|
|
|
|
|
| GUYS!!! If you met the right woman, could you wait for the sex till marriage?
Posted: 2/26/2006 1:33:54 PM | And Rory...
["]I see where you've put a caveat this time as regards the importance of discussing sex, now saying that it only works if both are honest. One of my points last April or so was/is :how do you know your partner is honest?[/]
As I likely stated then.... and have stated again... if you are questioning the honesty of the one you would be with, you are in far more trouble than just sexually.
see my above comments
["] Unless and until you're in a long-term relationship, where you can see the other person's viewpoints and actions when under fire, and until you've been with them long enough so you can validate the congruency between their words and actions, then putting your trust in the rest-of-your-life sexual future with another who has a vested interest in saying what you want to hear is foolish and naive.[/"]
Welll... presumably... if you were going to marry this person.... you would have been with them long enough to "validate" them.... and if you have "validated" them in other areas... enough to believe they are being honest with you, then why doubt them in this area when they say... I like sex this way.
Look... you can any comment you want about a person saying one thing and doing another. Unfortunately, it happens. But why would you enter into a relationship with someone who's honesty and integrity you mistrust. You either trust her... or you dont. And if you dont... then dont marry her.... good sex or not.
["]1) She already holds the power as to when, and how often, sex is going to occur when they finally do get horizontal. (Yes, I understand the hypothetical arguement that some men WILLINGLY wait, as well. I just haven't met any in my lifetime.)[/"]
If you think the lady is being manipulitive, don't marry her. But perhaps... just perhaps... her reasons may have absolutely nothing to do with manipulation. Religious regions for but one example.... just because you may not be a religious person does not mean she is trying to be manipulative
["]2) She also gets the message loud and clear that not only sex itself, but other issues (time with friends, household division of labour, money issues, in-law issues, childrearing issues, religious issues, etc etc etc...) can be won by ...... hey ! withholding sex when not getting her way, or meting out sex as a reinforcer of good behaviour.[/"]
Look... if this "lady" is going to behave in such a fashion, you should have some kind of idea of this before you marry her. If she cant use sex as a tool to control you because you are not getting any as per an arrangement, then she will likely try to use something else. And that would be when I would say... Adios! And just because you acquiesce to her desire to wait untill marriage, does not mean that she will withhold it as a tool. Remember, she does not get any either. Conversely, just because she gives you sex before marriage does not mean you will get any afterward. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| GUYS!!! If you met the right woman, could you wait for the sex till marriage?
Posted: 2/26/2006 6:34:16 PM | The thread, and its spin-offs, that won't die....
tin man:
I'll go over some points I made long ago: when I speak of manipulation, I don't automatically mean in a calculating, cold-blooded, premeditated manner. Many men and women, in the throes of romantic, blissful union in the first few months of a sexless courtship, will do and say many things to make the other think that they're the cat's pajamas, the missing link, the butter on their toast, the eighth wonder of the world , the ..... OK, you get the drift.
....And they'll even believe it themselves, so it's often just as much self-manipulation than it is a conscious choice to deceive the other.
Fukking isn't just a matter of describing likes and dislikes, attitudes, styles, and the like. It only becomes a sublime shared act between two people when actually done, and no amount of talk can approach a best-guess scenario as to how it's going to go. I believe it was dave 1234 who gave the excellent analogy of a friend describing a great action movie, but when the other goes to see it: yes, it has car crashes, but they weren't exciting as his friend said, they were pedestrian and without skill. The bad guys weren't fearsome, with clever dialogue, but caricatures with trite lines .... The one who saw the bad movie wasn't prepared for this because the director's other work was all stellar. This movie, quite simply, was a lemon TO HIM. Everybody was raving about the movie, but in his experience it was a bust.
Similarly, I've met women who were vivacious and intelligent. When we hit the sack, they were likewise "pedestrian" or "without skill". With other women, I was mistaken because, though they were what would be called receptive and talented lovers, I didn't feel a strong sexual link even though we had talked and laughed beforehand. Would a prolonged friendship or courtship have changed this? Not at all: they weren't "fooling me" in any slick way. It's just that there's no substitute for getting naked. The menu isn't the meal. Looking at a peach isn't the same as eating the peach. Getting along with "honesty" and good will in the drawing room doesn't necessarily equate to being open and affectionate in bed.
With very few agreed-upon exceptions, the difference between a best opposite-sex friend and marriage, is the sex. Sex underpins (pun sem-intended) and defines, as a category, which kind of relationship you're in. To wait until after you're hitched to discover if you have sexual chemistry is putting the cart before the horse. | |
|
| |
| |
| GUYS!!! If you met the right woman, could you wait for the sex till marriage?
Posted: 2/26/2006 7:09:14 PM | (Msg 606) However if you and the person describing the movie knew each other well... this is very UNLIKELY to happen as many common frames of reference would already have been established.
Do you think your friend, the one who knows you so well, could pick out the perfect wife for you? They know you. They know the type of woman you are attracted to. Do you honestly believe just by your friend describing what the lady is like you could determine if she's the "one" without ever seeing or meeting her?
Not a significant likelyhood, particularely if the person is truely enjoying themselves. If they are simply "doing it to please the other" then perhaps. But since you would already know what was truely enjoyed in advance with thorough frank discussion, this would not be a concern now would it.
Sure it would. We all know people who, when enjoying themselves, are very expressive. They have a hearty laugh. They may stand up and clap when their team scores. Their voice raises when describing an exciting time they had. Then we know the other type of person. Reserved. Quiet. The funniest joke barely gets a chuckle. How many people are one way and change to the other? An expressive person will most likely remain expressive and a passive/reserved person will remain exactly that.
On the other hand some people are reserved publically but wild in the bedroom. How does one describe their bedroom behavior? Average? Reserved? Wild? Expressive? Who's the judge unless they are going by comments made by previous partners. 
As for the sexual nuances you mention, If you can dream them up for this forum, they are questions you can ask your partner. And if we are talking about two "experienced" people... they will know the answers.
If sex works that way then just by emailing someone can you decide if they are the one you will marry? You can ask any question. You even get to see a picture. Why do we need to actually meet the person? Why do meetings fall through? I believe it's the same thing as experiencing sex. One has to experience it. Two people have to actually have sex just as two people have to meet, face to face, in order to know.
Man meets woman, were and how we really don't care. They begin dating, and before very long at all start having sex. As they have not been dating very long, they really don't know each other very well. But they enjoyed the sex so much, that whenever they meet now, they spend all thier time having sex, and no time getting to know each other. If all they ever wanted from each other was sex, then great. But if they were interested in an LTR, they are very lilkely in trouble when the sex fades...
"they spend all thier time having sex, and no time getting to know each other.
That has to be one of the greatest fallacies or excuses people use. We hear folks say, "Every time we get together he wants sex" or "All we do is have sex." So, how long does sex take? In a relationship, according to statistics, the "average" couple will have sex three to four times a week. Surely those folks don't spend hours having sex. They don't come home from work, go directly to bed and have sex for 4 or 5 hours and then go to sleep.
Sex is fitted in with all the other responsibilities that adults have. The couple communicate. They look after their children. They shop and cook and clean and may even go out for dinner on a Saturday night. They watch TV. In other words one does not have sex to the exclusion of everything else.
When I hear people say all their date wants to do is have sex it sounds as silly as someone saying all their date wants to do is eat even though they spend all day Saturday together. If you're with a person for 4 or 5 hours you probably will want to eat as you'll be hungry. It doesn't mean eating is all you want to do. It doesn't mean the couple has to spend three hours fine dining anymore than the average person spends three hours having dinner every night or three hours having sex.
Usually, the purpose of two people dating is to size up the potential for a LTR. Sex is something that is going to happen or is expected to happen 3 or 4 times a week. To date for weeks or, Gawd forbid, months without having sex is obviously abnormal, to say the least. A couple can have sex as part of the dating scenario without it taking up the entire day.
(Msg 607) I already addressed dishonesty...... As for sexual problems... if your partner has experienced them, then they obviously know about them. And assuming that you actually have honest communication, then you and he/she can then make decisions concerning them. and
(Msg 608) As I likely stated then.... and have stated again... if you are questioning the honesty of the one you would be with, you are in far more trouble than just sexually.
But that is exactly what we are doing. Why take time getting to know your partner at all? They tell you they have a good job and love kids and animals so do we automatically believe them? Not usually. We want to see for ourselves. We want to get to know them. Why would sex be any different? Why would we automatically believe our partner loves sex but not automatically believe anything else?
