# Would you be willing to wait for someone you really loved?



## Jeff (Nov 11, 2005)

With today's society having such a casual attitude about pre-marital sex, do you think you could wait until marriage if you met a great person who felt strongly about waiting? Why or why not? I personally have no strong religious convictions regarding this topic, so I don't really need convincing one way or the other, it's just something I'm curious about. I do admire those who wait and often wonder if I'm more likely to find a true soul mate that way. (And I don't mean staying a virgin for those who are, just waiting with a particular person).


----------



## extraordinary (Sep 10, 2011)

No way! Gotta **** before marriage. What if we marry and find out we're incompatible? Or one has the sex drive of a doorknob and the other a jackrabbit? I need to know these things.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

Jeff said:


> With today's society having such a casual attitude about pre-marital sex, do you think you could wait until marriage if you met a great person who felt strongly about waiting? Why or why not? I personally have no strong religious convictions regarding this topic, so I don't really need convincing one way or the other, it's just something I'm curious about. I do admire those who wait and often wonder if I'm more likely to find a true soul mate that way.


No way I can do this.

That's nice and all, and I respect people who do that, but it could be as long as 10-15 years before I can find someone I care about in that way.


----------



## IvyAndRoses (Sep 4, 2011)

I just can't see it working. I'm not marriage material, so it wouldn't be happening.


----------



## shadowmask (Jun 22, 2009)

Yes, because true love is far more valuable than sex.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

If I wasn't willing to wait, it'd be hard to say I "really loved" her.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

If he wanted to wait, of course I would. Love is much more important than sex, although the best is when they both go together. :yes


----------



## Later (May 5, 2011)

IMO sex is an act of giving something that's yours to pleasure your loved one. Pre-marital or not, it is something very special, I'm trying not to stray too far to the subject of marriage. so take it as a loving action or a make it into something proving your loyalty. It is a mutual concept, so your partner should be feeling the same way with your views. If someone were to think similarly, it will work. Sex is not the sole subject that keeps a couple together or breaks them apart in a true love relationship, as for my answer, I would give for someone I truly love


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

I don't want to get married but would be well capable of waiting. I prefer to wait anyway. If I could be with the first person I loved I'd go without for good if necessary.


----------



## extraordinary (Sep 10, 2011)

Later said:


> It is a mutual concept, so your partner should be feeling the same way with your views. If someone were to think similarly, it will work.


 Exactly. I wouldn't care to be with someone who's against premarital sex because if we can't agree on something that basic, there's not much else in life that we're going to have in common.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

Yes. I've already 'waited' 28 years, so what's a few more? Sex isn't something I consider casually anyway. At the very least I'd have to be in a strong relationship with someone I was planning to be with for a long time. Otherwise I'm just devaluing sex and stripping it of its intimate / loving overtones.


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

Yes.


----------



## layitontheline (Aug 19, 2009)

Definitely.


----------



## Fantas Eyes (Mar 23, 2011)

I'm one of the people waiting for marriage, so I would definitely.


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

Not ideally, even if I planned on getting married one day. I could wait till we thought we were in love. Love is love, marriage is something else.

But then partners make their partners do/not do all sorts of things. So under certain circumstances, yes, if it were part of a compromise.


----------



## CaptainRoommate (Aug 15, 2011)

I'm not sure how I could really be in a serious relationship with someone who wanted to wait, especially for religious reasons.
I've been beaten over the head with a bible before, I'm sure it won't be the last time.


----------



## TPower (Feb 3, 2011)

I wouldn't wait over a month, so until marriage?

That's effing BS. If the girl doesn't want sex until marriage, I strongly doubt she'd be my better half.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

Absotutely not.


----------



## keyla965 (Jan 13, 2011)

probably not. as sad as it sounds. the urge is just way too strong for me. i wanna do it but at the same time im extremly causious becsue i dont want any stds or anything like that. if i get the opportunity ill take it. But i doubt it would ever happen. My sa is in the goddamn way. i guess ill die a virgin.


----------



## TPower (Feb 3, 2011)

For girls.. what if on your honeymoon, you found out your new husband has a 2 cm dong?

Uh.


----------



## Syndacus (Aug 9, 2011)

We'll have sex when we're both comfortable being in each other's company and loving each other to take it another step further regardless if we're married or not. I don't have a religious obligation to uphold, and my morals are upstanding.


----------



## equiiaddict (Jun 27, 2006)

If I really loved the person and could actually see myself staying with them - then yes I could wait. It definitely wouldn't be easy, especially considering I do enjoy sex (hey, I'm just being honest) but in the end it would be worth it if it was someone I really cared about.


