X date rule before jiggy jiggy

Potatoeman

Lau2976 wrote: »

I don't think id ever sleep with someone on a first date. Not for a few weeks at least. That's personal preference though not some crazy rule I've set for myself or others. I do know a couple girls who wait til after the 3rd to see if "he'll work for it" and a couple of lads who said they'd never marry a girl who the slept with on he first date. But their all idiots in general.

They might have an issue dating someone that they see as having slept with too many people or they'll date them for a short period. Women get judged harsher for it but I guess thats because they can get sex easier. People have all kinds of things they judge partners by.

_Kaiser_

kylith wrote: »

Oh, I know all that. There's no guarantee that a guy won't hang on until ye do have sex then bail anyway, but it does take care of the guys who wouldn't be bothered to put in a few weeks of effort. And if a guy does hold off and then, after sex, decides that he's not that into you for whatever reason then so be it.

However, a guy who would write off a woman because she didn't want to hop into bed with him on what was very possibly the first or second time they'd met is, in my opinion, a knobhead and the lady in question has dodged a bullet.

If a guy, or a woman, actually likes you then they will wait for you to be comfortable enough with them to have sex. If they can't handle not getting laid for a month then they weren't worth it in the first place.

Worth what though? At the end of the day sex is supposed to be fun, and there's nothing wrong with 2 people just going for it if that's what they both want IMO.

That said, I personally was never the randomer/one-nighter type as I much rather get on with someone as well (makes the sex better too!) but I've always just gone with the flow.. it happens when it happens!

I don't see the point in denying it for the sake of some sort of "checklist" myself. Just be upfront with each other and straight about what you want from the start and life becomes much easier

mariaalice

How on earth in 2015 is sex still a' bargaining' tool for want of a better word.

kylith

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Worth what though? At the end of the day sex is supposed to be fun, and there's nothing wrong with 2 people just going for it if that's what they both want IMO.

That said, I personally was never the randomer/one-nighter type as I much rather get on with someone as well (makes the sex better too!) but I've always just gone with the flow.. it happens when it happens!

I don't see the point in denying it for the sake of some sort of "checklist" myself. Just be upfront with each other and straight about what you want from the start and life becomes much easier

Weren't worth your time and effort.

Of course there's nothing wrong with two people both going for it if they want to, but if one person doesn't then that is their choice and there are any number of reasons that they may want to put off having sex that don't involve having a 'checklist' right up to and including 'just plain not wanting to have sex right now'. They may not be 'denying themselves' they might just not be in the mood, or they want to get to know the other person better, or they have been abused in the past. No-one should be made to feel that they are frigid, wrong, or working an agenda just because they want to hold off on physical intimacy until they feel ready for it.

_Kaiser_

kylith wrote: »

Weren't worth your time and effort.

Of course there's nothing wrong with two people both going for it if they want to, but if one person doesn't then that is their choice and there are any number of reasons that they may want to put off having sex that don't involve having a 'checklist' right up to and including 'just plain not wanting to have sex right now'. They may not be 'denying themselves' they might just not be in the mood, or they want to get to know the other person better, or they have been abused in the past. No-one should be made to feel that they are frigid, wrong, or working an agenda just because they want to hold off on physical intimacy until they feel ready for it.

Which is all fine, but equally it's not really right/fair to "write off" someone else who is ready as not worth the time just because they don't hold sex in the same esteem as you do. For some people it can be just fun without guilt or expectaions but I'd contend that that view is no more "wrong" than yours

Again it's down to communication and knowing where each other stand.

kylith

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Which is all fine, but equally it's not really right/fair to "write off" someone else who is ready as not worth the time just because they don't hold sex in the same esteem as you do. For some people it can be just fun without guilt or expectaions but I'd contend that that view is no more "wrong" than yours

Again it's down to communication and knowing where each other stand.

But it is much less harm for someone who is ready to hold off for a few dates than it is for someone who isn't ready to feel pressured into having sex. And even if both are ready if one wants to hold off to make sure of their feelings for the other person then that's fine too. And I never mentioned 'holding sex in esteem', I said that if a man wouldn't see want a second date for the simple reason that you wouldn't have sex with him on the first date then he is not worth your time, and he isn't. And the same goes if the genders are reversed too. It would indicate to me that the guy viewed me as little more than a walking vagina and had no interest in, or respect for, me as a person.

_Kaiser_

kylith wrote: »

But it is much less harm for someone who is ready to hold off for a few dates than it is for someone who isn't ready to feel pressured into having sex. And even if both are ready if one wants to hold off to make sure of their feelings for the other person then that's fine too.

No argument here. It's a given that both sides should be ready before it happens and neither side should feel pressured.

And I never mentioned 'holding sex in esteem', I said that if a man wouldn't see want a second date for the simple reason that you wouldn't have sex with him on the first date then he is not worth your time, and he isn't. And the same goes if the genders are reversed too. It would indicate to me that the guy viewed me as little more than a walking vagina and had no interest in me as a person.

In your opinion There are equally lots of women who are "up for it" on the first meet - who else are these guys having sex with? - and that's fine too!
There's nothing wrong with sex being just a bit of fun IMO.

If people were just straight up with their expectations from the start a lot of this could be avoided I reckon.

mariaalice

For all the people who has sex on first date and it didn't work out and then conclude it was because of sex on the fist date, how do you know it didn't work out because the person just didn't fancy you enough and it was nothing to do with sex on the first date.

To me there seems to be an error of logic here i.e people have sex then blame having sex because it turned in to a bit of a disaster.

I have always found that if someone fancy's you they will peruse you and tend to be wearing rose tinted spectacles that stop them seeing any of your flaws.

SMJSF

jesus, reading all this, I'm glad I respect myself not to shag any Tom, Dick or Harry!
you shouldn't expect it, if I went on a date with a guy and he wanted a shag that night, I'd sent him packing!!

kylith

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

In your opinion There are equally lots of women who are "up for it" on the first meet - who else are these guys having sex with? - and that's fine too!
There's nothing wrong with sex being just a bit of fun IMO.

If people were just straight up with their expectations from the start a lot of this could be avoided I reckon.

Yes, in my opinion, but I'd warrant that the opinion isn't an unpopular one.

Look at it like this. If you had a car and your neighbour kept asking you to drive him places and had no interest in talking to you when your car was in the garage would you think consider him worth your time or would you find yourself irritated that he was only speaking to you because he wanted something? Would you think, 'well, I'll drive him around even though I don't really want to in the hope that he one day won't want to speak to me only because I have a car'? Or would you think 'Fck him. If all he wants is to be driven around let the fecker call a taxi'?

There are many, many places where a person who is interested in just hooking up for sex can go where everyone knows what the deal is. The expectation that a person should have sex on the first date is presumptuous, rude, and borders on having an interest in someone only for what you can get from them rather than what a date should be about - getting to know each other as people and deciding if ye want to see more of each other.

Potatoeman

kylith wrote: »

Yes, in my opinion, but I'd warrant that the opinion isn't an unpopular one.

Look at it like this. If you had a car and your neighbour kept asking you to drive him places and had no interest in talking to you when your car was in the garage would you think consider him worth your time or would you find yourself irritated that he was only speaking to you because he wanted something? Would you think, 'well, I'll drive him around even though I don't really want to in the hope that he one day won't want to speak to me only because I have a car'? Or would you think 'Fck him. If all he wants is to be driven around let the fecker call a taxi'?

There are many, many places where a person who is interested in just hooking up for sex can go where everyone knows what the deal is. The expectation that a person should have sex on the first date is presumptuous, rude, and borders on having an interest in someone only for what you can get from them rather than what a date should be about - getting to know each other as people and deciding if ye want to see more of each other.

Thats down to expectations on both sides. A simple conversation would solve that.

whiskeyman

mariaalice wrote: »

For all the people who has sex on first date and it didn't work out and then conclude it was because of sex on the fist date, how do you know it didn't work out because the person just didn't fancy you enough and it was nothing to do with sex on the first date.

Lovely typo!

Dog of Tears

SMJSF wrote: »

if I went on a date with a guy and he wanted a shag that night, I'd sent him packing!!

Would you prefer if he didn't want to have sex with you?

kylith

Potatoeman wrote: »

Thats down to expectations on both sides. A simple conversation would solve that.

