Today...

[muggiwhplar]

 

 

If you continue pursuing a relationship with me for sex we're not having, I'm not the one wasting your time. By setting the expectation of sex on date $X, not communicating the expectation or how important it is to you, and then pushing it out each time it doesn't happen, you're stringing yourself along.

We're exchanging attention, sharing experiences, opening ourselves; if that means nothing to you without sex, I'd prefer you make it clear early so I don't waste my time.

In an ideal world, I could open every woman online with a disclaimer saying, “hey BTW I have a really high sex drive so if we’re not getting closer to sex every time we meet, I’m going to spend my time/attention elsewhere.” Or I could tell every girl as soon as I meet them face to face, “Wow I’m very attracted to you and want to have sex with you”

 

But sadly that’s not how the world works. (Though I have gotten laid in the past a couple of times by directly telling girls I want to have sex with them within the first 10 minutes of meeting them). That’s why I set personal standards/limits (which Ginger and Noxx don’t seem to do) to prevent me from being strung along.

 

So you feel like you have to hide your intent while approaching a relationship, but it's your potential partners who are stringing you along, manipulating you? They're wasting your time by not meeting expectations you haven't made clear?

 

 

No. I don't hide my intent while approaching a relationship... and I'm glad you brought this point up because it's an idea that I spent most of 2016-2017 exploring.

 

Manipulation and intent isn't as black-and-white as "manipulative" vs. "non-manipulative." There's degrees of manipulation, and the vast majority of people aren't 100% honest and non-manipulative, in the sense of being radically honest and constantly having no filter between their thoughts/desires and their words/behaviors. Additionally, often times it's better to communicate with your actions rather than your words.

 

Let me put it this way: on my dating profiles, I state that I'm looking for either casual or serious long-term relationships. I'm telling the truth and not lying about anything.

 

When I pitch the meet, I always suggest coffee or drinks-- something short and casual because I don't want to spend a ton of money on a girl I might feel no chemistry with, and I don't want her to think I'm the type of guy that's willing to spend tons of money on her and treat her like a girlfriend as quickly as the first date. If the girl's looking for a guy that'll treat her like a princess and spoil her without sex, she's probably going to ghost me at this point or she might think I'm attractive enough that she's willing to bend her own rules and make an exception for me (similar to what Noxx seems to be doing).

 

On my first dates, within the first 10 minutes I'm touching women on their forearms or shoulders and gauging how they react. If they recoil or seem uncomfortable I'll back off, maybe try again later when they seem more relaxed and comfortable, and then conclude that they're not into me if they never reciprocate.

 

If they giggle or have a big smile all of a sudden when I first touch them, I assume they're into me and keep pushing the envelope. By the end of the date I'm usually rubbing her thighs, running my fingers through her hair and caressing her face/scalp while we talk and she smiles, gazing into my eyes, telling me how good that feels.

 

Throughout the date, I'm letting her do literally 95% of the talking. If I talk too much, I risk them seeing me as more than just a hot guy, and as a potential long-term boyfriend... and if this happens, she might decide to "make me wait" for sex, because she doesn't want to scare me off. I'm very sarcastic and a bit of an [wagon] on my first dates because I don't want her to view me as boyfriend material or a nice guy at this point in our relationship.

 

After the first date, about a day later, I'll send her a text and suggest we hang out again back at my place. She'll usually agree, and on the second date, within 10 minutes of just relaxing and talking on my couch or bed, we're making out and usually having sex soon thereafter.

 

 

 

While I never at any point explicitly told them how I wanted to have sex with them (with the exception of me talking dirty to them while we're having sex), don't you think it's pretty clear to them that I'm a sexual guy that wants to have sex with them, by the way I behaved? How do you think she'd react if, on the second date, as soon as she started making out with me, I backed off and was like, "Whoa whoa whoa! What do you think you're doing?! I never said I was interested in you like that!"

 

In the case of Noxx, IMO she's behaving like a woman who doesn't want to have sex with him, but still wants his attention/friendship.

 

Your question of "Is it manipulative to string people along"? Yes

 

Then we're in agreement

[Tesset]

We're not and please don't categorize that disagreement as "bad thing is bad" when your definition of bad thing includes so many at-worst-neutral things.

