I’ll be saving another more inflammatory post for later this week. But I wanted to start you off with going full speed at something that is beyond annoying to me. So before I cover this in lighter fluid and send in it up in flames. I have a question.
That’s right in case you were thinking this was about something else, I’m talking about the stupidity of arbitrary time frames in budding relationships, and we are laser focusing on that dumbest of dumb ideas: The 90 day rule.
“Said to be originated in the early to mid 70’s as a compromise to the free love (read as free sex) ideas of 60’s hippies and their more puritanical counterparts, the “90 day rule” was allegedly meant to make a woman seem more classy than her counterparts, and to test the interest of a man beyond physical pursuits.”
Now I could go on and on about how full of bullshit that is, but I only have so much time to eviscerate stupidity today. The long and short is this was more gender specific bullshit meant to make women feel less like the supposed tissues they get compared to by men, and of course find a way to reform what they determined to be sluts, while giving women a perception way out. So why does this shit still exist? Because its catchy. So catchy that generation after generation of women to this day will have some staunch defenders of it no matter what. In fact, as I type this I predict they will be the first ones to get all up in their feels and send me hate emails, facebook comments, twitter responses, and of course a random comment here, BEFORE finishing the rest of the piece.
So as you can imagine, I put that tasty photo up top for some perspective, and to ruffle some feathers. But the question is a logical one. If we are going to get gender specific on dating, and it is totally socially acceptable for women to say “no matter how much I like you and want to have sex with you, you must wait this 90 days for that to happen.” then why isn’t the essential if not actual inverse also okay?
Now that particular statement will also rile some folks up who clearly haven’t paid attention. So allow me to elaborate. I’m talking about modern dating, aka post 1960 but for the sake of this piece, post 1990. In heterosexual dating, It is still socially unacceptable for the majority of the population when a woman pays for the first through about the 5th date. After the 5th date polls and studies both formal and informal tend to agree that you may be in a space where it is okay. So for the sake of argument, let us say that for dates 1 to 5 or for about 37 days, payment for the dating experience is the providence of the male of the pairing.
During this same span and indeed for every date after that the idea of any sexual contact is solely the providence of the female of the pairing. We could talk about date rape, and how some men don’t want sex but women have talked them into it, but outliers aside (cause seriously other than date rape[which is so common it is scary] these are outliers) women have the entire sexual providence of the pairing.
Many would say what is wrong with that? Well most importantly it isn’t equal in the slightest. You can forcefully take the check from the person paying and pay for the meal. There is no crime there. The other there is. But I know what you really meant: Why is a man paying for dates held as the opposite of the women not having sex? Isn’t that objectification? Isn’t that just turning women into possessions to be bought and sold?
OH it is. But the same is true the other way. I find it interesting when talking to women I have no personal dating interest in on this subject, 90 days of waiting for sexual gratification is totally okay in their minds. But the idea of having to pay for their half of a date, or worse them paying for the whole thing elicits responses like “He must be broke.” Or “what kind of a man couldn’t pay for a date? I wouldn’t date a loser like that.” When I up the hypothetical scenario to something even more obvious they usually don’t, though some do, change their tone. “So if a man who you know for a fact just got the money he won in a powerball jackpot, or you know owns say an NFL team, and was the correct age for your preferences, says “I like you, I want to go out with you, but for 90’s days we’re going dutch.” would you still say no?”
Now the smart ones see that as gold digger bait, but others randomly get it. However, many get more incredulous about it all. “Well if he has all that money, why can’t he just spend some on a date?” “If he’s rich what does he need a 90 day rule for?” “You just want to justify being cheap and waiting free sex.” tend to be the majority of responses. Oddly enough though the last one is most often hurled at me when a woman thinks I’m talking to her on this subject because I’m into her. And for those idiots, no, not in the slightest, you’ve failed, thanks for playing.
But in responses like that you see the hypocrisy of it all. In case you’re missing it. Let’s flip those a bit. “Well if she’s single, why can’t she have sex with me?” “I mean if she knows who she is selecting, and we hit it off, what does she need a 90 day rule for?” “She just wants to justify getting free meals and activities on my bank account.” And if you are a thinking person, you can now very clearly see what I mean. These responses would not be tolerated. In fact, these are the kinds of responses that are held up as misogyny, and sexist, and everything wrong with men.
So really the 90 day rule is just self-created objectification. It breeds a resentment culture, and indeed overtly explicit vitriol, while also preserving a view of sex and dating as outdated as 8 track tapes and The Brady Bunch. The reality is in what is supposed to be a more liberated culture this is just more forced gender role creation. Remember back at the beginning when I said this was created as a way of determining the difference betwixt classy ladies and their common counterparts. It was 1970s slut shaming and men had nothing to do with it.
We should be sex positive in 2014 enough to say that sex should happen when both parties are okay with it, and for whatever personal reason they have. 90 days because until then you both hadn’t really felt like taking it to that intimate a level until then is fine. 90 minutes because at dinner you felt the need to tear each others clothes off while the appetizers came is fine too. Hell 90 seconds because you have sex as a hello handshake is just as fine. What I’m saying is this 90 day waiting period to prove his worth is a terrible idea because it is in fact arbitrary and capricious, it is the definition of objectification.
And that’s before we even get to consequences like he may wait the 90 days just to have sex and leave you. During the 90 days he may cheat or date other women and not tell you because he was so turned off by it and now is just proving a point. Or the popular, you may in fact be turning away a man who actually would love and respect you, but saying he HAS to wait this particular amount of time was a red flag to him that kept you from being with the kind of guy you say you want.
In the end its bullshit. Just like you would be rightly justified in wondering if it is a red flag that a guy refuses to pay for anything for 90 days. Because in this life of dating and relationships random rules that are meant only to delay certain steps in increasing the intimacy of the connection are just leftover puritanical bullshit. And it was high time THE Ruthless Wonder called that out. Now I could get into age ranges, professions, vacations, and dating friends, but I’ve said a lot today. Besides… WORDS DON’T DO IT JUSTICE!