NationStates Jolt Archive


Is pre-marital sex a sin/ immoral?

Pages : [1] 2
Anadyr Islands
25-06-2007, 23:13
I've thought about this for some time now, and I've reached the conclusion that sex outside of a marriage, so long as neither party, isn't (or shouldn't be, any way) something immoral. Yes, of course, I realize that many people have come to that final thought before me, but what I'm driving at is that it also shouldn't be counted as a religous sin.

For Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought, ultimately, the final major guidelines are the 10 commandments, unless you are one of those people who just happen to beleive they're obsolete. Anyway, the majority of the Abrahamic religions view extra-marital sex quite negatively, but it is only adultery that is forbidden in the 10 commandments. Adultery, according to the all-mighty wikipedia, is defined as sex where either one or both of the involved parties are actually involved in monogamous marriage.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery)

So, if two single people, of whom neither is married, decided to have sex, according to the commandments, that cannot be a sin.

Myself, I lean to Buddhism, where the only regulation about this sort of thing for normal non-monk/nun people is to not commit 'sexual misconduct', which is open to debate, but is generally considered to be sex with negative implications. Two people in a relationship, thought not married, is generally accepted in Buddhism, I beleive. The thing is, with Buddhism, the act of sex itself is not bad or good, it's the desire for sex that is bad. Anyway, that's more to do with the general philosophy of Buddhism of desire being the cause of suffering and all that jazz.

So, I basically think religous folk should not even care about such things, as the purpose of marriage is to create a relationship where two partners commit to one another to raising a family together, not just when the two can have sex. Anyway, what do you think?
Ashmoria
25-06-2007, 23:16
its a sin, depending upon your religion

its not immoral, depending upon your actions.
UpwardThrust
25-06-2007, 23:16
No it is not immoral

But it can be a mine field at times so due care for your safely and your partners should always be taken.
Nadkor
25-06-2007, 23:18
Eh?
SaintB
25-06-2007, 23:19
As long as there is some kind of connection based on respect and desire and your willing to take responisbility for your own actions... hell no in both cases.
Kryozerkia
25-06-2007, 23:33
Sex is a natural act. It is neither immoral nor sinful whether performed in the marital bed or out of wedlock.

It can be pleasurable but with sexual relations comes responsibility and people should ensure that they know what they're in for and be prepared for any consequences of their actions and choices.
Phantasy Encounter
25-06-2007, 23:36
If premarital sex is a sin, then a lot of people are going to hell! This (http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/122_1/12_PHR122-1_73-78.pdf) study concluded that 95% of Americans have had premarital sex and that this number has stayed relatively constant since 1950. So don't let your parents or grandparents tell you that they waited until they were married, chances are that they were screwing before they were married too!
SaintB
25-06-2007, 23:38
Sex is a natural act. It is neither immoral nor sinful whether performed in the marital bed or out of wedlock.

It can be pleasurable but with sexual relations comes responsibility and people should ensure that they know what they're in for and be prepared for any consequences of their actions and choices.

Marry me!
Ashmoria
25-06-2007, 23:41
If premarital sex is a sin, then a lot of people are going to hell! This (http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/122_1/12_PHR122-1_73-78.pdf) study concluded that 95% of Americans have had premarital sex and that this number has stayed relatively constant since 1950. So don't let your parents or grandparents tell you that they waited until they were married, chances are that they were screwing before they were married too!

ya but we only did it once, with the lights off, and we didnt enjoy it, and we got married soon after...

you believe me, right?
New Malachite Square
25-06-2007, 23:46
Marry me!

Kryozerkia doesn't have to. What's the title of this thread? Pre-marital! :p
The Brevious
25-06-2007, 23:53
Marry me!

Meh, howzabout "friends with benefits"?
Free Soviets
25-06-2007, 23:53
no, mainly because sin doesn't exist and nobody has ever come up with an even vaguely plausible justification for being all weird about sex - especially now that we've invented methods to minimize pregnancies and disease transmission.
Callang Provinces
25-06-2007, 23:54
I object, but I couldn't really tell you how much that has to do with me following the church and how much it has to do the fact I'm never gonna get any. What with the whole being monstorously ugly thing.............:(
Free Soviets
25-06-2007, 23:56
the fact I'm never gonna get any

worst comes to worst, you can pay for it
Callang Provinces
26-06-2007, 00:02
worst comes to worst, you can pay for it

Totally new topic here but regardless of what you think of the old pre-marital.
You've gotta agree taking advantage of the poor and abused is wrong..........


Anyway the whores always seem to run away screaming when they see me coming, in the styley of some bad adaption of some 19th novel.
SaintB
26-06-2007, 00:02
Kryozerkia doesn't have to. What's the title of this thread? Pre-marital! :p

Mmmm good point...
The lets just cut to the chase shall we?


Hey eleven hundred!
Dempublicents1
26-06-2007, 00:09
My personal viewpoint is that sex should be reserved for a committed relationship.

As for anyone else though, as long as both partners are competent adults who are willing (and are aware of the status of their relationship), I'm not saying anything.
New Malachite Square
26-06-2007, 00:09
Totally new topic here but regardless of what you think of the old pre-marital.
You've gotta agree taking advantage of the poor and abused is wrong..........


Anyway the whores always seem to run away screaming when they see me coming, in the styley of some bad adaption of some 19th novel.

If you didn't wear your Jack the Ripper costume, that wouldn't happen!!! Same thing goes for the "Muttonchop Murderer" outfit.
Kryozerkia
26-06-2007, 00:16
Marry me!

*checks sig*

I don't have an NS marriage yet... so... ^_^
SaintB
26-06-2007, 00:17
*checks sig*

I don't have an NS marriage yet... so... ^_^

Cool, NS marriage away! :p
Mirkana
26-06-2007, 00:20
Under Jewish law, premarital sex, while prohibited, carries no serious mortal punishment - as far as I know, if you got caught with another person in ancient Israel, and neither of you were married to anyone, you would not be punished. But cheating on your spouse carries the death penalty. What is the difference?

Judaism does not hold that sex is immoral - in fact, sex is considered holy. Specifically, sex is the ultimate consummation of love between husband and wife.

However, extra-marital sex (of any kind) cheapens sex, as it is done just for pleasure. Sex is no longer a wonderful thing to share with your soul-mate.

As for sex between boyfriend and girlfriend, the Jewish position is: if you love them that much, get married, then go wild.

Now, as for adultery, the sin there (beyond cheapening sex) is that you made a commitment to be faithful to your spouse, which you broke. You betrayed your loved one, and you betrayed G-d. Therefore, you die.
Dempublicents1
26-06-2007, 00:23
Under Jewish law, premarital sex, while prohibited, carries no serious mortal punishment - as far as I know, if you got caught with another person in ancient Israel, and neither of you were married to anyone, you would not be punished. But cheating on your spouse carries the death penalty. What is the difference?

There are OT laws that force the two to marry and/or require the man to pay a fine to the woman's father. Also, if the woman was already betrothed (but not yet married), I believe the punishment was also death.
Minaris
26-06-2007, 00:27
I've thought about this for some time now, and I've reached the conclusion that sex outside of a marriage, so long as neither party, isn't (or shouldn't be, any way) something immoral. Yes, of course, I realize that many people have come to that final thought before me, but what I'm driving at is that it also shouldn't be counted as a religous sin.

For Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought, ultimately, the final major guidelines are the 10 commandments, unless you are one of those people who just happen to beleive they're obsolete. Anyway, the majority of the Abrahamic religions view extra-marital sex quite negatively, but it is only adultery that is forbidden in the 10 commandments. Adultery, according to the all-mighty wikipedia, is defined as sex where either one or both of the involved parties are actually involved in monogamous marriage.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery)

So, if two single people, of whom neither is married, decided to have sex, according to the commandments, that cannot be a sin.

Myself, I lean to Buddhism, where the only regulation about this sort of thing for normal non-monk/nun people is to not commit 'sexual misconduct', which is open to debate, but is generally considered to be sex with negative implications. Two people in a relationship, thought not married, is generally accepted in Buddhism, I beleive. The thing is, with Buddhism, the act of sex itself is not bad or good, it's the desire for sex that is bad. Anyway, that's more to do with the general philosophy of Buddhism of desire being the cause of suffering and all that jazz.

So, I basically think religous folk should not even care about such things, as the purpose of marriage is to create a relationship where two partners commit to one another to raising a family together, not just when the two can have sex. Anyway, what do you think?

1) I do not think that it is a sin.
2) If it is, then maybe God or the Creator or whoever isn't as just and infallible as we thought because there is nothing wrong with it.
Callang Provinces
26-06-2007, 00:42
If you didn't wear your Jack the Ripper costume, that wouldn't happen!!! Same thing goes for the "Muttonchop Murderer" outfit.

Nah, I tought I had more of the Mr Hyde thing going on. Downing that 22nd Sambucca (welcome to britian where we drink like americans eat) then stumbling into the night ripped shirt, drunken grunt, not to metion the fact I'm like 6'7 and 20 stone........
Jeuna
26-06-2007, 00:50
You know, I'm not sure. I'll try to hunt up some relevant verses.
Zarakon
26-06-2007, 00:52
What did Sigmund Freud say? "The only unnatural sex is no sex at all"?

Something like that.

I think I've heard that marriages where neither partner has had sex before are most likely to fail.
New Malachite Square
26-06-2007, 00:58
(welcome to britian where we drink like americans eat)

Messily? Or just plain often?
Zarakon
26-06-2007, 01:05
Messily? Or just plain often?

In huge portions? Fast?
Jeuna
26-06-2007, 01:08
Ah, here we go. As written by Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians:

I Corinthians 6:15-18:

15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[a] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

a 6:16: Gen. 2:24

I can't read Greek or Hebrew as of yet, so I can't do a back-translation and check what words are used in the original texts. You can, however, check this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:16-18;&version=68;) and perhaps figure it out yourself if you know the languages.
Callang Provinces
26-06-2007, 01:10
In huge portions? Fast?

10 points to Zarakon........
The Nazz
26-06-2007, 01:18
Just remember--if you never get married, you can have all the sex you want and it's still not pre-marital sex. ;)
Ashmoria
26-06-2007, 01:33
Just remember--if you never get married, you can have all the sex you want and it's still not pre-marital sex. ;)

noooo its always pre-marital sex

but if you get married then divorced it is POST marital sex. which it seems from people's behavior, is no problem at all. there arent many "just say no" campaigns focused on the formerly married.
Ashmoria
26-06-2007, 01:36
so for all y'all who have voted that its not a SIN, what religions do you follow?

even if you belong to a religion without the concept of sin, doesnt your denomination preach agaisnt sex outside of marriage?
The Nazz
26-06-2007, 01:38
noooo its always pre-marital sex

but if you get married then divorced it is POST marital sex. which it seems from people's behavior, is no problem at all. there arent many "just say no" campaigns focused on the formerly married.

Nah--it's potentially pre-marital sex, but if you never get married, then you were never able to have pre-marital sex. The second you do, however, it goes from being potential pre-marital sex to kinetic pre-marital sex, and there's the possibility of orgasmic implosion. Better to be safe and not get married in the first place. ;)
Kryozerkia
26-06-2007, 01:41
so for all y'all who have voted that its not a SIN, what religions do you follow?

even if you belong to a religion without the concept of sin, doesnt your denomination preach agaisnt sex outside of marriage?

How can sin exist if one has no religion as sin is based upon divine law. One doesn't follow or adhere to any form of divine law unless one has religion.
Ifreann
26-06-2007, 01:44
How can sin exist if one has no religion as sin is based upon divine law. One doesn't follow or adhere to any form of divine law unless one has religion.

Because other people follow or adhere to some kind of divine law. The idea of transubstantiation, for example, can exist independent of any Christians.
Ashmoria
26-06-2007, 02:04
How can sin exist if one has no religion as sin is based upon divine law. One doesn't follow or adhere to any form of divine law unless one has religion.

meaning that its not a sin because you have no religion?

perfectly fine answer.
Smunkeeville
26-06-2007, 02:44
I think I've heard that marriages where neither partner has had sex before are most likely to fail.
source?
Urcea
26-06-2007, 02:57
Where/how do you go in? It matters, especially if its a he. You'd both be laughing.
Zarakon
26-06-2007, 03:56
source?

Somewhere 'round here. I suck at finding sources for stuff. I just remember reading it on here a while back.
New Stalinberg
26-06-2007, 04:15
Pre-marital sex is the work of the devil!!

Did you know that almost 200% of people who have pre-marital sex burn in hell for all eternity?

It's true, a White baptist preacher from Mississippi told me, and he talks to Jesus.

And besides... There's a man goin around, taking names. And he decides who to free and who to blame. Everybody will be treated the same. There will be a golden letter preaching down, when the man comes around.

Well, time to see what my buddies are saying on Fred Phelps' website.
Post Terran Europa
26-06-2007, 09:57
For Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought, ultimately, the final major guidelines are the 10 commandments, unless you are one of those people who just happen to beleive they're obsolete. Anyway, the majority of the Abrahamic religions view extra-marital sex quite negatively, but it is only adultery that is forbidden in the 10 commandments. Adultery, according to the all-mighty wikipedia, is defined as sex where either one or both of the involved parties are actually involved in monogamous marriage.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery)

So, if two single people, of whom neither is married, decided to have sex, according to the commandments, that cannot be a sin.


No, you're using a v narrow view of adultury. Adultury means sex outside of marriage. If those people arnt married and having sex it is still adultury
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 10:09
I've thought about this for some time now, and I've reached the conclusion that sex outside of a marriage, so long as neither party, isn't (or shouldn't be, any way) something immoral. Yes, of course, I realize that many people have come to that final thought before me, but what I'm driving at is that it also shouldn't be counted as a religous sin.

For Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought, ultimately, the final major guidelines are the 10 commandments, unless you are one of those people who just happen to beleive they're obsolete. Anyway, the majority of the Abrahamic religions view extra-marital sex quite negatively, but it is only adultery that is forbidden in the 10 commandments. Adultery, according to the all-mighty wikipedia, is defined as sex where either one or both of the involved parties are actually involved in monogamous marriage.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery)

So, if two single people, of whom neither is married, decided to have sex, according to the commandments, that cannot be a sin.

Myself, I lean to Buddhism, where the only regulation about this sort of thing for normal non-monk/nun people is to not commit 'sexual misconduct', which is open to debate, but is generally considered to be sex with negative implications. Two people in a relationship, thought not married, is generally accepted in Buddhism, I beleive. The thing is, with Buddhism, the act of sex itself is not bad or good, it's the desire for sex that is bad. Anyway, that's more to do with the general philosophy of Buddhism of desire being the cause of suffering and all that jazz.

So, I basically think religous folk should not even care about such things, as the purpose of marriage is to create a relationship where two partners commit to one another to raising a family together, not just when the two can have sex. Anyway, what do you think?

I notice your poll lacks the option "No, it's neither a sin nor immoral".

As supreme goddess and high priestess of the Chocolate and Sex faith I would like to inform you that sex before, during, next to, inside and outside marriage is not a sin and most certainly not immoral. It's a joy, a pleasure, and recommended (provided you act responsibly! Use condoms!)

:D
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 10:12
What did Sigmund Freud say? "The only unnatural sex is no sex at all"?

Something like that.

I think I've heard that marriages where neither partner has had sex before are most likely to fail.

Hehe... While I agree with Freud, I think you're wrong about those marriages. But not because of sex.
See, most people who don't have sex before getting married tend to be the religious kind. The very, very religious kind. The kind who don't believe in divorces and will rather stick together even if it's hell.

So if divorce is your definition of a failed marriage, then no, I don't think that partners who didn't have sex beforehand are likely to fail.
If severe unhappiness, mental abuse and just general hatred of each other is your definition of a failed marriage, I'd agree though.
Andaras Prime
26-06-2007, 10:22
I'd hit it.
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 10:28
If premarital sex is a sin, then a lot of people are going to hell! This (http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/122_1/12_PHR122-1_73-78.pdf) study concluded that 95% of Americans have had premarital sex and that this number has stayed relatively constant since 1950. So don't let your parents or grandparents tell you that they waited until they were married, chances are that they were screwing before they were married too!

Even my great-grandparents were! My grandfather was born 4 months after his parents got married :D
Anadyr Islands
26-06-2007, 10:46
Ah, here we go. As written by Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians:

I Corinthians 6:15-18:

15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[a] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

a 6:16: Gen. 2:24

I can't read Greek or Hebrew as of yet, so I can't do a back-translation and check what words are used in the original texts. You can, however, check this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:16-18;&version=68;) and perhaps figure it out yourself if you know the languages.


That still doesn't mean that sex between two consenting non-married people is immoral. It is just against having sex with prostitutes and adultery.

The second one is rather vague. It could be just like the buddhist 'sexual misconduct' idea.

Besides, I'm not really Christian, so I don't take anything the bible says to heart but I suppose it still justifies Christians having pre-marital sex.
Anadyr Islands
26-06-2007, 10:55
No, you're using a v narrow view of adultury. Adultury means sex outside of marriage. If those people arnt married and having sex it is still adultury

Er, not really. Didn't you check the definition in Wikipedia?

Unless you happen to have a source which says otherwise, please don't talk nonsense.
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 10:58
Er, not really. Didn't you check the definition in Wikipedia?

Unless you happen to have a source which says otherwise, please don't talk nonsense.

adultery

• noun voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse.

Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/adultery?view=uk)
Anadyr Islands
26-06-2007, 11:07
Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/adultery?view=uk)

That still includes marriage. What we're talking about is non-married folk.
The Almighty Pod
26-06-2007, 11:09
Thing being, immorality and sin are two different things altogether. What's deemed as a sin is something determined within the confines of any given religion whose doctrine you lead your life by. Immorality, on the other hand, is something that is deemed socially wrong by the masses. Now, I know many christians who believe that their actions can all be either justified or scrutinized by the golden rule "DO unto others as you would have them do unto you". Well... if I see a chick, and wanna nail her, then I obviously want her to screw me as well, so doesn't that justify my actions and make it acceptable? :gundge:
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 11:11
That still includes marriage. What we're talking about is non-married folk.

Excatly. And adultery only refers to married folk.
Imperial isa
26-06-2007, 11:12
NO as that book full of it,just about every thing we do is a sin
Anadyr Islands
26-06-2007, 11:23
Excatly. And adultery only refers to married folk.

Your point being? I'm saying adultery doesn't apply to non married people.
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 11:33
Your point being? I'm saying adultery doesn't apply to non married people.

Sorry, I was trying to assist by providing a simple, one-phrase definition...
Anadyr Islands
26-06-2007, 11:39
Sorry, I was trying to assist by providing a simple, one-phrase definition...

