Sex before Marriage

Ickle Magoo

Prof.Badass wrote: »

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.

Assuming you are male (based on your username), then you'd probably particularly suffer from the breakdown 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 I'm prepared either way.

Why does having a bond with your children and having a loving, intense relationship with a spouse appear to be impossible to maintain simultaneously in your world? Why do you think people shouldn't expect or will not be madly in love after 18+ years? You are waaaaaaay pessimistic and frankly looking forward to that kind of relationship once the kiddies come would have me running in the opposite direction.

Prof.Badass

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why does having a bond with your children and having a loving, intense relationship with a spouse appear to be impossible to maintain simultaneously in your world? Why do you think people shouldn't expect or will not be madly in love after 18+ years? You are waaaaaaay pessimistic and frankly looking forward to that kind of relationship once the kiddies come would have me running in the opposite direction.

Mostly what I see around me, what other people tell me and a lot of pondering on evolutionary psychology. I can't list personal experience so I'm open to correction.

I don't expect loving feelings to dissappear completely in a marraige, just that a deeper bond based more on mutual respect and cooperation (and that requires work) will replace the emotional euphoria of the early days.

smash

Prof.Badass wrote: »

So does the bond you'd have with your children mean nothing to you?

What has your bond with your children got to do with your relationship with your wife? Are you saying once you have kids you should forget your wife?

Prof.Badass wrote: »

I'd like to think it would mean a lot to me, enough to not make me want to abandon them.

why would you abandon them just because you're in loving relationship with your wife?

Prof.Badass wrote: »

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.

What are you talking about? Why would you assume there'd be a breakdown?

Prof.Badass wrote: »

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.

So you think that when you have kids love goes out the window and you should forget about your wife, but never get divorced?

You're crazy!

allymcbeal

Des Carter wrote: »

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

Ritey so I look forward to it!!:cool:

smash

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Mostly what I see around me, what other people tell me and a lot of pondering on evolutionary psychology. I can't list personal experience so I'm open to correction..

You're looking in the wrong places, talking to the wrong people and pondering over the wrong things. Seriously, I pity the woman you might end up with.

Prof.Badass wrote: »

I don't expect loving feelings to dissappear completely in a marraige, just that a deeper bond based more on mutual respect and cooperation (and that requires work) will replace the emotional euphoria of the early days.

Mutual respect should be there from the start, it doesn't replace love!

philologos

Prof.Badass - I have to agree with the others on this one. While I do think it would be better considered to wait until marriage, I also agree with Ickle Magoo and steve06 that marriage should be based on a premise of love that would continue far beyond the child-rearing age. "Till death do us part" is a fairly important aspect of the whole thing for me where it is really possible, rather than flogging a dead-horse relationship.

Ickle Magoo

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Mostly what I see around me, what other people tell me and a lot of pondering on evolutionary psychology. I can't list personal experience so I'm open to correction.

I don't expect loving feelings to dissappear completely in a marraige, just that a deeper bond based more on mutual respect and cooperation (and that requires work) will replace the emotional euphoria of the early days.

You don't expect loving feelings to disappear completely? What? :eek: Just mostly? That is a really unhealthy attitude and if people are telling you they don't love their spouse as much if not more than when they married them then that sounds like a pretty miserable marriage. From my experience it's a nonsense that kids = end of sex life or romance - I am both married and a parent of two. My grandparents hugged and snogged infront of us after 60+yrs marriage ffs - why on earth would assume the love in a marriage breaks down after children is beyond me.

Des Carter

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

So you meant that people who have issues about sex being wrong or naughty or sacred have far more hang-ups. If this is correct I misunderstood you and I would tend to agree with you but this is totally off topic. I also disagree with the sacred part as I see sex as sacred or at least a very emotional bonding experience between two people who love each other unconditionally and I have no hang-ups.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

I think your being a bit naive on your part as it is impossible to know what goes on behind closed doors. I also never said that all marriages where premarital sex has taken place would fail.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

True but they would also be hard to hide while your messing around (but not actually having sex):cool:

If ProfB is talking about moving from honeymoon stage to the long-term stage then I can kinda understand where he's coming from, though it's coming across pretty badly...

smash

bluewolf wrote: »

If ProfB is talking about moving from honeymoon stage to the long-term stage then I can kinda understand where he's coming from, though it's coming across pretty badly...

