<p>Doschicos, these are things that can and should be discussed ahead of time. Just because someone is abstaining doesn’t mean that they are unaware of their drive. Just like in any marriage, whether there was pre-marital sex or not, sometimes compromises are necessary.</p>
<p>I think even if the couple is very similar in their interest, in sex- as well as other things, there will be times when life conspires to make things difficult.
Thats when communication and willingness to be flexible and supportive of your partner can help to get through the rough patches.
For instance, I used on demand style feeding with both my kids. There were times that it seemed like they were nursing around the clock.
When they weren’t, I didnt want anyone to touch me, ** at all**.
I made myself very clear, too. ;)</p>
<p>I agree with doschicos.</p>
<p>Before making a commitment to marriage, I think it’s a good idea for the two prospective partners to learn as much about each other as possible.</p>
<p>Unless religious beliefs prohibit it, I think that this learning process should include having sex with each other. </p>
<p>Living together, at least for a brief period of time, is also a good idea, in my opinion. People learn as much about each other from sharing a kitchen, a bathroom, and a lease as they do from sharing a bed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually agree with this, also. But in this day and age divorce is no longer a stigma. And EK, I think there is a difference when you are married between "leave me alone…for whatever temporary reason…and a real sexual incompatibility that isn’t going to go away in a month or two or three.</p>
<p>Sure, divorce is an option, but divorce certainly carries more stigma in my own belief system than premarital sex. 
If children are involved in a marriage/divorce, it affects more than just the 2 people involved as well. </p>
<p>Like Marian, I think living together prior to marriage is smart.</p>
<p>If the couple is so different in regard to their sexual needs that they can’t work something out, i would predict that there are other areas of conflict, even if they manage to avoid those too before marriage.</p>
<p>But in an era when even future Kings and Queens cohabitate before marriage, I’d suggest that it is good enough for the Proletariat, as well.
;)</p>
<p>I think people make the issue much more complex than it needs to be. It’s a pretty primal thing. Most people figure it out. It’s not rocket science. Most of us are not the same people we were 10 years ago in many aspects. We grow. We’re not stagnant beings (hopefully). </p>
<p>Some would say that figuring it out together, and discovering it together was more rewarding than not.</p>
<p>To each his own.</p>
<p>My husband was “pure” at 35 when we got married. I was not. I had been married before, and I wasn’t pure before that marriage.</p>
<p>We have things that had to be ironed out in many areas - that was only one. I didn’t consider it a big deal. It’s just what you do when you love someone and you’re committed to them. You trust them to hang in there with you and work it out.</p>
<p>My D and her significant other are both pure. They’re both 20, and both committed to remaining pure. They wouldn’t have it any other way.</p>
<p>Again, to each his own, I suppose.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the use of the term “pure” for people who don’t have sex before marriage. It seems to imply that having sex would make them “impure.” How can something that is healthy and natural be “impure?”</p>
<p>Holocene,</p>
<p>Use whatever word works better for you. My use of the word pure is from a religious viewpoint that not everyone shares. That’s why I originally put it in quotations. Pre-marital sex would be considered an impure act in my belief structure.</p>
<p>I know it’s an old-fashioned idea - but you know purity being associated with chastity is not a particularly new concept - white gown (symbolizing purity) at a wedding, etc.</p>
<p>Use whatever word you want that means without having had sex.</p>
<p>^^ I had the same thought. I don’t like the terminology. It’s got a lot of social stigma attached to it for women in particular as well. </p>
<p>Goes back to that slut-shaming thing IMO.</p>
<p>It carries no more stigma in our belief structure for a woman than it does for a man.</p>
<p>It’s all the same. Again, it’s coming from a religious viewpoint that not everyone shares.</p>
<p>And again, thankfully, it’s a free country, and everyone can make those adult decisions for themselves using whatever moral code they’re comfortable with. The question I was responding to was roughly, “What do you, who abstain prior to marriage, do about sexual imcompatibility as far as drive goes, etc.”</p>
<p>I was attempting to answer that question. I abstained after my divorce for 2 years until remarried. We DO have mismatches - it’s not a huge hurdle. You just work it out. That was the point of my post. Not meant to get hung up on semantics.</p>
<p>Sorry if I offended.</p>
<p>I was hoping the topic of sexual incompatibility would come up because if I’d have remained married to my ex, I’d have told you that we were compatible and that the sex was fine. I was his first partner, he was my second, after a long-term relationship. And sex WAS fine, as far as it went. Then he left me, over issues that had nothing to do with sex.</p>
<p>And at 35, I learned about a part of myself that I hadn’t know existed, or admitted, I suppose. Thanks to a few post-divorce relationships I discovered things I’d missed out on for years, and became a different person as far as my sexual identity goes (without going into great details, which are not necessary). These realizations not only defined who I was going forward but defined the type of person I wanted for a permanent partner. Had my H NOT been that type of person, no matter how sweet, caring, etc, he might have been, I would not have continued with him.</p>
<p>As we’re going on 14 years together, obviously it worked out. But had we met at a time we were both younger and/or inexperienced, I wouldn’t have known the questions to ask, what I wanted, no, NEEDED in the sexual part of the relationship. Somewhere down the line, it would have failed in that respect. I am 100% certain that for me, getting married again without sex would have been a terrible mistake. You can talk till you’re blue in the face, but actions and practices can only be experienced in action.</p>
<p>And BTW, add me to those who think calling someone who hasn’t had sex before marriage “pure” implies the rest of us are “impure” and “dirty”. UGH.</p>
<p>Oh for heavens’ sake. Did all of you not see that I did not even consider myself “pure”. That doesn’t make me a terrible person. It just means that according to my beliefs, I had done some things I shouldn’t have done.</p>
<p>It doesn’t mean I’m terrible, or I’m going to hell or anything like that. Nor does it mean anyone else is either.</p>
<p>Again, sorry to offend.</p>
<p>Back to the original question, I’ll restate:</p>
<p>If I found out my adult kids were having sex, I wouldn’t be shocked. I’d be disappointed, but I’d get over it and our relationship would not be affected. Where I stand on the issue is not a secret from my kids. My response wouldn’t be either. I would probably say something like, “You know how I feel about that. I wish you wouldn’t do that. I think it’s unwise.” And then I’d give them a hug - probably go into another room for a little while alone, and then life would go on. After all, it’s not really even any of my business. They’re adults.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To both of the above, can I hear a big–AMEN!</p>
<p>Oh, for goodness’ sake! I don’t much care for the use of the word “pure” in this context, but cromette did put it in quotation marks when she first used it. That signaled (I thought, at least) an acknowledgement that it wasn’t a word everyone would use. I took it to be an accessible shorthand for an idea that would otherwise have been difficult to express succinctly.</p>
<p>As I said, I wouldn’t have used the word that way, and I don’t really care for it in that context, but I think it’s time to get off cromette’s back. Especially since she has already apologized twice if she gave any unintended offense.</p>
<p>Sent from my DROIDX using CC</p>
<p>Thanks, Sikorsky, for taking up for me - and for pointing out the quotation marks, my intent and both of my apologies for any unintended offense. I think I’ve probably contributed to this thread as much as I can with any value added. I was enjoying the conversation and getting different viewpoints up until this page. I think I’ll give it a rest.</p>
<p>Sometimes it’s hard to choose the best word for a situation, if such a word exists.</p>
<p>I know that one of my parents had slept with several people before they got married in their mid-20s. The other parent was a virgin until their first marriage and tried to tell me that they wished they had waited until their second (current) marriage. I don’t see either of them caring if I’m having sex or not. I don’t think my grandparents would care either, even though I know one of them hated having sex. Some relatives have had kids at 16 and married at 18, so almost anything I do at 21+ isn’t going to be considered scandalous. If/when I get married, I’m reserving the right to wear white if I so choose, regardless of the number of times I’ve had sex.</p>
<p>I do have one professor who was a virgin until he was 40 as per his religious beliefs. </p>
<p>Sexual education is very important and I don’t think kids and young adults get enough of it. My university refuses to give out or sell condoms on campus because the people running the health center view the campus as socially conservative and don’t want people taking the condoms for other purposes.* Individual students and clubs can provide condoms however, so I applied and was selected for a grant that gave me 500 condoms to distribute on campus. </p>
<p>*This is in sharp contrast to when I spent a summer at a university in Nevada; cabs that drove around campus would advertise the famously legal adult services that were available 7 miles away.</p>
<p>It is often more difficult for parents to talk about or picture their children having sex when the kid is having same sex relations. I really like the idea of having a relative or family friend of the same sexual orientation (this applies to heterosexual kids too) talk to the kids. If that isn’t possible or doesn’t provide enough information, there is a lot of very useful information available online from very reputable sources.**</p>
<p>**For the less technologically-inclined, there are also detailed books on the subject. While last updated in 1993, there is a very well-written book on sex geared towards gay men that would be a good gift for the newly-out gay male.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Egad! I think I’m glad I never had a professor who felt the impulse to share this information with me–either the age of first sexual intercourse, or the religious beliefs.</p>
<p>^This prof should have been removed for sharing inappropriate sexully charged information with students. Disgusting!! As well as sharing his religious preferences. Real brainwash.</p>