The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why I decided not to move in with my girlfriend > Comments

Why I decided not to move in with my girlfriend : Comments

By Bernard Toutounji, published 9/5/2012

The cohabiting couple make the subliminal statement to each other that 'I don't need to be married to you to have sex with you'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Very wise and astute, erudite and informed article. It's very easy for young immature infatuated couples to fall in lust. Then one or two babies later, wake up beside a perfect stranger they don't even like; or, may even hate or detest.
In some Scandinavian countries, they have a traditional trial marriage, where they share everything except conjugal rights or the "BED".
It is reasoned that you never actually get to know someone until you have lived with them long enough, for the mask to slip and the true character is exposed.
Everyone extant on the planet creates facades that they hide behind, and only let that true personality mask slip, when familiarity breeds contempt; or, they become quite inebriated.
Marriage ought to be a whole of life commitment, particularly when the babies come along, and it really is just as easy to engage in small but endlessly appreciated acts of kindness, which builds a growing bond and compatibility; as it is, to endlessly critique the partner in the fundamentally flawed belief; that true love is lots of adrenalin generated tummy butterflies, chemistry and excitement.
BS and boring!
True love is something which grows and blossoms between truly compatible couples, who have spent enough time together, to actually KNOW the other and the other's real likes and dislikes!
That is why honesty is so very important when starting out.
Don't accept what you don't like; and, if the potential partner can't compromise; then walk away before you get in over your head, or start a family.
The most successful relationships are those who have mastered the art of enduring respect, anger management, compromise and communication, which never ever lets the sun set on an argument or disagreement. Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 9 May 2012 9:30:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article makes a false dichotomy. It inplies lust is bad, and love is good.

The red rose breathes of passion,
And the white rose breathes of love.
For the red rose is a falcon,
And the white rose is a dove.
So let me send you a cream, white rose
With a flush at its petaled tips
Because even the purest and sweetest of loves
Has the blush of desire on its lips.

Lust and love are not mutually exclusive. I have been married over 30 years, and I lust for and deeply love my wife.

Lust is a sin to those of Puritanical bent. I revel in it. I get shivers when I hug my wife. There is lust in every hug.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 9 May 2012 10:35:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This sounds like it was written for under 20 year olds. For those of a more mature bent, it sounds like a rationalisation of why he hasn't closed the deal with his girlfriend of 3 months.

Keep looking for 'true love' mate, most people learn to live a grow with their partners of choice. Communication and value compatability is the key to good relationships, cohabitation is an independent variable.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 9 May 2012 10:59:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f,

Beautiful verse.

You're a lucky guy.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 9 May 2012 11:23:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Among couples who begin cohabiting, 50% will have married and 50% will have broken up in within five years. '

That is so obviously false. I'm sure I know at least 1 cohabiting couple that is still together after 10 years and isn't married. With 2 children too!

As to the rest, what a narrow world view and how extremely judgemental. How you can think you're in any position to pass such judgements on the romantic relationships of other people I'll never know.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 9 May 2012 1:44:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The vow a cohabiting couple make is this, "I promise to have sex with you until such a time that I meet someone else who I would rather have sex with"

I'm wondering if the author really thought about that or is he just reciting something heard in church. There are those who treat partners that way but I suspect that it's grossly unfair to the majority of people moving in with a partner. I suspect that the author lacks the understanding of the variety of people outside the church and genuinely believes that we operate with a lack of moral/values because of the absence of some concept of god to give an anchor point. A seemingly common failing amongst the over churched.

It would be easy to write a right back at you version about themanipulation of unfulfilled sexual desire to create pressure to marry, something equally unfair to many of those who choose not to have sex outside of marriage but I'm hoping the point is made already.

Discussions about the permancy of different arrangements ignore the part about how well those arrangement work and external pressures which might hold the form of the relationship together while leave the substance as a farce. It's likely that many of those who choose not to cohabit before marriage also face stronger pressure than others not to leave a destructive marriage.

That in no way guarantees that the remaining mariage is in any way a healthy marriage (just as cohabiting does not appear to imply a better chance of long term success).

I think its well past the time for some serious thinking about what is implied by marriage (and other forms of committed sexual relationships), about better ways to meet the needs both of those in the relationship and those impacted by the relationship (primarily children). Time for society to find less destructive ways for relationships to end when they need to end and to deal with the bumps when they continue.

I don't believe that this article and the values its based upon add anything useful to that.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 9 May 2012 1:53:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think david f is just trying to make everyone else jealous.

I thought the article had a reasonable degree of merit. These days people seem to prefer to play a game of Musical Beds, rather than showing respect and consideration for the feelings of others.

A lot of emotional damage is done as a result of broken relationships, to say nothing of people aborting all of the unwanted "collections of cells", and the rampant transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, some of which leave women infertile.

I recently heard of a young woman who had to notify 30+ men after she had been diagnosed with Chlamydia.

Perhaps most of these free-and-easy attitudes have been learned from the Greenies who believe human beings are only animals. No doubt Abortion, Infertility and Suicide all fit in nicely with their multiple Pro-Death, Anti-Human Policies.
Posted by Lorikeet, Wednesday, 9 May 2012 7:21:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
you will be blessed in your relationship Bernard for acting godly. To treasure something God considers precious will set you up for a very special marriage. YOur children should God grant them to you will also be greatly blessed. As someone who did not come to Christ until my mid twenties one my greatest moment as a father was to see my son and his now wife do things God's way and receive the blessings from that. You are wise and couragous and display much wisdom.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 9 May 2012 11:07:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> "Cohabitation is about sex, let's not be confused." <<

One would hope cohabitation is more than "about sex" in an relationship; marriage, or otherwise.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 10 May 2012 8:29:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One would hope cohabitation is more than "about sex" in *any* relationship; marriage, or otherwise.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 10 May 2012 8:30:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An article so full of portentous generalizations simply had to have a puritanical Christian behind it, I thought. A quick glance at this gentleman's blog confirmed it.

An excerpt from a recent blog entry:

"Is it not also in nakedness that a husband and wife continue to this day to overcome the sin of our first parents? Where but in the marital embrace can a man and woman experience that pure and beautiful gaze which Adam and Eve knew every day before the fall? It is in their nakedness that man and woman approach the marital bed to make of themselves a gift in the way that Christ makes himself a gift to his bride."

With an attitude founded on this thinking, it hardly a surprise to us that he would not take his girlfriend of three months standing to bed. The odd thing is that it appears to have been a surprise to him.

Live and let live, say I. I promise not to lecture Mr Toutounji on the joy of living with a partner for 18 years, unwed, if he promises not to lecture me on the necessity of formal marital vows.

Oh, too late.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 10 May 2012 8:58:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Initially, Bernard, I didn't agree with runner that "You are wise and courageous and display much wisdom" because when I read your article for the first time I decided you came across as a judgemental self-righteous prunt.

This is probably because of the way you write where you transfer onto everyone else and society at large what is obviously your inability to distinguish what love is for you and what you think is the 'easy option' of following 'the social trend' – implicitly assuming that your girlfriend would let you anyway.

I admit that I'm biased because what you wrote denies the reality that my parent's love for each other was expressed sexually (hence me) then followed by marriage and cohabitation, several other children and a long, happy and successful marriage until age and infirmity took them.

The aphorism 'We are all inclined to judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their acts' reminded me that whilst you're guilty of it, you're simultaneously acting according to your own ideals.

So, given your inability to recognise when you are "relying on tainted and corrupted information", I ended up agreeing with runner that you are displaying much wisdom in that you are not risking any chance of breeding – for the moment at least.
Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 10 May 2012 9:03:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let me tell the writer what it was like fifty or sixty years ago, before easily available and reliable contraceptives: You want sex? Get married!

So a lot of marriages were contracted because it was the only way that people could make love with each other 'respectably'. We nearly all married young (I was 21). A lot of those marriages lasted because, as someone has already suggested, we do grow towards one another, become good friends, mates and companions. But a lot of those marriages didn't last.

All in all, I prefer the present system. By all means wait until you are married, but you have to work at the marriage when you are in it, as all those who have successful relationships know, whether or not they are officially marrried.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Thursday, 10 May 2012 1:50:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I earnestly hope that the girlfriend has found someone less uptight and moralistic and more fun to be with.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 10 May 2012 3:00:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sheesh, all these crazy people! Just shag the girlfriend all that
you can and after a year or two you will realise if it was just
the sex or something a bit more then that, which is the attraction.

If its more, well wonderful, then you can think about getting
serious.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 10 May 2012 3:17:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought it was good article.

You should take the criticisms in your stride. We live in a world where people demand instant gratification and are very intolerant of people who have a set of values based on lasting principles rather than the latest fad.

If only you had said you were gay, or a disabled black lesbian who decided to hold off on sex then you would have been applauded. But a white, hetrosexual Christian and...well, you can see the comments.

Isn't there at least something that could attract some sympathy from our cultural arbiters? Green is always popular. Have you ever prayed for forests?
Posted by dane, Thursday, 10 May 2012 4:38:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is there an inference that three months 'going together' (in a faithful relationship - meaning no dating others), either with or without sex, is considered long enough for a couple to determine if they are really a good fit? Or a sufficient exposure to warrant a decision being made to cohabit, let alone to get married? If so, cohabiting in this day and age sounds a lot like long-stay musical chairs indeed, or just pure laziness and devil-may-care.

I think the author makes some good points about the hazards of rushing too hurriedly into cohabitation (or into any serious relationship) and includes some statistics which tend to confirm his reservations. Fortunate indeed are those who instantly gel, and go on to a lifetime of happily ever after, but I suspect this would be very much the exception, with most having to hunt long and hard to find a truly lasting relationship. So, what's the big rush?

Mind you, I think leaving sex until the marriage bed courts its own set of problems of possible incompatibility, so I would not generally recommend it, unless religious conviction dictates - and in this latter instance I think the couple should get to know each other really well, including open and honest discussion about sex, to minimise the risk of unappreciated and potentially disastrous surprises.

I think it generally takes a lot to find a truly compatible life partner, and once found they should be cherished with every ounce of one's being, and will be found to reciprocate in kind. Anything short of such a commitment is a poor second or third best.

Yabby, you know, some people can get really hurt by lascivious lascars.
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 10 May 2012 7:23:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“ I have a far diminished chance of finding that love if I take the easy option now and simply follow the social trend”
I'm sorry, I have read and reread that statement, and I still can't make sense of it.
Have you found your true love, or not? If yes, what are you waiting for? If no, why aren't you still looking?
Either way, what has 'social trends' to do with anything?
I would think even the most devout theist would admit that sex is a pretty important part of a relationship. What happens if you find that while your friendship is wonderful, the sex is not so great?
I know of a number of cohabitors (including myself) who maintained wonderful friendships with ex lovers.
Maintaining good relationships with ex wives and husbands appears to be more challenging.
It seems to me, committing to a life time contract with someone without knowing the full story is exactly like signing a contract without reading all of it.
Not clever at all.
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 10 May 2012 7:31:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre,
'and includes some statistics which tend to confirm his reservations.'

Do you really believe...

''Among couples who begin cohabiting, 50% will have married and 50% will have broken up in within five years. ''

That means there are no couples that live together that aren't either married or broken up in 5 years time.

You seriously believe that? 0%? I know heaps of people who have monogamous live-in relationships lasting more than 5 years before getting married.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 11 May 2012 9:22:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So true, Houellebecq.

>> I know heaps of people who have monogamous live-in relationships lasting more than 5 years before getting married.<<

I'll put my hand up for that.

Point is, though, you weren't actually supposed to take the statistic seriously - I mean, 50/50? So obviously plucked from his imagination, it really doesn't need a comment.

