Manda Jo: Yeah, I’ll agree with you on that. I think I said in my last post that a women (or anyone, really) “owes” the person who is treating them to a nice evening their attention, and good grace. I would presume that this means that they would only accept the date if they wanted to be there, and are actually interested about their dinner companion. Not just the free meal.
Lizard made no such distinction, though. He made the flat statement that a woman “owes” a man “something sexual” after a few dates. And he then went on to say how “clueless” American women are about this concept. And I say to him - stick with prostitutes, or move to a country where the women believe that they “owe” men “something sexual” after he pays for a few meals.
Sorry, I still don’t agree.
If a man wants to take me out to dinner, one, two, a dozen times, I still don’t owe him anything. I don’t care if he perceives it as a “tease”, or “playing games.” Women, and men, have the right to choose when and where to have sex. Just because a woman is comfortable enough to have dinner with a man, talk to a man, spend time in his company, does not mean she’s ready to have sex with him.
It’s unreasonable to think otherwise.
Maybe it’s just me, but in my mind “date” does not equal “obligation”. And how many dates before you are in a relationship? Perhaps I’m just old-fashioned, but I think it’s perfectly acceptable, (and probably a hell of a lot safer) if women wait until they are in a monogamous (SP? It’s late) relationship before they have sex. Men too.
But PLG, a person is fooling themselves if they think that t the man buying them drinks is doing so merely because the money is burning a hole in his pocket; the most noble guy in the world is doing it because he want to further his relationship with the person he is buying the drinks for; the drinks are just an excuse to keep that person near, to give the relationship a little time to blossom. If a person has decided that they don’t want to have a deeper relationship with the buyer, that they don’t find them even potentially witty or fun to be with or attractive, well then , it is the non-attracted person’s obligation to say so, and to stop accepting the drinks or the dinners or whatever. In your senario, if you know you are never going to be interested in a monogamous relationship with a man, you shouldn’t let him keep buying you dinner and paying for your movie habit. You don’t have to be sure from the get go–that is understood, because it is impossible–but using someone’s attraction towards you to get a free dinne nad a movie is dishonorable.
You’re right of course, but then I never said she “owes him her body.” What I meant by “something sexual” was really whatever the woman feels comfortable giving out. But there has to be some sign of reciprocated affection, be it just kissing, holding hands, whatever. I have known women who would cheerfully use a man for months-drive his car, let him pay for meals, even take money- but never so much as admit they were dating. Granted, that is extreme. But it is also indicative. Lots of women have no problem being a user. In fact, they aren’t even aware that’s what they are doing most of the time.
**
Of course I am. Why else would I do it? So are a lot of other men. That’s why they do it too.
And since apparently you know a little about my sex life, why don’t we talk a little about yours? If you’re not comfortable with that, then I suggest we stop talking about mine.
**
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. As soon as the above-mentioned women get to the page I (and in reality most men, whether they admit it or not) are on, the sooner we can solve much of the confusion between the sexes. It’s very simple. Most guys want to have sex. They ask out women they find attractive, with the subconscious hope of sooner or later getting sex. If you already know that you would never want to have sex with a guy who asks you out, then don’t lead him on by dating him. It’s as simple as that.
Of course, all of this is pretty much void if the couple goes dutch from the beginning.
When two people enter into a relationship, they do owe each other certain things. How willing would you be to believe your fiancee loved you if he never did any of those things for you? What each person owes the other is something that has to be worked out eventually, or the relationship is doomed.
Is it really so frightening, or does it just conflict with your preconceived notions? I would never attempt to say that all men agree with me. But I know that the one’s I am personally aquainted with (and I have a very broad range of friends) do. A man is not “indecent” if he wants to have sex and doesn’t want to be used. He’s normal.
Manda Jo- right on. I don’t really mean to be inflammatory, but in my own defense this is an inflammatory topic that I feel strongly about. I’ve seen too many of my male friends get hurt and used.
