Found it. Dr. Harley clearly States you shouldn't have it.
Radio clip on pre-marital sex

Hi everyone! I have not been on here for a long time. Several years ago, I went through a divorce and received some wonderful advice through this website, so thank you to all of you who helped me through that situation.

Now, I think about dating from time to time and have gone out a few times, but I find that I am too old-fashioned for this dating era. I still do not beleive in sex before marriage. I know, I'm alone in this... I receive very few matched on sites like Match.com... although this is the site that I found to be the most productive for finding dates. I wonder, though what your thoughts are on the subject of extra-marital sex for those of us who are single-again. Also, how do you justify your position on the subject? I could not go against my conscious, since the Bible teaches us that going against our conscious is an offense to our soul and to God. Any thoughts or suggestions?

Found it. Dr. Harley clearly States you shouldn't have it.
Radio clip on pre-marital sex

Hmmm, I listened to it, but I am baffled. Aside from hearing "Joyce and I are against premarital sex", I did not hear a single reason for that POV. In fact, if anything, the caller's situation suggests that had they NOT had sex before marriage, a huge issue would have been swept under the rug, presumably to be discovered only after marriage.

I am all for holding off on sex for those who want to based on morality reasons, but otherwise I believe that sex in a monogomaous dating relationship is useful to determine compatibility. Given that sexual compatibility is as critical as most other areas, I don't understand why someone would want to get married without determining that compatibility (again, not counting those who want to avoid it based on their moral/religious POVs)...

AGG

Thanks for the reply. I agree that resistance is the best policy. I just can't seem to find the guys that agree with me! It seems to be a free-for-all out there! Makes me feel so alone. Nice to know someone out there agrees with me!

[compatibility. Given that sexual compatibility is as critical as most other areas, I don't understand why someone would want to get married without determining that compatibility (again, not counting those who want to avoid it based on their moral/religious POVs)...

"First I fix the relationship, and nine times out of ten, sexual problems disappear, with or without unresolved childhood experiences. I spend very little time fixing sexual problems these days because most couples I counsel don't have sexual problems after they have learned to follow the Policy of Joint Agreement. "

Speaking of compatibility, I knew a woman before I got married. She was divorced when I met her and she told me she was married for 1 year and te guy insisted on no sex until marriage. well it turned out he was impotent!
So I can understand your point about compatibility

Hi everyone! I have not been on here for a long time. Several years ago, I went through a divorce and received some wonderful advice through this website, so thank you to all of you who helped me through that situation.

Now, I think about dating from time to time and have gone out a few times,

but I find that I am too old-fashioned for this dating era. I still do not beleive in sex before marriage. I know, I'm alone in this... I receive very few matched on sites like Match.com... although this is the site that I found to be the most productive for finding dates.

I wonder, though what your thoughts are on the subject of extra-marital sex for those of us who are single-again. Also, how do you justify your position on the subject?

I could not go against my conscious, since the Bible teaches us that going against our conscious is an offense to our soul and to God. Any thoughts or suggestions?

Ruby is the first person I dated after the D was final. She is a good christian woman with strong morals and very good boundaries. We meet each others needs very well except for SF and we are short on UA time with distance. We are not going further with SF based on our commitment to what the Bible says.

Most women know how to hook a guy into marriage using great sex. It takes no brains to be great in bed while dating and then shut your spouse down once married. Even the dumbest broad can do that.

For me, any prospect that expected me to perform like an unpaid wh*re would be immediately ruled out as a prospect. Some girls don't put out for free!

[

Not sure why having sex makes someone into an unpaid wh*re . I am not advocating jumping into the sack on the first date, I am talking about a monogamous dating relationship that has progressed to the point where both partners feel loved, cherished etc, Nothing whorish about that.

AGG

Compatibility is CREATED, after all, so it is not necessary to have sex before marriage.

Many women are NOT going to take their panties off for someone they are not married to. They wouldn't consider marrying someone who expected to get laid before marriage as a condition. Asking me to put out before marriage as a test to see if I am good enough in bed DOES NOT make me feel cherished or loved.

[
I never said it's necessary to have sex before marriage. I just said that you'll have a better idea of what to expect. I don't agree that compatibility is created, it's no different than introvert/extravert compatibility, indoor/outdoor type compatibility, spending habits compatibility, etc. You can always try to POJA things to make things better, but the basic compatibility (or lack thereof) is inherent.

[

I never said it's necessary to have sex before marriage. I just said that you'll have a better idea of what to expect. I don't agree that compatibility is created, it's no different than introvert/extravert compatibility, indoor/outdoor type compatibility, spending habits compatibility, etc.

I believe that any couple can create compatibility once they are married by simply following the Policy of Joint Agreement. But it is also true that every couple should know as many of their conflicts as possible prior to marriage to give themselves a head-start at resolving them. PREPARE can help you identify them for you. While your boyfriend used that information to decide against marrying the other woman, the people at PREPARE would be the first to tell you that their inventory is not designed to warn you against marriage. Instead, it is designed to identify conflicts and encourage you to resolve them in a way that would make your marriage fulfilling. Presumably, after completing the inventory, you and your friend would go to work trying to resolve the conflicts with the Policy of Joint Agreement.

While we are on the subject of compatibility, however, there are five criterion that I recommend to those who are looking for a marriage partner. The reason I have picked these five, which are usually not found in most tests of compatibility, is that incompatibility in any of these areas make the Policy of Joint Agreement particularly difficult to implement. As a psychologist, I save marriages by showing spouses how to change their behavior to create a fulfilling marriage. But the categories that I will share with you now are traits that even trained psychologists have great difficulty trying to change. And so when you date, look for compatibility in these areas.

1. Intelligence. You and he should be roughly equivalent in intelligence, within about 15 IQ points. Without having to take an IQ test, you can usually figure that out by comparing grades in school, although men are notorious underachievers in high school. College grades are a better measure of intelligence for both men and women. The quality of your conversation is another good indicator of compatible intelligence. Men who are stimulating to talk to are usually in your league intellectually. But if there is a large gap between you in IQ, both of you will tend to be bored by your conversation. The one with the highest IQ will find the conversation to be superficial, and the one with the lowest IQ won't be able to keep up. There is also a tendency of someone with a higher IQ to disrespect the judgments of the one with the lower IQ, and that's an absolute relationship killer. Respect is essential in marriage regardless of the quality of an opinion. If you both enjoy talking to each other for hours at a time, and you respect each other's ideas, you pass the test.

2. Energy. You should marry someone roughly equivalent to you in energy. If one of you lays around watching TV while the other scurries about and can't sit still, it's probably a bad match. The reason energy is an important determiner of compatibility is that so many of your lifestyle pre-dispositions will depend on your energy. Leisure time activities and sexual interest are particularly sensitive to the amount of energy you have. People high in energy enjoy activities that burn that energy, even after work, while those with low energy levels would find such activities to be exhausting. And regarding sex, the more energy a person has, the more sex he or she tends to need. Since leisure activities and sex are two of the best ways to deposit love units after marriage, incompatibility in these areas can make it very difficult for a couple to stay in love.

3. Social Interest. If one of you is socially outgoing and the other is an introvert, that difference can make the planning of social activities very difficult. The Policy of Joint Agreement dictates that you don't do anything unless you can both agree, and in marriages of extroverts to introverts, their area of mutual social comfort is very narrow. The extrovert will not be able to get to know as many people as he or she would like because the introvert hates meeting new people. And the introvert will be constantly challenged to tread into the terrifying waters of introductions. Yet, I am very much opposed to spouses going their separate ways after marriage (one goes to a party and the other stays home), so the social interest difference require very creative solutions to keep them together yet make their social lives happy for both of them.

4. Cultural Background. Culture determines a host of personal sensitivities. Take Christmas, for example. In the American culture, Christmas is usually a big deal for most people. But imagine growing up in a family where every year Christmas was celebrated with zeal, only to discover after marriage that you cannot celebrate Christmas at all. The Policy of Joint Agreement dictates that you don't do anything unless you can both enthusiastically agree and because the person you married comes from a family that finds Christmas offensive, you do not celebrate it. Even if your spouse were to give you permission to celebrate Christmas, his background will still make such a celebration very uncomfortable to him. From my perspective, The Policy of Joint Agreement would rule Christmas out until a way is found to celebrate it with mutual enthusiasm.

Cultural background does not only dictate sensitivities, but it also dictates certain skills in meeting emotional needs. In some cultures, outward displays of affection are discouraged, and yet you may need that from the person you married. To meet your emotional need, he must not only go against his cultural training, but he must learn to do something that he was never taught.

Sometimes when two people are in love, they feel they can overcome cultural barriers. But that's usually because their relationship has been rather brief. They have not yet had to wrestle with some of the conflicts that culture imposes on them. I counseled one couple who had fallen in love, yet one could only speak Spanish and the other could only speak English. Granted they could eventually learn each other's language, but with that would come a host of cultural differences that might be much more difficult to overcome. Time eventually proved to both of them that their relationship was not meant to be.

5. Values. Moral values usually dictate how we behave. The Policy of Joint Agreement and the Policy of Radical Honesty are moral values that I encourage all married couples to adopt because they create and sustain love. But even when these two important values are agreed to at the time of marriage, conflicts with other moral values can make the creation of a compatible lifestyle very difficult to achieve. Getting back to our Christmas example, it's a cultural difference that makes a spouse unskilled in knowing how to celebrate Christmas. But if you marry an Orthodox Jew, it's more than skill that will be a problem. He will probably be deeply offended by such a celebration. And that offense comes from his moral convictions, not just his cultural background. A discussion of values is always a good idea when on a date, because if you find your values to be very divergent, it will make it difficult for you to agree on a lifestyle that you enthusiastically share.

A question often asked in a compatibility test is "Would you be willing to give up your religion to please your spouse?" It's not really a fair question, because it usually doesn't come to that drastic measure. But the point is important, and I would rephrase the question a little differently. I would ask, "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from following the Policy of Joint Agreement?" That is actually more to the point. Is there some belief that is so important to you that you would be willing to let your spouse suffer rather that give it up? If so, you should be certain that your spouse shares the same belief.

The point in all of this is that wide differences in any of these five characteristics of people make it difficult, but not impossible, to create a compatible lifestyle.

That being said, I don't think it would wise to marry someone who was completely different in their worldview. To me, I would not be willing to tolerate someone who was not of the same religion or political outlook. That would be too much to overcome.

My own experience counseling cohabiting couples and research conducted by social scientists both point to the same frightening conclusion -- living together before marriage tends to doom a romantic relationship.

Hi everyone! I have not been on here for a long time. Several years ago, I went through a divorce and received some wonderful advice through this website, so thank you to all of you who helped me through that situation.

Now, I think about dating from time to time and have gone out a few times, but I find that I am too old-fashioned for this dating era. I still do not beleive in sex before marriage. I know, I'm alone in this... I receive very few matched on sites like Match.com... although this is the site that I found to be the most productive for finding dates. I wonder, though what your thoughts are on the subject of extra-marital sex for those of us who are single-again. Also, how do you justify your position on the subject? I could not go against my conscious, since the Bible teaches us that going against our conscious is an offense to our soul and to God. Any thoughts or suggestions?

I don't agree that compatibility is created,

Hi Lamby, thanks for bringing this topic up; I too have been wondering about this. Does anyone know what Dr. Harley's position on sex before marriage is? Any radio broadcast links on this? (hint, hint, BrainHurts are you there? ) I haven't found anything on this website or in any of his books that specifically addresses this topic.

Meeting emotional needs is an important part of his philosophy, and his case for dating 30 people before deciding to get married is that it gives you an opportunity to see what your needs are and what needs you're good at meeting.

In his book "I Promise You," he talks about the time leading up to marriage as a time for a couple to make sure that they enjoy meeting each other's needs. He doesn't explicity exclude the need for Sexual Fulfillment, but he doesn't specifically include it either. He seems to leave it up to each individual couple to decide based on their own moral views, or biblical principles, or anything else that guides them in this area.

I have mixed feelings about this topic, and I've been wondering if there's any direct reference to it by Dr. Harley that anyone's aware of. I would like to know his opinion about this. Thanks!

(BTW, I just watched the Hunger Games a couple nights ago with my son. Now I know where Panem is! When did you move from Ruritania? Sorry for the tj, Lamby)

Okay, maybe we should all have a list of the things we disagree with Dr. Harley on, posted in our signature.

I disagree with Dr. Harley on a few things, but I typically don't post my contrary opinions on his site.

The point in all of this is that wide differences in any of these five characteristics of people make it difficult, but not impossible, to create a compatible lifestyle.

I agree that resistance is the best policy.

As quoted above, Harley states that wide differences in certain areas can make it difficult to create a compatible lifestyle. That is exactly my point too, so I don't see a disagreement, other than the semantics between "compatibility" and "compatible lifestyle":

[

The difference is that sex is not one of the things Dr. Harley lists as making it more difficult (not impossible) to build a compatible lifestyle. According to Dr. Harley the sexual compatibility can absolutely be achieved if the rest of the relationship is right and the other 10% issues are addressed, so there's no need (in Dr. Harley's paradigm) to explore sexual "compatibility" before marriage.

Agree with this. Sexual compatibility is created and it can just as easily be created when married as when not married.

And regarding sex, the more energy a person has, the more sex he or she tends to need. Since leisure activities and sex are two of the best ways to deposit love units after marriage, incompatibility in these areas can make it very difficult for a couple to stay in love.

[

As he says, sexual incompatibility can be a death blow to a marriage, and I don't see anything to say that this can be overcome with POJA...

As he says, sexual incompatibility can be a death blow to a marriage,

"First I fix the relationship, and nine times out of ten, sexual problems disappear, with or without unresolved childhood experiences. I spend very little time fixing sexual problems these days because most couples I counsel don't have sexual problems after they have learned to follow the Policy of Joint Agreement. "

Now, for the third time, if someone has moral objections to premarital sex, then by all means don't do it. And let's not get back to equating premarital sex with wh*ring, that is just silly.