I actually feel quite sad for the guy. Honestly I do. With his attitude, the chances of him actually developing a mutually satisfying relationship, with such a sketchy understanding of the other person are, frankly, remote.

Think about it. Even leaving aside the sex part for a moment, think of all those traits that would remain invisible.

The underwear hanging off the towel rail, the quiet nose-picking beside you at dawn, the coffee mugs left in the sink long enough to grow that interesting green coating, the look of horror as you step out of the shower onto the bath-mat instead of drying yourself first - the list is almost endless. Living together will sort out these issues, one way or the other. Being unaware but married to them would eventually create the sort of atmosphere that led to WWI - a lot of diplomatic pussyfooting around, alternating with a "my way or the highway" blast from whichever one turns out to be the Kaiser.

Then of course there's the sex. Imagine the scene when she discovers... when he finds out that... and the first time they try...

Oh the humanity! Too awful to contemplate.

Truly, I feel sorry for him.

Incidentally, I wonder how she feels about it?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 11 May 2012 10:41:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wouldn't be concerned Pericles. She's probably banging one of his mates. Or having an affair with the pastor's wife. The girl has needs.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 11 May 2012 10:59:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm... for some reason Tim Minchin's song "Inflatable You"* keeps going through my mind.

*YouTubable and worth a look and listen...
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 11 May 2012 12:24:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What the hell ? This sounds like a political op ed piece for one of those creepy, weird American "chastity promises", that's then been turned into a Magic Round-A-Bout episode, it makes no sense at all !
Posted by Valley Guy, Sunday, 13 May 2012 12:15:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sounds like god decided for you.

I for one am glad I lived with a number of women before I finally married one.

Had I not, I would almost certainly have married and had children with a person, whom I came to realise I disliked intensely, and had little in common with, or would have eventually cheated on due to the previous two points. (Note three out of four were guilty of the latter, and were promptly kicked to the curb).
But I guess in your perfect world, Christians never cheat on each other, and everything is perfect. lol.

This is most probably your future, as is confirmed by your own dubious statistical 'facts', only that you will have to pay half of what you own to get rid of them.

It also gave the me the chance to realise what personal attributes I could accept in a mate, and those I could not.
Things the writer can not possibly have ascertained about his girlfriend of three months, or six months or even six years without living with her.

Comments like "Co-habitation is about sex, let's not be confused." proves you don't know your arse from your elbow, and that you're a virgin I'm afraid.

By all means go live by your moralistic load of BS, and buy the cow before you've tasted the milk.

Honestly, nobody cares what you do or think, and the sooner you realise that, the sooner you will grow up, and quit sermonising to people who know more about life than you do.

So immature, and smacks of someone scared to give life a real go without their imaginary friend by their side.
Posted by Rechts, Sunday, 13 May 2012 6:47:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Honestly, Rechts, if you don't care what he thinks, why did you spend a couple of hundred words trying to argue against him?

It looks like his article has got under your skin.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 14 May 2012 11:45:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'I for one am glad I lived with a number of women before I finally married one.'

Yea something can be proud and boast to your kids about your conquests. Maybe you can advise them how to choose the best sexual partner although I hope you are responsible enough to warn them of the huge increase in the risk of spreading diseases by such 'noble ' actions.

'By all means go live by your moralistic load of BS, and buy the cow before you've tasted the milk.'

I can see why you are quick to use animal illustrations as demonstrated by your view of humanity.
Posted by runner, Monday, 14 May 2012 2:07:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In writing the article I incorrectly used the figure of 50% of cohabiting relationships breaking and 50% marrying after a set time. That was an error as obviously there are some couples who will continue to cohabit for longer, even for a lifetime. The Australian Institute of Family Studies (a federal government agency) in its 2004 statistical profile stated that cohabiting relationships last approximately 2.5 years before either breaking up or converting to marriage; but the conversion rate to marriage has been declining since the 1970's. Among women who began cohabiting in the early 1990s, 46% had married and 46% had broken up by 2001. My apologies for the incorrect figure being in the article. Bernard Toutounji
Posted by Bernard, Monday, 14 May 2012 2:58:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You need to be more careful with statistics, Bernard, that's for sure.

However, you need to be even more careful when drawing conclusions from those statistics - even the ones that you get right.

You stated in your article that:

"When a couple moves in together it is the fruit of that fact that they have began engaging in sexual relations already. Cohabitation is about sex, let's not be confused."

Yet the source of your statistics, the 2004 report on Diversity and Change in Australian Families says otherwise.

Allow me to quote from it directly:

"...it was not possible to apply the following distinctions to the analysis in this chapter [but] it is worth keeping in mind the five types of cohabitation patterns...

1. Cohabiting relationships that are temporary, casual and convenient. These relationships may be motivated more by economic and protective
than romantic, emotional or physical factors. They involve little commitment to an ongoing relationship.

2. Cohabiting relationships that are an extension of an affectionate, steady relationship, involves sexual intimacy and which will continue as long as the couple enjoy being together.

3. Trial marriages. In these relationships cohabitation is part of courtship which may or may not lead to marriage.

4. Relationships that are a temporary alternative to marriage for people who intend to marry. Living together is a short term arrangement until marriage is economically, legally or professionally feasible.

5. A permanent or semi-permanent alternative to marriage. This may be motivated by economic factors or by negative views about formal mar-
riage or because one person is already married."

http://192.135.208.240/institute/pubs/diversity/DiversityAndChange.pdf

The report itself identifies five different reasons behind cohabitation. But you choose to conflate them into a single type: "Cohabitation is about sex".

It would actually have been more honest of you to reference the document specifically, would it not. Attribution is important, you know. But probably not very wise, when you spin the information in it, the way that you have, eh?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 14 May 2012 3:38:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Pericles. Yes I am aware that there are a host of factors that contribute to a couple moving in together. My article however was not a summary of the AIFS document so I had no intention of going through it point by point. While I note the factors I still hold that genrally speaking (and there are always exceptions) cohabitation is about sex and the lack of ability/desire/circumstance to make a permanent commitment through marriage. The fact remains that cohabitation is socially unstable and I would maintain not even supportive of the type of love that a human person desires, a love that is faithful, freely given and life long.
Posted by Bernard, Monday, 14 May 2012 3:46:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As Disraeli said: "there are 3 kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics".
The number of couples who cohabit prior to marriage has risen to over 70% in recent years, while divorce rates have fallen slightly.
Studies in the UK suggest that many couples in 'fragile' relationships breakup before marriage, instead of after.
A better result for children, I would think.
Posted by Grim, Monday, 14 May 2012 3:58:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' cohabitation is about sex and the lack of ability/desire/circumstance to make a permanent commitment through marriage.'

So what of all the relationships where there is sex but no cohabitation. Single households are on the rise. I know heaps of people who have been a monogomous sexually active couple without ever living together. Nobody needs to cohabit before having sex in a monogomous relationship. Cohabiting is just as much about economic concerns as anything else.

You seem to come from the conclusion there is some ideal or goal that everyone universally wants from a relationship to start with.

You're begging the question.

What you really need to do is find a sample of people who intend to get married with their current partner AND are living together with that partner before you go off analysing statistics about cohabiting and marriage.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 10:57:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nor was I suggesting that you should, Bernard.

>>My article however was not a summary of the AIFS document so I had no intention of going through it point by point<<

But it is clear that you used the report's "Cohabitation" section as the basis for your statistics, which were in turn the basis for the majority of your deductions from those statistics. Using such a fragile foundation for an article that scolds people for entering into a phase of a relationship that you disapprove of, does nothing for your argument. It is not surprising that people have been picking holes in it, since you have been generalizing from a set of numbers that does not support your case.

If there had been genuine substance in your claims that cohabitation is a "bad thing", the statistics would be there to support it. Instead, you are left with nothing more than a platform from which to trumpet your own views on chastity.

Which is not a problem in itself, of course; this is an opinion forum, after all. But using shaky numbers has the effect of undermining your position, even at the moral level.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 11:02:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Discussing statistics, as others have noted, is mostly futile. I would say statistics rarely give weight or clarity to these types of arguments. They’re always a bit shaky and interpretive at best. Any pollster who tries to get information from people about what they do in the bedroom is likely to get some skewed results, and I take any conclusions drawn from them with a dose of salt.

When we look at the question of how many gay people there are in the community, one hears of polls varying from anywhere from less than one percent to more than 10 or 15%. The truth is anyone’s guess. Then there are the polls about opinions on gay marriage. The media want to hold up the notion that gay marriage has widespread support in the community. Much depends on who is conducting the poll and how they word the question. I don’t think Julia really believes these gay marriage polls being at all accurate, or as the political expedient that she is (that most politicians are, including Mr. Obama, desperate for a few votes in the next few months) she would have jumped on the band wagon.

Any article of this nature should use statistics sparingly (which Bernard has, though somewhat clumsily) if at all.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 11:56:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a young woman, I always found that if dating the same person didn't last for 3 months, it meant they weren't compatible. I believe it's a sufficient time period to know if someone is Mr or Ms Right.

Certainly 6 months is more than enough for a couple to establish whether or not they have a high level of compatibility.

I think Premarriage Counselling should be mandatory, so people can truly examine their expectations, various likely pitfalls and areas of potential incompatibility e.g. the situation where someone wants 6 children and the other wants none.

As for "trying it before buying it", I used to think this was just some kind of crude excuse for not marrying anyone, but after speaking with a number of divorced men who discussed their sexual relationships with their former wives, I now think it is essential.

There is no point matching a person who is very inhibited with someone who is outrageously uninhibited (or even perverted). People who wish to behave like animals in a bedroom should not be matched with uptight cherubs.
Posted by Lorikeet, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 2:49:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lorikeet,
These divorced men of whom you speak, who found themselves so wildly and outrageously uninhibited in comparison to their wives, how do we think they got that way in the first place? 

Do we think they may have been sexually active and rather experienced before their marriage? I suspect so.

When a couple come together in purity, having previously kept themselves for their wedding night, they have the opportunity to grow in intimacy together, starting from that same beginning point.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 12:45:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A fascinating insight into your views on human sexuality, Dan S de Merengue.

>>When a couple come together in purity, having previously kept themselves for their wedding night, they have the opportunity to grow in intimacy together, starting from that same beginning point.<<

I suspect that your methodology would not even work for a couple learning to play Bridge together, let alone an activity as unpredictable and exciting as sex. And the idea of a common starting point, given that in most cases they will be of the opposite sex, is also dubious in the extreme.

A somewhat dangerous theory too, in some respects, as it would place a level of expectation on the couple that their experiences will, by definition, be "normal", and that any disappointments need to be sublimated for the greater good of the union.

Not a particularly stable state if affairs, I would have thought. And possibly quite threatening to the mental health of one or the other partner.

But heck, what do I know about you religious types, you may consider this to be just another obstacle that the Lord places in your path, or something.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 8:18:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The man who had the worst problems in the bedroom was an extremely devout person who married a girl from his church. Both of them were "virgins". They both needed counselling before they could do any sex at all (mostly due to the woman's rejection), and the wedding night was a non-goer.

The man sounded as if he was sexually average/normal, but his wife treated him as if he might be carrying an STD or be a rapist of some kind, despite the fact he was as clean as a whistle in every way.

The woman was largely insane, and used sex to manipulate him. I won't go into all of the details of their bedroom issues. Suffice to say, I was very surprised that they managed to have any children at all, let alone 2.

There are some very inhibited people around. I think the vast majority could be women. I'm sure there must be some absolute perverts as well, but so far no one has complained about having married one (male or female).

There are also some who think that when "the thrill of the chase" is over, they need to find a new thrill to chase outside of the marriage relationship.

I have known relationships to end when the man or woman decided he/she preferred a same-sex coupling. (Maybe the sex was bad.)
Posted by Lorikeet, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 8:26:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another further to… "When a couple come together in purity, having previously kept themselves for their wedding night, they have the opportunity to grow in intimacy together, starting from that same beginning point."

Is this an exclusionary sexual position for you, Dan S Merengue? In other words, do you think it impossible for a couple not having previously kept themselves for their wedding night, to grow in intimacy together?

And what of the couple, though coming together in purity, who discover that despite this opportunity the only thing growing between them is remoteness?

Different people – different needs.

This was the problem with Bernard's article… Instead of merely telling us why he made the decisions he did, he classified everybody who didn't act the same as being socially evil.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 9:21:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting bit of stereotyping, Dan.
“There is no point matching a person who is very inhibited with someone who is outrageously uninhibited (or even perverted). People who wish to behave like animals in a bedroom should not be matched with uptight cherubs.”

Why do you assume the 'outrageously uninhibited' one must be male?
One of the most outrageously uninhibited girlfriends I have had the pleasure of knowing was my first; and yes we were both virgins. Our breakup was for entirely other reasons than sex, BTW.
I have also known some rather inhibited women. I was always surprised at how little encouragement they needed to lose those inhibitions, quite frankly.
It seemed to me that their inhibitions, far from being inherent, were largely due to perceived expectations about what it meant (in our rather repressive society) to be 'a nice girl'.
To come back to the question of children, I would suggest they are the probably the only reason the vast majority of marriages still occur.
My own marriage was impelled by a humiliating event my wife endured when an overprotective preschool wouldn't allow her to pick up her own daughter, because they didn't share the same surname.
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 9:30:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim, did you mean Lorikeet? Cherubs might be angels but they were usually shown as male in renaissance paintings...
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 9:45:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, I didn't say that all of the inhibited or uninhibited persons were male or female.

This is not the only topic thread on which other people's opinions are being attributed to me, after I have answered only a single element of someone's argument e.g. on the drug discussion.

I know a woman who married someone she considered to be a pervert, simply because he masturbated on their wedding night (in the bathroom with the door closed) when she was having her period.

Yes, she sounds fairly uptight, but she wasn't wrong about him being a pervert. The marriage ended right after she caught him interfering with her 2 year old son in the bathroom.
Posted by Lorikeet, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 10:16:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Grim,
I think Lorikeet's follow up post shows that we were both thinking along the same lines. However I'm happy for you to switch it around for me as the case may be, make it vice versa.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 10:32:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day WmTrevor and Lorikeet,
No, I meant Dan.
I noted Lorikeet didn't specify who was 'outrageously uninhibited', and the dictionary definition of cherub is 'innocent child'(sex unspecified).
It was entirely Dan who leapt to the conclusion that only males can be outrageously uninhibited, which I dispute.
I would note that although male strippers have seen an upsurge (no pun intended) in recent years, I think they are still outnumbered by their female counterparts. And yes, I realise that demand creates supply, but you still need willing suppliers. My point is inhibitions are largely taught, or instilled rather than inherent.
There is, I think, more than a grain of truth to the urban legends of the rebellious preacher's daughter.
Let us hope the lady in question in this article is as cherubic as the author.
More to the point, let us hope she knows how cherubic she "is supposed to be", and doesn't mind.
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 10:45:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think inhibitions are largely taught, but some people are influenced much more by propaganda and teachings from various sources than others.

Some very inhibited people are victims of child rape. I know of 2 women who are. They both married nice men, but couldn't divorce themselves from the violence committed by some other man. In one case, it was the father, the other unknown (by me).

Sexual indoctrination is received by our kids at school, church, in the home and elsewhere, sometimes from a very young age e.g. some adults are not careful where they leave pornographic videos.

I'm sure if the Family Planning Association kept telling the boys that the appropriate sexual partner was a sponge with a hole cut in it, and some more gender-appropriate aperture for the girls, that's what a certain percentage would have an interest in.

You might want to shoot across to the new post on same-sex marriage to see what has been taught to, and fully swallowed by, some of the younger people.

I believe trivial arguments provide an excellent smokescreen to enable Greens to get into power.

And yes, I did eventually come up with a person who complained that the man she married (and quickly divorced) was a pervert.
Posted by Lorikeet, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 3:49:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim,
You're accusing me of saying things I didn't say. 

I agree with you that both men and women alike could be sexually inhibited or uninhibited as the case may be. The particular stated examples I referred to were largely those of men.

I agree with you that sexual mores and inhibitions are largely learned behaviour rather than inherent. I think his supports the notion that it is better for two people to grow and explore in their sexual freedom together from that point of equality, from that first grand awakening. 

Wm Trevor,
You ask me what is possible? I think all things are possible within the realms of grace, forgiveness, counselling and understanding. But I'm chasing the ideal, that to which we can strive. Forgive me for having high hopes and ideals in this world.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 6:14:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How very nice of you to ask, Dan S de Merengue… and it's obviously reciprocal as I also have high hopes and ideals in this world.

So that's you and me sorted out.

Now, how best to cope with everyone else on the planet? Should they have their own high hopes and ideals? Everything would certainly be better – I think – if they had mine.

You might think the same, if they had yours.

Such a Nirvana won't be the case for either of us. It's almost sad that everyone else doesn't realise what they're missing out on. We'll both just have to try to convince them as best we can.

We could do worse than start with points of agreement and from there work our way to an impasse.

This seems so straightforward it makes you wonder why there's any strife on the planet?
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 9:27:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the author at the top of the page:

--

The cohabiting couple make the subliminal statement to each other that 'I don't need to be married to you to have sex with you'.

--
I think this statement is inherently accurate. Now that sex is a free-for-all thanks to easy access to the contraceptive pill and abortion clinics, very few people are interested in an early marriage commitment to produce children at an appropriate age.

The Age Pyramid has suffered very greatly as a result, with some families having kicked out entire rows of bricks. Some older couples have also been left without any grandchildren at all.

I could easily write more than one book on the negative social ramifications related to these issues.
Posted by Lorikeet, Thursday, 17 May 2012 7:59:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OTH,if we take out the negative, the statement:"'I (don't) need to be married to you to have sex with you'" sounds a lot like blackmail.
To resort to those damned lying statistics again, married couples are having children later; average late 20's to 30's.
Is this 'appropriate'?
Now if we could just stop paying teenagers to have children, perhaps we could have a chance at restoring some old fashioned family values.
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 17 May 2012 8:36:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most women are now over 30 when they have their first child.

As a 17 year old, I dated a guy for 3 months, by which time he wanted to become engaged. I had previously noted his best friend to have become engaged to a very beautiful girl (virgin) of similar age, so he could access a sexual relationship for 6 months and then dump her, before moving onto the next victim of his false love. This was a common experience in the mid-70s. I decided to give this guy a miss and look for someone with a more wholesome agenda.

A very nice girl I knew became a single mother at age 17 after acceding to the wishes of her boyfriend, who promptly left her not only holding the baby, but being victimised by other people's scorn as well.

There are lots of women around who say their boyfriends left them after about 2 years of cohabitation.

I think there is some validity in the old adage: "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?"

How about this one? "Why buy a single cow when you can milk the whole herd?"

Everyone needs to take responsibility for the little lives they create and the lives they break, and not try to trick other people into believing they have some ongoing interest in anything other than accessing sex.

In 2012, males are also suffering from sexual abuses inflicted on them by females, since the society seems to have gradually assumed an increasing degree of gender role reversal, now with "woman as sexual predator".

Broken relationships are now a leading cause of youth suicide.
Posted by Lorikeet, Thursday, 17 May 2012 9:00:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy