NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been thinking about why such an idea as no sex before marriage ever became widley accepted. It seems to me to be extremley foolish. Abstinence only education is not only inneffective, it also teaches a purley religious idea with government funding, making it a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

1. Sex is not immoral. The only thing that would make people consider it immoral is religion. Therefore, this reason to teach abstinence is legally invalid.

2. Sex can spread STDs and cause pregnancy. Condoms and such help this, but they are not foolproof. Driving can kill you. A seat belt helps this, but it is not foolproof. By the logic of those who wish us to abstain, we should teach children never to drive a car.

For some reason, the thought behind abstinence (but not abstinence itself) has become so mainstream that most people agree that you should abstain until marraige. This is incredibly foolish.

On sex, I generally agree with Robert Heinlein.

I disagree that 'most' people think you should abstain until marriage.

I think you should abstain from sex until you can make a rational and responsible decision to have sex and also to deal with the consequences of it.

I would say that you should wait until you are married, but with so many irresponsible people getting married these days, it's almost not long enough anymore.

First of all, you're assuming that driving a car is a good thing.

Second, you realise that there was a time before latex, right? It was... I dunno, back in the days when abstinence was actually taught almost universally (and still almost universally ignored) and STDs were really rampant.

You'll find most people here on NSG will agree with you. Your reasons are pretty much on par with most opinions here.

What I don't understand is why some people think comprehensive sexual education would result in a rise in sexual activity amongst teens. Knowledge of sex, least in my opinion, can prove to be a better deterrent to early sex than ignorance.

That being said, one should have sex when one feels they are ready, not by ready, not because their peers say so but because you feel it will make you feel good.

It originated in a patriarchal society where women were property. Until you married one (or more), you were using somebody else's property. Which was regarded as highly dishonourable.

pre-marital sex comes from ye olde times, back in the days when wives where supposed to be pure and not carrying the guy she loves baby because the feudal lord wouldn't be too happy, never mind the fact that it was the case that 12 year olds got married as such humping before that/during that age is frowned upon

course we guys have a history of hiring prostitutes so were good on are wedding nights ;)

What about those of us who think marriage is a failed institution and no one should ever enter into it? If you never get married, then you never have pre-marital sex, right?

It's just sex. Pre-marital, marital, post-divorce, between marriages--whatever, it's just sex.

It was a way of insuring that any children brought about had parents to take care of them.

Relationships based on sexuality are weak ones. One of the greater reasons the divorce rate is so high is because people enter marriage in such a relationship, and when the sex isn't as good, they lose that same interest in each other.

Sex is also a carnal desire. If you can't even control that, you're not much better than an animal. If you can find someone you truly love and respect without needing to have a sexual relationship with them, then that is a perfected relationship.

You'll find most people here on NSG will agree with you. Your reasons are pretty much on par with most opinions here.

What I don't understand is why some people think comprehensive sexual education would result in a rise in sexual activity amongst teens. Knowledge of sex, least in my opinion, can prove to be a better deterrent to early sex than ignorance.

That being said, one should have sex when one feels they are ready, not by ready, not because their peers say so but because you feel it will make you feel good.

that's a pretty irresponsible attitude about sex.

It was a way of insuring that any children brought about had parents to take care of them.

Considering that back when the idea first came up people were living in large family groups or tribes, I daresay that certainly wasn't one of the resons.

Considering that back when the idea first came up people were living in large family groups or tribes, I daresay that certainly wasn't one of the resons.

*shrugs*

Perhaps I got it mixed up with the reason Christianity and other religions value not having sex before marriage.

As long as people know how to play it safe they should have as much sex as they want. It's so fucking natural that it's foolish to fight the urge until you get married, if you even get married.

And if it feels right and it's consensual.... ;)

As long as people know how to play it safe they should have as much sex as they want. It's so fucking natural that it's foolish to fight the urge until you get married, if you even get married.

So what's a responsible attitude about sex?

choosing to have sex when you are well prepared for the possible consequences of?

"I wanna have sex now! it might feel good"
"we don't have protection"
"I WANT IT NOW!"

see? trouble waiting to happen.

cars should be banned! :sniper:

that's a pretty irresponsible attitude about sex.

That's what I was told when I was younger by surprisingly, a older Christian woman (yes, her advice was that I should wait to have sex and only do it if I thought it would make me feel good about myself after and to not do it if I thought I wouldn't feel good about it) and you know what? It made me think. Would I regret it if I did it too soon. That's what it meant to me.

Would I feel good about myself if I had sex or should I wait? I could have had sex with my first boyfriend but I didn't because I didn't think it would make me feel good. I waited and I'm glad I did because I only had sex with the man I'm going to marry because it made me feel good about myself.

Protection was always a given for me. The choice of when I wanted to have sex was based on if I would feel good about it after.

*shrugs*

Perhaps I got it mixed up with the reason Christianity and other religions value not having sex before marriage.

They value it because it was valued by some tribes several millenia ago, who considered women property.
Only they realised that this view is outdated, and are now looking for new excuses to go on valuing it without having to admit that it is in fact outdated and pointless.

that's a pretty irresponsible attitude about sex.

So what's a responsible attitude about sex?

I disagree. Sex is an enjoyable venture--at least it should be--and there's nothing wrong with two (or more) people partaking in it if they're all willing and consenting.

lots of people are willing to have sex and yet unwilling or unable to deal with the consequences of it. I would submit that it's irresponsible to have sex without being sure you are ready (and not just ready to "feel good")

that's a pretty irresponsible attitude about sex.

I disagree. Sex is an enjoyable venture--at least it should be--and there's nothing wrong with two (or more) people partaking in it if they're all willing and consenting.

that's a pretty irresponsible attitude about sex.

Why? What other reason would you have to have sex?

choosing to have sex when you are well prepared for the possible consequences of?

"I wanna have sex now! it might feel good"
"we don't have protection"
"I WANT IT NOW!"

see? trouble waiting to happen.

You DID read the bit where he said "when YOU are ready"? Which, ideally, would include emotionally ready, and well-informed about contraceptives as well as capable of dealing with possible consequences?

You DID read the bit where he said "when YOU are ready"? Which, ideally, would include emotionally ready, and well-informed about contraceptives as well as capable of dealing with possible consequences?

I read "when you are ready to feel good"

life isn't about feeling good, and while sex does........it's probably not the best idea in the world to go fucking without thinking.

lots of people are willing to have sex and yet unwilling or unable to deal with the consequences of it. I would submit that it's irresponsible to have sex without being sure you are ready (and not just ready to "feel good")

What consequences ? If you use the right protection, there are probably not going to be any consequences.

Sex is sex, honestly. Unfortunately, some... people*, have got it misconstrued in their heads that its a symbolism of purity, or something to that effect. Additionally, the 'property' thing comes to mind as well.

Though really, even when you can claim other good intentions, its all it boils down to, for me anyway.



*Man, I hate having to show self-restraint.

And life is all about feeling good. And about going on feeling good, which is why we act responsibly, so we won't have to stop feeling good.

Indeed

Having sex b4 marriage, is a personal choice. As a new parent, I feel it is not up to, nor would i expect the government to teach my child what I feel is proper concerning pre-martial sex

The way we teach sex-ed is useless, but the teaching of real-sex and re-productive education could be helpful, but so many of us deal from a position of fear that we can not make a rational decision about sex.

Do you really think that children are going to run out and have more sex than they are having now. The answer is no. Most teens are quite conservative at heart and don't truly get wild until the age of consent.

Drop the fear. Pick up the condom and have sex.

That being said, one should have sex when one feels they are ready, not by ready, not because their peers say so but because you feel it will make you feel good.

I read "when you are ready to feel good"

life isn't about feeling good, and while sex does........it's probably not the best idea in the world to go fucking without thinking.

Read it again ;)

And life is all about feeling good. And about going on feeling good, which is why we act responsibly, so we won't have to stop feeling good.

Its very simple.

This idea comes from the time when people had no knowledge about sex, precautions, and a time when there were no rubbers or pills.

So, its understandable that at least until 100 years ago, when you couldnt divorce, could get diseases that didnt had a cure, and could get pregnant because you had sex once.

Now, these ideas became mainstream, and became tradition. It went from one generation to the other. The deal is that with all the changes in the world, they are stupid.

But some people dont think about they do or should do. They just follow tradition. And when this tradition is bound by religion, it just makes it even harder.

Yet, who cares? All the young generations live in a world where sex is free, relativaly safe, and you can have sex as much as you want, because you have the pill and abortion. Pre-marital sex is a dumb and fucked up idea that was good for the past, but not the present.

2. Sex can spread STDs and cause pregnancy. Condoms and such help this, but they are not foolproof. Driving can kill you. A seat belt helps this, but it is not foolproof. By the logic of those who wish us to abstain, we should teach children never to drive a car.
.
Slight devils advocate (for the record, abstinence education is a foolish idea), but driving is, in todays society, a relative need. You do it to get to work, to have goods or services delivered, etc. Non-reproductive sex doesn't serve any purpose other than rocks getting off. So to speak.

But again, big fan.

What about those of us who think marriage is a failed institution and no one should ever enter into it? If you never get married, then you never have pre-marital sex, right?

It's just sex. Pre-marital, marital, post-divorce, between marriages--whatever, it's just sex.
True enough. Never get married and it's not pre-marital. The perfect plan.



Sex is also a carnal desire. If you can't even control that, you're not much better than an animal.
I control it, I don't throw down with my woman in the middle of the street when the mood hits, I don't hump the hot chick in the check out line's leg. That's enough. I'm not running for Jesus or anything...

I have been thinking about why such an idea as no sex before marriage ever became widley accepted. It seems to me to be extremley foolish. Abstinence only education is not only inneffective, it also teaches a purley religious idea with government funding, making it a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

1. Sex is not immoral. The only thing that would make people consider it immoral is religion. Therefore, this reason to teach abstinence is legally invalid.

2. Sex can spread STDs and cause pregnancy. Condoms and such help this, but they are not foolproof. Driving can kill you. A seat belt helps this, but it is not foolproof. By the logic of those who wish us to abstain, we should teach children never to drive a car.

For some reason, the thought behind abstinence (but not abstinence itself) has become so mainstream that most people agree that you should abstain until marraige. This is incredibly foolish.

On sex, I generally agree with Robert Heinlein.

I think you can do it when you understand sex and its consequences, and how to handle and prevent such. Which, in my town, is understood pretty early (We have a good sex ed program) Abstinence classes should be banned, as they are useless, stupid, and ineffective.

That being said, one should have sex when one feels they are ready, not by ready, not because their peers say so but because you feel it will make you feel good.

Read it again ;)
just did, still says "because you feel it will make you feel good"

And life is all about feeling good. And about going on feeling good, which is why we act responsibly, so we won't have to stop feeling good.
life is most assuredly not about "feeling good", there are a lot of things that I could do that would feel good but would be irresponsible and reckless
What consequences ? If you use the right protection, there are probably not going to be any consequences.
you should meet my children. There are consequences of sex outside of STD's and unplanned babies though.

Sex is sex, honestly. Unfortunately, some... people*, have got it misconstrued in their heads that its a symbolism of purity, or something to that effect. Additionally, the 'property' thing comes to mind as well.

Though really, even when you can claim other good intentions, its all it boils down to, for me anyway.



*Man, I hate having to show self-restraint.

My thoughts exactly. I can't help feeling that people who make it oh so special and exclusive maybe simply don't have anything better to make special and exclusive for their partner. It's a pretty poor thing to offer, I feel. I've got better things.

They value it because it was valued by some tribes several millenia ago, who considered women property.
Only they realised that this view is outdated, and are now looking for new excuses to go on valuing it without having to admit that it is in fact outdated and pointless.

Source on that? My experience with cultural anthropology is rather limited.

I disagree that 'most' people think you should abstain until marriage.

Haha, yeah. I can only think of maybe one or two people I know who aren't into pre-marital sex, and they're not the norm.

What consequences ? If you use the right protection, there are probably not going to be any consequences.

"probably" is not "is not". The consequences of sex when you are not emotionally ready can be severe, particularly for women.

You take a risk of pregnancy, which, with or without abortion, is dramatically dangerous when you aren't ready to deal with it. I know people who've had abortions, who've given children up for adoption, and who've had children all when they were not ready to do so. Trust me, all of them thought there were "probably" no consequences as well. Unfortunately, "probably" didn't protect them from great consequences.

Source (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/womenbible.htm)

Directly from the bible, really. Not much searching required.

I'm sorry, but the idea of abstinence really isn't "just teh ebil Bible brainwashing our youth" anymore. It makes sense.

Source on that? My experience with cultural anthropology is rather limited.

Women's bodies were not their own but the property of fathers and husbands. Virginity and chastity were mandatory for women...

Source (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/womenbible.htm)

Directly from the bible, really. Not much searching required.

Don't confuse "feeling good" with "instant gratification without consideration of the possible consequences and long-term effects".
I think many people do confuse the two, and I was trying to separate them.

sorta.......or something.

I should know not to come around here saying stuff about being responsible.

just did, still says "because you feel it will make you feel good"


life is most assuredly not about "feeling good", there are a lot of things that I could do that would feel good but would be irresponsible and reckless


And the results would not make you feel good, right?
Life is all about feeling good and avoid feeling bad. Don't confuse "feeling good" with "instant gratification without consideration of the possible consequences and long-term effects". I feel good about recycling waste cause I know I'd feel bad about messing up the planet more than I do already, I feel good about giving money to homeless people in the street cause I know it makes them a little happier, I feel good about having sex with my BF, and I feel good about having sex with others cause I know that I love it, and they love it, and my BF loves it most of all.

Schools don't teach abstinence.

I'm sorry, but the idea of abstinence really isn't "just teh ebil Bible brainwashing our youth" anymore. It makes sense.

Nope, even most Christians these days don't regard the bible as binding any more where the aspect of women belonging to others is concerned. As I said, they found new excuses to promote abstinence. But this is the bit where the idea originated.

Nope, even most Christians these days don't regard the bible as binding any more where the aspect of women belonging to others is concerned. As I said, they found new excuses to promote abstinence. But this is the bit where the idea originated.

I understand where the idea came from... I'm just saying that today, the two aren't necessarily correlated, so in a way, I'm agreeing with you there.

It is, however, the best method of future-distress-protection there is.

Well, I'm still alive, happy, got a job, place to live, never got into trouble with the law, got a nice circle of friends, take care of my cat.... yep, I must be a shining example for irresponsible living indeed.

when did I ever say you were irresponsible?

Schools don't teach abstinance.

My school did, which of course falsifies your statement. In fact, we're well aware that many schools do. I'm not aware of a single school that teaches that abstinence isn't the best course of action for youth. Not one. But please, link one.

I think many people do confuse the two, and I was trying to separate them.

sorta.......or something.

I should know not to come around here saying stuff about being responsible.

Well, I'm still alive, happy, got a job, place to live, never got into trouble with the law, got a nice circle of friends, take care of my cat.... yep, I must be a shining example for irresponsible living indeed.

Well, I'm still alive, happy, got a job, place to live, never got into trouble with the law, got a nice circle of friends, take care of my cat.... yep, I must be a shining example for irresponsible living indeed.

Anecdotal evidence.

The fact that you haven't had any problems doesn't make it so that no one else does. The opposite is also true, yes, but your personal evidence doesn't mean a fig.

And the results would not make you feel good, right?
Life is all about feeling good and avoid feeling bad. Don't confuse "feeling good" with "instant gratification without consideration of the possible consequences and long-term effects". I feel good about recycling waste cause I know I'd feel bad about messing up the planet more than I do already, I feel good about giving money to homeless people in the street cause I know it makes them a little happier, I feel good about having sex with my BF, and I feel good about having sex with others cause I know that I love it, and they love it, and my BF loves it most of all.

/me agrees.

"probably" is not "is not".

"Probably" is largely sufficient. We are constantly surrounded by doubt. If "probably" scares you, then you are a wuss in my book.


There are consequences of sex outside of STD's and unplanned babies though.

Please, Jocabia, Smunkeeville, oblige me, what are the dire consequences of sex outside of STDs and unplanned babies ?

You quoted me... who else was the bit about not expecting responsibility on here aimed at, then?

when?

when I said something about people should make a responsible choice and not just look for instant gratification?

is that you?

because you led me to believe it wasn't.

It is, however, the best method of future-distress-protection there is.

Oh, you're saying it's the safest thing to do if you really really really couldn't cope with an abortion or a baby?
That's correct. However, most people I know can cope very well with either of the two options.

when did I ever say you were irresponsible?

You quoted me... who else was the bit about not expecting responsibility on here aimed at, then?

Schools don't teach abstinance.

Really? So I must have imagined all the Students Today Aren't Ready for Sex assemblies, classes, group projects, and assignments.

I must've imagined all the zeros I got for refusing to participate.

Well, I'm still alive, happy, got a job, place to live, never got into trouble with the law, got a nice circle of friends, take care of my cat.... yep, I must be a shining example for irresponsible living indeed.

You're arguing a strawman. I have yet to see a post that says CW is irresponsible. Perhaps I missed it.

Please, Jocabia, Smunkeeville, oblige me, what are the dire consequences of sex outside of STDs and unplanned babies ?
if you are only prepared for STD's and babies, you are unprepared for sex. there are emotional consequences, social consequences, psychological consequences, relational consequences..........

I think many people do confuse the two, and I was trying to separate them.

sorta.......or something.

I should know not to come around here saying stuff about being responsible.

You're arguing a strawman. I have yet to see a post that says CW is irresponsible. Perhaps I missed it.

Here it is, dear. That was a reply to one of my posts.

You quoted me... who else was the bit about not expecting responsibility on here aimed at, then?

You were attacking her posts advocating sexual responsibility. She merely commented on getting such attacks. That doesn't imply that you're irresponsible, only that you don't agree that responsible sex is important. And if you do agree that responsible sex is important, than what are you arguing about?

when?

when I said something about people should make a responsible choice and not just look for instant gratification?

is that you?

because you led me to believe it wasn't.

Something that "makes you feel good" is not necessarily "instant gratification". It's just something you feel good about. You can feel good about something and be responsible.
You were the one saying that life isn't about feeling good, after all.

if you are only prepared for STD's and babies, you are unprepared for sex. there are emotional consequences, social consequences, psychological consequences, relational consequences..........

Well i've had sex for more than a year and I feel mighty fine, thank you. Social, psychological, emotional and relational consequencers are all personal and created by the fears and expectations of your lifeworld.

I'm not aware of a single school that teaches that abstinence isn't the best course of action for youth. Not one.

Err... you're kidding, right ?

Here it is, dear. That was a reply to one of my posts.

Again, that says nothing about you BEING responsible. It says that you were disagreeing with her poing about responsible sex. They aren't the same thing. I defend people's right to have an abortion. If she said she should know better than to advocate on here outlawing abortion, that wouldn't be the same as saying we all would get one.

choosing to have sex when you are well prepared for the possible consequences of?

"I wanna have sex now! it might feel good"
"we don't have protection"
"I WANT IT NOW!"

see? trouble waiting to happen.

You still want to have sex cuz it feels good even if you use protection.

You were attacking her posts advocating sexual responsibility. She merely commented on getting such attacks. That doesn't imply that you're irresponsible, only that you don't agree that responsible sex is important. And if you do agree that responsible sex is important, than what are you arguing about?

I wasn't. I was attacking her post about life not being about feeling good, and feeling good not being a reason to have sex.

I wasn't. I was attacking her post about life not being about feeling good, and feeling good not being a reason to have sex.

I still don't think "feeling good" is a lofty goal in life, but if you wanna, I really can't say anything about it.

I was asked for my opinion, I provided it, apparently fucking is more important to some people than being responsible about their choices (present company excluded)

Something that "makes you feel good" is not necessarily "instant gratification". It's just something you feel good about. You can feel good about something and be responsible.
You were the one saying that life isn't about feeling good, after all.

And you feel bad and still be responsible as well. She was saying that the decision should be based on what's responsible, not what feels good. The difference is patently obvious. I've often felt bad about doing the responsible thing. If I'm lucky, it turns out well and I get to feel better, but doing the responsible thing is the more important action in my mind, and hers.

I have been thinking about why such an idea as no sex before marriage ever became widley accepted. It seems to me to be extremley foolish. Abstinence only education is not only inneffective, it also teaches a purley religious idea with government funding, making it a violation of the Separation of Church and State.
Are you talking historically or at present?

Because historically, it's a whole myriad of issues, ranging from preservation of bloodlines via religious beliefs and superstitions to a reaction to hedonistic debauchery found in some "lower"/different societies etc.

At present, it's a bit different.

I wasn't. I was attacking her post about life not being about feeling good, and feeling good not being a reason to have sex.

Then you were attacking a strawman. She said that one should not have sex to feel good unless it's responsible.

You still want to have sex cuz it feels good even if you use protection.

Defense doesn't necessarily always work. You have to realize that there's a failure rate for each prevention measure that people have come up with (ie the pill, the mens pill, spermicide, diapraghm, condoms, uterine clips, etc).

And, sure, that is somewhat small... However, you also have to realize that

a)If you look purely at statistics, abstinence is safer than any birth control/ STD prevention measure.

b)People can be (not to necessarily imply that all people are) irresponsible at times.

Well i've had sex for more than a year and I feel mighty fine, thank you. Social, psychological, emotional and relational consequencers are all personal and created by the fears and expectations of your lifeworld.

Again, you do realize that you aren't the only person in the world. That it worked for you doesn't mean it's right for everyone. She's making a comment that people should make sure they are fully ready to responsibly deal with sex. If you were, bully for you. What does that have do with what she said?

Err... you're kidding, right ?

Wow, that's some argument. I don't know I can ever reply, I'm so overwhelmed by the logic behind it.

Ah, Abstinence Only education. Unfortunately, I was subjected to that not too many years ago.


Just to prove the insanity of their logic, the woman who came to my school had a poster. On this post was a hill, and at the top of the hill was a snowball. By the snowball, it said "Holding Hands." At various points down the hill, it had other things one might do with a boy/girlfriend. At the very bottom, it had a large snowball with the words "Pre-Marital Sex" written across it.


Now, by using their logic, holding hands leads to sex. Oh dear.


(Sorry, this is like my... Second post? Forgive me if I've done anything wrong.)

But that was just the argument she went against. The phrase that she objected to was that you should have sex when you're ready and when you know you will feel good about it.When will someone not feel good about sex?

But that was just the argument she went against. The phrase that she objected to was that you should have sex when you're ready and when you know you will feel good about it.
Which, in my understanding, includes being responsible about it, cause otherwise you certainly will end up not feeling too good for a while, worrying you might've caught something or be pregnant.

It's still anecdotal evidence... Just because it happened to you doesn't necessarily make it true.

But that was just the argument she went against. The phrase that she objected to was that you should have sex when you're ready and when you know you will feel good about it.
Which, in my understanding, includes being responsible about it, cause otherwise you certainly will end up not feeling too good for a while, worrying you might've caught something or be pregnant.
no, I was arguing against "because you feel it will make you feel good"

Again, you do realize that you aren't the only person in the world. That it worked for you doesn't mean it's right for everyone. She's making a comment that people should make sure they are fully ready to responsibly deal with sex. If you were, bully for you. What does that have do with what she said?


But that was just the argument she went against. The phrase that she objected to was that you should have sex when you're ready and when you know you will feel good about it.
Which, in my understanding, includes being responsible about it, cause otherwise you certainly will end up not feeling too good for a while, worrying you might've caught something or be pregnant.

I still don't think "feeling good" is a lofty goal in life, but if you wanna, I really can't say anything about it.

I was asked for my opinion, I provided it, apparently fucking is more important to some people than being responsible about their choices (present company excluded)

What else is there to life besides "Feeling good"?

(Note I am not talking about instant gratification I am saying enjoying life itself may be the purpose at least to me)

Now if you are like me you hold off on a lot of the instant gratification things (like drugs and such) and use the current time to build staibility for my future to prolong the "Feeling good" about my life experience later on in life


But in the end it is all a form of gratification, it is just when and how you recive it and what the tradeoffs are

Again, you do realize that you aren't the only person in the world. That it worked for you doesn't mean it's right for everyone. She's making a comment that people should make sure they are fully ready to responsibly deal with sex. If you were, bully for you. What does that have do with what she said?

No she made a comment saying I was not ready for sex. I answered by showing that I was. And stop talking for other people. Seriously.



Wow, that's some argument. I don't know I can ever reply, I'm so overwhelmed by the logic behind it.

You do know what you just quoted was refering to ? Not knowing any schools that don't teach abstinence ? Well, in my superiorly civilized and cultured country (sarcasm), sex ed is part of the official education program.

Is that good enough of an argument ? Or are you totally unable to look outside of what surrounds you ?

But that was just the argument she went against. The phrase that she objected to was that you should have sex when you're ready and when you know you will feel good about it.
Which, in my understanding, includes being responsible about it, cause otherwise you certainly will end up not feeling too good for a while, worrying you might've caught something or be pregnant.

You said that to her and she told you she was clarifying. If "ready" includes prepared to responsibly deal with the consequences, then she agrees with you and she said that. Deliberately ignoring the fact that she clarified the comment and admitted that she might not have been clear isn't helping anyone.

I might still be not getting it, but who in this thread has advocated being irresponsible about sex? All that was said was that people should wait until they are ready, and give in to peer pressure. It's a personal choice, after all, and one that's better made fully informed.

That's the thing - No one has. But when Smunkee clearly stated that she didn't want to come into the thread and say that everyone should be responsible, you took it at face value and assumed that she was arguing the irresponsibility of pre-marital sex.

People don't necessarily wait 'til their ready, or make the informed decision. Granted, most do, yes, but it's a fact that not all do, and that in and of itself is a sort of troubling problem.

Damn time warps makes me delirious!:mad:

*Pushes Gravlen's post down*

I still don't think "feeling good" is a lofty goal in life, but if you wanna, I really can't say anything about it.

I was asked for my opinion, I provided it, apparently fucking is more important to some people than being responsible about their choices (present company excluded)

I might still be not getting it, but who in this thread has advocated being irresponsible about sex? All that was said was that people should wait until they are ready, and give in to peer pressure. It's a personal choice, after all, and one that's better made fully informed.

Damn time warps makes me delirious!:mad:

An amusing little statistic that my paranoid brain worked out:

Take contraceptive, probability of success 98% over the course of a year when used properly. Use it properly for twenty years. What's the probability of it being successful for every one of those years?

0.98^20 = 0.6676

So 67%.

Fun, eh?

No she made a comment saying I was not ready for sex. I answered by showing that I was. And stop talking for other people. Seriously.
you implied that the only consequences of sex were your dick falling off or a baby, then you asked "what other consequences are there?" further implying that you had no insight into what there might be other than STD's and babies.

you implied that the only consequences of sex were your dick falling off or a baby, then you asked "what other consequences are there?" further implying that you had no insight into what there might be other than STD's and babies.

True, I wasn't being very clear, and i think i got bogged up. Let me go back and read again a little.

An amusing little statistic that my paranoid brain worked out:

Take contraceptive, probability of success 98% over the course of a year when used properly. Use it properly for twenty years. What's the probability of it being successful for every one of those years?

0.98^20 = 0.6676

So 67%.

Fun, eh?

I'm not sure it works like that although i'm no mathematician

I might still be not getting it, but who in this thread has advocated being irresponsible about sex? All that was said was that people should wait until they are ready, and give in to peer pressure. It's a personal choice, after all, and one that's better made fully informed.

Hmmmm... let's see if I can find a couple.

You still want to have sex cuz it feels good even if you use protection.

When will someone not feel good about sex?

An amusing little statistic that my paranoid brain worked out:

Take contraceptive, probability of success 98% over the course of a year when used properly. Use it properly for twenty years. What's the probability of it being successful for every one of those years?

0.98^20 = 0.6676

So 67%.

Fun, eh?

That's far too big of a sample size, but given that this case isn't necessarily impossible, it's a possibility.

The thing is, though, 98% is when it's used properly. It's easy (not practically, but theoretically) to misuse birth control (ie taking the wrong one. It's not like it hasn't happened).

