General Question

chutterhanban's avatar

Does anyone wait to have sex until they're married anymore?

Asked by chutterhanban (1020points) July 5th, 2008

If you’re planning on waiting or already waited until you got married, why did you choose to? If you’ve already done the deed, why didn’t you wait? Does the question matter to you at all?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

168 Answers

jlm11f's avatar

i am truly interested to see what the flutherers have to say about this. i will respond tomorrow morning when i am more awake. Great Question!!

xxporkxsodaxx's avatar

I didn’t wait because of alcohol and peer pressure. I am sure there are people out there, probably a large number. I know about 5 people who have one of those rings that they wear for religious reasons that means they won’t have sex until they’re married. The question doesn’t really matter to me, I can’t think of very many questions on Fluther besides my own that meant something to me.

iwamoto's avatar

i didn’t wait because i have the idea that i should just enjoy life, and hey, i you wait till you’re married and the person turns out to suck in bed…oh man

wildflower's avatar

Until I had been with the man who is now my husband for a few years, I honestly didn’t think I would ever marry, so the notion of waiting until marriage never even entered my head.

tinyfaery's avatar

I know people who stopped having sex once they became engaged; they wanted to have a special wedding night. But I honestly don’t know anyone who married as a virgin. People often have children before getting married as well. This really is not an issue for me. Marriage is not a determining factor on wether or not people are loved, or satisfied, or if children grow up happy and well adjusted. Plus, some people might not believe in marriage. And what about those who are not allowed to marry?

I didn’t wait because the thought of choosing the one person I wanted to spend my life with, without having had sex, seemed horrifying to me. Plus, I like to listen to what my body is telling me. I too didn’t ever think I would marry, and if I would have waited… well, that would’ve just been sad.

chutterhanban's avatar

@ iwamoto: If you were both virgins, how would you know that they suck in bed?

I ask this both hypothetically and legitimately… for two reasons. One: mine is a very cliche response that basically demanded to be said (lol). Two: I am getting married in December and I can say first hand that we will both love every minute of it—by default, it will be amazing since its quality won’t be placed on anyone’s scale! I understand it’s not exactly the most popular of decisions, but I am truly excited and waiting in anticipation until that day!

tinyfaery's avatar

@chutter… Trust me. You’ll know.

wildflower's avatar

I agree with tinyfaery. Having nothing to compare with doesn’t mean you will think it’s great. Everyone has their story and opinion of whether or not it was great their first time (I suspect most will say no) when they had no reference of what it could or should be like. Personally, first time was more clumsy than anything.

chutterhanban's avatar

I know this will sound weird again, but I actually do have a lot of friends and family who have waited. They all have said that it was absolutely wonderful—because they chose it to be—because they waited. It wasn’t just about the sex (which is a good thing since it hurts the girl, what, like 99% of the time), it was about the married love that allowed them to do it. Someone just recently told me that she didn’t even have an orgasm her first two times because it hurt so bad, but she, along with her husband, said that they “absolutely loved it.” And yes, that was truly a quote!

wildflower's avatar

As an act of love and an experience to share, it will be very special for both of you. As an act of physical pleasure, well that can be hit and miss.

eadinad's avatar

I don’t buy the idea that two people who love each other and are willing to compromise are going to be so “sexually incompatible” that it will destroy their marriage. One of the partners would have to have serious issues in order for it to be a problem, and that’s something that can be known and discussed ahead of time. I think most people will figure out how to have sex just fine, and I think sexuality is often pretty apparent in someone’s general personality.

And I know this is anecdata, but I haven’t known a single friend (male or female) who ended a relationship because of the sex.

I didn’t wait, and I don’t have strong feelings about it, but I hate when others who didn’t wait tell people who are waiting that they need to “test drive” or something of that nature. It’s just untrue.

BronxLens's avatar

First of all, best of luck to all ‘delayers’, whatever your reasons.

Without taking away from the subject, I think more important is to adress this as a part of the bigger puzzle, marriage (with or without a legal ceremony you know if you are maried or not (I hope! LOL).

With this in mind you may want to take a look at this article – Page 2 addresses the sex issue.

marinelife's avatar

There is a quality of superiority to the talk of “specialness” in your comments, chutterhanban, as if those who did not wait can’t possible know the beauty and wonder of waiting.

I have no problem with whether anyone waits or does not wait. I do have a problem with assuming that if someone made a different decision from mine that their decision or experience was less than mine. You really have no way of knowing that.

Why can’t you just be happy with your decision without looking askance at others’ different decisions? It almost seems as if you posed this question not to get information about why other people made the decision they did or about their experiences, but simply so you could tout your decision.

gailcalled's avatar

Back in the dark ages, when I got married at 20, according to Bill Clinton, my husband-to-be and I had not had sex and came to the marriage bed as technical virgins. However, it was patently clear to both of us that we were going to be very compatible in bed, if not elsewhere.

n 1957 I had to go to an Ob/gyn with my mother, engagement ring, photos of cake and receipts for the venue before the Dr. would give me an RX for a diaphragm. Then I had to practice inserting it. So in the privacy of my bedroom, I greased the thing, bent it and watched it career off the walls. (See Portnoy’s Complaint by Philip Roth.)

I eventually got the hang of it, but we should have spent more time talking about emotional compatibiltiy and communication.

P.S. No pill, no legal abortions, and sub rosa horror stories from and about young women who had gotten, unwittingly, pregnant.

ninjaxmarc's avatar

it just happened. We couldn’t help it.
It usually happens with peer pressure, thinking your totally in love with that person or by mistake under the influence of something.

Either way more power to the peopole who do and have self control.

monsoon's avatar

Such a religious attitude, behind this question. Maybe we should all revert back to the fifties; The golden age of happy facades.

“Doesn’t anyone wait to have sex until they’re married anymore?”

Honestly, when you’re going to ask a question of the personal lives of flutherites, ask yourself if you would be sued if you asked it on a randomly sampled survey. For this you would.

Seesul's avatar

Gail, did you mean “careen off the walls” or when you married, did you think that any career (other than housewife) was off limits, now that you were going to marry?

…and monsoon, the fifties weren’t just “happy facades”. There were some genuinely great times scattered throughout them. For one, it was nice not having to lock doors unless you were going on vacation.

nayeight's avatar

I didn’t wait and I’m so glad I didn’t. My first time was horrible and it only got better with time and different people. I liked the guy, we were “in love” and there was no pressure just curiousity.

nikipedia's avatar

You have a chocolate cake in front of you. The baker of the cake says, “Listen, you can eat this cake now, and you can continue to eat lots of different cakes throughout the rest of your life. Or you could wait for a cake that might never come into your life, and hope it’s the best you ever have.”

Is there any question, really?

chutterhanban's avatar

@ marina: I actually do think I fell into the trap of not asking this question solely to receive information. I initially meant it for that, but got caught up in sharing my opinion. I really shouldn’t have done that and I apologize if my views smeared up the forum at all. Thanks for stepping up to the plate.

@ monsoon: This isn’t a survey.

@ nikipedia: Though that is a great analogy in theory, sex isn’t cake to everyone. However, I should speak only for myself and say that sex isn’t just cake for me. The reason I’m able to pose the question is because sex is not only an enjoyable indulgence to me (but that’s definitely part of it!); I view it in the arena for which it was created (in the marriage bed) as a wonderful act of love overseen by its creator, God.

Last two things. 1. I’m not forcing God on anyone—I promise. It’s just a very important part of my life and of my opinions. 2. I’m going to shut up for a while!

tinyfaery's avatar

Question: If someone told you you must wait until you are married to have sex, and you do, and then the whole experience turns out horribly, are you going to let on to your hubby/wife, and the rest of your community, that you didn’t have a great, transcendent, love-filled experience? Would you really tell the truth?

delirium's avatar

I’m actually going and getting my computer to answer this one…

nayeight's avatar

@ chutterhanban: Sex wasn’t created for marriage. Sex is for reproduction and it feels good so that we will do it alot. It has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a man-made idea/institution that I think was made to control people, to regulate who has sex with who and how often and so forth.

generalspecific's avatar

i just talked to an incoming freshman about this today because she was wearing chastity rings. i know several girls and even a couple guys that want to wait, all very religious people though.
i didn’t wait because i was dumb and young. i was in love, i suppose, but i definitely was not emotionally ready for that sort of thing. i think i’m going to be waiting quite a bit until the next time, but that’s always a big complication in my relationships.

trogdor_87's avatar

Me and my GF, now fiancé, did not wait mainly because we had already been together for so long that waiting to be married would just be pointless. Also sex is a important part of a relationship, but does not define it. And if it does then the relationship is a fruitless one.

delirium's avatar

With the soaring divorce rates that we have now days, I think that everything should be tested previous to tying the knot. There are many things that can cause dissent, and I think that every couple should make sure that they’re compatible in every way. They should live together, sleep together, work on projects together, take care of a living thing together, etc.

What if one person has some kink that the other is uncomfortable with, but they don’t find out until they’re married. What if one leaves the other sexually unsatisfied? Its things like that that cause a person to look for satisfaction outside of the relationship.

Waiting for marriage to have sex is a bad idea in many other ways as well. Anything that causes a person to rush in to a marriage is a bad thing. And sex is a Very tempting reason to get married too early.
I have seen, time after time, people who got married rashly, had awkward sex once without protection because they didn’t think they had to then, and who ended up with a child. Many of these people aren’t happy together anymore. They tend to try and stay together because of the child. There are few decisions that could be worse. I have many friends who resent their parents for that very decision. Just because you don’t fight around the kid doesn’t mean that they can’t feel the lack of love.

