# Pre-marital sex? What's your opinion?



## DeeKay1 (Mar 3, 2010)

MEN........ Let's say that you are dating a woman and the two of you are getting along great. After awhile, she makes it absolutely clear to you that she's 100% committed to remaining a virgin until marriage. In other words, there's a zero percent chance of having sexual intercourse with her unless you were to marry her.

Would you continue to date her? Would there be any chance for a long-term commitment to her?


Women....... Just the opposite scenario... Let's say you're dating a man and the two of you are getting along great. After awhile, he makes it absolutely clear to you that he's 100% committed to remaining a virgin until marriage. In other words, there's a zero percent chance of having sexual intercourse with him unless you were to marry him.

Would you continue to date him? Would there be any chance for a long-term commitment to him?


----------



## lisakifttherapy (Jul 31, 2007)

For some - it's a deal breaker...for others if the love is strong enough and they really believe this person is "the one," they tough it out.

Not an easy situation for sure!


----------



## 63Vino (Dec 23, 2009)

No question.

I would move on (not continue relationship) because relationship is important and everything to me... NOT marriage.

So i would want relationship FULLY developed before i EVER considered making a contract!!!


Id say that divorce rate alone implies that saying "I do" is in no way a measure of relationship maturity and compatibility.
To me abstaining is fine, but when you get naked it should be based on relationship, not marriage.

May be society rules but in my mind, you're signing a contract and commiting yourself for life without all the information... NOT somthing I'd EVER do.


----------



## Momof3kids (Nov 24, 2009)

DeeKay1 said:


> Women....... Just the opposite scenario... Let's say you're dating a man and the two of you are getting along great. After awhile, he makes it absolutely clear to you that he's 100% committed to remaining a virgin until marriage. In other words, there's a zero percent chance of having sexual intercourse with him unless you were to marry him.
> 
> Would you continue to date him? Would there be any chance for a long-term commitment to him?


As much as I'd like to say yes, the more truthful answer is probably no. I would respect him greatly for his commitment, but I'm not sure I'd want to put all in without some sort of test drive...


----------



## larniegrl (Oct 7, 2009)

I think it is awesome if a couple can wait until marriage to have sex. All couples are different though...

As a woman, if a man was the tell me that he was a virgin and expected to remain so until he was married...he would go up 10 notches in my eyes. Just because sexual abstinence is SO HARD in today's day and age, and it is especially hard for men. It would tell me (granted if he isn't a recluse and decent looking) that he has a strong self-will.

I waited to have sex until I was married to my current husband. It made our early courtship hard, because our chemistry was strong...and I had this feeling that I was really "missing out". Yet now, three years later...my sexual desire and bond to him has always been strong....pretty much everything else has gone to ****, but I've never stopped wanting him...sometimes I wonder if I ever will. 

I guess my example is one that waiting doesn't necessarily make a difference on whether you will stay together.


----------



## Kagonu (Mar 5, 2010)

When me and my fiance met and talked about dating, I made it very obvious that I wanted to wait until marriage, for many good reasons. We have been together for 3 and a half years, have lived together for a year, planning on marrying this summer and have yet to have sex. 

It makes it easier, being that we are both virgins. It sort of became a mutual agreement. It's very possible to wait if you're committed to each other, and have very strong reasons for not going all the way. My fear of pregnancy really keeps me abstinent, and he won't force me into doing anything I'm not ready for.


----------



## Dancing Nancie (Jul 1, 2008)

I wouldn't get in a relationship where sex was off limits. Those are issues that are normally discussed up front, and with how I was before I got married, there would be no chance to even get the point it could be called a relationship.


----------



## publicme (Mar 4, 2010)

I like the mix here of comments like 63Vino's contasted with Kagonu's. A theme seems to be those who live more for the present, articulating a newer model aimed at getting over traditional problems/perspectives, while others control (restrict) their behavior more now for the sake of some future rewards, and stick to more purist traditional viewpoints.


----------



## steve71 (Feb 5, 2010)

If there was provision for a loving, inventive sharing of sensual pleasures in each other but stopping short of intercourse I think I could manage that. Just.

If all forms of sensual giving were off-limits I would simply find that hard to understand. It would seem to split off sexuality in a way that might store up future problems as well as huge frustration in the here-and-now. That kind of denial just might swing my decision.


----------



## 63Vino (Dec 23, 2009)

publicme said:


> I like the mix here of comments like 63Vino's contasted with Kagonu's. A theme seems to be those who live more for the present, articulating a newer model aimed at getting over traditional problems/perspectives, while others control (restrict) their behavior more now for the sake of some future rewards, and stick to more purist traditional viewpoints.


I certainly accept "live more for the present" lablel. 
I would like to know.. I am truely curious IF your relationship is solidified, you are seriously "there" from a relationship perspective... What are the "future rewards" you get for abstaining? Gold stars in the society norms commitee? what?????????


----------



## larniegrl (Oct 7, 2009)

Most of the "waiting to get married" crowd have a very SHORT engagement/dating period. It is a rush to the altar in alot of ways because sex is something that can only be avoided for so long between two people who are in love. 

I do look back and I would have waited longer to get married to my husband...if we had had sex. There was so much pressure that we rushed into something...it would have been better had we just taken our time and gotten to know eachother a little more up front. Maybe we could have avoided what is happening now?


----------



## Kagonu (Mar 5, 2010)

I feel that people rushing into things, such as sex too soon or marriage too soon is immaturity. Of course, being only 20 and watching my friends screw up their lives by rushing into things was a blatant sign of immaturity. I don't mean to imply that anyone here who did such a thing is immature, but my observations of my friends solidified some decisions I've made about my relationship and my feelings on the matter. 

I've had friends end up with children who are clearly incapable at raising them properly, who get married because she's pregnant, or who just completely screw up good friendships and get into bad relationships because the sex is good. Just seems like a lot of drama that shouldn't be dealt with this early in life.

The old saying is oh so true: You don't miss what you don't have.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

DeeKay1 said:


> she makes it absolutely clear to you that she's 100% committed to remaining a virgin until marriage. In other words, there's a zero percent chance of having sexual intercourse with her unless you were to marry her.
> 
> Would you continue to date her? Would there be any chance for a long-term commitment to her?
> 
> ...


 I WAS one of those women who went into my relationships letting the guy know (so he was not wasting his time)..."You will not get into my pants unless you love me enough to Marry me" .....and like clockwork, I was dumped by every guy who gave me any consideration, shortly after. Until I met my husband, and I clearly remember thinking "Well, he MUST be the one!! God answered my prayers". 

For me, waiting was "Not having Intercourse", that was MY Bar, MY boundary. Other Sensual touching/expression, I came to learn very quickly, I enjoyed heavily & in all honestly, IF he would have had NO interest in that or felt it was WRONG / EVIL / SINFUL, I could NOT have stayed with him as >>> I would have VERY MUCH questioned if he desired me, and would have been afraid to go into a marraige with such a man. I would not have felt that was NORMAL or healthy, I NEEDED to know while we were courting, even without the act of intercourse, that "THIS MAN WANTS ME BADLY" before I could say "I do". 

So he Respected, but he Struggled. We made it work by taking care of each others needs in other ways, this allowed us to explore our sexuality, grow emotionally and still save that part of ourselves for the Wedding Night. I would never change anything about this precious time before our marraige. 

It gave us something to look forward too and it allowed us to enjoy our courtship and NOT rush , because of raging hormones into getting married too soon - as many who try to "repress" these longings DO.


----------



## DeeKay1 (Mar 3, 2010)

What are the "future rewards" you get for abstaining? Gold stars in the society norms commitee? what?????????[/QUOTE]

I believe that HAVING pre-marital sex is our societal norm, while ABSTAINING is against the norm. With that being said, abstaining would not warrant a "Gold Star" from the societal norms committee!

I believe that women would reap the benefits of abstaining more that men would. "Out-of-wedlock" sex places a much heavier burden on the woman, because when sex occurs before there's enough of a commitment to become a married couple, the woman is usually the one "holding the bag" if she finds herself pregnant, while the man often runs in the other direction. In many cases of pre-marital sex, the commitment to raise a child together, should a pregnancy occur, just isn't there.

The woman is left to make the decision as to whether to keep the baby, or is often pressured by the man to terminate the pregnancy. Or, if she chooses to keep the baby, she typically ends up raising it on her own and often has to fight (often unsuccessfully) to get child support.

Unfortunately, men are more than willing to engage in pre-marital sex, but all too often they run from the consequences should a pregnancy occur.

So, in cases where an unwanted pregnancy results, it's likely that abstaining might have been a "reward" in disguise.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I so agree with everything DeeKay1 said, very very true! :iagree:

 The question is: What IS premarital sex? I have found People's definitions are very different. 

Many feel "Heavy Petting" is also Pre-marital sex. I am curious to know who feels this way and why?

My personal boundaries safely covered the concerns DeeKay1
raised in his post. But what we did many Christians would have found Sinful & would be classified as Pre-marital sex.


----------



## DeeKay1 (Mar 3, 2010)

larniegrl said:


> Most of the "waiting to get married" crowd have a very SHORT engagement/dating period. It is a rush to the altar in alot of ways because sex is something that can only be avoided for so long between two people who are in love.
> 
> I do look back and I would have waited longer to get married to my husband...if we had had sex. There was so much pressure that we rushed into something...it would have been better had we just taken our time and gotten to know eachother a little more up front. Maybe we could have avoided what is happening now?


With all due respect, larniegirl, I'm not so sure that all of those who abstain rush to the altar because they cannot control their sexual urges. My wife and I went out for three years before we got married, and waited until our wedding night to have intercourse. We set our wedding date based on the fact that we believed our relationship was deep enough to make that enormous commitment. It had nothing to do with sex.

My definition of "rushing to the altar" is one that is not based on the amount of time a couple has dated before marriage. To me, "rushing to the altar" means this: a couple gets married before their relationship has reached the level of commitment necessary to effectively meet the demands and responsibilities of everyday life found within marriage. Also, before exchanging wedding vows, it is absolutely essential for both the man and woman to reach the point where their partner's needs are at least equal to or greater than their own. Show me a couple whose relationship is "on the rocks," and I'll show you a couple where at least one of the partners is selfish.

Some couples may reach that level of commitment very quickly, others may take more time, and others may never reach it. Those who never reach it, regardless of whether they went out for 5 months or 4 years, run the risk that their marriage will not last.

Also, I know of many couples whose premarital relationship was based primarily on the fact that they enjoyed an outstanding sexual relationship. And, they believed that that a great sexual relationship equated to a loving relationship. Unfortunately, in many cases, sex in a relationship has little or nothing to do with love. Many of those couples whose premarital relationships were based on "great sex" are now divorced.

Ask any man this question: when you have sex with your girlfriend, is it a "deeply loving" experience, or is it simply "sex."
So, unfortunately, while the woman may view sex as a means of expressing love and affection, few men think of it in that way.
That's why most men with hit the road if they find out a woman won't "put out" prior to marriage.


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

Theoretically, I could see dating a guy who wants to remain a virgin until marriage--as long as he didn't expect me to do the same. In real life, however, the whole "saving myself 'til marriage" thing tends to be tied to a whole lot of other stuff, not simply to one's relationship to God.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

DeeKay1 said:


> With all due respect, larniegirl, I'm not so sure that all of those who abstain rush to the altar because they cannot control their sexual urges. My wife and I went out for three years before we got married, and waited until our wedding night to have intercourse. We set our wedding date based on the fact that we believed our relationship was deep enough to make that enormous commitment. It had nothing to do with sex.
> 
> My definition of "rushing to the altar" is one that is not based on the amount of time a couple has dated before marriage. To me, "rushing to the altar" means this: a couple gets married before their relationship has reached the level of commitment necessary to effectively meet the demands and responsibilities of everyday life found within marriage. Also, before exchanging wedding vows, it is absolutely essential for both the man and woman to reach the point where their partner's needs are at least equal to or greater than their own. Show me a couple whose relationship is "on the rocks," and I'll show you a couple where at least one of the partners is selfish.
> 
> ...


Not sure I understand where you are coming from with your question - and your position is somewhat contradictory. 

And once again, in discussions of this nature, perspective is everything. There is a world of difference between a couple of 18 year olds pledging abstinence until they have found their 'soulmate' and not having come across that soulmate by the time you are in your mid-thirties. Abstinence loses it's charm and novelty as time wears on.

According to your position, sex isn't really a barometer for _anything_ pertaining to marriage, other than the weight you give it. And I wouldn't really argue with that. I understand your position of making 'sex' the last gift wrapped in shiny paper with a bow that you choose to unwrap with your partner - I just don't share that view. 

There are plenty of people in the course of your life whom you may love - but do not, and should not marry, whether you are having sex or not. But equally, in the event you have found your soulmate; if your sex life is broken, your marriage is broken.

No marriage is fail-safe. Not a single one. Recognizing this should be at the top of the list for any successful marriage, because it means both partners acknowledge the work that is necessary to preserve the union.

Much like 63Vino, I just don't understand mindset behind abstinence - assuming that we are referencing responsible adults. 

POLL: American Sex Survey - ABC News


----------



## larniegrl (Oct 7, 2009)

DeeKay1...no problem. = ) Yet, that is why I said "most couples". Growing up in a strictly religious circle...I've seen numerous 20-30 couples who met as virgins, waited until the wedding night...and the average meeting to wedding time was under a year. These were couples in their mid-20's. That is not neccessarily a bad thing...to get married quickly to someone you adore...except that I've seen over and over again that these couples come from similiar religious backgrounds, but they really just met. 

Personally, I believe that waiting to have sex until college or beyond is a good thing. Because our culture the "norm" is to have sex very early in relationships...we have these adolescents/mini-adults making life-long decisions at 18. 

I was not equipped emotionally or mentally to handle sex at 18. Now, I thought I was ready, but looking back now...I am glad I waited. Yet, when I met my husband...and we kissed for the first time...it was like someone hit me with fireworks. The idea of waiting 3 years...to be with him and also stay a virgin...would have killed me. 

Sex has always meant to be the bonding agent between two people that love eachother.


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

Deejo and Vino, I have a hard time figuring out a healthy mindset for abstinence until marriage. Knowing that so much of the history is about controlling female sexuality, I am very suspicious that the desire to remain a virgin until marriage stems from some pretty serious insecurities--insecurities about their bodies (women) and insecurities about size and performance (men). I've noticed that men seem to choose remaining virgins as a way to claim the right to marry a virgin, while women are a lot less likely to insist that their partner have the same [lack of] history.


