Poll: Sex before marriage?

[Kitty Spoon Train]

I'm mostly curious about people who fall into that third category. Would like to see if there is anyone around here who does, and what the explanation is.

Note: If you're not planning to ever have sex regardless, then you can answer this from a general ideological point of view I suppose.

[The Great WTF]

Because of things like sexual incompatibility and unknown asexuality, I actually strongly encourage having sex before marriage if you are planning to have sex after you marry. People, even sexual people, have very diverse sexual tastes and it's better to address those tastes long before marriage.

[Notte stellata]

I don't believe in "saving oneself for marriage", for religious reasons or not. If you can kiss, cuddle, do all kinds of romantic things or even some sexual things except intercourse, I don't see the point why sex, or specifically intercourse, is the only thing you need to "save".

[supersprite42]

I would possibly say no for non-religious reasons, too. Before I was really religious at all, I still thought waiting for sex was a good idea as there's so much that can come with sex - babies, STDs, emotional attachments. But I think that I'd be a one-man-only kind of girl anyways, as making myself that vulnerable would be something that could only happen once without me being seriously broken.

[Robotic Emu]

I agree with CBC radio girl...If sex is going to be a part of your marriage, you should have it before you commit to spending the rest of your life with them. I am grey-a, and very much so sex neutral...like I feel attraction rarely and would not care if I had it or not. If I was seriously dating somebody who isn't completely asexual, I would definitely have sex with them to make sure that we are a good match in that way. I do not intend to have sex with anybody until after dating them for several months and honestly believing that they could be somebody I want to spend the rest of my life with.

[Waist of Thyme]

As long as it's consensual, I see no problem with it.

[Kazoo]

I chose "yes" for pretty much these reasons, which The Great WTF explained so well:

Because of things like sexual incompatibility and unknown asexuality, I actually strongly encourage having sex before marriage if you are planning to have sex after you marry. People, even sexual people, have very diverse sexual tastes and it's better to address those tastes long before marriage.

But I guess I'm still a bit conflicted from a personal standpoint. Before I knew asexuality was a thing, I had decided that I wouldn't have sex until I was engaged to somebody, with the idea that I would probably only have sex with one person and that this would be part of a special bond I shared with the person after we were completely committed to one another. (I remember telling this to my friend in health class and having her look at me like I was from Mars. ^_^ Especially because she knew I had no religious reason. ) Now I understand that if I were in a relationship with someone for whom sex was important, it would be necessary to try things out before making any kind of commitment. But I worry about this, because I tend to over-analyze things as they're happening. If I knew that being able to have sex was necessary for continuing the relationship I don't know how I would deal with that kind of pressure, since I wouldn't even be trying it if I didn't deeply care about the person. (Maybe I should reconsider this, at least slightly?) Ideally I'd fall in love with someone who was willing to commit regardless how much sex we'd have, but the odds are not particularly good... we'll see, I guess.

[Schrecken]

I voted for the second reason, but I could just have easily chosen the third option as well, to a lesser degree. My main reason for that is that I would simply be giving away too much of myself without any guarantee of a permanent union (well, yes I know marriage is far from permanent but does provide a big incentive for a couple to work things out and not just walk away from each other). It would make me feel extremely cheap and not unlike a product that people test out (like driving a car before you buy it or laying on a mattress for a while before you buy) before committing to purchasing. I don't want to feel like I'm being "tried on" or "test driven" like a consumer product (nor would I want to foist that sort of feeling on someone else), nor do I want to feel like I'm being interviewed for a job and must perform a test to be sure I can do the job before I get hired. I can easily see this sort of thing for employment, as someone is being paid to perform a duty (which may have to do with safety, like an airline pilot or a doctor), but IMO marriage should be above and beyond such tests and conditions. If you buy an appliance and take it home, and it doesn't work the way you thought it would, or it is defective, you can then return or exchange it. But again, I'm not an appliance or a worker looking for hire, and I wouldn't want to be made to feel cheap and disposable like that. While a broken toaster can be nothing more than broken and un-usable (or perhaps it does work but makes your toast way too dark even on low settings), but within a marriage IMO sexual issues can be worked out and people can change and adjust their behaviors to help compromise to meet the needs of the other person.

