Maybe the kind of man they want to date is a man that isn’t an asshole. Especially not one who sees a woman who is not conventionally attractive and thinks, “yeah, I could fuck that.”
You know, there’s a simple solution to that, which women in the past had no trouble understanding: just put sex off the table until there’s a ring on your finger. That’s it. That’ll immediately eliminate any guy who’s only looking to up his notch count, as long as you actually stick to it and don’t just use it as a fake excuse to eliminate the weaklings.
Just thinking out loud, of course. I would not dream of telling what to do with their bodies.
Perhaps, but it’s also not AS important as many people make it out to be. At least if you’re looking for a life partner, that is, not just a sex partner. After all, you’re gonna end up spending a LOT of time with that person not having sex.
But honestly, at some point this whole society is gonna have to collectively go to couple’s therapy or something in order to fix their shit. Or maybe that’s already happening, as I’ve seen at least a couple of TV shows where they send a bunch of good looking guys and girls in their 20s and 30s to a tropical island where they’re allowed to do anything except have sex, and the couple who ends up in the best relationship wins the grand prize.
I’m not gonna judge anyone for fucking around in their teens or early 20s, but let’s be honest, at some point you gotta grow out of that and realize there’s more to life than the bedroom. And after you’ve a couple rounds there you probably know pretty well what you like and don’t like, and you don’t need to test drive every single woman you meet before deciding whether she’s worth the time to try and have a relationship first.
I’m not sure whom that second sentence is directed at, because it could equally apply to men AND women, but it really kinda illustrates the problem with sleeping around before marriage, doesn’t it.
It’s obviously far easier for the average woman to get laid than it is for the average man, and any average man who’s tried his luck with casual flings and/or dating apps will know that by the time a woman as average as him proposes making him wait for sex. So it’s only natural that he’ll be skeptical and perhaps even upset, because there’s going to be a certain amount of rage and a desire to get even, hence they’ll be pressing for sex even harder.
So as the number of previous sexual partners increases, women tend to favor monogamy, because they’re tired of being pumped and dumped, whereas men tend to favor wanting to do more pumping and dumping because they’re tired of being passed over in her “fun phase” and only be considered “good enough” when it comes to wanting a relationship.
A strange game, isn’t it. The only winning move is not to play…
Let’s break this down by making up a hypothetical sexual history for the woman in question:
Guy 1 - Committed relationship, waited 3 months
Guy 2 - Casual fling, no waiting
Guy 3 - Committed relationship, waited 2 date
Guy 4 - Casual relationship, no waiting
Guy 5 - Hookup, no waiting
If, now that she’s seeing guy 6, she magically decides it’s time to be responsible and wait for a while. Any guy that has self respect isn’t going to tolerate that. Why is this new guy so different than than the previous ones? Why does she make him wait, but none of the previous men?
Anyone is going to figure that she is 1. Not attracted to him and is settling down after having fun to secure stability, or 2. Has cognitive dissonance about her past. A guy not accepting that and being skeptical of her intentions or level of honesty is fully justified.
And for the record, I apply my principles evenly between men and women. Casual sex is disgusting and a long sexual history is a sign of impulsive, irresponsible behavior or placing no value on your body or relationships. Man or woman.
It sounds like we agree then. As I’ve already said: the only winning move is not to play.
Yes, holding out for sex until you’ve secured commitment clearly works best if both partners never had sex.
However, the basic problem remains that there is and always will be a certain amount of fundamental asymmetry between sexes: it’s (relatively) easy to check if a woman has never had sex, but its nearly impossible do to so for a man. Even if she remains a virgin until marriage, a woman will have to take a man’s word that he is, or accept that there is a possibility that she is not his first conquest even if he is hers.
On the other hand, if both of them DO have other sexual partners beforehand, it cuts the other way around, because now the man has to take the woman by her word about the number of sexual partners she’s had, and everybody knows that it’s very likely to be more than him and equally impossible to conclusively prove, which makes lying about it not only easy but desirable, since there’s a good chance that the truth may drive him off.
So for women, the dilemma is between either waiting until marriage and accepting that he might be lying (in which case he may end up cheating on her), or not waiting until then and dealing with the fact that he’ll be constantly suspicious about her past and/or potentially accuse her of cheating.
Meanwhile for men, it’s between choosing a woman with no past who might be more faithful but also suspicious of him, and one whom he’ll have to trust about having learned her lessons from her past, but while he might be suspicious of from time to time.
So for men, it’s generally advantageous to look for the lowest number of sexual partners in a woman, while for a woman, it actually makes some sense to preload the cheating, so to say, in order to understand her power and acquiesce her latent insecurities about cheating, but the price she’ll pay is having a far more difficult time finding a partner that’ll actually want to stay.
Maybe the kind of man they want to date is a man that isn’t an asshole. Especially not one who sees a woman who is not conventionally attractive and thinks, “yeah, I could fuck that.”
