How soon should you expect to have sex when you start dating someone? That question is one that has become commonplace with the recent changes in sexual mores. The majority of the population in western countries have opted to abandon the traditional model which previously set strict guidelines for sex within relationships. While the traditional model is far less practiced, there has not been a universally agreed upon standard for when sex will happen.
The Traditional Model
In this model of courtship, sex is not supposed to happen before marriage. At the very least, sex outside of marriage here is considered taboo or otherwise frowned upon. Women were supposed to be virgins before they married, and men were supposed to propose marriage and follow through with a wedding before he would get sex from a woman. Those who were in violation of this standard while dating would be heavily pressured to marry as soon as possible if the woman finds out that she was pregnant. The term “Shotgun Wedding” should clue us in to how serious this pressure was, as the couple would not be truly given a choice once they already undeniably crossed the line in terms of this standard. Such a marriage would happen quite quickly as a means to cover for the fact that premarital sex had occurred, as having a child out of wedlock was not socially accepted by any means.
Couples today are not bound by this same model. Instead, individuals are free to come up with their own rules and standards. There are still some who will still abide by the traditional model, but without the societal enforcement that is quite rare. For those who do not wish to follow the traditional model, there comes issues in navigating how to determine when sex can happen. This is because in absence of a traditional standard for when sex should happen, there is no way to know for sure what the other partner’s standards are for how soon sex should happen. This means there are many cases where the question needs to be asked or someone chooses to initiate and see if there is reciprocation for sex.
The problem with this model is that it relies on full honesty for both men and women, and there are many cases where there is great incentive to lie. For women who want to make it seem like they are “not that kind of girl,” they may make a man wait for an arbitrary period of time to see if he is serious about a relationship. This is a major problem if the woman has in the past indeed been “that kind of girl,” since she is putting up a false front about her attitudes on sex. That is, she is acting as if she places great value on commitment before sex when previously she has not had that standard.
For men, there are those who will only be looking to get as easy sex as possible, which means that the woman’s strategy to have a waiting period is not unfounded. The type of man who is only looking to get sex as quickly as possible is going to be willing do or say whatever he thinks will get him sex the quickest. In the event that he believes he will not succeed in having sex with a particular woman or not have it on a timeline that he would accept. Many women will still have sex with this kind of man even if they so desire to have marriage in the future, as they either see such a man as an opportunity to “have fun before settling down,” or misguidedly think that leading with sex so soon will make a man want to commit even if he has shown no indication or has outright admitted that he wants nothing serious.
No longer worth the wait
The ultimate problem with the waiting game comes when a woman who has previously given away sex for little to no investment decides to “settle down” and look for a decent man. With this switch to her looking for a long term commitment, she now no longer gives out the sex so easily, either by claiming that she is “no longer that kind of girl” or outright lying about her previous sexual history and how quickly she previously gave away sex. Either way, this leaves the commitment minded man being required to make the greatest amount of investment in a woman while getting far less benefits in relation to his investment, and often even less in absolute terms. Men becoming more aware of this worsening deal means that if they choose to wait as long as a woman demands for sex, so men have as a result become disincentivized from even trying to be traditional men in the first place.
Whether or not women like it, once a woman has chosen to sleep with a man at her earliest point, she has set period of time as the new standard for how cheap sexual access is with her. Any man who has to wait longer is essentially paying more for than what it is worth. This becomes an even greater issue when marriage is in question, as marriage is the greatest level of commitment that can be attained in a relationship. What makes the marriage so special when the previous price for sex was shown to be lower than that with other men? When men can get sex without the marriage, and even without the commitment, there is far less incentive for men to pursue marriage in the first place. This applies for both the men that pursue sex with no desire to provide commitment and to men who would otherwise be glad to provide commitment if the woman was willing to practice great restraint with sex. The new rules make it so that men who pursue sex with no commitment get what they want (assuming the capability is there with such men) while the men who still want to be traditional men lose out in finding far less women who have reserved sex for committed relationships.
When a woman gives sex to a man, she is rewarding his behavior. You get more of what you reward and less of what you punish. Even if women do not see it this way, they punish the commitment minded men by not reserving sex for committed relationships only (especially when it comes to marriage). No amount of rationalization hamstering or mental gymnastics changes this. If women want men to give them commitments, they need to give men a reason to commit. Making the man you claim to love the most pay the greatest price for sex does mean that you love him less. No matter how much women insist on it, making a man wait for sex does not equate to her being a higher value woman when she sold it for less previously. And ultimately, the men who see these women giving away sex to other guys for less but demanding that they commit more in order to get sex understand that waiting becomes a sucker’s game.
Loneliness-inc Mod about a year ago
Sex is either sacred or it isn't.
