Why on earth would you hound a guy, asking why he never calls?

Because he lived with his girlfriend for two years, he seems capable of commitment. Should I tell him how I feel -- that I want more out of our "relationship"?

Oh, I'm sure he's capable of making a commitment with you. But it seems pretty obvious he doesn't want to. If you're hounding him about not calling, I'm sure he's already well aware that you want more than just sex. Unfortunately for you, however, it's very doubtful that he does.

Should I tell him how I feel -- that I want more out of our "relationship"?

You have told him, Irked. And he's working on the assumption that your "relationship" will continue as is until you say you don't want it anymore, which you haven't.

Actually, I think you should be up front about wanting more from your relationship, just so you can look back and say that you were. Because dollars to doughnuts he'll very politely tell you that you can have more, just not with him. If you don't say anything, you'll end up calling him in a few months because you never got a definitive answer. So end it and stop accepting treatment you say you don't want.

Disturbing side note: a hyperlink between two ads on the right of my screen right now says "How to get pregnant fast at ConceiveEasy." Hope this LW is not so desperately worst-case as that.

I had sex on the first night with a girlfriend (at least one that I can think of) and kept her until she left me 8 month later (and I was crying). So I am not sure about this rule for everybody. But I did observe the aforementioned behavior, something like "if it's free, it has no value".

@NumberSix : i am jealous, all i got is a political add for not-my-candidate, while I already voted!!!

ps: thanks for changing the question, amy.

Nico, there are no hard-and-fast rules in dating, but there ARE general rules. In general, sex on the first date doesn't lead to marriage. Sometimes it does. I know friends who met on one night stands. But it is really the exception.

Per the LW: "He'll always say, 'I really like you, you should know that,' but only when I'm hounding him, asking why he never calls."

Which, unfortunately, is about all the LW is going to get from this guy. That's too bad, but there it is. Whether he's capable of commitment or not doesn't seem relevant. He's certainly not going to commit to her. Doesn't the LW have better things to do than chase this guy around?

I got the ConceiveEasy ad, too. Right above that is the ad for Pepco (the power company that serves Maryland and other places). Motto: "Your Life. Plugged In." Another clever juxtaposition.

"Should I tell him how I feel -- that I want more out of our "relationship"?

No. By all means, keep it a complete secret and wait for him to read your mind. If he does not read your mind, hold it against him.

Because, you know, that any many you want something from will, if he truly cares about you the right way, be able to intuit your wants and desires without assistance from you.

I have to admit my longest running relationship started with sex on first "date". So it is possible, but when he broke up with you for another girl then came back for sex, is as clear a sign as any you are just a booty call.

So the rough rule for the girl is, sex on the first date, usually makes you look like a booty call not a relationship.
The corrilary rule for guys is, if you don't try to have sex on the first date, she will usually think you are gay, uninterested or a wimp.

Wise words, Joe J. The guy's always got to try to score and the girl's always got to try to block the net.

Trying to make someone attracted to you by doing nice things for him is a fool's errand. You can't buy a boyfriend with kindness coins. Save cooking and massage for someone who already wants something serious with you.

"You need to accept that you've blown it with this guy"

I must admit, I suspect she probably never had much chance with him either way ... I think he's just enjoying what he probably regards as a bit mutually pleasant casual sex. She can tell him how she feels, I suspect it will be met with some awkwardness, followed by no more contact.

NumberSix, I've a great screenshot somewhere of that same pregnancy hyperlink immediately below an ad for a dating site. I kinda felt that was rushing things...

Insufficient Poison,

This all changes when you get past the age of 40. By then the guys have mostly figured out that they aren't going to get the latest supermodel, or they would have gotten her already. They are looking for someone who treats them nice. If you know how to treat a man nice, you have it made, as long as your ass still fits within the confines of a standard airline seat.

From then on, you just pick the one that treats YOU the best and then decide if that's better than being single. I love being old!

If you know how to treat a man nice, you have it made, as long as your ass still fits within the confines of a standard airline seat

I love that line Pirate Jo. Definitely true. Us middle-aged (I'm 39 so I guess I qualify) men don't want perfection, just someone who has looked after themselves and is nice to us.

