Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

to think you SHOULD have sex before marriage?

(101 Posts)

Watching 40 year old virgins on telly with DP (who I am living in sin with grin) and a bloke on the program is struggling as he was bought up to think that sex before marriage is wrong.

I personally think that sex is apart of getting know someone and going a way to fully understand your attraction and compatibility - therefore is essential before committing your life to that person.

I'm genuinely interested in what other people think. I went to a Catholic school so was bombarded with very strong "truths" to do with marriage etc.

Imagine getting wed to find his penis was the same width of a pencil! No way, Jose grin

*as a pecil, I meant smile

Frigs aake, PENCIL !

frigs sake !!!

lol crushed

YABVU.

People should do what makes them comfortable and happy.

I think this "sexually compatible" thing is horrible, btw. To dismiss somebody who is otherwise your ideal as a potential spouse because they didn't immediately meet your sexual expectations is plain mean.

exoticfruits Fri 29-Mar-13 19:08:02

I don't think it mean-just sensible. You should also get to know their family, especially what the FIL does in the home. You need to know that your partner has the same expectations that you do and that he is able to clean bathrooms, cook, sew on his own buttons etc and he will be able to be an equal parent.

exoticfruits Fri 29-Mar-13 19:08:29

Communication is the key.

somewherewest Fri 29-Mar-13 19:43:51

Some couples I know had sex before marriage, some didn't. The ones who didn't have sex are just as likely to be happily married (to all outward appearances) as the ones who did. And I say this as someone who did live with their OH before marriage.

exoticfruits Fri 29-Mar-13 19:49:31

It is up to the individual of course-personally I wouldn't risk it.

MrsWolowitz Fri 29-Mar-13 19:57:24

You should also get to know their family, especially what the FIL does in the home. You need to know that your partner has the same expectations that you do and that he is able to clean bathrooms, cook, sew on his own buttons etc and he will be able to be an equal parent.

My FIL is a mysoginistic, racist pig. My DH is neither of those things.

somewherewest Fri 29-Mar-13 19:57:45

Also for most of history, limiting sex to a long term legally binding relationship between two people was pretty sensible in ensuring that children were provided for. Its only recently that truly reliable contraception has allowed us to separate having sex from having babies (and of course that isn't foolproof even now). In pre-20th century societies where there was no welfare state and only so many resources to go round, lots of babies inadequately provided for was a very bad idea for everyone. Even today one parent families are more likely to struggle financially on average.

Annunziata Italy Fri 29-Mar-13 20:03:09

You should also get to know their family, especially what the FIL does in the home. You need to know that your partner has the same expectations that you do and that he is able to clean bathrooms, cook, sew on his own buttons etc and he will be able to be an equal parent.

I knew that my DH would not do any of those things before I married him. That didn't stop me being terrified the first night I was alone with him. All I could think of was how huge he seemed compared to me and how he could do anything to me and no one would know (and I love my DH, I really, really do).

I actually managed to have sex before our wedding. It would have been terrible if I hadn't.

Imsosorryalan Fri 29-Mar-13 20:09:53

Our test wasn't just sex before marriage but also living together. A true test for us to see if we would still be happy with each other was to back pack around Asia together for a month. I thought that if we could get though that with just each other for company then we could get though anything! shock 15 years later, I was right!
So sod the sex, travel together..

Somewherewest, what a crock! Even when 'society' treated women's virginity as a cash asset among the upper classes, most people had sex before/outside of marriage; sometimes 'having' to get married when they would have preferred not to. And the idea that only a heteromonogamous couple can bring up children is deeply flawed as well, because it's a model based on women's economic dependency and subordination.

Timetoask Fri 29-Mar-13 20:43:32

I think the problem is that people are now having sex far too soon. Ok, so don't wait until marriage, but for the love of life a least get to know the person!

I think many people will confuse physical/sexual attraction with LOVE, it would be fine to get it wrong if it wouldn't be for the sad fact that babies get produced in the process with no family unit. If you gave the relationship sometime before making it physical maybe things would be better in our society.

I think many people will confuse physical/sexual attraction with LOVE - this is very true which is why it is important - in my opinion - to live with that person as well for a good amount of time. You don't truly know someone until you have lived with them. And normally living with someone means sharing a bed.

Actually, people make far too big a deal about love. Not only do women put up with lousy sex because they are in love (women are socialised to value love more than sex, which is really just another way of persuading them to be a man's domestic servant), but people who prioritize romantic love often behave stupidly and horribly, either maintaining a relationship with someone who mistreats them or neglecting/mistreating other people in their lives on the ground that True Love is what really matters.
It's fine to have sex with someone once only, or a few times, and then decide you don't want anything more to do with him/her - as long as you haven't made a lot of promises you don't intend to keep.

Fleecyslippers Fri 29-Mar-13 20:57:56

It's only since I split up with Ex that I've realised just HOW shit in the sack he is. Could saved myself years of hassle........

RevoltingPeasant Fri 29-Mar-13 21:17:50

But it's not just about sex - compatibility is much more than that.

E.g., I like to have my space in bed, and also sleep lightly so someone snoring is out. My very first BF, to whom I actually got engaged, wanted me to sleep 'with my head on his shoulder' and was put out that I wouldn't.

It gave me a crick in the neck hmm. Screw that. He also snored at times.

I went out with another man who really liked sex in a position that was uncomfortable for me. With another who woke up at 6 wanting sex (I still don't know how I didn't murder him; like having a toddler but 5'11").

DH and I aren't perfectly compatible, in that he has health problems which mean we can't often have sex. But we are pretty good when we can and we sleep and live well together. Those things are important.

Vikram Seth's novel A Suitable Boy has a subplot with a woman pushed into an arranged marriage with a man everyone else thinks is a pillar of the community type, but she secretly hates him in large part because he snores and she has never had a single night's good sleep since they married.... <shudder>

If my OH had it his way we would sleep with him lying on his back and me tucked up on top of him with my head on his chest!
If I had my way I would sleep in my own bed - We compromise. I think compromise is a HUGE part of a relationship, there is no such thing as a perfect match surely. Though you need to establish how far your partner is willing to compromise before committing...

ithaka Sat 30-Mar-13 00:14:59

my mum always said if she had lived with my dad first, she wouldn't have married him. So, OK, I wouldn't exist, but apart from that YANBU.

My mum was always keen we should live with a man before we married him, based on her experience. Sexual compatibility is one of those things it is hard to pin down, but if it works - it is strong glue.

TBH, I married mainly because of great sex - and 20 years later, it still works. You can learn to respect and care for someone over the years, but you can't learn to fancy the pants off them - that has to be there from the start.

rustybusty Sat 30-Mar-13 07:20:58

I had sex with dh very soon after meeting him. I dont think it matters how soon you do it. I think the people who wait a long time often have lower sex drives, which is fair enought but its not for me. I wanted to know not only that we clicked, and I was very attracted to him but also that the sex was really good.

A decent man cares about the womans enjoyment, and always ensures she gets her orgasm every time. How would you know if it wasnt a selfish lover if you dont have sex with him soon after meeting?

MulberryHag Wed 21-Aug-13 10:48:44

What I never understand about these types of debates is this... If I fell in love with a man who was kind, thoughtful, considerate, funny, everything I'd ever wanted, gorgeous to boot and decided I wanted to marry him, and then discovered the sex wasn't exactly what I wanted, would I just dump him?

I wouldn't. I'd work on the sex. As Suma2 said, sex changes throughout your life, so if I "try before I buy" and love it (or hate it!) that doesn't mean the sex will still be in the same in a few months/years time.

So then you've lost you "perfect" partner because of something that can be worked on and changed... Seems like a waste to me.

Crinkle77 Wed 21-Aug-13 11:16:01

I believe in try before you buy. Once you are married it is a bit late to back out if they are a selfish lover.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now