Do you think people should wait until marriage to have sex?

Well. I’m not sure I’ll ever get married. But I have had sex, and would like to have more of it.

So, there’s that.

People can do as they please. Me…i’m a happy humper!

I don’t think it’s a good idea, no matter how much slack I might get for saying this; sex is very important in a relationships. The only way to really know if you’re sexually compatible is to have sex. You’ve got to take the car for a test drive before you commit to buying it.

It doesn’t matter to me whether they do or not.

I think they should wait until at least the age 18 kids should not have kids after that I couldn’t care less if they were married or not.

Hell no. I agree with @HearTheSilence, you need to test the waters a little bit. Sex is important.

haha nooo. I find the concept amusing. but I certainly respect anyone’s belief otherwise.

No.

Marriage is nothing but a legal binding for me. When I’m ready to get married, I’ll have a financial set-up that I want to share. Sex is something that I do with the person I’m currently in love with. So if you think you’ll only be truly in love with someone once you’re legally bound to them, then my logic is that yes, you should wait till marriage..

But I’m pretty sure most people considered being in love with the person their married to before they got married.

No, mostly because they’re nothing wrong with it as long as it is done with some respect for oneself and the people you’re having sex with, responsibly, as in use birth control if neither you or your partner are financially, psychologically or emotionally prepared to raise children and because it’s unrealistic to expect people to wait until marriage to have sex.

What I think doesn’t really matter. If that’s what they want to do, well, more power to ‘em.

Now, I personally would not buy the car without kicking the tires. Actually, that’s mostly a joke… More accurately, there’s no way I could wait that long to drive the car. ;)

@MissAnthrope What you think matters if it’s your relationship.

If I were to answer from a strict religious (Judaic, Christian, or Islamic) perspective, I’d say, “Yes, always wait.”

If I were to answer from a strict hedonistic perspective, I’d say, “No, never wait.”

Speaking from a relaxed Christian perspective who was schooled in a strict Pentecostal environment: If someone is in a loving, committed relationship, regardless of actual marriage ceremony, I do not believe he or she must wait in order to have sex.

Speaking as someone who has had casual sex: If I had to do things over again, I would wait for the loving, committed relationship. Why? Because, I did learn something from my strict religious background – there are emotional, psychological, and physical consequences to casual sex. Among other things, it slowly minimizes one’s sense of wholeness. IMO

HA HA! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Oh jeeze….pthphtb- hahahahaha!
Oh my, no! I’ve said and done some of the silliest things to get into someone’s pants, and frankly, I’ve even believed I was being honest to myself. I can only imagine how screwed I would have been if I’d had a libido of my size compelling me to get married. No way could a kid as horny as I was make an honest decision about whether he loved somebody without having slept with them.

Isn’t that the real test for compatibility? After the sex, you still want them to stick around?

While I don’t advocate being overly promiscuous, I think that if a couple is not having sex then it is unlikely that they really know one another well enough to be considering marriage.

In fact, to take the concept one step further, I think that living together for at least a year before marriage should be required. There is a huge difference between seriously dating and actually living with one another.

Perhaps all marriages should have a built in 1 year no-fault annulment clause. That way you could ease any moral misgivings you might have by being able to state that you are actually married, but it would give the option to call it quits before doing so would require messy divorce lawyers.

Waiting to have sex is a good idea, but not until marriage. Sex is fun and wonderful, but should be carefully considered, especially when it’s the first time. The first time should be with someone you trust and love. The ideas behind waiting till marriage are really an outdated form of paternity test, a nasty objectification of purity (& love) and a double standard of misogynists. Now that there are contraceptives, these ideas are rendered invalid.

I do think that pair bonding should be for life though, after offspring are involved.

No. Why on earth should they?

Religiously, yes. Along with the fact that there is no way you can get pregnant or an STD. Plus, if you do wait and on your wedding night, that is the very first time you have ever made love, that’s a gift to the person you married, a very special gift.
Now with that said, I didn’t. Nor do I expect my own children to. I don’t EVER think sex should be a casual thing at all! But you don’t buy a car without test driving it do you? And marriage is for the rest of your life, hopefully!
And if there is a lack of chemistry or passion in that department it will not help a marriage at all! Of course, the best sex in the world can’t make a marriage! Communication is one of the most important things about marriage!
I feel each individual has to answer that question for themselves. And if waiting is what you want to do, be prepared for a lot of temptation.

No, because I think sexual compatibility is important. Much better to find out before you are married.

@Needs2no – I never really understood the “special gift” concept. I’ve never met anyone who didn’t have fairly mediocre sex their first time, regardless of it’s symbolic meaning. Nor have I ever met a married person as obviously happy with their sex life as those who had either multiple partners, or long term relationships, before they met the person they would marry.

Seeing as how it is illegal for me to marry and I don’t intend to become a nun, I have no alternative choices that are appealing.

It probably depends on the individual. There’s my Catholic friend who waited until she married only to find out that her husband was gay and had the marriage annulled, who today, would recommend not waiting. Then there are those that wait until marriage and are happy….or wish that they hadn’t.

If one is true to their marital vows when they include being faithful and can be honest about their sexual status and desires, isn’t that what really matters in this facet of committment?

@Kayak8

Word up. I cannot get married, so it’s the only option for me.

Now, I happen to be someone who is not interested in casual sex and I would not have sex with someone unless we were already in a committed relationship. I’m not saying that’s the best option for everyone, but it’s the best option for me.

It would be like committing yourself to only one type of pizza for the rest of your life. And it turns out to be the shittest pizza ever. It isn’t enough to make you depressed and suicidal but it certainly would be awful!

Absolutely not. Other than some outdated moral/religious code, there’s nothing keeping people from waiting until they’re legally bound to find out whether or not they’re sexually compatible. If people are getting married, they likely have already made all but the legal commitment to each other, marriage is simply a legal acknowledgment. The notion is, frankly, absurd.

Read this question that I posted before.

@troubleinharlem Or, just put your answer here.

I don’t believe in shoulds when it comes to consenting adults and expression of sexual desire. If waiting until marriage seems like a good idea to you, fine by me but I would never in a million years wait for marriage to have sex (and obviously, I didn’t) and would never suggest such a thing to my children.

No. I think it’s important to know if you’re sexually compatible BEFORE you get married.

Sure. Unless they don’t want to, in which case they shouldn’t.

In the past, more than 40 years ago, when marriage was something people “took seriously” and did not divorce on a whim, waiting until marriage was a great thing. To wait for the man or woman of your dreams, and knowing that there was a very good chance that the two of you would be faithful to each other and live to old age, saving yourself for that special person was ideal. That’s why I admire people who lived in those days. Virginity meant “something very special” in those days.

Nowadays, with divorce rates so high and infidelity so common, and so many people lacking moral standards and responsibility, virginity no longer has the “positive meaning” it once had. My thinking is “why would people these days wait until marriage when many marriages end in divorce anyways?” Society has basically gone downhill in the past 45 years. Does virginity still matter? Apparently not. Most young people today are too promiscuous to deserve the virtues of being a virgin.

@MRSHINYSHOES Ok, when you put stuff in quotes like that, what does that mean?

@papayalily Do I have to spell EVERYTHING out for you?? Lol. “Took seriously”—- marriage was something people sacrificed their lives for, to honor and obey——not like today, wed one day, divorce in a couple of years just because two people have grown tired of each other. Sheesh.

I look at a lot of elderly couples who are in their 80s and 90s and are still married from day one. You got to admire and respect them for their committment. And that’s what I mean by “taking marriage seriously”. Marriages fared better in the past because people weren’t as frivolous then. These days, 1 in 4 marriages end in divorce. What has happened to the committment?

@MRSHINYSHOES No, I meant that traditionally when people use quotes in that manner, they’re mocking it or commenting on the irony of what they are saying. Like in talking about an on-again off-again, complicated romantic relationship between two of my friends, I might say “Yeah, they’re “just friends” now”, implying that I think they’re kidding themselves with their current label. Since that usage didn’t really fit with the rest of what you were trying to say, I figured you were using them differently and I was curious as to the meaning.

@papayalily Well, now you know. lol ;)

@MRSHINYSHOES

I think you are idealizing the past in a way that the data cannot support. I think that neither virginity nor happy marriages were as common as you imagine in “the good old days.”

@MRSHINYSHOES Humbug! People were just as slutty and horny 50 years ago as we are now, you just weren’t supposed to talk about it.

I was trying to explain polyamory to a lady in her 70’s a few months ago, and she was having trouble understanding just what I meant, but then it suddenly clicked. She said “oh it’s like you’re dating.” And I was afraid I didn’t understand her. She explained that when she was young, a girl dated many different boys at the same time. She could even go out with two on the same day, and it was perfectly acceptable, and you didn’t commit to a person until you started “going steady” when you promised to only date one person. I said that it wasn’t exactly like that, since the relationships I was talking about involved sex.

“Oh so did ours!” she said, “we just didn’t talk about it.”

Ok, so I’m very old fashioned but I waited to have sex till I was married. I never regretted it. Yes temptation was there but we pulled through. Religious beliefs were a large part of it, but I didn’t want to waste the emotional and mental feelings that come on with some Jo Shmo. I am going to teach my daughters the same things, but what they do with it is ultimately up to them.

@MRSHINYSHOES Oh, how wonderful the past was. No one ever cheated or… who are we kidding? People are people, they’re just more open and public about what’s going on these days. And with no-fault divorces people who aren’t happy don’t have to stay in marriages that aren’t working like they did in days past. There are so many marriages that lasted forever only because people weren’t able to get out of them. Or they didn’t want the stigma of being divorced, or they didn’t want to find anyone else, they thought they’d be even more unhappy single… There are a ton of reasons why marriages lasted and its not because of being more committed or taking things more seriously. People haven’t changed very much at all, the meaning of marriage hasn’t changed very much since the (far from) prefect 50s, but society’s standards has changed to the point where people are able to do what they want to do (or need to do) without being looked down upon as much as they have in the past.

What other people do is their business but for me and maybe a few others I prefer to wait. Sex is better when two people increase their sexual experiences with each other from virgins I knew who married each other. There are other reasons I believe this is the better choice for some people as well but enough said.

That is a personal matter that each individual must decide.

I was going to say “You’re going to go through all the crap leading up to the ceremony without a test drive?” and then saw BoBo’s response and said, shit, he just nailed it. Can’t improve on perfection.

Each to their own in my opinion. Personally, I have no plans to marry but I made sure I was in love before I lost my virginity. I think, whatever you choose to do, it’s important that you don’t regret your first time.

@MRSHINYSHOES What are ‘virtues of being a virgin’, lol? No one accomplishes virginity, it’s a construct that’s infused with virtue for some not so virtuous reasons, btw. Besides, you are simply born without sexual experiences, you did nothing virtuous to get that state nor is remaining in that state virtuous, just because.

I play in a horror punk band… sex is basically unavoidable. And I am an atheist so… there is no religion to tell me not to. And according to religion… God will love you no matter what so… yeah, sex is good anytime!

It’s an individual decision which we should respect. My personal opinion: No. But there is one requirement. People need to know what they are doing. It must be an educated choice. And unwanted pregnancy should be prevented. Why no? Marriage is a big decision. Again, it should be an educated choice.