I'd be horrified to marry someone I had never had sex with. Sex forms a psychic bond of sorts that helps a couple understand if they are ready for marriage or not.

An amusing little statistic that my paranoid brain worked out:

Take contraceptive, probability of success 98% over the course of a year when used properly. Use it properly for twenty years. What's the probability of it being successful for every one of those years?

0.98^20 = 0.6676

So 67%.

Fun, eh?

You know what I've always been wondering about those stats? How many times are you supposed to have sex in that statistical year? Is that stat based on people fucking twice a week like couples who've been married for years, or based on couples who are at it like rabbits? I assume the number of instances would influence this particular statisic quite a bit, wouldn't you?

No she made a comment saying I was not ready for sex. I answered by showing that I was. And stop talking for other people. Seriously.

She said you weren't ready for sex? Ah. Well, she's right if you don't know that there is the potential for more consequences than you listed. The fact you've avoided them is luck. Yes, it is required that you understand things in order to be responsible about them. You've proven you don't.

And I can speak to her point, because I know what it is. If she prefers I stop, she'll let me know. This is a forum, not instant messager.

You do know what you just quoted was refering to ? Not knowing any schools that don't teach abstinence ? Well, in my superiorly civilized and cultured country (sarcasm), sex ed is part of the official education program.

Is that good enough of an argument ? Or are you totally unable to look outside of what surrounds you ?

Um, you do know sex education teaches that abstinence is the safest means of avoiding pregnancy and disease. That does teach abstinence and about abstinence. And yes, thank you for actually making a claim. It makes it much easier to show specifically how you are wrong.

Hmmmm... let's see if I can find a couple.

Huh? How's saying that sex with contraception feels good irresponsible??? :confused:

You know what I've always been wondering about those stats? How many times are you supposed to have sex in that statistical year? Is that stat based on people fucking twice a week like couples who've been married for years, or based on couples who are at it like rabbits? I assume the number of instances would influence this particular statisic quite a bit, wouldn't you?

Yes, I would. However, I think there are more factors at work than simply "how often", but I'm no biologist so...
Anyway, I'm fairly sure they do a trial with a bunch of couples using only that method of contraception for a year, then count the pregnancies that occurred.
Presumably the reason for this is to help take into account that not everyone shags at the same frequency, and different times of the month, and all that.

It doesn't work like that at all. The analysis has to do with chemical reactions to certain products, usage, and various other parts that are specific to the user. As such the percentages don't necessarily increase with prolonged usage. They certainly don't increase so directly.

I thought that the odds stayed the same no matter what the time scale of their use

An amusing little statistic that my paranoid brain worked out:

Take contraceptive, probability of success 98% over the course of a year when used properly. Use it properly for twenty years. What's the probability of it being successful for every one of those years?

0.98^20 = 0.6676

So 67%.

Fun, eh?

It doesn't work like that at all. The analysis has to do with chemical reactions to certain products, usage, and various other parts that are specific to the user. As such the percentages don't necessarily increase with prolonged usage. They certainly don't increase so directly.

She said you weren't ready for sex? You specifically? Please quote that.

This is the quote in question :

if you are only prepared for STD's and babies, you are unprepared for sex.

True I can now see how it can be interpreted as non-specific. But seing what post it was answering to, I took the "you" as personal.



Um, you do know sex education teaches that abstinence is the safest means of avoiding pregnancy and disease. That does teach abstinence and about abstinence. And yes, thank you for actually making a claim. It makes it much easier to show specifically how you are wrong.

I'm not aware of a single school that teaches that abstinence isn't the best course of action for youth.

We were not as clear as you think you were. "abstinence is the safest means of avoiding pregnancy and disease" Yep, my classes taught that.
"Best course of action for youth" Nope, my classes didn't teach that.

Huh? How's saying that sex with contraception feels good irresponsible??? :confused:

You said that "feels good" includes being responsible. Both of those comments imply that sex will necessarily make you feel good without any thought of consequences not covered by contraception and as such are not responsible.

Are you claiming the only consequences of sex are covered by contraception? That you agree that provided you use contraception feeling good is guaranteed?

Defense doesn't necessarily always work. You have to realize that there's a failure rate for each prevention measure that people have come up with (ie the pill, the mens pill, spermicide, diapraghm, condoms, uterine clips, etc).

And, sure, that is somewhat small... However, you also have to realize that

a)If you look purely at statistics, abstinence is safer than any birth control/ STD prevention measure.

b)People can be (not to necessarily imply that all people are) irresponsible at times.

People might screw up but that's their own fault and they'll have to deal with the consequences, no reason to wait until you get married if you're careful enough. Besides, isn't it better to enter a marriage with some skills?

People might screw up but that's their own fault and they'll have to deal with the consequences, no reason to wait until you get married if you're careful enough. Besides, isn't it better to enter a marriage with some skills?

Since when was marriage only about sex?! Did I miss something here? If the only real reason to get married is sex, then go ahead... Have all the sex you want without getting married. I was under the assumption, however, that being "bound" by marriage meant more than merely a physical connection between two people that allowed them to have sex.

By the by, it's easy to be careful, but it's hard to be "careful enough." Not enough people recognize the difference between the two because it takes that one in 100 chance to fuck everything up.

You said that "feels good" includes being responsible. Both of those comments imply that sex will necessarily make you feel good without any thought of consequences not covered by contraception and as such are not responsible.

Are you claiming the only consequences of sex are covered by contraception? That you agree that provided you use contraception feeling good is guaranteed?

Nope, like everything in life, good sex takes some skill and needs to be learned.
I thought I had well covered the rest by explaining what being ready for sex entailed?

As long as people know how to play it safe they should have as much sex as they want. It's so fucking natural that it's foolish to fight the urge until you get married, if you even get married.

hmm..... provided its consensual, of course....

although I would love to see a rapist use this as a quote in court...:D

Nope, like everything in life, good sex takes some skill and needs to be learned.
I thought I had well covered the rest by explaining what being ready for sex entailed?

You're joking, right? You've flopped your position in favor of the "We must learn sex before marriage" argument?

Since when was marriage only about sex?! Did I miss something here? If the only real reason to get married is sex, then go ahead... Have all the sex you want without getting married. I was under the assumption, however, that being "bound" by marriage meant more than merely a physical connection between two people that allowed them to have sex.


See, that's something I never understood... if marriage is about so much more, why the emphasis on sex? Why "wait until you're married"? Why the exclusivness?

See, that's something I never understood... if marriage is about so much more, why the emphasis on sex? Why "wait until you're married"? Why the exclusivness?

It's a good practice. A fair bit safer than, say, "practicing" before getting married.

See, that's something I never understood... if marriage is about so much more, why the emphasis on sex? Why "wait until you're married"? Why the exclusivness?

Because sex is "naughty", duh!:D

Since when was marriage only about sex?! Did I miss something here? If the only real reason to get married is sex, then go ahead... Have all the sex you want without getting married. I was under the assumption, however, that being "bound" by marriage meant more than merely a physical connection between two people that allowed them to have sex.

By the by, it's easy to be careful, but it's hard to be "careful enough." Not enough people recognize the difference between the two because it takes that one in 100 chance to fuck everything up.

Marriage is an out-dated religious institution but this wasn't a thread about marriage but about premarital sex.

And it's up to people to deside if they wan't to take that slight chance to fuck up.

See, that's something I never understood... if marriage is about so much more, why the emphasis on sex? Why "wait until you're married"? Why the exclusivness?

Because it's the old standard back in the day when women had little control over their lives.

It's a good practice. A fair bit safer than, say, "practicing" before getting married.

Once more, the necessity for justification of a statement seems to elude a poster....

Why is it a "good practice"? What justifies such a belief?

hmm..... provided its consensual, of course....

although I would love to see a rapist use this as a quote in court...:D

Coming to think about it....yeah it would be fun to see that:D

Safer in regards to what?

In regards to it's impossible to contract STDs or become pregnant without sex, for one.

This is the quote in question :

True I can now see how it can be interpreted as non-specific. But seing what post it was answering to, I took the "you" as personal.


She was right. If you don't recognize all of the consequences of something you are unprepared for it. The fact that it's gone okay so far is luck, since you can't possibly prepare for things you admit you don't understand.


We were not as clear as you think you were. "abstinence is the safest means of avoiding pregnancy and disease" Yep, my classes taught that.
"Best course of action for youth" Nope, my classes didn't teach that.

I'm calling BS. Sorry, but I'm calling it. I've never seen a class that teaches otherwise, and you've presented no evidence.

It's a good practice. A fair bit safer than, say, "practicing" before getting married.

Safer in regards to what?

Nope, like everything in life, good sex takes some skill and needs to be learned.
I thought I had well covered the rest by explaining what being ready for sex entailed?

You're mixing everything together. You said that no one in the thread argued for irresponsible sex, but I showed people who don't recognize that the consequences are more than just babies and disease.

In regards to it's impossible to contract STDs or become pregnant without sex, for one.

And clearly, an STD contracted in a marriage is completely safe, and ever child born into marriage lives a childhood of chocolate rivers and ickle fairies.....:rolleyes:

She was right. If you don't recognize all of the consequences of something you are unprepared for it. The fact that it's gone okay so far is luck, since you can't possibly prepare for things you admit you don't understand.

I didn't admit I don't understand them. I was rather holding that these consequences are not as dire and fearful as you and her make them to be.



I'm calling BS. Sorry, but I'm calling it. I've never seen a class that teaches otherwise, and you've presented no evidence.

You are calling bullshit on what ? I musn't haven't been clear enough, I shall rephrase it : "i did not understand your post correctly, i though you were saying that you knew no schools that didn't teach abstinence only classes, i am sorry for the misunderstaning."

And clearly, an STD contracted in a marriage is completely safe, and ever child born into marriage lives a childhood of chocolate rivers and ickle fairies.....:rolleyes:

A)Wow. Way to make a straw man.

B)The whole thing about abstinence is that you don't contract an STD before you get married. You seem to assume that it is possible to contract an STD out of the blue, and that simply isn't true.

And, aside from the fact that contracting STDs within marriage wasn't my argument, yes, it is a fair bit safer.

I didn't admit I don't understand them. I was rather holding that these consequences are not as dire and fearful as you and her make them to be.
saying that there are consequences that you should be aware of is not saying "OMG YOU ARE GOING TO DIE"

Funny, that. I know at least two STDs that you can catch without sex... and are you sure that just becaue you're married, it's all of a sudden "safe" to get pregnant?
I think some people ascribe too many magical powers to a signed piece of paper and two rings.

Which sexually transmitted diseases do you get without sexual activity?

Funny, that. I know at least two STDs that you can catch without sex... and are you sure that just becaue you're married, it's all of a sudden "safe" to get pregnant?
I think some people ascribe too many magical powers to a signed piece of paper and two rings.

What? Through saliva and sitting on a dirty toilet seat?

SURE, you can. But it's a mathematical impossibility compared to contracting STDs from sexual activity.

saying that there are consequences that you should be aware of is not saying "OMG YOU ARE GOING TO DIE"

Well my PoV is that awareness of these consequences isn't really that much of a requirement for "being ready for sex", since these consequences are going to be different for every person and every situation, the only way to see what the consequences are going to be, is to jump on the wagon and hold on to your hat.

A)Wow. Way to make a straw man.

B)The whole thing about abstinence is that you don't contract an STD before you get married. You seem to assume that it is possible to contract an STD out of the blue, and that simply isn't true.

And, aside from the fact that contracting STDs within marriage wasn't my argument, yes, it is a fair bit safer.

So, by your logic, STD's have no right to exist, since they could not have developed in the first place? Another cowpat of an argument to put on the wall I fear....

What on earth do you actually mean by "safer"? The term is abstruse and precludes any sort of response.

In regards to it's impossible to contract STDs or become pregnant without sex, for one.

Funny, that. I know at least two STDs that you can catch without sex... and are you sure that just becaue you're married, it's all of a sudden "safe" to get pregnant?
I think some people ascribe too many magical powers to a signed piece of paper and two rings.

Well my PoV is that awareness of these consequences isn't really that much of a requirement for "being ready for sex", since these consequences are going to be different for every person and every situation, the only way to see what the consequences are going to be, is to jump on the wagon and hold on to your hat.

do you apply that idiotic reasoning to everything in life? "I don't know exactly what might happen, so I am just going to do what I want anyway"

Okay, it's the eighth page, but still, here's my 2 cents...

Pre-marital sex is not something to hide or shun or whatever. Sex is natural, and saying that it's not is foolish and irresponsible. Sex does have consequences, yes, such as STDs, pregnancy, as well as emotional and social consequences. Abstinence-only classes are basically rolling up a newspaper, whacking you on the nose with it, and yelling "NO! NO! BAD TEENAGER! BAD, BAD, TEENAGER! YOU DON'T HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE! BAD! BAD!" and then they proceed to tell you that condoms are the only remotely effective form of birth control, though (as they say, contrary to what we all know) they are only 30-60% effective (it varied in my 8th grade anti-sex class). As teenagers, we're sexually maturing. Our bodies are getting ready to have sex and reproduce. Sex is a perfectly natural thing that does have consequences, but exaggerating the consquences and then saying that sex must be bad is highly dangerous and irresponsible. It's wrong and "abstinence-only" classes should be illegal.

Edit: When I was writing this, it was the eighth page. Now it's on the ninth. >.<

do you apply that idiotic reasoning to everything in life? "I don't know exactly what might happen, so I am just going to do what I want anyway"

Well if i CAN'T know, yep, i'll just take my chances. Its called taking a risk. Ever heard about it ? You know, experimenting ?

So, by your logic, STD's have no right to exist, since they could not have developed in the first place? Another cowpat of an argument to put on the wall I fear....

What on earth do you actually mean by "safer"? The term is abstruse and precludes any sort of response.

Wait, wha? You've made another straw man argument by saying "by my logic" without me actually making the argument.

I get a 'phonecall for half an hour and, well... Anyway:
It doesn't work like that at all. The analysis has to do with chemical reactions to certain products, usage, and various other parts that are specific to the user. As such the percentages don't necessarily increase with prolonged usage. They certainly don't increase so directly.

