Comments from "When Men Wait For Sex"

Dear Kindle Subscribers & Other Wise Readers,

“When I piloted the first Love Science columns on Facebook, there was such a great community of responders. The comments and discussion after the posts weremore interesting and helpful than the posts themselves—that’s where readers told me what information they still wanted, how the information fit with their own lives, and how I couldanswer their concerns more completely. My goal is for that to continue here. I want this to be a place for you to find a way to more satisfying relationships—it’s not just about intellectual curiosity. So please leave your comments, and let’s keep the discussion going.”

That’s part of an FAQ answer at the Love Science site—but it may be more convenient for you to partake in the on-going discussion via your Kindle. So, as of today, I’ll be sending you the comments section from the most recent highly-commented-on post from Love Science on the off-weeks when an original Love Science column is not posted.

This way, you won’t miss a thing—and you *will* get what amount to follow-up Love Science articles. Because as you’ll see, readers and I continue the discussion together from a science-based point of view that keeps in mind their, and perhaps your, personal concerns.

I hope you enjoy; if so, please let me know at And if not, please do the same. I appreciate and look forward to hearing from you as I craft articles and responses that I hope are genuinely of help and interest to you and your Beloveds.



Reader comments from “When Men Wait For Sex: Dumb like a fox”:


Reader Comments (36)

Thank you Duana Welch!

August 10, 2009 |  Barbara


:) Welcome, Barbara. Someone privately wrote saying men need to hear this…but perhaps women could find quite a bit of change in it, too…

August 10, 2009 |  Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.





I am a woman, and I hate this double standard!! Promiscuous men are excused —“Boys will be boys”— wink, wink. But promiscuous women are whores.

What about the sexual revolution, i.e., sexual freedom for both sexes?

Does sexual freedom exist only for men? Why is it fine for the men to sleep around and not fine for the women? As women, we MUST tell the men “no sex until commitment”; otherwise, they lose interest?

August 10, 2009 |  Anonymous




Great article! I didn’t realize men EVER got to this point in their lives (ha ha). It is actually quite refreshing to hear that it happens.

August 10, 2009 |  Paula S




Wow - 16 million male descendants of Genghis Khan! I guess alot of ladies were saying yes :-) They probably thought it would get them an emotional commitment from a powerful man. I’ve made that mistake myself.

But remember… Anne Boelyn said “no” to sex with King Henry VIII. He couldn’t stand it! He tore his country apart to marry her.

August 10, 2009 |  Elizabeth




Another fabulous article, Duana — one that benefits both sexes. I am dumbfounded that >>44% of women… said they engaged in casual sex “to increase the probability of long-term commitment.”<< From reading your past articles, I know that is more than wrong-headed, it’s just plain crazy-talk. More than that, I just can’t remember a single instance of that ever working (people talk, you hear things) :) It is so important for us all to remember that while ideas may change fast, genetic composition simply doesn’t. Because reproduction is at the very heart of natural selection, the behaviors associated with it are highly adapted and finely tuned — you can’t just turn them off because you want to any more than you can decide that you want humans to eat trees from now on.

Can’t wait for the next edition… :)

August 10, 2009 |  Kelly



It DOES suck, doesn’t it. Women love sex just as much as men do, and yet if we give in too quickly, we have been moved from the Possible Mrs. Right category to the Miss Right Now column. Aaaargh!

I thank you for this opportunity to clarify: The Way Things Have Been from a genetic standpoint is not necessarily The Way Things Should Be (in fact, philosophers have a name for the error of believing that how things are is what is best: The Naturalistic Fallacy). It’s often the case that the findings I’ve presented are attacked on the grounds that they are unjust. Yes, they are—they’re accurate but highly unfair. And every researcher I’ve ever met or read agrees with that.

Not only don’t our Genes give a flip for Fair, sometimes they actually are driving us to do things that are contrary to modern survival. That’s because Genes change so very slowly, and our culture is taking us places they haven’t even heard of yet.

For example, survival in ancient times depended upon a love for high-fat, high-sugar, calorie-dense foods. Because people who preferred those foods to other things left more descendants, we continue preferring those foods today. Yet in our current culture, where calories are all too easily obtained, our Genes actually want something that is Killing Us.

Which is why I wrote this answer for the general public, and not only to the man who sent the original letter. Men’s Genes want them to push for sex right away, and then to withdraw if they get it. This is a recipe for heartbreak for women in our current permissive culture, and as this letter from Kyle shows, it’s also a recipe for singlehood even for some men who really would like a connection, but are just too sexually successful to get there.

