# First meeting ended up in sex, can u still marry her?



## sarah jamil (Oct 24, 2010)

Iam with my lover now for about 5 months. The first time we met, we already made out. (It was our first time for both of us.) This went on for about 1 week, where we actually didn't REALLY love each other.. we... liked each other, bt u cant call this love. (where i agree)

But now, he is doubting, if we can ever get married. He thinks, that he could never forget, that our first time was only playing

In my opinion, if u love the other person, it doesnt maetter what
happened in the very beginning.. it matters that u love each other, and that u re perfect for each other.. this is why i think we can go on

to all guys out here.. would u stay in the relationship?
eventhought the first week wasnt serious, would u be able to forget about it and to go on and have a life together?

thx for ur help


----------



## ThinkTooMuch (Aug 6, 2010)

I stayed, was pretty happy for the first 24+ years together, married for 21, we met on Tuesday night, talked for hours, had our first date on Friday. All day Wednesday I knew I'd get lucky, little did I know she was planning a wedding. It took four years before I proposed.

We had a very good and happy time until menopause and physical problems came around, her depression some years later may be the death knell for us.

I was very reluctant to admit I loved her, meeting her only four and 1/2 months after I moved out of my house, my life with my two kids and BPD wife shattered, to say I was unhappy is an understatement.

Did you meet your lover soon after they broke up with a partner? 

Or is it the classical fear of commitment?



sarah jamil said:


> Iam with my lover now for about 5 months. The first time we met, we already made out. (It was our first time for both of us.) This went on for about 1 week, where we actually didn't REALLY love each other.. we... liked each other, bt u cant call this love. (where i agree)
> 
> But now, he is doubting, if we can ever get married. He thinks, that he could never forget, that our first time was only playing
> 
> ...


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

What you'll have to overcome is that if it was "that easy for you", it will be "that easy" for someone else.

Tough to live down.


----------



## sarah jamil (Oct 24, 2010)

he didnt really have a serious relationship before.. he had 2 gfs (or only one) but this was when he was rly young

so i guess it might me fear of commitment.. and we re now on a long distance relationship since 1 month.. bt i ll be back in 20 days..

maybe it got something to do with that?

bt in general.. its actually okay to have sex the first date, and still marry at the end?


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

sarah jamil said:


> he didnt really have a serious relationship before.. he had 2 gfs (or only one) but this was when he was rly young
> 
> so i guess it might me fear of commitment.. and we re now on a long distance relationship since 1 month.. bt i ll be back in 20 days..
> 
> ...


Anything that "works" is ok.

But, you have to stay close and communicate.

Both of you must believe this was "magic" and not "normal"

It can be a tough sell.


----------



## ThinkTooMuch (Aug 6, 2010)

Hi Sarah,

I think you two might still be pretty young, from my ancient 61 years I know how quickly I can fall for a woman, sex seriously erodes what little cognitive functions I have. That said I haven't fallen for many.

Is it ok? Sure its OK, but I recommend taking time, see if sex not love is the glue. Not that sex is bad, I think it is the greatest aspect of life, but for most of us today, there are other components of marriage, yet when my w lost her once energetic libido, I became aware of how important sex is to me.

I know I made a good decision back then, we had a lot of very happy times, my kids and I very dear to each other - a friend thinks I'm closer to my kids than many fathers who stayed married.



sarah jamil said:


> he didnt really have a serious relationship before.. he had 2 gfs (or only one) but this was when he was rly young
> 
> so i guess it might me fear of commitment.. and we re now on a long distance relationship since 1 month.. bt i ll be back in 20 days..
> 
> ...


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Conrad said:


> What you'll have to overcome is that if it was "that easy for you", it will be "that easy" for someone else.
> 
> Tough to live down.


Ew. Do people really still THINK this way? I mean, BOTH of them have to "over come" this. Hell why not over come it together.

OP I frankly think you sound too young to consider getting marriage. I hope I don't offend. But life is a looooong time. Why get married today? You can always get married tomorrow? True love is Really Important. But it is no where near everything. Get to know each other. 

