[Freedom Geek]

Without sex? If they don't consider sex a big priority to the extent that even if there were to never be any sex in the relationship they would by happy with it then it makes sense.

After only seeing each other for a month? Now that's silly.

[castalia]

Originally Posted by Gobbbler To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Agreed. Although I suspect it is dating experience as much as sex experience. Sexual is different than just sex. I've had a gf who was waiting for marriage and many girls who waited more than 5 dates, especially when I was quite young. Any incompatibilities showed up in the physical intimacy before the act itself. Unless you're really bad at it, sexual compatibility is less about the act of fucking and more about the physical acts that accompany it. You can tell if someone is willing to try new things, is eager to please, or is selfish, or clumsy. I said maybe it is different for women, because maybe some guys last like 2 minutes, but sexual frequency and stuff definitely comes out even without intercourse. Maybe you don't realize this because by having sex always within 5 dates you don't ever have the physical intimacy over time without the sex? Anyway, tons of people have great marriages without having had sex first. So whereever you stand on the sex thing, it works out for a lot of people without it. The month and proposal demand sounds much crazier in our society.

See, I wonder if it is not just a gamble, though. Maybe the marriage worked out by chance? Statistically, some people are going to get along and their marriages are going to work out even if the couple has not had sex.
Then, there is the other problem to consider if you have not been having sex with someone for a while. Some people who are not much into sex have lots of it in the beginning due to pressure to make their significant other happy. Others, especially women, have lots of sex until they are done having the number of kids they want and then it is 0 intimacy after that.
I know because my uncle is married to such a woman. Once she had her child, she kept refusing him and the poor guy had to find it elsewhere.
And don't even get me started on the fact that there are some gay men who want to get married and have a family and who will actually trick the woman into thinking they are straight by having lots of sex with her in the beginning. I know a couple of people like this as well.

[cannotseethe]

	Originally Posted by Gobbbler To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Unless you're really bad at it, sexual compatibility is less about the act of fucking and more about the physical acts that accompany it.

Not so. It's quite possible to enjoy all non-intercourse levels of physical intimacy with a person and still not like sex with them.

Frequency preference is another potential issue that only becomes apparent after you've had sex with a person many times. If you're a once a day person and they're a once every few days person, then what? How would you know this, or be able to assess whether it could become problematic, if you hadn't slept with a person a bunch of times?

[Hatsumomo1]

	Originally Posted by castalia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You might think that the title is dodging the major issue, but in fact both issues are related. After all, we are dealing with a sex-crazy, self-conscious, shy virgin here. If the guy had any sexual experience, he would probably see more clearly what he is getting into.

So do you think he wants to marry her just to have sex with her? If that's the case, you're right, that's bad all the way around. But I don't know if you can necessarily say that if the guy had more sexual experience that he wouldn't do the same. Is he impulsive? Is she manipulating him? Is he just in that honeymoon stage that makes everyone crazy?

I may be odd, but I still can't fathom how one can decide to marry without getting sexual first. After all, isn't sex a major part of marriage? I am willing to go as far as to say that subconsciously, sexual incompatibility or major differences in this area cause major resentment and problems which show up in other ways. I was very much into two people who were very much in love with me. Each one suggested we move in together and become exclusive, while hinting at marriage too. I moved in with one of them, only to move out a month later because I had a higher sex drive than his (he only wanted it once a week!) He was a terrific guy in every other way and very romantic, but the lack of compatible sex drives really made us resent each other after a month. The second guy I was into turned out to be impotent. Had I made the decision to actually make it official with either of the two, it would have been a disaster. That's why I insist on sex with someone within the first five or so dates. There is no way I would risk this again!

Okay, maybe waiting isn't for you then. I never claimed it was right for everyone. There's no one-size-fits-all here. It largely depends on your values, preferences, personality, etc... But just because some people want to wait doesn't mean it's wrong for them, and to be honest it's none of our business. There are consequences and benefits to both, and you and your partner have to decide what you're willing to deal with. That's why communication is so important, with whatever you decide to do.

	Originally Posted by cannotseethe
	Frequency preference is another potential issue that only becomes apparent after you've had sex with a person many times. If you're a once a day person and they're a once every few days person, then what? How would you know this, or be able to assess whether it could become problematic, if you hadn't slept with a person a bunch of times?

Not true. Well, not entirely at least. You might start out with incredible sexual chemistry with someone, try it out a bunch of times, get married, and then suddenly that little spark has fizzled out and someone wants it less often. Preferences in sex are not constant. Sex drives are not constant. Sexual chemistry/compatibility can become a problem at any time during a relationship.

[castalia]

Originally Posted by cannotseethe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not so. It's quite possible to enjoy all non-intercourse levels of physical intimacy with a person and still not like sex with them. Frequency preference is another potential issue that only becomes apparent after you've had sex with a person many times. If you're a once a day person and they're a once every few days person, then what? How would you know this, or be able to assess whether it could become problematic, if you hadn't slept with a person a bunch of times?

Very well said! The frequency thing is just as important.......my last boyfriend was into making out and all of that, but when it came to actual sex, he wanted it far less than I did. I only figured this out when I moved in with him and it was clear within a month that we were not right or each other.

[Distance]

Marriage is difficult enough without adding the unnecessary stress of sexual incompatibility. It's like marrying someone without knowing how much financial debt they have or how they view spending. Worse yet, marrying someone without knowing their negative views on monogamy.

When you go into a marriage, do it with your eyes wide open. This way there are less unpleasant surprises as the years go by.

[katrin]

Originally Posted by cannotseethe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not so. It's quite possible to enjoy all non-intercourse levels of physical intimacy with a person and still not like sex with them. Frequency preference is another potential issue that only becomes apparent after you've had sex with a person many times. If you're a once a day person and they're a once every few days person, then what? How would you know this, or be able to assess whether it could become problematic, if you hadn't slept with a person a bunch of times?

	Originally Posted by Hatsumomo1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not true. Well, not entirely at least. You might start out with incredible sexual chemistry with someone, try it out a bunch of times, get married, and then suddenly that little spark has fizzled out and someone wants it less often. Preferences in sex are not constant. Sex drives are not constant. Sexual chemistry/compatibility can become a problem at any time during a relationship.

I also think it can improve over time and that people are to at least some degree adaptable. If enough sexual chemistry is present, then at least some physical problems can be overcome (I mean, how many positions are there? A lot. Surely some can work.). And frequency is something that lends itself to compromise.

[cheerbear]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Marriage is difficult enough without adding the unnecessary stress of sexual incompatibility.

I agree but I know a couple where both were virgins before marriage so perhaps that would cause less of a problem since neither of them would know, for lack of a better description, "what they're missing"? They seem to be pretty happy so far.

As for the case in the OP where one is a virgin and one is not, that's difficult for me to understand. Sexual compatibility, frequency, adventurousness, etc are all something I think I'd be frustrated with if I was with someone who didn't have similar preferences as me, but how can you know tell unless you try?

[DanteFalling]

	Originally Posted by castalia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Exactly. And the woman asked her to marry him. She is 25 and experienced. My friend, who is an aspie, is 21 and a virgin! They met a month ago and she is asking for a ring. He thinks lust and love are one and the same. Do you see something wrong with this picture?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
concerned for your friend

You said he's inexperienced. Does he have a large support system?

Does he have any history dating?

He got her a necklace. How DARE she ask for a ring. She needs to buy him some nice stuff first if this is to be a gift exchange.

Officially creepy.



Also, I don't think people HAVE to have intercourse before they commit to each other. I don't see any data showing it's more likely to produce unhappiness or discord. But one month of knowing each other is definitely backed up with data of dummery.

[LadyInHeels]

In my opinion, the best part about saving sex til marriage is that neither partners will really know any different.

To each other, they will be the first and best they ever had- no need to compare to messy past relationships.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by LadyInHeels To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In my opinion, the best part about saving sex til marriage is that neither partners will really know any different. To each other, they will be the first and best they ever had- no need to compare to messy past relationships.

How does sexual compatibility compare to messy past relationships? I'm not seeing the relationship.

