Um, how would they verify that the couple hasn't had sex, exactly?

This page says couples entering the contest also have to agree not to serve alcohol at their wedding. No wonder there are no takers.

Funny coincidence. Take a look at this article, from yesterday's Boston Globe Magazine:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/10/26/anticipation/

And this article says they would also have to agree to open their wedding up to the public!

$10,000 to turn your wedding in to a creepy abstinence sideshow? lolol

I find it stunning that in these tough economic times that no one is jumping on this deal. It seems that money is not enough to validate body policing. People need to stop being so concerned about what others do with their genitals.

if it didn't have the whole "no alcohol at wedding bit" I'd totally bite. 10,000 dollars, and, as someone said earlier, no way to actually verify that we are abstaining......

This is kind of funny. My boyfriend and I are talking about doing this before we get married... but only for a few months to build tension and make our wedding night more -uh- exciting (explosive, hehe). It's cheezy, I know! I guess that disqualifies us. ;)

You know what, I'm glad that people are having pre-marital sex (and I know I'm preaching to the choice, because you guys are the ones who explained this too me), but people who understand sex understand what the sexual relationship means.

The people aren't jumping into a whole new set of dimensions in their relationship. Often they are adding a dimension in marriage, but adding a sexual dimension on top of that can be a bit much, and it's much healthier not to.

Reasons why no one is jumping on this:

1) You have to have required pre-wedding counseling
2) No alcohol at the wedding
3) Have to either lie about having sex, say that you think you and your partner having sex is wrong, or have never had sex with your partner.
4) Can't live with the person you are engaged to
5) It is only for three counties in GA, near Atlanta, but not Fulton County (the county that contains Atlanta)
6) You have to invite allow up to 100 random ass people to come to your wedding.
7) It's only 10,000, a pittance in comparison to the cost of today's weddings, and you have to allow a 100 extra people at the ceremony which might lead you to have to pay even more for whatever venue you are using for the ceremony.
8) No one has probably even heard of this, until the article about how no one had applied. I think that's why the group did the article, they hoped it would spark interest.

Actually, I could totally do this if I lived in Georgia! Also, I don't think I'd be cool with having a public wedding...I feel like this project has too many restrictions.

There are so many problems in relationships that can occur because of sexual incompatibility that it makes no sense to me to wait until you are legally bound to someone to figure out those problems. I support people making that decision, but I certainly don't understand it.

What if your partner wants to have sex 3 times a week and you only want sex 3 times a year? What if you want to do crazy kinky stuff, and they don't want to do anything wilder than missionary with the lights on? It's going to cause issues, issues that could be avoided.

This is kind of funny. My boyfriend and I are talking about doing this before we get married... but only for a few months to build tension and make our wedding night more -uh- exciting (explosive, hehe).

Let me just warn you that weddings are VERY TIRING when you're the bride. I almost didn't stay awake long enough for the sex at the end of the night. Maybe I would have been more awake if I hadn't gotten any in a while. But its interesting, nothing (sex-wise) really sticks in my mind the night of the wedding or the following honeymoon.

The Monday before the wedding, however... Woo, boy! I hope to remember that session for a long, long time. Basically, sex is the same before and after the wedding.

If it weren't for the restrictions, I'd propose right now and we'd be on a plane to Vegas next weekend.

ElleStarr, we were the same. We were tired by the wedding night, and I remember thinking I was glad it wasn't supposed to be this magical moment for us because I just didn't have the energy.

In Georgia, a lot of weddings already have no alcohol, so I doubt that's a deterrent at all, particularly for people who are willing to abstain before marriage.

ElleStar- yea we know.

Giving in is the actual point. We're just creating an imaginary goal to spice things up. But I have to convince myself to try it so just go with it haha.

Only in America would it be totes chill to pay people (with federal money!) NOT to fuck...but, uh, not the other way around.

So, is this Insert-Tab-A-Into-Slot-B sex? Or any and all shenanigans?

Adena: I notice the writer of that article spent two paragraphs reinforcing a "nerd" stereotype just so he could distance himself from it. What an ass!

Now, geeky types like me and my husband were smart enough to ensure our sexual compatibility before the wedding.

I don't know if I could do it. I don't think there has been a single week since we started having sex that we have seen each other at least once and not had sex at least twice. But that's beside the point, and possibly TMI. : P

I don't know if I agree with people promoting abstinence like this. I agree that couples need to know about their sexual compatibility before they are legally bound together. And I always laugh when I hear about virgins thinking their honeymoon will just be the best sex ever. Anyone who remembers losing their virginity probably remembers it wasn't that awesome, and was even a little awkward.

And the christian men who expect a lot of blood to come out, only possibly to discover there is none, might be upset if he doesn't understand that girls don't lose their hymen in a bloody mess during their first time having sex all the time. Maybe I'm just assuming too much thinking the same people who want to stay abstinent til marriage don't fully understand the hymen.

You know what's interesting about this?

Normally, federally-funded "abstinence" programs target school-aged or very young people--i.e. under 20. This makes sense, considering that one of the hopes of the abtinence-only education movement is to prevent teen pregnancy and the like.

But this publically-funded program, by targeting "engaged" couples, has shifted the demographic group up at least one or two age brackets, moving it into the realm of religious life-chastity ideology.

I know the distinction might seem overblown given that the people who support abstinence-only sex ed in schools are often supporters of life chastity for singles, but there IS a subtle difference. Usually, the former can be justified as worthy of tax/public funding because of the teen pregnancy-STD angle. It surprises me that an adults-targeted campaign would get this money.

How would they insure they were still virgins? Mandatory hymen checks? What about the guy? This is Grade A 100% pure bullshit crazyness from nutty right-wingers.

There are so many problems in relationships that can occur because of sexual incompatibility that it makes no sense to me to wait until you are legally bound to someone to figure out those problems. I support people making that decision, but I certainly don't understand it.

Agreed. Sex is a large part of a relationship and can even make or break a relationship in some cases. To find out that you're sexually incompatible after the rings have been exchanged seems just as risky to me as not discussing finances and responsibilities before marriage. Lots of couples may be able to work through these kinds of problems, but some can't.

One of the funniest conversations I've ever had with my conservative mother came just a couple of years ago. My mom went from being a daughter to being a wife and mother. As far as I know, my dad is the only man she'd been with until their divorce just a couple years ago. She now lives with her boyfriend, who she refuses to marry. My mom, me and my then-19-year-old sister were talking about my sister's new boyfriend and her rabid commitment to being a V-card (virginity) holder until marriage. I didn't encourage my sister to go off and have sex, but I did insist that its better to "try before you buy." My sister looked to my mom for affirmation, and my mom shook her head too and said that I was completely right. Hearing my conservative mom say this totally blew my sister's mind (and mine).

Well, I disagree with the notion that Abstinence-till-marriage is necessarily problematic. It certainly can be if the relationship is hinged entirely on sexual expectation and thus, when or if those expectations are not met, the marriage suffers, too. But, it can also be part of a healthy and happy marriage. Indeed, there is much to be said for developing a sound love relationship that is not linked to things can change on the turn of a dime (sexual drives can change drastically over life, just as financial situation or health or physical appearence).

Abstinence-ONLY education in schools, now...that certainly is harmful, as it doesn't allow for any other options.

I'd like to first note that I find the repeated assertion (frequently found in progressive circles) that it makes no sense to wait to have sex rather offensive, since it's belittling my choices. You can point out that it's a choice all you want, but if you call it a bad choice, it's still insulting.

Thank you for recognizing that it is our (my partner's and mine) choice, but there are a lot of indicators, especially if you're open and frank, about sexual compatibility that you can find without actually having sex. I can recognize the chemistry that I have with my fiancee even though we're waiting for our marriage next August to have sex. Just like you can discuss finances and responsibility without having to open a joint checking account and buy a house together before marriage, you can discuss sex without having sex. In fact, I highly recommend discussing sex before you have it.

And he is the person I want to marry and live with, sex entirely aside. If our sex life isn't the greatest thing ever, it wouldn't change the fact that I love him and he loves me. That's only one aspect of our relationship; it might not be totally trivial, but neither are differences of religion and I don't hear many people saying that it's incomprehensible to go into a marriage when you're of different faiths. Well, except the bigots. Relationships are always about learning to work out problems together, because there will always be problems.

We've been engaged for about two years in a long distance relationship (three and a half years total LDR) which wouldn't have provided very many opportunities for sex even if we weren't waiting, and despite the fact we haven't been having sex, we manage to be very much in love and very sappy and when we do get to spend time together, very physically comfortable and close with each other. I am likewise comfortable in the certainty that like the grownups we both are, we can learn each other's bodies as easily after we're married as before.

It works for us. And frankly, I find the idea of sex, specifically 'good' or 'skilled' sex being a dealbreaker for romance is ...kinda creepy. If a marriage ends, and they didn't have sex before marriage, are we seriously implying that it's her fault because she didn't have sex when she was 'supposed to'?

That said and back on topic, even though we're waiting, /and/ we don't drink (and our wedding will be dry because I see no need for that at my wedding -- adult child of alcholics says no thanks) I find this kind of bizarre abstinence sideshow disgusting and demeaning. It's no one's business whether a couple - engaged, married, or on their second date - is having sex or not, but their own. I don't go running around assuring everyone "I'm not having sex with him, really!" and I don't want to have to. Whether I'm sexually active or not.

Add to that the offensiveness of the implication of bribing someone into the choices about sexuality they make - reverse prostitution if you will - and my grossout factor goes up. (And I think this more than anything else is why they 'can't find anyone' - because there are socially conservative couples not having sex and eager to let everyone know it and judge them -- or rather, not judge them -- for it, but they don't want anyone to think that they're just doing it for the money. Not doing it for the money. Whatever.)

The fact that my tax dollars are apparently paying for it? Ew. Just, ew.

"And the christian men who expect a lot of blood to come out, only possibly to discover there is none, might be upset if he doesn't understand that girls don't lose their hymen in a bloody mess during their first time having sex all the time."

I'm actually scared to have sex because of this. I don't want the first time to hurt. :(

95%?

Damn. I don't really have much to say about the post, but wow, that just made me feel like shit.

Point taken, Undocile.

I'd feel better about the pro-abstinence crowd if they were recommending what you and your partner are doing -- having frank and explicit discussions about sex before getting married. (Actually, I think it's a good idea to do that with your partner before you shed your virginity, whether said shedding will coincide with marriage or not.) I'd also feel better if they recommended that people masturbate, so as to learn their own bodies and sexual response. Sadly, they don't recommend either of those things.

Aw, Lilly...remember to use lots of lubricant, go slow, communicate, and wait until you're married highly aroused.

Sorry, married was supposed to be crossed out.

And frankly, I find the idea of sex, specifically 'good' or 'skilled' sex being a dealbreaker for romance is ...kinda creepy.

Undocile, the thing about that, in my experience, is that life together in and out of the bedroom are linked together. If things are great outside the bedroom, it's virtually impossible for me to find the sex bad. But if things are going to shit outside the bedroom, sex becomes very problematic. So while sex may sometimes seem like the dealbreaker for me, honest reflection always reveals that the problems in the bedroom were the same ones outside the bedroom, and therefore sex wasn't inherently the dealbreaker.

Obviously this could vary with everyone, but I definitely don't find my relationships divided down the middle - our "sex life" and our "life life" run on the same values. Sometimes it's just way easier to identify the problem when it manifests itself in something so intimate as sex.

Can you imagine what kind of freaks would show up at your wedding (the up-to-100 members of the public who are so excited about the allegedly non-fucking couple that they'd want to come to the wedding of complete strangers)? And yeah, it's great that our taxpayer dollars are going to support this idiocy. How come you never hear John McCain (who is said not to be real committed to chastity himself) complaining about this waste of money? Oh wait, that's right, because he's a whore to "the base." Never mind.

Can you imagine what kind of freaks would show up at your wedding (the up-to-100 members of the public who are so excited about the allegedly non-fucking couple that they'd want to come to the wedding of complete strangers)?

For real? They have to invite 100 strangers? (I can't seem to find the actual site anywhere.) That is... so weird. Who'd even volunteer to show up?

Also, what disturbs me so much (besides the fact that the US government is paying for this) is what the programme director's done before... apparently they've held mock weddings where there's a virginal bride in a white (of course) gown, and one with an STD-riddled, cash-strapped teenage mother. This is so disgusting, I'm kinda flinching right now and being grateful I live on the other side of the world =/ And the couple in the contest has to go to schools and take part in displays like that too?

