For Westerners who are somewhere in the middle of the sexually conservative-liberal scale, does kissing on the first or second date make the woman look bad? Some Americans think sex on the first date implies that the woman is loose, but now I am getting the impression that Americans are a little more conservative than Europeans when it comes to that matter. How long do Western women typically wait before they kiss and have sex? Three dates? Ten dates?

Input from Western women and Westernized Thais would be appreciated.

Thank you.

For me personally, I kiss on the first date, but then I have kissed strangers for Mardi Gras beads.

So to answer your question I do not think kissing on the first date is wrong, and I think it is expected at the end of the date if there is a connection. However, I feel it is something the guy needs to initiate. If he chooses to wait three dates later, then so be it.

My ex took me out for a month, ending the dates with pecks on the cheek before finally giving me a french kiss.

Sex and the whole getting frisky part is another subject. All the american men that I know, think a woman is loose if she puts out on the first or even second date. European men seem to expect it but do not seem to think less one way or another. I may be wrong. Please feel free to correct me.

Sex on a date is an individual thing. I have a couple of friends who will shag on the first date, and others who will not until they think that there is a possibility of a relationship.

If you really like him, and you do not want him to think you are loose, then wait.

my two cents

In the UK, we don't seem to have the same date rules as Americans. I never understood this 1st date 3rd date thing myself.

Kissing on a first date is ok having sex on a first date is also ok, entirely up to the individual. Now thats not to say that some men wont label a women as a slag or slut for sleeping with someone on the first date but isn't that the point of womens liberation, who gives a crap how soon you sleep with your date, the choice is yours & if he labels you a slag then he's just a <deleted> hypocrit as he had sex on the first date too.

In the UK, we don't seem to have the same date rules as Americans. I never understood this 1st date 3rd date thing myself.

Kissing on a first date is ok having sex on a first date is also ok, entirely up to the individual. Now thats not to say that some men wont label a women as a slag or slut for sleeping with someone on the first date but isn't that the point of womens liberation, who gives a crap how soon you sleep with your date, the choice is yours & if he labels you a slag then he's just a <deleted> hypocrit as he had sex on the first date too.

exactly Boo

To some extent I think views of americans are determined from TV shows and movies which do not always mirror real life.

Having said that, sex and the city was bloody real which made it a big hit. Three women with three different views on dating just like everyone else you know.

who gives a crap how soon you sleep with your date, the choice is yours & if he labels you a slag then he's just a <deleted> hypocrit as he had sex on the first date too.

Good answer by a smart lady! (Hi Boo! )

I also believe it's up to the individual, man or woman. If you want to kiss or have sex on the first date then go for it. It's fine. For men, I think most of them would be willing to have sex whenever the woman was ready, even after 5 minutes! Some people are entirely too stuck-up about sex. Especially Americans, they are ridiculous and I ought to know. I am one.

The only thing about this though is that if you are a woman and you have sex on the first date with a man, a relationship might not ensue. What I mean is I don't believe too many guys will want to continue a relationship with a woman if she has sex on the first date. The guy will consider it a one-night stand and not want anything to do with her anymore. Not all men are like this but a lot are. Men are hypocritical bastar*s, what can I say. So if you want to have a relationship with a guy, just keep that under consideration because he might be an idiot.

The relationship point is true. But I find the problem with a lot of women is they think that every date is going to turn into a relationship, so put all these rules in place to ensure the guy doesn't think of her as a slut etc. Sometimes you just know that a guy isn't going to be the one but you want to spend more time with them as they have something you like about them. Eventually things will fizzle out but some of the best guys I knew were ones who weren't the one & they knew it too. We had a good time for a couple of months & then moved on.

In the UK, we don't seem to have the same date rules as Americans. I never understood this 1st date 3rd date thing myself.

