Sex before Marriage

smash

Jakkass wrote: »

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

Don't be idiotic. You said your definition of the word lover was "a person who loves someone or is loved by someone"

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It would certainly give an indication of sexual compatibility...lack of sexual compatibility, talent, longevity, frequency, etc often cause issues in relationships..

All of which can be worked on over time like in any relationship.

I'd say what often causes more issues is people getting married believing they have had sex, they lived together for a while, so now if they get married everything's rosy, no more work required.

philologos

steve06 wrote: »

Don't be idiotic. You said your definition of the word lover was "a person who loves someone or is loved by someone"

Granted. One could extend it to that degree. I clearly intended it in terms of romantic love rather than platonic love or agape love because we are discussing romantic relationships (the context). It is obvious that there is a difference between people in romantic love, and friends and family.

MagicMarker

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. I don't think I can simplify it further without getting the coloured letter blocks out.

If you think the second is no more advantageous than the first then why are you suggesting people discuss it in the first place? I think that’s the third time I’ve asked you this question, are you going to ignore it again?

smash

Jakkass wrote: »

Granted. One could extend it to that degree. I clearly intended it in terms of romantic love rather than platonic love or agape love because we are discussing romantic relationships (the context). It is obvious that there is a difference between people in romantic love, and friends and family.

I would say you can love someone, or you can be in love with someone. I would define the word lovers as a couple who are in love. Not someone who loves someone.

prinz wrote: »

All of which can be worked on over time like in any relationship.

I'd say what often causes more issues is people getting married believing they have had sex, they lived together for a while, so now if they get married everything's rosy, no more work required.

It's called ground work. Why would you do it after years of being together just because you're now married. You can do all this at the start and save a lot of hassle, and more to the point, you can see if it's worth it.

prinz

MagicMarker wrote: »

If you think the second is no more advantageous than the first then why are you suggesting people discuss it in the first place? I think that’s the third time I’ve asked you this question, are you going to ignore it again?

Having sex gives no advantage over discussing it properly like adults, how many times do I have to repeat myself. Are you deliberately interpreting what I am saying arseways? At this stage I must assume so.

(one last time, I think discussing it like adults in depth is better. I don't think having sex has any benefits that discussing it properly doesn't, so I do not see why people must have sex to ensure compatibility - because it doesn't ensure anything of the sort)

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

It's called ground work. Why would you do it after years of being together just because you're now married. You can do all this at the start and save a lot of hassle, and more to the point, you can see if it's worth it.

I don't fancy having my partners on a conveyor belt. I know the person I want to be with, in all eventualities... even if it means one day not being able to have sex with that person.

Ickle Magoo

Des Carter wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't even call 6% significant, if you take into consideration all the people who are not happily married but won't divorce I'd say that the difference is even lower.

Des Carter wrote: »

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.

The point was made in reference to Jackass's repeated "if relationships are only based on sex", "issues with sex are not reason to leave", etc comments.

Des Carter wrote: »

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.

I think you'll find marriage doesn't stop any of that. Plenty of people cheat, leave and are emotionally cruel in marriage. Ime people who have issues about sex being wrong or naughty or sacred have far more hang-ups than those comfortable with having sex when they want to have it.

Des Carter wrote: »

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?

Sigh, where did I say that? I wouldn't call them lovers, they'd be boyfriend and girlfriend - it's hardly an all encompassing adult relationship until sex is involved, presumably the important and significant difference is why some people insist on waiting? I've already said barring accidents and I also said I would consider a relationship that no longer had sex to be friendship - it would help if you actually read my posts before jumping in for the sake of an opposing view. :cool:

Des Carter wrote: »

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

It's not just my parents, to date no-one in my family has divorced; the majority had sex before marriage or lived together - yes, we're quite open about these things. I did same and my marriage is still going strong, that's why I'd recommend having sex before marriage or living together. I don't need to pull random googled stats that don't take into consideration half the facts to make the observation or make a recommendation so I'm not sure what your point is.

Prinz wrote:

All of which can be worked on over time like in any relationship.

I'd say what often causes more issues is people getting married believing they have had sex, they lived together for a while, so now if they get married everything's rosy, no more work required.

