Having recently been privy to an elaborate virginity-losing plot, and having no hope of making the two participants understand that they are nowhere near old enough to complain about having waited “forever,” as at least one of them has, in my hearing ( :rolleyes: ), it seems the prevailing sentiment among most friends and acquaintances of mine is “a bad idea.” Barring those who adhere to this rule due to religion. I have no problem with either stance. Your body, your business. However, my take on “no sex before marriage” is that kissing and some touching above the waist is as far, then, as you go before marriage. Others hold views that everything but vaginal intercourse is OK, and still others have limits between my rather strict one and the most permissive definition.
What say the Dopers? I admit I am rather hard-line about this, as I am about many things. If I decided to stick to a no sex before marriage policy, I would adhere to my definition. It would be frustrating, but at least I’d be following my rule.
In the context of that sentence, “marriage” is usually meant as “the actual marriage ceremony” aka “wedding”.
So to me it would mean that “being all over each other is ok so long as nothing is put into the other person’s body”. Or, as my grandma puts it “we didn’t have sex before we were married, but you can bet our hands weren’t still!” (she is convinced that if she’d “let him convince her” they wouldn’t have gotten married; knowing gramps, she’s probably right).
I would think that all three types, oral, anal, and vaginal are out. However, a friend of a friend who is “saving herself” for marriage thinks that everything except vaginal is Ok.
At least as far as actual physical contact is concerned. Modern twist: If the two people involved had only ever engaged in kissing/above-the-waist action, should any attempt at phone/cybersex that describes more, count as something more?
Nobody has mentioned mutual masturbation yet. While it is the safest sex you can have with another person, it is still sex. If you’ve given your sweetie a handjob, you’re no virgin.
I guess I’m the only one taking this position, but “no sex before marriage” has always meant to me no vaginal intercourse. My partners followed the same line of thought, and that is without any discussion on the topic between us. To me and whatever girl I was with at the time (ok, teenagers to early 20’s), that rule always meant we could do whatever we wanted- and did- except vaginal penetration by penis.
I suppose it was because the unspoken sentiment was that they not only didn’t want to get pregnant, but they wanted to save that specific act for their husband on their wedding night. Which was fine with both of us, because it allowed us to get creative in finding many other ways to please each other.
It doesn’t make sense, but sex = vaginal intercourse to me. And I suppose anal as well; certainly no one I knew ever thought that anal sex was a legitimate alternative when you were horny but didn’t want to lose it.
To me, “no sex before marriage” is a quaint custom followed by certain primitive American subcultures. You don’t get to have sex until the witch doctor says “booga! booga!”. Most amusing.
But then again, I see the whole “no sex before marriage” thing as pretty arbitrary anyway, so it’s fitting that the rules thereof be equally arbitrary.
If someone had said the same but replaced “no sex before marriage” with “gay sex”, you’d probably being going apeshit. Outside of minors, you’ve got no place judging someone based on sexual preferences. I think you probably agree with the homosexuality aspect, but when you read “no sex before marriage” I suspect you immediately think “Christian.”
IMO, no sex before marriage = no vaginal intercourse. BJs and going down on broads are fair game WOOHOO!
All right, I’ll answer properly. Mainly because of the mutual masturbation comment which I highly disagree with. It’s just skin contact. That’s not that far off from saying any touching below the neck becomes sex.
“No sex before marriage” means no vaginal intercourse. And that I’m looking for a new boyfriend.
You kids sure have a narrow definition of sex. Only three types? Don’t you consider your entire body (and mind) sexual?
“No sex before marriage” is a pretty transparent cop-out. If the OP needs some sort of Doper community buy-in on the definition then I can’t imagine the satisfaction of adhering to that definition is going to be very deep.
What are you trying to accomplish? Do you want to protect the feelings of some future spouse so they won’t have to deal with the thought of you exploring your sexuality without them? Or is that a projection of the kind of protection you want from them?
Do differentiate between “no sex before marriage” and “no sex outside of marriage”? If you imagine yourself widowed, in your 40s say, is sex a no-no until you remarry?
Is touching genitals so foul that doing so destroys your pristine condition?
