For the record, there are still men who conform to a standard of morality that has a negative view about casual sex.

BINGO!!!! THANK YOU!!!

YEPPERS!!!!!! AGREE

even if it was johnny depp??

WE ROCK FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE!!

THAT MEANS HE HAS ALOT OF RESPECT FOR THE WOMAN!!!

YOUR CORRECT, BUT I WANT TO BE LOVE AND NOT BE A SEX TOY ON THE FIRST DATE. I WANT TO KNOW THAT PERSON AND SEE IF WE CLICK OR NOT.

The posts targeting other members rather than
the Topic, have been deleted.

soufie
Site Moderator

I apologize for contributing to the problem.

AWSOME!!! SOMEONE WHO I WOULD LIKE TO MEET

I have dated hundreds of women and I've found a few things they all SEEM to have in common. If a man hasn't made his move (sexually) after spending about 12 hours with her, she thinks he's either nor attracted to her or that he's too much of a wuss to make his move.

Let me attempt to be a little more clear. When I say 12 hours, that could be spread over two or three dates. I'm talking actual time spent in her company.

When I say I always have sex at the end of a first date, I'm talking about a date that's lasted 12 hours.

On another point, how does wanting sex on a first date disrespect women? I don't force her to have sex. I don't even ask ask her about it. If she doesn't want it, fine. But, I won't be calling her again and that doesn't mean I don't respect her. On the contrary, I have enough respect for her to leave her alone and not keep after her, pestering her for something she doesn't want to share. I'll find it someplace else.

As long as we are not eliminating the members themselves.

I always hate facing the wrong end of a Smith and Wesson.

I think I know the answer to this one.

The basic premiss on which this expression was built has two angles: On one, an assumption that women do like sex and intimacy only when god's approval is also sensed, on the other, another assumption, that if a woman is easy, then CHANCES are she is not going to stay faithful in marriage, in which marriage it is important for the man that she stay faithful, for he wishes to contribute financially and with giving effort and of his own time only to raise children whom he has begot.

So "respect" may be a misnomer, indeed, as you said; but the ease and readiness which the woman displays at jumping to bed does render her reputation, even if not socially, but only for a particular man, questionable.

So "wanting sex" on the first date has implications that the man has figured that the lady is a "type" which cares not about whose offspring the man has to raise; that man or any other man. You see, men ask for sex on the first date, in order to take advantage of those instances, by implanting their seed in women who are married perhaps, but unfaithful, so as to economize the dissemination of the man's protion of the DNA that goes into a baby at the time of the baby's conception.

Why is this a sign of disrespect? It is not at all, but it is a sign only if in the perosnal moral weltanschauung the man finds it "immoral" for a woman to hop to bed, and that view definitely needs a predisposion of needing a woman to be faithful to be respected.

This is a misnomer. Just as men like to economize and get a "free one" on getting babies of their own raised by other men, incl. paying for all the expenses of raising that child, it is also advantageous for the woman to have multiple fathers to her children.


This is so coz she can't possibly tell what attributes of her children will be an advantage when they grow up. So if she puts all her eggs (ova) in one basket, so to speak, she gets a jackpot if that DNA combination with that one man makes winners out of her children; but potentially all the ova may become wasted if the environment changes so, that the children will not prosper with that DNA combination.

So if a woman cheats in a relationship or on her husband, then she is doing herself a favour: she is diversifying the DNA porfolio she holds in her issues, and therefore increases her own chances to pass on her own genome to posterity. Which is the basic reason to have sex and children. No other reason can exist, other than religious ones. And pleasure - bliss, of course, which is actually nature's way to convince us to go ahead with the entire exercise.

For gay people the pleasure is the only reason to have homosexual sex; and most straight people don't think in terms of DNA strigns, genomes, and recessive/diminant jean couplings, when they feel like boning a woman.

Erm... to put an overall blanket of morality on these behaviour patterns is handy, and nature encourages it, too.

========

Why?

First, you must be familiar with a few corollaries that arise from this theory.

1. diversification is good,
2. but if you are weak (i.e. unattractive to the opposite sex) then you had better hook up for marriage with "strongly" attractive person;
3. because the the "weakly" attractive needs a steady supporter (since she can't get "ad hoc" help based on his or her attractiveness)
4. therefore weakly attractive people advocate morality that caters to the strongly attractive (be faithful, don't jump into bed if you are a woman, but it's okay for a man, even if he shows disrespect -- "you know boys", and this is a moral lesson assumed by those women who are weakly attractive. Weakly attractive males will support feminist values, both in action and in spewing ideology. Weakly attractive men will support "to show respect and not ask the lady to sex on first date".
5. Strongly attractive men and women will advocate or else practice infedility. For one, it's pleasurable, on its own; for two, they have the means to attain that pleasure. The proverbial "super boy" in high school will play around, and the proverbial "super girl" will sample boys. The not-so-attractive boys and girls will somehow find their match, and stick with those. If a weakly attractive boy or girl ever has a chance to cheat, it will happen with a "super" kid, who will use them for short-term sex and abandon them. In exchange for the pain and suffering -- the heartache and social riduicule -- that the strongly attractive cause to the weakly attractive by having sex with them only for a short while, the strongly attractive give a something in return which is also valuable, rather very much so: the chance of the weakly attractive to diversify their DNA portfolios on their issues, and also to do so with a partner who has predictably very good DNA, so the offspring of the weakly attractive will enjoy a lot of positive advantages that neither of his or her "legal" parents, the weakly attractive, ever has had.

--------

Those who advocate fidelity, therefore, tend to be weakly attractive; and those who call the names for the concepts which the weakly attractive have created to preserve a status quo for sexual faithfulness a type of unsupported and inconsequential slogan, are themselves strongly attractive, and act accordingly.

Now I ask you, ladies, and gentlemen, who are at least somewhat tickled by this theory, to look at texasscroudrel and smily-smily and decide for yourself if the theory can be applied to these two individual specimen of humans.

--------

I am supporting neither one or the other camp as decided by expectations placed on sexual behaviour, and my sexual life is hugely removed from expectations that could be based on my looks, for I am a philosopher, a theorist, and we, philosophers, are all above the rules of social conduct or social expectation, for it is in the nature of philosophy to abhor a fool.

It is? Not that sex isn't (usually) pretty good, but there's plenty of other fun things two people can do........

I made a thread a while ago about kissing on the first date. Some people even over think kissing that soon, much less having sex.

Some people seem to view sex as dirty unless it's with someone they're already serious about. I don't really get it.

I never said sex was the ONLY fun thing two adults can do. I said it was the MOST fun two adults can have together.

I don't know. Blowing stuff up is pretty fun too.

We are taught as children, that we all deserve respect and no one is allowed to invade your personal space without permission. That being said, when you just meet someone, I think it is inappropriate to bring up sex at that point, to forward and crass, low class. I don't care what walk of life you come from, show respect and or go pick up a hooker.

I didn't see anyone in this thread talking about invading personal space without permission. Consensual sex on the first date is quite different than that.