That said, I would be willing to "bend" these rules very slightly if the situation warranted it. In other words, if I was engaged to a man and our wedding date was only a month or so away, or less, I might be willing to go all the way because at that point it would be much harder to pull the plug over something relatively minor like sex (unless I would be marrying a man with a super stoked sex drive, and I would try hard to avoid someone like that from the get-go, since I would never be able to satisfy him). And then if he did pull the plug and cut and run, I would simply figure that would be someone too shallow for me to want to marry anyway, but I would hope that I would have ruled out someone like that early on before a date was set.

But even if I didn't have sex before marriage (even a few weeks before the date) I would certainly be very open to discussing everything sex-related with the man before a date was even set. I do believe that such discussions are a necessary part of pre-marital planning and would include things like how frequently they would want sex, what sorts of stuff they would like and might expect, etc, how they feel about family planning, and so on.

[Notte stellata]

I actually think that it's important to have sex before marriage, at least for sexual couples or anyone to whom sex is going to be a significant part of their relationship. (Basically, anyone other than two asexuals who definitely won't be having any sex.) Compatibility -- sexual and otherwise -- is something people should figure out before tying the knot. Not having sex sounds about as ridiculous to me as never discussing whether you want to have children, never talking about subjects like politics and religion and morals, never learning about your partner's interests, etc.

Can't agree more. This is basically my reasoning too, but you said it better than I did. :) I think the whole "dating" period is to test the compatibility between two people (otherwise, they could get married as soon as they show mutual romantic interest in each other, or even have an arranged marriage), compatibility in personality, emotional needs, lifestyle, values, interests, etc. Sex is just another aspect of compatibility, so I don't understand why some people need to make sure they're compatible in every other aspect before marriage, but just leave sex out.

[byanyotherusername]

I chose "yes" for pretty much these reasons, which The Great WTF explained so well:

Because of things like sexual incompatibility and unknown asexuality, I actually strongly encourage having sex before marriage if you are planning to have sex after you marry. People, even sexual people, have very diverse sexual tastes and it's better to address those tastes long before marriage.

But I guess I'm still a bit conflicted from a personal standpoint. Before I knew asexuality was a thing, I had decided that I wouldn't have sex until I was engaged to somebody, with the idea that I would probably only have sex with one person and that this would be part of a special bond I shared with the person after we were completely committed to one another. (I remember telling this to my friend in health class and having her look at me like I was from Mars. ^_^ Especially because she knew I had no religious reason. ) Now I understand that if I were in a relationship with someone for whom sex was important, it would be necessary to try things out before making any kind of commitment. But I worry about this, because I tend to over-analyze things as they're happening. If I knew that being able to have sex was necessary for continuing the relationship I don't know how I would deal with that kind of pressure, since I wouldn't even be trying it if I didn't deeply care about the person. (Maybe I should reconsider this, at least slightly?) Ideally I'd fall in love with someone who was willing to commit regardless how much sex we'd have, but the odds are not particularly good... we'll see, I guess.

^Basically this. I never got why none of my nonreligious friends wanted to wait when I was younger. I always said I was waiting for "sentimental reasons"...but, it was more like, I didn't understand why you would risk STD's, unwanted pregnancy and other dangers in the first place unless you were completely smitten and in it for the long haul, haha. I also essentially equated hormones/lust with insanity, and thought that me and my prospective partners would somehow keep clearer heads while evaluating each other if we weren't having sex? Yeah, I had some interesting ideas in my early teen years. XD

I also just assumed if the relationship was good that the sex would be good, or at least we'd both be able to work at it and learn how to make it good for the other person...I still, frankly, have trouble with the idea that two sexual people who love each other can fall apart purely because of sexual incompatibility. It just seems like if you're both into each other, and you're both into sex, you should be able to make it work somehow. But I know that it's more complicated than that, and agree that couples should test their sexual compatibility before making a real commitment for this very reason. I guess part of me is still just brainwashed by the fairy-tale notion that love conquers all...>.<

[Guest]

What CBC said. I think it's fine for people to "save for each other" so long as they don't think sex will be an important part of their relationship after marriage, because many couples actually break up because of sexual incompatibility, and there's no reason to risk that if it can be avoided.

[crucis]

I don't see why anything should have to wait until after marriage. Aside from the fact that I don't like marriage very much, I see it as a reaffirmation of a relationship: proof that it has held up against as many trials as you're likely to face in the future. I'm on the fence about kids, but everything you expect to be doing after a marriage should (ideally) already have been done before.

[Philip027]

I am one of those third-category votes, but I don't have much of a reason for voting that way aside from the fact I have a bit of an antisexual streak in me.

Personally I think that a sex life (or lack thereof) shouldn't be what dictates a relationship (or lack thereof), and if it does, in my eyes the relationship was never very stable to begin with, on either one or both sides.

Buuuuuuuuut that's just me and I'm sure my opinion would not be very popular with the world at large

[ithaca]

I am not a fan of marriage in the first place, so <_<

Sex is fine, don't see why it's still such a taboo in 2013.

[Guest]

I don't believe in marriage (and think the world would be better off the sooner it gets dumped as a legal concept)... so this one is an obvious yes for me. ;)

[Arctangent]

Because of things like sexual incompatibility and unknown asexuality, I actually strongly encourage having sex before marriage if you are planning to have sex after you marry. People, even sexual people, have very diverse sexual tastes and it's better to address those tastes long before marriage.

I agree. There are plenty of threads on AVEN about relationship problems due to sexual incompatibility. In any relationship involving at least one person that expects sexual activity, I think it's important to at least have honest, open discussions about sex before making a long-term commitment.

So yeah, I answered yes on the poll. I'm mildly sex repulsed and would rather avoid having sex if possible, but I don't have a problem with other people having sex as long as it's safe and consensual (which includes sex outside of marriage). If I ever end up in an intimate relationship with a sexual in which long-term commitment is on the table, I'd definitely want to address the issue of sexual compatibility beforehand.

I don't know if the "long-term commitment" I'm referring to would necessarily come in the form of marriage, though. I'm a little wary of marriage itself. Now that I think about it, my reluctance to get married might actually surpass my reluctance to have sex. :lol:

[MadRat]

Yes, because I don´t believe in marriage.

[Grumpy Alien]

I honestly think it varies from couple to couple whether or not it'd be a good idea. If it goes against their values or religious beliefs, I obviously wouldn't suggest it. But then there's couples where sex may be an important part of their relationship and they should see if they're compatible.

[JAKQ7111]

I don't believe in "saving oneself for marriage", for religious reasons or not. If you can kiss, cuddle, do all kinds of romantic things or even some sexual things except intercourse, I don't see the point why sex, or specifically intercourse, is the only thing you need to "save".

Honestly, I used to think that 'saving oneself' meant basically abstaining from all of the above things you mentioned, and not just intercourse, but then again, that was just my ignorant ace brain thinking all of that.

That being said, I think that 'saving oneself' until marriage is not wise, for all of the reasons previously stated. For myself, however, I don't plan on having sex OR getting married. I have many issues with marriage as a legal practice/cultural institution, and this is not the place to discuss them, however.

[Melorian]

I don't 'do' sex but I do believe that people should work out if they are sexually compatible before committing to a life together. It helps that I don't really see the need for marriage, but again when people commit by living together as well, it will benefit the relationship if they have discovered their compatibility. My parents didn't discover how incompatible they were until they were already married leading to my dad seeking sex outside of the marriage and my mum hating him for it and yet not wanting to have sex with him herself.

[Guest]

I think whatever people want to do is fine. For the religious people I know, none have had any issues with sex. But, sex is ... not that big a relationship point in their religion. And it has to be pretty vanilla to not be sinful. *shrug* Talking about liking it is something scandalous for them.

It really is up to whatever makes the couple happy. :)

[Jockey]

I voted No, For religious reasons.

I guess my actual position is closer to that people should be in long term committed relationships. I think people can tell that they are asexual or sexually incompatible without having sex. And I also think that a lot of time people who think they are sexually incompatible... if they're attracted to each other, they could figure out how to please each other sexually. I think it's good for people's relationships and for preventing spread of disease for people to limit their sexual relationships to long term comitted relationships.

On the other hand, I recognize that for some people that's not something that makes sense in their lives. They are part of cultures or subcultures that do not respect that kind of thinking. Or they have too strong of a temptation in their lives. Or whatever. It's not that big of a deal to me.

If I had teenagers I was raising who I thought were at all liable to go have sex, I would have condoms in the house for them to take, despite the fact that I'd be hoping that they didn't have sex.

[Kitty Spoon Train]

I voted No, For religious reasons.

I guess my actual position is closer to that people should be in long term committed relationships. I think people can tell that they are asexual or sexually incompatible without having sex. And I also think that a lot of time people who think they are sexually incompatible... if they're attracted to each other, they could figure out how to please each other sexually. I think it's good for people's relationships and for preventing spread of disease for people to limit their sexual relationships to long term comitted relationships.

On the other hand, I recognize that for some people that's not something that makes sense in their lives. They are part of cultures or subcultures that do not respect that kind of thinking. Or they have too strong of a temptation in their lives. Or whatever. It's not that big of a deal to me.

If I had teenagers I was raising who I thought were at all liable to go have sex, I would have condoms in the house for them to take, despite the fact that I'd be hoping that they didn't have sex.

That's one of the most sensible things I've read in quite a while.

[sound_the_bugle]

I said yes, but I'm really more on a level of feeling that it's their body, they can do whatever the hell they please with it. So long as what you do doesn't hurt other people, you are free to do whatsoever you please.

I do think that you should be a long term, at least relatively committed, relationship before considering sex. That would always be advice to anyone who asked.

[Vyanni Krace]

I personally likely wouldn't have sex before marriage, and since its unlikely that I'll ever marry-especially considering I don't want to get married, or even get into a relationship-it is likely that I will never have sex. Though there is always a chance I might loose my virginity at some point in my life, it is unlikely so far.

However I believe that if someone does want to experience sex before they are married then that is perfectly fine.

[WhenSummersGone]

I think this is different for everyone and what would be most comfortable to them, but if people want to have sex before marriage then that is fine with me. I know that I was curious about sex so I had it, but right now I would only have sex in a relationship or if I was actually sexually attracted to someone (which is rare). I also wouldn't say I'm celibate because I'm mostly just waiting for the right situation to pop up, plus I don't have an inner desire for sex.

[KennelTechWithHipsterGlass]

I'm mostly curious about people who fall into that third category. Would like to see if there is anyone around here who does, and what the explanation is.

Note: If you're not planning to ever have sex regardless, then you can answer this from a general ideological point of view I suppose.

I believe in waiting for sex for non religious reasons. ^^ I mean, I am sort of/kind of a (not very good) Christian, but regardless, I think people should wait for sex. If my future partner is sexual, I would want to be able to satisfy them sexually. It would be the ultimate form of intimacy to both my sexual partner and me, if it means that much to my sexual partner. But, if that person went and had sex with a bunch of other people, and had STD's and all kinds of gross stuff, I would not have sex with my partner. That's sick. I do not want any STD's. I have enough medical problems to deal with haha. But that is something you give to your lifelong partner who you love deeply. That's just how I've always felt about it.

[5_♦♣]

So, even if your partner was still a virgin and you were engaged, you would still wait until the wedding night to have sex? What if you find out that you aren't sexually compatible on your honeymoon?

[Sally]

considering the complaints of the many people in mixed marriages where the asexual didn't realize they were asexual because they'd never tried sex, I think everyone should have sex before they marry. A lot of misery could be prevented that way. Despite many other compatible elements there are in a partnership, sexual incompatibility can ruin a marriage.

[Guest]

considering the complaints of the many people in mixed marriages where the asexual didn't realize they were asexual because they'd never tried sex, I think everyone should have sex before they marry.

I`d nitpickishly change that to "everyone who intends to have sex within marriage"... but basically, I agree. :)