NationStates Jolt Archive

and we had a wonderful time... :)

I feel so comfortable around him and you know when you usually talk to someone you run out of stuff to say and then end up with these awkward silences...? yeah, none of that... he also surprised me in some good ways. The only thing is I can't remember how to go about dating type situations this early in the game...

Thats wonderful Dak:) ......sounds like there were most definitely sparks. Now all you have to do is just sit back, let it happen and enjoy.:) I wish you happiness.


(5 bucks says she did NOT have sex on the first date;) )

and we had a wonderful time... :)

I feel so comfortable around him and you know when you usually talk to someone you run out of stuff to say and then end up with these awkward silences...? yeah, none of that... he also surprised me in some good ways. The only thing is I can't remember how to go about dating type situations this early in the game...
*vomits*

So, sex on the first date? Sure, whatever, I'll call you a slut if female or congratulate you if male.

*vomits*

So, sex on the first date? Sure, whatever, I'll call you a slut if female or congratulate you if male.


You always bring joy to each thread you enter. :rolleyes:

Thats wonderful Dak:) ......sounds like there were most definitely sparks. Now all you have to do is just sit back, let it happen and enjoy.:) I wish you happiness.


(5 bucks says she did NOT have sex on the first date;) )

hmmm I may take you up on that bet Peech.....
I am glad you had a great time Dakini, is the first time you have seen this guy?? Tell me you didnt see one of the several horrible movies that is out right now... THought of going to one this weekend, quickly changed my mind..

*vomits*

So, sex on the first date? Sure, whatever, I'll call you a slut if female or congratulate you if male.
MUST you be so damned insulting? Apologize to the lady! NOW! [ glares at Undelia with laser eyes! ]

You know, due to Dak's slow response time, I bet she's on the phone with her new Beau right now;)

You know, due to Dak's slow response time, I bet she's on the phone with her new Beau right now;)
I wouldn't be at all surprised. God, that brings back memories! :D

What's the big deal with sex on the first date? Why the big hang up about the act? If it happens it happens.

The relationship I'm in now started with sex on the first date, we're going on six months and everythings great. Sex is a big part of a relationship for a lot of people (we both happen to be that type of people). Like any other aspect of a relationship you want to make sure you're compatable before you waste time pursuing the relationship further.

Dependant on the situation. I would probably do it. Sex like that can be fun. Meh.

I'm just curious as to people's opinions on the subject... what do you think of it? Is it a good idea/bad idea, does it really depend on the situation?

It would all depend on the situation. If I met the person already, say thru a mutual friend, and had a chance to know we clicked both mentally and physically, I don't think being together in an intimate way on a first date is a bad thing. Plus, if the date were a looker like Dakini, may not be able to contain the "urges". :fluffle:

Thats wonderful Dak:) ......sounds like there were most definitely sparks. Now all you have to do is just sit back, let it happen and enjoy.:) I wish you happiness.
Yes, there were definitely sparks.

I don't know if I can actually carry through with the bit on swearing off relationships... I really should have found less compatible people to casually date first. :S

You know, due to Dak's slow response time, I bet she's on the phone with her new Beau right now;)
No, I was actually watching tv and reading... *blushes*

*vomits*
Quite the romantic, I see...

So, sex on the first date? Sure, whatever, I'll call you a slut if female or congratulate you if male.
And a chauvist to boot. Your mother must be so proud.

I am glad you had a great time Dakini, is the first time you have seen this guy?? Tell me you didnt see one of the several horrible movies that is out right now... THought of going to one this weekend, quickly changed my mind..
He's in a couple of my classes, but hadn't really been in any before this semester, since he's a year ahead of me and in co-op, so he's only in class alternating semesters... we got to talking last week at the physics pub night and spent the entire night talking and we'd been hanging out throughout the week...
Also, we just went to play pool, no movies.

Sounds like fun... Not that we can influence you in the slightest, as only you know your attraction to this person, but this is the time to put your foot down if you are wanting to casually date them. Otherwise, they may become accustomed to calling you everyday, or wanting to see you every day or two, and can get clingy. You can cut that right off at the pass if you make it clear that you are very busy, and really can only "work them in" on a periodic basis. That way, if you find some other guy you want to hang out with, either pleutonically or in a more romantic way, you are welcomed to. The same would apply to him, you know the autonomy both can have, that can make things more fun. Just a thought..

I know...

and you know, I know I don't want to dive right into a relationship, but I really really like this guy...

I know...

and you know, I know I don't want to dive right into a relationship, but I really really like this guy...

Here's the thing, it's great that you really like this guy, but do it at YOUR PACE. Make sure that leaves time for your studies, time to hang out with your girl friends as well, and all the little things that make the world go round... I hate when one of my guy friends starts seeing some girl, and suddenly becomes 100% absorbed into her, leaving 0 time for the friends, much less time for themself. Everyone needs that time, even the goddess Dakini...

Plus, you have to make some time for the rest of us.. wink wink..

Here's the thing, it's great that you really like this guy, but do it at YOUR PACE. Make sure that leaves time for your studies, time to hang out with your girl friends as well, and all the little things that make the world go round... I hate when one of my guy friends starts seeing some girl, and suddenly becomes 100% absorbed into her, leaving 0 time for the friends, much less time for themself. Everyone needs that time, even the goddess Dakini...

Plus, you have to make some time for the rest of us.. wink wink..
That's true. I'm not going to go all about trying to spend every waking moment with the guy, we both have homework for different classes... though I wouldn't mind spending time together working on the classes we have in common... and I don't want to become all clingy and annoying myself... and yeah, I always like to have my alone time, it's very nice.

Do you have some new pictures of you out there anywhere Dak so we know what we are talking about?

new/nude whatever.....

:fluffle:

The most recent pics I have are the ones I posted a while back. One of my friends is supposed to send me some pics of me all dolled up at formal (I don't have any myself, seeing as I would have been on the photographing end of any pics I took)

Define 'slut'.
A slut is a promiscuous person. A notch below a prostitute who has the dignity of getting paid for the time and trouble. A bastard is a child conceived by parents in an unmarried relationship.

If we would start using slut and bastard, maybe we would have far fewer sluts and bastards.

If we had fewer sluts and bastards we would have a lot less problems with minors. I doubt if you can find one scientific study that says it is good for children to be bastards. Or for that matter I doubt if you can find one scientific study that says it is better for children to have sluts for parents.

And you will not find but one type of birth control that is 100%. And even that one has one rumor of failure.

Well my son is a bastard. But I'd rather him be a bastard than a judgmental prick.

Dakini, would love to hear your answer in the following forum my friend....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466054

A slut is a promiscuous person. A notch below a prostitute who has the dignity of getting paid for the time and trouble.
You are a real ****, you know?

If we had fewer sluts and bastards we would have a lot less problems with minors. I doubt if you can find one scientific study that says it is good for children to be bastards. Or for that matter I doubt if you can find one scientific study that says it is better for children to have sluts for parents.
Point to one scientific study that shows that the status of the relationship of the parents when a kid is conceived has any effect whatsoever on the kid. It seems to me that what happens early in the kid's life is what matters and if a couple gets married after discovering themselves pregnant (of course, if they love each other enough to want to get married) or agree to rear the child together, then it shouldn't matter whether they're married or not. If a kid has two loving parents, it doesn't matter whehter they're the kid's biological parents, or whether they're married, or hell, opposite genders.

And you will not find but one type of birth control that is 100%. And even that one has one rumor of failure.
And that's where abortions and adoptions come in.

I don't get how people think it's ok sometimes! I think it's a NO, NO. I mean, Hello?? You don't even know him/her good enough. Besides, sex on the first date means you're desperate. ;) :fluffle:

Congratulations Dakini! Me having never been on a date, I wouldn't know how that feels, but hey... Anyhow, it's like that with the guy I like... -sigh- Any of you older folks feel like you could tell me how you ask a guy out? It's really bad because I have eczema on my face and hands, so I wear gloves and a lot of makeup to school to hide it.

On topic: Sex on a first date is not for me. If you do it with an old friend, it could ruin your relationship. If it's someone relatively new, then that's just... Blegh.

To Eutrusca: You made my day. That bit about prostitutes made me happy. Methinks that will be the next thing nailpolished on my school bathroom stall wall... I mean, of COURSE I don't do that.

Congratulations Dakini! Me having never been on a date, I wouldn't know how that feels, but hey... Anyhow, it's like that with the guy I like... -sigh- Any of you older folks feel like you could tell me how you ask a guy out?
Well, think of an activity you'd like to do (movies are always easy, for instance) approach the guy you desire to ask out and ask him if he'd like to go with you. Keep in mind that if he says no, then it's his loss and move on to the next potential guy.

It's really bad because I have eczema on my face and hands, so I wear gloves and a lot of makeup to school to hide it.
I'm not sure what that is.... is it possible to get skin creams to help with that though? It's possible that you will find a guy who doesn't care about it though...

Any of you older folks feel like you could tell me how you ask a guy out? It's really bad because I have eczema on my face and hands, so I wear gloves and a lot of makeup to school to hide it.

When I was in the market, "Would you like to go to lunch, I'm buying?" (with a big smile and twinkle in the eye ) Was the usual line women used. I don't know of a man that has ever turned down a woman that asked him out.

I assume you know this guy and he knows you. If he's a good friend, any skin problems shouldn't be a problem. He knows about it and is still your good friend.

When I was in the market, "Would you like to go to lunch, I'm buying?" (with a big smile and twinkle in the eye ) Was the usual line women used. I don't know of a man that has ever turned down a woman that asked him out.

I assume you know this guy and he knows you. If he's a good friend, any skin problems shouldn't be a problem. He knows about it and is still your good friend.


I have to say you are right on this one..... A free lunch is something hard to pass up, especially with a friend, and for a college student. As far as the skin problems, those can be overlooked. I'm sure you are quite adorable, and this guy probably is aware of it...

Call me old fashoned, but I'm of the belief that love should come before sex.

it shouldn't matter whether they're married or not. If a kid has two loving parents, it doesn't matter or whether they're married, or hell, opposite genders.

I'm sorry but every study shows that children are better off if their parents are married and living together. This is true even if the parents show dislike for each other. Ping-Pong kids that bounce from one parent to the other have more problems than children who have had one parent die. Children can understand death better than split parents.

Boys especially have problems if there is no father in the house. Girls don't seem to be effected as much. But both are on average worse than a two parent family.

But you say, "We married before the child was born". Great but your odds of divorce are much greater than if you waited. A child adds a great deal of stress to a marriage, especially when it comes in the first two years.

I did snip the part about adoption but decided to add to the post. Adoption is about as good as bio parents. Certainly much better than no or split parents.

And, studies have been done with homosexual parents. They average better than split parents, but boys still suffer in a lesbian family. Boys just need a man to teach them to be a man.

Call me old fashoned, but I'm of the belief that love should come before sex.Gimme a break Kat...


Seriously, I don't think I could honestly say I was in love with someone if we've never had sex. It's too big a part of the relationship to let wait.

I'm sorry but every study shows that children are better off if their parents are married and living together. This is true even if the parents show dislike for each other.
Wtf? This is so not true. Studies have shown that children are better off with split up parents than with parents who are constantly arguing.

But you say, "We married before the child was born". Great but your odds of divorce are much greater than if you waited. A child adds a great deal of stress to a marriage, especially when it comes in the first two years.
If a couple was already living together beforehand or was on their way to getting married anyways, however...
I certainly don't advocate people getting married just because they got pregnant.

And, studies have been done with homosexual parents. They average better than split parents, but boys still suffer in a lesbian family. Boys just need a man to teach them to be a man.
I call bullshit on that one. (the boys in a lesbian family bit)

I think we've strayed a litttttttttttttttttttttttttttle to the side of the author's original question. Enough about the children and if the parents are gay, back to the part about hooking up on the first date. I am sticking to my guns on this one, the situation does come up, not to be too cliche in the "you are a product of your environment" approach, but if the girl is quite attractive, and you have a physical chemistry, things can in fact happen, it's a fact of life... If that were my environment, I think the product may be a heck of a night...

I think a major factor in this is how long you've known the person before said date. :fluffle: and each person's background. its not something we should be able to form opinions of others on. every situation carries with it different circumstances.

I, personally, would not do it. But it's really none of my business what others do, and the idea does not disgust me, or seem all that wrong.

I think that having sex on a first date is entirely dependent on the people involved. Different people have different ideas of how important sex is; if to you sex means love, marriage, whatever, then you'll probably be adverse to having sex on a first date. If, on the other hand, like me, you see sex as a way of showing affection, you can definitely become affectionate enough towards somebody on a first date to have sex with them. These two views on sex are just two of many; everybody has their own. There is no right way to view sex, there're just different ways. Of course, I don't advocate unprotected sex until you're reasonably sure that it'd be safe. This being said, if you want to have unprotected sex, and believe that you fully understand the implications, be my guest :P

I think we've strayed a litttttttttttttttttttttttttttle to the side of the author's original question. Enough about the children and if the parents are gay, back to the part about hooking up on the first date. I am sticking to my guns on this one, the situation does come up, not to be too cliche in the "you are a product of your environment" approach, but if the girl is quite attractive, and you have a physical chemistry, things can in fact happen, it's a fact of life... If that were my environment, I think the product may be a heck of a night...I think your taking too narrow a view on it. It could be one heck of a relationship not just one night...


It has in my case. Of course we met online with the help of Yahoo personals so we both knew each other to an extent (as much as you can know someone online) and we knew we were a 'match' at least by the sites standards. Sex on our first date wasn't a given, it just happened because things were going so well.


It did help seal the deal though... I don't think we'd still be seeing each other today if we hadn't discovered right away that we were,... uh... compatable in that area...

Gimme a break Kat...


Seriously, I don't think I could honestly say I was in love with someone if we've never had sex. It's too big a part of the relationship to let wait.

That is your opinion, and I have no problem with you having that opinion. I happen to take a differing view.

It depends.

Note: Sex is good, it is healthy and very good for your body. That's why I need more:p .

If I really like someone I do not want to have sex on the first date, I would not conisder that a date, but an excuse to get that person in to bed.

There is the really powerful physical attraction and then there is the all around attractiveness which I find is more important.

I'm just curious as to people's opinions on the subject... what do you think of it? Is it a good idea/bad idea, does it really depend on the situation?

Is there any other way?

... A bastard is a child conceived by parents in an unmarried relationship.
I doubt if you can find one scientific study that says it is good for children to be bastards...
Heh, where you live? Medieval? A strong relationship between parents is certainly good for children but it has nothing to do with marriage. Some people have no reason to get married. But I quess such an unchristian attitude must be bad in your eyes.

I'm sorry but every study shows that children are better off if their parents are married and living together. This is true even if the parents show dislike for each other. Ping-Pong kids that bounce from one parent to the other have more problems than children who have had one parent die. Children can understand death better than split parents.
.
Hello? Unmarried couples live together too. You're talking about single parents, not unmarried parents. There's a big difference.

... A bastard is a child conceived by parents in an unmarried relationship.
I doubt if you can find one scientific study that says it is good for children to be bastards...I'm a bastard. I've just passed my 5th form (year 11) at school.. Easily. I play in the first 11 cricket team and on Saturday scored 112 runs. I've had a gf for 9months. I'm amazingly happy living with my Mother. I'm in contact with my dad, but don't talk to or see him much. But I don't care.
I'm having a great time with life. No scientific studies? Haha. Well, maybe you just need to look around you. I have friends who are in the same situation as me. Doesn't do any harm to us.

Btw, fuck you.

Hello? Unmarried couples live together too. You're talking about single parents, not unmarried parents. There's a big difference.
I'm talking about people who do it on the first date, or first several, and end up with child. Uncommitted to each other. So the child Ping-Pong's all of it's life.

Hello? Unmarried couples live together too. You're talking about single parents, not unmarried parents. There's a big difference.

Just to make clear. I believe and several studies show that a bad marriage is far worse for children than living with only mom or dad.

I'm a bastard. I've just passed my 5th form (year 11) at school.. Easily. I play in the first 11 cricket team and on Saturday scored 112 runs. I've had a gf for 9months. I'm amazingly happy living with my Mother. I'm in contact with my dad, but don't talk to or see him much. But I don't care.
I'm having a great time with life. No scientific studies? Haha. Well, maybe you just need to look around you. I have friends who are in the same situation as me. Doesn't do any harm to us.

Btw, fuck you.
There are exceptions to every rule. BTW, I see your mother taught you how a REAL man speaks when put in a stressful situation.

I'm talking about people who do it on the first date, or first several, and end up with child. Uncommitted to each other. So the child Ping-Pong's all of it's life.
You were talking about married couples and unmarried couples. To me it sounds like you see no difference between 15 year relationship and casual sex if parents are not married.

I think that everybody agrees with you that it's not a good idea to have a child with someone you don't even know. But I fail to see how sex on first date leads to that. Ok, safe sex is not always safe but I don't think people will wait for sex so long that they are ready to have kids.

You were talking about married couples and unmarried couples. To me it sounds like you see no difference between 15 year relationship and casual sex if parents are not married.

I think that everybody agrees with you that it's not a good idea to have a child with someone you don't even know. But I fail to see how sex on first date leads to that. Ok, safe sex is not always safe but I don't think people will wait for sex so long that they are ready to have kids.
Statistically----Not everybody----statistically, people who shack up are more likely to break up than married people. Statistically, people who shack up and are then married are more likely to get a divorce than those who don't. Statistically, people who have a child in the first two years are more likely to get a divorce.

This DOESN"T mean it will happen to everyone. It's statistical probability. More likely to happen, not preordained.

About 20% of couples have not had sex at the time of their wedding. A small percentage....but they have the least odds of divorce.

(Responding to the initial message)

Except if you're going on a blind date, a first "date" isn't really one. I mean, you probably know the person really well to think that "this" (rendez-vous, cinema, restaurant, whatever) is a "date". Therefore, you should know him/her well enough to, let's say, not get into some random thing. To call it a "date" means there's some interest. I don't randomly date 500 girls a year. I don't date only to "test the market", only to see if she pleases me or not. If I'm "dating" her, she definitely pleases me.

As such, sex on the first date is ok to me. Not a problem, even natural. Evidently, I'm an atheist so all those insane religious principles are behind me, mind you.

About 20% of couples have not had sex at the time of their wedding. A small percentage....but they have the least odds of divorce.
And I believe that their general view of the world is the reason, not the fact that they haven't had sex before marriage.
I'd assume that they are quite old fashioned and probably religious. Old fashioned, religious people are less likely to divorce even if their marriage isn't satisfying.

I'm talking about people who do it on the first date, or first several, and end up with child. Uncommitted to each other. So the child Ping-Pong's all of it's life.
Not all sexual encounters result in pregnancy, you know. I'd wager that most don't.

About 20% of couples have not had sex at the time of their wedding. A small percentage....but they have the least odds of divorce.
I call bullshit on that stat too. I've read that people who wait until marriage often get married young and as a result divorce with a greater frequency than those who didn't wait until marriage.

I call bullshit on that stat too. I've read that people who wait until marriage often get married young and as a result divorce with a greater frequency than those who didn't wait until marriage.
Me thinks thou doth protest too much

Me thinks thou doth protest too much
Me thinks thou doth make up too many statistics on the spot.

wait, maybe i missed the jump in logic that says that living together before marriage increases chances of divorce. because the logical pattern i see developing is that by consolidating your lives, slowly and in steps, would only make the transition into marriage smoother and less complicated. you know that they will always drink from the carton before you commit yourself to them forever......

but then again, im not majoring in logic.

wait, maybe i missed the jump in logic that says that living together before marriage increases chances of divorce. because the logical pattern i see developing is that by consolidating your lives, slowly and in steps, would only make the transition into marriage smoother and less complicated. you know that they will always drink from the carton before you commit yourself to them forever......

but then again, im not majoring in logic.
Try adding statistics. Sometimes what seems logical doesn't work that way. By the way, Logic is fun. I've had a lot also. Have MS in Speech-Communications.

Try adding statistics.

statistics that go against logic are only useful if their source is provided and then deemed as an acceptable source by the agency's peers.

76% of statistics are made up.

wait, maybe i missed the jump in logic that says that living together before marriage increases chances of divorce. because the logical pattern i see developing is that by consolidating your lives, slowly and in steps, would only make the transition into marriage smoother and less complicated. you know that they will always drink from the carton before you commit yourself to them forever......

but then again, im not majoring in logic.
Well, he is right about the cohabitation, although those numbers are actually on their way down. Now couples who cohabitate before marriage are approaching the average divorce rate.
If anything, it's born again christians who are way above average in terms of divorce.

statistics that go against logic are only useful if their source is provided and then deemed as an acceptable source by the agency's peers.

76% of statistics are made up.
When it comes to Good Life's stats, I'd put that at around 90%.

There are exceptions to every rule.
It isn't a "rule". That's an extremely stupid thing to say.

To me it just says how desperate someone is to have sex, if they have sex on the first date

We are constantly denying our own biology, sex is the reason we date in the first place. Why wait! All that tension and pre-bonk hooha is just a bloody waste of time. Same goes for cinema, dinner or any other bed avoiding preamble. I want you, you want me, lets do it baby and then maybe have some lunch.

There are exceptions to every rule. BTW, I see your mother taught you how a REAL man speaks when put in a stressful situation.

...huh.

I find it totally amazing how many sluts are on this foum. Just to throw a little science in....the odds of a pregnancy increase in these cases because a woman is more likely to have quick sex when she is "ripe".

As a person who sorts mail, you wouldn't believe all the crude jokes about families made up of children, all of which have a different last name. Even though sluts with bastard children are common, they are still degraded.

Something here is a little... confusing. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth, by the way? Or perhaps your grandmother, if your mother is one of those odd women who share your particular view on labelling women? Or do they fully approve of you, yourself, adding to the degradation and labelling of women? I know my mother would give me a good clip around the ear if she heard me throwing around words like 'slut' and 'bastard'.

And if you're going to be all 'but it's the PROPER USAGE' about it, may I point out that 'fuck you' is accepted English, and many people find 'slut' and 'bastard' just as, if not more, offensive than 'fuck'. Especially (and evidently) in this thread. If you won't use non-insulting language yourself, I hardly think you get to demand it for yourself.

It's usually too much to ask that a person treats others the way they woudl like to be treated, or at least with politeness and courtesy. It seems especially true when one thinks these others are inferior, you know, like us lady folk. Perhaps he'd rather muzzle us and chain us each to a stove.

It's usually too much to ask that a person treats others the way they woudl like to be treated, or at least with politeness and courtesy. It seems especially true when one thinks these others are inferior, you know, like us lady folk. Perhaps he'd rather muzzle us and chain us each to a stove.
May I ask if you have been dating Hitler? cause it seems a little extreme

...huh.
That was the reaction I had.

According to Good Lifes, I should be living a shit life.. Utterly depressed and feeling shit. But it's the opposite. I don't give a fuck if you can't find a scientific study. It really doesn't mean a thing.
I'm happy. I'm not lonely. I enjoy waking up in the morning.
Btw, you=Good Lifes.

That was the reaction I had.

According to Good Lifes, I should be living a shit life.. Utterly depressed and feeling shit. But it's the opposite. I don't give a fuck if you can't find a scientific study. It really doesn't mean a thing.
I'm happy. I'm not lonely. I enjoy waking up in the morning.
Btw, you=Good Lifes.
If you look up the real stats, you'll see he's full of shit. There's no actual stats that say your life should be shitty. Or that you should be socially inept because you lacked a male influence a lot of the time or some stupid shit like that.

If you look up the real stats, you'll see he's full of shit. There's no actual stats that say your life should be shitty. Or that you should be socially inept because you lacked a male influence a lot of the time or some stupid shit like that.
I get that alot.. No male influence. Meh. Seemed to have turned out fine.

I get that alot.. No male influence. Meh. Seemed to have turned out fine.
Hell, from what I've seen, you have turned out better than Good Life. :fluffle:

Hell, from what I've seen, you have turned out better than Good Life. :fluffle:
Lol, well thanks for that. Probably quite true :p

my own opinion is that both people need to have an attraction on sexual territory before they make love to each other ^^

Happy Winter eenmas!!!!! :D

Not on the first date...I like to build the feeling, so that IF sex does happen, both parties have been thinking about it, wondering about it, etc...the SEX will be much better, IMHO.

Then again, I am almost 40, and of a different generation...what do I know about kids today? :)

Who needs to date? j/k

Who needs to date? j/k
people who can't afford clean hookers? :p

I think a major factor in this is how long you've known the person before said date. :fluffle: and each person's background. its not something we should be able to form opinions of others on. every situation carries with it different circumstances.
[ Major, major TroutSlap for Center Baseland! ] Agist.

Well my son is a bastard. But I'd rather him be a bastard than a judgmental prick.
One of my grandchildren was born out of wedlock. Anyone calls this grandchild of mine a "bastard" is going to have to answer to me. The outcome will NOT be pretty! :mad:

depends on the date.
If it's a blind date, then definetely no, for me. Or a date with someone I dont know all that well. Or a date with an ex-I wouldnt want to feel like a 'fuck buddy' if it all goes wrong again.

If you know the person well (eg, the switch from 'just friends' to 'all-out lust') then it can happen, but you shouldnt feel bad about it, if your gut instinct tells you to go with it, then do.

It's strange how this 'first date' thing is mainly perceived as women giving in and being used, but never seen as women just looking for a quick shag....

Hell, from what I've seen, you have turned out better than Good Life. :fluffle:
I'm still waiting for him to apologize to you, Dakini. That was totally uncalled for and I apologize on behalf of my sex's lack of sensitivity. :(

I can imagine there are situations where it might be okay. If you've known the person for years and are just then taking the plunge, then getting laid on the first date is okay so long as both parties are comfortable with it. If you just going out to hook up with somebody for a one-nighter, that's okay too. But if you're actually wanting to start a serious relationship and go at it on the first date and you don't really know the person all that well? Bad idea.

I'm still waiting for him to apologize to you, Dakini. That was totally uncalled for and I apologize on behalf of my sex's lack of sensitivity. :(
Well, atleast we make up the numbers a lil' huh? :p

Well, atleast we make up the numbers a lil' huh? :p
Not sure what you mean. Say more, please. :)

Not sure what you mean. Say more, please. :)
"More, please"


Hilarious

"More, please"

Hilarious
??? WTF, over??? :confused:

Just to clear up the 'wedlock' issue....

I was born into a family that will not tolerate birth before bride. Both my parents were married to each other by my age, had a happy successful marriage, two kids...until I was sixteen. They now are divorced, and hate each other.
And I can honestly say being raised by both my parents has left me screwed up. One parent raised me to be frigid, to not care about my appearance and to sit quietly in a corner while the 'men' had their say in things.
The other parent-newly divorced-now swears, laughs and jokes, actually SHOPS and does whatever they want. Before this she happily went along with whatever my father dictated should be done.
But she can also be a bit remote and distant, like the other parent... So, even in my parents had been single and raised me, I'd still have issues with them. (Im not a self-pitying person who 'never knew I was born', I love my parents, and was fed and clothed, for a while...but what im saying is your marital status has nothing to do with how good a parent you will make.)

As for the 'sluts' comments....
Are women who are raped and cannot face the harrowing procedure of abortion 'sluts'?
Are women who succumbed to that tiny percentage of failure where their contraception is concerned, 'sluts'?
Are women who are dumped during their planned pregnancy 'sluts'?
Are men who get their date/partner drunk, dont use contraception, don't call and deny all knowledge, 'sluts.?
I'm not anti-bloke, here, and I believe in parental rights, but I think a lot of this 'unwanted pregnancy' issues reside with BOTH parents, its just unfair its the woman who gets caught out. She can't exactly say 'Its not MINE!' can she?

A 'slut' can only have one child per nine months. Men can spread their seed indefinetely....hehe...

In the Theocracy of Pastor Lance, citizens are required to have sex before the first date, thereby eliminating this concern during the first date and allowing them to focus on more serious issues, such as whether they both like cats.

In the Theocracy of Pastor Lance, citizens are required to have sex before the first date, thereby eliminating this concern during the first date and allowing them to focus on more serious issues, such as whether they both like cats.
Excellent.... We should make this international policy

In the Theocracy of Pastor Lance, citizens are required to have sex before the first date, thereby eliminating this concern during the first date and allowing them to focus on more serious issues, such as whether they both like cats.
That could create some interesting stories. Imagine a blind date. You get to figure out exactly who it was you were humping the nite before. *shudders*

In the Theocracy of Pastor Lance, citizens are required to have sex before the first date, thereby eliminating this concern during the first date and allowing them to focus on more serious issues, such as whether they both like cats.

I do agree with this, Beyond the borders of Nation States. To me it makes complete sense. From my personal experience you don't really have to be dating to have sex. You can enjoy sex with complete strangers.:fluffle:

Try adding statistics. Sometimes what seems logical doesn't work that way. By the way, Logic is fun. I've had a lot also. Have MS in Speech-Communications.

Speaking as someone with a Maths degree... most statistics can't be added, that's not how statistics work.

Edit:
Ummm... and to be slightly more on topic... I wouldn't have sex on a first date, but I have a low libido and am constantly mystified by people who seem to think sex is more interesting than, say, a good book or playing computer games...

You go on dates with people you've known for a few hours?

Um, yeah. How does one get to know someone except through dating (generally)? I don't think the thread is referring to old friends who have sex on their first date and, if it is, the thread is sort of meaningless.

