For me personally, I would say no.
Sure one variable that is involved is my Christian religion and not having sex until marriage and etc.
Although funny thing is that I'm borderline on that because you know, love is something that should be able to transcend anything.
So yeah, lets just minus that for a second.
Still, it would be a no. Personally I would just feel uncomfortable with that, I barely would know the person and I would like to know if I truly love her before I can do that. Heck if she wasn't "The one" and cheated on me months later after we do it, I would probably not trust another partner again.
... or go totally psycho, but that is another topic.
So no with my religion
and no without my religion.
Its just afew hours of happy time for a very real chance of 18+ years of barely scraping by, shattered dreams, and lost opportunities. So Im not taking ANY chances.
I hope you don't ever take a shower. The benefits of smelling decent verses the very real chance of slipping, hitting your head, and dying... you'd have to be crazy to even step foot inside a bathroom, at least without a helmet, amirite?
To be polite, you've bought into the fear-mongering propaganda your church puts out to keep you from having premarital sex. Seriously, just wear a condom and you'll be sweet. If the risk was anywhere near as high as you imagine it you could probably expect 50% of women you see every day to be pregnant at any given time, and that's blatantly not the case. Accidental pregnancies happen because people are being irresponsible and not using contraception, not because contraception doesn't work. Hell, even if you blow your load inside her it's not necessarily going to lead to pregnancy. A lot of couples have to try for months, if not years to get a bun in the oven.
BOOM headshot65 said:
Also, you're misinformed about the efficacy rate of condoms (assuming that's what you were referring to). Condoms are practically 100% effective (though can't state so for legal reasons) at preventing pregnancy - the 0.3% comes from misuse (incorrect storage, using out of date condoms, oil-based lubes on latex condoms, etc.). As long as you're using them how they were intended, you can have sex every day of your life and never have to face an unexpected pregnancy (unless you're ridiculously unlucky, or she's sleeping around). If you use condoms in conjunction with other birth control (e.g. the pill) the chance of accidentally getting your girl pregnant is nonexistent. If you're STILL worried (and I can't see how any rational person could be), just don't have sex while she's ovulating. That alone cuts down the chance of pregnancy significantly. Or wear two condoms, changing that one in a million chance to one in a trillion.
Weird, because just about every government paper I have seen on the subject says that the best case is 99.7%, but the effective rate is more around 80-90%. For a very real chance of causing serious probems for my future. And I am not taking even the most minute chance when staying abstainte carrys literally NO CHANCE of pregnancy (unless your name is Mary Magdaleen, but thats beside the point). So I will kindly decline your offer.
And a 10-20% failure rate? Frankly, that's just laughable. It's a physical barrier preventing semen from making any direct contact with the inside of the vagina. Spermies aren't ghosts. They can't pass through physical matter.
BOOM headshot65 said:
Because you're asking them to sacrifice something amazing for zero gain. If you told your kids they couldn't listen to music or watch cartoons until they were married it'd be the same thing (though arguably less cruel). You're asking them to not only miss out on a great deal of fun, but to incur the stress of fighting their biological urges as well. And for what? What tangible benefit can you point to that even comes close to offsetting that?
Implying that keeping your children from having sex is "cruel"...........
Why do you think part of the reason Is IM abstaining? Its entirely possible to hold off on sex. People just dont want to put in the effort. I have NEVER met a parent that would be ok with their children having sex before they are married. They would all get royally punished. Lets go with my parents threats:
1) Loss access to truck
2) Loss access to cellphone, except for emergancys
3) Loss contact with girlfriend
4) Under House Arrest (meaning I can only go to school and work)
5) Loss access to gaming systems+Ipad.
6) Loss Internet access.
7) Will have to quit school and work to take care of any child that is formed from this.
8) The rest of the family will be told, leading to problems no matter where I go.
Yep, that's pretty fucked up. Sucks you're being forced to go through that, and sucks even more you intend to inflict that misery on your own children. You still failed to mention any reason for such cruelty. You haven't said why they should abstain from sex other than that you'll abuse them if they do. It's like telling a child you'll cut their fingers off if they brush their teeth with their left hand. Sex is a lovely, healthy, enjoyable and natural thing to share with someone you care about, and as long as you're properly educated it can be had safely. There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and threaten punishment if they don't practice abstinence. THAT is cruel.
BOOM headshot65 said:
I like those rules. I will continue those rules. Helps keep people in line. I would also add to the list that if I have a daughter, she will not be allowed to have an abortion unless it will kill her not to. But off course, as a father with access to a shotgun, I will make sure that Junior is always there to love her, respect her, and will marry her to help take care of his child.........even if that means doing it a gunpoint.........
I think that makes you a terrible person, and I would hate to have you as a father. You can't force love, and you're potentially ruining your daughter's life by trying. Let people form their own relationships.
I disagree. It helps understand why we choose the way we do.
For instance, I dont give a flying rats ass about sex and feel that it would be better after being married and if it sucks, oh well, I married her because of her personality. We have the same interest, same hobbys (kind of), we both want to stay in a small town in the Midwest or the South, we both HATE big cities, and because its what we want to do, I will be the one working and makiing most of the money, and she wants to stay at home and take care of the kids with a short job on the side. Although house work will be equal labor.
Sex, like anything in life, takes practice. If you're expecting your consummation to be a romantic, sensual, perfect experience... yeah, it's not gonna happen bud. The movies lied to you there. I'm not saying it won't be special, but you'll both be pretty unco and it'll most likely be a short and unimpressive feat. You'll have the rest of your life to get better at it, but initially it's not going to be any better than a 15 year old kid losing his virginity to his high school sweetheart. In all likelihood you'll just be kicking yourself you didn't start sooner! XD
For me, I don't give a flying rats about getting married or having children! I enjoy sex and have no intention to settle down with someone that doesn't feel the same way. Like you said, personality is important too, but given the choice between "great personality and great sex" and "great personality and bad sex" I'd be mad not to (at least while I'm young) focus on girls that fall into the former category. If I spend years developing a relationship and she ends up being a dud in the sack it might not be the end of the world, but it's certainly disappointing and potentially the end of the relationship. If I instead spend years developing a relationship with someone I know is great in bed, I get the best of both worlds. So why wouldn't I check out our sexual compatibility at the same time I'm checking out our personality compatibility?
BOOM headshot65 said:
EDIT: Also, since you brought up "bad luck": I think the women in her family are cursed. 70% of them have given birth to children dispite being on birth control. Just condom, just birth control, both. It didnt matter, they got pregnant anyway. I have no way of knowing if my girlfriend is in the 70%, or the lucky 30%, so I am not taking that chance.
I'm not calling you a liar, but I'm sceptical they were being prudent. It's probably more of a case of "Let's not but say we did." After all, sex is much better without a condom.
NO!! Call me old fashioned, but I believe that some sort of an emotional bond is required before sex happens. A bond which can't be established on the first date.
Sex is a very singular part of a relationship. You can have great sex and a terrible relationship. However, if you do have great sex, it can make you think there is more to a relationship then there really is, potentially saddling you to someone who is otherwise utterly incompatible with you. That would be a far worse fate than a great relationship with just "good" or "ok" sex.
Yes I will even on the zeroth date. I find the whole "Sex is both sacred and evil!" mindset to be archaic and kind of harmful. I mean I get it is a very intimate relation and we are hardly making mountains out of molehills this obsession with purity and people (sadly almost exclusively women) being whores if they have had 3 partners just makes me wonder why we have yet to get past the god damn bronze age where virgins are a prized commodity.
Sex without shame is not some new radical concept I mean the 60s/70s happened or at least I am told they did.
I hope you don't ever take a shower. The benefits of smelling decent verses the very real chance of slipping, hitting your head, and dying... you'd have to be crazy to even step foot inside a bathroom, at least without a helmet, amirite?
Im not even going to dignify this remark with a response..........................
Hell, even if you blow your load inside her it's not necessarily going to lead to pregnancy. A lot of couples have to try for months, if not years to get a bun in the oven.
Yes, I get this, but I would rather not take the chance, even with contraception.
Care to cite those government papers?
And a 10-20% failure rate? Frankly, that's just laughable. It's a physical barrier preventing semen from making any direct contact with the inside of the vagina. Spermies aren't ghosts. They can't pass through physical matter.
Just shut up, I know its wikipedia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom] But they have links to government papers (which wont load on my I-Pad), so I will just take their word for it. That word being: If you use them PERFECTLY, then its anywhere from 99.7%-95%, while the normal useage is upwards of 12% failure (88% or less). And since I dont want sex, I can be bothered to learn the proper way of putting it on, so whatever.
Yep, that's pretty fucked up. Sucks you're being forced to go through that, and sucks even more you intend to inflict that misery on your own children. You still failed to mention any reason for such cruelty. You haven't said why they should abstain from sex other than that you'll abuse them if they do. It's like telling a child you'll cut their fingers off if they brush their teeth with their left hand. Sex is a lovely, healthy, enjoyable and natural thing to share with someone you care about, and as long as you're properly educated it can be had safely. There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and threaten punishment if they don't practice abstinence. THAT is cruel.
Thats not abuse. Thats normal punishment. When a child does something they are not supposed to, you take away something they care about. They'll get the hint.
And I already said why I would keep them from having sex before they are married. Its been the whole thing I have been talking about. There is always a chance of pregnancy occuring so you should avoid it, and its something that you can live without so there is no need to push it. Plus, sex is something sacred that you save for your significant other, and no one else. So why WOULDNT I have that rule.
I think that makes you a terrible person, and I would hate to have you as a father.
Get in line. You arent the first to curse me on this forum for copying the same rules as every adult I have ever know, and I dought you will be the last.
And no offense, But I would likely be very unpleased to have a son like you: You doth protest too much. Family is not a democracy; Its a dictatorship. And me and the wife are the dictators. We wont totally ignore request from our children, and if they behave, they will be given more privilages, but if they mis-behave, they will lose those privilages until the home resembles a prison with us being the wardens. If they keep trying to be rebels, they will find an iron-fisted crackdown waiting, but if they are good citizens and listen to thier elders, they will be allowed to do as they please, short of afew things (like sex).
You can't force love, and you're potentially ruining your daughter's life by trying. Let people form their own relationships.
Well then maybe they should have payed attention when I told them not to do it, or listened when I told them about birth control. And maybe Junior should have remembered the shotgun I threatened him with when he started dating my daughter (ah, the "Im not afraid to go back to jail", "Remember, I am armed", "The last boy who dated my daughter and broke her heart mysteriously disappeared" threats from dads. I love Kansas), and should have known I was serious when I said what I said. His loss.
Of course, this shouldnt happen because I will make sure that my daughter (actually, all my children) have good friends who would never do stuff like that, so this problem [may] be solved before it began.
Sex, like anything in life, takes practice. If you're expecting your consummation to be a romantic, sensual, perfect experience... yeah, it's not gonna happen bud. The movies lied to you there. I'm not saying it won't be special, but you'll both be pretty unco and it'll most likely be a short and unimpressive feat. You'll have the rest of your life to get better at it, but initially it's not going to be any better than a 15 year old kid losing his virginity to his high school sweetheart. In all likelihood you'll just be kicking yourself you didn't start sooner! XD
Like I dont know that already. We arent lying to ourselves, both both know that the first time WILL suck. But that doesnt change the fact that we are not going to do it before we get married. Its one of the things that she is most excited; that we will be breaking ANOTHER stereotype of college/high school relationships. First we shattered the average for a high-school relationship (Average: 3 Months, Us: 2 Years, 7 Months. Over 10x the average length), and now she will be so excited that we will be the 1:4 couples who are still virgins when they marry. THEN, we will be one of the 20% who actually STAY married, and the even tinier percent that makes it to thier 25 and 50th wedding anniversery. But until then, we will stick to cuddling and kissing.
And besides, its not like we havent talked about what we will do when that time finally rolls around to get it on.
Because neither of us find Oral appealing, Kink is out of the question (though should would like to be blindfolded one time to see if there is a difference), she said she would only rarely do Anal, etc. Thus, its only about the most purely concentrated vanilla sex in the world will be appealing to us, although we will take turns on how we do it, like I will let her have 100% control the first time because I just want to make sure she doesnt get hurt. But then beyond that, we will see.
Who says you have to have sex to know what you want ;D
NO!! Call me old fashioned, but I believe that some sort of an emotional bond is required before sex happens. A bond which can't be established on the first date.
What does human physiology have to do with having an emotional bond before sex?
If you're implying what I think you are about emotional bonding happening during sex, then sure. Of course that's a thing. Everybody knows it. Bodies releasing that bonding chemical. I suppose in that way it probably takes skill to make yourself resist that influence.
But when sex hasn't happened yet... And people only spend less than a night around each other...
So with the current thread trend being , dating , relationships and flirting , i decided to make this thread .
So most guys i ask this question to always say yes . Most women i ask this too always say no . However , what people say and what they do are not always the same . This is why i decided to make this thread for you guys .
Will/do you have sex on the first date?
I do and will whenever i get the chance , i have start a few ( sucessfull )relaships after having sex on the first date . Of course i don't bang everyone i go out with , but if they attraction is there , i usually try and steal home ( baseball reference). It doesn't always work , but hell if i'm not going to try . Ironically enough , some girls who told me they don't have sex on the first date , ended up having sex on the first date . I personally don't like setting boundaries like that , especially since sex, for me , is very enjoyable .
What is a 'date'? Definite it for me, please. For I have had a multitude of partners, but I've only been on..One, maybe two 'dates' (meeting up for coffee/a movie/whatever) in my life, and I have certainly not taken anyone to dinner and pretended that it is somehow romantic.
Does saying 'Hey, I'm going to X bar this evening, I would be cool if you would show up' count as a date?
NO!! Call me old fashioned, but I believe that some sort of an emotional bond is required before sex happens. A bond which can't be established on the first date.
What does human physiology have to do with having an emotional bond before sex?
If you're implying what I think you are about emotional bonding happening during sex, then sure. Of course that's a thing. Everybody knows it. Bodies releasing that bonding chemical. I suppose in that way it probably takes skill to make yourself resist that influence.
But when sex hasn't happened yet... And people only spend less than a night around each other...
He's dryly pointing out that people can bonk without emotions, while you argued that people shouldn't (or that at least you would not) bonk without emotions.
I should point out that I don't have any opinions whether people should or should or not boink without emotions. But yeah, I probably wouldn't. Probably wouldn't be able to. Unable to understand how it works and all.
Just shut up, I know its wikipedia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom] But they have links to government papers (which wont load on my I-Pad), so I will just take their word for it. That word being: If you use them PERFECTLY, then its anywhere from 99.7%-95%, while the normal useage is upwards of 12% failure (88% or less). And since I dont want sex, I can be bothered to learn the proper way of putting it on, so whatever.
Just use more than one contraceptive method. Typicall use of the two most common (considering the highest failure values) yields a failure rate of about 1.4%, which is pretty minimal. Perfect use of both methods can give us a probability of 0.0009% failure, more or less the same order of magnitude as being stuck by lightning. With perfect use (which isn't that hard for condoms, just be careful with lubricants, expiration dates and than no air is trapped inside and you are using it almost perfectly, and requires being constant for the pill) you could have sex everyday for a whole year this way every day, and still have less than 1% probability of getting pregnant. When you account morning-after pills and possible abortions (that you reject because of you believes, but that is up to you) in a modern society with care you may avoid unwanted pregnancies quite easily. Just be careful. If you want abstinence, then go ahead, but pregnancy isn't that much of a risk now.
If the person I was dating was a person and knew for a while and I trusted them then there is a chance I might consider it. Although I would not push it myself.
If I did not know the person enough to trust them then not a chance in hell.
One night stands count? As far as number of dates go, it happens when it happens. Generally by the third if I'm not getting anything I write it off as she's not into me and move on.
NO!! Call me old fashioned, but I believe that some sort of an emotional bond is required before sex happens. A bond which can't be established on the first date.
I literally am old school and the "third date" rule has never done me wrong. I'd swear by it. It's saved me putting my end in women who after the grog has worn off were utterly repellent.
The lack of depends answer is disappointing. I really can't say. I have no problem with certain girls, but others definitely not. It's all down to how comfortable you both are.
I can honestly say that sex isn't necessarily the first thing that I want scratched off my "To Do" list when it comes to dating.
Nowadays, you can't be certain of what people have or are exposed to that I'm surprised that it's still a very prominent activity outside of serious relationships and marriages. Yet, I'm not an idiot; people are hardwired to want sex and many individuals are more than willing to roll the dice.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
