I agree that timelines are foolish, but based on some of the posts here and past experiences of my own, I would say some people definitely have some sort of a “three strikes and you’re out” rule. I don’t think I could feel “connected” enough to anyone by three (or so) dates to gripe about family members - let alone have sex with them. But that’s just me. For one thing, I’m cautious. Your eagerness to bed me so quickly makes me wonder how discriminating you’ve been with past partners. It also makes me suspicious of your motives. Sex without love is a horribly, horribly empty experience and I am pretty sure I can’t fall in love by three (or so) dates. I don’t doubt that lots of women are eager to dive right in and that’s entirely their affair. I am not one of them.
I might argue that sex is being confused with intimacy and/or love here. I fail to see how one can argue that they’re genuinely interested in someone (or concerned that the relationship is going nowhere) if they’re going to bolt early on in the association because they haven’t gotten any. I think I’d be a pretty great person to get involved with, but how would anyone ever know if they bail so quickly? Why should sex be the determining factor?
So you’re saying that a woman should not expect to have a non-sexual relationship with any male that isn’t a family member? Are you saying that you derive no benefit from companionship with females unless you get to have sex with them?
I am certain you did not mean to suggest that a girl should be ready to put out simply because you’ve spent time/money/energy on her. I appreciate that men are sexual beings (aren’t we all?), but I’ve yet to hear of a case where someone died from lack of sex. I crave intimacy and until I believe that exists between us, there will be no sex.
Man, I gotta admit that this thread is depressing me.
I don’t care if anyone else has sex after three dates, five years, before the first date, whatever. But I’m in the “wait until marriage” camp (for myself, not to force upon others!) for various reasons. And the fact that so many people here seem to scorn that idea makes me feel like it’s gonna be hard to make any kind of relationship last if I don’t ignore part of my beliefs.
Scorn’s the last thing I’d be offering you. I don’t disagree with your principles, I wish you every success in finding someone who shares them, and I don’t think it’s an unreasonable or unrealistic hope. It’s just that, in my own case, I’m a little bitter and cynical because what I’ve mainly earned by my patience is the opportunity to carry on being patient, and I naturally feel a little short-changed and “if I’d only known sooner”.
Somewhere between the adolescent fantasy of someone who looked like a porno star and performed like a mink on Spanish Fly, and the reality of what I actually get, is, I think, the kind of sex life I could have reasonably expected and would have happily settled for. shrug There’s no guarantee that a try-before-you-buy deal would have left me any better off, I suppose.
We are ALL discriminating - including you! You’ve made it clear that unless someone was willing to wait around for you, then you’d dump them. Me - i’m more aware of what my needs are and wouldn’t put up with that for very long. Just two different people.
The problem with this is you are just thinking of yourself and your own needs only. Lets step back and look at this in a broad general sense. Woman look for attention to themselves by the opposite sex (ie. Talking to them, being seen with them, spending time with them, buying them things), Men look for sex and physical interaction. Now going from there and breaking things down and making them more complex (because we ARE more complex - both sexes) - you want to be in a fullfilled and satisfying relationship. So going from there it would seem that you are definitely getting what you want out of the relationship but your partner may not be.
Yes, you should not expect to have that type of relationship. In the past I’ve had more female friends than I do now (yes, I do still have a few). But most of the time (with one exception) i’d want to jump their bones at any given time, no matter how plutonic the relationship was. This is just unneeded and overly frustrating for me. Why put myself through that? Why not be with someone with all these great “friendship” qualities and get my needs satisfied too!?
It’s not about a “tit for tat” type of situation. It’s simply paying attention and thinking about someone else’s needs (your partners) besides your own!
Well, I’d have to question whether you in fact were very sexual.
Jeez, I can understand a three-dates-and-no-smooch-you’re-out rule (even if I don’t have one myself), but for sex? That’s insane!
FTR my experience has been all over the map, and having a libido myself (and believng that sex is part of normal, adult romantic relationships), as women also do, you know, I wouldn’t wait until marriage to see if I were compatible with someone.
However, I think the ability to be compatible on the conversational level, and the general being-comfortable-around-each-other level, is at least as important. And my need to feel comfortbale with someone before having sex is at least as important as his need to have sex, especially considering how dangerous sex with the wrong person can be. If he can’t respect that, then I don’t want to be with him.
