We concern ourselves with getting dating right, but why are so many of us failing to find intimate life partners?
Sex is easy but love is hard to find. In our current high-supply sexual economy, sexual opportunity is everywhere, sexual restraint out of fashion, and love, the illusive Holy Grail, has a generation addicted to dating.
In fact, western culture is obsessed with dating and mating. Dating has become an internet commerce, a television reality-show, and a hobby for many, many people. But is it getting the intended results: the creation of intimate life partners? Do the plethora of revolving dating partners and sex without dating help us find romantic partners that last more than a few weeks or months? Sadly, no.
I began my research on the state of our unions by looking at the growing number of early life attachment injuries that predispose adults to avoid or obsess over intimacy. Both types swim in the same dating pool. Children of emotional neglect or abuse can grow up to become vigilant clock-watchers, obsessively reading texts like tea leaves, ever the ready to perceive a threat of abandonment, while others behave like skilled surgeons on a quest for no-love-attached sex, cleverly slicing into hearts until the genitals become available and then slipping out the door before the triage.
Men fall in love through trust, and growing trust is something that takes time.
|
Knowing the underpinnings of relationship dysfunction was only the beginning. While I am fascinated with why things don’t work out, I am perhaps more interested in why things do go well. The deck seems so stacked against real love and long-term exchanges of care that the data on what actually works in relationships jumped out at me. And from this data, I have fashioned a kind of prescription for slow-love, a sex detox, if you will, based on plenty of good research studies. Bottom line, if you are betting on a healthy relationship, wait at least thirty days of constant contact before jumping in the sack. Here’s why:
1. It increases the chances you’ll be together longer
In Mark Regnerus’ work at the University of Texas, he found that people who have sex within thirty days of meeting have almost a ninety per cent chance of breaking up within one year. Waiting only 31-90 days gives you a one in four chance that you’ll be together one year later.
2. It screens out the players
Anthony Paik at The University of Iowa, who teaches Gender and Women’s Sexuality, discovered data that indicate the onset of sex AFTER the first month of dating can lead to commitment. “In one of my studies, it turned out that the longer couples delayed sex the more exclusive the relationship. And if men engage in sex within the first month of dating they are 4.5 times more likely to be nonexclusive later.”
3. It helps you not get fooled by good sexual chemistry
Many people believe that jumping into bed in the early stages of a relationship is a way to test sexual compatibility, a way to audition a partner, if you will. If this theory were true then people who do not test out sexual chemistry before commitment should have shorter, more unhappy, relationships. But psychology professor Dean Busby and his colleagues at Brigham Young University were unable to make this connection in a study of more than 2,000 couples. People with good sexual chemistry early on did not stay together longer. He explained his results to me this way. “The mechanics of good sex are not particularly difficult or beyond the reach of most couples, but the emotions, the vulnerability, the meaning of sex and whether it brings couples closer together are much more complicated to figure out.”
4. You avoid a giant let down
Renowned evolutionary psychology professor David Buss at the University of Texas at Austin and Martie G. Haselton at the University of California, Los Angeles found that the more previous sexual partners a man has, the more likely he is to quickly perceive diminished attractiveness in a woman after first intercourse. Sex doesn’t lead to love for men. If the guy is a player, sex more often leads to distain for his partner.
5. There’s a greater chance you’ll fall in love
While women can sometimes fall in love through sex because oxytocin, the female bonding hormone, is excreted in large doses during orgasm, men don’t fall in love through sex. In fact, men can have sex with the same women every week for months and never like her one bit more. That’s because men fall in love through trust. And growing trust is something that takes time. While it’s wonderful to imagine that the sexual double standard has been erased, the truth is that, for most men, it is alive and well. The ancient hunter/gatherer fear that a sexual woman might knock him out of evolution’s chain by putting him in the losing position of having to raise another man’s offspring, is hard-wired in most men. When a man can trust that a woman is sexually exclusive, honest and protective of him, that’s when he’ll fall in love. And having sex fast negates that.
Photo by e-basak.
If you want to take it slow but still have a physical reletionship, then break your sexual intro into stages over 30 days. Stage one is sex with hands. If they satisfy you (or learn to satisfy you) that way, then move to stage two; oral sex. Reciprocate all favors until 30 days is up. If you take time to develop physical intimacy you can certainly weed out some people who might be sexually and emotionally incompatible with you (or just lazy in bed). Nobody wants to deal with that long term either. If you can’t have a really good… Read more »
5.
Agree with: “The ancient hunter/gatherer fear that a sexual woman might knock him out of evolution’s chain by putting him in the losing position of having to raise another man’s offspring, is hard-wired in most men.”
Disagree with the romanticized word choice: “Trust”.
Instead: it’s so that men are more certain that their partner isn’t already pregnant with another man. Waiting a few months would reveal a growing bump, if that were the case.
I agree. Still waiting for him is harder when you’ve done everything and too many already. 31-90 days…done it and still disappointed. Been involved with guys for years and still no connection. The physical attraction is hurting those who want emotional and spiritual attraction. Sex to me is nothing now. I want the deeper connection within not the sex. I have toys porn and possible face sitters…smh. I’m a black woman, men aren’t attracted to me nor like me. I can’t even get a guy to buy me dinner lunch or breakfast. Or take me on a date. I do… Read more »
I have several thougths that I wanted to share: 1- INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: For many (not all) women, sex (early or delayed) means “bonding” (which could be related to oxytocin levels, or maybe not). It is a matter of individual differences and I think acknowledging individual differences is a scientifically accurate and politically correct stance. 2- THERE CAN BE NON-MANIPULATIVE REASONS: So, continuing from point #1, delaying sex is not always about making you guys go through hoops (I know sometimes it is, but not always). For some women (and men), it is about avoiding complications for both of us involved.… Read more »
Is the photo chosen for this article meant to remind me of a breast, or am I just oversexualizing everything?
#6: It might be useful to have some practice waiting for sex. Once you’re in a long-term relationship with this person, waiting 30 days before you can have sex with her may be a regular occurrence. You might think of this as another test of sexual compatibility — can I stand waiting 30 days for sex with this person?
This could be much more manageable if you had sex with other people in the meantime. I mean, if this is all about waiting to have sex with a particular person, why does this have to be going without sex completely?
Good suggestion for some people. The only way I could wait 30 days for sex with a woman is if I only see her once or twice in those 30 days or if there is a serious life issue that prevents it. If we are married and living together and we have not had sex in 30 days(at least a quickie even if we are both busy) then I’m going to lose interest in sex altogether. I already have the issue that the more I love a woman the less I want to have sex with her. But given the… Read more »
Maybe it is just human nature that some people prefer lifetime intimacy and others do not.
Interesting how we accept the range of gender and sexuality but still cling to the ‘monogamy/lifetime commitment is best paradigm.’
Even if speaking of raising a family staying together is only practically necessary until the kids reach maturity.
“You just need to act like a reasonable human being” LOLOL… I almost fell out of my chair laughing after I read that one. Whenever I ask one of my girls why they decided to hook up with me, it invariably boils down to me being hot, built, sexy, or charming… At times, I am intentionally unreasonable and kind of douche, in large part because so many women secretly find it endearing. Besides, it also gives them a convenient excuse to bail out when they realize I don’t plan on settling down any time soon. The guys I know who… Read more »
A person can wait as long as they want. The longer the wait, the more likely I can presume that the chances of enthusiastic sex from her end are small. In that case there’s nothing wrong with placing her in the friend zone. I’m sure a nice woman, unlike some “nice guys”, wouldn’t misconstrue that.
“why do ‘nice women’ feel they are entitled to make a man wait for sex???!!!”
just to flip the typical response and emphasize how dumb (the one frequently seen on these comments) it is..
Unfortunately your plan doesn’t work. In particular, “2. It screens out the players” is dead wrong. I have met the “king of the players” and they can game this system easier than a good man can deal with it. A very good man will date girl and stay with her until he knows it won’t work. A good man will date several girls but the the first girl he has sex with will be the one he will commit to. A player-type guy will sleep with all of them and commit to the girl who is the best. A true… Read more »
“To make matters worse most good guys are like me. I’ve never had even a medium term relationship where sex didn’t happen very quickly. I’ve dated for months girls who in the beginning say “I want to get to know you better beforehand” and in the end say “you’re a great guy but I’m not feeling it” Only for them to have another guy within a week.” That’s your experience. My one and only experience is my boyfriend, 10 months from meeting, then he invites me to his place, and we had sex 2 weeks from that – but at… Read more »
Ok the problem is semantics and not fundamental issues. I have run into this issue before… A girl I was friends with for a year thought we had a long term courtship. To me we started sleeping together within two weeks. The clock starts (for me) after my statement of intent. Mostly because I have absolutely no romantic attachment before I tell her I am interested. Friends? Sure. But not lovers. Once I make that statement the clock starts and if we aren’t sleeping together within 2 weeks I am off for greener pastures. The author seems to be saying… Read more »
