The First Date Shag Consequences..

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.

Stink on the inside

Darlughda wrote: »

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

Ill be blunt Darlughda, for me it simply comes down to the amount of guys that have been there, simple as that (speaking from the perspective of potential girlfriend material not a one night stand).

I reckon this would be a predominant reason for most other guys too that are put off by a girls promiscuity.

I reckon a lot of guys would jump at the chance of an encounter with a girl with way more experience that would maybe teach them a thing or two.

But you make a fair point.

southsiderosie

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:

Stink on the inside wrote: »

Ill be blunt Darlughda, for me it simply comes down to the amount of guys that have been there, simple as that (speaking from the perspective of potential girlfriend material not a one night stand).

I reckon this would be a predominant reason for most other guys too that are put off by a girls promiscuity.

Well, I'm a woman, and I would have a problem dating a man with a lot of past sexual partners. I met a really cool guy recently and we hit it off, but I generally take things slowly, and when we had a conversation about past sexual partners, he had a shockingly high number. That was a big red flag for me, and turned out he had some other issues as well. Needless to say, that didn't go anywhere.

Having a lot of partners may mean that you like sex, but to me personally it is also a signal that you like sex in a far more indiscriminate way than I do. Whereas I see sex as something that can be enjoyed - frequently! - within the confines of an established, long-term relationship. I wouldn't be comfortable with someone who has such a dramatically different sexual history than I do.

I do think there is a Madonna/whore double standard in play a lot of the time, but I also think it's perfectly rational when someone you have just met in a pub asks you to go home with them to think "How many other people have they done this with?"

fergalr

Blah blah biology blah evolution blah blah chase blah blah stds sexual history blah blah


Look, for anyone that can't see through all this, heres what's going on:
A lot of people have a lot of hangups about sex.


There's all sorts of animal and psychological and social reasons why these hangups might exist.
Reasons which we really should be able to rise above, but which which, as humans, we aren't able to.


So, to answer the questions of the initial post:

Darlughda wrote: »

if she sleeps with you on first date-then no to dating just a potential ons or fb in the future?

Personally, hypothetically, I wouldn't think like that. If I found myself thinking irrationally, I'd try and rise above it, like other irrational thoughts. But from talking with many guys, many guys do, so its definitely out there.

Darlughda wrote: »

Can you explain this double standard to me?

Sure! Its because people are irrational. Loadsa people of both sexes apply double standards. Thats the explanation.

Darlughda wrote: »

Or give your honest reasoning if you agree with this?

There's lots of 'justifications', but it all boils down to hangups. Don't believe a more complex explanation than that.


The implicit question here, is whether people (women?) should alter their behaviour to cater to the irrationalities of people they are interested in.
This tradeoff depends on the individuals, but for women who believe they should cater to this: If your potential partner wanted you to take their name, would you do it? If they insisted you give up your career? If they insisted you cover your face?

Its a personal decision, but I know I'd think they could go fsck themselves.


Edit: I'm not trying to advocate completely rational decision making here. Irrationality is a lot of fun sometimes; but when our irrationalities are stopping us having fun, or making us act badly, then we should think them out.

Wibbs

Darlughda wrote: »

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.

Oh there is defo a large chunk of that going on. That said I know of confident sexually experienced men who also feel uneasy about women being too "free and easy" with their charms, so it's not just that I would say.

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.

On the surface no, but the biological imperative is in there to some degree or other and has been in damn near every human culture throughout history. There are cultures that are referenced where an experienced woman* is valued more than a virgin, but when one explores further it turns out it's more a case of a woman with proven fertility is valued more. Until very recently the fact is a man* couldn't prove any of his children were his. A woman always knows if a child is hers. In some rarer cases where she's having sex with a couple of men at the same time, she may not know who the father is, but she defo knows who the mother is. Ever hear of a maternity test? Nope. For good reason. Now as males of most apes(for we are that) don't want to expend resources on others progeny at the expense of our own men have sought to limit the chances of this happening. This went double when the notion of familial ownership of land came into being. So yes men can "fearful", more suspicious about women's sexuality/fertility/loyalty to some degree. Before the advent of reliable contraception and paternity tests he had to be.

Did men have reason to be? Well hard to tell. If we look at our closest relatives the great apes, a couple of interesting mating strategies come up. Chimp females are very promiscuous so the males have very large testicles to increase the chances of pregnancy in this competition. Gorillas have harems and while the females can be reproductively sneaky, the males are more sure of who the daddy is, so huge gorillas have tiny testes. Humans? Men are smack dab in the middle(though have the biggest willies:D). Plus unlike all other great apes women hide their fertility and are also fertile year round which further confuses the issue for men. It seems at some point in our evolution men were not as sure of their mates as gorillas, but more sure than chimps. Any evidence they were right? Well DNA studies have shown that a noticeable percentage of children are not related to what they assume are their fathers. It's not as high as some paranoid blokes are concerned but it is like I say noticeable. So objectively speaking and looking from the other side if women were the ones who couldnt be sure, which male would they pick? The promiscuous low impulse control male with many many partners or the more considered male? This will evolve in our culture over time as contraception and all the rest are brought fully into the mix. It's still a bit in flux at the moment.

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

I dunno. Since it came from Freud I would have issue with most of his opinions on human psychology, but...

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?

There may be some element to this alright. I've seen some indications of this detachment maybe in other ways. Like I have noticed that men very attached to their mothers and who consider them above reproach and don't see them as human beings tend to be less good with women in adulthood. I've defo noticed extreme manwhore types to almost exclusively see their mothers with feet of clay. Maybe an inversion of madonna whore?

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

I agree on this score. I think this comes about because of some in both genders. I've known women who treat sex as something to be doled out as a reward and men who saw it as a prize. I've little respect for either. I've scraped off a couple of the former myself the second I got the sniff of "If you buy me nice things I'll go down on you" types and yes they do exist.

Oh Hallelujah, a bit of sense at last.

Yep and I agree as I pointed out a few posts back. For me its not the number it's the why and how.

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

I prefer striving for a balance. In both myself and others. Instinct and passion without mind in tow is unbalanced, just like mind without passion. Passion unfettered is fine for romance novels but after the "happy ever after" when real life starts it's less trustworthy IME and IMHO. Passion is far too easily swayed. Then again that's just my opinion like I said.

*using these terms as generalisations of course.

Wibbs

fergalr wrote: »

Blah blah biology blah evolution blah blah chase blah blah stds sexual history blah blah


Look, for anyone that can't see through all this, heres what's going on:
A lot of people have a lot of hangups about sex.


There's all sorts of animal and psychological and social reasons why these hangups might exist.
Reasons which we really should be able to rise above, but which which, as humans, we aren't able to.

You've just answered your own question right there. In any case, define "hangup". It's a very subjective term. I'm sure there are things that would be hangups for you and that's grand, but it's best to extend that consideration to others. Id also try to objectively define "fun" and "rational" and "irrational". All I see here are culturally bounded definitions of same. In a way you're just approaching from the other side of the same coin. One I would largely agree with BTW, but still I recognise that's subjective in me.

Sure! Its because people are irrational. Loadsa people of both sexes apply double standards. Thats the explanation.

OK "rational". As a man imagine you want to rationally factor the odds of starting and continuing a relationship that may include children and with as little risk of infidelity as possible. Which woman would you pick as far as sexual history goes? Woman A: Has had 4 long term sexual relationships that broke up without infidelity being involved. Doesn't do ONS and is considered about who she chooses to have sex with. OR Woman B: Has had only one long term relationship and she went straight form one to the next, has had 50 ONS a few of whom she regrets but was caught up in the moment. Rationally you would plump for woman A. Its all BS of course and woman A could turn out to be Queen cheat, but it appears rational. Rationality only comes into play if one takes an objective view. If one doesn't then you're being just as irrational thse who also don't from the other side.

The implicit question here, is whether people (women?) should alter their behaviour to cater to the irrationalities of people they are interested in.
This tradeoff depends on the individuals, but for women who believe they should cater to this: If your potential partner wanted you to take their name, would you do it?

Many women willingly do and are happy to do so.

If they insisted you give up your career?

Again many women willingly do and again are happy to do so.

If they insisted you cover your face?

There are far far more willing converts to Islam(and usually the more devout forms) among women than men.

Should they say "go fcuk themselves" to whomever? Me I say that's what freedom actually means. To actually do what thou wilt. If it agrees with you internally.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh there is defo a large chunk of that going on. That said I know of confident sexually experienced men who also feel uneasy about women being too "free and easy" with their charms, so it's not just that I would say.

On the surface no, but the biological imperative is in there to some degree or other and has been in damn near every human culture throughout history. There are cultures that are referenced where an experienced woman* is valued more than a virgin, but when one explores further it turns out it's more a case of a woman with proven fertility is valued more. Until very recently the fact is a man* couldn't prove any of his children were his. A woman always knows if a child is hers. In some rarer cases where she's having sex with a couple of men at the same time, she may not know who the father is, but she defo knows who the mother is. Ever hear of a maternity test? Nope. For good reason. Now as males of most apes(for we are that) don't want to expend resources on others progeny at the expense of our own men have sought to limit the chances of this happening. This went double when the notion of familial ownership of land came into being. So yes men can "fearful", more suspicious about women's sexuality/fertility/loyalty to some degree. Before the advent of reliable contraception and paternity tests he had to be.

Did men have reason to be? Well hard to tell. If we look at our closest relatives the great apes, a couple of interesting mating strategies come up. Chimp females are very promiscuous so the males have very large testicles to increase the chances of pregnancy in this competition. Gorillas have harems and while the females can be reproductively sneaky, the males are more sure of who the daddy is, so huge gorillas have tiny testes. Humans? Men are smack dab in the middle(though have the biggest willies:D). Plus unlike all other great apes women hide their fertility and are also fertile year round which further confuses the issue for men. It seems at some point in our evolution men were not as sure of their mates as gorillas, but more sure than chimps. Any evidence they were right? Well DNA studies have shown that a noticeable percentage of children are not related to what they assume are their fathers. It's not as high as some paranoid blokes are concerned but it is like I say noticeable. So objectively speaking and looking from the other side if women were the ones who couldnt be sure, which male would they pick? The promiscuous low impulse control male with many many partners or the more considered male? This will evolve in our culture over time as contraception and all the rest are brought fully into the mix. It's still a bit in flux at the moment.

I dunno. Since it came from Freud I would have issue with most of his opinions on human psychology, but...

There may be some element to this alright. I've seen some indications of this detachment maybe in other ways. Like I have noticed that men very attached to their mothers and who consider them above reproach and don't see them as human beings tend to be less good with women in adulthood. I've defo noticed extreme manwhore types to almost exclusively see their mothers with feet of clay. Maybe an inversion of madonna whore?


I agree on this score. I think this comes about because of some in both genders. I've known women who treat sex as something to be doled out as a reward and men who saw it as a prize. I've little respect for either. I've scraped off a couple of the former myself the second I got the sniff of "If you buy me nice things I'll go down on you" types and yes they do exist.



Yep and I agree as I pointed out a few posts back. For me its not the number it's the why and how.

I prefer striving for a balance. In both myself and others. Instinct and passion without mind in tow is unbalanced, just like mind without passion. Passion unfettered is fine for romance novels but after the "happy ever after" when real life starts it's less trustworthy IME and IMHO. Passion is far too easily swayed. Then again that's just my opinion like I said.

*using these terms as generalisations of course.

Does lack of impulse control set of bi polar, borderline, APD alarm bells for you or something?

I wouldnt automatically think a first date stint is a sign of that. I know women often use it as a litmus test to see if the guy is just after sex or not. Better to find out sooner than later.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Some surprising to me and crazy notions in this thread. I really dont and could never see a problem with sex on a first date or whatever, and woman who 'make him wait' for the sake of making him wait just frustrate me and make me less attracted to them as I then realise they seem to think theyre in the 1950's or something.

Is this something an irish thing? Its bizarre in 2010 (or at least i thought it was)

southsiderosie

nm wrote: »

Some surprising to me and crazy notions in this thread. I really dont and could never see a problem with sex on a first date or whatever, and woman who 'make him wait' for the sake of making him wait just frustrate me and make me less attracted to them as I then realise they seem to think theyre in the 1950's or something.

Is this something an irish thing? Its bizarre in 2010 (or at least i thought it was)

I don't believe in the "three dates" rules or anything like that, but I don't see a problem with wanting to wait until you know a person better and have a certain level of trust. A friend once said to me that she wouldn't sleep with someone unless she trusted them enough to give them a set of keys to her house. As she put it: "My home is my castle and my body is a temple. If I don't trust you with the keys to one, why would I let you unlock the other?"

nxbyveromdwjpg

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't believe in the "three dates" rules or anything like that, but I don't see a problem with wanting to wait until you know a person better and have a certain level of trust.

I dont disagree. It is precisely the whole "three dates" rubbish I was talking about.

midlandsmissus

O Shea wrote: »

I was aware that guy liked me as he continually chatted to me for 4 months every sat night - eventually because he was persistant and respectful I met him for coffee the one day. We hit it off in a way that wasn't possible in a pub or club and I realised that I really liked him. On our third date I slept with him as I knew he really liked me and I felt secure. Afterwards he complained that I had slept with him too quickly and I should have waited ! I had not been with someone in 12 months I explained I had waited long enough and finally met someone I felt I was comfortable with and went for it - am human after all. he said he didn't believe me re the 12 months and scolded me for it. We were togather happily enough for 6 years but the frickin' double standard is enough to drive a woman insane.

This is SOOOO true!

I hadn't slept with anyone since my last boyfriend 8 months ago. I met a guy I was absolutely crazy about and slept with him on the second date.
Then he turned cold on me. Ww're still talking but I know he put me into a little box after I slept with him so early. So annoying!

When you really really like some-one, all you want to do is sleep with them straight away, men and women are the exct same in that regard, can men not understand that?

Stupid madonna whore complex. I laugh when they say women are crazy/complicated!

Keptic

There is maybe one thing I would like to add to my previous post: if I am looking only for a quick shag, I am very honest about it. Sort of "I like you a lot, but you won't see me tomorrow nor in a week or month, we can go with the flow or not, but there is nothing that will follow tonight". Usually works well and I either get what I want or at least have no enemy, who's gonna think of me as if I was a complete and utter disaster.

I find it fair and I can't understand what's the point in exposing a girl to negative emotions AS WELL AS MAKING A FOOL, COWARD AND LIAR of myself. No girl would appreciate it, that's for sure.

The above however happens very rarely as I prefer also some deeper emotions over the pure animal instict on it's own, which emotions are hard to be found in one night stands.

Howgh!

midlandsmissus

The most pronounced example of male contrariness/wierdnesss about sex that I've ever encountered is the following:

I had been talking to a guy on a few differnet nights out in a nightclub. we really hit it off, and one night we decided to go on to a late bar in a hotel to keep talking.(he was a guard so could get in anywhere) he ws very drunk at this stage. He started saying to me that we should get a hotel room. I wasn't going to.
Him "I can't believe it. WE'll just sleep. Do you not trust me? How could you not trust me?"Me "Im not going to stay" Him "I wont think any less of you in the morning, cant believe you wouldnt trust me"
I literally walked up to the hotel room with him, put him to bed, and left. Was in the rm 5 mins.

The next time I saw him this is what he said to me:

"Imagine going to a hotel room on your first night out with a guy, what a slut".



Felt like banging my head of a wall!

southsiderosie

nm wrote: »

I dont disagree. It is precisely the whole "three dates" rubbish I was talking about.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

This is SOOOO true!

I hadn't slept with anyone since my last boyfriend 8 months ago. I met a guy I was absolutely crazy about and slept with him on the second date.
Then he turned cold on me. Ww're still talking but I know he put me into a little box after I slept with him so early. So annoying!

NM, there is a reason why some girls follow the "three dates" rule, and it is usually because they don't want to be treated this way. It's easy to call it rubbish when you are not the one being judged.

fergalr

Wibbs wrote: »

You've just answered your own question right there. In any case, define "hangup". It's a very subjective term. I'm sure there are things that would be hangups for you and that's grand, but it's best to extend that consideration to others. Id also try to objectively define "fun" and "rational" and "irrational". All I see here are culturally bounded definitions of same. In a way you're just approaching from the other side of the same coin. One I would largely agree with BTW, but still I recognise that's subjective in me.

Well, I was trying to use the terms without defining them, colloquially.

What I was getting at in my post, is that while most people may be able to provide plausible justifications for why - in the general case, all other things being equal, and with no other information - it might make sense to discriminate in favour of a woman that you know has had less casual sex (eg, you are concerned if she has a child, whether the child would be yours), these reasons are fundamentally specious; they aren't really what is actually driving the decisions and behaviour. The decisions and behaviour are typically driven by socially or biologically inherited subconscious, or semi-conscious tendencies, which, while they might make sense in the general case, in the absence of any more fine grained information, really shouldn't be applied to a specific interaction with a specific individual. Even if people say their behaviour is rational, they are not doing it for reasons they have mentally thought out; but instead for mores they have picked up.


And even then, I'd argue that to discriminate against specific individuals in a class because of general behaviour, isn't really rational.
Its a bit like hiring for a manual labour job, where you have a lot of candidates, and only a small amount of information available to differentiate between them. If one of these pieces of information is sex, you might reason that women are likely to have less muscle, and therefore bin all the CVs with female names.

While this would be rational, in the strict, local, economic sense of the word, in that it would be advantageous in a self serving sense; it would not be right in that its not fair to discriminate against all members of the group on the basis of general traits of the group. I would argue that in a less local, more philosophical, sense, its irrational.


So, I'm making two points here.
1) Even if there are plausible explanations, for the general behaviour, those explanations aren't really what drives peoples behaviour. People might claim that they are behaving because of the specious explanation, but really its because they have inherited tendencies that they are only partly aware of, and that control them, rather than are under their control.

2) Even if we accept people are following these rules because of the explanations they give, even if these rules are 'rational' in a narrow sense, they aren't really rational, as they are unfairly generalising from all the members of the group, to a specific individual of the group.

Wibbs wrote: »

OK "rational". As a man imagine you want to rationally factor the odds of starting and continuing a relationship that may include children and with as little risk of infidelity as possible. Which woman would you pick as far as sexual history goes? Woman A: Has had 4 long term sexual relationships that broke up without infidelity being involved. Doesn't do ONS and is considered about who she chooses to have sex with. OR Woman B: Has had only one long term relationship and she went straight form one to the next, has had 50 ONS a few of whom she regrets but was caught up in the moment. Rationally you would plump for woman A. Its all BS of course and woman A could turn out to be Queen cheat, but it appears rational. Rationality only comes into play if one takes an objective view. If one doesn't then you're being just as irrational thse who also don't from the other side.

While these heuristics may be rational in a contrived situation where no other information is available, in real situations its possible to talk with the other person and make judgements based on richer information.

And, simply, the individuals making these judgements, even if they afterwards intellectualise them by such a rationale, are really making them because of issues they have...

Wibbs wrote: »

Many women willingly do and are happy to do so.
Again many women willingly do and again are happy to do so.
There are far far more willing converts to Islam(and usually the more devout forms) among women than men.

I was trying to provide examples of conforming to someone elses template, that you dont agree with, by increasing degree.
The examples aren't important; the act of conforming to someone elses template, that you ideally wouldn't, if you didn't have to, is what is important.

The logic holds if you want to add other examples:
'What if they insisted you didn't leave the house; use contraception; go to the doctor; have any friends; eat any food' etc.

The point is that, in general, we shouldn't change our behaviour to cater to someone elses irrational negative hangups, if we don't want to - even if this means we get a bigger potential dating pool. Its selling out principals in a way we wouldn't for other irrational hangups that are less socially acceptable.
If someone wants to, or is happy to do these things, then its a different story.

In other words, if a woman wants to be sexually conservative for herself, that's absolutely fine, but if she really wants to have sex with a guy, but decides not to; because the guy might have a negative view of having sex, (for no good reason other than that he has culturally inherited it), then there is something going wrong.

Wibbs wrote: »

Should they say "go fcuk themselves" to whomever? Me I say that's what freedom actually means. To actually do what thou wilt. If it agrees with you internally.

The bit about saying 'go fcuk themselves' was clearly for situations where it doesn't agree with the sayer internally; I am saying that people should not conform to socially learned hangups, that they do not agree with themselves, just in case someone else has them, in general.

fergalr

southsiderosie wrote: »

NM, there is a reason why some girls follow the "three dates" rule, and it is usually because they don't want to be treated this way. It's easy to call it rubbish when you are not the one being judged.

But, surely, catering to it perpetuates it?

Otis Driftwood

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The most pronounced example of male contrariness/wierdnesss about sex that I've ever encountered is the following:
I had been talking to a guy on a few differnet nights out in a nightclub. we really hit it off, and one night we decided to go on to a late bar in a hotel to keep talking.(he was a guard so could get in anywhere) he ws very drunk at this stage. He started saying to me that we should get a hotel room. I wasn't going to.
Him "I can't believe it. WE'll just sleep. Do you not trust me? How could you not trust me?"Me "Im not going to stay" Him "I wont think any less of you in the morning, cant believe you wouldnt trust me"
I literally walked up to the hotel room with him, put him to bed, and left. Was in the rm 5 mins.
The next time I saw him this is what he said to me:
"Imagine going to a hotel room on your first night out with a guy, what a slut".

Felt like banging my head of a wall!

Im sorry but thats hilarious. What a dick.

midlandsmissus

I was reading the game by neil strauss the other day - you know pick up artist stuff. I was just thinking how stupid, may I say it, male behaviour is.

1. Men really enforce the idea that if you sleep with them too early you are a slut.
2. Women then don't sleep with men easily for fear of being seen as a slut.
3. Men then call women prickteases and spend loads of time perfecting their 'game' to get through women's anti-slut defenses (a real pick up artist term)
4. Then Either Sleep with the woman or complain they're not getting enough sex (they are not getting enough sex because they call women sluts when they do get it)
5. Call them a slut if they give in too early in the game.

Not all men,but alot.


And so the feckin social stigma game of men starts again.

BTW ladies I would really recommend you google pick up artist sites, and especially google the term "anti-slut defense",

When you read it Its so true! I think if enough ladies start to realise the game techniques men use, the whole game might come to a stop once and for feckin all.

southsiderosie

fergalr wrote: »

But, surely, catering to it perpetuates it?

Well, personally, if I were to sleep with someone after the second date, and they had the nerve to get huffy or miffed about it I would write them off immediately. It takes two to tango and I don't have time for hypocrites. I think not telling men with this kind of attitude to cop the **** on perpetuates it, in part.

midlandsmissus

nedtheshed wrote: »

Im sorry but thats hilarious. What a dick.

I had to laugh at him. What an ejit.

Darlughda

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I was reading the game by neil strauss the other day


When you read it Its so true! I think if enough ladies start to realise the game techniques men use, the whole game might come to a stop once and for feckin all.

Well, my advice would be

• Don't read absolute low intelligence level shyte
• Don't date men who are into low intelligenge level game techniques shyte

southsiderosie

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I was reading the game by neil strauss the other day - you know pick up artist stuff. I was just thinking how stupid, may I say it, male behaviour is.

1. Men really enforce the idea that if you sleep with them too early you are a slut.
2. Women then don't sleep with men easily for fear of being seen as a slut.
3. Men then call women prickteases and spend loads of time perfecting their 'game' to get through women's anti-slut defenses (a real pick up artist term)
4. Either Sleep with the woman or complain they're not getting enough sex (they are not getting enough sex because they call women sluts when they do get it)
5. Call them a slut if they give in too early in the game.


And so the feckin social stigma game of men starts again.

BTW ladies I would really recommend you google pick up artist sites, and especially google the term "anti-slut defense",

When you read it Its so true! I think if enough ladies start to realise the game techniques men use, the whole game might come to a stop once and for feckin all.

That POA stuff is insane. Talk about perpetuating dysfunctional behavior.

midlandsmissus

southsiderosie wrote: »

That POA stuff is insane. Talk about perpetuating dysfunctional behavior.

To be honest I think it describes alot of men's behaviour to a tee. And there are thousands upon thousands of men on their forums, and yes there is a very actve Irish forum.

Do men on here read stuff like that/ use game techniques on women? Would they admit to it

I'd be interested to know.

midlandsmissus

Darlughda wrote: »

Well, my advice would be

• Don't read absolute low intelligence level shyte
• Don't date men who are into low intelligenge level game techniques shyte

Are you male or female? /asking politely.

Darlughda

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Are you male or female? /asking politely.

midlandsmissus, you have something like 1558 posts on your profile, so I fail to see how you are unable to have a quick scan through my post/thread history to answer your question?

But hey, I'm game. Female.
Now your turn. Why the hell do you suddenly want to know my gender?

Darlughda

Right, its late at night, cocoa time, and not in the mood to get in to the finer points of why exactly men have a problem with women having a large number of previous sexual partners.

Instead, I'll let slip my silly romantic side.

Like Wibbs said, the person who exhibits good impulse control is probably a good bet in a long term partner (apologies W if I am paraphrasing incorrectly). But, I have little time for either men or women acting coy or indulging their silly hang ups when both want sex.

However, there is something really hot about the idea of a man who normally has good impulse control but after meeting me on first date- Well, he just can't help himself. Passion rules. For once he just can't stop himself due to my incredible female charms.



Anyway, we all like our fantasy notions.:o

I'm off to bed with my cocoa and hot water bottle now.
Much less judgemental than some fella.

magneticimpulse

i understand there are stereotypes of women...but i miss just being able to sleep with a guy on the 1st date and rip off all his clothes.

my number is not high by any means, and i dont sleep around...but boy if i met a guy who made me want to jump on him on the 1st date id be really really happy. i dont know how many dates ive been on and just thought, ah he is really nice and will make a great friend and felt completely not sexual towards the guy....if he was hot and sexy i think id definitely be bringing him home.

i cant be playing with this mind game crap and i cant believe guys have that opinion of women, especially when you get to your late 20's or 30's. its just really sad in this day and age. fair enough you might meet 1 virgin in your life, but majority of people you go on a date with are not virgins and not saints...but it doesnt mean anybody should have to tell you their number of sexual partners (just that they are clean and no std's). who wants to know a number? what matters is whether you like each other, and sex is a way to show you like each other. why have sex with someone you dont like?

magneticimpulse

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.

seriously theres nothing worse then going on a 1st date and there is no sexual chemistry at all....im not thinking "oh i let him wait and be a prick tease"....

im thinking, god another one on the list who doesnt make me want to have sex with him and im arranging a date with someone else. hey im not going to stick around to 2nd, 3rd or 4th date to let a guy wait...im thinking from a womans point of view, there just aint no sexual chemistry here, onto the next guy.

honru

The biological argument of the male ensuring the parenthood of his children is not something that is conscious, more likely an adaptation which proved to be an issue for our ancestors (especially in past centuries when such information was more difficult to obtain, and contraceptive methods were either primitive or nonexistent). The female equivalent is the choosing of a "provider" type male, a man who will provide resources and security for her during childbrith and the subsequent raising of family. I don't think people would be so quick to snub this explanation; a disadvantage females have in mating strategies is giving birth to children without a committed father providing valuable resources.

Of course past promiscuity does not equate to infidelity, but nonetheless the perception of this would be enough to set alarm bells off in the unconscious male brain, "Will this woman be faithful to me?", etc.

The question is, is this thinking (and the value of purity) due to hard-wired programming that a woman perceived as promiscuous could mean us raising kids that aren't biologically our own? Or, is it that men desire "pure" affection from women in relationship scenarios? (Mama/ho complex)

Goduznt Xzst

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's all about what a man finds attractive. Simple as. Some men like a woman to dress up in stillettos and step on their balls, who am I to judge what turns a man on.

You have outlined in the above quote what you find repellent. How are you any more justified in judging a man that is attracted to being teased by a women and who enjoys waiting to have sex, than a man is in judging you for sleeping with him mere hours after you met him?

Answer:

You're not.

The fact of the matter is that this is an ideal that has persisted through differing eons, cultures, religions... etc. Seemingly isolated societies have been found to of adopted similar ideals about sex, women and purity. There are always exceptions throughout history, but never the less, even in our modern era of homogeneous sexes, it still remains.

The fact that it has persisted so strongly would lead me to believe that there is more to it than merely consciously choosing to think this way.

senordingdong

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The next time I saw him this is what he said to me:

"Imagine going to a hotel room on your first night out with a guy, what a slut".

Are you sure he wasn't being sarcastic?

metrovelvet

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

The biological argument of the male ensuring the parenthood of his children is not something that is conscious, more likely an adaptation which proved to be an issue for our ancestors (especially in past centuries when such information was more difficult to obtain, and contraceptive methods were either primitive or nonexistent). The female equivalent is the choosing of a "provider" type male, a man who will provide resources and security for her during childbrith and the subsequent raising of family. I don't think people would be so quick to snub this explanation; a disadvantage females have in mating strategies is giving birth to children without a committed father providing valuable resources.

Of course past promiscuity does not equate to infidelity, but nonetheless the perception of this would be enough to set alarm bells off in the unconscious male brain, "Will this woman be faithful to me?", etc.

The question is, is this thinking (and the value of purity) due to hard-wired programming that a woman perceived as promiscuous could mean us raising kids that aren't biologically our own? Or, is it that men desire "pure" affection from women in relationship scenarios? (Mama/ho complex)

I think women would have the same concern tbh. If a man has a long history of sleeping around then she might wonder about his ability to be faithful. I dont know how much girls like to share, whether it be time, loyalty, or resources.

Someone told me that there is a theory around low motility in men, that its an evolutionary product of female promiscuity. A percentage of the sperm move sideways and circularly instead of straight forward so as to knock out sperm from other sources.

As for the madonna/whore complex, I do think it exists no matter how educated and above it all people think they are. They don't like to think the same woman who gives them head is the same one to later kiss their kids goodnight.

magneticimpulse

who cares, i just want to meet a man on a date i feel sexual with. im really getting fed up going on dates and there being no chemistry what so ever.

show me the man, show me the man that makes me want to have sex!!!

metrovelvet

magneticimpulse wrote: »

who cares, i just want to meet a man on a date i feel sexual with. im really getting fed up going on dates and there being no chemistry what so ever.

show me the man, show me the man that makes me want to have sex!!!

Yeah I think there is a sexual apathy in the air. I think its the end of the sexual revolution.

Post coital fatigue on a widespread level.

Wibbs

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I was reading the game by neil strauss the other day - you know pick up artist stuff. I was just thinking how stupid, may I say it, male behaviour is.

1. Men really enforce the idea that if you sleep with them too early you are a slut.
2. Women then don't sleep with men easily for fear of being seen as a slut.
3. Men then call women prickteases and spend loads of time perfecting their 'game' to get through women's anti-slut defenses (a real pick up artist term)
4. Then Either Sleep with the woman or complain they're not getting enough sex (they are not getting enough sex because they call women sluts when they do get it)
5. Call them a slut if they give in too early in the game.

Not all men,but alot.


And so the feckin social stigma game of men starts again.

BTW ladies I would really recommend you google pick up artist sites, and especially google the term "anti-slut defense",

When you read it Its so true! I think if enough ladies start to realise the game techniques men use, the whole game might come to a stop once and for feckin all.

Yea but while I think the PUA stuff is guff overall, there are some interesting aspects to it. From both the male and female side. Mostly as a large scale social experiment and why American women in particular due to culture may respond more readily to it. Anyhoo... With respect I think you may be missing the point(or Im missing yours) regarding the anti slut defence. What he's actually saying is that he agrees with you. That men are being stupidly judgemental about women's sexuality while at the same time complaining they're not getting some and how women know this and resist. Now his angle(and 99% of PUA) is more along the lines of dropping their resistance, rather than changing your own head, but having read a fair bit of this PUA stuff the odd PUA guy was all about dropping the judgement.

The other aspect of PUA that fascinated me is how few men it seems understand women's dating/sexual cues and need some seminar/DVD/Book to figure it out. That and how many women don't get male cues(though they're better at it). It's surprising that with something as important as reprduction you would think the genders would understand each others differences? Then again my mad theory is that for so long culture has provided the answers and rigid ones too about all this. Now because that influence is lesser and men and women are not as rigidly controlled and we're back to basics, back to nature as it were, many men and women are adrift.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

It's all about what a man finds attractive. Simple as. Some men like a woman to dress up in stillettos and step on their balls, who am I to judge what turns a man on.

You have outlined in the above quote what you find repellent. How are you any more justified in judging a man that is attracted to being teased by a women and who enjoys waiting to have sex, than a man is in judging you for sleeping with him mere hours after you met him?

Answer:

You're not.

The fact of the matter is that this is an ideal that has persisted through differing eons, cultures, religions... etc. Seemingly isolated societies have been found to of adopted similar ideals about sex, women and purity. There are always exceptions throughout history, but never the less, even in our modern era of homogeneous sexes, it still remains.

The fact that it has persisted so strongly would lead me to believe that there is more to it than merely consciously choosing to think this way.

Pretty much my take. The reasons behind it may no longer be as much in play, but culture/biology has yet to catch up.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think women would have the same concern tbh. If a man has a long history of sleeping around then she might wonder about his ability to be faithful. I dont know how much girls like to share, whether it be time, loyalty, or resources.

Exactly. There may even be more confusion there too. A guy who has slept around is clearly attractive to women so thats in his favour, but at the same time his resources may be shared with other women and their kids. In general and very broadly I would say that women slightly prefer a man with more experience than them and men prefer women with less.

As for the madonna/whore complex, I do think it exists no matter how educated and above it all people think they are. They don't like to think the same woman who gives them head is the same one to later kiss their kids goodnight.

Yea it defo does with some men. Like I said earlier I reckon the ones who see their mothers as above all that. Perfect beings, their own personal virgin mary are the worst for this. They grow up seeing women as special and different beings, not quite human. If their first girlfriend knocks that idea on the head, the more sensitive men to this notion then may equate Mammy/madonna and all the rest sluts to one degree or other. It would be my humble that a man's default setting is largely influenced(other than by his own nature) by just two women, his mammy and his first real romantic/sexual partner. They set the stage.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yeah I think there is a sexual apathy in the air. I think its the end of the sexual revolution.

Post coital fatigue on a widespread level.

maybe or our expectations have been so ramped up and our sense of entitlement for those expectations has soured the milk somewhat. We're also bombarded with the cultural ideal in so many more ways and more insidious ways than in the history of humanity. Like the guy who turns down women because they don't look like Kelly Brook, even though he looks like Mel Brooks.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

maybe or our expectations have been so ramped up and our sense of entitlement for those expectations has soured the milk somewhat. We're also bombarded with the cultural ideal in so many more ways and more insidious ways than in the history of humanity. Like the guy who turns down women because they don't look like Kelly Brook, even though he looks like Mel Brooks.

I think the whole thing has gone completely arsedways with facebook and internet dating. Everything is refracted now through text messages and electronic media, there is barely anything left of the three dimensional relationship, barely any space, barely any privacy, barely any mystery,barely any scent, and soon barley any touch, and the erotic cant thrive in such an environment.

Underscoring subtly all of this, is that we are treating each other as a means to an end, whether that end is sex or security.

Darlughda

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

It's all about what a man finds attractive. Simple as. Some men like a woman to dress up in stillettos and step on their balls, who am I to judge what turns a man on.

You have outlined in the above quote what you find repellent. How are you any more justified in judging a man that is attracted to being teased by a women and who enjoys waiting to have sex, than a man is in judging you for sleeping with him mere hours after you met him?.

There's a world of difference between engaging in a kink as part of the sexual act or build up, and judging a woman who is eager to have sex, regardless of how eager you are to have sex yourself.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that this is an ideal that has persisted through differing eons, cultures, religions... etc. Seemingly isolated societies have been found to of adopted similar ideals about sex, women and purity. There are always exceptions throughout history, but never the less, even in our modern era of homogeneous sexes, it still remains.

The fact that it has persisted so strongly would lead me to believe that there is more to it than merely consciously choosing to think this way.

However, this ideal seems to have been created at some stage in history, due to anxiety over ensuring paternity, and the madonna/whore complex-(even if this was coined by Freud?) is central to this, stretching back throughout the development of the patriarchal Abrahamic-Judaic religions.

But it is still a created ideal, to ensure control of women's reproduction.

There are also arguments that humans have an older natural impulse that is polyamorous and polygamous. Before the idea of 'purity' in a woman was invented and idealiased.

The Corinthian

Darlughda wrote: »

However, this ideal seems to have been created at some stage in history, due to anxiety over ensuring paternity, and the madonna/whore complex-(even if this was coined by Freud?) is central to this, stretching back throughout the development of the patriarchal Abrahamic-Judaic religions.

But it is still a created ideal, to ensure control of women's reproduction.

I don't think it is as simple as that, as it has already been pointed out that many women would shy away from men who were or had been promiscuous, because such a man is less likely to be faithful, more likely to leave the woman for another and thus less stable as a future provider.

Naturally, attitudes towards male promiscuity have been more liberal, but even so men's reproduction (or commitment to act as a provider) has been pretty strictly controlled; the often devastating consequences of divorce for men being an example of this and more historically circumcision is also something that appears to have developed as a means of controlling men's reproduction.

Given this, the Abrahamic religions were always pretty anti-sex and certainly anti-women (the story of Lot and his daughters comes to mind). However I do think it simplistic to consider it one sided - control of reproduction has developed on both sides - there's (or was) almost certainly more control over women, but that does not mean that it is not practiced on men too.

There are also arguments that humans have an older natural impulse that is polyamorous and polygamous. Before the idea of 'purity' in a woman was invented and idealiased.

I thought that the biological and anthropological consensus was that we're serial monogamists, and that we tend to form monogamous bonds that last only long enough for the child to be somewhat independent (the seven year itch).

That's not to say that we cannot have life-long monogamous, polyamorous or polygamous relationships either.

Personally, I believe the number of partners that one has had is not necessarily a good indicator one way or another - the devil is in the detail. For example, one may have only ever had a very small number of sexual partners in their lives, but follow a pattern of monogamy for 2 - 5 years, which ends in infidelity and then moving onto the next monogamous relationship.

The chances of a life-long relationship with someone like that are just as low, if not lower, as with someone who has slept with the whole rugby team.

Wibbs

Darlughda wrote: »

However, this ideal seems to have been created at some stage in history, due to anxiety over ensuring paternity, and the madonna/whore complex-(even if this was coined by Freud?) is central to this, stretching back throughout the development of the patriarchal Abrahamic-Judaic religions.

But it is still a created ideal, to ensure control of women's reproduction.

I dunno about created. Evolved maybe, but it evolved for various reasons. Primarily I would argue biological and while we're at it women also try to control or use their sexuality/reproduction for their own ends. Naturally enough too.

There are also arguments that humans have an older natural impulse that is polyamorous and polygamous. Before the idea of 'purity' in a woman was invented and idealiased.

Yea but that's also buying into the "before the fall" notion and doesn't bear much scrutiny in any culture so far researched. It seems as far as we can tell in our evolutionary history that humans use more complex patterns of reproduction and are more flexible than the other great apes, but pair bonding and serial monogamy* on the surface at least is the order of the day(with side branches of polygamy and more rarely Polygyny). I say on the surface as "bits on the side" leading to offspring seem to be underlying this to some degree(DNA studies going way back and current genetic studies which show a number of men raising children not their own). And since males couldnt be sure of paternity or even a woman's fertility(or their own) until very recently, this made them more suspicious of female sexuality/reproduction and they sought to try to control it to a greater or lesser extent. This double standard(and it does exist) is an extension of that. If you add in male gender confusion and sexual ego then you get the extremes of hypocrisy mentioned in the thread. But even without them I still think for many many men there is at least some undercurrent of this.

Not just with regard to paternity either. I would say a more modern one might be guys not wanting to be fathers, but the woman deciding for them. As someone on another thread on that subject said, if there was an effective male pill, there may well be fewer "accidents" occurring. While many men and women would welcome the male pill, I suspect some women would be up in arms about what they would see as an assault on their choices(and it would be debatable enough).

In any event I also think some of the differences of opinion on this first date shagging thing is down to something more mundane. Personal preference. A man can be mature socially and sexually, not hypocritical and prefers not to get busy early on, so seeks that out in a partner(ditto for a woman). They don't have "hangups" or any of that. It's a personal preference and if they aren't hypocritcal like you've said then that's fine in my book.

My personal preference in all this? I really couldnt give a crap about the sexual aspect, more the underlying psychological makeup that might be unattractive to me. I could well fall in love with someone I slept with on a first date as I could someone I didnt sleep with for six months. Indeed of the two women I have fallen for, the first we slept together early on(3rd date IIRC) and the second it was nearer six months after we met and snogged. The former had a very low "number" of previous and the latter a higher one so on a personal experience score, how quick one gets busy is no great indication. Though TBH I might well be more cautious of someone I literally just met hours and whom I knew nada about previously suggesting sex. Like I say that's just me. I would be cautious simply because I consider a potential long term partnership one of the most important relationships I can enter into, so while my crotch and heart would be in play so would my head. I would consider mutually understood ONS's an entirely different thing. They would be all about my crotch so to speak. And yes I have made my excuses when I was in line for a ONS, but saw they were thinking maybe more, as I would think it unfair to them(and me).



*like TC just wrote, though I would call it more the 4 year itch, not 7. Enough for lots of sex at the start to fall pregnant, the emotional bond is at its strongest and the baby increases this in both, but if they split at the 4 year mark the child is weaned and more independent.

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I believe the number of partners that one has had is not necessarily a good indicator one way or another - the devil is in the detail. For example, one may have only ever had a very small number of sexual partners in their lives, but follow a pattern of monogamy for 2 - 5 years, which ends in infidelity and then moving onto the next monogamous relationship.

The chances of a life-long relationship with someone like that are just as low, if not lower, as with someone who has slept with the whole rugby team.

This and I have seen those pretty much exact examples played out like that. The latter no doubt labelled "slut" by many(men and women) is often a way better bet than the former example.