Fourth date: should I invite the guy over to watch DVDs if I don't plan on having sex

[Pfiend101]

just give him a bj. BJ isnt that big of a deal.

[marsle85]

just give him a bj. BJ isnt that big of a deal.

 

Yikes, genital herpes is kind of a big deal! She's feelin' this guy out, and THAT isn't a big deal.

[SadandConfusedWA]

I am not a guy so I wouldn't know.

 

You're a 31 year old woman who's dated (by your own count) between 50 and 70 men before this one.

 

Just curious, what was your experience in your prior dating relationships when you invited men over to the place you were staying after having dated them several times, as to their expectations?

 

Don't really have much experience in that, as I never invited a guy I was dating home until much later.

 

I did hang out at my home with male friends before, and noone ever tried anything but that is different.

[SadandConfusedWA]

Uh virgin, you said in the other thread that YOU ARE MARRIED WITH KIDS AND ARE NOT JEALOUS OF THE TIME YOUR WIFE SPENDS WITH THE KIDS. Now you are not a guy?

[sweetjasmine]

Uh virgin, you said in the other thread that YOU ARE MARRIED WITH KIDS AND ARE NOT JEALOUS OF THE TIME YOUR WIFE SPENDS WITH THE KIDS. Now you are not a guy?

 

I think the bolded "I am not a guy..." bit in his post was him quoting your previous post.

[SadandConfusedWA]

I think the bolded "I am not a guy..." bit in his post was him quoting your previous post.

 

Could be. His/hers previous style was to use quotes when quoting so it can be taken as him making a statement and bolding it.

 

Whichever the case, I would prefer if he/she stayed away from my threads. He/she is derailing the discussion and I am getting absolutely nothing out of it.

[SpanksTheMonkey]

just give him a bj. BJ isnt that big of a deal.

 

Ide Imagen its this mind set that has helped lead to the rise in teenage pregnancy's not to mention the spread of stds like wildfire! So sad to see that for some giving oral is no different then sucking on a tictac.. Seriously when did sex become so very cheap and meaningless?

Edited July 17, 2010 by SpanksTheMonkey

[Phateless]

Could be. His/hers previous style was to use quotes when quoting so it can be taken as him making a statement and bolding it.

 

Whichever the case, I would prefer if he/she stayed away from my threads. He/she is derailing the discussion and I am getting absolutely nothing out of it.

 

There's the ignore button, but that won't prevent him/her from distracting everyone else in the thread. Just report it to the mods.

[Phateless]

Thank you! Exactly. Obviously I wanted to get opinions if inviting a guy over singals sex to him. I am not a guy so I wouldn't know. Answers were varied, most said yes, few said no. So it was a valid concern to have.

 

Anything else discussed in this thread was/is off topic. Trying to analyze every aspect of my dating personality including how my avatar relates to my dating life (WTF?) was completly unnecesseary.

 

Did you happen to see my post with advice, earlier in the thread, or did it get drowned out?

 

I think this situation might look like you want sex, but any normal, stable, and reasonable guy won't be upset if it doesn't result in sex. I say you go ahead and invite him over, do all the making out you want, and if you feel up to it maybe let him get to second base.

 

There's no rule that says you have to sleep with him after a certain amount of time or number of dates. It's all about when you feel comfortable.

 

Don't worry about the connotations - if he gets upset over it then you know he was probably only after sex anyway and you can move on with no regrets.

[Pfiend101]

Ide Imagen its this mind set that has helped lead to the rise in teenage pregnancy's not to mention the spread of stds like wildfire! So sad to see that for some giving oral is no different then sucking on a tictac.. Seriously when did sex become so very cheap and meaningless?

 

Its not 1820 anymore.

[sultry33]

I think im still drunk from yesterday.. this makes no sense:laugh:

[kalikula]

just give him a bj. BJ isnt that big of a deal.

 

Wtf? Is this serious advice?

 

Why would she give him a BJ...? Someone said earlier that guys seem to have an entitlement that they are owed sex because they have taken someone out on a few dates and this proves it. You have got to be kidding me.

[climbergirl]

Did you happen to see my post with advice, earlier in the thread, or did it get drowned out?

 

I think this situation might look like you want sex, but any normal, stable, and reasonable guy won't be upset if it doesn't result in sex. I say you go ahead and invite him over, do all the making out you want, and if you feel up to it maybe let him get to second base.

 

There's no rule that says you have to sleep with him after a certain amount of time or number of dates. It's all about when you feel comfortable.

 

Don't worry about the connotations - if he gets upset over it then you know he was probably only after sex anyway and you can move on with no regrets.

