The Man Who Sticks

"People are never more insecure than when they become obsessed with their fears at the expense of their dreams." Norman Cousins

We have heard story after tale and philosophy after hypothesis of the man who feigns interest in having a relationship, only to bail on a woman after they have sex. This has sparked the "how long do you wait before..." questions for both men and women, and there is a lot of advice out there suggesting women wait a long time (90 days even) and that she should remember she controls the nookie factor.

I definitely agree with the last point: she's in control until she gives it away. I don't write advice, and I don't have any delusions that the paths I've taken in my relationships are in any way what someone else should do in theirs. Your Mileage May Vary was never a truer statement than when used as a litmus test in my dating experiences.

So what hypotheses are out there about the man who not only sticks around after having sex, but becomes more committed?

I think I've heard one hypothesis...that the man continues to be with the woman only for sex.

In theory I can see the validity of that, and I do think some men would definitely do that. Especially if the woman is conveniently located, and the man doesn't have a lot of other prospects.

But I know people who had sex early and went on to marry and are still married 20 years later. Are they really such an exception? Could it be that all that's needed is communication to keep a relationship on solid ground?

I don't know, truly, and I'm simply pondering. I'm secure in what I have found, yet people keep asking me why everything is happening so quickly if it is the real thing. It makes me laugh a little bit, and it frustrates me a bit too. I guess I'm the only realist/fatalist who is living in the moment because it could all end tomorrow?

So, OK, what about the man who lives far away, thus the woman isn't convenient, and he could probably find a woman to have sex with any weekend he wished? What is the reason that man decides to stay with the woman he had sex with early on?

Could it possibly be because the chemistry between them is amazing? Is that the exception to the rule? I've also heard such things as "early sexual chemistry fades" or "the relationship becomes solely about sex."

I've never experienced fading sexual chemistry (it is either there for me from the start or it isn't), but I have experienced a relationship deteriorating only to sex. In my case, it involved a man who lied to me (well, he lied to himself as well) about wanting to start a life together, so much so that he showed me blueprints of the house he'd build for us to live in and asked me to help pick out the type of skylights and wood color for my own office.

What I'm beating around my bush to say is that without sexual chemistry, I personally cannot have a relationship. That's just at the core of what I want. So I'll risk a relationship dwindling into "the only thing in common is sex" zone in order to obtain that which I know is harder to find: long-lasting intricate commonalities.

I don't have a vast readership to gain a wide range of opinion on this, but if you find yourself reading this, I'd love to read your comments. After all, people are commenting about my new relationship to me, so I would expect some people to have something to say here. But this isn't about me, it is about what works for each of us. There should be as many options as there are people on this topic.

In the end, the hell with what society tells you is right. At least at my age, I think. What works for you and the one who holds your interest is all that matters. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.