I was reading something I thought was going to be funny and adorable but it ended up being an anti-religous hate article with anti-religious comments to boot.
Someone in the comments posted, "Don't save yourself until after marriage to have sex. What if you're not sexually compatible togther?" A.k.a., the sex is awful.
What a negative way to put it. I think this comes along with the mentality of, "If it's broken, throw it away and buy a new one. It isn't worth it to fix it." I don't know when this started, I think it was before the millenial generation though and it's only gotten worse. So if sex with your new husband or wife is bad, get a divorce right away so you can have good sex with other people without it being considered cheating. Is that how it works?
No! Considering the fact that you just got married and you're now finding out the sex is terrible, you can spend the rest of your lives in a growing experience! You can practice different positions, toys, senarios, and experiment! Twenty years down the road you can laugh at yourself and say, "Remember when we didn't how to do this?" It can bring you two together.
Or, you could blame each other and end up divorcing just months after you got married and feel like a failure at love.
What do you think?
I thought about commenting this to the person but then I saw other people commenting the same thing, both on the same article and others. That's why I decided to make a forum out of this instead.
I'm going to assume there was more to the comment you quoted:
"Don't save yourself until after marriage to have sex. What if you're not sexually compatible togther?"
Really don't see how anyone reads that and comes out with the notion to immediately divorce their partner so they can "replace them" with people better in bed and to avoid cheating.
I was also under the impression that divorce for religious couples was a sin...so if they are willing to do that just to go sleep with other people that are better in bed, why the hell they would have waited for sex after marriage is a mystery.
@greeneyedblondie_ I think we should look at our partners as real human beings and not just as someone we can have sex with, and that's what marriage is for. It let's you appreciate your partner much more, and your partner appreciate you even more when he/she realizes that you chose him/her to be 'the partner for life' (sure sex can be a great joy but a relationship is not only about sex). And waiting until marriage isn't exactly what could be described as easy, but without it marriage has little value and almost no real meaning, I mean If you don't save yourself until marriage but one day meet someone who you think highly of him/her and marry him/her then marriage becomes just an administrative governmental plus and gives the couple and the eventual family they will found little meaning. in the end you two were able to be together or even have children without that plus. I don't think that there aren't any happy couples who aren't married, surly there is a lot of them and they can have kids too, but saving yourself and waiting until marriage can give you a much stronger relationship with your partner in particular when the two of you want to establish a new family. besides that there is a lot of social benefits if this would spread throughout the society one of them would be much less orphan kids out there and not to forget much much less single mothers whose ex-partner didn't want to be responsible for the child. (hahah I think I sound like this right-winger) that's my contribution to the 'saving yourself until marriage topic'
As for the quot "Don't save yourself until after marriage to have sex. What if you're not sexually compatible togther?" seriously I didn't get the meaning of 'sexually compatible'. I even googled it but couldn't find anything that could be described as definition, so I have no real comment on that.
I get what you're saying, and I completely agree. I think as a society we're slowing forgetting that. Now it seems like marriage is just the government telling us we can get tax benefits. It's sad really.
For "sexually compatible," I didn't get it either. I think with the context it was supposed to me the sex wasn't great. I can't think of anything else they were trying to say. Maybe they did mean something else?
after reading @say_yes_to_life's comment, I though maybe they meant there sexual orientation (homosexuality, there partner turns out to be gay), but seriously couldn't the both just clear things out by talking about such topics. I mean waiting until marriage isn't exactly against talking to the potential husband/wife even if it's about sex, and besides that waiting for marriage is a more religious thing which is in general against homosexuality which tells (at least in my opinion) they aren't really into waiting until marriage.
The Abrahamic faiths reject homosexuality, so anyone devoutly practicing it will be reluctant to admit it if he or she is gay. There are numerous instances where people married, only to come out of the closet later. Marsha Carter Stevens, founder of the Christian folk rock group "Children of the Day", was such a person. She may not have even been aware of her sex orientation, until she discovered after marriage that sex with a man was a lackluster experience, and she actually preferred women.
I think I need to agree on that. saying that you're gay while you're living in a religious or more conservative community isn't exactly acceptable in that community. so yes if the family pressures the person to marry (which happens more often than we think in such communities) then yes you're right, this would cause a problem.
"waiting until marriage isn't exactly what could be described as easy but without it marriage has little value and almost no real meaning, I mean If you don't save yourself until marriage but one day meet someone who you think highly of him/her and marry him/her then marriage becomes just an administrative governmental plus and gives the couple and the eventual family they will found little meaning."
WTF?! So the "real" meaning of marriage is having sex, and a family only has value when you "deflower"someone? How shallow!
Yeah, marry someone so you can have sex... That's why so many end up divorced.
@islandbites_ I guess you started reading right from the middle, but that's okay it happens sometimes (not really but whatever). so I'll quot for you what you obviously didn't see " I think we should look at our partners as real human beings and not just as someone we can have sex with, and that's what marriage is for" maybe you should next time read things more carefully.
Oh, I read the whole thing, believe me. Does not change a thing. What is "ït" in without it, huh?
If you look at a partner as a real human being (and not just for sex), who cares if he/she has sex before? A person is more than his/her sex life. And how does not being virgin makes a marriage less valuable if a marriage is more than sex? And how in the world it makes a family less valuable?
Your concept of marriage is absurdly shallow. Wait all you want to have sex, and value your marriage(and family) accordingly.
But you dont get to speak in the name of others (who obviously are way deeper regarding human relations.) :-)
Okay Just answer me this, what's the point of marriage? because in case you are already in a relationship and maybe have a child then marriage is just about a party and some paper work to get eventually some if even financial benefits (depending on you country your state and other factors I don't know about, maybe) and after that your life is pretty much the same like it was before. Okay in case you can give an answer to that let me ask you this, what are the social benefits the community would gain if more people would wait until there marriage? good luck buddy
by the way if I want to wait until marriage then it's not because I want a virgin (because I'm pretty sure that there is dudes out there who had virgins without being even married) but because I don't wanna be one of those who gets a girl pregnant and then just leave her with the child, neither do I want to even contribute to this kind of behavior and way of thinking, if other people want to do it it's their thing.
Like I said, completely shallow. You just proved my point.
Why do you asked me if you already answer for me? I wont even try.
As I said before, you can wait all you want, for the reasons you want. You can define and value marriage (and family) the way you want. But you dont get to define, value or speak in the name of others.
Good luck in your future relationship, you're going to need it.
Nop I don't speak in the name of others, I only speak in my own name with respect to others points of view and life style.
and thanks for the good luck, and yes maybe, no surly this kind of life isn't the easiest one so yes I could need some luck, thanks for the conversation
....I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt amine, but you really sounded like the only thing that would prevent you from leaving a girl you knocked up on accident is whether or not you're married.
In other words, if you were married and knocked her up, you would be forced to say whether you want to or not. If you weren't married, you would knock her up and leave. That seems to be what you are saying...
Haha I noticed that, too. It's like he's saying the only alternative to abstaining until marriage is to knock some girl up and then desert her and the baby.
a) You could try boinking responsibly and likely never find yourself in that situation.
b) Should you find yourself in the unlikely situation that your lady friend's birth control fails and the condom breaks, you could always just not be a terrible person and support the woman/baby.
No one has to have sex for funsies if they don't want to but I don't really understand the people coming in making it seem like anyone who does must be irresponsible deadbeat dads or whores who are incapable of reading a book.
I don't agree on the last part people shouldn't think like that, I mean there is a lot of unmarried couples who didn't plan for the kid but ended up being great parents -although there is people who think like that-. but that's not the point of all the talk, the point is actually about the benefits.
haha.... no no that not what I was saying. What I was saying is if a man isn't waiting until marriage then he obviously will have during his life multiple relationships -some will be serious other based only on sex, or just simple one night stands- but even those who may say they want kids in the future, they can get a very big shock -when their gf tells them that she is pregnant- because they would realize that their life is about to change dramatically, other want be interested in the big responsibility, I mean there is a lot of births out there which were described as 'accidents' not planed for. I obviously want children in the future there is no question about that but am I able to handle that responsibility right now? that my friend is another question which's answer is no am not. like many men out there who just left the girl with the child just because they were irresponsible, I'm not saying I would leave her but I know that I would get her and myself in a lot of hardship, so why rushing things. bottom-line for me marriage comes after I at least think I can handle thinks. yeah but stile funny that you asked
I was raised to wait until marriage, but succumbed to pressure to a boyfriend who was ignorant and selfish. I'm REAL glad I found that out before forswearing myself to him! I have also heard stories of marriages that continue to he sexless, brides getting raped on their wedding night, even people turning out to be gay. It is for these reasons I now believe in "test-drivig the car before buying".
BTW, in France and Germany, divorce rates among those who cohabited before marriage are actually lower.
I'm a 21 year old male virgin by choice (will be 22 at the end of the month). I totally agree with your sentiments.
My main reason for waiting 'till marriage is that I believe sex is a gift from God, meant to be enjoyed in the context of marriage between one man and one woman. I don't see sex as something that people should "practice" so they can be good at it when they're married. Honestly, I find that notion more than a little gross (matter of personal taste). Who wants to be compared to previous lovers? Or have to wonder about all the people that someone has been with before he or she was with you? It's...like...awkward and gross in the way that double-dipping is awkward and gross...but worse.
I think there's something romantic about two people getting married, having sex like a couple of awkward bumper cars, and then spending the rest of their lives, as you said, growing in that intimate experience.
I'm happy to wait until I find that someone who I'd want to spend the rest of my life with. In the mean time, it's kind of nice to not have extra-marital sex complicating my life.
When don't put sex on an over-glorified pedestal, you don't think about it very often. At least this has been my experience. I think this is partly because a person can't really miss what he's never had. It's nice, actually. It's refreshing to be able to appreciate a woman's beauty, for example, without feeling the need to hypersexualize her.
Very interesting forum discussion! Thanks for posting!
Double dipping? Really? Sounds like it's a good thing you're not having sex yet.
You know that women, like, wash their vaginas and stuff, right?
Not in the sense that a woman's vagina is unclean, LOL. Perhaps that wasn't the most effective analogy. I was meaning more toward the awkwardness of engaging in something intimate with someone who already has had intimate ties to someone else. Perhaps "wearing rummage sale underwear" or "sorting through some stranger's luggage" better conveys the point?
I mean, putting myself in a woman's shoes, I don't think I could find anything appealing about having sex with someone who'd been with several other women previously...regardless of how sanitary his genitals were. Again, matter of personal taste.
So basically you're future partner will have never kissed anyone in their life, never used the same silverware as their family/bitten off the same food, never have used the same soap in one household, never have washed their clothes together with anyone else's.
I wish you luck...
Comparing sex to soap and silverware? Would like to hear how that's not a non sequitur.
Abstaining from sex (and just sex in general) has absolutely nothing to do with kissing, sharing food, or using the same soap. There was a perfectly decent discussion going here, and you seem to have derailed it and off-roaded it all the way to Ridiculous-ville.
And if sex had anything remotely in common with silverware (which is designed to be cleaned and reused to meet the needs of however many are dining), then why aren't regularly-scheduled wild orgies a socially acceptable thing?
They're called swingers clubs and there are actually a lot of them!
As for the "double dipping" thing, I don't know, I personally have never been having sex with someone while thinking about all of the other people they've had sex with before. I guess I just don't really care. When you're in love with someone and you know they're in love with you, I don't see the point in dwelling on them having been with other people before. Dating and relationships can be hard and lots of people don't get it right on the first, or second, or third try...
Do you also prefer that your future wife never have loved another man before? To me that's more significant than sex.
Your post gave me something to think about.
I wouldn't have anything against marrying a woman who had previously loved another/other men. Provided that she isn't *still* in love with them, of course--or that'd be a big problem! I've dated before and have loved other people, too. I'd be a hypocrite if I expected a future wife to have never loved anyone prior when I don't hold myself to such a standard. I'd also agree with you that love is more important than the sexual component of a relationship.
Love is something you can have for someone without having to be committed in marriage. I certainly wouldn't want to have sex with someone I didn't love, but I also wouldn't want to have sex with just anyone I've ever loved. That's why I think marital commitment is important: it distinguishes between the people you may have loved in the past and the one you love now, whom you wish to know in a more intimate, physical, and exclusive way.
I really like what you said: "When you're in love with someone and you know they're in love with you, I don't see the point in dwelling on them having been with other people before."
I think that, while having previous sexual partners is a turnoff for me, it's probably something I could get past for the right person. I mean heck, I suppose I know plenty of happily married persons who are together in spite of finding their spouse's snoring to be a turnoff!
Thanks for the discussion!
So couldn't you say the same about sexual experience? As long as she's not STILL having sex with the person, isn't it all in the past?
I appreciate that you'd still be open to committing to someone who wasn't a virgin - I think your initial post gave me the impression that you thought of it as being gross or repulsive which fired me up a bit. I'm glad we've cleared things up!
All the power to you if you want to wait, I think that's a respectable decision and if it's what feels right to you then I'm happy to see you're standing by it.
As Aime mentioned, there are swinger clubs and even brothels alore for regularly scheduled orgies, so take your pick.
As for my comment, the point wasn't really to compare sex to silverware or to somehow derail the discussion. I was simply applying your logic to other aspects. You said if you were a woman, you wouldn't feel comfortable sleeping with someone who had slept with others because they are somehow unclean. So why would you feel comfortable with anyone who has kissed multiple people? We can focus on that one since it actually relates more if you like.
Really the whole point was to point how ridiculous your logic sounded. Can't and won't condemn you for it, but it certainly sounds ridiculous to not want to be with someone because they slept with other people which some people seem to have the mindset of. Thankfully you don't seem to be one of them, at least not 100% anyway.
Again. You are not using my reasoning, but your own. And again, it's non sequitur. Kissing and having sex are two very different things, having completely different social contexts, and representing two wholly different levels of intimacy. It's comparing firecrackers to nuclear warheads, otherwise known as "argumentum ad absurdum".
In other terms (A • B) ≈ (A • C) iff B ≈ C. But here, kissing (B) and having sex (C) represent two different orders of magnitude. Thus, they can't reasonably be held to the same standard.
Case in point: you can kiss someone in a platonic way, but there is no way to have "platonic sex". Even non-Platonic kissing of the "make out" variety is fundamentally different. No person has ever gotten pregnant from just kissing. Also, if there were not a clear social distinction between the degrees of intimacy involved, people would not bother to differentiate between "first base" and "home run".
If you disagree with my views on this, you're more than welcome to do so. I don't have a problem with diversity of belief. But if you could stop blowing things out of proportion, that'd be nice.
For whatever reason I still feel like you're dodging the question, but we'll move on...
I was under the assumption that your initial concern was that the person was "too experienced" and you would feel uncomfortable about it. Your actual concern is about how emotionally intimate the person has been with others, seeing as how apparently hitting and quitting it doesn't exist in your world?
If that's the case, that sounds rather selfish to me.
And how does one blow things out of proportion when supposedly comparing irrelevant things to other irrelevant things?
For those talking about unconventional sex and strange fetishes...people don't talk about that stuff before getting married? I was under the impression that couples talk about things like that along with how many children (since that's what sex brings), what their names will be, etc. Do couples not talk about what their fetishes are and how they have always perceived they would have sex with a spouse someday?
lol. Your profile says you're 18, greeneyedblondie. I don't want to disillusion you, but there's lots of people who had no idea their potential partner/spouse had a fetish or unconventional 'preference'. Often it is not revealed until after marriage.
Fetishes, frequency of needed sex, or other things similar usually don't start being talked about until you are actually having sex with the person!
Also if a couple has no idea if they will eventually be married or having kids together why would they be talking about possible baby names?
For the record could you imagine how hard it would be to actually have sex with someone if you started it out with " Oh by the way half way through could you poop on my chest?" Fetishes are usually discussed after having sex with someone has gotten comfortable.
Well that would be a heck of a clanger in a pre-marriage conversation, peeples. You were far more effective in making this point than I was.
Oh, it is going to be difficult to wash that image from my brain. lol.
Fetish: fixation, obsession, compulsion, mania; weakness, fancy, fascination, fad; thing, hang-up.
Why are we discussing fixations which appear to be deviations from the typical? I would not want to marry someone with a strange unnatural fixation. It would be good to discuss such before any type of intimacy what-so-ever.
This young girl should not be given freak out snippets regarding sex.
People are usually very sweet to one another in a new relationship. They want to please each other and show they could love the other.
They do not really talk about sex because sex is best kept as a hidden undercurrent which is really no fun when brought forth in the open through conversation. If love and friendship are proven, one can marry and discover the tenderness of that love and friendship.
However, if disgusting (to you) fetishes become apparent after marriage you can divorce the blankety blank illusion-er.
To avoid surprises and the consequential need for divorce proceedings, I think couples should get to know each other very well first. They cannot know each other very well under two years. If the other person is not willing to give the relationship, before getting engaged, two years, its not worth it.
A lifetime is a lot to give up. And if the other can't even give the relationship two years to develop BEFORE sex, forget it.
Hint: In this day and age of instant gratification, there is going to be a lot of forget-its, so I hope you have an interesting career in the works.
I'd be willing to bet a large portion of the population has some form of fetish. Fetishes are not all something that is crazy (feet, high heels, legs, eyes, stomachs, using toys, lingerie, tickling, and butt just to name a few) . If she is an adult and willing to take such strong stances on sex then she should be willing to hear the truths about sex, including the parts that make some people uncomfortable. Many times these things do not even get mentioned before sex actually has been initiated. Also she stated she was against divorce because of sexual disagreements which was the only reason I brought it up to begin with. As you said, divorce is an option, but since she was against the idea I brought up the possibilities that may make her reconsider one of her positions. I was not trying to be crude, but reality is some things just don't come out before you're having sex with someone.
I once read in the Ann Landers Dictionary about a young virgin woman who married a mortician, a highly respected man in town. On their wedding night, he told her to soak in a cold bath, then lay in bed pretending she was dead. You know what that meant. She ran screaming, of course.
This is yet another reason I advocate test-driving the car before buying.
Yes, Dr. Laura said they could have sex once they are engaged.
( Who wouldn't mind playing dead?
Ha ha ha!!!
or is there more to it … like maybe he was going to actually kill her?
anyway, I hate sex. So, don't ask me anything else.
- which no one ...)
Obviously, he was screwing the corpses. Would you want his d**k in you after that???
Lots of people hate sex. It's good to find that out BEFORE you foreswear yourself to someone.
Again people misunderstand what I'm saying. I teacher once told me I had weak communication skills and I didn't believe him, maybe I should start! Too bad you can't edit these forums. For those of you laughing at me because I'm 18 and should know these things, my parents believe that people should be kept as innocent as possible for as long as possible. You should talk to my older sister, she knows less than I do.
These things aren't 1st date starters. I'm talking about people who have been dating for 2 years. I just pulled that number out of my head, it could be for a few months if they feel ready, or 5 years if that's how long it takes. Do you get what I'm saying? I thought since we were in such a sex obessed world these days everyone would be talking about it with their partner before doing it. If someone does like through poop on someone else since Say Yes to Life loves it so much then ask why and talk it through! Maybe it's just because I'm sensitive I'm thinking of these things.
I did a study on sexuality, and while I'm not Dr. Ruth Westheimer, I wrote some books on the subject (check out my hub, "Busting Out From Prudish to Erotic"). Christianity dominates in the US, and it dictates women be virgin brides. Yet, their divorce rates are as high as the World's - in some denominations, even higher. Atheists have the lowest divorce rates.
I posted the Sugar Version of "Wage Peace Between the Sexes" on HubPages, under my pen name:
Please feel free to read it! GreenEyedBlondie - I was given this information during my junior year at my Christian hihgh school,
I married a man who came up with every reason under the sun why I was too yucky to have sex with or undeserving of his sexual affections for years. I already had low self-esteem so I believed his every word. He finally confessed that he was gay and wanted to explore that side of himself on our fifth wedding anniversary.
I tried to make our marriage work anyway. I left him five years later. His controlling nature and tendency to demean me were more of a hindrance to our marriage than his sexual orientation. I don't say that to downplay the complete sexual incompatibility, just to express that there were even worse things brought out by it.
I don't blame him for not knowing he was gay. He had no sexual experience. He later told me he'd had crushes on men since childhood and that all of his sex fantasies had to do with men, but he was religious and apparently thought all that stuff was temptation from the devil or something.
I'd advise any woman or man to sleep with her or his beloved before marriage and more than once. Or at least make damned sure he or she is getting sexually aroused when you kiss passionately with eyes open and far, far more than once.
AMEN TO THAT!!! Do you have any idea how common this is? Judy Garland's father was gay. I already told you about Martha Carter Stevens, a Christan musical celebrity. Joan Baez is yet another case.
I had no idea how common it was until I started reading up on it when my ex said he was gay. It's way more common than I'd ever imagined. I'm glad society seems to be moving in a direction that will allow gay people to be open about who they are without fear of repercussions. It's not a fun thing for anyone to go through from either side.
Why would someone marry at all if they have feelings for the same sex?
Maybe some wives drive men to it.
Snarky, I know.
I am still suspicious of homosexuality being a natural, built-in phenomenon.
Nevertheless, there has to be a way for straight people to refine their gaydar.
Dating without sex for at least two years would be a good way, if you ask me.
Well, it didn't work for me. Dating for a bit over a year and even being married without sex didn't help me figure it out. I was young and insecure and it's not like you could hop on the Internet back then and find out what the signs I saw really meant. No one had ever treated me as if I had value before. My ex and I were best buddies, and he respected me sexually more than any man ever had before. Doesn't that sound like the ideal man to you? Also, I was apparently stupid.
It's a very nasty thing to imply that I drove my ex-husband to be gay and I'm quite sure you know it is. It makes it extra nasty because you're picking at the same insecurities he used to avoid sex. I forgive you for it, even though you made me cry. I hope your heart softens and you learn not to lash out cruelly at people you disagree with.
My ex wanted to keep all of the social advantages of being seen as upper middle class and heterosexual even after he figured out he is gay and I loved him madly so I tried to make it work. I think five years trying to make it work after knowing about his orientation is a pretty good try.
Before that I tried to make myself as sexy as possible by keeping myself fit, wearing make-up and perfume he said he liked and clothes he said he liked. I also had dinner on the table every day when he got home, kept the house clean, and did all of the house and yard work, inside and out. I played hostess for his friends, family, and business connections. I gave back rubs and foot rubs and walked his dogs. I told him quite regularly how handsome and smart I think he is and how I thought his smile is sexy. I talked proudly about him to other people and made sure he knew I was proud of him. I worked full time and gave most of the money right to him. Most guys would find that an ideal situation. I think he did, too, except for the bit about me not being a man. I suggested counseling, but he'd have nothing to do with it.
As to how a man wouldn't know he was gay, why he was raised to believe gay is a lifestyle choice, of course! He was raised to believe that Satan tempts people so he felt his sexual fantasies and crushes were all temptation from the devil that he could fix by putting them out of his mind and praying a lot. I guess my ex at 21 should have known everything about himself, but he didn't.
My nephew knew he was gay by the age of fourteen. Of course homosexuality is natural. No one chooses to be gay. Especially in a world where you are ostrasized for it,or worse.
The question is, would people even marry if sex were not involved?
I would say no. People do not seem to marry for friendship only.
I would say the real issue, then, is that sex before marriage could produce conception. Unwanted conception. Having to abort the products of conception or feeling obligated to marry is the result of sex before marriage... or maybe not, based on LUCK alone.
But, are the consequences of sex before marriage really worth the risk?
My answer for females of child-bearing age:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli … s-n2034355
I advise no sex before marriage to avoid the necessity of abortion and the consequential marketing of products of conception.
It's a personal choice and if waiting to have sex until marriage is important and meaningful to you, then of course it will be worth the wait. I don't think that suits everyone, though, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
As far as sexual compatibility is concerned, I do think couples can make it work as long as both people are willing to communicate, make an effort, and be open-minded. A lot of people don't really know what they like (sexually) until they actually have some experiences. It could turn out that one person is interested in being adventurous and trying everything and anything, and the other person prefers to keep things conservative. If neither is willing to budge (ie. the conservative person refuses to experiment and the experimental person doesn't want to keep things vanilla), then I can definitely see where problems might arise. But, as in most things concerning marriage and partnership, I think people usually try to compromise.
My husband and I lived together and slept together for years before we got married and for me personally the thought of marrying someone without having lived with them/had sex with them scares the absolute crap out of me - but to someone else that might be the only way they see their relationship playing out. I don't think either way is right or wrong, it's just what you prefer and are comfortable with.
Sex is the biggest time waster next to drugs. Too many people start doing the dog in heat thing in High School or earlier. Others read their books. So one goes on to be a lawyer, the other the town punch.
If you date and the guy wants sex, direct him to the town punch. Look about your life. When you are ready to marry, meaning it's all worked out; where you'll live, where you'll work, etc. Sex will be there. Sex will be there when you're 99.
It is better to be a virgin, or near virgin when you marry than having had so many experiences that ... it isn't special.
Lots of assumptions happening here. I lost my virginity as a teenager and went on to get multiple degrees. Having sex doesn't equate to not reading or being a good student. And actually, had you had sex as a teenager, you'd know that it doesn't really waste much time at all at that age...
I also wouldn't bank on sex being there when you're 99. I wouldn't really even bank on YOU being here when you're 99.
Sex is special if you think that the person you're with is special, whether it's the first or 500th time you've done it.
Aime you must have been having a LOT of sex if it was enough to keep you from going to college! Lol, jk. I had never even heard someone relate education and sex before. It's kind of funny considering the amount of people who have lots of sex while IN college!
"considering the fact that you just got married and you're now finding out the sex is terrible, you can spend the rest of your lives in a growing experience!" So if the guy you marry turns out to like screwing his women while they play dead, you'll just work on it? Or better yet, he gets his rocks off by violence during sex, I guess that can just be worked on to right? Or what if he hates toys because it makes him feel less manly. Or maybe he only wants sex once a year. Believe it or not there are MANY things involving sex that can break a marriage. Take a glance at any F$tish website out there. You up for rubbing your crap on your new spouses face?
Personally I like to try out any product before I waste time and money buying it. On top of that what happens between two consenting adults are none of my business.
There's a few issues in the discussions so far that caught my eye.
It concerns me enormously to see the suggestion that an unplanned pregnancy should result in either marriage or an abortion. What about the option of having and raising the child - without marriage? This is 2015. We've come a long way since the 1960s and 70s. And even then, having the child was always an option. (Perhaps not so easy to keep the child, given pressure to give put babies up for adoption, but achievable nonetheless.)
And I'm really surprised to see anyone struggling with the concept of sexual compatibility. Is it really so hard to understand what that expression means? Compatibility refers to 'being able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict'. If you can't have sex with your partner without problems or conflict, you could reasonably be considered sexually incompatible. Sexual incompatibility can be as simple as one partner wanting sex far more frequently (or far less often) than their partner.
Without doubt, many new couples - particularly those who are new to sex - can overcome many 'problems' (and hopefully avoid conflict) with time, effort and understanding. The right attitude by both partners can generally create harmonious sex.
But those of you with little or no experience in the bedroom will have to take my word for it when I say I've had boyfriends in my past (it is now over 40 years since I became sexually active) with whom I was definitely sexually incompatible. I'll spare you the graphic details, lol, but with a few different boyfriends, we'd have been doomed to a failed marriage (instead of just a failed relationship) if I'd waited until after we were married to discover just how much I hated being intimate with them.
The advice I've given young women (including my now-adult daughters) about sex is to accept there is always a risk of pregnancy when having sex, so I suggest you don't ever sleep with someone you wouldn't be prepared to have a child with (remembering, you may be single when you have that child.) If I had sons, I'd have applied a similar guideline.
In response to the question about whether anyone would bother getting married if they were already having sex with their partner, you can count me in. I married my wonderful husband, confident we were sexually compatible, and l still love being in bed with him every night. (Does it gross you out to hear we still sleep naked - as we have every night for the past 20 years - despite growing old and wrinkly? Lol.)
Now here's the bit in my life story that some of you might have trouble understanding.
I had marriage proposals from seven different men over the years but never felt it was appropriate to get married. (I even spent over 10 years with a previous partner; bought houses with him, deliberately had a child with him, shared all elements in our defacto relationship, but despite being in love with him and enjoying our lives together, I never thought it would last 'forever' and I couldn't imagine growing old with him. I always suspected that one day we would go our separate ways.) We did, in fact, part company.
And then (years later) I met the man who made me feel I'd never 'really' been in love until I met him. We were married within six months of meeting each other. I am happily growing old with my husband and, given the chance, will happily curl my naked body alongside his until I am 99.
Despite having many differences, we are compatible in all the important ways.
I believe it is a mistake to underestimate the value of a healthy sex life. If, like me, you consider marriage to be something you only undertake when you believe it will last 'forever', being sexually compatible is a very important factor in ongoing happiness.
Love this so much! I can only hope to still be so happy with my hubby when I am your age. And there is nothing wrong with sleeping naked at all, no matter your age! If I could just get a toddler out of my bed....... I digress! Lol!
If anyone has a chance of remaining with their husband long term, my friend, it is you! A while back I read your hub about how much you appreciate and respect each other ... and that's a great key to success.
Regarding your toddler, here's my tip. I always found it a good investment of time and energy to take my toddler/s back to their own bed and cuddle up with them there when they needed my company (even if I had to lie on the floor wrapped in a blanket when they slept in a cot.) Then I'd sneak out when they were sleeping again and go back to my own bed.
It was a bit of a pain, particularly when there were repeated visits to my bed in the one night, but it prevented them from getting in the habit of expecting to sleep in the 'big bed'.
I had friends years ago with two young children. They ended up sleeping in separate beds for years, each with a youngster snuggled in beside them because it was impossible to get a good night's sleep with four in a bed.
The wife told me it had been over two years since she'd shared a bed with her husband. I moved interstate shortly after my conversation with her and lost touch with them, but I didn't hold much hope for their relationship because the youngest was already four and the older one was at school ... and hubby slept in a double bed in the spare room!
I very much doubt your toddler will become a permanent resident in your bedroom. lol. You'll be fine!!
A long, long time ago; I can still remember... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsV5-Hv-7U
Hey paradigm, you have no idea how funny this is. I went to a Don McLean concert in the 70s ... with a boyfriend who I discovered (later that night) I was sexually incompatible with. You becoming psychic in your old age??
Oops. Getting late in my part of the world. Off to bed. Hope I don't start laughing out loud and wake my husband!
I personally didn't even realize a lot of my sexual preferences until I started having sex and tried some different things.
I guess if you're pretty certain you'll have an unusual fetish based on what turns you on you could discuss it with your partner before getting married, but in my experience what turns you on doesn't always translate to getting you off when it's actually done in practice.
Fetishes are actually pretty common (up to 30% of the population - more common in men). Fetishism to the point of being a disorder is very uncommon so the words like "obsession, fixation, mania" aren't really accurate. A fetish is basically just a stimulus for sexual arousal.
And it doesn't even have to be about a fetish. Some people have very different sex drives which could be problematic. People have different preferences that fall within the range of normal that could be totally uncomplimentary and cause problems. I've known guys who refuse to perform oral sex on a woman and I've known women who can only get off from oral sex and penetration does virtually nothing for them. If those two types of people got into a marriage together I can't see their sex life being awfully successful. And women probably are not going to know that penetration doesn't satisfy them until they've experienced it.
Well, you both make sense. But young girls really don't know much. Even when they say they do.
They know about what makes themselves tick… but not men.
And that is the scary part. A girl needs to know the MAN pretty darn well to trust him. Chances are a good guy will do what pleases her. I am grossing myself out because I just read something like this in a MEN's magazine.
I think what people are trying to say is that you can talk about sex and what you think you'd like until the cows come home but what your theories and thoughts about sex are may not stay the same once you've actually experienced it.
I don't think anyone is saying that everyone who waits until marriage is doomed to a crappy sex life, I'm sure it works out for a lot of people. But I wouldn't necessarily say it's the best course of action for everyone and there are benefits to having sex before marrying someone, too.
Each choice has its pros and cons, I think, and it just depends which you feel is more appealing to you personally.
In answer to the original question, yes, it is worth it. My wife and I have been married 27 years. I love being a one woman man!
In Traditional societies, where marriages are arranged, the idea of 'compatibility' never occurs because no one know what is what. Both parties are virgins. As the families invest a lot in picking the best match for their child, and are committed to making these marriages work, they usually do.
As to sex, let's look at Queen Victoria, who "closed her eyes and thought of England". Now she didn't like sex, but she loved Albert. That is an extreme example, but you can take from it the fact, that marriage is a lot more than sex.
If you love somebody you put them first. You think about them, you read them. You know what hurts them and what makes them happy, (and this is not just in a bedroom). Marriages based on sex don't last, because people don't spend that much time having sex.
What you want to do, is know the other person well before you commit your heart, forget about body. You want to know their faults, not the pretty face they show you.
I actually dropped out of high school so I could have sex full-time. I'm illiterate and having my iPhone read and type everything out for me (which I got as a gift in return for sexual favours, obviously). To be perfectly honest, I'm doing it right now and getting dumber with every thrust! But I can't stop. I won't stop.
You have me pegged, qeyler. I've been living a lie. Your sexual wisdom is clearly vast and unsurpassed. *bows down*
<"Before that I tried to make myself as sexy as possible by keeping myself fit, wearing make-up and perfume he said he liked and clothes he said he liked. I also had dinner on the table every day when he got home, kept the house clean, and did all of the house and yard work, inside and out. I played hostess for his friends, family, and business connections. I gave back rubs and foot rubs and walked his dogs. I told him quite regularly how handsome and smart I think he is and how I thought his smile is sexy. I talked proudly about him to other people and made sure he knew I was proud of him. I worked full time and gave most of the money right to him."
Living for another through this type of catering is not psychologically conducive for the happiness of the other. In a marriage of two people both people need to be free to tune to their own selves. Without self, one goes mad. This type of catering is enough to drive anyone over the edge.
I am not being mean. I am being absolutely scientifically accurate.
You might be the only one who thinks you're not being mean, Kathryn. You took this quote from a post where the hubber said you'd made her cry.
Is your intention to make her cry again?
To Kylyssa, I'd like you to know how much I respect your efforts to make your marriage work. I appreciate you explaining your situation and offering us some perspective in the problems you faced.
I believe you made far more effort than most would, and it must have been devastating to discover your attempts to create a happy environment for your husband failed ... through no fault of your own.
There is nothing scientifically accurate about what Kathryn said. There is, however, honesty and truth in your earlier comments, Kylyssa. Thanks for them.
I wouldn't even bother. She lacks the capacity for empathy.
Thank you for your kind comment.
It took me a few days to figure out why she lashed out in such a calculated manner and her second reply solidified it, but now that I understand that she's just frightened, I'm not hurt by her words anymore. I'm also not angry about them.
I have autism, so figuring out people's motivations and taking them at anything less than face value doesn't come easily to me.
If I'd gotten fat, you'd say that made him gay. If I didn't work outside the home or if I worked part-time instead, that would be your reason. If I hadn't changed the way I dressed to what he liked when he said he didn't like what I was wearing, you'd have said that made him gay. All I did was try to fix all the things he said were interfering with his ability to want to have sex. If you ever love a man, you'll want to please him and be desirable to him. If he tells you why he doesn't desire you, you will want to fix it. My attempts to cater to what my ex expressed he wanted didn't ripple back through time and put gay fantasies into his head before I met him. Reality just isn't structured that way. Human interactions with time only go in one direction, forward.
I get it now. You're as badly in denial that people are born gay as my ex-husband was that he is gay. Being in denial can make people behave cruelly to hide from reality, to distract people from truths they are frightened of. If I can forgive my ex for telling me I was unappealing and for saying wacky things like that he couldn't make his bits work because I missed some dog hairs on the baseboards instead of saying, "Honey, I like guys," I can forgive you for lashing out from your fear. That doesn't mean I think it's a healthy coping strategy, but I can forgive it.
You can't change someone's sexual orientation. Some combination of genetics, gestational biology, and hormones produces our sexual orientation. You can't turn a person gay anymore than you can turn a person heterosexual. You can, however, make a gay virgin think he's heterosexual if you make him believe all gay people are just heterosexual people giving in to evil and that he'll burn in Hell forever if he does.
Catering is detrimental to both the caterer and the one being catered to.
The science of maintaining connection with one's true self is newly emerging on a more conscious level than in the past. When one is connected to one's true self (as opposed to the false self … or as opposed to being DISconnected from one's self, but instead, DIStracted for a myriad of reasons,) empathy is felt. I come from a place of true empathy, not sentimental mushy empathy.
In the final analysis, a person needs space and alone time to enable a vital connection to his inner life. For instance, when two people can work side by side on their own projects, respecting the other's will and focus, knowing when to step in and when to step out, their relationship will be conducive to true happiness. Love is a given and doesn't have to be overdone to the point of distracting the other. Connection to one's own mind/will is everything.
How can you know if the partner you are considering for marriage is way too NEEDY and will demand too much of your precious TIME without taking time (without sex) to find out?
I say, to be on the safe side, one is better off just dating for a good long time … in order to find out for sure.
My wife and I were both virgins until our wedding day. She and I were 25 and 26 years old then. Let me tell you our story and you decide if it's worth the wait.
To cut the long courtship story short: Waiting was HELL!
But eventually (thank God), the wedding morning arrives :-) Yes, the long waited, blessed day, FINALLY arrived. The day was beautiful, the ceremonies were beautiful, the guests were beautiful, the lunch buffet was beautiful, and most importantly, my Bride was BEAUTIFUL!
Yes, lunch buffet. We did not have a grand wedding like many. To reiterate, we were VIRGINS. So sex was part of the agenda. After the lunch buffer, we left for our hotel by the beach.
It was a sunny afternoon, the sea was blue but my attention was on her.
Not to be graphic at all, we consummated as early as 2pm. Yes, that was one of the WORST sex in our now 18-year-marriage. Being virgins, both of us knew almost nothing about sex. We didn't read porn (no Internet then) and we did not have "sex mentors".
But well, we did it! We lose our virginity to each other!
But the day was still young. So we walked by the beach, then had our tea by the pool. And yes, you got it, by 5pm, we're back to our room. And yes, you got it again, we had sex. Sex was so new and so special that we did it 5 times before we slept (due to tiredness from it).
And of course, we did it again in the morning and before check-out at 2pm (extended time).
To cut the 18-year story short, for the next 1 year, we had sex approximately 3 times a day -- morning, after lunch and before sleep. (Of course, when we quarreled as with all married couples, it reduced to one -- the make up sex)
As we "progressed" from beginners to amateurs, quantity gave way to quality. And of course, today, we self-proclaimed "sexperts". We even distinguished the difference between "having sex" and "making love" and mentor younger ones.
Of course we had our share of marriage issues. But one thing that binds us together -- our "First Day". Every Anniversary, we remembered how "clumsy" our "horrific" first times were. But we praised ourselves of our decision to wait. Each time, we were thankful we saved ourselves for each other.
Today, after 18+ years, we still "make love" regularly (despite we getting older and not as strong). We had 5 kids along the way. Despite me suffering from slight erectile dysfunctional, we persists in "doing it".
So greeneyedblondie, I hope I did not bore you with my life story. My conclusion is, "Love Making" (not "having sex") is an art. We learn, we practice and we perfect it. Sex merely satisfies one's flesh (hence selfish). Love making satisfies the mate's soul (because it's loving). Once you distinguish the difference, marriage is no longer a children's playground for self-gratification, but an adult's love nest for homing the next generation.
So what's your respond to your question "Is staying a virgin until marriage worth it?"
(My two cents).
I love this! This is what I'm trying to explain to most of these people. To me it sounds like the first time is supposed to be horrible. You're both virgins, so you're like, "How are we supposed to do this?" It should be clumbsy, horrible, and possibly painful (so I hear, is it really?). Then you get back on there and say, "This didn't feel right when we did this...what if we did this instead?" and grow together as a couple.
I think it's totally worth it. The idea of that sounds amazing! It's another experience the couple can use to grow together and making a lasting commitment.
I'm a man and IMO, wedding night is man's night as there are only pleasures.
Yes, my wife did tell me 15 years later there was pain for about a week. (OMG!) But yes, we learn together, grow together, and most amazingly (I learn 2 years ago) her vagina actually "resizes" to fit her husband's (my) penis perfectly. And I can attest to the truthfulness of this claim.
Eventually, sex is just a small thing in our life. Love takes over. We faced "financial crisis", children arrives, "child crisis", now, "teenagers crisis", and many more. The solutions are not sex but love. And when we were REALLY stressed up, we make love (really... it helps relieve stresses).
Glad you're helping others on the road to stay virgin until married. Feel free to share and raise threads. I'm new here (joined yesterday). So your call to keep in touch.
by NewRepublican7 years ago
I am a young adult and am disheartened to see so many of my generation engage in pre-marital sex, especially Christians. It has become so rampant that people disregard that aspect of the religion as if it were not...
by mikoas7 years ago
We can see and understand around the globe that sex among the youths and adult has become cramper to extend that before marriage millions have abort pregnant and other. This question was asked by a brother,is a...
by kimback087 years ago
Should two people live together before marriage? Yes, no, maybe so?
by lovelife085 years ago
What are your views on this matter? Do you believe people should wait until they are married to get pregnant? Do you think it is okay to get pregnant if a couple is in love but are choosing not to get...
by heartattack44447 years ago
Why I didn't wait: there wasn't a "you break it, you buy it" sign on my hymen.What's your position?
by Jewels294023 months ago
I know that getting married young was probably the first sign that marriage was maybe a bad idea, but a marriage isn't going to work when only one person is putting forth an effort to make it work. I was 22 when I got...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.