I've had a rule for quite a while that I don't trust hotness until the woman is at least 30. Preferably 35. It's so easy to be hot in your early 20s, then balloon later. The ones that hold their figure into their 30s/40s will hold it forever in my experience.

And although it's probably less important, I work damn hard to keep *my* figure in the same region. Not perfect, but good enough.

And obviously, a woman can have sex on the first date -- but because men tend to devalue women they don't have to chase, she's taking a risk unless all she wants is a little nail and bail.

My question for you....do women not tend to devalue men who they can get easily? And does this not happen to men more often than it happens to women? What would be your advice in case it was a guy who wrote such an email to you? I am sure it would not be this polite(I know you called her roadkill and flattened possum and all that, but normally your words towards men are a lot more harsh like doormat and spineless)

Pirate Jo, thanks for the "past 40" wisdom. It's easy to forget that the cut-throat rules of dating tend to soften a bit with older participants. I know how to treat a man nice, AND my ass still easily fits within the confines of a standard airline seat, so I'm feeling a bit more encouraged right now.

Redrajesh: This is just subjective on my part, but referring to a girl as dating roadkill is pretty harsh.

I wouldnt get too hung up on the on the first date thing. I'm pretty sure no one's ever missed out on their soulmate because they slept with him/her on the first date, but plenty of successful relationships have begun that way (mine included). The way I see it, if it's meant to be then it's going to happen; if it does then it never was in the first place. Artificially adopting dating strategies like withholding sex might increase your odds of getting a second date, but a relationship built under false pretenses isn't going to work out in the long run, and is unlikely to be happy or fulfilling in the meantime.

That's not to say that you should sleep with every guy you cross paths with or think that fate will magically take care of your love life regardless of your actions. Rather, you have ask yourself whether your behaviors reflect who you are and how you want to be seen and the person you want to be. If they don't you then you work on changing that aspect of yourself and soon your actions will naturally follow suit. In other words, be yourself or change yourself--just dont fake it.

I love that line Pirate Jo. Definitely true. Us middle-aged (I'm 39 so I guess I qualify) men don't want perfection, just someone who has looked after themselves and is nice to us.

Ltw, I'm a guy (older than you) and I agree with you that men don't want perfection...most men anyway. We may not be interested in women who are quite overweight, but that doesn't mean we want women who are skinny. I think most of us just want someone who is in reasonably good shape.

I have never devalued a woman who has slept with me quickly. Yet, I have devalued women that have artificially pulled away from sex in order to fulfill some nonsense quota of dates before putting out.

To me, that means that she doesn't value sex and perhaps doesn't enjoy it. That's a deal breaker. Right off the bat, she is using sex as a tool to wrangle me into something. Would a serious relationship arise, how soon would she lord that desire inequity over me? Fuck that.

I think it is a huge myth that guys devalue women who have sex on a first date. We'll have sex with you whether we really like you or not, that's true. However, we either really like you or we don't. That won't change because of some trumped up "first sex" schedule.

"I'm pretty sure no one's ever missed out on their soulmate because they slept with him/her on the first date

Actually, yes, men tend to devalue women who sleep with them right away."

I agree, and I agree that sex on the first date is a bad strategy for maximizing your dating prospects (and obviously can have negative consequences for other reasons). My point is that immediate sex is unlikely to be the sole dealbreaker in what would have otherwise been a perfect relationship. And holding out isn't magically going produce a relationship with a guy who's only marginally interested to begin with, which sounds like the case here.

"Oh, please. Many will have sex with a woman again but lose interest in her in other ways, or maybe even for sex. "

I suspect there may be some 'confounding factors' clouding the issues a little here ... women who lack self-respect may be statistically more likely to sleep with a man on the first date ... so if the man values her less, it may be partially not necessarily for sleeping with him quickly, but because she generally lacks self-respect, which will manifest in *other* ways that also affect the relationship further. I.e. sleeping on the first date may sometimes be as much a symptom as a cause.

I suspect though only real 'players' will literally drop a girl after the first date if she slept with him ... most men are likely to at least try more dates ... and on those subsequent dates, either respect will continue to degrade if she lacks self-respect, or improve if she does not. So it also depends 'why' a women slept with a guy quickly.

I've slept with a few women on first dates, and I can't say it really affected my image of them (but I have low self-esteem myself so that may be why). But one of those I'm now more or less happily married to, and have a child with.

