[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1130525]I can't fathom committing to being with someone with whom I might not be sexually compatible. I don't think it's immoral or unfair to consider the sexual aspect of a relationship important, and I personally resent any implication to that effect.[/QUOTE]
While there is more to a relationship than sex, it's a VERY big component, to me at least. If we don't click sexually and it's in a way that can't really be improved, I'm sorry, but we're done. I have a very large libido. If we just aren't compatible sexually and it's expected to be completely monogamous, it doesn't matter how well we click in other areas, we wont work.
I'm all for a woman not wanting to sleep with a guy on the first date. Or even second or third. But if it won't happen within the first few months....and, unless monogamy is brought up in conversation, I don't expect monogamy, from either side, until sex has occurred, to be honest.
[QUOTE=Susie;1130366]I have recently been thinking over sex in the context of primitive survival. A female, especially with a child, without a male protector, would not survive. Females would have needed to make sure that they had a partner who was going to stick around before mating. Fathers and uncles and brothers would know this and beat to a pulp anyone who tried to do otherwise. So why then, does it seem that so many males want to spread their seed far and wide? Why is it so hard to find a guy who will not require sex in order to decide if he wants a realtionship?[/QUOTE]
So what do you have against sex?
[QUOTE=YogaBare;1130550]just that she would prefer if the guy had honourable intentions.[/QUOTE]
She wants him to commit to being "with" her without letting him get "with" her. It's extortion.
[QUOTE]She wants him to commit to being "with" her without letting him get "with" her. It's extortion. [/QUOTE]
And honestly, before birth control, it made a lot of sense. Now sex is more about recreation than procreation. And well, if sex is just about procreation for you, you don't want a guy for whom sex is recreation, LOL!
I think this is another thing that is more cultural than biological or related back to cavemen. Bottom line, other women put out, the guy can get it elsewhere, so it is not worth it for him to commit to you since he can try before he buys elsewhere.
[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1130525]I can't fathom committing to being with someone with whom I might not be sexually compatible. I don't think it's immoral or unfair to consider the sexual aspect of a relationship important, and I personally resent any implication to that effect. [/QUOTE]
so very true.
to the OP, how do you define relationship? its obvious that you aren't hopping in the sack after the first date. but after a month of dating? 2 months? 3 months? do you have a set "rule?" and if so, why? why does there have to be an arbitrary number of dates/months/etc before sex is an option? why do people repress their sexual desires so badly? if you are attracted to a guy, then sleep with him. if he is doing his best to sweet-talk you out of your clothes, and you arent interested in it, then don't.
[QUOTE=magnolia1973;1130597]Bottom line, other women put out, the guy can get it elsewhere, so it is not worth it for him to commit to you since he can try before he buys elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=magnolia1973;1130597]And honestly, before birth control, it made a lot of sense.[/QUOTE]
before pulling out was invented? :p
Thanks for all the ideas and opinions. This is not about me. I am married and I do not have a problem with sex, nor do I believe it is only about procreation. Sex is definitely fun and important to a relationship and I did not say anything about a life-long commitment. I have seen several young ladies' lives turned upside down because of getting pregnant and the guy wants nothing to do with it. I, myself, have gotten pregnant even when using birth control due to equipment failure. A good friend, who is a virgin, is what prompted my rant. She had been seeing a guy for two weeks and was not ready for sex, though she really liked the guy and wanted to continue seeing him. He would not continue without sex. The first time is especially important. I would think a guy could understand that.
[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1130584]She wants him to commit to being "with" her without letting him get "with" her. It's extortion.[/QUOTE]
I could be wrong, but I read the OPs post differently though. Not that she wanted a ring on her finger before they jumped in the sack - just that he was open to a relationship developing?
Let me put it like this:
Option one: You meet someone and one of you is not up for a relationship. You / they make it pretty clear at the outset that you / they aren't in it for the long haul, and then you either become lovers or not.
Option two: You meet someone and you are both open to being in a relationship. Sex happens soon or not-so-soon, but either way both of you are curious about the other and think this has potential.
Option three: You meet someone and you think they want a relationship with you, but actually they don't. They just want to shag you. You sleep together, they leave, the end.
I'm guessing that the OP is talking about an option three situation, and is saying option two is preferable.
In a lot of ways, I got lucky when I met my husband. We've been married almost 16 yrs this May and still to this day, he will tell people that I am the most beautiful, sweet, sexy woman he's ever met. I still feel the same about him. I cannot imagine my life without him and I don't want to. We are the rarity in this world. We got married in 1997 and of all the couples we know who got married around the same time we did, which was around 8, we're the only ones still together. We've had our issues and our share of fights but that is what makes us stronger and as of late, the sex is actually getting better. I think there is something to be said for monogamy.