Sex before marriage

[toonosy]

This is really nosy...but was wondering if anyone actually waits until they are married before having sex these days?

Me and DH waited, we were together almost 6 years before we married. Our decision was for religious reasons, however I can't bring myself to ask my RL friends their opinions on this!

Would love to hear what everyone thinks, was going to put this in Religion but thought I'd get more responses here.

Mal: Good for you. While you and I may differ on some aspects of sexual behaviour I think we probably agree that one of the most important things to understand about having sex is that it's supposed to be pleasurable for all concerned and that the people doing it should treat each other with kindness and respect - and when these factors are in place, it's fine to go ahead.

"Surely you can only think your sex life is bad enough for divorce if you have experienced something else?"

In my experience, no. Though we didn't get divorced for that reason. I knew the sex was awful; didn't need to have had it with anyone else to know.

Re. children and sex at home-I think that it is too easy to say that if they don't do it in the safety of the house then they will do it under a hedge.

My DD is 21 at a top uni doing a very academic course and has just had a steady boyfriend for a year. She only had 1 very casual boyfriend in the 6th form for a couple of months.

There is no way I would have allowed her or my son to have boyfriends or girlfriends to stay when they were 16. I just don't want casual sex going on in my house. How many relationships really last when they start at 16? and how many 16/17yr old boys are emotionally ready for sex except physically?

I felt that saying "no" had it been an issue was protecting my DD from the emotional fall out of sexual relationships at a very young age. They invariably end, and I don't think it's a good idea to combine heavy sexual relationships and A levels.

I don't believe in no sex before marriage, but I do think that children should be brought up to see sex as part of a loving relationship that might include commitment.

My parents would not allow me and my now DH to share a room when we visited them age 29, a few weeks before our wedding!

I think Mal that time after time here you are unable to see anything outside your own limited and rather unusual experience of relationships, and I get a bit tired of you always holding it up to be perfect ...

you might not intend to come over as smug but it does seem that way.

Message deleted

allsweetness- thanks

we were actually lving together but it made no difference to my dear parents!

Just got to this thread and am feeling very weirded out by the latest few comments. Do people really still hold on to a belief that the only "right" sex is sex that takes place in a loving relationship?

I grew up as a teenager in a perfectly ordinary middle class bit of Manchester in the 80s, and I can tell you that both girls and boys were quite clear, from the age of about 12 onwards, that sexual stuff was fun and could and should be enjoyed both for its own sake and as part of deep&meaningful Relationships.

My friends and I all went through roughly the same stages:

• snogs from 11/12ish
• groping as soon as boobs appeared, pretty much
• masturbation and oral sex from 13/14 onwards
• sex starting any time from 15 through to 18, normally within a relationship

We were horny teens and our parents looked on part bemusedly and mostly indulgently. We knew about STDs, we knew that sex could be used to hurt each other, but we also knew that it was quite a lot of fun to go to a mate's house for a party, find someone you fancied, and go upstairs to muck about typically everything but sex. And if it worked out, then a few weeks later, you'd be in a relationship and sleeping with them. Your parents might allow it openly, turn a blind eye to it, or be oblivious. We thought then and I still think it's true -- that we were very capable of getting completely traumatised about a breakup with or without the presence of sexual shenanigans.

slhilly- oral sex at 13-14 OMG! I was about 20 something!
You are clearly very young- I grew up in the 50s and 60s.

I think as a parent it depends on your own experiences what you advise/allow your children to do.

What worries me about sex at a young age- apart from the increased risk of cervical cancer etc- is the emotional fallout when it goes wrong- which it invariably does.

It's the gap between emotional and physical maturity that worried me as a parent.
That's why I would not "condone" sexual behaviour under my roof at 16.

I know all about the argments of they will do it anyway somewhere- but will they? Maybe outside is not that great really.

I had a very intense relationship between 16-19 and then he ended it, weeks after we got engaged. Had this happened during my A levels I would have fallen apart.