(The previous one I slept with on the first date, she was hot and loved sex, and also very assertive and not lacking in self-respect at all .. but, she was mentally unstable and a horrible person.)

I partially agree with whistleDick in that I have occasionally 'devalued' women who seemed to not want sex - but I think it depends highly on the individual involved - e.g. in one case, the woman came across as 'high and mighty' (like an egotistical 'ooh, wouldn't you just like the privilege of sleeping with me' type of attitude), or in the other case, a Christian who said she was waiting for marriage .. no thanks, that's not for me.

"By then the guys have mostly figured out that they aren't going to get the latest supermodel, or they would have gotten her already. They are looking for someone who treats them nice."

Definitely some truth to this. I'm mid thirties, and have had my fill of good-looking women who are horrible individuals. Married a reasonable-looking woman with a great personality - kind and decent.

It's not only a matter of giving up on that supermodel though ;) ... my priorities shifted heavily when (in my 30's) I decided I wanted children .. then you start thinking e.g. 'what kind of mother would she be', you want someone caring.

Actually, yes, men tend to devalue women who sleep with them right away.

Men who have a seriously warped perspective on things ("I want to fuck her right away but if she agrees then I won't respect her"), yes.

Men (like me, whistleDick and others) who don't have that perspective, no.

Ok, so men who are NOT warped are totally ok with women sleeping with them right away and won't devalue the women.

And men who ARE warped will devalue these same women.

So, not-warped guys, what are your distinctive characteristics that horny women can discern right away when they meet/date you? Or is it just a crap shoot anyway because there's no possible way to distinguish between these two types of men based on a very limited acquaintance?

I agree with whistleDick, Lobster and JD that it isn’t quite as simple as “men tend to devalue women who sleep with them right away.”

If a man is really interested in a woman, it simply won’t be a deal breaker if she sleeps with him quickly. By the same token, even if a man isn’t really interested in a woman, he still might be willing to sleep with her.

As a result it may sometimes appear to women that men “devalue” them if they have sex too quickly. However, please remember all of those guys who go out on one date with you and then don’t call back… those men might have been willing to sleep with you given the chance, and they still wouldn’t necessarily call for a second date.

So tossing those guys into a pile of interested men who got turned off by sleeping with them too soon is really missing the point that they weren’t all that interested in pursuing a long term relationship by the end of date one anyway.

Like Lobster said, there are lots of confounding issues here that are correlated with early sex, so blaming it on the sex itself doesn’t mean that the sex was the cause of the lack of interest.

Keeping all of that in mind, if a woman wants to have increased confidence that a guy is interested in her for who she is, then saving sex for later is still a good idea.

Also, I find the term “devalue” here to be misleading and potentially inaccurate. Isn’t it also possible for a man to “overvalue” a woman prior to having sex with her, only to value her more properly afterward? Similarly, isn’t it possible that women tend to “overvalue” a man after having sex with him? This would also have the effect of upsetting the preexisting relationship balance if his opinion of her didn’t really change at all by the sexual encounter.

Needless to say, I don’t see any reason to believe that men “devalue” women over any of these other possibilities. In fact, it might be true that all of these factors can be in play to varying degrees at the same time.

"By the same token, even if a man isn’t really interested in a woman, he still might be willing to sleep with her.

As a result it may sometimes appear to women that men “devalue” them if they have sex too quickly."

Also true.

"So, not-warped guys, what are your distinctive characteristics that horny women can discern right away when they meet/date you? Or is it just a crap shoot anyway because there's no possible way to distinguish between these two types of men based on a very limited acquaintance?"

If I sleep with a woman on the first date it's for the simple reason that casual sex is fun (and I like to think, though I could be wrong, can be mutually fun). Or if a 'horny women' has sex, it can't just be because it's fun? Can't women just say, 'oh well, the sex was fun'? If she does sleep with him, how can a man tell if it was just for fun i.e. casual sex, or if she was secretly falling in love already and thinking about a relationship?

Probably the best way to tell if a man is serious is if he goes after you for subsequent dates ...

"is it just a crap shoot anyway because there's no possible way to distinguish between these two types of men based on a very limited acquaintance?""

