any guy looking for instant gratification isn’t in to you. okay? get it ladies? if he was really
in to you, he’d be afraid to make a move, afraid it would offend you and ruin his chances at really being with you. do you get it now? – Dina
Agree or Disagree?
A few years ago I may have agreed with this. But now? Nope.
Take a look at this article from the New York Post.
Women are jumping into the sack faster and with fewer expectations about long-term commitments than ever, effectively discounting the “price” of sex to a record low, according to social psychologists.
More than 25% of young women report giving it up within the first week of dating. While researchers don’t have a baseline to compare it to, interviews they have conducted lead them to believe this is higher than before, which increases the pressure on other women and changes the expectations of men.
“The price of sex is about how much one party has to do in order to entice the other into being sexual,” said Kathleen Vohs, of the University of Minnesota, who has authored several papers on “sexual economics.” “It might mean buying her a drink or an engagement ring. These behaviors vary in how costly they are to the man, and that is how we quantify the price of sex.”
By boiling dating down to an economic model, researchers have found that men are literally getting lots of bang for their buck. Women, meanwhile, are getting very little tat for their . . . well, you get the idea.
Sex is so cheap that researchers found a full 30% of young men’s sexual relationships involve no romance at all — no wooing, dating, goofy text messaging. Nothing. Just sex.
Men want sex more than women do. It’s a fact that sounds sexist and outdated. But it is a fact all the same — one that women used for centuries to keep the price of sex high (if you liked it back in the day, you really had to put a ring on it). With gender equality, the Pill and the advent of Internet porn, women’s control of the meet market has been butchered.
As a result, says Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, men are “quicker to have sex in our relationships these days, slower to commitment and just plain pickier.”
The issue is partly one of supply and demand, and it begins at US colleges, where 57% of students are women. With such an imbalanced sex ratio, women are using hookups to compete with other women for men’s affections. Once they get out of school, the pool of successful, educated men also is imbalanced, and the bed-hopping continues.
Regnerus likens the price of sex to the housing market. Too many foreclosures in one community, and the price of neighboring homes start to plummet. This is why single women in New York sometimes feel as though sex on the first date is a given: According to the market, it is.
“Every sex act is part of a ‘pricing’ of sex for subsequent relationships,” Regnerus said. “If sex has been very easy to get for a particular young man for many years and over the course of multiple relationships, what would eventually prompt him to pay a lot for it in the future — that is, committing to marry?”
Did you answer, “Love”? You’re adorable.
“Sexual strategies for making men ‘fall in love’ typically backfire, because men don’t often work like that,” Regnerus says.
One thing I’ve noticed about men and women’s blogs on sex/dating is they both tend to focus on the same thing; what men should do to attract and keep women. The key difference is that the men are far more likely to understand what women actually want. I know this is counterintuitive, but women as a group are completely clueless about what they actually want, and (most importantly) actually respond to. – Dalrock
To further add to her ‘women give bad advice’ point – one of our first post coital conversations was ‘we didn’t meet online and didn’t get into bed until after a month’. I’ll go along with it – for her friends anyway. I’m not going to emasculate myself to my friends. – M.
To which I replied:
The whole purpose behind her request to spin the story is that she wants to be the one in her group of friends that didn’t have to lower herself to meet someone online. She also wants them to think that she made you “earn it” and that you were so in to her that you waited because that’s probably exactly what she’s told her friends. “Oh, Betty, you slept with him too soon! You have to make him work for it!” See what mean? Inter-gender competition. – Moxie
DMN replied with:
The real irony is that each one of her friends is doing the exact same thing. They are ALL dating online, sleeping with men and engaging in casual sex but claiming not to be doing it. It’s all complete nonsense.
If I’m reading this correctly, what Dalrock and M. and DMN are saying is that men tap in to our need for attention and to feel valued. They also are aware of our need to one up our female counterparts. Since many men don’t equate sex with affection or assign an emotional value to it and don’t have as strong a drive to compete with their male peers, withholding sex as a way to earn their affection or loyalty usually backfires.
So the question is….if women were to turn the tables on men and take a similar approach…what would that be? Is there one?
Thoughts?
October 14th, 2011 at 10:35 am
I think that women already are turning the tables on men and pursuing sex fairly aggressively. Which is the thematic gist of the article…the more aggressive pursuit of sex by women has devalued sex as a commodity with which to purchase commitment.
I had FWBs in college in the 80s, before the term was even invented (guys I wanted to sleep with, but not date). In those days, if I wanted to have sex, I had it, sometimes with guys I didn’t even like but was attracted to physically.
One thing I do think Dina is right about is this…when a guy throws out sex talk with someone who is essentially a stranger, he’s testing the waters for her response. One of the ways that I weeded guys out, back when I was dating online, was that particular behavior. I was told, by my male friends, that guys used that as a form of bait. If you took the bait, they knew you would probably sleep with them on a first or second date. If a guy threw that out there, I assumed (and I still believe) that he was looking for sex, not an actual relationship.
Anyway, that’s my 2 cents.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Human beings hate rejection when they have invested themselves. A woman having sex after numerous dates means she has invested herself in some way. She hates when that is met with a subsequent fade or being dropped like a hot potato.
Men invest time and financial resources and hate when a woman refuses to get intimate with him in the time frame she normally gets intimate with a guy, but keeps indulging in the use of his time and financial resources. And the key part of that is the last piece “the time she normally gets intimate with a guy” So if a woman normally gets intimate with a guy after 6 months, that’s the standard the guy dating her will hold her to. However if he knows she sleeps with guys within the first two dates and won’t sleep with him after four dates, he will interpret this as rejection. He will interpret it as being second choice.
The reality may be that she does this because she actually likes him a lot and doesn’t want to screw it up. He may even realize that on some level. But he he keeps asking himself, “what did those guys have to get her into bed within two dates and I don’t have, that I can’t get her to sleep with me after four dates”.
So women, you have many choices here. Pick one:
1.Don’t let guys have any inkling of the time you typically take to sleep with a guy, but if he ever finds out he was made to wait much more than the next guy, before it’s all cemented emotionally, he may harbor resentment. And even after he is emotionally attached, he might still be pissed off. Guys can be pissed off about this even years later into a long relationship, so he is making you wait extra long for a marriage proposal to get back at you, and he doesn’t even know he is doing that on a conscious level.
2.If you sleep with guys within two dates don’t string the guy you really like out for an endless amount of time because it will yield poor long term results.
3. Don’t go around sleeping with guys quickly if you ever plan on making the “one” wait.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
October 14th, 2011 at 10:58 am
Something that should be simple has become complicated, mostly because women who would withhold sex as part of game playing, belief in their golden vagina, or because they thought it was leveraging a relationship, are now upset that guys are onto them.
It’s real simple. If you want to have sex, have it. If you don’t want to have sex, don’t. Have it be an expression of your desires and feelings, not a bargaining chip. As guys here are perfectly happy to tell you, if they want to be in a relationship with someone, it doesn’t matter when they start having sex with you. And if they’re not so inclined, then when you have sex isn’t going to change that equation.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
9
October 14th, 2011 at 11:10 am
I’m a little confused: what would be a similar approach? To give men more attention or less? The “need for attention and to feel valued” is complex and can be manipulated. The pickup guys advocate a push-pull dynamic that keeps her guessing whether you’re really interested. Isn’t that what the Rules says too?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
October 14th, 2011 at 11:16 am
I have to agree with the OP. Guys you could tell were not all that serious were FAR more sexually pushy right away as opposed to their counterparts who did want something more and would throw out much more subtle signals and let me have the choice on how far to proceed in that direction.
