Premarital sex: bad or good? Or neither?

[Amethyst Hunter]

Because this has come up about twice in separate threads, so throwing it out there for curiosity's sake...

Do you think premarital sex is a good, bad, or neutral thing? Why/why not?

For most of my life I've been pretty indifferent to sex in general; however, I still have this tiny leftover wretched streak of conservatism that goes "OMG premarital sex = you're a ho-bag damned to hell!" that comes from being raised in a predominantly and traditionally conservative area/culture. For this reason, I doubt that if I were ever to become involved with someone I'd seriously consider having sex with, I'd go the premarital route. I don't like that kind of guilt-tripping, but sometimes feelings can overrule anything else. And how I view myself is more important than whether or not I'm a statistical anomaly.

However, I don't care if anyone else does or doesn't do it. And I really have to wonder about the validity of any religion that places a higher premium on virginity than how one conducts oneself in regards to treatment of others. Granted, some people do have sex for all the wrong reasons. But I'm not about to condemn anybody for having premarital sex either. I can see the benefits and disadvantages of doing *and* not doing it:

Premarital, in favor of:

- get to know what you like
- get to know what your partner likes
- less stress of a wedding night, if relationship leads to marriage
- sex in general has health benefits (proven scientific studies!)

Premarital, not in favor of:

- especially for teenagers, risks (physical and emotional) outweigh benefits
- if religious, can affect this viewpoint
- if in bad relationship, can cause personal and legal problems

So I suppose my view of it in general would be neutral, and from a personal standpoint, I myself just wouldn't do it for - you guessed it - personal reasons.

Talk amongst yourselves...

[DrT]

Honestly, to me sex is a fun activity that I wouldn't forbid myself for any reason other than safety.
If a safe way to get at it is possible, then I'm all for it. I'm married now, so I can't be that enthousiastic ;), but it's the message I'll pass down to my sons (which will happen soon, oldest is 11): if you can have fun, go for it. But use a condom or I'll whip your ass (condom is provided to a certain extend).

The only downside of premarital sex I can see are the emotional ones. However I don't see how mariage will make these emotional issues any easier. As a matter of fact, a person not having sex may direct him/herself towards mariage for the wrong reasons (ie: have a go at it) and that's just a divorce in the making.

Moreover, emotional issues in pre-mariage relationship can happen without the sex...
oh, and your statement:

- especially for teenagers, risks (physical and emotional) outweigh benefits


I don't understand it.
emotional risks, as I said, do not require sex. There are certain emotional pain that are especially associated with sex, sure, but a strong education on that and a cultur eof talking openly about these issues will help.
physical.... you mean STDs ? Again, this risk is lessened in an open environement: if the child knows his parents are cool with him/her butterflying around, they don't need to hide a sexual relationship and can get all the info, communication, and support they need.
They won't get that in a 'no sex before mariage' family, and I'd wager that in such a setting the risks are higher, because the rebelious teenager will want to take risks simply to spite the family. But I can't back that up (except maybe with the rate of teen pregnancies, but it's a multifactorial issue).

[vanima]

Honestly, premarital sex is one of those things that I don't understand why someone wouldn't WANT to have.

for example: I learned what i like and disliked and was able to experiment AND get to know what differently people liked..

I know that if I would have stayed a virgin until i got married.. i would have regretted it because I would have denied a part of myself. I try to not deny myself anything, and sex... well sex is a very important factor in my life... I am a sexual person.. *shrug*

I do not believe that children are getting enough information to make informed SAFE decisions. Many are getting the abstanence factor pushed onto them and not getting information on condoms or other forms of birth control and STD prevention.

I am all for education (at home AND at school) that actually INFORMS teens on prevention and what not...


*btw.. sorry for the spelling errors.. i am half asleep as it is 3am*

[Cat]

I can understand if you are against premarital sex for religious reason, hey that's your own thing, stick to your beliefs :)

Personally, I see sex as an rather enjoyable act, a way to express feelings, and I'm the type who will only be in a monogamous relationship, I don't see why I need a ritual to be allowed to have sex.

Though I must say, I have good friend who is getting married soon who is religious and is waiting....more power to him!

To each their own.....I can only see this being a issue if one person is for waiting, and the other isn't....

[anriana]

As a kinky person, I could not imagine not having sex before making a lifelong commitment to my partner. I need to be sure that they are on the same wavelength as me, sexuality-wise, before doing that, and all the talk in the world won't tell you how well you play with someone.

As a queer person, I am never going to get married, for multiple reasons, and I'm sure as hell not going to be celibate my entire life.

I find the whole "no sex before marriage" a relic of a time when marriage was used to control women's sexuality and ensure the paternity of children. It really has no public place in modern times. The "True Love Waits" and abstince-only education movements disgust me and are fucking up this generation as they have no measureable effect other than lowering the likelihood of using contraception (and I'm sure they're causing all sorts of psychosis.) I don't care what quaint rituals conservatives want to practice, but they shoud keep them out of public policy.

[DrT]

I find the whole "no sex before marriage" a relic of a time when marriage was used to control women's sexuality and ensure the paternity of children.

I do believe the whole 'abstinence before mariage' movement is all about control. Women and men alike, but particularly women. Back to the good ol' days, basically.

Don't get me wrong: if you want to wait, fine by me. It's the pushing your ideas on others that iritates me, and it can be any number of ideas.

America is truly a one of a kind country: for a westernized country, the ties to religion and its values are extremely strong. I can't vouch for all of Europe, but I know that in many of its countries the idea of an abstinence advocacy program would be utterly alien.
What's the take on it in Canada or Australia ?

[AdminAssistant]

I don't understand it. emotional risks, as I said, do not require sex. There are certain emotional pain that are especially associated with sex, sure, but a strong education on that and a cultur eof talking openly about these issues will help.
physical.... you mean STDs ?

One issue with teens and sex I see (and have experienced) is that women aren't being taught to stand their ground and say "No" and MEAN IT. Date rape is a very emotionally and physically traumatic thing - something that I'm still not completely over although that relationship ended 7 years ago. Teens just aren't prepared to deal with that.

[The Shadow]

I say sex before marriage is fine...so long as it doesn't hold up the ceremony and keep all your guests waiting.

[Boozy]

America is truly a one of a kind country: for a westernized country, the ties to religion and its values are extremely strong. I can't vouch for all of Europe, but I know that in many of its countries the idea of an abstinence advocacy program would be utterly alien.
What's the take on it in Canada or Australia ?

The majority here in Canada consider abstinence-only education to be laughable. There is obviously a minority of people here who disagree with that sentiment, but for the most part it is not discussed in any serious manner.

Here in Ontario, students are given sex education at the age of about 12, in 7th grade. I remember it to be both frank and extensive.

[MadMike]

Here in Ontario, students are given sex education at the age of about 12, in 7th grade. I remember it to be both frank and extensive.

Even that is probably a bit on the late side. By then, they're already getting all kinds of information from friends, some of which may not be entirely correct. Or worse yet, they could already be having sex. As much as we may not want to think about it, it does happen. My son just started high school, and he knows some girls his age or even a year or two younger who became pregnant, had a pregnancy scare, or are considering becoming sexually active.

I wasn't doing anything at a young age like that, but when my parent's had "the talk" with me at the age of 11, I had already heard most of it. I chose to have the talk with my son when he was 10. It was an interesting conversation, to say the least.

I say sex before marriage is fine...so long as it doesn't hold up the ceremony and keep all your guests waiting.

That's just wrong. Funny, but wrong. :D

Honestly, premarital sex is one of those things that I don't understand why someone wouldn't WANT to have.


Same here. Sex is something that's perfectly natural, and can be a healthy, beautiful thing. And to suppress your urges like that just seems unnatural.

I really don't see why some people make such a big deal about sex before marriage. Sex after marriage -- now that's the myth!

[MystyGlyttyr]

Well, at first mine was religious because I was raised Catholic, but then even as I fell away from that particular religion, I still didn't feel right about sex outside of marriage. Then, once I thought about it, I realized my reasons weren't even so much the marriage part. It's just that saying "premarital" is the easiest word to use.

To me, having sex...this is hard to phrase just right but I'll try. I understand why it's fun to some people, and why they enjoy it, and why they would want to experiment with it, and I have no issue with that. But I feel that there really can be no such thing as purely safe heterosexual sex because there always seems to be a chance, no matter how tiny, of pregnancy happening. I mean, the man has a vasectomy and low sperm count, the woman has a tubal and is on birth control, and they used a condom...but there is still, however remote, a chance that it could all fail. Condoms fail like, 13% of the time, vasectomies have been reported to reverse THEMSELVES, eggs jump the breach all the time.

