# Sex in marriage



## EunuchMonk

There is a taboo with sex in religion. I don't know about you but I love to see married couples lovey-dovey with each other. Boyfriend and girlfriend? Not so much.

I think God reserved sex for marriage. Anyone who wants to be sexual in their marriage is righteous in my eyes (I guess I understand people who don't believe in Christianity). I've met so many Christians who claim to believe in the bible yet go against it. Tell me your experience with sex in marriage and out, whether you are religious or not.


----------



## Married but Happy

EunuchMonk said:


> Tell me your experience with sex in marriage and out, whether you are religious or not.


In my experience, there is no difference. If there are differences, they are due to who you're with.


----------



## Diana7

Sex in marriage is great. To have sex with a man who is 100% committed to you, who is faithful and who wants intimacy only with you, is the best thing. Casual sex has no worth or meaning for me. Its just completely selfish, using someone else for your physical jollies.


----------



## Red Sonja

EunuchMonk said:


> There is a taboo with sex in religion.


Yes, there is and, it is sad that the "taboo" has caused untold heartache for so many people, today and for centuries into the past.


----------



## ConanHub

I'm a Christian but wasn't until about 26 years of age and married for 2 years.

Before I met my wife, I was with approximately 60 women intimately.

Most experiences were shallow while others were meaningful but I was too shallow to understand.

I never felt fully safe or satisfied until I was with my wife.

Our sex life has been very good and since becoming a Christian, even better. We have always shown affection and it was an oddity in church settings because we appeared to be unique among our Christian acquaintances.

I have found the majority of Christians I know to be sexually constipated and stunted.

There is a lot of bad teaching on sex in marriage and a lack of good in most churches I am familiar with.

Mrs. Conan and I blow each others minds regularly for the glory of God.😁


----------



## arbitrator

*While I do believe that sex outside of marriage is and has always been rather commonplace in society, I do believe in the Christian Biblical precepts that, outside of a marital union, it is deemed to be a sinful act!

But like many other sins, it is not deemed to be one of unforgivable proportions!

After all, a child borne from such an act is just as holy in the eyes of the Heavenly Father as one who was borne into a legitimate marriage!*


----------



## Diana7

ConanHub said:


> I'm a Christian but wasn't until about 26 years of age and married for 2 years.
> 
> Before I met my wife, I was with approximately 60 women intimately.
> 
> Most experiences were shallow while others were meaningful but I was too shallow to understand.
> 
> I never felt fully safe or satisfied until I was with my wife.
> 
> Our sex life has been very good and since becoming a Christian, even better. We have always shown affection and it was an oddity in church settings because we appeared to be unique among our Christian acquaintances.
> 
> I have found the majority of Christians I know to be sexually constipated and stunted.
> 
> There is a lot of bad teaching on sex in marriage and a lack of good in most churches I am familiar with.
> 
> Mrs. Conan and I blow each others minds regularly for the glory of God.😁


 I havent found that at all among the christians I know,and I have heard some excellent christian teaching about the importance of sex in marriage.


----------



## jb02157

Diana7 said:


> Sex in marriage is great. To have sex with a man who is 100% committed to you, who is faithful and who wants intimacy only with you, is the best thing. Casual sex has no worth or meaning for me. Its just completely selfish, using someone else for your physical jollies.


Definitely agree. Sex was meant to be only for those in a marriage.


----------



## Married but Happy

As a devout atheist, religion plays no role in my sexual morality. My ethics, however, are completely accepting of adult, fully consensual sex. Sin does not exist, IMO, only more or less skillful application of compassion and fairness.


----------



## Keke24

I've never been married. Hence sex for me has always happened outside of the covenant of marriage. I don't think it's practical to wait till marriage to have sex. In my mind, beyond the ceremonial aspect of marriage, I don't quite recognize a difference between a relationship within and outside of marriage. For me the length of time a couple has been together is a better indicator of the seriousness of the relationship as opposed to whether a couple is married or not.


----------



## ConanHub

Diana7 said:


> I havent found that at all among the christians I know,and I have heard some excellent christian teaching about the importance of sex in marriage.


Then you have traveled in far different circles.

There are a couple of good churches on sex education but I haven't found more than a couple.


----------



## uhtred

Wife and I are not religious. We had some, but very little sex before marriage. If I had been smarter, that would have raised alarms.


----------



## Diana7

Keke24 said:


> I've never been married. Hence sex for me has always happened outside of the covenant of marriage. I don't think it's practical to wait till marriage to have sex. In my mind, beyond the ceremonial aspect of marriage, I don't quite recognize a difference between a relationship within and outside of marriage. For me the length of time a couple has been together is a better indicator of the seriousness of the relationship as opposed to whether a couple is married or not.


 Lots of people do wait for marriage till they have sex. Its well worth it.


----------



## Diana7

ConanHub said:


> Then you have traveled in far different circles.
> 
> There are a couple of good churches on sex education but I haven't found more than a couple.


If you research you will find countless books/courses/dvds and cds about sex in marriage. WE are spoil for choice.


----------



## Keke24

Diana7 said:


> Lots of people do wait for marriage till they have sex. Its well worth it.


 @uhtred: Wife and I are not religious. We had some, but very little sex before marriage. If I had been smarter, that would have raised alarms.


I don't doubt that there are couples who see value in waiting till marriage. This does make me wonder now, I can't recall coming across examples of non-religious couples who preferred sex after marriage. 

Any atheists out there who practiced sex only after marriage? If so, what did/do you see as the benefits to waiting till marriage?

@uhtred, you said you and your wife did not have much sex before. Was that by choice?


----------



## Hellomynameis

I was raised to believe that sex before marriage was a sin. I was also taught by my mother and grandmother that sex was something women tolerated for the sake of the man and not to expect it to be enjoyable.

I was a virgin when I met my husband. I had engaged in non PIV sexual activity in high school and college but I can't say I was overly experienced. Slept with my husband just a few weeks into the relationship. Can't say I enjoyed it, then or subsequently. But after what I had been taught, I was conditioned to believe that not enjoying it was normal for a woman. It took me years of what I now realize was lousy sex with a selfish lover to find out that sex could be enjoyable. And I only learned it through conversations with other women who did enjoy it, not through personal experience. I never once had an orgasm during PIV with my husband. And he obviously didn't care enough to try to change that. He never asked if I enjoyed it, if I needed something else, anything. He just pounded away for a few minutes, pulled out, and went to sleep (or left the room). Maybe if I'd had a few positive experiences before him I wouldn't have settled for that, but because I didn't know it could be good I never even questioned it. And I think he was glad I didn't know better because he could be selfish and get away with it.


----------



## EunuchMonk

Hellomynameis said:


> I was raised to believe that sex before marriage was a sin. I was also taught by my mother and grandmother that sex was something women tolerated for the sake of the man and not to expect it to be enjoyable.
> 
> I was a virgin when I met my husband. I had engaged in non PIV sexual activity in high school and college but I can't say I was overly experienced. Slept with my husband just a few weeks into the relationship. Can't say I enjoyed it, then or subsequently. But after what I had been taught, I was conditioned to believe that not enjoying it was normal for a woman. It took me years of what I now realize was lousy sex with a selfish lover to find out that sex could be enjoyable. And I only learned it through conversations with other women who did enjoy it, not through personal experience. I never once had an orgasm during PIV with my husband. And he obviously didn't care enough to try to change that. He never asked if I enjoyed it, if I needed something else, anything. He just pounded away for a few minutes, pulled out, and went to sleep (or left the room). Maybe if I'd had a few positive experiences before him I wouldn't have settled for that, but because I didn't know it could be good I never even questioned it. And I think he was glad I didn't know better because he could be selfish and get away with it.



Good teaching could have solved that too. There are churches that teach that sex should be enjoyed by both. In fact, contrary to the prudish reputation given to the puritans if a woman complained that her husband wasn't satisfying her, he was called into the pastor's office for a stern conversation, before further action was taken. They also had a problem of older women divorcing their older husbands who couldn't perform sexually (no viagra/cialis back then) and marrying a slightly younger man who could still perform.

Bad teachings are responsible for a lot of breakdown in relationships today. Whether we get those teachings from sappy love songs, movies, or in your case, parents.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Diana7 said:


> Lots of people do wait for marriage till they have sex. Its well worth it.




Lots of those people just aren't that into sex. You see that all over this board.


----------



## ConanHub

Diana7 said:


> If you research you will find countless books/courses/dvds and cds about sex in marriage. WE are spoil for choice.


I've actually been involved in ministry in mainstream churches for nearly 20 years.

As far as books and information media, it is getting more plentiful but the churches are still beating dead horses with a lot of false information or lack of information in their teaching.


----------



## uhtred

She has very little interest in sex, so very rarely wanted it. I didn't recognize this as a warning sign at the time. 



Keke24 said:


> @uhtred: snip
> 
> @uhtred, you said you and your wife did not have much sex before. Was that by choice?


----------



## Middle of Everything

My opinion here is based solely on my experience being raised Catholic and attending Catholic schools through high school.

Good intentions clouded with hypocrisy. I think Catholicism has gotten better about sex and sexuality over the years but it still ruins it all with its stance on birth control. Well effective birth control I should say. They teach natural family planning where you measure temp, plot days, test mucus etc etc. ALL for the purpose of knowing when you are most fertile. Thus you know when you can have sex and NOT get pregnant. But condoms and the pill are bad? Ok.

Thats really all I remember being taught about sex in school. We have policies that will help pump out new Catholics and that is all you need to know.

Aside from that I have only been with my wife. We had sex quite often before being married. Has sex gotten better? Yeah overall I would say so. But I believe that is from time and becoming closer over 15 years.


----------



## Keke24

WorkingOnMe said:


> Lots of those people just aren't that into sex. You see that all over this board.





uhtred said:


> She has very little interest in sex, so very rarely wanted it. I didn't recognize this as a warning sign at the time.



See I have a hard time recognizing the value of waiting till after marriage beyond the religious aspect of this is what the bible teaches, especially considering issues such as what is pointed out above.

Perhaps OP can explain, outside of the religious approach, why do you think its better to wait.

I think @Diana7 also alluded to the value of waiting. So, why wait?


----------



## EunuchMonk

Keke24 said:


> See I have a hard time recognizing the value of waiting till after marriage beyond the religious aspect of this is what the bible teaches, especially considering issues such as what is pointed out above.
> 
> Perhaps OP can explain, outside of the religious approach, why do you think its better to wait.
> 
> I think @Diana7 also alluded to the value of waiting. So, why wait?


Well, getting to know the person on an intellectual/emotional level is one. Sex, from my observation, usually distorts how you see the person. What do I mean? You become "connected" in a way. You are less likely to break up with someone for a bad quality when you are already banging them whereas if you weren't you probably would have dropped them with the quickness. Sex often seems like self medication to a bad relationship. There are problems, clear ones; but when you have sex they take a back seat. It works before marriage but when you two are married and living together it doesn't work anymore.


----------



## Hellomynameis

Keke24 said:


> See I have a hard time recognizing the value of waiting till after marriage beyond the religious aspect of this is what the bible teaches, especially considering issues such as what is pointed out above.
> 
> Perhaps OP can explain, outside of the religious approach, why do you think its better to wait.
> 
> I think @Diana7 also alluded to the value of waiting. So, why wait?


Just my opinion, but maybe because you're saving that very special first time for the person you actually love enough to be taking a lifetime vow with? Maybe I'm just overly romantic. But I'm glad my first time was with my husband. I'm glad that I was faithful to him even though our sex life was lousy. And I'm sorry that due to our split he won't be my one and only sexually for my whole lifetime unless I choose to remain alone.


----------



## uhtred

I can see the romantic appeal of your first time being with the person with whom you want to spend the rest of your life. OTOH, there are so many cases of badly mismatched sexual interests that waiting can set you up for a lifetime of misery. 






Hellomynameis said:


> Just my opinion, but maybe because you're saving that very special first time for the person you actually love enough to be taking a lifetime vow with? Maybe I'm just overly romantic. But I'm glad my first time was with my husband. I'm glad that I was faithful to him even though our sex life was lousy. And I'm sorry that due to our split he won't be my one and only sexually for my whole lifetime unless I choose to remain alone.


----------



## wantshelp

Hellomynameis said:


> Maybe if I'd had a few positive experiences before him I wouldn't have settled for that, but because I didn't know it could be good I never even questioned it. And I think he was glad I didn't know better because he could be selfish and get away with it.[/quote @Hellomynameis - wow, your story really struck me. I too was a virgin when I met my wife and I had never had sex with anyone else. And I didn't discuss it with others. For me it was not quality, but sex frequency that was an issue. I was led to believe that infrequent sex was normal once you marry. Whenever I asked therapists, I got this vague bullcrap answer that it is whatever the two of you can mutually agree on. Nobody would dare directly answer it. This was a colossal disservice to me. The inability of therapists to answer this question more directly, has cost me a decade of wasted effort and frustration. Sure, once a month sex is fine if you're both LD (Low Desire), but the truth is there is a right answer. Generally, happy marriages seem to be around 3X/week.
> 
> What made me come to this estimate is talking to people here and in real life. But the first time I realized something was really wrong was the day I read a scientific paper about the impact on marital sex after a sexual injury. What was interesting was once recovered from injury... These should be near normal... but the table showed very frequent sex was normal with a drop off by age. The top age group was 70+ and they had sex a few times a month. That hit me like a ton of bricks. Because the next age group is dead people. So I literally thought to myself, *I have sex with my wife as often as dead people 0-1x/month. *
> 
> Note: I don't believe I am a selfish or crappy lover. I read a lot, and bought a lot of toys. My goal is always to give my wife an orgasm and I am almost always successful. Sex is a great and fun experience to share with someone you love (as it was when we dated). She just doesn't want them. It makes me wonder if that makes her a selfish lover for denying me loving sex in marriage. Also, the once a month sex was not usually loving sex, but more duty sex because it became impossible to justify our marriage in her mind after a month or two of rejection.
> 
> I actually think back 11 years ago and think my first therapist failed me. She should have laid it out very clearly, either privately or in front of my wife, that we should NOT have children until we work out our sex issues. She made it seem like this is normal and suggested to my wife that she "try harder to be open to sex", which never addressed the issue and suggested duty sex. My wife didn't change and a few years later, was pregnant. Now, the solutions are far more complicated.


----------



## Hellomynameis

wantshelp said:


> wow, your story really struck me. I too was a virgin when I met my wife and I had never had sex with anyone else. And I didn't discuss it with others. For me it was not quality, but sex frequency that was an issue. I was led to believe that infrequent sex was normal once you marry. Whenever I asked therapists, I got this vague bullcrap answer that it is whatever the two of you can mutually agree on. Nobody would dare directly answer it. This was a colossal disservice to me. The inability of therapists to answer this question more directly, has cost me a decade of wasted effort and frustration. Sure, once a month sex is fine if you're both LD (Low Desire), but the truth is there is a right answer. Generally, happy marriages seem to be around 3X/week.
> 
> What made me come to this estimate is talking to people here and in real life. But the first time I realized something was really wrong was the day I read a scientific paper about the impact on marital sex after a sexual injury. What was interesting was once recovered from injury... These should be near normal... but the table showed very frequent sex was normal with a drop off by age. The top age group was 70+ and they had sex a few times a month. That hit me like a ton of bricks. Because the next age group is dead people. So I literally thought to myself, *I have sex with my wife as often as dead people 0-1x/month. *
> 
> Note: I don't believe I am a selfish or crappy lover. I read a lot, and bought a lot of toys. My goal is always to give my wife an orgasm and I am almost always successful. Sex is a great and fun experience to share with someone you love (as it was when we dated). She just doesn't want them. It makes me wonder if that makes her a selfish lover for denying me loving sex in marriage. Also, the once a month sex was not usually loving sex, but more duty sex because it became impossible to justify our marriage in her mind after a month or two of rejection.
> 
> I actually think back 11 years ago and think my first therapist failed me. She should have laid it out very clearly, either privately or in front of my wife, that we should NOT have children until we work out our sex issues. She made it seem like this is normal and suggested to my wife that she "try harder to be open to sex", which never addressed the issue and suggested duty sex. My wife didn't change and a few years later, was pregnant. Now, the solutions are far more complicated.


My husband was very HD. He wanted and at times even insisted on 1x/day. He would have been happier at 3x/day at least on weekends. Because I didn't enjoy it, it was a chore for me, but he was so verbally nasty when I turned him down that I usually gave in. I think towards the end we had settled into about once every other day up to about 5x/week. It never seemed to register with him that I didn't enjoy it or if it did he didn't care. However, I have come to believe my husband has undiagnosed ASD. Which could explain his inability to recognize, understand, and respect my feelings. Many people on the spectrum come across as selfish and unloving when in reality they are actually psychologically incapable of recognizing and responding to others' feelings unless they have had behavioral counseling to help them learn to do so. I read a book just a few months ago by an author with Aspergers Syndrome and she said sex was ALL about focusing on pleasure and orgasming, and was usually completed with total detachment from her partner and his feelings/needs.


----------



## Diana7

uhtred said:


> I can see the romantic appeal of your first time being with the person with whom you want to spend the rest of your life. OTOH, there are so many cases of badly mismatched sexual interests that waiting can set you up for a lifetime of misery.


I was told that when we were dating, 'well how do you know that you will be compatible?' Its really nonsense. You communicate, you compromise, you work at the sex life, you put the other person first. People who live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced, so that disproves that theory anyway.


----------



## Diana7

I think that for me, the fact that a man is prepared to wait for marriage shows he has integrity, a strong character, and loves and respects me. He is saying that he wont have sex with me until he has made a 100% commitment to me in marriage. He has self control and patience and wants to get to know me before jumping into bed. It shows he is prepared to be different from most men, go against the worlds standards, and the fact that he hasn't slept around is a great attraction for me. 
Apparently men who have had many partners are less likely to be faithful as well. So another plus.


----------



## wantshelp

Diana7 said:


> I was told that when we were dating, 'well how do you know that you will be compatible?' Its really nonsense. You communicate, you compromise, you work at the sex life, you put the other person first. People who live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced, so that disproves that theory anyway.


You cannot draw the conclusion of more divorces means worse. I would argue, as in my case and OP, that people who don't have other prior partners may go most of their life not knowing how pathetic their life actually is. They suffer in silence in marriages because they don't know better or are trapped by moral obligation imposed by society or religion. I would argue that the people that divorce represent those that correctly recognized a bad relationship and felt empowered to leave it to find happiness. Ironically, a low divorce rate may signify a higher percentage of unhappy relationships. My wife and I are sexually incompatible. There are people that want sex everyday and people that want sex once a month. If you think these people can be happy if they just communicate and compromise, you are smoking something. They might stay together, but will never be happy. Staying together is not a sign of success.


----------



## uhtred

I've spent 30 years in a marriage where the gap in sexual interests is too big to bridge. 




Diana7 said:


> I was told that when we were dating, 'well how do you know that you will be compatible?' Its really nonsense. You communicate, you compromise, you work at the sex life, you put the other person first. People who live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced, so that disproves that theory anyway.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Diana7 said:


> I think that for me, the fact that a man is prepared to wait for marriage shows he has integrity, a strong character, and loves and respects me. He is saying that he wont have sex with me until he has made a 100% commitment to me in marriage. He has self control and patience and wants to get to know me before jumping into bed. It shows he is prepared to be different from most men, go against the worlds standards, and the fact that he hasn't slept around is a great attraction for me.
> Apparently men who have had many partners are less likely to be faithful as well. So another plus.


If the man (or woman) is young, like late teens or early 20s then I agree with you. Mid 20s or later it is more of a red flag that the person isn't that into sex and they're using their supposed morals as an excuse to avoid it. 20 year old virgin who's raring to go? Marriage material. 30 year old virgin who's never slipped? Prepare to be sexless.


----------



## Married but Happy

Diana7 said:


> I was told that when we were dating, 'well how do you know that you will be compatible?' Its really nonsense. You communicate, you compromise, you work at the sex life, you put the other person first. *People who live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced, so that disproves that theory anyway*.


This idea has been proven false, BTW, so is not a valid argument against cohabitation or premarital sex.

Cohabitation Doesn't Cause Divorce, After All

Of course, there are some nuances. People who cohabitate too soon or for the wrong reasons still have a higher failure rate, but in general, cohabitation has no negative effect.


----------



## naiveonedave

EunuchMonk said:


> Well, getting to know the person on an intellectual/emotional level is one. Sex, from my observation, usually distorts how you see the person. What do I mean? You become "connected" in a way. You are less likely to break up with someone for a bad quality when you are already banging them whereas if you weren't you probably would have dropped them with the quickness. Sex often seems like self medication to a bad relationship. There are problems, clear ones; but when you have sex they take a back seat. It works before marriage but when you two are married and living together it doesn't work anymore.


I believe this to be very true. It is partially the hormones released and those you acquire from your mate. I also think this is why a good sex life while married is crucial.

This is part of the reason that you read a lot of affairs (in CWI) that occur with exes.


----------



## ConanHub

wantshelp said:


> You cannot draw the conclusion of more divorces means worse. I would argue, as in my case and OP, that people who don't have other prior partners may go most of their life not knowing how pathetic their life actually is. They suffer in silence in marriages because they don't know better or are trapped by moral obligation imposed by society or religion. I would argue that the people that divorce represent those that correctly recognized a bad relationship and felt empowered to leave it to find happiness. Ironically, a low divorce rate may signify a higher percentage of unhappy relationships. My wife and I are sexually incompatible. There are people that want sex everyday and people that want sex once a month. If you think these people can be happy if they just communicate and compromise, you are smoking something. They might stay together, but will never be happy. Staying together is not a sign of success.