... and the best way to tell if he is warped is to go on subsequent dates with him and get to know his character. That's what dating is for ... women seem to always be looking for 'signs' that they can 'read' to infer a person's character based on 'very limited acquaintance'. Mostly, you can't .. there are no magic signs, you learn someone's character by getting to know them, slowly.

"Can't women just say, 'oh well, the sex was fun'?"

Well, generally speaking, no. This is a point that Amy has made in many columns, I think, and a lot of her female commenters have agreed. Sex is usually a bonding behavior for women, even if it's happening on a first date and it appears casual on the surface.

Okay, so my takeaway from this discussion is that a decent/sensible man won't devalue a woman if she sleeps with him really quickly - but this quick sex is most likely to be considered casual sex by the man and is therefore not valued as a sign of bonding by him, or a show of respect or real interest in the woman.

If a woman considers sex to be a bonding behavior (essentially a sign of some sort of significant interest or emotional commitment) - well, first off, she'll need to know this about herself, and I think a lot of women don't. She'll also have to take her time and really get to know the guy first - AND make sure he understands what sex means to her and that's why she is taking her time. A decent/sensible man would understand and be reasonably patient, presumably. This does require some assertiveness, confidence, and good communication skills on the part of the woman, which, gosh darn it, seems kind of unfair - but I guess that's the price a woman pays for having the capacity to produce life, while living in our modern, hypersexual culture.

If a man is really interested in a woman, it simply won’t be a deal breaker if she sleeps with him quickly.

Orion, I completely agree with that and it reminds me of another discussion (or debate) that Amy and I had in the past, about women asking men out. She maintains that men devalue a woman who asks them out whereas I maintain that if a man is really interested in and attracted to a woman, it won't be a deal-breaker if she was the one who asked him out.

So, not-warped guys, what are your distinctive characteristics that horny women can discern right away when they meet/date you? Or is it just a crap shoot anyway because there's no possible way to distinguish between these two types of men based on a very limited acquaintance?

Good question, Angel. If based on, as you say, a very limited acquaintance (like one date), then I'm not sure there is a way to distinguish between these two types of men. As Lobster said, you learn someone's character by getting to know them, slowly.

Sex is usually a bonding behavior for women, even if it's happening on a first date and it appears casual on the surface.

I agree with that. Of course, as you noted with "usually", that's a general rule. There are exceptions (and there are also exceptions for men.)

Okay, so my takeaway from this discussion is that a decent/sensible man won't devalue a woman if she sleeps with him really quickly

Absolutely. I find it incredibly twisted that a guy would really want to sleep with a woman on a first date but then, if his desire came true, he'd turn around and lose respect for the woman.

- but this quick sex is most likely to be considered casual sex by the man and is therefore not valued as a sign of bonding by him, or a show of respect or real interest in the woman.

Perhaps "most likely" but not always. When I've met women and really liked them, and we slept together on the first date (or fairly soon thereafter) I didn't consider it casual sex.

She'll also have to take her time and really get to know the guy first - AND make sure he understands what sex means to her and that's why she is taking her time. A decent/sensible man would understand and be reasonably patient, presumably.

"Reasonably" is a good word there. I don't think that even most decent/sensible guys are going to want to wait a long time before having sex, but they'd be willing to wait for some amount of time. I've never turned down sex on a first date if the woman was willing, but I've also never felt the need to have sex right away. In fact, if I'm interested in a woman and attracted to her, and she seems to feel the same way about me, so I think that sex is very likely-to-inevitable, then I actually like waiting. The anticipation is very sexy.

No, he'll go out with her, but maybe only because she asks.

And, once they go out, if he really likes her and is attracted to her and is delighted to find out they have a lot in common, then he's not going to dump her simply because she asked him out.

Approaching and dating someone -- it's a dance, not a monologue.

The difference between you and me is that you put all your emphasis on how the dance begins, on which person asks the other to dance. I, on the other hand, put my emphasis on how well (or not) the couple dances together.

Steve: "Um, Vicki, can we talk?"

Vicki: "Sure, what's up?"

Steve: "You know what I've told you the past few months? How I've really fallen for you...how I think you're sharp, fun to be with, thoughtful and creative...how incredibly attracted I am to you...how fantastic the sex is...all those things?"

Vicki: "Yes. And I've really fallen for you the same way. I like where we're at."

Steve: "Well, I'd love to continue seeing you but I'm afraid I can't."

Vicki: "Huh? Why not?"

Steve: "Because you asked me to have a cup of coffee."

Vicki: "What are you talking about?"

Steve: "Remember when we met, at Katherine's party? Remember how we were talking in her kitchen and you asked me if I'd like to get together for a cup of coffee sometime?"

Vicki: "Yes. So....?"

Steve: "Well, that's why I can't continue seeing you. Regardless of how wonderful I think you are, regardless of how hot I think you are, I just can't respect you because you asked me to get together for a cup of coffee."

Vicki: "If this is a joke, Steve, I'm sure not getting it."

Steve: "I'm sorry, Vicki, but it's no joke. I'm serious. I can't help it. As much as I would love to have all those other wonderful things about you outweigh that one thing, I can't. You could be less wonderful -- not as sharp, not as fun to be with, not as thoughtful and creative, not as attractive and sexy -- but if I had been the one to ask you out for a cup of coffee, I'd actually be much happier with you, and with us, and I'd want to stay together."

Vicki: "I don't believe this. You're going to walk away from what we have because I asked you out for a cup of coffee?"

Steve: "Yes. It casts a dark shadow over everything else about you. Like I said, I can't help it. It's just who I am as a guy."

I'm with whistleDick on this one. Men don't devalue women who have sex on the first date. If this appears to happen it's because that particular man didn't have much (or any) use for you except sex, and if you hadn't delivered, you probably would never have heard from him again.

Which is not to say that holding off doesn't have its advantages: you may very well benefit by filtering out guys who fit the above description. (Though you may also filter out guys like him and myself, who don't want anyone using our needs to bully us, and may have reason to believe that a woman who has done so once will do so again.)

But I'd be very surprised if any guy is going to go away if you do but stay if you don't. Either he has something in common with you besides sex, or he doesn't.

I fail to see how recognizing that it makes no logical or evolutionary sense for a man to reject a woman he is genuinely attracted to entirely on the basis that she had sex with him on date one is the equivalent of “living in some feminist utopia”.

The arguments being put forth in opposition to the columns position on this issue seem to be grounded in very reasonable objections that have not actually been refuted. So I also don’t see anyone is “twisting themselves into a pretzel” to argue against it.

Things like having early sex, or calling a man, or even asking a man out are not inherently “risky” behaviors. These things are ONLY risky if they are done out of desperation or come across as being done out of desperation.

However, desperation is universally unattractive. So when one claims that “men tend to devalue women who sleep with them right away.” it is missing the mark.

What men and women both tend to do is devalue potential romantic partners who come across as desperate. As a result, only to the extent that sleeping with a particular man right away might come across as an act of desperation will it negatively affect his opinion of the woman. However, the odds are that such an act would only be one amongst a series of desperate acts that make the woman appear too needy or undesirable very early on in a relationship. There is probably a strong likelihood in those situations that the ship has already sailed by the time sex occurs.

The problem with the argument put forth in the column is that is has mixed up correlation with causation. The reason the LW has potentially “blown it” with this guy is because she has made herself out to be incredibly desperate and needy, the early sex was just a manifestation of her desperation, but not the root cause of any rejection.

It is a bit like saying that sneezing and having a fever are what causes the cold as opposed to those things being symptoms of having the cold virus.

The LW has the desperation virus, the early sex and the going to be a booty call after he broke up with his girlfriend are just symptoms of her desperation… they aren’t the root cause of her problem here. This is why I like the advice at the very end of the column more than the first couple of paragraphs. The end portion seems more grounded in the reality of the situation.

Lots of words here that obscure the deal:

She has sex with a guy right away. That means she has sex with other guys right away.

That's not something you stop right away, and the odds are she's not going to change. (Odds. Read. Doesn't mean "always".)

She's not a "keeper", because actions are louder then words, in this case about staying "at home".

Men don't devalue women who have sex on the first date.

Ah, but some men do. Those men are called "players", and they're out to score whenever they can with whomever they can.

If this appears to happen it's because that particular man didn't have much (or any) use for you except sex, and if you hadn't delivered, you probably would never have heard from him again.

Proof positive.

