Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Sex before Marriage

1457910

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭Cheap Thrills!


    bluewolf wrote: »
    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

    Yep, me too. As far as I and many other people are concerned marriage is just something 'other people' do. I've never contemplated it, just never had any interest.

    I find it weird and scary and even more so when I meet young people nearly half my age who are married......I just know they won't make the 60 or 70 years......there is just no way. Human nature being what it is we seek novelty and pleasure, trying to deny those things is absolutely futile.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.

    As I've already stated now, I have personal experience that that is just not true. Living with someone is completely different to dating them, believe me. You cannot get to know someone intimately, either sexually or as they would be to live with unless you have sex with them or, funnily enough, live with them.

    You may be prepared to leave things to chance and hope because they seem okay on dates that married bliss will automatically follow, experience tells me that's a very risky strategy but I guess the flip side we're all forgetting is; without any experience of living or having sex with anyone else, you'll never know any different. :cool:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    You may be prepared to leave things to chance and hope because they seem okay on dates that married bliss will automatically follow, experience tells me that's a very risky strategy but I guess the flip side we're all forgetting is; without any experience of living or having sex with anyone else, you'll never know any different. :cool:

    Far from it. Waiting until after marriage isn't leaving it "to chance" rather it is taking things in progression rather than going for all at once. People can clearly get to know, and love each other without moving in straight away. I'd like to think that if I were in earnest in love with someone, that I wouldn't leave just because their living style isn't what I am used to!

    Again, I don't feel the need to "test drive" as it makes an assumption that whether or not the sex is good is the crucial reason as to why relationships survive or fail. While I do hold that sex is an important factor in a relationship, it certainly isn't the deciding factor. If my heart is with someone, it will be with someone irrespective of whether the sex is good.
    mloc wrote: »
    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.

    Splitting up families isn't a bad thing? Seriously? Divorce doesn't more often leave a lot of hurt behind?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.

    Your beliefs have nothing to do with cohabiting before marriage, but you'd throw away a relationship because of it.

    Interesting.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Matias Uptight Quintessence


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.
    I would like to based on meeting the right man, but that doesn't mean everyone else would or even can. I also don't like the assumption that marriage should be a goal and it's just a question of finding someone to fill the shoes... it should be the other way around.


    Jakkass wrote: »

    Splitting up families isn't a bad thing? Seriously? Divorce doesn't more often leave a lot of hurt behind?
    If there is a lot of hurt within the marriage and counselling etc has been attempted, a miserable couple may be a lot happier as 2 single people, yes. As for the children, they aren't stupid and they don't want miserable parents.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Your beliefs have nothing to do with cohabiting before marriage, but you'd throw away a relationship because of it.

    Don't they?
    bluewolf wrote:
    If there is a lot of hurt within the marriage and counselling etc has been attempted, a miserable couple may be a lot happier as 2 single people, yes. As for the children, they aren't stupid and they don't want miserable parents.

    I'm not against divorce, but I do think that it is a sad thing, and I'd agree with you that it should be a last option. To say that divorce is neither good or bad is a bit of a stretch though.

    So yeah, I'm not going to argue against divorce nor was that ever my intention :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,048 ✭✭✭✭Snowie


    I don't believe in marriage....Unless the right lady comes my way/

    what was good for you at 31 isn't necessarily good for you at 51 Just because you have kids etc doesn't mean your gonna stay together for ever..
    people change you can change with them but some times they want things that involve them maybe some one new comes into your life.

    Marrige scares the crap out of me the thoughts of living with the same person with out a break for 50 years sounds awful :confused:

    call me weird


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Far from it. Waiting until after marriage isn't leaving it "to chance" rather it is taking things in progression rather than going for all at once. People can clearly get to know, and love each other without moving in straight away. I'd like to think that if I were in earnest in love with someone, that I wouldn't leave just because their living style isn't what I am used to!

    Again, I don't feel the need to "test drive" as it makes an assumption that whether or not the sex is good is the crucial reason as to why relationships survive or fail. While I do hold that sex is an important factor in a relationship, it certainly isn't the deciding factor. If my heart is with someone, it will be with someone irrespective of whether the sex is good.

