There are some women who will demand that a new relationship must go for months before any sex happens. While obviously the man can't in that time have any sex with anybody else either.
I think it's at best pointless and at worst psychological torture. What do you think?
(I would have made this gender-neutral, except I haven't heard about it happening the other way around. Probably not because men are kinder, more likely because men find it harder to go for a while without sex, for whatever reason.)
I apologize if I'm being harsh. There may be logical and purposeful reasons for it that I'm not aware of. And this is often why I post something, to learn more. Hopefully without being shredded in the process. :-)
---
Update: the headline is not meant as a label of any kind. That would indeed be a pretty hostile one if it had been.
36 comments:
This reminds us of the old practice of using sex as a reward for good behavior, or for doing the chores, or for being properly submissive.
It was never intended to be used like that, I'm sure.
"I think it's at best pointless and at worst psychological torture. What do you think?"
Hum... Just curiosity: (I'm waiting for my computer run some endless processes, so I have time to write stupid questions) why are you putting this topic? I thought you yourself were not interested in that kind of activity, so why would it be a problem if other people don't do it for some time?
And do you really think what is between the quotation marks just above?
Part of me does, though it's probably provocative.
Interest is a broad spectrum. There's almost nothing I have *absolutely* no interest in.
And there are only few things I want to be closely involved with personally. In between is a broad range of subjects.
Sex in itself commands attention for just about everybody. And in addition, it's one of those things which is used as a control mechanism and to make people guilty, and as an advocate of personal freedom, this interests me.
Yeah, but it is such a complex issue that this way of formulating the problem sounds... quite brutally oversimplifying. First reaction.
And here is a one-sentence thought:
Important things take time.
Yeah, sometimes I throw over-simplified things out there to provoke thought or debate.
Unless a woman has big problems physically or psychologically, I don't see any reason sex has to wait months.
If the reason is to "make sure he's not just using her for sex", then she has big issues, I think.
I think I'll let other people express themselves...
I'm so happy I could end my computer's endless process! Good night! :-)
There are a couple of books that help to explain this in terms of biology and the physiological differences between men and women.
The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine
Sperm Wars, by Robin Baker
Both Authors are MDs, the first a woman and second a man. I highly recommend both books.
My own view is that most women try to test men in some way to find the one that is best for them to have babies with.
Women can have a small number of babies in their lifetime, for men the number is close to infinite. Choosing to have a baby with one woman does not physically close of any baby having options for a man, but closes off many options for a woman.
I'm not talking culture or emotions or whatever, I'm just talking about what's possible physically. Humans evolved for a long time without culture or civilization.
Good points, Bruce. Neat explanation.
I was expecting some men would express here their anger at women "Yeah, those fucking bitches who don't wanna fuck on the first date, why the fuck are they wearing their fucking lipstick then?"
Probably the kind of anger that drives some cultures to oblige women to hide and to stay invisible. Or accept rape as a natural consequence of a woman's beauty.
Eolake, do read some of the books advised to you, if you really want to understand something in this field. Some truths are more complex than what can be grasped from 10-20 line commentaries (though Bruce's comment is a really good starting point).
There is so much objective knowledge nowadays about how these things work. We are so lucky to live in these times. If you don't take the chance to read any of these books, I seriously doubt you are interested in the topic.
Actually I suppose you are not very much interested in the specific topic of female psychology about intimacy etc. And that's really not a problem as you do not want to control anybody. But this lack of interest just makes you sound like those guys who lack interest in understanding but do have interest in using and controlling woman. And those can be quite dangerous.
You sound quite taliban on this. :-)
That may drive you the sympathy of men and the anger of women... :-)
Yes, I knew that was a risk with this.
But I couldn't see how else to express it while still being clear.
It's way too much fun to have sex than to use it as a way to get what you want. There are better ways of getting what you want to achieve.
Quarantine.
If he's celebate for a few months, then you know he's clean.
Protection.
Deciding someones bed-able is an instant decision. Determining that they will assist and support through a pregnancy, whether terminated (abort or miscarry), or full term (keep it, give up for adoption), takes a bit more time.
Protection.
