What does "sexually compatible" mean?

[warrior queen]

Even if the inability to have sex is due to an accident or illness?

yes - if it meant potentially years and years of no intimate sex.

 

[Bandit58]

that is an extremely unsatisfying way for a man to experience sex for a long time.
men need touch and intimacy as much as women do!

would you feel the same way if you couldn't have the intimacy of sharing sex with another person, perhaps for many years?
do you really believe you would be happy to masturbate solo for a lengthy period of time?
no intimacy whatsoever, apart from perhaps the occasional hug or kiss?

i don't think so.

I agree WQ, intimacy is very important in a relationship. Gil and I touch, cuddle and kiss lots (you've seen us ) With his health problems sometimes his body won't co-operate - even a low blood sugar level can preclude him having an orgasm. With his diabetes and medications he also has erectile dysfunction, i.e. getting hard yes but staying hard enough for penetration can be a problem. We compensate by using toys, fingers (for G spot play) and oral pleasuring.

Where there's a will there's definitely a way. To the poster who said she would divorce in an instant if she wasn't getting any - do you mean actual intercourse or would that be any sort of sexual contact? There is a difference I'm having better and more enjoyable sexual experiences now than I ever did when I was married to a healthy man

 

[Straight-8]

I'm going back to the basic question: what is sexual compatability? I think it is the same thing that used to be called 'chemistry'. There are attractive women who I would not want to be intimate with ~ ok, being a guy, I might want to be intimate with them once or twice but then I know I'd have to move at least 1000 miles away. I think sexual compatability means an ongoing ability to find each other sexually attractive and that means physically and psychologically. I think it means wanting pretty much the same thing out of sex in terms of intimacy and excitement.

I think it is in the Glass Menagerie that the mother pats the bed and says: "When people say 'the marriage is on the rocks' I know where the rocks are: they're here!" Everybody has a sexual side and it gets all bound up with various taboos and hang-ups. Can you live with your spouses and can your spouse live with yours? Can you help each other to deal with those things and become whole and fulfilled sexually. If not, you can find your marriage on the 'rocks'.

So, sex may not 'fix' anything but it sure can wreck things if it doesn't work out. I think this is what those who post about their theoretical re-actions to having a non-sexually capable partner are talking about. I just hope I never have to find out exactly where my line is.

For my two bits I think it is a terrible mistake to think that 'saving it' for marriage is a good idea. You may come to resent what you missed or at the very least experience an insatiable curiosity. Most husbands won't really care that much except that you may demonstrate other sexual bounds that they will later find difficult. As well, you may learn a lot about the issue of sexual compatability if you try it. Of course, that's just my opinion but don't you find it a trifle odd that you are posting on 'Literotica' if you are truely committed to saving your virginity?

 

[SamhainDisciple]

Even if the inability to have sex is due to an accident or illness?

If it was permenant, yes. I would be their friend and be there for them to support them, but I would divorce them and find another romantic partner. It's not a marriage without sex...If I wanted a loyal roomate that loved me dearly but didn't have sex with me, I'd live with my gay best friend instead of with a husband. The difference between a "friend" and a "significant other" is the sex part. I'm not going to cheat on my partner (that's just wrong to me) but I'm not going to go the rest of my life without sex either. Good gods, I'd probably go nuts and jump off a bridge if you told me I could never have sex again! It's been 3 months since the last time I had sex right now and I'm already driven to distraction.

 

[Mr. Mann]

Apologies in advance because I realize that this is getting off-track a bit, but I have to address it:
I think it's more complicated than this.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I think there are men out there who completely fail to appreciate that women have needs that have to be met that aren't sexual, and sometimes it's difficult to feel sexy/sexual when those needs aren't being met.

In my first marriage, my ex and I both worked. He had a full-time job that required a lot of deadlines and travel; he worked six days a week and on Sunday, his day off, he had a hobby that took up the entire day and often required travel. I was teaching at a small college (full-time course load for part-time pay). Since my ex was often gone before the kids got up in the morning and was rarely home before they went to bed, I had sole responsibility for running the household (housework, childcare, bill-paying, etc.).