Sometimes it just can't be worked on and sometimes one party refuses to work on it, some people aren't honest about what they actually want or like. Many have no wish to spend much of married life hoping for an improvement or having to make do, better to check and see there is at least something worth investing in before signing up for the long haul or it's going to be a long, lonely, frustrating trip from the get go.

I seriously don't think anyone in their right mind would enter into marriage thinking all the work is done for the next 50 years because they lived together for a few years, I believe you just pulled that out of your hat. :pac:

Des Carter

steve06 wrote: »

It's called ground work. Why would you do it after years of being together just because you're now married. You can do all this at the start and save a lot of hassle, and more to the point, you can see if it's worth it.

So what you go around and have sex with as many people as possible and marry the person you have the best sex with? Thats ridiculous I mean would it not make more sense to find someone you like/click with etc and then be willing to work and practice the sex if its not great I mean there is a whole internet and books DVDs etc on how to improve your sex or is that too much trouble?

Ickle Magoo

Des Carter wrote: »

So what you go around and have sex with as many people as possible and marry the person you have the best sex with? Thats ridiculous I mean would it not make more sense to find someone you like/click with etc and then be willing to work and practice the sex if its not great I mean there is a whole internet and books DVDs etc on how to improve your sex or is that too much trouble?

Or maybe you check that they have similar outlook in life, similar boundaries, you are emotionally and intellectually compatible and also sexually compatible. It's ridiculous to assume the process that most people work with to find a long-term partner involves having sex with as many people as possible.

Sometimes sex can't be worked on, some people have real sexual hang-ups and sex is off limits or available only grudgingly on birthdays and christmas, some people find no enjoyment from sex and have no interest in having it. You seriously wouldn't appreciate knowing the person you are considering marrying is like that?

MarcusFenix

Im a horny divil!
but that wan is right^^^^ if you have sex with someone and its fantastic but they wreck your head otherwise, thats not curable, no-one wants to be constantly angry with blue balls!;) but if you get on right well with a wan and the sex is dodgey then you can improve that like.

Also the internet has re-spoken, and boy the results are amazering!
http://www.whatdoestheinternetthink.net/index.php?s=purple+monkey+dishwasher&st=google

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

Having sex gives no advantage over discussing it properly like adults, how many times do I have to repeat myself. Are you deliberately interpreting what I am saying arseways? At this stage I must assume so.

(one last time, I think discussing it like adults in depth is better. I don't think having sex has any benefits that discussing it properly doesn't, so I do not see why people must have sex to ensure compatibility - because it doesn't ensure anything of the sort)

YOU say that it doesn’t have any advantage BECAUSE after 4 years one person may want to try something new. That was your whole rationale behind not having sex before marriage. If that is therefore the case, then that would ALSO make any discussions held before marriage equally pointless.

So I’ll ask AGAIN, if you’re convinced that one party may acquire a whole new set of fetishes after 4 years of marriage, then why bother discussing sex before marriage at all? Unless you believe discussing it in the first place will somehow prevent the new fetishes popping up out of no where 4 years in the future.

Seriously, I’m going to have to break out the crayons soon enough.

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Sometimes sex can't be worked on, some people have real sexual hang-ups and sex is off limits or available only grudgingly on birthdays and christmas, some people find no enjoyment from sex and have no interest in having it. You seriously wouldn't appreciate knowing the person you are considering marrying is like that?

Again all made clear with a simple conversation. Really is taken to extremes here that because a couple choose to wait they must never have even considered sex as a topic to discuss.

prinz

MagicMarker wrote: »

Seriously, I’m going to have to break out the crayons soon enough.

Break out the crayons. Have fun colouring in as this seems to be going over your head.

smash

prinz wrote: »

(one last time, I think discussing it like adults in depth is better. I don't think having sex has any benefits that discussing it properly doesn't, so I do not see why people must have sex to ensure compatibility - because it doesn't ensure anything of the sort)

Yea, and people can learn to fly a plane by talking to a pilot too...

Des Carter wrote: »

So what you go around and have sex with as many people as possible and marry the person you have the best sex with?

No, you have a relationship with someone which leads to a sexual relationship. that way you find out if you work together.

Des Carter wrote: »

Thats ridiculous I mean would it not make more sense to find someone you like/click with etc and then be willing to work and practice the sex

Yes.... before you get married!

Des Carter wrote: »

if its not great I mean there is a whole internet and books DVDs etc on how to improve your sex or is that too much trouble?

Or you could just work on it before you get married and if none of that works then you know you have problems. It saves hassle down the line.

prinz wrote: »

Again all made clear with a simple conversation.

I honestly thing that's delusional and not a rational way of thinking at all.

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

Break out the crayons. Have fun colouring in as this seems to be going over your head.

Continue to ignore the question, well done.

gbee

I'll make a comment.

There are a lot of sexual activities, a lot of positions, a lot of fetishes, they can be explored over the years of marriage, there is no need to have experienced every facet of the vast sexual palette to see if you like it or not.

We all go through phases, I my case we've gone as long as three months without sex, and we we not fighting ~ it just happened that way no complains.

We tried things and did not like them, many years later those same things bring variety and a new excitement, which has lead to use trying new ~ great!

Overall, over time we [everybody] gets a little tired of the routines ~ so there is no need to experiment first, the results are inconclusive.

As a youth having a romantic romp in Inchydoney was fantastic, quite memorable but we tried to repeat that recently and we'd have to do it in the bloody car-park ....

Take car guys and gals.

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

Again all made clear with a simple conversation. Really is taken to extremes here that because a couple choose to wait they must never have even considered sex as a topic to discuss.

You can talk all about sex but it will never be anything other than talk, you still have no way of knowing the reality. Sometimes people are not honest about what they like or don't like, deliberately or no, especially if their ideas and ideals are based largely in ignorance. If a couple has never had sex then they have no idea if they have mismatched sex drives, compatibility issues or even if both will like and want to have sex. Now, none of that can be determined by discussion.

It may not even be an important aspect to your relationship but it's an important part of many others. Wanting to know if a marriage, which takes a lot of work at the best of times, is going to be made even harder by having sexual issues thrown into the mix is hardly unreasonable. I would hate to be married to someone who is happy not to ever have sex or have sex rarely, I'm sure someone like that would hate to be married to me, I'm glad I found out before getting married that it wasn't an issue.

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

Yea, and people can learn to fly a plane by talking to a pilot too...

Already covered. Of course there's an aspect of learning on the job, there's also theory and discussion. Or else we could do away with universities etc and just learn everything by trial and error.

steve06 wrote: »

I honestly thing that's delusional and not a rational way of thinking at all.

What is not rational about it?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You can talk all about sex but it will never be anything other than talk, you still have no way of knowing the reality. Sometimes people are not honest about what they like or don't like, deliberately or no, especially if their ideas and ideals are based largely in ignorance.

So you can only tell if you want sex, after you've had sex? When you were still a virgin you never wanted it? You never thought you'd like it?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If a couple has never had sex then they have no idea if they have mismatched sex drives, compatibility issues or even if both will like and want to have sex. Now, none of that can be determined by discussion.

As for mismatched sex drives, compatibility issues etc, these are things which can be worked out in time, like any other issues. Once again all of this can be covered by discussion and more discussion and compromise when the time comes.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It may not even be an important aspect to your relationship but it's an important part of many others. Wanting to know if a marriage, which takes a lot of work at the best of times, is going to be made even harder by having sexual issues thrown into the mix is hardly unreasonable..

It is, a very important aspect No sexual issues as of yet. I knew exactly what I was getting in to. If only we had put as much effort into ironing techniques :pac:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would hate to be married to someone who is happy not to ever have sex or have sex rarely, I'm sure someone like that would hate to be married to me, I'm glad I found out before getting married that it wasn't an issue.

So am I.

smash

prinz wrote: »

So you can only tell if you want sex, after you've had sex? When you were still a virgin you never wanted it? You never thought you'd like it?

no, but after having sex you can tell if it's enjoyable and what you thought it would be. After a few years of discussion I'd hate to be left feeling like it wasn't what we had talked about.

prinz wrote: »

As for mismatched sex drives, compatibility issues etc, these are things which can be worked out in time, like any other issues. Once again all of this can be covered by discussion and more discussion and compromise when the time comes.