While I agree with you that just because someone stays married, it doesn't mean a successful marriage,

she is spot on about communication, compromise and working together to have good sex.

People are not hardwired LD or HD. People are malleable and can alter their sexual appetites and drive by working on it.

I had about 60 partners before I met my wife. We have great sex but it took a lot of work.

My best friend got married as a virgin. His sex life is probably better than mine but it also took a lot of work to get there.

Fvcking a lot of people doesn't really make you a good sex partner.

Working with and communicating with your SO will make you a fantastic sex partner.

I'm not talking theoretically at all. I know several people personally that have altered their appetites and drives.


----------



## Diana7

wantshelp said:


> You cannot draw the conclusion of more divorces means worse. I would argue, as in my case and OP, that people who don't have other prior partners may go most of their life not knowing how pathetic their life actually is. They suffer in silence in marriages because they don't know better or are trapped by moral obligation imposed by society or religion. I would argue that the people that divorce represent those that correctly recognized a bad relationship and felt empowered to leave it to find happiness. Ironically, a low divorce rate may signify a higher percentage of unhappy relationships. My wife and I are sexually incompatible. There are people that want sex everyday and people that want sex once a month. If you think these people can be happy if they just communicate and compromise, you are smoking something. They might stay together, but will never be happy. Staying together is not a sign of success.


 We didnt live together or have sex with each other before marriage. We got to know each other very well before marriage, we communicated about sex as about many other things. 
In marriage its not all about what WE want. Its about compromise and thinking of the other person. So if one person wants sex once a month and one twice a week, then you compromise and make it once a week, say. If one spouse expects their way all the time, something is wrong. 
Even if we dont 'feel' like having sex one day and our partner does, we can, shock horror, still have sex with them whether we 'feel' like it or not because we love them and care about them. I have done that often. 

So its not vital that both want sex exactly the same number of times because in marriage we are 2 different people and will never be the same in sex or anything else. 
As time goes on, sex lives change, children come along, there may be illnesses or other issues that change the whole physical relationship, and if the whole marriage is based on whether both spouses have the same sort of sexual desires, it wont last. Prior partners add nothing to the marriage, a good sex life is what you make of it between the 2 of you, and isn't dependant on what do did or didn't do before. 
We are missing nothing by not having slept around. I am far more attracted to my husband because he never did that. Its one of the things I love about him.


----------



## wantshelp

ConanHub said:


> People are not hardwired LD or HD.


No, but what they learn or experience growing up can sometimes be irreversible. So by the time they meet their partner, they are, in fact, hardwired. 



ConanHub said:


> People are malleable and can alter their sexual appetites and drive by working on it.


I appreciate your optimism, but my wife represents exhibit A for the counter argument. She expresses interest in changing but literally cannot change the way her brain views men and sex. Years of therapy have failed to make a dent. She has acknowledged it and wants it to be different, but is simply not able to change. Communication is not the problem. We've aired it ALL out.


----------



## Diana7

ConanHub said:


> While I agree with you that just because someone stays married, it doesn't mean a successful marriage,
> 
> she is spot on about communication, compromise and working together to have good sex.
> 
> People are not hardwired LD or HD. People are malleable and can alter their sexual appetites and drive by working on it.
> 
> I had about 60 partners before I met my wife. We have great sex but it took a lot of work.
> 
> My best friend got married as a virgin. His sex life is probably better than mine but it also took a lot of work to get there.
> 
> Fvcking a lot of people doesn't really make you a good sex partner.
> 
> Working with and communicating with your SO will make you a fantastic sex partner.
> 
> I'm not talking theoretically at all. I know several people personally that have altered their appetites and drives.


You are right, and as you said you are someone who did sleep with a lot of people, I am sure you know that most of the time casual flings/one night stands are about getting what you want, and not learning or bothering about what the other person wants. Sleeping around a lot doesn't make anyone a better lover or mean you will have a better sex life.


----------



## Diana7

wantshelp said:


> No, but what they learn or experience growing up can sometimes be irreversible. So by the time they meet their partner, they are, in fact, hardwired.
> 
> I appreciate your optimism, but my wife represents exhibit A for the counter argument. She expresses interest in changing but literally cannot change the way her brain views men and sex. Years of therapy have failed to make a dent. She has acknowledged it and wants it to be different, but is simply not able to change. Communication is not the problem. We've aired it ALL out.


 Even she can have sex purely for you sake whether she wants it or not.


----------



## Fozzy

Confining sex to marriage in the context of history made sense. It ensured that a woman would have someone there who would care for her child at a point in time where she was prohibited from doing so herself. 

It seems like one of those religious rules that was born more from the necessity of the day than anything. Like not eating pigs or shellfish. 

There's also the matter of it being the norm of the day that people would get married in their teens, rather than trying to smother their hormones for an extra decade or two. Probably makes a difference. 

I'm reminded of the old question WWJD? Trying to put myself in his position, I'd have to think there would be bigger fish to fry than worrying about who's putting their penis where, and at what time. 

You know like teaching people to be kind to each other instead.


----------



## Diana7

Fozzy said:


> Confining sex to marriage in the context of history made sense. It ensured that a woman would have someone there who would care for her child at a point in time where she was prohibited from doing so herself.
> 
> It seems like one of those religious rules that was born more from the necessity of the day than anything. Like not eating pigs or shellfish.
> 
> There's also the matter of it being the norm of the day that people would get married in their teens, rather than trying to smother their hormones for an extra decade or two. Probably makes a difference.
> 
> I'm reminded of the old question WWJD? Trying to put myself in his position, I'd have to think there would be bigger fish to fry than worrying about who's putting their penis where, and at what time.
> 
> You know like teaching people to be kind to each other instead.


God warns about things for our own good. He knows that certain things will mess us up which is why He gives advise on how to live. Sex is important, and that's why We need to take it seriously. 
Using someone for our own lusts in casual sex isnt being loving towards them or respecting them.


----------



## Fozzy

Diana7 said:


> God warns about things for our own good. He knows that certain things will mess us up which is why He gives advise on how to live. Sex is important, and that's why We need to take it seriously.
> Using someone for our own lusts in casual sex isnt being loving towards them or respecting them.


I said nothing about casual sex


----------



## EllisRedding

Fozzy said:


> C
> 
> I'm reminded of the old question WWJD?


Wow, talk about a lasting impression ... but hey, if you are asking yourself "What Would jld Do?", more power to you :wink2:


----------



## Vega

Fozzy said:


> I'd have to think there would be bigger fish to fry than worrying about who's putting their penis where, and at what time.
> 
> You know like teaching people to be kind to each other instead.


If people were kind to each other, they wouldn't try to put their penis into someone through lies, deceit and trickery.

Plus, using someone for our own lusts WHILE IN A MARRIAGE isn't being loving, either.


----------



## Hope1964

I grew up in a strict religious household and had it DRILLED into me from a young age that sex outside of marriage was HUGE HUGE no-no. So when I got drunk at my 16th birthday and decided on the spur of the moment to lose my virginity, I felt ridiculously obligated to the guy when I sobered up, ended up marrying him and having three kids with him, and divorcing him 14 years later. He was the first guy I slept with, and my second husband was the second guy. Looking back now, I know that if I hadn’t been dealt a severe case of religious guilt, there’s no way I would have married him. No way at all – it was a mistake and I KNEW it was a mistake but I had to ‘do the right thing’ which in my mind was marrying him since I’d slept with him. Twisted thinking for sure.


----------



## EunuchMonk

Fozzy said:


> Confining sex to marriage in the context of history made sense. It ensured that a woman would have someone there who would care for her child at a point in time where she was prohibited from doing so herself.
> 
> It seems like one of those religious rules that was born more from the necessity of the day than anything. Like not eating pigs or shellfish.
> 
> There's also the matter of it being the norm of the day that people would get married in their teens, rather than trying to smother their hormones for an extra decade or two. Probably makes a difference.
> 
> I'm reminded of the old question WWJD? Trying to put myself in his position, I'd have to think there would be bigger fish to fry than worrying about who's putting their penis where, and at what time.
> 
> You know like teaching people to be kind to each other instead.


This speaks more to how much our society has regressed than sex being better/worse outside marriage. We live in a day where people are taught to be immature as long as possible. I agree with what you said about people marrying young back in those days. Usually at 12 to 14. Now it is what? 30. Back then you had to grow up fast. You were a child and then an adult. Not teenage years/adolescence. You had to grow up. Now? Playstation for 30 year old men and immaturity is encouraged in us. I don't think the no sex outside of marriage is outdated. Our society is just degenerating with each passing generation. Each one is worse than the last.

Child labour laws? Forget it. You had to get a job at 10 as a young man. Note I said young _man_. That is how you were viewed. As an adult. I see how now the sex before marriage would be popular. Don't think I don't. I just see that despite people saying you have to test drive to see if you are compatible, I still hear of sex problems after the honeymoon. Even though they thought they were compatible.

As that preacher Jimmy Evans said, "I would support the sin if it worked but it doesn't".


----------



## EllisRedding

Funny enough, whenever I hear the term "casual sex", I always picture myself having sex wearing khakis and a polo shirt lol. To me that is casual!


----------



## Fozzy

EunuchMonk said:


> This speaks more to how much our society has regressed than sex being better/worse outside marriage. We live in a day where people are taught to be immature as long as possible. I agree with what you said about people marrying young back in those days. Usually at 12 to 14. Now it is what? 30. Back then you had to grow up fast. You were a child and then an adult. Not teenage years/adolescence. You had to grow up. Now? Playstation for 30 year old men and immaturity is encouraged in us. I don't think the no sex outside of marriage is outdated. Our society is just degenerating with each passing generation. Each one is worse than the last.
> 
> Child labour laws? Forget it. You had to get a job at 10 as a young man. Note I said young _man_. That is how you were viewed. As an adult. I see how now the sex before marriage would be popular. Don't think I don't. I just see that despite people saying you have to test drive to see if you are compatible, I still hear of sex problems after the honeymoon. Even though they thought they were compatible.
> 
> As that preacher Jimmy Evans said, "I would support the sin if it worked but it doesn't".


Nonsense.

Every generation thinks the newer one is going to be the end of the world. Yet I look at the last few generations and I see greater respect for freedom. I see civil liberties that our "better" generations denied people on a regular basis. I see a decline in smoking, drinking, drug use and pregnancy among teenagers, especially compared to our "better" generations. Society has regressed because we don't get married at 12 and 14 anymore?

I'll take that kind of regression any day.


----------



## ConanHub

wantshelp said:


> No, but what they learn or experience growing up can sometimes be irreversible. So by the time they meet their partner, they are, in fact, hardwired.
> 
> I appreciate your optimism, but my wife represents exhibit A for the counter argument. She expresses interest in changing but literally cannot change the way her brain views men and sex. Years of therapy have failed to make a dent. She has acknowledged it and wants it to be different, but is simply not able to change. Communication is not the problem. We've aired it ALL out.


I see your point. I have observed what you are talking about in many couples and had to overcome it quite a bit in my own marriage.

How long have you been married?

What was her upbringing like and yours?


----------



## ConanHub

E


EllisRedding said:


> Wow, talk about a lasting impression ... but hey, if you are asking yourself "What Would jld Do?", more power to you :wink2:


Oh my god!!!

You are such a dork!! LOL 😁

Keep up the good work!

I laughed despite myself!


----------



## Keke24

EunuchMonk said:


> Well, getting to know the person on an intellectual/emotional level is one. Sex, from my observation, usually distorts how you see the person. What do I mean? You become "connected" in a way. You are less likely to break up with someone for a bad quality when you are already banging them whereas if you weren't you probably would have dropped them with the quickness. Sex often seems like self medication to a bad relationship. There are problems, clear ones; but when you have sex they take a back seat. It works before marriage but when you two are married and living together it doesn't work anymore.



In that respect, wouldn't the positive side be that a couple who has sex before marriage is more connected and more willing to work on whatever issues they may have? In the same way they would be more connected after having sex after marriage and hence more likely to stay together despite issues?

This all seems to suggest that marriage is an end goal. Why? Why isn't the focus more on people becoming the best partner they can be as opposed to looking forward to getting married. Nothing has changed after the ceremony, they are still the same two people in the same relationship.


----------



## Diana7

Keke24 said:


> In that respect, wouldn't the positive side be that a couple who has sex before marriage is more connected and more willing to work on whatever issues they may have? In the same way they would be more connected after having sex after marriage and hence more likely to stay together despite issues?
> 
> This all seems to suggest that marriage is an end goal. Why? Why isn't the focus more on people becoming the best partner they can be as opposed to looking forward to getting married. Nothing has changed after the ceremony, they are still the same two people in the same relationship.


We were very close and didnt have sex before marriage. Marriage isnt the end, its the beginning, but waiting for sex makes it all the more special.


----------



## EunuchMonk

Fozzy said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Every generation thinks the newer one is going to be the end of the world. Yet I look at the last few generations and I see greater respect for freedom. I see civil liberties that our "better" generations denied people on a regular basis. *I see a decline in smoking, drinking, drug use and pregnancy among teenagers, especially compared to our "better" generations.* Society has regressed because we don't get married at 12 and 14 anymore?
> 
> I'll take that kind of regression any day.


Where do you see it? In your head? Can you site something for those outrageous claims? Decline in drug use....HAH!


----------



## EunuchMonk

Keke24 said:


> In that respect, wouldn't the positive side be that a couple who has sex before marriage is more connected and more willing to work on whatever issues they may have? In the same way they would be more connected after having sex after marriage and hence more likely to stay together despite issues?
> 
> This all seems to suggest that marriage is an end goal. Why? Why isn't the focus more on people becoming the best partner they can be as opposed to looking forward to getting married. Nothing has changed after the ceremony, they are still the same two people in the same relationship.


Becoming the best partner they can be? You mean taking a gamble and hoping it works. If that's your thinking then cheaters can't really be blamed. They tried the marriage thing and found out monogamy was not for them. It's not their fault.

That connection is a false one. Self medication so they don't have to deal with the other problems in the relationship. But after the wedding...ha...love is blind, marriage is an eye-opener, they say. When you have to go back to your home there is mystery. You are not around the person 24/7. That's the allure I think of premarital sex. Then you get to wake up next to them, see the wax in their eyes, hear their farts....things change. lol


----------



## Fozzy

EunuchMonk said:


> Where do you see it? In your head? Can you site something for those outrageous claims? Decline in drug use....HAH!


https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-even...e-trends-remain-stable-or-decline-among-teens

https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html


----------



## Keke24

EunuchMonk said:


> Becoming the best partner they can be? You mean taking a gamble and hoping it works. If that's your thinking then cheaters can't really be blamed. They tried the marriage thing and found out monogamy was not for them. It's not their fault.
> 
> That connection is a false one. Self medication so they don't have to deal with the other problems in the relationship. But after the wedding...ha...love is blind, marriage is an eye-opener, they say. When you have to go back to your home there is mystery. You are not around the person 24/7. That's the allure I think of premarital sex. Then you get to wake up next to them, see the wax in their eyes, hear their farts....things change. lol



Still seems to be a moot point considering one is more likely to experience these things (waking up, wax in eyes, farts etc) when having sex. One is more likely to stay over at partner's house and spend more and more time together once the sex starts. Marriage does not seem the eye opener then, living with one's partner seems to account for that.


----------



## EllisRedding

Fozzy said:


> https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-even...e-trends-remain-stable-or-decline-among-teens


And yet as I have gotten older, married with kids, I am more likely to use drugs now vs when I was a teen lol.


----------



## Fozzy

EllisRedding said:


> And yet as I have gotten older, married with kids, I am more likely to use drugs now vs when I was a teen lol.


word


----------



## Middle of Everything

EunuchMonk said:


> This speaks more to how much our society has regressed than sex being better/worse outside marriage. We live in a day where people are taught to be immature as long as possible. I agree with what you said about people marrying young back in those days. Usually at 12 to 14. Now it is what? 30. Back then you had to grow up fast. You were a child and then an adult. Not teenage years/adolescence. You had to grow up. Now? Playstation for 30 year old men and immaturity is encouraged in us. I don't think the no sex outside of marriage is outdated. Our society is just degenerating with each passing generation. Each one is worse than the last.
> 
> Child labour laws? Forget it. You had to get a job at 10 as a young man. Note I said young _man_. That is how you were viewed. As an adult. I see how now the sex before marriage would be popular. Don't think I don't. I just see that despite people saying you have to test drive to see if you are compatible, I still hear of sex problems after the honeymoon. Even though they thought they were compatible.
> 
> As that preacher Jimmy Evans said, "I would support the sin if it worked but it doesn't".


Maybe some of that was due to the average person living only 45 years. 

Nah. They were just "better" and "tougher".


----------



## EunuchMonk

Fozzy said:


> https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-even...e-trends-remain-stable-or-decline-among-teens
> 
> https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html


- marijuana now replaces cigarettes
- teen pregnancy decline because abortion more rampant

Was that your point?


----------



## EunuchMonk

Keke24 said:


> Still seems to be a moot point considering one is more likely to experience these things (waking up, wax in eyes, farts etc) when having sex. One is more likely to stay over at partner's house and spend more and more time together once the sex starts. Marriage does not seem the eye opener then, living with one's partner seems to account for that.


Yes it is. True colours come out when you are not on probation anymore. "Ah, I have arrived!"


----------



## Fozzy

EunuchMonk said:


> - marijuana now replaces cigarettes
> - teen pregnancy decline because abortion more rampant
> 
> Was that your point?


"But teen pregnancy rates have fallen, too. Looking at data reaching back to 1976, the pregnancy rate peaked among teens ages 15-19 in 1990, at 116.8, and had fallen 44% by 2009. *The abortion rate among females ages 15-19 has also fallen over roughly the same time period – from 43.5 per 1,000 female teens in 1988 to 16.3 in 2009.* "

Why is the teen birth rate falling? | Pew Research Center


Or maybe it's just Elvis and his swingin' hips.


----------



## EunuchMonk

Fozzy said:


> "But teen pregnancy rates have fallen, too. Looking at data reaching back to 1976, the pregnancy rate peaked among teens ages 15-19 in 1990, at 116.8, and had fallen 44% by 2009. *The abortion rate among females ages 15-19 has also fallen over roughly the same time period – from 43.5 per 1,000 female teens in 1988 to 16.3 in 2009.* "
> 
> Why is the teen birth rate falling? | Pew Research Center
> 
> 
> Or maybe it's just Elvis and his swingin' hips.


Better birth control nowadays and it being more accessible might have something to do with that.


----------



## Keke24

EunuchMonk said:


> - marijuana now replaces cigarettes
> - teen pregnancy decline because abortion more rampant
> 
> Was that your point?


That graphic is hilarious! Hehehe I needed a laugh just now


----------



## Fozzy

EunuchMonk said:


> Better birth control nowadays and it being more accessible might have something to do with that.


Ummmm yeah? Also education and parents doing a better job than THEIR parents did at raising kids right. 

Sorry man, I just don't see kids as the evil little trolls you seem to.


----------



## EunuchMonk

Fozzy said:


> Ummmm yeah? Also education and parents doing a better job than THEIR parents did at raising kids right.
> 
> Sorry man, I just don't see kids as the evil little trolls you seem to.


I said generation. That includes older persons, not elderly but older. You consider a 30 year old an "evil little troll"? Not trying to glorify the past or anything. In fact, I am sure I am younger than you.

Medicine is doing a better job at providing options. More information through the internet too.


----------



## EllisRedding

Fozzy said:


> word


----------



## ConanHub

Middle of Everything said:


> Maybe some of that was due to the average person living only 45 years.
> 
> Nah. They were just "better" and "tougher".


Young men appear seriously pathetic to me these days and many industries starving for personnel because of a very lazy, entitlement attitude that is rampant.

We might be thread jacking but did OP start it?


----------



## EunuchMonk

Middle of Everything said:


> Maybe some of that was due to the average person living only 45 years.
> 
> Nah. They were just "better" and "tougher".











Source?


----------



## Middle of Everything

EunuchMonk said:


> Source?


Not really sure what the gif is supposed to tell me but ok.
What year exactly were you declaring superior to us modern folk? I simply googled 1900. Seemed reasonable enough. 

And to be clear Im not completely against waiting for sex in a marriage. I just think you have two polar opposites in your mind of pure good folk who never experience anything sexual until AFTER saying I do, and the opposite of people literally going around [email protected] every guy/gal they can. And I dont think its so black and white.


----------



## Married but Happy

EunuchMonk said:


> - marijuana now replaces cigarettes
> - teen pregnancy decline because abortion more rampant
> 
> Was that your point?


I'll make a point: you're wrong _again_! But, will facts convince you, or are you oblivious to reality?

U.S. Teen Pregnancy, Birth and Abortion Rates Reach the Lowest Levels in Almost Four Decades:
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rel...rates-reach-lowest-levels-almost-four-decades


----------



## EunuchMonk

Middle of Everything said:


> Not really sure what the gif is supposed to tell me but ok.
> What year exactly were you declaring superior to us modern folk? I simply googled 1900. Seemed reasonable enough.
> 
> And to be clear Im not completely against waiting for sex in a marriage. I just think you have two polar opposites in your mind of pure good folk who never experience anything sexual until AFTER saying I do, and the opposite of people literally going around [email protected] every guy/gal they can. And I dont think its so black and white.


It is for comments like this that the gif is appropriate. Where did I say or imply that?




Married but Happy said:


> I'll make a point: you're wrong again! But, will facts convince you, or are you oblivious to reality?
> 
> U.S. Teen Pregnancy, Birth and Abortion Rates Reach the Lowest Levels in Almost Four Decades:
> https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...t-four-decades


Guttmacher? The ones that are sponsored by planned parenthood? Heard they use surveys sheets, asking clinic workers to remember numbers off the top of their heads. If that's where you get your abortion facts from...whew


----------



## Married but Happy

EunuchMonk said:


> Guttmacher? The ones that are sponsored by planned parenthood? Heard they use surveys sheets, asking clinic workers to remember numbers off the top of their heads. If that's where you get your abortion facts from...whew


On the other hand, you don't have ANY facts, just bias and crap opinions. Multiple sources back up the falling teen abortion rate, some using data from the CDC. Of course, you probably won't look or research this, because you might just have to change your false viewpoint.


----------



## EunuchMonk

Married but Happy said:


> *On the other hand, you don't have ANY facts*, just bias and crap opinions. Multiple sources back up the falling teen abortion rate, some using data from the CDC. Of course, you probably won't look or research this, because you might just have to change your false viewpoint.


neither do you evidently.

You've Been Guttmacher'd: Planned Parenthood's Baby | LifeNews.com

In Which The Guttmacher Institute Continues to be Awful


----------



## pag1617

EunuchMonk said:


> There is a taboo with sex in religion. I don't know about you but I love to see married couples lovey-dovey with each other. Boyfriend and girlfriend? Not so much.
> 
> I think God reserved sex for marriage. Anyone who wants to be sexual in their marriage is righteous in my eyes (I guess I understand people who don't believe in Christianity). I've met so many Christians who claim to believe in the bible yet go against it. Tell me your experience with sex in marriage and out, whether you are religious or not.


I spent years of my life hooking up with random people, trying for serious relationships, and then not trying for serious relationships, just having "fun" the whole way. In the end it has damaged me in my marriage, not as much me but mostly my wife.... and therefore me. I foolishly thought that the "sex only within marriage" was overrated. But in the end it really is essential.


----------



## ConanHub

pag1617 said:


> I spent years of my life hooking up with random people, trying for serious relationships, and then not trying for serious relationships, just having "fun" the whole way. In the end it has damaged me in my marriage, not as much me but mostly my wife.... and therefore me. I foolishly thought that the "sex only within marriage" was overrated. But in the end it really is essential.


Can you elaborate on how your past promiscuity affected / harmed your marriage / wife?


----------



## pag1617

ConanHub said:


> Can you elaborate on how your past promiscuity affected / harmed your marriage / wife?


There was a particular event when I hooked up with a long time friend of mine whom I had always had a sexual attraction to when my wife and I were in the very early stages of dating (had not yet determined our status as a couple and monogamous) and when she finally asked me about what happened between us four months later, I was honest to her as I felt I should be. Since then it has become a conflict that she still brings up even several years after it happened, and despite the fact that it was almost a year before we got married. My honesty to her has bit me in the [email protected]@. She thinks I should have told her right at that moment even thought we had not yet established boundaries and mutual friends brought this specific person around later and I invited my wife to the event to show her that nothing scandalous was going on yet it only threw fuel on the fire.


----------



## Married but Happy

EunuchMonk said:


> neither do you evidently.
> 
> You've Been Guttmacher'd: Planned Parenthood's Baby | LifeNews.com
> 
> In Which The Guttmacher Institute Continues to be Awful


Still harping on that reference, eh? CDC data also confirms. Now, where is YOUR "proof" that teen abortions are_ increasing_? You've got nothing, I'm sure. All you can do is put down other ideas, but can't support your own.

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/

The abortion rate for 2013 was 12.5 abortions per 1,000 

The abortion rate for 2000 was 16 per 1,000 women

The abortion rate for 1990 was 24 per 1,000

The trend is clearly down.

http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...-rate-abortion-record-low-20151210-story.html

From a few years ago, but reports on CDC data - teen pregnancy and abortion rates are clearly down.


----------



## EunuchMonk

Married but Happy said:


> Still harping on that reference, eh? CDC data also confirms. Now, where is YOUR "proof" that teen abortions are_ increasing_? You've got nothing, I'm sure. All you can do is put down other ideas, but can't support your own.
> 
> https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/
> 
> The abortion rate for 2013 was 12.5 abortions per 1,000
> 
> The abortion rate for 2000 was 16 per 1,000 women
> 
> The abortion rate for 1990 was 24 per 1,000
> 
> The trend is clearly down.
> 
> Abortion falls to record low in the U.S., CDC says - LA Times
> 
> From a few years ago, but reports on CDC data - teen pregnancy and abortion rates are clearly down.


As I said before better birth control has a lot to do with that. You think that means we are more virtuous or something?


----------



## gr8ful1

For Christians, the only "taboo" within marriage is a sexless marriage. Got also forbids gatekeeping. Every sexual act within marriage is a beautiful living parable of the ultimate fulfillment of the gospel, the union of Christ and his church


----------



## Diana7

pag1617 said:


> I spent years of my life hooking up with random people, trying for serious relationships, and then not trying for serious relationships, just having "fun" the whole way. In the end it has damaged me in my marriage, not as much me but mostly my wife.... and therefore me. I foolishly thought that the "sex only within marriage" was overrated. But in the end it really is essential.


It is vitally important. Those who have had more partners are more likely to cheat I recently read, and end up divorced as well. 
I know couples who deeply regret not waiting, and others who are so thankful they did wait. Its well worth using that self control for a time.


----------



## Diana7

Married but Happy said:


> Still harping on that reference, eh? CDC data also confirms. Now, where is YOUR "proof" that teen abortions are_ increasing_? You've got nothing, I'm sure. All you can do is put down other ideas, but can't support your own.
> 
> https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/
> 
> The abortion rate for 2013 was 12.5 abortions per 1,000
> 
> The abortion rate for 2000 was 16 per 1,000 women
> 
> The abortion rate for 1990 was 24 per 1,000
> 
> The trend is clearly down.
> 
> Abortion falls to record low in the U.S., CDC says - LA Times
> 
> From a few years ago, but reports on CDC data - teen pregnancy and abortion rates are clearly down.


There are still millions of babies killed each year.


----------



## Diana7

pag1617 said:


> There was a particular event when I hooked up with a long time friend of mine whom I had always had a sexual attraction to when my wife and I were in the very early stages of dating (had not yet determined our status as a couple and monogamous) and when she finally asked me about what happened between us four months later, I was honest to her as I felt I should be. Since then it has become a conflict that she still brings up even several years after it happened, and despite the fact that it was almost a year before we got married. My honesty to her has bit me in the [email protected]@. She thinks I should have told her right at that moment even thought we had not yet established boundaries and mutual friends brought this specific person around later and I invited my wife to the event to show her that nothing scandalous was going on yet it only threw fuel on the fire.


I cant understand that, once you were dating then she would have expected you not to date/have sex with someone else. I can see why she was hurt by that. I can also understand why she reacted badly to you and she meeting up with the OW.


----------



## Bellaballoo

EunuchMonk said:


> There is a taboo with sex in religion. I don't know about you but I love to see married couples lovey-dovey with each other. Boyfriend and girlfriend? Not so much.
> 
> I think God reserved sex for marriage. Anyone who wants to be sexual in their marriage is righteous in my eyes (I guess I understand people who don't believe in Christianity). I've met so many Christians who claim to believe in the bible yet go against it. Tell me your experience with sex in marriage and out, whether you are religious or not.



So I'm religious, my ex husband was not, and sex was a big problem in my marriage. He would use what the Bible said about the roles of husband and wife, and different verses to make me feel horrible about not wanting to do some things. Pretty much he used my beliefs as another way to control me. I think my beliefs contributed to being sexually abused by my husband.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Bellaballoo said:


> So I'm religious, my ex husband was not, and sex was a big problem in my marriage. He would use what the Bible said about the roles of husband and wife, and different verses to make me feel horrible about not wanting to do some things. Pretty much he used my beliefs as another way to control me. I think my beliefs contributed to being sexually abused by my husband.


Unfortunately, this is an all too common phenomenon. You're certainly not alone. Many men zero in on the part about wives submitting to their husbands but completely ignore the part about husbands must love their wives as themselves. Coercion is never the behavior of someone who loves his wife.


----------



## Bellaballoo

I hear you Yeti. But he wasn't religious so he didn't have to follow that part.


----------



## Bellaballoo

What are your thoughts about how the Bible treats women in general? Like, I look at the situation of women in the OT, and there are bits that make me really uncomfortable, particularly some of the Levitical laws. I know the culture was different, but that doesn't quite satisfy.


----------



## Diana7

Bellaballoo said:


> What are your thoughts about how the Bible treats women in general? Like, I look at the situation of women in the OT, and there are bits that make me really uncomfortable, particularly some of the Levitical laws. I know the culture was different, but that doesn't quite satisfy.


I have been a Christian for 40 years and have never felt any less loved, accepted, or important either in the church or by God just because I am female.


----------



## Bellaballoo

Diana7 said:


> I have been a Christian for 40 years and have never felt any less loved, accepted, or important either in the church or by God just because I am female.


I'm happy to hear that.

I ought to have been more specific with examples.

One passage in particular I struggle to wrap my head around is the latter half of Deut. 22 . Also, the laws of uncleaness in childbirth being different for boys and girls. When you read those, does it not make you feel less.... everything?


----------



## Diana7

Bellaballoo said:


> I'm happy to hear that.
> 
> I ought to have been more specific with examples.
> 
> One passage in particular I struggle to wrap my head around is the latter half of Deut. 22 . Also, the laws of uncleaness in childbirth being different for boys and girls.


 I suppose that as a Christian I don't think too much about Jewish laws of the OT.


----------



## Bellaballoo

Paul said they were just right and good. Plus they are God's word. So I don't really get that. I mean, I don't think we still need to follow those laws as they have served their purpose, but we can still learn lessons from them.

Anyways, not looking for debate for sure, just wanting to understand. I'm Christian too, just struggling with bits here and there!


----------



## Diana7

Bellaballoo said:


> Paul said they were just right and good. Plus they are God's word. So I don't really get that. I mean, I don't think we still need to follow those laws as they have served their purpose, but we can still learn lessons from them.
> 
> Anyways, not looking for debate for sure, just wanting to understand. I'm Christian too, just struggling with bits here and there!


Paul is clear on the fact that we as gentile Christians aren't held by the same laws anymore. Remember when he told those people off who were trying to get the new Christians to be circumcised? We are under a new covenant.