Just because someone is sexually active doesn’t mean that they’re promiscuous. I am in a long term monogamous relationship. We lost our virginity to each other. We waited to do this until we were both 18 and could make a responsible decision about it. We are not going to even THINK about marriage until we both graduate from college and have lived together for at least a year. By that time we will have been dating for at least 9/10 years. I have never heard of an unconsummated relationship lasting that long. If we end up getting married after that, I can assure you that there will be few problems. We will have tested every single aspect of the relationship and will be sure that it can work comfortably. If we don’t end up together, I won’t have any regrets, and I wont have any reason to want to rush in to another relationship because I have experienced intimacy and know what its like to find someone that I can be with in that way.

Sex is more than just what it sounds like. It is another healthy aspect of a relationship. There is a lot of love that can be involved in it. Sex has brought my relationship closer together more ways than just sexually. Intimacy is a very good word for it. Sex doesn’t have to be a passionately heated thing. It can be playful, wrestling, fun, goofy, and loving all at once. There’s more purposes to it than getting off.
Sex is also more complicated than ‘penis in, penis out, penis in, penis out…’ Sexual intercourse, to be done in a positive more-than-just-an-act-of-mating way requires real partnership. Very few women can achieve orgasm from penetration alone. Very few men stay entertained with just basic missionary every time. In true intercourse the individuals are able to communicate. Able to not be shy about any of it. Not afraid to ask for what they want. Two people should be able to feel completely comfortable together and be able to completely satisfy each other. Here’s a hint: Basic missionary all the time will not ultimately satisfy either person. Sex is a compromise. That’s what true compatibility is about, in more places than just the bedroom.

If you can be comfortable with another persons body, it opens up more aspects of the relationship. I would NEVER want to be in a relationship where we were treading around a pink elephant of some kind, trying not to think about it or mention it. That’d just make things awkward. If sex can open up a relationship in a positive way, you shouldn’t wait for more than promised monogamy (and assurance that the partner is disease free and willing to use protection).

I may joke about sex a whole lot, but its important to note that I am far from promiscuous. I am with one man, have been with one man, and don’t have any plans or complaints or reason to end it at this point. I doubt that i’ll have sexual intercourse with more than three or four people in my life. I am very picky about it being a monogamous long term relationship, and am very careful about safety.

In conclusion: Marriage shouldn’t be a reason to do anything. Only when you know you’re comfortable doing everything BUT marriage, should you enter in to the contractual agreement it presents.

lefteh's avatar

What she said ^

gailcalled's avatar

(This answer is not about sex, I don’t think)


Howdy; I chose career deliberately (v. “to move at full speed, to rush wildly) rather than careen: (v. “to lurch from side to side, to lean sideways, as a sailing ship.)
Ricochet would have worked. In spite of early marriage, I finished my BA and had a serious career immediately after graduation – then had two children and workied part-time in same job -

(Was scolded about and then taught the difference between the two words from a friend who was the then Drama Critic for The New Yorker. One doesn’t forget moments like that. Probably not as good as sex,however, but a rush for me.)

Seesul's avatar

once again, gail has taught cecil a new definition for the day, cecil should have looked it up first, but it was still er lie in the mornin’, (as a drunken sailor would say it)

I actually started on that track, and then got sidetracked, as I usually do in the morning, cecil is not a morning person, nor the master of English that gail is, cecil bows before her in humility. I did look up careen and since I’ve done that in gale (no pun intended) force winds in the Pacific, thought it might fit.

So there is no room left for speculation, I’m taking about cecil lurching from side to side, not objects in the cabin.

gailcalled's avatar

edit: “worked”

@See: remember all the decades that I have had to think about and use language.

delirium's avatar

Chutter: “It wasn’t just about the sex (which is a good thing since it hurts the girl, what, like 99% of the time)”
This is actually quite an archeic statement. It hurts badly only if you’re doing it wrong. Most girls don’t have a complete hymen nowadays. If you count that as the mark of a virgin, I lost mine to a tampon.

Its very common for a female to not naturally create enough lubrication, and a guy who is too rushed, excited, stupid, or inexperienced will push on anyways. That is EXTREMELY painful. Learning to use lube in a positive way is an important thing that comes with experience or education.

I’d also place a lot on betting that the girl you talked to faked many an orgasm. As i’ve said before… it takes more than just penetration to get a girl off in almost ALL cases. And in the cases that a girl can get off from penetration alone..’ well… it has to be done well. That takes experience, practice, slowness, and communication. Things that most first timers aren’t very good at.

I’d rather have an absolutely mindblowing adventurous wedding night than one where i’d be doing something that I had no previous experience with and fumbling through it… no matter how much I ‘enjoyed’ it.

MissAnthrope's avatar

Yes, people do wait and not all of them are overly religious. This is sort of a complicated issue. On the one hand, sex is an integral part of who we are as beings and for the most part, I don’t think pre-marital sex is really that big of a deal. On the other hand, I do think that sex tends to be WAY better in a committed relationship or with someone you deeply care about. I have had hot uncommitted sex, but definitely in terms of numbers, the best sex I’ve had has been because I was emotionally involved with the person.

I have pretty liberal views on sexuality and as a biologist, I can’t help but see us as animals with very real, strong sexual and reproductive urges. Refraining from having sex (especially when partnered) is, in my eyes, fairly unnatural and goes against some very intense biological urges. I just finished “The Naked Ape” by Desmond Morris, in which he echoed what I’ve felt for a long time, that individuals attempting to abstain in the long-term (laypeople, nuns, priests, monks, etc.) are truly swimming against the current and fighting a very difficult battle. It’s abnormal and very difficult for a human being to not satisfy their sexual urges. I personally feel that a religious vow of chastity is a recipe for disaster, in that we pit our brains against an ingrained biological drive. We may have big, amazing brains, but I would place my money on the biological drive any day. Keep in mind that I mean this in scientific terms, this is not a personal judgement… i.e. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to do so, but looking at the result of thwarted sexual urges (sexual abuse, etc.) that comes out of men trying their damndest to stay celibate.. it’s fairly obvious to me that it’s an incredibly difficult ideal to live up to.

I would advise young people to wait until they’re 18, simply for the fact that they’re young, inexperienced, and likely to make a rash decision without realizing how it may affect them later.

Bri_L's avatar

I am trying to think of the reasons for waiting for sex before marriage. There is religion. There is concern for possible pregnancy as a result. There is sexually transmitted diseases.

I did not wait for marriage. I did wait until I was emotionally ready. Until I was mature enough to cope with what could happen. Mature enough to take the proper precautions.

MissAnthrope's avatar

@Bri – My ex was raised Catholic and originally was waiting until she married. She dated a man for a total of 3 years, eventually they got engaged, then they cracked. She now is no longer religious as she once was, mainly spiritual. She still is not interested in sleeping with people she has little emotional attachment to. So that’s one reason.

writerini's avatar

I for one, do beileve that we should wait. Sex was created for marriage by God and was intended to be enjoyed within that boundary. I am only 13, but don’t you think that your future husband/wife will feel wasted, because they know that you have shared the special experience of sex with another person?

MissAnthrope's avatar

@writerini – I respect your religious views, but you are a bit young, I think, to have a firm grasp on the big picture. It’s good that you’re going to wait until you’re older.. I think you will be glad you did.

Not everyone is Christian or shares your religious views, so not everyone is going to share this belief. For one, what many people need to learn is that it’s entirely okay to disagree, as long as each of us is allowed our beliefs.

To answer your question, no, I don’t think my future wife will feel wasted. My future wife will likely bring along some experience of her own, and that’s okay with me. What’s most important to me is that we are able to share that special experience together, now, and that we do it exclusively with each other. Whatever happened in the past does to some extent shape us today, but the past is the past.

Mrs_Dr_Frank_N_Furter's avatar

I am. That i why I wear a purity ring on my ring finger. Well it’s actually kinda confusing because I use it as a sign that I am married to Tim Curry, but it also means that I won’t have sex UNTIL I’m married…which I already am…he just doesn’t know it yet…so yes?

nayeight's avatar

@ writerini: Sex was not created for marriage by god. People can say all sorts of religious bs, but that one just does not make sense. Sex is how we reproduce, it had to come first. Do you think that god would make marriage when there was no reproduction? Of course not.

TheHaight's avatar

All throughout high school my belief was to wait until marriage to have sex. I even remember telling guy’s my beliefs and wouldnt hear from them anymore. It hurt that someone wouldnt want me because I wouldnt give it up. In a way I’m glad that I followed abstinence, because it shielded me from getting hurt, or used. Towards the end of my senior year I met an amazing, mature guy. We got to know eachother, and he respected my beliefs. You know were this is going…when we were together for almost a year and I was 18, and matured I lost it to him. I dont regret it at all, and were going on 3 1/2 years. What I’m saying is that its okay to believe whatever you want to believe, just know life is short and keep an open mind like I and others have.

Stocky's avatar

Personally I believe great sex is such an important part of a relationship I could not imagine marrying someone without seeing if we were sexually compatible first.

Bri_L's avatar

It doesn’t always help to look into it before either. You can be very compatible before hand only to find out that after 11 years of marriage that “some degree of frequency” translates to 3 times every 5 years…...

but perhaps I bitterly digress.

My point is there is no guarantee either way. You need to listen to you.