Personally, no, but your opinion is you opinion, but be careful who you get nasty with, STDs hurt not that I would know…

Well, it’s nice to see most people here agree with what I said. Thank God for the 1950s and early 1960s. Hallelujah to those days. :)

@MRSHINYSHOES What you’re not getting is that the idealized version of “the good old days,” namely the 1950s and early 1960s, are not what we make them out to be. Hindsight is not, at all, 20–20 when it comes to this era. “Family values” weren’t all that much higher or anything at all like that, people were still people, cheating and doing all the other things that you think they didn’t as they’ve been doing since the dawn of time. The only major difference is the availability and use of divorce. Prior to the 70s, it was very difficult to get divorced and most people couldn’t manage the high requirements for proving that their spouse was at fault for the breakdown of the marriage. When no-fault divorce replaced the previous system, people were able to get divorced more easily leading to the “problem” we have today. Just as many marriages were broken in the 50s, people just weren’t able to do anything about them.

@MRSHINYSHOES While I disagree with you, I respect that you had the guts to be the one person on the thread who disagreed.

@klutzaroo I’m sorry my friend, but you’re wrong. In the 1950s and early 1960s, people in general were much nicer then, had more manners, were more civil, less promiscuous, and did not use profanity like they do now. Moral standards were more respected back then. You try to make us think those days were no different from today, that only on the outside things seemed better, but you’re wrong. Things WERE better inside AND out. Sure, people had the same problems and had the same urges, but people also knew their boundaries and respected them. That’s what I admire about those days. In other words, people made an EFFORT to follow and uphold moral standards. These days, it seems that anything goes, grotesque and unruly behavior in public, rudeness, profanity in public, etc.

I know and have spoken to many elderly people over the age of 70, and they all agree with me that those days were really a different time socially. (I used to volunteer in several senior citizens activity centers). Sure, people suffered the same ills back then, but not to the extent they do today, because today parents are like kids themselves, raising kids and letting them basically do what they want.

@papayalily Thank you! Yes, it takes courage to expouse the truth, because many people these days don’t want to hear the truth, because the truth is ugly and it hurts. We don’t want to see ourselves in the mirror, how we behave and act these days. We like to mock or deride the 1950s and early 1960s, and try to rationalize that our behavior and ill manners are no different in those days, because we want to appease and comfort ourselves and give acceptance to our immorality today. The truth is certainly a hard pill to swallow isn’t it?! Lol.

This thread has gone on far too long. I will not be re-visiting this. I made my point and I’m glad I did! Stirring up so many counter responses shows that I have made inroads into peoples’ minds. Hallelujah! Good bye. ;)

@MRSHINYSHOES Great points. I wish I could of had grown up during that time. Everything is way too out in the open today especially when it comes to sex. If you’re still a virgin at 16 today that seems to be an accomplishment. Still a virgin at 18? I guess that means your odd. Still a virgin by 21! OMG you’re a freak. 25? Will not go there.

Dam some of my older neighbors, former co-workers and even some distant relatives I knew never found a mate until some were in their 30’s, 40’s and even 50’s. They were definitely not sexually promiscuous and waited until they found their soulmates. Some of them were among the most happiest people and when they found their mates (or when their mates found them) they had the greatest marriages. Maybe this strategy wouldn’t work for most people but for some people this is the best choice (waiting). It does seem people tend to look down on those who choose to wait, especially if you’re a guy who is well into their 20’s on up.

@MRSHINYSHOES Unfortunately, I’m still right. Just because things weren’t talked about and people weren’t as public and open doesn’t mean that there weren’t plenty of people in society at large who wouldn’t be completely at home if they were transplanted from the 50s to today (minus the unfamiliarity with technology, of course). People were not nicer and better. People didn’t have more manners, there were more rules and they were more enforced. Its not an “effort to follow and uphold moral standards,” it was a fear of punishment. The things that weren’t talked about by the people writing the history books (and the people who want to continue to portray the 50s in an idealized sense) were still there and are simply ignored in favor of rewriting history the way that they want it to be seen.

Nostalgia, ascribing all kinds of things to a past society that didn’t really exist, is a major factor in your conversation with elderly people. History has always been written by the victors and people in charge (the portrayal of Richard III being an example) and the people who were in charge in the 50s were the conservatives who did condemn many of the things that you don’t associate with the era. Counterculture wasn’t allowed, book were burned, things that conflicted with society were looked down upon to the point of publicly accepted persecution. The following late 60sand 70s and the chaos and “decline of society” right on the heels of the 50s (as a reaction from the young raised in such a restrictive society and those self-same “freaks” who were condemned and not talked about as being a part of the 50s) meant that the recent past was almost immediately idealized and romanticized rather than taking quite some time to become the good old days.

For example, people wish they could live in medieval times, Renaissance England, whatever. We have romanticized these periods past what they really were and if people had a time machine to go back to the time with no indoor plumbing, no bathing, no real medicine and the real possibility of not surviving into their 30s, they would have a huge shock and want to come right back home again. Going back to our recent past and seeing how it really was as would probably be just as much of a shock to those with stars in their eyes.

People weren’t better. They were more controlled by the society they lived in. Unlike today, the “bad” parts weren’t talked about and were shoved under the rug. While we’re a much less controlled and restricted society today, we are not so very much worse than what the 50s were really like. We might curse more and do it more loudly and in public, there might be groups of people who are more open and flaunt sex and sexuality, but there are plenty of prudes still. Just as you feed that society as a whole doesn’t represent you, there were tons of people in the 50s who felt the same about their actual era and the unrealistic version of it that most people think back on today.

@MRSHINYSHOES “I’m sorry my friend, but you’re wrong. In the 1950s and early 1960s, people in general were much nicer then, had more manners, were more civil, less promiscuous, and did not use profanity like they do now. Moral standards were more respected back then. ”

If we went back to the 1950’s and early 1960’s, we’d be drinking out of different drinking fountains still. We’d have black schools and white schools. We’d still have unwarranted killings and beatings of people simply due to the color of their skin. I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a party that I wasn’t invited to!

I so want to be back to that era when freedom of speech meant I couldn’t speak my mind without some housewife, that probably cursed all day in her mind, was offended by my language. I want to go back to the time when if I was homosexual, I was beaten, thrown in jail, or even killed for sodomy and/or same sex interaction. Man do I wish I could go back to that era, I’d be killed somewhere in my teen years just for the color of my skin. And if I made it into adult hood, I’d have one hell of a chip on my shoulder and an inability to trust anyone that wasn’t the same race as me. Oh and forget biracial marriages!!! I mean who even thought up of that stupid concept anyhow? Cross breeding? NO WAY! I don’t know about you, but I’m Latin so I can only marry other Latin men because to marry a white, black, asian, or indian man would simply not be tolerated. Who would want to tolerate it anyhow, everyone needs to stick to their own race! And if you’re homosexual, marry the opposite sex and pretend to be straight. If that makes you miserable, well it’s just something you’ll have to learn to deal with over the years. If homosexuals find it disgusting to engage in intimate interaction with the opposite sex just as a straight person would find it disgusting to engaging in homosexual intimacy, well—deal with it. Just never lose the front, and keep pretending everything is just peachy perfect!

Oh how wonderful the 1950’s and early 1960’s were indeed, eh? Who needs civil rights? They’re overrated!

…and if you can’t tell, yes I am being sarcastic

Yes a person should get married to have sex. It is the right thing in GOD’S eyes and it will benifit both partners greatly.

@MRSHINYSHOES LOLOL, this is what you think ‘making inroads in people’s minds’ is?

@HearTheSilence I do imagine that if @MRSHINYSHOES went back in time, he would be shocked at the kind of crap he got in the basis of his ethnicity in the 50s, that oh-so-perfect time where nothing bad ever happened to anyone and everyone was nice to each other.

Hell yes. Only have sex once a year thereafter. Sex is nasty.