As for first and best, that rarely happens. You'll find that many people who have no experience will crave it later on in life, in a "missing out" way.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by LadyInHeels To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In my opinion, the best part about saving sex til marriage is that neither partners will really know any different.

Have you ever tried a new type of food, but didn't like it, despite never having tried a food from that subgroup before?

[LadyInHeels]

Let me hit 'ya with the facts:

A study relying on the National Health and Social Life Survey found that men who marry as virgins are 37 percent less likely to divorce than other men, and that women who marry as virgins are 24 percent less likely to divorce than other women. Thus, adults who remain abstinent until marriage are more likely to enjoy a satisfying and stable marriage.

[Synamon]

	Originally Posted by LadyInHeels To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let me hit 'ya with the facts: A study relying on the National Health and Social Life Survey found that men who marry as virgins are 37 percent less likely to divorce than other men, and that women who marry as virgins are 24 percent less likely to divorce than other women. Thus, adults who remain abstinent until marriage are more likely to enjoy a satisfying and stable marriage.

How many of those men and women are involved in religions which do not allow divorce or discourage divorce?

Not getting a divorce does not equal a "satisfying" marriage. People staying in abusive or unhappy marriages doesn't seem ideal to me.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by LadyInHeels To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let me hit 'ya with the facts: A study relying on the National Health and Social Life Survey found that men who marry as virgins are 37 percent less likely to divorce than other men, and that women who marry as virgins are 24 percent less likely to divorce than other women. Thus, adults who remain abstinent until marriage are more likely to enjoy a satisfying and stable marriage.

Let me hit you with some data analysis:

Assumption 1: The only factor that differed between the virgin and non-virgin marriages was virgin-status.

Assumption 2: Those who stay married are in satisfying marriages.

It could easily be that those who are virgins before marriage are more likely to be highly religious or have high morals against pre-marital sex, which could translate into less likelihood of getting a divorce EVEN IF the marriage is NOT satisfying.

All we know from your facts are that those who are virgins before marriage are more likely to stay married. Whether or not virginity itself leads to a happier marriage is anyone's guess.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by LadyInHeels To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let me hit 'ya with the facts: A study relying on the National Health and Social Life Survey found that men who marry as virgins are 37 percent less likely to divorce than other men, and that women who marry as virgins are 24 percent less likely to divorce than other women. Thus, adults who remain abstinent until marriage are more likely to enjoy a satisfying and stable marriage.

Is the bolded portion your conclusion to these statistics?

As for the two statistics of 37% and 24%, do you also have the cheating statistics that correlate with this group of individuals? Staying married doesn't mean staying monogamous.

[sircockburn]

Exactly! What if they completely SUCK in bed (and I don't mean sucking the cherry), or if they have a crucification fetish and will ONLY have sex if they can hammer nails into your nipples? O_O

And by the time you find out, you're completely nailed down.

[Gobbbler]

Originally Posted by castalia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

See, I wonder if it is not just a gamble, though. Maybe the marriage worked out by chance? Statistically, some people are going to get along and their marriages are going to work out even if the couple has not had sex. Then, there is the other problem to consider if you have not been having sex with someone for a while. Some people who are not much into sex have lots of it in the beginning due to pressure to make their significant other happy. Others, especially women, have lots of sex until they are done having the number of kids they want and then it is 0 intimacy after that. I know because my uncle is married to such a woman. Once she had her child, she kept refusing him and the poor guy had to find it elsewhere. And don't even get me started on the fact that there are some gay men who want to get married and have a family and who will actually trick the woman into thinking they are straight by having lots of sex with her in the beginning. I know a couple of people like this as well.

I don't see how any of these situations you cite are solved by whether or not you've had sex with the person. In fact, your examples all seem to suggest that even despite having sex, sex issues can still arise.

Originally Posted by cannotseethe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not so. It's quite possible to enjoy all non-intercourse levels of physical intimacy with a person and still not like sex with them. Frequency preference is another potential issue that only becomes apparent after you've had sex with a person many times. If you're a once a day person and they're a once every few days person, then what? How would you know this, or be able to assess whether it could become problematic, if you hadn't slept with a person a bunch of times?