That was assuming each year was an independant event, and yes, that won't necessarily be the case; probably depends on loads of factors, type of contraception being an important one. I'd argue that condoms and diaphragms probably follow a pattern like that, being nice, simple mechanical things; hormonal contraceptives might not, I don't know.
Making that assumption the maths is nice and simple, as shown previously. And not exactly cheering, to be honest. Yay belt + braces.

do you apply that idiotic reasoning to everything in life? "I don't know exactly what might happen, so I am just going to do what I want anyway"

What's up with you today? Are we talking to the woman who got married 5 weeks after meeting her future husband for the first time? Are you honestly trying to tell us you knew exaclty what your life would be like when you made that decision, and nothing unforeseen ever happened?

i find it funny u geeks talking about sex..wen 99.9% of u all are virgins

Last time I checked, AIDS and Hepatitis B were classified as STDs.

AIDS isn't a transmittable disease, first of all. You quite obviously don't understand the meaning of the word.

Second of all, they can be transmitted by needles, and as such are far and away from the debate about pre-marital sex.

Which sexually transmitted diseases do you get without sexual activity?

Last time I checked, AIDS and Hepatitis B were classified as STDs.

What? Through saliva and sitting on a dirty toilet seat?

SURE, you can. But it's a mathematical impossibility compared to contracting STDs from sexual activity.

See my reply to Smunkee.

Well if i CAN'T know, yep, i'll just take my chances. Its called taking a risk. Ever heard about it ? You know, experimenting ?

Who says you can't know? You can know many of the consequences you DID NOT acknowledge without having sex. Don't know and can't know are not the same thing. One is ignorance and one is simply information that isn't available.

Taking a risk is fine when you understand the consequences. When you don't it's stupid. Plain and simple. Are you an advocate for doing stupid things?

Who says you can't know? You can know many of the consequences you DID NOT acknowledge without having sex. Don't know and can't know are not the same thing. One is ignorance and one is simply information that isn't available.

And I still hold that not knowing of them isn't that big of a deal.
"Oh hell I wake up in the morning and I feel a lot closer to this girl than I did the day before"
"Wow I'm not a virgin anymore my social standing goes up 2000pts gazing kchik jackpot"
Seriously, what are these huge consequences you talk about. Please, just give me one example. I don't see them, but if you show them to me i'll accept them.


Taking a risk is fine when you understand the consequences. When you don't it's stupid. Plain and simple. Are you an advocate for doing stupid things?


I do stupid things all the time. And its fun. I'm an optimist and a happy person. Are you ?

Wait, wha? You've made another straw man argument by saying "by my logic" without me actually making the argument.

I was making an inference. Switch Mr.Brain on, and such things may become available to you.

I would argue that the things you CAN know are the risks of STDs, pregnancy and certain social consquences (not all of them, though. A friend of mine broke of a friendship with another friend of mine because the second girl lost her virginity first and she felt outdone... ).
What you can't know in advance are the emotional consquences you might be facing. You can try and imagine them beforehand, but there's no way of knowing.

That's consequences special to the circumstances of each person. You can't say that, because each person doesn't know their own consequences, that they shouldn't worry about having sex to find out those consequences because it's simple to see that there are conseqeunces for sex that are not special to anyone's circumstances.

Who says you can't know? You can know many of the consequences you DID NOT acknowledge without having sex. Don't know and can't know are not the same thing. One is ignorance and one is simply information that isn't available.

Taking a risk is fine when you understand the consequences. When you don't it's stupid. Plain and simple. Are you an advocate for doing stupid things?

I would argue that the things you CAN know are the risks of STDs, pregnancy and certain social consquences (not all of them, though. A friend of mine broke of a friendship with another friend of mine because the second girl lost her virginity first and she felt outdone... ).
What you can't know in advance are the emotional consquences you might be facing. You can try and imagine them beforehand, but there's no way of knowing.

I was making an inference. Switch Mr.Brain on, and such things may become available to you.

You've made an inference to suggest that I'm making a silly argument when I'm not; I never gentured about the reasons why STDs exist, only to the ways to not contract said STDs. You then made a straw man out of my argument by implying that I would logically have to follow that argument with a conclusion that I myself did not reach and attacking that "conclusion" with an argument of your own.

Hence, a straw man.

As long as you know and respect the person, as long as there is trust and a willingness to share the consequences, as long as you are prepared to be mature and responsible about it... there is nothing wrong with premarital sex, or even sex outside a relationship.

AIDS isn't a transmittable disease, first of all. You quite obviously don't understand the meaning of the word.

Second of all, they can be transmitted by needles, and as such are far and away from the debate about pre-marital sex.

I'm sorry, I meant HIV. Please forgive the incorrect terminoligy.
And I would say that it does play a role, as sexual partners can be infected, married or not. As such, waiting till marriage is no protection.

I'm sorry, I meant HIV. Please forgive the incorrect terminoligy.
And I would say that it does play a role, as sexual partners can be infected, married or not. As such, waiting till marriage is no protection.

Eh. It's fine. It's kind of a pet peeve of mine when people refer to AIDS as a "killer STD," so I apologize if I overreacted.

But, you see... we're talking about pre-marital sex, not contracting STDs due to unclean needle transfer. Having sex outside of marriage isn't any safer than having sex inside of marriage if you want to include this.

That's consequences special to the circumstances of each person. You can't say that, because each person doesn't know their own consequences, that they shouldn't worry about having sex to find out those consequences because it's simple to see that there are conseqeunces for sex that are not special to anyone's circumstances.

I never said they shouldn't think about their own consequences. I said it's impossible for anyone to know about emotional consequences beforehand. Doesn't mean they shouldn't think about them. Otherwise, how will anybody ever know when they're ready to have sex for the first time?

I would argue that the things you CAN know are the risks of STDs, pregnancy and certain social consquences (not all of them, though. A friend of mine broke of a friendship with another friend of mine because the second girl lost her virginity first and she felt outdone... ).
What you can't know in advance are the emotional consquences you might be facing. You can try and imagine them beforehand, but there's no way of knowing.

Knowledge of consequences can be inspecific. For example, I can know there is a possibility of injury in a specific experiment and thus take certain measures to prevent injury even without being sure what kind of injury might arise or the specific likelihood of said injury. However, if I pretend like say that the only consequences of an experiment is failure then I'm being pretty irresponsible.

I never said they shouldn't think about their own consequences. I said it's impossible for anyone to know about emotional consequences beforehand. Doesn't mean they shouldn't think about them. Otherwise, how will anybody ever know when they're ready to have sex for the first time?

I wasn't attacking your claims, only those of other people saying that, because it is impossible to understand the personal, inspecifiable consequences of sex, it is okay to "expirement" insofar as we act responsibly.

Knowledge of consequences can be inspecific. For example, I can know there is a possibility of injury in a specific experiment and thus take certain measures to prevent injury even without being sure what kind of injury might arise or the specific likelihood of said injury. However, if I pretend like say that the only consequences of an experiment is failure then I'm being pretty irresponsible.

*lol Wouldn't that equate to using a condom as prevention against possible pregnancy and infection, or maybe getting tested for STDs before having sex, rather than just giving it a try and being disappointed about not being able to reach orgasm the first time?

And I still hold that not knowing of them isn't that big of a deal.
"Oh hell I wake up in the morning and I feel a lot closer to this girl than I did the day before"
"Wow I'm not a virgin anymore my social standing goes up 2000pts gazing kchik jackpot"
Seriously, what are these huge consequences you talk about. Please, just give me one example. I don't see them, but if you show them to me i'll accept them.

They are peppered throughout the thread. Anyone who is remotely mature reads this post and realizes you don't understand.

Ok, here's one. You wake in the morning and she's gone. You start to leave you house and the cops are outside. They tackle you and put cuffs on you. You've been accused of rape.


I do stupid things all the time. And its fun. I'm an optimist and a happy person. Are you ?

I'm an optimist. I'm not an idiot. There's an extremely clear difference.

So what is it that makes sex in a marriage safer than sex before or outside a marriage?

I think its that people are confusing sex before marriage with promiscuity

Eh. It's fine. It's kind of a pet peeve of mine when people refer to AIDS as a "killer STD," so I apologize if I overreacted.

But, you see... we're talking about pre-marital sex, not contracting STDs due to unclean needle transfer. Having sex outside of marriage isn't any safer than having sex inside of marriage if you want to include this.

I'm trying to figure out what you think might make sex safer inside marriage. STDs can be contracted in other ways, and then transferred to the spouse, so that's not significantly safer than sex outside marriage, is it?
Having a child in marriage does not mean you won't end up a single mom having to care for the kid yourself cause your other half ran of with the marriage counsellor, either. I don't have numbers, but I'd be curious to see how many single moms actually got the kid while they were married...

So what is it that makes sex in a marriage safer than sex before or outside a marriage?

Ok, here's one. You wake in the morning and she's gone. You start to leave you house and the cops are outside. They tackle you and put cuffs on you. You've been accused of rape.


... In this circumstance, there is nothing you can do about it anyway.

Which sexually transmitted diseases do you get without sexual activity?
AIDS and hepatitis. You can get them from IV drug usage.

I'm trying to figure out what you think might make sex safer inside marriage. STDs can be contracted in other ways, and then transferred to the spouse, so that's not significantly safer than sex outside marriage, is it?
Having a child in marriage does not mean you won't end up a single mom having to care for the kid yourself cause your other half ran of with the marriage counsellor, either. I don't have numbers, but I'd be curious to see how many single moms actually got the kid while they were married...

So what is it that makes sex in a marriage safer than sex before or outside a marriage?

The reason why it is somewhat (I'm saying somewhat here to refer to your inclusion that it is possible for couples to break up, which is of course true) safer is because "marriage" (quoted to mean what we normally refer to marriage as) is monoamory (?)... monogamy. If an STD is contracted within marriage, it is likely that the spouse that contracted it would tell the other. I'm not saying this would happen in all cases, but it is much more likely to happen within marriage than outside of it.

This is to say that I am ignoring the possibility of divorce; yes, I am. But only because that is aside the point.

I wasn't attacking your claims, only those of other people saying that, because it is impossible to understand the personal, inspecifiable consequences of sex, it is okay to "expirement" insofar as we act responsibly.

I guess it comes down to how you define "act responsibly".
I would say we experiment while acting as responsibly as possible all our lives.

I'm trying to figure out what you think might make sex safer inside marriage. STDs can be contracted in other ways, and then transferred to the spouse, so that's not significantly safer than sex outside marriage, is it?
Having a child in marriage does not mean you won't end up a single mom having to care for the kid yourself cause your other half ran of with the marriage counsellor, either. I don't have numbers, but I'd be curious to see how many single moms actually got the kid while they were married...

So what is it that makes sex in a marriage safer than sex before or outside a marriage?

You're odds of contracting STD's other ways is far less significant than contracting them through sex. Pretending the difference doesn't exist is obtuse.

Now, that said, I'd say monogamy is an equal protection.

Ok, here's one. You wake in the morning and she's gone. You start to leave you house and the cops are outside. They tackle you and put cuffs on you. You've been accused of rape.



My memory might be letting me down, but wasn't Lorena Bobbit married to John Bobbit?

Yes, trying to be as responsible as possible is very good advise. But trying to get people to believe that marriage is some sort of safe haven is not very responsible, I think.

AIDS and hepatitis. You can get them from IV drug usage.

You mean transmission by blood. Sorry just being picky

What's up with you today? Are we talking to the woman who got married 5 weeks after meeting her future husband for the first time? Are you honestly trying to tell us you knew exaclty what your life would be like when you made that decision, and nothing unforeseen ever happened?

was I aware of every single thing that would happen in the future? no, I would have to be psychic.

was I aware of the possible outcomes of that decision and willing and ready to deal with those consequences? yes.

when I get in the car do I know if I am going to have a wreck or not? no.

do I take precautions to prevent a wreck? yes.

what you guys seem to be advocating is that just because you don't know if you will get in a wreck, that you can just ignore the possibility all together, drive with your eyes closed and hope for the best because really that's the best you can do right?

My memory might be letting me down, but wasn't Lorena Bobbit married to John Bobbit?

Yes, trying to be as responsible as possible is very good advise. But trying to get people to believe that marriage is some sort of safe haven is not very responsible, I think.

I don't think Jocabia or I said that you must be married to have responsible sex.

I think its that people are confusing sex before marriage with promiscuity

Tell me when I, Jocabia, or Smunkee have once mentioned "sexual promiscuity," then.

That's exactly the comment we've avoided this whole debate!

Well this has been my first real forum based debate in a while. It was very entertaining and enlightning. Thank you very much, Jocabia and Smunkee, for sharing this fascinating hour of intellectual confrontation with me. I am now heading out, goodbye.

edit : what you guys seem to be advocating is that just because you don't know if you will get in a wreck, that you can just ignore the possibility all together, drive with your eyes closed and hope for the best because really that's the best you can do right?

Nope what I advocate is that since you don't know where the accident is going to come from, and how its going to happen, all you can do is keep your eyes open, a light head and a smile on your face. No reason to spend a day before each trip planning every turn and direction to see where the danger might be coming from.

reedit : i just had to add : Jocabia, you are a deeply condescending person. It is annoying. Just thought you'd like to know.

The reason why it is somewhat (I'm saying somewhat here to refer to your inclusion that it is possible for couples to break up, which is of course true) safer is because "marriage" (quoted to mean what we normally refer to marriage as) is monoamory (?)... monogamy. If an STD is contracted within marriage, it is likely that the spouse that contracted it would tell the other. I'm not saying this would happen in all cases, but it is much more likely to happen within marriage than outside of it.

This is to say that I am ignoring the possibility of divorce; yes, I am. But only because that is aside the point.

I think you know as well as I do that the infected spouse might not be aware of the infection, and not become aware of it for years.

And not discussing the possiblity of divorce when advocating to wait until married before having sex is simple trying to avoid reality. Marriage is no magical protection against anything.

I have been thinking about why such an idea as no sex before marriage ever became widley accepted. It seems to me to be extremley foolish. Abstinence only education is not only inneffective, it also teaches a purley religious idea with government funding, making it a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

1. Sex is not immoral. The only thing that would make people consider it immoral is religion. Therefore, this reason to teach abstinence is legally invalid.

2. Sex can spread STDs and cause pregnancy. Condoms and such help this, but they are not foolproof. Driving can kill you. A seat belt helps this, but it is not foolproof. By the logic of those who wish us to abstain, we should teach children never to drive a car.

For some reason, the thought behind abstinence (but not abstinence itself) has become so mainstream that most people agree that you should abstain until marraige. This is incredibly foolish.

On sex, I generally agree with Robert Heinlein.

Personally I have no reason to ever have sex. I wouldn't have sex even if I did get married, but I'm not going to get married because I don't want to have sex and I'm not attracted to anyone anyway. But that's just me and, as an asexual, I realise that 99% of people think differently about this and aren't like me (I can't comprehend what they feel, but I know they feel something strange urge that I don't), so I don't really care about what other people do, as long as it's consensual, I'm not involved in it, and I don't have to see it or hear it.

... In this circumstance, there is nothing you can do about it anyway.

There certainly is. Knowledge of such a consequence helps you prepare for it. You might consider if the girl has a history of false accusations. You might ensure that you're not creating a situation for yourself that makes such an accusation more likely. You might make sure you know the girl better before having sex. You might make sure she's not drunk and that you aren't. There are tons of things you can do to protect yourself from such consequences. First, you have to recognize they exist. You don't.

The fact is it's a consequence you didn't attribute to sex. You were wrong. You've ignored many consequences and reading your posts it's pretty clear that Smunk nailed you. Sex is much more complicated than Porky's or American Pie would have you believe.

I think you know as well as I do that the infected spouse might not be aware of the infection, and not become aware of it for years.

And not discussing the possiblity of divorce when advocating to wait until married before having sex is simple trying to avoid reality. Marriage is no magical protection against anything.

The debate is about "pre-marital" sex, no? Then where does "the possibility of getting married, having sex, then getting divorced" come into this?

My memory might be letting me down, but wasn't Lorena Bobbit married to John Bobbit?

Yes, trying to be as responsible as possible is very good advise. But trying to get people to believe that marriage is some sort of safe haven is not very responsible, I think.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about marriage. Is it really that difficult to look at the names next to poster and read what they wrote?

I'm talking about a child who is talking about sex like the only consequences to consider are STD's and pregnancy. There are more consequences that our young friend hasn't considered and that's what I was discussing. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

Meanwhile, you act like the fact that something CAN happen in marriage means it has the same likelihood. The idea is patently ludicrous.

was I aware of every single thing that would happen in the future? no, I would have to be psychic.

was I aware of the possible outcomes of that decision and willing and ready to deal with those consequences? yes.

when I get in the car do I know if I am going to have a wreck or not? no.

do I take precautions to prevent a wreck? yes.

what you guys seem to be advocating is that just because you don't know if you will get in a wreck, that you can just ignore the possibility all together, drive with your eyes closed and hope for the best because really that's the best you can do right?

You felt ready for that step, and you took it. You knew it was a risk, and a massive experiment at that, but you still did it.
I'm not saying that people should completely ignore possible consequences, but I'm saying that when you feel ready to do something, do it. There is no other way. There's no magical switch in life that will make you ready for all eventualities. You don't wake up when you're 18 and discover that you've become an experienced, responsible adult. You become one by calculating risks, and then taking them. It's called learning.

The debate is about "pre-marital" sex, no? Then where does "the possibility of getting married, having sex, then getting divorced" come into this?

So why wait until marriage? You said cause it was safer. You've still got to show what makes it safer.

You felt ready for that step, and you took it. You knew it was a risk, and a massive experiment at that, but you still did it.
I'm not saying that people should completely ignore possible consequences, but I'm saying that when you feel ready to do something, do it. There is no other way. There's no magical switch in life that will make you ready for all eventualities. You don't wake up when you're 18 and discover that you've become an experienced, responsible adult. You become one by calculating risks, and then taking them. It's called learning.

I made a responsible choice. I knew the consequences and was prepared to deal with them should the need arise.

People who have sex because it "feels good" without considering the consequences and being willing and ready to deal with them, are being irresponsible in my book.

People who ignore steps they can take to minimize consequences or ignore consequences totally in favor for "having fun" are irresponsible.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about marriage. Is it really that difficult to look at the names next to poster and read what they wrote?

I'm talking about a child who is talking about sex like the only consequences to consider are STD's and pregnancy. There are more consequences that our young friend hasn't considered and that's what I was discussing. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

Meanwhile, you act like the fact that something CAN happen in marriage means it has the same likelihood. The idea is patently ludicrous.

Apologies, but this thread being about pre-marital sex I assumed you were talking about marriage.
And I was simply providing an example, very much like the example you gave about being falsely accused of rape. It's a possible consequence, but not a very likely one.

Tell me when I, Jocabia, or Smunkee have once mentioned "sexual promiscuity," then.

That's exactly the comment we've avoided this whole debate!

Perhaps I should have reworded that as people assuming that someone having sex before marriage will have multiple partners in their lifetime.

So why wait until marriage? You said cause it was safer. You've still got to show what makes it safer.

It's much less likely to involve multiple partners. Many people have already pointed out why that's safer. Personally a committed to monogamy would be enough for my money, but the point is that if you're talking generally, that commitment is more likely to be a part of marriage.

This has nothing to do with my opinion on the issue, but I remember hearing about an STD a long time ago that was purported to be the most common STD known, and was spreadable even with condom use or without full sexual intercourse. Does anyone have an idea what that was?

EDIT: My God, this thread has grown fast! Guess us NSG forumites must really like talking about sex :p

I made a responsible choice. I knew the consequences and was prepared to deal with them should the need arise.

People who have sex because it "feels good" without considering the consequences and being willing and ready to deal with them, are being irresponsible in my book.

People who ignore steps they can take to minimize consequences or ignore consequences totally in favor for "having fun" are irresponsible.

Yes, how dare we punctuate our sad, tedious lives by seeking to have fun.

Equally, in my experiance, "reponsible" pre-marital sex is more fulfilling than that which brookes unnecessary risks.

I made a responsible choice. I knew the consequences and was prepared to deal with them should the need arise.

People who have sex because it "feels good" without considering the consequences and being willing and ready to deal with them, are being irresponsible in my book.

People who ignore steps they can take to minimize consequences or ignore consequences totally in favor for "having fun" are irresponsible.

I've got a feeling you're not argueing with me at all there. I already stated that being responsible is the best way to ensure it feels good and goes on feeling good, and I certainly haven't advocated avoiding steps to minimise potential negative results.

Apologies, but this thread being about pre-marital sex I assumed you were talking about marriage.
And I was simply providing an example, very much like the example you gave about being falsely accused of rape. It's a possible consequence, but not a very likely one.

It's one of many possible consequences, and certainly likely enough to be worth considering. I'd not have had sex with LB because she was clearly a psycho even without considering her act of severing a penis. Obviously, so was he, but I'm not him.

Perhaps I should have reworded that as people assuming that someone having sex before marriage will have multiple partners in their lifetime.

It's certainly of greater probability than those that wait till marriage. I don't advocate waiting, but that's not the point.

Ah. So you assumed that since I advocate not to wait until marriage, I would encourage people to try as many partners as possible before deciding which one to stick with?
Sorry, no. I don't. I do advocate taking small steps, and having a full relationship before getting married, as I would consider that a way of ensuring that the marriage in the end has a better chance of lasting. It's not everybody's recipe, I realise that, but I think it's a good way to minimise the risks.
If the first partner you pick turns out not to be the one you want to spend your life with after all, move on. At least you won't yet have to worry about divorce and get into debt to get rid of him/her.

Agreed

It's much less likely to involve multiple partners. Many people have already pointed out why that's safer. Personally a committed to monogamy would be enough for my money, but the point is that if you're talking generally, that commitment is more likely to be a part of marriage.

Ah. So you assumed that since I advocate not to wait until marriage, I would encourage people to try as many partners as possible before deciding which one to stick with?
Sorry, no. I don't. I do advocate taking small steps, and having a full relationship before getting married, as I would consider that a way of ensuring that the marriage in the end has a better chance of lasting. It's not everybody's recipe, I realise that, but I think it's a good way to minimise the risks.
If the first partner you pick turns out not to be the one you want to spend your life with after all, move on. At least you won't yet have to worry about divorce and get into debt to get rid of him/her.

I don't have a lot of experience with people who do wait until marriage, but the few examples I know seem to be enjoying the multiple partners between marriages now ;)

Or as part of a healthy marriage of course ;)

It's certainly of greater probability than those that wait till marriage. I don't advocate waiting, but that's not the point.

I don't have a lot of experience with people who do wait until marriage, but the few examples I know seem to be enjoying the multiple partners between marriages now ;)

Ah. So you assumed that since I advocate not to wait until marriage, I would encourage people to try as many partners as possible before deciding which one to stick with?

Um, no. Where did I say that? You asked why it would be generally safer and I answered. It's not complicated.


Sorry, no. I don't. I do advocate taking small steps, and having a full relationship before getting married, as I would consider that a way of ensuring that the marriage in the end has a better chance of lasting. It's not everybody's recipe, I realise that, but I think it's a good way to minimise the risks.
If the first partner you pick turns out not to be the one you want to spend your life with after all, move on. At least you won't yet have to worry about divorce and get into debt to get rid of him/her.

Um, what does this have to do with the general point of whether or not sex in marriage is safer generally?

The author is assuming that the only thing that says that sex is immoral is religion.

Ever read the novel "1984?" The government was not religious (indeed, those that showed religious interest we hunted) and yet it created a program called the "Junior Anti-Sex League." The government persecuted intercourse because it could not control it and it therefore was an act of rebellion. I am personally an atheist and believe sex is immoral.

The American government (as well as numerous others) believes that abstinence should be taught not because the Divinities demand it, but rather because of the consequnces of pre-marital sex (other posters have provided ample examples).

Relationships based on sexuality are weak ones. One of the greater reasons the divorce rate is so high is because people enter marriage in such a relationship, and when the sex isn't as good, they lose that same interest in each other.

Sex is also a carnal desire. If you can't even control that, you're not much better than an animal. If you can find someone you truly love and respect without needing to have a sexual relationship with them, then that is a perfected relationship.

There are numerous people that believe this and similar ideologies (including certain key politicians). We are not necessarily religious. Just try an be more open-minded to the idea of secularists that support chastity.

Um, no. Where did I say that? You asked why it would be generally safer and I answered. It's not complicated.

Um, what does this have to do with the general point of whether or not sex in marriage is safer generally?

Right, so the assumption was that sex with two partners is less safe than sex with one.
Why?

Or as part of a healthy marriage of course ;)

That would be my idea of a happy marriage :D

But I guess I'll get branded as "incurably irresponsible and unsafe" now, so I'm off to bed. Good night, everyone.

I have been thinking about why such an idea as no sex before marriage ever became widley accepted.

No sex without marriage + No marriage without Church sanction = Fewer heathens

Or am I completely off base?

Right, so the assumption was that sex with two partners is less safe than sex with one.
Why?

It's not an assumption. Generally the more partners you have the likelihood of any of the consequences we've discussed goes up. By nature, it would have to. Again, this is generally. You keep bringing up whether it necessarily does in a specific occurance, but the GENERAL risk increases as your number of partners increases. For example, if 10% of people cheat, the likelihood the partners of people who have multiple partners cheat goes up as they increase the number of partners they have. This in turn increase the likelihood of contracting STD's.

There's considerations for the likelihood of pregnancy increasing with multiple partners but depending on which sex you are that could be neglible. The point being that generally multiple partners increases risk, just like driving more cars increases the chance you'll end up in one with bad brakes.

If it is taught in schools im the USA, it probably shouldn't be. However, I'd probably rather them encourage that then encourage kids to have sex.

I agree

It's too bad if your're not "religious"

Call me, I dunno, an extreme religious person, but yeah, I'm completely against pre marital sex because, as plain as I can put it, its a sin.

Ah, you see, I don't honestly care really. I doubt I'll even get married, I see no point in it. Getting married and then divorced is harder than "hooking up" and "separating".
And besides, all marriage does is change some personal info. And some taxes.
But it doesn't really seem so important to me.
Pre-marital sex, have at it, I say.
I won't say you're "immoral" if you have, I won't call it "immoral". It's nature at work. Let it be.

Schools don't teach abstinence.

Yes, they do, but they do usually teach safe-sex as well.

Yes, they do, but they do usually teach safe-sex as well.

Well, I meant here in the UK. Should have been clearer.

The world's getting hotter, wars are erupting everywhere, natural disaster every other month, psycho students gunning schoolmates,...

I think now is the time to be reckless.

Yes, they do, but they do usually teach safe-sex as well.
Actually, it varies from state to state, and from school district to school district. It's worth noting, though, that many of the abstinence-only school districts have shown a marked increase in teen pregnancy and STDs.

I have been thinking about why such an idea as no sex before marriage ever became widley accepted. It seems to me to be extremley foolish. Abstinence only education is not only inneffective, it also teaches a purley religious idea with government funding, making it a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

1. Sex is not immoral. The only thing that would make people consider it immoral is religion. Therefore, this reason to teach abstinence is legally invalid.

2. Sex can spread STDs and cause pregnancy. Condoms and such help this, but they are not foolproof. Driving can kill you. A seat belt helps this, but it is not foolproof. By the logic of those who wish us to abstain, we should teach children never to drive a car.

For some reason, the thought behind abstinence (but not abstinence itself) has become so mainstream that most people agree that you should abstain until marraige. This is incredibly foolish.

On sex, I generally agree with Robert Heinlein.

on your point that it is mainstream and an accepted thing..i strongly dissagree(look up teenage unwed mothers stats)
and well,myself and every single person i have ever met or have been friends with did not abstain from premarital sex.
oddly,most of my friends are in longterm monogamous relationships..with kids,and been together for going on 15 years.and not married(maybe considered commonlaw marriages)
myself i was married for 8 years,i had pre marital sex quite a bit,as did my ex wife.
there really is no hard and fast answer,if someone wants to save themselves for someone,dont kneejerk think it is from religous pressure,i was an alter boy for 9 years,talk about religous pressure.
let me put it this way,taking out the religous context you introduced to the topic,say for instance,someone believes in monogamy,and their partner does,as some of my friends that never technically married believe in,how in any way does that purport to be religous or pressure from the right,the church and the right think sex outside of marriage is wrong,does that make them right or does it just mean thats what they believe?
i certainly know many that are not married,and have been with the same person for 20 years,just the way they think...not a thing to do with religion.
from my perspective,i am in love with a girl that is 1000 miles away,she loves me,using a stretch of the argument,i could have relations with anyone since she is not here,and we are not married.conversely,i can also be upset if she has sex with someone else,or vice versa cause we both believe in one partner..not a thing to do with religion.it is personal choice alone.

It's too bad if your're not "religious"

Call me, I dunno, an extreme religious person, but yeah, I'm completely against pre marital sex because, as plain as I can put it, its a sin.

Then I will put it plainer

I don't give a fuck what you consider a sin nor what the entire religious world does.

Pre-Marital sex is the work of the devil!!!

It's only practiced by Godless Liberals who only want to take away my guns and replace baseball with rythmnic gymnastics!!

There are no consequences to sex besides STD's and Pregnancy. Hold on a second, hear me out.

There are pyschological and emotional consequences that occur after sex. However, this is not the fault of sex. The blame for these lies within our very society. The consequences are not caused by sex, they are caused by society.

And for those saying that waiting is safer- true. But there is virtually nothing that does not come with some level of risk. Since it is impossible to avoid risk, we should not remove ourselves from pleasure out of fear. If you try to live life as safely as possible, it will not be worth living.

Wow, Ive never had a thread so succesful.

There are no consequences to sex besides STD's and Pregnancy. Hold on a second, hear me out.

There are pyschological and emotional consequences that occur after sex. However, this is not the fault of sex. The blame for these lies within our very society. The consequences are not caused by sex, they are caused by society.

And for those saying that waiting is safer- true. But there is virtually nothing that does not come with some level of risk. Since it is impossible to avoid risk, we should not remove ourselves from pleasure out of fear. If you try to live life as safely as possible, it will not be worth living.


QFT.

QFT.

Thats the first time I've ever been quoted for truth. All in all, today is a new milestone in my NSG career.

The lack of sex before marriage thing made sense before the invention of contraceptives. I mean, condoms prevent pregnancy and the spread of disease to a large extent. If a couple is not married then caring for any offspring could be difficult and you'd end up with a lot of kids who are just burdens on society.

However, now that these things exist then safe sex before marriage is a good thing. :)

The lack of sex before marriage thing made sense before the invention of contraceptives. I mean, condoms prevent pregnancy and the spread of disease to a large extent. If a couple is not married then caring for any offspring could be difficult and you'd end up with a lot of kids who are just burdens on society.

However, now that these things exist then safe sex before marriage is a good thing. :)


never mind,my input means not a thing...how nice.
i will go back to my place in the back of the line...lol...

There are no consequences to sex besides STD's and Pregnancy. Hold on a second, hear me out.

There are pyschological and emotional consequences that occur after sex. However, this is not the fault of sex. The blame for these lies within our very society. The consequences are not caused by sex, they are caused by society.

And for those saying that waiting is safer- true. But there is virtually nothing that does not come with some level of risk. Since it is impossible to avoid risk, we should not remove ourselves from pleasure out of fear. If you try to live life as safely as possible, it will not be worth living.

Wow, Ive never had a thread so succesful.


If you really believe this is true then you're not prepared for sex. And, yes, I'm serious. To pretend the interaction of human beings is not at all related to those two human, rather than the "fault" of society means you don't really understand how humans function.

This isn't about fear. It's about recognizing the consequences of your actions, something all adults should do, and responding to those consequences. Pretending they don't exist is stupid. It's not responsible. It can't be.

never mind,my input means not a thing...how nice.
i will go back to my place in the back of the line...lol...

what?

If you really believe this is true then you're not prepared for sex. And, yes, I'm serious. To pretend the interaction of human beings is not at all related to those two human, rather than the "fault" of society means you don't really understand how humans function.

This isn't about fear. It's about recognizing the consequences of your actions, something all adults should do, and responding to those consequences. Pretending they don't exist is stupid. It's not responsible. It can't be.

Well, to put myself up as an example : I was an adult when I had sexfor the first time. And one thing I was really surprised about was the distinct lack of emotional consequences. I kind of expected them, I had been naive enough to believe in the whole "it'll change your whole person, you won't ever be the same again, it's a huge big step" nonsense, and nothing like that happened.
In fact, the only thing that did happen was that I suddenly realised just how much rape would emotionally affect a person.

Well, to put myself up as an example : I was an adult when I had sexfor the first time. And one thing I was really surprised about was the distinct lack of emotional consequences. I kind of expected them, I had been naive enough to believe in the whole "it'll change your whole person, you won't ever be the same again, it's a huge big step" nonsense, and nothing like that happened.
In fact, the only thing that did happen was that I suddenly realised just how much rape would emotionally affect a person.
I wasn't a (legal) adult the first time I had sex, but I had much the same experience.

Physically, it was fun. Emotionally..."That's it?"

Everybody makes it sound like there's this required emotional something that goes along with sex. I've never found it so. I've had emotional connections, and pretty profound ones, with some partners, but I've also had sex without such connection. I've had sex with no emotional fallout.

I guess it just depends on who you are and who you fuck.

wow, this thread is funny :p

personally, i'd say waiting till after marriage to have sex is generally pretty stupid. intimacy is an important part of a relationship (for most people) and waiting till after you've made a commitment to each other to find out if that part of your relationship is going to 'work' just seems pretty dumb to me.

people are going to have sex. it happens. not teaching them about it, about how to do it safely, about the concequences, and without allowing access to contraceptives... only saying "don't do it!!" seems pretty dumb.

I wasn't a (legal) adult the first time I had sex, but I had much the same experience.

Physically, it was fun. Emotionally..."That's it?"

Everybody makes it sound like there's this required emotional something that goes along with sex. I've never found it so. I've had emotional connections, and pretty profound ones, with some partners, but I've also had sex without such connection. I've had sex with no emotional fallout.

I guess it just depends on who you are and who you fuck.

Yep. This thread has left me with the impression that there are some very, very, VERY fragile people out there who maybe shouldn't fuck at all. Or watch the news, for that matter. It might result in an emotional breakdown for them.
Maybe they ought to keep away from too much daylight, too.

Yep. This thread has left me with the impression that there are some very, very, VERY fragile people out there who maybe shouldn't fuck at all. Or watch the news, for that matter. It might result in an emotional breakdown for them.
Maybe they ought to keep away from too much daylight, too.
My experience has been that sex does not create emotion where it didn't already exist.

If I already have strong feelings for a person, sex can be a way to express those feelings. Sex can be a way to enjoy emotional intimacy as well as physical.

If I don't have strong feelings for a person (beyond lust), then having sex with them doesn't magically make me have strong feelings for them. Nor have I found that having sex with somebody causes them to have strong feelings for me when they didn't have such feelings beforehand.

I have been thinking about why such an idea as no sex before marriage ever became widley accepted. It seems to me to be extremley foolish. Abstinence only education is not only inneffective, it also teaches a purley religious idea with government funding, making it a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

1. Sex is not immoral. The only thing that would make people consider it immoral is religion. Therefore, this reason to teach abstinence is legally invalid.

2. Sex can spread STDs and cause pregnancy. Condoms and such help this, but they are not foolproof. Driving can kill you. A seat belt helps this, but it is not foolproof. By the logic of those who wish us to abstain, we should teach children never to drive a car.

For some reason, the thought behind abstinence (but not abstinence itself) has become so mainstream that most people agree that you should abstain until marraige. This is incredibly foolish.

On sex, I generally agree with Robert Heinlein.

In any sufficiently patriarchal society women will, at some point, come to be regarded as property. In successful ones, women will internalize this belief. Even when it becomes passe, it will often be viewed with a certain nostalgic romanticism.

In our society it is still common for a woman to change her name to her husband's and give all the kids the guy's name. Even celebrity couples commonly give the children the man's name, even when the woman doesn't change her name. Which is a shame, because I thought Apple Paltrow had an intriguing ring to it.

The result is that as much as our society has progressed, things like female virginity and lacking kids, are seen as reinforcers of the husbands ownership of the woman.

Well, to put myself up as an example : I was an adult when I had sexfor the first time. And one thing I was really surprised about was the distinct lack of emotional consequences. I kind of expected them, I had been naive enough to believe in the whole "it'll change your whole person, you won't ever be the same again, it's a huge big step" nonsense, and nothing like that happened.
In fact, the only thing that did happen was that I suddenly realised just how much rape would emotionally affect a person.

The fact that it affected you that way just means that you were ready. The problem is that you can't actually be inside the head of the other person. It's really a question of can you deal with the potential consequences that occur because another person is involved. This is particularly true for me, because while a woman can control actually use a 100% effective birth control method, men have no such option. So as a woman you have to accept that there may be severe medical repercussions for the act and as a man you have to accept that there is a loss of control and potential financial repercussions for the act. And that's not even considering the potential for other issues.

Sex really is a funny thing. I highly recommend it for people who are ready. However, people who aren't ready (as a couple or as individuals) can get themselves into pretty big problems. I once ended up alone in a room with a woman I had no intention of having sex with. So she comes on to me, and I don't mean a little, I mean climbing on me and basically being very rough and it was a huge turnoff. I kept telling her no and finally I just threw her on the floor. As I was leaving, she suggested that she would have bruises as a result of the momentary struggle, which may or may not have been true, and that she was going to call the cops and tell them I'd attempted to rape her.

Now, you can suggest I'm just fragile, but I'm perfectly willing to admit I was entirely freaked. Entirely freaked. We cannot control the other partner. From a woman's standpoint this becomes an issue the moment she gets alone with him, because in many cases she is way overmatched physically. From a man's standpoint this becomes and issue because there are several things a woman could do that could literally ruin you.

Sex doesn't HAVE to be so complicated, but pretending like an individual can guarantee it won't be just isn't realistic.

The fact that it affected you that way just means that you were ready. The problem is that you can't actually be inside the head of the other person. It's really a question of can you deal with the potential consequences that occur because another person is involved. This is particularly true for me, because while a woman can control actually use a 100% effective birth control method, men have no such option. So as a woman you have to accept that there may be severe medical repercussions for the act and as a man you have to accept that there is a loss of control and potential financial repercussions for the act. And that's not even considering the potential for other issues.

I don't think anybody is denying the physical ramifications of sex. At least, I certainly don't want to come across as doing that.

For me, sex is a lot like sky diving. (Sig that, bitchez!) Some people do it just for fun, and some people do it because they find it to be a life-changing experience. Either way is okay, but no matter what you have to be responsible about it. The physical realities of what you are doing won't change based on your personal feelings. You have to respect that.


Sex really is a funny thing. I highly recommend it for people who are ready. However, people who aren't ready (as a couple or as individuals) can get themselves into pretty big problems. I once ended up alone in a room with a woman I had no intention of having sex with. So she comes on to me, and I don't mean a little, I mean climbing on me and basically being very rough and it was a huge turnoff. I kept telling her no and finally I just threw her on the floor. As I was leaving, she suggested that she would have bruises as a result of the momentary struggle, which may or may not have been true, and that she was going to call the cops and tell them I'd attempted to rape her.

Now, you can suggest I'm just fragile, but I'm perfectly willing to admit I was entirely freaked. Entirely freaked. We cannot control the other partner. From a woman's standpoint this becomes an issue the moment she gets alone with him, because in many cases she is way overmatched physically. From a man's standpoint this becomes and issue because there are several things a woman could do that could literally ruin you.

None of this is caused by sex, though. You didn't have sex with that woman, but the emotions were still there. The emotions would have been there regardless.


Sex doesn't HAVE to be so complicated, but pretending like an individual can guarantee it won't be just isn't realistic.
That's true.

For me, sex is a lot like sky diving. (Sig that, bitchez!) Some people do it just for fun, and some people do it because they find it to be a life-changing experience.


Pffft Skydiving is way better

http://www.uwesu.net/skydiveuwe/20reasons.shtml?

I don't think anybody is denying the physical ramifications of sex. At least, I certainly don't want to come across as doing that.

For me, sex is a lot like sky diving. (Sig that, bitchez!) Some people do it just for fun, and some people do it because they find it to be a life-changing experience. Either way is okay, but no matter what you have to be responsible about it. The physical realities of what you are doing won't change based on your personal feelings. You have to respect that.

Agreed.


None of this is caused by sex, though. You didn't have sex with that woman, but the emotions were still there. The emotions would have been there regardless.

You're correct. It wasn't caused by sex. However, there are teenagers in this thread that don't recognize that this is a complicated act, mostly because it involves two people being alone and intimate. Many adults here have indicated that it's fine that they don't understand the realities of sex, and that's just not realistic or responsible. The realities of sex include events like I experienced. No, they aren't part of every sexual experience, of course, but it's true that they are something to consider as a part of choosing to have sex, or even be alone with another person.

Of course it's not an issue every time or with every person, but I don't think it's responsible for individuals to not consider the extraphysical consequences of this level of interaction with other individuals. We're speaking about this in front of people, children, who really don't understand sex the way you do. It's irresponsible for us not to present a true picture of sex, a picture that explains to these children that there can be these types of issues.

You're correct. It wasn't caused by sex. However, there are teenagers in this thread that don't recognize that this is a complicated act, mostly because it involves two people being alone and intimate. Many adults here have indicated that it's fine that they don't understand the realities of sex, and that's just not realistic or responsible. The realities of sex include events like I experienced. No, they aren't part of every sexual experience, of course, but it's true that they are something to consider as a part of choosing to have sex, or even be alone with another person.

Of course it's not an issue every time or with every person, but I don't think it's responsible for individuals to not consider the extraphysical consequences of this level of interaction with other individuals. We're speaking about this in front of people, children, who really don't understand sex the way you do. It's irresponsible for us not to present a true picture of sex, a picture that explains to these children that there can be these types of issues.

The example you gave, however, is not sex, but a simple form of human interaction called either blackmail or revenge.

The example you gave, however, is not sex, but a simple form of human interaction called either blackmail or revenge.

Again, sex isn't pregnancy. Sex isn't STD's (necessarily). Sex isn't most of the consequences often related to sex. If you'd like to seperate them go ahead, but pretending that accusations of rape aren't related to sex is like saying that accusations of assault aren't related to violence.

Again, sex isn't pregnancy. Sex isn't STD's (necessarily). Sex isn't most of the consequences often related to sex. If you'd like to seperate them go ahead, but pretending that accusations of rape aren't related to sex is like saying that accusations of assault aren't related to violence.

Baseless accusations aren't related to any of that.
I'm not argueing that some people might not find themselves emotionally challenged by sex, but I feel you're exaggerating the impact a good bit. Rape isn't sex.

You're correct. It wasn't caused by sex. However, there are teenagers in this thread that don't recognize that this is a complicated act, mostly because it involves two people being alone and intimate. Many adults here have indicated that it's fine that they don't understand the realities of sex, and that's just not realistic or responsible. The realities of sex include events like I experienced. No, they aren't part of every sexual experience, of course, but it's true that they are something to consider as a part of choosing to have sex, or even be alone with another person.

I dunno if I can agree with this.

What you described is an experience with a jackass who wanted to mess with you. Abstaining from sex won't prevent jackasses from wanting to mess with you, and having sex doesn't necessarily increase the likelihood of jackass wanting to have sex with you.

I'm not trying to suggest that your experience wasn't serious. It's just that I don't think it was caused by sex. Somebody decided to USE sex as the way they'd mess with you, but sex didn't make them do that. Sex wasn't the cause, it was just a handy avenue of attack.


Of course it's not an issue every time or with every person, but I don't think it's responsible for individuals to not consider the extraphysical consequences of this level of interaction with other individuals. We're speaking about this in front of people, children, who really don't understand sex the way you do. It's irresponsible for us not to present a true picture of sex, a picture that explains to these children that there can be these types of issues.
Hmm. On second thought, I think I agree with you more than I initially believed.

I just tend to view it a different way. I don't think anybody, kid or adult, should be taught that these "consequences" are actually innate realities of the sexual experience.

Rather, we should all become aware of the bullshit attitudes our culture has about sex, and how they mess life up for all of us. The emotional consequences of sex that do exist today are mostly things that don't HAVE to exist. They're created. They're unnecessary. They ruin the fun, and should not be intentionally embraced.

It's important to be aware of lousy realities, of course. It's also important to recognize when the reality is one that can be changed.

In the end, I guess I have to agree with your assessment because it's much harder to avoid stepping in a puddle that you don't see.

I have been thinking about why such an idea as no sex before marriage ever became widley accepted. It seems to me to be extremley foolish. Abstinence only education is not only inneffective, it also teaches a purley religious idea with government funding, making it a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

1. Sex is not immoral. The only thing that would make people consider it immoral is religion. Therefore, this reason to teach abstinence is legally invalid.

2. Sex can spread STDs and cause pregnancy. Condoms and such help this, but they are not foolproof. Driving can kill you. A seat belt helps this, but it is not foolproof. By the logic of those who wish us to abstain, we should teach children never to drive a car.

For some reason, the thought behind abstinence (but not abstinence itself) has become so mainstream that most people agree that you should abstain until marraige. This is incredibly foolish.

On sex, I generally agree with Robert Heinlein.

well in yonder times, a women having sex before marriage would have decreased her value. You don't want all that time and invest to go to waste. You want to be able to get a contractual obligation from a man to increase your own wealth!
Best way to get people to follow to rule is to make it immoral, preferably with a bit of fire & brimstone thrown in.
Now the only people that follow the whole pre-marital sex is immoral logic are religious, who can't be bothered to look into why it was seen as immoral. & of course fathers that remember what they were like when they were 16/18 (or still are).

about point 2. Well..... you can have driving lessons and learn road safety. Maybe the same thing could be applied to sex. Give 'em a copy of the carma sutra, explain possible injuries, and have an instructor to practice with. Then after a enough lessons and theory and practical exam.

For me, sex is a lot like sky diving. (Sig that, bitchez!) Some people do it just for fun, and some people do it because they find it to be a life-changing experience.

You asked, Bottle, I sigged.

well in yonder times, a women having sex before marriage would have decreased her value. You don't want all that time and invest to go to waste. You want to be able to get a contractual obligation from a man to increase your own wealth!
If you're going to trace lineage through the male line, and if you're going to employ inheritance for male offspring based on paternity, then it makes sense to value brides who can't possibly be carrying somebody else's child. The easiest way to be 100% sure is to have a bride who has never had sex, and therefore can't possibly be carrying a baby that's not yours.

Of course, you then also must control that woman's behavior very strictly, to ensure she can never be impregnated by any other male.

All this could be easily solved if lineage is traced through the female line, of course, since a woman will typically be quite able to tell whether or not she gave birth to a baby. It would not be necessary to control the sexual behavior of males in a comparable way, since males cannot give birth.

You asked, Bottle, I sigged.
Hoo-rah!

Hoo-rah!

Thanks. :) I could never resist a woman who commands me to do something and calls me "bitch". :p

Baseless accusations aren't related to any of that.
I'm not argueing that some people might not find themselves emotionally challenged by sex, but I feel you're exaggerating the impact a good bit. Rape isn't sex.

Yes, yes, let's pretend sex only exists from the moment of insertion to the moment of pullout. Oh, wait, that would be stupid, is stupid.

I'm not exaggerating the impact at all. I'm not suggesting that all acts of sex are this impacting. That's YOUR strawman. I'm saying it can be. Your intentional attempts to portray a general argument as a specific argument are just evidence that you don't have a better argument. I didn't say rape was sex. I said accusations of rape are related to sex. Sex motivated me to be in that room as it did her. To pretend it didn't is just plain false. Thus, it's related. It's not a necessary consequence, but to say it's not a possible consequence is obviously false.

Keep denying reality, sister, but it won't change anything.

Yes, yes, let's pretend sex only exists from the moment of insertion to the moment of pullout. Oh, wait, that would be stupid, is stupid.

I'm not exaggerating the impact at all. I'm not suggesting that all acts of sex are this impacting. That's YOUR strawman. I'm saying it can be. Your intentional attempts to portray a general argument as a specific argument are just evidence that you don't have a better argument. I didn't say rape was sex. I said accusations of rape are related to sex. Sex motivated me to be in that room as it did her. To pretend it didn't is just plain false. Thus, it's related. It's not a necessary consequence, but to say it's not a possible consequence is obviously false.

Keep denying reality, sister, but it won't change anything.


You gave an example in which you didn't HAVE sex, yet suffered emotional consquences due to threat of accusations of having had sex. What kind of an answer do you expect to this??
I'm not claiming that sex has no consequences, I'm saying the consequences are hugely overpresented by society and far less severe in real life.

If you're going to trace lineage through the male line, and if you're going to employ inheritance for male offspring based on paternity, then it makes sense to value brides who can't possibly be carrying somebody else's child. The easiest way to be 100% sure is to have a bride who has never had sex, and therefore can't possibly be carrying a baby that's not yours.

Of course, you then also must control that woman's behavior very strictly, to ensure she can never be impregnated by any other male.

All this could be easily solved if lineage is traced through the female line, of course, since a woman will typically be quite able to tell whether or not she gave birth to a baby. It would not be necessary to control the sexual behavior of males in a comparable way, since males cannot give birth.

yes.
But control seems to be a quite an important thing in patriarchial cultures.

If you're going to trace lineage through the male line, and if you're going to employ inheritance for male offspring based on paternity, then it makes sense to value brides who can't possibly be carrying somebody else's child. The easiest way to be 100% sure is to have a bride who has never had sex, and therefore can't possibly be carrying a baby that's not yours.

Of course, you then also must control that woman's behavior very strictly, to ensure she can never be impregnated by any other male.

All this could be easily solved if lineage is traced through the female line, of course, since a woman will typically be quite able to tell whether or not she gave birth to a baby. It would not be necessary to control the sexual behavior of males in a comparable way, since males cannot give birth.

Oddly, the judaic line does travel with the woman. I'm a Jew, technically, because my maternal grandmother was and her maternal grandmother, etc. I've always found this dichotomy to be interesting. Because they solved the issue when it comes to religion but ignored it when it came to the tenets of the religion. However as Jesus pointed out, it's not all that shocking that those in power slowly attributed everything they wanted to control to God. Why wouldn't they? Who's going to argue with God?

Oddly, the judaic line does travel with the woman. I'm a Jew, technically, because my maternal grandmother was and her maternal grandmother, etc. I've always found this dichotomy to be interesting. Because they solved the issue when it comes to religion but ignored it when it came to the tenets of the religion. However as Jesus pointed out, it's not all that shocking that those in power slowly attributed everything they wanted to control to God. Why wouldn't they? Who's going to argue with God?
Yep, that's my long-standing position on religion. It's most often used as a justification for what people have already decided to do. Religion doesn't create sexism or patriarchy or other forms of oppression, it's just a handy way of propping them up for the people who stand to benefit from such systems.

I don't respect that sort of thing, really, and it can be extended directly to this topic. If somebody doesn't want to have sex, that's fine. They shouldn't have sex. But I have zero respect for somebody who requires religion as a crutch for their principles. If you aren't ready for sex, then just be honest about that. If you're worried about the dangers of sex, just be honest about that. Don't play around with stupid distractions about how Jeebus wants you to wait or some crazy shit like that. And, for the love of all that's good and holy, don't make the hideous mistake of thinking that your personal value as a human being is tied to your sexual "purity." Anybody who views you that was is a jackass, and you shouldn't be fucking them in the first place.

Yes, yes, let's pretend sex only exists from the moment of insertion to the moment of pullout. Oh, wait, that would be stupid, is stupid.

I'm not exaggerating the impact at all. I'm not suggesting that all acts of sex are this impacting. That's YOUR strawman. I'm saying it can be. Your intentional attempts to portray a general argument as a specific argument are just evidence that you don't have a better argument. I didn't say rape was sex. I said accusations of rape are related to sex. Sex motivated me to be in that room as it did her. To pretend it didn't is just plain false. Thus, it's related. It's not a necessary consequence, but to say it's not a possible consequence is obviously false.

Keep denying reality, sister, but it won't change anything.

Yes things CAN happen. Many many things. The condom can break, your sister can walk into the room without knocking, your best friend might have been secretly in love with the girl for a very long time, someone might have placed cameras inside your room to film the intercourse and put it on the internet, you might be having sex with a transexual, or a distant cousin, or a relative of the person you hate the most in the world, etc, etc...

The point is that you cannot know and be ready of every single possible consequence. And even if something bad happens, what you can do is take the responsibility to repair the situation as well as possible. No reason to deprive yourself of something because of paranoid thoughts.

When you got married, you knew there might have been a possibility that your husband died after the birth of your Xth child, leaving you alone to care for your offspring. But you still got married. Why ? Are you "ready" for such a consequence ?

ps : you're being extremely uncivil.

You gave an example in which you didn't HAVE sex, yet suffered emotional consquences due to threat of accusations of having had sex. What kind of an answer do you expect to this??
I'm not claiming that sex has no consequences, I'm saying the consequences are hugely overpresented by society and far less severe in real life.

I gave an example where I didn't have intercourse. We were being intimate. If not for the expectation of sexual intimacy I wouldn't have been in that situation nor would she. The accusation was related to expectations of sex. Sexual activity includes much more than the actual act of intercourse. Much more. To say otherwise is deliberately obtuse.

You've been arguing strawmen for pages. You've done so because your argument has been thoroughly and utterly debunked. You think people don't notice? They do. Even Bottle admitted that while what she presents would be nice, it doesn't reflect reality. I agree with her, mostly because she's right and she's being realistic. The reason nobody over 18 is agreeing with you is because your position isn't realist, isn't right, and frankly is patently absurd.

Yes things CAN happen. Many many things. The condom can break, your sister can walk into the room without knocking, your best friend might have been secretly in love with the girl for a very long time, someone might have placed cameras inside your room to film the intercourse and put it on the internet, you might be having sex with a transexual, or a distant cousin, or a relative of the person you hate the most in the world, etc, etc...

The point is that you cannot know and be ready of every single possible consequence. And even if something bad happens, what you can do is take the responsibility to repair the situation as well as possible. No reason to deprive yourself of something because of paranoid thoughts.

When you got married, you knew there might have been a possibility that your husband died after the birth of your Xth child, leaving you alone to care for your offspring. But you still got married. Why ? Are you "ready" for such a consequence ?

ps : you're being extremely uncivil.
I think you might be misunderstanding Joc's point.

From what I've read, it seems like Joc is simply pointing out that people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the potential problems that can go along with sex. I haven't heard Joc argue that we should all abstain from sex forever, or that sex isn't worth the trouble, or any such thing.

Being aware of the possible consequences of an action is the first step in being able to take responsible action. Being aware of the risks of sex doesn't mean you have to abstain altogether, it just means that you'll be more aware of what might happen and how you might avoid negative outcomes.

Yep, that's my long-standing position on religion. It's most often used as a justification for what people have already decided to do. Religion doesn't create sexism or patriarchy or other forms of oppression, it's just a handy way of propping them up for the people who stand to benefit from such systems.

Quite frankly, though, it's why Fass's view of what "true" Christians are annoys me. Jesus made it clear that he doesn't support much of those human rules. A major portion of Christianity happened to have reversed that position, but that doesn't mean all. Jesus said he came to fulfill the prophets and the Law (the commandments), not that he supported the plethora of rules that man had created and attributed to God. He, in fact, said the opposite. Whether you believe in Jesus or not, that he existed or not, that's a fact.

Oddly, 2000 years ago they figured out that man was abusing the idea of God in order to enforce rules and here we are 2000 years later still doing the same thing. Not so amusingly, even people on the flip side of the coin are abusing that idea to their own ideological ends (Dawkins, Fass, et al).

The entire thing really is tiresome. As has been said in many a movie, the problem comes when you take a good idea and build a religion around it.

Yes things CAN happen. Many many things. The condom can break, your sister can walk into the room without knocking, your best friend might have been secretly in love with the girl for a very long time, someone might have placed cameras inside your room to film the intercourse and put it on the internet, you might be having sex with a transexual, or a distant cousin, or a relative of the person you hate the most in the world, etc, etc...

The point is that you cannot know and be ready of every single possible consequence. And even if something bad happens, what you can do is take the responsibility to repair the situation as well as possible. No reason to deprive yourself of something because of paranoid thoughts.

When you got married, you knew there might have been a possibility that your husband died after the birth of your Xth child, leaving you alone to care for your offspring. But you still got married. Why ? Are you "ready" for such a consequence ?

ps : you're being extremely uncivil.

You can know that such consequences are possible and mitigate them. Who is talking about depriving? We are talking about ensuring that you're fully prepared. You evidenced that you hadn't even considered anything outside of the physical. That's not prepared. It's unrealistic. And, honestly, it's poor decision-making.

In your scenario, hell yes I'd prepare for such a possibility. I wouldn't have children without purchasing life insurance. Doing otherwise would be grossly irresponsible.

I think you might be misunderstanding Joc's point.

From what I've read, it seems like Joc is simply pointing out that people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the potential problems that can go along with sex. I haven't heard Joc argue that we should all abstain from sex forever, or that sex isn't worth the trouble, or any such thing.

Being aware of the possible consequences of an action is the first step in being able to take responsible action. Being aware of the risks of sex doesn't mean you have to abstain altogether, it just means that you'll be more aware of what might happen and how you might avoid negative outcomes.

Yes, exactly. And it was, of course, first Smunkee's point, only she was having some trouble expressing it and asked for some help. People have been arguing the strawman that saying that people should be responsible is saying that sex is wrong or has to be bad, which isn't what anyone has argued at all.

Thank you for restating my point. It's often helpful to disagree with you. I'm glad I did here. ;)

EDIT: The wink is because I'm joking. Obviously, we're not far apart at all. Not that this is particularly surprising.

I think you might be misunderstanding Joc's point.

From what I've read, it seems like Joc is simply pointing out that people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the potential problems that can go along with sex. I haven't heard Joc argue that we should all abstain from sex forever, or that sex isn't worth the trouble, or any such thing.

Being aware of the possible consequences of an action is the first step in being able to take responsible action. Being aware of the risks of sex doesn't mean you have to abstain altogether, it just means that you'll be more aware of what might happen and how you might avoid negative outcomes.

So the question is : when are you ready ? When are you really aware of what might happen and when are you really able to avoid negative outcomes ?

Jocabia has been passing judgments of maturity, responsibility and "readiness", as if it was something tangible and precise. I hold that it isn't. Being aware of some of the possible outcomes is helpful, not necessary. Being aware of every possible outcome is impossible.

The only protection that is useful in every single case is physical protection against pregnancies and STDs. It is the only one that is universal.

I think you might be misunderstanding Joc's point.

From what I've read, it seems like Joc is simply pointing out that people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the potential problems that can go along with sex. I haven't heard Joc argue that we should all abstain from sex forever, or that sex isn't worth the trouble, or any such thing.

Being aware of the possible consequences of an action is the first step in being able to take responsible action. Being aware of the risks of sex doesn't mean you have to abstain altogether, it just means that you'll be more aware of what might happen and how you might avoid negative outcomes.

and again Bottle, you speak truth.

that's all I have really ever been trying to say, is that people should make a responsible choice.

I gave an example where I didn't have intercourse. We were being intimate. If not for the expectation of sexual intimacy I wouldn't have been in that situation nor would she. The accusation was related to expectations of sex. Sexual activity includes much more than the actual act of intercourse. Much more. To say otherwise is deliberately obtuse.

You've been arguing strawmen for pages. You've done so because your argument has been thoroughly and utterly debunked. You think people don't notice? They do. Even Bottle admitted that while what she presents would be nice, it doesn't reflect reality. I agree with her, mostly because she's right and she's being realistic. The reason nobody over 18 is agreeing with you is because your position isn't realist, isn't right, and frankly is patently absurd.

My argument that each individual needs to decide for him/herself when they're ready to have sex? That consequences need to be considered, that it's vital to come to an informed decision, but that scaring people by telling them that it's going to change them beyond recognition and will cause them a world of problems is not helping in the least? Or which argument in particular are you talking about?

I've been told over and over again in this thread that waiting till marriage makes sex "safer", implying that sex outside marriage is dangerous, but so far nobody cared to answer my questions as to what makes sex such a horrendous risk to life and limb.
Both STDs and unwanted pregancies and single parenthood can occur in a marriage as well as outside, so that can't be it really. What is it then?

So the question is : when are you ready ? When are you really aware of what might happen and when are you really able to avoid negative outcomes ?

Jocabia has been passing judgments of maturity, responsibility and "readiness", as if it was something tangible and precise.

Again, nope. I have been pointing out that if you think you need only prepare for physical realities that your missing part of the equation. That is all. That you aren't willing to accept that is the reason you're getting the response you're getting.


I hold that it isn't. Being aware of some of the possible outcomes is helpful, not necessary. Being aware of every possible outcome is impossible.

The only protection that is useful in every single case is physical protection against pregnancies and STDs. It is the only one that is universal.

Again, you just keeping missing the point. If you don't prepare for the realities of sex, the possible outcomes that aren't physical, you're being irresponsible. It's really that simple. Just like in your scenario, that if you don't consider that possibility (that one or both parents might die) then you are being irresponsible. It's not about knowing every possible outcome. It's about preparing for as many possible outcomes as is reasonable. You cannot do that without first recognizing they exist. To use Bottle's analogy, you can't avoid a puddle if you pretend like there is no such thing as water.

So the question is : when are you ready ? When are you really aware of what might happen and when are you really able to avoid negative outcomes ?

I'd say that varies from individual to individual


Jocabia has been passing judgments of maturity, responsibility and "readiness", as if it was something tangible and precise.

I don't see where he says that.


I hold that it isn't. Being aware of some of the possible outcomes is helpful, not necessary. Being aware of every possible outcome is impossible.

How so?

I'm sure if you want to get into tiny, precise details then perhaps a person can't specifically predict every single possible outcome. But I'm aware of every general outcome that is possible from my sexual activities. I was able to be aware of these outcomes long before I was a legal adult. And I'm not that bright, so I'd expect your average person would also be quite capable of this.


The only protection that is useful in every single case is physical protection against pregnancies and STDs. It is the only one that is universal.
I can't agree with that, either.

I'd say honesty and respect between partners are a pretty useful means of protection. If one of you is lying or mistreating the other, it's pretty likely to lead to drama of one kind or another. However, if you maintain a respectful and honest relationship you'll be protecting yourself against a whole lot of lousy outcomes. Sure, it won't protect you against EVERYTHING, but neither will any contraceptive.

If you really, really don't want negative outcomes from sex, I find it's best to use multiple forms of protection.

My argument that each individual needs to decide for him/herself when they're ready to have sex? That consequences need to be considered, that it's vital to come to an informed decision, but that scaring people by telling them that it's going to change them beyond recognition and will cause them a world of problems is not helping in the least? Or which argument in particular are you talking about?

Who's scaring people? I'm certainly not. It was asked for any scenario that included consequences that weren't physical. I gave several.

You've been creating several strawmen in order to make an argument and this is why your position is absurd. No one is making the argument you'd like to argue against so you keep inventing it. It's not work. It's not going to work.


I've been told over and over again in this thread that waiting till marriage makes sex "safer", implying that sex outside marriage is dangerous, but so far nobody cared to answer my questions as to what makes sex such a horrendous risk to life and limb.
Both STDs and unwanted pregancies and single parenthood can occur in a marriage as well as outside, so that can't be it really. What is it then?

I answered those questions. You pretended as if a specific example addresses the general point. Again, that's really a misunderstanding of what the general is and it doesn't an argument make. It doesn't mean sex in marriage is safer in every case. But in the general case, sex in marriage is more monogamous and safer. That's not disputable. You can't possibly argue that as many STD's occur within marriage as without. To do so would be blatantly ignorant of the facts.

"Can occur" isn't the same as "occurs with the same frequency". Your argument is akin to saying that wearing a seatbelt isn't safer because you can still be injured. People in seatbelts are generally more likely to survive a wreck. That sometimes a seatbelt increases injury doesn't change that simple fact.

*snip*

Agreed.

Who's scaring people? I'm certainly not. It was asked for any scenario that included consequences that weren't physical. I gave several.

You've been creating several strawmen in order to make an argument and this is why your position is absurd. No one is making the argument you'd like to argue against so you keep inventing it. It's not work. It's not going to work.


I was not asking for scenarios, I was asking for a definition of what you perceive to be the harm of sex outside marriage.


I answered those questions. You pretended as if a specific example addresses the general point. Again, that's really a misunderstanding of what the general is and it doesn't an argument make. It doesn't mean sex in marriage is safer in every case. But in the general case, sex in marriage is more monogamous and safer. That's not disputable. You can't possibly argue that as many STD's occur within marriage as without. To do so would be blatantly ignorant of the facts.

"Can occur" isn't the same as "occurs with the same frequency". Your argument is akin to saying that wearing a seatbelt isn't safer because you can still be injured. People in seatbelts are generally more likely to survive a wreck. That sometimes a seatbelt increases injury doesn't change that simple fact.

I don't have any facts or numbers on STDs, but single parenting after a marriage breaks up is easily as high as single parenting resulting from sex outside marriage.
I admit I'm not sure what I'm argueing here, ever since being called irresponsible for claiming that sex is fun and should make you feel good...

I was not asking for scenarios, I was asking for a definition of what you perceive to be the harm of sex outside marriage.

Then you're again arguing a strawman. I don't advocate abstaining till marriage and have said so repeatedly. Perhaps you should talk to someone who does.

I don't have any facts or numbers on STDs, but single parenting after a marriage breaks up is easily as high as single parenting resulting from sex outside marriage.
I admit I'm not sure what I'm argueing here, ever since being called irresponsible for claiming that sex is fun and should make you feel good...

You weren't called irresponsible for saying such things. That's another strawman.

You weren't called irresponsible for saying such things. That's another strawman.

First page of this thread. It wasn't my argument but Kryozerkia's, but I happen to think in exactly the same way.

First page of this thread. It wasn't my argument but Kryozerkia's, but I happen to think in exactly the same way.

Nope. She specifically said what she was referring to and you said that is NOT your position. It may also not be Kry's but she said specifically how she took it. Like I said, strawman. It's one thing if she hadn't already explained how she took it and admitted she might not have expressed herself well, but she did, so continuing to complain about it is just ridiculous.

I admit I'm not sure what I'm argueing here, ever since being called irresponsible for claiming that sex is fun and should make you feel good...

I believe the point being made that "feeling good" shouldn't be the ONLY thing involved in having sex. Unfortunately for many it is which is the reason for so many teenage pregnancies because they are not responsible about the matter since they want sex "now" and that they really may not really feel emotionally ready but their partner and society tells them that something is wrong with them if they don't have sex. I certainly hope that raging hormones don't take over where the brain should function.

But then that is wishful thinking, asking for a functional brain in these situations could be asking a little too much. :p

In the early days, when women were married off around the age of 16 or so, getting pregnant younger than that could very well kill you. I think that was dressed up with religion to become "sinful" or something.

Jocabia: I see. I was reffering to the foolish idea of "my penis went inside your vagina, now we are both suffering from emotional and psychological harm". I am perfectly willing to concede that, in the situations you propose, there could be harm. However, I would argue that anything done with a psycho is dangerous, including sex.

Jocabia: I see. I was reffering to the foolish idea of "my penis went inside your vagina, now we are both suffering from emotional and psychological harm". I am perfectly willing to concede that, in the situations you propose, there could be harm. However, I would argue that anything done with a psycho is dangerous, including sex.

Agreed. However, the issue is that if you don't accept that people are messed up about sex, not all people, but lots of people, then you aren't going to be prepared for *gasp* people being messed up about sex. That's really the only point to be made.

It's something like 1 in 6 people have been the victim of some type of sex-related crime. Your odds of encountering someone who is going to handle sex badly or needs special attention in any kind of sexual activity is pretty high. I think it's pretty clear that many sexual activities occur before one's partner is aware of such a history. I'm not saying that if you aren't careful you'll die or you'll end up in some situation that is irreversible, but that caution is the order of the day when it comes to sex. A little bit of caution really goes a long way relating to sex. Unfortunately, that is often something people don't learn until after they start having sex and after they've paid some penalties for their ignorance.

I wouldn't have children without purchasing life insurance. Doing otherwise would be grossly irresponsible.

I agree, but what about the emotional impact from the death of a parent? What would you suggest for cushioning that blow?

(I'm not being a smartass, so don't take it that way.)

I agree, but what about the emotional impact from the death of a parent? What would you suggest for cushioning that blow?

(I'm not being a smartass, so don't take it that way.)

Helping the child understand death, depending on the age of the child. Perhaps a will that includes a letter to the child for when they are older. A video tape. Choosing godparents and discussing with them how to emotionally support the child in the event of your death. There are lots of ways. The point being that by understanding the possible events that could be related to raising a child you are going to better prepare everyone involved for those events. The same is true of sex.

Agreed. However, the issue is that if you don't accept that people are messed up about sex, not all people, but lots of people, then you aren't going to be prepared for *gasp* people being messed up about sex. That's really the only point to be made.

It's something like 1 in 6 people have been the victim of some type of sex-related crime. Your odds of encountering someone who is going to handle sex badly or needs special attention in any kind of sexual activity is pretty high. I think it's pretty clear that many sexual activities occur before one's partner is aware of such a history. I'm not saying that if you aren't careful you'll die or you'll end up in some situation that is irreversible, but that caution is the order of the day when it comes to sex. A little bit of caution really goes a long way relating to sex. Unfortunately, that is often something people don't learn until after they start having sex and after they've paid some penalties for their ignorance.

Agreed. I think this also agrees with my earier argument about how sex itself is not the cause, society (and I now include abuse and other such matters) is. So we agree. Jolly good.