Believe it or not yosemitebabe that is how it is in other countries. When I went to Latin America and Mexico I soon found that it was useless to attempt to engage strange women in idle conversation. Down there, women are careful who they show any kind of interest in, because they know what it means or can lead to. Maybe saying American women are “clueless” is a little harsh. I just think they should be a little more pragmatic and honest, both with themselves and with men. I know at least half a dozen men from other countries, and to a man they all have told me that American women play more relationship games than women where they are from. My question is: why is it this way, and why do American women have this big beef with men?
pepperlandgirl, you seem to be equating what I am saying to my taking a position that a man has a right to force sex on a woman. That’s not what I think at all. What I think is that a man has the right to assume a woman is seriously interested in him, hopefully in a carnal way, if she willingly associates with him personally on a continual basis. But I see many women, you included, who think men feeling that way is unjustified. But it’s not unjustified; it’s perfectly normal. There are many subtle verbal or physical signals that women can and do use to clue a man in that they like him, and many women understand this. So why do so many women fail to understand the inverse? A man will take your willingness to date him as a sign that you like him. To men, sex is pretty important, and they want it right away. If a woman is not on a guy’s wavelength that’s no big deal, but she better make damn sure he knows that. Going out on his dime several times and then saying “oh, sorry, I don’t like you that way” is not acceptable.
What you are talking about is a man being TOO STUPID to figure out that the woman is not attracted to him. TOO STUPID, or TOO CLUELESS. If she is not showing him any interest, or affection, and he still takes her out? How stupid can a guy be? Sure, the woman isn’t behaving in an enviable way, but if a man is not getting any indication that the woman has an interest in him (but is more interested in the meals, and movie), then why does he keep asking her out? Who is more “clueless” here?
Once again, if she is so obviously a “user”, she has to find someone to “use”. Who is more “clueless” here? If a guy is unhappy over the lack of affection from the woman he is dating, the answer is simple. Stop asking her out.
We talking about your sex life? Huh? You act as if I broke into your diary here! Uh, no, Mr. My-Life-Is-An-Open-Book, the reason I even know that you have been with a prostitute is because you posted all the details on this board!! If your feathers are ruffled now because I actually read and remember the thread where you tell all the details about your encounter with a prostitute - I am sorry. Can’t put that genie back in the bottle, fella. I don’t think I would have brought up your past with the hooker in just any thread, however. But with this topic, and considering the statements you made, I did not think it was off-topic.
And by sex, you mean - sex. Not holding hands? Because, as I mentioned before, what about a woman who is “old fashioned” and does not feel right giving sex to a guy she is merely dating? I agree (as I have already mentioned to Manda Jo) that if a woman has no interest in a guy, she shouldn’t be going out with him. But different people have different expectations about when sex should occur. The couple in question should try to find out if they have the same expectation. If they don’t, it’s not a match.
Oh, I see. It’s really the guys fault! How silly of me. Obviously any man who thinks a woman keeps going out with him because she likes him is a fool. :rolleyes:
**
No, “We” aren’t, you are. I’m well aware of what I posted. I have not the slightest shred of remorse about it. I am also aware that it really has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, and it was brought up originally only as part of some weird attempt to discredit me. We can talk about my unusual sex life until our typing fingers get sore, but it still wouldn’t change the validity of what I’ve said.
**
Then she should move to Salt Lake City.
So let me get this straight…you apparently think it’s not okay to fuck hookers. You also think that if a woman doesn’t want to have sex, a guy should just patiently wait for her. So this guy should just pour icewater on his balls or something? Didn’t this whole debate start because somebody said that men have sooo much more power than women? If a guy has to just sit and cool his jets until the woman decides she’s ready to go, who really has the power here? I say if someone doesn’t want to have sex for whatever reason, fine. Then they should be prepared to be single real soon. I know that’s what happened to me the one time I used the “I want to wait” line on a woman (and I really did). SIf women themselves can act this way, should they expect anything less from us?
