Alpha Mail: the slut/prude dilemma

A reader faces a choice:

When picking a woman for the long haul, which is more important: (1) that you have high sexual rapport with her, or (2), that she does not have a significant sexual history?

I initially chose my girlfriend for a LTR (in part) because of her tame sexual history. We broke up over her not wanting kids. She has since changed her mind, and we are now back together. However, in the interim, I had a couple of sexual experiences at festivals that were more enjoyable than I ever had with my girlfriend. She claims she is "not like those girls", but that she could act like that if she felt more secure about the relationship.

I know her pretty well and I think it is true that she is "not like those girls", in the sense that her personality is more apprehensive, anxious and self-conscious. I think that having a more secure relationship won't change these traits significantly, but it may make her invested enough to do things that make her uncomfortable, which isn't really what I want.

What I really want is to fuck "those girls", because they are more sexually generous and receptive, whom I have previously disqualified for relationships... for (essentially) the same reasons.  I don't know whether I am sabotaging a perfectly good relationship to indulge a fleeting sexual impulse or robbing myself of more compatible and loving long term partners. Either way it seems like I am my own worst enemy. 

(2) is more important because a relationship is about considerably more than sex and sexual rapport fades over time. That being said, the ex-girlfriend's claim is totally false. She is what she is. In fact, women in secure relationships almost always get MORE prudish; in most cases, the best sex with a woman a man will ever have comes at the beginning of the relationship.

That's precisely why men so often make absolutely terrible decisions about women.

It is also why players tend to move on to new women after a relatively short time. They're not only looking for different sex, they're looking for that high-quality, do-whatever-you-want-to-me sex that is most often found in casual encounters. The idea that sex improves with trust or time or whatever is not true, as is the idea that women get more sexual as they age. They don't. They just get desperate enough to abandon their usual limits if they're single; how else can they compete with younger, hotter rivals?

Women are at their most sexually free when they don't know the man at all and they don't expect to see him again. I don't know of a single player, current or retired, who would disagree.

After sending him an email to that effect, he replied as follows:

This matches both festival experiences. Before sex, #1 was saying how we'd definitely see each other again, I gave a noncommittal 'yeahhhh...'. She said us meeting each other was like 1/1000, I said it was more like 1/10. The few times #2 talked to me I wandered off without explanation, eventually thought 'fuck it, she's hot', and got her friend to take me to her on the dance floor, where she practically jumped on me. This is why I've been calling bullshit on my girlfriend's insistence for security. Neither of those girls needed it.

I thought it might have been the case that only a woman who was sexually free would feel comfortable enough to have sex with a man they didn't expect to see again. It seems I had it backwards: having sex with a man they didn't expect to see again makes a woman sexually free.

That's exactly correct. Women in relationships tend to be concerned about creating expectations. Therefore, they try to minimize them. The fear is that if they do X once, the man may start to expect it on a regular basis. Better, therefore, to keep the sexual excitement to a minimum and dole it out sparingly as need be.

There are many good reasons to pursue a relationship with a woman. High-quality sex is not one of them. At the same time, never forget that basing a relationship on the quality of the sex is a reliable recipe for disaster.

Tweet