[RpgGamer]

Your question of "Is it manipulative to string people along"? Yes, but that's not what's happening in most situations, and characterizing someone not sleeping with you as "stringing you along" is disingenuous at best, and actively contributing to undermine people's ability to say no to sex at worst.

 

Also, isn't it a bit manipulative to string guys along without testing sexual compatibility?

No. Waiting until all parties involved are comfortable and prepared for sex is called consent. Pressuring and manipulating people into having sex before they are ready is called rape culture.

Interesting that you said the same thing but came up with both "no" and "yes" to the same question.

 

No one here is promoting rape culture, just making observations about reciprocated behavior. Muggiw and I agree that if someone is not willing to reciprocate certain advances and they make it known to leave them alone and move on. Does she say something like "I want to wait"? That translates to a "no thanks" and we move on. People who are interested in you can show consent in more than just words, but they absolutely cam revoke consent at any point. If someone started reacting negatively to advances or stated that they are not interested of course you stop and move on. I feel like you were really quick to toss this mindset into a rape culture promotion, when it's very much the opposite

[muggiwhplar]

im jst glad my wiufe and i had an arranged marriage becuse shes a straight 10/10 

 

lucky you, mine's a gay 10/10 :(

[muggiwhplar]

I'm not objecting to you wanting to date women who will have sex with you early in a relationship, Muggi. I'm objecting to you characterizing women who won't sleep with you right away as using that to manipulate you or wanting to control you.

 

Just realized I forgot to respond to this.

 

To be clear, I'm not assuming the worst out of every woman when they say "we should wait." I'm not really assuming anything because at that point, it doesn't matter why she wants to wait; all that matters is the fact that she wants to wait, which means we're incompatible. At which point I politely excuse myself and find someone else.

 

Sometimes women have valid reasons for wanting to wait, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're manipulating you, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they're unintentionally manipulating you without realizing it, sometimes they know what they're doing. We'll never know, only she does. All we can do is make assumptions based on her words and actions (with her actions having more weight).

 

While her reasoning behind withholding sex is irrelevant to me since I just move on and spend my time with other women, it's more relevant to people like Noxx and Ginger who are willing/eager to not see any other women and instead cross their fingers, waiting for their girl to eventually come around (which she rarely does). This discussion is about guys like them who enter the friend zone, thinking that by being nice, and complying with her preferences, they'll eventually get to sleep with her.

 

In my experience, complying with a woman's preferences when you don't want to leads to frustration and rarely leads to where you want it to lead-- especially if she knows you're doing something you'd prefer not to do, just to make her happy. That kind of thing murders female attraction.

 

The sad reality is that women ironically become more attracted to you when you're willing to say no to their demands or when you're willing to walk away; they respect you and view you as a man with a backbone when you prioritize your preferences over hers (I really hope you don't take what I'm saying and try to twist this into "OH so you should have sex with her without her consent, and then she'll be more attracted to you and respect you?!" NO, that's not what I'm saying).

 

So back to my original quotes which struck a nerve with you:

 

Same. When a girl says something like how she wants to take things slow, that’s usually woman-language for either “I’m not interested in having sex with you, but I still want your attention” or “I know you want to have sex with me, and I might have sex with you too, but I want to see if I can get you to comply with my preferences and wait for sex so I can be in control of the relationship and lose attraction for you sooner for allowing me to do this”

 

Chances are she's probably not actually consciously thinking this. But it's very common for her to feel that way on biological level. Complying with a woman over something you don't want to comply with is going to make her lose attraction for you-- but the reason why this isn't common knowledge is because despite losing attraction, women will often outwardly express joy and happiness when you choose to comply with them, leading you to believe that you're making the right decision when you're doing the opposite. Conversely, if you say no to a woman's demands she'll probably express frustration with you... despite the fact that she's actually become more attracted to you for doing so. This blog post sums the concept up pretty well.

 

Women change their minds all the time and make exceptions to their own rules constantly, which is why I'm usually skeptical about taking what they say at face value. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the right guy came along, and the girl Noxx is seeing suddenly had sex with him right away because she was so attracted to him, despite telling Noxx that she "wants to wait."