No, they can't really be covered by discussion and if they need to be worked out then why not work them out at the start?

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

no, but after having sex you can tell if it's enjoyable and what you thought it would be. After a few years of discussion I'd hate to be left feeling like it wasn't what we had talked about.

Sex is as good as you make it to be.

steve06 wrote: »

No, they can't really be covered by discussion and if they need to be worked out then why not work them out at the start?

Ah but they can. Just maybe not in your compromise-free world.

GrumPy

Some of you guys havn't stopped posting on this thread since it was created.
Would it not be easier to just arrange a duel and settle it once and for all?

smash

prinz wrote: »

Sex is as good as you make it to be.

It takes 2 people, so it depends how much the other is willing to participate doesn't it.

prinz wrote: »

Ah but they can. Just maybe not in your compromise-free world.

Theory vs practice is the same as fantasy vs reality.

gbee

GrumPy wrote: »

Some of you guys havn't stopped posting on this thread since it was created.
Would it not be easier to just arrange a duel and settle it once and for all?

Condoms at dawn?

gbee

steve06 wrote: »

Theory vs practice is the same as fantasy vs reality.

A lot of sex psychologists would agree. Particularly for the male, his expectations are usually influenced by fantasy, bravado and high stories from his peers.

smash

And for women they're influenced by hollywood crap!

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

It takes 2 people, so it depends how much the other is willing to participate doesn't it..

Of course. Never said differently.

steve06 wrote: »

Theory vs practice is the same as fantasy vs reality.

Not quite.

kfallon

Get a room the lot of ye......

Xios

Waiting for sex after marriage is just as retarded as using herbal medicine. People gotta realise the old ways, are and always will be, Re-Tar-DED

---

More power to the science bulldozer

Brendog

In all honesty sex before marraige is fine....


Its better!!

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

So you can only tell if you want sex, after you've had sex? When you were still a virgin you never wanted it? You never thought you'd like it?

I have never had an issue with liking sex or wanting to have sex, so I'm hardly the kind of person I'm referring to. I should think the kind of people who don't enjoy sex in a marriage or only want it once in a blue moon didn't enter into a relationship thinking they wouldn't like/enjoy/want sex.

prinz wrote: »

As for mismatched sex drives, compatibility issues etc, these are things which can be worked out in time, like any other issues. Once again all of this can be covered by discussion and more discussion and compromise when the time comes.

Again, sometimes they can't. Some people do not wish to compromise or will not discuss or try to address issues. I would hate to get saddled with someone who didn't like sex and only obliged their partner once in a blue moon and refused to discuss it, like the case in PI recently.

I view sex like any other aspect of a relationship, they all add together to give the full package. For instance, I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who has lousy communication skills or is selfish - even if I wanted to spend the time and energy holding their hand and walking them through with discussion after discussion stating the obvious, trying to mould them into something they are not - with so many great people in the world to choose from, I don't see the point of not going for someone that ticks as many of the boxes as possible from the off.

prinz wrote: »

It is, a very important aspect No sexual issues as of yet. I knew exactly what I was getting in to. If only we had put as much effort into ironing techniques :pac:

You have to accept there is a raft of issues that certainly do surface in others relationships though; one party unsatisfied and growing resentful, refusal to deal with sexual issues, refusal to have sex, etc, etc, etc. Now, obviously having sex prior to marriage is only a gauge that the other party enjoys sex as much and as often as you do at that time and is no guarantee that issues won't crop up down the line but at least a quality/frequency/open and frank discussions about sex precedence that is based in the reality has been set and if they are truly awful in bed or just aren't that into sex then it's going to be obvious long before legal proceedings become necessary.

prinz wrote:

Sex is as good as you make it to be.

Not really. Sometimes people just click and the sex is mind-blowing from day one - immediately up to a level that no amount of teaching, learning, discussions, whatever would bring another match to.

HalloweenJack

Sex is a very important part of a relationship.

It'd be a lot smarter to have it and see how your partners' sexual appetite compares with yours before even moving in together, let along getting married.

I'm not against getting to know someone before sleeping with them but I'm definitely against getting married before sleeping with that person. It'd be madness to commit yourself to someone for life without knowing whether you guys are sexually compatible.

My name is URL

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I'm not against getting to know someone before sleeping with them but I'm definitely against getting married before sleeping with that person. It'd be madness to commit yourself to someone for life without knowing whether you guys are sexually compatible.

I don't think anyone would commit to not having sex if they didn't share the want to do so, would they? I mean it's not as if they'd be chained to the wall and not allowed to leave!

If one half of the couple isn't happy with not having sex before marriage then it's unlikely that they're going to get as far as marriage in the first place. As for the sexual compatibility thing, I'd imagine after years of abstinence, the couple would become more interested in other aspects to their partner than to allow bad sex to be the reason for their falling out.

smash

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't think anyone would commit to not having sex if they didn't share the want to do so, would they? I mean it's not as if they'd be chained to the wall and not allowed to leave!

But expressing that they would like to have sex after marriage doesn't mean it's going to be any good or that you share the same sexual interests.

My name is URL wrote: »

As for the sexual compatibility thing, I'd imagine after years of abstinence, the couple would become more interested in other aspects to their partner than to allow bad sex to be the reason for their falling out.

But sex is a major factor in a relationship. Because you haven't done it for years, or ever, it doesn't mean that you should just accept it's mediocre at best or that it should remain that way if both parties can't negotiate.

My name is URL

steve06 wrote: »

But expressing that they would like to have sex after marriage doesn't mean it's going to be any good or that you share the same sexual interests.

If they're deeply in love with each other then the sex isn't going to be bad, or at least it wouldn't be insufferable.. may not be great but I wonder how many couples genuinely have great sex. I think you're applying your own outlooks on relationships to that of everyone else, which is kind of unfair.

But sex is a major factor in a relationship. Because you haven't done it for years, or ever, it doesn't mean that you should just accept it's mediocre at best or that it should remain that way if both parties can't negotiate.

It's one of many major factors, and probably not as major as many of those other factors. What about emotional bonds, sense of security & surety and so on? I'd say they play a bigger part in long term a relationship than great sex does.

I don't think that abstinence is something that people should be expected to abide by.. I know I couldn't! But I think it's unfair for people who choose to give it a go to be called old fashioned or as someone a few posts up said, "retarded". It's about personal choice, and in my opinion if 2 people are able to find a deeper connection to one another than one just based on sex, then fair play to them

smash

My name is URL wrote: »

If they're deeply in love with each other then the sex isn't going to be bad, or at least it wouldn't be insufferable..

It depends if you separate love and sex.

My name is URL wrote: »

may not be great but I wonder how many couples genuinely have great sex.

Sex is what you make of it, it takes 2 to tango and if one isn't willing then you're not compatible... back to the same argument again.

My name is URL wrote: »

I think you're applying your own outlooks on relationships to that of everyone else, which is kind of unfair.

That's what everyone in this thread is doing.

My name is URL wrote: »

It's one of many major factors, and probably not as major as many of those other factors. What about emotional bonds, sense of security & surety and so on? I'd say they play a bigger part in long term a relationship than great sex does.

Sex plays a massive part in a relationship. Ask any psychologist.

My name is URL wrote: »

But I think it's unfair for people who choose to give it a go to be called old fashioned or as someone a few posts up said, "retarded".

It's unfair to say it's retarded, but there's no denying it's old fashioned.

My name is URL wrote: »

It's about personal choice, and in my opinion if 2 people are able to find a deeper connection to one another than one just based on sex, then fair play to them

Nobody's given that as a reason for not having sex, and if they did it wouldn't really be valid in my opinion because I would have thought that sex makes a deeper connection between 2 people. You can't get more intimate than that.

allymcbeal

HavingCrack wrote: »

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.

Yes I am well aware that stds can be caught through other means - i think most people are but i was referring to catching stds through sex, which obviously the more people you sleep with you are at a higher risk.

Des Carter

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I wouldn't even call 6% significant, if you take into consideration all the people who are not happily married but won't divorce I'd say that the difference is even lower.

Again Im not arguing about statistics because as I said its pointless but I wasnt referring to those stats I read it somewhere else that divorce rate is lower among those who wait but I explained why that is and I repeat there are no stats in relation to happy marriages.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The point was made in reference to Jackass's repeated "if relationships are only based on sex", "issues with sex are not reason to leave", etc comments.

Fair enough but I dont see what that has to do with sex inside/outide of marriage so Ill leave that issue alone.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think you'll find marriage doesn't stop any of that. Plenty of people cheat, leave and are emotionally cruel in marriage.

I never said marriage stopped that stuff I was just making the point that being promiscuous is bad for both your mental and physical health. But this is going off topic a bit.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Ime people who have issues about sex being wrong or naughty or sacred have far more hang-ups than those comfortable with having sex when they want to have it.

Why do you assume that people who wait until marriage have issues about sex being wrong or naughty. I intend to wait and I have no hang-ups and would be willing to try lots of things.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Sigh, where did I say that? I wouldn't call them lovers, they'd be boyfriend and girlfriend - it's hardly an all encompassing adult relationship until sex is involved, presumably the important and significant difference is why some people insist on waiting? I've already said barring accidents and I also said I would consider a relationship that no longer had sex to be friendship - it would help if you actually read my posts before jumping in for the sake of an opposing view.

Maybe you should read your own post as I was not referring to your use of the word lover I was referring to what you said after it:

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?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's not just my parents, to date no-one in my family has divorced; the majority had sex before marriage or lived together - yes, we're quite open about these things. I did same and my marriage is still going strong, that's why I'd recommend having sex before marriage or living together.

Is it possible to contradict yourself any more than you just have as when arguing about the stats you said marriages are often unhappy but don’t get divorced and they should. I mean it is possible these couples that you know are having problems but just don’t tell you.

as you said yourself:

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.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't need to pull random googled stats that don't take into consideration half the facts to make the observation or make a recommendation so I'm not sure what your point is.

Im not using stats to back up anything as Iv said before.

MagicMarker

allymcbeal wrote: »

Yes I am well aware that stds can be caught through other means - i think most people are but i was referring to catching stds through sex, which obviously the more people you sleep with you are at a higher risk.

So you're just going to stay a virgin until marriage and only marry a virgin?

Des Carter

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Or maybe you check that they have similar outlook in life, similar boundaries, you are emotionally and intellectually compatible and also sexually compatible.

I Agree 100%

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's ridiculous to assume the process that most people work with to find a long-term partner involves having sex with as many people as possible.

Agree but thats the impression Im getting from reading some of these posts.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Sometimes sex can't be worked on, some people have real sexual hang-ups and sex is off limits or available only grudgingly on birthdays and christmas, some people find no enjoyment from sex and have no interest in having it. You seriously wouldn't appreciate knowing the person you are considering marrying is like that?

Then Surely you would know about these hang-ups before you get married?

allymcbeal

MagicMarker wrote: »

So you're just going to stay a virgin until marriage and only marry a virgin?

Yes to the first question. I don't know about the second one-might not meet someone who is a virgin. Obviously then I know its possible to catch an std but there is less risk than if 2 people were sleeping around.

Anyway my main reason for saying no to the poll is not because of the reduced risk of catching an std - that is just a benefit.

My name is URL

steve06 wrote: »

Sex is what you make of it, it takes 2 to tango

Exactly the point..! but a pity you only see it happening in one way.. that someone is going to be left unfulfilled!

there's no denying it's old fashioned...

...sex makes a deeper connection between 2 people

Is it the deepest of connections though? You say ask any psychologist.. well there's plenty on here to ask! I'd question just how big a part sex plays in comparison to other aspects which I mentioned earlier.

Sex is the physical display of your feelings towards another person. If your feelings dictate that if you don't cum then the relationship is bad then I'd consider that to be the old fashioned view =p

Des Carter

allymcbeal wrote: »

Yes to the first question. I don't know about the second one-might not meet someone who is a virgin. Obviously then I know its possible to catch an std but there is less risk than if 2 people were sleeping around.

