New guy put me off right before we had sex for the first time

[Brooklans]

Just wondering if this would put anyone else off or if I’m being a bit silly.

Background info: I’ve been single for 7 months. Had a few dates here and there, but not slept with anyone since breaking up with ex-dp, as I didn’t like anyone enough to do so. I have been seeing this guy for a month now, and we were about to have sex for the first time over the weekend, but I got put off and left early.

We were at his house, first time I’d been over there. Sat on the sofa watching tv, we were hugging and began kissing. It had been no longer than 15-20 seconds into kissing, our clothes were still on, no foreplay or heavy petting, when he said
”Suck me off and make me cum first” (before we have sex, he meant)

It was just so premature and abrupt, it turned me off. It didn’t feel natural in anyway. I was planning on eventually giving him oral sex, but the fact that he ‘ordered’ me to do it quickly, while we still had our clothes on, sat on his sofa, it felt so transactional.

After he said it, my face must have showed some disgust or disappointment. I sat there and he asked me what was wrong, I said “You’ve ruined the mood”

He apologised, he said his reason for saying that was because he was worried he’d cum quickly. He thought if I’d given him oral sex first, we could have a break then have sex later, and he’d last longer, and that he was actually thinking about my needs (not entirely convinced on the last part).

It’s killed my attraction to him now I think, I’m not sure how to get back to the place I was at before.

AIBU?

Would that were true. Being sex positive appears to mean treating sex as transactional, when evolution has made it a means to bond with a partner, and to treat sex as recreational, no different from going to the cinema, going skiing etc. But sex is different, it is giving of oneself to another and giving pleasure in return and pleasure working both ways. It is also about reproducing the species and preparing a place for them to grow. It's not just for fun, though it is fun.
Sex positivity also means that 'sex work is work' and that being a prostitute or a porn actress is a positive choice when women who have worked in these 'industries' say it is anything but positive or a choice.
Enoying our sexuality sound lovely. Unfortunately, it ends with lack of respect for oneself and others. And - and this is the nub - sex positivity makes it very difficult for women to say 'no' to what they do not like or want: they find they are called frigid and prudes - the other side of slut shaming. The pill had much the same effect for women, it removed the reason for saying 'no' to sexual encounters we do not want. It seemed impolite to say 'no' when the risk of pregnancy was removed - after all, what other reason could one have for not wanting sex?
Sex without responsibility for its consequences, both physical and mental, has produced a generation that seeks only pleasure - which ends in lack of fulfilment rather than fulfiment.

I am sure sex should be fun. But a lot of the time it doesn't seem to be - with dysfunctional relationships and unhappy people. I suppose I think sex should be more than fun.

Where are you getting all this from?!

So why did evolution produce the bonobos: apes who have a lot of sex for fun? Pair-bonding, ultimately, is about a lot more than sex.

Two points. Evolution is not teleological and has no drive towards anything but survival. Also, we must be careful how we interpret the behaviour of other species - they are not like us.
A third point is that bonding is about a lot more than sex, but sex is about pair-bonding. So sex is included within pair bonding, it is not separate from it.

Today I learned a new word: teleological. Thanks @Grammarnut ! Had not heard of teleology before.

And - and this is the nub - sex positivity makes it very difficult for women to say 'no' to what they do not like or want: they find they are called frigid and prudes - the other side of slut shaming. The pill had much the same effect for women, it removed the reason for saying 'no' to sexual encounters we do not want. It seemed impolite to say 'no' when the risk of pregnancy was removed - after all, what other reason could one have for not wanting sex?

It seems like the problem women who struggle with agency. I have never had the slightest issue saying “no” to sexual encounters I do not want or “no” to sex accounts I have no interest in. If large numbers of women struggle with “no” then we need to question how we are raising our daughters.

With no evidence or justification whatsoever you're dogmatically dictating that sex is only about pair-bonding as if you're the most high-ranking commander of the morality police. I suspect that you're not and have no more authority on the matter than anyone else.

If we are raising our daughters to be 'sex positive' we are putting them up for exploitation, which they may not even recognise as exploitation. One only has to see the number of women who are happy to expose themselves on Only Fans to realise this - they are providing platforms with free pornography and being told that doing this is empowering. It's a betrayal of women to suggest pornifying their bodies or making money from selling their bodies on line is empowering - it's degrading and is a form of being prostituted.

No we really are not. Being sex positive is not about teaching people override their feelings of discomfort.

It’s lazy excuse making by those who seek to raise their daughters without agency.

No I didn't assert that sex is only about pair-bonding. I said that sex was part of pair-bonding. If we were drawing a Venn diagram 'sex' would be in the circle marked 'pair-bonding' - we could have another circle intersect the pair-bonding circle called 'fun and pleasure' and that circle would include sex. Sex is about reproduction, pair-bonding to facilitate that and because of that using it as a fun recreational activity only can be very damaging to people. And people are damaged - you only have to look through the MN boards to see that relationships are fractured, women think its ok to go along to clubs where they pay to strip off and have sex with random men, people think they are entitled to sex, that exposing yourself on Only Fans is empowering etc. Sex is not an entitlement and it is a 'want' not a 'need'. We live in times when it seems to be ok to indulge any wish - but where there are fences one would be wise to look at why a fence has been built. We are a sad lot, sadly.

Well, I hope that is the case. But for many it is not the case.

Sex is about reproduction, pair-bonding to facilitate that and because of that using it as a fun recreational activity only can be very damaging to people.

You are doing what that post has said you are doing though you are denying it. You keep asserting sex can only be one thing. Who are you to say that sex being treated as a fun and recreational activity “can only be very damaging”. Who made you the sole arbiter of what sex must be.

I'd technically be 'sex positive' although it's not a label I'd use for myself mainly because I think a lot of people use the label for themselves when their behaviour can be problematic, kind of like 'well I'm sex positive, therefore it is of utmost importance to me that I get to fulfil every single one of my fantasies and my partner should be facilitating it', whether the partner wants to or not, apparently the partners sexuality or their likes or dislikes don't really matter.

Of course those people are going against a core principle of being sex positive such as consent, but enough problematic people have embraced the term to describe themselves that I think it's a bit of a tainted term so for me I'd rather distance myself from it.

So I can see how people can get the wrong idea about what 'sex positivity' actually is, because many who say they embrace can be a bit toxic.

I think also sometimes across the movement there's a lot less acceptance for those who may enjoy sex but they're not very kinky or maybe they don't have a high libido, with the kinky/high libido person being seen as more 'sex positive' than say an average libido person who might just enjoy some nice 'vanilla' sex with their partner.

Its mostly blokes seem to talk about ‘sex positivity’. It’s a term that is now used to pressure women into accepting all and every kink (and sometimes illegal activity) else they’re a prude.

The sex board on here had many posters wanting to talk about underage teens having sex on a school trip, and when anyone said it felt off, they all rounded on those people and said they only want to discuss it with ‘sex positive’ people. You were on that thread spouting your ‘sex positive’ narrative which mumsnet eventually deleted because they seen it for what it was.

@JHound What do you mean by 'agency'?

Thank someone for some sanity round here! Thank you. I was feeling battered.

I’ve literally never heard the term ‘sex positivity’ before this thread so absolutely haven’t heard a bloke using the term.

The pill had much the same effect for women, it removed the reason for saying 'no' to sexual encounters we do not want. It seemed impolite to say 'no' when the risk of pregnancy was removed - after all, what other reason could one have for not wanting sex?
Sex without responsibility for its consequences, both physical and mental, has produced a generation that seeks only pleasure - which ends in lack of fulfilment rather than fulfiment. True freedom is being able to say yes OR no.

Anyone watching 'RIOT WOMEN' on BBC?

Maybe the OP could take heart that worse things can happen.
One of the women' having dated a man she fancies a few times, decides the time is right to have sex, so off she goes back to his flat.
They kiss passionately, he goes off to the bathroom, comes back naked, gets down on all fours and asks her if she wants to lick his arse.

😖

These men are so embarrassing they really do talk themselves out of sex. First time having sex “lick my arse” ffs.

How is that though? (The show, not the bum licking) I saw it on Iplayer and was thinking of watching it.

It's good, both funny and sad.
The same writer as 'Happy Valley', that's why I started watching it, and it doesn't disappoint so far.

This thread has wandered far from the justified “yeuck” situation which the OP faced with the manchild. Plenty to reflect upon in some of the comments too. But when the BBC starts to feature in discussion it’s surely time to draw the blinds. Especially in light of today’s revelations concerning the falsehoods those who lurk in the underbelly of the Corporation like to feed us. Riot Women is a fairy story, like much of the BBC’s output these days. And on this occasion puerile filth loosely dressed up as ‘Strong Women’ and decorated with blatant intersectionality. Let’s stick to real life on here. Much more valuable.

Ooh sounds good - I’ll definitely be watching this weekend. I do love finding a new BBC series to watch :D

Oooh, what's rattled your cage?🙄