Which means that someone has to either, on their first date, say 'Will we have sex tonight', or 'I'm not going to sleep with you' or 'I expect that we'll be having sex tonight' which is a difficult conversation to have.

When you consider all the stuff that you wouldn't do or say on a first date launching into a discussion about what whether or not you'll be having sex that night is bizarre. I mean, people freak out about their date farting, or farting themselves because they don't know the other person, but are perfectly happy to go sucking on the genitals of a virtual stranger on the same night*.

I think it is better to go in with no expectation either way. That way if it doesn't happen no-one gets worked up about it and if it does happen then it's a happy bonus.

* Not that I haven't done that myself, but I've done it because I wanted to, not because I felt that it was expected of me.

Egginacup

Specialun wrote: »

Herself is watching this show about dating..a yank programme

Loads of byors on about 4 or 5 date rule before sex, one girl said 2 months

Like what the actual f.uck

If you want it go get it, why this waiting ****e..is this a new thing amoungst these "independent ladies"...

Have you ever had to deal with it? Women do you do it?why

That's why I love Liverpool girls. You don't even get to ask them on a date. After about 10 minutes of conversation it's "Loooook, ah yeeeew gonna shag me, or whah?"

American women are prudes. They have a drink too many and make out with some randomer and then they convince themselves they need counselling to have some shrink tell them they don't have some kind of disorder.

Saralee4

strobe wrote: »

I'm sure some women are able stay sound ctive enough and to read things that well (and more power to them) and some guys of that nature are that, eh, incompetent, at being of that nature successfully. But as general advice to give to young girls (Which is how I tend to think of this conversation usually) I just don't think it's very useful really, and would go as far as to say it's counter productive and could cause them unnecessary issues.

So your general advice is?

My general advice would be get to know the guy before you sleep with him.

There's nothing wrong if people sleep together on first date. It doesn't mean anything good or bad.

But in regard to this post, I would say that waiting is better.

Firstly i would feel more comfortable to know someone and feel a bit safer being that vulnerable. Also if you get to know them you can get an idea of the type of person they are.

The main reason though that I think this is good is because it's actually fun to wait. It's like a kind of foreplay in itself. Sexual tension and sexual chemistry are building as you get to know each other.

Also you can't really care about someone that much on a first date and I think most people would agree that sex is much better with someone you care about.

I know sex on a first date can lead to Great relationships but I don't think it's fair to make it sound bad if someone wants to wait. It doesn't mean the person is a prude or frigid the same way having sex on first date doesn't mean they are easy and promiscuous.

AlteredStates

each person/relationship would be different imho.. read in a book somewhere that the general or "proper" rule is 3 months..

Tilly

AlteredStates wrote: »

each person/relationship would be different imho.. read in a book somewhere that the general or "proper" rule is 3 months..

Fúck that!!!

strobe

Saralee4 wrote: »

So your general advice is?

My general advice would be get to know the guy before you sleep with him.

There's nothing wrong if people sleep together on first date. It doesn't mean anything good or bad.

But in regard to this post, I would say that waiting is better.

Firstly i would feel more comfortable to know someone and feel a bit safer being that vulnerable. Also if you get to know them you can get an idea of the type of person they are.

The main reason though that I think this is good is because it's actually fun to wait. It's like a kind of foreplay in itself. Sexual tension and sexual chemistry are building as you get to know each other.

Also you can't really care about someone that much on a first date and I think most people would agree that sex is much better with someone you care about.

I know sex on a first date can lead to Great relationships but I don't think it's fair to make it sound bad if someone wants to wait. It doesn't mean the person is a prude or frigid the same way having sex on first date doesn't mean they are easy and promiscuous.

Ok, firstly I agree absolutely that someone not wanting to have sex on the first/second date/after a week/ whatever doesn't automatically mean they are frigid, or a prude, or anything like that. I completely agree. Wholeheartedly. There can be a myriad of reasons.