Anyway my main reason for saying no to the poll is not because of the reduced risk of catching an std - that is just a benefit.

Its alright ally Ill marry ya and we can have std free sex all night :cool:

smash

My name is URL wrote: »

Exactly the point..! but a pity you only see it happening in one way.. that someone is going to be left unfulfilled!

there's a reason that vibrators are so popular.

My name is URL wrote: »

Is it the deepest of connections though? You say ask any psychologist.. well there's plenty on here to ask! I'd question just how big a part sex plays in comparison to other aspects which I mentioned earlier.

I'm guessing it plays a large part. That's how I feel about it, Others feel the same.

My name is URL wrote: »

Sex is the physical display of your feelings towards another person.

So you have to be married to show a physical display?

My name is URL wrote: »

If your feelings dictate that if you don't cum then the relationship is bad then I'd consider that to be the old fashioned view =p

Doesn't mean the relationship is bad, it means the sex is bad, or at least not great. And that's not old fashioned.

Prof.Badass

In the pre-contraceptive days "no sex before marraige" made a lot of sense. Nowadays it's not so neccesary, but i do think people are too quick into bed .

I am a strong believer in both parents getting to raise their own children, and for this reason I am an advocate of monogamy.

I worry slighty that if people get used to having sex with many different people, (and I worry a lot that if they get into the habit of getting into loving relationships and breaking them up when the feelings start to fade) that they'll find it harder to stay with the one person once they decide to settle down and have childen.

I think ultimately people would be happier if they let love come before sex and if they treated relationships with the seriousness they deserve.

I'm an anti-theist btw.

smash

Were not talking about people that sleep around, we're talking about people in relationships who aren't married.

And if feelings fade then they fade, it doesn't matter if you're married or not.

Prof.Badass

steve06 wrote: »

Were not talking about people that sleep around, we're talking about people in relationships who aren't married.

And if feelings fade then they fade, it doesn't matter if you're married or not.

Yes but it makes a huge difference whether you can accept that the romantic phase of your life is over and you are now in the child-rearing phase of your life, or if you fuck up your family by selfishly trying to stay in the romantic phase of your life forever.

Ickle Magoo

Des Carter wrote: »

Why do you assume that people who wait until marriage have issues about sex being wrong or naughty. I intend to wait and I have no hang-ups and would be willing to try lots of things.

I didn't assume anything, you you are taking sentences and gluing them together your own way again - how does "people who have issues about sex being wrong or naughty or sacred" magically become "people who wait until marriage have issues about sex "? I didn't say anything about people in general, I specifically said Ime - in my experience - exactly the same phrase you used to suggest the opposite.

Des Carter wrote: »

Is it possible to contradict yourself any more than you just have as when arguing about the stats you said marriages are often unhappy but don’t get divorced and they should. I mean it is possible these couples that you know are having problems but just don’t tell you.

It's certainly possible but the way they tease each other about sex and tell each other about fights and annoyances with each other, go merrily on holidays together and are pretty open and honest about most things, I think that's pretty doubtful.

It's hardly a contradiction to point to a few obviously loving and still into horniness couples that lived together or had sex together prior to marriage and also point out that marriage is no guarantee of having a loving and still into horniness relationship.

Des Carter wrote:

Then Surely you would know about these hang-ups before you get married?

They would be impossible to hide if you lived with them for a few years first, certainly. :cool:

smash

@prof.badass - The romantic phase of your life should never be over, especially if you have children. If it's over, then the relationship is over!

You have a pretty sad view on relationships in my opinion.

Prof.Badass

steve06 wrote: »

The romantic phase of your life should never be over, especially if you have children. If it's over, then the relationship is over!

So does the bond you'd have with your children mean nothing to you?
I'd like to think it would mean a lot to me, enough to not make me want to abandon them.

Assuming you are male (based on your username), then you'd probably particularly suffer from the breakdown of a relationship in which there are children involved.

If you honestly expect to stay madly in love with your partner for 18+ years then i can't see you lasting a marraige tbh. Maybe I'm being a bit pessimistic, but with the amount of relationships with children involved failing you have to wonder.... I'm prepared either way.