My fiancee and I have been going out an average of 2-3 times a week (that includes times when she comes over after work and we cook dinner together) for the last 7 months or so. I expect that will continue until we get married at the end of April. So, to answer your question, somewhere in the vicinity of 100 dates until sex…
Barry
One would think so, but she was rather inexperienced, nervous, modest, and not so adventuresome, so I honored that and it was gentle and pretty forgettable.
Thankfully, it’s gotten (gotten?) better since then, though. 
The woman cannot carry a tune in a bucket, but, thankfully, keeps it to herself.
Ideally zero dates. Maybe one “nice guy” date just to get it out of the way. Basically, my philosophy is that until specificed otherwise, you can wait as long as you like to have sex with me, but I will still be dating other people or going out with my pals looking to score on girls. I may continue hanging out with you if you are cool to hang out with, but your status as a ‘girlfriend’ isn’t going to improve until we hit it.
Not too many dates before sex, ideally. Dates make me fart, and that would be embarrassing.
Obviously, everyone’s mileage varies on this, and jeevgurl would probably kill me if I told people how many dates it took to get her into bed.
It also depends on how you define a “date.” Does a spontaneous, unplanned bumping of uglies with someone that you’ve known for a while qualify? I lost my virginity to someone that I had known for over a year as a friend/ coworker, but never “dated.” One night at a club, we just kind of went for it. Our first “date” was about a week afterwards.
While I don’t know that I’d agree with a “three and out” rule, I do think that if some evidence of physical interest has not been tendered by the third date, it’s not likely to be tendered ever. Preferably a kiss with some heat.
Yeah, a definition of “date” would help. Otherwise, I can’t make up my mind whether it was pre-first date with one ex, or over a year and a half. (We had a rather odd and unusual relationship path; we were sleeping in the same bed with each other for over a year before there was even any smooching. OK, I was sleeping; he, however, confessed much later that he’d spent many of those nights fidgeting.)
Eew, Mariah Carey. I hear she’s got cooties.
This isn’t the pit, buddy. Feel free to criticise or question anyone’s opinion here but this is not the place for personal insults, no matter how thinly veiled. We are dedicated here to eliminating ignorance, not perpetrating it.
And yes, as a matter of fact, I am the conscience of this board. 
I’d love to finish this discussion with you off this board, but your email is unlisted.
sooooo…Mariah Carey doesn’t have cooties? That’s good to know.
In order to foil the (false) supposition that my past behavior towards my wife could be explained by a lack of attractiveness, I asserted that my wife compares favorably to Mariah Carey in the looks department. Without quoting anyone, this other poster arrives several posts later to state that “Mariah Carey has cooties.” By itself, without any antecedents, the post looks like it’s innocently coming from left field but based on my previous post and my rebuke to this poster earlier in the same thread, I think a resonable person could conclude that this “Mariah Carey has cooties” business is a thinly veiled weak cheap shot at my wife.
Lorenzo, as someone who has just stumbled across the thread and has no interest whatsoever in the relations between you and your wife, I’d say you are wrong. People are taking shots at Mariah Carey, not your wife.
As to the original q: “How many dates before sex”?
For too long now, an accurate answer for me would be, “ALL of them.”
You are talking about sex involving TWO people, right?
What if they are? For that matter, what if we are?
I am certainly atracted to my fiancee, and I am definitely looking forward to having sex with her, but we’re not marrying each other for the sex. We’re getting married because we love each other and want to spend our lives together. Sex will, I hope, add a whole new dimension to our relationship (and a positive one at that), but asking “what if she is a lousy lay” is akin to asking “what if she’s a lousy cook”?
Sex is important, but it’s not the primary reason for marriage (at least, not for us). If the sex is good, that’s wonderful! If it’s not, she’s still a fantastic, kind-hearted, amazing person who cares deeply about me and for whom I care deeply as well. Plus, we both get a lot of enjoyment out of simple kissing and cuddling…
Barry
I’ll agree to that.
In fact, I’ve been getting involved with a lovely woman with various serious disabilities. Among other things, she has some severe spinal injuries which prevent her from running, climbing or engaging in other physical activities. If she were to have sex, it would have to be done very gingerly, so as to avoid fracturing any of her vertebrae.
Was I disappointed to learn this? Yes. Would this prevent me from marrying her someday? Heavens, no! Like godzillatemple, I’m not about to marry someone for the sex. Heck, even if I couldn’t have intercourse with her at all, I would still consider making her my wife. (I say “consider” because I don’t know for sure if she’s the right one.)
When true love is involved, sex isn’t all that important. It’s an attractive bonus, but love can look beyond that.
I’m not naming any names or singling out any posts, but I think some people need to listen to their genitals a little more – make that a LOT more – when it comes to relations with the opposite sex.
irishfella and i were kinda first date.
um.
we’ve been together 18 months.
very in love.
very happy.
marriage and babies have been mentioned.
we’re long distance and see each other maybe once every 6 weeks.
so sex isn’t the main focus of the relationship, but we’re much closer because of it.
put it this way, knowing i have a man who is THAT good in bed makes me much less likely to cheat during the times we’re apart.
what would be the point?
i know i’m with the best 
Ehhh… poor analogy. If she’s a lousy cook then you can assume the cooking duties if your aptitude runs that way, and you may both eat better as a result. Or you may be able to live on pre-packaged stuff, or some very basic cookery most of the time with the occasional trips out for some gourmet food when you need to relieve the monotony. I’m sure I don’t need to labour the point.
Declared interest: I let Mrs Malacandra, in effect, write me a post-dated cheque pre-marriage. It’s still bouncing, nine years later 
This suggests that 100% pre-marital chastity is a Good Thing, if only for this reason: if the sex you get from your one and only is the one and only sex you’ve ever had, you’ve no reason to suppose it could have been any better. :rolleyes:
No, actually, I think the analogy is very much on point. Not to belabor the point, but if the sex isn’t good there are other options. There’s always “prepackaged stuff” and “takeout” if I really need it. However, the most important point is that sex, unlike food, is NOT a necessity of life (or even of happiness). I’ve survived 36 years without it and, although I am really looking forward to it, it’s not like I will be giving anything up if the sex isn’t great.
Besides, what if I’m the one who is lousy in bed? Lowered expectations works both ways you know…
Barry
Wow – a very interesting thread! I would say that the general “rule of thumb” is three dates or “around” three dates. There’s no “timeline” like people like yosemitebabe seem to immediately jump too. That’s just plain foolish. The point is, you need to be conscious of your needs and not be taken advantage of as well. The main reason (for a guy) to go out on a date is to meet woman of the opposite sex – really connect with them, talk - and YES get in their pants! That’s pretty much on our minds most of the time until we get it. By making us wait for this - while at the same time spending lots of time, money, and energy without – how is this really helping us guys’ frustrations in this area? Hell, I may as well just go out with my male buddies!! This also brings up the 'ol debate of whether men and women can “just be friends”. Almost all the time this is a big fat NO. 'Course with waiting for long periods of time – a woman can string a guy along and then get this “friendship” while totally disregarding their partners needs.
Well, I guess this philosophy may work in small town!
I was with this until “sex isn’t a big part of marriage”…uh, huh!?! Well, if it isn’t - it damn well should be for ya! I very much disagree. Sex isn’t the only thing for a successful marriage – but it is one of the key “blocks”. A good healthy sex life, communication, intellect, passion, laughter, physical (body), …these and others are some of those blocks – each weighted equally and important. This to me signifies a thriving and healthy relationship.
I would agree that things may differ by situation. That’s why it’s not a hard and fast “three dates and your out” rule. But again - it’s being aware of my needs and wanting them fulfilled (as well as fulfilling my dates, of course). I just can’t see waiting so long for this – for what!?
Amen, brother, amen!
In my life, I’ve had sex on the first date quite a lot if I liked the guy, was attracted, and we had a place closeby to do it. Conversely, if I really liked a guy and he sent me signals that he wanted to wait, I was cool with that too.
In either case most of the guys I wanted to have long-term relationships with, I did, whether or not we had sex right away or waited. Same for one-night stands, which some of them obviously were. So for me, I suppose there is / was no hard-and-fast rule. I just pretty much adhered to what the guy and I decided we wanted to do at the moment.