Practically speaking, don't we need to "test drive the car before we buy it?"

[Xantippe]

Some of it, too, is learning your spouse and what they like and don’t like. It’s like a dance. You can know all the theory behind the moves, but what really makes it work is when you get to know your partner. And being skilled in dancing with one partner may not help with another.

Where’s Cat to talk about pairs figure skating?

Years ago, when I used to read Dan Savage’s sex column, I remember reading a couple of letters from his female readers asking him to tell men to do ABC and XYZ during sex. As it happens, ABC and XYZ were totally opposite–the women wanted completely different things.

So, there’s no substitute for actually knowing your particular spouse really, really well. And the way to do that is through time and effort with that particular person. “Suzie LOVED DEF, why don’t you like DEF?” is only going to get you into trouble.

 

[Allegra]

Realistic answer: Yes. Lots of people want to learn how to drive properly and test drive many cars until they find the one they want to keep.

The Catholic answer you will hear: Of course not, sex before marriage is a grave sin, and you are only supposed to drive one car for the rest of your life, only in the state of marriage and for the purpose of having baby cars.

How absolutely appalling. We are talking about a human being with actual feelings. You don’t “test drive” a human soul. Are you actually going to tell a person that you supposedly care about enough to consider marrying, “Hey, baby. I love you and I want to spend my life with you, but I just want to “try you out” to make sure you do it for me. If not, I’m not going to waste my time because our marriage won’t work out. No pressure.” Of course not. That’s deceptive baloney. In real life it comes out like, “Of COURSE I’ll love you forever, baby! After all, we’re almost engaged!” The car is always led to believe that it’s already been purchased and doesn’t know it’s only being tested. Besides, do you really think that anyone has perfect, movie star sex the first time? Part of the enjoyment of marriage is discovering sex together with your spouse.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Who does this? Seriously, who does this?

Tons and tons and tons of people, although I’d guess it’s far more a male outlook than a female one. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard friends and family members say, “Try it before you buy it!” I had an aunt tell my son that when she gave him a pack of condoms, allegedly as a gag gift (we don’t see her anymore). I have a cousin whose going through marital counseling now because she bought into the idea of needing to test drive as many guys as possible, finally realized she was far more interested in secure, reliable transportation than whether she was getting a stick shift or automatic, but then lied to her husband about how many times she’d been around the block. I could go on for at least a couple pages, suffice to say there are lots of people out there who buy into and actively promote this idea. I personally disagree with it and the notion that it’s sex that binds a marriage together. My wife and I have gone through some astoundingly horrible times and I can honestly say that those periods were practically devoid of sex. For anyone who thinks that a roll in the hay is going to get them through hard times, I pray they never have to face any actual hardships.

 

[thewanderer]

One guy’s blog isn’t, but a multitude of Google results IS evidence of the prevalence of the phrase.

That blog post was targeted to people who object to having sex outside of marriage, like you guys on CAF.

But to point out the obvious, people have sex outside of marriage because they biologically want to, they like each other sexually, and it feels right and fun to be naked and physical. ** If it weren’t for the Vatican you’d do the same**.

I just had to pick on this. Really? You don’t know me and you don’t know why I believe what I do and do what I do. I am not an automaton that just does whatever I’m told by the Vatican. I actually think deeply about life and reality and it just so happen that the reason I decided to follow my parents and live my life as a Catholic is because in my investigation into reality I discovered that I agree on a deep personal level with the Church’s teachings. I don’t believe sex outside marriage is wrong because I’m a Catholic, I am a Catholic because I believe sex outside marriage is wrong (obviously among other reasons). I also happen to have a friend of no particular religion who believes very strongly that pornography is wrong, sex should be reserved for marriage, contraception is wrong, etc. Why does she believe these things? Because she has thought deeply about reality and concluded from her observations that these things are not how we ought to live. This has nothing to do with the Vatican whatsoever.

And, as I said in my previous post, even if I had no issue whatsoever with sex outside marriage I would still object very strongly to the idea of “test-driving” a potential spouse. A couple who has sex as a bonding aspect of their relationship even when not married? Sure, I can see that as working out for them if they go on to get married in the future. But a couple where even one person decided they needed to “test-drive” the other sexually before they could get married, nope, sorry, that relationship is not likely to work out long-term. Sex is extremely important in marriage, yes, but life happens and sometimes that means sex isn’t possible, when you have somebody so obsessed about sex that they use receiving a certain level of sexual pleasure on a regular basis as one of the main deciding factors of whether they will marry someone is in a relationship headed for disaster when the reality of life finally kicks in.

 

[thewanderer]

Tons and tons and tons of people, although I’d guess it’s far more a male outlook than a female one. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard friends and family members say, “Try it before you buy it!” I had an aunt tell my son that when she gave him a pack of condoms, allegedly as a gag gift (we don’t see her anymore). I have a cousin whose going through marital counseling now because she bought into the idea of needing to test drive as many guys as possible, finally realized she was far more interested in secure, reliable transportation than whether she was getting a stick shift or automatic, but then lied to her husband about how many times she’d been around the block. I could go on for at least a couple pages, suffice to say there are lots of people out there who buy into and actively promote this idea. I personally disagree with it and the notion that it’s sex that binds a marriage together. My wife and I have gone through some astoundingly horrible times and I can honestly say that those periods were practically devoid of sex. For anyone who thinks that a roll in the hay is going to get them through hard times, I pray they never have to face any actual hardships.

Yup, as has been pointed out before, sex is not the glue that holds a marriage together, not even close. Having a good sex life is a result of a good marriage where both partners are willing to sacrifice for the other and both strive to please the other and make them happy, it is not the cause of a happy marriage.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Tons and tons and tons of people, although I’d guess it’s far more a male outlook than a female one. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard friends and family members say, “Try it before you buy it!” I had an aunt tell my son that when she gave him a pack of condoms, allegedly as a gag gift (we don’t see her anymore). I have a cousin whose going through marital counseling now because she bought into the idea of needing to test drive as many guys as possible, finally realized she was far more interested in secure, reliable transportation than whether she was getting a stick shift or automatic, but then lied to her husband about how many times she’d been around the block. I could go on for at least a couple pages, suffice to say there are lots of people out there who buy into and actively promote this idea. I personally disagree with it and the notion that it’s sex that binds a marriage together. My wife and I have gone through some astoundingly horrible times and I can honestly say that those periods were practically devoid of sex. For anyone who thinks that a roll in the hay is going to get them through hard times, I pray they never have to face any actual hardships.

No, I don’t think this happens. Sure, maybe one in a crazy million, it’s not common.

What the OP is talking about is two people who are compatible, talking about marriage, needing to “try out” sex before committing. That just doesn’t happen. No serious couple looks at each other and says “We should really see if we like sex first”. It just doesn’t happen.

Now what does happen is that people try out marriage. They live together and/or share responsibilities and aspects of life to see if they are compatible. But even chaste couples do this without the sex. It’s part of dating. Now the more of your life (sex, living together, raising children, bills, car, whatever) that you share, the harder it will be when it ends. And no, it doesn’t always end mutually.

 

[thewanderer]

No, I don’t think this happens. Sure, maybe one in a crazy million, it’s not common.

What the OP is talking about is two people who are compatible, talking about marriage, needing to “try out” sex before committing. That just doesn’t happen. No serious couple looks at each other and says “We should really see if we like sex first”. It just doesn’t happen.

Now what does happen is that people try out marriage. They live together and/or share responsibilities and aspects of life to see if they are compatible. But even chaste couples do this without the sex. It’s part of dating. Now the more of your life (sex, living together, raising children, bills, car, whatever) that you share, the harder it will be when it ends. And no, it doesn’t always end mutually.

 

[thewanderer]

People not in serious relationships like to bring up this “argument” so that they can legitimize their desire for engaging in sex outside marriage, but in reality, people who are seriously considering marriage don’t then try out sex making their experience of sex be the deciding factor of whether or not they will marry. As BEL said, it just doesn’t happen.

 

[Elizium23]

Sex does play an important part in the unity of a married couple. That is part of its function. Sex is both unitive and procreative. It has the function of uniting the married couple. If it does not have that function, then it is illicit. By any measure, sex is a very important part of the Catholic vocation of marriage and it cannot be rationalized that it is unimportant to a well-functioning relationship of conjugal love.

 

[thewanderer]

Sex does play an important part in the unity of a married couple. That is part of its function. Sex is both unitive and procreative. It has the function of uniting the married couple. If it does not have that function, then it is illicit. By any measure, sex is a very important part of the Catholic vocation of marriage and it cannot be rationalized that it is unimportant to a well-functioning relationship of conjugal love.

Yes, of course this is true, but saying it is unitive does not make it the glue that holds a marriage together.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

No, I don’t think this happens. Sure, maybe one in a crazy million, it’s not common.

What the OP is talking about is two people who are compatible, talking about marriage, needing to “try out” sex before committing. That just doesn’t happen. No serious couple looks at each other and says “We should really see if we like sex first”. It just doesn’t happen.

Now what does happen is that people try out marriage. They live together and/or share responsibilities and aspects of life to see if they are compatible. But even chaste couples do this without the sex. It’s part of dating. Now the more of your life (sex, living together, raising children, bills, car, whatever) that you share, the harder it will be when it ends. And no, it doesn’t always end mutually.

