I’m speaking my personal opinions here, obviously.
The likelihood I’m going to ask somebody out a second date is generally based on how well I liked the other person on the first date. That can be the result of a number of factors like personality, intelligence, a sense of humor, good conversation, common interests, etc.
But I’ll also admit sex would be a big positive as well. If I have sex with a woman on the first date, I’m a lot more likely to ask her out for a second date. Because while it’s not the only factor in judging whether a first date went well, it’s certainly going to be a factor.
Could you restate it? I don’t understand where you have said that or argued it persuasively. Simply put: there is no biological reason for a woman to sleep around. She must be selective so that her one child per year will be sired by the most attractive man, and the man most likely to stay around to bring wooly mammoth back to the cave.
If she screws around, no guy will stay because he isn’t sure that is really his kid, and he would rather stay with the other woman who is faithful and cooking wooly mammoth.
If by “biological” you mean simply “urge to procreate” then I’d agree that primitive women have little motivation to sleep around.
But consider this:
What if “biological” is expanded to include “sex feels good and I like doing things that feel good”
AND/OR
What if “biological” is expanded to include sociological things like “My reproductive optimal is to be impregnated by the strongest, best male specimen but to be long term mates with the richest, most powerful male specimen and, at least in this village, those aren’t the same guys.”
Now suddenly the women’s perspective isn’t quite the same. For darn good, but still mostly subliminal reasons unconnected to current cultural fashion.
Humans are far, far more complex animals than are the most primitive of sexually reproducing flowers or insects. Looking *only *at that part of human reproductive “logic” that is shared with, say, dragonflies, is missing almost the entire iceberg.
When I was single, I would sleep with guys on the first date and not think either of us were ‘bad’ for doing so. But I did have the belief that “a lot of men are only interested in sex”. If a guy slept with me on the first date, I would figure he was one of those guys and be less inclined to think of him as relationship material. If a guy waited a few dates before making a move, I would be more likely to think that he was interested in me as a person, and I would be more open to a relationship with him. Though now that I think about it, that logic is not too solid.
That seems like both a sensible and practical approach. It also seems to match what a bunch of the men up-thread have said. It isn’t necessarily “logical”, but the reality is we have to play the game as we find it = as it’s collectively created by all of us. Not as some relationship logician would have designed the rules for all of us to follow.
A question for both groups:
Do you think more that individuals are always one or the other type: one-night stander or relationship, or is it more that any given individual is that type today? Including yourself?
I’ve been happily married approaching 30 years now. If I was to become single I imagine I’d go through a phase of trying lots of different ideas on for size. My wife is wonderful as she is, but if the fates decree I get/have to have a second chapter, I don’t *think *I want it to be near-clone of the first.
So maybe I try the deliberately one night stand approach for awhile. Then different ethnicities. Maybe different kinks. Younger, older, fatter, taller, skinnier, extrovert vs. introvert, whatever.
All approached as tasting the endless buffet, rather than trying to go find an entire plateful of the familiar mashed potatoes.
I expect I’d eventually figure out what flavor(s) fit me now. And settle into a search for a long term relationship with most of those flavors prominent.
Which also means I might well intend to circle back to some of the early try-on people who worked well at what they were for back during the tasting phase.
But that last part won’t work if I’ve been permanently labeled a “taster not a keeper” by everyone I dealt with during that phase.
I have no experience with that type of woman but really, who cares? People makes all sorts of arbitrary decisions on who they will or will not sleep with. You just have to find someone you jive with.
As a guy, if you are going to be waiting for horny women to come over and start a conversation, you are going to be in the bar for a long time. . . and chances are that another guy is going to notice the signals first and make his move. Or, so I’ve been told.
I would be interested if anyone else can verify this phenomenon as common.
Just hire escorts to cut out all this emotional drama.
Dating to find a long-term partner and the biological necessity of intercourse should not be viewed as the same thing.
Also, ladies, please stop saying “sexual compatibility is important to me.” Just say you need a good lay or else you won’t date a man. This obfuscation is insulting.
It’s not obfuscation. It’s a different phrasing of precisely the same thing. Maybe the real problem is that you should admit you like your women a little on the trashy side rather than pretend you’re upset by “obfuscation”.
That’s still equivalent. A good lay means good sex. Good sex means getting what you want. Getting what you want means either good luck or being in sync.
I don’t see how you are contradicting what I said. I didn’t remotely say hook up sex=good sex. And hook up sex can very easily be compatible sex if you are both in the mainstream and remotely unselfish.
I sincerely doubt that most people are simply discussing a good lay when they refer to sexual compatibility. Sexual compatibility is about much more than any individual sexual encounter, and I don’t think that most people interested in a just a good lay care much about their compatibility beyond that. It’s absurd to suggest that one is a merely euphemism for the other.
Why don’t you just re-read what he/she wrote, which I think was explained quite well? You are way oversimplifying the situation. Your argument stated in the last sentence is at best a reason why a cavewoman should be discreet about sleeping around…not a reason why she shouldn’t do it on the sly. And, one could argue the same thing about cavemen…That if a man is sleeping around and not being discreet about it then a woman might think he is not good material to stay around and bring the wooly mammath back to the cave and that will reduce his chances for procreating.
LSLGuy also explained ways in which your evolutionary biology is way too simplified. You are basically taking ideas from evolutionary biology at its infancy and thinking that it hasn’t advanced since then … It has. (Not that I am any expert in it, but even I know that your posts are pretty much a caricature of what is now understood.)
I think the answer is simple and need not assume misogyny or double standards or issues of paternity.
It is insecurity on the part of the man.
If she is readily willing to jump into bed with him without a lot of effort on his part she may be willing to jump into some other guy’s bed without much fuss too.
And that may be true…or not.
No way to tell but that notion will lurk in the back of the guy’s mind making it harder for him to trust her whether that lack of trust is deserved or not and that will (often) lead him to sabotage the relationship.
If he has to work diligently for a long time to have sex with her he assumes (wrongly) that means any other guy would have to do as much and he’d be more likely to spot it and stop it.