----------



## Revenwyn (Apr 11, 2011)

OK I've already been there, done that...

The idea was to wait until marriage but it honestly takes two very strong individuals who are not constantly separated by one's crazy parents in order to make this work. Long distance relationship= lots of masturbation and unending horniness. When we did get to see each other (about one week a year for four and a half years) all we could think about was getting the physical affection craving sorted out. My family didn't even believe a couple should hold hands before they were approved to get married. 

Eventually our desire for physical affection went overboard, we went for a "walk" and ended up having sex in a place where we could have very well been caught by someone. Thank goodness we weren't. We decided that day that no matter the cost to us, we were going to find a way to get married. Somehow our families had it all figured out what had happened between us- something must have been different right away. Three weeks later we ran off and got married a week and a half after that, starting out our marriage being homeless.

So yeah we tried to wait... but like most, failed.


----------



## Kennnie (Oct 21, 2010)

.....till the end of time.


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

^ Those sex chemicals diminish a great deal anyway during relationships. Where did you get the Christianity divorce rate, compared to what, and how do you know whether correlation means causation?

Saying teaching abstaining till marriage is nothing more than a perversion and hatred of what's natural is not true. There's more to it than that and that statement's unfair to many religious people.


----------



## watashi (Feb 6, 2008)

The way I see it abstinence till marriage is not practical. What exactly are they trying to protect? You can have safe sex and not get pregnant or pick up various diseases. Sure many younger people are too airheaded to be responsible about it, but many times they aren't taught to be responsible. Instead they are taught abstinence, which is like putting a candy in front of a child and telling them not to take it. What if someone doesn't want to get married, they have to stay a virgin for life?

I certainly don't intend to get married, so I doubt someone who's saving themselves for marriage would want to be in a relationship with me. Though if they wanted to wait some time for personal reasons like not being ready, I'd wait. As long as I knew they really loved me and wanted a relationship with me and weren't just making excuses.


----------



## Jeff (Nov 11, 2005)

watashi said:


> The way I see it abstinence till marriage is not practical. What exactly are they trying to protect?


Not everyone who waits is doing so because of the risks of std's/pregnancy or religious reasons. Some people just want to know that the relationship is based more on something solid and meaningful rather than lust. Studies show that frequency of sex for most people drops off with age. I'm not saying waiting is the way to go, but I respect those who do and have often wondered how I would react if I met an amazing woman who wanted to wait.


----------



## watashi (Feb 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Not everyone who waits is doing so because of the risks of std's/pregnancy or religious reasons. Some people just want to know that the relationship is based more on something solid and meaningful rather than lust.


Wouldn't that mean they have trust issues in their relationship that they need to work on?


----------



## hmnut (Aug 8, 2011)

Yes in theory, no in reality. 

If the girl I was dating could make it clear to me that we were on the same page sexually, I could wait until marriage. But in my experience once you enter my age group (late 20s early 30s) or older, people waiting for marriage are doing so because they are uptight about sex... that's a deal breaker for me.

So if a girl could make it clear to me that even though she wants to wait until marriage she is NOT uptight about sex sure, I'll wait.


----------



## Jeff (Nov 11, 2005)

watashi said:


> Wouldn't that mean they have trust issues in their relationship that they need to work on?


Not sure how trust has anything to do with this. I'm talking about a person wanting to be sure about their _own_ personal feelings for someone else. Wanting to know that they feel strongly about the other person with the sex factor temporarily removed. That the bond is based more on love and friendship than anything else.


----------



## watashi (Feb 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Not sure how trust has anything to do with this. I'm talking about a person wanting to be sure about their _own_ personal feelings for someone else. Wanting to know that they feel strongly about the other person with the sex factor temporarily removed. That the bond is based more on love and friendship than anything else.


So what's the time limit for being sure and does marriage automatically make it a certainty?

Sex isn't only about lust, it has an emotional part too, which can bring people closer together. The strongest relationships are those where people don't need to test their feelings by not having sex. The better question is would you still be with them long after the sex loses its novelty, this is why relationships that are based entirely on lust don't last.


----------



## Bloody Pit Of Horror (Aug 15, 2011)

Dont matter to me. I am abstaining anyways. *shrugs*

Marriage would be game if we were compatible. But I dont want to raise children. Too late in the game.


----------



## stevieo (Apr 9, 2011)

Albert11 said:


> Call it old fashioned but my Nephew and his wife didn't even kiss before they were married. They have the greatest relationship I've ever seen. They did a lot of pre-marital counseling and compatibility work books. If you can resist the temptation before marriage you'll be able to resist the temptation of affairs after the marriage. Couples who live together before marriage double their risk of divorce. It doesn't seem to be working very well when couples have sex before marraige so why not try something that takes some discipline?


i agree


----------



## Jeff (Nov 11, 2005)

watashi said:


> The better question is would you still be with them long after the sex loses its novelty, this is why relationships that are based entirely on lust don't last.


