You meet a person, you date, how long would you wait for sex?

df1985

if theres chemistry on the first date then why not.you know very quickly if you want someone or not.

Celly Smunt

i don't wait,i come.



geddit?

starlit

More than 5 dates if not 10 or more. Until both of us are ready.

starlit

I don't wait for sex. Sex waits for me as in it waits until I am ready!;)

Dudess

I don't know. However long if the person wants to wait due to shyness or whatever/half an hour after meeting them if both are up for it.

Why the obsession with applying boundaries to something that should be spontaneous and natural? All this "Wait for a set amount of time" stuff is an artificial construct.

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

I don't know. However long if the person wants to wait due to shyness or whatever/half an hour after meeting them if both are up for it.

Why the obsession with applying boundaries to something that should be spontaneous and natural? All this "Wait for a set amount of time" stuff is an artificial construct.

We should exchange precisely 10 text messages first, with 120 characters in each message. Time between each message should be no less than 3 days. Also, 3 dates first involving activities from the following list...

I should totally write a book about this.

Logical Fallacy

Dudess wrote: »

I don't know. However long if the person wants to wait due to shyness or whatever/half an hour after meeting them if both are up for it.

Why the obsession with applying boundaries to something that should be spontaneous and natural? All this "Wait for a set amount of time" stuff is an artificial construct.

Besides, while i'm sure the concept will be mocked by the "i get loads of vag i do" crowd it can get down to sexy time and just not feel right. Interest in a person can wane over a couple of dates after all.

Dudess

bluewolf wrote: »

We should exchange precisely 10 text messages first, with 120 characters in each message. Time between each message should be no less than 3 days. Also, 3 dates first involving activities from the following list...

And a spreadsheet template has to be devised beforehand also.

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

And a spreadsheet template has to be devised beforehand also.

"how many "xxxx"s did he send in his last message? ok reduce time by 20 mins then..."

LighterGuy

Got to love the total BS votes so far for "more / i'd wait for them"
Now while im sure those 34 who voted would maybe wait a reasonable amount of time. I highly doubt they'd wait 6 months ... a year ... 2 years (?) to sleep with someone :rolleyes:

And rightfully so. If you've been dating someone for say 10 months and sex still hasnt happened you can bet something is up... and its sure as hell not your dick too.

eddie murphy said something good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vafx0i6kyo8

PeterIanStaker

Does this rag smell like chloroform to you? . . . . .

Mr. Incognito

Boys voting at the top of the poll

Girls voting at the bottom

I notice that "when they are ready" can be neatly circumvented by alcohol

R0ot

I never slept with anyone the first time I met them....


.... until my current OH whom I now have 2 lovely daughters with. I choose the right time to break my oath.

stateofflux

3 weeks max..... any longer and there is usually either something amiss or they are probably a prude/crap in bed

suicide_circus

I have sex first, then maybe date later. I have never gone out with a girl long term without sleeping together on the first night in a ONS scenario is there something wrong with me?

stupidusername

suicide_circus wrote: »

I have sex first, then maybe date later. I have never gone out with a girl long term without sleeping together on the first night in a ONS scenario is there something wrong with me?

nah. you must be especially good at sex

was actually just thinking that I can't imagine many relationships forming from a one nighter.

IcedOut

Lol, you said ''wait for sex''
:P

Misticles

varies... one time it was the first time we met up
another a few weeks...

all depends on the two people. I knwo fellas who won't ever see a girl again if they put out on the 1st date

Paddy Cow

stateofflux wrote: »

3 weeks max..... any longer and there is usually either something amiss or they are probably a prude/crap in bed

That's not true and it's not always the woman who wants to wait. One friend of mine really wanted to do it with her boyfriend but he wanted to wait and it was 3 months before they did it. They are now married and have been together 15 years.

FloatingVoter

Have sex ?- whenever you've both found a room / car / toilet / tree you can agree on.
Make love ?- when everything feels right.

Snowie

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Have sex ?- whenever you've both found a room / car / toilet / tree you can agree on.
Make love ?- when everything feels right.

i agree :cool:

Fr.Harry Bell

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

i agree :cool:

Recipe for disaster, I'm afraid.

Apart from the obvious STD problem, this kind of 'sex' will only cheapen the participants and undo the Churches teaching that sex should be only between people committed to a long term relationship.


Think before you get involved.

saa

Fr.Harry Bell wrote: »

Recipe for disaster, I'm afraid.

Apart from the obvious STD problem, this kind of 'sex' will only cheapen the participants and undo the Churches teaching that sex should be only between people committed to a long term relationship.


Think before you get involved.

You don't have to be in love to wear a condom.

Snowie

Fr.Harry Bell wrote: »

Recipe for disaster, I'm afraid.

Apart from the obvious STD problem, this kind of 'sex' will only cheapen the participants and undo the Churches teaching that sex should be only between people committed to a long term relationship.


Think before you get involved.

Relgion forums over there

---

>
:rolleyes:

FloatingVoter

The first time you have a sex with the lady can be on a bed of petals in a Parisian penthouse.
The first time you make love to the same lady can be in a bouncy castle in Dingle.

Oh...yes, do please wear a hat while humping. Saying a Hail Mary has been proven not to work.

Paddy Cow

Fr.Harry Bell wrote: »

Recipe for disaster, I'm afraid.

Apart from the obvious STD problem, this kind of 'sex' will only cheapen the participants and undo the Churches teaching that sex should be only between people committed to a long term relationship.


Think before you get involved.

Why don't you go spread that message to all the paedos in the Church and leave consenting adults to do whatever they want.

anymore

Fr.Harry Bell wrote: »

Recipe for disaster, I'm afraid.

Apart from the obvious STD problem, this kind of 'sex' will only cheapen the participants and undo the Churches teaching that sex should be only between people committed to a long term relationship.


Think before you get involved.

Does that long term committed relationship have to be with each other ? I mean if they were in committed realtionship with their own partners, could they still not have just a meaningless just for sex shag ?

psychward

I don't mind waiting but no sex means no commitment as far as I am concerned and no commitment means I can go discreetly poke someone else on the side. When I was on the dating scene I would have a few girls going at once. Better this than to waste precious moments with a time waster who proves herself unsuitable/incompatible for a relationship and have no fallback plan after having alienated someone who would have proven suitable.

Fr.Harry Bell

anymore wrote: »

Does that long term committed relationship have to be with each other ? I mean if they were in committed realtionship with their own partners, could they still not have just a meaningless just for sex shag ?

I would suggest that it does.

Meaningless sex is just what it is, meaningless.

Couples who have a long term commitment and regard for each other will find their intimate moments far more meaningful and fulfilling.

The Church has a very poor image in all this, I fully agree, people who abused others were indeed present in our ranks, and should be outed.

I would have to agree with that statement.

anymore

Fr.Harry Bell wrote: »

I would suggest that it does.

Meaningless sex is just what it is, meaningless.

Couples who have a long term commitment and regard for each other will find their intimate moments far more meaningful and fulfilling.

The Church has a very poor image in all this, I fully agree, people who abused others were indeed present in our ranks, and should be outed.

I would have to agree with that statement.

Tell me Father Bell, are you jsut winding people up posing as the serious concerned priest ????:D:D:D:D

desertcircus

Fr.Harry Bell wrote: »

Couples who have a long term commitment and regard for each other will find their intimate moments far more meaningful and fulfilling.

I have to ask: how do you know this? If you're a Catholic priest, you presumably have zero direct experience; even if you have direct experience yourself, though, that's simply one data point when compared to the few million adults and few billion potential pairings in Ireland.

minidazzler

If nothing by the second I just skip out, life's too short to just dance with girls.

seamusmcspud

psychward wrote: »

When I was on the dating scene I would have a few girls going at once. .

lucky you:eek:

The idea of waiting a while vs. actually waiting a while.. are two very very different things..

If you're into each other, why should it matter how long you wait.

As someone who really enjoys sex.. I have no reason to wait.

I don't care about the opinions of others.

Ronin247

Fr.Harry Bell wrote: »

I would suggest that it does.

Meaningless sex is just what it is, meaningless.

Couples who have a long term commitment and regard for each other will find their intimate moments far more meaningful and fulfilling.

I discussed this with my parish priest the other day.After 12 years of marriage I explained that I did not find our lovemaking as fulfilling as I had thought it should be.I feel that banging away at the same old hole for 12 years can grow monotonous.......The priest said that with consenting married couples the Lord would not frown on trying different things such as perhaps rolling my wife over and trying "the other" hole....

F*ck that I said,she might get pregnant :eek:

Novella

I don't have a specific time-frame within which I must do certain things, so maybe I'd wanna have sex on the first date, maybe that wouldn't happen and I'd wait for weeks or months. I can't say.

psychward

seamusmcspud wrote: »

lucky you:eek:

Every dog has his day lol . The biggest problem was spending Friday night with one and Saturday night with another and both wanting to know what I did on the day they didn't see me. I usually found women very controlling even after one or two dates. A woman who is acting like you're both engaged after the first date is probably a dangerous psychopath lol. Usually I couldn't handle the headache of juggling and dumped them both but no reason to limit yourself from the first date because you run the risk of missing out on the person you're really supposed to be with. And that would be the biggest shame of all.