----------



## larniegrl (Oct 7, 2009)

sisters359...I think you have point. Although, in our sexual revolution as females in this society...I think we have swung to the opposite side of the scale. We have these little sisters (12-18 yrs old) who are so sexual...and it is stemming from some the same insecurities.


----------



## 63Vino (Dec 23, 2009)

sisters359 said:


> Deejo and Vino, I have a hard time figuring out a healthy mindset for abstinence until marriage. Knowing that so much of the history is about controlling female sexuality, I am very suspicious that the desire to remain a virgin until marriage stems from some pretty serious insecurities--insecurities about their bodies (women) and insecurities about size and performance (men). I've noticed that men seem to choose remaining virgins as a way to claim the right to marry a virgin, while women are a lot less likely to insist that their partner have the same [lack of] history.


Well that very well could be.. i have to admit im pretty ignorant of that potential as a factor because its completely against who i am.
I am NOT a subscriber to the double standard and very much admire a sexually free woman.. its the best. 
Its not my fault if what you say is true, and i still have to stick by what i say... i couldnt "tie the knot" until the relationship is solid on all aspects..
So not likely at my age I have to face this (virgin stuff) but if there were any (virgins abstaining untill afer marriage)... i would be excluding them from my list of potential candidates LOL


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

sisters359 said:


> Deejo and Vino, I have a hard time figuring out a healthy mindset for abstinence until marriage. Knowing that so much of the history is about controlling female sexuality, I am very suspicious that the desire to remain a virgin until marriage stems from some pretty serious insecurities--insecurities about their bodies (women) and insecurities about size and performance (men). I've noticed that men seem to choose remaining virgins as a way to claim the right to marry a virgin, while women are a lot less likely to insist that their partner have the same [lack of] history.


Like so many other aspects pertaining to 'Love and Marriage', I don't see abstinence as anything other than marketing, particularly on the religious side.

Your point would implicate it as an insidiously successful marketing program. Historically I can easily reconcile this perspective as a way of asserting 'ownership' and assuring paternity. This undoubtedly remains the case in most eastern and middle eastern cultures. Don't know if the same can be said of U.S. or other western cultures.

From a personal perspective I saw it as a way for a woman to assert a degree of control in closing the deal with a male whom she wants to marry. In either case, I do view it as a repressive conviction rather than a noble virtue.

I didn't want a virgin. I wanted a partner that fully understood the rules of the game, knew her way around the infield, and enjoyed the sport. 

Do I advocate young kids having sex? No.


----------



## DeeKay1 (Mar 3, 2010)

One of the differences between having sex within marriage versus having sex outside of marriage is that within marriage the husband and wife have made a lifelong commitment to one another. So, as part of the marital covenant, the husband and wife will raise a child together if the wife becomes pregnant.

In the case of premarital sex, the lifelong commitment between the man and the woman typically doesn't exist as it would within marriage.

So, for all the men out there who are in favor of premarital sex..... what would you do if your girfriend happened to get pregnant, but your level of commitment to her was such that there was no way the two of you would get married?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

DeeKay1 said:


> One of the differences between having sex within marriage versus having sex outside of marriage is that within marriage the husband and wife have made a lifelong commitment to one another.


I suppose what I am trying to determine is how 'fixed' your point of view is. Although overwhelmingly, the members of this forum subscribe to and support your presumption that marriage is a lifelong commitment (myself included), the reality is - your presumption is false. Marriage is _not_ a lifelong commitment. Even in marriages that do not end in divorce, marriage _seldom_ remains the covenant that we ascribe to it.



> In the case of premarital sex, the lifelong commitment between the man and the woman typically doesn't exist as it would within marriage.
> 
> So, for all the men out there who are in favor of premarital sex..... what would you do if your girfriend happened to get pregnant, but your level of commitment to her was such that there was no way the two of you would get married?


I can't shake the notion that you are assigning a connotation of premarital sex and casual sex as one and the same - and they are not. 

In your example above, assuming there is no sense of long term commitment, ideally any man worth his salt is going to act in the best interest of the child, either through financial support, or active parenting. But, much like marriage, the ideal and the reality aren't always in alignment. The other option of course depending upon the views of the parties, could include terminating the pregnancy.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, it really does depend on the age of the people in question.

An 18-year-old virgin holding out for marriage at 21 is kinda sweet and cute. And an easy thing to do compared to, say, a 35-year-old virgin holding out for marriage at 38.

I would venture to say also, that a virginal 35-year-old seems a bit odd. as in not holding out, but more, avoiding intimacy.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I feel every woman who engages in pre-marital sex is taking some hard risks, she is opening herself up to possible abandonment, pregnancy and devestation if the man leaves her & finds another on a whim. For ME personally, I was not willing to take that risk when I was young. I knew I personally could not have handled it EMOTIONALLY if I gave that much of myself to a man and he threw it away. 

But I do not Judge others who do this. Not everyone who has premarital is irresponsible. Many can bounce back emotionally from loosing a boyfriend, this risk of loss for some is way more inviting than trying to live celibate while waiting for Mr. Right. If the woman feels very strongly about this and she IS responsible enough to use birth control, then all that is left is religious belief to stand in the way. I personally see no harm. Many of these responsible people infact do end up getting married & living happily ever after. So for them, who did they really hurt ? God? 

I think the bigger concerns is pregnancy before marraige and/or passing diseases. 

I DO judge the fact society often has to pick up the tab of all these unwed mothers babies. I sometimes catch the Maury show on tv, many of these women do not even know who the father is ! The show seems SOOO outragous, I sometimes wonder if it is all fake. 

Children truly suffer because of our careless actions, and that is THE REAL ISSUE. 

Abstinance programs in school is a nice idea, but in reality, most just cant live up to these expectations, Hormones often override our minds when we get alone with the opposite sex. It has been this way from the beginning of time, it was just kept more Hush Hush back then.


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

> I knew I personally could not have handled it EMOTIONALLY if I gave that much of myself to a man and he threw it away.


I felt that way for a while--but got over it! Once I quit thinking of my sexuality as something to be protected and started thinking of it as something to be enjoyed, everything fell into place. 

Like everything else, the right to make our choices mean we need to accept responsibility--like avoiding unintended pregnancy or disease, and protecting ourselves from physically dangerous situations. All of these require some planning ahead, and yet if a girl is continuously told she should NOT be having sex, she's not going to plan ahead. I would so much rather see the message be something like, "When you are willing to take responsibility to avoid pregnancy and disease, to keep yourself safe, AND to insist on a pleasurable experience for yourself, then you are adult enough to be having sex."


----------



## larniegrl (Oct 7, 2009)

definitely agree.


----------



## DeeKay1 (Mar 3, 2010)

Deejo said:


> I suppose what I am trying to determine is how 'fixed' your point of view is. Although overwhelmingly, the members of this forum subscribe to and support your presumption that marriage is a lifelong commitment (myself included), the reality is - your presumption is false. Marriage is _not_ a lifelong commitment. Even in marriages that do not end in divorce, marriage _seldom_ remains the covenant that we ascribe to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sadly, I agree with what you say here, especially where you say that my presumption that marriage being a lifelong commitment is false. It makes me wonder why so many even bother to get married in the first place. After all, at a wedding the bride and groom stand before a priest, minister or judge and say that they take each other "in sickness and health, for richer or for poorer, till death do us part," while in reality they should be saying, "I take you as long as everything is going okay, and when I feel as though things are no longer going the way I had hoped, I'm leaving you."