“The author seems to be saying a man should wait a month from starting dating I’ve done that and its bullshit.” This is usually because dates are not previous friends, they’re people you’ve just met. If the article mentioned “people you’ve known for months but only started dating recently”, then sure, but most dates are people you’ve known for less than 48 hours and started dating less than 24 hours before. As such they’re unknowns, and I personally (and probably not just me) can’t know if I’m compatible with someone in a delay less than a few weeks or months… Read more »
My experience matches Cinque’s. The vast majority of women I’ve been with have had sex with me within the first four or five (contact) hours after our initial meeting. 30 days would seem like an eternity… except in that time frame I’d very likely be having my sexual needs met somewhere else. The idea that someone could use long wait times as screening tool for “players” is laughable. A true player could wait you out with no issue; as could a loser with no other real options. The men you’re most likely to screen out with this are genuinely good… Read more »
The question is ultimately about exclusivity. As a good guy I’m trying not to have overlapping relationships. (overlapping relationships = cheating) So when I tell a girl that I’m interested I am taking myself off the market. I won’t chase other girls. Even if a better offer comes along, honor dictates that we either see how the relationship works out or I immediately break up with the girl before pursuing other avenues. Nobody like getting cheated on. By the same token until I tell a girl I’m interested whatever happens, happens. If I have been hanging out and been friends… Read more »
“(overlapping relationships = cheating)” Only if it’s dishonest. Overlapping relationships aren’t cheating if everyone knows and is on board with it. It’s like saying “looking at someone else’s cards in a card game is cheating.” Depends on the game. In some games, it’s cheating; in some it’s not. Cheating is breaking the rules. If your partner thinks you’re not overlapping and you are, then yeah, that’s cheating. “So when I tell a girl that I’m interested I am taking myself off the market. I won’t chase other girls. Even if a better offer comes along, honor dictates that we either… Read more »
Eh, no.
One of the first questions I ask is, “Are you seeing anyone else?”
Even the girls who I found out were with other guys answered:
“I’m not with anyone….”
You idea is great … in theory. In practice it doesn’t work.
“You idea is great … in theory. In practice it doesn’t work.” Really? It’s been working great for me for the last 24 years. I have five partners at the present time, almost all of whom I’ve been with for anywhere from 8 to 14 years. (Yes, they have other partners, too.) I know about sixty or seventy people just in my social circle alone who it works for too. There are a lot of people who it doesn’t work for, of course. But saying “it doesn’t work” is simply false. It works great for a lot of folks. You… Read more »
You know 60-70 people personally who have FWB arrangements? Facebook friends or it didn’t happen.
I don’t even know 70 people personally total.
“You know 60-70 people personally who have FWB arrangements?”
I know 60-70 people in person who are not monogamous That doesn’t necessarily mean FWB, but some of them do have FWB relationships.
“Facebook friends or it didn’t happen.”
Nope. Real life friends in this area. I both attend and host meetings for people in nontraditional relationships.
In fact, you can see some of those folks yourself, if you like, on the most recent episode of “Our America” on the Oprah Winfrey Network.
Sounds like (mostly) BS to me. And not even new BS at that! 😉 Here’s another “surefire” method to get a long-lasting relationship! A holy grail! (A myth, perhaps?) Can you make it a pill, please? And with some biased research on the side, of course! Because, you know, there aren’t plenty of them already. Research repeating stereotypes have always abounded: we had the ones confirming that black people were less intelligent, and women were inferior, and this one doesn’t look more enlightened. Of course, the screening factor works: if one’s just interested in sex, delaying it would make him… Read more »
“But, c’mon!, thinking that a 30-delay would turn a horny dog into a faithful husband is BEYOND NAIVE! ”
It will filter them out if anything.
Yeah, it will filter any (most) men interested in sex; i.e., most of them. Leaving almost only the sexually-bland ones; it that’s what you’re looking for, go ahead – and many wishes for a long, lukewam, sexless marriage. 😉 Fact is, reality is not B&W; a sex-hungry man is not necessarily a bad person (BTW, many women are sex-hungry as well). Thus, filtering out the sex-hungry ones (not willing to wait for long, and investing time and energy for an unknown future) would filter out many interesting and valid men as well = Your loss. The author’s (and many women’s)… Read more »
I will filter out virtually every man worth having: any man with self-respect will not endure that relationship long, any man with other options (and if a man is worth having, you won’t be the only woman who wants him) will move on to those other, less restrictive women (you know, people willing to take a chance on love). This argues that men, who already make every significant effort when it comes to initiating and maintaining the relationship, should also be the only ones who are willing to be taken advantage of, and who are willing to risk getting hurt.… Read more »
” “There are good men and bad men, period. Wating for sex is a way to filter out the bad ones”.”
It will filter the men mostly interested in sex.
There is a difference between being interested in sex at all, and being interested in sex first and foremost. I don’t mind the former, but I wouldn’t be compatible with the latter. I want a LTR, not no-strings sex.
It will filter out men interested in sex period.
We Men keep trying to tell you that. You keep sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating yourself. You are deliberately choosing the way you wish the world would work over the way it actually does work. No man worth his salt will put up with that kind of game playing.
“It will filter out men interested in sex period.” It will filter out some men interested in sex. I am a man who’s probably a lot more interested in sex than average, and it won’t filter me out. “We Men keep trying to tell you that.” You don’t speak for all men (thank God). I think the original article, which makes the claim that waiting 30 days to have sex will improve the length of the relationship, is rubbish. However, I think that your statements, particularly statements like “all men blah blah blah” and “no woman can ever understand thus-and-such,”… Read more »
Franklin I think you’re not getting where his apprehensions are coming from. For many women, how soon sex, physical intimacy and affection comes into the equation, depends on how much they are sexually attracted to a man. Its not that these men are sex starved creatures who want sex asap. Many men go through prolonged dry spells…30 days is nothing. Its just that many men have observed and experienced that when a woman is genuinely attracted to a man; when a man is very attractive and sexually desirable; sex occurs very soon, very naturally and effortlessly on the man’s part.… Read more »
“Women have sex very early on in the courtship process w/o requiring any effort or ‘assurances’. Sex happens unconditionally and only later she sees where the relationship goes.”
That’s a big reason why I prefer knowing someone before “the courtship process”. I gain very little from sex personally, and I rather know I’m compatible upfront. If I’m not compatible in other ways, being sexually compatible won’t do a thing, as it won’t lead to a relationship.
Sex is easy but love is hard to find. In our current high-supply sexual economy, sexual opportunity is everywhere,
Sex is easy?
Really? For whom?
Not for most men. So blinded by the FEMALE perspective aren’t you? So callously presumptuous.
“Sexual opportunity is everywhere”
Yeah, sure!
Tell that to the millions (billions?) of sex-starved men (and many women as well!).
If the above mentioned assumption was true, we would not have:
– pornography
– prostitution
– lots and lots of squabbles about sex between men and women.
Since – instead – we have more and more of the above, it goes a long way to tell how realistic, honest and accurate the author’s viewpoint is. Again, mostly BS. 🙄
You’re right Keith, women can be really blinded by their own perspective, its sickening. Its sad how out of touch they are to the sexual struggles of men.
The prevalence of conveniently available no strings attached sex and the hooking up is blown out of proportions if you as me and only few guys can pull this lifestyle off.
“If the above mentioned assumption was true, we would not have:
– pornography
– prostitution”
You know, people in happy, sexually fulfilling relationships still look at porn and use the services of sex workers, right? The notion that porn and prostitution is only for folks who can’t get laid is an antiquated idea that simply isn’t true.
@F. Veaux: “people in happy, sexually fulfilling relationships still look at porn and use the services of sex workers, right?”
Don’t think so!
Some might use porn, but I see no point in using prostitution when you are “sexually fulfilled”. To what end?!?
I think you’re making up lots of data just to justify your points. But your points aren’t holding water.
“Some might use porn, but I see no point in using prostitution when you are “sexually fulfilled”. To what end?!?” Why does anyone have sex? The fact that you personally see no point 9and I personally see no point) doesn’t mean that other men see no point. There are lots of reasons that people might use sex workers, that have nothing to do with not having access to a sex partner. “I think you’re making up lots of data just to justify your points. But your points aren’t holding water.” Okay, how about this? According to a large-scale survey of… Read more »
I love reading your comments. I’ve been a big fan for years
@Franklin Veaux:
44.2% of people who use sex workers are married.
Being married is no guarantee for being in a “happy, sexually fulfilling relationships”. If anything, this rather points in the opposite direction.
– 44.2% of people who use sex workers are married You seem like a logical person so I hope you’d understand this. Please bear with me. According to statistics you’ve referred to, around half of the men who pay for sex are married. Which means they are CHEATING on their spouses. right? Now we know that infidelity is not an exclusively male domain and the proportion of women who cheat is equal to that of men’s. How are the hell are the women cheating if they are not paying for sex? Or why are there so many men cheating with… Read more »
“According to statistics you’ve referred to, around half of the men who pay for sex are married. Which means they are CHEATING on their spouses. right?” Not necessarily. Not all marriages are monogamous, and some men who use sex workers do so with their partners, too. Some of the men are heating, sure, but not all of them. “Why do the sexually liberal men go to prostitutes? Why don’t they have sex with normal willing like-minded, sexually liberal women?” Are you serious? The ones who are, in fact, cheating might do so for a large number of reasons I can… Read more »
I hope you’re not arguing just for the sake of arguing. You’ve got so many things mixed up, there are so many contradictions and logical fallacies. I’m not going to write a long reply tackling every point because I don’t see that going anywhere so I’ll just keep it very specific and address one thing at a time. Not necessarily. Not all marriages are monogamous, and some men who use sex workers do so with their partners, too. Some of the men are cheating, sure, but not all of them. Ok. What exactly is the purpose of stating this? Do… Read more »
” Reported reasons for using sex workers include desire to have a sexual experience with no strings attached.”
