A man wanting to sleep with a woman on the first date isn’t a new concept. Sartre was born over 100 years ago, but he still knew about it. 

Jean-Paul Sartre, a leading philosopher in 20th century existentialism, believed humans were a combination of facticity and transcendence. In other words, we have restrictions on our current situation (facticity), but we have the potential to change that current situation through our freedom (transcendence). 

“Bad faith,” as defined by Sartre, is when we focus on either our facticity or transcendence to lie to ourselves to feel more comfortable. This can look like focusing solely on the current situation and avoiding the freedom to change it, or avoiding the current reality to solely think about what could be. 

One of Sartre’s examples of “bad faith” was the story of a woman on a first date. He wrote how this woman was picked up by a man, but she didn’t know whether or not she wanted to sleep with him that night. However, the man was sure he wanted to sleep with her. 

They went to a restaurant and as the date progressed, the man openly flirted with the woman by holding her hand and displaying his intentions. However, the woman didn’t want to decide whether to deny or reject his advances just yet, so she let her hand go limp while he was holding it. 

She mentally separated herself from her body and chose to believe that his compliments were not sexual; her focus was solely on their intellects interacting. Sartre believed this disassociation from her body meant that she was denying the reality that her body was free and not an object. This type of denial to stay comfortable is what Sartre deems “bad faith.”

Last year, the night before I had heard this example in my existentialism class, I went on a first date with, funnily enough, someone who was in that class with me. As my professor told us this story the next day, I kept relating every detail to my date the night before. 

This guy and I had plans for a few days to grab drinks one evening. His initial idea had been a “chill hang” at my apartment, but I told him I would rather take things slow and go out. The date followed a very similar pattern to Sartre’s example. We met up at the bar and from the very beginning, he was extremely flirtatious and outgoing. On the other hand, I was more reserved. When I noticed his advances I didn’t jerk away or lean into them, I just ignored them. According to Sartre, I had acted in “bad faith,” but in my opinion, I wasn’t doing anything unethical.

I’ve had a variety of first dates in a variety of different settings. Whether it be at a restaurant, a bar, on a hike or out for a drive. None were the same, but they were all intentionally set up to get to know each other, not to hookup. 

It takes me a while to warm up to someone – not a “A Walk To Remember” kind of while, but more than meeting them just once. Time after time, I feel rushed during these first interactions to decide if I’m attracted to them enough to go home with them.   

Growing up, the media, my friends and my mom always warned me against sex on the first date, saying that men lose respect when a girl “puts out” easily. 

Over time, I’ve become more intentional about who I’m meeting up with and in what setting. I personally don’t understand the appeal of going on a date if I simply want a hookup. So, when I’m intentionally looking to date, I avoid people who are making any type of sexual comments in our conversations leading up to our first time meeting. Regardless of my vetting procedures, I’m still constantly faced with the pressure to decide whether to have sex on the first date. 

In a 2007 study, over 200 American college students wrote scripts for how they believed first-dates should go. Male participants interpreted a first date in more sexual terms, whereas female participants interpreted it in more romantic and social terms. The women had more varied and complex scripts, including things like talking to friends before and after the date and sharing a goodnight kiss. On the other hand, men had more redundant scripts that included more sexual intimacy, especially if the woman initiated the date. 

Whether it be laughing expressively so they could touch my thigh while waving their arms, resting their hand on mine when it was on the table, or standing uncomfortably close behind me if we were looking off at a view, I’ve seen these moves enough times to know they’re unnatural and calculated. 

It’s a tricky situation. If I openly reject the advances, the date will probably go sour at the beginning. On the other hand, I don’t want to accept them because I don’t want the advances to become more explicit. 

In these situations, I do exactly what Sartre’s woman did. I shut down. My hand goes limp on the table when they hold it. I pretend not to notice when they touch my thigh and not flinch when I realize they’re a lot closer behind me than I thought. 

I try to focus solely on our conversation to get to know them better, but the entire time, I’m distracted by making sure I’m not reciprocating any type of sexual advance. It’s exhausting, and I’m not very good at it. I usually just come off as extremely uninterested and quiet, which is not typical for me. This makes the guy standoffish which means he usually wraps the date up pretty quickly and – spoiler alert – a second date is never discussed. 

Every time I get back from a date, my friends ask me if I liked the guy and if I will see him again, and every time I can’t come up with a surefire answer. I can however confidently describe all his advances and how I responded to them. 

Women are expected to walk this tightrope where we can’t reciprocate a man’s advances as he’ll lose respect for us, but we can’t reject them entirely or else he won’t like us. 

I struggle with this idea of “bad faith” because it’s based on the fact that Sartre thinks the woman on the date is in denial about the man’s sexual advances because she’s not reacting to them. 

I disagree. I think the decision to not react is a reaction in itself. I’m consciously choosing to keep my hand limp when a man who I just met holds it. How can Sartre be sure the woman in his story isn’t?

From any man’s perspective, it can be much easier to label the woman as indecisive or in denial. It’s much harder to believe that the problem is the man forcing this decision on her so soon. 

In my eyes, the woman on the date in Sartre’s story was very much aware of the situation– her date just couldn’t take a hint.