My general advice would be. For girls to try and ignore the pervasive poison being dripped into their ears from all kinds of places, both direct and indirect, that seems to slowly build up into a narrative that basically reads (ridiculously over the top hyperbole used for effect to follow: ) "men that aren't interested in a serious committed lifelong relationship with you are sexually amoral predators, sex is something you own that they are trying to steal, and if you have sex with a man and he doesn't then go on to want a relationship with you, buy a little house together in the suburbs somewhere down the line, start your own little family together, couple of kids, grow old together, retire to a nice little sunny part of the world, and spend your final days together in blissful love, then a bad thing has happened to you, done by the bad man, and you should feel bad".

To try and counteract this narrative by understanding that sometimes someone would like to date you, or even just have sex, but not go on to enter into a lifelong committed relationship. BUT this isn't a bad reflection on you or anything about you, nor on them or anything about them. In 99% of cases it just means that they found you very attractive, thought you seemed like a lot of fun to spend time with, and thought it would be fun for you two to enjoy dating and or sex with each other. But for one or more of many possible reasons, were not interested in an ongoing serious relationship. Reasons that may have nothing to do with you personally. That this ISN'T a 'bad thing' that's been 'done to you'.

To view sex and dating as pleasant enjoyable elements of life in their own right. Not as things that have to lead on to something else for them to be worthwhile. Sometimes they will, and sometimes they won't, for all kinds of reasons. When they do, great, if that's what you wanted. When they don't, great too, as long as you've gone into them with the right frame of mind and therefore enjoyed the dating and/or sex in and of it's self. That guy found you attractive and fun and wanted to have fun with you, but not more, and that's not a bad thing that's happened to you, that's been done to you, and shouldn't be viewed as such.

To not fall for this lie that you're destined to be emotionally infantalised creatures by your nature, incapable of viewing sex and romance in anything other than stark fatalistic terms, powerless to cast your own die. To see the god damn fnords!

Bah... I've slipped into my crazy, rambling, clacking down on the laptop keys far too hard, mode, apparently. Which is usually my cue to sign off a thread. Which I'll do.

But that doesn't mean I'm not right...

Saralee4

strobe wrote: »

Ok, firstly I agree absolutely that someone not wanting to have sex on the first/second date/after a week/ whatever doesn't automatically mean they are frigid, or a prude, or anything like that. I completely agree. Wholeheartedly. There can be a myriad of reasons.



My general advice would be. For girls to try and ignore the pervasive poison being dripped into their ears from all kinds of places, both direct and indirect, that seems to slowly build up into a narrative that basically reads (ridiculously over the top hyperbole used for effect to follow: ) "men that aren't interested in a serious committed lifelong relationship with you are sexually amoral predators, sex is something you own that they are trying to steal, and if you have sex with a man and he doesn't then go on to want a relationship with you, buy a little house together in the suburbs somewhere down the line, start your own little family together, couple of kids, grow old together, retire to a nice little sunny part of the world, and spend your final days together in blissful love, then a bad thing has happened to you, done by the bad man, and you should feel bad".

To try and counteract this narrative by understanding that sometimes someone would like to date you, or even just have sex, but not go on to enter into a lifelong committed relationship. BUT this isn't a bad reflection on you or anything about you, nor on them or anything about them. In 99% of cases it just means that they found you very attractive, thought you seemed like a lot of fun to spend time with, and thought it would be fun for you two to enjoy dating and or sex with each other. But for one or more of many possible reasons, were not interested in an ongoing serious relationship. Reasons that may have nothing to do with you personally. That this ISN'T a 'bad thing' that's been 'done to you'.

To view sex and dating as pleasant enjoyable elements of life in their own right. Not as things that have to lead on to something else for them to be worthwhile. Sometimes they will, and sometimes they won't, for all kinds of reasons. When they do, great, if that's what you wanted. When they don't, great too, as long as you've gone into them with the right frame of mind and therefore enjoyed the dating and/or sex in and of it's self. That guy found you attractive and fun and wanted to have fun with you, but not more, and that's not a bad thing that's happened to you, that's been done to you, and shouldn't be viewed as such.

To not fall for this lie that you're destined to be emotionally infantalised creatures by your nature, incapable of viewing sex and romance in anything other than stark fatalistic terms, powerless to cast your own die. To see the god damn fnords!

