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.
Once again, you shouldn't have to ask. If you are at the stage you are making out, she can still say no to sex if it's going there, or she can go along with it. It's up to her. Women do expect a man to be able to read the signals she is giving without stopping to ask if it's OK to proceed.
From everything I have seen in the past year or so, any man in a sexual relationship with a female had better stop and ask permission to proceed.
I hope to be in a sexual relationship again someday. It is my intention that I will be asking permission.
The no-intimacy-after-12-dates woman says we have to have "a talk, face to face" before we do the dance with no pants. My first thought was "oh great, she's got the creeping crud or something". Not that it means anything but she's only had three, maybe four (but I think three) partners. So I'm predicting it will instead be a pledge of monogamy and taking OLD profiles down and more contractual than romantic. I should have a lawyer look it over before signing it
The word that comes to mind is "sterile". A "sterile" relationship, bereft of romance, flirting, or a naughty mid-day text.
I'll predict that from what I have seen (in my days), after a dance or three it will be apparent our libidos are not compatible, she doesn't want to participate in some of the kink I like, and I'll be the bad guy for moving on. But I really want to know if there's a chance that, once I breach the walls, she won't warm up and behave more in the manner I am accustomed to (less clinical, more enthusiastic and passionate).
Call it a certain scientific curiosity, if you will …
Edited to add: I've dropped hints from "wear loose fitting clothing" to the more direct "pack a bag for you car with your essentials". She texts pretty often but usually spurious links and videos, and upcoming events, things like that. Next week by the time my friend heads back to TX it will have been seven solid days since we got together. I can see it going either way.
Every individual is different in their reason for accepting a request for a date. IMO first I meet the guy, and it's from an OLD interaction. After I meet them and determine the chemistry (if it's there) I will agree to, or suggest the next "date". I'm not going to go on a second date with someone that there is no chemistry with, and so guess what chemistry leads to? Sex. That's right, I said it. I am interested in eventually having sex with them.
I don't even have to say so, they've already figured it out by the way I am acting towards them, they have gotten inside my 3 foot bubble, I have touched them, held hands, ended the first meeting with more than a "See ya!" from across the street.
Men ask ladies for dates, the ladies say yes or no.
During these dates, men make advancements, ladies do whatever they do based on something far too complicated to explain here.
If men misinterpret the unspoken 'signals' they are labeled badly for it, and may go to jail as an outcome.
As a result, men are being taught to ask for consent.
Until the day when females decide to start playing an active role in these relationships, it remains the role of men to get consent to protect themselves.
Quote:
... I'm the kind of person who has said it's 'cringey' if a guy asks: "May I kiss you?" because then, no. You can't. If he were to say: "I would like to make something sexual happen with you" I would be wondering why that is a required announcement? Is that going to happen while I'm asleep? It really isn't something that is necessary to announce.
Women's litigation caused this to be the norm of our era.
Last edited by Submariner; 08-30-2019 at 04:36 PM..
The no-intimacy-after-12-dates woman says we have to have "a talk, face to face" before we do the dance with no pants. My first thought was "oh great, she's got the creeping crud or something". Not that it means anything but she's only had three, maybe four (but I think three) partners. So I'm predicting it will instead be a pledge of monogamy and taking OLD profiles down and more contractual than romantic. I should have a lawyer look it over before signing it
The word that comes to mind is "sterile". A "sterile" relationship, bereft of romance, flirting, or a naughty mid-day text.
I'll predict that from what I have seen (in my days), after a dance or three it will be apparent our libidos are not compatible, she doesn't want to participate in some of the kink I like, and I'll be the bad guy for moving on. But I really want to know if there's a chance that, once I breach the walls, she won't warm up and behave more in the manner I am accustomed to (less clinical, more enthusiastic and passionate).
Call it a certain scientific curiosity, if you will …
You never know, she might turn out to be terribly passionate between the sheets. She could appear to be clinical & unenthusiastic now but could be like a volcano keeping it all in I can think of someone who I once misjudged in that way.
Sorry can't speak for other women but if I am not jumping into bed with a guy on the first date it's because I don't want to fall in love too fast and I want to protect my feelings.
I'm not sure what you are talking about - I don't try to "make myself interesting" to or "improve myself" for a guy, I try to be myself when dating, and not short on ideas for dates. It sounds like you've been dating boring people and expecting them to change to make themselves more interesting to you.
In relationship to "making oneself interesting" - I mean on women who happen to behave like boring couch potatoes. No initiative, no personal efforts when planning on a date other than to "look good", attempts to make me do stuff and read her mind, is showing literally no interest in me or people and things I make clear that are very important to me, tends to act like I hired Deloitte expert. Generally very flat personality. I don't want to make it about me. I'm in a stable relationship, just stating what I observed in America when I dated.
Thing is, men tend to be prone to have two dates before eliminating, while women tend to avoid any date at all if they want to eliminate a guy. This is also due to fact that many men AND women tend to "count" dates before sex is supposed to be expected and each side picks cues to determine where it's going and whether they want it to go "there". Thus so many guys tend to have "casual acquaintances" with whom they go out to have a drink, even if she's not their GF (and even if they don't want her to be). This whole strategy on their part revolves around the fact that when they "go on a real date", she will be more likely to "give in" even on a first date. It's discussed very publicly among guys and it's a thing. It's also quite common to see a woman with lots of guy-friends and she's commonly known as "easy". So many guys ACTIVELY place themselves around her, in her company, because they know she's "putting up easily". So much about what some posters speak on this forum, about supposed "men who avoid sl**** women". It's far more common to see lots of men who actively chase after women to be around women they deem as the ones who "put out".
This is also why the "friend-zone" stuff on this forum is so false. The guys who chase after casual sex are generally the same types who have lots of women whom they "hold on distance" and "go out together, casually, not as a date". The types who are quick to show up if there's a breakup or some trouble they supposedly heard of sensed, because they'll try to score.
I guess the guys who talk smack about "friends" are the ones who rather meet a random woman whom they try to hit it off, yet she doesn't feel like it for some reason but she doesn't think badly about a guy himself.... at least that's what I observed. You're not a friend with a woman who just rejected you, dude. You barely know her. Use that supposed friendship and help her and let her help you meet someone else... don't be utilitarian! That's exactly what guys who are proactive happen to behave - regardless if they want to have a fling or they are looking for long-term.
With all that being said.... men and women in USA generally date in the exact way that both men AND women evaluate as their ideal strategy for general/mainstream population and this is what defines mainstream. Not having sex in a relationship is crippling for a guy and is very bad dating strategy for any guy, outside of very small niche that is always brought into spotlight into this forum. Many stereotypes about gender and dating in USA are in fact true and self-enforced by the general audience.
In relationship to "making oneself interesting" - I mean on women who happen to behave like boring couch potatoes. No initiative, no personal efforts when planning on a date other than to "look good", attempts to make me do stuff and read her mind, is showing literally no interest in me or people and things I make clear that are very important to me, tends to act like I hired Deloitte expert. Generally very flat personality. I don't want to make it about me. I'm in a stable relationship, just stating what I observed in America when I dated.
With all that being said.... men and women in USA generally date in the exact way that both men AND women evaluate as their ideal strategy for general/mainstream population and this is what defines mainstream. Not having sex in a relationship is crippling for a guy and is very bad dating strategy for any guy, outside of very small niche that is always brought into spotlight into this forum.
Went so far as suggesting she come over and spend the night after we were downtown. "Oh no I can't do that without my contact lens stuff". I responded "Stopping at Walgreens will take all of about eight minutes". "You can't just drop this on me without time to plan!" … so I told her to pack a bug-out bag and throw it in her trunk. She never did. This was at date #8 I think.
Then she had some webinar that ended around 8 or 8:30 the next night. I was like "Great, come over after that". Texted her during it a bit, then got the "I need 24 hours notice, I am already in my PJs".
Lame.
What it boils down to, and I think you will all mostly agree, is that if she WANTED to come over she wouldn't be making stupid double-talk excuses. It doesn't take planning to throw a lens kit and a T-shirt in a bag. The fact that she's not working should make it even easier for her (in theory).
So you are the aggressor [color me surprised].
She sets up hurdles for you to leap over, and with each is more delay.
She defines the hurdles that you must leap over, and she sets the bobbytraps that you are unaware of.
She sets up hurdles for you to leap over, and with each is more delay.
She defines the hurdles that you must leap over, and she sets the bobbytraps that you are unaware of.
Surely you have seen this pattern before?
If by "aggressor" you mean "attempt at initiator", then I agree. Usually I sit back and it happens on its own (i.e., end up at one of our houses, after a good meal and a few drinks and good conversation) but when the date count approached and exceeded ten I decided to be more proactive in that regard.
If you see my last post, it strongly meshes with your "bobbytrap" [sic] scenario. To further the analogy, while she's setting up the latest set of fiery rings I must vault through, if I see a cute woman stretching on the infield, I'm likely to say "eff this" and go over to start talking to the new one.
But as it stands now I'm still very much within the discussion of the OP's topic.
Men ask ladies for dates, the ladies say yes or no.
During these dates, men make advancements, ladies do whatever they do based on something far too complicated to explain here.
If men misinterpret the unspoken 'signals' they are labeled badly for it, and may go to jail as an outcome.
As a result, men are being taught to ask for consent.
Until the day when females decide to start playing an active role in these relationships, it remains the role of men to get consent to protect themselves.
Women's litigation caused this to be the norm of our era.
Good luck to you on your journey to getting experiences of your own.
Posting things like "Everyone's different", Or prefacing with "IMO" do indicate that I am basing my thoughts on my own experiences. Yes I am out there in this "Era", and can relay things that are pretty much the norm around me.
The thing about being paranoid about going to jail and women waiting to be vindictive with "Women's litigation" leading a guy on so he's just plain puzzled, are clues that some men really need more experience, or education on social cues and human behavior. If one expresses a lot of thoughts that women don't agree with or are insulting, they probably aren't going to have the grand time they invision, when they finally do have a chance to display all that 'stored up wisdom' they've acquired by reading stuff and use that to argue people who actually are doing the things they wish to do.
Last edited by RbccL; 08-30-2019 at 05:21 PM..
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.
I can think of someone who I once misjudged in that way.
