Ladybug28 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Very personal decision. I didn't wait and am thrilled I didn't. I experienced plenty of partners before my husband and don't wonder what else is out there...I already know. On the other hand, my cousin and her husband waited and it was the sweetest, most beautiful thing... While I'm sure sex wasn't mindblowing for them at first, they're learning and figuring it out together. There's something really special about that. Link to post Share on other sites
Heroic Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 How many people out there with Herpes, AIDS, pregnancy or an abortion thought it might have been a better idea to wait? Remember people 1/3 sexually praticing adults has a STD. Link to post Share on other sites
Ruby Slippers Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Not no, but HELL NO! Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Erased Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 No I would not, not ever in a million years. Link to post Share on other sites
KismetGirl Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 How many people out there with Herpes, AIDS, pregnancy or an abortion thought it might have been a better idea to wait? Remember people 1/3 sexually praticing adults has a STD. Yeah, and there's also people that get run over by a car crossing the street to go to the market. You take chances on everything you do, so unless you plan to become a hermit in your apartment and never leave, you take a risk in everything. And, your statistics arent entirely accurate, as the rate changes from culture to culture, country to country. Much higher in places in which safe sex is not educated and encouraged, and in young people whose parents think that teaching them "absintance only" actually works, where in actually those areas that teach "abstinence only" have a higher rate of teen pregnancies. I've probably slept with...oh lets estimate....at least 50 men since I started having sex when I was 18 years old. No STD's. No pregnancies. Always careful. No one night stands or things of that nature. Just a healthy appetite. Sex itself is not what makes a marriage, but intimacy IS a large part of what is important, and I think that good sex may not necessarily indicate you'll have a good marriage, but someone who is incapable of being intimate will have problems in the relationship. Sex is something that gets better as you get to know your partner, but if someone is incapable of intimacy and being emotional about it, that doesn't bode well for teh future of the relationship and I'd want to know that going in. I wouldn't marry someone without living with them for a little while either. Link to post Share on other sites
johan Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I would if I had been tragically castrated beforehand. Link to post Share on other sites
grogster Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I would if I had been tragically castrated beforehand. Laugh out loud funny. Nice one! Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 i don't know what would be worse, marrying a woman without having sex first or marrying a woman without tasting her cooking first :laugh: Link to post Share on other sites
Heroic Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 And, your statistics arent entirely accurate, as the rate changes from culture to culture, country to country. Much higher in places in which safe sex is not educated and encouraged, and in young people whose parents think that teaching them "absintance only" actually works, where in actually those areas that teach "abstinence only" have a higher rate of teen pregnancies. Well 30 seconds on the CDC webpage netted this stat on Herpes from 2000, 19% or 1/5 of the US population ages 14 to 49 years old has genital herpes. http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trends2000/herpes.htm Preliminary 1999 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) suggest that the prevalence of hsv-2 has remained relatively stable over the 1990s. In 1999, the estimated prevalence was 19 percent among the general U.S. population ages 14 to 49 years old (McQuillan, 2000). Link to post Share on other sites
KismetGirl Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Well 30 seconds on the CDC webpage netted this stat on Herpes from 2000, 19% or 1/5 of the US population ages 14 to 49 years old has genital herpes. http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trends2000/herpes.htm Preliminary 1999 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) suggest that the prevalence of hsv-2 has remained relatively stable over the 1990s. In 1999, the estimated prevalence was 19 percent among the general U.S. population ages 14 to 49 years old (McQuillan, 2000). Still much less than 30% my dear! And, those arent' entirely accurate anyway. They are only rough estimates on surveys done of available health histories. And like I said, this number will change greatly depending on country and culture. They'll even change depending on what part of the country you are in. I can tell you in personal experience working in various parts of a big city like NY in the healthcare system, that STD trends vary even among areas of one city, let alone areas of a country. And the age range of 14-49 is too large to be representative, really. Sex trends (promiscuity and safe sex practices) tend to be largely different from a 14 year old to a 49 year old. Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 i don't know what would be worse, marrying a woman without having sex first or marrying a woman without tasting her cooking first :laugh: You know women who cook these days? Oh, yeah, I guess it's the depression. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts