Sex before Marriage

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

Actually that doesn't guarantee anything either so we're back to square one. It works for some people, it doesn't work for others. The concept that you must 'try before you buy'/or that you'll never know if your compatible or not unless you have sex before marriage is rubbish.

Oh, please go on. I'm dying to hear the rest of this hypothesis.

smash

prinz wrote: »

Actually that doesn't guarantee anything either so we're back to square one.

I'd be of the opinion that it pretty much does guarantee if you're both into the same kind of thing, and how you both feel about sex.

El Weirdo

WTF is going on with all the sex before marriage polls on the first page?

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

This is hilarious, I'm imagining people going through a sideshow presentation of what they like and don't like....

So you find sex funny huh? Sad tbh.

steve06 wrote: »

You shouldn't have to prepare for marriage, you should be able to walk into it knowing what you're getting involved with from experience of the person.....

Explains divorce rates alright.

steve06 wrote: »

I don't know how you could, you don't know me.

I'd have doubts about anyone who thinks compromise is a waste of time.

biko

More merging done

prinz

MagicMarker wrote: »

Oh, please go on. I'm dying to hear the rest of this hypothesis.

Having sex with someone for 3 years does not guarantee that in year 4 your partner is not going to want something that you're not into.

smash

prinz wrote: »

So you find sex funny huh? Sad tbh.

No, I find your opinions funny.

prinz wrote: »

Explains divorce rates alright.

No it doesn't, people can live together for 10 years, get married and then divorce 5 years later. People change, that's it really.

prinz wrote: »

I'd have doubts about anyone who thinks compromise is a waste of time.

I didn't say waste of time, I said it's settling for less than you want.

prinz wrote: »

Having sex with someone for 3 years does not guarantee that in year 4 your partner is not going to want something that you're not into.

And talking about sex for 3 years doesn't guarantee that when it happens, it's going to be what you expect!

Motley Crue

I agree with it. Too many marriages end because of a bad sex life, which leads to uncomfortable living conditions, and let's be honest - sex is crucially important in a relationship - if you don't have good, frequent sex (when you both want it) - then it can lead to bigger emotional problems

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

And talking about sex for 3 years doesn't guarantee that when it happens, it's going to be what you expect!

Which I never claimed it would do.

Des Carter

Id be more in favour of waiting but there are some points i think needs to be made.

1. Waiting depends on wheather or not you seperate sex and love. For many they are completely seperate and if thats the case you shouldnt wait ang go ride like minded people. But for me I think they are very much connected and inseperable and as a result waiting is a more realistic option especially with someone who is of the same opinion.

2.It depends on how you view marriage. For me it would be important for many reasons and I hold it in high regard and view it as the pinnacle of a loving commited relationship. However many dont view it like that and so I would understand why many would just wait until they were in a commited relationship.

3.The compatability argument is a load of $hit cause if you were both virgins on your wedding night you wouldnt really know if the sex was crappy or not. I know this is a weak argument but also you can work on compatability issues there is a whole internet full of tips to help you improve your lovemaking etc and you would also have some idea of compatability as you would have been messing around before marriage (just not having sex).

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

Having sex with someone for 3 years does not guarantee that in year 4 your partner is not going to want something that you're not into.

*facepalm*

Novella

steve06 wrote: »

She also did say "it would be nice to have one every time".

The thing about it is that I completely separate sex from love, so to me there's pretty much f#ck all "bonding experience that is sex".

You can separate sex from love and still see sex as a bonding experience. I have no problem separating sex from love. I don't think I've ever been in love, but I've had sex. Getting naked with someone is a bonding experience whether it's for one hour, one night or a lifetime. If sex was only about an orgasm, why would you not just masturbate? It'd surely be easier.

starlit

well this thread has certainly taken by storm in a day like! keep them coming...with the posts that is! exciting stuff!

prinz

MagicMarker wrote: »

*facepalm*

Care to expand?

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

Care to expand?

Not really.