Kissing on a first date is ok having sex on a first date is also ok, entirely up to the individual. Now thats not to say that some men wont label a women as a slag or slut for sleeping with someone on the first date but isn't that the point of womens liberation, who gives a crap how soon you sleep with your date, the choice is yours & if he labels you a slag then he's just a <deleted> hypocrit as he had sex on the first date too.

good answer boo.... let us brits show em the way.... i say make love not war...hahaha

If I think there's a chance of a serious relationship, I'll usually go as slowly as possible with the sex to make sure I like the guy enough in other ways, too- but with guys it's kind of hard to slow them down sometimes.

I think far too often I've put the cart of sex before the horse of friendship.....

"Steven"

who gives a crap how soon you sleep with your date, the choice is yours & if he labels you a slag then he's just a <deleted> hypocrit as he had sex on the first date too.

Good answer by a smart lady! (Hi Boo! )

I also believe it's up to the individual, man or woman. If you want to kiss or have sex on the first date then go for it. It's fine. For men, I think most of them would be willing to have sex whenever the woman was ready, even after 5 minutes! Some people are entirely too stuck-up about sex. Especially Americans, they are ridiculous and I ought to know. I am one.

The only thing about this though is that if you are a woman and you have sex on the first date with a man, a relationship might not ensue. What I mean is I don't believe too many guys will want to continue a relationship with a woman if she has sex on the first date. The guy will consider it a one-night stand and not want anything to do with her anymore. Not all men are like this but a lot are. Men are hypocritical bastar*s, what can I say. So if you want to have a relationship with a guy, just keep that under consideration because he might be an idiot.

TBH, I'd go along with this.

Except for the bit about not wanting anything to do with her anymore.

If there was sex on a first date, i usually wouldn't consider a relationship. from my own limited experience, i'd be thinking, "well, what if she goes out with another bloke? She gonna have sexwith him straight away too?"

and yes, it is hypocritical, but alas, the truth sometimes is.

On the other hand, if it's a casual friendship, where both she and I get some mutual pleasure, enjoy eachothers company, but do not wish for a relationship - at least not with eachother - then I say, why not.

A kiss is always a good idea if the first date has clicked. It leaves both wanting for more.

A peck on the cheek isn't too encouraging.

I, personally think it is up to each person but as, TripXCore has so rightly pointed out, many men although willing to sleep with a girl on the first date are then unwilling to take her seriously after that.

I agree that in these days women shouldn't be labeled as slags for doing this when men who do the same are considered "jack the lad". (I know my British slang ). The problem lies in hypocritical atttitudes that need to be addressed, not the girl (or the guy) who chooses (or not) to have sex on the first date.

Depends on the situation - don't think you can set time limits on intimacy. Too many variable factors, if you are ready and willing to accept the responsibilities of said intimacies then first day or 1000 date is completely acceptable without any negative connotations for the individuals involved.

Yes Boo is spot on!!!

From the responses I gather that it is never too early to kiss, but sex is more complicated than that, right? This is interesting because kissing is also a form of physical intimacy. And I gather that in Western culture, some women still expect somewhat negative consequences (being unfavorably judged, disrespected and rejected) if they have sex on the first date.

But I still don’t understand. If a guy is more likely to discontinue seeing a woman because "well, what if she goes out with another bloke? She gonna have sexwith him straight away too?" (sic), then what difference would it make when, by similar reasoning, if the first sex occurs on the 10th date, she could as well date another man for 10 times before she first has sex with him. The only difference here is the number of dates prior to the first sex. As long as sex precedes marriage, it’s still premarital sex.

Besides, even after the 1st sex on the 10th date, the guy can continue to get free sex and have no feelings whatsoever for the woman; it is still possible that he is sticking around only for the sex, isn’t it?

In the old days, the reason women in the West don’t fornicate is mainly religious, right? In Christian belief, fornication is a sin. Thus in the conservative Western culture, both men and women should be equally chase. But we still see the slut vs. stud attitude in the West. So there must be other reasons for the asymmetry.

