In standard dating, meaning, in person, and not in the preliminary meeting stages online, there are often a different set of red flags and deal breakers. These are usually connected to the dynamic that is created through several interactions.
Swift need to have sex. It's like "sealing the deal"-women who want to get you into bed right away are in some sense catering to their own insecurities. My best friend calls this the Magic P*y Syndrome. Like, if they just give themselves over to you, you'll be convinced of their value, and all shall be well. For reasons mentioned previously, sex too early in a dating relationship is always a bad idea. We find ourselves in an intimate clench, the hormones take over and before you know it, we are justifying what is without argument, a bad decision.
I consider myself a modern woman, but I have to admit that the old fashioned approach to building relationships is often the one least fraught with peril. There is something valuable in getting to know someone without the added confusion of sexual activity. When you insist on a more gradual approach, you have the opportunity to know how you feel about someone based on many other things aside from the chemically-charged experience of shared orgasm, which can more often than not be misleading, and serves only to cloud thinking.
Should you actually have that first date, it should be followed by many others before intimacy is explored. I can say this knowing that I've operated from the opposite paradigm. It never works out well if sex is introduced early. Intimacy too soon also creates expectation. It introduces dynamics that are at once confusing and fraught with the potential for conflict. The old school idea that you should make friends and spend a lot of time getting to know each other on a platonic level, is, as much as I hate to admit it, the WAY TO GO. Every comment, every action, is measured against the yardstick of sexual emotion. This prevents any pure exploration of the friendship aspect or the partnership potential as it will always be colored by the emotions that accompany sex.
Swift intimacy also tends to encourage the lowering of our own standards. We are much more likely to tolerate certain behaviors and character flaws, if we are having sex with a woman, than if we are not. This is decidedly a chemical issue, as the addictive quality of Endorphins, Dopamine, Oxytocin and other brain chemicals keeps us from making decisions from a rational point of view. When these chemicals ebb after the honeymoon phase, you'd better have something else on which to focus your attention-and those things are mostly about the Five C's, which I'll expound upon later.
Another consideration in the sex-too-early paradigm is that intimacy creates a sense of obligation. It causes us to avoid dissolving a relationship that might not be a good one for us, because we don't want to hurt someone's feelings, or we are afraid of reprisal in a community that is often small, wherein the Grapevine can significantly alter your reputation. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, as the saying goes. Now, while I believe a rejected woman who responds with reprisals and bitterness is certainly not a healthy woman, this does happen frequently, and it's bound to affect our ability to be honest when we decide we don't feel the special connection that signifies a longterm commitment.
Swift Emotional Attachment. You've known each other a week, and have gone out on several dates, or perhaps spent a weekend together, when you notice the woman talking about future plans together that include a little bit more than dinner and movie-a presumption on her part that you will be spending even more time together, pooling resources, or even statements about how she would buy you clothes, pay a bill, give you money, take you on a cruise or even buy you a car-Caution! This is way too much, way too fast.
If you inform her that you don't see the relationship going there, and she becomes agitated and even angry and accuses you of playing games or of inflicting some sort of damage on her, be very wary. This is not the response of someone who has a solid emotional foundation.
M.D., a 41 year old Body Worker and mother from Kansas City, offered her own example. "After one dinner, a gal thought that I was the one for her, being she had never met anyone like me. I made it clear to her that I was not feeling it with her but she continued for a month or so to let me know how I 'broke her heart.' How the hell do you break a heart over dinner?!"
This type of emotional attachment disorder is also pretty common among lesbians. But make no mistake: whether it's straight or gay people, it's still a red flag, and still something that you should avoid. Remember that you don't "owe" a woman possession of your heart, just be-cause she launches herself into commitment so fast. You only owe her honesty. If honesty is too much for her simply because it's not the scenario she manufactured in her head, then she is neither stable, nor equipped to handle a healthy relationship.
Inconsistencies in Information. If she tells you one thing and does another, or if the statements she makes conflict with other statements she makes, feel free to get to the bottom of it. Question her about those inconsistencies. If she can provide no satisfactory explanation, avoids responding to it altogether, or worse, becomes agitated or angry, an alarm should go off in your head. Take that as a sign that there are some honesty red flags. This is a trust issue as well as an issue of integrity and character. If you can't trust a woman with something as simple as consistency in her statements, then you certainly can't trust her with your heart.
Unwillingness to provide proof of her STD status. While Lesbians are still considered a segment of the population least at risk for infection of Sexually Transmitted Disease, that doesn't mean they aren't at risk at all, nor that you shouldn't be very judicious about your partners. "STDs are extraordinarily common," The folks at holisticwisdom.com say. "For example, over 40 million people are estimated to have chronic genital herpes, and there are an estimated 4 million new Chlamydia cases a year." It's also important to note that many of those infected show no symptoms, and may not even be aware that they are.