Once the kids went to bed, I had to grade papers and plan for my classes. Exhausted and overwhelmed, I'd fall into bed. When my husband rolled in at 11:00 or later wanting to fuck, I was less than receptive to his advances. While I understand (more so now than I did back then) that he was looking to have a particular need met, it was difficult for me to accommodate him without resenting him because I felt that my (nonsexual) needs weren't being met.

Just another perspective.

No disagreement at all from me. I think you are very right and your post is both insightful and articulate in representing (again generalizing) the female point of view. Many men fail to appreciate that, too. I know I certainly wasn't born with the knowledge and had to learn from experience. As I mentioned, women tend to need the relationship to be good, for the connection of affection and intimacy to be there in order to desire and enjoy sex. Whereas men tend to need and want physical intimacy in order for them to feel the connection of affection and intimacy.

It cna almost be a "Which comes first? The chicken or the egg?" thing (no pun intneded there!)

To me, an attitude like that is kindof disturbing. Now, I feel like sexual intimacy is important (incredibly important, actually), but I believe marriage to be MUCH more than sex with a roomate.

Do you love and care for roomates? Does that mean if your wife was no longer able to have sex with you, that you'd leave her?

Ugh, it just disgusts me that people think that way.

Perhaps I have been inarticulate.

A spouse is certainly more than a roomate you have sex with.

However, without deep emotional and physical intimacy, a marriage can be no different than friends without benefits who also live together.
If a spouse is not able to have sex, that is clearly differnt than one who no longer desires to, who witholds sex as a tactic, or who makes themselves unavailable by expending the sum total of their energies elsewhere.

I feel like I am pussyfooting arond generalizations, so I'll just say how *I* feel.

My first job is to be a good father. I will gladly sacrifice anything to do this. In fact, it is no sacrifice. I want to be a good father. It is my desire as well as my duty.

This does not mean I quit being a husband. Running a very close second to my role as father is my duty and desire to be the man that the woman I love deserves.

Each day I try to be a better father than I was the day before.
Each day I try to be a better huband than I was the day before.

Work, outside interests... these are mostly just things I do, not things I am. I love my wife and kids, not my job. My wife and kids can love me back. My job cannot. My friendships are not the same as the deeply intimate relationship that I share exclusively with my wife

Just as I am the only father my kids will ever have, I also signed on to be the only man that my wife has a deeply emotional and physical relationship with.

The other side of that coin is that she made the same committment to me.

We both try to be everything the other person wants, desires, and needs... and that includes sex.

A physical inability to have sex is a different matter than sexual compatibility, or willingess to try to meet a spouses's sexual desires and needs to the best of one's ability.

 

[pplwatching]

I believe that the idea of sexual compatability as a justification for having sex is just that; a rationalization for having sex. The motivation is selfish, and I believe that it undermines the search for personal traits and characteristics that will prove to be the strength of the marriage. It also implies that the goal of having sex is to find a marriage partner, which is all too often not the case.

It's a rational that completely overlooks the fact that things always change. Sex after 11 years of marriage is so much different for us. We have been through very difficult times of no sex, wonderful times of sex twice a day, and everything in between. My wife and I are trying things that one or the other of us never would have considered at other stages of our lives. Long time fantasies are becoming realities. Our love and respect for each other opens us up to new possibilities.

What really makes the marriage work is the personality traits that my wife brought to the marriage. I was lucky to find a woman who was open to new ideas, fiercely loyal, smart, dedicated, understood the value of communication, and really thought that the concept of marriage was something she could commit to. She also made it clear that she was committed to making me happy in our relationship, with the little things that she did. It is those very traits that got us through the the hard times, and god willing will get us through any more sexual dry spells to come. I know that she wants to see me happy, she knows that I want to see her happy. We both know that the other will be there to help work through problems. We both married someone who was willing to comprimise, and that was a trait that I could see in her from the beginning.

I believe that a couple can discuss sex before marriage, and even have sex before marriage. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that you have a strong sex drive, or no interest in sex and factoring that into a decision to marry. I don't believe that you have to have sex with someone to figure that out. If your idea of a perfect marriage partner is someone who's willing to tie you up before you marry them, then find someone who's on the same page but it shouldn't be rationalized or used as a bargaining chip. Someone can lie about their sex drive just as easily as they can fake enthusiasm in bed. It's the other parts of someone's personality that are the backbone of the marriage, and the barometer of a persons' soul.

I would personally like to hear from anyone who chose to marry someone prior to having sex, but wanted to add the sexual component of the relationship 'just to be sure'. Did it make a difference? I think that more often you'll find people who rationalize have sex as a 'test of sexual compatability', but then break off the relationship for reasons other than sexual compatability.

Being in a sexless marriage sucks. I've been there, but my wife had fundamental character traits that cemented her commitment to our marriage, and we both worked hard to get to the sexual satisfaction we have today. To be fair, we had sex before we married, but our tastes, libido's, kinks, have been through so many changes that I believe there's no correlation to our marital success or to what gets our juices flowing today.

 

[bisexplicit]

If I get married to someone, I want to love them so much that I'd be willing to NOT have sex if an accident/illness occured. (And yeah, I like sex a hell of a lot.)

Anyone who feels different, I feel sorry for. And, it also makes me glad that I won't be marrying any of you who would dump your partner on the spot. In fact, maybe someone should inform your partners of this. They might not be so keen on the idea that they could be left at any moment.

"Hey honey, sorry about that accident that left you paralyzed, I'll move my stuff out in the morning, so I can start banging someone new ASAP."

 

[Weird Harold]

is this true? i've never heard that before. and what is "IIRC"?

IIRC == If I Recall Correctly

Apparently I did, becaue a quick google search for "divorce causes" turned up this comment:

From: http://www.divorcereform.org/cau.html

Time, sex, money biggest obstacles for young married Couples

A recent study by the Creighton University Center for Marriage and Family suggests that time, sex and money pose the three biggest obstacles to satisfaction in the lives of newly married couples. The study found that debt brought into marriage, the couples' financial situation, balancing job and family, and frequency of sexual relations were of greatest concern to those ages 29 and under. Those age 30 and over shared with their younger cohorts the concerns of balancing job and family and frequency of sexual relations, but also added as problem areas constant bickering and expectations about household tasks.

Different studies turn up different causes and different rankings for them, but sex/infidelity and money turn up in every study on the causes of divorce I've ever seen.

 

[sseg]

I mean, really, what does it mean when someone says you should find out if you're sexually compatible? This is THE most common argument I hear when someone finds out that intend to wait until I'm married to have sex with someone. Seriously, what does this mean? Sex doesn't "fix" anything, so how does having sex make you make sure you're compatible vs. having a solid relationship built on trust, understanding, communication, similar likes and dislikes, etc?

First of all, don't take what I write to belittle your desire to wait until you are married. That's a personal choice and it must be respected.

Your last line says it all though, similar likes and dislikes. Sex is very important to me, as is touch, affection, compatible views on politics, religion, and so on. If your partner has a high (or low) libido and you are opposite, it's going to create tension in your relationship, especially if it is a monogamous relationship. If you like getting dressed up and whipped every night and all he wants is wham bam thank you ma'am, it's going to cause tension. If you're really tight and he's very well endowed and neither of you like oral sex, it'll cause problems. Same if it is the other way around.

The examples I used are pretty much similar to the way you approach money, childrearing (or choosing to be childfree), and a whole host of things. Finding true compatibility in a mate is complex, and developing a solid relationship takes work. You may luck out and find that after you're married you two are very sexually compatible, but you can also find out that your tastes and drives are so different that it can destroy an otherwise solid relationship.

The desire to "save it until marriage" is often a romantic cliche. It sounds really good, but it's not without its hazards. Do it if it pleases you both, but also be aware that it increases (but does not guarantee!) your odds of failure.

I've had enough relationships fail from lack of building good foundations that I'm leery to leave much up to chance anymore. There are too many variables I can't control to leave ones I can up to chance. Besides, sex is too much fun

 

[Reba67]

I
Of course, that's just my opinion but don't you find it a trifle odd that you are posting on 'Literotica' if you are truely committed to saving your virginity?

Enjoying written erotica and having sexual intercourse with someone are very VERY different things.

I do have a libido and I am usually very aware of it, probably just like the rest of you. I just find other ways than sexual intercourse to "deal with" that....be it erotica, masturbation or cyber sex chat......

