The context in which I offered that account was in response to an assertion about marrying someone you don't know well, and in what that would mean to know someone well. My experience says "Not always," and that experience is what it is whether it was a good idea or not. I'm not defending the way I went about it, but there are details that I left out in those critical events I spoke about that provides more of my motivation. If I had time to give them, you might understand a little bit better why I went forward so quickly.
I would not recommend someone propose 2 weeks after meeting someone and be married 3 months later despite what I did. The reason is that there are obvious risks. My younger daughter who is getting married next month had a courtship much more in line with what my ideals are. However; you can't just dismiss my experience and say that someone who does like what I did will never be happy, will be inhibited, will have problems, or will get a divorce. I did not use the word "never". Thanks for clarifying what you wouldn't recommend.
Is there really any more chance that someone who does this is at any more risk than someone who has multiple partners before marriage and finds the one they think is "right?" I think there might be, but honestly, that's just what I think - I don't have anything to objectively tell me whether chances are higher in any statistically signifiant amount.
I did what I did. It is what it is. It turned out like it turned out. I can now look at it in hindsight and see 27 years of the results - I'm not guessing about those 27 years anymore, nor taking anybody's word for what it will be like. My experience means what it means, and I give it just for the benefit of someone who may find it beneficial. Because I think there may be risks, I can't give that type of courtship a recommendation. Makes complete sense.
Here's a very important additional factor. You are telling me about what Catholic girls are taught about sex, and how it is to be feared. I can see that this can bring about many inhibitions, but that is separate from being taught to abstain until marriage. The abstinence based education also asserted that sex was only for procreation, which is also a destructive message.
In my background, I was raised in a protestant church. My mother told me that God invented sex, and He thought it was a good idea or He wouldn't have invented it. She did tell me it was reserved for marriage, but that it should be fully expressed between a husband and a wife. She also got books for me about marriage and sex when I was in high school - some very explicit books written from a Christian perspective.
My wife grew up in a Buddhist household where sex wasn't really discussed. She got an absolute minimal instruction growing up. She told me she actually cried when she got her first period because she thought there was something seriously wrong with her, and her mother and sisters first laughed at her for crying, then explained it to her. She later left home because she converted to Christianity shortly before she met me, and that was considered a very bad thing in her household.
So three very different backgrounds. Can you see that these might bring about very different perspectives on sex regardless of whether the people involved waited until marriage or not? Of course.
I'm asserting that the inhibitions you are giving come more from the instructions the people received than from whether or not they abstained before marriage.
(For my wife: Just as her mother and sisters explained her period to her after it started, her mother explained sex in marriage to her very well once she was married. She was naieve, but she did not have any inhibitions when we were married. If you're looking for a contradiction in my story, yes, she was reconciled with her parents after she left home. That's another story involving a lot of cultural elements.)
Now the original poster comes on and I (admittedly looking for this because of my background) think there are cultural and moral aspects to her decisions. I recognize from my situation that morals and culture add a great deal to the marriage (looking back on 27 years, not guessing what those 27 years might be like for us), and they do not have to be an inhibition. Her morals and culture are a big part of who she is. I don't see anything beneficial in telling her her moral beliefs are in error, especially since I don't think they are. The question now becomes, what does she do from here? I don't see her experience at this point in her life as confirming anything about whether or not a person should have sex before getting married - that's a separate issue all together.
This is the angle I have answered from. Giving my experience here is just intended, just as when I share my experience elsewhere, to give an example why I may disagree with someone when I do, or just to say, "Here's the road I walked. Maybe you can get some benefit from what I learned." In the end, the OP owns the decision on what course of action she is going to take. I don't want to own the decision for her, I just want to give some benefit from experience, and let her take that into account along with others who may be willing to share experience. I learn from others, and I just want to offer the opportunity back if it is helpful. If it isn't helpful, she is certainly free to ignore it.
I'm sure I exercised some cognitive dissonance in that since we all do that. Can you understand what I'm saying, though? Do you disagree with me in this?