Sex on first date?

LegacyUser

Going Unreg for this one...

I met a guy recently and all going well. We had proper date last night, had a great time seem to really get on well. Both attracted to each other and just clicked. Anyway went back to his place later and had sex. It was as it should be...

I could be wrong but I'm guessing now I'll be judged for doing the wild thing on the 'first date'...

Now its important to note that we are an older couple LOL! Both separated and I had not been out with anyone since my ex husband so it was a bit special for me. My attitude is that I think this guy is great and my free time is short so Carpe Diem..

Now I'm thinking oh Jeez should I have held out and gone on a few dates first etc. We have made plans to see each other again this week.

Any thoughts appreciated....

Otis Driftwood

I dont see anything wrong with at all TBH.Ye are both adults,enjoyed eachothers company and are meeting again.
Good for you!

Fajitas!

Nothing wrong with it. If you enjoyed it and each other, then why not.

Don't worry about it

Nevyn

There are only two people who's judgements count, yours and thiers.
Clearly you are ok with it and you need to talk to them about it.
Other then that sod everyone else, if it felt right and you enjoyed it then that is what matters and not silly games between to adults in a budding relationship.

Wagon

Not a thing wrong with it. Have as much as you want.

suspectpackage

You acted on your desires and did what people normally do. Don't let social judgementalism affect you.

Wagon

suspectpackage wrote: »

Don't let social judgementalism affect you.

Does that attitude still exist? I've never seen any harm in having sex with someone you liked. It's human.

suspectpackage

Wagon wrote: »

Does that attitude still exist? I've never seen any harm in having sex with someone you liked. It's human.

unfortunately 99% of men suffer from the madonna/whore complex.

Nevyn

suspectpackage wrote: »

unfortunately 99% of men suffer from the madonna/whore complex.

Yes it seems to certainly be the case with some men in this country but not all of them and hopefully for the OP it won't be an issue for them with their new partner.

zxcvbnm1

well just to play devils advocate - while many posters here don't have an issue with it the reality is that a substantial number of guys do.

ANd while they will think it ok for then to have sex with a girl on a first date it is not ok for a potential girlfriend to have sex with the guy on a first date.

Double standards i know - but there you go. That is how some guys think. That's the world we live in.

I am assuming the OP is on for a relationship with this guy if things continue to go well.
Rightly or wrongly the reality is that it is quite posible that he may judge her negatively for having sex on the first date if he decides to view her as a potential girlfriend.

Sayig that of course he may have absolutely no problem with it either.
Some guys will though. The question is is he one of those guys or not.

LegacyUser

OP here again.

Thanks for all the replies.

I suppose it is down to if my new guy is a double standards man or not....

I am aware that this is a possibility because he did say (in a jokey way) that we got busy on our first date, wow etc... Which obviously a throw away comment but I thought it was a bit telling. Also feel it is a bit contived to make that comment after you have asked someone back to your place...

Anyway I guess I'll know in the next few weeks whats what. I'm straightforeward and sincere and not into game playing and I hate double standards so we will see.

Wagon

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes it seems to certainly be the case with some men in this country but not all of them and hopefully for the OP it won't be an issue for them with their new partner.

Strange. I never got that.

Unregistered wrote: »

I suppose it is down to if my new guy is a double standards man or not....

If he is, it's best to find out early that you're wasting your time rather than down the line.

LegacyUser

If he is, it's best to find out early that you're wasting your time rather than down the line.[/QUOTE]

OP here again.

Yep that about sums it up, if he is that kind of guy he is not for me. I had loads of game playing with my ex and life is just too short.

I could agonise about I should have waited and acted all coy etc. but ya know what I felt like doing what I did and I'm okay with it....

CDfm

Unregistered wrote: »

OP here again.

Thanks for all the replies.

I suppose it is down to if my new guy is a double standards man or not....

Its down to you too on what you see as you get to know him.

Double standards can be an easy excuse for those who want them.

Best of luck OP

zxcvbnm1

It was me that brought up the "double standards" phrase.

I think for someone to call it game playing by the guy is a bit unfair.

I am a guy - and if you ask me my opinion I personally suspect that near 100% of guys would not like the idea of a potential girlfriend being the type of girl who would sleep with them on the first date.

Im not saying it would necessarily be a deal breaker.
But if a guy had a straight choice between their potential girl being the type that does sleep with them on the first date or the type of girl that doesn't then I think most would pick the latter.

This is not game playing - this just the mindset of a lot of males.

And ya- people may say that is hypocritical - but the reality is that is the male make up and that is how a lot of males think.

As to why males think like that then that is another argument for another day.

LegacyUser

Can I explain something to everyone here, especially you OP.

To put my perspective in context: I am a male, I have also slept with a lot of women, much more than the average.

I would be disappointed if a girl I genuinely had emotions about, and wished to date, had sex with me on the first night. I would probably try and have sex with her, and if she was willing I would be happy in the short term, but would most likely no longer be as emotionally attracted to her. I have met many lovely girls where this has happened, I have had semi-casual relationships with them, but once they give it up too soon they are ultimately doomed.


Now, to my key point: There are many reasons why this is the case. One of the greatest reasons has a long established evolutionary reason, based on the premise that if a girl is willing to have sex on the first night with me, she is willing to do it with others. From an evolutionary perspective men can never be 100% sure if they are the true father of their partners child, whereas the woman ALWAYS knows they are the true mother.

So, a promiscuous man is more likely to pass on his genes with several copulation attempts.

A promiscuous woman may be impregnated by one of many man, and you may be rearing a child that is not your own, genetically this is disastrous.

Loose men=good

Loose women=bad

LegacyUser

Unregistered wrote: »

Going Unreg for this one...

I met a guy recently and all going well. We had proper date last night, had a great time seem to really get on well. Both attracted to each other and just clicked. Anyway went back to his place later and had sex. It was as it should be...

I could be wrong but I'm guessing now I'll be judged for doing the wild thing on the 'first date'...

Now its important to note that we are an older couple LOL! Both separated and I had not been out with anyone since my ex husband so it was a bit special for me. My attitude is that I think this guy is great and my free time is short so Carpe Diem..

Now I'm thinking oh Jeez should I have held out and gone on a few dates first etc. We have made plans to see each other again this week.

Any thoughts appreciated....

do YOU judge him for having sex with you on the first night? You're both in the same boat!

b3t4

Definitely, this is a thing between you and your new man. As other's have said his attitude towards this will be telling and you can find out pretty quick if you can be bothered to continue with him.

If I were you, I'd hold out for the guy that doesn't give a sh!t about this nonsense. They do exist, trust me His attitude towards this will filter into other areas of any potential relationship.

zxcvbnm1

Unregistered wrote: »

do YOU judge him for having sex with you on the first night? You're both in the same boat!

Well that's the thing.

I know this is gonna sound hypocritical but they are not in the same boat.

The reason it is different is because different rules apply for different sexes.

And we can all get uppity about it and say that is ridiculous and hypocritical but the reality is that is the world we live in.

Bottom line is it far less acceptable in society for a woman to be promiscuous than a man.
ANd we are all guilty of that double standard.

LegacyUser

zxcvbnm1 wrote: »

Bottom line is it far less acceptable in society for a woman to be promiscuous than a man.
ANd we are all guilty of that double standard.

See above, it is not a double standard. There is a legititmate evolutionary reason for this, people would do well to accept this reason. We are not equal in this respect.

zxcvbnm1

Unregistered wrote: »

See above, it is not a double standard. There is a legititmate evolutionary reason for this, people would do well to accept this reason. We are not equal in this respect.

I don't fully understand why this apparent doube standard exists.

Your theory may hold water - but i reckon it's just a theory.

