One issue with making a man wait for sex

[carhill]

You are asking her to share a special part of herself, which she reserves only for intimate partners - you need to do the same.

 

That's a really good point and what I meant by 'proactively being intimate' upthread; sharing that part of myself which few people experience. Doing that proactively is a risk. The canary is, when a woman lets me do that, and lets me love her, I watch for reciprocity. If I don't see physical affection (a natural human response to such intimate bonding) escalate to sexual affection, then the canary has died. Anything other than sex after that is the equivalent to a woman spreading her legs and a male using her as a receptacle. For a man, baring his essential vulnerabilities, his 'belly', is like a woman being penetrated sexually. A loving and good man is sensitive to what 'penetration' means to a woman. A loving and good woman should be sensitive to a man's 'penetration' as well. If there is synergy, this dynamic is mutually attractive at the sexual level. If not, miss. After a lifetime of experience with women, both good and not so good, that is my current definition.

 

So, bringing it back to the thread title, if a woman makes me 'wait' after I've shared myself and my attraction for her in such an intimate way, then I discontinue. The issue is reciprocity. She's entitled to her perspective, definitely. YMMV>

[Titania22]

as i said before, i'll give my life story to a waitress if she'll listen .

 

i don't lie to women, i have nothing to hide from anyone.

 

so yes, i will freely discuss my past, my issues, my positives/negatives, my financial situation, my wants and desires.

 

and i get the idea of people having a different pace for a multitude of things. but then again, all of my stories are gonna 'check out' because they're all true. so after a couple of months if a woman i'm dating is still mistrusting me, it's her that has trust issues, not me.

 

Baically I agree with you, if I was dating someone, then by definition I like them, and therefore I wouldn't want to wait 2months to have sex with them. Of course if i had only seen them 3 times and hadn't really talked to them in between, then that would be different. When you say "won't wait" I don't autromatically know that means "you will wait 2months".

 

Therefore, you have to go one stage further to prove you are willing to be vulnerable with her and to prove you are trustworthy. You have to give her something that nobody else knows - or at least only people you are very close to. You have to share something about yourself that is essentially 'private' so that she feels special and she knows that you trust her. When she believes that you trust her, she will allow herself to trust you.

 

You are asking her to share a special part of herself, which she reserves only for intimate partners - you need to do the same.

 

This is spot on what I was trying to communicate.

 

Yes, it's REALLY not flattering to basically be told that you're not particularly special.

 

And this is exactly what has made me lose any desire to have sex with a man. It sucks even more when they do this during sex, or just before when you are already half undressed. Because it just makes me want to stop and get away from him asap. Just after isn't any better though, because it makes me not want to risk having sex at all.

[Thieves]

Instant gratification versus projection; most men think in terms of instant gratification, that slowly changes but they want it now. It's believed its one of the contributing influences of predominant male incarceration. A larger percentage of men simply don't think in terms of cause & effect, of tomorrow or long term, they think in terms of today or "now". Most women on the other hand think in terms of tomorrow, (most of them, most of the time).

 

Famed psychologist; Philip Zimbardo, talks about this in a lecture titled; Are we seeing the demise of guys? He raises the concern that men may be loosing the ability to become intimate before becoming sexual. To dance & carry on a conversation before jumping in the sack. Personally speaking; sex with someone I'm intimate with has always been more satisfying than sex with a near stranger & sex over time with someone that I've gotten to know & has gotten to know me, intimately as a person & sexually is much more satisfying.

 

The bolded above was exactly what I was thinking half of the time when I was sifting through this thread. That 95% of the time, it comes off as, "Instant gratification, instant gratification, instant gratification, I really want sex -- why won't they give it to me? Why wait? Instant gratification, me, me, me." I really do have to wonder if it's something that's always been so prevalent, or if as we've gotten more 'spoiled' as a country (I'm talking mostly of Americans, of course) and are into buying so many things for that 'quick fix' we believe will make us happy, that it's somehow seeped its way into how we view people... or potential relationships.

 

It's hard not to question if some men nowadays are actually enjoying the 'courtship' (not certain if that's the right word to use) part of meeting someone new anymore. The talking, the taking time to get to know another person and actually enjoying being around them without it always having to lead to, "Hmm... Are we gonna have sex or not?" I think one of the best things about finding someone you do connect with is being able to spend time with them and to find pleasure in that alone, where sex actually feels like a bonus instead of just a big hit-or-miss goal.

[thatone]

The bolded above was exactly what I was thinking half of the time when I was sifting through this thread. That 95% of the time, it comes off as, "Instant gratification, instant gratification, instant gratification, I really want sex -- why won't they give it to me? Why wait? Instant gratification, me, me, me." I really do have to wonder if it's something that's always been so prevalent, or if as we've gotten more 'spoiled' as a country (I'm talking mostly of Americans, of course) and are into buying so many things for that 'quick fix' we believe will make us happy, that it's somehow seeped its way into how we view people... or potential relationships.

 

It's hard not to question if some men nowadays are actually enjoying the 'courtship' (not certain if that's the right word to use) part of meeting someone new anymore. The talking, the taking time to get to know another person and actually enjoying being around them without it always having to lead to, "Hmm... Are we gonna have sex or not?" I think one of the best things about finding someone you do connect with is being able to spend time with them and to find pleasure in that alone, where sex actually feels like a bonus instead of just a big hit-or-miss goal.

 

to clarify, and i can't speak for everyone in this thread obviously, but i immensely enjoy the 'chase'. the flirting phone calls/texts, the hints and suggestion, the anticipation, all of that is fantastic.

 

my posts in this thread are purely from the standpoint of being a man who has run across women who will gladly do and enjoy all of the above, while secretly looking over her shoulder to see who the next guy coming around the corner is, because she's hiding the fact that she will leave at the drop of a hat, since she'd rather have sex with someone else, whether that someone else be an ex (usually), or just someone who is different in some other way (physically, financially, whatever).

 

and since such women are so adept at lying to themselves, nevermind others, the only way in a man's position to know that her presence is sincere, is the fact that she's having sex with you, and no one else.

[LittleTiger]

Baically I agree with you, if I was dating someone, then by definition I like them, and therefore I wouldn't want to wait 2months to have sex with them. Of course if i had only seen them 3 times and hadn't really talked to them in between, then that would be different. When you say "won't wait" I don't autromatically know that means "you will wait 2months".

 

This is a really good point and one that men perhaps don't think about or understand.

 

It's clear that, for a lot of women, the right time for sex is when they feel comfortable enough with the man to trust him and become vulnerable with him. There is no set time limit as to when this might happen because everyone is different and circumstances are different.

 

Some men seem to be working along the lines of 'we started dating 2 or 3 months ago, I've waited long enough' but it's not about how long you've been dating. Trust is built partly through sharing of personal information but also through time spent together.

 

Lets say two people have been dating 'for two months' ie around 9 weeks, but they only see each other once a week for approximately 4 hours. That's 36 hours in total or, put it another way, 3 days (waking hours only)! Way too early for physical intimacy in my opinion, no matter what personal info you've shared.

 

Another two people have also been dating 'for two months'. They spend all day together every Sunday (9 x 12 hrs) plus two evening dates a week (18 x 4 hrs). That's a total of 180 hours or 15 days (waking hours only).

 

I can't speak for most women but I'm far more likely to feel the trust and closeness require to share my body with a man whose company I have enjoyed for over two weeks than one I've only known for three days.

 

Let's face it, most people wouldn't hand over their car keys to someone they'd only known for a few days, so how can you expect a woman to hand over her body within the same timeframe?

 

Just another way of looking at it.

 

NB: My parents saw each other every single day from the first day they met but didn't have sex until their wedding night - over a year later! They are about to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. Yes, that was the 'old fashioned' way of doing things, and I would never marry somebody without checking out sexual compatibility first, but it proves to me that when a man is really smitten, he will wait - as long as it takes.

[LittleTiger]

and since such women are so adept at lying to themselves, nevermind others, the only way in a man's position to know that her presence is sincere, is the fact that she's having sex with you, and no one else.

 

I think you're seeing this very much from a man's point of view. In my experience, a man is generally only willing to give up his freedom and become exclusive if he thinks the woman is very special. The same is not true for women. This thread alone tells us that many women demand exclusivity before they have any idea if the guy is special or not. So the fact that a woman is having exclusive sex with you is no guarantee of sincerity - especially if you believe women are often lying to themselves (which, I have to say, is just a little patronising!)

