I find that sign surprising as to me it seems to trivialize marriage. "Slip on one of these" makes a wedding ring seem like a condom and seems to condone marriage as well as divorce. Which I think would not be something the abstinence movement would want to condone. So it seems kinda funny to me.

"Because, let's face it - if you're going to commit yourself to someone for (presumably) the rest of your life, it's probably best if you know that you're sexually compatible. I don't think this is particularly radical thing to say; in fact, it seems quite logical to me."

yeah, I whole-heartedly agree... I can't tell you how many horror stories I've heard about Muslim arranged marriages and virgins... leading up to sexual frustration, cheating, and divorce... ugh.

but like you said, it's definitely different for everyone. Some people have a very low sex drive, while others dont.

Why you should have premarital sex: cause it's fucking great!! Not that I know

Oh, I totally thought those were silver cock rings. A little narrow, but hey... fancy.

It's also notable that what patriarchy has to offer in the bedroom (or kitchen counter or whatever) is pretty slim... Premarital sex can really allow for people to find their sexual agencies and comfort with asking for what they want. Regardless of sexual compatibility, I think it can be really healthy to have experience just to find one's own voice.

I just can't imagine that the sort of sex the folks behind abstinence.net support equally weighs the needs of women and men. For. A. Minute. (Now I have that Missy Elliott track in my head)

I find it funny that when it comes to premarital hetero sex, the purity pushers will say how there is sooo much more to a relationship than sex, but when it comes to gays getting married, their argument is that the sex they have isn't natural, therefore them getting married isn't possible.

my mom always says you try shoes on before you buy them. ehem.

That's how my mother raised me.

having been married for many years and having had lots of premarital sex, I don't think it matters at all in most instances if one has had sex before marriage or not. Sexual chemistry is virtually never a constant in a long term relationship and in my experience one can feel chemistry before they hop in the sack.

having been married for many years and having had lots of premarital sex, I don't think it matters at all in most instances if one has had sex before marriage or not. Sexual chemistry is virtually never a constant in a long term relationship and in my experience one can feel chemistry before they hop in the sack.

While I do agree that sex is an important part of a relationship, I tend to be very understanding of the choice to wait. It's a personal decision--and a very important one--and anyone has the right to choose to wait if they think that's what's best for them. Just like we can't understand why they would want to wait, I'm sure they can't understand why we wouldn't want to. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of sex before marriage. I'm just hesitant to say that it's the right choice for everyone since it's not my choice and I haven't lived it.

It has been my observation (anecdotal evidence only) that the "no sex before marriage" crowd seem to get married much younger and much faster than realistic people who let their relationships evolve at their own natural pace. And with this "rush" to get married it makes me wonder if they are only using marriage to get to sex. Being horny seems like a really crappy way to choose a life partner!

When people ask me my thoughts on pre-marital sex, I tell them that I believe in teaching children about the importance of meaningful, mutually satisfying sex for both partners. Meaningful sex is not determined by a wedding ring, obviously. You can have wonderful, soul-satisfying sex with someone that respects you, and you don't have to be married to them. Conversely, a woman can feel obligated to get married, and have degrading sex with someone she walked down the aisle with.

As the Purity Myth teaches us, promiscuity and purity are two sides of the same coin. Both teach girls that their sexuality is what defines them; having it and not having it. The alternative is to teach young men and women that a healthy sexuality is one that shows the value of sex, without making it the be all and end all of someones worth (let's face it, "someone" usually equals a woman's); a really dangerous message

I couldn't agree more. And in truth, without a combination of practice and compatibility, sex is not particularly compelling, nor powerful.

[This comment has been deleted]

"Because, let's face it - if you're going to commit yourself to someone for (presumably) the rest of your life, it's probably best if you know that you're sexually compatible. I don't think this is particularly radical thing to say; in fact, it seems quite logical to me."

THANK YOU. I have been saying this for years, and - aside from the fact that sex is awesome - this was one of my main reasons for my initial decision to become sexually active when I was 18 with my long-term boyfriend at the time.

One of the big problems with not having premarital sex is that some Christians only kiss before getting married. Going from only kissing to suddenly having sex is pretty jarring and your sexual relationship and experience does not get to develop slowly. Not to mention the whiplash of doing something that the day before was considered evil.

ASEXUAL. GODDAMN. PEOPLE.

if people want to wait for marriage to have sex (assuming it's legal for them to do so), they should.

Interesting phrasing. Are there states where it's illegal to wait for marriage? I want to move there. This would be better:

if people want to wait for marriage to have sex (assuming they can legally marry), they should.

I do not agree that "sexual compatibility" is what will give people a happy sex life. Conflict resolution skills will keep you happier, longer. Your sexual abilities, goals, needs, wants, and boundaries are all likely to change over the course of your life. "Compatibility," whatever that is, at the beginning of your marriage is not going to guarantee it over the entire course of the marriage. Good conflict resolution skill will ensure that as both (or all) parties change, they will continue to find ways to satisfy each other.

I'm an unapologetic practitioner of premarital sex. But I also think that, just from the perspective of understanding the logic of people who do not follow that path, there are two points worth considering:

First, having premarital sex doesn't guarantee compatibility. Even if you know you are compatible before you marry, there are a host of things that can happen after marriage, from having children, to aging, to health issues, to depression and stress that affect people's sexual compatibility. IF one enters marriage as a serious commitment to be united with one's spouse through "richer, poorer, sickness, health, etc."(barring abuse or emergence of other serious issues that put one in danger), then that most likely also includes a commitment to be with that person even in times when sexual compatibility will not be easy. In some ways, entering a lifelong relationship with uncertainty about your "natural" sexual compatibility, but a commitment and willingness to communicate and work through whatever issues arise to find a mutually satisfactory resolution, may be a more "realistic" long-term approach than entering that relationship relying heavily on sexual chemistry that may change over time. (I realize not everyone shares a view of marriage as a lifetime/better or worse commitment, but I'm trying to explain a logic that may apply to those that do, here.)

Second, the type of evangelical Christian beliefs that are often connected with support for abstinence until marriage also frequently emphasize the need to trust in God's provision for one's life, rather than trying to always be in control. Given that, it stands to reason that one may also believe that, if one obeys God's will (as they perceive it) to abstain sexually until marriage, then God will provide the compatibility in that relationship--basically, it's not your job to worry about or control it, because God will do it.

Again, I'm not arguing either of these things myself, but I think it is useful for people who have one set of views to try to understand how people can think differently, so wanted to lay them out here.

(Personally, I could never succeed at abstinence until marriage, because I could never keep my hands off someone I liked long enough to get to know them enough in other respects to agree to marry them!)

Actually, the compatibility issues are the #1 reason I'm glad that me and my husband did NOT have premartial sex (and I'm a non-religious, pro-choice liberal, so don't start thinking I'm some abstinence wack job). Truth be told, he didn't "comfortably fit". As much fun as that might sound like, it wasn't. If we had been dating I probably would have used it as an excuse to dump him and missed out on a great guy. But since we were married I went through the trouble of getting medical help and am glad I kept my guy. I know he worth it now, but might not have back then.

I'm all for premarital sex but the idea of being superduper sure is unrealistic. People's sex drive changes over time. Some goes up, some down. With changes in hormones, health, kids etc. etc.. Part of why it is so hard to make a commitment is that you can't ever really be sure, you just do it anyway. Marriage is work and you just have to decide to make it work.

It's actually more important that you learn to get yourself off, with or without a partner. I hear people complaining about a partner and I think "why would you wait for someone else to figure out what you like - just take care of it".

I thought those were cock rings too.

I actually just went to a wedding this weekend where both the bride and groom were virgins. They met in January, and announced their engagement in April. They are both great people, and they seem compatible, but I still think it's a good idea to have at least a year under your belt before deciding to get married.
I think abstinence till marriage promotes shorter courtships because they are human beings who want to fuck each other. They don't want to wait that long. I wish my friends all the best, but I'm a little worried that they will soon discover that 10 months wasn't long enough to decide for sure that they wanted to be together for the rest of their lives.

Eh, I think if a strong non-sexual relationship is an important part of your sexuality then waiting til marriage isn't a bad idea.

that poster is really disturbing...nuff said

Oh man.

I love you, Jessica, but this is so tone deaf.

There's so much pressure on women (and men, I'm sure) to deliver sexually. And by creating another recommendation that everyone has to live up to, you're just adding to it.

Look, what you're describing is this theoretical scenario where everyone knows what their sexuality is and can test their compatibility against other people. But in reality lots of people don't know their sexuality - or think they know it, but don't really.

Take this hypothetical example- a woman who was sexually abused by her dad as a teen. And then by a series of other men, as tends to happen when you're already vulnerable. She's in her 30s today, and wants to enter a relationship. But it's unlikely that she'd be ready to have sex any time soon. Healing is a process and can take years. So would you tell this woman not to date because it's unlikely that she'll have full sex (whatever that means) in the coming year or two? What if she suffers from something like Vaginismus and never had an orgasm?

Ok, this is not some theoretical woman. It's me. And I am SOOO tired of being told by everyone in this progressive bubble that I live in that my problems with sex disqualify me from dating, from relationships, from marriage. And from the time I spend at online support groups, I'm hardly the only survivor to feel this way.

I also think that people can work through a lot problems sexually simply by communicating with each other, and that can go a long way to solving problems with incompatibility. Some sexologists (and I've been reading a lot) would say that lack of sexual compatibility is simply lack of communication.

Additionally, people's sexuality changes with time. Hormones, age, emotional growth, etc all affect sexuality. Even if you have great sex when you're 30, you both may change.

Can you believe that some people think the Madonna/Whore dichotomy no longer exists? I LOVED your book and it was my inspiration to start a new blog. Check it out at www.feminonzi.blogspot.com.

I think the other part of the premarital sex question is an issue of safety and health. Young teens who have sex just because they're horny might not know how to properly use a condom or obtain birth control. I can see how parents, churches, and other groups would preach abstinence not out of faith but out of fear that their kids will end up as teen parents or contract an STD. Likewise if a teen girl gets the message that it's ok to have sex, on top of pressure from her peer group who is also having sex, finds herself in a steamy situation but would personally prefer to wait, it could end up being super confusing for her and potentially lead to rape/date rape situation. It's often left up to parents/guardians to be open with their kids, set good examples, etc. But not everyone has the luxury of having that kind of a parent. Which is why we need better sex ed in schools and more role models and resources for teens. That was kind of a tangent. But I think it's an important thing to consider when talking about premarital sex.

I did some snooping around on an evangelical website aimed at teens and young adults. They have some really weird beliefs. No premarital sex. No premarital sexual activity that could lead to "temptation" (I guess that means sex). No close friendships with members of the opposite sex. Don't date until you are ready to get married. Women do Not make the first move when dating. Men are the leaders. Women need to work on domestic skills from a young age. And something about how men are the ones who interrupt your life and you decide to accept the interruption of your career but if you want to do anything outside the home it Cannot interrupt his holy career....

Once I figured out that they were totally serious and it wasn't a screwed up practical joke; I tried my hardest to wash this crap from my brain and retinas.

I like the fact that lots of people are pointing out that there's no perfect idea of sexual compatibility, but I don't think that was necessarily the only way to read the post.

I read this as meaning, "See that you and your partner can grow & develop together; see that you are on the same sexual wavelength enough to adjust and satisfy each other." NOT "See that you and your parter are two perfect puzzle pieces."

For example, before finding my long term partner, I had quite a few who were quite matter of factly sexually incompatible:

1. Person who believed only in men-on-top sex positions.
2. Person who was very selfish in bed
3. Person who, through sex, I realized had violent tendencies that I was uncomfortable with

These weren't quirks; there was very specific attitudes toward sex that would never have been okay with me.

And beyond the idea of partner compatibility, the idea that we discover our own sexuality outside of marriage is important to some -- it certainly is to me.

"For the best sex, slip on one of these"?!

Gosh, I always thought marriage was not to be entered into lightly, and certainly not just to have good sex! What is the world coming to?

"Because of this misconception, I spend a lot of time during clarifying that of course I don't think virginity is bad thing, and naturally if people want to wait for marriage to have sex (assuming it's legal for them to do so), they should."

This CANNOT be stressed enough. If you want to have premarital sex, the more power to you, because we have no say in your business, and it's 100% your right to have giant S&M gay orgies if that's your thing! But I'm a little tired of the same prejudice being directed towards me because I'm abstinent.

It's NOT wrong to wait.
It's NOT wrong to not wait.