People have a list of likes and dislikes. Must love golfing. Must love the outdoors. Must love animals. Do we not want to see that for ourselves? Is verifying a person's love of golf more important than their love of sex? Any activity we wish our partner to enjoy we can enjoy with someone else except sex so why would we automatically take a person's word concerning sex?
Talking about sex how can a person really evaluate themselves anyway? By how often they had sex with their former partner? But they didn't like their former partner (that's why they're dating you) so was once a month the norm? They say they wanted sex every day but their partner had a job that involved travelling so they only had sex once a week? Do they really want sex every day?
The only way one will know if their partner enjoys sex with them is to have sex. There is no other way because of the nature of sex. People have quirks, for lack of a better word, concerning sex. Little things that may seem inconsequential to others can turn a person off completely. It's like trying to talk love. It just doesn't work. We see couples together and wonder what they see in each other and we see couples divorcing that we think are a perfect match.
Not verifying sexual compatibility is akin to arranged marriages. We would never consider marrying someone unless we were sure we were in love. How can we possibly consider marrying someone unless we are sure we are sexually compatible?
It's not that sex is the only thing. It's that sex is so very important and it is deliberately avoided. That's the absurdity of it. | |
|
| GUYS!!! If you met the right woman, could you wait for the sex till marriage?
Posted: 2/26/2006 7:28:59 PM | To Rory27: I never read your post #613 before I submitted my last post. It sounds like I reworded almost exactly what you said,
It's just that there's no substitute for getting naked.
That's about it in a nutshell. Asking someone what they are like/what they would do/how they would feel when having sex is like asking someone what they would do in a crisis. One just doesn't know until they are there. | |
|
| |
AMAN2
|
Joined: 2/5/2006
Msg: 612 | |
| |
| GUYS!!! If you met the right woman, could you wait for the sex till marriage?
Posted: 2/27/2006 6:19:24 PM | Ok... here we go again...
@ Rory
Many men and women, in the throes of romantic, blissful union in the first few months of a sexless courtship, will do and say many things to make the other think that they're the cat's pajamas, the missing link, the butter on their toast, the eighth wonder of the world , the ..... OK, you get the drift.
....And they'll even believe it themselves, so it's often just as much self-manipulation than it is a conscious choice to deceive the other.
If they are "saying many things" to "make the the think" something that they know to be untrue, they are lying. And most times, even if it is a lie that they believe themselves, it will be discovered during more indepth conversations... because the person who knows what they are talking about will know when the other does not.
It only becomes a sublime shared act between two people when actually done,
On that much, at least, we agree.
and no amount of talk can approach a best-guess scenario as to how it's going to go
On this we disagree. And as I noted in a previous post, there are already a few who have stated that it did indeed work for them.
Similarly, I've met women who were vivacious and intelligent. When we hit the sack, they were likewise "pedestrian" or "without skill". With other women, I was mistaken because, though they were what would be called receptive and talented lovers, I didn't feel a strong sexual link even though we had talked and laughed beforehand.
The obvious question here was how long and how well did you know them. Some comments that can be attributed to you would suggest that you are uninclined to take very long before going to bed with a lady, and this being the case, it would not be surprising that you did not know them well enough to have a clear idea before hand.
With very few agreed-upon exceptions, the difference between a best opposite-sex friend and marriage, is the sex. Sex underpins (pun sem-intended) and defines, as a category, which kind of relationship you're in
This may very well be the very crux of why we disagree. I have had some very good opposite sex friends... and the relationship with them was nothing like the relationship with my ex-wife as an example. I would assert that the difference between a wife and a friend goes far beyond sex, although friendship has to be part of the deal.
@ Dave
Do you think your friend, the one who knows you so well, could pick out the perfect wife for you? They know you. They know the type of woman you are attracted to. Do you honestly believe just by your friend describing what the lady is like you could determine if she's the "one" without ever seeing or meeting her?
It has been known to happen... but in order for it to happen, the "friend" who would pick out the one would have to know me extremely well... the kind of friendship forged over many years, and would have to know her that well as well. It happens rarely, because most people dont know that many other people that well.
But as for a movie... if I knew some one quite well... and they knew me quite well... and knew my movie tastes quite well... chances are... they would know if I would like the movie or not.
On the other hand some people are reserved publically but wild in the bedroom. How does one describe their bedroom behavior? Average? Reserved? Wild? Expressive? Who's the judge unless they are going by comments made by previous partners
I don't know about you... but in my conversation about sex with someone I am interested in, the conversation is considerably more extensive than...
So... what you like in bed?
I am really wild... how about you?
Great! I am wild too
So adjectives like that really wont mean as much as a more extensive and investigative conversation will take place.
If sex works that way then just by emailing someone can you decide if they are the one you will marry? You can ask any question. You even get to see a picture. Why do we need to actually meet the person? Why do meetings fall through?
Well... now that you mention it... Although I would not advocate it.... I am aware of a couple who did very nearly that....
He lived in Brisbane, Australia... She lived somplace in Oregon, in the states. They "cyber-dated" for quite some time.... e-mail, chat rooms, and telephone
Finally he got on a plane, and went to meet her... He arrived at aprox 8 pm.... and they were married the following day by noon. And yes... 12 years later... they are still happily married.
And no,... I am NOT making that up... that is way to far out there for me to make up.
That has to be one of the greatest fallacies or excuses people use. We hear folks say, "Every time we get together he wants sex" or "All we do is have sex." So, how long does sex take? In a relationship, according to statistics, the "average" couple will have sex three to four times a week. Surely those folks don't spend hours having sex. They don't come home from work, go directly to bed and have sex for 4 or 5 hours and then go to sleep.
Believe as you will... I have seen it were a "relationship" deteriorates to very little else but sex, as I suspect many of the other posters her have as well.
But that is exactly what we are doing. Why take time getting to know your partner at all? They tell you they have a good job and love kids and animals so do we automatically believe them? Not usually. We want to see for ourselves. We want to get to know them. Why would sex be any different? Why would we automatically believe our partner loves sex but not automatically believe anything else?
I have never seen dating as "verifying" a persons comments. If someone I was dating told me that they loved pool for instance, I would go with them and play... not to test them, but because it might be something we could enjoy together.
Talking about sex how can a person really evaluate themselves anyway? By how often they had sex with their former partner? But they didn't like their former partner (that's why they're dating you) so was once a month the norm? They say they wanted sex every day but their partner had a job that involved travelling so they only had sex once a week? Do they really want sex every day?
As I stated in my first post in this thread... my comments were aimed at those with "experience". I think it a fairly safe bet that of those, many of them had more than one partner. Thus, you could probably get a fairly accurate statistical picture.
Again... not something I particlularely advocate... But I have heard that like anything else... some arranged marriages did work fairly well... basically because there was no way out of them, so the couple mutually chose to work at it. The fact that you can get a divorce in the western world as fast as you can blink, albeit painful and expensive, would lesson the likelyhood of any happiness though.
But then... the ease of divorce these days does cause many to consider marriage disposable, and thus someone who was selfish might not care to "work" at pleasing thier partner... expecting instead for everything to be automatic. But I digress
It's not that sex is the only thing. It's that sex is so very important and it is deliberately avoided. That's the absurdity of it.
Absurd to you perhaps... and admittedly, to a significant part of the population. But just as significant part do not find it absurd. And thier opinion is equally as valid.
Things that appear patently absurd often do so because the viewer can not or will not try to understand what they see. If they can not, it is tragic. If they will not, it is even worse.
T_M | |
|
| GUYS!!! If you met the right woman, could you wait for the sex till marriage?
Posted: 2/27/2006 7:35:54 PM | tin man:
Your initial point on the above post-- Misunderstandings occur, not only in talking about how to show one's future beloved how "compatible" they are, but also in a textual debating forum, so I'll give an example or two of what I mean:
Again, it's not necessarily a bald-faced lie by a manipulative hopeful future spouse, but oftentimes a self-deluded matching of desires to the other's preferences. For instance, a woman tells her guy, in response to his similar statement, that she, too, has a high sex drive, and prefers sex at least six days of the week. The guy's eyes light up, and he begins to fantasize about a wonderful and frequent sex life together with his courted love. But, like most people who practise no sex before marriage, guess what? .. Unless they've had a failed marriage or two before, they're virgins (by definition), so how do they know how often they'd like sex? They're deluding themselves by offering a wish-fulfillment vision in order to move the courtship along. After the marriage, sex happens fairly regularly, but she begins to grow tired of his constant advances. Nobody's fault at THIS point,because sex drives are physiological: some people have a driving need for sex frequently, others only once or twice a week. No one is wrong here, but in this scenario, the woman is definitely wrong for leading him to believe otherwise BEFORE the marriage.. And to those others who've had a failed marriage .... well, they can easily justify having sex only once or twice a week (if that), and still maintain that they have a high sex drive because, after all, HE was the problem .... "when we're together sweetheart, I'm sure my libido will soar" .... hmmmmm.....
"There are already a few who have stated that [no sex before marriage] worked for them"-- With all due respect, so what? You can't take a few anomalies, and make a case that because some couples won the guessing-game lottery, then it is a viable option for most people.
As to your "crux of why we disagree" comment, I don't know what you're trying to say here. Good friends, whatever their gender, makes for a simpler relationship. When sex and passionate yearning are added to the mix, it raises the stakes considerably and the (certainly at times ) pressure.
"The obvious question here is how long and how well had you known them?"-- I stated that this is immaterial, for reasons given above, and many others. You can never "know" what the sexual chemistry with another will be even if you talk sex until you're octogenarians. Sex is not a rational, logical fact-finding mission in order to line up "compatibility scores" like some psychological health questionaire. Too long has love and sex been presented to us by religious "authorities" (often celibate ones, too-- can one find anything more depressingly ironical in the world history of sex?), and now by arid psychologists who set up shop on the rock of "logic". But sex is not logical; it's mysterious, powerful, deep, and volatile. The poets, and other artists, are the ones I go to to seek inspiration and knowledge from in the sphere of sex.
By the way, after I got burned in several short relationships in the late 90's, for the first (and only) time I tried the "holding hands indefinitely" approach for my next two relationships. And it made no difference; issues came up, sexually and otherwise, that would not have been revealed even if we waited four years before bedding. | |
|
| |
| GUYS!!! If you met the right woman, could you wait for the sex till marriage?
Posted: 2/27/2006 9:15:58 PM | at dave
That's about it in a nutshell. Asking someone what they are like/what they would do/how they would feel when having sex is like asking someone what they would do in a crisis. One just doesn't know until they are there.
But ask anyone who has experienced crisis... and they can tell you how they would react. And since my comments for the time being are addressing those with experience, they have been "there".
@ rory
Your initial point on the above post-- Misunderstandings occur, not only in talking about how to show one's future beloved how "compatible" they are, but also in a textual debating forum, so I'll give an example or two of what I mean:
Again, it's not necessarily a bald-faced lie by a manipulative hopeful future spouse, but oftentimes a self-deluded matching of desires to the other's preferences. For instance, a woman tells her guy, in response to his similar statement, that she, too, has a high sex drive, and prefers sex at least six days of the week. The guy's eyes light up, and he begins to fantasize about a wonderful and frequent sex life together with his courted love. But, like most people who practise no sex before marriage, guess what? .. Unless they've had a failed marriage or two before, they're virgins (by definition), so how do they know how often they'd like sex? They're deluding themselves by offering a wish-fulfillment vision in order to move the courtship along. After the marriage, sex happens fairly regularly, but she begins to grow tired of his constant advances. Nobody's fault at THIS point,because sex drives are physiological: some people have a driving need for sex frequently, others only once or twice a week. No one is wrong here, but in this scenario, the woman is definitely wrong for leading him to believe otherwise BEFORE the marriage.. And to those others who've had a failed marriage .... well, they can easily justify having sex only once or twice a week (if that), and still maintain that they have a high sex drive because, after all, HE was the problem .... "when we're together sweetheart, I'm sure my libido will soar" .... hmmmmm.....
As I stated in my first post in this thread... my comments were aimed at those with "experience". I think it a fairly safe bet that of those, many of them had more than one partner. Thus, you could probably get a fairly accurate statistical picture.
As I said before... my comments are aimed specifically at those who are not virgins... for the purpose of this thread.
"There are already a few who have stated that [no sex before marriage] worked for them"-- With all due respect, so what? You can't take a few anomalies,
I said that a few had posted... I did not say that only a few were correct. As for so what.... it adds credibility to the statement that it can be done...if you choose to.
"The obvious question here is how long and how well had you known them?"-- I stated that this is immaterial, for reasons given above, and many others. You can never "know" what the sexual chemistry with another will be even if you talk sex until you're octogenarians.
