Sex before Marriage

Cheap Thrills!

Look, marriage is an unnatural state. It was designed in order to trap people together artificially so they'd bear and rear kids despite no longer being sexually interested in each other.

In the vast majority of cases its not fulfilling to the people in it, it's functional for SOCIETY. Of course everybody can cite the one happy couple in 100 that is still in love and sexually active after 40 years. Great for them but they're the exception.

Many people go into marriage having no real concept of 'FOREVER'
They suck up the bull$hit romantic drivel that comes from I don't know where......other couples maybe ....it's a peer thing. People see what others do and follow like lemmings. It HAS to be that way in order to sucker people into such a bad deal.

If you look at the whole thing objectively, it's nonsense. Humans are more suited to a series of monogamous relationships throughout life than this impossible (for the majority) one love for ever.

Good for those who want it but if you've half a brain you wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. If a relationship can't stand on it's own, is not succeeding day by day then it's time to go.

Shackling people together artificially with rings and marriage certs does nothing other than delay the inevitable if things don't work out. All it does is cause massive inconvenience.

philologos

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

Look, marriage is an unnatural state. It was designed in order to trap people together artificially so they'd bear and rear kids despite no longer being sexually interested in each other.

And the internet, boards, and computer aren't? :pac:

Cheap Thrills!

Jakkass wrote: »

And the internet, boards, and computer aren't? :pac:

Well I'm not going to marry my computer am I?

My point is marriage was designed for the convenience of society and to enable as many children as possible to be born and raised to boost population numbers, no matter what a miserable state that left the individuals within the marriage in.

Marriage doesn't make many people happy from what I can see. It just binds them together in a task.

Novella

gbee wrote: »

If you love someone, and they love you, there is no such thing as 'crappy sex' ~

Eh... LOL. That is romantic drivel. If you love someone, you might be more willing to put up with or look past crappy sex, but it most definitely can still be crap.

gbee wrote: »

Yup, most of it is known as rape.

Wtf?

gbee wrote: »

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 ...

Okay, so if two people love each other but aren't pleasing each other in bed, they should what? Lie and say it was great anyway? If that is what love is, count me out.

And if she's crawling over you for more, maybe you were fucking amazing?

prinz

Novella wrote: »

Eh... LOL. That is romantic drivel. If you love someone, you might be more willing to put up with or look past crappy sex, but it most definitely can still be crap.

I think the point being made is there is no such thing as crap sex. Only people who are crap at sex. The answer to being crap at sex is communication and a lot of practice, before long it won't be crap sex anymore.

There is a reason that married couples and in particular couples who waited until marriage to have sex have scored their sex, and how happy they are with their sex lives higher than married couples who didn't wait, and others.

If two people who love each other aren't pleasing each other in bed, the problem is easily solved, and it doesn't involve hopping into bed with someone else.

smash

gbee wrote: »

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.

That's really not how it works, why would someone lie about it?

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.

lol you're cracking me up here. That's just complete trash!

prinz wrote: »

I think the point being made is there is no such thing as crap sex. Only people who are crap at sex.

Surely it's crap for a woman if she doesn't orgasm...

prinz wrote: »

There is a reason that married couples and in particular couples who waited until marriage to have sex have scored their sex, and how happy they are with their sex lives higher than married couples who didn't wait, and others.

How do they score their sex, when they've nothing to compare against?

Herbal Deity

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

In fairness, you can't seem to see any reason not to...

Jakkass wrote: »

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. .

Why wouldn't this happen after they were married?

If these two people stayed together can you not see that they'd be miserable together?

Jakkass wrote: »

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:

I'm confused again now.

It seems you're saying that not only should people not have sex before marriage, but when in a marriage, they are not to consider sex important at all.

Your whole philosophy seems to be based around the idea that if your suppress your sexual urges for long enough, you'll only ever want to have sex to have kids...

Jakkass wrote: »

Waiting until marriage, ultimately limits you to one partner.

Yes, but in terms of STI risks, is there really much difference with having say 4 or 5 sexual partners, all from long term relationships, and in which protection is always used?

Jakkass wrote: »

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

Because it requires a suppression of one's sexuality, there's a risk of never being sexually fulfilled if your partner is incompatible with you and ultimately, it's overkill given that contraception exists.

Jakkass wrote: »

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

Slippery slope arguments are silly.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

And is knowledge of sexual compatibility not a huge factor in this?

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

And sexual compatibility is one of the most important foundations of a stable marriage...

prinz

Herbal Deity wrote: »

It seems you're saying that not only should people not have sex before marriage, but when in a marriage, they are not to consider sex important at all.
Your whole philosophy seems to be based around the idea that if your suppress your sexual urges for long enough, you'll only ever want to have sex to have kids...

Seems. Simply because that is what you want it to seem.

smash

Jakkass wrote:

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.

Then if you don't consider it that important, then why wait until your married?

You can actually love someone without getting married. And there is zero point in waiting to get married before you have sex. The only reasons people can think of, are opinions written thousands of years ago by drunks making up stories and calling it 'the bible'.

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

Surely it's crap for a woman if she doesn't orgasm...

:rolleyes: How old are you?

steve06 wrote: »

How do they score their sex, when they've nothing to compare against?

It's not about comparisons. It's about how happy are you on a scale of 1 - 10 with your partner with your sex life.

Herbal Deity

prinz wrote: »

Seems. Simply because that is what you want it to seem.

?

prinz

Herbal Deity wrote: »

?

That's what happens when you start with 'It seems....' and then go to expand on points the other person hasn't actually raised or even hinted at.

smash

prinz wrote: »

:rolleyes: How old are you?

I'm 29, don't condescend me!

prinz wrote: »

It's not about comparisons. It's about how happy are you on a scale of 1 - 10 with your partner with your sex life.

And if one person gets no pleasure from sex, then it's going to be crap for them!

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

I'm 29, don't condescend me!
And if one person gets no pleasure from sex, then it's going to be crap for them!

(a) Pleasure can be had without orgasm. (b) If someone is getting no pleasure from sex that should be easily rectified (c) Another person who has had sex with 150 partners could be just as crap at sex, than another who waited until marriage and had sex with the one partner 150 times.

Herbal Deity

prinz wrote: »

That's what happens when you start with 'It seems....' and then go to expand on points the other person hasn't actually raised or even hinted at.

I thought he did.

Like, he talked about a scenario where two people were in a relationship and having sex. One was less interested in sex than the other, they split up because of this and one person, who loved the other, was hurt as a result.

Then, commenting on whether or not a marriage between a sexually incompatible couple could work, he said that in a marriage, love should be the only factor worth considering, and that sex should be something that might or might not happen.

Now I would interpret that as not really considering sex important in a marriage, and I would personally think that there would be some repression of desire in that scenario.

philologos

Herbal Deity wrote: »

In fairness, you can't seem to see any reason not to...

I can, but ultimately I believe that waiting is best.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Why wouldn't this happen after they were married?

If these two people stayed together can you not see that they'd be miserable together?

Marriage, has clear connotations of expected permanence. Waiting until marriage could also be seen as beneficial because you can talk about what these things mean to you before you formalise your relationship. Getting to know the other before rushing into things seems to me like being a pretty good idea.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I'm confused again now.

It seems you're saying that not only should people not have sex before marriage, but when in a marriage, they are not to consider sex important at all.

I didn't say this. Rather I am saying that sex shouldn't be the be all and end all. Love and the relationship that you have with the other person is for me, is key. Anything else comes after this. This doesn't mean that sex isn't important in relationships, it undoubtedly is, but it is loves second as far as I am concerned.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Your whole philosophy seems to be based around the idea that if your suppress your sexual urges for long enough, you'll only ever want to have sex to have kids...

I think you're jumping too far. I personally don't believe this, I think that ones sexuality is important, but it is not as important as the love that binds the relationship to begin with.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Yes, but in terms of STI risks, is there really much difference with having say 4 or 5 sexual partners, all from long term relationships, and in which protection is always used?

