Using a woman purely for sex

donfers

Do you guys find this acceptable?

I mean if both people meet somewhere, are attracted to each other and make it clear that they aren't looking for anything serious, then is it ok?

I mean is it anybody's fault if for example, the lady grow more attached and seek more intimacy and to have their emotional needs fulfilled - if you walk away at this point should you be criticised.

I read and hear a lot of girls saying "oh the first few dates went great, I didn't scare him off, we both agreed it was just casual but after getting it on a few times the guy just walked...i don't undertand it....I was really starting to like him a lot"

surely the bold part is the problem, both parties had engaged in a mutually agreed no strings attached relationship, if one of them suddenly wanted more then surely the other is justified in walking away. Why are guys criticised in this situation? Surely it would be much worse if he strung her along with empty promises, agreeing that he was starting to feel a lot closer to her too just so he could continue to have access to easy sex.

I think these guys should be admired for being honest enough about what they want and being straight with people.

mickman

of course its ok, its a free country

helimachoptor

I did it before, to a really nice girl. I was just out of a long relationship and was pretty up front about my intentions. Called a halt to it after 6 months she got way too attached. We're still friendly and chat every now and then.

HavingCrack

Nothing wrong with at all as long as both parties are clear its just about sex and its not a long term thing. Its much worse to string somebody along rather than making it clear from the off.

The_Conductor

Its almost inevitable that one or the other party will become emotionally involved- have a look in the PI section here on boards........

metrovelvet

Because sex can create things, and I dont mean babies, I mean attachments and expectations.

For women, oxytocin is produced, the same chemical released during breastfeeding, a bonding chemical.

Bottle_of_Smoke

In theory its fine. However there's a grey area which often occurs. Sex gets great, inevitably start getting on really well, one person develops stronger feelings but doesn't want to ruin the 'relationship'. Other person generally realises this but also doesn't want to ruin things.

I think it is impossible to completely separate emotional feelings from phyiscial enjoyment from sex.

People generally say women are worse at these relationships than men but I think that's because in these type of relationships the male usually tends to be out of the female's league. I'd say in the ones where the girl is out of the guy's league its the guy who ends up hurt. You hear of stories about guys falling in love with their prostitutes

helimachoptor

smccarrick wrote: »

Its almost inevitable that one or the other party will become emotionally involved- have a look in the PI section here on boards........

Couldn't agree more, a mate of mine was in a fcuk buddy relationship, the girl was quite clear from the start she didnt want anything apart from a bit of fun the odd night, he fell for her hard, she kicked him to the kerb and he fell even harder then. One person always develops feelings!!!

entropi

No Strings Attached can only work short term, or else the PI threads start up...but there's certainly nothing wrong with both people having alot of fun for a while, sure why not...go nuts!:D

Mackman

donfers wrote: »

both parties had engaged in a mutually agreed no strings attached relationship, if one of them suddenly wanted more then surely the other is justified in walking away.

In theory yes, in theory, communism works

Smallbit

Mackman wrote: »

In theory yes, in theory, communism works

I agree, theory is great, but in practice a sexual relationship creates a bond in some cases no matter how hard you try not to have feelings.

In saying that though, I do get annoyed when I hear other women complain about guys 'using' them, as if they have no choice or any other approach. I enjoy sex and I don't see any inherent 'contract' being established just because I have sex with a man. I've spoken with many female friends about this and I was surprised to find that many women expect that there will be an emotional 'payoff' as a result of having sex with a man. I've been told that my own approach is very 'male' but I just see it as honest and I can't stand other women that use sex as some sort of bargaining tool in a relationship - it gives us a bad name!

It seems to bear out the old cliche 'women give sex to get love and men give love to get sex'.

RedRebel

Consenting adults responsible for their own actions. Where's the problem?

Paulyh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Because sex can create things, and I dont mean babies, I mean attachments and expectations.

For women, oxytocin is produced, the same chemical released during breastfeeding, a bonding chemical.

