NationStates Jolt Archive

so, I found this (http://virgin-man.blogspot.com/2006/09/sex-without-marriage-right-or-wrong-i.html) today.

I disagree with sex outside marriage. No need to have religion to justify it. Rationally thinking it's ethically wrong.

Why? Because sexual gratification is biological force to drive people to procreate. It's nature design not only for human but also for animal. Marriage is a ceremony to show couple's willingness to form a functional family. By having sex outside of the wedlock, you're trying to satisfy the sexual desire but not the responsibility of having children. Thus this gratification is not nature intention and is invalid.

Secondly, it's ethically wrong because the children could be born outside of the wedlock by accident. Don't tell me about how well the technology now to prevent that to happen. It may just happen. Who could be responsible for them? Those lovers who don’t have social, material preparedness and have no intention to have baby at all in the first place? The guy could run away, leaving all the physical, psychological damage behind. Since the foundation of the society is the family unit with husband and wife, the disrupted functionality at this level could lead to severe impact in our culture and society.

Thirdly, I believe that man are the one easier than woman about pre-marriage sex. It's well-known that man usually has sexual arouse by woman's appearance. The opposite is not true for woman. Why? Because there’s a positive correlation between woman's beautifulness and her ability to bear a child. Furthermore, man has biological instinct to spread his offspring as many as he can. In contrast, woman, who more inclines in sex drive, has sex with the one she emotionally attach to. That's her instinct since she's need someone to protect her cub and share her burden. What men did is dishonest. It's dishonest with woman (who invests lot of emotion into the one she had sex with). The man has taken advantage of woman's trust to satisfy his desire. Having said that, I don't insist it as society's moral standard nowadays. Moral and ethic aren't the same concept. Morality has change throughout history, but ethic isn't. Morally, that's their own business which they are volunteering in doing harm to each other.




I can go on record and say that I think premarital sex isn't the best idea ever, but really it's a personal choice, I don't think that flip flops are the best idea ever, but really again a personal choice.

Now, his arguement is flawed horribly.

I think that you can choose whatever you want based on your own reasoning but to try to pull crap like that........really?

So, anyway, what do you think about premaritial "relations"? hmm?

His argument makes sence......

that is if the lovely invention called condoms didn't exist :D

His argument makes sence......

that is if the lovely invention called condoms didn't exist :D

condoms aren't 100% effective.

His arguement isn't flawed because of the existence of condoms.

condoms aren't 100% effective.

His arguement isn't flawed because of the existence of condoms.

And my post wasn't 100% serious.

I can go on record and say that I think premarital sex isn't the best idea ever, but really it's a personal choice, I don't think that flip flops are the best idea ever, but really again a personal choice.

*Puts on childish voice*

Whyyyyyyyy?:p

Is it still premarital if you never intend to marry them?

Fulfillment of the desire without responsibility is not problematic if no one is harmed. As long as the sex is non-procreative (same sex intercourse, or birth controlled intercourse) why should it matter?

I have no problem whatsoever with premarital sex.

I can go on record and say that I think premarital sex isn't the best idea ever, but really it's a personal choice, I don't think that flip flops are the best idea ever, but really again a personal choice.

Now, his arguement is flawed horribly. Yeah, he assumes that women can't be arroused by men. :rolleyes:
Also, he stipulates that a child being born out of wedlock is automatically a bad thing. He needs to prove that first.

I think that you can choose whatever you want based on your own reasoning but to try to pull crap like that........really?

So, anyway, what do you think about premaritial "relations"? hmm?Well, there's arguments against his position. The strongest I can think of is that losing one's virginity has a big effect and creates a strong emotional bond with whomever this is with. The younger you are when this happens, the lower the effect of that. Breaking that bond causes emotional distress, lessened mainly by juvenile flexibility. A young person is more likely to rebound from a break up with their first, while an older individual will have more problems.

Basically, the sooner you get laid and broken up, the better you will be off later on in life ;)

Can't two men have sex?

So, anyway, what do you think about premaritial "relations"? hmm?

I think it's a fantastic idea! I don't think marriage is something to be rushed into. It seems sensible to live together for at least a year with the person you intend to spend the rest of your life with. Especially if you are planning on starting a family too. Oh yeah, and sex is good. :)

Can't two men have sex?


Not just any two men, no.

The idea of sex at all is one that annoys me, premarital much more so than within marriage. I know it's a personal choice, but it bothers me that it exists, and I don't know why. I know this doesn't make sense, but it bothers me.

