Revisiting the topic of pump-n-dump, the key point I was making on my original post is that uncommitted sex doesn’t happen by accident. Both parties go in not wanting to make any explicit promises. If they wanted to, they could agree to stay together as a couple for 3 months, 3 years, or 3 decades. Likewise they can also decide they will be sexually exclusive for the term of the “relationship”. As Doug1 mentioned in his comment on the original post:
Often a guy won’t know if he’s gonna want at least a fling or something longer when he ends up pumping and dumping a girl who’s not a complete slut. Depends on how much fun and compatible she is post banging, whether she’ll allow a non exclusive kind of relationship for a good while or semi permanently and so on.
Questions of commitment and exclusivity aren’t out of bounds to either party when deciding if they want to have sex. To the extent they aren’t mentioned, each party must feel it is to their advantage not to raise the point.
However, many women wish to have this both ways. Instead of asking the man if he will agree to mutually promise commitment and exclusivity, they will often ask him if he loves her. But make no mistake, this isn’t about commitment, it is about his investment in her. It is a subtle slight of hand, because investment is typically what a man would offer a woman in exchange for her commitment to him. The conflation of the two is a very neat trick, and one which I suspect most women do without consciously considering it. Paige’s recent comment had me thinking about this:
Relating Pump-n-Dumping to Serial Monogamy assumes more self-awareness in the woman than she actually has. At the beginning the woman is convinced she will be in-love forever…if the romantic feelings decline she believes the relationship is no longer worthwhile for either partner. But she doesn’t just assume at the beginning that this will happen.
Not all women are like that, as Doomed Harlot demonstrated in her comment:
Yes, yes, 100 times, yes, any woman who has uncommitted sex assumes the risk that the man might end the “relationship” (to the extent there is one) before she would want to.
This seems blindingly obvious, to the point that I wonder who would say otherwise? It seemed perfectly clear to me when I first started having uncommitted sex at 18, and it was clear to all my female friends who were having sex at that time.
The fact is that men and women are free to make whatever informal agreement between themselves that they wish to. This doesn’t have the same meaning as marriage, but it is something different than uncommitted sex. On the Misery and vice thread, the topic of a virgin having sex with her fiancé was raised. Sweet As felt that this could make the woman a slut:
A man states that he wants to be married and he wants “marriage material.” He defines “marriage material” as a chaste woman (and/or virgin bride). He values this virginity until he wants to have sex with her, with the promise of marriage. If she gives in, and he breaks up with her, she is — to the next man with the same standard — a slut and therefore no longer marriage material. If she doesn’t give in, she doesn’t trust him.
But the woman in this example wasn’t looking for uncommitted sex. Calling her a slut is way over the top. So for my female readers I offer this handy rule: If you want investment from him without offering him commitment or exclusivity, make him say he loves you before you have sex. If you want commitment and exclusivity, well, ask for that…
Love me image created by Nevit Dilmen.