If I was a girl, I wouldn’t sleep with guys so soon. This advice cockblocks me, but the best defense — to a man whose main goal is to sleep with girls as fast as possible — is to wait, especially since most guys are only willing to have sex with you once and never again. You don’t want to put out until a guy shows time investment.
But how much time investment?
Enough so that if the sex is bad, his first instinct is not to dump you. While I don’t believe in time invested, almost all other guys do. If he spent a lot of time getting you in bed, he will be less willing to “throw it all away” just because you didn’t give enthusiastic oral sex.
Waiting will only work if you are a quality woman. The amount of quality you need to have depends on the kind of guy you are going after: the higher status male, the more you must have your shit together. If you want to land him, and you think he wants to be landed by you, then you need a better strategy than answering the phone on the third ring and relying on advice from girlfriends who have watched too many movies.
I asked myself, “What would work on me?” What could a girl say to me on date two, three, or — doubtfully — four that would still keep me hanging on even though we weren’t having sex? I embraced my feminine side and came up with something that, if said to me by a girl I liked, may keep me in the game:
I want to be intimate as much as you do, but sex is something that is very important to me. It takes a lot of trust and time for me to do that. I don’t date multiple guys and I don’t care about where you take me out, but sex is one thing that we should wait for. I don’t know how long it will take and I can’t promise that anything that will happen, but you are the only guy that I’m seeing right now. If you can be patient and we can spend some time together, I want to see where this goes.
There are five things that were communicated there:
1. She is not a whore.
2. She is not a spinster or serial dater.
3. She is not trying to spend my money.
4. She is probably not playing games.
5. She is not needy.
If I was a girl, I would maybe say that to guys. Most would walk away, but I’m sure some wouldn’t. It doesn’t completely solve the problem of getting pumped and dumped, but is sure does a good job screening out guys like me, who find it unnecessary to wait for sex past date two.
Related Posts You May Like:
My Pick-Up Guide:
well said, as usual.
you must also have the impression that she is trying hard to restrain herself from jumping your bones. this helps filter out the sexually repressed, the low libido, and the lukewarm chicks. if you’re gonna play by her rules and wait more than 3 dates for a quality girl to put out (8 and above, under 30, not a lawyer) might as well be certain that she really has the hots for you.
otherwise, stick with what works. all the way, right away. this applies to both short term flings and LTRs. in love, the brightest flame isn’t always the first to burn out.
Define “quality woman” and how much of that is outside a woman’s control?
Good advice. Letting the players bore and move on is the most efficient way to date!
Two dates? Three? More? I don’t think there should be a hard and fast rule. For instance, what if the first date ends up lasting twelve high-quality hours and we deeply connect and ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh? That guy sometimes gets luckier with me than the guy who buys me a drink or dinner on three different nights. It’s the quality, not the quantity.
Oh, and instinct, pure instinct. If there is serious sexual chemistry between myself and a man we rarely make it past date two without getting naked. If I’m on date three and still wondering if I want my legs wrapped around a guy’s waist something’s WRONG.
But hey that’s just me. Women who make a habit of second-guessing their instincts or better judgment should probably wait longer.
Agree with Hedonistic. Rules about dating and sex and all that crap are what makes dating suck so much. If you want it–have it, if you don’t-then don’t. Voila.
i laid it out for you.
above an 8.
not a lawyer, or other high status, high paying career (particularly if the guy sees her as marriage material).
you could throw in a sweet disposition and a willingness to experiment sexually.
the first two are completely outside a woman’s control.
but then no one said life was fair.
I want to hear it from DCB, Roissy, because he might have something constructive to say.
Roissy, sure, high-income career women are harder to bargain with, but so what? ALL people are harder to bargain with when they have many viable choices.
High-energy, intelligent, high-income people are in high demand regardless of gender, so you have to work harder to snag their attention and keep them around. You just need to decide whether or not the reward is worth the energetic cost.
intelligence and zealous careerism are not necessarily mutually inclusive. the alpha male is better served marrying the feminine whipsmart waitress than the ballcutting corporate lawyer even if it means their total household income will take a hit. the ferocity of the bargaining ain’t got nothing to do with it. it’s biomechanics all the way down.
Plus the waitress can’t afford to leave yer ass, can’t forget THAT! Maybe you could even keep her naked in the basement so she can’t run away! Looking for a woman to be your SUB is sooooo 1950’s. Anyone with eyes can see that the New Trophy Wives (among men with many viable options) are typically high-achieving women, regardless of whether their incomes are higher or lower than the men they married.
Not that I’m a fan of marriage or anything. I’m just sayin’. Can you tell I’m bored at work? Back to waiting for sex or not. I say, men, find an efficient way to express to us what you’re REEEELY all about so we can decide whether or not we want to have sex with you ASAP! Forget the blahblahblahfogfogfog cocktail bullshit; get REAL and BreakitDOWN. Life is short!
I think men who are afraid of the “ballcutting corporate lawyer” need to grow a few actual balls. If you are secure in yourself and your “manliness,” it won’t matter if she makes more money than you, is smarter than you, and will actually stand up to you. Now, if you aren’t secure and would rather have a woman who willingly lie down and wait for you to either do her or walk all over her, then a high-status career woman might not be for you. Which is sad, really. Because the woman you didn’t want because of your own insecurities might be the most interesting, exciting woman you ever dated.
While Roissy is making a very crude point, in one way, Roissy is correct.
Wait…here me out here. It’s a pretty darn established fact that marriages between individuals with different values of time are more stable (they tend to last longer, have higher reported happiness) than marriages between individuals with similiar values of time.
That doesn’t say that a marriage between two high-income earners is doomed. It doesn’t say that a high/low is preferable, because this is just one isolated factor out of hundreds that influence a relationship.
As for real-life, Roissy, my fiancee and I earn a good bit, but she earns a little more than I. But we are a better match. If you’re really an alpha, an alpha female doesn’t pose a threat.
I imagine you’re more of a pretender rather than a contender
Stephen – – good point. But it needs to be qualified. Couples with similar values of time do just fine if they’re dual-income-no-kids (these marriages TEND to be happier and more stable than marriages with kids, believe it or not).
Trouble comes when two people with a similar “value of time” decide to have a baby, but only one of them seems to be constantly stuck holding the (diaper) bag. The benefit of having a high-income spouse in these cases is that you can afford to buy help to end the fights and stave off the divorce.
But what does this have to do about sex? I wanna talk about sex. Jeez!
when a waitress marries up, why do you assume it means her enslavement? have you always resented people who fulfill their wants? very anhedonic of you.
rebecca, i am telling men AND women how to maximize their happiness. there are certain immutable laws of biology that run straight up against the wishful thinking of cultural warriors like hedonistic. one of these is that women get moist for male power with the same vigor men get hard for female youth and beauty. a super confident and secure man making half the income of his wife will still have to put in more work than a similar man making twice the income to prevent the inherent instability of such a relationship from regressing to its steady state. substitute career prestige or social leverage for income if you find talk of money distasteful.
women cannot help themselves. she NEEDS to look up to the man in her life or, over time, her attraction for him will erode. the hotshot male lawyer will find the path to serene contentment less arduous if he avoids the social pressures to marry an equally ambitious lawyer woman within his class and instead scoops up the cute salesgirl who will see him as a god. and don’t kid yourself — as much as men want to be admired, women want to admire.
“I wanna talk about sex. Jeez!”
do you do anal?
You’d get a kick out of Posner’s Sex and Reason.
You know, I dated a girl once who had that slave mentality you seem to desire. It got old real fast. I don’t think a real alpha has a desire to be “worshipped”. A real alpha will be too busy living life to the fullest to even notice.
worship != admire. and if the real alpha is too busy for love he is no alpha at all.
These are actually some spot-on observations. They can only work if the feeling is mutual, though. It’s one thing to tell a guy that you aren’t seeing anyone else, if he is at the same place and actually sees himself in a relationship with you. This sort of thing definitely takes more than a few dates. As a woman “of quality”, I think it’s useful to remind a guy of this by making him feel safe in the relationship. It’s important that neither person feels like they are wasting their time (or money). In the end, DCB, you have a point– no intelligent guy actually wants to end up with a a slut. Is it fair to say that men may play the game, but women are ultimately the ones in control?
Can any woman really respect a guy who makes half her salary? I kinda doubt it. So high-powered lawyers are out of my league.
I think women respect hardworking men, period. Women generally can’t stand slackers.
Regarding income… if you love what you do for a living, then whether your spouse makes more than you do or not does not (and should not) matter at all.
