The Fuckable vs. Dateable Debate

SingleCityGuy and Jocelyn Wentland wrote a piece called sxytalkdates

Myth: Women fall into one of 2 categories: F**k-able or Date-able

The Female Perspective

Date-able girls are the quintessential ‘good girls’ and good girls don’t give it up that easily. These women are the ones that men want to date, bring home to meet the parents, and maybe even marry. If a woman has sex too early in a relationship (when exactly is considered “too early” by the way?), this means she’s not a quality catch and has just a won a position in the F-able category (never to crossover to the date-able category)…. Since when does having and liking sex automatically make you F-able and thus prevent you from being date-able?


The Male Perspective

Just because a guy wants to see a woman naked, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have any long-term plans. The truth lies with the women who fall into the “maybes” and “not interested” categories. Usually a woman deemed “f**k-able” isn’t a hot naughty girl, but someone who, if there wasn’t an alternative, we would have sex with. With these women, we make judgment calls. In normal circumstances, we wouldn’t consider a relationship with them, because an attraction doesn’t exist. If an opportunity exists for a one-night stand, we make a judgment call (or sometimes the alcohol makes that call for us).


Another Male Perspective

The problem is trying to convince women that their taste in men is skewed.   It is circular reasoning of course because they only have evidence of one side of the equation, i.e. there are guys that they did not have sex with right away that became their boyfriends and there are guys that they did have sex with right away that did not.  But, they don’t know (and cannot know) whether there are also guys that that would have been their boyfriends anyway even if they had sex right away and they don’t know, as you said, and cannot know most importantly whether those guys that wouldn’t wait around for sex would have turned into boyfriends had things moved quicker.  (The only way to prove the theory is to sleep with enough guys really quickly to get a representative sample and see how they turn out, and that is obviously not physically possible since at least some of those guys would turn into relationships.) – DMN


The Moxie Perspective

Men and women need to let go of these antiquated and backwards storylines.  If they fuck you “too soon” and they intended on seeing you again, then you are both fuckable and dateable. If they fuck you “too soon” and deem you “undateable” they never intended on dating you in the first place.

It’s not the sex that makes a woman undateable. That’s the myth, and it’s one that women like to perpetuate because it contributes to the other incredibly annoying argument that all men still act under the double standard, which then contributes to the “let’s fuck/date like men and show them who’s boss” mentality that so many women attempt and at which they fail.

What really makes a woman fuckable versus dateable is her taste in men. Stop dating assholes and there will not be such sort of delineations. See, only the douchiest of douchebags would have sex with a woman and then use that act as a reason they wouldn’t have a relationship with her. They were there, too. The act couldn’t happen unless his penis was inserted in her vagina. Ergo, he’s undateable, too. In which case…YAY!!! We dodged a big, fat, steaming pile of poo. But instead of being relieved that some jackbag did us the favor of judging us and not calling us again, we expend all kinds of energy on trying to figure them out or change their minds.

Let me repeat…it’s not the sex that makes a woman or a man undateable. Yes, women use such categories and labels, too. What usually makes a man undateable has more to do with his emotional maturity/availability than how soon we bed him or how quickly or easily he gives us an orgasm.  I’m guessing that men take the same approach. In other words, both men and women have decided that someone is undateable long before the clothes come off.  Let’s please stop making this about the whole “maddona/whore” thing as it implies that men are all still living in some sort of alternative, biblical universe.Lots and lots of men can and do fall madly in love with women who enjoy and pursue sex. The ones who don’t aren’t ones you’d want to date anyway, so stop trying to psychoanalyze them. I can’t think of a bigger waste of time.


Editor’s Note: While proofing this, I realized that I typed “cagina” instead of “vagina.” I propose we start a movement to change the name of our genitalia to cagina. It just sounds prettier.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

90 Responses to “The Fuckable vs. Dateable Debate”

  1. Viki Says:

    Bravo, Moxie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. Saj Says:

    Ehhh there really are men out there who DON’T like women to be promiscuous and it doesn’t make him a bad guy or a bad partner. These guys probably have lower numbers themselves and just want someone who is similar in restraint. It’s the huge man whores that want the virgins that are annoying. The men in the former category is just someone who isn’t a fit for a promiscuous woman (yah yah or someone who likes sex and wants to have it because she is all liberated ect ect. Whatever nice way to say the same thing without the flags of HOW DARE YOU raise)

    Maybe we should expand this debate on what assholes and man who women find desirable have in common so they can spot the asshole in disguise before sleeping with him. Is it the ones who show off their wealth in flashy ways by driving loud cars and fancy clothes? The ones who pour on cheesy compliments and try to move things to the bedroom very quickly? The ones who make it a point the second they meet you to tell you how busy they are and not to expect much but you are sooo great so come over at 2 am to bone but he does have to work early feeding hungry children. The ones who are super nice to you but make condescending remarks about strangers around you? Accents? Ha

    Yes I agree with DWM that some men will just dig you and if you sleep with them on the first night they won’t be running away but these same men might not like the fact you slept with 40 guys on the first night who weren’t relationship material. It’s hypocritical sure but it happens all the time.

    • DrivingMeNutes Says:

      “Ehhh there really are men out there who DON’T like women to be promiscuous and it doesn’t make him a bad guy or a bad partner. These guys probably have lower numbers themselves and just want someone who is similar in restraint.”

      But, you have a strong prejudice in favor of those guys who don’t like women to be promiscuous (putting aside entirely the obviously hypocritical manwhores that prefer virgins.) Those nice guys with relatively low numbers themselves that would prefer you also didn’t have “high numbers.” Those are the ones you want to please, right? You call it “restraint” – a very quaint and positive-sounding term that fits in well with your prefered worldview. But, you make no real effort to understand the underlying reasons why a man might exercise such “restraint.” There could be very real insecurities at play. It could be a terrible fear of women or sex. It could be latent homosexuality. It could be he doesn’t really enjoy sex. Or, has hormonal deficiencies. They could be hideously unattractive and couldn’t get laid until you came along. Sure, not all of these things make a person a”bad guy” or a “bad partner” but doesn’t make them an especially good one either.

      You’re assuming what you’re trying to prove.

      • pistola Says:

        That’s an excellent point, DMN. My (naturally, limited sample size) experience is that men who want their women to be more “pure” (for lack of a better word) are indeed insecure and prefer women who are even more insecure than they are so that they can feel like they’re morally superior and in control in the relationship.

        • DrivingMeNutes Says:

          Thanks. Good point or not, it looks like the “Thumbs-down Fairy” paid us a visit and gave a little dusting last night.

      • Paula Says:

        And, one of the most common instances…guys with a certain set of religious and/or familial values, who want women who adhere to the same values with which they were raised. That’s fine — it’s one of those things in common that can make a relationship stronger, and a “mixed” couple certainly has more challenges to overcome.

        Where they get into trouble is trying to impose those values by extension to people who are not religious, and/or were not religious from the point of sexual maturity. On OKC, I find that when my match on the sex questions is high, the match on religion questions is almost always similarly high. That positive correlation explains a lot, I think.

        • Crotch Rocket Says:

          “That positive correlation [between sex and religion] explains a lot, I think.” Of course, since the core of most major religions is control of people’s basic instincts, e.g. rage and lust. I long ago learned to immediately delete profiles of women “looking for a Christian man”–not because of religious conflicts per se but because of sexual ones. And I wish them the best in finding a man with similar beliefs. The problem comes primarily from the hypocrites, and I despise that regardless of the particular stripe of hypocrisy they wear (religious, political, etc.).

      • Saj Says:

        You are wrong though. The two guys I were with had 10 partners each by the time they reached their late 20’s (no idea if this is considered high or low) and I’d call them very normal and 8’s on the look scale to me (well as they were my type)

        I also know of guys who are unstable or unattractive with much higher numbers then that. You are trying to make the argument that for a man low numbers = defective in someway and that just isn’t true. Many guys have hobbies that don’t revolve around how many short term relationships they can muster rather then just runing into girls without trying who happen to like them and vice versa. Also many men won’t just sleep with any girl into them as they would prefer a high level attraction rather then just willingness.

        • Saj Says:

          Also these weren’t religious guys who needed a girl to be pure or any other nonsense and probably were with girls much less discerning in the past for short tern relationships but they LIKED the low numbers a hell of a lot. It wasn’t a matter of seeking out somone pureish but when they ran into one they saw it as a bonus and it was damn easy getting a relationship out of them.

          It’s impossible to compare the dating hinderences of high or low numbers because you can’t bounce back and forth between the two I just know low was never ever seen as a neg. I also don’t prefer raging manwhores but for more reasons then just putting a hell of a lot of energy into sleeping with a bunch of 5’s.

        • drivingmenutes Says:

          How am I wrong? I said you failed to examine these guys closely and that you were prejudged in favor. You proved my point.

          • Saj Says:

            I have no idea what your asking. What am I supposed to be examining? Their reasoning for this? As far as I know it’s more of a primal gut reaction just like why guys like young women are thin women. It could stem from jealousy of not liking the fact that the woman they love has had men go there before. It could be the old line of a master key opens many locks and a crappy lock can be opened by any key. I’ve also heard that why should anyone respect you if you don’t respect yourself.

            These are guys seeking long term relationships not you so of course you aren’t going to care about their past because you won’t be with them long enough for it to even matter.

            • Andthatswhyyouresingle Says:

              I have no idea what your asking. What am I supposed to be examining?

              What DMN is saying is that you have no idea why these men allegedly preferred women with fewer partners. You’re hypothesizing based on your own preconceived opinions. Not fact. You said it yourself..”As far as I know…” That’s not fact. That’s what someone says when they have limited information. That’s what DMN is saying. You have no idea why these men have a low number of partners, nor do you even know if they’re telling the truth. DMN isn’t automatically calling these men liars. He saying that you do not have enough information on which to base your opinion.

              You are trying to make the argument that for a man low numbers = defective in someway
              No, he’s not. That’s not what he’s saying at all. He’s saying that YOU are making assumptions that men with low numbers = positive without having any actual data on which to base this opinion other than your own theories. Like he said…you’re proving his argument by making broad statements without any factual basis, just your opinion.

              These are guys seeking long term relationships not you so of course you aren’t going to care about their past because you won’t be with them long enough for it to even matter.

              DMN wasn’t dismissing their pasts. He wasn’t forming any judgments. He was merely offering other possibilities as to why they prefer a woman with fewer sexual partners. Instead of formulating a solid argument you’re going on the attack in an attempt to discredit him.

              • Saj Says:

                Ok but that makes all debate pointless because no one can ever know what the other person is really thinking so all we can do is speculate. He’s making a generalization and so am I and offering different points of view of why we feel this way.

                I just know that right now I’m sitting in a room with 30 men (90 percent of them are married happily as far as I can tell) I’m not inside their brains so I can’t know but if I picture these guys out in the clubs or the online dating going through one girl after another I want to laugh my ass off because it seems so unlikely.

                Could I be wrong and 3-4 of them were raging manwhores? Sure but the only thing we can do is generalize based on our own experience. DWM is trying to win an argument by saying nobody can know anything about anything else absolutely….ok. so we don’t have a blog to discuss theories then?

                I know I’m in the minority in this blog as many posters are from larger cities with more active night lives and thus more partners so they agree with each other which is fine but a majority of them are also single and trying to work it out. Could there be a correlation? I think so but hey what do I know as I can’t know everything about everyone at every point and neither can DMN.

                • Andthatswhyyouresingle Says:

                  He’s making a generalization

                  He’s not generalizing at all. He’s not making sweeping judgments. This is what you’re not getting. He’s pointing out to you that YOU are generalizing and speaking as though your generalizations are fact AND you are basing these “facts” on absolutely nothing.

                  I just know that right now I’m sitting in a room with 30 men (90 percent of them are married happily as far as I can tell)

                  And how can you tell? This is what DMN is constantly trying to point out to you. You say you have this idea in your head about what an unhappily married man looks or acts like when, in reality, there is no such thing.

                  Sure but the only thing we can do is generalize based on our own experience.

                  But unless you’ve intimately known hundreds of unhappily married men, your generalizations are still based on nothing other than your own opinions and limited personal experiences.

                  What he’s pointing out to you, to put it bluntly, is that you’re pulling theories out of thin air and that contradict other things that you say in previous threads. Don’t fault DMN for having the ability to retain what he reads.

                  • Saj Says:

                    Sigh you seem to take turns picking on one commenter to passively aggressively or just plain aggressively insult so now it’s my turn but whatever. If you got beef with me don’t tip toe but I know not to take it personally because you did it to Vox, you did it to Cricci and you’ve done it to just about everyone here at one point.

                    Obviously I can’t go around with a notepad and clip board and survey every guy in the room without it being very awkward and of course I’m generalizing. Find me a single man or woman who isn’t insecure about something be it sex or their body or their place in life. Sometimes my generalizations are true and sometimes they aren’t. Duh so is everyone in the world including yourself.

                    So my husband called in the last 5 minutes and I told him about this discussion and asked his opinion on why he likes low numbers (as here I am examining rather then assuming) His response (When you meet a girl in her 20’s who has low numbers it makes you feel like she has a higher chance of being loyal then a girl who keeps having a new boyfriend or fwb every month. It makes her seem more attractive as a relationship prospect) is he lying or there insecurity? I doubt it but again that’s a retarded argument to assume everyone is lying and never to take anyone seriously based on what they tell you.

                    I could go around and poll other strangers but that’s what men on this board are for. To tell their (as far as I can tell so far) varying opinions.

                    • dimplz Says:

                      Ok, I am not bashing here, but it’s possible that people say those things to themselves, that it’s wonderful to be with someone knowing they’ve only had a few partners because if they choose you to sleep with, you feel very damn special. And who doesn’t want to feel special, unique, chosen, or selected by someone they find equally great?

                    • Paula Says:

                      Dimplz….your argument has some initial appeal, except that it’s impossible to be chosen until you meet and get to know someone.

                      So how can what someone has done or not before they met you (as the prior numbers represent, unless you knew them when they were in a prior relationship, in which case, unless you were trying to break them up, it wouldn’t matter) make you feel special or unique?

                      And if you don’t like the numbers you do know about, then the answer is simple — don’t date them. But don’t make that decision based upon being the chosen one, since it’s not like being chosen out of all the potential sexual partners in the universe…but being selected at any given time from the people who are known to your partner.

                    • dimplz Says:

                      I’m not saying this is what I do — I’m saying that many men I have had conversations about sex with might like feeling like they are with a woman who hasn’t had many partners because they feel like they’re part of a select group, like those people who stand outside a club and wait to be chosen (another thing I don’t do). I’m saying they aren’t choosing low numbers girls because they are looking for a moral woman, it’s because those men are usually sexist and don’t want to picture their woman with a lot of different men.

                      You don’t really have to get to know someone so well to know whether or not someone has had a lot of partners. Some people are very candid about it, others not so much. I’m not an open book. If someone wants to be with me, then I make it very clear that I am waiting for marriage to have sex. If they aren’t cool with that, there’s the door. I’m not interested in playing games.

                    • Saj Says:

                      Yah I’m fairly open about it (it’s a good way to let them know not to expect nookie on the second date) but he’s also dated a former escort and party girls and even fell in love with one but it still doesn’t detract from how he feels about girls with low numbers.

                    • DrivingMeNutes Says:

                      Good point. So, I just consulted with my 90 year old grandma and she says both you and your husband are way off base. I guess it’s possible that my 90 year old grandma would lie but I doubt it. So you must be wrong.

      • Kegs Says:

        DMN, I’m surprised your comment resulted in such a ‘hot debate’ as couldn’t have put it better myself!

  3. Paula Says:

    +1 for DMN, +1 for Moxie, except that I do think there are some guys with madonna/whore complexes.

    I had one in particular, known for sleeping his way around town, who I decided to sleep with as my first casual experience following almost 10 years of relationships. It happened once, was fun, and I would have done it again had he been so inclined, but only on a FWB basis. I might, might have also considered dating him, although he struck me with someone with a low emotional IQ that was continually sabotaging relationships, and so probably wasn’t a good candidate for dating. About a year after it happened, after several weird interactions, he gave me the “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free” lecture at a party where we were surrounded by about 50 mutual friends. I later let him have it — I was too stunned at the party to respond properly, and he since apologized and recognized he was out of line.

    Luckily, he’s not like all guys, and at age 42, has never had a relationship last longer than one year. Otherwise, I think most mature and secure guys recognize that they have a past, their woman has a past, and either it doesn’t bother them at all, or if it does a little, that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is really the safest policy to follow.

    I also don’t think this is necessarily a gender-specific thing. Apropos of the previous post, there are guys with potential (dateable), and guys without it, to whom there’s still potentially a mutual attraction. If you’re a woman who needs the guy to be dateable before you sleep with him, then like Saj says, you better learn how to spot them. Or you can just sleep with them, and before long, you’ll realize that you really can’t deal with them outside of bed., which should remove the temptation to want to be dating them.

  4. Cricri Says:

    Cagina? why not “man trap” while we’re at it?!

    • Paula Says:

      I think “cagina” is a great combo of “cajole” and “vagina” — which maybe signifies mantrap, but also gives a nod to feminine wiles…

    • Andthatswhyyouresingle Says:

      Cagina? why not “man trap” while we’re at it?!

      The letter “c” is right next to the letter “v” on the keyboard and I type fast. .Talk about being unnecessarily defensive.

  5. dimplz Says:

    I think finding others dateable has mostly to do with whether one is ready
    to date, which is essentially what you seem to be saying in this post. If one is not ready, one will find any number of faults with everyone else, be it unconscious or not.

  6. WO7 Says:

    There are guys it matters to and guys it doesn’t.

    I don’t think much of the guys that it matters to. They usually hold huge double standards where they’re allowed to do whatever they want, but they want to know the woman has been very selective. It usually stems from their childhood and upbringing.

    I had a best friend who would ALWAYS try to sleep with a woman on the first date. If she turned him down for a month she was relationship material. If she didn’t then he treated her like shit.

    I pointed out the ridiculousness of his double standard, but it never seemed to dawn on him.

    Me personally, I am under the Moxie rule. I probably figured out whether I want to date you seriously or not before we slept together. The sleeping part doesn’t change anything.

    Although, as has been said before, holding out does help weed out the guys who are interested in nothing more than a quick fix. You still might get stuck with some guys who want to short term date you but not long term date you. But them’s the risks of life!

    • Crotch Rocket Says:

      “holding out does help weed out the guys who are interested in nothing more than a quick fix. ” It also weeds out guys who may have been interested in a relationship but simply got sick of the immature game-playing.

      • Saj Says:

        You can’t be sure that a girl who waits is playing a game rather then jumping into bed on the second date just isn’t her thing. After 3 dates and you assume she’s playing a game seems like a quick judgement call that would mean just as much missed connections.

        • Crotch Rocket Says:

          “Holding out” in hopes of “weeding out” certain men is quite definitely game-playing. There are other reasons for waiting which are not game playing, but I’d expect a grown woman to pull up her big-girl pants and initiate some conversation if that’s the case.

  7. Brad Says:

    Personally I don’t make the decision if a girl is datable until after sex. Sex shows you 1) if the person’s feelings reflect yours, and 2) if you are physically compatible.

  8. M Says:

    I’ve only had serious committed relationships and I’ve always made them wait. I know it’s true that men respect women more who wait because the boyfriends I’ve had have also had the experience prior to dating me of using women for sex and not committing. I don’t think it’s because I date assholes because most men have had some girlfriends and some women they didn’t commit to. They’ll all tell you that it doesnt make a woman undateable if she gives it up too soon but they’re either lying or they don’t know themselves very well. If you probe deeper into their actual decision making experiences, you’ll find more often than not that aggressive women and women who give it up too soon never get the guy over the traditional girl who waited and let him pursue her. I’ve seen it invariably true for me, I’ve seen my friends suffer when they don’t wait or let the man pursuer, and I’ve talked to a lot of married couples too. Traditional values are traditional for a reason, the Bible is still around for a reason, and no matter how feminist we try to get, we can’t outsmart human nature. Men and women are different. Men like to hunt and pursue, they feel safer committing to a woman they can trust and respect long term, and women need to feel pursued and cherished and loved. You don’t get that love and respect by acting masculine about sex and pretending it doesn’t mean anything to you as a woman beyond the physical. Women generate oxytocin through orgasm which bonds them to the one man. Men don’t. We are even built different biologically. It’s sad that so many women try to deny their nature because they end up bitter or broken hearted when they do.

    • dimplz Says:

      M, I am a firm believer in chastity, but the reason I didn’t sleep with guys had more to do with me than what they would think of me if they did. And like, anything else, chastity is not for everyone.

      This is why I think you’re conflating the two ideas that men consider women who wait “dateable.” It may have to do with the fact that a woman who waits has a more patient nature, is less likely to be impulsive, and those qualities help when you’re in a relationship. It means you won’t break up with someone over a stupid fight, you won’t impulse shop, run to drugs when things get rough. It’s such an arbitrary rule to think that just because a woman manages to keep her legs closed that makes her dateable. There are many crazy virgins out there. The idea is that a person who is chaste may be more likely to have qualities that would make them great relationship material, but that doesn’t exclude the woman who sleeps with a guy on the first date. Maybe this woman doesn’t get affected or attached the same way I would if I did that, and that’s OK. She doesn’t need to join a leper colony – she just needs to find a guy who’s secure in himself to know that if she commits to him, she will only be with him. Having multiple partners doesn’t mean one will be unfaithful in a relationship.

      • dimplz Says:

        To clarify, I’m not saying it’s a fact that a woman who waits is always patient. This idea that a woman who has lower numbers is better is akin to saying a person who wear glasses looks smart, an English accent makes you sound intelligent while a NY/southern accent doesn’t, or any other pick of prejudices of your choosing. These are two mutually exclusive ideas that people like to juxtapose because it gives them a reason to feel superior.

    • Crotch Rocket Says:

      “[Men will] all tell you that it doesnt make a woman undateable if she gives it up too soon but they’re either lying or they don’t know themselves very well” Sorry, but that’s simply not true for all men. For some, probably, but certainly not all. And do you want a man who is lying to himself and/or so self-unaware in the first place?

      “aggressive women and women who give it up too soon never get the guy over the traditional girl who waited and let him pursue her.” First of all, men are not a prize to be won. Second, do not conflate aggressive women with sexually confident women; those are two totally different discussions.

      “Traditional values are traditional for a reason,” Tradition is only valuable in a static environment. There has been more change in the dating world in the last century than in the previous few millenia, so it’s of questionable value.

      “the Bible is still around for a reason,” Yes, and that reason is that people who take it far too literally like to kill those who don’t (which is ironic). Still, let’s not forget that most modern Christians are such in name only, and nearly two-thirds of humanity thinks it’s a complete load of crap.

      “Men like to hunt and pursue,” Not all of us, or even most of us. I, and all of the eligible men I know, hate all the bullshit hoops that women make us jump through. If I could order the perfect wife online and have her delivered to my door, I’d be a happy–and married–man.

      “[Men] feel safer committing to a woman they can trust and respect long term,” Of course; however, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether that woman slept with us on the second date or the seventh.

      “Women generate oxytocin through orgasm which bonds them to the one man. Men don’t.” Wrong. Male orgasms generate oxytocin, too. And the supposedly link between oxytocin and pair bonding has been repeatedly debunked by scientists.

      • dimplz Says:

        “Still, let’s not forget that most modern Christians are such in name only.”
        Let’s not bash those of us who do practice and take it seriously. Thanks.

        • Crotch Rocket Says:

          That”s a simple fact, not bashing; most modern “Christians” are actually Deists or agnostics and just don’t know it because they’ve never taken a comparative religion class–or aren’t willing to admit it because of the social consequences.

          If I were attacking you or your beliefs, trust me, I’d be much less subtle. I have no beef with you. M’s comments, however, were just begging for a reality check.

          • dimplz Says:

            No worries. I disagreed with M’s comments and I’m a pretty staunch Christian. I don’t buy into the “convenient theories for me” crap that women dole out. Pick a philosophy, and stick to it, you know what I mean. ;)

            • M Says:

              I’m not sure what you mean by “convenient theories for me crap”. That sounds pretty presumptuous and judgmental for a self-proclaimed staunch Christian.. All my comments were based on personal experience. That may not be your experience but it doesn’t make it wrong. Christian or not, I was raised by a family of doctors and scientists so I’m a big fan of basing beliefs on empirical data. Show me these happy women in committed marriages to men who they gave it up to on date one and the dating facts for all of the men who say they don’t reject those women or “in theory” would commit to them. If the data contradicts my many experiences and observations over the years, I’d happily stand corrected. But I doubt it will because all those books (starting with the Bible and ending with “the rules”) which have similar tried and true principles are saying the same things underneath if you read between the lines, and they account for human nature which most men and women don’t do in these discussions. That’s the problem. Everyone just theorizes. Get honest with yourself. Look at your own personal experience and see who has what you really want around you. Then you can see the truth about this stuff.

              • Dimplz Says:

                I wasn’t addressing you with the “convenient theories” phrase, but if you took it personally, maybe it applies to you. It actually speaks to any woman who wants to call herself a feminist but can’t call a guy or one who represses her sexual desires out of a need to control a man.
                If you didn’t know what I meant, I’m really curious to know why you’d be so quick to judge me as presumptuous. Oh wait, I know, it’s because I said I was Christian. It’s ok dear, I can take the label. Name-call away.

                • M Says:

                  It doesnt apply because I don’t call myself a feminist by any stretch but if it wasn’t intended for anyone personally, I take back my comment about you being judgmental. But, I wouldn’t call myself Christian personally if I didn’t embrace the most basic Biblical principles about how God intended men and women to relate to one another. If you’d like verses, I can share about 10-20 of them that talk about chastity outside of marriage and men being the pursuers. I don’t think we need to go there because I get the feeling you are not serious about faith in the Bible so I don’t want to waste anyone’s time. If what you’re doing is working for you, and you have rich and rewarding love in your life, then keep doing it. You may be on the right track. Who am I to say otherwise? Only you know when you hit the pillow at night. I know what works for me and I see a lot of needless suffering out there so I’d love to shake these women who are hurting themselves…As for the men, they won’t change and most of them aren’t introspective enough to come by these conversations honestly. Like our friend CR said “he goes with his gut”. And most men’s guts land them with self-respecting women long term. But everyone’s got their own journey. Keep on the path with God and it sorts itself out. Have a great day.

                  • dimplz Says:

                    Spoken like a true narrow-minded Christian.

                    If you want to have this discussion, you can come over to my blog, since it is based on Christianity and Theology of the Body principles by Pope John Paul II. Nowhere in these talks or anywhere in the Bible does it mention that sex is a gift from a wife to her husband. That is what is taught to young people, because it’s the easiest way to convey a complicated concept. When we grow up, we realize that the reason we (meaning myself) wait is because we believe that marriage is a sacrament and sex is to be shared within that sacrament. Sharing that kind of love with another other than a spouse is considered adultery. Also, the original sin committed opened the door for perversion in sex, so we regain control and sanctify it by marrying.

                    I call myself Christian, not perfect. The problem with people like you is you think you’re better than everyone else because of your beliefs, and anyone who doesn’t adopt your principles is wrong. I don’t feel that way. I don’t condemn anyone else’s lifestyle or choices. You’re out here throwing stones and justifying waiting when really, to you, it’s a game of who can hold out the longest. I haven’t played that game. Ever. I stand by my choices because I believe in my church’s doctrine and that marriage is a sacrament.
                    Like CR said, you’re making a man wait because you are giving yourself like some kind of prize. Just like Jay-Z’s (yes, I listen to Jay-Z) lyrics in “I’m a Hustla:”

                    “Yeah, save the narrative you savin it for marriage
                    Let’s keep it real ma you savin it for cabbage
                    You wanna see how far I’ma go
                    How, much I’ma spend but you already know ”

                    Nothing wrong with that – but just be honest with yourself.

                    • M Says:

                      I’ll give you some credit. At least you are worth dialoguing with. You are the first person here to actually own a belief of any kind so I respect that. But, you also have me pegged wrong. I am no “narrow minded Christian” and in fact, I never said I was better than anyone because of my beliefs. What I saif was (and I stand by it) that my approach to dating, which is somewhat traditional, has saved me a lot of pain and suffering that I see women going through under the guise of “feminisim” or “modernism”. And, my motive here, far from wanting to be superior, is to speak against some of these increasingly pervasive wrong ideas that women are buying into, even though it is causing them pain and failure in this area. Lastly, I am curious whether you consider yourself a “Christian” or a “Feminist” or both. And Do you believe that you should “Submit to your husband”? That is one of many Bible versus which speaks to the unequal power dynamic between men and women in a Christian marriage. I actually endorse this. It’s not easy because I am a strong willed person but like you, I am Christian, not perfect. However, I don’t know a lot of feminists that would be comfortable with the concept that a wife should submit to her husband. Also, to be clear, Catholic and Christian are not the same thing. I respect Catholicism. However, there is some space between what the Bible says about male / female relationships, and how Catholics interpret it in their traditions. I am not saying that Catholics are wrong. I am just saying that there is more than one way to intepret those verses.

                    • dimplz Says:

                      “Catholic and Christian are not the same thing.” Say what?

                      Submitting to a man doesn’t mean what you think it means. In today’s society, it’s seen as a negative thing to be vulnerable or submit, when it’s actually quite the opposite. It’s about being faithful and allowing trust in a relationship.

                      Feminism does not equal modernism. It’s about recognizing femininity in a lens other than male. It’s not perfect, but there are many women who’ve made wonderful strides in the movement. Just like the Civil Rights Movement, it was a necessary change.

                      You never said you were better than anyone. You just insulted our intelligence down thread. Hardly a strong argument coming from a professed logician.

      • M Says:

        For the attractive gentleman by the name of “crotch rocket” You may say you don’t like the hoops but I bet you’ve jumped through them for the hard to get girl more than once or you haven’t because you were too lazy and you’re bitter because you couldn’t get her because she had standards and boundaries and/or you’ve broken the heart of a girl who was into you because you took advantage of her easiness. So your actions probably dont line up with your claims, like most men that try to engage in these theoretical discussions. I’ve never slept with a man and had him not call or had a man fear commitment so I’m pretty sure I’m on to something that works. It’s not about winning a prize. It’s about maintaining some self-respect while getting to know someone and weeding out people who aren’t worth your time without giving your body to them. Any man who reels against that is probably one of the guys who gets weeded out a lot, no offense.

        • Crotch Rocket Says:

          “You may say you don’t like the hoops but I bet you’ve jumped through them … or you haven’t ” Betting both sides of the same proposition? Take a stand. And, while I’m at it, please learn some grammar; if you don’t care enough about your ideas to express them well, don’t expect others to care about them either.

          “I bet you’ve jumped through [hoops] for the hard to get girl” I did when I was younger, but not anymore. My life has enough stress and drama without dating women who deliberately make it worse–and I’ve seen how miserable my friends and coworkers who married such women ended up. No thanks.

          “you’ve broken the heart of a girl who was into you because you took advantage of her easiness” Yep, did that a bit when I was younger as well. I do my best not to now; it’s bad karma.

          “your actions probably dont line up with your claims,” Since you don’t point to specific “claims”, it’s hard to know what you’re referring to here, but my claims about my own feelings do match my own actions. However, I also recognize that many men have different feelings and different actions, and most of my comments here take that into account, hence the generalities.

          “I’ve never slept with a man and had him not call or had a man fear commitment so I’m pretty sure I’m on to something that works.” Do not confuse correlation for causation. Also, I suspect your supposed success in dating is largely due to who you date rather than what hoops you make them jump through.

          “It’s about maintaining some self-respect while getting to know someone and weeding out people who aren’t worth your time without giving your body to them.” First, someone with a healthy self-esteem can have sex, even casual sex, without it affecting their self-respect. Second, “giving your body” implies that you think sex is some sort of gift that women bestow on men as a reward for “good” behavior, not something that “good” women should (or even can) enjoy themselves. This sort of judgmental, anti-sex attitude is exactly why no longer date women who make a point of being Christian.

          • M Says:

            I’m definitely not anti-sex and probably have a bigger sex drive than many women out there, In a serious committed relationship where it actually means something as an expression of love and intimacy which isn’t possible with strangers. For someone whose so adamant against “generalizations”, that’s a big generalization on your part, that any woman with a self-respecting attitude about her body is “anti-sex”. The fact that you have no respect for a woman’s body or the act of making love shows that you’re the exact kind of guy that the Bible was written to protect women against. So I’m glad God gave it to us. And all the men I’ve dated held the doors, paid for dates, asked for a commitment, and respected my boundaries. Anyone who shows signs of anything else doesn’t get a second glance from me. It’s sad that there are women out there giving people the time of day who demoralize them like that, because it teaches people like you that you can what you want without deserving it. But hopefully they’ll learn. In the meanwhile, at least I know I’m going to be treated well because no man without respectful values is slipping by my boundaries. And by the way, leveraging empriricism and believing in Biblical principles are not mutually exclusive. Take a basic logic class. There’s absolutely no logical relationship whatsoever. If you’re still single disrespecting women “Crotch Rocket”, maybe you’ll grow up when you get sick of not getting laid by anyone that your heart desires to call the next day.

            • DrivingMeNutes Says:

              “And by the way, leveraging empriricism and believing in Biblical principles are not mutually exclusive. Take a basic logic class.”

              Really? I think you should take a basic bible class. (No offense.)

            • dimplz Says:

              See, now, I’m going to put you in the “convenient theories” category. Having sex outside of marriage is wrong, if you’re going to use the Bible to back up your beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you love each other. It doesn’t matter if you’re committed. If you’re not married, it’s wrong. Period. Don’t go twisting the verses to suit your liking. This is why people don’t like Christians. You can admit you’re sinning, but don’t get sanctimonious when you’re not living what you believe, either.

              • M Says:

                I never said it wasn’t wrong to have sex outside of marriage. You made an assumption. You know what they say about for empiricism and biblical principles, they are absolutely not contradictory. God gave us brains to use. I’ve taken plenty of Bible classes, science, and logic classes.. You probably shouldn’t hop in a conversation when you have no argument. None of you are going to win on logical grounds because you’re not intelligent enough, and no one has even remotely tried to make any empirical cases for a position or even asserted a position! I’m getting a little bored. When you actually know what you believe and can make a case for it, go for it.Then we can have a real conversation.

                • dimplz Says:

                  Yes, I am making assumptions based on what you have written.

                  “Traditional values are traditional for a reason, the Bible is still around for a reason..” Except for when it contradicts what I’m doing, then I am allowed to do as I please.

                  “I’ve taken plenty of Bible classes, science, and logic classes” And? That just makes you a student; it doesn’t speak to your intelligence.

                  I just called you out on your hypocrisy and it’s getting under your skin, hence your passive aggressive response of, “None of you are going to win on logical grounds because you’re not intelligent enough.”

                  Keeping your legs closed doesn’t exhibit self-awareness; knowing why you keep them closed does.

                  “When you actually know what you believe…” Well, we know what you believe — you have a vagina, therefore, you are the most special creature on the planet. You take lots of classes, therefore you’re smart. You make men wait, therefore you are superior, and we are all dumb because we don’t agree with you. Now, you’re bailing under the guise of boredom, when really, you’re just an entitled woman who can’t own up to the fact that she’s being entitled.

                  I disagree with commenters here all the time, and it’s never turned into an ad hominem attack. You need to grow up.

                  • M Says:

                    Actually, I got unbored when you asserted a position as you would see from my response above. But it seems the only one who feels superior here is you, After a 10 minute blog conversation, you have me diagnosed as entitiled and you think you understand all my motives in relationships. You haven’t actually asked me anything and you are the Biblical expert on Chastity. The Bible does protect women because it teaches us God’s will for us. When we live in accordance with our nature, which is to be in alignment with Him, we don’t suffer. When we don’t (i.e. giving our body over willy nilly on the first date (as one example)), there is a spiritual pain that takes place. IT is painful to live outside of God’s moral code for us, and unnatural. Do I do it in different ways on any given day? Absolutely. But at least I know what the goal is. It is depressing to see how people don’t know. The fact that you have not yet had the confidence to speak honestly, until I provoked you, makes this conversation worth my time. Because I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. Although, I don’t think you were taking a stand until now. I am glad we had this little chat. I won’t take it personally that you have presumed to know more about me than you actually do, because the end result was good.

                    • dimplz Says:

                      Hmmm…you’re right…I did diagnose you, after you wrote this: “If you’d like verses, I can share about 10-20 of them that talk about chastity outside of marriage and men being the pursuers. I don’t think we need to go there because I get the feeling you are not serious about faith in the Bible so I don’t want to waste anyone’s time.”

                      And you got the feeling I wasn’t serious about faith, how?

              • Paula Says:

                Dimplz: This is why people don’t like Christians.

                You got that right, and I was raised as one. If your religious views shape your dating habits so much, then only date people with compatible values.

                • dimplz Says:

                  Sing it, sister.

                • M Says:

                  I actually agree with that! Date people who share your core values for sure. The question is, religious or not, whether or not your proclaimed core values actually line up with your experience. That is where people get pissed at what I am suggesting. I know women who would not call themselves Christian but find themselves scratching their heads heartbroken when they do not have boundaries with men because they felt like the connection was so real and then he loses interest quickly after getting physical satisfaction. They don’t have to be Christian to feel hurt by that and wish it could have been different. I am suggesting that it can be different. Yes, my reasons may be spiritual in nature, but someone could adopt more traditional values in dating as a practical matter as well because it tends to work out better for them. Hence all the non-religious dating books which say similar things. I could name a ton of them. Do I agree with their underlying reasons? Not necessarily. But they are getting at some truth. I believe the Bible said it first and best before the “rules” came out. And without knowing why traditional values work, it may be enough for some secular people to know the avoidance of unnecessary pain and suffering priniciple. Like a kid learns not to put a hand on a hot stove. Sleeping with men too soon is similar. If I were asked personally, I might cite that God made us a certain way and that’s why I believe certain approaches to dating lead to pain more than others. But, you don’t have to believe that to make a practical decision not to set yourself up for unnecessary heartbreak. Anyhoo, hating Christians because of generalizations and assumptions would be unfortunate. But I certainly don’t take it personally if a stranger misunderstands me and hates me on the basis of a misperception. In that case, it is really their issue, not mine.

            • Saj Says:

              I’m a bit late on the replies but I grew up semi religious but don’t really go to church anymore but I can’t hate on everything M is saying and I know many non religious people get a knee jerk negative reaction when someone brings up the bible but here is my take on it.

              Mormons have rules that you can choose to follow them or don’t. I don’t follow every rule (my coffee sure tastes good this morning and wine sure tastes good at night) but I can understand some of the benefits of them.

              Sex before marriage? (well I didn’t quite meet that requirement for that (cough) but it makes sense if you want to avoid pregnancy or getting hurt spiritually) It’s hard for a non spiritual person to relate but I guess I would compare it to just feeling hurt in your gut and feeling like you let yourself down and no this isn’t related to the emotion of guilt.

              Coffee or Alcohol? (well too much caffeine does make you feel crappy and feeling altered all the time is probably not the best way to go through life especially if you have other people depending on you)

              But M is right. She had high expectations for her partners respecting her personal boundaries as did I and it worked out in meeting and weeding out men who were either willing to treat us the way we preferred or didn’t and avoided a lot of hurt and heartbreak in the process. I never saw it as men needing to “chase me” just him respecting me. Here are my boundaries if you keep pushing me then you don’t respect me and we aren’t compatible. I’ll also respect your boundaries and relationships are no different.

              Good men are the same way. They have their own boundaries and morals and personal guidelines and take personal pride in that. Why is a woman who does the same thing considered entitled or flawed in someway? It’s not about money or jumping through hoops it’s just treating each other with respect.

              • Andthatswhyyouresingle Says:

                Aaaand…scene. We’ve gotten way off topic.

              • dimplz Says:

                You and M are conflating respect with patience. A man can be patient and wait for a woman because he really wants to go to bed with her, but respect is a totally different element. Like CR said, you are confusing correlation with causation. A man who doesn’t respect a woman can wait just as long as a man who does. Waiting does not equal respect. Just because I wait on a line and don’t complain doesn’t mean I’m not bothered by it or don’t wish I didn’t have to wait. Once that next register opens, I’m quick to make a line change. Do you see what I mean?

                The reason M finds men who respect her is more than likely because they already share her core beliefs. Where she errs is when she believes that’s the reason why all men do or don’t find women dateable (to which I have yet to see any empirical evidence of).

                • Saj Says:

                  It’s not about waiting really it’s when you know they respect you and aren’t just giving you a line. Know long how long I waited before sleeping with my husband after spending physical time with him? 8 days. We were long distance before then for a bit but spent enough time talking and really understanding each others values.

                  The key thing isn’t about religion really or waiting just to make him want you more (that’s bullshit). How do I phrase it…. It’s when a girl shows through her actions and words that she has high respect for herself it is more likely the guy will respect her too. This isn’t the same as someone bashing another person over the head with how many degrees they have or some amount of money he has to spend ahead of time to gauge interest.

                  I’m sorry if this isn’t PC but taking a guy home the first night who hasn’t really done more then talk to you nicely and blowing him when he in his head was thinking meh about her I’ll take what I can get isn’t generating respect. It’s better this guy think you are a waste of time and effort to play that game with you if he isn’t all that into it. Having reasonable standards and stating them up front gets you that much closer rather then just doing the wait and see with multiple guys having absolutely no clue if their values match yours because you are scared you will drive him away.

              • M Says:

                Amen Saj! Finally someone who actually understands the spirit of what I am saying…It is all about having boundaries and having them be respected. Nothing judgmental or negative about that! In fact, I am pretty used to people agreeing with my values and views in dialogue and respecting them, men and women alike. So, I am actually surprised at how this thread has gotten. But, it’s okay. A good healthy debate never hurt anyone and deep down, I feel like this is an important topic and if nothing else, it helps to firm one’s own standards and values to have to articulate them. So in spite of being attacked by all these people, I am glad this conversation is happening!

  9. AmyRose Says:

    I think a point that has been discussed ad-nauseum and really is the core element here is that if a woman wants to act masculine about sex, then essentially she has to “man-up” when things dont go beyond that and morph into something more. Along the same line, there are definetely some guys and girls that really are really only FWB or one night stand material. Alot of times these bad behaviors to hide the fact that they are broken and dysfunctional and one night of solace with them is enough. The problem is when we think they have bared their true soul to us and connected so well with us that we can change them and fix their problems. The fact is nobody is perfect, but if I have learned nothing in my 25 yrs of dating it is that a partner needs to come fully assembled. They might be missing some parts, or batteries, but they must be fully functional without the aid of substances or a co-dependant partner.