Wetai

battser wrote: »

I'll handle .. *Sunglasses* .. this Lighterguy.
YYYYYEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

FYP

Logical Fallacy

Fr.Harry Bell wrote: »

I would suggest that it does.

Meaningless sex is just what it is, meaningless.

Couples who have a long term commitment and regard for each other will find their intimate moments far more meaningful and fulfilling.

The Church has a very poor image in all this, I fully agree, people who abused others were indeed present in our ranks, and should be outed.

I would have to agree with that statement.

It doesn't have to mean something for it to be fun and enjoyable.

headmaster

99% of men would expect the ride straight away, after that it's next ride please. The other 1% are liars.

stateofflux

Paddy Cow wrote: »

That's not true and it's not always the woman who wants to wait. One friend of mine really wanted to do it with her boyfriend but he wanted to wait and it was 3 months before they did it. They are now married and have been together 15 years.

i never said it was women who always want to wait.Glad it worked out for your friend but 3 months is a long time and most men/women i know wouldnt wait that long ...

stupidusername

headmaster wrote: »

99% of men would expect the ride straight away, after that it's next ride please. The other 1% are liars.

is that not meant to say 99% of men would like the ride straight away? i mean why would they expect it?

Mammanabammana

First date scenario;

Her; "I just want you to be honest with me about everything, then it'll all be fine"
Him; "I'd love to sleep with you tonight"
Her; "What do you think I am, some sort of slut?" *stands up and leaves"

Terry

This long.
Otherwise the bird is really a dude.

On a related note, I've only been on 3 dates in the last ten years. First time every time. I'm ****ing insatiable.

Dudess

minidazzler wrote: »

If nothing by the second I just skip out, life's too short to just dance with girls.

Even if you like the girl? Jeez i don't understand all the waiting talk (when both parties would rather just do it) but I don't understand carrying on like a nympho alley-cat either.

Dudess

Misticles wrote: »

varies... one time it was the first time we met up
another a few weeks...

all depends on the two people. I knwo fellas who won't ever see a girl again if they put out on the 1st date

Lol. Yet despite their problem with first date sex they can't keep their trousers on.

Dudess

LighterGuy wrote: »

Got to love the total BS votes so far for "more / i'd wait for them"
Now while im sure those 34 who voted would maybe wait a reasonable amount of time. I highly doubt they'd wait 6 months ... a year ... 2 years (?) to sleep with someone :rolleyes:

Who maintained they'd wait that long?

If I really liked him, I'd wait a few weeks but then I'd have to talk about it, I wouldn't just assume he's a prude though. Never been with a guy who wanted to wait, but if I was, and his reason was something innocuous like shyness, I'd possibly find it a bit attractive as it's so unusual for a guy. Maybe it might be a ploy though to make me think he's really sensitive to women, and then by the time we get it on, I'll be so horny and impressed that I'll do/let him do unfathomably nasty things. :pac:

If a guy had sex issues (apart from mere uptight prudishness - that would be a turn-off) though and I really liked him and he really liked me, I'd give him a chance to sort out these issues.

Chriscork12

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The same night ive met them, if theyre good for it on the first nigjt then theres potential ,if they want to wait any longer ill hang in till i get the ride , call it mission accomplished and it doesnt really bother me if i see them again or not

Thats just wrong

Melanoma

I think that sex is totally immoral and that people should marry have sex through a hole in a blanket once a month at the fertile time for the purposes of procreation only and never actually meet each other.

Arah no, but for me its happened more often on the first "date" but when you wait your chances of liking the person goes up a lot so something meaningful develops.

Worst case for me was when a girl passed out as I was about to do the business. She was legless kept forgetting my name but I liked her a lot and was drunk as well. Moments before she had asked if I wanted help putting on a condom and she was in her birthday suit. I mean I felt awful the next day, nothing happened (in that sense) but it was a wake up call. Lovely girl but I refused to meet up with her again cause it freaked me out.

Dudess

Chriscork12 wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The same night ive met them, if theyre good for it on the first nigjt then theres potential ,if they want to wait any longer ill hang in till i get the ride , call it mission accomplished and it doesnt really bother me if i see them again or not

Thats just wrong

But it looks really macho and blokey - important for a lot of young boys.