NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think it is morally acceptable? If not, what's wrong with it, assuming consent and legal age and proper protection and all? If not, is foreplay okay? And please don't tell me anything "must be true" because "the Bible says so" because you have no evidence it's always right.

This has been done one too many times...

yeh, its aight!

I see nothing wrong with it. People must learn to deal with the consequences of things though, so if they 'do it', they should be prepared for all the things that come with it.

Though i think that if someone were morally opposed to it, foreplay should also be ruled about, because i dont see that much difference between simulating sex and having it, it all involves the same morals.

Well...I can't really say anything you'd want to hear. My opinion is what the bible says.

Research shows (don't ask me for specific sites, reports, etc. This is mostly hearsay, but I know it's mostly true) that relationships involving premarital sex usually don't work out. Some do, most don't.

Partners who saved themselves are some high percent more saticfied that those who didn't.

And, if you do it now, what's to look forward to when you get married?

As for foreplay...that depends on the first point. Foreplay usually leads to sex. You say, just a little more, just a little farther, and suddenly, you're pregnant or getting a girl pregnant. If you can control yourself, i don't see a problem, but if you don't want to have premarital sex, try to avoid foreplay...

If you're a guy, i recommend the book "Every Young Man's Battle"
It's based on the Bible, though, and you seem to hate that, so I don't know.

If you're a girl, well, I'm sure there are books out there. I hope you choose one with a Christian theme, but I suppose that's not very likely, eh?

A question which will undboutedly get many "the bible says so" no matter that you tried to keep that sort of answer out. :roll:

In my opinion, yes, sex outside of marriage is totally acceptable. I think it's foolish to believe most poeple will wait until they're past twenty before having their first sexual experience.

Not so long ago, boys got married as early as 16, and girls even younger(sometimes even at 14). Their parents were just dying for an excuse to get rid of another mouth to feed on the farm, and so they married them and sent them on their merry way as early as they could. Now, I can understand that then it was customary to wait until you were married to have sex, since the marrying age overlapped the usual period of a person's life where they develop their sexual maturity.

Today, however, poeple usually don't get married until much later in their lives. Most of my friends planning to marry usually say "Not until I graduated and finished my studies". Now, for someone wanting to have a doctorate, it can sometimes last until they're almost thirty! Waiting until they're married to have their first sexual relations would make them lose the period of their life in which they're in their sexual prime.It just doesn't make sense.

Now, after having said that, I feel that I must point out that accepting to have sex before marriage doesn't mean you SHOULD start fooling around with every male/female you see as soon as possible. I waited until I was almost 19 before I had my first experience, and never regretted it. I think the most important thing is that you use your sexuality to express your love and tenderness for someone you love.

Having sex with a loved one,in a long-term, serious, loving relationship is pretty much the same as waiting until you're married. I strongly encourage those in such a position not to waste precious years of their lives only because they're told it's a sin and how wrong it is. Loving and using sexuality as a tool(out of many) to show and share love and caring can never be wrong and/or sinful. Those who say otherwise are just idiots.

Not for me. I have higher standards than that. I actually value my Morals. All that on top of the standards my religion expects me to live up to.

People have been having sex long before our traditional value of marriage came into play.

Friggin Christians.

I see nothing wrong with it. People must learn to deal with the consequences of things though, so if they 'do it', they should be prepared for all the things that come with it.

Yeah, if you choose too try it, be prepared for the consequences. Oh, and if you're a girl, and you get pregnant, pleeeeeeeeeaaaaase don't get an abortion. Not going to argue it now, but that's just wrong, no question...

Anyway, yeah...accept the consequences (including a baby) if you choose to. If you choose not to, way to go! Go against the flow, stand up for your principles, etc.!

Not for me. I have higher standards than that. I actually value my Morals. All that on top of the standards my religion expects me to live up to.

Told you you'd get "bible says so". :roll:

Well...I can't really say anything you'd want to hear. My opinion is what the bible says.

Research shows (don't ask me for specific sites, reports, etc. This is mostly hearsay, but I know it's mostly true) that relationships involving premarital sex usually don't work out. Some do, most don't.

Partners who saved themselves are some high percent more saticfied that those who didn't.

And, if you do it now, what's to look forward to when you get married?

As for foreplay...that depends on the first point. Foreplay usually leads to sex. You say, just a little more, just a little farther, and suddenly, you're pregnant or getting a girl pregnant. If you can control yourself, i don't see a problem, but if you don't want to have premarital sex, try to avoid foreplay...

If you're a guy, i recommend the book "Every Young Man's Battle"
It's based on the Bible, though, and you seem to hate that, so I don't know.

If you're a girl, well, I'm sure there are books out there. I hope you choose one with a Christian theme, but I suppose that's not very likely, eh?

Maybe people who don't have sex before marriage because of religion stay married because of religion, because they are brought up in a climate extremely opposed to it.

Im not saying i want to grow up and get divorced, but the fact is that it is better than staying in a shitty/abusive/depressing relationship for the rest of ones life.

Well...I can't really say anything you'd want to hear. My opinion is what the bible says.

Research shows (don't ask me for specific sites, reports, etc. This is mostly hearsay, but I know it's mostly true) that relationships involving premarital sex usually don't work out. Some do, most don't.

Partners who saved themselves are some high percent more saticfied that those who didn't.

And, if you do it now, what's to look forward to when you get married?

As for foreplay...that depends on the first point. Foreplay usually leads to sex. You say, just a little more, just a little farther, and suddenly, you're pregnant or getting a girl pregnant. If you can control yourself, i don't see a problem, but if you don't want to have premarital sex, try to avoid foreplay...

If you're a guy, i recommend the book "Every Young Man's Battle"
It's based on the Bible, though, and you seem to hate that, so I don't know.

If you're a girl, well, I'm sure there are books out there. I hope you choose one with a Christian theme, but I suppose that's not very likely, eh?

Maybe people who don't have sex before marriage because of religion stay married because of religion, because they are brought up in a climate extremely opposed to it.

Im not saying i want to grow up and get divorced, but the fact is that it is better than staying in a shitty/abusive/depressing relationship for the rest of ones life.

Anyway, yeah...accept the consequences (including a baby) if you choose to. If you choose not to, way to go! Go against the flow, stand up for your principles, etc.!

Perhaps it should be said in addition to my last post, that all I said was implying the partners were practising safe sex. Remember boys, always wrap it up! :wink:

However, it might be said that it's perfectly acceptable for the girl to fall pregnant if both partners want children, even though they're not married.
Wheter or not they intend to. The only point I want to stress is that children should not appear "unwanted". I.E. if you don't want children or are not prepared to care for them, then don't take any chances. There's nothing sadder than an unwanted, uncared-for child.

Not for me. I have higher standards than that. I actually value my Morals. All that on top of the standards my religion expects me to live up to.

Told you you'd get "bible says so". :roll:I never said "bible says so." My prophet told me so :P And THAT source is clear and absolute, not up to "interpetetation" like the bible.

Sex before marriage - this is too broad. There's a difference between having sex with everyone you meet, and having sexual relations when you meet someone you could spend your entire life with. For those mature individuals that can, a) take precautions against things like pregnancies and STDs, b) take responsibility for whatever may result, and c) realize just how large of a decision that this is. If they can do all of this, and still want it so badly...well, I'm not gonna try to stop them.