But i would agree that there is probably some evolutionary reason for it alright.

In fact - anyone any ideas as to why society thinks like this?
Why for example is it not the reverse?

LegacyUser

zxcvbnm1 wrote: »

I don't fully understand why this apparent doube standard exists.

Your theory may hold water - but i reckon it's just a theory.

But i would agree that there is probably some evolutionary reason for it alright.

In fact - anyone any ideas as to why society thinks like this?
Why for example is it not the reverse?

Alas it is not my own theory. It is well founded, and has some data which supports it.

I will explain it again.

When a woman gives birth, she always knows she is the mother. Her partner can have sex with thousands of women, but she will ALWAYS know her child is her own, and any resources poured into this child increase the odds of the mothers genes surviving for another generation.

When a man's partner is pregnant, he is told that he is the father. He must invest the same amount of time and energy into this child as the mother, but the only way he knows it is actually his child is because the woman told him so.

In the event that a man unknowingly has reared a child that resulted from his partner being impregnated by another male then he has potentially wasted his chances of passing on HIS genes.

To reduce the odds of this society has frowned upon promiscuous women, and respected promiscuous men.

It all boils down to the odds of passing on your genes or not.

willy wonka

zxcvbnm1 wrote: »

But if a guy had a straight choice between their potential girl being the type that does sleep with them on the first date or the type of girl that doesn't then I think most would pick the latter.

Personally speaking I usually wait but there has been the odd occasion where I've had sex with a guy the first date. From the guy's point of view, I would have been seen as the type that does sleep with them on the first date.

One particular guy called me on it and I told him I was satisfying a need, and I defended myself saying I don't do this as a habit, etc. Looking back I shouldn't have had to explain myself to him or anybody.

OP, do as you please. If this guy is going to judge you on this then he isn't worth it.

LegacyUser

Unregistered wrote: »

Can I explain something to everyone here, especially you OP.

To put my perspective in context: I am a male, I have also slept with a lot of women, much more than the average.

I would be disappointed if a girl I genuinely had emotions about, and wished to date, had sex with me on the first night. I would probably try and have sex with her, and if she was willing I would be happy in the short term, but would most likely no longer be as emotionally attracted to her. I have met many lovely girls where this has happened, I have had semi-casual relationships with them, but once they give it up too soon they are ultimately doomed.


Now, to my key point: There are many reasons why this is the case. One of the greatest reasons has a long established evolutionary reason, based on the premise that if a girl is willing to have sex on the first night with me, she is willing to do it with others. From an evolutionary perspective men can never be 100% sure if they are the true father of their partners child, whereas the woman ALWAYS knows they are the true mother.

So, a promiscuous man is more likely to pass on his genes with several copulation attempts.

A promiscuous woman may be impregnated by one of many man, and you may be rearing a child that is not your own, genetically this is disastrous.

Loose men=good

Loose women=bad

this is embarrassing chauvinistic nonsense. your just trying to justify you having double standards with shaky "long established" evolutionary theory. you've met many lovely girls that you just had to dump because they had sex with you before waiting an arbitrary amount of time that means basically nothing in reality? those poor girls don't know what they're missing.

in my opinion there's nothing wrong with sex on the first date. if he is the kind of man that won't respect you because of it then your better off without him anyway.

LegacyUser

Unregistered wrote: »

Alas it is not my own theory. It is well founded, and has some data which supports it.

I will explain it again.

When a woman gives birth, she always knows she is the mother. Her partner can have sex with thousands of women, but she will ALWAYS know her child is her own, and any resources poured into this child increase the odds of the mothers genes surviving for another generation.

When a man's partner is pregnant, he is told that he is the father. He must invest the same amount of time and energy into this child as the mother, but the only way he knows it is actually his child is because the woman told him so.

In the event that a man unknowingly has reared a child that resulted from his partner being impregnated by another male then he has potentially wasted his chances of passing on HIS genes.

