What’s a reasonable time for traditionalists to wait before having sex?

[Outcast9428]

Realistically I don’t think it’s possible to tell people “you need to wait until marriage before having sex.” Unless arranged marriages became the norm again, it just isn’t possible to expect people to wait that long.

The question is, what is a reasonable amount of time to expect people to wait before having sex while dating? If you aren’t opposed to casual hookups you just aren’t a conservative at all, not even in the mildest sense. But even most arch conservative traditionalists from the 1950s didn’t wait until marriage. They were supposed to but only 10% of Americans waited until marriage back then. I doubt people in the 1950s had one night stands very often but obviously only a small minority of people really followed the ultra conservative position of “no sex until marriage.” There needs to be some middle ground between that and having one night stands to reflect a moderate conservative position.

I’d argue, if you have agreed to be boyfriend and girlfriend it is definitely okay to have sex and that reflects a moderately conservative/traditional position. If you’ve agreed to be boyfriend and girlfriend then there’s no grey area there between a casual and serious relationship. You are definitely “exclusive” to one another.

What are y’all’s thoughts?

[Cornfed]

If we are talking about losing your virginity, in the case of males it doesn't really matter and in the case of females they should wait until marriage. If you are talking about a young not massively slutish non-virgin you are dating with a view to a relationship, by about the third date would be about right. You'd get why she might not want sex right away, but there is no sense in being a simp waiting forever for what others have already had, probably for free in some cases. In the case of some skank, if she doesn't put out on the first date or is not sucking your dick within half an hour of entering your house you should drop her like a hot potato.

[MarcosZeitola]

Realistically I don’t think it’s possible to tell people “you need to wait until marriage before having sex.” Unless arranged marriages became the norm again, it just isn’t possible to expect people to wait that long.

The question is, what is a reasonable amount of time to expect people to wait before having sex while dating? If you aren’t opposed to casual hookups you just aren’t a conservative at all, not even in the mildest sense. But even most arch conservative traditionalists from the 1950s didn’t wait until marriage. They were supposed to but only 10% of Americans waited until marriage back then. I doubt people in the 1950s had one night stands very often but obviously only a small minority of people really followed the ultra conservative position of “no sex until marriage.” There needs to be some middle ground between that and having one night stands to reflect a moderate conservative position.

I’d argue, if you have agreed to be boyfriend and girlfriend it is definitely okay to have sex and that reflects a moderately conservative/traditional position. If you’ve agreed to be boyfriend and girlfriend then there’s no grey area there between a casual and serious relationship. You are definitely “exclusive” to one another.

What are y’all’s thoughts?

How long would you, personally, be able to keep it in your pants while dating a potential long term partner? Would you wait a week, a month, longer? How many dates... I feel that when a girl does not put out, no matter how conservative or shy she may be, it seems like a sign of disinterest and therefore a potential red flag.

[Outcast9428]

Realistically I don’t think it’s possible to tell people “you need to wait until marriage before having sex.” Unless arranged marriages became the norm again, it just isn’t possible to expect people to wait that long.

The question is, what is a reasonable amount of time to expect people to wait before having sex while dating? If you aren’t opposed to casual hookups you just aren’t a conservative at all, not even in the mildest sense. But even most arch conservative traditionalists from the 1950s didn’t wait until marriage. They were supposed to but only 10% of Americans waited until marriage back then. I doubt people in the 1950s had one night stands very often but obviously only a small minority of people really followed the ultra conservative position of “no sex until marriage.” There needs to be some middle ground between that and having one night stands to reflect a moderate conservative position.

I’d argue, if you have agreed to be boyfriend and girlfriend it is definitely okay to have sex and that reflects a moderately conservative/traditional position. If you’ve agreed to be boyfriend and girlfriend then there’s no grey area there between a casual and serious relationship. You are definitely “exclusive” to one another.

What are y’all’s thoughts?

How long would you, personally, be able to keep it in your pants while dating a potential long term partner? Would you wait a week, a month, longer? How many dates... I feel that when a girl does not put out, no matter how conservative or shy she may be, it seems like a sign of disinterest and therefore a potential red flag.

I’m not sure really, I definitely think I could wait a month. You’re right that it is a potential red flag if a girl makes you wait too long. I’d probably ask her why and try to figure out what her reasons are and depending on her reasons I could wait longer.

