Sex before Marriage

My name is URL

Novella wrote: »

I think it'd be pretty shit to marry someone, have this really special day, promise to love them forever and ever, pose for a million pictures to make a zillion memories and then end up in a hotel room surrounded by candles and rose petals and have crappy sex.

I mean, getting married is supposed to be one of the best days of your life, right? So why would you take the risk of messing that up?! Seriously.

I doubt that after enduring x amount of years without sex and still deciding to marry someone, that bad sex would be a driving force in ruining a relationship.

Kasabian

Sex before marriage is fine , after marriage is an affair :pac:

Fizman

Fizman wrote: »

There's a lad I know who is around my age (27) and he is getting married at xmas. He has never had sex with his GF, and they are going out over 3 years! I'm pretty sure he is also a virgin. Strong family beliefs and all that lark! :eek:

chatterpillar wrote: »

See I don't see why his family's beliefs should have anything to do with his sex life! Surely they shouldn't even know what he is/isn't up to ... if he tells them, that's just creepy!

Another thing.........he has a sis who is married.......and she and her husband were living in her family home for a certain period of time. While there........they slept in different bedrooms!!!!!! :eek:

Novella

My name is URL wrote: »

I doubt that after enduring x amount of years without sex and still deciding to marry someone, that bad sex would be a driving force in ruining a relationship.

Well yeah, I agree. But I'd still be kinda sad if the perfect day didn't end all that perfectly.

gbee

Novella wrote: »

I mean, getting married is supposed to be one of the best days of your life, right? So why would you take the risk of messing that up?! Seriously.

Gobble up all the advertising hype why don't you. If you love someone, and they love you, there is no such thing as 'crappy sex' ~

Marriage is YOUR commitment to her, to make it legal all you need is a licence, I don't know what that costs.

I got married in a Church, then back to the pub, the pub was closed except to regular and our guests ~ free bar with instructions that if someone suddenly started drinking Brandy they were to pay, if someone drank 8 pints and hour, normally, give it to them.

Aces, best day of our lives, until the day after and the children, OH, and she moaning during the bad sex ... OK!

we'llallhavetea_old

gbee wrote: »

Gobble up all the advertising hype why don't you. If you love someone, and they love you, there is no such thing as 'crappy sex' ~

nyeah.. there most definitely is i'd say

Dudess

gbee wrote: »

Gobble up all the advertising hype why don't you. If you love someone, and they love you, there is no such thing as 'crappy sex' ~

Marriage is YOUR commitment to her, to make it legal all you need is a licence, I don't know what that costs.

I got married in a Church, then back to the pub, the pub was closed except to regular and our guests ~ free bar with instructions that if someone suddenly started drinking Brandy they were to pay, if someone drank 8 pints and hour, normally, give it to them.

Aces, best day of our lives, until the day after and the children, OH, and she moaning during the bad sex ... OK!

Novella didn't say it would definitely be crap, just that the risk is there.

Wolfe Tone

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

nyeah.. there most definitely is i'd say

Isnt the first time with somone often crappy?

we'llallhavetea_old

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Isnt the first time with somone often crappy?

yes..

gbee

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Isnt the first time with somone often crappy?

Yup, most of it is known as rape.

Wolfe Tone

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

yes..

I have no idea what point I was trying to make. None whatsoever.


I need sleep

we'llallhavetea_old

gbee wrote: »

Yup, most of it is known as rape.

wtf are you on about?!

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I have no idea what point I was trying to make. None whatsoever.


I need sleep

aw *ruffles mussolinis hair*

's alright, it's a bit late

Wolfe Tone

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

aw *ruffles mussolinis hair*

's alright, it's a bit late

Yet again I realize I picked a bad name! Its not even late just got no sleep since friday basically! haha the pleasures of post LC freedom.

Bonito

gbee wrote: »

Yup, most of it is known as rape.

What. The. Fúck.

Does not suffice here.

Maybe if I say it again?

What. The. Fúck.

Nope, nothing, not working. You broke it. Well done.