If you "give it up" you are socially tarnished to some level.
Manipulative.
Bait and tease and start manipulation to see if you will be "on top" in the long term.
Just my guesses on the first month or so of abstinence.
@ Bruce McL:-
"Humans evolved for a long time without culture or civilization."
What makes you think we've got any now?
Hannah, you're right of course.
Except that people who are *very* repressed (and there are many) get very little joy from sex, but have a strong need to control.
Pffrt. I can understand not wanting to shag on, say, a first date. But meeting someone and then purposely stating "I won't be having sex with this person for this many months" seems like a sign of a very nasty personality.
When people start having sex, they generally do it because it feels right (ie being horny, wanting to get closer, feeling lovey, whatever). Removing said sponaneity by putting constraints on it is, at best, stupid.
Do people who do this also make up other limits? Do they say "I won't take a dump for the next 24hrs"? "I won't be nice to my colleagues for three weeks"?
They seem like the kind of people who might think "I will buy you a birthday present of exactly the same price as the one you got me".
Obsessive, compulsive and insecure. Those are the keywords that come to mind.
Now, just to say it again, I have no problems with sex not happening in a relationship, because it doesn't feel right. But random time limitations, bah.
I'm open to the idea that it might not be *that* nefarious, necessarily.
Some years ago I was approached by a girl I knew, she said she was interested in a relationship. She was nice and pretty, so I said "sure, come over, we'll take a walk and talk about it".
If we did it, she wanted months of waiting time. Her last boyfriend had accepted it.
I got the feeling that it was because of insecurity. Fear, basically. And she knew it, didn't rationalize it.
Couldn't even face sleeping in the same bed.
I said Thanks, but No Thanks.
I am VERY SORRY to read that you didn't understand, nor cherish, what you might have thrown away, in her attempt to tell you how much she wanted to have *relationship* with her. You basically sent her away telling her that you were only wanting to *use* her as an object for sex. Truly sad that you couldn't have looked beyond your own needs. Oh and...BTW, most women actually DO want to have sex, right away. Just the smart ones want to, again, make sure that they are not just being used for the sex...that we are WAY MORE than that and...if you aren't prepared to be part of all of that, she needs more than just spreading her legs for you and letting you cum inside her. Essentially, though, it is not your *fault* that you do not know, nor understand this. This was something that your PARENTS should have taught you about: NOT any school. And...quite frankly, they did you a disservice for not having taught it to you. But...I also know that most men, women, kids DON'T learn this from their parents. They learn it through the painful life lessons that come along the way.
How interesting that NONE of your *friends* even quite understand or know *why* it is a *good idea*:
First and foremost (and you're going to HATE to hear it but...it is *our* (women's) truth:
Sex is an EMOTIONAL thing for women. Everytime we *share* our bodies w/someone, it is because we are being completely vulnerable. You -- as most men -- do not [even though you *appear* to...but your *talk* clearly shows otherwise] respect nor care to understand this about a woman and her body. Women's bodies were meant for pleasure and creating children...in the confines of a *relationship*. God -- who created us -- intended for women to the the nurturers and therefore gave us this *gift* of...emotion. And...he wanted to *protect* this by having the act of *sex* happen within the committed *confines* of marriage.
Women -- like men -- are not just objects or pieces of meat to be *fucked* and *played* with...as some might think (and, yes...men and women alike on that last point).
Neither a woman, nor a man, should *fear* that their intimacy is being *minimalized* by the knowing that, later that night, the dude is going to take off, and go and fuck another woman...or guy. Who needs that kind of bullship and insensitivity in their life.
We are ALL God's BEAUTIFUL *workmanship* ALL created uniquely and individually and we *should* be upholding and cherishing each other as such.
For a woman to *yield* her body completely and unashamed, she has to feel comfortable in knowing that she has not been *minimalized* to just an object that a man relieves himself in!
