I'm just going to say something here, and people may pick it apart, or throw rocks, or whatever else they want to do about it. They can even ignore it as tl;dr if they like. (I promise not to be offended by that.) But I think it bears saying, so here goes:

I'm new around here and most people don't know much about me, so let me explain that I'm a writer. Words and their uses are my stock-in-trade. I love them dearly, and I try to use them carefully. I've been this way for as long as I can remember, and that's a long time. I've been writing for at least thirty-five years and I've been a language geek even longer than that.

I can tell you this much: Words like "prude" and "fun" will conjure a different meaning in the mind of nearly every person who reads, speaks or hears them. They're subjective concepts. A dictionary can lay out any number of meanings for them, but each person will have their own interpretation of what the word means *to that person*. And that's okay, as long as everyone involved in a discussion recognizes this.

To someone like Dodo, "prude" may mean an insulting epithet. To someone like me, or some of the other posters on this thread, it's just a descriptive term for people given to certain types of behavior. I won't say the word doesn't carry negative connotations; it's loaded with them in at least one accepted definition. HOWEVER, when it isn't being hurled at someone as an personal insult or label, it pays to step back and just consider casual, common usage. It's a perfectly acceptable word when used simply AS A WORD. And yes, it can apply equally to men and women, and no, it isn't always or automatically a term of belittlement.

Now we come to the subjects of sex and fun, as related to attitudes toward women. In case no one's noticed, I'm a woman. Not only am I a woman, but I consider myself a feminist. I see myself as the equal to any man in self-determination, human worth, and the right to own my thoughts and actions. I am also a sexual being, and I make my own decisions about engaging in sex. I have owned those decisions since the very first time (yes, it was my idea), and will continue to do so because I am my own person.

When a man brings up the topic of sex with me --or I with him-- I don't see it as pressure; I see it as a way of discovering how compatible we are, just as with discussing preferences in music or hobbies or our philosophical beliefs. Sex falls on the same spectrum of human experience, and just as I might not have fun dating a man whose philosophical or political beliefs were at too great a variance with my own, or whose taste in music or what to do on weekends was greatly mismatched with mine, so would I hesitate to continue dating one whose sexual attitudes were too different from mine.

My personal definition of "prudery" would be an unwillingness to even discuss the topic of sex without passing judgment on it in some capacity. There's nothing inherently sexist in that, as it can apply equally to both sexes.

Oh, and my definition of "fun"? Engaging in mutually agreed-upon activities with someone whose attitudes align well with my own, and in an atmosphere of shared respect.

For those who've taken the time to read all this, I thank you for your indulgence. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled debate.

I think most women are not so shy about sex talk as they are uncertain how it might be taken. On a first or second date, they don’t know the man well enough to determine if they want to go there yet and don’t want it to seem as if they are sending a stamped invitation. If she talks about sex and it’s taken as an invitation, that she had no intention of issuing, then she will be considered a tease for talking about sex and then not putting out. So, I think it’s something of a double edge sword really, because either way the man could walk away with the wrong impression.

I think most women are not so shy about sex talk as they are uncertain how it might be taken. On a first or second date, they don’t know the man well enough to determine if they want to go there yet and don’t want it to seem as if they are sending a stamped invitation. If she talks about sex and it’s taken as an invitation, that she had no intention of issuing, then she will be considered a tease for talking about sex and then not putting out. So, I think it’s something of a double edge sword really, because either way the man could walk away with the wrong impression.

I've been half-assed courting a gal now for near 6 months.
The sex topic hasn't risen yet.
She's everything soft and desireable that I could see being intimate with.
I just am not in a position to commit to monagmy.
So, why bring up the subject?

Exactly! You are a gentleman Will Curious though...How would you handle it if she brought it up...

I've been half-assed courting a gal now for near 6 months.
The sex topic hasn't risen yet.
She's everything soft and desireable that I could see being intimate with.
I just am not in a position to commit to monagmy.
So, why bring up the subject?

The same. I'd love pleasuring her in every way possible. I'd just have to wait til I could promise my heart and home to her.
The whole situation with us is very complicated.
She is very much worth the investment.

Women who bring up Sex too soon in a "friendship" is usually looked on as a loose morals woman. Even Men who like Sex often will just use her up for as much Sex as he can get and nothing developes further. Get the milk free. why buy the Cow.

It certainly can be that way, yes. I've learned over the years to just be very clear from the beginning about my position, as in "I will discuss this openly, including telling you what my personal preferences are, but understand that if I am going to sleep with you it will happen under 'X' circumstances and when *I* decide to do so." I've found that the majority of men actually appreciate that kind of honesty and forthrightness, because it removes the whole game-playing aspect of things.

It would not be out of character for me to say, "I have every intention of sleeping with you when I decide the circumstances are right. Understand that those circumstances include but are not limited to..." and then lay out my needs/requirements. If nothing else, it serves to weed out the riff-raff who can't handle having a woman implement her standards. The ones who are left are more likely to be worth taking to bed.

In another thread I put forward the proposition that in a dating situation you can raise the subject of sex to find out how much of a prude you are dealing with. I do this in order to find out how much fun someone is. It is a compatibility issue. I don't really get on with women that are no fun and uptight.

If a person has hangups about sex it might be argued that this is because they have principles and that they do not consider it to be an appropriate topic of conversation but this is why it is important to only bring the topic up when you think that it is appropriate to do so. I am making the claim that it is appropriate to bring up the topic in a dating situation to find out how much fun somebody is.

Am I being too picky?

Not to be mean...But it all sounds like a power/control tactic to me. Who is going to have the "upper hand" when it comes to sex and maybe other things in the relationship too?...No wonder some men have issues with women who market themselves as "feminists."....I wouldn't like it if a man talked this way to me (either) and spelled out the "circumstances" and "conditions" concerning sex... Or if he handed me "specific instructions" that I was expected to follow etc...I'm all for stating likes and dislikes in a marriage or serious relationship...But I wonder what men really think about women who come across as "dominant" or "sex experts" when it comes to casual dating.. I'm sure it works out great for men who are just after sex and nothing more.

I'll be honest: I'm noticing (not just here) so many who look at men as somehow wanting only sex and nothing more, who'll take it "for free" when they can get it and give nothing in return.

Seems like a stereotype to me, because while I've known my share of guys like that, I've also known guys who actually wanted both sex AND a relationship, and some who preferred to be in love before having sex.

I think there's probably as much variation in male attitudes toward sex and relationships as in the female counterpart of those attitudes. The difference is that society has glorified the idea of a guy going out and "getting some" while it has (until recently) still put forth the idea that women are to "give it up" only for a price of some sort.

Note the differences there: Men "get some" while women "give it up". Personally, I think that's bullshyte of the finest Victorian vintage (in other words, WAY past its sell-by date). This is the 21st century. It isn't shameful for a woman to have a strong libido, and it isn't some requirement of manhood that a guy HAS to act like a horndog, especially if he isn't that way.

Free milk? Buy the cow? What is this, Green Acres?

I see an awful lot of stereotyping here and I find it sad...Sometimes I just want to scream....GROW UP PEOPLE!...And for the record, very few men ask me out for the "sole" purpose of getting laid so I tend question those women who are quick to label "sex talk early on" as men wanting to get in their pants and women who participate in such conversations as being loose...Perhaps they would fare better by being less inhibited and more introspective ....Just thinking out loud