On a side note, this thread makes me sad. I realize a lot of people here are young, but the lack of consideration for the consequences of sex is really disheartening.

I'm sorry but every study shows that children are better off if their parents are married and living together. This is true even if the parents show dislike for each other. Ping-Pong kids that bounce from one parent to the other have more problems than children who have had one parent die. Children can understand death better than split parents.

Boys especially have problems if there is no father in the house. Girls don't seem to be effected as much. But both are on average worse than a two parent family.

But you say, "We married before the child was born". Great but your odds of divorce are much greater than if you waited. A child adds a great deal of stress to a marriage, especially when it comes in the first two years.

I did snip the part about adoption but decided to add to the post. Adoption is about as good as bio parents. Certainly much better than no or split parents.

And, studies have been done with homosexual parents. They average better than split parents, but boys still suffer in a lesbian family. Boys just need a man to teach them to be a man.

I doubt the viability of your studies... even more so, since I can see no evidence posted.

I have seen studies, by the way, that show conclusively, that masturbation is a form of insanity. Of course... those studies were something like 120 years old...

So - how about citing your sources?

(I happen to have some experience with children raised in a variety of circumstances... and I find your claims questionable, to say the least).

And I believe that their general view of the world is the reason, not the fact that they haven't had sex before marriage.
I'd assume that they are quite old fashioned and probably religious. Old fashioned, religious people are less likely to divorce even if their marriage isn't satisfying.

Also - some of those religious couples have their statistic boosted by the fact that, certain religious groups (not necessarily entire 'faiths', but certainly local groups) follow a version of religion that says someone should stay married, even if the relationship is destructive or abusive.

I doubt the viability of your studies... even more so, since I can see no evidence posted.

I have seen studies, by the way, that show conclusively, that masturbation is a form of insanity. Of course... those studies were something like 120 years old...

So - how about citing your sources?

(I happen to have some experience with children raised in a variety of circumstances... and I find your claims questionable, to say the least).

Come on. Look at the posts... is there any doubt that it's just made up? He cites a bunch of statistics that are simply unsupportable. Offers no support for them. Makes ridiculous, trollish comments. Calls people 'sluts' and 'bastards' and then suggests that using the word 'fuck' should upset one's mother.

BTW, if I said, "fuck you" to my sister, my mother would likely tell me to watch my language. If I called my sister a "slut" and her children "bastards", I would have to run for my life. I question the quality of morals intilled on a person that has no problem degrading people because of their circumstances but think it is inappropriate to address someone whose actions are agressive and problematic.

Oh, and I heard your English accent and it didn't do anything for me other than make me listen harder to try and understand what you're saying. Take note, Peech. ;)

Come on. Look at the posts... is there any doubt that it's just made up? He cites a bunch of statistics that are simply unsupportable. Offers no support for them. Makes ridiculous, trollish comments. Calls people 'sluts' and 'bastards' and then suggests that using the word 'fuck' should upset one's mother.

BTW, if I said, "fuck you" to my sister, my mother would likely tell me to watch my language. If I called my sister a "slut" and her children "bastards", I would have to run for my life. I question the quality of morals intilled on a person that has no problem degrading people because of their circumstances but think it is inappropriate to address someone whose actions are agressive and problematic.

Oh, and I heard your English accent and it didn't do anything for me other than make me listen harder to try and understand what you're saying. Take note, Peech. ;)

:D Ha ha!

You loved it, you know you did.... ;)

I totally agree with (what I perceive as) the 'thrust' of your argument... in this thread so far, the only person who has really come across as 'unacceptable' has been the person responsible for the hurling of accusations.

I'm not overly impressed by the (lack of) cited statistics... and this isn't the only thread I've seen this behaviour in. I'm wondering if this might be some 'new breed' of trolling... a more subtle version, that tries to insinuate itself as 'almost' realistic.

If I really thought I was seeing more than trolling, I would be a little concerned about what kind of upbringing lends someone to that kind of perspective...

In fact... Good Lifes.... I have to ask... are you "Vote Early"?

I'm just curious as to people's opinions on the subject... what do you think of it? Is it a good idea/bad idea, does it really depend on the situation?
Depends on the situation.

Sex with somebody you met 3 hours ago? Probably not worth the risk. Before having sex with somebody you need to find out information about their STD status, their position on contraception, and (ideally) their position on what should happen if--god forbid--your encounter ended up with somebody being pregnant. These are topics that most people don't dive right into.

However, "first date" doesn't give us much information about how long the two people have known each other. For instance, my current boyfriend and I were sleeping together for over a year before we went on our first date. There are plenty of situations in which having sex on the first date is nothing remarkable at all.

I doubt the viability of your studies... even more so, since I can see no evidence posted.

I have seen studies, by the way, that show conclusively, that masturbation is a form of insanity. Of course... those studies were something like 120 years old...

So - how about citing your sources?

(I happen to have some experience with children raised in a variety of circumstances... and I find your claims questionable, to say the least).
Yeah, I gotta join you on that one.

Particularly on the claim that "boys need a man" in their lives. I read an article not long ago (I think it was in the Guardian?) that showed kids raised in same-sex households do just as well as kids in "traditional" households, and they even found that same-sex kids do BETTER according to a few measures. For instance, I remember that they mentioned how children of same-sex households are significantly more likely to practice safe sex, and are also much more likely to report that they are comfortable discussing issues like sex and drugs with their parents.

Um, yeah. How does one get to know someone except through dating (generally)? I don't think the thread is referring to old friends who have sex on their first date and, if it is, the thread is sort of meaningless.

Personally, I haven't ever gone on a date before I got to know the person in question. I find it much more fulfilling to get to know people in a platonic setting, because it gets rid of a lot of the bullshit dating "rules" and gender-role stupidity that drags down the dating scene.

Personally, I haven't ever gone on a date before I got to know the person in question. I find it much more fulfilling to get to know people in a platonic setting, because it gets rid of a lot of the bullshit dating "rules" and gender-role stupidity that drags down the dating scene.

I'm with you.

Indeed... to be honest, I'm not sure I've ever gone on 'a date'. I'm not sure any of my relationships ever had a 'dating' period, as such... judging by what SEEMS to be a set of formal ideas of 'dating'.

Usually, the people I have ended-up with, have been people I have known for a while, sometimes for several years, who I just happen to 'fall into closer orbit with'... I guess.

Yeah, I gotta join you on that one.

Particularly on the claim that "boys need a man" in their lives. I read an article not long ago (I think it was in the Guardian?) that showed kids raised in same-sex households do just as well as kids in "traditional" households, and they even found that same-sex kids do BETTER according to a few measures. For instance, I remember that they mentioned how children of same-sex households are significantly more likely to practice safe sex, and are also much more likely to report that they are comfortable discussing issues like sex and drugs with their parents.

One of the 'most well adjusted' children I have ever met, was the twelve year old son (he must be about 17 now... I haven't been in the same country since), of lesbian friends of mine.

Cool kid, well-mannered, well-read, able to discourse maturely on a wide range of subjects, very self-assured... just about everything you COULD hope for in offspring.

I'm with you.

Indeed... to be honest, I'm not sure I've ever gone on 'a date'. I'm not sure any of my relationships ever had a 'dating' period, as such... judging by what SEEMS to be a set of formal ideas of 'dating'.

Yeah, I will admit that I am actually being pretty generous with the term "date" as well. The majority of the people I've been involved with (romatically or sexually or both) are people I never went on a single "date" with. As I said before, my current boyfriend and I were involved for a year before we bothered, and since then I think we might have gone on 3 dates in 4 years. If you count going out for ribs and then getting drunk while playing videogames.


Usually, the people I have ended-up with, have been people I have known for a while, sometimes for several years, who I just happen to 'fall into closer orbit with'... I guess.
I virtually always have prefered the "friends with benefits" situation. I find that people are generally less neurotic if you don't attach the "dating" label to your relationship. They tend to be more comfortable and honest, and less likely to let their past history in other relationships start creeping in.

This also has the added benefit of never generating ex-boyfriends or girlfriends. Since you never started "dating," you never have to break up. ;)

Yeah, I gotta join you on that one.

Particularly on the claim that "boys need a man" in their lives. I read an article not long ago (I think it was in the Guardian?) that showed kids raised in same-sex households do just as well as kids in "traditional" households, and they even found that same-sex kids do BETTER according to a few measures. For instance, I remember that they mentioned how children of same-sex households are significantly more likely to practice safe sex, and are also much more likely to report that they are comfortable discussing issues like sex and drugs with their parents.
IMHO, there is an even greater need for girls to have a male role-model ( a GOOD one, that is! ) in their lives as they grow up. I've seen the lack of this in my own family as well as in many others. Some girls ( as with boys ) can overcome this, but some cannot it seems. In many cases I have seen young girls become so eager for male figures and approval that they use virtually anything to obtain it, including sex. Not, IMHO, a good thing. :(

One of the 'most well adjusted' children I have ever met, was the twelve year old son (he must be about 17 now... I haven't been in the same country since), of lesbian friends of mine.

Cool kid, well-mannered, well-read, able to discourse maturely on a wide range of subjects, very self-assured... just about everything you COULD hope for in offspring.
Speaks well for both his genetic heritage and the efforts of his "parents."

One of the 'most well adjusted' children I have ever met, was the twelve year old son (he must be about 17 now... I haven't been in the same country since), of lesbian friends of mine.

Cool kid, well-mannered, well-read, able to discourse maturely on a wide range of subjects, very self-assured... just about everything you COULD hope for in offspring.
Personally, I reject the entire notion that male and female children need to be socialized differently. I happened to be born female, but until I hit puberty most people assumed I was a boy because of how I dressed and acted. I needed "male" influences more than many of my male friends, because I happened to have a personality that craved the kind of activities that are classified as "masculine." When I was forced to conform to other people's ideas of girl-ness, I became unruly and got myself into tons of trouble.

I've met plenty of boys who dream of being allowed to engage in "girl" activities, like reading, art, and other supposedly non-masculine activities. I've met just as many girls who wish they weren't expected to sit quietly on the sidelines and play with dollies while the boys get to play rough and tumble. Kids don't start out with these idiotic gender stereotypes in their heads...the stereotypes are implanted by idiotic adults who are doing far more harm than good.

To insist that all male children need a male parent is as stupid as claiming that all brown-eyed children need a brown-eyed parent. Kids need good parents, period, and it usually helps for a kid to have mentors of each gender so that they learn how to relate to men and women. But the LAST thing kids need is yet another moronic adult trying to convince them that boys must act a certain way and girls must act another way.

IMHO, there is an even greater need for girls to have a male role-model ( a GOOD one, that is! ) in their lives as they grow up. I've seen the lack of this in my own family as well as in many others. Some girls ( as with boys ) can overcome this, but some cannot it seems. In many cases I have seen young girls become so eager for male figures and approval that they use virtually anything to obtain it, including sex. Not, IMHO, a good thing. :(
Ideally kids would have more adult mentors than just their parents, and having role models of the opposite gender will probably be quite helpful as kids try to figure out the crazy mixed up world of human sexual politics.

However, I think the root problem is the notion that girls and boys (and men and women) are somehow innately foreign to one another. We teach girls and boys that they are soooooo different, and that men and women are practically from different planets, when this is completely false. We force girls and boys to shoehorn their own individual personalities into our preconceptions of how a girl or boy must act, and then we act shocked when the poor kids show messed up gender relations.

Personally, I haven't ever gone on a date before I got to know the person in question. I find it much more fulfilling to get to know people in a platonic setting, because it gets rid of a lot of the bullshit dating "rules" and gender-role stupidity that drags down the dating scene.

Well, hmmmm... maybe we're just talking about the same thing using different terms, because I would consider most of my first dates to be fairly platonic. I prefer group dates, coffee shops and whatnot to get to know a person well enough to decide whether intimacy is a good idea. I don't date coworkers and I'm not in school, so most people I get to know I have to do so in such a setting. That's why I think first date sex is a bad idea, but I guess it depends on what you consider a first date.

I'm with you.

Indeed... to be honest, I'm not sure I've ever gone on 'a date'. I'm not sure any of my relationships ever had a 'dating' period, as such... judging by what SEEMS to be a set of formal ideas of 'dating'.

Usually, the people I have ended-up with, have been people I have known for a while, sometimes for several years, who I just happen to 'fall into closer orbit with'... I guess.

Yeah, I do that at times too, but I would never count them as a reasonable person to say I had first-date sex with.

Well, hmmmm... maybe we're just talking about the same thing using different terms, because I would consider most of my first dates to be fairly platonic. I prefer group dates, coffee shops and whatnot to get to know a person well enough to decide whether intimacy is a good idea. I don't date coworkers and I'm not in school, so most people I get to know I have to do so in such a setting. That's why I think first date sex is a bad idea, but I guess it depends on what you consider a first date.
Ahhhh...well, there's the problem.

So what should we consider a "date," for the sake of this discussion? I assume the word "date" to refer to a one-on-one outing between individuals that are pursuing some form of non-platonic relationship. I assume a date is one-on-one unless otherwise specified (i.e. "double date," etc). I assume that both individuals have in some way expressed or implied their non-platonic intentions at or before the time the date is arranged, such that both parties are clear that this is something other than "hanging out" as friends.

Ideally kids would have more adult mentors than just their parents, and having role models of the opposite gender will probably be quite helpful as kids try to figure out the crazy mixed up world of human sexual politics.

However, I think the root problem is the notion that girls and boys (and men and women) are somehow innately foreign to one another. We teach girls and boys that they are soooooo different, and that men and women are practically from different planets, when this is completely false. We force girls and boys to shoehorn their own individual personalities into our preconceptions of how a girl or boy must act, and then we act shocked when the poor kids show messed up gender relations.
There are several studies which indicate that the more adults to which a child is exposed on a regular bais, the greater the child's intellectual capacity becomes. Makes sense to me.

Who is this mysterious "we" to whom you refer? My boys became strong and confident men, my girls became strong and confident women. There's a problem with this somehow? :confused:

Ahhhh...well, there's the problem.

So what should we consider a "date," for the sake of this discussion? I assume the word "date" to refer to a one-on-one outing between individuals that are pursuing some form of non-platonic relationship. I assume a date is one-on-one unless otherwise specified (i.e. "double date," etc). I assume that both individuals have in some way expressed or implied their non-platonic intentions at or before the time the date is arranged, such that both parties are clear that this is something other than "hanging out" as friends.

Well, then, yes, sex on the first date might mean your first one-on-one encounter with someone you've known longer than some people know their fiances. I don't think that's such a bad idea, really. However, it's not what I would consider first-date sex in the context of most discussions of it. Perhaps it's just a difference in cultures though.

I consider dating to be when you've both expressed non-platonic interest but you're trying to the safer venues until you get to know each other a little better. Not only is it less likely that you'll do something you regret in a group setting, but it's less likely she'll get blasted and get you in a fight (using she here because I date women and I don't do such things) or throw a drink on you or whatever someone might do when they're not being observed by their peers.

I wouldn't consider it sex on the first date if I've known the person for a year or something.

So, let me answer a different question, I think it is a bad idea to have sex with someone you barely know. I think a certain level of emotional intimacy is a necessary prerequisite to good sex.

There are several studies which indicate that the more adults to which a child is exposed on a regular bais, the greater the child's intellectual capacity becomes. Makes sense to me.

Who is this mysterious "we" to whom you refer? My boys became strong and confident men, my girls became strong and confident women. There's a problem with this somehow? :confused:

I totally agree on the first part. I think children exposed to extended families are far more likely to be well-adjusted (provided that exposure is appropriate, for goodness sake). Lots of adults to look at give us more examples of good behavior and bad behavior and good traits and bad traits so that a child can pick and choose the examples on which to base their future choices. Let's face it, some things we have to learn for ourselves but many of us are perferctly willing to let other people make mistakes for us given the opportunity.

There are several studies which indicate that the more adults to which a child is exposed on a regular bais, the greater the child's intellectual capacity becomes. Makes sense to me.

Well, yeah. Being around adults a lot has also been shown to increase a child's verbal abilities...makes sense, since adults tend to be at least marginally more verbal than children. :)

Who is this mysterious "we" to whom you refer? My boys became strong and confident men, my girls became strong and confident women. There's a problem with this somehow? :confused:
"We" is, sadly, society at large. I say "we" because all of us are a part of society, and all of us share some of the guilt if our culture advances harmful notions. It's kind of like how I would say, "we used to teach kids that black people are inferior," even though I wasn't even alive back when such education was public. I'm not saying YOU in particular participate in this, and certainly I try like hell not to, but the sad reality is that we are part of a society that perpetuates some pretty silly notions and behaviors.

If you have managed to overcome this and rear children who are free from misconceptions about gender roles, then a sincere and heartfelt HOORAY for both you and them!

It is most certainly possible for parents to overcome the stupid notions that their kids will run into. Just as parents can help their kids fight pressure on topics like smoking or unsafe sex, they can also help their kids reject the idea that girls can't to math and boys can't play with dolls.

Yeah, I will admit that I am actually being pretty generous with the term "date" as well. The majority of the people I've been involved with (romatically or sexually or both) are people I never went on a single "date" with. As I said before, my current boyfriend and I were involved for a year before we bothered, and since then I think we might have gone on 3 dates in 4 years. If you count going out for ribs and then getting drunk while playing videogames.

I virtually always have prefered the "friends with benefits" situation. I find that people are generally less neurotic if you don't attach the "dating" label to your relationship. They tend to be more comfortable and honest, and less likely to let their past history in other relationships start creeping in.

This also has the added benefit of never generating ex-boyfriends or girlfriends. Since you never started "dating," you never have to break up. ;)

A lot of it seems to come down to the definition of dating...

I go out for dinner with friends. I go out for dinner with multiple friends, male friends, female friends. The same with other things I like doing... like going to the movies, or going bowling (which I like, but suck at). Even going 'recreational' shopping.

In or out of 'relationships', I have always done these things with various combinations of people... I guess that MIGHT mean I've dated some people... but only if the things I do with my partner carry special significance because we are together....

Well, yeah. Being around adults a lot has also been shown to increase a child's verbal abilities...makes sense, since adults tend to be at least marginally more verbal than children. :)


My little girl is living evidence of this... ;)

Well, then, yes, sex on the first date might mean your first one-on-one encounter with someone you've known longer than some people know their fiances.
Shudder. What a scary thought...people get married at the drop of a hat, don't they?


So, let me answer a different question, I think it is a bad idea to have sex with someone you barely know. I think a certain level of emotional intimacy is a necessary prerequisite to good sex.
I agree on the first part, but I can't agree on the second. I've had some very good sex with people that I was not particularly emotionally intimate with. I don't think the emotional intimacy is important for everybody (though it certainly is for many people).

For me, it's more about practicality and safety. Before I have sex with ANYBODY, I want to know when they were last tested for STDs, what type of contraception they plan to use (I use the pill and require condoms from male partners), and what their feelings are about abortion. This last one shocks some people, but I make a point never to sleep with any person who has a problem with my right to choose :). As a result, I tend to have to get to know people, because if you spring all these questions within the first couple hours the other party will usually start running for the hills!

Shudder. What a scary thought...people get married at the drop of a hat, don't they?


I agree on the first part, but I can't agree on the second. I've had some very good sex with people that I was not particularly emotionally intimate with. I don't think the emotional intimacy is important for everybody (though it certainly is for many people).

For me, it's more about practicality and safety. Before I have sex with ANYBODY, I want to know when they were last tested for STDs, what type of contraception they plan to use (I use the pill and require condoms from male partners), and what their feelings are about abortion. This last one shocks some people, but I make a point never to sleep with any person who has a problem with my right to choose :). As a result, I tend to have to get to know people, because if you spring all these questions within the first couple hours the other party will usually start running for the hills!

"Hey, I couldn't help but notice you looking at me, across the room.... how do you feel about abortion..."

:D

Well, yeah. Being around adults a lot has also been shown to increase a child's verbal abilities...makes sense, since adults tend to be at least marginally more verbal than children. :)

Um, depends on the adults. I hate, yes I use the word 'hate' here, hate when adults talk to toddlers and small children like pets. Simply because their brains aren't formed doesn't mean we should be trying to help them form it.

"We" is, sadly, society at large. I say "we" because all of us are a part of society, and all of us share some of the guilt if our culture advances harmful notions. It's kind of like how I would say, "we used to teach kids that black people are inferior," even though I wasn't even alive back when such education was public. I'm not saying YOU in particular participate in this, and certainly I try like hell not to, but the sad reality is that we are part of a society that perpetuates some pretty silly notions and behaviors.

If you have managed to overcome this and rear children who are free from misconceptions about gender roles, then a sincere and heartfelt HOORAY for both you and them!

It is most certainly possible for parents to overcome the stupid notions that their kids will run into. Just as parents can help their kids fight pressure on topics like smoking or unsafe sex, they can also help their kids reject the idea that girls can't to math and boys can't play with dolls.
My youngest daughter once asked for an electric train set for Christmas, usually considered a "little boy gift." She got it. She loved it. I could cite numerous other examples, including one about my younger son who loved a little stuffed owl we bought for him. To my knowledge, we made every effort to respond positively to whatever our children happened to be interested in at the time.

To follow up: my youngest daughter is now a kickass woman who takes no bullshit from anyone, including her ex-Marine husband! Heh! And my younger son is one of the finest young men it has ever been my great pleasure to know. He is kind and gentle with his own children and very loving toward his wife, but there is no doubt in my mind that he would "go to war" for any member of his extended family ... and win! :)

I totally agree on the first part. I think children exposed to extended families are far more likely to be well-adjusted (provided that exposure is appropriate, for goodness sake).

I don't think it needs to be "extended family," though. I benefitted from being around lots of adults and having lots of adult mentors, but none of them (other than my parents) were biologically related to me. My closest and dearest "uncle" is my dad's best friend from college, who's been part of my life for as long as I can remember. You don't need blood ties to be a strong and wonderful influence for a kid.


Lots of adults to look at give us more examples of good behavior and bad behavior and good traits and bad traits so that a child can pick and choose the examples on which to base their future choices. Let's face it, some things we have to learn for ourselves but many of us are perferctly willing to let other people make mistakes for us given the opportunity.
Lol, I can't argue with that! I certainly didn't mind having a few older cousins who messed up in creative ways...they became like cautionary fairy tales for me: "Don't smoke, or you'll end up smelling like your cousin Mike!" "Don't drop out of school, or you'll end up working at the gas station like cousin Megan!" "Don't ever tease an elephant, or your nose will end up looking like cousin Jake's!"

My youngest daughter once asked for an electric train set for Christmas, usually considered a "little boy gift." She got it. She loved it. I could cite numerous other examples, including one about my younger son who loved a little stuffed owl we bought for him. To my knowledge, we made every effort to respond positively to whatever our children happened to be interested in at the time.

To follow up: my youngest daughter is now a kickass woman who takes no bullshit from anyone, including her ex-Marine husband! Heh! And my younger son is one of the finest young men it has ever been my great pleasure to know. He is kind and gentle with his own children and very loving toward his wife, but there is no doubt in my mind that he would "go to war" for any member of his extended family ... and win! :)
Yeah, definitely "hooray"-worthy. :)

Shudder. What a scary thought...people get married at the drop of a hat, don't they?


I agree on the first part, but I can't agree on the second. I've had some very good sex with people that I was not particularly emotionally intimate with. I don't think the emotional intimacy is important for everybody (though it certainly is for many people).

For me, it's more about practicality and safety. Before I have sex with ANYBODY, I want to know when they were last tested for STDs, what type of contraception they plan to use (I use the pill and require condoms from male partners), and what their feelings are about abortion. This last one shocks some people, but I make a point never to sleep with any person who has a problem with my right to choose :). As a result, I tend to have to get to know people, because if you spring all these questions within the first couple hours the other party will usually start running for the hills!

As a male, asking them about abortion does crap for me. What people say they would do in the event an abortion is an option and what they will do are often quite different. Not a problem you face, really. So for me it's also practicality. I look at it as I will not have sex with any woman who I'm not willing to raise a child with. I have friends that give me the "why the hell would you turn that down?" speech but they'll be singing a different tune if they're trying to raise a child with a psycho simply because she was really hot or had enormous breasts.

My youngest daughter once asked for an electric train set for Christmas, usually considered a "little boy gift." She got it. She loved it. I could cite numerous other examples, including one about my younger son who loved a little stuffed owl we bought for him. To my knowledge, we made every effort to respond positively to whatever our children happened to be interested in at the time.

To follow up: my youngest daughter is now a kickass woman who takes no bullshit from anyone, including her ex-Marine husband! Heh! And my younger son is one of the finest young men it has ever been my great pleasure to know. He is kind and gentle with his own children and very loving toward his wife, but there is no doubt in my mind that he would "go to war" for any member of his extended family ... and win! :)

Come on, Eut. There's no such thing as an ex-Marine. Don't make me tell you again.


My nephew asked for a bath spa, a robe, slippers and bath beads for Christmas. He's eight. I have no idea where he gets that from or at what age or for what gender such a gift would be 'appropriate', but he got it and loved it. Personally, I think he's one of the coolest kids I've ever met.

I'm still waiting for him to apologize to you, Dakini. That was totally uncalled for and I apologize on behalf of my sex's lack of sensitivity. :(
Don't worry about it. I've accepted that some men are assholes and some women are bitches... not everybody's pleasant.

As a male, asking them about abortion does crap for me. What people say they would do in the event an abortion is an option and what they will do are often quite different. Not a problem you face, really. So for me it's also practicality. I look at it as I will not have sex with any woman who I'm not willing to raise a child with. I have friends that give me the "why the hell would you turn that down?" speech but they'll be singing a different tune if they're trying to raise a child with a psycho simply because she was really hot or had enormous breasts.
Hmm. You know, you're durn practical.

You're right that, being male, your situation is a bit different. For me, the question about abortion is mostly just for my own sake...I don't want to bum people out, so I prefer to involve myself only with guys who accept the fact that I will not be having their baby. It just seems safer, for all involved, to have those cards on the table. Though I've never wanted a child myself, I have watched a dear friend lose a pregnancy that she very much wanted, and so I can kind of imagine how it might feel for some guys who wish their partner would carry the pregnancy to term. I wouldn't let that stop me from doing what I believe is right, of course, but I also only sleep with people I like and I don't want to cause unhappiness in people I like. So I try to avoid the problem by only sleeping with people who know what they are getting into with me.

But, as a guy, you don't get to make that choice for the girl, and thus I think it is very reasonable of you to use the standards that you do.

Don't worry about it. I've accepted that some men are assholes and some women are bitches... not everybody's pleasant.
I try telling myself that the arseholes of the world are all just part of the great Circle of Life, like roaches and mosquitos and poisonous vipers. I may not like being around them, and they may really annoy the crap out of me at times, but I'm convinced they serve some valuable purpose in the human food chain.

Hmm. You know, you're durn practical.

You're right that, being male, your situation is a bit different. For me, the question about abortion is mostly just for my own sake...I don't want to bum people out, so I prefer to involve myself only with guys who accept the fact that I will not be having their baby. It just seems safer, for all involved, to have those cards on the table. Though I've never wanted a child myself, I have watched a dear friend lose a pregnancy that she very much wanted, and so I can kind of imagine how it might feel for some guys who wish their partner would carry the pregnancy to term. I wouldn't let that stop me from doing what I believe is right, of course, but I also only sleep with people I like and I don't want to cause unhappiness in people I like. So I try to avoid the problem by only sleeping with people who know what they are getting into with me.

But, as a guy, you don't get to make that choice for the girl, and thus I think it is very reasonable of you to use the standards that you do.

However, for the record, willing to != want to. I simply accept the small risk that is encased in the act when I know accepting that risk doesn't endanger the potential child's well-being.

However, for the record, willing to != want to. I simply accept the small risk that is encased in the act when I know accepting that risk doesn't endanger the potential child's well-being.
Well yeah, that's totally reasonable. I mean, there have been people I "wanted" to sleep with who I decided not to sleep with, generally because I came across a good reason why sleeping with that person would be far too risky. You always take some risks when you have sex with another person, but I aim to minimize those risks as much as I possibly can. It's good to know I'm not the only one doing so! :)

Well yeah, that's totally reasonable. I mean, there have been people I "wanted" to sleep with who I decided not to sleep with, generally because I came across a good reason why sleeping with that person would be far too risky. You always take some risks when you have sex with another person, but I aim to minimize those risks as much as I possibly can. It's good to know I'm not the only one doing so! :)

Actually, I was talking about "willing to have a childing" versus "wanting to have a child", but my statement could and should be applied to sex as well (only in the reverse). I'm willing to have sex with someone I'm willing to have a child with, even if I would prefer not to have a child with that person. But I am not willing to have sex with someone I am not willing to have a child with, even if I actually want to have sex with that person.

Come on, Eut. There's no such thing as an ex-Marine. Don't make me tell you again.
Sorry. Must have taken temporary leave of my senses. :D

For those who do not know, Marines do not consider the term 'ex-Marine' to be appropriate unless that person was thrown out. We prefer former Marine (or retired Marine where appropriate).

But it's not that big of a deal, I was just teasing Eut because he should know better.

I don't see how it's acceptable before marriage

Hear, hear! No sex before marriage. Period.

It's a good recipe for better sex and a more successful marriage. Really something to have going for you when you tie the knot.

Hear, hear! No sex before marriage. Period.

