I’m a huge Steve Harvey fan, I think he’s a funny comedian, a great talk show host, and seems like a good guy. Earlier this year, I remember hearing about his new book “Act Like a Lady, Think Like A Man: What Men Really Think About Love, Relationships, Intimacy, and Commitment” and thought this book could place some sanity into the dating market. I’ll be honest, I’ve never read the book (it’s now on my list to read), but Mr. Harvey started the “90 Day Rule” to dating (he begins talking about it at 12:12 in this video). The 90 day rule is simple, a woman should wait 90 Days to give a guy benefits, i.e. sex.
I’m sure Mr. Harvey has gotten a lot of heat since introducing this rule. It’s a radical out of left field, unthinkable rule, and I completely disagree with it. However, I understand the viewpoint of this rule.
The 90 Day rule is insane. Most people find it difficult to wait 30 days for sex, especially if other forms of physical contact is involved. Waiting 90 days for sex can be detrimental. I’ve remained committed to bad relationships because I wanted the reward (sex!) There are stages in life where I think the 90 Day Rule has a lot of merit, but regardless of age, gender, or sexual orientation, I can only believe a small segment of the population would wait such an extended period of time.
While I disagree with the 90 day rule, I understand the message. Many people end up meeting someone and having sex immediately. This was the subject of a conversation I recently had on Twitter was with a woman. When you enter a pattern of having sex immediately, you miss out on the actual value of dating. Meeting someone becomes about sex and not about caring or wanting to learn about the person. It becomes a natural occurrence without you realizing. Your unspoken actions, speech, and dating patterns would open the door to sex.
I think restraint should be explored when approaching sex with someone new. A more reasonable timeline to having sex would be 30 days, or 4 – 7 dates. This provides an opportunity to enjoy time dating, being able to determine if your date is truly a quality catch. Let’s also consider the health risks you may avoid by waiting. There’s a lot you to be learned of an individual in 30 days. If someone cannot wait, then they may not be worth your time. That’s the point Mr. Harvey is trying to make.
#1 by elle dubya on December 2, 2009 - 1:01 pm
Count me in the minority because I’m one of the rare few who would wait longer than the 90 days.
#2 by Single Gal on December 2, 2009 - 1:09 pm
I’ve been a believer in the “three date” rule but have to admit that there are certain … preferences I’d like to clear up early on in a relationship. Mostly, it’s how sex relates to intimacy, and I’d like to make sure some of that exists before engaging in a relationship (and for me, three months is like dog years!).
But I understand Mr. Harvey’s point as well. Well encapsulated, Mr. City!
#3 by maruskamorena on December 2, 2009 - 1:39 pm
There is a fine line between too soon and not long enough, and honestly it differs among people.
Waiting until you get a good chance to get to know someone is a great thing to do and helps strengthen the relationship.
I however cannot get behind any arbitrary waiting period. Whether it be 3 dates, 30 days, or 90 days. There is a time when it is right and its not the same with every relationship. A good measure is to wait until after every thought of them as “OMG what do they look like naked” has died down into “You know, I bet they would really enjoy this (insert non-sexual activity here)”. Past the point of pure lust, and a few steps into a real friendship.
#4 by Sally on December 2, 2009 - 1:40 pm
I have a slightly different 90 day rule. I believe that you never truly get to know the real person until 3 months. Everyone can be polite and hide their skeletons for 3 months. After that, polite can fade away and you basically just get too tired to hide stuff any more. Also, you figure if the person has stuck around this long, they must like me so they may like my faults too and might not get scared away as easily as they do after 1-2 weeks. I believe this applies to all relationships – romantic, business, friendship, etc. Why else would companies have a 90 day probation period for new hires?
I have been considering extending the 90 day rule to sex as well. I’ve been burned by suddenly finding out who the real person is after 90 days and by then I’ve invested more intimacy in them and I’m crushed more. I discussed my above 3 month theory with newest guy (of 2-3 weeks) and he’s curious about it. I’ve hinted about this 90 day rule too, and so far he seems ok with it, but I guess I won’t know how he really feels for another 2.5 months.
#5 by AnalyticalDiva on December 2, 2009 - 7:36 pm
In watching the interview, it struck me that what Steve Harvey is trying to do is establish a “school of thought” that I would argue is from a different time. It’s not a bad idea to wait… However, what he’s trying to do is establish the “you have to earn it” rule.
Admittedly, in this day and age, I wonder if all of his “rules” can be totally universal although I think in general the idea can be applied. But, in general, there is a broader sense of open mindedness when it comes to these things, so at the heart of it, I would say each situation is very much case by case. And it’s up to both parties to decide how long to wait. But something tells me that if a guy wants it bad enough, he’ll be willing to wait it out just a bit… Besides, wouldn’t it suck to give it up only to have the person bounce because nothing else was holding it together besides raw physical attraction?
Just my $.02.