To reduce the odds of this society has frowned upon promiscuous women, and respected promiscuous men.

It all boils down to the odds of passing on your genes or not.

so according to your theory men should be having multiple children with multiple women in a perfectly evolved society?

Victor

Lets not get into a detailed discussion on genetics, etc.

Pherekydes

Unregistered wrote: »

this is embarrassing chauvinistic nonsense. your just trying to justify you having double standards with shaky "long established" evolutionary theory. you've met many lovely girls that you just had to dump because they had sex with you before waiting an arbitrary amount of time that means basically nothing in reality? those poor girls don't know what they're missing.

in my opinion there's nothing wrong with sex on the first date. if he is the kind of man that won't respect you because of it then your better off without him anyway.

+1. Excellent riposte. Apart from which it was an indirect insult to the OP, implying that she would get it on on a first date in the future, when there may never be any more first dates in the future.

And just because a guy is happy to do it on the first date doesn't mean 100% of men will disrespect any girl who does do it. Lots of men are happy to apply double standards, especially to their own situation, but not all.

LegacyUser

Unregistered wrote: »

so according to your theory men should be having multiple children with multiple women in a perfectly evolved society?

Even though you no doubt intend this as a rhetorical question you actually have a valid point. Although what exactly you mean by "perfectly evolved society" I am not entirely sure.


I obviously only gave a very concise and simplified version of the theory. A man must spread his genes, the greater the size of his harvest the greater the odds. However, potential female partners must evaluate the amount of resources this man has at his disposal, this will be directly related to amount of dependent children a man has.

Bear in mind 'civilised society' is relatively new, and humans have been mating for a long, long time.

And may I also correct you on your attribution of this theories creation to my good self. In truth I have only being fortunate to have read it and understood it's importance.

LegacyUser

Actually, what you purport is a load of bollix.
Sociological and ethnographic research has shown that monogamy came about as a result of the acumulation of private property (i.e. with the advent of capitalism). Prior to this, many societies were polygamous and no one cared about the paternity of children. It was shared communally.
When societies started to accumulate private property men started to care about who they were passing on their accumulated wealth to and that's where monogamy came from. (Engels is a good source for this).

OP - you did nothing wrong. Besides, would you want to be in a relationship with someone who held such backward, misogynistic views of women (i.e. that they are to be pure and men have a right to be promiscuous)? Most mature (not age but intelligence-wise) people do not hold these views so if your man isn't one of them then move on and find one who is respectful of women and more mature in their outlook.

LegacyUser

OP here again.

Well update is my guy phoned me last nite. He was his usual chatty and full of life self.

So I asked him out straight what he thought of us getting it on on our 'first date'. He said, well for starters were both adults & equals, it was a joint decision, felt totally right and I felt like we were on our 5th date anyway, we get on so well... I could not have hoped for a better answer.

Regarding having children this does not apply in our case we both have wonderful children, his are grown up and mine are old enough to have social lifes of their own... We are not that old either just got married way too young.

Anyway 2nd time around might just be better than the first....

LegacyUser

Unregistered wrote: »

Actually, what you purport is a load of bollix.
Sociological and ethnographic research has shown that monogamy came about as a result of the acumulation of private property (i.e. with the advent of capitalism).

When societies started to accumulate private property men started to care about who they were passing on their accumulated wealth to and that's where monogamy came from.

Why do you feel the need to be so aggressive in your response. If seems you think you can intimidate people who support viewpoints that you can't understand or disagree with with abusive language. I respect your views, I don't feel angry nor do I feel the need to be rude. Perhaps the truth hurts?

There is a considerable body if data and many models of society that would suggest monogamy had been commonplace long before Capitalism.

If you are well read in any field of research you would know that research never "shows" as you put it, it merely suggests.

OP, I am delighted you are happy, and that you and your friend are able to discuss your feelings, best of luck. My postings are not meant to be insulting, they are merely meant to assist the ignorant.

Greyfox

Unregistered wrote: »

Can I explain something to everyone here, especially you OP.

To put my perspective in context: I am a male, I have also slept with a lot of women, much more than the average.

I would be disappointed if a girl I genuinely had emotions about, and wished to date, had sex with me on the first night. I would probably try and have sex with her, and if she was willing I would be happy in the short term, but would most likely no longer be as emotionally attracted to her. I have met many lovely girls where this has happened, I have had semi-casual relationships with them, but once they give it up too soon they are ultimately doomed.

+100

It depends on the guy. For some men sleeping on a first date or even a one night stand isn't going to effect things that much, it depends on the guy and it sounds like for the OP it won't turn out to be a bad thing.

For me and a lot of other men though it's very different. For me I'll try to sleep with a woman on the first night and if I succeed theirs definitely no chance of a relationship!

Yes I know it's double standards and I probably shouldn't feel like this but I have to go by what I find "attractive". I LOVE the thrill of the chase more than anything else in the world and I find someone who makes me work for it very very attractive and a challenge. That first week or so anticipating what she'll be like in bed, the flirty text messages befor I've slept with someone...priceless. I don't make a logical decision not to date someone I've had a one night stand with, I have just found that in my experience it kills almost all the attraction for me and although it's wrong to do so I'll always look at the girl as "easy"! I wan't to be made feel like I worked hard to get her into bed and if a girl doesn't make we work for it she's not dating material. Yes I know it's unfair as sometimes women just feel in the mood for sex and theirs nothing wrong with that, just for me their needs to be a real anticipation of sex otherwise I don't believe it's possible for me to ever have strong feelings for the woman!

Best of luck to the OP though, it sounds like it will work out fine for you's!

username123

It totally depends on the individuals involved. In my dating days if the opportunity for sex on the first date came up and I liked the guy I used to bring up the subject beforehand and tell him if he was gonna go all weird and engage with a madonna/whore complex and somehow lose respect for me over a mutually agreed decision to have sex then tell me now and save us both the trouble.

Ultimately if I slept with a guy on the first date and he lost respect for me I would in turn lose respect for him for being so childish as to apply a double standard to my morals when he had also been at the party so to speak. And this would not have been the type of guy Id be interested in seeing again anyway - I prefer mature people with intelligent attitudes to sex.

The whole evolutionary theory is interesting, but in a civilized society I would hope that we can use our brains over our natural urges and not take on sexist, outdated attitudes.

OP - I am glad that your guy seems to be in the mature and reasonable group on this.

iguana

Unregistered wrote: »

I suppose it is down to if my new guy is a double standards man or not....

From your updates this doesn't appear to be so, but if it had turned out that he was a double standards man would you really have wanted to keep seeing him? If it was me in your shoes, while I'd be disappointed that it turned out like that I'd also be thankful for the lucky escape.

LegacyUser

Slept with a guy on the first date.

We got married last month, five years after our 'one night stand'!

Upshot of it all - do whatever feels right for you.

Salome

The only time I had sex on a first date, the "relationship" was nothing more than a series of one night stands really. I ended it when I found out he asked an 19 year old out the day after we last saw each other (I was 34 at the time) so it was clear that "he just wasn't into me :rolleyes:". He was such a great catch and all - he had 2 kids with two different women and he's got the 19 year old up the duff since - what a man!:p

And before anyone says that I'm bitter - I'm SO not - I know I had a very lucky escape LMAO!!!!!!!

Micky Dolenz

Unregistered wrote: »

OP here again.


So I asked him out straight what he thought of us getting it on on our 'first date'. He said, well for starters were both adults & equals, it was a joint decision, felt totally right and I felt like we were on our 5th date anyway, we get on so well... I could not have hoped for a better answer.

Sounds like a mature relationship between two adults. If it works out thats great, if not, ye'll both have fun either way.

suspectpackage

To the men who are saying that they would not engage in long term relationships with women who had sex with them on the first night, you seriously need to educate yourselves.