Women don't care to be *used* and *abused* but rather cherished and *taken care of*...as I believe that most men, if really being honest, would prefer, also, for themselves...although his *needs* are more about being respected and honored. They usually don't want *just sex* relationships...not early in their lives, anyway. They come to learn, later, that most men just want to screw (as do women, honestly, but...with a whole lot MORE than *just* that) and...if they already know that they're not looking for a *keeper* (someone who actually wants to stay around and enjoy the company and value of that person and what they bring to their relationship) then...they enter into these types of *mutually-benefiting arrangements*. It is *sad* if that is what they *settle* for but...that is what many men *think* a *relationship* is...to them: mainly just someone who is available...on their time schedule...when they want the person. A *guaranteed fuck* if you will!
(continues)
[Continued]
And...funny enough, some men actually even think that this warrants that the woman should sit around and wait until this dude is, now, available for her...after his other *commitments* w/the boys, work, other women, or whatever have been completed. That is not a true *relationship*. That is *bondage of an object*. God intended our priority of *relationship* to be 2nd after a relationship with Him; not 4th or 5th...like on a *to do* list.
So...in a nutshell, women are not just objects to be fucked and...they actually want a man who understands this and...cherishes her above that primal level. Without that kind of respect for her and her body, it will just be another stupid-ass fuck session...until one of them says enough and tries to blame the other for how *not right* for each other they both are because...what did they, initially, base their stupid *relationship* on? You got what you asked for: just sex. And...if men just want sex then...go fuck the willing women...'cuz that is all they want, too. They don't want a dude that lies about who he really is and wants to be, just to get into her pants. They want them to be who they really are...from get-go and not someone else but themselves.
So, yes: a woman (and...if a man is smart, too) doesn't want to just be used and treated like a thing. She wants to be part of a loving, nurturing, honest and beautiful relationship...as she was intended.
The difference between a friend and a lover is the act of sex. If a lover refuses sex, it's not longer a lover-relationship.
It might still be a friendship, but friends don't try to dictate whether their friend is allowed to have sex with *others*.
eolake said...
"If a lover refuses sex, it's not longer a lover-relationship."
Refuses sex? How about the ones that are too SICK to have sex, anymore...such as an AIDS patient, dying. Does that all of a sudden make that person *null and void* of being that person's Lover?!
"It might still be a friendship, but friends don't try to dictate whether their friend is allowed to have sex with *others*."
So...just go out and bang as many chicks as you want, behind the girl's back. She'll eventually discover...the *oops* kids that you have running around or...the STD's that you brought to her.
I'm sure it will ALL work out just fine for all y'all working it like that!
I thought God (of the Old Testament) only created woman as an afterthought when he didn't get the full attention and interest of Adam. It was an act of selfless love giving man a companion, knowing full well Gods love for man was unrequited.
At that point for God to insist on man to still "prefer" Him is folly.
At that point God set himself up to become a friend and never the object of consuming passion.
Of course, the words in the good book are words written by my, presuming them to be words of God. Since I don't remember on the 8'th day he created parchment and quill so we'd get it down right, I'm inclined to believe there is scope for error.
I wish I had a faith like Kazinski, who could even question which apparition was God and which was the Devil when Jesus was in the dessert, and question if it were angels or demons who guided the Apostles in their writings, and still accept his creed.
Anyway, to turn a simple baiting question into a theological debate is inappropriate is it not.
I think you may like to check this reference if you want to lend weight to your words.
"How about the ones that are too SICK to have sex, anymore.."
Or is in another country for a while. Sure, those are special circumstances. There are good *reasons* for it. What I don't like is when there's good no reason given.
Eolake, as you brought a personal experience, that makes the whole topic less stupid. Talking about these very complex and nuanced things on a hyper-general-superficial level is a loss of time. But one can try to understand a specific example of human behavior. Over-generalizations don't help.
Anonymous said:
"Now, just to say it again, I have no problems with sex not happening in a relationship, because it doesn't feel right. But random time limitations, bah."
I think that's the point. It should feel right for both. If one does not feel it right yet, that one should have the right so say "not yet".
Different people may have different ways of saying "it does not feel right yet". Maybe some will say "you need to wait for one month, two days and 30 minutes", for some reason... I can understand that feels awkward.
But the issue here is not "the no-sex women". There isn't such a category. It's like categorizing artists based on the size of the canvass they use. Well, of course you can create a category of "big-canvassed painters" and "small-canvassed painters". But if you want to explain anything using those categories... Well, at least everybody will know on the spot that you don't know anything about art. :-)
You quite soon see it is bullshit. Even more because painters can chose to switch from small to big canvass.
The "no-sex woman" sounds to me as a good concept as "big-canvassed painter".
The right level of analysis that specific person, and you, and the relationship, and how you communicate.
If you feel that she wants to manipulate you, then you better go away. Who wants to be manipulated ? (with sex or anything else).
If you feel she is very much afraid of... who knows what exactly, then you can try to get to know why she is so much afraid. This can turn out well. Probably needs more time investment. Who knows. Anyway, it can turn out well.
But, well, if you say you had the feeling she did not face her fear... then maybe you had the feeling she is immature, and that's why you left. But then again, it is not about sex, it is about maturity. And communication.
Well, I hope you are happy with and appreciate this enlightening comment. Took so long to write it... :-)
You have many excellent points. And here I thought we disagreed.
I agree also that "no-sex women" would be problematic as a label, like most labels are. I did not mean it as a label, only as a headline. A headline should be concise and grab attention.
> And here I thought we disagreed.
What do you mean?
BTW, what brought the subject to mind today was a TV show where a new girlfriend did this.
It turned out later that she also made him give up pretty much all the things which gave him pleasure in life (admittedly dumb things, gambling, drinking, etc).
Clearly very different than the situation I had. But this kind of controlling behavior is one of the things in life which really rub me the wrong way.
Aniko, your expressions like "quite brutally oversimplifying" gave me a sneaking feeling that you really disagreed about something which you had not expressed yet (perhaps for time reasons, which is fine).
>You have many excellent points.
Ok. Acceptable level of appreciation. :-)
>I agree also that "no-sex women" would be problematic as a label, like most labels are. I did not mean it as a label, only as a headline. A headline should be concise and grab attention.
You used it as a label in the text. I read it. You did. :-)
Could have written "a no sex-woman". Attention-grabbing too. :-)
Anyway, good for you you used that label, made me angry enough to start writing all these comments... Actually, you probably reached your goal... :-)
No I did not use it in the text. I have not removed anything from the text.
The small-canvassed painters
There are some painters who will use small canvass for their paintings. While obviously some people, especially the elderly, have vision problems.
I think it is mere anti-elder racism that they do that, so that elderly people cannot actually enjoy their paintings. What do you think ?
***
The small-canvassed painter
I came across a painter who is using very small paintings in his work, so small that you can have difficulties seeing them clearly. I really wonder why somebody would do that. What do you think?
***
The two versions. First: creating a label in the title, and then defining it in the text, suggesting that there is such a category, and that the people in that category have a direct unfriendly intention when consciously choosing to be in that category.
Second: relating something, leaving the question open.
maybe they just dont enjoy sex, which is fine, if the man is compatible he will wait, if he likes sex he wont, I dont think sex is sacred but people need compatible partners and each to their own, personally I find sex the quickest and easiest way of getting to know a person
Aniko, fair point, maybe I let my anger drive the boat a little bit too much here.
What makes you think we've got any now?
By the definitions of those words. We live in cities, and we have socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and other products of human work and thought.
You may not think much of the culture we have, but there's no denying it exists.
> Aniko, fair point, maybe I let my anger drive the boat a little bit too much here.
Probably. :-)
Alex said...
"I think you may like to check this reference if you want to lend weight to your words."
Thanks. I wrote it just as I intended it (as is also included in your reference): "An ellipsis can also be used to indicate a pause in speech..."
Joanie,
the sentence that bugged me was "not just being used for the sex...that we are WAY MORE than that and...if you".
When I read this I believed that the ellipsis had been added where in speech we would pause to delineate a diversion in the sentence. A role more commonly taken on by the comma in text. You can see the potential for confusion.
It doesn't help that we are all using different forms of English here. Heck, English differs from county to county, decade to decade in Britain.
Alex
Even worse is the old relationship where she has decided "no sex" and "no cheating"... How can there be cheating if there is no sex in the "relationship"? Grrrrr.
Post a Comment