Letters to the Editor
Still interested in romance
In response to M.’s article in the April 13 issue of The Tech, “Frolicking on the first date”: Call me old fashioned, but I’m not interested in sex on the first date. Or even the second. Not even the third. I may take it as a complement that you want to sleep with me that quickly, but I will take it as an even bigger complement if we get to know each other better first.
Regardless of how our society has come to view sex, I think that we can agree that a more intimate act does not exist, and I want it to mean something when I have sex with you. It is the strongest message I can send, so I want it to be very clear that I’m telling you that I love you with every fiber of my being, that I love you more than I’ve loved anyone else before you, and that I am committed to you. I want this message to reach you loud and clear. I hope this would be your message to me, too.
But how can either of us be sure that this is what we’re saying if we have barely gotten to know each other? Even if we’ve really hit it off on that first date and have become new believers in love at first sight, I don’t want our decision to have sex to be based on mere physical attraction. When I’m having sex with you, I don’t want to just be thinking about how incredible our bodies feel together or how beautiful you are (both of which I’m sure will be going through my mind), but I want to be thinking about all of the awesome experiences we’ve already had together, how we’ve already shown our love through countless acts of affection, service, sacrifice, and loyalty.
I don’t want to feel that sex is the source of our love or that it is creating that love, but rather that it is the perfect and ultimate expression of a love that already exists between us. So please don’t call me a prude if I politely refuse your advances on the first date. I’m just looking for a little romance first.
— Joshua C. Hester, Class of 2011