February 16th, 2006

Previous Entry Next Entry
05:22 pm - on sex on the first date...

(14 comments | Leave a comment)

on sex on the first date... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile

Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr


[User Picture]From: sui66iy Date: February 16th, 2006 - 11:14 pm (Link)
First of all, we might lose respect for a girl, but we wouldn't "loose" it.

Second, you conflate having sex on the first date with waiting for marriage, which are opposite ends of the spectrum. It is in fact the common case to neither wait for marriage nor have sex on the first date.

A big issue I have with having sex with someone on the first date is one of trust and safety. If it's the first date, it's likely that you don't know the person all that well. If you don't know the person that well, it's not safe to have sex with them. If they are willing to have sex with *you* on the first date, it's likely that they have had zillions of sexual partners, which means their risk for carrying something nasty is much higher.

Now, I know lots of people who have lots of partners but are quite careful and responsible. But it's a better idea to convince yourself of that care and responsibility by getting to know them before exchanging bodily fluids (condoms ain't perfect).

But let's say we live in some mystical paradise of perfect birth control and immunity from disease. Would it then be a good idea to have sex on the first date? Well, maybe not. There's good reason to believe that sex (and, in particular, intercourse) stimulates hormones that promote pair-bonding. Certainly one could be forgiven for thinking that sex is a powerful symbol that represents the claim "I am willing to have a child with you" even if neither of you have any actual such intentions.

So sex is a powerful thing, chemically and symbolically. Do you want to unleash that power on a first date? Frankly, I want the freedom *not* to call the person back. I don't necessarily want sex clouding my judgement or theirs until it seems like the relationship might last a bit longer.

All that said, we've all had flings and some folks are pretty good at handling casual sex. But not everyone is, and for good reason.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: February 17th, 2006 - 12:05 am (Link)
1) fixed... thanx... damn typos that are another word.

2) only for convenience sake. I was trying to limit the waiting til you're married thing to the 3rd bullet.

So yeah, I don't necessarilly disagree with you. And I didn't mean to suggest that sex on the first date was mandatory, more that I think that having a "rule" against it is kinda silly. I will grant the practicality of your trust issue. But I still think that the classic sitcoms rationals (which some people seem to still adhere to) for why are kinda silly and outdated.

Ignoring the trust issue, do you honestly respect someone less for first date sex?
[User Picture]From: qiika Date: February 17th, 2006 - 12:52 am (Link)
Unless a not-date was to the clinic together, yes, I honestly respect someone less if they want to have sex on the first date. It's a respect issue - respect for themselves and their respect for their potential partner(s) are questioned if things like protection from and prevention of STD are not taken into consideration.

And I should count as a guy when it comes to my views about sex.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: February 17th, 2006 - 01:06 am (Link)
nah, you don't count as a guy. Just a person. Sorry...

hmm... that's a fair view. I don't know that I agree with it. I don't think that there's a common mental connection between safe sex protection and actual accompaniment to the clinic. Like Mike, I guess you're assuming that a first date means you don't know the person ahead of time. That has very VERY infrequently been the case for me.

But the real thing here is, and this has to do with why you don't count as a "guy" given your answer, the insinuation from the "mom-esque" quotes, and what I was getting at in the post, is that the boy will want to have sex with the girl, and will totally do so if given the opportunity. But then won't respect the girl after, because secretly we boys want innocent virginal girls.
[User Picture]From: qiika Date: February 17th, 2006 - 01:12 am (Link)
Okay, you've got me there. I know of no one in our age bracket who has actually said that they want to marry a virgin.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: February 17th, 2006 - 01:17 am (Link)
ah... I actually know some... and similarly those who wanted to remain as such until married...

and certainly several who were waiting until they found the person they intended to marry.
[User Picture]From: qiika Date: February 17th, 2006 - 12:15 pm (Link)
You must interact with a better cross-section, then.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: February 17th, 2006 - 12:40 pm (Link)
depends on what your definition of "better." broader certainly...

• Go to Top