Marriage is a ceremony to show couple's willingness to form a functional family. By having sex outside of the wedlock, you're trying to satisfy the sexual desire but not the responsibility of having children. Thus this gratification is not nature intention and is invalid.

Bah, this guy apparently have no idea about biology. Many animals ahve sex without have any kind of "cermony. Hell, bonbons say "hello, how are you?" buy having sex with each other (I wish I was a bonbon :D ). Some animals have a short cermony, but thats just so that the male can show that he is acceptable. Like when a human man gets groovy on the dancefloor.

Since the foundation of the society is the family unit with husband and wife, the disrupted functionality at this level could lead to severe impact in our culture and society.

And what the BLEEP has this got to do with marriage. My parents have had a relationship for 33 years know and are not married. Marriage has nothing to do with taking care of children. In fact, marriage is one step closer to divorce :)

The last one I can't figure out what he means. Perhaps its my lack of english 8after all I can only read english scientific literature), or perhaps he can't make a corrherent statement.

Sex before marrigae is great. It lets you know a lot of the person (not only about skill etc, but abort the personality), and its nice and reduce stress and have many other health benfits. I guess I'll have to marry my girlfriend someday (so that her grandparents will be happy), but I don't see why we can't getting dirty before that :p

i have 2 thoughts on the quote.

#1. the guy is an idiot. he thinks that beautiful women are more fertile than plainer women. "Because there’s a positive correlation between woman's beautifulness and her ability to bear a child."

#2. the ugly side of waiting for marriage is that the desire for sex rushes people into marriage so that they can consummate the relationship. sex without marriage might seem wrong but getting married for sex is much worse.

I think it's a fantastic idea! I don't think marriage is something to be rushed into. It seems sensible to live together for at least a year with the person you intend to spend the rest of your life with. Especially if you are planning on starting a family too. Oh yeah, and sex is good. :)

now, wait. If you want to have sex with someone before you are married, fine. If you want to live with them fine. Really though neither is a good way to "test out" marriage. You either know eachother or you don't, living together to do a "test drive" or having a bunch of sex to make sure you like it isn't really going to be helpful to your marriage.

but, hey, whatever. ;P

condoms aren't 100% effective.

His arguement isn't flawed because of the existence of condoms.

His argument beings to be flawed the moment he assumes that "nature" is some sort of conscient force who assigns purposes to body functions. And it get s worse from then on.

I agree with pre-marital sex. I've got no intention to marry, but sex is something highly enjoyable, satisfying, and emotionally gratifying.

To assume that women have no sex drive is not only incredibly uninformed but also stupid beyond belief. Sure, all we girls want from sex is the emotional bond, we enjoy the cuddling, we don't ever want a nice hard fuck... :rolleyes:

Not just any two men, no.

=(

Does one have to have a vagina?

now, wait. If you want to have sex with someone before you are married, fine. If you want to live with them fine. Really though neither is a good way to "test out" marriage. You either know eachother or you don't, living together to do a "test drive" or having a bunch of sex to make sure you like it isn't really going to be helpful to your marriage.

but, hey, whatever. ;P


How can it not be a good idea to live togetehr for a while before you get married? If you do, you will se how you interact when living together in an enviroment that is close to marriage. I actually question the possibilty that you really can know you partner until you have lived together for some time.

Something about the author's use of the term Ethics bugs me. I can't put my finger on it, but it seems like he's invoking a universal rule where a judgement on a case-by-case basis is entirely necessary.

Similarly, there is a question to be asked about whether or not it is really possible to be "unethical" with regards to the intended use of a particular natural drive. When a natural act causes pleasure, you cannot then use nature to claim that that is in some way a social wrong.

In any case, this particular train of thought assumes the only kind of long-term relationship that is prepared for childraising is a married couple, which I personally do not agree with. Marriage is ultimately a social statement rather than a personal one or a natural existence, and it is definitely worth arguing that as long as the personal environment is that of caring and supportive parents then what does it matter whether you formally sign up for the acknowledgement of this relationship by the state or church?

How can it not be a good idea to live togetehr for a while before you get married? If you do, you will se how you interact when living together in an enviroment that is close to marriage. I actually question the possibilty that you really can know you partner until you have lived together for some time.

statistics show that couples who live together before getting married have a higher rate of divorce than couples who don't.

This is slightly off topic though, sorry.

His argument beings to be flawed the moment he assumes that "nature" is some sort of conscient force who assigns purposes to body functions. And it get s worse from then on.

I agree with pre-marital sex. I've got no intention to marry, but sex is something highly enjoyable, satisfying, and emotionally gratifying.

To assume that women have no sex drive is not only incredibly uninformed but also stupid beyond belief. Sure, all we girls want from sex is the emotional bond, we enjoy the cuddling, we don't ever want a nice hard fuck... :rolleyes:

:eek:

If I ignore my religion, I have no moral compass. Thusly I think nothing is wrong. Thusly, outside of my religion, anything that gives me pleasure and avoids pain or work is right. So therefore, ignoring my religion, pre-marital sex is fine, and if I can have a kid without having responsibility, so much the better. Now when I take my religion into account, I think it's wrong, and stupid, and i'll probably never do it. (though I have the iron will of wet toilet tissue)

He does presuppose the existence of marriage as an organic entity. I wonder where the vow tree is......

His argument beings to be flawed the moment he assumes that "nature" is some sort of conscient force who assigns purposes to body functions. And it get s worse from then on.

I agree with pre-marital sex. I've got no intention to marry, but sex is something highly enjoyable, satisfying, and emotionally gratifying.

To assume that women have no sex drive is not only incredibly uninformed but also stupid beyond belief. Sure, all we girls want from sex is the emotional bond, we enjoy the cuddling, we don't ever want a nice hard fuck... :rolleyes:

Don't worry about lowering the tone then.......:D

If I ignore my religion, I have no moral compass. Thusly I think nothing is wrong. Thusly, outside of my religion, anything that gives me pleasure and avoids pain or work is right. So therefore, ignoring my religion, pre-marital sex is fine, and if I can have a kid without having responsibility, so much the better. Now when I take my religion into account, I think it's wrong, and stupid, and i'll probably never do it. (though I have the iron will of wet toilet tissue)
Then you're silly. :D

now, wait. If you want to have sex with someone before you are married, fine. If you want to live with them fine. Really though neither is a good way to "test out" marriage. You either know eachother or you don't, living together to do a "test drive" or having a bunch of sex to make sure you like it isn't really going to be helpful to your marriage.

but, hey, whatever. ;P

I disagree. Knowing each other well and getting along doesn't mean you'd make a good couple. For example, I had a friend (we wasn't going out) and we got on really well together and decided to share a house with two other mates, to keep down costs. Although I thought he was a great friend, I hated living with him. So I would never agree to spend the rest of my life with someone before living with them first. Just to make sure they didn't constantly nag about everything and try bossing me around. :(

statistics show that couples who live together before getting married have a higher rate of divorce than couples who don't.

This is slightly off topic though, sorry.

Statistics never tell you the whole truth. I propose the following : Living together before getting married has become the norm rather than the exception today. People who don't live together before getting married, or people who wait to have sex till after they are married, tend to do so for religious reasons, as there is no social pressure to do so any more. Religious people tend to take marriage far more seriously than non-religious people, and are therefore less likely to get divorced.

Does that sound like a possible explanation of your statistical figures, Smunkee? ;)

His argument beings to be flawed the moment he assumes that "nature" is some sort of conscient force who assigns purposes to body functions. And it get s worse from then on.


To be fair, if you believe in evolution. Then the hormones evolved to make us want to procreate, for the specific purpose to make us want to have children.

Everyone has to satisfy that desire. If they wait for marriage, that's okay. But if they don't want to wait, that's also good. There is protection against unwanted pregnancy, the condom. IT IS A PERSONAL CHOICE, and that's what this guy is forgetting.

:eek:

What?

Seriously, this kind of thinking pisses me of no end. I enjoy sex, and men do turn me on. Well, women too, but that's beside the point. :p

What?

Seriously, this kind of thinking pisses me of no end. I enjoy sex, and men do turn me on. Well, women too, but that's beside the point. :p

Well, yeah, but, couldn't you have phrased it in a less clinical fashion?;)

Then you're silly. :D

How am I silly? Because I have no base love for the human race? Or because I follow the Bible?

Everyone has to satisfy that desire. If they wait for marriage, that's okay. But if they don't want to wait, that's also good. There is protection against unwanted pregnancy, the condom. IT IS A PERSONAL CHOICE, and that's what this guy is forgetting.
Well, not really. It's a mutual choice. It's all fine and well to say "I wanna have premarital secks", but there's gotta be a partner involved there somewhere.