 

The woman who has just started dating you exclusively could very easily still be lusting after her ex, or the hot guy behind the bar, or the guy who works in the next door office or whatever. Maybe these guys aren't interested, but you seem ok, not unattractive, and you're pretty keen so she thinks she'll see how it goes with you and agrees to start dating you. She reaches a point where she's decided you're a decent guy, she likes you, trusts you, feels close to you, you're good company, fun to be with and she starts having sex with you (she won't be having sex with anyone else because multiple partners isn't her thing) - she's giving you a chance to prove you're special but she doesn't necessarily think you're special yet. If she does think you're special before sex then the first sexual encounter will probably have her falling head over heels in love!

 

There are even occasions where a woman will have sex with a guy she doesn't find particularly physically attractive because there are other things about him that she really admires and she's hoping he'll grow on her sexually. So a 'yes' to a sexual encounter doesn't necessarily guarantee that she even fancies you much. Women can be very complicated creatures!

 

I'm not trying to make women look bad here. Most of us are very genuine and sincere when we're looking for a relationship, just as I believe men are, but a man shouldn't rely on sexual exclusivity from a woman as an indication that he's special.

[veggirl]

Yes, it's REALLY not flattering to basically be told that you're not particularly special. People who'd share anything with anyone are not allowing any special space for a partner or any other important people in their lives.

 

Special?

 

I see a lot of women (moreso than men, tbh) on LS who are 6 month Queens. Meaning, strings of STRs around 6 mos each. Committment, love (apparently), sex...few months...then there's a new one.

 

---

 

So many people say they wait until they are "in love" or whatever, yet by late 20s have racked up double digit #s. IMO, that is a red flag. As much maybe as having casual sex is to those who wait until they are "in love" or committed....how much does a committment mean after a month of dating? LOL.

[Emilia]

Special?

 

I see a lot of women (moreso than men, tbh) on LS who are 6 month Queens. Meaning, strings of STRs around 6 mos each. Committment, love (apparently), sex...few months...then there's a new one.

 

---

 

So many people say they wait until they are "in love" or whatever, yet by late 20s have racked up double digit #s. IMO, that is a red flag. As much maybe as having casual sex is to those who wait until they are "in love" or committed....how much does a committment mean after a month of dating? LOL.

 

THANKING YOU!! I love you veggirl (and no I'm not bisexual)

 

this was my point exactly when I asked the question what the difference was between short term dating and casual sex. Little Tiger said something along the lines of getting a call after sex or something... but really what the hell does that mean after a month??

 

love you!

[veggirl]

THANKING YOU!! I love you veggirl (and no I'm not bisexual)

 

this was my point exactly when I asked the question what the difference was between short term dating and casual sex. Little Tiger said something along the lines of getting a call after sex or something... but really what the hell does that mean after a month??

 

love you!

 

 

I'm curious as to the difference as well. Or maybe they consider 6 mo relationships LTRs.

[zengirl]

Special?

 

I see a lot of women (moreso than men, tbh) on LS who are 6 month Queens. Meaning, strings of STRs around 6 mos each. Committment, love (apparently), sex...few months...then there's a new one.

 

---

 

So many people say they wait until they are "in love" or whatever, yet by late 20s have racked up double digit #s. IMO, that is a red flag. As much maybe as having casual sex is to those who wait until they are "in love" or committed....how much does a committment mean after a month of dating? LOL.

 

Commitment means different things at different times, sure, but I think using TIME alone as a view of commitment is strange. Intimacy is about sharing one's soul, as LT said, which does take some time and a lot of trust, but I don't think it takes years. At least it doesn't for me; for some, it may, and I can respect that, but they wouldn't be compatible with me, as partners (when I sought partners) or even as close friends; I'd never be closer than passing acquaintances with them.

 

I think there's a big difference between not differentiating between your circle (those people you truly trust) and a random waitress and having relationships that don't last.

 

I had some 6 month relationships, where I was in love, where I slept with the man, that I absolutely don't regret and that helped me be who I have become today and led me to the relationship I ultimately wanted. I learned, grew, shared, loved, and respected them, and they seem to mostly feel the same; we are still friends in most cases. In fact, the only man I regret sleeping with is the college BF and we were together for years. We were never really soul-sharers, though. Time isn't everything. Not all my relationso hips were 6 months, but I haven't found that length really dictates anything. All of the relationships that ended did so for a reason, but they also happened for a reason. And even the one I regret, we were each other's inner circle to a degree. Certainly more so than random strangers!