    The fact of the matter is you have no idea what living with someone will be like until you do that so it is entirely down to chance - why do you think so many marriages do break down but over irreconcilable differences caused by different expectations and wants within a relationship. Have a look in PI, there are threads there all the time with spouses of either sex and those living together at their wits end because they cannot live with a certain aspect of their partners living style.

    Like it or not, sex is a huge part of most peoples relationships. Those that have relationships without sex would be very much in the minority and sex, lack of sex, looking for sex elsewhere, bad sex and all the inherent issues that brings has to be top of the list of reasons why couples and marriages break up. Again, if a lifetime with nothing but your heart to keep you warm at night is good enough, more power to you, it wouldn't be something I could live with.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Don't they?

    I hope not, because that would make your beliefs even more ludicrous, and I honestly didn't think that was possible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    The fact of the matter is you have no idea what living with someone will be like until you do that so it is entirely down to chance - why do you think so many marriages do break down but over irreconcilable differences caused by different expectations and wants within a relationship. Have a look in PI, there are threads there all the time with spouses of either sex and those living together at their wits end because they cannot live with a certain aspect of their partners living style.

    OK, this begs the question though. Despite this, why do you think that studies are coming out with the opposite conclusion? More specifically, who is right?
    Like it or not, sex is a huge part of most peoples relationships. Those that have relationships without sex would be very much in the minority and sex, lack of sex, looking for sex elsewhere, bad sex and all the inherent issues that brings has to be top of the list of reasons why couples and marriages break up. Again, if a lifetime with nothing but your heart to keep you warm at night is good enough, more power to you, it wouldn't be something I could live with.

    I never suggested that people should of necessity should have sex-less relationships. I said that personally, it wouldn't be the strongest reason to leave one.

    As I've said earlier, formerly our society repressed sexuality to an excessive degree, now people are obsessing about it too an excessive degree. Both are unhealthy.
    I hope not, because that would make your beliefs even more ludicrous, and I honestly didn't think that was possible.

    Perhaps clarifying what you mean might be helpful. It's a small bit ambigious.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    Like it or not, sex is a huge part of most peoples relationships. Those that have relationships without sex would be very much in the minority and sex, lack of sex, looking for sex elsewhere, bad sex and all the inherent issues that brings has to be top of the list of reasons why couples and marriages break up. Again, if a lifetime with nothing but your heart to keep you warm at night is good enough, more power to you, it wouldn't be something I could live with.

    Why do you assume that people who wait till marriage will go without sex, have a lack of sex, look for sex elsewhere or have bad sex? :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭GrumPy


    Are the 9 people who voted no virgins and/ or very religious?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    OK, this begs the question though. Despite this, why do you think that studies are coming out with the opposite conclusion? More specifically, who is right?

    I think studies of a couple of thousand people in america doesn't really draw many conclusions, tbh, other than from those that desperately wish there to be some. According to your own sources, at worst, living together gives less risk of divorce than either race or ethnicity give...6% with much possibilities and maybes thrown in.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I never suggested that people should of necessity should have sex-less relationships. I said that personally, it wouldn't be the strongest reason to leave one.

    As I've said earlier, formerly our society repressed sexuality to an excessive degree, now people are obsessing about it too an excessive degree. Both are unhealthy.

    People have always obsessed about sex, there may have been a religious repressive element in parts but in paintings, statues, literature, hell even pub jokes and general chit-chat there has always, always been an obsession with sex - it's a nonsense to suggest this is a new thing.

    I think a relationship without sex is friendship and I don't want another friend and no sex, it's that simple. Accidents aside, no sex or bad sex is certainly reason enough for me to call time on a relationship - you may feel differently and that's your prerogative. Having experienced dating a fabulous guy who was a nightmare to live with and also experiencing both fantastic and terrible sex, I'm perfectly happy to take that 6% risk to try to eliminate the possibility of marrying a nightmare who is terrible in bed. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Des Carter wrote: »
    Why do you assume that people who wait till marriage will go without sex, have a lack of sex, look for sex elsewhere or have bad sex? :confused:

    Where in my post that you quoted did I mention people who wait? :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I think studies of a couple of thousand people in america doesn't really draw many conclusions, tbh, other than from those that desperately wish there to be some. According to your own sources, at worst, living together gives less risk of divorce than either race or ethnicity give...6% with much possibilities and maybes thrown in.