From reading that article about the value of sex all it shows to me is that the aggressive female approach is NOT working. Women are competing which each other and having sex right away but is it working? Are they getting their relationships or commitment? Or are they just getting more of the same over and over and don’t want to adjust their strategy because then they would have to admit that the gifts of their body wasn’t as important to the guy as she thought it would be. That’s a huge blow to a woman’s ego to admit that truth.
All these women on blogs complaining about the lack of quality men or their dating lives are employing this throw all the sexual cards on the table right away strategy. They will back it up with cute little slogans of women need sex too! I’m a successful independent woman why shouldn’t I go for what want. Then when the guy predictably fades away she makes a slew of excuses blaming him, the dating culture, everything except that she played the situation wrong..
Women need to take the time to develop a bond with someone before going to far sexually. If this means keeping a guy in the friend zone til it happens so be it. Or dating multiple guys so you can get that quality getting to know you and your values rather then let insecurity or pressure on his part rush you before you’ve decided if you actually like the guy. Men seem just fine taking their time to decide commitment so why can’t a woman do the same with both that and sex? That strategy actually does work but it’s not as sexy or full of exciting drama and unrequited pining so you see it less.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
4
October 14th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Men seem just fine taking their time to decide commitment so why can’t a woman do the same with both that and sex?
Because while the first woman is taking her time with the sex part, another woman has come along and blown the guy’s mind (among other things) in bed, so now he’s gone. As I said below, men will always take the path of least resistance. A sexual stalling tactic can indeed work in some cases where options are limited. But in big cities with unlimited options and compettive dating markets like NYC, LA, and Miami, it will never work. No one is too special to be quickly replaced in these areas – that goes for males and females. No matter how beautiful, smart, and wonderful a woman is in such markets, there’s another just like her around the corner who’s willing to fuck on the 2nd date. If taking your time before getting naked worked for you, then good for you. But in some places, there’s a different reality that you have to wrap your head around.
Dating in NYC, I always had what I call the Anti-Chump Rule: if a woman didn’t decide whether she wanted to fuck my brains out within 30 days of meeting me, it was time for her to go. I only had to invoke that rule once in 15 years of dating here.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
7
October 15th, 2011 at 4:50 am
Sure and when did NYC become all of America and the only place that matters when it comes to dating? I’m actually from an urban area and the rules I had for myself there worked just as fine as they did in a more suburban one. If a guy is so worried about being a “chump” that he can’t see people for more then what they can give of their bodies the fastest then that is his baggage to deal with not mine.
Using your logic if a guy is in such a rush for sex then there is another one who looks just like him around the corner who is cool with taking their time.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
6
October 16th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
I value congruency in words and actions. I would like to think most of us do also. If you say you are X. then don’t be Y with me, Z with someone else and Q with someone else.
People say one thing and do another. It seems like there is a sliding scale. The “when to have sex” issue by women is the ultimate example of this hypocrisy.
Men engage in similar incongruent action too, which is just as twisted. There is the old joke about the guy looking for a good woman, giving $1000.00 each to three women to see which one he should marry. The first spends it on things to spice up thier sex life. The second spends it on fine things for him to wear. The third invests it so they can start their marriage well financially. And guess who he picked? Yeah, the one with the biggest tits.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
October 16th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Y’all aren’t interchangeable widgets, you know — there are people on the other end of your sex knobs. Congruency may work with interchangeable parts, but there are all sorts of factors that play into the sexual attraction between two people.
Just because a woman meets one guy and feels inclined to sleep with him right away doesn’t mean anything about how she feels about the second guy if she doesn’t sleep with him immediately. If she waits, it doesn’t always mean she’s playing games….it may mean that she’s still figuring out the attraction part (like Vox referenced.) Or it may mean that she’s having her period or in a cranky mood or some other reason which affects things on any given night. Or maybe she regrets sleeping with the first guy so soon and got hurt by it, and so is trying something different. Or maybe she just had too much to drink with the first guy, and let her defenses down.
This sounds so high school, where guys would get upset if the slutty girl known for putting out wouldn’t put out for them. Maybe she wasn’t as slutty as her reputation made everyone think she was.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
October 17th, 2011 at 11:51 am
P, that’s a perfect world that none of us live in. In that world, none of us should feel rejected; none of us should feel like second choice. It’s so easy to call guys, high school, and let women off the hook as you do.
If you meet a wealthy guy that takes girls on fabulous expensive dates, best show in town and best restaurant in town, and he tells you he just wants to meet you for a coffee and it’s dutch, tell me you not going to feel rejection. Tell me you are not going to ask yourself what’s wrong with you or him.
If that does not resonate, here’s another. You are seeing this guy, and you know for sure he has had his previous girlfriends meet his friends and family after being a item for a couple of months. You have been seeing him 6 months and he still hasn’t introduced you to his friends and family.
Here’s another. A guy sends his daughters and his mother flowers for their birthdays and valentine’s day religiously and he doesn’t send you any even though you have been seeing him three years. He however takes you out somewhere nice on those occasions. You know what, you are thinking, what the hell is up here.
The reality to this stuff is that we treat people by the standard they set. If a guy goes ducth all the time, a woman may ok with it. But if he always pays for the first date and wants to go dutch with you, you will interpret that as poor treatment given his standard.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
October 17th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
In each of these situations (and I can come up with reasons why they don’t compare to whether to have sex with someone, but I’ll work with you for now) I should get to the bottom of what they’re about before assuming rejection, or presuming that someone should treat me the same as they treat someone else.
For example, in the wealthy guy’s situation, maybe he feels like women are only dating them for his money, and is using the coffee as a test to see whether I’m someone who just wants to use him. (I’m someone who prefers to go dutch, so I wouldn’t care what his practice has been with other women.)
Guy who doesn’t send me flowers but takes me out somewhere nice — that shows he’s not just doing what’s expected, but has taken the time to get to know me (I’m much more about going out than getting flowers, so that would be thoughtful, while if he got me candy, which I don’t eat, that would not be thoughtful even if he got it for everyone else in his life.)
In terms of meeting the family, that’s an important milestone, and one that shouldn’t happen until both parties feel the situation is serious enough to warrant it. If he introduced previous girlfriends in a couple of months, well, that was probably too soon if he’s no longer dating them.
The bottom line is that you can walk into every situation carrying a big chip on your shoulder or a sense of entitlement about what someone should be giving to you, or you can earn it and have it freely given to you when it’s an outpouring of that person’s genuine affection and caring. If you’re approaching every relationship with the need to keep that kind of score, you’re way too insecure for me. And if you expect me to sleep with you right away just because you think I’ve slept with someone else right away, that’s wanting it for all the wrong reasons.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
October 17th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
“poor treatment given his standard” That’s only relevant in a small town (or high school) where everyone knows everyone else and their personal history.
For most adults dating, how can we know what any given stranger’s standard is? Even if they tell us, there’s a good chance it’s at least partly a fabrication, either deliberate romanticizing the past, wishful thinking or outright deception. So, in practice, we usually end up judging their actions in comparison to how others have treated us or how we wish they would treat us, which are completely different.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
October 17th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
It’s amazingly easy, how we figure out what people normally do in a month or two. And we know if we are in a zone where things are different. Funnily enough, if it’s different in a good special way, we tend to like that. If it’s different as in sub-standard, we feel slighted.
I always take the bull by the horns in these situations and make the decision for them. I however do have empathy with people who hang on hoping in vain that some type of physical chemistry shows, because that is often the real problem in these cases.
And notice, I said physical chemistry and not actual chemistry, for which a lot of people, men and women, do not have well developed sense.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
October 14th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
“Guys you could tell were not all that serious were FAR more sexually pushy right away” If a guy is “pushy”, about anything, that indicates he isn’t invested in the results. If you don’t bite, he’ll just move on to the next fish. It’s all a numbers game. Spammers work the same way: send out enough emails and someone will buy what they’re selling, even if only by accident.
“their counterparts who did want something more … would throw out much more subtle signals and let me have the choice on how far to proceed in that direction.” Exactly. They’re not pushy because they see potential for something more. However, that doesn’t mean a guy who starts out interested going to wait around forever if you aren’t responding to his signals in a way he can recognize. We’re remarkably bad at reading women’s signals, and many women have learned to fake them, so the only way we can be certain a woman is interested in return is if she has sex with us.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
October 14th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
The degree to which a guy comes on strong sexually isn’t a determining factor of his romantic interest so much as it’s a determining factor as to how much of a cad he is. The fact is a man’s initial interest in a woman is almost 100% sexual upon first meeting her. Any romantic attachment usually comes further down the road for us. There is no love at first sight for men except perhaps in romance novels. It’s mostly just lust at first sight for us in reality. So the fact that a guy seeks instant gratification is not very telling of anything except that he’s a typical red-blooded male who just isn’t very smooth. The best of us are simply better at initially controlling those same sexual impulses we all have so as to not appear too crass. Witholding sex as a means to get a man’s affection might work through the college age years, but pretty much is a useless tactic after that. Once a man gets out in the world and has options, he will always choose the path of least resistance.
As for turning the tables on men, it will never work. We are simply wired differently. We don’t have the need for attention and the need to feel valued via the opposite sex like women do. We simply don’t share those insecurities. Further, as a rule men don’t compete against our peers for women. Bros before ‘hos is our motto for a reason. The fact that we stick together for the common good while women undermine each other is our single greatest advantage against women in the dating game. If there is one weak link in our armor that women could possibly turn the tables and exploit, it’s that some guys desire to date only the hottest trophy women for purposes of social proof. However, only a limited percentage of the female population has the means to exploit that.
Women wanted equality with men and they now largely have it. The price for that achievement was the devaluation of their sexuality. I guess the old adage rings true: Be careful what you wish for…you just might get it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
1
October 14th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
“Witholding sex as a means to get a man’s affection might work through the college age years,” Not anymore. Within my first week at college, an upperclassman was explaining the Three-Date Rule at our dorm meeting, and we all stuck to it. (There were rumors that the frats would even expel members who violated the Rule, though I can’t vouch for that since I was a GDI.) Within a month, the freshman girls had adapted (probably after having the Rule explained to them by their upperclassmen) and, ironically, we rarely had to invoke the Rule anymore. By the end of the year, it usually only took one or two dates to get a girl in bed, as competition heated up for guys still on the market–and to try to lure guys away from their girlfriends.
This is just a slow-motion replay of what happened in France after WWI: the French troops (all young men, of course) were massacred, resulting in a ratio of 28 single women per single man. Women were so desperate for male attention they started wearing short skirts with a flap in the front to enable sex with any man that fancied them without even having to get undressed. (The skirt was copied in the US, hence “flappers”, except the flap was only decorative.) Women learned to accept rampant infidelity if they wanted their children to have a father at all, and those who couldn’t keep a man or become mistresses became permanent members of the workforce. Obviously, the original cause was no longer in play after a generation, but the bell couldn’t be un-rung: the cultural shift became permanent and evolved into something that, it turns out, is far more stable.
“The fact that we stick together for the common good while women undermine each other is our single greatest advantage against women in the dating game.” Yep. And that’s why women have no hope of turning the tables on men, at least without a radical change in our culture that forces women to work together against their own personal best interests.
The potential for a repeat of France’s cultural shift occurred in western Russia and in Ukraine after WWII, but the women there stuck together. The result was dubbed “survival of the prettiest”: soldiers returning home snapped up the best-looking women and had lots of kids, and the ugly and merely average women died virgins, radically altering the gene pool. That’s why so many supermodels come from that region of the world, even two generations later.
In contrast, US casualties in WWI and WWII were, as a percentage of our population, relatively light. Most of our soldiers came home, evicting women (and minorities) from the workforce and taking away the freedoms they had experienced during the war. That’s what led to the Equal Rights (and Civil Rights) movements and a rather different cultural shift here that still hasn’t finished. However, like France, we can’t un-ring the bell.
“The price for that achievement [equality] was the devaluation of their sexuality.” That’s the obvious result: Male sexuality had (and has) no value, so if women are equal with men, then female sexuality can’t have any value either.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
3
October 15th, 2011 at 7:39 am
I don’t even know where to begin with this story, which is both sad and yet, amusing. Someone else told you how long you had to wait for sex, and you just invoked it? And the girls went along with it, too? So even if they weren’t ready by date 3, because of some arbitrary rule, they did it anyway? Sounds like there was a lot of date rape going on at that college.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
October 15th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
“Someone else told you how long you had to wait for sex, and you just invoked it?” No, someone told me how long to wait for the woman before I was being a chump–and screwing things up for all the other guys on campus.
“So even if [girls] weren’t ready [for sex] by date 3, because of some arbitrary rule, they did it anyway?” If they wanted a fourth date, yes. After a while, though, they learned not to waste their time going on a third date unless they intended to have sex that night.
“Sounds like there was a lot of date rape going on at that college.” There was some of that, I’m sure, like at every coed college; alcohol makes people stupid. However, the Rule was not license for guys to force themselves on women; if the girl wasn’t interested in sex on the third date, we thanked her for a nice evening but didn’t ask her out again. That is not date rape. (It almost meets the legal definition of prostitution, though, but falls through the same loophole marriage and “escorts” do.)
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
October 15th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Gotcha. This makes more sense. However, freshmen girls could have easily liked you but still wanted to date. But like you said you weren’t interested if it would take longer.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
October 15th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
“freshmen girls could have easily liked you but still wanted to date.” Huh? That sentence doesn’t make sense to me.
“But like you said you weren’t interested if it would take longer.” I was interested in a few of them, but apparently most of them weren’t interested in me–or at least not interested enough. A few were interested, and we had a great time together before parting ways amicably, for various reasons unrelated to sex.
The point is that 25,000 men working together managed to completely dictate the terms of the sexual playing field to 25,000 women because the latter were more interested in fighting each other than in working together to mount a common defense. The same thing has been happening, though more slowly since it’s not as organized, across our entire society over the last few decades.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
“freshmen girls could have easily liked you but still wanted to date.” Huh? That sentence doesn’t make sense to me.
Yeah me either. I meant wait, not date.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
October 14th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
“If he was really in to you, he’d be afraid to make a move, afraid it would offend you and ruin his chances at really being with you. do you get it now?”
Girl logic. So, guys who ignore you and make less effort are “really into you?” This like the beginning of the movie He’s Just Not That Into You where the little girl is told that the boy pushed her into mud, because he likes her.
You can’t turn this around on men. Women cannot “make” men like them either by offering sex or withholding it. Individually, if you withhold sex, you are simply raising the “price” as the referenced article says, and the guy will simply go elsewhere. If women try to organize a cartel collectively to withhold sex, that will also fail because of the “prisoners dilemma.” Even if you all agree, at least one of you will “cheat” to try to gain an advantage over the others (like the woman in M’s comment). Each one knows that the others may cheat, and so they will try to cheat first. So, the result is a massive first date sex orgy, very similar to what we actually see in reality.
You need an enforcement mechanism for a cartel to succeed and there simply isn’t one for sex and relationships.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
2
October 14th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
You can’t turn this around on men. Women cannot “make” men like them either by offering sex or withholding it. Individually,
I agree. And this should never be the reason for “withholding” sex. I don’t withhold sex to make a man like me, nor should I have sex in the faint hope that my magical vagina will tie him to me eternally. Sex doesn’t work like that.
Having said that, though, you go on:
if you withhold sex…the guy will simply go elsewhere.
Wow. Don’t throw me into that briar patch. So, what you’re saying is that if I don’t offer up the commodity of my pussy immediately, he’ll decide to seek out alternative sources of pussy. Horrifying. Do you not see that your statement above flies in the face of your initial statement?
If I withhold sex, he’ll go elsewhere.
But…even if I have sex, there is no guarantee that he won’t go elsewhere.
Neither withholding…NOR GRANTING…works to cement a relationship.
I get attached when I have sex. The only way for me to protect myself, emotionally, is to not have sex until I’ve determined that the commodity that he is looking for isn’t just my pussy.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
4
October 14th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
I completely agree with you.
There is a world of difference between “withholding” sex and only having sex when you feel ready and comfortable with a man. The former is game-playing, the latter is not. If a man blows me off because I’m not giving him head on the first date, I haven’t lost anything because he and I aren’t on the same page. I suspect that men know the difference between those who are game playing when it comes to sex and those who aren’t, but I don’t know that for sure. If at the end of the day, sex doesn’t make or break a potential relationship, then there is no reason for me to have it unless I am ready.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
October 14th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Just to clarify, I wasn’t suggesting that women SHOULD have sex in order to keep a man. I’m saying that, economically speaking, they don’t have much choice.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
October 14th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
We always have choices. If you don’t want to have sex prior to marriage, that limits the pool of potential dates, but it is, indeed, a choice.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
October 14th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I don’t think that’s true at all. The only time a woman really doesn’t have a choice is when she insists on dating high status men (ie, men way out of her league). in fact I’d say that it’s dating too far “up” that leads women to develop all of these silly strategies about sex. When I stopped dating up, the pressure to have sex on dates 1-3 disappeared. As an aside, my standards for casual sex are far different than my standards for dating, so it’s quite easy to say no if I feel pushed. That said, the guys I typically date don’t push me at all.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
October 14th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
So, what you’re saying is that if I don’t offer up the commodity of my pussy immediately, he’ll decide to seek out alternative sources of pussy.
Yes. If he has options he will seek sex – and probably have it – with someone else. This is the conundrum that many women don’t get. They want the guy who has options, not the ones who don’t. Again, this is a by product of intra-gender competition. They want the man that other women want so they can “win.”
is to not have sex until I’ve determined that the commodity that he is looking for isn’t just my pussy.
And if he has options, sex will be expected in order for him to determine that she isn’t just after his wallet, is emotionally available and/or doesn’t have sexual/emotional hang ups.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
October 14th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Yes. If he has options he will seek sex – and probably have it – with someone else. This is the conundrum that many women don’t get. They want the guy who has options, not the ones who don’t. Again, this is a by product of inter-gender competition. They want the man that other women want so they can “win.”
I don’t think we can categorize it in this way. There are some guys out there who are only looking to get laid. There are some guys out there who are looking to get laid, but are open to a relationship. There are some guys who are looking to get laid in a relationship. I want the guy in that last category, not the guy in the first one.
I’m not interested in sharing my pussy with someone who only wants that part of me. I’ll freely admit it–I can’t have sex like a man. Sex is emotional for me, and being wanted only as a clean, disposable cum receptacle isn’t at all pleasant.
There is no way in hell for me to tell–short of spending time with the guy, which category he falls into, and even if I spend time with him, I might still get burned.
But, the more time I spend with him, the more accurate my guess is going to be. I understand that my strategy is going to potentially let guys slip by who might have been in category 2. Nonetheless, it’s the best one I’ve found.
And if he has options, sex will be expected in order for him to determine that she isn’t just after his wallet, is emotionally available and/or doesn’t have sexual/emotional hang ups.
There are plenty of ways to show these things that don’t involve sexual intercourse.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
October 14th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
I don’t think we can categorize it in this way. There are some guys out there who are only looking to get laid. There are some guys out there who are looking to get laid, but are open to a relationship. There are some guys who are looking to get laid in a relationship. I want the guy in that last category, not the guy in the first one.
Right. But whether a woman is using sex to keep a guy or using it as a litmus test to determine his intentions, she’s still using sex as a commodity or currency, and thereby devaluing it.
I’m not interested in sharing my pussy with someone who only wants that part of me. I’ll freely admit it–I can’t have sex like a man.
Okay. But let’s addrtess your use of the word “pussy.” Now, let’s be honest. You’re using that word instead of vagina or sex for a reason, and that reason probably is to convey a certain level of sexual confidence or “dirty-ness” to men. It’s a way to get a man’s approval.
So that’s a mixed message. You want men to know how free-spirited and cool you are about sex….but then you turn around and won’t have it until you know they’re locked in some how.
There are plenty of ways to show these things that don’t involve sexual intercourse.
To you. Not to a most men.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
9
October 14th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Right. But whether a woman is using sex to keep a guy or using it as a litmus test to determine his intentions, she’s still using sex as a commodity or currency, and thereby devaluing it.
Which is why I don’t use sex in either of those ways. Sex is not a tit-for-tat exchange. It’s a mutually agreed upon decision. I don’t “sell” my pussy for commitment.
J and I were exclusive for 2-3 weeks before we had sex. We had multiple conversations about what we were looking for, relationship-wise. I wasn’t using sex as a lure with him, and frankly, as shocking as this sounds, he wasn’t all that interested in having sex with me until he was sure that I was someone he wanted to be with longterm. I guess we were both at an age where sex was considerably less important to both of us than making sure that the emotional part worked.
Okay. But let’s addrtess your use of the word “pussy.” Now, let’s be honest. You’re using that word instead of vagina or sex for a reason, and that reason probably is to convey a certain level of sexual confidence or “dirty-ness” to men. It’s a way to get a man’s approval.
LOL WUT?
It’s more about being a smart-ass.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
October 15th, 2011 at 4:19 am
Who wants a guy with options? I get no joy out of competing for a man. If anything it’s a turn off.
I could place a hard bet without even knowing what DMN looks like that my husband is by far more attractive. He just doesn’t try to date girls below his league who are willing to put up with more crap or who are more easily manipulated by having their self esteem tweaked in order to get laid.
Many guys aren’t constantly on the prowl for women. They are just living their lives and sometimes your lucky enough to run into them and hit it off. Dating websites raise the stakes much higher in running into the prowlers but many good quality men have other hobbies that don’t involve maintaining a rotating stable of girls who rank a 3 in the looks department.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 4:27 am
The curse of reading from bottom on up, apologies if DMN wasn’t the one to bring up options but was Moxie instead. The point still stands that if women only want to date men that have lots of other women after him then it’s a poor strategy. Your dating for social proof at that point and not for the man.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 8:07 am
He just doesn’t try to date girls below his league who are willing to put up with more crap or who are more easily manipulated by having their self esteem tweaked in order to get laid.
I think you’re looking at this as the man is trying to manipulate or coerce women in to having sex with him, or intentionally going for women he perceives as desperate. That’s not the case. There may be some men who have this approach, but for the most part these are stable, available guys who are invoking this “rule.” The man who waits patiently, abstaining from sex with anyone else, while the object of his affection decides if she’s in to him or “ready” is a myth that was created for romance novels and after school specials. If he can get sex elsewhere, he is, and he’s not wrong for doing it. Nor is the woman who gives him the sex necessarily desperate or competitive or insecure.
The point still stands that if women only want to date men that have lots of other women after him then it’s a poor strategy. Your dating for social proof at that point and not for the man.
What you’re terming a strategy is just simple human nature. If anything, women who intentionally go after men they perceive as have fewer options are more likely to be doing so because they are insecure and high maintenance. They *have* to go for those men because those are the only men who will tolerate their behavior.
Dating *is* a competition. Just like interviews. People put on their best suits, polish their resume, curb any bad behavior they feel might disqualify them. And many of them even embellish to get the job. The people who don’t want to compete, in my opinion, are the ones who don’t want to work hard and want to have something handed to them.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
1
October 15th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
If dating is a competition, then it’s best to know the rules that the players follow. One that most guys follow is that they’re typically going to pursue the hottest woman they think they can pull. So putting yourself in a situation where you’re the hottest woman they can pull, rather than where a guy has a lot of options and accordingly might not select you, is a strategy that many women have found to be successful, especially those whose gifts are not primarily physical.
You have to be prepared to live with the outcome: do you really want to be with the guy choosing you, or are you going to perceive that there must be something wrong with a guy who would choose you (which happens to those who are so hung up on social proof that they only chase men who are unavailable to them or constantly losing out to others who are “more” whatever)?
But assuming the guy you’re positioning yourself to get is the one you want, putting yourself in a situation where you’re more likely to succeed isn’t a bad strategy. It’s gotta beat the damage to your self-esteem when you’re the last person picked on the dating playground every single time.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
As I’ve said here many times, there are only two ways to succeed: learn to become what your target market wants or learn to target a market that wants who you are.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 8:10 am
“I could place a hard bet without even knowing what DMN looks like that my husband is by far more attractive.”
You just don’t like blu-ish people.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
I think a blu-ish Brad Pitt must be extremely hot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
October 14th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
“If I withhold sex, he’ll go elsewhere. But…even if I have sex, there is no guarantee that he won’t go elsewhere.” Correct. However, the former guarantees he will go elsewhere, whereas the latter doesn’t. He may well want more than just sex and stick around. Therefore, the most logical strategy is to screw every guy as soon as possible. Conventional (female) wisdom, i.e. holding out for a higher price, only works if you can force other women to join a cartel.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
October 15th, 2011 at 4:05 am
Guarantees that men like Crotch Rocket won’t stick around. Please don’t speak for all relationship minded men with this though. Many many MANY men respect a woman wanting to take their time and build a bond first and are choosy about which men they choose to be intimate with rather then just be intimate with all of them out of fear of rejection.
Shocking as it sounds for many women the idea of having sex with guys who are pretty much strangers is pretty foul. There hasn’t been any sort of time to become attracted to the entire person (as we are more then just looks we need other tangibles that take time to sleuth out). Mine happens to be does he give a shit about me or is he just being nice. I’m not attracted to men who don’t give a shit about me and vice versa.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
October 16th, 2011 at 11:53 am
“the idea … is pretty foul” This is an economic analysis; emotion is irrelevant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 16th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Many many MANY men respect a woman wanting to take their time and build a bond first and are choosy about which men they choose to be intimate with rather then just be intimate with all of them out of fear of rejection.
And many of those “many, many” men will just have sex with someone else while the woman decides. Which doesn’t mean he doesn’t respect the woman’s choice to wait. Just means that he’s exercising his options. If a woman wants to wait, she should wait, with the understanding that he’s probably getting it somewhere else if he has options. In order to do that successfully, she needs to at least understand how men view sex. She doesn’t have to agree with it. She just needs to accept it and not personalize it or demonize him for it.
I think the reason why some women have such trouble with this is because they need to believe that there is something special about them that is worthy of making a man wait. I also think the women who tell themselves that a man will wait for a woman to be ready because he values and respects her are in denial. That man is either sleeping with someone else or has so few options that he has no choice but to wait. Neither of which validates that woman’s need to feel special or “better than” other women.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 9:45 am
When are are people going to figure out that game playing doesn’t work well in their best interests. Game playing is based upon an invalid assumption that you are smarter than everyone else. If you are a guy playing games, you’re going to get caught in your own web. If you are a girl playing the “make a guy wait thing”, even though significant time has passed, you’re going to lose the one that you really wanted.
The other curious oddity is people acting like they are not interested when they really are. And it doesn’t matter which gender we are talking about here. Play that stupid game and you may miss out too.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
October 14th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
I like this part:
“With gender equality, the Pill and the advent of Internet porn, women’s control of the meet market has been butchered.”
Perhaps that’s the case… And so what if it is?
This whole article treats sex as a commodity, if you constantly think of sex in such a manner, maybe that’s the problem.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
October 14th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Well, it is a commodity, and it doesn’t matter if we wait for love or not. Virginity is interpreted as sexual purity for Christians, and women who are prostitutes, strippers, and other sex workers are characterized as cheap, dirty and easy. If we didn’t commodify it, we wouldn’t use it to sell burgers and cars. This is the fuel of western world media. Why is it part of most hip hop videos? Why do men who don’t speak Spanish still like to pass by the Spanish channels? Sex isn’t the only thing that has been commodified; it’s just the most lucrative.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
October 14th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Just because you use the tools of economics to analyze a situation, does not mean you are commodifying it. What makes the article interesting (and persuasive) to me is the fact that she’s presenting a social interaction in a unique way.
Your comment is like criticizing an article about sex written in chinese because you don’t understand it and think it is making sex all about chinese people. You would benefit yourself to understand the terms and the tools of economics so you can understand the points she is making.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
October 14th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
DMN is right. If you want to hold off on sex for whatever reason, you will miss out on a lot of men. Most of them will be men you didn’t want to deal with anyway, and a few men will be men who you could have had a nice relationship with. However, if you are waiting for religious or practical reasons, you have to realize that some men will not be on board with it, and it doesn’t mean they are horrible for it – it just means they aren’t for you. In my experience, I wasn’t hurting from missing out on all these men. When you represent a margin of society with regard to sexuality, expect to date a margin of the population. Don’t expect the majority to be available to you. There’s a reason you’ve chosen not to be with the majority, and you have to be happy with that reason.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
0
October 14th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
*happy with that choice.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 3:53 am
I’m trying to think if there was regret in missing out on the men who faded away when physical interest wasn’t shown before I was ready and nope…not one little smidgen. A smile actually creeps up on my face when I think about it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
October 15th, 2011 at 8:43 am
The pill may be the best thing that ever happened to men! I wrote an angst-ridden poem during my college years where I whined that ‘I parted my legs when I wanted to be hugged’. Sex was no shortcut to intimacy then, and it definitely isn’t now. A guy I dated a few years ago, a charming, well-rounded, interesting, fun, dentist who seems to break hearts for sport, told me about a woman he dated ‘who knew she wanted it, but kept holding out. So I played along with it for a couple months, then when we finally did have sex, I never called her again.’
Chris Rock said ‘a man is only as loyal as his options’. What I don’t get is, since there ARE so many options, (i.e., women who will have sex fairly readily) why can’t men just be straightforward if all they’re looking for is to get laid? No harm, no foul. If that’s not what the woman wants, both can just say NEXT! and move on!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
“What I don’t get is, since there ARE so many options, (i.e., women who will have sex fairly readily) why can’t men just be straightforward if all they’re looking for is to get laid? No harm, no foul. If that’s not what the woman wants, both can just say NEXT! and move on!” What you’re missing is that most of those women will not have sex with the guy if he tells them that’s all he’s after. That’s not to say every guy will tell the truth if she asks, but I suspect there’s a reason these women rarely do so: they don’t want to know he thinks so little of them and/or they think they can change his mind if they just have some time to get their hooks in deep enough.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 10:15 am
Just as women give bad advice to men about how to get a woman, this thread is an example of men giving bad advice to women. If you are looking for a relationship, sleeping with men on the first couple of dates will not enhance your chances for finding someone. As we all know, most dating interactions fizzle out after a couple of dates anyway, and adding sex to those couple of dates does not improve the odds.
When I see men promoting early sex as a normal part of today’s dating process, to me it looks like a plot to get average men laid as often as their “higher status” counterparts. Being average myself, I date average men. My average date with an average man on average will lead to nothing, yet I am supposed to fuck him anyway? I don’t know about the rest of the women here, but if I sleep with a guy and then never hear from him again, I feel like I got played. I grew tired of getting played by good looking men, of getting played by those NYC high earners… yet now I’m supposed to get played by regular guys too? I think not.
I will date the short guy, the bald guy, the guy who needs to drop 20 pounds, because I am looking for a connection that goes beyond the physical attributes. (Sexual attraction doesn’t happen on the first couple of dates with this type of man, instead it develops as I get to know him.) But for casual sex, I can do a lot better than the guys I date. A LOT better. The hot guys don’t want me as a girlfriend but they are still willing fuck me on the go… if it’s just a one time deal, I’m sleeping with the guy with the hot body. A tight, banging body is what attracts me enough that I don’t care if I never hear from the guy again.
Men generally are happy to step down for casual sex, and women typically step up. Now the average guys are trying to change things so that we average people fuck laterally. Yes, it is an improvement for you but it’s a downgrade for me, so I pass.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
1
October 15th, 2011 at 11:50 am
If you are looking for a relationship, sleeping with men on the first couple of dates will not enhance your chances for finding someone.
But the sex won’t decrease your chances, either. If a guy was going to have sex and bail, it wasn’t the sex that caused him to do so. That was pre-determined.
Nor will a guy commit *because* of the sex. The sex has less to do with it in the beginning than women think other than it helps men determine compatibility. That’s not the only thing men look for when looking for a relationship.
As we all know, most dating interactions fizzle out after a couple of dates anyway, and adding sex to those couple of dates does not improve the odds.
It also doesn’t hurt the odds. This is the argument. Women have it in their heads that sex “too soon” ruins everything. And maybe a few years ago that was more true than it is now. But now, the idea of sex too soon isn’t as prevalent.
It’s not the act of abstaining from sex that works against women. It’s their faulty and illogical reasoning for abstaining, as they have no real proof of their claims other than what society and other women have told them.
Now the average guys are trying to change things so that we average people fuck laterally
You’re putting the onus on the men as if they are somehow alone in this shift. The reason why many men act and think this way is because there have been enough women to prove that this mentality works. I’m not saying either side is right or wrong. It’s just how things are now.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
October 15th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
I don’t believe that having sex “too soon” ruins anything. I believe that having sex early on doesn’t affect the status of a potential relationship much either way. Early sex doesn’t hurt, and it doesn’t help, so I will make the decision based on my own personal criteria. I only have sex with men when *I* want to do so, and that is solely based on personal attraction. Could be the first date, could be the fifth, could be never.
Fact is, the average 40-something male – which is who I date – isn’t sexually attractive enough for me to even want to fuck them on dates 1-3. When it comes to average men, it takes more time for me to become attracted to them because I am responding to their personality and intellect instead of solely the physical. For me to want it on date 1, the man has to be hot (to me). This is what I mean by how I’m not going to fuck laterally. I’m not playing games, this isn’t a “golden vagina” syndrome, it’s simple me setting a personal standard for myself. The only time I have sex – and there are NO exceptions – is when I am honestly sexually attracted to a man. Two or three average dates with an average guy stirs nothing within my loins. I’m just not going to be there yet.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
2
October 15th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
I don’t disagree that the guys posting here recently are giving horrible advice but not for the reasons you said. Your advice to women is the same as what you criticize: That is, to not go after the so-called “guy with unlimited options” but to set your sights on someone with less options who is more likely to be interested in someone like you (lowercase Y).
I think what you’re saying now is that, not only should you aim lower, but you should aim REALLY signifcantly lower – so low that you will find a guy that will not only find you attractive but will be willing to put up with ANYTHING you’re willing to dish out. This way, you won’t “have to” have sex with him. I’m not sure most women think having sex is such an awful experience that they try to avoid it any costs, though I know those women are out there. I just think that, realistically, most women will not be interested in a man that has so few options that they would tolerate anything, including no sex.
As Saj astutely pointed out, I am an unattractive troll. Yet, even I have options which are highly acceptable to me (even if Saj and her husband are way out of my league. So what?). So, I do think the NY Post article and Moxie are describing reality. Men – even average ones, have options with respect to sex, more than they ever did in the past. You can’t change the reality by getting angry at it. How people want to deal with that reality is another story.
I don’t know if you were addressing my comment, but I stand by my advice.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
I think what you’re saying now is that, not only should you aim lower, but you should aim REALLY signifcantly lower – so low that you will find a guy that will not only find you attractive but will be willing to put up with ANYTHING you’re willing to dish out. This way, you won’t “have to” have sex with him.
I never said anything of the sort. Most women are repulsed by men who will put up with anything we are willing to dish out. Come on, everyone know all about the Bad Boy syndrome.
As for this “have to” have sex part, you misunderstand the point of my post. To clarify I’ll be more blunt: When it comes to casual sex, I am incredibly shallow. You have to be hot or I’m just not interested. Most men I date simply aren’t hot enough for me to sleep with purely for the sake of sex. I can still fuck hot men, so I will not settle for less. If you are average looking, it will take time more me to view you as being sexually attractive. If you don’t want to wait, I understand, nice meeting you.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
3
October 15th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Trying to fix the italics I just blew…
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
October 15th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
I can still fuck hot men, so I will not settle for less.
The objectively or even subjectively “hot” men don’t have to fuck down, and rarely do unless they’re devoid of options. Which they rarely are because they’re hot. If you can have sex with a hot guy, than it stands to reason that you should be able to date an attractive guy.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
October 15th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Are you kidding, hot guys fuck down all the time. I suspect I am low-hanging fruit to them. Either that, or I am hot myself. And I doubt that…
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
I don’t agree. I think hot guys fuck down only when forced to because they have no other option. So why would you be able to get past that, and justify being used like that in that capacity, but then be adverse to sleeping with someone that was genuinely interested in you on the first couple dates? This is what baffles men and why they regularly call women’s bluff about needing to feel ready/comfortably or feel a connection.
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
8
October 15th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Hot guys fuck down, as do high earners. Those guys you date who take you to a nice wine bar, buy you dinner, fuck you and never call again? They went out with you in the first place because they are fucking down. I guarantee you have been fucked down many many times – I know this because you have written about it. That’s not a dig at you because I have dated those same men with the exact same results.
If I am going to have casual sex, it is all about my orgasm and personal sexual gratification. This means I want a particular body type which is very fit, broad chest, not gut and a tight ass. I do not care what they think about me because it isn’t a dating situation. It’s all about me. My casual sex tastes are very superficial. Those I date simply need more time to build attraction in my eyes, because my dating tastes are *not* superficial. Either they stick around long enough for attraction to build for me or they don’t – I am fine with either option.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
2
October 15th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
>>I think hot guys fuck down only when forced to because they have no other option.
Have you never heard of beer goggles? I’m with Vox on this one. Happens all the time, especially if they’ve had anything to drink.
Why all this talk of leagues being different for casual sex vs. relationships if it wasn’t easier to get a hot guy to sleep with you vs. date you?
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Happens all the time, especially if they’ve had anything to drink.
Right. And at 1am when the bar lights go on or when the night was getting late, they picked whomever was available. They had no other options. Making it worse in those cases because the guy had to get drunk in order to have sex with the woman.
Hot guys only fuck down when forced. And the ones with the abs and great ass etc are certainly not settling for a 40something “average” woman. They don’t have to.
Hot guys fuck down, as do high earners.
Like I said. When and if they do, it’s because they had no other options. When there is that little regard for the woman they’re having sex with, then their effort in satisfying her is equally low.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Their options are to go home and take a night off, or wait until their next date a night or two later. They’re not lacking options so much as willing to pack in as much action as they possibly can, which is more action than the average guy who has to take his time to woo Vox is going to get.
When talking about “lacking options,” I’m not referring to the guy who is able to get laid 4-5 nights a week, but is going for 7, so has to slum once in a while. Those guys aren’t really lacking options.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
October 15th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
>>>When there is that little regard for the woman they’re having sex with, then their effort in satisfying her is equally low.
I have not found that to be the case. In fact, there’s almost been an inverse correlation between the two. The guys who put in the least effort in satisfying me have generally been the average or below average guys who either were 1) so happy to be getting laid that they can only focus on themselves and/or having their porn fantasies fulfilled; or 2) so relatively inexperienced they don’t really know how to best focus those efforts.
One of the things that many hot guys have learned is how to make a woman feel good about him and the situation even when he knows it’s a one-time only thing (and she does too if she’s honest with herself). That way, they remain the guy with plenty of options instead of the PUA that everyone is eventually on to, or the one who even the women who hate each other warn each other about as being way overrated in the sack.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
October 15th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
It’s a funny thing, with all of the talk online people have about when to have sex, no one factors female attraction into the equation. Men, bloggers like Moxie, talk about “golden vaginas” and “calling her bluff” if a woman doesn’t have sex early on, and never for a moment consider whether said woman is sexually attracted to the guy in the first place. The only people online who DO factor female attraction into the equation are PUA types, who understand that fostering sexual attraction in women is THE #1 way to get a woman into bed (whether the techniques are manipulative or not). I am not a prude, but I don’t fuck men if I’m not sexually attracted to them. Why on earth would I? Frankly I find it bizarre to believe that sex has no bearing on a potential budding relationship, but that you may as well fuck a guy you aren’t yet sexually attracted simply because you are dating and he *may* be interested in you for something more. It would take a serious lack of self -respect on my part were I to go along with this. Now that I think of it, the women who don’t factor their own sexual attraction into the equation are the same ones who can’t ever seem to get into a serious relationship. Is this a coincidence? I’m not sure but it’s worth considering.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
October 15th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
The answer, i think, is that it is assumed that women, unlike you, are not dating men they aren’t sexually attracted to in the first place. The question is usually how to find and keep such a man, not how to become attracted to someone who you initially find replusive.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
There is a very long distance between “I have to hit that now” and “I am repulsed by you.” I don’t date men I find repulsive; I date average men. Some I want to sleep with right away, and some I don’t. What’s up with the dramatic interpretation to my words? Hyperbole 2 times in a row… I don’t always see eye to eye with you, but in general I don’t find you to be the type to employ this lame tactic.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
October 15th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Dramatic, no. Hyperbolic, yes. Your question is why are people ignoring the attraction issue. My answer is the’yre not. They are assuming that part. They’re not overcoming their lack of attraction and having sex too soon. They are attracted, which is why they’re dating and sleeping with the man in the first place. May not yield good results, true, but that’s what they’re doing and what the advice is based on. Reality.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
>>They are attracted, which is why they’re dating and sleeping with the man in the first place.
Not always true, not even close. In my age group – 40+ – women routinely date and try to “land” men who are great on paper, even though they aren’t sexually attracted to them. Haven’t I seen you post about women who date men for reasons of social status over attraction? If that was you, you were right. Very difficult for us to say no to the wealthy man with an awesome job.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
October 15th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
and never for a moment consider whether said woman is sexually attracted to the guy in the first place
That’s because most people – men especially – know that the “I don’t know if I’m attracted enough to him to have sex with him” line is a load of crap. We know in minutes if we’re attracted to a guy and whether we want to sleep with him or not. If you have to go on multiple dates to build an attraction with someone or to find them attractive, you’re forcing it and the attraction doesn’t really exist. It’s merely something the woman has convinced herself exists because the truth – that that’s the best she can do – isn’t as romantic. Yes, there are those rare occasions when attraction develops over time. But they are the exception to the rule, not the rule.
It would take a serious lack of self -respect on my part were I to go along with this.
No more of a lack of respect than to have sex with a guy who is only having sex with you because he has no other options. Which is what happens when a hot guy fucks an average woman. If he had a choice, he wouldn’t be with her.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
October 15th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
>>We know in minutes if we’re attracted to a guy and whether we want to sleep with him or not
We aren’t just talking about sex per se, we are talking about dating with an eye towards longevity. If you ever want a real, long term relationship, you need to view things differently.
I’m on my phone so It’s too hard to continue to quote you, but maybe your disbelief in attraction building over time is why 42 years later you still haven’t come remotely close to having a long term, committed relationship. I’m not saying that to push your buttons; really, how can you be so confident that you are right when your unmet relationship desires are staring you right in the face? Do you really think it’s a matter of luck or something? Lucks gonna turn around for you any day?
I know my league, I know when I’m being used and when I’m not. There are no surprises here when it comes to sex. I face reality, even when reality sucks for me (and yeah, often it does). It works for me. Respecting my sexuality works for me too. Some women do things differently and it works for them, and to those women i give a thumbs up. But hen it isn’t working, and you start lashing out and getting viscious, no one is fooled.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
6
October 15th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
I’m not saying that to push your buttons; really, how can you be so confident that you are right when your unmet relationship desires are staring you right in the face?
I’ve been in with someone for a while now, Vox. I even slept with him on the second date. And I’m really, really happy. I didn’t have to force an attraction, nor did I worry what he’d think about me or if I got hurt if I slept with him too soon.
As I’ve said before, the presence or lack there of of a man in my life has no bearing on my opinions.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
October 15th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
True, but the fact that you haven’t yet found a husband or otherwise as-serious relationship (and by your own admission, that is what you want) is all about *you* and not the men you have encountered in your life. perhaps you have reached the point in which you are happy with a serious of short term relationships, in which case, you are successful as-is and I extend you congrats. But if you want something long term, you can either keep those fingers crossed that 43 will be a charm, or you can shift your perception of the way things work. If you are sure you are right, then I guess we won’t see the Moxie version of Spinsterlicious (or whatever her name is, the 55 y.o. blogger from a few days ago) when you are 50+. Either way is fine to me, because I come here for entertainment; either option can prove to be entertaining for me. As it is, you use your blogs to yell at the sluts AND to yell at the prudes, though both groups seems a lot happier than you. While you are busy trying to do what is “right” the rest (and lashing out at those whose definition of right differs from yours) the rest us are happily living our lives. Ive been fucked and blown off by hotties, I’ve been married, and I’ve never found it hard to get a boyfriend. My way works for me, and debating that it doesn’t is comedic.I know happy “sluts” and happy “prudes”but where do you fall in the mix?
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
7
October 15th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
True, but the fact that you haven’t yet found a husband or otherwise as-serious relationship (and by your own admission, that is what you want) is all about *you* and not the men you have encountered in your life.
I also didn’t marry a man and have him leave me for someone else and wipe me out in a divorce. You keep using your failed marriage as some sort of proof that you achieved something, when all it proves is that you married a loser who left you.
My way works for me, and debating that it doesn’t is comedic.I know happy “sluts” and happy “prudes”but where do you fall in the mix?
There’s no debate. You have nothing to back up your claims except some weak attempt to assure people that you’re attractive enough to bone a hot guy. Your approach doesn’t work for you, nor do you have one instance of a relationship that proves it does. You haven’t had anything that’s lasted beyond a month or so. You date down consistently and still can’t keep a guy around. That’s what is comedic about all of this. Even those guys leave you.
I’ve been married, and I’ve never found it hard to get a boyfriend.
Then why haven’t you had one in almost 7 years? You wrote here once that it had been almost 5 years since you had had a relationship. That was about a year ago. 6 or 7 years ago you were still in your mid thirties. So the “I’m 40 and nobody wants us” argument doesn’t wash. So what’s the excuse for that period of time?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
October 15th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
My ex husband didn’t leave me for someone else.That you went there tells me that I am right about your unhappy personal life – you went for the jugular in order to make yourself feel better, even though you haven’t a clue about the reality of my marriage.
Regarding my “weak” attempt to “assure” everyone that I can bone a hot guy… once again you are revealing your true nature. I don’t mention boning hot men as a sing of assurance, I mention it as a sign that fucking those guys means NOTHING. As I already said, I am *not* hot, and I’ve made it clear that men will step down for sex… and of course stepping down including fucking ME. Hot guys will fuck ugly fat chicks… oh YES they will! My ability to fuck mot men only means that I have a vagina and are at least average looking, and am willing to take control when if comes to casual sex. YOU are the only who things that my fucking hot guys means I am conveying that I am someone special, and that is additional evidence about how warped your views of sexuality really are.
I have not been in a major relationship since my divorce because my divorce took a lot out of me. You will not understand what I mean by that since you’ve never had a major, long term relationship. But what I say is true (and is also way I have been vocal about not dating other people who are fresh out of a relationship).
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
7
October 15th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Sorry. Can’t hear you over all that crazy.
Oh, hey, how’s your boyfriend? That was a rhetorical question. i think we all know the answer to that one.
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
8
October 15th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Oh, hey, how’s your boyfriend? That was a rhetorical question. i think we all know the answer to that one.
Thank you for demonstrating why I no longer post details about my personal life here. I mentioned my boyfriend, and you freaked out and called me a liar, he could not possibly exist. I mentioned how I felt watching my ex-h packed his things and physically left our home, and you throw in my face that he “left” me even though I in fact was the one who instigated and filed the divorce. You take it to the extreme even if you don’t know the full story, because it makes you feel superior to type it out.
You try to piss me (ad/or other people) off with these targeted digs to make yourself feel better and superior, but you aren’t accounting for the fact that some of us factor your behavior into a part of the fun in browsing this website. I really don’t mind it when you fly off half-cocked like this. It makes me think, “Oh that Moxie…there she goes again!!!” when it happens. It doesn’t upset me, sad to say.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
6
October 15th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
italics..again… dunce hat for me!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
October 15th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
I didn’t try to piss you off at all. I disagreed and countered your argument and pointed out your inconsistencies about hot guys fucking down.
I’m not flying off half cocked. You brought up what you believe is my relationship history (but you weren’t pushing buttons!) and I countered with yours. Boo hoo.
You make some of the most rancid comments around here, calling people whores and sluts and saying they’re tainted meat. Get out of here with your sad little wounded dog act. If you’re so fucking fragile, then keep your mouth shut.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
6
October 15th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
“Thank you for demonstrating why I no longer post details about my personal life here.” Reading upwards, it looks like you were the one to start this catfight with an ad hominem attack on Moxie, so you have no standing to complain about her doing the same in return. If you can’t take it, don’t bring it.
OTOH, I get to call you both immature. I expect better than this of women half your ages.
(Oh, and that other discussion about how men win because women are too busy fighting each other? Yeah.)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
2
October 15th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
oh, one more thing. I have had actual relationships since I have been here. Not many, just a couple. I don’t talk about them because your jealousy rears its ugly head when a woman does so… yes you literally become a nasty, crazy bitch when a woman you believe is beneath you is in a relationship, most likely due to jealousy. I post on this blog for entertainment purposes rather than to prove something, so I don’t feel the need to go into my relationships. But trust me, I’m not giving bjs on date #2 followed by the boot to my ass the next day. I’m not experiences the 3 date fuck and chuck that you have happen again and again and again. We all know that it happens to you often, and that is fine if you are confident about your end game. I think your end game is going to be a big, fat zero which is why I don’t live it the way you do. That said, maybe I am wrong! If I am, let your confidence guide you and stop trying to recall something I’ve said on this blog in order to put me in my place. Every time you do that, you lose. Big time.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
4
October 15th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
“I don’t talk about [my current relationships] because your jealousy rears its ugly head when a woman does so” Um, no. I’ve never seen Moxie attack Trouble, Kegs or other female commenters who appear to be in healthy relationships. So, I don’t see why you’re trying to play the jealousy card.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
October 15th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
“If you have to go on multiple dates to build an attraction with someone or to find them attractive, you’re forcing it and the attraction doesn’t really exist.” IMHO, this is the root cause of so many marriages falling apart because the woman loses interest in sex. She was never really attracted to him in the first place; she was just faking it (even to herself) to get a ring.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
October 15th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
“If you have to go on multiple dates to build an attraction with someone or to find them attractive, you’re forcing it and the attraction doesn’t really exist.”
This statement combines two different phenomena which actually for me (and I suspect most people) work very differently. If you have to go on multiple dates to find them attractive, then you are definitely forcing it. But if you have to go on multiple dates to build an attraction, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you didn’t find them attractive in the first place…it means that you’re going past the superficial physical reaction to see if there’s more to it: are you attracted to their mind and the way they think, the way they open up to you, their sense of humor, all the other qualities that build attraction beyond the surface? If things go further, you’re wondering: are you sexually compatible? can you spend a day with them without you driving each other crazy? It can even come down to little things like do you like the way they smell when they sweat (the pheromone thing, I guess, but you might not experience that on your first date)?
I find with me, about 80% could go either way. There’s 10% where there’s just no attraction there, and I could waste my time going out with them a bunch more times, but it would definitely be the “faking it” to which CR is referring. There’s 10% where he doesn’t even have to open his mouth, and I’m drawn in his direction…most, but not all, are the hot guys out of my league and some where for whatever reason, I just feel a strong physical pull in their direction.
And then in the 80% is everyone else, where it’s possible things could build over time as I get to know them, or things could still stay in the “meh” category. Most guys in my league are in that category as well, so the purpose of dating them a few times is to figure out whether things will build to take the attraction with them to the higher level that makes pursuing a relationship worth it.
The 80%/10%/10% division may be different for different people: some are so wedded to a physical type that maybe they’re 50% no way/40% maybe/ 10% yes yes yes, but I think for most people it breaks down that way. But attraction is not so singular and superficial that you can always figure it out in a few minutes, or are always faking it if and when it takes longer to build. Or put another way, I find there’s a big difference between “finding attractive” and “being attracted to.”
Like or Dislike:
6 
1