seebs

I do. Keep in mind, it's easier to accept a post that mostly-agrees-with-you.

Then you must have missed all the posts carefully using loaded words, trying as hard as possible to keep turning "commitment" back into "just a piece of paper", and referring to a lack of interest in casual sex as a "hang-up".

Ahh, here we get into a VERY interesting question.

So far as I can tell, exclusive dating implies the option of life-time commitment; you may not have made such a commitment yet, but you wouldn't agree to exclusive dating if you didn't think such a commitment were possible.

What exactly is the information you have now that you didn't before? Er. Even though it's obvious that you don't have to answer personal questions you don't want to, I just want to make it VERY clear that I don't necessarily think that one deserves an answer, but it's an interesting question.

I have a hard time thinking of anything that I could find out about a prospective life-time partner by having sex that would change my mind one way or another.

I've seen statements fairly close to that, with strong implications and strongly loaded words.

Fair enough. But, when you were doing so, did you consider, for instance, the possibility that having sex might lead to conflicts or disagreements about where the relationship was going, and/or make such disagreements more emotionally significant, and thus potentially more painful?

If not, I think your original decision was not fully informed. If you considered that and decided it was worth the risks, then cool, I'm happy things are working out for you.

In my case, I think the sex I had before I got married had a negative impact on my ability to make a rational and informed decision about marriage; I lucked out anyway, but I think I would have been more clear on whaat I was doing if I hadn't had prior sexual experiences, because, being essentially a kid (I was what, maybe 21?) at the time, I was having trouble distinguishing a good sex life from a good relationship. Not to say everyone would have that problem, but it's an easy problem to have. My wife still has that problem sometimes; as she commented recently, it's easy for her to think everything is okay as long as there's been sex recently. (She's got traditional male instincts.)

JamesKrieger

By this same reasoning, then, one shouldn't have sex in a committed relationship, either, because committed relationships can also break up and be very painful.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware of these things. Some people are able to separate sex from an emotional component, and some are not. Men are more likely to engage in sex without an emotional component than women. However, both approve of premarital sex in a serious relationship (Carroll et al., Arch. Sex Behav., 1985)

I gave you a specific example of my girlfriend and I, and others on this board have given you specific examples. How would my girlfriend and I know if we could have a satisfying sex life, without trying it first?

It is simple. It is an opportunity to learn about your partner, to learn what pleases him/her sexually, so that you can both have a mutually satisfying sex life.

When we are dating, we learn about our partner....what pleases him/her, his/her personality, his/her desires and goals, his/her values...all to determine life-time compatibility. Why should it be any different for sex?

Second, sexual satisfaction alone has been shown to have demonstrable associations with relationship benefits in scientific research.

Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships has been shown to have a strong, positive association with relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment for both men and women (Sprecher, J. Sex. Res., 39(3):190-196, 2002). Changes in sexual satisfaction is also associated with changes in relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment. Also, there was some evidence found in this paper that sexual satisfaction was associated with relationship stability.

In middle-aged women, a positive association between sexual satisfaction and life satisfaction has been observed (Walfisch et al., Maturitas, 6(3):285-296, 1984).

In married professional men, sexual pleasure and marital sexual compatibility are associated with psychological health (Heath, J. Sex Marital Ther. 5(2):103-116, 1979)

Differences in sexual desire are related to relationship satisfaction in couples, and this is mediated by sexual satisfaction (Davies et al., Arch. Sex Behav. 28(6):553-567, 1999)

In couples 18-25 years old in relationships of 3 months or more (meaning that a good portion of them probably weren't married), relationship satisfaction was highly related to sexual satisfaction (Nelson et al., J Sex Marital Ther. 20(1):35-45, 1994)

Sexual dissatisfaction in women is related to late start in sexual life, conservative sexual attitudes, and unimportance of sexuality in life (Haavio-Mannila & Kontula, Arch Sex Behav, 26(4):399-419, 1997)

Third, sexual activity itself can have physical/emotional health effects. The hormone oxytocin is released during orgasm. Higher oxytocin is associated with positive emotion and relaxation (Turner et al., Psychiatry, 62(2):97-113, 1999). Repeated doses of oxytocin (just as what would occur with repeated orgasm) increases sedation, lowers blood pressure, and decreases corticosteroid (a stress hormone) levels. (Uvnas-Moberg, Acta Physiol Scand Supp, 640:38-42, 1997) Why should a couple refrain from sexual activity if sexual activity can provide these benefits?


Of course it doesn't ensure sexual compatibility. But it certainly gives you a higher probability of knowing if the compatibility is there, does it not? How can you find out sexual compatibility without intercourse? How can a pilot know what it's really like to fly an F-16 without actually doing it? Even a simulator isn't going to be the same as the real thing, although simulators have gotten better and better as our technology has advanced.

