NationStates Jolt Archive

The other day I glanced through a disscusion about bad text books and there was a comment that abstenance education was religious instruction in disguise because there were only religious reasons for waiting until marriage to engage in sexual intercourse. Here is my response:

Non-Religious reasons for abstenece

1. You will not get pregnant, or get your girlfriend pregnant.

2. You will not catch a disease.

3. You will have better romantic relationships as your energy must naturally go to learning more about the person you care for, building them up as a person and doing constructive things together.

4. You won't have to worry about ex-lovers being a part of your life for the next 18 years as the other parent of your child.

5. You won't have to make a hard decision about adoption, abortion or raising your own child.

6. Why have sex with some 15 year old who works at Wal-Mart? What kind of future is that?

7. Why have sex in the back of a car he doesn't even own? Sex is a very special and wonderful thing, you want to give it away for a burger and fries? Aren't you worth more than that?

8. Why have sex in high school? You and every one else you currently know are going to go to college in all corners of the world. You are going to meet REALLY interesting people. Much more interesting than this person who's greatest accomplishment is making a sports team, all-time high score on 5 different video games, first prize at the the science fair or employee of the month at Shop-Rite. Why waste your time in intimate relationships with people you are only going to abandon for better friends after graduation?

9. Why sneak around? It's SO much better to have sex when your entire extended family is rooting for you to make babies! Nothing is sexier than a lace teddy given to you by great Aunt Sarah.

Anyway those are just my thoughts.

Aren't the vast majority of these arguments also arguments why everyone should turn gay? :D

The other day I glanced through a disscusion about bad text books and there was a comment that abstenance education was religious instruction in disguise because there were only religious reasons for waiting until marriage to engage in sexual intercourse. Here is my response:

Non-Religious reasons for abstenece

before i start, let me point out that all of your points seem to point to a simple solution: have gay sex. but we'll just set that aside for now.

1. You will not get pregnant, or get your girlfriend pregnant.

2. You will not catch a disease.


neither will happen if you use contraception correctly. by combining birth control pills and condoms you could have sex twice a day and still be more likely to be hit by train then you would be to get pregnant. as far as disease, all you must do is get tested and use condoms correctly; if you and your partner both get tested and are negative then there is no way for you to exchange disease. it's pretty simple, and there are free teen clinics that provide such tests at no cost.

3. You will have better romantic relationships as your energy must naturally go to learning more about the person you care for, building them up as a person and doing constructive things together.

sex doesn't stop any of those things. do you think that married people have worse relationships and worse romance because they have sex? should they instead remain celebate to deepen their relationship? or do you think that after one marries the relationship simply stagnates, so there is no reason to hold off on sex because you already have gotten the relationship as far as it will go?

sex is a way to make each other happy. to me, that's the point of a relationship, and therefore sex is a perfectly constructive activity. a relationship that focuses ONLY on sex is not particularly meaningful, true, but there is nothing about including sex that precludes the rest.

4. You won't have to worry about ex-lovers being a part of your life for the next 18 years as the other parent of your child.


again, if you use contraception correctly this is not an issue. also, you can choose to have an abortion if that idea bothers you. also, i don't have any ex-lovers who i hate or wouldn't want to see again, nor do i have any ex-lovers who would be a bad presence in a child's life; choosing to have sex doesn't mean sleeping with everything that moves, and as long as you choose your partners carefully there isn't much of a problem here.

5. You won't have to make a hard decision about adoption, abortion or raising your own child.

sure you will, whenever it is you decide to have sex. putting off that decision won't make it any less serious. and, again, you won't have to make that decision if you use the contraceptive options available.


6. Why have sex with some 15 year old who works at Wal-Mart? What kind of future is that?

a 15 year old who works at Walmart might be a very admirable kid; perhaps he/she is working to prepare for paying for college. perhaps he/she like earning money to pay for their own expenses, rather than depending on mommy and daddy for an allowance. besides which, you don't have to plan to build a future with every partner you have; i know i don't. sex isn't a life contract, marriage is.

it seems to me that you are more worried about the potential earning power or status of your partners than about their character. why is that?


7. Why have sex in the back of a car he doesn't even own? Sex is a very special and wonderful thing, you want to give it away for a burger and fries? Aren't you worth more than that?


as opposed to giving it away for a cute house in the suburbs and a nice car? so you are instructing people to choose their sexual partners based on the material benefits that partner can provide in exchange? i, personally, don't see how selling your body is a good way to build romantic relationships.

i am worth respect, compassion, tenderness, and intelligence from my partners. poor people have and can give these things as well as rich people. i care more about who i am with than about what they can give me, because i will build my own future and don't need them to do it for me. if i want a beautiful life then i will make it myself, rather than sleeping with somebody who i think will do all the work for me.

8. Why have sex in high school? You and every one else you currently know are going to go to college in all corners of the world. You are going to meet REALLY interesting people. Much more interesting than this person who's greatest accomplishment is making a sports team, all-time high score on 5 different video games, first prize at the the science fair or employee of the month at Shop-Rite. Why waste your time in intimate relationships with people you are only going to abandon for better friends after graduation?


yes, and all those really interesting people you will meet went to HIGH SCHOOL. really interesting people don't suddenly pop out of the ground in college, they're usually interesting their whole lives. i met some of the most wonderful people in high school, people with talent and drive and amazing futures ahead of them...and i went to an underfunded inner city public school.

also, you are again assuming one must build a future with whomever one sleeps with. so what if you won't see your high school lover after you graduate? if you cared for each other, were happy together, and respected one another in the time you shared, then what is lost? you have happy memories, a little more life experience, and you learned a little more about how to build a relationship. even if the relationship goes sour, as some do, that's part of learning and part of life, and you will be wiser and better ready for your next relationship.

9. Why sneak around? It's SO much better to have sex when your entire extended family is rooting for you to make babies! Nothing is sexier than a lace teddy given to you by great Aunt Sarah.

now i know you're just kidding on that last part :).

sneaking around can be fun, for one thing, you should try it some time. also, i don't see why you should look forward to the pressure to breed; i personally never intend to have kids, but even somebody who wants the little buggers can't possibly enjoy knowing that their entire family is paying attention to their sex life.

Anyway those are just my thoughts.
hope you don't mind me sharing mine, as well.

But it's so much fun! Who wants a shag? 23 M from Glasgow seeks 15 F from Walmart.

Wow! There's not really much I can say after Bottle's excellent reply ... the only thing I can really think to add is that many of your arguments are based around the idea that 1) kids shouldn't have kids, and 2) birth control is bad. Both of these are also religious ideas that can be traced back some way ... really, every argument against sex that I can think of is religious at some point.

9. Why sneak around? It's SO much better to have sex when your entire extended family is rooting for you to make babies! Nothing is sexier than a lace teddy given to you by great Aunt Sarah. I just keep imagining this small arena with family members in the stands waving little "Go Sperm" pennants and chanting "Thrust it in, Thrust it in, Wayyyyyyyyy In!" Scary. :D

I just keep imagining this small arena with family members in the stands waving little "Go Sperm" pennants and chanting "Thrust it in, Thrust it in, Wayyyyyyyyy In!" Scary. :D
You don't need to do anything. Cousin Geoff will do your rooting for you.

The other day I glanced through a disscusion about bad text books and there was a comment that abstenance education was religious instruction in disguise because there were only religious reasons for waiting until marriage to engage in sexual intercourse. Here is my response:

Non-Religious reasons for abstenece

1. You will not get pregnant, or get your girlfriend pregnant.

2. You will not catch a disease.

3. You will have better romantic relationships as your energy must naturally go to learning more about the person you care for, building them up as a person and doing constructive things together.

4. You won't have to worry about ex-lovers being a part of your life for the next 18 years as the other parent of your child.

5. You won't have to make a hard decision about adoption, abortion or raising your own child.

6. Why have sex with some 15 year old who works at Wal-Mart? What kind of future is that?

7. Why have sex in the back of a car he doesn't even own? Sex is a very special and wonderful thing, you want to give it away for a burger and fries? Aren't you worth more than that?

8. Why have sex in high school? You and every one else you currently know are going to go to college in all corners of the world. You are going to meet REALLY interesting people. Much more interesting than this person who's greatest accomplishment is making a sports team, all-time high score on 5 different video games, first prize at the the science fair or employee of the month at Shop-Rite. Why waste your time in intimate relationships with people you are only going to abandon for better friends after graduation?

9. Why sneak around? It's SO much better to have sex when your entire extended family is rooting for you to make babies! Nothing is sexier than a lace teddy given to you by great Aunt Sarah.

Anyway those are just my thoughts.

Those are all the down sides of sex. You wanna know the upsides? FUCKING SEX!!! Humans are on heat all year round. Its natural to have sex a lot. We arent programmed to think long term like that when it comes to satisfying base desires.

*puts on some Barry White music*

Come on all you 15 year old hotties. Where are you?

I'd like to point out in case the feds are here that I am joking and don't approve of web "grooming". Looking for someone between the ages of 16 and dead.

Since when has satisfying base desires a good thing. Abstinence is all about self-control. A rather unpopular term in today's culture that is so self oriented it is almost sickening. I'm a 20 year old guy and I'm still a virgin and proud of it. I want the first time that I have sex with somebody to be the person that I am going to spend the rest of my life with. It makes it all the more special and it is what God intended for us all.

What the original poster said.

Also, I hear that it's better if you wait. You're more satisfied if you only have one partner.

Also, the whole disease thing...yeah...If I'm going to get something nasty, I'd rather it be from the person I'm going to spend the rest of my life with.
'Course, I'd rather not get it at all :p

Nicely said, Bottle.

A lot of the reasons listed seem to be more reasons why you shouldn't shag the first person who remembers your name as opposed to why you should abstain all together.

Well said bottle.

Since when has satisfying base desires a good thing. Abstinence is all about self-control. A rather unpopular term in today's culture that is so self oriented it is almost sickening. I'm a 20 year old guy and I'm still a virgin and proud of it. I want the first time that I have sex with somebody to be the person that I am going to spend the rest of my life with. It makes it all the more special and it is what God intended for us all.

1)It does not make it special it just puts pressure on marriage for good sex.
2)Wow, it's what God want. What a convincing argument to an atheist like me. It is about as good as me getting pregnant, pity I have testes instead of ovaries or that argument might work...

Abstenance is fine if it's what you want/believe, but personnally, I think assurance that you are going to be sexually compatible with the person you are planning on spending your life with is more important.

Now, before anyone starts up on sex not being the be-all-and-end-all of a relationship, it's a bloody big part, no matter what anyone says, and frankly, I'd prefer to know that I am actually going to enjoy the act with someone before I commit to them for the rest of my life!

zsasz

The other day I glanced through a disscusion about bad text books and there was a comment that abstenance education was religious instruction in disguise because there were only religious reasons for waiting until marriage to engage in sexual intercourse. Here is my response:

Non-Religious reasons for abstenece

1. You will not get pregnant, or get your girlfriend pregnant.

2. You will not catch a disease.

3. You will have better romantic relationships as your energy must naturally go to learning more about the person you care for, building them up as a person and doing constructive things together.

4. You won't have to worry about ex-lovers being a part of your life for the next 18 years as the other parent of your child.

5. You won't have to make a hard decision about adoption, abortion or raising your own child.

6. Why have sex with some 15 year old who works at Wal-Mart? What kind of future is that?

7. Why have sex in the back of a car he doesn't even own? Sex is a very special and wonderful thing, you want to give it away for a burger and fries? Aren't you worth more than that?

8. Why have sex in high school? You and every one else you currently know are going to go to college in all corners of the world. You are going to meet REALLY interesting people. Much more interesting than this person who's greatest accomplishment is making a sports team, all-time high score on 5 different video games, first prize at the the science fair or employee of the month at Shop-Rite. Why waste your time in intimate relationships with people you are only going to abandon for better friends after graduation?

9. Why sneak around? It's SO much better to have sex when your entire extended family is rooting for you to make babies! Nothing is sexier than a lace teddy given to you by great Aunt Sarah.

Anyway those are just my thoughts.


1)I am bi. Any woman I take will have to take the pill and I shall use a condom. Any male is not an issue.
2)I will not catch a disease as I am not stupid enough to do it with someone who has one.
3)Actualy I will probably have a worse relationship as I will be straining myself from jumping all over my partner everytime I see them.
4)See 1.
5)See 1.
6)Just because it is pre-maritial does not make it pre-age of consent. Perhaps I love the Wal-Mart worker.
7)a)I will not "give it away" I will just not hold it back until marriage. b)Who cares if he owns the car? I love him and that is all that counts.
8)See Bottle.
9)Er...I am meant to care about what my family wants? I mean if I am with a man you probably would not want me married to him anyway and babies are a non issue.

2)I will not catch a disease as I am not stupid enough to do it with someone who has one.

But are you intelligent enough to know when someone has a disease or not?

But are you intelligent enough to know when someone has a disease or not?

No but I am smart enough to make them take a test.

I personally feel that, for me anyways, sex should be an expression of love between two people in a committed relationship. That doesn't mean it has to be the person you marry, but that would be nice. I do think sex is more special than just a physical act and, from what I've been told, it is much better when its with someone you love anyways.

That said, I don't hold anyone else's views on this against them. If someone want to sleep around a lot - I say go for it, as long as you are safe and all of your partners know what's what. =)

I personally feel that, for me anyways, sex should be an expression of love between two people in a committed relationship. That doesn't mean it has to be the person you marry, but that would be nice. I do think sex is more special than just a physical act and, from what I've been told, it is much better when its with someone you love anyways.

That said, I don't hold anyone else's views on this against them. If someone want to sleep around a lot - I say go for it, as long as you are safe and all of your partners know what's what. =)

Are you married yet OOI Depub?

Well thats not very Romantic. Unless of course you phrase it in a Sexsay way!

"Here, Close your eyes and Lick this. :Stuffs swab in mouth:
Thanks Bitch, I'll get back to ya in about 4-6 weeks."

Are you married yet OOI Depub?

Nope. But I am living with my boyfried of three years and we're buying a house together. We're pretty committed. =)
I think we might wait for actual government-recognized marriage until all of our friends can get married too.

No, No, No. You gotta do it now. If you wait till legalisation the community centre and all the resorts will be booked out for months.

Okay, before we go any further, it's spelled "abstinence," with an "i." Got it? Good.

I think a certain level of abstinence is a good thing, because sex should be part of a loving, committed relationship and not just sex for its own sake. If you want to totally abstain until marriage, that's fine too. Just don't push that view on other people.

I am also an advocate of sex education, because between teenage hormones and the sort of culture we live in, a lot of young people are going to have sex anyway, whether they're taught abstinence or not. With sex education they will know the possible risks and how to protect themselves. People are more likely to abstain if they know about STDs and the risk of pregnancy than they are if they're just told sex is a sin.

One other point: abstinence education will not help some teenage girl who decides to have sex anyway, but sex education including methods and proper application of birth control and other protections will.

Well thats not very Romantic. Unless of course you phrase it in a Sexsay way!

"Here, Close your eyes and Lick this. :Stuffs swab in mouth:
Thanks Bitch, I'll get back to ya in about 4-6 weeks."
actually, it only take about a week now. also, it's perfectly easy to say, "honey, i care about you and i want to make sure you know you are safe with me, so i want to get tested before we start having sex. how about we go and get tested together?" i did that with my first partner, even though there was no way i could have an STD (being a virgin), and he thought it was really sweet.