----------



## leon2100

Ok... sex must be a religious experience. "Oh God! Oh God! Oh God!" And when it's real good its "oh my God! No one ever says Oh Devil! Oh Devil!

Is that taking the Lord's name in vain or is it praising the Lord?


----------



## gr8ful1

Bellaballoo said:


> I'm happy to hear that.
> 
> I ought to have been more specific with examples.
> 
> One passage in particular I struggle to wrap my head around is the latter half of Deut. 22 . Also, the laws of uncleaness in childbirth being different for boys and girls. When you read those, does it not make you feel less.... everything?


Hi Bell,

So few exist anymore, but a great Bible study class would help you tremendously. Deuteronomy was written to a specific people (the descendants of Abraham), to a specific nation (ancient Israel), at a specific time (thousands of years ago), under a specific and now completed & therefore redundant covenant (what we Christians called the "Old" covenant - made between God and the nation of Israel), for a specific purpose (to protect the Israelites as a unique people living among idolatrous nations, to reveal the Word of God to the surrounding nations, and to bring forth the Messiah). 

The laws of Deuteronomy of in 3 categories: moral (i.e. covetesnousness, adultery, bestiality, etc.), ceremonial (all things pertaining blood, being "clean", dietary restrictions, etc.), and civil (adulteriors earn themselves the death penalty). You must understand there was a good purpose God instituted all these for the Israelites, but you must also understand that only the moral laws apply to us Christians in the New Covenant. Israel, as the physical nation defined by God in the covenant between Him & Abraham, no longer exists. God's purpose in that physical nation has been fulfilled. The ceremonially law's purpose was to remind the people that intrinsically we are not right before God, but also that He provides all we need to BE right with God (through the blood - death - of the Messiah, the once-for-all-time sacrifice; read the book of Hebrews).

Regarding Deut 22, it's hard to see it from our modern eyes, but those laws given by God actually protected women in that day, who culturally were helpless, and if shunned by the community would face certain death. If you take the time to really dive into the context, understand the culture & mores of the day, you start to see a very different picture and a God who is both holy & righteous but also INCREDIBLY compassionate, particularly to the most vulnerable, like young women, widows, and orphans.

This God of the Bible has an impossible standard for us: absolute perfection. But He has provided us this absolute perfection in the Person of Christ, and we receive that gift of righteousness by turning from our worship of self and looking to Christ in faith. From that point forward God chooses to see the perfection of Christ instead of our sin, and we live in restored relationship with our Creator. The message of the Scriptures is consistent from Genesis to Revelation. When you see the cultural contexts & God's purposes behind them, it all paints a harmonious picture of the glory of God in saving sinners to Himself.


----------



## brooklynAnn

Hi Bell,

So few exist anymore, but a great Bible study class would help you tremendously. Deuteronomy was written to a specific people (the descendants of Abraham), to a specific nation (ancient Israel), at a specific time (thousands of years ago), under a specific and now completed & therefore redundant covenant (what we Christians called the "Old" covenant - made between God and the nation of Israel), for a specific purpose (to protect the Israelites as a unique people living among idolatrous nations, to reveal the Word of God to the surrounding nations, and to bring forth the Messiah). 

The laws of Deuteronomy of in 3 categories: moral (i.e. covetesnousness, adultery, bestiality, etc.), ceremonial (all things pertaining blood, being "clean", dietary restrictions, etc.), and civil (adulteriors earn themselves the death penalty). You must understand there was a good purpose God instituted all these for the Israelites, but you must also understand that only the moral laws apply to us Christians in the New Covenant. Israel, as the physical nation defined by God in the covenant between Him & Abraham, no longer exists. God's purpose in that physical nation has been fulfilled. The ceremonially law's purpose was to remind the people that intrinsically we are not right before God, but also that He provides all we need to BE right with God (through the blood - death - of the Messiah, the once-for-all-time sacrifice; read the book of Hebrews).

Regarding Deut 22, it's hard to see it from our modern eyes, but those laws given by God actually protected women in that day, who culturally were helpless, and if shunned by the community would face certain death. If you take the time to really dive into the context, understand the culture & mores of the day, you start to see a very different picture and a God who is both holy & righteous but also INCREDIBLY compassionate, particularly to the most vulnerable, like young women, widows, and orphans.

This God of the Bible has an impossible standard for us: absolute perfection. But He has provided us this absolute perfection in the Person of Christ, and we receive that gift of righteousness by turning from our worship of self and looking to Christ in faith. From that point forward God chooses to see the perfection of Christ instead of our sin, and we live in restored relationship with our Creator. The message of the Scriptures is consistent from Genesis to Revelation. When you see the cultural contexts & God's purposes behind them, it all paints a harmonious picture of the glory of God in saving sinners to Himself.[/QUOTE]

This is an amazing explanation. My DD and I were having a convo of this subject of how women were treated during biblical days and the whys....she is taking a class on ...women thru the ages...next semester. I like how you explained it so clearly. I will share this with her. 

Sorry for thread jacking.


----------



## Bellaballoo

gr8ful1 said:


> Hi Bell,
> 
> So few exist anymore, but a great Bible study class would help you tremendously. Deuteronomy was written to a specific people (the descendants of Abraham), to a specific nation (ancient Israel), at a specific time (thousands of years ago), under a specific and now completed & therefore redundant covenant (what we Christians called the "Old" covenant - made between God and the nation of Israel), for a specific purpose (to protect the Israelites as a unique people living among idolatrous nations, to reveal the Word of God to the surrounding nations, and to bring forth the Messiah).
> 
> The laws of Deuteronomy of in 3 categories: moral (i.e. covetesnousness, adultery, bestiality, etc.), ceremonial (all things pertaining blood, being "clean", dietary restrictions, etc.), and civil (adulteriors earn themselves the death penalty). You must understand there was a good purpose God instituted all these for the Israelites, but you must also understand that only the moral laws apply to us Christians in the New Covenant. Israel, as the physical nation defined by God in the covenant between Him & Abraham, no longer exists. God's purpose in that physical nation has been fulfilled. The ceremonially law's purpose was to remind the people that intrinsically we are not right before God, but also that He provides all we need to BE right with God (through the blood - death - of the Messiah, the once-for-all-time sacrifice; read the book of Hebrews).
> 
> Regarding Deut 22, it's hard to see it from our modern eyes, but those laws given by God actually protected women in that day, who culturally were helpless, and if shunned by the community would face certain death. If you take the time to really dive into the context, understand the culture & mores of the day, you start to see a very different picture and a God who is both holy & righteous but also INCREDIBLY compassionate, particularly to the most vulnerable, like young women, widows, and orphans.
> 
> This God of the Bible has an impossible standard for us: absolute perfection. But He has provided us this absolute perfection in the Person of Christ, and we receive that gift of righteousness by turning from our worship of self and looking to Christ in faith. From that point forward God chooses to see the perfection of Christ instead of our sin, and we live in restored relationship with our Creator. The message of the Scriptures is consistent from Genesis to Revelation. When you see the cultural contexts & God's purposes behind them, it all paints a harmonious picture of the glory of God in saving sinners to Himself.


I do agree that a good Bible study would be very helpful! And yes, that sure is hard to find. 

I think in principle, I agree with how you have explained the law of Moses. I guess I see it, along with all other parts of Scripture, as how God reveals his character to us. And just as Christ did, our purpose is to learn it an model it, to learn to be as we were created, in the image and likeness of God. Like when Moses asked to see God's glory, God gave a list of character attributes. Christ, being in the image of the Father and full of his glory displayed that character to us, and we are to develop and reflect that glory as well.

And so I see the same in the Law. Israel was so different as the nations around them. To be a light. These laws set them apart, showing them not only a zillion spiritual lessons in all its intricacies, but again, God's character - just, holy and good. Which yes, often to the vulnerable, it was compassionate in comparison to the nations around them. And I understand that times were different, but Israel was so different in so many ways, God could have chosen that women were treated differently. Not just better than the nations around them in part, but as good as men. If a woman is as valuable in God's eyes, then why not?

As I can see it, this extends through scripture. Women has an entirely different role. I wouldn't say that's always a bad thing, like different isn't necessarily worse. But with several examples, it seems worse! Having to marry your rapist is just one of the more kind of shocking examples to me. But also the laws of uncleanness really bug me. And no woman angels. And circumcision being the token of the covenant. No women in the priesthood. All of the books of the Bible are written by men. The 12 apostles are men. Women must remain silent in the church. Don't teach. Don't speak. The man is the authority. 

It's not just a cultural occurrence, it is a theme. And how can a women who sees this not feel somewhat upset? In my marriage, this was brutal for me. I felt I had no Biblical basis to leave, if God didn't make a way in other situations for other women. I'd think of poor Leah in her misery, or Rachel in Egypt, or Tamar, or Abigail with Nabal. These women were noted for their faithfulness and righteousness, and put up with some nasty crap from their spouses. It seemed to me spousal abuse was obviously a part of the fallen human experience, but no direction was given in the Bible on how to deal with it. 

I realize my view is probably tainted if not all out wrong. My lack of clarity on this topic causes me a lot of struggle, but in the end, I just need to be clear, the Bible is Truth. There is too much evidence for that for me to dismiss it even though at times I sure have wanted to.


----------



## Diana7

Bellaballoo said:


> I do agree that a good Bible study would be very helpful! And yes, that sure is hard to find.
> 
> I think in principle, I agree with how you have explained the law of Moses. I guess I see it, along with all other parts of Scripture, as how God reveals his character to us. And just as Christ did, our purpose is to learn it an model it, to learn to be as we were created, in the image and likeness of God. Like when Moses asked to see God's glory, God gave a list of character attributes. Christ, being in the image of the Father and full of his glory displayed that character to us, and we are to develop and reflect that glory as well.
> 
> And so I see the same in the Law. Israel was so different as the nations around them. To be a light. These laws set them apart, showing them not only a zillion spiritual lessons in all its intricacies, but again, God's character - just, holy and good. Which yes, often to the vulnerable, it was compassionate in comparison to the nations around them. And I understand that times were different, but Israel was so different in so many ways, God could have chosen that women were treated differently. Not just better than the nations around them in part, but as good as men. If a woman is as valuable in God's eyes, then why not?
> 
> As I can see it, this extends through scripture. Women has an entirely different role. I wouldn't say that's always a bad thing, like different isn't necessarily worse. But with several examples, it seems worse! Having to marry your rapist is just one of the more kind of shocking examples to me. But also the laws of uncleanness really bug me. And no woman angels. And circumcision being the token of the covenant. No women in the priesthood. All of the books of the Bible are written by men. The 12 apostles are men. Women must remain silent in the church. Don't teach. Don't speak. The man is the authority.
> 
> It's not just a cultural occurrence, it is a theme. And how can a women who sees this not feel somewhat upset? In my marriage, this was brutal for me. I felt I had no Biblical basis to leave, if God didn't make a way in other situations for other women. I'd think of poor Leah in her misery, or Rachel in Egypt, or Tamar, or Abigail with Nabal. These women were noted for their faithfulness and righteousness, and put up with some nasty crap from their spouses. It seemed to me spousal abuse was obviously a part of the fallen human experience, but no direction was given in the Bible on how to deal with it.
> 
> I realize my view is probably tainted if not all out wrong. My lack of clarity on this topic causes me a lot of struggle, but in the end, I just need to be clear, the Bible is Truth. There is too much evidence for that for me to dismiss it even though at times I sure have wanted to.


I am in the uk but most churches here have Bible study groups. Also, most sermons are looking at the bible. There is also so much we can listen to on line. The God I love would not expect anyone to put up with spousal/child abuse.


----------



## peacem

Diana7 said:


> I am in the uk but most churches here have Bible study groups. Also, most sermons are looking at the bible. There is also so much we can listen to on line. The God I love would not expect anyone to put up with spousal/child abuse.


Agreed! Though it seems to be rife at my local church. My husband is a victim of abuse by someone who is highly respected. This is a very good Christian lecture on narcissism within the Church i.e it attracts abusers. 






Really important to remember not everyone thinks like you and me. :frown2:


----------



## Marriage Is Our Ministry

The subject of sex in religious/faith based organizations has always been taboo. This is largely due to the point of reference that we have for sex and sexual activity. Very seldom are the portrayals of sex (in the media, print, etc.) ones that glorify happy successful marital relationships. We usually see hook-ups, passionate one night stands, or outright perverse encounters. As a result we have a skewed point of reference when it comes to sex. Unfortunately, many of take that skewed point of reference into our marriages as well, causing alot of the disconnect that you read about in these comments and threads.
I agree with you that sex is reserved for marriage. Many people (myself included) made the choice to live outside of that reservation...
Many will not be willing to admit this, but there are some definite 'issues' that accompany have sex outside of marriage. The 'issues' may not be ones that at first glance appear to be all that detrimental, but they definitely show up...
Whether it be silent, or out-right comparisons, or skewed expectations, it shows up somewhere. When you have sex with someone, there is a chemical reaction that takes place, binding you as it were to that individual (google it and read about it). We were designed to only have that kind of permanent connection with one individual, thus the reservation of sex for married folks.
Faith-based organizations need to be leading the way in redirecting the view of sex - within marriage, it is a beautiful thing - to be enjoyed as often as possible!


----------



## Trieste

We were both virgins until our wedding night. We don't know how we managed it!
Now that we have been married for a long time we are not sure now if it matters.
But it seems to us that there is a level of intimacy that is only possible with one other person.
So if you both only have hetersexual genital intercourse with each other in your whole life, your relationship may have a specialness that others can only imagine. And it doesn't matter if they doubt it if they haven't been there and done it.


----------



## ConanHub

leon2100 said:


> Ok... sex must be a religious experience. "Oh God! Oh God! Oh God!" And when it's real good its "oh my God! No one ever says Oh Devil! Oh Devil!
> 
> Is that taking the Lord's name in vain or is it praising the Lord?


Definitely praising God!!

Sooo glad he created sex!!!:grin2:


----------



## jlcrome

As a christian I can say honestly that some of my best sex experience was being single. Now being married and maybe a looming divorce i would say the marriage itself didn't help achieve awesome sex considering I love sex and plus having a asexual wife sucked the life out of me. Plus we sort of waited we did have sex to start off but backed off until we got married so basically technically we kina fall into the waited catagory. Looking back on a almost 10 year marriage the worst hell in my life. My wife is very asexual plus if we got into a conflict she would made sure my life is hell for months. But where christians somehow life didn't go as planned. God told her to divorce me go figure.


----------



## Vinnydee

Why is sex only for marriage? Those guys who wrote the bible had one wife but many concubines for sex. Religion tries to control people by controlling sex. Been doing it for a very long time. Sex releases the hormone Oxytocin which emotionally bonds a couple together. It can transform friends into lovers and lovers into spouses. You can choose not to have premarital sex and join the millions of men complaining about their lousy sex lives, sexually unsatisfying wives, etc.. Anyone in a mature adult relationship knows the benefits of sex and there is no logical reason not to have it until after you are married. We do not follow the medical books written 5,000 years ago but we follow a collection of stories assembled by an organization devoted to controlling mankind, translated incorrectly and do not question it. How does that make sense?

There have been 3000 gods in human history. They come and they go and to think that the gods worshipped today will still be worshiped thousands of years from now is not knowing the history of religion and its true purpose. Sex is only bad because some people say so based on ancient books written by men who knew less about the world than a 10 year old does today. I had lots of sex before I married and even more after I married with both my wife and our girlfriend. We live good lives, give to charity, help the less fortunate even though we lived in a poly triad. Sex did not make any difference in our lives. I am married 45 years and what does sex have to do with being married or not?


----------



## Fozzy

I'm all for monogamy and have no problem with people who want to wait for marriage for whatever reason. Cool. 

Where I get lost is that if it's sinful for people to have sex outside of marriage, does that extend to people who have never even heard of Christianity? Was it sinful for a tribe of Amazon Basin natives or Polynesian islanders 1000 years ago to have sex and procreate without what we would consider a traditional marriage? 

If so, would it have been less sinful to allow their peoples to die out rather than engaging in sinful intercourse?


----------



## Diana7

Fozzy said:


> I'm all for monogamy and have no problem with people who want to wait for marriage for whatever reason. Cool.
> 
> Where I get lost is that if it's sinful for people to have sex outside of marriage, does that extend to people who have never even heard of Christianity? Was it sinful for a tribe of Amazon Basin natives or Polynesian islanders 1000 years ago to have sex and procreate without what we would consider a traditional marriage?
> 
> If so, would it have been less sinful to allow their peoples to die out rather than engaging in sinful intercourse?


People who have never heard of God wont be judged in the same way. Also most people/tribes/races have some sort of marriage type ceremony. Its whatever ceremony that the place you live in has as its legal/proper ceremony that applies I would think.


----------



## Diana7

Vinnydee said:


> Why is sex only for marriage? Those guys who wrote the bible had one wife but many concubines for sex. Religion tries to control people by controlling sex. Been doing it for a very long time. Sex releases the hormone Oxytocin which emotionally bonds a couple together. It can transform friends into lovers and lovers into spouses. You can choose not to have premarital sex and join the millions of men complaining about their lousy sex lives, sexually unsatisfying wives, etc.. Anyone in a mature adult relationship knows the benefits of sex and there is no logical reason not to have it until after you are married. We do not follow the medical books written 5,000 years ago but we follow a collection of stories assembled by an organization devoted to controlling mankind, translated incorrectly and do not question it. How does that make sense?
> 
> There have been 3000 gods in human history. They come and they go and to think that the gods worshipped today will still be worshiped thousands of years from now is not knowing the history of religion and its true purpose. Sex is only bad because some people say so based on ancient books written by men who knew less about the world than a 10 year old does today. I had lots of sex before I married and even more after I married with both my wife and our girlfriend. We live good lives, give to charity, help the less fortunate even though we lived in a poly triad. Sex did not make any difference in our lives. I am married 45 years and what does sex have to do with being married or not?


Yes some in the OT had more than one wife, although it was only the kings and very wealthy who had many, but that was never God's desire or intention. In Genesis he said clearly that the man shall leave His father and mother and join to His wife. 
In the NT, we are clearly told that sex is for marriage only, and that marriage is between one man and one woman, and in my experience this is very wise advise. 
If you are not a Christian you are free to live as you choose. For us its different, although even if I wasn't a Christian I still wouldn't be unfaithful to the man I made promises to be faithful to. 

Sex seals the marriage covenant, that's why we are supposed to be with one person. 

As it happens the happiest marriages I know of are between couples who waited, and I am betting that nearly all of the men here complaining about their wives and marriages did have sex before marriage, maybe with many people, so the point you make about all these men who waited and are now unhappy is weird and wrong.


----------



## jlcrome

Honestly I don't see the point of pondering the thought of sex before marriage, sex after marriage, should i've waited, maybe I shouldn't slept with so and so, maybe if I done that. Geez if you are married have damn sex thats it. My wife was a virgin but still I could care less. Did it help our marriage HELL NO! What makes a great marriage is 2 willing people to do there best regardless of their sexual past. I rather be with someone that had alot of sex partners and have an active sex life vs. a virgin waiting till marriage and end up near sexless. Now I'm not saying that is a trend but just saying if I had to pick one I pick lots of sex.


----------



## jlcrome

Happy marriages are a result of people who knows how to live life and make the best out of it. 
Now if I was single younger would I wait till marriage? sure now how long are we talking about 2-3 months? then yes, 4-5 years no. 
There's no bragging rights if you waited just a few months. Hell anybody can pull that off. Heck there's been times I waited longer for medical procedures. 
Try waiting 5 years till marriage no sex before marriage. You probably run into a lottery winner than someone who pulled off such a task.
Reason I say this is to put a twist to this. Would you wait 5 years no sex till marriage? probably not.


----------



## Sean Jacobs

EunuchMonk said:


> There is a taboo with sex in religion. I don't know about you but I love to see married couples lovey-dovey with each other. Boyfriend and girlfriend? Not so much.
> 
> I think God reserved sex for marriage. Anyone who wants to be sexual in their marriage is righteous in my eyes (I guess I understand people who don't believe in Christianity). I've met so many Christians who claim to believe in the bible yet go against it. Tell me your experience with sex in marriage and out, whether you are religious or not.


I am not religious. 

For me sex and emotion cannot be separated. I have had sex with 7 women in my life. I have been married twice. I have always found that the sex with no emotional connection was not fulfilling. Sure it is fun at the time, but usually lead to one person wanting more and the other walking away. My first wife cheated on me repeatedly, until I walked away. My current wife was my childhood sweetheart. I lost my virginity to her. The sex was always the best with her, but now she has health issues and we no longer have sex (by the way she is very religious). It has left an incredible rift in our relationship and resentment is developing. 

I'm sure sex is different for everyone but ultimately is always involves both the physical and the emotional aspects of human beings.


----------



## uhtred

You may not know the ones who are unhappy. Not a single person who knows who I am knows that my wife and I have such a bad sex life. They see what appears to be a happy loving couple. I put on a very good show and she doesn't realize that there is a problem because she assumes that normal couples don't have sex. 

If I had been a little more experienced I would have recognized her lack of interest in sex before we were married. Nothing wrong with a lack of interest in sex, but it is incompatible with someone who does have an interest. 




Diana7 said:


> snip
> 
> As it happens the happiest marriages I know of are between couples who waited, and I am betting that nearly all of the men here complaining about their wives and marriages did have sex before marriage, maybe with many people, so the point you make about all these men who waited and are now unhappy is weird and wrong.


----------



## Diana7

jlcrome said:


> Happy marriages are a result of people who knows how to live life and make the best out of it.
> Now if I was single younger would I wait till marriage? sure now how long are we talking about 2-3 months? then yes, 4-5 years no.
> There's no bragging rights if you waited just a few months. Hell anybody can pull that off. Heck there's been times I waited longer for medical procedures.
> Try waiting 5 years till marriage no sex before marriage. You probably run into a lottery winner than someone who pulled off such a task.
> Reason I say this is to put a twist to this. Would you wait 5 years no sex till marriage? probably not.


There is no reason for any couple to wait 5 years till they marry. A year or two is more than long enough. However I do know a young Christian couple who did wait three years before they married because they were studying and couldn't afford a home together at that time. They waited till their studies were done and they both had work. They didn't have sex till they married. 
We married after 9 months, I knew within a very short time that I wanted to marry him.


----------



## Diana7

uhtred said:


> You may not know the ones who are unhappy. Not a single person who knows who I am knows that my wife and I have such a bad sex life. They see what appears to be a happy loving couple. I put on a very good show and she doesn't realize that there is a problem because she assumes that normal couples don't have sex.
> 
> If I had been a little more experienced I would have recognized her lack of interest in sex before we were married. Nothing wrong with a lack of interest in sex, but it is incompatible with someone who does have an interest.


Thats why honest communication is so important. We talked about sex quite a lot before we married, so we knew that we were on the same page even though we didn't have sex during that time.


----------



## Diana7

uhtred said:


> You may not know the ones who are unhappy. Not a single person who knows who I am knows that my wife and I have such a bad sex life. They see what appears to be a happy loving couple. I put on a very good show and she doesn't realize that there is a problem because she assumes that normal couples don't have sex.
> 
> If I had been a little more experienced I would have recognized her lack of interest in sex before we were married. Nothing wrong with a lack of interest in sex, but it is incompatible with someone who does have an interest.


I am going by the ones I know very well. My friends marriages.


----------



## Personal

Diana7 said:


> If you are not a Christian you are free to live as you choose. For us its different, although even if I wasn't a Christian I still wouldn't be unfaithful to the man I made promises to be faithful to.


Well considering the fact that you have been divorced, your claim that you wouldn't be unfaithful to the man you made promises to be faithful to, certainly makes you a liar and proves your hypocrisy.

For all of your holier-than-thou pontificating you are just another woman who has had multiple sexual partners. When you got married the first time you promised to be faithful, yet here you are being a hypocrite by being married to another man.



Diana7 said:


> Sex seals the marriage covenant, that's why we are supposed to be with one person.


Except you've been with at least two men, so having sex with your first husband certainly didn't stop you from breaking that covenant and your promises to him when you changed your mind.

While ever you continue to tell people to do as I say rather than as I do, you will never have any credibility or be anything other than a hypocrite.



Diana7 said:


> As it happens the happiest marriages I know of are between couples who waited, and I am betting that nearly all of the men here complaining about their wives and marriages did have sex before marriage, maybe with many people, so the point you make about all these men who waited and are now unhappy is weird and wrong.


I can just as easily say (without lying or gilding the lily) that the happiest marriages I know, are between the couples who shared sex together within the first week of dating. Yet in the same way my statement isn't universally applicable, your statement isn't universally applicable.

Plus as uhtred points out there's no way you can know what's really going on in other people's marriages, even if they are close friends. Since people sometimes lie and that also includes you, with your claims that you wouldn't be unfaithful to a man who you promised fidelity to. Yet you abandoned that promise to your first husband, when you chose to marry another man which proves you are a liar.


----------



## uhtred

Maybe but my closest friends have no idea of my situation at home. 

I'm the great guy with the beautiful intelligent hard-working wife, who has his whole life together. 

Richard Cory






Diana7 said:


> I am going by the ones I know very well. My friends marriages.


----------



## Diana7

Personal said:


> Well considering the fact that you have been divorced, your claim that you wouldn't be unfaithful to the man you made promises to be faithful to, certainly makes you a liar and proves your hypocrisy.
> 
> For all of your holier-than-thou pontificating you are just another woman who has had multiple sexual partners. When you got married the first time you promised to be faithful, yet here you are being a hypocrite by being married to another man.
> 
> 
> 
> Except you've been with at least two men, so having sex with your first husband certainly didn't stop you from breaking that covenant and your promises to him when you changed your mind.
> 
> While ever you continue to tell people to do as I say rather than as I do, you will never have any credibility or be anything other than a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> I can just as easily say (without lying or gilding the lily) that the happiest marriages I know, are between the couples who shared sex together within the first week of dating. Yet in the same way my statement isn't universally applicable, your statement isn't universally applicable.
> 
> Plus as uhtred points out there's no way you can know what's really going on in other people's marriages, even if they are close friends. Since people sometimes lie and that also includes you, with your claims that you wouldn't be unfaithful to a man who you promised fidelity to. Yet you abandoned that promise to your first husband, when you chose to marry another man which proves you are a liar.


My first marriage ending was not my decision, nor did I cause it to end. I was married for 25 years. So no there was no abandoning on my part and it was nothing to do with me 'changing my mind'. BTW I have never been unfaithful nor have I had 'multiple partners'. 

Yes I do know about my many friends marriages because we talk about them. You can tell by what people say what they think of their spouses. Its pretty easy to tell whose marriage is good and whose isn't.


----------



## Diana7

uhtred said:


> Maybe but my closest friends have no idea of my situation at home.
> 
> I'm the great guy with the beautiful intelligent hard-working wife, who has his whole life together.
> 
> Richard Cory


Women are usually more open with each other about these things.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Diana7 said:


> My first marriage ending was not my decision, nor did I cause it to end. I was married for 25 years. So no there was no abandoning on my part and it was nothing to do with me 'changing my mind'. BTW I have never been unfaithful nor have I had 'multiple partners'.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do know about my many friends marriages because we talk about them. You can tell by what people say what they think of their spouses. Its pretty easy to tell whose marriage is good and whose isn't.




It doesn’t matter why your marriage ended, unless he died. Your current ‘marriage’ is a sin. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana7

WorkingOnMe said:


> It doesn’t matter why your marriage ended, unless he died. Your current ‘marriage’ is a sin.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nope its not, you need to study marriage and divorce in the whole Bible. If the divorce is for certain things (such as sexual immorality or abandonment) a divorce is permitted and remarriage isn't wrong. Both of our divorces were for those biblical reasons.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Don’t worry Diana. Jesus still loves you despite your sin. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana7

WorkingOnMe said:


> Don’t worry Diana. Jesus still loves you despite your sin.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks, but I am not worried. :wink2:


----------



## Personal

Diana7 said:


> My first marriage ending was not my decision, nor did I cause it to end. I was married for 25 years. So no there was no abandoning on my part and it was nothing to do with me 'changing my mind'. BTW I have never been unfaithful nor have I had 'multiple partners'.
> 
> Yes I do know about my many friends marriages because we talk about them. You can tell by what people say what they think of their spouses. Its pretty easy to tell whose marriage is good and whose isn't.


Au contraire you have had more than one sexual partner, therefore you have had multiple sexual partners (multiple being more than one).

That said who ended your marriage is irrelevant, while ever you have sex with someone else other than your first husband who you promised fidelity to, you are not fulfilling your solemn vows of fidelity to your first husband.

If you kept you promise to your first husband, you would never have had sex with any other man (like your current husband) after your first husband regardless of how your marriage ended.

Whether you like it or not, your own words reveal your breach of promise to your first husband. Just as your claim that you wouldn't be unfaithful to the man you promised to be faithful to (without caveat or limit) is clearly a lie.

You are just like everyone else, in that you don't always keep your promises and you do sometimes lie.

That being the case perhaps you might consider having the decency and moral integrity to get off your high horse, when you are not fit to sit upon it.


----------



## CuddleBug

EunuchMonk said:


> There is a taboo with sex in religion. I don't know about you but I love to see married couples lovey-dovey with each other. Boyfriend and girlfriend? Not so much.
> 
> I think God reserved sex for marriage. Anyone who wants to be sexual in their marriage is righteous in my eyes (I guess I understand people who don't believe in Christianity). I've met so many Christians who claim to believe in the bible yet go against it. Tell me your experience with sex in marriage and out, whether you are religious or not.




- I too believe in God, Christ on the cross for my sins, but I think sex in a marriage is extremely important. Religion is for the soul (non physical) and sex is for the present, physical, pleasure and procreation if you want to have kids.


- My sex drive and fantasies don't change just because I believe in God. I keep that to my wife and if she's not in the mood, I take care of business myself.


- When i was dating and met Mrs.CuddleBug, I wasn't a good boy. I definitely had sex before marriage and I'm not proud of this but I was a walking hormone in my youth with little self control. Today, much better at controlling myself. Ideally I should of waited until being married, but that wasn't my experience.


- I don't judge those who have pre marital sex, but I am against those who chose not to get married, live together and have kids.


----------



## Diana7

Personal said:


> Au contraire you have had more than one sexual partner, therefore you have had multiple sexual partners (multiple being more than one).
> 
> That said who ended your marriage is irrelevant, while ever you have sex with someone else other than your first husband who you promised fidelity to, you are not fulfilling your solemn vows of fidelity to your first husband.
> 
> If you kept you promise to your first husband, you would never have had sex with any other man (like your current husband) after your first husband regardless of how your marriage ended.
> 
> Whether you like it or not, your own words reveal your breach of promise to your first husband. Just as your claim that you wouldn't be unfaithful to the man you promised to be faithful to (without caveat or limit) is clearly a lie.
> 
> You are just like everyone else, in that you don't always keep your promises and you do sometimes lie.
> 
> That being the case perhaps you might consider having the decency and moral integrity to get off your high horse, when you are not fit to sit upon it.


No I don't lie. There are some things that are so serious that they break the marriage covenant. Once that happens, then the marriage can be ended. I didn't break my promises, he did. Two isn't multiple. Two is two. 

As I said I have no issues with people living as they please, but there are always consequences. 

Wanting to save sex for marriage isn't being on my high horse, except in your eyes. I don't know why it makes you react this way. I think its great that people still do this, especially young couples who are under such pressure to have many partners and have sex after a short time. Its not easy gong against the flow.


----------



## EllisRedding

Diana7 said:


> As it happens the happiest marriages I know of are between couples who waited, and I am betting that nearly all of the men here complaining about their wives and marriages did have sex before marriage, maybe with many people, so the point you make about all these men who waited and are now unhappy is weird and wrong.


I just want to point out that this makes no sense. You base your opinion on the people you know with the happiest marriages which is fine, yet the person who stated his opinion that the men who waited ended up unhappy is wrong  Seems like two different opinions based on the person's experience, so how can one be right and one be wrong??? I will take the other side of it, show me the study/statistics that backs either side of the argument.


----------