And, along with that lack of permanent commitment comes the sad reality of way too many children growing up with one of their parents not being a part of their lives, not to mention the baggage that many children have to carry around as a result of watching their parents' marriages fall apart.

Also, please know that I don't wish to connote that premarital sex and casual sex are one in the same. All I'm saying is this: even "responsible" couples can become pregnant; it happens all the time. And, when that situation arises, it is typically the woman who is left "holding the bag," while the man runs the other way, leaving the woman to raise the child on her own, leaving her with the decision of whether or not to keep the baby, or pressuring her to terminate the pregnancy.

Gee, based on your statement, "Marriage is not a lifelong commitment," one has to wonder whether the institution of marriage should even exist, since many of those who stand at the altar and recite their vows don't even mean what they're saying. Why bother to even get married; just live together and save the money you'd spend on wedding clothes and an expensive wedding reception.


----------



## publicme (Mar 4, 2010)

63Vino said:


> I would like to know.. I am truely curious IF your relationship is solidified, you are seriously "there" from a relationship perspective... What are the "future rewards" you get for abstaining? Gold stars in the society norms commitee? what?????????


I don't take such a potentially harsh view of those who may choose to abstain. They are simply putting stock in the promise of the marriage contract, saying it's worth restraining so they can be clear on the terms of the marriage vows. It may all go to hell and not work out as planned, but it seems like a rational choice. It's like saving money in the bank and at a certain point, you're free to spend and enjoy the work that went into saving (planning).


----------



## larniegrl (Oct 7, 2009)

DeeKay1...I think there are alot of couples who don't get married now for those reasons. They don't want it to be just "the thing to do"...and believe their relationship is based on a deeper level of intimacy. 

Anyone can speak those words, and most people do run when it the marriage becomes...well, a marriage. I don't there is the social pressure in our society for couples to make the marriage work. You look at other nations, and those couples are surrounded by extended family and relationships where it is expected that whatever is happening...that they will work it out. Also, we base marriage on romantic love...which comes and goes at times. 

Publicview...I think people that do abstain from sex until marriage have done an amazing and beautiful thing. Yet, I guess the thing that bothers me the most is when I see couples who either "rush" into things because they are horney...or their sexual connection is tepid enough that they can wait for years without having sex.


----------



## 63Vino (Dec 23, 2009)

publicme said:


> I don't take such a potentially harsh view of those who may choose to abstain. They are simply putting stock in the promise of the marriage contract, saying it's worth restraining so they can be clear on the terms of the marriage vows. It may all go to hell and not work out as planned, but it seems like a rational choice. It's like saving money in the bank and at a certain point, you're free to spend and enjoy the work that went into saving (planning).


It really was a question NOT a view.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

DeeKay1 said:


> It makes me wonder why so many even bother to get married in the first place. After all, at a wedding the bride and groom stand before a priest, minister or judge and say that they take each other "in sickness and health, for richer or for poorer, till death do us part," while in reality they should be saying, "I take you as long as everything is going okay, and when I feel as though things are no longer going the way I had hoped, I'm leaving you."


I'm an optimistic cynic. I don't want you to think my goal is to bash your point of view. I wish love and marriage always would win the day. I really do. It's what I fully believed when I took my wedding vows at age 34. My spouse shared the same belief at that time. 




> And, along with that lack of permanent commitment comes the sad reality of way too many children growing up with one of their parents not being a part of their lives, not to mention the baggage that many children have to carry around as a result of watching their parents' marriages fall apart.


I'm the product of divorce. My spouses parents have been married nearly 40 years. Both of my parents remained positive influences in my life despite the divorce. My spouses parents were damaged, loveless, and abusive, having a tremendous _negative_ impact on how she perceived herself and the world. When we had serious issues in our marriage, I encouraged communication and counseling. She chose shutting down and infidelity. Were you to tell either of us that this was our future the day we stood on the altar, we would not have believed it possible.



> Also, please know that I don't wish to connote that premarital sex and casual sex are one in the same. All I'm saying is this: even "responsible" couples can become pregnant; it happens all the time. And, when that situation arises, it is typically the woman who is left "holding the bag," while the man runs the other way, leaving the woman to raise the child on her own, leaving her with the decision of whether or not to keep the baby, or pressuring her to terminate the pregnancy.


Thanks for clarifying. I don't disagree with you. I know of at least half a dozen circumstances, one of them a family member, where the assumption was that both parties were being responsible. However, in an effort to seal the relationship, the woman _chose_ to become pregnant - without informing her partner, because she was secure in her belief that he would stand by her. Again, all I'm saying is this isn't always about an SOB guy taking advantage of Polly Purebread. Poor choices and bad behavior cut both ways.



> Gee, based on your statement, "Marriage is not a lifelong commitment," one has to wonder whether the institution of marriage should even exist, since many of those who stand at the altar and recite their vows don't even mean what they're saying. Why bother to even get married; just live together and save the money you'd spend on wedding clothes and an expensive wedding reception.


Arguably, it _only_ exists to establish a cultural and socially stable basis for the raising of children. And I do agree, most couples would be far better served by saving the 10 to 40 grand that gets blown on a wedding by simply having a civil service and using the dough to establish their foothold on building a sustainable lifetime partnership together. I don't think too many would argue that young women have ingrained into their psyche that there should be pageantry associated with their wedding day, regardless if their love will last a lifetime, or less than 2 years. It is viewed as a rite of passage - at least the first time.

This is pretty much why I don't believe that sex has any business being a precursor for marriage. The foundation of virtually any romantic relationship is window dressing around the core of sexual attraction. I just don't believe there is a relationship between abstinence contributing to a devoted, life-long commitment in marriage.


----------



## scarletblue (May 20, 2009)

First of all, it would be refresing in the beginning of the relationship, because then I would know he wasn't just after having sex. After time progressed, and if I loved him, I would wait.

I have a girlfriend who was in a relationship with a 28 year old virgin. He lost his virginity to her. Then after he broke up with her, he was a virgin with his next girlfriend. Hmmmm...


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

> I have a girlfriend who was in a relationship with a 28 year old virgin. He lost his virginity to her. Then after he broke up with her, he was a virgin with his next girlfriend. Hmmmm...


There's another book I often think of writing, "The Accidental Virgin." 

I've started a blog for anyone interested in continuing the discussion of marriage as an institution--endofmarriagetrad.blogspot.com

For some of us, the essential question seems to be: SHOULD marriage be saved? If the question bothers you, you probably won't enjoy the blog--but you are welcome, nonetheless. It is not intended to be a knee-jerk, reductive feminist attack on marriage, but rather a thoughtful discussion of the topic.

Hope to see some of you there.


----------



## hounddog (Dec 18, 2010)

DeeKay1 said:


> MEN........ Let's say that you are dating a woman and the two of you are getting along great. After awhile, she makes it absolutely clear to you that she's 100% committed to remaining a virgin until marriage. In other words, there's a zero percent chance of having sexual intercourse with her unless you were to marry her.
> 
> Would you continue to date her? Would there be any chance for a long-term commitment to her?
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Almost zero chance I would go for this. Just as many people do this for valid religious reasons as they do because they are simply not sexual people. So you are really rolling the dice. 

You can sometimes get a feel for desire levels based on a high level of apparent passion clothed - kissing. But generally this is a high risk move if sex IS important to you.



DeeKay1 said:


> MEN........ Let's say that you are dating a woman and the two of you are getting along great. After awhile, she makes it absolutely clear to you that she's 100% committed to remaining a virgin until marriage. In other words, there's a zero percent chance of having sexual intercourse with her unless you were to marry her.
> 
> Would you continue to date her? Would there be any chance for a long-term commitment to her?
> 
> ...


----------



## rome2012 (Sep 10, 2010)

DeeKay1 said:


> MEN........ Let's say that you are dating a woman and the two of you are getting along great. After awhile, she makes it absolutely clear to you that she's 100% committed to remaining a virgin until marriage. In other words, there's a zero percent chance of having sexual intercourse with her unless you were to marry her.
> 
> Would you continue to date her? Would there be any chance for a long-term commitment to her?
> 
> ...


Can you imagine being with a man for the rest of your life and your sex life sucks ????

Sorry to be so blunt, but I've had a couple of sexual experiences before I married my husband and some of them were great and some of them were awful....

There are things in life that you should test out before committing to it for life....my opinion....


----------



## lime (Jul 3, 2010)

I would not have waited for my SO. If he had asked me to, this would have meant that he either A. had personal issues with sex, or B. was really religious. Neither fit in with my values, and shared values are incredibly important for a relationship to succeed. This is the reason for me, not because he wouldn't have "put out." 

Here are my qualms with waiting...

Ok no one has quite addressed this issue yet, so I'm just going to ask...What makes waiting so special? I guess I just don't get it--I know that my wedding night will be special _because it's my wedding night_, not because it's the first time I'll have sex. And there are a few other awkward situations with the wedding night loss of virginity that I feel like most people don't realize or acknowledge. Like...it's not going to be all romantic and spiritual and perfect when you're having sex with some abstinence-only-sex-educated virgin who doesn't know how to put on a condom and lasts all of 2 seconds. And what if you haven't seen each other naked and feel really embarrassed and can't perform or enjoy it? 

OR...This one is what I really don't understand: so all you've done is make out a couple of times, and suddenly, just because it's the date you picked six months ago to get married, then you_ have to have sex?_ What if you don't feel physically ready or comfortable with the other person?! All you feel is pressure, but since it's your wedding night, you just kind of get over it and try and get it done because you waited for this, right? It's going to be special "because you waited." I feel like that's way more awkward than a loving, spontaneous encounter that you've worked up to gradually until you both were comfortable.

Those issues were the ones I had with the really super religious people who don't experiment or talk about sex beforehand. I think waiting can be a good experience if you've discussed sex, feel comfortable talking about it with each other, and know the physiology of it and how the body works. SA's experience is one where I think waiting could be the right decision. 

My last "problem" with waiting is the whole idea that "If he/she loves me, then he/she will wait." I think that's complete and utter BS. That's like saying, "If you love me, you will convert to my religion," or for that matter, "Well if _you_ loved _me_, then you'd have sex." I feel this way because I view sexuality as a value, not a commodity to be "lost." 

I also think it's just downright selfish!! I don't like that these "worth the wait" spokespeople advertise it in that tone. It made me worried that people never say "I love you and so I will wait for _you_;" instead it's all about them and what they want to do. They're making their potential spouses jump through all these hoops to prove their love, and that's just stupid in my opinion. You shouldn't have to test someone to see if they are worthy...You should teach yourself the proper judgment skills to find someone who is worthy without forcing them to perform according to your standards. I think couples should start out by having respect for each other--not demanding it from each other with tests. I understand, and sincerely hope, that many people who wait until marriage do not have these negative attitudes. But I guess I just wanted to bring up these issues to see if anyone has more info or wisdom.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Might as well enjoy premarital sex as often as possible. Postmarital, you're very likely to be getting nothing.


----------



## gbrad (Jul 20, 2010)

I don't really care either way. My wife and I did not wait until marriage. But I agree with the comment that you might as well enjoy some prior to marriage, once you are married it is nowhere near as fun. Just makes you want to look elsewhere during marriage.


----------



## PonderingThat (Dec 20, 2010)

*Sigh* :scratchhead:

Warning: Will be looong.

This thread brought me out of lurkdom, because the posts that follow are in line with the same typical judgmental thoughts towards those who DO decide to wait. I had prepared a post about waiting, and why it can be sensible depending on the person, and also why it doesn't have to be because someone is religious…but a couple of doozy posts read later, decided to give up. Quite clearly anything I say to describe my current hopes of waiting will be subject to thinking I am automatically religious; must have sexual issues; either too stupid to know that talking about sex is necessary for most (if not all) romantic relationships; that I'll hurry towards marriage just to have sex; that because I don't have sex I won't know what goes where (thanks for diminishing my intellect too, really); that LOL U NOT TEST DRIVING WHAT YOU DRIVE MAKES YOU A FOOL; that because someone else doesn't think it's worth waiting for it's not worth waiting for for _anyone_; and that if I wait that somehow means my view of sex is skewed. That's terribly judgmental--not to mention rude and cruel--and does not make posting on this topic ever easy, because somehow the way in which I choose or not choose to use my body props me up for character judgments. There is no right and wrong personal value of sex (does this really need to be said?), nor does *your* definition of fulfilling sex make or break every relationship. If it is a deal breaker for you, that is not wrong either _until you start trying to influence everyone into thinking it is by making negative judgments of those who feel differently._ 

I mean no offense to you Lime, but your post is a great example of the type of diminishing of my position while upholding your own that occurs in so many of these type of threads I've been in. You even equate what is negative to you to being negative *period* and having "problems" with a decision that you don't have any part in. You don't have to do it! So why the judgment calls, because they are clear in your post *as in most others here*? And, well, how is dating someone not "testing them" as you put it, or selfishly trying to dig into who they are to see if they are compatible with you? Do you not have certain things you will or will not do ever, or until a certain point? That doesn't bother me nor make me think you are selfish, especially since I don't know you from Bill Clinton nor really care, but for you to make judgments against those such as myself, who have done you no harm but apparently choosing to do something you dislike, is not ever going to make me want to communicate my position with you. Ever. Why communicate when you've all ready colored me naive, foolish, selfish, unthinking, and uncharitable without listening? I do take offense to that. You say you wanted to bring up these "issues" (right, because they just have to be problems I guess) but it seems you mostly wanted to bring up your prejudices of another's personal decision that harms you in no way nor does it harm the one waiting.

If you *general 'you' here* do not get waiting, great! Don't do it. But please don't talk down to those who do as if we are children who don't understand what grown-ups do.

If someone doesn't wait, that's fine, but to treat those who choose to wait as naive is quite unfair and says more about the one judging than the one being judged. The curiosity as to why anyone would wait in this thread is riddled with assumptions and character slants, which truly have no place. Ever. I say this because darn if I didn't hope that this forum could be a bit better than that, and double darn my explanation being a waste. I am sick to death of being some selfish prude for wanting to wait until *I* feel comfortable doing something as personal as having sex. I don't try to force-feed this value on anyone, and my partner is free to leave if they wish for it, whenever, whatever, so why put your values upon me or hold up my own and state they don't measure up _for you_? For Christ sake, how does it hurt those who choose not to wait? Why do you care so much about those who do and make snide, anti-waiting questions? Asking someone to wait if they wish to have sex *with me* is not testing anyone; it's stating a decision for myself I am sticking by that you can be around for or get the hell out and leave--no one being forced here, and discussion is obviously key, especially when not everyone views the height of intimacy being physical. No one is a freak or a fool for waiting if that decision works for them; I suppose the only thing that makes me naive is ever hoping for respect towards personal decisions. :scratchhead: It sometimes feels others would outlaw waiting if they could, along with marriage, forcing others to do something they do not want or are not ready for. So much for respecting differences. 

Is it so hard to respect those you disagree with? That what makes a fulfilling relationship on a physical and emotional level *for you* isn't for *everyone else*? Seriously. It's amazing how people seem to be punished for not "putting out" when *they're* not ready. As if that's a crime against humanity. Because of course those who do have sex before marriage neeeeever divorce because of sexual issues, because it alllll works out. 

Don't mean to be snarky, but when my character is questioned for no reason other than using my body as I see fit and not asking for anything but respect towards HOW I USE MY BODY AND WHEN I get a wee peeved. Go figure. Plenty of people wait for legitimate reasons (and they just have to be reasons that work for the person to be legitimate) and if you take offense to something as private as that, well…I can make a few judgments of you as well. But I won't. Shame on me, I guess, for thinking I'm a human being, not hurting anyone, not forcing anything on anyone that has to be followed for themselves *in this case, being intimate with my body which, yes, I DO have the final say in* if they don't want it to be, and deserving common courtesy. Because of course there aren't plenty of other people willing to have sex before marriage, and if I don't put out before marriage, all the fault is mine for any BS I have to hear about it. Partner never did anything wrong ever. Gotcha. But here's a tip: Don't want to wait? Don't like me. Like someone else. Go at 'em fellas! 

Sheesh. This nonsense hits me more than it should, and I'll be the proactive one and step away from the toxic undertone of it. Next thing you know, on top of selfish and dumb in how I go about romance _right for me_ I'll be a flying goat who drinks clouds. No thanks and goodbye to those who throw stones.


----------



## Ironsides (Nov 15, 2010)

@PonderingThat

I think that Lime is merely reacting the exact same sort of sentiment that you seem to so vehemently hate -- the sort of condescending, holier-than-thou tone that opinionated people take when discussing this issue. 

You have been on the receiving end of similar condescension for your views, and your frustration is understandable. However, picking out one poster to receive the brunt of what appears to be years of anger is immature and hurts your case. If you wish to post in these forums, please speak like an adult and engage in a suitable level of dialogue.

You mention that you prepared an article on the benefits of waiting -- perhaps you could post that and contribute more meaningfully to the discussion.


----------



## lime (Jul 3, 2010)

PonderingThat said:


> *Sigh* :scratchhead:
> 
> Warning: Will be looong.
> 
> ...


I apologize if you thought my comments were meant to hurt or insult your personal decision to wait. I reread both my post and yours and can see how I might have misspoke or sounded disrespectful, and how you might have misinterpreted my genuine questions as insults. If you look closer, you'll notice that I did say that waiting was a good choice for some people, and that the "issues" I had were with very religious people--with whom I do not want a relationship because I am not religious and we would not have shared values--and with the marketing by the "worth the wait" groups out there. I was not trying to be snotty when I said I viewed sex as a value; I meant that it was something like religion in that both people had to view it in the same way. I was raised with some abstinence-only education in schools and did not appreciate the attitudes expressed by those instructors who talked about how you could never get your virginity back, it was gone forever, no one would love you if you weren't a virgin, etc. I don't believe that mentality is healthy and that is my opinion--I'm not saying I'm "right," but I am saying that I'm allowed to feel that way and express it in a public forum.

I did not say (nor did I ever mean to imply) that everyone who waits is some naive idiot who doesn't know what they're doing. I gave that example because I had doubts about waiting being the magic formula for a perfect first time, and wanted some feedback. I realize it sounded bitter in retrospect, but at the time I did not realize it would cause someone else to feel so offended. 

I'm sorry if you got the impression that my post existed for the sole purpose of disrespecting you or your own personal choices. I was sharing my opinion about the attitudes that some people who choose to wait have toward sex. I do still believe that it's selfish to say "I want to wait so we're waiting because if you don't wait then you don't love me." It's not selfish to say "Waiting is important to me, but I understand that you might have different attitudes that would make a relationship difficult." The difference between those two statements is really where I'm trying to get at. Your post was surprising because you seem to express the exact selfishness that concerned me in people with that attitude. You sound like you _want_ to take offense because I offered up some scenarios that challenge the idea of the perfect first time wedding night...You seem to want to take offense rather than answer my questions openly and honestly.

My post was not a personal attack against you or your choices. I suppose I was _questioning_ close-minded individuals who refuse to think through all of the implications of sex, waiting till marriage to have sex, and the potential consequences or benefits of waiting. I actually would really like to hear your response to the questions I posted because I've always wondered about those things and never had the opportunity to voice them.


----------



## major misfit (Oct 17, 2010)

Oh, gawd...there's one in every crowd.


----------



## SteppingStones (Dec 20, 2010)

Okay, I have read this entire thread and this is my first post on these boards -- had to create an account just to reply....


I think a lot of people on here have some valid points, or at least truly believe them to be valid. And perhaps they are. But this topic is so subject to individual preferrences that its silly to get all worked up over it.

However, that said, I also think its silly to reject a possible relationship with someone just because they want to wait. To me -- and this is all IMO -- that's equivalent to rejecting a relationship with someone because they don't eat meat. 

Now, clearly, the decision to remain abstinent and the decision to not eat meat are on two entirely different levels of value when it comes to relationships. Someone's decision to remain a vegetarian isn't considered as heavily as someone's decision to remain abstinent until the the marriage is sealed or there is at least a promise of marriage.

Which must meant that sex has some value for it to be such a make or break point with some couples. For those of you who don't understand what the point is in waiting - other than religious purposes - perhaps it's that those who wish to wait place a higher value on their own individual sexuality. 

I don't mean that in a condescending way to those of you who don't wish to wait, or who don't see the value in it. I am sure you value sex in your own way. But that is the point, everyone has a different viewpoint and everyone has to make that decision for themselves. And yes it may sound selfish, but you have to make that decision regardless of what your partner's ideals about sex before/after marriage are. Because in the end it's your body and your mind and your emotions that you have to continue to manage and live with whether that person stays with you for many years or leaves you after one night. 

My thought process is, why is sex such a determining factor in remaining in a relationship? Yes, I agree it is healthy and heaven knows I love my sex as much as the next person. But perhaps those of you who wouldn't stick around if the other person wanted to wait, perhaps you aren't truly interested in the _person_.

That was my desire, to be loved for who I am not what my body has to offer. I wanted to wait. I dated a guy for 4 years without giving up my virginity. He started talking about marriage and that's when I knew I didn't want to be with him, I couldn't picture myself married to him. And I had to face the reality that I didn't love him as I thought I had. And I'm glad now that I didn't give my virginity to someone I _thought_ I loved. I stayed single and celibate for 2 years after that. Then met my now husband at the age of 23.

He wasn't a virgin. He dated a girl for 4 years and had decided she wasn't the girl he wanted to marry. The difference between us, is that he didn't wait. And when we met, he had a 6 year old son to prove it. (He found out she was pregnant AFTER they split up, just to get rid of any notions that he fled after he found out she was pregnant -- actually he still remains very active in his son's life, we get him half-time, and he pays child support religiously)

For me, it wasn't the fact that he hadn't waited for me that hurt. It's the consequences of the not waiting that sometimes brings difficulty into our marriage. I love his son dearly. And we do everything possible to co-parent with his son's mom and her now husband. But still difficulties arise, and that other woman will always be in our lives. All because neither of them could wait. 

It was said that most marriages end in divorce, that it's not the unbreakable covenant that it used to be. So it can be said then that marriage is HARD. It's probably the toughest thing you'll ever do aside from raising kids. We already know when we enter into our marriage vows that the statistics are we won't make it last. Why make it harder by bringing even more "baggage" (because everyone has their skeletons in their closet that then come into the marriage) into your marriage as a consequence of something that easily could have been avoided? 

Oh yes, I know there are pills, shots, condoms, diaphragms, etc that can prevent disease/pregnancy -- however, NOTHING is 100% fail proof. NOTHING. So, yes you are still carrying around a risk when you rely on these things. You CAN be responsible and STILL "accidents" happen. FYI to whoever said the woman CHOSE to become pregnant - and sorry to point you out but that's probably the only truly offensive thing I've read here. Women do not choose to become pregnant and it just happens because they chose it-- I've been trying to and have yet to get there. Step up as a man and take responsibility for your penis putting the sperm there and nature taking it's course. Oh, wait you didn't realize you didn't have a condom on and that's why she got pregnant? How unbelievably selfish of you. And if you did have a condom on then you just proved my point.

My last point to ponder is - how is it selfish to want to wait? I realize I said that you have to think of yourself in making this decision and yes that seems selfish...but really isn't throwing out the idea of a relationship with someone just because THEY want to wait just as selfish? Because you are then looking out for your own desires and not the other person's. And THAT is the problem with relationships/marriages today -- no one puts their SO first - or if they do, they do it conditionally or only in certain areas. 

Now, it sounds like I am advocating waiting - and I kind of am. But in line with my last point, I didn't wait. I wanted to. I talked to my now husband about it before we were even engaged. I knew he wasn't a virgin (duh - had a kid) and that it would be hard for him to wait. But he stuck by me. In fact he stuck by me through all of the strictness my parents (I still lived at home, and my folks are sold on the "as long as you live in my house" bit  ). For me, that was very endearing. It meant he wanted to get to know me. Sex is important. To a 28 year old guy with a kid, I wasn't naive enough to think it wasn't a very important need for him. But because he respected me enough to stick with me even though it meant he wouldn't be getting in my pants anytime soon, I loved him more for it. And I knew he was genuine. 

I didn't wait because after a time, we got engaged, and I knew he was the one and I wanted then to give him what he needed. I didn't have pre-marital sex because I didn't want to wait. I've already explained that I did. I put him first, and I continue to put him first. 

And no -- sex doesn't get worse after marriage. We have it every day. 

And no -- I didn't NEED to test drive him before we got married. So, say you test drive a person, the sex is horrible and so what, you leave them? God what shallow people we are. Did you ever really care about the other person at all? And do you not care enough to teach them, better them? Or are you too egotistical to think maybe the sex sucked because YOU aren't up to par?

At least I know my husband stayed with me because he loved me for ME and not just because I'm a good lay. And I've really enjoyed learning with him. 

In any case - I don't think there is a set answer here. All religious beliefs aside, as I am Christian and yes the Bible does say to abstain - but again, it all goes back to the why risk the consequences and make life harder for yourself? But I won't preach  

Really, you have to make the decision for yourself. Which is what I said in the beginning. Love is give and take. You can't always take and never give. You can't always give and get nothing in return.


----------



## lime (Jul 3, 2010)

SteppingStones said:


> Okay, I have read this entire thread and this is my first post on these boards -- had to create an account just to reply....
> 
> 
> I think a lot of people on here have some valid points, or at least truly believe them to be valid. And perhaps they are. But this topic is so subject to individual preferrences that its silly to get all worked up over it.
> ...


Thank you for your honest and genuine response! This has explained some things that I wasn't sure about.

I agree with you on the selfishness aspect, but phrased my opinion from the opposite viewpoint. I think it's selfish for anyone to say "I want X, so we better do it my way or you don't love me." For some people, they put their own desire for sex first, over their partner...For others, they put their desire to wait over their partner. Both of these attitudes are selfish in my opinion because it's like saying "my way or the highway" without any possibility of compromise.

It's interesting that you view interest in sex as different than interest in the person. I disagree with you there, but your opinion has shown me that this mindset exists and is real for some people. For me, sexuality is an important part of who we are as people; it defines us in some ways just like our personality defines us. I guess others view sex as something that is separate from who we are as individuals, or not a large part of what defines us. This is part of the reason I would not want to be with someone who wanted to wait, as they would have a different idea of sex that would make us incompatible. I feel similarly about religion; some view their religion as something that defines them, while I don't have that view. These things to me fall under the "values" category, and shared values are what's important in a relationship.

The eating meat example is interesting. I agree with you in that it's a personal choice, but I don't know that the analogy can be fully applied here because it would be like asking your partner to also become a vegetarian with you. If you make a personal choice, that's one thing, but if you force your partner to comply, that's entirely different. Ideally two vegetarians would find each other and eat meat together on their wedding night lol.

I'm still curious about one thing though...What if you had waited, but on your wedding night, physically you felt uncomfortable with sex? What happens in that scenario for people who have chosen to wait? I'm genuinely curious, because even though I did not wait, I didn't feel pressured to have sex when I wasn't ready. Are there people who don't actually have sex on their wedding night, but do later when they're comfortable? Or do people just automatically feel comfortable? How does that work? I'm asking from a practical standpoint, not a moral/spiritual one, but maybe the spiritual aspect is what makes people comfortable if they've chosen to wait for religious reasons.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

unbelievable said:


> Might as well enjoy premarital sex as often as possible. Postmarital, you're very likely to be getting nothing.


Man, I laugh out loud almost every time I read one of your posts.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Deejo said:


> Man, I laugh out loud almost every time I read one of your posts.


Me too Deejo! 

It is stories like this one that can lead to unforseen heartbreak, imagine the plight of this poor husband, faithfully waiting for his virgin bride, only to find the love of his life HATES SEX !! http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-ma...ntimate-husband-desperately-need-answers.html

I have read more than a handful of stories like this here >>The Marriage Bed • Index page I will never forget this one -wish I could find it again. This guy & his girlfriend met in college, they felt they was in love & planned to marry so they started having sex, it was hot, heavy, fullfilling & he recalls as beautiful - this went on for over a year or so. Then suddenly she found "the Lord", started feeling guilty, so she wanted to stop, wait until marriage. He loves her, so of coarse he agrees, so for the next 2 or so years/ finishing college, they had NO sexual contact. Went on to get married, he is all happy /excited /looking to start off right where things left off -only to find out , on their very wedding night , she has NO desire at all for sex, told him she didn't care if she ever had it again. (THe story was so moving, I was almost in tears) .....

SO he ends up on this forum above - 6 months into this sexless marraige , he is dying, questioning why this happened, what does he do ?? their advice >> Pray and seek a Godly Counselor. This is such a pathetic No brainer to me. They infact set themselves up for this ! *she totally repressed her sex drive, pushing it down, killing it.* What a sad sad sad situation. Simply didn't have to be. 

I do not have a problem with people waiting -as I did myself to some degree, but I have a HUGE problem with the way some Christians advocate such waiting - with such blatant judging of others "boundaries". 