Since when has satisfying base desires a good thing.

since when is sexual pleasure a base desire? (oh yeah, since the Church began campaigning against sex as a way to weaken pagan religions...well, let's move on...)

enjoying sex is no more "base" than enjoying companionship. having a physical lover is no more "base" than having an emotional lover. both answer biological desires that are rooted in the same areas of our cortex, they just go about it in different ways.

the longing for companionship is purely instinctive, an off-shoot of the fact that primates developed to be social animals due to increased foraging effectiveness. so it is just as "base" to pursue social interaction as it is to pursue sex; both are biologicaly and instinctively rooted.


Abstinence is all about self-control. A rather unpopular term in today's culture that is so self oriented it is almost sickening.


i agree that self-control is under-respected in pop culture, but i don't see how abstinance is more about self-control than a careful and responsible sex life. to me, abstinance seems to indicate a lack of control; a person who thinks they wouldn't be able to make good choices if they did have sex, or that giving in at all to their body's desires would make them lose all reason.

it's like a person saying they can't eat at all, ever, because if they taste food they will never be able to stop gorging themselves. i don't see that as healthy, i prefer people who know how to satisfy themselves without losing perspective or control.

naturally, people who think they can't be responsible while having sex shouldn't have sex, so i am glad if folk like you want to abstain. but i know that i am an intelligent and perceptive person who is in control of her actions, so i have never been afraid to enter sexual relationships when i felt the time was right.

I'm a 20 year old guy and I'm still a virgin and proud of it. I want the first time that I have sex with somebody to be the person that I am going to spend the rest of my life with. It makes it all the more special and it is what God intended for us all.
how do you know you will want to spend your life with somebody if you have intentionally limited your understanding of them? i believe it is wrong to promise your life to a person before you make every effort to know them as a whole being, and their sexual self is a part of that being. it's not any more or less important than the rest of them. it would be dishonest of me to promise i will stay with them forever if i don't take the time to know every side of their personality and Self, so i don't think it is reasonable to wall off a part of them until AFTER i make a life promise.

Whenever you have sex it makes the little baby Jesus cry.

And even if you're married that's no reason to enjoy it. It's for the purpose of making babies only.

Whenever you have sex it makes the little baby Jesus cry.

And even if you're married that's no reason to enjoy it. It's for the purpose of making babies only.
and remember: no having sex after the woman goes through menopause, because then she can't make babies and isn't really a woman any more.

oh, and you should get drunk and sleep with your children, as well as carrying off and raping the womenfolk of anybody you have a fight with. i read that once in a book about talking snakes and guys who walk on water, so you know it must be true.

Do you know what I've always thought about this?
Well I think your marriage night should be the best sex of your life, but if you wait till marriage to have sex then the sex is going to suck because the guy won't know what he's doing, and the girl will be in pain. Therefore, you should not wait till marriage for sex.

You should have sex with someone you care about and know a lot about.

What the original poster said.

Also, I hear that it's better if you wait. You're more satisfied if you only have one partner.

well, you don't have any basis for comparison then, do you? and since you are married you don't have much choice but to be satisfied, because if you're not you never will be.

personally my experience is that people who have past sexual experience make far better partners. they know more about their own bodies and what they like, and they know more about how to give pleasure. this is not to say that being with only one person ever makes you bad in bed; you can learn a whole lot with just one partner. but i think it would be quite wrong to say that you will be more satisfied with sex if you have only one partner.


Also, the whole disease thing...yeah...If I'm going to get something nasty, I'd rather it be from the person I'm going to spend the rest of my life with.
'Course, I'd rather not get it at all :p
well, if you get tested and request your partner be tested then you don't have to worry about it either way.

Do you know what I've always thought about this?
Well I think your marriage night should be the best sex of your life, but if you wait till marriage to have sex then the sex is going to suck because the guy won't know what he's doing, and the girl will be in pain. Therefore, you should not wait till marriage for sex.

some people say that one should wait until marriage to have sex because then the wedding night will be the most special. i think that's a horrible attitude, because it says that your first time is the most special simply because it's the first time, totally removing significance from later sex. like, once you've done it once it can't be special any more.

the first time is important because it is a new part of your life, but that doesn't mean it should be the most special sexual experience of your life. how special the sex is depends on who it's with, the situation, the reasons, and how you feel about it. the first time i have sex with my wedded partner will be far more special than my first sexual experience, no contest, because of the situation and my feelings for the person. if it was my first time having sex i wouldn't be able to concentrate on those aspects because i would be so preoccupied with it being my first time.

Since when has satisfying base desires a good thing.

You poor, poor, guy. I am truly sorry for you.

Abstinence is all about self-control. A rather unpopular term in today's culture that is so self oriented it is almost sickening.

Self control IS self-oriented, just thought I d point that out


I'm a 20 year old guy and I'm still a virgin and proud of it. I want the first time that I have sex with somebody to be the person that I am going to spend the rest of my life with.

I can respect that, but only because its your decision, you have no right to make that decision for anyone else.

It makes it all the more special and it is what God intended for us all.

If God intended for us to not have sex until marriage, or to be monogmous, why do men have millions of sperm cells at one time? Face it the reproductive system is set up for men to impregnate as many women as possible, like most other animals. Thats why it is our instinct to do so, women have the instinct for monogamy because it is advantageous in terms of survival to keep the protection of one man for long periods of time. Its all about the propagation of our genetic code.

Since when has satisfying base desires [been] a good thing.
[Grammar correction as noted.]

In my opinion, satifying desires of the flesh can be a good thing as long as you're not compromising desires of the spirit while doing so. If desires of the spirit are being compromised to satify desires of the flesh, then, yeah, that's a problem.

i agree that self-control is under-respected in pop culture, but i don't see how abstinance is more about self-control than a careful and responsible sex life. to me, abstinance seems to indicate a lack of control; a person who thinks they wouldn't be able to make good choices if they did have sex, or that giving in at all to their body's desires would make them lose all reason.
Having a careful and responsible sex life requires self-control; those without self-control will neither be careful nor responsible.

Abstinance needn't necessarily imply a "slippery slope" situation, which you describe. (Slippery Slope: The argument of "If I slide down a little bit, it will start an unstoppable chain of events resulting in the end that I fall all the way down.") It could simply be a case of not having the right opportunity, of not finding the right partner.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

...

I'd like to point out in case the feds are here that I am joking....
We'll decide that for ourselves.

--Agent G. Mann, FBI

...

...

The above response is also a joke. I am not a federal agent.

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

Having a careful and responsible sex life requires self-control; those without self-control will neither be careful nor responsible.

Abstinance needn't necessarily imply a "slippery slope" situation, which you describe. (Slippery Slope: The argument of "If I slide down a little bit, it will start an unstoppable chain of events resulting in the end that I fall all the way down.") It could simply be a case of not having the right opportunity, of not finding the right partner.

certainly, and i should have made myself more clear: MANY people who are abstinant exemplify the slipper-slope attitude, but there are also some who are, as you say, simply waiting for the right time.

i totally respect somebody who says they just don't feel ready, or they haven't found somebody they really want to take that step with. i am simply trying to deconstruct some of the flawed arguments being presented.

to me, the only important reasons to remain chaste are: 1) i'm not ready 2) the person i want to have sex with isn't ready 3) contraception or other safety measures aren't available to us 4) my parents are right downstairs and this house has thing walls.

No but I am smart enough to make them take a test.

I just love the surreal imagery this conjures for me. It's a pick-up line --- or foreplay --- worthy of something like a Monty Python sketch.

:fluffle:
:fluffle:

:) "...uh, hey darlin', let's just have these tests done first, shall we?" :(

;) :eek:

:cool: :confused:

:( :mp5:

... or something like that.

