Men who want "sexual chemistry"

[Sundaycoffee]

Online dating- is this a sign they are probably only looking for casual/one thing when they say this? A lot of men have sexual chemistry stated in their profile.
Obviously a relationship does require sexual chemistry but when this is stated over anything else should I be wary?
I'm not very good at nor do I want casual sex. I'm in my 30s and would like to meet someone.
I am talking to a man who has told me he "wants to invest time in the right person but is keen to take things slowly and find someone he clicks with and has sexual chemistry with" 🙄
Am I being too harsh I assuming he's probably only looking for one thing?

So do you want sex the first meeting?

When men say take it slowly, they mean Slow to commit.
Taking it slowly with somebody you grow to like more and more does generate chemistry, but I'd bet he wants to find out instantly if there's chemistry.

Surprised I have to spell that part out but there we go

@PosterBoy

Shame you needed to drop so quickly into being patronising, without actually understanding the topic yourself.

Your comments don't seem to display any understanding of compatibility. To respond to you with the same tone you used to me: I won't bother to explain something so simple.

He's a bloke who doesn't want to get to know anyone before shagging them but complains women are unenthusiastic about sex...and also complains that they can't "discuss sex straightforwardly" and have "blurred lines around consent" and that's why he's now on Fabswingers.

Are you surprised?

Or the other way they say it now is "looking for the connection "
I swerve anyone who said they aren't sure what they're looking for but here to make "a connection "

blurred lines around consent

What blurred lines?

Could you explain, @PosterBoy ? Which blurred lines do you mean?

Again, surprised that would need explanation.

Usually men. Accidentally on purpose misunderstanding something and assuming consent had been implicitly given without explicitly checking. In situations where it might prove inconvenient to them to find out the other person in fact didn't consent. Ie they might have to stop what they were doing.

I do find standard dating apps to be full of both men and women who refuse to be upfront about what they like, want and expect from sex. The more people start talking about it on profiles and in chat before actually having sex, the better imo.

I'm female btw
edited to add I do have sex with both men and women, depending on the sexual chemistry ... obviously....

You don't get a sexy, horny woman by stipulating one on your profile

this
exactly

I agree however that FEELD is actually a more honest site if you are looking for a primarily sexual connection

however men don’t realise women are so different to them

you are more likely to get a woman if you are slower with the sex chat

Sorry, just catching up, it's been a busy thread.

For me, no, I prefer second. First to check out the apparently elusive chemistry - kiss, smell, touch, pheromones, body language.

Second to test it out via sex, see if there's mileage to be had in continuing talking. That's if it's a dating type scenario.

I don't really get why some people are so defensive about it tbh. If someone puts it on their profile, they are telling you what's important to them. Just move on if that's not for you. It's just a filtering mechanism.

I did assume you were a woman

you sound like an old friend who wanted a prostitute as her 40th birthday gift....if that's you, hi, <waves> though we are no longer friends for other reasons 😂

she wanted sex up front and if it was no good that was it.

oh just saw your reply. I can see being up front is helpful but I've never dated online. I have recently dated after thinking I never would...I think I'll stick with "never again".

If I was dating I would rather people be honest so mentioning it to be sleazy is different to 'I a looking for' same as it would simpler if women put I want to have a baby with someone

Maybe if more people were actually honest everyone would know where people stood

Mm hm. Of course.

@PosterBoy

Again, surprised that would need explanation

Why the need for this unpleasant tone? Do you just expect people to 'get' your poorly stated, ambiguous points? Do you think you're 'right' and anybody who questions you 'should know better'?

There are no 'blurred lines' around consent. There is respect of consent or disrespect of consent. As you've stated yourself. What you're saying is like saying there's a blurred line between being alive and dead, because some people think that some dead people are still alive.

Why the need for this unpleasant tone?

Because it's a bloke pretending to be a woman to try to catch people out. Had a few of them the past couple of weeks. Women who have been on the wrong end of men trying to force things on them don't talk about "blurred lines" and nor do they get shirty with other women for noticing.

The one thing I'll give him is that the masculine username is a new trick. They usually call themselves AnnabelFlowers or something. I'll be glad if that's finally stopped.

I’m a man, and while my sex life is fine I wouldn’t say I’m particularly sex-driven.
Several of my exes have had a higher sex drive than me - there’s a good reason that stereotyping is a bit silly.

@SurprisedWithAHorse

I'm hoping for a reply from Posterboy, which is why I tagged them. Perhaps you ought to report, if you feel that way, rather than slagging someone off personally on the thread?

If you wanted only Posterboy to read it and have any opportunity to respond, that's what PMs are for. Outside of that, it's a public discussion and you don't get to bar people from answering.

I'm not trying to bar you, @SurprisedWithAHorse You're perfectly entitled to answer questions that were asked directly to other people. And to insult people.

Not sure what your point was, really, unless you're trying to say I shouldn't have posted, which rather shoots your point in the foot.

If you wanted only Posterboy to read it and have any opportunity to respond, that's what PMs are for

this is ridiculous
and I think we all know that any PM especially around the fraught sex topic are highly
frowned upon !

im not quite sure why people are taking such umbrage at her comments either
are different sexual mores and ways that unusual ?

Does it not just mean ‘we fancy ?

Just seems that ‘no sexual chemistry’ is 2020s for ‘I don’t find you physically attract, you’re not doing it for me’

I do find standard dating apps to be full of both men and women who refuse to be upfront about what they like, want and expect from sex. The more people start talking about it on profiles and in chat before actually having sex, the better imo

Because many people on dating apps are looking to date not just have sex and therefore the sex chat comes once they’ve started dating and got to know the person.

And personally I’d rather the sexual side happened organically rather than have a conversation about it beforehand.

You complained that I answered a post in which you had tagged someone else, which is certainly an attempt to stop me responding since obviously you can't actually bar me.

So I explained the nature of public forums to you (and said nothing about you not posting - no idea where you got that from), and that you can PM if you want to be sure that only one person answers.

If you don't understand the point of your own complaints, don't make them.

@SurprisedWithAHorse

Sounds like you know best.

I think OLD makes early dates so strange. If you meet on the wild, you know the chemistry is there from the off. In fact that’s the reason you want to go on a date because there’s that spark of attraction you both want to explore.

With OLD it’s almost impossible to know if there’s a spark until the first date. You judge on a photo firstly and then if the chat flows but those initial messages and phone calls are with a stranger.

I think most of us have chatted to someone, expected a spark and then when we met face to face thought ‘noooooooooo’