|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/14/2007 4:57:06 PM |
Besides, assumptions to what to U and ME?
This and all the comments about "having a discussion about it ahead of time" and so on, are all "logically" valid. The thing is, relationships, sex, intimacy are emotional things, that don't run along a logical track in all ways. If they did, no relationship "makes sense", and there are always more "logical reasons" not to have a relationship at all.
Let me ask the question this way, because this hasn't been at all confusing for me IRL. Putting aside "theory", how often does it really happen, that two people are operating according to totally different paradigms, when they become sexual? I'm not talking about the "cheaters", but where one person sincerely thought it was ok to be seeing, or sleeping with, others, when one or the other thought it was a serious, committed relationship?
Most of us can tell the difference between a casual, recreational sex "thing", and a serious romantic exploration. And, yeah, that whole relationship process sometimes involves making "educated assumptions" as part of the early stages. | |
|
| |
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/14/2007 6:31:31 PM |
It just seems like I should know without asking, does that make sense?
In principle, I would agree. However, with all of the skewed values out there - it behooves one to be reasonably sure that the person they are with has comparable values PRIOR to going engaging in physical intimacy. Personally, as my values are long-term commitment in that aspect - there's going to be an investment of time getting to know each other first.
 | |
|
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/14/2007 6:40:14 PM |
I'm not sure if this post encouraged me or discouraged me. Looks like the only way to know for sure where I stand is to ask. It just seems like I should know without asking, does that make sense?
Jen, people are principally motivated by either their fears or their hopes. Those who are motivated by fear, are in a constant angst, trying to control their fears, which can manifest in trying to control others. Those who are responding primarily to hope, tend to go with their gut feel or are willing to take a chance of failure, in order to get to somewhere better than things are.
Of course, there's always some mixture, but I think the post right below yours, illustrated the "cautious", and I suspect "fearful" approach. That is not something I'd be comaptible with in a partner. You seem to be reaching in response to hope, and I hope that will guide you in your choices.
In terms of the OP, one can always conjure up "what ifs", and, really, no assurance is ever good enough to take away all fear. The simple truth is, that almost always, if you listen to your gut, you'll know. | |
|
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/14/2007 6:40:31 PM |
She didn't cheat on me but let me know that she would still date other guys because we weren't engaged. She also made it a point to inform me that she doesn't have sex with these guys. Only to me whom she considered special.
I'm not understanding that one...... call me old fashioned. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/14/2007 9:24:31 PM | Msg. 133 Can't argue with you there, vulf. I always perceived I was born in the wrong time, however, I must confess that having been raised in a different culture certainly had it's influence on my values.
What's wrong with if it feels good do it, as long as it does not feel bad the morning after or later and it does not harm other humans, animals or the environment???
If that is what floats your boat and spins your wheels, by all means do it. That sort of thinking is not in line with my values though. Viva la difference!
| |
|
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/14/2007 9:45:29 PM | ..."seems to me that you have a "gradual" approach to "working towards a relationship" that rises out of "some period of dating".
I do realize that this discussion/thread has gone on farther than when this comment was made to me. However, you seem to provide me with an apology and then take another stab at me with another ill-fated comment! Seems to me that the whole point of dating someone would be to attain a goal at working towards a relationship, as I am aparently not fortunate enough to be able to walk into a bingo lounge or grocery store and meet the man of my dreams , without any dating involvement, who will risk me away into forever after. This whole statement of yours makes absolutely no sense. Dating, gradual or gunho, is a requirement to most mankind as you can't possibly learn anything about someone by merely looking at them. It's one approach to dating and the interaction between those parties is where the "playing the games", you reference to, will be seen and then choices can be made as to whether to continue or end with that particiluar person. Intimacy starts outside the bedroom and not in it. If you are able to communicate in one room and not in the other chances are the relationship will not last. Strictly my opinion!
I will agree with one thing you have said, and I am paraphrasing here.... once a dating relationship has reached a certain romantic involvement, generally, it is known to both parties where they stand with each other as it has been established through the dating pool --- meaning, of course to me, that they have spent the necessary time together (there's that word again 'dating") to realize this is the one person they want in their life.
But, of course, what do I know, I gradually work towards relationships through some periods of dating! | |
|
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/14/2007 9:51:03 PM | IMHO....
I think for women there will always be some implications towards commitment made by sleeping together ....for some women more than others.
Also , for some guys there are similar expectations on some level ....particularly if it was
really really good (-:
Like it or not , women by far and large do not like just casual sex without any commitment ... They just don't and guys wish they did..... but they don't . If women were as open to casual sex as guys are , the world would be one great big non-stop orgy. | |
|
| |
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/14/2007 9:59:53 PM | OP Wrote:
"Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex? "
I would think a good-hearted woman would assume there's some sort of comittment there because she has some values.
" But I always "assumed" that dating ends when sex starts. "
This used to be some sort of code, but apparently people have become too selfish and abused it, and they're pretty stupid for it too.
I was that way until two years ago, when a woman turned b----- did the exact same thing this one is doing to you.
There are plenty of players today - in this day and age, unfortunately, even after sex, we have to ask. Players have ruined that one for a great many.
Also- don't be afraid to ask. You DO have a right to know things. You are a man, and if she respects you, she'll go along with the program, as a good woman should do anyway...
So you have had sex with this woman, then she pulls this one?
"She didn't cheat on me but let me know that she would still date other guys because we weren't engaged."
Are you really comfortable with that? I'm guessing you aren't since you're asking?
What is her reasoning for this wanting to see other men? That's one pretty selfish line a woman can say.
What is it these other men are 'offering' her that you arent?
I am miffed why she wouldn't be spending time with you if she 'loves' you and only has sex 'with you'... she sounds a little shallow to me.
If she's trying to ask you to get engaged - this is a pretty dumb way of doing it.
My guess is that she's not... but she is drama-oriented it sounds like.
For me - I wouldn't put up with a woman like that. I'd tell her to take a hike. She'd be my 'hit it and forget it' category, she's not one to be trusted.
What she said is pretty selfish and makes her appear to be not commitment-minded, and it does show you a lack of respect I think.
I'd consider this one a player - but to each their own. Do what makes you happy.
The biggest concern would be how far she's willing to tug your line along.
My guess is she is not going to stop here, the next you'll her is about how she is sleeping with someone else behind your back under the context of - 'I've met someone else'
If there are some feelings there, it might be time for you to get this 'talk' stuff outta the way.
This one is not to be trusted. :( And that's pretty sad.
BOTTOM LINE:
If you're not happy with her seing other people - you have your right to stand your ground about it and talk about it. You shouldn't have to put up with a selfish b---h like that.
Best of luck :)
happy fishin
-max | |
|
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:32:32 PM | People!
SEX does NOT = a relatinship!
Meeting someone's parents and kids and having dinner every Sunday with them for 3 months DOES NOT = a relationship.
A relationship in a comitted manner that may or may not lead to a legal thing like marriage ( sorry to our non-heterosexual friends, the government seems to think they need to step in and squash even that union that many people of all ages, sex, yata yata ... insert your own 'supposed minority' ... have the 'right' to and still have not achieved that to their satisfaction.) is based on friendship, trust, acceptance and understanding first of all.
All the rest will fall into place nicely if one is to just relax and take their time to actually get to know the one they have the hots for or are desperate to be with for whatever reason.
Or the person who seems immediately smitten will learn over time if careful that the object of their desire is just not worth it at the time.
That is where I am at the moment.
It would be nice if someone else on here would understand my heart and not mistake me as a worhty competitor as I have no desire to compete.
The competion is not anything I think anyone with a heart would feel good about if the y won. | |
|
| |
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/15/2007 4:05:09 AM |
Seems to me that the whole point of dating someone would be to attain a goal at working towards a relationship, as I am aparently not fortunate enough to be able to walk into a bingo lounge or grocery store and meet the man of my dreams , without any dating involvement, who will risk me away into forever after. This whole statement of yours makes absolutely no sense. Dating, gradual or gunho, is a requirement to most mankind as you can't possibly learn anything about someone by merely looking at them.
I'm not trying to argue with anyone, nor insist that "my way" is the only, or even the best, way for everyone. There are two primary paradigms in developing relationships. One is to do a lot of "dating", and when you meet someone with whom there is some mutual interest, to have some extended period during which you "do stuff" together (dates), but don't have sex. The other is, to spend some time prior to meeting each other, getting to know each other on the phone and in email, to determine if your core values, basic personality, and goals seem in harmony. During that period, if sexual tension develops, when you actually meet, there's either chemistry, or there isn't. If the chemistry is there, then nature takes its course. For me, that "harmony" includes having a similar view of the role of sexuality in a relationship, and a similar need for sex with some one person, as part of having a balanced life.
Either way, I have no desire, at this point in life, to have sex, just to have sex, nor a desire to date, just to date. For me, my ideal partner would not hesitate to act on HER sexual need with me, if she felt the chemistry. If I had met someone, who didn't need, for her reasons, to be sexual, if the chemistry was there, then I would assume that there was no chemistry, if we met, spent time together, and it didn't naturally become sexual.
Simply stated, I have found "the one", and none of this was a hassle or contentious, and the intimacy is building in both areas. It's called compatibility or destiny. The point being, whatever your paradigm for dating is, the ideal is to meet only those who have the same paradigm, and then none of this is an "issue".
My objection to the OT, is not that the OP has a different paradigm, but the angry, judgmental way that the OT is stated, and her responses to those who have a different paradigm. Men who are sincerely interested in a truly intimate relationship, but who don't do well with being intimate, prior to it being sexual, are not "Not decent", nor "just out for sex". Some men are "indecent" or just out to "get sex", but most older men, are not like that. | |
|
| |
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/15/2007 7:45:23 AM | Under the values of this society, and depending on the parties involved, no, there isn't an assumed commitment after the sex act. If you want a committed relationship, establish that first as the goal, then with the other party understanding the parameters, sex may or may not be part of the equation. As kariharte says,
All the rest will fall into place nicely if one is to just relax and take their time to actually get to know the one they have the hots for or are desperate to be with for whatever reason.
Or the person who seems immediately smitten will learn over time if careful that the object of their desire is just not worth it at the time.
You've got to protect your heart. Take your time, enjoy getting to know someone before jumping into bed. Sex should be viewed as part of the relationship rather than the relationship as part of the sex. | |
|
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/15/2007 8:06:46 AM |
You've got to protect your heart. Take your time, enjoy getting to know someone before jumping into bed. Sex should be viewed as part of the relationship rather than the relationship as part of the sex.
Human beings are motivated primarily by "fear of loss" or "hope for gain", a negative or a positive. While it's usually a mixture for most people, there is always one that is a stronger source for motivation, either fear or hope. It's why some people value "security" in a job as being more important, than upside potential. It's also why, in pursuing relationships, some people are more focused on "protecting themselves" than in hoping to find true and fulfilling intimacy.
Simple fact, there are no "guarantees" that can be given in relationships, that you won't ultimately be hurt. All focusing on "protecting your heart" does, is to turn your focus inward, on your fears, rather than being open to find a greater oneness. Trying to assuage your fears first, thus delaying the exploration of intimacy, merely puts up walls to intimacy, and will only work for those who seek a relationship to exist in a "compartment" of life, as an add on, rather than being the central focus.
When two people are both open to, hoping for a true and lasting intimate relationship, it naturally occurs that sexuality is an outgrowth of a willingness to exclusively focus on each other, in the hope that it will lead to "having it all". For most people, it's not hard to distinguish between that sort of intimate relationship, and a very casual sexual encounter. Nothing in life is "guaranteed", though, and yes, there are players. The fact is, if you "had the discussion in advance" a player would merely tell you what you want to hear, have sex, and continue to be a player. So, what's the point of pursuing the illusion that the "conversation" will change anything?
My life experience is simply this. It has always happened, that if we are exchanging the ILY words as part of things, and are sexual, that we intend to be exclusively focused on each other. That doesn't "guarantee" that it will "last forever". It doesn't "guarantee" that the sex will be good in a cosmic way, and if it isn't, that's a good sign that we aren't destined mates. If it is, though, and we are available to each other as lovers, why would we want to look elsewhere? | |
|
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/15/2007 8:29:36 AM | Melo - you make valid points in this last post.
When two people are both open to, hoping for a true and lasting intimate relationship, it naturally occurs that sexuality is an outgrowth of a willingness to exclusively focus on each other, in the hope that it will lead to "having it all".
In healthy minded individuals, this the natural progression. However, I would clarify my opinion of healthy minded. Before an individual can give love, they must first love themselves. Before a person is in a place to where they be a "friend", they must first be a friend to themselves - in the context that a healthy relationship also has friendship at it's foundation.
Sadly, more often than not, people approach a relationship with the idea that they must have someone in their life to eradicate loneliness, perhaps to make them happy and a myriad of other agendas - rather than take personal responsibility for their own happiness. That is an overview, BTW.
The fact is, if you "had the discussion in advance" a player would merely tell you what you want to hear, have sex, and continue to be a player. So, what's the point of pursuing the illusion that the "conversation" will change anything?
Personally, Melo (and only in the context that I do have the innate ability to discern truth from lie beneath the words a person speaks) - you are also correct in that statement. I would not have a direct conversation on that matter, rather explore conversation designed to elicit a broader sense of that person's values. Players are not that difficult to spot at the onset. However, for many people they are as those individuals still look to a partner to act as a balm on their woundedness and as such, wear their vulnerability like an invitation. They believe players as they are still caught up in fairy tale thinking - from a woman's perspective, that their knight in shining armor to carry them off into the sunset to live happily ever after. The manner in which we are assaulted in our society with instant gratification principles and lottery thinking certainly fosters that approach to dating and relationships in general. IMO.
| |
|
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/15/2007 9:24:09 AM | angelheart,
There is a need which causes men to give up on what our redeemer and the apostle Paul called the "good" walk which ought to be "received" by those who are "able to" and the "better" walk, respectively, and Paul calls it the need to marry because they cannot contain. What causes them not to be able to contain may be different with each person, but inability to do something is a weakness that stems from something in their mind. When you criticise all the weaknesses that cause the right minded to obey and marry you are forgetting that without those, none of the people in the camp of the saints here on earth would ever marry at all. They are there for a reason and shouldn't be thought of as sinful, necessarily, just a weakness that will eventually be strengthened.
Also be cautious to make distinction between statement you make about the healthy minded and the sick minded. Don't speak of them as being all one common group where behavior is concerned.
iaucef | |
|
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/15/2007 9:42:20 AM |
What causes them not to be able to contain may be different with each person, but inability to do something is a weakness that stems from something in their mind. When you criticise all the weaknesses that cause the right minded to obey and marry you are forgetting that without those, none of the people in the camp of the saints here on earth would ever marry at all. They are there for a reason and shouldn't be thought of as sinful, necessarily, just a weakness that will eventually be strengthened.
Also be cautious to make distinction between statement you make about the healthy minded and the sick minded. Don't speak of them as being all one common group where behavior is concerned.
Thank you for your feedback on that. Perhaps I should have been more detailed in my post which was quantified at best. Also, there is a different between the truly sick minded (which in my perception is more personality disordered individuals which was not addressed in my post as that is a different matter entirely). My statements were intended to be broad and certainly not intended to digress to a religious perspective or perceived assault therein.
I in no way made any statements using the terminology "sick minded" in the referenced post. That is a perception of the reader - a more accurate perception would have been broken spirited actually. Perhaps I should have posted a more complete dissertation to cover every potential circumstance?
 | |
|
sddude
|
Joined: 11/4/2004
Msg: 149 | |
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/15/2007 9:42:37 AM | I do not know ... , I have been dating this girl and she does not want a commitment, she wants to have sex exclusively with me . I ask if she seriously thinks I am her boyfreind , she says yes , does not talk to me , just calls me for sex , she cannot even go on all night like I like , after she is done with orgasm number 5 she is gone , I noticed it , I do count ...
I do not see her as my girlfriend, she is just a real live inflatable doll that comes to me with her needs.
Maybe she is a robot .
mmm why am I complaining? , mmm I sound like a girl , hahahahaha | |
|
| Is there an assumed commitment between 2 people dating, once they've had sex?
Posted: 8/15/2007 9:55:33 AM | Before an individual can give love, they must first love themselves. Before a person is in a place to where they be a "friend", they must first be a friend to themselves - in the context that a healthy relationship also has friendship at it's foundation.
Sadly, more often than not, people approach a relationship with the idea that they must have someone in their life to eradicate loneliness, perhaps to make them happy and a myriad of other agendas - rather than take personal responsibility for their own happiness. That is an overview, BTW.
Quite valid. There are those, who, to a greater or lesser degree, seek to find their "self-identity" from others. That can be the man, who needs "conquests", not to connect with someone, but in a futile scramble to define himself as "good" or "desirable", because he found some woman, who "liked him enough" to have sex with him.
It also comes from women, who are so desperate for the "white knight" to "rescue" them, in the futile belief that someone else can "fix" her feelings.
As you say, my comments were about two reasonably centered adults, with reasonably intact self-identities, who are able to give strength in a relationship, including being strong enough to let someone else in, when everything isn't perfect.
So, I don't know what it means, when two dysfunctional people pair off in a codependant paradigm. It depends on the dysfunction. The guy who thinks having lots of women, in a scramble for "identity", is probably going to continue looking. The man or woman seeking a "rescuer" will start hunting for a different one, when the rescuer turns out to be unable to fix his/her feelings. For me, I worked very hard to avoid the seriously disordered and dysfunctional. Once, for 5 years, was more than enough for a lifetime. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
