Did it. Loved it. Only thing I would change if I could go back would be to do more of it. Never have been able to come up with one reason against and I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about it.
I’m not a proponent of waiting until marriage to have sex (I’m shacking up with my boyfriend right now, and I’ll be 40 on Sunday.) But speaking from LOTS of experience, it’s entirely possible to stop at a certain point, whatever that point might be, and say “hey, let’s not take this any further” without doing it coldly. In fact, you’ve just described my entire high school career. Getiing worked up does not equal getting carried away.
They had/have serious population issues. I think that was the motivation.
I think this depends on how sexually active they’ve been together. If it’s an “everything but the touchdown” relationship, they’ll probably be fine. If it’s a “hands above the waist, buddy” relationship, probably not. But I think that’s more a function of their attitude toward sex than their relationship.
I have kind and considerate friends whom I like and love, people I’d take a bullet for (and vice versa) who are completely sexually unappealing to me (and, I assume, vice versa). Sex that’s about love and mutual respect can be, well… nice I guess. But *really *good sex is about pheromones, and compatibility of both bodies and minds. That’s not to minimize the love and respect thing, throw that in there on top of the pheromones and compatibility and now you’ve got incredible, epic, “oh my god if all sex was like this we’d still live in caves” sex.
Thing is, you really can’t know what sex with someone will be like until you do it. People are full of surprises, and I think most sexually active people have had that totally hyped and anticipated encounter that turned out to be a dud, and the one that shocked the hell out of them by rocking their world.
I have no problem with people waiting till marriage to have sex, if it makes them happy. People have different needs and priorities. I know plenty of people who could live without sex for the rest of their lives, but could never be happy alone. I also know plenty of people who could care less if they ever get married, but could never be happy without sex. And of course, there’s everyone else I know, who falls somewhere in between. Do whatever works for you.
It’s only sex before marriage if you’re planning to get married.
Ah c’mon, somebody had to make the obvious joke.
Does for me.
But you might be going to marry someone else.
Well, I am also a proponent of knowing one’s own limits, and I would be the last person to criticize someone who wanted to wait until marriage to have sex. (One of my very close childhood friends did, for that matter, for reasons that were partly religious, but partly due to family history having to do with how she and her siblings were born in the first place. She dated her now-husband for several years first, and they didn’t get married until their mid-twenties, and as far as anyone can tell, they have been happy ever since. The waiting was NOT easy for either of them, though.)
I’m not saying it can’t work for some people; I’m just saying that a) I’m not one of them, and b) the fact that someone decides to wait until marriage to have sex does not automatically make him/her a cold fish.
No they don’t. Well, maybe libido diminishes with age, but preferences are pretty fixed.
Personally, I see both sex and marriage as commitments that should be shared with someone you deeply care about and no one else. In both cases you’re trusting yourself to another person in a very fundamental way and allowing yourself to be vulnerable to them. I don’t really care which comes first (in my case, it wasn’t marriage) but neither should be taken lightly in my view.
Obviously, that’s subjective, but in my experience preferences do change: one acquires tastes over time, and outgrows other things. Situations change–the sorts of things one prefers at 22 in a studio apartment may be different from the sorts of things one prefers when there are kids sleeping down the hall. Bodies change, and things that were comfortable become less so. On the other hand, things that were novel become old hat and you become more willing to try new things.
And in any case, libido is a huge chunk of “sexual compatibility”–couples seem to fight about frequency more than anything else–and, for many women at least, that isn’t a simple thing–hormones fluctuate throughout life with age but also with pregnancy and disease, as does self-esteem and confidence. It’s a roller coaster, not a slide.
I never said you can talk so much that sexual compatibility is assured. I simply hold that a willingness to talk and, above all, a mutual eagerness to please each other and an openness to compromise make eventual sexual compatibility likely enough that it’s not a crazy risk–no more of a risk than another couple who simply assume that if they are perfectly sexually compatible today, they will be forever, and neither will ever have to compromise.
Two virgins talking about sexual compatibility is like two blind people discussing decorating choices. It’s delusional to think that you can substute talk for direct , sensual experience.
Cite?
My libido has swung both higher and lower over the years, and my preferences today are certainly not fixed at where they were 20 years ago. That’s what exploration is all about.
And it’s delusional to think that you can substitute direct, sensual experience today for good communication skills and a willingness to go out of your way to make each other happy over the long haul.
Again, I have no problem with sex. I think everyone ought to be having a lot of sex, outside marriage, inside marriage, personally I don’t care. But I don’t see how waiting on this one thing is so much more riskier to marital happiness than all the other hundreds of risks people take when they say “I do”. You can’t ever be sure you are always going to be perfect for each other in any area–which is why kindness and empathy matter more than a perfect coincidence of needs at a particular moment.
If that were true, marriage would be a much safer bet.
I’m reading an old (1932) book on “Marital Hygiene” right now, and the author (a psychologist, as far as I can tell) has an interesting, non religious take on this. I don’t know if his theories are still held as valid or not, but they’ve got truthiness going for them.
Romantic love, he says, is a phenomenon caused by the sublimation of the “sex instinct”. If you have sex, you feel united as one through that sex, if for a brief time only. If you sublimate that sex act, you feel united through other things, and we call that romantic love and it feels really good. People who hate baseball become avid baseball fans when dating a baseball player; people who are bored with art love art museums when dating an artist. This is because they’re not knocking boots, so the emotional and psychological effects of sex come out in other ways.
You’re driven to learn more and more about your paramour because you want desperately to be united with them. You respect them, you think they’re great, you adore their ideas, their hobbies, even their faults and foibles because that suppressed sex instinct wants to bond with them so strongly. Since you can’t bond with them literally in bed, you bond with them in daily activities and language.
The thing is, this romantic infatuation doesn’t last after the sex instinct is fulfilled with actual sex, because it was an artifact of the sublimation of that instinct. You realize you never liked baseball anyway and he never puts his socks in the hamper and what the fuck are you doing with this loser, anyway?
But if you manage to cultivate this personal closeness throughout a long courtship, you end up with a stronger marriage when the sex drive is no longer sublimated, because you’ve grown to know the person very well through seeking that non-sexual union. If you have sex too early in a relationship, you don’t care about them as a person when the sex act kills the romance.
I’m not entirely sold - I think that perhaps the window of time that a sex-free courtship is needed is shorter than he seems to think, and there’s nothing inherit in marriage that it needs to be the end marker of the celibate stage - but I think it’s an interesting theory. And at least it isn’t drenched in misogyny, patriarchy and religion.
This is a good point. Birth control isn’t 100% reliable today, but for much of human history it was much less so, so that the prohibition against sex outside of marriage was really a prohibition against having children outside of marriage.
It’s not an either/or.
I think the statistics are that something like 98% of men and 94% of women become sexually active before they marry.
So what I like to say is that people are voting with their bodies and sex wins by a landslide.
This is true. Ability to say, “Hey, whoa (pant, pant), we’ve gotta stop.” does not equal “I am a robot. I dislike sexuality. Let us stop making out now because I have no libido.” Plural of anecdote etc, but I know several couples who waited, for religious reasons, and managed to have lots of frank conversation about sex beforehand, and everything is going swimmingly.
Some of us may even own large collections of interesting lingerie. Some of us even had parents who were devoutly religious, and talked to us about the importance of marrying someone you really have the hots for. And not having had sex doesn’t mean you don’t know if there’s any chemistry or not. You will not know exactly how everything will go in great detail, but you’ll still have connection, communication, and I hope a sense of humour.
And, WhyNot, I like that explanation. It’s interesting.