[WilliamSmith]

LOL @Outcast9428, I'm shocked! Are you sure this is really a "traditionalist" question? Just kidding (though some traditionalists might not like it): But I think it's a smart question and proves you're more of a realist, but I'll leave it to the traditionalists to look for the right answer since I'm not in the same group.

All I can say is that one "gotcha" to watch out for is that you can actually end up having women bolt on guys who do a good job laying them after only the first date, even if the chicks themselves were very into it at the time:
This is a known thing where some PUA's even advise against it if they want to keep seeing her, because some women who get sexually aroused by the whole rapid escalation approach, kino, talking about sex, etc with some masculine guy on the first date get really horny and want to jump his bones, but then sometimes they do it and then get annoyed about it the morning after, and might "categorize" him as non-relationship material or even switch to thinking he's an asshole, saying "goddamit where have all the 'good men' gone" and then blocking his # while he sometimes wonders "what the hell" and thinks women are nutcases even if he was actually open to keep seeing her and maybe even getting serious.

So most guys who like women and want to keep seeing the ones they think are worth the trouble to get into the sack to begin with, will say the 2nd or 3rd date is fine, but you'd have to do a solid job escalating correctly.

One problem that tradpill will have to find a solution to though is that there's quite a few women who aren't "degenerate" but if the guy waits too long and won't make a move on her and try to nail her, then a switch eventually goes off where she thinks it just isn't right or that he doesn't "get it," and the women might then put the men who wait too long or "talk themselves out of the lay" back in circulation. They might do it nicely and politely, though there's no guarantees.

This is another tricky topic because women who also put a lot of effort into trying to bag a man for a relationship (or marriage) will come up with a big set of rules for making him wait, but still have the primal attraction fizzle if the guy waits too long, LOL.

On the flipside, some women will even get cerebral in a similar way to men and list some of the things we do to try to get women to have sex as soon as possible so she'll actually respect us and be aroused by us as something that supposedly marks us as "player" types (I hate that word but it gets used a lot) who they think are only interested in sex, even if we actually were only trying to get them into the sack relatively fast because of being concerned they'd write us off as not being alpha/sexual enough if we waited longer.

This is one of the reasons I think being pretty damned authentic with women is better than all the different mindgames some people try to play with each other in the dating/mating game, which are unpalatable for philosophical reasons as well perhaps, but even if you're going from a POV of pure pragmatism, so many people get these different cerebral rulesets into their heads that there's no way to reconcile it all.

Anyway, not sure if there's any "elegant" solution, but I'll watch the thread in case you guys come up with one.

[Outcast9428]

So far none of the answers here really have a ring of truth behind it to me. I already know how MrMan would respond. I’m kind of starting to lean towards whenever you agree to be boyfriend and girlfriend. If that’s the third date then that’s fine, if it doesn’t happen until your tenth date though then that’s how long you’ll have to wait. Agreeing to be boyfriend and girlfriend I think seals the exclusive bond and represents a kind of practice stage for marriage. A person wouldn’t call someone their girlfriend or boyfriend unless they were serious about him/her.

For my ex and I. We agreed to be boyfriend and girlfriend on our third date and that’s when we had sex. So it was kind of fast you could say but still, there was no doubt that we were serious about each other.

[Cornfed]

So far none of the answers here really have a ring of truth behind it to me. I already know how MrMan would respond. I’m kind of starting to lean towards whenever you agree to be boyfriend and girlfriend. If that’s the third date then that’s fine, if it doesn’t happen until your tenth date though then that’s how long you’ll have to wait. Agreeing to be boyfriend and girlfriend I think seals the exclusive bond and represents a kind of practice stage for marriage. A person wouldn’t call someone their girlfriend or boyfriend unless they were serious about him/her.

For my ex and I. We agreed to be boyfriend and girlfriend on our third date and that’s when we had sex. So it was kind of fast you could say but still, there was no doubt that we were serious about each other.

Assuming that agreement comes reasonably early, that sounds like a good idea.

[WilliamSmith]

So far none of the answers here really have a ring of truth behind it to me. I already know how MrMan would respond. I’m kind of starting to lean towards whenever you agree to be boyfriend and girlfriend. If that’s the third date then that’s fine, if it doesn’t happen until your tenth date though then that’s how long you’ll have to wait. Agreeing to be boyfriend and girlfriend I think seals the exclusive bond and represents a kind of practice stage for marriage. A person wouldn’t call someone their girlfriend or boyfriend unless they were serious about him/her.

For my ex and I. We agreed to be boyfriend and girlfriend on our third date and that’s when we had sex. So it was kind of fast you could say but still, there was no doubt that we were serious about each other.

I don't think anyone even gave you an actual suggested rule so far since Zeitola and I just discussed the issue without suggesting a rule, well except Cornfed with his "we men can do whatever we want, but women must all wait until marriage," but good luck getting even traditionalist women to agree to that.

But what you said there seems reasonable to me (even though I don't think like a traditionalist myself) and is pretty congruent with my personal opinion that men and women may as well be authentic with each other and not play mind games, because especially in these times different women are bringing so many disparate sets of dating and sex rules to the table there's literally no way to reconcile them unless you get an idea what it is they actually think. There was the stuff I mentioned, and then not about sex but an example of the different rules clashing: These days you hear stuff where some woman will offer to go Dutch but then get angry if the man accepts (rather than him insisting he pay, a more traditional approach), while another woman if the man tries to insist on paying for her drink will start yelling that he isn't respecting her independent career level of income by not letting her pay for her own.

But yeah, that'd help you if the neo-traditionalists could gradually build up some kind of standards even if they are only informally accepted.

But like I good-naturedly pointed out about your view not necessarily being in line with what other tradpill types will like though: This is not my area of expertise, but I've noticed Christian girls writing dissertations about the evils of cohabitation (and not 100% sure about their view of the sex side of it, but would guess they were against that too), even though I think what you said there about "practice stage for marriage" makes better sense to me. Anyway, good luck to you sir, and other traditionalists.

[Outcast9428]

So far none of the answers here really have a ring of truth behind it to me. I already know how MrMan would respond. I’m kind of starting to lean towards whenever you agree to be boyfriend and girlfriend. If that’s the third date then that’s fine, if it doesn’t happen until your tenth date though then that’s how long you’ll have to wait. Agreeing to be boyfriend and girlfriend I think seals the exclusive bond and represents a kind of practice stage for marriage. A person wouldn’t call someone their girlfriend or boyfriend unless they were serious about him/her.

For my ex and I. We agreed to be boyfriend and girlfriend on our third date and that’s when we had sex. So it was kind of fast you could say but still, there was no doubt that we were serious about each other.

I don't think anyone even gave you an actual suggested rule so far since Zeitola and I just discussed the issue without suggesting a rule, well except Cornfed with his "we men can do whatever we want, but women must all wait until marriage," but good luck getting even traditionalist women to agree to that.

But what you said there seems reasonable to me (even though I don't think like a traditionalist myself) and is pretty congruent with my personal opinion that men and women may as well be authentic with each other and not play mind games, because especially in these times different women are bringing so many disparate sets of dating and sex rules to the table there's literally no way to reconcile them unless you get an idea what it is they actually think. There was the stuff I mentioned, and then not about sex but an example of the different rules clashing: These days you hear stuff where some woman will offer to go Dutch but then get angry if the man accepts (rather than him insisting he pay, a more traditional approach), while another woman if the man tries to insist on paying for her drink will start yelling that he isn't respecting her independent career level of income by not letting her pay for her own.

But yeah, that'd help you if the neo-traditionalists could gradually build up some kind of standards even if they are only informally accepted.

But like I good-naturedly pointed out about your view not necessarily being in line with what other tradpill types will like though: This is not my area of expertise, but I've noticed Christian girls writing dissertations about the evils of cohabitation (and not 100% sure about their view of the sex side of it, but would guess they were against that too), even though I think what you said there about "practice stage for marriage" makes better sense to me. Anyway, good luck to you sir, and other traditionalists.

It’s not necessarily in line with what they will say but it is in line with what they do. According to my research only 1/8 of people who say premarital sex is morally unacceptable actually follow through on their belief. This is true of today and of the 1950s. For me, I don’t want my views and my behavior to misalign. I really want them to be consistent with one another.

For the purposes of realism, how the hell can we expect liberal minded people to take us seriously on following a rule that even most of us don’t follow? I think it’s a noble ideal to keep in mind but anyone who wants their ideas to succeed needs to know which battles cannot be won.

I think convincing people to reject one night stands, casual dating, and adultery or open relationships is a lot easier then getting people to reject premarital sex entirely. That particular rule has made us a laughing stock for quite some time now. If we can’t even follow our own rule then how do we expect others to. It’s better to lower the bar to something that pretty much all of us actually do follow.

[MrMan]

Realistically I don’t think it’s possible to tell people “you need to wait until marriage before having sex.” Unless arranged marriages became the norm again, it just isn’t possible to expect people to wait that long.

The question is, what is a reasonable amount of time to expect people to wait before having sex while dating?

Until you get married. God gets vengence on those who fornicate according to I Thessalonians 4:16. He judges fornicators and adulterers according to Hebrews 13:4. According to I Corinthians 6, neither fornicators nor adulterers will inherit the kingdom of God.

[MarcosZeitola]

Realistically I don’t think it’s possible to tell people “you need to wait until marriage before having sex.” Unless arranged marriages became the norm again, it just isn’t possible to expect people to wait that long.

The question is, what is a reasonable amount of time to expect people to wait before having sex while dating?

Until you get married. God gets vengence on those who fornicate according to I Thessalonians 4:16. He judges fornicators and adulterers according to Hebrews 13:4. According to I Corinthians 6, neither fornicators nor adulterers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Are King Solomon, King David and Abraham himself welcome in God's Kingdom? All three of these great Biblical figures were "fornicators and adulterers".

[Shemp]

Realistically I don’t think it’s possible to tell people “you need to wait until marriage before having sex.” Unless arranged marriages became the norm again, it just isn’t possible to expect people to wait that long.

The question is, what is a reasonable amount of time to expect people to wait before having sex while dating?

Until you get married. God gets vengence on those who fornicate according to I Thessalonians 4:16. He judges fornicators and adulterers according to Hebrews 13:4. According to I Corinthians 6, neither fornicators nor adulterers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Are King Solomon, King David and Abraham himself welcome in God's Kingdom? All three of these great Biblical figures were "fornicators and adulterers".

You forgot Jesus's own mother was whoring around and got pregnant prior to marriage with that simping beta chump Joseph. Of course, the converted (to their new religion of Christianity) Jews who wrote the New Testament came up with a preposterous story of the holy Ghost knocking her up and somehow managed to get people to believe it. Jews are masters of propaganda. (Then another silly story about Jesus ascending to heaven when in fact the Jews simply stole the body from the cave it was buried in.)

Speaking of whores, the whore Esther has a whole book of the old Testament named after her and also one of the holiest of Jewish holiday (Purim, I think) commemorates her saving the Jews from total extermination. Nothing dishonorable about whoring in the Jewish tradition. Now giving away valuable sex for free, that's a disgrace in the Jewish mind. I don't have the exact chapter and verse, but when Ezekiel excoriates the Israelites for ingratitude, he compares them to a woman who is worse than a whore because she pays men for sex rather than being paid. Look it up.

I know this forum is full of Jew haters, but I see a lot of sense in their views. Only a fool gives something away for free when he/she could sell it, and nothing worse than a fool. Of course, paid sex with an undesirable partner versus free sex with a desirable partner is apples and oranges. I'm assuming paid versus unpaid both with desirable partners: clearly unpaid is the mark of a fool in this case, and like the Jews, I have no respect for fools.

[MrMan]

Realistically I don’t think it’s possible to tell people “you need to wait until marriage before having sex.” Unless arranged marriages became the norm again, it just isn’t possible to expect people to wait that long.

The question is, what is a reasonable amount of time to expect people to wait before having sex while dating?

Until you get married. God gets vengence on those who fornicate according to I Thessalonians 4:16. He judges fornicators and adulterers according to Hebrews 13:4. According to I Corinthians 6, neither fornicators nor adulterers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Are King Solomon, King David and Abraham himself welcome in God's Kingdom? All three of these great Biblical figures were "fornicators and adulterers".

They were polygamists, which was a bit different, given what had been revealed by God at that point. David committed adultery, but found forgiveness from God through faith. Solomon went into idolatry, and I do not know what his eternal destiny will be.