What does "sexually compatible" mean?

[Norajane]

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.

As I've never let anything besides a finger in my ass, I'm inclined to agree with you!

And good question! What's the point of PIV virginity if you've already been physically intimate in every other way? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of waiting?

 

[warrior queen]

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.

i'm guessing it's because we still have this outdated view of PIV as the only 'real' way to fuck.
leftovers from religious nuts.

 

[Eilan]

And good question! What's the point of PIV virginity if you've already been physically intimate in every other way? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of waiting?

I'd think so. I have issues with PIV sex as the standard for virginity for a couple of reasons:

--One, as mentioned, is that it's possible to do "everything but" and still be a virgin. It's possible for someone who's never had PIV sex to have more sexual experience than her non-virgin counterparts.

--The other reason has to do with an intact hymen being associated with virginity. There are lots of reasons why a woman's hymen might not be intact, but that doesn't automatically mean that she's had intercourse.

I've known some girls/women who are so anxious to be rid of their virginity that they have sex at the first opportunity just to "get it over with"; I didn't want to be one of those women. While I didn't go so far as to consider my virginity a "gift" to be given to my husband after marriage, I also knew that I wasn't going to be losing my virginity to just anybody.

 

[Eilan]

i'm guessing it's because we still have this outdated view of PIV as the only 'real' way to fuck.
leftovers from religious nuts.

The idea of sex as procreation, not recreation, perhaps?

 

[Norajane]

The idea of sex as procreation, not recreation, perhaps?

Procreation, and the desire to make sure it was your sperm she was procreating with...

 

[ickle_stace]

i have to agree with the people who are saying anal and oral are more intimate than PIV

I had PIV before oral (both giving and receiving) and so I dont see the point in doing everything except PIV and then saving the PIV

For alot of women, the receiving of oral (and for some anal aswell) is the most likely way to achieve orgasm, most women can't come from penetration alone, so what's the point in saving the PIV part.

I used to think I wanted to save everything until i was in a long term relationship with somebody, and i was in a relationship with him, even though he was a t*sser (excuse my language!) but I'd not wait until marriage.

What if your lover is inconsiderate like my ex was? you could be married to someone who never bothered to make you orgasm, never bothered about foreplay, about your feelings, thought sex was only for their pleasure. If you stay with them because you think you only ever want to sleep with 1 guy, you'll spend your whole life wondering what it would be like with other guys, with considerate guys.

I wanna make sure my guy is right for me, and treats me right before i marry him

 

[Weird Harold]

i'm guessing it's because we still have this outdated view of PIV as the only 'real' way to fuck.
leftovers from religious nuts.

The idea of sex as procreation, not recreation, perhaps?

Procreation, and the desire to make sure it was your sperm she was procreating with...

I think those are primarily "patriarchal" reasons for "everything but PIV" -- i.e. why men supposedly want to marry virgins. Historically, they'd be valid, but I don't think virginity is terribly important to a typical American male today although there are still a large percentage that adhere to the victorian double standard of an experienced husband but a virgin bride.

I think the risk of unplanned pregnancy without a prior legal hold on the father's support is a prime motivation from many young women's standpoint.

Mostly though it's a rationalization that "sex" without the risk of procreation isn't sex, it's just foreplay -- the "Clinton Defense."

Indulging in "everything but PIV" is one way to resolve the issue of sexual ignorance while retaining the traditional "added value" of bringing an intact hymen to the marriage consumation -- a way of testing "sexual compatibility" without "having sex."

In a way, "Anything but..." is a superior method of testing a relationship; by setting a limit and finding out if a potential partner can stay within a woman's comfort zone -- it's a dangerous game if a partner turns out not to be able to take no for an answer, but when it works, it can build and strengthen trust in a relationship.

I think every young woman -- and every young man -- should think carefully about what limits they set on their sex life and WHY they set those limits. "Because that's the way it should be" is NOT a sufficient reason: Religious Strictures and Traditional Values generally have logical reasons for existing, but those logical reasons often don't apply to the world as it exists today.

The Pill, DNA testing for paternity, increased women's rights, antibiotics, and many other changes eliminate or replace the original purpose of many of the strictures and values associated with an intact hymen. The primary purpose of most marriage/social customs, ensuring a clear, undisputed line of paternity for inheritance purposes, is no longer valid; medical technnology and legal evolution have changed how paternity is determined and who can inherit.

 

[sseg]

iWhat if your lover is inconsiderate like my ex was? you could be married to someone who never bothered to make you orgasm, never bothered about foreplay, about your feelings, thought sex was only for their pleasure. If you stay with them because you think you only ever want to sleep with 1 guy, you'll spend your whole life wondering what it would be like with other guys, with considerate guys.

Or what if your first lover ever, who you end up marrying, was very experienced and knew you were a complete virgin yet still didn't do anything to show you how she liked it and put you down (subtly) for not being a good lover? I went for four years like that until I met my SECOND lover who taught me how to give and receive and how to make it something WE were doing as opposed to something each of us was doing to the other.

Eighteen years later and it still hurts to think about even though I know I'm a good lover and choose my partners carefully on how we interact. Luckily, I've gotten to pass on that gift my second lover gave me and with luck, have introduced some new people in a much better way than I was introduced to it.

 

[shaeena]

hello guys! newbie shaeena here...i like this place, pretty cool!

About the topic, well, the central secret seems to be in choosing well. There is something to the claim of fundamental compatibility. Good people can create a bad relationship, even though they both dearly want the relationship to succeed. It is important to find someone with whom you can create a good relationship from the outset. Unfortunately, it is hard to see clearly in the early stages.

 

[Reba67]

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.

Well, call me a traditionalist if you like, but I don't consider "common-law marriages" to be marriaes. Sure, as an accountant, I treat your taxes the same as if you'd got married, but I don't personally view it the same. Marriage is a deeply personal issue. So personal and religiously important to me that I don't really have the energy to get into it all here.

There is the attitude that women are to be "obedient" to their husbands. BUt this has nothing to do with ownership BY the husband. Wives are called to be "obedient" to their husbands, but husbands are called to "love your wife as Christ loved the church". Personally, I feel that I've got the better end of the stick on that one. Obedience has nothing to do with domination or repression, but rather following a husband who is so in love with Christ that he is the Christ-figure in his family.

I'll leave it at that for the night. If anyone really wants to get into how I feel about a lot of that kind of stuff, PM me. I'd be glad to take this further with you.

 

[flamesofdesire]

There is the attitude that women are to be "obedient" to their husbands. BUt this has nothing to do with ownership BY the husband. Wives are called to be "obedient" to their husbands, but husbands are called to "love your wife as Christ loved the church". Personally, I feel that I've got the better end of the stick on that one. Obedience has nothing to do with domination or repression, but rather following a husband who is so in love with Christ that he is the Christ-figure in his family.

I totally understand what you are talking about. But unfortunatly that part of the bible has been twisted by so many people, including those who claimed to be christians and demanded obedience from their wives in ways that were not intended by God at all.
Christ loved the church (His people) so much that he died for them, so if the husband is doing his part the way that he should, then the wife has no fear of having to "obey" things that are going to be harmful to her in any way. It's not about some guy declaring "You have to do whatever I say whether you like it or not".
Like you said, it's "following" a husband who is striving to do the right thing for everyone in the family and for God.
The sad thing is that there are to many people who put themselves in the category of being "christian", but their actions do not portray christianity in a favorable way to the rest of society.

 

[Weird Harold]

Well, call me a traditionalist if you like, but I don't consider "common-law marriages" to be marriages. ... Marriage is a deeply personal issue. So personal and religiously important to me that I don't really have the energy to get into it all here.

I think you have a much more rigid definition of Marriage than the rest of us do and that is causing some confusion in the discussion. But I do understand where you're coming from a bit better.

There is the attitude that women are to be "obedient" to their husbands. BUt this has nothing to do with ownership BY the husband.

Actually, I was referring to the historical legal status of a wife as chattel to her husband rather than the religious tradition of obedience. Until the roughly the 1920's the law in almost every US state gave a wife almost no rights at all -- any property she brought to the marriage was her husband's, she could not enter into any legal contract without his consent and the only legal protections were on the scale of limits on the size of strap used to beat her.

Those legal limitations on the status of a wife have their roots in Medieval religious laws as promulgated and enforced by the Roman Catholic Church -- which are quite distinct and separate from the biblical guidelines for wives and husbands.

Wives are called to be "obedient" to their husbands, but husbands are called to "love your wife as Christ loved the church". Personally, I feel that I've got the better end of the stick on that one. Obedience has nothing to do with domination or repression, but rather following a husband who is so in love with Christ that he is the Christ-figure in his family.

If you can find a good man who follows the Biblical guidelines rather than the Church -- someone who shares your interpretation -- you'll be incredibly lucky. However, in my experience, men who cite biblical standards for their behavior as a husband generally don't give much consideration to the second part of your interpretation; they focus almost exclusively on the "obedience" clauses.

You are certainly correct that the Bible does not support a view of wives as property, but historically the Church and the law has viewed women as chattel without rights -- in much the same way that minor children are still treated.

In the end, "Marriage" is about a legal and social contract between spouses -- however you define marriage. The definition of "marriage" genrally has little to do with the success or failure of the interpersonal relationship or commitment between spouses.

 

[bobsgirl]

There is the attitude that women are to be "obedient" to their husbands. BUt this has nothing to do with ownership BY the husband. Wives are called to be "obedient" to their husbands, but husbands are called to "love your wife as Christ loved the church". Personally, I feel that I've got the better end of the stick on that one. Obedience has nothing to do with domination or repression, but rather following a husband who is so in love with Christ that he is the Christ-figure in his family.

If you can find a good man who follows the Biblical guidelines rather than the Church -- someone who shares your interpretation -- you'll be incredibly lucky. However, in my experience, men who cite biblical standards for their behavior as a husband generally don't give much consideration to the second part of your interpretation; they focus almost exclusively on the "obedience" clauses.

Thank you, Weird Harold. Well-said. My very best friend from high school used to use Reba's interpretation every time we talked about her insistence on keeping "obey" as part of her vows but not her husband's. Our inability to come to a meeting of minds on this issue and several others caused our friendship to fade away. I still miss the way she was.

 

[Norajane]

Thank you, Weird Harold. Well-said. My very best friend from high school used to use Reba's interpretation every time we talked about her insistence on keeping "obey" as part of her vows but not her husband's. Our inability to come to a meeting of minds on this issue and several others caused our friendship to fade away. I still miss the way she was.

Yeesh. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept, primarily because men are human, with all the failings and needs of humans, and are distinctly NOT Christ-like. Why not put your faith in Christ and muddle through on earth TOGETHER, without one spouse taking all the decision-making responsibility while the other dutifully follows?

I'm not knocking Christians - I almost married a man who comes from a long line of ministers on both sides of his family, so I understand that there are Christians of many types. I just didn't see any of that obey stuff in their family, and can see so much potential for abuse.

 

[flamesofdesire]

Why not put your faith in Christ and muddle through on earth TOGETHER, without one spouse taking all the decision-making responsibility while the other dutifully follows?

Essentially, that is how it is when both people are following Christ together, and the obey part doesn't really creep up because they are both trying to be considerate of the other.
This whole thing only works the way God intended it, when both people are really committed to following Christ and being the loving individuals that they are supposed to be.
A christian women still has a mind of her own and should not let herself be subjected to abuse. If her husband is using this as a way to fulfill his own selfish agenda then she is not required in any way to put up with it.

 

[SamhainDisciple]

Well I guess I can't really understand Reba's point of view...I'm not christian and was not raised in a christian household. I very strongly disagree with traditional christian morals involving sex. I don't see how ANY person with common sense could wait until legally married to have sex...For goodness' sakes, would you sign a 30yr mortage on a house you'd never been inside? Would you buy a car you'd never test drove? Sex changes everything and I mean EVERYTHING. The way a man acts before sex comes into the relationship is entirely different to how he'll act afterward. I most certainly wouldn't want to wait until AFTER the marriage contract is signed to figure out who my husband is.

As for the whole "PIV vs oral" argument, I was one of those people that did "everything but" for a long time. However, my reasons had nothing to do with wanting to remain virginal. My hymen had been broken years earlier by riding horses, so that was a moot point. I certainly didn't think PIV was more intimate than oral either...it was a simple matter of not wanting to get pregnant at the time.

When I was dating ex-hubby, we spent a year and a half doing "everything but" because at the time I was living with my parents and birth control wasn't an option (and I didn't trust condoms.) I didn't make him wait until we got married, but I did make him wait until I moved to college and got on BC pills.

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm not knocking Christians - I almost married a man who comes from a long line of ministers on both sides of his family, so I understand that there are Christians of many types. I just didn't see any of that obey stuff in their family, and can see so much potential for abuse.

I'm not knocking Christians -- or any other religion that shares the biblical view of marriage as a sacred contract/commitment between two people. In fact I came within a hair of accepting a scholarship to a United Methodist Seminary instead of joinng the Air Force when I graduated from high school.

I'm forty-eight years removed from that choice and a view of marriage that was in many ways similar to Reba's. I've seen first-hand how the reality of marriage diverges from the Christian ideal and how many "Sunday Christians" inhabit church pews of organized religion. In that time, I've met exactly two people who fit my youthful ideal of what a Christian should be -- and neither of them were Christians!

I've known many people who realized Reba's ideal, but I've known many more who expected the "sanctity" of marriage to fix everything and were sorely disappointed.

Faith is a wonderful thing as long as it doesn't ingore reality. The people involved and the reality of their relationship are what makes a marriage work and the legality or sanctity of the relationship has little to do with whether a marriage works or not in my experience.

SamhainDisciple:
Would you buy a car you'd never test drove?

Actually, I've NEVER test-drrove any of the six cars I've purchased for myself and my current vehicle is just over 20-years-old; it was special ordered from the factory to corret the "problems" I had with the show-room models I had driven. I did test-drive the one car I bought for my (Now ex)wife, but it turned out to be the second worst car I've ever owned.

If you want to spout cliches, why not use all of them? Things like "Why buy the cow when youget the milk for free?" are just as valid as a guide for whether or not to engagae in sex with a potential mate as the ones you cited.

 

[Eilan]

This has turned out to be quite an interesting thread. If I were undecided about this issue, I'd still be undecided, though.

Well, call me a traditionalist if you like, but I don't consider "common-law marriages" to be marriaes.

I find this statement to be condescending, and it doesn't even apply to me. Who are you to judge whether or not someone's else relationship is valid? Just because it's not valid to you doesn't mean that it's inferior.

My husband and I were married by a nondenominational minister in a small wedding chapel, but, honestly, my primary concern was with having the legal protection/benefits of marriage (I almost hate to use that word), not with proclaiming our love/committment for him in the eyes of a particular deity.

Actually, I've NEVER test-drrove any of the six cars I've purchased for myself and my current vehicle is just over 20-years-old; it was special ordered from the factory to corret the "problems" I had with the show-room models I had driven. I did test-drive the one car I bought for my (Now ex)wife, but it turned out to be the second worst car I've ever owned.

We didn't test drive the new car we bought in 2004.

Sex changes everything and I mean EVERYTHING. The way a man acts before sex comes into the relationship is entirely different to how he'll act afterward.

Generalize, much?

I'm still trying to figure this one out. In what ways does a man change? Are these changes positive or negative? Do women change as well?

My ex and I had been friends since elementary school. We started dating when we were 19, had sex over a year into the relationship, and were married about a year after that. If anything, sex brought us closer together when our relationship was still relatively new; we were both learning, and we experienced our sexual growing pains together. A lot of our problems were caused by the growing up we did in the six years following our marriage, and, unfortunately, we grew apart. Sex was part of the issue, but I fail to see how doing it before we were married (or not, for that matter) might have contributed to that.

 

[flamesofdesire]

Sex changes everything and I mean EVERYTHING. The way a man acts before sex comes into the relationship is entirely different to how he'll act afterwards.

I'm thinking that you meant that before sex, they are more loving and considerate because they are trying to win you over, but after they "have" you, then they change their whole approach. Which is true in some cases, but certainly not in all.

There is really no guarantee of having a fulfilling sex life in a marriage, even if you do have sex beforehand.
I've heard many a story of spouses being surprised, sometimes years later, by things they discover their mate is into. And there are multitudes of people who say " before we were married he/she was so different".

I would think that the majority of people who wait for marriage to have actual intercourse, still do alot of other things, and know eachothers bodies fairly well by the time they get married. So I don't think being surprised by someones shape or size would come up as a problem in most cases.
I think the most important thing for such a couple to do would be to learn everything they can about sex, so they have realistic ideas of what to expect, and what they can do to please eachother.

I know a women who very disappointed on her wedding night because she thought all they had to do was have intercourse and she would have an orgasm. She felt like a failure, and sex was a big letdown after dreaming of that night for so long. Neither of them had a clue about the complexity of a womens orgasm.

 

[Weird Harold]

There is really no guarantee of having a fulfilling sex life in a marriage, even if you do have sex beforehand.

I didn't chase it down and read it, but I recently saw a headline/precis about a reent French study that claims cohabitation before marriage increases the risk of divorce.

I've seen a few previous "studies" that presented the same conclusion, but IMHO, the ones I actually read were seriously flawed and/or deliberately biased.

 

[Guest]

 

[pplwatching]

I just can't help but see hypocrisy in people that use their strong belief of Christian values as a foundation for their argument on a "porn" board.

I guess that depends on your definition of porn. There are parts of this web site that are unquestionably 'porn' (stories, pictures, etc). The HT and HT-Cafe, however, can be anything from risque to porn on a given day, but generally people posting here are talking about sexual issues, problems, and solutions.

This weekend I will be working a seminar where married couples of different religious backgrounds come to talk about issues in marriage. One of the 1 hour sessions is about love and sex. The seminar is actually organized and by a local Catholic church and staffed by volunteers from a variety of religious backgrounds. That session is about the value and importance of a healthy and enjoyable sex life in a marriage, and has the 'blessing' of the priest and the Archdiocese.

In my experience folks here seem to be in committed relationships and looking to make the sexual component of those relationships better. I don't think that posting here or discussing sexual values based on (or in the context of) religious beliefs is contrary to religion.

 

[Norajane]

I guess that depends on your definition of porn. There are parts of this web site that are unquestionably 'porn' (stories, pictures, etc). The HT and HT-Cafe, however, can be anything from risque to porn on a given day, but generally people posting here are talking about sexual issues, problems, and solutions.

This weekend I will be working a seminar where married couples of different religious backgrounds come to talk about issues in marriage. One of the 1 hour sessions is about love and sex. The seminar is actually organized and by a local Catholic church and staffed by volunteers from a variety of religious backgrounds. That session is about the value and importance of a healthy and enjoyable sex life in a marriage, and has the 'blessing' of the priest and the Archdiocese.

In my experience folks here seem to be in committed relationships and looking to make the sexual component of those relationships better. I don't think that posting here or discussing sexual values based on (or in the context of) religious beliefs is contrary to religion.

I don't suppose you'll be providing Lit's website to the seminar participants, though, eh? Or giving tips on how to "get my wife to admit she likes anal"? Or the importance of communication and agreement with all parties before a threesome?

 

[pplwatching]

I don't suppose you'll be providing Lit's website to the seminar participants, though, eh?

I'm actually working the kitchen this time ;-) However, if someone said "I wish there was a place I could go online to ask questions/talk about sex anonymously", then I would. I'd also point out the more marriage centric forums I've found. Then there's the advice columns written by sexologists, or whatever they're called.

 

[Norajane]

I'm actually working the kitchen this time ;-) However, if someone said "I wish there was a place I could go online to ask questions/talk about sex anonymously", then I would. I'd also point out the more marriage centric forums I've found. Then there's the advice columns written by sexologists, or whatever they're called.

I'm actually surprised you would recommend Lit in that setting - there's a lot of porn here...stories, Amateur Pics, Personals, the Playground...

Just imagine one of the couples trying to log into How To for the first time and ending up in AmPics!

Or getting a PM - hey, looking for couple for a threesome, wanna play?