Question....

[HuntingMan]

Soooo......to you, sex is a means to judge the character and quality a person?? And if they rate high because of the good sex, then and only then are they worthy of a relationship??

That ones kind of funny because thats really what is going on here.

Laura and I determined our compatibility WITHOUT sex at all and we've only grown closer in our marriage. In fact it was two years before we consummated our marriage due to some personal issues she had for years (not sexual, she was a virgin until marriage).

Funny that people excuse UNmarried sexual sin with this nonsense when Laura and I are proof that sex ISNT necessary to determine whether two folks are compatible.
Sex is one of those things that can always be worked on at any point in the marriage if it is somehow lacking...no one needs to 'test drive' regardless of the excuses given on this forum.

 

[*Starlight*]

How do you "feel married"? Either you ARE or you're NOT.

I guess that when two people feel married, then they are married. Personally, I see marriage as a commitment between two people. A marriage ceremony is only an outward expression of the commitment, but the actually commitment can be there long before they decide to have a ceremony to express it.

 

[theQuestionist]

That ones kind of funny because thats really what is going on here.

Laura and I determined our compatibility WITHOUT sex at all and we've only grown closer in our marriage. In fact it was two years before we consummated our marriage due to some personal issues she had for years (not sexual, she was a virgin until marriage).

Funny that people excuse UNmarried sexual sin with this nonsense when Laura and I are proof that sex ISNT necessary to determine whether two folks are compatible.
Sex is one of those things that can always be worked on at any point in the marriage if it is somehow lacking...no one needs to 'test drive' regardless of the excuses given on this forum.

Yes...and plenty of arranged marriages in the past have worked out fine too. So therefore dating and engagements are unnecessary? We should allow our parents to choose our spouse and meet them on the wedding day?

You missed the point. We are not addressing universal facts. We are addressing probabilities. You happened to luck out. Good for you.

 

[HuntingMan]

Yes...and plenty of arranged marriages in the past have worked out fine too.

That is debatable. men are evil regardless of how marriages come about.
A father can be duped just as easily as a woman can.

So therefore dating and engagements are unnecessary?

Wonderful attempt
I dont remember saying as single thing about dating be unnecessary.
"dating" does not = "having sex"
Im all for a woman taking a LOT of time to get to know a man and watching to see how he acts when she DOESNT give him sex.
Ive seen more than one young woman refuse to 'put out' and watched the gent leave her over not giving in before marriage. His loss.

We should allow our parents to choose our spouse and meet them on the wedding day?

No, you should learn to read.
NOTHING in that post says anything that you seem to be reading into it.

You missed the point. We are not addressing universal facts. We are addressing probabilities. You happened to luck out. Good for you.

You surely have responded to the wrong post.

 

[HuntingMan]

I guess that when two people feel married, then they are married. Personally, I see marriage as a commitment between two people. A marriage ceremony is only an outward expression of the commitment, but the actually commitment can be there long before they decide to have a ceremony to express it.

Marriage is the commitment.
A ceremony is only the outward, public pronouncement of that, it doesnt 'make' the marriage.
But 'commitment' is more than 'feeling' committed, it is showing in no uncertain terms that the INTENT is to BE 'husband and wife'...not simply assuming it...or calling someone 'wife' and being shacked up.

 

[Arcon]

there are warnings about people teaching against marriage, teachings of the need for marriage when 2 are found doing it working in the field. strong teaching that if you feel that need in your life (as an individual) seek to get married. devorce was given as an option for the hardness of our hearts. i think that so many see marriage as restrictive, and problem causing. so if you concider yourself married, i dont belive that is married , but a step of accepting marriage, going towards it. if your not married and one offends the other, dosnt it still hurt. I would say to get married, with the same reason some would argue against the need the for marriage. do your best, hope it dosnt fail. and if it should happen that a marriage should fail, which is worse, the loss of the love or the paper it is written on.

 

[HaloHope]

Its not a piece of paper or a ceremony, but it absolutely is a commitment TO each other to BE 'husband and wife' for life.

Shacking up and saying 'we're married' without a very specific point where the two HAVE made some form of promise between them to BE husband and wife is simply living in denial and fornication.

My point was if two people promise to commit to each other absolutely and genuinally mean it in the privacy of their home then they are married, you dont need a ceromony or a bunch of people watching or anything.

Being 'committed' to sin is still sin.

Again if two people are 100% commited to each other promise to be together for life but dont have a ceromony I fail to see how thats not marriage, short of what the state defines.

 

[theQuestionist]

That is debatable. men are evil regardless of how marriages come about.
A father can be duped just as easily as a woman can.

What's debatable? I was giving the example of successful arranged marriages, just like you gave the example of a successful marriage where the partners abstained. It was analogous because in your example, the partners refrained from physical contact, and in my example, the partners refrained from all personal contact.

The reason for the example, was to show that ALL scenarios have exceptions---but just because there are exceptions does not mean we should make them the rule.

Wonderful attempt
I dont remember saying as single thing about dating be unnecessary.
"dating" does not = "having sex"

You MISSED the point. In my analogous example, I was showing how relationships can be successful without [x] factor. In your statements, the [x] factor is pre-marital sex. In my example, the [x] factor is pre-marital contact.

Im all for a woman taking a LOT of time to get to know a man and watching to see how he acts when she DOESNT give him sex.
Ive seen more than one young woman refuse to 'put out' and watched the gent leave her over not giving in before marriage. His loss.

Yes, and imagine if the "gent" had a worldview that taught him to wait until marriage to have sex, and once he's married his prude wife still refuses to "put out". Of course, you'd think that the couple would have talked about such things before marriage...but stranger things have happened. So now, our "gent" is in a binding legal contract to a woman who he will be unhappy with--and all this heartache could have been avoided had he simply made sure she was right for him beforehand, sexually.

No, you should learn to read.
NOTHING in that post says anything that you seem to be reading into it.

You surely have responded to the wrong post.

It's funny that for someone telling another person to "read" and "respond to the right post", a thing as simple as an ANALOGY flew right over your head. Obviously your reading skills are up to par, but your reading COMPREHENSION skills are desperately lacking.

 

[HuntingMan]

had a worldview that taught him to wait until marriage to have sex, and once he's married his prude wife still refuses to "put out". Of course, you'd think that the couple would have talked about such things before marriage...but stranger things have happened

Far too many variables for my tastes.

People that dont have UNmarried sex are far less likely to be spreading themselves around, thus spreading disease to others.
100 hypothetical scenarios (analogies, if you wish) arent going to change that.

and all this heartache could have been avoided had he simply made sure she was right for him beforehand, sexually.

Thats a VERY nice excuse for committing the SIN of UNmarried sexual intercourse, thus increasing the risk of STDs being spread.
How many "test drives" should this man take before marriage?
And when he finds out that the first woman he took for a "test drive" DID indeed have and STD...but he only figured it out after the 5th ?

but your reading COMPREHENSION skills are desperately lacking

Or perhaps your skills in explaining your point a bit more clearly are in need of work.
Im sorry if MY analogy wasn't explained very well. It seemed like such a common sense thing.

 

[theQuestionist]

Far too many variables for my tastes.

People that dont have UNmarried sex are far less likely to be spreading themselves around, thus spreading disease to others.
100 hypothetical scenarios (analogies, if you wish) arent going to change that.

First, your generalization that those who have unmarried sex are promiscuous is silly. I don't ever plan on getting married, but I have no interest in having many sexual partners.

Secondly, your naive view that married couples are immune to disease and infection is also silly. The "variable" here is promiscuity. Not whether or not the people are married.

Thirdly, we now have plenty of ways to prevent (and treat) STDs and STIs, making the likelihood of even promiscuous individuals contracting such things much lower than it's ever been. Of course, many people still don't take such precautions...so the STDs and STIs are still spread...but the issue is education, not abstinence.

Thats a VERY nice excuse for committing the SIN of UNmarried sexual intercourse, thus increasing the risk of STDs being spread.

Sin is a silly religious concept. This has nothing to do with excuses, unless any counter-rationalization of your arbitrary religious laws can be considered an "excuse"......at which point we might then go and see how many "excuses" you're making in your life, to avoid being accountable to Quetzalcoatl.

Of course, I realize I'm in a Christian section here, so it's not surprising that you hold to the laws of the Bible--but that's why I haven't bothered discussing what the Bible says about it, because I think it would be more practical to merely address the logical reasons for why unmarried sex may or may not be harmful. So...for now, let's leave the "well the Bible says it's wrong, so that settles it!" non-sequiturs out for now, shall we?

How many "test drives" should this man take before marriage?

This isn't something quantifiable, in the same way I could ask "well...how many DATES should someone take before marriage?" (as opposed to sexual encounters).

It's relative to the person, the situation, and the culture.

And when he finds out that the first woman he took for a "test drive" DID indeed have and STD...but he only figured it out after the 5th ?

Well the same could be said for a married couple. What happens when two people get married only to find out AFTER that one of the partners contracted AIDS during childbirth, from the mother? You might think that's a bit extreme....but in present-day Africa this is a HUGE problem.

