K-r-e-v-y-e-t-k-a
(?)Community Member
- Report Post
- Posted: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 05:45:19 +0000
Just tell them, and let them walk away if they're no longer interested.
30 days or 90 days doesn't matter, though, and this is why:
If a guy is comfortable in a relationship ( and not "in love" ) he can date a girl for forever without letting it become serious or leading it into a marriage. You might also end up with a guy who doesn't want to have sex; if you throw a rock in a group of guys you probably won't hit one of these types, but it does happen sometimes and the reasons behind it can be various.
Sex isn't a marker for when a relationship becomes "serious" -- a relationship becomes serious and approaches love when two people get to know eachother on an emotionally intimate level through shared experiences, understanding each other as people, talking, etc. Sex and sexual attraction is different when you're "in love" from when you're "in lust" with each other, as well, so even though there is attraction throughout the relationship's duration it might not be the kind that's there when you're in love.
And that's why the 30-90 day guidelines exist. To send the unreliable, uninterested guys packing early and not to spend time trying to start a relationship that won't go anywhere later.
I would honestly wait (and am waiting) until marriage. Even if you've been dating for a long time, there's no promise of future commitment, and I don't want to waste my time / emotions / etc on a person who either isn't in the stage of life to care to commit or someone who never will (for other reasons). If I wasn't waiting until marriage, I honestly wouldn't decide when to have sex based on emotional love even then. If the guy seems reliable, like he's sincerely there for me and supporting me, our relationship has that passion, he understands and accepts me and is a good influence on me, then all I would really decide on is "Yeah, I want to keep him around for a long time" (but not necessarily marry). When it's closer to "we both have the same desire / intention to stay together for a long time" (i.e. an emotional / informal of engagement) that's when I'd feel the most comfortable having sex.
Emotions and lusts are vapors in the wind. They'll come and go, but you can't get loyalty like that everyday, and I think that's the kind of relationship that has reached the stage where it's okay for sexual intimacy (and taking on all the possible consequences).
30 days or 90 days doesn't matter, though, and this is why:
If a guy is comfortable in a relationship ( and not "in love" ) he can date a girl for forever without letting it become serious or leading it into a marriage. You might also end up with a guy who doesn't want to have sex; if you throw a rock in a group of guys you probably won't hit one of these types, but it does happen sometimes and the reasons behind it can be various.
Sex isn't a marker for when a relationship becomes "serious" -- a relationship becomes serious and approaches love when two people get to know eachother on an emotionally intimate level through shared experiences, understanding each other as people, talking, etc. Sex and sexual attraction is different when you're "in love" from when you're "in lust" with each other, as well, so even though there is attraction throughout the relationship's duration it might not be the kind that's there when you're in love.
And that's why the 30-90 day guidelines exist. To send the unreliable, uninterested guys packing early and not to spend time trying to start a relationship that won't go anywhere later.
I would honestly wait (and am waiting) until marriage. Even if you've been dating for a long time, there's no promise of future commitment, and I don't want to waste my time / emotions / etc on a person who either isn't in the stage of life to care to commit or someone who never will (for other reasons). If I wasn't waiting until marriage, I honestly wouldn't decide when to have sex based on emotional love even then. If the guy seems reliable, like he's sincerely there for me and supporting me, our relationship has that passion, he understands and accepts me and is a good influence on me, then all I would really decide on is "Yeah, I want to keep him around for a long time" (but not necessarily marry). When it's closer to "we both have the same desire / intention to stay together for a long time" (i.e. an emotional / informal of engagement) that's when I'd feel the most comfortable having sex.
Emotions and lusts are vapors in the wind. They'll come and go, but you can't get loyalty like that everyday, and I think that's the kind of relationship that has reached the stage where it's okay for sexual intimacy (and taking on all the possible consequences).