    OK - This is based on research that took place in the UK and Australia in many cases judging by the footnotes:
    http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/cohabitation.php#2
    Cohabiting relationships are fragile. They are always more likely to break up than marriages entered into at the same time, regardless of age or income. On average, cohabitations last less than two years before breaking up or converting to marriage. Less than four per cent of cohabitations last for ten years or more. Cohabiting also influences later marriages. The more often and the longer that men and women cohabit, the more likely they are to divorce later.
    People have always obsessed about sex, there may have been a religious repressive element in parts but in paintings, statues, literature, hell even pub jokes and general chit-chat there has always, always been an obsession with sex - it's a nonsense to suggest this is a new thing.

    I don't think that the "obsession" is really all that positive of a thing, particularly when seeing it in some of the posts that have been made in the thread so far. It indicates almost a selfishness surrounding sex lives. If the sex isn't good, you should basically just leave.
    I think a relationship without sex is friendship and I don't want another friend and no sex, it's that simple.

    This line in particular is absolutely ridiculous. So a loving relationship without sex, is the same thing as an average friendship? :confused:
    Accidents aside, no sex or bad sex is certainly reason enough for me to call time on a relationship - you may feel differently and that's your prerogative.

    I just can't understand your thinking on this at all!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    OK - This is based on research that took place in the UK and Australia in many cases judging by the footnotes:
    http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/cohabitation.php#2

    Are you just going to keep randomly googling "cohabitation not good" and posting the links? That's a link to a review of a book by Patricia Morgan - isn't that the Daily Mail journo (and I use the term loosely)...? :confused:

    None of that deluge of anti-cohabitation bias changes the fact that living with someone before you marry them could be the best thing you ever do and nor does it change the fact that many marriages are unhealthy and awful - something that could well be avoided by co-habiting first. Unless we have the stats to hand of those too scared, down-trodden, stubborn or poor to divorce then any stats regarding cohabitation Vs marriage are largely meaningless.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think that the "obsession" is really all that positive of a thing, particularly when seeing it in some of the posts that have been made in the thread so far. It indicates almost a selfishness surrounding sex lives. If the sex isn't good, you should basically just leave.

    It's funny because what worries me is the repressive attitude that sex isn't important and to have lousy sex or be unhappy sexually in a relationship doesn't matter or is so unimportant that a lack of quality sex should just be forgiven in place of good companionship. Intimacy is a huge part of a relationship, for me certainly. There is no greater intimacy than having sex. To try to infer it's just depravity and greed rather than as basic a human want as good communication is just bizarre.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    This line in particular is absolutely ridiculous. So a loving relationship without sex, is the same thing as an average friendship? :confused:

    Yes, without sex living with someone is like living with a close friend. Sex is what makes a fully functioning relationship for me, what differentiates between friend and lover.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I just can't understand your thinking on this at all!

    Ditto. What is it with people who don't have sex or little comparisons having such mammoth opinions on what everyone else is getting up to? And then claiming we're obsessed, lol! :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Are you just going to keep randomly googling "cohabitation not good" and posting the links? That's a link to a review of a book by Patricia Morgan - isn't that the Daily Mail journo (and I use the term loosely)...? :confused:

    It's well cited, if you wish to follow up the journals you may. This seems like mere complaint making. The case seems to be very much that studies are confirming that co-habitation prior to marriage increases the risk of divorce, that was my point.
    None of that deluge of anti-cohabitation bias changes the fact that living with someone before you marry them could be the best thing you ever do and nor does it change the fact that many marriages are unhealthy and awful - something that could well be avoided by co-habiting first. Unless we have the stats to hand of those too scared, down-trodden, stubborn or poor to divorce then any stats regarding cohabitation Vs marriage are largely meaningless.

    Again, if you have issue with what I have posted, make a case that what you are claiming is actually representative rather than merely anecdotal. It's really that simple.
    It's funny because what worries me is the repressive attitude that sex isn't important and to have lousy sex or be unhappy sexually in a relationship doesn't matter or is so unimportant that a lack of quality sex should just be forgiven in place of good companionship. Intimacy is a huge part of a relationship, for me certainly. There is no greater intimacy than having sex. To try to infer it's just depravity and greed rather than as basic a human want as good communication is just bizarre.

