“To avoid marrying a jerk, singles educators say you should stay out of bed on the first date and cross-examine your partner,” according to Salon, “Critics say their advice is hokum.” Critics are morons. It’s great advice.
-
Filed Under
Chris Abraham
Because the Medium is the Message
Comments (34)
when girls sleep with me on the first date they want to marry me
Can’t tell you how many women have been crushed over this.
“It shouldn’t be that way” said indignantly doesn’t help. “Putting out” on the first date is just plain bad tactics, even worse strategy.
I think that most men believe that if a woman sleeps with us on the first date then that’s something she doed habitually.
It’s not us, its anyone.
Some women won’t sleep with a man on the first date unless she is really and truly intoxicated by him. And so it goes.
What about you?
I have a perspective on this I never thought I’d have, much less share.
If you sleep with a woman (or a man) on a first date, you are a whore.
There is nothing wrong with being a whore, mind you. But don’t expect a (healthy) relationship to develop. Nor should you be having sex on the third date.
(Again - I can’t believe I am genuinely having, much less expressing this opinion.) It needs to develop of its own accord. It shouldn’t be the product of pure lust. Unless you just want to f–k (which is fine). But then don’t whine when you realize it’s far more important to care who you wake up next to rather than with whom you go to sleep.
Not so fast, Faust. I know four very happily married couples who had sex on the first date.
While it’s true that these are the exceptions rather than the rule, I would refrain from any absolutism. People are autonomous and have individual motivations. Sweeping generalizations demean free will in this case.
Sex on the first date can happen for a variety of reasons. While crossing someone off your list as a potential partner can also arise from various causes, being narrow-minded enough to hold such an overreaching opinion only serves to cross *you* from *my* list.
Well, if you do the same thing over and over and over again expecting a different, more positive outcome and it never comes to fruit, then it’s really important to change your behaviour.
If someone wants you on the first date, that someone will want you on the third date (or week or month).
What I am not saying is to not “put out” at all. I am sure you know how to give a man the kind of kiss that will curl his toes.
Instead of having sex on the first date, curl eashothers toes with some seriously steamy time together.
Just keep your clothes on! Or, get naked but just roll around.
Here’s one way to kill it: don’t let him kiss you on the mouth. If a man comes away without a kiss he probably won’t call you again.
I have slept with many girls on the first date. Some have bloomed into beautiful relationships, others I have ended there, and the outcomes were not determined by the quality of the sex.
With that out of the way, let me comment on strategy.
My theory is this: On the first date, she has to make the big moves. I will coax her, nibbling at her ears and stoking her flames, but I will not rip her clothes off. I will make her want to rip my clothes off.
That way, a) I am not appearing overanxious, and b) she can’t get it out of her head how badly she wants to sleep with me.
If I come on too strong right away, it’s clear I’m only wanting into her pants. By letting her know that I want it, but I can wait, she gets all riled up and can’t wait and is cumming through her pants onto my knee. She wants me to want her so badly that I am trying to rip her clothes off, so she does whatever she can to get me into that space, which in effect means taking her own clothes off. I’ve learned two things: restraint is sexy, and girls like taking their clothes off in front of me.
This strategy also serves me in the long term, as once she has opened the door wide, I can come bursting through whenever I want. It is an open invitation.
Dearest Chris,
Note that I am not attempting to defend my own behavior. Indeed, I never implied that I have ever–let alone frequently–had sex on the first date. Your comment seems to be chastising (or perhaps it’s just Catholic guilt mixed with Jewish paranoia) based on an assumption that I am unable to have an opnion about an activity in which I do not partake. Hmm.
Whatever. I HAVE had sex on the first date. Because I was bored, because I was drunk, because I knew I didn’t want to see him again and I was horny, because I was overcome with lust, because I was quite taken with him and thought HE was mature enough to handle it. Not that I make a habit of it, mind you. Please note that none of these reasons included “because I wanted to make him stay,” “because I thought he’d fall in love with me,” etc. Just so long as we’re clear.
You do have an excellent point in that anticipation does make for an excellent first date conclusion. My only issue was Faust’s moral absolutism, but now it includes the wagging of your finger in my direction. Your advice, however, is very good. And you’re cute, too. *sigh* What a conundrum.
Mr. Name-Withheld, I wish I could say that women aren’t so easily manipulated, but obviously we both know that’s patently false. If I needed further evidence, all I have to do is refer to my own wet panties after reading your post. Well done, you! Please don’t pass that around; it gives you guys an unfair advantage. Well, maybe you can tell the next guy I go out with. Please do, in fact.
You have made my panties wet, Natalie. And I have had sex on the first date as well, Nat, and in fact spun a 3.5 (and on-again off-again) year relationship off of sex on the first date. No finger-wagging either. Why did I have sex on this first date? Well, “Because I was bored, because I was drunk, because I knew I didn’t want to see her again and I was horny, because I was overcome with lust, because I was quite taken with her and thought SHE was mature enough to handle it.”
The last sentence is really the point, though. Recently, a friend of mine met a guy she got totally wet for, they had an amazing night out and she slept over and he never called. She was devestated and I am protective.
Her response was “I thought HE was mature enough to deal with it” meaning that he should have been mature enough to have sex not just on the first date but then to be cool enough to call. To have more of that experience and not just let it drop.
You can argue and complain all you (or I) like but the point I am trying to make is you should put a flow chart onto a 3×5 card when you go out with a guy.
If you think he’s a keeper, sex on the first date is horrible strategy. That’s it. Have as many one-night-stands and have all your sex on the first date if you’re JUST horny and he’s JUST cute (I like being cute because that’s an important part of the above equation) then go for it. I highly endorse spirited horny saucy sexy young women who are cute.
But we men are not very circumspect because if we really like you and want to date you and you have sex with us on the first date then we’re like, “I wonder if she does that with everyone? What kind of girl is she?”
And that’s not the brand reputation that someone looking for a boyfriend — if that’s what you’re trying to do — wants.
Oh, and the number one reason why I have had sex on the first date? Because I could.
My darling Chris,
I can see your point. Really, I can. And it’s reassuring that you yourself have experienced the exception to the no-sex-on-the-first-date rule. However, I can’t help but notice the underlying assumptions within this dialogue; namely, that the onus is consistently borne by the woman.
How? Well, in two ways. Firstly, in assuming that she is the only one who is “quite taken with” the other. As though she is ALWAYS the one more into the man, and must thus fight both to protect herself/her feelings and to “win” him. This generalization puts women in a dangerous position, and one which makes it no mystery as to why the female of the species has evolved into the manipulative, catty, nonsensical bitch of many comedic cliches. In a word: UGH.
What happens when HE is more into HER? Or, statistically less probable than a disparity, they each consider the other to be a keeper?
Well, that brings us to the second burden placed on women (implied within your own argument): it is, apparently, a foregone conclusion that a) the man will try to sleep with the woman (regardless of potential keeper status); and b) it is always up to the woman to stop things short of sex. That the man is powerless to stop sex once he initiates it, regardless of keeper status (on either end). That there is no “should we or shouldn’t we?” internal debate on the man’s end. That that sort of introspection/fear/doubt/analysis should fall completely on the woman.
Personally, I would find this a bit demeaning if I were of the male persuasion, but hey–if it’s true, then more power to ME. Whoo-hoo.
Again, I agree with the practicalities of your advice–you’re right; guys are definitely more likely to run away if you sleep with them on the first date. Period. And in 99% of cases, it’s because their thought process is exactly like yours: “does she do this with everyone?” And, of course, not worry that SHE might be wondering the same of HIM. My question is–assuming that, were it not for the sex, he would be considering her a potential keeper, “why doesn’t he want to stick around to find out?” Maybe you could enlighten me, and your friend. (My sympathies to her, by the way–not that she needs them, but I know how she feels.)
Another aspect of this is that of the new feminism, which you yourself have written about (and well) fairly often. Men struggle with this contradiction, too. A perfect example is that of Chris Abraham: an intelligent, well-traveled, insightful and thoughtful man who, while “fully endors[ing] spirited horny saucy sexy young women who are cute”–and (now I’m the one who’s assuming) wanting a partner who’s very sexually charged and creative while being similarly intelligent, insightful, etc etc–runs at the first hint that a woman is comfortable with her sexuality. Even if she seems first-date-perfect in every other way.
And that–besides being a horribly constructed sentence–is really a shame.
Come on, sweet Natalie! There is totally the stereotype of the guy who appears too desperate. Who wants someone — her — too much.
In fact, the entire subtext of seduction strategy for men to win women sexually or emotionally is reflected christaline in Name Withheld’s strategy: “no matter what happens, you have to play it cool. Make her want you more than she thinks you want her. When you get her number, don’t call right away. When things get hot and heavy, make her beg for it. Keep professional distance — insousiant — and then let her win the man — us men.”
We men know that the cutest of you will not suffer the needy, the clingy, the hungry, or the desperate. And we act accordingly. We have in many cases internalized it. Or so we think. And so it has been proven 99 times out of 100. The 1 can be taken as a statistical anomoly.
You say you mature out of the bad boy thing, but I don’t believe it at all. I know loads of 35-40-year-old women who still ache for the bad boys, in this case are often married and what more bad than having an affair?
“They’re not my vows!” I have heard. Ha. Charming.
So, the drama goes, so cliche, “find the untameable bad boy and start doing your best at taming. Make him a good husband and father.”
Good luck. Once a player always a player and all that huff.
Whether I am “an intelligent, well-traveled, insightful and thoughtful man” or not, I for sure know that I am not intimidated at all by women who are super sexual, super independent, or super brilliant. I have really never been intimidated by any of that.
And I really shouldn’t complain, now should I? Never before in my life have the hens been so willing to invite us foxes into the henhouse.
God, would I love to find me “a partner who’s very sexually charged and creative while being similarly intelligent, insightful, etc etc.”
Especially if she will spend Sunday morning with me in bed watching Sunday Morning, reading the Times and the Post, and drinking big bowls of latte and platefulls of frittata.
I don’t think I will ever find her in Washington, DC. Ever.
Perhaps I should have clarified my questions. I did not mean to imply that you would turn away from such a woman out of intimidation, but rather that the sex itself–being on the first date and all–is such a turn-off. (Don’t even get me started on the Madonna-whore complex.)
What happens when HE is more into HER *and they end up having sex on the first date*? Does he still run away? Or does he call her? There’s a middle ground between desperation and aloofness. It’s called normality. Being logical at the same time as being emotional. Not having the knee-jerk response of, “oh my gosh! What if she does this with EVERYONE? She must be a whore!”
Or if you do, recognizing it for what it is–a knee-jerk response, and not one that’s necessarily relevant to the situation at hand. Did she come across as slutty? Did she reference previous sexual experiences in detail (not just in a flirty, vague way)? Tell you slutty stories with pride? If so, then perhaps she is a bit slutty–at best, she’s not quite ready for a relationship. At worst, your supposition is right. However, if she didn’t do the things described–and if your gut tells you she’s a nice, good, warm-hearted, sane person–she really could be someone who doesn’t typically do that, but who was enamored of you, overcome with lust, etc etc.
And remember, she’s not the only one who had sex on the first date. You did, too. Double standard, anyone?
If I have sex with someone I consider to be a keeper on the first date–against my better judgement, knowing the rules of the game–and he’s cool about it (meaning, not clingy, not freaked out, and not just looking for more sex from me), then he comes across as a man who is confident and emotionally mature, as well as being down-to-earth. Not much that’s more attractive than that, unless you count the bad boy.
There’s really no defense for the bad boy attraction, except that it’s hard-wired in our genes–male AND female–to desire the unattainable. Fortunately, I’ve only had one experience with it, and it was only lust on my part, not any sort of genuine attraction aside from the physical. (Same on his side, too, lest you think I was misleading him.) I’ve never had any desire to change someone. Good thing, as it’s impossible. Plus, loving someone–in my experience–includes recognizing and accepting their faults, and only working WITH them to change what might be detrimental to THEM IF they want to change it.
While men are turned on by their power out in the big bad world, women seem to be turned on by their power on a much smaller playing field–namely, the game played with their significant other. I’ve been witness to it hundreds of times, as you obviously have. Is it secondary to the historical glass ceiling, and we have yet to grow out of it? To our genetic emotional intelligence superiority (pardon the sweeping generalization and lack of citation regarding numerous scientific studies)? Or is it simply because, by and large, we’re bitches with too much time on our hands?
Not that I can speak for the vast majority of women out there.
After all, I grew up watching Sunday morning and reading the Post in bed. As I got older I added the coffee. No fritattas yet, though. Perhaps that would come at the end of a really, really good first date.
