So according to this article, the longer you wait on sex, the longer the relationship will last.
This makes sense, but is so disappointing to me.
We have the advantage of pheros. If it’s long term relationships that we want, is it wise to use sexuals? If the girl gets too sexually frustrated, will she back out and call you a pussy?
SO many questions…
I’m not sure I’m buying that. While it’s still a bad idea to have sex on a first date if your goal is a long-term relationship, it’s equally bad to wait too long. After all, sex is what distinguishes a real relationship from friendship. After all, this isn’t “Boy Meets World”, a preachy show about staying a virgin until marriage. Newer shows like “Family Guy” (liberal slant) and even “King of the Hill” (conservative slant) both spoofed that message in their own episodes. Sex also produces oxytocin, a bonding hormone that keeps people together. Without the oxytocin getting topped off periodically, it’s only a matter of time until they drift apart, and hugs and kisses are often insufficient, unless you’re in high school.
Another reason is simply fear. That is, a man’s fear that a woman is using him for “relationship benefits” without confirming her sexual attraction to him. Lots of men nowadays at least heard of PUA sites, which often talk about women using men for their personal gain. Now, these sites can be misogynistic, but they’re right about one thing: a woman will never have sex with a man she’s not attracted to. So if a man is with a woman for a long time, and doesn’t get sex, he started to wonder, and in some cases, wander. (See what I did there?)
I’ve been researching this topic because I find that I tend to date these girls, and by the third date, we’re having sex. 2 things happen after this:
I like the idea of taking things slow, but it seems too much of an exact science to me. If the girl wants to have sex after the third date, is it wise to slow her down? A wise man once told me, “NEVER, EVER, EVER deny a girl sex if that’s what she wants.”
But also, one would think that if you’re (the guy) are the one trying to slow things down, the girl will begin to question your sex drive and whether you have balls or not.
Basically, what I’m saying is I’m waiting for the hottie that tells me, “I’m going to date you. We are not having sex until I’m sure of you, and you’re sure of me. Minimum of 10 dates.”
Swoon?
Also (trying SO hard to keep this somewhat pheros related), it’ll be VERY difficult for a girl NOT to want to jump your bones after her third glass of wine and some AMMO topping you off.
I don’t think it’s the kiss of death to slow things down. Sometimes girls will initiate sex because they think it’s what the guy wants, and they don’t want him to think she’s a prude. Waiting tells a girl, “I’m not just in this for your body, I want to know YOU.” Even if a girl does want sex in its own right, it’s pretty hot when a guy takes the lead. Delayed gratification is even more enjoyable.
Another important factor to consider: the best relationships are those in which both people have similar wants and goals. If you’re pretending to want something that you really don’t (sex on the 3rd date, or a girl who fell for you too quickly), then you’re robbing the relationship of the opportunity to sync up. What if the two of you would actually prefer to wait, but you both are too nervous to say something, for fear of disappointing the other? Instead of 2 happy people that communicate, you’re left with 2 less-than-happy people who hid their true feelings.
There is a girl. I have written about her on the forum.
If it amounts to us going out on a date (which everyone tells me they think we’re going to end up dating), and she goes in for the kill, I think I’m just going to slow her down. Tell her “10 dates or whenever feels right.”
I know girls like when guys take control, but I absolutely have told her a girl I wanted to take it slow before, and I got the equivalent of “oh. Really? Wow. Well…this is awkward. Ummm…is it something I said? Ohhh…it’s you…so you have a hot girl at your will, and you reject her to ‘take things slow?’ Wow. Um. Yeah. Get out.”
Yeah, some girls are bitches. A decent girl will respect your opinions and not try to force you to bend to her wishes. You don’t want to get stuck with a bitch.
It’s why I’ve decided to go the “typical guy” route. If a girl offers sex, take her up on it, and don’t call her again. A girl who is serious about a relationship will be the one to say, “hey buddy, I like you, I like being with you, I like kissing you, but I won’t have sex with you until I’m sure about you.”
Wifey material.
IME, with many women, waiting ten dates would put you firmly in the fiendzone/orbiter capacity. Even if you didn’t have sex, you would need to be communicating overt sexual interest much earier.
And wot miss D said - It does vary between individuals and individual couples. If you are like minded enough to be truly compatible - nobody’s gonna care about counting! 
I’m sure you can come up with a middle ground solution. You could find a way to pick her brain about slowing things down, without the instant kick to the curb. What if it’s a simple miscommunication, and she’d be fine with waiting, if only she’d known?
It kind of sounds to me like you are trying to take the path of least resistance in order to avoid rejection. It’s easier to reject a girl for sleeping with you than it is to possibly be rejected by a girl for appearing disinterested. Don’t let fear of rejection stop you from giving a potentially decent girl a chance.
I say it’s not so much about artificially delaying sex, but more about being able to walk away from sex. Consider the following scenario. A man meets meet a woman in a bar. She seems really into him within 10 minutes. They go back to his place the same night. They do the deed. When they’re done, she says “it’s so nice to have a boyfriend again”. Scary, right? Thought so.
It’s usually not too difficult to pick out red flags early on. Things like:
By being able to walk away from sex, you can protect yourself (no pun intended) from problems. Consider the scenario in the first paragraph. If the man paid attention to warning signs in the conversation with the woman in the bar, he could have avoided the funk he ended up in. This refers to a relationship, long-term or short-term, where sexual and/or commitment expectations are mismatched. Because mismatched expectations lead to nothing more than bitterness and hurt feelings.
That’s what I’m saying. As long as there is kissing and lots of touching, maybe it’s cool to delay the sex. All that frustration built up would make it even better anyways.
I don’t know. I do fear rejection to a degree, but my fear is that I delay the sex, we still go on dates, but she finds someone else to release her desires on. Seems unfair, kind of like emotional cheating.
What I sometimes hear is that the woman decides I’m relationship material and wants to drag out having sex. If she thinks I’m just a Bad Boy playmate, she’ll bang on first date or meeting.
Of course, many of my best relationships have begun with first date sex.
What I understand is happening today is that women in their 20s consciously don’t want to settle down yet so they have to fight their natural impulse to seek commitment. Of course, they miss their peak fertility that way.
If you, the man, is the one seeking to slow down the sex, I can see where that confuses many young women. The general rule is women control the sex; men control the commitment. You’re doing it backwards. I’m not saying your’s isn’t the wiser course but you will have to educate many women as to its wisdom.
You’re controlling both the sex AND the commitment - more power to you.
When you put it like THAT, sounds impossible haha
Maybe the best course for a young man is to bide his time and work on self-improvement. Do socialize and someday the right woman (not girl) will recognize your value.
A relationship is not about what he’s doing or what she’s doing.
It’s about what we are doing.
Nothing happens until we both agree. We decide together.
Above all, make sure the woman is satisfied with what “we” are doing,
or there won’t be a “we” for very long.
There might be a lot of latitude to what she’s satisfied with - find out how much. Know her.
If you can’t deal with her range of options, find a different girl.
I have seen people get married form first meeting each other on both Grindr and tinder sex apps for crying out loud.
The fact of matter is, it’s the person that matters and not how long you wait. At lest that’s what I found form my personal life.
There none thing wrong with hooking up if your both are down for it. I just hope your not holding back your sexual side for fear of something going bad is my point.
Pros:
We call our best friends who we have sex with and love an ‘marriage’ or if you lack the ‘love’ element but sure have lust it’s: friends with benefits(fuck buddy).
Ether option is great I found for lasting friendships/Relationships, sex can’t go wrong if friend element is present, what way it goes depends.
it’s when your not having the friends element And it’s just pure sex at that point the relationship chances of lasting is low.
I think your study just got cause and effect all mixed up like must studies tend to do on any subject.
By waiting so long, they ended up with just a select of people who are good friends to begin with!
my logic is friendship + sex = lasting Relationship effect seen in the above study.
Waiting has no effect. the real “cease” is the friendship element makes it last.
If you happen to have sex with someone right form get go, like my Grindr and tinder couples I know and friendship element grows on top of that, you have long lasting relationship.
That’s kind of questionable. Getting intimate too quickly, both sexually and emotionally, can produce something called a “skyrocket relationship”. (This is a term from the book “Be Your Own Dating Service” by N. Atwood.) It’s when things escalate too quickly, such as people talking about where they’re going to live together after dating for less than a month (for real!). At the same time, those skyrocket relationships can fizzle out just as quickly.
I’ve experienced exactly that with one of my past girlfriends. We were looking at apartment listings on our fourth date, and already had our weekend getaway planned. Despite that, the relationship fizzled out in just a few months. We parted ways peacefully with minimal hard feelings. Although in my case, the instant intimacy was more emotional than sexual.
With all that said, there’s still nothing good about artificially stalling sex. After all, it really is the only thing that distinguishes a relationship from a friendship, let alone a friend zone. Perhaps stalling was implanted into our collective conscience by 90’s-era teenage sitcoms, where it was presented as gospel, rather than as something to decide on a case-by-case basis. If expectations match, and people are honest with each other, I say have at it.
Actually, there are SOME benefits to stalling. To each his own, but I feel like stalling not only tells a girl that you care more about her personality than about her body. Of course, I recognize that I’m seeing this whole conversation from the “traditional family values standpoint”, so to each his own.
Still, for me especially, not having sex with a girl isn’t just about protecting her feelings in case of a misunderstanding, but it’s also my way of avoiding future baggage for “the one” when she comes along.
Peace
From what I understand (and this may sound EXTREMELY obvious), for a successful relationship, it is MUCH more important to understand each other than have great sex. I’ve gotten in quite a few relationships based upon this faux-connection I had with the girl from having consistent (and awesome) sex. It creates a false sense of intimacy. What’s MUCH more important is that you check each others compatibility. Chemistry is fleeting.
Here’s some ancient folk wisdom for men:
Looks fade.
Passion cools.
Cooking lasts.