Knotmyday's avatar

Sex is pervasive. You cannot escape it!
Even the choice to abstain is a sexual decision, whether under a religious mantle or not.
Either way, I urge you to watch out for sailors, the dirty buggers. They go from port to port.

noraasnave's avatar

Sex is by nature a very risky proposition. With a total stranger sex can be very exhilarating but it is also very dangerous. In the bounds of a monogamous relationship it is more safe, but safeness can breed complacency. To bring this into the realm of this conversation sex is a gift of sorts. It is the ultimate vulnerability and the gives way to the ultimate acceptance from another person. Does anyone wait till marriage to have sex anymore? Of course, but it takes training from childhood; teaching one to respect what they have (sex, potential, morality, honor) and not to give it away for the price of a date and a few alcoholic beverages, but to save it, and invest this priceless treasure in a relationship that is worthy and has a good chance of being successful. Sex seems to be viewed as a inexpensive toy that only adults can play with. It is treated like a game that you can play with anyone, but on the contrary it is a precious, priceless gift that should only be carefully invested, not squandered. The more sex is given out the less it is worth, and the more baggage one acquires, but it is true one gains experience during the process. Does the experience one brings outweigh the baggage? That is something that can only be assessed on a case by case basis, in my experience the baggage creates a negative in the relationship that the sexual experience in not able to overcome. Hope this helps.

tinyfaery's avatar

If sex is a gift, who is it from? Sex is nature. Sex has no inherent worth, it is worth what it is at the time (love, comfort, enjoyment, etc.), and nothing else. I can’t squander sex, its not like I have a limited amount to go around. Not everyone has sexual “baggage”. I don’t carry my past partners on my back with me everywhere I have sex. I got married at 27, and had past partners, but that in no way polluted my experience with my spouse. Sex is a physical act; no need to put sooo much thought into it.

noraasnave's avatar

@tinyfaery: Sex is a gift that each individual person gives to the other person. I apologize for not explaining the ‘baggage’ comment completely; I was not saying that you carry baggage into sex with each new person, It is fact that one generally carries the emotional baggage of the failed relationship into the new relationship, if proper time is not taken to heal (generally considered to be 6 months-1year). All that you carry into the sexual relationship is your experience good or bad, if sex for you is just a physical act. I know that one can bring all of oneself into sex, and in a sense sex strokes the soul. Sex can be a very shallow act only involving bodies with ones mind and emotions elsewhere. Sex can also be the culmination of our thoughts, feelings, and bodies united in action together in a joint goal. That is the kind of sex I strive for…but in reality, most people don’t find THAT kind of sex. That is the kind of sex one is trying to achieve when one decides to discipline oneself to wait. I appreciate your thoughtful questions. Who wants their S.O. to be thinking of someone else (previous sexual partner) when they are having sex with you? To pull back to the question a bit more for a second; the concept of try it before you buy it really flies in the face of what relationships are about, especially marriage. It is a whole hearted commitment to love and accept the person “in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer til death do we part”. How do you ‘try out’ a relationship of that magnitude without the unconditional commitment? Then you have the concept of ‘why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?’ If you get sex with the person, then why commit to love them no matter what? Dang it…more questions. Um…sorry. ;)

lefteh's avatar

@noraasnave: How can you not try it before you buy it when it comes to marriage?
What is dating? What is cohabitation? Getting a pet together? Meeting the parents?
You’re trying out the relationship when you do those things. You’re testing the waters. Will this work? Are we really compatible?
Sex is another aspect of the relationship that needs to be explored before you tie the knot.

noraasnave's avatar

@lefteh: Let’s say you have a million dollars, now for the sake of discussion let’s say you wanted to invest it. You want to make a good long term investment. Do you hand the money over the the first investment firm that you feel good about? Would you get every scrap of information about them first? A smart investor would look at every document put out by that company for the life of the company because one wants to make sure that they are picking the right company to invest in. I agree that meeting parents and trying out a relationship are very important first steps to finding out who a person is. There are many others: Premarital counseling to see if you are compatible personality types, watch the person around children, watch the person at church, watch the person first thing in the morning, watch the person before they go to bed, listen to the person, and read what the person writes, read the books the other person reads, discuss politics, find out how the person likes their eggs, watch how the person eats. I realize that this sounds almost like you are stalking them and that many will find this small list too comprehensive. Wouldn’t you be close to stalking a company before you gave them your million dollars? Now I go back to my previous premise for a moment. Sex is made priceless or significantly cheapened by the amount of times that you give it away. Where will you invest your sex? In a long term relationship that you have test drove in every way but sex? Or are you going to start having sex right away as if that will tell you something about that person’s long range potential? It is common knowledge that dating and cohabitation in the short term don’t allow people to be themselves the way marriage does. If either person doesn’t have the unconditional acceptance and love of the marriage relationship are they going to be the person they are warts and all? In the long term cohabitation becomes very similar to marriage after 10 years or so (average example) and in many states you are considered to be married by law (see common law marriage). Marriage is a very fragile relationship these days why make it more fragile by not checking in the most important ways to see if you want to invest yourself (sex)? If they accept you sexually without REALLY knowing you does that you give you an indication that they will accept you the same way in all other areas of your relationship? Why not do some checking before you jump in the sack with them? I don’t understand why sex has to be checked out before ‘tying the knot’. The majority of people have sexual organs. The organs generally work (at least that is what I am assuming based on this topic). Sex works in such a way that just about anyone can do it. The key to consistently good sex is a good relationship. You can certainly talk about sex and whether they have any major complications or not. Having a good mature, healthy relationship I.E. friendship is the part that most people don’t understand. Thanks for the asking those insightful questions!

tinyfaery's avatar

I’ll say it again. Sex is not cheapened, nor does it lose its significance every time you have it. That would mean even married couples have cheap insignificant sex, since, hopefully, they are having it often. And how do you invest sex? The value of sex exists in the moment one is having it, and no other time. Because when you are not having sex, well your not having it, and thus there is nothing to value.

And you can have a mature healthy relationship without being married. Just ask all those couples who have been together forever, and are still not married. Are their relationships, sexual or otherwise, less significant than those of a married couple?

And, since it sounds like you never had pre-marital sex, what do you know about its quality or meaning for others?

noraasnave's avatar

@tinyfaery: Interesting conclusions that you have come to about me. I am not taking the bait. I will put more thought into my next response and try to put less words ;)

lefteh's avatar

@noraasnave: You raised some very good points, but I’m on my way out. I want to return to them when I get back.
For now…
Quote: “Sex works in such a way that just about anyone can do it.”
Of course anyone can do it. If you can put a pickle back in the pickle jar you can have sex.
But can you do it well? Can you do it in a way that heightens the electricity and compassion of the relationship? In my mind, the ability for two lovers to be able to have compassionate and exciting sex is key to a lasting, healthy relationship.
I think where we differ, and please do correct me if I’m wrong, is that you see sex as a biological function enjoyed between life mates, whereas I see it as not only a biological function, but as an important emotional and psychological part of any healthy, long-term relationship.

noraasnave's avatar

@lefteh: Thank you, your comments are too kind.

Quote: “Can you do it in a way that heightens the electricity and compassion of the relationship? In my mind, the ability for two lovers to be able to have compassionate and exciting sex is key to a lasting, healthy relationship.” I contend that anyone can learn how to completely surprise a sexual partner in an explosively good way.

Sex is not what we are having a problem with in our society, it is fun and easy to learn. Relationships are the problem (i.e. divorce, infidelity, single parents,etc.) We have sex down to a science, we have learned a lot from our 20–100 partners each. Many of us could teach a college class on sexual positions, birth control methods and devices, close calls, and kinky ideas and fill it with practical course ware and the labs would be great.

In my earlier post I wasn’t trying to say that sex is simply a biological function, I was emphasizing that sex is not a tough part of a relationship to perfect.

Theoretical situation: A guy marries a girl. The girl says to the guy that she will do anything sexually that he wants to do. The guys tells her the same thing. The communicate and do exactly as they say. Sometimes the guy is a slow learner, sometimes the girl is a slow learner. They are patient with each other because they understand that they have to learn as they go. This is ideal. The concepts of sex are not hard to understand. As in this simplified situation; if the relationship is mature and healthy then the sex is the easy part.

The variable in the equation that causes us problems is communication, people rush into a sexual relationship without making sure that they can live with and forgive the other person’s issues. Then they get married because of great sex, but without the other very important qualities the sex goes away because the relationship isn’t mature enough to support it.

I would agree that sex is a very important component of any relationship that wants to make it to long term status. I would just point out that sex in a long term relationship is the result of a the other important qualities (unselfishness, patience, communication, fidelity, tenacity, did I say patience already?...).

Sex in the short term relationship in contrast is very appealing because there doesn’t have to be any of the qualities of a good relationship. All you need is two or more willing people.

Each type has its risks and rewards…but I am beginning to digress, if I didn’t earlier ;)

Back to the main question (I think I got lost somewhere): “Does anyone wait to have sex until they’re married anymore?” Yes

“Why?” Because they want to guarantee that they have a good solid relationship before they make it sexual. Because if you have an awesome relationship, you are going to have awesome sex.

“Does it mean that one has to wait to have sex until marriage to have an awesome relationship and awesome sex?” Nope, proper preparation for marriage increases your chances of selecting your mate even without “trying it before you buy it” (I am going to ask a question about that little phrase later)

lefteh's avatar

Noraasnave: First of all, another great response. You’ll make a great addition to the collective :)
Anyway, I don’t disagree that the lovers should wait until they are in a long-term, committed relationship and after they have tested many other aspects of the relationship. The relationship should be solid before the sex begins, but I think that marriage is an outdated way of defining that boundary. It’s up to the lovers to decide when their relationship is mature and solid enough for sex — marriage is not always the right time.

chutterhanban's avatar

Hey everyone. I think I’ve waited long enough to craft my next constructive response! I’m going to go ahead and paraphrase noraasnave… I would encourage any willing person to wait to have sex until marriage. Because, to get married is to say that you have great communication and commitment skills… and those are the keys to great sex. Even though you may disagree, if you think about it, it makes sense. Those are the skills one gains by working with multiple partners or as you go. Either way, it will take the same amount of time to “get better.”

