If there's no sex, then there's no romantic relationship. It's platonic.
It's perfectly okay for two people to have a platonic, sexless series of dates where they get to know each other and see if something romantic can develop. But if there's no sex, there's no romantic relationship. Sex is what makes the relationship more than just a friendship.
Not having sex right away is a good and wise thing, but not having sex for some kind of arbitrary, extremely long stretch of time, is essentially telling the guy exactly what he's assumed: "Even though we've been dating X months, I still don't trust you enough. You still haven't earned it yet."
It's a funny situation. A woman can jump right into bed with a guy, then a year later, get out of a bad relationship with him. Then fast-forward to today, and she wants to move slower with a new guy. Develop a deeper connection.
So this new guy waits months and months, jumps through hoops, makes her feel special, and puts in all of this effort to demonstrate how emotionally invested he is. How committed he is. When she jumped right into bed with the last guy.
She allegedly loves this new guy more and has a deeper more important connection with him -- but has sex with him less. What sense does that make? She loves him more so she has sex less and makes him do more to "earn" it? That's backward.
It's not a trade relationship, one doesn't earn sex. It isn't some kind of reward either. Either they want it both or not. In this case it appears not. Her previous relationship has certainly influenced her attitude to sex now, and precisely for this reason he should respect it. He wants to be a better guy than the other one, doesn't he?
And that's fine. They're platonically dating then, as friends, to see if anything romantic develops. There's no rule against that.
But without sex, there's not a romantic relationship. Withholding intimacy is the exact opposite of love.
Having sex less with someone you love more is ass-backward. Imposing a bunch of arbitrary rules and barriers to intimacy with somebody you love more, essentially to make them prove themselves by enduring your barriers, is downright sadistic. It's a power play. It doesn't matter what the reason is for her power play -- it's still a power play.
Some dude broke her heart in the past, she didn't have the power to stop it, so now she wants to have the power in her relationships. So sex happens if and when she wants, per her rules, her barriers, her standards. Well, this guy she's dating now has power, too -- he has the power to impose his own standards, and leave if they're not met.
If two people agree to be in a committed "relationship" (I would argue that this isn't a romantic relationship), then sex should be the default. Not lack of sex (unless mutually agreed upon). Because if they're exclusive with one another, then when one person decides not to have sex, she's making the decision for both of them to be celibate. What if the guy doesn't want to be celibate? Why does she have the power to control his sex life? If they're equal partners in a "relationship", why would her desire not to have sex be more important or more controlling than his desire to have sex? What right does she have to make unilateral decisions about his sex life?
Perhaps you failed to notice that she makes decisions about her sex life. He is free to walk away at any moment, jerk off, visit a whore and so on. If he wants sex with her, then it's not just his sex life. Both have to consent to have sex, not just him.
When entering the relationship he has agreed to abstain for an indeterminate time, until she's ready. Now he's trying to coerce her, so its not she making a decision, but he trying to force her to change what he'd accepted before.
No. The default is always no sex unless and until all the partners (not necessarily two) consent. Sex is not a right.
All of this is fine and good if and only if two people are platonically dating, maybe to see if something romantic develops.
Once a man and woman become exclusive, they've agreed not to have sex with other people. That one particular woman is the only woman the man can have sex with, and he's the only man she can have sex with. Unless one of them violates their relationship by cheating.
That means that if one party chooses not to have sex, he or she has forced the other party to also not have sex. (Unless the other party cheats or leaves the relationship.)
Outside of a committed relationship, fine, sure, the default can be no-sex. Because both the guy and the girl are free to be dating a hundred other people. The party denied sex can just go have sex with someone else. The person denying sex has not unilaterally decided that the other party is celibate.
But in a committed relationship, a sexual rejection becomes a much weightier choice, because the person choosing not to have sex is making that choice for her partner as well, possibly against his will.
And that happens sometimes. People sometimes aren't sexually compatible. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to walk, and as you've noted, this guy is free to walk away at any moment.
But because he's a good guy, he wants to give her a chance to save the relationship first instead of just leaving. So he told her enough is enough. He agreed not to have sex right away. He's worked with her for four months, without sex. This sexless dating period has gone on longer than he initially expected, and at this point, he thinks the girl has some serious trust issues. So he has, very fairly and very honestly, expressed his standards and his expectations, so that she has the option to save the relationship if she wants.
His wants, his expectations, and his standards are every bit as valuable and every bit as important as hers. He's an equal part of the relationship. If his wants, expectations, and standards aren't being met, he has every right to express that, and to tell her he's leaving if things don't change.
He is just as important as she is.
There is, absolutely, hands-down, a universal right to sex.
Try telling homosexuals that it should be illegal for them to have sex. It used to be in many states. See how it goes when a liberal-minded guy like you tries to tell them that they don't have the right to have sex.
Everybody has the individual right to make choices regarding his or her own sex life. That's why this woman isn't required to have sex with this guy, even though they're dating. And that's why this guy isn't required to stay with her, and why lack of sex is a completely valid and legitimate reason to not date somebody.
These people have a right to make their own sexual decisions. He doesn't have a right to force her to have sex with him, and she doesn't have a right to force him to be celibate.
It's quite simple. There's no universal right to sex, in a committed relationship or not. There's also nothing forcing him to remain. If he'd agreed from the beginning to wait until she's ready, and he did, then he should simply wait. He's the one breaking what they both agreed to, not she. She isn't forcing him to anything, just asking to keep his word, which she trusted him to do in the first place. If his dick is too itchy for him to do exactly that, then, well, she was right to abstain and perhaps should look for a better party.
Also, three months is not long. There are people who take years. Again, if he cannot keep his word, then perhaps he should go to a brothel or fap off, and not be looking for, like, any relationship.
It's in fact more about trust than sex.
Yes, there is a right to the hands down sex, certainly.
There's no right to sex unless every concerned party consents. And no right to demand consent under any circumstances, this must always be freely given.
(Which for this guy probably means hands down sex precisely)
Exactly. And since he promised to wait until she's ready, your attempts to make her the guilty party are, frankly, laughable.
She doesn't try to. He was the one who agreed to wait, and if he wants sex from her, he will have to.