In what ways?

There is no way my girlfriend and I could've known about our sexual difficulties without actually trying sex first.

It's like a drug. It doesn't matter how much in vitro or animal research you have to show efficacy. You still need to try it in humans.

Who said that the first few sexual experiences are going to make or break the commitment? If that were true, my girlfriend and I wouldn't be still together. What I'm referring to is consistent sexual difficulties...and the only way to know if those are going to become a problem is to have sex.

And that's a natural, biological drive. Why should it be suppressed?

Of course...and married people want to get laid, too. What is so wrong with finding out if you will get satisfaction out of that process before you get married?

JamesKrieger

I have the information that my girlfriend and I can have a mutually satisfying sex life. A satisfying sex life is important to both of us. I would not have that information without actually engaging in intercourse.

Of course...but this would be true whether we were married or not. How is marriage offer protection against sex leading to these types of things?

The fact is, when my girlfriend and I had sex, it DID cause problems in our relationship...because neither of us were satisfied because of sexual difficulties we were both having. It caused resentment. It took a number of weeks for us to work out the problems...and now the resentment is gone. It makes me very glad we AREN'T married, because if we had waited until marriage, and were, for some reason or another, NOT able to work those things out...it would have been an unhappy marriage.

JamesKrieger

For the guy who didn't believe you could be allergic to semen:



Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991 May;31(2):137-41. Related Articles, Links


Allergy to coitus.

Jones WR.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Bedford Park, South Australia.

Acute systemic hypersensitivity reactions to semen are rare but may be life-threatening. Chronic or recurrent local reactions are more common and may be misdiagnosed as infective or nonspecific vaginitis. The antigen(s) involved in these reactions reside in a glycoprotein fraction of seminal plasma. Allergic vulvovaginitis may also occur in sensitized women when they are exposed to exogenous allergens such as drugs, food and infective agents during sexual activity. Skin testing and other relevant investigations are indicated when these disorders are suspected. Condom usage will prevent symptoms of coital allergy. Desensitization has had variable success in acute systemic hypersensitivity. Precoital antihistamines may modify local reactions.

PIP: The focus of this study on coital allergy is on discussing the basis for and clinical implications of the immunological reactions that mediate allergic reactions to semen. Allergic reactions to antigens in seminal plasma occur in the case of acute systemic hypersensitivity (ACH), localized postcoital allergic seminal vulvovaginitis, and/or hypersensitivity to exogenous allergens in semen. In the few cases (30 cases at present), ACH may manifest itself in generalized urticaria, orbital and vulval edema, vulval and generalized pruritus, bronchospasm, lower abdominal pain, hypotension, and loss of consciousness. There may be a family history of atopy. Symptoms may appear over months or years before reaching a severe level. The usual case is the appearance after the 1st coital act or after a change in coital, genital, or reproductive occasions. It is not specific to a particular male partner. It may be self-limiting. Condom usage or abstinence may lead to abatement. Localized vulvovaginitis may occur simultaneously with ACH or exist alone. The symptoms are local pruritus, burning, swelling, erythema, and urticaria in varying degrees for up to a week and occur during or after coitus. Douching or vulval irrigations may ameliorate symptoms. Misdiagnosis as genital herpes or infective vulvovaginitis may occur in mild cases. Exogenous allergens derived from drugs, food, and other sources presenting in the semen may contribute to hypersensitivity. This is different from reactions to intrinsic components of seminal plasma. Vaginal exposure to chemical products such as soaps or to airborne particles such as pollen may produce allergic responses. Another possibility is that genital candidiasis may produce local Ige antibodies, and PGE2 induced suppression of cell-mediated immunity. The immunological mechanisms are described as type I hypersensitivity reactions with the antigen reacting with reaginic antibodies of the Ige class which are bound to mast cell or circulating basophils. The antigens and the immune reactions are specified. In the clinical diagnosis, the rare acute systemic form is obvious, but the atypical, recurrent, and intractable forms of vulvovaginitis require investigation with skin tests. Treatment may involve artificial insemination for those seeking pregnancy, immunotherapy, or antihistamines, rather than use of a condom or abstinence.

seebs

Okay, fair enough.

If you're in a life-long committed relationship, you at least know that you won't be dumped over sex.

Hmm. I only sort of follow this. I guess, what reason do you have to think that not being able to work these things out would be a likely or realistic concern?

seebs

Thus the origination of the idea that only relationships that will never break up should involve sex - which I think is hopelessly optimistic.

Right.

Some are not.

Therefore, for at least some people, there are substantial additional costs or risks associated with sex outside of a committed relationship.

Therefore, we shouldn't tell people there are no such costs.

