4th date dump

[rjc149]

3 hours ago, JiltedJane said:

But lets be honest, if i banged every guy whos tried to sleep with me, my number would be astronomical. 

Serious question for the guys out there: You're telling me you wouldn't be judgmental of a girl who slept with 100 dudes opposed to only 10?

Maybe you need to be a little more selective on who you agree to go out on dates with, if you're getting lit up by suitors. 

Go on dates with guys you're really interested in, so that by date 3, if there is high attraction, sex follows naturally. 

[manfrombelow]

Personally, if the woman I'm dating on 3rd date is (for whatever reasons) not willing to have sex with me, I'd consider it my fault for not making her attracted and aroused enough to want to have sex with me. Which means, I'm not putting any blame on her.

But, at the same time, I'd stop seeing her because if I fail to attract her properly on 3rd date, I won't be able to do it after that. If a woman doesn't want to have sex with me on 3rd date, she never will. That's why I'd stop seeing her and start seeing other women instead.

[mark clemson]

14 hours ago, JiltedJane said:

Serious question for the guys out there: You're telling me you wouldn't be judgmental of a girl who slept with 100 dudes opposed to only 10?

I would think that if 1/10 of your "suitors" turned into 1-2 year relationships you'd never get to 100, so in that sense yes. Selectivity as mentioned above. However, if you want to "sleep around" (or not) that's you're right and prerogative. I'd like to think I wouldn't have an issue with a high number of previous partners, particularly with the recognition they were likely ONS and just for fun or what have you, but I acknowledge that many guys would. 

No one is saying screw all these guys if you think they're users or blaming you if you don't. You're wise to be selective. But the flip side is that these days many guys won't wait around.

 

14 hours ago, JiltedJane said:

this whole post originally was started to discuss the 180 this guy did. At the time i couldnt wrap my head around what happened. He only wanted sex, thats fine. but don't make me think youre a saint when your plan the entire time was to hump and dump. then  turn around and basically say i suck and am unattractive.

Yes, clearly this particular guy is a D-bag. For us guys, there are gold diggers, pscyho-b's, women who turn frigid upon marriage, and various other "traps" out there. C'est la vie.

[Acacia98]

On 3/15/2020 at 3:52 PM, Calmandfocused said:

I think the shock dump at the end of the date was to manipulate you into agreeing to sleep with him just to “keep him”. He was probably surprised that you accepted what he said so easily and stuck to your boundaries. 

I think so too.

[rjc149]

16 hours ago, JiltedJane said:

the update was only to comment on the absurdity of this guys reaction when i gave a simple hi and wave. 

 

The consensus on thread has hopefully confirmed for you that yes, this guy's reaction was off-kilter. If I were this guy in question, my reaction would be a hi and wave back.  

However, the consensus of opinion is going to be accompanied by another prevailing opinion that most guys, on-kilter or off-kilter, will feel led-on and frustrated if a woman they've been dating won't have sex. Some men will gracefully exit. Some will be patient. Some will ghost. Some will react angrily, like this guy. We're not a mold. We have different personalities. But, heterosexual men tend to want sex from women they're dating. Continuing a sexless courtship with a woman they're attracted to is not that fun. It's important to keep that in mind. 

So the advice is to be more selective. If you're totally overwhelmed with male options, only date the ones you have a high initial physical attraction to so you're not so squeemish about getting physical with them.