Oh sorry, I thought you were trying to sass me or something...:D
Bottle
26-06-2007, 12:23
Personally, I believe it is immoral to marry if you haven't had premarital sex with your soon-to-be spouse.
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 12:27
Personally, I believe it is immoral to marry if you haven't had premarital sex with your soon-to-be spouse.

I don't like to refer to something as immoral, it's way to absolute for my taste.
But I do believe it's neither very clever nor very responsible to wait till marriage.
Umdogsland
26-06-2007, 12:35
However, extra-marital sex (of any kind) cheapens sex, as it is done just for pleasure. Sex is no longer a wonderful thing to share with your soul-mate.Sex was never a wonderful thing to share with a "soulmate" except in peole's belief systems. It's a way to make kids. And most people find it pleasurable as well. Doing something for pleasure makes it worthwhile. Why do it if it wasn't, except for making babies?
This is a general thing where I don't see why people associate sex with love.
Bottle
26-06-2007, 12:39
I don't like to refer to something as immoral, it's way to absolute for my taste.
Morality isn't remotely absolute, for me. Morality is 100% relative. In my personal moral system, it is immoral to marry without having had sex with your spouse. It's also immoral to beat a dog to death with an extension cord. These are simply the moral rules in my personal code. Stating them does not say anything about any "objective" or absolute arena.
Bottle
26-06-2007, 12:42
However, extra-marital sex (of any kind) cheapens sex, as it is done just for pleasure. Sex is no longer a wonderful thing to share with your soul-mate.

You are aware, I'm sure, that for most of human history marriage was not about two "soul-mates" being bonded forever in Twoo Wuv, and thus you're talking pure bunk, right?

Or are there really still people this sweetly naive?
THE LOST PLANET
26-06-2007, 12:44
Is pre-marital sex a sin/ immoral?Not if done correctly.
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 12:58
However, extra-marital sex (of any kind) cheapens sex, as it is done just for pleasure. Sex is no longer a wonderful thing to share with your soul-mate.



You know, there's one thing I never understood about that mindset :
Don't you have more and better things to share with your soulmate? Why do you need to elevate something as physical as sex to be the ultimate prove of your love for each other?
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 12:59
Morality isn't remotely absolute, for me. Morality is 100% relative. In my personal moral system, it is immoral to marry without having had sex with your spouse. It's also immoral to beat a dog to death with an extension cord. These are simply the moral rules in my personal code. Stating them does not say anything about any "objective" or absolute arena.

I guess it's a definition thing, then ;)
The word "moral" always makes me feel slightly uneasy, so I try to stay away from it as far as possible.
Bottle
26-06-2007, 13:01
I guess it's a definition thing, then ;)
The word "moral" always makes me feel slightly uneasy, so I try to stay away from it as far as possible.
Given the ubiquitous "Moral Majority" in my country, I can certainly understand why that term might make somebody queasy. :D
Neo Undelia
26-06-2007, 13:03
You know, there's one thing I never understood about that mindset :
Don't you have more and better things to share with your soulmate? Why do you need to elevate something as physical as sex to be the ultimate prove of your love for each other?

Perhaps because most people are too stupid to understand anything that doesn't have a direct connection to the physical.
Ancap Paradise
26-06-2007, 13:05
Don't know or care.

What people do under the sheets is their business (provided everyone under the sheets is of age, human, and consents, of course).

That being said, I myself have had pre-marital sex, so I would have no problem with it, anyway.
Bottle
26-06-2007, 13:09
You know, there's one thing I never understood about that mindset :
Don't you have more and better things to share with your soulmate? Why do you need to elevate something as physical as sex to be the ultimate prove of your love for each other?
Teenagers often over-romanticize sexual acts. There's this weird Disney sort of vibe, where people think that the Magical Kiss will be the climactic moment for the Soul-Mates, who then are showered in rose petals and ride off into the sunset while the birds and bunnies sing "tra-la-la!"
Dundee-Fienn
26-06-2007, 13:12
Teenagers often over-romanticize sexual acts. There's this weird Disney sort of vibe, where people think that the Magical Kiss will be the climactic moment for the Soul-Mates, who then are showered in rose petals and ride off into the sunset while the birds and bunnies sing "tra-la-la!"

I was the only person that happened to?
Smunkeeville
26-06-2007, 13:28
Somewhere 'round here. I suck at finding sources for stuff. I just remember reading it on here a while back.

yeah, I looked for it and I didn't find it. I did find studies that say that couples that cohabitate have a much higher risk of divorce (but that's not really about sex, more about living together) I also found one that said if a woman is only living with and having sex with her future husband that it doesn't raise her risk of divorce, but that if she has sex/lives with multiple partners it raises it significantly. (something like from 40% to 85%)
Kryozerkia
26-06-2007, 13:29
I was the only person that happened to?

Yes.

