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 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
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
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
MagicMarker wrote: »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
0 -
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
call me weird0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Ickle Magoo wrote: »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? 0 -
-
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.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. 0 -
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?
Where in my post that you quoted did I mention people who wait? 0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »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#2Cohabiting 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.Ickle Magoo wrote: »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.Ickle Magoo wrote: »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?Ickle Magoo wrote: »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!0 -
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)...?
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.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.This line in particular is absolutely ridiculous. So a loving relationship without sex, is the same thing as an average friendship?
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.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! 0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »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)...?
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.Ickle Magoo wrote: »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.Ickle Magoo wrote: »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.Ickle Magoo wrote: »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!Ickle Magoo wrote: »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.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
MagicMarker wrote: »Apparently there is no HPV test for men.
Ah, so there isn't! My bad!
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.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
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.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.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.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?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:0 -
Ah, so there isn't! My bad!
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 ****?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
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.Ickle Magoo wrote: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.0 -
-
Ickle Magoo wrote: »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.Ickle Magoo wrote: »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.Ickle Magoo wrote: »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? 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? Ickle Magoo wrote: »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.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement