The First Date Shag Consequences..

28064212

Wibbs wrote: »

Though because a woman has potentially more to lose I'd be more concerned about their impulse control. They're more likely to contract an STD, they get pregnant, and are more likely to be sexually assaulted. So a woman who meets a complete stranger and goes back to his is taking far more risks. Risks which she is ignoring on impulse. She's being driven by her crotch not her head(or heart though it's usually explained that way). Not someone I would want a relationship with and have had a few experiences with women like that and I would not want to go down that road again as I would only trust them as far as their impulse control at any particular time. Simple as that.

But you have better impulse control? Even though you have ONSs?

Are women more likely to contract an STD? I've never heard that before. Pregnancy can have a huge impact on both parents' lives, not just the mother's. Sexual assault? Yes, a woman is at more risk, although if she's going back for sex anyway, it would seem much less of a risk than if the other option is walking home alone. General assault? Not really. A man going back to somewhere he doesn't know is taking a big a risk as a woman. Jealous exs and 'planned' robberies are a bigger danger for the man (not to mention the possibility of being sodomised with a strap-on).

Regardless, all those things are separate to the actual act of having ONS. If she's having unprotected sex, or going into dangerous situations without telling anyone where she'll be, those are completely separate issues. I would judge someone who did that, but I don't do those things myself

Well I do not know if the OPs experience over on PI is representative but I would add myself to the list of guys who do not think this way.

I simply do not have a set of rules in my head on how relationships should go. Each one is different and each pair of people who come together will find that different things are right for them together than was right from them with other people before.

If a girl sleeps with me on the first date, the tenth, or any date after that then all this tells me is that what was right for us as a couple at the time.

A girl sleeping with me on the first date does not mean she is “loose” and has done this with every guy before. A girl sleeping with me on the thirtieth date does not mean she did not sleep with every guy before me on the first.

Go with the flow and judge not each other, but only what is right for both of you at the time. What else is important?

Logical Fallacy

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why does a woman have more of a chance of contacting an std?

Because they are having more sex. He's not saying it's because they are a woman. If you cross the road a thousand times you are more likely to get hit by a car than crossing once.

28064212

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Because they are having more sex. He's not saying it's because they are a woman. If you cross the road a thousand times you are more likely to get hit by a car than crossing once.

The comparison is between a woman who has lots of ONSs and a man who has lots of ONSs. He is saying it's because they are a woman

metrovelvet

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Because they are having more sex. He's not saying it's because they are a woman. If you cross the road a thousand times you are more likely to get hit by a car than crossing once.

But so is a man who is having a lot of sex with different partners.

Logical Fallacy

28064212 wrote: »

The comparison is between a woman who has lots of ONSs and a man who has lots of ONSs. He is saying it's because they are a woman

I don't see it that way, i see a male orientated forum talking about sex on a first date. I don't see Wibbs saying "women are more likely to get an STD that men", i see Wibbs saying "A woman who has a lot of loose sex is more likely to get an STD".

I imagine he can come back and clear it up himself though.

Logical Fallacy

metrovelvet wrote: »

But so is a man who is having a lot of sex with different partners.

Indeed, but we are not talking about men, we are talking about women. This is the Gentleman's Club afterall.

No one is ignoring that point, we are just keeping stuff forum specific.

Bitch about men and their mannerisms = Ladies Lounge, bitch about women and their mannerisms = here.

28064212

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I don't see it that way, i see a male orientated forum talking about sex on a first date. I don't see Wibbs saying "women are more likely to get an STD that men", i see Wibbs saying "A woman who has a lot of loose sex is more likely to get an STD".

I imagine he can come back and clear it up himself though.

He was specifically responding to a post about the double standard. He mentions a guy with low impulse control and compares him to a woman with low impulse control, then says the woman has "potentially more to lose" and is "more likely to contract an STD". Seems pretty clear-cut to me

metrovelvet

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Indeed, but we are not talking about men, we are talking about women. This is the Gentleman's Club afterall.

No one is ignoring that point, we are just keeping stuff forum specific.

Bitch about men and their mannerisms = Ladies Lounge, bitch about women and their mannerisms = here.

Ok. I thought he was aknowledging the double standard.

senordingdong

I really don't think that promiscuity goes hand in hand with infidelity.

Logical Fallacy

28064212 wrote: »

He was specifically responding to a post about the double standard. He mentions a guy with low impulse control and compares him to a woman with low impulse control, then says the woman has "potentially more to lose" and is "more likely to contract an STD". Seems pretty clear-cut to me

LoL, fair enough, i'm not gonna argue about different interpretations of a post when we can simply wait for the poster himself to come back and clear it up though.

LegacyUser

I don't think there's any double standard at all.

Yes, we're all supposed to be sexually liberated etc. these days, but I completely reject the idea that everyone should have a carefree attitude to sex and should consider a potential partner's sexual history irrelevant.

Personally, I have had few sexual partners, and a potential sexual partner having had more previous partners than me would bother me. All the logic and rationality in the world tells me that it shouldn't, but it does. Perhaps this will change if/when I get more sexually experienced, but for now, I'm sorry, but it is an issue for me, and you can go fúck yourself if you think this is dated or chauvinist or whatever.

Now, of course, it is wrong to infer from a woman sleeping with you on a first date that she is promiscuous, but I guess it's an indication, and people often go with their instincts.

Also, is there any evidence to suggest that a lot of women do not think the exact same way about promiscuous guys?

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why does a woman have more of a chance of contacting an std?

Biology and mechanics. In unprotected sex women have more risk of contracting an STD. http://www.rhtp.org/std/types.asp EG the transmission rate of HIV is stronger from men to women than the other way around. Simply because men leave fluids containing such pathogens behind in a warm and moist environment where they can propogate. They get a bigger viral/bacterial load. They're also more likely to suffer complications from many STD's too. Chlamydia one of the more common ones is largely asymptomatic in men and indeed in women but has far bigger consequences for her reproductive health. HPV another one that can even lead to death in its role in cervical cancer. I'm sure more men and women have known of or heard of cervical cancer affecting someone. How many have heard of penile cancer(which its also implicated in). TBH I'm actually surprised more men and women don't realise the greater risk for women with regard to STD's.

A man is just as likely to get someone else pregnant.

Of course, but it's a helluva lot easier for him to walk away if he so chooses. The man's issues usually only come up if he actually does want to stay around and the woman wants to put barriers up. Plus he doesnt face the pregnancy, birth and the complications that can arise from that.

A man is also taking risks by going back to a stranger's apartment.

True, but in talking about the averages here, how many men are assaulted by women? Other men certainly, but women? How many men have experience of anything approaching date rape? Very very few. Regardless of double standards the dice is loaded more on one gender than the other.

He can also be driven by his crotch, much more likely actually.

I wouldnt agree, or I would define it a little differently. As some women often do. They're equally driven by their libidos, but it's more often explained away by spur of the moment/emotional/weak at the knees/love at first sight.

Women often do the ONS thing for the cuddles [also questionable].

As do men believe it or not.

28064212 wrote: »

But you have better impulse control? Even though you have ONSs?

I have had ONS's yes, but I've not had them where I expected more, or with one exception where I felt they wanted more and like I said not one of my finer moments, so yes I do have better impulse control than some who either do the ONS thing regularly for the "wrong" reasons. Men and women.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Because they are having more sex. He's not saying it's because they are a woman. If you cross the road a thousand times you are more likely to get hit by a car than crossing once.

There is that element too that the average woman by say 30 tends to have had more sexual encounters than the average man at 30. But even on an equal experience footing women are still at more risk of STD's than men.

Wibbs

28064212 wrote: »

He was specifically responding to a post about the double standard. He mentions a guy with low impulse control and compares him to a woman with low impulse control, then says the woman has "potentially more to lose" and is "more likely to contract an STD". Seems pretty clear-cut to me

Yep and in both cases I stand by that. There is a moral double standard which I take some issue with, but there's a practical one which I dont.

Pembily

Stink on the inside wrote: »

Sleeping with guys on the first date = loose woman = may have had lots of sexual partners = not the type of woman most guys want to date.

