Voyager, that was a reference to someone on the previous page talking about how couples just don’t talk about the details of sex when they’re not actually in the process of having it.
I’m in my late 30’s.
If I knew a woman in my age group who was ‘saving herself for marriage’, that would tell me one thing. That we have drastically different views on sex.
Are we adults still in the “sex outside of wedlock id baaaad” school of thought? What, exactly, makes it bad? What, exactly, are you saving yourself for? Do you really think sex will take on some magical signifigance, that it obviously doesn’t have* now*, one you are married???
Now I do not expect a potential partner to jump right into bed with me without any thought going into it. But if it’s out of the question till marriage, well…I’ll pass.
I don’t think anyone in this thread was claiming pre-marital sex was a guarantee for sexual compatibility. I do think it’s a good tool to head off some glaring problems, that the partner may not necessarily view as a problem at all. In the same sense discussion can be a tool. I also don’t think anyone is saying it’s impossible to work through sexual problems, and agree it depends upon the couple. In my case, since I don’t believe there are guarantees, I like to know as much as I can beforehand and see it as making as informed a decision as possible.
I do respect not everyone feels this way, and don’t find abstinence abnormal.
Religion, of course, explicitly excludes the rational.
Thinking about being virgins until the wedding day, it occurs to me that the last thing I want to deal with on my wedding night is being a virgin fumbling around with another virgin, trying to figure out how to get it all to work. Just knowing the basic facts does not mean all will be smooth sailing with the time comes. I don’t know about other posters here, but my first time was basically awkward as hell, and wasn’t really all that nice: it was later that it started to get really good. Subsequent times with women who were virgins were similarly awkward. It can take a lot of patience; some women’s hymens are much tougher than others. If a couple really wants to fullfill the fantasy of having a blissfully free experience of bonding through sex on their wedding day, there’s a good chance it won’t happen that way if they’re both virgins.
Sex is a fun, wonderful thing. But there is nothing inherently sacred about it: nothing so divinely special that the act of intercourse demands in and of itself to be preserved and cherished solely for a marriage (the sacredness of which is itself already much exaggerated anyway, IMHO.) Essentially, sex is a medium of intimate expression, it is not the intimacy itself.
Furthermore, having had sex previously in no way the diminshes the specialness of intimate bonding with the person you now love. The specialness of the bond is dependent upon that unique relationship, and how the couple expresses–and continually learns to express–intimacy with each other, and not whether one or the other has done it before. Anyone who thinks saving themselves for someone is in itself sufficient to make sex a wonderfully bonding experience is probably in for a rude awakening, and disappointment.
This thread is on a subject tangential to this one, and contains some good thoughts from a variety of people, many relevent to the debate.
Voyager hit on this before I got to it, but you seem to think that abstinence people have better non-erotic discussions about sex. I don’t see how this is possible. Non-abstinence people are more open about about sex. I’m sure there are always a couple exceptions to the rule, but I would imagine abstinence people would have a harder time because of the sexual tension. No sex=more sexual tension, sex=much less sexual tension.
I think both sides agree that the an emotional and mental connection is the key to the a good relationship, we just have diametrically opposed views on the role of sex. I think it’s ironic, because most people who choose abstinence do it so that sex takes a backseat to emotional compatibility. In my view, by protesting that sex is not that important, it seems you are making it a bigger deal. In the anecdotes it seems to me that sex became more of a focal point by the wedding night came around.
I don’t know if my story is typical, but I am so glad my wife and I had sex before the wedding. After two years of sleeping and living together, the initial sexual heat had worn off. Like most couples the sexual frequency had dropped off drastically. For people who have sex before marriage, this is the focal point. After the lust has worn off, how do you work as a couple? Some people discover that all the emotional connection that was there in the beginning was nothing more than sexual infatuation. The sexual attraction skewed all the interactions. Some people discover that although they found a good partner, but not one worthy of marriage. Some people (like me) discover that they truly love the person. That if there is no sex in the future, there are so many other things that works so well that it doesn’t matter.
To me it seems that abstinence does nothing more than artifically extend the sexual infatuation period, and that a decision on marriage should not be done under the influence of infatuation
I used to be believe in abstinence for myself, but since then I’ve decided I’ll merely wait until I’m in a committed relationship.
However, I still don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting to be abstinent. If that’s how you want to do it, more power to ya. I don’t feel I have the right to make a judgement on your sexual practices and find it rather strange there is so much hostility to the idea.
Thank you Voyager.
::: blush :::
I didn’t feel particularly brave, just wanted to be another county heard from. And to further the theme that it’s possible to hash things out via talking versus actually having been there… it must be like raising children. You can’t possibly conceive every scenario or prepare enough or figure out in advance that there just must be someway around it, whatever that may be. In my case, I’d been around plenty of blocks, was pretty well read on the subject and yet, bewildered about a lot of specifics, that although hashed and re-hashed MANY times over a decade, never became resolved. A lot of resentment can build around one, and only one, issue. That right there can be enough to infuse the rest of the relationship with what might (or might not, depending on severity, dedication and desire) break it or at least, damage it in irreparable ways. (IE: money, religion, etc., just to name a few).
So, if I had to do it all over again, I would have picked the man I had been engaged to, but didn’t marry. We truly loved one another and were together for several years (and had certainly explored every other territory possibly involved). And yet, I felt, that because I waited soooo long, there was undo pressure, phobias and ideas I couldn’t have confronted until I’d already had penetrative sex. I’d give anything to go back and change that part to have had my intimate experiences less marred by screwy thinking. But that’s just me.
I still say that if you’re comfortable with this stance (or those it’s worked well for) and hold it for a well-thought out reason (because your faith dictates it and devoutly believe that or, like one friend, who felt they wouldn’t ‘do the deed’ until out of her parents’ house, which seemed practical to me or for not having to face any subsequent consequences that may arise), then go for it. That’s more than admirable at any time. However, if you’re hiding behind something, as I was, then remember there are potentially other hazards that can crop up than what a lot of advocates are willing to admit or you can even foresee. Years of therapy has at least helped me with this. And if I were ever to have children (which I won’t, but that’s irrelevant for my hypothetical), I would raise them much differently and encourage them not to fear their sexuality, but be as informed as possible, be safe and understand the emotional involvement, hence taking whatever union as serious. I wouldn’t want the burden enforced on me to be passed along to anyone else. The mantle of irrationality and misconceptions are too hard to rid one’s self of if you end up believing oppositely than you did. I wish I’d have thought more cognitively about it and less fearfully, making the decision for myself, rather than allowing my church’s stance or my mother to.
Simply something else to consider. As always, YMMV.
It’s like the old saying:
If you want someone to buy the cow, you have to let them play with the utters a little.
Yeah. That’s what I don’t get.
There’s a difference between “It wouldn’t work for me and I wouldn’t date someone who abstained, but whatever floats your boat” (which many here have basically said), and the “They are all man-hating, sex-hating FREAKS!” crap. I don’t get that. It is nobody else’s business. It’s almost as if some of these people are offended by the notion that someone they don’t even know isn’t having sex in certain circumstances . . . but why get so bothered by it? How is it affecting anyone else? Why do they care so damned much?
I keep on going back to my friend, the one that was carrying on and on about the young woman who abstained until marriage. My friend was really bugged by this woman, but it made no sense, because the woman made absolutely no value judgments on anyone else and was pretty laid back about the whole thing.
Exactamundo.
I choose to be sexually active, when and with whom I please, but it’s none of my business what other people do in the bedroom – or outside it, if that’s where they choose to stay.
And I say you should butt out and mind your own business. Your body, your choice. If people don’t want to have sex, or believe it should only happen if they are married, that’s THEIR decision. People shouldn’t have sex just to “prove something” or to “grow the hell up.”
In fact, your posts says a lot more about YOU than it does anyone else.
Jesus, who cares?
I mean, I don’t believe in abstinence until marriage either, but I also don’t believe in fucking just for the sake of fucking.
I’ve already said that people have the right to be abstinent and they are not obligated to have sex with anyone, even a spouse. I’m not trying to pass any laws here, I’m just expressing an opinion.
Well, the OP did ask for opinions. I wasn’t aware that only “correct” ones were allowed. FTR, I don’t lay awake at night being bugged about 35 year old virgins…but as long as there’s a discussion about it, I will offer the opinion that willful abstinence (and I’m talking about abstinence within the context of a relationship, not just dry spells, or a lack of desire to start a relationship. I’m talking about adults who are in a relationship but for whatever reason are afraid to consummate it. That’s not natural. That’s indicative of some kind of irrational hangup, or fear of intimacy, or repressed sexuality, or emotional immaturity or religious fanatacism or some other kind of psychological baggage.
They have the right to be that way, sure, but I don’t have to pretend it’s anything healthy or admirable. I think it’s akin to anorexia. Nobody has to eat but let’s not pretend that it’s normal.
Me either.
I’m single and 33 and I do not abstain. If I were dating someone who said he was waiting til marriage I’d be taken aback but I wouldn’t dump him over it. I have to say though, normally people who are not going to have sex outside marriage make it a priority to get married asap and don’t make it to their 30s as a single person.
If they haven’t gotten married, it’s probably because they don’t and never will care about sex. Someone who really loves sex won’t make career a priority if they have to get married to have sex in their 20s. They’ll get married!
So yeah if someone is 35 and a virgin and he says he’s just wating for the right woman I’ll go running because nobody needs to wait 20 years to meet a me. I’m great but I think in 20 years a guy could meet someone who at least comes close to being as great as I am.
If he’s divorced that’s different. In that case it’s not a turnoff. I don’t see a problem with it.
Will common sense do?
Human beings are animals. Things all animals do is eat and mate. If a human being chooses not to mate for months or years, it’s about as natural as choosing not to eat for months or years. That simple enough for ya?
Yeah, it’s possible to go without food and sex, and sometimes we have to whether we like it or not, but those who do so by choice are either involved in some weird cultural shit (i.e. various religions) or they are closet cases, or they are hormonally wacky.
Now, I have no problem with women protecting themselves from unwanted pregnancies and men and women protecting themselves from STDs and abusive relationships by being careful about women they mate with. But not mating at all for such reasons is akin to not eating at all for fear you might get food poisoning.
That should read “whom they mate with”. :smack:
Common sense dictates that you’re engaging in circular reasoning. You are assuming that abstinence will indeed “fuck you up,” which is the precise point that you are arguing for.
Moreover, your food analogy is fundamentally wrong. Food is ESSENTIAL for the survival of the individual. Sex is desirable, but non-essential. Ergo, you cannot contend regarding the long-term consequences of sexual abstinence by drawing an analogy with long-term abstinence for food.
Your point thus remains unproven. Please provide a scientific or medical cite, rather than mere conjecture.
I dunno… the claim being challenged for cites was that going w/o sex for a prolonged time “fucks you up”, i.e. it will cause actual harm (physical or mental).
Is this the naturalist fallacy, or just close to it?
Besides, it’s not equivalent in function – if you do not eat for a couple of months, you get sick and die. If you’re remain abstinent for a couple of years, you can get back on the saddle just fine.
Y’know, I am most certainly not a believer in abstinence, but count me in with yosemitebabe’s last post in being mightily puzzled at the hostility to the idea, and the insistence that NO reason for it can be anything but (a) pathological or (b) “weird religious-fanatic shit”.
Now, it is true that I have seen people for whom celibacy/abstinence was the wrong choice mess up, BUT: this was more a situation of there being a whole 'nuther underlying problem, and them having deluded themselves into thinking this was the answer. This includes people with “issues” that latch on to facile, doctrinary religious answers in an attempt to escape their problem.
However… there ARE truly celibate-by-conviction people, who arrive at that conclusion out of a sincere evaluation of their values, goals, risks and, if applicable, faith. And I sincerely can say I’ve never seen one explode. If someone’s values are such that in their heart they know that sex outside the bond of marriage is not right for them, they have my respect. They are less likely candidates for my SO, but just on that data point alone I refuse to call them some sort of freak.
Jeez, give the guy a break. Granted what he said was harsh, but he is stating what he believes. He’s not going up to a specific person and saying that they’re wrong for believing in something. We are having a discussion in an internet forum about the logic and merits of some people’s personal beliefs. Both sides are weighing in, and trying to wrap their minds around it. If that is considered ‘butting into someone’s business’, you might as well close down most of the forums.
Last time I checked we had a whole bunch of debates on religion in Great Debates. Should we butt out because what a person believes is their own business?
“Jesus, who cares?” can pretty much be applied to most of the current thread.
Yes, there is something going on here. Something that people aren’t admitting to (probably to themselves) and it’s weird.
It’s okay to be puzzled, it’s okay to be “What? I could never do that!” It’s okay to think it’s weird. But to absolutely know that each and EVERY PERSON on the face of the frickin’ earth has GOT to be seriously messed up (because they don’t view things the way you do) is really odd.
What? Are you all psychics, that you know what’s in their hearts? Are you licensed psychoanalysts? Why are some of you so … downright pissed about what these other people are (not) doing? Why the hostility?