Siren wrote:I was never the one who initially reffered to it as "test drive". I only repeated it as it was a convient and quick way to explain the idea of having sex before marriage not being the most horrible thing in the world. I don't feel its a "test drive" at all. I've just been trying to keep this whole discussion toned down due to the board its on. And if that metaphor works, then so be it.
I realize you weren't the first one who referred to it as a test drive. Actually, I think the misunderstanding is that I wasn't initially directing anything at you. I was addressing the subject of "test drive" sex. And, no, it's not the most horrible thing in the world. It's just not conducive to finding a partner that will truly love you for better or for worse. I've merely been trying to point out the negative affects it can have for people who are (as most are) trying to find one person to spend their life with. And, no, that doesn't mean I'm against getting remarried if your partner dies, but most people get married hoping they will never end up having to get a divorce, and that's more what I was driving at. Divorces aren't the result of "falling out of love," the excuse so many people give. Divorces are the result of marrying the wrong person for the wrong reasons: Lust, infatuation, security, mistaking some other feeling for love. And, no, I'm not implying that there is some specially created soul-mate out there for everyone. But, to use a word you brought up, there are those you are compatible with, and those you are not, but a lasting choice relies more on personality compatibilities than activity capabilities. If you can't rely on your partner to stick around if you suddenly can't do a certain activity anymore, that doesn't sound like a very loving relationship.
Siren wrote: And I wasn't talking about bad sex because someone isn't experienced enough. There is bad sex and then there is inexperienced sex. I think that is where our misunderstanding comes from. Bad sex can mean any number of things. It could mean they like having sex in ways I don't agree with. For instance, some people like pain and pleasure, some like just pleasure. Being with someone who has a different sexual agenda and fantasies that go beyond what you feel you would want to do is bad sex, IMO.
Actually, all the things you describe as bad sex could and should easily be found out before any sexual activity at all takes place. I fully encourage talking about sex with someone you're in a developing relationship with, and you really should find out if they're into things you're not into before even having sex. This just doesn't support a need for premarital sex, or a "test drive," or whatever anyone wants to call it. It's not difficult to ask someone you're involved with if they're into anything "kinky," and it certainly would be less awkward BEFORE you're in the bedroom. Things like that definitely need to be discussed verbally, not left for an unpleasant surprise.
Siren wrote: Inexperienced sex is just that. Someone who doesn't know what to do. They just lay there or are clumsy. That is where communication comes in handy. People can get better at it with the helpful hands of their partner. But its not bad sex at all, because with time, it can easily get better.
I agree with you on this, but people seem to commonly be referring to inexperienced sex when talking about "bad sex," so I just drew the most common conclusion. It's just that communication is even more important with the version of "bad sex" you described above, because you certainly wouldn't want to find out you were with a psycho AFTER you were in a compromising position.
I was being facetious, Mr. Literal.