In old Thai society, I think abstinence was motivated by dowry as well as lack of paternity test. Some Asians think it’s gross to drink from someone else’s glass or wear second-hand clothes, and thus it makes sense why the groom would not want to pay high dowry for a “used” bride and kissing, hugging, and any form of touching before marriage are still considered inappropriate today, not just the act of sex. But then if the woman preserves her virginity, purity, whatever, in order to keep her price high, isn’t the “good girl” already selling herself to the highest bidding husband? How is it different from prostitution? Correct me if I am wrong.

Sorry if this doesn’t make much sense. I still don’t get it.

Edited November 19, 200619 yr by rainx

rainx,

You're right that some women in the West abstain through religious beliefs, but more often (particularly in the past) it was due to societal expectations & codemnation. Plenty of women did have sex, they just hoped not to get caught out (pregnant). If you look at mental hospitals in UK in the early 20th century, you'll find a lot of inmates were girls of "loose morals". So, if a girl did get pregnant, very often she'd be committed (perfectly sane) & left there for the rest of her life. Nice treatment, huh? Other girls were sent away until they'd had their baby, which was then either taken from them, or raised by another member of the family, & the girl returned from her "holiday" or "work away" with no blemish on her character. It's only since the 60s, free love & the pill that women in the West have taken their own sexual choices (more) into their own hands.

As for the question of how soon? I agree with many others. I see nothing wrong with one night stands being initiated by a woman, if that's what she wants (& her partner, of course) & I also see nothing wrong with waiting. You do what feels right & comfortable...

Right or wrong aside, one night stands aside.

If a girl sleeps with a guy on the first date, he might loose all interest in her as a person - she might then be delegated to be just another notch in the belt and/or a possible back-up solution if he is horny at a later date......

If a girl does not sleep with a guy on the first date, he might actually take the time to date her several times more and in the process get to know her as a person and as such might form a deeper connection leading to a posible lasting relationship.

well i am american and i am very picky. i never slept around at all at any point. i have had mostly long term relationships (4-5 total). a couple of the longest ones were people i slept with on the first date- we knew then there was a connection and figured why delay the fun? so maybe these were just nicer than average guys but they didn't judge me by it.

to me it is weird to have sex with someone as friends though. i really won't get anywhere near it unless there is a strong connection and a desire to be together. casual sex freaks me out. maybe that is a bit of american guilt.

casual sex freaks me out. maybe that is a bit of american guilt.

I'm American and I think casual sex is great! More people should be having it IMO because too many people are uptight in the world. If only it wasn't as dangerous as it is.

In the US a girl will jump in the sack as soon as income/bank accts are verified "efficient"

i dare anyone to call me a liar.

Its all about money, same as LOS

you are a liar - i have never in my life gotten together with someone because of money. i make my own thanks. and in fact i have even supported my boyfriends in the past. the only reason i would consider someone's financial status is because i would want them to be able to take care of themselves. i have always paid half/half with my american boyfriends.

I agree with girlx, you are a liar.

Post crap like that here again and you will find yourself being called more than a liar

Its all about cash! No money, no Honey!

even if we strongly disagree with his viewpoint , nam kao has become the forums foremost misogynist , he should have protected status along the same lines as dinosaur remains.

Edited November 20, 200619 yr by taxexile

I am rather surprised to find the old 20th century question of

"will he think I'm a slut if I do it on the first/second/tenth date?"

still alive and well in 2006.

For a women who knows what she wants, this is a no-brainer. If a man is carrying around "good girl/bad girl" prudishness, he is the wrong person to go to bed with. If you do have sex with such a hypocrite on the first date and he rejects you, you have lost nothing in the end except an illusion.

I have to congratulate Boo on an honest and accurate post..

Fruit bat your spot on the mark too..

I'm an oldie and was raised to respect women..

Kissing and sex on the first date if your instincts tell you its OK then why not..

Why do we always have to label things, isn't it called experience ??

Nam Kao.. you are one sick puppy my friend..

It doesi ndeed depend upon the person and also the situation...some "first dates" are extremely intense, with a deep conncetion formed and having sex on it fits completely with what is going on, and both partners understand it as the start of something substantial. Some first dates are merely that, and if there is sex, it is not because of any deep connection and there isn't (or shouldn't be) any assumption of a fututre....no commitment has been made and both parties can decide to continue or not as they choose (both will have to want to continue for it to go anywhere, of course)

As to Western norms -- well it is complicated because even within a given country there are different subsets of people with different norms. The "fornication before marriage is sinful" idea is pretty well obsolete these days, a few religious fundamentalists excepted (and even they, if young, as more flexible than prior generartions). What has replaced it as the new conservativism is the idea that sex should be in the context of a seriosu relationship. More liberal people accept the idea that people can have sex on other tetrms without being sluts or bad people, while more conservative people think not, and there is still a double standrad in effect with women judged more harshly than men for having sex with someone they don't really love.

How this translates into dating and timing is simple: if you have sex before you have had enough time together to really know each other and develop an emotional attachment, then obviously you are having sex for reasons other than love and without expectation of a committed relationship. In some circles this is fine and normal, in others it is frowned on.

If a woman wants to communicate the idea that she is only interested in a serious relationship, then she should not become physically intimate until one has begun to develop (kissing doesn't count). If she doesn't care about that, then she should go for it whenever she wants to.

For a women who knows what she wants, this is a no-brainer. If a man is carrying around "good girl/bad girl" prudishness, he is the wrong person to go to bed with. If you do have sex with such a hypocrite on the first date and he rejects you, you have lost nothing in the end except an illusion.

If a woman wants to communicate the idea that she is only interested in a serious relationship, then she should not become physically intimate until one has begun to develop (kissing doesn't count). If she doesn't care about that, then she should go for it whenever she wants to.

Can find myself in both opinions. And if you would like to know what the other sexe is thinking, you may rather wait a little with having sex.

Its all about cash! No money, no Honey!

NEWS FLASH

If no woman is willing to have sex with you unless there's money in it, it doesn't reveal anything about the nature of women. But it does reveal something about you. You have a problem.

Well..in western relationships there might not be money changing hand directly..or even not given much concious thought.

BUT...Status, mony and profession is very much in the picture.

So can you girls say with a hand on your heart that you would consider a physical attractive man in a low income job or unemployed as a good catch for a long lasting relationship/marriage...or would you rather just have him for a cassual one night stand?

Just to be totally frank here, many western women do not rely on their male partner for status, money or profession but are perfectly capable of attaining such things on their own merits.

When I met my husband I had no idea he came from a well-to-do family, just thought he was a good-looking, hard-working guy with a kind, decent heart. Did the money his family has make a difference in how I viewed him? Not at all, I still think he is a good-looking, hard-working guy with a kind, decent heart.

I think it is popular with some men to believe that money matters and then this would explain why they couldn't get a western woman.

I agree with Sheryl on this one, usually, if you can't get a woman without money, the problem lies in you, not the woman.

Just to be totally frank here, many western women do not rely on their male partner for status, money or profession but are perfectly capable of attaining such things on their own merits.

I did not mean to imply that a women need or relay on their male partner for status, money or profession, what i was aiming at is that one or all of those 3 points are a factor in choosing a partner in most falang countries.

Personaly i have during my life been through many different periodes from low cash/hand to mouth lifstyle to high innflow/flying high lifestyle, i have not had any problems getting girls in any of those periodes.

But i should maybe mention that its been much much easier in the high flying periodes (Like shooting fish in a barrel)...

BUT...as many other in this world i have used my eyes and ears to some extend and have thus been able to observe other people too and those observations have ofcourse also contributed to my previous comments.