Like a gluey substance???
Is there a solution you can buy to unstick it?? :pac:

Millie

helimachoptor wrote: »

I did it before, to a really nice girl. I was just out of a long relationship and was pretty up front about my intentions. Called a halt to it after 6 months she got way too attached. We're still friendly and chat every now and then.

6 months is a long time and I'm pretty sure a lot of people would be attached after that length of time.

MoodeRator

Smallbit wrote: »

I agree, theory is great, but in practice a sexual relationship creates a bond in some cases no matter how hard you try not to have feelings.

In saying that though, I do get annoyed when I hear other women complain about guys 'using' them, as if they have no choice or any other approach. I enjoy sex and I don't see any inherent 'contract' being established just because I have sex with a man. I've spoken with many female friends about this and I was surprised to find that many women expect that there will be an emotional 'payoff' as a result of having sex with a man. I've been told that my own approach is very 'male' but I just see it as honest and I can't stand other women that use sex as some sort of bargaining tool in a relationship - it gives us a bad name!

It seems to bear out the old cliche 'women give sex to get love and men give love to get sex'.

Sounds more to me like you are a stong minded individual that knows what they want in life has no insecurities with yourself or relationships. I should imagine a lot of your frineds look at you with envy?

The Corinthian

Personally, I'm not crazy about the title of this thread - "using a woman purely for sex" can mean a number of things, none of which imply equality or respect. So I'm just going to take this (as others have) to be about a consensual fsckbuddy relationship.

I think the important thing is one of honesty - I don't mean just with the other party, whereby you want a NSA arrangement but sell it as a relationship. I also mean being honest with yourself, and the reverse scenario of dishonesty, whereby you (or she) sells it as a NSA arrangement but in reality is looking for a committed relationship.

Secondly you need to manage such a relationship (it's still a relationship) correctly. Do not meet up too often. Do not go out on romantic dates - by all means go for a few drinks before/after the act, but you're meeting up to have sex, not for each other's company. If you want company, buy a dog.

Thirdly, and related to the above two, you need to avoid confusion with regard to changing expectations. As time passes one of you may become more emotionally attached and that's when the mind begins to play tricks. Say she gets more attached, while he's happy with the arrangement. She'll begin to ask indirect questions about relationships, the future and love. Naturally, he'll think that these are abstract questions - they're not. They're about her with him, and so responding "sure, I'll settle down one day" will be read as "I'll settle down and it'll probably be with you".

That's when you take a step back. See her a little less often. Discuss with her other women or her other men. Or just end things before it gets messy.

Overall, these arrangements never last in the long term, unless both are cheating (and thus do not feel the need for a relationship) or one is actively deceiving and stringing the other along (the long-suffering mistress who believes he will leave his wife and family, but never does, is a good example of this). For everyone else, sooner or later one or the other will form a bond, and at that point either things develop into a relationship or end (the vast majority of occasions).

But to answer the question - there's nothing wrong with it as long as both parties are honest with each other and themselves and if they handle the arrangement with respect.

Otis Driftwood

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think the important thing is one of honesty - I don't mean just with the other party, whereby you want a NSA arrangement but sell it as a relationship. I also mean being honest with yourself, and the reverse scenario of dishonesty, whereby you (or she) sells it as a NSA arrangement but in reality is looking for a committed relationship.