Well, yeah, but, couldn't you have phrased it in a less clinical fashion?;)

Why would you want to do that? :P

To be fair, if you believe in evolution. Then the hormones evolved to make us want to procreate, for the specific purpose to make us want to have children.

That's looking at evolution the wrong way. Evolution doesn't work towards any goal, like making creatures that want to procreate. It's those creatures that got the most gratification out of procreation that procreated most and populated the planet ;)

Sex wasn't made for procreation. Sex is a byproduct of evolution that gives us an advantage by making procreation enjoyable.
We don't need procreation that badly any more, but we still enjoy sex. So we invented contraceptives.

Statistics never tell you the whole truth. I propose the following : Living together before getting married has become the norm rather than the exception today. People who don't live together before getting married, or people who wait to have sex till after they are married, tend to do so for religious reasons, as there is no social pressure to do so any more. Religious people tend to take marriage far more seriously than non-religious people, and are therefore less likely to get divorced.

Does that sound like a possible explanation of your statistical figures, Smunkee? ;)

And here I was trying to write the same thing but couldn't formulate it right.

Damn you english people with your inbred understading of english. I will make my own NSG forum in Swedish....with hookers and gambling. In fact, forget the forum. /Futurama rant

How am I silly? Because I have no base love for the human race? Or because I follow the Bible?
'cause you think that the latter is a substitute for the former. ^__^

Well, not really. It's a mutual choice. It's all fine and well to say "I wanna have premarital secks", but there's gotta be a second partner involved there somewhere.

...Secks?!!
How old are you?!
:D

Well, yeah, but, couldn't you have phrased it in a less clinical fashion?;)

That wouldn't have been an adequate way to express my feelings :D

How am I silly? Because I have no base love for the human race? Or because I follow the Bible?

The latter. However, I have no interest in re-stating methodological flaws in a 2000 year old re-translation.

That wouldn't have been an adequate way to express my feelings :D

Fair enough. But bugger me with a candy can I thought you were a romantic sort of gal?

The latter. However, I have no interest in re-stating methodological flaws in a 2000 year old re-translation.

I don't think anyone else does,either.

And here I was trying to write the same thing but couldn't formulate it right.

Damn you english people with your inbred understading of english. I will make my own NSG forum in Swedish....with hookers and gambling. In fact, forget the forum. /Futurama rant

*roflmao

I think I ought to tell you that I'm German... living in Ireland ;)

...Secks?!!
How old are you?!
:D
I'm THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS old.

*Holds hands really far apart in visual confirmation of this fact*

*Nods wisely*

If I ignore my religion, I have no moral compass.

Why does religion make you have a moral compass?

I don't think anyone else does,either.

Precisely. So why post so?

I'm THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS old.

*Holds hands really far apart in visual confirmation of this fact*

*Nods wisely*

WOOOOOAHHHH.
That's pretty old.
I forgive you,ol' timer.

So, anyway, what do you think about premaritial "relations"? hmm?I think that it's the only way for me to get some...
:p

Fair enough. But bugger me with a candy can I thought you were a romantic sort of gal?

Me?!? :eek:

*desperately tries to remember when she could have left that impression....

Well, not utterly unromantic, I guess. But I'm not one for watching a sunset while holding hands.... I'd be holding something else :D

Precisely. So why post so?

Because I'm bored,and have no life.
Duh.

Me?!? :eek:

*desperately tries to remember when she could have left that impression....

Well, not utterly unromantic, I guess. But I'm not one for watching a sunset while holding hands.... I'd be holding something else :D

Fair enough...... not a nympho though?;)

*roflmao

I think I ought to tell you that I'm German... living in Ireland ;)

If you live in a country where they speak english you improve it fast. I wasn't really good in english until I started reading books in english and it didn't really evolve much more until I got a fiend who is native in english. Now, I can at least express myself without looking to stupid :D

WOOOOOAHHHH.
That's pretty old.
I forgive you,ol' timer.
Durn right there, sonny Jim. Respect your elders and you'll go far in life. But maybe only as far as the supermarket. Can you get me some biscuits while you're out? Thanks.

Why does religion make you have a moral compass?

The threat of damnation. :eek:

Fair enough...... not a nympho though?;)

Might be a matter of definiton :D
I personally wouldn't say I am, I do have some standards...

Durn right there, sonny Jim. Respect your elders and you'll go far in life. But maybe only as far as the supermarket. Can you get me some biscuits while you're out? Thanks.

*shuffles feet,looks away*
...Yes,yes sir.

Might be a matter of definiton :D
I personally wouldn't say I am, I do have some standards...

A pulse?:D

A pulse?:D

Wouldn't count on it.

The threat of damnation. :eek:

That's not a moral compass, that's a cost-benefit analysis.

I don't jump into fires, but I don't think it's immoral to do so; I just think that the consequences in personal pain outweigh any enjoyment I may derive from the activity. Similarly, to avoid certain behaviors because of the threat of damnation is not to exercise moral judgment, but rather simply a pragmatic avoidance of future pain.

A pulse?:D

Woaha, you have that high standard? :D

A pulse?:D

Why? Would that be more than you could offer? :p ;)

Anyone who says women arn't arroused by men obviously isn't trying hard enough

Why? Would that be more than you could offer? :p ;)

Bugger! Rumbled!:D

Statistics never tell you the whole truth. I propose the following : Living together before getting married has become the norm rather than the exception today. People who don't live together before getting married, or people who wait to have sex till after they are married, tend to do so for religious reasons, as there is no social pressure to do so any more. Religious people tend to take marriage far more seriously than non-religious people, and are therefore less likely to get divorced.

Does that sound like a possible explanation of your statistical figures, Smunkee? ;)

actually that makes a ton of sense.

My point although semi-off topic is that marriage isn't about good sex and getting along.......but that's a whole other thred isn't it?;)

actually that makes a ton of sense.

My point although semi-off topic is that marriage isn't about good sex and getting along.......but that's a whole other thred isn't it?;)

Hang on... you wouldn't say that good sex and getting along very well form together with other aspects the very foundations of a marriage?
You'll have to explain that one to me... :confused:

That's not a moral compass, that's a cost-benefit analysis.

I don't jump into fires, but I don't think it's immoral to do so; I just think that the consequences in personal pain outweigh any enjoyment I may derive from the activity. Similarly, to avoid certain behaviors because of the threat of damnation is not to exercise moral judgment, but rather simply a pragmatic avoidance of future pain.

Oh... Well it looks like morals to an outside observer, and chicks don't exactly go for pragmatism. They go for compassion. So I put a little spin on things. Is that so punishible? (I don't like to say wrong:p)

Bugger! Rumbled!:D

Wits would be one of my selection criteria :D

Wits would be one of my selection criteria :D

hmm.......

*rushes off to get a pace maker and transfusion*:D

Hang on... you wouldn't say that good sex and getting along very well form together with other aspects the very foundations of a marriage?
You'll have to explain that one to me... :confused:

not really, a good foundation of marriage is mutual respect and deep commitment, sex isn't always great, people get into fights, there were months on end that I didn't even like my husband (of course I was pregnant at the time) but, I stuck around because the relationship was more important to me than being led around by my hormones and you know all that other crap that happens to you when you are pregnant.

It's difficult to explain. My marriage isn't based on "feeling good" or "being happy" it's based on being married, emotions change and are unreliable, it's dangerous to base such an important relationship on them.

Oh... Well it looks like morals to an outside observer, and chicks don't exactly go for pragmatism. They go for compassion. So I put a little spin on things. Is that so punishible? (I don't like to say wrong:p)

It's wrong, but I don't people should be punished simply for having the wrong approaches to morality.

actually that makes a ton of sense.

My point although semi-off topic is that marriage isn't about good sex and getting along.......but that's a whole other thred isn't it?;)

Well, everybody seems to think the guy who wrote is wrong so we may just start do discuss something new :) No point in discussing when everybody just :fluffle:

Of course marriage is not about just having sex and getting along, buts that not exlusive to marriage, all long term relationship is like that. And in my experience you don't really get to know the person until you live in the same house hold for a long time, and why start a family with someone you don't really know. This is of course from my perspective, and other may have religious or aother ethical reason to not belive this to be true.

In Sweden its actually getting so common that people have long time relationship that they have included couples who have lived a certain amount of year into the laws about herritage (Sambo-lagen in Swedish), which means that you don't need to be married to inherit from each other.

It's wrong, but I don't people should be punished simply for having the wrong approaches to morality.

That's just grand, but i don't care what you think, I care what he/she/it/smizzmar who has the power thinks. :)

Man, there is so much wrong with that guys logic, i dunno where to begin. He seems to be implying that all premarital sex is in the context of one-night stands. Plus, like Cabra West said, sometimes we ladies just wanna fuck, same as men. In fact some women have even been known to take advantage of a man's emotional vulnerability and use him for sex :eek: Unbelievable, I know :rolleyes:

Of course marriage is not about just having sex and getting along, buts that not exlusive to marriage, all long term relationship is like that. And in my experience you don't really get to know the person until you live in the same house hold for a long time, and why start a family with someone you don't really know. This is of course from my perspective, and other may have religious or aother ethical reason to not belive this to be true.
I think I knew more about my husband when we got married then I did about my family that I grew up in the same house with or my friends who I roomed with, but we went through extensive premarital therapy.

You can get a general idea of someone if you are around them long enough, think about your best friend, you probably know them better than even their parents do and you don't live with them. Most of the people I know who use the "test drive" excuse say "well, what if they are really annoying early in the morning?" or "what if they don't like what I like in the bedroom?"

I think sex can be compromise, and if you are going to divorce someone because they annoy you in the morning you probably aren't ready for any long term relationship anyway.

In Sweden its actually getting so common that people have long time relationship that they have included couples who have lived a certain amount of year into the laws about herritage (Sambo-lagen in Swedish), which means that you don't need to be married to inherit from each other.
we have that here, or something similiar called "common law marriage"

Man, there is so much wrong with that guys logic, i dunno where to begin. He seems to be implying that all premarital sex is in the context of one-night stands. Plus, like Cabra West said, sometimes we ladies just wanna fuck, same as men. In fact some women have even been known to take advantage of a man's emotional vulnerability and use him for sex :eek: Unbelievable, I know :rolleyes:

I never guessed you were female......:eek:

That's just grand, but i don't care what you think, I care what he/she/it/smizzmar who has the power thinks. :)

Ah, you're concerned about God. I don't know what God thinks, I don't even know if He exists. But typically the idea is that if you are truly faithful, you will also be sincere in pursuing morality - though it may take some time of performing moral duty for its reward before you will do it for its own sake.

not really, a good foundation of marriage is mutual respect and deep commitment, sex isn't always great, people get into fights, there were months on end that I didn't even like my husband (of course I was pregnant at the time) but, I stuck around because the relationship was more important to me than being led around by my hormones and you know all that other crap that happens to you when you are pregnant.

It's difficult to explain. My marriage isn't based on "feeling good" or "being happy" it's based on being married, emotions change and are unreliable, it's dangerous to base such an important relationship on them.
Marriage is a partnership. a joining of two people who will continue through life together.

is that what you're trying to say?

Good Sex and Getting along help, infact, getting along is important. If you didn't get along with your husband, I really can't see you married to him. sure you may fight and have your various levels of disagreements, but that's normal. if you hated his guts and couldn't get along with him for any reason, then you won't be married to him.

I never guessed you were female......:eek:
I am, tho! :)

What made you think I was a guy, outta curiosity?

Marriage is a partnership. a joining of two people who will continue through life together.

is that what you're trying to say?

Good Sex and Getting along help, infact, getting along is important. If you didn't get along with your husband, I really can't see you married to him. sure you may fight and have your various levels of disagreements, but that's normal. if you hated his guts and couldn't get along with him for any reason, then you won't be married to him.

I doubt I would have dated him very long if I hated him. ;) I am sure that we wouldn't have made it through premarital counseling if we hated eachother.

=(

Does one have to have a vagina?

One does not.

That guy... He was just silly :) And he didn't know what he was talking about either, so meh. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love072.gif

So, anyway, what do you think about premaritial "relations"? hmm?

Sounds like it was written by some 15 year old who knows little about the subject and is trying to justify his decision to remain a virgin.

Premarital sex is a personal decision. No one should be ridiculed or put on a pedestal for their decision.

Read the bible.

It says it right there.

Sin, go ahead, I plan on going to heaven.

I doubt I would have dated him very long if I hated him. ;) I am sure that we wouldn't have made it through premarital counseling if we hated eachother.

which shows that getting along is important. ;)

That doesn't mean you can't disagree... or even fight. but it's the fact that you can get over the fighting and disagreements.

