Do you care about your significant other's sexual past?

[thesummerqueen]

Does Catholic_Lady have nothing to say about the idea that there might be hidden fantasies going on?

[Catholic_Lady]

Does Catholic_Lady have nothing to say about the idea that there might be hidden fantasies going on?

Sorry.

But I think I covered this when I said that saving sex for marriage is not some sort of magical thing that ensures great sex. There needs to be self giving love and open communication on the part of both spouses, and there needs to be open communication about sex before they get married as well, so they can get a sense of each other's sexuality.

If one of them has a fantasy, then heck, they should tell their spouse! The spouse should be happy to do what makes the other person happy. Ideally though, this sort of thing should come up before they are married through open communication about sexuality. My two cents.

[thesummerqueen]

I think you missed the point of my post. Sometimes you don't find out whether or not you actually like something until you try it. And then what if one of you really likes it - it's a huge deal - and the other doesn't?

I've been there.

[Catholic_Lady]

I think you missed the point of my post. Sometimes you don't find out whether or not you actually like something until you try it. And then what if one of you really likes it - it's a huge deal - and the other doesn't?

I've been there.

I don't see why they can't compromise. If one person has a BDSM fetish and the other doesn't have that same fetish, can't they just have BDSM sex sometimes, and sometimes have vanilla sex? Variety seems like it'd be better anyway.

I don't have that fetish, but if my husband did, I'd want to please him. I'd be happy to incorporate that into our lovemaking at times, and he'd be happy to have "normal" sex with me other times. That's what I meant by self giving love. Both people want to please the other.

[Whateverist]

Sounds like you'd have to be the sub..

[thesummerqueen]

I don't' think you quite understand. There are things that you cannot enjoy the other person doing if it makes them uncomfortable. BDSM isn't like the candy-coated spanking shit perpetuated by 50 Shades. There is so much mental and emotional stuff that goes into it, on top of the physical aspects, and it isn't just tying up and spanking.

You can want to please each other all you want, and still fail to be able to give each other the kind of sex you like.

[Esquilax]

Well it is possible to love someone very much without having had sex with them though. If I love someone very very much, to the point where I am about to commit myself and my life to him, and we decided to have sex right before we got engaged, I wouldn't leave him if the sex wasn't great (especially since such a thing can be improved, but that's another point) . I already love him at that point. Likewise, I wouldn't leave my husband if he, for whatever reason, was unable to have sex anymore. I don't really see the difference between the 2 scenarios.

Whew, missed this thread for a few days.

You're right, of course, that you can love somebody without having sex with them, but if your marriage is going to contain sex (and some don't, if one or more of the participants is asexual) then it's still a component of the marriage, and one that deserves to be dealt with. It, and the emotional, relationship building things that go along with it, aren't trivial, they are going to have knock on effects in the marriage like any other part of it, so I don't see why it should be treated as this separate, irrelevant thing. It might not be essential to the marriage, but if it exists within it then it's a very relevant factor. It's like if you'd only ventured into your husband's living space on the day of the marriage, and you discover that he runs a secret dog fighting ring out of the basement; you'd just be fooling yourself if you think that wouldn't have an effect. This isn't about a love/not love binary, it's about the way individual aspects of life as a couple affect your overall relationship.

You can still love someone and be negatively impacted by choices that one or both of you make within your marriage.

I don't' think you quite understand. There are things that you cannot enjoy the other person doing if it makes them uncomfortable. BDSM isn't like the candy-coated spanking shit perpetuated by 50 Shades.

The next chapter of 50 Shades I have to recap is the one with the first sex scene in it. I dread it like I'd dread a root canal.

[Catholic_Lady]

Well it is possible to love someone very much without having had sex with them though. If I love someone very very much, to the point where I am about to commit myself and my life to him, and we decided to have sex right before we got engaged, I wouldn't leave him if the sex wasn't great (especially since such a thing can be improved, but that's another point) . I already love him at that point. Likewise, I wouldn't leave my husband if he, for whatever reason, was unable to have sex anymore. I don't really see the difference between the 2 scenarios.

Whew, missed this thread for a few days.

You're right, of course, that you can love somebody without having sex with them, but if your marriage is going to contain sex (and some don't, if one or more of the participants is asexual) then it's still a component of the marriage, and one that deserves to be dealt with. It, and the emotional, relationship building things that go along with it, aren't trivial, they are going to have knock on effects in the marriage like any other part of it, so I don't see why it should be treated as this separate, irrelevant thing. It might not be essential to the marriage, but if it exists within it then it's a very relevant factor. It's like if you'd only ventured into your husband's living space on the day of the marriage, and you discover that he runs a secret dog fighting ring out of the basement; you'd just be fooling yourself if you think that wouldn't have an effect. This isn't about a love/not love binary, it's about the way individual aspects of life as a couple affect your overall relationship.

You can still love someone and be negatively impacted by choices that one or both of you make within your marriage.

No problem.

I agree that sex is an important component of a marriage and one that deserves to be dealt with, and if you think I was treating it as a separate irrelevant thing, then you have misunderstood me.

I've talked about both spouses taking the time to try to please each other, and to be open with each other. I've talked about having open communication about sexuality before marriage.

What I was saying up top was that, even though sex is important, I still wouldn't leave someone I love because it wasn't so great yet (I say "yet" because I still think it's something that can always evolve and improve if they are willing, as they should be), and likewise I wouldn't leave someone I love if they lost the ability to have sex through some freak accident. It is possible to love the other person more than you love sex, and to want to be with them anyway. Yes, sex is an important part of marriage, but it doesn't seem like it should be a complete deal breaker when you're talking about someone you already love deeply.