“majority of the men surveyed in the study were married, wealthy, and looking for a sex partner who was “up for sex, interested in his needs, and not too emotionally demanding.”
My good looking guy friend also wants “No strings attached sex”. He has never gone to a prostitute. Plenty of women are “up for sex” with him for free without being ’emotionally demanding’ Maybe the men surveyed aren’t as good looking as him.
Whats the point here?
Certain fetishes are not socially accepted by many, but sex workers accept most of them without a hitch. Better than breaking a marriage for “being too weird” I guess, although I do favor open communication.
No no, men who go to prostitutes aren’t ones who can’t get ‘laid’…they just want No Strings Attached sex which is obviously a f k’d up, disgusting, abominable form of sex only a hooker can provide in this day and age.
Fk’n A.
ValterV
sex starved women, in most cases, have self imposed limitations upon them. Its rarely an unavailability of, or inability to attract men. They have other issues.
@Tim Parsons: “sex starved women, in most cases, have self imposed limitations upon them” Mhh, yes and no. You’re making simplifying assumptions here. Reality is not so B&W. – Think about a married woman whose husband doesn’t like – or want – her anymore (yes, her not wanting to cheat is a “self-imposed limitation”, but cheating isn’t just “easy”, it has practical and moral implications). – Think about a woman who’s afraid of men (because she had suffered abuse, rape or whatever): she might crave sex, but she needs an highly trusted relationship to let go. And building such a… Read more »
“sex starved women, in most cases, have self imposed limitations upon them. Its rarely an unavailability of, or inability to attract men. They have other issues.” Yes. Like, for example, they want sex with a partner who cares about their pleasure. There’s a popular myth that women can have sex any time they want, just by announcing they’re available. It’s sort of true–it’s not as true as a lot of self-proclaimed “nice guys” who have trouble getting laid think it is, but there’s some truth to it. But the flip side of that is a woman who walks into a… Read more »
There’s a popular myth that women can have sex any time they want, just by announcing they’re available It is a straw man logical fallacy no one seems to detect; to take a claim to its logical extreme and make the the maker of the claim feel stupid. For the millionth time, no one is saying that women can get laid anytime, anywhere they want, with whomever they want (yep that’s also added sometimes) Its only being said that, all other things equal, women can obtain casual sex much more easily than men. It is a comparison that’s being made… Read more »
[finger wagging] Ah ah ah, let’s be gender-neutral here. It’s a “straw person” argument, not a straw man argument. “Straw man” is a misandrist phrase that reinforces the idea that men exist to be targets of violence. If we as a society are going to have “chairperson” and “salesperson,” then we can bloody well have “straw person.” Besides, it raises the very question of gender identity. Most scarecrows I know have indeterminate genitalia – why do we assume that they’re male? [only 37% joking here.] As for women getting sex any time they want if they would just let any… Read more »
CASUAL SEX is not only drunken one night stands with complete strangers
Casual sex ALSO includes booty calls, Friends with Benefits, flings and ‘adult’ online dating. And women can obtain all these forms of casual sex much more easily than men.
People who want to belittle this advantage often try to perpetuate the false dichotomy of random seedy one night stands and relationships on opposite ends.
