast and it affects the way we perceive the world around us, but it doesn't seem to be moving fast enough to affect the way we perceive each other.
> 
> What has to be done instead of the reverse rationalization on both sides of the gender divide, is to figure out exactly how do we fit into this " new reality" that we have created through science.


:iagree: and I would say that 'enlightenment' is the way forward. At the moment we have so much confusion when it comes to male / female relationships. Some of us have managed to adapt to the many changes in society, whilst others either abuse it or are enraged by it.

If humanity is to progress and reach a state of 'connectedness,' we need to evolve and stop relying on self-serving primitive thinking and societal constructs that bolster the reasons why we shouldn't.


----------



## Anonymous07

heartsbeating said:


> I like this post!
> 
> My husband was my first and only. I knew that for me, sex had to be with someone who gave a damn about me and who I gave a damn about. Who really knows how I'd be if I found myself in a different circumstance now. I've a feeling I would probably be the same... but who knows. I agree this is all about how you feel about yourself in this scenario and recognizing whether it's something you're good with or not.


:iagree::iagree:

I really can't relate to those who have had sex on the first date or in a short period of time. My husband was also my first and only, and we waited to have sex. If I found myself single again, I would do the same thing(wait to have sex). I find sex to be something special, not to be given to just anyone. If I saw a man who had sex with women on a first date, he would not be for me. Our values would not match. Just my opinion. 

If you can have sex freely and that is okay with you, then have at it. You don't need random people on the internet to validate you. It just comes down to your values and what you feel comfortable with.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Actually, I was insinuating everyone back to having or attempting to get the sex you desire, not just women on the rod.


----------



## LongWalk

Looking for Help and Hope,

Your thread has turned very theoretical, as you intended. Was the guy alpha or beta?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anonymous07 said:


> :iagree::iagree:
> 
> I really can't relate to those who have had sex on the first date or in a short period of time. My husband was also my first and only, and we waited to have sex. If I found myself single again, I would do the same thing(wait to have sex). I find sex to be something special, not to be given to just anyone. If I saw a man who had sex with women on a first date, he would not be for me. Our values would not match. Just my opinion.
> 
> If you can have sex freely and that is okay with you, then have at it. You don't need random people on the internet to validate you. It just comes down to your values and what you feel comfortable with.


My H waited years to have intercourse with me, others would have just dumped me... Because of how he handled me...I felt greatly loved and cherished...

Many will never understand this..they will only see hang ups...but really....we were both very horny individuals.... for us both...what sex (by this I mean going all the way) represented .. was so profound, so meaningful.. it was just something worth waiting for....

I am the type of person , had I started to have sex easily with whomever...just for pleasure... I could see me getting addicted and wanting to chop the balls off of those who used me and left.. (I am kidding.. well.. a little...I would be livid, mad as hell and very very hurt)...it would have worked against me.. I wanted a Gentleman who cared about such things...that a girl doesn't give it up too quickly.. if he felt that was asinine, then I'd know he was not for Me...

I wanted a man who had similar values as myself ... that believed in getting to know someone on a deep level before fusing our bodies together -to where I see us "becoming one"...when I give my body, I give my soul, my heart & my mind.. I am stingy...I want the afterglow and to talk about our children someday.. if that is asking too damn much, then he can move along...

That's just how I felt .. in my youth anyway.. it's a little different once you've had kids.. Mid life... if I lost my Husband or something.. but still I'd be careful to not JUMP too quickly.. cause again, I would want the whole package.. and to not be kicking myself later .


----------



## NextTimeAround

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is over the top imo. Even if such a scenario were realistic, the 80% would simply enact draconian laws to enforce monogamy - punishments for sex out of wed-lock, adultery etc.


It's already happening with the Republican party trying to limit access to birth control and abortions. In other words, "women will not have recreational sex....... or else, you're stuck with it."

For example, 1 of the (GOP) criticisms of Obamacare is that it requires all employers to provide for birth control. Catholic institutions included.

2 What's the rationale behind trans vaginal sonograms before a woman can get an abortion. That doesn't sound like the GOP wants government out of lives. They want the government to be in, in more ways than one.


----------



## 2ntnuf

NextTimeAround said:


> It's already happening with the Republican party trying to limit access to birth control and abortions. In other words, "women will not have recreational sex....... or else, you're stuck with it."
> 
> As long as there are people on this earth, there will be those who think their way is the proper way. Even the opposite of this is evident. That, I thought, was part of the conclusions of this thread. Each of us, has the right to pursue happiness in the manner in which we see fit, that does not include infringing upon another's rights or harming anyone. BOTH sides.
> 
> For example, 1 of the (GOP) criticisms of Obamacare is that it requires all employers to provide for birth control. Catholic institutions included.
> 
> Catholic hospitals are not the only hospitals out there. If they are considered to have the best doctors, I suggest other hospitals attempt to lure great doctors, as well. If it is an established religious hospital, it should be avoided by those who don't believe similarly. Likewise, if you don't believe the Catholic tenets, find another facility. They are all over the place. Again, it's forcing opinions on others, not matter which side you are on. Wrong no matter how you look at it and if you are religious, not what was taught by Jesus.
> 
> 2 What's the rationale behind trans vaginal sonograms before a woman can get an abortion. That doesn't sound like the GOP wants government out of lives. They want the government to be in, in more ways than one.


That's just simply wrong, unless a medical reason is determined to keep mother and/or child safe. No, I don't agree with abortions, but I do think free will or choice, however you want to say it, is important. Jesus never forced anyone to believe what he was teaching. That's where both sides are wrong.


----------



## NextTimeAround

SimplyAmorous said:


> My H waited years to have intercourse with me, others would have just dumped me... Because of how he handled me...I felt greatly loved and cherished...
> 
> .


I wonder how your husband might have felt if he knew that you had had sex during that period.......... even just once.


----------



## treyvion

chillymorn said:


> sex on the first date as young teeagers or 20 something is a lot different than sex on the first date after a failed marriage and well into your forties.
> 
> 
> as a young dumb full of cum guy if I wasn't getting laid by date 3 I was out of there. with that said most girls who had a reputation as being easy were just the opposite. and the one with no reputation were easie a pie.
> 
> now with that said as a mature adult getting in a womans pants would be secondary to getting to know her personialty to be sure I even want to get in her pants.


"3 date rule" sounds kinda barbaric, but if a man doesn't implement some sort of limit he will find women who are abusing the system, just stretching him out for free dates and dinner. When both people are able to work and have an income, it's just not right for a man to bear such a committment unless there is an equal committment, or maybe he is that generous were he will give so much of himself without any expect for any sort of reciprocation.

You have to expect some, because there are many free riders and free loaders looking for a generous person to run into the ground.


----------



## treyvion

intheory said:


> ======================
> 
> If I asked a man out, I would pay. I asked someone out once. He already had a girlfriend.
> 
> I've bought guys dinner, presents, taken the driving responsibilites. I don't know if it was exactly 50-50.
> 
> My husband and I did not have joint finances until the 7th year of our marriage.
> 
> There are women who want to help and co-operate financially. There are women who ask men out and would pay. Of course, if a woman asks you out, that would probably make her somewhat undesirable; wouldn't it?


If a woman asked me out and wanted to pay, that would make her VERY desireable. Especially if I am physically attracted to her. It would make her so much more attractive. The quality of kindness would make me get an erection.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NextTimeAround said:


> I wonder how your husband might have felt if he knew that you had had sex during that period.......... even just once.


Why do you ask this.. We've talked about different scenarios many times over ... This was 30 some years ago..I was only 15.... the world is more liberal today with their sexuality than it was back then... parents put their daughters on birth control at this age today.. I would have been kicked out of my house/ been homeless if I got pregnant...though he would have done anything for me....

Today women think the guy is gay if he doesn't go for it...or the woman is a prude if she wants to wait... I find it very disheartening ...the judgement has swung --it goes both ways... What our daughter has to deal with...God help her.. our sons go against the wind in this society too. 

My H has told me if I was the type of girl who gave it up easily, he would not have given me a 2nd look...I am sure that offends some here....On this side... I find it offending that some deem my type a PRUDE that needs a damn test drive.. to each their own, no one should struggle with resentment while dating.. we didn't...

My H was not one living the double standard, so he is not a hypocrite... Girls didn't give him a 2nd look anyway... since they always go for the Studs..seems the more women who want you, the bigger prize you are... That is not what appealed me to personally...but how a man treats you, is he the family type, honest and true, devoted, faithful... 



> Originally Posted by *NextTimeAround*
> 
> Imagine if a guy started thread asking if it's okay to make women pay for the first date. I wonder how many women would say, not only, that's ok, but it would be immediately clear to that poster that a guy who invites her to dine with him at his favorite restaurant and then expects her to pay the bill is definitely a sign that he's her soulmate.


 Not sure what soul mates have to do with this .. but I'll give you my take on it... which is going against the wind again...

If something happened to my H , I'd want to find LOVE again... but in this saturated society of Casual sex -key word "FUN" on dating profiles .. 

I'd have one hell of a time finding a decent man.. This I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE of.. most of them would want nothing to do with marrying again ...they just want to have FUN (lots of sex)..... so therefore.. I would want to meet as many as possible -- and I would INSIST on paying my own way -- until I seen we had something "special" and we decided on exclusivity.....

THEN I'd feel differently...and allow him to pick up the bill... but NO, I would NOT expect him to pay -if we were not "official"...... I'd even say this over the phone .. before we met. It would take some of the awkwardness of it out ... I guess I am all for causal DATING (or meeting new people) but wouldn't be jumping into bed with them... 

So no, I would NOT abuse men and their money - thinking I was owed some whining and dining.. so he could think he was getting laid that night...since that is usually what happens, or is expected.

That way -if it's not a good match, no one looses anything..
Now my H is a different breed, he would insist on paying...and not be OK with a woman who was going to meet this one, that one and another next week over there.. so he'd want exclusivity - even if we weren't sleeping together...to feel the woman was concentrating on just him during that time frame.. which is commendable too.. 

This is where good communication comes in.. listening to our dates... what is important to them....and adjusting our behavior (but hold on to our values in that process)... seeing where it leads..


----------



## Faithful Wife

SimplyAmorous said:


> If something happened to my H , I'd want to find LOVE again... but in this saturated society of Casual sex -key word "FUN" on dating profiles ..
> 
> I'd have one hell of a time finding a decent man.. This I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE of.. most of them would want nothing to do with marrying again ...they just want to have FUN (lots of sex)..... so therefore.. I would want to meet as many as possible -- and I would INSIST on paying my own way -- until I seen we had something "special" and we decided on exclusivity.....


This isn't true, SA. There are many decent men out there, including ones with the same values you have and who want to be married.


----------



## Cosmos

SimplyAmorous said:


> If something happened to my H , I'd want to find LOVE again... but in this saturated society of Casual sex -key word "FUN" on dating profiles ..
> 
> I'd have one hell of a time finding a decent man.. This I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE of.. most of them would want nothing to do with marrying again ...they just want to have FUN (lots of sex)..... so therefore.. I would want to meet as many as possible -- and I would INSIST on paying my own way -- until I seen we had something "special" and we decided on exclusivity.....
> 
> THEN I'd feel differently...and allow him to pick up the bill... but NO, I would NOT expect him to pay -if we were not "official"...... I'd even say this over the phone .. before we met. It would take some of the awkwardness of it out ... I guess I am all for causal DATING (or meeting new people) but wouldn't be jumping into bed with them...
> 
> So no, I would NOT abuse men and their money - thinking I was owed some whining and dining.. so he could think he was getting laid that night...since that is usually what happens, or is expected.



SA, this is exactly how I conducted myself when I started dating again in later life and, apart from one bad experience, I found that it was a case of 'like attracting like.' My SO is my ideal man and I'm one very lucky woman!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> This isn't true, SA. There are many decent men out there, including ones with the same values you have and who want to be married.


Just going by what I read here... it's not what I see ....and going by what my GF's have dragged in .... I think it would be a living WAR ZONE.... 

...Men who've been burned -by sexless rejecting wives... lazy SAHM's... where they were stuck paying alimony... many vow NEVER to walk that road again...leading to a prison...they are only interested in FREE SEX....and surely not a woman of lessor means...



> *Cosmos said*: SA, this is exactly how I conducted myself when I started dating again in later life and, apart from one bad experience, I found that it was a case of 'like attracting like.' My SO is my ideal man and I'm one very lucky woman!


 Yes..I remember reading your thoughts on those threads - about the casual dating... :smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup: .... I was thinking "COOL.. maybe I am not totally whacked....Cosmos thinks like ME"!!!










Yes...You are very blessed, it doesn't seem to happen so nicely in mid life.. I think because of the former baggage, there is just so many trust issues to iron out with many... 

Oh there is always Hope.. so long as we have breath, right !


----------



## Faithful Wife

What you see here and what happens in the dating world are not related in general terms. What you see here are (mostly) people who have been jilted, so not a fair sample.

Just because some others do enjoy having casual sex and dating, doesn't mean there are no others like you.

Yes, you're special! But you're not the only one like you.


----------



## Wolf1974

intheory said:


> =============================
> 
> So, you agree that women are not lesser human beings if they have sex on the first date, right?
> 
> If a woman (for whatever reason) has sex on the first date; she is not an inferior human being or "trashy, damaged goods", right?
> 
> I refer you to how the thread question was posed.


The thread question is straight forward. YOUR opinion of women who have sex on the first date. MY opinion their is no second date


Where all this inferior nonsense is coming from I have no idea


----------



## SimplyAmorous

treyvion said:


> Not true. Women know they can buy them themself, but they know they can save their own time, money and energy by finding a "nice" man who will do it for them. They don't have to put out if they don't want to.


I would NEVER use a Nice man, I abhor this sort of treatment...I seen a lady in our church do this to one of our guy friends.. I kept telling him she was using him...he didn't want to believe it...ya know..the dreamer.. pie in the SKY type... it burned me.. but ya know....he was a fool too.. I practically took a hammer to his head... and of course... it did blow up in his face...just as I laid out that it would.. how he handled that was pretty funny -it was harmless.. but yet nasty .. she kinda deserved it.. 

I just don't like to see ANYONE treated like this.. Yes -even if he was foolish & needed a brick!... when you know someone has genuine feelings hoping/praying for more and you string them along.... take them for all they are willing to do for you.. that's just UGLY...


----------



## NextTimeAround

SimplyAmorous said:


> I would NEVER use a Nice man, I abhor this sort of treatment...I seen a lady in our church do this to one of our guy friends.. I kept telling him she was using him...he didn't want to believe it...ya know..the dreamer.. pie in the SKY type... it burned me.. but ya know....he was a fool too.. I practically took a hammer to his head... and of course... it did blow up in his face...just as I laid out that it would.. how he handled that was pretty funny -it was harmless.. but yet nasty .. she kinda deserved it..
> 
> I just don't like to see ANYONE treated like this.. Yes -even if he was foolish & needed a brick!... when you know someone has genuine feelings hoping/praying for more and you string them along.... take them for all they are willing to do for you.. that's just UGLY...


What happened exactly?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NextTimeAround said:


> What happened exactly?


What did our guy friend DO.. well 1st of all he lied about it to me.. and I KNEW damn well he did it... so I bulked at his BSing me that someone else did these things... This was his getting back at her.. (after he painted her house, her Mom's house, he was hauling things for her, at one point she asked him to ask ME and My Husband to haul something for her)...I about flipped my lid on that .. Was he kidding!! that was a Hell No....

So to get back at her.. he went to a Park.. and I guess wrote her phone # down in so many places.."If you want a good time.. call this #"... but he added some lesbian slant to it.. I forget it all now... yeah, nasty but when you use someone , they are going to get steamed.. ya know.. So she was getting some phone calls !


----------



## treyvion

SimplyAmorous said:


> I would NEVER use a Nice man, I abhor this sort of treatment...I seen a lady in our church do this to one of our guy friends.. I kept telling him she was using him...he didn't want to believe it...ya know..the dreamer.. pie in the SKY type... it burned me.. but ya know....he was a fool too.. I practically took a hammer to his head... and of course... it did blow up in his face...just as I laid out that it would.. how he handled that was pretty funny -it was harmless.. but yet nasty .. she kinda deserved it..
> 
> I just don't like to see ANYONE treated like this.. Yes -even if he was foolish & needed a brick!... when you know someone has genuine feelings hoping/praying for more and you string them along.... take them for all they are willing to do for you.. that's just UGLY...


The best thing you can do when someone is being used or cheated on is allow them to view someone else in the same predicament. They will be able to see it then.


----------



## Cosmos

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes..I remember reading your thoughts on those threads - about the casual dating... :smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup: .... I was thinking "COOL.. maybe I am not totally whacked....Cosmos thinks like ME"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...You are very blessed, it doesn't seem to happen so nicely in mid life.. I think because of the former baggage, there is just so many trust issues to iron out with many...
> 
> Oh there is always Hope.. so long as we have breath, right !


I agree with FW, SA. What we see on TAM isn't really a reflection of what's actually going on IRL.

I'd say I'm quite a warm and tactile person, and also rather flirty, but I've never encountered a man who construed this as an invitation for sex on a first date. The men I've known have always seemed more interested in getting to know me and spending time with me than getting straight into my pants. I'm sure I can't be unique.


----------



## Jellybeans

intheory said:


> I appreciate that you think that the thread ? is straightforward. *But why does it even have to be asked; even asked by a woman? *It's being asked because it is still an issue in our society. Women who have sex on the first date (for whatever reason - even just affection and company), are somehow called into question. That is where the "inferior nonsense" is coming from.


Uh, I don't really understand why you are going at Wolf like this. The OP chose to ask a question, the question was asking how men feel about it. Different people posted their responses--some are not ok with first date sex (even for themselves) and others are. Hence, the thread post. Wolf did not bring up the words "inferior" "trashy" or "damaged goods"--you did. All he said was that he wouldn't be into it. I am a woman and I, too, would not be into it. We are all posting what our thoughts are about this and not everyone is going to think the same way about it. It's not Wolf's fault that our society sets up double standards but your post kind of comes across as accusatory or something... :scratchhead:

I don't really see what is wrong with someone stating they're not into first date sex.



Wolf1974 said:


> I could care less if women have sex on the first date. Could care less if men are having sex on the first date. But *I'm not going to sleep with anyone before I'm ready. And anyone I was seeing who pushed for that date one would not be someone I would date again. My life my preference*


----------



## Wolf1974

intheory said:


> I appreciate that you think that the thread ? is straightforward. But why does it even have to be asked; even asked by a woman? It's being asked because it is still an issue in our society. Women who have sex on the first date (for whatever reason - even just affection and company), are somehow called into question. That is where the "inferior nonsense" is coming from.
> 
> The man who *also* is having sex on the first date. Well it's not even thought about. Please don't be disingenuous, you know that's the truth.
> 
> I do not _advocate_ first date sex. But if it happens, I feel angry that the woman feels pressure to question her worthiness. It's a nasty double standard.



Umm why are any of the questions asked on TAM??.....because someone is curious about something or perhaps wanting to start a discussion and find out what others think? I know it's crazy to see that on a discussion forum. Who would think it.

As far as your inferior statement or me being disingenuous I have already expressed how I felt about women AND men who have sex on the first date which is it doesn't matter to me if they do. So those things are like your namesake "in theory". So you can play jr. Sociologist if you like. I simply gave my opinion on the matter as it works for me. Feel free to see the world however you want...not my concern.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

There's a thread on the ladies forum about how many is too many. The OP said he slept with 50 women in 6 months. Assuming that's true, he is reason enough to not have a ONS. Rubbers break! STDs spread. No ONS for me. Never done it, never will.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Jellybeans

SimplyAmorous said:


> I kept telling him she was using him...he didn't want to believe it..*.ya know..the dreamer.. pie in the SKY type*... it burned me..


Omg too funny, Simply. I love this phrase and am going to start using it all the time now "pie in the sky." Cute.


----------



## Jellybeans




----------



## treyvion

Jellybeans said:


>


It's true. Like anything else, care, maintenance and some regular utilization is required.

Ego, confidence, sex drive, lust, passion, motivation, ambition, vision, creativity can all be grown or shrunk depending on how they are "fed".

If you don't lose it, you can lose it. Sexual confidence and swagger down to level zero. However it comes back like riding a bike. you might not get all your tricks back after the first use, but after some time you can get it all back or some.

Many of us who understand how it works, choose to not to ever let parts of ourself we care about to be starved, neglected or malnurished.

I do care about sex and my sex life. Taking it away doesn't just take away sex but it bleeds down my passion, motivation, creativity, confidence and many other factors. Plus the c0ck doesn't get as hard without it.


----------



## treyvion

intheory said:


> *
> Originally Posted by intheory
> I appreciate that you think that the thread ? is straightforward. But why does it even have to be asked; even asked by a woman? It's being asked because it is still an issue in our society. Women who have sex on the first date (for whatever reason - even just affection and company), are somehow called into question. That is where the "inferior nonsense" is coming from.
> 
> The man who also is having sex on the first date. Well it's not even thought about. Please don't be disingenuous, you know that's the truth.
> 
> I do not advocate first date sex. But if it happens, I feel angry that the woman feels pressure to question her worthiness. It's a nasty double standard.
> *
> 
> Umm why are any of the questions asked on TAM??.....because someone is curious about something or perhaps wanting to start a discussion and find out what others think? I know it's crazy to see that on a discussion forum. Who would think it. I see significance in this question being asked; especially in the year 2014. To me this question being posed, is as significant as the responses. I didn't suggest it was crazy. You did (albeit sarcastically)
> 
> As far as your inferior statement or me being disingenuous I have already expressed how I felt about women AND men who have sex on the first date which is it doesn't matter to me if they do. You "Like" posts #4, #5, and #37, which reek of double standard. So those things are like your namesake "in theory". ?? So you can play jr. Sociologist if you like. I simply gave my opinion on the matter as it works for me. Feel free to see the world however you want...not my concern.
> 
> I did not for a moment claim to be a sociologist (junior or otherwise - nice mocking tone there, by the way).
> 
> You gave your opinion. Good. I gave mine. My original post that elicited a direct response from you; was not directed at you specifically. Yet you felt a need to call me on it. That's fine. And I have the right to give *my* opinion on the matter, too.
> 
> Thanks for giving me permission to see the world however I want.


Women might also choose not to want to lay with men who have sex on the first date, or ones who have had too many sexual rendevous with many people. The reason maybe that they maybe sexually too loose and share it too easily and with too many. It takes away from how special it will make them feel. It's their right to feel this way just as it is a mans.


----------



## treyvion

intheory said:


> "Women might also choose not to want to lay with men who have sex on the first date, or ones who have had too many sexual rendevous with many people. The reason maybe that they maybe sexually too loose and share it too easily and with too many. It takes away from how special it will make them feel. It's their right to feel this way just as it is a mans."
> =============================
> Couldn't agree more, treyvion. My problem is with the double standard; not with any particular stance that a person might have.


The double standard sucks.


----------



## LongWalk

Sex on the first date can be kind of awkward. I wonder if the shyness and embarrassment lasts after and spoils the prospects of the next meeting?


----------



## Wolf1974

intheory said:


> *
> Originally Posted by intheory
> I appreciate that you think that the thread ? is straightforward. But why does it even have to be asked; even asked by a woman? It's being asked because it is still an issue in our society. Women who have sex on the first date (for whatever reason - even just affection and company), are somehow called into question. That is where the "inferior nonsense" is coming from.
> 
> The man who also is having sex on the first date. Well it's not even thought about. Please don't be disingenuous, you know that's the truth.
> 
> I do not advocate first date sex. But if it happens, I feel angry that the woman feels pressure to question her worthiness. It's a nasty double standard.
> *
> 
> Umm why are any of the questions asked on TAM??.....because someone is curious about something or perhaps wanting to start a discussion and find out what others think? I know it's crazy to see that on a discussion forum. Who would think it. I see significance in this question being asked; especially in the year 2014. To me this question being posed, is as significant as the responses. I didn't suggest it was crazy. You did (albeit sarcastically)
> 
> As far as your inferior statement or me being disingenuous I have already expressed how I felt about women AND men who have sex on the first date which is it doesn't matter to me if they do. You "Like" posts #4, #5, and #37, which reek of double standard. So those things are like your namesake "in theory". ?? So you can play jr. Sociologist if you like. I simply gave my opinion on the matter as it works for me. Feel free to see the world however you want...not my concern.
> 
> I did not for a moment claim to be a sociologist (junior or otherwise - nice mocking tone there, by the way).
> 
> You gave your opinion. Good. I gave mine. My original post that elicited a direct response from you; was not directed at you specifically. Yet you felt a need to call me on it. That's fine. And I have the right to give *my* opinion on the matter, too.
> 
> Thanks for giving me permission to see the world however I want.


Your original post 
The spiteful streak in me hopes that all you guys who look down on girls/women who have sex "on the first date"; I wish you a LD spouse who denies you sex. Serves you right. 

I simply asked why on earth my opinion, that I won't date someone who wants to be intimate on date one, entitles me to the nonsense of a LD wife. Which I wouldn't tolerate anyway but it was a question. 

You called me disingenuous because my opinion doesn't align with yours. So don't call people out unless you are prepared to have the same done. Obviously a touchy subject for you, why doesn't matter. I never lampooned your opinion just asked about why mine deserves condemnation. Not everyone is going to share your opinion not everyone will share mine. But least I'm not saying hey if you put out on the first date I hope you catch and STi or something of the like.


----------



## Mostlycontent

To me, this question can only be answered in proper context. 

If, for example, I had learned that a woman I was interested in had only rarely, if even ever, had sex on the first date but did so with me, then I would have zero problem with it. In fact, I'd be flattered that she was that attracted to me.

If I had found that she had done so on a fairly regular basis, then it would affect how I viewed her. I would likely determine that she wasn't what I was looking for. That behavior wouldn't make me feel special enough to consider her for a LTR. 

I have had three what I would call serious girlfriends in my life, including my W, and I had sex with all of them very early in the relationship. I don't think any were on the first date though but certainly by date 2 or 3. In my W's case, it was date #2.

The other context that would be germane for me would be if you knew the person at all before the date. For example, was she an acquaintance or even a friend before the first date? If that were the case, then sex on that first date wouldn't be as big of a deal to me. If it was a blind date or someone that she didn't know from Adam, then it would be more problematic, to me anyway.

In my W's case, we fooled around a good bit our first night together but then spent the whole evening, yes, well into the next morning and over breakfast, talking about anything and everything. It was clear that we were both sizing each other up for a long term relationship. Once we had established that the other had met every, or virtually every, criteria on our subconscious relationship checklist, she felt free to get physical on the next date.

The whole purpose of dating is to find someone with whom you feel comfortable and are compatible with on virtually every level, including sexually. Once you've determined that, most people get physical very swiftly from there. Perhaps some are more able to determine that on date number 1 and if they already knew the person somewhat, I could see that being the case.

So, I suppose my shorter answer after a longer "thinking out loud" section, would be that I wouldn't have a problem with it if a woman did it with me but had only rarely or never done it before meeting me.


----------



## Omego

intheory said:


> But why does it even have to be asked; even asked by a woman? It's being asked because it is still an issue in our society. Women who have sex on the first date (for whatever reason - even just affection and company), are somehow called into question. That is where the "inferior nonsense" is coming from.
> 
> The man who *also* is having sex on the first date. Well it's not even thought about. Please don't be disingenuous, you know that's the truth.
> 
> I do not _advocate_ first date sex. But if it happens, I feel angry that the woman feels pressure to question her worthiness. It's a nasty double standard.


Right, what you are saying is true. There is a double standard. That's exactly why the question was asked. It's too difficult to debate whether or not people base their opinion on a double-standard, on their own beliefs and experiences or on a mix of both.

I would advise my daughters when they are of age, NOT to have sex with a man without being in a committed relationship first. 

Why? Not because I believe it is inherently "wrong" for a woman to have sex on a first date and that she should be shamed or denigrated or disrespected for that, but because I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it and I wouldn't want my girls to either, and yes, of course, I'd be concerned about them being either taken advantage of or disrespected.


----------



## Jellybeans

intheory said:


> *I did not engage Wolf. * I posted independently (and a bit sardonically) that I hope you get an LD spouse if you are the kind of guy who holds this double standard for women. Wolf took exception to this. That's his choice; but *I didn't single him out for debate.*
> 
> But it is interesting that he "Likes" posts # 4, #5 and #37.
> 
> *I did NOT single Wolf out*, please at least credit me with that.


Actually, you did single Wolf out, by quoting him and posting directly at him in your posts and called him disingenuous.

Not really sure why you are denying that. 

Nonetheless, not everyone wants to have sex on the first date. Ain't no shame in that.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I've already told my son he needs to hang onto his vcard at least til college,always wear a condom,and attempt to get to know the girl before sleeping w/her. Also,never kiss and tell no matter how proud you are of your moment.

He also has been told porn isn't real,most women don't act like that during sex,and most men aren't hung like that.
(that little gem stemmed from his friends showing him porn on their smartphones and then he came to me with a LOT of questions)


----------



## Wolf1974

Intheory.....

I never ignored your last paragraph. But my question was about the second one...not the last one. Want to start a thread about religions and many of those double standards and hypocrisies go ahead. I will gladly give my view on that as well.

No clue why what I like as comments matters at all but I will like a comment for all kinds of reasons......I like some of the comment, a sentence of the comment, the whole comment, or whatever. So again you can read into that as much as you like and clearly have to a comical level. I STATED my opinion in its entirety. You can keep glossing over that as much as you like but it was stated......twice. So keep trying to put together what you THiNK I must mean based on likes and ignor that I DO mean by what I stated


----------



## Wolf1974

ScarletBegonias said:


> I've already told my son he needs to hang onto his vcard at least til college,always wear a condom,and attempt to get to know the girl before sleeping w/her. Also,never kiss and tell no matter how proud you are of your moment.
> 
> He also has been told porn isn't real,most women don't act like that during sex,and most men aren't hung like that.
> (that little gem stemmed from his friends showing him porn on their smartphones and then he came to me with a LOT of questions)


:smthumbup: 

Will be having similar discussions with my daughters as they get more age appropriate


----------



## Omego

intheory said:


> Omego, I agree with everything you say.
> 
> Would you tell your sons the same thing?


Good question. I probably would not discuss this kind of thing with my sons, to be honest. I would inform them of the health risks of having unprotected sex, but that's about it. I would talk more about relationships in general, about being respectful towards others, treating others as you'd like to be treated, that it's always "ladies first", etc. 

And no, I wouldn't feel that a man was at risk of being disrespected or seen in a bad light if he had sex with a woman on the first date, because we all know that it doesn't work that way.


----------



## Wolf1974

yep what you THINK. Not what I stated and stand by lmao 

At least you are admitting it 

You can THiNK whatever you like. Makes no difference to me. I know where I stand and have stated as such.


----------



## lovelygirl

I know I'm not a man...but I'd be turned off if a man expected sex on the first date.

As for women who have sex on the first date, their choice. I can't think of anything in particular. 
But I know I'm not that type. 
It's too soon and non-sense for me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I'm looking at this thread and wondering what types of conversations aout sex in general and sex on the first date would both parties, those for and against sex on the first date ,have with their kids when they reach of age.

It would be quite interesting to hear.

I think right there is where yet another double standard would rear it's head.


----------



## NextTimeAround

lovelygirl said:


> I know I'm not a man...but I'd be turned off if a man expected sex on the first date.
> 
> As for women who have sex on the first date, their choice. I can't think of anything in particular.
> But I know I'm not that type.
> It's too soon and non-sense for me.



when I was in undergrad, I had done this a few times, so I am not inexperienced. Lots of things can go wrong which is hwy I stopped, for example:

1. I would like to see him again but he doesn't want to see me again.

2. He would like to see me again but I don't want to see him again. If he starts hassling me, it can be a problem. And if you live in a modern day Tower of Babel, aka the university campus, he can kill your reputation.

3. Both of us can think that this is the start of a serious relationship, but the amount of time spent together in a brief period.... possibly neglecting important like one's studies, ensures that the relationship crashes and burns and end in tears.

4. I've learned to value my time more and it's just not worth having dates that Friday evening and end Saturday afternoon...... or longer.


----------



## ladybird

Woman are just as horny as men, so why not?


----------



## ladybird

What do you think of men who have sex on the first date? Its always ok for men but not for woman. 

I am really getting tired of the double standard

There is nothing wrong with a woman having sex on the first date..

If you have a man who has had 30 partners and a woman who has had the same amount, who gets the flack, not the guy.


----------



## ladybird

Caribbean Man said:


> I'm looking at this thread and wondering what types of conversations aout sex in general and sex on the first date would both parties, those for and against sex on the first date ,have with their kids when they reach of age.
> 
> It would be quite interesting to hear.
> 
> I think right there is where yet another double standard would rear it's head.


Kids are going to have sex no matter what. If you tell then not to, it will make them want to do it even more. It really isnt preventable. All you can do is teach them right and make sure they protect themselves.


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> . . . asking for obvious reasons.
> 
> Would you still be interestred in the woman?
> Is it a complete deal breaker?
> Appreciate your thoughts and opinios :scratchhead:


If you are the person she has sex with on the first date ask yourself should SHE be interested in YOU - for obvious reasons - or is this a double standard.


----------



## LongWalk

If someone has nut draining, wild monkey sex on the first date, it is smart to at least take down the woman's phone number.


----------



## Anonymous07

Personal said:


> No double standards here!
> 
> My wife and I will encourage our children, boy and girl alike (with all the usual caveats regarding pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases) to try before they buy.
> 
> Sex is natural and should be enjoyed!


We're opposite of this. 

Absolutely no double standards, but we will teach our son to wait. Sex is not just physical and has a lot of mental/emotional implications as well. I hope he will get to know a woman first before jumping to have sex with her. If we have a daughter, we'll teach her to wait as well. Yes, sex is natural and should be enjoyed, but just not with the first person who offers it up. It's a lot more enjoyable when done in a loving relationship.


----------



## meson

Anonymous07 said:


> We're opposite of this.
> 
> Absolutely no double standards, but we will teach our son to wait. Sex is not just physical and has a lot of mental/emotional implications as well. I hope he will get to know a woman first before jumping to have sex with her. If we have a daughter, we'll teach her to wait as well. Yes, sex is natural and should be enjoyed, but just not with the first person who offers it up. It's a lot more enjoyable when done in a loving relationship.


We are sort of in the middle on this. I told my daughter about the emotional implications of sex caused by the chemicals that are released during orgasm. And that if you are in a loving relationship already that that does not complicate things or move things where they may not be going as can happen when asymmetric feeling develop after causal sex.

On the other hand we encourage sex before marriage with someone you are considering marrying because sexual compatibility is extremely important in a marriage. So I do see the point behind try before you buy to avoid your spouse getting some on the sly.


----------



## Deejo

My opinion of women who have sex on the first date, is that their opinion is I'm attractive and they want to have sex with me.

I have never done a pump and dump. Ever.

I've had sex on the first date, I've had relationships start and end where sex was never even on the table.

I don't expect a woman to want to have sex with me on the first date. In my experience, having sex at the outset is absolutely NO indicator of how the relationship is going to track.

Am I concerned if they are 'promiscuous'?

Concerned? 

Hell, I demand they are promiscuous. 

I couldn't and wouldn't ever accept a partner who wasn't adventurous, energetic, and 'into it'.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> Hell, I demand they are promiscuous.


----------



## alphaomega

But.....

Wouldn't YOU also be having sex on the first date?


----------



## Personal

alphaomega said:


> But.....
> 
> Wouldn't YOU also be having sex on the first date?


Since I enjoy sex on a first date, I have always thought very highly of women who enjoy the same.


----------



## Personal

Anonymous07 said:


> We're opposite of this.
> 
> Absolutely no double standards, but we will teach our son to wait. Sex is not just physical and has a lot of mental/emotional implications as well. I hope he will get to know a woman first before jumping to have sex with her. If we have a daughter, we'll teach her to wait as well. Yes, sex is natural and should be enjoyed, but just not with the first person who offers it up. It's a lot more enjoyable when done in a loving relationship.


Although I don't share your perspective I am impressed that you choose to conduct yourselves without double standards.

A question if I may, are you saying you will teach them to wait for marriage or that they should wait for a loving relationship outside of a marriage?

In my experience I have found that sex on the first date is just as enjoyable as the sex I have had in any loving relationship.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anonymous07 said:


> We're opposite of this.
> 
> Absolutely no double standards, but we will teach our son to wait. Sex is not just physical and has a lot of mental/emotional implications as well. I hope he will get to know a woman first before jumping to have sex with her. If we have a daughter, we'll teach her to wait as well. Yes, sex is natural and should be enjoyed, but just not with the first person who offers it up. It's a lot more enjoyable when done in a loving relationship.


Also what I will one day teach my daughters. Make sure you at least care about the person before you share your body with them.


----------



## Lionelhutz

I really don't have a pre-set opinion of a woman who has sex on a first date. 

I know several couples who are married and have been for years who had sex almost immediately or very soon after first meeting. 

I know I get bored very quickly with mind games. I want to know if she is interested in me fairly soon and if I don't think so, then I move on. 

I have been positively turned off by women who I think are teasing but "playing hard to get".


----------



## Lionelhutz

I also think the advice about quick sex or not partially dependant on age. Caution and time is always good advise for teenagers and the sexually inexperienced in general. Beyond that I don't think there are any meaningful "Rules".


----------



## Anonymous07

Personal said:


> Although I don't share your perspective I am impressed that you choose to conduct yourselves without double standards.
> 
> A question if I may, are you saying you will teach them to wait for marriage or that they should wait for a loving relationship outside of a marriage?
> 
> In my experience I have found that sex on the first date is just as enjoyable as the sex I have had in any loving relationship.


I was raised that way(almost no double standards - did much of what my brothers did in regards to chores, etc.) and intend to do that for my son and any other child I might have. 

I would like for my son to wait for marriage, but would really only strongly urge him to, at the very least, wait until he is in a long-term loving relationship. Just as I would hope a woman respects her body, I hope my son will respect his body as well. His body should be shared only with someone he loves/loves him. 

I have never had sex on a first date and never will. I find it extremely hard to believe that sex on the first date would be just as enjoyable as sex with some you love, feel completely comfortable with, and can be vulnerable with.


----------



## Anonymous07

Lionelhutz said:


> I really don't have a pre-set opinion of a woman who has sex on a first date.
> 
> I know several couples who are married and have been for years who had sex almost immediately or very soon after first meeting.
> 
> I know I get bored very quickly with mind games. I want to know if she is interested in me fairly soon and if I don't think so, then I move on.
> 
> I have been positively turned off by women who I think are teasing but "playing hard to get".


:scratchhead:

You can show interest in another person without having sex quickly(first date or shortly after). 

And I hate mind games, too.


----------



## learning to love myself

I had sex on the first date also with my husband and its now been 24 years later.

I think the real question is of the woman who have had sex on the first date & married the guy are they still having hot sex?

I guess the alternative is wait, court the person, have sex before or after you marry and find out the other person doesn't really care for it. 

I think its good to be compatible in all areas, some of us just want to know right off the bat.


----------



## Wolf1974

learning to love myself said:


> I had sex on the first date also with my husband and its now been 24 years later.
> 
> I think the real question is of the woman who have had sex on the first date & married the guy are they still having hot sex?
> 
> I guess the alternative is wait, court the person, have sex before or after you marry and find out the other person doesn't really care for it.
> 
> I think its good to be compatible in all areas, some of us just want to know right off the bat.


I am not sure that their is any correlation between having sex on the first date or not and how that translates into marital sex in terms of frequency.

From my own experience when I am dating to find a relationship I don't sleep with them on the first date. The wait time varies but it coincides with when I see them as a potential long term relationship. With that said through a marriage and several long term relationships I have never had a sexless relationship. My personal opinion is that when you start having sex is less important than your attitude about it.

That said you're completely correct about sexual chemistry....it's huge and unexplained. I have met women I get along with great, one in particular I would have married, but we were totally not sexually compatible. It was sad that it became such a huge issue but it did. Sex is way to important to not be a the front of the relationship needs!


----------



## karole

learning to love myself said:


> I had sex on the first date also with my husband and its now been 24 years later.
> 
> I think the real question is of the woman who have had sex on the first date & married the guy are they still having hot sex?
> 
> I guess the alternative is wait, court the person, have sex before or after you marry and find out the other person doesn't really care for it.
> 
> I think its good to be compatible in all areas, some of us just want to know right off the bat.


To answer your question - YES! - we continue to have a very fulfilling sex life. I did not make a habit of having sex on the first date - my husband was the one and only man I did that with. There was just this overwhelming attraction that I can't explain. I'm glad I did it and if I had it to do over again, I would do it again. No regrets!!


----------



## Caribbean Man

karole said:


> To answer your question - YES! - we continue to have a very fulfilling sex life. I did not make a habit of having sex on the first date - my husband was the one and only man I did that with. There was just this overwhelming attraction that I can't explain. I'm glad I did it and if I had it to do over again, I would do it again. No regrets!!


And this^^^right there is the main issue that a few people on this thread are missing out. 

It one thing to have so much chemistry with a particular person on a first date that you have sex with them and the relationship moves forward effortlessly into something more productive.

It is quite another to have sex on every first date thinking it's 
" chemistry ", and your partners thinks it's just , unattached , casual sex.

It is one thing if two people put off having sex too soon in an effort to explore other areas of the relationship first.

It is quite another for one partner to withhold sex in an effort to manipulate the other partner into thinking of them in a certain way.

It all comes down to honesty and compatibility.


----------



## ConanHub

karole said:


> To answer your question - YES! - we continue to have a very fulfilling sex life. I did not make a habit of having sex on the first date - my husband was the one and only man I did that with. There was just this overwhelming attraction that I can't explain. I'm glad I did it and if I had it to do over again, I would do it again. No regrets!!


I experienced this with Mrs. Conan. Before her, women were chasing me and I put most of them off and made the others wait a while. There were a couple of ladies that were waiting for marriage, nothing but respect for them, but most wanted to get naked with me as fast as they could.

I was so enamored with Mrs. Conan when I first saw her, it was like being caught in gravity. We had sex the day I met her and it has been over 22 years since then. To this day, I feel like I am caught in her power, like the moon and the earth.

To the OP... I think my opinion probably varies as much as the reasons women have sex on a first date. I think many of them are screwing up, doing it for all the wrong reasons and later, regretting their actions. Others are fully aware of their motivations and self image and are honest about what they expect. 

So for some women, sex on a first date is contrary to who they want to be and their goals and I think poorly of those that betray themselves.
Other women, who fully know themselves and choose to have sex on the first date, while I might not generally approve, I don't think poorly of them as long as they are honest with themselves and others.


----------



## memyselfandi

Lady here..

I guess it depends since after just one date, how do you know where the relationship is going, for starters.

It's really hard to read someone from a first date and whether one of you or both of you enjoyed each other's company enough for a second date if there's sex involved.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I tend to wait to knock boots until we've got some sort of relationship established.


----------



## cactusman76

The Idea of waiting is silly and outdated. I love it on the first date, then it's out of the way. They might be bad in bed or won't do things you like bj, anal, stuff like that. Why wait a week to find out? I value sex highly in a relationship, it's where trust and intimacy and love come from, at least for me. Not the other way around.


----------



## Thundarr

The first date that sex doesn't happen on is the first date. Sex the first time you go out is a ONS. It's a hookup.


----------



## that_girl

xakulax said:


> Any woman who give it up on the first date is either one of two things desperate or desperate whether it's desperately looking for attention desperately looking for a relationship or desperately looking for sex no matter how you look at it It reeks desperation.


Buuuut it takes the man to also have sex on the first date so he's just a manipulative jackass? Someone who doesn't like women who have sex on the first date but has no trouble effing her anyway?

lol Stop it.


----------



## that_girl

cactusman76 said:


> The Idea of waiting is silly and outdated. I love it on the first date, then it's out of the way. They might be bad in bed or won't do things you like bj, anal, stuff like that. Why wait a week to find out? I value sex highly in a relationship, it's where trust and intimacy and love come from, at least for me. Not the other way around.


On the first date, this is nasty. I don't know you, or your body and where it's been (but I can take a guess), so letting you into my a$$ or mouth or even my vagina would be a big no. Really? So you don't put any intimacy on the sex acts themselves. You could be ok with being married and going to a prostitute for sex probably.


----------



## The Lonely Stoner

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SolitaryConfinement

xakulax said:


> Any woman who give it up on the first date is either one of two things desperate or desperate whether it's desperately looking for attention desperately looking for a relationship or desperately looking for sex no matter how you look at it It reeks desperation.


Why does she have to be desperate? Men can have sex drives, but women cannot? I know a few women that can separate the emotional side of love with the physical nature of sex. If they want sex, they get it. It doesn't make them desperate, just non-committal (like men).


----------



## The Lonely Stoner

Sex is a weapon. Most women who intentionally have sex on a first "date", use it as such. My ex wife was a few weeks pregnant when I met her. I didn't know of course. So, when I picked her up that first time, I drove to my apartment. I left her in the car while I went inside to get a few movies (heading to my friends place, as he had surround sound way back then {1999}). 

I turn around and she is right behind me, virtually inviting herself in. 

Note: she was HOT. So I didnt make a fuss. Tragic mistake.

Her next question was "if I get in your bed, will you think I'm a freak"? I answered no (I lied).

Sex ensued. Then a 15 year relationship. Didn't find out that she was already pregnant and needed a man she could bring home to "momma", and quickly (before she began showing). Guess I was a good candidate.

Moral of the story, easy sex comes with a HIGH PRICE. Respectable women are NOT lose with their bodies. Drugs & alcohol can cause women to have sex when theu normally wouldn't. So can an unexpected, animal attraction.

But in most cases, early sex should be a warning sign that something is amiss.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I think a man and a woman should just stick to what feels right for them...even some men can't separate Love & sex.. for each to understand why they feel as they do...and to live and love within their own sexual boundaries is to be wise...this should grant them less regrets along the way. 

If a man is not willing to wait for a woman to feel comfortable having sex with him... then she knows he was not the right one for her.. he didn't love her enough, or give her the time to show how much he cares for her..to provide that comfort, or the level of commitment she was looking for...the type of man who has her back, that will be there for her if she needs him...some of us NEED those things before we take our clothes off.

Although I would be very hurt...in the long run I could not feel it a loss if such a man dumped me who refused to give me that...ultimately he would not be my type.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Although I would be very hurt...in the long run I could not feel it a loss if such a man dumped me who refused to give me that...ultimately he would not be my type.


:iagree:

That is why it is so important to be willing to let go, to not try to force things.


----------



## Bitteratwomen

Sex on the first date is great if a female is down for it. Less work for me to get it!


----------



## Forest

At the risk of getting clobbered, I have to mention that responses like the above are probably why this was posted on "The Men's Clubhouse" in the first place, as opposed to a more general forum.


----------



## that_girl

Ima just slow clap that one out, Catherine...


----------



## that_girl

Forest said:


> At the risk of getting clobbered, I have to mention that responses like the above are probably why this was posted on "The Men's Clubhouse" in the first place, as opposed to a more general forum.


Well, women aren't the only ones having sex on that first date. Men do too. 

So men can think, "damn she's a wh0re" but had no problem stickin it to her.

Gross.


----------



## that_girl

But it was nice that many men said they don't care or it was good for them.

I have no rules with this stuff. If it happens, it happens. If not, oh well. But I know by the end of date 1 if I will sleep with you or not. ever.


----------



## Thundarr

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> . . . asking for obvious reasons.
> 
> Would you still be interestred in the woman?
> Is it a complete deal breaker?
> Appreciate your thoughts and opinios :scratchhead:


Would you still be interestred in the woman?
- I'd hook up again but we would never be exclusive.

Is it a complete deal breaker?
- For a relationship yes.


----------



## unbelievable

My opinion of women who have sex on the first date? I highly recommend them...for dating.


----------



## SeekingEcstasy

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> . . . asking for obvious reasons.
> 
> Would you still be interestred in the woman?
> Is it a complete deal breaker?
> Appreciate your thoughts and opinios :scratchhead:


If the rest of the date went well and the sex was good, of course I'd be interested to learn more.


----------



## that_girl

I think men who push for sex on the first date are nasty.

God knows where his D1ck has been. Ew.


----------



## Forest

that_girl said:


> Well, women aren't the only ones having sex on that first date. Men do too.
> 
> So men can think, "damn she's a wh0re" but had no problem stickin it to her.
> 
> Gross.


Actually, I meant that when a man asks such a question on a men's forum, he's particularly and possibly specifically looking for opinions of other males.


----------



## that_girl

Forest said:


> Actually, I meant that when a man asks such a question on a men's forum, he's particularly and specifically looking for opinions of other males.


Yea. Too bad it's a public site.


----------



## aston

I've had meaningful relationships with women I slept with on the first date, and some still remain friends to this day.
I don't know what the big deal over sex is, you're there and attracted to each other and of course horny. What's the correlation between sex and a relationship? What happens after you wait and invest your time then eventually have sex and it hurts even more when he/she walks.
To me there's no difference. If I like and respect you from day one, sex isn't going to change that.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

Wow, quite a mix of opinions here.

Personally I still think there's absolutely nothing wrong with first date sex. The difference for me come down to whether you (or him) are looking to get sex after every first date or if you happen to be lucky enough to have a first date with someone who seems like a great person, really sparks your interest and there's a strong physical attraction.

That said I wouldn't have first date sex expecting that it will lead to a second date, relationship, whatever. Obviously if you think you really like the person you would hope the date (not the sex) will lead to an opportunity to get to know them better however, to my mind, sex is no indication of whether that'll actually happen.

To those who said it's better to wait until the second of third date, I don't get that. Do you think another couple dates really give you such a deep insight to the person that it makes any difference? Probably not, IMO.


