Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not offended by him calling women that give it up all over the place easy. What was offensive is that he thinks he's NOT easy (and neither are other men) when he did exactly the same thing.
The fact that he was easy makes him not good for marriage just as much as it makes a woman not good for marriage. That's applying the standard fairly across both sexes, the way it should be.
So should a man that sleeps around. Because he's a ***** to the exact same extent as the woman he's sleeping with. And yet, I've only ever heard men say that about women - because apparently it's okay for someone with a penis to act like a prostitute, but not someone with a vagina. That makes zero logical sense. Be logically consistent: it's either okay for both sexes, or bad for both. But you can't have it be good or one and bad for the other and credibly claim that you're not exercising a double standard.
Or, if someone is willing to admit that they live by that double standard, they can't claim that they're both a nice guy (that doesn't mistreat women) and a pig (so it's okay for them to womanize). Nice guys aren't pigs.
My point is that a men who sleeps around is not doing anything different than a woman who sleeps around. For example, I had my share of sleeping around, but so the women who slept with me.
So, just because I was extremely cautious in choosing one of those women for a relationship (wife, girl friend, whatever), it does not mean that I had a double standard. All it means is that I did not find any meaningful difference in these women for me to commit. Maybe I found them too easy, maybe they lacked character, or perhaps I realized that they din't treasure their bodies (?).
At the same time, I am certain that a lot of the women I took to bed realized that I was not the marrying kind, for I was just having a good time like they were. And here is where something out of the ordinary makes a difference: any of these women who have acted in a different manner would have held my attention.
I'm not offended by him calling women that give it up all over the place easy. What was offensive is that he thinks he's NOT easy (and neither are other men) when he did exactly the same thing.
I never said I wasn't 'easy' when I was younger.
In my opinion most single men under 30 are. not too many of us turn down sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backliteyes
The fact that he was easy makes him not good for marriage just as much as it makes a woman not good for marriage. That's applying the standard fairly across both sexes, the way it should be.
Of course that's the way it SHOULD be....but it's NOT.
You know it and so do I.
At the same time, I am certain that a lot of the women I took to bed realized that I was not the marrying kind, for I was just having a good time like they were. And here is where something out of the ordinary makes a difference: any of these women who have acted in a different manner would have held my attention.
Fair enough, I'm fine with that. It just bothers me when people will disparage women (I hear it done all the time) that sleep around, but somehow the men that sleep around are golden and not tainted by their escapades in the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaggerLee22
I never said I wasn't 'easy' when I was younger.
In my opinion most single men under 30 are. not too many of us turn down sex.
Of course they are. I just don't want to hear someone disparage the easy women, but not disparage the easy men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaggerLee22
Of course that's the way it SHOULD be....but it's NOT.
You know it and so do I.
It is that way for me. And clearly I'll argue with anyone until they admit that it should be that way and it doesn't make sense that it isn't (after all, there's all sorts of things in life that aren't fair).
That said, it IS that way if you make that way: I don't care what anyone else does or thinks, I'm not going to marry a man that slept around that much, especially if he isn't totally reformed and knows that he was selling himself short and using women in his youth (I don't believe it when people sleep around and claim no one was hurt - I've seen way too much heartbreak where the man claims everyone was "just having fun"...and we don't even have to discuss disease).
Does sleeping with somebody on the first date ruin a possible relationship?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeBodyUK
Thoughts please? This has happened to me a few times...it happened to me a week ago, and most of the times it happened to me the lady initiated it
For me it becomes a FWB type situation for a short time, then after that we just move on...
I was always one to down play any advances a lady made on the first date and hold out for at least three or four dates before doing the "wild thing", but a couple times that tactic backfired. One woman I had know for a couple years asked me to stay over night on our first date, and when I made an excuse why I couldn't she got upset and wouldn't date me again. Another time, I gave into temptation and a goodnight kiss lead to a roll in the hay. She became a very good friend, and is still a friend today. Really, this is a hard deal to figure, it's real easy to do the wrong thing.
I'm not offended by him calling women that give it up all over the place easy. What was offensive is that he thinks he's NOT easy (and neither are other men) when he did exactly the same thing.
The fact that he was easy makes him not good for marriage just as much as it makes a woman not good for marriage. That's applying the standard fairly across both sexes, the way it should be.