There are 2 things that ensure a great sex life: romantic love and the prospect of enjoyment. If both partners are in love and are willing to please one another and to be honest with the other partner about what pleases them, then compatibility is pretty much assured.

For me, any prospect that expected me to perform like an unpaid wh*re would be immediately ruled out as a prospect.

I tend to be a bit on the 'needy' side in relationships, fearing that I will not find the next person, so I tend toward the people pleasing side. A trait I am not happy about. I just don't know how to change that part of me.

Maybe ChristianMingle or eHarmony may be more your style?

It's hard to separate practical from moral.
Most moral laws have practical reasons behind them

What if the guy doesn't expect you to perform like that, but he sincerely loves you, you love him, you have spent enough time getting to know each other to know that your love is genuine and not infatuation, and you both feel the tug of sexual attraction and as you put it "romantic love and a willingness to please your partner and use the POJA." You're not concerned with exploring sexual compatibility because you've already determined that's not going to be a problem, rather you simply want to experience sexual bonding with each other.

Moral convictions aside, is there a practical reason to abstain from lovemaking before getting married?

Moral convictions aside, is there a practical reason to abstain from lovemaking before getting married?

Why not put this in an email to Dr Harley at the radio show, and get his reasoning directly from the source?

I've heard Dr. Harley say on the show that the prospect of beginning a sexual relationship once married provides one heck of an incentive to GET married...and the converse is true as well (like why bother if we are already involved sexually, kwim?).

Good Guy: I understand your viewpoint that monogomous sex during a dating relationship is not equivalent to that of an unpaid whore.

Although it is not my decision to engage in extra-marital sex, I believe that it is something that each person must decide for themselves. Some people are able to engage in that activity and when things do not work out with their partner, they are able to separate and not have it affect them as strongly as others do. I find that I am very much affected by sex and attach strong emotions to this activity. Also, there are so many ways that a person can get into trouble engaging in extra-marital sex that makes it an undesirable activity for me.

I find that I am very much affected by sex and attach strong emotions to this activity. Also, there are so many ways that a person can get into trouble engaging in extra-marital sex that makes it an undesirable activity for me. Tooooo many worries associated with it. It is much simpler to wait until you believe that you are with the right person and in a fully committed relationship before moving onto that step.

Sometimes, you give to your partner's needs and other times, your partner gives in to your needs. The sexual relationship should be based on giving what the other needs along with fulfilling your own.

What if the guy doesn't expect you to perform like that, but he sincerely loves you, you love him, you have spent enough time getting to know each other to know that your love is genuine and not infatuation, and you both feel the tug of sexual attraction and as you put it "romantic love and a willingness to please your partner and use the POJA." You're not concerned with exploring sexual compatibility because you've already determined that's not going to be a problem, rather you simply want to experience sexual bonding with each other.

Moral convictions aside, is there a practical reason to abstain from lovemaking before getting married?

I don't agree with this. Harley clearly says that sexual incompatibility makes it extremely difficult for a couple to stay in love:


As he says, sexual incompatibility can be a death blow to a marriage, and I don't see anything to say that this can be overcome with POJA... Now, for the third time, if someone has moral objections to premarital sex, then by all means don't do it. And let's not get back to equating premarital sex with wh*ring, that is just silly.

AGG

My personal feeling is that as long as the couple are in love with each other, bonded by Intimate Conversation, it's as natural as Joyce implied to want to take it to the next level.

Although Dr. Harley says Intimate Conversation is more bonding than sex, he adds that sex does indeed deposit love units. If he's opposed to premarital sex, what's wrong with depositing sexual love units before marriage in a loving relationship?

A possible problem with premarital sex, at least for me, is that it deposits so many love units that it blows the ceiling off my Love Bank. By that I mean, it creates such an intense feeling of love that I might miss red flags that I otherwise would've seen had we not made love.

It was the same for the ChurchofChristSingles website. Lots of friends, but no dates.

Done!

In the past, I've seen about a 2-week turn-around between sending an email request and having it answered on the show. I asked to be notified in advance if they decide to answer my question. It seems they have my email mixed up with someone else's, and I haven't been notified of previous email questions.

I'm not a regular listener of the show; I'd like to be, just can't seem to fit everything into my schedule. If someone (BrainHurts comes to mind ) hears the broadcast, it'd be great if they posted a link on this thread.

Romantic love would not last if there was not a committment, so if I am going to invest SF in a partner, I want a signed agreement. A sexual investment is a HUGE emotional investment for most women so I want to protect my investment. My goal would be to have sex within the confines of a committed relationship, which is marriage.

It can be devastating to women to have that level of investment in a man only to have the relationship crumble. So, if she wants to protect her investment, the best way to do that is to wait to get married. And if he doesn't want to get married, then she knows it is not a good investment.

MelodyLane's posts make a very convincing case as to why, for many women, sex outside of the security of the Buyer's Agreement of marriage (not just feeling committed, but actually making a formal commitment) is not in their best interest. That's a good explanation as to why there are a lot of women who, at least ideally, would like to avoid premarital sex.

I think a lot of the disagreement here comes from the morality side of things; but Harley does not judge emotional needs based on someone else's morality (you will never hear him say "your husband is a pervert for wanting to make love with the lights on, you should tell him to go fly a kite"), and neither should we.

AGG

Now, given that background, if a man told me he wouldn't commit to me unless I put out for free, he would not be suitable because I need a committment FIRST.

My fear has always been that I would not be able to find anyone who would be understanding of my decision and who would stick by me through it.

My fear has always been that I would not be able to find anyone who would be understanding of my decision and who would stick by me through it.

2 boys, 15 and 13
3 girls, 7,9,and 11

Here's the TL;DR summary for you, Mel:

I'll bet there are a lot of women who are wired that way but settle for less. And possibly that is one reason why religious prohibitions exist against premarital sex: to protect women.

I'm sure the following will sound like it came from a greeting card or something but I feel compelled to say it anyway: anyone who does not understand your decision to not engage in pre-marital sex and is unwilling to continue dating you because of it is not the right person for you. That's all their is to it. There are guys out there that believe the same and will honor you for it.

Well said!

When you find yourself trying to take the "morality" out of your decision making, it is a good sign you are making a wrong decision. Morality is the basis for sound decision making.

But leaving the lights on is not a moral issue so I don't get your analogy.

Right, but whose morality, ML??? No one here has suggested that one should go against their own morals, no matter how often you keep saying that something is against your morals and I keep saying that it may not be against others' morals. I don't think this is a hard concept - don't go against your own morality, but don't impose your morality on others.

Morality is in the eyes of the beholder - you may think that sex before marriage is immoral, so you should not do it. But other cultures may consider just holding hands by the unmarried couple immoral; others do not want the bride and groom to see each other until the time of the wedding; others will chop your head off if you are seen in public with a member of opposite sex who you are not married to.

I would definitely recommend not dating in those societies the way we might here; yet I would also not be telling others to date according to those rules, if they don't live in those societies or subscribe to that morality.

No one is talking about leaving out their morality out of their decision making process, they are talking about leaving out others' morality, which is a good move.

AGG

Individual morality is a neat term. It assumes that we make our own rules. Every wayward would agree with that.
All of MB principles are based on Moral Law.
If there is no moral law than adultery would be okay because both sex partners agree to it

I don't think there's a simple answer here, and we might be headed towards another philosophical stalemate. Just wanted to point this out to avoid a potential impasse.

Morality is in the eyes of the beholder - you may think that sex before marriage is immoral, so you should not do it. But other cultures may consider just holding hands by the unmarried couple immoral; others do not want the bride and groom to see each other until the time of the wedding; others will chop your head off if you are seen in public with a member of opposite sex who you are not married to.

No one is talking about leaving out their morality out of their decision making process, they are talking about leaving out others' morality, which is a good move.

Markos: I definitely agree with your point about women preferring to save sex for marriage. It's not that they don't want to have sex until they are married - far from it. It's that they have higher priorities in regards to the development of a relationship. In my experience, women are actually relieved to hear that a man they are going out with doesn't expect sex until marriage, even if the woman isn't religious or traditional.

Had they agreed to an open marriage, then their behavior in fact would not have been immoral.

AGG

People expect to be TREATED with moral absolutes when it comes to their best interest.

For example, if your banker stole all of your money, I seriously doubt you would accept being robbed by saying nonsense like "morality is in the eye of the beholder." Or if I pistol whipped you I seriously doubt you would say "morality is in the eye of the beholder."


Lets see if you say that if you are ever robbed.

[

But a robber would understand they were hurting someone, unless they were very mentally deficient.

Not everyone who is unmarried and having sex would consider they were doing something hurtful to their loved one, unless they had the facts as to why it is damaging.

But why? If morality is "in the eye of the beholder" then there is no universal standard at all, so "hurting someone" can't be a moral standard unless the robber decides it is so. According to the principle of moral relativism we all get to decide this on our own. The robber may have decided that robbing is a moral act. He may have decided that hurting people is a good thing. The MR has to accept this because he rejects any universal principle.

I don't understand your point. Can you be more specific?

[q

I merely make the point that most moral laws are based on not hurting people. The commandments are all about respecting and loving your neighbour as yourself.

As do other cultures and most laws.

Even a four year old knows its bad to hurt others.

[

HDW, we've been around the block on this topic before of course. Tell you what, I'll be happy to live by your morals as soon as you agree to live by the Taliban's... Until then, let's not tell others what is moral for them...

As to your specific example, it is of course absurd, because the people having an affair are violating the vows they made to someone else, so they are indeed violating their morals. Had they agreed to an open marriage, then their behavior in fact would not have been immoral.

You forfeited that right when you said "morality is in the eye of the beholder."

you have just told us every person gets to choose their own morals.

Right, but whose morality, ML??? No one here has suggested that one should go against their own morals, no matter how often you keep saying that something is against your morals and I keep saying that it may not be against others' morals. I don't think this is a hard concept - don't go against your own morality, but don't impose your morality on others.

Morality is in the eyes of the beholder - you may think that sex before marriage is immoral, so you should not do it. But other cultures may consider just holding hands by the unmarried couple immoral; others do not want the bride and groom to see each other until the time of the wedding; others will chop your head off if you are seen in public with a member of opposite sex who you are not married to.

I would definitely recommend not dating in those societies the way we might here; yet I would also not be telling others to date according to those rules, if they don't live in those societies or subscribe to that morality.

No one is talking about leaving out their morality out of their decision making process, they are talking about leaving out others' morality, which is a good move.

AGG

Huh? Where exactly did I say that, or did you make that up?

AGG

Read your own posts..

I actually think that this is pretty close to my beliefs, you are correct.

I think that what I said is fairly simple English, I am not sure why it's causing so much comprehension trouble: One person's morals may not be another person's morals, pure and simple.

I thought my examples of how different cultures have different sense of what is "universal" morality were simple enough, but apparently not. I get the impression that some folks here believe that only their morality is the universal set of principles, and that is their right.
AGG

One person's morals may not be another person's morals, pure and simple.

Touche, LMAO . That's what I get when I drink and post .


AGG

AGG,

Do we need it install a "Blow N' Go" on your computer??

I don't want to derail the original thread, so lamby please tell us if you want us to start a separate thread on this...

By the way, looking at your signature, I saw three (five) great reasons to stick to your principles:

Quote:2 boys, 15 and 13
3 girls, 7,9,and 11

As far as premarital sex goes, what folks do is their own business. I don't care one way or the other. I have my perspective about it and others have theirs.

My only objection on this thread is the assertion that one has to have sex before marriage to determine compatibility. That is simply not true. Many people choose to wait until marriage and there are no reason not to.

This is why I soundly reject the notion of "morality is in the eye of the beholder." A moral relativist rejects the presence of any such universal standard.

Well stated, ML! I have to agree on this one.

While personally, I must agree with you, I cannot agree with you outside of myself. I cannot apply my own morality to others. Even God himself leaves morality up to each individual. Therefore, morality really is in the eye of the beholder. That is why God introduced grace. We needed it since our moral thermometers are off a bit sometimes

Murder is immoral regardless of who agrees.

Doesn't mean that wrong becomes right!

AGG,

Do we need it install a "Blow N' Go" on your computer??

I cannot apply my own morality to others.

Each person does not get to make up their own morals. They only get to decide what they choose to follow.

Who gets to define what is right and what is wrong?

But whose morality must each person follow, if not their own? The Bible? The Koran? Do we not have countless subdivisions within each religion that offer different views of what is moral and what is not? How is that universal? And what about those poor suckers who do not subscribe to organized religion, are they by definition immoral?

AGG

Using your logic, we owe Hitler an apology for condemning his mass murders. Have you really thought this through? Do you validate the mass murder of Jews because it was the "view" of the nazis? Do validate plantation slavery also?

The issue I have with this logic is that there is a difference between murder and premarital sex, and the difference is, one clearly harms someone and the other does not. In the case of murder, someone's rights are obviously violated. They likely didn't give their consent to be killed, so this act was committed against them in violation of their own free will.

Morality in certain situations - such as murder and adultery - is fairly universal, since someone else is clearly being harmed by the actions of another. However, premarital sex has no victim, as long as both partners agree to enter into a sexual relationship. Some issues - such as premarital sex - are neither inherently moral or immoral. Since they do not victimize anyone or harm anyone - they are simply a matter of personal choice.

You are not using my logic, but AGG's logic. I agree there is a huge difference between premarital sex and murder, and have never said otherwise. However, that is the principle proposed by AGG.

Your example of tea drinking is not a "moral," but a matter of personal taste and preference in that church. Obviously drinking tea is not a moral issue.

[
I would have to disagree with this. Being a former member of the LDS church, I can assure you that it definitely is a moral issue.

Do you see the dangerous ground you tread when you follow that line reasoning? You can avoid that trap if you remember this basic concept: all morals are universal or they are not morals. If something is wrong, it is wrong everywhere. If it is right, it is right everywhere, regardless of whether it is acknowledged or not. Just because someone doesn't recognize morality, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[

My question would be, what exactly makes premarital sex immoral then? It doesn't seem to be something that is universally considered immoral. Certainly, it is considered immoral by Christian religions, but that hardly makes it universal, since Christianity isn't the only religion in the world.

That is the point I am trying to make. I am not interested enough to discuss the morality of pre-marital sex. [honestly, I don't care] My argument is against the moral relativism promoted by AGoodGuy.

As far as premarital sex goes, what folks do is their own business. I don't care one way or the other. I have my perspective about it and others have theirs.

My only objection on this thread is the assertion that one has to have sex before marriage to determine compatibility. That is simply not true. Many people choose to wait until marriage and there are no reason not to.

My argument is against the moral relativism promoted by AGoodGuy.

For example, murder is immoral regardless of its acceptance across the universe. Many communist and socialist countries, for example, practice murder as a means to control their populace.

Wow, all these posts and not one attempt to answer the simple question � WHOSE morality is that �absolute, universal� morality?[/quotee]

Again, you already answered that. You said everyone gets to make their own rules, so if I believe in universal morals, that is the rule. You can't say that everyone gets to make up their own morals and then selectively reject one set of morals. That is contradictory.

[quote]Is it the one that believes in capital punishment, or thinks that it�s barbaric? Capital punishment for children? For adults with an IQ of a child?

For the record, I am not promoting moral relativism (at least not as I have seen it defined). All I am promoting is that there is no absolute morality that is followed by the entire world, or for that matter, by any two people, to a 100% similarity.

We also consider different things to BE murder. Does it matter if the killing is consented to (assisted suicide)? Self-defence or defence of another or even property CAN be a justification for intentional killing (which means that the killing is not only excusable but the right - ie., moral - thing to do) and the parameters vary widely even among US states.

These types of arguments sound very neat and tidy until you actually start to think about them in some depth.

It makes no sense to think about moral absolutes divorced from actual social practice.

You can't say that everyone gets to make up their own morals and then selectively reject one set of morals. That is contradictory.

Using your logic, we owe Hitler an apology because his culture condoned the murder of Jews.

These types of arguments sound very neat and tidy until you actually start to think about them in some depth.

Your examples only confirm what I said, that morals are absolute.

You're not making any sense ML. It is not contradictory at all. I make up my morals and may choose to reject others', just like you do, and just like everyone else does. That is not contradictory, that is perfectly consistent. You may not realize it, but you are actually making up your own morals and are claiming them to be absolute - but there is no source for your morals, other than what you made up and decided to adopt as universal.

I did want to address this point.. If morality was universal and absolute, then the entire world would have fought against Hitler or slavery�

I know I won't get an answer, but why not try... Whose morals, ML? Yours? Hitler's? Slave Owners? Republicans? Democrats? Christians? Catholics? Jews (Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform)? Muslims? Vegetarians? Vegans?

Help me out here, give me a source for these "universal" principles you keep referring to...

AGG

Morality is in the eyes of the beholder

[
But there is no �fountain of truth� in this �universal� morality � everyone has their own morals, if not in the big life and death issues, then certainly in the more minute details of how much can one speed.

As a comparison, the religion I used to belong to believed it was immoral to drink coffee or tea. Most people wouldn't have an issue with these substances, but it was very much against the teachings of the church. I don't think anyone would suggest that a person who wasn't a member of the church would have to follow the rules of this particular church, just because its members deemed such practices as "immoral."

For example, murder is immoral regardless of its acceptance across the universe.

So is our country immoral for killing Osams Bin Laden? For killing countless Iraqis? For dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima?

You have already answered this, though. You told us that:


You told us that ALL morality is legitimate. Are you backtracking from that position?

[

Not at all, my position is in fact simple - everyone defines their morality, because there is not universal morality.
v

Here you do it again, you make a claim of a universal moral ["everyone has their own morals - there is no fountain of truth"] in the same sentence where you DENY that there is such a thing as a universal morality.

You just refuted yourself.........in the same sentence.

C'mon, AGG, surely you can see the contradictions in your posts?

Is that universally true or only true to YOU, though?

OK, I think someone else has been drinking this morning, and it's not me this time.

Where is the contradiction between "everyone has their own morals - there is no fountain of truth" and "you DENY that there is such a thing as a universal morality. "? That is exactly the same statement, which is that there is no universal morality.

And until you tell me where it can be found, I will have to assume that universal morality simply means "ML morality", even though I don't know what that means...

AGG

I don't have any idea what you are asking me, ML.

And until you tell me where it can be found,

I will have to assume that universal morality simply means "ML morality",

. To me, the world is full of all sorts of shades of grey.

This is the very definition of a no-win argument, but I nonetheless wanted to chime in to tell you that I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense to me -- completely. To me, the world is full of all sorts of shades of grey.

I already answered this, I think.

it is up to us to REASON about right and wrong in order to DISCOVER it. i.e., to discover correct principles and to discover how to correctly apply them in each situation.

Let's drop this debate and get back to the purpose of this forum. This has gone on long enough on this poster's thread. Please keep your posts helpful and productive to the OP or refrain from posting. Thank you.

About a month ago (Sept 6 to be exact), prompted by SugarCane's post on this thread (here), I sent an email to the MB radio show asking for Dr. Harley's views on premarital sex and whether he knows if there's a negative correlation between premarital sex and marital ssatisifaction similar to the negative correlation associated with living together before marriage that he describes in Living Together Before Marriage: Compatibility Test or Curse?

I don't listen to the radio show very often and am wondering if anyone has heard him address this subject. With previous email inquiries of mine that he has answered, I did not receive any notification from Joyce that my questions would be answered and only found out about them from BrainHurts. I'm wondering if I missed the answer to the question, or if he hasn't answered it yet. Thanks!

Since leisure activities and sex are two of the best ways to enjoy time together after marriage, incompatibility in these areas can make it very difficult for a couple to create a fulfilling and permanent romantic relationship.

The question in my mind is when in a relationship would I feel But if experienced too early, the emotional bonding can become so strong that red flags in the relationship might be missed, and I want to avoid that.

Thoughts?

It was suggested that I update my profile and state that I am interested in dating alot. Any suggestions on just how I could word that so it would be appealing.

I want to get across that I am fun-loving and enjoy lots of activities. I am looking to the future and not the past (maybe I should just leave that out?)... I have a good loving relationship with my children, I am active in my church, etc...

I sent another email to the radio show, and hopefully we'll hear something.

In the meantime, is anyone up for more discussion? I read this in Buyers, Renters & Freeloaders last night (this is from Energy Level in the section on the 5 tests for compatibility):

It's clear that Dr. Harley says leisure activities and sex are important in marriage. What's not clear is whether or not he advocates sex before marriage.

Those who favor waiting for marriage to have sex may focus on the phrase "after marriage" to argue their point.

Those who don't may say that because Dr. Harley says incompatibilty in leisure activities or sex can be problematic in a marriage, it's a good idea to test compatibility in those areas before marriage.

I find myself somewhere in the middle. I personally don't think I would need to test sexual compatibility before getting married. If I had a strong enough emotional bond with a woman and all other indicators for a successful marriage were positive (including extroardinary care and radical honesty), I think sexual compatibility would be guaranteed. If I was in love with such a woman and she wanted to wait, I would have no problem with that, as long as the engagement period was short!

But just because I think sexual compatibility would be guaranteed, doesn't mean I couldn't enjoy sex before marriage. I think the symbiotic nature between emotional bonding and sexual bonding is a beautiful thing and can enhance a relationship even before marriage. Not to mention the mutual pleasure to be derived by both partners.

The question in my mind is when in a relationship would I feel comfortable taking it to the physical level. I like the increase in emotional bonding that comes from physical bonding. But if experienced too early, the emotional bonding can become so strong that red flags in the relationship might be missed, and I want to avoid that.

Thoughts?

(I also want to avoid a discussion of the morality of sex before marriage; I think that horse has been beat to death earlier on this thread )

On my ChristianMingle profile, my Introduction line says:
I'm a busy single Mom who loves life. Even with such a full household, there is a part that is missing~ Could it be you?

No need to write a book but just the most important items in a creative way.

nERSE, a) I'm not creative. I'm analytical... b) I cannot edit my username. I would have to create a whole new profile and CM will not transfer payment to a new profile.

Any suggestions to help my introduction on CM would be wonderful!

Thanks for the feed-back, Living Well and Black Raven! I thought folks had given up on this thread.

On my ChristianMingle profile, my Introduction line says:
I'm a busy single Mom who loves life. Even with such a full household, there is a part that is missing~ Could it be you?

Then, on the Essays section, I wrote:
ESSAYS
What I'd like to do on a first date...
Anything that allows us to spend time together to talk and get aquainted is nice. I just want to spend time together.

My past relationships have taught me...
No matter what the outcome, love is always worth the risk.

To me, being a Christian means...
Being in the world but not being "of the world". I'm far from perfect, but I do my best to live my life for God and not to please others. I have always looked for God's direction in my life and in my relationships.

I've been a Christian for ...
All my life.

In five years, I see myself
I am currently working in the laboratory in a large hospital. It is very busy and stressful work at times, but I enjoy it. I am also working on my master's degree. My goal is get my phD in Clinical Psychology and work with autistic and other special needs children.

My favorite Bible passage is...
Romans 8:28-39 It discusses the depth of God's love for us.
______________________________________________________________
I have photos of myself and my children. I am very open about who I am... Is there something about my profile that is a turn-off besides the number of children I have?

I sent another email to the radio show, and hopefully we'll hear something.

In the meantime, is anyone up for more discussion? I read this in Buyers, Renters & Freeloaders last night (this is from Energy Level in the section on the 5 tests for compatibility):

It's clear that Dr. Harley says leisure activities and sex are important in marriage. What's not clear is whether or not he advocates sex before marriage.

Those who favor waiting for marriage to have sex may focus on the phrase "after marriage" to argue their point.

Those who don't may say that because Dr. Harley says incompatibilty in leisure activities or sex can be problematic in a marriage, it's a good idea to test compatibility in those areas before marriage.

I find myself somewhere in the middle. I personally don't think I would need to test sexual compatibility before getting married. If I had a strong enough emotional bond with a woman and all other indicators for a successful marriage were positive (including extroardinary care and radical honesty), I think sexual compatibility would be guaranteed. If I was in love with such a woman and she wanted to wait, I would have no problem with that, as long as the engagement period was short!

But just because I think sexual compatibility would be guaranteed, doesn't mean I couldn't enjoy sex before marriage. I think the symbiotic nature between emotional bonding and sexual bonding is a beautiful thing and can enhance a relationship even before marriage. Not to mention the mutual pleasure to be derived by both partners.

The question in my mind is when in a relationship would I feel comfortable taking it to the physical level. I like the increase in emotional bonding that comes from physical bonding. But if experienced too early, the emotional bonding can become so strong that red flags in the relationship might be missed, and I want to avoid that.

Thoughts?

(I also want to avoid a discussion of the morality of sex before marriage; I think that horse has been beat to death earlier on this thread )

Dr Harley answered your email on today's radio show

Hi Dr. & Joyce Harley, several posters and I were having an interesting discussion on the After Divorce: Dating and Relationships forum on your website concerning premarital sex, and we were wondering what your views on the subject are. Several people felt that sex should be reserved exclusively for marriage, while others felt that evaluating sexual compatibility before marriage is a good idea. Much of the debate devolved into an argument over moral values.

I and a few other posters are wondering if there are statistics that show a correlation, either positive or negative, between premarital sex and subsequent marital satisfaction similar to the negative correlation you have presented between living together before marriage and subsequent marital success.

In your book Buyers, Renters & Freeloaders (near the bottom of p. 34 in my copy), you state "Since leisure activities and sex are two of the best ways to enjoy time together after marriage, incompatibility in these areas can make it very difficult for a couple to create a fulfilling and permanent romantic relationship."

It seems from that statement that because leisure activities and sex are important in marriage, incompatibility in those two areas should be determined prior to marriage. But several posters on the forum feel that you do not advocate premarital sex.

Many posters and I are anxious to hear your views on this topic. Thank you in advance for answering this question on your radio show.

You don't really get to know each other's sexual compatibility.

Often, one year after marriage, couples who had pre-marital sex are not having sex.

I don't quite get the first either and disagree with Dr H. I also think the second depends on a lot of other factors. I don't know any couples (who engaged in pre-marital sex) who stopped having sex after the first yr of marriage either.

At the end of the day, it's a personal choice. I don't see myself getting married anytime soon but I also don't see myself being a nun for years either. I'm not a big fan of scientific studies any way lol.

I know of a couple that went to a basically sexless marriage after the first year.
And a lot of premarital sex LOL.

We had pre-marital sex and he lost interest about a year after marriage.

I don't have moral reasons for avoiding pre-marital sex, but practical reasons do interest me, and the potential for loss of sex drive after marriage is a very practical one! And so is Dr. Harley's experience that couples who avoid pre-marital sex have fewer problems with their sex life after marriage.

Let's say I buy into the belief that sex should be reserved for marriage. What do I do in the interim if I'm attracted to a woman on many levels (intellectual, emotional, etc.), including the physical level. If I'm in love with her, there's going to come a point where I want to make love with her.

I'm not talking about wanting to have sex with her in order to satisfy my sexual appetite (or as MelodyLane phrased it, I'm not talking about having her "put out" for me.) I'm talking about the mutual expression of love for each other in the physical dimension. That's a natural response to a loving relationship whether married or not. If a couple both feel that way about each other but are not ready to get married, what can they do to resist nature?

When you take out the moral aspect of sex, it really just mucks it up. It goes back to why God created sex in the first place - procreation. Just because we don't care about that and want to enjoy sex outside of marriage doesn't change the truth that we shouldn't be doing it outside of marriage. If you are going to ignore the moral design of it and want to partake in it before marriage, it is a crap shoot. There are all the strings, emotional attachments, connections that form when having sex with someone else before you know that the relationship will work out. If you repeat the same behavior in every relationship you get into, then you are just having sex. If you fall in love with the person like you said above and it isn't just about sex, then you should consider whether or not you would marry this person, because otherwise you don't love her enough to be making love to her, you will be having sex with her. That whole becoming one, giving yourself, thing that making love brings does NOT work with someone that you are engaged in a sexual relationship with before you know they are the ONE you want to marry no matter how much you care about her.

To someone who doesn't believe in God, none of this reasoning is helpful.

Not saying it doesn't happen, I just don't know any that became totally sexless....maybe reduced but not zero. Things like age at the time of marriage, added responsibility/commitments, moving, pregnancy/births, or diminished "newness" may be factors along with a bunch of other life stressors. No reasons are given but lots of possible variables.

I don't have moral reasons for avoiding pre-marital sex, but practical reasons do interest me, and the potential for loss of sex drive after marriage is a very practical one! And so is Dr. Harley's experience that couples who avoid pre-marital sex have fewer problems with their sex life after marriage.

Let's say I buy into the belief that sex should be reserved for marriage. What do I do in the interim if I'm attracted to a woman on many levels (intellectual, emotional, etc.), including the physical level. If I'm in love with her, there's going to come a point where I want to make love with her.

I'm not talking about wanting to have sex with her in order to satisfy my sexual appetite (or as MelodyLane phrased it, I'm not talking about having her "put out" for me.) I'm talking about the mutual expression of love for each other in the physical dimension. That's a natural response to a loving relationship whether married or not. If a couple both feel that way about each other but are not ready to get married, what can they do to resist nature?

Elope.

Seriously, if it has gotten to the point where you are in love and love is motivating both of you to want to be sexual with you, and both of you are committed to eventually having marriage by the Policy of Joint Agreement, and the people around you agree that your relationship is logical (i.e., they aren't warning you about love busters or serious incompatibility issues or abuse), get married!

Yes that's exactly Dr Harley's point. Those variables (too busy, novelty wears off, children) are present in most marriages but not present in most dating relationships. Those variables need energy to be overcome.

So having sex at a time when teh variables dont exist is not a true test of long term sex drive. Instead you should check out the person's energy level for RC and socialising etc compared to yours.

That gives a better idea of sex drive for a time of stress than simply having sex at a time when there is no stress.

Elope.

Seriously, if it has gotten to the point where you are in love and love is motivating both of you to want to be sexual with you, and both of you are committed to eventually having marriage by the Policy of Joint Agreement, and the people around you agree that your relationship is logical (i.e., they aren't warning you about love busters or serious incompatibility issues or abuse), get married!

Elope.

Seriously, if it has gotten to the point where you are in love and love is motivating both of you to want to be sexual with you, and both of you are committed to eventually having marriage by the Policy of Joint Agreement, and the people around you agree that your relationship is logical (i.e., they aren't warning you about love busters or serious incompatibility issues or abuse), get married!

For people who don't believe in God and follow no moral guidelines, then there shouldn't be a problem other than dealing with the problems that come along with having sex with someone you don't have enough love or committment to to marry. Anything less will create problems b/c of the needs of those in the relationship. Someone's need for true connection will not be met b/c the other person CAN'T give love they don't have to make that happen.

First, it's give yourself 1-2 yrs after D to even date (regardless of how long the D took)...because you are not ready, need to heal, and can't trust yourself.

If I'm supposed to consider all MB info/advice (not just the SF part) then I should be unmarried or a nun for AT LEAST the next decade. It may be ideal but likely? no. I don't think that's going to happen and I sleep fine at night. I believe in God and have morals. Dr H said he bases his position on biblical views. Anyway...

When I was married I was was subjected to STDs too...just didn't know it.

And the send off message before entering Plan D was you deserve better and to be happy.

Why is that markos? What brings the lasting happiness? What do you deeply need that just sex wouldn't be enough?

I don't see how sex as a single person brings about happiness.

I say that as a man with a very very strong sexual need. But I just don't think that sex outside of a formal permanent exclusive commitment would give me any lasting happiness. Maybe that's just me.

I have actually heard Dr. Harley argue against this. I have heard him tell people to get right back out there and start dating as soon as they feel ready. I was kind of surprised, actually.

For people who don't believe in God and follow no moral guidelines, then there shouldn't be a problem other than dealing with the problems that come along with having sex with someone you don't have enough love or committment to to marry. Anything less will create problems b/c of the needs of those in the relationship. Someone's need for true connection will not be met b/c the other person CAN'T give love they don't have to make that happen.

The being "ready" is maybe the million dollar question. I went out on a date, three weeks after my D was final...and it was GREAT!!! After all the affair drama/fallout, divorce process...I was ready. Some people may view that as too soon.

On another note, I have always wondered, when these conversations invariably come up, how many people on this Board were virgins before they got married, and how many intend to remain abstinent after their divorce until they remarry.

Elope.

Seriously, if it has gotten to the point where you are in love and love is motivating both of you to want to be sexual with you, and both of you are committed to eventually having marriage by the Policy of Joint Agreement, and the people around you agree that your relationship is logical (i.e., they aren't warning you about love busters or serious incompatibility issues or abuse), get married!

I don't see how sex as a single person brings about happiness.

I say that as a man with a very very strong sexual need. But I just don't think that sex outside of a formal permanent exclusive commitment would give me any lasting happiness. Maybe that's just me.

I don't know how it all fits together either. My point was that a divorced BS has a lot to consider when it comes to dating and potentially remarrying again...and along the way they will be lonely. Romantic companionship is very different from other relationships and brings along a set of struggles including moral decisions that married people don't have to consider. There are a lot of conflicting feelings and I think it is safe to say that no one wants to go down the road of getting into a bad relationship or missing red flags. It is a hard to place to be and it's own rollercoaster. The conflicting advice makes it all the more

That's a good answer Markos, but what I had in mind by a couple "not ready to get married" is situations where getting married right away isn't feasible.

For example, one person is in school and until they graduate,

they won't be able to devote the time and attention they'd want to in marriage.

On another note, I have always wondered, when these conversations invariably come up, how many people on this Board were virgins before they got married, and how many intend to remain abstinent after their divorce until they remarry.

Hi Markos, I dated a women for 2+ years after divorce, and sex with her was far better than it was with my exW. The reason: I had a much better emotional connection with her than I did in marriage.

For example, one person is in school and until they graduate, they won't be able to devote the time and attention they'd want to in marriage.

In this hypothetical scenario, how were they able to establish a romantic love relationship without adequate time?

My point wasn't to discuss the details of a particular example, but to ask about the general scenario where a couple feels that they want to marry, and all the conditions you described are in place (POJA, logical to those around them, etc), but there happens to exist some condition which they both agree makes them want to wait.