Although I am wondering what the point is in talking about it at all for as long as possible (to ensure you're REALLY sure you're compatible)? Seeing as it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if 4 years down the line we suddenly may develop some kind of fetish that is not agreeable with our other half? Why even waste the time?

smash

Novella wrote: »

You can separate sex from love and still see sex as a bonding experience. I have no problem separating sex from love. I don't think I've ever been in love, but I've had sex. Getting naked with someone is a bonding experience whether it's for one hour, one night or a lifetime.

Fair enough, although I'm sure you'd agree that it's more enjoyable if you do orgasm.

Novella wrote: »

If sex was only about an orgasm, why would you not just masturbate? It'd surely be easier.

You can't really compare the 2 can you? Another body is totally different than a hand.

prinz wrote: »

Care to expand?

Kind of self explanatory really

prinz

MagicMarker wrote: »

Although I am wondering what the point is in talking about it at all for as long as possible (to ensure you're REALLY sure you're compatible)? Seeing as it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if 4 years down the line we suddenly may develop some kind of fetish that is not agreeable with our other half? Why even waste the time?

If it doesn't make a blind bit of difference talking about it versus having sex before marriage and finding out about some fetish or other after marriage why is the point repeatedly made that only by sleeping with someone before marriage can you know if you are compatible? Sleeping with someone does no more to guarantee long term compatibility than discussing sex and sexual interests in depth prior to marriage.

Which renders the 'try before you buy' argument groundless.

Novella

steve06 wrote: »

Fair enough, although I'm sure you'd agree that it's more enjoyable if you do orgasm.


You can't really compare the 2 can you? Another body is totally different than a hand.

Well what you're saying is that sex is only about an orgasm. You can't guarantee you're gonna have an orgasm every time you have sex. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. So if you only have sex to orgasm, then you're obviously gonna be disappointed sometimes and you would be better off with your hand 'cause you'd never be let down.

I like the intimacy of sex really, so a lack of orgasm isn't a huge deal to me.

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

If it doesn't make a blind bit of difference talking about it versus having sex before marriage and finding out about some fetish or other after marriage why is the point repeatedly made that only by sleeping with someone before marriage can you know if you are compatible? Sleeping with someone does no more to guarantee long term compatibility than discussing sex and sexual interests in depth prior to marriage.

Which renders the 'try before you buy' argument groundless.

Are you high or something? I'm not saying that that is the case, you are!!

smash

Novella wrote: »

Well what you're saying is that sex is only about an orgasm.

Well no, it's about the build up too, and what you do to get to that point to make it better.

Novella wrote: »

You can't guarantee you're gonna have an orgasm every time you have sex. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. So if you only have sex to orgasm, then you're obviously gonna be disappointed sometimes and you would be better off with your hand 'cause you'd never be let down.

Yea but sure you might as well try the sex and hope for the best.

Novella wrote: »

I like the intimacy of sex really, so a lack of orgasm isn't a huge deal to me.

Well that's ok, but you never answered the other question... I'm sure you'd agree that it's more enjoyable if you do orgasm

prinz

MagicMarker wrote: »

Are you high or something? I'm not saying that that is the case, you are!!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67252266&postcount=197

Ickle Magoo

I not only highly recommend sex before marriage, I'd recommend living together for a while too.

Sex is too important in a relationship to risk to chance, there is no way I'm getting saddled with someone who's a limp turnip between the sheets for the sake of some ancient meaningless tradition.

kfallon

Look lets all throw our keys in the bowl, wish for the luck of the draw and get it on, compatability or no compatability!!!

*lobs keys in*

Amalgam

...

Mrs Doyle: They were a bit obsessed with the old...S-E-X. God I'm glad I never think of that type of thing Father. That whole sexual world. God, when you think of it it's a dirty, filthy thing, isn't it Father? Can you imagine Father? Can you imagine Father, looking up at your husband, and him standing over you with his lad in his hand, wanting you to degrade yourself? God almighty can you imagine that Father? Can you picture it there Father? Oh get a good mental picture of it. Can you see him there? Ready to do the business?