  10. Craig Says:

    “If they fuck you “too soon” and they intended on seeing you again, then you are both fuckable and dateable. If they fuck you “too soon” and deem you “undateable” they never intended on dating you in the first place.” – Moxie

    This is absolutely correct and it’s what I’ve been trying to tell women for years. Good to see some of them are starting to get it. That said, it is true that there are still some men out there who do indeed have the “Madonna/whore” complex. For whatever reasons, such men are still steeped in outdated 1950s era cultural standards. However, these men are more the exception than the norm – and you don’t want them anyway. That mindset will reveal itself in various aspects of the relationship that will not turn out well for a woman. A man whose ideals about women are outdated in that aspect, usually subscribes to outdated ideals in all aspects. After requiring that your virtue be intact, next thing you know he’ll be demanding that you always be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

    That said, while most men realize that a woman they’re dating likely has been around the block a few times, we’d still rather not hear about it. I’m sure that works both ways. So keep it to yourselves ladies. Men should do the same. How many people you’ve fucked in the past is not relevant in the present. It should really be a don’t ask, don’t tell policy.

    • Brad Says:

      Good points Craig. I’ll even add one more scenario for Moxie:

      Even if you make them wait, if they deem you “undateable” they never intended on dating you in the first place. Making them wait artificially long could, by itself, get you branded as undatable.

  11. thisguy Says:

    I affirm 100 percent your final paragraph. A woman giving up sex too early does not ruin a man’s desire to court her for the long-term. I do believe forcing a man to wait for sex (4-6 dates) will totally weed out the “hit-it-and-quit-it” types.

  12. Capt. Jack Sparrow Says:

    This discussion prompted a curious thought about how women view men’s numbers. On a sliding scale, which facts are better or worse if you learned they were true about the guy you’re seeing:

    1. He has high numbers, but says he was emotionally committed to all of them.
    2. He has high numbers, but says he was emotionally committed to only a few of them.
    3. He has high numbers, but says he was emotionally committed to none of them.
    4. He has low numbers, and says he was emotionally committed to all of them.
    5. He has low numbers, and says he was emotionally committed to only a few of them.
    6. He has low numbers, and says he was emotionally committed to none of them.

    What do the women posters think?

    • Saj Says:

      I think just like what Craig said that it’s unreasonable to expect that many women haven’t been around the block and the same goes for a man who has likely had sex with women he wasn’t all that into.

      However if I had a choice I’d go for 4 and 5 because it matches my own values. 1 seems strange because that is many intense short term relationships and speaks to a high amount of drama. 2 wouldn’t be a good fit for me. 3 is a man whore and 6 is probably a 3 wannabe with little skills with women.

    • dimplz Says:

      I don’t care about any of those scenarios. If the guy demonstrated that he wanted to be in a serious relationship and treated me well, I wouldn’t even care about his past. I’ve never asked anyone how many women they’d been with, because I don’t care. If they are with me and want to be with me, who cares.

    • Paula Says:

      1. He has high numbers, but says he was emotionally committed to all of them.
      He’s lying to himself, picks really badly, is delusionally mentally ill, or is hell on wheels in a relationship. If he was truly emotionally committed, his numbers shouldn’t be so high, because many relationships fail because one partner wasn’t as committed as the other.

      2. He has high numbers, but says he was emotionally committed to only a few of them.
      This is what I would trust the most, in that he’s demonstrated that he’s capable of emotional commitment, but is also able to separate sex from love. Assuming he didn’t lie to the few he wasn’t emotionally committed to in order to boost his numbers, I think that’s healthy.

      3. He has high numbers, but says he was emotionally committed to none of them.
      This indicates brokenness/damage/incapacity, and chances are good he had to lie to some of them in order to score. Not good.

      4. He has low numbers, and says he was emotionally committed to all of them.
      It probably means that he was capable of long-term commitment, and happened to be with a partner who felt the same way. He was either precociously self-aware, or downright lucky, to pick the right people, and secure enough not to feel he was “missing out” by not having the sexual volume or variety that other guys his age were having.

      5. He has low numbers, and says he was emotionally committed to only a few of them.
      Probably a geek or socially awkward, capable of emotional commitment, but also not as able to play the field as he might have wanted for himself. Very excited when he discovers women who want him just for sex., but of the 6, the most likely to have a FWB converted to relationship status.

      6. He has low numbers, and says he was emotionally committed to none of them.
      These are the scary ones: there’s something wrong with them, whether it be mental illness, profound unattractiveness or creepiness, or a low sex drive (or one that deviates in some way from conventional heterosexual sex — not saying other forms of sexuality are deviant, but it means that he felt the need to suppress whatever he was feeling). Try to stay away at all costs.

      • Paula Says:

        Hit send too soon: my personal rankings are…

        2 — 5 — 4 — 1 — 3 — 6

        (w/ only 2, 5, and 4 striking me as appropriately dateable for me. FWIW, I put myself in the 2 category, so it makes sense that’s what I would favor (although I didn’t realize that until after I had ranked them.))

    • M Says:

      1. Codependent needy type. Steer clear too high maintenance
      2. Selfish and immature – unless his high numbers were just a phase that he learned fro
      and it’s long since over (problem is most people don’t change that much)
      3. Selfish commitment phobe at best, sociopath at worst
      4. Could be a good mature guy
      5. A little weird – shy at least
      6. Dysfunctional

  13. Crotch Rocket Says:

    “Since when does having and liking sex automatically … prevent you from being date-able?” I don’t know, but that would seem rather counter-productive for men if it were true. I’m looking for a woman who loves having sex with me–not one who puts up with it to “catch” a man and/or withholds it to get her way.

    “If they fuck you ‘too soon’ and deem you ‘undateable’ they never intended on dating you in the first place. It’s not the sex that makes a woman undateable.” I think I agree with you here, but let me restate it more clearly: Men decide whether you’re dateable or not before you have sex with them, so how soon the latter happened is obviously not a factor in that judgment. Either way, though, we’re still interested in fucking you; if we weren’t, we wouldn’t have asked you out in the first place.

    “What really makes a woman fuckable versus dateable is her taste in men.” That has very little to do with it, except to the extent it might be a symptom of deeper problems.

  14. Capt. Jack Sparrow Says:

    If a man f*cks you, it’s because he wanted to f*ck you. I agree with that. But I don’t agree that a man decides whether he wants to date you before. If we’re just talking first impressions, then maybe we know f*ckability and datability before either. But if we’re talking “relationship material,” obviously that takes a while to process and digest.

    But in the end, girls try to justify why a guy wasn’t into them b/c they f*cked to soon or not soon enough … but it’s simpler than that. It’s because the guy wasn’t into you. A lot of factors go into how men perceive women … this is only one (small) factor.

    • Saj Says:

      Ok so what are some perhaps general defining factors on a first impression that make you think hrm…relationship candidate or hit it until she gets too clingy. I know every man has his own taste in women but for each individual when you have a first date what puts her into either category if sex is only a small part of it.

      • Crotch Rocket Says:

        For me, at least, it’s not a conscious thing; I just have a gut feeling when getting to know someone whether we’re compatible or not, rather than sitting there with a checklist marking off points for various things she says/does. I think we all look for the same various positive character and personality attributes; the major difference comes in how we weight them. A deficiency that may be a show-stopper for some men may be completely irrelevant to others–or at least outweighed by other strengths. OTOH, there seem to be a lot of women out there with few to no identifiable strengths, other than possessing a vagina, so it’s not surprising that most/all of the men they date come to the same conclusion.

  15. Devon Brown Says:

    Well said.

    The Madonna/whore complex is yet another result of our society not shedding its antiquated morals as quickly as it sheds its antiquated actions. We will act like modern, intelligent, rational people but then we will beat ourselves up because we are using an operating guide from the 1950s. It’s time to update our mental and emotional manuals and make them more in line with our lives.

    – Devon

  16. VJ Says:

    It easily might & can be quite a bit more complicated than this, but one perspective is that if they’re Not Ultimately F*ckable, they’re really Un-dateable too. I mean, truly, why bother? Friends W/O Benefits? Mommy who cooks & cleans? This is the other side of the whole dysfunctional ‘Madonna/Whore’ complex. If Jerry Hall’s momma can get this straight in the 1950s (if not earlier) why oh why are we so damn mystified?

    So if you’re incapable of an adult intimate relationship? Get some therapy, please. And/Or start choosing better, more sane, non destructive & Non crazy partners. Or avoid abusive ones that try and unconsciously recapitulate your abusive pasts. It’s not only part & parcel of growing up & loving AS an adult. And sorry, it’s actually required in almost all instances for one of those adult intimate relationships.

    So again, the answer to the question is Not Either OR, but Both And! Most guys? Prefer BOTH F*ckable & Datable gals. Preferably in the same person & body too. Ditto for the personality, 1 & the Same! Cheers, ‘VJ’

  17. Infinity Says:

    I recently had to let someone go because he wanted immediate sex. It was sad, because I really liked him. I figured if he liked me at all, he wouldn’t have minded seeing me a few more times before having sex. I think the more a man cares for a woman, the more likely he is willing to wait.

    • Crotch Rocket Says:

      “I recently had to let someone go because he wanted immediate sex.” If that’s your policy, I suggest you get some cats and/or date only gay men. A man won’t ask you out in the first place if he doesn’t want to fuck you.

      “I figured if he liked me at all, he wouldn’t have minded seeing me a few more times before having sex.” Note: there’s a non-trivial difference between accepting something gracefully and “not minding” it.

      “I think the more a man cares for a woman, the more likely he is willing to wait.” That is probably true, but note that the reverse does not hold. Being willing to wait doesn’t mean he cares for you; it could just as easily mean he’s either bored, desperate or without other options.

      I’ve waited quite a while with some girls I really cared about but eventually gave up on; I’ve also waited a similar number of dates for girls I didn’t care about at all who were so smokin’ hot they would have been worth all the time, money and effort. So don’t go drawing any conclusions about a guy’s intent based on that.

    • M Says:

      Amen Infinity, good looking out for yourself. It takes a lot of strength to walk away when the feelings are there. But you always have to put yourself first and your values. It sounds like you did that. And, in a sense, you are being patient, having faith, and respecting yourself. By doing that, you are not unavailable when the right worthy kind of guy comes around.

  18. Cackles Says:

    I don’t have anything to add to the topic that hasn’t already been thoroughly covered by all the other men (and several of the women), so I’ll simply say this:

    I am positively amazed at how some women are utterly convinced of their expertise on male psychology despite all evidence to the contrary.

    • Crotch Rocket Says:

      Not only that, I’m amazed at the number of women who think nothing of telling men we’re wrong when we tell them how we think/feel/act.

  19. Saj Says:

    Nobody will ever want to admit why they always end up in the fuckable category time and time again. It must be someone else’s fault, the guys fault, societies fault or some other excuse so they don’t have to change one smidgen of their behavior.

    If being traditional is a pain or outdated then just be like Logan’s Run and be FWB’s with everyone and stop complaining about it. You can’t say I don’t want to behaive traditional but I want a guy or woman to have a traditional relationship with me (as in long term and monagmous) . The people who can’t seem to settle down should just date each other short term until they die and be content with that if blaming outside forces is their solution.

    Denial is one hellava drug.

    • Paula Says:

      A committed and exclusive relationship is a big deal, not something that should be entered into lightly. If more people would be content with being in the “f*ckable” category, rather than doing everything they can (including the sex) to try to end up in a relationship with someone who isn’t a good relationship candidate (or to be in a relationship themselves when they’re not a good relationship candidate), then this blog would probably have to shut down because there wouldn’t be nearly as much to write about.

      There’s all this talk about how women should use more discretion before making their bodies available…and not nearly enough about how women should use much much more discretion before turning their heart over to someone else. Giving your heart away just because you’re having sex is a huge mistake, if the person you’re giving it to isn’t worthy of it. A bad relationship or intense breakup is going to mess you up emotionally much much more than a one-night stand or a friends with benefits situation, so don’t let your natural, human desires (or need to conform to societal or religious standards) take you there.

      • dimplz Says:

        I have to add too, that there seems to be this underlying assumption that men don’t hurt or get attached. They do. Let’s not forget that we (men and women) just don’t express our heartbreak or react to a heartbreak in the same manner, but that doesn’t disqualify our hurt.

  20. DrivingMeNutes Says:

    Re-reading this post is like visiting a graveyard of some of the best commenters from the past. Well, 2011. As an aside, if I could travel through time, I’d go back to 2011 and find out what the fuck 2011 DMN was talking about.

    • Sarah Says:

      Sadly the double standard is alive and well particularly with men in the older age group. I have learned the hard way that if you want a meaningful and respectful relationship you have to hold back. Being judged hurts big time especially when you genuinely hoped for a relationship. Im not someone who indulges in one night stands and certainly dont consider myself promiscuous but on the few occasions I have had sex early in the dating game it was because I felt comfortable with the person and the chemistry was strong. I’m also a confident woman and not afraid to let loose and enjoy myself in the bedroom which is often perceived wrongly ! A guy once bought me an expensive Xmas present but never gave it to me because I ‘put out too soon’. I have also been disrespected and treated like a cheap whore. I don’t agree with the double standard but it’s a sad fact of life. That’s just the way some men’s minds work. I’m not having sex with anyone again until I have been dating them for at least a couple of months. Im not giving some a@@hole an excuse to judge me or classify me again and that’s purely for my own self preservation. Maybe some of the judgemental men out there end up married to frigid women devoid of pertonality and tell end up screwing around on the side

  21. Jarvin Says:

    For what it’s worth….I have very a low number, am considered attractive, though I would label myself as a #5 from above, am a mix of conservative but not a weirdo. Would fall into the “date-able” category if that even exits for men.

    I met a outgoing girl who I fell in love with, only to find out later (after getting physical), that she had a high number (50+ i think) and had expected to sleep with me on the first date. I was shocked to find out how this hurt on a deeper level….I felt the amazing moments we shared were for me a nearly unique moment, but for her was just one very small piece of a large sexual activity life.

    What is the take-away? Still love while dealing with the differences in history and the deeper hurt of knowing she has been had by many men?

    Find someone else who matches my history and take on life?

    Go bang a bunch of women to “get over-it” and become a modern man?

© 2013-2018 And That's Why You're Single All Rights Reserved