I did take pains, and I have taken pains, to emphasize that a woman owes a man her “interest”. Meaning, she should not “string him along”, acting all lovey-dovey when she didn’t really care for him. However, how am I supposed to dredge up a lot of sympathy for a man who “dates” a woman for (presumably) months, when she seems not interested in him, does not seem at all affectionate towards him? I think such a man is a chump.
It is another matter if she “strings him along”, giving him affection, (whether it be kissing, sex, whatever) telling she cares for him, when she feels none of these things. But it was not my understanding that this is what you meant. You were saying that a woman “owes” a man “something sexual” if she is dating him. So I assumed that you were complaining that some women were not giving the men they were dating “something sexual” (which you clarified could merely mean holding hands) after many dates. So I ask again - if a man is taking a woman out, giving her all kinds of goodies, and she won’t even fricking HOLD HIS HAND (or kiss him, whatever) why is he going out with her for so long? Can’t he take the hint? If she is not showing any interest or affection, but merely accepting his invitations and gifts, isn’t he a chump if he can’t see through this?
Yes, actually, to me it had a lot to do with what you wrote. You said a woman “owed” a man “something sexual” after a few dates. That sounded a lot like the pact that a john makes with a prostitute - he gives her money, she gives (“owes”) him sex. I thought it was relevant to point out that you have actually participated in this sort of transaction, therefore you might have a different perspective.
I did not bring it up to discredit you. You cannot, and do not know my motives. It was brought up because of what you wrote, and the statement you made about a woman “owing” a man “something sexual”. Besides, since you say you have not a “shred of remorse” for hiring a prostitute, why do you care one way or the other if I bring it up here? You obviously were not embarrassed by it - you started an entire thread about the encounter.
Then she should move to Salt Lake City.
[/quote]
You’re kidding. You must be. So a woman is not “entitled” to have old fashioned views and still date? So all men out there “expect” her to have sex with them, and if her upbringing or morals forbid her from doing that, she needs to move somewhere else? Why can’t she just find a guy who understand and respects her moral code? Maybe find a man who will love her enough to wait? Or find one that shares her moral code?
Please copy and paste where I said it was NOT OK. I said that the prostitutes knew what you expected right away - sex. And that maybe you should stick with them, since you both seem to be on the same page.
Please cut and paste where I said that. I believe I said he should start dating someone else if he is so unhappy waiting. Obviously they are not a match, if she doesn’t want sex (before marriage, or whatever) and he does. It’s not a matter of one party being “wrong” and one being “right”. They are not a match. ZZZZZZZ! Next, please.
No, he find a woman that wants what he wants - sex after a few dates, or - hire a prostitute.
What? Are you missing the point here? Who is holding him hostage? He is FREE TO GO. He is free to find someone else who wants what he wants, or to hire a prostitute. Whatever he wants. He is NOT entitled to “expect” that a woman “owes” him anything sexual.
That’s fine, they are not finding the right “match” for them with people who expect sex sooner than they are willing to give it. If they have a serious emotional or moral reason for putting off sex, they don’t want (or need) to be with someone who wants something else. Not a match.
You were obviously not what she wanted. Maybe she only wanted sex. If she really loved and cared for you, and believed you loved and cared for you, perhaps she would have waited. Perhaps not. Probably you were never a match.
Oh, but I’m sorry, she’s living with her boyfriend and his brother, and she’s the only one with a job, and they can’t afford a car or a phone, so you would have some trouble contacting her.
So long as “extenuating cirucumstances” include “I don’t feel like it right now”, I can work with that. I’ve been married for more than a decade, and I can assure you that there have been times when I didn’t feel like it (or my spouse didn’t feel like it). Unless you want to be a nag about sex (the most unattractive manner possible–I don’t recommend it) then I strongly suggest that no one go into marriage with the perspective that their spouse owes them sex. Should want to give it, yes. If a marriage remains sexless, then there’s generally a big problem there and one that needs to be addressed if the marriage is to be healthy. But to say that it’s owed is to imply that the obligation is fulfilled if one partner lies still and lets the other one bounce on them for a while. What you want is not sex but willing cooperation. And you can’t mandate that.