You're never going to simulate marriage unless you live with someone and have sex with them for a long period of time. Even then, kids and stuff can change a partner's interest in terms of frequency (or so I've heard, never been married or had kids). As for once a day versus once every few days, I don't know your gender, but I rarely get sex as often as I would like it. Most women aren't every day people. I deal. From talking to my friends and others, this is a common male versus female issue. I've also had people who kind of disappointed in terms of the actual sex, but I can't say that I didn't enjoy it. Perhaps everyone is putting too much emphasis on the sex part of the relationship here? It's not like it has to be mind-blowing the first time. People have certainly improved for me. Sex is just one important part of marriage/relationships. I doubt it is the most important factor in determining marriage happiness and success.

----------------------------------------------------

Regardless, my entire point about the sex frequency thing is that many people do fine without it. I am sure that it is really that important to some people - just because it is though, doesn't mean that it is an unimaginable thing to do (marry without sex) and in your cousin's case, there are much more inarguable warning signs.

[TigerL]

I would wager that the over-emphasis on sex in some relationships to the exclusion of other topics (compatibility re: money/ children/ families/ religion, etc.) probably contributes to the dissolution of many relationships. In the US, sex is an odd topic -- splashed all over TV/movies/magazines yet as a society, we're suprisingly prudes when it comes to talking about safe sex, how to communicate with your partner about sex (and I mean beyond what you see in Cosmo), etc.

[Samoan Corleone]

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Exactly! What if they completely SUCK in bed (and I don't mean sucking the cherry), or if they have a crucification fetish and will ONLY have sex if they can hammer nails into your nipples? O_O And by the time you find out, you're completely nailed down.

Two virgins wouldn't really know if they sucked during their first time, would they? They'd have no one to compare the other person to, except their right hands.

[Jarem Asyder]

	Originally Posted by Samoan Corleone To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Two virgins wouldn't really know if they sucked during their first time, would they? They'd have no one to compare the other person to, except their right hands.

And porn, and they'd never compare well to porn, hence they'd become very aware of how bad they were at it.

[cannotseethe]

Entering a long term sexually exclusive relationship with a mediocre sex partner is like merging finances with a person who has intractable debt. You've just signed away a dimension of life in either case.

Burying one's head in the sand about it is the acme of irresponsibility no matter how many people in unsatisfying relationships report they've found ways to cope with their lack.

[Gobbbler]

	Originally Posted by cannotseethe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Entering a long term sexually exclusive relationship with a mediocre sex partner is like merging finances with a person who has intractable debt. You've just signed away a dimension of life in either case. Burying one's head in the sand about it is the acme of irresponsibility no matter how many people in unsatisfying relationships report they've found ways to cope with their lack.

Having sex first isn't necessarily going to avoid that. It will help figure it out, but people come from different backgrounds and usually have other important needs in a marriage. Personally, I would want to establish that part of the relationship before I marry someone, but I just don't think it is that unimaginable not to. If sex quality isn't high on either person's priority list, but they have other strong needs from a marriage, then why can't they be perfectly happy? We aren't all going to marry loyal supermodels with the heart of a saint, the finances of Bill Gates, and the sexual abilities of a porn star. If you're not having sex and the relationship is so satisfying that you both want to get married, I can easily see the marriage being very gratifying with only mediocre sex.

I am curious what the experience is that lies behind the fancy sounding philosophies you put forth here. The worth of a speaker's word is more than just how cleverly worded their phrasing.

[cannotseethe]

Humans excel at pretending possibilities they've never experienced don't exist. It's a blessing. They're equally adept at devaluing experiences they've never expended energy trying to have. Fortunately, the tentative awakening of awareness is easily reversed with beer and commiseration.

[Elfrun]

	Originally Posted by castalia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	or, maybe, she wants GB citizenship, as she is actually Indian.

That's kinda the only part that makes sense to me. I take it you've never met her? Your take on the two of them after seeing them together would be telling I expect, it could be real for her.

No sex before marriage is directly related to religion. Or of course, if she is truly after a citizenship, a carrot to entice him.

What's his take? Has he agreed or is he skeptical too?