It's normal and natural for women to have sex with men on the first date and I can pretty much guarantee that your future wife will have done so. Unfortunately this attitude by men is what makes women feel bad for their natural desires. These men simply don't understand women.

Citing evolutionary reasoning is error based because if you want to talk on those lines I can give you a book called Sperm Wars which will refute your error based logic on evolutionary grounds.

Finally, it's both normal and natural for women to want to have sex with healthy desirable males and as I said before, the madonna/whore complex is a terrible thing. Do yourselves a favour lads, and work on getting rid of it.

Wibbs

My 2 cents?

suspectpackage wrote: »

To the men who are saying that they would not engage in long term relationships with women who had sex with them on the first night, you seriously need to educate yourselves.

I would partially agree. They do need to think, but if their preference is for a partner that wouldn't that's also their choice, it's not a "fault", it's a preference.

It's normal and natural for women to have sex with men on the first date and I can pretty much guarantee that your future wife will have done so.

With respect I disagree on many levels. I can think of more than a few women who haven't and that's how they are. It's as "natural" as saying women shouldn't have sex with men on the first date and equally daft. It's again a preference and a viewpoint, not a fact. Again an example of the idea which has much currency at the moment of sexual freedom for women(and men) meaning that you must have sex. Freedom means having and wanting the choice based on ones own personal feelings on the matter. Do it the first night or wait six months? Down to personal choice. End of IMHO. To suggest one as an ideal over another is just replacing one fashionable stereotype "one size fits all" with another. That's more down to fashion and culture, just like the idea in the past and in extant cultures that one should wait for the wedding night. Both equally invalid. Both equally daft. Both equally unrepresentative of freedom to choose. Of course each cultures stereotype hold more sway at the time. Freedom is where no stereotype holds sway.

Unfortunately this attitude by men is what makes women feel bad for their natural desires. These men simply don't understand women.

Some do, some don't. I would say more in the latter camp. Worst of all are those who think they understand women. To reduce it to one ideal or notion is equally bad.

Citing evolutionary reasoning is error based because if you want to talk on those lines I can give you a book called Sperm Wars which will refute your error based logic on evolutionary grounds.

While some of sperm wars is very interesting and thought provoking it is also so full of holes scientifically, that you wouldn't want to use it as a condom. As an example the "killer sperm" idea put forward in the book has little or no support or empirical evidence in the scientific community. Not in humans anyway. It may yet prove to be somewhat correct but is hardly a solid basis for a rebuttal of sexual mores.

Finally, it's both normal and natural for women to want to have sex with healthy desirable males and as I said before, the madonna/whore complex is a terrible thing. Do yourselves a favour lads, and work on getting rid of it.

I agree with you. I just don't agree with the timing as it may extend to individual women. To make a blanket statement like that denies the wide spectrum of human sexuality and as I say is as bad as the other extreme. Freedom means choice. A choice that suits the individual. In the OP's case I would say to not worry. The mutual choice and its results will be clear in time. Personally I would not worry too much at all. I've had sex with future girlfriends on the first night and I've had sex with future girlfriends six months later. The relationships thrived or failed on far more important matters.

iguana

Wibbs wrote: »

They do need to think, but if their preference is for a partner that wouldn't that's also their choice, it's not a "fault", it's a preference.

It's a fault if it's a double standard. I can fully respect a man who would prefer partner who waits to sleep with a man, as long as he holds himself to the same standard. If, however, he wants a woman to be of a "standard" that he himself does not uphold he is a chauvinistic hypocrite which isn't something that it's ok to be anymore than it's ok to be a racist or a homophobe.

Wibbs

I agree but hypocrisy and double standards are everywhere, both inside gender and sexuality and outside it. To deny such a standard exists and may have an effect on ones life is not a good plan. Yes one can rail against it, even fight ones own corner Fair play if you can and do, but in the larger world such a standard can impact on people in both subtle and not so subtle ways. We are all hypocrites in some way or another and we all apply double standards. I do. All the time. I acknowledge it. I just make the point that one cultures/times double standard is anothers baseline. I am saying freedom is the choice to make ones own mind and morals up. Whichever way that takes a person.

LegacyUser

Listen, it doesn't matter if you sleep with a guy on the first date or not. If the guy is an ass, he's an ass no matter what you do.

I have had similiar thoughts in the past. Wondering if things could have worked out had i not had sex straight away. So i tried the making them wait approach. Did this work? Eh no! They just move on to someone that will give them what they want without the time and effort required.

So why should i live like a nun waiting for Mr. Right to come along? Now, if i want to have sex on the first date i do and if i don't want to i don't.

And any man that thinks differently of me after sex, is definitely not worth my time or energy. He's welcome to his "ideal" virginal girlfriend in bed that doesn't have a clue how to please him and lays there like a sack of spuds!

Bottle_of_Smoke

Have thought about this a fair bit and changed my mind a few times.

Right now, I'd say it wouldn't matter. If I really like the girl I won't care that we did it. It might create a bit of awkwardness the next day, especially if drink was involved. Then you're left unsure what the other person was after, you *might* think "ah, she probably isn't that in to me, just up for the roide, won't bother texting...."

I think people are being a bit harsh on the guys who explained the evolutionary theory. I didn't get the impression any of them were being judgmental towards first-night women or trying to justify double standards, they were just explaining why men tend to respond the way they do.

iguana

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think people are being a bit harsh on the guys who explained the evolutionary theory. I didn't get the impression any of them were being judgmental towards first-night women or trying to justify double standards, they were just explaining why men tend to respond the way they do.

Except that it was pure cod-psychology with no anthropological basis. It was science on a par with the earth looks flat therefore it is. There is a very, very big difference between someone having a bit of knowledge about something and forming a half-baked idea that they call their theory and a scientific theory where the proposer has conducted serious research, investigations and experiments into their theory.

Bottle_of_Smoke

iguana wrote: »

Except that it was pure cod-psychology with no anthropological basis. It was science on a par with the earth looks flat therefore it is. There is a very, very big difference between someone having a bit of knowledge about something and forming a half-baked idea that they call their theory and a scientific theory where the proposer has conducted serious research, investigations and experiments into their theory.

Well Robert Winston was saying pretty similar stuff in his book "Human Instinct" and he's a very well respected scientist and doctor.

It certainly was not on a par with "the earth looks flat therefore it is"

iguana

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well Robert Winston was saying pretty similar stuff in his book "Human Instinct" and he's a very well respected scientist and doctor.

It certainly was not on a par with "the earth looks flat therefore it is"

The rubbish theories that were being spouted here completely fall apart once you take heteropaternal superfecundation and polyandry in to account.

narac

On the whole genetics thing. There may be some basis to it. But that does not make it right. That is, it may be true that genetics is the reason that society frowns upon promiscuous women and applauds promiscuous men. But that doesn't make it right. Genetics, survival instinct, etc., controls alot of what society does. But, in what some might consider an advanced society, we move past that in the interest of social equality.

In the interest of social equality, we try to prevent social segregation based on race or creed. We are appalled (or at least should be) by racism, particularly when this is manifested in violence, up to and including genocide. And yet, genetically speaking (if you want to use that argument), racism makes sense, and genocide makes sense. It is the drive of a particular grouping of the human race to become the dominant grouping by eliminating competing tribes and species. It's called survival of the fittest, and is a basic part of evolution, and occurs in countless places in nature. So, based on this "science", are we saying that racism and genocide are acceptable, because their causes have a root in genetics?

