How to respond to the “sexual compatibility” argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Le_Crouton
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm, that’s what I thought of as well. But I admit I’m not too sure whether that would be grounds for annulment (not telling someone something that would make her not marry).
 
That’s hilarious. 😆 We need to smell each other’s genitalia before we get married. I hope you can see the humour in that. Actually I do agree that smell is absolutely important and I did break up with a woman once because of how she smelled, but I did not need to fornicate with her or compromise her chastity to figure that out. It made me read some things about how important smell is to attraction, and that it might be an indicator of compatible genes. Anyway, I’m guessing you’re not Catholic; but let’s say, hypothetically, that you are, and sex is for marriage, not testing each other’s bodies. What would you propose as a solution to this problem?
 
One healthy male, one healthy female:“sexual compatibility” will follow.
 
tafan2 said:
One healthy male, one healthy female:“sexual compatibility” will follow.
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying, but that kind of puts it at a most basic level. Even at that level, there’s no guarantee that they’d be attracted to one another enough to consummate their compatibility.
 
Neithan said:
Anyway, I’m guessing you’re not Catholic; but let’s say, hypothetically, that you are, and sex is for marriage, not testing each other’s bodies. What would you propose as a solution to this problem?
Click to expand...
There is no solution to the problem, if that is what one believes.
 
All of these things are discussed in marriage prep. It is part of the FOCUS inventory, discussion with the priest, pre-Cana retreats, the Church has been prepping couples for marriage for a couple of thousand years.
 
This is something written in magazines and such.

I have dwarfism. Half of the adults in my family for three generations back have dwarfism. All of us married people without dwarfism. We have friends with more severe sorts of dwarfism who do not even stand 3 feet tall who are happily married to people who do not have dwarfism.

Believe all of the thousands of marriages between people of different weight and body type, this is just magazine mythology.
 
An unconsummated marriage may be dissolved, only consummated marriages are reviewed for validity.
 
Ok…Some more counter arguments that actually take religion out of the equation but end up arriving at the same conclusions as religion. By the way, these are not my arguments. These are the arguments of Robin Baker who is an evolutionary biologist who wrote a best selling book non fiction book that I wish I could unread. He wrote extensively on this concept of a trial period for sexual relations.

So some points and counter arguments…
  1. Yes…of course some humans engage in a trial period for sex; however, this trial period is primarily NOT to test for sexual compatibility. It is primarily to test for health issues. Of these health issues that humans look for, the most common thing to check for is venereal disease or damage to the reproductive system due to a venereal disease
    1.a. The trial period is usually foreplay.
    1.b. Checking for venereal disease by having intercourse is a really bad idea.
  2. If you fall for the idea of premarital sex to test for compatibility, you likely will be sleeping with a far more experienced partner who has had many other partners who can easily manipulate you, may have a venereal disease, and may be more likely to cheat on you in the future.
  3. Even this evolutionary biologist concluded that a faithful monogamous relationship is the best reproductive strategy.
Like others have said, a marriage that is not consummated or where there are significant health issues that prevent consummation can be dissolved.
 
Last edited:
Physical attraction requires no level of sexual activity. Indeed the hypothetical man and woman are beyond that test before this issue arrises. That is a given, a tautology with regards to the subject at hand.
 
Le_Crouton said:
Fornication is not the same thing as people in a relationship having premarital sex

Fornication is more like hooking up with a stranger
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)


🤣:crazy_face:
Thorolfr said:
So, it’s more important for a man and a woman contemplating marriage to talk about how they should roll the toilet paper than to talk about how often they might want to have sex?
Click to expand...
Don’t be silly. There’s a right way, and a wrong way. Nothing to discuss :crazy_face::roll_eyes:😜
 
dochawk said:
40.png
Thorolfr:
So, it’s more important for a man and a woman contemplating marriage to talk about how they should roll the toilet paper than to talk about how often they might want to have sex?
Click to expand...
Don’t be silly. There’s a right way, and a wrong way. Nothing to discuss :crazy_face::roll_eyes:😜
Click to expand...
So, how often is the right way to have sex? I didn’t know that there’s a right way in terms of how often a couple has sex.
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
Physical attraction requires no level of sexual activity. Indeed the hypothetical man and woman are beyond that test before this issue arrises. That is a given, a tautology with regards to the subject at hand.
Click to expand...
But sexual activity does require some level of physical attraction, at least for the man it does.
 
I think it’s very easy to know you are sexually attracted to someone without having sex with them, in other words, the physical attraction is very much there.
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
Physical attraction requires no level of sexual activity. Indeed the hypothetical man and woman are beyond that test before this issue arrises. That is a given, a tautology with regards to the subject at hand.
Click to expand...
Huh?
Sure, a man and a woman are capable of conjugal activities, regardless of their dispositions toward each other. That doesn’t mean they’ll voluntarily engage, however.
 
Why don’t you expand on that thought then and explain why you think it’s not the same thing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top