I’m going to have to disagree. Sure, in most cases the “test drive” takes place before they buy the wedding invitations, but the mindset and peer pressure are still there. I have friends who broke off otherwise good relationships because the sex wasn’t as good or as frequent as they would have liked, and others who ended relationships because the other person wouldn’t engage in specific acts. I was under a ton of pressure from friends and some family members to try my wife out before the wedding. I was told I was irresponsible, stupid and insane for not ensuring we were compatible. I had these arguments/discussions as late as the week of our wedding and dealt with people who threatened to not show up if I didn’t sleep with her in advance and one who suggested that I force myself on her if she didn’t comply. (No, we weren’t making it a regular topic of conversation but were subjected to a lot of gossip and accusations which led to all this, and we’re no longer friends with some of the ones who took their advice too far.)

As far as trying out marriage, a large subset of our friends back in the 90s were proponents of trial marriages. Almost all of them have had at least one divorce. I think the “test drive” mindset is similar to the “trial marriage” mindset in that in neither case does the person view marriage as a permanent thing. If you enter into a relationship viewing it as a trial or temporary phase, then what are the odds of you sticking with it through any sort of difficulty, regardless of whether you’re having porn star sex twelve times a day or not?

 

[on_the_hill]

I think the “test drive the car” allegory (or is it a metaphor?) isn’t exactly equating people to soulless machines. So I think we gotta look past that shorthand (regardless of its being inapt) to get to the real question. When a couple is discerning marriage, and are contemplating all the different aspects of what married life will mean to them as a couple, ought they also not explore the sexual? If they’re exploring household finances, family planning, careers, where to live, favorite upholstery patterns, wouldn’t sex have a place?

I’m just trying to rephrase the question in a more suitable way for discussion.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I think the “test drive the car” allegory (or is it a metaphor?) isn’t exactly equating people to soulless machines. So I think we gotta look past that shorthand (regardless of its being inapt) to get to the real question. When a couple is discerning marriage, and are contemplating all the different aspects of what married life will mean to them as a couple, ought they also not explore the sexual? If they’re exploring household finances, family planning, careers, where to live, favorite upholstery patterns, wouldn’t sex have a place?

I’m just trying to rephrase the question in a more suitable way for discussion.

So what happens when they take a test drive and it’s not satisfactory? Most first experiences aren’t. Do they try again? Then again? How many fornication mulligans should they be given until it’s no longer a sin, or until they have justification to call the whole thing off? And what about unintended pregnancies during their experimental fornication stage? Would abortions be acceptable then, or should birth control be allowed? Because, you know, they’re just dipping their toes in the water so it shouldn’t count, right?

 

[Xantippe]

I think the “test drive the car” allegory (or is it a metaphor?) isn’t exactly equating people to soulless machines. So I think we gotta look past that shorthand (regardless of its being inapt) to get to the real question. When a couple is discerning marriage, and are contemplating all the different aspects of what married life will mean to them as a couple, ought they also not explore the sexual? If they’re exploring household finances, family planning, careers, where to live, favorite upholstery patterns, wouldn’t sex have a place?

I’m just trying to rephrase the question in a more suitable way for discussion.

All too often, they don’t, though. Lots of people get married without thinking of even half of that stuff.

I remember years ago, my husband telling me a funny piece of advice from a rabbi. The rabbi was dealing with a similar question–how can I know what my spouse will be like to be married to if we don’t live together first? The rabbi suggested instead opening a bank account in both your names and each depositing a sizable sum there. The rabbi thought that you’d learn LOTS about your intended by doing that.

It is certainly an interesting fact that couples who are living together generally don’t have mingled finances–I guess some things are much too personal to share…

 

[on_the_hill]

I remember years ago, my husband telling me a funny piece of advice from a rabbi. The rabbi was dealing with a similar question–how can I know what my spouse will be like to be married to if we don’t live together first? The rabbi suggested instead opening a bank account in both your names and each depositing a sizable sum there. The rabbi thought that you’d learn LOTS about your intended by doing that.

That’s brilliant. Best advice I’ve ever seen about that.

It is certainly an interesting fact that couples who are living together generally don’t have mingled finances–I guess some things are much too personal to share…

I know a few married couples who are like that, too.

 

[on_the_hill]

So what happens when they take a test drive and it’s not satisfactory? Most first experiences aren’t. Do they try again? Then again?

I don’t know. I’m just posing the question.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I don’t know. I’m just posing the question.

And I’m saying that if it’s okay to toss out one rule, make one mortal sin okay just because a young couple thinks they should be allowed to sidestep it during a period of discernment, then we may as well toss them all out. And if it’s okay to let engaged couples fornicate, abort and contracept, then married couples, unattached singles, priests and nuns should be allowed to as well. And if those mortal sins are given a pass, then why not all the rest? Don’t like your fiance or new spouse? That’s okay, a little murder never hurt anyone.

 

[EasterJoy]

Here are the main problems with the “test drive” theory, from a secular perspective:

1. Sex becomes a “performance” issue
   a) You are judged by your partner and might be rejected, so you feel insecure
   b) You judge your partner with the idea that you might reject them, which implies you are in it to look after yourself and believe that rating your partner is what a lover ought to do.
2. Performance usually changes over a lifetime, but the attitude that “incompatibility” is something you can’t get beyond as a couple lives on.
   a) you can’t be sure your partner won’t reject you even after marriage, if you “performance” drops or if you lose your ability to “perform.”
   b) even after your marriage, you have this habit of rating your partner with the idea that sexual problems are a “deal-breaker.” If he or she doesn’t quite cut it anymore in the “performance” department, then what? It is a conditional love, then: “Keep me sexually satisfied, and I’ll love you. Fail and–no offense of course, we’ll still be friends–but I’m out of here.”
3. Let us say that you don’t find someone who is “compatible” the first time. Presumably, this is someone that you loved, right? OK, so now you marry and you have this great friend that used to be your lover, you have a sexual history with them, and they’re out there somewhere. Whenever this person resurfaces in your life, it is a HUGE source of insecurity for your eventual spouse.
4. Let us say that you achieve a pregnancy the first time, only to realize you aren’t “compatible.” OK–now what? You parent together but aren’t spouses, with all the issues that will put onto the life of your future spouse and other children? One of you parents alone, so your child has a living parent out there who has chosen not to be in his or her life?

Let us be blunt: 99.9% of the time, “test drive” sex is not open to life. It is not unitive because it is predicated on the idea that a failure to “perform,” either individually or as a couple, will result in dissolution of the union. It is an exercise in fear, the fear that marriage won’t give you enough, that you’ll be committed to someone who doesn’t give you not just marital relations, but the kind of marital relations you imagine you ought to have, and so on.

 

[Xantippe]

Here are the main problems with the “test drive” theory, from a secular perspective:

1. Sex becomes a “performance” issue
   a) You are judged by your partner and might be rejected, so you feel insecure
   b) You judge your partner with the idea that you might reject them, which implies you are in it to look after yourself and believe that rating your partner is what a lover ought to do.
2. Performance usually changes over a lifetime, but the attitude that “incompatibility” is something you can’t get beyond as a couple lives on.
   a) you can’t be sure your partner won’t reject you even after marriage, if you “performance” drops or if you lose your ability to “perform.”
   b) even after your marriage, you have this habit of rating your partner with the idea that sexual problems are a “deal-breaker.” If he or she doesn’t quite cut it anymore in the “performance” department, then what? It is a conditional love, then: “Keep me sexually satisfied, and I’ll love you. Fail and–no offense of course, we’ll still be friends–but I’m out of here.”
3. Let us say that you don’t find someone who is “compatible” the first time. Presumably, this is someone that you loved, right? OK, so now you marry and you have this great friend that used to be your lover, you have a sexual history with them, and they’re out there somewhere. Whenever this person resurfaces in your life, it is a HUGE source of insecurity for your eventual spouse.
4. Let us say that you achieve a pregnancy the first time, only to realize you aren’t “compatible.” OK–now what? You parent together but aren’t spouses, with all the issues that will put onto the life of your future spouse and other children? One of you parents alone, so your child has a living parent out there who has chosen not to be in his or her life?

Let us be blunt: 99.9% of the time, “test drive” sex is not open to life. It is not unitive because it is predicated on the idea that a failure to “perform,” either individually or as a couple, will result in dissolution of the union. It is an exercise in fear, the fear that marriage won’t give you enough, that you’ll be committed to someone who doesn’t give you not just marital relations, but the kind of marital relations you imagine you ought to have, and so on.

And what if it turns out that the level of sexual effort that the person put out (so to speak) before marriage isn’t matched by their level of effort during marriage? It’s easy to feel that one has been scammed, even if a drop-off in activity is entirely natural thanks to such things as employment, sleep, new parenthood, grief, health problems, aging, etc.

If one hasn’t had sex before marriage, one isn’t going to feel conned by the fact that certain activities are suddenly happening either never or much less frequently.

 

[Peter_Plato]

1. People typically consent to sex, so there is no issue of being used

This doesn’t follow because both people could mutually agree to “use” each other because they share a similar shallow view of human nature / morality.

Prostitution is a case in point where there is consent from both parties and both parties are clearly just using each other. It IS an issue.