Another example - throughout the vast majority of the existence of the human race, the male has been the provider of food. Being faster and stronger than their female counterparts, the male was the hunter. This translates in modern society into the male going to work and bringing home the paypacket, while the female stays at home with the children. While I have the utmost respect for any woman that does this, are we saying that that is a woman's role, no matter what she may want from her life? Based on this "science", the woman belongs in the home and the man is the bread-winner.

And I'm sure their are countless other examples of where our genetic predispositions are superceded by modern societies ethics. I'm not saying that these things don't still occur, but our ethics tells us that it is wrong, and we strive for social equality. So yes, there is a gentic argument for promiscuous women being frowned upon, but ethical and social arguments that supercede genetic arguments say that both men and women should be treated equally.

Now, I do believe that women should be more careful when having casual sex. The reason? The are a lot of men out there who are a-holes. If a woman gets pregnant by casual sex, she is more likely to end up a single mother than if she knows the fella for some time first, and has something of a meaningful relationship and a level of trust built up. It's not right, but a woman does stand to lose more through casual sex than a man does, particularly if the man disappears if the woman gets pregnant.

And finally, back to the OP's post - what you had with that guy wasn't casual sex or a one night stand. It was a guy you genuinely got on with, obviously trusted, and obviously someone that wants something of a meaningful relationship with you. Your instincts were right. Why the hell not have sex with him on the first date?

smileykey

You did what youw anted to do and by the sounds of things all involved enjoyed it and no one was hurt. what could be wrong with that?

Is sex on the first date still unusual these days?

smileykey

"Give it up" Its an expression I really hate. It gives the impression that sex is all about the man and that women are simply giving into the man's desires, not their own. From what I can gather the whole double standards thing seems to originate from a similar way of thinking. If sex was seen as 2 people engaging in their own desire then why would women be expected to have more self restraint? But if sex is seen as something the men want that something the women give up to the special, father material men then there's your excuse for double standards.

For the men who judge women who sleep with them on the first date, I recommend you get over yourself and educate yourself on the female orgasim. They don't want to sleep with you for your sake, they want to sleep with you for the exact same reason you wana sleep with them.

Oh The Humanity

The theory of men possibly being hard wired to avoid promiscuous women I have heard before and understand. It makes sense in the context of prehistoric man who had no science to help him ascertain if a child was his or not.

However, we are much more than dumb brutes, think for a minute! With the advent of contraception and dna testing etc we are taken beyond the caveman into the modern world where we now operate.

The imperative to avoid promiscuous females no longer makes sense.

So! Its not good enough to say 'UG UG We are men, since stone age we no like slutty woman!' without looking around and noticing its the 20th century!

All that results in is women becoming more devious, in that we will just say one thing and do another: playing the 'nice girl' but never mentioning the threesome they had on holiday or the 15 lovers per year they enjoy.

Like lads, this idea of 'I'd shag her but I wouldn't marry her'
Hilarious! Its the same woman! Just because some young one acts coy and manages to play good for a few dates, do you really think she is what she appears?
Thats the hilarious bit of the double standard!

My opinion, men who judge women for being promiscuous are weak and fearful of what their Ma/mates will say. That to me is unmanly and sheeplike!

Thats just my opinion.

Would I go out with such a guy? No.
Would he want to go out with me? No

Everyones happy.

If the girl has taken good care of her health and reputation what the Jazuz does it matter.

This fella is hopefully more mature than worrying about this kind of trivia!

Rb

Most normal, healthy men (i.e good "mates") have no interest in long term relationships with sluts.
The men who stick around a slut generally are those hard up for sex and probably aren't a "good mate".

Yes, women have now gotten their "sexual liberation", but a lot of "good mates" will scoff at this and leave the "sexually liberated" women to the "bad mates".

It's something to watch out for.

On The Humanity wrote:

My opinion, men who judge women for being promiscuous are weak and fearful of what their Ma/mates will say.

Sorry but you're wrong there. Why do you think men love virgins?

I'm not saying OP is a slut, it's different when you're older than when you're in your 20s/30s.