In my opinion sexual acts of any kind are up to the individuals participating in said acts. That said, I do think that a mutual sense of comittment, respect, trust, and love would be something that would make the act more meaningful and ultimately more enjoyable at least as far as I see it. That's what I myself have chosen to hold out for but all in all it is an individual choice. Biblical people were having sex before marriage long before christ and after. It was customary for some couples to live together while engaged. ( It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure what MAY have occured between them)

In my opinion sexual acts of any kind are up to the individuals participating in said acts. That said, I do think that a mutual sense of comittment, respect, trust, and love would be something that would make the act more meaningful and ultimately more enjoyable at least as far as I see it. That's what I myself have chosen to hold out for but all in all it is an individual choice. Biblical people were having sex before marriage long before christ and after. It was customary for some couples to live together while engaged. ( It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure what MAY have occured between them)

Sex before marriage - this is too broad. There's a difference between having sex with everyone you meet, and having sexual relations when you meet someone you could spend your entire life with. For those mature individuals that can, a) take precautions against things like pregnancies and STDs, b) take responsibility for whatever may result, and c) realize just how large of a decision that this is. If they can do all of this, and still want it so badly...well, I'm not gonna try to stop them.

I see no reason to not have premarital sex. Have fun and use protection. :wink:

Im not saying i want to grow up and get divorced, but the fact is that it is better than staying in a shitty/abusive/depressing relationship for the rest of ones life.

I wholeheartedly agree. Strangely enough I can think of nothing more traumatizing than how our house would have felt if my parents had stayed together after it was clear that it would result in shouting matches/namecalling/suicide/murder. Not necessarily in that order :-P

I'd have grown up messed up having to live in such an environment. So I rather prefer that they had a rational, reasonable adult approach about it and ended the relationship. At least that way both my parents are still alive and well.

Of course we all start a relationship with the best intentions and projects, but sometimes it just cannot go as we wish it would. We all want to find true love, but sometimes we can get mistaken because of what we want to see. When that happens, well, that doesn't mean the partners don't love each other, but if it's not going to work out, being sad and unhappy your entire life, feeling you're living a lie for the sake of appearances (and religion) just isn't worth it.

I never said "bible says so." My prophet told me so :P And THAT source is clear and absolute, not up to "interpetetation" like the bible.

And who might your so-called prophet be? Where and when did he get his epiphany? I'd like to see some credentials, if you please :-P

It is fine so long as both parties are consenting and either both legal age of majority or are underage. If there is a problem with this, both parties should then only be oen or two years apart. Well, that's just my opinion on the matter.

I believe that sex should be an expression of love between two people, which means that I don't necessarily agree morally with one-night stands or promiscuity. Sex should be entered into only after both parties reveal their entire (or lack of) sexual history and both parties agree on what to do in case of pregnancy, what birth control to use (if they are not trying to have a child), etc.

That being true, people can be in love and not be married yet, so I have no objection to living together, etc. before marriage. In fact, I believe that in an age where marriage has become trivialized and many people see divorce as an easy out and go for it at the first sign of trouble, I think people owe it to themselves and each other to be sure that they are completely compatible with each other before actually getting married. They are then less likely to have a flippant divorce. (Please do not view this as me being against all divorce, my parents are divorced and it was one of the best things to ever happen to my family).

To the person who said people who wait until marriage have longer, happier marriages - that is generally untrue. Many get married waaaay too soon because they want to have sex and end up finding that they are not really compatible. Even if the marriage does last, it is not necessarily a happy one. The building block of a lasting marriage is two people who are truly compatible and love each other dearly. And I don't feel the need to actually cite any sources - your assertion was based on anecdotal evidence at best so I guess that's fine for me too.

It is fine so long as both parties are consenting and either both legal age of majority or are underage. If there is a problem with this, both parties should then only be oen or two years apart. Well, that's just my opinion on the matter.

As long as both parties are consenting and either legal or within reasonble differences. :wink:

I mean if a 14 year old and a 18 year old do stuff that's not so bad, but it's illegal.

As long as both parties are consenting and either legal or within reasonble differences. :wink:

I mean if a 14 year old and a 18 year old do stuff that's not so bad, but it's illegal.

Well gauging age differences for what is "acceptable" or not has always been very hard. It also depends on the maturity level of both participants.

I'd be a lot more tolerant to a 14-18 pair who uses condoms and are romantically involved than a 14-18 pair who had an unprotected one-night stand, for example.

Hey Christians,
The Druids were around LONG before your butts, and the Druids believed that sex was something sacred, but in the sense that the more you had the better. Granted, not as many STDs were around in the Anglo-Saxon times (until the Romans came around...damn Christians), but the Druids and Pagans always figured that fertility was a wonderful thing, and they'd rather marry a woman swollen with child than a barren virgin.

Nowadays, sex is okay before marriage so long as you're responsible about it and if the guy (or girl) you might have a child with you could stand for the rest of your life. As it is written, "Do you not know that two people become one flesh through Christ? Should one unite himself with a prostitute? Never!" This DOES NOT MEAN the two of you come together in sexual love, it means pregnancy, morons! So many people don't realize that. So therefore, Corinthians say if you don't wanna have to deal with a prostitute having your kid, don't bother.

End of lesson.

. In fact, I believe that in an age where marriage has become trivialized and many people see divorce as an easy out and go for it at the first sign of trouble, I think people owe it to themselves and each other to be sure that they are completely compatible with each other before actually getting married. They are then less likely to have a flippant divorce. (Please do not view this as me being against all divorce, my parents are divorced and it was one of the best things to ever happen to my family).


Agreed. On the question of morality, there is no doubt in my mind which, between a long-lasting, romantic relationship of two unmarried partners and a quickie marriage à la Hollywood followed by a divorce 72 hours or a few days later, is more morally acceptable.

Marriage doesn't necessarily equals morality, and unmarried doesn't necessarily equals immorality.

Research shows (don't ask me for specific sites, reports, etc. This is mostly hearsay, but I know it's mostly true) that relationships involving premarital sex usually don't work out. Some do, most don't.

It's also important to remember that the vast majority of relationships don't work out. Most people don't marry their first boy-/girlfriend; I think it's reasonable to suppose that the average person has at least two or three relationships prior to getting married -- if we assume that number to be 3, 75% of all relationships fail; if we assume it to be 2, 66% of all relationships fail. So any statistic like that is likely to be skewed. I don't know how the study conducted their research, but that's my first take on things. Did they mean marriages or relationships in general?

FARK linked a study a few weeks ago that said teens who pledge abstinence actually have a higher STD rate than teens who don't and that teenage pregnancy rates aren't significantly affected. Why? While teens who pledge to abstain until marriage are less likely to have sex, they are also far less likely to be prepared or have any sort of protection when they do so than teens who don't vow to abstain. I'll see if I can find the link again if enough people are interested.

To me, sex seems like a rather important aspect of oneself. Is it really sensible to agree to a lifelong contract with someone when neither of you even knows just what it is you're agreeing to? Some people argue that you can "grow together," but that argument eventually ends up at the obviously undesirable conclusion of having married toddlers.

. I'll see if I can find the link again if enough people are interested.


I'm interested indeed.


To me, sex seems like a rather important aspect of oneself. Is it really sensible to agree to a lifelong contract with someone when neither of you even knows just what it is you're agreeing to? Some people argue that you can "grow together," but that argument eventually ends up at the obviously undesirable conclusion of having married toddlers.

Let's not forget that sex life is an important part of marriage. How many divorces or "couple therapy" have been cause by a decrease or disappearance of sexual life between married partners? I don't have any statistics, but I'd assume it's a significant factor. And it is my personnal experience that a satisfying sex life with your spouse/commited partner greatly lessens if not outright negates the need or desire to have sex outside of your couple.