PT

Wow! There's not really much I can say after Bottle's excellent reply ... the only thing I can really think to add is that many of your arguments are based around the idea that 1) kids shouldn't have kids, and 2) birth control is bad. Both of these are also religious ideas that can be traced back some way ... really, every argument against sex that I can think of is religious at some point.



How is "Kids shouldn't have kids" a religious idea?

Since when has satisfying base desires a good thing. Abstinence is all about self-control. A rather unpopular term in today's culture that is so self oriented it is almost sickening. I'm a 20 year old guy and I'm still a virgin and proud of it. I want the first time that I have sex with somebody to be the person that I am going to spend the rest of my life with. It makes it all the more special and it is what God intended for us all.


I was begining to think that NO BODY here agreed with me at all!

Which is ok, freedom of thought forever!

I was just getting lonely

Thanks!

Abstenance is fine if it's what you want/believe, but personnally, I think assurance that you are going to be sexually compatible with the person you are planning on spending your life with is more important.

Now, before anyone starts up on sex not being the be-all-and-end-all of a relationship, it's a bloody big part, no matter what anyone says, and frankly, I'd prefer to know that I am actually going to enjoy the act with someone before I commit to them for the rest of my life!

zsasz


Is sex still a "bloody big part" of a relationship after 50 years of marriage? My family elders have such a strong and admirable love for each ither, and I am very envious of this. I know some seniors have satisfying sex lives, but really after the age of 90 is there really great sex and does it matter?

Okay, before we go any further, it's spelled "abstinence," with an "i." Got it? Good.


I know, I'm soo sorry. I'm really a dunce without my spell check. Too dependant on thechnology to use my brain.

One other point: abstinence education will not help some teenage girl who decides to have sex anyway, but sex education including methods and proper application of birth control and other protections will.

You don't think abstinence education will help a teenager to chose NOT to have sex?

You don't think abstinence education will help a teenager to chose NOT to have sex?

I don't. I know better. If a teenager is going to have sex, the fact that his/her teacher said not to is going to make them want to do it *more,* not less. And if no one has ever told him/her about birth control, now they're in trouble.

Besides, if you think there is ever going to be a time when all teenagers abstain, you are extremely naive.

how do you know you will want to spend your life with somebody if you have intentionally limited your understanding of them? i believe it is wrong to promise your life to a person before you make every effort to know them as a whole being, and their sexual self is a part of that being. it's not any more or less important than the rest of them. it would be dishonest of me to promise i will stay with them forever if i don't take the time to know every side of their personality and Self, so i don't think it is reasonable to wall off a part of them until AFTER i make a life promise.

You're sexuality is THAT big a part of what makes you "you"? To me, my sexual identity is about a tenth of one percent of who I am. I am SO much more than my G spot. The man I love is much more than his "manhood"

Whenever you have sex it makes the little baby Jesus cry.

And even if you're married that's no reason to enjoy it. It's for the purpose of making babies only.

That's a little further than I can go. I don't think the human race would have survived if it didn't feel great!

Abstinence is a personal choice that should not interfere with anyone else. So long as we talk to our children about sex and its emotional strings and give them the skills necessary to make an informed decision than there is nothing more that we can do, regardless of religion.

I would like to bring up another point that has to do with this notion of monogamy that is an underlying thread to what everyone has been talking of here:

What if I fall in love with someone (before or after having sex with them) and after a few years discover that though I still love them, I am no longer sexually satisfied. Why should I not be able to, with my partner's knowledge find someone else to satisfy me sexually. I am of the opinion that we are not only perfectly capable of loving more than one person at a time, but that we have to. One person cannot be everything to another. That's why we make friends.

I would like to hear people's thoughts on this.

Do you know what I've always thought about this?
Well I think your marriage night should be the best sex of your life, but if you wait till marriage to have sex then the sex is going to suck because the guy won't know what he's doing, and the girl will be in pain. Therefore, you should not wait till marriage for sex.

You should have sex with someone you care about and know a lot about.

That is a problem of expectations. A wedding night will probably NOT be a great night in your sexual life no matter what your experience is. You and your beloved will arrive in a bedroom after a very long day of being dressed up in ceremonial clothes (probably not comfortable), have eaten at odd times during the day, and have just spent the day with ALL your family, friends and new in-laws. The combined stress of this will make any night a flop.

Picture this: A family holiday gathering for any reason at any time of year. You bring your boyfriend, his family and a bunch of friends and co-workers. How much like a wrung out dishrag will you feel by the time you get to dessert and get out of there?

You're sexuality is THAT big a part of what makes you "you"? To me, my sexual identity is about a tenth of one percent of who I am. I am SO much more than my G spot. The man I love is much more than his "manhood"

read what i wrote. i don't define myself or my partner by sexuality, nor do i think sexuality is even necessarily one of the most important aspects of a person. but it IS a part, and that part can be critical in long-term relationships where you have promised never to experience your sexual self with anybody else. to promise your life to a person without taking the time to investigate both your sexuality and theirs is, in my opinion, dishonest. you can't honestly promise fidelity if you don't know what you are promising to get into.


You don't think abstinence education will help a teenager to chose NOT to have sex?


according to research, nope. children who receive abstinance-only education are just as likely to have out-of-wedlock sex as those who have comprehensive education, in the long run. abstinance-only educated kids do tend to wait about 18 months longer to start having sex, but when they do become sexually active they are much less safe about it. they contract more STDs faster, and are more likely to have a baby out of wedlock than a comprehensive-educated peer. they also tend to marry younger, raising concerns that they are marrying so they will feel it is okay to have sex rather than because they are fully in love with their partner.

4) my parents are right downstairs and this house has thing walls.

That was one of my original points, sex in your parent's house is just NO CLASS.

And if you are not independant of your parents you are not making a decision "just for you". You are a dependant of their household and anything you do goes back on them.

I like your points Bottle, even if I do not agree. You are an admirable argu-er

Since when has satisfying base desires a good thing. Abstinence is all about self-control.

Why is the desire for self-control (and thus, possibly abstinence), not also a 'base desire'?


Those are all the down sides of sex. You wanna know the upsides? FUCKING SEX!!!

Let me be the first to point out here that there is more to sex than just penetration. It is entirely possible for you and your partner to slake your shared obsessional animal lust with absolutely no chance of pregnancy or transmission of STDs.

Use your imagination.

Is sex still a "bloody big part" of a relationship after 50 years of marriage? My family elders have such a strong and admirable love for each ither, and I am very envious of this. I know some seniors have satisfying sex lives, but really after the age of 90 is there really great sex and does it matter?
it depends on who you ask. there is also the generation concern to think about, since today's seniors were raised in a culture that vilified sex in serious ways. i know my parents are still...active, because they frequently ask me to take care of my brother for a couple of days while they have some alone time; my little brother's bedroom is right next to theirs, so they probably limit what they do a lot so as not to freak him out, but they "make time to make time" quite often by having him come play with me for a few days. now, they aren't 90, but they've been married for about 30 years and look like they're still going strong.

after 50 years of marriage the physical body may be too old to really enjoy such vigorous activities as sexual play. so what? does that mean that sex isn't important for getting that marriage to the 50th aniversary? does that mean that sex was an irrelevant part of the union because one day the bodies are too tired to enjoy the bedtime games of youth?

i heard somewhere that they've begun to prove scientifically that each time you have sex with someone you pick up some of their energy, wether it be good or bad... so that whole reasoning behind abstenance is to just share energy with you life-long partner.

i heard somewhere that they've begun to prove scientifically that each time you have sex with someone you pick up some of their energy, wether it be good or bad... so that whole reasoning behind abstenance is to just share energy with you life-long partner.

Who are 'they'?

What do you mean by 'scientifically'?

You are aware that proper scientific method doesn't actually prove anything - it falsifies those things which are incorrect - aren't you?

Did you believe the people that you heard this from?

If so, why?

That was one of my original points, sex in your parent's house is just NO CLASS.

i don't agree, and i don't see any reason why one should be ashamed of living with one's parents at the age of 16; that's the most fiscally and educationally responsible choice, and nothing to look down on.


And if you are not independant of your parents you are not making a decision "just for you". You are a dependant of their household and anything you do goes back on them.


therefore nobody should have sex if they are getting college tuition checks from mom and dad. and they shouldn't have sex if mom and dad help them buy their first house. and women (or men) who stay at home with the kids and don't bring in their own money should never have sex. after all, they aren't materially independent, and so cannot make independent choices, right?

sorry, but fiscal dependence does not equal mental dependence. you are an independent being no matter who you are living with, and your body is your responsibility. what you do with it is your choice, nobody elses, and what you do with it reflects only on YOU because you are the one who is making the decisions. don't let anybody tell you that you can't make choices just because you are financially reliant on them...choose what is best for YOU, that's your first responsibility.


I like your points Bottle, even if I do not agree. You are an admirable argu-er
thank you. you're being very polite and clearly are trying to reason through this issue with care. i wish i could say i like your points, but they seem very flimsy and suspect to me. you come across as a very nice person, and you're much easier to debate with than the "YOU WILL BURN IN HELL FOR HAVING SEX!!!" type of folk, i just have to admit i am alarmed by your attitudes about sex.

What if I fall in love with someone (before or after having sex with them) and after a few years discover that though I still love them, I am no longer sexually satisfied. Why should I not be able to, with my partner's knowledge find someone else to satisfy me sexually. I am of the opinion that we are not only perfectly capable of loving more than one person at a time, but that we have to. One person cannot be everything to another. That's why we make friends.

I would like to hear people's thoughts on this.

Personally, I think a *sexual* relationship should be between two people and that's it. There are many different types of love and I think that sex should be reserved for one person that you feel one type of love towards.

Now, that said, I make no objections to what anyone else does, as long as they are safe - and all parties concerned know exactly what's going on. In your example, if your spouse knew and was ok with the idea of you going out and finding someone else, that would be fine. However, if your spouse thought you were being faithful only to him/her, and then you snuck around and found someone else - that would be bad.

And if you are not independant of your parents you are not making a decision "just for you". You are a dependant of their household and anything you do goes back on them.

Do we extend this reasoning to those people who due to birth conditions or accidents end up depending on the state to support them? It would seem to follow from your reasoning that they are not making decisions "just for themselves"?

How about those that are dependent on their parents, but have their parents' approval for their sexual activities?

I am not sure if anybody's discussed this yet, but it seems to me that another reason for abstinence is that by not taking sex as something deeply significant and meaningful (I don't just mean in a religious sense, although believe it or not, in Christianity at least, sex within a married couple is considered a gift and something worth desiring), you actually run the risk of diminishing whatever pleasure may come from it. Think of this metaphor--you can enjoy a certain food, but OVERindulgence will sour you on that same thing very quickly. Sex is not something I think that we want to become impersonal. A deeper, exclusive, and permanent connection between two human beings seems like something that would actually heighten the significance (and ultimately the pleasure) of sex as far as possibly attainable.

And what about when there are sexual difficulties, especially at the start of a marriage? As Jennyworld put it, that's a problem of expectations, not a reason to argue against abstinence. It also seems to me that a married couple, dedicated to each other spiritually as well as physically, would have more reason to work through those problems and discuss them openly, as opposed to someone who lacks that committment and just moves on the second any problem arises. I don't know about others here, but I don't want to be simply tried on and thrown away if I fail to measure up. And yes, those who said that sex is more difficult and less satisfying at the beginning of a marriage are right...and as a female I know this will almost certainly mean pain for me. But what I don't understand is why a woman would want to risk experiencing that moment of such great vulnerability with someone they could not trust absolutely, 100%, to try to be understanding of it and not to simply drop her like a bad habit or be hurtful towards her for it. You've got more incentive in a married couple to actually DISCUSS that sort of thing openly. I know that may sound awkward to you to read that--but if you've got the degree of spiritual committment to each other that it takes for a good marriage, then even that shouldn't be so fearful to discuss.

I know that particular argument seems not to work for men. But consider this, as a man: you, too, have a first time, and all the awkwardness that goes with it. Would you not rather have that with someone that you can absolutely trust not to attempt to shame you in any way with it, or who will be comparing you to others and finding you lacking? Wouldn't you prefer to get through your mutual awkwardness together, and on a level playing field? Any time there's a major disparity in a relationship (such as sexual prowess), you've got the potential for an unhealthy situation. Yes, I know even fairly equal relationships can go wrong, too...but it's not as likely to happen.

To those who have mentioned the availability of contraceptives as a way of curbing diseases and the chances of pregnancy--yes, that does offer a great deal of protection, but that's not 100%. The only sure way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence. Heck, even married couples can have accidental pregnancies.

You could make an interesting evolutionary argument with regards to STDs. Has it ever occurred to anybody that if the human race were completely monogamous, STDs would barely exist at all? (This excludes diseases that can be transmitted in MANY ways--I'm speaking of those that are transmitted almost solely through sexual contact.) Think of it this way--say a disease in one individual mutated to where it could sicken their partner through intercourse. But if neither of THEM had sex with anybody else, that virus or bacteria would almost certainly fizzle out and never spread through the population. When you think of it this way, it seems that complete monogamy for the human race would in fact be in our best interests.

I personally feel that, for me anyways, sex should be an expression of love between two people in a committed relationship. That doesn't mean it has to be the person you marry, but that would be nice. I do think sex is more special than just a physical act and, from what I've been told, it is much better when its with someone you love anyways.

That said, I don't hold anyone else's views on this against them. If someone want to sleep around a lot - I say go for it, as long as you are safe and all of your partners know what's what. =)

This is my stance on it. I'm not into promiscuity, but I don't think it's neccisary to wait until wedding night. If I've been with someone long enough and they want to, then sure.

Sex is not something I think that we want to become impersonal. A deeper, exclusive, and permanent connection between two human beings seems like something that would actually heighten the significance (and ultimately the pleasure) of sex as far as possibly attainable.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I think you can find that relationship without having to be married. I think waiting for a deep relationship is just as good as (if not better than) waiting for marriage. And it may or may not result in eventually having more than one partner.

But what I don't understand is why a woman would want to risk experiencing that moment of such great vulnerability with someone they could not trust absolutely, 100%, to try to be understanding of it and not to simply drop her like a bad habit or be hurtful towards her for it. You've got more incentive in a married couple to actually DISCUSS that sort of thing openly. I know that may sound awkward to you to read that--but if you've got the degree of spiritual committment to each other that it takes for a good marriage, then even that shouldn't be so fearful to discuss.

Again, that level of spiritual commitment can be obtained before marriage. Marriage is really just a contract and a public declaration. I doubt very seriously that having a big party and signing some papers will make me feel any differently towards my boyfriend.

To those who have mentioned the availability of contraceptives as a way of curbing diseases and the chances of pregnancy--yes, that does offer a great deal of protection, but that's not 100%. The only sure way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence. Heck, even married couples can have accidental pregnancies.

This is true, but many people are ok with taking that risk. At least let them take it in the safest manner possible.

there have been excellent posts on both sides of this issue.

let me confess right up front that im not in favor of being a virgin on your wedding night. (some of y'all might remember that from other threads). its folly to wait to find out when its "too late" whether or not youre sexually compatible with your beloved.

but i AM in favor of responsible sex. i am OLD after all.

so my question is "what kind of abstinence?"

abstain until you are married? HELL NO

abstain until you are mature enough to handle an adult relationship? YES

and are you one of those people who think that abstince only means coitus? thats its OK to do other sexual activities but not THAT (*sings* i would do anything for love but i wont do that)

some extraordinarily high percentage of teen pregnancies are fathered by men over age 20. these men are predators looking for naive young girls to trick into believing they are in LOOOOOOVE. these girls are not ready for sex. they cant tell love from manipulation.

self respect. its all too easy for a teen girl to come to the belief that she is only valuable for her sexual skills. that no boy will love her unless she "puts out" to hold off on ALL FORMS of sexual activity until she has been in a relationship with a boy for a good long time helps to ensure she is not being deceived.

abstinence does avoid all sorts of potential problems but it can also lead to problems. early marriage for one. its unreasonable to expect a person to be sexually chaste until they get married at age 28. they MIGHT be able to make it to 18 if they can get married right after highschool.

unreasonable expectations of a spouse. the glories of the marriage bed as built up in ones imagination must be pale in comparison to the day to day reality of married life.

a person who can go without sex until he is married (assuming marriage at the common age of 28) is very likely to be OK with going without sex after marriage too. bad time to find out that you have married a person with no sex drive.

News Flash

Going without sex for a long period of time is ungood.

Going without sex for a long period of time is ungood.


How so? And what do we define as sex here?

I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I think you can find that relationship without having to be married. I think waiting for a deep relationship is just as good as (if not better than) waiting for marriage. And it may or may not result in eventually having more than one partner.

While that is true, it still leaves that possibility open, which I think can have deleterious effects on a relationship, in the form of lessened trust. Without that absolute trust, how can the relationship ever achieve sufficient depth? (Incidentally, for consistency's sake I'd make this same argument against frivolous overuse of divorce...that is, divorce NOT due to abuse, adultery, or other severe mistreatment.)

Again, that level of spiritual commitment can be obtained before marriage. Marriage is really just a contract and a public declaration. I doubt very seriously that having a big party and signing some papers will make me feel any differently towards my boyfriend.

However, the willingness to undertake said contract and public declaration is a very significant step. For those who are religious it is taking a binding spiritual oath that transcends life and death itself, and the willingness to undertake a relationship that is pleasing before God (i.e.: one with love, parity, and absolute trust...believe it or not, there's actually evidence to back up the "parity" part of that). For those who are not, it is the willingness to obey the rule of law (such as no cheating, etc.).

This is true, but many people are ok with taking that risk. At least let them take it in the safest manner possible.

That is the second-best option, yes. I'm certainly not for denying contraceptives to anybody, and I do think that if a person chooses not to remain abstinent, then I STRONGLY encourage them to use contraceptives. But my point is that even that isn't 100%--it's still a gamble, and the only absolute guarantee is abstinence.

Jennyworld, I so agree, that is what I have been doing and I had happier relationships then most people and they last longer.

I am not sure if anybody's discussed this yet, but it seems to me that another reason for abstinence is that by not taking sex as something deeply significant and meaningful (I don't just mean in a religious sense, although believe it or not, in Christianity at least, sex within a married couple is considered a gift and something worth desiring), you actually run the risk of diminishing whatever pleasure may come from it. Think of this metaphor--you can enjoy a certain food, but OVERindulgence will sour you on that same thing very quickly. Sex is not something I think that we want to become impersonal.

i agree, but i still don't see why abstaining until marriage is that only way you can ensure that sex is meaningful. i have had a sexual relationship with my partner for some 3 years now, and it's not impersonal or boring.

and also, if having lots of sex is the problem, then what about married couples? if over-indulging outside of marriage will make sex less meaningful then what about in marriage? you seem to be campaigning for people to just have less sex over all, rather than arguing strong points for waiting until marriage.


A deeper, exclusive, and permanent connection between two human beings seems like something that would actually heighten the significance (and ultimately the pleasure) of sex as far as possibly attainable.

i'd have to say i don't agree. the experience of having sex with somebody you really care about is very intense, and produces emotional pleasure that is off the charts, but it also has perils and worries associated with it that sex with a less serious romantic parter doesn't have.

having sex with somebody you respect and care about but aren't planning to marry is just as physically pleasureable as sex with a permanent lover, of course, and often one is ready and eager to have sex long before one is emotionally and intellectually ready to fall in love. love is something huge, important, and very very serious, and many people won't be ready for love until they are 40 (most of them will have a first marriage where they figure this out). i don't see anything wrong with having sex with a less serious partner, provided it is done safely and with respect and compassion on both sides.


And what about when there are sexual difficulties, especially at the start of a marriage? As Jennyworld put it, that's a problem of expectations, not a reason to argue against abstinence. It also seems to me that a married couple, dedicated to each other spiritually as well as physically, would have more reason to work through those problems and discuss them openly, as opposed to someone who lacks that committment and just moves on the second any problem arises. I don't know about others here, but I don't want to be simply tried on and thrown away if I fail to measure up.
i can tell you for a fact that most sexual incompatibilities CAN be worked out, but there are some that cannot. some people are simply incompatible in either anatomy or temperment. you can work around it to a certain degree, but there are limitations. would you rather find out that you have married and now are stuck with a person who will never or rarely enjoy sex with you, or find out about that before hand and decide if you want to try to work it out or go your seperate ways?

you seem to think that by marrying somebody you make sure they won't leave you over something like sexual problems; do you really want to think of it that way? if they love you and are worth being with they wouldn't do that anyway, even if you weren't married, so why do you feel you need the ensurance of tying the knot? are you scared you won't do well enough in bed, and you need to bind your partner with a legal contract to protect yourself?

if my partner is the sort of person who would break up a relationship over bad sex then i want to find that out BEFORE i marry them. i want to know, firsthand, how they react to problems in our sex life. how a person deals with sex and their sexual partner is a big part of who they are as a partner, and believe me those issues can tear at even the strongest bonds. it's best to test the waters before promising your lives to each other.


And yes, those who said that sex is more difficult and less satisfying at the beginning of a marriage are right...and as a female I know this will almost certainly mean pain for me. But what I don't understand is why a woman would want to risk experiencing that moment of such great vulnerability with someone they could not trust absolutely, 100%, to try to be understanding of it and not to simply drop her like a bad habit or be hurtful towards her for it. You've got more incentive in a married couple to actually DISCUSS that sort of thing openly. I know that may sound awkward to you to read that--but if you've got the degree of spiritual committment to each other that it takes for a good marriage, then even that shouldn't be so fearful to discuss.


i did trust my first partner, i had known him for years and we had been very good friends. we weren't in love or intending to marry, but i didn't have to be afraid at all. if you feel like you have to get a ring on your finger to be able to trust a man enough for sex then you have some issues i think you need to work through before you get married to ANYBODY. if getting that ring suddenly makes a man more trustworthy to you then you need to ask why you would marry a man you don't trust 100%.

also, if your partner doesn't care enough to discuss sexual problems with you then you shouldn't marry. you shouldn't NEED more incentive to be respectful to each other. you shouldn't need more incentive to work things out so both people are happy. if you do, you shouldn't be getting married.


I know that particular argument seems not to work for men. But consider this, as a man: you, too, have a first time, and all the awkwardness that goes with it. Would you not rather have that with someone that you can absolutely trust not to attempt to shame you in any way with it, or who will be comparing you to others and finding you lacking? Wouldn't you prefer to get through your mutual awkwardness together, and on a level playing field? Any time there's a major disparity in a relationship (such as sexual prowess), you've got the potential for an unhealthy situation. Yes, I know even fairly equal relationships can go wrong, too...but it's not as likely to happen.


i don't even know where to start, this whole paragraph just makes me sad for you.

you don't have to be married to somebody to be in a respectful, loving relationship. again, if you think marriage is the only way to get those things then why would you marry somebody who doesn't have those things as an integral part of themselves?

no decent partner would be in competition with you when it comes to sex. having more experience just makes you better able to help each other, and if you are a girl then i can tell you from experience that you are far less likely to have a painful first experience if your partner has been with a woman before.

you seem to think that your partner would be competative and humiliate you if you let him have more experience than you; why would you date somebody like that? if you have to keep him ignorant of other women just to have him treat you with respect then he's not a keeper, and you shouldn't be sleeping with him in the first place.


To those who have mentioned the availability of contraceptives as a way of curbing diseases and the chances of pregnancy--yes, that does offer a great deal of protection, but that's not 100%. The only sure way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence. Heck, even married couples can have accidental pregnancies.

the only way to be 100% sure you won't die in an automobile accident is to never ride in a car.


You could make an interesting evolutionary argument with regards to STDs. Has it ever occurred to anybody that if the human race were completely monogamous, STDs would barely exist at all? (This excludes diseases that can be transmitted in MANY ways--I'm speaking of those that are transmitted almost solely through sexual contact.) Think of it this way--say a disease in one individual mutated to where it could sicken their partner through intercourse. But if neither of THEM had sex with anybody else, that virus or bacteria would almost certainly fizzle out and never spread through the population. When you think of it this way, it seems that complete monogamy for the human race would in fact be in our best interests.
this gets complicated, but a rough biological explanation is that if sexual contact were not an effective transmition method then viruses and bacteria would use something else. there would be just as much disease in the world, it would merely be communicated through other means.

also, if all humans used latex condoms correctly, the WHO has demonstrated that the STD epidemics would fizzle, too. a recent study looked at prostitutes and HIV transmition and found that even extremely frequent sex with many partners would NOT transmit AIDS if condoms were used right in every situation.

Abstain until you find a person whom you love and trust mutually and you are both ready and willing. Then use condoms. Then when you find your life partner and decide you want children, dispense with the condoms and let nature take its course.

I think that just about covers it from my point of view.

Is sex still a "bloody big part" of a relationship after 50 years of marriage? My family elders have such a strong and admirable love for each ither, and I am very envious of this. I know some seniors have satisfying sex lives, but really after the age of 90 is there really great sex and does it matter?

Jennyworld: yes, yes and, yes again.

I'm not 90 yet, and haven't reached the 50th anniversary, but I'm well on the way. I'm happily married (for more years than I'm going to post here! -- but I will say I bought my first Little Richard records when they hit the charts) and sex is a huge part of the relationship. I'll leave out the "bloody" because we're both quite gentle with each other. ;)

But what some of you young whippersnappers don't always get is that "sex" becomes so much more subtle yet intense when you're in a single, committed relationship for a long time. I can put my spouse's cup of coffee on the breakfast table a certain way, and it can start right then. My spouse can look at me across a room at a dinner party, and I can look back, and that's it. It can be a touch of hands or a tone of voice. We may have to wait 2 hours, or 4, or the whole day before we're alone together, but all that time has been like foreplay.

In my case, this follows the pattern of my parents, who passed their 50th anniversary some time ago. I've been at their house for family get-togethers when the air was like a summer thunderstorm waiting to explode. The passion in the way they look at each other can be breath-taking, not showy like breakers on the shore, but deep and strong, like waves in the middle of an ocean.

A big part of all this is something that I haven't noticed people talking about much. Commitment. In a permanent relationship, where you commit yourself to the other person and they commit themselves to you without reservation you grow together in a special way. The barriers people usually put up to guard themselves from the possibility that another person will do something to hurt them aren't needed anymore. Instead, we live knowing that every part of life where we can make a choice, we choose to share it, see it through together. No division or separation. We refuse to define any problem or disagreement as something that might separate us, because we're already committed to each other, so we're committed to solving the problem in a way that keeps us a partnership and overcomes the problem together. We've grown over the years because of this. Grown together. We understand each other and ourselves in ways we never even knew existed when we first married.

Now, when you have that kind of relationship, and then you "have sex" --- what an impoverished expression that is! --- within that kind of relationship, you have something so powerful that sexual pleasure is well beyond the merely physical.

It's worth more than worlds.

PT

PS -- Forgot what I was going to say. The memory isn't what it used to be. Abstinence is a big part of commitment. When I say "I choose to do x" sometimes --- more times than it might seem to some --- I can't make it work until I intend that choice to mean another choice: "I choose not to do y". Funny how people understand that so easily so long as their genitals aren't involved! Most of the time it's obvious to us that committing oneself fully to some choices rule out other things at times. "I'm going to work for the bank" rules out joining a group of bank-robbers, not because it's physically impossible but because you can be committed fully to only one of those choices. You will cheat one or the other of your loyalty, and everyone can see that.

Start thinking with our genitals however, and the idea that commitment is a choice that precludes certain other choices flies out the window doesn't it? That's where abstinence comes in. It's a choice not to subvert a future commitment. A recognition that to the degree that I have a future at all, it also is part of me, and how I think about it and prepare for it and live toward it is also a part of me.

While that is true, it still leaves that possibility open, which I think can have deleterious effects on a relationship, in the form of lessened trust. Without that absolute trust, how can the relationship ever achieve sufficient depth? (Incidentally, for consistency's sake I'd make this same argument against frivolous overuse of divorce...that is, divorce NOT due to abuse, adultery, or other severe mistreatment.)

I've been dating my boyfried for three years and I trust him unconditionally. It doesn't take a ring on my finger to trust him.

However, the willingness to undertake said contract and public declaration is a very significant step. For those who are religious it is taking a binding spiritual oath that transcends life and death itself, and the willingness to undertake a relationship that is pleasing before God (i.e.: one with love, parity, and absolute trust...believe it or not, there's actually evidence to back up the "parity" part of that). For those who are not, it is the willingness to obey the rule of law (such as no cheating, etc.).

You can make that oath to each other, without the contract. The contract comes later, when it is convenient. It costs quite a bit to get married, and costs you money afterwards too. I'd rather put my money into a house right now (which is what I am doing) than into a wedding. But the real point is, I have that spiritual oath - without the government or a preacher telling me it's there.

I can easily see why there would be reasons such as financial ones to hold off on marriage. But my question is, although it may be demanding, why is it anathema to some people to hold off from sex until the marriage is complete? If you're engaged, and pretty sure you're going to marry, you've got a huge future to look forward to, which is a lot more important than any instant gratification. Until marriage, there are still tons of ways to express how you feel towards each other that don't involve sex or similar activities. Like somebody else said earlier in this thread, be creative! ;)

As to the marriage ceremony, my question to those who do not wish to enter into marriage at all (not those who are engaged, they don't count for this question) is--what's holding you back? If you claim to have a sufficient degree of love and respect that your oaths to each other will have the same binding force, why the resistance to marriage? If it's simply a contract, as some say, and not of that much importance, you can also argue that it also shouldn't be a big deal to go through with the ceremony (it would just be reiterating what you already know to be true). So the question becomes, why resist it? Is there some wish to maintain an "escape clause", so to speak, and why would one feel that to be necessary? And if that is the case, what does that say about the level of trust in the relationship?

It's not the ring itself that matters here--but what it shows about a person's degree of trust and committment. And if you've got somebody consistently holding back just short of marriage, yet claiming to have the same degree committment, you've got to wonder. It doesn't add up--it's inconsistent, to claim to have the same degree of trust and then to hold back on it.

Congrats, also, to Pure Thought for your statement...that's certainly better-articulated than I could come up with.

I can easily see why there would be reasons such as financial ones to hold off on marriage. But my question is, although it may be demanding, why is it anathema to some people to hold off from sex until the marriage is complete? If you're engaged, and pretty sure you're going to marry, you've got a huge future to look forward to, which is a lot more important than any instant gratification. Until marriage, there are still tons of ways to express how you feel towards each other that don't involve sex or similar activities. Like somebody else said earlier in this thread, be creative! ;)

It comes down to the way different people view sex. Some people see it as being something that should only be shared between two people who are married, and thus people should wait. I see it as being the ultimate expression of romantic love. Because I feel that way about my boyfriend, and he feels that way about me, we want to express that in every way we can. I could ask the question back to you: "what is the big anathema with sharing yourself completely with someone before marriage is complete?"

Sexual repression is stupid. A non-religious justification for it is pointless.

Most of the issues around 'sex before marriage' are only issues because of the 'squemishness' of our modern society... I don't like to use the word squemishness there, because it carries certain implications - but it fits the descriptive purpose...

1) Marriage in the western cultures most of us probably exist within - is a fairly recent invention. Go back more than a few hundred years in almost any European country, and there were no formal marriages at all, except for the purposes of land/title/property exchange. Royals married. Lords and Ladies married. If you didn't really have anything at stake, the enormous majority of people just didn't marry. Instead, they decided to stay together... they had an 'unofficial' wedding, perhaps. Much like the arrangements of most monogamous (but not married) couples nowdays.

2) The romantic idea of marriage we have is constructed on the basis of a fallacy. The commonalty marrying is the product of an enlarging 'middle class', with the pretensions of aristocracy - a desire for the 'peculiarities' of the high and mighty. This includes the foramlisation of marriage.
What is hidden, however, is the fact that an extraodinarily large number of these marriages were of a peculiarly two-dimensional nature. The wife stayed home and raised the children (or headed the house-hold while someone else raised the children), while the husband associated with mistresses in polite society. A man would rarely take his 'wife' to a social event.

3) We are (rightly, I feel) far more 'civilised' in our sexual relationships now, than at almost any other point in 'civilised' history. No longer is a girl considered old enough to marry (or at least to have children with) the moment she menstruates.

4) The reason that a virgin has been highly prized in many societies, is a simple matter of breeding control. Look at 'races' that have had VERY strict rules on who may breed with whom, and you'll find a 'race' that has a very high value for virginity. Obviously, the father wants to be sure the child is HIS. (Notice also, that it is usually only the female that is required to be a virgin). Hence, the old jewish tradition of two witnesses by the marriage bed, to be sure the bride bleeds.

It comes down to the way different people view sex. Some people see it as being something that should only be shared between two people who are married, and thus people should wait. I see it as being the ultimate expression of romantic love. Because I feel that way about my boyfriend, and he feels that way about me, we want to express that in every way we can. I could ask the question back to you: "what is the big anathema with sharing yourself completely with someone before marriage is complete?"

I see sex as something that is not only the ultimate expression of romantic love, but of the lifetime committment between two human beings. Although marriage is ceremonial, it is the way in our society in which that degree of commitment is expressed. That is why I would question someone who claims to hold such a degree of commitment yet balks at the idea of marriage. That's someone who is holding something back. And that is why I could not share myself completely with someone before the marriage is complete--because both of us would still be holding that small something back from each other (the absolute committment).

I should note that perhaps my attitude towards marriage itself differs from some on this board, and that contributes to how I feel about sex. Marriage is something I take with the utmost seriousness, and barring something quite extreme (abuse or adultery as examples), I would not consider divorce as an option to solve a problem, the way some people seem to use it. This means I am looking to bond with someone for life--not just "for as long as things are running smoothly and then I'll move on to someone else".

You don't think abstinence education will help a teenager to chose NOT to have sex?

You may think I have a rather dim view of human nature and teenage nature in particular, but I generally expect people (especially at that age) to do the rash and stupid thing, just for the hell of it. I also think that abstinence education, while there is nothing wrong with it in principle, is somewhat inconsistent with popular culture, and will in many cases lose out to popular culture. So basically I think we should anticipate that people will have sex in spite of abstinence education, and we should prepare accordingly.

There's another issue here too. I think young people have the right to know and understand the truth about sex (in both the biological and social senses), understand what constitutes an effective method of birth control and, should worse come to worst, a pregnancy test, and what they should do if they are sexually assaulted or if birth control fails. Abstinence education does not cover most of that, as far as I know, and sex education does.

I would also like to see fewer of the kinds of misconceptions currently going around about birth control. One of my friends from college started taking the pill for medical reasons: she had debilitating cramps and nausea as part of PMS. Her family is very conservative and even close-minded, and I think she was the first in her family to get a college education. In any case, when her mother learned that the doctor at school had prescribed The Pill for her (the daughter) out of medical necessity, she said "Oh my God, you're on the pill, you're going to get AIDS." Yes, people really do believe this kind of thing.

Here's another one: You're ugly as sin

Most of the issues around 'sex before marriage' are only issues because of the 'squemishness' of our modern society... I don't like to use the word squemishness there, because it carries certain implications - but it fits the descriptive purpose...

1) Marriage in the western cultures most of us probably exist within - is a fairly recent invention. Go back more than a few hundred years in almost any European country, and there were no formal marriages at all, except for the purposes of land/title/property exchange. Royals married. Lords and Ladies married. If you didn't really have anything at stake, the enormous majority of people just didn't marry. Instead, they decided to stay together... they had an 'unofficial' wedding, perhaps. Much like the arrangements of most monogamous (but not married) couples nowdays.

2) The romantic idea of marriage we have is constructed on the basis of a fallacy. The commonalty marrying is the product of an enlarging 'middle class', with the pretensions of aristocracy - a desire for the 'peculiarities' of the high and mighty. This includes the foramlisation of marriage.
What is hidden, however, is the fact that an extraodinarily large number of these marriages were of a peculiarly two-dimensional nature. The wife stayed home and raised the children (or headed the house-hold while someone else raised the children), while the husband associated with mistresses in polite society. A man would rarely take his 'wife' to a social event.

3) We are (rightly, I feel) far more 'civilised' in our sexual relationships now, than at almost any other point in 'civilised' history. No longer is a girl considered old enough to marry (or at least to have children with) the moment she menstruates.

4) The reason that a virgin has been highly prized in many societies, is a simple matter of breeding control. Look at 'races' that have had VERY strict rules on who may breed with whom, and you'll find a 'race' that has a very high value for virginity. Obviously, the father wants to be sure the child is HIS. (Notice also, that it is usually only the female that is required to be a virgin). Hence, the old jewish tradition of two witnesses by the marriage bed, to be sure the bride bleeds.


Ah, I just love people who are sticklers for history. Do you by any chance study cultural anthropology? :)

My Torah portion when I became a Bat Mitzvah was about rules concerning a woman's virginity (or lack thereof) at marriage. If her husband accused her of not being a virgin and she could prove that she was, the husband had to pay a fine to her father. If the accusations were in fact justified, the woman would be stoned to death!

I must contend with you on the "witnesses by the marriage bed" thing. That may have been a tradition in some sects of Judaism, but as far as I know it actually went this way: the husband and wife would consummate the marriage after the ceremony, and after they were done, the sheet from the bed would be carried out into the wedding festivities so that everyone could see the blood on it, indicating that the bride had been a virgin. Maybe it's an Ashkenazic/Sephardic difference. I don't know.

There is also the point you made that women are expected to be chaste and faithful to their husbands, but not so for men, because of course they want to make sure that the woman's child, who will inherit her husband's property, does indeed belong to her husband (men only made a fuss about paternity when proving it was not to their disadvantage).

I'm not saying do away with fidelity, but I'm saying that I agree with you, the reasons given for it are not the ACTUAL reasons, and they come from a time when there was little or no effective birth control and women's rights were unheard of. We need to re-evaluate the standards a bit.