 

[cordite]

The desire to "save it until marriage" is often a romantic cliche. It sounds really good, but it's not without its hazards. Do it if it pleases you both, but also be aware that it increases (but does not guarantee!) your odds of failure.

It's personal preference, I guess. I'll admit that there is something appealing about the "new toy" effect but that wears off quickly. However, what I actually feel is that more experience is always better. Each one of us has to make that call for ourselves.

 

[pplwatching]

Not to pick on you, but your post covers a lot of what's been said on this board at various times and it was easy to hit 'reply' here ;-) I don't use the word 'you' here to point at you in particular, but as a general response. I am not arguing against sex before marriage. I am disagreeing specifically with the concept of sex as a criteria for determining compatability.

If your partner has a high (or low) libido and you are opposite, it's going to create tension in your relationship, especially if it is a monogamous relationship. If you like getting dressed up and whipped every night and all he wants is wham bam thank you ma'am, it's going to cause tension. If you're really tight and he's very well endowed and neither of you like oral sex, it'll cause problems. Same if it is the other way around.

I have been in a few of these boats, and more. I've felt my world crumble when my wife wept on my shoulder and felt terrible when she told me it was because I was too large for her, that it hurt, and how badly she wanted to enjoy sex with me. I've had the high libido, while my wife's was non existant. I've wanted more spice in our sex life, while she is happy with 'traditional sex'.

It all changes with persistance and a willingness to change. I worked on being a more attentive lover and making sure she was really ready to take me inside of her, backing off and trying again or even stopping when I needed to, or enthusiastically enjoying a blowjob if it was offered that night. Having kids really changed her geometry and we haven't had that problem since. We went to a marriage counselor and worked together to make the marriage work when it was seriously broken. I learned that I had made a catastrophic mistake by keeping my sexual frustration to myself, because as soon as she learned how stressful it was for me she showed me that she could make love to me with her mouth and hands even when she wasn't in the mood. Still, I told her that I felt like I was using her and her love for me came through loud and clear when she told me she loved the intimacy of what we were doing and taking care of my needs made her happy. Her enthusiasm makes me believe her. Many times she finds herself wanting me inside of her after some erotic talk during a blowjob. I learned to enjoy vanilla sex with my wife, and the joy just having sex brought to both of us.

I'm sorry, but for everything that you tell me can put stress on a marriage I am certain that I can offer a way to work through it if both people are willing. The usual response is, 'but what if they're not willing". I believe that you can tell well in advance of getting married if someone will be willing when the time comes. I also believe that you can stack the deck in your favor.

You may luck out and find that after you're married you two are very sexually compatible, but you can also find out that your tastes and drives are so different that it can destroy an otherwise solid relationship.

I beg to differ. Luck has nothing at all to do with it. Focusing on finding a person with the right chemistry and personality traits is half of the key to a good marriage, and good sex. The other half is realizing that the silly 'love is kind, understanding, unselfish, etc' mush is the absolute truth. It's not what your partner brings to the marriage, it's what you bring that matters the most. If you can't learn to be unselfish, your marriage is doomed and it's your character that will destroy your marriage as much as anything that your partner does.

Find a partner with the same understanding. My wife was raised to give of herself until it hurts, and it's my responsibility not to take until it hurts. She has taught me to be more giving. When I give unselfishly to my wife, she gives back. It's a dynamic helps our marriage grow.

Not all pleasure and intimacy in a marriage comes from sex. I have learned to enjoy how it makes me feel when she tells me something I've done really made her day. A wink and a smile in a boring school meeting makes me feel good. I try to focus on what's important to her, and she pays me back in spades.

I think the odds of success increase exponentially with talking. I firmly believe that all of these traits can be discovered before marriage by asking questions, listening, and observing while dating. Movies, TV's, and dinner at noisy restaurants all steal from just sitting face to face in a quiet room and talking. You can look at how someone handles money. How they talk to their parents and friends. You can ask them how they feel about sex, and learning to explore a little spice. I did every one of these things, including telling my wife to be that I hoped to try everything sexual that we could within the bounds of monogamy. Her response was that she would always try, but that if I pushed it wouldn't work and if she didn't like something we wouldn't do it twice. 11 years into our marriage my vanilla wife is finding that she enjoys exploring a little kink with me. Not because I'm insisting that we do it, but because it feels comfortable to explore it at this point in our marriage.