I have a girl’s perspective to add. Please first note that I am by no means a “whore” or a “slut”, as you might put it. However, I have certainly been in situations on the first date where I know I like the guy, I know there will likely be several dates to come, and where, not only does the guy want to have sex (surprise surprise), but I, too, am certainly feeling it. You see, you’re going to either have sex then, or you’re going to have sex in five dates, even if you end up only going out on 10 dates (or just five, I mean, he could be awful in bed! Wouldn’t it have been nice to realize that before 5 dates?).
However, while this may remain true, in those certain situations where I’m “feelin’ it”, I WILL refrain on the first date, simply because there are people out there who say you’re a slut if you “put out” on the first date. I can understand where this might come from, because sluts do put out on the first date, they’re sluts. But, if we reach back into our 8th grade logic learning, this does not imply that everyone who puts out on the first date is a slut. But, since it’s all a big game the first couple of dates anyway, you need to know how to play. So by knowing you’re considered a whore if you have sex the first date, I smartly keep my pants on.
For the record, I’m dating a guy now, wonderful guy, who I had sex with on the SECOND date, and that’s only because I fought the incredible urge to do it on the first date, for the aforementioned reason. The relationship, I might add, is going prefectly great. You can tell a lot on a 3 hour date with a guy. If you can’t, you have other problems.
As for my legitimacy of not being a whore, you’ll just need to take my word for it. I think that there are some other women out there that might admit to the same thing.
“After all, I grew up watching Sunday morning and reading the Post in bed. As I got older I added the coffee. No fritattas yet, though. Perhaps that would come at the end of a really, really good first date.”
I obviously have not had sex on the first date with the right girl.
Okay, Kate, I know the background of you and your boy and I have a couple exceptions to what I call “sex on the first date” and “the one night stand.” These:
1) If you already know each other.
2) You have been friends before or are friends.
3) You travel in the same circles.
4) You have a hot and heavy banter on blog comments.
Generally the concept of the sex on the first date as being a Really Bad Idea is when strangers meet, get a number, then go out and then have hot, steamy, lemming sex on the first date.
The deeper, meaner, more raunchy experience is when you hook up with a stranger at a bar and then have massive monkey sex the same night.
The meanest, raunchiest, version of this is waiting until the 11th hour and then going home with the drunk person and waking up with a start in a strange bed with a strange person.
That’s the worst tactic if you’re looking for a mate. If you’re looking for a sweetie-pie.
(I am so old-fashioned)
And you won’t, because if you did, she’d never hear from you again.
Now, the second date, on the other hand…
“And you won’t, because if you did, she’d never hear from you again.”
Talk about shooting myself in the foot.
“Now, the second date, on the other hand…”
Oh, okay, good.
Okay, so what constitutes a date? Grabbing drinks after work? Is that a first date? Going out with friends the second date? Or are dates only late night things with massive times for steamy, saucy, grinding private times together? What constitutes that first date? What constitutes a real date towards the Holy Land of nudity and lubrication?
That’s the eternal question, isn’t it? The golden equation men have been attempting to figure out for centuries.
For someone you’ve never met before–or who you exchange numbers with at a bar–I think grabbing drinks is definitely a date, though for it to really count towards something you do have to have some sort of chemistry. The drinks session should be somewhat prolonged, but due to natural causes–great conversation, etc. An unwillingness on either part for the evening to end.
Seeing a movie together is definitely not a good first or second date option.
Dinner followed by drinks/strolling around the city/what have you is a good second date, but depends on how well the first date goes.
Any date leading to the land of sweat and lubrication should find the company compelling enough to turn it into a late-night affair, regardless of the original venue.
Too confusing?
No, simple. Thanks. Brilliant.
I am crushing.
“I am crushing.”
Perhaps I’m an anomaly in that I find that attractive. Especially in light of previous conversation.
Of course, by saying that, I just lost the game. Drat.
Nonetheless, this post has my real email address. Should you choose to do anything about it.
Well, there is little logic or rationality in something like love and lust. To measure what’s right in terms of number of dates, type of sex, etc. ignores the very varied goals of daters. For some, they don’t even know if they find the other person sexy until six months after they’ve married them. For others, they’re almost having sex 10 minutes into date one. I don’t think either situation obviates the possibility or probability of “success”.
And, what do we mean by “success”? To a lot of people, staying married to someone until one of you dies is the sole definition of a “successful” relationship, with all others being “failures” in some way. To others, great sex one night until the sun comes up is a successful relationship. It all depends on what your soul seeks.
The writer opens with that type of assumption. “To avoid marrying a jerk” implies that marriage is always the goal of daters. Yet there are a few of us out in the world who think a lot of this “keeper” and “marriage” and “forever” business is sometimes a sign someone has had been to DisneyWorld one time too many. Such folks only later find out the bad news: tomorrow never comes, and you spent all your todays worrying about the future and “where is this going”… consumed by fear, short-circuiting your capacity to love and love fully.
Frankly, I know very few married couples who feel they are living a vibrant, fulfilling life. They’ve long tired of their mates, at least sexually. A very large majority of my married friends are terribly envious of the life I lead. Yet, almost every 20something female I know seems to be hunting for that sort of life.
Which reminds me, having experienced a few dates too many where she clearly is already vetting me for meeting her family that Christmas … I’ve learned that the best approach is to immediately take her home and fuck her Old Testament style. You know, to teach her a lesson.
Besides, on a dinner date, I view each course of a meal as a full date. And the pre-seating cocktail counts. So, technically, by the coffee-and-dessert course, we are on our fourth date and wondering why we waited so long.
I’m irritated and sad that sex is a game, a weapon, a tool (I’m speaking from the single world, rather than the relationship world). Another way we define, judge, box eachother in/out.
I am a slut. I am a whore. I am the Holy Mother Madonna. I know men who are cowboys, dominatrix, SNAGs, sluts, and virgins. We each have these archetypes within.
So what’s the big deal? I have sex with whom I want to have sex for the reasons I have sex with them. I am a healthy, ambitious, woman. Sex is fun on the mundane physical level AND , when I want it to, when I’m open for that, I let sex bring me out of myself, into God, to communion, and there I find the tears of Life.
Yet, I too find that men are less willing to open the heart with me if we have sex on the first date. What a drag. I bring my heart with me, whether my legs are open or closed. That’s the point for me. To experience my heart, my feelings, all of them.
That’s what I’m interested in, be it a booty call or something that will last longer. Maybe that’s what I’m finding, I can bring substance to the booty call, but don’t get met with substance. So does that mean “relationship” is the place of substance? How about a lover, a man, who can bring it on, his heart and his hard on? I want great sex and love in the same bed, at the same time. I’m ready to receive and give the greatest romance of my life. Does that mean a ring and everything that goes with it? Not to me, but to men, I think so. I think lots of men give their hardons away with abandon, and save the heart for… I don’t know what.
People are all just protecting their hearts, is all. I really don’t believe that sex is sport, that sex is just a game of sport. I have never seen it without some sort of expectation or judgement — not even in Santa Cruz.
I truly don’t believe that things are ever the same after people fuck. I think that is the one injustice that the sexual revolution has gifted to the modern world.
And in my 20-years as a sexually-active adult male, there has not been one single time when my mates and I were planning to go out that we weren’t fully armored for getting laid that night.
That was our ultimate goal!
We had condoms and we clipped our nails and put powder in our shorts and made sure we wore the good boxers. We bought Polo cologne. We practiced out looks.
When we went out we scoped for the cutest and easiest. When you were luckily, there was the both.
We organized “fire teams” of several guys.
When there were too many guys for the number of girls, one or more would have to bail. When there were too many girls, we would rally the troops.
We would block the girls of the group where were trying to keep the girls together and safe. We would chat up the “ugly friend” so that our buddy would get some time for the cute friend.
We are good wingmen, we are good team-players, we honor the concept of “calling dibs” and if you sleep with — or even just fool around with — one of our buddies, you’re pretty much dead to us until he releases you.
Actually, we guys were doing that well before we ever did get laid for the first time. We were trained by our older brothers and our elder classmen. To the savviest men, it became a calling, it became a profession.
At some point, I think I forgot how. Now I am screwed.
The somewhat cliched/hackneyed/old fashioned/boring/what have you notion of “dating success” was given to us in the premise–”To avoid marrying a jerk.” I think it’s important to remember that particular context when we’re talking–on this particular page–about first-date sex.
To further take things beyond the scope of the original issue, I totally agree that “success” in dating/relationships is and should be infinitely varied. For my own part, I consider one of my most negative relationships a success, because the lessons I learned–that were in no way learnable outside of the actual situation–were invaluable and helped me hugely down the line. Maybe it’s because I tend to be optimistic in general, but you’re right about having different goals.
At different points in our lives, we’re obviously looking for different things. When people are in one stage, they go out every night–wearing their best boxers and all–looking to get laid. A success that night might include something as far-reaching as “getting laid AND being able to fuck her again at some point.” Hey, I identify. Nothing wrong with that. After one one-night-stand in particular, when the guy asked for my number, I looked at him and said, “what’s the point? You’re a one night stand, I’m a one night stand, neither one of us is bothered about ever seeing the other again.” What did I receive? An appreciative raise of the eyebrows, smile, and a wave. Was it bitchy? No, merely honest.
Then comes a point in your life where you’re looking for something more serious. Not necessarily a ring or a long white dress, but you want what the previous poster alluded to–love (or at least affection and respect) mixed with raw sexuality. Harder to find, even more difficult to keep. Fuckbuddies are fine–sort of–in the meantime, but even their allure tends to fade rather quickly.
The problem with having such vastly different goals that are constantly in flux (however slowly) is that, unfortunately, none of us knows where anyone else is at. I wish we could all wear little signs: “Hello, my name is Josh, and I’m looking for a relationship leading to marriage,” “My name is Michael, and I just want to fuck someone a couple of times so I have some good fantasy material when I go on vacation next month,” “My name is Joanne, and I’m looking for a few people to be in my regular date rotation.” Life would be so much easier.
And so much more boring…
On a completely unrelated note, Chris, your recounting of the brotherhood makes me a bit jealous of having been born without a Y chromosome. Sounds like some great bonding–between you men, if nobody else.
Natalie,
True and well put. But, even the little signs would be wrong.
I think many of our illusions about romantic relationships are based on the fact that romantic love is “keepable”. I think it is not. If more people accepted that, there’d be a lot less emotional agony when it does fade - whether in a day or in ten years.
“what’s the point? You’re a one night stand, I’m a one night stand, neither one of us is bothered about ever seeing the other again.”
That made me honestly sad. I don’t know if either participant was happy, merely spent.
It made you sad because you’re a human being. The situation was one of the “meanest/raunchiest” types, that of meeting at a club, drunk, going home together and having sex.
Emphatically NOT exchanging numbers, meeting at a later date, having sex after dinner, etc. (There’s no way I could feel that way after wuch an occurrence, let alone say something like that.) And I was 20, he was 19 (I think). In that situation, is it really so sad? He seemed relieved.
“I don’t know if either participant was happy, merely spent.” Like so much sex a lot of us have had. Unfortunately.
Anthony,
You’re too right. Even the “truest” love requires tons of work, and that’s no guarantee that it will last. Romantically, anyway. Do you agree that when you love someone, it’s a permanent state, regardless of romantic feelings/lust/what have you? That love is permanent, regardless of its nature?
In other words, I think you can love someone but fall *out of* love with them. It doesn’t negate your history, and it doesn’t mean that you don’t or never loved them. But it also means that you really will never stop loving them. Probably not making much sense.
Natalie,
I have a saying: “love is the journey from wanting to having.”
And what a wonderful journey it is.
I do think that romantic love can, very very rarely, be evolved into something that outlasts the romance.
Unforunately, however, even in these cases, this higher love is usually forced to face the natural human desire of both partners to seek fresh romantic interest. And that’s when that love, no matter how evolved, is quickly introduced to (and often consumed by) another very primal human emotion: jealousy.
We are delightful creatures.
I am starting to realise that I can surely be jealous.
I have been reading the entire interaction between the male and female parties of this debate and I find it hysterical the way they are talking about sex, and one night stands, and first dates to such extent, meanwhile flirting with one another and hinting at it themselves. Chris and Natalie need to get a room. I feel that they are verbally and emmotionally f_cking each other. Who knows, maybe they have already. If not, I say go now, let loose the inevitable animal instinct, and then you guys can argue and talk about what went wrong when Chris doesn’t call and Natalie is attached. HA! It’s the perfect experiment.