Me? I work in a field that has been my lifelong passion, and I could care less whether my woman makes more than me. If she’s a hotshot lawyer or some high powered woman, then that’s fine by me. I just hope she won’t be a *divorce lawyer* though! :laugh:
“Define ?quality woman? and how much of that is outside a woman?s control?”
Quality is a combination of genetics (face, hair color), behavior that is learned (personality, vibe, sexiness, humor), and behavior that can partly be controlled with effort (body size, style, makeup).
This question leads to another topic: how much can woman actually improve their game to land better men? Is she doomed to following a predetermined script/program or can she actually make a difference in the guys she gets? I think with only a few changes, women indeed can make a big difference. See Bad game vs good game
On point as usual DCB.
Suppose the girl quotes your paragraph and tells me everything you just mentioned and I can subsequently draw the five conclusions you listed; how would I be able to tell if that’s who she really is or if she’s just saying that (to land me, a quality catch) because she read it on DCB?
Does she say that to ALL guys? or is she selective based on her perception of the guy’s land-ability? Maybe she really is the type to give it up on the first night to the meathead at the bar.
I guess my question hints at a bigger one: are pump and dump candidates only ‘That Girl’ when they want to be? Or are they destined for a life of pumping, dumping and spinsterdom?
pssssst! While you’re waiting on DCB, a hint from a chick! They wait only when they wanna!
Women go through phases re: what they want in life, just like men do. I’ve been “this” girl and “that” girl off-and-on throughout my entire single life. Which, when you subtract my marriages and LTRs, adds up to about 5 years of not quite knowing what I want. Sometimes I’m a libertine, sometimes I’m the church lady. It just depends – – on ME, not necessarily the guy.
They wait only when they wanna!
–very good and true point there.
Rebecca said: “I think men who are afraid of the ?ballcutting corporate lawyer? need to grow a few actual balls.”
Once again let me say this: Men have to deal with Alpha males everyday at the office. When we come home, we don’t want more of the same. Men are not afraid of these women — after all men are the ones who (mostly) fight fires and do other dangerous jobs. Men are worn out by these women!
Finally, each sex likes the opposite. Most women don’t wanna fall in love with a man with lots of female quality, so why are men now “required” to fall for women just like them?
It’s a “feminist myth” than men are “threatened” by corporate women. Just like the myth that all men are rapists and domestic violence goes up on Superbowl Sunday.
Finally, I second everything Roissy said above — you cannot change biology.
I just have to say that I don’t want to worship any man. I don’t need to look up to man to find him attractive. Respect, yes, but my respect is not based on salary or “power.” And that might mean that a guy would have to work harder to get me. Earning a high salary is one thing; earning my respect based on who you are and how you behave is entirely more difficult. Maybe some guys don’t think that it’s worth the effort. To those guys, I say enjoy your easy girls. But what are you going to do if you lose your job and she no longer worships you? Relationships always have power struggles in them. But relationships that are based on such an archaic, rigid, and unbalanced power structure are going to be weak.
oops. my “marriages?” I’ve only been married once, strike what I stated above.
anyhoo – – – good point, Rebecca, what happens if Alpha loses his job? All of a sudden he no longer rates as “Alpha?”
Gimme a break, if I’m going to look up to a man it’s going to be for something beyond a title and a paycheck.
Is it just a coincidence then Hedonistic that most(all?) of the people you date seem to have a title and/or a paycheck?
I’m just going by what I read on your blog. I haven’t read about you going out with any hard working sanitation employees.
DoBW: Women have to deal with men who think they are alpha at the office all day, too. Do we really want to come home to a man who thinks he’s alpha and wants to be worshipped? I don’t think so. And being willing to do dangerous jobs has nothing to do with not being afraid of strong women. These are two completely different kinds of fears. And the whole biology argument is such a cop-out.
Also, you really might want to rethink your use of quotation marks. Some of them seem rather superfluous.
“Alpha” has nothing to do with a paycheck.
It has everything to do with poise, confidence, passion (for what one does), and leadership.
Alpha’s can be teachers, ceo’s, personal trainers, doctors, etc.
mhm, I knew this was coming! My first boyfriend out of high school was a vagabond. Yup, homeless: He lived by the seat of his pants, doing odd jobs and sleeping in people’s garages. Eventually he bought a tipi, where I lived with him on an indian reservation on weekends.
