Why don't men try to win your heart first?

[SummerDreams]

9 minutes ago, Shining One said:

Sexual interest is a component of relationship potential, one of many, along with compatibility and understanding.

So you choose to put sexual interest first amongst compatibility and understanding and many more. This means that if the sexual component is not there, you will just dump that woman and go to the next. This sounds to me like a person who can't care less for other components of a "relationship" other than sex and that's the way this woman will perceive it as well, that you only wanted her for sex. I mean, just admit that you only want her for sex. Aren't we old enough for the story of "I want to see if we are compatible in the sex department in order to know her heart"? Please. No. You don't. You just want a woman who will meet your sexual needs. Be honest please.

[Shining One]

29 minutes ago, SummerDreams said:

So you choose to put sexual interest first amongst compatibility and understanding and many more. This means that if the sexual component is not there, you will just dump that woman and go to the next.

The listing order doesn't necessarily indicate priority order. I've stopped seeing women after the first date without seeing if there's sexual interest due to another incompatibility.

Of course I will dump a woman who has no sexual interest in me. It's an exercise in frustration and futility to do otherwise. I speak from experience on this.

29 minutes ago, SummerDreams said:

I mean, just admit that you only want her for sex. Aren't we old enough for the story of "I want to see if we are compatible in the sex department in order to know her heart"? Please. No. You don't. You just want a woman who will meet your sexual needs. Be honest please.

While I do sometimes pursue a woman for sex only, I'm speaking in terms of finding a relationship. I don't want a woman only for my sexual needs. If I did, I'd stick to FWBs and other such arrangements. However, I don't want to be in a relationship with a woman who has no sexual interest in me. Been there, done that... too many times.

[Hopeful30]

9 minutes ago, Shining One said:

The listing order doesn't necessarily indicate priority order. I've stopped seeing women after the first date without seeing if there's sexual interest due to another incompatibility.

Of course I will dump a woman who has no sexual interest in me. It's an exercise in frustration and futility to do otherwise. I speak from experience on this.

While I do sometimes pursue a woman for sex only, I'm speaking in terms of finding a relationship. I don't want a woman only for my sexual needs. If I did, I'd stick to FWBs and other such arrangements. However, I don't want to be in a relationship with a woman who has no sexual interest in me. Been there, done that... too many times.

The sexual element of relationship often fades or simmers as time goes on. Would you consider this an indication of decreased interest and compatibility in the relationship?

In my personal experiences, the best relationship I've had actually lacked the sexual component but still thrived because compatibility was there (mutual understanding, support, caring, lifestyles, beliefs, etc.). After all, when you grow old together, sex typically decreases significantly but what's left is the compatibility, connection, mutual understanding, etc. So while sexual intimacy is an extension of bonding, it doesn't determine the health/strength of a relationship. That's why I find early sexual advances premature and empty, because they are symptoms, not causes.

Edited March 12, 2020 by Hopeful30

[Shining One]

11 minutes ago, Hopeful30 said:

The sexual element of relationship often fades or simmers as time goes on. Would you consider this an indication of decreased interest and compatibility in the relationship?

No. I'm aware this happens naturally over time. I've experience it in several relationships. However, her sexual interest in me never died.

[SummerDreams]

1 hour ago, Shining One said:

It's in my best interest to determine sexual interest before investing heavily into winning her heart.

 

15 minutes ago, Shining One said:

The listing order doesn't necessarily indicate priority order.

See how what you are saying contradicts one another?

Yes, of course, if you meet the woman and she hates all your favorite hobbies or lives in the other half of the country, of course you won't even consider pursuing a relationship with her. But here we are talking about a woman who will probably be a compatible partner for you. The first thing you do is throw yourself onto her sexually and if she refuses, you dump her. Right? So the only way a woman has any chance with you is having sex with you on the first date, and still after she does you may find another reason to dump her. And I'm asking you, why would a woman who is interested in a relationship continue with you on these terms? When she knows that you make the rules and the only way to be with you is to have sex with you?

I don't know where you find women who go on dates with you and they are not interested sexually in you. I mean, what's the purpose? Just out of boredom?

[Hopeful30]

7 minutes ago, Shining One said:

I'm aware this happens naturally over time. I've experience it in several relationships. However, her sexual interest in me never died.

If a decrease in sex happens, then how do you know her sexual interest is still active? And the opposite: If sexual interest is present, do you feel getting into bed is the only way to demonstrate that?

Edited March 12, 2020 by Hopeful30

[Shining One]

1 minute ago, SummerDreams said:

See how what you are saying contradicts one another?