EDIT: I’m going to leave that last paragraph up there, but I’m debating whether or not to delete it because that’s not my agenda. Curiosity was my reason for asking, but I would also love to talk to anyone about the possibility of staying abstinent. I have waited and plan on waiting until December 20th, 2008! I made a commitment to Jesus Christ to stay sexually pure. I’m not here to make everyone feel bad if they haven’t, but I would say that since I’m in the minority, I wanted to see if I could show people a different way that some may not think about! I hope that’s okay with you guys!

lefteh's avatar

Just curious: what’s the significance of December 20?

jlm11f's avatar

@ lefteh – i am assuming that’s the day she gets married, no? :P

delirium's avatar

oy, I need to come back to this when I’m at my computer.

noraasnave's avatar

@lefteh: Marriage is the only level of commitment that can support consistent sex. It is an oath that two people take to become committed to each other. Sex destroys relationships that can’t support its weight.

@chutterhanban: I believe you have established a healthy goal for yourself, you must have quite a good man, to temporarily sacrifice his ‘animal instincts’ to respect you. God bless you both. Nothing feels as good as staying pure and innocent.

gailcalled's avatar

There are a lot of deeds to be done between pure and innocent and intercourse. What exactly is chastity these days?

chutterhanban's avatar

I doubt anyone cares too much, but I am actually a 22-year-old male! Happy fluthering!

noraasnave's avatar

DOH!!! I guess I should have read your profile….profusely sorry….argh.

lefteh's avatar

Not that a committed gay couple couldn’t sacrifice their ‘animal instincts’ to respect each other and stay pure and innocent ;-)

noraasnave's avatar

no…er…of course not!

lefteh's avatar

For some reason, I sense some sarcasm.

MissAnthrope's avatar

@noraasnave – To play devil’s advocate, what about people that aren’t allowed to marry, such as gay people? There are many couples out there that have been together for decades, unmarried (at least in the eyes of the law), and they have sex. Not to mention I happen to know some straight couples that chose not to marry, but have been together for decades, as well. It doesn’t seem to affect them.

I don’t know, I think you should qualify ‘nothing feels as good..’ with ‘in my opinion’. Not everyone shares those views and I think many people would disagree. It’s good for you because of your particular views, experiences, and spirituality.. but like many things, what’s good for one may not be good for another.

Another point is like what gailcalled said.. what exactly is purity and chastity these days, anyway? My ex was with a guy for 3 years, during which they were waiting to have intercourse until marriage, but they did just about everything else. Technically, they were being chaste, but in reality, they weren’t. So part of me thinks that some people congratulate themselves too much about staying ‘pure’, when in reality, they’re just bending the rules to satisfy themselves.

Lastly, I’m Wiccan and for us, sex is a rite of pleasure that honors God. I will qualify that and say that sex honors God when no one is being harmed/damaged (psychologically or otherwise), but it’s been used in the past in rituals to raise energy, to celebrate our bodies and each other.. what it boils down to is that God gave us our bodies and we believe we’re meant to enjoy them in all sorts of ways. Some might get pleasure from running or playing sports, singing, playing an instrument, debating, or working with their hands.. these activities are also Godly in that we celebrate the different ways our bodies work. We believe God wants us to be happy and satisfied, and that sex celebrates pleasure and our connection to our partner.

gailcalled's avatar

I have several hetero friends who have been together, monogamous,faithful and unmarried, since forever and have adult children.

I also have several close gay friends who have been together, monogamous and faithful for over 15 years.

They are all law-abiding, social and political activists, environmentalists, caring and loving people.

noraasnave's avatar

@alenaD: You are well suited to play the role of devil’s advocate! Sauciness is your forte! Thank you for expanding this topic out a bit more. Thank you for being open about your beliefs and being open about where we don’t appear to see eye to eye. Now for the answer…I am afraid my answer will be underwhelming but here goes:

Being sheltered as I was, and as I am, I am thoroughly under educated in matters of other than heterosexual law or ethics. I honestly haven’t forged an opinion. If I open my mouth on this topic (metaphorically, of course) I would almost instantly end up with both feet in it.

In response to your request that I “qualify ‘nothing feels as good…’ with ‘in my opinion’. I figured that since I am posting; I am sharing my opinion unless I give a quote with sources, as some of the answerers above aptly have. I would be applying ‘imho’ to nearly every answer I give.

I would be interested to hear in what way sexual purity is bad or wrong.

Innocence in a sexual sense is an understated blessing that society is so ready to get rid of at the first opportunity, and then convince other innocent ones to do the same. Virginity is ridiculed. This seems wrong to me, I am well acquainted with being on politically incorrect side of this debate.

Thank you for sharing your religious views of sex and God. Though I have heard of the Wiccan religion before, I didn’t know the requisite religous views of sex and life.

@gailcalled: I never stated that heterosexual couples that wait until marriage to have sex are entitled to a happiness that homosexuals can’t have. My apparent awkwardness to the subject raised by lefteh was due to my inability to address that particular issue due to my ignorance on the topic of homosexual happiness.

Abstinence is a good tool for any relationship considering a deep, long term commitment.

MissAnthrope's avatar

@noraasnave – I don’t know if that’s a compliment, sauciness being my forte, but either way, I got a kick out of it. You have a point about the opinion thing.. and I apologize. I am passionate about the freedom of choice, and the fact that one path is not right for everyone, as taught in Wicca, and I do get worked up when I hear people talking in absolutes.

I have a lot of tolerance for different paths and beliefs. Even though I was raised in a home that occasionally mocked Christianity, I have lived in the South for many years and have learned to be tolerant and accepting of Christians. I will say that it gets difficult sometimes having one religion in my face all the time, especially when many of those followers leave no room for different belief systems.

I wouldn’t say abstinence is bad, as I’m at a loss to think of how it could harm someone.. I just think it’s unnatural. Now, I’m not a super-promiscuous person, and I do encourage young people to wait until they’re at least 18, if only so they can make a more informed, mature decision. However, if you’re an adult in a committed relationship, especially one that is headed for a union/marriage.. my viewpoint is why would you deprive yourselves of something beautiful that God intended?

I’m curious, never having read the entire Bible.. does the Christian God command abstinence before marriage, or was that a human-created concept?

tinyfaery's avatar

Homosexual happiness? I’m very dismayed.

noraasnave's avatar

@AlenaD:sauciness is always a compliment, silly! Does the Christian God command abstinence? I don’t know…let me ask Him. Do you have his phone number handy? Just a sec…here it is…8675309. I am going to go ahead and award you a ‘10’ on the very saucy meter! That bait doesn’t work you have to try something different. I think you have another good lurve generating question to ask the collective! (now I am being saucy!)

@tinyfaery: I perceive that you are dismayed at my word choice. You really can’t see how conflicted I was trying to say the ‘right’ word that wouldn’t offend. I wasn’t sure if ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ was the best word to use. Perhaps that would be a question to ask the collective.

tinyfaery's avatar

My point was “the gays” do not necessarily have ideas of happiness that are different from your own, or anyone else. Gay people aren’t some alien life form.

noraasnave's avatar

@tinyfaery: I haven’t ever been around gay people. (I have spent the last 16 years in the United States Marine Corps). I don’t avoid them. I don’t seek to distance myself from them. I honestly haven’t run into any. I would rather Err on the side of caution and ignorance, instead of on the side of offense. I see them on TV about as often as aliens.

I meant no offense. I don’t understand the dynamics of the gay lifestyle. What makes a gay couple happy would be different that what makes a heterosexual couple happy. I am just barely able to grasp and apply what makes a heterosexual couple happy, so gay happiness isn’t yet i my scope.

tinyfaery's avatar

No. It wouldn’t necessarily be different; varied yes, but that is the same with the breeders as well.

And, uh , I’d say you have known gay people, you just didn’t know it. There are gays in the military ya know. Just because a man doesn’t sing show tunes, doesn’t mean he isn’t gay.

lefteh's avatar

“What makes a gay couple happy would be different that what makes a heterosexual couple happy.”

Do you really think that?

noraasnave's avatar

@ lefteh: I guess it depends on what level we are referring to. I could make some good educated guesses because gays are humans. In my previous post I was referring to the level that fits the context of my post. I try to make things match like that it is really cool and saucy.

@tinyfaery: True enough, gay people are everywhere at every level undetected. Scaaary. Watch out!!! I will stay alert, don’t worry. You have to watch out for the double negatives, did you mean to say, “Just because a man does sing show tunes does mean he is gay”?

lefteh's avatar

@noraasnave: If you’re interested, I can tell you that yes, gay people want the same thing anybody else might want out of a relationship. Gay relationships are no different than straight relationships. Two committed people who want affection, respect, and compassion. The standards are the same, the benefits are the same, the obstacles within the relationship are the same.
Also, your comment about gay people everywhere being scary is pretty unfounded and ridiculous. And I think tinyfaery said exactly what she meant.

chutterhanban's avatar

@ AlenaD: Just in case you really did want to know the answer to your question, God does command abstinence before marriage. The command is phrased in one way like this: 1 Thessalonians 4:3. Now remember—I’m not here to look down on you if you don’t believe it, but there’s the answer!

MissAnthrope's avatar

I really did want to know. Thanks. :)

Bri_L's avatar

@chutterhanban- If I may ask, where does the bible define sex before marriage as not moral. That quote does show the demand for sexual morality but what does that refer to?

lefteh's avatar

I had the same question. Is it one of those things that’s implied?

waterskier2007's avatar

to everyone that says sex is a gift. well its my gift and im gonna give it to whoever i feel like. not saying im gonna go around slayin every vag i can find. but if i want to have sex i will/did. i think we place way too much importance on this idea of sex being a “gift”. and i dont mean to say that sex is not a powerful and important thing, but its not so powerful as to warrant us guarding it with everything we have

fryedoats's avatar

Why of course! I believe that there are still many responsible people, or people who have simply vowed to not have sex until they are married. I remember those Health class days….

LKidKyle1985's avatar

Hmm well this is a good question, I have done lots of stuff with a partner before, however I have never had sex. So I don’t really know where that lands me. I always call myself a dirty virgin. Anyways, The reason I never did was because she wanted to wait, so I just respected her and never did it. My logic was I will probably marry her sooner or later anyways, So whats the difference if I have sex Now, or later on. We did other stuff anyways so it wasn’t like there was no excitement. However, I probably would have done the “deed” as you put it, had she not objected….
However, now that’s all over with, I am glad that we didn’t because I have meet someone new since then and we are getting engaged soon (well the soon part is another story for another day), Anyways, turns out my sexual past was really important to this new girl, and she was really happy to hear that I never had sex either. It turns out this kind of stuff is important to a lot of people before you get married. I just read another question posted by a fellow flutherer (?) talking about his fiances sexual past and how it really bothers him.
So I guess even though I would have sold out and had sex had given the opportunity, I am really glad that I didn’t and can share this experience with someone who really cares about me and I think is really special. And yeah, you can date someone for a year or 10 years and really care about them and they can be really special too. I guess that’s a judgment call for the two of you, However I can tell you that who ever they are, if you don’t end up getting married to them, they won’t be as special as the person you do end up marrying. This depends on how much you actually value marriage though, but since you are asking a question of this nature, I am assuming you do value it….
So anyways, that’s my point of view on it. Maybe it doesn’t fit you or your values, but I can say for sure there are no regrets with the decisions I have made regarding this issue.

ravenhon's avatar

I wouldn’t buy a car without test driving it first!

nastinupe1's avatar

@ everyone

1) Sex is not a religious act as someone mentioned eariler. Marriage was created to control it.

2) Having multipule partners doesn’t dilute the experience.

3) Getting to know someone includes sex… period point blank.

4) Sex is important in a healthy relationship. (before and during marriage)

5) @ lfteh

” Theoretical situation: A guy marries a girl. The girl says to the guy that she will do anything sexually that he wants to do. The guys tells her the same thing. The communicate and do exactly as they say. Sometimes the guy is a slow learner, sometimes the girl is a slow learner. They are patient with each other because they understand that they have to learn as they go. This is ideal. The concepts of sex are not hard to understand. As in this simplified situation; if the relationship is mature and healthy then the sex is the easy part.”

very naieve statement. It’s not that easy. You are forgetting that the two individuals must first get to know themselves before knowing what they want from each other. If they are both virgins then they don’t know what they even want yet.

Their sexual birth won’t even start until after marriage, after which, they can grow in two totally different directions.

Your assumptions that sex is just as easy as “point n shoot” or “plug n play” show that you don’t know much about the subject. You are intelligent, however, you are also a little naieve… in a cute and innocent way.

6) People can stay married with an average sexual relationship, however, they will be missing out on an even better overall relationship had they taken the time to find out what they really want sexually in a partner and if that partner will share those things with them. And you have to realize that your sexual growth can and will be stunted by having only one partner. It’s like having one job your entire life from age 6 and never going to school. If all you did was cut grass from age 6 to age 60 then you will never know if you could have been a good doctor or accountant. You will never even know that you missed out. And you may still be a good lawn mower, however, you could have been the guy to find a cure for cancer if given the opportunity.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

1. Sex is a religious act if they believe it to be, not everyone is a heathen like yourself. It is rediculous that you sit here and try and tell anyone what is or isn’t religious. And If marriage “was” created to simply control sex, which I think is a little outlandish to say in the first place, Sex has serious consequences and implications and causes plenty of trouble even With the institution of marriage in place. So controling it a little probably isn’t such a bad idea to start with.
2. If you are fine knowing that your future wife has slept with 20 other guys before you, then thats fine. And if she is fine with with you sleeping with 20 other women before her, thats okay too. Though Not everyone is okay with this, and it leads you to wonder what type of person has sex with so many people before settling on any of them. Not everyone desires sexual experience in a future wife/husband, And having multiple partners doesnt improve the experience as a rule either.
3. This statement seems to be a very shallow statement, Sex is something people do, not something people Are. I have many close friends of mine who I know very well and would trust my life with, I have not had sex with any of them. The same is true for someone you love.
4. This statement is just flat out not true, You can have a very healthy relationship exspecially when the two of you decide that sex is something you want to save. It just takes maturity. Though it is def important during a marriage, so I agree with portion of your statement
5. Your theoretical situation has a good point, and maybe 2 people would grow in totally two opposite directions. However, These must be very drastic directions for it to be the sole reason their relationship failed. Marriage is about giving and taking, and believe it or not, sometimes you should sacrafice what you desire the most in sex so that you can give her what she desires most, and vice versa. You do not have to be 100% satisfied 100% of the time with sex with someone, and if you spend your entire life finding someone who can achieve these standards, you either will never find her, or find someone who is sacraficing all the time for you and probably miserable anyways. Again I will say, sex is not who you are, its what you do.
6. To play with your analogy, If you had to settle on one job your entire life, I don’t know why anyone would settle for cutting grass. And also, if you spend most of your time trying out many different careers, then that is even longer you are taking to get to the top of your career field you eventually choose, which is where the real benefits are. Even if you do settle for being a lowly land scaper, if you dedicate yourself to your trade, you will make well enough money and be satisfied. You do not have to go to law school and practice law for a few years to say, I don’t want to be a lawyer, or learn the formulas an accountant must know to realize you hate math. So while your analogy proves a very narrow point, It is wrong because if you take the time to investigate each potential career without actually doing each one, you could probably pick one that suited you.

lefteh's avatar

@nastinupe1: noraasnave said that, not me.

gailcalled's avatar

I believe (since I am doing this from memory and not checking) that marriage was a financial and business arrangement until recently. Families merged in order to consolidate wealth, land and power. Many of the
French, for example had (and have) their cinq-à-sept for sexual liaisons – both men and women. It was understood.

Google the history of marriage as a contract. We’ve come a long way, babies, I think.

delirium's avatar

Lkid: Sexual activity doesn’t necessarily lead to promiscuity. I’d care if they slept with 20 people before me. One or two I wouldn’t have a problem with. (They’d still have to get tested first, virgin or not.)

LKidKyle1985's avatar

Delirium, I agree, I think everyone has their own standard for what level of sexual activity is acceptable before settling on one person. My point with that arguement is that having sex with many partners could dilute the experience. Like say you do save it for that special person, but you find out that special person didn’t and slept around quiet a bit. For many that kind of ruins it a bit, atleast in some way. and that works vic versa as well.
Plus I do not think not having sex before marriage is the right thing for every single person and couple, I just think the arguement for not having pre marital sex is a very good one that I have seen almost no one take up in this thread. And when i see people proclaim that sex is absalutly necessary to be healthy and have a normal relationship and know what you want when you do get married, That just isn’t true. Sex is a very complicated thing, and you don’t have to have it to make the right decisions in your life.

delirium's avatar

If it dilutes the experience, it’s purely the fault of the dilutor, not the dilutee.

And few people are taking up the argument for abstinence because very few of us think its a good idea.
I have yet to see a truly good reason for not having sex before marriage.

Also, you have no right to be calling anyone a heathen. End Of Story.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

I have not seen a truly good reason to have sex before marriage either. Sex can have very serious consequences, even if you do take every precaution. Where as the worst consequence of not having sex is, well, you don’t have sex…. I mean, sex can result into the life time commitment of having a kid or contracting an STD, Wouldn’t it be prudent to get a life time comittment from someone before doing something that could result in a life time comittment.

Knotmyday's avatar


For a non-heathen(?), you have not read your Bible much. Familiar with the term “concubine?”
Read the Book of Judges. Read the book of Ruth, interesting take on marriage there. Abraham and Hagar. King David, and (drum roll) King Solomon. Many, many other examples. God appears to be less concerned with consentual sexual activity than he is with the way we treat our fellow man/woman.

Men and women have sex, and they will keep having sex, and falling in and out of love until we evolve beyond the proclivity or our star supernovas. It is a natural part of life, and if you find the idea distasteful, prepare yourself for a lifetime of opinionation, cross-opinionation and conflict sans dénouement.

gailcalled's avatar

“sans dénouement.” – I swoon.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

@knotmyday, I only called nastinupe1 a heathen to point out that he was giving an answer that totally disregarded religion, when clearly for billions of people in this world, religion is a factor in their decisions about sex. I wasn’t trying to put myself above him as some sort of authority on religion.
And I agree with the idea that god is more intersted in how we treat eachother than strict guidlines about sex. Which is why I think people need to evaluate their own values and make their own decision. I myself even said I would have sold out and had sex had the circumstances been right. I actually never attempted to use god as a reason to not have sex before marriage. There are actually very good, and logical, reasons to not have sex that have nothing to do with religion, which I have mentioned.
My entire rant started when I saw someone say what basically sums up as, Sex is required to make good decisions in your life about relationships. Clearly, this is not true. You can make good decisions without sex, And I have seen people cause much more problems in their lives By having sex, than by not having sex.
I don’t think having sex before marriage is distasteful, I do think that the notion that its required is however.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

or also the notion that no sex before marriage is a “bad idea” is just not true. It isn’t a bad idea, it is a good idea, just not right for every single person and couple.

MissAnthrope's avatar

P.S. You probably shouldn’t use the word “heathen” unless it’s used ironically.
A) “Heathen” has a way of discrediting the speaker before they even get their full point across.
B) The word’s original meaning is different from the way it is used today and is, in my opinion, rather outdated. I think “non-Christian” gets the point across pretty well these days without ruffling any feathers.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

1st off he already had his full point accross
2nd, calling him a heathen was meant to be satirical, to point out his total disregard for religion on a topic which religion is often a major influencer.
And finally, It ruffled my feathers to see someone claim that his values are the only ones that matter and if you disagree then you are wrong. My entire arguement is that
A. there is a perfectly good arguement for abstinence, and
B. It isn’t the right decision for everyone.
so I intentionally ruffled a few back.

chutterhanban's avatar

I think it would be helpful for everyone to look at what happens to people who say the unpopular on this page.

For example, when LKidKyle1985 called the other guy a “heathen” to display his disregard for religion (seemingly Christianity… though I may be wrong) he was ridiculed by many posts. However, when the person discredited all religion in general, he is defended.

Just be careful to not accuse the “religious” of being narrow-minded or insensitive before evaluating the viewpoints of the “non-religious” as well.

I don’t mean this to be a post that people respond to and fight against, but just something to kind of calm the storm. Hopefully some of the emotional smoke will clear so we can all talk more fluently!

MissAnthrope's avatar

Who discredited all religion in general? I keep rereading the above comments and I’m not seeing it.

chutterhanban's avatar

Sorry, that wasn’t worded too well. My fault.

I was speaking of nastinupe1, but I should have said: “the person who didn’t allow for sex to be a religious act to some people.” I apologize to nastinupe1 and anyone else for exaggerating. Carry on!

noraasnave's avatar

People are never going to agree with abstinence. We don’t like to say ‘no’ to our urges. We don’t like to quit smoking, quit having sex, quit drinking (alcohol), eat less or go to the gym. If the society decided to quit these things then health as a whole would increase exponentially.

We can all see the ideal lifestyle in our heads, but for the most part we cannot live it out in our lives. We are willing to trade ‘long life’ for the rush of cigarette, or the intense emotion and pleasure of sex for the security of Abstinence, and the ‘buzz’ of alcohol for the luxury of a fully functioning liver.

We each choose things that are ‘bad’ for us over what is ‘good’ for us most days. We call it living life to the fullest and enjoying our existence because it is so short.

I contend, in partial agreement with LilKidkyle, that there are healthy ways to live life to the fullest. Living life in a way that increases the risk of destroying oneself is not the only way to live.

We love instant gratification over long term satisfaction. This is okay, because we are free to do what we want. This might be a foundational reason why we are more apt to try it now instead of waiting.

I am glad that I don’t have any feathers to get ruffled…phew!

@Nastinupe: Thank you for the compliment on intelligence. I will take the naive comment as a compliment as well. I am not willing to take the risk to be ‘well-versed’ in some topics.

delirium's avatar

I don’t agree. You list all these bad things and group sex with that. It doesn’t deserve such bad company. Everything you’re talking about is a bad habit. Sex isn’t a habit. Sex is akin to drinking water… sure, some people find ways of getting around it and not directly doing it, but ultimately its not bad for your body and it will probably make you feel better.

noraasnave's avatar

@delirium: I see your point that none of these things are really bad unless moderation is disregarded for the sake of the ‘high’.

I disagree that sex is akin to drinking water. Water is a requirement for our bodies to function. Sex is not a requirement.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

Man where were you guys like 10 posts ago lol, I was starting to feel like this was a lets bash LKid thread. Its good to know that I am not completely alone on this subject and at least some of you guys can see where I am coming from with this stuff.
@delirium, I have to agree with noraasnave on your comment about water, unlike sex, water will not give you herpes or gonorrhea. You are right that its not necessarily bad for your body, But it def can be bad. People die from having sex, look at what is happening in South Africa right now. :(

LKidKyle1985's avatar

ah, after reading the entire thread, i see you guys were here about 60 posts ago, and i came in kind of late. ><

noraasnave's avatar

This is the way fluther works! Don’t fret, we need people to come in every so often and muddy the waters a bit. I am sure that when everyone is available this question will get much more discussion.

delirium's avatar

People can die from water too, if they’re not safe about it.

They can get diseases, parasites, poisons if they don’t carefully check the source and boil before drinking.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

yeah but water doesn’t also make babies lol. I guess my point is, just because something is natural to do, doesn’t by default make it a good thing. But I do see your point delirium. You can be very safe with sex and be okay.

Knotmyday's avatar


“We can all see the ideal lifestyle in our heads” could be construed as an extremely subjective generalization.

Perhaps the ideal lifestyle (to some) is a tobacco-free, tea-totalling abstinent life, rich in the joys of asceticism and self-denial.

To others, the ideal lifestyle would be led with a brandy snifter in one hand, a cigar in the other, and a trollop on either side.

A side note on healthy living- my paternal grandfather, who smoked, drank and cussed like a sailor (which he was) every day of his adult life, died at age 87 of surgery complications. The father of one of my best friends, who never smoked, never drank, was a dean of the church, and from all indications had sex only twice in his lifetime (to procreate) died at age 52 from a massive coronary on his way home from the gym. Just for perspective.

delirium's avatar

Water does have parasites.
Babies and parasites are actually pretty much the same thing to the human body.

MissAnthrope's avatar

LOL. ^^^ Man, that was such a great answer. I’d give you like 10 lurve if I could.

Pitting a strong biological drive against willpower is automatically a difficult situation. Don’t underestimate how strong certain drives are.. As a species, we have a NEED to procreate. Currently, we have such high population numbers that this drive is not as important in reality as it once was, but we have not yet evolved to match our technology. Meaning, because of modern medicine, we live longer, have better treatment for injuries, etc. that make having 12 kids sort of ridiculous these days. Not to mention most of us don’t live on farms where we require as much help as possible. In any case, our bodies don’t realize the world is plenty populated, and we continue on, having a distinct need to procreate.

As humans with formidable brains, we have learned to work around our drives that don’t always fit into the construct of societies we have built. Take a Sociology class, for instance, and you’ll likely learn that we have a lot of ideals in society that are terribly difficult (or impossible) to actually live up to. Ideals are nice and all, but if they aren’t working in practical terms, aren’t they kind of silly?

delirium's avatar

<3 thank you. I am quite proud of my metaphor, there.

chutterhanban's avatar

@ AlenaD: Could you bring that into a “thesis?”

MissAnthrope's avatar

Human bodies have not yet caught up to technological change; therefore, we still have the same animal drives we did hundreds to thousands of years ago. In addition, humans form societies that cherish and propagate many different ideals as an attempt to control behavior, thinking it will bring order to chaos. Some of these ideals are easy for most (e.g. an ideal citizen doesn’t kill or hurt people), others are unrealistic or not possible for many to attain (e.g. abstinence-only sex ed, or the idea that an ideal citizen marries for life and has 2.6 kids and a dog).

Our society and every other in the world has a long list of social ideals. Each society will have a portion of ideals that most attain and are happy with, but they also have some that don’t make sense for various reasons, including innate human nature.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

AlenaD that is a really good point, and is really interesting. Though I think that even if an ideal is very difficult (maybe even impossible) to adhere too, doesn’t make it silly. For example in western society most of us adhere to the ideas of the 10 commandments. And yes, we all fail to live up to these expectations. But, just because we all fail at never telling a lie, or never stealing doesn’t mean this idea is silly. I think the same applies to all the commandments (I am just using the commandments because they are a good set of rules we can easily refer to for debate) , and also when we talk about sex. Very few of us will ever achieve the goal of total abstinence. But it is something we should still strive for as a society. And until recently, it was the best way to prevent unwanted births and the spread of STDs, so it obviously had its benefits. Even with birth control, we all strongly recommend that peopel use things like condoms and birth control. And even this, many people fail to accomplish, it certaintly doesn’t make this a silly idea.
So I guess my point is, Even if we can not accomplish a goal of not having sex before marriage, When we do fail, we are usually a lot better off than having never tried in the first place.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

Or maybe a better way to put my point. Just because an ideal is unacheivable, doesn’t mean we should disregard it or minimilize its importance. It is something for us to strive toward to improve ourselves overall. This does not only apply to sex, but to everything we have in place.

delirium's avatar

I never steal, and I never intentionally tell a lie that isn’t a white one. I don’t listen to the ten commandments. I follow the affirmations of humanism, which make a lot more sense and are a lot more thorough than the ten commandments. I would never even come close to considering ten little rules to be these amazing expectations. They’re really quite simplistic and only function in the most animalistic of societites.

This might be some interesting input. Although we have a biological imperative to have sex, women (in particular) have a biological imperative to survive. Humans have the huge heads that don’t come out very well of our bipedal pelvis. NO OTHER ANIMAL has a more dangerous birth. Human infants are actually born premature in comparison to most other mammals. There’s a reason that a human infant can’t lift its own head up. We were naturally selected to give birth as early as possible because the babies head isn’t smooshy enough or small enough at any other time to come out the pelvis. In fact, the female pelvis has to SPLIT OPEN, tearing tendons and destroying bone to give birth.

Men are essentially sex machines, and are intended to be little more. The female human has much more to worry about with pregnancy. She absolutely needs massive amounts of iron to survive birth and lactation. The infant acts like a parasite and takes everything that it needs from here, usually leaving the mother in short supply. Many women, when pregnant, have a taste for red meat (the most iron rich thing there is) and the primitive woman needed to guarantee that the male would stick around and help her recover from giving birth.

I’m rambling, and could go on for pages… but that is where the origin of withholding sex until you’re POSITIVE that the male will stick around is. Religious names were given to it later.

Times are very different. A female doesn’t have to look at sex as something that will generate an infant, and she is no longer gambling for her own life…
Freedom of sexuality is something that has been made possible, same as the abundance of good tasting food.
I don’t hold to the primitive perception that sex is a gamble for my life. I never had any intention of waiting for marraige. I did, however, intentionally wait until I was 18 and therefore old enough to responsibly deal with a kid, if it came to that, which only has a .0000….. (lets just say) very small chance of happening.

There are ways of being intelligent about it without being archaic.

I am very proud of the decision I made. I waited until I was 18, was my SO of three years-ish (at the time) and used multiple kinds of protection anyways.

Rather than teaching abstinence, lets just tell kids to be responsible about it. They ARE going to have sex. It WILL happen. I think its a better idea to teach things that can save them than preaching ancient notions of perfection.

delirium's avatar

Also… there’s a difference between putting on a condom and actually knowing how to put on a condom. Most people don’t realize that lubricant is a requirement for safe sex with a condom. On the inside and outside of it.
Or they’re idiots and use something other than a water-based lube.

MissAnthrope's avatar

What delirium said. Marriage, originally, was simply a social affirmation of a pair-bond. The pair-bond was especially crucial for early humans, but it’s been important to women up until the sexual revolution, when reliable birth control became available en masse; women needed to know that their mate would be around to provide food and protect them and their children. Marriage eventually became intertwined with religion, and then, further down the road, marriage also became a legal institution.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

Well delirium, I used the ten commandments as an example because we are all familiar with them and they are easy to understand and associate with. And even though they are simple, they actually are amazing expectations, because even if they are simply stated, No one will adhere to them 100% of the time. I am not saying you, or anyone else in this thread are of low integrity individuals. Its just sooner or later, we all tell a lie, or do something out of character for what ever reason. That is part of being human.
And you know, I don’t want you to think that I am saying you are wrong. Your reasons for doing what you do are fine and are well thought out, I think if everyone had such responsible ideas about sex as you do, we would all be pretty well off. The only thing I really disagree with is when you say what amounts too abstinence has no place in today’s society. That just isn’t true. People do not have to have sex to be normal human beings. But, I am not saying sex is bad either. I think abstinence is important to teach only because it is an option, and it is a good option. But also, we need to teach about birth control too, because abstinence is not the only option. And I never said the other options were bad.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

One final thought on it, Sex is a very scary thing, it gives people the power to give life, and the chance to take their own life if they are not safe. Not everyone wants to take on these responsibilities. If we don’t teach abstinence as an option, then people would feel like they didn’t have much of an option to be normal, since without the idea of abstinence, sex would be the only way to be healthy, and have a normal relationship, and discover who you are. But since we have the idea of abstinence, we know that this just isn’t true. And we know there is an alternative, even if most people choose not to live up to it. The idea of abstinence gives us the power to say, I do not want to face these life long responsibilities/consequences without someone who is willing to make a lifetime commitment. So no matter what advances we make in society regarding sex, This is always something we should teach and keep in mind when deciding how we want to live our own lives.

noraasnave's avatar

@delirium: I appreciate and condone the well thought out example of abstinence that you portray. Abstinence played a big part in your life. Abstaining from sex until you were 18 is a very mature and healthy way to live. I respect your decision and wish the youth from today would make the same commitment.

Hindsight is 20/20. Do you believe you were ready to have children at 18 and take that risk? I look around and I don’t see many 18 year olds that are responsible enough to risk having children and that would know who they are as a person. You took all possible measure to protect yourself and your potential child from that risk and that is to be commended. Do you believe our the younger generation is ready to act as maturely?

You used abstinence to protect yourself and your potential child from a harder life, so why shouldn’t it be taught as an option? It worked for you. It takes discipline and maturity to put off having sex, but you obviously are very proud of it and you feel very good about it.

delirium's avatar

I was raised in an environment that taught me a large amount about sex, never placed particular expectations on me, was open to questions, and was prepared to give me whatever I needed to be safe whenever I wanted.

I think if every parent/teacher communicated things that well, people would be much more capable of making responsible decisions.

I do NOT believe in abstaining until marraige, but also don’t believe in having sex before 17–18 and I don’t believe in it being with someone who you’re not in a serious long term relationship with.
I do take sex very seriously. It has the potential to be an incredible experience between to lovers, and a person shouldn’t have to make a commitment of marriage to have that powerful connection. I don’t think its something to be taken lightly… but I would not go as far as declaring abstinence as the best thing.

MissAnthrope's avatar

I don’t think anyone said abstinence shouldn’t be taught as an option. Note that I said “abstinence-only education”, meaning I think it’s folly to teach kids that abstinence is the only way. It’s been proven that abstinence-only sex ed does not keep kids from having sex. It’s way smarter to teach young people all the options so they can make an informed decision. Pushing abstinence as the only way is dangerous; if you’re not teaching about how to properly use condoms or whatnot, there is a potential for harm later.

delirium's avatar

Also, most of the abstinence only teachers emphasize the idea that condoms don’t work, which just isn’t true! It also makes kids think that when they eventually do have sex, that it doesn’t matter if they use a condom or not.

noraasnave's avatar

It is important to point out that the HIV is smaller than the molecular holes in the latex of condoms. HIV can move through condoms to infect sexual partners.

Other diseases and human sperm are too ‘big’ to fit through the molecular holes in condoms. Which is why condoms are said to be 99% effective. Some protection is definitely better than no protection, but there is no protection as secure as abstinence. I don’t believe this should preclude all methods from being taught, because all methods are useful.

I am still not sure why parents aren’t teaching their children this stuff as yours did, Delirium.

delirium's avatar

that’s not true about HIV. You’re getting the wrong info.

iwamoto's avatar

maybe a christian source? ;)

LKidKyle1985's avatar

Yeah, I think you might have some bad info on HIV on that one noraasnave. I believe the reason they say condoms are only 99% effective against HIV is because of human error of some type. However, you are still right about the 99% effectiveness. and with about 6 billion people having sex, and 33.2 million people having aids/hiv world wide. 1% is still a lot of people at risk. Here is some info
However, even though condoms are pretty effective against aids/hiv, there are STDs where condoms do not help much at all. and that is HPV, the human papillomavirus
just read this
And also, gonorrhea can be spread via genital to mouth, or mouth to mouth, ect.
So yeah, there are probably more I could list that are easily contracted even if you do use a condom 100% of the time, but I am short on time. So yeah, as long as these viruses are around, Abstinence should always be taught as an alternative.

noraasnave's avatar

The vatican led me astray!!! link
I haven’t linked anything before I hope this works. It is an interesting claim. I am curious if the size of the HIV part is true.

I found out a lot in my search for information on this topic. I am going to do some research on the deep web to see if there is any scientific journals that address this.

Thanks for the correction.

MissAnthrope's avatar

Uh.. yeah.. I wouldn’t trust the Vatican for info on birth control.

I remember several years back, maybe in the 90’s, they took out a huge full-page ad in a major paper like the NY Times stating all this misinformation about how condoms don’t work, etc. etc. All lies, and boy, did it make me livid..

noraasnave's avatar

The WHO has this to say about the effectiveness of condoms. Link

80% effectiveness of Condoms to prevent aids isn’t quite as good as 99%. Can I trust the World Health Organization? They said results may be as low as 35% or as high as 90% effectiveness of condoms. That the method used for testing condoms effectiveness is observational lending to biased results.

MissAnthrope's avatar

Much better source.. however, they do state on that page that there is a lack of precision in that study, given that they can’t ethically use controls and such and are relying on self-reported data. They also mention the possibility for false information given to researchers, in that some people may try to look good and say they always use condoms, but don’t.

Of note, from that link:
Self-reported data always have the risk of being unreliable; and in this case there is no other means of confirming the findings.

This lack of precision is not the fault of the authors and their review. It is an inherent feature of the available studies. As such, it is not really appropriate to estimate condom effectiveness at 80%. While 80% is the best single estimate of effectiveness, it is also fair to say that the true measure of the effect could be as low as 35% or as high as 94%, as the authors state in the review.

From the CDC website:
Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate conclusively that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection.

CDC again:
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing heterosexual transmission is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission has been scientifically established in laboratory studies as well as in epidemiologic studies of uninfected persons at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected partners. The most recent meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of condom effectiveness was published by Weller and Davis in 2004. This analysis refines and updates their previous report published in 1999. The analysis demonstrates that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection against heterosexual transmission of HIV. It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV. The surest way to avoid transmission of HIV is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.

chutterhanban's avatar

Hi, delirium. Even though it’s quite obvious we completely disagree on everything brought up in this post, I just wanted to say hello and thanks for keeping things going in here!

Good night!

elchoopanebre's avatar

This has been a fun question to lurk.

wundayatta's avatar

One thing I have always thought humans have been rather callous about in the United States is our way of teaching our young about relationships. For the most part we give them lots of theoretical advice, and very little experiential learning. We may talk to them, or not, to warn them what not to do, but then we send them off on their own to experiment, and to reivent everything.

My critique is aimed mainly at the culture I come from: the culture of the United States. I know it is different in many other cultures.

I believe that our whole culture would improve in numerous ways if we could design some kind of non-sectarian, non-offensive experiential learning course that took our children through all aspects of being friends, thinking about love, having crushes, falling in love, staying in love, problem solving, working in groups, empathy…. Well, I’m sure there are quite a few things I left out, but that’s what came to mind off the top of my head. In addition, however, I even believe that over the course of a couple of generations, this kind of training would even make peace between nations easier to achieve. The skills necessary for good love-making are actually the same skills necessary for good peace-making, I think.

Before I go on, I have to say that I see a lot of problems in implementing a system of education like this. Mostly it is that every community has a different standard, if not two or three; notions of morality and religion and spirituality play a huge role in those things I mentioned; and the very notion of “relationship training” would be anethema to a significant portion of the population. “That’s the job of parents or religion,” many will say. So I understand that this idea is a non-starter for this country. As an aside, that’s typical for most of my ideas.

All right, so what does any of this have to do with the question? Well, part of relationship training is training in how to be physically comfortable with a partner and how to please a partner. Now, I know that in most cultures, if there is training in pleasure, then it is something that only professionals receive. I also know this idea sounds horrible and immoral to a significant portion of the population. I’m sure we all think the same thing of each other: “Oh dear, this person is SO misguided!” Perhaps we even think the other person is truly immoral.

Well, we have physical education classes. We have dance classes. We teach a lot of things having to do with physicality, but so many people are afraid of sensuality, and carnality, they they won’t even consider that it might be advantageous to our kids lives for them to have a really good understanding of what makes them feel good, and what makes potential partners feel good before they get involved in the activity. And further, they won’t understand how to keep themselves safe!

For those who think abstinence until marriage will keep you safe—well, I don’t know the data, and I’m not sure there is any credible data out there, but I don’t want to rely on an idea for safety. I want to rely on knowledge. In my experience, the more knowledgeable people are, the better they do. I can see no reason to exclude sexuality from this bromide.

So, for me, the potential benefits to a more conscious relationship training for our children would have enormous benefits. However, implementing such a program also faces enormous barriers. It is hugely controversial. However, from reducing strife on the playground, to reducing strife in the world, I think we’d all be really glad, in a century or so, that we had made this change.

wildflower's avatar

A novel idea to say the least! Just one question though: if you’re going to train the youngsters in all these things, what are they to do with their teenage years?

wundayatta's avatar

Oh, that’s a whole ‘nother discussion. However, they’d actually get to do something useful, which, oddly enough, would keep them out of love troubles. ‘Course, I don’t get to run the world, which makes all this moot.

wildflower's avatar

I don’t know…..Being a teenager without having your heart broken at least once and freaking out over whether you know what to do during a kiss or not… just wouldn’t be right!

wundayatta's avatar

I’m not eliminating crushes. Just making it easier for kids to navigate the troubles of love. Although, maybe it’s not a problem for you freaking out about a kiss, for me, it was horrible to feel unliked and unloved. Teenhood was the worst time of my life, and there’s no amount of money you could pay me to endure it again. I nearly didn’t survive it.

wildflower's avatar

It was both the most horrid and the most fantastic time and if it has to be all or nothing, I’ll take all!

wundayatta's avatar

Lucky you. My 20’s were the best time of my life.

wildflower's avatar

20’s: a close second. Things weren’t as new and exciting then…....damn! I hope it doesn’t end up being that the decades rank by first digit and it’s all down hill from here…....Great! Now I’m depressed!

wundayatta's avatar

LOL. How far along are you? I’ve gotten to my sixth decade. Ack. Sounds scary when I put it that way. I find that things can definitely be new and exciting. I also find that my level of desire hasn’t changed a bit since I was a teen. That’s both good and bad.

wildflower's avatar

Haha! You give me hope! I’m only a little in to “the 3rd” :)

MissAnthrope's avatar

You know, something just occurred to me… when they teach abstinence-only sex ed, do they tell the kids about how risky “everything but” can be?

There are all sorts of people waiting to have intercourse until marriage, that I know are being sexual in other ways (such as oral sex).. do they teach them to be safe during that?

As an aside, my 20’s were the best, most fun years of my life. I’m 31 now and I was really sad to see them go. However, I see my 30’s as the time where I get to reap the benefits of all the work I did in my 20’s.. like I’ll finally have my degree, I’ll get to finally have some babies (damn you, biological clock), I’ll be able to have more whole, healthy relationships because I’ve been learning and growing… so it’s not all bad. :)

wildflower's avatar

I doubt it. I don’t believe the “abstinence-only” school of thought is very concerned with people’s physical health/safety. Seems to me they’re more interested in keeping the kids from becoming morally or spiritually corrupt….

silverjwlz's avatar

I find this question EXTREMELY interesting. I’m turning 28 tomorrow and I have never had sex. My boyfriend, who is 26, has also never had sex. The real twister to this is that we have been dating for over three years and have lived together for over two! Yes, we do “other” things, but have never actually had intercourse. This is basically my choice, because I’m pretty sure that he wouldn’t be against it, if I said I was ready…but I’m not. At the same time though, I am. This has absolutely nothing to do with religion, I am not a very religious person at all. I do have my own beliefs, but I don’t attend church. I’m not necessarily waiting until marriage, although I’ve always believed that it would be somewhat romantic to wait until the honeymoon (I know, cliche). And I think it’s very special that we are both virgins. We’re not engaged, but we have talked about marriage and I’m fairly positive that when we finally do have sex, it won’t be “clumsy”. I think we both know what goes where and know one another well enough to be able to please the other, physically and emotionally. Another thing that I find interesting, is that it kind of runs in my family…my mom, sister, aunt, and two female cousins have only slept with their husbands and they are all still married, after many years.
I guess it’s just something that I believe in strongly for myself. I don’t have any problem with premarital sex and at times, I have even thought that I could be the kind of person who has many lovers. I am not in the least a prude, and consider myself to be a very sexual person. It’s just a choice that I’ve made for myself.

wundayatta's avatar

@silveri: I find your apparent definition of sex interesting. That definition implies that the other things couples do besides intercourse are not sex. Maybe other folks wouldn’t agree with such a definition. It sounds to me that you are experienced sexually, but you say you have never had sex because of how you define sex.

I think there is a prejudice in this country, and maybe others, that it doesn’t count unless it’s intercourse. Personally, I think all the ways we can play together sexually count as sex, or even better, love-making. All provide opportunities for connection and pleasure in each other. I sometimes wonder why people make these kinds of distinctions, but generally, I think it is the result of the training one gets in some religious traditions.

silverjwlz's avatar

I completely agree with you…it’s all based on how someone defines the word sex. This is a personal definition. However, the actual definition of having sex, is “to engage in sexual intercourse”.

I have technically never engaged in sexual intercourse and this is what I (and most people I know)personally define as “having sex”.
In my opinion, kissing would be ‘playing together sexually’ (as you said), but I don’t consider kissing to be sex. But I guess that’s only my opinion.
Again, I’m not saying that there is anything wrong at all with intercourse before marriage, it’s just something that I have so far chosen for myself. Either way, it doesn’t really matter, I just find it interesting that it seems that so many people think it’s impossible to not have intercourse, especially when a couple lives together. People just assume things that are untrue.

silverjwlz's avatar

By the way, I also completely agree that religion has a great deal to do with the way one interprets various definitions of sex. I am not a religious person, and to be honest, my parents never really directly talked about sex with me until I became an adult, so I have come to the conclusion that I made my choices on my own.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

silver, I just would like to say well put.

silverjwlz's avatar

Thank you. I went back and read your answers and I have to say, yours are also well put. You actually sound a lot like my boyfriend. :)

chutterhanban's avatar

Just curious, has anyone thought any differently about any of the discussed topics? Or been able to see any different angles? I know I have, so I thought I’d ask you all as well!

MooKoo's avatar

Well I know quite a few people who have and know that pretty much all of my friends are waiting. How do I know so many people that have waited and are waiting? I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. More commonly known as the ‘Mormons’. Intercourse outside of marriage is placed right behind murder in terms of its seriousness of sin in our religion. We strongly believe in no sex before marriage.

lovelace's avatar

funny as it may be, i think testing out for compatability and “not wanting to suck” on your wedding night and two of the top reasons. my aunt told me that you gotta test it to see if it’s good enough to make you forget about your problems because if you marry a man, he’s sure to piss you off and you gotta be able to have something to still want from him at that moment. that way, you won’t leave him! LMAO

tiffyandthewall's avatar

i think marriage is a nice tradition and all, however i cannot see a reason really – besides religious for the most part – that it’s important to wait. i think waiting for the right person for your first time is pretty important, but i don’t see the importance of waiting until you’re married. not to say that people who do wait are illogical or anything, i just personally don’t agree.

chutterhanban's avatar

fair enough :)

cyd's avatar

I did not wait younger, but now have been celibate after my divorce for 4 years. I feel like I am a virgin again, and although I don’t think I will ever get married again, I do want to wait for the right person.

suture86's avatar

In many Islamic-American families it is also very common to remain abstinent until marriage. As match-making is still more common than dating there simply isn’t the opportunity to have sex, and like many traditional American faith traditions, it is generally looked down upon to have sex prior to marriage.

There are generally good results, as Muslims in America continue to have the lowest divorce rate among individuals with religious affiliations (although this may have more to do with the success of the match-making/arranged marriage process, than with the sex).

MooKoo's avatar

@suture86 Sure about that divorce rate thing there? Statistics please.

MissAnthrope's avatar

It doesn’t seem to hold water. From my research, it looks like 31% of Muslim marriages end in divorce. I don’t know what religious group has the lowest, as most of these studies seem to focus on Christian denominations, but it would seem that that Jews, Christians (of most denominations), and atheists/agnostics have lower divorce rates.

Hobosnake's avatar


said the lone voice of the microscopic animal inside the raging sea

If I was sure I was ever aiming for marriage anyways I would SO buy and wear this shirt(I can’t see myself as ever being a good father, so I’m not planning on even getting married at this point, and keeping my virginity my whole life).

heck, with my risk for heart disease, I probably won’t live long enough to be a 40-year-old virgin anyways. Not that I’d have a problem with that.

Hobosnake's avatar

By the way, I am a Christian. Seems like even most of them don’t wait. This thread is even more overwhelmed by people responding negatively than I initially thought.

Response moderated
Response moderated (Spam)
Response moderated (Spam)

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther