<p>The issue regarding previous marriages was whether your partner seems truly over the past relationship. I didn’t care, and my ex had been married previously. What did become an issue was him not being over her, and not feeling as valued myself. My current relationship is with someone who has been married multiple times. It doesn’t matter, as I feel valued in comparison to the past marriages. At my age, you want someone who is capable of commitment, even if past ones didn’t work out. Never married at age 50 looks suspicious to me, especially as family is still of primary importance in my life. </p>
<p>Opie, you hit it on the head. Hard work, understanding, etc.</p>
<p>“The heart has its own reasons.” Imagine one person who dates a lot but neglects the process of reflection. They don’t gain any wisdom from all those experiences, and might just repeat same patterns.</p>
<p>Another person might date very little but come to know things about human experience through ways other than dating, that enable him/her to make a heartfelt commitment when the right person comes along.</p>
<p>As I’ve done a certain amount of ‘adult’ dating over the last few years, I’ve formed a few conclusions from my limited observations. Due to the internet, there are many who have done LOTS of dating. Lots of variety, and opportunities are seemingly limitless. But though there are some good people out there, I don’t think it is necessarily what the heart needs. Too much choice, opportunity, can just lead to confusion. The possiblities of always someone better around the corner, the next email can lead to a jaded spirit. </p>
<p>As P3T suggests, the ability to reflect and be in touch with your own heart is essential, and perhaps the antithesis of playing the field widely.</p>
<p>I’d have to have a duck’s back to “play the field” at any age, let alone in college. Too much scar tissue isn’t healthy IMHO. The idea of having sex with people I didn’t care about isn’t the least appealing, and caring about one after the other and not having each one work out in the end doesn’t do it for me either. Just me.</p>
<p>My original question was more in the lines of: Do you think that it would’ve made a difference in whether you wanted to continue the relationship, not so much whether it has an impact later on. To be more specific, if a boy were to meet an inexperienced girl who nobody else laid hands on, would that be attractive to a guy? (all things equal-she’s attractive, nice, someone you’d like to get to know …)versus a girl who’s not promiscuous, but has been around.
Sorry, I’m thinking as I’m typing this, who cares? but it was a topic of conversation recently and it’s just been on my mind. It’s interesting how everybody has different opinions.</p>
<p>I have to tell you that the whole “marriage is a lot of work,” “you have to work at marriage” thing makes me cringe. I not saying my H and I live this carefree existence but if some one told me at the age of 30 that a lot of hard work was involved, we would have run in the other direction. Good lord, what a romance killer! I’ll stick with commitment, currency and copulation, thank you very much!</p>
<p>Also - huge difference between marrying a divorced person and marrying a divorced person who has children from a previous marriage. Hasn’t anyone heard of “starter marriages”?</p>
<p>And the whole “sleeping with a lot of people” - well at least a few people -thing - not too cool at 50, pretty good at 25.</p>
<p>PS - Two of my siblings were virgins at marriage. The rest --not so much. Guess who got divorced? Although their celibacy status on their wedding day had virtually nothing to do with the marriage outcome.</p>
<p>Clueless - I think there are guys who would love to get their hands on an inexperienced girl and there are guys who would much prefer a more experienced partner. I think if someone is judging the person solely on the intactness of their hymen, there’s not too much love, respect etc going on.</p>
<p>I would hope it wouldn’t matter … although I would guess it might be an issue if the couple had very different backgrounds. For example, a couple of 25 year olds where one has been waiting for marriage and the other has had numerous partners and used to hook-up … such a difference in life experience might be tough to deal with … although it’s also probably pretty unlikely they would end up together as a couple.</p>
<p>As someone who got started quite a bit later than average and is still considerably less experienced than most women I know my age, I would be really creeped out by a guy who was attracted by this (and by “this” I don’t mean, say, a situation where the guy is also inexperienced and feels more comfortable with a girl on his own level). Huge red flag, probably a deal-breaker. Maybe I’m paranoid, but to me it suggests either excessive possessiveness or someone who wants to take advantage of another person’s inexperience.</p>
<p>Then again, it’s irrelevant to me right now, as I’m happy in my current (second) relationship. :)</p>
Hm. Is this supposed to apply equally to young women who meet inexperienced young men, I wonder? The idea of a man being attracted to a woman because she is a virgin is troubling to me. It suggests the idea of ownership. Why is her virginity any of his business? Unless his is her business, of course. If two people mutually prize virginity and want to wait for that permanent someone or their wedding night or whatever, great! Otherwise, I see no reason why it should become a problem, particularly over the course of a long marriage, when there are so many other more important issues to deal with.
I hear you, woody! But as it turns out, life has taught me that what they say about marriage being hard work is inescapably true. Maybe no romantics are listening?</p>
<p>Maybe one needs to define ‘hard work’ It could mean compromising on something you feel strongly about, picking up his dirty socks off the floor every single day…
A happy marriage is not necessarily smooth-sailing. It has it’s ups and downs and it does take ‘hard work’ to prevent the downs from overriding the ups.</p>
<p>“My question is, do you think there is a difference, concerning whether a relationship will last or not, on whether the couple has had sex together for the first time, in other words, they were virgins when they met, versus a couple who has had another partner in the past…?”</p>
<p>I think it is irrelevant IF the couple has similar values when they marry. However, clearly, an unreformed partier who decides to marry a virgin because he thinks that women who have sex outside of marriage are sluts isn’t likely to be able to have a fulfilling sexual relationship with his wife due to his own conflicted feelings about sex. I’ve met people whose marriages failed because a player chose to marry a virgin and then cheated on her because he felt she was too good to have sex with or he felt that he had married a cold fish.</p>
<p>Hard work? Why do some immediately assume that’s bad? I work hard at my marriage because I CARE about my marriage. I value my marriage, I don’t take it for granted. Hard work= bad? NO? Hard work=care? yes.</p>
<p>Let me second (third?) the sentiments written by jessiehl and frazzled1: a guy who is concerned about whether or not his fiancee has ever had someone else “lay hands” on her is a bad bet as a husband. And more than a little creepy, if you ask me. I know we obsess about sex in this country - and in wierd ways - but that kind of possessiveness is a significant negative for a long-term relationship. It doesn’t speak well for a person’s willingness to accept their spouse’s individuality and independent worth.</p>
<p>I remember when my mother’s best friend got a divorce. This was back in the early 1960’s and in our town was pretty rare. Mom said, “She told me she’d never had a fight with him. Not one. I guess that means I’ll have a long and happy marriage!”. ( I do remember my father artfully ducking as Mom hurled a chair his way. It crashed into the wall. They were blissfully married, with fights, for 40 years. )</p>
<p>"My original question was more in the lines of: Do you think that it would’ve made a difference in whether you wanted to continue the relationship, not so much whether it has an impact later on. To be more specific, if a boy were to meet an inexperienced girl who nobody else laid hands on, would that be attractive to a guy? "</p>
<p>It could be attractive to guys who firmly believe in virginity before marriage. I hope that such guys also would be virgins and not have a double standard.</p>
<p>It would be attractive to guys who get their kicks seducing virgins.</p>
<p>It would be attractive to guys who are insecure about their own sexual abilities so would want to be with a woman who couldn’t compare them with others.</p>
<p>It could be attractive to guys who think that women who clearly like sex are slutty.</p>
<p>I don’t think whether two people lost their virginities to each other is important in a marriage. There are many far more important things to consider. The two individuals may value being each other’s one and only, but I don’t think the couple would miss it if that weren’t the case (excluding religious considerations). </p>
<p>I do think that sexual compatibility is an important factor in a relationship–and one you never hear about–which would be difficult if both partners remained virgins until marriage, but that’s a slightly different issue.</p>