s/o: premarital sex

[bibiche]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Umm, no. There are, quite frankly, some anatomical realities that do not change over time. It behooved me to discover that sooner rather than later.

Srsly. I once had a mad crush on someone with whom, anatomically, I would never be compatible. It was crushing enough very early in a dating relationship, I can’t even imagine what it would have been if I’d decided to wait months or years to discover it. Sometimes things are insurmountable (uh, maybe not the best choice of words…) and no amount of love or respect is going to change that. 

I don’t believe there is only one possible partner for each person. I am a serial monogamist (only because I failed at one night stands - despite my best efforts they always turned into relationships!). I’ve made decisions based on a wide variety of things. I like smart, well-educated, witty, caring, polite, dependable, adventurous, athletic men. So I was never going to end up with a flabby, sitcom-watching, anti-intellectual couch potato. That wouldn’t fulfill me. Likewise, a fulfilling sexual relationship is, to me, an important part of the package. So there is no way in hell I would not assess this along with everything else I assess when choosing a partner. Why would I not include sexual compatibility as part of my decision making process?
 

As for my OP and “strongly encouraging” kids to “try it before they buy it,” that was tongue-in-cheek. To @Melissa Louise’s point, “pre-marital” (for my family) isn’t the point, as what we value and model is a committed, mutually happy and beneficial relationship, not “search for the one perfect spouse and save yourself for marriage.” We model views and behavior like everyone else, and I rather doubt that anyone in my family would ever value chastity since this is certainly not a view they would ever hear espoused. We’re an open, body positive, sex positive family. Briefly, we don’t have problems with sex or nudity. I mean, we’re certainly not prurient, but we neither are we prudes. 
 

But you do you. Unless that’s against your belief system. 😜

[BlsdMama]

9 hours ago, kiwik said:

If you had lived together for a few years you would have.  Yes sex drive changes but hoping you will eventually both change to suit each other seems a bit risky.

Marriage is risky. Permanently tied to inevitable change...

 One gets sick, one gets injured, having babies... if someone thinks great sex is guaranteed because it’s great when you’re both young and healthy, boy, they’re in for a heckuva surprise. Life is full of unexpected, the ability to roll with it and learn new skills is essential. 

[Sneezyone]

19 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

Marriage is risky. Permanently tied to inevitable change...

 One gets sick, one gets injured, having babies... if someone thinks great sex is guaranteed because it’s great when you’re both young and healthy, boy, they’re in for a heckuva surprise. Life is full of unexpected, the ability to roll with it and learn new skills is essential. 

No one thinks great sex is guaranteed but having problems in that area after a long-term relationship, children, life full of memories, etc. is very different from discovering very early on that not only does great sex not exist but is unlikely to ever develop. If one has never had such an encounter, I can understand why that might be hard to imagine but, yeah, it's a real thing.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Sneezyone

[BlsdMama]

I’m definitely not naive in this discussion (wasn’t always a committed Christian) but I’m trying to wrap my head around what might make it unlikely to develop? An unwillingness to please and learn? That would be evidenced in many other areas...

[bibiche]

Just now, BlsdMama said:

I’m definitely not naive in this discussion (wasn’t always a committed Christian) but I’m trying to wrap my head around what might make it unlikely to develop? An unwillingness to please and learn? That would be evidenced in many other areas...

IME, you can’t have good sex with a micropenis. 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, BlsdMama said:

I’m definitely not naive in this discussion (wasn’t always a committed Christian) but I’m trying to wrap my head around what might make it unlikely to develop? An unwillingness to please and learn? That would be evidenced in many other areas...

I was trying to be polite but a thin, short appendage that is unable to provide sufficient stimulation (and, no, manual isn't a substitute) is a no go...for me.

[Sneezyone]

40 minutes ago, bibiche said:

Srsly. I once had a mad crush on someone with whom, anatomically, I would never be compatible. It was crushing enough very early in a dating relationship, I can’t even imagine what it would have been if I’d decided to wait months or years to discover it. Sometimes things are insurmountable (uh, maybe not the best choice of words…) and no amount of love or respect is going to change that. 

I don’t believe there is only one possible partner for each person. I am a serial monogamist (only because I failed at one night stands - despite my best efforts they always turned into relationships!). I’ve made decisions based on a wide variety of things. I like smart, well-educated, witty, caring, polite, dependable, adventurous, athletic men. So I was never going to end up with a flabby, sitcom-watching, anti-intellectual couch potato. That wouldn’t fulfill me. Likewise, a fulfilling sexual relationship is, to me, an important part of the package. So there is no way in hell I would not assess this along with everything else I assess when choosing a partner. Why would I not include sexual compatibility as part of my decision making process?

This is kinda where I am. I've only had three partners in my life--almost 4 years, 1 night, and 25 years. That's it. I thought that everyone was pretty much like my first boyfriend and I was totally wrong. No one I knew was open/honest about the possibility that there really are some compatibility issues that one shouldn't discover at the last possible moment. I learned from each experience tho and the third time was the charm. *shrug* I've been super honest with my older (DH talks to DS) about this stuff too. Ya gotta know yourself and what you like/are willing to compromise on.

[Tanaqui]

On the flipside, much too big is also a problem.

And then there's other issues. Like, something that seems to come up a lot in the advice columns is oral. If one person really enjoys it and needs it to enjoy themself, and the other really hates it and just can't get over it, that might actually be a long-term dealbreaker if the two of them can't make it work. It's not just about what goes in where, it's about whether you enjoy the same things or can at least suck it up enough to sometimes do the things your partner enjoys even if they're not quite your favorite thing. And surprisingly, sometimes people can't.

[marbel]

OK, so, am I getting it right that sex in this thread is strictly defined by intercourse/penetration, everything else is not sex but... something else? 

(Re: micro....)

Edited July 26, 2021 by marbel

[Sneezyone]

Just now, marbel said:

OK, so, am I getting it right that sex in this thread is strictly defined by intercourse/penetration, everything else is not sex?  Just checking. 

Why would you think that? Sex is all of the above. However, part of knowing MYSELF is knowing MY preferences. We're talking about overall sexual compatibility. If kisses alone float your boat, then someone like my former partner would be perfectly acceptable.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, BlsdMama said:

I’m definitely not naive in this discussion (wasn’t always a committed Christian) but I’m trying to wrap my head around what might make it unlikely to develop? An unwillingness to please and learn? That would be evidenced in many other areas...

exactly my thoughts

1 hour ago, bibiche said:

IME, you can’t have good sex with a micropenis. 

I just can't imagine ditching a relationship over something like that, but if one is, then yes I suppose finding out early on is important. 

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I just can't imagine ditching a relationship over something like that, but if one is, then yes I suppose finding out early on is important. 

Really? What about discovering, I dunno, that you hate someone's smell? Or that they have so much internalized guilt about sex that they can only do it quietly in the dark? I am not all that picky, but I can easily imagine having a sexual relationship that's bad enough to be a dealbreaker. 

I also have to say that I find these conversations kind of funny when there aren't any men in them 😉 . I'm pretty feminist and I tend to think that men and women are more alike than not in most ways, but I don't think that applies to sexuality -- men's sexuality is on average a LOT more urgent than women's. So then only hearing about women's perspectives on waiting seems... insufficient. 

[ktgrok]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Really? What about discovering, I dunno, that you hate someone's smell? Or that they have so much internalized guilt about sex that they can only do it quietly in the dark? I am not all that picky, but I can easily imagine having a sexual relationship that's bad enough to be a dealbreaker. 

I also have to say that I find these conversations kind of funny when there aren't any men in them 😉 . I'm pretty feminist and I tend to think that men and women are more alike than not in most ways, but I don't think that applies to sexuality -- men's sexuality is on average a LOT more urgent than women's. So then only hearing about women's perspectives on waiting seems... insufficient. 