It's a good recipe for better sex and a more successful marriage. Really something to have going for you when you tie the knot.

This is an incredibly simplistic and unfortunate view of both sex and marriage.

This is an incredibly simplistic and unfortunate view of both sex and marriage.

Really? How so? Explain your views, and I'll explain mine, which are actually very deeply rooted and based on traditional ideas and principles that I find to be incredibly beautiful. I don't think I'm simplistic, I just have high standards and I'm holding out for the best I can possibly get.

Please tell me how aiming high is unfortunate.

It's a good recipe for better sex

Eeehm.. no. Practice makes perfect, and variety aides the teaching.

and a more successful marriage.

Quite a lot of marriages fail because the partners are not sexually compatible. Often this leads to cheating.

Really something to have going for you when you tie the knot.
Apparantly I take marriage somewhat more serious than you (and all those others who are against sex before marriage). I like to know who and what I am committing to - in all aspects.

This question made me remember lectures me used to get back in middle school -- Don't Do Anything before a Date to the Doctor. In reality, that might apply to unprotected sex on the first date.

One, your views are only recently traditional and they are housed in the 'beauty' of marrying a virgin wife. Men, traditionally, have not been required to be virgins or applauded for doing so.

Two, sex is an incredibly complex act. Yes, it's beautiful and, yes, it's more beautiful between people who are in love. However 'in love' is not equal to 'married'. Also, this complex act requires more than just love for two people to be compatible. I've seen sex tear a relationship apart and it's a difficult area to delve into without, well, actually delving into it. It's quite easy to fall in love and be in love enough to get married without having sex. It is not, however, a guarantee of a good or okay sex life.

Three, you assume that physical characteristics don't play into one's sex life, but they do. Some men or women simply cannot meet the sexual demands of their partner despite a desire to do so. Also, I've met women whom I would not have been able to have sex without surgery on one or both of us. Imagine that little surprise on your wedding night.

Four, marriage is a complex relationship that has many factors which must be considered in order for a couple to be successful. Compatiblity as parents or on not being parents at all. Compatiblity as friends. Compatibility as roommates. Compatibility as family. Compatibility as sex partners. You should explore each of these compatibilities prior to marriage.

Five, there are no advantages to waiting till marriage other than those brought on by an, in my view, inappropriate value being placed on virgin marriages.

Six, I know of people who waited until they were married and it encouraged the speed up the nuptuals. This is something I cannot be against more firmly.

Seventh, why would we encourage to virgins to teach each other about sex when we would never suggest that we should be taught about relationships in the same way or even something as basic as typing? Generally, in ever other place in our lives, we defer to experience except sex. I get to learn from my parents marital relationship, but not their sexual relationship. I'm not supposed to watch sexual relationships (in the culture of the 'no sex before marriage' crowd). I'm not supposed to discuss these things openly and graphicly. What are we supposed to do? Guess?

I waited until I met a woman I planned on marrying to have sex for the first time. I was twenty-one. I would totally recommend waiting till that point for everyone. However, I would not have waited till marriage. There were sexual issues and those issues would have an undue strain on a new union. I don't think sexual issues put as much stress on a mature dating relationship as it does on an immature marital relationship.

It's a good recipe for better sex and a more successful marriage. Really something to have going for you when you tie the knot.
See, when I tie the knot, I'll have plenty going for me, like you know, spending the rest of my life with someone I love. Just because I've fucked them or other people before doesn't diminish the fact that we'd be sharing the rest of our lives.

See, when I tie the knot, I'll have plenty going for me, like you know, spending the rest of my life with someone I love. Just because I've fucked them or other people before doesn't diminish the fact that we'd be sharing the rest of our lives.

Yes, somehow, I don't think the beautiful part is that my wife is a virgin.

Yes, somehow, I don't think the beautiful part is that my wife is a virgin.
I don't get it either. I've deflowered guys before and it's not really that great. They're just really, really bad at it for a while.

Yeah uhhhh...............................
I'd rather NOT attain STDs.

Yeah uhhhh...............................
I'd rather NOT attain STDs.
Then use protection.

If people want to I don't see why not. *shrug*

I mean it can be a bad idea depending on the situation of the relationship, but hey, thats for the protagonists to decide. It's not like I'm morally opposed or anything.

You go on dates with people you've known for a few hours?

First of all, the above is hilarious. I'll admit that the concept of "dating" is weird to me, period. I've always just... met and gotten to know people; never asked them out for the purpose of getting to know them.

I spent years in relationships with people whom I slept with within <24hrs of meeting them and had some great relationships, many over the course of years. My most recent is with a "recovering" Muslim girl whom I courted (and, I suppose, "dated") for 2+ months before sleeping with. The latter was definitely a new experience for me, though I can't say the relationship or the sex has been spectacuarly better.

Best not to make too big a deal of it?

*vomits*

So, sex on the first date? Sure, whatever, I'll call you a slut if female or congratulate you if male.
Isn't this attitude sort of, errr, what'stheword, stupid?

What's the rationale behind sex on the first date? What good could come out of a first date with sex that couldn't come out of a first date without sex?

Why not? If the two people have a mutual attraction to each other. Just makes the night better.

You gotta view it on a case-by-case, or I suppose date-by-date basis. Having some blanket philosophy on the matter, either always yes or always no, is pretty foolish.

Also, having sex in no way increases or decreases the level of respect one has for themselves. It's an act...and a damn fun one at that...but having sex in no way makes you somehow less of a person, as some people here would have you believe.

Calls people 'sluts' and 'bastards' and then suggests that using the word 'fuck' should upset one's mother.

BTW, if I said, "fuck you" to my sister, my mother would likely tell me to watch my language. If I called my sister a "slut" and her children "bastards", I would have to run for my life. I question the quality of morals intilled on a person that has no problem degrading people because of their circumstances but think it is inappropriate to address someone whose actions are agressive and problematic.

There's a big vocabulary in English and I don't know all the words. If anyone can come up with a better word for a person who commits casual, free, promicuous sex (like on a first date) than "slut" let me know. If anyone can give me a better word for a child conceived before marriage than
'bastard" let me know. I'm always willing to expand my vocabulary.

Isn't it interesting that people complain about "politically correct" speech (PC) but when someone uses a word that aptly describes the situation it suddenly becomes insulting and a word that's "just not said". I don't find the words insulting because I know they don't apply to me. I doubt they bother anyone else that has a clear conscious. They do tend to bother people that know in their minds and hearts that they may apply to them.

So what is the solution? If slut bothers you, change your ways so it doesn't apply to you. Bastard is a different problem. If it bothers you, about all you can do is live your life in such a way that your offspring won't feel insulted by the word.

As I said in the beginning, if we properly used the words slut and bastard there would be a lot less sluts and a lot less bastards. By being politically correct we ignore truths and condone actions that harm children and society.

If anyone can come up with a better word for a person who commits casual, free, promicuous sex (like on a first date) than "slut" let me know.A person? The fact that they enjoy enjoy sex being incidental to their personhood.

If anyone can give me a better word for a child conceived before marriage than
'bastard" let me know.A child? The fact that their parents were unmarried being incidental to their childhood.

I don't find the words insulting because I know they don't apply to me. I doubt they bother anyone else that has a clear conscious. They do tend to bother people that know in their minds and hearts that they may apply to them.Hmm. I've only ever engaged in sexual intercourse with two individuals, and only then months into the relationship. I should imagine, therefore, that I am far from a "slut" (especially if you use your definition of having casual sex, sex on first dates, etc). My parents were married, therefore meaning I am not a "bastard". Yet I am somewhat bothered - not by the terms per se, but by the apparent judgment you mete out to those individuals you consider to be categorised like that.

In relation to the OP, I personally would not have sex on the first date, but it's up to the two parties involved and is really no one's business but their own (so long as protection is used, obviously, in order to protect any future partners).

There's a big vocabulary in English and I don't know all the words. If anyone can come up with a better word for a person who commits casual, free, promicuous sex (like on a first date) than "slut" let me know.
So a person has sex with a total of say, two people and only one of those two people did they fuck on the first date, and they're a slut? And considering that the term slut is reserved for women, perhaps you could be a bit less sexist in your condemnation of promiscuity.
But you know, how about not categorizing people based on their sexual activities... or perhaps we should just brand you a prude.

If anyone can give me a better word for a child conceived before marriage than 'bastard" let me know. I'm always willing to expand my vocabulary.
It's not so much the terminology you use as the way in which you use it. There really isn't anything wrong with being born out of wedlock. You act as though there is.

Isn't it interesting that people complain about "politically correct" speech (PC) but when someone uses a word that aptly describes the situation it suddenly becomes insulting and a word that's "just not said". I don't find the words insulting because I know they don't apply to me. I doubt they bother anyone else that has a clear conscious. They do tend to bother people that know in their minds and hearts that they may apply to them.
These words don't apply to me either. Doesn't mean they are appropriate or should be used in polite conversation.

So what is the solution? If slut bothers you, change your ways so it doesn't apply to you.
Oh, you mean become a man?

As I said in the beginning, if we properly used the words slut and bastard there would be a lot less sluts and a lot less bastards. By being politically correct we ignore truths and condone actions that harm children and society.
The thing is that these things don't harm society or children generally.

The thing is that these things don't harm society or children generally.
"Gang recruitment is a powerful lure for the products of broken homes and single-parent households" as gang members are likely to "receive little guidance or attention from family members at home." (Chicago Crime Commission Report,1995)
75% of teenage pregnancies are adolescents from single parent homes (Children in need: Investment Strategies...Committee for Economic Development)
Approximately 13% of all babies born in the U.S. are born to adolescent mothers, with one million teens becoming pregnant each year. Explanations for teen pregnancy include the break-up of the American home and parental loss. (University of Kentucky, Departments of Psychiatry, Ob/Gyn and Psychology)
63% of suicides are individuals from single parent families (FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Investigative Aid)
"Separation, divorce and unmarried parenthood seemed to be a high risk for children/adolescents in these families for the development of suicidal behavior". (Atilla Turgay, M.D.American Psychiatric Association's Scientific Meeting, May 1994)


75% of children/adolescents in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families. (Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)
1 out of 5 children have a learning, emotional, or behavioral problem due to the family system changing. (National Center for Health Statistics)
More than one half of all youths incarcerated for criminal acts lived in one-parent families when they were children. (Children's Defense Fund)
Nine million American children face risk factors that may hinder their ability to become healthy and productive adults. One in seven children deal with at least four of the risk factors, which include growing up in a single-parent household...The survey also indicated that children confronting several risk factors are more likely to experience problems with concentration, communication, and health. (1999 Kids Count Survey - Annie E. Casey Foundation)
Father absence contributes to crime and delinquency. Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers.
(U.S. Census Bureau report, "Child Support and Alimony: 1989, released Oct. 11, 1991)
Children of divorced parents are seven times more likely to suffer from depression in adult life than people of similar age and background whose parents have not divorced. This Israeli study, indicated that the loss of a parent through divorce is more likely to cause depression than loss through death. "The earlier the separation occurred, the more likely it was to have had an influence," researcher Bernard Lerer said. (Study by Bernard Lerer and Ofer Agid of the Biological Psychiatric Unit at Hadassah Hospital, Jerusalem, as reported in Molecular Psychiatry, 1999)
Child Poverty Dramatically Increases Outside of Intact Marriages." Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 197996,
"Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancies Are Much More Likely to End in Abortions." Source: Stanley K. Henshaw, "Unintended Pregnancy in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1998, p. 26.
"Married Mothers Are Half as Likely to Be Victims of Domestic Violence." Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1999
"Serious Child Abuse Is Far Less Likely in Married Families." Source: Heritage analysis of British data from "Comparative Risk Ratios for Serious Abuse," 19821988
"Children from Single-Parent and Broken Families Are More Likely to End Up in Jail as Adults." Source: Cynthia Harper and Sara McLanahan, "Father Absence and Youth
Incarceration,"
"Adolescents in Married Families Are Less Likely to Be Depressed." Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, Wave II, 1996.
"School Expulsion Is Less Likely Among Children in Married Families." Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, Wave II, 1996.
"Children in Intact Married Families Are Less Likely to Repeat a Grade." Source: Deborah A. Dawson, "Family Structure and Children's Health and Well Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey of Child Health," Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53 (August 1991), pp. 573584
"Development Problems Are Less Common in Two-Parent Families." Source: Nicholas Zill, National Health Interview Survey, Child Health Supplement 1981.
"Adolescent Marijuana Use Is More Common in Broken Families." Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, Wave I, 1995.
"Adolescent Cocaine Use Is Much More Common in Broken Homes." Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, Wave II, 1996.
"Weapon-Carrying by Adolescents on Drugs Is More Common in Broken Families." Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, Wave II, 1996.
"Adolescents from Divorced Families Are More Likely to Smoke Cigarettes." Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, Wave I, 1995.
"Adolescents Are Less Healthy in Broken Families." Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, Wave I, 1995.
"Teenagers from Intact Married Families Are Less Likely to Be Sexually Active." Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, Wave II, 1996.

1. Proper education in contraceptives can prevent most unwanted pregnancies.
2. Abortions should be made easily available for those who find themselves pregnant and are unable to support a kid.
3. Adoptions should be made easily available for those who find themselves pregnant, are unable to support a kid and are unwilling to have an abortion.
4. Most of those things you listed are probably better linked to poverty than single parenting.
5. You also made the erroneous statement earlier that children in households surrounded by fighting is better than having the children in a divorced household, where's your basis for this?
6. None of this has a damn thing to do with the topic at hand as most sexual encounters don't result in a pregnancy, especially if the two parties aren't stupid about it.
7. I call bullshit on the one about teen pregnancies, which are more a result of shitty sexual education than single parent households.
8. Where is your response to the rest of my post? Do you agree that you're a chauvist pig who's judging women harshly while ignoring the male role in this whole thing?
9. Citing article titles without a summary of their contents or comments on it is pretty shitty form for a debate. I'm not searching for all those, you know. It's your job to bring your information to the table.

I think that having sex before marraige is wrong. Just think would you drink off of the same water bottle as twenty sick people? Its a bad idea. If you are a virgin until marriage and so is your spouse, you know you are the only one to have had sex with that person, and they are the same for you. Just think of the beauty of unity with only one other person.:)

I think that having sex before marraige is wrong. Just think would you drink off of the same water bottle as twenty sick people? Its a bad idea.
Who says there would be twenty people, let alone that they would be sick?

If you are a virgin until marriage and so is your spouse, you know you are the only one to have had sex with that person, and they are the same for you. Just think of the beauty of unity with only one other person.:)
I don't find the idea appealing at all, to be honest. And people who wait until they're married tend to have a higher divorce rate as they tend to marry younger.

I've never met someone from online...

It's worth it. 90% of any good relationship is communication and with the internet, you have one of the most robust communication systems that doesn't involve any physical contact. You can always force your way into someone's body, but getting into another person's mind and soul is by invitation only.

When it comes to going out to a bar and meeting someone, sex on the first date is probably a really bad idea, but if it's a long distance relationship that you have been carrying on every day for three months solid, it's amazing how fast clothes can come off when you meet for the first time in person.:D

1. Proper education in contraceptives can prevent most unwanted pregnancies.
2. Abortions should be made easily available for those who find themselves pregnant and are unable to support a kid.
3. Adoptions should be made easily available for those who find themselves pregnant, are unable to support a kid and are unwilling to have an abortion. Agreed
4. Most of those things you listed are probably better linked to poverty than single parenting. Child Poverty Dramatically Increases Outside of Intact Marriages." Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 197996,
5. You also made the erroneous statement earlier that children in households surrounded by fighting is better than having the children in a divorced household, where's your basis for this? "The earlier the separation occurred, the more likely it was to have had an influence," researcher Bernard Lerer said. (Study by Bernard Lerer and Ofer Agid of the Biological Psychiatric Unit at Hadassah Hospital, Jerusalem, as reported in Molecular Psychiatry, 1999)
6. None of this has a damn thing to do with the topic at hand as most sexual encounters don't result in a pregnancy, especially if the two parties aren't stupid about it. Show me a type of birth control that is 100%. Even 99.9% means one in every thousand.
7. I call bullshit on the one about teen pregnancies, which are more a result of shitty sexual education than single parent households. "Teenagers from Intact Married Families Are Less Likely to Be Sexually Active." Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, Wave II, 1996.
8. Where is your response to the rest of my post? Do you agree that you're a chauvist pig who's judging women harshly while ignoring the male role in this whole thing? Give me a word for a male slut and I'll use it. My vocabulary is lacking. btw the word for a male virgin is "chasted".
9. Citing article titles without a summary of their contents or comments on it is pretty shitty form for a debate. I'm not searching for all those, you know. It's your job to bring your information to the table.
You want me to type out 500 pages of material? I call BULLSHIT! Show me pages that say you are correct. That there is no effect from slutty (both male and female) behavior.

What's the rationale behind sex on the first date? What good could come out of a first date with sex that couldn't come out of a first date without sex?Uh, how about the sex?



Or don't any of your partners ever say it was good?

It's a bad idea. I mean, what if the other person is just looking for a one night stand or leaves and never calls just because they don't love you enough to stay if you're bad in bed? And what if the girl ends up pregnant? Not very fun then, is it?

Forgive me, I'm half Catholic, half Babtist and raised to not do the bed thing till I'm married:rolleyes: :D

Child Poverty Dramatically Increases Outside of Intact Marriages." Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 197996,
Yes, because one income brings in less money than two and people who started poor are more likely to be and remain single parents.

"The earlier the separation occurred, the more likely it was to have had an influence," researcher Bernard Lerer said. (Study by Bernard Lerer and Ofer Agid of the Biological Psychiatric Unit at Hadassah Hospital, Jerusalem, as reported in Molecular Psychiatry, 1999)
And studies have shown that separation is better for a kid than constant bickering and living with parents who hate each other.

Show me a type of birth control that is 100%. Even 99.9% means one in every thousand.
Didn't we already agree on what should occur with unwanted pregnancies?

"Teenagers from Intact Married Families Are Less Likely to Be Sexually Active." Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, Wave II, 1996.
Teenagers who are aware of and have access to birth control are less likely to get pregnant.

Give me a word for a male slut and I'll use it. My vocabulary is lacking. btw the word for a male virgin is "chasted".
There isn't a male term for slut. It's a denigrating term, applied to women, remember, men are heros for getting laid a lot.

You want me to type out 500 pages of material?
I want you to link and perhaps an abstract. It doesn't even look like you read these studies, you just found the titles.

Show me pages that say you are correct. That there is no effect from slutty (both male and female) behavior.
With birth control and abortion and adoption, there is no issue of children being born out of wedlock. I'm not talking about casual procreation, I'm talking about casual sex, there's a big difference.

It's a bad idea. I mean, what if the other person is just looking for a one night stand or leaves and never calls just because they don't love you enough to stay if you're bad in bed?
What if both parties are out for casual sex?

What if both parties are out for casual sex?
Go for it! :D

I'm not talking about casual procreation, I'm talking about casual sex, there's a big difference.
Well, I guess we all know who needs to be at the head of the line at that new sex education class you keep advocating.

It's a bad idea. I mean, what if the other person is just looking for a one night stand or leaves and never calls just because they don't love you enough to stay if you're bad in bed? And what if the girl ends up pregnant? Not very fun then, is it?

Forgive me, I'm half Catholic, half Babtist and raised to not do the bed thing till I'm married:rolleyes: :D


That would be "Baptist"....unless there's some new sect I don't know about.

Anyway, any woman who's going to have sex with some guy on the first date would be on birth control of some sort if she has much of a brain. Also, any guy who's going to screw someone on the first date would do well to remember a condom. It's never a good idea to risk getting some kind of STD or STI.

Well, I guess we all know who needs to be at the head of the line at that new sex education class you keep advocating.
Clearly, it's you.

You do know there are types of birth control that are 100% effective, yeah? The person you are talking about would advocate abortion to prevent a birth. Also, you are aware that some sex CANNOT result in birth, yeah? Don't worry. They'll teach you all about it in the sex ed class.

Now, if your studies have been published in the last thrity years and they're at all poignant they are available on-line. We tend to think references to studies and statistics without links are made-up.

I realize that I posted in here about something else but didn't answer the original question.

For starters, I would consider a date to mean "meeting with someone in person with the intention of establishing or laying the foundation for a romantic relationship".

In the past, I have had sex on the first date, including the current relationship that I'm in, which is going on 6 years. If for some reason this relationship ends, I don't think that I would. I would possibly have sex with people I've just met who I don't intend on having a relationship with. I put my reasons for this in the "What Makes a Good Lover?" thread (or at least I think it was that one.)

Furthermore, just as there are different types of contraception, there are different types of sex acts that are riskier or less risky than one another. If you use your hands only, there's no risk of either STDs or pregnancy.

I think that having sex before marraige is wrong. Just think would you drink off of the same water bottle as twenty sick people? If I was thirsty enough.

Well, I guess we all know who needs to be at the head of the line at that new sex education class you keep advocating.
You?
I'm aware of various methods of contraception and I think my attitude towards sex is a rather healthy one. I don't sleep around, I just don't suport being judgmental of those who choose to do so.

If I'd never had sex on a first date I'd have missed out on about 3/4 of the sex I've actually had, and I've had some! Go figure.

Well, I guess we all know who needs to be at the head of the line at that new sex education class you keep advocating.
Oh dear. Please tell me you are not sexually active.

Sex does not equal procreation. Pregnancy doesn't even equal procreation, because pregnancy ends without a baby more often than not. For all of human history, sex has been less than 40% effective at resulting in procreation, and for most of human history it's been more like 10-25% effective. And this is WITHOUT counting in human-performed abortions.

Saying that sex equals procreation is like saying that driving a car equals dying in a pool of your own blood. Yes, sex can sometimes lead to pregnancy, and pregnancy can sometimes lead to giving birth, but so what? Driving a car could lead to an accident, and having an accident could lead to you dying in a pool of your own blood. Does this mean that we should tell people to never drive? Does this mean that if somebody chooses to drive a car we should forbid them to wear a seatbelt or take other precautions? Does this mean that if somebody gets into an accident we should refuse to treat their injuries because they decided to drive the car in the first place?

If I'd never had sex on a first date I'd have missed out on about 3/4 of the sex I've actually had, and I've had some! Go figure.
hey there baby, wanna go out some time? :p

I think that having sex before marraige is wrong. Just think would you drink off of the same water bottle as twenty sick people? Its a bad idea.

So all people who have sex are sick? Wow, you really need to get past your sex-phobia.


If you are a virgin until marriage and so is your spouse, you know you are the only one to have had sex with that person, and they are the same for you. Just think of the beauty of unity with only one other person.:)
If you need to break somebody's hymen to feel "beautiful unity" with them, then you have no business getting married in the first place. Sex will not create unity and love. Popping somebody's cherry will not give your relationship magical powers.

And, frankly, you should forge a more meaningful bond BEFORE you promise to spend the rest of your life with another person. You shouldn't get married to somebody until you already feel that connection and that love. Waiting until after the vows to connect with your partner is a disservice to both them and to yourself. If your love for your partner is so flimsy that a thing like sex could actually enhance it in any significant way, then not only are you putting far too much emphasis on sex but you are also clearly not close enough to that person to be considering marriage.

What's the rationale behind sex on the first date? What good could come out of a first date with sex that couldn't come out of a first date without sex?
That's like asking, "What good could come out of a first date with MiniGolf that couldn't come out of a date without MiniGolf?"

Well, some people really get a kick out of MiniGolf. Getting to play MiniGolft on a first date is something some people really enjoy doing. If both people are interested in playing MiniGolf, then why shouldn't they? I guess they could have done something else, but why should they go out of their way to AVOID doing something they both will enjoy? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to have whatever kind of fun suits them best?

That's like asking, "What good could come out of a first date with MiniGolf that couldn't come out of a date without MiniGolf?"

Well, some people really get a kick out of MiniGolf. Getting to play MiniGolft on a first date is something some people really enjoy doing. If both people are interested in playing MiniGolf, then why shouldn't they? I guess they could have done something else, but why should they go out of their way to AVOID doing something they both will enjoy? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to have whatever kind of fun suits them best?
but where does the condom go? :confused:

What if both parties are out for casual sex?

If both parties are consensual, go for it!!!!!! Yeahhhhhhh Dakini!!!!

but where does the condom go? :confused:
I am soooooo trying not to make a pornographic putter joke right now...

I am soooooo trying not to make a pornographic putter joke right now...
for some reason i'm getting an image of one of my friends trying to put a condom onto a putter, lol

What if both parties are out for casual sex?
Silly Dakini. Women never want sex. Women want talking, and candles, and cuddles. Women have no sex drive. Women simply submit to sex because sex is the only thing a woman has that a man wants. Women don't actually WANT to have sex, and they certainly never experience physical pleasure from sex. Rather, women cry after sex because they know that having sex makes them a dirty worthless slut who nobody will ever love.

And no woman could ever want CASUAL sex. Women are too emotional for that. Women don't have libidos. Women want to get a commitment from every man they encounter. No woman ever wants to be single.

You clearly have not been reading The Big Book Of Rules For Women. Shame on you.

You clearly have not been reading The Big Book Of Rules For Women. Shame on you.
it took until i'd read this sentence to realise you're joking, or we guy's don't know about this book.
i have i feeling i never got a copy of the guy's version

Silly Dakini -snip-

i think my sarcasm-o-meter just broke ;)

it took until i'd read this sentence to realise you're joking, or we guy's don't know about this book.
i have i feeling i never got a copy of the guy's version
Oh, there is no Big Book Of Rules for guys...it's really more of a pamphlet. The gist is, "Boobies good, talking bad, when in doubt hit things with a hammer."

Totally agree with that, it's not as if you have to wait months or years or something, just a few dates maybe? is that so difficult?

But haven't you ever had a really intense first date and really gotten to know someone? Last time I had sex on the first date, I married the guy 5 years later.

Oh, there is no Big Book Of Rules for guys...it's really more of a pamphlet. The gist is, "Boobies good, talking bad, when in doubt hit things with a hammer."
no quite right, it just says hit things, it never says with what

no quite right, it just says hit things, it never says with what

You beat me to the correction. A hammer is not NEAR big enough to hit things with unless it is being used for a specific purpose (ie driving in a nail)

You beat me to the correction. A hammer is not NEAR big enough to hit things with unless it is being used for a specific purpose (ie driving in a nail)
Nonsense. A real man would simply make a bigger hammer by smashing many smaller hammers together. Or possibly would use a smaller hammer to kill some kind of mammoth and then use its giant bones to construct a larger hammer. I'm not clear on which one is more manly, but then I am but a humble female and am not wise in the ways of the hammer. I also cannot fix cars.

for some reason i'm getting an image of one of my friends trying to put a condom onto a putter, lolhmmm... balls, shaft... head...

it's all about the stroke count, where to place the hands, how tight the grip has to be... keeping the legs at a certain distance apart...

and never forget, the main objective is to hit the hole.

maybe that's why most men like golf. :D

Nonsense. A real man would simply make a bigger hammer by smashing many smaller hammers together. Or possibly would use a smaller hammer to kill some kind of mammoth and then use its giant bones to construct a larger hammer. I'm not clear on which one is more manly, but then I am but a humble female and am not wise in the ways of the hammer. I also cannot fix cars.
sigged :D

hmmm... balls, shaft... head...

it's all about the stroke count, where to place the hands, how tight the grip has to be... keeping the legs at a certain distance apart...

and never forget, the main objective is to hit the hole.

maybe that's why most men like golf. :D
I always thought Tiger Woods sounded like a porn star name, and now I know I'm right!

I always thought Tiger Woods sounded like a porn star name, and now I know I'm right!
lets not forget Hawaii's Female Golf Protoge'e Michelle Wheee! (yes, I know that's not how her name is spelt. ) ;)

lets not forget Hawaii's Female Golf Protoge'e Michelle Wheee! (yes, I know that's not how her name is spelt. ) ;)
Whoa. Seriously guys, I think we're on to something here.

The pro golf circuit is just a front for a massive adult entertainment industry. We must stop these randy club-handling sex fiends! WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

Whoa. Seriously guys, I think we're on to something here.

The pro golf circuit is just a front for a massive adult entertainment industry. We must stop these randy club-handling sex fiends! WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!
"Considering how many children are being introduced to golf by their parents... the problem is they are thinking of the children! :eek:

I doubt they bother anyone else that has a clear conscious. They do tend to bother people that know in their minds and hearts that they may apply to them.

Yes, if only I could clear my conscience of the fact that I'm a 'bastard'. I'm at fault for being born out of wedlock. What was I thinking allowing that to happen?

So what is the solution? If slut bothers you, change your ways so it doesn't apply to you. Bastard is a different problem. If it bothers you, about all you can do is live your life in such a way that your offspring won't feel insulted by the word.

My offspring won't likely be offended by the word. Neither will my nephews who happen to be 'bastards', though I prefer to simply refer to them by name or call them my nephews (but that's because I know there is no qualitative difference between my nephews and every other on the planet). They will realize that people who use the word are mentally-handicapped individuals who cannot wrap their minds around the concept of being held responsible for someone else's action. Even better, they will realize that some people have the unfortunate handicap of being unable to concentrate on the plank in their own eye and are force by that handicap to place their judgement on others.

As I said in the beginning, if we properly used the words slut and bastard there would be a lot less sluts and a lot less bastards. By being politically correct we ignore truths and condone actions that harm children and society.
Perhaps, we could use this argument to the mods. Even we would be allowed to simply call people names that demonstrate how rude and uncreative they are being, perhaps there would be less of those people. Let's see if those arguments work. Oh, wait, it's not my job to 'punish' people, particularly people who have NO responsibility for the action you are punishing them for ('bastards').

Matthew 7 1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Looks like Jesus thinks you're a hypocrite and suggests that the judgement you mete out is going to come back at you. Repent. It's not too late for you to change your ways and become a moral person. I'll pray for you.

My offspring won't likely be offended by the word. Neither will my nephews who happen to be 'bastards', though I prefer to simply refer to them by name or call them my nephews (but that's because I know there is no qualitative difference between my nephews and every other on the planet). They will realize that people who use the word are mentally-handicapped individuals who cannot wrap their minds around the concept of being held responsible for someone else's action. Even better, they will realize that some people have the unfortunate handicap of being unable to concentrate on the plank in their own eye and are force by that handicap to place their judgement on others.

I would hope it would go even farther, and your offspring will be able to understand that there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with being born out of wedlock, or with bearing a child out of wedlock, or with fathering a child out of wedlock. In many cases it can be a bad idea to have a child out of wedlock, but there are at least as many cases in which it is a bad idea for a couple to have kids IN wedlock.

Nonsense. A real man would simply make a bigger hammer by smashing many smaller hammers together. Or possibly would use a smaller hammer to kill some kind of mammoth and then use its giant bones to construct a larger hammer. I'm not clear on which one is more manly, but then I am but a humble female and am not wise in the ways of the hammer. I also cannot fix cars.

Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of "hammer" ;-) Using a smaller hammer to kill a mammoth and construct a larger hammer is clearly more manly. This would be the claymore of hammers, and sufficient to hitting things with.

I would hope it would go even farther, and your offspring will be able to understand that there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with being born out of wedlock, or with bearing a child out of wedlock, or with fathering a child out of wedlock. In many cases it can be a bad idea to have a child out of wedlock, but there are at least as many cases in which it is a bad idea for a couple to have kids IN wedlock.

That would be their decision to make. I won't judge my children any more than I would judge you.

That would be their decision to make. I won't judge my children any more than I would judge you.
Well, that was kind of my point.

Put it another way: you say you wouldn't judge your kids, so I take that to mean that you would not assume your kids are inherently wicked if they had an out-of-wedlock child, nor would you regard their child as worth less because it was born out of wedlock. That's the whole idea I was trying to get across.

I don't think marriage is a cure-all. I think there are couples that have problems marriage can't fix, and getting married isn't going to help them be better parents to their children. In some cases it can even make things worse. This is why I think there isn't necessarily anything wrong with having a kid out of wedlock. Each situation, and each individual, has to be regarded individually. You can't make some blanket statement about all couples, all kids, or all families, at least not when it comes to how they structure themselves.

Bottle, you crack me up. Ever thought about being a commedian?

Well, that was kind of my point.

Put it another way: you say you wouldn't judge your kids, so I take that to mean that you would not assume your kids are inherently wicked if they had an out-of-wedlock child, nor would you regard their child as worth less because it was born out of wedlock. That's the whole idea I was trying to get across.

I don't think marriage is a cure-all. I think there are couples that have problems marriage can't fix, and getting married isn't going to help them be better parents to their children. In some cases it can even make things worse. This is why I think there isn't necessarily anything wrong with having a kid out of wedlock. Each situation, and each individual, has to be regarded individually. You can't make some blanket statement about all couples, all kids, or all families, at least not when it comes to how they structure themselves.

The point is that I don't make judgements on what is wicked. I do try to help people make healthy decisions and extract healthy outcomes but my involvement in such things are insofar as I know how it will effect the individuals involved. So if I thought the marriage is the healthy decision that is the decision I would encourage and vice versa. However, I would offer up my suggestion as strongly as my knowledge of the situation warranted. Thus, again, my 'judgement' of the situation would not be on wicked or not wicked, but on my understanding of the situation and what would be the outcome most likely to be healthy for the people involved.

Example: I don't know anything about your personal situation so if you were pregnant (yeah, I know, infinitely unlikely) and believed it was in the best interest of the child not to involve the father, I would encourage you to follow the best interest of the child, were you to seek my opinion. However, if you wanted to have a child alone simply because you really have no interest in sharing parental rights and didn't consider the interests of the child, I would discourage this action, were you to seek my opinion, because I think children are rarely benefitted by a single-parent household or by a parent that is unwilling to allow others to be involved in the child's life as role-models and decision-makers. Let me add again "WERE YOU TO SEEK MY OPINION". Otherwise, unless you were my child, it's none of my freakin' business.

Notice how in the example, I never mentioned marriage at all. I think marriage is a decision that should be made in the interest of love and only love. I think forming the decision around such a thing IS in the best interest of the child. Since I don't know about your feelings about this imaginary 'father', I can't speculate on marriage at all.

The point is that I don't make judgements on what is wicked. I do try to help people make healthy decisions and extract healthy outcomes but my involvement in such things are insofar as I know how it will effect the individuals involved. So if I thought the marriage is the healthy decision that is the decision I would encourage and vice versa. However, I would offer up my suggestion as strongly as my knowledge of the situation warranted. Thus, again, my 'judgement' of the situation would not be on wicked or not wicked, but on my understanding of the situation and what would be the outcome most likely to be healthy for the people involved.

Example: I don't know anything about your personal situation so if you were pregnant (yeah, I know, infinitely unlikely) and believed it was in the best interest of the child not to involve the father, I would encourage you to follow the best interest of the child, were you to seek my opinion. However, if you wanted to have a child alone simply because you really have no interest in sharing parental rights and didn't consider the interests of the child, I would discourage this action, were you to seek my opinion, because I think children are rarely benefitted by a single-parent household or by a parent that is unwilling to allow others to be involved in the child's life as role-models and decision-makers. Let me add again "WERE YOU TO SEEK MY OPINION". Otherwise, unless you were my child, it's none of my freakin' business.

Notice how in the example, I never mentioned marriage at all. I think marriage is a decision that should be made in the interest of love and only love. I think forming the decision around such a thing IS in the best interest of the child. Since I don't know about your feelings about this imaginary 'father', I can't speculate on marriage at all.
EXACTLY!

See, folks, this is the kind of thinking we need more of! Less blaming of the victim, and more focus on achieving positive outcomes.

Bottle, you crack me up. Ever thought about being a commedian?
I do have a fetish for being pelted with rotten fruit, so maybe I should consider your suggestion...

This is a very touchy issue, and depends largely on the situation. For example, If she were really hot, then yes. If the date was being chaperoned, I'd say no. If it were a double date, well, that could be interesting, couldn't it?

EXACTLY!

See, folks, this is the kind of thinking we need more of! Less blaming of the victim, and more focus on achieving positive outcomes.

See, that's the thing. There is no victim in the situation, but since I assume you are talking about calling someone who has no control over the situation but gets called a 'bastard', I agree.

I simply think I am not in a position to assess wicked at all. I think that is between the person and their maker. I am ONLY concerned about people who's actions have negative effects on others that I can do something to mitigate. I will only mitigate those effects if it is A) in my power to do so (I can't make two individuals into a love home, which I happen to believe IS a benefit to the child, so wishing they were in that situation does nothing for them or the child) and B) if I am both pretty stinkin' certain their outcome will be negative to people who are not responsible for the situation and that I can produce a decidely more favorable outcome.

Clearly, it's you.

You do know there are types of birth control that are 100% effective, yeah? The person you are talking about would advocate abortion to prevent a birth. Also, you are aware that some sex CANNOT result in birth, yeah? Don't worry. They'll teach you all about it in the sex ed class.

Now, if your studies have been published in the last thrity years and they're at all poignant they are available on-line. We tend to think references to studies and statistics without links are made-up.
100% effective??????? Maybe getting the tubes cut would be close. Nothing easily reversable is rated 100%----I DARE you to show me evidence of 100%.

I haven't seen any quotes, much less links, that say bastard children are equal or better off than those with both parents. At least I offered a full page of studies. No one of the "sluts (male and female) are OK" arguement has made any effort to justify their position.

99.9 means one failure in a thousand. The average adult American has sex 116 times per year. (It was on "What Do You Know?" NPR last Saturday.) That means if you have 10 couples with average sex, in a year you will have one failure. That failure may come when the female is not "ripe". Since she's at that point 3 days out of 30--10% we would have to account for that. So, If we had 100 couples there would be a failure that would cause pregnancy in one of those couples in a year. Now you want to say that 50% of those pregnancies will fail. So now it's one in 200. Females are fertile between 15 and 40 (yes I know it's longer than that, I'm trying to keep the numbers low) So given a random 200 couples 1 in 8 will have a surprise while using birth control over 25 years. Of course, if we are talking of surprise sex on a first date, it is likely that at least a few will forget to bring their protection which will increase the odds.

Someone compared sex to cars. You don't have a car accident one in every thousand times you drive. Since most people drive a couple times per day, that would be an accident every three years. And in comparing car accidents to sex, and in sex there are two options--Pregnant or Not Pregnant (no fender benders). The comparison would have to be to a fatal accident every 3 years. If that were your odds, I doubt if you would have casual driving.

Okay, when I saw what this Good Life character was trolling about, I just had to wade in.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with sex on a first date. As logn as you use protection and both parties consent, then what the hell. If they're that attracted to each other, then let their bodies do the communicating. Nothing wrong with that, and to call these people sluts...how about we just call them 'people' instead of such an offensive name. And before you start espousing about political correctness, I hate a lot of it, but to call someone a slut because they have sex on a first date is just appaling and beyond basic human decency.

One more thing. I can see you can reel off large numbers of scientific study titles and a few random quotes. But where are the links? Where are the full titles, author names, dates published, in essence everything needed to debate back? And no, you don't have to start typing everything out, just more than a few random quotes and the full details would be approriate - alongside some actual links - many jourbals are now online.

I would demand an apology to Dakini, but I don't see that coming. I'd just like to say that what you said was disgusting and immature, not to mention plain trolling.

100% effective??????? Maybe getting the tubes cut would be close. Nothing easily reversable is rated 100%----I DARE you to show me evidence of 100%.
Honey, read what he said. 100% effective BIRTH CONTROL. It may not be 100% possible to ensure that sex does not result in PREGNANCY, but it sure as hell is 100% possible to ensure that sex does not lead to the birth of a child.

100% effective??????? Maybe getting the tubes cut would be close. Nothing easily reversable is rated 100%----I DARE you to show me evidence of 100%.

One of course could have sex without letting a penis enter a vagina ;)

I haven't seen any quotes, much less links, that say bastard children are equal or better off than those with both parents.
Simple situation:
Dad likes to hit Mom with a chair telling her what a useless [selfcensored] she is. Repeatedly. Is this by definition a better environment to raise a child in than the mother + children moving out ?

What is best for the child depends on the situation. It is not a clearcut "in wedlock is always better".

99.9 means one failure in a thousand. The average adult American has sex 116 times per year. (It was on "What Do You Know?" NPR last Saturday.)
That means if you have 10 couples with average sex, in a year you will have one failure.

That depends on what the percentage actually represents. Generally it means that x % of all couples who used the protection correctly for a year did not get pregnant. So in your case of 99,9%, only 1 in a 1000 couples per year.

100% effective??????? Maybe getting the tubes cut would be close. Nothing easily reversable is rated 100%----I DARE you to show me evidence of 100%.

What percentage of abortions result in birth?

What percentage of blowjobs result in birth?

What percentage of anal sex results in birth?

What percentage of homosexual sex results in birth?

I just named four completely effective methods, covering EVERY type of sex.

I haven't seen any quotes, much less links, that say bastard children are equal or better off than those with both parents. At least I offered a full page of studies. No one of the "sluts (male and female) are OK" arguement has made any effort to justify their position.

Then it's a good thing those 'bastard' children aren't judging you. Since, you're making assertions, please link the studies or expect to be laughed at.

99.9 means one failure in a thousand. The average adult American has sex 116 times per year. (It was on "What Do You Know?" NPR last Saturday.) That means if you have 10 couples with average sex, in a year you will have one failure. That failure may come when the female is not "ripe". Since she's at that point 3 days out of 30--10% we would have to account for that. So, If we had 100 couples there would be a failure that would cause pregnancy in one of those couples in a year. Now you want to say that 50% of those pregnancies will fail. So now it's one in 200. Females are fertile between 15 and 40 (yes I know it's longer than that, I'm trying to keep the numbers low) So given a random 200 couples 1 in 8 will have a surprise while using birth control over 25 years. Of course, if we are talking of surprise sex on a first date, it is likely that at least a few will forget to bring their protection which will increase the odds.

False. You suck with statistics. 99.9% effective means if 1000 couples have regular sex for one year using the contraception properly each time, one of them will become pregnant. Of that one in 1000, around 60% or more of those pregnancies will never result in a birth without including the option of an induced abortion. The odds are VERY MUCH against having a child while using contraception properly.

http://www.coolnurse.com/birth_control2.htm

The odds of a condom resulting in pregnancy when used properly is 2 per 100 per YEAR of use. The odds for the pill when used properly is 3 per 1000 per year of use. Now if those are used together as they often are, do the math. Trust me, it doesn't match up to your made up numbers.

Someone compared sex to cars. You don't have a car accident one in every thousand times you drive. Since most people drive a couple times per day, that would be an accident every three years. And in comparing car accidents to sex, and in sex there are two options--Pregnant or Not Pregnant (no fender benders). The comparison would have to be to a fatal accident every 3 years. If that were your odds, I doubt if you would have casual driving.

Again, you suck at statistics. One in every thousand people do have a car accident in a year. Over 40,000 people die in car accidents each year. That's one in less than 8,000 people. There are about 6.4 Million accidents per year. Even if each one of those accidents only involved the driver and 75% of people drive that still like 1 in 40 people will be in a car accident in a year. Over 3 Million people were injured. That's about 1 in 100 people in a year.

http://www.car-accidents.net/car-accidents-statistics.html

In other words, it's far more likely that you'll get injured in an accident than properly-used birth control will fail.

Now, on this page, I cited two sets of statistics. How many links did I offer? 2. You've been citing statistics for 20+ pages and no links. Try again.

One, your views are only recently traditional and they are housed in the 'beauty' of marrying a virgin wife. Men, traditionally, have not been required to be virgins or applauded for doing so.

Two, sex is an incredibly complex act. Yes, it's beautiful and, yes, it's more beautiful between people who are in love. However 'in love' is not equal to 'married'. Also, this complex act requires more than just love for two people to be compatible. I've seen sex tear a relationship apart and it's a difficult area to delve into without, well, actually delving into it. It's quite easy to fall in love and be in love enough to get married without having sex. It is not, however, a guarantee of a good or okay sex life.