Then they wonder why there aren't any takers. (Which does, of course, say volumes about their intelligence to start off with.)

*shudder*

ShifterCat, you are so totally right about that. They also don't encourage knowing how to make the first time comfortable, forget enjoyable... (See the advice from judgesnineteen up there; shouldn't that be a part of every basic sex-ed course?) Great way to start a couple of bought-into-the-whole-shebang kids off thinking ur doin' it wrong when things don't work out to be Magical the first night.

And they really, really care whether you've had sex before the current relationship. Or, you know, whether you're having sex in this one, rather than letting it be a personal choice for the two people involved, about their personal relationship.

Hopefully Abstinence-Only bullshit like this will be the first to experience Barack's scalpel.

AgnesScottie commented at October 27, 2008 12:39 PM: "There are so many problems in relationships that can occur because of sexual incompatibility that it makes no sense to me to wait until you are legally bound to someone to figure out those problems...

"...What if your partner wants to have sex 3 times a week and you only want sex 3 times a year? What if you want to do crazy kinky stuff, and they don't want to do anything wilder than missionary with the lights on? It's going to cause issues, issues that could be avoided."

...and it makes no sense to me to wait until you're having sex to figure out those problems. What ever happened to talking with a potential sex partner about your turn-ons and turn-offs in the first place?

For example, if you don't want to do anything wilder than missionary or 69 with the lights on and your potential partner wants to do anal or bondage, waiting until his dickhead is 1 mm from your naked anus or her handcuffs are on your wrists and almost locked or whatever to learn about this incompatibility would most likely feel terrible. I bet it would still feel terrible no matter if it's during a wedding night or one-night stand or whenever.

Undocile commented at October 27, 2008 8:10 PM: "Thank you for recognizing that it is our (my partner's and mine) choice, but there are a lot of indicators, especially if you're open and frank, about sexual compatibility that you can find without actually having sex."

Exactly!

Undocile commented at October 27, 2008 8:10 PM: "I find this kind of bizarre abstinence sideshow disgusting and demeaning. It's no one's business whether a couple - engaged, married, or on their second date - is having sex or not, but their own. I don't go running around assuring everyone 'I'm not having sex with him, really!' and I don't want to have to. Whether I'm sexually active or not."

I totally agree.

ShifterCat commented at October 27, 2008 10:40 PM: "Point taken, Undocile.

"I'd feel better about the pro-abstinence crowd if they were recommending what you and your partner are doing -- having frank and explicit discussions about sex before getting married. (Actually, I think it's a good idea to do that with your partner before you shed your virginity, whether said shedding will coincide with marriage or not.)"

Right on! Also, it's a good idea to do that again with any new partner, even if you and/or your new partner already had sex in earlier relationships.

"I'd also feel better if they recommended that people masturbate, so as to learn their own bodies and sexual response."

Me too.

judgesnineteen commented at October 27, 2008: "Aw, Lilly...remember to use lots of lubricant, go slow, communicate, and wait until you're married highly aroused.

"Sorry, married was supposed to be crossed out."

Lilly, I'm kinda in your situation too and in addition to the above suggestion maybe getting used to vaginal penetration ahead of time with your fingers, tampons, a vibrator, pelvic exams, etc. could help? I don't feel 100% ready yet myself, but I feel readier than I did before I tried those.

beka commented at October 28, 2008 12:55 PM:: "apparently they've held mock weddings where there's a virginal bride in a white (of course) gown, and one with an STD-riddled, cash-strapped teenage mother."

As if there aren't any virginal brides in white gowns IRL who become STD-riddled and cash-strapped teenage mothers by staying faithful to husbands who feel too macho to be faithful or at least use condoms, infect them, and rapidly get them pregnant with too many mouths to feed...

another horror from the religious right, but it could be worse, i have friends who belong to a religous group where they cant even have sex after theyre married/except if they want to have a kid/

i think this is a good thing. I am glad to see some people stay away from the sex until they are married. i am not sure if i would do it but it is a good think.
gardening tips
wedding tips
free wedding information
cruises travel information
credit help tips