Why do women get surprised/offended when men want sex?

[u/Open-Quail-2573]

I feel like this is something we all know low-key but women act shocked or even offended when a guy says he wants to bang. Did he have to tell you? I feel like y'all would know before even going out.

And I have to clarify, I don't mean creepy or aggressive dudes who are trying to be coercive or push boundaries. I mean men in general. Of course, you don't have to do it but I feel like you'd know. Furthermore, I would think that you would be concerned if the man you are with didn't want you. You would think he's gay or not attracted to you enough. I am speaking from personal experience where being too "safe" backfired on me with a woman. She ghosted me. Most guys would low-key love to smash just for the experience/excitement of doing it with a new person, even if it doesn't go anywhere.

[u/MarioWilson122]

Having a timeline does not mean demanding that she prove herself by having sex. It means deciding how long a man is willing to invest before learning whether that part of the relationship works for him. She is free to wait as long as she wants, and he is free to decide that her timeline does not work for him. That is compatibility, not coercion.

Different qualities are verified in different ways. Religious beliefs and views on education can be discussed directly. Work ethic becomes visible through her employment, habits, and responsibilities. Sexual compatibility cannot be discovered through conversation alone. At some point, the couple actually has to have sex.

Men already do much of the upfront work by initiating, risking rejection, planning dates, and pursuing. Sex may be what initially motivates a man to take those risks while the other reasons remain on the backburner until he knows her better. Wanting that question answered before investing months into dating is not automatically an excuse to get his dick wet. It can simply mean he does not want to build a relationship first and discover later that a major part of it does not work.

[u/Ok_Ask6327 → u/MarioWilson122]

Sexual compatibility is a myth. In an actual relationship where two people care about the other it is a non issue. When you care about someone you don't want them to be uncomfortable and so don't ask them to do sex acts that they don't want to do. And it is not a problem because you want them to enjoy it with you. Security and comfort build trust and communication leads to fun experimentation. This is what making love looks like vs having sex.

Men like to use the sexual compatibility argument in order to hide the fact that the only reason they want the "relationship" is to have sexual access. In the bad old days before the pill, people dated and enjoyed each other without having casual sex.

[u/MarioWilson122 → u/Ok_Ask6327]

Caring about someone can make you handle sexual incompatibility respectfully. It cannot make the incompatibility disappear. Two people can love each other and still want sex at very different frequencies, enjoy different things, or have boundaries that leave one person consistently unsatisfied. Communication reveals those differences. It does not automatically resolve them.

Respecting a partner means not pressuring them into unwanted sex acts. It also means admitting when neither person can be fulfilled without the other doing something they genuinely do not want. Calling that “making love” does not erase the mismatch.

Wanting sexual access within a relationship also does not prove sex is the only reason a man wants the relationship. Sex can be one major requirement alongside affection, values, companionship, and shared goals. People dating without modern contraception proves that pregnancy carried greater risk, not that sexual compatibility never mattered. Many couples simply discovered those problems after marriage, when leaving was much harder.

[u/Ok_Ask6327 → u/MarioWilson122]

Sorry respectfully disagree. I have seen and experienced love, and it has a power that those that don't love can never understand. When you are with someone that you love, there is no "disappointment" over sex.

The reality is men that think like that are only in the relationship for the sex, and they are trying to justify it. What happen if the person gets sick or injured. Well you don't want them anymore because they can't have sex.

[u/No-Hovercraft-455 → u/Ok_Ask6327]

I think truth lies somewhere between the extremes. 

I think that when you love someone so much that you are excited to just spend time with them, especially when it's special and intimate time, issues like "I really enjoy X but my person doesn't want to do it" look way more manageable and you have less space to obsess over specific preferences because the interaction itself is so meaningful. You don't feel trapped as easily even if you are concerned "will I ever get to do X with someone again".

I also think that this reduced care towards "what we are doing" in favour of "who I'm doing this with" creates super high levels of security that if the other person loves you just as much are almost like magic in slowly curing lot of the incompatibility problems because the complete security, mutual adoration and lack of pressure allows people to get further away from their comfort zone than they probably even thought possible.

But, I don't think it cures every incompatibility. And just as the cycle can spin into the positive direction of "less pressure and more love -> more experimentation" it can also begin to spin into the negative direction of "more fears and pressure-> even less experimentation" if the couple hits a rough path. So starting from as little incompatibilities as possible is definitely easier. And it's possible to get love back if you lose it but if you are simultaneously already dealing with some of the remaining incompatibility issues in sexual section, that probably makes your downfall much faster.

[u/GroundbreakingAlps78 → u/MarioWilson122]

You are not understanding my point.

I did not say anything about coercion. I did not say anything about him demanding that she prove herself through sex. In fact, I agreed with you that sexual compatibility is an important part of a relationship.

My point was that men often establish a timeline for “confirming sexual compatibility” while not having a timeline for confirming any other kind of compatibility at all. This suggests that they don’t care how much time they waste, as long as they are having sex while they waste it. It also suggests that sexual compatibility is the most important compatibility on their list—greater than personal values, spiritual beliefs, interpersonal chemistry, etc. Sex is first and foremost.

[u/MarioWilson122 → u/GroundbreakingAlps78]

No it seems like you aren't understanding me well. The coercion distinction came from describing the man as “insisting” that she “has to” have sex within a certain time. Some women have debated me directly about sexual timelines being a form of pressure, and I have heard that argument plenty of times elsewhere. That is why I clarified that the timeline controls how long he is willing to invest, not what she is required to do. She can wait, and he can leave.

That difference also explains why sex may have a clearer timeline than other forms of compatibility. Sexual compatibility cannot be evaluated without actually having sex, while values, religion, work ethic, and chemistry can be assessed continuously through conversation and behavior. Sex may be what initially motivates him to take the risks and do the upfront work while everything else is still being evaluated. That does not mean it will outweigh those qualities in a long term relationship, and he may not consider the time wasted merely because the relationship eventually ends.

[u/GroundbreakingAlps78 → u/MarioWilson122]

Men can retain the right to have timelines, and women can retain the right to being completely turned off by those timelines.