Bah... I've slipped into my crazy, rambling, clacking down on the laptop keys far too hard, mode, apparently. Which is usually my cue to sign off a thread. Which I'll do.

But that doesn't mean I'm not right...

eh you cant sign off and say your right and not give a chance to reply huh oh wait this is boards so you can hehe :P

Also to turn your quote around: women that aren't interested in a sexual encounter on the first date are not crazy and don't necessarily want relationship with you, to buy a little house together in the suburbs somewhere down the line, start your own little family together, couple of kids, grow old together, retire to a nice little sunny part of the world, and spend your final days together in blissful love, they are merely trying to get to know the guy and fun on the date and might just not want to get that intimate with a stranger.

The idea that women think that sex is "something you own that they are trying to steal, and if you have sex with a man and he doesn't then go on to want a relationship with you the first date is nuts" but I don't think most women think that but the fact of the matter is as a women you are the more vulnerable one in that situation in that you are more than likely not going to be physically stronger than the man and you do have to be careful who you trust or go home with because you are dealing essentially with a stranger.

I think we would both agree that it is about teaching women not be ashamed of their natural desires but to ultimately do what they feel comfortable with and not to feel pressured for the risk of being labelled a prude or accused of using sex as a weapon! The fact that anyone would think that implies that its a power play rather than the woman's prerogative.

Also its important to note that not all men want sex on the first date either as we've seen with a few posts here.

bb1234567

UCDVet wrote: »

I'd disagree with this a lot.

Sex, particularly with a new partner is one of the most risky activities regular people do. STDs are a real and valid concern, some of those STDs are incurable and even life threatening. More likely though, an unexpected pregnancy can have huge, huge, huge consequences - particularly if it's with someone you can't stand.

My older sister hooked up with some dude she hardly knew and - oops - they had a baby. Don't get me wrong, I love my nephew - but they can't stand each other, they've since split up, they fight constantly, they have constant legal battles over ridiculous stuff with each other. It's an absolute nightmare.

Had she waited a few weeks before she slept with him, she'd have realized that her and him don't get along at all. Both of their lives could have been very different.

From my own perspective, when I find a girl physically attractive - I'll put up with just about anything. It's not even something I'm aware of, I just don't mind things or don't notice them.

I met one girl at a party - she was attractive (more attractive than girls that would usually be interested in me). I drove her home, we started messing around in my car. Amazing night for me. It took me a handful of dates before I realized she was actually quite a bad person. No sense gambling your life on someone you don't know/don't trust.

If you just want sex and you want it fast - better off just getting a hooker as it's legal in Ireland and comes with more reasonable terms.

While it is a concern, pretty much every STD is easily treated if caught early. So everybody, regardless of gender,race,sexuality should get an std checkup every 3-6 months.

LizT

SMJSF wrote: »

jesus, reading all this, I'm glad I respect myself not to shag any Tom, Dick or Harry!
you shouldn't expect it, if I went on a date with a guy and he wanted a shag that night, I'd sent him packing!!

So basically someone who has sex on a first date doesn't respect themselves? That's a new one...

It's all about the situation and your connection with someone, just go with the flow. Sometimes it will feel right on the first date, sometimes it won't.

bb1234567

Conall Cernach wrote: »

While I have no doubt that they do I have never encountered it. I'm 42 btw and with my partner 19 years now so maybe it's a generational thing.

Nah like its not that common really , but since tinder and online dating started becoming popular so too have going on formal dates with people to things like restaurants and movies. I don't think I could ever ask a random girl from college out on a date like that tbh..only a girl I met online..idk

strobe

Saralee4 wrote: »

eh you cant sign off and say your right and not give a chance to reply huh oh wait this is boards so you can hehe :P

Also to turn your quote around: women that aren't interested in a sexual encounter on the first date are not crazy and don't necessarily want relationship with you, to buy a little house together in the suburbs somewhere down the line, start your own little family together, couple of kids, grow old together, retire to a nice little sunny part of the world, and spend your final days together in blissful love, they are merely trying to get to know the guy and fun on the date and might just not want to get that intimate with a stranger.