Wazdakka

kfallon wrote: »

Look lets all throw our keys in the bowl, wish for the luck of the draw and get it on, compatability or no compatability!!!

*lobs keys in*

I think I've found where you've been going wrong all these years dude..

Only one gender is meant to put their keys in the bowl...

philologos

Strange Loop wrote: »

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

More often than not it is, as the parent has by far the most contact with the children. In order to ensure and to guarantee that a child has both male and female active role models in their lives is to ensure that they remain either in the biological family, or are given a family with a mother and a father.

Ickle Magoo: I'd have to say it is remarkable that you encourage cohabitation before marriage when numerous studies have reached the conclusion that this ultimately makes divorce more likely.

Cheap Thrills!

Jakkass wrote: »

Ickle Magoo: I'd have to say it is remarkable that you encourage cohabitation before marriage when numerous studies have reached the conclusion that this ultimately makes divorce more likely.

Only if you make the fatal error of getting hitched in the first place! If you don't get married you can't get divorced. Simples.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Ickle Magoo: I'd have to say it is remarkable that you encourage cohabitation before marriage when numerous studies have reached the conclusion that this ultimately makes divorce more likely.

Yeah, well it works for me and all the successful marriages I know. I'm not sure how you can possibly conclude whether hypothetically not living together would lead to a successful relationship that living together did not. People are either compatible or they are not, those that choose the lucky-dip approach may well feel divorce just isn't an option.

If you are referring to the study I think you are then the rates seemed to be based more on people getting married for all the wrong reasons once living together - I think as long as couples communicate well and keep their expectations and boundaries clear, the pluses outweigh the negatives.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you are referring to the study I think you are then the rates seemed to be based more on people getting married for all the wrong reasons once living together - I think as long as couples communicate well and keep their expectations and boundaries clear, the pluses outweigh the negatives.

What pluses? - It seems to me, that waiting does seem more advantageous, but that hedonism is coming into play as a factor in the argument.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

What pluses? - It seems to me, that waiting does seem more advantageous, but that hedonism is coming into play as a factor in the argument.

I have gone out with people and gotten on brilliantly, moved in together and found them unbearable. I have/had no wish to have a spousal lottery and cross my fingers for a good one or either spend much of married life trying to change my spouse or just grin and bear it.

If the only reason that people wait is their religion frowns upon divorce then it stands to reason that regardless of how unhealthy, loveless and awful their marriage, divorce isn't going to happen. That is not a good thing.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If the only reason that people wait is their religion frowns upon divorce then it stands to reason that regardless of how unhealthy, loveless and awful their marriage, divorce isn't going to happen. That is not a good thing.

Even excluding religion, it makes sense, and it isn't really fair to say that it is a one reason issue when numerous reasons have already been given for holding such a position.

As for "loveless", quite a few people have argued that sexuality is something that is entirely separate from love, which would make it loveless. In fact most of the people arguing in support of waiting have reinforced the idea that the best context for sex is in a loving marriage.

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67252266&postcount=197

*sigh*

This post was written in response to this of yours.

YOU appear to believe that having a sexual relationship before marriage doesn't prove whether or not 2 people are compatible sexually because one may suddenly decide after 4 years that they want to try something else.

I responded to you in the form of a QUESTION, not a statement, a QUESTION, why you would therefore even talk about sex prior to marriage seeing this isn't really a good indicator of compatibility considering we may well just change our minds in 4 years anyway.

To clarify, I don't agree with your first statement, because, quite frankly, it's bollocks.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Even excluding religion, it makes sense, and it isn't really fair to say that it is a one reason issue when numerous reasons have already been given for holding such a position.

Sorry, why does it make sense to go blindly into living with someone? Other than adhering to whatever personal beliefs certain people hold, it makes no logical sense at all.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for "loveless", quite a few people have argued that sexuality is something that is entirely separate from love, which would make it loveless. In fact most of the people arguing in support of waiting have reinforced the idea that the best context for sex is in a loving marriage.