Which is why I wouldn't totally dismiss the concept of waiting. How many couples are convinced they are seeing things clearly when in fact their judgement is clouded by raging hormones, only to find out early in their marriage that there was never really much substance to their relationship to begin with? Unless one's religious beliefs clearly spell it out, then I'm not sure there is really a right or wrong answer to this, I can see the benefits of both sides.


----------



## KumagoroBeam (Sep 15, 2008)

odd_one_out said:


> I don't want to get married but would be well capable of waiting. I prefer to wait anyway. If I could be with the first person I loved I'd go without for good if necessary.


This.


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

I could because that's the exact scenario I'm in.


----------



## Haydsmom2007 (Oct 16, 2009)

Nope! Not because all I care about in a relationship is sex, or anything, but the type of person who believes in waiting for marriage is not the type of person I would like to be with.

I would want to be with someone for years before getting married. That's an awful long time without sex.

People say "if you really love me, you'll wait for me" but I could easily turn that around and say "well if you really love ME, you'll have sex." Eh?? 

Just my opinion.


----------



## Keith (Aug 30, 2008)

Maybe... going without sex is not a big deal, but it'd be a bummer if we weren't sexually compatible. I'd be willing to take a chance on the right woman though if i loved her and she didnt mind that I've already had sex, that seems like a highly improbable situation though so i'm not even going to entertain it as a possibility.


----------



## extraordinary (Sep 10, 2011)

Haydsmom2007 said:


> People say "if you really love me, you'll wait for me" but I could easily turn that around and say "well if you really love ME, you'll have sex." Eh??


 Your profile views are going to shoot through the roof with that comment. But yea, I fully agree with everything you wrote.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

People should keep themselves to themselves while their soul is in their keeping. The safe keeping of my soul is in my own possession. From that point of view, I know when I've been a fool, I know when I can keep myself to myself. I see little reason for the least of us safe-keeping a soul constituted of straw. They would be foolish to suffer such a contrary ideal, so I do not begrudge them their humour, or their fun. My soul however, is in my keeping untill it isn't anymore. That is all I have to say about this.

When spoken to in this manner by some husk of a woman "you will grow out such notions of pure love." That may be so but I have still to decide for myself before you drag me down into your lonely oblivion. I would say the content you use to deride me was beneath me, and always will be. In crossing that threshold those who would say "tangibly possible for anyone to cross," those who believe freedom is the will to power say similar things. Not like Nietzsche, for those who really understood him, as opposed to distancing the writings from the man. I would say destiny is more so the truth which permits me to dispense with all who inevitably diminish themselves at a certain point. I would say they were always condemned at that height but I would pass above that. Just bear in mind it's a crude measure however damning that sounds, but I couldn't feel sympathy for it if I had any feeling my soul depended on this world at all. My will to power is an internal power in that sense.


----------



## Haydsmom2007 (Oct 16, 2009)

My main point that I didn't really get across is that I don't agree with "making" someone wait. I think waiting for marriage, or waiting a certain length of time, is only beneficial if it's what both people want.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

Haydsmom2007 said:


> My main point that I didn't really get across is that I don't agree with "making" someone wait. I think waiting for marriage, or waiting a certain length of time, is only beneficial if it's what both people want.


That depends on the individuals you're talking about and operates under the presumption people communicate precisely what they desire or desire what they desire. Someone religious may well engender the wish to see their partner find God, perhaps when she found him begging on the alter, dressed in a towel, crying his eyes over the foot of a statue, this may bring pause to reconsider.... All abstract of course. When I'm certain about something, often the only thing that truly makes me happy is being utterly wrong.


----------



## JB92 (Sep 14, 2011)

Of course. I actually am waiting until marriage. I made that decision when I was 16 due to religious reasons and personal reasons.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

Bluepanda said:


> No sex is very important for a relationship, A huge amount of hormones and chemicals are released during sex which results in pair bonding. If sex isn't enjoyable and frequent a couple will never be as close as they could be and that's just a scientific fact.
> 
> If after you get married you find out your incompatible and have different preferences it just won't be a happy relationship.
> 
> ironically Christianity has the highest divorce rate globally by quite a large margin especially in america. People can preach the morality of no sex before marriage until there blue in the face but it's nothing more than a perversion and hatred one of the most natural things in nature.


I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. Would you honestly depend on statistics to inform you of such a decision? Quite frankly the notion of applied probability sickens me, if not in negligence than at least in the broad sweeping dismissal of something so distinct to something so general. Marriage has been passed through culture, this isn't about "making something work." If anything, if I knew marriage to be the ultimate tightrope to rob all passion for whoever the gust of wind brushes aside in the glance of a loved one infringing on the couples intimacy, I'd look to the couple immediately to decide for themselves how prepared they were; I wouldn't accuse marriage. However a thing is designed, there is always the individual who transfigures, who finds more of it than society intended... And those who can't surely have nothing to complain about. The church takes no account of the number of divorces and if they did it wouldn't concern them. A majority of people who decide to divorce proves nothing as regards the individual who knows precisely the aesthetic and ethical value of marriage. There is more to the question than the people who give marriage a bad reputation would have you believe. That's my view anyway, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of the most important decision of my life with statistics.


----------



## Lasair (Jan 25, 2010)

I don't plan on having sex....icky!


----------



## AK32 (Sep 2, 2010)

Yes if I truly loved them I could wait.


----------



## SAgirl (Nov 15, 2003)

I agree with artandis. Being sexually compatible is important.


----------



## Insanityonthego (Jul 5, 2010)

Yes. I know that's stupid, but that's how loving I really am. I'm not like some of these *****es that they treat relationships like disposable diapers.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

Bluepanda said:


> I wouldn't need too, Sexual compatibility is very important to me and i think it is to everyone else too even if they don't admit it or think it's not important.
> 
> The thing is nobody knows how important sex is too them until they've had it which is why no sex before marriage is such a bad idea. Everyone has an inner animal so to speak but for most that never comes out in the bedroom because the partner just doesn't "Do it" for them.
> 
> ...


Forgive me but you understand I find it hard to stomach what you just said. You make, well, fair points but will concede as well you favour an abstract logic with your arguement in the way you categorize "sex" distinctly from my concept of "beauty" or "strength" for example. I find it uncomfortable to reduce something to such a category in one line. It confuses me when people speak of "sex" as though it were a reasonable prediction to make in itself, as though their speaking of it brought it into existence. Also, knowing there was a category which worked through sex as distinct from one which worked through sex and love combined. I find it hard to quantify such things. I admitt I'm next to redundant in the face of such questions but I do know that once I'm questioning through less than my own eyes, that wouldn't seem.... I find it hard to separate one person from the next by a distinct category, "sex" for example, "good" or "bad." I find it hard to stomach that, particularly as I have only one life to lead and personally find science just as intrusive as religion in it's weighing of probability, in it's evaluating of two individuals and their powers on a continuum to set a point where their strength wanes.... We all have one life to lead and one pair of eyes. What would it be if we submitted it each time beneath a steep drop into the dark? At what point would you concede your future adequately measured at such a point?

Do you see where I'm coming from? This is beyond good, evil and all practical uses to me. It's not my choice to make if there is such a thing as the categories you accept, I can choose to reject them untill my eyes are blind. I couldn't put my fingers on distinct categories of people and I wouldn't want to. Obviously I'm not saying very much, it simply irks me the way people here speak of such things. Furthermore, imagine for a moment you found someone you could quantify at the snap of your fingers who satisfied every category that occured to you to weigh... Is that more or less than adequate? I maintain there is something powerless in love, not fully conscious, incommensurable, pure action, not a date and a thought about their presentation, looks, hair, lips, obscenely weighty boobs, bum, thoughts and such and such like lol. Not the strongest on a continuum, rather, motion, that never ceases. So we have limited years to live and all the while others are happy while the rest mope about, beside themselves in uncertainty. Is your life a necessity? "I was born to oppose you"-Voltaire; It becomes redundant and why say it at all? Why impose a consensus over yourself? Hidden there is an apathy I cannot stand! A certainty! A will to make something useful for others to see! Perhaps I want to see something for myself, I don't want to call it incommensurable forever, I want to describe it, not compare it, or be forever unsure at the expense of falsified, truuuue happiness. Sure, it doesn't impose anything, nothing quantifiable, at the same time it hangs over every decision untill people start saying the same things, which disturbs me. Then again, why should I care? I don't know man, I really don't. You have to do better than "yes" or "no" that's all I'm saying *grumbly scowls.* Yep, next to nothing, once again


----------



## Jeff (Nov 11, 2005)

Bluepanda said:


> The thing is nobody knows how important sex is too them until they've had it which is why no sex before marriage is such a bad idea.


Actually I wasn't talking about no sex before marriage, just the concept of _no sex with a particular person_ before marriage. (We both may be non-virgins by the time we meet). I've already experienced sex, it's important to me, but finding someone with whom I have a very deep emotional bond is more important. The possibility of ending up in a loveless marriage is much more scary to me than ending up with a boring sex life.

As for Fred, I would comment but I have no idea what the hell he's talking about.


----------



## Dead Leaves (Aug 20, 2011)

No.

I couldn't imagine being compatible with someone who wanted to wait until marriage. I would need to know everything about them before making such a commitment, including how they behave sexually. I'm not completely sold on the idea of marriage as it is, there's noway I could make that decision with such a big unknown. Living together, having sex and pretending to be married for several years would be necessary before I could even begin to consider marriage.


----------



## Jeff (Nov 11, 2005)

Bluepanda said:


> Do you think getting married before having sex reduces the chance of a loveless marriage?


Depends on the individuals ability to separate lust from love. To clearly see the integrity of the bond for what it is. Can you? And if so, are you sure?



Bluepanda said:


> On a chemical and biological level sex is vastly underrated and very beneficial for relationships, It's not something people should give up or gamble with just because some wierdo's 1500 year's ago thought sex outside of marriage was sinful and morally unclean, That's just redonkulous.


Can't argue with you here, although this thread wasn't about religion or morals. And if a person _does_ wait for religious reasons, there's nothing ridiculous about it.



Bluepanda said:


> Marriage itself is quite silly, It's nothing but a legal document, Humans were having relationships and sex before marriage even existed.


Marriage is more than a legal document. It's a life altering decision to commit yourself to one person. I don't know about you, but I'd rather get it right the first time than waste several years or decades of my life. Does that mean I'm sold on waiting? Maybe not, but for some individuals, it might be the right choice.


----------



## seafolly (Jun 17, 2010)

If the person really meant a lot to me, of course I would wait. But there'd have to be a grey area just to make sure the physical chemistry is there...! Bottom line though is yes. I think I read you're not specifying before marriage but for the right person?


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

I already am.


----------



## Jeff (Nov 11, 2005)

seafolly said:


> I think I read you're not specifying before marriage but for the right person?


Exactly.


----------



## ohgodits2014 (Mar 18, 2011)

So how do you know if someone is THE right person anyway? And how long is this supposed to be true for?

If X is compatible with you for only this year and the next but not so much the year after, does that mean that X if THE right person for you for those two years, or has X never been THE right person for you because X is compatible with you for only two years?

And what happens if you're so hung up on the idea of X being THE right person that you let Y, Z, and all those other guys walk away? Does that mean X is THE right person in accordance with fate, or are you just making a conscious decision to make X THE right person for you no matter what?

But to answer your original question, I wouldn't. Frankly I'm just not comfortable with the idea of being someone's soul mate, and there's just something screwed-up about letting someone believe you're more special than you really are.


----------



## Jeff (Nov 11, 2005)

Bluepanda said:


> Marriage isn't required for that, Most couples are together a 2-3 year's before they make a strong commitment in terms of Marriage or Children which is more than enough time to understand how you feel about someone.


Where did I imply that _marriage_ is required to make that determination? You might want to reread my posts. The whole point of my thread was about making that determination _before_ marriage.



Bluepanda said:


> People can just as easily commit themselves to one person without marriage, if anything they do that before getting married anyway, Marriage is just a symbol and celebration of that decision and not the decision itself.
> 
> It's not some kind of magical barrier that prevents people breaking up , cheating or having a bad relationships. A Married couple are no better off than a normal couple, even in a legal sense that's true now that laws give longterm couples the same rights as a married couple at least they do here in England.
> 
> I just don't understand why people see marriage as a checkpoint for sex, It would make alot more sense if people just waited until they were ready and in love which doesn't require marriage and obviously happens before marriage otherwise why get married in the first place.


I would have to disagree with you here. While everyone views the sanctity of marriage differently (which is obvious from the high divorce rates and children who have suffered through broken marriages), marriage is normally a point at which further commitments are made from both people. While there are always exceptions, it's at this point that you are 'in much deeper' with your better half in terms of finances (buying a house, savings, etc), raising children together, making career compromises, etc. Going in another direction 3 or 4 years into a marriage is not the same as it is for someone who's been dating exclusively for a couple of years. If it is, perhaps that person needs to rethink their definition of marriage.


----------



## regimes (Aug 24, 2011)

if he were waiting for religious reasons then i'd probably not be dating him anyway.
on the off chance i would, while i adore the idea of "true love" and "unconditional acceptance" you have to be rational. more than just affection goes into a relationship- love doesn't cover everything, unfortunately enough. it's not that strong of a glue. 
so waiting for marriage wouldn't be ideal.


----------