My first kiss was much like an unpleasant cold shower during a hail storm at -25C standing in knee-deep powdery snow in worn winter garments.
Smunkeeville
26-06-2007, 13:47
I was the only person that happened to?

my very first kiss was gross and wrong and messy and blech........and he cut me with his braces......

my first kiss with hubby was borderline fairy tale though.
Underdownia
26-06-2007, 13:51
I for one am disgusted by all of you. Sex is unacceptable and immoral regardless of whether it has been licensed by some group of subversives who have decided to call themselves your government. :mad: We must elevate ourselves above the beasts of the animal kingdom.

No, seriously.

...Just kidding
Dundee-Fienn
26-06-2007, 14:04
my very first kiss was gross and wrong and messy and blech........and he cut me with his braces......

my first kiss with hubby was borderline fairy tale though.

Before anyone thinks i'm ridiculously mushy I would like to add the disclaimer that I was being vaguely sarcastic
Smunkeeville
26-06-2007, 14:07
Before anyone thinks i'm ridiculously mushy I would like to add the disclaimer that I was being vaguely sarcastic

you were? so I was the only one with singing bunnies in attendance? you did have the orchestra and the fireworks though right?;)
The Alma Mater
26-06-2007, 15:21
NOT having pre-marital sex is immoral if sex will play a significant role in your marriage. Marriage after all is a promise to stay with eachother for life. Deliberately not examining something which can make it extremely difficult for you to keep that promise therefor makes a mockery of it.

So "no pre-marital sex Christians"... be ashamed of yourselves for spitting on the sanctity of holy matrimony.
Risottia
26-06-2007, 15:26
So, if two single people, of whom neither is married, decided to have sex, according to the commandments, that cannot be a sin.


For Catholics, it is a sin.

wiki, ten commandments, catholic interpretation.

"Neither shall you commit adultery."
Adultery is the breaking of the holy bond between husband and wife, and is thus a sacrilege. This commandment includes not just the act of adultery, but lust as well. (See Catechism 2331-2400.)
(bold mine)

Thanks to God, I'm an atheist.;)
The blessed Chris
26-06-2007, 15:31
In a religious sense, probably.

Provided both parties are consenting, however, I see no justification for its being immoral.
Grave_n_idle
26-06-2007, 15:34
For Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought...

An interesting point in terms of Judeo-Christian thought.

What is God's first EVER commandment to man? (I'll give you a clue, it's in Genesis 1:28)

Contrast it with what happens (a whole chapter later) in Genesis 2:24 - when Adam defines the institute of marriage.
Telesha
26-06-2007, 15:35
you were? so I was the only one with singing bunnies in attendance?

You kidding? Ever since they unionized it's been impossible to deal with them?

you did have the orchestra and the fireworks though right?;)

Not until six months after ;)

No premarital sex is one of those antiquated traditions that most religions would do well to distance themselves from. Thankfully, some are making that attempt.
The Blaatschapen
26-06-2007, 15:44
Thanks to God, I'm an atheist.;)

Oh, very witty *nod*

For me, everyone can do whatever they want as long as they don't bother other people with it :) So, for me it's all okay as long as people can consent and know the implications of their actions.
Followers of the Path
26-06-2007, 16:05
You can't say it is moral OR immoral from an external viewpoint. If the person committing that act thinks it is wrong then it is immoral, but if they don't then it is moral. The duality that we talk about, good versus evil, right versus wrong, etc., do not inherently exist. That means that when we come into the world we have a blank mind, then we fill it up with thoughts, then we create a discriminating mind that begins to draw lines between things, then we die, then come back and fill our minds with more things, etc.. So to answer the original poster: the religion should not consider it (or anything else) immoral because in doing so they are trying to interpret their holy document with a biased mind and then align everyone else to their thoughts, thus they are effectively CREATING the laws that they want others to live by, which, to me, seems like it would be an even graver offense to their deity.
Glorious Freedonia
26-06-2007, 16:17
Adultery in the biblical sense (much narrower than contemporary concepts) and man-man sex and bestiality and having at least vaginal sex with a woman on the rag are the only sexual no nos that I recall from my bible study. However, even the rather narrow adultery sin might be even narrower still if we bring in some of proverbs.

Sinful adultery was pretty much only limited to a man sleeping with a woman who is married to someone else. This is according to traditional rabbinical thought. The traditional rabbinate is probably the greatest bunch of experts of biblical law (at least old testament stuff). However, proverbs talks of adultery less in the concept of sin and more in the concept of that "Gimme Three Steps, Mister" Lynyrd Skynard song. That is, if a man wants a healthy long life he should probably not try to mess around with another man's wife or he runs the risk of a jealous husband killing him. Thus, I think we have a pretty good grounds for saying that the swinger who bangs married woman with the consent of the husband is not a sinner. Same for any guy who gets the husband's consent before banging his wife.

As far as premarital sex is concerned, I think it is almost sinful not to do it. If someone loves you and withold sex from them, this can really ruin their life espescially if everyone is young and develloping emotionally. I know that happened to me.
Bottle
26-06-2007, 16:22
As far as premarital sex is concerned, I think it is almost sinful not to do it. If someone loves you and withold sex from them, this can really ruin their life espescially if everyone is young and develloping emotionally. I know that happened to me.
While I obviously agree with the first statement in this paragraph, I'm a bit iffy about the "withhold sex" bit.

Nobody is entitled to have sex with me. Ever. Even if we are dating. Even if we are married. It will not "ruin" their life to go without having sex with me. Sex with me is great, and all, but let's not go off the deep end here.

Nobody should EVER feel like they are obligated to provide sex to somebody else. Sex should be something you do because it brings pleasure to all those involved. It should not be something that one party is obliged to provide for another, lest the poor deprived partner be "ruined" by the trauma of not getting pussy/cock on demand.
Minaris
26-06-2007, 16:32
For Catholics, it is a sin.

wiki, ten commandments, catholic interpretation.

(bold mine)

Thanks to God, I'm an atheist.;)

Wouldn't that make you more of a Satanist (the self-advancement kind, not the "Hail Satan!" kind)?
Kryozerkia
26-06-2007, 16:47
As far as premarital sex is concerned, I think it is almost sinful not to do it. If someone loves you and withold sex from them, this can really ruin their life espescially if everyone is young and develloping emotionally. I know that happened to me.

No, it can't. Sex in order to be enjoyable and pleasurable for both parties needs to be consensual and both parties need to want to do it. Love and sex do go together, but if you measure how much a person loves you based on whether or not they withhold sex from you, your love needs to be closely reexamined because if you truly love the person and they love you, it should be unconditional.

Further, just because you love someone doesn't mean it is automatically reciprocated. Hence, if they withhold sex from you, they probably wouldn't have wanted to have it in the first place.

Sex is an expression of love that two people feel for each other (or should feel; of course, there are people who treat sex lightly but that's their choice and I won't judge them because they feel it's right for them), but it is not necessarily the ultimate expression of love.
Dempublicents1
26-06-2007, 17:06
Sinful adultery was pretty much only limited to a man sleeping with a woman who is married to someone else.

Or betrothed. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

Sex laws are strange in the OT though. One minute the law will talk about a man's duty to have sex with his wife. The next, a woman is being forced to marry her rapist as the rapist pays her father for her.


While I obviously agree with the first statement in this paragraph, I'm a bit iffy about the "withhold sex" bit.

I think it depends on what is meant by "withhold sex." There are certainly people who use lack of sex as a weapon - those who will wave sex in front of a partner's face and use it to get what they want. I don't doubt that those sorts of tactics can be psychologically and emotionally damaging to the partner.

Nobody is entitled to have sex with me. Ever. Even if we are dating. Even if we are married. It will not "ruin" their life to go without having sex with me. Sex with me is great, and all, but let's not go off the deep end here.

Nobody should EVER feel like they are obligated to provide sex to somebody else. Sex should be something you do because it brings pleasure to all those involved. It should not be something that one party is obliged to provide for another, lest the poor deprived partner be "ruined" by the trauma of not getting pussy/cock on demand.

I agree with this, but I think it, in a sense, sounds a bit too stringent. In a relationship, compromise often has to be made. Two people won't always want sex at the same time, but that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't have it. Sometimes, a person who isn't especially in the mood for sex will work to get into it and have it in order to please his partner. Sometimes, a person who is really horny needs to step back and deal with it, because his partner simply isn't feeling up to it. And there is a give and take there which is essential to a healthy relationship.
Bottle
26-06-2007, 17:27
I think it depends on what is meant by "withhold sex." There are certainly people who use lack of sex as a weapon - those who will wave sex in front of a partner's face and use it to get what they want. I don't doubt that those sorts of tactics can be psychologically and emotionally damaging to the partner.

If somebody is doing this to you, you should stop dating them. You should not continue to try to have sex with them.

Their "withholding" tactics only work for as long as you continue to try to sleep with them.


I agree with this, but I think it, in a sense, sounds a bit too stringent. In a relationship, compromise often has to be made. Two people won't always want sex at the same time, but that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't have it. Sometimes, a person who isn't especially in the mood for sex will work to get into it and have it in order to please his partner. Sometimes, a person who is really horny needs to step back and deal with it, because his partner simply isn't feeling up to it. And there is a give and take there which is essential to a healthy relationship.
I certainly recognize the need for compromise, but I think it is very crucial to be clear on the fact that neither partner is ever entitled to use the other partner's body. Period.

My lover and I have encountered this issue a couple of times in our relationship. Interestingly, at one time each of us has been on a medication that impacted our sex life.