No, I don't. I see evaluating various criteria (sexual interest, compatibility, understanding, etc.) and investing heavily into winning her heart as different things. I evaluate the relationship potential first, then invest into winning her heart.

1 minute ago, SummerDreams said:

But here we are talking about a woman who will probably be a compatible partner for you. The first thing you do is throw yourself onto her sexually and if she refuses, you dump her. Right? So the only way a woman has any chance with you is having sex with you on the first date, and still after she does you may find another reason to dump her. And I'm asking you, why would a woman who is interested in a relationship continue with you on these terms? When she knows that you make the rules and the only way to be with you is to have sex with you?

Who said anything about me requiring first date sex? I do check for sexual interest early compared to the OP, but I don't require first date sex.

1 minute ago, SummerDreams said:

I don't know where you find women who go on dates with you and they are not interested sexually in you. I mean, what's the purpose? Just out of boredom?

Mostly on OLD. I can only guess at their purpose: Boredom, loneliness, free meals/entertainment, etc.

[Shining One]

1 minute ago, Hopeful30 said:

If a decrease in sex happens, then how do you know her sexual interest is still active?

We still have sex, just less frequently. If it's gone, then we wouldn't be having sex at all.

1 minute ago, Hopeful30 said:

And the opposite: If sexual interest is present, do you feel getting into bed is the only way to demonstrate that?

If I haven't had sex with the woman in question, then yes, getting into bed is the only way to demonstrate it. I've had women make "promises" of future sex that never came to fruition, so I no longer trust words or other signs. I fully admit that is a me problem though. Plenty of other men will accept words or other signs.

[Hopeful30]

Just now, Shining One said:

We still have sex, just less frequently. If it's gone, then we wouldn't be having sex at all.

If I haven't had sex with the woman in question, then yes, getting into bed is the only way to demonstrate it. I've had women make "promises" of future sex that never came to fruition, so I no longer trust words or other signs. I fully admit that is a me problem though. Plenty of other men will accept words or other signs.

Many woman have sex without genuine interest either. It's easy to fool a man in this way. 

[basil67]

@Hopeful30 people looking for relationships can be fooled in all kinds of ways.  Sex is just one of those ways.  It's not worth singling out as something particularly terrible

[basil67]

1 hour ago, Hopeful30 said:

In my personal experiences, the best relationship I've had actually lacked the sexual component but still thrived because compatibility was there (mutual understanding, support, caring, lifestyles, beliefs, etc.). After all, when you grow old together....

From what I understand, you didn't grow old together. so short of him dying (and I'm sorry if this is the case), isn't this an example of a fail?  

With my partner of nearly 30 years, we had all of what you list, PLUS mind blowing sex which started on the day we met.  These days sex isn't so much due to health reasons and the emotional connection is why we still love each other.   But having the emotional connection without having experienced such great sex would have been a far lesser relationship for us.   

[simpycurious]

2 hours ago, basil67 said:

From what I understand, you didn't grow old together. so short of him dying (and I'm sorry if this is the case), isn't this an example of a fail?  

With my partner of nearly 30 years, we had all of what you list, PLUS mind blowing sex which started on the day we met.  These days sex isn't so much due to health reasons and the emotional connection is why we still love each other.   But having the emotional connection without having experienced such great sex would have been a far lesser relationship for us.   

Basil, I agree that having ALL aspects together makes for the most desirable relationship.  One with the other is just not fulfilling in total.  I have kinda lost track of what

the originated this thread but I will say this that there is not need to rush the intimacy once you start dating someone.  Of course, many do but if the connection is 

destined for a relationship then the intimacy will come.  

[basil67]

I agree there's no need to rush intimacy.   But there can be a want to rush intimacy 😊

[simpycurious]

19 minutes ago, basil67 said:

I agree there's no need to rush intimacy.   But there can be a want to rush intimacy 😊

LOL...I would assume this is the case MORE OFTEN THAN NOT.  

[Gaeta]

So Hopeful30, was this thread useful to you? 

I personally find that you generalize a lot when you speak about men. You had a few missmatched and now men are all after sex in your view. You know to meet a gentleman you first need to beleive they exist. I spoke several times in this tread about you being very clear from the start about your dating style and you never commented on it. If from the get go, from your profile and from your first conversation you informe these men that you are looking for 'traditional' dating and you explain what is 'traditional' dating, then these early sexual expression wouldn't exist. 