----------



## Thundarr

Catherine602 said:


> Women know the game. That woman who declines sex with you on the first date does not have a strong sexual attraction to you and she has no problem waiting. But she does see you as a candidate for a provider and father of her children. The guys she feels a strong sexual attraction she sleeps with on the first date. They are not LTR material. They are good for fun.
> 
> So men use women for sex? It disappears when they dain to grant a woman their precious imprimatur of a relationship? You don't get away with using people even women. In fact, you are the easiest type of man to manipulate because you think you are in control.
> 
> It makes sense.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You're so sure I have a double standard on this. Sorry to disappoint but I don't. Girls I had a ONSs with and girls I randomly hooked up with knew it was going nowhere or at least they should have. They got theirs and I got mine and that was all. Most everyone knows that's how hookups work.

It's sad that a few misinterpreted words can make you lash out like that though. Your comment was clearly meant to be nasty and hurtful. It doesn't apply to me but congratulations for making some who read your comment feel bad.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

Thundarr said:


> Would you still be interestred in the woman?
> - I'd hook up again but we would never be exclusive.
> 
> Is it a complete deal breaker?
> - For a relationship yes.


Thundarr, why would you see it as a deal breaker?


----------



## Forest

Catherine602 said:


> It should have occurred to you by now that hiding out in the men's clubhouse does not guarantee that you are safe from women. If my post bothers you to the point of silence then stay out of the Men's Clubhouse. I think you should learn to tolerate opposition from any quarter. I am a woman and I can do it. Follow my lead, I'll show you how. Post something to oppose me and I won't blast you.
> 
> Better to be confident enough to post anywhere you want and to stand up strait and bold. Crouching in the Men's Clubhouse will give you a permanent bent over position. A sure sign of a timid man.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_





that_girl said:


> Yea. Too bad it's a public site.


I'm sure you are some of the same women posting about how you detest a man that will lie subservient to women, also in the men's clubhouse. What you want from a man is only lip service, and compliance.

Could it be that you just have no sense of boundaries, and feel you should wag you opinions anywhere you please? You'll notice you immediately went for the put down, rather than face the question. I made a logical observation, but you have to respond with an attack? Pitiful. Any man that questions you is timid? I hate to be the man that is afraid to question you.

What should I seize upon to insult your femininity? 

Its not worth it, you're just an overbearing loud mouth looking for somewhere to flap. Why on earth do you think someplace like a "men's clubhouse" would be created in the first place? Impossible for you to figure out?


----------



## Thundarr

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> Thundarr, why would you see it as a deal breaker?


Let me first define the context of first date in regards to my comment. Two people who don't know each other yet going on a date. What I'm not talking about is long time friends who realize that there's a spark. At the very least, there are some cases that don't fit my context.

So when I was single, sex on the first date made me lose interest in a relationship. It wasn't on purpose and I didn't think about it and I don't know why it was that way. That's just the way it happened. Ehh sorry that wasn't very helpful.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

Thundarr said:


> Let me first define the context of first date in regards to my comment. Two people who don't know each other yet going on a date. What I'm not talking about is long time friends who realize that there's a spark. At the very least, there are some cases that don't fit my context.
> 
> So when I was single, sex on the first date made me lose interest in a relationship. It wasn't on purpose and I didn't think about it and I don't know why it was that way. That's just the way it happened. Ehh sorry that wasn't very helpful.


Gotcha, was just curious, thanks for answering.


----------



## Wolf1974

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> Wow, quite a mix of opinions here.
> 
> Personally I still think there's absolutely nothing wrong with first date sex. The difference for me come down to whether you (or him) are looking to get sex after every first date or if you happen to be lucky enough to have a first date with someone who seems like a great person, really sparks your interest and there's a strong physical attraction.
> 
> That said I wouldn't have first date sex expecting that it will lead to a second date, relationship, whatever. Obviously if you think you really like the person you would hope the date (not the sex) will lead to an opportunity to get to know them better however, to my mind, sex is no indication of whether that'll actually happen.
> 
> To those who said it's better to wait until the second of third date, I don't get that. *Do you think another couple dates really give you such a deep insight to the person that it makes any difference? Probably not, IMO.*





Actually yes I do. I'm not against what other people do but for me when I am looking for a relationship I want to take my time to see if their is a potential for a relationship before jumping in bed together. I mean why sleep of someone if their is no potential for it to go anywhere. Others do it in reverse and if that works for them cool but total turn off for me. Guess everyone has their own view but I'm just not for treating sex so cavalierly and want someone who has the same view.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Guess everyone has their own view but I'm just not for treating sex so cavalierly and want someone who has the same view.


I think that some of the gals that have responded don't want to feel judged. I don't think it is that anyone does not mean to respect the sex act.


----------



## Aspydad

Been along time since I've dated - like just over 30 years - ouch!!

But, as I think back on all the first dates I had - mainly just got a kiss goodnight. I do remember one girl stuck her tongue down my throat and I was like wtf was that? So I took her out the next week and we had sex - so I guess it wasn't that bad - she turned out to be a sex nympho I dated ( all in all I dated the sex nympho, the psycho, the kinkyi lets tie each other up, the preachers daughter, and the sophisticated let’s feed each other strawberries and whip cream before sex girl) amd never did I get or desire sex on the first date.

To me - sex on the first date is kind of like inviting a bunch of guys over for a big fight on TV - get all the food and drinks ready – sit down - and then BAM! Knock out in the first minute.

I like to fish - the challenge of out smarting the fish and then hooking it and bringing it in. I will sit there for hours trying for that one fish. When dating - each date I would try to get a little further and the girl would give a little more each time - I do remember liking the challenge. My wife was very religious - I won't even get into on this post how long ti took me to get to 2nd base - kind of embarrassing. I will say that it took to 4.5 years to get to 4th base as she was a virgin when I married her and it was all her getting us to that point as I had no will power. I sure did enjoy the pursuit.


----------



## tech-novelist

For me it depends on the definition of "First date".

If we knew each other fairly well but hadn't been on a date before, that wouldn't deter me from a relationship. I have been in that situation and it led to LTRs on more than one occasion.

Meeting for the first time with no prior acquaintance? That would probably be a deal-breaker for a relationship, but since I've never actually been in that situation, I might be wrong.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> Girls I had a ONSs with and girls I randomly hooked up with knew it was going nowhere or at least they should have.


Should have? I presume you told them that having sex with you would ensure you judged them as wh0res?


----------



## that_girl

Did any of the men here say no to a woman who wanted sex on a first date?


----------



## Thundarr

Aspydad said:


> I sure did enjoy the pursuit.


Yep. That's lost when it's to easy.


----------



## always_alone

unbelievable said:


> My opinion of women who have sex on the first date? I highly recommend them...for dating.


Another one, so happy to use someone, and then judge them for it.

Your high horse doesn't have any legs.


----------



## always_alone

that_girl said:


> Did any of the men here say no to a woman who wanted sex on a first date?


I cannot speak for the men here, but I do know of at leas some men who did not want sex on the first date, and said no.

This strikes me as eminently more honorable, to choose to live by one's own values, rather than make women the gate-keepers and then judge them if they fail.

A sh!t test if there ever was one.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Another one, so happy to use someone, and then judge them for it.
> 
> Your high horse doesn't have any legs.


He judged her because of her actions,

And now _you_ judging him because of his choice, 
Because it makes you feel superior...
Lol,
Same hypocrisy , same double standard.

Doesn't look lime your horse has any legs either.


----------



## that_girl

But he slept with her. On the first date. So she's the wh0re but it's ok for him? It's ok for the men to have sex on the first date but the women they are sleeping with are not relationship material?

That's what she meant.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Everyone judges someone else based on their own criterion / set of rules.

Why didn't she marry the first man she had sex with?

Because she judged him as not being worthy of that, even though she had sex with him.
Was she right or wrong ?

Very few women ever marry or even have long term relationships with their first sexual partners , simply because they want to experience other men.

That's their rule , their right.

If two people agree to have no strings attached sex ,then they are both free to judge each other as they see fit.

He sees her as not fit for a relationship , and I don't think she sees him as fit for a relationship either.

So who's really judging who?
Who's pretending to be on a high horse ?


----------



## that_girl

What are you talking about?

The question was what men think of women who have sex on the first date. The answers were interesting.

But I do wonder why a man would have sex with a woman on a first date...simply because she was offering? and then say it was not LTR material based on the fact that he enjoyed her body (and vv) on the first date.

Now, if a woman offers or wants it and the man says no, he's not into that, and doesn't sleep with her and then deems her not LTR material, that's a different story.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> Should have? I presume you told them that having sex with you would ensure you judged them as wh0res?


That's your words AA; not mine. I didn't think they were *****s at all. None the less, a hookup made me not want to have a relationship with them. We're all about women having freedom and choice aren't we. No ONSs told me what having sex with me meant to them so let's not get carried away.


----------



## that_girl

ONS are first dates?

lol I have never had a ONS...or had sex on a first date (even if I wanted to). I thought a ONS was just a pick up at the bar late at night...

A date could be anything, really. Dinner, dancing, coffee..

I don't care what people do, I just think it's funny that the men had no problem taking the sex but then said sex on the first date is not what they want in a relationship.

If the girl was lovely and you two clicked fabulously and she wanted sex and you wanted to know her better, would you refuse sex on the first date? Or would that be a deal breaker too?

I've asked a few times if any one here has said no to sex on a first date and have yet to get an answer.


----------



## Caribbean Man

that_girl said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> The question was what men think of women who have sex on the first date. The answers were interesting.
> 
> But I do wonder why a man would have sex with a woman on a first date...simply because she was offering? and then say it was not LTR material based on the fact that he enjoyed her body (and vv) on the first date.
> 
> Now, if a woman offers or wants it and the man says no, he's not into that, and doesn't sleep with her and then deems her not LTR material, that's a different story.



The point is,

She offered NO STRINGS ATTACHED SEX.

So both of them didn't see each other as relationship material.

They both wanted to enjoy sex ALONE without any emotional commitment, because they both judged each other as not worthy of their emotional commitment .

That is one of the consequences of casual sex.


----------



## that_girl

Caribbean Man said:


> The point is,
> 
> She offered NO STRINGS ATTACHED SEX.
> 
> So both of them didn't see each other as relationship material.
> 
> They both wanted to enjoy sex ALONE without any emotional commitment.


Oh so that was discussed? That's a different story then.

I'm not "hip" to dating. The idea repulses me.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Same hypocrisy , same double standard.


My standards are neither double, nor hypocritical.

I didn't judge anyone negatively for something I did myself.


----------



## Caribbean Man

that_girl said:


> Oh so that was discussed? That's a different story then.
> 
> I'm not "hip" to dating. The idea repulses me.


I'm not saying that the idea was discussed.

I'm saying that there are no victims in casual sex , because there was no agreements on either side for anything more than sex.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> No ONSs told me what having sex with me meant to them so let's not get carried away.


Point taken. But you called it an outright dealbreaker, which is pretty strong. A much harsher judgement than ambivalence would be.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> My standards are neither double, nor hypocritical.
> 
> I didn't judge anyone negatively for something I did myself.


But you just judged two men for not wanting to marry the women they had casual sex with when clearly those women weren't interested in anything but sex with them either...

Are you saying that the woman saw him as something more than a sex toy that could satisfy her immediate sexual desire?


----------



## Thundarr

that_girl said:


> ONS are first dates?


Sometimes yes and sometimes no. I use the term ONS to clarify that my comments are more directed toward relative strangers having sex rather than the actual first official date.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> Point taken. But you called it an outright dealbreaker, which is pretty strong. A much harsher judgement than ambivalence would be.


It's was always a deal breaker for me. Sex too quick seemed killed my desire to date a person.


----------



## Wolf1974

that_girl said:


> Did any of the men here say no to a woman who wanted sex on a first date?


Yep twice


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> But you just judged two men for not wanting to marry the women they had casual sex with when clearly those women weren't interested in anything but sex with them either...


No, I didn't. I just pointed out the hypocrisy and double standards in judging people "unfit " just for doing exactly what they themselves did.

Do you suppose they also judge themselves as "unfit for LTR" after having ONS?


----------



## Caribbean Man

See here's the thing AA,

Two people meet and agree to have no strings attached sex , because the don't want to invest in a relationship.
No problem.

They won't invest in a relationship because they don't believe that the other person is worthy of their time and emotional investment.
No problem.

They both viewed each other as sex objects for their own sexual gratification.
Nothing more,
Full stop.

So how can one partner accuse the other partner of being a hypocrite because he or she says they didn't view them as relationship material?

Sounds like childish , entitled ,cake eating games to me.

Nobody forced him to have sex , nobody forced her to have sex,
And they both judged each other as unfit for a relationship , hence the 
 " _no strings attached _" clause.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

I see it a little differently. As in two people who meet an experience a strong attraction that they are comfortable acting upon. It's not necessarily NSA sex more just the ability to separate sec from the development or not of a relationship.

The thing I find ironic is that so many men on here complain that they have partners who aren't sexual enough or are uninterested yet would. Discount a woman who clearly enjoys sex and has the confidence to act on her desire purely because she was honest and open enough to want to be physical from the outset. Sure, there's no guarantee that a relationship will ensue however, to my kind, first date sex (when done for he right reasons) can actually be an indication off my desirable characteristics on a woman.

To say there is no challenge, that too doesn't make sense to me. She may express physical desire for you but you have yet to win true respect and admiration, a far greater prize and one that is infinitely more difficult to obtain IMHO.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> See here's the thing AA,
> Two people meet and agree to have no strings attached sex , because the don't want to invest in a relationship.
> No problem.


No, the problem is not the NSA sex, and no one is judging people for deciding to have it.

Oh wait, except some people here are. And it's not me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> I see it a little differently. As in two people who meet an experience a strong attraction that they are comfortable acting upon. It's not necessarily NSA sex more just the ability to separate sec from the development or not of a relationship.
> 
> The thing I find ironic is that so many men on here complain that they have partners who aren't sexual enough or are uninterested yet would. Discount a woman who clearly enjoys sex and has the confidence to act on her desire purely because she was honest and open enough to want to be physical from the outset. Sure, there's no guarantee that a relationship will ensue however, to my kind, first date sex (when done for he right reasons) can actually be an indication off my desirable characteristics on a woman.
> 
> To say there is no challenge, that too doesn't make sense to me. She may express physical desire for you but you have yet to win true respect and admiration, a far greater prize and one that is infinitely more difficult to obtain IMHO.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with your view , as well as there is nothing wrong with those who place more value on a partner who although very sexual, prefer to develop a relationship first.

The key is compatibility.
Both parties respecting each other enough to be honest and accept the outcomes.

My wife is highly sexual , but she wanted to wait . Although I was accustomed to having sex , I respected her value , didn't think less of her , accepted her for who she was and things worked out.

That a person wants to wait for sex doesn't mean they aren't highly sexual.
That a person sees no problem in having sex on the first date or even casual sex doesn't mean that they are highly sexual either.

In everything , communication is key.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

Caribbean Man said:


> And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with your view , as well as there is nothing wrong with those who place more value on a partner who although very sexual, prefer to develop a relationship first.
> 
> The key is compatibility.
> Both parties respecting each other enough to be honest and accept the outcomes.


Yes, I agree with that.

I guess I started this thread as a mean of gauging whether I am culturally different (from uk) from Americans in my attitude to sex and whether my own opinion is far removed from the general consensus
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## that_girl

But do men turn down first date sex?


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

that_girl said:


> But do men turn down first date sex?


I suspect most men probably don't, sure there will be a few exceptions but most will take it when they can get it, even knowing it will kill any chance of more dates or a relationship.

Personally, I don't blend them. Men NEED sex and of a woman is offering I can see why they would go for it. I honestly don't think I'd hold that against man, it's just human nature.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## that_girl

But hold it against the woman who may have just been really into the guy. ok.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> No, the problem is not the NSA sex, and no one is judging people for deciding to have it.
> 
> Oh wait, except some people here are. And it's not me.


I never said the problem was the NSA sex, in fact , you quoted me as saying 
" no problem" if two people agreed to it.

I clearly stated that the problem is you assuming that a man should view a woman he had NSA sex with as relationship material when clearly , she doesn't view him as relationship material either.

Right there is the proverbial beam in your eyes.

They are both judging each other as unfit for a relationship.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

that_girl said:


> But hold it against the woman who may have just been really into the guy. ok.


No, I'm the woman in this situation.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

that_girl said:


> But hold it against the woman who may have just been really into the guy. ok.


If a woman is into a guy and they had first date sex , then he is wrong to hold it against her.

But the only way to know she is really into him or he is really into her is communication.

Pick up sex , casual sex , nobody owes anybody anything.

In the OP's case , the guy was wrong and he is a scoundrel.
I said that earlier in this thread.


----------



## that_girl

Caribbean Man said:


> If a woman is into a guy and they had first date sex , then he is wrong to hold it against her.
> 
> But the only way to know she is really into him or he is really into her is communication.
> 
> Pick up sex , casual sex , nobody owes anybody anything.
> 
> In the OP's case , the guy was a scoundrel.
> I said that earlier in this thread.


I completely agree.


----------



## aston

Yes, many of us actually do. Contrary to the popular assumption that men are sex crazed perverts I hate to surprise you but men actually turn down sex (first date or not) more than you might have been led to believe.



that_girl said:


> But do men turn down first date sex?


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

Caribbean Man said:


> If a woman is into a guy and they had first date sex , then he is wrong to hold it against her.
> 
> But the only way to know she is really into him or he is really into her is communication.
> 
> Pick up sex , casual sex , nobody owes anybody anything.
> 
> In the OP's case , the guy was wrong and he is a scoundrel.
> 
> I said that earlier in this thread.


I wouldn't necessarily brand he guy as a scoundrel. Don't know very much about him or his circumstances perhaps he was, perhaps he wasn't. Who knows! For all I know he could have been left with the impression I was just using him (which I wasn't). 

That does tie back to your comment about communication/open expectations though, which is a very good point.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

aston said:


> Yes, many of us actually do. Contrary to the popular assumption that men are sex crazed perverts I hate to surprise you but men actually turn down sex (first date or not) more than you might have been led to believe.


Yes,
I've turned down sex , and quite a few times.

But the only reason I did was because I didn't want sex with that particular girl , at the time , or I just wasn't attracted.

I remember this particular time when I wad around 18 yrs old ,a new girl moved into our neighborhood , a female friend of mine's cousin from another country.

I remember her telling me that her cousin was interested in me. Started talking with her , ( she had a beautiful British accent) but something just wasn't clicking.
She was good looking , and we talked about sex , but my mind was saying exercise caution. I was very experienced at that age.

So I backed out because lots of guys were after her.
Soon after , she got pregnant.

Lol,
Lots of fingers were pointing at me , but they dead wrong.


----------



## kilgore

Catherine602 said:


> It should have occurred to you by now that hiding out in the men's clubhouse does not guarantee that you are safe from women. If my post bothers you to the point of silence then stay out of the Men's Clubhouse. I think you should learn to tolerate opposition from any quarter. I am a woman and I can do it. Follow my lead, I'll show you how. Post something to oppose me and I won't blast you.
> 
> Better to be confident enough to post anywhere you want and to stand up strait and bold. Crouching in the Men's Clubhouse will give you a permanent bent over position. A sure sign of a timid man.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


agreed. i have not shrunk from embarrassing myself in all forums


----------



## kilgore

Catherine602 said:


> Don't try that on me.
> 
> The discussion was about first date sex and your response was about first date sex not hook-ups. You were clear that a woman that you had sex with on the first date was not good enough for a relationship. But you maintained your status as a good man in charge of sorting out the good women and the bad. It is common for men to deny a double standard but practice it none-the-less.
> 
> Not only that, you revealed proudly that you punished the woman for having sex on the first date. You could have walked away and found another woman for sex if that if what you wanted.
> 
> Instead, you had sex with a woman you had already decided was not worthy of you so that you could dump her. Why not, she an easy vj so why treat her with respect and humanity. You should judge yourself not woman who have sex on the first date.
> 
> I didn't misinterpret anything, I got what you were saying. It is so ingrained in our culture that you did not expect anyone to call you on it. Women who have sex on their terms are worthy of being treated with deception and lack of respect. I get and so do many other women.


for whatever reason i never had a full on one-night stand. i think it seemed to intimate with someone i didn't know. or maybe it never came up. no, it did, come to think of it


----------



## jld

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> She may express physical desire for you but you have yet to win *true respect and admiration, a far greater prize and one that is infinitely more difficult to obtain *IMHO.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:iagree:


----------



## johny1989

nothing they are just living in present generation and bit fast forward women nothing else..


----------



## ticktock33

IDK, on one hand it seems like way too much. Just from the hygiene issue, you don't know where they have been. You don't know what they have done and if they are just a smooth talker telling you what you want to hear.

With regards of emotions, I would say even if it feels like you have known them forever. It still is too soon, emotions take over and if it doesn't turn out to be something...you just slept with them. I wouldn't do it, I know myself too well. It's very hard to separate love and sex and I would be crushed if it didn't work out.

For those that can do that, sure why not? I wouldn't advise that sort of behavior on a regular basis though. Your reputation will be known...

Men like the chase and the good men like women that stick to their guns about this sort of thing. Value yourself and the right kind of man will value you too. There is something to be said for women that aren't fast and don't just let men run through them like drive through. I don't like to judge, but it just isn't a good way of doing things.


----------



## Stonewall

My opinion of women who have sex on the first date:

Man's 2nd best friend!!!


----------



## Forest

Catherine602 said:


> Opps somebody lost control. Why do you let me get to you? Do you have high blood pressure, heart disease? Maybe you're not fit for a discussion of this type. Have you read about fitness tests? This may be one for you, do you think you passed or failed?.
> 
> As a man, you need to be cool, smart and controlled. I shouldn't have to tell you that. You don't see me calling people names and I am not a man.
> 
> Geez. talk about being too easy. How do you know that I am not trying to provoke someone just like you? Calm down. Get you brain in gear and respond intelligently.


 You have an unattractive ability to mix equal parts rudeness, inconsideration, and irrational jibberish. You don't know anything about anyone, but have to feel power by trying to insult people? Great quality in a woman.

If you'll look back you were the person that began the name calling, then flipped out into nutter-ville over an innocuous comment. 

I expected about this reaction. When cornered, project onto others your own shortcomings.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I clearly stated that the problem is you assuming that a man should view a woman he had NSA sex with as relationship material when clearly , she doesn't view him as relationship material either.
> 
> Right there is the proverbial beam in your eyes.
> 
> They are both judging each other as unfit for a relationship.


And again you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. We don't know that "she" is deeming him unfit for a relationship; you have just decided so to make sure "she" is just as hypocritical as "he" is.

But as we've seen on this thread, not everyone is a hypocrite. Some people judge NSA sex as making a person "unfit", and they also *live* according to those standards, that is they choose *not* to have NSA sex as well. Some people enjoy NSA sex, and still respect those that they had that sex with. 

And some eagerly take advantage of the NSA and then turn around and judge the person they had sex with as "unfit". You can keep trying to twist my words if you like, but *that* is a double-standard holding hypocrite.


----------



## Jetranger

I don’t think less of a woman who does. If anything, I have a higher opinion because it’s likely she’s not playing stupid games or acting coy or like a p**** tease. I’ve said elsewhere but a woman who initiates is a big turn on for me because it makes me feel sexy and desired.

I’ve never turned first date nor ONS sex down, it’s a pretty harsh rejection if you offer someone such intimacy and get told no. I’ve heard from other guys who thought it was gallant or whatever to say no because according to unwritten societal rules it was ‘too soon’. The result was the girl felt completely rejected and lost all interest in him.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> And again you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. We don't know that "she" is deeming him unfit for a relationship; you have just decided so to make sure "she" is just as hypocritical as "he" is.


And since we don't know that she deemed him unfit, you assume she's innocent and he's the perpetrator.

In your book ,he's the bad guy.

Sorry AA.

That's called " Selective Outrage " and yes, it is hypocritical.
You are projecting your feelings as fact.

The rule is, if you don't know all the facts,
Then you CANNOT JUDGE.

Full Stop.

If she had said that she wanted a relationship and not just an ONS , and he deemed he unfit because of the sex, then he is wrong.

Outside of that she is just as responsible for the outcome her action like he is of his. Neither of them owe each other anything.

If he had said that after the ONS he called her up everyday begging for her to to have a relationship with him , and she had steadfastly refused which made him feel bad, you would have said that he was a creep and a predator with control issues. 
You would have said that he was trying to control her sexuality.

They are two grown a$$ people , she's not some little teenage girl with a crush.


----------



## that_girl

I didn't realize sex on the first date meant the woman didn't value herself. I would think it all depends on the person.

And so men don't really turn the sex down because they don't want to hurt her feelings, but they'll judge her for being a wh0re. :lol: Ok. 

I'm happy I'm not dating. If I ever do start dating, I don't even know...


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> And since we don't know that she deemed him unfit, you assume she's innocent and he's the perpetrator.
> 
> In your book ,he's the bad guy.
> 
> Sorry AA.


And yet again you stuff words in my mouth so you can be sure to call me a hypocrite or put me down in some other way. One last time (although no doubt, you'll find a way to twist this beyond recognition as well):

Anyone, man or woman, who takes full advantage of NSA sex, then judges the other person as a **** or wh0re or "unfit for LTR" because of it, but does not apply that same judgment to themselves, is a hypocrite with double standards. 

Full stop.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> And yet again you stuff words in my mouth so you can be sure to call me a hypocrite or put me down in some other way. One last time (although no doubt, you'll find a way to twist this beyond recognition as well):
> 
> Anyone, man or woman, who takes full advantage of NSA sex, then judges the other person as a **** or wh0re or "unfit for LTR" because of it, but does not apply that same judgment to themselves, is a hypocrite with double standards.
> 
> Full stop.


lol,

Now you're contradicting yourself.

_No String Attached_ sex is a selfish act by BOTH parties.

1]No love involved.

2]No sharing of intimate emotional connections involved.

3]No commitment to a future relationship involved. That means they BOTH AGREE that they see each other as UNFIT FOR A LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP.

Where is the hypocrisy if they both agreed to that before?

Unless of course you have a more accurate explanation?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

that_girl said:


> Did any of the men here say no to a woman who wanted sex on a first date?


I don't think I've ever said "no" outright, but I have ducked it a couple times when they seemed to be going for it. Each time, it was because I got the vibe that it wouldn't have just been casual for her, and I wasn't that into her. It wasn't discussed though... its all feeling. A chemistry. For all I know they wanted to hit it and quit it... that just wasn't the vibe I had so I wasn't really into it even if that's really what they wanted. First date sex is all about the vibe imo. It feels natural or it doesn't happen.

I don't have any negative feelings about a woman having sex on the first date, or for waiting. Good for her either way. To my mind, it doesn't change anything. I've had relationships that started both ways. But having sex on the first date doesn't entitle her to any expectation that there is actually more to the relationship. There may be, there may not be. She isn't a victim just because it doesn't go any further. She was a willing participant who might have done the same to him (its happened to me).

We don't read minds. If she wants sex on the first date to be contingent on some kind of commitment, then she should say so before having sex. Or even better... not have sex until commitment is demonstrated. I don't feel obligated to manage her feelings for her.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Anyone, man or woman, who takes full advantage of NSA sex, then judges the other person as a **** or wh0re or "unfit for LTR" because of it, but does not apply that same judgment to themselves, is a hypocrite with double standards.
> 
> Full stop.


I agree with this statement.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't think I've ever said "no" outright, but I have ducked it a couple times when they seemed to be going for it. *Each time, it was because I got the vibe that it wouldn't have just been casual for her, and I wasn't that into her. *It wasn't discussed though... its all feeling. A chemistry.


Yup.

same here too, which was what I was trying to say last evening.

I just got the " vibe" that something wasn't right, and ducked out.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> No commitment to a future relationship involved. That means they BOTH AGREE that they see each other as UNFIT FOR A LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP.
> 
> Where is the hypocrisy if they both agreed to that before?
> 
> Unless of course you have a more accurate explanation?


You're taking the specific "unfit" and she's taking the general "unfit".

You're actually saying somewhat the same thing.

In an NSA, both are effectively (if not verbally) calling each other unfit for a LTR... *with them* specifically.

I believe AA is seeing it as a general, "unfit for a relationship (period... any relationship)". I tend to agree with her, that this is the more common expression of it, and the one I've gotten from certain posts on this thread.

I don't think you mean to imply that the two people participating in an NSA, believe the other to be unfit for ANY relationship. I do believe some men here have implied this.


----------



## firebelly1

I'm completely interjecting not having read this whole thread and skipping over what looks like the same old argument, but I was listening to a Dan Savage podcast this morning and got an ah-ha. A guy called in saying "I just want to be FWB, don't want a relationship, but when I hook up with people I start feeling guilty when they start developing feelings for me. Can I do this FWB thing and not be a d*ck?" Dan's response was great. He said "If you aren't up front about the fact that you don't want a relationship and your FWB starts developing feelings for you and hoping for a relationship - that's on you. People have a reasonable expectation that sex could lead into romance. So if you don't want a relationship, state that up front and if the other person starts wanting a relationship - that's on them." This isn't in any way a direct quote but you get the gist. 

I felt validated by that. I've had sex with guys on the first date or soon thereafter and feel hurt and confused when they start pulling away. I think I have a reasonable expectation that sex could lead to romance - unless they state otherwise. But those that think badly of women who sleep with someone on the first date seem to think otherwise - that if I agree to have sex on the first date I deserve to be treated like a sex toy from that moment on and not a human. I hate that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

firebelly1 said:


> I think I have a reasonable expectation that sex could lead to romance.


I honestly see your point. However, I'm not so sure "reasonably could lead to" is very convincing. First date sex, also could lead to nothing just as reasonably. Its a first date. You don't have much reason to go on.

Now, if its recurring sex... we've altered the subject matter from first date sex, which is a potential NSA, to something that you could even say is likely lead to romance. Then, yes, I think the person not interested in the deeper relationship should nip it in the bud and bears responsibility for saying something.

But first date sex... there's no more reason to think this is romantic, than to think it isn't. If you require the commitment so you don't feel hurt if it isn't romantic, then the burden is on you.


----------



## Wolf1974

that_girl said:


> I didn't realize sex on the first date meant the woman didn't value herself. I would think it all depends on the person.
> 
> And so men don't really turn the sex down because they don't want to hurt her feelings, but they'll judge her for being a wh0re. :lol: Ok.
> 
> I'm happy I'm not dating. If I ever do start dating, I don't even know...


When I turned down the two women who I said no to on the first date I didn't get the impression they were hurt....maybe a bit embarrassed but not hurt.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're taking the specific "unfit" and she's taking the general "unfit".
> 
> You're actually saying somewhat the same thing.
> 
> In an NSA, both are effectively (if not verbally) calling each other unfit for a LTR... *with them* specifically.
> 
> I believe AA is seeing it as a general, "unfit for a relationship (period... any relationship)". I tend to agree with her, that this is the more common expression of it, and the one I've gotten from certain posts on this thread.
> 
> I don't think you mean to imply that the two people participating in an NSA, believe the other to be unfit for ANY relationship. I do believe some men here have implied this.


What I'm saying is that she doesn't want him for a relationship.
He doesn't want her for a relationship either.

They both see each other as unfit for a relationship with them. They don't desire a relationship with that person, because they both ONLY wanted to use each other for sex.


Anyone else outside of that couple can't decide whether or not one party or the other is unfit for a relationship.

It comes down to both of them and how they view each other.
If they were expecting that the sex would lead to something , then they would have expressed that _before_.

What happens after that sex is _ultra vires_ the initial agreement so it has no bearing or holds no weight.

However a man or a woman expressing interest in a relationship after having sex, using sex as a leverage, and being disappointed and bitter that it didn't lead to something more comes off as creepy or clingy.
It is manipulative, and any person who does that is deceptive .

A person external to the couple involved, making biased judgments about one party in such a scenario comes off as hypocritical.


----------



## NextTimeAround

firebelly1 said:


> I'm completely interjecting not having read this whole thread and skipping over what looks like the same old argument, but I was listening to a Dan Savage podcast this morning and got an ah-ha. A guy called in saying "I just want to be FWB, don't want a relationship, but when I hook up with people I start feeling guilty when they start developing feelings for me. Can I do this FWB thing and not be a d*ck?" Dan's response was great. He said "If you aren't up front about the fact that you don't want a relationship and your FWB starts developing feelings for you and hoping for a relationship - that's on you. People have a reasonable expectation that sex could lead into romance. So if you don't want a relationship, state that up front and if the other person starts wanting a relationship - that's on them." This isn't in any way a direct quote but you get the gist.
> 
> I felt validated by that. *I've had sex with guys on the first date or soon thereafter and feel hurt and confused when they start pulling away. I think I have a reasonable expectation that sex could lead to romance - unless they state otherwise*. But those that think badly of women who sleep with someone on the first date seem to think otherwise - that if I agree to have sex on the first date I deserve to be treated like a sex toy from that moment on and not a human. I hate that.


Then when you offer sex to these guys, why don't you say before they answer with yes or no, that if they accept the sex from you, then they are obligated to give you an ongoing relationship..... say at least another 3 dates.

Would you like it if a guy said, "I would take you to dinner if you will give me sex afterwards?" A lot of guys do feel used after they have wined and dined a woman who has friendzoned him.

I get so tired of these new age "empowered" women who want to have sex whenever, wherever and with whomever and then get upset when THEY (the woman) want to continue the relationship but the guy doesn't. 

Why don't you be upfront and put some explicit conditions on the guy for accepting the sex that you are offering him.


----------



## firebelly1

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I honestly see your point. However, I'm not so sure "reasonably could lead to" is very convincing. First date sex, also could lead to nothing just as reasonably. Its a first date. You don't have much reason to go on.
> 
> Now, if its recurring sex... we've altered the subject matter from first date sex, which is a potential NSA, to something that you could even say is likely lead to romance. Then, yes, I think the person not interested in the deeper relationship should nip it in the bud.


I agree kind of.  One shouldn't EXPECT that a ONS is going to lead to romance but my point is: if I'm on a "date" with someone who has not stated one way or another whether they are looking for a relationship, then I have a reasonable expectation that they *are* looking for a relationship until they state otherwise. And I shouldn't be expected to accept that if I have had sex with this person on the first date that that in and of itself means I have forfeited my right to that assumption. 

I think there's an underlying assumption for some about women who have sex on the first date that somehow those who do shouldn't expect to be treated with respect and that's it's now unreasonable for her to hope for love.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> I agree kind of.  One shouldn't EXPECT that a ONS is going to lead to romance but my point is: if I'm on a "date" with someone who has not stated one way or another whether they are looking for a relationship, then I have a reasonable expectation that they *are* looking for a relationship until they state otherwise. And I shouldn't be expected to accept that if I have had sex with this person on the first date that that in and of itself means I have forfeited my right to that assumption.
> 
> I think there's an underlying assumption for some about women who have sex on the first date that somehow those who do shouldn't expect to be treated with respect and that's it's now unreasonable for her to hope for love.


That sounds like a " covert contract" to me.

It's pretty much like a guy saying that a woman must have sex with him on the third date , or else he gets disappointed and hurt.

Worse yet, some other guys get angry with her because she had sex on the first date with another man , but made them wait.

That's why I believe communication about compatibility, before sex, is the key.
It could lessen the potential disappointment about expectations, after sex.


----------



## firebelly1

NextTimeAround said:


> Then when you offer sex to these guys, why don't you say before they answer with yes or no, that if they accept the sex from you, then they are obligated to give you an ongoing relationship..... say at least another 3 dates.
> 
> I get so tired of these new age "empowered" women who want to have sex whenever, wherever and with whomever and then get upset when THEY (the woman) want to continue the relationship but the guy doesn't.
> 
> Why don't you be upfront and put some explicit conditions on the guy for accepting the sex that you are offering him.


You say "offer" like I'm having a conversation in which I say "I will give you sex tonight. Do you accept?" I've never had a conversation like that. People don't typically say with "yes" or "no" that they want to have sex. It's in body language and invites to their house. And I LIKE the sex, so it doesn't occur to me to put conditions on it. 

I don't expect a guy to continue a relationship. There are a variety of reasons why he might not. All I'm saying is that I think it is unfair (and a double standard) to a) discount a woman as a life partner because she has sex with you on the first date or b) be put off by her hope that it could turn into a relationship if the guy has not stated explicitly that he is only looking for sex.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> What I'm saying is that she doesn't want him for a relationship.
> He doesn't want her for a relationship either.
> 
> They both see each other as unfit for a relationship with them. They don't desire a relationship with that person.
> 
> Anyone else outside of that couple can't decide whether or not one party or the other is unfit for a relationship.
> 
> It comes down to both of them and how they view each other.
> If they were expecting that the sex would lead to something , then they would express that.
> 
> However a man or a woman expressing that after having sex and being disappointed and bitter that it didn't lead to something more comes off as creepy or clingy.
> 
> A person external to the couple involved, making biased judgments about one party in such a scenario comes off as hypocritical.


I whole heartedly agree... and honestly, I think AA actually agrees (with all but the person with the expectation having the duty to express said expectation, maybe).

Her angle is based on the application to third parties - the notion that this statement of being "unfit" is generally applied... that this person is unfit for a relationship with anyone. I kinda get the vibe that some men think that... even while they're having NSAs themselves while not thinking themselves as "unfit" in the general sense. It is hypocritical, and I oppose that thinking. I don't think this is your position.

So what I see, is that you're speaking past each other. I suspect you actually agree - except on the matter of duty... which is a common disagreement. A lot of women seem to think its the man's duty to voice her expectations, rather than her duty to voice her expectations.


----------



## firebelly1

Caribbean Man said:


> That sounds like a " covert contract" to me..


Which part is a covert contract?


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *A lot of women seem to think its the man's duty to voice her expectations, rather than her duty to voice her expectations.*


Yes, this^^^ is my point exactly, and what I remember from my past experiences with women and that type of sex.

There is always some sort of "baggage" or minefield to manoeuvre after, and the man always gets the final blame..

Doesn't matter that nothing was discussed, but he always gets the " hypocrite " or the " dog " tag.


----------



## firebelly1

Not sure if I'm reading this in the context it's meant - but if two people are on a "date" - are you saying the woman should state her expectation that this date might lead into a relationship? Or which expectation is she supposed to be expressing?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

firebelly1 said:


> I agree kind of.  One shouldn't EXPECT that a ONS is going to lead to romance but my point is: if I'm on a "date" with someone who has not stated one way or another whether they are looking for a relationship, then I have a reasonable expectation that they *are* looking for a relationship until they state otherwise. And I shouldn't be expected to accept that if I have had sex with this person on the first date that that in and of itself means I have forfeited my right to that assumption.


I agree with you. Contingent upon the definition of "date" we use. Your more formal, traditional arranged date sort of thing... I'm totally on board. 

Those, in my experience, are not how NSAs come about, and a person has a reasonable expectation that this was not purely about getting physical. Such sex says to me, "the date went really well".

My experience with NSAs, haven't really been more formal "dates". They've been more of the informal hanging out with someone and one thing leads to another... or I just met you and we get along like a match and gunpowder... BOOM. Spontaneous.



firebelly1 said:


> I think there's an underlying assumption for some about women who have sex on the first date that somehow those who do shouldn't expect to be treated with respect and that's it's now unreasonable for her to hope for love.


If some have that assumption, I disagree with them. But the nature of the "date" is really important imo.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> Which part is a covert contract?


This part here:

"_ *if I'm on a "date" with someone who has not stated one way or another whether they are looking for a relationship, then I have a reasonable expectation that they are looking for a relationship until they state otherwise.* And I shouldn't be expected to accept that if I have had sex with this person on the first date that that in and of itself means I have forfeited my right to that assumption. _

Nothing was said or agreed to before, so how can any expectation on either side be " _reasonable?_"

For eg;

If you got pregnant from that sexual encounter, would you say that the man had reasonable expectation that that would be the outcome or reasonable expectation that you would have used effective birth control?

Whatever expectations he had, it doesn't count.
You are free to decide if you want that baby or whether you would want to terminate that pregnancy.


----------



## firebelly1

Caribbean Man said:


> This part here:
> 
> "_ *if I'm on a "date" with someone who has not stated one way or another whether they are looking for a relationship, then I have a reasonable expectation that they are looking for a relationship until they state otherwise.* And I shouldn't be expected to accept that if I have had sex with this person on the first date that that in and of itself means I have forfeited my right to that assumption. _
> 
> Nothing was said or agreed to before, so how can any expectation on either side be " _reasonable?_"


What Dvl said - it depends on the context of the "date." If I meet someone on Match.com and their profile doesn't say explicitly one way or another...I have a reasonable expectation. If I just met a guy at a bar and we hook up - no reasonable expectation. 

But the question is about what we think about women who have sex on the first date - and the word "date" was used not "hook-up." I hear that to mean "Does the fact that a woman will have sex with you right away mean she cannot be a good life partner?" and I think the question is biased.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> What Dvl said - it depends on the context of the "date." If I meet someone on Match.com and their profile doesn't say explicitly one way or another...I have a reasonable expectation. If I just met a guy at a bar and we hook up - no reasonable expectation.


Well then we agree, fully!:smthumbup:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

firebelly1 said:


> Not sure if I'm reading this in the context it's meant - but if two people are on a "date" - are you saying the woman should state her expectation that this date might lead into a relationship? Or which expectation is she supposed to be expressing?


My thoughts:

The expectation that differs from convention of the circumstance.

If its the more traditional pre-arranged formal "date", I think that implies seeking romantic connection... and I'd agree, she doesn't have to say anything. The guy should if he doesn't want a relationship, because he's violating social convention. 

If its more casual, hanging out, not sure if this is a date... but chemistry is high... then I think its the person who expects that with sex, comes relationship, to speak up. Here, I'd argue the social convention is that there are no strings.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Caribbean Man said:


> This part here:
> 
> "_ *if I'm on a "date" with someone who has not stated one way or another whether they are looking for a relationship, then I have a reasonable expectation that they are looking for a relationship until they state otherwise.* And I shouldn't be expected to accept that if I have had sex with this person on the first date that that in and of itself means I have forfeited my right to that assumption. _
> 
> Nothing was said or agreed to before, so how can any expectation on either side be " _reasonable?_"



I think this situation is a matter of conflicting communication styles.

I decided that when I ask people something, like getting together, that anything less than "yes" means "no." So responses like "I'm not sure" or "I'll let you know" are interpreted as to mean "no" until I hear a very clear yes in time to get together.

Now, I have dealt with some people who seem to act as if anything less than "no" means "yes." I have learned to recognise the signs of someone who believes that and at the worst, will visit that philosophy upon me. Possibly making me feel guilty for not following through on something that was suggested by I had not agreed to; possibly making feel that I should cover that person for some costs that they believe to be incurred and of course, the worst, possibly going around ruining my reputation portraying me as someone who is unreliable.

So people who seem to have the gleam in their eye; who press me just a little too much; who act as if my "yes" is a foregone conclusion means that I will act in an exaggerated state to insure that a "no" was meant. 

Firebelly, may be you are having some communication issues with the men that you deal with. Maybe some of them are adamant that with women they don't know very well, it is always likely to be NSA and that defines the relationship going forward. They're in it only for the fun because they don't know you that well, and so they assume that you're in it for the fun because you don't know them that well.

When a guy starts making the moves on you --gets that gleam in his eye, maybe that's the moment that you should tell him what strings are attached to the sex that you will agree to give him. This might be very effective as well, I can only imagine that would be the quickest way to get a hard d!ck soft.


----------



## firebelly1

Caribbean Man said:


> Well then we agree, fully!:smthumbup:


It doesn't mean I can't hope in either situation if, as Dvl said, the sex becomes an on-going situation. In re FWB Dan Savage has also pointed out that people can develop feelings for people they f*ck on a regular basis. And I think even in that situation it IS on the person who doesn't want a relationship to be explicit about it.


----------



## NextTimeAround

firebelly1 said:


> It doesn't mean I can't hope in either situation if, as Dvl said, the sex becomes an on-going situation. In re FWB Dan Savage has also pointed out that people can develop feelings for people they f*ck on a regular basis. And I think even in that situation it IS on the person who doesn't want a relationship to be explicit about it.


How often would you want to be reminded that this is only an FWB so your feelings are on your own. Would you like for that to be the tagline for all texts and e-mails that you receive from your FWB partner?


----------



## firebelly1

NextTimeAround said:


> When a guy starts making the moves on you --gets that gleam in his eye, maybe that's the moment that you should tell him what strings are attached to the sex that you will agree to give him. This might be very effective as well, I can only imagine that would be the quickest way to get a hard d!ck soft.


I'm not sure what you mean by "strings." Because what I'm hoping for is that he will want to continue seeing me and will hopefully want to see me for more than just the sex. Is that "strings"?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

firebelly1 said:


> "Does the fact that a woman will have sex with you right away mean she cannot be a good life partner?" and I think the question is biased.


I don't think having sex on the first date is a statement of anything other than a comfort level with sex and with the person you went on the date with.

Just like some women have hangups.... being thought or thinking themselves easy or sl*tty or bad, some men have the other side of the hangup... that a woman who has sex on the first date is easy or sl*tty or bad.

Both are incorrect imo, and the result of culture's moralistic drum beating.


----------



## firebelly1

NextTimeAround said:


> How often would you want to be reminded that this is only an FWB so your feelings are on your own. Would you like for that to be the tagline for all texts and e-mails that you receive from your FWB partner?


Nope. Once is enough. I see a guy right now who said at the beginning of our on-going situation that he is only interested in sex. I have taken him at his word and have not expected or hoped for anything more.

That's all I mean - saying something once in the beginning is all I mean.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

firebelly1 said:


> It doesn't mean I can't hope in either situation if, as Dvl said, the sex becomes an on-going situation. In re FWB Dan Savage has also pointed out that people can develop feelings for people they f*ck on a regular basis. And I think even in that situation it IS on the person who doesn't want a relationship to be explicit about it.


Totally true, I've been on both sides. And its the responsibility of the person who starts getting those feelings, to bring it up and say, "I can't do this anymore." They're the ones who will feel the pain.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

firebelly1 said:


> Nope. Once is enough. I see a guy right now who said at the beginning of our on-going situation that he is only interested in sex. I have taken him at his word and have not expected or hoped for anything more.
> 
> That's all I mean - saying something once in the beginning is all I mean.


In my experience, the FWB conversation usually happens after a couple... uh... oopsies. The first one was obviously NSA. The second one is neither here nor there... the third one... woah... uh, so... this isn't really a relationship you know? Everything is great, but I don't really want the whole relationship deal.

There are a LOT of other signals that go into it, but its never something that is up front "Hey, wanna be my FWB!?" -at least in my experience!


----------



## NextTimeAround

firebelly1 said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "strings." Because what I'm hoping for is that he will want to continue seeing me and will hopefully want to see me for more than just the sex. Is that "strings"?


Yes, that is what I mean. Dating is always a gamble. Even if I don't have sex with the guy on the first date, it does not always result in a second date, let alone an LTR. Ergo, there are so many reasons why a guy may not want to see you again...... even if your sex can rock a guy's world. Men aren't one sided creatures either. 

The reasons underpinning an LTR are many and complicated. This is why I chuckle when I hear a woman wonder why on earth is that guy with HER? Because the woman asking that question refuses to accept her way isn't the only highway.

If you want to up the ante on the first date and have sex with the guy, then that's on you. 

By the same token, some guys suggest cheap dates so that they have less of an investment sunk if they or the woman decides that there will be no second date.

I just don't understand what you expect the guy to do by the time you are taking panties off and you have yet to initiate that discussion.


----------



## firebelly1

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Totally true, I've been on both sides. And its the responsibility of the person who starts getting those feelings, to bring it up and say, "I can't do this anymore." They're the ones who will feel the pain.


Absolutely. When you start feeling feelings you have a decision to make. But, oh geez, you guys are going to pounce on this...I am in a FWB with a guy right now who said at the beginning that he only wanted sex. I have developed feelings for him. And I have thought I need to stop seeing him so i don't get hurt (but don't want to 'cause the sex is SO good and conveniently frequent).  

Here's what I have debated: do I just say "I've decided not to see you anymore" and do that or do I say "I'm developing feelings, any way you may have shifted your thinking on the whole 'just sex' thing?" Any point in doing the latter?


----------



## firebelly1

NextTimeAround said:


> Yes, that is what I mean. Dating is always a gamble. Even if I don't have sex with the guy on the first date, it does not always result in a second date, let alone an LTR. Ergo, there are so many reasons why a guy may not want to see you again...... even if your sex can rock a guy's world. Men aren't one sided creatures either.
> 
> The reasons underpinning an LTR are many and complicated. This is why I chuckle when I hear a woman wonder why on earth is that guy with HER? Because the woman asking that question refuses to accept her way isn't the only highway.
> 
> If you want to up the ante on the first date and have sex with the guy, then that's on you.
> 
> By the same token, some guys suggest cheap dates so that they have less of an investment sunk if they or the woman decides that there will be no second date.
> 
> I just don't understand what you expect the guy to do by the time you are taking panties off and you have yet to initiate that discussion.


I'm still not really getting your point. I don't expect a guy to do or feel anything. As I said, there's a variety of reasons why he might not want to continue seeing me. I just hope that a guy doesn't STOP seeing me only because I had sex with him. And in certain dating contexts, I do think it's on the person who doesn't want a relationship to say so.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Sure, go with the latter statement. His position can evolve just as yours has. But either statement means its likely to end if he's a half-decent guy.

If you're feeling something, and he isn't, then the original agreement is off... and if I'm him and I hear either one, I'm ending it. I don't want her to feel bad about this or give her some kind of false hope. Its supposed to be just mutual fun and company. Friends, not lovers.


----------



## firebelly1

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> In my experience, the FWB conversation usually happens after a couple... uh... oopsies. The first one was obviously NSA. The second one is neither here or there... the third one... woah... uh, so... this isn't really a relationship you know? Everything is great, but I don't really want the whole relationship deal.
> 
> There are a LOT of other signals that go into it, but its never something that is up front "Hey, wanna be my FWB!?" -at least in my experience!