For the record, my now husband and I of 16 years, firsts, had sex on our first meeting. Neither one of us ever doubted if that meant we were going to stray. As a matter of fact, we both felt that our ability to talk about it lent trust to our sense of honesty with each other.


----------



## F-102 (Sep 15, 2010)

Unfortunately, (or, in hindsight, FORTUNATELY), any woman I was with that I slept with on the first date, the relationship didn't last long.


----------



## couple (Nov 6, 2010)

I agree with vthomeschoolmom. Here's the truth of our 'romantic' first meeting.

I did not have sex with my wife on our first date. I had sex with her before our first date. Basically we met at a party on the dance floor and immediately started going at it heavy. I had my hand up her skirt in full view of many people before we even knew each other's names. About 3 hours later we were on someone's floor having dirty, drunken, unprotected sex with people occasionally walking by. Some might say that I completely used and disrespected her and others might say that she was a total sl**. We started dating after that and fell in love a few months later. We married several years later and have been married for a long time now.

We never felt that we needed to 'work through' this or wishing it started some other way. We are neither proud or ashamed of it...it just is. Maybe it has caused a somewhat different dynamic to our relationship...that you could argue remains to this day....I like to think that the spark that started it stayed with us. We respect each other immensely and are best friends. While I feel that most relationships starting in this way are doomed to go nowhere (or much worse consequences), I also believe that a woman just keeping her legs together for the x number of dates that society might dictate does nothing to build true respect.

Perhaps the odds were against us but it proves that cheap, dirty sex can lead to something beautiful and lasting in rare occasions.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

couple said:


> I agree with vthomeschoolmom. Here's the truth of our 'romantic' first meeting.
> 
> I did not have sex with my wife on our first date. I had sex with her before our first date. Basically we met at a party on the dance floor and immediately started going at it heavy. I had my hand up her skirt in full view of many people before we even knew each other's names. About 3 hours later we were on someone's floor having dirty, drunken, unprotected sex with people occasionally walking by. Some might say that I completely used and disrespected her and others might say that she was a total sl**. We started dating after that and fell in love a few months later. We married several years later and have been married for a long time now.
> 
> ...


Exactly! What is the exact number of dates society deems enough before jumping in to bed together? Who cares. The general tone here is almost like she is easy if she does and he is a hero.
With my former boyfriend, I waited 1 1/2 years. With my husband, it was the first date and I am damn proud of that.


----------



## dazedconfused (Nov 6, 2010)

Each to their own but my sister & her husband slept together the first time they met, they have been happily married for over 6 years, together 11. 
My husband & I did the same, although we knew eachother a little bit beforehand. Although im on here because my marriage is on the rocks, sleeping together at the start had no impact on whats happening now 6 years down the track!
Women are allowed to want sex just as all you men do & get away with it, with no questions asked


----------



## Atholk (Jul 25, 2009)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Ew. Do people really still THINK this way? I mean, BOTH of them have to "over come" this. Hell why not over come it together.


Most men think that way. "You can't make a ho a housewife" is I believe the phrase.


----------



## Rob774 (Sep 27, 2010)

Atholk said:


> *Most men think that way. "You can't make a ho a housewif*e" is I believe the phrase.


:iagree:

I am glad that this worked for so many people who got married eventually, all i can say that you were fortunate both of you guys were on the same level of thinking. For every one person that this ends in marriage, i'd say another 100 that the couples go their own way after a few weeks / months. If i met a chick, and we had s3x on the first night. My mind would say to me..."She's had s3x with others on the first night as well!!!" To me, i'll never trick myself to think that "only" my skills are that special. I'd think she's only out for s3x and treat her as such. I went about 6 months before i did the horizontal mattress dance, we were both young and i wanted to do things right.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Rob774 said:


> : For every one person that this ends in marriage, i'd say another 100 that the couples go their own way after a few weeks / months.


True enough. But this is also the case for another 100 who ate chicken on their first date. You don't know the other person after one get together whether you had sex or not.




> If i met a chick, and we had s3x on the first night. My mind would say to me..."She's had s3x with others on the first night as well!!!" To me, i'll never trick myself to think that "only" my skills are that special. I'd think she's only out for s3x and treat her as such. I went about 6 months before i did the horizontal mattress dance, we were both young and i wanted to do things right.


I guess the important thing would be for the two people to have the SAME attitudes about sex, whatever they are. It sounds like for you, sex on the first date is skanky and there is something wrong with being just out for sex. For DH and I there was nothing inherently wrong with just sex, a playful romp. At that stage, of course we weren't after marriage with each other! We had just met! True love and commitment promises came later. Since you and I have different attitudes, you and I would not be successful. Since DH and I have same attitudes, it worked for us.

The only thing I don't tend to understand is having a different set of expectations between goose and gander. Some people think a woman is a ho for sex on the first date but a man isn't. It's either wrong or skanky or it isn't seems to me.


----------



## Rob774 (Sep 27, 2010)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> True enough. But this is also the case for another 100 who ate chicken on their first date. You don't know the other person after one get together whether you had sex or not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Before you paint me into a corner, here's my outlook. I'm the shy, slow moving, good guy. So my experience has always been... i go as my date goes. If i met you and you were leaning like things were going so fast that something might jump off... i would not stand in your way! Its just that my experience would caution me into pursuing something serious with you, because like i said, i'd assume you are like this with everyone, and that would make you not "long term" material. If things are playing by my pace... i persoonally would not choose to sleep with the woman on the first date. Keep in mind, i'm trying to make it clear that i don't look down upon anyone who has done this. All i can say for is how I would react to it. Without prying to deeply, how many guys did you sleep with on the first date, i'd be shocked if you said more than a couple. Translation... you aren't a fast girl looking for hookups. If a guy get's the impression that you are, you think he is still going to consider you "long term" valuable.

With that being seing gender speaking, i agree that the connect to gender and s3x has never been fair. Its like if a 25 year old says she's been with 20 guys we look at her sideways, but if its a guy saying the same thing we give him a "Thatta-Boy!" All i can say is that its the society we live in. The older i get the more i try to define why things are this way. Currently i think that society believes women should make better choices in who they choose to bed, and how many because they are the future nurturing, intelligent, caring mothers. Where as us guys get the pass because its in us to be no good, to be a dog and spread its seed. I mean look in the past, it was always the man doing more dirt out in the street. Those viewpoints haven't changed much over the years.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Rob774 said:


> Before you paint me into a corner, here's my outlook. I'm the shy, slow moving, good guy.


To be clear, I was not trying to attribute any specific attitudes to YOU. Just pulling out some general attitudes.



> So my experience has always been... i go as my date goes. If i met you and you were leaning like things were going so fast that something might jump off... i would not stand in your way! Its just that my experience would caution me into pursuing something serious with you, because like i said, i'd assume you are like this with everyone, and that would make you not "long term" material.


And I guess that is the kind of commonality of attitude that I feel is likely important. That we had done this with other people besides my husband did not remove me from long term material in his book or he in mine. 

I don't think that the issue is about sex on the first date or whatever but the common attitudes toward it that are important.





> If things are playing by my pace... i persoonally would not choose to sleep with the woman on the first date. Keep in mind, i'm trying to make it clear that i don't look down upon anyone who has done this. All i can say for is how I would react to it. Without prying to deeply, how many guys did you sleep with on the first date, i'd be shocked if you said more than a couple. Translation... you aren't a fast girl looking for hookups.


Ah there is where we are different. I was a fast girl looking for hookups. Friends with benes if ok with me. And neither DH nor I nor the couple of other people who asked me to marry them saw that as a problem. So were they for the record. But we stuck around and got to know each other, because friends or whatever. In the case of my husband, fell in love. 



> If a guy get's the impression that you are, you think he is still going to consider you "long term" valuable.


Unless he is similar to me in attitude as is my husband. 



> With that being seing gender speaking, i agree that the connect to gender and s3x has never been fair. Its like if a 25 year old says she's been with 20 guys we look at her sideways, but if its a guy saying the same thing we give him a "Thatta-Boy!" All i can say is that its the society we live in.


I guess I think that the folk who live in that reality don't have it as good as it can be. I think that attitude is a tad backward. But that is me.



> The older i get the more i try to define why things are this way. Currently i think that society believes women should make better choices in who they choose to bed, and how many because they are the future nurturing, intelligent, caring mothers.


I don't see how my choices to have sex has changed my ability to nurture my children. 



> Where as us guys get the pass because its in us to be no good, to be a dog and spread its seed. I mean look in the past, it was always the man doing more dirt out in the street. Those viewpoints haven't changed much over the years.


I guess it depends on who your circle is. I would not choose to date or romp with someone whose viewpoint leaned that way. But then neither would they chose to date or romp with me.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

You should be asking him the same thing. What, your morals are looser than his or vice versa? He played too - so maybe he's not marriage material either? What country is he from or what is his religion - this could be driving the issue.

But I say what's good the goose is good for the gander. He reciprocated so he's as guilty as you (if that's the way he sees it) - so how is his virtue intact and yours isn't? This isn't a man I would want to marry anyway - double standard doesn't work for me.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

MarriedWifeInLove said:


> But I say what's good the goose is good for the gander.


:iagree:


----------



## major misfit (Oct 17, 2010)

I'd like to know what a woman's sex life has to do with her ability to be a mother??? From where I'm standing (or sitting, as the case may be)..the more things change, the more they stay the same. The ole double standard is alive and well.

That being said...I can't have sex with someone I don't already feel an emotional connection to. Just can't do it. But that's just ME. By the time I get to the sex part, the relationship has already "gone somewhere". I'm in no position to judge someone else who doesn't feel this way though. It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

I know that I came a little late in the game on this but most guys that I know really aren't trying to marry the woman that they have s3x with very early in the relationship. I am not saying that all is lost, mind you. I am just saying that, yes, we feel that if a woman lets us have "the cookie" early on, then it's her m.o. and she's not "wife material". I fully understand the double-standard involved and it's irrelevant. We come across double-standards all of the time. I am not saying that it's fair, but that's the reality.

I also understand the "what's good for the goose..." logic. Trust and believe that a good portion men aren't viewing it that way. In fact, most women that I know don't view it that way either. Just my two cents. Good luck and stay positive. If this guy cannot get beyond what happened then it wasn't meant to be.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Orion said:


> I know that I came a little late in the game on this but most guys that I know really aren't trying to marry the woman that they have s3x with very early in the relationship. I am not saying that all is lost, mind you. I am just saying that, yes, we feel that if a woman lets us have "the cookie" early on, then it's her m.o. and she's not "wife material". I fully understand the double-standard involved and it's irrelevant.


Not to me it isn't! Different strokes for different folks.



> We come across double-standards all of the time. I am not saying that it's fair, but that's the reality.


I fight against things that are unfair most of the time.


> I also understand the "what's good for the goose..." logic. Trust and believe that a good portion men aren't viewing it that way.


Luckily there are plenty for those of us women who would not tolerate that kind of double standard or the sexist attitudes on which it based.


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Not to me it isn't! Different strokes for different folks.
> 
> 
> I fight against things that are unfair most of the time.
> ...


I completely hear all that you are saying. I am simply telling you what the reality of the situation is. As politically correct as "What's good for the goose..." is in this scenario, that is not how many men (and many women in my experience) view this situation. And it appears that the poster's love interest definitely is not viewing the situation like that. My intent is not the debate the fairness of the issue but to give the poster and honest view of how a man views this.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Orion said:


> I completely hear all that you are saying. I am simply telling you what the reality of the situation is.
> [/quote[
> Whose situation? Certainly not mine. That was nothing like the reality of the situation when DH and I got together.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Orion said:


> I am simply telling you what the reality of the situation is.


Let me put it another way that may be more clear. That is exactly what they used to say about slavery then Jim Crow. Japanese internment. The execution and persecution of Jews. 

While things have gotten a LOT better, and I am not man hating card carrying feminazi, sexism is still alive and well in some pockets of the USA.


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Orion said:
> 
> 
> > I completely hear all that you are saying. I am simply telling you what the reality of the situation is.
> ...


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

And to her I say, drop him like a hot rock!


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Let me put it another way that may be more clear. That is exactly what they used to say about slavery then Jim Crow. Japanese internment. The execution and persecution of Jews.
> 
> While things have gotten a LOT better, and I am not man hating card carrying feminazi, sexism is still alive and well in some pockets of the USA.


VT,

You're right. They did say that about all of those. Is your contention that a girl having sex with a guy on the first date and then him not being able to get past it and look at her as wife material is on the same level as the atrocities that you listed?


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Orion said:


> VT,
> 
> You're right. They did say that about all of those. Is your contention that a girl having sex with a guy on the first date and then him not being able to get past it and look at her as wife material is on the same level as the atrocities that you listed?


No. I was not attempting to apply any measurement to the awfulness. I was drawing a parallel to the prejudice and bigotry common to both and the common language used to justify its continuation.

Personally I would not choose to invest a lot of emotional energy to a prejudiced person. And that is what I would call someone who hold someone morally lesser than themselves for the same behavior.


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> No. I was not attempting to apply any measurement to the awfulness. I was drawing a parallel to the prejudice and bigotry common to both and the common language used to justify its continuation.
> 
> Personally I would not choose to invest a lot of emotional energy to a prejudiced person. And that is what I would call someone who hold someone morally lesser than themselves for the same behavior.


And you should not invest that energy. The issue here is that the OP has invested the energy and is trying to get her barings. I agree with you that she needs to move on and find someone else.

And I would not call the person prejudiced or bigoted for holding the person to a different standard for the same behavior. That person is hypocritical.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Orion said:


> And you should not invest that energy. The issue here is that the OP has invested the energy and is trying to get her barings. I agree with you that she needs to move on and find someone else.


Yup.



> And I would not call the person prejudiced or bigoted for holding the person to a different standard for the same behavior. That person is hypocritical.


Ah yes. Just as awesome. But I would call it prejudice. It is a judgment pre-made based on some outdated societal standard made without thought or understanding.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

Orion said:


> And I would not call the person prejudiced or bigoted for holding the person to a different standard for the same behavior. That person is hypocritical.


Amen!


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes. Just as awesome. But I would call it prejudice. It is a judgment pre-made based on some outdated societal standard made without thought or understanding.


Eh, my definition fit better. Ha!


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

I would run as fast as possible from any guy who cares about your pre-him sex life. Seriously, talk about mixed messages! Men say they want women to want sex, to enjoy sex, to view sex more like they do, but the minute a woman does that, she's labeled a ***** and "not long-term material." SO WHAT if she was sexually alive/active/free with each guy she met/dated before you? Maybe she JUST LIKES SEX. Isn't that a good thing? It does not mean she will continue to be sexual with other men while in a committed relationship; the only evidence on that point is whether she cheated on anyone before, not whether she was previously sexual active!


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Orion said:


> Eh, my definition fit better. Ha!


Indeed. I agree your definition is better!


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

sisters359 said:


> I would run as fast as possible from any guy who cares about your pre-him sex life. Seriously, talk about mixed messages! Men say they want women to want sex, to enjoy sex, to view sex more like they do, but the minute a woman does that, she's labeled a ***** and "not long-term material." SO WHAT if she was sexually alive/active/free with each guy she met/dated before you?


Each guys she met?? Even the one with bad breath and bad teeth? Ew. 





> Maybe she JUST LIKES SEX. Isn't that a good thing? It does not mean she will continue to be sexual with other men while in a committed relationship; the only evidence on that point is whether she cheated on anyone before, not whether she was previously sexual active!


Amen, "sister"


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

sisters359 said:


> SO WHAT if she was sexually alive/active/free with each guy she met/dated before you? Maybe she JUST LIKES SEX.


Every guy? Seriously? Ha! Saying that it's fine for a woman to have slept with every guy that she met/dated because "maybe she likes sex" is like walking into a compulsive hoarder's home that is packed to the ceiling and saying that it's okay because "maybe they like to keep things". :rofl:


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

Oh, good god, people. We aren't talking "literally" every guy here. Lighten up. But why should a woman be rejected b/c she enjoys sex? That's the real question!!


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

I was joking with you, sister. I agree with you.


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

sisters359 said:


> Oh, good god, people. We aren't talking "literally" every guy here. Lighten up. But why should a woman be rejected b/c she enjoys sex? That's the real question!!


I was joking as well. You didn't think that the Hoarders analogy was funny? 

However, the real question isn't why should a woman be rejected because she enjoys sex. The real question (posed by the OP) is whether or not her man can forget about the fact that they slept together so quickly. And, I am saying that I don't see him forgetting about that. And, if he cannot, then she needs to find someone who can accept that if she chooses to do that again.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

On the other side of the coin, I don't want to be with a man that sleeps with me on the first date either even though as a teenager I mistook sex for love so was more likely to sleep with a boy on the first date, it was insecurity on my part and my own naiveness. Took my husband and I quite a few months of woo'ing before sex ever came into the picture and he was the only man (or boy since I was a teen) that did this with me. Because of this, our relationship started out with me having a deep admiration for him and the first time we "had sex" we both recognized we were "making love". It's stuck through the years.

A man who is willing to do a woman on the first date but then plans on looking for another woman that will refuse sex for his longterm wife is a man that women should run far, far away from. This kind of man buys into double standards, believes his needs are more important than his partners and thinks it's OK to screw whatever he wants but will expect women to be held to higher standards than himself...all the while belittling any woman who doesn't. EWWWWWWWW EWWWWWWWWW EWWWWWWWW!!!!


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

sarah jamil said:


> Iam with my lover now for about 5 months. The first time we met, we already made out. (It was our first time for both of us.) This went on for about 1 week, where we actually didn't REALLY love each other.. we... liked each other, bt u cant call this love. (where i agree)
> 
> But now, he is doubting, if we can ever get married. He thinks, that he could never forget, that our first time was only playing
> 
> ...


Sarah, you didn't even have sex on the first date did you?--or is made out the equivalent to sex? Love is not something that can be measured by when you had sex. It really can't. Are you sure you love him? Aren't you the least bit upset that he could doubt his longterm feelings for you based upon your initial contact? I would be. Don't you think you deserve to be with a man that is fond of all the memories you have in bed together? That can't get enough of you and wants to devour you with passion? I don't know, all relationships go through rocky times, are you sure he isn't just dwelling on that aspect because he has other doubts that you're both dealing with now?


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

I don't think sleeping with someone on your first date makes you a bad person, non-wife or non-husband material or someone with loose morals.

It's the double standard again - if a guy sleeps with a woman on the first date, he's a stud; if a woman does the same thing she's a ****. WTF?

What - women can't enjoy sex as much as men? What - women can't enjoy variety as much as men?

Helloooo...this is 2010, not 1950.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

MarriedWifeInLove said:


> I don't think sleeping with someone on your first date makes you a bad person, non-wife or non-husband material or someone with loose morals.
> 
> It's the double standard again - if a guy sleeps with a woman on the first date, he's a stud; if a woman does the same thing she's a ****. WTF?
> 
> ...


That was my point exactly. From what some have posted it sounds like it okay for him but not for her. Aren't you BOTH having sex on the first date? What makes one okay and not the other. It's crap.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

Brennan said:


> That was my point exactly. From what some have posted it sounds like it okay for him but not for her. Aren't you BOTH having sex on the first date? What makes one okay and not the other. It's crap.


Right on! :iagree:


----------