The idea that women think that sex is "something you own that they are trying to steal, and if you have sex with a man and he doesn't then go on to want a relationship with you the first date is nuts" but I don't think most women think that but the fact of the matter is as a women you are the more vulnerable one in that situation in that you are more than likely not going to be physically stronger than the man and you do have to be careful who you trust or go home with because you are dealing essentially with a stranger.

I think we would both agree that it is about teaching women not be ashamed of their natural desires but to ultimately do what they feel comfortable with and not to feel pressured for the risk of being labelled a prude or accused of using sex as a weapon! The fact that anyone would think that implies that its a power play rather than the woman's prerogative.

Also its important to note that not all men want sex on the first date either as we've seen with a few posts here.

Just 'cause I'm signing out of the thread, doesn't mean I won't read any reply to anything I've said, that wouldn't be very fair or informative, I will of course, just done posting.

You seem to have misinterpreted a bit of what I said, but that's understandable.

Really signing off this time, but just to try and summarise, all I'm saying is I think that this stuff of telling girls, that they should wait x amount of time or whatever, as a way of 'protecting themselves from the bad sex stealers' or any other way of phrasing the same thing, first of all, does not work as it's implied that it does, at all, and secondly is adding (along with many other things) to a very toxic and unhelpful 'vibe' in society, or undercurrent of consciousness, whereby many girls end up feeling bad when a guy wants sex, but not more, and that they shouldn't, and the vibe shouldn't be added to, directly or indirectly, as it makes things harder for them, not easier, and there's a better way. That's all.

Strobe, signing off (but will, as said, of course read any replies to anything I've written).

whupdedo

Tilly wrote: »

Fúck that!!!

Waiting 3 months is fine, but there would want to be some serious fellatio and diddy wankin going on, and of course something for herself as well

Potatoeman

kylith wrote: »

Which means that someone has to either, on their first date, say 'Will we have sex tonight', or 'I'm not going to sleep with you' or 'I expect that we'll be having sex tonight' which is a difficult conversation to have.

When you consider all the stuff that you wouldn't do or say on a first date launching into a discussion about what whether or not you'll be having sex that night is bizarre. I mean, people freak out about their date farting, or farting themselves because they don't know the other person, but are perfectly happy to go sucking on the genitals of a virtual stranger on the same night*.

I think it is better to go in with no expectation either way. That way if it doesn't happen no-one gets worked up about it and if it does happen then it's a happy bonus.

* Not that I haven't done that myself, but I've done it because I wanted to, not because I felt that it was expected of me.

It would depend how you meet. Things like tinder was designed to be a hook up app but many people use it for dating now. Being clear what you want from the outset is better than guessing.

If you had ons then whats so odd about talking about it. Its odd you find talking about it weird on the first date but not sleeping with someone.

SMJSF

Dog of Tears wrote:

Would you prefer if he didn't want to have sex with you?

it's called having respect, for yourself and the other person if they didn't want to.

Pwindedd

I had a one night stand, ended up married to him. The fcuker was persistent, I'll give him that.

candy-gal1

Yeah, Ive never gotton that whole amount of dates before sex rule - it doesnt really mean anything but in your own head tbh!

Of the 2 relationships I have had, including current one , the first started off with sex on the first date and lasted over 3years, and this one started off with a multitude of dates, some fun "stuff" here and there after 2nd date and having sex after about 2weeks and well be 3years together in may


So, fair play to anyone who goes by those rules etc but imho it means nothing in real terms!

Venus In Furs

strobe wrote: »

It's the whole female PUA-esk, the way to a man's heart is sexual abstinence, puritan snake oil nonsense I find hilarious.

Can't abide it - I would be of the "Do it as soon as you meet them if you want" mindset but what Kylith says is true too: sometimes it's just a shag that's wanted and then never to be heard from again, so how much of the female PUA crap is informed by that?
I know you say not to bother with a man who's only interested in sex if you'd prefer something more, but unfortunately people (male and female) can be manipulative and charm people into bed, and make them feel really desired and bla bla... and it's all a ruse just to get their hole and then they're gone. It's crushing when this happens, it really is.
So while I don't think women SHOULD have those rules (and if they have them for no reason other than just because, they're being downright idiotic) but I can understand women exercising caution about how soon they'll shag someone if they have experienced the whole charmed-into-a-ride thing a few times.