 

I don't have any problem with any style of sex. I just think everyone should be very clear on what they would regret and what's true to them. We never know if something will end or not (actually, one way or anoother, all relationships will, with death if not before), but we know if we feel connected enough (or if that even matters to us) to be intimate. Though if numbers matter to you --- mine never did, honestly --- that's a concern as well, I suppose.

[veggirl]

Commitment means different things at different times, sure, but I think using TIME alone as a view of commitment is strange. Intimacy is about sharing one's soul, as LT said, which does take some time and a lot of trust, but I don't think it takes years.

 

I didn't say it takes years, nor did I imply that. But, by definition doesn't LONG TERM require TIME? People have different definitions of long-term, I guess, and that's fine. I don't consider 6 mos long term. A lot of people are serial monogomists--they will jump from STR to STR. Different strokes. My point was directed towards those who do THAT, but yet judge those who will have sex without the "committment" or "connection" a 3 or 4 mo relationship supposedly brings.

[zengirl]

I didn't say it takes years, nor did I imply that. But, by definition doesn't LONG TERM require TIME? People have different definitions of long-term, I guess, and that's fine. I don't consider 6 mos long term. A lot of people are serial monogomists--they will jump from STR to STR. Different strokes. My point was directed towards those who do THAT, but yet judge those who will have sex without the "committment" or "connection" a 3 or 4 mo relationship supposedly brings.

 

I don’t look at it as an “after the fact” thing for LTRs. To me, a LTR has always been a relationship that was committed, open-ended (no expiration date), and created with the hopes of leading to a future together. Generally, it takes SOME time to get to that decision about a relationship, but that time will vary. Whether that future was interrupted by something 6 months down the road or 20 years down the road, the mindset can be the same.

 

So, I guess: LTR, to me, has always been a mindset, not an after-the-fact scoresheet.

 

As to judgment, I haven’t seen anyone in THIS thread judge anyone for having casual sex (maybe I missed it). I have seen people argue for the reasons many people do not engage in it or limit their engagement in certain ways; that’s different. I’m fine with whatever anyone does with their sex life, IF it makes them happy! What I don’t get is judgment on those who’d like to wait to be sure they don’t have regrets---that seems like a good thing a healthy human being would do. If someone doesn’t NEED or WANT to wait, that’s their choice and nothing wrong with it.

 

A commitment is a choice, not a time period.

A connection can be deepened with time, IME (or eroded!), but I don't think there's any set times for it.

[LittleTiger]

A commitment is a choice, not a time period.

A connection can be deepened with time, IME (or eroded!), but I don't think there's any set times for it.

 

Absolutely agree with this.

 

It makes more sense to talk about committed relationships rather than 'long term' relationships and different people will choose to be committed, or not, within different timeframes. The same person may refuse to commit themselves to one partner after several years together and then readily commit to another partner just a few weeks after meeting them - because the new partner is a better fit.

 

I know of couples on both sides of this coin. One couple who were 'unhappily' engaged for 15 years before they finally split up (they never even talked about a wedding date!) and another who got engaged and married within a few months and are still very happy together several years later.

[phineas]

That's a really good point and what I meant by 'proactively being intimate' upthread; sharing that part of myself which few people experience. Doing that proactively is a risk. The canary is, when a woman lets me do that, and lets me love her, I watch for reciprocity. If I don't see physical affection (a natural human response to such intimate bonding) escalate to sexual affection, then the canary has died. Anything other than sex after that is the equivalent to a woman spreading her legs and a male using her as a receptacle. For a man, baring his essential vulnerabilities, his 'belly', is like a woman being penetrated sexually. A loving and good man is sensitive to what 'penetration' means to a woman. A loving and good woman should be sensitive to a man's 'penetration' as well. If there is synergy, this dynamic is mutually attractive at the sexual level. If not, miss. After a lifetime of experience with women, both good and not so good, that is my current definition.

 

So, bringing it back to the thread title, if a woman makes me 'wait' after I've shared myself and my attraction for her in such an intimate way, then I discontinue. The issue is reciprocity. She's entitled to her perspective, definitely. YMMV>

 

You know carhill, both you & I have mentioned this in this thread more than once & very few women had any comments.

 

I find that very interesting.

[Titania22]

You know carhill, both you & I have mentioned this in this thread more than once & very few women had any comments.

 

I find that very interesting.

 

What is there more to say?

 

Yes, agreed.

[phineas]

What is there more to say?

 

Yes, agreed.

 

Well, for starter's i'd like to know if the "make him wait" crew engages in what I and carhill described as intimacy without sex.

 

I think silvermercy (dr who girl) told me no but nobody else i've asked has even responded.

I don't know if their avoiding the question on purpose or what.

[carhill]

To be perfectly honest, I really don't care what a woman thinks about my boundaries. I cared way too much for way too long. Harsh life lessons taught that care, like anything else in life, has a healthy and appropriate level. If we're not on the same page, that's great! Get it clear and move on. Like zengirl wrote, each experience is valuable in and of itself, even the ones which don't work out. The way I see it is the one who's holding your hand when you die is the one that worked out. It's the last one. That's what I saw with my parents. In my case, if that's none, accepted. The journey was worth it.

[LittleTiger]

Well, for starter's i'd like to know if the "make him wait" crew engages in what I and carhill described as intimacy without sex.

 

Any kind of physical intimacy is sex - unless you happen to be Bill Clinton of course! :laugh:

 

Since it was my post that Carhill was responding to, of course I agree - generally, when a man starts baring his soul then, yes, it's time to get intimate.

 

HOWEVER if a guy shares his soul within the first few dates (and this has actually happened to me), then more fool him. There is such a thing as giving away too much too soon. If he's sharing his deepest, darkest secrets with me so early on, he probably does the same thing with every other woman he meets!

[phineas]

Any kind of physical intimacy is sex - unless you happen to be Bill Clinton of course! :laugh:

 

Since it was my post that Carhill was responding to, of course I agree - generally, when a man starts baring his soul then, yes, it's time to get intimate.

 

HOWEVER if a guy shares his soul within the first few dates (and this has actually happened to me), then more fool him. There is such a thing as giving away too much too soon. If he's sharing his deepest, darkest secrets with me so early on, he probably does the same thing with every other woman he meets!

 

I agree with this. I've spent months being just friends with women, getting to know them, ect nothing exclusive, no kissing, hugging, holding hands, ect then decided we would date & get it on by the 2nd date.

 

Got no problem with that.

 

However i've not met a "make him wait" woman that wasn't talking about sex, making sexual inuendo, unloading about her horrible day at work, bitching about guys who hit on her & wanting to cuddle.

 

This would go on for 2 to 3 months & then when they realize it's time for action they start making excuses & flaking & then *poof*.

 

These women ALWAYS come back around & unbelievably try to do it again. They act like they never blew me off & expect me to act like it also, They act like they want to date then put on the brakes when I agree to give them a second chance.

 

That's when I basically tell them if they want to see me they can come over for a movie.

 

That usually let's them know i'm not going to be their chump anymore.

 

And I can promise you, with each woman there was another man or men in the picture even though they claimed there was no-one else & expected me to not be seeing anyone else.

 

This is a common thing from talking to my single friends & my little brother's friends, and guys in their 20's at work.

 

Not all women are like this, but enough where it's a safe bet to keep your options open until a woman is sleeping with you because odds are the chick is doing the same thing & will just disappear & start ignoring you one day because she did find a guy she wanted to sleep with.

[zengirl]

You know carhill, both you & I have mentioned this in this thread more than once & very few women had any comments.

 

I find that very interesting.

 

I don't really equate carhill's statement with what you've been saying; I actually don't really understand the correlation between sex (for a woman) and sharing (for a man). Many women ALSO have trouble sharing, some have no problems with NSA sex, and some men really don't have so much trouble sharing or also wait on sex. Perhaps it's because carhill and I are from VERY different generations, and you're from the one in between.

 

I certainly agree males and females are socialized differently, even today. But I don't think such bold generalizations always work.

 

As to quid pro quos. . . I think those are basically always poor. When I say I never had sex without the commitment, I do not mean that as soon as the commitment is given = sex. I do not think that's how sex works, really. Having it in direct response to anything would seem wrong to me. For me, I was just never ready outside of that feeling of connection and commitment. I wasn't ready instantaneously when it happened either, and there were times I was ready and a man was not. . . I think sex happens when both parties are ready, not before, not prompted by anything. As far as soul-baring, I'd say the same; it happens when the parties are ready, not before, not prompted by anything. These things should happen organically and not be done in order to get somewhere.

 

To be perfectly honest, I really don't care what a woman thinks about my boundaries. I cared way too much for way too long. Harsh life lessons taught that care, like anything else in life, has a healthy and appropriate level. If we're not on the same page, that's great! Get it clear and move on.