So men can and women can't!!!! If on a third date with a girl she said to you that she found out you had a lot of sexual partners and lots of ONS and she didn't see a future how p!ssed would you be?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Seriously... Sex is sex, it not the end of the freaking world, doesn't mean you will be unfaithful, mean you won't make a good mother or mean you will make a crap girlfriend!!! Just means you like sex - which from reading this thread is a bad thing for some people :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Darlughda wrote: »

Jayzus, some women I know consider the shag on the first date essential as an extension of getting to know someone. No point prolonging the tension if there is no sexual compatibility kind of thinking.

I didn't realiase that there was such a gulf here in attitudes.

Exactly - you test drive a car before you buy it right?? 4 dates in, vested interest, both parties getting on and bam crap, sh!te sex - wasted time IMO!!!!

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

The major biological reason behind this double standard is the male's need to ensure the parenthood of his child in relationships that extend past the "dating" phase. To the male mind, if a woman is perceived as promiscuous, the likelihood of her committing infidelity in the future increases. Thus, should childbirth occur, there is the lingering possibility that this child will have a different biological father.

Ha that is priceless...

Greyfox wrote: »

+1,000 on this, for me the simple fact is the more of a chalenge it is to get a woman into bed the more I'd be attracted to her

Yes it's a horrible double standard, yes it's very unfair on a women who just happens to want to have sex with the guy who's been kissing her all night but I can't help the fact that I find sexual restraint very very very attractive, I absolutely love the chase

So you are less attracted to a woman cause she wants to go back with you after you kissed her all night and possibly turned her on?!?!?!?!?! Weird thinking... How is sexual restraint attractive?? That boggles me... My brother is of the same opinion though and I just don't get it :eek:

senordingdong wrote: »

I really don't think that promiscuity goes hand in hand with infidelity.

Exactly, just cause someone enjoys having fun sexually doesn't mean they are unfaithful...

Wibbs

Pembily wrote: »

Exactly, just cause someone enjoys having fun sexually doesn't mean they are unfaithful...

That I do agree with.

Stink on the inside

Pembily wrote: »

So men can and women can't!!!! If on a third date with a girl she said to you that she found out you had a lot of sexual partners and lots of ONS and she didn't see a future how p!ssed would you be?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Seriously... Sex is sex, it not the end of the freaking world, doesn't mean you will be unfaithful, mean you won't make a good mother or mean you will make a crap girlfriend!!! Just means you like sex - which from reading this thread is a bad thing for some people :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I see where your coming from and every logical part of my brain agrees with you.

''Sleeping with guys on the first date = loose woman = may have had lots of sexual partners = not the type of woman most guys want to date''

I have quite a few friends that say they wont get into a relationship with a girl if she puts out on the first night.

As I said earlier sex on the first date doesn't bother me and if It feels right go for it.

On the other hand my current girlfriend has slept with a lot of guys and a lot were from hook ups in bars / clubs. This is really eating away at me, it shouldn't but it is.

Boskowski

Makes no difference to me but going by this thread the majority of guys think otherwise..

28064212

watisgoingon wrote: »

I don't think there's any double standard at all.

Yes, we're all supposed to be sexually liberated etc. these days, but I completely reject the idea that everyone should have a carefree attitude to sex and should consider a potential partner's sexual history irrelevant.

Personally, I have had few sexual partners, and a potential sexual partner having had more previous partners than me would bother me. All the logic and rationality in the world tells me that it shouldn't, but it does. Perhaps this will change if/when I get more sexually experienced, but for now, I'm sorry, but it is an issue for me, and you can go fúck yourself if you think this is dated or chauvinist or whatever.

Now, of course, it is wrong to infer from a woman sleeping with you on a first date that she is promiscuous, but I guess it's an indication, and people often go with their instincts.

Also, is there any evidence to suggest that a lot of women do not think the exact same way about promiscuous guys?

Actually most posters aren't objecting to people judging others on being promiscuous. It's no different than me saying I won't date a smoker, because it demonstrates a lack of intelligence. It's one of my personal deal-breakers. That's perfectly reasonable. What isn't reasonable is if I was a smoker myself and said I wouldn't date one. That's just massively hypocritical.