Well, general body odor I'd know about from snuggling/kissing. If they have a particular problem with bad odor from their genital area I'd assume a different soap, internal deodorant pill, etc would help. If they hav that much guilt I'd try to get them help for it - there are books, therapists, etc for that knd of thing...and do it in the dark while working on it. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Well, general body odor I'd know about from snuggling/kissing. If they have a particular problem with bad odor from their genital area I'd assume a different soap, internal deodorant pill, etc would help. If they hav that much guilt I'd try to get them help for it - there are books, therapists, etc for that knd of thing...and do it in the dark while working on it. 

I just think these things are complicated, I guess. I'd guess it's true that most of the time you can make things work, but it also seems like a sufficiently important part of the relationship that I'd worry about discovering an issue after marriage. 

[Murphy101]

20 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

exactly my thoughts

I just can't imagine ditching a relationship over something like that, but if one is, then yes I suppose finding out early on is important. 

Me either. I’m thinking though that this could have been resolved without the sex. Frankly, I’d want to know BEFORE I have sex with someone if sex is a breaking point for them.  Who here wants to be having sex with someone and have the other party be like, “oh hey girl, your vagina is too loose to do it for me or that push up bra lied to me - so ba-bye?

I mean. Damn. Talk about pressure to perform.  Count me out of that. There. That’s my sex deal breaker. If anything about sex between us is the key point on whether we can love each other in a committed marriage? Then I’m not interested in that relationship or that sex.

ETA: people keep saying but what if the guy won’t work in this with you! Again. You should be able to get a good indication of how communicative and accommodating a person is without having sex with them.  IME that willingness to work together and communicate and sacrifice for each other or lack of it is not going to be restricted to the bedroom. Though the bedroom is often where it seems people focus the issue. 

Edited July 26, 2021 by Murphy101

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

Me either. I’m thinking though that this could have been resolved without the sex. Frankly, I’d want to know BEFORE I have sex with someone if sex is a breaking point for them.  Who here wants to be having sex with someone and have the other party be like, “oh hey girl, your vagina is too loose to do it for me or that push up bra lied to me - so ba-bye?

I mean. Damn. Talk about pressure to perform.  Count me out of that. There. That’s my sex deal breaker. If anything about sex between us is the key point on whether we can love each other in a committed marriage? Then I’m not interested in that relationship or that sex.

I don't think it's THE key point, lol. But it's ONE key point. I don't see how this is all that weird -- like, if you agree on everything but whether to have kids, you're probably not compatible 😉 . It's one thing out of many but it's really important. I think sex falls in the same category for lots of people. And especially for lots of men. 

[TexasProud]

3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Me either. I’m thinking though that this could have been resolved without the sex. Frankly, I’d want to know BEFORE I have sex with someone if sex is a breaking point for them.  Who here wants to be having sex with someone and have the other party be like, “oh hey girl, your vagina is too loose to do it for me or that push up bra lied to me - so ba-bye?

I mean. Damn. Talk about pressure to perform.  Count me out of that. There. That’s my sex deal breaker. If anything about sex between us is the key point on whether we can love each other in a committed marriage? Then I’m not interested in that relationship or that sex.

Amen!!!! There is so much more to marriage than sex. 

[Murphy101]

6 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don't think it's THE key point, lol. But it's ONE key point. I don't see how this is all that weird -- like, if you agree on everything but whether to have kids, you're probably not compatible 😉 . It's one thing out of many but it's really important. I think sex falls in the same category for lots of people. And especially for lots of men. 

Again. The key isn’t whether they agree on any of this. It’s whether they are willing to commit communicate and sacrifice to love each other. I didn’t want kids when we met. My husband did. Then I became Catholic while pregnant with number 3 that husband was thinking might be it for him and I was open to more. 

The compatibility and success in marriage is not a checklist of mutually agreeed upon terms.

[TexasProud]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don't think it's THE key point, lol. But it's ONE key point. I don't see how this is all that weird -- like, if you agree on everything but whether to have kids, you're probably not compatible 😉 . It's one thing out of many but it's really important. I think sex falls in the same category for lots of people. And especially for lots of men. 

But once again, if he is willing to put your needs above his in other areas, then sex will not be different. Sex should me mutually satisfying which takes practice and communication.  Hubby was not a great kisser at first , (Despite being 25 , he didnt have much practice) In a couple of months he was spectacular.  We were both virgins.  Maybe TMI, but our wedding night was a bust.  We were not successful. I was so upset and said “I’m abnormal.”  We went to sleep.  Later got something to eat. Tried again and it worked.  After 35 years, we are so much better now.  Every now and then after really good Tea, he will joke, “so glad you are abnormal.”. But we dated for 3 years before we got married.  We talked about everything.  He has always been super considerate and worried about my comfort and satisfaction. So it is changeable.  And as others have said life, hormones, medical issues change things. What worked well at 20 doesn’t work well at 60. 

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Again. The key isn’t whether they agree on any of this. It’s whether they are willing to commit communicate and sacrifice to love each other. I didn’t want kids when we met. My husband did. Then I became Catholic while pregnant with number 3 that husband was thinking might be it for him and I was open to more. 

The compatibility and success in marriage is not a checklist of mutually agreeed upon terms.

I wouldn't want someone to sacrifice for me by having kids and I sure as heck wouldn't want sex to be a sacrifice, either. 

Yes, you have to sacrifice and give a lot in marriage. That's why I prefer the basics to be easy... there's enough hard stuff without that. 

I understand people vary on this, though. Just my personal perspective 🙂 . 

Edited July 26, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[TexasProud]

3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

The compatibility and success in marriage is not a checklist of mutually agreeed upon terms.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Sneezyone]

49 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Again. The key isn’t whether they agree on any of this. It’s whether they are willing to commit communicate and sacrifice to love each other. I didn’t want kids when we met. My husband did. Then I became Catholic while pregnant with number 3 that husband was thinking might be it for him and I was open to more. 

The compatibility and success in marriage is not a checklist of mutually agreeed upon terms.

I may be one of a few, but I cannot/could not begin a relationship resenting my partner’s inability to generate the kind of orgasms I prefer. Sorry, not sorry. The willingness to settle on this score is probably why so few heterosexual women routinely climax. I certainly wasn’t looking for perfection right off the bat but some requisites needed to be in place.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Sneezyone

[bibiche]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I may be one of a few, but I cannot/could not begin a relationship resenting my partner’s inability to generate the kind of orgasms I prefer. Sorry, not sorry. The willingness to settle on this score is probably why so few heterosexual women routinely climax. I certainly wasn’t looking for perfection right off the bat but some requisites needed to be in place.

I think it’s also because our society is profoundly sexist. Men would not be expected to deal with equivalent problems.

[Murphy101]

47 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I wouldn't want someone to sacrifice for me by having kids and I sure as heck wouldn't want sex to be a sacrifice, either. 

Yes, you have to sacrifice and give a lot in marriage. That's why I prefer the basics to be easy... there's enough hard stuff without that. 

I understand people vary on this, though. Just my personal perspective 🙂 . 

Well there’s sacrifice and there’s SACRIFICE.  Maybe not be selfish is a better term. Just because a gal wasn’t in the mood last night doesn’t mean they didn’t have sex. That’s a sacrifice. It was probably good and all that. But it required putting the partner’s need for connection first. By all means I don’t want having sex to be some god awful marriage chore either. But then again, doing something your loved one enjoys shouldn’t be a god awful chore anyways. That mindset would be the bigger problem than whatever was wanted to be enjoyed.   Having an attitude of commitment and working together makes the every day sacrifices of loving people seem a lot less negative and often quite joyful. 

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I may be one of a few, but I cannot/could not begin a relationship resenting my partner’s inability to generate the kind of orgasms I prefer. Sorry, not sorry. The willingness to settle on this score is probably why so few heterosexual women routinely climax. 

I suspect the real reason is it’s really difficult to organism when you feel like you as a person doesn’t matter as much as your sexual performance.  Take that out of the equation and suddenly it’s a lot easier to relax and enjoy and make desires known and shared.

It’s one aspect of why sex often gets better later in marriage. We have been through enough that there’s close to zero worry anything desired in bed is going to offend or turn off or otherwise make us less lovable and wanted by the other. But that relationship in bed is built outside of the bedroom. 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, bibiche said:

I think it’s also because our society is profoundly sexist. Men would not be expected to deal with equivalent problems.

Breaking this down for DD has been a priority of mine. We are entitled to pleasure within our relationships. Period. Full stop. You can derive that/achieve it in many ways, both physical and cerebral, but you need to know what *you* like so you can advocate for it within your relationship. You need to know what your partner likes so you can determine compatibility. I don’t know that you need to have sex to do that but it can help, especially if your partner is not forthright and/or is unable to communicate effectively on the topic. It’s not shameful or demeaning to talk about the range of needs we can have. Our bottom line has always been that until you’re ready to discuss this stuff openly and honestly with your partner and with yourself, you have no business doing the deed.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

But then again, doing something your loved one enjoys shouldn’t be a god awful chore anyways.

I guess it depends on the thing? I don't think that everything a loved one enjoys is by definition something I need to be willing to do. 

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Well there’s sacrifice and there’s SACRIFICE.  Maybe not be selfish is a better term. Just because a gal wasn’t in the mood last night doesn’t mean they didn’t have sex. That’s a sacrifice. It was probably good and all that. But it required putting the partner’s need for connection first. By all means I don’t want having sex to be some god awful marriage chore either. But then again, doing something your loved one enjoys shouldn’t be a god awful chore anyways. That mindset would be the bigger problem than whatever was wanted to be enjoyed.   Having an attitude of commitment and working together makes the every day sacrifices of loving people seem a lot less negative and often quite joyful. 

I suspect the real reason is it’s really difficult to organism when you feel like you as a person doesn’t matter as much as your sexual performance.  Take that out of the equation and suddenly it’s a lot easier to relax and enjoy and make desires known and shared.

It’s one aspect of why sex often gets better later in marriage. We have been through enough that there’s close to zero worry anything desired in bed is going to offend or turn off or otherwise make us less lovable and wanted by the other. But that relationship in bed is built outside of the bedroom. 

Maybe? I never approached sex from an inhibited perspective so I don’t understand that kind of problem. My partners have always tried to prioritize me.

[Murphy101]

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I guess it depends on the thing? I don't think that everything a loved one enjoys is by definition something I need to be willing to do. 

Sure. We don’t have to do all the things. But a willingness to discuss and care about it goes a long way. 

9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Maybe? I never approached sex from an inhibited perspective so I don’t understand that kind of problem. My partners have always tried to prioritize me.

Well I’d say I’m similar to you in those areas but then again, I don’t have a make me organism or we are over mentality either, so maybe that makes me easy to please with no reason for either of us to feel inhibited.  

Edited July 26, 2021 by Murphy101

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Well I’d say I’m similar to you in those areas but then again, I’m don’t have a make me organism or we are over mentality either, so maybe that makes me easy to please with no reason for either of us to feel inhibited.  

Oh, no ma’am. If I’m not having an orgasm 90+% of the time, something is WRONG that needs fixing. I have not been pleasured. Barring illness or other issues, do you seriously think your partner would happily accept routinely going without pleasure? Why should I accept less?

Edited July 26, 2021 by Sneezyone

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

I may be one of a few, but I cannot/could not begin a relationship resenting my partner’s inability to generate the kind of orgasms I prefer. Sorry, not sorry. The willingness to settle on this score is probably why so few heterosexual women routinely climax. I certainly wasn’t looking for perfection right off the bat but some requisites needed to be in place.

I really don't think the majority of women are with men with tiny penises. Most women don't climax due to technique issues, not equipment issues. Not to mention the mental component. 

I don't think the majority of lesbians are going without climaxes, and there is no penis involved at all. Turns out, what God doesn't provide in the way of equipment can be purchased online and delivered in discreet packaging. 

28 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Oh, no ma’am. If I’m not having an orgasm 90+% of the time, something is WRONG that needs fixing. I have not been pleasured. Barring illness or other issues, do you seriously think your partner would happily accept routinely going without pleasure? Why should I accept less?

Well, yeah. But most couples can find some way for a woman to climax. There are men who are totally paralyzed from the waist down who have sexually satisfied wives, is my understanding.. 

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I really don't think the majority of women are with men with tiny penises. Most women don't climax due to technique issues, not equipment issues. Not to mention the mental component. 

I don't think the majority of lesbians are going without climaxes, and there is no penis involved at all. Turns out, what God doesn't provide in the way of equipment can be purchased online and delivered in discreet packaging. 

Well, yeah. But most couples can find some way for a woman to climax. There are men who are totally paralyzed from the waist down who have sexually satisfied wives, is my understanding.. 

Indeed. But the question was asked what impediments might there be to a successful sexual relationship regardless of effort. Anatomy is the answer. That was what I, and others, were referring to. And, I don’t know about anyone else but all orgasms are not created equal. Everyone has their own preferences.

I, personally, probably wouldn’t BEGIN a relationship with someone who was paralyzed because I want/need something different. More power to those who want/need something else. That’s great. That’s not me tho, and that’s OK too.

Maintaining a relationship with someone after illness/injury is also different. There’s a lot of history to draw from. Even so, we know the divorce rate after injuries of that sort are sky high. It’s stressful and changes the relationship in ways people may not bargain for. 

And, yea, SEPARATELY I think heterosexual women are conditioned to accept less fulfilling sexual relationships as normal and acceptable.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Danae]

I think the “try before you buy” idea is . . . useless. That’s not quite the right word.  Moot, maybe.

 

If you have no objections to extra-marital sexual activity then you’ll probably have had sex with the person before marriage is on the table so you won’t need a “trial” to make the decision. Nor do you need “we have to make sure we’re compatible before marriage” as an excuse.  
 

If you do have reasons to abstain from sex outside of marriage then using “we have to make sure we’re compatible before marriage” as an exception is problematic in a lot of ways and has high potential for abuse. Unless you’re part of a subculture that frowns on extra-marital sex but has built in no-fault trial periods.  Which I have read about in speculative fiction, but I don’t know of any in the real world.

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Danae said:

If you have no objections to extra-marital sexual activity then you’ll probably have had sex with the person before marriage is on the table so you won’t need a “trial” to make the decision. Nor do you need “we have to make sure we’re compatible before marriage” as an excuse.  

I am not sure what the difference between "having sex before marriage" and a "trial" is? No one suggesting specifically scheduling trial sex, lol. The question is whether there's any value in having sex before getting married. Obviously that's usually in the context of not knowing if you'll get married. 

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I am not sure what the difference between "having sex before marriage" and a "trial" is? No one suggesting specifically scheduling trial sex, lol. The question is whether there's any value in having sex before getting married. Obviously that's usually in the context of not knowing if you'll get married. 

Yep. I also think there’s a lot of overlap between being uncomfortable with frank discussions and mediocre sex. A LOT can be discussed while abstaining but I don’t think that level of discussion is encouraged among ‘courting’ couples. If my ‘friend’ had been honest up front, a lot of hassle and heartache could have been avoided.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Sneezyone

[annandatje]

On 7/24/2021 at 10:21 PM, bibiche said:

You know we needed one. 🤪

We probably need a poll too, but I’m too lazy to make one.

Personally, I think premarital sex is kind of essential. I mean, what happens if you wait until the wedding night only to discover your mate and you are not well suited? I’m sorry, but compatibility is a pretty big deal. I will strongly encourage my children to try it before they buy it. Thoughts?

While I generally strongly agree with you, I believe that commitment to compatible life goals is important as physical compatibility.  I stay out of my young adult children's sex lives; however, around puberty, I did reassure them that having sex outside marriage was a non-issue for us.  Went on to explain that being sexually active requires exercising common sense such as using birth control and assessing potential emotional consequences.

[marbel]

4 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Why would you think that? 

Why would I think that?

4 hours ago, bibiche said:

IME, you can’t have good sex with a micropenis. 

 

4 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

I was trying to be polite but a thin, short appendage that is unable to provide sufficient stimulation (and, no, manual isn't a substitute) is a no go...for me.

 

[Danae]

10 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I am not sure what the difference between "having sex before marriage" and a "trial" is? No one suggesting specifically scheduling trial sex, lol. The question is whether there's any value in having sex before getting married. Obviously that's usually in the context of not knowing if you'll get married. 

I’m talking about using it as a reason/argument in favor of pre-marital sex.  If there’s nothing wrong with extra-marital sex then there are lots of better reasons for doing it.  It’s only a persuasive argument to people who already don’t object to sex outside of marriage and they don’t need persuading.

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, marbel said:

Why would I think that?

 

 

IME = In *my* estimation

”For me” = *for me*

Other people provided other examples of why PHYSICAL incompatibility can be an issue. If you’re someone for whom other forms of sexual pleasure are equally effective then those would be non-issues.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Danae said:

I’m talking about using it as a reason/argument in favor of pre-marital sex.  If there’s nothing wrong with extra-marital sex then there are lots of better reasons for doing it.  It’s only a persuasive argument to people who already don’t object to sex outside of marriage and they don’t need persuading.

So you're saying the only way one would not have premarital sex is if one thinks it's morally wrong? I guess I do tend to believe that, but then that suggests the only possible objections are moral and not practical. 

Edited July 26, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Sneezyone]

FTR- I’m NOT arguing FOR premarital sex. I’m just pointing out how it CAN be useful and that existing forms of premarital communication WRT sex are often inadequate.

[Danae]

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

So you're saying the only way one would not have premarital sex is if one thinks it's morally wrong? I guess I do tend to believe that, but then that suggests the only possible objections are moral and not practical. 

I guess there’s an exception for “we met online, we’ve talked for hours and decided we want to spend the rest of our lives together, I’m flying halfway around the world to meet him next weekend and if the sex is good we’ll get married.”  Seems like an edge case, though.  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Danae said:

I guess there’s an exception for “we met online, we’ve talked for hours and decided we want to spend the rest of our lives together, I’m flying halfway around the world to meet him next weekend and if the sex is good we’ll get married.”  Seems like an edge case, though.  

There would be so many issues with that scenario other than the sex, lol. The sex would be the last thing I'd worry about in that set-up! 

[prairiewindmomma]

Something like 95% of all people have had sex prior to marriage (depends on the study you pick as to the stat). We can debate all we want as to what we think our children ought to do,  but odds are that we should plan that they actually will…

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, prairiewindmomma said:

Something like 95% of all people have had sex prior to marriage (depends on the study you pick as to the stat). We can debate all we want as to what we think our children ought to do,  but odds are that we should plan that they actually will…

I think the only way to have that statistic be different is to have people get married in their teens, like they do in the Orthodox Jewish community. Young people are horny, lol. Nothing to be done about that. 

I'm personally not comfortable with that option, but I think it's the realistic option if you want MOST people to wait for marriage. 

[Melissa Louise]

I find this whole discussion so unusual.

Both the way sex is assumed to be tied to marriage (pre-marital) and the idea of 'waiting' as something secular people might routinely do. 

It's clearly a cultural preference shaped by religiously- oriented norms. 

 

 

 

[Sneezyone]

52 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Something like 95% of all people have had sex prior to marriage (depends on the study you pick as to the stat). We can debate all we want as to what we think our children ought to do,  but odds are that we should plan that they actually will…

This part. Their life, their choices. I just want them to have a happy, healthy sex life over the long-term and that includes being able to discuss the gamut of sexual issues and needs with their partners, clearly and without shame, discomfort, or fear. I just think it's funny that folks think signing a paper is going to magically remove all the inhibitions people build up WRT open and frank dialogue WRT sex. Communication about sex takes practice.

Part of why my college roomies and I sat around talking about sex so much is because we were trying to navigate serious, marriage-possible relationships (and fill in the gaps left by uncomfy single parents who said nothing more than abstain). We all had conservative religious upbringings (Catholic, mainline protestant, Buddhist) and good instincts WRT bf/gf personalities and intellect but the unspoken details were really important. Through our late night gabfests, we developed some (not new, still radical) ideas like we deserve to climax as much as men do, we'll never be happy making ourselves appear small/dumb/quiet so our partners feel big, and we want helpmeets too, not Lords. I recall one particularly rousing debate about whether to prioritize a spouse/marriage or children wherein one of my friends stopped speaking to me for two weeks! HAHA! We still laugh about that. I wish everyone could have such a crew b/c it's been important for each of us to lean on as we've done marriage, career, children, homeschool, by turns. Clarifying (and revisiting) who we were/are and what we wanted was invaluable and it's a step I think is skipped far too often, regardless of age or relationship status.

Funny side note, the JP that married DH and I in Arkansas lectured me for 20 minutes, with DH sitting there, about my role as a spouse and the need to submit when I didn't feel like it. I WAS LIVID. I marched out of there, mute but married, and I told DH in no uncertain terms not to get any ideas. The JP was a freakin' ijit and following his advise would get DH hurt.

[Murphy101]

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Oh, no ma’am. If I’m not having an orgasm 90+% of the time, something is WRONG that needs fixing. I have not been pleasured. Barring illness or other issues, do you seriously think your partner would happily accept routinely going without pleasure? Why should I accept less?

What makes you think I’m advocating for less?  And who has advocated for NO pleasure?  There’s a range of enjoyment. And experiencing that entire from okay to organism range is perfectly normal and doesn’t mean there is anything wrong.

*Regardless of whether it’s outside of marriage or not*, I think your stance on sex seems demeaning to the overall persons and relationship to me. I think if I was contemplating a relationship of any kind with someone and they presented this attitude to me - that would signify they are not someone I want to join with in any manner. Because if I ever don’t perform sexually enough for them - then our relationship will be over.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Murphy101

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

What makes you think I’m advocating for less?  And who has advocated for NO pleasure?  There’s a range of enjoyment. And experiencing that entire from okay to organism range is perfectly normal and doesn’t mean there is anything wrong.

Regardless of whether it’s outside of marriage or not, I think your stance on sex seems demeaning to the overall persons and relationship to me. I think if I was contemplating a relationship of any kind with someone and they presented this attitude to me - that would signify they are not someone I want to join with in any manner. Because if I ever don’t perform sexually enough for them - then our relationship will be over.

It was the concept of 'sacrifice' and 'no orgasm or we're over'.  I don't consider orgasm to be optional. Anything less than that is a let down for me and for my spouse. It happens, sure, but it's definitely NOT the norm and neither of us would be happy if it were over the long-term. That is, I suppose, why we are married to each other and not to other persons. Equally yoked and all that. That's kind of the point of the thread, no? These are things you should know about your mate. I should add, this has nothing to do with weight or fitness or any of that. Our compatibility has survived ups and downs in those areas too.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Sneezyone

[ktgrok]

The reason personally i don't see a benefit in using premarital sex to screen a marriage candidate, aside from personally not thinking most/all problems can be figured out, is that either:

1. you have sex very very early in the relationship, before too emotionally attached - which I don't advocate for as a good idea, at least for heterosexual potentially fertile people 

or

2. you wait, have sex once in love and in committed relationship, and then...I don't see breaking up over that kind of thing, at that point, once you are in love and committed. 

 

[Sneezyone]

10 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

The reason personally i don't see a benefit in using premarital sex to screen a marriage candidate, aside from personally not thinking most/all problems can be figured out, is that either:

1. you have sex very very early in the relationship, before too emotionally attached - which I don't advocate for as a good idea, at least for heterosexual potentially fertile people 

or

2. you wait, have sex once in love and in committed relationship, and then...I don't see breaking up over that kind of thing, at that point, once you are in love and committed. 

 

Those aren't the only two options tho.

2a. having mediocre/great sex with someone who doesn't prioritize/prioritizes your needs.

3. You have sex after a long time and realize the emotional attachment won't overcome sexual incompatibility

4. You have protected sex early on, discover its awful, and move on.