to think my friend's opinion is pearl clutching at its finest?!

[sabeeena]

My best friend, let's call her Laura has been single for 3 years. She is in her early 30s. She has recently downloaded Tinder as a means to meet people for casual sex, no strings attached. Laura is a very successful business woman, owns her own house, has no money worries, is very attractive etc.

Laura has always been very open about her love of casual sex and would often tell us about her one night stands.

Our other best friend, lets call her Fiona, always asks for gossip about her dating life (both single mums, so we're interested in carefree stories!!). Laura told us that she was speaking to a man on Tinder and arranging to meet with the purpose of having sex - she has done this numerous times before.

This time, Laura suggested to the man they get a hotel in the city that she lives because:

1. She doesn't want him in her house
2. She doesn't want to be stranded in a city if something goes wrong.

Fiona reacts with "i can't believe you are meeting a guy for sex in a hotel room!! it's so dangerous! it's so cheap!" etc.

Laura explains:

1. It's safer than one night stands were you go back to a guy's house and NO ONE knows where you are, you don't know where you are, and there is no one else around to get help from
2. It's safer than him coming to hers because he might not leave, or similarly harm her in some way with no one else around.
3. The whole point is that she wants to have sex, so she doesn't care what it seems like,

I wouldn't do it myself, but then I've never had a one night stand, but listening to her speak, I am inclined to agree that it is safer than a one night stand in yours or theirs house...

Fiona says it's stupid, but Laura pointed out that Fiona when we were younger got into a man's car after a night out and drove for about an hour to get to his house to have sex ... why's this LESS safe than that?!

Who is BU?

formerbabe Yes you did say that. You said that if a man doesn’t pay the full bill for the meal and drinks, you won’t see him again because it means he doesn’t see you as equal. Which is some bullshit mental gymnastics.

It may be bad form to mention comments from another thread, no agenda but her username jumped out at me and therefore any comments made are coming from the same place as the other comments and I don’t think should be taken seriously. This is a woman that expects men to always foot the bill because if it doesn’t then it means he doesn’t care about equality..

He* not it.

Well I think you’ll find thst most adult men over the age of about 35 would fully expect to “foot the bill” on a date, regardless of whether formerbabe expects it or not . It’s hardly a great drama is it?

This is a woman that expects men to always foot the bill

Well considering I don't date, I can't see how that can be true.

Now, please stop talking about me.

The fact you don’t date now is irrelevant, it’s what you said, not me. I’m happy to stop talking about it but you are actually lying, I don’t see the point. If you have an opinion stand by it.

Crikey, there's some puritanical sorts on here!

how can wanting to have a face-to-face conversation with a man before you think about sex, possibly be construed as “superior?”

Because it’s the implication that to choose otherwise is lacking in morals.

I mean, do you people think if I was meeting someone for sex we wouldn’t speak in person first

Are we conducting the whole transaction in some kind of slightly suggestive sign language?!

I guess I’m the type of woman who doesn’t judge another person on what they do in the bedroom, because it has no basis on their worth as a person.

What it comes down to is you don’t hold out for three dates you’re considered cheap.

What it comes down to is you don’t hold out for three dates you’re considered cheap

I don't think that at all. I don't think there's anything wrong with ons, casual sex or sex on the first date. I do however think it's pretty shocking to book a hotel room with the intention of having sex with someone you've never met before. If that makes me old fashioned or unfeminist then fine.

Men who used women like this were considered to be using them like
"A hole in the mattress".

I wonder what the female equivalent is
"A cucumber from the fridge"

What it comes down to is you don’t hold out for three dates you’re considered cheap. Anyone who thinks like this isn’t someone you’d want to spend 3 dates with!

What it comes down to is you don’t hold out for three dates you’re considered cheap

Who is the arbiter of such a rule?

Oh lord this thread has caused some drama it's quite the issue.

I really don't care about the morality of it to be honest. I didn't ask about it. There's very many middle age professionals I know who look all prissy but attend private orgies...i think we all love sex.

I'm laughing at the expectation of a man to foot the bill of a data from the women who proclaimed that casual sex was a consequence of male dominance and the patriarch

Anyway, I think I have my answer: it's equally dangerous to meet a man in a hotel room as opposed to a one night stand. Even tho it's clearly judged harshly by some people!

I wonder if the online hotel hook-up proponents in here would behave differently if they were actually in a date with someone they thought they’d like to see again?

If you were with a man who you suspected might respect you a bit more for “holding back”, would you declare him to be a bastard misogynist and run for the hills (of Tinder)? Or might you be inclined to respect his attitude, not force the issue and see how things develop.

If you were with a man who you suspected might respect you a bit more for “holding back”, would you declare him to be a bastard misogynist and run for the hills (of Tinder)? Or might you be inclined to respect his attitude, not force the issue and see how things develop

I would never force the issue. Both parties are perfectly at liberty to say no.

There would be no development though. If it didn’t happen that night, it wouldn’t at all. Which is of course, totally fine.

Who is the arbiter of such a rule?

I have no clue.... it’s such bollocks.

I have no clue.... it’s such bollocks

Yup

Sorry Jacques, I might be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that if a man didn’t want sex with you on a first date, then you wouldn’t want to see him again?

@Safiya7

She is meeting men for sex, of course if they didn't have sex she wouldn't see them again. Surely that's a given?

Sorry Jacques, I might be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that if a man didn’t want sex with you on a first date, then you wouldn’t want to see him again?

I’m saying that if/when I arrange to meet someone for a hook up, it’s just for that, I’m not seeing them as a “date”. There is zero possibility of it developing into anything more and I would be very clear about that - it would be entirely unfair of me to allow them to think further interactions would happen.

So yes, if the hook up doesn’t go ahead, then I wouldn’t want to see him again.

I don’t and will never want to date. That’s a perfectly valid and reasonable choice of which I’m very open about.

A friend of mine saw a guy for three weeks, she made a lovely dinner at her home her DCs upstairs asleep. After a lovely meal she waited for him to yawn and leave, he did not so she started turning the lights off. He then said, so no sex then. She was so shocked her exdh was only her second lover. He then said to her that unless she started putting out she would die alone. Well she then met her second husband and lived happily ever after. Horses for courses.

I was talking about being on a date in the normal sense of the word, as a hypothetical scenario.

I was talking about being on a date in the normal sense of the word, as a hypothetical scenario

Then I have no answer as it’s not something I’ve considered/will consider.

Can I ask why you wouldn’t be interested in more than just hook-ups, Jacques (don’t answer of course if you don’t want to)?