Ok, allow someone who shares the opinion of the first quoted post (but abhors the grammar...sheesh, guy, learn to write clearly!) to state their opinion. To try and answer the various arguments posed, I would state the following:

1. Premarital sex does have unintended consequences all the time. Simply take a look at the statistics since the 1950s-1960s (the so called "sexual revolution") and you can see a clear trend. Out of wedlock births, STD rates, and single motherhood has exploded. Obviously, birth control does not always work. Condoms have a failure rate of 30%. There is no 100% foolproof way to have sex and not get pregnant (aside from sterilization); the only way to have 100% avoidance rate of STDs is to have all your partners screened before you have sex (which is usually unfeasible, unless you have a long term relationship.) Thanks to biology, men can escape some of these consequences more easily, but that doesn't make it at all right with me, since I believe that is de facto oppression of women.

2. There are drastic emotional consequences in many instances related to premarital sex. Just because someone thinks it's completely casual doesn't mean that their partner feels the same way. And since most people who think they're having a casual encounter don't check first, they can wind up scarring their partner emotionally-leading to difficulty forming and having stable relationships, trust issues, and other psychological impact. Also, casual sex tends to make the other person less important to you. People wind up using others for fun, pleasure, or whatever, and then simply walk off and leave the other person broken and hurting. How is this ok? Sex leads to misunderstandings in a lot of cases.

3. There is an impact on society at large when stable relationships for raising children (such as marriage) are tossed out the window in favor of casual relationships "for fun". The rate of single mothers (especially among minorities) has exploded in the past few decades. Children who grow up with just one parent are much more likely to have emotional problems, to be violent, to be criminals, or do drugs and alcohol than children in a stable two parent environment. That is a very drastic, proven correlation. I don't think it's an accident that violent crime rates and poverty rates have ballooned along with out of wedlock children in the past 40 years. Also, if a child was unplanned (and the encounter was "just for fun",) what kind of parent is that going to lead to? Either they'll have an abortion (which I object to for a whole different set of reasons) or they will raise the kid in an environment where the kid is kind of resented just for living. Yes, some single parents manage to rise above that. But it still is a real consequence for quite a few kids out there. I know. I have worked in "the system."

I have no problems with premarital sex or those who engage in it. It's a non issue to me, so long as all involved understand the potential consequences.

Read the bible.

It says it right there.

Sin, go ahead, I plan on going to heaven.

I think the big rules like "don't kill" and "don't steal" and "treat others the way they would want to be treated" etc. are much more important than the 'personal morals' rules. But that's just me. Premarital sex won't destroy the world, rather humanity's deep hatred, that is the true sin.

not making much sense, you know what I mean.

I disagree with sex outside marriage. No need to have religion to justify it. Rationally thinking it's ethically wrong.

Why? Because sexual gratification is biological force to drive people to procreate. It's nature design not only for human but also for animal. Marriage is a ceremony to show couple's willingness to form a functional family. By having sex outside of the wedlock, you're trying to satisfy the sexual desire but not the responsibility of having children. Thus this gratification is not nature intention and is invalid.
I disagree with eating for pleasure. No need to have dieticians to justify it. Rationally thinking it's ethically wrong.

Why? Because sating one's hunger is a biological force to drive people to acquire food. It's nature's design not only for humans but also for animals. Eating food is an operation intended for functionality. By eating when you're not hungry, merely for pleasure, you're trying to satisfy the desire to eat rather than any need to eat. Thus the gratification is not to the purpose that nature intended and is invalid.

ALL YOU ABSTAINERS: THROW AWAY THE CHOCOLATE. IT'S UNNATURAL.

Granted, the person's other two points were valid to some degree... though if the man uses a condom and the woman is on birth control, there just isn't gonna be a baby. And as a last resort, there's adoption.

That said, I am most likely going to choose not to have sex until I'm married. I think. Maybe. Unless I really want to. I'm Christian, but that's hardly a factor. I almost always disagree with the Old Testament on issues of sexuality, so I don't know why I should take its word this time.

In the end, I can always blame my Y chromosome.

Ok, allow someone who shares the opinion of the first quoted post (but abhors the grammar...sheesh, guy, learn to write clearly!) to state their opinion. To try and answer the various arguments posed, I would state the following:

1. Premarital sex does have unintended consequences all the time. Simply take a look at the statistics since the 1950s-1960s (the so called "sexual revolution") and you can see a clear trend. Out of wedlock births, STD rates, and single motherhood has exploded. Obviously, birth control does not always work. Condoms have a failure rate of 30%. There is no 100% foolproof way to have sex and not get pregnant (aside from sterilization); the only way to have 100% avoidance rate of STDs is to have all your partners screened before you have sex (which is usually unfeasible, unless you have a long term relationship.) Thanks to biology, men can escape some of these consequences more easily, but that doesn't make it at all right with me, since I believe that is de facto oppression of women.

A link to those statistics would be appreciated. The last thing I knew was that condoms have a 2% failure rate, the pill has 0.4%
STDs were just as rampant in Victorian times than they are these days, the difference being that back then, people pretended they didn't exist.
Why would an out of wedlock birth be automatically something negative? I'm considering maybe having children at some point in the future, but I'm not considering getting married for it. That has far less to do with unplanned pregnancies than with the fact that the option is available.




2. There are drastic emotional consequences in many instances related to premarital sex. Just because someone thinks it's completely casual doesn't mean that their partner feels the same way. And since most people who think they're having a casual encounter don't check first, they can wind up scarring their partner emotionally-leading to difficulty forming and having stable relationships, trust issues, and other psychological impact. Also, casual sex tends to make the other person less important to you. People wind up using others for fun, pleasure, or whatever, and then simply walk off and leave the other person broken and hurting. How is this ok? Sex leads to misunderstandings in a lot of cases.

You never had casual sex, did you? If you're silly enough to have a one-nighter with the guy/girl you just picked up in a bar on Saturday night and to assume that this will lead to a romantic, emotionally binding, long-term relationship, you probably need to get scarred to wake up to reality.
Sure, it can lead to more, but most likely it won't.
Personally, I got my emotional scars in a long-term relationship... and casual sex did a lot for me to help me re-establish my independence and self-confidence. Yes, people use others for fun. And get used for fun at the same time. So both want to have fun with the other, and both get the fun they want. How is that not ok?


3. There is an impact on society at large when stable relationships for raising children (such as marriage) are tossed out the window in favor of casual relationships "for fun". The rate of single mothers (especially among minorities) has exploded in the past few decades. Children who grow up with just one parent are much more likely to have emotional problems, to be violent, to be criminals, or do drugs and alcohol than children in a stable two parent environment. That is a very drastic, proven correlation. I don't think it's an accident that violent crime rates and poverty rates have ballooned along with out of wedlock children in the past 40 years. Also, if a child was unplanned (and the encounter was "just for fun",) what kind of parent is that going to lead to? Either they'll have an abortion (which I object to for a whole different set of reasons) or they will raise the kid in an environment where the kid is kind of resented just for living. Yes, some single parents manage to rise above that. But it still is a real consequence for quite a few kids out there. I know. I have worked in "the system."

So... having kids and then getting the divorce is better why? And can you please show me a source stating that poverty increased in the past 40 years? Because I know for a fact that it hasn't here. On the contrary.

[b]

That said, I am most likely going to choose not to have sex until I'm married. I think. Maybe. Unless I really want to. I'm Christian, but that's hardly a factor. I almost always disagree with the Old Testament on issues of sexuality, so I don't know why I should take its word this time.

In the end, I can always blame my Y chromosome.

Since it is not due to your christianity, why do you want to wait? I don't think it's wrong ( ibelive it's up to everyone to decide for one self), but it would be interesting to know since so far inmy life I have only heard reasons due to religion.

Since it is not due to your christianity, why do you want to wait? I don't think it's wrong ( ibelive it's up to everyone to decide for one self), but it would be interesting to know since so far inmy life I have only heard reasons due to religion.
There are a lot of reasons, mostly related to apathy (as well as STDs and unplanned pregnancies). If I got into a serious, long-term relationship, I'd almost certainly have sex, since I really don't plan on getting married until I'm out of college.

Come to think of it, if I was engaged to somebody, I'd probably have sex with them, so that would technically be premarital.

There are a lot of reasons, mostly related to apathy (as well as STDs and unplanned pregnancies). If I got into a serious, long-term relationship, I'd almost certainly have sex, since I really don't plan on getting married until I'm out of college.

Come to think of it, if I was engaged to somebody, I'd probably have sex with them, so that would technically be premarital.

I think that's a healthy attitude.
While Smunkee is of course right in sying that a marriage isn't just about getting along and having good sex together, not getting along as well as you thought ans bad sex are two of the main reasons why marriages fail.

premarital is fine
as long as you understand what the consequences may be, and take the right precautions

well, this doesn't come from experience, but it will. give me til next week.

Pre-marital sex, I love it. Although, I've never had marital sex, so I don't know if it's any different.