Can be chalked up to blatent disregard for any fact you don't happen to like. see above comment and support from others that it can be done, and has been done.
But sex is not logical; it's mysterious, powerful, deep, and volatile.
Actually... it is not half as mysterious as you would have some believe... The human body is full of nerves.... and if someone takes the time the time to learn how and makes the effort...
they can play another body like an instrument....
By the way, after I got burned in several short relationships in the late 90's, for the first (and only) time I tried the "holding hands indefinitely" approach for my next two relationships. And it made no difference; issues came up, sexually and otherwise, that would not have been revealed even if we waited four years before bedding.
I am unclear as to the intent of this statement as it can be construed several different ways. And like anyone who is making an effort to communicate with another, I am asking questions instead of making assumptions. | |
|
| GUYS!!! If you met the right woman, could you wait for the sex till marriage?
Posted: 2/27/2006 9:24:18 PM | "My comments were aimed at those with "experience".--
Just how much "experience" of sex, which involves all kinds of growing pains, learning, constant mistakes, new growth, etc... can a "no sex before marriage" practitioner have? As I just stated, non-virgins means they've still only had one or two other lovers, since by definition any sex will have to come from marriage, C'mon,tin man, read my posts a little closer. This is basic stuff.
"It can be done and has been done". -- This is a pallid arguement in favor of "no sex before marriage". There are winners of the lottery every day or week somewhere, but many millions of losers. I'm not equating the proportional bad statistics to that extent, but I don't want to play a guessing game, with the odds stacked greatly against me, for the remainder of my sexual life.
"... play the body like an instrument". Not known which instrument it is until you arrive at the concert, in this case, unfortunately. Personally, I'm not much for flutes or too much percussion at inopportune moments.
As to your last comment, I'm still unclear as to your initial comment, and where you were going with it, so I'll drop it until and upon further clarification. | |
|
OMG_J
|
Joined: 4/16/2005
Msg: 618 | |
| |
| |
| GUYS!!! If you met the right woman, could you wait for the sex till marriage?
Posted: 2/28/2006 5:53:51 AM |
(Msg 620) Well... now that you mention it... Although I would not advocate it.... I am aware of a couple who did very nearly that....
He lived in Brisbane, Australia... She lived somplace in Oregon, in the states. They "cyber-dated" for quite some time.... e-mail, chat rooms, and telephone
Finally he got on a plane, and went to meet her... He arrived at aprox 8 pm.... and they were married the following day by noon. And yes... 12 years later... they are still happily married.
And no,... I am NOT making that up... that is way to far out there for me to make up.
I doubt there are a handful of people on here who would entertain the idea of marrying someone under such circumstances.
Believe as you will... I have seen it were a "relationship" deteriorates to very little else but sex, as I suspect many of the other posters her have as well.
I agree but that was a choice the people made. I do not advocate only sex but I feel it should be incorporated into a dating regimen if two people are considering a long term relationship just as meeting each other's families and observing how one conducts themselves in public and how confortable they are during quiet times at home. The idea is to simulate a marriage or long term relationship. To me, that's the purpose of dating if one is looking towards a relationship.
Some people feel sex just falls into place. Sure, at the very beginning. Two people who haven't had sex for months are like a person who's starving. Anything is "the best".
Here's the problem as I see it. Two people date. They get to know each other. They are comfortable together. Time passes and feelings for each other grow. The attachment builds until they are "in love". Then they have sex. They already "love" each other and they haven't had sex for a long time. When they do have sex it's going to feel like the best thing they ever had. It's like a lost,thirsty person in the desert. Give them a glass of warm, dirty water and they'll love you for it.
Just like a person that has gone without food for a long period a person having gone without sex will indulge frequently. The couple will believe they are sexually compatible because they both enjoy the sex. The point is any two people will feel that way if they have been denied sex.
As time passes one becomes bored or disillusioned with the other which is natural. No different than the guy who drank the warm, dirty water. He knows there's better to be had. The point is one has to determine sexual compatibility without being influenced by depriving them of it or having them overly influenced by other feelings. Is our goal to make our partner believe they are having the best sex they could have, sell them on the idea, or to ensure they really feel and know it is the best?
That is why I used the word "absurd". Would we take a starving man's opinion on whether or not a steak was good or the opinion of a thirsty person regarding the taste of water having been run through a special filter? They can not give an unbiased opinion anymore than someone who has been denied sex can accurately ascertain the sexual compatibility with another.
I think most people agree it takes time to evaluate or get to know another person. The same applies to sex. What are they going to like 2 or 3 months down the road after having had sex on a regular basis? When we yearn for something we tend to be overjoyed at aquiring it even if it is not the best quality. As time passes people become more discerning. Why would anyone want to wait to find that out? The longer they wait the longer they have invested time and emotions in the relationship. If someone is not sexually satisfied they will leave or have an affair and in cases where one had to wait for sex they may not really know they will become dissatisfied. They truly believe they are satisfied because, at that time, they are just like the hungry guy who is satisfied with the tough steak and the thirsty guy with the warm, dirty water but we all know they will not remain satisfied with that once their hunger and thirst are quenched.
Lastly, one must question how important sex is. Not just the importance of sex to themselves but the importance of sex to their partner and the importance they put on fidelity. Does it not make sense to question the importance a person places on sex when they leave sex to the last thing to discover? Does it not make sense to question the importance a person places on sex when they say they have gone without sex for months/years? | |
|
| GUYS!!! If you met the right woman, could you wait for the sex till marriage?
Posted: 2/28/2006 7:09:42 AM |
Actually, that depends on if you want to split hairs or not... and it is one I am going to split. Forgive me for not going through all those pages in this thread again to dig out the quote... but it is there I assure you... I believe that there is at least one in there were the poster stated that they had waited untill marriage after serious discussions... and it worked fine... - tin_man
Then ante up, and show me where it is. I'm certainly not going to take your word for it. Besideswhich, even IF you manage to dig through nearly thirty pages and find ONE, doesn't that say something to you? We have a lot of people claiming that a horn they've never played actually makes very pleasing music. My point, which still stands, is that their reassurances, lacking any experience to back them up, are not very reassuring.
And I am certain that one posters had stated that after discussions with her (and I believe it was a her) previous boyfriends in LTR's, she knew whether or not they would be good together. - tin_man
Big whoop. She didn't get married to any of them, and cannot tell us whether or not her guessing game worked under those circumstances, and if she is still happy.
Don't say I am wrong unless you have gone back and re-read this entire thread again, please. I just read through it in its entirety once... that was enough. - tin_man
Sorry, stud. It's your point to prove. Therefore, the onus is on you to prove it. It's not my job. I can't recall a single one, and I've read nearly the entire thread. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. Otherwise, hush up on that point, because you have no proof. It's as simple as that.
But realize, even if you do dig back and find ONE, that's not going to show anything except that there was one exception to my observation that everyone on your side of the fence is NOT speaking from experience. Everyone EXCEPT one, which you can't even remember, is NOT going to impressm me much more.
I already addressed dishonesty. If one party has expectations that the other person does not understand, then further communication is required. We are not talking about building a space shuttle here people... we are talking about sex. And while I would admit there are nuances, if you really have to, you can describe every single sexual act in minute detail. So unless your intended is that far below you on the intellectual level that you can not communicate with them, you ought to be able to describe what you want. Pornographers have been making a lot of money doing just that for a long time. As for sexual problems... if your partner has experienced them, then they obviously know about them. And assuming that you actually have honest communication, then you and he/she can then make decisions concerning them. - tin_man
God, this is so absurd. So you're basically saying that a couple is going to sit there, basically having phone sex, describing each act in exact, precise, blue-ball inducing detail and that this is HEALTHY!?!!?!?!?
People keep saying "What if they are..." If they are, then "they" already know about them and ought to be able to discuss it intelligently. As I said in the beginning... My comments were not directed at Virgins.... and although I have seen it work for virgins... and yes, they have been married more than ten years, so they have stood the "time" test well enough for this thread, the process is a little different. - tin_man
Unfortunately, people who are sexually inexperienced rarely know exactly what that means. If I have never sky-dived before, I can't tell you what I'm going to do well when I do it, and what's going to be easy, and what's going to be difficult.
Then take your time with the relationship so that you can see what is in the rearview mirror. Why does this have to be a race anyway? Additionally, if you take the time to foster acceptance and trust, honesty and open ness will come with it. - tin_man
All of this comes as nothing more than fruitless speculation from someone who's never done it, before. You realize that, right?
The lunacy is yours. Nowere did I say replace. I did say, know what to expect. I will tell you, that if I were going to introduce a new lady to my family, you had better believe we would discuss it so she knew what to expect. - tin_man
Yes, you did. You said that conversation alone was sufficient to establish sexual compatibility. I simply asked if conversation alone was sufficient to replace, oh, say, meeting her parents? Or yours?
But oh, oh, that's DIFFERENT, right? And you'd talk about THAT before doing it, too?
This is likely the best question I have seen you post in many pages. - tin_man
I've raised plenty of valid points, which is why you're taking the time to address them point-by-point. Don't try to undercut what I'm saying by claiming that I'm not saying anything of value, because your actions speak otherwise.
The answer lay, in part, to how you view sex. If the reason you are indulging before marriage is to establish compatibilty only, then you can establish it prior to the actual act. This as mentioned can be done communication, and learning about the otherv... The establishment of compatibility then can allow for the delay of sex, as long as you believed that there was a reason to wait, and that it would be good when the time came. And yes, MOLONOL.... I can establish to within a high degree of certainty whether or not someone will be sexually compatible with me long before engaging in sex.... and have done so. - tin_man
But not before committing to a permanent relationship like marriage, which is the whole point of this thread. You've NEVER waited until marriage. Period. Otherwise you would have said so. That means that your honest answer to the original poster's question is, "No, I won't wait." All the rest is song and dance.
It is entirely logical .... you state the purpose is to establish compatibility so that you know that when you are married, the sex will be good. This is the goal. You have sex for a time to establish compatibility.... goal accomplished
So now... any sex that follows from this time to the time of marriage, is not longer to establish compatibility any more, but for other reasons. Good, bad, or indifferent, remains to be seen, but can not be chalked up to the compatibility issue. And likely.... never really could. - tin_man
Oh my God! Sex for other reasons! Like, maybe, caring about the other person? Being hot to trot and finding them irresistably attractive? Or any of the other reasons that people normally have sex? Even within marriage?
You have proven nothing other than your ability to make tenuous speculation about the motives of people who argue that sexual compatibility is necessary and vital, and they'd want to do more than have phone sex - as you suggested earlier - before entering into a permanent commitment like marriage.
It's been very typical of people arguing your position throughout this thread to attack the character and underlying motives of those who argue my position. I don't know why, but it doesn't speak well of you, or those who've done the same thing elsewhere.
Sorry, Tin Man. Most of us honestly believe that sexual compatibility is important, and honestly want to establish that before entering into a permanent, legally binding commitment. I know you wish it were otherwise, and we were just piling up excuses on top of not being able to keep it in our pants, but alas.
No... actually... I am not... I am simply saying... that if someone wants to have sex "now" and continue doing it throughout the course of the relationship, then don't try hiding behind the somescreen of saying "well, gee, I just wanted to know if we were compatible" Call it what it is. You want to have sex through the course of the relationship. - tin_man
Yes, actually, you are. Because you're trying to make something of the fact that people who actually, you know, have sex also KEEP having sex once compatibility is established. If they REALLY wanted to establish compatibility, truly, then they would STOP having sex once they know.
Are you going to stop having sex with your wife once you know that both of you are sexually compatible? If not, does that mean that you don't care about her? Or care about her less? Or only want sex from her? Of course not. And it's the same for your lover, your SO, your boyfriend, your girlfriend, whatever. Quit seeing ill motives where none exist.
As noted earlier in my post,there have been at least a couple who have said it did. - tin_man
Prove it, or quit claiming it. | |
|
| |
| GUYS!!! If you met the right woman, could you wait for the sex till marriage?
Posted: 2/28/2006 4:05:49 PM | I'm not going to go point by point, but I would like to add this thought:
Talk all you want, but you'll never know what someone tastes like, touches like, feels like, smells like, or even what sort of sounds they make, without actually having sex with them.
And if you are disappointed or turned off by any of those things -- your chemicals don't mesh well, you hate the way he smells, or he lasts only two minutes -- you could never know that ahead of time, if you talked for a decade first.
It's like speculating on whether you will or won't like a certain rollercoaster ride. You just don't know how it will feel, or if you'll enjoy it, until you've tried it. | |
|
| |
| |
|
| Page 25 of 121
|
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 |
|
Home
login 