I was really pleased t o see that my DD had lots of boy friends at that age and had no desire for a boyfriend or sex.

I can see that people like Mal think it's fine to have sex at 16 and get married at 18, but if it has gone wrong for you as it did for me, you might see the other side, and how devastating it can be.

I also think it is disresepctful to have sex in other people's homes when you know they would not want that- having sex in your boyfriend's parent's bathroom when they were in the house is nothing to gleefully brag about- you should be ashamed of yourself and show some sensitivity for their feelings.
I'd be disgusted if my children did that in anyone's homes- including mine!

If that is how you behaved then I can see just why you think it's fine to have such a laissez faire approach yourself as a parent, but it's not teaching our children much about respect or restraint.

purplepeony -- I said, I grew up in the 80s. That puts me in my late 30s. Not particularly young.

Yes, oral sex at 13-14. It happened in the 60s too....and the 50s and the 40s etc. It just was less frequent and more condemned.

I didn't make any argument about "they will do it anyway". Although it's obvious that they will, and that it might be cold outside, but it's also memorable. As are cinemas, train journeys, cars, other people's houses, etc etc.

As I said in my original post, I just don't get this "gap" thing. Teenagers are emotionally immature anyway, with or without sex. And emotionally mature people can get hurt too. Sex isn't needed for that. If anything, teenagers can have a greater capacity than adults for coping with sex that's just sex, precisely because they are emotionally immature.

I think very few people are ready for marriage at 18, but I think lots of people are ready for sex at 16.

I don't know where your bathroom comment came from, nor why a bathroom is a particularly morally dubious place to have sex in. I also didn't say anything about having sex in another person's home when they would not want it. So am not quite sure where you're coming from with that. But I do think that just because a parent doesn't want something to happen, is not always a good enough reason for a 16-year-old not to do it. Apron strings and over-protectiveness and all that.

Personally, as a parent, I'm much more interested in my kids not smoking at all or drinking to excess, than whether they are sexually active.

I understand the value of respect, but I think it's a two-way street. I try to respect my kids' autonomy where I think it doesn't harm them. I happen to think that a rule about sex of the kind you seem to like is arbitrary and does not that much to protect them, so I would not set it.

Similarly, I don't see the value of teaching them about restraint in these issues. Restraint is good in relation to chocolate, alcohol, and lots else besides, but I don't see its value in relation to this.

I think we'll just have to accept that the world is full of people with very different attitudes to sex and leave it at that. I've tried to remained restrained (that word again) about describing what I truly believe about telling kids they can't have sex, but rest assured, I'm as full of moral indignation the other way as you are about lack of respect, restaint, disgusted at ignoring parents' rules, being ashamed of myself etc. However, I may find myself being a bit less restrained if you tell me again that I should be ashamed of myself or pass similar moral judgements.

Message deleted

i want my kids to be well informed to make choices. id not advocate waiting until married though.

Why is it worrying?

Smoking causes harm. There is no safe way to smoke.

Drinking to excess is a major cause of morbidity and mortality.

They are both also physiologically addictive.

Sexual activity short of sex is not that risky, and the risks associated with sex can be dramatically mitigated with condoms.

That's my reasoning. What's the problem?

Message deleted

In answer to beccas tbh I can't remember exactly what we did and didn't do before we were married but I know it wasn't much. I really don't know why or how it's all worked out but it has, we've been very lucky I guess. I think I was quite immature emotionally so things were on the right life timscale for me - shocked at how young slhilly was doing everything!

slhilly
I actually agree with a lot of what you say especially re. drink and smoking- and let's not forget drugs.

However, what I think is not being understood by you- maybe based on your personal experience, maybe not- is the emotional responsibility involved in sex. It does change relationships/friendships and most young boys are not ready for that emotionally. Girls are more mature and I'd worry about the hurt they would suffer after sex at a young age when, inevitably, the relationship ends. I hear what you say that they would be hurt anyway whether sex was involved or not, but I don't think that's so.

I consider myself pretty broad minded, but I am shocked at your account of early sexual experience. At 13 and 14 my kids were too busy with homework to even bother with boys or girls, and I would have discouraged heavy relationships or sexual actitivy.

It's also a bit naive of you to assume that sex or "heavy petting" as it used to be called is safe- herpes, gonorrhea, warts and even AIDS can be passed on via oral sex.

As for the bathroom incident, that was aimed at another poster- who I named in the post- who said that she and her BF had sex in his parent's bathroom when his parents were in the house, though his parents would have disapproved. I was making the point that because she had no restraint or respect for his parents' wishes she subsequently had a very casual attitude towards her own daughter's sexual activity in her home.

WOW, I'm usually condemned for being too puritanical and narrow minded!

There might well be plenty of young people who are not ready for a sexual relationship at 16, however, the vast majority probably are, hence the age of consent is 16.

What should I have said to her when she asked if her BF could stay, "No dear, you shouldn't be having sex with a long term bf at your age, even though it was fine for me and your dad, that was different"?

Actually, a lot more misery is caused by this insistence that sex has to be tangled up with love. The emphasis on love leads to many people making disastrous marriages or at the very least putting up with shitty relationships either because the sex is good (some lazy, selfish, tiresome people are actually pretty good in bed, but the best way to engage with them is just to have sex with them when the mood is right but otherwise live your own life) or because they have been told by people who are either superstitious or sexually dysfunctional themselves that once you have had sex with someone it's a 'relationship' and a 'commitment'.
I intend to teach my DS that commitment and sex are quite separate things, that sex is for fun above all unless and until you are sure you want to breed, but sex should be pleasurable for all concerned, that you should treat sexual partners with courtesy and kindness - and OK, for the first few times you do it, you want to be doing it with someone you like and feel comfortable with, because the first few times are likely to be a bit clumsy and awkward, so you need to feel secure that the other person is not going to laugh at you or tell everyone how inept you were.

allsweetness, rather than patronise me with your response, why don't you try and give me a substantive answer? Unless by "understand" you actually mean "agree", where I cannot provide you with a guarantee in advance. You're shocked by my views; I'm shocked that you think that your view of the world is self-evidently right.

toonosy -- my experience is completely unremarkable. It wasn't Manchester-specific. When I was at university, I had enough frank conversations with my friends there, who came from all over the country, to know that the same was true for them.

purplepeony -- I understand that sex can entail emotional responsibility. But I refute the notion that it has to, or that it always changes relationships/friendships. "Sometimes, sex is just sex", as they say.

I'm bemused that your 13/14 year olds were "too busy with homework to even bother with boys or girls". I worked hard at 13/14, a damned sight harder at 16/17, and found plenty of time to do lots of other things, including noticing the opposite sex. You also keep over-reading what I say. I didn't say that sexual activity short of sex was safe. I said it was "not that risky". That's true. Yes, there is a risk of an STD via oral sex, but risk = frequency impact, and the rate of transmission for the oral-genital route is pretty low for most STDs. Re the bathroom incident -- I understand now; I didn't follow that you were still referring to Mal* in your next paragraph in that post, I thought it was aimed at me, so apologies about that.

Totally agree with you SGB.

slhilly, I'm just 30, was a teen in the 90's and we were just as sexually active as you describe. My parents were also not that bothered. When I was 15 my mum even brought my girlfriend (am bisexual) and I breakfast in bed!

I think there is definitely a generational gap on display here.

Apologies for continuing on the tangent that this thread has taken, but I feel I must just point something out to the posters who will not let their dc have a bf/gf over to stay. Staying over for the night does not necessarily equal sex and that not being able to stay does not mean that they aren't having sex. What about time in the day when you're at work? What about when they are at their bf/gf's house? Myself and my ex were having sex for a couple of years before we were allowed to stay at each others at 18. Not letting them stay doesn't mean that you have control over when they lose their virginity IYSWIM.

mal - you seem to be getting a lot of grief on this thread- FWIW I think that you have a very sensible attitude towards your DD's sex life

"Not letting them stay doesn't mean that you have control over when they lose their virginity IYSWIM."