Maybe people who don't have sex before marriage because of religion stay married because of religion, because they are brought up in a climate extremely opposed to it.

Im not saying i want to grow up and get divorced, but the fact is that it is better than staying in a shitty/abusive/depressing relationship for the rest of ones life.

FYI: not all people who don't have sex before getting married stay 2 gether infact my parents didn't have sex before due to religious reasons and they still got a divorce no matter how much their religion spoke against it.

And anyway why have sex before because do you honestly deep down want to marry someone who has sex before you came along because then technically you wil be "doing it" with everyone they had sex with and everyone they had sex with and everyone they had sex with etc.

Why do something with someone else that you would not want doing with your future spouse?

And I know that you don't want any "Because the bible says so" answers but oh well get over it....

There is nothing wrong with sex. Sex is a wonderful gift that God gave to us but in the confines of marriage. Your virginity is the ONE GIFT you give to ONE PERSON for ONE LIFETIME.

You can't get it back. So why ruin it?

I can't find the site that actually got linked on FARK, but here's a few sites on the matter...

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/nation/8150318.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/parenting/03/09/abstinence.study.ap/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1166168,00.html
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/archives/newsrelease3205.html

Hrm. These seem to be giving slightly different results than the site I saw before. Still interesting and worth reading, I'd say.

Let's not forget that sex life is an important part of marriage. How many divorces or "couple therapy" have been cause by a decrease or disappearance of sexual life between married partners? I don't have any statistics, but I'd assume it's a significant factor. And it is my personnal experience that a satisfying sex life with your spouse/commited partner greatly lessens if not outright negates the need or desire to have sex outside of your couple.

I pretty much agree with you on that point. I suppose it might be interesting to try and figure out if the drop in sex is the cause of the problem or a symptom of it -- although I'm sure it doesn't uniformly fit into either in every case.

I can understand the mentality of both sides on this issue. Kinda makes it harder to make concrete points. I have a feeling that I won't marry as a virgin, but I'll probably wait until awhile into a relationship to... yeah...

And anyway why have sex before because do you honestly deep down want to marry someone who has sex before you came along because then technically you wil be "doing it" with everyone they had sex with and everyone they had sex with and everyone they had sex with etc.


That's an awfully simplistic way to see it, in my opinion. Are you saying you would not marry the man/woman you love if s/he wasn't a virgin? Just because you'd feel icky that that person had sex with someone else before you came along?


There is nothing wrong with sex. Sex is a wonderful gift that God gave to us but in the confines of marriage.


With this I disagree, because you have to take into account that a) not everyone believes in God and b) even some of those who believe in God do not think it is customary to have their relationship blessed by an earthly reprentative of God(read : A Church)


Your virginity is the ONE GIFT you give to ONE PERSON for ONE LIFETIME.
You can't get it back. So why ruin it?

THAT I agree with, though. I think it's a sad and stupid gesture to give up your virginity for the sake of having sex(in a one-night stand, with a "f***-friend for example). However, having your first sexual experience with someone you love, whether you are married or not, is a wonderful thing. Virginity is a one-time only deal, so you might as well offer it to someone you genuinely care about instead of the first beautiful man/woman you meet.

I have a feeling that I won't marry as a virgin, but I'll probably wait until awhile into a relationship to... yeah...

I do encourage you in this path. I know it worked for me. The most important thing to remember is that making love(I find having sex too cold an expression) should mean something special to you and your partner. If you're just dating for the sake of dating and don't feel anything for the other, then hold back and wait. When you're in love and reasonably comfortable with expressing it in a physical way to your partner, go for it, it'll that much more meaningful.

Well, considering that I am a christian, I would naturally be against sex-before-marrage.

Considering that you are closed to christian beliefs, im not going to force you to listen to what I have to say. Im not one of those people who do that.

Look, I believe its up to you. But I believe in what the bible teaches, hence, Im trying to wait until im married before having sex.

Research shows (don't ask me for specific sites, reports, etc. This is mostly hearsay, but I know it's mostly true) that relationships involving premarital sex usually don't work out. Some do, most don't.

It's also important to remember that the vast majority of relationships don't work out. Most people don't marry their first boy-/girlfriend; I think it's reasonable to suppose that the average person has at least two or three relationships prior to getting married -- if we assume that number to be 3, 75% of all relationships fail; if we assume it to be 2, 66% of all relationships fail. So any statistic like that is likely to be skewed. I don't know how the study conducted their research, but that's my first take on things. Did they mean marriages or relationships in general?


How are you defining "relationship" - do you mean mature, long-lasting sexual relationships? Because with any looser of a definition, I'd say you haven't talked to anyone under 20 since you were that age - and that's assuming you're REALLY old. Even without counting the drama-flick "going out" stuff that middle schoolers tend to do, people definitely have more than 3 honest, loving romantic relationships before marriage. I mean, my best friend is 14 as of yesterday and he has been going out with his girlfriend for almost five months. That's certainly unusual for a 7th- and 8th-grader, but my point is, honest-to-god relationships start happening damn early.

Oh, and speaking of my friend... I think it's hilarious that their 6-month anniversary is May 1st. Aka Beltane. The sex holiday for the ancient Celts. (yes I know that's oversimplifying, but you get why it's so funny)

There is nothing wrong with sex. Sex is a wonderful gift that God gave to us but in the confines of marriage. Your virginity is the ONE GIFT you give to ONE PERSON for ONE LIFETIME.

You can't get it back. So why ruin it?

Virginity is a pointless concept. Someone who's messed around a bit might not be boring the first time you're with them. Two virgins just compounds the problem.

Pre-marital sex is fine and dandy by my standards, but if a guy gets a girl pregnant, he should do the right thing and marry her. Or at least pay for the abortion.

As for moral reasoning, I could honestly care less what two people do without my knowlege behind closed doors. As for myself... I'd say I don't need sex, but it is more fun and emotionally satisfying than masterbation.

As for bibles and prophets and such... as long as the people who believe in that stuff aren't making the laws, I could care less what they believe.

Virginity? A concept in a society. Can someone be medically a virgin? No, they just have signs to suggest if they are or not. Nothing more.

fuck like bunnies if you want to-i mean, why not? only thing is you have to be prepared for any of the consequences you might get, like a kid or an std. (babies can be taken care of before they're even babies, which is great, but it's no reason to be irresponsible. ) the safe way to go? condoms and the pill!

I never said "bible says so." My prophet told me so :P And THAT source is clear and absolute, not up to "interpetetation" like the bible.


oh well then, that makes it all the more convincing dosnt it?

I figure sure, sex is fine. After all, sex is natural; marriage is not. Sex was meant to be done, married or not. But waiting until marriage has it's advantages; you don't have to worry about STDs or unwanted pregnancy, you can get it any time you want:wink:, and you develop a higher sense of resposibility. However, if you marry just for sex, you have a disadvantage; what if you don't enjoy it? What if it gets old after a while (which it almost always does)?

Morally acceptable? My definition of that term is that as long as both partners are willing and know what they're getting into, then it's acceptable. And if marriage is what you're planning, then I would say that premarital sex is a pretty good idea, and I say this after having been a virgin when I married, and as a person in a 3+ year sexual, but not marital, relationship currently.

I see marriage as merely a confirmation of a bond that already exists, simply making the situation "official."
Myself, I would have sex only if both I and the female felt it we were ready for that stage of the relationship.

Sex is only morally correct when two people are willing to take full responsibility for all consequences of having sex. This includes pregnancy and the raising of children, as well as dealing with any emotional responses brought out in your partner.