Wibbs wrote: »

Biology and mechanics. In unprotected sex women have more risk of contracting an STD. http://www.rhtp.org/std/types.asp EG the transmission rate of HIV is stronger from men to women than the other way around. Simply because men leave fluids containing such pathogens behind in a warm and moist environment where they can propogate. They get a bigger viral/bacterial load. They're also more likely to suffer complications from many STD's too. Chlamydia one of the more common ones is largely asymptomatic in men and indeed in women but has far bigger consequences for her reproductive health. HPV another one that can even lead to death in its role in cervical cancer. I'm sure more men and women have known of or heard of cervical cancer affecting someone. How many have heard of penile cancer(which its also implicated in). TBH I'm actually surprised more men and women don't realise the greater risk for women with regard to STD's.

Wasn't aware of that, thanks for the info. However, unprotected sex is a completely different kettle of fish. I would judge someone who has unprotected sex, but then I don't do it myself. If I regularly slept around without condoms, then no, I would be in no position to judge someone who did.

Wibbs wrote: »

Of course, but it's a helluva lot easier for him to walk away if he so chooses. The man's issues usually only come up if he actually does want to stay around and the woman wants to put barriers up. Plus he doesnt face the pregnancy, birth and the complications that can arise from that.

He will face maintenance and support issues. But again, the unprotected sex agrument comes into it.

Wibbs wrote: »

True, but in talking about the averages here, how many men are assaulted by women? Other men certainly, but women? How many men have experience of anything approaching date rape? Very very few. Regardless of double standards the dice is loaded more on one gender than the other.

How many woman are raped after agreeing to a ONS? That's the only figure that's relevant here. Is that figure going to be higher than men who are robbed, sexually assaulted or physically assaulted (whether by the woman or other involved men) after agreeing to one? I don't know, but it's certainly not a given.

Wibbs wrote: »

I have had ONS's yes, but I've not had them where I expected more, or with one exception where I felt they wanted more and like I said not one of my finer moments, so yes I do have better impulse control than some who either do the ONS thing regularly for the "wrong" reasons. Men and women.

But that's not the point. I'm asking about a double standard, not different standards for different situations. If a woman acts in exactly the same manner as you, has ONS for the same reasons you do, takes the same precautions as you do, would you think less of her?

Boskowski

watisgoingon wrote: »

I don't think there's any double standard at all.

Yes, we're all supposed to be sexually liberated etc. these days, but I completely reject the idea that everyone should have a carefree attitude to sex and should consider a potential partner's sexual history irrelevant.

Personally, I have had few sexual partners, and a potential sexual partner having had more previous partners than me would bother me. All the logic and rationality in the world tells me that it shouldn't, but it does. Perhaps this will change if/when I get more sexually experienced, but for now, I'm sorry, but it is an issue for me, and you can go fúck yourself if you think this is dated or chauvinist or whatever.

Now, of course, it is wrong to infer from a woman sleeping with you on a first date that she is promiscuous, but I guess it's an indication, and people often go with their instincts.

Also, is there any evidence to suggest that a lot of women do not think the exact same way about promiscuous guys?

So it's ok for you to fvck around but it's not for your future girlfriend? You're obviously not going to hook up with a girl having the same views on that then...

And also, you know it makes no sense on all levels, but you don't care and anyone pointing this out to can go and.... ?

Nice boyfriend material you are...

Edit: Sorry, I think I misunderstood. I read 'have had few' as 'have had a few'.

I personally think that the reason a lot of people don't go back to someone after a 1st night shag is not so much to do with losing respect for them, but rather a factor of alcohol induced regret/beer goggles/awkwardness etc.

When you're drunk your inhibitions are substantially lowered and as a result you are more likely to be open to doing things that are potentially outside of your normal comfort zone. As a result there is no way people will wake up 100% of the time on one side of the fence or the other. You may wake up and feel that whilst she was physically attractive, you didn't particularly vibe with her personality.

Personally I've had it go both ways. I've woken up the next day and wanted nothing more to do with the girl, for a variety of reasons - I was only after a bit of fun and not ready for anything more, I didn't feel that attracted to her in the 1st place but alcohol and beer egged me on etc etc. I've also woken up dyin to go on a date with the girl.

Tbh, if you genuinely liked the girl, and you clicked enough on the night to create a genuine attraction that isn't 100% purely physical, whilst obviously also holding a large physical attraction (ie - it wasn't a beer goggles thing) then I don't think it would be an issue. I certainly wouldn't be in the least bit bothered.

Tbh who are we to judge, it wasn't as if we behaved like angels ourselves. If anything it shows that you are both on the same wavelength.

senordingdong

Some blokes need to get over themselves.

LegacyUser

Not really a ONS situation, but what if both of you had too much to drink, and the girl ended up losing her virginity to you, very soon after meeting you.
Would you still consider her promiscuous, or an "easy lay" , with no sexual restraint?
Would this put you off seeing this girl again?

All I can say is thank God, my boyfriend didn't feel this way. He didn't find out until about the 4th time I'd slept with him[3rd or 4th week together], that I had been a virgin the first time we were together.
Yet he txtd and called me all the next day, and every day that followed after we had first slept together, and we met up a few times during that week for "dates" and slept together for the second time that weekend.
We're now together 6 and a half years, and if he had just seen me as someone who was "easy" and never called me again, I would have been heartbroken.

I was upset and annoyed with myself for losing my virginity, and sleeping with someone so soon after meeting him, mainly because I was already well aware of some men's attitude on this, and I always wanted to be in a relationship with whoever I would first sleep with.

Luckily, my boyfriend didn't seem to give a damn that we had slept together so soon, and was just interested in meeting me again. He arranged proper dates like meals, and cinema, and the beach etc., and actually took the time to get to know me.
When he found out after about 3 weeks or a month of us seeing each other,that I had been a virgin our first night, he was surprised and said I should have mentioned it, as he would have took things slower if I had wanted, but at this stage I could confidently tell him that all was grand, as by then I could clearly see he liked me for me, even though I'd slept with him so soon.

I guess what I'm trying to say is don't just automatically assume that any girl who sleeps with you soon, is the type who does this on a regular basis with lots of different guys.
It might be the first time the girl has slept with someone they just met, or else it may be a very rare occurrence for them to do so.
They might just be really, really attracted to you and I don't see why people don't just see that as a big compliment, instead of something to criticize the person for.

Imo, even if it is a girl who DOES regularly sleep with someone very soon, that doesn't make them a bad person at all. It just means that they enjoy sex, and that they have chosen that they would like to have sex with you. Why some guys have a problem with this, I just don't get.?

It doesn't automatically mean that they would be the type to cheat or whatever. If you really like the girl, and are attracted to both their look, and they seem to have a nice personality, then don't just dismiss them for the simple fact that they slept with you quickly.
If both of ye are interested, then just take the time to get to know her better.
You could be missing out on a great girl, all because of some preconceived idea you have.

Greyfox

Pembily wrote: »

How is sexual restraint attractive?? That boggles me... My brother is of the same opinion though and I just don't get it :eek:

Because we tend to value things we have to work hard for much more then things that come easily

Darlughda

Greyfox wrote: »

Because we tend to value things we have to work hard for much more then things that come easily

And that is game playing. And using sex as some kind of currency.

Personally, I would find it repellent that a man would view a consensual act as some kind of game they had to work for.

It screams a somewhat fcuked up attitude towards women, as in trophies or prizes to be won gallantly by a man, and equally on the side of a woman who engages with this kind of game, coyly resisting all demands for sex as she hooks him in-opens the floodgates for manipulation to be an acceptable method in a relationship.

Its not a competition. Its a hugely enjoyable part of human nature.

Wibbs

28064212 wrote: »

It's no different than me saying I won't date a smoker, because it demonstrates a lack of intelligence. It's one of my personal deal-breakers. That's perfectly reasonable. What isn't reasonable is if I was a smoker myself and said I wouldn't date one. That's just massively hypocritical.

Not necessarily. For instance you could be a smoker that hates your own habit and are trying to give up. In that case it would be hardly hypocritical. But yes I fully get your point. Where a guy is a whoremaster and insists his long termers are near virgins is daft and hypocritical and lacking in either the ego dept or the willy dept, or both.

Wasn't aware of that, thanks for the info. However, unprotected sex is a completely different kettle of fish. I would judge someone who has unprotected sex, but then I don't do it myself. If I regularly slept around without condoms, then no, I would be in no position to judge someone who did.

That's fine in practice, but the reality is a lot of unprotected(by condom) sex does go on out there hence the STD rates. I've know a fair few women who wouldnt insist on condom use and a lot of(more) men. Both daft, but with both, the amount of that they're having increases their risks and wouldn't inspire confidence in them as future long term partners.

He will face maintenance and support issues. But again, the unprotected sex agrument comes into it.

Not quite. Accidents happen. There are a fair few condom pill babies out there. In any event the woman is still left holding the baby if the guy has a mind to leave her. The majority of men actually don't and after a period of adjustment come around to the idea and love their kids. Even with those the woman does the lions share of the early rearing. She also carries the child and gives birth. Then there are the guys who only pay the barest maintenance and it's not exactly that much monetarily speaking and of course the guys who drag the woman through the courts or just simply abscond. You really can't compare the two.

How many woman are raped after agreeing to a ONS? That's the only figure that's relevant here. Is that figure going to be higher than men who are robbed, sexually assaulted or physically assaulted (whether by the woman or other involved men) after agreeing to one? I don't know, but it's certainly not a given.

Ahh come on now, you're kidding right? For a start you're comparing apples and oranges. But we'll get back to that...ONS aren't a contract signed in the pub. They flow organically enough on both sides, that said date rape does happen and happens a fair amount. Hence the specific name for it. Most sexual assaults and rapes are perpetrated by a man the woman knows. The stranger dragging the woman into the alleyway is by far the minority. I'd pretty much guarantee that a large chunk of women have been at a party say and went further than they wanted to and were comfortable with. They may have wanted a snog with a side order of a feelup and cuddle and ended up having sex. It's remarkably common. Few enough women have not been in a situation that was sexually uncomfortable for them. What gets reported of "actual" rapes is the very tip of the iceberg of the grey area ones even less. I've personal experience of three mates of mine down the years where a guy went to far after a date or at a party. To even suggest that the figures for assaults on men on ONS are even vaguely similar is frankly daft in my humble.

But that's not the point. I'm asking about a double standard, not different standards for different situations. If a woman acts in exactly the same manner as you, has ONS for the same reasons you do, takes the same precautions as you do, would you think less of her?

Nope, but that wasn't my point either. However I would think less of her if she pulled similar to me regarding the time I went through with it when I had a fair idea she wanted more. Why? Because I felt less of myself. If it was a one off or a phase and learned from, then fine. But a default? Eh no. Not for me thanks.

This stuff is nowhere near black and white for me. I'd take it on a case by case basis. Low impulse control as a default would put me off personally. "Promiscuity" as such would not. EG I know a woman, a good mate of mine that even the most publicly "right on" guy if he knew her bedpost number would raise an eyebrow and would likely judge her on it. She's among the most loyal people I know in relationships, male or female. She has never cheated. Never even the "well its nor really cheating" that some get up to. You know the people who are tired of the old relationship and get busy with someone new to line up another or to prove to themselves they're not in love anymore. Pretty common. Nope not her. When she with someone she's with someone and when that fades she simply leaves. Just when she's not in a relationship it's party time and fair enough. She's sensible, has very rarely done the met a complete randomer at 10, shagging by 12, she usually knows something of them and always insists on condoms. She loves the mickey but on her own terms and in control of her terms.

On the other hand I also know others where its much much more about lack of impulse control and that does come out down the line, more than it doesnt IME(even if not sexually). So promiscuity itself has never been an issue for me, rather the why behind it and if that why is just a mad phase(which we all have in some way) or the default position.