Both my serious long-term relationships were of the sex-before-the-first-date variety. I have lots of female friends with no sexual interest, so it is possible and rewarding.
I, for one, believe that sexual passion and desire is a big part of what we call ‘romance’. If there’s no sexual passion, there’s no romance for this boy.
Sex is a BIG part of marriage. It was the first part of my marriage to go and it was difficult to keep the relationship going without the passion. I realize that not everyone shares my views, and I say to each their own.
And if there’s no sexual desire, no chemistry, no romance, I can’t see giving a girl a third date. We will probably hang out together, but it won’t be ‘dating’. If there’s desire and passion on my part, but the lady won’t make out with me by the third date, I’ll figure she’s using me for one thing or another and won’t ask her out anymore.
If sex is such a big part of marriage to you, I am not at all surprised that your marriage apparently failed when the sex was no longer good. Perhaps if sex were merely one component of a successful marriage and not the most important part, things would have been different.
Waitaminnit! Who said anything about no sexual desire, no chemistry and no romance? I am VERY attrracted to my fiancee and think she’s the sexiest person I’ve ever met. We have terrific chemistry together. We cuddle, we make out, we engage in petting, etc. We just haven’t “gone all the way” yet. I hope the sex will be fantastic once we get married, but I will still be in love with her if it isn’t, and I’ll still enjoy hugging, kissing, and caressing her. Hopefully, she feels the same about me.
I will say that I’ve always felt there needs to be some sign of chemistry and attraction early in a relationship for it to be worth my while, but that includes anything from holding hands to a passionate embrace.
to eahc his own, of course, but pelase don’t accuse those of us who are waiting for marriage of having no sexual desire, no chemistry and no romance with our significant others.
Regards,
Barry
P.S. Anybody know a good cure for “Blue Ball” syndrome?
I admit I am discriminating. To me, this is a good thing to be. When I used the word in my earlier post, I meant someone who was careless about who they slept with - in terms of STDs, multiple children from previous affairs, and also someone who just runs from person to person looking for sex. I doubt I’d get the opportunity to dump someone with a “put out or get out” attitude because he’d already be out the door and moving on to his next amour. If a man is willing to wait, then I would have no reason to dump him. But then you would say I’m being selfish…
What sort of women have you been dating that you should be so cynical? I, for one, do not expect men to buy me things/pay my way 100% of the time like some mercenary little twit. I’m glad to pay for half of everything - and sometimes I’ll treat him or he’ll treat me. I do not date someone so we can sit around and focus on me. As far as spending time with someone, talking to them, being seen with them - I confess that’s pretty much what I’ve always thought people who are interested in each other are supposed to do. Are you saying therefore that you, a male, don’t consider these things as important as, or more important than, sex? Apparently so when I read your next line…
You are saying that I’m being unreasonable (and selfish) to expect you to wait, but you’re not being unreasonable etc. to expect me to leap into the sack early on before any sense of trust or intimacy has been developed? Let’s say I take a fellow up on his offer and we have sex very early into the affair. And let us say that he turns out to be the biggest turd on the planet and dumps me after that one encounter. Now I’m left feeling cheap and used and foolish. I don’t much enjoy feeling that way. Would you?
Now, in regards to friendship between the sexes…
It’s called self-restraint. Do you never deny yourself anything? I think you are probably unusual in your frustration – not that men don’t think about having sex with women friends (or vice versa) – but I doubt that my male friends would ever consider quitting my company because I wouldn’t have sex with them. The thing is, you rank sex above friendship and love (as shown by your distaste for a non-sexual relationship with a female). It would seem to me that you’re heading for a lifetime of disappointment, bitterness and cynicism. But that’s your lookout.
Compared to you, I might say the same thing. You are perhaps mistaking common sense and a sense of self-worth for frigidity.
To those in the “wouldn’t try on a pair of shoes before buying them” camp: Good sex can be learned if both parties are interested and motivated. Mary Lou Retton did not spring forth from her mother’s womb doing flip flops and back walkovers, I’m guessing. She learned how to do gymnastics and good sex is much easier to learn for most people, I’m guessing again, than gymnastics.
