Macbeth wrote:
HaiBai wrote:
Jay wrote:
Because the emotional damage is already done. She'll always think sex is dirty and won't be willing to explore. I dunno why I'm even bothering explaining this. You'll marry and have sex with the same girl your entire life and won't know good sex from bad anyway
you're bothering to explain because you don't want me to become a socially weird human being
truthfully though, it seems like more and more teenages are losing their virginity way before marriage these days, even catholics. we'll see what happens, i'm still young.
Actually
I'm fairly certain the obesity rate is following the same trend.
hm, interesting. iunno, i guess i'll have to see what college is like
Adams_BJ wrote:
HaiBai wrote:
Jay wrote:
HaiBai wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
HaiBai wrote:
i realize that. my question still stands.
btw: i'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong. i'm just genuinely curious of your opinions
Both are important. I couldn't marry someone if the sex is bad. I also wouldn't be with someone long term I didn't love.
i guess i see what you mean.
but another stupid question: how exactly can the sex be bad? i mean, i understand that some sex can either be good or bad, but how can a couple be incompatible with each other in a sexual sense if they love each other?
Because sex has nothing to do with love? Sex is sex. Some people are good at it, some people are bad at it. A lot of it has to do with the level of comfort that one has and the effort put out. A girl that's been sexually repressed all her life and doesn't even know where her clit is is going to be absolutely awful in bed. A lifetime of practice won't change that either. She'll be the cold fish sort just laying there and taking it.
This happens to be where all the Christian stereotypes stem from btw. All that repression fucks people up really well.
i don't understand. a lifetime of practice won't make somebody better at sex? didn't you just say that a girl that's been sexually repressed all her life who lacks sexual experience will suck at sex? therefore, a girl who's been having sex since she was 13 will be good at sex since she's experienced and because she hasn't been sexually repressed. basically, the girl who's good at sex is better at it because she has more experience? why can't the girl who's been sexually repressed learn this through experience later on in life?
Not a girl who has sex since 13, but a girl who has felt free enough to explore her sexuality and her body since she was thirteen. I think what jay is getting at, is that if a girl who has gone her whole life seeing her own sexuality is taboo, and overly "pure", is going to grow into adulthood with the same attitude. You need to be able to please yourself before you can please others.
makes sense, i see where you're coming from.
Adams_BJ wrote:
HaiBai wrote:
Adams_BJ wrote:
HaiBai wrote:
i guess i see what you mean.
but another stupid question: how exactly can the sex be bad? i mean, i understand that some sex can either be good or bad, but how can a couple be incompatible with each other in a sexual sense if they love each other?
this comes down to whether sex drives are matched or not, openness between a couple to try or do things that one may want to do, sexual attractiveness, skill in bed even. There are a lot of factors that make sex good or bad, and not everyone is sexual compatible. Infact I've probably had more partners where it wasn't compatible than I have had that worked.
e: and what jay said. Love and sex are somewhat intermingled, but largely they are separate. Having sex with someone you don't love, or have no feelings for, may make you feel a little empty inside, but ultimately bad sex with someone you love is the same. Good sex won't make you love someone, and love won't make bad sex enjoyable.
i can understand the fact that sex and love don't relate to each other.
however, i just don't get why two people can be permanently incompatible sexually. can't a couple learn to work with each other to make sure both partners are receiving the appropriate amount of enjoyability?
Not really, like I said before, people are built differently. My girlfriend and I are compatible because our sex drives are similar, and at similar times. She knows what she likes, and knows what it feels like to enjoy sex, so she openly tries new things, in a way that she can pleasure me as much as she can, and pleasure herself. She sees sex as something that has unlimited joys, wheres some girls are more self concious, don't know what it feels like to have that pleasure, so don't understand. Some girls just don't have the same drive as their partners, and vice versa. Some get aroused at miss-matched times. there's a lot that plays into it.
makes sense. i'm sure it's a lot of other stuff that's just hard to put into words. then again, girls can still learn to pleasure themselves and other men without actually getting to sex. it depends on the girl's beliefs though.
Jay wrote:
Dude, the percentage that wait for marriage is like 5%
The best advice I can give anyone is to actually live with the person before they get engaged, let alone married. Yes, this means having sex too. Basically, your church doctrine sets people up for failure. The only thing tying people together the way the church wants them to be is blind luck on being a match, and catholic guilt and fear of damnation.
You don't really know someone until you live with them. You don't know what they're hiding, and you don't know if you can stand to be in the same room as each other day after day after day. I think the stigma against living together is a big part of the reason marriages fail. I've lived with my Catholic fiancee for the past five years. She's not going to hell, and we're getting married before a priest in a Catholic church.
this is where i'm going to have to say you're wrong. within my catholic group of over 200 families, i believe the last divorce was 12-13 years ago. marriages don't fail that often, at least not in the environment that i'm from. that's why i sort of don't understand why some people stress that a couple needs to have sex before marriage. maybe the couples in my catholic group did have sex before marriage? who knows. but they're all healthy families with great kids who are in the catholic group to just become a better family
Adams_BJ wrote:
HaiBai wrote:
Adams_BJ wrote:
HaiBai wrote:
i get what you mean when you say hardcore. my point was that i know hardcore catholics who are hardcore in a religious sense, as in they majored in theology and almost became priests/nuns, yet they bring up their sex life in public.
i don't know if i would use hardcore to talk about the people you're talking about. maybe conservative works better than hardcore
it just seemed like you were implying that all hardcore christians were conservative, which isn't really the case.
to me hardcore religious and conservative go hand in hand, but that's just through my observations.
yeah, i guess it depends. i come from a much more liberal type of church setting so that observation doesn't really apply to me
