My Photo

The Out Campaign

Atheist Blogroll

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2005

« Darwin Day, Judgment Day, and the Non-Science of Intelligent Design | Main | The Simpsons Church Sign Generator »


G in INdiana

"If the person you're dating -- regardless of gender -- wants sex a lot sooner than you do, that's probably a sign that you're not compatible."

This is what I told my daughter, a sexually active 18 year old college freshman with a steady boyfriend. He was a virgin when she got a hold of him and was not reluctant to engage in sexual play with her but was a little leery of the "going all the way". She was very kind and gentle with him and he finally came around (literally) and is starting to enjoy some of the more adventurous things my daughter enjoys.
That said, I always warned her about having sex with some one if she was not ready. She had plenty of high school boys use that line on her. SHE dumped them and they did the "I'm sorry, please take me back" crap. She never did, waiting until she was ready to experience sex on HER terms.
If you are talking to an adult in your post above, I say yes you are right. But for people just starting out with their sexuality, going slowly is not a bad thing. Being pressured for sex is degrading to some people and the guilt afterwards can be devastating and destroy a relationship.

C. L. Hanson

"That women might be the ones with ants in our pants? It's apparently inconceivable to the folks writing the dating advice."

LOL, I'm a counterexample too.

Refusal to have sex is a deal-breaker for me, and I think it's perfectly reasonable that it should be. Why would he refuse? Because he doesn't want to do it? Because he thinks it's a sin? Okay, game over, we're incompatible.

Please see my post "Immodest proposal: sex on the first date?" post


I disagree with you on this one...somewhat.

I agree that people who want to save sex for marriage probably should not be dating people who don't.

However, in the case of people who simply don't want to have sex more or less immediately, I have to disagree. And it sounds like you're saying that people who don't want sex to be part of the relationship from the start aren't as into sex as you are (I'm using the general "you," not "you," specifically), or don't like it as much, or something. That's simply not true.

Just because someone says no to sex on the first, second, or third date does NOT mean that their libido/sex drive is any less strong than yours. It may mean that they have a hard time separating sex from love. Maybe they want to be reasonably sure that the emotional part of the relationship is going to work before they do something they know is going to get them emotionally involved quite fast. As a friend of mine says "Your pussy grabs and your heart goes with it."

On the other hand, sexual compatibility is important, and if the sex is bad, I agree that may very well be a deal-breaker.

David Harmon

I'm with you -- also, the refusal to have sex may mean that the relationship really isn't the sort of relationship you think it is....

Steven Alleyn

My girlfriend once asked me if we'd still be together if she hadn't had sex with me when she did (three weeks into the relationship). I told her without any hesitation that No, we wouldn't be.

She was appalled.

I explained things more or less exactly as you did, just now. We're still together, but she thinks I'm evil, LOL.


Hi there! Long time reader, first time poster.

This is an interesting idea for me, and I'm also going to have to disagree somewhat.

Waiting for sex until marriage is obviously a dumb idea, considering the vast variations of sexual drive and preference out there. Compatability is very importaint for a long term relationship (and I hate how that people shove that issue aside in some quest for "purity" on a wedding night).

However I am one of those people who a)has a very high sex drive and b)will not have sex with someone I date right away. This has more to do with my own caution (maybe I'm a cynic?) about trust.

I don't open up quickly to people, be it friends, boy/girl friends, or otherwise. I probably wouldn't be with my S.O. right now if he had not gone slow, and put no pressure on me (we waited a month).

In the light of such issues as STDs and personal safety, I don't think wanting to wait a few weeks should be taken as an indication that the person is an incurable prude. It may just take some people longer to feel comfortable. As they say... once burned, twice shy!

Greta Christina

To Dolce and Cinders:


I didn't say I insisted on sex "right away." I didn't say I insisted on sex on the "first, second, or third date." I didn't even say I wouldn't be willing to wait "a few weeks."

I said I wouldn't be willing to wait until marriage, and I wouldn't be willing to wait a few months, or even "very many weeks." (We can quibble over the definition of "a few weeks" versus "many weeks," if you like... but I'm not sure how productive it would be.)

I also never said that wanting to wait a few weeks meant you were an "incurable prude." In fact, I said that wanting your own timetable was reasonable. I just said that it was reasonable from both ends: the "wanting to wait" end, and the "not wanting to wait" end.

So please don't put words in my mouth. I'm in an irritable mood today anyway, and having words put in my mouth is a pet peeve of mine that's likely to send me over the edge.

Now, if your timetables are reasonably close together, then of course there should be some wiggle room, some willingness to compromise. And I even think the compromise should be made by the person who doesn't want to wait as long. (The consequences of not having sex when you really want it aren't as great as the consequences of having sex when you don't really want it.)

So if Pat's timetable is "I like to have it within two or three weeks," and Chris's is "I like to wait a month or so," and if Pat really likes Chris and feels that the relationship has potential... then yes, they'd be a fool not to wait another two or three weeks. (I don't think they'd be immoral, but they'd be a fool.)

But if Pat's timetable is "I like to have it within two or three weeks," and Chris's is "I want to wait until marriage" or "I want to wait several months," then I don't think it'd be either wicked or foolish for Pat to cut out. And I'm really tired of the cultural trope that casts Pat as the manipulative villain in that situation.

(BTW, I didn't mean to imply that wanting to delay sex means you don't have a high libido. I don't think that, and I didn't say it; but if I accidentally gave that impression, I apologize.)


I completely agree down to the smallest detail. This is what I've had to tell friends before, regardless of what position they were in (wanting to wait or not); it's a reasonable thing to be a deal-breaker in a relationship, so find someone else who feels like you do.

I didn't get the impression you were saying people ought to submit to sex immediately. I'm not sure why the other few commenters did. There's a lot to be said for some patience if one is really into the person who wants to wait a bit longer, but if that person wants to wait way longer than their partner is willing, well, time to go elsewhere.


"So please don't put words in my mouth. I'm in an irritable mood today anyway, and having words put in my mouth is a pet peeve of mine that's likely to send me over the edge."

Ah! Sorry, I didn't mean to do any such thing. I just misunderstood you, and wanted to add to the conversation. I never intended to imply you thought everyone who waited was a prude, I apologize for coming across that way. This is why I tend to lurk instead of post, there is so much potential for misunderstanding on the internet...

I really like your blog (thank you for all your great ideas), and generally agreed with your post. Now that you've explained your point more, I totally agree.


I agree with what you said, but that's not often how the manipulation goes. It's not "I want sex", but "If you really loved me, you'd have sex with me".

It's exploiting politeness; people are very reluctant to say "I'm not sure I like you that much" even though the answer is more like "of course I'm not sure; if I were, I'd be planning the wedding."

And there's a depressingly common genre of person who is attracted to the hunt more than the prey, and will lose interest and dump someone shortly after getting into their pants.

Although I have to give credit to C. L. Hanson's opinion. If you can just enjoy the sex for what it is, and avoid catching any diseases on the way, it's an even more effective way of identifying the check-list types.

But many people find sex more portentious than that. Indeed, the legend of this kind of emotional pressure is when it's applied to The First Time.

One piece of advice I give people is that sex is wired deep enough into the emotional brain that, for better or worse, you WILL remember your first time for the rest of your life. And having sex for the first time just to see if they want anything else out of a relationship seems a trifle cold.

Not that you're not right in the situation you portray, but I think reality often has slightly different circumstances.


"And there's a depressingly common genre of person who is attracted to the hunt more than the prey, and will lose interest and dump someone shortly after getting into their pants."

On the one hand, I think those are dangerous people with whom to fall in love, at least for me. Part of a lasting relationship is to reach that point where I am no longer being chased -- I am caught and can happily be kept. (Metaphorically, that is.) I could never be a "rules girl" for life, marrying someone, but making him or her keep chasing me forever.

But when it comes to non-romantic sex -- friendly sex -- I think I have a kink for being chased. I like to be convinced. I like to say "maybe" or "I'll consider it" for a little while before I say "yes." People who enjoy the hunt, even people who who ONLY want what they cannot keep, make perfectly good friends-with-benefits if you like saying "maybe" about as often as you say "yes."

I guess that comes back to compatibility. I suppose that what I'm trying to say is that pressure itself can be erotic, if pursuit and anticipation turn both people on.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe/ Donate to This Blog!

Books of mine

Greta on SSA Speakers Bureau

  • Greta Christina is on the Speakers Bureau of the Secular Students Alliance. Invite her to speak to your group!

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Powered by Rollyo

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Atheism

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Sex

Some Favorite Posts: Art, Politics, Other Stuff