 

 

So, Tesset, I'd probably agree with you that this girl isn't trying to manipulate or control Noxx-- or, at least, she's not trying to do so intentionally or maliciously. I'm just examining what I believe is probably going through her mind, to make her say something like that, as someone who's been with many women who have either said that to me, or told me about how they said that to other men despite sleeping with me after knowing me for less than 2 hours.

[obfuscator]

Rape culture is imaginary anyway

 

Also i find it odd a self proclaimed asexual is so eager to police other people's sexual interactions

[Ginger_Warrior]

Just to rewind (and de-escalate this rather silly row), no one actually said: "stick with someone even when they're not offering what you're expecting from a relationship, in the hope that one day they will". One fellow TIFer, who happens to be female, simply asked that you stopped assuming Statement X was a manipulation of Statement Y based on nothing else except the gender of the person saying it.

 

Seemed like a pretty obvious and reasonable request to me and I think most people outside of this place, especially women, could empathise with that.

[Estonian dude]

Hot damn we are in the wrong thread.

 

I can't say whether having sex on first, second, third or twenty-first date is a thing, but I think it is all relative. You can't deal with absolutes in dating world.

Somehow, in my limited experience in the world of Tinder (which is pretty much the only site that works here) I only tend to meet up with girls who say they want to take it slow and not rush before meeting up.

However, after meeting up with them, being active with body language and flirting has resulted in them wanting to go further maybe even faster than I'd like. I am a bit shy after all. Even today after a round of pool and coffee the girl wrote me before I even made it back home about wanting to take a trip with an overnight stay. And right before meeting she wanted to take it slow.

[Tesset]

Rape culture is imaginary anyway

Yikes.

 

This feels like it should be obvious, but aspec people are particularly prone to being on the "doesn't put out right away" side of this.

[obfuscator]

 

Rape culture is imaginary anyway

Yikes.

 

I mean, I could say the same thing if someone legitimately believes that rape is pervasive or normalized, at least in the west

[muggiwhplar]

Just to rewind (and de-escalate this rather silly row), no one actually said: "stick with someone even when they're not offering what you're expecting from a relationship, in the hope that one day they will". One fellow TIFer, who happens to be female, simply asked that you stopped assuming Statement X was a manipulation of Statement Y based on nothing else except the gender of the person saying it.

 

Seemed like a pretty obvious and reasonable request to me and I think most people outside of this place, especially women, could empathise with that.

I don’t think you understand what we were discussing

[The Observer]

I can understand why there's some pushback about wanting to wait. Generally, most women I've been with I've had sex with them early on. Sexual compatibility is a real thing, and if it's something that doesn't happen, then that will cause problems later on in the relationship. e.g. Those that wait until marriage and find out later that they aren't sexually compatible.

[RpgGamer]

Honestly if y'all want to wait around forever, that's all fine and dandy, just don't turn around and complain about not having sex afterward

[Ember]

.

[obfuscator]

your anecdotal evidence isn't proof of a culture-wide problem. I can also provide anecdotal evidence that I don't know a single person who thinks being married means you can't be raped, or that people deserve the be assaulted because of the circumstantial particulars

[Ginger_Warrior]

(Presumably) cis men telling women that rape culture doesn't exist? How refreshing.

[obfuscator]

(Presumably) cis men telling women that rape culture doesn't exist? How refreshing.

 

ahh yes because if you have the wrong organ between your legs, facts are no longer relevant.

 

and in this very topic, you (presumably also a cis man) have been opining on how women think at great length

[Tesset]

 

Just to rewind (and de-escalate this rather silly row), no one actually said: "stick with someone even when they're not offering what you're expecting from a relationship, in the hope that one day they will". One fellow TIFer, who happens to be female, simply asked that you stopped assuming Statement X was a manipulation of Statement Y based on nothing else except the gender of the person saying it.

 

Seemed like a pretty obvious and reasonable request to me and I think most people outside of this place, especially women, could empathise with that.

I don’t think you understand what we were discussing

I dunno, I feel Ginger hit my point pretty square on the head.

 

In any case, it looks like this conversation is heading in a direction I don't really wanna take it, so I'm gonna back out and "agree to disagree" as the saying goes.