First off, asking if it is moral or not is really not the best way to get this thing going. The religious people are going to say no because God said so. That leaves us with those who really WANT to have sex ASAP, so they say it's okay so they won't feel so bad. Interestingly enough, I find it far more interesting to ask if it is SMART or not. Not moral or immoral, but good idea or bad idea. Personally, I think it's a bad idea. In fact, it's downright stupid. Let us begin. First of all, let's define sex. There are four kinds: vaginal, anal, oral, and hand to genital. Assume that all of these count as sex, mainly because they are all sexual activites. Now when you think of sex and consequences, what do you think of? Pregnancy, right? So let's think. How many days in a month can a girl get pregnant? About three. How many days a month can a guy get a girl pregnant? Any day of the week. And how many types of sex can cause pregnancy? Just one. Next, when you think protection, you think condoms. 3% of the time, if condoms are used 100% correctly, they fail and a sperm gets through. This is because latex is pourous, meaning on a very small scale, it has holes in it. So you may be thinking, the odds look pretty good. But we have yet to examine STD's. Condom effectiveness against HIV is an 80% risk reduction. Not too bad. Against Ghonorhea (sorry for spelling) 60% risk reduction. Against pretty much everything else, zero risk reduction. That includes the asymptomatic HPV, Human Papalona Virus aka Genital Warts the number one causer of cervical cancer. How many days a month can you get HPV? Any day. How many types of sex can give you an STD? All four. And worst of all, can you tell? No. There is no test for HPV and most STD's are asymptomatic. Sounds fun and smart to me. No.

'TWAS THE PRIDE OF THE SIXTIES!

But wait, there's more! Dare to read on? More physiological fun for ya. If you are a guy, and you are going to sleep with a girl who has slept with two guys before you. Asume each of them has slept with two people before her, and they two before them and so on. You've physiologically slept with every one of those people. And for you guys, you've slept with twice as many guys as girls. Isnt that nice. But there are also emotional consequences. Imagine that you get married to a person but you have been sexually active in the past. Do you think you will forget about that encounter? NO YOU WON'T. So in your mind you'll begin to COMPARE your spouse with your previous lover. How twisted is that? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that if you've had sex then you'll never have a happy marriage with someone else, but why put yourself through all that stinky bad stuff? And think about something else. If you think you are going to be married someday, then you have to think that your future husband or wife is out there right now. They are doing something. Someone is taking them out this weekend. Do you really want them sleeping with that person if they aren't ultimately going to wind up together? Do you really want your spouse thinking about their previous sex life on your honeymoon? Do you really think that when you get married, your wife is going to be so glad that you're experienced? NO! Of course I will again reitterate that this does not rule out a healthy relationship, and it does not stop people from loving each other. It's just a big ol' chunk of stress that can sit and roost on your relationship, causing major issues and pain that can easily be avioded by NOT DOING ANYTHING YET. Destiny is a matter of choice, not chance. So think about where your spouse is tonight, and how glad you are that you're both so open to having sex with other people. Heck, when you're finally married, you can just share your wife with the whole block, right? So, again, moral? Bad question. Stupid? Absolutely.

well, let's see, two consenting adults or near adults wish to pleasure each other or express their love in a physical form, to become as close to another person as one physically can... all outside the constraints of a lifetime commitment. what's wrong with that?

i say absolutely nothing is wrong. i've read stats indicating that those who save themselves marry earlier and as a result tend to divorce more often. those who say they're going to wait and then change their minds usually haven't payed any or much attention in sex ed and thus end up with a higher rate of std's and unwanted pregnancies.

in any case, the most important factor is that this doesn't hurt anyone, and unlike marriage, sex is a natural thing for people to do.

not saying marriage is bad, just saying that it's not exactly natural. good for building families though.

You have to check out the merchandise before you buy it.

You have to check out the merchandise before you buy it.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

You have to check out the merchandise before you buy it.You don't take it out of the box in the store ;)

You have to check out the merchandise before you buy it.Or even before you rent it for a while (assuming that the marriage doesn't last). :lol:

You have to check out the merchandise before you buy it.You don't take it out of the box in the store ;)
You've never worked retail...

You have to check out the merchandise before you buy it.You don't take it out of the box in the store ;)
You've never worked retail...I foresee a quick descent into bad jokes and double entendres. I encourage it wholeheartedly. :lol:

But wait, there's more! Dare to read on? More physiological fun for ya. If you are a guy, and you are going to sleep with a girl who has slept with two guys before you. Asume each of them has slept with two people before her, and they two before them and so on. You've physiologically slept with every one of those people. And for you guys, you've slept with twice as many guys as girls. Isnt that nice. But there are also emotional consequences. Imagine that you get married to a person but you have been sexually active in the past. Do you think you will forget about that encounter? NO YOU WON'T. So in your mind you'll begin to COMPARE your spouse with your previous lover. How twisted is that? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that if you've had sex then you'll never have a happy marriage with someone else, but why put yourself through all that stinky bad stuff? And think about something else. If you think you are going to be married someday, then you have to think that your future husband or wife is out there right now. They are doing something. Someone is taking them out this weekend. Do you really want them sleeping with that person if they aren't ultimately going to wind up together? Do you really want your spouse thinking about their previous sex life on your honeymoon? Do you really think that when you get married, your wife is going to be so glad that you're experienced? NO! Of course I will again reitterate that this does not rule out a healthy relationship, and it does not stop people from loving each other. It's just a big ol' chunk of stress that can sit and roost on your relationship, causing major issues and pain that can easily be avioded by NOT DOING ANYTHING YET. Destiny is a matter of choice, not chance. So think about where your spouse is tonight, and how glad you are that you're both so open to having sex with other people. Heck, when you're finally married, you can just share your wife with the whole block, right? So, again, moral? Bad question. Stupid? Absolutely.

let's see, say you wait until marriage to have sex. and as a girl, your husband lasts less than a minute. he's waited too, neither of you know whether this is an appropriate amount of time, but as a girl, you're unsatisfied with this. i mean, your husband will have had a blast and all. gotten his rocks off and might conk out. the woman lays in bed, awake for a couple more hours. (note: sex is more effective than valium, it's mostly the orgasms that do it though. if the guy gets off and the woman doesn't, he'll likely be out while she's not tired at all) this woman never knows an orgasm. never does she suggest that her husband could do something better. consider another scenario: the husband doesn't enjoy sex with his wife because she just lays there. he's the one to initiate everything. he does all the work, she does nothing. he has an unsatisfactory sex life and is miserable. perhaps a woman will have a really high sex drive and her husband doesn't. perhaps it's the other way around. not wanting to rock the boat so early in the marriage, these people figure things will get better in time.

now consider what coudl happen if these couples had had sex before marriage. perhaps the woman in teh first instance would be like "well, i've heard about this..." (people who wait until marriage are less likely to learn about their bodies, what pleases them as well as alternative methods of reaching orgasm) the man in the second case could suggest that his gf do this or that, and take some initiative. the people with the different levels of sex drives could work on reaching some kind of compromise, rather than having one always put out unwillingly or go without.

while marriage isn't entirely about sex. there is sex involved in marriage. i think it's best to figure out how to be compatible with someone sexually before beginning a life with them.

Sex before marriage, from my vantage point, is impossible. I'm gay, can't get married, so, therefore, technically (morally) I shouldn't have sex at all (which would probably please most Christians out there).

Sex before marriage, from my vantage point, is impossible. I'm gay, can't get married, so, therefore, technically (morally) I shouldn't have sex at all (which would probably please most Christians out there).I'm sure it hasn't stopped you--it sure as hell didn't stop me after my divorce. :lol:

Sex before marriage, from my vantage point, is impossible. I'm gay, can't get married, so, therefore, technically (morally) I shouldn't have sex at all (which would probably please most Christians out there).I'm sure it hasn't stopped you--it sure as hell didn't stop me after my divorce. :lol:

Divorce? How old are you?

Sex before marriage, from my vantage point, is impossible. I'm gay, can't get married, so, therefore, technically (morally) I shouldn't have sex at all (which would probably please most Christians out there).I'm sure it hasn't stopped you--it sure as hell didn't stop me after my divorce. :lol:

Divorce? How old are you?35. I was married at 20 (big mistake), divorced at 27. I've been in a monogamous, live-in relationship with my current girlfriend for 3 1/2 years now, and since we've both been divorced, neither of us is in any hurry to get remarried. Truth is, we couldn't be more married in our minds than we already are.

Sex before marriage, from my vantage point, is impossible. I'm gay, can't get married, so, therefore, technically (morally) I shouldn't have sex at all (which would probably please most Christians out there).I'm sure it hasn't stopped you--it sure as hell didn't stop me after my divorce. :lol:

Divorce? How old are you?35. I was married at 20 (big mistake), divorced at 27. I've been in a monogamous, live-in relationship with my current girlfriend for 3 1/2 years now, and since we've both been divorced, neither of us is in any hurry to get remarried. Truth is, we couldn't be more married in our minds than we already are.

Wow, I thought you were alot younger.

Would anyone buy a car without taking it for a test drive first?

Didn't think so. 8)

Would anyone buy a car without taking it for a test drive first?

Didn't think so. 8)A car isn't a life-long commitment.

Would anyone buy a car without taking it for a test drive first?

Didn't think so. 8)A car isn't a life-long commitment.

How about this. Would you go into a career that you knew absolutely nothing about?

35. I was married at 20 (big mistake), divorced at 27. I've been in a monogamous, live-in relationship with my current girlfriend for 3 1/2 years now, and since we've both been divorced, neither of us is in any hurry to get remarried. Truth is, we couldn't be more married in our minds than we already are.

Wow, I thought you were alot younger.I think I'm flattered. I hope I am, anyway. :lol:

35. I was married at 20 (big mistake), divorced at 27. I've been in a monogamous, live-in relationship with my current girlfriend for 3 1/2 years now, and since we've both been divorced, neither of us is in any hurry to get remarried. Truth is, we couldn't be more married in our minds than we already are.

Wow, I thought you were alot younger.I think I'm flattered. I hope I am, anyway. :lol:

Be flattered. I didn't think you were 35. I assumed you were in your mid-twenties somewhere. Not as young as me, but not that much older, either.

Would anyone buy a car without taking it for a test drive first?

Didn't think so. 8)A car isn't a life-long commitment.

How about this. Would you go into a career that you knew absolutely nothing about?that only supports my position... you work your way up in the career... you don't sleep with the boss to get a management position :P

Would anyone buy a car without taking it for a test drive first?

Didn't think so. 8)A car isn't a life-long commitment.

How about this. Would you go into a career that you knew absolutely nothing about?that only supports my position... you work your way up in the career... you don't sleep with the boss to get a management position :P

Do you know how much managers get paid?! LOL, obviously not a capitalist.

In any case, the more sex the better, provided it's consentual and you use protection. Children before commitment though is a bad idea.

I don't know why is it a problem if, during the first time, the husband goes off after 1 minute. That is natural I guess (poll: has any guy succeeded in doing more than 3 minutes during their first?) The thing is, the woman may be unsatisfied during that time, she may be unsatisfied during the following week, she may even be unsatisfied for a few months. If the relationship is good, they will talk about it, the guy won't be offended because he will understand the girl, and they will try and make the sex better. The woman will try and "not just lay there", so what I'm saying is that sooner or later the sex will improve, and even turn out great.

I am for sex before marriage. I don't have anything against those who wait, but I think they're too afraid, and hide behind religious reasons. The thing is, if two get married and then it turns out they are not good in bed, even after months, then why did they get married in the first place? I mean they must have had some (non-sexual) relationship prior to them being married, they must have talked about sex, discussed their fantasies and worries. If not then both persons are just stupid or immature.

As for those who have sex before marriage - it is a good thing. A loving relationship when you're young is as good as marriage, except there aren't any children involved. The problem is that if you split up you will know how good sex is, and from time to time it will come back and haunt you. The person will have to have sex no matter what, and that's how one-night stands happen. Though that's not that bad either, if both persons want it, cause it will satisfy their needs and they can live on normally without frustration.

And once you get married, and you compare your wife to the earlier girls, and perhaps even want to get some more action - it's up to how much you love the other person, as well as how responsible you are. It's not an "unnecessary stress" - you don't have to think about it if you don't want to. Or if it bothers you talk to your girl/wife/boyfriend/husband, and hope they will understand (or talk in a way you know he/she'll understand). A few months ago I had a chance to sleep with a girl and my girlfriend would have never found it out, but when I realized I was getting too far I suddenly left the girl without turning back. After that I did not feel that I did not do what every man should have done; instead I love my girlfriend even more, and I'm also self-confident knowing that I can have other girls if I wanted, but I'm not going to spoil this relationship that already works so perfectly.

of course it is acceptable
as long as the couple no what they are getting themselfes into.
because sex is grate :D

personally i do not think it is appropriate to get married without having had sex (with each other).

First off, asking if it is moral or not is really not the best way to get this thing going. The religious people are going to say no because God said so. That leaves us with those who really WANT to have sex ASAP, so they say it's okay so they won't feel so bad. Interestingly enough, I find it far more interesting to ask if it is SMART or not. Not moral or immoral, but good idea or bad idea. Personally, I think it's a bad idea. In fact, it's downright stupid. Let us begin. First of all, let's define sex. There are four kinds: vaginal, anal, oral, and hand to genital. Assume that all of these count as sex, mainly because they are all sexual activites. Now when you think of sex and consequences, what do you think of? Pregnancy, right? So let's think. How many days in a month can a girl get pregnant? About three. How many days a month can a guy get a girl pregnant? Any day of the week. And how many types of sex can cause pregnancy? Just one. Next, when you think protection, you think condoms. 3% of the time, if condoms are used 100% correctly, they fail and a sperm gets through. This is because latex is pourous, meaning on a very small scale, it has holes in it. So you may be thinking, the odds look pretty good. But we have yet to examine STD's. Condom effectiveness against HIV is an 80% risk reduction. Not too bad. Against Ghonorhea (sorry for spelling) 60% risk reduction. Against pretty much everything else, zero risk reduction. That includes the asymptomatic HPV, Human Papalona Virus aka Genital Warts the number one causer of cervical cancer. How many days a month can you get HPV? Any day. How many types of sex can give you an STD? All four. And worst of all, can you tell? No. There is no test for HPV and most STD's are asymptomatic. Sounds fun and smart to me. No.

This doesn't address the point. According to what you have said here, no one should *ever* have sex. You think that you are not at risk for getting pregnant or having STDs just because you wait to sleep with the person until you're married? That would only work if (a) there weren't some problems you could have without prior sexual activity (b) *everyone* in the world waited.

Also, it is a small possibility, but you can get pregnant from hand-genital contact if, for instance, a man touches himself and then the woman.

Would anyone buy a car without taking it for a test drive first?

Didn't think so. 8)

All I can say about this and the statement about checking out the merchandise before you buy is that you are basing your ideas of marriage entirely on sex, and that you assume marriage is something that can be thrown out or replaced like a broken car or toaster. I find that sick. No wonder there's a 50% divorce rate in the US, if people really think like that.

To Dakini, what you say is somewhat ridiculous. You seriously think that two people who have never before engaged in sexual activity won't figure it out?! Seriously, you said one thing I agree with, and that is that sex is involved in marriage. This might make all the junior high kids laugh, but a virgin married couple will figure it out through practice. And a strong marriage is not built on sex anyway.

Sex before marriage, from my vantage point, is impossible. I'm gay, can't get married, so, therefore, technically (morally) I shouldn't have sex at all (which would probably please most Christians out there).

Just for claritys sake, you can go to San Francisco or Multnomah County in Oregon to get married, depending on how the recall goes i guess, and also, I think most of the people on this forum have said that they think it's okay to have sex outside of marriage. Lastly, when you mention "gay" and "Christians" in that close proximity to each other, it brings up a lot of negative stereotypes about Christians, of which I am one. Just so you know, Christians don't hate gays and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a hypocrit (i could never spell that word, did i do it right?). The thing is that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, and it also says that all people are sinners. So we really can't hate you for sinning because we all sin too. So don't mix up Christians with extremests.

This doesn't address the point. According to what you have said here, no one should *ever* have sex. You think that you are not at risk for getting pregnant or having STDs just because you wait to sleep with the person until you're married? That would only work if (a) there weren't some problems you could have without prior sexual activity (b) *everyone* in the world waited.

Also, it is a small possibility, but you can get pregnant from hand-genital contact if, for instance, a man touches himself and then the woman.

Last thing for now. First off, of course it doesn't address the point. Look at my first few sentences, basically saying that it was a bad question. Next, I never said that nobody should ever have sex. Yes you are "at risk" of getting pregnant, but if you're married it's a lot different than if you are in high school or college or if you've had a one night stand, or if you break up with the mother or father of your child. As far as STD's, you are much much MUCH MUCH less likely to get an STD from a virgin, are you not? And you are much much much less likely to have an STD if you are a virgin, right? And obviously not *everyone* in the world is waiting, but not *everyone* in the world is having sex either. Marry someone with the same values as you. If you choose to wait, you shouldn't be in a relationship with someone who wants to have sex. And your point "(a)" is poorly worded, sorry but I don't see what you're getting at. If you are saying that not having prior sexual activity CAUSES problems, then I disagree. TWO VIRGINS CAN LEARN TO HAVE SEX. And finally, yes I admint it is possible to impregnate a woman my masturbating, getting semin all over your hands, and shoving it up her vagina, but I'm talking on a strictly practical level here.

To Dakini, what you say is somewhat ridiculous. You seriously think that two people who have never before engaged in sexual activity won't figure it out?! Seriously, you said one thing I agree with, and that is that sex is involved in marriage. This might make all the junior high kids laugh, but a virgin married couple will figure it out through practice. And a strong marriage is not built on sex anyway.

well, let's say you're starting a life with a new person. are you going to rock the boat your first night? how about the first month? year? at what point do you think he'll assume he's doing a good job since she doesn't say anything... and then when she does, it'll be a shot to the ego.
also, i know a guy who lasted 45 mins his first time. we were both rather tipsy at the time, however... explainign the longevity of the activity.
i never said that marriage is built upon sex. i'm just saying that you should work on things one at a time. start laying the framework for the emotional stuff, then start in with the physical stuff, all the while building on the emotional and should it get to the point where you want to get married, then work on living together as a married couple rather than two single people... one thing at a time makes it easier to deal with, and makes people less afraid to correct their partner.

also, in the part of your post that i didn't quote before this, you said that the divorce rate bing 50% was a result of people thinkign only about sex in marriage, but marrying early is more likely to result in a divorce. want to know who marries earlier? those who wait until marriage for sex.

To Dakini, what you say is somewhat ridiculous. You seriously think that two people who have never before engaged in sexual activity won't figure it out?! Seriously, you said one thing I agree with, and that is that sex is involved in marriage. This might make all the junior high kids laugh, but a virgin married couple will figure it out through practice. And a strong marriage is not built on sex anyway.

well, let's say you're starting a life with a new person. are you going to rock the boat your first night? how about the first month? year? at what point do you think he'll assume he's doing a good job since she doesn't say anything... and then when she does, it'll be a shot to the ego.
also, i know a guy who lasted 45 mins his first time. we were both rather tipsy at the time, however... explainign the longevity of the activity.
i never said that marriage is built upon sex. i'm just saying that you should work on things one at a time. start laying the framework for the emotional stuff, then start in with the physical stuff, all the while building on the emotional and should it get to the point where you want to get married, then work on living together as a married couple rather than two single people... one thing at a time makes it easier to deal with, and makes people less afraid to correct their partner.

also, in the part of your post that i didn't quote before this, you said that the divorce rate bing 50% was a result of people thinkign only about sex in marriage, but marrying early is more likely to result in a divorce. want to know who marries earlier? those who wait until marriage for sex.

To Dakini, what you say is somewhat ridiculous. You seriously think that two people who have never before engaged in sexual activity won't figure it out?! Seriously, you said one thing I agree with, and that is that sex is involved in marriage. This might make all the junior high kids laugh, but a virgin married couple will figure it out through practice. And a strong marriage is not built on sex anyway.

well, let's say you're starting a life with a new person. are you going to rock the boat your first night? how about the first month? year? at what point do you think he'll assume he's doing a good job since she doesn't say anything... and then when she does, it'll be a shot to the ego.
also, i know a guy who lasted 45 mins his first time. we were both rather tipsy at the time, however... explainign the longevity of the activity.
i never said that marriage is built upon sex. i'm just saying that you should work on things one at a time. start laying the framework for the emotional stuff, then start in with the physical stuff, all the while building on the emotional and should it get to the point where you want to get married, then work on living together as a married couple rather than two single people... one thing at a time makes it easier to deal with, and makes people less afraid to correct their partner.

also, in the part of your post that i didn't quote before this, you said that the divorce rate bing 50% was a result of people thinkign only about sex in marriage, but marrying early is more likely to result in a divorce. want to know who marries earlier? those who wait until marriage for sex.

Note: This post was actually written by Dempublicents. She just didn't realize the computer was still signed in as the dear boyfriend.


Last thing for now. First off, of course it doesn't address the point. Look at my first few sentences, basically saying that it was a bad question.

Yes, you changed the question to "is it smart?" However, the things you wrote do not address whether premarital sex is smart, they discuss whether or not promiscuity is smart. There is a difference. If you are in a monogomous relationship with someone and have informed each other of your sexual history, you are no more likely to have major problems than someone who waits until marriage.

If you are saying that not having prior sexual activity CAUSES problems, then I disagree. TWO VIRGINS CAN LEARN TO HAVE SEX.

I never said they can't. What I pointed out was that certain medical conditions (especially in a woman) can be caused by sex whether both people are virgins or not.

Sex before marriage, from my vantage point, is impossible. I'm gay, can't get married, so, therefore, technically (morally) I shouldn't have sex at all (which would probably please most Christians out there).

Just for claritys sake, you can go to San Francisco or Multnomah County in Oregon to get married, depending on how the recall goes i guess, and also, I think most of the people on this forum have said that they think it's okay to have sex outside of marriage. Lastly, when you mention "gay" and "Christians" in that close proximity to each other, it brings up a lot of negative stereotypes about Christians, of which I am one. Just so you know, Christians don't hate gays and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a hypocrit (i could never spell that word, did i do it right?). The thing is that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, and it also says that all people are sinners. So we really can't hate you for sinning because we all sin too. So don't mix up Christians with extremests.


If it was only that simple. I can't count how many times, I have heard people that claim to be moderates and yet under the right moment will tell me things like: "Gays should not be allowed to teach or coach or be scout leaders." When asked why; they won't say it but they more or less explain that they will rape the children.

Exreamism exists in any Religion(well.... can you have an extreamist Buddist? ;) ).

However, one interesting reasoning I have seen both Christians and Muslims use:

A Christian kills a gay man or an abortion doctor.

"He is not really Christian!"

A Muslim terrorist kills a bunch of people in a bomb attack.

"He is not really Muslims!"

I have never heard about "Good Christians" raising money, awarness, and or working with the Police over Murder for God.

How long was Eric Rudolph on the run? How many christians assisted him?

I have heard many many Christians talk about it's wrong to hurt people; to kill people even if they are gay. And yet, I will later hear the same people make a nasty comment about homosexuality and or gay people in general.

So to simply write "Bad Christians" off as extreamists is wrong.

There are many Christians who hate gays. They just don't act on their hatred.

Do you think it is morally acceptable? If not, what's wrong with it, assuming consent and legal age and proper protection and all? If not, is foreplay okay? And please don't tell me anything "must be true" because "the Bible says so" because you have no evidence it's always right.

Yes, but only in certain conditions.

On a theoretical level, I think what Aristotle said about virtue shines an interesting light on the subject. Basically, he said that the true meaning of any virtue is not some extreme in opposition to another extreme, but rather it is the Golden Mean between two competing extremes, as dictated by the faculty of wisdom. The reason why he called the Golden Mean the most virtuous place from which to base your behavior is because ultimately, if you adopt any extreme, what is ultimately happening is that one way or another, you are being ruled by your emotions. Allow me a practical example.

Ordinarily, we tend to think of the virtue of courage as some kind of diametrical opposite of cowardice. This is not quite correct in Aristotle's view, because while courage implies a refusal to let fear rule you (cowardice), it also comes with it the sense not to act so fearlessly that you only make yourself a hazard to you and the men around you, such as rushing headlong into a machine gun nest or some other suicidal prospect. In that sense, courage is really the Golden Mean balanced between the competing vices of cowardice, where you are ruled by fear, and foolhardiness, which is also ruled by fear, in that what tends to generate foolhardiness is often profound aversion to being seen as fearful, rather than any wisdom on your part.

In the same way, sex is much like any other act, such as eating, sleeping, or drinking. To completely abstain is a mark of being ruled by your passions to such a degree that you overcompensate and completely try to reject them, and insodoing only let them indirectly rule every action that you make (an avowed celibate will spend just as much effort thinking about sex in his attempt to avoid it as a debauchee will spend in his attempts to indulge). This does not, however, suggest that you should be free willy-nilly to engage in it at your leisure. Rather, it is something that should be practised with temperance (not Christian Temperance, mind you, as the Christians of the Victorian era specifically corrupted the word temperate, originally meaning moderate, to mean complete abstention), between the competing vices of abstemiousness and gluttony.

Additionally, I would also say that on a theoretical level, Kant's ethical framework was quite useful as well. Basically, his theory was to suggest that the only truly, unconditionally good thing was a good will, or wishing good to come of your actions. In his attempts to explain how you would know if your will was good, he came across 3 criteria, or as he called them, Categorical Imperatives. The first was whether the action you wish to commit could be considered universalizable: if it is, then it's moral, if it isn't, then abstain. The second was to ask whether your course of action treated people as ends in themselves, or as means to an end. If it treats people as ends in themselves, then it's okay, if not, then don't do it. The third and final one was to ask whether it helps promote autonomy, or in a more general sense helps them develop into better people and allows them to behave morally, with respect to the individuals impacted by your decision.

So for a practical example, let's say that you have a friend who, after having been dumped by a long-term boyfriend, is in a deep state of pain and asks for what is colloquially known as "comfort sex", or sex for the sake of making her feel valuable. Now, most religious types might say no reflexively, but think about it: she's just been rejected by the love of her life, and is it not a duty of yours as a friend to help her? I would say yes, but let's check with the Categorical Imperatives just to make sure. Is it universalizable that when deep loss is felt, sex can be used as a means of alleviating suffering? Well, yeah. Does it treat her as an end in herself and not as a means to an end? So long as you're doing it because she needs it, and not just because you think it will bring you pleasure, then yes it is. Does it help her act autonomously? Well, one of the things Kant is explicit on is that autonomy means acting from reason, not from emotion. Doing this helps relieve her suffering, and in that sense, it does indeed help her act autonomously, because it allows her to clear her head enough to act rationally and not feel so irrationally down about herself. So in that sense, it would be moral to engage in sexual activity, indeed, Kant might say that in such a scenario you actually have a duty to assist her in whatever way possible. The fact that it will be intensely enjoyable is incidental. :wink: It should be noted that such a set of criteria won't encourage indiscriminate sexual activity, though, as that kind of excess is usually associated with pure desire for pleasure on your part, and as such almost by definition violates the Imperative stipulating that you should only act in such a way as treats people as ends in themselves, and never as means to an end.

As a personal note, this is not an attempt to justify sexual activity on my part. I'm de facto abstinent myself (girls won't talk to me, and for my part I'm far too ill-trained to connect with them romantically, and far too skittish to try and learn), and if anything this is a plea to avoid making the mistake I did: not learning how to connect with another human being on an emotional level, sex being the most connected one can be with another. I've managed to hew pretty closely to the dictates of some of the most conservative Christian churches, and in my honest estimation, no God would ask this kind of loneliness, isolation, and anomie on people. I don't think that conservative Christians have a very good view of what makes a person healthy, because in all honesty, I don't see myself as very healthy.

On a side note about condoms, the information presented was not quite accurate. In fact, they weren't even remotely accurate. If condoms were applied perfectly well, with no slippage, no breakage, perfect application, and no phalli too big or too small to fit said condom, then assuming that a) condoms were the only means of protection used by a hundred couples in a given year of sexual activity, and b) said couples used condoms one hundred times in the course of sexual intercourse, then random chance dictates that at the end of the year, one of those couples will have experienced an unwanted pregnancy. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that if a couple used condoms perfectly 100 times, with no other means of protection, then they would have a 1% chance of suffering an unwanted pregnancy. That means that individually, condoms suffer a 1 in 10,000 failure rate, which is pretty damn good. In the real world, this number jumps to about 3 in 10,000.

Do you think it is morally acceptable? If not, what's wrong with it, assuming consent and legal age and proper protection and all? If not, is foreplay okay? And please don't tell me anything "must be true" because "the Bible says so" because you have no evidence it's always right.

ok well besides the fact this has been around before... here is my opinion (AGAIN)

First, you have to decide whether or not your morals are based on the world, or rather on a religious precept. For Christians, such as myself, premarital sex is wrong, therefore immoral. If your moral are based strictly on the world, where anything goes as long as you think it is ok, then ofcourse sex is just sex do it as often as you can kinda thing…so no.

Do you think it is morally acceptable? If not, what's wrong with it, assuming consent and legal age and proper protection and all? If not, is foreplay okay? And please don't tell me anything "must be true" because "the Bible says so" because you have no evidence it's always right.

ok well besides the fact this has been around before... here is my opinion (AGAIN)

First, you have to decide whether or not your morals are based on the world, or rather on a religious precept. For Christians, such as myself, premarital sex is wrong, therefore immoral. If your moral are based strictly on the world, where anything goes as long as you think it is ok, then ofcourse sex is just sex do it as often as you can kinda thing…so no.

So it's a choice between accepting tautologies (X, therefore X) and having no moral justification whatsoever? Isn't that a bit of a false dichotomy?

So this blonde tries to get it through her boyfriends' thick skull that it ain't right for them to have sex cause they're not married. And as every godfearing girl knows sex before marriage ain't right. :(

"Thats allright," the boyfriend says. "Cause we ain't ever gonna get married so that doesn't apply to us."

hehe...

:lol: :lol: :lol: I'm all for it

Agreed! :D

Is this truly a moral issue?

We would argue that one would need to look at the elements composing the sense of morality one holds in order to evaluate this question.

The issues at hand:
1. Is pre-marital sex immoral in and of itself?
2. Are there consequences of pre-marital sex (neccessary or possible) that make it immoral?
3. Is a view of pre-marital sex as immoral a result of social ideals?

---
1. It appears to us that there is nothing inherently immoral about pre-marital sex. It is clear that it provides great pleasure to the two, or more, parties involved. As long as it is consentual and not the result of pressure there is nothing immoral about it.

2. The possibilities of STDs and unwanted pregnancies are real concerns. It is well established that methods of protection are not full-proof and are not used as often as is intended. Engaging in pre-marital sex when one knows themselves to be capable of transmitting an STD they have is certainly immoral. This is no less true for post-marital sex. Unwanted pregnancies are of concern as well. Placing the responsibility of a baby on one's family or support structures is not fair to them, and abortion is something of paramount immorality for those who believe a fetus is a life.

3. Some views of pre-marital sex as immoral are the result of social norms. In the cases that are outlined above those views seem justified. If more socially based concerns govern the position then it seems unjustified.

*yawns* Here's a better question that may be relevant to this discussion: Does masturbation count as sex? If so, is it simply sex and that's all, or do some aspects of sex not apply to masturbation? In the context of the original question, does the moral quality hold true the same way? It's an interesting facet of this debate.

*hopes her question draws some response*

*yawns* Here's a better question that may be relevant to this discussion: Does masturbation count as sex? If so, is it simply sex and that's all, or do some aspects of sex not apply to masturbation? In the context of the original question, does the moral quality hold true the same way? It's an interesting facet of this debate.

*hopes her question draws some response*

I'd say no, on the grounds that sex tends to imply interaction with other people. Masturbation is generally done alone.

I agree that masturbation is not, fundamentally, sex, and I think most people would agree. However, Webster's Third New International Dictionary (copyright 2002) lists a definition that could easily incorporate it: 4. the phenomena of sexual instincts and their manifestations. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary also lists a similar definition: 3. a sexually motivated phenomenon or behavior. You can't really argue against masturbation being a sexually motivated behavior.

i'm just saying that you should work on things one at a time. start laying the framework for the emotional stuff, then start in with the physical stuff, all the while building on the emotional and should it get to the point where you want to get married, then work on living together as a married couple rather than two single people... one thing at a time makes it easier to deal with, and makes people less afraid to correct their partner.

One thing at a time...lay out the emotional framework...so what you're saying is that you should be sure that you are right for each other, totally sure, before you move on to a deep physical relationship. Ya know what people who know they belong together usually do? They get married. So if you're married, isn't it the very best sign that you're ready to pursue an intimate, sexual relationship? That way you're sure that you're giving yourself, and your whole self to your one and only life partner.

If it was only that simple. I can't count how many times, I have heard people that claim to be moderates and yet under the right moment will tell me things like: "Gays should not be allowed to teach or coach or be scout leaders." When asked why; they won't say it but they more or less explain that they will rape the children.

Exreamism exists in any Religion(well.... can you have an extreamist Buddist? ).

However, one interesting reasoning I have seen both Christians and Muslims use:

A Christian kills a gay man or an abortion doctor.

"He is not really Christian!"

A Muslim terrorist kills a bunch of people in a bomb attack.

"He is not really Muslims!"

I have never heard about "Good Christians" raising money, awarness, and or working with the Police over Murder for God.

How long was Eric Rudolph on the run? How many christians assisted him?

I have heard many many Christians talk about it's wrong to hurt people; to kill people even if they are gay. And yet, I will later hear the same people make a nasty comment about homosexuality and or gay people in general.

So to simply write "Bad Christians" off as extreamists is wrong.

There are many Christians who hate gays. They just don't act on their hatred.

I never said it was simple, and I will never deny that there are hypocrits out there who say they are Christian. And I wont deny that Christians are often assosiated with the "gay issue." But this assosiation often causes unfair judging of many many Christians who are not misled like those who claim to be Christians yet kill or claim hate in the name of God, which is blasphamy, regardless of how many do it or how many support them. That's the truth. And I only said extremests to make a point, I know not all of these people are extremests. I'm not trying to turn the topic here, but I felt compelled to comment on it because it is something I feel very strongly about.

Yes, you changed the question to "is it smart?" However, the things you wrote do not address whether premarital sex is smart, they discuss whether or not promiscuity is smart. There is a difference. If you are in a monogomous relationship with someone and have informed each other of your sexual history, you are no more likely to have major problems than someone who waits until marriage.

That's a typical "Friends" response. I'm not talking about bar hopping every night and sleeping with as many people as physically possible before you are married. What I'm talking about it people who choose to have sex in a dating relationship after a certain amount of time. This idea is all over the show Friends. All those characters have had sex with everyone they've dated (as far as I know, I haven't followed it too closely) and yet none of them have suffered any consequence of any kind, other than being compared to previous lovers. And even then, the results were positive for the character. This is a totally unrealistic perception of premarital sex. Next, you say that you are in a monogomous relationship with someone who knows your sexual history makes you less vulnerable to problems. I'm sorry, I truly do not mean this as a personal attack, but that's one of the worst and most thoughtless arguments I've read yet (not the most, but still). IF YOU'VE HAD NO SEXUAL HISTORY, THEN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. If you've had a sexual history, it is very very very possible you've contracted an asymptomatic STD that nobody knows about. Wheather or not your partner knows your sexual history will not change that. And finally, I must comment on your misuse of the word "monogomous." MONOGOMY MEANS ONE PERSON PERIOD, NOT ONE PERSON AT A TIME. I may be taking this out of context, but if you choose to be monogomous, then once you've had sex of any kind, there's either no turning back, or you're gonna have to pick some new and quite honestly lesser morals in order to alieviate your guilt.

Do you think it is morally acceptable? If not, what's wrong with it, assuming consent and legal age and proper protection and all? If not, is foreplay okay? And please don't tell me anything "must be true" because "the Bible says so" because you have no evidence it's always right.

ok well besides the fact this has been around before... here is my opinion (AGAIN)

First, you have to decide whether or not your morals are based on the world, or rather on a religious precept. For Christians, such as myself, premarital sex is wrong, therefore immoral. If your moral are based strictly on the world, where anything goes as long as you think it is ok, then ofcourse sex is just sex do it as often as you can kinda thing…so no.

So it's a choice between accepting tautologies (X, therefore X) and having no moral justification whatsoever? Isn't that a bit of a false dichotomy?

What I was trying to point out was that if you are religious, there are is a set moral code for you to follow. There are defined right and wrongs. For the non religious person, there isn't that same liberty. Other than ones own conscious and the law of the land, and maybe family traditions there isn't nothing else for those to base there morals on.