So should a man that sleeps around. Because he's a ***** to the exact same extent as the woman he's sleeping with. And yet, I've only ever heard men say that about women - because apparently it's okay for someone with a penis to act like a prostitute, but not someone with a vagina. That makes zero logical sense. Be logically consistent: it's either okay for both sexes, or bad for both. But you can't have it be good or one and bad for the other and credibly claim that you're not exercising a double standard.
Or, if someone is willing to admit that they live by that double standard, they can't claim that they're both a nice guy (that doesn't mistreat women) and a pig (so it's okay for them to womanize). Nice guys aren't pigs.
Having sex on the first date or with holding sex does not equate with respect.
Lots of long term relationships have begun with sex on the first date.
You don't have to be religious to think sex on the first date is a bad idea.
You don't really know someone after just one date. You're more vulnerable to:
Sexually transmitted diseases, unplanned pregnancy, and getting your heart broken.
The problem I have with the "it depends on the individuals" or the "go with your feelings" way of doing things is that the two people don't really know each other well enough to make a determination, and feelings are not a reliable indicator. Soooo many people have been tricked by their feelings even when marrying someone let alone on the first date.
This also can set up a pattern of behavior where sex on the first date is the norm. Just from a purely physical point of view, it's risky behavior. Birth control is great, but it is not fool proof.
Religion is more practical than some people give it credit for.
I'm not speaking from personal experience, but I don't think it definitely always has to ruin a possible relationship. However, if you know there's a good chance of that happening and you're possibly interested in a relationship, why not just hold off a while on the sex?
I would say that the opinions on this subject vary almost as widely as the number of people talking/thinking about it. To me, sex is an integral part of a relationship. Withhold it and there is no relationship. But, base the relationship on sex, and it won't go very far.
No sex on the first date doesn't improve your chances for a second date. But it doesn't rule it out either. If the second time we meet, the conversation centers around the sex on the first date, there won't be a third meeting. Obviously not enough in common to justify it. But, if she doesn't want to try sex by the third date, there won't be a fourth either.
The ideal way for any woman to get a date with me would be for her to wait till I've gone to sleep. Sneak into my house (which means sneaking past the dog, two parakeets, and two cockateils), being very careful not to wake me up until it's too late for me to say "NO". If she's willing to go through all that to get a date, it could be a relationship worth looking into. If not, she's just another woman.
I'm also of opinion that it depends on the individuals and situations. However, based on my observations, a healthy relationship that is built from having sex on the first date is more of an exception than the rule. More often than not, sex on the first date leads to nowhere.
For me, personally, I could never give up that sweet pleasure of anticipation, longing, fantasizing and waiting and having sex too soon would ruin it for me. Also, I was afraid that it would cloud my sense of judgement and get in the way of really getting to know a person's character.
I'm also of opinion that it depends on the individuals and situations. However, based on my observations, a healthy relationship that is built from having sex on the first date is more of an exception than the rule. More often than not, sex on the first date leads to nowhere.
For me, personally, I could never give up that sweet pleasure of anticipation, longing, fantasizing and waiting and having sex too soon would ruin it for me. Also, I was afraid that it would cloud my sense of judgement and get in the way of really getting to know a person's character.
From many who posted early there seems to be many instances of women here being in long term relationships with people they slept with on the first date. My only one night stand didn't result in date 2 but it was a vacation fling anyway. I have been in a long term relationship with a woman I went to bed with on the 2nd date. I think the biggest deciding factor is age. When I was 20 it would have been more likely. Now, if it did happen it would make no difference to me. On the other hand if I did sleep with a woman on the first date now she would have to have qualities that would also interest me as a longer term prospect. "Kind of hard to hide dumb on a fist date".
Few dating situations turn into long term relationships, so waiting to have sex doesn't guarantee that outcome anyway, and in the meantime you're not getting to enjoy sex or evaluate that aspect of a potential partner. A recent research study found no significant impact to developing a relationship, simply from having sex on the first date. Other factors are more important.
Anyway, I'm not an advocate of sex on the first date, but I'm not in favor of waiting much longer than a few dates either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does sleeping with somebody on the first date ruin a possible relationship?
