And good riddance!!!

(And would everyone please stop using "K" to abbreviate knight. It's making me ill... I would suggest SNL instead. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />)

[color:"blue"] <Laughing> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I saw "K" a couple of times and saw what was written and did a double-take waaaat?

LOL LOL LOL

V. [color:"blue"] [/color]

Funny to you!!! Heaven forbid, now that I'm not here consistantly teaching MB precepts, that I get associated with this drivel!

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You mean that is not you!!!

hmm, couple more ankle biters, what is it that makes people acted in meanspirited ways anyways, something I never have figured out.. anyways

MOS, I see your view, you misunderstood my intent. All I was doing was asking a question, interogatories can take many forms, from a raised eyebrow, to tone of voice, to direct statement....to words like might, maybe, etc. I did not assign intent to gdp, even though that might have been justified, and would not reflect personally on gdp, all human beings have "bad" days, and it does color their behavior temporarily. In any event, was just a reasonable question on my part, so cannot be ad hominen. Gdp simply had to say (if he wanted) that no, his day was fine, or that yes, he was a little cranky.

I have no problem being talked to that way....if someone were to note that "maybe" knight is letting his religious beliefs interfere with his reasoning....I would clarify whether that was true or not, and move on. How about you? OTOH, if someone says knight is just foisting his religious views on others, that I would object too.. Had I said go away gdp, and come back when you are not having a bad day...sure, that would be ad hominen.

Had me confused for a moment, I am no grammatical whiz, and could very well have misunderstood (and applied) the ad hominen charge... I see now (at least in this case, although I am certain I am guilty from time to time of slipping into an ad hominen response) I am "innocent". The point is, we should all stick to the facts, and leave emotional "content" of all kinds out of intellectual pursuits. However, a little leeway in choice of words for emphasis seems ok to me...and we all should be thick skinned in that regard. Guess this is a little like art, somewhat in the eye of the beholder..probably best that people who take offense easily, stay away from volatile subjects, it is unlikely their sensibilities are going to be pampered.

I am very much opposed to personal comments in intellectual discussions, trash the opinions if you want, but not the people.. It is fine to say xyz position/opinion/idea is silly, ignorant, stupid, ridiculous, whatever (hopefully though you realize you are obligated to explain why, or you are guilty of intellectual dishonesty)...it is not ok to say person XYZ is dumb, stupid, silly etc, implying they are incapable of rational thought across the board. You can look hard, and may find an instance or two of my doing that (and you will most likely find an apology as well), but you will find very little...I don't discuss (or diss) people, I discuss (and sometimes diss) ideas/opinions/concepts and so forth.

Is ok to say that is the dumbest thing I ever heard (ok to say, but of little useful value in the discussion..which reflects poorly on the speaker)

Is not ok to say you are the dumbest person I ever met.

Those who do not understand the difference are doomed to a life of whining or trying to police others expression (to no avail). It is best to exercise some restraint in disagreement, humans being the volatile and irrational (sometimes) creatures that we are...but it isn't required, long as you explain yourself. The pattern often is people trash other people, not their ideas and offer a competeing opinion, supported by some kind of reasonable argument...nah, the ankle biters just do what ankle biters do...run about nipping at those they don't like for some reason or other, they have no real interest in discourse, just a game I suspect, a cliquey sort of agenda, mutual admiration society...whatever...and heaven help anyone who challenges their views. They won't refute them, claim they aren't interested, but yet there they are...following around, nipping at those ankles.... (nipping = euphemism for posts that have no actual content other than to vent personal animus).

I keep looking for obnoxious, conceited, annoying, and "banned" in the definition of innocent. I guess you're right... you're not a grammatical whiz.

See ya later, SNL... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

ok gg, rest of boundary discussion

I cannot possibly embellish everything I am about to say, would require probably a good hour or two of actual verbal conversation, or goodly number (and pages and pages) of posts, I simply do not have the time (or interest) in doing...but will publish it all at some point. My position will either resonate with readers or it won't, but I can only discuss the boundary issue itself, the rationale I will just state.

Humans are programmed to mate, that does not require a relationship, it does not even require the females consent, in fact, only in last few hundred years has what the female wanted had any relevance at all....women were chattle, their fates determined by males, either family, or taken by force.

But this is not a relationship, this is simply species procreation, any apparent relationship was clearly about male dominance and female submission, if she did not submit, her fate was grim. The genetic programming is pretty clear....males pursue, and females submit....now a female has some room (depending on where we are in the historical record) to influence who she submits too, but she will submit.

With the rise of a new relationship paradigm, that being the notion of romantic love, that choice matters, that there is such a thing as compatibility...and that successfully choosing a worthy partner has measureable benefits (happily married people of both genders, have the longest lifespans), we needed to rewrite the mating paradigm... it now was NOT ok to take a woman against her will....she had to willingly, without coercion of any kind, choose her mate....males still pursue of course, but now they have to be concerned about being chosen....everything changed, and instinct was no longer serviceable, in fact, it would get you thrown in jail.

Various strategies were tried (are being tried as we speak), some males won't take "no" for an answer, and we have a whole spectrum of abusive males attempting to intimidate and own their women. Some women try to "pusue" (as males do) and that works poorly too....men just don't respect women like that, they will date them, but rarely marry them (just the statistical record, not my thoughts)..and in truth, women are generally very uncomfortable being the pursuers, they much prefer male pursuit, not male passivity. What seems to work is folowing our genetic wiring, adapted to allow for behaviors that accomodate "romance"....so males pursue, and push boundaries, but are receptive and attentive to the females willingness, backing off when she is not "ready" to submit....females encourage male pursuit, but have boundaries and exercise "choice" in who they accept pursuit from... Eventually she makes a choice, and lets the male of her choice catch her...and the male of her choice understands he is accepting a committment and has obligations therefrom....at least when it all works right...and is not predatory subterfuge. There are no gaurantees, and someone has to go first at each stage. Males initiate pursuit, and females initiate submission, if the male accepts the submission, and does so in a way satisfactory to the female...they marry. Each step involves risk, but any attempt to eliminate that risk will just result in a flawed relationship, it is the dance that gets you the prize....a successful permanent relationship.

There are a whole host of behaviors along this path that are important, including the evolving physical connections...which is the only one I am going to address, and that brings us to my understanding of where the "legalistic" boundary should be...allready addressed the situational boundary.

So assuming all has gone well and two people are ready to marry....what defines marriage, clearly submission does, of both parties to each other, vowed in front of God/peers, and sanctioned legally by the state, this is not true for any other kind of relationship...two become (or at least that is the hope) one. A condition we cannot quite "prove", but which we all feel, recognize, and strive for, we believe it is tangible, really exists, is not simply a contract or outcome of meeting needs...it matters who the other person is, in fact we all "know" it is crucial.

It is the nature of submission that defines the pre-marital physical boundaries, the willingness to submit, how it is done, when it is done.

I have another obligation, will finish this later...

see if I can wrap this up, the thing is human beings don't just "do stuff" there are reasons for everything we do, and efforts to understand that give us the means to make good proactive decisions...we can make "rules" till we are blue in the face, and some will follow, but many will not, preferring to make their own rules....but when you understand the reasons for the rule, and buy into it, much more likely to make good decisions....people who survive car wrecks, become ardent believers in seat-belts, no need for a law. If one can become convinced BEFORE the car wreck, much much better....hence my interest in delving deep into the whys of relationship behavior...for some reason this annoys those who prefer to just do what feels good, or intuition tells them.

So, someone pursues, someone accepts pursuit, relationship forms, information is exchanged, connections (including physical) ones are made..... matures into exclusivity, marriage is contemplated....now where are are the physical boundaries....

I assume we all agree sex early on is ingnorant, harmful, immoral, and to be avoided..the dispute seems to be about boundaries in quasi-committed relationships, and/or that sex is a natural expression regardless of permanent committment.

We have evolved to um... "experience" intercourse as a procreative act, yes it can be an intimacy builder too, but that is not how we are psychologically put together...so when a woman submits to sex, or conversely when a man takes a woman, a bargain of sorts is struck, a co-interest in offspring. The woman submits to male protection and authority... there is a risk though, she has no way of knowing the male will be protective, or nurturing in his authority... The expectation is the male will marry her, and she adjusts her behavior and expectations accordingly. This is a disaster if she choose poorly. She is much less inclined to leave the relationship, thereby digging an even deeper hole for herself...well, you know the drill. By waiting till marriage, she has a much better opportunity to change her mind at the last minute, as well as proof the male is serious....sure, he may be playing her anyways, but the odds are much better. Likewise for the male, if he is worthy, he accepts the bargain, and will stick by a woman he might otherwise have left, hence the reason for the male to protect himself from being seduced. And hopefully, the two are in agreement re boundaries so support each other's restraint should one weaken... This is important because the development of the relationship requires increasing closeness, and vulnerabilities. If the female has to remain "on gaurd" she is prevented from trusting the male, she needs to be able to let herself be vulnerable (by participateing in some physical interactions) and see how the male reacts...if he tries to take advantage of her (as LL so called friend did), rather than protect her virtue, that is good to know.... This is very brief, but makes the point relationships are a developing dance of ever increasing intimacy, vulnerability.

ok, assuming you buy into the notion pre-marital intercourse is a reasonable boundary, based on the outcome of pregnancy then what else. Could be argued everything else is just a matter of degree, and is situational, the only sexual act of consequence is intercourse because of pregnancy. However, std's are an issue too, and are pretty much confined to genital contact. One must also be mindful as well though of arousal, and the more we pursue arousal, the harder it is likely to be to observe any boundary at all. Sorting this all out, IMO a reasonable boundary emerges. Applying the rationale that premature physical submission (intercourse) is undesireable, and taking a look at other interactions I think it is reasonable to categorize thusly. 1. intercourse 2. genital contact/orgasm 3. everything else from hand-holding to I dunno, passionate making out, fondling, spooning... #3 seems to me to be the area of physical exploration within a developing relationship #1 Is an activity only within marriage....that leaves #2

At one time I thought that was discretionary, but that was a default position, the focus was always #1, which I knew was a boundary, not to be violated. When challenged about this (#2) I had to think about it, (I pretty much object to rules without the reasons why). It occured to me that the issue is submission, and if a female is giving you access to her body in a most intimate way (and vice versa) that feels very very similar to the submission of intercourse. Also is about arousal...I think these facts create a condition very similar to the psychological connections of intercourse, so should be avoided...and if you think about it, is really not so different from intercourse, is foreplay...whereas #3 is not that sort of submission, or foreplay.

With that in mind, one can set boundaries that make sense, and are easily recognizable (which makes for successful boundaries). My suggestion is no direct genital contact (which obviously inclues oral), keep your clothes on (not that nudity itself is an issue, we all know our biology, but nudity leads to boundary troubles), and no orgasms. Other than that, there is plenty of choices to build physical intimacy along with emotional, intellectual, rectreational, etc, connections. ..and you lose nothing...if you breakup you have a clear conscience, don't have a sordid list of past lovers to confess too, and greatly reduce the risk of lowering your standards and expectations in a partner, cause you haven't entered the level of submission.

That is about it gg, this is off the cuff, and I am tired, and could have done a better job, lots more psychological ramifications....but this should answer your question...ultimately everyone should do their own analysis, but when you make these choices, and set these boundaries...it should be based on sound reasoning...not just wanting to feel good, or build premature intimacy before the other connections are sound, and heck, seems like marriage should be the final physical connection...ya know? and what a deal, to wait and share this with someone special enuf to have married.

I wish I typed faster and had more time, for I find this a fascinating topic and I do think Knight50 presents some interesting points. After reading this, the weakness I find in Knight’s position is that it appears to be a personal opinion dressed up as fact. Sex before marriage has bad consequences. Abstaining before marriage increases the likelihood of success in marriage. Like Reborn Man says, there are too many variables in human relationships to test pre-marital sex independently. I had premarital sex with my ex-wife. We are divorced. Like Reborn Man, I think that had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for the divorce. The counter argument could be that I can’t prove that because we did do it. It is not testable.


I contend that there can be a problem with elevating sex to the sealing of the commitment role Knight gives it. The EN board has had numerous cases of newly married couples having major sexual issues because they abstained and elevated the expectations and stress level surrounding sex. It also has numerous cases of couples with differing sex drives and desires. While some may have used sex to lure in a mate and showed their true colors after the wedding night, I don’t think having no knowledge of this is a better success guarantee.

I would like proof that abstinence increases the odds of marital success. I submit that those practicing abstinence before marriage (at least in this country) do so guided by religious beliefs. Those same people may be more likely to stay in an unhappy marriage due to those beliefs. Marital rates alone won’t tease out a true success statistic. Like Reborn Man, I believe this is such a fuzzy area of statistics that I trust more my experiences and of those I know. My brother stayed in a terrible marriage thanks to his religious beliefs.


Wrong. If you present an argument, you must demonstrate its validity, not the other way around. Also, this is unprovable for or against. Every relationship includes people of different levels of maturity and emotional security, some who may be damaged by the closeness and vulnerability of sex, some who may not.

Like with your definition of promiscuity, you appear to appropriate a word generally accepted as a negative term, and label people or situations to create a moral standing. If I did a survey, I’m sure most people would call a player someone who dates multiple women in a given timeperiod and has or attempts to have sex with them. A true player is promiscuous, in the generally accepted use of the term. Using these terms as you do does not strengthen your argument, it weakens it.



Weak debating tactic. One could argue that my using my brother’s experience is a silly argument because it means nothing about abstinence increasing marital success. Statisticians throw away the outliers all the time - after proving they are truly outliers. You haven’t.


If this is your opinion, fine. Many others would argue that waiting until marriage to discover sexual compatibility is fraught with uncertainty. I won’t say pre-marital sex guarantees success any more than abstinence, but you cannot prove this in real life settings.

What I have a problem with is that you tend to define this in black and white terms, which provides moral clarity in the abstract but in my experience means little in interpreting real life situations. Situational ethics does not imply no principles but a flexible unified system of interpreting and responding to new, complex experiences. This will be a continual divide for absolutists, I suppose….


I think that no one should submit to sexual experiences they do not desire, but we all have a responsibility to know ourselves and our limits. I respect anyone who chooses abstinence and think we all need to square our beliefs with our mates or there will be trouble. But your posts strive to give a moral superiority to abstinence based not on religious belief but on physical and psychological grounds. For some people, your prescription may be the thing, but you can not prove it in a universal way.


I am uncomfortable with your premise that this is a universal principle. Go ahead and encourage others, but to present your beliefs as superior for all people is misleading unless you can prove it.

I meant to say "I submit that many of those", not to imply all.

tying up couple of loose ends RB

RB...Explain exactly what you mean by a "better outcome"

knight...The "outcome" of dating is a permanent committted relationship (none of this applies to other life strategies...a subject in itself as to validity). So better simply means increased odds of success....as well as reduced odds of bad consequences (std's, pregnancy, being obsessed/stalked/injured, not having a resume of sex partners, choosing poorly cause of sexual connection to someone, etc.).

You seem to agree relationships are important, that they should be monogamous and faithful, that sex is a factor in these matters..... but you promote "intuition", sort of guessing when it is ok or not to have sex...ok, that is situational, and will lead to some % of success. I am arguing sex is more than a need, it is a principle, and if you violate it you reduce your likelihood of success..that's it, the rest is the logic and such...but that is the issue, should one have inviolable sexual boundaries...or not. I think yes, you think no....but you have offered no reasons why your method will lead to better outcomes.... The point is RB, like it or not, we all will apply one of those strategies in our life....there are no others, it is a black and white behavioral choice....

btw...do you now understand GDP, your attempts to suggest it is not black and white are all just variations of situational strategy. I agree lots of things in life can be decided situationally...this is not one of them. There are things which are pre-decided in a black and white method also, and this is one of them.

RB...One more thing. The "test-drive" stuff you keep bringing up?

Knight...answered elsewhere, but is just another variation on the situational paradigm...the notion you can learn something more valuable by having pre-marital sex, then you can without it.... is a false assumption, and a rather transparent rationalization for promiscuous behavior. Ya know, I get a lot of flack for calling a spade a spade, but it really is no matter to me whether people are promiscuous and choose to think they are not, or is some lofty purpose, or just a cozy way to be intimate with your "friend", people can call pre-marital sex whatever they want...but those who are willing to have pre-marital sex are not going to attract people with healthier standards. In my last few years of dating, a woman who was smart and seemed interesting, was physically aggressive, it bothered me, so I broke up with her....she was very unhappy with that outcome, kept trying to get things going again with me, but there was nothing I could do.

Her inability to see/understand why this is important, and a good strategy (abstience) was a deal-breaker. Not cause of the sex (per se, that is just a sympton), but because she couldn't think. She was smart, great job, Christian (which troubled me too about her behavior), shared my interest in deep conversation etc. etc. But it just wasn't going to work, and all because she had to have these physical connections, couldn't defer them.

She was somewhat like LL, a good Christian woman, terribly betrayed by her Ex-H, and "deprived" for a long time, she craved closeness/intimacy...but by not following her own standards, and behaving situationally (she knew I was a safe person, and my intentions were honorable...not a player), instinctively trying to connect to me (so to speak), she lost out a good opportunity...and for what?

RB...If we have agreed that sex is an important and vital part of a marriage, and depending on how you rate it as a need, personally #2, what happens when wedding night comes?

Knight....Uh...is this a trick question? My guess would be the two would be having a very good time, greatly enhanced by the fact they adhered to pre-marital standards, and are now free to consummate the final connections...in fact, why would anyone not want to have this? If people have behaved pre-maritally in all ways as if married, there seems little to mark the "marriage" itself...just a costume party, have some eats, friends over...no big deal. You were allready committed, so other than signing a financial contract the marriage is pointless.

RB...What happens when/if you find you are sexually incompatible?I don't care how much "talking" you have done, I don't care how many discussions have been had. What do you do?

Knight... You got a problem. But with proper pre-marital courting, this is pretty much impossible. The real issue is whether pre-marital sex is more or less likely to reveal this issue... IMO it is not, a person is just as likely to conceal an incompatibility (play you) as reveal it...so you have no way to know...also marriage and committment itself open the doors to sexual vulnerability....married sex is different than unmarried sex....one is about giving the other is about taking...different agendas, and that impacts performance. I am sure you are aware that laments about how great pre-marital sex was, and how quick it changed after marriage are common. People will fool ya RB. And as well, when people (after having forthright discussions about sexual habits/expectations/histories/hang-ups) marry eyes wide open....the marital committment provides the motivation to POJA those incompatibilites, and well matched committed people will do just that, and have a great time in the process, cause they are giving....now if you marry a taker, shame on you for poor judgement. Do you read much about this RB, the experts pretty much make it clear, sexual incompatibility is very rare, it is mostly a sympton of people incompatibility.

Don't forget, you had a long courtship (1 year minimum), assuming you have any sense I guess. And in that year you did develop a significant physical relationship, so you aren't going into this blind ya know. You should have a very good sense of each other as to attitudes about intimacy, closeness, physical contact.

For those who are at all entertained by the definition of fallacy ad hominem:

I should have clarified a point in my earlier example: It is possible for asking someone if they're having a bad day to constitute a fallacy ad hominem. It depends on the placement of the question.

There is also the question of intent versus effect -- intent does not define a logical fallacy, effect does. If, for example, a point is made as a statement, but the speaker later says they intended it to be a question, the effect is still as a statement.

weis....don't worry about fast typing, you did fine....and it is an interesting, as well as important topic given how much grief (and joy) sexual behavior brings into most of our lives... it is right near the top of the list of important behavioral issues to think deeply on, and make proactive decisions about (rather than just react to feelings).

Will just try to pick out anything you said needing response, will not reiterate, or repackage my positions, they are clear enough.

Of course it is my opinion, one shared by many I might add...this is a discussion of opinions, and in such discussions facts may be mentioned or not..such as the fact pre-marital sex increases likihood of std's, and out unmarried pregnancy...or the fact that living together is a predictor of greater marital failure, etc. The purpose of such discussions is to assist the participants (or onlookers) in making choices....each will assign whatever validity they see re how "factual" the whole argument is....why does it matter to you how anyone presents their opinion...I believe the evidence (and logic) supports my conclusions strongly enough to speak with conviction, that's what people do weis...right?

Whether this is "provable" or "testable" is completely irrelevant, we have to live our lives everyday, we have to make decisions everyday, and in this regard we either have an invioable rule, that we think will make our lives work better, or we choose a situational strategy, and have no idea when and where we will have sex, and just hope it all works out...trusting our "intuition" we will avoid all the negative consequences....judging by the laments of those who do so, seems a dubious strategy. Would you agree we all have one of these 2 strategies, and it is worthwhile to actually decide which one is best? If we don't, we end up exactly like LL did, reacting, and more often than not, regretting it. Reacting is just another label for situational....most default to situational if they have not made an active choice. But some default to no sex, for religious or avoidance reasons...that is no good either. Ridgid legalistic behavior is just as likely to reveal an unworthy individual as well, one who cannot think. If you choose not to have pre-marital sex, you need to know why, and be able to discuss it with someone...if you can't, you have a problem.


yes the situational ethics argument has to be justified just as much as the abtinent argument weis, why wouldn't it? Both are choices with consequences.

I use words the way I see fit weis, but I do acknowledge the need to explain them if confusing...the lexicon available to us in these matters is limited...that is why I explained the words....and they are clear. IMO anyone who dates for sex (regardless of when that occurs) without intending to marry is a player...pretty simple really, what else would they be...there are lots of criminals too, quite a range, same for players. Not all players are predators (though all predators are players)...a narcissist is a player for example, they are just out to get what they want...they may not even lie or decieve especially....they are still players cause they are incapable of healthy relationships, yet try to get into them.

I think that is about it, the rest of your stuff (unless I missed something) seems to be (mild, I am not complaining, just observing) complaints about how I present myself, and your reacting to somehow feeling judged or such.....I have no control over your feelings, or responsbility for them, and you are right, I do feel strongly about this subject, and will speak to it....and promote my position as a significantly better choice...will that offend people, sure...so what, they aren't who I speak too, and would be best served not reading me if they don't want to feel uncomfortable about their choices....right?

All I can do weis, all anyone can really do, is simply say what they think, and let the chips fall where they will...and hopefully be civil and stay on topic doing it.

I addressed most of your test drive concerns in a post this morning, so won't do it again....if that is still unclear, just ask for clarification. Will state again though, you cannot learn anything of sufficient value (re sexual compatibility), by choosing pre-marital sex..that you cannot learn (or assess) in other ways. re the sex drvive issue, IMO that is a non-problem, sexually healthy people will work out frequency issues satisfactorily....if someone doesn't want sex, or wants sex all the time.. and has nothing to do with compatibility (is an internal problem), then they need to reveal that fairly early on in the relationship, so it can be accepted or not (no relationship is perfect), but by and large, these are rare issues....and if someone conceals it till marriage then the problem is dishonesty and trickery, and as soon as you find out (which should be right away), you divorce them (in an annulling sense, cause you aren't married anyways, trickery/deciet nullify vows), and try to figure out how you got played. But if you relied on a test drive, they may very well have played a role, decieveing you in bed, now you still have to divorce them...but in addition you now have another sexual
event to live with and reveal (which reduces your chances of being selected by worthy partners, or having to lie to them by ommision), these are terrible outcomes.

I see your point MOS, and don't disagree with it, the devil is in the details, the "situation"....chuckling... I am uncertain whether a jury of our experts in ad hominenisms would convict me in this circumstance...but maybe so, I admit I was pushing the boundary pretty hard, but my intent was as stated.....The truth is though, people do have bad days...how would you have inquired so as to discern whether that was an issue or not to be considered?

I suspect we all are guilty of such ad hominens then if we define it rigorously enough, but are more concerned with...um...vigorous attacks.

I agree though asking a question in itself is not enough to be innocent, timing, and structure count too, good point I stand corrected....I guess probably the real test is whether the communication is fair and justified, following accepted rules of civil discourse...or is intended to diminish the person (for whatever reason). Ad hominen is fine if your intent is to attack the person, and remove their influence from the 'group", but that is a weapon then, and what will be will be...but using weapons in civil discourse is to be avoided. Raises the issue of politics, where outcomes affect peoples lives, and paths are often very unclear so no real chance of consensus....is ad hominen ok then, guess depends on whether you think you are in a war or not...and willing to have the same weapon visited on you..think that is called MAD (mutual assured destruction..for those of you from the atomic bomb age).

If I'd wanted to ask the question in a way that made it clear it was a separate question merely expressing concern, I would probably have put it in its own post, and made sure the wording came out and stated that it was entirely separate from the other discussion going on and had nothing to do with it.

point taken, and I agree...thx for your time MOS.

Without typing a 10,000 word essay, let me sum it up for me this way.

I submit I was a relationship disaster waiting to happen my whole life until I stumbled upon this website and the practices espoused by the Harley's.

I also submit that no matter what choices I have or have not made in my relationships is completely due to the fact that I thought I was doing all the right things. I assumed I was and always considered myself a loving and decent human being.

The truth is I have always done what I THOUGHT my partner wanted as far as having needs met, not what she needed or wanted in reality.

I will admit, I am not intuitive in this way which is obvious by my history, supported by the fact that I have had 4 LTR's that fell apart while I stood scratching my head saying "What happened?"

I know what happened now and I am equipped to handle things in a completely different manner than I was 15 months ago.

These revelations, and growth, in my personal understanding of love, maintaining love, and what it takes to keep a relationship strong are the reason I do not and will not submit to the "no sex before marriage" principle.

I will still abstain from casual sex, it just isn't my style, but I will not abstain from showing my love, attention, and affection in a serious dedicated relationship.

In the end, it isn't having sex beforehand that is going to doom my chances but what I DO AFTERWARDS that will.

Respectfully submitted,
RBM

Thank your for your interest in one of my random forays into formal logic. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

No need to defend yourself RB, this was a discussion about boundaries (not ones personal worth), what works what does not and why that is so. Each of us is empowered to do whatever we want, no matter how smart, or how foolish....we will just experience the consequences, and hopefully choose wisely.

I assume you have no more interest in determining why to have an abstinent boundary, or a situational boundary, and have decided YOU will choose a situational boundary (which doesn't mean you would choose pre-marital sex in a relationship, just means you might or might not depending on how you feel). No argument from me, is your right. But consider this RB, in so doing there are consequences....not just all the negative stuff, but also a reduction in your options. Assuming you will be truthful, you have eliminated women who think abstinence is important (not the practice, but the belief), they won't date you. You limit yourself to those women who prefer pre-marital sex as part of a unmarried relationship...not saying one woman is "better" than the other...just noting there are consequences. Ideally people would only have relationships with those who share their boundaries, but unfortuneately people lie, and or go along cause they want the person (whether they go along with sex as LL did, or go along with abstinence)...that has consequences too (all bad, people should not compromise their values just to get something, that itself is red flag for an unworthy partner).

I am curious, are you ok with a woman whom you really find interesting, attractive, intelligent worthy in every way, not dating you cause she beleives abstinence is the better strategy to build a successful relationship that ends in marriage.

Are you also ok with having to tell a prospective partner you have had X number of serious relationships, all involving sex, but none worked out? Sort of similar to each of us having to decide whether to date someone who has been divorced multiple times, most of us won't do that. As you continue to slip down that slippery slope each "relationship" reduces the number of quality women who will date you because of your history...that would not be an issue if you had been abstinent...we all make a major distinction between a past of "dating" but abstinent...and a past of having sex in most (if not all) serious relationships....just something to think about. More of those negative consequences....but abstinent people are seen as quality matches, (yes they may be messed up...but the initial perception is favorable..so they have more options), and people with a history of sexualizing their relationships are seen in more negative lights in comparison....there are reasons for all this.

Anyways, good luck with your choice of sexual paradigm, and regardless of anything else, a thorough understanding and application of MB principles will increase your likelihood of success. I do wonder though, given your statements (elsewhere) about sex...if you dated someone who refused to have sex before marriage, and was ok with you simply adhereing to the boundary (and not requiring you beleive it to), would you marry her without pre-marital sex? Suppose the courtship takes a year or two (and no sex buddy of course on the side).

Well, unless some pressing comment is made on this thread forthwith, I am done, and will take my leave...was nice we were able to part less contentiously RB...well unless someone takes another cheap shot in the back so to speak...chuckling...

I wasn't defending myself Knight, merely giving some background to show the "WHY'S" of my position.

You said you had your opinion formed through reading and personal experience, I believe.

I have too and was just willing to to clarify and point out specifically why I think the way I do.

Thats it, thats all.

It is the same thing I was asking you to do, give background on how you ended up where you are.

RB