men: theory please
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 11-30-2004 - 11:00am |
Theory; men please
Of course open to the ladies too.
Past would dictate, guy meets girl, girl is optimistically cautious and guy pushes, romances her with flowers, calls her, nice dinners...gets her to commit, aww, she gives in, he doesn’t do this with everyone right? Wrong, ha! They do the deed in 3 weeks, one or two weeks later guy decides this isn’t what he’s looking for. Why is this a stereotype of what men do in relationships? Sure, he thinks he knows you but he doesn’t...he’s infatuated like a new toy. My question is, what is the point? I find it hard to believe he’s doing all this work for one thing and one thing only.....go hire someone if that is the case, LOL....
Thought this would make a good post! I get burned every time. (This was posted on another board but I thought you guys here would have interesting opinions!)

Pages
<>
Maybe .... just maybe .... you are settling for the wrong type of guy. There are alot of guys out there who are willing to wait if they are with the right woman. My wife and I didn't have sex until our wedding night. We played a couple of times, but always stopped short (In fact, she wouldn't even let me take my underwear off). My advice (which with a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at MickieD's) is to wait a while before dropping your pants for the guy. If he wants you for more than your body, he will wait, and if all he wants is your body, you don't need him.
CH
You, or any one else who would like to find out more about men, should read "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus".
You beat me by 3 minutes ... I guess I was slow this morning.
CH
I think that generally speaking the stereotype exists because women aren't interested in a guy that DOESN'T romance them and take them out to dinner.
The whole idea of romance essentially boils down to sex. Romance is courtship and courtship is mating behaviour, mating behaviour is a prelude to sex.
If a guy wants sex or a relationship he has to romance the woman. A woman has to be sufficiently impressed by a potential mate to have sex with him. Romancing her and taking her to dinner is just one of several ways of impressing a woman with his suitability as a mate. If he was a Peacock, he'd display his colourful tail for her. Same thing.
Does he really know her after a short period of several weeks? Well, no. But he knows her better than he did at the beginning. Sex is just one part of the whole thing and is not a deal-breaker at this stage. He's not going to leave JUST because he has had sex with her and has accomplished his 'mission'. He might have stayed around a bit longer because he thought he was about to break through and have sex, but if he leaves it is because of a combination of reasons - and whatever they are they add up to the fact that he is not sufficiently attracted to her to continue developing the relationship. Sex is only part of that decision and the opportunity to have sex may have delayed the inevitable, not caused it.
The point? Romance is probably the most successful way of impressing a potential mate.
Sex is not the only thing that most men are looking to achieve with romance. However, it might make them hang around a bit longer than they otherwise would have.
Other human emotions complicate things - for example, a man might have issues with pride, self-worth, self-respect and his social image that prevents him from just getting sex from a prostitute when he just wants sex. If he is looking for a potential longterm relationship he is not going to get that from a prostitute.
I'm wondering about your choice in men.
You see, I'm in my late 30's and have *never* had a guy dump me early in a relationship. And yes, I do have sex very early on in a relationship - so putting out can't be the cause.
In my experience, guys (not counting FWB) are more than happy to stick around after having sex. They'll only move on if the personality thing doesn't click.
Would they stay longer if the sex was better? About the only thing that I've been told that I do differently to other women is that I'm *very* agressive in bed. I know what I want and I'm not afraid to ask for it. I'm not the slightest bit body shy. I accept compliments graciously and I don't criticise my body or hair etc etc. I'm also not one to hold off sex until a certain time in the relationship - if the chemistry is there, I'll go for it. I don't wait for a man to make the first move. Does this makes a difference? Possibly. Perhaps they like to be with an agressive girl for a change.
However, I believe the choice in men is far more likely to make a difference. I've got a girlfriend who's always attracted to the suave types of men. Dark, handsome and a little dangerous - and she gets burned every time. Me? I go after "normal" guys. Not too good looking - but with a nice smile. Must have brains. Must be upfront about what they want in life. Must be very employable, but not 100% career oriented.
Oh, and I've normally discussed their dreams about their future within a couple of dates. (A good guy won't get "scared off" by talking about our future goals...incl marriage and babies.) Likewise, I discuss political ideals within the first date or two.....don't want to date a chauvanist or intolerant person. I raise controversial subjects to see their reactions. (Who says you shouldn't discuss religion and politics LOL) Perhaps it's this rigorous sifting that is in my favour? If they're not my type, I've usually worked it out and dissed them quickly.
Hmmm....reading all this, it seems that I'm not just sexually agressive....but in my whole personality. I wonder if it makes a difference.
Pages