Agree with the above.Once both parties know what the situation is then its fine.As has been mentioned already though,it near impossible to keep things totally seperate,ie that one party doesnt develop deeper feelings.

sam34

nedtheshed wrote: »

Agree with the above.Once both parties know what the situation is then its fine.As has been mentioned already though,it near impossible to keep things totally seperate,ie that one party doesnt develop deeper feelings.

i think that depends on the situation though

i had an FB for almost a year

it was with someone i didnt really like in terms of personality, would never have sat in a pub with this guy and had a chat with him, but the sexual chemistry between us was amazing. (i didnt dislike him per se, i was more indifferent to him, just didnt click personality wise at all)

he had the same opinion about me

but teh sex was bloody amazing :cool:

it was ideal, as neither of us were in danger of wanting more

it only ended when i met the guy who is now my bf, and i didnt want to be cheating on him...had i not met him, i have no doubt i'd still be meeting my FB regularly

MoodeRator

sam34 wrote: »

i think that depends on the situation though

i had an FB for almost a year

it was with someone i didnt really like in terms of personality, would never have sat in a pub with this guy and had a chat with him, but the sexual chemistry between us was amazing. (i didnt dislike him per se, i was more indifferent to him, just didnt click personality wise at all)

he had the same opinion about me

but teh sex was bloody amazing :cool:

it was ideal, as neither of us were in danger of wanting more

it only ended when i met the guy who is now my bf, and i didnt want to be cheating on him...had i not met him, i have no doubt i'd still be meeting my FB regularly

Mooderator modern wimmin:)

magotch07

had the intention of doing this a few years back..... but i am really bad at getting my intentions across to the girl before long i knew i was in a R/ship....6/7 months in she found out from 1 of my mates i only got with her in the first place for a casual fling she broke up with me and we havent spoken since

i think if intentions are made clear from the begining its cool

Snowie

donfers wrote: »

Do you guys find this acceptable?

I mean if both people meet somewhere, are attracted to each other and make it clear that they aren't looking for anything serious, then is it ok?

I mean is it anybody's fault if for example, the lady grow more attached and seek more intimacy and to have their emotional needs fulfilled - if you walk away at this point should you be criticised.

I read and hear a lot of girls saying "oh the first few dates went great, I didn't scare him off, we both agreed it was just casual but after getting it on a few times the guy just walked...i don't undertand it....I was really starting to like him a lot"

surely the bold part is the problem, both parties had engaged in a mutually agreed no strings attached relationship, if one of them suddenly wanted more then surely the other is justified in walking away. Why are guys criticised in this situation? Surely it would be much worse if he strung her along with empty promises, agreeing that he was starting to feel a lot closer to her too just so he could continue to have access to easy sex.

I think these guys should be admired for being honest enough about what they want and being straight with people.

I think theres a number of, different things...

Theres going to a bar knowing a girl whos there, who will put out for you.... I think that genrally could be accounted as using women for sex...

Its an intention, some one intending on useing that person for one reason to sleep with them... It also goes booth ways...

Then theres the, hole fvck buddy thing, I think in that case, booth partys are getting what they want. In that case its mutual useing. Regardless of anything...

I would of thuaght that if two people who are play partners, and one start to becom attached then that could be considere as using them I guess? Or maybe not so much being used, but feeling used?

but genrally to me using women for sex involves women who are easy to pull. Feeding her lies in order to get what you want which to me says again useing her for sex and little else.

donfers

sam34 wrote: »

i think that depends on the situation though

i had an FB for almost a year

it was with someone i didnt really like in terms of personality, would never have sat in a pub with this guy and had a chat with him, but the sexual chemistry between us was amazing. (i didnt dislike him per se, i was more indifferent to him, just didnt click personality wise at all)

he had the same opinion about me

but teh sex was bloody amazing :cool:

it was ideal, as neither of us were in danger of wanting more

it only ended when i met the guy who is now my bf, and i didnt want to be cheating on him...had i not met him, i have no doubt i'd still be meeting my FB regularly

the danger is, and I'm not saying this is true in your case, that we can only have mind-blowing, amazing sex with people we are emotionally detached from...with people whom we genuinely love and respect it's more difficult to ask them to dress up as the easter bunny or stick strawberries up your ass or whatever happens to get you off

The Corinthian

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

but genrally to me using women for sex involves women who are easy to pull. Feeding her lies in order to get what you want which to me says again useing her for sex and little else.