Sex is either special or it isn't.
Sex is either exclusive or it isn't.
Sex is either conducive to the building of family and society or it's destructive to these goals.
It can't be both. It can't be two opposite things.
If sex is sacred, special and constructive towards the building of family and the broader society - it must be exclusive.
Just as the man must be committed to protecting and providing for 100% of the woman's needs, so too must she offer him 100% exclusive access to sex.
This means being completely closed to anyone other than her husband. Always. Forever. Until he dies. It also means being sexually available to her husband.
Once she had sex with someone else, she's no longer capable of offering exclusive sexual access. Why should he offer exclusive access to protection and provision?
Once she had sex with another, sex is no longer sacred, special or family building. Why should he assume such tremendous risk and cost for her used up ass?
Casual sex is now accepted by most of society. Most people are accepting of non virgins for marriage. This is a terrible deal for the man, for the reasons I just explained.
If you wish to pay full premium price for second, third, tenth or hundredth hand goods - do so with your eyes open. It's a shit deal and you probably won't do it if you were fully aware, but hey, you do you....
And if you take the deal, remember that forever means about 3-5 years these days...
09Supanjibobu about a year ago
Hundredth hand goods. Damn, made my day.
aldabruzzo Mod about a year ago
Every man should have this as his rule for each woman:
When it comes to sex, I will wait no longer than the man who waited the shortest amount of time to get sex with you. I will pay no more than the least amount you've "charged" any man for sex.
If you fucked Chad after knowing him for a couple of hours, then I'm not waiting 3 dates or 3 months. If the "price" you charged Chad was a couple of drinks, then I'm not buying you dinner anywhere, much less at Ruths Chris.
If you fucked Chad right away, but you're making me wait, that means you're not sexually attracted to me. It means you're using me. It means you're trying to extract resources from me while I get nothing. It means you're getting what you want while I get nothing I want.
And this means there's nothing in it for me.
Women's rejoinder to all this is
Well, you're not Chad. You're not Tyrone. That means you have to work for it. That means you have to do other things to get my interest. It's not fair that you're not Chad, but that's just how it is - some men get early sex, and some men don't. Some men are for sex. Some men are for relationships. But hey, you relationship guys are the ones who really get the good stuff! You get us for a lifetime, whereas Chad just gets us for a night or three! So you're getting the best we have to offer!
1) TRP CONFIRMED. Thank you for confirming that everything TRP says about women is 100% true and correct. Thank you for confirming that what TRP says about the modern sexual and relationship marketplaces is 100% spot on. We are right, you are wrong, and that's all there is to it. So I don't ever, ever want to hear, ever again, about how TRP is "wrong" about something, not when you ladies just confirmed everything TRP says.
2) If you get everything you want, and I get nothing I want, then no relationship and no nothing. If you get things for free, but I have to work for everything, no relationship and no nothing.
3) It's fair enough that some men are not Chad/Tyrone. It's also fair that you get nothing from me. Nothing means nothing: not even attention or help. Not even white knighting. Not even if it I can spare it. Not even if it would cost me nothing. Not even if it's just a few trifling pennies.
No, I will not offer my seat to you on public transit. No, I will not help you lift this or move that. No, I will not intervene when your date is menacing you. No, I will not help you move. No, I will not give you a lift. No, I will not be your "friend".
No, you may not borrow my car. No, I will not loan you money. No, I will not give you even so much as a few pennies to make up a shortfall at the cash register. No, we cannot share a cab. No, I will not give you a lift to the nearest gas station. No, you may not use my phone. No, I will not do this or that or anything else for you.
No, I will not listen to you talk about meaningless shit. I don't care about your problems or your predicament.
No, I will not give you anything - not even my attention.
No. NO NO NO.
polishknight Endorsed about a year ago
Let's put this in the context of marriage. A woman may say to a man "you're not Chad so you don't deserve to break the rules like he does". Well, the reason for relationships to begin with is that as a woman ages, she becomes less attractive. Guys in their 40's who don't want kids simply shouldn't marry and just hook up with some gal for a few years and, as we say in IT, "tech refresh" her and get a younger model.
The way the system worked was that women looked at men in the long view and respected them accordingly and marriage was about men reciprocating that: Her value was declining but his was growing. They'd meet somewhere in the middle years later and stick together as two human beings who entered into an agreement of respect and trust.
When put like that, it's truly beautiful isn't it? Like a friend who has your back and you have his.
I've worked in so many dysfunctional workplaces, sweatshops, and shitholes over the years. I've known so many people who are just low quality, "fair weather friends". I quickly left them and didn't look back (except to say I was happy to get out of there.) Life is truly too short to be around low quality people and it seems much more too short when around the high quality people too. They make life worth living.
polishknight Endorsed about a year ago
The fundamental problem with modern dating is that it's misnamed as "traditional" dating. "Traditional dating" didn't exist 2 centuries ago. Men expressed interest in a woman not to her directly, but to her family (usually the father) hence the awkward scene on The Bachelor when the guy asks for the father's hand in marriage and then he gets grilled because he's getting the "hands" of other women the next week.
It only "worked" somewhat in the 1940's when the society restricted women's choices in the workplace and were educated about the dangers of spinsterhood and women who slept around and got a reputation were quickly punished. Women LOVED this. They were treated like Queens during courtship.
After all the "equality" was passed, women tried to keep the goodies so they maxed on the games (called "FDS" today).
The fundamental problem with this is that mostly weak men fall for FDS (or even if they truly are gentlemen and like paying for dates, how can one tell the difference?) Women themselves encourage men to sleep with them or else they friendzone them. Heck, I felt relief in Y2K that FDS backfired on women because it made men unattractive to them.
So-called traditional (modern) courtship only worked for older women, who couldn't extort concessions from thousands of suitors, due to cultural momentum. Older men were raised that way and, well, brainwashed into it but the newer generations of young men are not hence the cat is out of the proverbial bag.
There is a way to break out of the paradigm but most women won't want to hear it (sorry about the paraphrase): make dating enjoyable for men, again. Cook him lavish dinners, go for nature hikes, engage in activities that don't require him to foot the bill. I wouldn't mind spending that time with someone, man or woman, hence asking him to wait wouldn't be an imposition.
houseoftolstoy Mod about a year ago
Good point. I tried to encompass that topic as the traditional model to include all cases under that area that were not just "dating." Dating in the times before modern dating would still have characteristics of other traditions, which is why I would place them in the same tent. I probably did mention much on that, but it is worth discussing.
As for traditions, some still carry over in spite of being a shell of what they used to be. For example, a man asking a woman's father for permission to marry her is from when marriage was solely chosen by the father/family rather than mostly by the woman. Not necessarily this tradition, but others fail to have relevancy when women themselves refuse to be traditional but demand men still be (e.g. men always paying for dates). Without men benefitting from traditional practices, they will also drop them when women are not willing to uphold their end of the bargain.
Scarborough about a year ago
Right on the money.
A few partners is sensible, to try a few relationships and gain some experience.
More than a few there is no value for a men to committ. Moreover pair-bonding is severely damaged.
A LTR men's commitment is worth gold and men hold keys to LTRs.
FewActin about a year ago
Funny, if you said this just 90 years ago, your dad would smack the shit out of you, if your friends heard this from your mouth they would call you fag sissy or cuck, and no chaste women would want to associate with you and any siblings of your family for such heretical nonsense, your idea is exactly what led to where we are , you CANNOT have it half and half, you an have it either one way or the other, either only courtship direct to marriage or free for all far worse than what we have today, the few partners you mentioned would just be transitory to far far worse than tinder. You must be boomer or genx or pre-1984 millennial. LOL few partners is sensible is the ultimate oxymoron more antithetical than fried ice.
Overkill_Engine Endorsed about a year ago
Like any other Prisoner's Dilemma, when one party decides to renege on the compromise solution (traditional monogamy and marriage where both parties get something) it leaves the other party with the remaining pragmatic choices of either being better at getting a one sided victory, or just not showing up to the table at all. Because it is not reasonable or even rational to expect one party to voluntarily show up and get exploited for their effort in perpetuity.
Which is what women are attempting to do when they sleep around in their youth when winning is easy for them to do so, and then still expect stable responsible men to still be around and be willing to pay full price (commitment/provisioning) with no access to female youth, fertility, or even assurance of fidelity.
And then those same women will disingenuously wonder why men refuse to "man up" and otherwise attempt to transfer the blame to men when the original issue causing this was the choices those women made, and cannot unmake without some form of time travel.
houseoftolstoy Mod about a year ago
Now that you mention it, this is the perfect application of a Prisoner's Dilemma. Indeed, you cannot expect the same results when you make the choice that gives the other party a worse outcome and assume they will keep the same behavior and decisions.
Many women take for granted that men who they expect to be waiting for them to marry will choose not to be there when they see the behavior of the women and the (lack of) benefits they receive from a marriage. Men do not appreciate being put on the back burner so women can "have their fun" with other men they know they will not marry. Along with this, those women know exactly what kind of man is marriageable, they just would rather not seek them out if they think they can get away with more years of delaying marriage. Often, they are finding out that men are changing their actions based on women's behavior and choices. Less men are waiting to get less out of it.