[Hopeful30]

15 hours ago, basil67 said:

From what I understand, you didn't grow old together. so short of him dying (and I'm sorry if this is the case), isn't this an example of a fail?  

With my partner of nearly 30 years, we had all of what you list, PLUS mind blowing sex which started on the day we met.  These days sex isn't so much due to health reasons and the emotional connection is why we still love each other.   But having the emotional connection without having experienced such great sex would have been a far lesser relationship for us.   

This brings me to my next question: does chemistry need to be there from the start? Perhaps I've been looking at it all wrong, maybe he doesn't need to win my heart for the sexual element to develop and be enjoyable (and for sexual advances not to seem premature). Maybe I need to start filtering men based on sexual chemistry to start with? Instead of hoping the comfort and desire grows as the connection does?

Edited March 13, 2020 by Hopeful30

[simpycurious]

22 minutes ago, Hopeful30 said:

This brings me to my next question: does chemistry need to be there from the start? Perhaps I've been looking at it all wrong, maybe he doesn't need to win my heart for the sexual element to develop and be enjoyable (and for sexual advances not to seem premature). Maybe I need to start filtering men based on sexual chemistry to start with? Instead of hoping the comfort and desire grows as the connection does?

For me, attraction and chemistry are musts.  It would be hard if not possible for me to have chemistry with someone that I was NOT physically attracted too.

By the same token, there needs to be MORE than just physical attraction for a true relationship to develop.

[SumGuy]

2 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

This brings me to my next question: does chemistry need to be there from the start? Perhaps I've been looking at it all wrong, maybe he doesn't need to win my heart for the sexual element to develop and be enjoyable (and for sexual advances not to seem premature). Maybe I need to start filtering men based on sexual chemistry to start with? Instead of hoping the comfort and desire grows as the connection does?

For me, a man, it's both.  Chemistry plus connection.  In both cases I say give it time, make sure that chemistry and connection is there over multiple dates.   Even if you feel chemistry nothing says you can't wait on sex until later. 

There are no guarantees, chemistry can arise from some subconscious sense of connection or it could just be lust,  we can think we have a connection when we don't or there is some key disconnect or people change or we connect but are at different stages in life / going in different directions.   

[crederer]

In hook up culture most women dont want to be courted. It's a big reason I've stepped back from the dating game. It kind of disgusts me. Girls seem pretty sexually forward themselves. A few months back I was on a first date with a girl. Made dinner at my house then we watched a movie. She very hastily undid my pants and hopped on and I kinda froze and didn't really know what to do. I didn't call her back and she sent me scathing text saying I got what I want and now dont want anything to do with her. I didn't call her back because I was a bit disgusted by it. She initiated all physical contact so I dont know what the hell she meant by "I got what I wanted". Anyway i have many stories that lead me to this conclusion, this is just one example. 

[simpycurious]

That brings up a good question  Do the majority of women want to be "courted"??

I have a lot of women approach me to strike up a conversation so I understand what you are saying Crederer even though your experience was a 

bit more extreme.

[SummerDreams]

It's totally normal that some women want only a sexual relationship with a guy and I find nothing wrong to this but both parties should be open and honest with what they want so they don't get hurt or hurt others.

If i were single I would love to be courted, the period of flirtation and butterflies is the most exciting in the relationship. Why skip it?

[basil67]

On 3/14/2020 at 12:00 AM, Hopeful30 said:

This brings me to my next question: does chemistry need to be there from the start? Perhaps I've been looking at it all wrong, maybe he doesn't need to win my heart for the sexual element to develop and be enjoyable (and for sexual advances not to seem premature). Maybe I need to start filtering men based on sexual chemistry to start with? Instead of hoping the comfort and desire grows as the connection does?

Oh Yes!  If there's no chemistry, then sexual advances are 🤮.   There's often talk of "should I go for a kiss at the end of the date?" and I reply "Only If There's Chemistry!!!"  I can't stress this enough.  While I have had first date sex, I've also ducked away from guys who have tried to put an arm around me and ducked away from kisses.  The latter guys didn't get a second date.

I've had a couple of experiences where chemistry has arrived later on with male friends (perhaps some would call them 'orbiters', but hey, it worked for them) but there was no courting before that chemistry arrived.  Or perhaps there was subtle seduction and I wasn't aware of it???    But more often, it's been about us getting on really well and having an instinctive pull towards each other from the get go.  Also, I'm not about appearances when it comes to attraction - I'm all about how well we click.  If we click well and are mentally drawn to each other, I will have sexual attraction.