3-date limit?  

rm_wetme1963 53F
29 posts
7/6/2006 5:37 pm

Last Read:
12/9/2006 6:47 pm

3-date limit?

you know, back in the day, (too many days ago to count) i heard thru the highschool grapevine that boys had an unwritten dating rule: 3's the limit.
well, i didn't date much then, always been a long-termer until recently. I'm older and a bit wiser, still learning, still amazed.
so tell me.... why do they seem to still live by that unwritten rule? and who made it anyway? what is it based on? and what is the reality of it?
to me it seems that after the 3rd date, (with or without sex, doesn't seem to matter) the man has either suddenly developed superhuman powers and disappeared from earth entirely (not that i hunt them down!) or they fall in love. Why cant we make it to a fourth without the drama? Talk about women and drama!! geeeeeeez!
so i'm going to answer my own questions and see if anyone will comment. this should be interesting:
why do they seem to still live by that unwritten rule? because boys never grow up.
if they never grow up, then they cannot develop a thought process that is mature enough to deviate from what they have always been told, hence they cannot evaluate their own desires, needs, and emotions.
who made it anyway? some insecure man whose mama didn't hug him enough in childhood. a man who was taught that it is respectable to suppress his desires, generous to suppress his needs, and masculine to suppress his emotions.
what is it based on? it is based on the american society and our old school perception that the man should rule, what he says goes, and that no woman should have control over any part of his life, whether she sees it as control or not, he still does.
what is the reality of it? the reality of it is that this unwritten rule has been subconsciously drummed into our heads so much, that both women and men feel that if they make it past a third date, things are getting serious. some get out of the pool, others dive right in.
me? i'm a floater. just waitin around to see what happens. it takes alot more than 3 dates or sex sessions to get to know someone. hell, it takes more than 300!

rm_a_real_nice1 59M
572 posts
7/6/2006 8:05 pm

Interesting concept of yours. I never knew of thie unwriten law in high scholl or after it come to think of it. I for one took sex when the lady offered it. i was never pushy, always a gentleman. Welcome to the blogs.

littlewilly84 50M
5 posts
7/6/2006 8:14 pm

the only rules i remember were the three f's but i wont get into those I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. there's only one rule that i learned to go by and that if it was meant to be it will be 1st 2nd or 5th date whatever one it is you should be able to tell if their rite for you

angelofmercy5 58F
17881 posts
7/6/2006 9:10 pm

Welcome to the blogs! Did this rule come from "three strikes and your out"....or what? I agree that it takes more than 3 dates to get to know someone. Hope you'll stop by mine and say hi once in awhile. Have fun!

rm_wetme1963 replies on 7/7/2006 2:17 pm:
thank you for your welcome, angel. i don't know the answer to your question, guess we'll have to ask the men? anyway, this was just a recent observation i made, i don't really think it applies to all!

rm_gwalker_oh 55M
54 posts
7/7/2006 1:37 pm

You might be wrong on a few points. I know you're wrong on at least two.

I've never heard of the "3's the limit" rule. I'd guess it means if she won't put out after three dates, forget it! But I don't know.

On the first of your questions, I'll be blunt enough to say outright that you're wrong. First, the premise of the question is not true; I've seen plenty of men be very persistant in going after what they want, in some cases with great dignity and gentlemanliness, and even in some of these cases, never succeeding. As to your answer, boys certain do grow up, at least some of them. Plenty of us certainly do "develop a thought process that is mature enough to deviate from what [we] have always been told, hence they [can] evaluate their own desires, needs, and emotions." You insult many by making such a generalization.

(By the way, I'm sympathetic. Lately I was bitching about some aspect of women, over on my blog. And I also defended the use of generalizations! So take my bluntness well, if you can, please.)

Your answer to the third question is off too, I think. "what is it based on? it is based on the american society and our old school perception that the man should rule, what he says goes, and that no woman should have control over any part of his life, whether she sees it as control or not, he still does."

Actually, the opposite is true. I think it's a product of human nature. If American society deviates, it deviates in the other direction. I'd argue (and have, for years!) that the militant feminist movement of the 70's-80's greatly affected gender relations. Women are empowered and respected much more than in the past, I think, and certainly much more than they have been throuhgout most the world and most of history.

Do really know people who live by "what he says goes"? If so, you should get out more! Hey don't get me wrong, I don't *want* to be controlled by a woman But any woman partner I'm with in whatever context, I respect as just that, a partner, co-equal. I don't know anyone (man or woman) for whom this is not true.

As to the suppression of desires, needs, and emotions, well, certainly it's appropriate that we all do that from time to time and for various reasons, isn't it? But again, in our post '70's society don't we all know the value of "being in tune with our feelings" and all that? haha, remember "I'm OK, You're OK"?

I disagree with you but I trust you'll take all this in the cordial spirit it's meant. I'll check back later!

rm_wetme1963 replies on 7/7/2006 2:01 pm:
thank you for your very pensive and intellectual comments, precisely the type of argument i was hoping for.
however i do find it a bit amusing, confusing or simply curious as to how you attest to your respect for women as i read your profile. i'm assuming your "prefer not to say" marital status, and desire for "discreet" relationships means you are married or in some way attached. are you taking her interests to heart? is it gentlemanly to hide your desires from your significant other? aren't you, in effect, calling the shots in your relationship? what does she think of all this?

rm_gwalker_oh 55M
54 posts
7/7/2006 3:10 pm

Good questions, and fair! I'll do my best here ...

First, as to your premise: yes you're right about the attachment.

Part of my answer is to say that, really, I've been rethinking some of this. If I wanted to I could show you some recent responses to prove it or at least suggest it, since I figure that whatever I say will only seem like "a line".

Other parts of my response will also probably seem like a line. Having to do with quibbling about what we mean by "respect", what my real motives are in this and how I conduct myself, and the particular nature of my relationship with my S.O. I'll trouble us both the detail on any of that, though. I have no idea how much bullshit it would sound like to you, and I'm not even sure to what extent I might try to bullshit myself (are you aware of the great capacity we have for self-dececption? and I don't mean "we" men, only, damnit! this is an equal-opporunity pitfall).

It is true, of course, that you don't really know me, her, or us, so your amusement/confusion/curiousity is largely born of ignorance or false assumptions. However, I recognize that making that point is a bit of a cop-out.

In some measure, perhaps, I'm simply a hypocrite, plain and simple. (Certainly *that* can't come off as a "line"!).


Now it's my turn.

I attempted a rather lengthy, thoughtful, and substantive response to your post. You politely acknowledge this in the briefest of terms, and tell me it's exactly what you're looking for. But beyond that you utterly ignore it, and instead turn to something that's uncomfortably close to being a personal confrontation, hinting at judgemtalism. Isn't that, well, sorta rude?

OK I'll relax here.

Again, I'll be back!. thanks for the response. -G.

rm_wetme1963 replies on 7/7/2006 3:25 pm:
yes, i admit it comes off as sounding rude and judgemental. i apologize. i was simply trying to point out the contradictions. no, i don't know you or her and i certainly don't assume that she cannot be aware of all this. yes, i agree we are all capable of self-deception, myself included. yes, women are more respected now than ever, and certainly moreso in our society than in many others. yes, this was meant in cordial spirit and thank you for acknowledging that. and by the way, i may not agree with your motives, etc., whatever they may be, but i am not saying you are wrong. it is all simply a matter of preference, is it not?

rm_gwalker_oh 55M
54 posts
7/7/2006 3:52 pm

Ok -- thanks. I'll stop hassling you now!

In fact yes I know full-well what you mean, the essence of your post, that Men can be Pigs! I know I can be. I know I try not to be.

Toward your questions for/about me, the business of respect of women vs. hanging about on a sex site while attached: yes, as I said, I could hemm and haw in answering your questions, with at least partial legitimacy. But it's also true that I'm a walking contradiction! In many ways, not only morally. "Fuckin' hypocrite", perhaps, and do what you will with the double entendre.

But I still have no idea what "3's the limit" means! Male sexual performance after 40, maybe! -G.

rm_wetme1963 replies on 7/7/2006 11:38 pm:
please dont stop hassling me, im enjoying this!

funintheday2006 56M
9659 posts
7/9/2006 12:27 am

This post is DEEEEP!!
Me? Like many men of my generation we were taught that after an unspecified number of dates the couple were an 'item'
I kick against that premise and go with the flow, Que sera, lets just live without expectations or conforming to others ideas of what should or could transpire, whjat is right or wrong etc.
Just be you.

Become a member to create a blog