My place doesn't have any locks other than on the outer doors.

And yes, the abstinence 'til marriage thing is outdated. It actually has always been outdated. People are finally loosening up and realizing it's a normal part of being in a relationship in larger numbers. Not that it wasn't unwise to end up in the little situation the OP ended up in, but having a sexual relationship with someone you're involved with is quite normal. That's not a degradation, that's an advancement in society. The uptight ones are finally becoming the minority. Thank god for healthy sex lives actually being the norm these days. Why buy a car before you test drive it?

79 - "Why buy a car before you test drive it?" Marriage/relationships aren't all about sex, which is what you're implying with that metaphor (the entire point of a car is to drive it). It's not an advancement in society to lose the intimacy and importance that comes with sex. Having it become more and more normal for younger and younger people has led to increases in teen pregnancy and STDs (although that's mostly because irresponsible people don't use birth control). But mostly what makes me sad is the loss of sex as the ultimate culmination of a relationship. Like I said before, it's just so much more special if you wait for the person that you are totally emotionally committed to before you commit yourself physically.

#80: I made no such implication. I'm sorry you do not understand the analogy. The analogy could relegate the sex life as one little nagging feature that drives you crazy about the whole experience of driving the car; say, perhaps, the seat just doesn't conform to the way your body can comfortably hold a position, or you prefer RWD to FWD, despite everything else about the car performing the way you want it to. It's turning a blind eye to reality to try and pretend that sex is NOT a part of a relationship. Relationships are complicated and multi-faceted. It's stupid to ignore one very important facet of it and just hope it works out. Why gamble on a roll of the dice for something as important as who you're choosing to marry? Finding out you can't have a satisfying sexual relationship in conjunction with an emotional and platonic relationship can really cause a hit in the intimacy department of your relationship. I find it incredibly shallow to think that sex is the ultimate culmination of a relationship. I think the ultimate culmination of a romantic relationship is the complete development of trust and faith you develop in your counterpart. That's where the real challenges in making a relationship work are.

# 53 I second reason one and three but number two depends on how much privacy your family gives each other. My mother never knocks and I've gotten walked in on by step dad (although he made sure to knock after lol!) in my room getting changed. When I stay over at my grandmas condo she not only will come in and go to the bathroom while I'm taking a shower but will rearrange things and such! When she comes over my house she will leave the door open while she goes to the bathroom. So my grandmother wouldn't knocked. But then again I wouldn't be having sex with the door unlocked in any position!

81 - Sorry about the culmination comment. What I meant to say was that sex is the ultimate physical culmination of a relationship, and I think that it should only come after the emotional culmination, i.e. you should only commit yourself physically when you are ready to commit yourself emotionally. Since sex is the ultimate physical commitment it should only come when you really and genuinely love someone else and can see yourself with them for the rest of your life. When you really can visualize that, then I think it would be okay. It's no "gamble of the dice" to stay abstinent until marriage. If you really love someone it only makes sense that sex with them would be satisfying, since sex is, in essence, about a relationship and so half the enjoyment is mental (no, seriously). I know plenty of couples who waited until marriage, and they are completely happy - my entire family, actually. My parents waited. Their marriage has been amazing for 25 years. I've seen them fight once in my entire life. There are many, many more examples I could give, but you get the point. Having sex in high school, even college, makes no sense to me. Your brain isn't even fully developed until around age 21. I don't understand how you don't think it's a loss of intimacy and importance (of sex) when it's become "normal" to do it a few short years after hitting puberty, with a guy that you will probably not end up with. I don't see why it's so hard to wait until you're older.

You're an idiot. And you were clearly dishonest with your grandmother, too. Do you feel good about lying to elderly people who love you? I wouldn't...

#84: There's more to sex than just emotion. In fact, emotions are stirred by sex itself, both positive and negative. You're right that half of sex is mental. That other half is pretty damned important. You can be quite in love with someone, but if you can't line up physically (and the only way to find out is the hard way), you're going to withdraw into a platonic relationship because you will slowly feel like the intimacy is missing from the relationship. On a more personal note, it doesn't sound like you have much room to lecture me on what makes sex satisfying. I've dated a lot. I've had strong relationships, I've had weak relationships, and sex *always* introduces a new dynamic when you become physical. The last thing I want is to get married to someone and wait to find out the hard way how that new dynamic is going to affect our relationship. Like I said, I don't want to put such a huge decision to a roll of the dice, and no one should. I can very obviously see that you lack a lot of understanding in sexual issues, so I don't know why you bring in "I don't understand why someone would...". The logic of saying "sex is the ultimate physical culmination, therefore you should share it with someone you've established yourself emotionally with" is arbitrary. Why wouldn't it be the other way around? Why would you put the physical, easy part on the pedestal instead of the significant stuff that actually makes the relationship? Why does that make more sense than saying "a complete trust in your partner is the ultimate emotional culmination, so you should only share it with someone you have established yourself physically with"? Arriving at the conclusion that sex should be saved as being special requires that you start with the assumption that sex should be saved as being special. Circular logic is bad logic. Your logic is circular logic. Sex isn't important because it's sex. It isn't sacred in itself. Sex isn't important because you put in on a pedestal and never do it and make some moral issue of it. Sex is important because of the relationship. You're doing it backwards.

86 - Wow. Way to judge. Just because I think that sex is really important does not mean that I don't understand sexual issues. Just because I believe that sex is mainly about a strong relationship does not mean I am "doing it backwards". My logic isn't circular. My statement that "you should commit yourself physically only when you are ready to commit yourself emotionally" can't be used backwards because in a relationship emotions almost always come before physicality, i.e. which relationship is more likely to work out - a girl and a guy date for a while, care for each other, then get physical, or a girl and a guy hook up before establishing a relationship? Obviously that was a sort of extreme example but you get the point. Yeah, being physical with your significant other is important. But there are ways to be physical and learn to understand each other's body without having sex. The point is that sex used to be highly respected, and so when people finally engaged in it, it was so much more special and increased intimacy so much. There's something romantic about being each other's first - it's another experience that you go through together, and you take that plunge because you love them. Nowadays, sex for many people is trivialized (obviously this doesn't apply all the time - but I mean that it lacks the significance it used to hold, to the point that often it means very little). Especially in younger relationships, it's often used as a substitute for emotional needs, a coping mechanism of sorts. I remember reading a quote about some woman's sex experiences somewhere ... it was like "What if I did share with you, and then found out I didn’t love you. So then I met somebody else and had deep feelings for them too, and so then I shared with them. And then I met somebody else and I just kept on sharing and sharing and sharing”. So much that it doesn't become as important anymore. It just shows the emotional desensitization of reoccurring sex without real intimacy and commitment. You didn't respond to the second and third parts of my other post? Everyone in my family has waited for marriage to have sex. And they all have wonderful relationships, and most importantly, they all tell me how grateful they were that they waited. Like it or not, when you sleep with someone you form some kind of emotional connection to them. And waiting to share that tie with only the person that you truly are in love with is so amazing. Your brain isn't even fully developed until around age 21. How is it not a loss of intimacy and importance (of sex) when it's become "normal" to do it a few short years after hitting puberty, with a guy that you will probably not end up with?

#6 got it, ROFLOL That wasn't so bad, you got sex didn't you? =D