    I've not said once that sex isn't important. I just don't think it goes over and above the actual love that binds the relationship itself.
    Yes, without sex living with someone is like living with a close friend. Sex is what makes a fully functioning relationship for me, what differentiates between friend and lover.

    So you don't see any difference between a couple who are deeply in love with each other and choose to wait, and just two close friends.

    Really, come on! :)
    Ditto. What is it with people who don't have sex or little comparisons having such mammoth opinions on what everyone else is getting up to? And then claiming we're obsessed, lol! :)

    It is up to you to choose what you will do. This thread is about the merits, and lack there of of waiting until marriage. I believe that waiting until marriage is best, and I have good reason to believe this.

    As far as what you choose to do, that is up to you, but I am certainly entitled to my view. Just as you are entitled to your view. That's fair.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15 allymcbeal


    This thread made me lol. I voted no in the poll as I believe waiting is the best. However, arguing the point is going to get no one anywhere as most ppl ( in fact I say nearly everyone) who voted yes would never change their mind no matter how much people argued with them over it.

    Everyone seems to suggest that religion is the only reason that people vote no but thats not true. There are other good reasons for waiting like not catching stds or becoming pregnant aswell as other reasons.

    As for sex been the difference between a friend and a lover I think some people have friends that are way too close.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    allymcbeal wrote: »
    Everyone seems to suggest that religion is the only reason that people vote no but thats not true. There are other good reasons for waiting like not catching stds or becoming pregnant aswell as other reasons.

    You do realize there are precautionary measure to prevent all of these?


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Matias Uptight Quintessence


    allymcbeal wrote: »
    There are other good reasons for waiting like not catching stds or becoming pregnant aswell as other reasons.

    Marriage isn't a contraceptive, so yes you can still become pregnant...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    allymcbeal wrote: »
    As for sex been the difference between a friend and a lover I think some people have friends that are way too close.

    I don't know about this. I mean, there is a clear difference between friend and lover to begin with.

    Close friendships are really quite great, and I wouldn't want to diminish them in any way.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15 allymcbeal


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't know about this. I mean, there is a clear difference between friend and lover to begin with.

    Close friendships are really quite great, and I wouldn't want to diminish them in any way.


    Yeah close friedndships are great but I dont think they are comparable to a lover in any way.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15 allymcbeal


    You do realize there are precautionary measure to prevent all of these?

    Yes well aware of that but as I am sure you are aware no contraceptive will fully prevent the risk of an std. Condoms will not fully prevent it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    allymcbeal wrote: »
    Everyone seems to suggest that religion is the only reason that people vote no but thats not true. There are other good reasons for waiting like not catching stds or becoming pregnant aswell as other reasons.

    +1
    Im not a religious fanatic yet still voted no.

    Also why do so many assume that you have to move in together straight away after tieing the knot. And even if you did and found out your spouse was sloppy, lazy, messy etc then if you cant tell them to cop on or if they dont change then surely you werent ready for marriage.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    allymcbeal wrote: »
    Yes well aware of that but as I am sure you are aware no contraceptive will fully prevent the risk of an std. Condoms will not fully prevent it.
    There are STI checks. Make sure a partner is clean and you won't catch an STI.

    Unless you just don't trust men to be faithful?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15 allymcbeal


    Des Carter wrote: »
    +1
    Im not a religious fanatic yet still voted no.

    Also why do so many assume that you have to move in together straight away after tieing the knot. And even if you did and found out your spouse was sloppy, lazy, messy etc then if you cant tell them to cop on or if they dont change then surely you werent ready for marriage.

    Neither am I.

    I totally agree. I think 2 people can learn to live with each other. Surely if 2 people loved each other they both could compromise.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15 allymcbeal


    There are STI checks. Make sure a partner is clean and you won't catch an STI.

    Unless you just don't trust men to be faithful?


    A lot of men are unfaithful as are women but even if you do trust your bf 100% and they get a clean bill of health from an sti check you can still catch one off them. Not all sti's will show up on a sti check especially in men.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    allymcbeal wrote: »
    A lot of men are unfaithful as are women but even if you do trust your bf 100% and they get a clean bill of health from an sti check you can still catch one off them. Not all sti's will show up on a sti check especially in men.
    So presumably you're never going to have sex ever then? What will marriage do about that?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15 allymcbeal


    So presumably you're never going to have sex ever then? What will marriage do about that?