 

EXACTLY!

 

I have had two first dates that happened to be dinner/movie at my house. I don't like sitting in theaters, but love movies and I love to cook (and they can help). This is what made me comfortable---being in my own environment.

 

I was completely aware that sex would cross their mind, but so what? What Phateless says is true; Any guy that would be offended or upset by not having sex isn't worth my (or your time, OP) time to date. Besides which, if you have it in your mind that sex will not happen I think that will be the vibe you give out. A good guy will respect that.

 

And btw-date #1 at my house was a lot of talking and a kiss at the end. Date #2 stated that he "didn't want to leave", but did. We are still dating.

[Phateless]

Don't really have much experience in that, as I never invited a guy I was dating home until much later.

 

 

And when you invited guys over that you were dating, what do you think their expectations were? What were your expectations? The reason you didn't invite them "home until much later" was because you clearly understood the implication of inviting the guy back to your place.

 

 

 

I did hang out at my home with male friends before, and noone ever tried anything but that is different.

 

 

 

Right. Now you're talking about your doormat "platonic" male friends, right?

 

No, I admit I said I was married with kids and am not jealous of my wife, which in the absence of my stating I was a lesbian in a same sex marriage--which I did not--should indicate to anyone of minimal intelligence, even yourself, that I am in fact, a man.

 

LOL oh now I see what you did sadandconfused.

 

YOU posted something that said:

 

"I am not a guy so I wouldn't know."

 

In responding to YOUR post, I quoted YOUR words by BOLDING them (rather than using the quote function).

 

I'm not saying that you're a pathological liar, by any means, but pathological liars frequently can't keep track of what they've said throughout a single conversation, leading to confusion on the part of everyone involved, including themselves.

 

But of course sewing confusion is the point.

 

DUDE, wtf is your problem? You are all over this girl, deconstructing and overanalyzing every single nuance of anything she's ever said in this thread.

 

People like you are the reason I don't post my own questions here anymore.

 

Why are your panties in such a twist over this? Has it been a while since your wife put out for you?

[Phateless]

EXACTLY!

 

I have had two first dates that happened to be dinner/movie at my house. I don't like sitting in theaters, but love movies and I love to cook (and they can help). This is what made me comfortable---being in my own environment.

 

I was completely aware that sex would cross their mind, but so what? What Phateless says is true; Any guy that would be offended or upset by not having sex isn't worth my (or your time, OP) time to date. Besides which, if you have it in your mind that sex will not happen I think that will be the vibe you give out. A good guy will respect that.

 

And btw-date #1 at my house was a lot of talking and a kiss at the end. Date #2 stated that he "didn't want to leave", but did. We are still dating.

 

Case in point. I would totally invite a girl to my house for a date without expecting sex. If she seemed ready, I would, but I would be happy with a night of talking, cuddling, and maybe a little making out. If I like the girl I'm not in any rush for sex.

 

What's the big hurry??

[donnamaybe]

I never looked at this thread until just now, though I noticed it's existence much earlier. I was wondering, "WTF could they possibly still be hashing over this many pages into it?" Now I see. SOME people (certain - ahem - "men" for the most part) seem to think that once they have breached the sacred portal of a woman's home, they are entitled to get laid.

 

Y'all aren't going to get them to see any logic, so just quit trying. One has to be able to think logically first.

[flying]

So, your pattern is that the vast majority of guys you've gone out with (over 90% by your estimate) are guys that you're simply not attracted to sexually. I'm not clear why you would consistently go out with guys you have no sexual attraction to, that is, if you actually want to have sex with guys.

 

You certainly don't have to have sex with anyone if you don't want to. On the other hand, if you are withholding sex from the men you date either because you don't really like them that way, or perhaps as some sort of "test" of their suitability, then why not be honest about it?

 

You're a 31 year old woman who's been out with scores of men. You've even had sex with three of them. No doubt out of these 50-70 guys have been at least a few who have tried to "put the moves" on you. If that avatar is a picture of you in real life, then you are an extremely attractive person and in fact the picture is posed in a way that makes you look very sexual. It's almost Marilyn Monroe-ish (and I think you must know that; the "look" seems quite deliberate). The picture in the avatar is that of a blond seductress.

 

Yet you can actually pretend not to know what it means or implies when a woman invites a man over to her place for dinner and DVDs (or whatever) after several dates?

 

That false naiivety just is really a poor sell that simply won't work on a confident, competent, sexually-experienced adult man. Yes you may be worth waiting for, but any guy who has anything going for him won't be waiting for much longer than it takes him to ascertain that you're either a real head case or just playing games.

 

So I guess what happens usually to you is you either go out with unconfident wimpish doormats who let you walk all over them until you get tired of doing so, then dump them; or, you go out with guys who know what they want from a woman and a relationship and fully expect after a few dates that physical intimacy, maybe not full blown sex, but more than teeange-style "necking", will be part of the relationship; and so you reject them for "not respecting you enough."

 

I know nothing about your three sexual relationships, but I guess these three guys were all guys who had passed your various "tests" for being "qualified" to be in a LTR and have sex with you.

 

Yet all three of these LTRs/sexual relationships have ended. So apparently your formula or "tests" aren't as good as you think they are.

 

Jesus H. Christ.

 

Now I'm quite curious to read your backstory, virgin.

[donnamaybe]

Jesus H. Christ.

 

Now I'm quite curious to read your backstory, virgin.

 

And this is probably one of those guys who'll also villify a gal who has had a certain number of sexual partners over a period of whatever time.

[A O]

So, your pattern is that the vast majority of guys you've gone out with (over 90% by your estimate) are guys that you're simply not attracted to sexually. I'm not clear why you would consistently go out with guys you have no sexual attraction to, that is, if you actually want to have sex with guys.

 

You certainly don't have to have sex with anyone if you don't want to. On the other hand, if you are withholding sex from the men you date either because you don't really like them that way, or perhaps as some sort of "test" of their suitability, then why not be honest about it?

 

You're a 31 year old woman who's been out with scores of men. You've even had sex with three of them. No doubt out of these 50-70 guys have been at least a few who have tried to "put the moves" on you. If that avatar is a picture of you in real life, then you are an extremely attractive person and in fact the picture is posed in a way that makes you look very sexual. It's almost Marilyn Monroe-ish (and I think you must know that; the "look" seems quite deliberate). The picture in the avatar is that of a blond seductress.

 

Yet you can actually pretend not to know what it means or implies when a woman invites a man over to her place for dinner and DVDs (or whatever) after several dates?

 

That false naiivety just is really a poor sell that simply won't work on a confident, competent, sexually-experienced adult man. Yes you may be worth waiting for, but any guy who has anything going for him won't be waiting for much longer than it takes him to ascertain that you're either a real head case or just playing games.

 

So I guess what happens usually to you is you either go out with unconfident wimpish doormats who let you walk all over them until you get tired of doing so, then dump them; or, you go out with guys who know what they want from a woman and a relationship and fully expect after a few dates that physical intimacy, maybe not full blown sex, but more than teeange-style "necking", will be part of the relationship; and so you reject them for "not respecting you enough."

 

I know nothing about your three sexual relationships, but I guess these three guys were all guys who had passed your various "tests" for being "qualified" to be in a LTR and have sex with you.

 

Yet all three of these LTRs/sexual relationships have ended. So apparently your formula or "tests" aren't as good as you think they are.

Since we're all on the vestigalvirgin bandwagon - quoted again for truth.

 

He's one savvy poster. Probably far too analytical and rational for many around here.

 

 

 

.

[fishtaco]

It's up to the man to determine if he's being played by the woman. If the woman acts and does things that are commonly understood as leading to sex, yet she doesn't go there, I will assume she's playing me. Because if she doesn't want sex, then don't even go there.

 

As for the threshold, unfortunately everyone has a different threshold. That's what makes it complicated. Is spending the night DVD watching crossing the threshold? It's for the participants to decide.

 

The bottom line is, whoever has the advantage calls the shots. If the woman likes the man, she should be considerate of what HIS threshold is, and observe it. If she doesn't care about the man, then she would go by her own threshold. Same with the gender reversed.

 

So if the OP doesn't care what the guy thinks, then do whatever you like. If he's into you, he'll be submissive and play by your rules. But it tells us that you're not into him, you could take it or leave it. Which is not a bad position to be in. But if he were smart, he wouldn't stay in an arrangement like this where he's at a disadvantage.

 

Yes, women are absolutely allowed to say... this is how it is. If he gets the wrong message, it's his problem, I don't want him then. Sure. Then equally, men are allowed to disregard the woman's perspective as well, and if a woman doesn't match his perspective, she gets dropped.

 

Equality is excellent.

[Phateless]

Since we're all on the vestigalvirgin bandwagon - quoted again for truth.

 

He's one savvy poster. Probably far too analytical and rational for many around here.

 

I disagree. I think OP just somehow triggered one of V. V.'s hot buttons and now he's attacking her because he was in a similar situation as the guy. I see no other motivation for someone to waste that much of their free time attacking someone over the internet, especially when they don't even know the person. I mean, seriously... wtf.

 

It's up to the man to determine if he's being played by the woman. If the woman acts and does things that are commonly understood as leading to sex, yet she doesn't go there, I will assume she's playing me. Because if she doesn't want sex, then don't even go there.

 

As for the threshold, unfortunately everyone has a different threshold. That's what makes it complicated. Is spending the night DVD watching crossing the threshold? It's for the participants to decide.

 

The bottom line is, whoever has the advantage calls the shots. If the woman likes the man, she should be considerate of what HIS threshold is, and observe it. If she doesn't care about the man, then she would go by her own threshold. Same with the gender reversed.

 

So if the OP doesn't care what the guy thinks, then do whatever you like. If he's into you, he'll be submissive and play by your rules. But it tells us that you're not into him, you could take it or leave it. Which is not a bad position to be in. But if he were smart, he wouldn't stay in an arrangement like this where he's at a disadvantage.

 

Yes, women are absolutely allowed to say... this is how it is. If he gets the wrong message, it's his problem, I don't want him then. Sure. Then equally, men are allowed to disregard the woman's perspective as well, and if a woman doesn't match his perspective, she gets dropped.

 

Equality is excellent.

 

Completely agree. Every person has the right to remove themselves from any situation they want at any time. Simple. Ever since I took responsibility for myself in this regard, I never again felt stuck in the friend zone.

[donnamaybe]

Since we're all on the vestigalvirgin bandwagon - quoted again for truth.

 

He's one savvy poster. Probably far too analytical and rational for many around here.

 

 

.

LMFAOROTF!!!!!

[A O]

I disagree. I think OP just somehow triggered one of V. V.'s hot buttons and now he's attacking her because he was in a similar situation as the guy. I see no other motivation for someone to waste that much of their free time attacking someone over the internet, especially when they don't even know the person. I mean, seriously... wtf.

I see as much, if not more attacking coming from you towards him than him towards the OP. Henceforth, using your logic - I wonder what he triggered in you? Otherwise, simply analyzing behavior - as we all are doing - doesn't constitute an attack.

 

Completely agree. Every person has the right to remove themselves from any situation they want at any time. Simple. Ever since I took responsibility for myself in this regard, I never again felt stuck in the friend zone.

Indeed. But there usually has to be some sort of trigger that leads to this point. So, if a person is reasonably good at misrepresenting themself, then the thought that something fishy is happening doesn't so easily present itself.

 

 

LMFAOROTF!!!!!

So, do you have anything constructive to say? Why do you disagree with some of the men here for instance. Where did we go wrong? I'm all for being educated!

 

 

 

.

[Phateless]

I see as much, if not more attacking coming from you towards him than him towards the OP. Henceforth, using your logic - I wonder what he triggered in you? Otherwise, simply analyzing behavior - as we all are doing - doesn't constitute an attack.

 

I already stated exactly why his posts bother me:

People like you are the reason I don't post my own questions here anymore.

 

Have you read the pages and pages of this guy getting on her case? It's ridiculous. He's not trying to help her, he's clearly got it out for her. Analysis only goes so far before it's deconstruction for it's own sake and game-playing.

 

Indeed. But there usually has to be some sort of trigger that leads to this point. So, if a person is reasonably good at misrepresenting themself, then the thought that something fishy is happening doesn't so easily present itself.

Who is misrepresenting themselves? Are you referring to the OP or the risk of a guy misrepresenting himself to her? In what way is she misrepresenting herself? In this case, if a guy comes over to her house and feels that she misled him, that could be the trigger for him deciding not to ask her out again.

 

Even so, what's the big deal? Why is this worth 10 pages of deconstructing her reasons for wanting to invite him over? I don't think she asked for a psychological teardown and rebuild.

[threebyfate]

Even so, what's the big deal? Why is this worth 10 pages of deconstructing her reasons for wanting to invite him over? I don't think she asked for a psychological teardown and rebuild.

Welcome to the current LS. It's one thing to ask questions to get a more full picture and another to ascribe every single response to some strange psychosis pulled right out of someone's arse head since none of it is sourced from anything that SadandConfused has stated on LS.

 

Example:

 

OP: I don't like ice cream.

Attacker: Your dislike for ice cream is sourced from eating 4000 lbs of ice cream when you were 5 years old. You got so sick of eating ice cream that you can no longer eat it. This really is your own fault for doing so.

OP: WTF? I never said that.

Attacker: Come on. Admit it. Maybe you demanded to be bathed in ice cream as a baby and now hate that feeling of cold. But you know it's your fault for demanding this as a baby so you'd better learn to suck it up and get over it.

OP: I give up. *rolls eyes and wanders off*