August 10, 2009 |  Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.




@Anonymous, Regarding the Sexual Revolution: Women can do as they please, but need to remember that doing so has a hefty price tag. Right or wrong, the science is very, very, very, very (!) clear: Having sex on an early date is likely to result in a man’s detachment and non-commitment. The current permissive way of doing things will work out well for women seeking only short-term sex. But the vast majority of single women want a lifemate who is committed to and in love with them. Having sex on the first several dates is exactly the wrong thing to do in that case.

Put another way: We can be right, or we can be happy, but we cannot usually be both.


August 10, 2009 |  Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.




Hooray to Kyle for asking this question! And thanks, Duana, for the excellent answer and explanation. I kinda think Kyle is the exception to the rule, however. In other words, men in my experience aren’t thinking about waiting to have sex. As women, what should we take home from Kyle’s situation?

August 10, 2009 |  Joan N.




@Paula, Thank you! Most men don’t ever reach this point in their lives, if what is meant is reaching a point of consciously understanding that running towards immediate sex is actually de-railing long-term love. Kyle really amazed me with his insight.

Most men DO reach a point in their lives where they want a real commitment (Some research shows that men actually prefer fewer and fewer sexual partners as they age.). BUT—they don’t want commitment In The Abstract, the way women do. We wake up knowing we want marriage, we just don’t know with whom yet :). Men tend to seek commitment with a really specific person they have fallen in love with, instead of starting out hoping to find someone to commit to. And falling in love happens after they’ve met The One Who Was Worth The Wait.

Of course, that implies that there was a Wait!!! I hope women who desire a mate will return to giving that universal “I’m A Good Catch” cue to men again.

August 10, 2009 |  Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.




Also … I’m interested in your statement that, “Genes change s-l-o-w-l-y, and they haven’t kept up with the times.” I’m wondering …Where are we on this? And where are we going?

August 10, 2009 |  Joan N.




@Elizabeth: Yes! Although Mr. Khan probably raped some of those women and bought many others (given his reputation), some women were bound to have just been bowled over by his power. Wilt Chamberlain didn’t get 10,000 women to Say Yes by forcing them—he just provided cues of wealth, power and great Genes. Women will often say yes verrrry fast to such a man…sometimes for casual sex, and sometimes hoping to win his heart. I suspect our Kyle is a very high-status man because he seems never to have heard the word No. And you’re right…it Just Does Not Work, if by “Work” we mean move to an emotional and committed level of relating.

I LOVE your example of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Anne’s older sister Mary gave in to the King quickly and had one or more children by him (depending on whose version is believed)—but never won his heart. Anne held Henry off for SEVEN YEARS. The one woman who told Henry NO is the one who wound up with him, as you correctly put it, tearing apart the very foundation of his country so he could have her.

Okay, he turned out to be a megalomaniacal wife-killer later on…but still, it makes the point!

August 10, 2009 |  Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.




@Kelly: “Because reproduction is at the very heart of natural selection, the behaviors associated with it are highly adapted and finely tuned — you can’t just turn them off because you want to any more than you can decide that you want humans to eat trees from now on.” Perfectly said.

Although it may seem crazy that 44% of women thought they could get long-term relating from a one-night-stand (50% in another study!)—that’s a message our culture has hammered into us for the past 50 years. Half the women are not entering casual sex to get commitment—but half are, and the Genes just are not going to go along with that.

There is one possible exception, though. Men with very little sexual experience often will stick around. It’s less clear whether they do so just to get sex, or whether they really fall in love, though. My guess from the science is that both things occur some of the time for men with few past experiences. Men with few experiences tend to be either very religious (where they may feel a need to marry if sex is involved), very young (and tender-hearted *and* low on the status totem-pole), or very low in status (hence unlikely to have many sexual options). In any of those cases, a woman having sex, even very soon, probably wouldn’t scare off the man. Nonetheless, if he’s a man a given woman is really, truly interested in…I wouldn’t recommend risking sex too soon.

August 10, 2009 |  Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.




@Joan, thank you. I love your input. And I, too, loved Kyle’s question. Kyle is definitely the exception in some ways: 1. He’s aware of the connection between his sexual behavior and his emotional state; 2. He’s willing to at least consider waiting for sex a little while so he can achieve some real bonding; 3. My guess is that he’s had a lot more easy sex than most men, which hints at very high status.
In other regards, Kyle is Everyman: He’s got an inherited, simultaneous mating psychology that wants BOTH immediate sex and a long-term partnership. That is The Norm, not the exception. His, and most men’s, psyches sort women into one of two categories based on Ye Olde Double-Standard: Miss Right Now and Mrs. Right.

The Take-Home for Women? If you want a man’s heart and soul as well as his body—particularly if he’s high-status—wait as long as you possibly can before having sex with him. The 60’s did wonders for women’s power in the workplace and our abilitiy to direct our own lives. They hurt us badly, though, when it comes to making a lifetime of love.

August 10, 2009 |  Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.




@Joan: Regarding genes’ glacial pace of change, I’d like to quote from Kelly, above:

“It is so important for us all to remember that while ideas may change fast, genetic composition simply doesn’t. Because reproduction is at the very heart of natural selection, the behaviors associated with it are highly adapted and finely tuned — you can’t just turn them off because you want to any more than you can decide that you want humans to eat trees from now on.”

Genetic change in human mating behavior tends to reflect preferences that were adaptive many generations ago. Most of those preferences are still adaptive, although not all.

One genetically-driven preference that remains adaptive in *some* ways is men’s insistence on a mate who resists his sexual advances for at least a few dates. Although many women who give easy sex would not eventually cheat, the fact remains that the women who just won’t give it up are a safer bet, paternity-wise. No man wants to marry—cutting off his options for other women—and then have his wife conceive other men’s children whom he unwittingly raises. So hateful is that thought to men, that infidelity and suspected infidelity are the top reasons men kill their mates. I’m not saying that is an appropriate response—far from it. But I am saying that anything that Important will have Genetic alarms set up all over the place. Paternity is that Important.

August 10, 2009 |  Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.




@Joan: Regarding where our genes are headed (great question!): It appears men and women are reaching a truce that will take several hundred years more to unfold, and that the battle between the sexes was once much more fierce than it is today. I would like to save the full response for a later column.

August 10, 2009 |  Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.





Your answer to Joan said that, “The 60’s did wonders for women’s power in the workplace and our abilitiy to direct our own lives. They hurt us badly, though, when it comes to making a lifetime of love.”

Does this mean that women must act one way to succeed at work, and a different way to succeed in love?

Personally, I think it’s asking *alot* of women to play by men’s rules at work and another set of “love” rules at home. Men don’t have to do that, right? Arrraghhhh!!!!!!

August 10, 2009 |  Elizabeth




@Elizabeth, you read my response exactly as intended. The strategies we have recently learned for workforce success are helpful, putting us on a footing with men that is much more equivalent than at any past point. However, following the same premise that women are just men in prettier bodies is *not* helpful in love.

It is grossly unfair, and you’re right, men don’t have to do that. On the other hand, they have to do a lot of other things we don’t. For instance, they almost always initiate asking for the first everything (date, kiss, etc.), putting them in the “one-down” position because they’ve had to become vulnerable without knowing our feelings.

Men have the right of pursuit. Women have the right of refusal. It sounds so simple….but it can be so difficult in practice.

August 10, 2009 |  Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.




You know what I like about Kyle? Here’s a guy who’s accepting some responsibility (and some screaming genes, as you put it) to win the prize of a lifetime. He’s doing his part to WAIT. That makes him a stand-up guy in my book. Kyle’s restraint is making a mighty contribution to both himself and his partner.

August 10, 2009 |  Anonymous




Instead of asking men to suppress their inherent biological desire to have sex, how about asking more women to get over their frigidity and start saying “yes” more? After all, they enjoy physical pleasure too, right? In a modern era with widely available contraceptives and a robust public health infrastructure, the problem is not men who want too much sex but women who say “no” far too much.

August 10, 2009 |  Yew




As a gay male with first hand experience witnessing the trouble two testosterone driven libidos can cause without maintaining self-controlled awareness, I respect any man who can use his mind effectively to restrict his lust for sex. Holding back sexually in the early phases of dating isn’t as hard for gay males as trying to gage the impulses of non-monogamy after a relationship has been established. As driven as men are by provocative visuals, I often wonder with men to men partnering if either extreme of endless monogamy or constant whoring can both lead to failure. Male couples can either neuter each other with enforced exclusivity or open relationships so wide that they turn into quarreling roommates making their sex life with each other superfluous. One thing for certain, despite sexual preference, sex is in fact a real struggle in any virile man’s reality. I think a man should practice harnessing his primal appetite for sexual conquest while single so that in a relationship he will be able to take proper consideration for the feelings of his life mate before continuing to carelessly frolic loosely with mutual acquaintances running the risk of destroying the benefits of real intimacy and long lasting love.

