Poll: A question for the guys . Sex on the first date, Yay or nay?

[OmniscientOstrich]

Sure. If there were people out there who actually wanted to sleep with me, then I'd be a total man-slut.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

NO!! Call me old fashioned, but I believe that some sort of an emotional bond is required before sex happens. A bond which can't be established on the first date.

 

[NoeL]

Yay from me. I even prefer to have sex before the first date (we'll usually talk online then hang out and get to know each other in person for an hour or two before jumping into bed though). This is for two reasons: firstly because bad sex is a relationship killer, so good to check compatibility sooner rather than later. Secondly because I'm pretty shy, and sex really helps to break the ice. I guess a third reason (more of a tangential benefit) is that if you find there's no spark and don't want to continue, hey at least you got a bit of sex out of it so wasn't a complete waste of time for each party.

I'm not one to judge people that put out on the first date, nor those that prefer to wait. Some people have higher sex drives than others, some people are more reserved about expressing their sexuality than others, some people are more worried about their public image than others, etc. Just other ways people are different.

 

[infohippie]

With a couple of the girls I have dated, sex was the first date. On more than one occasion we only began "officially" dating after we had already been sleeping together for a few weeks. So sure, of course I would accept sex on the first date. It's not exactly a big deal, it's just sex. And in corollary to that, if I am dating someone and they don't feel comfortable having sex for weeks after we begin dating, that's fine too. I do not mind waiting and would never pressure someone to sleep with me just because we had been going out a while.

 

[NoeL]

Nope. I'm old skool. I've seen some relationships in third person. A lot of them in fact. And every one of them I've seen, it ends badly when sex is done on the first or the second or the third or what have you. The ones I've seen that waited until marriage went great.

What you see as "end[ing] badly" is all a matter of perspective. Anyone that's had sex with multiple people knows that sexual compatibility is a very real thing, and if it's not there you'll end up with a miserable, sexless relationship (not to say sexless relationships can't be fulfilling, but given the choice between a great relationship with great sex and a great relationship with bad sex, who the hell wouldn't aim for the former?). What you see as failed relationships others would see as road tests. You wouldn't buy a car without taking it for a ride first, so for the same reason I think people that wait until marriage are crazy.

The people that wait until marriage before sex have "great" relationships in your eyes because they have no concept of sexual diversity - they'll assume sex with their spouse is identical to sex with anyone else. Whether or not they're compatible with their spouse affects their concept of sex itself, rather than their concept of sex with that person, and so bad sex wouldn't be a reason to leave them anyway. The other reason is that once you're already so heavily invested in that person you're far more likely to "put up" with the unsatisfying sex. People that actively date and have sex have the advantage of focusing their interests on the people they're compatible with, so if and when they become interested in someone enough to want to marry them they already know there'll be no issues in the bedroom.

And it's also a matter of plain-jane religion to me. Don't get me wrong, I would WANT to have sex on the first date but I know better than that. It's a good idea for both parties to wait until the marriage is finished and then they can do whatever they want whenever they want with each other.

Not trying to criticise you personally, as you're entitled to practice whatever religion you want, but I always find it saddening/maddening when I see people sacrificing their own enjoyment despite it carrying no (or at least manageable) negative consequences at all. Everyone should feel free to seek and enjoy all the pleasure they can in their lifetime, provided they're responsible and courteous to all other parties involved. I can't stand arbitrary restrictions, and religions dish them out in spades.

Second, our refusal of Birth Control is mostly pragmatic. Even going by the best case senario that contraception is effective 99.7% of the time, that is still less than 100%, for what is in our eyes a VERY small reward for a very, very, VERY!!!!!! big risk (We are both opposed to abortions, and I actually want to have them made much harder to get than they are now). Thus, there is no reason to take the risk, no matter how small it is, on this subject.

How can you possibly judge how small the reward of sex is if you're never had it? I mean, there's a bloody good reason it's so popular!

Also, you're misinformed about the efficacy rate of condoms (assuming that's what you were referring to). Condoms are practically 100% effective (though can't state so for legal reasons) at preventing pregnancy - the 0.3% comes from misuse (incorrect storage, using out of date condoms, oil-based lubes on latex condoms, etc.). As long as you're using them how they were intended, you can have sex every day of your life and never have to face an unexpected pregnancy (unless you're ridiculously unlucky, or she's sleeping around). If you use condoms in conjunction with other birth control (e.g. the pill) the chance of accidentally getting your girl pregnant is nonexistent. If you're STILL worried (and I can't see how any rational person could be), just don't have sex while she's ovulating. That alone cuts down the chance of pregnancy significantly. Or wear two condoms, changing that one in a million chance to one in a trillion.

Third: I really dont see whats the problem with telling your kids to not have sex before they are married. I really dont.

Because you're asking them to sacrifice something amazing for zero gain. If you told your kids they couldn't listen to music or watch cartoons until they were married it'd be the same thing (though arguably less cruel). You're asking them to not only miss out on a great deal of fun, but to incur the stress of fighting their biological urges as well. And for what? What tangible benefit can you point to that even comes close to offsetting that?

I guess that's getting pretty off topic though...

 

[Amir Kondori]

I probably wouldn't see her as serious, monogamous relationship material, but if I was attracted to her and she came onto me sure, I would do it in a heart beat.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

What you see as "end[ing] badly" is all a matter of perspective. Anyone that's had sex with multiple people knows that sexual compatibility is a very real thing, and if it's not there you'll end up with a miserable, sexless relationship (not to say sexless relationships can't be fulfilling, but given the choice between a great relationship with great sex and a great relationship with bad sex, who the hell wouldn't aim for the former?). What you see as failed relationships others would see as road tests. You wouldn't buy a car without taking it for a ride first, so for the same reason I think people that wait until marriage are crazy.

Since I'm a virgin ATM (obviously), I can't really give an argument from personal experience since I don't have any experience at all TBH. But trust me. When I say they ended badly, they ended really bad. Now, granted, not everyone's going to have such a terrible experience of breaking up under these circumstances but I can tell you right now that if the people involved had just waited, there would have been a lot less heartache and general nasty problems. And they've all told me too. And I quote almost verbatim. "Wait until you know that person is the right one and marry her before you do anything sexual." Every one. My own dad used to be very active sexually and in the end, he married and said the same bloody thing.

I can't stand arbitrary restrictions, and religions dish them out in spades.

I know why you'd say that. It's OK. They're really not arbitrary though and they're actually not restrictions. They're guidelines that they strongly suggest you follow (in my religion anyway). But it's your choice in the end. Your choice to accept or reject it. Like a kid who is told to not touch the stovetop when it's on. Should he touch it anyway so he can get the "experience" that it's really hot or should he listen to his parent so as to avoid such obvious pain?

 

[NoeL]

Since I'm a virgin ATM (obviously), I can't really give an argument from personal experience since I don't have any experience at all TBH. But trust me. When I say they ended badly, they ended really bad. Now, granted, not everyone's going to have such a terrible experience of breaking up under these circumstances but I can tell you right now that if the people involved had just waited, there would have been a lot less heartache and general nasty problems. And they've all told me too. And I quote almost verbatim. "Wait until you know that person is the right one and marry her before you do anything sexual." Every one. My own dad used to be very active sexually and in the end, he married and said the same bloody thing.

Fair enough, and I can only speak from my own experience but I don't think your personal anecdotes are representative of the status quo. I can only assume from their words they're also from or affiliated with your church (or are at least religious/conservative), and that could very well explain the difference. The more you try to bottle up and control aspects of your life the more spectacularly they fail (when they inevitably do), which is why the states that push abstinence only rather than actually educating people about sex always have far more problems with teen pregnancies and STIs. Really though, having a piece of paper shouldn't affect a relationship in the slightest, other than making it harder to get out of if you think you've made a mistake (which is another reason I don't like the "wait until marriage" thing, because it rushes people into marriage because they desperately want to fuck, and if the sex/living together isn't what they expected they're stuck in a marriage they're unhappy with).

And really, if having sex is as relationship-ruining as you seem to believe, why would you wait until you're locked into a marriage to see if it's going to cause problems?

I know why you'd say that. It's OK. They're really not arbitrary though and they're actually not restrictions. They're guidelines that they strongly suggest you follow (in my religion anyway). But it's your choice in the end. Your choice to accept or reject it. Like a kid who is told to not touch the stovetop when it's on. Should he touch it anyway so he can get the "experience" that it's really hot or should he listen to his parent so as to avoid such obvious pain?

Every day I see happy, healthy people who are enjoying sexual, premarital relationships. I never see people happily touching a hot stove.

With the magic of evidence and critical thinking I'm not forced to rely on my parents when determining whether or not a particular experience is "bad". I can certainly listen to what they have to say, especially why they think the experience should be avoided, but I'd also look at what else is happening around me and how well my parents arguments hold up.

So even though you probably don't see it, I still consider many of those "guidelines" to be completely arbitrary. You're asked to not have sex before marriage, but how many people follow through on that? Like, 0.1% of the population, if that? And can you point to any tangible benefit? Are there really any strong differences you can point to between married couples that had sex out of wedlock and those that waited? The only religious group I've seen that are noticeably better off than the average Joe are Seventh Day Adventists, and only then because they enforce a strict, healthy diet. Everyone else seems pretty similar regarding health and happiness, regardless of what theological "guidelines" they follow. If anything it's the secularists that are doing marginally better.

Anyway, I'm rambling. I guess it's fortunate for your church/family that your friends have had terrible experiences with sex. Scare you straight. All I can say is that I don't share your experience, and the only friends I have that "waited" until after marriage were secretly having sex years before they tied the knot (and they're happily married with a young child now). The only difference was that she was wracked with guilt about it and had to pretend her bf had his own bedroom whenever her parents came to visit! XD

EDIT for fun:

I can tell you right now that if the people involved had just waited, there would have been a lot less heartache and general nasty problems.

And a lot less sex. Sometimes you gotta take the bad with the good! Even with the (few) sex-related problems I've experienced (including one particularly nasty one) there's no way in hell I'd forgo the sex given the option to do it over.

 

[dementis]

Most have my relationships have started from casual sex before any real date. They would usually be someone I met at a party, enjoyed hanging out and having sex for a while and then kinda just said "Hey, maybe we should go on dates too. y'know try an actual relationship, we basically do everything in a relationship anyway."

 

[Rob Robson]

Only if chemistry literally was on fire all night. Then it would be a waste to put it off. But I really prefer second date as a rule.

 

[Hagi]

I would not initiate it myself on the first date.

If she did however and the mood was right, sure I'll bang.

 

[Doclector]

Yep.

Let's face it, it ain't gonna be long until she realises she can do much better, so if she's willing to, I can at least cut myself free of the stigma of being a pathetic virgin.

 

[Rblade]

question: do you both wanna have a go?

yes? then have at it. Seriously thats the only consideration imho.

How do you know if she wants to? If she comes back to your house after the date (or takes you to hers) and plants herself on the couch, it's a pretty safe bet. Might vary with age.

captcha: take the cake. Yes captcha, my point exactly. We don't look an awesome gift horse in the mouth.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

How can you possibly judge how small the reward of sex is if you're never had it? I mean, there's a bloody good reason it's so popular!

Its just afew hours of happy time for a very real chance of 18+ years of barely scraping by, shattered dreams, and lost opportunities. So Im not taking ANY chances.

Also, you're misinformed about the efficacy rate of condoms (assuming that's what you were referring to). Condoms are practically 100% effective (though can't state so for legal reasons) at preventing pregnancy - the 0.3% comes from misuse (incorrect storage, using out of date condoms, oil-based lubes on latex condoms, etc.). As long as you're using them how they were intended, you can have sex every day of your life and never have to face an unexpected pregnancy (unless you're ridiculously unlucky, or she's sleeping around). If you use condoms in conjunction with other birth control (e.g. the pill) the chance of accidentally getting your girl pregnant is nonexistent. If you're STILL worried (and I can't see how any rational person could be), just don't have sex while she's ovulating. That alone cuts down the chance of pregnancy significantly. Or wear two condoms, changing that one in a million chance to one in a trillion.

Weird, because just about every government paper I have seen on the subject says that the best case is 99.7%, but the effective rate is more around 80-90%. For a very real chance of causing serious probems for my future. And I am not taking even the most minute chance when staying abstainte carrys literally NO CHANCE of pregnancy (unless your name is Mary Magdaleen, but thats beside the point). So I will kindly decline your offer.

Because you're asking them to sacrifice something amazing for zero gain. If you told your kids they couldn't listen to music or watch cartoons until they were married it'd be the same thing (though arguably less cruel). You're asking them to not only miss out on a great deal of fun, but to incur the stress of fighting their biological urges as well. And for what? What tangible benefit can you point to that even comes close to offsetting that?

Implying that keeping your children from having sex is "cruel"...........

Why do you think part of the reason Is IM abstaining? Its entirely possible to hold off on sex. People just dont want to put in the effort. I have NEVER met a parent that would be ok with their children having sex before they are married. They would all get royally punished. Lets go with my parents threats:
1) Loss access to truck
2) Loss access to cellphone, except for emergancys
3) Loss contact with girlfriend
4) Under House Arrest (meaning I can only go to school and work)
5) Loss access to gaming systems+Ipad.
6) Loss Internet access.
7) Will have to quit school and work to take care of any child that is formed from this.
8) The rest of the family will be told, leading to problems no matter where I go.


I like those rules. I will continue those rules. Helps keep people in line. I would also add to the list that if I have a daughter, she will not be allowed to have an abortion unless it will kill her not to. But off course, as a father with access to a shotgun, I will make sure that Junior is always there to love her, respect her, and will marry her to help take care of his child.........even if that means doing it a gunpoint.........

I guess that's getting pretty off topic though...

I disagree. It helps understand why we choose the way we do.

For instance, I dont give a flying rats ass about sex and feel that it would be better after being married and if it sucks, oh well, I married her because of her personality. We have the same interest, same hobbys (kind of), we both want to stay in a small town in the Midwest or the South, we both HATE big cities, and because its what we want to do, I will be the one working and makiing most of the money, and she wants to stay at home and take care of the kids with a short job on the side. Although house work will be equal labor.

So, how about you?

EDIT: Also, since you brought up "bad luck": I think the women in her family are cursed. 70% of them have given birth to children dispite being on birth control. Just condom, just birth control, both. It didnt matter, they got pregnant anyway. I have no way of knowing if my girlfriend is in the 70%, or the lucky 30%, so I am not taking that chance.

 

[Strazdas]

You make it sound like a girl wanting to have sex with me is a situation that could exist in reality.

In this competely unreal hipothetical situation i woudl have to asnwer yes, of course, sex is awesome even if i never tried it.


Then there is the problem of her possibly claiming rape in the morning just to extort money. cos of course that had to happen before.


Also since this relationship thread fashion seems to be thel ongest fashion on the forum so far, should we open escapists dating site or something? but then probably like with all dating sites - 0 compactible people found in your area.

 

[Smeatza]

I had sex on a first date. Had a relationship with her for 8 years. I think peeps find it easy to say that first date sex is rushing but that's just daft. If the magic is there, its there.

More posts like this please.
I'm surprised that so many people on such a liberal forum have such a Victorian attitude to sex.