Sheesh. A woman who goes out with a man owes him “something sexual” after 2-3 dates? Let’s be clear about this: when I was dating, I’d often sleep with my date because I wanted to. I never slept with someone because I owed them anything. If I ever decide to start hooking, I’ll print business cards first, and I’ll be charging a lot more than the price of dinner. If I buy dinner, does my date owe me anything? Nope. Not even if we go out more than once. IMO, they don’t even owe me being pleasant company–although if they’re not a fun or interesting dinner companion I won’t take them out again. Lizard, I do agree with one part of what you said–it’s exploitative for a woman to let a man whom she doesn’t like spend money on her. But it’s his choice whether to do this. If he’s not getting what he wants from the transaction, then he has a perfectly acceptable solution: stop asking her out. If he can’t work up the guts to say no, then he’s got more problems than a cock-tease semi-girlfriend.
Some clarification is needed here. I did not mean to imply that sex was owed in any specific instance. Merely that it was in general one of the things that spouses owed to each other as part of the contribution to the marriage. My remark about extenuating circumstances meant that it may become entirely impossible due to extenuating circumstances (e.g. physical or mental conditions, marital discord). But the significance of sex being owed was that the partner has an obligation to try to work out whatever problems they might be having. If one partner decides that for their part they can live without it, they must still work it out for their partner’s sake. This goes beyond the practical matter of what they might stand to gain by it (strengthened relationship etc.) - it’s something that they owe to their spouse.
I guess what made me upset is the fact that in Lizard’s world, men do not see women as people with opinions, hobbies, likes, dislikes, families, and lives. They see them as potential sex partners. No, not even that. They see them as someone to fuck.
Two people at a 3rd date
Woman: Wow, I really like this guy. We have most of the same interests, and he’s real witty. He might be the One. But, I want to go out a few times more before I take that big step, and sleep with him.
Man: I hope she fucks me tonight! What is this? three dinners? Shoot, what am I thinking about. That’s worth more than a fuck! That’s worth a fuck and a blow job! WOOOHOOO!!!
:rolleyes:
And married people do not owe each other sex. Just because they share everything does not mean they are one person, and they both want the same things at the same time. Including sex. And a man who forces his wife, or a wife who forces her husband, is rape.
Proposition #1: A man who finnaces a woman’s social life even though she shows no signs of interest in him is a chump
Proposition # 2: A woman who allower a man to finnace her social life even though she has no interest in him is dishonorable.
Y’all are argueing these two things as if they are mutually exclusive; they are not. A man being a chump does not justify using him; a woman being a bitch does not remove a man’s responibility for his actions.
Lizard, you seem to be making some very broad statements that I don’t tihnk you can support–you are taking he posistion of speaking for “all men”, which frankly you don’t have the authority to do. Furthermore, it is most certainly NOT true that all men are mainly interested in sex and all women are mainly interested in something other than sex. Your personal experience seems strangly limited–Individuals come in all types, and there are a great many sexually conservative men and women outside of Utah. In your particular social set sex early in the relationship is the norm–it is in mine, too–but it shows a certain provincialism when you universalize that. It should be obvious after the 2 or 3 date if a woman has a very different idea of the role of sex in a relationship (i.e., if she is chaste, or tends to want to wait months, or has casual sex with someone nearly every day). Finding out that sort of thing is what dates are FOR.
PLG, no one is looking to justify rape here. We are talking about a moral obligations. That does not mean that anyone feels that when one perrson’s fails to fufilll thier moral obligations the other person is justified in commiting an even worse act. However, if you are about to get married I think you and your fiancee need to be quite clear on the notion that sex is an important part of marrige, and you do have a moral obligation to see to each other’s needs. THat dosent mean that you both have to have sex whenever the other wants too, but in a broader sense you need to be appriciative of each other. If, after 5 years of marrige, your husband were to decide that masterbating is more fun than sex with you, and for a year he never touched you and masterbated in the shower every day, you would have every right to feel hurt and betrayed–he isn’t fufilling one of the basic duties of a marrige. On the other hand, if he was rendered impotant, sought medical help, and nothing could be done, well then, that is where the “in sickness” part comes in, and it would be your responsibility to live with it.