Three, you assume that physical characteristics don't play into one's sex life, but they do. Some men or women simply cannot meet the sexual demands of their partner despite a desire to do so. Also, I've met women whom I would not have been able to have sex without surgery on one or both of us. Imagine that little surprise on your wedding night.

Four, marriage is a complex relationship that has many factors which must be considered in order for a couple to be successful. Compatiblity as parents or on not being parents at all. Compatiblity as friends. Compatibility as roommates. Compatibility as family. Compatibility as sex partners. You should explore each of these compatibilities prior to marriage.

Five, there are no advantages to waiting till marriage other than those brought on by an, in my view, inappropriate value being placed on virgin marriages.

Six, I know of people who waited until they were married and it encouraged the speed up the nuptuals. This is something I cannot be against more firmly.

Seventh, why would we encourage to virgins to teach each other about sex when we would never suggest that we should be taught about relationships in the same way or even something as basic as typing? Generally, in ever other place in our lives, we defer to experience except sex. I get to learn from my parents marital relationship, but not their sexual relationship. I'm not supposed to watch sexual relationships (in the culture of the 'no sex before marriage' crowd). I'm not supposed to discuss these things openly and graphicly. What are we supposed to do? Guess?

I waited until I met a woman I planned on marrying to have sex for the first time. I was twenty-one. I would totally recommend waiting till that point for everyone. However, I would not have waited till marriage. There were sexual issues and those issues would have an undue strain on a new union. I don't think sexual issues put as much stress on a mature dating relationship as it does on an immature marital relationship.

Excellent post.

There's a big vocabulary in English and I don't know all the words. If anyone can come up with a better word for a person who commits casual, free, promicuous sex (like on a first date) than "slut" let me know. If anyone can give me a better word for a child conceived before marriage than
'bastard" let me know. I'm always willing to expand my vocabulary.

Isn't it interesting that people complain about "politically correct" speech (PC) but when someone uses a word that aptly describes the situation it suddenly becomes insulting and a word that's "just not said". I don't find the words insulting because I know they don't apply to me. I doubt they bother anyone else that has a clear conscious. They do tend to bother people that know in their minds and hearts that they may apply to them.

So what is the solution? If slut bothers you, change your ways so it doesn't apply to you. Bastard is a different problem. If it bothers you, about all you can do is live your life in such a way that your offspring won't feel insulted by the word.

As I said in the beginning, if we properly used the words slut and bastard there would be a lot less sluts and a lot less bastards. By being politically correct we ignore truths and condone actions that harm children and society.

Why are you moaning about PC? It's not like you are being PC... so why even bring it up?

"if we properly used the words slut and bastard there would be a lot less sluts and a lot less bastards"

I've never met 'a slut'. But, maybe that is because I'm a little less willing to attribute insulting conotations, based on interpretations of only one aspect of a person's self...

I've got to point out, of course... that 'illegitimate' children are hardly a new invention...

This reads like another one of the rightwing appeals to a 'golden age' that never existed...

What percentage of abortions result in birth?

What percentage of blowjobs result in birth?

What percentage of anal sex results in birth?

What percentage of homosexual sex results in birth?

I just named four completely effective methods, covering EVERY type of sex.



Then it's a good thing those 'bastard' children aren't judging you. Since, you're making assertions, please link the studies or expect to be laughed at.



False. You suck with statistics. 99.9% effective means if 1000 couples have regular sex for one year using the contraception properly each time, one of them will become pregnant. Of that one in 1000, around 60% or more of those pregnancies will never result in a birth without including the option of an induced abortion. The odds are VERY MUCH against having a child while using contraception properly.

http://www.coolnurse.com/birth_control2.htm

The odds of a condom resulting in pregnancy when used properly is 2 per 100 per YEAR of use. The odds for the pill when used properly is 3 per 1000 per year of use. Now if those are used together as they often are, do the math. Trust me, it doesn't match up to your made up numbers.



Again, you suck at statistics. One in every thousand people do have a car accident in a year. Over 40,000 people die in car accidents each year. That's one in less than 8,000 people. There are about 6.4 Million accidents per year. Even if each one of those accidents only involved the driver and 75% of people drive that still like 1 in 40 people will be in a car accident in a year. Over 3 Million people were injured. That's about 1 in 100 people in a year.

http://www.car-accidents.net/car-accidents-statistics.html

In other words, it's far more likely that you'll get injured in an accident than properly-used birth control will fail.

Now, on this page, I cited two sets of statistics. How many links did I offer? 2. You've been citing statistics for 20+ pages and no links. Try again.

If Jocabia wasn't married....

And, if I wasn't married...

And if we were not both ostensibly at least fairly straight...

I'd be asking him to marry me, about now....

If Jocabia wasn't married....

And, if I wasn't married...

And if we were not both ostensibly at least fairly straight...

I'd be asking him to marry me, about now....

Um, Jocabia isn't married. And yes, much to the disappointment of several suitors, I'm straight. I'll tell you I do much better with men than with women, so I've often wished I was gay. Alas, it's not in the cards.

Well, this has been fun but, as with most of these threads, it has degraded to semantics, minutia, political correctness and talking past rather than to. Hope to meet ya' all (that's both male and female and anything inbetween) on another thread.

Well, this has been fun but, as with most of these threads, it has degraded to semantics, minutia, political correctness and talking past rather than to. Hope to meet ya' all (that's both male and female and anything inbetween) on another thread.

Bwahaha. So now that you've been challenged to provide links, you're leaving. It's not minutia. You made false claims about the effects of sex. They were shown to be false. You made false claims about the benefits of marriage and when challenged refused to link to sources of your 'studies'. You've accused others of refusing to post sources. I gave you sources you haven't replied to and you've NEVER posted a source.

Everyone who reads this thread is going to see who actually supported their argument and who made an unsupported emotional argument that relied on attacking the 'sluts' and 'bastards'. You're free to present a better argument or you're free to pretend like you're being the 'bigger' man. Trust me, though, no one is fooled by the latter.

Well, this has been fun but, as with most of these threads, it has degraded to semantics, minutia, political correctness and talking past rather than to.

I would not call differences of a factor 100 between your and the real figures "minutia".

What percentage of homosexual sex results in birth?


Oh I know this one!
The ones that include turkey basters!

Honestly, I think if you're going to have sex on the first date why go out on a date in the first place? Why not just walk up to the person and say "Wanna' F**k?"
It would save money...

Honestly, I think if you're going to have sex on the first date why go out on a date in the first place? Why not just walk up to the person and say "Wanna' F**k?"
It would save money...

because you need energy from the food to fuck.

because you need energy from the food to fuck.
but remember, wait an hour before diving in. might cramp up.

100% effective??????? Maybe getting the tubes cut would be close. Nothing easily reversable is rated 100%----I DARE you to show me evidence of 100%.
And if couples abort or adopt out these unanticipated pregnancies, then what's the matter?

I haven't seen any quotes, much less links, that say bastard children are equal or better off than those with both parents. At least I offered a full page of studies. No one of the "sluts (male and female) are OK" arguement has made any effort to justify their position.
You offered a page of study titles about children in single parent households which is not to to with the topic at hand, no links, no abstracts so you could very well have made them up.

http://www.successtelevision.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=986&Itemid=

Children raised in single-parent households are no more likely than those from two-parent homes to fail at school or develop behavioral problems.

A study shows that children raised in single parent households are no more worse off than their peers. What do you know.

99.9 means one failure in a thousand. The average adult American has sex 116 times per year. (It was on "What Do You Know?" NPR last Saturday.) That means if you have 10 couples with average sex, in a year you will have one failure. That failure may come when the female is not "ripe". Since she's at that point 3 days out of 30--10% we would have to account for that. So, If we had 100 couples there would be a failure that would cause pregnancy in one of those couples in a year. Now you want to say that 50% of those pregnancies will fail. So now it's one in 200. Females are fertile between 15 and 40 (yes I know it's longer than that, I'm trying to keep the numbers low) So given a random 200 couples 1 in 8 will have a surprise while using birth control over 25 years.
And abortions don't exist in your world?

Of course, if we are talking of surprise sex on a first date, it is likely that at least a few will forget to bring their protection which will increase the odds.
Yes, because most people are stupid enough that if they didn't bring a condom, they'd fuck anyways. Not to mention the fact that many people have condoms lying about thier house and usually, if you're going to have sex, you go home or to your date's home and viola, condoms. Other alternatives would include oral sex (with no chance in hell of pregnancy)

Someone compared sex to cars. You don't have a car accident one in every thousand times you drive. Since most people drive a couple times per day, that would be an accident every three years. And in comparing car accidents to sex, and in sex there are two options--Pregnant or Not Pregnant (no fender benders). The comparison would have to be to a fatal accident every 3 years. If that were your odds, I doubt if you would have casual driving.
You already got owned on this one, it seems...

Honestly, I think if you're going to have sex on the first date why go out on a date in the first place? Why not just walk up to the person and say "Wanna' F**k?"
It would save money...
You might not deceide you want to fuck each other until the end of the date.

Well, this has been fun but, as with most of these threads, it has degraded to semantics, minutia, political correctness and talking past rather than to. Hope to meet ya' all (that's both male and female and anything inbetween) on another thread.
lol.

So, you don't provide any actual evidence (titles of studies aren't evidence, by the way) accuse us of refusing to provide evidence and then leave. Good riddance.

I don't get it either. I've deflowered guys before and it's not really that great. They're just really, really bad at it for a while.
Hmm. I guess virgin guys are a little different to virgin guys. I dunno.

Well, this has been fun but, as with most of these threads, it has degraded to semantics, minutia, political correctness and talking past rather than to. Hope to meet ya' all (that's both male and female and anything inbetween) on another thread.
Good riddance indeed. Don't need your stupidity.

Hmm. I guess virgin guys are a little different to virgin guys. I dunno.
Nah, one of my friends has deflowered a number of girls and he said mostly the same thing, they're just really bad at it for a couple of months.

Nah, one of my friends has deflowered a number of girls and he said mostly the same thing, they're just really bad at it for a couple of months.
Still, I would assume that a virgin female could get away with being bad considering perhaps the little effort needed in comparison to a virgin male. I don't know.. But yes, it does take a while for them to build confidence and become better.

Still, I would assume that a virgin female could get away with being bad considering perhaps the little effort needed in comparison to a virgin male. I don't know.. But yes, it does take a while for them to build confidence and become better.
I would hardly say that women put in little effort when it comes to sex.

I would hardly say that women put in little effort when it comes to sex.
No, I agree. But if two 16 yr old's are going to have sex for the first time, the male is likely to do most of the "work".

Nah, one of my friends has deflowered a number of girls and he said mostly the same thing, they're just really bad at it for a couple of months.


I never got any complaints, so that can't be entirely true.

Um, Jocabia isn't married. And yes, much to the disappointment of several suitors, I'm straight. I'll tell you I do much better with men than with women, so I've often wished I was gay. Alas, it's not in the cards.

Not married, huh....??? Ah well, I still am :( so no wedding bells in our future...

I'd never been to Boston, either...

I never got any complaints, so that can't be entirely true.
Why would a guy tell you that you were bad it it your first time?

Nah, one of my friends has deflowered a number of girls and he said mostly the same thing, they're just really bad at it for a couple of months.

Um. Some specifically prefer to "deflower" a virgin because they think it is better sex.

I've certainly slept with inexperienced/virgin women with whom the sex was great.

You might not deceide you want to fuck each other until the end of the date.
ROFLMAO! Dakini, you are tooo much, woman! :D

Um. Some specifically prefer to "deflower" a virgin because they think it is better sex.

I've certainly slept with inexperienced/virgin women with whom the sex was great.
LOL! Well, I have only "deflowerd" one virgin ( that I know of! ) and she sucked.

Oh ... wait! :D

I would hardly say that women put in little effort when it comes to sex.
Heh! Personally, I prefer it when they THROW themselves into their "work!" :D

LOL! Well, I have only "deflowerd" one virgin ( that I know of! ) and she sucked.

Oh ... wait! :D

:D

No, I agree. But if two 16 yr old's are going to have sex for the first time, the male is likely to do most of the "work".


well think about it like this... it's like Drag racing... it only takes a few seconds to finish :D :D

:D
Hehehe! Liked that one, did ya? :D

Hehehe! Liked that one, did ya? :D

Is that what she said? :D

http://members.boards.ie/hullaballoo/headshake.gif
That's all I have to say.

You might not deceide you want to fuck each other until the end of the date.

My kind of girl, Dakini. :D

But you knew that. ;)

To answer the original question: Well, i am open to sex on first date, but i wont make any move until second. Thus if i get encouraged right away i am not bothering with any third-date rules and whatnot and hop into the sack that day.
But since i always date strong-minded partners in their end-twenties or thirties, i am sure that if comes to sex we both want it, for whatever reason and no one feels pressured. And since i think is an enjoyable, healthy activity i dont look down on anybody who likes it outside a relationship or at its very start.

Sex on the first date is perfectly fine! :D
Just makes things all the more interesting.

:fluffle: Go at it.

Sex on the first date is perfectly fine! :D
Just makes things all the more interesting.
an interesting quote, methinks. oh wait, i think i expected this, for some reason

hey there baby, wanna go out some time? :p

Only if you're female, dude.

Is that what she said? :D
Hahahahahaha! To be perfectly honest ... I don't remember! :D

Only if you're female, dude.
in that case, this hasn't helped either of us, oh well. too bad we're both strictly buttered side up

This girl asked me if I smoked after having sex... I said " I don't know baby , I've never looked"....

This girl asked me if I smoked after having sex... I said " I don't know baby , I've never looked"....
that joke is so old and dodgy... where's that trout-smack smiley?

Um. Some specifically prefer to "deflower" a virgin because they think it is better sex.

I've certainly slept with inexperienced/virgin women with whom the sex was great.

Well, I guess we disagree sometimes. I think like most anything there is no substitute for experience. My cousin picked up the guitar and she play really well for her first time, but just well for her FIRST time. She's 1000x better at it now. Wait a minute, did I just talk about sex and my cousin in the same post? *hears dualing banjos in the background and gets all flush*

Well, I guess we disagree sometimes. I think like most anything there is no substitute for experience. My cousin picked up the guitar and she play really well for her first time, but just well for her FIRST time. She's 1000x better at it now. Wait a minute, did I just talk about sex and my cousin in the same post? *hears dualing banjos in the background and gets all flush*

I didn't mean that it can't get better. Just that it doesn't have to start badly.

Why am I now attracted to your cousin?

I didn't mean that it can't get better. Just that it doesn't have to start badly.

Why am I now attracted to your cousin?

Because you haven't seen her. HEY! Who said that?

Because you haven't seen her. HEY! Who said that?

:D

I've been up all night also, so that could be a factor. I'm about on my last cylinder.