# Sex attitudes / goals - interesting comment from wife



## uhtred

During a random diner conversation with my wife we were talking about how men and women dressed and acted on dates. She made a comment to the effect that "traditionally" women used sex to attract men to get married while men tried to get sex without getting married. 

She worded it in a way to suggest that *she* didn't necessarily feel that way but seemed surprised when I commented that I didn't think that view was very common in the modern world. 

Do a significant number of women still view sex as something that they "exchange" for marriage, something women do *for* men as opposed to something that is mutually enjoyed?

I thought that idea had mostly vanished half a century ago, but maybe not.


----------



## DustyDog

In the 1960s, my mom (and, according to my pals, their moms) said: "A man wants sex and will give a woman love in order to get sex. A woman wants love, and will give a man sex in order to get it." The notion of sex before marriage was not gender-specific - it was believed that both genders wanted to "act as adults before they are ready". Just my experience, of course.

On the other hand, there is a personality trait called people-pleaser. It's actually the most difficult one to be married to, because a people-pleaser struggles to tell bad news...and you end up feeling you've been lied to your entire marriage. I've now known two women who, in our early dating days, eagerly encouraged physical intimacy - from my viewpoint, they led. I am aware that sex can be a touchy issue for many women, so I don't push it, when first dating, I'm careful, bring up the topic slowly, see how receptive she is, etc...so, if I think a woman has been aggressive about it, she probably was...it definitely happened sooner than I expected and I didn't go through my usual careful build-up over a period of many dates. 

Anyway, both of these women who seemed eager and led the activities later said they never actually liked it, but they wanted a relationship and knew that all men liked sex (which is actually not true) so they offered it up early to "get it out of the way".

On the other hand, all women I dated, being nominally my age, grew up with the same moms as I did.


----------



## wild jade

No. And I'm old!!

A few of the girls I grew up around were marriage-focused, but not that many, and most of the women in my circle now don't view marriage as any particular prize or end game. Certainly they're not using sex to trap men into it. I know a few couples, for example, that have never bothered to tie the knot at all, even though they've been together for ages. And a few women who much prefer to live alone and have lovers on the side than to give up their independence.


----------



## Diana7

All women are different. When I dated it was only in order to meet a man who wanted to get married (if things worked out). However I wasn't prepared to have sex to get that man because I wanted a man who was prepared to wait. I do know a lot of women who want to get married and have a family, and are not looking for casual sex, but a committed relationship/marriage.Having said that, a lot of men I know want/wanted that as well.


----------



## Anon Pink

IDK, the women my age who are single are looking for sex and casual fun while the men our age are looking for a stronger commitment. As if they'd been married and liked having a wife and miss having a wife while the women do not miss having a husband. 

In our younger days, sex wasn't used transactionally. It was almost always an integral part of relationships and sex had almost nothing to do with seeking a spouse. I think my husband and I are the only one we know who didn't live together prior to marriage.


----------



## Fozzy

If I had to guess, I'd say this attitude is not as common as it used to be, but can still be found in some cultural groups/regions to a higher degree than others. I *suspect* that a lot of this stems from how some young ladies are raised by the preceding generation, and the misinformation that keeps being perpetuated about what all men want, etc.

It's very sad. With a stable full of girls in my house creeping toward that age (I say creeping but it seems like the speed of light), I've had a few sit-downs with my wife about what we need to be teaching them about relationships. I've also had to "correct" a few things I've heard her tell our daughters.


----------



## uhtred

Things parents tell their children about sex and love can stay with them for their entire lives. Its worth thinking very hard about what you want them to learn.






Fozzy said:


> If I had to guess, I'd say this attitude is not as common as it used to be, but can still be found in some cultural groups/regions to a higher degree than others. I *suspect* that a lot of this stems from how some young ladies are raised by the preceding generation, and the misinformation that keeps being perpetuated about what all men want, etc.
> 
> It's very sad. With a stable full of girls in my house creeping toward that age (I say creeping but it seems like the speed of light), I've had a few sit-downs with my wife about what we need to be teaching them about relationships. I've also had to "correct" a few things I've heard her tell our daughters.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> IDK, the women my age who are single are looking for sex and casual fun while the men our age are looking for a stronger commitment. As if they'd been married and liked having a wife and miss having a wife while the women do not miss having a husband.
> 
> In our younger days, sex wasn't used transactionally. It was almost always an integral part of relationships and sex had almost nothing to do with seeking a spouse. I think my husband and I are the only one we know who didn't live together prior to marriage.


Just out of curiosity what is you age range? I am in my early fortys and find the exact opposite of what you observe. None of my male single friends want to get married and all my female friends and cousins do. Just wondering if this is a generational thing.


----------



## Wolf1974

I have heard this notion before but yes it has little to do with the modern world. Young women may be able to hold this value of waiting for sex till married, for a very show true time, but with online dating if a guy just wants sex he can just move on to find it. And that sex can be completely relationship free if they so choose. I don't know if this is better or worse, probably an argument each way.


----------



## Fozzy

Wolf1974 said:


> Just out of curiosity what is you age range? I am in my early fortys and find the exact opposite of what you observe. None of my male single friends want to get married and all my female friends and cousins do. Just wondering if this is a generational thing.


I think for a certain generation, it's more of a life experience thing. You have a large part of a generation of women who were likely treated pretty badly by a whole generation of men. By the time they reach a certain age, they're done, whereas the men have likely had a great ride under the rules of that day and want more of it.

Folks in your generation (and my own) are having a different experience and our outcomes will probably reflect it, as will younger generations.


----------



## Wolf1974

Fozzy said:


> I think for a certain generation, it's more of a life experience thing. You have a large part of a generation of women who were likely treated pretty badly by a whole generation of men. By the time they reach a certain age, they're done, whereas the men have likely had a great ride under the rules of that day and want more of it.
> 
> Folks in your generation (and my own) are having a different experience and our outcomes will probably reflect it, as will younger generations.


not sure I see the large part of a generation of women who were treated badly. Not sure what that's a reference too. I think both genders benefited more from marriage a couple generations ago than now. 

I think we are only a few generations away from marriage being obsolete outside religious circles. Time will tell


----------



## Fozzy

Wolf1974 said:


> not sure I see the large part of a generation of women who were treated badly. Not sure what that's a reference too. I think both genders benefited more from marriage a couple generations ago than now.
> 
> I think we are only a few generations away from marriage being obsolete outside religious circles. Time will tell


This is more the kind of thing I was talking about. After being married to someone with attitudes like that, I don't picture a lot of women wanting to re-marry. I do agree with you about marriage becoming obsolete. In a lot of ways it already is.


----------



## Satya

All types of relationships are series of transactions at the end of the day.
It just depends on what you value as currency and what you feel is acceptable to "pay out."

Not trying to sound uncaring and cold about it all, but it's my truth. My accepted currency is primary emotional investment and physical intimacy. For Odo, I suspect it is the same, although his need for physical intimacy is a bit higher than my own because it is his primary love language. It's a top one of mine as well but quality time is a bit higher for me. We love each other deeply, but we're both pretty logical and realistic when it comes to having both of our needs met. We kind of do it naturally, without having to actively think about it.

Oh, and @Fozzy, those guys are really hunky..... :lol:


----------



## uhtred

I think that they are "transnational" to some people but not others - and the difference causes a lot of misunderstanding. 

For some, a relationship no more transnational than the interaction of your own hands - you don't think of the left hand doing things for the right hand in return for later assistance by the right hand. A close relationship is seen by some as a binding together of needs and desires for common happiness.







Satya said:


> All types of relationships are series of transactions at the end of the day.
> It just depends on what you value as currency and what you feel is acceptable to "pay out."
> 
> Not trying to sound uncaring and cold about it all, but it's my truth. My accepted currency is primary emotional investment and physical intimacy. For Odo, I suspect it is the same, although his need for physical intimacy is a bit higher than my own because it is his primary love language. It's a top one of mine as well but quality time is a bit higher for me. We love each other deeply, but we're both pretty logical and realistic when it comes to having both of our needs met. We kind of do it naturally, without having to actively think about it.
> 
> Oh, and @Fozzy, those guys are really hunky..... :lol:


----------



## Diana7

Fozzy said:


> This is more the kind of thing I was talking about. After being married to someone with attitudes like that, I don't picture a lot of women wanting to re-marry. I do agree with you about marriage becoming obsolete. In a lot of ways it already is.


 I dont think marriage will become obsolete. Most people still get married eventually even if they live together for years first.


----------



## Fozzy

Diana7 said:


> I dont think marriage will become obsolete. Most people still get married eventually even if they live together for years first.


Perhaps. I think marriage is basically a religious institution first and foremost. With religion dying a slow death in the Western world, I don't see marriage being considered necessary in the long run of society. Any of the other legal implications of marriage can be handled with contract law if so desired. 

In fact, I think it would probably be beneficial if people were required to sit down with lawyers in advance of tying their lives together. You have to sift through reams of paperwork to buy a house, but a marriage has vastly more ramifications on your life--yet you can take care of that with 5 minutes in line at a courthouse.


----------



## Diana7

Fozzy said:


> Perhaps. I think marriage is basically a religious institution first and foremost. With religion dying a slow death in the Western world, I don't see marriage being considered necessary in the long run of society. Any of the other legal implications of marriage can be handled with contract law if so desired.
> 
> In fact, I think it would probably be beneficial if people were required to sit down with lawyers in advance of tying their lives together. You have to sift through reams of paperwork to buy a house, but a marriage has vastly more ramifications on your life--yet you can take care of that with 5 minutes in line at a courthouse.


I am a Christian and for me there has to be marriage as we wont live together, but nearly all the non Christians we know are also married or intend to get married. 
I dont believe in prenups or similar if thats what you are meaning.


----------



## Anon Pink

Wolf1974 said:


> Just out of curiosity what is you age range? I am in my early fortys and find the exact opposite of what you observe. None of my male single friends want to get married and all my female friends and cousins do. Just wondering if this is a generational thing.


I'm 54 and every single woman I know who are my age laughs when marriage is discussed, even the widow. Women my age are done with raising a family and are also done with making decisions and arranging their days to suit the needs of others. 

Maybe it's different for women who have never been married? Maybe it's different for women who are still raising kids? 

I would advise any young person to run the other way if they find themselves dating someone who refuses sex till marriage. Sex is far far far too important to leave up to chance. You wouldn't suggest a young person marry someone they've only met a few times because it's important they get to know each other, important they assess their compatibility, important they navigate a few bumps in the road together before they marry. After marriage it is too late to discover your spouse isn't as interested in sex as you are, or refuses to work together to improve things.

Marriage as a religious rite is one thing because those people who are believers would probably want their god to give the thumbs up. But otherwise it's really just a cultural construct and taking your spouses name simply makes it easier to address envelops and identify which kids belong to what family. Even blended families get annoyed becazude the kids name is Smith but Mom's name is Johnson and there is the teacher having to remember Timmy Smith goes with Rebecca Johnson and Rebecca Johnson is joe johnsons stepmother, while Tina Johnson is the bio mom... I always feel sorry for teachers having to wade through that crap.

@uhtred

I think the transactional part is more a negative transactional, as it should be. If a partner is behaving in a nasty way, selfish way, etc then hell no sex isn't going to be happening. 

The transactional sex for marriage thing was not something I saw at all. Sex for a relationship...probably frequent. But who would want a marriage with someone they don't have a relationship with? 

The whole idea of no sex prior to marriage is just a way to control women, in this day in age. We have paternity tests so the lord of the castle doesn't need a virgin bride to ensure his own progeny inherited the title.

Very few men are keen to remain virgins until marriage, those that can get laid typically do. I know there are some, but very very few. I don't think either a man or a woman who remains a virgin into their mid twenties is a good candidate for marriage because clearly, sex is not something high on their priority list. Unless the virgin bride also isn't very keen on sex either. 

Before Simply Amorous globbers me, yes both she and her H were virgins and yes it was difficult, so difficult in fact they bother fooled around with each other a lot, but they also got married young! I don't think either one of them would have lasted into their mid twenties.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> I'm 54 and every single woman I know who are my age laughs when marriage is discussed, even the widow. Women my age are done with raising a family and are also done with making decisions and arranging their days to suit the needs of others.
> 
> Maybe it's different for women who have never been married? Maybe it's different for women who are still raising kids?
> 
> I would advise any young person to run the other way if they find themselves dating someone who refuses sex till marriage. Sex is far far far too important to leave up to chance. You wouldn't suggest a young person marry someone they've only met a few times because it's important they get to know each other, important they assess their compatibility, important they navigate a few bumps in the road together before they marry. After marriage it is too late to discover your spouse isn't as interested in sex as you are, or refuses to work together to improve things.
> 
> Marriage as a religious rite is one thing because those people who are believers would probably want their god to give the thumbs up. But otherwise it's really just a cultural construct and taking your spouses name simply makes it easier to address envelops and identify which kids belong to what family. Even blended families get annoyed becazude the kids name is Smith but Mom's name is Johnson and there is the teacher having to remember Timmy Smith goes with Rebecca Johnson and Rebecca Johnson is joe johnsons stepmother, while Tina Johnson is the bio mom... I always feel sorry for teachers having to wade through that crap.
> 
> @uhtred
> 
> I think the transactional part is more a negative transactional, as it should be. If a partner is behaving in a nasty way, selfish way, etc then hell no sex isn't going to be happening.
> 
> The transactional sex for marriage thing was not something I saw at all. Sex for a relationship...probably frequent. But who would want a marriage with someone they don't have a relationship with?
> 
> The whole idea of no sex prior to marriage is just a way to control women, in this day in age. We have paternity tests so the lord of the castle doesn't need a virgin bride to ensure his own progeny inherited the title.
> 
> Very few men are keen to remain virgins until marriage, those that can get laid typically do. I know there are some, but very very few. I don't think either a man or a woman who remains a virgin into their mid twenties is a good candidate for marriage because clearly, sex is not something high on their priority list. Unless the virgin bride also isn't very keen on sex either.
> 
> Before Simply Amorous globbers me, yes both she and her H were virgins and yes it was difficult, so difficult in fact they bother fooled around with each other a lot, but they also got married young! I don't think either one of them would have lasted into their mid twenties.


Appreciate you sharing your age. Know it's always dicey to ask a woman :grin2: Yeah must be more generational thing cause women I know in 30's and 40's are definitely more interested in commitment than men. All these women I know have previous marriages and kids. We need to get these women you know and the men I know in the same room. Sounds like they are a good match !

You make a good point about not waiting for sex. I wouldn't advise waiting either. Sex is just too important a subject to leave off the compatibility list prior to marriage!


----------



## Diana7

Anon Pink said:


> I'm 54 and every single woman I know who are my age laughs when marriage is discussed, even the widow. Women my age are done with raising a family and are also done with making decisions and arranging their days to suit the needs of others.
> 
> Maybe it's different for women who have never been married? Maybe it's different for women who are still raising kids?
> 
> I would advise any young person to run the other way if they find themselves dating someone who refuses sex till marriage. Sex is far far far too important to leave up to chance. You wouldn't suggest a young person marry someone they've only met a few times because it's important they get to know each other, important they assess their compatibility, important they navigate a few bumps in the road together before they marry. After marriage it is too late to discover your spouse isn't as interested in sex as you are, or refuses to work together to improve things.
> 
> Marriage as a religious rite is one thing because those people who are believers would probably want their god to give the thumbs up. But otherwise it's really just a cultural construct and taking your spouses name simply makes it easier to address envelops and identify which kids belong to what family. Even blended families get annoyed becazude the kids name is Smith but Mom's name is Johnson and there is the teacher having to remember Timmy Smith goes with Rebecca Johnson and Rebecca Johnson is joe johnsons stepmother, while Tina Johnson is the bio mom... I always feel sorry for teachers having to wade through that crap.
> 
> @uhtred
> 
> I think the transactional part is more a negative transactional, as it should be. If a partner is behaving in a nasty way, selfish way, etc then hell no sex isn't going to be happening.
> 
> The transactional sex for marriage thing was not something I saw at all. Sex for a relationship...probably frequent. But who would want a marriage with someone they don't have a relationship with?
> 
> The whole idea of no sex prior to marriage is just a way to control women, in this day in age. We have paternity tests so the lord of the castle doesn't need a virgin bride to ensure his own progeny inherited the title.
> 
> Very few men are keen to remain virgins until marriage, those that can get laid typically do. I know there are some, but very very few. I don't think either a man or a woman who remains a virgin into their mid twenties is a good candidate for marriage because clearly, sex is not something high on their priority list. Unless the virgin bride also isn't very keen on sex either.
> 
> Before Simply Amorous globbers me, yes both she and her H were virgins and yes it was difficult, so difficult in fact they bother fooled around with each other a lot, but they also got married young! I don't think either one of them would have lasted into their mid twenties.


I would run the other way from a man who DID demand sex before marriage. I love a man with good moral values and self control. We didnt have sex before we married and we have a great sex life. My husband loves sex, but he wouldn't have sex outside marriage. Its nothing to do with their lack of desire for sex but their moral values.