JohnnyChimpo

gbee wrote: »

Yup, most of it is known as rape.

Here, you have tried to make a characteristically bawdy AH comment, possibly in the hopes of getting some meaningless "thanks" from fellow retards. But you dun goofed, because clearly you do not possess a sense of humour.

gbee

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

Here, you have tried to make a characteristically bawdy AH comment, possibly in the hopes of getting some meaningless "thanks" from fellow retards. But you dun goofed, because clearly you do not possess a sense of humour.

No tolerance for rape, and I can't see any humour in that!

we'llallhavetea_old

gbee wrote: »

No tolerance for rape, and I can't see the humour in that!

care to explain what you were talking about rape for then?

Bonito

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

care to explain what you were talking about rape for then?

Did you not hear? Sex is *ALWAYS* good. If it's not good, then you're being raped or raping someone.

we'llallhavetea_old

Bonito wrote: »

Did you not hear? Sex is *ALWAYS* good. If it's not good, then you're being raped or raping someone.

why am i always the last one to get these memos?

gbee

Bonito wrote: »

Did you not hear? Sex is *ALWAYS* good. If it's not good, then you're being raped or raping someone.

Close, sex is always good between people who love each other*. , otherwise as you've said [mostly]

* Or In Love [which may be transient]

Tar.Aldarion

Isn't that cute.

we'llallhavetea_old

gbee wrote: »

Close, sex is always good between people who love each other.

no. it's not.

maybe for you, but not for everyone.

My name is URL

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

care to explain what you were talking about rape for then?

The crime of an 18 year old lad riding a 16 year old girl. The male can be sentenced to 5 years in jail afaik.. while the female is unaccountable.. it's an actual crime for two 15 year olds to have sex, even! Probably fair to say in that case that many 'first times' are less than legal

At least that's what I hope he meant =/

Fizman

I think the whole 'first time sex' with someone can vary hugely depending on the individuals involved and is all relative.

There have been occasions where I have had mind blowing sex on my first occasion with a few girls, but there has been a few where lets just say it wasn't all that enjoyable.

I think a lot of it comes down to experience. If two people get together where both have had numerous sexual partners/relationships in the past, chances are the first occasion will be somewhat enjoyable in comparison to two people who have had little or no sex in the past.

we'llallhavetea_old

My name is URL wrote: »

The crime of an 18 year old lad riding a 16 year old girl. The male can be sentenced to 5 years in jail afaik.. while the female is unaccountable.. it's an actual crime for two 15 year olds to have sex, even! Probably fair to say in that case that many 'first times' are less than legal

At least that's what I hope he meant =/

doh!

totally missed that i'm afraid..

i'll just slink away now..

don't mind me..

Bonito

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

why am i always the last one to get these memos?

You're probably busy raping someone.

gbee wrote: »

Close, sex is always good between people who love each other. , otherwise as you've said [mostly]

Really? I've had sex with people I don't love. It was fúcking brilliant. If I was raping them, then they were damn good at pretending to enjoy it!

philologos

snuggles285 wrote: »

What is your opinion on this? Do you think its a good thing or a bad thing?
I'm all for it but under certain circumstances....Best to have some kind of compatibility with a partner in that aspect and be in some kind of relationship. So would like to get your own take on this probably drawn out topic that has overshadowed our somewherewhat prudish country!?

I think it is beneficial in numerous respects:
1 - There is more assurance post-marriage of your partner wanting to stay with you forever. I.E - That different partners can have different expectations when it comes to sex-before-marriage and this can often leave one partner feeling very hurt should the relationship break apart. Waiting until marriage, is really expecting stability in a relationship before engaging sexually with someone.
2 - Staying committed to one partner, minimises the risk of STI's.
3 - Having a stable marriage means in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, contraceptives failing and so on that bringing the child to full birth is more of a realistic option than if the same situation occurred before marriage. (Less children would be aborted, and there wouldn't be as much of a perceived need for abortion)
4 - Waiting until marriage also is beneficial in the sense that it makes sex a genuine expression of love for ones partner rather than separating sex from the concept of love.
5 - Families would be more stable if children are born within a marriage commitment, and if their biological parents remain married.

