You are absolutely right. There are things you need to "test drive" before marriage. Can you work with them to solve problems? Can you get into disagreements and still love them? Do you have compatible philosophies and expectations about family dynamics and child-rearing? Is "am I sexually compatible with this person?" one of these things? If it is, it must come after all of these other considerations have been satisfied, because the emotional bond that it forges is so strong that people tend to overlook other issues that will cause serious rifts later in the marriage. (These are the forces that drive couples apart - sex is just a symptom. The split is not about the sex unless the relationship was all about the sex.) The honeymoon only lasts so long. To stay happy, you narrow down dating partners to people you can live with before introducing sex. The problem with the cartoon above is that the guy obviously doesn't understand her, meaning they've probably known each other for a very short time and haven't discussed these things. You're also presupposing that the "sexual compatibility" question is relevant to someone who (through conscious decision) has no other partners from which to draw comparisons. Sex is good. Can someone who hasn't experimented with various ways of doing things have strictly-defined preferences? Or will two virgins experimenting together in a trusting environment not figure out how to satisfy each other when they are both committed to serving and sacrificing for the other? There is a whole philosophy and paradigm behind a person's decision to wait. You can't evaluate that decision fairly if you don't consider that they're making it with a different paradigm.
|
AustinDav (3474)
20 SFW Posts |
406 Space Comments
| Favorites | RSS Feed
Registered 2008-05-05 14:27:18 Comment Karma: 335 Featured Comments: 0 Member of : |
Recent Comments from AustinDav
- Comment on Warning Flag (2012-12-05 17:07:22)
You are absolutely right. There are things you need to "test drive" before marriage. Can you work with them to solve problems? Can you get into disagreements and still love them? Do you have compatible philosophies and expectations about family dynamics and child-rearing? Is "am I sexually compatible with this person?" one of these things? If it is, it must come after all of these other considerations have been satisfied, because the emotional bond that it forges is so strong that people tend to overlook other issues that will cause serious rifts later in the marriage. (These are the forces that drive couples apart - sex is just a symptom. The split is not about the sex unless the relationship was all about the sex.) The honeymoon only lasts so long. To stay happy, you narrow down dating partners to people you can live with before introducing sex. The problem with the cartoon above is that the guy obviously doesn't understand her, meaning they've probably known each other for a very short time and haven't discussed these things. You're also presupposing that the "sexual compatibility" question is relevant to someone who (through conscious decision) has no other partners from which to draw comparisons. Sex is good. Can someone who hasn't experimented with various ways of doing things have strictly-defined preferences? Or will two virgins experimenting together in a trusting environment not figure out how to satisfy each other when they are both committed to serving and sacrificing for the other? There is a whole philosophy and paradigm behind a person's decision to wait. You can't evaluate that decision fairly if you don't consider that they're making it with a different paradigm. - Comment on Warning Flag (2012-12-05 15:37:10)
"I'm sorry, I only want to have sex in a secure relationship where I can have a truly intimate experience with a man who loves me enough to publicly commit to spend his life with me. I want to be able to trust him to raise our children and be there with me no matter how difficult life gets. I don't want to complicate the drama of dating and the important decision of choosing a life partner with the hormone-induced haze created by throwing sex into the mix. I don't want to worry about if he'll be there in the morning. I don't want to be worried about being an unmarried mother and the almost inevitable poverty that follows. And don't get me started on the risk of disease that I can almost completely eliminate with this decision. Why should I sacrifice this ideal on the sofa of my parents' basement with someone who doesn't know me well enough to understand the importance of this to me?" If she ends up an old maid, that's more of an indictment of the men around her than it is of her "antiquated principles." Argue with individual points, if you will, but don't write off the whole list of valid concerns a young woman may have just because it doesn't help you get laid. That only disqualifies you from being the caring man she's looking for. - Comment on seems legit (2012-12-01 18:06:12)
I might be a bit skeptical -- just look at that punctuation. - Comment on tudoring (2012-11-28 21:29:52)
Call the number and they'll come in and perform all your socio-political machinations for you? - Comment on beware - stop using abbreviation LOL (2012-11-27 22:37:29)
"Triumphant Lucifer: Diabolus Rex" Dude, stop now before we all catch your damnation!!! - Comment on beware - stop using abbreviation LOL (2012-11-26 21:09:46)
Don't say that! That stands for "Reign Over The Firmament, Lucifer, My Angel Overlord!" It doesn't matter if you didn't know it, nobody interprets it like that, or if it never actually meant that before; you're going to hell on a technicality!!! - Comment on The Alamo (2012-11-21 17:45:52)
The Alamo Drafthouse is awesome. That just needs to be said. - Comment on You ever danced with the devil... (2012-11-21 06:28:48)
Being unnecessarily mean to an otherwise normal looking girl? Check. Trying to force people to see an unflattering comparison where there isn't any? Check. Thinks bullying on the internet is funny? Check. If it's not the same scumbag, it's an unoriginal scumbag. - Comment on Avengers Pixar (2012-11-12 19:29:23)
I love how Nick Fury is still Samuel L. Jackson. - Comment on Do we have a new President yet? (2012-11-07 07:03:04)
[img]http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/polls-closed.jpg[/img] - Comment on UP Wars (2012-11-05 14:01:28)
NOOOOOOOO! You've spoiled episode 7!! - Comment on Star Trek TNG Dolls (2012-10-31 22:03:28)
Hmmm, I somehow missed the episode where Riker had a goiter. - Comment on Disney to Acquire Lucasfilm, Star Wars Episode 7 Coming in 2015! (2012-10-31 04:38:59)
These were my thoughts, too. There is no way Disney is going to be cool with letting their Property be freely used like Lucas has. As much as I may question some of his recent decisions, his treatment of the Star Wars universe as just being part of our cultural landscape now is fantastic. - Comment on dog with no noes (2012-10-29 19:58:24)
Wenn ist das Nunnstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput! - Comment on Us vs Moon (2012-10-22 22:19:39)
The second picture can't convey what it's trying to convey, because you can't get a sense of scale of the night sky from a photograph -- they just can't recreate the panorama. The U.S. looks huge in that picture, but the moon it replaces can be made to look any size depending on the angle of the lens and the zoom. Here's how to get a better idea of how big the U.S. would be in the sky: The width of the moon is about half a degree of your 360 degree horizon. Your pinky finger held at arms length is about 1 degree, so you can say the U.S. would be about as wide as the base of your fingernail.