Wibbs

Darlughda wrote: »

And that is game playing. And using sex as some kind of currency.

Personally, I would find it repellent that a man would view a consensual act as some kind of game they had to work for.

It screams a somewhat fcuked up attitude towards women, as in trophies or prizes to be won gallantly by a man, and equally on the side of a woman who engages with this kind of game, coyly resisting all demands for sex as she hooks him in-opens the floodgates for manipulation to be an acceptable method in a relationship.

Its not a competition. Its a hugely enjoyable part of human nature.

Oh I agree, but what Greyfox describes is also part of human nature across the board. I mean you'll value something you worked hard for and saved up to buy than if it was just handed to you free gratis. A small element of that is OK in a relationship IMHO. The "I can't believe I'm with him/her" would be the healthy end. The game playing end is not and I agree with you there 100%. It rarely ends well. The fooked up attitude from the male side after a while usually results in the guy thinking less of the woman. The coyly resisting types usually end up with a guy that is less confident than other men, because few confident clued in men will fall for that.

Greyfox

Darlughda wrote: »

And that is game playing. And using sex as some kind of currency.

Personally, I would find it repellent that a man would view a consensual act as some kind of game they had to work for.

No it's not. I'm just stating a fact that I, like a lot of men I find that when a women makes me wait the antisipation of what sex will be like builds up and makes my attraction for the person stronger. Theirs certainly never any intentional gamesplaying as men cant really control what they do and don't find attractive.

I am a friend

Greyfox wrote: »

No it's not. I'm just stating a fact that I, like a lot of men I find that when a women makes me wait the antisipation of what sex will be like builds up and makes my attraction for the person stronger. Theirs certainly never any intentional gamesplaying as men cant really control what they do and don't find attractive.

what's the longest ye would wait for a girl to have sex with you?

Darlughda

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

The major biological reason behind this double standard is the male's need to ensure the parenthood of his child in relationships that extend past the "dating" phase. To the male mind, if a woman is perceived as promiscuous, the likelihood of her committing infidelity in the future increases. Thus, should childbirth occur, there is the lingering possibility that this child will have a different biological father.

If this scenario plays out, the father who believed the child to be his own has expended important resources and faculties on a child that is not biologically his, and furthermore will not pass on his genes to the next generation. Besides infertility, not being able to ensure parenthood is the biggest disadvantage men have in the mating department. It is why purity in women is so highly valued by men.

The other explanation is the madonna/whore complex. We wouldn't be so quick to accept affection from our mother if she was sleeping around a lot, and this seems to extends to our prospective partners.

I suspect the reason why men fear a woman's promiscuity is more to do with their own ego problems, eg., will they be good enough in bed for her as she is more experienced and therefore has compartive examples to decide what she does and doesn't want, along with an insecurity that they would be unable to satisfy her sexually. Especially if she is more open to kinkier sex than they have any notion of.

I don't really buy the biological reproduction argument. Plenty of men and women do not want children, nor it is not a concern or factor for many others facing the sex on first date clincher.

However, I am beginning to suspect the crux of this matter is the madonna/whore complex.

Is this archetype still predominant for men nowadays? As in good girls dont...'put it out'... mothers are asexual beings not sexual women in their own right?

theofficepest wrote: »

.

One way to do this is to get to know someone before throwing it about. :pac:

Your language here is illustrates this inherent problem men seem to find with women's sexuality. Throwing what about? A ball? No having sex is not throwing anything about.

homerun_homer wrote: »

You would think "Is she like this with every guy? Has she done it a lot or am I just special for getting it this soon?"

Getting what? Again its like viewing sex as a currency or a prize, not a consensual act between 2 adults.

senordingdong wrote: »

I really don't think that promiscuity goes hand in hand with infidelity.

Oh Hallelujah, a bit of sense at last.

Wibbs wrote: »

This stuff is nowhere near black and white for me. I'd take it on a case by case basis. Low impulse control as a default would put me off personally. "Promiscuity" as such would not.

Fair enough that you would value someone who excercises impulse control.
Personally, I like a man to follow his instincts and passions.