Hmm. I'm not sure. Basically, I'm not sure what barriers to a satisfying sex life could exist that you couldn't find out about through other means.

And you can do this at any point, if you really want to...

I tend to agree with this - I just think that it's a bit of a jump to assert "therefore, people should have sex before marriage".

Yes, but neither of these has anything to do with when you start having sex.

This part, I'd agree with; I think a lot of conservative attitudes about sex are quite harmful.

Perhaps because of more subtle psychological effects. I know people who have had a great deal of trouble accepting a partner's previous sexual history. Since such people exist, and are not necessarily "bad people" or whatever, one might reasonably decide to refrain from forming a previous sexual history until one was in a relationship expected to last a lifetime.

Is the potential gain worth it? Maybe for some people, maybe not for others. I don't know. However, there *is* something there which is special to people, and can provide great emotional satisfaction.


I do not believe that there exist pairs of people who are attracted to each other, and care about each other, who cannot be sexually compatible.

I could ask rude questions here, but I think it would be counterproductive. Anyway, let's take that as a given - certainly, I know that my wife and I have learned a lot of things over the years that have changed our sex life.

I think the point stays the same; these difficulties were not insurmountable, because you were both willing to work on them.

Hmm. The more I talk to you, the more I think you're not actually the guy I should be arguing with. Anyway, I don't know about "consistent" sexual difficulties. I know people who have what some people would consider *huge* sexual difficulties, who are married, and who are happy enough anyway. I know a guy whose wife is paralyzed, and I'm pretty sure they have a much less active sex life than he originally had in mind, but it's not as though he's going to divorce her.

We often suppress that biological drive for social reasons, and expect others to do so. What's wrong with non-consensual sex? It's biologically sound. You can get pregnant from it. The biological urge to get laid can be satisfied by it. And yet, we take a step back and say "this is wrong anyway".

I am not saying that premarital sex is as bad as rape, or even necessarily bad - I just want to point out that there are some very good reasons to suppress that biological drive when our conscious minds are able to detect problems that might result from following it too closely.

I guess, my position comes down to this:

It seems very, very, likely to me that any two people who are attracted to each other and otherwise suited to marriage, will be able to achieve sexual satisfaction in a marriage, if they actually both want to.

So, I don't see the "fact-finding mission" as a realistic justification. I think the much simpler ones - "I'm horny" or even "I really want to share this with this person" - are better reasons.

JamesKrieger

I would say the source of the problem would point to the likelihood of whether the problem can be worked out our not. In our case, for a while we had trouble determining the source of the problem, and I started to have concerns about our relationship because we were struggling to find a solution. The fact that the struggle continued for a number of weeks caused the concern to elevate. However, we have finally solved the problem, and our entire relationship (not just our sexual relationship) has benefitted as a result.

JamesKrieger

Agreed.

I was having erectile problems, and my girlfriend was having orgasm problems during intercourse...orgasm problems she had not had with previous men. The only way to discover these problems was for us to have intercourse.

But what about physical problems that cannot be overcome? What if the man is too big, for example? No matter how attracted or how much you care about the person, intercourse in such a situation will not be pleasant for the woman.

Opera Nut

Marriage can be entered into quickly and cheaply.

Getting married simply because you're horny and desperate and you don't want to feel guilty about having sex, is one of the most stupid ways to ruin your life that I know of.

Getting to know your partner takes time.

Dating a person for a long period of time does not necessarilly mean you know the person well, but tends to make it that way, unless the person is deliberately hiding important feelings because they want to get married for some reason (I have seen this happen a lot).

Divorces are expensive and are an opportunity for you to be exploited by greedy, lazy lawyers who take your money, talk tough, and then roll over and play dead. I know, I grew up in a family of lawyers and I still got screwed over by incompetent lawyers who I thought would represent me aggressively when needed. You never know until you hire them.

I would much rather get committed to someone, let's say engaged to them, have intercourse,then realize that there is something very wrong with them that turns out to be a deal-breaker, and break up with them, cry for a while and then go on with my life, than get engaged, marry them, THEN realize there is a personality problem, and have to spend money I don't have on an expensive divorce.

If that were the case I would be REALLY broke paying useless lawyers.

And nobody around here is advocating "Atheists for Free Love".
Nobody is advocating hopping in the sack on the first date, or for several thereafter.


"Marry at haste; repent at leisure." -- Samuel Johnson

Truer and sadder words were never spoken!

seebs

Fair enough - but at the same time, I'm not sure they would necessarily be deal-breakers in a relationship you otherwise thought was marriage-worthy.

Probably true... but the fact is, if my wife and I acquired, at this point in our relationship, some new sexual problem, we wouldn't break up, so it doesn't *matter*.