In the example I cited, consider this scenario. The couple is in grad school. They're taking classes, but have enough UA time for each other. After a year of school, they're in love with each other and marriage makes sense. But next year, they will have to do internships, or research projects, or something that will take an extraordinary amount of time. So they decide to wait until they finish school to get married.

That's a really interesting discussion. I know there are places where lots of folks expect to be abstinent until marriage, but I suspect where most of us live, it would make the dating pool very very small, and not necessarily the subset that would be a fit for me and my family otherwise. Kind of like being a single-issue voter.

But isn't that the point? To cull out the ones who don't meet the bill?

I think most places in America there are people who are abstinent, albeit a minority.

If that is the case, then they should plan for their love to fade during the next year, right? If they are not going to have adequate time for each other, then the love is going to fade.

That's a really interesting discussion. I know there are places where lots of folks expect to be abstinent until marriage, but I suspect where most of us live, it would make the dating pool very very small, and not necessarily the subset that would be a fit for me and my family otherwise. Kind of like being a single-issue voter.

...expect to be abstinent until marriage

Not necessarily. Prior to getting married my then bf (now exWH) was a reservist and went through military training for extended periods of time. We were in love with each other during those separations. If anything it brought us closer and more in love.

I take exception to the implication, made above, that one must believe in God in order to follow moral guidelines.

On another note, I have always wondered, when these conversations invariably come up, how many people on this Board were virgins before they got married, and how many intend to remain abstinent after their divorce until they remarry.

I don't know, maybe there are some adult abstinent groups I don't know about, but like I said I don't know if that's the same subset that would be the best match for every individual. Like cutting smokers or one party would cut maybe 30 to 70 percent, but a fully abstinent requirement would cut I think more like 98%. I was lucky enough to find someone who didn't push to move in together, but that's the norm here.

But divorce and adultery are epidemic in military marriages and traveling jobs.

It is because their love fades.

[

As for military...maybe but not always. Lonliness doesn't mean love has to fade. It is a difficult lifestyle and takes a toll on marriages/families.

Traveling jobs...that is a lifestyle choice too but I don't see it the same as the military. A traveling job is 100% voluntary. The military may be voluntary in terms of you don't have to join but once you are in, you have no choice when they separate you from spouse/family until your contract is over. National defense out ways a paycheck to me.

ExWH was not a cheater during those years and we managed to stay in love despite the separations.

But it does fade and the reason is because if you are not meeting ENs on a daily basis, you can't maintain romantic love.

BUT, the effect is the same, voluntary or not. They fall out of love.

If you have a method of staying in love while separated, please contact Dr Harley and let him know how it is done.. He has been asking for such a case study now for 3-4 years so he can study how the couple did this and help other military couples. He has yet to come up with a single couple who were able to sustain the romantic love while apart. Not one has volunteered to be tested.

I lived it, so I know it is possible.

BUT, the effect is the same, voluntary or not. They fall out of love.

I started a thread way back when...it got eaten in the 2009 Forum Wipeout. The thread was put in the Notable Threads (or whatever it is called at the top of the Forum). The Military Marriage Forum then came to be...not because of me/my thread but that's about the timeframe when there were a number or current/former military or military spouses on the board. I think Dr H may have even posted in it and I did explain what then-H and I did during his deployments. My H never had a deployment that lasted beyond six months but he was deployed often but never for years. We also did not have children then. Maybe makes a difference...idk.

So it doesn't matter WHY, what matters is that they are apart.

Did you contact Dr Harley as he requested? Dr Harley is not going to believe anyone unless they contact him and allow him to study them. As he stated, lots of people said they did it, but NOT ONE stepped forward to allow him to test them.

[

Agreed. I was only saying that *I* have much more understanding (not sure if that's the right word) for a military deployment than a traveling job, not that the effects can't end up being the same. Gone is gone.

Here's the link.
Radio clip of KeepLearning's question

Here's the link.
Radio clip of KeepLearning's question

The man who insisted on sex on the first date or there would be not be second date...he'd be SOL with me and there would be no second date.

If that is the case, then they should plan for their love to fade during the next year, right? If they are not going to have adequate time for each other, then the love is going to fade.

It's worth noting that the people who are in good marriages are a minority, about 20%. Dr. Harley talks often on the radio about there basically being two cultures in America (apologies to those of you who are not in the U.S.; I assume this extends to most of the Western world, if not the whole world), one of which tends to have good marriages and one of tends to have bad marriages or avoid marriage entirely. In some areas one culture predominates, and often people in one of those cultures simply do not understand people from the other culture (or even believe they exist -- how many people here in troubled marriages are wondering if good marriages even exist?).

I think Dr. Harley talks more about this in Defending Traditional Marriage, but I have to confess I have yet to finish this book.

I might speculate that avoiding premarital sex is one of the aspects of the culture that tends to have good marriages, just as avoiding living together is definitely one aspect of that culture.

I'm still interested in advice from someone who's been in this situation:
[list]
[*] You love someone enough and have valid reasons to marry.
[*] You also have a valid reason to postpone a wedding.

Unless you both possess amazing reserves of discipline, I don't think you can, KL. You either would have to get married, or tone down the rel-ship, likely start dating other people.

This is some pretty hard-wired human behaviour we're talking about.

If being abstinent is that important to you, it's going to get uncomfortable unless you can get married. You probably would be better off to avoid romantic rel-ships.

If being abstinent is that important to you, it's going to get uncomfortable unless you can get married. You probably would be better off to avoid romantic rel-ships.

I’ve looked up several references to the cohabitation effect and found that in general, living together before marriage does indeed increase the chances of divorce. But I found that some studies have delved into the issue in more detail. It seems that if a couple lives together as a test for compatibility, they increase their chances of divorce by about 50% if they marry. But couples who have already made the commitment to marry and decide to move in together (i.e. they’re engaged and just waiting for the wedding date to arrive), have roughly the same chances of divorce as couples who do not live together before marriage. The difference seems to be whether the couple has already decided to marry vs. the couple is testing for compatibility before deciding to marry.

If you're going to use it, source it. Do you have links to these studies?

But couples who have already made the commitment to marry and decide to move in together (i.e. they�re engaged and just waiting for the wedding date to arrive), have roughly the same chances of divorce as couples who do not live together before marriage. The difference seems to be whether the couple has already decided to marry vs. the couple is testing for compatibility before deciding to marry.
I wonder if couples who engage in pre-marital sex after having made a commitment to each other, have just as few problems with sex after marriage as couples who abstain. In other words, I wonder if commitment to the relationship makes a difference.

Several posters and I were having an interesting discussion on the Marriage Builders forum. The discussion was about pre-marital sex; several people felt sex should be reserved exclusively for marriage, others felt that evaluating sexual compatibility before marriage is a good idea. Much debate ensued and went into an argument over moral values.

In your book you state "since leisure activities and sex are two of the best ways to enjoy time together after marriage, incompatibility in these areas can make it very difficult for a couple to create a fulfilling and permanent romantic relationship." It seems from that statement, that incompatibility in those two areas should be determined prior to marriage. But several posters on the forum feel that you do not advocate premarital sex. Many posters and I are anxious to hear your views on this topic.