Is "Compatibility" a myth?

[Crown_of_Stars]

The claimed reason for sex outside of marriage is that a woman runs the risk of marrying someone who is not “compatible” with her. I’ve always taken this to mean, a man who is unable to satisfy her enough, sexually. Is this just a myth? Wouldn’t any woman or man be “compatible” with eachother, no matter what? Adam and Eve were the only two, man and woman, on earth and they were just right for each other. When people say “compatibility” , are they meaning in the bedroom?

 

[davidv]

The claimed reason for sex outside of marriage is that a woman runs the risk of marrying someone who is not “compatible” with her. I’ve always taken this to mean, a man who is unable to satisfy her enough, sexually. Is this just a myth? Wouldn’t any woman or man be “compatible” with eachother, no matter what? Adam and Eve were the only two, man and woman, on earth and they were just right for each other. When people say “compatibility” , are they meaning in the bedroom?

Compatibility is not a myth. It is an excuse to sin.

 

[AKDee]

There are people who think that sexual compatibility is the be-all, end-all in a relationship, which I personally think is ridiculous and myopic.

Some advice columnists (who shall remain unnamed) routinely give advice to people to “get out” of a relationship if they aren’t sexually compatible, no matter how compatible in every other respect the two people are.

Personally I think that’s putting entirely too much emphasis on sex, and not nearly enough emphasis on everything else.

 

[GEddie]

It’s not a myth, it’s a deception into patterns of sin.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JimG]

It’s nonsense. Men and women are sexually complementary. They are physically compatible. The important thing is to decide to be compatible, faithful, loving, for life. That decision is evidenced by the marriage vows.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Sometimes the sex is just…bad. I suppose if it was the only thing you knew, you wouldn’t know, but if you have had other partners, you would know. Ya know?

 

[TerrySong]

When people say “compatibility” , are they meaning in the bedroom?

I believe compatibility has a lot to do with how you relate to each other. I believe it’s very
important to become friends first. You have to like each other and have fun together and have things to talk about.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING is to put God first, when you are seeking your mate, and your direction in life, and He won’t let you down.
Trust that God wants to make you happy, or rather, give you joy.

If you and your significant other can find joy in each other’s arms, hugging and kissing, you can tell by the way he treats you, that’s it’s going to be all right.

Let’s put it this way: Has all the premarital sex, and living together, worked for this
generation in producing long-lasting happy marriages? I don’t think so.

"Be delighted with the Lord. Then He will give you all your heart’s desires. " Psalm 37:4

 

[edwest2]

The claimed reason for sex outside of marriage is that a woman runs the risk of marrying someone who is not “compatible” with her. I’ve always taken this to mean, a man who is unable to satisfy her enough, sexually. Is this just a myth? Wouldn’t any woman or man be “compatible” with eachother, no matter what? Adam and Eve were the only two, man and woman, on earth and they were just right for each other. When people say “compatibility” , are they meaning in the bedroom?

This idea has been perpetuated by the media for decades. Most recently, using the words “test drive” instead of saying something more direct. So, some think that if the sex is bad - somehow - the marriage is ruined.

Dating is the best approach. Get to know each other, get to be friends, earn each other’s trust. You’ll find out quickly if you don’t like the other person or feel uncomfortable with his thoughts or views or attitudes. This takes time. As you learn more about each other and do things together, it may occur to both of you to start talking about things like marriage and children. So no, not everyone can be compatible with another no matter what. Part of it involves just saying, “I think this is just not working out.” at the appropriate point. Or, “I do like you but I’m not ready to get married.” No one likes hearing that.

So, for some, sexual compatibility is the primary or only thing you need to know. Unfortunately, if the two of you don’t talk about your other expectations about marriage before the ceremony then the risk is greater that surprises, other than sex, will occur after the ceremony.

Best,
Ed

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If a nut and a bolt are different sizes they are not compatible, no matter how hard you try to squeeze them together. No sane person would buy even a pair of shoes without trying them on, and having an unfitting pair of shoes is insignificant compared to have a spouse, with whom you might be incompatible. Not just sexually incompatible, but in every respect. The old adage is: marry your best friend" is still true. Same religion, same or similar taste in food, same taste in entertainment, and also same taste in bed. All of them are important.

As Edwest says: dating is very important, getting to know each other is of utmost importance. So it is strange that one of the most important parts of a long term relationship is left to be discovered when it is “late” to change it … does the bolt fit into the nut?

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

I think that some personalities can be more compatible than others, and this can surely filter into the bedroom. Not an excuse for bad behavior but it is certainly a thing. Besides personality (how frequently a partner wants sex, how willing they are to try different things) there is also physical things like fitness/stamina/strength, skill and size/shape that can possibly be an issue. Most of those issues can be worked around though…

 

[edwest2]

Catholics don’t think sex is dirty or that it should not be enjoyable but as someone I know said, “I’m not getting married just so I can have sex.” Catholics are restricted regarding what bedroom activity is good and what isn’t, but I won’t bring up the details here. The primary purpose of sex is having children. That’s how we’ve always gotten the next generation. But a preoccupation with different sex acts or stamina and other things, needs to be viewed from a Catholic prospective. There is plenty of good Church teaching about what should and should not happen in bed. Just make sure that you talk to a priest or a Catholic marriage preparation counselor. Some places on the internet send mixed messages. Talking to a real person would help end the confusion, if any, about what’s appropriate in bed.

Ed

 

[styrgwillidar]

There are people who think that sexual compatibility is the be-all, end-all in a relationship, which I personally think is ridiculous and myopic.

Some advice columnists (who shall remain unnamed) routinely give advice to people to “get out” of a relationship if they aren’t sexually compatible, no matter how compatible in every other respect the two people are.

Personally I think that’s putting entirely too much emphasis on sex, and not nearly enough emphasis on everything else.

It also ignores that sexual drive/needs/intimacy evolves throughout a relationship based on a whole list of factors. Treating it as the foundation of a relationship, vice the icing on the cake is misleading. A solid foundation of love, respect and trust is required so that as passion ebbs/flows or physical intimacy is not possible for a variety of reasons (separation/sickness/time crunch with kids/fatigue etc.) the relationship strengthens and flourishes.

 

[underacloud]

A pair of shoes (or insert any other inanimate object) does not care if you try on other shoes, have worn other shoes previously, will wear other shoes in the future, or compare the performance of those shoes with other shoes. Shoes just don’t care. But people do. Ignore this reality at your own peril.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

A pair of shoes (or insert any other inanimate object) does not care if you try on other shoes, have worn other shoes previously, will wear other shoes in the future, or compare the performance of those shoes with other shoes. Shoes just don’t care. But people do. Ignore this reality at your own peril.

Correction: “people MIGHT care” or “SOME people care”. I did not compare people to shoes. I simply pointed out that even in such a mundane act as acquiring a new pair of shoes it would be irresponsible to make a blind selection. So much more when selecting a “lifelong” partner. A sufficiently long dating period is an excellent way to test many aspects of compatibility, but is does not and cannot test all the important facets of life lived side by side. And if both partners agree to “test the waters”, then it is their own business. If you don’t like it, don’t do it. How simple!

 

[underacloud]

Ok then , let’s say “most people care”.

It is very unusual - from a purely secular perspective - that someone does not care at all about the sexual history of a partner.

And PS anyone who doesn’t care, I dare to suggest, doesn’t understand what sex is actually about. The more “intimacy” you’re prepared to offer around to people, the less intimate each of those relationships will be. And finally, your spouse and you won’t really feel the intimacy God intended in sex.

Shoes don’t care about intimacy at all.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Ok then , let’s say “most people care”.

How would you know? I am sure that in your close circle of friends it is “most” of them. In my circle it is either “some” or “none”. I have no idea, since I never asked around. But judging that all (I know) had several partners during their life I surmise that they do not give a “dayum”. I would not want to make up some statistics.

It is very unusual - from a purely secular perspective - that someone does not care at all about the sexual history of a partner.

Care about something is not the same as being concerned about it. People who wish to share their past relationships are free to do so. To be open about it is great as long the neither one is a jealous type. But it is a fact that “practice makes perfect”, at least as the “technique” is concerned. Monica Lewinsky was in great demand, since she proved her prowess.

And PS anyone who doesn’t care, I dare to suggest, doesn’t understand what sex is actually about. The more “intimacy” you’re prepared to offer around to people, the less intimate each of those relationships will be.

Oh, no. Intimacy does not come in a “jar”, with limited quantity of it. Just like “love”.

And finally, your spouse and you won’t really feel the intimacy God intended in sex.

Since I have no idea what kind of intimacy God intended, I cannot offer an opinion. The intimacy I share with my loved one is quite sufficient for us.

The original point still stays, it is unwise to hop into a relationship where a very important part of compatibility is left unexplored when an unfortunate “incompatibility” cannot be remedied any more. If someone prefers to live a celibate life, that is his or her own business. But very few people do, as shown with the wayward priests who were caught with their “pants down”.

 

[edwest2]

Correction: “people MIGHT care” or “SOME people care”. I did not compare people to shoes. I simply pointed out that even in such a mundane act as acquiring a new pair of shoes it would be irresponsible to make a blind selection. So much more when selecting a “lifelong” partner. A sufficiently long dating period is an excellent way to test many aspects of compatibility, but is does not and cannot test all the important facets of life lived side by side. And if both partners agree to “test the waters”, then it is their own business. If you don’t like it, don’t do it. How simple!

That’s a wrong message to send to people. It encourages societal fragmentation. Not a good thing.

Ed

 

[underacloud]

How would you know? I am sure that in your close circle of friends it is “most” of them. In my circle it is either “some” or “none”. I have no idea, since I never asked around. But judging that all (I know) had several partners during their life I surmise that they do not give a “dayum”. I would not want to make up some statistics.

Sexual jealousy is a well studied area of psychology. I’ll leave you to explore it for yourself…or just rely on your circle if friends (who may or may not speak honestly about such a topic) to inform your opinion.

 

[Sarcelle]

**

The claimed reason for sex outside of marriage is that a woman runs the risk of marrying someone who is not “compatible” with her. I’ve always taken this to mean, a man who is unable to satisfy her enough, sexually. Is this just a myth? Wouldn’t any woman or man be “compatible” with eachother, no matter what? Adam and Eve were the only two, man and woman, on earth and they were just right for each other. When people say “compatibility” , are they meaning in the bedroom?

You mean like “test driving” a potential spouse?

People are not cars.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

That’s a wrong message to send to people. It encourages societal fragmentation. Not a good thing.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Sexual jealousy is a well studied area of psychology. I’ll leave you to explore it for yourself…or just rely on your circle if friends (who may or may not speak honestly about such a topic) to inform your opinion.

What is there to explore? Some people are jealous, others are not. Those who are jealous - have a problem, a personal problem. They need to deal with it.

You mean like “test driving” a potential spouse?

Not really, you and a potential partner together embark of a test drive to see if they are compatible on the long run. Why do you think that only one of the couple is test-driving the other? The reality is that they volitionally agree to do a test-drive together. No one is exploiting the other.

People are not cars.

Indeed. And if one would not buy a pair of shoes or a car without making sure that there is a compatibility, it is rather irrational to do it in the case when one wishes to select a partner - NOT just in the bed, but in all the important aspects of life.