The desire to "save it until marriage" is often a romantic cliche. It sounds really good, but it's not without its hazards. Do it if it pleases you both, but also be aware that it increases (but does not guarantee!) your odds of failure.

So does 'looking for sexual compatability'. Saving sex for marriage is not cliche, and I believe that it allows a couple to explore and learn about each other's personalities, convictions, and traits without becoming entrenched in a sexual 'habit'. I know that when I was dating before I met my wife, I got comfortable with a sexual relationship with my lover and looked over a number of issues that in hindsight were clear signs that those relationships were doomed. It was easier to enjoy regular great sex and coast than it was to break it off and find a more compatible marriage partner. I can't believe how lucky I am to have found my wife given my approach to dating.

I've had enough relationships fail from lack of building good foundations that I'm leery to leave much up to chance anymore. There are too many variables I can't control to leave ones I can up to chance. Besides, sex is too much fun

While I agree with your comments about foundations, I believe that this line of thinking is contradictory. Please correct me if I am putting words in your mouth, but you have effectivly concluded by saying, "I want to have sex in my relationships because sex is so much fun". You've based your position on the idea that sex is important to determine sexual compatability. This statement, however, undermines the entire point that you were making. Sex is fun, but building the foundation of a relationship is serious business that requires some hard choices.

I'm not against sex before marriage, but I agree with the previous poster. If sex is going to be a deal breaker, then tell a prospective lover that you want to have sex with them but if you don't like it or she isn't into what you're into, that there's no chance for a lasting relationship. If you can be upfront and honest about it you will spare a lot of hurt feelings and give the person the courtesy of determining if they want to have sex with you given those conditions.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

So, a new question would be, how come Reba67 hasn't really been in this discussion of her own question?

 

[aka Lusty]

So, a new question would be, how come Reba67 hasn't really been in this discussion of her own question?

And that is the question of the day, HnH. I wondered the same thing myself, but perhaps she thinks we hijacked her thread. Oh well

 

[Reba67]

And that is the question of the day, HnH. I wondered the same thing myself, but perhaps she thinks we hijacked her thread. Oh well

No, no. I'm still watching the thread. It didn't seem hijacked to me at all. I just wasn't sitting on lit all day long today. I actually got on a cleaning spree in my apartment and we all know never to interupt a cleaning spree urge.

I actually wasn't too interested in debating at all, I just wanted to toss the question out there and see what kind of answers I got. I'm sure it's been asked before, but I just didn't have time to sift through pages of posts.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

No, no. I'm still watching the thread. It didn't seem hijacked to me at all. I just wasn't sitting on lit all day long today. I actually got on a cleaning spree in my apartment and we all know never to interupt a cleaning spree urge.

I actually wasn't too interested in debating at all, I just wanted to toss the question out there and see what kind of answers I got. I'm sure it's been asked before, but I just didn't have time to sift through pages of posts.

This thread suddenly seems a wasted effort. If you weren't going to join in, then why bother starting it? I swear that conversational etiquette has become an art lost or never discovered by far too many.

 

[flamesofdesire]

This thread suddenly seems a wasted effort. If you weren't going to join in, then why bother starting it? I swear that conversational etiquette has become an art lost or never discovered by far too many.

I was also wondering why she wasn't involved more, but I don't think that makes it a wasted effort.
She was curious how people would answer the question, has been following the thread, and did respond once per day.
Some people don't have as much time as they would like to spend at this board. Sometimes you feel like responding to something, but know you do not have the time to think out and write a response, so you skip it, but still enjoy the thread.
If she didn't want to personally debate the question, so what?
She still read all the responses and others here enjoyed having the discussion.

 

[bitslinger]

This thread suddenly seems a wasted effort.

"Education is never a waste" - Viscount du Valmont

 

[sseg]

Not to pick on you, but your post covers a lot of what's been said on this board at various times and it was easy to hit 'reply' here ;-) I don't use the word 'you' here to point at you in particular, but as a general response. I am not arguing against sex before marriage. I am disagreeing specifically with the concept of sex as a criteria for determining compatability.

Mmm. Some people will use just one criteria for determining overal compatibility, but I look at the whole. I am willing to give and take in some areas if there is overall balance.

I'm sorry, but for everything that you tell me can put stress on a marriage I am certain that I can offer a way to work through it if both people are willing. The usual response is, 'but what if they're not willing". I believe that you can tell well in advance of getting married if someone will be willing when the time comes. I also believe that you can stack the deck in your favor.

I think we're in fundamental agreement here. Communcations and willingness to work are cornerstones to a solid relationship. But some things don't lend themselves to negotiation, and things like libido which can be more due to physiological differences and changes over life are some of them. I stress that I wasn't trying to give the impression that lack of sexual compatibility dooms a marriage, but it does start stacking the deck against it.

While I agree with your comments about foundations, I believe that this line of thinking is contradictory. Please correct me if I am putting words in your mouth, but you have effectivly concluded by saying, "I want to have sex in my relationships because sex is so much fun". You've based your position on the idea that sex is important to determine sexual compatability. This statement, however, undermines the entire point that you were making. Sex is fun, but building the foundation of a relationship is serious business that requires some hard choices.

I don't think you quite understood what I am saying. Sex is fun which is why I enjoy doing it, and that was a seperate clause from the rest of what I was writing, my apologies if it was unclear, I was trying to inject a little levity.

Sex is a great way to determine sexual compatibility, and while I don't feel that it is impossible to *develop* compatibility, it does require a lot more sophistication than many people seem to possess, especially when they are starting out. I agree with the fact that some people are black and white on the topic, but I like to think I'm more fluid on it as it's a very complex topic.

 

[Reba67]

I was also wondering why she wasn't involved more, but I don't think that makes it a wasted effort.
She was curious how people would answer the question, has been following the thread, and did respond once per day.
Some people don't have as much time as they would like to spend at this board. Sometimes you feel like responding to something, but know you do not have the time to think out and write a response, so you skip it, but still enjoy the thread.
If she didn't want to personally debate the question, so what?
She still read all the responses and others here enjoyed having the discussion.

Well put. It's actually rare that I am on this board more than one day in a row and when I am here, I don't have a lot of time to chime into many posts. And, it takes me a while to warm up to a board and some I never do.

I have no desire to "debate" the issue. I just wondered what everyone thought of the question. It's unlikely that anything I read on a discussion board alone will change my mind on any subject. Who knows, maybe my ideas will change if I end up with "the right" person, whatever "that" means.

On a philosophical level, I believe that sex is extremely important in a relationship. So important that it should be saved for marriage. And, marriage is much more than a piece of paper as some would claim. It's more than a public "declaration" of your love (an argument I heard from someone saying that marriage was useless......why not just get up on top of a building and yell out to the world about your love to each other). Marriage is more than sex. I actually feel sorry for the people who respond that they would divorce if some serious illness or injury occured and they would not get any more sex. Marriage is the good times, the bad times and the in between times.

In terms of physical desires, there's a lot one can do without having sexual intercourse. I'm currently single, so it's just me. I really enjoy written erotica, I find most picture erotica cheesy. I'm sure there are some who would say I'm a hypocrite for being "here" and holding the views I do. (In fact, I think someone did in this very thread.) I think of it as just one of the ways I can get release.

 

[Weird Harold]

On a philosophical level, I believe that sex is extremely important in a relationship. So important that it should be saved for marriage. And, marriage is much more than a piece of paper as some would claim. It's more than a public "declaration" of your love (an argument I heard from someone saying that marriage was useless......why not just get up on top of a building and yell out to the world about your love to each other).

Marriage is indeed more than a piece of paper, but it is a piece of paper that has no particular connection to inter-personal the relationship it codifies in a legal contract. In fact, many "marriages" don't involve any paper and/or ceremony at all -- i.e. "common-law marriage."

If you were to say that "sex is so important it should be saved for a commited long-term relationship," I could agree with you whole-heartedly.

However, linking sex -- or any element of any inter-personal relationship -- to what amounts to nothing more than a legal (or religious) contract smacks to me of turning sex into a commodity; i.e "saving sex for marriage" is, to me, morally little different than selling your virginity for cash.

Marriage laws have changed, just in the fifty-some years I've been alive, to the point where a marriage certificate is no longer the equivalent of an indentured servitude for the woman -- women are no longer legally chattel to be used as their husband sees fit. One side effect of those changes is that your virginity is no longer your father's property to be sold to your husband and virginity adds no longer adds any real value to the marriage contract -- in fact, in many cases, virginity can actually detract from your suitablility for marriage.

"Saving yourself for marriage" -- or even holding out for a less formal commitment -- is a very intensely personal choice and there are some very good and rational reasons for making it. Personally, I don't think the "sanctity of marriage" as dictated by patriarchal religious dogma is either a good or rational reason. The "sanctity of marriage" is rooted in a philosophy that women are chattel and should be subservient to father and/or husband.

 

[sseg]

In terms of physical desires, there's a lot one can do without having sexual intercourse. I'm currently single, so it's just me. I really enjoy written erotica, I find most picture erotica cheesy. I'm sure there are some who would say I'm a hypocrite for being "here" and holding the views I do. (In fact, I think someone did in this very thread.) I think of it as just one of the ways I can get release.

Well, I don't think you're being hypocritical, but some folks would think a person a hypocrite for saying "I like toast."

On the other side though, I think that engaging in any sexual behavior with another person as a direct interaction (as opposed to say, reading a story they wrote) is a part of having sex. Other people define sex very narrowly as intercourse only. I think the latter is just splitting hairs, so to speak. I have met very, very few people who truly had never had any type of sexual play until they were married. I've met rather a lot who have done everything *but* intercourse before they were married and I think that's a bit disingenuous when they claim they "saved" themselves for marriage.

(and please don't take what I wrote as denigrating your decisions)

 

[Norajane]

Well, I don't think you're being hypocritical, but some folks would think a person a hypocrite for saying "I like toast."

On the other side though, I think that engaging in any sexual behavior with another person as a direct interaction (as opposed to say, reading a story they wrote) is a part of having sex. Other people define sex very narrowly as intercourse only. I think the latter is just splitting hairs, so to speak. I have met very, very few people who truly had never had any type of sexual play until they were married. I've met rather a lot who have done everything *but* intercourse before they were married and I think that's a bit disingenuous when they claim they "saved" themselves for marriage.

(and please don't take what I wrote as denigrating your decisions)

I also think 'everything but' is a bit hypocritical - to me, oral sex is even more intimate than intercourse.

I've known people who waited for marriage to have sex, and I think it made them get married sooner (and not so wisely) because the pent-up sexual desire made them believe they were really in love and loved the other person and wanted them so much. Once they got married and started having sex, the in-love kinda faded - the pent-up sexual desire for each other was gone and it changed the whole relationship. All the trust, honesty, and respect in the world don't make a bit of difference if the sexual chemistry is based on 'you want what you can't have'.

Obviously, that's not always the case, but it's something to be cautious about.

 

[Norajane]

No, no. I'm still watching the thread. It didn't seem hijacked to me at all. I just wasn't sitting on lit all day long today. I actually got on a cleaning spree in my apartment and we all know never to interupt a cleaning spree urge.

I actually wasn't too interested in debating at all, I just wanted to toss the question out there and see what kind of answers I got. I'm sure it's been asked before, but I just didn't have time to sift through pages of posts.

Out of curiousity, why did you ask the question in the first place? Why did you want to see what answers you got?

 

[Eilan]

I also think 'everything but' is a bit hypocritical - to me, oral sex is even more intimate than intercourse.

I'm inclined to agree. In fact, I had PIV sex before I gave or received oral, but I may have been a late bloomer by other people's standards.

I went to school with someone who did "everything but" to preserve her virginity--including anal. At the time I was grossed out by it, but as I've gotten older and acquired more sexual experience, I don't think that what she did was disgusting. However, I think anal sex is more intimate (and requires even more trust) than PIV sex. For me, anal is probably more intimate than oral sex, since I've been on the giving and receiving end of oral sex from people that I'd never let anywhere near my ass.

With all of the Technical Virgins, Born-Again Virgins, etc. out there, I sometimes wonder why PIV sex is still the gold standard for virginity.