Why would you assume I mean anything other than devoid of love when I say loveless?

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

Ickle Magoo: I'd have to say it is remarkable that you encourage cohabitation before marriage when numerous studies have reached the conclusion that this ultimately makes divorce more likely.

links please

RacoonQueen

gbee wrote: »

If you've been with the guy for more than a year, it's time to get married and enjoy the adventure.

What? :eek: A year is hardly enough time to know you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, unless you find someone who really is your soulmwat. My parents got engaged after 6 months(this would have been common enough 36 years ago though), my sister go engaged after 9 months. Both cases are the exception rather than the rule, my sister and her hubby and blissfully happy - I don't know any other young couple who got hitched as quickly as my sister.

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

links please

#1 - http://www.jstor.org/pss/2061823

Recent evidence linking premarital cohabitation to high rates of divorce poses a complex theoretical and empirical puzzle. We develop hypotheses predicting that premarital cohabitation is selective of those who are prone to divorce as well as hypotheses predicting that the experience of premarital cohabitation produces attitudes and values which increase the probability of divorce. Using multiwave panel data from a recent cohort of young men and women in the United States, we specify and test models of these predictions. The results are consistent with hypotheses suggesting that cohabitation is selective of men and women who are less committed to marriage and more approving of divorce. The results also are consistent with the conclusion that cohabiting experiences significantly increase young people's acceptance of divorce.

#2 - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2707_132/ai_115405749/

Even though more than half of couples now do it, compared with only 10% 30 years ago, living together before marriage still is linked to higher rates of troubled unions, divorce, and separation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, researchers have found.

#3 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03marry.html

Couples who live together before they get married are less likely to stay married, a new study has found. But their chances improve if they were already engaged when they began living together.

The likelihood that a marriage would last for a decade or more decreased by six percentage points if the couple had cohabited first, the study found.

There are more but this is a good start.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Sorry, why does it make sense to go blindly into living with someone? Other than adhering to whatever personal beliefs certain people hold, it makes no logical sense at all.

It's not going blindly. There are numerous opportunities to get to know your partner without rushing forward to move in together, or indeed rushing forward in any other respect. If you get to know your partner well enough, it also won't be a concern if you move in together after consideration.

Again, the evidence from studies in this area seems to be going pretty much in opposition to what you are saying.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why would you assume I mean anything other than devoid of love when I say loveless?

I didn't

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

#1 - http://www.jstor.org/pss/2061823


#2 - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2707_132/ai_115405749/



#3 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03marry.html


There are more but this is a good start.

So based on this you would neither live with a girl, nor have sex with a girl before marrying her?

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

So based on this you would neither live with a girl, nor have sex with a girl before marrying her?

Better hope she doesn't turn out to be a lazy messy person!!

Bonito

MagicMarker wrote: »

So based on this you would neither live with a girl, nor have sex with a girl before marrying her?

Get married. Get her up the duff on the honeymoon. Work like a motherfúker for the next few years to pay off the debts from the wedding. Barely see the wife. Therefore, you're not really living with her if you barely see her. Then, the only time you have sex, is to have another baby. Then she gets her tubes tied and you get the snip and you grow miserable together.

The End.

Ickle Magoo

So, a 6% risk. A 6% risk that a co-habiting couple MAY get divorced over their non-cohabiting counterparts but race and ethnicity actually play a bigger part. Bigging up the non-cohabitation stats sounds more like conservative propaganda than anything else. :cool:

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

So based on this you would neither live with a girl, nor have sex with a girl before marrying her?

On living, that depends entirely on context. If I was in a relationship with them, I don't think I would.

As for pre-marital sex, this alone isn't the only reason why I wouldn't. It's a choice I've decided to make because I feel it is the most reasonable way of looking at it.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

On living, that depends entirely on context. If I was in a relationship with them, I don't think I would.

As for pre-marital sex, this alone isn't the only reason why I wouldn't. It's a choice I've decided to make because I feel it is the most reasonable way of looking at it.

For you. Most reasonable for you.
You need to stop falling into this trap of "what makes sense to jakkass should objectively make sense to everybody"

philologos

Read the words "I feel", I.E - It is my opinion that.

Having said that, there seems to be more to back up the opinion that waiting before cohabitation is a better option.

bronte

Bonito wrote: »

Get married. Get her up the duff on the honeymoon. Work like a motherfúker for the next few years to pay off the debts from the wedding. Barely see the wife. Therefore, you're not really living with her if you barely see her. Then, the only time you have sex, is to have another baby. Then she gets her tubes tied and you get the snip and you grow miserable together.

The End.

Sounds magical.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Read the words "I feel", I.E - It is my opinion that.

Having said that, there seems to be more to back up the opinion that waiting before cohabitation is a better option.

Assuming everyone wants to get married, maybe.

I dislike the whole premise of "sex before marriage" as it assumes there'll be a marriage for everybody at some future point in time. That vs lifelong abstinence. It's silly. Might as well talk about "sex before you break your leg" or something

mloc

Jakkass wrote: »

#1 - http://www.jstor.org/pss/2061823


#2 - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2707_132/ai_115405749/



#3 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03marry.html


There are more but this is a good start.

This doesn't really show a whole lot. Divorce, in itself, is neither a good or bad thing. It depends on the circumstances and can in many cases be an important way for two people to have happy life, apart. This does not take into account that more traditionally minded people (who would not live together before marriage) are less likely to divorce (due to traditional values). It does not account for the fact that those who live together before marriage may be more progressive and therefore more open to the idea of divorce if it were to become necessary.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote:

If the only reason that people wait is their religion frowns upon divorce then it stands to reason that regardless of how unhealthy, loveless and awful their marriage, divorce isn't going to happen. That is not a good thing.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for "loveless", quite a few people have argued that sexuality is something that is entirely separate from love, which would make it loveless. In fact most of the people arguing in support of waiting have reinforced the idea that the best context for sex is in a loving marriage.

Jackass wrote:

I didn't

Sorry, you were responding to my post weren't you? Or at least that is the post you quoted. Where in my post did I mention sexuality, sex, context for sex, etc? Of course sex is separate from love, people do not require love to have sex, some prefer it but it is not a pre-requisite.

My point was a lack of divorce is just that, it doesn't give any indication of how happy or healthy the marriages are. There are many cases of people miserable in their loveless (without love), sexless, sometimes violent or unhealthy marriages who will not get divorced. Perhaps the difference is I don't view divorce as such a bad thing, I think it's great that people who are miserable together can get out and start over rather than wasting their lives forcing a sub-standard relationship with each other.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

Having said that, there seems to be more to back up the opinion that waiting before cohabitation is a better option.

If you were to fall in love with a girl and she wanted to move in before marriage, would you refuse? Even if it meant breaking up? All because you think that you have a higher chance of getting divorced?

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

Assuming everyone wants to get married, maybe.

I personally believe that marriage, and formalising ones relationship is the best option. Perhaps you don't, but I personally wouldn't regard both as being equally beneficial.

bluewolf wrote: »

I dislike the whole premise of "sex before marriage" as it assumes there'll be a marriage for everybody at some future point in time. That vs lifelong abstinence. It's silly. Might as well talk about "sex before you break your leg" or something

Perhaps extra-marital sex is better, or sex external-to-marriage.

How is it silly that people want to be in a secure relationship before they have sex? Isn't it a reasonable expectation?

Perhaps a lot of it is down to the fact that we are used to marrying later in Irish society.

MagicMarker wrote: »

If you were to fall in love with a girl and she wanted to move in before marriage, would you refuse? Even if it meant breaking up? All because you think that you have a higher chance of getting divorced?

I think I would have to stick to my guns. I think I would really try to explain the reasoning behind why I've thought this way. The same would be true if someone asked me to have sex outside of marriage. Given my beliefs, I simply couldn't do this on a moral level. That said, preferably I would like to meet someone who shared my beliefs.