I have never in my life met a man who believed in abstaining until after marriage. If I met one at my age (48) I would truly think him bizarre.
Hopefully, by age 40, both parties have run the sexual circuit and have eliminated some of the sexual tension of their youth. Translated, both parties are a little bored with sex. If you’re talking about a wedding 6 months down the road then the wait can really add to the exitement.
If I was dating a born-again virgin I would certainly include sex as part of a premarital meeting-of-the-minds. Money, children, jobs, sex, housing, etc… There are many things that need to be talked about frankly before getting married.
And I would agree, barring any religious constraints.
It’s not skills that are an issue - it is sex drive, compatibility, and willingness. A once-a-quarter woman and a twice-a-week man are going to have issues (and vice versa). Having sex in a committed relationship, even being engaged, is not a terrible thing. We’ve told both our daughters that they’d be crazy to abstain for these very reasons. If I were in the market, I’d consider a no-sex attitude an indicator of low compatibility. I would also run away very quickly from a woman who considered sex “putting out.”
Personally, I’d respect a woman for her convictions and reasons for abstinence, and actually date her, see where it goes. Although, it wouldn’t be my choice and I’d have to insist on intimacy, heavy petting, etc. at the very least.
I also tend to believe that would be one sweet berry on the honeymoon- a Tantric explosion-denial and anticipation, if you know what I mean. Could give sex a whole new sanctity and meaning, especially for the sexually jaded.
Hello. My name is JThunder. Pleased to meet you.
My suspicion is that women who are into abstinence prior to marriage are mostly into abstinence, period, especially if they’re still into it in their 30s and 40s, and hence likely there would be a lot of abstinence AFTER marriage. This still does not prohibit a woman from having “high quality” male suitors – whatever that means – just ones who either
- are cool with abstinence in general, or
- are stupid about such things
I always tried really hard, but it never worked out. My "rules’ for my self were based partly on my faith, and partly in self protection against “players”. You know, the ones who put on the full court press just to get sex, and then dump you right away if you give in? Or conversely, drop you at an exactly duplicate time frame in the so-called relationship no matter who the guy is?
I haven’t personally experienced the “giving it up and getting dumped” thing, but I’ve experienced the 2 week “I ain’t gettin’ any” dump a lot of times.
My general rule of thumb for abstinance is 3 to 6 months, NOT that I always manage to make it, but I aim for it. But generally, if the guy manages to wait at least a month, he’s a stayer. That of course doesn’t guarantee a successful relationship, but so far, at least it guarantees that you’re on a level playing field, and the guy isn’t just there for sex, that he wants to give it a go also.
And of course all the usual disclaimers apply, the above is not meant to cover ALL situations.
Are you saying that the only way a person can know what their sex drive, turn-ons, and willingness are is to have sex? If so, you’ve got to be joking. I’d figured all that stuff out long before I ever contemplated actually having sex, and I daresay it would have taken me much longer to figure out with a partner. Too many distractions to really focus on my reactions, and all that.
That’s why I’ve never understood the whole attitude of “test driving” a potential mate in bed. If you’ve both explored your sexuality and can communicate with each other, there’s no real barrier to knowing whether you’re sexually compatible without having sex.
There seems to be a lot of incompatibility, somehow or other. Some of this could be one of the partners aceeding the the other’s wishes before marriage, but I doubt that is all that common. And I’m not talking about compatibility in the sense of does the earth move every time. But somehow I doubt that the next line after one partner tells the other that he/she isn’t willing to have sex until marriage involves a detailed discussion of frequency, positions and fantasies. Not as a rule, anyhow.
I understand religious reasons for this - that would be a deal breaker for me anyhow, but I’d understand it. And I’m not talking about sex right after dessert on the first date. But after the proper relationship is established, I’d rather show, not tell.
As Chris Rock said:
All relationships are about fuckin’ and eatin’. If you don’t like fuckin’ someone and you don’t like eatin’ with them, you don’t need to be in a relationship.
…and let me add this - I already have plenty of people I can go out to dinner with.
I don’t get people who are “saving themselves” for whatever reason. I can understand being selective or waiting a few dates to get to know someone but to set arbitrary rules is just ridiculous. Sex is supposed to be something enjoyable. It shouldn’t be a chore that you tolerate in order to keep someone around.
Most likely an adult who is “saving” themselves is either carrying baggage, trying to wield some kind of relationship power, or has some kind of performance anxiety (or are already married).
I’ve seen it work.
An acquaintence of mine, devout Catholic, lost his wife of twenty-eight years to cancer. He remained a windower for a year and a half, and then began dating a widow in similar circumstances to his; they married about a year later.
He was forty-six and she was thirty-nine. While I’m obviously not privvy to their every move, I believe him when he circumspectly described his … er …joy at the wedding night and the resumption of an activity that had been lacking for more than two years.
He’s in good physical shape, and she is quite attractive.
- Rick
No, it’s not the very next line. Judging by the responses I’ve seen in this and other threads, the very next line is quite likely to be “See ya!” And as I said before, if waiting till marriage is a dealbreaker for you, you’re not a high-quality mate in terms of the yardstick these folks would be using. That’s not saying you suck or are a bad person, or anything like that, just that you’re quite simply not the sort of person they would want to be in a serious relationship with.
Eventually, though, most celibate couples contemplating marriage discuss frequency, position, and fantasies, just like most couples who have sex discuss these issues. For celibate folks, it’s just one more thing you need to communicate about, like having kids and how to raise them, or arranging finances, or where you’re spending the holidays.
32-year-old male checking in. You couldn’t get me to date a woman who refused to have sex before marriage if you paid me in gold doubloons. There are only two reasons I can think of for a woman to not have sex before marriage: strong relgious beliefs or serious emotional baggage. Either of those is an instant deal-breaker for me. As far as I’m concerned, sex is an integral part of a romantic relationship and I would never consider trying to have a relationship withouth it.
Years ago, after one of my friends had obviously “embraced her promiscuity,” (well, that’s one way of looking at it, anyway), she absolutely was dumbfounded to meet a young, attractive woman who claimed to have waited until marriage to have sex. My friend just would not believe it. She later made comments about how this woman must have been lying, or something.
This other young woman seemed to be a nice enough person, not with hang-ups or anything. It’s just something that she decided to do (for whatever reason). And I don’t think she was lying. Personally, I found my friend to be the one with the “issues.” She went on and on and on about this other young woman, and her “bizarre” choice. Frankly, I think my friend was revealing a lot more about her own “issues” than exposing the “issues” of the other woman, who, as far as I could see, was minding her own business.
I’m always a little leery of people who try to attach their own sensibilities or values on everybody else, and then proclaim that anyone who doesn’t “fit in” to their idea of normal is somehow screwed up. Look—it’s really simple. Some people wait for marriage. That’s what works for them. For someone else, who knows basically nothing about these folks to just assume that they very likely must be ugly (and therefore not gettin’ any anyway), or wallflowers, or have serious hang-ups, or on a power trip, or whatever, is really overreaching.
Who cares anyway? It’s their own business. Either date them, or don’t.
I think we have a winner! Good point, yosemite.
I personally would be really turned off by someone who felt it was necessary to lay down some arbitrary rules concerning a time schedule for events to take place in a relationship.
If they aren’t the kind of person who could just let things develop (or not develop), then they wouldn’t be the kind of person I’d like to be spending time with.
I think there has to be something abnormal and emotionally wrong with a person who is so afraid of sex. No doubt they exist, and people with these hangups will find each other, but it’s not healthy. I suspect some of the guys who go along with the demands of these frigid, hostile women are closeted homosexuals looking for beards. A woman who hates sex is just what they’re looking for. I’ve seen it happen.
I also don’t buy the religion excuse. I think that’s just a shield masking some more profound emotional problem.
That’s not to say that anyone doesn’t have the right to make these demands, no one has any obligation to give another person sex, not even a spouse.
But if a 30-40 year old, full grown adult still has this kind of hangup then he/she should not expect to land anybody normal and healthy (and religious whackjobs do not count as healthy).
Wrong age bracket but…
my childhood best friend started dating this guy when she was 14, he 15. They got married 10 years later, after college (she went to medical school, which in Spain is 6 years, so graduation at 24). Many people were convinced that they’d “gone all the way” about one year into their relationship, from looking at them together.
She says they didn’t, and I believe her because of how wistful she looks and sounds when she explains why.
She is a devout Christian (btw, that is not the only religion that pleads abstinence! Most religions do) and he is not. She claims that if he had been devout, she would have been all over him and then some after 8 months of dating. But since he was not, she needed to do something that would bring home to him how important it was for her to get a religious wedding and to be able to raise her kids Christian. “Either we get a Christian marriage, or you can start looking elsewhere.”
Dio, that post says a lot more about your unhealthy attitudes than those of people who choose abstinence.
YMMV, but anyone I’ve known who was still a “virgin” past, say, their late 20s had serious relational/emotional problems. Issues. Baggage.
I dunno why, but I have a theory that extended religious-based repression of a basic human function has a deleterious effect on a person’s self-esteem, and their ability to relate/express themselves to others. Having sex is a normal, healthy part of adult human existence. Frankly, though, I am not sure what screws someone up more: abstaining from all sex (past some certain reasonble amount of time) or right-wing, fundamentalist religion in general.
Probably it’s a mix of the two.
I grew up with the “no sex outside marriage” thing, and oh man am I glad I got over it. Criminy, I even felt horribly guilty masturbating, for years. Sexual repression via my long discarded religious beliefs did me a lot more emotional harm than good, and not just regarding sex. Getting over all that has been a long, painful road.
I hasten to add, that having sex in dysfunctional circumstances causes emotional problems as well. Not to mention unsafe sex.
Bottom line, though: getting laid is a good thing.