The answer to both is simple: these are things that should be talked about BEFORE entering into any sexual relationship. If two people aren't willing to talk about their medical history before having sex (at least to the extent that they both divulge any transferable conditions they may have), then they shouldn't be having sex.

Or perhaps your skills in explaining your point a bit more clearly are in need of work.

My point was clear. However, instead of interpreting it as a simple analogy (ala reductio ad absurdum), you figured I was employing a 'slippery slope' fallacy. No big deal...simple misunderstanding--the only problem came about when you rudely stated that I could not read, and that I must not have been responding to the right post.

 

[rppearso]

What's debatable? I was giving the example of successful arranged marriages, just like you gave the example of a successful marriage where the partners abstained. It was analogous because in your example, the partners refrained from physical contact, and in my example, the partners refrained from all personal contact.

The reason for the example, was to show that ALL scenarios have exceptions---but just because there are exceptions does not mean we should make them the rule.

You MISSED the point. In my analogous example, I was showing how relationships can be successful without [x] factor. In your statements, the [x] factor is pre-marital sex. In my example, the [x] factor is pre-marital contact.

Yes, and imagine if the "gent" had a worldview that taught him to wait until marriage to have sex, and once he's married his prude wife still refuses to "put out". Of course, you'd think that the couple would have talked about such things before marriage...but stranger things have happened. So now, our "gent" is in a binding legal contract to a woman who he will be unhappy with--and all this heartache could have been avoided had he simply made sure she was right for him beforehand, sexually.

It's funny that for someone telling another person to "read" and "respond to the right post", a thing as simple as an ANALOGY flew right over your head. Obviously your reading skills are up to par, but your reading COMPREHENSION skills are desperately lacking.

You want to make sure you are marrying a Christian woman if you are living by Christian values, a christian woman will not be a prude in marriage otherwise she is not a christian and the 2 are unequally yolked and divorce is warranted, neither partner should withhold from the other in marriage. Also getting married to have sex is very valid and biblical, if you burn with passion you should marry. I disagree with long drawn out engagements, it does not take THAT long to get to know someone as long as you know the right questions to ask like: when we get married will you be ok giving me a BJ when I want one (and visa versa of course, the guy better be willing to lick too). The real kunundrum occurs when you discover a sex act within marriage that one absolutely loves and the other does not, you couldent talk about it before marriage because you dident know but now that you know and the other partner does not want to do it..... this can be a problem, should the partner who does not like it withhold or just do it?

 

[HuntingMan]

Communication about sex before marriage would be a very good idea.

Lack of communication before marriage is more a problem that kills marriages than not having sex to give things a 'test drive'.

Sex once married is always something that can be worked on.

 

[rppearso]

Communication about sex before marriage would be a very good idea.

Lack of communication before marriage is more a problem that kills marriages than not having sex to give things a 'test drive'.

Sex once married is always something that can be worked on.

I would agree, both partners have to be willing to "work on it" though, if one partner simply says I dont want to do "that" it will ruin the marriage. Sometimes you can have good communication before marriage but not account for what you dont know about. I didn't know about rim jobs before marriage and now that we have tried it I love it but not so for my wife so it is causing some problems. Sexual problems are usually pretty simple and are made into moutians, either you do the act or you dont, you are either withholding or you are not. Just like with tithing either your tithing or your not, its not complicated.

 

[MissLady]

It depends on what the person wants. In my case, I once met a girl that I really fell for. We had sex...the first night. Not that I was any better, but that moment put a small doubt in my mind. That relationship lasted for about a year. It was up and down. Many issues came up based on issues of trust, for both of us. Even though we had a lot in common and she was like a best friend, our sexual history could not be worked through. I found out she cheated on her former husband several times. I thought if I married her, she would probably do the same to me. I had been married before, but never cheated on my spouse. I can honestly say for me, any girl that I had sex with quickly, the relationship later failed. The problem for me was related more to putting sex before things that make relationships count.

We split and I later met my now wife. I wasn't a bad person then, but I pushed for sex quickly with about any girl I met. However, this girl didn't give. She modeled, was a past Winston Cup Girl, and I had a stong desire for her beauty. Actually, she gave off a lot of what I call Southern Belle sexuality and it sent a mixed message, but she knew what she was doing. It was like "the best time of your life is here, but you are going to work long and hard for it and I must know you love me." Her not giving in drove me towards her. It became clear over time that this was a person I would trust in marriage. We dated and I was forced to build a relationship on the things that count.

We eventually did, but it was about 14 months and we were both over 30. We later got married. I can't say if sex came on quicker what would have happened, but I respected her so much for waiting and that played a huge part on deciding to marry her. We actually had so much fun and enjoyed that time, I wouldn't have had it any different.