Honestly, I think the New Left's common beliefs in instant attraction as a magical predictor of relationship quality, and sexuality as a static thing, are about as dogmatic and silly as the rights' madonna/whore issues.

Yes, there's plenty of evidence that the psychological aspects of sexuality are deeply rooted, and certain of our preferences may have emerged during childhood and will be with us throughout most of our lives (read "The Erotic Mind") On the other hand, some things definitely change, and I don't believe it's always possible to predict what.

Perhaps more importantly, there are lots of people who got married because of sexual compatibility, and wind up pretty miserable either because that changes, or for some other reason. And there are lots of people who wait for marriage to have sex, and are pretty fine afterwards. So is that a matter of expectations, or a matter of being able to figure out a certain amount of compatibility before teh sex? A) I think it can be both, and B) Does it really matter?

Also, are you forgetting about how many women have bad experiences in more casual sexual situations? Bad experience is part of life, and I realize this wouldn't exist in a feminist's ideal world. But, this is reality we're talking about.

What kind of world is this, when sex is considered the most important aspect of human relationships, or the best indicator of women's freedom, or whatever? A pretty shallow and short-sighted one, I'd say.

Of course sex is important. But when you expend extensive energy talking about it vs. the other important aspects of relationships, something is amiss in the analysis, or it at least sends the wrong message. To be openly sexual is no longer to be subversive, at least in many parts of the country.

I think a lot of people are partially missing the point of this post. Commenters have argued that it's a mistake to think you can be totally sure you're compatible, given that so much can change a couple's sex life over the years -- changing libidos, changing tastes, having kids, etc. But I doubt anyone thinks having sex before marriage is a way of "guaranteeing" anything, or testing for all possible problems that might come up in the long run. Test-driving a car won't tell you what problems the car may develop five years down the line, but most of us wouldn't want to buy a car without test-driving first.

Having sex before marriage can help you find out whether basic compatibility is there, whether you like to do some of the same things, whether your attraction to this person is really of a sexual nature as opposed to just an intense friendship. (This last might be an issue for young people without any sexual experience.) It's a good idea to check for this just because there IS so much that can change in a marriage. Your sex life is likely to decline somewhat or go through dry spells, so it's better to have it start at %100 of what you want it to be and go down to %30, rather than have it start at %30 and dwindle down to nothing.

Some examples: Maybe two members of a couple have wildly mismatched libidos, maybe they're both major bottoms in need of a "top" to discipline them (or vice versa), maybe the woman needs oral sex to get off and the guy thinks it's disgusting & degrading, maybe one partner favors lots of communication and experimentation in the bedroom while the other partner can't communicate and only likes missionary position with the lights off. Not all of these problems are fixable, many of them will just get worse with time, & they're all things one would at least want to know before getting married.

"I think if a strong non-sexual relationship is an important part of your sexuality then waiting til marriage isn't a bad idea." Waiting until you're in a relationship, certainly -- if you don't feel attracted without an emotional/intellectual connection, you shouldn't have sex on the first date. But that doesn't necessitate waiting for marriage.

I think Jessica's message in this post is important to hear, because we're often reluctant to defend or advocate something so sinful as premarital sex. When for most people, it can't do any harm and can only help.

Then there's this: http://jezebel.com/5261626/the-dangers-of-saving-yourself-for-marriage

I feel like I don't have a safe avenue to explore my sexuality. I'm straight and I've just had only shitty hook-up experiences with men (college) where I felt ignored afterwards so it scares me off from them. I'm shy to begin with when it comes to dating. Heck even making eye contact with a cute boy! I feel so left out of my feminist circle. Everyone has a partner or hooks-up a lot. It sux. I don't know how I evolved into a 23 yr old virgin. I can't find any cool progressive guys that don't like to just hear themselves talk or aren't already in a relationship... :(

On the other hand, for me, there's something attractive about the idea of "learning sex" together with your spouse, if that makes any sense.

For me, my emotional reaction to lesser forms of intimacy has pretty much confirmed what I already knew, that if I had sex with a guy and then broke up with him, I'd be emotionally devastated and subsequently really messed up about sex. It's just too intimate a thing for me.

Our society places way too much emphasis on sexual compatibility and sex in relationships. Couples need to be compatible in so many other ways to make a relationship work, and I hate the way people are pressured into sex and sex acts they may not feel comfortable with because they think it's the only way to keep their relationship.

This is what bothers me about the abstinence vs. no abstinence argument from a progressive standpoint. Abstinent? You're a religious prude destined for disappointment in your relationship. This view is not helpful if someone is not ready to take that step in their relationship and just puts more pressure on them to do something they may not want to do or may not feel ready to do.

I already see too many progressives who declare that some sex acts are MANDATORY. Before I realized I was asexual I knew I definitely never wanted to put a penis in my mouth. I don't even put fingers in my mouth. And yet all over the internet I was being told that this was a mandatory act for an "adult" relationship (so apparently my parents, married and faithful for almost 40 years are not in an "adult" relationship). I was being told I had all these "hangups" that probably stemmed from "sexual abuse" (no) and that I needed to "get over" them. That I should be up for sticking things in my butt (I have a digestive disease) because people who love each other are willing to stick things in their butts for their partners. And it all just struck me as really odd.

If two people really love each other they should be willing to respect the other's limits. Not prod and nudge and coerce the other to do things they don't want to do. Including being willing to wait and realizing that sex is not something they require or are owed. If two people really love each other, sex shouldn't matter. Sex comes and goes. I hate it when someone ties their partner's love to their ability or desire for sex. "You don't love me if you're not having sex with me." It's a big old guilt trip and it's coercive and disgusting.

Just my two cents. This topic bugs the ever-living crap out of me. Even the crap that doesn't live very long.

Whether or not it is going to be frequent, less frequent, adventurous or not, maybe even present or not, is a big part of most people's lives. Seeing if you have the type of partner who is going to work with your needs, only focus on their own, etc. etc. is not immaterial when we're talking about devoting your life to one person. I don't think whether or not you have a ring on your finger should be a determinant at all in how you are sexually - get married, don't, have fifty bazillion partners or not, whatever. But speak to those potential partners, consider these things. I think the most important part of this is considering these things before saying "Okay! Better or for worse! Whatever!!" and at least talking about sex brings these issues to the forefront. But, some of them are not going to come out until partners are intimate with someone (or maybe after awhile) I remember when I was a virgin the boyfriend that I was with and I talked about all kinds of things - turns out we didn't like how some of them felt, and we discovered some new things we did like. This would not have been discovered had we not done anything. Further, we were under a lot of pressure to get married, which now I am so, so, so glad we both said "why bother? Let's live near each other a little longer." So yes, I'm highly in support of experimenting beforehand if it is something both people are comfortable with.
But for crying out loud, ridiculous ads like this that try and tell us that you'll have better sex if you get married first - uhm, last I checked very few people's first experience is that amazing - or that the only way to really love someone is to wait for marriage needs to combated by voices saying "you know what, I had sex before marriage and it was really helpful to my relationship/myself." Because the alternative of people getting married, locking themselves emotionally, legally, spiritually, etc. into a marriage just because they don't want others to be ashamed of them for being intimate, something extremely natural, is much worse.

People are only outraged at you because you are called a feminist. In a culture where every other character in TV and films has premarital sex and single mothers that don't choose abortions are lauded as heros, it's comical that anyone should insult feminists because they are merely willing to accept premarital sex.

Where is the outrage when male heros in blockbusters bed multiple women per film? There are 1 million reasons why premarital sex is more common now than it was 100 years ago. Birth control and condoms remove some most of the negative consequences, people want to wait decades after they start having sexual desires to get married, people aren't as religious as they used to be etc. This is a case of people wanting to blame feminism for something they don't even see as a problem. They just want to get indignant and feel justified for denigrating all those uppity women with their dirty desires to you know, enjoy sex.

Oh and while Mona is at it, please do visit my blog :)

TMI to follow...

I usually prefer slow, sensual sex in the daylight (although occasionally there's something to be said for wild public quickies... ahem).
Now at one point I dated a woman who was very much into submissive/masochistic sex (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that). I was fine with trying it out for a bit... but eventually it got to the point where I just sort of dreaded having sex with her. I didn't especially want to roleplay "Master" and get out the riding crop all the time and keep her on a leash, etc. etc. This relationship lasted all of one month.

The point of this is that we were fundamentally sexually incompatible... and that's not something you can necessarily tell about someone without having actually had sex with them. People don't have signs on their foreheads saying "Likes BDSM" or "Needs multiple partners to be satisfied" or anything like that...

If I married this girl before having sex with her, I can safely say that our sex life would contribute to a dysfunctional marriage.

So the idea of marrying someone without having any idea about whether that person enjoys the same kind of sex that I do doesn't really make sense to me unless, for both parties, sex just isn't that important to them.

I put personal needs ahead of the others. I think sexual compatibility is as important as anything else in a relationship and would never marry a man I didn't know sexually first. Too big a gamble for me.
Muscle Might

Just like having a check book, driving a car, keeping a house clean, sex is a grown up thing to do.

There's no reason to wait for marriage to do any other adult thing.

I have never understood what possible benefit could result from waiting for marriage.

And I really hope my daughter finishes college and has a career before getting married. So she'd be 25 before she does more than kiss? Not realistic or healthy.

"But considering what a huge role sexuality plays in our lives and relationships..."

I actually put sex and sexuality pretty low on my priorities list. It's way below emotional attachment, much further down that intellectual engagement, in fact to me it's pretty unimportant.

So, while your advice makes sense for most people (I'd guess it's most people), I could take it or leave. I really don't think how sex is, is going to influence my decision to marry or not.

I think premarital sex is perfectly fine if it's what you want to do. My husband and I had sex when we were dating--and then had a period of abstinence when we had to do a year's worth of long-distance relationship. I will say though, that looking back our sex really wasn't very good when we were dating...in fact it kind of sucked. I didn't know that obviously...since we didn't know anything else (we were virgins). It has, over the years, gotten SO much better. I love our sex life now. We are very open about what we like, trying new things...we both focus on pleasure for BOTH parties. But if I had gone by our "compatibility" before we were married...I wouldn't have had great expectations. I believe you can have great sex with someone you barely know of course...but in my case it just got way better over time with added trust and learning about each other. So if you really love someone but sex isn't that great--it can get better. I think no matter what the relationship, openness and desire to please each other is key.

What's interesting to me is that the abstinence only folks are basically arguing that you should save the best, most meaningful sex of your life -- your first time -- for that most magical night of your wedding.

Except that the first time is usually the worst sex of your life -- for guys it's often short, awkward, and fumbling, and for girls it's usually painful.

I can think of better ways to kick off my marriage than by grimacing for two minutes while my partner acts like the human jackhammer in my vagina and then spending the next day more or less on my period.

The idea that virginity should be lost on the wedding night is so bald-faced misogynist that it's amazing anyone tries to go through the contortions that it's "more romantic that way." Virginity at the wedding was entirely a matter of women being property back in the day and the bride belonging "solely" to her husband when he purchased/married her. No such restrictions had ever been placed on men. When western society moved from an arranged marriage system to a romantic marriage system, we made some half-assed attempt to try to argue that the traditions of the arranged marriage system were also really "romantic" so we made up some bullshit about how a tradition of dominating your frightened virgin bride on your wedding night and then displaying the bloody sheets the next day to prove to everyone you've gotten your money's worth was somehow more "romantic" and symbolic of your "new union."

I know it's a trifle, but I can't get over the difference in size between the two bands pictured. One normal size, one dainty and fragile-looking. Of course, if they were the same size that would mean advocating "The Gay," but even forgetting that, it's a statement on how they think everybody ought to look, too.

I used to be a rather conservative Christian and bought into the abstinence myth hook, line, and sinker. That is, until my now ex-husband sexually abused me. It was horrible. Now I go on my own crusade against abstinence and fundamentalism. :) People should definitely not wait until marriage. It's a huge part of the other person, and going in blind isn't smart. It works out for some people, but now I think it's just luck. I've heard too many horror stories since starting my blog and writing about it candidly. I have found I am far from the only one out there who has suffered for believing this idea.

I was ready for sex fairly early in life -- I started having sexual relationships at 15. Then what followed was pretty standard serial monogamy, with 3 serious and a few other less serous partners before my husband. I got married at 27. I can't imagine having the level of maturity and weather-proven experience that has allowed me to be happily married for three years now (partnered for 5) without the life I actually led. That is just me and I understand other people might feel the exact opposite. But there are some of us out there who needed to learn from experience, and from making mistakes, when we were young and the stakes of messing up were not so high...if I had started this process of learning about myself and other people when I was in a position to get married, I don't think I would have been in a position to have an "adult" relationship until my 40s, and divorces and other financial and emotional disasters would have befallen me.

To play Devil's Advocate --

There is something to be said for fully committing to someone, through thick and thin, prior to engaging sexually (to avoid being accidentally attached, by a pregnancy, to someone who you discover you can't stand). Abstinence prior to commitment is not the only choice -- but let's not pretend it isn't a viable option for otherwise sane people.

You're never going to find someone with whom you are 100% compatible, sexually or otherwise. There are problems in any relationship. There are sexual problems and "negotiations" (for lack of a better term) in any relationship. The truly great marriages and partnerships that I have witnessed are not great because of some amazing sexual compatibility -- they are great because they've learned to work through problems as a couple (sexual or otherwise) without destroying the relationship.

Sexual compatibility is not the end-all-be-all of a successful relationship. I'm not even sure pre-marital sexual compatibility is a reasonable predictor of a good relationship.

In short, while I don't disagree that pre-marital sex is an option, true commitment can transcend sexual difficulties -- sexual compatibility cannot transcend lack of commitment. It is commitment, not sexual compatibility, which defines a good relationship.

kbz

For me, deciding to wait until after my commitment ceremony (my partner and I are not getting legally married until everyone can) to have sex for the first time was a beautiful choice that worked the best for my partner and me. Everyone should be entitled to make their own choices about what works best for them and their partner, but I do think that - regardless of the timing of sex (whether pre- or post-marital) - if two people are compatible in all of the other ways important to having a great partnership they will be sexually compatible as well. I was super duper postive that I wanted to make a lifetime commitment with my partner not because of our sexual relationship but because he is the best, most supportive, understanding, enter-positive-adjective-here person that I've ever met and I was not surprised when our sexual compatibility turned out to be marvelous as well.

I totally disagree with this post.
Before I lost my virginity at 19, I often had a difficult time when feminist blogs discussed sex, because my virginity began to feel shameful and even painful to me, as though I was tacitly supporting the abstinence-only crew and doing progressives a disservice by not having sex. I know that I'm far from the only one. Like most people here I fully support comprehensive sex ed and discussions of sex-related issues, but advocating premarital sex rather than remaining neutral on the topic is folly. What if someone wants to have sex but can't find the right partner? What if they have a disability which prevents sexual contact? What if they're asexual and frustrated by the pressure (like you, katemoore)? Respectfully, this is nothing more than sexual shaming.

I don't feel that having sex before marriage is either good nor bad. For myself, I would never marry without having a full understanding of my partner, having great communication, having openness and having love - this goes for the bedroom and beyond. But i believe that if my partner and I (currently 5 years together and running) had choose to wait until marriage...well, first we'd probably be married already because I couldn't wait that long...but also that we have a solid relationship that would almost definitely ensure a good sexual relationship. (Unless we were physically incompatible.)
If you have a good, communicative relationship - the sex life should work out fine. If you don't have good communications, the relationship won't work anyway, regardless of how sexually compatible you find yourselves after marriage.

If you want to argue that everyone who gets married should probably try it out with their partner first, then fine, but phrasing that as "everyone should have premarital sex" makes it sound like everyone's going to get married at some point, or that if you don't get married you should have premarital sex anyway. Premarital sex still gets called "premarital sex" even when there's no marital sex to follow it up.

But if you just don't bloody want to do it at all, it's an invasive an uncomfortable waste of time to dutifully "prepare" for a marriage you have no intention of ever getting into.

It's not so much being opposed to pre-marital sex. it still takes two to tango. i'm a 22 year old virgin, and i would love to have a sexual relationship with someone. if that someone would please show up, that would be great. or if they could tell me what i'm doing wrong, also good.

Does anyone else think it would be traumatic and overwhelming(physically and emotionally)to go from having no sexual contact with your husband to having sex on your wedding night? Leslee Unruh brags that her daughter saved her first kiss for marriage. Did she have intercourse a few hours later?

And yes, they tell you to get to the baby-making as soon as the vows are exchanged (if you've read abstinence-only literature, you know this). So they don't believe in any form of sexual gradualism.

That doesn't seem healthy on any level. It's like telling a person who's never worked out to go run a marathon.