[Ember]

.

[muggiwhplar]

 

your anecdotal evidence isn't proof of a culture-wide problem. I can also provide anecdotal evidence that I don't know a single person who thinks being married means you can't be raped, or that people deserve the be assaulted because of the circumstantial particulars

I don't know anyone who was killed by a drunk driver, but I know better than to suggest drunk driving isn't dangerous.

 

 

And you know that because it's strongly supported by tons of statistical data and research, which the scientific community more or less unanimously agrees with

[muggiwhplar]

 

 

Just to rewind (and de-escalate this rather silly row), no one actually said: "stick with someone even when they're not offering what you're expecting from a relationship, in the hope that one day they will". One fellow TIFer, who happens to be female, simply asked that you stopped assuming Statement X was a manipulation of Statement Y based on nothing else except the gender of the person saying it.

 

Seemed like a pretty obvious and reasonable request to me and I think most people outside of this place, especially women, could empathise with that.

I don’t think you understand what we were discussing

I dunno, I feel Ginger hit my point pretty square on the head.

 

In any case, it looks like this conversation is heading in a direction I don't really wanna take it, so I'm gonna back out and "agree to disagree" as the saying goes.

 

 

Don't you think it's a bit silly for Ginger to call it "obvious and reasonable" when it's only obvious and reasonable to you guys? If it were "obvious and reasonable" we wouldn't be discussing this.

 

Given the fact that neither of you really responded to my clarification, I'm assuming you either more-or-less agree with me or you can't argue otherwise. If you're gonna agree to disagree, that's fine, but I'd appreciate it if you provided the rationale behind doing so.

[obfuscator]

 

 

 

your anecdotal evidence isn't proof of a culture-wide problem. I can also provide anecdotal evidence that I don't know a single person who thinks being married means you can't be raped, or that people deserve the be assaulted because of the circumstantial particulars

I don't know anyone who was killed by a drunk driver, but I know better than to suggest drunk driving isn't dangerous.

And you know that because it's strongly supported by tons of statistical data and research, which the scientific community more or less unanimously agrees with

Right, and I'm also not saying rape doesn't exist - clearly it does. But the vast majority of people see it as a serious and perverse crime, which is not what would be expected if society supposedly sees it as normal

 

I would equally say that it's obvious we don't live in a "drunk driving culture", the vast majority of people see it as immoral and it is regularly prosecuted as a crime with severe penalties

[The Observer]

Whether or not you believe that a rape culture exists, there are campaigns that aim to promote the idea of consent and for good reason. One example that happens too many times: a group of guys sleeping with that drunk girl at the party. 

 

For me, an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, which is why I like to advocate for preventative measures such as that. I'm curious as to what you understand the rape culture to be and to what degree there is a problem (if there is any).

[obfuscator]

Do you suppose that many people who are willing to rape are going to be deterred by a poster saying to ask for consent?

[Tesset]

 

 

 

 

Just to rewind (and de-escalate this rather silly row), no one actually said: "stick with someone even when they're not offering what you're expecting from a relationship, in the hope that one day they will". One fellow TIFer, who happens to be female, simply asked that you stopped assuming Statement X was a manipulation of Statement Y based on nothing else except the gender of the person saying it.

 

Seemed like a pretty obvious and reasonable request to me and I think most people outside of this place, especially women, could empathise with that.

I don’t think you understand what we were discussing

I dunno, I feel Ginger hit my point pretty square on the head.

 

In any case, it looks like this conversation is heading in a direction I don't really wanna take it, so I'm gonna back out and "agree to disagree" as the saying goes.

Don't you think it's a bit silly for Ginger to call it "obvious and reasonable" when it's only obvious and reasonable to you guys? If it were "obvious and reasonable" we wouldn't be discussing this.

 

Given the fact that neither of you really responded to my clarification, I'm assuming you either more-or-less agree with me or you can't argue otherwise. If you're gonna agree to disagree, that's fine, but I'd appreciate it if you provided the rationale behind doing so.

Was going to wait until I got home and could use a keyboard, but in short, I think there's a lot of unsubstantiated claims about how women think being made by individuals who have no authority to know how women think, which is what a lot of PUA boils down to imo.