If women would learn to do this, they could sort through the men quickly to find the right mate. Now I realize most people, including Christians had sex with the person before they married. We did a poll on this once and it was like 80% did. I'm not saying sex ruins all possible marriages. Most in the poll were still married to that person. However, many of us agreed that we waited and built relationships to that point we knew marriage was coming and that was a factor that counted on having a lasting marriage.

I absolutely love the part I just bolded(is that a word? lol) and kinda would have that attitude toward a guy myself. But what do you mean by "southern belle sexuality", what kinda things did she do?

For me personally I'm not considering myself married till me and the fella say "I do" in front of witnesses and are pronounced by a preacher in church(hopefully but I'm not completely opposed to JOP at the courthouse.) I'm not having sex till then and if a man pressured me after me telling him "no sex till legal marriage" then I'd feel he wasn't the one for me and I'd be the one ending the relationship.

 

[MissLady]

That or they say that they that they don't have enough money to have a ceremony.

Well, the way I see it, if you swear up and down that you love this person and all, then do the honorable thing and take the initiative to get money for the ceremony, even if that means working two jobs or putting in extra hours! If you're not willing to do that and insist that feeling married is just fine, then your significant other should let you know that until things are done right, your legs are staying tight and that you aint getting it tonight!

Amen?

Amen! I agree with you and the post you quoted. I find it so sad when "committed" but non-married couples do this "oh well you never know what might happen thing" (actually I know some married couples who say the same thing:o) and it just makes me think "well then how committed are you?"

 

[rppearso]

Amen! I agree with you and the post you quoted. I find it so sad when "committed" but non-married couples do this "oh well you never know what might happen thing" (actually I know some married couples who say the same thing:o) and it just makes me think "well then how committed are you?"

How could a married couple say the same thing? they are married.

 

[rppearso]

I absolutely love the part I just bolded(is that a word? lol) and kinda would have that attitude toward a guy myself. But what do you mean by "southern belle sexuality", what kinda things did she do?

For me personally I'm not considering myself married till me and the fella say "I do" in front of witnesses and are pronounced by a preacher in church(hopefully but I'm not completely opposed to JOP at the courthouse.) I'm not having sex till then and if a man pressured me after me telling him "no sex till legal marriage" then I'd feel he wasn't the one for me and I'd be the one ending the relationship.

At least you hope the best time of your life is there.....

 

[MissLady]

How could a married couple say the same thing? they are married.

I just know some folks that say "ya never know what might happen, you may break up/get divorced" and while in a way that could be true I think it's kinda sad. Marriages take work and save adultery, abuse(and I believe that's of spouse or children, mental as well as physical) or abandonment you should be able to work through anything.

And to your last comment about at least ya hope it's the best time of your life...well I can't speak for Armistead's wife...but I know I'm worth waiting for so a man will have to work for this and prove he loves and is committed to me (by making me his legal bride)before I'll lay down for him.

 

[lavenderbees]

How do you "feel married"? Either you ARE or you're NOT.

I fully agree. There is no such thing as "feeling married". Either you're married or you're not. And you're not married unless you have gone through the ceremony. You can't just say "Well, we've been together for so long we're practically married anyway." or "We're married in spirit." Sorry but it doesn't work that way!

No, I would say "we've been together so long that we are married, anyway". There is such a thing as "common law marriage" where two people, living together, are recognised as married in "common law". You don't need a piece of paper to prove that you have a relationship with someone. If that person turns out to be a b****** and leaves you, the same thing could have happened if you were properly married with a ceremony. The most important thing here, is to choose a good man. Some would say "Well, if he was such a good man, he would marry you wouldn't he?". I'm not sure what the answer to that question is since I married a man who refused to get married for seven years. However, after 15 years of marriage, he has proved himself to be a good man. During those first seven years, he was still very young.

Note: I kept him waiting five years. So maybe that kept up his interest in me. We only started living together after five years in the relationship. He said, later, that if I had given in to him sooner and lived with him sooner, he would have married me sooner. I'm not sure whether that would have happened, in reality, though.

 

[theQuestionist]

You want to make sure you are marrying a Christian woman if you are living by Christian values, a christian woman will not be a prude in marriage otherwise she is not a christian and the 2 are unequally yolked and divorce is warranted, neither partner should withhold from the other in marriage.

Some people have very low sex drives and/or DISCOVER after losing their virginity that their drive for sex isn't as great as they imagined. Finding yourself stuck with such a person (if you were someone who had a high sex drive) could be avoided if the two engage in sex before marriage.

Also getting married to have sex is very valid and biblical, if you burn with passion you should marry.

That's a terrible reason to get married. But then again, the Bible isn't lacking in terrible advice.