(August 4, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Sex is a big part of romantic relationships.  Prior to birth control, saving it until marriage might make sense just because of the risk.  But, I can't imagine why saving it until the attachment is permanent would be a good idea now.  Sex is an important part of bonding (besides being fun) and finding out what kind of sex partner they are before committing is a very good idea.

Religion aside, I still think saving sex for marriage is still a better option... for practical reasons.

It is the only 100%, for sure way of avoiding pregnancy out of wedlock and decreasing the spread of STDs.

While hormonal birth control has a very small failure rate for pregnancy, it is still not healthy for a woman's body to be pumped up with synthetic hormones for decades at a time.... And it does nothing to prevent STDs. Barrier contraceptives (condoms, diaphragm, etc) are not harmful in any way, but they are less reliable in avoiding pregnancy, and don't protect 100% from STDs either.   

It just seems objectively better to have less sexual partners, and to wait until you are in a life long commitment.

I get the argument about sexual compatibility, but I'd say that you can get a pretty good sense of someone's sexuality through making out and good, honest communication about it.

And here is the one obvious glaring flaw with that. People who have more sexual partners are generally better at sex. For some of us sex is important, and the quality of it is important. Iit's an important part of my life and I would say that I'm a sexual hobbyist. I don't want to die having some kink or fantasy unfufilled and you know what? One person is never going to be into all the exact same things that I am. Also the worst possible way to make sure you are sexually compatabile with is to wait until after you are going to commit to the rest of your life with that person.

(August 4, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Sex is a big part of romantic relationships.  Prior to birth control, saving it until marriage might make sense just because of the risk.  But, I can't imagine why saving it until the attachment is permanent would be a good idea now.  Sex is an important part of bonding (besides being fun) and finding out what kind of sex partner they are before committing is a very good idea.

Religion aside, I still think saving sex for marriage is still a better option... for practical reasons.

It is the only 100%, for sure way of avoiding pregnancy out of wedlock

If one is worried about that, one can just have oral sex and things like that.  Not every sexual act risks pregnancy.  

Additionally, proper use of birth control, particularly in combination, can make the risk very small.  (By "in combination," I mean like using both birth control pills and condoms, for example, so that both would have to fail in order for a pregnancy to occur.  Both have a better than 90% success rate, and so the likelihood of a pregnancy when carefully using both is very, very small.)

(August 4, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: and decreasing the spread of STDs.

Everyone can be tested first.  Granted, many people are careless and hence we do have STDs around, but just because others don't bother to get tested, that does not mean that you and your partner can't get tested first.

(August 4, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

---

While hormonal birth control has a very small failure rate for pregnancy, it is still not healthy for a woman's body to be pumped up with synthetic hormones for decades at a time.... And it does nothing to prevent STDs. Barrier contraceptives (condoms, diaphragm, etc) are not harmful in any way, but they are less reliable in avoiding pregnancy, and don't protect 100% from STDs either.   

It just seems objectively better to have less sexual partners, and to wait until you are in a life long commitment.

---

I get the argument about sexual compatibility, but I'd say that you can get a pretty good sense of someone's sexuality through making out and good, honest communication about it.

Although I agree that one can get a pretty good sense of someone's sexuality without having sex, it seems like a good idea to try it before making a lifetime commitment.  Because if you are wrong, you then have a lifetime of bad sex, or you break your commitment.  Neither of those seem like good options.

That, by the way, need not necessitate having sex with anyone other than the person you intend to marry; you and your prospective partner could both be virgins beforehand, if you wish.  Then if the sex is good, you go ahead and get married as planned.  If, after several tries, it isn't any good, then you can part without a divorce.


Of course, you should live your life as you please, as long as you are not hurting anyone else.  And certainly, if you don't want to have sex with someone, you ought not do so.

(August 4, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I get the argument about sexual compatibility, but I'd say that you can get a pretty good sense of someone's sexuality through making out and good, honest communication about it.

Actually I'd agree with you about that.  But my idea of making out is extremely graphic and definitely includes genitals and orgasm.

(August 4, 2015 at 6:34 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: And here is the one obvious glaring flaw with that. People who have more sexual partners are generally better at sex. For some of us sex is important, and the quality of it is important. Iit's an important part of my life and I would say that I'm a sexual hobbyist. I don't want to die having some kink or fantasy unfufilled and you know what? One person is never going to be into all the exact same things that I am. Also the worst possible way to make sure you are sexually compatabile with is to wait until after you are going to commit to the rest of your life with that person.

I don't know about that.  I like nerdy guys, and I do mean the kind that are a little socially awkward as well as very bright, and the result is that I've have much more than my fair share of virgins.  I like virgins.  They don't think they know everything and are therefore willing to know about me.

[Edit: I'm a little over 50 and I've not had a new virgin in 20 years or more. I suspect I guy who waited until my age might not be the best.]

(August 4, 2015 at 7:24 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 6:34 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: And here is the one obvious glaring flaw with that. People who have more sexual partners are generally better at sex. For some of us sex is important, and the quality of it is important. Iit's an important part of my life and I would say that I'm a sexual hobbyist. I don't want to die having some kink or fantasy unfufilled and you know what? One person is never going to be into all the exact same things that I am. Also the worst possible way to make sure you are sexually compatabile with is to wait until after you are going to commit to the rest of your life with that person.

I don't know about that.  I like nerdy guys, and I do mean the kind that are a little socially awkward as well as very bright, and the result is that I've have much more than my fair share of virgins.  I like virgins.  They don't think they know everything and are therefore willing to know about me.

[Edit:  I'm a little over 50 and I've not had a new virgin in 20 years or more.  I suspect I guy who waited until my age might not be the best.]

Ha, Jenny the Virgin Slayer.

(August 4, 2015 at 7:30 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Ha, Jenny the Virgin Slayer.

It's one of the great sexual unfairnesses, but to be a female virgin slayer, you need only stop saying no.

(August 4, 2015 at 7:03 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Although I agree that one can get a pretty good sense of someone's sexuality without having sex, it seems like a good idea to try it before making a lifetime commitment.  Because if you are wrong, you then have a lifetime of bad sex, or you break your commitment.  Neither of those seem like good options.

That, by the way, need not necessitate having sex with anyone other than the person you intend to marry; you and your prospective partner could both be virgins beforehand, if you wish.  Then if the sex is good, you go ahead and get married as planned.  If, after several tries, it isn't any good, then you can part without a divorce.


Of course, you should live your life as you please, as long as you are not hurting anyone else.  And certainly, if you don't want to have sex with someone, you ought not do so.

I think if you love someone so much and they love you back, being close to them in that way will never feel "bad." Even if the sex may not be great at first, the good thing is that you have the rest of your lives to try out different things and try to be better for each other. If both people are committed to trying to satisfy their other half, and open with each other about what works for them and doesn't, etc, I think they can be very good in bed for each other. Sex is something you can work on. It's not like it's doomed forever if it's not great at first.

But then again, I'm saying what I'm saying as someone who waited until marriage, and you're saying what you're saying as someone who didn't, so it makes sense for each of us to think our own way is best. 

(August 4, 2015 at 7:21 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I get the argument about sexual compatibility, but I'd say that you can get a pretty good sense of someone's sexuality through making out and good, honest communication about it.

Actually I'd agree with you about that.  But my idea of making out is extremely graphic and definitely includes genitals and orgasm.

LOL!

Yeah, I meant mostly just kissing. It's actually pretty amazing how intense kissing can get when that's the only thing you can do to express how much passion you have for the other person. It's like all those emotions/urges are condensed into this one act.

(August 4, 2015 at 8:10 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 7:03 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Although I agree that one can get a pretty good sense of someone's sexuality without having sex, it seems like a good idea to try it before making a lifetime commitment.  Because if you are wrong, you then have a lifetime of bad sex, or you break your commitment.  Neither of those seem like good options.

That, by the way, need not necessitate having sex with anyone other than the person you intend to marry; you and your prospective partner could both be virgins beforehand, if you wish.  Then if the sex is good, you go ahead and get married as planned.  If, after several tries, it isn't any good, then you can part without a divorce.


Of course, you should live your life as you please, as long as you are not hurting anyone else.  And certainly, if you don't want to have sex with someone, you ought not do so.

I think if you love someone so much and they love you back, being close to them in that way will never feel "bad." Even if the sex may not be great at first, the good thing is that you have the rest of your lives to try out different things and try to be better for each other. If both people are committed to trying to satisfy their other half, and open with each other about what works for them and doesn't, etc, I think they can be very good in bed for each other. Sex is something you can work on. It's not like it's doomed forever if it's not great at first.

But then again, I'm saying what I'm saying as someone who waited until marriage, and you're saying what you're saying as someone who didn't, so it makes sense for each of us to think our own way is best. 

Right, it makes sense that both of us will think our way is best. A key difference is that you'll never really know if you are having the best sex possible (I make no judgements on the matter, as I can't really know ). I don't think I'm an overly promiscuous person , but I do know that there is a huge difference in sexual partners. I'm not saying that it really matters though. It sounds like your relationship is very healthy and you are happy with it and that should take priority.

I also enjoy talking about sex a great deal, particularly with women. Let me tell you a true story and something that can result from the 'wait until marriage' approach. So this comes from a woman I dated a few years back. She used to be married and had only had sex with her husband and while she was married she never or almost never had an orgasm. She just thought she was someone who was difficult to get off, that it was the biochemistry in her. After 5 or 6 years she ended up divorced and gets together with a guy and has sex with him. She gets off several times with him and thinks 'wow, there is something special about this guy.' She gets in a relationship with him that eventually doesn't work and ends up meeting another person. So around this time she's about 30 and this is the third person she's slept with. Anyway, she has multiple orgasms with that guy. As it turns out she was a very orgasmic person and her original Christian husband just didn't know what he was doing and blamed it on her. Now she's a much happier and kinkier person, rather than trapped in a relationship that never would have been sexually satisfying.

Now I think that's an equally likely scenario as your happy ending scenario, especially considering that with it you are dealing with sexually inexperienced men as well. If sex is important to someone, then waiting until marriage is the worst decision you can make.

(April 19, 2015 at 11:03 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I was reading the random slut-shaming troll thread and scrolling through it I was a little surprised at the number of people who seemed to think that it mattered at all. It doesn't. I couldn't give half a care about who I'm datings sexual past. I never even ask unless it comes up in normal conversation (which of course it normally does anyway, because sex is a pretty interesting conversation topic.) Why does anyone seem to care?

The only way it matters to me is if she's had recent unprotected sex, because I want to know if protection is required in our lovemaking.