Exactly. I knew a couple who used to bunk off school to have sex in the lifts at the art gallery and local department stores.

I personally had sex in the music practice rooms at school and am certain I was not the only one.

Teens have intoxicating sex hormones coursing through their veins, and will find any opportunity to have sex. Just how it is, you might as well give 'em a safe venue.

God allsweetness, you're name doesn't really ring true does it?

Anyway, mal and other parents who let treat their teens like sensible adults- good on you!

My mother strictly believes in no sex before marriage (although she didn't actually wait )
I was brought up in a Christian family and along with all my friends, went on Christian holiday camps in every single school holiday from age of 9-19. You have never seen anything like it, I can tell you that much. But that is off topic! Basically at 9 we were making the choice to not have sex before marriage, and it became this huge huge deal! Everyone who has waited has got married young, two of my friends waited and got divorced after 6 months

I think 9 was far too young to make these choices. When I finally did lose my virginity, at 19 years old when I was at uni, my mum found out and screamed at me for days that 'I had the devil in me', that I was a slag, that I had 'dropped my knickers quickly' etc etc

WTF?

Long story short, I would have killed for a mum like mal.

Surely there is no right or wrong answer.

I didn't wait until I was married but I have only ever slept with dh and we didn't have sex until we'd been together for six months because I didn't feel that I wanted to shag just anyone iyswim.

Lots of people have multiple partners before they meet "the one" and lot of people don't. I think it's sad that people who wait are almost sneered at for doing so and judged as being somehow not normal.

Equally I don't buy into the "god will forgive you" line either - I had a friend who said exactly that to me, and who ended a relationship because "he came between me and god." apparently he wanted a physical relationship and she didn't.

As long as people are happy with their own decisions, what business is it of anyone else's.

My husband and I got pregnant from one occasion we were together when we were both in really hard places in life and were friends, which was very rare as I don't believe in sex before marriage, but we were both distant from God then, we both started going back to church and then we got together,when our son was 3 monthsm we waited a year until we got married to have sex again and it was awsome, but we wish we had done that from the beginning, although, we love our son and wouldn't change him for the world.

wannaBe I've never actually put it like you say your friend did ("He came between me and God") however I did split up with my first boyfriend mainly because I refused to sleep with him. He never said that, but I know that was the main reason. Although difficult and sad at the time, it clarified for me that I needed to be with someone who shared my religious faith. Marriages of different faiths can work out of course, but I don't think it would have for me.

MalWhat should I have said to her when she asked if her BF could stay, "No dear, you shouldn't be having sex with a long term bf at your age, even though it was fine for me and your dad, that was different"?

well, more or less, yes! But leave out the bit about you and your DH- that is none of her business .

I don't think it is healthy for kids to have sexual relationships at 16, long-term or not, especially as boys are more immature.
They have enough on their plates with exams and getting to uni or whatever they are doing.

Mal- do you encourage your DD to follow in your footsteps regardless of what you did as a teenager, whether it iwas, with hindsight- right or wrong?

Surely being a parent is about trying todo what is best for your children- not simply allowing them to do what you did?

It worked for you Mal- but very few relationships started at 16 last.

I'd rather my kids kept boys and girls as friends- which they did as they are now in their 20s- and had a full, sexual relationship when they were more mature.

The law says we can marry at 16- which is why the age of consent is 16- but it's not exactly a good move to marry at that age, is it?

I know times change- when I was in my late teens in the 70s, it was the exception rather than the rule to "go all the way" when you were at school. Things have changed, but not necessarily for the better and I wouldn't condone/support sex at 16 in my home.