That depends on how many sexual partners the other 4 or 5 have had.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Because it requires a suppression of one's sexuality, there's a risk of never being sexually fulfilled if your partner is incompatible with you and ultimately, it's overkill given that contraception exists.

I'm not opposed to the use of contraceptives at all. I think they are key, and I think that not all sex is for procreation. It is possible that sex can be for the deepening of a loving relationship as well.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Slippery slope arguments are silly.

I shouldn't have used the future tense. The loosening of marriage and family structures has caused damage in society already.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

And is knowledge of sexual compatibility not a huge factor in this?

Perhaps for some, but I don't think so. Perhaps I'm just mad, but I think that I would rather spend the rest of my life with someone I really loved even if sexual compatibility wasn't the best. I think the "test drive" approach is just plain flawed.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

And sexual compatibility is one of the most important foundations of a stable marriage...

I'm sure that it facilitates it, but I wouldn't see it to be the be all and end all. I probably wouldn't see it as a reason to divorce. Again, call me a hopeless romantic on this one :pac:

steve06 wrote: »

Then if you don't consider it that important, then why wait until your married?

I do consider it important, but secondary to the love that actually binds the relationship to begin with.

steve06 wrote: »

You can actually love someone without getting married. And there is zero point in waiting to get married before you have sex. The only reasons people can think of, are opinions written thousands of years ago by drunks making up stories and calling it 'the bible'.

I've given numerous reasons already which aren't based on the Biblical text, even if I do regard it as being crucially important.

Yes, you can love someone without being married, but as I've said marriage provides clear legal, and social stability in a relationship for the most part.

gbee

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

Look, marriage is an unnatural state. .

You cannot say that, most of the more successful species on the planet tend have monogamous lifetime relationships.

Females are protected in a variety of ways ~ one of our human ways is to make a commitment and have it made legal in the land we live in.

One does not need a priest ~ except for legal reasons, and one does not need a religious marriage, but children need a father and a mother, the best way to reassure the female is by making a commitment.

prinz

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Then, commenting on whether or not a marriage between a sexually incompatible couple could work, he said that in a marriage, love should be the only factor worth considering, and that sex should be something that might or might not happen..

I believe Jakkass said that he doesn't consider sex the most important thing for a couple. In a marriage sex is great, but what happens if for instance, one person is hurt in an accident and is paralysed or something and sex becomes impossible, do you think their partner should divorce them.. or do you think the love they feel for each other may actually be worth more than getting the leg over?

Strange Loop

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.

Can casual sex never be an act of love?

gbee

steve06 wrote: »

Surely it's crap for a woman if she doesn't orgasm...

You'll need to find this out for yourself.

But I'll give you a hint:
Sex for men is 90% physical and 10% emotional.
Sex for Women is 80% emotional and 20% physical.

philologos

Strange Loop wrote: »

Can casual sex never be an act of love?

I never said that it can't be in any of the reasons I've given.

smash

prinz wrote: »

(a) Pleasure can be had without orgasm. (b) If someone is getting no pleasure from sex that should be easily rectified

Really it depends how interested someone is, and 'but I love you' isn't an excuse for an uninterested party.

prinz wrote: »

(c) Another person who has had sex with 150 partners could be just as crap at sex, than another who waited until marriage and had sex with the one partner 150 times.

What's this got to do with anything, I'm talking about compatibility.

Jakkass wrote: »

I do consider it important, but secondary to the love that actually binds the relationship to begin with.

I'm sorry but I still don't understand how this can relate to waiting to get married. If you love someone, you don't have to be married to have sex. Sexual compatibility is something that can make/break a relationship. Waiting to see if that happens can be dangerous.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, you can love someone without being married, but as I've said marriage provides clear legal, and social stability in a relationship for the most part.

I think you're living in the dark ages. And this is coming from a person that's been through a separation and back. Marriage provides no legal stability. And social stability is something you make happen yourself, talking crap in front of a priest and putting on a ring doesn't mean that everything falls into place.

gbee wrote: »

You'll need to find this out for yourself.

But I'll give you a hint:
Sex for men is 90% physical and 10% emotional.
Sex for Women is 80% emotional and 20% physical.

I don't need a hint thanks, it depends on the woman.

gbee wrote: »

children need a father and a mother, the best way to reassure the female is by making a commitment.

This has nothing to do with sex before marriage, and a lot of women don't need reassurance. The world has changed you know.

Cheap Thrills!

gbee wrote: »

You cannot say that, most of the more successful species on the planet tend have monogamous lifetime relationships.

What like swans and erm....penguins?

gbee wrote: »

Females are protected in a variety of ways ~ one of our human ways is to make a commitment and have it made legal in the land we live in.

Protected from what exactly? What about being protected from sexual boredom and the tedium of childrearing ?

gbee wrote: »

One does not need a priest ~ except for legal reasons, and one does not need a religious marriage, but children need a father and a mother, the best way to reassure the female is by making a commitment.

What are you talking about? the best way to reassure 'the female' about what? Who needs to reassure this 'female'....what are you on about?

No-one doubts marriage is grand for the kids....but many peoples worlds don't revolve around kids. In my world I'm more important and as a female I don't want 'commitment' (slavery) OR 'reassurance' (about what I'm still not sure)

krudler

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

Nonsense, some of the most maladjusted people I know come from a family where the parents have been together for donkeys years and are sick of each other, but that big wedding ball and chain is hanging around them and them being of a certain age means divorce isnt even an option even though they'd be better off.

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.

sex is sex, love is love, they work great together but its not necessary. I've had great sex with people I havent been in love with, and mediocre sex with people I have been. Finding out your new wife or husband is terrible in bed would be a much bigger negative than if you did it beforehand.

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

Arcane bullsh1t notion there.

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

What's this got to do with anything, I'm talking about compatibility.

Compatability is not an instant thing. No two people are compatible in every single way. Compatability can be achieved with communication, compromise, and effort. It's not something that either happens or doesn't.

smash

prinz wrote: »

Compatability is not an instant thing. No two people are compatible in every single way. Compatability can be achieved with communication, compromise, and effort. It's not something that either happens or doesn't.

And waiting until after you're married can be a stupid move because people can be stubborn and not willing to negotiate or compromise, and then you're stuck with it. You can be in love with someone but an unfulfilled sex life is a recipe for disaster.

I think people are forgetting that having sex is the most basic of human nature, it was around a long time before marriage was.

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

And waiting until after you're married can be a stupid move because people can be stubborn and not willing to negotiate or compromise, and then you're stuck with it. You can be in love with someone but an unfulfilled sex life is a recipe for disaster.

....and if you waited long enough before marriage you'd know the other person was stubborn and unwilling to compromise and thus you have a heads-up that you shouldn't marry them.

gbee

Generally, I'm saddened that thread is still showing Psychological problems for our younger people, who, despite being free from the oppression that I was under in my youth, are still deeply disturbed.

I've never read such black posts. For what should be such a joyous event. Well it is for me, or seeing as I have to wait a week to 'recharge' maybe I'm appreciating it more.

philologos

krudler wrote: »

Nonsense, some of the most maladjusted people I know come from a family where the parents have been together for donkeys years and are sick of each other, but that big wedding ball and chain is hanging around them and them being of a certain age means divorce isnt even an option even though they'd be better off.

I'm not doubting you, and I'm sure that there are a small minority of cases like this, but more often than not having both male and female role models right through a child's life is better than not having them.

Marriage and family is really the very centre of society. Parent's are married, and children are born into these families, which often teach them about what values they have, and to bring them up. Then of course these children go on and do the same thing. It is simply the most logical way to organise family.

krudler wrote: »

sex is sex, love is love, they work great together but its not necessary. I've had great sex with people I havent been in love with, and mediocre sex with people I have been. Finding out your new wife or husband is terrible in bed would be a much bigger negative than if you did it beforehand.

This is what I find destructive I guess. The separation of sex from love itself is probably the very reason that marriage is being undermined. It seems that society has gone from repressing sexuality entirely which was a bad thing, to obsessing about it entirely which is a bad thing.

krudler wrote: »

Arcane bullsh1t notion there.

The changes that we've made in viewing sexuality have resulted in children without fathers and in some cases mothers. They've resulted in broken and separated families. It's resulted in the destruction of countless lives.

What isn't so profoundly real about this?

Novella

gbee wrote: »

You'll need to find this out for yourself.

But I'll give you a hint:
Sex for men is 90% physical and 10% emotional.
Sex for Women is 80% emotional and 20% physical.

Care to back that up? Or did you just pluck that right out of thin air?

smash

prinz wrote: »

....and if you waited long enough before marriage you'd know the other person was stubborn and unwilling to compromise and thus you have a heads-up that you shouldn't marry them.

I'm talking about compromise during sex... And if you waiting until marriage then you won't know.

gbee wrote: »

Generally, I'm saddened that thread is still showing Psychological problems for our younger people, who, despite being free from the oppression that I was under in my youth, are still deeply disturbed.

Sorry what?????? :eek::eek:

gbee wrote: »

I've never read such black posts. For what should be such a joyous event. Well it is for me, or seeing as I have to wait a week to 'recharge' maybe I'm appreciating it more.

Black posts? I have no idea what you're talking about now. I think both sides are pro sex, but a lot of people see no reason to get married before they do it.

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

I'm talking about compromise during sex... And if you waiting until marriage then you won't know..

Actually you should know. Not difficult to discuss these things.

smash

Novella wrote: »

Care to back that up? Or did you just pluck that right out of thin air?

Thin air.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not doubting you, and I'm sure that there are a small minority of cases like this, but more often than not having both male and female role models right through a child's life is better than not having them.

Eh, they don't have to be married.

Jakkass wrote: »

Marriage and family is really the very centre of society. Parent's are married, and children are born into these families, which often teach them about what values they have, and to bring them up. Then of course these children go on and do the same thing. It is simply the most logical way to organise family.

There are more important values than marriage. Children are not always born into marriage. Logical way to organise a family? You know families can be happy without being married right?

Jakkass wrote: »

This is what I find destructive I guess. The separation of sex from love itself is probably the very reason that marriage is being undermined. It seems that society has gone from repressing sexuality entirely which was a bad thing, to obsessing about it entirely which is a bad thing.

but sex and love ARE totally different.

Jakkass wrote: »

The changes that we've made in viewing sexuality have resulted in children without fathers and in some cases mothers. They've resulted in broken and separated families. It's resulted in the destruction of countless lives.

What isn't so profoundly real about this?

Families fall apart disregarding the sexual side of things, and a child without a father or mother is not always going to be screwed up you know.

prinz wrote: »

Actually you should know. Not difficult to discuss these things.

What's that supposed to mean then?

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

What's that supposed to mean then?

What does it look like it means? Sex is a topic that is not banned from discussion even in couples who choose to wait until marriage. It's not as if they get to bed on the wedding night and wonder 'now what?'.

Strange Loop

Jakkass wrote: »

The changes that we've made in viewing sexuality have resulted in children without fathers and in some cases mothers. They've resulted in broken and separated families. It's resulted in the destruction of countless lives.

Many studies show that the environment and stability in a household have more of an effect on how a child turns out. Two parent families don't have an advantage over single parent families in this regard...

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/familystability.htm

smash

prinz wrote: »

What does it look like it means? Sex is a topic that is not banned from discussion even in couples who choose to wait until marriage. It's not as if they get to bed on the wedding night and wonder 'now what?'.

It's not a case of 'now what?'. I know of a few people who waited until they got married and the women are boring in the bedroom, it's either choose 1 of 2 positions and that's it. Their husbands slag them over it, and they generally just brush it off and tell them to deal with it. That's hardly a sexually compatible relationship.

philologos

Strange Loop wrote: »

Many studies show that the environment and stability in a household have more of an effect on how a child turns out. Two parent families don't have an advantage over single parent families in this regard...

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/familystability.htm

There are also numerous studies that attest to gender roles in child development, and in the impact that the absence of a mother or a father can have in child development. Indeed, there are numerous publications on it if one takes quick look through Google Scholar.

This is all assuming everyone plans to get married (or can)...

smash

Jakkass wrote: »

There are also numerous studies that attest to gender roles in child development, and in the impact that the absence of a mother or a father can have in child development.

If a couple aren't married the child still has 2 parents. But what's any of this got to do with sex before marriage?

Strange Loop

Jakkass wrote: »

There are also numerous studies that attest to gender roles in child development, and in the impact that the absence of a mother or a father can have in child development. Indeed, there are numerous publications on it if one takes quick look through Google Scholar.

A positive male or female role model is not always ncessarily the parent.

AudreyHepburn

I have no problem with sex before marriage but I don't believe in sleeping around and am not a fan of casual sex. And it's certainly not the be-all-and-end-all either.

For me, I need to be with some-one I care about and who cares about me too. I wouldn't like to think the guy I'm with wants only my body because for me it's about more than that.

And I certainly wouldn't end a relationship because we weren't having sex all day every day either. There are more important things in life IMO/

That's just my opinion though, if others can feel confident with keeping it purely physical or feel it's more important than anything more power to them.

kfallon

We are adults, adults like sex, sex is fun, it's good to have fun, you often have fun with people who have common interests.

So if you are into no sex before marriage find someone of the same 'ilk' and enjoy the build up to the big day.

If you enjoy regular sex without being hitched go and find like minded people and ride all round ya!

There's no right or wrong answer here folks, each to their own!

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

It's not a case of 'now what?'. I know of a few people who waited until they got married and the women are boring in the bedroom, it's either choose 1 of 2 positions and that's it. Their husbands slag them over it, and they generally just brush it off and tell them to deal with it. That's hardly a sexually compatible relationship.

Neither does it really have anything to do with waiting until marriage tbh. The same could apply in any relationship. Those people were architects of their own problems. Once again, compatability is something which both partners need to work at, and which can be established prior to saying the I do's.

kfallon

steve06 wrote: »

It's not a case of 'now what?'. I know of a few people who waited until they got married and the women are boring in the bedroom, it's either choose 1 of 2 positions and that's it.

Yeah I hate woman who will only do either 'reverse cowgirl' or the 'piledriver'

Cheap Thrills!

Originally Posted by gbee
You'll need to find this out for yourself.

But I'll give you a hint:
Sex for men is 90% physical and 10% emotional.
Sex for Women is 80% emotional and 20% physical.

Oh dear ROFL

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

Neither does it really have anything to do with waiting until marriage tbh. The same could apply in any relationship. Those people were architects of their own problems. Once again, compatability is something which both partners need to work at, and which can be established prior to saying the I do's.

So what? They should make a list of the sexual positions they would be willing to try before getting married, but just not have the sex itself?

I see...

I'm not sure how you determine sexual compatibility prior to marriage without actually having sex tbh.

prinz

MagicMarker wrote: »

So what? They should make a list of the sexual positions they would be willing to try before getting married, but just not have the sex itself?

That's one way to go about it, yes.

AudreyHepburn

MagicMarker wrote: »

So what? They should make a list of the sexual positions they would be willing to try before getting married, but just not have the sex itself?

I see...

I'm not sure how you determine sexual compatibility prior to marriage without actually having sex tbh.

There are other ways of being physically intimate without actually having sex you know

And there's this nifty little thing called talking. You can learn as much and more about you're partner by discussing things with him/her as you can by sleeping together.

kfallon

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm not sure how you determine sexual compatibility prior to marriage without actually having sex tbh.

If she will let you jizz on her boobies then you have a 90% sexual compatability rate......:p

The other 10% can be gained by 'entrance' thru the back door :eek:

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

That's one way to go about it, yes.

Well that's something I like to call retarded. You can talk until you're blue in the balls face but it doesn't really help when you get down to business.