I thought it would be entertaining to see just how "MY story" would be received on this Christian forum one night (Not having intercourse or oral sex, but yes touching each other to release). How truly enlightening - It was like being EATEN by Vultures, things I felt "good" about (and wouldn't change), they took and TRAMPLED, put me in the ground, made me feel pathetically sinful & in need of repentance lest my marraige be doomed.  (Which was never the case & my reason for posting -since they were teaching this). My eyes were truly opened to JUST the extent of some people's judgements. 

This forum at TAM is SOOOOO much more understanding ---and helpful!! 

I enjoyed my little debate over there, even though I was getting slaughtered on their Holy ground. More than half were so uptight about what you do before marraige, I can not even fatham trying to live (happily) like they preach. Many are against even KISSING & holding hands !! 

I started this thread http://talkaboutmarriage.com/family...r-silver-ring-thing-purity-ring-movement.html this is all against Pre-marital sex. I feel it has it's ++'s but simply goes toooo far, sets our kids up for a fall.


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

DeeKay1 said:


> MEN........ Let's say that you are dating a woman and the two of you are getting along great. After awhile, she makes it absolutely clear to you that she's 100% committed to remaining a virgin until marriage. In other words, there's a zero percent chance of having sexual intercourse with her unless you were to marry her.
> 
> Would you continue to date her? Would there be any chance for a long-term commitment to her?
> 
> ...


I once dated a "Christian" young man almost ten years ago. He told me of his plans to remain a virgin until marriage. While I never pressured him, we ended up parting as good friends because I needed sex. Later, he lost his virginity to a stripper.
Sex is much too important for me to wait until marriage. I would not marry a man that I had a poor sexual connection with. What's the point of boring and sexually disappointing monogamy?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Bluemoon7 (Jan 27, 2010)

Very interesting topic. 

First of all, deciding when you are ready to have sex is very personal, and I respect those who decide to wait and those who decide not to wait.

When I was a young virgin, my rule was that I wasn't necessarily waiting for marriage, but until I found someone I loved. Someone that I cared enough about that I wouldn't regret it if things didn't work out. As it turned out, my H and I have only ever been with each other. We were together almost ten years before getting married. And our sex life is still great and actually only seems to get better. 

Personally, I wouldn't commit to spending my life with someone without knowing what I am getting into, and that includes being sexually compatible. I'd hate to end up like Charlotte on Sex in the City, all sexually frustrated when she married Trey and discovered that he prefered his magazines and couldn't get excited by his wife.


----------



## MsLonely (Sep 23, 2010)

DeeKay1 said:


> MEN........ Let's say that you are dating a woman and the two of you are getting along great. After awhile, she makes it absolutely clear to you that she's 100% committed to remaining a virgin until marriage. In other words, there's a zero percent chance of having sexual intercourse with her unless you were to marry her.
> 
> Would you continue to date her? Would there be any chance for a long-term commitment to her?
> 
> ...


Try before you buy!

What if he's suck in bed with a tiny penis? What satisfaction to be expected? Can I return & refund?

So if I had a son, I would tell him to move on immediately.

I taught my teen girl same thing.

When you're married, everything is too late!! To get married, it's better to keep the options open until you find a right person.

I'd recommend living together for 2 years and see how many arguments you have first.

Love doesn't garantee you can get along with each other.


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

Of course it is a selfish decision with no room for compromise--it's one's body, and that is a time for selfishness. We all have some issues we cannot and will not "give" on--that's why knowing as much as you can about one another before getting married is essential. I don't care one bit if someone has an "I will wait" or an "I want to test drive" attitude for themselves. Just don't impose it on me as the "right" way for everyone! A partner is free to stay or go. There is absolutely nothing wrong in refusing to compromise on some issues. Just be clear in your mind what those issues are and why. 

I also disagree that it is "shallow" to leave someone who won't have sex before marriage "just" for that reason. If my feeling is that there needs to be plenty of compatibility in that area, then I must move on--it would be irresponsible of me to marry someone whom i do not know in an area that is essential to me. What if my issue was, "must be financially responsible" and I didn't take the time to learn about my lover's finances, only to marry and find out he was totally financially irresponsible and didn't share any of my attitudes towards this issue? Shame on ME for not knowing my partner well enough to know this, when it is such an important area to ME.


----------



## MsLonely (Sep 23, 2010)

sisters359 said:


> Of course it is a selfish decision with no room for compromise--it's one's body, and that is a time for selfishness. We all have some issues we cannot and will not "give" on--that's why knowing as much as you can about one another before getting married is essential. I don't care one bit if someone has an "I will wait" or an "I want to test drive" attitude for themselves. Just don't impose it on me as the "right" way for everyone! A partner is free to stay or go. There is absolutely nothing wrong in refusing to compromise on some issues. Just be clear in your mind what those issues are and why.
> 
> I also disagree that it is "shallow" to leave someone who won't have sex before marriage "just" for that reason. If my feeling is that there needs to be plenty of compatibility in that area, then I must move on--it would be irresponsible of me to marry someone whom i do not know in an area that is essential to me. What if my issue was, "must be financially responsible" and I didn't take the time to learn about my lover's finances, only to marry and find out he was totally financially irresponsible and didn't share any of my attitudes towards this issue? Shame on ME for not knowing my partner well enough to know this, when it is such an important area to ME.


Your views are very good. Do you mind I share your views with my teen daughter?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

So is everyone good with postmortem-marital (divorced/single) sex?

I'm trying to decide if I should wait ... until you know ... tomorrow night or next week.

As for those who do choose to wait, I have no issue. I know of one very distinct and to my mind, tragic story of a friend of my ex who decided she was going to wait for the right man. She is now 41 with zero sexual experience. She had a serious relationship in her mid-thirties, but her man simply could not buy into celibacy if/until they married. He had been previously married. They lasted a year, and I give him kudos for making it that long.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

I actually do admire virgins in some ways with their dedication to their faith or beliefs to wait it out until marriage and many are actually happier that they waited.

Not one shoe fits all however - thats my belief anyway.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

When I was single and young I believed in Pre-marital sex. Now that I'm married with two daughters... not so much


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

RandomDude said:


> I actually do admire virgins in some ways with their dedication to their faith or beliefs to wait it out until marriage and many are actually happier that they waited.
> 
> Not one shoe fits all however - thats my belief anyway.


I would advise against it.

My ex is still promising me she'll have a good sex life - someday.

She's 49 and as frigid as the North Pole.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Conrad said:


> I would advise against it.
> 
> My ex is still promising me she'll have a good sex life - someday.
> 
> She's 49 and as frigid as the North Pole.


Could be worse, she could be as frigid as the South Pole. At least there is hope for her.


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

Brennan said:


> Could be worse, she could be as frigid as the South Pole. At least there is hope for her.


Easy opportunity to take a shot at me.

I appreciate your forbearance.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

The main advantage it seems is that - they have no one else to compare their sex life to! lol

The missus has counselled a few Christian couples before on this however, some do have problems but it does work for some people and they are quite happily married. Hence what I said as well.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Conrad said:


> Easy opportunity to take a shot at me.
> 
> I appreciate your forbearance.


Eh, I knew you were just going with a holiday theme.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

I have never and would never marry someone without "trying them out first." Period, regardless of religion, morals, what anyone else thinks, period - no discussion for me.

But that's just me...


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> Might as well enjoy premarital sex as often as possible. Postmarital, you're very likely to be getting nothing.


Funny....:rofl:


----------