As happened a couple of weeks ago with a friend of mine, who is recently divorced. She met a man who seemed to be very attracted to her, and she to him. They went out on a date, engaged in some heavy petting (she didn't let it go all the way, but close), and then called it a night. Couple days later, he called her out of the blue and said he didn't think they should see each other anymore, because she didn't even ask him if he had a girlfriend, which he did! She upset, but glad she hadn't had sex with him, because, as she said, "what an asshole! Shouldn't he have offered that kind of information if he was serious about getting to know me?" And I had to tell her, all he was serious about was getting in her pants. He more than likely wouldn't have approached her otherwise. She then wondered aloud how many other women he does this to. Because, obviously...

"A woman who is easy is a risk for infidelity."

Okay, that's true. I'm going to walk back my earlier assertion based on Amy's very true statement. Yeah, I guess we do devalue them a little bit in the back of our mind.

I was married to a woman for seventeen years or so who put out right away. And, yeah, she put out pretty easily every time I went out of town. She likes the dick. That is a double-edged sword. You want someone who enjoys sex, but not someone who can't control themselves.

What men and women both tend to do is devalue potential romantic partners who come across as desperate. As a result, only to the extent that sleeping with a particular man right away might come across as an act of desperation will it negatively affect his opinion of the woman. However, the odds are that such an act would only be one amongst a series of desperate acts that make the woman appear too needy or undesirable very early on in a relationship.

Well said, Orion, and I agree for the most part. I'm sure there are some men who devalue a woman who sleeps with them right away (or asks them out for a cup of coffee) even if she doesn't seem desperate in other ways.

Yeah, I guess we do devalue them a little bit in the back of our mind.

I don't. When I've been on a first date with a woman, and the chemistry was so strong that I wanted to have sex right away, and she did too, I've never turned around and thought less of her for it. One girlfriend I slept with on the first date did end up cheating on me, but others didn't. And with the one who cheated, there were red flags that I chose to ignore.

And, yeah, she put out pretty easily every time I went out of town.

Ouch. That reminds me... I watched the pilot episode of "Go On", the new sitcom with Matthew Perry. One of the guys in his counseling group mentioned that he was in the military and was stationed overseas when his child was born. "Oh, that's too bad you weren't there for the birth," someone said. "Or the conception," the military guy added.

Radwaste,

I don’t think I am “obscuring the deal” at all. Instead I think that many of the arguments on the other side of this debate are all over the place and are lacking philosophical consistency.

For example, when you say this:

“She has sex with a guy right away. That means she has sex with other guys right away.
That's not something you stop right away, and the odds are she's not going to change.”

Then my response is to ask what is the actual purpose of advising a person that when she dates someone she sees as a “keeper” that she would be wise to hide her so-called “promiscuous ways” and put on an act that she has an entirely different set of sexual values than she actually has? Wouldn't both she and a potential partner be more compatible if she shared the same sexual values? You can only be confident that you share those values if you are honest with the other person, and like you said “actions speak louder than words”. Hence taking actions outside of your normal character with the intent to “trick” someone into thinking differently about you is a more significant deception than if someone lies with words.

I mean, if the fact that someone has sex early on in a relationship actually constitutes sufficient and convincing evidence that she will sleep around on her partner and not be faithful to him within the relationship, and that this behavior on her part isn‘t likely to change… then isn’t advising her that “It's always, always a risk for a woman” akin to saying that it is risky because he might get tipped off that she is an unfaithful woman and hence not want to pursue a long term relationship with her? But why exactly should a man interested in a monogamous long term relationship pursue a relationship with an unfaithful woman?

That is like advising a criminal that it is “risky” not to wear gloves when stealing because it will make it more likely that you‘ll get caught. Is this the equivalent of what this column is trying to do here? I ask because nothing about the LW suggests to me that she is interested in being an unfaithful partner, however what you say suggests that the odds strongly suggest that she is.

I see nothing admirable about advising unscrupulous women on how to trick decent men into relationships under false pretenses. Wouldn’t we all be better off advising men how to avoid unfaithful women as opposed to advising unfaithful women how to sneak under their radar?

On the other hand, if having sex early on in a relationship does not constitute sufficient and convincing evidence that a woman will sleep around on her partner and be unfaithful, then we are left with the position I and others have been advocating.

Those on your side of this debate simply can’t have it both ways. Sex early on is either a very good indicator that a woman will be unfaithful within a relationship or it isn’t. Pick one and run with it, but don’t say that it is a good indicator that a woman is a bad long term partner and then offer advice on how she can act in such a way as to trick a guy into seeing her as a good long term partner by “hiding the evidence”.

Amy,

The issue I have with your perspective here is that it doesn’t seem consistent. For example, when you say this:

“A woman who is easy is a risk for infidelity.”

How does this make sense in the context of your other assertion that:

“men tend to devalue women who show themselves to be "easy" in any way”

If what you say about early sex being a good indicator of infidelity is true then you have a very strange usage of the word “devalue” in this context.

I mean the word devalue implies that the woman is being “deprived of value” without reasonable justification for the decrease. However, if a man is looking for a faithful woman for a long term relationship and ends up being provided good evidence that she is actually an unfaithful woman then her value to him as a potential partner hasn’t been reduced without sufficient justification. She was actually worth less as a long term partner than he originally might have thought.

Isn’t he just getting a more realistic appraisal of her value as the type of partner he is looking for? If not then you agree with me that early sex isn’t necessarily sufficient evidence to conclude that she is an unfaithful woman. If so then she hasn’t been “devalued” by him.

The only way your use of the word “devalue” makes any sense at all is if early sex actually isn’t a good indicator of faithfulness and sexual fidelity yet is used as one anyway.

You can’t have it both ways.

Amy,

I’m actually familiar with all of the material you have presented, that is why I am saying that you haven‘t explained things in a coherent way. The problem I have brought up is one you haven’t actually addressed. The problem is the lack of consistency in the language that you choose to use. Let me try to explain again so you can address the actual criticism.

If it is true that women who have sex early are signaling that they are unfaithful mates, then how does it make any sense to suggest that the men are the ones who have “devalued” them?

Isn’t it the woman who has signaled that she is a low value long term partner by behaving in a way that demonstrates that she will be unfaithful?

The way you describe things is like saying that restaurant customers tend to “devalue” food that the chefs have sneezed on. However most people would recognize that the customer is just exercising their prerogative not to eat food that they don’t find appetizing or unhygenic. Food that has been sneezed on hasn't been "devalued" by the customer, it has inherent lesser value than food that hasn't been sneezed on. The chef is the one who has lowered the value of the food in this case by sneezing on it, the customer is simply recognizing that they don’t want to eat food that is covered in someone else’s germs and mucus.

Similarly, it seems pretty shady for an advice expert to then suggest to the cook that it is “risky” to inform the customer that the food was spit on because customers tend to “devalue” food that is unsanitary. If they want to improve their business the correct advice is for them not to serve contaminated food anymore, not for them to do a better job concealing the contamination.

This is how you’ve constructed your arguments here and nothing you’ve presented actually addresses any of this.

If on the other hand, early sex represents a poor signal for mate fidelity, then and only then can the man in question be said to be “devaluing” a woman who engages in this type of behavior.

You can’t say that early sex is a good indicator of infidelity and then suggest that a man in search of a faithful partner has “devalued” someone who has demonstrated by her own actions that she is probably a cheater.

Furthermore, advising women who are prone to cheat that it is best for them to keep it under wraps doesn’t seem to be the right thing to do. All you do is promote unhealthy relationships when you do something like that.

Unless of course you don’t actually believe women who have sex early on in a relationship end up being unfaithful long term partners… which brings us full circle.

If a man really devalues me because I like sex and we have it on the first date, he can go fuck himself.

I had sex with my husband of five years on the first date. We continue to have a great and vital sex life. Men who think women who like sex are "less valuable" are assholes.

This conversation has been really interesting to me. I've thought back on my LTRs (I defined as one year or longer) and can think of several that happened despite first date or even pre-first date sex. However, they were all men I already knew, because we had mutual friends and hung out together in group settings. By the time we hooked up, they already were familiar enough with me to know I don't open wide for every dick that brushes against my thigh.

I did not know my ex-husband prior to dating him, and we were pretty hot and heavy right away, but (at the risk of sounding like a teenager) we didn't "technically" have sex for a couple of months. I wonder if guys distinguish between full-on sex and heavy petting when determining whether a woman is a potential mate or just a piece of ass? I'd ask him, but we aren't on friendly enough terms yet for me to ask random questions.

I went on a couple of dates with a guy a while back, and he told me on the second date that he was glad I didn't let him sleep with him on the first date, because he would not have contacted me again. If I don't sleep with a guy on the first date, it's usually one of two reasons: 1. I really like him and don't want to be a piece of ass in his eyes or 2. I don't really like him and don't want to have sex with him. This guy fell in the second category. Although I can appreciate his take on the scenario, his statement made me even less interested in him. I wouldn't have gone on the second date, but because I'd recently made a series of bad dating choices, my friends said I needed to give more consideration to guys I wasn't interested in.

I asked one guy I dated for awhile what his thoughts were. We did not sleep together on the first date, and he said he didn't try because I was guarded. He's had a couple of relationships that stemmed from first date sex, but he did recall a friend of his sister who slept with a guy before they even went to dinner, and after they finished the guy said she was the cheapest fuck ever, cause he didn't even have to buy her dinner.

On the one hand, I get the idea of a man being concerned about a woman's promiscuity. On the other hand, I have difficulty seeing any mate-value in a guy who uses first-date sex as a character test. He certainly wouldn't be a prospective mate in my eyes.

5 Perfectly Good Reasons To Sleep With Him On The First Date

Amelia McDonell-Parry's reason #2 is:

To Weed Out The Sexists
Some say that a guy won’t take a woman “seriously” if she gives up the cookies on the first date. Guess what? I don’t take guys like this seriously because they are gross, sexist hypocrites who will eventually reveal themselves as such whether you sleep with them on the first date or the 50th — better to find out early, right? Time is a-wastin’!

Amy Says:

“I actually slept with Gregg before the first date, but it's a risk, and I knew that, and I didn't need a boyfriend enough to feel I needed to wait.”

You have mixed up correlation with causation here. The reason things worked out for you and Gregg is precisely because you “didn’t need a boyfriend enough” to feel that you needed to wait. In other words… you did not come across as desperate. Which brings me back to what I said earlier:

“Things like having early sex, or calling a man, or even asking a man out are not inherently “risky” behaviors. These things are ONLY risky if they are done out of desperation or come across as being done out of desperation.”

If early sex by itself is a good and reliable indicator that a woman is unfaithful and likely to cheat, then the fact that you, fotini901, Meloni, and the LW all admit to sleeping with men very early in relationships would classify all or most of you as women who are untrustworthy and prone to infidelity.

That none of you probably fit this classification strongly suggests that early sex alone isn’t sufficient evidence to conclude that a woman is likely to cheat. Something more complicated is going on if the simple model you are proposing fails so frequently.

Early sex is probably strongly correlated with other factors that in combination are good predictors of infidelity, in fact desperation is probably a better indicator that a woman is likely to be unfaithful because when she feels insecure within the relationship she will seek out sexual validation with another man. This is why desperation is extremely unattractive.

Just because someone has the sniffles doesn’t mean they have the flu, the sniffles alone are not sufficient to draw that kind of conclusion. Just like doctors are smart enough to know to check for other things beyond the sniffles when diagnosing a patient, men are generally smart enough to look at other indicators that help distinguish between faithful women who have sex early on and unfaithful women who have sex early on.

This is why I say that sex early in a relationship isn’t by itself a deal breaker. Only in combination with other factors does it become a red flag.

There are many good reasons not to have sex too early in a relationship, that men will think less of you isn't high on that list because if he was really interested that wouldn't instantly turn him away. The men who will turn you away because of early sex probably didn't think very much of you to begin with. Furthermore, those same men are likely to dump you after sex even if you wait several dates. The best one can hope for with those types of men is that they dump you before you have sex with them. Waiting isn't going to suddenly win them over.

Take the emphasis off sex equating self-worth and think for yourself and put your own wants AND needs on a personal & individualized level FIRST.

Then remind yourself that defining the very relationship sought can only be based upon by making the decision to either BE defined by or RE-define the notion of value placed on sex within love.

Once someone completes those two steps, and begins loving by their own guidelines on sex thru separation of mind be heart, any previously conceived notions about equating such intimacies should virtually cease to exist, therefore becoming non-existent in any relationship sought out.

~Miss.EM