Now, if the couple is okay with the thought of a baby coming, and they can handle it, then okay, fine. But there's so many that would get pregnant and go "well, oops" and go get an abortion, which I really, REALLY have very personal issues with. So, to me, I suppose the issue isn't even the sex so much as it is what could result from it. So I guess what I'm actually against is sex where the couple isn't prepared for all the possible repercussions.

It's hard to put into words, but that's the best try I can get.

(So far as the abortion thing, that would be a very difficult explanation...I won't hold it against a woman who's had one, but I just can't be for it unless it's an absolute medical necessity. Suffice it to say that it wouldn't be any reason you had heard before and leave it at that.)

[anriana]

Well, at first mine was religious because I was raised Catholic, but then even as I fell away from that particular religion, I still didn't feel right about sex outside of marriage. Then, once I thought about it, I realized my reasons weren't even so much the marriage part. It's just that saying "premarital" is the easiest word to use.

I don't see how "premarital" is a synonym for "not prepared to have a child if contraception fails," which is how you seem to be using it.

But I feel that there really can be no such thing as purely safe heterosexual sex because there always seems to be a chance, no matter how tiny, of pregnancy happening.

Cunnilingus? Fellatio? Anal? BDSM without P-in-V intercourse?

Condoms fail like, 13% of the time,

Only if the people using them don't bother to use use them correctly.

[AFPheonix]

It's really a personal preference. My husband and I had been having sex for years before we got married. I had a slight twinge at first because I was still freeing myself from the church, but frankly, they make such an overblown issue of it that it was like, "that's it?" for me. Don't get me wrong, it's fun, but it's not the whole blown up event abstinence advocates make it out to be.

So for me, I'm neutral on it. People need to decide what's best for themselves, and I'm cool with that. I made the decision to have sex before and I don't regret that one bit. I have like, anti-regret ;)

[Teysa]

I guess I've been having pre-marital sex for years now. Mind you I've been with the same person for several years now and he's the only one I've ever done anything with, but we're still not married in the technical sense of the word. There are a lot of reasons for that, which I won't go into here, but suffice it to say that I've come to terms with them and I've chosen to share my life with him, piece of paper or no.

I do think premarital sex is something that shouldn't be taken lightly and teenagers need to be taught early on about the possible consequences. They also need to be taught about all of the possible ways to prevent said consequences, whether it be abstinence, condoms, or other forms of birth control.

[vanima]

Same here. Sex is something that's perfectly natural, and can be a healthy, beautiful thing. And to suppress your urges like that just seems unnatural.

I really don't see why some people make such a big deal about sex before marriage. Sex after marriage -- now that's the myth!

that is exactly what i mean.. it is a NATURAL process... I don't understand suppressing urges at all :D


if i wanna have a cookie.. i will have a cookie.. if i wanna have sex... i will have sex... nothing wrong with either :D (except the cookie will make me fatter.. but whatever :D)

and on the second part... I am married... sex is completely mythological now :D

[MystyGlyttyr]

I don't see how "premarital" is a synonym for "not prepared to have a child if contraception fails," which is how you seem to be using it.

Like I said, I just can't come up with a better word. "Careless" sex isn't right. "Casual" isn't right. It's kind of a lot to type in that whole phrase every single time. If I get a word that works, I'll use it.

Cunnilingus? Fellatio? Anal? BDSM without P-in-V intercourse?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. If there is any chance of even the slightest bit of sperm coming anywhere close to the vaginal openings, then pregnancy is possible. Ask a couple thousand people a year who find that out the hard way. If that doesn't happen, if the couple makes absolutely sure it doesn't happen, then all right, I suppose that would be pregnancy proof. But most people don't line themselves in anticipation for it.

Only if the people using them don't bother to use use them correctly.

Which is kind of my point. People don't always do the correct things. They can buy wrong sizes, apply wrong, etc., even if they read the directions. Shit just happens sometimes.

[McDreidel09]

I say sex before marriage is fine...so long as it doesn't hold up the ceremony and keep all your guests waiting.

That..is...AMAZING!! May I use that as my signature? I will give you credit and everything.

[The Shadow]

Absolutely! :)

[Flyndaran]

The premarital part is meaningless. Marriage is just a cultural and sadly legal ritual.
Sex is a natural evolutionarilly demanding urge. It will happen unless one makes it their life to abstain for extreme periods of time, and that often causes all sorts of life problems aside from the overalll silliness of such an anti-fun attitude.

Sex is like eating things with sugar. It's techniically possible to live without them, but anyone trying to do so will have to modify their lives to such a degree as to make life a whole lot less enjoyable.

(Remember, manufacturers put sugar in nearly EVERYTHING whether the food is considered "sweet" or not. Before my medication, I had to survive on an extremely limited diet that required no sugar up to and including the avoidance of fruits, and caramel coloring as that was simply burnt sugar.)

...
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. If there is any chance of even the slightest bit of sperm coming anywhere close to the vaginal openings, then pregnancy is possible. Ask a couple thousand people a year who find that out the hard way. If that doesn't happen, if the couple makes absolutely sure it doesn't happen, then all right, I suppose that would be pregnancy proof. But most people don't line themselves in anticipation for it.
....

Oh please. You're one of those if it's technically possible we must run around panicked that it's going to happen soon.
It is technically possible for H.I.V. to be transmitted via saliva alone.... BUT not one incident of such has ever been reported.
One has to evalute probabilities rationally. Sadly this is very hard for most people to do, especially when considering the media's terror alert of the day while always ignoring the FAR more common threats that are so common and real that they don't make "good news".

Do you or anyone consciously minimize their average hours spent driving? Car accidents are much more often deadly than most other activities.
Do you or anyone avoid peanut butter because it very very slightly increases your risk of certain types of cancer?
Do you or anyone avoid dogs, because they are far more likely to cause injury than wild black bears?

If you breathe, you take risks. It's all about only taking reasonable risks and when considering potential rewards adjust behavior accordingly.
Remember, it's living, no one gets out alive.

[Greenday]

The premarital part is meaningless. Marriage is just a cultural and sadly legal ritual.
Sex is a natural evolutionarilly demanding urge. It will happen unless one makes it their life to abstain for extreme periods of time, and that often causes all sorts of life problems aside from the overalll silliness of such an anti-fun attitude.

Sex is like eating things with sugar. It's techniically possible to live without them, but anyone trying to do so will have to modify their lives to such a degree as to make life a whole lot less enjoyable.

Wow, that could have been the best explanation of how I feel on it. That's like the best comparison ever!

[anriana]

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. If there is any chance of even the slightest bit of sperm coming anywhere close to the vaginal openings, then pregnancy is possible. Ask a couple thousand people a year who find that out the hard way. If that doesn't happen, if the couple makes absolutely sure it doesn't happen, then all right, I suppose that would be pregnancy proof. But most people don't line themselves in anticipation for it.


Seriously? You shouldn't have cunnilingus because the guy might have bits of sperm floating around his mouth? You shouldn't have fellatio because... uh... the vagina and mouth are somehow connected? You shouldn't play naughty schoolgirl and strict headmaster because... canes are made out sperm? I am quite confused.

[MadMike]

)

and on the second part... I am married... sex is completely mythological now :D

I know that feeling all too well. :(

[Amethyst Hunter]

Seriously? You shouldn't have cunnilingus because the guy might have bits of sperm floating around his mouth? You shouldn't have fellatio because... uh... the vagina and mouth are somehow connected? You shouldn't play naughty schoolgirl and strict headmaster because... canes are made out sperm? I am quite confused.

Actually, I can kind of see by what Mysty meant. As anyone who's ever done it knows, the heat of passion can really stir things up and logic tends to take a backseat to the primal urge of "OMG must fuck now!" (Which is why it's so important to plan beforehand for when the heat index shoots up, but I digress) So if a couple is rolling around having a good time, even if the man's penis itself is nowhere near the woman's vagina, if there's fresh ejaculate or pre-ejaculate (which still contains viable sperm) anywhere that somehow gets inside the vagina (and I can see a possible scenario where that might happen, like ejaculate on a guy's fingers that then get put inside the vagina), the woman is in deep shit if that swimmer makes it to the egg.

Granted, these scenarios that don't involve PIV sex may or may not be as common as they may sound. But it is a possibility, however remote. And as Mysty also mentioned, birth control can and does fail, even with sterilization. That's another big reason why I'm not interested in sex: I NEVER EVER want to be pregnant, not for any reason at all, and the only way I'd even remotely consider having sex is if I and the guy were both sterilized and he wore a rubber and I was still on the Pill. And frankly, even then, if an accident somehow happened, nothing on earth would compel me to go through with a pregnancy I didn't want. (Mind you, this is my own decision; YMMV) Birth control is great and I highly recommend it, whatever the method, but it isn't yet a 100% failsafe, and I wouldn't wish accidents on anybody because it's such an intensely personal decision fraught with a lot of high emotion no matter what takes place.

Does this take away a potentially fun experience? Maybe, but then again I've often been of the thought that you can't really miss what you never had when it comes to some things in life. For me, sex - or the lack thereof - just happens to be one of those things.

(What I REALLY want in life is money. Ooh yeah. Whoever said that money doesn't buy happiness was full of shit. Money can buy me a helluva lot of happiness, mwaahahaha)

[anriana]

Actually, I can kind of see by what Mysty meant. As anyone who's ever done it knows, the heat of passion can really stir things up and logic tends to take a backseat to the primal urge of "OMG must fuck now!" (Which is why it's so important to plan beforehand for when the heat index shoots up, but I digress) So if a couple is rolling around having a good time, even if the man's penis itself is nowhere near the woman's vagina, if there's fresh ejaculate or pre-ejaculate (which still contains viable sperm) anywhere that somehow gets inside the vagina (and I can see a possible scenario where that might happen, like ejaculate on a guy's fingers that then get put inside the vagina), the woman is in deep shit if that swimmer makes it to the egg.

So... some people are ignorant idiots, therefore it's immoral for any couple who would abort a pregnancy to have sex?

I've had sex plenty of times and I've never let any "heat of passion" override my strong desire to not be infected with a parasite. Even when my partner and I were stupid, horny teenagers, we were careful enough to avoid any possible chance of sperm/vaginal contact. And I still haven't seen any argument as to why BDSM that doesn't involve genital contact would be wrong.

[Amethyst Hunter]

So... some people are ignorant idiots, therefore it's immoral for any couple who would abort a pregnancy to have sex?

Not exactly. There ARE ignorant idiots out there who don't bother to use any sort of precautions because they think they're somehow invincible, and those people I wanna slap (Or at least give a stern talking-to!). Those people who are generally consistent with the use of protection and who may occasionally slip up do not fall under the category of ignorance though. Now, I may never have had sex, but I DO understand the "gottahaveitNOW" impatience to some extent (thank you mental illness). So in that context I can see where a couple who is normally vigilant about things might get carried away in the heat of the moment and forget their stuff, or apply it haphazardly in such a way that it fails to do its intended job. People are only human.

Is it stupid? Probably. But then we've all done dumb things, so who can really point fingers there? But it's not immoral for those who would choose abortion to have sex, IMO.

As far as the whole abortion topic itself goes, that's a whole 'nother bag of worms but suffice it to say that I firmly believe it is a personal decision that belongs to no one except the person involved, hence why some people would do it and others would not. That's why Mysty said she personally has a hard time with it, yet she would not bug anybody else about it. Nothing wrong with that.

And I still haven't seen any argument as to why BDSM that doesn't involve genital contact would be wrong.

I haven't seen any argument that BDSM sans genitals (or even just in general) *is* wrong... :confused: (Though I admit that I am the type of person who can't fathom purposely causing someone else pain without due cause (i.e., being pissed off for a justifiable reason). But that's just me and if that's your kink, hey, have at it.)

[MystyGlyttyr]

If you breathe, you take risks. It's all about only taking reasonable risks and when considering potential rewards adjust behavior accordingly.
Remember, it's living, no one gets out alive.

You know, this is not the first time you've said something disparaging to me about how I approach risk, and I'm pretty sure that the last time, I told you pretty much this exact same thing. It depends on the risk.

Look, I'm a pro wrestler. That's a ridiculously risky business to be in, and unless you're one of only 100 or so in the very top of the business, there's almost no rewards save pure enjoyment of it. But those are risks that I've weighed and that I have taken preparations for. I have life insurance if I crack my head open and die. I have disability insurance if I break my neck and get paralyzed. Not cheap insurance, either, but I have it, because I'm PREPARED.

It's not that I refuse to take any risk, anywhere, anyway, ever. It's that there are some things I just won't risk. Yeah, the risks of my nieces or nephew getting mauled by a dog are minimal, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just smile and wave while they vault into a fence where any kind of strange animals are. And yeah, loading them into the car has it's dangers, but that's why cars are designed more and more everyday to protect the passengers. Yes, everything IS dangerous and everything carries risk. EVERYTHING. That was EXACTLY my point. The part that got missed was that this particular danger is one that I choose not to expose myself to.

The question was asked why I'm against this type of sex, and I said why...because sex is probably one of the least prepared-for activities that humans engage in. If someone goes fucking SKYDIVING, they get two different cords to pull. How many people in the general population use more than one type of protection? Some, sure, but I'd be willing to bet a sizeable amount of money that the percentage is less than a quarter. And the fact that STDs are still spreading like wildfire shows that there are still people using absolutely squat for protection. I mean, go to Snopes and look at the number of crazy things people still believe about sex and pregnancy and how it works and what prevents it and all the magical ways to "take it back".

So far as suppressing urges, as I've mentioned many times, I am asexual. I have no urges. I thought I had some once, but no, I never have. It requires no effort from me to not have sex. So I don't have the emotional connection to it and I can and do simply analyze it for the action it is and the results that can come from every variety of it, and not the feelings that go into it. So sorry to be the exception to evolution's rule.

[Flyndaran]

...
So far as suppressing urges, as I've mentioned many times, I am asexual. I have no urges. I thought I had some once, but no, I never have. It requires no effort from me to not have sex. So I don't have the emotional connection to it and I can and do simply analyze it for the action it is and the results that can come from every variety of it, and not the feelings that go into it. So sorry to be the exception to evolution's rule.

This right here is something that would have been very important to know at the beginning.
If there are no perceived benefits, say from a complete and inborn lack of sex drive, then of course even the tiniest miniscule risk of bad outcomes from the most safe form of sex would be too much.

Just hearing your opinion sans background made you look a little paranoid. Knowing your history makes me understand that from your perspective you are simply staying with a rational outlook.

As to no sex drive, it must be strange to have never had it. I had it, but because of my much needed Paxil, I am down to 5% normal drive. Having had it and lost it, I must admit that I feel calmer and more rational for longer periods of time... But good lord do I miss it, and so does my life mate even more than I do.

[DrT]

AS I've said above, I am against forcing the 'abstinence only' idea on people, because I do believe that forcing your belief on others is simply wrong, unless that belief has something to do with health or immediate danger (for instance, I have nothing against you forcing on me the belief that the bombs are coming and I should get to a shelter, especially if you can prove it)

That mean I'm also against the fact that people diminish others because they happen to think sex before mariage is a bad thing. Leave them to their belief, don't force the issue.
As one who had a 'surprise' thing happen (ie: wife pregnant, not prepared for it, certainly didn't want it) I can perfectly see why people would shy away from the risk of having children. However I will point out that the B (nickname of the third son in question) is one of the joy of my life and makes me very happy, so it turned out to be a very agreeable surprise.
But if you don't wanna, tis fine. I won't force it upon you and will stand with you if others are trying to force it upon you or belittle you.

Beside, quite frankly: tis fun indeed, but it's not the best thing out there, nor the longest, nor the cleanest.

Lastly: having children is the most life changing experience there is. period.
in extenso: the risk of having children is one of the greatest and most frightening risk ever, period.

A child is a lifelong engagement, and from the day you have him/her your life stops being about you, and will not be until they are capable of taking care of themselves (a good 25-30 years). Sure, you'll get moments to yourself, but that's barely significant. So it's nothing to scoff at.
And if you disagree with that last paragraph, I will feel very sorry for you and that child.

[powerboy]

There is nothing wrong with having pre marital sex. I like to get to know my partner and what she may or may not like.

[anriana]

I haven't seen any argument that BDSM sans genitals (or even just in general) *is* wrong... :confused: (Though I admit that I am the type of person who can't fathom purposely causing someone else pain without due cause (i.e., being pissed off for a justifiable reason). But that's just me and if that's your kink, hey, have at it.)

MystyGlitter said yes to it being wrong (along with anal/oral) on page 2.

There are plenty of non-pain based BDSM activities. Like... peeing on people! I'm sure that's much more understandable. =)

[AFPheonix]

Flyn, have they ever had you on wellbutrin? It works on a different receptor than SSRIs do and a lot of people don't have that particular side effect with it.

[Flyndaran]

Flyn, have they ever had you on wellbutrin? It works on a different receptor than SSRIs do and a lot of people don't have that particular side effect with it.

Yeah. That was one of the non-drugs as I called them. It did nothing at all.
So far nothing works anywhere near as well as good old libido destroying Paxil for keeping me from hiding twitching in the closet. I am no taking small doses of helper drugs Clonazepam and Abilify and waiting for any helpful effects. So far no side effects, so here's hoping it all works.

I would like to keep a job for more than three days before all my hair turns grey. (I'm 34 and anxiety crippled since age 15.)

MystyGlitter said yes to it being wrong (along with anal/oral) on page 2.

There are plenty of non-pain based BDSM activities. Like... peeing on people! I'm sure that's much more understandable. =)

That's water sports not sadism or masochism and certainly not bondage.
I don't think that fits.
I personally think that the desire to feel pain in masochism or in delivering it in sadism is a mental disorder. But it's one that's easier to manage with consenting adults in a carefully planned relationship than through therapy.
It's how I see sex changes. Wanting to undergo surgery to remove healthy body parts is a mental illness. But it's one that's much easier to remedy via surgery than therapy.

[LewisLegion]

First let me state that I also do not engage and will not engage in pre-marital sex. Personally, I think that sex is the highest expression of love and respect there is, and giving it to whomever just to 'have fun' seems demeaning to me. Again, my personal opinion and how I choose to live my life. I tell no one else how to live, that's between them and the dictates of their own conscious. However, I do take minor exception to this:

Sex is a natural evolutionarilly demanding urge. It will happen unless one makes it their life to abstain for extreme periods of time, and that often causes all sorts of life problems aside from the overalll silliness of such an anti-fun attitude.

Sex is like eating things with sugar. It's techniically possible to live without them, but anyone trying to do so will have to modify their lives to such a degree as to make life a whole lot less enjoyable.

So because I don't want to have sex I'm silly and anti-fun? My life is less enjoyable? I know it is not how you meant it (at least I hope not) but this seems to be in the same as saying 'if you don't have sex, you must be miserable or there's simply something wrong with you.'

I have lots of fun. I'm a fun person. I love my life and I enjoy it in many capacities. I don't think the fact that I have not yet engaged in sex and will not unless I marry makes me in any way miserable or anti-fun. Someone who has sex a lot may not understand how someone else can live without it. That's fine, but lots of people do and are fine and healthy human beings.

[anriana]

That's water sports not sadism or masochism and certainly not bondage.I don't think that fits.

You probably don't think it fits because you left out several of the things BDSM stands for (dominance & submission.) Some people use water sports as part of erotic humiliation and some use it for other purposes, but either way it's considered a part of BDSM.

I personally think that the desire to feel pain in masochism or in delivering it in sadism is a mental disorder. But it's one that's easier to manage with consenting adults in a carefully planned relationship than through therapy.
It's how I see sex changes. Wanting to undergo surgery to remove healthy body parts is a mental illness. But it's one that's much easier to remedy via surgery than therapy.

The only nice thing I can say to that is I'm glad you're not a psychologist.

[DesignFox]

When it comes to sex, I say to each their own. As long as both partners are consenting and on the same page...go for it.

That said, I personally, think having sex before the marriage is important...mostly because...how the hell do you know you are compatible otherwise???

I mean...What if your partner turns out to LIKE BDSM and you don't??? What do you do? What if you just can't get into a good rhythm together?

I mean, I guess if you've never had it before, it may not be that important to you...but sex is important to me. I want to know my partner and I are compatible and can please one another.

Sex can be an incredible bonding experience...and that to me is how it should be. If you and your partner aren't compatible...I mean...that would just suck!

hehe and not for nothing, the very first time is...awkward. I'm glad I won't have that awkwardness creeping into my wedding night...Someone should have to throw cold water on me and my partner to separate us. (if that day ever comes) :p

All my opinion of course.

[AdminAssistant]

If a long-lasting relationship falls apart because of a sexual issue....how good was the relationship? I mean, in a marriage, eventually, you'll grow old together. You're not going to have the same body. Sex on a regular basis (probably) ain't going to happen. There's got to be more than sexual chemistry going on.

Marriage night: Every, and I mean EVERY married woman I have talked to has said they either did nothing on their wedding night, or just pumped out a quickie to say they did it. You're just too wiped on that particular evening to bring out the lingerie and fuzzy handcuffs.

Being single is no reason to not have sexual release. In other threads we've determined all guys do it. Well, girls can and should. Screw diamonds, batteries are a girl's best friend!!

I'm also not one for BDSM. Call me old-fashioned, call me a fogey. To me, pain = pain. Not pleasure. But to each their own. As a friend of mine said, "Nothing is more important to me than my orgasm and nothing is less important to me than your orgasm"

[LewisLegion]

If a long-lasting relationship falls apart because of a sexual issue....how good was the relationship? I mean, in a marriage, eventually, you'll grow old together. You're not going to have the same body. Sex on a regular basis (probably) ain't going to happen. There's got to be more than sexual chemistry going on.

Totally agree. By the time you know and love someone enough to even be talking marriage I would hope you would know enough about each other to know if one has some strange fetish, or if sexual chemistry is going to be an issue. And if you don't know and are finding yourself talking marriage...TALK to each other and ask. A human being isn't a car. Reducing pre-marital sex to a 'test-drive before deciding if you wanna purchase' to me is extremely dehumanizing and reducing a relationship down to one factor. What if someone found their soul mate, the love of their life, who for some reason physically could not indulge in the sex act at all? Should they halt the relationship because it lacks that one factor? Should sex really be THAT important?

Of course its *important* but it isn't the end-all be-all of a romantic relationship. I think today's society is far too sex-centered, focusing only on sex-appeal and physical appearance and 'having fun' and less on lasting, deeply involved relationships that take everything into account about a person and not just one or two things.

[anriana]

I have someone who I love deeply, who complements my personality and my interests, and who I've referred to as "an emotional soulmate" several times, but I'm not compatible with sexually. I call him my best friend and I would never, ever consider making a lifelong commitment to monogamy with him, because that would be silly. Both he and I would be completely miserable and probably not honor that commitment.


If I were to make that type of commitment to someone, they'd need to have all of the attributes he has AND be sexually compatible with me, otherwise, why should I make that commitment? I can't think of anything I can get from a partner that I can't get from my best friend + a friend with benefits.

[prb]

Here in Ontario, students are given sex education at the age of about 12, in 7th grade. I remember it to be both frank and extensive.Started in Grade 4 for me. Same for my brother. Different schools.

[BookstoreEscapee]

Personally, I don't have a problem with premarital sex. For me, it has to be in a committed relationship. I was 26 when I first had sex, and I've only been with 3 people, all of whom I was in a long-term relationship with at the time. I do think it's an important part of a relationship, married or not, though I have to have time to get to know the person for a while, first. I won't jump into bed with someone on the first several dates (the TV-standard "third date" is just way too soon for me), and I've never, nor do I ever want to, have a one-night stand.

I don't care what quaint rituals conservatives want to practice, but they shoud keep them out of public policy.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Sex education should be about preserving individual and public health (physical and psychological), not dictating morals.


But there's so many that would get pregnant and go "well, oops" and go get an abortion, which I really, REALLY have very personal issues with.

This is an attitude that a lot of "pro-life" people have; they often assume that every woman who is pro-choice is so casual about getting an abortion. I find it insulting. I am absolutely pro-choice, but if I were to find myself in the position of having to make that decision, believe me, it would not be so easy. It is extremely unlikely that I would choose to have an abortion, barring any serious medical reason. While there are certainly people out there who are callous enough to accidentally get pregnant, and just zip into the clinic and have it "taken care of," I would venture to say that the vast majority of women who have abortions do not take the decision so lightly. I do realize that you are talking about your own personal feelings; I appreciate that you wouldn't hold it against someone if they did have an abortion. I don't know who said it, but I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."

One has to evalute probabilities rationally. Sadly this is very hard for most people to do, especially when considering the media's terror alert of the day while always ignoring the FAR more common threats that are so common and real that they don't make "good news".

Absolutely. And this is one of the problems with abstinence-only programs. They do not teach teens to realistically evaluate the risks of having sex, and therefore do not teach them to minimize those risks.

My high school did sex ed in two pieces. Freshman year was the biology (which we learned back in 4th grade, anyway) and Senior year went into birth control, STDs, the emotional/psychological issues, and yes, even abortion. It was pretty comprehensive and open, though frankly, I think Senior year is too late. (For the record, I graduated HS in 1993.)

[DesignFox]

Of course its *important* but it isn't the end-all be-all of a romantic relationship.

I didn't say it was the end all. Just FTR. I just say I prefer to know that I'm compatible with the person before I end up committed to sleeping with them exclusively for the rest of my life.

Once I make a commitment that big, I want all my bases covered...and I want to totally commit myself to that person in every way. It's not something I take lightly.

And I'm not into BDSM, either. I'm just saying that until you start playing around you don't really know what you're into or what your boundaries are. Best to establish them before you get yourself in too deep to get out. I haven't exactly had a lot of partners, but the few I have had have each taught me something different about themselves and about myself.

*shrug*

Again. You want to wait? Great. I didn't. That's just my personal take on things.

I haven't thought of any of my partners as less than human beings. If anything, for the time we were together, the experiences we shared brought us extremely close as people. It has made it difficult to remain friendly since the relationship dissolved, but I don't think I'd trade it for anything. We got to know each other in ways most people never will.

[Boozy]

Started in Grade 4 for me. Same for my brother. Different schools.

May I be terribly rude and ask how old you are? I ask because I don't currently know anyone with kids in elementary school, and I wonder if they've been starting sex ed earlier since I left school. I was in grade 7 in 1990, so a lot may have changed.

I agree with Mad Mike: Grade 7 isn't terribly late, but it probably isn't early enough. I should probably be a continuing thing. For example, a seven-year old should probably know the basics about where babies come from, but doesn't need to know how to use a condom yet.

[DesignFox]

May I be terribly rude and ask how old you are? I ask because I don't currently know anyone with kids in elementary school, and I wonder if they've been starting sex ed earlier since I left school. I was in grade 7 in 1990, so a lot may have changed.


I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to chime in. My sex ed started in 4th grade as well.

4th Grade we kids watched videos that were specific to our gender. In grade 5, we swapped videos, and I believe that was the time we watched the Live Birth video.

In middle school (6,7,8), our health classes introduced us to sex education. I don't remember exactly what we were taught though...don't remember if it went into safe sex or not, although I'm thinking the curriculum might have.

I know we were definitely being taught about that stuff starting in High School.

I graduated high school in 2000.

Fortunately for me, I didn't have to rely on the school system. My parents taught me about "where babies come from" when I was in about 2nd or 3rd grade...when I got old enough that sex might become an issue, they were very open and provided me with books, answers to my questions, etc.

Basically, their attitude has always been- do what you want, just don't be stupid. Unlike some of my friends, I was never forbidden from having the other gender over the house/in my room. (only exception was that there were no one-on-one boy sleepovers until I was 17- and he was my first long term boyfriend- but then I never even asked about that until then.) *shrug*

When I was a kid/teen I wasn't much interested in having sex, anyway. I was more involved with all my school work and after school activities. I couldn't be bothered, and I didn't understand the girls who got pregnant at 14, 16, etc...especially since I knew they'd been educated- we all went through the same curriculum.

[Flyndaran]

Porn taught me the "basics" that I really wanted to watch... I mean know.
Actual sex education other than mechanics was learned on my own. Schools that I went to started far too late and all I remember was the constant pounding into our skulls that A.I.D.S. can't be transmitted via casual contanct. And each freaking year, there were some kids that asked that question and still weren't satisfied with the answer.

So the most important lesson I learned from sex ed. was that the world is full of willfully ignorant idiots.

[Slytovhand]

OMG... 5 pages in, and still no-one has said it...

Premarital sex: bad or good? Or neither?

Well, some of it has been good, some has been bad. And a few times, it was rather neither....

Ok, now that the obligatories have been dealt with, firstly...

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I thought on this board, we were allowed to express it??? Mysty expressed her opinion, and why she has it (at least a part of it). I'm cool with that... :D

Secondly, I'll really really badly misquote someone.. "The 2 worst things about the human condition are sex and pain. We spend most of our time chasing one and avoiding the other, that we never really live our lives". (and it's the last bit that's the misquote...can't easily find it now) The gist of which is, obsession isn't a good thing, no matter what the obsession. Which is why many religions require or ask for celibacy... and some even just have it as a matter of course with not 'requirement' - it's just something you take on as part of your spiritual progress. Marriage doesn't work for some very serious religious pursuits.. and neither does sex in general.

For me, more personally, I can appreciate LL's comment on "sex as fun = dehumanizing for true emotion". But that's because everyone has a different take on sex, and also on what they see as 'respect'. I don't place that much significance on sex... I see it as a way to increase the human (or any other) race, and in lieu of having a genetic code that gives us a mating season (or at least, one that can be over-ridden) humanity has evolved so that we can have kids any time of the year. How to make sure that happens? Make it feel good! After all, if it didn't, would the human race still be around?? Ain't Mother Nature smart???

Sex = Sugar?? Ummm, I've got far more sugar in my diet than sex. It's easy to avoid. I've even turned it down.

[Boozy]

So because I don't want to have sex I'm silly and anti-fun? My life is less enjoyable? I know it is not how you meant it (at least I hope not) but this seems to be in the same as saying 'if you don't have sex, you must be miserable or there's simply something wrong with you.'

I believe Flyndaran was addressing a very specific issue in that post; namely, the fear of pregnancy. I read his statement more as "If you're desperately horny and feel physically and mentally ready to have sex, it's silly to deny yourself that pleasure because you're terrified of pregnancy."

If you use condoms properly, your odds of pregnancy are low. If a pregnancy would be a disaster for you, I'd recommend using both condoms and some form of hormonal birth control, like the Depo shot or the Pill.

All of the stories I've heard about people getting pregnant despite using two or more forms of birth control have been on the internet. I do not know of anyone in real life to whom that has happened. I draw certain conclusions from that; take that as you will.

[Sylvia727]

Sex is just an activity; it's the social, emotional, psychological and whatever else attachments to the activity that cause problems and benefits, at least from where I'm standing. Physically, there are benefits and risks, which are fairly straightforward and easy to evaluate. Emotionally and psychologically, people attach meaning to the activity. They place value or shame on themselves, their partners, and their relationships. Socially, people conform to or confront society's expectations of them and their sexuality.

Sex is also part of a social construct. One's neighbors and peers influence not only how one handles one's sexuality in public (think: marriage), but also how one feels about sex, the various forms of it, and the people who have it in its different forms and settings. Homosexuality was almost never, if ever, accepted in previous societies and still isn't in many others. Yes, this king or that emperor was flamingly flamboyant, but they still got married to a woman and fathered little kinglets.

Whether premarital sex is good, bad, or neither would depend entirely on the people having it and the context in which they do. A useful shortcut that I often use is to look at the results. A couple feels better about themselves and their partners? Good. Someone feels hurt and lonely? Bad. Someone gets an STD or an unwanted pregnancy? Bad. Someone gets stoned as an adulterer? Well, bad; unless they evaluated the risks and decided a sufficiently earth-moving orgasm would be worth death. (No, of course I'm not advocating legalized murder, but I still wonder about people who know the risks of unacceptable forms of sex in their society and took them anyway. Bravery and stupidity are often the same action seen from different perspectives.)

[LewisLegion]

Again. You want to wait? Great. I didn't. That's just my personal take on things.

And that's fine :) I choose to wait, you chose not to, and neither way is 'right' or 'wrong'.

I'll have to re-read Flyn's post...I didn't see any mention of pregnancy there but it's very possible I missed something.

I believe that what people do is between them and their conscience. My reasons for remaining abstinant are my reasons and opinions. I don't think anyone else is 'wrong' for choosing otherwise.

My upset comes in that it has become so rare in today's society that people choose to abstain that most actually think that something must be wrong with a person if they choose not to have sex. I get it all the time which is probably why I responded (most likely hastily) the way I did to Flyn's post. I get asked if I was abused (I was, but that is not the reason I abstain), if I have a health issues, if I have poor self-esteem...people seem shocked because I look attractive enough (because the ONLY reason that someone wouldn't have sex is because they must be too ugly to get it *insert eyeroll*). I get told I must be lonely, I must be boring, I must be sad, I must have something mentally wrong, don't I want to have fun? Don't I want to enjoy myself?

NO ONE seems to accept the idea that I choose to wait until I'm married, that my life is just fine, that if I never have sex at all...I'm fine with that. I'm happy, friendly, and know very well how to enjoy myself.

Society today just seems so sex-driven that nowadays people can't be considered 'normal' if they choose not to indulge. They're considered insane or 'stupid' because why should you deny yourself a 'natural urge'.

There are plenty of natural urges that civilized human beings deny themselves...either for health or safety reasons or simply to wait for an appropriate setting.

There is nothing wrong with me because I choose to abstain. There's nothing wrong with anyone who chooses not to have sex. There's nothing wrong with someone who chooses NOT to abstain so long as they're with a willing of-age partner. That's all I'm saying.

[Amethyst Hunter]

My upset comes in that it has become so rare in today's society that people choose to abstain that most actually think that something must be wrong with a person if they choose not to have sex. I get it all the time which is probably why I responded (most likely hastily) the way I did to Flyn's post. I get asked if I was abused (I was, but that is not the reason I abstain), if I have a health issues, if I have poor self-esteem...people seem shocked because I look attractive enough (because the ONLY reason that someone wouldn't have sex is because they must be too ugly to get it *insert eyeroll*). I get told I must be lonely, I must be boring, I must be sad, I must have something mentally wrong, don't I want to have fun? Don't I want to enjoy myself?

NO ONE seems to accept the idea that I choose to wait until I'm married, that my life is just fine, that if I never have sex at all...I'm fine with that. I'm happy, friendly, and know very well how to enjoy myself.

Society today just seems so sex-driven that nowadays people can't be considered 'normal' if they choose not to indulge. They're considered insane or 'stupid' because why should you deny yourself a 'natural urge'.

I hear that. I get this on rare occasion from my younger brother, who - you guessed it - had premarital sex at 16 and wound up getting an STD scare to show for it. (Thankfully, it turned out just to be a really stubborn cold. I don't know whether or not he used any protection, but something tells me he wasn't as up-to-speed on the risks as I was) Bro doesn't get that I'm just not interested, and when making out (nothing X-rated, just general normal happy-married-people stuff) with SIL will say things like "she needs to learn this sometime" if SIL is like, "dude, in front of your sister?"

I've decided that if he does this again, I'm going to bring up that teenaged incident, and go "Okay, Bro, if I take your advice and go out and mess around and wind up in deep shit (aka STD or unwanted pregnancy; with my luck I would end up in deep shit), you gonna pay for the medication/abortion that I'd promptly get? Yeah, didn't think so."

It really is amazing sometimes how other people can be so obsessed with the sex lives (or lack thereof) that don't belong to them... :confused:

[Boozy]

I'll have to re-read Flyn's post...I didn't see any mention of pregnancy there but it's very possible I missed something.

Actually, I think you and I were referencing different posts by Flyn in this thread. So no, you didn't miss anything. :)

[blas87]

Well, I wouldn't buy a car without test driving it first. I tend to try clothes on before I buy them....

I wouldn't want to not find out until it was too late that my husband has ED or a Centimeter Peter, or to find out that he treats my nipples like radio tuners and my clitoris like a stuck button on the remote control.

I'm not one to immediately rush into sex, but I think exploring one another's bodies and learning what each other likes is very important. I also think that it's important to know your partner's boundaries before you get into anything extremely serious.

I don't care much for people who act all self righteous and say "Well I waited and that made it better." Good for you. I don't jump on every single guy I meet or go on dates with, so don't talk to me as if I'm in the wrong or am a whore.

[DesignFox]

Well, I wouldn't buy a car without test driving it first. I tend to try clothes on before I buy them....

I wouldn't want to not find out until it was too late that my husband has ED or a Centimeter Peter, or to find out that he treats my nipples like radio tuners and my clitoris like a stuck button on the remote control.


Where's that spew smiley? Sorry blas, but the way you worded that is hysterical to me.

;)

I don't think anyone here is putting anyone else down, but I am familiar with the attitude you are describing.

[Greenday]

I wouldn't want to not find out until it was too late that my husband has ED or a Centimeter Peter, or to find out that he treats my nipples like radio tuners and my clitoris like a stuck button on the remote control.

blas, you have taught me more interesting phrases and words this week than I've learned in awhile. Thank you.

I mean, what if you get into a relationship, never test drive, then get married and it's like throwing a hot dog down a hall way? What if you try it and your partner says they never want to do it again? You're SOL. Being physical is still part of a relationship. Unless both people don't want to be physical, it won't be a healthy relationship.

[Slytovhand]

it's like throwing a hot dog down a hall way
Greenday - are you trying to compete with Blas for new interesting phrases??? :p

[Greenday]

Greenday - are you trying to compete with Blas for new interesting phrases??? :p

Naw, she'd kick my ass.

[blas87]

Nah, I feel we'd be pretty even on that one.

I really did mean that previous post in all seriousness.....it's just that I'm really not a very diplomatic person and can never word things in an adult manner :(

I've always thought the hotdog down a hallway is just classic.

But since I'm still awake and in a crazy mood from sniffing my eraser all night at work, here we go:

If we didn't have sex before marriage, what if the guy never realized his woman was a total freak, but not the good type? She'd tear his clothes off and say "Mmmm yes baby, pound me like a snare drum!" and he'd be like...oh no...........and the next thing he knows, he comes home from work and his wife has installed a mirror on the ceiling, a sex swingset in the family room, and she's waiting for him in the kitchen wearing nothing but a whipped cream bikini and holding a pair of fuzzy pink cammo handcuffs.

[Shangri-laschild]

I do not know of anyone in real life to whom that has happened. I draw certain conclusions from that; take that as you will.

I do. From what I understand, if I'm correct (and no, I don't have source to back this up), the percent that bc doesn't work is more of a "this percentage of people won't find bc effective" rather than "out of all the sexual encounters, this amount is the percentage where bc won't work." The woman I knew got pregnant twice on bc.

As far as premarital sex, I didn't used to agree with it for myself. When I was in a serious relationship my senior year of high school, I was still slowly breaking away from the church and sex was not something that I wasn't comfortable with. The guy I was dating wasn't too happy about that. In total, we dated for about a year and were talking a bit about getting engaged and he was planning on getting me a promise ring. To this day, I am so happy that I didn't have sex with him. Close though we were and even though I loved him, it wouldn't have been good for me. My next boyfriend knew how I had felt pressured by my previous one but seemed to think that since he wasn't an ass that we would end up having sex. Nope. It wasn't till my third serious relationship that I actually did.

Not only am I glad I waited as long as I did, I'm glad that I had it with who I did. I do think that maturity should go into it and if I do ever have kids, I want them to understand the importance of waiting till you feel mature and ready enough and not letting anyone push you into it, even if it's not your first time.

I guess I see a difference between different kinds of sex. There's casual sex, and sex with a partner that you are emotionally connected to as well (usually in a relationship, but not always). Yes, for other people there may be other kinds as well, but those are the ones when it comes to me. I guess while abstaining didn't really turn out to be right for me, I don't see anything wrong with it. Like I said, it's very important to wait till you're ready and some people don't feel ready till they are married. That's their own business.

Part of it comes down to how you see sex. Some people see it as a casual natural thing. Others see it as a very serious thing. While I enjoy it, if I was in a relationship where the other person wasn't ready to have it, fine. If the other person wasn't compatible at first, then it wouldn't be something I'd just dump them for. We would work on it to try to be compatible. I dont' really see how any one person can say "this is how sex should be handled overall" because honestly, it's a person to person thing.

[Flyndaran]

Actually, I think you and I were referencing different posts by Flyn in this thread. So no, you didn't miss anything. :)

That could be. I have a tendency to shorten my posts by assuming others have fully read my previous ones. I hate redundency, sometimes, even when needed.

Sex can be radically different to and for similar people.
There's also what I call the Bonobo-Swan scale. Some people are incapable of one SEXUAL partner for any length of time. This is not a character flaw. The only flaw is pretending they aren't until they snap and commit infidelity.
Others are incapable of sex without intense emotional bonding and trying to play the field will cause emotional damage. Most people are in the middle tilting one way or the other.
The best way to lead a fullfilling sexual life is simply to act according to your own needs and screw what society thinks, so to speak... and be honest to others as to what your needs are.

[HEMI6point1]

I believe in premarital sex. It's like a car: you have to test drive it before you buy it. Well what if I meet this great woman, we get married and find out she's a total dud in bed?

[Greenday]

I don't believe in premarital sex. It's like a car: you have to test drive it before you buy it. Well what if I meet this great woman, we get married and find out she's a total dud in bed?

Probably should fix that reply. I'm guessing you mean you DO believe in premarital sex?

[HEMI6point1]

Probably should fix that reply. I'm guessing you mean you DO believe in premarital sex?

Thanks for pointing that out!

[Flyndaran]

I believe in premarital sex. It's like a car: you have to test drive it before you buy it. Well what if I meet this great woman, we get married and find out she's a total dud in bed?

You could say the same about any post-marital revelation. The ultimate point to this kind of thinking is to live as a married couple before marriage. This kind of makes marriage pointless: doesn't it?

[HEMI6point1]

Having sex before marriage does not make a marriage "pointless."

[katie kaboom]

The ultimate point to this kind of thinking is to live as a married couple before marriage. This kind of makes marriage pointless: doesn't it?

Not at all, no. My fiance and i have been living as a married couple for close to a year now....yet we just got engaged in August. And our wedding isn't until June. The fact that we are already living life as a married couple in no way makes the marriage pointless. We are 100% sure we want to spend the rest of our lives together. If the love and commitment is there anyway, marriage is anything but pointless. Marriage is pledging your love and your life to that one special person you want to share it with.

[DrT]

Not at all, no. My fiance and i have been living as a married couple for close to a year now....yet we just got engaged in August. And our wedding isn't until June. The fact that we are already living life as a married couple in no way makes the marriage pointless. We are 100% sure we want to spend the rest of our lives together. If the love and commitment is there anyway, marriage is anything but pointless. Marriage is pledging your love and your life to that one special person you want to share it with.

AND getting tax benefits. ;)

[Norton]

My husband and I got married recently after living together for over a year. No, our marriage is not pointless, and neither was our time spent living together unmarried.

I can only imagine how much more stressful things would be at this point if we hadn't lived together first. We both have our faults that weren't apparent to eachother before living together. People in general tend to be better behaved around people not cohabitating with them, and we were no different. In the year we spent living together, we learned eachothers habits (good and bad), we had some fights and learned how work things out and how to avoid future fights, and we've found a temporary home that we've changed to suit our comfort levels.

If we had to do all this only after committing to love eachother for the rest of our lives, I think the stress would have caused some serious doubts for the both of us. As it is, we know eachother better than we ever could have if we hadn't lived together, and that only strengthened our desire to commit to eachother. Actually getting married was the easiest part of our whole relationship because we were both confident in the decision, and there were no suprises after all was said and done. We just went back to living our lives as we were, except now we have the legal rights of a family.

AND getting tax benefits. ;)

We were going to wait until next year when we could afford a "party wedding" to get married, but we went ahead and officially got married by a judge so we can take advantage of the tax break for 2009. That, and because now I can use my husband's health insurance. :)

[DrT]

We were going to wait until next year when we could afford a "party wedding" to get married, but we went ahead and officially got married by a judge so we can take advantage of the tax break for 2009. That, and because now I can use my husband's health insurance. :)

The wife and I never had a 'party wedding', because we were too far from freinds/family to really make it worth it.
But we did the official stuff early on (damn, already 6 yrs ago ?) because paperwork wise it was simply easier. From adopting her children, to my green card, to french nationality for all of them, etc... simply easier

And one day we'll have enough dough to throw the party. T'will be a renewal of vows or something, but the point is to have a party anyway.

[katie kaboom]

AND getting tax benefits. ;)

Tee hee...yeah that too.:D

[Flyndaran]

I think everyone misunderstood what I meant. When I wrot, "...making marriage pointless." I mean the ceremony pointless. If two people live in every way as married couples are expected to, then the actual ceremony is just a very loud expensive way of declaring to the world, "We will keep doing what we've been doing."
THAT seems pointless to me.

No ceremony could possibly make my life mate and I any more of a permanently "married" than we already are.
For those pro-marriage for themselves at least, then there should be a difference between pre and post vows. If not, then what really is the point?

Is it due to the human urge to make up any excuse to have a party? Is it the normal ego driven need to declare strong feelings to a large gathering?

I vaguely get the concept of modern marriage for those individuals that don't feel right doing something before the vows. But I can't even begin to understand those already living as if married finding actual legal celebratory ceremonies anything other that huge wastes of money, time, and aggravation.
Other than clutural indoctrination, and that seems mildly insulting, even when true in so many other ways for most of us.

[katie kaboom]

Is it due to the human urge to make up any excuse to have a party? Is it the normal ego driven need to declare strong feelings to a large gathering?
But I can't even begin to understand those already living as if married finding actual legal celebratory ceremonies anything other that huge wastes of money, time, and aggravation.



It's due to people wanting to celebrate the happiest day of their life. Sure, my fiance and i could just go to the court house, get married, and call it a day but then we don't get to celebrate with our family and friends an event that is life changing for both of us. A wedding is more than just a party....it's a celebration of a love that is strong enough and committed enough to carry us through the rest of our lives together. And naturally we want to share that with our friends and family. We want them to see the love and devotion we have for each other. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

To each his own, but i'm thinking the majority of people who get married do not consider their wedding day to be a waste of time and money. That's quite a cynical view to hold about such a widespread practice.

[Boozy]

Is it due to the human urge to make up any excuse to have a party? Is it the normal ego driven need to declare strong feelings to a large gathering?
...But I can't even begin to understand those already living as if married finding actual legal celebratory ceremonies anything other that huge wastes of money, time, and aggravation.

My husband and I lived as a "married" couple for two years before getting married.

We had a legal wedding ceremony because

a) It was the most expedited and easiest way of getting all of the full tax and legal benefits of living as a family. There are others ways of doing that here in Canada, but it would have required legal and accountant fees that far surpassed the cost of the $50 marriage certificate

and

b) We wanted to have a really big party. :D

[Slytovhand]

Back to the topic at hand, many a good marriage lasts where the couple haven't had pre-marital sex, but in those, there is usually a culture-base of acceptance.

After all, in India and many other countries that have arranged marriages, the marriages tend to last, and the couples haven't had sex... with anyone.

It's also the basis for Xtian weddings (in theory), and Muslim. (I don't know about Judaic, but I'd presume the same, as it is a patriarchal thing...)

[Flyndaran]

It's due to people wanting to celebrate the happiest day of their life. .

But why is some ceremony filled day the happiest day of anyone's lives? If I married my life mate of over 10 years, not a gosh darn thing would have changed... other than a whole lot of money wasted on an expensive wedding party rather than an efficient party.

Sure, my fiance and i could just go to the court house, get married, and call it a day but then we don't get to celebrate with our family and friends an event that is life changing for both of us. .
If you've lived together and consumated the relathionship, then how on earth will a ceremony make any difference, let alone life changing?


A wedding is more than just a party....it's a celebration of a love that is strong enough and committed enough to carry us through the rest of our lives together. And naturally we want to share that with our friends and family. We want them to see the love and devotion we have for each other. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. .
With so many hasty marriages and divorces over nonsense, I don't see how a marriage ceremony says anything other than a party for party's sake along with social conformity.
I don't have anything against people choosing to have any kind of ceremony they want. I just don't understand it when it doesn't seem to convey any benefits other than legal.
To each his own, but i'm thinking the majority of people who get married do not consider their wedding day to be a waste of time and money. That's quite a cynical view to hold about such a widespread practice.
Majority rule doesn't apply to facts. I don't see marriage as anything other than an unconstitutionally state monitored antiquated ceremony with many features that have meanings that are ignored but kept for tradition's sake.
I love my life mate Tonya at least as much as any married man love his wife. No one or thing could possibly change that. I don't give a rat's butt whether others know how committed we are to eachother.
The only way to really prove love is with time. Everything else is just guessing.

[katie kaboom]

Alright, i'm throwing in the towel. Clearly you have a chip on your shoulder regarding the whole concept of weddings. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Flyndaran]

Assuming that the last post was directed at me... I wish everyone would stop misinterpreting me.
I don't have a problem with marriage anymore than I have a problem with any other ceremony.
I just don't understand secular humanist types finding marriage ceremonies so important.
Taking out the no X before marriage, and taking out the promise before your deity, then I simply don't see anything else but banal legalities.

Enjoy what you enjoy. I just don't get it.
I have no animosity towards even the most unusual ceremonies or those that seem so vested in performing in them.

I... just... don't... get... it.
I'm sorry that so many seemed to take offense by misinterpreting my intentions.

[Slytovhand]

Flyn...Majority rule doesn't apply to facts. certainly didn't help your case for 'misinterpreting' you...

Btw - have you read any Joseph Campbell? How about Jung? They both do into the idea of ceremony and ritual in our lives - not so meaningless.

[Evandril]

Assuming that the last post was directed at me... I wish everyone would stop misinterpreting me.
I don't have a problem with marriage anymore than I have a problem with any other ceremony.
I just don't understand secular humanist types finding marriage ceremonies so important.
Taking out the no X before marriage, and taking out the promise before your deity, then I simply don't see anything else but banal legalities.

Enjoy what you enjoy. I just don't get it.
I have no animosity towards even the most unusual ceremonies or those that seem so vested in performing in them.

I... just... don't... get... it.
I'm sorry that so many seemed to take offense by misinterpreting my intentions.

The big deal is you are publicly declaring your intent to remain with this person for the rest of your lives...and to most, that means quite a bit. The public decleration is highly significant to most...without it, they feel like they can leave at any time. And the legal difficulty of a divorce are no small matter, as well. Most people care, greatly, about what others think of them, and the ceremony of marriage tends to be a public 'step' towards accepting responsibility, if that makes sense.

Personally, I feel the idea of a 'handfasting' would be something *VERY* good for today's society, a marriage lasting a year and a day.

[Flyndaran]

The big deal is you are publicly declaring your intent to remain with this person for the rest of your lives...and to most, that means quite a bit. The public decleration is highly significant to most...without it, they feel like they can leave at any time. And the legal difficulty of a divorce are no small matter, as well. Most people care, greatly, about what others think of them, and the ceremony of marriage tends to be a public 'step' towards accepting responsibility, if that makes sense.

Personally, I feel the idea of a 'handfasting' would be something *VERY* good for today's society, a marriage lasting a year and a day.

I would prefer that the religious concept of marriage get out of my supposed secular government.

I have already stated my intentions to remain with my Tonya for the rest of my life., and she I. People get divorced, so declarations aren't predictions, no matter how much we want them to be.

The concept doesn't fit in my brain. It's probably because of my non-social core. I'm not anti-social in that I despise people. I just don't need the vast majority of humanity and interaction with them or need their forceless approval at all. Fortunately Tonya feels the same, though she like to visit with friends far more often than I do.... But then I only see my best/only friend once a month or so.

I don't like the concept of your year long marriages. It's insulting. It's saying that yes we know you WANT to stay together forever at this moment, but we know that you may be wrong. Most would say, "Screw you. I know my own mind and heart better than you." And many of them would be right and resent your accusation.

Also, what's wrong with no fault divorce? We have that in Oregon, U.S.A. where we aren't even a community property state. You take out what you put in, and go your separate ways without any legality issues making it more of a pain that it already is.
If for some impossible reason(s) I and Tonya feel the need to break up, then we would be adults and not make a scene. (That sentence was amazingly hard to write.) My love, or even the memory of it, is FAR too strong to ever hurt or wish her hurt because of what must be an inevitable break up.

[anriana]

I don't like the concept of your year long marriages. It's insulting. It's saying that yes we know you WANT to stay together forever at this moment, but we know that you may be wrong. Most would say, "Screw you. I know my own mind and heart better than you." And many of them would be right and resent your accusation.

Handfasting doesn't replace lifelong marriages. It's used as an optional engagement period. How does having an option insult you?

[Saydrah]

I haven't replied to this topic yet, so I'm going to answer the question in the OP instead of giving an opinion on handfasting... well, okay, I lied, my opinion on handfasting is, whatever works for you, go for it.

Anyway, on the original topic: I think the value of premarital sex directly correlates to the value you place on sex in general. If you don't have a very high sex drive and other types of compatibility are more important to both you AND your partner, it's not necessary to have premarital sex. But if you think sex is a very important part of a marital relationship, it's just silly to presume you'll be sexually compatible with someone without giving it a try first.

Also, sex is a spectrum, not a single act, so the idea of virginity is just not a valid one in my eyes. What's the difference, really, between a person who has had penetrative sex and one who hasn't? Why is that the defining moment that makes someone no longer a virgin bride? What about other types of human sexual behavior? If penetrative sex is the way you lose your virginity, are lesbians virgins for life? There's no instant where someone goes from virgin to non-virgin, unless they are raped before they're sexually mature-- although I would possibly argue that rape isn't a loss of virginity, since rape isn't sex. But the point is, from just before puberty to adulthood and possibly marriage, people gradually grow and develop as sexual beings.

You could say penis-in-vagina sex is more affecting physically and mentally than kissing or other types of sex, therefore that's the point at which you lose virginity-- but then, do you lose another virginity if you have an even more intense sexual experience? Some people describe experiences with BDSM as transformative and incredibly intense, even if they don't include penetration or orgasm.

Virginity is a silly concept, and saving it for marriage even if you think sexual compatibility could affect the success of your marriage is even sillier.

[Evandril]

The concept doesn't fit in my brain. It's probably because of my non-social core. I'm not anti-social in that I despise people. I just don't need the vast majority of humanity and interaction with them or need their forceless approval at all. Fortunately Tonya feels the same, though she like to visit with friends far more often than I do.... But then I only see my best/only friend once a month or so. .

Was just trying to 'translate' for you, get it slightly closer to concepts you'd understand...Most people do NOT feel the same way you do, and the acceptance of society as a whole is VERY important to them.



I don't like the concept of your year long marriages. It's insulting. It's saying that yes we know you WANT to stay together forever at this moment, but we know that you may be wrong. Most would say, "Screw you. I know my own mind and heart better than you." And many of them would be right and resent your accusation.


It wouldn't be a replacement for marriage, but would be something people could use to see how compatible they are, and give them a year together as a married couple to see how they work together. At the end of that year, they can choose to try another year, go their seperate ways, or decide to stick together for the long term. Or, of course, you could just get the normal " 'til death do we part" ceremony, but it would give you another option. I *do* know I've yet to see anyone choose a handfasting treat it as lightly as the majority seem to do with 'normal' marriages....even the ones that split after their year.

[Flyndaran]

Was just trying to 'translate' for you, get it slightly closer to concepts you'd understand...Most people do NOT feel the same way you do, and the acceptance of society as a whole is VERY important to them.
Yeah. I understand all that intellectually. I'm an odd duck, even for my odd duck immediate family. How much of it is an outgrowth of my late childhood on severe anxiety and social phobia cannot ever be known. But I think that I'm innately non-social. I would be able to cope if I and my life mate were the only humans left cared for by aliens.
We call ourselves goats to all the human sheep. I don't mean that label entirely in the harsh way it reads. It's just that people will natrually follow out of habit, herd/pack beahavior, laziness, and trust of others' judgement in times of stress and exhaustion.
I don't. I never follow even a large group of others doing something if I can't figure out the reason on my own.
It allows me a unique perspective and individual thinking, but it might get me killed in a fire or stand out as odd and cause problems that way.



Itwouldn't be a replacement for marriage, but would be something people could use to see how compatible they are, and give them a year together as a married couple to see how they work together. At the end of that year, they can choose to try another year, go their seperate ways, or decide to stick together for the long term. Or, of course, you could just get the normal " 'til death do we part" ceremony, but it would give you another option. I *do* know I've yet to see anyone choose a handfasting treat it as lightly as the majority seem to do with 'normal' marriages....even the ones that split after their year.

I just don't see the problem with marriage and if/when things don't work out as planned, a divorce. The problem is the lack of no fault divorces in many states and and nations rather than marriage assumed to be permanent.

What happens if one person is injured, incapabe of informed consent, but the time limit on their marriage runs out while in a coma or some such? The healthy partner becomes a non-relative and the nasty next of kin makes all the decisions despite the non-spouse knowing that that isn't what the victim would want?

[Slytovhand]

Mr Duck-goat, the Handfasting is a tradition that has been around for a long time, and is still practiced by some religions (I've been at a couple as a 'witness' and invited to others). As suggested by Evandril, yes, they are taken quite seriously by those involved. It is a form of commitment by the participants, but with the understanding that humans aren't perfect, and living with someone with that commitment is a saner option than commiting without an easier way out (legalities, for instance), but with a stronger tie than just shacking up together.

As for your last hypothesis, the way the handfasting is done, it doesn't automatically end when the year and day are up. That's just the time given, and at which both parties reflect on the year that's been, and choose what to do for the rest of their lives based on that year. That is presuming they're still together....

Saydrah, different people have different attitudes to sex, thus to some, the whole virginity thing is very important. To others, it's not. I know a couple of women (Christians... with a capital C) who are choosing to remain virgins till married. I respect them for it, but I don't agree in their ideal though. But then, I have different beliefs, and also have done the pre-marital sex, and that changed my attitudes towards it.

[Evandril]

I just don't see the problem with marriage and if/when things don't work out as planned, a divorce. The problem is the lack of no fault divorces in many states and and nations rather than marriage assumed to be permanent.

What happens if one person is injured, incapabe of informed consent, but the time limit on their marriage runs out while in a coma or some such? The healthy partner becomes a non-relative and the nasty next of kin makes all the decisions despite the non-spouse knowing that that isn't what the victim would want?

Lets say they do what's more common currently, and live together instead of even a handfasting...and this happens during the year. Heck, with *your* situation, neither you nor your partner would be protected, correct? If people are ready for marriage, all well and good. If they want something more 'binding' than just being roommates with benifits, 'tis an option short of marriage...and *hopefully* might make people wait on marriage until they are more certain of how they will work together (The 'hollywood' week-month marriages come to mind, there...handfasting would be a drastic improvement there...If they even took that seriously *shrugs*)

[Flyndaran]

Lets say they do what's more common currently, and live together instead of even a handfasting...and this happens during the year. Heck, with *your* situation, neither you nor your partner would be protected, correct? If people are ready for marriage, all well and good. If they want something more 'binding' than just being roommates with benifits, 'tis an option short of marriage...and *hopefully* might make people wait on marriage until they are more certain of how they will work together (The 'hollywood' week-month marriages come to mind, there...handfasting would be a drastic improvement there...If they even took that seriously *shrugs*)

Of course you're right: I realized it after I had time to think.
If something happened to me, my life mate Tonya would have no legal standing to make decisions. It would fall to my mother. She, like everyone else in the world, does not know me anywhere near as completely as Tonya.
I've wondered about some form of indisposed power of attorney for us. That would avoid the whole marriage thing.

But leaving it as it is is still worse than your suggestion, so I must retract my previous view and admit to being wrong.

[Fashion Lad!]

I'm definitely for pre-marital sex. Not because I'm some huge perv... (mostly)

But, because I do think it helps strengthen a relationship. Also, you can be great friends with someone, and you can make out with them and you can kiss them and enjoy it, but, I think sexual chemistry takes a lot more and it can mean a whole lot more.

Plus, sex is great!

[Flyndaran]

My relationship is unbreakable, even though my medication destroyed my libido.
But I certainly doubt we would have become such great partners if there was no sex in the beginning.