August 10, 2009 |  Jimmy Joe




My advice is intended only for men who are having trouble with emotional attachment because of getting sex so easily that it satisfies their inherited short-term mating agenda while simultaneously de-railing their long-term love agenda; it is also for women who are struggling to understand why they don’t get long-term love when they give short-term sex. Kyle came to me with that particular problem. I stand by my advice for him because it is what Will Work to get him long-term love, and that’s expressly what he wants. Also, Kyle could still express his sexuality through one-night-stands or masturbation if he wanted—but if he is even slightly interested in anything long-term with a particular woman, it would serve his particular interests not to Go There with that particular woman for at least several dates.

You, on the other hand, want easy sex, as many men do. There are certainly many ways to obtain that, and you are correct that women enjoy sex just as much as men do. But it’s incorrect to assert that because women love sex, and because our public health system makes pregnancy and disease preventable, women should adopt men’s mating psychology. Evolutionarily speaking, They Should Not, unless all they want is a one-night stand; it makes them seem low-status, slutty, undesirable and (in one study) even diseased to the men who sleep with them…not a great resume for a prospective bride.

And a bride is still what the vast majority of women want to be. Most don’t even have an orgasm in a one-night stand. So…you may want easy sex. And that’s fine for you. But it’s not going to work to suggest that women should want it just because you do!

August 10, 2009 |  Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.




@Jimmy Joe, “One thing for certain, despite sexual preference, sex is in fact a real struggle in any virile man’s reality. ” —Very, very true and well-said.

What a beautifully written entry. Thank you for writing your experience and your thoughts on this complex issue. I am becoming more informed about research on gay and lesbian relationships, and what I understand is that most gay men actually practice a form of open relationship, with total monogamy being relatively unusual (not unheard-of, but atypical).

Recent research shows that gay men tend to follow some aspects of evolutionary psychology—such as preferring a young, beautiful partner—but not others. For example, gay men don’t usually express a tremendous emotional upset at finding that their partner has had sex with another man, even though this is one of the top predictors of extreme violence when straight men find out such a thing about their wives/girlfriends.

Which makes me wonder: Do gay men have their long-term love agenda disrupted by casual sex the way straight men do? Do they find a new partner less interesting, or even repulsive, after Soon Sex occurs? Or does the timing of sex just not matter very much? On the one hand, gay men have a much lower rate of lifetime bonds than straight men have, so maybe the casual sex is disruptive. On the other hand, there are a lot of social factors that collude to wreck and hide gay commitment, so that could entirely explain it.

I’m as yet unaware of research on the matter. I’d love some of your insights, though. Thanks again for weighing in.

August 10, 2009 |  Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.




Yew, and I really hope that is not your real name.

It sounds like you are on the other side of things from Kyle regarding desire for a relationship. Or maybe success with dating. I was not as popular as some of my friends when in my 20’s and realize now that all the sex chasing did was either:
1. scare off the gal I was chasing, or
2. less usually, it would get me laid for the night.

Looking back nothing ever lasted whenever I met someone that way and it never worked out when the relationship was about sex.

Eventually I found that when I fell in love with the lady I am with now, finally!, it had very little to do with sex. I fell in love with her: her goodness in the world, her intellect; her compassion, her real beauty, I really could go on. btw, the sex is great too!

I hope you find that if the line you have been using hasn’t worked, it probably won’t. Maybe, just maybe, try something different.

Happy hunting.

August 10, 2009 |  Vincent




Just joined the conversation. I have caught up and this is certainly interesting.

@Yew…”widely available contraceptives and a robust public health infrastructure” has nothing to do with the initial question. Suffice it to say, the US has its own HIV/AIDS crisis Among African American women…HIV/AIDS is a huge problem that has been severely under reported in America. Some would suggest this epidemic, in part, is related to men’s sexual behaviors…their lack of respect for women, their lack of respect for themselves, their “live and let live” approach to sex, has had major consequence to one segment of our population. Sexual health among college, high school, and middle school age groups has become a public health concern. Your assertion, does not keep in mind that “widely available contraceptives” DO NOT prevent sexually transmitted diseases nor is our “robust public health infrastructure” as robust as you might think……

Our approach to sex our sexual identity, etc, begins early. Some developmental theorist would suggest as early as birth. At a very early age, I was taught to respect yourself….respect your body. Does society, our American culture teach that to young men? I think Kyle is beginning to respect himself and now the women he may meet. But again, I ask, why is his question so…well so odd to many? Isn’t he NOW doing the right thing….?

August 10, 2009 |  Ann





@Ann, that was a well-informed and thought-provoking post. You hit the health concerns straight-on. Regarding why people think Kyle’s question seems strange: It runs contrary to inherited male mating psychology—not just to American culture, but to 100% of cultures around the globe. Strategies that leave more children are passed down, and those that don’t are not. Thus, we inherit psychological wants and drives much the way we inherit brown eyes or full lips.

Men have inherited drives that are sometimes misplaced in today’s world—evolutionary psychologists actually use men’s desire for many partners and casual sex as an example of an ancient genetic plan that no longer works so well in today’s context. Although having casual sex used to result in proliferation of men’s genes, sexually transmitted diseases have co-evolved faster than our genes have. Just as we want fast food, then, for genetic reasons (see above), and just as it’s killing us today, so men’s genes still want a variety of easy sex partners, even though that now has many risks as well. Thanks for the insightful post.

August 10, 2009 |  Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Well, my mother lurks on this site, and she told me that my last post to you was disrespectful because I inserted your name wherever the word “you” would appear (I thought I was being funny). And I do listen to my mother; she is Usually Right, and one of the ethics I want to practice is Respect for others. As regular readers of this column are aware, Respect is even more important than love for sustaining relationships in life.

I hope you’ll accept my apology, and that my first response didn’t drive you from the site!

August 11, 2009 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.


Woo-hoo! FINALLY!! A man (Kyle) who thinks with his upstairs head.

August 11, 2009 | Anonymous


Yes, we all have biological urges, but we can’t all go around doing the third F all the time. Society would fall apart into one big orgy, sexual free-for-all. And who is preventing that? Women. Women, with the exception of Kyle. Women who are holding the line and saying “no” to sex without commitment. That’s who.

August 11, 2009 | Gillian


@Gillian and Anonymous,
What happens when women are removed from the equation has been studied, and you are Correct—when there are no women (as with many gay male relationships or situations in which straight men are deprived of women for a lengthy span of time and turn to one another sexually), men tend to engage in casual, commitment-free sex with a large number of partners. We can also see this in explorations of the sex lives of extremely powerful men, who historically have slaked their lust with many thousands of women; in fact, a recent French Prime Minister said that easy sexual access to women was “in itself reason enough to govern.”

This has to do with the second element of male mating psychology that was described in the article, whereby lust in men functions to spread their genes, resulting in more children than they would have if limited to only one woman. Men can reproduce their genes thousands of times, given the opportunity, and women are limited in the extreme because of the costliness of eggs, pregnancy, nursing, and care of young children. We have to be more careful with precious, finite resources and thus we are choosier—Much, Much Choosier.

Btway—Nice reference to The Third F there, Gillian ;).

August 11, 2009 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.


Fascinating topic, fascinating column, wonderful comments. You are all good-looking and above average in all facets of your lives.

This post is directed at two groups:
(1) Yew and the many, many men who feel as he does (he is a strong representative for many folks!)
(2) Those women who are upset that this is not fair.

First of all, may I reiterate the venerable Ph.D. Duana’s clear answer: no, it isn’t fair. But the unfairness cuts both ways.

For males who hope to find casual female company, it’s a numbers game. My dad, a very successful sales engineer, has a sign in his office that says “Rejection is part of your job description.” It’s true for sales, it’s true for dating.

Can you, my fellow females, imagine what it would be like to constantly *have* to risk rejection at every turn to have any chance at a relationship? I work with many males with Asperger’s Syndrome who simply give up and become bitter because of this. It hurts to be turned down repeatedly simply because you lack the ability to make a stunning impression.

So successful males are generally those who are willing to take rejection after rejection after rejection. Dale Carnegie would say they are “collecting their noes.” If you only get one yes for every three hundred times you get told no, you have to start asking a lot so you can get to number 301, so to speak.

This test by rejection weeds out males who are not strong, determined, and willing to take their lumps. It’s a much more strenuous (and efficient) system than simply having to run at other males and take hundreds of pounds of force directly to the head like rams do.

My dad was once just as successful in dating as he is in sales (same thing, really), and he told me that his philosophy of dating was that if he asked a woman out and she turned him down, then he hadn’t lost anything: he didn’t have a date with her before he asked, and he didn’t have one after, so their was no net loss.

Of course, when I asked him if it hurt when he got rejected, he said HECK YES!

Dad had started dating early and was super-successful — successful enough that later on he trusted NO male who wanted to date one of his daughters. But back in the day, when he was dating, he finally decided that he couldn’t keep going the way he was going, and that he needed a long-term love so he could have an actual grown-up life.

This being around 1964, it was easy for him to shift to girls whose reputations were impeccible. Women and girls worked hard to have such reputations and advertised them in many ways.

Dad found one such female who was young, beautiful, intelligent, and had a strong reputation for being incredibly “hard to get.” She also had the exact mannerisms of Doris Day’s screen persona, possibly the biggest signal she could have given in that day and age.

He didn’t hit on her on the first date, but he did propose to her.

It’s now 44 years later, and they are quite happy — and she still gives every signal that she did as a young woman of being a properly brought up “nice girl.” Never in that time did she dress or act in a come-hither manner. Of course, now she’s in a very different situation, but maintaining that outward appearance of “not in your lifetime, buddy!” makes her continuously attractive to the male who wants a strong long-term relationship.

That’s right, I do believe that a married woman can help her relationship maintain strength by sending out “not available” signals consistently. Dressing nicely and being attractive are good things, but they must be accompanied by a strong signal of Hands Off!

No matter how “evolved” a men are today, the vast majority of them will always want to feel secure that they have partners who would severely turn down any male who came on to them — and when I say “turn down,” I mean with a baseball bat.

To summarize: Yes, heck yes, evolution is a cruel and unfair mistress. But if you want to win at the long term relationships game OR the quick-and-easy game, you’ve gotta know what you want and be willing to do the work. No work, no success. Sort of like EVERYTHING ELSE IN LIFE.

Sorry about yelling that last. But it did have to be said.

August 13, 2009 | Greystoke’s Mom


@Greystoke’s Mom— Consider yourself a guest columnist :). Perfectly said. Thank you for sharing your parents’ experience, which provided such a clear example of what this column is about.

I’d also like to thank you for summarizing the trials that men face as they strive to attract a woman (whether for the afternoon or forever): “This test by rejection weeds out males who are not strong, determined, and willing to take their lumps. It’s a much more strenuous (and efficient) system than simply having to run at other males and take hundreds of pounds of force directly to the head like rams do.” With your permission, I would like to use it in a future column.

August 13, 2009 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.


I am so glad to have found that special someone. Rejected several times, then a slow go, now everlasting. The head butting, tail between legs days are finally over. It is a very hard evolutionary game we have to play, but the results so well worth it.

August 13, 2009 | Vincent


@Vincent, I know of many male lurkers on Love Science, and I’m so glad to have them here—but I especially want to thank you for putting yourself out there for all to read. I think you are probably an inspiration to others here.

For all you lurking guys :) — If you wish to post anonymously, just fail to fill in the email and url information and use a false name when you fill in the comment form.

August 13, 2009 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.


Sex is wonderful and fun but not without a price. Different for men and women but a price indeed. That is why I waited until I was an adult to have my first taste of sex. I realized from an early age the psychological changes that happen to a person when you engage in the primal activity. And don’t get me started on the social implications also. Kyle has had a stroke of genius realizing that his sexual success can impact the ability to connect with someone for more than a pleasurable evening. I do wonder if the stats are out on the divorce rates for people with 5+ previous sexual partners to people with no sexual partners before their marriage. Do people who have had a history of “living” find exactly what they are looking for since they now know what they want? Or do they slip into old habits? Do less, much less, experienced people stay with commitment longer since they know not what they miss? Or does curiosity kill the cat? May be another topic.

August 18, 2009 | Anonymous


@Anonymous: Astutely observed—thank you for sharing your input and your outstanding questions. Regarding those: I will have to answer you in a future topic. For now, I can say that it appears desirable for people to find partners with about the same amount of experience they themselves have had. Also, people with numerous prior partners may be more likely to have affairs even after marriage…and affairs do often lead to divorce. Again, excellent questions, and I thank you for submitting them.

@Everyone, I’d like to thank you all for praising rather than denigrating Kyle. Real people write the letters I edit and answer, and I would not put them forward if I felt they would be ridiculed. Kyle wants what most ultimately wish for: long-term, committed love and attachment. He’s on his way.

August 18, 2009 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.



PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

« "Write About Your Love", Build A Virtuous Cycle | Main | When Men Wait For Sex: Dumb like a fox »