This is someone's reply to what was said in a different thread. Honestly I've never thought like he has and I think that if I did, most of the past situations where I've been 1on1 with a girl would have turned out the way I wanted. What is said below hit me like a slap in the face, more so then the good advice I've seen on this site. What this guy is saying right here is the essence of what we call being a DJ, particularly the last line in bold.
[–]themindset 961 points 6 hours agox2
If you take someone home and don't tell him/her sex is (or might be) off the table, they will/can expect sex.
One should always expect that sex might be off the table. Not expecting it is sexy as ****.
This is not an unfair expectation.
Of course it is. There are a million reasons to invite someone over. To get to know them better; to make out; to continue chatting in a calm environment; to see how things go one-on-one; to show them your collection of bottle caps; to lend them a book; whatever.
You have every right to change your mind at any point, and to not feel guilty about it. It happens.
It's not a matter of changing ones mind, you should think of it more as someone's mind is not made up. Inviting someone over certainly implies the possibility of something happening - it's a serious mistake to assume that it's implied. It's actually a real turn off.
Recent scenario: Went on a date, the person came back to my place and we had some scotch. We got maybe too drunk, and instead of making a move I invited them to sleep on the couch. I set them up with a pillow and blanket, we sat on the couch and talked for a while and sobered up... we then started making out and moved over to the bed. So nice.
The other party has every right to be miffed about this. How they handle it will vary.
I suggest disabusing yourself of this "every right to be miffed" notion. No matter how you "handle" it, it will show. This immature reaction is a huge turn off.
An older story: end of 2nd date, we're making out on her doorstep and it's really cold outside and she invites me in. We get to her bed fully clothed but things are hot. She says she doesn't want sex, I say that it's totally cool and switch subjects to the book she was telling me about at dinner... we then talk about food, family, childhood. Hours later she feels comfortable enough to tell me that she just finished her period and was worried about discharge/scent. We actually went and showered together and 5am snu-snu ensued.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that it's really uncool to be miffed. It's really hot to be unflappable... And it is not unflappable to be miffed and then "act" like you're not. That **** shows.
What your post indicates to me is the strong possibility that a lot of guys are trapped in a self-fulfilling cycle of failure (emotional as well as sexual)... if one communicates no-sex and the first thing they see is an annoyed grimace, that will probably seal the no-sex situation in place. Treat sex as the extension of a profound connection rather than an activity locked into a equation of events (date + home = sex).
TL;DR: People are not sex dispensaries. Genuinely not expecting sex actually leads to a higher likelihood of sex.
permalinkparent
[–]SovTempest 288 points 6 hours ago
Hey man, I think you're trying to make a broader point, something more important than what's being caught in the lense of the 'expect/don't expect sex'. When you're attention is on a projected scenario, your attention is off the actual scenario, and the person. And until you're really conscious of that difference, it might not make any sense at all. Sex as an extension of comfort and connection is way more relaxed than sex as an extension of structure or role. I've had similar experiences to what I think you're describing. In fact, twice I've been told in a relationships that someone "doesn't like sex" or "doesn't feel the drive", and in both cases responding non-judgmentally has inadvertantly stimulated a very active sex life. People want to relax, especially around something that some time seems like it's supposed to mean so much.
In my experience feeling upset about not getting laid has almost everything to do with my hang-ups and a lack of communication. And by this I'm specifically referring to the 'feeling upset' part. When there's no sex, and there's no feeling upset, there's no downside. When there is sex, and there aren't the inverse of those ****ty hangups disrupting the connection and attention, sex is way more enjoyable.
We're a society conditioned towards immediate gratification, one based on a self-centred view towards pleasure and desires. It's a cornerstone of consumerism to constantly want but never be fulfilled. So it comes to us from marketing, and our conditioned views of what happiness is. It diffuses it completely to not want and find incredible fulfillment. Buddhist **** or whatever, without all the structured tradition.
[–]themindset 961 points 6 hours agox2
If you take someone home and don't tell him/her sex is (or might be) off the table, they will/can expect sex.
One should always expect that sex might be off the table. Not expecting it is sexy as ****.
This is not an unfair expectation.
Of course it is. There are a million reasons to invite someone over. To get to know them better; to make out; to continue chatting in a calm environment; to see how things go one-on-one; to show them your collection of bottle caps; to lend them a book; whatever.
You have every right to change your mind at any point, and to not feel guilty about it. It happens.
It's not a matter of changing ones mind, you should think of it more as someone's mind is not made up. Inviting someone over certainly implies the possibility of something happening - it's a serious mistake to assume that it's implied. It's actually a real turn off.
Recent scenario: Went on a date, the person came back to my place and we had some scotch. We got maybe too drunk, and instead of making a move I invited them to sleep on the couch. I set them up with a pillow and blanket, we sat on the couch and talked for a while and sobered up... we then started making out and moved over to the bed. So nice.
The other party has every right to be miffed about this. How they handle it will vary.
I suggest disabusing yourself of this "every right to be miffed" notion. No matter how you "handle" it, it will show. This immature reaction is a huge turn off.
An older story: end of 2nd date, we're making out on her doorstep and it's really cold outside and she invites me in. We get to her bed fully clothed but things are hot. She says she doesn't want sex, I say that it's totally cool and switch subjects to the book she was telling me about at dinner... we then talk about food, family, childhood. Hours later she feels comfortable enough to tell me that she just finished her period and was worried about discharge/scent. We actually went and showered together and 5am snu-snu ensued.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that it's really uncool to be miffed. It's really hot to be unflappable... And it is not unflappable to be miffed and then "act" like you're not. That **** shows.
What your post indicates to me is the strong possibility that a lot of guys are trapped in a self-fulfilling cycle of failure (emotional as well as sexual)... if one communicates no-sex and the first thing they see is an annoyed grimace, that will probably seal the no-sex situation in place. Treat sex as the extension of a profound connection rather than an activity locked into a equation of events (date + home = sex).
TL;DR: People are not sex dispensaries. Genuinely not expecting sex actually leads to a higher likelihood of sex.
permalinkparent
[–]SovTempest 288 points 6 hours ago
Hey man, I think you're trying to make a broader point, something more important than what's being caught in the lense of the 'expect/don't expect sex'. When you're attention is on a projected scenario, your attention is off the actual scenario, and the person. And until you're really conscious of that difference, it might not make any sense at all. Sex as an extension of comfort and connection is way more relaxed than sex as an extension of structure or role. I've had similar experiences to what I think you're describing. In fact, twice I've been told in a relationships that someone "doesn't like sex" or "doesn't feel the drive", and in both cases responding non-judgmentally has inadvertantly stimulated a very active sex life. People want to relax, especially around something that some time seems like it's supposed to mean so much.
In my experience feeling upset about not getting laid has almost everything to do with my hang-ups and a lack of communication. And by this I'm specifically referring to the 'feeling upset' part. When there's no sex, and there's no feeling upset, there's no downside. When there is sex, and there aren't the inverse of those ****ty hangups disrupting the connection and attention, sex is way more enjoyable.
We're a society conditioned towards immediate gratification, one based on a self-centred view towards pleasure and desires. It's a cornerstone of consumerism to constantly want but never be fulfilled. So it comes to us from marketing, and our conditioned views of what happiness is. It diffuses it completely to not want and find incredible fulfillment. Buddhist **** or whatever, without all the structured tradition.