Ahh, the subtle art of seduction which, AFAIR, in Ireland involves that fine area between a woman being drunk enough to want to have sex with a near stranger and being so drunk that it's statuary rape. Not to mention that secondary fine area between a man being drunk enough to be able to speak to a woman and being so drunk that he won't physically be able to do anything if he gets her.

donfers wrote: »

the danger is, and I'm not saying this is true in your case, that we can only have mind-blowing, amazing sex with people we are emotionally detached from...with people whom we genuinely love and respect it's more difficult to ask them to dress up as the easter bunny or stick strawberries up your ass or whatever happens to get you off

Only if you take sex too seriously - I blame American romcoms.

Mrmoe

I think a situation like this can only last for a short period of time. I think eventually if it goes on long enough or regular enough someone is bound to devlop feelings for the other. The important thing is honesty. I know of a couple of situtaions where both parties agreed that there as nothing serious but one of them was not being honest and actually wanted more from the very beginning. It is definitely possible to do but they generally do not have a very long shelf life.

Snowie

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh, the subtle art of seduction which, AFAIR, in Ireland involves that fine area between a woman being drunk enough to want to have sex with a near stranger and being so drunk that it's statuary rape. Not to mention that secondary fine area between a man being drunk enough to be able to speak to a woman and being so drunk that he won't physically be able to do anything if he gets her.

O come on it happens and if you wont admit it happens then your living in cloud cookoo land... thank fully im good looking enough that I dont really have to use anything of the above in order to pull tho the odd time, i do say something stupid which leaves every one in silance :pac:

and questioning wtf or, my personal favourite what plannet do you live on.....

I was at the recent after hour beers chating to a fellow boards girl.
When: Some thick country bunkin turned around to her and said

and I quote

Is there any chance?

is it any wonder why irish women are so cut throat with moronic idiots turning round saying things like that...

Tho i must admit it still makes me laugh A lot

The Corinthian

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

O come on it happens and if you wont admit it happens then your living in cloud cookoo land...

I've no doubt it does, I was only talking on the cultural dependency on alcohol in the mating game in Ireland, in general.

Snowie

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've no doubt it does, I was only talking on the cultural dependency on alcohol in the mating game in Ireland, in general.

so? how would you fix it that it was'nt?

The Corinthian

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

so? how would you fix it that it was'nt?

What do I care? I always found that it made it easier for those who didn't need alcohol.

I was commenting simply because seduction isn't much of a game of skill in Ireland, when compared to many other (non-anglophone) countries, and so listening to some kid boast about his deceptive seduction techniques gave me a bit of a giggle. No offense intended.

Miss Fluff

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I'm not crazy about the title of this thread - "using a woman purely for sex" can mean a number of things, none of which imply equality or respect. So I'm just going to take this (as others have) to be about a consensual fsckbuddy relationship.

I think the important thing is one of honesty - I don't mean just with the other party, whereby you want a NSA arrangement but sell it as a relationship. I also mean being honest with yourself, and the reverse scenario of dishonesty, whereby you (or she) sells it as a NSA arrangement but in reality is looking for a committed relationship.

That's it a nutshell, totally agree. I think as long as you're both singing from the same hymn sheet then it's perfectly fine. It's when there is an element of deceit or one party is being led a merry dance then it can go pear-shaped. All-in-all I think it's a good set-up though, and far preferable to a one-night stand imho...

MoodeRator

Miss Fluff wrote: »

It's when there is an element of deceit or one party is being led a merry dance then it can go pear-shaped. All-in-all I think it's a good set-up though, and far preferable to a one-night stand imho...

could not agree more! Both parties just need to be honest and open

Smallbit

MoodeRator wrote: »

could not agree more! Both parties just need to be honest and open

+1 Even though I need there to be an emotional connection before i can get into bed with someone, I don't automatically expect that to be reciprocated in terms of a relationship. If I think we're on different wavelengths I probably won't continue with it, I'll just state my case or declare my feelings, but I won't feel 'used' or angered by it.