2nd date too soon to sleep with him?

[Tiddlywink222]

I’m normally very sure of myself with this sort of stuff but been out of the dating game for a while!

Met a guy on OLD in December. Chatted a lot. Had a phone call before meeting for over an hour - all good. No red flags.

Met IRL just before Christmas. I live quite far away from him, he offered to pay for my train fare and hotel if it meant we could be more relaxed in the evening and not worry about missing my last train back. Sorted that, all fine, 5* hotel… made it clear there were no expectations and all under my name. We had drinks and then dinner at a very nice restaurant. Got on really well, really relaxed and fun. I haven’t dated anyone seriously for nearly two years as I was heartbroken after my last relationship and this is the first time I’ve actually felt a bit of a spark with someone else since.

He stayed with me in the end as it got late, but we didn’t have sex and he didn’t push it. Kissed a lot, stayed PG 😅 Had breakfast together, he made sure I got home safely. All fine.
I think it should have felt too much quite early on but it didn’t at all, weirdly. I offered for him to stay he wasn’t pushy about it.

He went on holiday straight after Christmas and has messaged me every day, not in a weird intense way just general chit chat, flirty but not overtly sexual. He’s made it clear he’s interested and wants to see me again.

This weekend we’re supposed to meet up for a second date. It’s clear we had a lot of chemistry previously and tbh I want to sleep with him but worried second date is too soon, despite talking for over a month now, and quite a lot of investment both sides given distance. I imagine he’d be happy getting me somewhere to stay again.

I wouldn’t sleep with him unless things were exclusive but I feel it’s too early to ‘insist’ on that without it coming across like I’m pushing for something really serious. I’m not, I just don’t sleep with people casually.

Thoughts? I’m worried I’m overthinking this. I don’t get the impression he’s out to use me, but I feel like I’m out of practice and don’t want to be naive.

But it’s v precisely because you don’t know if the relationship will develop that it is grabby to expect the man to pay for everything. Nice for them to offer, but scuzzy to accept.

But by all means grab on if that’s your style 😁😁

What do you mean by "traditional role"?

What does that have to do with him buying you accommodation?

OP, will he visit you at your place and stay over? Would you pay for a hotel for him?

This view is dated and incorrect. It goes back to the days of “naice” didn’t. Sex is not “given” to a man by a woman. How soon is what feels right for those involved, it is not a mathematical equation and has no connection with longevity of a relationship. And waiting longer just means missing out on sex.

If a man does not understand what to do with a clitoris for example, it is better to find out sooner rather than later. Likewise if he is going to shag you and move on, he is just as likely to do that with 3 months waiting or 3 hours waiting.

Why offer to pay for dinner/ train if one didn't mean it and was going to resent it? What was the value in an insincere offer that was really a test to check the woman wasn't expecting too much generosity in a relationship?

is totally normal to ask to establish exclusivity whilst OLD, even a new one. It's only whilst you see where it's going. Just decide how you're going to say this then when the topic of going back to yours is raised, take a deep breath and ask where he stands.

My point earlier was that if you're not comfortable asking then hold off another date or so rather than have sex not knowing where you stand as I personally think that is important if you like someone and it's easier establish prior to sex.

The point, however, whether sooner or later is, you're not proposing, you're just asking him to respect your boundaries.

He can always say 'sorry but I'm happy going on a few dates for now and keeping an open mind'. You're asking, not telling. Fine. It's then your decision what to do.

I always made myself have the conversation as it was much better to establish exclusivity before sex. It just saved guesswork.

I heard it from Steve Harvey and it actually makes a lot of sense to me. I think it's a really good way to differentiate between love and lust. If you are meant to be together, the person (man or woman) will stick around. But of course, it's not fail proof. I heard of a woman who waited 2 years because she wasn't sure. But after they had sex, the man disappeared. I guess she was extremely unlucky, and the man was extremely patient 😂.

A quick scan of Steve Harvey's biography tells that he's been married three times, so his 90 day rule doesn't work that well. Of course it's not fail proof, it's made up to sell books to people that want the secret to finding love.

The secret is, there isn't one.

Whether it's outdated to you @StarlightLady or right or wrong, it's reality. Every bloke I've been with has appreciated the wait and that bit of chase/anticipation. They like working for it. I've been told a few times that we'd not have got together if I had let them have it straight away.

Also, who the fuck would want to be with an ungenerous man? I'd not! Deffo weed out the ungenerous men OP. You don't want a tight arse counting his coins or sponging off you. You'll end up back here in 10 years time crying that you can't get a divorce because he gave up work and 'looks after' whilst you do everything the dc so he'll get the kids and the house.

Men understand the reasonable amount of chase. They want to feel proud of you! They want the anticipation and unfortunately as we live in a patriarchal society rather than a matriarchal one that is how it goes.

The only only thing OP, I know it's the death toll on any relationship if I post about it on here. Your instincts are telling you something even if you don't recognise it.

They like working for it. I've been told a few times that we'd not have got together if I had let them have it straight away

Ew. Am I the only person visualising a dog with a butchers bone?

Maybe, but I'm not the one resorting to mocking and being rude - quite hypocritical considering you're trying to take a perceived moral highground.

You don't want a tight arse counting his coins or sponging off you

Think there’s a whole world of difference between the above scenario and sitting on your hands expecting the man to pay for everything on each date.

Ive found men are pleasantly surprised when a woman offers to contribute. Even back in the early 90’s when I was last single, if a man paid for dinner I’d buy drinks. It’s never been normal in my world to expect a man to pay for everything on every date.

I’ve dated recently and insisted on at least buying one round of drinks in each date. They usually argue but I absolutely insist. That’s fair imo.

😂😂
Indeed!
Treating men as if they are dogs to be given a treat (in exchange for dinner/nice hotel) as opposed to decent people to be treated as you like to be treated.

I'm not interested in any kind of moral high ground. At all. Quite the reverse.

The OP seems to prefer men who ‘respect’ 😂women who offer sex as a reward after men have paid out £x.
Her choice.
Others prefer men who WE choose to have sex with because we want to, and pay our way as no desire to be ‘bought’.

yeah… I specifically said I was waiting for him to drop a certain amount of cash before sleeping with him 😵‍💫

congratulations on being so ‘empowered’. Judging by the threads on here, seems like it’s really working out for everyone who insists on 50:50 from the off and then get upset when they’re doing all the child rearing and housework, on top of a full time job.

Do you have DC's already? Realistically would you be happy or in a position to move nearer to him? No point starting a LDR if it's always going to end at some point, it's unnecessary pain. Also, beware as it is quite possible that he would pick someone who has constraints to ensure he can't get tied to one person - not uncommon with OLD. You did say that you lack experience, all some are trying to say is that with OLD, if a man of means wants to date at a distance, and pay for everything, there is most likely a reason, and not one you'd be happy with. So ask yourself why me? Why not someone nearer who has a similar means? The answer really is that he wants it that way.

I don’t have kids.

to answer your questions, he travels a lot anyway so I don’t think the distance is really as big an issue - he lives where I used to and I planned on moving back anyway for my career, so from my perspective, it made more sense to date there than where I currently live.

I don’t earn as much as him, but I do have a good job and career path, two degrees, a masters, and I’m a lawyer.

maybe he just wants to date me rather than go for what’s more ‘convenient’?

She's said nothing of the sort.

Judging by the threads on here, seems like it’s really working out for everyone who insists on 50:50 from the off and then get upset when they’re doing all the child rearing and housework, on top of a full time job

what threads are women upset as they paid 50/50 and then did all the child rearing.

i don’t understand why you’re repeatedly posting about pregnancy and kids. It’s your second date, calm down.

I don't see anything wrong with doing things the way OP wants to do them.

At no point has the OP said she felt pressured into sex because of the money spent or that she has no choice.

The whole post is about her choosing when to have sex and the dilemma seems to be the dichotomy between both the ‘women can have sex like men’ narrative and it’s all so free and easy, and then on other hand the ‘must wait to have sex so the man doesn’t disappear’ narrative.

The two are at odds with one another.

The reaction on here regarding the fact this guy is clearly willing to make an effort (and hasn’t said he also isn’t willing to travel so presumably would be prepared to put the time in too) is crazy.

Seems like a lot of bitterness to me, given men generally are total crap when it comes to dating these days.

no she didn’t say it, of course she didn’t, that would amount to prostitution, but would she really have invited him to spend a chaste night with her if he’d not paid for the hotel room? I mean cmon, first date, total stranger, not for sex, but a chaste night together? Who does that.says thanks for dinner, come and spend the night with me but we won’t have sex?

and now she wants him to pay again, of course there is an undercurrent of expectation that he will stay again , he’s paying for it after all, and this time she will have sex?

Who does that.says thanks for dinner, come and spend the night with me but we won’t have sex?

what so you’re saying I should have slept with him because he paid? I can’t work out what you find so bad about the whole thing. I should feel bad for ‘leading him on’ somehow? Just because he paid doesn’t mean I feel uncomfortable or obliged to do anything, even if you might. Not last time and not this time.

The reason for my OP was debating the issue more because society says the second date is ‘too soon’ and it’s been a while since I dated so I’ve been questioning myself. Not ‘I feel like I should sleep with him because he paid for everything’. It’s everyone else that seems to have seized upon that.

I didn’t ‘invite him to stay for a chaste night’ - it got late and we were still chatting and just kind of happened naturally. If the date hadn’t been going well I would have no problem sacking it off.