I dont have a time limit at all or a certain amount of dates. In a perfect world, for me, being that I am not willing to wait until marriage...I prefer the first time to be one of those spontaneous (sober) things that just happens because we are both so turned on by each other we cant/dont want to stop. And it is someone I have been out with and have some chemistry and mutual feelings are obvious.

I am in this camp. I can have all the convictions in the world in my head that I'm going to wait for 3 dates or exclusivity, or whatever but it doesn't always happen that way. Women get lost in the moment and horny, too. It is way easier to never get started than to stop once the heat is on. More power to those of you with more self control. Guys may keep pushing the boundaries not out of disrespect but because many women do say that they are waiting or they want certain things before sex, and they may believe it truly before they are in the moment, but it doesn't mean that they really follow through. Or they don't want to be viewed as a slut so it's not like they are gonna advertise that if you play your cards right you may hit the jackpot. Like I've stated before, the more persistent guys usually do get what they want. Keep reaching for the buttons enough and eventually someone gives in. It's tedious to keep saying no and you may not want to stop cold turkey. It's very hard. Those of you with religous convictions do have a more strict line that, but for most people the line moves quite frequently. But no means no, and asking someone to leave is very clear. He shouldn't have admitted he was testing so blatantly, but isn't that really how it's always worked? See how far she will let him go despite previous proclamations?

I agree. I'm one that said I wanted to wait until being exclusive AND I felt comfortable. So far so good. But, I also didn't kiss on first dates. I broke that with Smiley. We kissed a lot on our first date towards the end. It just all felt right. We've messed around here and there and it gets steaming. There are certain things that I thought I wouldn't do until more time had passed but apparently not because these things have happened.
I can see it 2 ways. Either I wasn't strict enough on my boundaries with him and with other guys I was or I broke my rules for him- he was the exception... in the end, still the same outcome. I'm moving faster than I pictured with Smiley because he's Smiley. I can't help myself with him. He fulfills me and each date we have, each hang out, each moment we spend together, I get closer and closer to him and feel at ease even though I've resisted.

So though I've waited some and the exclusive committed relationship is checked off the list, the feeling comfortable is coming at a much faster rate than I anticipated because it's Smiley.

you are fine

haha cute guy said I was fine.

lol!

(you ladies know you do this too!)

She said I was cute!!

A friend (not the eHarmony one) posed this question, and I really don't know. I don’t take it positively, and I’m curious what you think:

She was with a date who had previously respected her boundaries, but this particular night tried to push things again. She told him "it's time for you to go," and he laughingly told her “Relax, I’m just testing you…I’ll let you know if *you* let things go too far.”

What does that mean??

I totally agree people should respect each others boundaries and seek like minded partners so that one person's values are not compromised by the others. There's a lot of context missing that may make a huge difference, but on the face of it I don't see why this guy should be ditched for getting carried away and trying to laugh it off, possibly out of embarrassment. If he didn't stop when she asked, or it was a common occurance, then I'd say they weren't suited. But that doesn't seem the case from what's been written here.

I get annoyed with the female attitude that "sex with me is a gift and I'll decide when you've proven your worthiness." If she's so cold that the response to trying is "get out!" and he feels the need to calm her down, with an albeit lame reply, then he should keep on going once he reaches the door.

Good luck finding a woman who doesn't want to feel special when she has sex and gets turned on by annoyance when she asks for re-assurance about her worth as a person to the guy she is about to sleep with.

Edited to add: sorry that came out a bit harsh I was replying in kind to illustrate a point, hope you get that :flowerforyou:

I get annoyed with the female attitude that "sex with me is a gift and I'll decide when you've proven your worthiness." If she's so cold that the response to trying is "get out!" and he feels the need to calm her down, with an albeit lame reply, then he should keep on going once he reaches the door.

Me too I am annoyed at this, that's why I don't do virgins or nuns. They are just to much hassle.
Everyone has boundaries, while I'm not particularly looking for sex (and yet, I can still walk out after 6-7 dates), I would like to have some of it at some early point (since let's be honest, I can have the sex part somewhere else anyway if I truly want to, so sex doesn't mean *THAT* much to me).
As women say, it is all about trust and respect indeed. Let me return the question: do you respect me and trust me enough then to do it with me and not think I'm going to run away as soon as I've done it?
I understand that "slow" sets the pace though, hence the fact that I don't go for the hassle and go for the women that will do it quicker.
Again it's all about opportunities: fast M wants fast W, if your dating pool is big enough, you are better off moving away from slow W and go for fast W (better match for me).


As to the original post:
"he’s just got a little bruised male ego from being rebuffed; give him a day or two and see what happens." is my take on it.
As a man, I'd rather push and get rebuffed than wait for the woman to tell me when it's good to go.
If she does it too much, then it's called a mismatch and it's time for me to move along - this is perfectly fine (I was too pushy for her, she was too cold for me = lose-lose).

i said that i thought maybe he was trying to be funny and it came off poorly. i also said maybe give him another chance. i have learned a lot, via this male dating coach ( i'm not using him just reading his stuff) and since he's a guy he can tell women from a guy perspective what COULD be going on.

Getting back to the original topic, I guess I’m surprised more people didn’t say, “Oh, he’s just being goofy, it doesn’t mean anything.” Or, “he’s just got a little bruised male ego from being rebuffed; give him a day or two and see what happens.”

It was all either he’s a loser for pushing or she is for not loosening up.

i am honest from the get go. i usually end up having to be, because once the questions about my tattoos start inevitably it goes to " are you pierced anywhere?" and then that opens up a huge can of worms. so, i am just honest from the beginning. i have no problem telling guys where i stand on sex. if they don't like it, ok. if they do, ok either way, there is NO uncertainty or ambiguity :-)

I would like to have some of it at some early point (since let's be honest, I can have the sex part somewhere else anyway if I truly want to, so sex doesn't mean *THAT* much to me).

But if sex does mean something to someone else, and you really like that person, would you stop dating them because of it? Is sex that important to you that you would throw away a potentially great relationship just because you had to wait 3, 6, 9 months or even a year (maybe that is an exaggeration for the most part, but knew you would eventually have sex with her/are on the way to sex)??

This is just a theoretical question that I am curious to hear the answer to, if you or other men wouldn't mind answering? Or even women! Just reverse the situation. I am sorry to hijack the thread!

It is always difficult to answer hypotheticals because there are so many variables that can occur but as best I can with some imagined context then yes as long as it seemed things were progressing along towards a caring relationship from both people.
The specifics of what that would be are impossible to state here because it would depend on the personality of the lady involved.

^ cool thanks for the link! i'm going to sign up for his free newsletter!

It means he is a *kitten*. Next!

you are fine

haha cute guy said I was fine.

lol!

(you ladies know you do this too!)

he he .. guilty.

yeah, a lot of his stuff is a good read! i know i've entertained myself a lot with his blog. his newsletters are worth reading too.

he's a big fan of that whole " how's that working for ya?" mentality. if whatever you're currently doing is NOT working, then maybe you need to change what you're doing.......

his name is evan marc katz. http://www.evanmarckatz.com/

Wow, great site, thanks!

hehe such titles as "My Catholic Boyfriend Refuses to Have Sex With Me. Should I Try to Seduce Him?" totally wasted my evening reading this!!

I would like to have some of it at some early point (since let's be honest, I can have the sex part somewhere else anyway if I truly want to, so sex doesn't mean *THAT* much to me).

But if sex does mean something to someone else, and you really like that person, would you stop dating them because of it? Is sex that important to you that you would throw away a potentially great relationship just because you had to wait 3, 6, 9 months or even a year (maybe that is an exaggeration for the most part, but knew you would eventually have sex with her/are on the way to sex)??

This is just a theoretical question that I am curious to hear the answer to, if you or other men wouldn't mind answering? Or even women! Just reverse the situation. I am sorry to hijack the thread!

The thing is that sex is that *unimportant* to me that I would throw away a great relationship otherwise. I would roughly think: what is wrong with this girl?

I stayed more than a year with my first *real* girlfriend (when I was 18 years old or so) without sex - so I can do it (or more accurately, I could do it in the past).
You obviously are still at that (mental) stage in your life/relationship history, and although it is fine to make things move slowly (like you want to do), once you have had sex a few times, you'll realise it's not a big deal (trust me on this) - and you'll be more loose. Well, this of course, excludes religious matters.

I said in my initial post that I don't date virgins or nuns (understand: people who want to make things move slowly, people who are religious) for that very reason.
I see no reason to make things move slowly now (at my mental stage), but it is fine if these people are at a different mental stage in their life - I leave them alone.
It would be too much hassle for me to convince them that they won't be different to me if we have sex (I won't respect them less), and that I won't dump them the next day after we had sex. Does this mean that I will say these girls that we are going to stay forever together? Nope, because I genuinely do not know.
But I will approach them honestly and they will know what is "on offer".

Now, if a girl like this (slow/religious) was ready for a relationship with me (unlikely because we don't match), and I was in love (unlikely because we don't match) - I'd actually put some pressure back on her. I think I would try to do it half/half. Let's not wait as much as you would like to, but let's not do it within the first month or so.
But really, if you are "in love" and if I am "in love" too, why not do it now/sooner rather than later? It would be a great opportunity for you to do it, and there could certainly be many worst first times than 2 lovers.
(the point here is if you feel you are in love, you hope it will last, you don't say "I love you" just because you want to have sex - if you're honest that is)

You can NEVER ensure that the first person that you will do it with will stay forever with you.
If you feel someone is honest and sincere with you when they say "I love you" (no, not forever, not for 100 years, but right now, at this moment, with what they know about you now and they sincerely love you and hope this relationship will last) and you think you can trust them enough so that they won't ditch you the next day, then do it. Why then wait a year?
To me waiting too long would be a deal breaker, in fact I would feel hurt that the girl doesn't trust me enough to do it with me.
I could have sex with so many girls I don't care about if I wanted to, yet I chose her and not to do it with others because I care about her and she doesn't respond positively to this.

(of course, I'm not saying do it with everyone who says I love you)

It doesn't even have to be sex, just something nice to let me know I'm appreciated, although sex is usually preferred.

Just because you paid and plan for a date you would like to get "a little something in return?" Sex doesn't work that way, at least not for the majority of women (just an FYI for your future dating life).

No, I just said it didn't have to be sex.

You did say it didn't have to be sex. But sex was preferred. It’s good to know how the male mind thinks (even if we disagree) because I suspect most women, even the more “liberated” ones on this site, would take offense to the thought of sex being used to show appreciation for a guy’s paying and planning. Not quite prostitution, but still makes a girl feel icky.

And I’ll echo tchristine’s sentiment: “I'd rather pay for my own meal than sit through a free awkward meal.”

Wow, that's all you got out of what I said? Apparently I need to choose my words more carefully in the future.

I never said or would ever say that sex is expected compensation for dinner. I agree, that is a bit "icky". NEVER HAVE I EVER EXPECTED IT IN RETURN FOR ANYTHING.

I know this is difficult for some people to understand, but I don't need to be in a committed relationship to have sex with someone. Nor am I on some quest to find my future wife or soul mate (although sure, it would be nice). A physical FWB type thing is fine with me. Even just being friends is fine. But the last couple people I hung out with brought nothing to the table. They never once initiated plans, never paid for drinks or dinner, never invited me over to cook me dinner, never really tried at all. That's not any type of relationship I want to get in to. It get's old quick.

I think it's hard for a lot of women to understand because sex generally means something very different to us. I won't speak for the other women here, but if I'm looking for signs that a man really likes me, I'm looking for regular contact, a desire to spend time with me, a willingness to do things for me (drive me to the airport, for example).

So this is what you want out of a relationship. Suppose your guy is giving it to you and sex is an integral part of what he wants out of a relationship and he has made that known. If you're not providing it for him, why is it unreasonable for him to assume you're playing a game where he is continuously having to prove his worthiness for some sort of special treat?