You know, there’s a simple solution to that, which women in the past had no trouble understanding: just put sex off the table until there’s a ring on your finger. That’s it. That’ll immediately eliminate any guy who’s only looking to up his notch count, as long as you actually stick to it and don’t just use it as a fake excuse to eliminate the weaklings.
Just thinking out loud, of course. I would not dream of telling what to do with their bodies.
Not finding out if you’re sexually compatible is a terrible idea. There’s a happy medium between “fuck immediately” and “don’t fuck for years.”
Perhaps, but it’s also not AS important as many people make it out to be. At least if you’re looking for a life partner, that is, not just a sex partner. After all, you’re gonna end up spending a LOT of time with that person not having sex.
But honestly, at some point this whole society is gonna have to collectively go to couple’s therapy or something in order to fix their shit. Or maybe that’s already happening, as I’ve seen at least a couple of TV shows where they send a bunch of good looking guys and girls in their 20s and 30s to a tropical island where they’re allowed to do anything except have sex, and the couple who ends up in the best relationship wins the grand prize.
I’m not gonna judge anyone for fucking around in their teens or early 20s, but let’s be honest, at some point you gotta grow out of that and realize there’s more to life than the bedroom. And after you’ve a couple rounds there you probably know pretty well what you like and don’t like, and you don’t need to test drive every single woman you meet before deciding whether she’s worth the time to try and have a relationship first.
It really is. Marriages end all the time because the sex isn’t satisfying. Sex is part of life.
Men don’t go for that because she didn’t make previous guys wait until marriage.
Making rules for those you “settle” for that did not previously apply is egregious hypocrisy.
I’m not sure whom that second sentence is directed at, because it could equally apply to men AND women, but it really kinda illustrates the problem with sleeping around before marriage, doesn’t it.
It’s obviously far easier for the average woman to get laid than it is for the average man, and any average man who’s tried his luck with casual flings and/or dating apps will know that by the time a woman as average as him proposes making him wait for sex. So it’s only natural that he’ll be skeptical and perhaps even upset, because there’s going to be a certain amount of rage and a desire to get even, hence they’ll be pressing for sex even harder.
So as the number of previous sexual partners increases, women tend to favor monogamy, because they’re tired of being pumped and dumped, whereas men tend to favor wanting to do more pumping and dumping because they’re tired of being passed over in her “fun phase” and only be considered “good enough” when it comes to wanting a relationship.
A strange game, isn’t it. The only winning move is not to play…
I don’t think you understand my point.
Let’s break this down by making up a hypothetical sexual history for the woman in question:
Guy 1 - Committed relationship, waited 3 months
Guy 2 - Casual fling, no waiting
Guy 3 - Committed relationship, waited 2 date
Guy 4 - Casual relationship, no waiting
Guy 5 - Hookup, no waiting
If, now that she’s seeing guy 6, she magically decides it’s time to be responsible and wait for a while. Any guy that has self respect isn’t going to tolerate that. Why is this new guy so different than than the previous ones? Why does she make him wait, but none of the previous men?
Anyone is going to figure that she is 1. Not attracted to him and is settling down after having fun to secure stability, or 2. Has cognitive dissonance about her past. A guy not accepting that and being skeptical of her intentions or level of honesty is fully justified.
And for the record, I apply my principles evenly between men and women. Casual sex is disgusting and a long sexual history is a sign of impulsive, irresponsible behavior or placing no value on your body or relationships. Man or woman.
It sounds like we agree then. As I’ve already said: the only winning move is not to play.
Yes, holding out for sex until you’ve secured commitment clearly works best if both partners never had sex.
However, the basic problem remains that there is and always will be a certain amount of fundamental asymmetry between sexes: it’s (relatively) easy to check if a woman has never had sex, but its nearly impossible do to so for a man. Even if she remains a virgin until marriage, a woman will have to take a man’s word that he is, or accept that there is a possibility that she is not his first conquest even if he is hers.
On the other hand, if both of them DO have other sexual partners beforehand, it cuts the other way around, because now the man has to take the woman by her word about the number of sexual partners she’s had, and everybody knows that it’s very likely to be more than him and equally impossible to conclusively prove, which makes lying about it not only easy but desirable, since there’s a good chance that the truth may drive him off.
So for women, the dilemma is between either waiting until marriage and accepting that he might be lying (in which case he may end up cheating on her), or not waiting until then and dealing with the fact that he’ll be constantly suspicious about her past and/or potentially accuse her of cheating.
Meanwhile for men, it’s between choosing a woman with no past who might be more faithful but also suspicious of him, and one whom he’ll have to trust about having learned her lessons from her past, but while he might be suspicious of from time to time.
So for men, it’s generally advantageous to look for the lowest number of sexual partners in a woman, while for a woman, it actually makes some sense to preload the cheating, so to say, in order to understand her power and acquiesce her latent insecurities about cheating, but the price she’ll pay is having a far more difficult time finding a partner that’ll actually want to stay.