    No I will just when married. Well if you nor your partner hasn't slept with anyone else then you are not going to catch an sti.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    allymcbeal wrote: »
    No I will just when married. Well if you nor your partner hasn't slept with anyone else then you are not going to catch an sti.
    Are you saying you're only going to marry a virgin?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,349 ✭✭✭✭starlit


    well there is the celibate option! you could still have a bit of practice sex and then wait till the big night of your wedding night to have proper sex! You be still in keeping with your beliefs either way! :cool:

    at least they will know what to expect!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,713 ✭✭✭✭Novella


    allymcbeal wrote: »
    A lot of men are unfaithful as are women but even if you do trust your bf 100% and they get a clean bill of health from an sti check you can still catch one off them. Not all sti's will show up on a sti check especially in men.

    Er, what STI's don't show up in an STI screening?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Novella wrote: »
    Er, what STI's don't show up in an STI screening?
    Apparently there is no HPV test for men.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,713 ✭✭✭✭Novella


    Apparently there is no HPV test for men.

    Ah, so there isn't! My bad! :o

    But HPV is so common now that it's kinda reasonable to expect that you'll get it at some point during your life. And I think the HPV virus can be spread by kissing alone, so it's not only something that affects sexually active people. Plus it's a pretty harmless virus, and the body's immune system will usually eliminate it without treatment afaik.

    But yes, limiting partners does decrease the risk of ever contracting it so yeah.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭mloc


    Waiting for marriage to have sex because of a fear of STDs or pregnancy is irrational.

    Subcutaneous implants together with condoms have an almost perfect pregnancy prevention rate. That's that problem solved.

    As for STDs, you can test for anything that actually matters. You can still contract what are termed "STDs" despite remaining celibate; AIDS transmission by heterosexual sex in Ireland was, until recently, almost non-existent (large communities of African immigrants have changed this a bit in the last few years but generally only within immigrant communities). Similar enough story with HCV (largely IV drug abuse transmission).

    Herpes, gonorrhea and chlamydia are all accurately detectable with a simple blood/urine test. Test, wait a period of time, good to go.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    allymcbeal wrote: »
    No I will just when married. Well if you nor your partner hasn't slept with anyone else then you are not going to catch an sti.

    The fact that you think that is quite worrying to be honest. You're capable of being infected with HIV-AIDS through transmission of blood pathogens for a start. You could still be a virgin and contract the above mentioned infection through shared needles, contaminated blood products, a random attack with a needle on the street or if one of your parents had the virus. SO yes you could catch a very nasty STI indeed while remaining a virgin.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,807 ✭✭✭take everything


    Sinfonia wrote: »
    Ridiculous and arcane.

    Edit: Waiting until marriage, that is.

    How is it mysterious? ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's well cited, if you wish to follow up the journals you may. This seems like mere complaint making. The case seems to be very much that studies are confirming that co-habitation prior to marriage increases the risk of divorce, that was my point.

    Again, unless the rate of people who are in unhappy marriages and don't get divorced - and I think we all agree they certainly exist - is less than 6% then your stats mean diddly-squat. I think you know that at this stage though and just going for your rather infamous fingers in ears approach.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Again, if you have issue with what I have posted, make a case that what you are claiming is actually representative rather than merely anecdotal. It's really that simple.

    We ALL know plenty of people are unhappily married and plod along regardless for whatever reasons refusing or reluctant to get a divorce. We know that marriage doesn't automatically equate to a happy and healthy relationship so citing any stats - especially those that completely ignore those points is meaningless...and nor does it come close to negating the positives of living together anyway.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I've not said once that sex isn't important. I just don't think it goes over and above the actual love that binds the relationship itself.

    Again, have a gander in PI and see how many relationship and marriage issues are caused by or around sex. Part of a loving relationship/marriage is sex, to want to have sex and enjoy sex is as much a part of loving a partner as being respectful or communicating well. I think that's why adults who don't have sex yet are in a defined relationship are very much in the minority. You may convince yourself that it is only love that binds a relationship and sex is an unnecessary obsession but I think, for most people that partake of sexual relationships, that is simply not the case. For me, sex in a long-term relationship is part of love, they are not two separate entities within that context.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    So you don't see any difference between a couple who are deeply in love with each other and choose to wait, and just two close friends.

    Really, come on! :)

    You thanked a post earlier that referred to the difference between friends and lovers, lovers traditionally are people who make love - not just those in love ie the lovers guide. Without the intimate knowledge of another person you are pals that snog or hold hands, maybe, if that's allowed - or are you thinking of the hypocritical "sex is wrong outside of marriage but it's okay to do everything bar penetration" silliness that some partake of?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It is up to you to choose what you will do. This thread is about the merits, and lack there of of waiting until marriage. I believe that waiting until marriage is best, and I have good reason to believe this.

    As far as what you choose to do, that is up to you, but I am certainly entitled to my view. Just as you are entitled to your view. That's fair.

    I have lived with partners and am now married, with my partner for 10 yrs. Pretty much everyone I know, including my parents, had sex before marriage and lived together - divorce rate to date, zero. Experience taught me there is much to be gained from getting to know someone inside out before embarking on a happy and healthy marriage with them and nada to be gained from waiting & crossing my fingers, other than being dictated to by some archaic tradition. I can't seriously believe you looked at the 6% higher risk given in your stats and decided that sex before marriage was not best, I think you decided that already and have been looking for confirmation bias ever since. Best of luck to you, I sincerely hope you don't meet the equivalent of my nightmare to live with, angel to date. :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 117 ✭✭Saermegil


    Novella wrote: »
    Ah, so there isn't! My bad! :o

    But HPV is so common now that it's kinda reasonable to expect that you'll get it at some point during your life. And I think the HPV virus can be spread by kissing alone, so it's not only something that affects sexually active people. Plus it's a pretty harmless virus, and the body's immune system will usually eliminate it without treatment afaik.

    But yes, limiting partners does decrease the risk of ever contracting it so yeah.

    What the ****?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    We ALL know plenty of people are unhappily married and plod along regardless for whatever reasons refusing or reluctant to get a divorce. We know that marriage doesn't automatically equate to a happy and healthy relationship so citing any stats - especially those that completely ignore those points is meaningless...and nor does it come close to negating the positives of living together anyway.

    Nobody once has said that marriage automatically leads to a happy and healthy relationship. All one is saying that there is a trend that people who cohabit are more likely to divorce. In a survey of a large enough population 6% is still a significant difference.

    As far as I can see when weighed up, it still seems to be better to wait before leaping into things such as cohabitation.
    Again, have a gander in PI and see how many relationship and marriage issues are caused by or around sex. Part of a loving relationship/marriage is sex, to want to have sex and enjoy sex is as much a part of loving a partner as being respectful or communicating well. I think that's why adults who don't have sex yet are in a defined relationship are very much in the minority. You may convince yourself that it is only love that binds a relationship and sex is an unnecessary obsession but I think, for most people that partake of sexual relationships, that is simply not the case. For me, sex in a long-term relationship is part of love, they are not two separate entities within that context.

    I'll say it again. It is an important aspect of a relationship, but I don't think it should decide whether or not you leave someone. Just a personal opinion.

    I'm not particularly surprised why for a lot of people divorce might be linked to unsatisfaction with sex, if people are hinging sex to be the basis of a marriage, and that no longer takes place then of course one is going to be unhappy. It depends what is actually the basis for the marriage to begin with.

    The second article I cited said this which probably also explains many of the pre-marriage split ups that occur on that basis:
    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.
    You thanked a post earlier that referred to the difference between friends and lovers, lovers traditionally are people who make love - not just those in love ie the lovers guide. Without the intimate knowledge of another person you are pals that snog or hold hands, maybe, if that's allowed - or are you thinking of the hypocritical "sex is wrong outside of marriage but it's okay to do everything bar penetration" silliness that some partake of?

    This is what I find to be just ridiculous. Lovers aren't exclusively people who are sexually active, but rather are people who are in love with each other and show that love in numerous ways. Entirely different to friends.

    Edit: You've strawmanned that post by the by, read what that user was arguing in previous posts.
    I have lived with partners and am now married, with my partner for 10 yrs. Pretty much everyone I know, including my parents, had sex before marriage and lived together - divorce rate to date, zero. Experience taught me there is much to be gained from getting to know someone inside out before embarking on a happy and healthy marriage with them and nada to be gained from waiting & crossing my fingers, other than being dictated to by some archaic tradition. I can't seriously believe you looked at the 6% higher risk given in your stats and decided that sex before marriage was not best, I think you decided that already and have been looking for confirmation bias ever since. Best of luck to you, I sincerely hope you don't meet the equivalent of my nightmare to live with, angel to date. :pac:

    This is still anecdotal. If you have evidence that this is true on average, I'd be interested in seeing it.

    Of course I'm glad that relationships stick together, but I still think it is better to wait before cohabiting, or engaging sexually with each other for a lot of reasons.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


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

    You're confusing yourself. You said discussing sex doesn't guarantee compatibility. Having sex doesn't guarantee compatibility either. Therefore the second is no more advantageous than the first when it comes to the theory that you must sleep with someone before marrying them so you know you'll be compatible. I don't think I can simplify it further without getting the coloured letter blocks out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    allymcbeal wrote: »
    Neither am I.
    I totally agree. I think 2 people can learn to live with each other. Surely if 2 people loved each other they both could compromise.

    We now live in a world where compromise and work at inter-personal relationships are taboo. It must suit the individual perfectly, without compromise, the first time or else you just dump them and move on to the next.

    What a great future to look forward to. Constantly looking for a perfection, that by and large will never be found.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    prinz wrote: »
    You're confusing yourself. You said discussing sex doesn't guarantee compatibility. Having sex doesn't guarantee compatibility either. Therefore the second is no more advantageous than the first when it comes to the theory that you must sleep with someone before marrying them so you know you'll be compatible.

    Yea but it kind of does, at least you know what you're getting into. And if you can't fix it, then get out before it's too late.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Nobody once has said that marriage automatically leads to a happy and healthy relationship. All one is saying that there is a trend that people who cohabit are more likely to divorce. In a survey of a large enough population 6% is still a significant difference.

    As far as I can see when weighed up, it still seems to be better to wait before leaping into things such as cohabitation.

    What large population, the only stats I could find that actually quoted any figures was a sample of 1400 people! I also couldn't find any reference to those that don't live together but still have sex before marriage.

    Anyway, why would you assume people leap into cohabitation? Seriously? For some it's as important a decision as getting married or having kids because both, one or neither may follow.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'll say it again. It is an important aspect of a relationship, but I don't think it should decide whether or not you leave someone. Just a personal opinion.

    I'd view an issue with sex that isn't being resolved as akin to any other damaging issue that isn't being resolved and as such, a deal breaker. There is no greater way of showing love, affection and tenderness than having fabulous sex with your other-half - if it ever got to the stage my partner was wilfully denying me that then I'd certainly consider it reasonable grounds for divorce.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm not particularly surprised why for a lot of people divorce might be linked to unsatisfaction with sex, if people are hinging sex to be the basis of a marriage, and that no longer takes place then of course one is going to be unhappy. It depends what is actually the basis for the marriage to begin with.

    It doesn't really depend on anything. Sex is a normal, integral part of the majority of adult relationships. Loosing that is no different to a partner that won't talk to you or sort out any other kind of issue. If sex is completely meaningless and holds no importance to you then if it goes pear-shaped or awol obviously it doesn't matter but for most people that engage in sexual activity, that just isn't the case. Having a healthy and happy sex life is often a great indicator of the health of the relationship elsewhere, sex is inextricably linked for the majority.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The second article I cited said this which probably also explains many of the pre-marriage split ups that occur on that basis:

    Again, only relevant if you think divorce is to be avoided at all costs and that all marriages that do last are happy and healthy. I would far rather a higher divorce rate and more happy people in healthy relationships than a higher marriage statistics made up in part from miserable unhealthy marriages being flogged to death.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is what I find to be just ridiculous. Lovers aren't exclusively people who are sexually active, but rather are people who are in love with each other and show that love in numerous ways. Entirely different to friends.

    Lovers are people who have sex, I believe that is the common assumption when the phrase is used. Lovers guide, taking a lover, etc. If you tell people someone is your lover, they will not automatically assume it is just someone you are in love with despite any protestations you may have regarding multiple dictionary definitions, let's not get silly about it. :pac:
    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is still anecdotal. If you have evidence that this is true on average, I'd be interested in seeing it.

    Of course I'm glad that relationships stick together, but I still think it is better to wait before cohabiting, or engaging sexually with each other for a lot of reasons.

    And what do you think I place more relevance on and pay more heed to? The success of the marriages I see in evidence around me or some random googled sources that give no definitives and ignore half the information about marriages but go some way to satisfying your preconceived notions? It's a no-brainer. :cool:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ickle Magoo: It seems as if we are working on two definitions of lover.

    Mine being: a person who loves someone or is loved by someone
    Yours being: One who is involved in a sexual relationship with another; as, she took a lover.

    When I was interpreting the word "lover" in that post, and indeed it seems to be the correct context given that users other posts on this thread, I was thinking in terms of two people who love each other romantically.
    And what do you think I place more relevance on and pay more heed to? The success of the marriages I see in evidence around me or some random googled sources that give no definitives and ignore half the information about marriages but go some way to satisfying your preconceived notions? It's a no-brainer.

    This is funny, because were this any other discussion you would be demanding back up in terms of studies :pac:

    You say that we all know successful marriages, but we also know a lot of unsuccessful marriages, and simply put the current research says that of those unsuccessful marriages, most of them involve people who cohabited before marriage. That's all! :)

    I've given you the opportunity to back up that cohabiting is demonstrably (based on research) better than waiting in the same way that I have.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    steve06 wrote: »
    Yea but it kind of does, at least you know what you're getting into. And if you can't fix it, then get out before it's too late.

    How does it give any more of a guarantee of compatibility?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    Again, unless the rate of people who are in unhappy marriages and don't get divorced - and I think we all agree they certainly exist - is less than 6% then your stats mean diddly-squat

    Have to agree with this as I couldnt care less about statistics as they can be manipulated to represent anything. You can find statistics to back up the most insane theories if you look hard enough.

    However it is well known that divorce rates amoung couples who waited is significantly lower than those who havent but this can be put down to the fact that the majority of people who choose to wait (especially in the US) are far more conservative and would try to avoid divorce at all costs so there are no accurate stats on wheather families are happier etc.

    Again, have a gander in PI and see how many relationship and marriage issues are caused by or around sex.

    Maybe these issues arose because there was premarital sex involved but again maybe not there is no way of knowing all this proves is that sex is important in marriage which everyone agrees on so I dont really know what your point is.

    Also there are way more posts in PI/RI regarding premarital sex like people using others/being used for sex and getting hurt that its not even funny. And in my experience people who sleep around tend to have far more emotional problems but that is more about promiscuity as opposed to sex and marriage so I wont go off topic.

    You thanked a post earlier that referred to the difference between friends and lovers, lovers traditionally are people who make love - not just those in love ie the lovers guide. Without the intimate knowledge of another person you are pals that snog or hold hands, maybe, if that's allowed - or are you thinking of the hypocritical "sex is wrong outside of marriage but it's okay to do everything bar penetration" silliness that some partake of?

    You really believe that two people cant be in love/have a relationship/be a couple if they are not having sex?:confused: Seriously that is just worrying again what if someone was in an accident and was unable to have sex would that mean their partner would have to leave them? or that they would never be in a relationship? :confused::confused::confused:
    Pretty much everyone I know, including my parents, had sex before marriage and lived together - divorce rate to date, zero.

    my parents, didnt have sex before marriage or live together - divorce rate to date, zero. This doesnt prove anything.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Mine being: a person who loves someone or is loved by someone
    Yours being: One who is involved in a sexual relationship with another; as, she took a lover.

    The sexual meaning would be the only meaning... otherwise you'd be your mothers/fathers/sisters/brothers lover.
    prinz wrote: »
    How does it give any more of a guarantee of compatibility?
    It doesn't guarantee you'll be compatible, but you can see if you are. That's the point. In this case, practice is better than theory!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    prinz wrote: »
    How does it give any more of a guarantee of compatibility?

    It would certainly give an indication of sexual compatibility...lack of sexual compatibility, talent, longevity, frequency, etc often cause issues in relationships. If you view sex as an integral part of an adult relationship and deem it as important as other integral aspects then ensuring there is at least a degree of compatibility is as rational as ensuring they have adequate communication skills and similar outlook on life.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    steve06 wrote: »
    The sexual meaning would be the only meaning... otherwise you'd be your mothers/fathers/sisters/brothers lover.

    So you can't tell the difference between romantic love (boyfriend and girlfriend) and platonic love (friends and family)?


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement