Should Pre-Marital Sex Be Encouraged?
Posted by: Amelia McDonell-Parry
Filed in:
sex
10:30AM, Wednesday November 11th 2009
Jessica Valenti posed an interesting question over at Feministing this week—should we be encouraging women (and men) to have pre-marital sex? She argues that yes, we should, writing:
“Because, let’s face it—if you’re going to commit yourself to someone for (presumably) the rest of your life, it’s probably best if you know that you’re sexually compatible ... Do I think that people can have perfectly wonderful satisfying relationships without having had sex before making a commitment? Sure, I’m positive that happens often. But considering what a huge role sexuality plays in our lives and relationships ... well, I’d rather be super duper positive.”
Valenti has, of course, written a book called The Purity Myth, in which she argues that women “shouldn’t be held up to some bizarre virginal ideal,” and that’s made her abstinence-only critics say she’s pro-promiscuity. That’s clearly not the case, because there is a large gray area in between being a virgin and a “whore.” And heck yes, we should be encouraging women to explore that gray area before they get married! If one of my female friends came to me and said she was getting married and was going to wait to have sex with her husband until their wedding night, I would sit her booty down and call her crazy. When you think about it, what’s so crazy about encouraging people to sleep together before marriage to test their sexual compatibility? We encourage couples to know they’re compatible in other areas, like how they want to raise their children and how they handle money—in fact, devout Catholics take a test to ensure they’re on the same page about a lot of things; so why not encourage men and women (especially women, as they’re the gender that’s more likely to wait to have sex) to have a few rolls in the hay before puttin’ a ring on it?
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
meredith806
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 10:40 am: [report]
I have to agree. There is NO way I would marry I guy without doing a..test drive first. Sorry, but sex is pretty important to me..and when I say pretty important I mean really really really important haha
tabby
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 10:40 am: [report]
While I agree, there are a lot of people who are told by their churches that they will burn in hell for it. And while I think that is crazy talk, I respect their right to believe what they want. So as culture, I think pre-marital sex should be promoted more than it is, while still saying that you should follow what your heart says is right for you.
novavariations
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 10:40 am: [report]
Completely should happen.
I used to think the whole waiting for marriage thing was the way it worked, and that people who had sex before they were at least engaged were crazy. I was also 14 when I thought this.
Now, I don’t fling sex around to everyone, I’ve slept with two different guys, and if I would have married the first one…I would have cried now that I know what sex CAN be like. The first guy was really attempting to reach my spleen—it was awful. What’s more, he was convinced that he had gotten every girl he’d slept with off every time. I didn’t get off once. I didn’t get close once. Current guy and I have mad rolls in the hay, which involve at least one and often multiple big ‘O’s on my end.
My sister is convinced that not only will she not have sex before marriage, but she won’t do anything beyond kissing till marriage. She used to have a fun time fooling around with her boyfriends however, She’s recently (8 months ago) started dating a super, super conservative boy who almost dumped her after realizing that she gave oral sex to one of her boyfriends a year ago, in his mind that made her dirty and all of his friends told him to lose her. I’ve tried telling her that sexual compatibility is a sizeable component to happiness in marrige. Haven’t gotten anywhere so far.
rachel_leigh
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 10:40 am: [report]
I couldn’t agree more. I think that a lack of sexual chemistry is why a lot of couples fail, even though they might blame it on something else, i.e. money. Couples should live together and sleep together before marriage to ensure that they are actually compatible. I can’t understand how you would know that you wanted to spend the rest of your life with someone if you had never slept with them.
fireflyeyes
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 10:43 am: [report]
My husband and I waited for marriage, mainly for religious reasons. It took us a while to work out the whole sex thing but I’m glad we did and I feel our marriage is stronger for it. Here’s why…as far as either of us are concerned were are having the best sex it possible to have. We don’t compare each other to past lovers, and so never feel unfulfilled. There is no temptation to stray looking for something better
It was rough at first, but now its great… and I would hate to have given up on the relationship before we got married just because it took awhile for the sex to be good. I would have thrown away the possibility of a fantastic marriage with a supportive and wonderful man just because the sex wasn’t immediately wonderful.
Also, the fact that our relationship wasn’t based on sex originally helped a lot when I went through a period of medical probs that meant that sex was out for the better part of last year. It REALLY sucked, but our marriage didn’t suffer for it.
I know this way isn’t for everyone but it really worked for us, and I feel like we avoided a lot of the issues and insecurities a lot of my more experienced friends now face in their marriages. And I literally can’t imagine sleeping with anyone but my husband, so even when I meet a man I’m attracted to the chance of straying just isn’t there.
abbylyn
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 11:04 am: [report]
If it feels right for you to wait, then wait. If it doesn’t, then don’t. Seems pretty simple to me.
Bertram
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 11:10 am: [report]
I don’t think it is a ‘all or nothing’ situation. Is the proposal to either have full on sex or not have any sexual contact prior to marriage? There is a lot of touching, stroking, sucking, licking, etc that can give both parties a pretty good idea of if they are compatible with out actually having intercourse.
Do I think we should encourage it? No. Couples should be allowed to handle their relationship as they see fit and want to. We have all had outside forces (friends and family) butt into our relationships with ‘help’. Sometimes it is good needed advice and other times it is just getting in the way. I do think it is healthy for both parties to be in touch with their bodies, fantasies, etc. Sure it will take some sorting out at the beginning of the marriage, but so does moving in together, having children, etc, etc. If the relationship is a good one and communication is open and accepted it will work out.
Neither my wife or I were virgins by a long shot when we met and we had sex and lived together before we got married. It has worked great for us, but that path is not for everyone.
cattgirl813
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 11:35 am: [report]
My mom and stepdad always said you don’t buy a house without an inspection and walkthrough, you don’t buy a car without a test drive, and you don’t pick a college without visiting it first and those are all long term commitments, so don’t pick a husband (another lifetime commitment) without trying him out.
develange
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 11:36 am: [report]
I agree that people should do what they want.
But people should not be pressured to feel guilty if they want to have sex. Burning in hell? Give me a break. There are plenty of more valid arguments as to why you shouldn’t have sex.
Abstaining works for some couples, as fireflyeyes has explained, but I’m glad I’ve experienced different men. It has helped me learn about my body (especially how it works with other people), my preferences, and what good, satisfying sex is.
Jitterbugs232
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 11:44 am: [report]
Not to be all skanky and to say girls should sleep around but “you have to test drive it before you buy it”
lea322
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 11:50 am: [report]
I think comparing human beings to automobiles only goes so far. You have to test drive a car because it’s an object that won’t change, so you have to be comfortable with it the way it is for as long as you own it. A human being can change and adapt and can be asked to do things differently. Which means that in a loving, trusting, committed relationship where two people feel comfortable discussing with their partner their likes and dislikes, a full out “test drive” isn’t necessarily needed. As has been pointed out, there are other physical acts that can pretty well determine sexual chemistry between two people without full on sex.
Queen Frostine
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 11:52 am: [report]
My husband and I had sex with other partners and each other before marriage. Neither of us compare each other to past lovers. Neither of us feel unfulfilled. And neither of us are tempted to stray. So I think this assessment is (while well-intentioned) totally incorrect in it’s assumptions about couples who have pre-marital sex with multiple partners.
Sex is a natural, healthy instinct. I think people should not feel pressured to abstain from it, nor should they feel pressured to have it. People should listen to their own inner voice and do what they think is right, to hell with societal expectations and cultural ideals.
C.Munro
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 11:58 am: [report]
I don’t think any kind of non-harmful sexual activity should be either encouraged or discouraged by our society. It’s really nobody’s business one way or the other. I think it would be best for us to just leave it alone and let people make their own decisions without society’s implied judgment attached.
majicksand
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 12:13 pm: [report]
My mom was firmly in the ‘virgin’ camp while my dad was adamant about the ‘test drive’. You think that’s why they’re divorced?
BTW, my mom has always led me to believe she was a virgin on her wedding day and has never slept with anyone other than her two husbands. My aunt told me, confidentially of course, that while she doesn’t know for absolute fact, she calling bullsh*t on that one. True or not, it made me feel a lot better about myself and not so much of a failure when compared to my ‘saintly’ mother.
cooldad
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 12:49 pm: [report]
I think that couples should not wait to have sex because it potentially clouds their decision making. Strong physical urges could easily make someone jump into a marriage that unlocks the door to sex.
I’m not sure why sexual compatibility is considered such a big issue. Isn’t just a matter of communication? How hard is it really to please your partner if they’re telling you what to do? If one partner is really selfish in bed, I would have to assume that’s just a reflection of their overall personality and that should be the issue.
Also, I think when people say their new partner is so much better in bed than their old, it may have something to do with their emotional feelings toward each. Sex with love is just vastly better than a one night stand (even with a hot girl - just my experience)
plasticrose
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 01:04 pm: [report]
I think people should just stay the #&@$% out of other people’s sex lives. It’s nobody’s business how much sex they have or with whom but theirs. [/soapbox]
River
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 01:05 pm: [report]
So, let’s take a quick look at the idea of commitment. If I was to buy a car ($20,000-25,000ish) today and would require a large monetary commitment over a long period of time (ten years or so), you can bet your bottom dollar that I’d take it for a test drive.
If I was willing to put ALL of my finances and ALL of my time on this planet into another person, why wouldn’t I do the same?
Before I purchase my manual transmission love Bug, I’m going to check under the hood, test the breaks, and play with the gears a bit before deciding that we’re compatible. And that goes for the Volkswagen, too.
fireflyeyes
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 01:15 pm: [report]
While I certainly don’t judge anyone for having premarital sex all this talk of a “test drive” is confusing to me. I mean I understand wanting to have sex before marriage, and even wanting to test sexual compatibility. But it sounds like the only way you can test drive a man for marriage is by having sex.
When I’m looking for life-long partner sex is important, but certainly not the most important thing. Sex drive, attractiveness, and health will fade with time. I “test drove” my husband. I spent time with him in different situations so I could learn his character. I learned that he was kind, fun, reliable, smart, had compatible life goals with mine, had a plan for his life and for a life for us together, and that he was completely devoted to me.
Those are the things vastly more important to me in a husband than sexual prowess. You can learn to get better in bed, you can teach someone what you need for pleasure, but if a man isn’t kind, respectful, etc when you first start out he probably never will be! And not to say you don’t also learn that stuff about them when you are in a sexual relationship, but it bothers me to hear a test drive referred to as equaling sex as equaling the only way you can really get to know someone.
bethlynn00
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 01:25 pm: [report]
I think people should have access to proper and comprehensive sexual education, they should examine their own values and beliefs, openly discuss sex within their relationships and make their own informed decisions.
majicksand
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 02:12 pm: [report]
@fireflyeyes: Not the only way, just one of many. Kind of like deciding that a guy who is kind, creative, smart, and funny but terrible with money is not the one for you because you’d always be worried about your financial security. Sexual compatibility is an important element in a relationship.
Dikastes
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 02:18 pm: [report]
I wouldn’t say we should “encourage” premarital sex, but the campaign to demonize it absolutely has to stop. Whenever my sex ed teachers even skirted the notion of contraceptives for the premarital couple, they assaulted us with horror stories of broken condoms and bad batches of the Pill. (Does such a thing exist? As a man, I’ve never had to take the Pill, so I’m useless here.)
I’ve actually had to deal with a lot of hang ups because of thinking like that, and I know I’m not alone in that. I went through a phase where being intimate with a woman scared me to death. While a healthy dose of fear is nice for any sexually able young person to have, the stark terror wasn’t at all healthy for peace of mind.
The teachers can preach abstinence if they want, but they should learn not to shoot down the idea of condoms the instant someone puts forward the idea. Maybe my high school wouldn’t have seen so many STDs going around if they’d bothered admitting that some people need to know how condoms work.
lea322
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 02:24 pm: [report]
@majicksand: I don’t think she’s saying that sexual compatibility isn’t important. I think she’s saying that if she made a prioritized list of qualities she’s looking for in a life-partner, mind-blowing sex from day 1 isn’t going to be at the very top of her list.
And, as has been pointed out, sex gets BETTER over time if two people are open with each other. Not all qualities are like that.
In my opinion, this is one reason why some marriages don’t work out. People put sexual compatibility above other areas that are actually more important in the long run, like being financially responsible.
majicksand
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 02:41 pm: [report]
@lea322: I was actually trying to point out that I don’t think the other commentors were discounting other factors in favor of sexual compatibility, only pointing out that many people consider it of equal importance.
lea322
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 02:57 pm: [report]
@majicksand: Well that’s fair, then!
Jenn27549
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 03:14 pm: [report]
I don’t have a position on it one way or another, but after having been in a few long term relationships and now being married, I don’t think that you can know long-term sexual compatibility PERIOD. I don’t care if you wait 20 years to get married. Things could change at year 21. Like someone mentioned, cars don’t change but people do. It goes both ways—change for better, or worse. I’m not against pre-marital sex, and I certainly had plenty, but the character traits @fireflyeyes points out are going to be a much better indicator of long-term sexual compatibility b/c you will know how they are going to handle good and bad changes. So if people want to have sex before they are married that’s totally fine, but using this as a reason/excuse is pretty lame and doesn’t hold up to deeper inspection.
Queen Frostine
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 03:37 pm: [report]
I dunno, I think sex is a great way to test listening abilities, communication, patience and respect. Great sex isn’t just a great orgasm. It’s about being interconnected emotionally, psychologically and physically. Being open and communicating what you want, what feels good, what doesn’t, listening to and responding to each others needs are all important skills that can be brought out during sex.
IrishErin
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 04:39 pm: [report]
My mom spent 18 years telling me she was a virgin when she married my father. It took my first bad breakup (a product of me being wayyyy to uptight and not even letting him touch me) for her to say “ok, ok, so maybe I slept with your dad a handful of times before we got married. ok, a few dozen. but just him!” WTF Mom. I built my whole idea of prim and proper around a lie. So with my next long term boyfriend, instead of fighting every urge I had, I just gave in. And I expected the intense guilt to come (I was raised very religious) but it just didn’t. And like @novavariations mentioned, the sex I had with that guy was so lackluster, I’m glad I didn’t marry him or I’d have a totally skewed idea of what sex can be. I had really come to the conclusion of “this is what I waited all that time for? well, maybe sex just isn’t for me”. Seriously. Isn’t for me? WTF. Happily with my current boyfriend of nearly 4 years, that thought has been blown out of the water.
develange
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 05:13 pm: [report]
@ Queen Frostine - well said! I agree.
Sex can be very telling about a person and the relationship.
Sure, your man may be am honest, generous, attentive person. But what happens when you find out he REALLY wants you to wear a diaper and crawl around the room babbling like a baby? Yes, some sexual matters need to be dealt with BEFORE marriage.
TinaTuna
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 06:56 pm: [report]
I think it should be encouraged. My co-worker and dear friend got married two years ago. Both were virgins. They had the most loving relationship and had dated for 3 years prior to marriage. Their sex life is terrible now. They are totally non-compatable. She wants tenderness and love in bed and he wants the porn star experience. Had they known this about each other they probably would have not gotten married. Now they are in counseling and she is considering divorce. Of course their case is not what everybody experiences. This is just front and center for me right now because she is so distraught over what has/is happening.
Leo's Bird
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 07:22 pm: [report]
I also believed that no one had sex before they were married at the wise age of 14. Oh how times have changed!
While waiting for marriage is a-ok if that’s what you want to do, pressuring people into “purity” like they’re some foul substance for having premarital sex is just wrong. (can you tell I was raised Catholic?)
Sexual compatibility is very important for me. I like sex, I like sex often, and I like to be very open and communicative about it. It’s a good indicator of the relationship (twice I could tell a breakup was on the horizon solely from the sex, or lack there of. I had some emotionally constipated boyfriends.) I could not see myself with someone who wanted to wait til marriage, just because it speaks of a different value system than the one I have.
draymond
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 09:35 pm: [report]
Frist of all, I think that particularly between engaged couples society has taken a wink-and-a-nod attitude about premarital sex for a long time.
But I will go out on a limb and say that at least 90 percent of what you need to know to be sure that you are sexually compatible can be done without intercourse and that a lot more people would have been happier sexually if they had discovered that 90 percent before proceeding to intercourse.
How do you know that 90 percent? Do you like how they kiss you, how they touch you, rub you, massage you. Are you comfortable talking about your pleasure with them. Do they listen to what you say about how you want to be touched? Do you share a common level of interest in playfullness and experimentation in your physical contact. Do you share a common level about liking your contact to be soft and gentle or passionate and agressive. Can you bring each other to climax with just your hand? (I said the 90 percent could be accomplished without intercourse, not without considerable intimate contact)
MondimNebel
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 09:39 pm: [report]
@ C. Munro - right on.
I don’t know that I would “encourage” pre-marital sex, but I don’t think we should be telling people it’s wrong either. Teach people to have sex when they’re ready for it and not to pressure people (either to have sex or not to).
theattack
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 10:40 pm: [report]
It shouldn’t be encouraged, but it shouldn’t be discouraged either. Both are equally dangerous problems, and encouraging it might even be MORE dangerous than discouraging it. Valenti doesn’t just oppose the fact that pre-marital sex is typically discouraged. She also opposes the hyper-sexualization that’s found on the other end of the spectrum.
If you encourage sex, it’s only going to make an existing problem worse. Girls cannot be valued in this society without either being valued for their virginities or for being extremely sexual.
We don’t need to encourage pre-marital sex. We need to encourage young people to do what makes them comfortable.
I will say that I’ve learned infinitely more about myself and sex with foreplay than intercourse. My first significant boyfriend and I stuck with foreplay for a long time until we could get in a comfortable situation to have sex, which was difficult since I was in high school. I think it’s good to have a lot of foreplay before you have sex, and don’t just jump straight into sex. You can gather the information you need from foreplay, I think, but it doesn’t mean the sex is wrong.
I do think it’s important to at least have foreplay before marriage, if only because I’ve dated someone that is not naturally skilled with sex and wouldn’t take any pointers I would give him. Realizing his unwillingness to adapt to me sexually made me see more clearly his unwillingness to adapt to me in the rest of our relationship. Not the only way to find out, but sex is a physical embodiment of the relationship. It’s a way to physically see some of the things that you may not want to admit to yourself about the relationship.
majicksand
wrote on November 12 2009 @ 11:18 am: [report]
Something I think should be consider in the “whenever you’re ready” philosophy is the age of the people we’re talking about. As an adult, yes, your comfort level is key. I do, however, think that sex should be absolutely discouraged for teenagers. I have a 16 yo son. I have never told him to wait for marriage. That would be rather hypocritical considering his father and I only got married 4 1/2 months ago. I have told him he should wait a few more years. Teenagers just aren’t ready for the responsibility that comes with sex—physical or emotional.
bogart4017
wrote on November 12 2009 @ 01:13 pm: [report]
My parents secretly encouraged pre-marital sex from the time we were teens. It saved all of us (boys and girl) because i think she knew how we felt about commitment and figured we should make sure we were compatible on all points important.
SCRMOM
wrote on November 12 2009 @ 01:28 pm: [report]
@majicksand:
Not necessarily. I first had sexual intercourse at 17 with my boyfriend of almost a year. It wasn’t done from him pressuring me or to compete with any friends - it was because we loved each other and were both emotionally ready to take it to the next level. While it wasn’t mind-blowing sex (both of our first times), it was an amazing experience for both of us which truly brought us closer together.
draymond
wrote on November 12 2009 @ 07:36 pm: [report]
I feel that teens in the US today are being pushed from two contradictory directions. The first is the abstainance only sex-ed crowd that basicly takes a just say no attitude (but still looks down if you don’t have a date to the homecoming dance, valentines day, new year’s day etc). Then the other side that is saying that hooking up is cool and liberating…just be sure to use a condom.
I have been thinking that what needs to be out there, but isn’t, is “A Sex Guide for the Abstinent”. It would talk about developing intimacy, trust and communication, a realistic discussion of disease and pregnancy risks rrom various activities and how to reduce them, techniques for non-penetrative intimacy (aka outercourse) and how to decide when to move up the intimacy scale and how to approach it when you do. It would probably be hated by both the religious zealots and the ‘sex-positive’ advocates equally. Which is exactly why it is needed.
AshleyM
wrote on November 13 2009 @ 01:27 pm: [report]
Now if the man I was going to marry was a first timer, I’d def wait til we were married… Cause I could of course train him… but I agree; you need to test drive before you buy! But i don’t agree with having sex with every one who strikes your fancy…
TheGenerousHusband
wrote on November 13 2009 @ 01:39 pm: [report]
This is one of those places where logic and reality don’t come together. It would seem that having sex before getting married would improve the chances of good sex in marriage, but this is not the reality.
The problem is the sex before marriage is not honest, not what the couple is going to do after marriage. I know a number of men who found out after the wedding that oral sex was no longer on the menu. Women also find that what he is willing to do when he is dating is different than what he is willing to do once married.
There have been a number of studies which find that folks who live together before marriage are less happy and more likely to divorce than those who don’t live together first. By it’s self this is significant, but given that some who live together don’t marry, it’s huge. Living together does not improve one’s odd, but rather decreases one’s odds.
Some try to explain this as being because the kind of people who will live together are those who have more trouble with commitment. This is probably a factor, but another issue is the reality of bonding. Sex bonds us, despite our desire to deny this. Both guys and gals become bonded to those they have sex with, and that means those having sex are less likely to split up. Because folks move in together without as much thought as getting married, this means they are forming bonds with each other with far less thought and caution.
If one looks at the data, looks at the studies and the science, it is very clear that not living together and not having sex before getting engaged (really engaged, with a solid date) is the best way to have a good marriage, and a good married sex life. Of course most folks don’t care, they are horny and they want it now, and they will justify and ignore as needed to get into bed with someone.
sunara_rayne
wrote on November 13 2009 @ 01:52 pm: [report]
My general rule is that I will only have sex with someone I truly care about. There’s nothing quite like the chemistry between the sheets when you’re in love <3 How can you know you want to marry someone if you’ve never had this kind of bonding experience with them??
Larry
wrote on November 14 2009 @ 09:37 am: [report]
My wife and I waited until after we got married - and after 10 years it still is the largest thorn in the side of our marriage. We have a relationship in spite of it, rather than because of it. Of course hindsight is 20/20 and I am not convinced that the first couple dozen romps in the hay tells you much about a person. Additionally I think the ‘study’ results are driven by other issues involved, compatibility, similar personality/religious views etc, etc rather than - “if you have sex before marriage you are doomed to divorce”. I think very honest, frank discussions on the subject could likely produce a similar positive result as actually having a sexual relationship prior to marriage - but from my experience - that doesn’t happen.
majicksand
wrote on November 14 2009 @ 11:42 am: [report]
@scrmom: Well said, but I would wager you’ll agree you’re the exception. Most teens change partners nearly as often as they change underwear, and even those who stay together for longer don’t tend to know each other well.
One of my teens is 16 and entirely devoted to his gf. She’s a lovely girl, and I would readily welcome her into the family if they should decide to get married someday. That said, I’m relieved that she now lives 8 hours away. The distance requires them to bond emotionally without clouding the issue with a physical relationship. As much as they love each other, teens are rarely militant about precautions once the hormones take hold. I would be really pissed off were I to become a grandmother *shiver* before turning 40.
My other teen is supposedly now engaged to a girl I have never met. What I’ve heard about her isn’t good. Not only that, he dropped out of highschool, has no driver’s license, no vehicle, no job, and no money. He has already gotten at least one girl pregnant (she miscarried). He has already tried to get me to let this girl move in to my house “temporarily” because she can’t get along with her parents. That’s how I got him! So far it’s proven to be a very bad idea, and I’m on the edge of sending him back to his parents regardless of the issues there.
Frankly I don’t know why I’m posting all of this. I guess I just needed to vent a little. Anyway, my point is that teenagers don’t generally have the maturity to handle major life decisions, and having sex qualifies in my book.
C.Munro
wrote on November 14 2009 @ 12:27 pm: [report]
Yes, but really, I’d say the same thing for a large number of adults as well.
draymond
wrote on November 14 2009 @ 01:48 pm: [report]
@GenerousHusband. I am aware of studies regarding cohabitation before marriage. However all studies of this kind are scientifically problematic because people are self-selecting and terms are vague. In other words is isn’t as though you can take a random group of people who have just met and say “now this random group of you are going to wait until marriage to have sex, this random group are going to live together for a year and get married, this random group…” and so forth. In addition what really for example constitutes a ‘solid date’? Or what really constituted ‘sex’? I really can’t imagine a pair of young people in America today voluntarily getting engaged without knowing that they can intimately thrill each other.
Also what is right for the statistical average in relationships is almost never exactly what is right for the individual. My wife and I met at the start of our second year of college but for practical reasons couldn’t get married until nearly three later, two of them in a long distance relationship. Would we have still gotten married without the bonding that sex provided us? No way to scientifically know, but I doubt it, and where would that have left us in the statistics?
I agree though that sex does release hormones and makes mental connections contributing to pair bonding. The science clearly backs that and people who ignore it are fooling themselves.
bumbler
wrote on November 14 2009 @ 02:36 pm: [report]
Those who do not live together or have sex together before marriage are more likely to be religious (not all but many). Many religions frown upon divorce and the ideal is that you tough it out even if you are not happy. Those without a religious background tend to put more weight on self-fulfillment. Correlation does not equal causation.
Neither side is wrong, it just depends on what values you hold and what you find important which is different for everyone. Just making the point that those studies are flawed because other factors influence the divorce rate.
majicksand
wrote on November 14 2009 @ 03:36 pm: [report]
@C.Munro: Uhh, well… no denying it; you got me there. The only thing I can say is that by the time you’re an “adult” you’re supposed to know better.
No, No! Don’t take my rose-colored glasses! I like utopia!
draymond
wrote on November 14 2009 @ 05:46 pm: [report]
@bumbler. And you have just scratched the surface of the correlation/causation problem in marriage success. I wouldn’t say that it is accurate that religious couples stay together even if unhappy. Certainly I have seen more unhappiness among my nonreligious friends as my relifious ones. The religious couples have an attitude of divorce as the last choce rather than the first choice for solving problems and their church has support structures and activities to help. But statistics can be decieving. For example the statistics say that the divorce rate among couples who attend church together weekly is well less than one percent. Is church attendance such a strong preventative? No, it is just that when couples are having problems one of the first things that happens is that they stop going to church together!
MondimNebel
wrote on November 14 2009 @ 08:25 pm: [report]
One of the reasons people get divorced is because they are “not happy” because many people think that marriage will give/make/cause them happiness. There are a lot of people out there who decide they are not happy in their marriage so it’s time for a divorce, rather than seeing it as a point in their lives or marriage. Marriage has more to do with sharing your life with someone, supporting one another, and caring for each other than with “happiness”. Often, doing the latter will lead to happiness. But I think people who go into the marriage saying divorce is not an option (of course, there ARE good reasons for it) are more likely to stick through the rough patches and then find ways to make themselves happy.
miza
wrote on November 14 2009 @ 09:34 pm: [report]
@River
Hahaha! Cheers. Very well said.
writergirl
wrote on November 15 2009 @ 07:13 am: [report]
You can take the car out for a test drive, but the fact is, after you own it, it is your repsonsibility to fix it when something malfunctions.
Marriage is the same way. You can have all the sex you want and see if your compatible, but that’s not a solid assurance that seven years down the road you will still be compatible. Trust me on this one.
cand86
wrote on November 15 2009 @ 09:44 pm: [report]
Quite honestly, I dislike the idea of “encouraging pre-marital sex” just as much as I dislike the idea of encouraging abstinence. Why does it have to be one or the other? What about encouraging individual choice for what is right for each person?
I’d like there to be less pressure altogether. Is that too much to ask, that people make sexual choices based on their unique situations and outlooks?
What’s more, “sexual compatibility”, to me, buys into the idea that sex has to be perfect and intuitive- that if it isn’t, there is no way to work on it. That doesn’t jibe with me, and while I have no problem with people who subscribe to the “test drive” concept, I hate the idea of people who don’t want to do so worrying that their partner is some sort of “lemon” of a sexual being, and that no amount of love, dedication, commitment, and open communication and earnest experimenting could fix it. That’s pretty sad!
DancerNinja
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 10:37 am: [report]
I, personally, would never wait until marriage (too late anyway…) and wouldn’t stay with a guy who insisted on it. Sexual compatibility, and the ability to be open about it, is too important to me. However, I know a girl who did wait until marriage, and I have to say, in our super-sexed society, I have to seriously admire her will power and strength of conviction to hold herself up to her standards against all odds. And from what I’ve heard since her wedding, there is no lacking of passion wrestling going on.
I guess what I’m saying is, too each their own. Life it too short to live it by anyone else’s rules.
sunara_rayne
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 12:15 pm: [report]
@ Larry, so you’ve been married 20 years, didn’t have sex before you married her…and you’ve never had a satisfying sex life together??
nola
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 10:09 pm: [report]
I’m all about premarital sex. Any sex is okay with me, actually, as long as it’s safe and consensual.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 09:29 am: [report]
i have dated 3 women who i was totally infatuated with, like really really really into, and then sex was a total dud. i am SO HAPPY i didnt decide to wait until marriage with any of them…
Larry
wrote on November 18 2009 @ 12:51 am: [report]
Sunara - 12yrs, and it’s more a matter of sex being one part of the relationship that simply isn’t a positive influence on the rest. It doesn’t mean its not worth it - just more difficult and less rewarding. Nothing is perfect.. I think MuchoMacho might have hit the nail on the head - some folks can really enjoy being with each other, but completely sexual not compatible.
sunara_rayne
wrote on November 18 2009 @ 10:45 am: [report]
Larry, wowwww that sounds so sad :( I wonder how your wife feels about it??? Sorry..now I’m like totally interested in your business! lol Have y’all ever talked about sex?? Obvs to me, if you’re not enjoyin it, she’s more than likely not getting her rocks off either..so why not try something new? Anything to get some passion btwn the sheets! Do y’all have any kids?
I tell ya, “more difficult and less rewarding” is certainly not something I would ever want my man to say about our sex life!! Yeesh.
wonderfultonight
wrote on November 18 2009 @ 01:08 pm: [report]
Some people can wait until marriage and work out a good
sexual relationship together. However, what happens when the sex drives are discovered to be incompatible? I love sex and want a lot of it. Once a week or month or for special occasions would leave me so frustrated, it would soon impact other areas of our relationship. Like it or not, sex does matter in marriage.
I certainly believe that for ME, I want to know if the two of us are sexually compatible. This doesn’t mean things will not change over the years, but a couple has a better chance of resolving their differences if they start out on the same page.
I don’t think highschoolers and jr. high kids should be having the amount or type of sex (threesomes, face shots, anal, etc.) that are currently in vogue in some areas, (sadly, here where I live.) Girls are expected to be porn stars. That is so very sad. Some are only 14 - 15 is considered “old” for losing a girl’s virginity - no way they are ready for sex. But we live in a sex-drenched society and there is a lot of pressure to conform. But absinence ONLY isn’t the answer, either.