Yeah...I had the advantage(?) of meeting my FWBs on AFF so the context of that pretty much is - this is only sex unless we say otherwise. But I have found that I have to make the distinction between "just sex" and FWB. Because "just sex" assumes very little conversation, no hanging out beyond sex, etc. In that context you actually have to ask explicitly for the human part.


----------



## firebelly1

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sure, go with the latter statement. His position can evolve just as yours has. But either statement means its likely to end if he's a half-decent guy.
> 
> If you're feeling something, and he isn't, then the original agreement is off... and if I'm him and I hear either one, I'm ending it. I don't want her to feel bad about this or give her some kind of false hope. Its supposed to be just mutual fun and company. Friends, not lovers.


Which may be why I haven't said anything yet - because I don't want to give up the sex. Better just to talk myself out of the feelings.


----------



## NextTimeAround

firebelly1 said:


> I'm still not really getting your point. I don't expect a guy to do or feel anything. As I said, there's a variety of reasons why he might not want to continue seeing me. I just hope that a guy doesn't STOP seeing me only because I had sex with him. And in certain dating contexts, I do think it's on the person who doesn't want a relationship to say so.


You say "certain" dating contexts, which ones are those.

It seems to me that you are the type to believe that anything less than a "no" means "yes." 



> And in certain dating contexts, I do think it's on the person who doesn't want a relationship to say so


so if they don't tell you "No, I don't think we are a match" before you have sex with them, then that means to you that you will be seeing them again next week. Right?


----------



## Caribbean Man

NextTimeAround said:


> Yes, that is what I mean. Dating is always a gamble. Even if I don't have sex with the guy on the first date, it does not always result in a second date, let alone an LTR. Ergo, there are so many reasons why a guy may not want to see you again...... even your sex can rock a guy's world. Men aren't one sided creatures either.
> 
> The reasons underpinning an LTR are man and complicated. This is why I chuckle when I hear a woman wonder why on earth is that guy with HER? Because the woman asking that question refuses to accept her way isn't the only highway.
> 
> If you want to up the ante on the first date and have sex with the guy, then that's on you.
> 
> By the same token, some guys suggest cheap dates so that they have less of an investment sunk if they or the woman decides that there will be no second date.
> 
> *I just don't understand what you expect the guy to do by the time you are taking panties and you have yet to initiate that discussion.*


:iagree:

And that's my point.

The whole dating process ad relationships are complicated for either sex.
Anything could happen , so it's best to approach it with an open mind.
However, if one is open to having sex with someone they hardly even know on the first date, then they would need to guard their emotions and let their expectations post the sexual encounter.be extremely low.

When I was single, I met a woman at a football match , and I could actually see the desire in her eyes even before I walked across and started to chat. I caught her off guard , staring at me.
She was older than me, but we clicked, she invited me to her home , we were talking about all sorts of things including ,food and wines , I loved cooking ,so that was the opening for her.

Needless to say , we had sex that night I left next morning , but before I left she asked me to pass by for " dinner " after work.

She did cook and we had dinner and sex.

This went on for more than two weeks, but we both understood that it was just sex.
She was a divorcee, and wanted sex.
I was young , single and unattached , and I knew that even though she was a good looking woman,no way I could hope to be in any serious relationship with her.
She was way beyond me in her life experiences and achievements. She would want her equal for a relationship.
So she wanted to stop having sex, I obliged.

I was just a teenage boy still pursuing my degree, and she was a divorced mother ,and business owner.

We remained friends though, until she migrated.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

firebelly1 said:


> Yeah...I had the advantage(?) of meeting my FWBs on AFF so the context of that pretty much is - this is only sex unless we say otherwise. But I have found that I have to make the distinction between "just sex" and FWB. Because "just sex" assumes very little conversation, no hanging out beyond sex, etc. In that context you actually have to ask explicitly for the human part.


I was on AFF for a little while. Nothing panned out.

My FWBs have all been sort of accidental - just based in circumstance; limited time; whatever.

In actually seeking an FWB, particularly with the emphasis on "friends"... what you're really saying, is you want a not-so-serious relationship. I generally don't consider those much different than actual full-blown relationships. If you read some women's requirements for their FWBs on reddit or AFF, well I'll be damned they look an awful lot like the requirements for a husband... minus the official obligation and duty. lol


----------



## firebelly1

NextTimeAround said:


> You say "certain" dating contexts, which ones are those.
> 
> It seems to me that you are the type to believe that anything less than a "no" means "yes."


I've never been the aggressor / initiator in first date sex. So, I've never been in a situation where I had to accept a yes or no - 'cause I wasn't offering, I was responding. 


[/QUOTE]so if they don't tell you "No, I don't think we are a match" before you have sex with them, then that means to you that you will be seeing them again next week. Right?[/QUOTE]

Not sure what you mean here. If he hasn't said "I'm not looking for a relationship," and I liked him, I will hope that we will see each other again. I will not expect it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

firebelly1 said:


> Which may be why I haven't said anything yet - because I don't want to give up the sex. Better just to talk myself out of the feelings.


Just FYI... you won't. I'm not sure anyone can talk themselves out of feeling what they feel. Time will go by, and you'll become more and more unhappy with it... you'll eventually call it quits when that dissatisfaction or lack of fulfillment exceeds the value of the sex.

At least, that's what I did when it happened to me... and I had a tailwind of c*ckiness and "wtf... I'm not supposed to fall. I'm not THAT type... get a grip man!!" Didn't matter. haha


----------



## ScarletBegonias

"I'll bang him til I hate him" 

That's about all stuffing feelings down will give you in the end.


----------



## firebelly1

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Just FYI... you won't. I'm not sure anyone can talk themselves out of feeling what they feel. Time will go by, and you'll become more and more unhappy with it... you'll eventually call it quits when that dissatisfaction or lack of fulfillment exceeds the value of the sex.
> 
> At least, that's what I did when it happened to me... and I had a tailwind of c*ckiness and "wtf... I'm not supposed to fall. I'm not THAT type... get a grip man!!" Didn't matter. haha


Oh geez. I'm afraid of that. But thanks for the head's up.


----------



## that_girl

I had the best FWB situation. Great guy, similar hobby (painting), good whiskey and great, unattached sex.

It lasted a year. Then we both found people we wanted to date.

I don't think that's the norm, but neither of us developed feelings. O_0 I had expected to, but didn't. It was just a friendship with sleepovers and painting and a drink.

I haven't talked to him all in the last 7 years. But when we met, we got along and were friends and we both just talked about having a FWB situation...no strings. It worked. We knew each other about 4 months before it happened though.

I'd probably not be able to do it again, as I am not the same person as I was then.


----------



## firebelly1

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> And that's my point.
> 
> The whole dating process ad relationships are complicated for either sex.
> Anything could happen , so it's best to approach it with an open mind.
> However, if one is open to having sex with someone they hardly even know on the first date, then they would need to guard their emotions and let their expectations post the sexual encounter.be extremely low.


My expectations are extremely low. I KNOW that this could be nothing and that it may not turn into anything. I absolutely know that. All I'm saying is that I don't want to be disqualified completely JUST BECAUSE OF THE SEX and that's what I think some guys do and think - "well, now that I've banged her I know she's a **** and she is no longer wife material."


----------



## that_girl

Then they marry a woman who waited a while to sleep with them and maybe after marriage doesn't want sex ever.
lol.

Oh well.


----------



## Jetranger

firebelly1 said:


> All I'm saying is that I don't want to be disqualified completely JUST BECAUSE OF THE SEX and that's what I think some guys do and think - "well, now that I've banged her I know she's a **** and she is no longer wife material."


What if the guy thinks "The sex wasn't that great" and disqualifies the woman based on that?

It seems to be a slippery slope to me. If he gives her another chance in case the bad sex was a one off and then concludes they just aren't sexually compatible, what the hell does he do then? No matter what, whether telling her or just breaking it off without telling her why, he'll seem like a jerk/creep/PUA/playa/whatever.


----------



## that_girl

Sex is fun and fun to talk about how to make better.

If there is chemistry and the sex isn't that great the first time, I wouldn't mind a 2nd time to make sure...


----------



## NextTimeAround

that_girl said:


> Then they marry a woman who waited a while to sleep with them and maybe after marriage doesn't want sex ever.
> lol.
> 
> Oh well.


If it makes you feel better to think that way, well, I can't stop you.

What some men might think is that if a woman can't show self-control even before you have a relationship with her, then she may never show self control once you are in a relationship with her...... ie, if a woman doesn't mind taking the risk of having sex with at least one man without knowing him well, what's to stop her from doing it regularly, even after she is married.......


----------



## Caribbean Man

testpilot21 said:


> What if the guy thinks "The sex wasn't that great" and disqualifies the woman based on that?
> 
> It seems to be a slippery slope to me. If he gives her another chance in case the bad sex was a one off and then concludes they just aren't sexually compatible, what the hell does he do then? No matter what, whether telling her or just breaking it off without telling her why, he'll seem like a jerk/creep/PUA/playa/whatever.


Men almost always get the blame.


----------



## that_girl

I think if a woman sleeps with a man soon in a relationship or a couple of dates, it is to be expected that anything can happen. He can stop calling, she could be turned off, he could not like her, she could want more but he's not into it.

It makes no one a player, a dog, etc in my eyes. That's just part of life.


----------



## that_girl

NextTimeAround said:


> If it makes you feel better to think that way, well, I can't stop you.
> 
> What some men might think is that if a woman can't show self-control even before you have a relationship with her, then she may never show self control once you are in a relationship with her...... ie, if a woman doesn't mind taking the risk of having sex with at least one man without knowing him well, what's to stop her from doing it regularly, even after she is married.......


Make me feel better? About what? I feel fine, thanks 

Men can think what they want. Just because a woman enjoys her sexuality doesn't mean she can't be monogamous.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Her angle is based on the application to third parties - the notion that this statement of being "unfit" is generally applied... that this person is unfit for a relationship with anyone. I kinda get the vibe that some men think that... even while they're having NSAs themselves while not thinking themselves as "unfit" in the general sense. It is hypocritical, and I oppose that thinking. I don't think this is your position.
> 
> So what I see, is that you're speaking past each other. I suspect you actually agree - except on the matter of duty... which is a common disagreement. A lot of women seem to think its the man's duty to voice her expectations, rather than her duty to voice her expectations.


Yes, Dvl's, you get it. Except for that last paragraph. I've never argued that it's the man's duty to voice *her* expectations. That's all on her. It's his duty to be clear on his own, and avoid the double-talk and double standards.


----------



## NextTimeAround

that_girl said:


> Make me feel better? About what? I feel fine, thanks
> 
> Men can think what they want. Just because a woman enjoys her sexuality doesn't mean she can't be monogamous.


and just because a woman shows discretion and self control does not mean that she doesn't like sex in adequate quantities..... which is what your post is suggesting.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Men almost always get the blame.


Talk about playing the victim...


----------



## Thundarr

Catherine602 said:


> Don't try that on me.
> 
> The discussion was about first date sex and your response was about first date sex not hook-ups. You were clear that a woman that you had sex with on the first date was not good enough for a relationship. But you maintained your status as a good man in charge of sorting out the good women and the bad. It is common for men to deny a double standard but practice it none-the-less.
> 
> Not only that, you revealed proudly that you punished the woman for having sex on the first date. You could have walked away and found another woman for sex if that if what you wanted.
> 
> Instead, you had sex with a woman you had already decided was not worthy of you so that you could dump her. Why not, she an easy vj so why treat her with respect and humanity. You should judge yourself not woman who have sex on the first date.
> 
> I didn't misinterpret anything, I got what you were saying. It is so ingrained in our culture that you did not expect anyone to call you on it. Women who have sex on their terms are worthy of being treated with deception and lack of respect. I get it and so do many other women.


Don't try what? Call you out for projecting your own issues into everyone's comments including mine. Call you out for saying nasty things with no purpose in the discussion other than insult people. That's what you did. I feel sorry for you because that hatred comes out IRL as well as here. Not my problem though because I'm not one of the guys who dumped you after first date sex. Maybe you should call them and get this off of your chest instead of projecting it here. 

It had nothing to do with good enough. I didn't want to be in a relationship where my first memory of the person was "we go out and bang each other". Apparently that's an offensive concept. Again, not my problem. I do however have a "not good enough" list. Having to deal with blind anger, resentment, and rudeness is on the list.


----------



## that_girl

NextTimeAround said:


> and just because a woman shows discretion and self control does not mean that she doesn't like sex in adequate quantities..... which is what your post is suggesting.


You're right. I wasn't suggesting that though as an absolute. Sometimes that's true. It's a gamble, isn't it?

Someone can be all about sex before marriage. And then stop after the gifts are opened.

Some can wait til marriage and then be a vixen after the wedding.

I just think people don't talk enough about sex while dating. But that's another topic.


----------



## always_alone

testpilot21 said:


> What if the guy thinks "The sex wasn't that great" and disqualifies the woman based on that?


I think you're missing firebelly's point, which is that she doesn't want to be disqualified just because she had sex.

Not because it was bad sex, not because there was no chemistry, not because they weren't compatible, not because he decided he wanted another woman, but for the very simple fact that she had sex "too soon".

There are actually quite a number of men who hold this double-standard, and believe themselves to be perfectly good LTR material no matter how many hook-ups, ONS, or NSA, they have had, but will assume that any woman who gives it up "too soon", is a **** and unworthy of LTR.


----------



## Jetranger

always_alone said:


> I think you're missing firebelly's point, which is that she doesn't want to be disqualified just because she had sex.
> 
> Not because it was bad sex, not because there was no chemistry, not because they weren't compatible, not because he decided he wanted another woman, but for the very simple fact that she had sex "too soon".
> 
> There are actually quite a number of men who hold this double-standard, and believe themselves to be perfectly good LTR material no matter how many hook-ups, ONS, or NSA, they have had, but will assume that any woman who gives it up "too soon", is a **** and unworthy of LTR.


I completely got her point, she's worried that the prospects of a relationship are spoiled by, if you'll pardon the expression, giving it up too soon.

My point was that there could be other reasons why a guy would lose interest after first date sex, and a much more valid one than the stupid double standard you mention.

that_girl makes the point (which could indeed be a thread all its own) that talking about sex would be a big help but unfortunately another big hang up people have is that if you talk about it, it *must be* all you think about and you're a player/****/skank ho/womanizer/etc. A bit of honesty would be great but alas, it might make otherwise compatible people run a mile.


----------



## NextTimeAround

always_alone said:


> I think you're missing firebelly's point, which is that she doesn't want to be disqualified just because she had sex.
> 
> Not because it was bad sex, not because there was no chemistry, not because they weren't compatible, not because he decided he wanted another woman, but for the very simple fact that she had sex "too soon".
> 
> *There are actually quite a number of men who hold this double-standard, and believe themselves to be perfectly good LTR material no matter how many hook-ups, ONS, or NSA, they have had, but will assume that any woman who gives it up "too soon", is a **** and unworthy of LTR*.



Aren't you glad then that because you did have sex with him when you did, that you learned that he was an arrogant a$$ early on and that you don't waste your time with him. 

Just think, all those women who make guys wait until at least the 5th date, will be saddled with this ar$sehole for the rest of their lives and you will be freed from her because you chose to have sex with him early on.


----------



## that_girl

If someone can't talk about sex with me, we won't be compatible. lol.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NextTimeAround said:


> if a woman doesn't mind taking the risk of having sex with at least one man without knowing him well, what's to stop her from doing it regularly, even after she is married.......


I personally don't believe these things go hand in hand. Cheating necessarily involves dishonesty, and just because someone decides the vibe is right to have sex with this person on the first date, doesn't mean they're a dishonest person.

Again we have an improper association with sex and being a bad person. BS puritanical brainwashing.

Does the guy having sex with her think he's going to be a cheater down the road? Probably not.


----------



## always_alone

testpilot21 said:


> that_girl makes the point (which could indeed be a thread all its own) that talking about sex would be a big help but unfortunately another big hang up people have is that if you talk about it, it *must be* all you think about and you're a player/****/skank ho/womanizer/etc. A bit of honesty would be great but alas, it might make otherwise compatible people run a mile.


I agree that more talk about sex would make a huge difference. But whenever I've suggested it, I'm told that it would totally *spoil the mood*, and should be avoided at all costs.

Personally, I think that's just a dodge to avoid finding out about incompatibilities too quickly: Just take full advantage of the moment, and run from the fallout later.


----------



## SolitaryConfinement

that_girl said:


> ONS are first dates?
> 
> I've asked a few times if any one here has said no to sex on a first date and have yet to get an answer.


I have said no, but not because I thought negative of her, I was just not interested in sex or a relationship PRIOR to the question.

Am single now after a nearly 20 year marriage. We had sex on our first date. It was great! we still wanted to get to know each other, married and first 3/4 of our marriage was great, and sex was still great. Things did change, we changed, and it ended up not working out, but had nothing to do with sex on first date. 

the key is just to make sure both parties know what the others expectations are. If both agree, then let it be. ONSs are okay, as long as both know that is what it is.


----------



## SolitaryConfinement

Caribbean Man said:


> It one thing to have so much chemistry with a particular person on a first date that you have sex with them and the relationship moves forward effortlessly into something more productive.
> 
> It is quite another to have sex on every first date thinking it's
> " chemistry ", and your partners thinks it's just , unattached , casual sex.
> 
> It is one thing if two people put off having sex too soon in an effort to explore other areas of the relationship first.
> 
> It is quite another for one partner to withhold sex in an effort to manipulate the other partner into thinking of them in a certain way.
> 
> It all comes down to honesty and compatibility.


YES!!! Couldn't say it better myself.


----------



## always_alone

NextTimeAround said:


> Aren't you glad then that because you did have sex with him when you did, that you learned that he was an arrogant a$$ early on and that you don't waste your time with him.
> 
> Just think, all those women who make guys wait until at least the 5th date, will be saddled with this ar$sehole for the rest of their lives and you will be freed from her because you chose to have sex with him early on.


Actually, I would prefer to avoid them all together, and I mean not even a cup of coffee. Perhaps we could make all the hypocrites wear a scarlet H?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> It's his duty to be clear on his own, and avoid the double-talk and double standards.


If we just met in a bar and 4 hrs later are in bed, I consider that crystal clear. There just aren't any romantic elements. There's really no reason to believe its anything more than WYSIWYG.

If I asked you out on a traditional date, we have a nice dinner, maybe catch a movie and later wander around the romantic Victorian neighborhood nearby talking our heads off about our interests, goals and passions... and what we're looking for in life... I consider that pretty clear too.

I know you're into explicit statements. I'm more into circumstances and signals. Ultimately, the concern of many women - being used (a hard to figure concept for me considering willful participation) - can happen regardless of whether you talk about it explicitly or not. The guy might just be lying. The guy might hook up with you and just go... "Damn... I was all about this girl last night... but today, I just don't see it." Would that make it feel any better? You'd still feel used regardless. If you don't get what you want - the continued relationship - you'd feel used.

But really, he can leave at any time for any reason. "You snore and that's a deal breaker for me." You just don't like the feeling that all he wanted was sex, and if you don't get what you want, you'll imagine that's all he wanted regardless.

IMO, this is setting oneself up to feel like a victim. But we've had this discussion before, so agree to disagree?


----------



## that_girl

Well, this is why we TALK. Easy to weed out the creeps and jerks.

20 minutes of coffee.....lol. I do love coffee.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

that_girl said:


> If someone can't talk about sex with me, we won't be compatible. lol.


:iagree: same here.

I love talking about sex. It's such a fun topic. 

Wise rule,if you wanna know a guy's penis size just ask him if he's really clever cuz he'll figure that sh*t out really quick if you're trying to be subtle. 


DH can't keep count of the number of times he called me out at the beginning when I was trying to be subtle and dig for sexual stats.


----------



## NobodySpecial

For ME, I would not choose a partner who viewed sex after x number of meetings as some kind of leading indicator of anything.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You'd still feel used regardless. If you don't get what you want - the continued relationship - you'd feel used.


You are making a whole host of assumptions about what I think, and none of them are accurate.

If someone is a lying sack of sh*t, then they are a lying sack of sh*t. It really is that simple. 

Like I said, I've no use for double talk and double standards.


----------



## Thundarr

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> But having sex on the first date doesn't entitle her to any expectation that there is actually more to the relationship. There may be, there may not be. She isn't a victim just because it doesn't go any further. She was a willing participant who might have done the same to him (its happened to me).
> 
> We don't read minds. If she wants sex on the first date to be contingent on some kind of commitment, then she should say so before having sex. Or even better... not have sex until commitment is demonstrated. I don't feel obligated to manage her feelings for her.


:iagree:
It's about that simple. If her prize is reserved for guys wanting a relationship then don't give it away to a stranger.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Thundarr said:


> :iagree:
> It's about that simple. If her prize is reserved for guys wanting a relationship then don't give it away to a stranger.


I agree...if his prize is reserved for girls wanting a relationship then dont give it away to a stranger


----------



## Anonymous07

that_girl said:


> If someone can't talk about sex with me, we won't be compatible. lol.


:iagree:

My husband and I talked about sex a lot before we ever did the deed. He waited until I was ready and I love him for that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

that_girl said:


> If someone can't talk about sex with me, we won't be compatible. lol.


I'm out of the running!  lol 

Beyond sexy talk, innuendos and similar... I've never had a serious discussion about sex until after its had. Honestly, I prefer it that way. I want the natural flow of things, especially the first time. I don't want to think my way through it.

AA thinks this is so I can be shady and vague so as to get away with something. That I need to tell the girl I just met who undid my pants and started blowing me in the car, "hey, you know this isn't a relationship right?" Or as if I should think having sex on the first date means I'm pledging myself to a woman. As if all women even want such serious discussions of expectations on a first date. If that sort of seriousness is anything like other forms of "getting too serious" on a first date, I assure you its a surefire way to not get a second date, much less sex on the first date.

Its even strikes me as kind of presumptuous to bring up. Who said you're even going to have sex? If you're the type to have such a discussion, I doubt you're having first date sex in the first place. Want to not have sex on the first date? Say something, in all seriousness, that plans how you're going to have it or what its nature will be. Neither has necessarily even decided that sex is on the menu.


----------



## that_girl

So can't talk about sex on a first date but can have sex on a first date because talking about it is too serious? LOL

I just like talking about sex. Not questioning the person, but just throwing it out there because I'm a sexual person (usually) and I can't be with someone who isn't that into sex.

Not to say everyone is honest. My older daugther's father talked about sex...seemed to be into it, etc. WRONG. lol. He had such a LD it was shocking to me at the time. (I was 24.)


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> You are making a whole host of assumptions about what I think, and none of them are accurate.
> 
> If someone is a lying sack of sh*t, then they are a lying sack of sh*t. It really is that simple.
> 
> Like I said, I've no use for double talk and double standards.


But you're not referring to just lying. You're claiming the guy should declare up front what this is. For one thing, we don't necessarily know. We're taken by the moment too. The big difference is that regardless of what it really was, we don't blame her for it later.

When I know its NSA... its freaking obvious its NSA. You'd have had to grown up a sex slave to think its the start of a relationship - and nothing is ever said by either of us as to what it is. Similarly, when its a relationship, I make it obvious I'm interested in romantic connection... without saying a word about it.

A LOT of things are conveyed without words, AA. Hell, most things are conveyed without words. Those things don't satisfy you and they might not satisfy really fearful, cautious people, but they fully satisfy others... and it doesn't mean those people are being shady.

My apologies if I've misunderstood you from our previous conversations, but this is the crux of what I've digested. Is your position not: It is the man's responsibility to spell everything out in bold print or he's a shady player? If the shady player will also just lie... what does the bold print get you?

Every time we talk about this subject, I come away with the feeling that you think if she wants an LTR and doesn't get one after having sex with a guy, then you think she's been used.


----------



## firebelly1

Thundarr said:


> :iagree:
> It's about that simple. If her prize is reserved for guys wanting a relationship then don't give it away to a stranger.


I know there are women who use sex to manipulate. I am not one of those women. It's not a "prize" to be gifted or taken away. I do it for me because I like it. Maybe thinking of p*ssy as a commodity is part of the problem.


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> It's about that simple. If her prize is reserved for guys wanting a relationship then don't give it away to a stranger.





ScarletBegonias said:


> I agree...if his prize is reserved for girls wanting a relationship then dont give it away to a stranger


Both of those statements are true. My point was, if someone will regret a hookup that doesn't go further then that person needs to not hook up until there's something to indicate more.


----------



## Caribbean Man

that_girl said:


> I think if a woman sleeps with a man soon in a relationship or a couple of dates, it is to be expected that anything can happen. He can stop calling, she could be turned off, he could not like her, she could want more but he's not into it.
> 
> *It makes no one a player, a dog, etc in my eyes. That's just part of life*.


And this^^^is what I've being saying since last evening.


----------



## SolitaryConfinement

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> A LOT of things are conveyed without words, AA. Hell, most things are conveyed without words. Those things don't satisfy you and they might not satisfy really fearful, cautious people, but they fully satisfy others... and it doesn't mean those people are being shady.


EXACTLY.... Those that depend on explicit words to say what you want or don't want, are typically those that miss out or are taken advantage of. It is the indirect language and body language that says or shows what someone is really meaning and/or wanting. 

I am not saying that you cannot talk about what you want, etc., but there is more to it than that.

A lying tongue is a lying tongue, regardless of how direct that person is.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SolitaryConfinement said:


> EXACTLY.... Those that depend on explicit words to say what you want or don't want, are typically those that miss out or are taken advantage of. It is the indirect language and body language that says or shows what someone is really meaning and/or wanting.
> 
> I am not saying that you cannot talk about what you want, etc., but there is more to it than that.
> 
> A lying tongue is a lying tongue, regardless of how direct that person is.


Do I understand you to be saying that the ACT of having sex very early is, itself, a nonverbal expression of lack of relationship potential?


----------



## that_girl

If I sleep with someone on a first date for whatever reason (because, hey, I'm human and some moments just get all mushy and blah blah), I'll be SURE to either kick him out afterwards or leave his place right after.

Why? 

Because it still leads to a chase. I wouldn't be a b1tch about it but I'd just have to be done with it at that time. No cuddling or mushy clingy bullshet.

Thanks for the sex, get out. 

He'll probably call again.

And in all honesty, sex on date 1 isn't all that emotional and once the hormones surge and release, I don't think I'd want to snuggle with some random dude in my bed. Buhbye.

And that's just life.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

that_girl said:


> So can't talk about sex on a first date but can have sex on a first date because talking about it is too serious? LOL
> 
> I just like talking about sex. Not questioning the person, but just throwing it out there because I'm a sexual person (usually) and I can't be with someone who isn't that into sex.


Lots of clarification needed here:

Firstly, I wouldn't advise most guys to talk about sex at all on a first date. The tendency is for women to get a sniff of "he just wants sex"... and that's the end of anything that might have been, relationship or otherwise.

Secondly, "talk about sex" means a lot of different things. There is talking about sex in the abstract, which is often a tension builder, and then there is SERIOUS talk.

One of the most commonly complained about things among women in online dating, is that men move to sex talk too soon. The same applies to a first date. Most want to feel "it", before they talk about it, and if you're feeling "it"... odds are good you're ramping up to doing it and serious talk, tends to kill that tension. If that's important to you to get all serious about it, you might as well wait to have sex later. Or have it and go for it anyway... but don't imagine everyone feels that way, and those who don't are shady. Regardless, that serious talk doesn't do anything to reduce the odds of a one date hit it and quit it. Because a shady guy will just lie anyway.


----------



## NextTimeAround

I think non verbal communication is the best early on in a situation. I remember when I was at university I was friendly with a guy who lived in the men's dorm. I saw him on Friday afternoon and he suggests that I come by his dorm room but later on after he has been to a party which he did not invite me to.

I was direct and said, "I'm not interested in having sex with you. " He responded "Who's talking about sex. I'm not, you're the one with the dirty mind." 

I should have just told that I had other plans. There are times when being open and direct just does not do you any favors.


----------



## Caribbean Man

testpilot21 said:


> I completely got her point, she's worried that the prospects of a relationship are spoiled by, if you'll pardon the expression, giving it up too soon.
> 
> My point was that there could be other reasons why a guy would lose interest after first date sex, and a much more valid one than the stupid double standard you mention.
> 
> *that_girl makes the point (which could indeed be a thread all its own) that talking about sex would be a big help but unfortunately another big hang up people have is that if you talk about it, it *must be* all you think about and you're a player/****/skank ho/womanizer/etc. A bit of honesty would be great but alas, it might make otherwise compatible people run a mile.*


 I completely agree with you.

But what I've realized about human beings both here and in real life is that we are very good at shifting responsibility/ blame and fooling ourselves.

Any person who does not want a relationship other than sex with another person for any reason is completely within their rights.

Anyone who has with such a person cannot blame that person for not wanting to have a relationship with them any reason, because that is what they both agreed to.

Many females have sex with a man and they never want to see him again for a number of reasons. But some assume the female's reasons _must_ be justifiable, and the man must accept her reason.

Flip the gender and suddenly she has a problem with the man not wanting to have a relationship because he views the female as not worthy for a relationship.

If the female viewed the man as not worthy of a relationship , that's ok.

If the man views the woman as not worthy of a relationship, he is a hypocrite.

Right there is the double standard.


----------



## SolitaryConfinement

NobodySpecial said:


> Do I understand you to be saying that the ACT of having sex very early is, itself, a nonverbal expression of lack of relationship potential?


Not what I am saying at all. Had you read my earlier post, I had sex with my (ex)wife on our first date. we were together 15 years before things started to go south, and it had nothing to do with first date sex.

What I was trying to convey is one can get a good idea of what someone is looking for without always being direct with words. If I am in a bar talking to a woman, and she grabs my crotch and says lets get out of here, there is no confusion in my mind of what her intentions are. If I am on a date (assuming it is going well) and she is discussing things that she would like to do with me in the future (concert, picnic, whatever) - it becomes very clear that she is not talking about this being a one date ordeal. The first never said that she wanted a one night stand, the other never directly said that she wanted to date beyond tonight, but both messages were understood. Make better sense?


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> I know there are women who use sex to manipulate. I am not one of those women. It's not a "prize" to be gifted or taken away. I do it for me because I like it.* Maybe thinking of p*ssy as a commodity is part of the problem.*


Not just part, that is the root of the problem , in so many ways.

That's why so many double standards exist.


----------



## that_girl

Talking about sex isn't having a dirty mind. Dang we are so brainwashed into thinking that sex is so taboo, etc.

I've told many men I wasn't going to sleep with them on that date so if that was their intent, they could go before we order food.

Many men walked away. Oh well. I honestly felt better doing that than sitting through a forced meal while he didn't listen but plotted on how he was going to get me into bed.

I like to weed them out quickly. Men did stay though. Those were the ones that went another date. 

Only one man made it through a few dates and we did sleep together and dated for a while.

His response to me saying I wasn't going to sleep with him on that date was, "Great-- because I totally wore the wrong underwear and didn't shave my legs."
I died laughing.  It was a great meal and date.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SolitaryConfinement said:


> Not what I am saying at all. Had you read my earlier post, I had sex with my (ex)wife on our first date. we were together 15 years before things started to go south, and it had nothing to do with first date sex.
> 
> What I was trying to convey is one can get a good idea of what someone is looking for without always being direct with words. If I am in a bar talking to a woman, and she grabs my crotch and says lets get out of here, there is no confusion in my mind of what her intentions are. If I am on a date (assuming it is going well) and she is discussing things that she would like to do with me in the future (concert, picnic, whatever) - it becomes very clear that she is not talking about this being a one date ordeal. The first never said that she wanted a one night stand, the other never directly said that she wanted to date beyond tonight, but both messages were understood. Make better sense?


I am confused. I thought I was replying to CM.

Sorry, my bad!


----------



## Jetranger

I think, apart from in exceptional circumstances, the really intimate talk about sex should wait until after the first time, to avoid freaking the other person out. The reason being that you can never really be sure of someone else's intentions, and once you've crossed the line into being physically intimate a lot of barriers are now gone so you likely can relax and talk more openly about it.

The exceptional circumstances being those occasions when it is obvious you both want it and are just not in a suitable time or location _yet_, so sexy talk is basically non-physical foreplay and also allowing you to figure out how to best enjoy yourselves once the moment arrives.


----------



## firebelly1

that_girl said:


> I think if a woman sleeps with a man soon in a relationship or a couple of dates, it is to be expected that anything can happen. He can stop calling, she could be turned off, he could not like her, she could want more but he's not into it.
> 
> It makes no one a player, a dog, etc in my eyes. That's just part of life.


I would agree with this. The man is not a dog for ending it. I'm also wanting us to recognize that the woman isn't a de facto clingy, needy, mess for hoping (not expecting) it will blossom into something else.


----------



## SolitaryConfinement

NobodySpecial said:


> I am confused. I thought I was replying to CM.
> 
> Sorry, my bad!


No worries, post included quote from DvlsAdvc8. That is what I was referring to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I've always liked to talk about sex before it happened.

Helps build tension and expectations.

However, with a ONS there isn't much talking , mostly actions.


----------



## that_girl

testpilot21 said:


> I think, apart from in exceptional circumstances, the really intimate talk about sex should wait until after the first time, to avoid freaking the other person out. The reason being that you can never really be sure of someone else's intentions, and once you've crossed the line into being physically intimate a lot of barriers are now gone so you likely can relax and talk more openly about it.
> 
> The exceptional circumstances being those occasions when it is obvious you both want it and are just not in a suitable time or location _yet_, so sexy talk is basically non-physical foreplay and also allowing you to figure out how to best enjoy yourselves once the moment arrives.


This makes no sense to me! Share your body with someone before you talk about sex with this person.

lol Not for me. I don't know how the act became less intimate than the talk.

Even with a ONS, it's physically intimate. Someone is inside another person's body. If you can't talk about it before it happens, maybe it shouldn't be happening.

If someone is "freaked out" by talking about sex, then it's not someone I'd want to be with. I'm assuming I'm dating men ages 35-40 so if they are still freaked out by this, then that's a problem for me.


----------



## firebelly1

that_girl said:


> This makes no sense to me! Share your body with someone before you talk about sex with this person.
> 
> lol Not for me. I don't know how the act became less intimate than the talk.
> 
> Even with a ONS, it's physically intimate. Someone is inside another person's body. If you can't talk about it before it happens, maybe it shouldn't be happening.
> 
> If someone is "freaked out" by talking about sex, then it's not someone I'd want to be with. I'm assuming I'm dating men ages 35-40 so if they are still freaked out by this, then that's a problem for me.


All depends on what we mean by "talking about it" and context, etc. I was about to say we should at least talk about birth control / std prevention but you can address that by just applying the condom.


----------



## Jetranger

I guess I didn't phrase it right. What I meant was going into great detail, with someone you might not know that well (as it's your first date). 

Maybe I've started barking up the wrong tree here. However, sometimes one thing does lead to another quite quickly and suddenly you're both about to go for it, there hasn't been time to have a chat first or indeed there's only time to say 'let me get a condoom'!


----------



## that_girl

Yea, I've never been in that situation...so I dunno.


----------



## Jetranger

Okay, I've just realized what I meant (LOL!)

It's not that the talk is necessarily more intimate than the act, but rather that if you have the talk first then there's the risk of creating that expectation or pressure that runs the risk of freaking the other person out.

The situation I mentioned above is pretty much where a first kiss or goodnight kiss ends up going all the way. Neither of you expected things to move that quickly but you were overcome by passion.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My apologies if I've misunderstood you from our previous conversations, but this is the crux of what I've digested. Is your position not: It is the man's responsibility to spell everything out in bold print or he's a shady player? If the shady player will also just lie... what does the bold print get you?
> 
> Every time we talk about this subject, I come away with the feeling that you think if she wants an LTR and doesn't get one after having sex with a guy, then you think she's been used.


Apology accepted.

No that is not my position at all. I just don't like double-speak and double standards. It really, really is just that simple.


----------



## that_girl

If a person is freaked out by non-judgemental honesty, then buhbye. 

FFS we're all adults.

And I'd assume if there was a good night kiss then there was a date where things were talked about.

I bring up sex. Just what I do. It's worked for me in the past so if I'm ever dating again, I'll use it as well. I'm also going to assume that the people I would date after this marriage would be older with past sex lives and maybe even past marriages. 

I got caught up in passion (not on first date) without talking to the man about sex and ended up pregnant. We used protection. It was incredible how little I knew about him at that point. He wanted to pay me to abort, wanted to put the baby up for adoption when i refused an abortion....just no.

I guess I just can't eff someone I don't know a bit better than "This is my job. I like the color blue."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

What exactly are you talking about when you say "talk about sex"?

I'm referring to totally unsexy serious discussion... "so... what is this... are we a thing? Is this serious or are you just in it for sex? Are you going to call me after and we keep dating?"

Wha? Our first date isn't even over yet and you're asking me how serious this is? This doesn't build tension. It's rather uptight and fearful. Horribly unattractive qualities for me. I'd cut that date short.

I do consider such serious discussions, more serious than sex. Not a perfect analogy, but my ex told me a story about a guy she dated before me who straight up talked about how he made a list of all the things he wanted in a wife. He looked at it before coming on the date, and told her she had every one of the qualities. Guess who didn't get a second date? lol Its a first date! How serious can it be? If sex is so serious that serious discussion about it and the long term potential of the relationship must be had, it seems to me you wouldn't be having sex on a first date.

Its a first date... fvck if I know how far it will go anyway.


----------



## that_girl

Oh noooo. Nothing about sex between me and that person. No labels.

Just sex in general. Maybe about how old they were when they lost it (most men tell me 13 or 14 lol). How important it is to them in a relationship. How they feel about different things regarding sex. Very general but specific to them. There's no judgement on what they say, just if it fits with what I need.

It's not about where this is going, blah blah, no. But if it has potential to even be long term. I can't be with a low drive person.

It doesn't dominate the conversation of a 4 hour date. Damn.

And no, I wouldn't have sex on a first date ideally...but if it happened, then it happens. I wouldn't try to think about what it meant. It was sex. lol I think age does that though. As a woman, I am seeing that age really does calm you the eff down. I don't sit and think so much as I used to. It just is what it is and that's it. Move on.


----------



## Binji

If I date a woman and we have sex on the first date, most likely there won't be long lasting relationship. If she's offering I'm going to take it, but I probably wouldn't think too highly of her thotful behavior. Most likely she has done it before or has a questionable sexual past. If I'm dating a woman and find out she she has had a one night stand or sex on the first date before, then most likely she'll just be a friends with benefits. If I'm going to be with a female long term, she has to respect her body. That's a trait most men look for when they deem its time to settle down.

Met a woman one time at a gas station, she was enamored with me and was emitting signals that she wanted the good good. So after about a couple of minutes of talking, we went to her house and performed the Adam and Eve. Afterwards she had the nerve to ask me for my phone number and slightly demand that I call her. I told her I'll call her when I get ready. But I kept thinking to myself, she's slightly off, she knew what it was the whole time, what purpose was there to call her only to set something up. Needless to say never called her back. She was not a long term candidate. 

The more a woman makes a man wait, the more likely he'll respect her. Facts.


----------



## always_alone

The problem with non-verbal communication is that it is so easily misinterpreted.

He thinks we're on a romantic date; I'm just enjoying a walk on the beach and have another date tomorrow
He only wants a quick bang; I think we have real chemistry and compatibility
He thinks I'm giving "signals"; I think I'm just being friendly
And so on. 

That's why we talk, isn't it? To get to know each other so we don't have to make up what's going on in other people's heads?

No one ever said this talk had to be serious or establishing the full trajectory of the relationship. Indeed I would think anyone who is hooked onto LTR at first blush is probably crazy, or terribly immature.


----------



## that_girl

So you'll take it from this woman whom you deem close to a wh0re...which makes you what? A man wh0re imo. I am sure you're a nice guy but honestly, your integrity gets shot when you know you're not really into sex on the first date, but you take it anyway.

That says a lot about your character. Why not just say no thanks? you know you aren't going to see her again anyway...


----------



## always_alone

Binji said:


> The more a woman makes a man wait, the more likely he'll respect her. Facts.


Now *that* is exactly the sort of double-standard I am talking about.


----------



## that_girl

And waiting too long to have sex makes her a prude? 

This is why I don't follow rules for dating. It's all stupid. 

I decide when and with whom I have sex. Makes no difference to me what other people think about that. If a man and I go to bed and then he thinks I was "too easy" then he's just as big of a "wh0re" as I am, but the difference is he has NO character or integrity so I wouldn't want to be with him anyway in a LTR.

With women it's a different story. lol. Sex on the first date? how could you not want to....so I get it. But I don't think of them as wh0res.


----------



## that_girl

And I don't think it's respect if a woman waits.

I think the man likes the fact that he had to chase her and conquer her that gives him a feeling of "I did this" or "I got her!"

I've known friends that wait about 4 dates and then have sex and the man (who was into her, etc) doesn't call again.

It's not respect. It's the conquest.

Well, I'm not a piece of property waiting for a man to discover me. lmao. Been there, done that. My body, my life. If a man likes me, it won't matter when I sleep with him.


----------



## Binji

Well, I am into sex on the first date. It just won't be a long term relationship, if it happens. I'm not saying the woman is a bad person, or should have a scarlett letter, it's just there are certain principles that I abide by. Say no thanks to what? Sex? Well I like having sex, so I don't see a reason to say no to it. I didn't deem the woman was a *****, just that she knows by the circumstances of that situation that it was just a one time thing.

I tend to know what woman is prone to have sex on the first date or if she's a little loose, so If I'm looking for a quality girl, then I'm going to be looking in the right places.


----------



## that_girl

LOL

So she should know that on a date, it's a one time thing if she has sex with you?

What if you click and hit it off and it just happens because it's that amazing? Guess she isn't "of quality" because she opened her legs too soon.

Guess you're low quality too since you have no trouble taking sex from women you deem low quality. HA!

I do know that when/if I divorce, I will no longer be bisexual. I will be a lesbian 100% . These threads just prove why.


----------



## Binji

always_alone said:


> Now *that* is exactly the sort of double-standard I am talking about.


You're right it's a double standard, but It's about self preservation as well, and double standards exist for a reason. Men and women are equal but they are not the same. Facts.


----------



## that_girl

Women are more than just something for you to conquer. Fact.

Although, I can see how it happens....sex is good so sleep with the slvts and marry the "respectable" ones.

I would eff the sh1t out of a musician but never be with one for a serious relationship. Or an artist for that matter. Good for passion, bad for relationships.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Binji said:


> You're right it's a double standard, but It's about self preservation as well, and double standards exist for a reason. Men and women are equal but they are not the same. Facts.


What would that reason be?


----------



## Binji

Well, it wasn't actually a date. It was just sex. But according to the circumstances of that situation, she should have have been privy. 

Well sure, you could say I'm low quality, but according to most women my quality is determined moreso by how I can provide. This is more important than by my sexual encounters. As a man If I can provide a decent living, exude confidence, and inner strength than I believe this is more important to a woman then how many women I have slept with. Where as men value how a woman keeps herself relatively pure.


----------



## Dollystanford

I think you should stop trying to argue with FACTS ladies


----------



## that_girl

:rofl: Is this 1950? What?

Oh man. I just can't...


----------



## Binji

NobodySpecial said:


> What would that reason be?


Because men and women aren't the same. Somethings women do that I shouldn't try to do and there are somethings that men do that women shouldn't try to as well. Simple as that.


----------



## karole

Binji said:


> Because men and women aren't the same. Somethings women do that I shouldn't try to do and there are somethings that men do that women shouldn't try to as well. Simple as that.


But it's the things that men and women can do TOGETHER that are the MOST fun!!


----------



## Binji

karole said:


> But it's the things that men and women can do TOGETHER that are the MOST fun!!


True, I agree with that.


----------



## COGypsy

Binji said:


> The more a woman makes a man wait, the more likely he'll respect her. Facts.


So what happens if you find this pure, respectable paragon of virtue and marry her?

Is it as virtuous when she turns you down whenever want sex just to be sure you still "respect" her?

Cant think of a better way to end up with a sexless relationship. 

Facts.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Binji said:


> Because men and women aren't the same. Somethings women do that I shouldn't try to do and there are somethings that men do that women shouldn't try to as well. Simple as that.


So men should only have sex on first dates with other men. Facts.


----------



## Caribbean Man

LMAO!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


Here's what ladies.

My wife decided that she not have sex on the first date.
We talked about sex a lot.
In fact, she decided that she she didn't want to have sex at all until our honeymoon.







*_crickets chirping_*








That was 21 years ago,we didn't have sex untill we got married and she has NEVER, EVER denied me sex. We've never had any real problems in the bedroom except for my temporary ED @ mid 30's , that was resolved ,and we're still hot for each other.






In fact at age 46 her sex drive is even higher that she was when we first got married.
And yes, I respected her more than any other woman I've been with.


Wait, that's why I married her!:rofl:


And _that's_ a FACT.

Lemme see which one of you ladies would tell me that it ain't a FACT.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Binji said:


> Well, it wasn't actually a date. It was just sex. But according to the circumstances of that situation, she should have have been privy.
> 
> Well sure, you could say I'm low quality, but according to most women my quality is determined moreso by how I can provide. This is more important than by my sexual encounters. As a man If I can provide a decent living, exude confidence, and inner strength than I believe this is more important to a woman then how many women I have slept with. Where as men value how a woman keeps herself relatively pure.


I have to agree with this.. but not that the majority of men care about Purity -not today they don't...I'd say more than half find that a Joke... Men care about 2 things... ensuring she will be SEXUAL and FAITHFUL to him..that's all.. I think only the more Conservative men feel this way today.. Church goers & the Traditional Family man type..and we all know this is dying out..

But everything else you said....I AGREE WITH YOU ...women are not knocking down the inexperienced men's door by any means ....in just about every *"what does a woman want in a man?*" list I've seen here in the last 4 yrs....Purity in the man sure as hell ain't on it... 

In fact.. *Confidence* is always in the top 3 .. *his status* (his Job, is he that Successful Provider).. this overrides so much....and his *Alpha Hotness* of course...

Maybe some women do care (I am one of those)....but the majority of women just want to ensure the man DOESN'T carry or live the double standard, it has nothing what so ever to do with preferring a man to have less partners... *In fact I have seen a # of women say they WANT HIM MORE Experienced in bed, they don't want a "BOY".*.. 

But again.. MEN say this too.. and add they don't want a Prude... it goes both ways. 

From the girls jumping all over the obnoxious Jocks on the Football team who doesn't even treat a girl right.. while never giving the good guy a second look...who would treat a women like a lady.. No, this is not what pulls women in. 

When women start going for the Inexperienced men..(can we laugh here :rofl.... or putting Family man character traits ABOVE looks /status /even C0cky confidence .... and preferring he BE experienced... then MEN will think twice how they conduct themselves if /when they find their pool of women dwindling.

I simply don't see it happening..


----------



## firebelly1

Binji said:


> If I date a woman and we have sex on the first date, most likely there won't be long lasting relationship. If she's offering I'm going to take it, but I probably wouldn't think too highly of her thotful behavior. Most likely she has done it before or has a questionable sexual past. If I'm dating a woman and find out she she has had a one night stand or sex on the first date before, then most likely she'll just be a friends with benefits. If I'm going to be with a female long term, she has to respect her body.


Do you think of yourself as not "respecting your body" when you have sex with someone on the first date? I'm guessing you don't think of it that way. And...this is the problem.


----------



## firebelly1

Caribbean Man said:


> LMAO!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> 
> Here's what ladies.
> 
> My wife decided that she not have sex on the first date.
> We talked about sex a lot.
> In fact, she decided that she she didn't want to have sex at all until our honeymoon.
> 
> .


But is that WHY you respect her? Would you have NOT married her if she'd had sex with you before the honeymoon?


----------



## Binji

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have to agree with this.. but not that the majority of men care about Purity -not today they don't...I'd say more than half find that a Joke... Men care about 2 things... ensuring she will be SEXUAL and FAITHFUL to him..that's all.. I think only the more Conservative men feel this way today.. Church goers & the Traditional Family man type..and we all know this is dying out..
> 
> But everything else you said....I AGREE WITH YOU ...women are not knocking down the inexperienced men's door by any means ....in just about every *"what does a woman want in a man?*" list I've seen here in the last 4 yrs....Purity in the man sure as hell ain't on it...
> 
> In fact.. *Confidence* is always in the top 3 .. *his status* (his Job, is he that Successful Provider).. this overrides so much....and his *Alpha Hotness* of course...
> 
> Maybe some women do care (I am one of those)....but the majority of women just want to ensure the man DOESN'T carry or live the double standard, it has nothing what so ever to do with preferring a man to have less partners... *In fact I have seen a # of women say they WANT HIM MORE Experienced in bed, they don't want a "BOY".*..
> 
> But again.. MEN say this too.. and add they don't want a Prude... it goes both ways.
> 
> From the girls jumping all over the obnoxious Jocks on the Football team who doesn't even treat a girl right.. while never giving the good guy a second look...who would treat a women like a lady.. No, this is not what pulls women in.
> 
> When women start going for the Inexperienced men..(can we laugh here :rofl.... or putting Family man character traits ABOVE looks /status /even C0cky confidence .... and preferring he BE experienced... then MEN will think twice how they conduct themselves if /when they find their pool of women dwindling.
> 
> I simply don't see it happening..




Well said, Powerful post. Facts Only.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> LMAO!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> 
> Here's what ladies.
> 
> My wife decided that she not have sex on the first date.
> We talked about sex a lot.
> In fact, she decided that she she didn't want to have sex at all until our honeymoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *_crickets chirping_*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was 21 years ago,we didn't have sex untill we got married and she has NEVER, EVER denied me sex. We've never had any real problems in the bedroom except for my temporary ED @ mid 30's , that was resolved ,and we're still hot for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact at age 46 her sex drive is even higher that she was when we first got married.
> And yes, I respected her more than any other woman I've been with.
> 
> 
> Wait, that's why I married her!:rofl:
> 
> 
> And _that's_ a FACT.
> 
> Lemme see which one of you ladies would tell me that it ain't a FACT.