Like I said above, the reason you date someone is to find out if this sort of incompatablilty exisits. In this senario, do you think that the woaman will still think this man “might be the one” when he obviously expects sex later? Do you think that this man might not realize that this isnt “his type of girl” after she says no? So they dont go out again and they both go off and find people that think like they do. Everything is normal and happy.
What I object to is this senario:
Main in bar says something.
Woman in bar, thinking: ‘Oh lord, he is such an idiot. And look at those teeth! But I would have to be sitting here not drinking anything if he hadn’t paid for this drink, and that would be embarrising. Besides, maybe Ill meet someone else while we’re out.’
Surely you don’t think that sort of behavior is honorable? It dosent jsutify rape–nothing does–but it does justify thinking someone is a bad person, a user, a bitch.
To put it a different way, I don’t think a woman (or anyone) should profit by raising expectations that she has no intention of fufilling. In some social sets, the expectations raised by a year’s worth of dinners and movies is that a woman is open to a proposal; in other social sets, the expectation is that sexual relations will start somewhere between 3-6 dates. I think that some women play dumb, but in reality a person usually knows after seeing someone socially three or four times what that person expects in general. If you have no interest and no potential interest in fufilling those expectations, you have to stop accepting the profits.
Lizard and plg or yo’babe (sorry, I forget which of you 'tis),
I’m the one who brought up the trip to the prostitute, and it was not in a “weird attempt to discredit” you, Lizard, but as an example of one way in which men carry more power over women than vice versa.
I never claimed there weren’t gigolos, but they aren’t treated with the same scorn and derision as a female prostitute, now are they. And a woman who patronizes (matronizes? ;)) one isn’t going to get the “high-fives” or pats on the back from her “buddies” the way a man might.
That was my only point in bringing it up. Not to discredit you, not to make you uncomfortable, but to point it out as one example of men’s “power over.” I apologize if it has had either of the other two effects; that was truly not my intention.
Ladies, this argument right here is the best example I could ever give you for why we must ALWAYS PAY FOR OUR DRINKS, DINNERS, MOVIE TICKETS, or what-have-you. Not ALL men feel a sense of entitlement if they pay your way, but some do, & you don’t want to learn the hard way which kind you’re with. I mean, obviously, you can get to a point in a relationship where sometimes he pays, sometimes, but I really think it’s wrong for the guy to always pay 100% of everything (unless you do not have a job because you are staying home to care for his/your children.) The best way for us to gain full equality & reduce problems like domestic violence & that feeling like you’re invisible once you hit age 50 or BMI 25 is to get tough, independent, & self-sufficient. Make your own money & call ALL the shots!!
& Lizard, despite your comments, I think these problems are much worse on females than they are on males. Not that males don’t have their share of problems - y’all’s life expectancy still hasn’t caught up with ours - but I really can’t swallow that domestic violence comes down as hard on men as it does on women. I’m a DV survivor, & in the years I saw my therapist at the DV clinic, the only men I ever saw there were undergoing court-ordered anger management therapy so they’d stop beating their SOs. Not one man went there because his wife or GF was abusive.
Stella, I couldn’t agree with you more on your first paragraph, and was going to suggest something similar.
However,
I think the confusion here is my fault. When I said “Women are more likely to be beaten by men” I was referring to Domestic Violence. However, the statement as written is not clear as to that point, and in that respect Lizard is correct. Violence against men by men is still more common than violence against women by men in the general population. I think. I can’t back this up with a cite, however, sorry - I’m wasting enough of my employer’s time as it is this morning.