 

Right, and there's nothing wrong with that. And, from what you've posted all over LS, I have no doubt that you are generally truthful, assertive, and sincere in your relations. I think all men and women should assert their boundaries, about sex or anything else, and do so honestly.

 

I agree with this. I've spent months being just friends with women, getting to know them, ect nothing exclusive, no kissing, hugging, holding hands, ect then decided we would date & get it on by the 2nd date.

 

Got no problem with that.

 

However i've not met a "make him wait" woman that wasn't talking about sex, making sexual inuendo, unloading about her horrible day at work, bitching about guys who hit on her & wanting to cuddle.

 

This would go on for 2 to 3 months & then when they realize it's time for action they start making excuses & flaking & then *poof*.

 

I get the problem about taking about other men and the sexual innuendo. Depending on what "wanting to cuddle" means (if it's literally booty calls to come over and snuggle, that's odd; if it's leaning against you on a date or something, it's pretty typical early date stuff that escalates physicality over time), I get that too. But how is it using you to vent? I mean, I vent to all of my friends at various times, and that's certainly a reasonable thing to do when you start dating someone (not constantly, because you don't want to look like a bummer, but that's just always---anyone who was always unhappy and venting would be a drag). It strikes me as odd that to put that on the list.

 

At any rate, I don't know any "make him wait" women who use it as some kind of power trip. Most women I know who wait for sex are just getting to know the guy OR they're scared they'll scare him off.

 

Though it sounds like you date very differently than I do. Unless I was genuinely friends with someone/shared a social circle with them before and spent time with them through that, I wouldn't hang around someone I wanted to date without dating them. That seems odd to me, and a lot like keeping or being an orbiter. I never did any kind of pre-dating. The first meet with my husband was our first date.

 

But that doesn't mean your way is wrong in any way; just that there are different styles.

[HeavenOrHell]

I haven't read the whole thread, but just wanted to say that many men don't always want sex straight away either, ie not every man is with someone purely for sex, obviously!

[phineas]

-zengirl - Yep. a booty call to snuggle up for a movie.

 

Vent- well if she doesn't feel close enough to me to get naked how is it she feels close enough to me to unload about work, her friends, her mother, how her father treated her growing up, her money problems, what needs fixing on her house,blah,blah,blah. Do you get the idea now?

 

and a lot of the women i dated just wanted to be friends first so we hung out. Reality was they just wern't that into me & changed their minds when they got to know me.

 

I was cool being just friends because they actually treated me like friends.

 

But then there are the women who want to "take things slow".

They manipulate you, get you horny, get you wanting them, don't want you talking to anyone else ect but don't want to openly tell people you are dating & refer to you as their "friend".

You know because nobody needs to know "our" business.

 

What a dumb-ass I was. LOL!

 

My life is much simpler now since I decided "date or no deal"

And sex = exclusive.

 

Any woman I meet my age that "needs to take it slow" probably has other issues with men that I don't care to deal with.

 

I just started online dating & so many women that want to be "friends first" in their profile.

 

I'll meet them if they want because I don't care. Hanging out / dating it's the same thing for the first month to me because I keep it casual but after month she needs to poop or get off the pot & figure out what she wants with me.

 

Most women i've met in real life are wanting sex by the 3rd date anyways so if i'm waiting more than a month it usually never happens even if I wait two months or even three so I move on by the month mark.

[Titania22]

-zengirl -

Vent- well if she doesn't feel close enough to me to get naked how is it she feels close enough to me to unload about work, her friends, her mother, how her father treated her growing up, her money problems, what needs fixing on her house,blah,blah,blah. Do you get the idea now?

 

Well I think people who vent regularly will do it to anyone who will listen. It's not a dating thing at all.

 

Nobody wants to be friends with someone who is always complaining, so why would anyone want to have a relationship with such a person.

 

I figure if someone does that to you, why would you want to see them again?

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with getting closer to a person or intimacy.

[LittleTiger]

As to quid pro quos. . . I think those are basically always poor. When I say I never had sex without the commitment, I do not mean that as soon as the commitment is given = sex. I do not think that's how sex works, really. Having it in direct response to anything would seem wrong to me. For me, I was just never ready outside of that feeling of connection and commitment. I wasn't ready instantaneously when it happened either, and there were times I was ready and a man was not. . . I think sex happens when both parties are ready, not before, not prompted by anything. As far as soul-baring, I'd say the same; it happens when the parties are ready, not before, not prompted by anything. These things should happen organically and not be done in order to get somewhere.

 

Agreed. If a guy is expecting 'quid pro quo' then he's setting himself up for disappointment. When I say sex usually happens at about the time a guy starts baring his soul that's generally because, IME, it's about the same time that two people are reaching the emotionally intimate stage and sex becomes an extension of that.

 

Which is why I posted the HOWEVER 'disclaimer' - just in case some guys think that making a personal disclosure to a woman is going to fast track them into her bed! No way! It doesn't work like that.

 

Unless you're dealing with a very naive girl, most women go with their intincts and will know when a guy is genuine.

 

This entire thread amazes me actually because there are only two situations I've experienced where a guy wasn't prepared to wait until I was ready:

 

1) When I was a teenaged virgin and I got the line "if you won't have sex then we're through" - oh, ok, bye then!

 

2) When I've been dealing with self-confessed 'players' - they came out with all sorts of lines, one of which was, ironically, "I'm not a bl**dy teenager anymore" to which I should have responded "well stop acting like one then!"

[LittleTiger]

Vent- well if she doesn't feel close enough to me to get naked how is it she feels close enough to me to unload about work, her friends, her mother, how her father treated her growing up, her money problems, what needs fixing on her house,blah,blah,blah. Do you get the idea now?

 

What you say here suggests that you have missed a fundamental difference between men and women. This is how women are with their friends - they talk about everything and share everything - what it means is she really likes you. Sexual attraction doesn't necessarily follow though.

 

and a lot of the women i dated just wanted to be friends first so we hung out. Reality was they just wern't that into me & changed their minds when they got to know me.

 

I was cool being just friends because they actually treated me like friends.

 

But then there are the women who want to "take things slow".

They manipulate you, get you horny, get you wanting them, don't want you talking to anyone else ect but don't want to openly tell people you are dating & refer to you as their "friend".

You know because nobody needs to know "our" business.

 

What a dumb-ass I was. LOL!

 

Well, yes, if a woman refers to you as her 'friend' and doesn't tell people you are actively dating then she probably has no interest in you sexually and may be stringing you along - you were perhaps a little naive rather than being a dumb-ass!

 

However, as you say, there are women who want to be friends 'first', while they decide if they are into you are not. What's wrong with that? Both men and women flirt all the time - it doesn't mean they want to jump into bed with you.

 

There are some guys who mistake friendly behaviour for being given the 'come on'. I had a male friend in my 20s who, on one occasion, sat in my room at Uni and watched me doing my hair and make up for a night out. He later told me I was giving him 'signals' by the way I was brushing my hair!!! Erm, no! Maybe I'm just naturally 'sexy' when I'm doing ordinary stuff - he obviously thought so - but I certainly had no intention of 'getting him horny' or 'getting him wanting me'. That was his interpretation! Fortunately we were good friends and nothing was 'spoiled' but it proved to me how easily men can assume sexual interest when there is none.

 

Any woman I meet my age that "needs to take it slow" probably has other issues with men that I don't care to deal with.

 

I just started online dating & so many women that want to be "friends first" in their profile.

 

I'm older than you are and I have always 'taken it slow'. I can assure you I have no issues with men. I have just been careful which men I give my body to - and when I was online dating, I put 'friends first' in my profile.

 

I'll meet them if they want because I don't care. Hanging out / dating it's the same thing for the first month to me because I keep it casual but after month she needs to poop or get off the pot & figure out what she wants with me.

 

Most women i've met in real life are wanting sex by the 3rd date anyways so if i'm waiting more than a month it usually never happens even if I wait two months or even three so I move on by the month mark.

 

As I said earlier - how often are you seeing these women within that first month? If you're expecting sex by the third or fourth date, it sounds like once a week which, for a lot of women, isn't enough. From what you say, you are looking for a long term relationship, but it sounds as though your starting point is a sexual attraction that's so overwhelming neither of you can wait. If you can find women who are looking for the same thing then you don't have a problem. However, it is just as possible to experience a very powerful physical attraction and still want time to get to know someone - because compatibility with the person inside the body is worth so much more to them than physical attraction.

 

There's nothing wrong with either way of doing things - everyone just needs to find someone who like to approach things the same way that they do- matching values is one of the most important indicators of long term compatibility