From what I’ve read, most folks aren’t that entertaining the first few times they have sex, but with practice, experimentation and perhaps some books on the side I suppose anyone who loves his spouse could learn to satisfy her sexually or at least show steady improvement. I think it helps if both have a similar level of experience and don’t bring great expectations (lower case, no italics or quotes) initially to their sex lives.
If one has had extensive sexual experience prior to marriage, that one will probably be at least initially disappointed with a virgin’s sexual performance but one really cannot blame the virgin for that.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Boyo Jim * 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.
I appreciate your taking the time to address me. Cool.
“Someone who has just stumbled across the thread” may be key to your perception here. Two persons have taken shots at Mariah Carey in this thread. I thought one was playful, innocent and most likely that person’s honest opinion of Mariah Carey while the other was from one who I have been sparring with throughout this thread. That person has not responded to my last post made in his direction, which I perhaps naively interpret as a ceasefire which is fine with me.
I will always respond whenever I can to anyone calls me out, but I would also like to put this Lorenzo-induced trainwreck behind me.
What makes you think it’s all a matter of technique? There’s also a matter of sexual preferences, of smell, of how you respond to your partner as an animal. If you enter marriage without knowing that, you may be delighted with what you discover – or you may be disappointed. I think your genitals should DEFINITELY have a say in who your sex partner for life should be.
This isn’t meant to imply scorn for the wait until marriage of 500 dates or whatever crew. But I do think you are making a mistake and possibly setting yourself up for some major disappointment.
As for the notion of waiting years for a partner, well, it’s kinda the flip side of the “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” deal – it’s “Why pay a million bucks for the cow if you don’t even know if it’s a good milker?” If you’re taking your time and attention as valuable, which I think it is.
Um, I should make it clear that this logic is applicable to BOTH genders in my opinion. Some guy who insists on making a gal wait for many months or even year before delivering the goods is playing the exact same game as gals who do the same.
The problem with this anology is that a cow doesn’t offer much other then milk (unless you’re hungry). A human relationship is expected to have more facets then “How’s the sex?”.
Remember what I said about the woman I’m involved with? The one with multiple disabilities, including osteoporosis and some severe spinal fractures?
I already KNOW that sexual intercourse with her would be problematic, given her fragile bones and history of fractures. I know that I’d have to treat her gingerly, and that this would detract from the sexual experience. Frankly, it doesn’t matter. I care deeply about this woman, and even if we could never, EVER have sex, I wouldn’t care for her any less. If we wind up getting married, then I’ll rejoice, and it won’t matter to me that she can’t devote herself to sexual intercourse the way a healthy woman would.
She has much more to offer than mere sex. Much, MUCH more. I don’t want to hear ANYONE suggest that she’s less worthy of pursuit, simply because she can’t offer herself fully in sex.
[irony]
“I think conversation is the most important thing in a relationship. I couldn’t stand a life that was full of silence”.
“YOU FIEND!! My intended is a deaf-mute! How dare you imply that she is of less worth because she cannot talk! YOU’RE GONNA DIE!!!”
[/irony]
JThunder, most of us, I believe, were interested in talking about what our partners, or prospective partners, can or could do but choose not to. Only an idiot would, having hitched up with someone physically incapable of the sex act, complain about their refusal to do. Have I italicized that sentence enough? :rolleyes:
I think you’re wrong in saying that this is merely about what a sexual partner would “choose not to [do].” That claim is by no means evident from the postings so far. In fact, notice what Evil Captor said,
The very phrasing of that question shows that this debate is NOT about mere sexual choices. Rather, Captor’s phrasing assumes that the person is a poor “milker” – NOT that the person’s milking preferences don’t line up with your own.
Again, I remind you that the woman I mentioned ISN’T physically incapable of the act. Rather, her disabilities render her incapable of delivering pleasure as thoroughly as others could. In other words, if you’re concerned about sexual gratification, she’s what others would consider to be a below-average “lay.”
Your analogy to a deaf mute is invalid. A deaf mute can not speak at all. This woman, in contrast, COULD have sex, but her spinal disabilities and fragile bones would prevent her from engaging herself fully in the act. Yet even though she would not deliver pleasure as fully as a healthy woman would, that does not change my feelings for her.
