Sex before marriage

To be honest, I think it should wait until marriage. I'm very religious, and that is how I have been raised but apart from that, I don't see myself as being ready for that kinda stuff. This may be because I'm still young but the whole thing is kinda...gross. I don't despise people that do decide to do it before marriage, because at the end of the day its their choice. I wouldn't though, just because that's how I grew up and that's how I want to live. I also agree with a lot of what Mixt said. The whole emotional attachment thing, and the fact that I want it to mean the most it possibly can when I'm married. I don't see why you should do it until you're at least engaged. I'm gonna wait until I'm married, that's all I'm saying

 

In my opinion, all of this 'waiting before marriage' (in most cases) is because of religion and mostly fear too. Most kids I know are raised to believe that sex is let's put it this way ''evil'' and they will automatically leave you after you both have sexual relationships. To be honest I think that's a lot of bull because not ALL cases are like that. Sex is another way to show your partner that you love each other. Now, it's not obligatory to do it in order to show you love each but mostly is because intimacy sometimes really helps in a relationship. Now I do say this I really believe that if you were to give up your virginity it would have to be with someone that you really but really love. I mean, no offense to anybody who has had sex without any serious relationship involved but it's just my personal opinion.

You shouldn't rush it either and most important, have sex when you feel ready. Not when people are pressuring you to do it in order to prove them a point. I've seen this cases from friends before and it hasn't turned out well.

 

((To lazy for a quote breakdown, but this is directed at Noroz))

Even if we ignore the chemical side (after all much lower amounts of oxytocin are released from things as simple as hearing your name or getting a hug) there is still a distinct emotional side.

You talk about the firsts being special for anyone, wouldn't you rather that something extra be saved for the person you want to spend a huge amount of your life with? Not having that won't destroy a marriage alone (though it could make things harder depending on the person), but why waste such a strong way to stack the deck in your favor?

Also, naive virgin here, what does sexual compatibility even mean? Are you looking for some unexplained "click" when you get together? alignment of fetishes? Odds are good that you and your significant other will not see entirely eye-to-eye on anything. Some things you will agree on relatively strongly, but others you find ways to work it out together. Like if a guy was more intense in bed than a girl would like, then it would be wise for the guy to tone it down and the girl to be a bit more adventurous. You find a medium where you can both be happy by respecting eachother's interests the best you can. You grow with each other and let that experience deepen the relationship. If you can't, well that is another problem, but one you can find in issues outside the bedroom. And like Amber said earlier, talk about sex and see if there are any issues that you can weed out before committing. If you would otherwise be marrying someone I don't picture the sex not being good as really standing in anyone's way.

On a similar note the "try before you buy" mindset isn't always prudent. Finances are even bigger than sex on proclaimed reasons for divorce, should you merge incomes before getting married just to see how it goes? If it works and you stay together, then you're fine. But what would then happen if you decided to separate? Who gets how much money? Who pays what debts? Do you take it to court? For many people it gets ugly fast and if you don't have strong ties together then you are much more likely to pull away into these disputes than to try and fix whatever is causing them. It just makes unnecessary drama if you rush into it. And no that is not directly analogous to sexual disputes but there is a strong similarity to me.

 

Aaw, but no reply means no alert :b

I wouldn't necessarily want to save anything because it might lose meaning later. Why? Because I am not talking about having sex with anything that moves ;) To me, sex is the most intimate you can be with someone, and should be with someone you love. I haven't had sex with anyone I couldn't imagine marrying. Not everyone feels this way, though, obviously. That doesn't mean you should save yourself till the one you are getting married to.

I don't consider it stacking the deck in my favor. I kind of mis-wrote earlier. I think sex is something you should have with someone you truly love, and having it doesn't become less special. It's basically the same with love. You always remember your first love. That doesn't mean it is better than another one.

There are a lot of people who don't really understand sexual compability. It's a little of the "click" and, if you are lucky, fetishes.

Of course, being completely in synch is basically impossible the first time you have sex. It isn't completely impossible, of course, but highly unlikely. It's very much like you are saying, if the guy is very intense and the girl is not intense at all (or vice versa), you can of course have a middle ground. However, if it's too much of a difference, the medium won't make anyone happy. You can grow into certain things sexually, but not all. For example, if the guy needs to move "fast," and that hurts the girl, or makes her uncomfortable; once again it will lead to unhappiness and lack of satisfaction.

If the guy wishes to try out new things, and the girl doesn't - it will lead to lack of satisfaction and happiness - and sometimes pushing things too far/cheating.

Also, talking about sex does help a lot, but it is practically impossible to know if you are compatible without trying it. There is, similarly to a "click," chemistry. Emotional chemistry is very important. But sexual chemistry is also important. Sexual chemistry is difficult to explain but I'll give it a go. The same way you feel just talking/being with someone you love doesn't necessarily transfer to when you are in a sexual position (no, not an actual position). Your bodies have to be compatible, I guess? It does reflect to the preferences, etc. but like with people, some you like hanging out with, some you don't like hanging out with. Think of being put in a situation with someone you don't like "hanging out" with, but you feel obliged to, because you are married with them. It's kind of like that. (It's a tad abstract, so difficult to explain)

I do agree that "try before you buy," isn't always prudent. However, you can't really compare finances with sex - as they are completely different things. If you have sex, no one keeps anything. You can't reclaim anything, because you wanted to do it then and there. You don't take anyone to court (unless you are a ****ing ******* and accuse them of rape).

I think just generally that people has to stop considering sex to be an amazing commitment/promise to someone. That's not me advocating you should do it to everything that has a heartbeat, but to realize that sex is just sex. Sex is not a big deal, but lack of sex in a relationship is a really big deal. For example, I know for a fact that I couldn't be in a relationship with anyone who didn't want to kiss before marriage. Not (only) because I think it's a horrendous idea, but because I know our values are extremely different.

 

Sex before marriage is acceptable and commendable in my opinion because sexual compatability yadda yadda yadda.
Seriously though, if I told you that's the reason I'd be willing to have it, I'd be lying. Sex is one of those things that feels good and harms none but the most butthurt ("I want a virgin dammit! Let's see that hymen!") if proper protection is used. Go fuck and be merry.

 

I'm against it. It would be better to wait for marriage before doing this. This will ruin your life I'm serious. I have two cousins both had sex with different guys before marriage now they're both married and have children. And don't tell me about using protection or abortion or other whatnots. Is there really any person you know who has sex before marriage and is a respectable person? As for abortion you're killing a baby what the heck is wrong with you. Sex may feel good but it at some point it will harm you. It's like eating at fast food joints. It may be easier to eat but there's never anything considered healthy there.

 

Either this is satire or you're high.

Your cousins had sex with different guys and now they're pulling a Katie Segal ("Married...with Children" for those who don't get the joke)? What's the problem?
There really is no correlation between pre-marital sex and being a respectable person and if you think there is a connection, I would love to hear it.
This isn't the place for this type of argument, but abortion is not killing a baby, it's terminating a pregnancy/fetus/parasite.

As for your last line, both sex and fast food can be considered healthy. Look at McDonald's healthier choices for Happy Kids Meal (apple slices, apple juice, etc.) Sex reduces stress and blood pressure, it burns calories, boosts immunity, improves heart health and even self-esteem, oxtocin boosts endorphins (your body's painkillers), etc.
You're right about one thing: sex does feel damn good, though.

 

This is a really rude post.

1. Why would it ruin your life?
2. What's wrong about using protection?
3. I would ask what is wrong with abortion, but you've obviously shown that.
4. It's not killing a baby. (Life doesn't begin at conception. A fetus =/= a human)
5. Yes. If you believe if having sex before marriage isn't respectable, you have a lot to learn about what respectable is.
6. It is nothing, what so ever, like eating fast-food. Sex is healthy for you. For example, sex releases endorphins; painkillers. It has also been reported that if you have an active sex-life, you are less likely to be depressed.

There is no real basis for being against sex outside of marriage than religion, and I would really appreciate if you don't call people who don't have the exact opinions you do, dis-respectable. Why? Because, ironically, it's proof of lack of respect.

 

I don't care what a person does with themselves. Pre-marital sex really isn't a big issue. It really irks me when I get people telling me to stop because it's a non-issue to me. I don't care if you hold off because you see virginity as a sacred thing, but i'm not going to tell you you're wrong for doing so.

 

Let's see. There's:
My sister: A mother to two children, one of whom arrived when my sister was 17 and both of whom are in her wedding photo. To this day she remains active in her church community and is known as one of the best mothers under the age of 35 in that community. That said, her ex-husband is a jerk who will never find love, but that has nothing to do with having had sex before marriage. He's just a jerk. His only redeeming quality is that he's in the military, but that doesn't excuse his overall jerkiness.
My brother-in-law: My sister's second husband who is actually a decent person, is a fantastic father figure to my niece and nephew, and most certainly knows his way around a grill.
My parents: Conceived and gave birth to my older sister before their wedding. It's extremely obvious that they're making up the whole "parenting" thing as they go, but they've done a good job and always take steps to ensure that my future is bright, even if it means making my present a hell and a half.
At least three of my cousins
Two of my friends with whom I am well acquainted.

I agree that abortion is wrong, but for completely different reasons than you. You're not killing a baby, you're killing a human. At that point, the fetus is only a human and nothing more than a human. It's not a baby and it's not a person. By your logic, throwing away sperm released by masturbating is reckless abandonment.

My only beef with abortion is that it makes the entire process of sex functionally pointless. Without the possibility of reproduction, all sex does is make the two partaking parties feel good, which is a waste of all the energy that's put into it. Even then, my argument is flawed and could be taken apart fairly easily.

 

I wouldn't call it a waste of energy. By that logic, you'd also be against birth control. As others said above me, there are many health benefits to sex. Something that was not mention was that men who have sex 1-2 times a week are less likely to get testicular cancer. Fun fact.

I'm not going to give my opinion on abortion because that's not what this topic is about.

 

Where's the de-rep function when you need it?

...And?

Fact: married couples still face unwanted pregnancies. Did you think marriage provided a panacea? That'd be dumb.

Allow me just a few examples...
* My cousin bangs his girlfriend without being married. He makes money designing posters, flyers and banners for raves, festivals and websites (which look consistently slick imo). He is a DJ who headlines a local festival next month. He has a wider circle of friends than I can imagine. He's been picked for the national rugby team and is captain of his local team. In addition he coaches the girls' team. He's fluent in Dutch, French and English and can switch between the three in the blink of an eye.
* My ex-girlfriend has banged, well, me. She has recently obtained a Master Of Science's degree. She is the most selfless person I know, sacrificing what little free time she has to help out her mom. She constantly looks to improve herself and I would bet my wallet and all its contents that her body is healthier than yours (especially since she enjoys hiking). She has an extensive knowledge of geography, meteorology, movies, and Latin. I learn something new from her every day.
*Ian Kilmister, a.k.a. Lemmy (bet you didn't see him coming) is the frontman of Motörhead (a band ranked 26th on VH1 Greatest Artists Of Hard Rock), and has had sex with over 2000 women, which he obviously didn't marry. He plays one mean bass and is revered, adored even, by fans and colleagues alike. He has been active for over 45 years. Fellow rockstars like Slash offer their seats to him. He had studied Economics to get his band out of poverty (which obviously worked) and is one of the most prominent monetary experts in the world of music. He has seen more of the world than the members here put together.

How do you compare to them, kid? Let's see what you've got.

I thought babies were born first? Oh right...

Tell me more about how you've seen enough of the world and life in general to have even the vaguest clue about that.

Honest question: do you pad the walls of your room with pillows? Because you wouldn't want to stub your toe, would you? That wouldn't be healthy.

 

I'll concede here. It is obvious that you have seriously thought about the subject before and sex is more to you than just a recreational activity with you're current girlfriend. While I don't fully agree with you my remaining personal argument is spiritual. I have purposefully left out that spiritual argument since fellow Christian's most likely know it and already agree with me while others don't care. And on top of that, due it's abstract nature, I have no way to enforce it and you have no way to attack it without this turning into a huge general religious debate and I don't feel like going there, particularly in this thread. In the end, were I to suddenly not to be a Christian (and get all the resulting thoughts straightened out), my stance would likely end up strikingly similar to yours. Though I would likely place somewhat higher value on sex all the same.

I will leave you with one last food for thought though. You're statement "Sex is not a big deal, but lack of sex in a relationship is a really big deal." is somewhat of a paradox. If something is not important then its removal shouldn't be either. The best I can make the statement work is like a wall in a house. You don't think anything of it being there but having it removed could cause the whole house to collapse. That doesn't (in itself) then mean you should make that wall into a shrine of sorts, but perhaps it is something that you should look at from time to time and really appreciate instead of taking it for granted.

 

I have definitely thought through it. I have more or less weekly discussion throughout the year with different people I know regarding sex and also sex outside of marriage. And yeah, I don't want it to become a religious debate either, which is why I've stayed away from addressing it in particular.

I am aware of the paradox, and that's what it's meant to be as well. My point though, is that it shouldn't be considered that big of a deal (once again, not saying sleep around), but that living in a close to sex-less relationship is really difficult. At least for me. It doesn't have to be all-out sex, but at least something sexual/physical. (And worshiping a wall would be hilarious :b)

 

So asexual relationships are not going to work out becauae of no sex involved?

I mean seriously, people have been living together sex less for centuries and they all worked out in there own way. Today's society places a great deal on sex in a relationship, when it all depends on the individuals in the relationship whether it works, not whether they have sex or not. And that's been proven over history.

Shouldn't be a surprise for people waiting for sex with someone you actually care about, the pressure for intercourse has probably increased the amount of harm in relationships then improved them, if we think that factors of body image, performance, emotional attachment (or lack ther of) can result in great harm for current and future relationships.

From what i've seen adding sex to the mix at the right time for both couples is what is needed, not that it should be forced either way

 

No, I addressed it earlier :] I said except if you're asexual.

That's because it was usually not for pleasure/closeness, but simply to procreate.

The body image is likely to improve, though - is it not? If you know someone wants to see you naked, isn't that a compliment? I know my (ex) girlfriend loved that I liked to see her naked.

However, adding sex to the mix at the same time is basically what I am getting at. I have never pressured anyone into doing something they didn't want, which is what I'm advocating.

 

What about a romantic nonsexual relationship between two people who are not asexual?

 

Then its an asexual relationship. This is talking about people generally. Most people aren't asexual, though, and that's what I am addressing. (Don't argue that you can be in a romantic relationship with no desire to have sex - because that's asexuality)

 

Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction, not the lack of sexual desire. Believe it or not, it is possible to be sexually attracted to someone without wanting to have sex with him or her. That's how it works for me, anyway. Attraction and desire are very different things.

 

a·sex·u·al
adj.
1. Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless.
2. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.
3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex.



3rd definition is the one I'm going with.