Hey, it takes 2 people to leave the honeymoon stage, but if 1 person puts in a bit of effort every now and then, it keeps it going and it doesn't have to end.

Ickle Magoo

Des Carter wrote: »

So you meant that people who have issues about sex being wrong or naughty or sacred have far more hang-ups. If this is correct I misunderstood you and I would tend to agree with you but this is totally off topic. I also disagree with the sacred part as I see sex as sacred or at least a very emotional bonding experience between two people who love each other unconditionally and I have no hang-ups.

Yes. Again, as I don't know you - you would hardly be "in my experience" would you?

Des Carter wrote: »

I think your being a bit naive on your part as it is impossible to know what goes on behind closed doors. I also never said that all marriages where premarital sex has taken place would fail.

Lol, I would say you don't know how my family operates, it's a little unconventional.

I didn't say that you did, where do get this denying or pushing points that have never been made from?

Des Carter wrote: »

True but they would also be hard to hide while your messing around (but not actually having sex):cool:

No, it wouldn't really. If you are not having sex then you have no idea if sex is going to be enjoyed or wanted on the longer term by either party. The ease of mucking around when you meet up every day or so is exactly why living together and having sex is something I would recommend - I dated a guy who was great to date and "mess around with", he was a complete nightmare to live with - no way I was risking that situ for marriage. :pac:

Prof.Badass

steve06 wrote: »

What has your bond with your children got to do with your relationship with your wife? Are you saying once you have kids you should forget your wife?

You said "Once the romantic phase is over, the relationship is over", which i took to mean you would happily break up your family just because the chemical buzz you feel around your wife is no longer the same (correct me if i am wrong).

why would you abandon them just because you're in loving relationship with your wife?What are you talking about? Why would you assume there'd be a breakdown?

This is a fictional scenario where the raw feelings you have for your wife have started to fade (but you're still on really good terms).

So you think that when you have kids love goes out the window and you should forget about your wife, but never get divorced?

You're crazy!

I don't think love goes out the window, but i do think the chemical buzz starts to decrease over time. Not least because it's human nature for the hedonistic euphoria something causes to decrease as you begin to take that thing for granted.

steve06 wrote: »

You're looking in the wrong places, talking to the wrong people and pondering over the wrong things. Seriously, I pity the woman you might end up with.

Thank you for that. I on the other hand think I would make an excellent husband :cool:.

Mutual respect should be there from the start, it doesn't replace love!

I think mutual respect should keep getting stronger over the years, I don't think the same of intense romantic feelings.

The euphoria of the early days helps bring a couple together, but while this is happening they should be building a solid foundation for their relationship. The relationship should not crumble because the chemical buzz isn't what it used to be. Especially if children are involved.

Jakkass wrote: »

Prof.Badass - I have to agree with the others on this one. While I do think it would be better considered to wait until marriage, I also agree with Ickle Magoo and steve06 that marriage should be based on a premise of love that would continue far beyond the child-rearing age. "Till death do us part" is a fairly important aspect of the whole thing for me where it is really possible, rather than flogging a dead-horse relationship.

It depends how you define love. Also, just because you don't feel the same intense euphoria all the time does not mean it's a dead-horse relationship.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You don't expect loving feelings to disappear completely? What? :eek: Just mostly? That is a really unhealthy attitude and if people are telling you they don't love their spouse as much if not more than when they married them then that sounds like a pretty miserable marriage. From my experience it's a nonsense that kids = end of sex life or romance - I am both married and a parent of two. My grandparents hugged and snogged infront of us after 60+yrs marriage ffs - why on earth would assume the love in a marriage breaks down after children is beyond me.

I don't assume that love breaks down (that depends on how you define "love"), i just think that the chemical buzz becomes less intense over time. This is based mostly on observing the staggering rate of relationships with children that fail nowadays. Only 5% of people max are horrible enough to cause an irrepairable relationship. That's a max 10% of relationships that should be failing. In reality we're seeing a lot more than that. Something is wrong.

I'm inclined to think that thing is that we're evolutionarily predisposed to fall out of love with someone when there's been no children born in the last few years, to stay together after this phase requires work, but is ultimately worth it.

Ickle Magoo

Prof.Badass wrote: »

I don't assume that love breaks down (that depends on how you define "love"), i just think that the chemical buzz becomes less intense over time. This is based mostly on observing the staggering rate of relationships with children that fail nowadays. Only 5% of people max are horrible enough to cause an irrepairable relationship. That's a max 10% of relationships that should be failing (and in reality unsavoury characters can attract each other a lot of the time). In reality we're seeing a lot more than that. Something is wrong.

How do you know that only 5% max are horrible?

How do I define love? I define my love of my spouse on the love I've always had for them, it doesn't diminish or become mutual respect (which we had prior to getting married or there wouldn't have been a marriage) because we are parents.

I don't disagree that over time people can change and therefore so do their relationships - sometimes to the detriment of the relationship but suggesting children are the cause of that is making a bit of a leap. The majority of marriages will produce children, I don't think that most marriages that end in divorce involve couples with children is that surprising - I wouldn't assume the causation is those children tho.

Prof.Badass

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How do you know that only 5% max are horrible?

How do I define love? I define my love of my spouse on the love I've always had for them, it doesn't diminish or become mutual respect (which we had prior to getting married or there wouldn't have been a marriage) because we are parents.

I don't disagree that over time people can change and therefore so do their relationships - sometimes to the detriment of the relationship but suggesting children are the cause of that is making a bit of a leap. The majority of marriages will produce children, I don't think that most marriages that end in divorce involve couples with children is that surprising - I wouldn't assume the causation is those children tho.

I don't for one second think that the fading of feelings is due to children, rather that naturally this deficit would be more than replaced with new feelings for the children you now have.

Ickle Magoo

Prof.Badass wrote: »

I don't for one second think that the fading of feelings is due to children, rather that naturally this deficit would be more than replaced with new feelings for the children you now have.

Do you seriously think people have a finite source of love and affection? I'm baffled by your posts.

Prof.Badass

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Do you seriously think people have a finite source of love and affection? I'm baffled by your posts.

I would be inclined to think the raw animal emotion declines over time with a romantic partner (and should be replaced by something deeper- when i say replace it is because i think this takes more time to develop), i would also be inclined to think the raw animal emotion you feel towards your children decreases somewhat as they grow up too.

Ickle Magoo

:eek:

Jeepers, I'm glad I don't have any of your inclinations or raw animal emotion.

Emotion declines within a marriage and now parents don't love their kids as much when they grow up? Nope. You've lost me, I think you may need a wee chat with someone though.

oldyouth

I'm not reading through all the posts to see if this has been covered already. I'm from the middle aged generation of people you contribute here. Sex is an essential part of what makes a couple compatable for life and to leave that aspect to chance until you are married is completely stupid.

If there are any difficulties in this area, it is better understand them now rather than when it is too late.

smash

Prof.badass I'm actually speechless reading your posts. There's too much that I could reply to so I won't bother. You seem to have no idea at all what relationships, love or having children is all about. And stop throwing out bullish!t statistics!

Des Carter

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yes. Again, as I don't know you - you would hardly be "in my experience" would you?

fair enough so are you saying that you know people who dont think sex is wrong or naughty but do think its sacred? IF yes do these people have hang-ups? I also think that if I am correct then Ill assume there are only a few and so you shouldnt base your theories on such a small number of examples. (sorry if this is phrased badly/makes no sense - Im tired)

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Lol, I would say you don't know how my family operates, it's a little unconventional.

True I havent a clue how your family operates but if it works fair play.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I didn't say that you did, where do get this denying or pushing points that have never been made from?

Sorry, I phrased that badly. I just meant that you may well be right in that the marriages your talking about are happy ones as I believe that marriages can strive when premarital sex has taken place.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, it wouldn't really. If you are not having sex then you have no idea if sex is going to be enjoyed or wanted on the longer term by either party. The ease of mucking around when you meet up every day or so is exactly why living together and having sex is something I would recommend - I dated a guy who was great to date and "mess around with", he was a complete nightmare to live with - no way I was risking that situ for marriage. :pac:

Ok this is baffling. Why are you interlinking sexual compatability and living together???? These are clearly two seperate issues.

My original point was that if you are considering getting married then you would have spent a lot of time with your OH. Now in that time a lot of shenanigans would have occured and from those sexual encounters you would have a fair idea of how compatible you are.

Also I would assume that if you were going out long enough to be thinking about marriage you would have spent a lot of time in your OHs apartment, house, place of residence, you may have even stayed over at theirs for weekends or longer (eg sharing an apartment) and so you will know wheather or not they are a complete nightmare to live with. :cool:

Saermegil

This thread wouldn't happen in any other European country - only in Ireland!

Ickle Magoo

Des Carter wrote: »

fair enough so are you saying that you know people who dont think sex is wrong or naughty but do think its sacred? IF yes do these people have hang-ups? I also think that if I am correct then Ill assume there are only a few and so you shouldnt base your theories on such a small number of examples. (sorry if this is phrased badly/makes no sense - Im tired)

Exactly as your reference to your frame of experience.

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok this is baffling. Why are you interlinking sexual compatability and living together???? These are clearly two seperate issues.

My original point was that if you are considering getting married then you would have spent a lot of time with your OH. Now in that time a lot of shenanigans would have occured and from those sexual encounters you would have a fair idea of how compatible you are.

Also I would assume that if you were going out long enough to be thinking about marriage you would have spent a lot of time in your OHs apartment, house, place of residence, you may have even stayed over at theirs for weekends or longer (eg sharing an apartment) and so you will know wheather or not they are a complete nightmare to live with. :cool:

Living together and compatibility are not separate issues, especially if the issue is how compatible you are living together. If you think that spending the odd weekend together, even a couple of weeks on holiday or fooling around is anything akin to living with someone and having a full sexual relationship, then I can see what is baffling you.

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.

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.

That isn't what you said in your first post that I was referring to if you look back at it again. You said if you or your partner hasnt had sex before you won't catch an sti. I pointed out that it is possible to catch an sti through other means.

HavingCrack

Prof.Badass wrote: »

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.

What are you on about??? Why would you presume every married person wants to have children anyway???

Saermegil wrote: »

This thread wouldn't happen in any other European country - only in Ireland!

The overwhelming majority are in favour of pre marital sex so there hasn't really been any difference in opinion you'd find naywhere else in Europe.

Prof.Badass

HavingCrack wrote: »

What are you on about??? Why would you presume every married person wants to have children anyway???

Well if there are no children involved then does it doesn't really matter that much if the couple decide to end the relationship just because the feelings aren't as intense as they used to be.

smash

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Well if there are no children involved then does it doesn't really matter that much if the couple decide to end the relationship (assuming they would both like to end it).

And if one party wants to end it?

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

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

"I'm waiting for that someone special"- grand
"I'm waiting til I get someone to sign a binding legal contract with me" - eh...

Prof.Badass

steve06 wrote: »

And if one party wants to end it?

Well then i guess the other person will suffer, but can you really expect someone to stay in a relationship where they do not love the other person (merely out of compassion for them). At least in a relationship with children you still love your children.

If my future wife who I love decides to end our childless marriage, then It's sad, but it's not the worst. As a non-believer i don't see it as that much worse than a normal ending of a long-term relationship.

But if my future wife (who it doesn't matter if i love or not) decides to end our marriage and take my own children away from me then it's pretty ****ing serious :mad:.

I guess the question is "what are the drawbacks of serial monogamy as opposed to pure monogamy?". The answer depends on the person.

Imo there are two major drawbacks:

1. You have to admit to yourself that you are a slave to your subconcious and that those intense feelings that come with each relationship (that feel so meaningful) are on a rational, non-emotional level: completely meaningless (whereas with pure monogamy they are not meaningless- because you give them meaning).

2. If you ever do decide to settle down and have children you might find it harder to stay with your partner because you are in the habit of leaving as soon as the feelings start to fade/any work needs to be put into the relationship.

And if you already have children then the benifits of pure monogamy are obvious.

smash

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Well then i guess the other person will suffer, but can you really expect someone to stay in a relationship where they do not love the other person (merely out of compassion for them). At least in a relationship with children you still love your children.

But you believe in monogamy???

Prof.Badass wrote: »

But if my future wife (who it doesn't matter if i love or not) decides to end our marriage and take my own children away from me then it's pretty ****ing serious :mad:.

Why would you think she would take them away from you? And if you didn't love her why would you be with her?

Prof.Badass wrote: »

1. You have to admit to yourself that you are a slave to your subconcious and that those intense feelings that come with each relationship (that feel so meaningful) are on a rational, non-emotional level: completely meaningless.

so now feelings are meaningless?

Prof.Badass wrote: »

2. If you ever do decide to settle down and have children you might find it harder to stay with your partner because you are in the habit of leaving as soon as the feelings start to fade/any work needs to be put into the relationship.

No that's not how relationships work... they need constant work, and it's from both sides!

Prof.Badass wrote: »

And if you already have children then the benifits of pure monogamy are obvious.

No they're not. If you're not happy and it's not getting better, then you're not happy and it affects everyone and it shouldn't be keep up. In the end, the children will be worse off.

Prof.Badass

steve06 wrote: »

But you believe in monogamy???

Yes, because i really want to have children someday. If someone can honestly tell me that they never want to have children, then i couldn't care less what they do. "knock yourself out" I would tell them.

Why would you think she would take them away from you?

It's common procedure these days for the woman to get majority custody of the children after separation. If she was really nice she would give me 50%, but this is still inferior to the 100% i would get if we stayed together.

And if you didn't love her why would you be with her?

Because I love my children.

so now feelings are meaningless?

On a rational level I would think so. It is up to us to give them meaning. I could go shoot up some speedballs and feel as much pleasure as is neurologically possible! Is this feeling really truely meaningful on a rational level though?

I would think not.

No they're not. If you're not happy and it's not getting better, then you're not happy and it affects everyone and it shouldn't be keep up. In the end, the children will be worse off.

Who said you wouldn't be happy? As long as my wife is mature and respectful then I'd be perfectly happy staying with her to raise our children regardless of how much of the romantic euphoria is still there. She'd really have to be some bitch to make me rather lose out on raising my children than to stay with her- and i'd like to think i can spot this type of person a mile away.

HavingCrack

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Well then i guess the other person will suffer, but can you really expect someone to stay in a relationship where they do not love the other person (merely out of compassion for them). At least in a relationship with children you still love your children.

If my future wife who I love decides to end our childless marriage, then It's sad, but it's not the worst. As a non-believer i don't see it as that much worse than a normal ending of a long-term relationship.

But if my future wife (who it doesn't matter if i love or not) decides to end our marriage and take my own children away from me then it's pretty ****ing serious :mad:.
.

Prof.Badass wrote: »

It's common procedure these days for the woman to get majority custody of the children after separation. If she was really nice she would give me 50%, but this is still inferior to the 100% i would get if we stayed together. Because I love my children.


Who said you wouldn't be happy? As long as my wife is mature and respectful then I'd be perfectly happy staying with her to raise our children regardless of how much of the romantic euphoria is still there. She'd really have to be some bitch to make me rather lose out on raising my children than to stay with her- and i'd like to think i can spot this type of person a mile away.

I think my feelings on your posts are best summed by Blink 182 of all people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1BFHYtZlAU

You're the sort of person that song is about ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

smash

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Yes, because i really want to have children someday. If someone can honestly tell me that they never want to have children, then i couldn't care less what they do. "knock yourself out" I would tell them.

monogamy has nothing to do with children.

Prof.Badass wrote: »

It's common procedure these days for the woman to get majority custody of the children after separation. If she was really nice she would give me 50%, but this is still inferior to the 100% i would get if we stayed together.

If she didn't want to be with you, then you have no choice.

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Because I love my children.

So what? you'd lead an unhappy miserable life because you love your children... and you think that would be good for them?

Prof.Badass wrote: »

On a rational level I would think so. It is up to us to give them meaning. I could go shoot up some speedballs and feel as much pleasure as is neurologically possible! Is this feeling really truely meaningful on a rational level though?

You can't compare the 2. And stop trying to rationalise love, it will get you nowhere but heartache.

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Who said you wouldn't be happy? As long as my wife is mature and respectful then I'd be perfectly happy staying with her to raise our children regardless of how much of the romantic euphoria is still there. She'd really have to be some bitch to make me rather lose out on raising my children than to stay with her- and i'd like to think i can spot this type of person a mile away.

Seriously, you have issues. And I really don't think you'll find another person like you out there that thinks like this.

AudreyHepburn

Just a little OT, but not really.

I'm curious......people here seem to implying that sex, rather than being one of many important parts of a relationship, is the most important part, the thing that makes it what is, thing thing that holds two people together.

Now I agree it is important, but surely there is more to a relationship than that? To me at least there is.

Some-one mentioned that relationship minus sex is just friendship, others say it's pointless or it can never work.

Say I were married but my husband was in an accident and ended up paralysed......is the belief here that we should not remain married but simply be friends because we cannot have sex due to his injuries?

Is sex so important that you would leave your partner in such circumstance? Would you expect your partner to leave you if the roles were reversed?

I'm sorry but to me there is so much more to love and relationships than that.

HavingCrack

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Just a little OT, but not really.

I'm curious......people here seem to implying that sex, rather than being one of many important parts of a relationship, is the most important part, the thing that makes it what is, thing thing that holds two people together.

Now I agree it is important, but surely there is more to a relationship than that? To me at least there is.

Some-one mentioned that relationship minus sex is just friendship, others say it's pointless or it can never work.

Say I were married but my husband was in an accident and ended up paralysed......is the belief here that we should not remain married but simply be friends because we cannot have sex due to his injuries?

Is sex so important that you would leave your partner in such circumstance? Would you expect your partner to leave you if the roles were reversed?

I'm sorry but to me there is so much more to love and relationships than that.

I don't think anyone actually said that. Sure sex is a vital part of relationships but its only one component.


]The point you made about paralysis as regards sex is quite interesting actually. I'd say any marriage where one partner is paralysed could suffer huge strain regardless of the sex issue. It s an interesting point though, I'd be curious to see how many marriages where a serious injury happens to one partner end in separation.

Ickle Magoo

My posts have already stated wilfully withholding sex and specifically said barring accidents so I'm assuming you aren't addressing that to me. I don't know why the paralysed spouse is always used in threads like this, it's hardly a case of someone not wanting sex which is what pretty much what all the posts have referred to.

I think it's important to add that people have different expectations and while one person may think sex once a year is too much, another person may think once a week is not enough - what people are prepared to put up with and the conditions they are prepared to live with, is up to them. I don't think it's fair to suggest martyring yourself to a partner who doesn't want sex any more is somehow any more noble than someone prepared to put up with someone who doesn't put any effort into another side of the relationship.

Personally, I think sex is as important as anything else in a relationship; communication, faithfulness, respect, etc, etc. There is no one thing more important than the others and loosing one has no less of a damaging effect. If my partner no longer wanted to have sex with me and refused to deal with it then I'd view that as no less of an issue than if they decided they no longer wanted to speak to me or show respect and if the situation was not going to change then it would certainly be grounds for ending the relationship.

Oat23

I struggled to succeed at no sex before 18.

f**k waiting till marriage.

fakearms123

Why would you wait?

clairemg

Does anyone know anyone whoe has used this?
http://www.knockmarriagebureau.com/

smash

clairemg wrote: »

Does anyone know anyone whoe has used this?
http://www.knockmarriagebureau.com/

WTF is that?

that's just creepy!

clairemg

It's pretty much just a dating agency the Catholic church set up back in the 60s when there was mass emigration.

smash

clairemg wrote: »

It's pretty much just a dating agency the Catholic church set up back in the 60s when there was mass emigration.

The thoughts of that make me feel sick. A dating agency set up by a group of people who never have relationships or sex, unless it involves an alter boy!

starlit

clairemg wrote: »

It's pretty much just a dating agency the Catholic church set up back in the 60s when there was mass emigration.

Absolute tripe! money making market thats what that is! you have to be over 21 to apply thats silly considering the age to get married by law is younger than that. Its really sad if someone had to resort to that yoke! Its false hope for anyone to contemplate such at thing! You are better of being happy single than be in a happy-less marriage!

snuggles285

snuggles285 wrote: »

Absolute tripe! money making market thats what that is! you have to be over 21 to apply thats silly considering the age to get married by law is younger than that. Its really sad if someone had to resort to that yoke! Its false hope for anyone to contemplate such at thing! You are better of being happy single than be in a happy-less marriage!

They have muslim ones too, marriage websites
Kinda funny, clever way of getting around a contact ban in the relevant countries though, if it's used there

opinion guy

bluewolf wrote: »

They have muslim ones too, marriage websites
Kinda funny, clever way of getting around a contact ban in the relevant countries though, if it's used there

You name a religion there a marriage site. OR an ethnicity

For example:
www.shaadi.com

starlit

no way thats just mad! no different to arranged marriages malarky in those places think that would be going out of fashion before the turn of the next decade!

snuggles285

snuggles285 wrote: »

no way thats just mad! no different to arranged marriages malarky in those places think that would be going out of fashion before the turn of the next decade!

There was an article in some popular magazine recently about an indian woman marrying an indian man moved to USA... she was on about how great it was. Was sort of arranged, they were practically strangers anyway.
I think it's not too bad if it's finding someone suitable through the family, but the "this is the guy you're marrying I don't care what you think, deal with it" parts are bad

starlit

bluewolf wrote: »

There was an article in some popular magazine recently about an indian woman marrying an indian man moved to USA... she was on about how great it was. Was sort of arranged, they were practically strangers anyway.
I think it's not too bad if it's finding someone suitable through the family, but the "this is the guy you're marrying I don't care what you think, deal with it" parts are bad

Should they not marry for love rather than because their family or something else arranged their marriage!

HavingCrack

snuggles285 wrote: »

Should they not marry for love rather than because their family or something else arranged their marriage!

Apparently arranged marriages have a far lower rate of divorce than 'normal' marriages but whether that's because of religious or cultural reasons or if the two partners are very compatible isn't something I know.

LC2010HIS

to gotta see the trailer before the movie

strobe

HavingCrack wrote: »

Apparently arranged marriages have a far lower rate of divorce than 'normal' marriages but whether that's because of religious or cultural reasons or if the two partners are very compatible isn't something I know.

A lot to do with the fact that if it is capable to either convince or force someone to marry someone they barely know then it is going to be pretty easy to convince or force them to stay married to that person aswell, I'd say.

Edit: Also, how the hell is this a 31 page topic? Have the religious been on or something?