It's unsightly to masturbate in public like this, you know.

You're still missing the point. The kind of statistics that you want don't exist, for the most part, and the numbers that do exist can be twisted into justifying whatever you want. What on earth are you going to do with "x% of teenage relationships survive to marriage"? Not date at all while you're a teen? oh wait.

I like that 'known behaviors' though. The kinds of relationships Radez is talking about, not much is known about the partner at first. But yes, actually, most folks operate by taking the known behaviors of their partners into account.

You believe that girls only want assholes, why lie.

I beg to differ with this statement. I'm sure this happens sometimes, but I believe that more often than not, when a woman has sex with a man, he falls under some sort of magic spell that completely sucks his will to eat, sleep, breathe or think. After she has sex with him, he lives only to have more sex with her.

This is especially true if he's had to wait a little while before he ever got it in the first place.

ALL THE STUDIES!
As much as I disbeleive this assertion, what's wrong with a relationship based on sex? It not lasting? Ever consider that these people don't want it to last? I know it miht be breaking your Christian heart to hear this but not everyone is spending their days searching for a soul mate.

Firstly, trying to define a 100% purely subjective matter is... somewhat off. However, I would also think it foolish were anyone to argue that there is no basis for that of statistics; of course statistics have their grounding by virtue of their existence to begin with.

Alas, it wouldn't matter if scientists, lexicographers, God, or any varriant of a person, entity, organisation, or lack thereof went to try and define the topic of love, to which your argument did indeed shift to; they would have neither the standing or intellect to conclusively and universally do so. I think it's reasonable, in light of that, to shed whatever arguments are or were to ensue in light of that topic.

On a different note, it would be rather foolish to base any important life decision on statistics due to, once again, their nature alone. A statistic is a generalisation and they are sharply different then a conclusive definition. Surely, it would seem sensible to take the generalisations into acocunt, but to use it as the only factor upon which one's mode of thinking is to take place would seem rather limiting.

Thank you, for once I'm not the person in here arguing that.

Also, all the studies? Show me ten of the studies that say that. From credible sources, no non-accredited christian universities. After all, marriage, a commitment not often based on sex, has an over 50% failure rate in America today. Now, seeing as how christians make up over 80% of the population, I'm assuming that at least a good number of those are entered into in good christian morals.

So, again, show me some studies. Not just more words.

And since we're being scientific about this, how much does a relationship have to be based on sex? Are we talking purely physical attraction drawing two people together, or a fuckbuddy relationship? Perhaps a one-sided relationship where one party basically serves the other in hopes of getting emotional attention (VG)? I mean, 'based on sex' isn't very specific.

Maybe they were fuckbuddies who kept cockblocking each other. That just won't work out.

In terms of casual relationships and being fuckbuddies, I don't think that's what Avalokiteshvara was asking about in the first place.

So of course Rab and Denicalis are right in saying that there are people who DON'T want a lasting relationship and are only in it for the sex.
But what Avalokiteshvara was most likely asking is how a long-term relationship - as in two people who are dating with the intent of staying together - CHANGES when these two have sex for the first time together.

There are some people who DO have sex on a first date. And that may actually lead to a very healthy, long relationship. For others, that's just not how it works. For these people, sex on a first date may be what ruins the entire future of the relationship, and sometimes relationships DON'T work out because of sex on the first date.

Then there are some people who prefer not to have sex on the first date. The reasoning behind this is that if they are going to be together for a long time, why would they NEED to have sex RIGHT NOW?
A lot of people may say that it's because they're devout christians or something, but that's just taking the easy way out.
You don't HAVE to be religious to think that casual sex is wrong.
It depends on your moral upbringing - your parents, friends and family, and of course your own personal judgement.

In terms of sex in general (not just on the first date), it may change the dynamics of the relationship altogether. You may feel a stronger, closer connection with your partner than ever before; and sometimes you may feel just the same as before, as if nothing happened.

You can’t really put rules on this type of thing, because if you do it’ll probably blow up in your face and that more than likely will critically change the relationship. The general idea is that you should have sex with someone when you feel a certain sense of comfort and trust with a person. If you’re new to it, it’s probably better you start off slow but make sure you progress somehow. As long as you’re honest with yourself, your partner is as well, and you make damn certain that you’re on the same page, the relationship isn’t likely to change much. Keep in mind though, that you doing everything right on your part is still only 50% of the total equation.

The reason some people can fuck only after a few hours of knowing someone is because of experience/sexual maturity. The more experience you get, the less psychological comfort is needed to perform right sexually. Also, the less likely you are to have unrealistic expectations from doing it. Once again though, keep in mind that only one person doing what they should do is still only 50% of the total equation.

Example 1: I meet a girl. I’m modestly experienced. The girl is totally inexperienced. The girl expects me to “be a man” and guide her sexually but this is an unspoken or out right fabricated expectation. I miss read her and make the assumption that her experience is relatively on par with me. We have sex and it either sucks or is mediocre because she’s expecting too much from me and I’m getting frustrated by her lack of effort, which affects the overall quality of the experience for both. Sex just revealed an imbalance in expectation, spoken or not, which will affect the relationship.

Example 2: I meet a girl. I’m modestly experienced. The girl is way more experienced than I am. My ego gets in the way of better judgment, because I’m digging this chick but I think that my lack of experience to her is going to be a turn off. So I fake it in hopes of being able to overcome that and fuck her brains out. But what really happens is that I just repressed insecurity to point where I no longer let it affect my immediate consciousness. The girl totally can’t pick up on this, because I repressed it so well. So, the girl is expecting me to behave like whatever expectation she has in her mind. We do it, but since you really need to let loose while fucking, my repressed insecurity effects me psychologically which in turn affects my performance. Once again, sex just revealed an imbalance in expectation, spoken or not.

Example 3: A guy is totally experienced and he meets a chick. He’s fucked plenty of chicks, enough to know how to handle insecure and inexperienced ones. The girl is inadequately experienced. Meaning, yea she’s done it with a fair share of guys but it wasn’t all that so she doesn’t know what it’s like to have her brains blasted. The guy enjoys her company enough where he would like a relationship, but he’s been there and done with the whole love conquers all crap already and simply wants to date casually. The girl initially agrees because it sounds good to her. But after getting her brains fucked out, she can’t help but get attached emotionally and call it love because it’s a feeling she never had before. Once again, sex just revealed an imbalance in expectation, spoken or not.

I personally think everybody fucks up pretty bad when they’re new to it. I think some are just more willing to talk about it than others. I know I did anyway. My advice to you would be learn from your mistakes, not to avoid making them.

Honestly... I've only had one relationship where sex came out very early (I think I had known him for approximately 10 hours before we had sex) and it didn't turn out very well, though I attribute much of that to simple lack of maturity on my part. My mind was swimming with pheremones and suchlike for a very long time after that encounter, and after only a few days I found myself telling him that I loved him.

Time went on and I realized that the only thing we truly shared a connection with was a sexual one, and that I had essentially lied to him when I told him I felt that way. After a month and a half or so, I had to find a way to break it off with him before things got any further, just so we could both spare ourselves a lot of hurt since I knew it wasn't going to just go away or change.

Essentially, I think that having sex that early on did mess up the kind of relationship I could have had with him had something like that not turned up so soon, but that was entirely because I couldn't control my feelings well enough to actually analyze them accurately before spitting them out during a moment of passion. I think that if you're emotionally capable of keeping your head out of the clouds it probably won't hurt things too much, provided your partner is able to meet you halfway on that one. Judging that last part is probably the hardest aspect of it, since you can't really be sure how people are going to react to sex if you've only just met them.

I find that despite claims of subjectivity regarding relationships that "love" fits into some patterns.

A relationship is defined by three primary components according to one theory: Commitment, Passion, and Intimacy. Commitment is the decision to stay in the relationship, Passion is the physical part while intimacy is the desire to be with one another (in a non-sexual sense).

People can have relationship based on any of these components. But love itself will not last if it's primary only of the passion aspect. People easily adapt to sex after a year or so and thusly why many people divorce if they haven't developed the commitement part after adaption to sex.

Also sex screws people up especially if they're not mature. They'll start to think they're in love but it could be as simple as infatuation from the very start. It's not good to immediately to start a relationship right off the bat with sex because it doesn't give as much priority over the development of passion and commitment.

I dunno, but it kinda seems that once sex starts the arguments start then too, but I dunno lol that what my healthteacher said.

I guess you don't have a lot of personal experience with that, then ?