----------



## Anon Pink

Diana7 said:


> I would run the other way from a man who DID demand sex before marriage. I love a man with good moral values and self control. We didnt have sex before we married and we have a great sex life. My husband loves sex, but he wouldn't have sex outside marriage. Its nothing to do with their lack of desire for sex but their moral values.


Diana, you've posted the above many many times and I'm very happy that you and your husband seemed to have rolled double 7's together and your sex drives, sexual appetites, need for risk/novelty seem to mesh so well. It's great, in fact. But it's not common, not the norm. 

You claim to have a great sex life with a husband who remained a virgin till he married and who feels compelled to abhor porn so much that he won't even watch a sex scene in an R rated movie. I think your definition of great is extremely different than my definition of great. If someone like me were to be married to someone like your husband, great would not be used in defining the sex life.

And that's the part you and all the other "wait till marriage" types don't seem to be able to wrap your brains around. Both you and your husband seem to be equally repressed and restrictive when it comes to sexuality and that might be why you two mesh so well. Meanwhile SA and her husband are equally sensual and considerate and that's why they mesh pretty well. But how frequently would you estimate that a married couple have sex drives that mesh well when they've never had sex until they've been married? I'd say less than 1/10. And that means that those religious believers who have ended up in a marriage in which the sex drives don't mesh, those poor people are truly stuck in an unhappy marriage where they have to trick themselves into believing they're happy by downplaying the importance of sex and disregarding their own sexuality. 

So as you hold up your winning hand keep in mind you do not have the formula for success just because you got lucky and married a man who doesn't have a strong need for sexual outlet/adventure/risk/novelty/frequency.


----------



## uhtred

"Demanding" sex would be a bad thing - I'd run too. OTOH I know from lifelong experience how bad mismatched sexual interests can be in a marriage. If you wait until you are married you will be so deeply in love that you wont want to leave "just because of a bad sex life". 

You have been lucky - you married someone who was sexually compatible. That is wonderful - really, its great that things work out well for some couples. Others are not so lucky. Imagine discovering after marriage that you had very different ideas of what constituted a good sex life - that each of you thought your ideas were "normal" but they were completely incompatible. 

There are "normal" people who's idea of good sex includes some playful spanking, maybe handcuffs, role-play, and take for granted that oral and anal are things a couple does. 

There are other "normal" people think that missionary position sex is normal, and that oral is disgusting / perverted, and that its inappropriate for a couple to use sex toys. 

Both these are OK, if the couple are on the same page, but put them together and one will feel constantly rejected and the other constantly pressured. 




Diana7 said:


> I would run the other way from a man who DID demand sex before marriage. I love a man with good moral values and self control. We didnt have sex before we married and we have a great sex life. My husband loves sex, but he wouldn't have sex outside marriage. Its nothing to do with their lack of desire for sex but their moral values.


----------



## Luvher4life

That's why it's extremely important for those who are waiting until marriage to have sex to actually have lengthy discussions ABOUT sex! The relationships that don't work out are usually the ones where the couple never talked (or very little) about sex beforehand. It can be embarrassing to talk about for virgins especially, but it's vitally important to talk about it at length before getting married. Otherwise, you're just rolling the dice..., so to speak. Compatibility is important in ALL aspects of a relationship, and you must be mature enough to communicate without embarrassment about anything, including sex. It's better to feel a little embarrassment now than to wait until it's too late.

I have two daughters (19 and 16) who are still virgins. I'm pretty sure my wife has had talks with them, but I can only speak from a man's point of view. I've shared some thoughts on occasion as to what I was thinking at their age. When they do get to the point of possible marrying, I will certainly have a sit down talk with them about sex from a man's point of view so that they will know what to expect. I don't want them to go into any commitment without knowing its importance, and how it affects their future married life.


----------



## Anon Pink

Luvher4life said:


> That's why it's extremely important for those who are waiting until marriage to have sex to actually have lengthy discussions ABOUT sex! The relationships that don't work out are usually the ones where the couple never talked (or very little) about sex beforehand. It can be embarrassing to talk about for virgins especially, but it's vitally important to talk about it at length before getting married. Otherwise, you're just rolling the dice..., so to speak. Compatibility is important in ALL aspects of a relationship, and you must be mature enough to communicate without embarrassment about anything, including sex. It's better to feel a little embarrassment now than to wait until it's too late.



This is a very good point. My question is, how do virgin know what to even ask or worry about or wonder about? The state of sex Ed today certainly won't prepare them to think about, talk about and ask very intimate questions.


How often do you masturbate?
What are your thoughts on masturbation?
Do you get a sexual charge from touching other parts of your body?
How comfortable are you showing me exactly how you like to be touched?
What do you understand about how I feel about sex with a spouse?
Do you think sex is a way to share love?
Do you feel loved when your spouse stands before you completely nude, completely vulnerable? 
Do you think husband's and wives should do this often?
How often do you think a married couple should have sex?
How do you think the problem could be solved if one person wants sex and the other person doesn't?
Do you feel like having sex is giving up something, or taking something?

Why doesn't the church prepare young people to ask these questions and answer these questions? 





> I have two daughters (19 and 16) who are still virgins. I'm pretty sure my wife has had talks with them, but I can only speak from a man's point of view. I've shared some thoughts on occasion as to what I was thinking at their age. When they do get to the point of possible marrying, I will certainly have a sit down talk with them about sex from a man's point of view so that they will know what to expect. I don't want them to go into any commitment without knowing its importance, and how it affects their future married life.


Thats excellent! But what is your wife telling them? What messages are they getting? Are they learning that to feel aroused is normal healthy and good? To want to be touched, the same? Are they learning to distract themselves and keep boundaries in place without subverting their sexuality?


----------



## Diana7

Anon Pink said:


> Diana, you've posted the above many many times and I'm very happy that you and your husband seemed to have rolled double 7's together and your sex drives, sexual appetites, need for risk/novelty seem to mesh so well. It's great, in fact. But it's not common, not the norm.
> 
> You claim to have a great sex life with a husband who remained a virgin till he married and who feels compelled to abhor porn so much that he won't even watch a sex scene in an R rated movie. I think your definition of great is extremely different than my definition of great. If someone like me were to be married to someone like your husband, great would not be used in defining the sex life.
> 
> And that's the part you and all the other "wait till marriage" types don't seem to be able to wrap your brains around. Both you and your husband seem to be equally repressed and restrictive when it comes to sexuality and that might be why you two mesh so well. Meanwhile SA and her husband are equally sensual and considerate and that's why they mesh pretty well. But how frequently would you estimate that a married couple have sex drives that mesh well when they've never had sex until they've been married? I'd say less than 1/10. And that means that those religious believers who have ended up in a marriage in which the sex drives don't mesh, those poor people are truly stuck in an unhappy marriage where they have to trick themselves into believing they're happy by downplaying the importance of sex and disregarding their own sexuality.
> 
> So as you hold up your winning hand keep in mind you do not have the formula for success just because you got lucky and married a man who doesn't have a strong need for sexual outlet/adventure/risk/novelty/frequency.


You are assuming things that just aren't true. We have a very varied sex life, we just don't need porn to have that. We also have sex pretty frequently for our age. My husband is just a normal red blooded man, he does have a strong need for sex, we have both had long marriages before so weren't virgins or inexperienced when we married. 
Its not about luck, its about working together, compromise, thinking of the other person, doing new things, and marrying someone who has the same moral values. The fact that he never looks at porn, wont have sex outside marriage and is strict about what he watches, makes him far more desirable to me, and also makes me more keen to have sex with him more often and do new things. 
I love having sex with him and how many men here can claim that their wives do that and instigate sex as many times as they do? 
We are far from repressed and restricted, and its sad that you think that without multiple partners and porn you cant have a good sex life, you honestly can, a great one.


----------



## Steve1000

Diana7 said:


> You are assuming things that just aren't true. We have a very varied sex life, we just don't need porn to have that. We also have sex pretty frequently for our age. My husband is just a normal red blooded man, he does have a strong need for sex, we have both had long marriages before so weren't virgins or inexperienced when we married.
> Its not about luck, its about working together, compromise, thinking of the other person, doing new things, and marrying someone who has the same moral values. The fact that he never looks at porn, wont have sex outside marriage and is strict about what he watches, makes him far more desirable to me, and also makes me more keen to have sex with him more often and do new things.
> I love having sex with him and how many men here can claim that their wives do that and instigate sex as many times as they do?
> We are far from repressed and restricted, and its sad that you think that without multiple partners and porn you cant have a good sex life, you honestly can, a great one.


I assume that you're honest that you and your husband probably do have a fun and emotional-fulfilling sex life. Previous experience with adult videos certainly isn't a requirement.  However, I also agree with Anon Pink that you and your husband were somewhat fortunate. I would not say only 1 our of ten have your success, but still somewhere less than 50%. I had a neighbor growing up who waited until his 30's to get married and insisted on only marrying a virgin. He did get married only to divorce three years later because his wife had no interest in sex.


----------



## Luvher4life

Anon Pink said:


> This is a very good point. My question is, how do virgin know what to even ask or worry about or wonder about? The state of sex Ed today certainly won't prepare them to think about, talk about and ask very intimate questions.
> 
> 
> How often do you masturbate?
> What are your thoughts on masturbation?
> Do you get a sexual charge from touching other parts of your body?
> How comfortable are you showing me exactly how you like to be touched?
> What do you understand about how I feel about sex with a spouse?
> Do you think sex is a way to share love?
> Do you feel loved when your spouse stands before you completely nude, completely vulnerable?
> Do you think husband's and wives should do this often?
> How often do you think a married couple should have sex?
> How do you think the problem could be solved if one person wants sex and the other person doesn't?
> Do you feel like having sex is giving up something, or taking something?
> 
> Why doesn't the church prepare young people to ask these questions and answer these questions?


This is an excellent list of questions I think all potential couples should ask before marrying, not just virgins! For the life of me, I don't understand why the tendency is to avoid questions about sex. It may be inappropriate to discuss "in" church, but surely young people should be able to learn that sex is a normal human urge, and be able to find somebody they're comfortable discussing it with. I think good parents are the best source of information for some of it, but it can be uncomfortable for some kids to discuss sex with them because of the ick factor. That's why older, more experienced people with the same value system (preferably a family member) need to step up even when it is uncomfortable. 







Anon Pink said:


> Thats excellent! But what is your wife telling them? What messages are they getting? Are they learning that to feel aroused is normal healthy and good? To want to be touched, the same? Are they learning to distract themselves and keep boundaries in place without subverting their sexuality?


You made me curious, so I guess it's time I sat down with my wife and talk about the discussions now...:grin2: I just want to make sure their natural feelings and urges are not too repressed, and that they have a healthy attitude toward sex. What two people do sexually within the sanctity of marriage is blessed. I trust my wife to teach them right, but my wife was pretty repressed when we married. She didn't really start relieving some of those repressed feelings until after a few years of building trust. She still has some aversion, but it's nothing like she used to have. Both of my daughters are not only smart and beautiful, they are very level-headed good people. I still don't want them to go into a relationship flying blind..., so to speak.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

uhtred said:


> During a random diner conversation with my wife we were talking about how men and women dressed and acted on dates. She made a comment to the effect that "traditionally" women used sex to attract men to get married while men tried to get sex without getting married.
> 
> She worded it in a way to suggest that *she* didn't necessarily feel that way but seemed surprised when I commented that I didn't think that view was very common in the modern world.
> 
> *Do a significant number of women still view sex as something that they "exchange" for marriage, something women do *for* men as opposed to something that is mutually enjoyed?*
> 
> I thought that idea had mostly vanished half a century ago, but maybe not.


 I always wanted to marry.. since my teens.. but I also NEVER felt sex / intimacy/ pleasure was just for the man !! This way of looking at it...I've heard women talk like this.. saying how sex does nothing for her, about keeping him happy.... but I've never felt this way...I've always wanted my O ! I can even be demanding here... if he slips.. I tell him he has to do it again ! 

The 1st time my husband touched me, we were very young....I remember thinking.. "Oh my God... don't stop please don't stop !!!".. I wanted it too.. I wanted to get lost in that pleasure- *as much as he did*... BUT ...I still deeply cared about getting married.. .. having a family one day, when the time was right ....we even waited to go all the way.. wasn't easy, especially at 1st... but we got used to what we did... At the same time.. I placed a high value on MARRIAGE....(so did he.. a very Traditional guy) ... I knew boys before him.. they would have been happy to bang me & leave me.. I wanted to avoid that sort of start in life. 

A woman can want both... it doesn't always have to be portrayed as an "exchange" for the man- this makes it look as though the woman is just using him (to be a Provider, a father) ...and he is then using her (so he can have sex) .. which is a shame and a terrible way to view marriage, what it's intended to be ... 

I am surly older fashioned and have remained so over the years.. but I also love, have always loved the idea of romantic erotic intimacy - marriages filled with passion for each other..

It's difficult to read stories here where one is not passionate about pleasuring / pleasing the other.. this is so vital to our happiness (I know it is mine, I have a need to give it too).. .. if my husband never wanted to marry me.. this would have been an issue.. we would not have been compatible in our values...that was how I envisioned my future. I needed to be with another with the same vision.. . 



Anon Pink said:


> Before Simply Amorous globbers me, yes both she and her H were virgins and yes it was difficult, so difficult in fact they both fooled around with each other a lot, but they also got married young! I don't think either one of them would have lasted into their mid twenties.


 It's that you reduce marriage to nothing more than a "cultural restraint"... it's how to speak about the religious/ those of faith, I often feel you belittle such people with your words, your views...then you said how everyone you associate with would LAUGH about getting married.. in your words - as they are "done with making decisions and arranging their days to suit the needs of others."... 
you reduce marriage to a Joke , basically meaningless and even a burden.... I find this very distasteful ....it does rub me the wrong way.. I would not feel comfortable in your circle of friends. that much is a given.. 



Anon Pink said:


> And that's the part you and all the other "wait till marriage" types don't seem to be able to wrap your brains around. Both you and your husband seem to be equally repressed and restrictive when it comes to sexuality and that might be why you two mesh so well. Meanwhile SA and her husband are equally sensual and considerate and that's why they mesh pretty well. But how frequently would you estimate that a married couple have sex drives that mesh well when they've never had sex until they've been married? I'd say less than 1/10. And that means that those religious believers who have ended up in a marriage in which the sex drives don't mesh, those poor people are truly stuck in an unhappy marriage where they have to trick themselves into believing they're happy by downplaying the importance of sex and disregarding their own sexuality.


 I have my own feelings on this...beings fewer & fewer care about marriage today, mocking the notion of it.....It's a good feeling when I hear of those who speak highly of it.. where it still means something to them... hopefully they are going into it with enough self awareness, a mutual giving spirit of teamwork, having learned, experienced enough together -that it has a good chance of lasting... 

As for the sexual aspect of it.. having a # of sons.. I don't want them to find themselves miserable after the vows, of course it is a concern.... I think mechanics.. if she O's .. if they have similar desires, needs is one aspect of sexuality (too much of a mismatch would cause misery)... but even if you have HOT desirous sex before marriage. even this can all go to hell IF other things come into play, like resentment, too much fighting -over other things you can't see eye to eye ... 

I think the big thing for me is.. if a man is patient enough to wait for a woman..they should do some exploring together... feel mutual pleasure before they marry.. that they KNOW they can satisfy each other.. this is something we had... long before we married.. . I guess it's no different than the couple who had sex , or lots of it with many partners saying they'd never do less than that.. as that was their experience...(and felt it was enough) 

I DO feel some hands on is pretty important.. I just don't see anything wrong with some boundaries along the way either approaching the wedding, if that's what a couple agrees on ...(not like many would even want to do this!)... just don't be too stringent.. I've read a story or 2 I could share that damaged the bonding and caused awful repression after the vows.. trying to be "all hands off"...to the point the young bride needed therapy after the wedding... very sad story.. should have never been..


----------



## Anon Pink

Diana7 said:


> You are assuming things that just aren't true. We have a very varied sex life, we just don't need porn to have that. We also have sex pretty frequently for our age. My husband is just a normal red blooded man, he does have a strong need for sex, we have both had long marriages before so weren't virgins or inexperienced when we married.
> *Its not about luck, its about working together, compromise, thinking of the other person, doing new things, and marrying someone who has the same moral values.* The fact that he never looks at porn, wont have sex outside marriage and is strict about what he watches, makes him far more desirable to me, and also makes me more keen to have sex with him more often and do new things.
> I love having sex with him and how many men here can claim that their wives do that and instigate sex as many times as they do?
> We are far from repressed and restricted, and its sad that you think that without multiple partners and porn you cant have a good sex life, you honestly can, a great one.


I completely agree with the bolder part. Unfortunately, people come to marriage with baggage in tow and one person's version of compromise is another person's bare bone. My husband's version of showing he cares is bringing me coffee in the morning. Sounds great right? What a fabulous guy right? You'd be wrong because that is ALL he does. He thinks he deserves husband of the year while I'm getting ready to leave. He thinks he has bent over backward while I am sooo very done with trying. So these lovely blanket statements of "working together" and "compromise" mean jack ****. And yes, we did have the same morals and values when we married. But we had vastly different baggage. 


Do not confuse openness toward sexuality with promiscuity. I do not think multiple partners or porn are requirements for a good sex life and I've never said that.

Not many men here at TAM can claim their wives initiate sex as often as they do, I assume you meant here at TAM. But there are also a lot of women here who have husbands who aren't as interested in sex as they are and that is even harder to work with. I would not be interested in a man who would only have sex with a spouse, because, and especially at my age, it would tell me this guy doesn't have a very strong sex drive and that won't work for me. 

This is why I doubt very much your husband has a very strong sex drive and it's also why I doubt very much you two have sex very often and it's also why I very much doubt that your frequent initiation is anything more than you with a strong sex drive having married a man with a rather weak sex drive. I believe it is why you are here at TAM in the first place and since you have tooted the horn so many times about your prescious morals and values and the tripe about working together and yet you still have a husband with a weak sex drive and that makes you feel undesirable but you can't talk about it because it would blow your cover of the perfect Christian marriage. Because working together and compromise still doesn't bring a man with a weak sex drive up to a stronger sex drive, and morals and values don't get you orgasms or a husband who can show true desire and passion.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Some how we managed to get a pretty good understanding of our (then) compatible sex drives. Without living together or really having a regular sex life. We kept it to hands before. 
Whenever I bring this up people say, but you are in a mismatched sex drive relationship, so it didn't work. Well for 10 years we were pretty well matched. Then a lot of things changed. We stopped having kids, our kids got older we had employment changes. our sleeping schedules changed and wouldn't you know it, our sex schedules changed too. and we didn't line up so well. Then there was the 3rd decade, and health issues. let me tell you arthritis really puts a damper on things. also the circulatory (ED) problems that come with diabetes. Then weight and low testosterone. THINGS CHANGE. We had no idea 30 years ago that this would happen. 
So how did we manage to survive it? Well things come together better when you can talk about it. The darkest days were when she refused to discuss sex at all. If we could talk we could find a way to make it work.


----------



## jb02157

Diana7 said:


> All women are different. When I dated it was only in order to meet a man who wanted to get married (if things worked out). However I wasn't prepared to have sex to get that man because I wanted a man who was prepared to wait. I do know a lot of women who want to get married and have a family, and are not looking for casual sex, but a committed relationship/marriage.Having said that, a lot of men I know want/wanted that as well.


I was after the same thing you were but not a whole not of women were. It made the pool of women available very small. Thing are even worse these days. The very things that marriage stood for aren't that applicable any more.


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> The 1st time my husband touched me, we were very young....I remember thinking.. "Oh my God... don't stop please don't stop !!!".. I wanted it too.. I wanted to get lost in that pleasure- *as much as he did*... BUT ...I still deeply cared about getting married.. .. having a family one day, when the time was right ....we even waited to go all the way.. wasn't easy, especially at 1st... but we got used to what we did... At the same time.. I placed a high value on MARRIAGE....(so did he.. a very Traditional guy) ... I knew boys before him.. they would have been happy to bang me & leave me.. I wanted to avoid that sort of start in life.



This is why I think you're just adorable! 



> A woman can want both... it doesn't always have to be portrayed as an "exchange" for the man- this makes it look as though the woman is just using him (to be a Provider, a father) ...and he is then using her (so he can have sex) .. which is a shame and a terrible way to view marriage, what it's intended to be ...
> 
> I am surly older fashioned and have remained so over the years.. but I also love, have always loved the idea of romantic erotic intimacy - marriages filled with passion for each other..
> 
> It's difficult to read stories here *where one is not passionate about pleasuring / pleasing the other.. this is so vital to our happiness* (I know it is mine, I have a need to give it too).. .. if my husband never wanted to marry me.. this would have been an issue.. we would not have been compatible in our values...that was how I envisioned my future. I needed to be with another with the same vision.. .


The bolded part is what I've been saying everytime you and I discuss this. It doesn't matter what religion or virgin status, some people had the ill lick to marry another person who is not passionate about making the other happy. You did. You found a guy who was as eager to please you as you were to please him. I know you hate it when I say you were lucky, maybe you are a good picker.





> It's that you reduce marriage to nothing more than a "cultural restraint"... it's how to speak about the religious/ those of faith, I often feel you belittle such people with your words, your views...then you said how everyone you associate with would LAUGH about getting married.. in your words - as they are "done with making decisions and arranging their days to suit the needs of others."...
> you reduce marriage to a Joke , basically meaningless and even a burden.... I find this very distasteful ....it does rub me the wrong way.. I would not feel comfortable in your circle of friends. that much is a given..


No you certainly wouldn't. You'd have nothing in common because you married a guy as passionate about you as you are about him, and you've maintained that. Walk a mile in another woman's shoes who has spent 30 years doing for others and a husband who thinks he should get an award because he brings her coffee. The other night he said he got me a surprise for dessert. I said yeah chocolate? He said no pie. Well I don't like pie and he knows this. He didn't get chocolate because it would have meant another stop. This is a nothing little incident but 30 years of this makes a woman say enough! Faith, compromise, working together, been there and done that and none of it worked. I've been here at TAM since 2013 and nothing has worked. Faith, religion, compromise....you all drop that off like it's the answer and it's not. So when someone shouts out their faith as if that gives them some sort of place of honor picture me holding up my middle finger. 





> I have my own feelings on this...beings fewer & fewer care about marriage today, mocking the notion of it.....It's a good feeling when I hear of those who speak highly of it.. where it still means something to them... hopefully they are going into it with enough self awareness, a mutual giving spirit of teamwork, having learned, experienced enough together -that it has a good chance of lasting...
> 
> As for the sexual aspect of it.. having a # of sons.. I don't want them to find themselves miserable after the vows, of course it is a concern.... I think mechanics.. if she O's .. if they have similar desires, needs is one aspect of sexuality (too much of a mismatch would cause misery)... but even if you have HOT desirous sex before marriage. even this can all go to hell IF other things come into play, like resentment, too much fighting -over other things you can't see eye to eye ...
> 
> I think the big thing for me is.. if a man is patient enough to wait for a woman..they should do some exploring together... feel mutual pleasure before they marry.. that they KNOW they can satisfy each other.. this is something we had... long before we married.. . I guess it's no different than the couple who had sex , or lots of it with many partners saying they'd never do less than that.. as that was their experience...(and felt it was enough)
> 
> I DO feel some hands on is pretty important.. I just don't see anything wrong with some boundaries along the way either approaching the wedding, if that's what a couple agrees on ...(not like many would even want to do this!)... just don't be too stringent.. I've read a story or 2 I could share that damaged the bonding and caused awful repression after the vows.. trying to be "all hands off"...to the point the young bride needed therapy after the wedding... very sad story.. should have never been..



All parents want their children to form a good and lasting marriage, eventually. By teaching our kids to play nice, to share, and to talk it out we teach them to have a relationship. But we fail miserably in preparing our kids for the make or break part of marriage, sex. We can have a great marriage but if the sex is lousy the marriage is not so great. We can have a decent marriage but if the sex is outstanding the marriage is great. Sex is the make or break in a marriage so we all have to prepare our kids to make that part of their marriage healthy, passionate and fun.


----------



## uhtred

You are very fortunate to have a well matched husband. But how could you have known in advance? You both believe that pleasing the other in bed is important, but many do not. Look at all the stories here of people who's spouses are either not willing to have sex at all, or only very grudgingly. I think those LD spouses think of themselves as good people. They just don't believe that a good sex life is important for happiness. 

I'm a sure that my wife believes she is a wonderful loving spouse - and she is, except for not wanting sex. To her sex is not important and she is unable to understand that it is important to me. She views my desires as selfish and childish. She is not a bad person, she is a good person for whom sex is not important. 

What would you have done if you have married someone like that?








Diana7 said:


> You are assuming things that just aren't true. We have a very varied sex life, we just don't need porn to have that. We also have sex pretty frequently for our age. My husband is just a normal red blooded man, he does have a strong need for sex, we have both had long marriages before so weren't virgins or inexperienced when we married.
> Its not about luck, its about working together, compromise, thinking of the other person, doing new things, and marrying someone who has the same moral values. The fact that he never looks at porn, wont have sex outside marriage and is strict about what he watches, makes him far more desirable to me, and also makes me more keen to have sex with him more often and do new things.
> I love having sex with him and how many men here can claim that their wives do that and instigate sex as many times as they do?
> We are far from repressed and restricted, and its sad that you think that without multiple partners and porn you cant have a good sex life, you honestly can, a great one.


----------



## uhtred

I wonder if a virgin would have a good idea of their own sexual interests? Might be an interesting thread - was sex surprising to you the first time?

They might be able to answer these questions from their present perspective, but they won't know their feelings after they become sexually active. 

Masturbation really is completely different from sex. 



Anon Pink said:


> This is a very good point. My question is, how do virgin know what to even ask or worry about or wonder about? The state of sex Ed today certainly won't prepare them to think about, talk about and ask very intimate questions.
> 
> 
> How often do you masturbate?
> What are your thoughts on masturbation?
> Do you get a sexual charge from touching other parts of your body?
> How comfortable are you showing me exactly how you like to be touched?
> What do you understand about how I feel about sex with a spouse?
> Do you think sex is a way to share love?
> Do you feel loved when your spouse stands before you completely nude, completely vulnerable?
> Do you think husband's and wives should do this often?
> How often do you think a married couple should have sex?
> How do you think the problem could be solved if one person wants sex and the other person doesn't?
> Do you feel like having sex is giving up something, or taking something?
> 
> Why doesn't the church prepare young people to ask these questions and answer these questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats excellent! But what is your wife telling them? What messages are they getting? Are they learning that to feel aroused is normal healthy and good? To want to be touched, the same? Are they learning to distract themselves and keep boundaries in place without subverting their sexuality?


----------



## TaDor

The marriage of today is more LOVE based... unlike the GOOD-OLD days of property/benefits. ie: women did not have jobs, far less working skills were more dependent on men for a home and child rearing. Hence, women are TURNED on by a man with lots of money, even if he's a creep.

In general, I think most people shouldn't get married... so many get married for weak reasons. "Its a thing to do".


----------



## katiecrna

I don't think it's generational so much as it is people's view about sex and marriage differ. 
I am of the group that is traditional, believes dating is for the sole purpose to get married. You don't date for fun, you date with a purpose. I believe in waiting till marriage to have sex. Or at least until things are very serious. I believe men don't want to marry the girl they had sex with on the first date. Men like a challenge, men like to feel lucky to have their wife, like a prize they won. I believe my sexuality and sex is for the one man that "won" me so to speak. I'm sure this is going to piss a lot of people off sorry. Sex should be enjoyed, but not given out easily to people.


----------



## john117

Cooperation is still transactional.


----------



## Anon Pink

katiecrna said:


> I don't think it's generational so much as it is people's view about sex and marriage differ.
> I am of the group that is traditional, believes dating is for the sole purpose to get married. You don't date for fun, you date with a purpose. I believe in waiting till marriage to have sex. Or at least until things are very serious. I believe men don't want to marry the girl they had sex with on the first date. Men like a challenge, men like to feel lucky to have their wife, like a prize they won. I believe my sexuality and sex is for the one man that "won" me so to speak. I'm sure this is going to piss a lot of people off sorry. Sex should be enjoyed, but not given out easily to people.


How very objectifying this sounds. Do men give out sex or is it only women? How many bullseyes does a man have to make before he wins you? What about you? Are you, and by extension all women, supposed to sit and hope a man notices? Do women not have to convince her man she is worth his commitment?

I think perhaps age group is more indicative of a desire to marry. 

This is the message my mother attempted to raise me with. It didn't work because men got a pass. Double standards have always pissed me off. Men, in her opinion could do whatever they wanted and it was up to women to stay pure. Men could choose to get laid as often as they had a semi-willing partner, whether he was married or not, it was up to the wife to keep him happy enough to stay home. Men made the rules and women enforced them. Men made the money and women spent it. Okay maybe that one did work out for me. > Its highly limiting and highly dependent on men in general and I think if a society is going to construct marriage in the way that you and others here see it then frankly we would need a LOT more education and training for men because I sure as hell won't be taking part in marriage roulette, and I wouldn't allow my daughter's to go that route either.


----------



## Anon Pink

uhtred said:


> I wonder if a virgin would have a good idea of their own sexual interests? Might be an interesting thread - was sex surprising to you the first time?
> 
> They might be able to answer these questions from their present perspective, but they won't know their feelings after they become sexually active.
> 
> Masturbation really is completely different from sex.


You're absolutely right. Back in my pre-marriage day I wouldn't have been able to even talk about sex let alone ask or answer any of those questions. But my sitch wasn't a healthy sitch. I would hope young people of today are armed with healthier ideas about sex. Someone has to combat the idiotic ideas about sex they learn from the movies and reality tv.


----------



## katiecrna

Anon Pink said:


> How very objectifying this sounds. Do men give out sex or is it only women? How many bullseyes does a man have to make before he wins you? What about you? Are you, and by extension all women, supposed to sit and hope a man notices? Do women not have to convince her man she is worth his commitment?
> 
> 
> 
> .



People have their virginity and they can decide what they want to do with it. I believe in waiting till marriage. I believe in waiting for that special someone. So did my husband who also waited to marriage. 

Of course when dating, each person should be their selves and when they fall in love with who someone is... there you go. There is no convincing someone is worth someone's commitment. Convincing is a weird word to me in this context. I don't believe in bait and switch, I don't believe in best foot forward only. I believe in being yourself.


----------



## katiecrna

Anon Pink said:


> This is the message my mother attempted to raise me with. It didn't work because men got a pass. Double standards have always pissed me off. Men, in her opinion could do whatever they wanted and it was up to women to stay pure. Men could choose to get laid as often as they had a semi-willing partner, whether he was married or not, it was up to the wife to keep him happy enough to stay home. Men made the rules and women enforced them. Men made the money and women spent it. Okay maybe that one did work out for me. > Its highly limiting and highly dependent on men in general and I think if a society is going to construct marriage in the way that you and others here see it then frankly we would need a LOT more education and training for men because I sure as hell won't be taking part in marriage roulette, and I wouldn't allow my daughter's to go that route either.



I get what your saying but I just have a different opinion. Yea men can do whatever they want. So can women. I am Christian so I choose to or at least try to live a Christian life. That's what I choose for my life and it's not because I expect other people will do the same, it's actually the opposite.


----------



## Finwe

I am GenX and I knew guys that were desperate for a serious relationship/marriage and some women in the same boat. Birth control has been around a long time and I don't think a desperate woman or man would use sex to get marriage. 

They may lie or manipulate a relationship to get a ring, but just sex seems so 1920's.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

katiecrna said:


> I don't think it's generational so much as it is people's view about sex and marriage differ.
> I am of the group that is traditional, believes dating is for the sole purpose to get married. You don't date for fun, you date with a purpose. I believe in waiting till marriage to have sex. Or at least until things are very serious.


 It bothers me when I feel Traditional values are being put down or laughed at, like they are archaic and all that.. it will always be a part of who I am.... it's almost like when someone downs your religion... it gives you pause and you want to stand up and defend it somehow. 

I don't want to have to downplay how I feel.. this is what makes forums interesting after all.. we need to speak it as it is... allow our voices to be heard too. 



> I believe men don't want to marry the girl they had sex with on the first date. Men like a challenge, men like to feel lucky to have their wife, like a prize they won. I believe my sexuality and sex is for the one man that "won" me so to speak. I'm sure this is going to piss a lot of people off sorry. Sex should be enjoyed, but not given out easily to people.


 I really don't believe the vast majority of men care at all if a woman waits.. most have had it drilled in their heads by other men in lousy marriages -where the sex dried up to a crawl...to not waste any amount of time on prudes, to make sure the sex is kicking.... to the point.. he already knows he never has to put a ring on it anyway...lots of milk for free out there.. 

Who suffers the most from these changes... those who still hold more Traditional values...the good girl.. even if she likes sex, she will be looked over, tossed aside.... Even the good guys....if he's kept himself from casual sex trying to do the right thing, to be an honorable man in his relationships.. I just don't think people give a damn anymore.. sex is just sex.. it's nothing special.. pleasure seeking for pleasure alone is ENOUGH for many.. it doesn't have to mean anything... 

Peer pressure to be cool, to fit in is very powerful..TO NOT get hung up on 1 person (that would be so beta after all)... for those who remain steadfast to their beliefs, or their ideal to someday marry , to care to save one self for someone very special... it takes a lot of faith to hold out for that.. it's not easy by any means... 

When we were young...I remember promising myself.. the man who waits for me, who is willing to give me his ALL, taking me as his wife, sharing his life ... only he deserves my ALL... this held the deepest of meaning for me...the 2 becoming one ..... I NEEDED the man to feel the same ...anything less I would have felt he was a mistake and not worthy of my love and devotion .... 

Religious restraints, this surely played some of a role, but I feel a lesser one even...I've never felt following rigid rules is of much worth if those very restraints doesn't hold a personal purpose or meaning to me...something I could bring to fruition in due time... 

If anything, my thoughts represent the Romantic view of sex...taken from  this thread ....


> *3. ** Romantic View *~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "save yourself for the one, your beloved"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> Sex should be reserved for those who are deeply in love with the strings of emotional attachment/commitment. Loveless sex is not appropriate, People should be sexually faithful as long as love lasts. Those who hold the romantic view often talk in terms of sex as sacred, as a Gift to be preserved & given to someone of profound significance.
> 
> Romantic view holds that sex should be connected with a thirst for deep psychological & bodily knowledge, Mutually reciprocated gift-giving & intimacy are it's purpose.
> 
> The feeling of being in love is a feeling that one’s beloved is an irreplaceable soul mate.
> 
> Complications arise, however, when romantic feelings do not last or when someone who has made a commitment to sexual exclusivity finds himself or herself in love with someone else.
> 
> The romantic view emphasizes interpersonal intimacy, but sees the duration of commitment as contingent. Commitment lasts for as long as romantic love lasts. But commitment is a must. A one-time encounter with a stranger may be consensual -but it would not be appropriate for those who hold the Romantic view.


----------



## Spicy

I'll answer from my own situation(s).

I was raised a Christian. My parents didn't engage in premarital sex, and neither did I with my first marriage. My goal in dating was to ultimately get married, have a family etc. I dated other young Christian men, who held the same morals as I.

My parents were happily married for over 40 years until my fathers death. I on the other hand ended up very unhappy in my marriage and did divorce after 20 years. I had also failed in my faith and was struggling greatly at that time. With my second husband, we did have sex before marriage. I absolutely wanted to get remarried, but I didn't use sex to get that result.


----------



## TaDor

I forgot to add, that as women gained more rights, the ability to work good paying jobs that meant less dependent on MEN, the divorce rate skyrocketed.... why?

Because many women married men as a support system... living years hating or not liking the guy with little or no way out. Or because they were concerned with being labeled a ***** or other nonsense. These things still happen obviously. But not as much.


----------



## TaDor

Many people have married the same person they had a sex on the first date. 

Each their own.. but as long as its not some law that says otherwise (so far, anyway) - people are not forced to be married before sex. Considering how said it is that people think that sex is taboo and have trouble talking about, it's so 1917. So that is a usual problem - in which the married couple do NOT talk about sex, so many of them are in bad sexual marriages. What if he's got 11"? What if one of them has some kinky ideas and the other is totally against them? Now you are married and have sexual incompatibilities which may not be resolvable. For many such marriages - sex is a job, part of the job more than an expression of love IMHO.


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> It bothers me when I feel Traditional values are being put down or laughed at, like they are archaic and all that.. it will always be a part of who I am.... it's almost like when someone downs your religion... it gives you pause and you want to stand up and defend it somehow.
> 
> I don't want to have to downplay how I feel.. this is what makes forums interesting after all.. we need to speak it as it is... allow our voices to be heard too.
> 
> I really don't believe the vast majority of men care at all if a woman waits.. most have had it drilled in their heads by other men in lousy marriages -where the sex dried up to a crawl...to not waste any amount of time on prudes, to make sure the sex is kicking.... to the point.. he already knows he never has to put a ring on it anyway...*lots of milk for free out there.*.


You conveniently bypass the fact that if a woman does want a ring, and he doesn't then she has a choice to move on. Sex doesn't even figure in this. This archaic notion of getting the milk for free is rather insulting, to both women and men. You boil down the worth of a woman is in her vag, the ultimate gate keeper. If a man gets married because he wants access, he is not going to make a very good husband wouldn't you agree? If a woman acts like access to her vag is the ultimate holy grail, she will more likely be the transactional wife. Now of course there are exceptions and you SA are one of them. 

Today young people meet, they get to know one another and if they are ready to get married than marriage material is what they're looking for, same with men. this process is true for those who withhold sex till marriage and those who don't.



> Who suffers the most from these changes... those who still hold more Traditional values...the good girl.. even if she likes sex, she will be looked over, tossed aside.... Even the good guys....if he's kept himself from casual sex trying to do the right thing, to be an honorable man in his relationships.. I just don't think people give a damn anymore.. sex is just sex.. it's nothing special.. pleasure seeking for pleasure alone is ENOUGH for many.. it doesn't have to mean anything...


Again you're looking through your lense that married sex is the ultimate and everything else is just practice and meaningless. For the young lady who wishes to hold onto her VCard till her wedding night, she simply has to meet a young man who is ready for marriage because sex isn't something that can be backburnered for a person with a strong sex drive. 

The way you use honor...as if a man who isn't interested in waiting till marriage to discover if he and his bride are sexually compatible has no honor. Well that's rather insulting.



> Peer pressure to be cool, to fit in is very powerful..TO NOT get hung up on 1 person (that would be so beta after all)... for those who remain steadfast to their beliefs, or their ideal to someday marry , to care to save one self for someone very special... it takes a lot of faith to hold out for that.. it's not easy by any means...
> 
> When we were young...I remember promising myself.. the man who waits for me, who is willing to give me his ALL, taking me as his wife, sharing his life ... only he deserves my ALL... this held the deepest of meaning for me...the 2 becoming one ..... I NEEDED the man to feel the same ...anything less I would have felt he was a mistake and not worthy of my love and devotion ....
> 
> Religious restraints, this surely played some of a role, but I feel a lesser one even...I've never felt following rigid rules is of much worth if those very restraints doesn't hold a personal purpose or meaning to me...something I could bring to fruition in due time...


I just don't agree with you and this isn't about dumping on religion (though I know I'm guilty of that) nor is this about being cool or fitting in. This is me saying that sex can be deeply moving or it can be impersonal. And both of those experiences can be had within the context of marriage, with casual sex, or within a committed relationship.


----------



## Diana7

uhtred said:


> You are very fortunate to have a well matched husband. But how could you have known in advance? You both believe that pleasing the other in bed is important, but many do not. Look at all the stories here of people who's spouses are either not willing to have sex at all, or only very grudgingly. I think those LD spouses think of themselves as good people. They just don't believe that a good sex life is important for happiness.
> 
> I'm a sure that my wife believes she is a wonderful loving spouse - and she is, except for not wanting sex. To her sex is not important and she is unable to understand that it is important to me. She views my desires as selfish and childish. She is not a bad person, she is a good person for whom sex is not important.
> 
> What would you have done if you have married someone like that?


That's what the dating time is about, communicating about these things. I knew that my husband was keen on sex, and we discussed it many times. I also knew that he had never had sex outside marriage and wasn't going to and nor was I. I also got to know that he wasn't a selfish person, that he was kind and caring and patient. 

You say that for your wife sex isn't important, yet there are countless books etc out there that say how VERY important it is for the marriage and especially for the husband, and helps him to maintain emotional closeness to his wife. I have learnt a lot by reading books that help us understand things like this, so her attitude is one of selfishness and burying her head in the sand to be honest. SHE may not think its important but you know it is, and as her husband she should be thinking of you and not herself in this if she cares about the marriage. 

People who are single are free to have no sex, but if you get married you are supposed to think of your spouse.

One of the things I love about God is His wise advise on sex. He tell us NOT to deprive each other of sex because of the temptations it will create if we don't. 

If for whatever reason my husband was unable to have sex due to illness or disability or whatever, well that's part of the 'for better and for worse' part.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon Pink said:


> You conveniently bypass the fact that if a woman does want a ring, and he doesn't then she has a choice to move on. Sex doesn't even figure in this. This archaic notion of getting the milk for free is rather insulting, to both women and men. You boil down the worth of a woman is in her vag, the ultimate gate keeper. If a man gets married because he wants access, he is not going to make a very good husband wouldn't you agree? If a woman acts like access to her vag is the ultimate holy grail, she will more likely be the transactional wife. Now of course there are exceptions and you SA are one of them.
> 
> Today young people meet, they get to know one another and if they are ready to get married than marriage material is what they're looking for, same with men. this process is true for those who withhold sex till marriage and those who don't.
> 
> Again you're looking through your lense that married sex is the ultimate and everything else is just practice and meaningless. For the young lady who wishes to hold onto her VCard till her wedding night, she simply has to meet a young man who is ready for marriage because sex isn't something that can be backburnered for a person with a strong sex drive.
> 
> The way you use honor...as if a man who isn't interested in waiting till marriage to discover if he and his bride are sexually compatible has no honor. Well that's rather insulting.
> 
> I just don't agree with you and this isn't about dumping on religion (though I know I'm guilty of that) nor is this about being cool or fitting in. This is me saying that sex can be deeply moving or it can be impersonal. And both of those experiences can be had within the context of marriage, with casual sex, or within a committed relationship.


See here.. I lay out something I see beauty in...(the desire to marry, be committed to one man, give my heart & soul and body), something Honorable to me.. and what do you do.. you come along and trample it, twist it putting an ugly spin on it.. that it's all about "the vagina"... ...you in fact trample things I hold dear...this would be no different than a man putting me down for how I feel quickly dumping my sorry ass , telling me how arcaic I am - if heaven forbid I didn't put out early enough, given what he is used to with other women... No thank you... men like that are a dime a dozen... but that's ok.. better to learn early and not waste anyone's time...

NO...if a man just wanted to get laid.. and not really be a husband.. that's NOT GOING TO LAST... nor is a wife getting married JUST TO GET MARRIED when she wants no part of the physical.. hell yeah it's inviting problems.. this is why I feel one should be completely and utterly authentic to WHO they are.. what they love, what they hate,. share their values, what is meaningful to them.. AND WHY..this will either repel them or bring them closer as they peel back the layers to the authentic...so they can cut their losses earlier and move on... not getting all that entangled with another.. I wouldn't want to have sex with someone who is a fly by night.. who needs his thirst of variety.. it's best to know ourselves and what is not acceptable to us...

Why should any of this bother you anyway.... how many guys do you know who would even care, or would put up with a woman who wants to take things slow....No doubt the majority here just dismisses me, even rolls their eyes with some of my posts... .you have far more support being a modern woman... You know what.. women today ought to be more concerned with those who put out easy, quickly and have no care if it's casual.. casual could be complete strangers.. how many would take our husbands to bed. 

This is one thing I never had to worry about , with my archaic man, if he's out of town.. I know he will remain faithful to me.. and Yes.. that's honorable to me.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon Pink said:


> No you certainly wouldn't. You'd have nothing in common because you married a guy as passionate about you as you are about him, and you've maintained that. Walk a mile in another woman's shoes who has spent 30 years doing for others and a husband who thinks he should get an award because he brings her coffee. The other night he said he got me a surprise for dessert. I said yeah chocolate? He said no pie. Well I don't like pie and he knows this. He didn't get chocolate because it would have meant another stop. This is a nothing little incident but 30 years of this makes a woman say enough! Faith, compromise, working together, been there and done that and none of it worked. I've been here at TAM since 2013 and nothing has worked. Faith, religion, compromise....you all drop that off like it's the answer and it's not. So when someone shouts out their faith as if that gives them some sort of place of honor picture me holding up my middle finger.


 oh I can easily see you holding up that middle finger...I can feel it in your posts, when it comes to those of faith, when they share it...are they really insinuating that YOU need to live like them though, that they have all the answers -for you.. if it soothes them, comforts them to keep them hanging on, during the tough times.. it can be a help to some... I've seen this.. we all have a different perspective... I don't ever think it's good to deny reality though...if it's causing ongoing turmoil that can't be resolved .... something's got to give.. if we're miserable ... we're miserable.. 

What I remember is your husband is more of an Acts of service type.. and I bet you don't even need this.. you probably do things yourself.. but crave other things.. and he's like a brick here.. he can't see it nor try to see it, it has to be very frustrating.. 

I was telling my husband last night how you react to those of faith... you might appreciate this.. he jumps in basically defending you...saying how some can really be annoying.. they just want to pick pick pick, pushing our buttons.. he was giving YOU the benefit of the doubt , where I was pretty much seeing how harsh you are in return.. but true, he's pretty level headed and it can go both ways.. 

Please don't think I wouldn't sympathize with anyone struggling to get their emotional needs met in a marriage ... we can all relate to this -imaging what is "life giving" to us or would just brighten our day, and have it ripped away, our men being cold, distant...where we felt nothing but striving for his crumbs... very very hurtful, it would zap our enthusiasm and spirit.. . it doesn't have to be the same situation... it's just that marriage itself takes the blame... 

I see it more as Selfish people destroying what it's supposed to be... those who refuse to put in the effort to please the other, they aren't self aware, nor do they care...it would be awful to live with.. better for such people to remain alone.. if sharing is such a burden to them.. 

So many threads about what is attractive ...a bunch of ALPHA talk, how to not care what anyone thinks, how we don't need anyone.. oh that's so attractive.. let me go and throw up please...







... then when we get stuck with the epitome of that narcissistic ****.... we wonder what happened.. why would sex be handled any other way.. it's just an extension of who we are, our natural expression. 



> All parents want their children to form a good and lasting marriage, eventually. By teaching our kids to play nice, to share, and to talk it out we teach them to have a relationship. But we fail miserably in preparing our kids for the make or break part of marriage, sex. We can have a great marriage but if the sex is lousy the marriage is not so great. We can have a decent marriage but if the sex is outstanding the marriage is great. Sex is the make or break in a marriage so we all have to prepare our kids to make that part of their marriage healthy, passionate and fun.


 Intimacy is THAT important.. it can destroy a marriage.. yes...this happened to my own parents -who did have sex before they married.. what they lacked was getting to the core of the emotional.. really learing of who each was, what they wanted in life...they were not in tuned with each other...the sex side tracked them in the whirlwind phase... only to find out they were a horrendous match, 2 people wanting very different things... not that they were bad people but they weren't right for each other at all.... so people can miss many things by allowing sex to be the forefront, early on. 

Conflict resolution is another -on par with the bedroom...if a couple can't resolve their issues, apologizing when they have hurt, owning their screw ups... this will eventually destroy any intimacy they had..


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> See here.. I lay out something I see beauty in...(the desire to marry, be committed to one man, give my heart & soul and body), something Honorable to me.. and what do you do.. you come along and trample it, twist it putting an ugly spin on it.. that it's all about "the vagina"... ...you in fact trample things I hold dear...this would be no different than a man putting me down for how I feel quickly dumping my sorry ass , telling me how arcaic I am - if heaven forbid I didn't put out early enough, given what he is used to with other women... No thank you... men like that are a dime a dozen... but that's ok.. better to learn early and not waste anyone's time...
> 
> NO...if a man just wanted to get laid.. and not really be a husband.. that's NOT GOING TO LAST... nor is a wife getting married JUST TO GET MARRIED when she wants no part of the physical.. hell yeah it's inviting problems.. this is why I feel one should be completely and utterly authentic to WHO they are.. what they love, what they hate,. share their values, what is meaningful to them.. AND WHY..this will either repel them or bring them closer as they peel back the layers to the authentic...so they can cut their losses earlier and move on... not getting all that entangled with another.. I wouldn't want to have sex with someone who is a fly by night.. who needs his thirst of variety.. it's best to know ourselves and what is not acceptable to us...



I think I've just realized why you and I seem to but heads on the issue of premarital sex. I don't discount the beauty of marriage, nor the desire to be emotionally connected to the point where you feel like you are one with the other. I think we cross paths on where sex fits into that. I don't think having had other sexual partners, or relationships with other sexual partners cheapens or devalues the sexual chemistry once "the one" has become part of our lives. I think, I think...that you feel prior sexual experience does devalue the specialness of the marriage bed. I think we both agree that the marriage bed *should* be transcendent. We disagree on what makes it so.





> Why should any of this bother you anyway.... how many guys do you know who would even care, or would put up with a woman who wants to take things slow....No doubt the majority here just dismisses me, even rolls their eyes with some of my posts... .you have far more support being a modern woman... You know what.. women today ought to be more concerned with those who put out easy, quickly and have no care if it's casual.. casual could be complete strangers.. how many would take our husbands to bed.
> 
> This is one thing I never had to worry about , with my archaic man, if he's out of town.. I know he will remain faithful to me.. and Yes.. that's honorable to me.


I have not been condescending or false when I say I think you're adorable. I really do. This isn't me being a southern woman who says bless your heart when she really means **** off. :grin2:

I don't think women today should be concerned about other women and their lose morals stealing our husbands. Because if a husband has his head turned by some other woman offering casual sex, that opportunity is 10 fold more for a wife. Casual sex won't break a marriage apart, nor will the lack of casual sex keep a marriage together.







SimplyAmorous said:


> oh I can easily see you holding up that middle finger...I can feel it in your posts, when it comes to those of faith, when they share it...are they really insinuating that YOU need to live like them though, that they have all the answers -for you.. if it soothes them, comforts them to keep them hanging on, during the tough times.. it can be a help to some... I've seen this.. we all have a different perspective... I don't ever think it's good to deny reality though...if it's causing ongoing turmoil that can't be resolved .... something's got to give.. if we're miserable ... we're miserable..


There are several members here who actually do insinuate others need to live like them with their faith. But most people of faith here do not do that. In general, anyone who starts a sentence with "I am a Christian..." or "As a Christian.." is usually pushing their faith. For one, being a Christian means vastly different things to different people so the umbrella of Christianity is a damn big one. Secondly, if faith or bible quotes were part of the comfort sought, the seeker should be seeking in a place of faith, or a spirituality forum. There are many religions and Christianity is one of many. Those posters who take for granted that the sharing of their christian faith is welcome, that their Christian faith is universal, or that their Christian faith provides an answer without even bothering to ask if faith plays a role in the OP's life, those are the people who need to be checked here at TAM.





> Conflict resolution is another -on par with the bedroom...if a couple can't resolve their issues, apologizing when they have hurt, owning their screw ups... this will eventually destroy any intimacy they had..



This is true and it's true regardless of the state of the hymen on the wedding night. This in a nutshell is what destroys most marriages. And because this is independent of the state of virginity, it seems to me that virginity plays little role in the viability of marriage.


----------



## uhtred

I think this sort of matched my wife's attitude. The idea that sex is something women provide to men in return for something. "getting the milk for free" implies that normally there should be a cost. 

I've always had the idea that sex is something a couple does together for each other. A mix of this attitude and the former one is a real problem. The person who sees sex as transactional naturally tries to get as much as they can while providing as little as they can - its just good business sense. The other person thinks the expectation is that each does all that they can for the other. Ends up with a badly unbalanced sexual relationship. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> snip
> ...lots of milk for free out there..
> snip


----------



## uhtred

Again, it good that you found happiness. I wonder though, what if one of you decided that you didn't like sex after you were married.

There are so many books and articles on sex that you can find one to support any idea. In any case my wife is sufficiently convinced that its not important that she has no interest in learning more. She does think about me in lots of ways, but just thinks that frequent and passionate sex is something in movies, not something real people do.

Sadly that attitude is not uncommon. You will find lots of threads here from people in badly sexually mismatched marriages. Most have tried everything they can to fix things and have failed. 




Diana7 said:


> That's what the dating time is about, communicating about these things. I knew that my husband was keen on sex, and we discussed it many times. I also knew that he had never had sex outside marriage and wasn't going to and nor was I. I also got to know that he wasn't a selfish person, that he was kind and caring and patient.
> 
> You say that for your wife sex isn't important, yet there are countless books etc out there that say how VERY important it is for the marriage and especially for the husband, and helps him to maintain emotional closeness to his wife. I have learnt a lot by reading books that help us understand things like this, so her attitude is one of selfishness and burying her head in the sand to be honest. SHE may not think its important but you know it is, and as her husband she should be thinking of you and not herself in this if she cares about the marriage.
> 
> People who are single are free to have no sex, but if you get married you are supposed to think of your spouse.
> 
> One of the things I love about God is His wise advise on sex. He tell us NOT to deprive each other of sex because of the temptations it will create if we don't.
> 
> If for whatever reason my husband was unable to have sex due to illness or disability or whatever, well that's part of the 'for better and for worse' part.


----------



## Vinnydee

I know this will sound immodest but when I was a young man, women wanted to have sex with me. I was considered a hottie and girls talked about my skills in bed. I was advanced for my age. Atr 14 I had a 17 year old girlfriend and by 21, had 30+ sex partners. What I noticed was that some women would have sex with me just to have me keep dating them. I could see it in their eyes and by how they reacted. I am the type of lover who enjoys giving pleasure more than receiving it. Whenever I saw that look, I backed off.

I read the first comment with interest. I married a people pleaser and she has done every fetish in the book to please me. Even set me up with her best girlfriend who was in our lives and bed for most of our 44 years of marriage. That is how much she wants to please me. I had given up on changing her. Long story due to abusive alcoholic father. Now that we are once again monogamous, we are into chastity play. I am locked in a chastity cage and allowed to orgasm every 4 months while my wife has unlimited orgasms anytime she wants without having to reciprocate. She has finally discovered that withholding orgasms from men keeps them in courtship mode all the time. I am more calm and eager to please her. We still have sex on a regular basis but all that is missing are the ten seconds of my orgasm. All else is the same. My wife finally learned that she does not have to please me all the time and can be selfish in bed. She is having the best orgasms of her life and enjoying all the attention I am giving her. I figured that I owe her big time so sex is for only her pleasure now.

I do not think anything has changed in modern times. Women still use the promise or withholding of sex to get what they want. Men still want sex without having to marry. Open your eyes and see all the couples, many with kids, who are not married. My niece just had a baby and she is not married. No one thought anything of it. Nothing has changed since the dawn of mankind. Women use sex and men try to get it at the lest cost. Just watch TV. Sex without marriage is all over the airwaves. Unless you live in a bubble, men and woman still behave the same.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

uhtred said:


> I think this sort of matched my wife's attitude. The idea that sex is something women provide to men in return for something. "getting the milk for free" implies that normally there should be a cost.
> 
> I've always had the idea that sex is something a couple does together for each other. A mix of this attitude and the former one is a real problem. The person who sees sex as transactional naturally tries to get as much as they can while providing as little as they can - its just good business sense. The other person thinks the expectation is that each does all that they can for the other. Ends up with a badly unbalanced sexual relationship.


You took all that from adding that little ditty on the end -about the milk , while saying not a word to anything else I have shared in these posts... oh this shouldn't surprise me none... We all see what we want to see.. I already explained how I wanted BOTH.. no intentions to hook him and leave him dry.. 

I am with you.. that it's something a couple does together... it's mutually giving, loving and beautiful (add exciting erotic and leaves us wanting more of each other) ... but yeah.. there is a time and a place for this... this is where many will not "get me" & easily dismiss me.... Marriage was very important to me.. I will not be ashamed to say this... I love what it represents, I find the vows beautiful, the idea of having another to share everything with (that means the good & the bad), another our greatest fan, our support, our lover, the father of our children.. us going forth as a team.. I wanted us to share as deeply & vulnerably as any couple can sexually speaking.. I am a romantic after all... the Marriage bed held strong meaning to me....My intentions were pure.. as was his ... He would never even utter the "Cow -milk" phrase.. he would find it distasteful for men to look upon a love interest like that.. 

For a minority of us... some things are just worth waiting for...when we feel it's RIGHT...enough time has passed to know that we know...it's all encompassing, trust has been build, conflicts have been resolved, experiences shared. we've laughed & we've cried together, memories alive how we'd be lost without each other. we look forward to each day with this person... (doesn't have to be in marriage but when you know you want to be ONE with someone, that it's a "forever" thing)... 

For some of us .. there is a time and a place that holds great meaning.. this is where many just won't see it the same..


----------



## uhtred

I put the "snips" in to indicate that I was just commenting on one particular part of your post - sorry, I didn't mean to imply that was your main point. 

In a lot of ways I agree with you - waiting for sex is better - in an ideal world. The problem is that in the very real flawed world, waiting for sex can lead to long term misery. There are people who are simply not sexually compatible and I think that may not be obvious until they start actually having sex. Each will make assumptions about how the other is likely to behave / feel, assumptions that seem so natural it may never occur to them to ask.

I am also a romantic. I had been so indoctrinated by the idea that women were more romantic than men, that it never occurred to me that my wife was far less romantic that I was. 






SimplyAmorous said:


> You took all that from adding that little ditty on the end -about the milk , while saying not a word to anything else I have shared in these posts... oh this shouldn't surprise me none... We all see what we want to see.. I already explained how I wanted BOTH.. no intentions to hook him and leave him dry..
> 
> I am with you.. that it's something a couple does together... it's mutually giving, loving and beautiful (add exciting erotic and leaves us wanting more of each other) ... but yeah.. there is a time and a place for this... this is where many will not "get me" & easily dismiss me.... Marriage was very important to me.. I will not be ashamed to say this... I love what it represents, I find the vows beautiful, the idea of having another to share everything with (that means the good & the bad), another our greatest fan, our support, our lover, the father of our children.. us going forth as a team.. I wanted us to share as deeply & vulnerably as any couple can sexually speaking.. I am a romantic after all... the Marriage bed held strong meaning to me....My intentions were pure.. as was his ... He would never even utter the "Cow -milk" phrase.. he would find it distasteful for men to look upon a love interest like that..
> 
> For a minority of us... some things are just worth waiting for...when we feel it's RIGHT...enough time has passed to know that we know...it's all encompassing, trust has been build, conflicts have been resolved, experiences shared. we've laughed & we've cried together, memories alive how we'd be lost without each other. we look forward to each day with this person... (doesn't have to be in marriage but when you know you want to be ONE with someone, that it's a "forever" thing)...
> 
> For some of us .. there is a time and a place that holds great meaning.. this is where many just won't see it the same..


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

This has been a rather fascinating thread, especially the varying attitudes toward premarital sex. I have witnessed, and actually been in, both camps on this one. Let me start by saying that my wife is the only one I’ve had sex with. 

There were times, especially in the 5-10 year part of my marriage (we’ll be hitting 30 years this June), when I wish I had gotten around before I met my wife. I had this thought for two reasons. First, as we all know, an inexperienced man is fast… so it would have been nice to have developed some control/stamina so I could have been a more effective lover right from the get-go. Second, my wife and I, like many couples are somewhat mismatched in our desires (frequency, variety). So I reasoned that, had I had some broad experience, I would have been able to detect that mismatch before we exchanged vows, and figure that into my decision to commit my entire life to this one person. (not that I would have made a different decision, only that I would have appreciated more complete information before making it)

But the pendulum swung back on that and has stayed firmly in the “I’m glad I did it how I did it” camp for many years now. Looking at it logically, that breadth of experience I thought would be helpful is no guarantee of anything. How many men had great sex lives, but then were faced with the “bait and switch” when, after the name change was legal, the wife stopped being that wild, exciting sex kitten? To be fair, we must also acknowledge that some accusations of “bait and switch” are a bit harsh and unfair as the wife never intended to deceive—feelings and desires can just naturally change over time with nobody at “fault.” And despite my feeling slighted in the frequency/variety, she has been completely solid in all other ways (including when I’ve been a [email protected]$$ in other ways) and the marriage has always been high –fidelity strong.

(also to be fair, as an aside, I’ll mention that I never see men get accused of a “bait and switch.” While I’ve seen both genders accuse each other of double standards, this one seems to get overlooked. For every woman who is a sex goddess before the wedding and a cold fish after, I suspect there is a man who was a romantic wonder before and who just expects his wife to “put out” after. That one works both ways.)

But the real bottom line in my final position on this matter, at least for me (I’m loathe to make prescription for others on this matter), is that there is one and only one person on this planet who has had, or who will ever have, that piece of me. And don’t for a second think that waiting until I was 21 wasn’t [email protected] difficult or that I didn’t have many opportunities I chose to turn down. In the final analysis, I am pleased to have kept that aspect of me completely for one other-it is important to me to have done so, regardless of any external pressures or influences. It is also worth noting that I am not religious and this position is not driven by any theology or doctrine. It is mine and mine alone. No dogma influenced me to abstain any more than seduction or peer pressure influenced me to go for it. 

That said, I reiterate that it was important to me to do this, but I hold no such expectations for others. My wife had previous experience and I don’t fault her or feel slighted one bit. She used to regret her previous relationship (guy was a turd—and he’s quite lucky I never met him) and it left her with some baggage. I did my best to assure her it had no bearing whatsoever on how I saw her. Eventually, she realized that that part of her past helped make her the strong, wise woman she became. I like to think I'm wise enough to know that if her past is what made her the woman I fell in love with, how foolish it would be for me to find fault in that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon Pink said:


> I think I've just realized why you and I seem to but heads on the issue of premarital sex. I don't discount the beauty of marriage, nor the desire to be emotionally connected to the point where you feel like you are one with the other. I think we cross paths on where sex fits into that. I don't think having had other sexual partners, or relationships with other sexual partners cheapens or devalues the sexual chemistry once "the one" has become part of our lives. I think, I think...*that you feel prior sexual experience does devalue the specialness of the marriage bed. *I think we both agree that the marriage bed *should* be transcendent. We disagree on what makes it so.


 I think many things make it so, not just this.. this does not surpass other things by any means.. but yes... this is/ was an area that we discussed early on.....it's not like we didn't have our fun, we bonded as we grew emotionally.. as any other couple... he respected my boundaries .. even when things got hot & heavy, I had as much of a hard time not going there...I'm sure he enjoyed that struggle .. he knew how much I wanted to mesh with his body... some things were just evident. 

Yes I wanted to be someone's "one & only".. very special.. Look I read books about the value of waiting as a teen.... in my rational mind, NOT "religiously influenced" mind...where it's all about being as pure as snow...this stuff never sat well with me, it was asking too much of us humans given the dousing of hormones we were dealing with...

It was other things... like what if I was with another.. but never got him out of my system, memories hanging on.... I know how I am wired.. I tend to look back fondly...memories lived, what if's.... I think every break up, if a couple shared love at one time... they take a piece of them with them...it's crushing, it's devastating.. even more so if you've shared that sort of intimacy and it dies... I would have found it harder to TRUST another man after this also...what if an ex lover hurt me in some way sexually & I associated that act to something I was no longer open to , this could halt what could have been with a future husband even...or maybe an ex would have been Phenomenal in bed, and I'd be secretly comparing my future husband to that.. It's not good.. to say people don't compare.. is complete hogwash to me, but I do get that other BAD things would taint those relationships, to hopefully rid the exhilarating (or would imagine so). 



> I have not been condescending or false when I say I think you're adorable. I really do. This isn't me being a southern woman who says bless your heart when she really means **** off. :grin2:


 You have taken my thoughts in stride.. I appreciate that 




> There are several members here who actually do insinuate others need to live like them with their faith. But most people of faith here do not do that. In general, anyone who starts a sentence with "I am a Christian..." or "As a Christian.." is usually pushing their faith.


 I feel the same way when one starts a sentence out with "I am a Feminist"... or "As a Feminist...." there are some who feel this way about the word "Traditional"... it's all bad, outdated, some may even see it as misogynistic .... guess there are a # of buzz words depending on who we are & our perceptions of such things... 



> For one, being a Christian means vastly different things to different people so the umbrella of Christianity is a damn big one. Secondly, if faith or bible quotes were part of the comfort sought, the seeker should be seeking in a place of faith, or a spirituality forum. There are many religions and Christianity is one of many. Those posters who take for granted that the sharing of their christian faith is welcome, that their Christian faith is universal, or that their Christian faith provides an answer without even bothering to ask if faith plays a role in the OP's life, those are the people who need to be checked here at TAM.


 what if I said the same thing about Feminists.. another huge umbrella there too.. Then we have our staunch Republicans and Democrats.. I mean they have forums for everything.. America is supposed to be the Melting Pop... Christians, Republicans, Feminists .. we all marry... so we should all be free to share on this forum... When you say "checked" .. I assume you mean to let them know you don't share their beliefs so get off the high horse..  

All for free speech here.. don't think anyone should be chopped if they are not being blatantly disrespectful and rude though.. There will always be things that rub us the wrong way, no matter who we are...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> But the real bottom line in my final position on this matter, at least for me (I’m loathe to make prescription for others on this matter), is that there is one and only one person on this planet who has had, or who will ever have, that piece of me. And don’t for a second think that waiting until I was 21 wasn’t [email protected] difficult or that I didn’t have many opportunities I chose to turn down. In the final analysis, I am pleased to have kept that aspect of me completely for one other-it is important to me to have done so, regardless of any external pressures or influences. It is also worth noting that I am not religious and this position is not driven by any theology or doctrine. It is mine and mine alone. No dogma influenced me to abstain any more than seduction or peer pressure influenced me to go for it.


 see I think THIS is damn special and your wife is very blessed.. that's just how I feel.. but that makes all the sense in the world coming from me.. others will just tell you .. "you missed out Sucker, should have chased that tail when you had a chance!"


----------



## SimplyAmorous

uhtred said:


> In a lot of ways I agree with you - waiting for sex is better - in an ideal world. *The problem is that in the very real flawed world, waiting for sex can lead to long term misery. There are people who are simply not sexually compatible and I think that may not be obvious until they start actually having sex. *Each will make assumptions about how the other is likely to behave / feel, assumptions that seem so natural it may never occur to them to ask.


 This is just my thoughts.. I suspect a vast majority of people struggle to be honest with their true feelings, intentions, wants & desires to find that emotional comfort , leading to more "opening up" sexually speaking... I don't know.. I tend to be an unfiltered woman.. I do lay it out there.. I let my intentions be known.. I speak what I want, what I don't want too... it's like slowly peeling back the layers of an onion revealing ourselves (had a friend describe it like this once).. how a relationship is supposed to work.. 

When he'd touch me early on.. a couple things I didn't like, it hurt !... I would tell him HOW I WANTED IT - "Like this" ..... I wasn't shy, but by then we were so comfortable with each other.... I guess one has to know what brings them over the edge.. and voice this, after all nothing is more exhilarating than getting off together... the man wants to know he is pleasing you..... Might be some trial & error at 1st.. but you'll get better, grow together.. 

Waiting for years.. this would be very very difficult .. I do get this !! I think what I don't understand is why so many don't seem to want a relationship early on.. but want to mess around. I never felt this way.. this makes me weird I guess - it may have to do with the instability of my home life too.. . but yeah.. if that was me.. eventually I would have lost hope.. feeling I had to let go of my dreams...basically get over myself... would have felt like life was passing me by... I've often felt meeting young as we did has likely spared me a lot of heartache. 

I always find a deep sadness with this.. met a # of women who never married.. saying they never found the right man.. ..


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> I feel the same way when one starts a sentence out with "I am a Feminist"... or "As a Feminist...." there are some who feel this way about the word "Traditional"... it's all bad, outdated, some may even see it as misogynistic .... guess there are a # of buzz words depending on who we are & our perceptions of such things...


Well that is a very ...unique view. Considering there have been countless posts all over this forum explaining that feminism only stands for one thing, equality for all. I know you're not saying that you disagree with equality. You disagree with the other things you think feminism means and we probably agree on those, or some of those other things.

Traditionalismt outdated either but it is very often misogynistic.






> what if I said the same thing about Feminists.. another huge umbrella there too.. Then we have our staunch Republicans and Democrats.. I mean they have forums for everything.. America is supposed to be the Melting Pop... Christians, Republicans, Feminists .. we all marry... so we should all be free to share on this forum... When you say "checked" .. I assume you mean to let them know you don't share their beliefs so get off the high horse..
> 
> All for free speech here.. don't think anyone should be chopped if they are not being blatantly disrespectful and rude though.. There will always be things that rub us the wrong way, no matter who we are...



Unlike feminism, which stands for equality, Christianity does not, neither does Islam. 

When I say checked I mean I mean that they be reminded that Christianity isn't the ONLY religion out there and that it isn't even the biggest religion out there and that they ought not assume American and apple pie do not equate to Christianity. As you say, we are a pleural country in the USA and here at TAM the USA isn't the only country represented.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon Pink said:


> Unlike feminism, which stands for equality, Christianity does not, neither does Islam.


 Regardless of what anything is "supposed to stand for", it's orginal intent.. many have dirtied that.... there will remain obnoxious Radicals (Feminism) who think every word they utter represents the dang movement, they are always LOUD & PROUD, this is absolutely no different than a religious Fundamentalist... they are all whacked and ALL annoying, and they do NOT speak for others who associate their label... this is what I mean...

In saying that.. I clearly understand it's just a buzz word for me.. and NOT all feminists are like this.. @jld is one ...she is a dear friend of mine, we don't always agree on stuff - sometimes we're on opposite ends of a spectrum even, having played that out here in posts ...but still we deeply respect and genuinely LIKE each other...









Just as you have surely came across or know some Christians you don't want to throw over a bridge, roll your eyes or stick out your middle finger...but I get it.. in your personal experience, you have come across *more* that rub you the wrong way showing some aggressive fang stomping on your liberties...subtly or maybe not so.. putting your views down.. 



> When I say checked I mean I mean that they be reminded that Christianity isn't the ONLY religion out there and that it isn't even the biggest religion out there and that they ought not assume American and apple pie do not equate to Christianity. As you say, we are a pleural country in the USA and here at TAM the USA isn't the only country represented.


 Even if many of us wish the world was more of a certain way.. it's a little hard to deny obvious reality ... any Believer who assumes this or speaks like this...you have to wonder if they get out at all, ever turn on the TV or read much of anything (or it's their way to convert, but a very bad one at that!)... It's far more of a "God is dead" / "Live for yourself" attitude that pervades American society...


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Regardless of what anything is "supposed to stand for", it's orginal intent.. many have dirtied that.... there will remain obnoxious Radicals (Feminism) who think every word they utter represents the dang movement, they are always LOUD & PROUD, this is absolutely no different than a religious Fundamentalist... they are all whacked and ALL annoying, and they do NOT speak for others who associate their label... this is what I mean...
> 
> In saying that.. I clearly understand it's just a buzz word for me.. and NOT all feminists are like this.. @jld is one ...she is a dear friend of mine, *we don't always agree on stuff - sometimes we're on opposite ends of a spectrum even, having played that out here in posts ...but still we deeply respect and genuinely LIKE each other...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you have surely came across or know some Christians you don't want to throw over a bridge, roll your eyes or stick out your middle finger...but I get it.. in your personal experience, you have come across *more* that rub you the wrong way showing some aggressive fang stomping on your liberties...subtly or maybe not so.. putting your views down..
> 
> Even if many of us wish the world was more of a certain way.. it's a little hard to deny obvious reality ... any Believer who assumes this or speaks like this...you have to wonder if they get out at all, ever turn on the TV or read much of anything (or it's their way to convert, but a very bad one at that!)... It's far more of a "God is dead" / "Live for yourself" attitude that pervades American society...


Absolutely true, SA. 

I have great respect for strong, intelligent women, regardless of whether we see every issue the same way.


----------



## thefam

@Anon Pink Hey there. You and I have had many discussions about sex (mostly offline) you know my history I know yours, you know how I feel I know how you feel. And in the midst of it all you have truly been supportive toward me even when others questioned my dynamic with my husband.

But I don't think you are being fair to Christians, as many are not here. Why do Christians need to go to a "Christian forum" but swingers don't, cuckholds don't, gay people don't, confirmed bachelors/bachelorette don't? They are all points of view and ways of living one's life. Why the finger to us Christians who express our views just like people who believe it's ok to bring 3rd parties in to marriages and freely approach TAM with their point of view. 

Another thing that is overlooked about sex before marriage is for vast majority here on TAM who are in a sexless or close to it, they had sex before marriage and it didn't prevent them from having sexual problems after marriage.

Parents do need to do a better job preparing children if they are going to teach abstinence but it can be done. I didn't listen to my Mom once my now husband came along because the pressure from him combined with hormones was just too great. Im not even sure I was completely sold anyway but I knew i wanted sex to be with someone I loved that loved me. But I do plan to teach my kids abstinence and hopefully my experience will be helpful with that. I plan to be totally open and honest to prepare them as I possibly can.

I don't know @Diana7 or her story at all Pink so maybe I'm out of line here but aren't you making judgments and assumptions about her marriage that you couldn't possibly know for sure? Again please forgive me if I'm wrong and she has shared all this and that's how you know. 

Oh and could you and SA please stop fussing? By now you both know you will NEVER agree! LOL. Just joking. Carry on.


----------



## Diana7

SimplyAmorous said:


> See here.. I lay out something I see beauty in...(the desire to marry, be committed to one man, give my heart & soul and body), something Honorable to me.. and what do you do.. you come along and trample it, twist it putting an ugly spin on it.. that it's all about "the vagina"... ...you in fact trample things I hold dear...this would be no different than a man putting me down for how I feel quickly dumping my sorry ass , telling me how arcaic I am - if heaven forbid I didn't put out early enough, given what he is used to with other women... No thank you... men like that are a dime a dozen... but that's ok.. better to learn early and not waste anyone's time...
> 
> NO...if a man just wanted to get laid.. and not really be a husband.. that's NOT GOING TO LAST... nor is a wife getting married JUST TO GET MARRIED when she wants no part of the physical.. hell yeah it's inviting problems.. this is why I feel one should be completely and utterly authentic to WHO they are.. what they love, what they hate,. share their values, what is meaningful to them.. AND WHY..this will either repel them or bring them closer as they peel back the layers to the authentic...so they can cut their losses earlier and move on... not getting all that entangled with another.. I wouldn't want to have sex with someone who is a fly by night.. who needs his thirst of variety.. it's best to know ourselves and what is not acceptable to us...
> 
> Why should any of this bother you anyway.... how many guys do you know who would even care, or would put up with a woman who wants to take things slow....No doubt the majority here just dismisses me, even rolls their eyes with some of my posts... .you have far more support being a modern woman... You know what.. women today ought to be more concerned with those who put out easy, quickly and have no care if it's casual.. casual could be complete strangers.. how many would take our husbands to bed.
> 
> This is one thing I never had to worry about , with my archaic man, if he's out of town.. I know he will remain faithful to me.. and Yes.. that's honorable to me.


Its such a blessing to have a man like that, they are rare today. :smile2:
I couldn't care less if a man dumped me because I wouldn't be rushed into sex, in fact its a good thing because its shows me that he isn't the sort of man I am looking for. The values I hold need to be shared with the man I am with. A man who has slept around is so unattractive to me, it would put me off totally. A man who has self control and high moral values is so appealing to me. 

Dont worry about what others here think or say, these values are so worth hanging on to. :smile2:


----------



## Diana7

thefam said:


> @Anon Pink Hey there. You and I have had many discussions about sex (mostly offline) you know my history I know yours, you know how I feel I know how you feel. And in the midst of it all you have truly been supportive toward me even when others questioned my dynamic with my husband.
> 
> But I don't think you are being fair to Christians, as many are not here. Why do Christians need to go to a "Christian forum" but swingers don't, cuckholds don't, gay people don't, confirmed bachelors/bachelorette don't? They are all points of view and ways of living one's life. Why the finger to us Christians who express our views just like people who believe it's ok to bring 3rd parties in to marriages and freely approach TAM with their point of view.
> 
> Another thing that is overlooked about sex before marriage is for vast majority here on TAM who are in a sexless or close to it, they had sex before marriage and it didn't prevent them from having sexual problems after marriage.
> 
> Parents do need to do a better job preparing children if they are going to teach abstinence but it can be done. I didn't listen to my Mom once my now husband came along because the pressure from him combined with hormones was just too great. Im not even sure I was completely sold anyway but I knew i wanted sex to be with someone I loved that loved me. But I do plan to teach my kids abstinence and hopefully my experience will be helpful with that. I plan to be totally open and honest to prepare them as I possibly can.
> 
> I don't know @Diana7 or her story at all Pink so maybe I'm out of line here but aren't you making judgments and assumptions about her marriage that you couldn't possibly know for sure? Again please forgive me if I'm wrong and she has shared all this and that's how you know.
> 
> Oh and could you and SA please stop fussing? By now you both know you will NEVER agree! LOL. Just joking. Carry on.


A lovely post, and you are so right that many here who have had several partners and sex before marriage with their present partners are now stuck with none or little sex. So this theory that if you have had sex with many people and had sex early on in your current relationship means you will have a good sex life now is clearly wrong. Also that if a couple wait for marriage that must mean they aren't interested in sex and that will cause trouble, is clearly completely wrong also. 
The ones I know who waited, including us, were definitely very interested in sex, but had to use self control to wait for marriage, because that's what we believe is right. I appreciate that this is something that so few understand, and because of that they try and imply that it must be because we have sexual issues or don't want sex that we wait. How wrong that is. 
Its also a very wrong assumption that if you havent had several/many sexual partners before marriage then your sex life must be somehow lacking. Again that is so wrong. Its better, far far better in my opinion and experience. 

Sex is something that for us has improved and developed over the years as we have learnt about each others likes and dislikes. Its gets better as time passes, and we are as keen today on having sex with each other as we were coming up for 12 years ago when we married. Its far better than it was with my first husband, who I did had sex with before marriage,(wasn't following God then) and he had had sex with 6 previous women. It certainly didn't help our sex life or make him a better lover in anyway.
I love that I don't need to even think of all the women my husband has had sex with, what they may have done or didn't do, or wonder if he is comparing me to them etc. There was his first wife and me.


----------



## Diana7

Anon Pink said:


> Well that is a very ...unique view. Considering there have been countless posts all over this forum explaining that feminism only stands for one thing, equality for all. I know you're not saying that you disagree with equality. You disagree with the other things you think feminism means and we probably agree on those, or some of those other things.
> 
> Traditionalismt outdated either but it is very often misogynistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike feminism, which stands for equality, Christianity does not, neither does Islam.
> 
> When I say checked I mean I mean that they be reminded that Christianity isn't the ONLY religion out there and that it isn't even the biggest religion out there and that they ought not assume American and apple pie do not equate to Christianity. As you say, we are a pleural country in the USA and here at TAM the USA isn't the only country represented.


Christianity is about valuing men and women, they are equally important. I am from the UK, and my husband is Australian. We have less Christians here percentage wise than you do in the USA, but we are all surely allowed to give our opinion and beliefs on sex and marriage as the majority here who aren't Christians also do.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Diana7 said:


> Its such a blessing to have a man like that, they are rare today. :smile2:
> I couldn't care less if a man dumped me because I wouldn't be rushed into sex, in fact its a good thing because its shows me that he isn't the sort of man I am looking for. The values I hold need to be shared with the man I am with. A man who has slept around is so unattractive to me, it would put me off totally. A man who has self control and high moral values is so appealing to me.
> 
> Dont worry about what others here think or say, these values are so worth hanging on to. :smile2:


See I told you we have some things in common Diana7... I sure feel as you spoke here.... even if I'm not exactly a Christian anymore.. I used to be or should I say "tried to be" but I was always a questioner, things warred against my mind...though still many things in the Bible I do hold dear....like the "2 becoming one" ....how we are to share our bodies...I love this scripture.....

Me & husband both feel this way.. if one of us is in need.. we are there , even if in the middle of the night.. it's a beautiful thing... though I understand others may cringe reading this .. if sex has been used in any sort of abusive or selfish manner... they will see something entirely different...and this , too is understandable.. 

Most of my friends come from a Christian background.. one of my closest friends from childhood is a Mormon (not strong practicing but she grew up in that), it's good that we can talk openly about our beliefs / philosophys.. all of it.. I have found we have far more in common -over not.. that's what's important at the end of the day..

Our oldest son is a Worship Leader, the next 2 go to a Christian college... one of them is more a Deist thinker (like me) sometimes he'll come home giving his analysis on where he is in conflict with things being taught, the Professors spin as he has to take some Bible classes... we have a fair amount of open discussion in our house.. it's something we enjoy.. 

I tend to look upon people on how they treat each other, it just doesn't matter what they believe.. Thank you for your post.


----------



## 269370

Diana7 said:


> I would run the other way from a man who DID demand sex before marriage. I love a man with good moral values and self control. We didnt have sex before we married and we have a great sex life. My husband loves sex, but he wouldn't have sex outside marriage. Its nothing to do with their lack of desire for sex but their moral values.




That's primarily the reason why the divorce rates are higher among Christian couples than non believers. (No, anecdotal references don't count. Please refer to national statistics).
I had sex with one person, before I got married. Still having sex with that person. And still married. Don't see any downside at all (except that it's 'in the book'). But many upsides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

inmyprime said:


> That's primarily the reason why the divorce rates are higher among Christian couples than non believers. (No, anecdotal references don't count. Please refer to national statistics).
> I had sex with one person, before I got married. Still having sex with that person. And still married. Don't see any downside at all (except that it's 'in the book'). But many upsides.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's actually more complex than that (Christian vs non-Christian or had premarital sex vs didn't have premarital sex). Much of the high divorce rates among Christians is driven by a sub element of that group. Especially in the bible belt, or among many fundamentalists regardless of geography, people are pushed to get married very young - so as to not have the opportunity to sin. There's another level of causality here, it's the youth at the core of the statistic, not the presence or absence of premarital sex. 

Sure, the young lack sexual experience, but that is not a causal factor as success rates of those who abstain until they reach greater maturity are better than those who are pushed into it at a young age. The causal factor is overall immaturity. Also, the stress of starting a union before achieving financial stability. 

I'm always astonished at parents who sign consent forms for their under-18s to get married, as if setting them up for a life of misery, or divorce, is a better option than running the risk of carnal knowledge before holy matrimony.


----------



## Diana7

inmyprime said:


> That's primarily the reason why the divorce rates are higher among Christian couples than non believers. (No, anecdotal references don't count. Please refer to national statistics).
> I had sex with one person, before I got married. Still having sex with that person. And still married. Don't see any downside at all (except that it's 'in the book'). But many upsides.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thats just untrue. The best and longest marriages I know are between Christian couples who waited till marriage. Having sex before marriage doesn't even mean you will have a good marriage or sex life in marriage. Couples who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce. I am talking about the uk here BTW. 
I cant see any upsides to it at all. All those we know who waited have not regretted it.


----------



## Diana7

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> It's actually more complex than that (Christian vs non-Christian or had premarital sex vs didn't have premarital sex). Much of the high divorce rates among Christians is driven by a sub element of that group. Especially in the bible belt, or among many fundamentalists regardless of geography, people are pushed to get married very young - so as to not have the opportunity to sin. There's another level of causality here, it's the youth at the core of the statistic, not the presence or absence of premarital sex.
> 
> Sure, the young lack sexual experience, but that is not a causal factor as success rates of those who abstain until they reach greater maturity are better than those who are pushed into it at a young age. The causal factor is overall immaturity. Also, the stress of starting a union before achieving financial stability.
> 
> I'm always astonished at parents who sign consent forms for their under-18s to get married, as if setting them up for a life of misery, or divorce, is a better option than running the risk of carnal knowledge before holy matrimony.


That's true. In the Uk, divorces among church going Christians are unusual. If they do occur, is for serious reasons such as adultery. Most will try anything rather than end their marriages. Going by the countless believers I have known in my life,(many hundreds), I would say its about 5% of Christian marriages here end in divorce, compared to 40% overall.


----------



## arbitrator

Wolf1974 said:


> Just out of curiosity what is you age range? I am in my early fortys and find the exact opposite of what you observe. None of my male single friends want to get married and all my female friends and cousins do. *Just wondering if this is a generational thing.*


*I'd be forced to say that it's probably much more of a "genderal thing!"*


----------



## 269370

Diana7 said:


> That's true. In the Uk, divorces among church going Christians are unusual. If they do occur, is for serious reasons such as adultery. Most will try anything rather than end their marriages. Going by the countless believers I have known in my life,(many hundreds), I would say its about 5% of Christian marriages here end in divorce, compared to 40% overall.




Can you please explain where you are getting your 'statistics' from?

https://www.thoughtco.com/divorce-rates-for-atheists-248494

27% of born-again Christians have had at least one divorce
24% of all non-born-again Christians have been divorced

21% of atheists have been divorced
21% of Catholics and Lutherans have been divorced
24% of Mormons have been divorced
25% of mainstream Protestants have been divorced
29% of Baptists have been divorced
24% of nondenominational, independent Protestants have been divorced


27% of people in the South and Midwest have been divorced
26% of people in the West have been divorced
19% of people in the Northwest and Northeast have been divorced


Also I gather this is not your first marriage?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

I think she was talking about the U.K.

Did not realize divorce rates were so high for Mormons in America. They seem to be all about "family values." Same for evangelicals.


----------



## 269370

They also last longer: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/reli...last-longer-christian-marriages-research-says


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

I remember reading a comment once on Amazon about atheist/Christian marriages.

A woman had said that although her atheist husband was wonderful to her and they had a very good marriage, she was worried about his not sharing her Christian beliefs.

A man tried to comfort her, and advised her to be grateful. His words still ring in my ears: "He believes in something better than God. He believes in _you!_"


----------



## jld

I wonder what the rates are for fallen away Catholics? 😄


----------



## Diana7

inmyprime said:


> Can you please explain where you are getting your 'statistics' from?
> 
> https://www.thoughtco.com/divorce-rates-for-atheists-248494
> 
> 27% of born-again Christians have had at least one divorce
> 24% of all non-born-again Christians have been divorced
> 
> 21% of atheists have been divorced
> 21% of Catholics and Lutherans have been divorced
> 24% of Mormons have been divorced
> 25% of mainstream Protestants have been divorced
> 29% of Baptists have been divorced
> 24% of nondenominational, independent Protestants have been divorced
> 
> 
> 27% of people in the South and Midwest have been divorced
> 26% of people in the West have been divorced
> 19% of people in the Northwest and Northeast have been divorced
> 
> 
> Also I gather this is not your first marriage?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I said I am referring to the UK. Only 5-6% of people here go to church. The percentage of divorces among church going committed christians is tiny here.

We both had long first marriages 23 and 25 years. We both divorced for biblically allowed reasons and my husband was divorced against his will. We have been married for 12 years this year. My husband and his ex are one of a tiny number of Christian couples we know who are divorced, and that is out of many hundreds of couples we have known over the years. Most divorces we know or were between non believers(loads in my family alone), and a few between a believer and non believer.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-divorce-rate-among-christians


----------



## Diana7

jld said:


> I remember reading a comment once on Amazon about atheist/Christian marriages.
> 
> A woman had said that although her atheist husband was wonderful to her and they had a very good marriage, she was worried about his not sharing her Christian beliefs.
> 
> A man tried to comfort her, and advised her to be grateful. His words still ring in my ears: "He believes in something better than God. He believes in _you!_"


Most of the marriages that I know between a believer and a non believer are troubled. You are on a different path in life and have different values. That's why I could never marry a man who didn't share my faith.


----------



## 269370

Diana7 said:


> As I said I am referring to the UK. Only 5-6% of people here go to church. The percentage of divorces among church going committed christians is tiny here.
> 
> We both had long first marriages 23 and 25 years. We both divorced for biblically allowed reasons and my husband was divorced against his will. We have been married for 12 years this year. My husband and his ex are one of a tiny number of Christian couples we know who are divorced, and that is out of many hundreds of couples we have known over the years. Most divorces we know or were between non believers(loads in my family alone), and a few between a believer and non believer.
> 
> https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-divorce-rate-among-christians


I am not sure which UK you are from but the one where I live, the indications are pretty clear that divorce rates have fallen significantly due to couples cohabiting before getting married:

_*Younger couples who marry now more likely to stay together past seven year itch than their parents’ generation suggesting ‘living in sin’ makes marriage stronger*_

Divorce rate at lowest level in 40 years after cohabitation revolution - Telegraph


----------



## 269370

It really amazes me that you prefer to rely on hearsay rather than actual data.

*All of the top 2 countries by divorce rate are Christian.*

Countries Compared by People > Divorce rate. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

Every data point confirms: that conservative Christians are more likely to divorce than liberal Christians. It's the same for both US and UK.

_The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people. Nine states in the Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Maryland) have the lowest divorce rates, averaging just 3.5/1000 people._


----------



## Diana7

inmyprime said:


> I am not sure which UK you are from but the one where I live, the indications are pretty clear that divorce rates have fallen significantly due to couples cohabiting before getting married:
> 
> _*Younger couples who marry now more likely to stay together past seven year itch than their parents’ generation suggesting ‘living in sin’ makes marriage stronger*_
> 
> Divorce rate at lowest level in 40 years after cohabitation revolution - Telegraph


That's because people are living together and not marrying, so those who are committing to marriage and know its important are making the divorce rate lower. Far more people who live together break up than those who marry.


----------



## Diana7

inmyprime said:


> It really amazes me that you prefer to rely on hearsay rather than actual data.
> 
> *All of the top 2 countries by divorce rate are Christian.*
> 
> Countries Compared by People > Divorce rate. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
> 
> Every data point confirms: that conservative Christians are more likely to divorce than liberal Christians. It's the same for both US and UK.
> 
> _The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people. Nine states in the Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Maryland) have the lowest divorce rates, averaging just 3.5/1000 people._


I am sure you realise that many people who live in a conservative state are not going to be committed church going practising christians.


----------



## Red Sonja

SimplyAmorous said:


> Regardless of what anything is "supposed to stand for", it's orginal intent.. many have dirtied that.... there will remain obnoxious Radicals (Feminism) who think every word they utter represents the dang movement, they are always LOUD & PROUD, this is absolutely no different than a religious Fundamentalist... they are all whacked and ALL annoying, and they do NOT speak for others who associate their label...


Yup, that is why I use the label *egalitarian *instead of *feminist*. Because the original egalitarian ideal got lost somewhere along the way amongst the spew that is current feminism.


----------



## sokillme

Steve1000 said:


> I would not say only 1 our of ten have your success, but still somewhere less than 50%. I had a neighbor growing up who waited until his 30's to get married and insisted on only marrying a virgin. He did get married only to divorce three years later because his wife had no interest in sex.


You base that on what? Your own experience?

The studies actually says the opposite. 
And this one.
This one seems to indicate virgins are the least likely but 1 sex partner are the most.


----------



## Anon Pink

Well look who dropped in? How are you? The babies? The handsome honey? The move? New town? Time for a major update!




thefam said:


> @Anon Pink Hey there. You and I have had many discussions about sex (mostly offline) you know my history I know yours, you know how I feel I know how you feel. And in the midst of it all you have truly been supportive toward me even when others questioned my dynamic with my husband.
> 
> But I don't think you are being fair to Christians, as many are not here. Why do Christians need to go to a "Christian forum" but swingers don't, cuckholds don't, gay people don't, confirmed bachelors/bachelorette don't? They are all points of view and ways of living one's life. Why the finger to us Christians who express our views just like people who believe it's ok to bring 3rd parties in to marriages and freely approach TAM with their point of view.


Christians done need to go to a Christian forum so long as they aren't making posts laced with their condescending tone...which is what Diana does.

Swingers and the cucks do not suggest their lifestyle is the most successful way to have a marriage. In fact, @Married but Happy has cautioned others about swinging and has advised long honest discussion prior to engaging. I don't believe I ever seen a post anywhere ever from a gay person who gave back handed advice that being gay would solve all the OP problems because all the people I know in happy relationships are gay.

Neither the gays, the swingers, nor the cucks make posts laced with any sort of condescending tone suggesting their way of life is the only way to live it. 

You can see by Diana's posts following yours, she constantly uses "morals and values" suggesting that to behave in any way contradictory to how she behaves is lacking in morals and values. And that is what pisses me off! Christians believe that the Bible dictates morals and values. Okay fair enough, but that attitude precisely accuses anyone who does not believe, or is not a Christian, or even a Christian who is not a fundementalist, are not behaving with the morals and values handed down by god and they therefore lack morals and values. So anytime Diana says, I couldn't love a man who doesn't share my morals and values, she is saying that her version of the rules of life is the only version and anyone else believing differently lacks morals and values. Can you not see how that is condescending? Can you not see the very real, though cleverly disguised insult to just about everyone else?

Personally, I don't give a damn what Diana thinks in terms of her personal life, but when she starts wearing her christian hall monitor badge and quoting anecdotal crap that, as we've seen in this thread is indeed total crap, it's time to challenge.



> Another thing that is overlooked about sex before marriage is for vast majority here on TAM who are in a sexless or close to it, they had sex before marriage and it didn't prevent them from having sexual problems after marriage.


See, you're doing it too now. 

No one has ever said that premarital sex will make your marriage a sex filled marriage. Getting to know your partner sexually before marriage is but one piece of the pie.

However, I've seen an awful LOT of posts about sexless marriage from those who were virgins on their wedding night. As I've said before, if your alter virgin is older than 20, chances are he/she has no sex drive and isn't terribly into sex. How else would he/she have remained a virgin?



> Parents do need to do a better job preparing children if they are going to teach abstinence but it can be done. I didn't listen to my Mom once my now husband came along because the pressure from him combined with hormones was just too great. Im not even sure I was completely sold anyway but I knew i wanted sex to be with someone I loved that loved me. But I do plan to teach my kids abstinence and hopefully my experience will be helpful with that. I plan to be totally open and honest to prepare them as I possibly can.
> 
> I don't know @Diana7 or her story at all Pink so maybe I'm out of line here but aren't you making judgments and assumptions about her marriage that you couldn't possibly know for sure? Again please forgive me if I'm wrong and she has shared all this and that's how you know.
> 
> Oh and could you and SA please stop fussing? By now you both know you will NEVER agree! LOL. Just joking. Carry on.



I'll always forgive you because you're one of the few who walks the talk. I don't always agree with you, like with SA, but I respect your opinion. Why? Because you respect mine.


----------



## Anon Pink

Diana7 said:


> Christianity is about valuing men and women, they are equally important. I am from the UK, and my husband is Australian. We have less Christians here percentage wise than you do in the USA, but we are all surely allowed to give our opinion and beliefs on sex and marriage as the majority here who aren't Christians also do.


No, fundamentalism doesn't not equally value both genders.

So you are here to share your beliefs about how Christianity has informed your marriage? Regardless of the religious beliefs, and non beliefs of others? There is a word for that....can't think of it right now...what is that word?


Once AGAIN let's get this clear:



> So this theory that if you have had sex with many people and had sex early on in your current relationship means you will have a good sex life now is clearly wrong.


First, you're wrong because having premarital sex is one easy way to discover that you're sexually incapatible with your intended.

Second, you're wrong because I've never said, and don't think anyone else has either, that if you have premarital sex you will have a good marriage. That would be foolish because there is no one single sure fire way to ensure your marriage is a good one. If you've seen that written someone please direct me to the author.

Third, AGAIN, you confuse having sex before marriage with promiscuity.


----------



## Steve1000

sokillme said:


> You base that on what? Your own experience?
> 
> 
> And this one.
> .[/URL]


I didn't argue that people should have more than one previous sexual partner before getting married. Instead I suggested that couples have sexual relationship with each other before getting married to help ensure that they are compatible in that area. That's from my own observations, which is less valid than a scientific study. However, the second study that you linked does not say that women with one sexual partner decreases chance of divorce. It just says to make sure that the number isn't two.

*"New research suggests that women who had exactly two sexual partners (their husbands and one other person) were more likely to divorce than those who had either just one partner or many more. "*


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I remember reading a comment once on Amazon about atheist/Christian marriages.
> 
> A woman had said that although her atheist husband was wonderful to her and they had a very good marriage, she was worried about his not sharing her Christian beliefs.
> 
> A man tried to comfort her, and advised her to be grateful. His words still ring in my ears: "He believes in something better than God. He believes in _you!_"


 I love that.. I would liken this almost to a "Solomon" moment... a comment that stops you in your tracks, giving you pause..you simply know you can't argue with it's wisdom, at the very least you see another perspective.. what is really important. 



Diana7 said:


> Most of the marriages that I know between a believer and a non believer are troubled. You are on a different path in life and have different values. That's why I could never marry a man who didn't share my faith.


I was tentatively warned to not be with a man who wasn't a Christian...it wasn't pounded but I was very aware of this "unequally yoked" belief...though everyone who knew my boyfriend (now husband), they loved him...couldn't say a word against his character....he was a good one, caring, never got in any trouble.. was faithful to his word.. all that... If anything... Poor him for putting up with me!... I was more messed up back then.. had some chips on my shoulder.. trying to find some solace in my faith....

So here is a case where I was the so called believer back then but he had more of the "Fruits" (meaning "Fruits of the spirit").....go figure.. had I taken my beliefs so literally as to listen to those voices.. I would have passed up the best thing that ever happened to me.. It was more him that showed me what LOVE was, over anyone else.

One thing that always drove me a little batty about my Pastor.....couldn't help but notice this in many of his sermons...it was always assumed if one is not a Christian , somehow they must be living "very worldly" ....this person will fall into this or that, drinking / drugs, ruin their lives, be materialistic, live selfishly (sinfully) and pull you in with them- so stay away, don't be unequally yoked....irregardless of how a person lives, how they treat others, what their character says about them....it's like it all hinges on whether they said some Sinners Prayer and identified as a Christian.. 

Anyone can call themselves anything they want...does it always make it so? Look around us, Christian or non.....it seems many fail to honor the values they speak, sad to say.... We may be pleasantly surprised how similar we are to others -if we just remove what separates us...

Then given how many Denominations there are ... even using the word Christian.. this could mean a wide flavor of how one interprets the Bible - which can still cause conflict down the road (like an Evangelical yoked with a more liberal minded Christian, or a staunch Calvinist vs an Arminian.. still the debate goes on)....


----------



## DTO

I get your perspective. I am very familiar with Christian perspective on sex. But, even when attending church I would refuse to wait for marriage to have sex.

And that is simply because most Christians don't accept Scriptural teachings on sex within marriage. I saw it in my own church. My pastor taught the Biblical guidelines for marriages; you could feel how the parishioners could not wait for the sermon to move on. I actually was dismissed (however gently) by a senior member because I would be willing to leave my marriage over a lack of sex.

I would have been okay waiting for marriage if I had confidence that my spouse would step up and meet my need (vs only her own need or what she thought my need should have been), but not the way things stand now.



katiecrna said:


> I get what your saying but I just have a different opinion. Yea men can do whatever they want. So can women. I am Christian so I choose to or at least try to live a Christian life. That's what I choose for my life and it's not because I expect other people will do the same, it's actually the opposite.


----------



## Diana7

SimplyAmorous said:


> I love that.. I would liken this almost to a "Solomon" moment... a comment that stops you in your tracks, giving you pause..you simply know you can't argue with it's wisdom, at the very least you see another perspective.. what is really important.
> 
> 
> 
> I was tentatively warned to not be with a man who wasn't a Christian...it wasn't pounded but I was very aware of this "unequally yoked" belief...though everyone who knew my boyfriend (now husband), they loved him...couldn't say a word against his character....he was a good one, caring, never got in any trouble.. was faithful to his word.. all that... If anything... Poor him for putting up with me!... I was more messed up back then.. had some chips on my shoulder.. trying to find some solace in my faith....
> 
> So here is a case where I was the so called believer back then but he had more of the "Fruits" (meaning "Fruits of the spirit").....go figure.. had I taken my beliefs so literally as to listen to those voices.. I would have passed up the best thing that ever happened to me.. It was more him that showed me what LOVE was, over anyone else.
> 
> One thing that always drove me a little batty about my Pastor.....couldn't help but notice this in many of his sermons...it was always assumed if one is not a Christian , somehow they must be living "very worldly" ....this person will fall into this or that, drinking / drugs, ruin their lives, be materialistic, live selfishly (sinfully) and pull you in with them- so stay away, don't be unequally yoked....irregardless of how a person lives, how they treat others, what their character says about them....it's like it all hinges on whether they said some Sinners Prayer and identified as a Christian..
> 
> Anyone can call themselves anything they want...does it always make it so? Look around us, Christian or non.....it seems many fail to honor the values they speak, sad to say.... We may be pleasantly surprised how similar we are to others -if we just remove what separates us...
> 
> Then given how many Denominations there are ... even using the word Christian.. this could mean a wide flavor of how one interprets the Bible - which can still cause conflict down the road (like an Evangelical yoked with a more liberal minded Christian, or a staunch Calvinist vs an Arminian.. still the debate goes on)....


God does tell us not be with a non Christian, I didn't obey that the first time( wasnt walking with God then) but did the second. What my friends struggle with is that their husbands aren't saved, and they cant be part of their spiritual family and church life, so its a big area of their lives they cant share. Mind you one of my friends husband has just become a Christian age 70, she has been praying for him for about 30 years, so that's exciting. :smile2:

In the UK we aren't so bothered about denominations. I have friends from several different ones, and have been to churches of 5 different denominations. Its like different flavours of the same thing. Each has something different to offer. 
It was important to me to be with a man who was on my spiritual wavelength, someone passionate about God and who was charismatic and open to God working, but in the end its whether the person is saved or not that matters most, not what church they belong to.


----------



## alexm

uhtred said:


> Do a significant number of women still view sex as something that they "exchange" for marriage, something women do *for* men as opposed to something that is mutually enjoyed?
> 
> I thought that idea had mostly vanished half a century ago, but maybe not.


I do think my wife views it as something "for" me on the surface, but underneath, that it's mutual. It's not a simple black and white answer in many cases. I would say that it heavily depends on the desire level of the person, to begin with.

My wife, being lower desire and having no real _need_ for sex - then yes, there's a certain transactional element to it, and there probably always has been.

The reality is that when you have little (or no real) desire for sex, then it becomes a transactional piece, even if it's not a totally conscious one.

For those that don't necessarily view sex and sexuality in the quote/unquote 'normal' way, then yes, it can't help but be something that "needs" to be done.

For the rest of us, to whom sex and sexuality comes naturally, without thought - then no, I don't believe it becomes a transactional piece.

A lot of us men aren't naturally romantic, in the way that some women desire. It's often something that many of us have to be consciously aware of and remember to do (especially when first dating!). It's our way of showing interest in someone, and that can be perceived in much the same way - to land a wife.

Some people are simply better at maintaining these things that don't necessarily come naturally to us. Some aren't. It's difficult to really say if they're conscious decisions or actions with a set goal.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Diana7 said:


> God does tell us not be with a non Christian, I didn't obey that the first time( wasnt walking with God then) but did the second. What my friends struggle with is that their husbands aren't saved, *and they cant be part of their spiritual family and church life, so its a big area of their lives they cant share. *Mind you one of my friends husband has just become a Christian age 70, she has been praying for him for about 30 years, so that's exciting. :smile2:
> 
> In the UK we aren't so bothered about denominations. I have friends from several different ones, and have been to churches of 5 different denominations. Its like different flavours of the same thing. Each has something different to offer.
> *It was important to me to be with a man who was on my spiritual wavelength, someone passionate about God and who was charismatic and open to God working,* but in the end its whether the person is saved or not that matters most, not what church they belong to.


 I can understand this part, where you are coming from... some things mean a lot to us... this could be one of those.... I've known a # of married women who attended church regularly... where their husbands never came, even if they weren't working... I wouldn't have liked this either, had I been in their shoes...it's good to go to a place of worship together.

With my husband.. he always went with me anyway...he could have easily fell asleep many times in the pew though ..I just asked him about this and he said "I thought I did"... he remembers dozing hoping no one noticed......so yeah.. it wasn't exactly his thing... we did share a number of friends at church though.. it's the one thing I miss about going, some of those gatherings - the community/ the fellowship...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

alexm said:


> I do think my wife views it as something "for" me on the surface, but underneath, that it's mutual. It's not a simple black and white answer in many cases. I would say that it heavily depends on the desire level of the person, to begin with.
> 
> My wife, being lower desire and having no real _need_ for sex - then yes, there's a certain *transactional* element to it, and there probably always has been.
> 
> *The reality is that when you have little (or no real) desire for sex, then it becomes a transactional piece, even if it's not a totally conscious one.*


 I see this word being used a lot in this thread.. I wasn't exactly sure what that meant ... so I looked it up... Definition: "an instance of buying or selling something; a business deal."... "an exchange or interaction between people." 

I've thought about this.. I couldn't be with someone who didn't derive great pleasure from the act ... It would bother me tremendously, I'd feel I was missing one of the most satisfying parts of living somehow...I can easily understand the frustration of those who struggle here, just thinking about it...

Many of us get turned on at the thought of being fiercely desired and get off on their partner's pleasure. For those wired like this...we crave a partner who "selfishly" desires us & takes pleasure in us.. there is a sudden coldness realizing the other may just be sacrificially catering to our needs.. out of obligation... I don't know... This would suck all the enjoyment out of it.... I am admittingly sensitive in this area..

In another's words >>


> "It's fun to see how your partner "wants" sex -- that's why you're together, right? The 'come on, please me!' look is one of the hottest parts of sex for me. It's so easy to feel good, sexy, and horny at the look of a partner who's so into it she/he doesn't even seem to notice you're there doing something -- a partner who'll say 'why did ya STOP??!' if you even dare stop.
> 
> Indeed, one of the beautiful things about sex is how much the other's pleasure triggers your own. One might imagine it was made to foster harmony."


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I see this word being used a lot in this thread.. I wasn't exactly sure what that meant ... so I looked it up... Definition: "an instance of buying or selling something; a business deal."... "an exchange or interaction between people."
> 
> I've thought about this.. I couldn't be with someone who didn't derive great pleasure from the act ... It would bother me tremendously, I'd feel I was missing one of the most satisfying parts of living somehow...I can easily understand the frustration of those who struggle here, just thinking about it...
> 
> * Many of us get turned on at the thought of being fiercely sexually desired *and get off on their partner's pleasure. For those of us wired like this...we crave a partner who "selfishly" desires us & takes pleasure in us.. there is a sudden coldness realizing the other may just be sacrificially catering to our needs.. out of obligation... I don't know... This would sucks all the enjoyment out of it.... I am sensitive in this area.. it's one thing me & mine have in common...
> 
> In another's words >>


I have read that some women feel this way. To me it sounds kind of scary, like she might be at risk of being raped.

I certainly do think attraction on both sides is important, though.


----------



## uhtred

Its a huge problem. Unfortunately some couples don't find out that this is the case until much too late.

Being desired is a wonderful thing - but something some of us never get to experience anymore. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> snip
> 
> I've thought about this.. I couldn't be with someone who didn't derive great pleasure from the act ... It would bother me tremendously, I'd feel I was missing one of the most satisfying parts of living somehow...I can easily understand the frustration of those who struggle here, just thinking about it...
> 
> snip
> 
> In another's words >>


----------



## uhtred

I don't see it that way. Wanting to be desired is different from wanting to be raped. I see it as a desire for passion, not a desire to be used. 



jld said:


> I have read that some women feel this way. To me it sounds kind of scary, like she might be at risk of being raped.
> 
> I certainly do think attraction on both sides is important, though.


----------



## jld

uhtred said:


> I don't see it that way. Wanting to be desired is different from wanting to be raped. I see it as a desire for passion, not a desire to be used.


I think it was the word "fiercely" that gave me pause.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

uhtred said:


> Its a huge problem. *Unfortunately some couples don't find out that this is the case until much too late.*
> 
> Being desired is a wonderful thing - but something some of us never get to experience anymore.


In saying this, the finding out too late part.... the overwhelming majority of couples surely FELT DESIRE when dating... would anyone really stay with someone who didn't show it, where we felt it- IF this was important to us?? 

This still comes back to other things..twists & turns after the vows... 

* Either one married a woman who doesn't like sex, doesn't need it (either her hormones are lacking, she is repressed due to religion, or she's had some really bad experiences before where she's associating the act to things that repel her, so she tries to avoid it)..... signs would be there for all of these...maybe the man convinced himself "it would get better", that love would take care of it all..unfortunately it doesn't with some of these (therapy may be needed even).... 

* Or...something in the relationship is causing her to NOT want to be with her partner (resentment of some kind - #1 cause).... there are many stories here where both still had a viable sex drive but they rarely touched each other, just took care of themselves .... 


* Or...she can't get off with her husband & prefers masturbation (this rarely talked about but hidden in secret, until the husband finds her toys or hears her in the middle of the night) -just like a man having a porn addiction where he is using this over his wife.....

* or he /she may be turned off physically (too much weight gain, not taking enough showers) & do anything to avoid sex....or too busy / stressed with her job / the kids, allowing this to take precedence... 

* or Health issues cropping up (maybe too many UTI's, back problems, etc)..

It would be nice if we could see the future.. we only have what we have to go on, while dating... and to do everything we can from our end to keep it "spicy" so we'll both be up for it , the more the better.... 

This was a post written by Cletus some time ago.. he married a woman who lacked a sex drive & it's been a life long struggle.. given his situation, he still understood that many things after the vows contribute to this marital issue... it's more than just getting one's "test driving" in...



> To those advocating sex before marriage as a means of determining compatibility:
> 
> You're right, but for the wrong reason.
> 
> Sex before marriage does not ensure compatibility, and for my formal proof I offer the endless sad sack stories posted hereon of bait and switch, no sex after children, and countless other examples of the shine wearing off the sex life. Sex before marriage does not ensure compatibility. All it can do is discover current incompatibility. Which is of course a very useful thing to know, but you may not be answering the question you believe you're answering when you bed your future mate.


I think more than anything.. 2 things come to mind.. to look for...one is assuring a partner has "a passion for pleasure" (enjoying being touched) and also that you choose a mate who "gets off" on being a GIVER...this one may be harder to find...and it may also hinge on how we treat them too.. this giving assurance that this person will care about what makes us happy, and fulfilled too.. 



jld said:


> I have read that some women feel this way. To me it sounds kind of scary, like she might be at risk of being raped.
> 
> I certainly do think attraction on both sides is important, though.


 But that's why I feel it's *so important* to have a relationship established first...know someone! It's true.. I crave passionate "can't help myself" desire .. moments like that forever stay with me, they are the highest of the high...maybe I see it like a challenge.. can we do THAT again [email protected]# 

As you know my husband is awfully laid back and this would never in a zillion yrs happen from his end (a concern of force / rape)... anyone familiar with my posts knows my biggest complain is his not being aggressive enough... I guess for someone like me.. it's easy to THINK this way.. I am more aggressive over him...what gets me is.. he loves it ! WTF !... He has joked I am raping him.. A more accurate word is "Ravishing".. it's about high passion. 



jld said:


> I think it was the word "fiercely" that gave me pause.


 This makes sense..


----------



## DustyDog

Fozzy said:


> Perhaps. I think marriage is basically a religious institution first and foremost. With religion dying a slow death in the Western world, I don't see marriage being considered necessary in the long run of society. Any of the other legal implications of marriage can be handled with contract law if so desired.
> 
> In fact, I think it would probably be beneficial if people were required to sit down with lawyers in advance of tying their lives together. You have to sift through reams of paperwork to buy a house, but a marriage has vastly more ramifications on your life--yet you can take care of that with 5 minutes in line at a courthouse.


Best I can tell, people who live together, buy a house together, have kids together, but don't get married, have all the vast ramifications of those who do the same activities and get married. IMO, you get married as a public expression of how much you love each other and how much effort you're willing to put into keeping it all working. That's why you make a big party out of it.

In the US, there are some financial differences...kind of sad that's where things fall, just money. Damned materialism sure gets into everything in this country. If a couple has lived together for a great length of time, a spouse still does not qualify for spousal benefits on social security - common law is not adequate. That can be a big chunk of money. A couple doesn't have to be married in order to file income taxes as married.


----------



## uhtred

Probably true for the majority. In some cases though, people may have confused affection from their partners for attraction - and they are not the same. My wife is affectionate and loves me, but she has never desired me in a physical way. I was too inexperienced when we were married to recognize the difference, and I think the same was true for her as well.

I assumed sex was a normal part of an affectionate loving relationship, she assumed that it was not. 

Sound dumb now not to have figured it out, but neither of us was raised with much information on relationships. 





SimplyAmorous said:


> In saying this, the finding out too late part.... the overwhelming majority of couples surely FELT DESIRE when dating... would anyone really stay with someone who didn't show it, where we felt it- IF this was important to us??
> snip
> .


----------



## SimplyAmorous

uhtred said:


> Probably true for the majority. In some cases though, *people may have confused affection from their partners for attraction* - and they are not the same. My wife is affectionate and loves me, but she has never desired me in a physical way. I was too inexperienced when we were married to recognize the difference, and I think the same was true for her as well.
> 
> I assumed sex was a normal part of an affectionate loving relationship, she assumed that it was not.
> 
> Sound dumb now not to have figured it out, but neither of us was raised with much information on relationships.


 I never really thought of what you laid out here before...this misreading of the two... I mean we've all seen the stories where the wife says she *IS* very attracted to her husband but just doesn't NEED sex.. she wants to be held , even caressed but wants him to stop there.... this is what comes to mind -when you speak of affection.. 

The difficult question is: Would she be "attracted" to someone else then, where her jets would be fired up & she'd want it ? ... Or that "rush" of wanting it /getting horny is just not there for her, at least not on a regular basis...even if she goes without a week or so... 

I've always viewed it this way, not that we knew much either, being as young as we were....I was always horny and had a need to "get off" -even if solo... add being highly romantic to this... the allure of fusing with a man was always in the back of my mind (those were my fantasies!)... the climax of them anyway...I just wanted to make sure it was right.. a time and a place for this.. 

If someone feels like that, craving the intimacy...add enough attraction & feeling loved by him...how does one not want to get lost in that ?... I tend to say "enough attraction" ...even with my husband, he wouldn't have been considered HOT by the women back in the day, he would have been called a "Nice guy" likely...shy, wore glasses, not in sports....I didn't need all that.. What we shared, it all grew on me, my comfort level...the intimate touching inevitably began, you start feeling bonded at this point...sharing that part of yourselves....throw in some "idealization" of the one you love.. it tends to keep the fire lit in these areas.. and through the years.


----------



## uhtred

I think that for some people affection and attraction are closely tied together - they can't imagine being affectionate with someone they loved without also being sexually attracted. 

For others though they are separate. Sex is not really related to affection or love, its just something a couple does together. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I never really thought of what you laid out here before...this misreading of the two... I mean we've all seen the stories where the wife says she *IS* very attracted to her husband but just doesn't NEED sex.. she wants to be held , even caressed but wants him to stop there.... this is what comes to mind -when you speak of affection..
> 
> The difficult question is: Would she be "attracted" to someone else then, where her jets would be fired up & she'd want it ? ... Or that "rush" of wanting it /getting horny is just not there for her, at least not on a regular basis...even if she goes without a week or so...
> 
> I've always viewed it this way, not that we knew much either, being as young as we were....I was always horny and had a need to "get off" -even if solo... add being highly romantic to this... the allure of fusing with a man was always in the back of my mind (those were my fantasies!)... the climax of them anyway...I just wanted to make sure it was right.. a time and a place for this..
> 
> If someone feels like that, craving the intimacy...add enough attraction & feeling loved by him...how does one not want to get lost in that ?... I tend to say "enough attraction" ...even with my husband, he wouldn't have been considered HOT by the women back in the day, he would have been called a "Nice guy" likely...shy, wore glasses, not in sports....I didn't need all that.. What we shared, it all grew on me, my comfort level...the intimate touching inevitably began, you start feeling bonded at this point...sharing that part of yourselves....throw in some "idealization" of the one you love.. it tends to keep the fire lit in these areas.. and through the years.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

uhtred said:


> I think that for some people affection and attraction are closely tied together - they can't imagine being affectionate with someone they loved without also being sexually attracted.
> 
> *For others though they are separate. * *Sex is not really related to affection or love, its just something a couple does together.*


 When sex is "Just sex"... Yrs back, I purchased a book laying out the 6 sexual views, what the primary focus is, how this affects our perspective or "lens" about the act... I tried to explain the differences * HERE * ...this is the "Plain sex" view.. it doesn't have to mean anything... it's just for pleasure & nothing more, all that is needed is mutual consent. ...

One would think if such a couple married ..it would mean MORE though.... kinda blows my mind if this wasn't felt /established in a very loving way, at least in the beginning.. I can see people falling out of love after they marry... but not "feeling" that when they marry.. I would not understand this.. 



> *4. * *"Plain Sex" view*~ "just enjoy it for what it is".... Cultural constructs linking love & sex are outmoded: Sexual desire is an acute bodily desire for physical contact with another. Sex is an intensely pleasurable physical activity. Sex should be based on mutual consent leading to mutual sexual satisfaction, so that “noone gets hurt.”
> 
> In the 1970's, Alan Goldman , penned an article entitled “Plain Sex” -speaking of the times reliable & convenient birth control & undermined any link between sex & commitment.
> With the practice of “safe sex,” recreational sex began to seem appropriate between consenting adults. Throughout history...many seen sex "for pleasure alone" ... but before reliable contraception such people were widely viewed as irresponsible libertines and gigolos, if male, and for females, the word even worse.
> 
> This view claims the above views are outdated, no longer do we need to link Love & sex..... Sexuality is now best seen as simply an acute physical desire for an intensely pleasurable physical activity that naturally leads to engaging in bodily exploration.
> 
> This view puts its emphasis on mutual consent/ mutual consideration leading to mutual satisfaction. When “no one gets hurt” and each party gets what he or she wants, plain sex appears to avoid lots of problems.


Let's face it .. with this view...it's primarily about scratching an itch (if said person has one) & if they are physically attracted...this is LUST focused. 

I think I already mentioned in another post, myself & husband hold the "Romantic view" ..... many times I or him could just as easily go to sleep, last night I got home at midnight... we were both getting up in 6 hours.... wasn't feeling in the mood or anything.. yet still we WANTED to go there...we love to work it up....it's very satisfying on a # of levels....our craving for the emotional is in addition to the physical (with us getting older, this has slowed down some, that "antsy need").. yet our sex life hasn't.. it's our favored activity together - hands down.


----------