I'm not sure if this post was a response to mine, if it was it's totally irrelevant to what I responded to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

See,

I all comes down to this.

You cannot force anyone to think of you a certain way of you , whether you have sex with them or not.

A woman can decide to have sex on the first date , FWB's and lots of ONS and not choose to marry or have a relationship with any one of her sexual partners.
She could also meet another man, develop emotional feelings for him and decide not to have sex with him until she feels ready.
It would be a double standard, right?
But it's her life , her body, her right and her rules.
Any man who thinks she's wrong to make him wait could shove that thought up his.

Having lots of sex with different partners or even the same partner is no guarantee of anything after marriage ,or in a LTR.

It doesn't guarantee that your marriage won't be sexless.

It doesn't guarantee that you or your partner won't be temped to cheat.

Having no sex or very discreet sex before marriage doesn't guarantee anything either.

What works is understanding what you want out of a relationship , being honest with your partner and yourself , and in order for that to be possible, there must be ample communication at all levels.

Having NSA sex with a partner and becoming upset because he doesn't want you for a LTR is dishonest because you didn't tell him you wanted a LTR.
Again, it is covert and manipulative.

Being upset because he's getting married to another woman who made him wait for sex is also dishonest and manipulative, because you never agreed or told him you wanted a LTR or even marriage.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> But is that WHY you respect her? Would you have NOT married her if she'd had sex with you before the honeymoon?


Of course I would have!

But she was honest and upfront , and most of all she wanted to get married to me.

She told me that the only way she would get involved in a relationship with me was if it could lead to marriage.

She wasn't into any type of games, and she gave me the option up front to either stay or leave and we would still remain friends.

I respected that.


Sex is something personal two people share for reasons they _alone_ are comfortable with.
Has nothing to do with politics , the church , the next door neighbor or Joe Plumber across the street.
What they think doesn't matter. What matters is what you and your partner think.
Each person has their own set of rules.

What applies to your partner x will not apply to your next partner y. So the issue of double standards will ALWAYS arise.
Let nobody fool you , there will ALWAYS be double standards from partner to partner and between the genders.

Because relationships are personal and feelings are subjective.

The sexual chemistry you had with Jim is not the same with Johnny even though he treats you better than Jim , so you respond to him differently.
Double standard right there.

Well men basically think and feel the same way.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> LMAO!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> 
> Here's what ladies.
> 
> My wife decided that she not have sex on the first date.
> We talked about sex a lot.
> In fact, she decided that she she didn't want to have sex at all until our honeymoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *_crickets chirping_*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was 21 years ago,we didn't have sex untill we got married and she has NEVER, EVER denied me sex. We've never had any real problems in the bedroom except for my temporary ED @ mid 30's , that was resolved ,and we're still hot for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact at age 46 her sex drive is even higher that she was when we first got married.
> And yes, I respected her more than any other woman I've been with.
> 
> 
> Wait, that's why I married her!:rofl:
> 
> 
> And _that's_ a FACT.
> 
> Lemme see which one of you ladies would tell me that it ain't a FACT.


It is your fact. And I don't think anyone is arguing that that is anything but fine. For my part, I would not chose a man like you who places value on a woman maintaining a certain level of purity to which you don't aspire yourself. I dated a man once who insisted on no premarital sex. Not my cup of tea. But I had a lot of respect for him. He knew what he wanted and valued it for himself as much as for his partner. 

My husband and I had sex the first day we met. I remember that day and night and well into the morning very fondly. 20 years later, here we go. I value the fact that he had no more or less expectation of me for being female than he did himself.


----------



## Caribbean Man

NobodySpecial said:


> It is your fact. And I don't think anyone is arguing that that is anything but fine. *For my part, I would not chose a man like you who places value on a woman maintaining a certain level of purity to which you don't aspire yourself.*


Right there ^^^ is where the foolishness , logical fallacies and the projections come in with these types of discussions on TAM.

See now, my wife gave me a choice. She was honest enough to state HER boundaries at the beginning.

I wasn't looking for a " pure" woman,I saw her as a great partner based on our five + year friendship. I never knew her sexual background until we started talking about getting together, and she mentioned it to me.

So what I respected most of all was the fact that she made her boundary and stood by it.

LMAO, if I had only valued her for sex , would we have still been happily married?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> Right there ^^^ is where the foolishness , logical fallacies and the projections come in with these types of discussions on TAM.
> 
> See now, my wife gave me a choice. She was honest enough to state HER boundaries at the beginning.
> 
> I wasn't looking for a " pure" woman,I saw her as a great partner based on our five + year friendship. I never knew her sexual background until we started talking about getting together, and she mentioned it to me.
> 
> So what I respected most of all was the fact that she made her boundary and stood by it.
> 
> LMAO, if I had only valued her for sex , would we have still been happily married?


Holy missed point, batman!


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> s.
> 
> What applies to your partner x will not apply to your next partner y. So the issue of double standards will ALWAYS arise.
> Let nobody fool you , there will ALWAYS be double standards from partner to partner and between the genders.
> 
> Because relationships are personal and feelings are subjective.
> 
> The sexual chemistry you had with Jim is not the same with Johnny even though he treats you better than Jim , so you respond to him differently.
> Double standard right there.


But these aren't double standards at all. They are just different relationships with different people. Just not the same thing.

A double standard is when you judge other people negatively according to certain criteria, but find *yourself* somehow exempt from, or above, that same judgment --even though you are just as bad or worse as the people you are criticizing. 

Outright hypocrisy, and clear sign of lack of integrity.


----------



## Binji

COGypsy said:


> So what happens if you find this pure, respectable paragon of virtue and marry her?
> 
> Is it as virtuous when she turns you down whenever want sex just to be sure you still "respect" her?
> 
> Cant think of a better way to end up with a sexless relationship.
> 
> Facts.


I think It would depend on the situation and if there were problems in the marriage. If there were no problems, and she was to turn me down just because she could, that would just be her playing games. Something that shouldn't be tolerated in marriage. On both sides.


----------



## Caribbean Man

NobodySpecial said:


> Holy missed point, batman!


Leaping Lizards!

You don't have a point!

We all have sex whenever , wherever and with whoever we want for whatever reasons we see fit.

We all marry whoever we want for the same reason.

You married your husband because you felt a special connection to him , even though both of you had sex on the first date.

I married my wife because I felt a certain connection to her, in spite of the fact we didn't or she wouldn't have sex on the first date or even before marriage.


I didn't marry her simply because we didn't have sex, I married her because I felt a connection with her, and even though she laid down her rules, i still felt that connection.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> But these aren't double standards at all. They are just different relationships with different people. Just not the same thing.
> 
> A double standard is when you judge other people negatively according to certain criteria, but find *yourself* somehow exempt from, or above, that same judgment --even though you are just as bad or worse as the people you are criticizing.
> 
> Outright hypocrisy, and clear sign of lack of integrity.


No.

That's AA version of what consists a double standard.

Here's what the Mirriam Webster dictionary says:

*double standard noun*

_: a situation in which two people, groups, etc., are treated very differently from each other in a way that is unfair to one of them_

So if you had sex with Jim on the first date but decided not to have sex with Johnny on the first date , then _that's_ a double standard


----------



## Thundarr

NobodySpecial said:


> It is your fact. And I don't think anyone is arguing that that is anything but fine. For my part, I would not chose a man like you who places value on a woman maintaining a certain level of purity to which you don't aspire yourself. I dated a man once who insisted on no premarital sex. Not my cup of tea. But I had a lot of respect for him. He knew what he wanted and valued it for himself as much as for his partner.
> 
> My husband and I had sex the first day we met. I remember that day and night and well into the morning very fondly. 20 years later, here we go. I value the fact that he had no more or less expectation of me for being female than he did himself.


Caribbean Man loves his wife so her making him wait is endearing to him. You love your husband so him jumping you is endearing to you. That's part of still being in love with who you're with. Whatever they did seems like it's how it was supposed to be done.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> No.
> So if you had sex with Jim on the first date but decided not to have sex with Johnny on the first date , then _that's_ a double standard


Oh, my! How on earth is that unfair to anyone?

I think your interpretation of double standard is vastly more idiosyncratic than mine.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> *Oh, my! How on earth is that unfair to anyone?*


That's the point AA.

You not seeing it as unfair to Johnny, doesn't mean he doesn't feel your actions are unfair, to him

And that's why I stated it is a double standard.
You treated Johnny much differently to Jim, you made him wait for sex even though he treated you better than Jim. You had sex with Jim on the first date.

But the reality is,it is your life , your body and your rules, so that _must_ take precedence over anyone else's perception of unfair treatment or double standard.

Relationships don't function like legal contracts.

There will always be double standards , somebody would always feel unfairly treated.


----------



## that_girl

Ima just be me.

lol This thread is silly now.

Boink who you want. Judge who you want. Ima do me and to hell wid all the betches.



:rofl:

Pure gangsta.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> That's the point AA.


No, CM, it's not the point. Yes, anyone can apply any standards they want. Yes, they can even change their minds about what those standards are any ol' time they like.

No one is contesting that. What they are saying is that any person who calls a person a "pot" will look like a hypocrtical a$$hole if they are themselves a kettle.


----------



## Caribbean Man

that_girl said:


> Ima just be me.
> 
> lol This thread is silly now.
> 
> *Boink who you want. Judge who you want. Ima do me and to hell wid all the betches.*
> 
> 
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> Pure gangsta.


It's as simple as that^^^.


----------



## Nsweet

Just laying my cards on the table here......

I'm not going to complain if a woman offers me the chance to have sex on the first date, but I going to be a little leery her intentions to do so. 

Is she trying to broker a deal for later? Was it really something I said or is this a regular thing.... And if it is does that mean she's going to sleep around with other guys? Why doesn't she want to get to know me better first? Isn't that the more mature thing to do?

Being completely honest here..... I lose respect for women who have sex too quickly. And that's nothing against the woman, it's just that the thrill for me is in the chase. If I can have sex with her too easily, then I lose appreciation for her.

On the other hand. If a woman I really liked were to tell me she would have sex with me eventually after a number of dates..... God, I would raise the dead and slay dragons and bring peace to the middle east just to get a chance at that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> No, CM, it's not the point. Yes, anyone can apply any standards they want. Yes, they can even change their minds about what those standards are any ol' time they like.
> 
> No one is contesting that. What they are saying is that any person who calls a person a "pot" will look like a hypocrtical a$$hole if they are themselves a kettle.


We are all pots and kettles AA.

Of varying sizes and shapes.

We are only human.
We all have our own idiosyncrasies that feed our own double standards, so it's best not to start pointing fingers at all.


----------



## Jetranger

that_girl said:


> It's not respect. It's the conquest.
> 
> Well, I'm not a piece of property waiting for a man to discover me. lmao. Been there, done that. My body, my life. If a man likes me, it won't matter when I sleep with him.


What about when the guy is starting to wonder:
A) whether you actually find him attractive or not, because nothing is happening
B) whether you actually like him or his credit card taking you out to be wined and dined?

Not attacking, just curious. I do like that you are confident and open about your approach.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## that_girl

testpilot21 said:


> What about when the guy is starting to wonder:
> A) whether you actually find him attractive or not, because nothing is happening
> B) whether you actually like him or his credit card taking you out to be wined and dined?
> 
> Not attacking, just curious. I do like that you are confident and open about your approach.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_




One, if a man only uses a credit card to buy things, that's a HUGE red flag for me. 

Two, I usually go dutch the first few times out. It's just what I do. I am not there for a free meal...just trying to see if anything clicks.

Some men like that, some don't. I love being wined and dined...but by someone who knows me. How weird on the first date to have someone pay for my shet. :scratchhead: What if it's a crap date?! I'd not want to pay for some crap date's dinner :lol: 

And even in a relationship, I always treated and liked to be treated. Dating is expensive and I'm a big girl. I gots mah own money 

If I'm interested, you'll know. If I'm not, you'll know. Whatever my intentions are, you'll know.

I don't play games. If someone is looking for that, then I'm the wrong gal.


----------



## heartsbeating

that_girl said:


> If I'm interested, you'll know. If I'm not, you'll know. Whatever my intentions are, you'll know.
> 
> I don't play games. If someone is looking for that, then I'm the wrong gal.


Gold.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> We are only human.
> We all have our own idiosyncrasies that feed our own double standards, so it's best not to start pointing fingers at all.


Indeed, we are only human. 

But the sorts of double standards I am talking about here are not, as you would have it, about 2 people muddling their way through a relationship. They are about judging women, putting them down for being sexual. Denying sexuality to women, while celebrating it in men.

And defend that all you will, but don't be surprised when women choose to be sexless or shut down their sexuality and feel shame about it, or don't want to experiment, or call their loving husbands a "perv". Because it is *precisely* these double standards that train women to act and feel this way.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> And defend that all you will, but don't be surprised when women choose to be sexless or shut down their sexuality and feel shame about it, or don't want to experiment, or call their loving husbands a "perv". Because it is *precisely* these double standards that train women to act and feel this way.


Ok.. I have to argue this...Just cause *some women* may feel it is very very special to wait and share her body with a man who has shown her what HE is made of, his intentions to her...that He wants ALL Of her ....and for LIFE....with that test of time.. and shared experiences .. this by no means = all of this happening ... (sexlessness, feeling shamed, not wanting to experiment & calling H's a pervert)... 

Now you are swinging the pendulum back to hit the women who feel differently over yourself.... 

We get it....You despise men with double standards, then when you meet up with any man.. Weed them out !! We all have to do this depending on what we personally care about & are looking for.. 

Ask him how many women he's slept with (if a good number) that's a PLUS... more likely he will be lenient on you (of course this means he is probably better in bed too - 2 pluses!).... then after this is established ....use your feminine charm to pick his brain... on how he feels about women in this regard...

If you feel he is a hypocrite, any red flags...dump his a$$.. 

I would want to know if the man sleeps around ...I'm not attracted to those sort of men at all.. there is something very very special to me - about the type of guy who *CAN'T* Separate Love and SEX...or at the very least is uncomfortable with it, isn't living this lifestyle (even if a struggle for him).. and who wants a long lasting fulfilling one on one romantic relationship.. to have and to hold and all that mushy sh**.

I don't think we should put down anyone for feeling as they do.. but we need to push those off that aren't compatible with us... We can not change other people and how they view these things.. only seek to understand the red flags WE care about to weed them from our lives.. 

My fear is the peer pressure in high school to have casual sex is so rampant today that even those who might see some value in restraining their hormonal LUST urges for LOVE with emotional strings...many will just blow this to the wind, so #1 they will fit in better...and #2.. I don't think anyone wants to be "virgin bashed".. plenty of that going on too .. Google it. 

I find it very very


----------



## ScarletBegonias

SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't think we should put down anyone for feeling as they do.. but we need to push those off that aren't compatible with us... We can not change other people and how they view these things.. only seek to understand the red flags WE care about to weed them from our lives..


Exactly. 

We also shouldn't look down on those who made different choices with their lives than we made whether they chose to remain a virgin or whether they experimented w/sex often.

That's why I have such a huge problem with women being labeled as prudes and sl*ts. It's like ok,we can't win. Either we're prudes bc we decided to wait or we're sl*ts bc we didn't wait.

ETA Oh the other thing I hate is the incorrect assumption that just bc you're a person who didn't wait means you don't place a high value on sex and you don't respect your body and don't have anything "special" to give your partner and you're all used up. It's annoying as the assumption that just bc you did wait means you'll have a sh*tty jacked up sex life once you're married.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Indeed, we are only human.
> 
> But the sorts of double standards I am talking about here are not, as you would have it, about 2 people muddling their way through a relationship. They are about judging women, putting them down for being sexual. Denying sexuality to women, while celebrating it in men.
> 
> And defend that all you will, but don't be surprised when women choose to be sexless or shut down their sexuality and feel shame about it, or don't want to experiment, or call their loving husbands a "perv". Because it is *precisely* these double standards that train women to act and feel this way.


AA,
You and I are speaking two completely different languages.

You are talking about gender politics.

I'm talking about intimate relationships.

The point is, both MEN and WOMEN suffer from sexual shame and sexless marriages.
Sexual shame has it's roots in childhood abuse in both genders, not in dating relationships and what society thinks about women or men.

Please, do some research.


----------



## bild-a-loco

Long thread, but any gal who wants to have sex on the first date is not somebody I would recommend striking up a long-term relationship with. 

Back in my hair band days, I had opportunities for one night stands, usually with girls who were mildly drunk or majorly drunk, but I can honestly say I didn't do it. Most guys in the bands did, but I didn't. I got phone numbers, if they were interesting I would call them up and go out to see if I actually liked this person, but I never jumped into the sack with any girl on the first date, and there were several times when a girl literally grabbed my hand and shoved it into her pants or skirt at a club - that just wasn't my thing. 

I seriously love sex, and used to have a marvelously kinky sex life, but the one-night-stand thing or having sex an hour after meeting just bugs me - you have to at least know a little something about that person first.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

always_alone said:


> Indeed, we are only human.
> 
> But the sorts of double standards I am talking about here are not, as you would have it, about 2 people muddling their way through a relationship. They are about judging women, putting them down for being sexual. Denying sexuality to women, while celebrating it in men.
> 
> And defend that all you will, but don't be surprised when women choose to be sexless or shut down their sexuality and feel shame about it, or don't want to experiment, or call their loving husbands a "perv". Because it is *precisely* these double standards that train women to act and feel this way.


Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. 

This double standard causes so many issues for women, and relationships. 

Men want the virginal good girl, to marry- and then they are disappointed if she's not the sexual seductress who can't get enough and doesn't orgasm at the drop of a hat.


----------



## that_girl

Oh yea. 

My "shame" about my sex drive was created in me by comments of 2 men. I was "like a guy" or "a nympho" or "had issues" because I truly just loved sex--- WITH THEM! (two different relationships over 5 years my ages 19 to 25) Ffs....every man's dream or so I thought.

Then I tried to be the "good girl" in a relationships. :rofl: Then one of those guys (2nd bf) had the nerve to say I was a prude and a "wet fish".

HOLY CRAP!

So I dropped that guy. Was single for a while and then just decided to BE ME.

Honestly....a woman's sexuality is something to celebrate, not stifle. I admit, after 2nd guy, I went a little crazy and just celebrated myself (safely) and never again let anyone tell me who I was or what my value was.

If a man couldn't handle my sex drive, then NEXT! I had no time to waste with that. If a man couldn't handle my need to be independent, then NEXT! Had no more desire to pretend to be some demure little woman.

It's very liberating to break out of what people and society thinks you should be. The "norms" are only there because of what the majority does/believes. But i don't agree with many norms so I just make my own--- for me. And amazingly enough, other people dig it too


----------



## that_girl

bild-a-loco said:


> Long thread, but any gal who wants to have sex on the first date is not somebody I would recommend striking up a long-term relationship with.
> 
> Back in my hair band days, I had opportunities for one night stands, usually with girls who were mildly drunk or majorly drunk, but I can honestly say I didn't do it. Most guys in the bands did, but I didn't. I got phone numbers, if they were interesting I would call them up and go out to see if I actually liked this person, but I never jumped into the sack with any girl on the first date, and there were several times when a girl literally grabbed my hand and shoved it into her pants or skirt at a club - that just wasn't my thing.
> 
> I seriously love sex, and used to have a marvelously kinky sex life, but the one-night-stand thing or having sex an hour after meeting just bugs me - you have to at least know a little something about that person first.


And I respect your integrity. You didn't care for women who had sex on the first encounter AND you DID NOT PARTAKE.

That's integrity and respectable and that's how it should be...not having the sex because it's offered and then thinking, "damn, she's a wh0re but I'm not because I'm a man."


----------



## NextTimeAround

testpilot21 said:


> What about when the guy is starting to wonder:
> A) whether you actually find him attractive or not, because nothing is happening
> *B) whether you actually like him or his credit card taking you out to be wined and dined?*
> 
> Not attacking, just curious. I do like that you are confident and open about your approach.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This turned out to be a major turning point in his relationship with his EA. For the second time in 2 weeks, she twisted his arm to close bar tabs for her and her friends, this time for 3 figures.

After piecing together some e-mails and texts around that time, I asked him to be sure. He admitted he had initiated a kiss with her, rather passionate, he said in an unguarded moment.

The next thing I saw was text from his EA in which she accused of him leading her on and then mentioning that at least her last boyfriend had been "honest with her." That is, the boyfriend who told her that she was good for a blow job. I guess my (future) fiance had led her by agreeing that they were "only" friends; a declaration betrayed by an attempted open mouth kiss.

That was when he started shoring up the relationship with me and she was making offers to him.... like dropping the other guy she was dating and advising him to drop me. 

I think the best way for a guy to ensure that he's not some woman's "cuddle b!tch" or walking credit card is to go in for the passionate kiss. If she refuses, then you've got your answer.

If she goes with it, she may just be savvy. I bet my fiance's erstwhile EA will know better when she has her hands on another golden goose.


----------



## that_girl

And that's why I pay for my own shet in the beginning.

I don't wh0re myself out. A passionate kiss for dinner, a BJ for some drinks. What?

No.

ETA: Are you still going to marry him?


----------



## SolitaryConfinement

that_girl said:


> Although, I can see how it happens....sex is good so sleep with the slvts and marry the "respectable" ones.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Binji, That_Girl has an excellent point. this ^^^^ is what you are saying. Just keep one thing in mind, your "respectable" one, just might have been someone else's "s1ut", who is now ready to settle down


----------



## NextTimeAround

that_girl said:


> And that's why I pay for my own shet in the beginning.
> 
> I don't wh0re myself out. A passionate kiss for dinner, a BJ for some drinks. What?
> 
> No.
> 
> ETA: Are you still going to marry him?


Yes, why do you ask?


----------



## that_girl

NextTimeAround said:


> Yes, why do you ask?


He's already having an EA before getting married....but I guess since you're ok with it, that's good.


----------



## NextTimeAround

that_girl said:


> He's already having an EA before getting married....but I guess since you're ok with it, that's good.


I look at it more that we had an incident that we were lucky to get straightened out and then we talked marriage. 

But yes, it did get me thinking about how it's possible to go down slippery slopes with people you used to date who don't want to be exactly this or that in your life. Not to mention, many 20 and early 30 something women do that "just friends" thing which can confuse men and spill over into their important relationships. 

I'm glad to have learned how to manage a situation instead of just running from it.


----------



## that_girl

You're better than I am. Red flags usually mean something.


----------



## Binji

Catherine602 said:


> If you play games before marriage, you'll play the same games after marriage.
> 
> If a woman has gained your respect by making you wait for sex, she may continue to gain your respect after marriage by making you wait for sex.
> 
> Interpreting a women's sexual behavior based on your criteria if faulty. She may not want sex for several dates because she feels a strong attraction but wants to get to know you better or she does not feel a strong attraction but wants to know you better, or she may not be interested in sex at all or she has learned how to control men using sex.
> 
> It's important to find out how she feels and not assume you know because of what is in your mind that may not be in her mind.


What you call playing games, I call a matter of principles. If a woman wants to wait for marriage, that's a principled choice. She's not playing games. Holding out for sex arbitrarily in marriage just because she can to demand respect is a whole different matter, than the issue we're discussing. The two scenarios don't matchup.

When I say wait and respect, I'm not specifically saying waiting till marriage, but a decent amount of time period where a man has to run a few miles to get to the gold. Not something where he can just jog around the block and get the prize. 

Next up. I don't interpret a woman's sexual behavior. It's either discussed, already known, or I just plainly ask. Most women with a low body count is going to be honest or tell you from the beginning. They usually wear it with a badge of honor. If I ask a woman about her sexual history and she starts ducking and dodging, then it's a clear sign of what I'm dealing with. I leave no stones unturned.


----------



## that_girl

Do you share your sexual past too?

And to regard sex as "the prize" means you're playing a game.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ScarletBegonias said:


> ETA Oh the other thing *I hate is the incorrect assumption that just bc you're a person who didn't wait means you don't place a high value on sex and you don't respect your body and don't have anything "special" to give your partner* and you're all used up.


 A few thoughts here...We've all been there...feeling a little defensive if we read something another feels (even if just about themselves , their preferences) and what was said is not what we have lived.. you get me...it immediately stomps on us....We feel judged, misunderstood, put down as "lessor"..

I've felt this many times on SAHM threads (yet I stick my head in each & every one - I guess I am a masochist).....and I want to say.. "HEY...wait a minute, I don't feel demeaned depending on my H & just being a MOM...I love my role"...just to give another side...then the whole -"but you will find yourself living on the streets is brought up next-if he dies, cheats".... then I need to counter that.. and it goes on & on.... 

So they speak their feelings --and really most of those stem from difficult life experience to shape their views/ they carry it... one posters Dad left, while they grew up in a Garage for his childhood...it's a guy -he feels all women should support themselves -that is his firm opinion....because of HIS difficult childhood- the struggle he wouldn't wish on anyone)...these things are not easy to shake, they are even about survival for some... yet to project that ALL should follow this same path...this is where we get into trouble... 

But you will have those who DO feel it is wholly beautiful and very special to save themselves for their future husband or wife....that attach great meaning & significance to this...I talk like this in regards to how I felt in my youth... obviously it meant a hell of a deal to me to keep the brakes on... I wasn't exactly low drive by any means...

Too often when we speak how *WE personally feel*, what something means *to us* .. there will be those who come along , reading more into it than was ever intended...and shaming us for speaking it .... 

This is no good either... 

Someone said the other day these things are *Subjective.*..



> "subjective" is personal because you are involved in some way.
> 
> Art, for instance, is considered subjective. You give an opinion that is personal, and it may differ greatly from someone else's view of the same piece of art. Art, politics and religion are three examples of things that are subjective.


 I think we can add *sexual views* in there also! 

I am not one to speak of respecting our bodies, this doesn't really enter my brain.. but the Special-ness.. seeing it as "a gift" to the man I love.. YES.. this was how I felt.. and others are free to feel that is just plain stupid.. and many DO! ....I read the posts....it's more like "give her the test drive man, don't be a fool"...the whole spill about a crazy woman placing too much value on her pu$$y --these demean too....to lower and squash how some of us feel.. in reality ...we are all a little misunderstood as we come from different places & want different things in love, life and sex.. 



> *It's annoying as the assumption that just bc you did wait means you'll have a sh*tty jacked up sex life once you're married.*


 It seems on both sides.. we have to live with the assumptions.. for every situation.. there are stories.. TRUE stories ...to pound the hammer in deeper...

Yet nothing in life is that black and white.. whatever the experience...any and every side... I think people should be free to share...how they feel..


----------



## ScarletBegonias

SimplyAmorous said:


> I think people should be free to share...how they feel..


I agree. I also think they should do it without being snooty and judgmental as though their way is best. What's best for one isn't best for all.


----------



## that_girl

I am not one to have sex on a first date. If I did, it would be because I would have reasons.

I just get offended for women in general. SO sick of all the standards and restrictions put on women in order for her to be deemed a "good person" or "worthy of anyone's time".


----------



## that_girl

Enter the barrage of men saying it's their right to judge who they want as a partner, blah blah lolol.....

Oh but first, let them get that sex from that wh0re....then he can judge. 

 This is the shet I talk to my daughter about. NO ONE gives her value. She values herself, whatever that means. The right person will love her for HER. Not on what society makes people jump around for.

I mean, in all reality, the restrictions on women are set in order to preserve the male ego.

LOL. Wtf?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ScarletBegonias said:


> I agree. I also think they should do it without being snooty and judgmental as though their way is best. What's best for one isn't best for all.


An example of this very thing....I remember this one thread >> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/27713-why-i-love-men.html ...
....now...I really enjoyed reading the opening post... it fit with my own feelings of how I view the loving older fashioned traditional type husband / always there for his wife.... obviously I wouldn't be offended by this.. this lady was a Stay at Home Mom.... but Boy oh boy of Boy did she get lambasted for her thoughts.. enter Page 3...and FirstYearDown... it's a good illustration of someone getting highly offended by another's *personal feelings*...

I didn't find her so nice about it (can I say snooty and judgmental here ).....she let her know she was offensive & this is worse than being grateful for our men, told her she was generalizing..and she's grateful her H doesn't seek to control her like a little child (obviously this is how she felt annagarret came off).. SLAM [email protected]#$ 

Oh it was interesting..gotta have a little conflict on TAM [email protected]#$....I guess it's all in the way we word what we are trying to get across.... 

Good ol' FirstYearDown ..I seen her lose it a # of times here on the forum.... before she got Banned permanently.... She let me know how "snarky" I am...called me a Hypocrite, boy did she take the liberty to tell me how Fvked up I am... And the truth was.. I could tell she was a Loose canon & I was careful to not pi$$ her off.. yet my sharing my own personal thoughts on this forum.. set her off on a firestorm..against me. 

People are interesting ...and ya know... I talked to her to the end.. answered every pm she sent me.. didn't cut her off, didn't ignore her.. Yeah. I'm probably the fool there.... I do try to understand others, I knew she was going through a hard time with her husband .. though I didn't agree with her assessment of me....


----------



## that_girl

FirstYearDown isn't a loose canon...just a fireball.


----------



## that_girl

I am so glad I am not dating :bounce:

I will never date again. Either I'll stay married and work this through....or end this, take some time, and go for who I want  

Never have to go through "Amg, she's a bad girl" or "She's a slvt". LOL We're not in HS. At some point, everyone has done everything with everyone. Unless this is your first rodeo and you're under 25 and never been married, finding that "pure innocent" woman or man is not happening.

And who would want that really? Snooze fest, imo. Maybe someone would want that. Good for them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

that_girl said:


> FirstYearDown isn't a loose canon...just a fireball.


Fair enough..... She made it lively here - I'll give you that! I sure wouldn't want to ask her if she ever wanted kids..if you remember that thread!


----------



## that_girl

She's a close friend of mine  She has her reasons.


----------



## Cloaked

Concerning a double standard. Women have a greater chance of infidelity and over all lower LTR happiness the more sexual partners they have. Men with the same amount of sexual partners had a noticeable lower chance of cheating and higher LTR happiness.

Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women

By Jay Teachman
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## heartsbeating

ScarletBegonias said:


> ETA Oh the other thing I hate is the incorrect assumption that just bc you're a person who didn't wait means you don't place a high value on sex and you don't respect your body and don't have anything "special" to give your partner and you're all used up. It's annoying as the assumption that just bc you did wait means you'll have a sh*tty jacked up sex life once you're married.


I wanted to comment ....and in agreement.

To me, knowing one's worth, feeling comfortable and good within yourself, is having self-respect.


----------



## Thundarr

I'm not sure why men get all of the blame for this. Everyone assesses potential relationship partners for traits that are attractive to them. It's why men have to prove confidence and emotional strength when dating more often than women do. A lot (the majority) of women find these traits very attractive. We don't call a woman who doesn't exude confidence and rock solid emotional control a hypocrite though when she's attracted to a guy who does.


----------



## that_girl

But you could. You probably should.

Self confidence is attractive on everyone. I couldn't be attracted to a man who lacked confidence, because I have my own.


----------



## heartsbeating

My husband and I had a great first date. We clicked. And I'm embarrassed to admit that at the end of our first date, I told my husband that I was a virgin and if he was just after sex, I wasn't the girl for him. It wasn't about his view of me. I'd never said such a thing to another and (remember I was young) it's actually because it felt great between us, that I put it to him bluntly.

And on the second date, I shagged him silly.  ....I kid. It's not that I was making him wait; it's that I needed to be ready, to share mutual trust and care.


From his perspective, it didn't mean he 'respected' me any more or less. He was just into me. He's since said that he liked hearing me say the word sex and then he was thinking about sex with me lol. We got to know each other intimately, sensually and erotically before sex. He likes elements of mystery and tease. I like the flirtation and lead up. We lost that for a time - we've had our issues with sex in the marriage and not through me turning him down. It was a result of poor communication and emotional needs not being met.


----------



## heartsbeating

The first time hubs and I ever met, he saw me being escorted out of the club by police for being underage. Then on our first date I told him if he was just after sex, I wasn't the girl for him... *shaking head*


----------



## lifeistooshort

Cloaked said:


> Concerning a double standard. Women have a greater chance of infidelity and over all lower LTR happiness the more sexual partners they have. Men with the same amount of sexual partners had a noticeable lower chance of cheating and higher LTR happiness.
> 
> Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women
> 
> By Jay Teachman
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I believe this because I think as a rule men and women are promiscuous for different reasons. Men sow oats, which many get out off their system. Women who have many partners are more likely to be damaged and base their self esteem on how many sex partners they can get, which doesn't lend itself well to marriage and monogamy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

that_girl said:


> But you could. You probably should.
> 
> Self confidence is attractive on everyone. I couldn't be attracted to a man who lacked confidence, because I have my own.


I agree with you completely. Men screw ourselves by not putting enough focus on inner beauty. How many men come to TAM because they married a good looking basket case. In the same regards though I think women should hold men accountable for being quick and easy to hook up with. At least it should be a red flag that makes you wonder how many times has this guy done this.


----------



## that_girl

I think everyone should judge the person they are getting to know based on what they want in a partner.

I do NOT think men should judge women badly for doing the same exact sh1t that men do. It's not ok to call someone a wh0re or less than desirable for doing the same thing you do.

If men don't like sex on first dates...awesome...but don't be stickin' your wick in a woman anyway just because the opportunity is there.

Either you have integrity or you don't.


----------



## that_girl

lifeistooshort said:


> I believe this because I think as a rule men and women are promiscuous for different reasons. Men sow oats, which many get out off their system. Women who have many partners are more likely to be damaged and base their self esteem on how many sex partners they can get, which doesn't lend itself well to marriage and monogamy.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Um. That's just all presumptuous.

Women like sex. Shocking, I know.

We may not want to sow oats, but it's not because we're "damaged".


----------



## Wolf1974

that_girl;9366842[B said:


> ]I think everyone should judge the person they are getting to know based on what they want in a partner.[/B]
> 
> I do NOT think men should judge women badly for doing the same exact sh1t that men do. It's not ok to call someone a wh0re or less than desirable for doing the same thing you do.
> 
> If men don't like sex on first dates...awesome...but don't be stickin' your wick in a woman anyway just because the opportunity is there.
> 
> Either you have integrity or you don't.


Yep and everyone has the right to choose what they value and don't.


----------



## Wolf1974

Thundarr said:


> I agree with you completely. Men screw ourselves by not putting enough focus on inner beauty. *How many men come to TAM because they married a good looking basket case.* In the same regards though I think women should hold men accountable for being quick and easy to hook up with. At least it should be a red flag that makes you wonder how many times has this guy done this.


Guilty as charged


----------



## norajane

lifeistooshort said:


> I believe this because I think as a rule men and women are promiscuous for different reasons. Men sow oats, which many get out off their system. Women who have many partners are more likely to be damaged and base their self esteem on how many sex partners they can get, which doesn't lend itself well to marriage and monogamy.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And men don't base their self esteem on how many sex partners they can get? :scratchhead:


----------



## lifeistooshort

that_girl said:


> Um. That's just all presumptuous.
> 
> Women like sex. Shocking, I know.
> 
> We may not want to sow oats, but it's not because we're "damaged".


Um, I wasn't aware I said all women were damaged or that none liked sex; please don't project onto what I said. I realize some like sex and that's cool; I said promiscuous women are more likely to be damaged then promiscuous men. Big difference. If the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

that_girl said:


> I think everyone should judge the person they are getting to know based on what they want in a partner.
> 
> I do NOT think men should judge women badly for doing the same exact sh1t that men do. It's not ok to call someone a wh0re or less than desirable for doing the same thing you do.
> 
> If men don't like sex on first dates...awesome...but don't be stickin' your wick in a woman anyway just because the opportunity is there.
> 
> *Either you have integrity or you don't*.


Sexual integrity should be discussed far more than it is.. even if one googles these words together....which I have ...the articles are FEW...and it seems 90% of them are religious based.. why is this? ...it shouldn't be ...Integrity is important in ALL aspects of life and our dealing and fusings with another.

If you google the "Double Standard" however... WOW.. one can read endless articles!! ...from both sides..(some are Brutal!)....and rarely is sexual integrity even mentioned..I can't recall a time .... I find something very wrong with this ....

Choosing self restraint in the midst of high lust .. is just not something many people want to do/ the heat of the moment takes many down... We need to care about the other person.. where they are at...this should be important, even more so.

So I have learned there can also be Sexual integrity in casual encounters (a new concept for me)...but it is harder to establish ....this book laid that out...

"Bringing Sex into Focus: The Quest for Sexual Integrity"-written by a College Professor of Sexual ethics..


----------



## lifeistooshort

norajane said:


> And men don't base their self esteem on how many sex partners they can get? :scratchhead:


They do, but it's not because they're damaged. It's an ego thing. C'mon, I'm a woman too; how many women have you known in your life that were very promiscuous and weren't damaged at all? I didn't say I care how many partners people have and I don't think different standards should be applied by gender, but every woman I've ever known that had a ton of sex partners was emotionally damaged. As I said above, do what you want if the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it.


----------



## heartsbeating

Round and round the thread goes, and where she stops nobody knows.


----------



## Wolf1974

norajane said:


> And men don't base their self esteem on how many sex partners they can get? :scratchhead:


Nope. Maybe some. Not all


----------



## that_girl

heartsbeating said:


> Round and round the thread goes, and where she stops nobody knows.


I know where it's going lol.


----------



## Cloaked

lifeistooshort said:


> I believe this because I think as a rule men and women are promiscuous for different reasons. Men sow oats, which many get out off their system. Women who have many partners are more likely to be damaged and base their self esteem on how many sex partners they can get, which doesn't lend itself well to marriage and monogamy.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Is that based from observation?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

norajane said:


> And men don't base their self esteem on how many sex partners they can get? :scratchhead:


It's a cultural problem and it needs to change. My twin brother and I were legally emancipated and independent at 17. From 17 - 19, we worked, slept, went to school, and partied. And yes the number of good looking girls we hooked up with was what built our egos and it was pathetic but we didn't know any better. I don't remember anyone saying it's bad for a guy to sleep around (mom, dad, teacher, friend, nada). To the contrary, there was all kinds of rewards. We were cool to our friends. If you're a teenage guy living on your own with a reputation of (kiss and don't tell) then a lot of girls want to join the private club (but then they talk about it which seems nuts? ). 

Well karma has it's way of paying people back. My first marriage was a complete disaster. I can blame it on my ex because she's an easy target and she cheated but I was a disaster too. A reckless history usually leaves scars. I was reckless.

Point is, yes guys think that and yes culture can effect this view. Look at how well the anti-smoking campaign and anti driinking/driving campaign have done. There should be a "it's not cool to sleep around guys" campaign.


----------



## Binji

Catherine602 said:


> Be careful though, people lie and lier's have perfected the art so its hard to tell. You may end up with what you are trying to avoid. Your best bet is to find a woman who you know well and who is known in your community. Know her family and associates. Hang out with her friends and listen to what they say about her. Then you can be reasonably sure her body count is low.
> 
> I have a problem with the relentless judgement and running down women. Men have the right to marry whoever suits them the best. That is not an invitation to judge your fellow human. In the end, it hurts men.
> 
> One of my many faults is that I am judgmental as you can see from some of my post. Especially when it comes to men running women down. I criticized someone up thread and then I read his story. He happens to be an extraordinary man. He did not deserve my judgement and I was unfair to him. It is my loss because a good person is not disposed to communicate with me.
> 
> Some of the posters upthread judged me back. It is not pleasant to be judged. You will feel the same harsh judgement you give out. It's inevitable, you give that energy and it comes back to you. Exercise your right to chose but don't be so vocal about how negatively you judge women. What men say register with woman who have sex in or outside of marriage; the so called "good" and the "bad" girls.
> 
> Men really have no control over female sexuality. It may appear that they do when they make these judgements. But at some point, women judge men and it is often as harsh as men judge women. It is at an unfortunate time and towards the man who has committed to them. They exercise power over what they never agreed to give up in the first place.


I understand what you're saying, but being judged is not really a concern of mine. I'm comfortable in my own skin and what other people think about me or how they judge me, can't knock me off my stride. I have a pretty good vetting process of knowing who a person is or their character.

What you call judging women negatively, I call expressing my truth. We are here to express our opinions, so if you feel that I am too vocal, there's nothing I can really do about it. I don't think we should censor ourselves because someone might have opposition to our views or cannot fully digest them. I don't believe I judged women negatively. I simply answered a question, and it probably was too real and too honest for some. We were asked to express our opinions, I guess my opinion was a little too much for you too handle, but I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been said before. So then it proceeds to double standards. Yes, there is a double standard. I live by that double standard, but ultimately I'm not judged on those standards. I'm judged on a different set of standards, that can be seen as a double standard as well. I'm comfortable with that.

If a woman wants to be a "bad" girl, have sex on the first date, or sleep with a lot of men, I have no problem with that. That's what they choose. I'm not judging them based on basic respect and who they are as a human being, my judgement is based on if I want to have a relationship with them. I believe when it comes to establishing relationships, we all need to have our black robes on and gavel ready to strike.


----------



## stoney1215

The Lonely Stoner said:


> Sex is a weapon. Most women who intentionally have sex on a first "date", use it as such. My ex wife was a few weeks pregnant when I met her. I didn't know of course. So, when I picked her up that first time, I drove to my apartment. I left her in the car while I went inside to get a few movies (heading to my friends place, as he had surround sound way back then {1999}).
> 
> I turn around and she is right behind me, virtually inviting herself in.
> 
> Note: she was HOT. So I didnt make a fuss. Tragic mistake.
> 
> Her next question was "if I get in your bed, will you think I'm a freak"? I answered no (I lied).
> 
> Sex ensued. Then a 15 year relationship. Didn't find out that she was already pregnant and needed a man she could bring home to "momma", and quickly (before she began showing). Guess I was a good candidate.
> 
> Moral of the story, easy sex comes with a HIGH PRICE. Respectable women are NOT lose with their bodies. Drugs & alcohol can cause women to have sex when theu normally wouldn't. So can an unexpected, animal attraction.
> 
> But in most cases, early sex should be a warning sign that something is amiss.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



So even though you did not think she was a respectable women , since she was loose with her body , you still not only got into a relationship with her you stayed with her for 15 years . Why would you get in a 15 year relationship with a woman you did not think was respectable ? Why would you not get a paternity test if you did not think she was respectable to begin with
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Thundarr said:


> It's a cultural problem and it needs to change. My twin brother and I were legally emancipated and independent at 17. From 17 - 19, we worked, slept, went to school, and partied. * And yes the number of good looking girls we hooked up with was what built our egos *and it was pathetic but we didn't know any better. I don't remember anyone saying it's bad for a guy to sleep around (mom, dad, teacher, friend, nada). To the contrary, there was all kinds of rewards. We were cool to our friends. If you're a teenage guy living on your own with a reputation of (kiss and don't tell) then a lot of girls want to join the private club (but then they talk about it which seems nuts? ).


 I think what you spoke is pretty typical of young men...

I want to contrast your experience with my Husbands, he was working by age 16...had his own car.... wasn't successful with the girls ...had 2 gf's short lived.. one went after him, one he asked... they both dumped him..(this was even earlier -before his job). 

I asked him tonight about *his Ego* back then...he said he didn't have one...I asked if it bothered him/ got him down.... he said it would have been nice if these things came more natural to him...then added he really wasn't looking, just doing his own thing... then said I just fell out of the sky onto his lap... 

It's not the normal thing to say.. but his being on the introverted side, not one to be with lots of girls...or even try to go after them at all.. the fact this shy guy put himself out there so quickly ...asking me to be his girl within a week......even if he wasn't one of the cool ones...this was very endearing for me personally...


----------



## kilgore

what is the big issue - if a man or a woman wants to have sex on the first date and the other party is ok with it, so be it. if the person doesn't think his/her dignity is compromised, then it isn't. as long as he/she is doing it b/c he/she wants to, not to please the other person, fine.


----------



## stoney1215

Cloaked said:


> Is that based from observation?
> 
> Men have always based their self esteem on their success sexually. The more success the more self esteem. If a man has had allot of sexual partners does that make him not good for marriage ? Or does that just apply to women ?
> 
> The truth is that many men are very insecure about their sexual ability . Then can not handle a woman having many sexual partners because they will think they can not satisfy her sexually or even worse they might not be the best she ever had.
> 
> But the real reason a woman's number matters is because women let it matter. If a man thinks less of a woman who has had allot of partners she usually feels bad about herself.
> 
> I respect A woman who has sex on the first date more than a woman who does not for no other reason than it is the first date. A woman should have sex With a guy when she wants to not when x number of dates are completed. When a woman ties to make me " work for it " it tells me that the best thing she has to offer me is sex not herself. It also tells me that she is is more concerned with what i think about her than she is with what she thinks about herself .
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thundarr said:


> I'm not sure why men get all of the blame for this. Everyone assesses potential relationship partners for traits that are attractive to them. It's why men have to prove confidence and emotional strength when dating more often than women do. A lot (the majority) of women find these traits very attractive. We don't call a woman who doesn't exude confidence and rock solid emotional control a hypocrite though when she's attracted to a guy who does.


Men get all the blame because the entire argument is a straw man argument.

But it's the perfect arrangement for a certain type of woman.
So here's how the rule goes.

Rule #1)Blame the man
Rule #2)Blame the man for his own insecurity.
Rule #3)Blame the man for her insecurity .
Rule #4)In case there is any ambiguity , check rule #1.

That's why it's imperative to know the type of person you're getting married to.


Anyone who objects to that , just isn't fit for marriage.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Nope. Maybe some. Not all


Wow. That is good to know. I hope it is a growing trend.


----------



## Wolf1974

:sidebar: Strong and confident men don't base their self esteem on others but rather themselves so they don't need to prove anything by having sex with tons of women. Has always been that way. Psst don't tell anyone here will ruin the stereotypes and rant  :sidebar:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Wolf1974 said:


> :sidebar: Strong and confident men don't base their self esteem on others but rather themselves so they don't need to prove anything by having sex with tons of women. Has always been that way. Psst don't tell anyone here will ruin the stereotypes and rant  :sidebar:


Could also put it this way:

_" Strong and confident *women* don't base their self esteem on others but rather themselves so they don't need to prove anything by having sex with tons of *men*. Has always been that way.."_


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> Men get all the blame because the entire argument is a straw man argument.
> 
> But it's the perfect arrangement for a certain type of woman.
> So here's how the rule goes.
> 
> Rule #1)Blame the man
> Rule #2)Blame the man for his own insecurity.
> Rule #3)Blame the man for her insecurity .
> Rule #4)In case there is any ambiguity , check rule #1.


The feeling is that a man has more power than a woman in a relationship. She has more to lose. That is the only reason to blame the man.

What would be the point of blaming someone with less power? To relieve ourselves of responsibility?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I think its the same thing for men and women, expressed in different ways and subject to different cultural standards. We both want ego boosts, we both want sex, and we both want security... just in somewhat different ways.

Men and women are equally desirous of sex on the first date. I think women just have more upfront conditions before they'll act on that desire. I have rarely ever initiated on a first date, and yet the majority of my first dates end up sexual, regardless of the type of girl. I've heard "I don't get physical on the first date" on dates that ended up physical so often that its almost funny to hear. What I suspect they mean is, "I don't want you to expect to get laid tonight"... but it still happens. Each time, *they* do something overtly sexual that gives me the green light. But to do so, she has to have gotten comfortable, get some indication that I'm not going to think less of her... that she's easy, a sl*t... whatever. She doesn't necessarily feel its terribly serious, but she's quite sensitive to how she's perceived - and I suspect that's a result of the "women should be chaste" cultural bs. While many women have a higher consciousness distaste for the promiscuous guy ("ugh... he's a player"), my experience hints that the lower/primal thought is more intrigued. There's a curiosity as to what exactly he's doing that all those other women are drawn to; there's a strange comfort in his experience - I suspect a false belief that he's more likely to know what he's doing, feels more in control; and if they can "catch" him, many women get an ego boost similar to what many men do for getting a really physically attractive woman. It says she's special; better than all those other women he easily draws.

For men, there is a greater sense that getting laid is an accomplishment. The more you can, the hotter the women, the perception of the more "skilled" you must be with women - and men respect, even envy, skill and accomplishment. Its thought a skill, probably because women's physical preferences are practically indiscernible to most men... they're all over the map from one guy to the next, often dramatically different types. Some of the envy is similar to that of a woman envious of a prettier woman... but since the physical elements are so inconsistent, I think its ascribed more to controllable elements of him - personality, actions and mannerisms (skill), than her preferences. I hear something to this effect often, "Its crazy we're together and get along so well. You're so not my type!" There's something going on there.

The more I think about men who look down on promiscuous women, the more I think its similar to most women's early resistance to having sex: Security. She doesn't have sex because she's worried she'll be viewed in a negative light, he won't value her, and he'll move on. The man dissing promiscuous women has a similar security issue - he thinks "if she has sex with me easily, she will with anyone else too. Even if I married her, I know that it only takes one night to charm her into sex. She lacks self-control, and thus isn't a good long term mate. I need a greater sense of security." Men and women with the same goal, but dramatically different ways of getting there.

To my mind, both the female emphasis on waiting, AND the male sense that because she slept with you on the first date she's more likely to cheat later (hypocritical thinking), are covers for insecurity. These behaviors don't necessarily mean anything at all - but in combination, there's a negative synergy; they reinforce each other.


----------



## Jetranger

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> While many women have a higher consciousness distaste for the promiscuous guy ("ugh... he's a player"), my experience hints that the lower/primal thought is more intrigued. There's a curiosity as to what exactly he's doing that all those other women are drawn to; there's a strange comfort in his experience - I suspect a false belief that he's more likely to know what he's doing, feels more in control; and if they can "catch" him, many women get an ego boost similar to what many men do for getting a really physically attractive woman. It says she's special; better than all those other women he easily draws.


:iagree:

There's that theory that guys have no luck with girls for a long time, but as soon as he has a girlfriend all these other girls appear out of nowhere showing an interest in them. The reasoning was an offshoot of "I want what she's got", in that "another woman sees something in this guy" and "I wonder what it is!"


----------



## that_girl

My friend would wear a gold band on his finger when going out (he was unmarried). SO MANY WOMAN would just fall all over him.

Good play, but those women...eesh!

I will say that men who claim to have a ton of ONS aren't always good in bed. You don't have to be a good love maker on a ONS because you're just "gettin yours" and the person leaves, never to be seen again. But good sex isn't about taking...it's about giving. Both people giving. That's hardly a ONS.


----------



## Jetranger

that_girl said:


> My friend would wear a gold band on his finger when going out (he was unmarried). SO MANY WOMAN would just fall all over him.


Whereas I see a woman with a ring on her finger and think, "damn, taken."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I think there's a few elements to that wedding ring thing. The first is a sense of safety on her part, "I can relax. This guy is married. This is just plain conversation, not him trying to hookup with me." Sometimes that initial safety is what gets the ball rolling. She might have had that with a single guy, but she's uptight about being "hit on".

The second is maybe, "oooh... he's married and into me. I must be better than her."

And the last one is the sense that if he has someone, then that woman is sort of vouching for him even in her absence. The old, "the single guy is still single for a reason" thing.

But with wedding rings, mostly I think its a comfort thing... her anti-hitting-on -me" shields never come up. She relates comfortably, and men probably perceive it as flirtatious - and some of it is. One-upsmanship. Some women get an ego thing from getting the attention of another woman's man. Hence, a taken man being seen "looking" at another woman, is taken as so much of an insult by the woman he's with. As if the other woman is thinking "Ha, your man is checking me out. I'm better than you."

This is just my intuition.

It could also be that men who already have a woman, come off less desperate or wanting. Having the aloofness advocated by PUAs by the mere fact they're not seeking. So they seem more confident/comfortable - and women prefer that.


----------



## that_girl

Yea, he just acted married and hooked up with women. These women had no trouble effing him--- a "married" man. lol Just rude behavior on everyone's part, imo. But oh well...not my bag. He did say that the women would start to "compete" with his fake wife....."Does your wife like ----? I'm a pro at it  "

He was...something else.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I don't judge anyone because I have plenty of skeletons in my own closet. I cheated, and yes, I heard all that... and believe they got off on their perceived superiority. Even shows of sympathy or empathy were tools to show how much better she was than my ex.

"God, she sounds awful. Its a wonder why you're still with her. I can't imagine thinking this and that. I would never do that." etc etc.

Women are pro at this sort of one-upsmanship. Its like men trying to one-up each other to impress a girl.


----------



## firebelly1

lifeistooshort said:


> I believe this because I think as a rule men and women are promiscuous for different reasons. Men sow oats, which many get out off their system. Women who have many partners are more likely to be damaged and base their self esteem on how many sex partners they can get, which doesn't lend itself well to marriage and monogamy.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


B.S. Where are you getting that from - that women who have many partners are more likely to be damaged? 

I would say this - a woman who has had lots of partners may be less able to be satisfied by one man. In this case it would be better for her to be in an open marriage rather than cheat. But the desire to have more than one partner or many partners isn't about a woman being damaged anymore than it is for a man.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

firebelly1 said:


> I would say this - a woman who has had lots of partners may be less able to be satisfied by one man.


Why would you say that is? I'm a man, but I've had lots of partners and don't think I'm less able to be satisfied by one woman.



firebelly1 said:


> But the desire to have more than one partner or many partners isn't about a woman being damaged anymore than it is for a man.


Agree. And having many partners is sometimes sign of an issue, and sometimes its not. Either way, I think its about the same by gender.


----------



## firebelly1

lifeistooshort said:


> They do, but it's not because they're damaged.


If a guy is a player because he's afraid of commitment...doesn't that make him damaged?


----------



## firebelly1

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Why would you say that is? I'm a man, but I've had lots of partners and don't think I'm less able to be satisfied by one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. And having many partners is sometimes sign of an issue, and sometimes its not. Either way, I think its about the same by gender.


I'm just theorizing as to why women who have had lots of partners are more likely to cheat - if that's a real thing. Again - all generalizations. No blanket statements can be made of ALL men OR women who have had multiple partners.


----------



## NextTimeAround

firebelly1 said:


> *I'm just theorizing as to why women who have had lots of partners are more likely to cheat *- if that's a real thing. Again - all generalizations. No blanket statements can be made of ALL men OR women who have had multiple partners.


I would not readily agree with that either. My feeling is that male or female, if you don't sow your wild oats in your early 20s, you are more likely to want to do that phase later in life.


----------



## NextTimeAround

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't judge anyone because I have plenty of skeletons in my own closet. I cheated, and yes, I heard all that... and believe they got off on their perceived superiority. Even shows of sympathy or empathy were tools to show how much better she was than my ex.
> 
> *"God, she sounds awful. Its a wonder why you're still with her. I can't imagine thinking this and that. I would never do that." etc etc.*
> 
> Women are pro at this sort of one-upsmanship. Its like men trying to one-up each other to impress a girl.


Yes, but you men seem to put up with it (and at least implicitly encourage it.) My (future) fiance's EA never lost an opportunity to put me down regarding my age (I am 21 years older than she); regarding my health (despite her getting tested for diabetes, cholesterol, being referred to a nephrologist, she had gallstone surgery at the age of 30 and self-described as 50 pounds overweight, she just had to throw in "well, at least it's not cancer); she also made comments about our sex life......

Dvls, we as women, are always told that men don't like b!tchy women, but empirical evidence seems to suggest otherwise......

Could it be due to a Little Black ***** syndrome?


----------



## terrence4159

i talked to my wife for a few months before i meet her at her work, meet her the next day at her work to talk, day 3 took her out for ice cream 2 scoops had sex that night over 7 years ago and married over 6. so does ice cream count as a date?


----------



## always_alone

NextTimeAround said:


> Yes, but you men seem to put up with it (and at least implicitly encourage it.)


Implicitly? I would think whining about how mean your wife is to you to another woman is practically begging for it.

Lots of men love the ego boost of thinking women are competing over them, and manufacture the circumstances to make it so. It's a bit like the drama queen who eggs on two guys to duke it out to "win" her.


----------



## NextTimeAround

always_alone said:


> Implicitly? I would think whining about how mean your wife is to you to another woman is practically begging for it.
> 
> Lots of men love the ego boost of thinking women are competing over them, and manufacture the circumstances to make it so. It's a bit like the drama queen who eggs on two guys to duke it out to "win" her.



Yeah, I think you're right.


----------



## firebelly1

terrence4159 said:


> i talked to my wife for a few months before i meet her at her work, meet her the next day at her work to talk, day 3 took her out for ice cream 2 scoops had sex that night over 7 years ago and married over 6. so does ice cream count as a date?


Yeah - the more I think about this thread, the more I think context is huge. What constitutes a "date"? Especially in a time when we meet more people online than we do in person? We often get at least the "first date" conversation out of the way online before we meet the person. You meet, click, and then spend hours on the phone. So what constitutes a "first date" in the context of women doing it on the first date? Is there a reasonable understanding from both parties that you are meeting to find someone for a LTR or not? The definition of "first date" is key.


----------



## that_girl

If I shave my legs, it's a date.

:rofl:

I dunno...I haven't been on a first date in years.


----------



## firebelly1

that_girl said:


> If I shave my legs, it's a date.
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> I dunno...I haven't been on a first date in years.


Does that mean you haven't shaved your legs in years?


----------



## that_girl

Not in weeks. BUT...it barely grows. I'm a lucky one  My daughter is the same. I can shave once a week and be ok. But if I shave, and we have a date, WATCH OUT! Rawr


----------



## Jetranger

firebelly1 said:


> Yeah - the more I think about this thread, the more I think context is huge. What constitutes a "date"? Especially in a time when we meet more people online than we do in person? We often get at least the "first date" conversation out of the way online before we meet the person. You meet, click, and then spend hours on the phone. So what constitutes a "first date" in the context of women doing it on the first date? Is there a reasonable understanding from both parties that you are meeting to find someone for a LTR or not? The definition of "first date" is key.


You could ask the same question about what constitutes a first date if you knew the person socially before pursuing them romantically. You might have even gone out for dinner with them or other date-like activities before, but I think it’s when you’re actively interested in each other that makes it a ‘DATE date’. In high school, a girl who slow danced with me at a dance asked me if that counted as a first date (we had only met that night).

In that sort of context, where there’s a history before you started ‘going out’, I think the sex on the first date is even less of a thing. You have already built the rapport and trust through the friendship before, the ‘date’ is now seeing about whether things will work on the next level. It’s almost a formality since you already know you’re compatible, so the sex could be more finally being able to act thoughts you may have had about the person before. Hell, sometimes there’s no need for the date. You can be two friends sitting on the couch watching a movie and then there is a moment, someone makes a move, and away you go…


----------



## vellocet

NextTimeAround said:


> Could it be due to a Little Black ***** syndrome?


Uh....what??


----------



## NextTimeAround

vellocet said:


> Uh....what??


Here is the reference: The Story of Little Black ***** - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

***** is a South Indian boy who lives with his father and mother, named Black Jumbo and Black Mumbo, respectively. ***** encounters four hungry tigers, and surrenders his colourful new clothes, shoes, and umbrella so they will not eat him. *The tigers are vain and each thinks he is better dressed than the others. They chase each other around a tree until they are reduced to a pool of melted butter. ****** then recovers his clothes and his mother, Black Mumbo, makes pancakes out of the butter.


----------



## murphy5

*Re: Your opinion of women who have sex on the first date . . .*

if I were dating, I would LOVE IT. I might stick around a while to have some fun dates, like a year or two.

Ultimately I might start worrying about her easy morals, and if she might make a good long term GF or wife. 

It also depends a little on her age. If she were 19 years old....and I dated her for a few years and she acted more and more monogamous....I would chalk it up to "youthful high spirits", and not let it bother me that much.

If she was an older woman who had not dated in a LONG while...I also might not worry about it much...maybe just her hormones overriding her though pattern due to extreme horniness.

I suppose it would be the ultimate in hypocrisy to say I would not be attracted to her, since THAT is what I would have been looking for in the date too...and I just hit the "jackpot" and did not have to date her 5 times to get her into the sack! :rofl:


----------



## vellocet

NextTimeAround said:


> Here is the reference: The Story of Little Black ***** - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ***** is a South Indian boy who lives with his father and mother, named Black Jumbo and Black Mumbo, respectively. ***** encounters four hungry tigers, and surrenders his colourful new clothes, shoes, and umbrella so they will not eat him. *The tigers are vain and each thinks he is better dressed than the others. They chase each other around a tree until they are reduced to a pool of melted butter. ****** then recovers his clothes and his mother, Black Mumbo, makes pancakes out of the butter.


I guess I'm not getting it. What does that have to do with your response to D, or "you men"?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NextTimeAround said:


> Yes, but you men seem to put up with it (and at least implicitly encourage it.)


IMO, its a synergy. He's unhappy and wants to express it, but often he has nowhere for it to go. Repeat the same old tired complaints/arguments with the wife? Unhappy people who lack a proper outlet are very vulnerable to validation leading to EAs and more. Men in particular because we don't typically talk much to other guys about such things, or we bury it in humor (ie - married men joking about lack of sex). Women often get such validation from girlfriends. They can talk seriously about more intimate/vulnerable things whereas no guy is going to talk seriously about his trouble in the bedroom, lack of feeling desired, loneliness or anything else that makes him appear pathetic... and, imo, most guys aren't too great at showing much empathy in the first place, much less to another guy. 

Generally speaking, I think women are much better able to pick up distress cues than most men, and will even subtly pry for information and shower him with empathy. She notices the crack in the wall, and this is like a wedge that gets in and builds a connection. It starts really small, but as comfort builds, the seriousness of complaints and vulnerability shown grow and poof... EA.

In contrast to AA's assertion about whining and wanting to think of women competing, that wasn't my experience. I was reluctant to complain to anyone about my ex because I used to feel they betrayed some inadequacy of mine. My complaints were sort of pried out one small question at a time. At first it was innocuous conversation, general friendly questions - in my case I remember the exact sentence that started the complaint process: "Does your wife ever ride with you?" (I was out on the bike). -"No. Well, she used to. She had her own bike." Ironically, my intention was to more accurately portray my ex and avoid giving the impression she was afraid to ride or whatever (she used to ride with me often)... but instead, it showed the girl the first crack in the wall.


----------



## NextTimeAround

vellocet said:


> I guess I'm not getting it. What does that have to do with your response to D, or "you men"?


It's the idea that you try to bait one or more women around you to feel comfortable about badmouthing your wife. 

And then all the women involved.... wife, friend, EA, muse, whatever fight among each other.... forgetting that any scenario was fuled by the one man involved......

A friend of mine who used to work with ex H (that's how I met her) would say, given the drama that I encountered around his friends (both male and female) that my exH must bait with something.

Now years later, I would say that exH was a PA and liked rousing his friends (particularly the female wive / partners) in certain ways.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I think the ***** scenario is giving the guy too much credit. Even if that's the result, I feel it unlikely that he was trying to get that result.

Some people thrive on drama and bait for it, but that doesn't mean they have a master plan.


----------



## treyvion

We like one night stand females better than ones who will make a spouse or long term relation partner sexless.


----------



## NextTimeAround

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think the ***** scenario is giving the guy too much credit. Even if that's the result, I feel it unlikely that he was trying to get that result.
> 
> Some people thrive on drama and bait for it, but that doesn't mean they have a master plan.


I think my exH liked that drama. One of his favorite line "I just had to be nice......"

With my fiance, I think he was on the fence trying to decide whether this woman was "just a friend" or someone he could date. So he treated her like a friend, talking about me and accepting advice from her. Very unacceptable but I bet a lot of men who are fooling around with 20 and 30 something women are experiencing this ambivalent kind of relationship with them.


----------



## Randy52

My (now) wife and I had been casually acquainted thru our jobs. I don't even know if you would call our first outing together a "date." In any event, I was impressed and intrigued by her attitude, her confidence, her libido and her skills. We have now been together for over 16 years....married for the last 13.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

NextTimeAround said:


> It's the idea that you try to bait one or more women around you to feel comfortable about badmouthing your wife.
> 
> And then all the women involved.... wife, friend, EA, muse, whatever fight among each other.... forgetting that any scenario was fuled by the one man involved......
> 
> A friend of mine who used to work with ex H (that's how I met her) would say, given the drama that I encountered around his friends (both male and female) that my exH must bait with something.
> 
> Now years later, I would say that exH was a PA and liked rousing his friends (particularly the female wive / partners) in certain ways.


I can say I've never instigated a group of women to fight like this mumbo jumbo scenario discussed.

I've found that some groups of women are tigerish enough without my help.


----------



## vellocet

*Re: Your opinion of women who have sex on the first date . . .*



murphy5 said:


> if I were dating, I would LOVE IT. I might stick around a while to have some fun dates, like a year or two.
> 
> Ultimately I might start worrying about her easy morals, and if she might make a good long term GF or wife.


----------



## that_girl

:lol:

For reals.


----------



## vellocet

that_girl said:


> :lol:
> 
> For reals.


No kidding, I mean sh*t...really??


----------



## that_girl

I think some people just like to type and don't really read what they write.


----------



## treyvion

that_girl said:


> I think some people just like to type and don't really read what they write.


Like talkers


----------



## heartsbeating

Comedy: Sebastian Maniscalco on First Dates - YouTube


----------



## ariel_angel77

IMO, any man OR woman who has sex on the first day gives it up WAY too easily. You run a high risk of being used for sex, along with accumulating several sex partners which is never good, STD-risk wise or emotionally.


----------



## treyvion

ariel_angel77 said:


> IMO, any man OR woman who has sex on the first day gives it up WAY too easily. You run a high risk of being used for sex, along with accumulating several sex partners which is never good, STD-risk wise or emotionally.


Some of the ones coming out of sexless situations might not mind getting used for sex.


----------



## moco82

[Re: Original post title]

God bless 'em.


----------



## Personal

ariel_angel77 said:


> IMO, any man OR woman who has sex on the first day gives it up WAY too easily. You run a high risk of being used for sex, along with accumulating several sex partners which is never good, STD-risk wise or emotionally.


I consider it neither good nor bad to accumulate several sex partners, for me many through to none remains neutral in my book.

I make no value judgements about anyone regarding wether they do or do not have sex on the first date.


----------



## NextTimeAround

that_girl said:


> :lol:
> 
> For reals.


Yes, this below fits many situations:


----------



## SevenYears

It wouldn't bother me if I was dating someone who'd had sex on first dates. But then again it wouldn't make a difference if they'd had ONS in the past or had sex with more people than me. 

These are usually the threads I see concerning women. I find it strange that some of the men that say you shouldn't have a LTR with these women because they have loose morals and can't be trusted think its alright if these applied to them.


----------



## RandomDude

What I find odd is that it seems people are the under the impression that it is only men who judge - women judge too! I've been considered somewhat of a 'man****' and ironically my ex was someone who actually had more partners than me!

It's one of the qualities that tends to label me as non-LTR material hence women tend to think of me as nothing more than a 'boytoy'. Yet I always found it interesting how many tend find themselves more conservative men and complain that they can't handle a woman.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

RandomDude said:


> What I find odd is that it seems people are the under the impression that it is only men who judge - *women judge too!* I've been considered somewhat of a 'man****' and ironically my ex was someone who actually had more partners than me!


 You are right Random Dude.. some of us really DO CARE... I don't want to call it judgement though....(even though we are judging what is best for us)...I want to say this has everything to do with "compatibility" ..how one looks at Life & love ...and well... Sex.

In my youth ...it meant so much to me (I even prayed about it) to find a man who shared similar deep feelings surrounding what sex represented to me (attachment/ Love / commitment strings)...the whole giving of yourself (body, soul , mind and spirit) in union with someone you felt as ...your forever... I saw this as something worth waiting for..

Anything less would have been a let down for me ...

I would not have felt we were on the same plane or wanted the same things, I would have greatly questioned his emotional attachment if he had many partners before and was content with this, thinking little of it ...like what would be different about me??.... 

The trust would have been a higher climb , possibly a mountain , for me to believe I was anything special.....plus if he felt a woman saving herself for love was ...just stupid or a waste of pleasure (or ???)...I would feel basically spit upon.. it would bother me tremendously ..as in my world, those things meant something very special...


----------



## RandomDude

Well, simply having lots of past partners doesn't automatically mean one does not value the deep feelings associated with long term companionship. In my case sure but for me that side of it was repressed in my youth, then re-awakened when I found my ex, then repressed again since seperation and is now damaged beyond repair.

Also I never judged my ex as incapable of deep feelings when I met her despite her number being greater than even mine. She proved herself a loyal and committed wife throughout our marriage - we just had too many other issues due to having rushed our marriage with all the baby bells driving us nuts.


----------



## one_strange_otter

I've gone from dinner to bed in about 2 hrs on a first date. Made me nervous even though my brain was yelling "you go boy!" the whole time. The nerves got to me and I couldn't perform. It was just right time at the right place I think as far as getting to bed with a girl on the first date.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

one_strange_otter said:


> I've gone from dinner to bed in about 2 hrs on a first date. Made me nervous even though my brain was yelling "you go boy!" the whole time. The nerves got to me and I couldn't perform. It was just right time at the right place I think as far as getting to bed with a girl on the first date.


Haha yup. Doesn't that suck? lol 

Sleeping with someone before you're actually comfortable with them is like really exciting bad sex. Even when performance isn't a problem, it still feels "off".

Fortunately, its an unusual chemistry and comfort level that have usually led to my first date sex in the first place.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

RandomDude said:


> Well, simply having lots of past partners doesn't automatically mean one does not value the deep feelings associated with long term companionship. In my case sure but for me that side of it was repressed in my youth, then re-awakened when I found my ex, *then repressed again since seperation and is now damaged beyond repair.*


 the beyond repair is a heavy statement...you are still young.. 



> Also I never judged my ex as incapable of deep feelings when I met her despite her number being greater than even mine.* She proved herself a loyal and committed wife throughout our marriage - we just had too many other issues due to having rushed our marriage with all the baby bells driving us nuts*.


Yes she did.. I was really hoping you and her could overcome it all... so much of her personality..time & time again - to what she wanted, how she acted.. I could relate to...I just felt like I understood her..through your words...(crazy huh!)..


----------



## RandomDude

SimplyAmorous said:


> the beyond repair is a heavy statement...you are still young..


Perhaps, but with the amount of screws loose in my head - and with more screws falling out day by day - nah I don't see myself being fixed anytime soon lol



> Yes she did.. I was really hoping you and her could overcome it all... so much of her personality..time & time again - to what she wanted, how she acted.. I could relate to...I just felt like I understood her..through your words...(crazy huh!)..


Well in truth if I still love her I would be giving it another shot, but I don't and I know she deserves someone who does. Besides I've gone back to my playboy lifestyle that I had before marriage or relationships, and it seems to suit me better. Guess I just was never ready for marriage or a relationship.


----------



## youkiddingme

It all depends. If you are looking for a good time....perfect. If you are looking for a wife....something altogether different.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

youkiddingme said:


> It all depends. If you are looking for a good time....perfect. If you are looking for a wife....something altogether different.


why can't they be contained within the same woman? A good time and a wife?


----------



## youkiddingme

Scarlet, I guess it is because a woman that gives it to every man she dates.....well, I want a woman that is a bit more selective. Sure you want a woman that enjoys a good time. But I don't really want one that is willing to give it to everyone.


----------



## RandomDude

What if you two actually clicked?


----------



## youkiddingme

I have the belief that sex is pretty special....not something that you give to everyone that buys you dinner.


----------



## RandomDude

What if the date wasn't a dinner and turned out to be something special, memorable, with butterflies and lovey dovey rainbows in the air + the crazy hormones going wildfire telling you that she's the one?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

youkiddingme said:


> Scarlet, I guess it is because a woman that gives it to every man she dates.....well, I want a woman that is a bit more selective. Sure you want a woman that enjoys a good time. But I don't really want one that is willing to give it to everyone.


Fair enough as long as you hold yourself to the same standards and don't "give it" to every woman you dated


----------



## youkiddingme

Exactly Scarlet. The problem for a man or woman is that they don't know on the first date if the person that is willing to give it away before we even know each other is willing to give it to everyone that they don't know. So it does impact what we think of them....or at least cause us to wonder. I would not be looking for someone that gives sex to everyone.....but that is just me. Others obviously don't care and that is fine if it works for them. For me however, I don't want to marry someone that gives it to people they don't know. I tend to think sex is a pretty special gift. And yes....I hold myself to the same standard.


----------



## lovelygirl

youkiddingme said:


> Scarlet, I guess it is because a woman that gives it to every man she dates.....well, I want a woman that is a bit more selective. Sure you want a woman that enjoys a good time. But I don't really want one that is willing to give it to everyone.


Who said she has given it to everyone?
What if you were HER first to give sex on the first date? 
Still you wouldn't know this right away but it could be possible.


----------



## youkiddingme

Yes it is possible. I am just saying that it would put questions in the mind of the one she/he was dating. And the questions would be fair. After one date....really, you know that this is THE one? I kind of question that.

I don't know about love at first sight. Now Lust at first sight.... I',ll fall for that.


----------



## lovelygirl

youkiddingme said:


> Yes it is possible. I am just saying that it would put questions in the mind of the one she/he was dating. And the questions would be fair. After one date....really, you know that this is THE one? I kind of question that.
> 
> I don't know about love at first sight. Now Lust at first sight.... I',ll fall for that.


I wasn't referring to love at first sight. It has nothing to do with that. But it happens that you two click right away...that you have sex on the first date. Although, it has never happened to her before.


----------



## Thundarr

youkiddingme said:


> Scarlet, I guess it is because a woman that gives it to every man she dates.....well, I want a woman that is a bit more selective. Sure you want a woman that enjoys a good time. But I don't really want one that is willing to give it to everyone.





RandomDude said:


> *What if you two actually clicked?*


First date doesn't always mean the same thing. My initial thoughts about this topic was kind of a ONS scenario with someone I just met. But that's only one of many scenarios. Two people who've known each other for a while, been friends, or even run with the same friends can know a lot about each other. Enough so clicking on a first date and getting jiggy isn't all that risky.


----------



## NextTimeAround

lovelygirl said:


> Who said she has given it to everyone?
> *What if you were HER first to give sex on the first date? *
> Still you wouldn't know this right away but it could be possible.


Wouldn't that be a big assumption?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> Fair enough as long as you hold yourself to the same standards and don't "give it" to every woman you dated


You know, I think this is the male version of "I'm special". She had sex with me, she doesn't have sex with everyone she dates, therefore I'm special or did something right or better than the other guys.

I think its about security for some guys.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You know, I think this is the male version of "I'm special". She had sex with me, she doesn't have sex with everyone she dates, therefore I'm special or did something right or better than the other guys.
> 
> I think its about security for some guys.


We want to feel secure and special too when we've saved ourselves for that one special guy. We want to know that he doesn't have sex with everyone he dates...that's how we know we did something right or better than the other ladies


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Your opi nion of women who have sex on the first date . . .*



youkiddingme said:


> Scarlet, I guess it is because a woman that gives it to every man she dates.....well, I want a woman that is a bit more selective. Sure you want a woman that enjoys a good time. But I don't really want one that is willing to give it to everyone.


So you want her to like sex, but you don't want her to like it immediately? 

Reminds me of hearing someone once say, "Yeah I want her to be s1uttty, but I don't want her to be a s1lut."


----------



## Married but Happy

If it feels right, I'll have sex on the first date, but mostly I'd rather wait until the second or third. I most certainly do want a woman who is sexual and loves sex, but has a level of selectiveness similar to my own. And there are many women I met who wanted to have sex but I did not because they weren't a good match for me.


----------



## firebelly1

Yeah - just because she will have sex with you on the first date doesn't mean she will have it with everyone on the first date.


----------



## Wolf1974

firebelly1 said:


> Yeah - just because she will have sex with you on the first date doesn't mean she will have it with everyone on the first date.


Well that's true but on a first date how do you know? This is your first impression of a person and that impression is she is trying to have sex with someone she doesn't even know yet. You could assume maybe this is special sure but you could also assume she does this with everyone right?

My GF and I waited three weeks and maybe it was 4 dates before we slept together. We discussed it before hand on what it meant that we would be taking a step and be exclusive after. I didn't want to be sleeping with her knowing or wondering if she was sleeping with someone else as well. She wanted to know the same from me. We both had matching ideology when it came to our relationship and its progression. When this thread first started I showed her it and asked what she thought. We both came to the conclusion that had either of us tried to sleep with the other on date one, which was just a 1 hour dinner, that we would have assumed that's all the other person wanted and wouldn't have gone out again.

So all that matters I guess Is you're on the same page about everything


----------



## firebelly1

Wolf1974 said:


> Well that's true but on a first date how do you know? This is your first impression of a person and that impression is she is trying to have sex with someone she doesn't even know yet. You could assume maybe this is special sure but you could also assume she does this with everyone right?
> 
> My GF and I waited three weeks and maybe it was 4 dates before we slept together. We discussed it before hand on what it meant that we would be taking a step and be exclusive after. I didn't want to be sleeping with her knowing or wondering if she was sleeping with someone else as well. She wanted to know the same from me. We both had matching ideology when it came to our relationship and its progression. When this thread first started I showed her it and asked what she thought. We both came to the conclusion that had either of us tried to sleep with the other on date one, which was just a 1 hour dinner, that we would have assumed that's all the other person wanted and wouldn't have gone out again.
> 
> So all that matters I guess Is you're on the same page about everything


That all makes sense. Seems like a good approach although, honestly, I wouldn't be ready to tell someone after only dating them three weeks that I was ready to be exclusive. But, again, I think it does make a difference what the context of the first date is.


----------



## Wolf1974

firebelly1 said:


> That all makes sense. Seems like a good approach although, honestly, I wouldn't be ready to tell someone after only dating them three weeks that I was ready to be exclusive. But, again, I think it does make a difference what the context of the first date is.


That's understandable if you don't. I just want to know that the woman I'm sleeping with isn't sleeping with like 5 other people so I found it best to clarify instead of another misunderstanding cause that's happened to me.


----------



## treyvion

Wolf1974 said:


> That's understandable if you don't. I just want to know that the woman I'm sleeping with isn't sleeping with like 5 other people so I found it best to clarify instead of another misunderstanding cause that's happened to me.


A real "bed hopper" and sometimes the 5 guys ( makes me think of 5 guys burgers ) don't mind passing her around.

If your dating and you have had sufficient enough time in with her, I'd verbally clarify that your exclusive.


----------



## Personal

johnAdams said:


> My first thought of a woman who has sex on the first date is s1ut. Not that it is a bad thing. Sometimes that is all a man is after. Makes for a fun night but probably not someone I would want for a long term relationship.


Nice double standard! You would have sex on a first date because it's fun and not a bad thing. Yet you consider a woman to be somehow soiled and not worthy of a long term relationship because of it. By your own reasoning you too are also not worthy of a long term relationship. :scratchhead:


----------



## jaharthur

Deejo said:


> So you want her to like sex, but you don't want her to like it immediately?
> 
> Reminds me of hearing someone once say, "Yeah I want her to be s1uttty, but I don't want her to be a s1lut."


''

Not what he said. This is an example of the attacks by TAM members and moderators on those with certain beliefs that I mentioned in this thread:

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...5-dont-take-personally-its-not-about-you.html


----------



## NextTimeAround

firebelly1 said:


> Yeah - just because she will have sex with you on the first date doesn't mean she will have it with everyone on the first date.


Using this logic, you men could say "Just because we make you go dutch on the first date, doesn't mean that we make every woman go dutch on the first date."


----------



## Deejo

Often my intention to use humor. Very seldom my intention to criticize mock or attack someone.

I do in fact, find the double standard humorous.
Man and woman have sex on first date.
Man believes woman has loose morals and isn't worthy of LTR.

But ... he wants a LTR with someone who won't have sex on the first date.

It's ironic ... funny. 

I'm not mocking anyone's faith, personal commitment, or choice in how they conduct their lives.

I apologize for my comments if they offended.


----------



## DoF

firebelly1 said:


> Yeah - just because she will have sex with you on the first date doesn't mean she will have it with everyone on the first date.


No it doesn't, but chances are HIGH that she has and will.

History is a good indicator of the future.


----------



## karole

DoF said:


> No it doesn't, but chances are HIGH that she has and will.
> 
> History is a good indicator of the future.


I don't agree. I only had sex on the first date with one man and I married him. Sometimes you meet someone that you have an unbelievable attraction too. I never experienced that sudden attraction to any man other than my husband.


----------



## firebelly1

DoF said:


> No it doesn't, but chances are HIGH that she has and will.
> 
> History is a good indicator of the future.


I disagree too. When you say the chances are high, what are you basing that on? The underlying assumption seems to be that women have sex on the first date because they are not discriminating and can't control themselves. I've had lots of first dates that I did not sleep with the guy. For those that I did, it's because I am attracted to / felt a connection with THIS guy within THIS context. I do discriminate and I can and do control myself.


----------



## jaharthur

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."


----------



## DoF

firebelly1 said:


> I disagree too. When you say the chances are high, what are you basing that on? The underlying assumption seems to be that women have sex on the first date because they are not discriminating and can't control themselves. I've had lots of first dates that I did not sleep with the guy. For those that I did, it's because I am attracted to / felt a connection with THIS guy within THIS context. I do discriminate and I can and do control myself.


But if you were attracted to those guys, you would sleep with them on 1st date as well, so.....

If a woman decides to sleep with me on 1st date, it's safe to assume she has done that with others in the past.

Simple as that.

Besides, it really doesn't matter, if you open up your legs on 1st or 3rd date I simply won't date you again. I simply don't think people have high value of themselves and self respect if they choose to be intimate with someone without knowing them/complete strangers.

In general, I don't really care what people do, whatever floats their boat. Above only stands when it applies to my own situation. 



If you rush into intimacy, you are simply not a woman for me.



karole said:


> I don't agree. I only had sex on the first date with one man and I married him. Sometimes you meet someone that you have an unbelievable attraction too. I never experienced that sudden attraction to any man other than my husband.


That's nice to hear and congrats.

As with anything, there are always exceptions to the rule. I'm sure you are not the only one in this world that has done above.

I'm also sure there are 100s if not 1000s of women for every woman like you.



Look, I got together young with my wife and married/had kids very young as well. Even though my marriage has been successful.....we ARE an exception to the rule and I would still not recommend this approach to others.


----------



## firebelly1

DoF said:


> But if you were attracted to those guys, you would sleep with them on 1st date as well, so.....
> 
> If a woman decides to sleep with me on 1st date, it's safe to assume she has done that with others in the past.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> Besides, it really doesn't matter, if you open up your legs on 1st or 3rd date I simply won't date you again. I simply don't think people have high value of themselves and self respect if they choose to be intimate with someone without knowing them/complete strangers.
> 
> In general, I don't really care what people do, whatever floats their boat. Above only stands when it applies to my own situation.
> 
> 
> 
> If you rush into intimacy, you are simply not a woman for me.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice to hear and congrats.
> 
> As with anything, there are always exceptions to the rule. I'm sure you are not the only one in this world that has done above.
> 
> I'm also sure there are 100s if not 1000s of women for every woman like you.


Well, you are certainly entitled to that. But I still don't get the connection between respecting one's self and being willing to have sex with someone you don't know that well. Do you think a man who has sex with a woman he just met doesn't respect himself? If so, why? If not, why is it different?

The respect question really only makes sense to me in the context of wanting something beyond sex. If I have sex with someone as a bargaining chip - i.e. I have sex with him hoping he will buy me things or make me his girlfriend, then you could bring self-respect into the equation. But if I have sex with him because I like sex and have no expectation other than that, what does that have to do with self-respect?


----------



## DoF

firebelly1 said:


> Well, you are certainly entitled to that. But I still don't get the connection between respecting one's self and being willing to have sex with someone you don't know that well. Do you think a man who has sex with a woman he just met doesn't respect himself?


Think? I know they don't.....assuming they want LTR of course. 



firebelly1 said:


> If so, why? If not, why is it different?


You see, you assumed that I'm your average man and I'm not. I'm also deeply offended by such assumption.





firebelly1 said:


> The respect question really only makes sense to me in the context of wanting something beyond sex. If I have sex with someone as a bargaining chip - i.e. I have sex with him hoping he will buy me things or make me his girlfriend, then you could bring self-respect into the equation. But if I have sex with him because I like sex and have no expectation other than that, what does that have to do with self-respect?


That's correct

What I said ONLY applies to people that are looking for LTR. After all this is Talk About Marriage forum so that should be assumed.

If you want a fling or just bang away, go nuts, none of it matters. Bang her without a date, no big deal.

So you are correct, it has NOTHING to do with self respect.


----------



## norajane

firebelly1 said:


> Well, you are certainly entitled to that. But I still don't get the connection between respecting one's self and being willing to have sex with someone you don't know that well. Do you think a man who has sex with a woman he just met doesn't respect himself? If so, why? If not, why is it different?
> 
> The respect question really only makes sense to me in the context of wanting something beyond sex. If I have sex with someone as a bargaining chip - i.e. I have sex with him hoping he will buy me things or make me his girlfriend, then you could bring self-respect into the equation. But if I have sex with him because I like sex and have no expectation other than that, what does that have to do with self-respect?


Because you're a woman, and you get all spoiled and defiled and used up when you have sex, though, apparently, men don't. So if you're willing to get defiled, you clearly must have no self-respect.


----------



## Jetranger

DoF said:


> Think? I know they don't.....assuming they want LTR of course.


What was that about assumptions?


----------



## firebelly1

DoF said:


> Think? I know they don't.....assuming they want LTR of course.
> 
> 
> 
> You see, you assumed that I'm your average man and I'm not. I'm also deeply offended by such assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct
> 
> What I said ONLY applies to people that are looking for LTR. After all this is Talk About Marriage forum so that should be assumed.
> 
> If you want a fling or just bang away, go nuts, none of it matters. Bang her without a date, no big deal.
> 
> So you are correct, it has NOTHING to do with self respect.


Okay - so within the context of a LTR - you think it applies to both sexes. If you want a LTR, and you have sex with someone on the first date who you think might be or hope might be a potential LTR partner you think THAT shows lack of self-respect. Why? What about that demonstrates lack of self-respect?


----------



## lifeisbetterthanalternat

I think it is a reasonable assumption that someone who sleeps with me MAY have casual feelings about sex and MAY do the same with others. 

I know people that are happily married that with women that they slept with on the first date. 

The double standard it whacky on many levels. Having sex on the first date would not be the way I would want to start a long-term relationship. For some reasons all of the times i had sex on the first date were more flings than relationships. I think if I really like the person it MAY not matter but, most decisions are emotional and not logical. 

I personally would not want to be with someone who i believed did not place a high value on intimacy. I would not judge them, I just don't know if I would want a relationship with them. 

Since I cannot change societal idiosynchracies i can only advise that if you really like someone (and want more than a romp or two-AKA a relatkionship) then you can do more harm than good by NOT sleeping with them on the first date.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

lifeisbetterthanalternat said:


> I think it is a reasonable assumption that someone who sleeps with me MAY have casual feelings about sex and MAY do the same with others.
> 
> I know people that are happily married that with women that they slept with on the first date.
> 
> The double standard it whacky on many levels. Having sex on the first date would not be the way I would want to start a long-term relationship. For some reasons all of the times i had sex on the first date were more flings than relationships. I think if I really like the person it MAY not matter but, most decisions are emotional and not logical.
> 
> I personally would not want to be with someone who i believed did not place a high value on intimacy. I would not judge them, I just don't know if I would want a relationship with them.
> 
> Since I cannot change societal idiosynchracies i can only advise that if you really like someone (and want more than a romp or two-AKA a relatkionship) then you can do more harm than good by NOT sleeping with them on the first date.


I sure as hell hope that when my daughters are dating, they have better sense than to sleep with guys on the first date no matter how much they like them. Any guy worth having will see they are worth waiting for.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## firebelly1

lifeisbetterthanalternat said:


> I personally would not want to be with someone who i believed did not place a high value on intimacy.


I place a very high value on emotional intimacy. And I place a very high value on sexual intimacy with someone I am emotionally intimate with. But I don't think the sex act in and of itself, is intrinsically "valuable" in the same sense. So maybe that's a fundamental difference some of us are disagreeing on. 

In my mind, you can have recreational sex with someone you are just getting to know and the depth of that experience has the potential to increase as you get to know that person. But you don't know that person much better on the third date than the first. Know what I mean? If I wait til the third date, am I placing more value on sex than if I did it on the first because I've now known this person for 6 hours longer than I did before? That's the arbitrariness of rules like "wait til the third date" that I don't get. It makes more sense to me that if you really believe sex should wait that you wait until there is a certain quality to the relationship - i.e. you are ready to be exclusive, or there's a certain level of trust, or you know for sure this person is LTR material. If you are putting off sex to avoid emotional messiness, a rule like the latter makes sense, but the number of dates is arbitrary to me.


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

So, if you slept with a woman on the first dtae and think you might like to take it further but are not sure if this is something she regularly/habitually does, why not just ask her? :scratchhead:


----------



## Jetranger

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> So, if you slept with a woman on the first dtae and think you might like to take it further but are not sure if this is something she regularly/habitually does, why not just ask her? :scratchhead:


Whether she does or not, she might be offended - especially if she doesn't normally do it but made a special exception because she really liked you, because it might come across as an accusation.


----------



## lifeisbetterthanalternat

I could ask her but i would be skeptical but, i would be concerned that she may not be entirely truthful about her past once i have put the Judgement hat on. 

I know that there are women who think this whole thing is not fair...that men are not judged in the same way women are. I think there are opinions from women on TAM who believe that a women should be able to sleep do what they want in their younger days, sleep with who they want and as many people.... and they should not be judged by men for it. The truth is that some men DO judge or perhaps not judge but, will put you our of the running to be their wife. 

Some men (myself included) slept with a number of women. Some in LTRs others in more casual settings including one night stands. We gladly had sex with the women that gave it up easily. Sometimes even dated these women if the sex was good and we got along. 

Some of us will fully admit that we don't want the women we marry to be like those women (we had along the way that gave it up easily) to other men. Like the song says...."i don't care where you've been...as long as it was deep"


----------



## karole

So it's okay for the men to have all the sex they want with whomever they want and nobody thinks anything about that, but women who do it are tarnished and not worthy of LTRs? Wow, what a double standard.


----------



## firebelly1

karole said:


> So it's okay for the men to have all the sex they want with whomever they want and nobody thinks anything about that, but women who do it are tarnished and not worthy of LTRs? Wow, what a double standard.


Yeah - it just keeps coming back to that. Probably because the premise of the thread is sexist to begin with.


----------



## firebelly1

lifeisbetterthanalternat said:


> I could ask her but i would be skeptical but, i would be concerned that she may not be entirely truthful about her past once i have put the Judgement hat on.
> 
> I know that there are women who think this whole thing is not fair...that men are not judged in the same way women are. I think there are opinions from women on TAM who believe that a women should be able to sleep do what they want in their younger days, sleep with who they want and as many people.... and they should not be judged by men for it. The truth is that some men DO judge or perhaps not judge but, will put you our of the running to be their wife.
> 
> Some men (myself included) slept with a number of women. Some in LTRs others in more casual settings including one night stands. We gladly had sex with the women that gave it up easily. Sometimes even dated these women if the sex was good and we got along.
> 
> Some of us will fully admit that we don't want the women we marry to be like those women (we had along the way that gave it up easily) to other men. Like the song says...."i don't care where you've been...as long as it was deep"


Do you think you are a good candidate for someone to be in a LTR with based on your sexual history? I mean, do you see the double standard? You have gladly slept with women who "gave it up easily" but I assume you still think you should be considered worthy of being a long term relationship partner. So, why, given that you give it up so easily, are you a worthy partner but the women aren't?


----------



## TiggyBlue

In a odd way the double standard doesn't really bother me (not because I believe in it).


----------



## samyeagar

karole said:


> So it's okay for the men to have all the sex they want with whomever they want and nobody thinks anything about that, but women who do it are tarnished and not worthy of LTRs? Wow, what a double standard.


Women are free to look at men the same way...


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> Women are free to look at men the same way...


But I / we don't. I think men are enjoying their sexuality and the person they are with AND they are capable of being faithful when they find the right person. No one really questions that. But somehow if a woman enjoys her sexuality and the person she is with now she's not capable of being faithful when the right person comes along? That's crap.


----------



## Wolf1974

samyeagar said:


> Women are free to look at men the same way...


Yeah I haven't understood this from page one either. How is it then that women can't look at men the same way? It's only a double standard when something isn't applied evenly. I haven't seen many male posters say hey I will have sex with someone on the first date but then she is a **** to me so I won't take her home to meet mom. What I have seen is men who think it's ok have sex with the women on the first day do and those who don't won't. 

I don't treat sex with a cavalier attitude and don't have a high number. I could care less what all the other women and men do but I do care and have every right to have whatever standard I wish when it comes to my relationship. I would think everyone would feel the same and not be told what they should feel right or wrong about


----------



## RandomDude

firebelly1 said:


> But I / we don't.


Oh yes you do 

Maybe not you personally but plenty - PLENTY of women do!


----------



## Wolf1974

RandomDude said:


> Oh yes you do
> 
> Maybe not you personally but plenty - PLENTY of women do!


And they should imho


----------



## firebelly1

Wolf1974 said:


> Yeah I haven't understood this from page one either. How is it then that women can't look at men the same way? It's only a double standard when something isn't applied evenly. I haven't seen many male posters say hey I will have sex with someone on the first date but then she is a **** to me so I won't take her home to meet mom. What I have seen is men who think it's ok have sex with the women on the first day do and those who don't won't.
> 
> I don't treat sex with a cavalier attitude and don't have a high number. I could care less what all the other women and men do but I do care and have every right to have whatever standard I wish when it comes to my relationship. I would think everyone would feel the same and not be told what they should feel right or wrong about


It is a double standard when a guy says "I gladly slept with women who gave it up easily but I wouldn't marry that girl." Because he is saying her doing that eliminates her from being worthy of marriage but not him. He assumes he will marry and his sexual history is not a factor. 

Women CAN look at men the same way, but a) the thread is about what men think and b) women may be put off by a guy who has sex with a woman on the first date but not for the same reason. A woman who does that is considered "tarnished" and lacking self-respect. A man who does it is considered unfeeling and only after sex. Different perspective.


----------



## karole

Wolf1974 said:


> Yeah I haven't understood this from page one either. How is it then that women can't look at men the same way? It's only a double standard when something isn't applied evenly. I haven't seen many male posters say hey I will have sex with someone on the first date but then she is a **** to me so I won't take her home to meet mom. What I have seen is men who think it's ok have sex with the women on the first day do and those who don't won't.
> 
> I don't treat sex with a cavalier attitude and don't have a high number. I could care less what all the other women and men do but I do care and have every right to have whatever standard I wish when it comes to my relationship. I would think everyone would feel the same and not be told what they should feel right or wrong about


I agree and I don't have a high number nor have a cavalier attitude about sex either; however, if I should have sex with someone on the first date, I don't think it would be fair for me to judge that person and then not judge myself in the same light. That is my point. The guys here are saying they would have sex with a woman on the first date, but wouldn't consider her for a LTR, which is fine, but hold yourself to the same standard.


----------



## Wolf1974

firebelly1 said:


> *It is a double standard when a guy says "I gladly slept with women who gave it up easily but I wouldn't marry that girl." Because he is saying her doing that eliminates her from being worthy of marriage but not him. He assumes he will marry and his sexual history is not a factor. *
> 
> Women CAN look at men the same way, but a) the thread is about what men think and b) women may be put off by a guy who has sex with a woman on the first date but not for the same reason. A woman who does that is considered "tarnished" and lacking self-respect. A man who does it is considered unfeeling and only after sex. Different perspective.


Fine but again who here is saying that? What I have read is that if a guys sleeps with a woman on the first date then he is cool with that and if not then he won't


----------



## Wolf1974

karole said:


> I agree and I don't have a high number nor have a cavalier attitude about sex either; however, if I should have sex with someone on the first date, I don't think it would be fair for me to judge that person and then not judge myself in the same light. That is my point. The *guys* here are saying they would have sex with a woman on the first date, but wouldn't consider her for a LTR, which is fine, but hold yourself to the same standard.


Who?


----------



## firebelly1

RandomDude said:


> Oh yes you do
> 
> Maybe not you personally but plenty - PLENTY of women do!


Okay - this is still about context in my mind. If I know a guy is willing to sleep with someone on the first date I would still assume it wasn't EVERY woman he had a first date with and I would want to know the circumstances. First date sex is different than someone who has a lot of ONS. 

I'm not saying women aren't put off by a man who sleeps around, but it's for different reasons. Men who have a lot of ONS aren't considered to lack self-respect or be tarnished in some way like women are. But, okay, I take back my previous statement, we women would question his ability to be faithful. But again I'm distinguishing players from the strict "first date" category.


----------



## karole

Wolf1974 said:


> Who?


Look at post 648 for one.


----------



## Wolf1974

karole said:


> Look at post 648 for one.


So one post out of 700 some posts then?

And by the way I disagree with what he said.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I can't wait til my husband gets home so I can tell him what a filthy sl*t he is Bc we had sex so fast! Hmmm..I wonder if that'll make him behave more sl*tty with me?? OMG that would be so awesome!! 

 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

So guess my point is Karole that, with the exception of one or two people, I haven't read every single post, that their is no double standard. My male friends hold themselves to the same standard they hold women to. 

What we do have is varying multiple opinions on the matter, like the originally question stated...what is your opinions of it. And since everyone is entitled to their opinion can't we just respect that they are varied and different and that's ok?


----------



## Wolf1974

ScarletBegonias said:


> I can't wait til my husband gets home so I can tell him what a filthy sl*t he is Bc we had sex so fast! Hmmm..I wonder if that'll make him behave more sl*tty with me?? OMG that would be so awesome!!
> 
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I bet he loves that lol


----------



## jaharthur

I don't approve of the double standard. But neither do I approve of the current culture that treats sex like having a cup of coffee.

If I had a daughter, I'd advise her to steer clear of any guy who ****s around.

It does turn on a person's view of sex, I suppose. Some people feel it's like sharing a cup of coffee with someone--if it's enjoyable, do it. Perfectly OK to have that attitude. Some people think it's a special interaction that should be reserved for someone with whom there is an emotional connection. Perfectly OK to have that attitude, too, although today's culture mocks it in the name of "sexual freedom."


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Bottom line,have sex when you're ready. Don't judge those w a different timeline. Don't date those w a different timeline.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

ScarletBegonias said:


> Bottom line,have sex when you're ready. Don't judge those w a different timeline. Don't date those w a different timeline.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:iagree:


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

jaharthur said:


> I don't approve of the double standard. But neither do I approve of the current culture that treats sex like having a cup of coffee.
> 
> *If I had a daughter, I'd advise her to steer clear of any guy who ****s around.*
> 
> It does turn on a person's view of sex, I suppose. Some people feel it's like sharing a cup of coffee with someone--if it's enjoyable, do it. Perfectly OK to have that attitude. Some people think it's a special interaction that should be reserved for someone with whom there is an emotional connection. Perfectly OK to have that attitude, too, although today's culture mocks it in the name of "sexual freedom."


I have two daughters. My oldest is now starting puberty and it is amazing to me what difference a year makes. This little girl is starting to look like a young woman. She is a little bit late and most of her friends around the same age are more developed. It will not be that long before she starts taking an interest in boys. She is an attractive girl and boys have already started taking an interest in her. I am not worried because she has a good head on her shoulders but wow, it does give me a different perspective on topics like this than I might have had years ago.

If I owned guns, now would be the time to start cleaning them on the front porch. Since I don't, I'll have to keep working on them in the gym


----------



## chillymorn

sex on the first date means I'm awesome!!!! i turned them on sooooooo much they just couldn't resist!

I'm the man!!!!

or 

she was really horny!


or shes a gold digger and just wants my money.

or she has a spark and is mature enough to know when to act on it.


----------



## Q tip

Hmmmmm. 

I don't know. Never tried.


----------



## arbitrator

ScarletBegonias said:


> Bottom line,have sex when you're ready. Don't judge those w a different timeline. Don't date those w a different timeline.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


*While I personally choose to adhere to the "personal connection mantra," I cannot fault, ostracize, or judge others as to what it is that they might choose to do!

In this realm, it's pretty much, "To each their own!"*


----------



## ifweonly

Been married a very long time but did not have sex until the ring was on the finger and promises made. Learning was a l-o-n-g process (read YEARS) but as we matured, the sex got better and better to where it is today!:smthumbup: 

In all honesty, I have often thought about how good it would have been if we (not that I didn't try) had not jump started our "Learning experience" before marriage but this is all in hind sight.


----------



## happy as a clam

Wow... How did I miss this thread the first go-round?!

Sex for a woman on the first date?! I never did it on the first date... Until I met my SO . The chemistry and attraction was palpable. I have never regretted it.

We went to lunch, then proceeded to rip our clothes off afterwards 

And we have had sex nearly every day for the past 4 years. 

Does that mean I'm not relationship "material"?? All i can say is I'm glad he didn't judge me (or me him) based on sex on the first date. We would have both missed a h*ll of an awesome ride...


----------



## sammy3

db


----------



## happy as a clam

sammy3 said:


> db


Huh? Are you referring to me??
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

happy as a clam said:


> Wow... How did I miss this thread the first go-round?!
> 
> Sex for a woman on the first date?! I never did it on the first date... Until I met my SO . The chemistry and attraction was palpable. I have never regretted it.
> 
> We went to lunch, then proceeded to rip our clothes off afterwards
> 
> And we have had sex nearly every day for the past 4 years.
> 
> Does that mean I'm not relationship "material"?? All i can say is I'm glad he didn't judge me (or me him) based on sex on the first date. We would have both missed a h*ll of an awesome ride...


I did catch this the first go around. It's one of the rare threads where my perspective changed dramatically so I don't mind the zombie resurrection of it. My knee jerk reaction was that sex on the first date really bad. After reading comments and thinking about it though my view changed.


----------



## homerjay

i don't get why it's a negative thing...i have no issue with it at all.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *ifweonly said: **Been married a very long time but did not have sex until the ring was on the finger and promises made.* Learning was a l-o-n-g process (read YEARS) but as we matured, the sex got better and better to where it is today! :smthumbup:
> 
> In all honesty, I have often thought about how good it would have been if we (not that I didn't try) had not jump started our "Learning experience" before marriage but this is all in hind sight.


My H respected me more for NOT allowing him to go *all the way* with me -for years.. It's not the normal story and most would find him a complete A-hole Beta boy for this... but that's oK.. he's pretty happy with me. 

I said to him a couple years back thinking of the years we waited (I was 15 when we met)... how I should have at least given him BJ's during that time..If I could go back in time.. I would [email protected]#$... and he looked at me and said he wouldn't change anything..... 

Again.. I know that makes him very odd- like what was wrong with him [email protected]#$%.... it's not that he doesn't love sex and pleasure (of course he does.... and he longed to be with me fully as well)... I think it's just how he views marriage, and the special-ness of these acts....and for him.. it was all worth the wait..


----------



## Nucking Futs

happy as a clam said:


> Huh? Are you referring to me??
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Maybe he meant giggity.


----------



## EleGirl

Wow, this thread just keeps going on and on.... didn't this was such a hot topic.:scratchhead:


----------



## 2ntnuf

https://www.psychologytoday.com/collections/201410/are-men-and-women-different


----------



## ChargingCharlie

Mentioned this before - wife and I got naked and did all but PIV on our first date (ended up staying the night at her place). We spent a lot of time making out in the places we were at and went into her car making out with her on top of me with my hands up her dress. We couldn't keep our hands off each other for a while (we were both mid-30's then). 

Now, over a dozen years later, we never kiss, let alone have sex. Sex, which early in our relationship was very frequent, is now a chore in her mind. Certainly I get that as you get older and kids come along, sex will decrease. However, her drive is now absolute zero (if we go out, she always makes sure to let me know how bad her headache is and/or how tired she is before we get home). Guessing in the last five years that we've had sex five times total. 

Point is that just because you get physical early on doesn't mean that it will last. I'm convinced that mine used sex to get me in the fold and now that she has me she has no problems letting her true ZD show.


----------



## john117

Sex often early on is like a successful experiment. Makes you feel good but may not be the breakthrough you're looking for. 

Likewise lack of sex early on is like an experiment "failure" in the sense you learn a lot more from it than you would from a success. 

It doesn't mean one is "better" than the other, just that they have different information density values.


----------



## SamuraiJack

This is going to sound a little crass...but if I like the way a car looks and the price is right...I'm not going to keep coming back around the dealership to examine it more often.
I will definitely test drive it a few times before I sign the purchase order. Vroooom.
...and she gets to testdrive me as well.

Sometimes the chemistry is just right.
Sometimes ( as I get older) its less of a sacred thing and more of a practical thing.

Virginity and reputation matter less and less to me as I get older.
Im interested on knowing the person who is right here, right now.

If life wasnt a constant learning experience we would all be walking around with little plaques that say things like "I did my ABC's".


----------



## 2ntnuf

Never had sex on the first date. I suppose I could, if I was not looking for any kind of relationship, at all. I think, through the conversation before the sex, I would likely decide, because I have, that I could date her because I like her, but I don't want to because I believe it would not work out and I would only be setting myself up to get hurt. There is always the thought that there could be more. If there is not, I don't feel like she is attracted to me enough to have sex, and if there is, I automatically assess for longer term. It's a no win situation that needs worked on. I doubt I will change, but while there is life, there is hope. So, what do I think of her then? Depends on her reaction. If she gets nasty, I avoid her. If I feel too much attraction I will avoid her. If there is little attraction, I can be friends. Generally, the last one doesn't happen often. There have to be feelings of attraction or I'm not even going to bother getting into a conversation that might lead to sex. Sometimes, I can react differently.

Edit: Having such attraction that I had sex on the first date, as long as I was sober, would mean I had great physical attraction as well as a feeling of confidence that she was not going to hurt me. I would feel like we connected on such a deep level, she wanted to pursue more than just a ONS. So, sex on the first date, would be just the first of many, unless there was something revealed during sex that one of us could not live with. That's very important and I think I put very little on it. Sex just for sex? I truly think, for me, it would be best if prostitution was legalized. I've never paid for sex, in the traditional sense, but in essence, we all do, whether it be with the price of dinner, drinks and conversation, or up front. Even in a relationship we pay for it. If you want to stay in that relationship, you must do certain things which will show you love her. Some of those, you may not want to do, but you do anyway, because you want to keep that relationship and you know that those things need done anyway. We all pay for it. Prostitution should be legalized, made as safe as possible and regulated. It has been around since men and women have been on this earth. Isn't it time we take a more responsible look at it?


----------



## DoF

ChargingCharlie said:


> Mentioned this before - wife and I got naked and did all but PIV on our first date (ended up staying the night at her place). We spent a lot of time making out in the places we were at and went into her car making out with her on top of me with my hands up her dress. We couldn't keep our hands off each other for a while (we were both mid-30's then).
> 
> Now, over a dozen years later, we never kiss, let alone have sex. Sex, which early in our relationship was very frequent, is now a chore in her mind. Certainly I get that as you get older and kids come along, sex will decrease. However, her drive is now absolute zero (if we go out, she always makes sure to let me know how bad her headache is and/or how tired she is before we get home). Guessing in the last five years that we've had sex five times total.
> 
> Point is that just because you get physical early on doesn't mean that it will last. I'm convinced that mine used sex to get me in the fold and now that she has me she has no problems letting her true ZD show.


I've seen this over and over SO many times.

Sex early on for men is a dangerous thing, i don't recommend it. It clouds our vision, disables us from thinking clearly and paying attention to things we NEED to watch for.

WAY too many cons than Pros, heck only 2 pros, act itself and knowing sexual compatibility early on.

Neither of those go a long way for a healthy long term relationship.


----------



## ConanHub

They are horny!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## larry.gray

SimplyAmorous said:


> I said to him a couple years back thinking of the years we waited (I was 15 when we met)... how I should have at least given him BJ's during that time..If I could go back in time.. I would [email protected]#$... and he looked at me and said he wouldn't change anything.....


I'm sure part of that view includes being relaxed with you going on a few dates with another guy to be sure. He knew your views on pre-marital sex.

Had you been sexually active, those dates would have been mind movie filled torture.


----------



## ConanHub

larry.gray said:


> I'm sure part of that view includes being relaxed with you going on a few dates with another guy to be sure. He knew your views on pre-marital sex.
> 
> Had you been sexually active, those dates would have been mind movie filled torture.


Good catch.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ChargingCharlie

DoF said:


> I've seen this over and over SO many times.
> 
> Sex early on for men is a dangerous thing, i don't recommend it. It clouds our vision, disables us from thinking clearly and paying attention to things we NEED to watch for.
> 
> WAY too many cons than Pros, heck only 2 pros, act itself and knowing sexual compatibility early on.
> 
> Neither of those go a long way for a healthy long term relationship.


:iagree: This is why I posted this - the early sex clouded judgment. Even our wedding night sex (which was great) didn't give me an idea of how things would go in the sex department. 

The issues that I have with her go deeper than sex - if I hadn't been happy that she was sexual, maybe I would have delved deeper into why she's so insecure, etc. But we had lots of sex and we were in love, so I was blinded by that.


----------



## larry.gray

Now the flip-slide to that story SA.....

My eldest daughter became very close friends with the son of one my wife's friends . He is three years older. It was and is platonic, and he treated her like a protective older brother. I will always have a soft spot for the guy. He made me feel at peace when I knew he would be around. 

I've related the story here before. He dated a girl for his last two years of high school. She made him wait too. Then she goes on a date.... effs the date. Yep, gives up her viginrity on a ONS. 

They're still together. I suspect mostly based on the fact that she's stunningly beautiful. Out of respect for him I'm civil to her, but inside I seethe at what she did to him.


----------



## ConanHub

larry.gray said:


> Now the flip-slide to that story SA.....
> 
> My eldest daughter became very close friends with the son of one my wife's son. He is three years older. It was and is platonic, and he treated her like a protective older brother. I will always have a soft spot for the guy. He made me feel at peace when I knew he would be around.
> 
> I've related the story here before. He dated a girl for his last two years of high school. She made him wait too. Then she goes on a date.... effs the date. Yep, gives up her viginrity on a ONS.
> 
> They're still together. I suspect mostly based on the fact that she's stunningly beautiful. Out of respect for him I'm civil to her, but inside I seethe at what she did to him.


Dumb wench would have been gone faster than a $100 tax return if she did that to me. How does that guy look at himself? 

I'm not trying to be insulting, I seriously do not get that mindset.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DoF

ChargingCharlie said:


> :iagree: This is why I posted this - the early sex clouded judgment. Even our wedding night sex (which was great) didn't give me an idea of how things would go in the sex department.
> 
> The issues that I have with her go deeper than sex - if I hadn't been happy that she was sexual, maybe I would have delved deeper into why she's so insecure, etc. But we had lots of sex and we were in love, so I was blinded by that.


That's ok, what's done is done.

Now the question is, what are you gonna do about it? I wouldn't recommend settling, IMO intimacy is the foundation and probably one of the most important things in a relationship.

Without it, there is no relationship.

:scratchhead:


----------



## vellocet

> Your opi nion of women who have sex on the first date . . .


In my early days when seeking relationships, it was kind of a turn off.

Now? I like it just fine


----------



## DoF

vellocet said:


> In my early days when seeking relationships, it was kind of a turn off.
> 
> Now? I like it just fine


Quite opposite here.

When I was young and stupid, that seemed appealing.

Now? Well, I would hit it and possibly have a fling on the side, but I have 0 to no respect for a woman gets into bed with men she doesn't even know.......that's quite opposite of marriage material.


----------



## vellocet

DoF said:


> Quite opposite here.
> 
> When I was young and stupid, that seemed appealing.
> 
> Now? Well, I would hit it and possibly have a fling on the side, but I have 0 to no respect for a woman gets into bed with men she doesn't even know.......that's quite opposite of marriage material.


Oh I agree, I'm just not in the market for marriage.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *ChargingCharlie said*: *Mentioned this before - wife and I got naked and did all but PIV on our first date (ended up staying the night at her place). We spent a lot of time making out in the places we were at and went into her car making out with her on top of me with my hands up her dress. We couldn't keep our hands off each other for a while (we were both mid-30's then).
> 
> Now, over a dozen years later, we never kiss, let alone have sex. Sex, which early in our relationship was very frequent, is now a chore in her mind. Certainly I get that as you get older and kids come along, sex will decrease. However, her drive is now absolute zero (if we go out, she always makes sure to let me know how bad her headache is and/or how tired she is before we get home). Guessing in the last five years that we've had sex five times total.
> 
> Point is that just because you get physical early on doesn't mean that it will last. I'm convinced that mine used sex to get me in the fold and now that she has me she has no problems letting her true ZD show*.


 I was the opposite, the more kids we had , the more I wanted it.. once we had all 6, my sex drive exploded.. I felt I needed knocked in the head for not taking advantage of him more so in the past..







...

Every story is so different..there is no magic formula to *=* this way is better over another.. . too many variables.. Infertility was our monkey wrench in our early yrs after our 1st son.... I cared more about his







over his pleasure ...too one tract minded.. but after those babies were born... another one tract mindedness came over me..   and more ...

I re-post this now & again..as I think it's very true...



Cletus said:


> To those advocating sex before marriage as a means of determining compatibility:
> 
> You're right, but for the wrong reason.
> 
> *Sex before marriage does not ensure compatibility, *and for my formal proof I offer the endless sad sack stories posted hereon of bait and switch, no sex after children, and countless other examples of the shine wearing off the sex life. Sex before marriage does not ensure compatibility. *All it can do is discover current incompatibility.* Which is of course a very useful thing to know, but you may not be answering the question you believe you're answering when you bed your future mate.


----------



## 2ntnuf

DoF said:


> That's ok, what's done is done.
> 
> Now the question is, what are you gonna do about it? I wouldn't recommend settling, IMO intimacy is the foundation and probably one of the most important things in a relationship.
> 
> Without it, there is no relationship.
> 
> :scratchhead:


Sex is not intimacy, though, according to many of the posts here from those who don't see and issue with sex on the first date. So, how can you find intimacy with someone who doesn't see sex as such when you do? My guess is, you will end up in a sexless marriage because it means great intimacy to one and not to the other. The one seeking intimacy through sex, will know just by how the other demands it rather than building up to it, that they don't really want it with them as much as they want to use their body and abilities. 

How much more then, will that person who is committed to intimacy through sex and all the preceding interaction to get there, feel like they are being used and worthless as a human being? That's why the deception of someone who likes to have many partners and sex on the first date, is so destructive when they choose a partner who is the opposite. They think it means they won't be cheated on, and it probably makes it less likely, but it almost guarantees there will never be satisfaction in the relationship.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Frankly, I don't care. I don't need some man in my life who has a virgin/wh*re complex.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Pooh Bear said:


> Frankly, I don't care. I don't need some man in my life who has a virgin/wh*re complex.


This is the way I think it should be, but many like to have fun with a ***** while looking for a virgin to marry. It's really wrong. It happens all the time. If you are a male or female *****, look for someone who thinks the same to have a relationship with. There will be less issues with sex and they can find it easier to look for compatibility in other areas, which are important too. Why start out with someone who doesn't think the same about the one thing that is so important, as proven by having it on the first date. I mean, it seems important to have it, just to feel good and healthy and with whom does not matter as much as the prowess of the individual. You can check that off the list with the person who has the same thoughts.


----------



## ConanHub

Pooh Bear said:


> Frankly, I don't care. I don't need some man in my life who has a virgin/wh*re complex.


Does that mean if you aren't a virgin you are a wh0re? I haven't researched that term.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pooh Bear

ConanHub said:


> Does that mean if you aren't a virgin you are a wh0re? I haven't researched that term.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Exactly. The virgin is marriage material. You can fun with the wh*re, you just wouldn't marry her. But then if you are having fun with a wh*re what does that make you? Hmmmm. 

Of course, this concept only applies to women. Men can have as much sex as they want and no one will ever call them a wh*re.


----------



## ConanHub

Pooh Bear said:


> Exactly. The virgin is marriage material. You can fun with the wh*re, you just wouldn't marry her. But then if you are having fun with a wh*re what does that make you? Hmmmm.
> 
> Of course, this concept only applies to women. Men can have as much sex as they want and no one will ever call them a wh*re.


Okay. I have definitely heard the concept, which I have never agreed with, but not the term. Thank you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf

Pooh Bear said:


> Exactly. The virgin is marriage material. You can fun with the wh*re, you just wouldn't marry her. But then if you are having fun with a wh*re what does that make you? Hmmmm.
> 
> Of course, this concept only applies to women. Men can have as much sex as they want and no one will ever call them a wh*re.


I think it can be applied to men. I do, in my own thinking. I think either is marriage material, just better suited to those who think alike.


----------



## Pooh Bear

2ntnuf said:


> I think it can be applied to men. I do, in my own thinking. I think either is marriage material, just better suited to those who think alike.


I agree 2ntnuf. Unfortunately, this is an overall societal problem. And I think a lot of people do think this way.


----------



## Healer

Pooh Bear said:


> Exactly. The virgin is marriage material. You can fun with the wh*re, you just wouldn't marry her. But then if you are having fun with a wh*re what does that make you? Hmmmm.
> 
> Of course, this concept only applies to women. Men can have as much sex as they want and no one will ever call them a wh*re.


Not true at all.


----------



## Healer

If you're lucky, sex early on (really early on - like first date) can be fun and can then grow into a deep intimacy. Which of course makes for better sex.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Healer said:


> Not true at all.


What's not true? You don't agree with the concept or you disagree that it exists?


----------



## 2ntnuf

Pooh Bear said:


> I agree 2ntnuf. Unfortunately, this is an overall societal problem. And I think a lot of people do think this way.


I think it is too. I know a man who did just exactly this, but has not had the issues, to my knowledge, with sexual attraction. He pretty much said he was a *****, and then married a virgin. He said she was absolutely a virgin. It really gave me a queasy feeling because I think he can easily control her by having so much greater knowledge of sex and life. 

Here is a quote from a site about Madonna-***** Complex:



> Dr. Carol Elison, PhD., clinical psychologist and author of ‘Women’s Sexualities’, explained to Alternet: “The woman feels like she cannot turn her man on anymore. She feels impotent in how to turn him on and inadequate in her sexuality. Infidelity often ensues on her part as she looks for physical comfort because her man is no longer giving her sex.
> 
> http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/unveiling-madonna-*****-complex


Compatibility in all things, including sexual experience would likely alleviate many issues. I dated and married a woman who had much more experience and I lost attraction because of her feelings about sex being something she could get anywhere with little investment, and be satisfied. I needed investment. She could not give that or understand what that meant. 

I have slept with a woman who I was not going to marry because I didn't respect her enough. I told her there would be nothing more than sex. She agreed and told me she only wanted sex for sex. I still ended up with some feelings for her. I respected her more than before the sex, but when she stepped in to tell me how to live my life, I broke it off immediately. She may not have understood that I was telling her the truth when I told her there would only be sex, or she may have thought that sex would blur my boundaries.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Healer said:


> If you're lucky, sex early on (really early on - like first date) can be fun and can then grow into a deep intimacy. Which of course makes for better sex.


I agree that it happens. I don't think it is as common as when two are more compatible.

Edit: I may have misunderstood your comment. Sorry.


----------



## ConanHub

Pooh Bear said:


> Frankly, I don't care. I don't need some man in my life who has a virgin/wh*re complex.


What has been your personal experience with this? I was a male slvt growing up but I only had one woman ever turn her nose up at a relationship with me. She had strong religious beliefs and I respected her for it. I was a little let down but I could understand where she was coming from.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pooh Bear

ConanHub said:


> What has been your personal experience with this? I was a male slvt growing up but I only had one woman ever turn her nose up at a relationship with me. She had strong religious beliefs and I respected her for it. I was a little let down but I could understand where she was coming from.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I kind of had a nine year period where I didn't date because of my traumatic experience. Before that I was new to dating and really shy about sex. I didn't have a rule necessarily but I didn't really sleep with anyone right away. Then when I was older and started dating again, I had a serious relationship. After that, I dated and had a one night stand with one guy. I kind of sensed he had this virgin/wh*re thing going on so it was good that didn't turn in to a relationship. Then I met my husband. I'm pretty monogomous and boring. But some women aren't and I don't think they should be punished for that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

larry.gray said:


> Now the flip-slide to that story SA.....
> 
> My eldest daughter became very close friends with the son of one my wife's son. He is three years older. It was and is platonic, and he treated her like a protective older brother. I will always have a soft spot for the guy. He made me feel at peace when I knew he would be around.
> 
> *I've related the story here before. He dated a girl for his last two years of high school. She made him wait too. Then she goes on a date.... effs the date. Yep, gives up her viginrity on a ONS. *
> 
> *They're still together. I suspect mostly based on the fact that she's stunningly beautiful. Out of respect for him I'm civil to her, but inside I seethe at what she did to him*.


 I've missed THIS story of yours.... I've heard it before here though..through another poster... I always wondered why he has such a stick up his aZZ about such girls...he seemed to loathe them..I questioned it one day....

Then he laid it out ... what happened to him.. his GF, who went on how it was so important to her to wait ..I forget how long they were together...here she gave it to a Football player one night like it was NOTHING.... after that if a girl didn't put out by the 1st few dates.. she got kicked to the curb as a lying game player...

Just goes to show what happens to us in our youth, such betrayals -they can have a profound effect on how we view others.. 

I would have NEVER done this... I felt very very strongly about the One who was willing to give me HIS ALL (marriage / family -hand in hand)... a Man's waiting is not easy... to throw that back in their face with another on a whim - it's heartless ...







..you just DON'T DO that to someone you cared about, shared & planned with for 2 yrs.. 

Curious...How did he find out ? what a waste to the beginning of their love story.


----------



## ConanHub

Pooh Bear said:


> I kind of had a nine year period where I didn't date because of my traumatic experience. Before that I was new to dating and really shy about sex. I didn't have a rule necessarily but I didn't really sleep with anyone right away. Then when I was older and started dating again, I had a serious relationship. After that, I dated and had a one night stand with one guy. I kind of sensed he had this virgin/wh*re thing going on so it was good that didn't turn in to a relationship. Then I met my husband. I'm pretty monogomous and boring. But some women aren't and I don't think they should be punished for that.


Ok. So maybe the ONS was a close call but otherwise you were unaffected by it. I think my sister was hurt by it but she isn't talking. Do you know anyone who was hurt or lost out because of the V/H complex?
_Posted via Mobile Device_

P.S. I think my wife has been and has said she is afraid I will hate her if I know her history.


----------



## ConanHub

SimplyAmorous said:


> Curious...How did he find out ? what a waste to the beginning of their love story.


It doesn't even sound like a love story to me. It sounds like the beginning of a disaster of TAM proportions in the making.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Pooh Bear said:


> Of course, this concept only applies to women. Men can have as much sex as they want and no one will ever call them a wh*re.


I call them a Philanderer: 



> A philanderer is a guy who likes women. A lot. So much that he's got a beautiful wife — and a date with a different girl every weekend.
> The phil in philanderer means "love" and a philanderer's love never seems to stop. "So many ladies, so little time..." — That may just be the motto of the quintessential philanderer, those delightful serial womanizers who specialize in brief affairs of the carnal kind. A philandering husband doesn't just have a wandering eye. He also has wandering hands, and probably a long line of jilted lovers.


----------



## ChargingCharlie

SimplyAmorous said:


> I was the opposite, the more kids we had , the more I wanted it.. once we had all 6, my sex drive exploded.. I felt I needed knocked in the head for not taking advantage of him more so in the past..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Every story is so different..there is no magic formula to *=* this way is better over another.. . too many variables.. Infertility was our monkey wrench in our early yrs after our 1st son.... I cared more about his
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> over his pleasure ...too one tract minded.. but after those babies were born... another one tract mindedness came over me..   and more ...
> 
> I re-post this now & again..as I think it's very true...


Interesting - note that our kids are adopted (not sure if that's relevant). We also didn't have much sex before the kids arrived (twice in the year before they arrived). My wife expends her energy trying to be SuperMom and getting stressed out over everything that she doesn't think about sex.


----------



## larry.gray

ConanHub said:


> It doesn't even sound like a love story to me. It sounds like the beginning of a disaster of TAM proportions in the making.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I didn't give it long. But here it is 4ish years later. They're not married, just shacking up an 'engaged.' No kids.


----------



## GusPolinski

ConanHub said:


> Does that mean if you aren't a virgin you are a wh0re? I haven't researched that term.


It's more commonly referred to as a "Madonna-wh*re" complex.


----------



## GusPolinski

Pooh Bear said:


> Exactly. The virgin is marriage material. You can fun with the wh*re, you just wouldn't marry her. But then if you are having fun with a wh*re what does that make you? Hmmmm.
> 
> Of course, this concept only applies to women. *Men can have as much sex as they want and no one will ever call them a wh*re.*


Ehhh... not quite.


----------



## Amplexor

Depends on how many first dates.


----------



## 2ntnuf

ConanHub said:


> Ok. So maybe the ONS was a close call but otherwise you were unaffected by it. I think my sister was hurt by it but she isn't talking. Do you know anyone who was hurt or lost out because of the V/H complex?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> 
> P.S. I think my wife has been and has said she is afraid I will hate her if I know her history.


If this was not true on many occasions, there would be no terms like "philanderer" and "Madonna/***** Complex".


----------



## Pooh Bear

ConanHub said:


> Ok. So maybe the ONS was a close call but otherwise you were unaffected by it. I think my sister was hurt by it but she isn't talking. Do you know anyone who was hurt or lost out because of the V/H complex?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> 
> P.S. I think my wife has been and has said she is afraid I will hate her if I know her history.


I think I shouldn’t have answered you so quickly as you asked a complicated question. How does that dichotomy virgin/wh*re affect me and other people. I think we all grow up with those concepts about women’s sexuality. I have certainly absorbed it as we all have. When you are a girl you don’t want to be a sl*t or a wh*re. That is not acceptable for girls. We know that because we hear other girls being called that or we are called that or we use that term ourselves to demean another woman, for whatever reason. But that is a derogatory term and you don’t want to be that. 

I think that a lot of women deny their sexuality to avoid hearing that term. I think that it has hurt me in that way. I don’t want to get too personal on this forum but I don’t think I have ever felt like it is fully ok to be a sexual being. When I had that fling with that guy, I felt free. Because I didn’t really care about his standard. When I was 19 or 20, I definitely did. 

When I was raped it was devastating. I was 20 and it was an acquaintance rape. I blamed myself and I felt like a sl*t. I didn’t want to be that so I jumped in to a relationship with someone I had no interest in. He had been pursuing for some time and I had shown no interest. Then when I wanted to feel like I was a “good girl” again, I jumped into that relationship. Because a relationship made me a good girl. I feel bad about that now. We both deserved better than that.

I think it’s complicated and I don’t know if people are even aware how affected we are by these stereotypes.


----------



## Pooh Bear

SimplyAmorous said:


> I call them a Philanderer:


That doesn't have the negative connotation that wh*re does.


----------



## Pooh Bear

GusPolinski said:


> It's more commonly referred to as a "Madonna-wh*re" complex.


No. It's virgin/wh*re. But you can call it whatever you want.


----------



## Pooh Bear

GusPolinski said:


> Ehhh... not quite.


Have you heard many men criticized for having sex with multiple people? Beyond wives criticizing their cheating husbands? Heck, there are whole shows about stud men sleeping around. That's what you call a man who sleeps around a "stud." Look at him able to get all those women.


----------



## vellocet

Pooh Bear said:


> That doesn't have the negative connotation that wh*re does.


How about:

bad boy piece of sh*t
player azzhole
jackass
jerk
male wh0re
the kind of guy no decent woman should want
etc.


What would be your favorite term that would put these type of guys in just as unfavorable light as "wh0re"?


----------



## Amplexor

vellocet said:


> How about:
> 
> bad boy piece of sh*t
> player azzhole
> jackass
> jerk
> male wh0re
> the kind of guy no decent woman should want


Don't forget Jizz-Slinger


----------



## Pooh Bear

vellocet said:


> How about:
> 
> bad boy piece of sh*t
> player azzhole
> jackass
> jerk
> male wh0re
> the kind of guy no decent woman should want
> etc.
> 
> 
> What would be your favorite term that would put these type of guys in just as unfavorable light as "wh0re"?


Those sound like terms that a jilted girlfriend uses to complain about a cheating boyfriend. They are not as all encompassing as wh*re is for a woman. Men's sexuality is embraced. Boys are supposed to "sow their wild oats" before they settle down with the "virgin" girl. Are you telling me this is not a script in our society? Do I want men's sexuality to be degraded the way women's sexuality is? No. I want both to have a healthy sexuality, actually. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this language is good for men's sexuality either. We need to change the terms. We need to allow both genders to embrace sexuality in a healthy way.


----------



## Wynfield

This really comes down to the circumstances. I had amazing chemistry with one girl and she said something along the lines of "Just so you know I really never ever do this, I just can't take my hands off you," which was amazingly hot, and we kept it at oral.

If she's just looking to get laid then I would probably think of her less as relationship material just because we aren't having sex because she thinks I'm special; but I would still keep an open mind and go out on another date if everything else was ok.


----------



## ConanHub

larry.gray said:


> I didn't give it long. But here it is 4ish years later. They're not married, just shacking up an 'engaged.' No kids.


We have heard of many marriages that started this way or similar, then, 20 years in, nuclear!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## larry.gray

Pooh Bear said:


> No. It's virgin/wh*re. But you can call it whatever you want.


You'll find Madana is used in psychology literature if you read up on human sexuality.


----------



## Wolf1974

Pooh Bear said:


> Exactly. The virgin is marriage material. You can fun with the wh*re, you just wouldn't marry her. But then if you are having fun with a wh*re what does that make you? Hmmmm.
> 
> Of course, this concept only applies to women. Men can have as much sex as they want and no one will ever call them a wh*re.


Maybe not the term ***** but are you implying that women don't have a standard and that they, as a whole, don't care about how many women a man slept with before getting in a monogamous relationship with someone? If so that is false. Some women hold the same level of judgement on such things as some men do.


----------



## Wolf1974

Pooh Bear said:


> Those sound like terms that a jilted girlfriend uses to complain about a cheating boyfriend. They are not as all encompassing as wh*re is for a woman. Men's sexuality is embraced. Boys are supposed to "sow their wild oats" before they settle down with the "virgin" girl. Are you telling me this is not a script in our society? Do I want men's sexuality to be degraded the way women's sexuality is? No. I want both to have a healthy sexuality, actually. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this language is good for men's sexuality either. We need to change the terms. *We need to allow both genders to embrace sexuality in a healthy way.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I would agree but I wouldn't call a concept of sleeping with every person you find under a rock in anyway healthy for men or women.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Wynfield said:


> This really comes down to the circumstances. I had amazing chemistry with one girl and she said something along the lines of "Just so you know I really never ever do this, I just can't take my hands off you," which was amazingly hot, and we kept it at oral.
> 
> If she's just looking to get laid then I would probably think of her less as relationship material just because we aren't having sex because she thinks I'm special; but I would still keep an open mind and go out on another date if everything else was ok.


:lol: It's not sex unless penis enters vagina?

Sorry. I couldn't help it. I don't need any touching or even conversation with her. If I'm kissing it's because I want her. I've already made up my mind. If we're adults, the only reason to stop is because she's heavily bleeding or we don't have contraception, in a case like that. I suppose there might be more reasons. I can't think of any as important as that, unless she is saving herself for marriage. Seems like she really is not, just her hymen, because her virginity is gone.


----------



## ConanHub

I actually reserve "wh0re" for actual prostitutes and women who cheat. Otherwise I use"slvt" but apply it evenly, regardless of gender.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf

intheory said:


> I remember this thread; and making an azz out of myself the first time around.
> 
> And I'm still seeing a lot of the same nasty sentiments. *Guys would have sex with this woman; but not consider her long term relationship material.*
> 
> While their own worthiness as LTR material is not affected; of course
> 
> I had sex quickly when I was young. The second night was the earliest. I never had orgasms, fwiw, but I loved the affection and attention; which I was desperate for.
> 
> Between then and now, I've had religious influences in my life. And of course the Christian approach is no sex before marriage; for both men and women.
> 
> While appreciating that; I do not judge people who have sex outside of marriage; and have it quickly. I understand it; at least from my perspective.
> 
> The double standard still makes me sick. Yuck.


Some guys would. Don't include me in on this. I won't have sex with her unless she knows I do not consider her marriage material and accepts that. I use the word marriage because I don't see much sense in getting into a relationship unless marriage is the goal. A relationship to me, is not one if it is not exclusive. The only reason for exclusion is to really find out if we would like to make that permanent. Dating will be enough to know who I would want to pursue further for marriage. Sex may or may not be included, pending the agreement above. Since I am not going to marry, I take myself out of this equation until I rectify my issues to some satisfactory level that would make me a possible candidate for marriage. If that doesn't happen or can't, I am finished.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Wow. This is a long thread going back over a year.

I see a lot of concern about double standards. Are double standards necessarily a bad thing? Is it possible that men and women have different attitudes toward promiscuity? If so, is that allowable? If not, should we force women to change their attitudes to match those of men, or should we force men to change theirs to match those of women?

Personally, I don't see much of a problem with double standards. If a woman is willing to consider marriage with a promiscuous man, how does that obligate him to consider her in the same light? Or vice versa?


----------



## *LittleDeer*

I love it when men pretend double standards don't exist, yet this thread is still going. 

Ahhh the hilarity. 

As for saying are double standards a bad thing? Ummm is that a real question? 

Is sexism and punishing women for simply having a vagina a bad thing?

Good lawd.


----------



## ConanHub

Interesting point Bronze. Not saying I agree but going to think on it. I am not one for absolute equal treatment of genders. Absolute equality but not across the board, exact same treatment of both genders in every situation.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

*LittleDeer* said:


> I love it when men pretend double standards don't exist, yet this thread is still going.
> 
> Ahhh the hilarity.
> 
> As for saying are double standards a bad thing? Ummm is that a real question?
> 
> Is sexism and punishing women for simply having a vagina a bad thing?
> 
> Good lawd.


Down woman! Who gave you permission to speak!?!? LOL!&#55357;&#56841;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## *LittleDeer*

ConanHub said:


> Down woman! Who gave you permission to speak!?!? LOL!��
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's just not funny unless you make a tired old sammich joke.


----------



## 2ntnuf

ConanHub said:


> Interesting point Bronze. Not saying I agree but going to think on it. I am not one for absolute equal treatment of genders. Absolute equality but not across the board, exact same treatment of both genders in every situation.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's not really equality. It's favoritism and entitlement. If that's what it takes, so be it, but I hate misrepresentation. I think it causes divorces and infidelity.


----------



## ConanHub

*LittleDeer* said:


> It's just not funny unless you make a tired old sammich joke.


Like get me a sammich woman? I'm pretty ham handed with the whole sammich thing. &#55357;&#56833;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

*LittleDeer* said:


> As for saying are double standards a bad thing? Ummm is that a real question?
> 
> Is sexism and punishing women for simply having a vagina a bad thing?
> 
> Good lawd.


So, in your opinion, different preferences by the sexes are not allowable. I assume that you would prefer to force men to change their attitudes rather than force women to change theirs, correct?

Does different preferences by men and women always equal sexism? If women found wealth to be a more attractive quality in men than men found it in women, would that be sexist? Would the women be sexist, or the men? Is it fair to say that one sex is punished by the preferences of the other? I wouldn't think so.


----------



## 2ntnuf

*LittleDeer* said:


> It's just not funny unless you make a tired old sammich joke.


I take this to mean, "heterosexual white males can never understand and cannot be trusted to be supporters of feminism". 

I tend to agree and my posts are usually controversial, at least in some way. If this stuff is not able to be completely understood and supported by heterosexual white men, there seems like there needs to be a duty of those who identify with feminism, to make it better understood, rather than use it to beat down those who do not.

I find the most vehement and boisterous supporters of feminism seem to have some horrible experience in their past. I am very sorry for those who have. I wish them nothing, but the very best going forward. I don't think hate will help anyone.


----------



## 2ntnuf

That link came up with an error. Here it is again. Maybe it won't be blocked this time.

http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/unveiling-madonna-*****-complex


----------



## 2ntnuf

BronzeTorpedo said:


> So, in your opinion, different preferences by the sexes are not allowable. *I assume that you would prefer to force men to change their attitudes rather than force women to change theirs, correct?*
> 
> Does different preferences by men and women always equal sexism? If women found wealth to be a more attractive quality in men than men found it in women, would that be sexist? Would the women be sexist, or the men? Is it fair to say that one sex is punished by the preferences of the other? I wouldn't think so.


Here is an example of this in a psychology today article written by a woman and whom I think also teaches a communication class. I imagine men and women will see something different when they look at who and how things were compromised to find a satisfactory solution. 

My personal opinion is that the husband compromised by setting aside his desire to fish the ocean, getting away from home and work, and took on more responsibility by suggesting they invite her parents for a month long stay. 

I say, he did a huge part of the sacrificing and all his wife sacrificed was increasing her workload at home. I suspect it won't increase as much as one might think, since the parent(s) will likely do some things to share in the additional work, and so will her husband. He does consider her work as equal and it will save them some money, if her parents share in the added cost of utilities, water, garbage and sewage, electricity, natural gas, gasoline, etc. 

None of these things were considered in the article and would seem quite male perspective. The conversation does not have enough length to get into any of that. I don't really blame her, but I do think it relates to how men and women differ in thinking and expectations, which seems to answer one of those questions in the quote above.

Here's the problem:



> When Joe and Alyssa wanted to plan their summer vacation, they unknowingly were setting themselves up for trouble. That was because Joe is male, and Alyssa female, and when it comes to shared decision-making, men rush too quickly to the finishline while women tend to dwell too long on exploring all the various aspects of the problem, moving too slowly toward a plan of action.
> 
> "When do you want to talk?" Alyssa asked Joe.
> 
> "Let's talk right now," Joe said with enthusiasm.
> 
> Alyssa responded, "No...it's too complicated now while the kids are downstaires. I'd rather wait until everyone's up in their rooms doing homework."
> 
> "Why did you ask me if you're not going to do what I suggest?" Joe said, clearly piqued.
> 
> Joe began the conversation. "Well this summer's planning will be easy. I'd love to plan a fishing trip with the boys."
> 
> Alyssa responded affectionately, "Yes, I know you love fishing and it's been a long time since we've done any. I'm thinking though that I'd love for all of us to have time with my folks. With them living in New England and us in Colorado, we hardly ever get to see them. With the boys already in their teens, they'll be off to college in no time and will hardly have spent time with their grandparents at all."
> 
> "Great!" Joe exclaimed. "Let's go fishing for a week, or even two, off the coast of Maine. That's a perfect plan. Fishing for me and the boys; grandparent visits for you. What's for dinner?"
> 
> Alyssa groaned.
> 
> "Why can't we communicate? This marriage is so frustrating!" she thought to herself, feeling irritated at Joe.
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ecision-making-difficulties?collection=162112


Here's the solution:



> "I've changed my mind," Joe said, "about what I think might be a good plan. Here's a new idea, a solution set. By that I mean a plan with pieces that should cover all the bases.
> 
> "I would love some day to take that fishing excursion on a boat in Maine. At the same time, especially given all these pieces of the puzzle that you and I have been talking about, now probably is not a great time. So instead let's schedule weekends fishing trips here in Colorado. It's been forever since I've been to Colorado mountain streams for fly-fishing, which I love, and which I've always wanted to teach the boys to do. We could schedule around the boys baseball team's events. And let's ask the boys to find jobs where they will have weekends off. .
> 
> "By going Colorado fly-fishing instead of taking a boat trip off the Maine coast, we still could have a batch of time with your parents. Actually we maybe could have even more time than if we flew to Maine. Now that they're retired, we could invite them to come out and stay with us for a month. That would be a whole lot cheaper way to enjoy time with them than flying us plus the three boys to Maine. Your folks would enjoy traveling here in the Wild West while your dad's legs and balance are still OK enough for him to be able to walk in the mountains. During the weekdays when we have to work, they could drive to beautiful places with manageable length hikes."
> 
> "I love that idea," Alyssa said. "I do worry about our finances. With this new plan, besides the air fare savings the fishing would be inexpensive because we could rent tents and camp out. It's still early enough in the year that we should be able to reserve choice camping sites. And if we broke the fishing up into two or three long-weekend trip, I'd hardly have to miss work, which is what gets really expensive given that at my new job I get paid by the hour instead of on a yearly salary."
> 
> "Are there any little pieces of this that still feel unfinished?" Joe asked.
> 
> "I hate to admit it," Joe added, answering his own question, "but staying in Colorado keeps me closer to my allergy doctors. That last asthma attack, the one last summer, was pretty terrifying."
> 
> Alyssa thought. "I agree! As for me, what's unfinished still is that I want to thank you for agreeing to take time to talk through all the different aspects of the decision before we made a definite plan."
> 
> Joe smiled. "And I want to thank you for agreeing to move on to actually formulating a plan of action. I can talk just so long about concerns. I feel hugely relieved when we actually figure out what we are going to do... Oh and one more thing. Since I won't have to take a full week or two off from work this summer, how about if we also plan to use my vacation time next winter for a getaway for the two of us?"
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ecision-making-difficulties?collection=162112


How do you see it? I'm guessing everyone is different with many women on one side, and many men the other. YMMV

He avoided a whole lot of heartache, and possibly his only chance to get to the ocean with his children. What he did, in my opinion is admirable and mature.


----------



## ConanHub

Was that an episode of Leave it to Beaver? I don't think I've ever had a conversation like that in my entire life.

I don't have issues with planning and compromise but the allergy comment really felt wimpy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

This is just uncalled for


----------



## *LittleDeer*

2ntnuf said:


> I take this to mean, "heterosexual white males can never understand and cannot be trusted to be supporters of feminism".
> 
> I tend to agree and my posts are usually controversial, at least in some way. If this stuff is not able to be completely understood and supported by heterosexual white men, there seems like there needs to be a duty of those who identify with feminism, to make it better understood, rather than use it to beat down those who do not.
> 
> I find the most vehement and boisterous supporters of feminism seem to have some horrible experience in their past. I am very sorry for those who have. I wish them nothing, but the very best going forward. I don't think hate will help anyone.


Assumptions and all that

I find it interesting that I met a joke made by a man with another joke and somehow that has been deduced to mean hate of some sort. 

Weird.

Also I am not sure what about feminism is perplexing.


----------



## ConanHub

Third date? Virgin prude! &#55357;&#56841;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

Still baffled this is going round and round . It's not that complicated. If you are fine with sex on first date then great. Want to sleep with 100+ people that's cool for you. Part of what defines the making of a relationship is the selection process. What you've done in your past is most certainly going to be judged. By some it doesn't matter and for others it will. All that matters in the end is that you find and be with people who are on the same page as you. Some men and women have a conservative view of sex....I'm one of them. I wouldn't have a realtionship with a woman who had so many sexual partners she needed calculus to figure it out. Doesn't mean she is a bad person just not for me is all. Some guys, several on here, would attribute this to be a great thing so it all works out. Same thing both ways for both genders


And the double standard thing....just don't see it in the real world as often as it seems to be talked about here. But ask yourselft this. If a potential date held themselves to a different standard than you...are they really marriagd material anyway? I would think no cause I sure wouldn't.


----------



## unbelievable

If I would approach a woman for sex on the first date, I could hardly assail her character if she accepted. She wouldn't be any more immoral than I would be. 
The quickest way to get rich in America is to sell something having to do with sex or advertise using sex and we didn't get that way because our men are a collection of Puritans. I expect most of the customers of all these enterprises are men who would consider themselves worthy husband material. 
If men want a faithful woman with solid morals, they probably should behave as if they were worthy of such a woman. I don't imagine I'd marry a woman who put out on the first date, but neither would I be dating a woman likely to nor would I put one in a situation where she would believe I expected sex on the first date. I wouldn't go to McDonalds looking for heath food, so it wouldn't make sense to troll in a bar looking for the mother of my kids.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

I don't know why people are expecting men and women to exhibit the same preferences in mate selection. Why would we? It would seem to me to be so obvious as to not need saying that men and women are fundamentally different and therefore seek different traits in a mate.

It also confuses me as to why people advise men seeking women to behave in a way that other men find attractive, rather than in a way that women find attractive. Being attractive to men wouldn't really accomplish the goal of obtaining women. If women don't value chastity as much as men do, why should men worry so much about remaining chaste?


----------



## Thundarr

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I don't know why people are expecting men and women to exhibit the same preferences in mate selection. Why would we? It would seem to me to be so obvious as to not need saying that men and women are fundamentally different and therefore seek different traits in a mate.
> 
> It also confuses me as to why people advise men seeking women to behave in a way that other men find attractive, rather than in a way that women find attractive. Being attractive to men wouldn't really accomplish the goal of obtaining women. If women don't value chastity as much as men do, why should men worry so much about remaining chaste?


These concepts are very simple but not popular. At the very least, we fuss about double standards when it's something we don't like but then we're quite as a mouse when it's something we do like. In real life it seems that women are the ones who slam each other the worst about sexuality. I suspect it's because they compete. Forum discussions don't do justice to reality on this one.


----------



## vellocet

Pooh Bear said:


> Those sound like terms that a jilted girlfriend uses to complain about a cheating boyfriend. They are not as all encompassing as wh*re is for a woman. Men's sexuality is embraced. Boys are supposed to "sow their wild oats" before they settle down with the "virgin" girl. Are you telling me this is not a script in our society? Do I want men's sexuality to be degraded the way women's sexuality is? No. I want both to have a healthy sexuality, actually. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this language is good for men's sexuality either. We need to change the terms. We need to allow both genders to embrace sexuality in a healthy way.


I hear ya, and understand what you are saying.

But even if those terms sound like they come from a jilted girlfriend, hey, if the shoe fits. They are jilted for a reason...because the guy is an azzhole.


----------



## vellocet

*LittleDeer* said:


> I love it when men pretend double standards don't exist, yet this thread is still going.


Who is saying they don't exist? Its obvious they do. Men have their double standards, so do women.

Having said that, I don't have one with this regard. I don't differentiate between a promiscuous man or woman. Just as I don't have any more respect for a man that cheats over a woman that does.


----------



## 2ntnuf

intheory said:


> Women being pure and chaste was often valued because men felt more secure that they were raising their own children.
> 
> But if men were also pure and chaste; they wouldn't ever be siring illegitimate children.
> 
> Yes, I believe it works both ways.
> 
> 2ntnuf; I don't completely understand your post. Are you saying that prior to having sex with a woman for the first time, on the first date; that you would inform her that she was about to be ruled out as a potential marriage partner?
> 
> Why, you silver-tongued devil, you.
> 
> Fwiw, I had sex with my H on our third date; although I had talked to him occasionally at work for about 8 months prior to that.
> 
> I haven't had sex with anyone else in the 30 years since. So, actually I was a pretty good gamble as LTR relationship material; wouldn't you say?


Have you ever had anyone tell you they are not interested in marriage? Have you ever accepted that and slept with them? If not, you will never understand. If so, did you think your sexual prowess and personality would change their mind? Maybe you didn't understand?


----------



## Anonymous07

Wolf1974 said:


> Still baffled this is going round and round . It's not that complicated. If you are fine with sex on first date then great. Want to sleep with 100+ people that's cool for you. Part of what defines the making of a relationship is the selection process. What you've done in your past is most certainly going to be judged. By some it doesn't matter and for others it will. All that matters in the end is that you find and be with people who are on the same page as you. Some men and women have a conservative view of sex....I'm one of them. I wouldn't have a realtionship with a woman who had so many sexual partners she needed calculus to figure it out. Doesn't mean she is a bad person just not for me is all. Some guys, several on here, would attribute this to be a great thing so it all works out. Same thing both ways for both genders
> 
> 
> And the double standard thing....just don't see it in the real world as often as it seems to be talked about here. But ask yourselft this. If a potential date held themselves to a different standard than you...are they really marriagd material anyway? I would think no cause I sure wouldn't.


I wholly agree with the first paragraph(be with someone who shares the same values on sex), but not the second. There are definitely double standards. My cousin slept around in high school, as did her bf at the time. He got high fives for being "the man", while she was slvt shamed. They had the same views on sex, but somehow she was "bad" and he was not. He told my cousin that he didn't respect her for sleeping with him so soon, but it's okay for him? He should have taken a look in the mirror before judging her.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Pooh Bear said:


> That doesn't have the negative connotation that wh*re does.


But that's because women don't care all that much, there is no judgement, no BIG Backlash.... if women would start *rejecting* these types of men , it would THEN start affecting their sex lives..now THAT WOULD BE earth shattering to the [email protected]#$.. but we all know this is not going to happen any time soon..

Women generally care more about getting married. a woman who cares about getting married , marrying a good man who cares about this sort of thing (WHICH THEY ALL DO NOT, many prefer the experienced woman)... but what if the Guy you want has issues with it.. it's the gamble we take.. or we resort to hiding, trying to cover it up. 

I don't know what to tell people.. live by your own moral code ...to what sex means to you.. and don't worry about others.. just know some people will not look favorably upon our choices.. but so what, they would not be someone we want anyway.. 

I get that we're all horny and want sex.. ME FREAKING TOO..I was a masturbating teen .... but what good is it to sleep with people who don't give a darn about us.. I find that absolutely demeaning , demoralizing and I'd spit on it....


----------



## Observer

My thought process when I was single was, I'm too old for games, if we hook up first date, awesome. At least I know early if we would be compatiable sexually, which for me was a must.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Observer said* :*My thought process when I was single was, I'm too old for games, if we hook up first date, awesome. At least I know early if we would be compatiable sexually, which for me was a must. The whole Madonna/Wh0re thing is for teens and 20's something mentality right?*


 Yep, that's the mentality alright.. and Boom, then you dump the broad.. when someone else catches your fancy & gives you a rise..... women should not sleep with guys quickly -unless they deem the sex so HOT it's worthy of getting dumped...

At least if they are dumped over NOT sleeping with them, a woman will know she was absolutely NOTHING special, not worth a little time to get to know...damn that speaks A LOT [email protected]#$... I feel there is wisdom in that. 

I don't see this as game playing and I actually find that offending but then again. it wouldn't matter.. those types were just as obnoxious to me as you feel about the game playing women who wants to hold out for an emotional connection 1st... I think anticipation, and taking it slow is a good thing.


----------



## Pooh Bear

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Wow. This is a long thread going back over a year.
> 
> I see a lot of concern about double standards. Are double standards necessarily a bad thing? Is it possible that men and women have different attitudes toward promiscuity? If so, is that allowable? If not, should we force women to change their attitudes to match those of men, or should we force men to change theirs to match those of women?
> 
> Personally, I don't see much of a problem with double standards. If a woman is willing to consider marriage with a promiscuous man, how does that obligate him to consider her in the same light? Or vice versa?


The double standard is about controlling women's sexuality. Women as a group have not built those standards. It's a complicated power system going back centuries in a male dominated culture. It affects us as individuals and our individual relationships and we can start to change it. The very question asked at the top of this post is that double standard. Why is that even important? Maybe you are both into having a good time for a night but why would you reject a woman immediately as relationship material for choosing to have sex on the first date. Not all men would. But the fact that a woman is even concerned about that means that there are a lot of men who would. Why is that?


----------



## Pooh Bear

Wolf1974 said:


> Maybe not the term ***** but are you implying that women don't have a standard and that they, as a whole, don't care about how many women a man slept with before getting in a monogamous relationship with someone? If so that is false. Some women hold the same level of judgement on such things as some men do.


No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there is a different sexual standard for men than there is for women. No woman I know would think less of a man who had sex on the first date. But men apparently do think less of women which is why the poster even thought about asking the question. And then there is the image for women of the bad boy philanderer who she was able to tame with her sweetness and goodness. I think that is what the whole 50 shades of gray book is about? Maybe. We have been fed that story so long and it is so not true. There are different standards for men and women.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Wolf1974 said:


> Pooh Bear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those sound like terms that a jilted girlfriend uses to complain about a cheating boyfriend. They are not as all encompassing as wh*re is for a woman. Men's sexuality is embraced. Boys are supposed to "sow their wild oats" before they settle down with the "virgin" girl. Are you telling me this is not a script in our society? Do I want men's sexuality to be degraded the way women's sexuality is? No. I want both to have a healthy sexuality, actually. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this language is good for men's sexuality either. We need to change the terms. *We need to allow both genders to embrace sexuality in a healthy way.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I would agree but I wouldn't call a concept of sleeping with every person you find under a rock in anyway healthy for men or women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really know whether sleeping with multiple people is healthy or not. Some people are comfortable with that and some are not. The problem is men are lauded for being able to sleep multiple women and women are degraded for the same behavior.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pooh Bear

BronzeTorpedo said:


> So, in your opinion, different preferences by the sexes are not allowable. I assume that you would prefer to force men to change their attitudes rather than force women to change theirs, correct?
> 
> Does different preferences by men and women always equal sexism? If women found wealth to be a more attractive quality in men than men found it in women, would that be sexist? Would the women be sexist, or the men? Is it fair to say that one sex is punished by the preferences of the other? I wouldn't think so.


You can't force anyone to do anything. But you can educate. I think that attitudes of what is attractive have changed over time and we are shaped by stories that we hear. It takes generations to change attitudes and the way people relate to each other. However, once someone suggests changing these attitudes there is pushback to keep it the same.


----------



## Pooh Bear

2ntnuf said:


> I take this to mean, "heterosexual white males can never understand and cannot be trusted to be supporters of feminism".
> 
> I tend to agree and my posts are usually controversial, at least in some way. If this stuff is not able to be completely understood and supported by heterosexual white men, there seems like there needs to be a duty of those who identify with feminism, to make it better understood, rather than use it to beat down those who do not.
> 
> I find the most vehement and boisterous supporters of feminism seem to have some horrible experience in their past. I am very sorry for those who have. I wish them nothing, but the very best going forward. I don't think hate will help anyone.


No way. Heterosexual white men can be feminists and are. Joseph Gordon-Levitt. We need white male support. And we all have hardships in our past. The does not mean that the only women who are feminists do it out of some past hurt. For me, it's mainly because I care about social justice and equality. I actually got that from my Christian background - from Jesus. Feminism is a natural extension because we are talking about that. Do you feel beat down by me, 2ntnuf?


----------



## Pooh Bear

*But that's because women don't care all that much, there is no judgement, no BIG Backlash.... if women would start rejecting these types of men , it would THEN start affecting their sex lives..now THAT WOULD BE earth shattering to the [email protected]#$*

Agreed.


----------



## Anonymous07

Pooh Bear said:


> The double standard is about controlling women's sexuality. Women as a group have not built those standards. It's a complicated power system going back centuries in a male dominated culture. It affects us as individuals and our individual relationships and we can start to change it. The very question asked at the top of this post is that double standard. Why is that even important? Maybe you are both into having a good time for a night but why would you reject a woman immediately as relationship material for choosing to have sex on the first date. Not all men would. But the fact that a woman is even concerned about that means that there are a lot of men who would. Why is that?


Yes there is a double standard and it does suck, but you have to choose whether or not you will allow it to control you. We all have to make choices for what we think is best and people all view sex differently. Some like myself don't want to sleep with multiple people, while others are fine with trying out different partners. Nothing wrong with either choice, but each person has to follow what they believe in whether or not others/the public agrees with them. I got called a "prude" for not putting out, but didn't allow that to change my views and found my husband who viewed sex the same as myself. If the guy views you as a "slvt", then move on because he obviously isn't the right one for you. Just as any guy who viewed me as a "prude" wasn't right for me either.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Anonymous07 said:


> Yes there is a double standard and it does suck, but you have to choose whether or not you will allow it to control you. We all have to make choices for what we think is best and people all view sex differently. Some like myself don't want to sleep with multiple people, while others are fine with trying out different partners. Nothing wrong with either choice, but each person has to follow what they believe in whether or not others/the public agrees with them. I got called a "prude" for not putting out, but didn't allow that to change my views and found my husband who viewed sex the same as myself. If the guy views you as a "slvt", then move on because he obviously isn't the right one for you. Just as any guy who viewed me as a "prude" wasn't right for me either.


I agree. And the more of us who are aware of the double standard and refuse to allow it to color our decisions, the more it will disappear.


----------



## Thundarr

Anonymous07 said:


> I wholly agree with the first paragraph(be with someone who shares the same values on sex), but not the second. There are definitely double standards. My cousin slept around in high school, as did her bf at the time. He got high fives for being "the man", while she was slvt shamed. They had the same views on sex, but somehow she was "bad" and he was not. He told my cousin that he didn't respect her for sleeping with him so soon, but it's okay for him? He should have taken a look in the mirror before judging her.


- So who's to blame? The boys, the girls, or everyone?
- What's the solution? Boys don't judge or girls start judging?

Honestly I think as we get older this stuff matter less and less but the double standard is pronounced during highschool.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Pooh Bear said:


> *But that's because women don't care all that much, there is no judgement, no BIG Backlash.... if women would start rejecting these types of men , it would THEN start affecting their sex lives..now THAT WOULD BE earth shattering to the [email protected]#$*
> 
> Agreed.


I believe you are the 1st woman on TAM to EVER take the time to agree with me on this very simple truth Pooh Bear...not like it's ever going to be tested though.... I'm so excited I wanted to give you one of of these... 













> *Anonymous07 said*: Yes there is a double standard and it does suck, but you have to choose whether or not you will allow it to control you. *We all have to make choices for what we think is best and people all view sex differently. Some like myself don't want to sleep with multiple people, while others are fine with trying out different partners. Nothing wrong with either choice, but each person has to follow what they believe in whether or not others/the public agrees with them. I got called a "prude" for not putting out, but didn't allow that to change my views and found my husband who viewed sex the same as myself. If the guy views you as a "slvt", then move on because he obviously isn't the right one for you. Just as any guy who viewed me as a "prude" wasn't right for me either.*


 At the end of the day.. sex and who we engage with should be something that we feel good about, as in any of our life choices, this is just one of many.. This was a link I put on another thread some time ago (now coming from me, it has a slightly conservative slant to it).. but I think we ALL could agree with it's ending (in green).. 



> Embrace your sexuality | Metro
> 
> *So, you like sex. Shame on you, right? *
> 
> Many women, from post-war baby boomers to the fresh-faced crop of Generation Y, still have problems dealing with—even acknowledging—their own sensuality and sexuality. We navigate a minefield of religious and societal sanctions, health hazards, and a global media that bombards us with sexual imagery while at the same time being capable of uttering the words Sex, Sin and whor** in the same sentence. What are we as women to do? We asked a few readers and friends about embracing our own sexuality, and here’s what they had to say: Sexuality doesn’t mean promiscuity. Being sexual doesn’t mean sleeping around.
> 
> It’s not the number of men you’ve slept with that make your sex life truly fulfilling, but the quality of the sex, and how you feel about yourself after, that count. A woman can be her truest sexual self within the confines of a monogamous relationship—as a matter of fact, that’s where most women find the sexual identity they were looking for. As one married male musician tells us, “Finding and embracing your sexual self doesn't necessarily mean shame or being a sl**, particularly if your explorations are within the bounds of a loving, responsible relationship.”
> 
> *Unshackle your mind*
> 
> Although religious and moral codes are invaluable to maintaining order, they’re still rooted in an age where a woman’s sexuality was taboo. Those of us who are strong in our faiths find ourselves conflicted: how do we remain true to what we believe while still finding personal, emotional and sexual fulfillment?
> 
> Here, the choice is a personal one. But as we try to solve a dilemma that can erroneously be seen as a choice between body and soul, remember that many of the admonitions against what a woman thinks, feels and does are mired in an age when we were barely allowed to do any of the above.
> 
> Even our secular sisters feel the weight of social opinion. It’s especially galling because the condemnation for acting on our sexual feelings falls upon us, rather than on the broader backs of our brothers.“Men count their ‘conquests’ as notches on their belt, but women are considered ‘*****s’,” one banker observes. An article on sexuality suggested, perhaps tongue in cheek, that when women are asked how many people they’ve slept with, they halve their ‘number’, while men double theirs.
> 
> *Find a safe place*
> 
> We can’t express our sexuality if we feel pressured or threatened. In order to be truly fulfilled, we need to find a safe place... and that ‘place’ doesn’t necessarily mean a location. Safety has to do with being with someone you trust, who will open his mind wide enough to help you open yours.“Finding a safe place” also means making your life a maco-free zone. It’s a small country, and everyone knows somebody who knows somebody who did this, that and the other with somebody else. “Discreet” isn’t synonymous with “prudish”. Being sexual doesn’t mean getting drunk enough to whip off your top while a dozen cell phones upload your antics to the World Wide Web. Don’t feed the gossips. Better yet, get them out of your life. Who needs friends who spend more time getting their jollies over other people’s lives than living for themselves?
> 
> *Remember, you’re not alone*
> 
> The insurance agent in the grey suit patiently explaining your claim form to you was probably blindfolded and tied up last night. Your post-lady has an account at SexToysRUs.com. “The actions that society condemns in public, it commits behind closed doors,” one man suggests. We all like sex. We’re programmed to like sex. People are having more sex than you could possibly imagine, even those who act like butter won’t melt in their mouths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The key to enjoying our own sexuality is to remember that it’s not about what ‘people’ would think, but what we think. How great sex makes us feel, what a healing, bonding joy it is. Set the boundaries you feel comfortable with and play within them. And for the sake of love, don’t be too hard on yourself.... friend adds, “You judge yourself way harder than society does.” Embracing our sexuality is a life-long journey towards self-discovery; get yourself a First Class ticket to ride.


----------



## unbelievable

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I don't know why people are expecting men and women to exhibit the same preferences in mate selection. Why would we? It would seem to me to be so obvious as to not need saying that men and women are fundamentally different and therefore seek different traits in a mate.
> 
> It also confuses me as to why people advise men seeking women to behave in a way that other men find attractive, rather than in a way that women find attractive. Being attractive to men wouldn't really accomplish the goal of obtaining women. If women don't value chastity as much as men do, why should men worry so much about remaining chaste?


It's not that I particularly value chastity but I do value good judgement and partnership ability. Someone who has a wide assortment of serious partners either has poor mate-selection skills or poor partnership skills. Neither identifies someone as great husband or wife material. If I wanted to hire an employee for a highly sensitive position, I wouldn't be interested in someone who had a history of job hopping, especially if most left their previous arrangement in less than friendly terms.


----------



## john117

unbelievable said:


> It's not that I particularly value chastity but I do value good judgement and partnership ability. Someone who has a wide assortment of serious partners either has poor mate-selection skills or poor partnership skills. Neither identifies someone as great husband or wife material. If I wanted to hire an employee for a highly sensitive position, I wouldn't be interested in someone who had a history of job hopping, especially if most left their previous arrangement in less than friendly terms.



Yet in LTRs such "experience" is often valued


----------



## Young at Heart

Sex on a first date is truly a cultural thing.

In some societies, it could lead to an "honor killing." In others it would be no big thing. In some south pacific cultures, women who have born children are more in demand as future wives as they have proven their ability to bear children.

For example the link below is an interesting discussion on sex as viewed from a French perspective. First date sex is no big deal if there is chemistry.

Sex with the French: Ten things you need to know The Local

In my opinion acquiring a virgin for a wife is highly over-rated.


----------



## Pooh Bear

SimplyAmorous said:


> I believe you are the 1st woman on TAM to EVER take the time to agree with me on this very simple truth Pooh Bear...not like it's ever going to be tested though.... I'm so excited I wanted to give you one of of these...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day.. sex and who we engage with should be something that we feel good about, as in any of our life choices, this is just one of many.. This was a link I put on another thread some time ago (now coming from me, it has a slightly conservative slant to it).. but I think we ALL could agree with it's ending (in green)..


Lol. You're silly, SimplyAmorous.


----------



## larry.gray

Pooh Bear said:


> *But that's because women don't care all that much, there is no judgement, no BIG Backlash.... if women would start rejecting these types of men , it would THEN start affecting their sex lives..now THAT WOULD BE earth shattering to the [email protected]#$*
> 
> Agreed.


Exactly what you describe is happening now.

20 years ago you had to be a total player to sleep around. Women were gatekeepers of sex, so it wasn't easy to be a man wh*re. 

Now it's easy. The number of women who'll have sex after a few dates are far more common. Men who rack up a high body count are looked down on instead of praised among the under 30 crowd.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anonymous07 said:


> I wholly agree with the first paragraph(be with someone who shares the same values on sex), but not the second. There are definitely double standards. My cousin slept around in high school, as did her bf at the time. He got high fives for being "the man", while she was slvt shamed. They had the same views on sex, but somehow she was "bad" and he was not. He told my cousin that he didn't respect her for sleeping with him so soon, but it's okay for him? He should have taken a look in the mirror before judging her.


Ok and you didn't read the part where I said that if they acted in such away that they have show thier cards to be a hypocrite don't consider them marriage material anyway? Many people on the planet are *******s and If someone has a double standard then why would you even want to be around that?


And if he told your cousin that he didn't respect her for sleeping with him so soon then they DIDNt have the same views on sex and intamcy after all. He lied.


----------



## Wolf1974

Pooh Bear said:


> No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there is a different sexual standard for men than there is for women. *No woman I know would think less of a man who had sex on the first date*. But men apparently do think less of women which is why the poster even thought about asking the question. And then there is the image for women of the bad boy philanderer who she was able to tame with her sweetness and goodness. I think that is what the whole 50 shades of gray book is about? Maybe. We have been fed that story so long and it is so not true. There are different standards for men and women.


Ok. I can't dispute the people you know. I can promise you I have met plenty Women who do have this view. And it's one I respect as well


----------



## Wolf1974

larry.gray said:


> Exactly what you describe is happening now.
> 
> 20 years ago you had to be a total player to sleep around. Women were gatekeepers of sex, so it wasn't easy to be a man wh*re.
> 
> Now it's easy. The number of women who'll have sex after a few dates are far more common. Men who rack up a high body count are looked down on instead of praised among the under 30 crowd.


Bump thay to the 40 and under crowd and I agree. This has been my experience as well. Every time I have wanted to be intimate with a potential realtionship partner and ask about sexual history not once did they miss the opportunity to ask the same in return. They were making a decision if we were compatable same as I was .


----------



## Lone Shadow

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> Yup!!! That's exactly what happened although there was genuine sttraction, not just physically.


For me, drunk sex is a big no-no. Doesn't matter how much mutual attraction there was while sober. I've seen and heard of too many people getting burned because, come morning, she had second thoughts and decided to cry rape. In the military, this happens all the time.

You want me? Great. Call me when you're sober.


----------



## 2ntnuf

intheory said:


> I didn't judge them. And I wouldn't expect to be judged by them either. I didn't expect them to want to marry me; *or* rule me out as the type of woman who was marriageable.
> 
> My husband and I just clicked. Neither one of us held it "against" the other for having sex by the third date. Neither one of us expected to be getting married at that time.
> 
> But we did get serious and exclusive quickly.


So, where is all this judging coming from? I don't understand. You think if one man doesn't think you are marriage material for him, you are not marriage material for anyone? I don't get what you are trying to point out to me? Where did I say that someone was not marriage material for anyone, except when I stated that I might not be marriage material for anyone if I don't work on myself and get to some, I forget how I put it, satisfactory level? You seem like you are trying to make something out of nothing. Who are you talking about? What the hell are you talking about??


----------



## 2ntnuf

Pooh Bear said:


> No way. Heterosexual white men can be feminists and are. Joseph Gordon-Levitt.


I'll have to look him up.



Pooh Bear said:


> We need white male support. And we all have hardships in our past. The does not mean that the only women who are feminists do it out of some past hurt.


I know that. I think I said it seems like... 

I do understand you feel like you need to defend something. Not sure what.



Pooh Bear said:


> For me, it's mainly because I care about social justice and equality. I actually got that from my Christian background - from Jesus. Feminism is a natural extension because we are talking about that. Do you feel beat down by me, 2ntnuf?


What I feel is irrelevant. Your opinion is noted.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*I do understand you feel like you need to defend something. Not sure what.*

What's confusing?


----------



## 2ntnuf

Thundarr said:


> - So who's to blame? The boys, the girls, or everyone?
> - What's the solution? Boys don't judge or girls start judging?
> 
> Honestly I think as we get older this stuff matter less and less but the double standard is pronounced during highschool.


Puberty and immaturity has a lot to do with it. Mothers will tell daughters, "You don't want them to treat you like a **** do you? No decent man will want you." Stuff like that. In reality, it's pretty much like you state here. It becomes less important as we mature and age. Everything below is just a general diatribe. Only this first paragraph was in answer to the above quote.

I have to agree with SA. Don't give in to just anyone. Obviously, there are many women here who never talked about what the goal was that some man was looking to achieve. We have one here and likely many more who don't take these steps to find out and likely don't care, until they decide it's important. Somehow, they changed their minds and now the world has to change to accommodate them and the lifestyle they chose. 

That's a double standard as much as anything else. It's horrible to force anyone to comply with what others think. The whole movement seems to be about accepting we are equals and that's good, until fill in the blank. So, really it should be about acceptance. If you are a sales person and a woman, you should make as much as a man in the same position, if your sales are equal and you both miss the same amount of work and so on and so forth are equal. No problem. 

Each of us proves our worth within that particular position for our own personal merits. What is it that has to change about sex? We all have to accept each other as being just as marriage worthy as everyone else? Then go marry a proven abusive man and have sex and children and live with him. Go marry a known prostitute who is an addict, if male. If you want to take that chance, and there are those who will, more power to you. Don't come and tell anyone else they have to marry the same person. How is that a feminist problem?

Edited for some grammatical errors.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Something I thought was humorous and relevant is, I don't like the taste of brussels sprouts. Would you force me to eat them because you like the taste of them and eat them? Silly? Well, that's what I think this whole argument is.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Pooh Bear said:


> *I do understand you feel like you need to defend something. Not sure what.*
> 
> What's confusing?


See, I thought it was self explanatory. What is it you are defending?


----------



## Pooh Bear

2ntnuf said:


> See, I thought it was self explanatory. What is it you are defending?


Lol. Equality.


----------



## 2ntnuf

2ntnuf said:


> Puberty and immaturity has a lot to do with it. Mothers will tell daughters, "You don't want them to treat you like a **** do you? No decent man will want you." Stuff like that. In reality, it's pretty much like you state here. It becomes less important as we mature and age. Everything below is just a general diatribe. Only this first paragraph was in answer to the above quote.
> 
> I have to agree with SA. Don't give in to just anyone. Obviously, there are many women here who never talked about what the goal was that some man was looking to achieve. We have one here and likely many more who don't take these steps to find out and likely don't care, until they decide it's important. Somehow, they changed their minds and now the world has to change to accommodate them and the lifestyle they chose.
> 
> That's a double standard as much as anything else. It's horrible to force anyone to comply with what others think. The whole movement seems to be about accepting we are equals and that's good, until fill in the blank. So, really it should be about acceptance. If you are a sales person and a woman, you should make as much as a man in the same position, if your sales are equal and you both miss the same amount of work and so on and so forth are equal. No problem.
> 
> Each of us proves our worth within that particular position for our own personal merits. What is it that has to change about sex? We all have to accept each other as being just as marriage worthy as everyone else? Then go marry a proven abusive man and have sex and children and live with him. Go marry a known prostitute who is an addict, if male. If you want to take that chance, and there are those who will, more power to you. Don't come and tell anyone else they have to marry the same person. How is that a feminist problem?
> 
> Edited for some grammatical errors.





Personal said:


> Saving oneself for marriage certainly doesn't prevent one from marrying an abuser or an addict etc.


You quoted this section of my post:
"Each of us proves our worth within that particular position for our own personal merits. What is it that has to change about sex? We all have to accept each other as being just as marriage worthy as everyone else? Then go marry a proven abusive man and have sex and children and live with him. Go marry a known prostitute who is an addict, if male. If you want to take that chance, and there are those who will, more power to you. Don't come and tell anyone else they have to marry the same person."

How did you get what you wrote out of what I posted?


----------



## 2ntnuf

Pooh Bear said:


> Lol. Equality.


So, if I don't like brussels sprouts you'll make me eat them because you like them and we should be equal?


----------



## Pooh Bear

2ntnuf said:


> So, if I don't like brussels sprouts you'll make me eat them because you like them and we should be equal?


No. But we should both have the option to eat brussel sprouts. Say some law says all white men with blue eyes are not allowed to eat brussel sprouts. But some white men with blue eyes love brussel sprouts. That would not be right. 

And equality is more complicated in the context I am talking about because it is a lot of social norms, language, imagery. We silence people in ways we are not entirely aware of.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Personal said:


> :rofl: They'll never buy it!


Most buy it when it actually is equal. I know I do. I want women to have the right to their opinion, to vote, to get an abortion, to marry whomever they want, to...not sure I can think of all the things covered by the movement, but I agree with many of the ideas if not all. 

I just don't think preference in wives has anything to do with equality and no one has proven it does to my satisfaction. It's more like a banner waved when someone gets their feelings hurt because they chose to do things that some don't like. There is nothing that I am trying to make every man agree with. I can't and I won't, but I do have an opinion as valid for me as yours is for you. That would be equality if you actually believed that.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Pooh Bear said:


> No. But we should both have the option to eat brussel sprouts. Say some law says all white men with blue eyes are not allowed to eat brussel sprouts. But some white men with blue eyes love brussel sprouts. That would not be right.
> 
> And equality is more complicated in the context I am talking about because it is a lot of social norms, language, imagery. We silence people in ways we are not entirely aware of.


What law says we are not allowed to choose who we want to marry? Would that be equal? You see, brussels sprouts don't have an opinion like a man or woman. At least none that they've expressed to me. 

Do you want to take away my right to choose what I think is best for me so that you can have what you think is best for you? Don't we all have a different set of values? Aren't my values important? 

Who said a brussels sprout can't try to marry a blue eyed man? What law forbids that? Can you post a link? Can you post a valid reason why that brussels sprout must marry that man or tha man must marry that brussels sprout? I don't see that as equality. We each have a right to choose what is best for each of us. It's our lives. We do the best we can with what we have to work with. That doesn't mean I have the right to force a brussels sprout to marry me or that a brussels sprout has the right to force me to marry them. Get me? 

This is killing my appetite, by the way. Why are you all picking on me? What specifically did I say that is the opposite of equality?


----------



## Pooh Bear

2ntnuf said:


> What law says we are not allowed to choose who we want to marry? Would that be equal? You see, brussels sprouts don't have an opinion like a man or woman. At least none that they've expressed to me.
> 
> Do you want to take away my right to choose what I think is best for me so that you can have what you think is best for you? Don't we all have a different set of values? Aren't my values important?
> 
> Who said a brussels sprout can't try to marry a blue eyed man? What law forbids that? Can you post a link? Can you post a valid reason why that brussels sprout must marry that man or tha man must marry that brussels sprout? I don't see that as equality. We each have a right to choose what is best for each of us. It's our lives. We do the best we can with what we have to work with. That doesn't mean I have the right to force a brussels sprout to marry me or that a brussels sprout has the right to force me to marry them. Get me?
> 
> This is killing my appetite, by the way. Why are you all picking on me? What specifically did I say that is the opposite of equality?


That's not the root of the problem, 2ntnuf. The problem is judging a woman based on her sexuality and putting women into these categories of she is either a virgin or she is a wh*re. The virgin has been deemed marriage material. Many of us women will take this in subconciously, as do men, and it negatively impacts our sexuality. Because we will make choices based on the fact that we don't want to be a wh*re. Or, we will flagrantly defy that stereotype but other people have a negative impression of us. You hear, if she will sleep with you on the first date she is not marriage material. That is part of this stereotype. Outright rejecting someone solely based on the fact that she would sleep with you on the first date, although that is exactly what you are doing. Yeah, someone could have a value system that men or women who will sleep with you on the first date are not marriage material. That has not been the traditional conversation, however. The very fact that this poster asked that question in the men's forum shows that this stereotype of a sexual verses non-sexual woman is still alive and well.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Personal said:


> My take of the part I quoted, is that there's an implication through the use of hyperbole "_Then go marry a proven abusive man and have sex and children and live with him. Go marry a known prostitute who is an addict, if male._". That a woman is somehow more valuable if they keep their legs closed For if they don't keep their legs closed one would do no worse marrying an abuser or a drug addicted prostitute.
> 
> Yet the reality is saving oneself or enjoying oneself is neither moral nor immoral.


And there are those who believe it is moral or immoral. Are you saying they don't have the right to believe that? I say, equality means everyone is allowed to believe what they want, as long as they don't force me to comply with their beliefs, and as long as what I believe does not limit what they can do.

I see this as a religious thing. So, to go down that dangerous path, please find the quote Jesus made according the KJV Bible, where He(capitalized out of my respect and upbringing) said anyone had to do anything. In actuality, He did not. He said there were consequences, but did not force anyone to do a thing. 

If you take drugs and become an addict, your body will suffer. You will likely spend your time looking for ways to make as much money as an addict can make for as little work as possible to be able to buy more and more drugs and be high as long as possible. If you want to quit, you will go through a hell of a time trying. Some make it and some don't. Those are consequences. 

Those consequences include that some folks will not want to marry that person who chose to do those things. Right or wrong(morality) is not a consequence of going to heaven or hell by my decision, nor any other human's decision. It isn't up to me. If you want to say that my beliefs cause me to exclude someone who has had an abortion from the women I might chose to marry, because she has not repented and I believe it's wrong and will send them to hell, that's not an issue of equality. 

If I say that you can't have an abortion because of my religion, that is wrong, in my personal opinion. To understand my thinking, look back to where I posted that Jesus didn't force anyone to do anything. He told them what they had to do, and if they decided that wasn't for them, He walked away and went about His business. Equality was in the consequences, because they were the same for men or women. Freedom was in the right to decide how each individual wanted to live.

You can see some of my thoughts on this in the P&R section as I've posted there on this topic. I think I've answered you. You may not like my answer. That's okay. I don't need you to like my answer. You have the right to your own.


----------



## EleGirl

2ntnuf,

I think that you are missing the point. No one is saying that people cannot have their own criteria for choosing who they marry.

What is being said is that if a man and women have sex on the first date then the man and women are equal in the moral sense relation to having sex on that first date. If she's a [email protected] for having sex on a first date.. well than he's a [email protected] as well. 

Labeling women to slvt shame women for doing the exact same thing that men are cheered on for is just nonsense.

Women having sex is no more morally right/wrong then men doing the exact same thing.

If a man is a mam [email protected], but then looks down an women who are just like him... in my book he's scum bag, a hypocrite. 

I'm not suggesting that anyone should or should not sleep around. I'm only saying that it is no different if a man or woman does the same thing.


----------



## WandaJ

If a man rejects a woman, because she slept with him on the first date, what does that says about him? That he has no respect for himself? BFor her? because of what? - because he slept with a woman on the first date, Or because he slept with the woman who would sleep with him on the first date? It was ok for him, but not for her? or he does not respect that woman for sleeping with him, because he thinks anyone interested in him is suspicious?

If you do not respect woman sleeping with you on the first date - DON'T SLEEP with her on the first date. problem solved.


----------



## 2ntnuf

EleGirl said:


> 2ntnuf,
> 
> I think that you are missing the point. No one is saying that people cannot have their own criteria for choosing who they marry.
> 
> What is being said is that if a man and women have sex on the first date then the man and women are equal in the moral sense relation to having sex on that first date.* If she's a [email protected] for having sex on a first date.. well than he's a [email protected] as well.*
> 
> Labeling women to slvt shame women for doing the exact same thing that men are cheered on for is just nonsense.
> 
> Women having sex is no more morally right/wrong then men doing the exact same thing.
> 
> If a man is a mam [email protected], but then looks down an women who are just like him... in my book he's scum bag, a hypocrite.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that anyone should or should not sleep around. I'm only saying that it is no different if a man or woman does the same thing.


Where have I said they are not the same? That's what I've been asking. Folks keep quoting me and making insinuations that I think women are not equal to men and I don't see it. I just have an opinion that I, yes me, only me, I would not want to marry a woman who was not compatible. I don't see the problem with that, but many here do. 

I don't care if they sleep around, as long as they don't try tricking me into sleeping with them. If they want to be honest, then I'd respect that more than dishonesty. Doesn't everyone?

That may exclude them because of my personal beliefs, from my list, but it won't exclude them from everyone's. I don't get all the hatred. At issue is, we all have different ideas in our heads that we think is the best and most accepted way to interact and some here think they understand due to stereotyping and personal mental judgments of others. You see, they've turned it around and judged me, when I actually did not judge anyone. 

I don't see the issue with equality in my posts. I really don't. I can't speak for anyone else. I don't have that right and don't want it. Why do they think that's what I was doing? That's what I don't understand.


----------



## Pooh Bear

2ntnuf said:


> Where have I said they are not the same? That's what I've been asking. Folks keep quoting me and making insinuations that I think women are not equal to men and I don't see it. I just have an opinion that I, yes me, only me, I would not want to marry a woman who was not compatible. I don't see the problem with that, but many here do.
> 
> I don't care if they sleep around, as long as they don't try tricking me into sleeping with them. If they want to be honest, then I'd respect that more than dishonesty. Doesn't everyone?
> 
> That may exclude them because of my personal beliefs, from my list, but it won't exclude them from everyone's. I don't get all the hatred. At issue is, we all have different ideas in our heads that we think is the best and most accepted way to interact and some here think they understand due to stereotyping and personal mental judgments of others. You see, they've turned it around and judged me, when I actually did not judge anyone.
> 
> I don't see the issue with equality in my posts. I really don't. I can't speak for anyone else. I don't have that right and don't want it. Why do they think that's what I was doing? That's what I don't understand.


Noone thinks you don't believe that men and women are equal, 2ntnuf. At least I don't think that. We were talking about an overall societal issue and how women are affected by it. Each individual responds to it differently and it does not sound like you have those values. Yay. Enough people do that it makes it a problem. That's all. I think it is wise to be careful when choosing a marriage partner and to find someone who has similar values.


----------



## 2ntnuf

So, what you are all saying is you don't want to be called names and especially not by a man who does the same? I agree and I also think it's a problem of maturity. 

I think you also mean you don't want to be called a name if the guy does not sleep around and the woman does? I agree with that. Again, it's a lack of maturity. 

Do you think it is wrong for a woman to hide her past from a man who does not want to sleep with women who sleep around, think she doesn't, because she doesn't think there is anything wrong with it? 

Would he then be a hypocrite?


----------



## 2ntnuf

Personal said:


> EleGirl response as linked below pretty much covers it.


And there have been many posts directed at me personally to the contrary.


----------



## EleGirl

2ntnuf said:


> Where have I said they are not the same? That's what I've been asking. Folks keep quoting me and making insinuations that I think women are not equal to men and I don't see it. I just have an opinion that I, yes me, only me, I would not want to marry a woman who was not compatible. I don't see the problem with that, but many here do.
> 
> I don't care if they sleep around, as long as they don't try tricking me into sleeping with them. If they want to be honest, then I'd respect that more than dishonesty. Doesn't everyone?
> 
> That may exclude them because of my personal beliefs, from my list, but it won't exclude them from everyone's. I don't get all the hatred. At issue is, we all have different ideas in our heads that we think is the best and most accepted way to interact and some here think they understand due to stereotyping and personal mental judgments of others. You see, they've turned it around and judged me, when actually did not judge anyone.
> 
> I don't see the issue with equality in my posts. I really don't. I can't speak for anyone else. I don't have that right and don't want it. Why do they think that's what I was doing? That's what I don't understand.


 The last few posts of yours that I read, you are saying that no one can tell another person who to pick a spouse. My post was to point out that this is not the topic. 

If you agree that there is no different between a man and a woman who have done the same things then there is no issue. 

No one is telling you that you cannot pick a mate based on any criteria that you want to use. So I guess I tried to clarify that I don’t see any one suggesting this to you.

I think that there is a big misunderstanding going on in this discussion. I don’t think anyone is accusing you of hate, or of being unfair, or not believing in equality. It think that they are just saying that they have a problem when someone (not you) judges women as being a [email protected], etc… while not holding men to the same standard.

And no one is saying that you, or anyone else, cannot have your own criteria for choosing a mate. 

No one is jumping on you.


----------



## 2ntnuf

WandaJ said:


> If a man rejects a woman, because she slept with him on the first date, what does that says about him? That he has no respect for himself? BFor her? because of what? - because he slept with a woman on the first date, Or because he slept with the woman who would sleep with him on the first date? It was ok for him, but not for her? or he does not respect that woman for sleeping with him, because he thinks anyone interested in him is suspicious?
> 
> If you do not respect woman sleeping with you on the first date - DON'T SLEEP with her on the first date. problem solved.


I know this wasn't directed at me, just the thread, but I thought of a question.

There are many reasons which can be researched right here at TAM for a man or a woman to exclude someone as a candidate for marriage, but not sex. Many women and men here have posted about sleeping around, on the first date or whatever. That's their business. Did they marry each of them? No? Then they could have slept with them just for the sex? Did they then marry someone with less of a background or past? Some did and some didn't. If they are happy, we say "good for you". This post of yours has nothing to do with **** shaming and more to do with feeling rejected, as many many others in this thread.


----------



## EleGirl

2ntnuf said:


> Do you think it is wrong for a woman to hide her past from a man who does not want to sleep with women who sleep around, think she doesn't, because she doesn't think there is anything wrong with it?
> 
> Would he then be a hypocrite?


I think that if a man asks a woman about her sexual past before he has sex with her and she lies about it, then she's done something wrong.

In this case the definition of 'sleeping around' is rather arbitrary because I assume he's not married to her. So if he has sex with her, then he's sleeping around. How many past sex partners qualify for sleeping around? How many relationships, lengths of relationship, types of sexual encounters count for sleeping around?

If the number of sex partners a woman has had in the past and the types of sexual encounters (e.g. one night stands) are important to a man then he needs to talk to the woman BEFORE they have sex. If he does not, then he's doing something wrong. The same goes in reverse if this is important to a woman.

Honesty all the way around is what matters. And doing all this checking of history and qualifications needs to be done BEFORE having sex.


----------



## 2ntnuf

EleGirl said:


> The last few posts of yours that I read, you are saying that no one can tell another person who to pick a spouse. My post was to point out that this is not the topic.
> 
> If you agree that there is no different between a man and a woman who have done the same things then there is no issue.
> 
> No one is telling you that you cannot pick a mate based on any criteria that you want to use. So I guess I tried to clarify that I don’t see any one suggesting this to you.
> 
> I think that there is a big misunderstanding going on in this discussion. I don’t think anyone is accusing you of hate, or of being unfair, or not believing in equality. It think that they are just saying that they have a problem when someone (not you) judges women as being a [email protected], etc… while not holding men to the same standard.
> 
> And no one is saying that you, or anyone else, cannot have your own criteria for choosing a mate.
> 
> No one is jumping on you.


I allowed myself to be led down that path that tended to be off topic, by answering questions that were off topic and following the previous posts in the thread. You can go back several pages and see how this developed with or without me, as I was gone for some time. 

I also wanted to show where those members who were quoting me and giving their opinions, were mistaken about what they thought I was saying. I guess I have to learn to ignore their baiting. I didn't think it was baiting. I thought it was on topic for quite some time.


----------



## 2ntnuf

EleGirl said:


> I think that if a man asks a woman about her sexual past before he has sex with her and she lies about it, then she's done something wrong.
> 
> In this case the definition of 'sleeping around' is rather arbitrary because I assume he's not married to her. So if he has sex with her, then he's sleeping around. How many past sex partners qualify for sleeping around? How many relationships, lengths of relationship, types of sexual encounters count for sleeping around?
> 
> If the number of sex partners a woman has had in the past and the types of sexual encounters (e.g. one night stands) are important to a man then he needs to talk to the woman BEFORE they have sex. If he does not, then he's doing something wrong. The same goes in reverse if this is important to a woman.
> 
> Honesty all the way around is what matters. And doing all this checking of history and qualifications needs to be done BEFORE having sex.


In my example, they are both unmarried. 

This talk would assuredly exclude him from marriage with many women. Would that also be off topic or would it seem like she is reverse **** shaming? She didn't call him a name. Is that the only reason it's **** shaming, because he calls her a name or is it also because of the way he thinks? Because, that's how we got off topic. Others brought that up.


----------



## EleGirl

WandaJ said:


> If a man rejects a woman, because she slept with him on the first date, what does that says about him? That he has no respect for himself? BFor her? because of what? - because he slept with a woman on the first date, Or because he slept with the woman who would sleep with him on the first date? It was ok for him, but not for her? or he does not respect that woman for sleeping with him, because he thinks anyone interested in him is suspicious?
> 
> If you do not respect woman sleeping with you on the first date - DON'T SLEEP with her on the first date. problem solved.





2ntnuf said:


> There are many reasons which can be researched right here at TAM for a man or a woman to exclude someone as a candidate for marriage, but not sex. Many women and men here have posted about sleeping around, on the first date or whatever. That's their business. Did they marry each of them? No? Then they could have slept with them just for the sex? Did they then marry someone with less of a background or past? Some did and some didn't. If they are happy, we say "good for you". This post of yours has nothing to do with **** shaming and more to do with feeling rejected, as many many others in this thread.


I disagree that WandJ’s post is just about feeling rejected. She clearly that the only reason the guy rejected the women is because she had sex with him on the first date. She was clearly rejected because of his judgment that she’s a [email protected]/slvt and only worthy of being used for sex and then discarded.

I've heard a lot of guys talk about women this way. That they just used her for sex. Since she had sex so easily she's just as slvt, etc. 

There are a lot of posts by men on this thread in which men have clearly stated that this is their point of view. They are glad to use a women for sex but then they would not want anything more to do with her because they judge her as a slvt, etc etc. Basically these guys feel morally superior to the women that do the same thing that they do.


----------



## 2ntnuf

EleGirl said:


> I disagree that WandJ’s post is just about feeling rejected. She clearly that the only reason the guy rejected the women is because she had sex with him on the first date. She was clearly rejected because of his judgment that she’s a [email protected]/slvt and only worthy of being used for sex and then discarded.
> 
> I've heard a lot of guys talk about women this way. That they just used her for sex. Since she had sex so easily she's just as slvt, etc.
> 
> There are a lot of posts by men on this thread in which men have clearly stated that this is their point of view. They are glad to use a women for sex but then they would not want anything more to do with her because they judge her as a slvt, etc etc. Basically these guys feel morally superior to the women that do the same thing that they do.


How is it clear to you in her post? Quote what this guy said that makes it **** shaming. If you believe that he is **** shaming and not determining compatible candidates for marriage through several criteria not connected to first date sex, please show me how you know that? I don't think we can tell from that description. It's perceived as the reason.


----------



## EleGirl

2ntnuf said:


> In my example, they are both unmarried.


I assumed that. So if he has sex with her, then he is also promiscuous.



2ntnuf said:


> This talk would assuredly exclude him from marriage with many women.


Do you mean that a lot of women would reject the idea of marrying a man who asks them how many sex partners she has had? I am sure that some women would find that off putting.

I actually never knew that men cared about such things unit I joined TAM. No man in my entire life has asked me how many sex partners I've had. Nor have I been asked about if I've had one night stands or what sorts of positions, etc. that I've done. 

And I have to admit that after some of the awful things I've read men say on TAM about these topics I'd be very leery of any man who started to bring this up. Why? Because I've read too many posts by men here on TAM about how if a woman has done x with some guy in the past she'd better do it with him... she has no right to now decide that she does not like x, that it hurts, etc. She has to do it with him. And I've read too many posts of men going on and on about not being able to handle their gf/wife's past sex life.. even if it's only been one or two guys. 





2ntnuf said:


> Would that also be off topic or would it seem like she is reverse **** shaming? She didn't call him a name. Is that the only reason it's **** shaming, because he calls her a name or is it also because of the way he thinks?
> 
> Because, that's how we got off topic. Others brought that up.


If a woman does not want to be with a man if he has asked her about her past sex life.. how would that be "reverse slvt shaming?"

If she does not want to be with him because he's had a lot of past sex partners. Is that slvt shaming whether she calls him a name or not? Well, it's her rejecting him because of his past sex life. So it's the same thing isn't it? However there does not exist the societal history of men being shamed for having a lot of sex partners. Men are generally encouraged to get as much sex as they can. So I'm not sure that it's quite the same on that level.


----------



## EleGirl

WandaJ said:


> If a man rejects a woman, because she slept with him on the first date, what does that says about him? That he has no respect for himself?





2ntnuf said:


> How is it clear to you in her post? Quote what this guy said that makes it **** shaming. If you believe that he is **** shaming and not determining compatible candidates for marriage through several criteria not connected to first date sex, please show me how you know that? I don't think we can tell from that description. It's perceived as the reason.


Are you saying that unless WandaJ gives a blow by blow account of what happened between the man and woman to include what he said or did to her to let her know that he was glad to use her for sex but now he judged her as a [email protected] for having sex with him… then it’s not true that he rejected her because she had sex with him? 

Why are you rejecting going with her scenario as stated? Do you think it’s not possible that some men have sex with women and then have nothing further to do with them, rejecting the woman based on the fact that she has sex on the first date or very early on? It happens all the time.

There are many posts on this thread by men who have said that the fact that the woman has sex with them on the first date is a deal beaker. So they will have sex with her. But she's beneath them in their eyes solely because she had sex with them on the first date.


----------



## 2ntnuf

EleGirl said:


> I assumed that. So if he has sex with her, then he is also promiscuous.


promiscuous
[pruh-mis-kyoo-uh s] 
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.
2.
consisting of parts, elements, or individuals of different kinds brought together without order.
3.
indiscriminate; without discrimination.
4.
casual; irregular; haphazard.
Promiscuous | Define Promiscuous at Dictionary.com

They could be depending on how often(I think that's opinionated) it happens.




EleGirl said:


> Do you mean that a lot of women would reject the idea of marrying a man who asks them how many sex partners she has had? I am sure that some women would find that off putting.


There have been many many threads about that. If you have not seen at least one and formed an opiinion, I'd be surprised. However, that's a bit off topic. Don't you think? 



EleGirl said:


> I actually never knew that men cared about such things unit I joined TAM. No man in my entire life has asked me how many sex partners I've had. Nor have I been asked about if I've had one night stands or what sorts of positions, etc. that I've done.


Compatibility in all things is important. Don't you think? The less compatible, the higher chance of unhappiness, and who knows where after that. Disagree? 



EleGirl said:


> And I have to admit that after some of the awful things I've read men say on TAM about these topics I'd be very leery of any man who started to bring this up. Why? Because I've read too many posts by men here on TAM about how if a woman has done x with some guy in the past she'd better do it with him... she has no right to now decide that she does not like x, that it hurts, etc. She has to do it with him. And I've read too many posts of men going on and on about not being able to handle their gf/wife's past sex life.. even if it's only been one or two guys.


This is all off topic.



EleGirl said:


> If a woman does not want to be with a man if he has asked her about her past sex life.. how would that be "reverse slvt shaming?"


It would be a value she holds to when selecting a partner for marriage. I don't think it's wrong for her to have that value. I think it's good to have values. 



EleGirl said:


> If she does not want to be with him because he's had a lot of past sex partners. Is that slvt shaming whether she calls him a name or not? Well, it's her rejecting him because of his past sex life. So it's the same thing isn't it?


It's not the same thing to me. It's rejecting compatibility for taking a chance on incompatibility working. 



EleGirl said:


> However there does not exist the societal history of men being shamed for having a lot of sex partners. Men are generally encouraged to get as much sex as they can. So I'm not sure that it's quite the same on that level.


So, it's perception based on your past and doesn't consider any other basis for rejection. All men are **** shaming when a woman is rejected, if she has a past? That's how I read that, and I know I think differently.


----------



## EleGirl

2ntnuf said:


> So, it's perception based on your past and doesn't consider any other basis for rejection. All men are **** shaming when a woman is rejected, if she has a past? That's how I read that, and I know I think differently.


Now you are twisting what I said. I have not said that “All men are **** shaming when a woman is rejected, if she has a past”. 

What I did say is that there is a long history of women being shamed for being sexual and doing the same things for which men are encouraged to do.

Nor did I say that in Wanda’s scenario it’s a perception that the guy rejected the woman. I said that Wanda clearly stated why the women was reject.

But in WandaJ’s scenario she clearly stated that the reason that the guy rejected the woman was because she had sex with him on the first date. You seem to think that this is impossible, that no man would ever reject a woman solely for having sex with him on the first date. 

You seem to have a problem with the idea that there are some men who reject a woman based no her having sex with him on the first date.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Personal said:


> Can you not see the hypocrisy?
> 
> *If a man considers a woman who is otherwise wonderful*, unfit for marriage because she had sex with him prior to an arbitrary point.
> 
> That man (being equal) lest he be a hypocrite, should applying his own standards, then discount himself as unfit for marriage with all and sundry while ever he holds such beliefs.


I agree with you that if he excludes her based upon him doing the same things as she does, it's hypocrisy.

Where did I say otherwise? I said, there may be other values she does not meet that he holds important enough to reject her outright as a candidate for marriage. That's not hypocrisy, unless he is rejecting her for values he does not hold for himself. 

Your opinion is that she is wonderful in all other things. Is that his or your's? For example, maybe she has an addiction and he does not? Would he be a hypocrite for rejecting her based on that? Maybe he finds that she has huge debt he can never cover and will take years of vigilance on her part which make their lives more difficult. Would he be a hypocrite for rejecting her? Maybe she can't have children and he wants them badly. Would he be a hypocrite if he rejects her for that?

You see, some of those examples may make her less than wonderful than others. Not being able to have a baby does not make her less wonderful. There are many reasons for rejecting someone and not all of them deal with **** shaming. Even when personal experience seems to point that direction. 

Not all women will be open about these things on the first date. Those are the instances where these would apply.


----------



## EleGirl

2ntnuf said:


> I agree with you that if he excludes her based upon him doing the same things as she does, it's hypocrisy.
> 
> Where did I say otherwise? I said, there may be other values she does not meet that he holds important enough to reject her outright as a candidate for marriage. That's not hypocrisy, unless he is rejecting her for values he does not hold for himself.
> 
> *Your opinion is that she is wonderful in all other things. Is that his or your's?* For example, maybe she has an addiction and he does not? Would he be a hypocrite for rejecting her based on that? Maybe he finds that she has huge debt he can never cover and will take years of vigilance on her part which make their lives more difficult. Would he be a hypocrite for rejecting her? Maybe she can't have children and he wants them badly. Would he be a hypocrite if he rejects her for that?
> 
> You see, some of those examples may make her less than wonderful, others. Not being able to have a baby does not make her less wonderful. There are many reasons for rejecting someone and not all of them deal with **** shaming. Even when personal experience seems to point that direction.
> 
> Not all women will be open about these things on the first date. Those are the instances where these would apply.


Again, I talking only about WandaJ's example scenario. In that scenario she clearly stated that he rejected her only based on the fact that she had sex with him on the first date. 

Of course there are situations in which the guy rejects a woman because in that one date he found other things about her that he's did not like.. or because she did not have qualities that stood out as making her a front runner in his search for the love of his life. 

But I'm not discussing every possible scenario. I am discussing the one presented by WandaJ. The scenario that she presents is reasonable and believable. Even on this thread there are a good number of men who said that a woman who sleeps with him on the first date is a deal breaker. he's have sex with her but that's it. These guys judge the woman solely on the fact that she will have sex on the first date.


----------



## 2ntnuf

EleGirl said:


> Now you are twisting what I said. I have not said that “All men are **** shaming when a woman is rejected, if she has a past”.
> 
> What I did say is that there is a long history of women being shamed for being sexual and doing the same things for which men are encouraged to do.
> 
> Nor did I say that in Wanda’s scenario it’s a perception that the guy rejected the woman. I said that Wanda clearly stated why the women was reject.
> 
> But in WandaJ’s scenario she clearly stated that the reason that the guy rejected the woman was because she had sex with him on the first date. You seem to think that this is impossible, that no man would ever reject a woman solely for having sex with him on the first date.
> 
> You seem to have a problem with the idea that there are some men who reject a woman based no her having sex with him on the first date.


I didn't see that and asked about it. I still don't. 

I asked what you believed, and posted what I perceived your meaning was, just as you did with WandaJ. 



> You seem to have a problem with the idea that there are some men who reject a woman based no her having sex with him on the first date.


No, I have a problem with someone labeling men based upon the past and not the present. We do better with facts than perceptions. I know some men will do this. I think it happens less than you think. I think it's born from rejection.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Thank you. I had fun. You are impressively challenging. Good night all.


----------



## Horizon

Yippee....!!!!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

WandaJ said:


> If a man rejects a woman, because she slept with him on the first date, what does that says about him? That he has no respect for himself? BFor her? because of what? - because he slept with a woman on the first date, Or because he slept with the woman who would sleep with him on the first date? It was ok for him, but not for her? or he does not respect that woman for sleeping with him, because he thinks anyone interested in him is suspicious?
> 
> *If you do not respect woman sleeping with you on the first date - DON'T SLEEP with her on the first date. problem solved.*


 As a woman, I would be so *gravely disappointed *if a man expected , or tried to get me to sleep with him early (1st 2nd 3rd date).... I would know our sexual views were way off, I would likely go home and cry in my pillow if I really liked him...knowing "another one bites the dust...are there any decent men left?"..(I am talking about in my youth here, not now, I know how the majority is now.. and I still find it very  )

I never experienced this mind you, because I always had my Husband by my side.. He would NEVER EVER treat a woman like that.. or expect such a thing.. I have often felt he probably saved me from a lot of HURT with men. 

There is something very meaningful and wonderful about a man showing he cares about you , taking his time to build up to something where the woman will feel comfortable, loved even...seeing if they have what it takes on many fronts..there is just less regrets here (coming from our perspective that is).


----------



## happy as a clam

Horizon said:


> Yippee....!!!!


:rofl:
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

SimplyAmorous said:


> As a woman, I would be so *gravely disappointed *if a man expected , or tried to get me to sleep with him early (1st 2nd 3rd date).... I would know our sexual views were way off, I would likely go home and cry in my pillow if I really liked him...knowing "another one bites the dust...are there any decent men left?"..(I am talking about in my youth here, not now, I know how the majority is now.. and I still find it very  )
> 
> I never experienced this mind you, because I always had my Husband by my side.. He would NEVER EVER treat a woman like that.. or expect such a thing.. I have often felt he probably saved me from a lot of HURT with men.
> 
> There is something very meaningful and wonderful about a man showing he cares about you , taking his time to build up to something where the woman will feel comfortable, loved even...seeing if they have what it takes on many fronts..there is just less regrets here (coming from our perspective that is).


Not to worry SA. Plenty of guys aren't looking to jump in the sack on the frist date. Men and women can and do still hold value to sex and realtionships however it is a bit harder to find. 

That's said stay with the hubby. The dating world sucks


----------



## terrence4159

i slept with my now wife on our first date, went to get icecream......8 years latter now we are still married.


----------



## lifeisbetterthanalternat

I think women have the right to sleep with as many and whatever men they see fit. They should have the right to equal jobs, rights and pay. 

On the other hand I would not choose a women who slept with me on the first date to be my wife. If we were friends first then this would not apply. I am assuming this date is a first "get to know each other thing" To me it would make me concerned about being faithful in the future. I think for women, they may want to "not waste time" with a dud in bed, in some respect i can understand this as there are more sexual dealbreakers with men (smallcox, PE, not going downtown...). My wife grabbed my d..ck on the fist date to do a package check.

If the women can separate sex and love before marriage then couldn't they more easily do so while married. I would think that a women who treats sex with more reverence would be less likely to cheat.


----------



## Deejo

I'm just stunned this is being discussed by a bunch of thirty and forty-somethings, who have either been married for a decade or more, or are divorced.

Sex on the first date or tenth has exactly zero to do with whether or not I want to partner with her; unless of course she doesn't like sex with me or isn't into it.

Guess you could say I have a reverse bias. I have no interest in a partner who isn't experienced and enthusiastic. 

At my age and place in life, I make no association between the concept of chastity and morality. 

One indicates absolutely no correlation with the other.


----------



## Deejo

I find this notion of women having sex before marriage being more likely to commit adultery, utterly and absolutely juvenile. 

If you are male, and pure as the driven snow, and want the same from your partner or mate, all the power to you.

I don't care about your count, I care about whether or not you want to keep having sex, with me.


----------



## Pooh Bear

lifeisbetterthanalternat said:


> I think women have the right to sleep with as many and whatever men they see fit. They should have the right to equal jobs, rights and pay.
> 
> On the other hand I would not choose a women who slept with me on the first date to be my wife. If we were friends first then this would not apply. I am assuming this date is a first "get to know each other thing" To me it would make me concerned about being faithful in the future. I think for women, they may want to "not waste time" with a dud in bed, in some respect i can understand this as there are more sexual dealbreakers with men (smallcox, PE, not going downtown...). My wife grabbed my d..ck on the fist date to do a package check.
> 
> If the women can separate sex and love before marriage then couldn't they more easily do so while married. I would think that a women who treats sex with more reverence would be less likely to cheat.


Well, then why would you sleep with someone on the first date? Wouldn't that make you kind of a wh*re? If you would sleep with someone on the first date would it make you more likely to cheat? Or are men above all that? Apparently not because you can't keep yourselves from raping a woman who wears yoga pants. See how screwed up these arguments are?


----------



## ConanHub

intheory said:


> Well done Elegirl. I don't know how you did it.


He might be a questioner but he is a very kind and caring soul.


----------



## ConanHub

Yoga pants are not fair!!!


----------



## Pooh Bear

ConanHub said:


> Yoga pants are not fair!!!


But I know you could control yourself, Conan.  Man, I had this boss who would look at your chest when talking to you. It wasn't like it wasn't obvious. All us girls talked about it. And it's not like we were wearing low cut stuff either. It was very annoying and pretty demeaning. Someone should have said, "My eyes are here." But he's your boss. Ick.


----------



## lifeisbetterthanalternat

to clarify if it may change things if I believed that there was a compelling reason for me to believe that the sex with me was an isolated incident. 

I don't think this is strictly gender based. I would imagine that more promiscuous men are more likely to cheat. From the men and women that I have known there seems to be a correlation.

PS. Who can't stop raping women that wear yoga pants? If I have implied that in a past post it was a mistake. All men should control themselves from rape regardless of a women's clothing options.


----------



## tacoma

The last time I had sex on a first date was 17 years ago.

We've been "dating" ever since.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Personal said:


> Considering your clarification as quoted above am I right to presume that you consider, all women to be equally ideal marital candidates regardless of whether they have had sex on the first date or otherwise?


I haven't really said what I am for or against, have I?



Personal said:


> Addiction has nothing to do with a woman's propensity or otherwise to have sex on the first date. I don't know why you keep mentioning it in a discussion regarding women who have sex on the first date?


You don't know why because you can't understand how that might exclude some men or women from a dater's list of people they would consider marriage candidates.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Horizon said:


> Yippee....!!!!





intheory said:


> Well done Elegirl. I don't know how you did it.


Duly noted.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Personal said:


> Very courageous!


I'm not here for you. 



Personal said:


> Again, there is no correlation between a person having sex on a first date and having an addiction.


You are correct. You are incorrect in thinking that's what I implied.


----------



## 'CuseGal

Here's my question:

If a man doesn't approve of a woman who has sex on the first date, then why would he ruin any chance of a future relationship by pushing her for it? Assuming of course that she's not the one initiating it...

I personally wouldn't go out again with any man who asked for sex sooner than the 3rd or 4th date.


----------



## Runs like Dog

My opinion is you've dated a guy because such things don't exist.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

'CuseGal said:


> Here's my question:
> 
> If a man doesn't approve of a woman who has sex on the first date, then why would he ruin any chance of a future relationship by pushing her for it? Assuming of course that she's not the one initiating it...
> 
> I personally wouldn't go out again with any man who asked for sex sooner than the 3rd or 4th date.


It's possible that the man isn't dating for the purposes of establishing a relationship. Or, if he is, the best way to identify a promiscuous woman is to see if she'll have sex with you. If she will, she's very likely promiscuous. If she won't, it's much less likely, but still possible. If you rely on her to tell you the truth about her past experiences, you're very naive.


----------



## Angelou

She's: horny, on a rebound, lonely, drunk, is in her wants instead of needs, does not care.


----------



## ConanHub

Angelou said:


> She's: horny, on a rebound, lonely, drunk, is in her wants instead of needs, does not care.


Pretty much...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NextTimeAround

BronzeTorpedo said:


> It's possible that the man isn't dating for the purposes of establishing a relationship. Or, if he is, the best way to identify a promiscuous woman is to see if she'll have sex with you. If she will, she's very likely promiscuous. If she won't, it's much less likely, but still possible. If you rely on her to tell you the truth about her past experiences, you're very naive.



Yeah, I guess, both men and women do do sh!t testing.


----------



## Threetimesalady

This time frame of 2015 vs. 1958 when I married does not change my thinking of my morals on having full sexual intercourse before marriage...My husband waited as any man would have to today...I feel that if he wanted me enough and can't tell by our "preliminary" petting (old word) that he's not worth me...Even today at this age in life if I was "out on the circuit" this would be true...It would still read "touch, but not fill" until the ring is on my finger....TTAL....


----------



## JCD

I am reminded by something called Chesterton's Fence.

Essentially, there is this village. Inside this village, there is this fence which seemingly has no value and sort of interupts the flow of traffic.

Some young person gets up at a village meeting and states 'we must tear down this fence. It is getting in the way of me going to the pub.'

What Chesterton said is 'your ancestors built this fence for a reason. They were not idiots. They were not small minded. They were at least as intelligent as you...so they put this fence up for a reason. Until you can explain why this fence was built and why it no longer matters, then you have no right to tear down that fence and in fact might be doing a great deal of damage to the village becasue you happen to think you are the smartest most modern thing since sliced bread.'

So to with sex on the first date. The very fact of this post is showing that having done so is filling the OP with emotional doubts and second guessing, something which could have been avoided by having sex on a second...or third...or fifth date.

For example: if the OP knew then that this guy was never going to call her again (haven't read all 50 pages) would she have had sex with him with that foreknowledge?

Probably not.

So...'tear down that fence' is a great way to sound modern, but as a lot of people are saying, sex on the first date has some definite downsides.

I can't speak to women who see the right to sex on a first date as politically empowering and a hard fought right. I can only say rights sometimes have downsides. A lot of unmarried and unattached women who 'use their rights' probably are discovering the same thing.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I don't see why an opinion would differ about a woman having sex on a first date vs a man.


----------



## ntamph

lookinforhelpandhope said:


> . . . asking for obvious reasons.
> 
> Would you still be interestred in the woman?
> Is it a complete deal breaker?
> Appreciate your thoughts and opinios :scratchhead:


No, I would be flattered.

If she's clean then I think a reasonable man would appreciate the interest that she has in him. She's an autonomous individual and if it's consensual there is nothing wrong with it.

I used to **** shame all the time. Now I don't. Don't let a woman's confidence (very, very sexy) destroy a shot at a hot and healthy relationship.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't see why an opinion would differ about a woman having sex on a first date vs a man.


Well, because women run almost all the risks.

They are more prone to catching STDs

They run the risk of pregnancy

They are the ones who are likely to be rape victims or injured if they misjudged the character of this man they met for the very first time.

So, the potential foolishness of a woman acting this way vs. a man...it's not PC to say this, but it's true.

Men don't run the same number of risks except for accidently dating Glenn Close.


----------



## NextTimeAround

ntamph said:


> No, I would be flattered.
> 
> *If she's clean then I think a reasonable man would appreciate the interest that she has in him.* She's an autonomous individual and if it's consensual there is nothing wrong with it.
> 
> I used to **** shame all the time. Now I don't. Don't let a woman's confidence (very, very sexy) destroy a shot at a hot and healthy relationship.


How would he know that she's clean? Some STDs manifest no symptoms in women.


----------



## Anonymous07

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't see why an opinion would differ about a woman having sex on a first date vs a man.


It shouldn't make a difference, but there is a double standard there. Men get high fives and women get slvt shamed. 

My personal opinion, I see it the same. I have little respect for men or women who have sex on the first date. The sex of the person does not matter. 



NextTimeAround said:


> How would he know that she's clean? Some STDs manifest no symptoms in women.


She can easily get tested. Anyone who is sexually active should get tested for STD/STIs. 

I asked my husband to get tested before we had sex, since he had sex before me and I was a virgin. He had no issues doing that.


----------



## anonmd

'CuseGal said:


> Here's my question:
> 
> If a man doesn't approve of a woman who has sex on the first date, then why would he ruin any chance of a future relationship by pushing her for it? *Assuming of course that she's not the one initiating it...*
> 
> I personally wouldn't go out again with any man who asked for sex sooner than the 3rd or 4th date.


I didn't ask, she didn't exactly either but the following me back to my apartment spoke volumes Anyway, we got married so I can't say that I had any problems with it...

Now, we did semi know each other or at least know of each other before hand. Without that the likelihood of sex on the first date would have been somewhat lower I guess but this issue never bothered me in general.


----------



## Lionelhutz

Anonymous07 said:


> It shouldn't make a difference, but there is a double standard there. Men get high fives and women get slvt shamed.
> 
> My personal opinion, I see it the same. I have little respect for men or women who have sex on the first date. The sex of the person does not matter.
> 
> 
> 
> She can easily get tested. Anyone who is sexually active should get tested for STD/STIs.
> 
> I asked my husband to get tested before we had sex, since he had sex before me and I was a virgin. He had no issues doing that.


I'm curious if two adults decide they aren't in a position in life to have a fulltime relationship but want to have sex with each other, why exactly would lose respect for them ?


----------



## JCD

Lionelhutz said:


> I'm curious if two adults decide they aren't in a position in life to have a fulltime relationship but want to have sex with each other, why exactly would lose respect for them ?


It isn't that two adults decide to have consensual sex with one another (that is a strawman which is trying to make any criticism of first date sex practice look like sheer prudery)

It is that a person is showing a certain...lack of judgment? Impulsiveness? that it calls into question their filters and judgement.

I mean...exactly how much do you REALLY know about a person after meeting them for two hours over dinner? Maybe number of siblings, job, a few political and religious facts, perhaps a favorite food and an amusing anecdote and if you like how they look.

If I gave you a slip of paper with twice that amount of information and told you to screw a woman you never met but showed you a picture of her, would that make it seem any smarter? No? But you know TWICE about her as you do on a date. What's the problem?

No, it's still not smart. Now...sometime the magic works, sometimes the magic don't. There are a bunch of success stories out there. Bound to be. Sometimes instinct rocks.

And sometimes it's a 'walk of shame/how do I get them out of the apartment without looking like a jerk' sort of ending. I think this one is a bit more common than winning the relationship lottery.

AND...once in a while, it ends in a body bag. Somehow, the ladies who cite that they can and should treat all males as potential rapists will then stridently uphold their right to screw around on a first date...and not acknowledge the contradiction of these two concepts at all.


----------



## Anonymous07

Lionelhutz said:


> I'm curious if two adults decide they aren't in a position in life to have a fulltime relationship but want to have sex with each other, why exactly would lose respect for them ?


Because I view sex differently. I view sex as something special and not to be shared with just anyone. If others want to have sex with everyone they date, they can. That is their thing, but I know I could never be with someone like that because I would not respect a man who gave it away like that. Our views on sex would be far too different.


----------



## Constable Odo

A latecomer to this thread, I thought I would add my two cents, with a little background for sake of clarity.

My SO and I met, either by choice accident, or miracle, depending on how you view the world -- she had a profile on OKC, and I, out of sheer boredom one day, decided to go on OKC and systematically rate profiles from 1 to 5 depending on their content (it was the middle of the summer, work was extremely slow, and rating the profiles on women on farmersonly.com did not appeal to me as it can sometimes be difficult to discern which is the person with the profile and which is the livestock in the photo.)

When her profile popped up and I read through it, I found her to be an incredibly interesting woman (keep in mind we both live in a section of the country where the OKC profiles of both men and women seem to principally be a collection of aspiring rap artists looking for their big break). Furthermore, she had several photographs of herself posted, several of which stunned me, not simply because she was beautiful, but the aura around her revealed part of the inner core, the inner beauty she contained. 

I sent her a brief mail, and she responded to me, assuming I was a troll (which to be honest, I wasn't, even though my profile was a complete fabrication). At the time I emailed her, I had no expectation of meeting her, dating her, etc... in her profile she had several "boundaries" clearly expressed which I clearly fell outside of (I already had children, I was divorced, and I was half-a-decade outside the upper-end of her acceptable age range.) Yet, I thought based on her profile she'd be an interesting person to talk to.

We exchanged email, first on OKC, and later via our personal emails. Our exchanges were lengthy, oftentimes requiring many hours of contemplative thought. Some of the subjects could be very deep, others were very emotional. We collectively shared back and forth many things about our lives, the pain, the sorrow and the joys we had experienced. 

Our life schedules worked in such a way that I would awaken to an email from her in the morning, and I would compose my reply during the day. I would start at the kitchen table, reading her email in the morning light as I gazed out my window into my front yard. Coffee with The Lady became a staple of my day.

She would get my reply in the afternoon, and would compose her reply that evening. Sometimes it took several days to fully receive a reply to all the topics we talked about with one another back and forth.

I found her to be a fascinating woman, the myriad of things she has done in her life thusfar.

She shared with my her online dating experiences. I shared with her mine from a decade earlier when I got divorced in the early 2000's. She would ask my opinion on different situations she had encountered in her dating experiences the previous week/etc, wanted to know how men "thought", and so on. 

I grew quite fond of this woman, we formed quite a nice friendship. As I was sitting at my kitchen table one day, I reading one of her "walls of text", I realized that, one day, when she met the "right" man and decided he was the one she wanted to bond with permanently, our exchanges would have to cease, because her heart and mind would belong to him, and it would be unfair to him for us to continue to share our thoughts with one another in the way we did. This realization made me incredibly sad. Tears welled in my eyes as I penned this thought to her, just as typing those same words, reliving the experience in my mind's eye today, brings those same tears back now.

She lived about 20 minutes from where I work. In a previous email, I offered her the opportunity to meet some morning or afternoon, to share a cup of coffee or breakfast, so we could collectively put a face, voice, and body language mannerisms to the words we shared on the screen. Entirely her choice, again, I had no expectations as I was outside of her "boundaries".

One late Friday afternoon, she texted me she had just arrived home from a grueling day at work, and had several more hours of work to do at home, but she really wanted an excuse not to do it.

Having been educated by this same woman on the female language of "hint-esse", I took this as a 'hint' on her part that she was really suggesting we get together that evening (to this day she swears it wasn't the case). I suggested we meet that evening for a drink, completely casual, as I was still at work and would be until then, and my standard office attire is a pair of ratty jeans and a button down shirt...

Finally to the point of this lengthy story...

We agreed to meet at 7pm that evening (late Summer) at a local restaurant. The restaurant has parking in the rear with a rear-entry door to a bar area. Patrons also park on the street. I had parked in the rear and waited by the rear door. She had parked on the street and texted me asking where I was, as she was waiting "out front".

I texted her back I would come to her, so I started walking down the driveway to the front of the building.

As I rounded the corner from the driveway, I laid eyes upon her for the first time. I was so stunned that I stopped dead in my tracks. She was standing facing west. To this day I am still not sure if it was the backlit display on her immensely huge smartphone (the thing is bigger than an iPad), or the evening light of the sunset radiating her, which accentuated the lustrous glow of her skin and hair. Immediately my endocrine system was slammed with little "I'M FERTILE! BANG ME!" cues. The cloud of progesterone which surrounded her did not help either.

For how long I stood there, staring, I cannot say. So many thoughts raced through my mind. On one hand, before me was singularly the most beautiful creature I had ever laid eyes upon. On the other hand, she looked like she was 16 years old and I expected Chris Hanson to jump out of the bushes with a camera crew.

Finally, after what seemed to be an eternity, I summoned up the courage and walked up to her. As she looked up from her phablet, I spoke her name, and smile came to her face.

We spent an amazing evening together. We had a wonderful discussion over dinner, later retiring to the lounge where we continued our conversations. Before I knew it, 5 hours had passed. In a blink of an eye.

There was strong chemistry between us when we met. The spark was undeniable.

But, to the question of this thread: your opinion of women who have sex on the first date.

We did not have sex on the first date. When we parted briefly after midnight, I did accept a hug. Yes, I wanted to rip her clothes off and bend her over the hood of her car. But it was more important to be a perfect gentleman, to take things slowly rather than run the risk of ruining something which could be very special.

If we had given in to our animalistic urges that evening, would I have thought less of her as a person? This is a hard question to answer. 

A part of me says no, because that same spark, that same chemistry, which ultimately have made us a couple today existed then as it does now. 

On the other hand, as part of our email exchanges, she was always adamant about her dating structure and how she didn't sleep around, because she considered sex to be part of the bonding process with a man and she did not want to, in a sense, grow numb to the bonding experience by doping up on dopamine and oxytocin every time an attractive penis walked by.... so, if we had sex that first evening, a part of me may have thought she was a hypocrite, and there would have been the risk that I would have, at least in some part, lost respect for her.

Fortunately, none of that happened. Instead, we took things slow, although ultimately she did succumb to my extreme alphaness, and I finally fell victim to her female wiles.

When we are apart, I miss her incredibly. At random points during the day I will get overwhelming feelings for her. So, I'm glad we did not sleep together that first evening, despite (I think) us both wanting to at the time, for I do not think I would be so strongly bonded to her today if we had.


----------



## Q tip

does before the first date count?


----------



## tacoma

Q tip said:


> does before the first date count?


Also...define "date".


----------



## ConanHub

Q tip said:


> does before the first date count?


I fit in this category.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lionelhutz

JCD said:


> It isn't that two adults decide to have consensual sex with one another (that is a strawman which is trying to make any criticism of first date sex practice look like sheer prudery)
> 
> It is that a person is showing a certain...lack of judgment? Impulsiveness? that it calls into question their filters and judgement.
> 
> I mean...exactly how much do you REALLY know about a person after meeting them for two hours over dinner? Maybe number of siblings, job, a few political and religious facts, perhaps a favorite food and an amusing anecdote and if you like how they look.
> 
> If I gave you a slip of paper with twice that amount of information and told you to screw a woman you never met but showed you a picture of her, would that make it seem any smarter? No? But you know TWICE about her as you do on a date. What's the problem?
> 
> No, it's still not smart. Now...sometime the magic works, sometimes the magic don't. There are a bunch of success stories out there. Bound to be. Sometimes instinct rocks.
> 
> .


It only has to do with intelligence if the person looking at the picture is using that the only or principal means of deciding upon a life mate. It may be a very substantial piece of information if one is primarily looking for a sexual partner.

How is it any more of a straw man than to assume everyone on a date is looking for a spouse?

If people have in their own mind that sex on the first date is wrong because sex on the first date is always wrong because of claims of higher authority or a personal moral code, then that is fine. There is nothing really to debate, but then their judgements are their own and they should recognized them as such.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Q tip said:


> does before the first date count?


Is that the masturbation in anticipation?


----------



## JCD

Lionelhutz said:


> It only has to do with intelligence if the person looking at the picture is using that the only or principal means of deciding upon a life mate. It may be a very substantial piece of information if one is primarily looking for a sexual partner.
> 
> How is it any more of a straw man than to assume everyone on a date is looking for a spouse?
> 
> If people have in their own mind that sex on the first date is wrong because sex on the first date is always wrong because of claims of higher authority or a personal moral code, then that is fine. There is nothing really to debate, but then their judgements are their own and they should recognized them as such.



This doesn't have to have anything to do with moral codes. It has to do with what I call the 'newspaper reflection'.

Let me explain. A friend of mine was a pilot who flew cargo alone. During loading his airplane, the cargo door fell down and hit his head hard and put a bleeding gash into it. So much so that he was blotting his face the entire flight.

Yes, flight. Because he was dedicated enough to actually finish his job instead of go to the doctor.

He relayed this story to me and I asked him "If you were reading a newspaper about your exploits, and read 'a young pilot severely hit his head on a door but flew anyway and ended up in a crash', would you be admiring his dedication or thinking he was a dumb sh*t?"

So imagine these scenarios:

"Hey...I had sex with this guy on a first date, and now he's stalking me."

"Hey, I had sex with a guy on the first date and he started pulling out a ball gag and a banjo..."

"I went to have sex with this guy on a first date and now my genitals itch..."

Now, a second date might not spare you from any of these indignities, but essentially, you (gender non specific) are jumping into the deep end of a relationship with as little preparation and as little information as you possible can have short of just tossing your car keys into a random singles bar and screwing whomever catches them. That you are marginally wiser than that by actually knowing the person's name first...big deal. You are still being impulsive.

Essentially, if something bad, uncomfortable and embarrassing happens to you, it's your own fault and you won't get a whole lot of sympathy. Because by this choice, you are acting very impulsively.

And again, this isn't about your 'end game' either. If you want to get laid, that is an end game. All I can say is 'Michael Douglas/Glenn Close'. They had sex on a first date too.

I think, even if my end result is 'I want to get laid', I'd probably like to have sex on the third date. One, I happen to like a small emotional connection. Two, if you wait, you are more likely to get a positive reception if you call for a repeat instead of facing a woman who has the 'first date regrets' and can't believe she just jumped in bed with someone. Not all women feel that way but some do.

It's your life. And if your genitals itch a week after your first date sex...not going to be very sympathetic.


----------



## arbitrator

*I know that my philosophy is and always has been, that I really want to get to know somebody really well and, at the same time, know that there is some kind of a reciprocal connection there, before I ever take it upon myself to go exploring for their "fountain of youth!"

Just sayin'! *


----------



## Catherine602

JDC If a woman gets itchy genitals then the man has it too, no? Or he may get a nasty disease from sleeping with a woman on the first date. There is a dramatic increase in the incidence of oral and other cancers among young men now that is correlated with the number of sexual partners. Cancers that were previously seen in middle aged men. I believe their are as many men who feel regret at casual sexual encounters as women. The are not supposed to, but they do. 

My advice to both men and woman would be exactly the same. Protect yourself physically and emotionally. Also, you speak as if men are less vulnerable to emotional distress than women in these casual encounters. Is that true? Men feel less emotions about sex than women? That's not what men say when they get married. Which is it? It can't be both.


----------



## JCD

Catherine602 said:


> JDC If a woman gets itchy genitals then the man has it too, no? Or he may get a nasty disease from sleeping with a woman on the first date. There is a dramatic increase in the incidence of oral and other cancers among young men now that is correlated with the number of sexual partners. Cancers that were previously seen in middle aged men. I believe their are as many men who feel regret at casual sexual encounters as women. The are not supposed to, but they do.
> 
> My advice to both men and woman would be exactly the same. Protect yourself physically and emotionally. Also, you speak as if men are less vulnerable to emotional distress than women in these casual encounters. Is that true? Men feel less emotions about sex than women? That's not what men say when they get married. Which is it? It can't be both.


I never once mentioned emotions that I recall.

I am saying that acting impulsively has serious and easily foreseen downsides. And sleeping with someone you really don't know anything about (either gender) is a risky proposition from a purely objective standpoint.

Please outline which of the added risks women face that men don't which are incorrect. Then we can talk about emotions.

Some guys do. Some guys don't.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

JCD said:


> It isn't that two adults decide to have consensual sex with one another (that is a strawman which is trying to make any criticism of first date sex practice look like sheer prudery)
> 
> It is that a person is showing a certain...lack of judgment? Impulsiveness? that it calls into question their filters and judgement.
> 
> I mean...exactly how much do you REALLY know about a person after meeting them for two hours over dinner? Maybe number of siblings, job, a few political and religious facts, perhaps a favorite food and an amusing anecdote and if you like how they look.
> 
> If I gave you a slip of paper with twice that amount of information and told you to screw a woman you never met but showed you a picture of her, would that make it seem any smarter? No? But you know TWICE about her as you do on a date. What's the problem?
> 
> No, it's still not smart. Now...sometime the magic works, sometimes the magic don't. There are a bunch of success stories out there. Bound to be. Sometimes instinct rocks.
> 
> And sometimes it's a 'walk of shame/how do I get them out of the apartment without looking like a jerk' sort of ending. I think this one is a bit more common than winning the relationship lottery.
> 
> AND...once in a while, it ends in a body bag. Somehow, the ladies who cite that they can and should treat all males as potential rapists will then stridently uphold their right to screw around on a first date...and not acknowledge the contradiction of these two concepts at all.


Do you think all men are potential murderers and rapists? Do you think women should always be in fear of men?


----------



## JCD

*LittleDeer* said:


> Do you think all men are potential murderers and rapists? Do you think women should always be in fear of men?


Quite the opposite. And yet, I can think of three female posters here off the top of my head who always look askance at every strange male or male acquaintance (because...you know...you are more likely to be raped by people you know) and quite a few other female posters who were sympathetic to the idea. These women are also in the camp of 'women are sexually free beings and they should be allowed to have as many ONS and hook up as they want without any sense of shame'. I merely outline the contradiction of these views.

I think that sleeping with someone on a first date can be pretty foolish. Sometimes being foolish pays off. Mostly it doesn't.

Do you feel you know enough about a person to have sex with them on a first date or are you only willing to ask questions?


----------



## Constable Odo

A latecomer to this thread, I thought I would add my two cents, with a little background for sake of clarity.

My SO and I met, either by choice accident, or miracle, depending on how you view the world -- she had a profile on OKC, and I, out of sheer boredom one day, decided to go on OKC and systematically rate profiles from 1 to 5 depending on their content (it was the middle of the summer, work was extremely slow, and rating the profiles on women on farmersonly.com did not appeal to me as it can sometimes be difficult to discern which is the person with the profile and which is the livestock in the photo.)

When her profile popped up and I read through it, I found her to be an incredibly interesting woman (keep in mind we both live in a section of the country where the OKC profiles of both men and women seem to principally be a collection of aspiring rap artists looking for their big break). Furthermore, she had several photographs of herself posted, several of which stunned me, not simply because she was beautiful, but the aura around her revealed part of the inner core, the inner beauty she contained. 

I sent her a brief mail, and she responded to me, assuming I was a troll (which to be honest, I wasn't, even though my profile was a complete fabrication). At the time I emailed her, I had no expectation of meeting her, dating her, etc... in her profile she had several "boundaries" clearly expressed which I clearly fell outside of (I already had children, I was divorced, and I was half-a-decade outside the upper-end of her acceptable age range.) Yet, I thought based on her profile she'd be an interesting person to talk to.

We exchanged email, first on OKC, and later via our personal emails. Our exchanges were lengthy, oftentimes requiring many hours of contemplative thought. Some of the subjects could be very deep, others were very emotional. We collectively shared back and forth many things about our lives, the pain, the sorrow and the joys we had experienced. 

Our life schedules worked in such a way that I would awaken to an email from her in the morning, and I would compose my reply during the day. I would start at the kitchen table, reading her email in the morning light as I gazed out my window into my front yard. Coffee with The Lady became a staple of my day.

She would get my reply in the afternoon, and would compose her reply that evening. Sometimes it took several days to fully receive a reply to all the topics we talked about with one another back and forth.

I found her to be a fascinating woman, the myriad of things she has done in her life thusfar.

She shared with my her online dating experiences. I shared with her mine from a decade earlier when I got divorced in the early 2000's. She would ask my opinion on different situations she had encountered in her dating experiences the previous week/etc, wanted to know how men "thought", and so on. 

I grew quite fond of this woman, we formed quite a nice friendship. As I was sitting at my kitchen table one day, I reading one of her "walls of text", I realized that, one day, when she met the "right" man and decided he was the one she wanted to bond with permanently, our exchanges would have to cease, because her heart and mind would belong to him, and it would be unfair to him for us to continue to share our thoughts with one another in the way we did. This realization made me incredibly sad. Tears welled in my eyes as I penned this thought to her, just as typing those same words, reliving the experience in my mind's eye today, brings those same tears back now.

She lived about 20 minutes from where I work. In a previous email, I offered her the opportunity to meet some morning or afternoon, to share a cup of coffee or breakfast, so we could collectively put a face, voice, and body language mannerisms to the words we shared on the screen. Entirely her choice, again, I had no expectations as I was outside of her "boundaries".

One late Friday afternoon, she texted me she had just arrived home from a grueling day at work, and had several more hours of work to do at home, but she really wanted an excuse not to do it.

Having been educated by this same woman on the female language of "hint-esse", I took this as a 'hint' on her part that she was really suggesting we get together that evening (to this day she swears it wasn't the case). I suggested we meet that evening for a drink, completely casual, as I was still at work and would be until then, and my standard office attire is a pair of ratty jeans and a button down shirt...

Finally to the point of this lengthy story...

We agreed to meet at 7pm that evening (late Summer) at a local restaurant. The restaurant has parking in the rear with a rear-entry door to a bar area. Patrons also park on the street. I had parked in the rear and waited by the rear door. She had parked on the street and texted me asking where I was, as she was waiting "out front".

I texted her back I would come to her, so I started walking down the driveway to the front of the building.

As I rounded the corner from the driveway, I laid eyes upon her for the first time. I was so stunned that I stopped dead in my tracks. She was standing facing west. To this day I am still not sure if it was the backlit display on her immensely huge smartphone (the thing is bigger than an iPad), or the evening light of the sunset radiating her, which accentuated the lustrous glow of her skin and hair. Immediately my endocrine system was slammed with little "I'M FERTILE! BANG ME!" cues. The cloud of progesterone which surrounded her did not help either.

For how long I stood there, staring, I cannot say. So many thoughts raced through my mind. On one hand, before me was singularly the most beautiful creature I had ever laid eyes upon. On the other hand, she looked like she was 16 years old and I expected Chris Hanson to jump out of the bushes with a camera crew.

Finally, after what seemed to be an eternity, I summoned up the courage and walked up to her. As she looked up from her phablet, I spoke her name, and smile came to her face.

We spent an amazing evening together. We had a wonderful discussion over dinner, later retiring to the lounge where we continued our conversations. Before I knew it, 5 hours had passed. In a blink of an eye.

There was strong chemistry between us when we met. The spark was undeniable.

But, to the question of this thread: your opinion of women who have sex on the first date.

We did not have sex on the first date. When we parted briefly after midnight, I did accept a hug. Yes, I wanted to rip her clothes off and bend her over the hood of her car. But it was more important to be a perfect gentleman, to take things slowly rather than run the risk of ruining something which could be very special.

If we had given in to our animalistic urges that evening, would I have thought less of her as a person? This is a hard question to answer. 

A part of me says no, because that same spark, that same chemistry, which ultimately have made us a couple today existed then as it does now. 

On the other hand, as part of our email exchanges, she was always adamant about her dating structure and how she didn't sleep around, because she considered sex to be part of the bonding process with a man and she did not want to, in a sense, grow numb to the bonding experience by doping up on dopamine and oxytocin every time an attractive penis walked by.... so, if we had sex that first evening, a part of me may have thought she was a hypocrite, and there would have been the risk that I would have, at least in some part, lost respect for her.

Fortunately, none of that happened. Instead, we took things slow, although ultimately she did succumb to my extreme alphaness, and I finally fell victim to her female wiles.

When we are apart, I miss her incredibly. At random points during the day I will get overwhelming feelings for her. So, I'm glad we did not sleep together that first evening, despite (I think) us both wanting to at the time, for I do not think I would be so strongly bonded to her today if we had.


----------



## Jellybeans

arbitrator said:


> I really want to get to know somebody really well and, at the same time, know that there is some kind of a reciprocal connection there, before I ever take it upon myself to go exploring for their *"fountain of youth!"*


Haha. I am gonna start using that phrase for the private places!


----------



## JCD

Constable Odo said:


> A latecomer to this thread, I thought I would add my two cents, with a little background for sake of clarity.
> 
> My SO and I met, either by choice accident, or miracle, depending on how you view the world -- she had a profile on OKC, and I, out of sheer boredom one day, decided to go on OKC and systematically rate profiles from 1 to 5 depending on their content (it was the middle of the summer, work was extremely slow, and rating the profiles on women on farmersonly.com did not appeal to me as it can sometimes be difficult to discern which is the person with the profile and which is the livestock in the photo.)
> 
> When her profile popped up and I read through it, I found her to be an incredibly interesting woman (keep in mind we both live in a section of the country where the OKC profiles of both men and women seem to principally be a collection of aspiring rap artists looking for their big break). Furthermore, she had several photographs of herself posted, several of which stunned me, not simply because she was beautiful, but the aura around her revealed part of the inner core, the inner beauty she contained.
> 
> I sent her a brief mail, and she responded to me, assuming I was a troll (which to be honest, I wasn't, even though my profile was a complete fabrication). At the time I emailed her, I had no expectation of meeting her, dating her, etc... in her profile she had several "boundaries" clearly expressed which I clearly fell outside of (I already had children, I was divorced, and I was half-a-decade outside the upper-end of her acceptable age range.) Yet, I thought based on her profile she'd be an interesting person to talk to.
> 
> We exchanged email, first on OKC, and later via our personal emails. Our exchanges were lengthy, oftentimes requiring many hours of contemplative thought. Some of the subjects could be very deep, others were very emotional. We collectively shared back and forth many things about our lives, the pain, the sorrow and the joys we had experienced.
> 
> Our life schedules worked in such a way that I would awaken to an email from her in the morning, and I would compose my reply during the day. I would start at the kitchen table, reading her email in the morning light as I gazed out my window into my front yard. Coffee with The Lady became a staple of my day.
> 
> She would get my reply in the afternoon, and would compose her reply that evening. Sometimes it took several days to fully receive a reply to all the topics we talked about with one another back and forth.
> 
> I found her to be a fascinating woman, the myriad of things she has done in her life thusfar.
> 
> She shared with my her online dating experiences. I shared with her mine from a decade earlier when I got divorced in the early 2000's. She would ask my opinion on different situations she had encountered in her dating experiences the previous week/etc, wanted to know how men "thought", and so on.
> 
> I grew quite fond of this woman, we formed quite a nice friendship. As I was sitting at my kitchen table one day, I reading one of her "walls of text", I realized that, one day, when she met the "right" man and decided he was the one she wanted to bond with permanently, our exchanges would have to cease, because her heart and mind would belong to him, and it would be unfair to him for us to continue to share our thoughts with one another in the way we did. This realization made me incredibly sad. Tears welled in my eyes as I penned this thought to her, just as typing those same words, reliving the experience in my mind's eye today, brings those same tears back now.
> 
> She lived about 20 minutes from where I work. In a previous email, I offered her the opportunity to meet some morning or afternoon, to share a cup of coffee or breakfast, so we could collectively put a face, voice, and body language mannerisms to the words we shared on the screen. Entirely her choice, again, I had no expectations as I was outside of her "boundaries".
> 
> One late Friday afternoon, she texted me she had just arrived home from a grueling day at work, and had several more hours of work to do at home, but she really wanted an excuse not to do it.
> 
> Having been educated by this same woman on the female language of "hint-esse", I took this as a 'hint' on her part that she was really suggesting we get together that evening (to this day she swears it wasn't the case). I suggested we meet that evening for a drink, completely casual, as I was still at work and would be until then, and my standard office attire is a pair of ratty jeans and a button down shirt...
> 
> Finally to the point of this lengthy story...
> 
> We agreed to meet at 7pm that evening (late Summer) at a local restaurant. The restaurant has parking in the rear with a rear-entry door to a bar area. Patrons also park on the street. I had parked in the rear and waited by the rear door. She had parked on the street and texted me asking where I was, as she was waiting "out front".
> 
> I texted her back I would come to her, so I started walking down the driveway to the front of the building.
> 
> As I rounded the corner from the driveway, I laid eyes upon her for the first time. I was so stunned that I stopped dead in my tracks. She was standing facing west. To this day I am still not sure if it was the backlit display on her immensely huge smartphone (the thing is bigger than an iPad), or the evening light of the sunset radiating her, which accentuated the lustrous glow of her skin and hair. Immediately my endocrine system was slammed with little "I'M FERTILE! BANG ME!" cues. The cloud of progesterone which surrounded her did not help either.
> 
> For how long I stood there, staring, I cannot say. So many thoughts raced through my mind. On one hand, before me was singularly the most beautiful creature I had ever laid eyes upon. On the other hand, she looked like she was 16 years old and I expected Chris Hanson to jump out of the bushes with a camera crew.
> 
> Finally, after what seemed to be an eternity, I summoned up the courage and walked up to her. As she looked up from her phablet, I spoke her name, and smile came to her face.
> 
> We spent an amazing evening together. We had a wonderful discussion over dinner, later retiring to the lounge where we continued our conversations. Before I knew it, 5 hours had passed. In a blink of an eye.
> 
> There was strong chemistry between us when we met. The spark was undeniable.
> 
> But, to the question of this thread: your opinion of women who have sex on the first date.
> 
> We did not have sex on the first date. When we parted briefly after midnight, I did accept a hug. Yes, I wanted to rip her clothes off and bend her over the hood of her car. But it was more important to be a perfect gentleman, to take things slowly rather than run the risk of ruining something which could be very special.
> 
> If we had given in to our animalistic urges that evening, would I have thought less of her as a person? This is a hard question to answer.
> 
> A part of me says no, because that same spark, that same chemistry, which ultimately have made us a couple today existed then as it does now.
> 
> On the other hand, as part of our email exchanges, she was always adamant about her dating structure and how she didn't sleep around, because she considered sex to be part of the bonding process with a man and she did not want to, in a sense, grow numb to the bonding experience by doping up on dopamine and oxytocin every time an attractive penis walked by.... so, if we had sex that first evening, a part of me may have thought she was a hypocrite, and there would have been the risk that I would have, at least in some part, lost respect for her.
> 
> Fortunately, none of that happened. Instead, we took things slow, although ultimately she did succumb to my extreme alphaness, and I finally fell victim to her female wiles.
> 
> When we are apart, I miss her incredibly. At random points during the day I will get overwhelming feelings for her. So, I'm glad we did not sleep together that first evening, despite (I think) us both wanting to at the time, for I do not think I would be so strongly bonded to her today if we had.



In a case like this, you are not 'cold calling' a woman/man. Even if you had had sex on that 'first date', you had days/weeks/months of positive and intimate conversation and 'getting to know you'.

So that isn't 'first date' sex. I would consider first date sex where it happened with only a half a dozen exchanges on email to find out basic compatibility, or a blind date or some such.

In your instance, it would be taking an already established relationship to the next level.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Thanks, JCD, for taking the time to spell things out about the downside of having sex on the first date.

I still wonder why our society values spontaneity to the point where it can put people in dangerous situations.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

JCD said:


> Quite the opposite. And yet, I can think of three female posters here off the top of my head who always look askance at every strange male or male acquaintance (because...you know...you are more likely to be raped by people you know) and quite a few other female posters who were sympathetic to the idea. These women are also in the camp of 'women are sexually free beings and they should be allowed to have as many ONS and hook up as they want without any sense of shame'. I merely outline the contradiction of these views.
> 
> I think that sleeping with someone on a first date can be pretty foolish. Sometimes being foolish pays off. Mostly it doesn't.
> 
> Do you feel you know enough about a person to have sex with them on a first date or are you only willing to ask questions?


If you think it's quite the opposite then why does it matter what women do and when? 

How do you know it doesn't pay out? 

And yes only willing to ask questions.


----------



## JCD

*LittleDeer* said:


> If you think it's quite the opposite then why does it matter what women do and when?
> 
> How do you know it doesn't pay out?
> 
> And yes only willing to ask questions.


Then you are owed no answers.


----------



## Deejo

And to think we settled this back on page 7.

In May.

Of last year.


----------



## Thundarr

Deejo said:


> And to think we settled this back on page 7.
> 
> In May.
> 
> Of last year.


All of this has happened before and will happen again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bOy3RNyWME


----------



## Hopelessus

Sorry to be the one to disagree with many of you but I want to know how it is before moving forward. Whether that means waiting hours if you are really into things or a few days, weeks. You have to be able to enjoy yourself and be sure the other enjoys it also. That's not to say that either person is easy. Rather the opposite. Meeting up again may set the foundation to start over. Hey at least by then you will if its worth it in the sack.


----------



## Lionelhutz

JCD said:


> This doesn't have to have anything to do with moral codes. It has to do with what I call the 'newspaper reflection'.
> 
> Let me explain. A friend of mine was a pilot who flew cargo alone. During loading his airplane, the cargo door fell down and hit his head hard and put a bleeding gash into it. So much so that he was blotting his face the entire flight.
> 
> Yes, flight. Because he was dedicated enough to actually finish his job instead of go to the doctor.
> 
> 
> ....
> So imagine these scenarios:
> 
> "Hey...I had sex with this guy on a first date, and now he's stalking me."
> 
> "Hey, I had sex with a guy on the first date and he started pulling out a ball gag and a banjo..."
> 
> "I went to have sex with this guy on a first date and now my genitals itch..."
> 
> Now, a second date might not spare you from any of these indignities, but essentially, you (gender non specific) are jumping into the deep end of a relationship with as little preparation and as little information as you possible can have short of just tossing your car keys into a random singles bar and screwing whomever catches them. That you are marginally wiser than that by actually knowing the person's name first...big deal. You are still being impulsive.
> 
> ...
> And again, this isn't about your 'end game' either. If you want to get laid, that is an end game. All I can say is 'Michael Douglas/Glenn Close'. They had sex on a first date too.
> 
> I think, even if my end result is 'I want to get laid', I'd probably like to have sex on the third date. One, I happen to like a small emotional connection. Two, if you wait, you are more likely to get a positive reception if you call for a repeat instead of facing a woman who has the 'first date regrets' and can't believe she just jumped in bed with someone. Not all women feel that way but some do.
> 
> It's your life. And if your genitals itch a week after your first date sex...not going to be very sympathetic.


So it is not about morals or the "end game" but about fear and risks? So the discussion is about stats and risk analysis? 

All activities in life contain risks from driving to the movies or going on vacation abroad. 

But if so then it has little to do about any particular sexual act rather than a pattern of behavior. If you have sex with anyone and everyone at any opportunity then you are taking foolish risks but then again that describes a fairly small subset of those who may consider under certain circumstances having sex fairly quickly with a particular individual.


I don't see what the friend with the bleeding head says about any of the above. It is stupid to pilot a plane with a head injury...end of story.


----------



## vellocet

My opinions of women that have sex on the first date?

Back in the day, it would be a turn off and I wouldn't have had sex on the first date.

Now? I think those women are awesome!!!!


----------



## tacoma

JCD said:


> In a case like this, you are not 'cold calling' a woman/man. Even if you had had sex on that 'first date', you had days/weeks/months of positive and intimate conversation and 'getting to know you'.
> 
> So that isn't 'first date' sex. I would consider first date sex where it happened with only a half a dozen exchanges on email to find out basic compatibility, or a blind date or some such.
> 
> In your instance, it would be taking an already established relationship to the next level.



Oh, in that case I lied.

My wife and I didn't have sex on the first date.

Nevermind...


----------



## bandit.45

What do Inthink of women who put out on the first date?

:scratchhead:

Awesome! 


That's what I think!!


----------



## mjalex

Well, it wouldn't be my way of doing things, but I make a strong emotional connection before I give myself to anyone physically in that sense.

It's truly up to the person that went on the date. Many people could hit it off, while others are comfortable with it.

However, if you don't feel comfortable with it from the get-go, it may be a sign to stay away! In the end, it's completely up to you. If it's something you're willing to try, what is there to lose?


----------



## optimalprimus

I wouldn't read anything more into it than the date must have gone well and both people are prepared to have casual sex. Anything more would be unnecessarily judgmental imho.

I have done the sex on first date several times and a couple of them led to proper relationships - it was irrelevant.

With my wife I actually resisted sex on our first couple of dates because she was the younger sister of a friend and I guess I didn't want totally casual sex in that circumstance.


----------



## AndyWalker

Hi all! I'm good for women who are willing to have sex on the first date. Much worse, if a woman is at all times to refuse sex and promises to compensate all after the wedding. I prefer to live alone, but occasionally want female affection. So I created a profile on a dating site https://kovla.com/datings/us/. After a brief messaging with my favorite girl I meet her in real life. And if she does not agree to have sex on the first-second date, we parted.


----------