There are probably other reasons that I can't think off the hat at present, but certainly I think that this is a beneficial view to take of the place of sex.

Edit: In short, there'd be a lot less problems in our society if people waited until marriage.

gbee

Bonito wrote: »

You're probably busy raping someone.

Really? I've had sex with people I don't love. It was fúcking brilliant. If I was raping them, then they were damn good at pretending to enjoy it!

Not denying that. You were probably good. The point is coming from someone not having sex before marriage [you're not getting married ever, by the tone of your post] and 'saving' themselves and then having rotten sex.

The point, my point is that if people love each other, even if the sex was rotten, you would not know, as each party would say it was great.

A clue to how successful you have been is in the absence of sexual demands. If she is crawling over you for more, hmmm, you've not done a good job.

If she gives you a kiss and makes breakfast ...

Bonito

gbee wrote: »

A clue to how successful you have been is in the absence of sexual demands. If she is crawling over you for more, hmmm, you've not done a good job.

If she gives you a kiss and makes breakfast ...

I'd be disappointed if she didn't do both tbh....

AskMyChocolate

Velocitee wrote: »

I'd agree with this too, tbh I think 12 years of it not on the cards is a bit ridiculous (albeit for financial reasons,) which leads me on to my next point -

Weddings are TOO expensive!!!! I know in my case OH wants the Cinderella wedding (let's be honest it's her day) - that leaves an outlay of at least 15 to 25 grand - we'll be saving for that for a while, maybe take a small loan and that's AFTER I've saved and gotten her dream engagement ring (3 grand should cover that.).

Then if you were to buy a house after, deposit for that...

We are 'living in sin' but that's only due to the fact to go down the traditional route, we'd be waiting years!!! (no kids btw, planned for AFTER marriage, touch wood.)

None of my business chief, but if I were you I'd spend the 15-25 grand on the engagement ring and 3k on the wedding.

Fizman

gbee wrote: »

A clue to how successful you have been is in the absence of sexual demands. If she is crawling over you for more, hmmm, you've not done a good job.

This could also be the case if you have given a girl multiple orgasms and she simply hasn't had enough.

gbee wrote: »

If she gives you a kiss and makes breakfast ...

This could also translate into her simply having enough of your limp little willy and is now going to the fridge to find some real sausage.

starbelgrade

No sex before marraige... in the 21st Century?

Only f*cking loonies & religious nutters would consider that a good idea.

Saila

ye's are all whoers if yiz ur havin sex befowore mardige

gbee

Fizman wrote: »

This could also translate into her simply having enough of your limp little willy and is now going to the fridge to find some real sausage.

Men Over 40.com. Sorry to hear of your condition, but it's treatable.

NoHornJan

Sex before marriage? Who hasn't done it. Pope Beneddict maybe...?.

gbee

Bonito wrote: »

I'd be disappointed if she didn't do both tbh....

No, it does not work like that, unfortunately, she goes back to sleep ... you might get brunch though, but then you've missed the fishing or the football.

aidan24326

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is beneficial in numerous respects:
1 - There is more assurance post-marriage of your partner wanting to stay with you forever. I.E - That different partners can have different expectations when it comes to sex-before-marriage and this can often leave one partner feeling very hurt should the relationship break apart. Waiting until marriage, is really expecting stability in a relationship before engaging sexually with someone.
2 - Staying committed to one partner, minimises the risk of STI's.
3 - Having a stable marriage means in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, contraceptives failing and so on that bringing the child to full birth is more of a realistic option than if the same situation occurred before marriage. (Less children would be aborted, and there wouldn't be as much of a perceived need for abortion)
4 - Waiting until marriage also is beneficial in the sense that it makes sex a genuine expression of love for ones partner rather than separating sex from the concept of love.
5 - Families would be more stable if children are born within a marriage commitment, and if their biological parents remain married.

There are probably other reasons that I can't think off the hat at present, but certainly I think that this is a beneficial view to take of the place of sex.

Edit: In short, there'd be a lot less problems in our society if people waited until marriage.

Btw, love and sex CAN actually exist separately. That is possible. Really.

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

None of my business chief, but if I were you I'd spend the 15-25 grand on the engagement ring and 3k on the wedding.

15-25 grand on a ring?! Yeah, that's clever.

TerrorFirmer

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is beneficial in numerous respects:
1 - There is more assurance post-marriage of your partner wanting to stay with you forever. I.E - That different partners can have different expectations when it comes to sex-before-marriage and this can often leave one partner feeling very hurt should the relationship break apart. Waiting until marriage, is really expecting stability in a relationship before engaging sexually with someone.
2 - Staying committed to one partner, minimises the risk of STI's.
3 - Having a stable marriage means in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, contraceptives failing and so on that bringing the child to full birth is more of a realistic option than if the same situation occurred before marriage. (Less children would be aborted, and there wouldn't be as much of a perceived need for abortion)
4 - Waiting until marriage also is beneficial in the sense that it makes sex a genuine expression of love for ones partner rather than separating sex from the concept of love.
5 - Families would be more stable if children are born within a marriage commitment, and if their biological parents remain married.

There are probably other reasons that I can't think off the hat at present, but certainly I think that this is a beneficial view to take of the place of sex.

Edit: In short, there'd be a lot less problems in our society if people waited until marriage.

Don't get me wrong, all great aspects - in theory. However, in reality, those points based upon union of two persons who have not engaged in sexual activity/intercourse - disastrous. Personally, i believe that prior sexual promiscuity is what cements later relationships. Human nature always gives way to pondering, imagining, longing and lusting. Which I personally believe shoots your well meaning list right out of the sky. As I said - don't misconstrue this as criticism - I do believe your principles are ideally rather sound and admirable - but in the world we live in today, such 'positives' are unrealistic and not suited to today's society.

garv123

When I was 13 I was losing babyteeth not my virginity.

OutlawPete

garv123 wrote: »

When I was 13 I was losing babyteeth not my virginity.

That's the dangers of oral sex.

hussey

I had a friend who didn't believe in Sex before marriage .... so I showed him some videos

philologos

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, all great aspects - in theory. However, in reality, those points based upon union of two persons who have not engaged in sexual activity/intercourse - disastrous. Personally, i believe that prior sexual promiscuity is what cements later relationships. Human nature always gives way to pondering, imagining, longing and lusting. Which I personally believe shoots your well meaning list right out of the sky. As I said - don't misconstrue this as criticism - I do believe your principles are ideally rather sound and admirable - but in the world we live in today, such 'positives' are unrealistic and not suited to today's society.

I disagree, despite the fact that you may consider these to be unrealistic, there are many people who have, and continue to live out this approach, and live out happy marriages afterwards. Relationships aren't all about sex, they are about how people feel about each other on a daily basis out in the world as well.

Sexual promiscuity, relegates sexuality to something meaningless. Monogamy on the other hand, despite being seen as a bit prudish, provides key securities for any potential family, and provides key assurances in the relationship before engaging sexually. I also believe it is the reason why there are so many problems with the family unit in society.

Consider this as reason number 6 - If you are in a marriage, and have children with your partner, and that marriage undergoes difficulty and eventually goes into divorce. You as a parent will be seen more favourably from a legal point of view if you are married, than if you are not married.

If you have criticism of the reasons I've given, go through them and tell me what's wrong with each one.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

Consider this as reason number 6 - If you are in a marriage, and have children with your partner, and that marriage undergoes difficulty and eventually goes into divorce. You as a parent will be seen more favourably from a legal point of view if you are married, than if you are not married.

What has that got to do with sex?

GrumPy

Imagine waiting to your wedding night and finally doing the deed and turns out it's totally crap, there's no sexual chemistry or passion?
That's not cool. You just got married like! :eek:

Herbal Deity

Jakkass, you appear to be confusing sex before marriage with extreme promiscuity.

Jakkass wrote: »

1 - There is more assurance post-marriage of your partner wanting to stay with you forever. I.E - That different partners can have different expectations when it comes to sex-before-marriage and this can often leave one partner feeling very hurt should the relationship break apart. Waiting until marriage, is really expecting stability in a relationship before engaging sexually with someone.

Could you explain this more? It makes no sense. You appear to be saying that without sex before marriage, bad sex can't be a reason for breaking up, and thus more relationships will stay together, am I interpreting this correctly?

All this leads to is sexually incompatible couples marrying, one or both becoming extremely sexually frustrated, and the whole thing ending in a divorce, or them staying together out of guilt/expectations from their religion/family.

Jakkass wrote: »

2 - Staying committed to one partner, minimises the risk of STI's.

This has nothing to do with sex before marriage, this is an argument for one sexual partner.

And this isn't much safer than using protection every time you have sex and keeping your number of sexual partners low.

Jakkass wrote: »

3 - Having a stable marriage means in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, contraceptives failing and so on that bringing the child to full birth is more of a realistic option than if the same situation occurred before marriage. (Less children would be aborted, and there wouldn't be as much of a perceived need for abortion)

Let's not get into abortion.

Contraceptives generally don't fail if used correctly. People should be more careful, yes, but abstinence is far too extreme a solution.

Jakkass wrote: »

4 - Waiting until marriage also is beneficial in the sense that it makes sex a genuine expression of love for ones partner rather than separating sex from the concept of love.

Again, not an argument for sex before marriage, it's an argument against having sex without love involved.. It's possible to love more than one person in a lifetime, and it's possible to have love without marriage.

Jakkass wrote: »

5 - Families would be more stable if children are born within a marriage commitment, and if their biological parents remain married.

I disagree. I know of many unstable, unhappy households which remained that way because the parents in question did not get a divorce. There are far, far more factors involved in the stability of a child's upbringing than married parents.

In any case, see number 3

Consider this as reason number 6 - If you are in a marriage, and have children with your partner, and that marriage undergoes difficulty and eventually goes into divorce. You as a parent will be seen more favourably from a legal point of view if you are married, than if you are not married.

In fairness, "because we have archaic laws" is a really, really shítty reason.

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

What has that got to do with sex?

Well, sex outside of marriage can inevitably mean children outside of marriage. The rights of a father differ in the lack of a marriage, they don't after. Perhaps not a direct reason, but it is a consideration.

Reading through the posts, a seventh reason for considering it is that marriages that happen after years of cohabiting are more likely to dissolve than those which don't happen after cohabiting.

I find it strange that people are saying that there is absolutely no reason for waiting until marriage, I can see plenty without even touching on the Judeo-Christian aspect of it.

philologos

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Jakkass, you appear to be confusing sex before marriage with extreme promiscuity.

I think both are disadvantageous.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Could you explain this more? It makes no sense. You appear to be saying that without sex before marriage, bad sex can't be a reason for breaking up, and thus more relationships will stay together, am I interpreting this correctly?

You have two people. One who takes the act of sex quite seriously, and another who regards it as a mere activity akin to eating and drinking. The latter partner, leaves the former, who has become quite strongly attached to the latter. Such differences in valuation alone can cause a lot of hurt and distress.

That's what I am saying.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

All this leads to is sexually incompatible couples marrying, one or both becoming extremely sexually frustrated, and the whole thing ending in a divorce, or them staying together out of guilt/expectations from their religion/family.

I clearly don't put sex as the main agenda in a marriage. I personally would consider it key to love to the fullest my [hypothetical for now] partner, and if sex results naturally from that relationship that is all well and good, if it doesn't I wouldn't really see that a reason to leave. Call me a hopeless romantic, but I still believe a lot in love being key :pac:

Herbal Deity wrote: »

This has nothing to do with sex before marriage, this is an argument for one sexual partner.

Waiting until marriage, ultimately limits you to one partner. Having sex outside marriage, and having relationships fall apart for reasons similar to point one, will more likely than not cause you to have had more than one sexual partner.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Let's not get into abortion.

Contraceptives generally don't fail if used correctly. People should be more careful, yes, but abstinence is far too extreme a solution.

Abortion is an important consideration in this.

I don't see how it is an extreme solution personally having chosen that option. Why do you think it is "extreme"?

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Again, not an argument for sex before marriage, it's an argument against having sex without love involved.. It's possible to love more than one person in a lifetime, and it's possible to have love without marriage.

Loosening up sexual boundaries generally means that other boundaries such as the requirement for love will be also loosened.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I disagree. I know of many unstable, unhappy households which remained that way because the parents in question did not get a divorce. There are far, far more factors involved in the stability of a child's upbringing than married parents.

I think people should put as much effort as one humanly can into keeping a marriage together, and indeed, people should put as much consideration as one humanly can into considering whether or not it is right to get married to a person in the first place.

In the vast majority, stable marriages bring forth stable families. That can't be argued with. I don't think the same could be argued for other family structures.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, sex outside of marriage can inevitably mean children outside of marriage. The rights of a father differ in the lack of a marriage, they don't after. Perhaps not a direct reason, but it is a consideration.

Reading through the posts, a seventh reason for considering it is that marriages that happen after years of cohabiting are more likely to dissolve than those which don't happen after cohabiting.

I find it strange that people are saying that there is absolutely no reason for waiting until marriage, I can see plenty without even touching on the Judeo-Christian aspect of it.

Correction, there is no good reason for waiting until marriage.

1. I don't see how there is any assurance that your partner would want to stay with you forever if you wait until marriage to have sex. Quite the opposite infact.

2. Staying committed to one partner does indeed minimize the risk of STI's. We have sexual health tests for a reason.

3. Less children would be aborted? Maybe, if society as a whole were to wait until marriage to have sex, but this won't ever happen, so the point is nullified.

4. Sex is not just a genuine expression of love. Sex doesn't not have to be about love. Sometimes sex is just sex. There are plenty of ways to express love not including sex. If you need to wait until marriage for a genuine expression of love then the relationship probably it's worth much in the first place.

5. Families are more stable in a marriage commitment? Really? Someone should have told my mum and dad that, unless they're an exception to the rule?

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

1. I don't see how there is any assurance that your partner would want to stay with you forever if you wait until marriage to have sex. Quite the opposite infact.

Even if they don't, people go into marriages with the intention of staying in that relationship on a permanent basis. The same cannot really be said of other relationship structures.

MagicMarker wrote: »

2. Staying committed to one partner does indeed minimize the risk of STI's. We have sexual health tests for a reason.

Well, I guess monogamy is more a pre-emptive factor, in that if people do remain faithful to each other on a long term basis, they will not catch any STI.

MagicMarker wrote: »

3. Less children would be aborted? Maybe, if society as a whole were to wait until marriage to have sex, but this won't ever happen, so the point is nullified.

I'm agreed that not all society will. Rather what I am saying is that as peoples stances have changed on this, more problems have actually arisen since.

MagicMarker wrote: »

4. Sex is not just a genuine expression of love. Sex doesn't not have to be about love. Sometimes sex is just sex. There are plenty of ways to express love not including sex. If you need to wait until marriage for a genuine expression of love then the relationship probably it's worth much in the first place.

This is where I can't help but really disagree with you, and it's probably another reason why I have decided to make this choice. Love and sex for me must be the in the same equation. Love being by far the more important of these.

The point is that waiting until marriage encourages the view that love and sex go together, rather than existing apart.

MagicMarker wrote: »

5. Families are more stable in a marriage commitment? Really? Someone should have told my mum and dad that, unless they're an exception to the rule?

I would say that they are an exception to the rule for the most part, yes. Even if we ignore this factor, the likelihood for a marriage breaking apart is less likely than a relationship before marriage breaking apart.

A lot of this perhaps surrounds my personal philosophy, but in terms of knock-on-effects this is really the most common sense solution if you think about it.

Terry

thee glitz wrote: »

The internet has spoken

The results are completely different when you select all.
http://www.whatdoestheinternetthink.net/index.php?s=premarital+sex&st=all