As you may imagine, my parents were “thrilled.” But my dad couldn’t complain because he was the one who introduced us (he met him in an AA meeting)!
We dated for two years before I met my husband in college. We were both completely broke at the time, sharing a room in a boarding house and working nights to make ends meet. When we divorced, we were flush and living the suburban wet dream. Since then, all my dates have been upper-income, because that’s what I’m surrounded by both at work and at home: I am pretty high-income myself, and live in a very expensive town.
I suppose the short answer to why I date rich guys: Because I can? What’s not to like?
biology a cop-out? is shitting a cop-out, or do you just hold it in because you’re above it all?
always keep one thing in mind — what a woman says she wants and what she demonstrates she wants through her actions are two very different things. in fact, i believe women are subconsciously programmed to spew this haze of squid ink to throw weaker men off the scent. strong men will ignore this and give women what they really want: power, protection, dominance. and no, rebecca, dominance does not mean the strawman you think it means.
There is no doubt women are SOCIALIZED to seek men who offer alpha-style protection. Women of the world exist in a state of low level seige, and men benefit from this state (“may I walk you to your car?”).
Yes, we’re talking about the oldest “protection racket” in the world. The Testosterone Mafia!
There is nothing wrong about a woman raised this way to seek a bigger/stronger man, a richer one, a dominant one, yadayada. It’s pure survival instinct. Still, it’s an error to point to women’s behaviors and call them “natural” when they’re mostly SOCIALIZED COPING MECHANISMS. The survival instinct is biological, no doubt. However, the things we DO to feed this instinct are socially constructed.
For instance, American women COULD just as easily arm themselves, band together, and live cooperatively, and only approach men when they’re interested in sex. Some African villages are structured this way.
Hey, why the heck not?
You’ll note that I never claimed biology itself was a cop-out. Using biology as an excuse for behavior that, as hedonistic pointed out, is society-based is a cop-out. Using biology as a shield to hide behind in order to avoid examining the real reasons behind gender relations is a cop-out.
Also, I’m not quite sure how you can claim to know what all women want. I’m pretty upfront with what I want and what I have reflects that. I would never stay in the kind of relationship you describe, and I am certainly not looking for a guy who dominates me. I don’t need someone to protect me. Some women may, and that’s fine for them. But, again as hedonistic said, that is because of society, not biology. I see no lions running around about to eat me, I am in no danger of being dragged off by a bear, and, thanks to the wonders of technology, if I were in those situations, I would damn sure have a gun.
The fact that you state that “strong” men will ignore what women say and “give women what they really want” disturbs me on so many levels.
I know I should just let this debate die, but I wanna say one more thing. Men and women look to each other not really for each other. They look for the people that will produce potential offspring.
For women, that means someone they mostly consider powerful and smart. Culture usually determines the more detailed specifics, but those are the basics because these qualities produce good spawn. Few women of any culture want smaller, pooer, less intelligent men as this will result in lousy offspring.
Men want someone who seems nuturing, because they’re looking for someone who will be a good primary caregiver of their kids — as most females of most species are. Few men of any culture want women who seem overly aggressive or self-involved because they will not care for the offspring properly, or be destructive or leave altogether.
Therefore, it should not come as a shock to any woman that men don’t want to pair up with women who seem cut-throat. Yet women often like this quality in men for reasons stated above.
This is basic sociology that people seem to realize up till they go to college and get fed sociologically mumbo-jumbo that only works within the realm of college. Yes, there are exceptions, but these are the main rules.
Final thought to Rebecca: Do you want to settle down and produce offspring with a male who is significantly shorter than you, makes less money and/or is none too bright? My guess is you do not and the reasons for that are instinctive, not sociologically-driven. So don’t expect men go against their instincts.
um . . . days of broken arrows, your theory only makes sense if your premises are true, but they’re not. Career Woman vs. Good Mom is a false dichotomy. Sorry!
“Ballbuster” career women often make AWESOME mothers. They’re high-achieving both at home and in the office (and often suffer burnout as a result). I’ve seen this first hand.
Most high-paying career women are not “ballbusters” in any case. Many achieved success while holding on to, or even because of, their feminine ways (my southern-belle mother is case in point).
Also, “self-absorbed” women tend not to do so well in their careers, at least not for long. It comes back to bite them, just like it does for men.
And the idea that men look to women for the sake of his future offspring? I practically peed myself laughing here; I had to visit the potty before typing this response. NEWS FLASH: Heterosexual men seek women in order to get LAID, and to be nurtured THEMSELVES. Therefore, to some men at least, if a woman doesn’t appear willing to drop everything to nurture THE MAN, she must be “self-absorbed.”
Snort. This has NOTHING to do with birthin no babies. This has everything to do with certain men wanting/needing surrogate mommies themselves.
(OK back to sex! Roissy, as for your question on anal, I have yet to meet a man able to convince me what’s in it for ME. So, sorry, no.)
Anyone out there still trying to figure out how long to wait to have sex?
Yeah, until I moved to DC, I never knew how much emphasis people our age placed on the “biological” factors. Humans have been socialized far too much for these explanations to hold as much merit as most of you seem to think.
For example, would 6’4 Chip from Charlottesville really be able to “protect” you when two guys are flashing a gun in your face? I don’t think Chip would stand any more of a chance than Vern Troyer. Ok, maybe a little more, but come on.
I will say that sex for men is purely physical and hardly social. Meaning: If a guy sees a woman he is attracted to, he will want to have sex with her. He doesn’t care about anything else. Whereas with women, it is much more social. Meaning: Does he pass the “cool” or “status” test? Do other women want him too (Women cannot think for themselves, as evidenced by the fact that men get much more attention when they are taken, which is because women are always looking for validation from others).
My honest to goodness opinion.
no anal? and you call yourself hedonistic.
I’m about pleasure, baby, not pain.
don’t knock it til you’ve tried it, poseur.
btw, heddy, are men SOCIALIZED to get boners when they see nice tits and a shapely round ass?
Roissy, what does your boner have to do with anything we’re chatting about here? Bottom line, rants like “it’s biology, stupid” are the last refuge of Beta males looking to front as Alphas at home. The shit rolls downhill, so to speak.
But don’t worry; Alpha women run from this arrangement anyway, so you won’t even be given the opportunity to turn them down!
How the hell do you get laid? I can’t believe any girl is dumb enough to bang you. Oh, wait. Yes, I can. We are in D.C., after all.
Hey, sometimes…actually, usually… the guy is not worth it. So I say…as a girl… screw him, literally. If he’s attractive, and you don’t feel like actually dating him, put all of those old-fashioned ideas out of your head and just do him.
And then don’t get all psycho about it if he doesn’t call. That would be your ego talking, saying “omg, he wasn’t even good enough for me, and now he doesn’t want to date ME.” Let it go lady, you’re not as awesome as you think.
That’s what I would do AS a girl.
anhedonic, since you are an older woman of very little imagination, i shall spell it out for you.
your intellectually lazy agitprop feminist shrieking to the contrary notwithstanding, men get boners for the same hindbrain reasons women get moist — that is, for reasons having nothing at all to do with appeals to SOCIAL CONDITIONING or CULTURAL HEGEMONY or any of the other warm fuzzy lies aging schoolmarms like yourself repeat ad nauseum in a vain attempt at rationalistic sugar coating. as your looks fade and the wall approaches, you may recoil at the cold reptilian gaze under the lies of decent people but that won’t change the fact that you are enslaved to your animal machinery just like the rest of us, and the culture isn’t a driver of that but a reflection of it.
so here’s the executive summary:
chicks dig power
guys dig beauty
the rest is commentary.
zelda pincushion, what makes you think i’m here to get laid?
DCB, now that you’re getting laid on a regular basis, maybe you should give your rubber doll to Roissy?
dcb told me she’s saving herself for marriage. homie don’t play that!
btw, you can try to recruit as many allies as you feel necessary. dcb may bite, as white knighting has a long history. if he’s looking to get into your rapidly aging hole it’d be the smart play.
My comment was directed at DBC. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
Look around at the office at the woman who date people from the office. Are they dating people who are under them in power and influence, or are they dating people above them who can advance there career makeing them more money or to maybe get out of working altogether. It’s funny that going to work for woman is seen as so freeing and yet they go to a job where they are told what to do by another man, or maybe woman, but wait it is ok because they are collecting a paycheck lol Yet that woman is not supposed to listen to her husband. Maybe if woman where given a paycheck to be married it would be ok to raise there own kids, and do things there man likes instead of having a total stranger do it?
I wouldn’t want my wife being told all day what to do by another man for more hours than she sees me, just to justify a slight increase in the houshold income.