|
Post by EdgedInBlue on Jan 13, 2004 16:28:41 GMT -5
Just curious if any other women have experienced this and how they feel about it. Nowdays, as I'm sure that you're aware, there's an unwritten cultural law which requires women to be promiscuous and excited about the notion of casual sex. Those who feel that the law doesn't apply to them are sent off to the metaphorical stocks. Now, I can't agree with these people who think that sex is dirty, evil and shouldn't be discussed. But there are quite a few of us who havn't lived under a rock for 200 years and still, feel uncomfortable being intimate with a man (or woman, whatever floats your boat). Really, I don't get the idea behind this one. If we're not loose, we're prudes?
|
|
|
Post by Vanessa110 on Jan 13, 2004 18:12:14 GMT -5
Do you mean we're perceived as prudes? I can not speak for everyone but I think a lot of us get labeled that way.
|
|
|
Post by mere phantom on Jan 13, 2004 21:08:56 GMT -5
i'm not a girl, but it reminded me of how at times even when I look at a girl or say hi, they look at me like all I want to do is have sex with them
pisses me off, cant I say hi or just smile, sometimes I hate f*cking america
|
|
|
Post by bitchbded on Jan 14, 2004 9:17:04 GMT -5
ive never experienced anyone giving me grief over not wanting casual sex, ive been in a steady relationship for two and a half years. but what comes to mind with me is that sometimes labelling a woman a prude is a way of defending a man's ego, i know all men have different attitudes to sex but those with the negative view of it seem to use that as a way of shruggin off rejection x
|
|
|
Post by Bashful on Apr 14, 2004 4:07:22 GMT -5
On a show once I heard a guy say that shy girls with low self esteem were better because they will go so much further than louder assertive girls and it was possible to "get more" from them. So I don't know if the stereotype that was mentioned earlier is always there.TEXT
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Apr 14, 2004 8:08:02 GMT -5
How do you define "loose" and "prude"? I think that most women are in the middle. They don't want sex on the first or second date. However, once there is an established boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, they see sex as part of a modern relationship. That seems very reasonable to me.
My shy ex-girlfriend wasn't a prude, but she did have some major sexual hang-ups. She wasn't comfortable talking about sex, so I never did find out whether she had had bad experiences.
|
|
|
Post by spitzig on Apr 14, 2004 23:18:30 GMT -5
The only girl I've dated who was shy(her claim, based on situations I never saw) was into some kinky stuff. ;D
If prude is defined by quickness to jump into bed, then, yes, the ends of the spectrum are prudish and loose.
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Apr 15, 2004 17:35:43 GMT -5
To the women here, when in the dating process is a good time to start having sex, in your opinion? Do you have a traditional view of sex (wait until marriage or at least engagement), or do you have a modern view (premarital sex is OK)?
Men, same questions for you.
|
|
|
Post by Beautiful on Apr 16, 2004 1:34:01 GMT -5
I am not a religious person and it does not bother me to have extramarital sex. On one hand I think that it is the best to do what you feel ready to do, but always think about it beforehand, don't do things on the spur of the moment or when you are drunk, because you will definetly regret it. However sometimes you think something feels right, but you regret it later, so that is why it is probably better in the long run to wait quite a while.
I had sex with my boyfriend very early in our relationship. In the first month. we are still together and I never regretted doing it. However I might have if we had broken up soon after, so it really depends.
It is probably better to wait a lot longer and see if the relationship will last and keep sex out of the relationship to see if you are really meant to be together or not. I guess it really depends what you want from a relationship, really and if you want it to be long-term.
|
|
|
Post by Alecto on Apr 16, 2004 8:11:31 GMT -5
Well my boyfriend and I waited about 3 months into the relationship. But I think its up to each individual couple.
|
|
|
Post by CaryGrant on Apr 16, 2004 10:03:04 GMT -5
When to have sex?
A wise woman told me of the difference between impulse and intuition:
Impulse: Gotta have it, NEED it, right now, afraid to lose the opportunity, fear-driven
Intuition: A deeper knowing that something is right (or wrong), confident that if it's right it will still be right if I wait, not needy or fear-driven
So, I think it is possible to have fun, enjoyable sex, without commitment, with someone you LIKE and find sexually attractive. This works if you KNOW where you stand on your relationship with this person.
It is also possible to mess yourself up by having sex with someone you are just getting to know; the sex causes an emotional attachment before you've had time to figure out if you really do like this person. (Some scientists say hormones are released during sex that cause these emotions.)
So the answer for me is, if you know the person, like them, find them sexually attractive, and are BOTH clear that neither of you wants a committed relationship, then sex will not cause problems. But if you are just getting to know someone and are not sure how you feel about them, sex may cause confusion and attachment.
In a developing relationship, the time to have sex is when both want it, have talked about it, are not necessarily "in love," and want the relationship to move forward. For me, this would be after, say 3-6 dates in 3-6 weeks. Sex and even kissing CAN BE very intimate - either you should know it's just for fun or you should both be CONSCIOUSLY pursuing the natural course of a relationship. In-between is risky.
|
|
|
Post by spitzig on Apr 16, 2004 21:50:38 GMT -5
I'm a fan of sex as soon as possible. The last time I had sex, it was before the first date. I don't mind waiting if the girl wants to, though.
I have a negative opinion of not having pre-marital sex. It seems very unwise from a practical perspective. Sex is a major part of most marriages, so it seems like a bad idea to ignore it before getting married. Tastes might vary. The sex might not be fun for various reasons.
I've heard that having sex too early can result in not getting to know the other person as much. Instead of going to dinner, and talking, you just jump into bed all the time. This seems easy to prevent, though--just make an effort to do things that are not just about screwing.
|
|
|
Post by iroseiroared2 on Jul 26, 2004 4:28:58 GMT -5
I am also having sex issues. I do want sex, but I don't want to get pregnant.. and I know there is birth control pills, condoms, etc.,etc.,etc. but I prefer abstinence. Even if I were married, I would want to wait for sex till I wanted children. Is that so nuts?
The problem is that there's a guy I'm waiting to date but I'm afraid it'll push him away when he finds this out. I'm afraid it will push most guys away, actually.
Also, I don't want to do anything with him like oral sex until he gets tested for STDs. Not that I think he has a horrible past, but I know he's been with other girls and you never know.. he used to be into drugs so who knows if he could've caught something that way. But how do you so easily tell someone you want them to get tested? And is it costly?
I hope I don't seem nutty. I am not a prude, but I really really don't want a baby more than anything. And I know someone will say just use a condom or something but my luck, it will break or something and I will get pregnant. Because I am the one always saying how much I DON'T want kids.. and you know how that always happens.. the people who really want something end up waiting forever for it while the people who never wanted it in the first place end up getting it. What should I do?
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Jul 26, 2004 9:02:27 GMT -5
IRoseIRoared, conservative Christians promote abstinence before marriage. If that kind of religion is compatible with who you are, you will find plenty of men in a conservative church who are willing to delay sex until marriage. Once you find someone, I guess that you could just delay marriage until you are ready to have children.
If you don't want to go the religiously conservative route, I don't see much hope for finding men in the mainstream culture who are willing to be abstinent in a relationship for years.
|
|
|
Post by losergeek1138 on Jul 26, 2004 12:04:56 GMT -5
the thing about this is, if you aren't christian yourself, any relationship you have with a hardcore christian is doomed from the start, unless they lose their faith. because sooner or later they'll "rededicate themselves to god" and part of that always includes breaking up their "unequally yoked" relationship.
and if you aren't a christian, i strongly recommend against becoming one. it's a toxic belief system that destroys your self esteem. the crux of the christian religion is that you, as a human being, are revolting to god, and that in order to be spared from his horrible wrath (even if the worst thing you've ever done was steal a pack of gum from a candy store) you need to have jesus in your heart so that god doesn't see you when he looks at you he sees perfect jesus. then, in order to "grow" as a believer, you need to "die to yourself" and give up every aspect of your own personality and try to become "more like him".
sorry if this offends anyone, but i used to be a christian, and i don't like to see people destroy themselves with the christian religion.
|
|