“but is unlikely to find a lover who gives a toss about her pleasure / its harder for them to get the sex that they want” The sex that they want is not something they’d want the vast majority of men to attempt to give it to them. They only want casual sex with a narrow slice of men to begin with. The consideration of how “cooperative in bed” and “safe” a man is only comes into question after a woman has already eliminated the vast majority of men not upto her standards of looks and social worth. The casual… Read more »
“When women choose casual sex partners the concern of “cooperativeness in bed” takes a back seat to considerations of a guys looks, physique, charm, outgoing nature, social worth, confidence and sexual prowess (Basically qualities that one can do little about).” Wow, that’s a rather defeatist, fixed mindset. Why, exactly, can you do little about your physique? You can’t work out? Or social worth? You can’t work hard, earn promotions, learn skills? And, I’m wondering (seriously), why so many guys here seem obsessed with making the point – and getting others to agree with the point – that it’s easier for… Read more »
“The casual sex marketplace puts women in such a bargaining position that even if a woman is upfront about what she wants in bed, she will still get plenty of offers. You can do an experiment by making a female profile on an adult dating site and mentioning clearly “I want a guy who can give me oral sex, else I won’t accept anyone” Just see how many volunteers sign up for it. But ofcourse the problem is she is likely to write off most of them as not having enough looks and social worth even thought they’re just regular… Read more »
You don’t have to exaggerate this. You seem really adamant to downplay the advantage women have in the sexual marketplace. Just because there are going to be some obnoxious dudes with dick pics, doesn’t mean a woman, who is genuinely willing to utilize this channel, can’t sift through the 100 odd profiles who messaged her, shortlist 10-15 to initiate a conversation with, and finally choose to have sex with 4-5 of them. When you have that many offers, you CAN do this and many women ARE already doing this. http://www.xojane.com/sex/its-so-easy-have-sex-craigslist Btw, few men would match the obnoxiousness of this woman… Read more »
You just need to act like a reasonable human being It seems you’ve been taking a lot of what women say, at face value. Women like to downplay the importance of looks in men a lot and that’s understandable because they like to feel good about themselves; they like to believe they are the less shallow gender. But what’s your reason? Being a reasonable human being is an important deal breaker but it cannot cause sexual attraction on its own, no matter how you put it. Notice the difference here. All this talk of liking someone on a deeper level… Read more »
Franklin “being a reasonable human being” is a terribly vague advice, as far as sexually attracting the opposite sex is concerned, that causes a lot of frustration among men. It should be made clear that, although, being a reasonable human being is an important prerequisite, it cannot cause sexual attraction in women. This is important to avoid the epidemic of entitlement issues among men, that emerge when they don’t see the advice, they hear growing up, to to hold true in real life. Seriously, we don’t feed this warm, fuzzy, feel good patronizing advice to girls for attracting men Then… Read more »
1. It increases the chances you’ll be together longer In Mark Regnerus’ work at the University of Texas, he found that people who have sex within thirty days of meeting have almost a ninety per cent chance of breaking up within one year. Waiting only 31-90 days gives you a one in four chance that you’ll be together one year later. First of all, as someone already pointed out, the author is conflating correlation with causation. Second, I’d like to see the crunch in the numbers behind this, cause “almost” 90% plus 1/4 (25%) adds up well above 100% in… Read more »
“Second, I’d like to see the crunch in the numbers behind this, cause “almost” 90% plus 1/4 (25%) adds up well above 100% in my book…”
90% of the less than 30 days people.
25% of the more than 30 days people.
Not the same people.
“Not the same people.”
Are you sure…? 😉
Nah, I’m sorry about that. *blush*
Well as long as one makes it clear that one is interested in a relationship with the other person despite of not wanting to have sex with said person and that its not because he/she finds the other person to be unattractive/repulsive.
Yeah… good luck with that. That kind of logic sounds great — to a woman. But men don’t think like that. The way we tend to see it, if a woman isn’t having sex with us, she isn’t really interested in us. Tell me, why wouldn’t a woman want to sleep with a man she has romantic feelings for? Are you under the impression that sex runs out? Birth control exists — this isn’t cave man days. There’s really no good argument for waiting, other than trying to make us jump through hoops. We know that, and we aren’t going… Read more »
If your primary objective in dating a woman is to have sex with her then yes, you would have “wasted your resources on a dead end”. Some women (who are looking for a serious long term relationship) like to get to know a man first before she jumps into bed with him. Some women don’t want to, as the article cited, confuse sexual chemistry with intimacy. In my opinion, a man who is also looking for a long term relationship has no reason to have an issue with waiting a mere 30days, 30days where you probably don’t see each other… Read more »
Also, I’m not suggesting that individuals who don’t wait 30 days aren’t looking for long term relationships. My point is that different people approach dating situations differently. And waiting for sex is one such valid approach.
Me and my boyfriend waited 10 months before dating, then 2 weeks before sex. We’ll hit 4 years together in a month and a half. Way better to get to know someone in a casual non-dating context for a long time than an evening date where people put on a show.
For you. Your relationship is ONE data point.
The thing is that for many men the minimal requirements for having sex with someone are much lower than the minimal requirements for having a relationship.
I don’t think sex is as much an issue the as the assumption that she is not really interested or he is doing something incorrectly.
Again, you’re not looking at this from a man’s perspective. We also filter, and the number of dates is the best way to filter out:
1. We don’t want to be taken advantage of. Men don’t exist to provide women with free food and entertainment. Some women think that we do, and we don’t like that.
2. Women who don’t like sex. We don’t want to be trapped in a sexless marriage.
You act like only women matter here — but men get a say in this too. We have every right to end a relationship that looks like a dead end. To us, a relationship without sex is no relationship at all. It is merely being taken advantage of. As I’ve said, it appears that some of you just want to make us jump through hoops. Call that a ‘narrow perspective’ (while acting like the female perspective is somehow much broader), but I notice that you do nothing to refute my points. Not a thing. That says something in and of… Read more »
Please note that I was presenting my perspective as an individual, not to be representative of ” the female perspective”. I was also criticizing your argument as being presented broadly as a general “male perspective” and pigeonholing an individual woman’s choice to wait as an attempt to manipulate the situation. Men and women have the right to do whatever they want in these situations. There are some men out there who are just after sex at whatever cost, and some women out there whose goal is to manipulate and take advantage of the men they are dating. However that’s not… Read more »
Tell me — do you see any man here disagreeing with me? Because I don’t.
And no, you dishonestly misrepresent my statement. You repeatedly claim that only men looking for no-strings sex will do this. That isn’t the case. You want that to be the case, because if it’s not the entire logic of this article is shot straight to that great firepit below. But read the comments. Every man is saying what i’m saying — we can’t all be scumbag horndogs (as you so clearly believe me to be), that just isn’t viable. This is something women can NEVER understand beyond an intellectual level. It is so far beyond their experience that it’s pointless… Read more »
*blink* *blink* Are you kidding me? You sound like a parody. “Something that women can NEVER understand beyond an intellectual level”? “ALL of us”? Speak for yourself. You can not say “all men have two legs,” so trying to say that “all of us” feel loved in the same way or need the same thing is just laughable. And the notion that this idea is something “a woman can NEVER understand” is just as laughable…considering that one of my partners is, err, a woman who needs sex in order to feel loved. We all have a tendency to want to… Read more »
Perceived insults (and lack of any attempt to actually refute this position) aside, there is considerable scientific evidence to support soullite’s position. In an article posted in the APA Psychological Review, author David Buss (the same “renowned evolutionary psychology professor” mentioned in the article) wrote, “A third specialized feature of men’s evolved sexual strategy should be to impose minimum time constraints in knowing a prospective mate before seeking sexual intercourse… Prolonged time delays, by absorbing more of a man’s mating effort, interfere with solving the problem of number.” Again, this is an evolved strategy that is common to ALL men,… Read more »
So all the men who claim to be asexual don’t exist then? Their numbers are small, but they still exist. Therefore the statement has to be modified to “almost all”.
This is part of the problem with pop evolutionary psychology–like quantum physics, lots of folks think they understand it, but few folks really do. (It doesn’t help, of course, that a great deal of the field of evo psych is making up just-so stories to validate prevailing cultural norms.)[1] First, there is not just one strategy for reproductive success. There are many, and different individuals in the same species may employ different strategies. Saying that “all men” employ thus and such a strategy or “all women” employ some other strategy is as unscientific, and as stereotypical, as saying that blacks… Read more »
I never said that “ALL men need sex to feel loved” or that there is only one sexual strategy at play. Soullite’s primary argument was that sex is of primary interest to men, and that we have evolved primarily to pursue sex as part of a short-term mating strategy. That certainly doesn’t exclude the possibility for long-term mating, but the idea that waiting 30 days will only weed out “players” is preposterous. It will almost certainly weed out a good number of men who are interested in long-term relationships as well, which is what I believe most men here are… Read more »
“The way we tend to see it, if a woman isn’t having sex with us, she isn’t really interested in us”
Maybe thats why I pointed out why she should point out that its not his fault.
Of course unless she really is not interested.
Actions speak louder than words. If you won’t have sex with us, you don’t really care about us. We know that on an instinctual level. You will never convince us otherwise.
Don’t speak as if you could represent all men. Waiting 30 days?
Meh I’ve spent longer times without masturbation. And just for the record I’m not gay.
soullite: “If you won’t have sex with us, you don’t really care about us.”
Women only have sex with men they really care about?
Wait … what?
If a woman won’t have sex with you, she doesn’t care about you? As in, the only way a woman can express caring for a man is through sex?
Even ignoring all the gross implications that has for your female relatives, that’s truly messed up. And, obviously, not true.
And who is the “us” you speak of? Who appointed you spokesman?
Hi
I think this is a great advice,for several reasons. And I wonder why some men dislike the idea intensely.
Hmph. that should read “But that doesn’t mean waiting caused them to stay married!” and “remain married even if the marriage is unsatisfying or abusive.” Smartphone autocorrect has a mind of its own.
This article makes the one error that is most disappointing in pop lay understanding of science: confusing correlation with causation. The idea that if you wait before you have sex, that will cause you to have a longer-lasting relationship is cargo cult reasoning. For example, it may very well be that if you survey a large number of Americans, you will find that those who waited to have sex stayed married longer. But that does t mean waiting caused them to stay married! It may just mean that religious conservatives are more likely to wait to have sex, and religious… Read more »
You’re absolutely correct. The phenomenon to which you speak is sometimes referred to as the selection bias. As in, those who are most likely to self-select for long-term relationship happiness are also likely to self-select for waiting a while to have sex with a new person.
Talk about correlation error… billionaire college dropouts and intimate partnership!
ergo….. education = money = sex = love.
Your argument is giving credit to conservatives for being the only people smart enough to not equate quick. sex with lasting love
“people who deliberately build good communication skills, who work to develop confidence and good self-esteem, who invest in developing good conflict resolution skills, who treat their partners with compassion and respect, and who have good tools for expectation management”
ARE LIKELY THE SAME TYPE OF “people who wait 30 days to have sex”
“Talk about correlation error… billionaire college dropouts and intimate partnership!” That’s kind of the point. Saying that you can emulate one specific behavior you see in a group of people–waiting to have sex among people who are married for a long time, dropping out of college among billionaires–and then expect to achieve the same results is correlation error. “Your argument is giving credit to conservatives for being the only people smart enough to not equate quick. sex with lasting love” Not at all. Being married for a long time does not necessarily mean “lasting love,” even though that’s what the… Read more »
Amen. Correlation doesn’t automatically mean causation. I love the phrase “cargo cult reasoning”! That’s my new favorite expression. My favorite example is about the reputed connection between ice cream and crime. Whenever the consumption of ice cream goes up, the crime rate goes up, and whenever ice cream consumption goes down, the crime rate goes down. Thinking simplistically, one could conclude that eating ice cream makes you act more like a criminal. The best explanation, though, is the “common cause” explanation: it’s the weather, stupid. The crime rate goes up when the weather gets warmer, and their consumption of ice… Read more »
1. It increases the chances you’ll be together longer In Mark Regnerus’ work at the University of Texas, he found that people who have sex within thirty days of meeting have almost a ninety per cent chance of breaking up within one year. Waiting only 31-90 days gives you a one in four chance that you’ll be together one year later. I’d like to see a link to this work. From this description alone, it sounds like the author is making the classic mistake of conflating correlation with causation. If this is simply a correlation, then it does not indicate… Read more »
I think this is very interesting and plan to check out both her book and Mark Regnerus’.
There is some evidence of this male hard wiring you speak of. Biologically, men’s penises are shaped the way they are, like a shovel, to scoop out competitor’s sperm. Further evidence is the larger volume of ejaculate that has a higher number of “defensive” sperm that a man produces when he’s been away from his mate for an extended period of time. The evolutionary biologists term this “sperm competition” and is indeed hard-wired, that is to say, genetically driven. Male mate guarding behaviors, e.g. jealousy, are another behavioral cue to look at. These behaviors have been found to be driven… Read more »
1. Citing a man’s penis as being shaped to scoop out competitors’ sperm is not evidence of an ancient hunter/gatherer fear that a sexual woman might knock him out of evolution’s chain by putting him in the losing position of having to raise another man’s offspring. If we’re just going to make up stories, I can cite that as “evidence” that men don’t have such a hard-wired fear since their scoopy penises give them reason to be confident they will prevail over competitors. 2. Same with large volume of “defensive” sperm- this is not evidence of an ancient hunter/gatherer fear… Read more »
“How hunter/gatherers think” is not just pure speculation. I’d like to remind everyone that we have actual published interviews with hunter/gatherers. We have writings from people who lived with or studied particular h/g communities for a decade at a time. Yes, of course there are translation problems, and the subjects don’t always give a straight answer, and every anthropologist brings biases, and you can’t automatically assume that 20th century h/g people are just like people 100,000 years ago. You have to use these documents carefully. But, if we really wanted to know how such people think, we should at least… Read more »
I would go one step further and suggest the evolutionary adaptations mentioned benefit the opposite scenario. If the shape of the penis and the defensive sperm is designed to neutralize another man’s sperm then that suggests having sex with a woman who had sex with other men in the same encounter was common in our evolutionary history. Chimpanzees and Bonobos are very genetically similar to us and practice this kind of group sex all the time. In fact there are numerous small, remote, human societies that practice a Chimpanzee style, promiscuous sexual system rather than any sort of marriage. So… Read more »