He was once on a medication that made it impossible for him to orgasm. He still wanted sex and was completely able to have sex...but he couldn't orgasm. Talk about frustration. He became pretty reluctant to have sex, because it was just an invitation for serious blue balls. So I understand the frustration of being the partner who wants more sex, but also doesn't want to have sex with a disinterested partner.

In turn, I had to take a medication that basically killed my sex drive. It was really bizarre for me...since puberty, I'd never had a day go by when I didn't want sex like mad, but all of a sudden I was going a week at a time without even thinking about it. Since I refuse to ever fake it in the sack, my partner had a choice: have sex with somebody who is clearly not at all interested, or go without. That's a cruddy choice.

The thing is, both of us get a major portion of our sexual gratification from seeing the other person having fun. I simply don't enjoy sex if my partner isn't into it, and neither does he. If one of us isn't interested in sex, then our "compromise" is easily arrived at: we don't have sex.

I don't know what it would be like to date somebody who could enjoy having sex with an uninterested partner. I don't think I'd be comfortable with that. But I guess the compromises would work out differently if you were in a relationship of that type.

This all ties back in to the OP question about premarital sex, I suppose, because it's all about when you feel it is appropriate to abstain from sex. I view sex as a form of mutually-pleasurable recreation, and therefore the primary reason to abstain is if you or your partner don't want to have sex.

Abstaining because you think it makes your relationship superior is bunk. Abstaining to impress other people is bunk. Abstaining to impress God or clergy or whathaveyou is bunk. Abstaining from sex won't do any of those things.
Dempublicents1
26-06-2007, 17:47
If somebody is doing this to you, you should stop dating them. You should not continue to try to have sex with them.

Their "withholding" tactics only work for as long as you continue to try to sleep with them.

Absolutely. But depending on the emotional state of the person being treated that way and their level of attachment, walking away may be easier said than done. I agree it is the best option, but I've seen people struggle with that option.

I certainly recognize the need for compromise, but I think it is very crucial to be clear on the fact that neither partner is ever entitled to use the other partner's body. Period.

Absolutely.

*snip some for length*

The thing is, both of us get a major portion of our sexual gratification from seeing the other person having fun. I simply don't enjoy sex if my partner isn't into it, and neither does he. If one of us isn't interested in sex, then our "compromise" is easily arrived at: we don't have sex.

I don't know what it would be like to date somebody who could enjoy having sex with an uninterested partner. I don't think I'd be comfortable with that. But I guess the compromises would work out differently if you were in a relationship of that type.

When I spoke of being uninterested, I meant more along the lines of before you get started. You can certainly start out not in the mood for sex, but with a little foreplay, find yourself in the mood. I'm not talking about a complete lack of sex drive or any inability to enjoy it.

There certainly have been times when my husband was wanting sex and I was uninterested at first. But, because I didn't stop him at his first overture, a little foreplay and I found myself ready and willing. There have also been times when I went with the foreplay and still found myself uninterested, at which point we both agreed to a rain check. It is the willingness to try that I was calling "compromise", not any willingness to go along with sex that you cannot or will not enjoy.
SaintB
26-06-2007, 17:58
Ah, here we go. As written by Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians:

I Corinthians 6:15-18:

15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[a] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

a 6:16: Gen. 2:24

I can't read Greek or Hebrew as of yet, so I can't do a back-translation and check what words are used in the original texts. You can, however, check this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:16-18;&version=68;) and perhaps figure it out yourself if you know the languages.

Now Jeuna.... to me this proves only that prositution is bad; and abusing aother for sex is also very bad. It says nothing about consent, or expression of love between two people, even my very religious girlfreind agrees.
I havn't read the bible in years, I'm not a fan of religions and the bible is thier favorite tool to bash thier followers with and turn them into subserviant chumps. But, from the few times I have read/paged through it for no particular reason I do remember several biblical characters that not only had pre-marital sex... but also many of them had insestual relationships. Some of them (I think Isaah was one but don't quote me for certain) were prophets. If I remember... Isaah lay with his two sisters.. or maybe his daughters... and beget children.

And on a totally unrelated note... the biblical era term for virgin... meant unmarried woman. Not the same as it means in this day and age. - I got that from the History Channel


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

Did you know that almost 200% of people who have pre-marital sex burn in hell for all eternity?

It's true, a White baptist preacher from Mississippi told me, and he talks to Jesus.

And besides... There's a man goin around, taking names. And he decides who to free and who to blame. Everybody will be treated the same. There will be a golden letter preaching down, when the man comes around.

Well, time to see what my buddies are saying on Fred Phelps' website.

If you're kidding... cue the thread win! If you're serious... :mp5:
Its better for you this way.
Law Abiding Criminals
26-06-2007, 18:10
Well, I am a Catholic, so that means that, technically, I believe that that only sex that is not sinful is within marriage, in the missionary position, with the lights out, with just enough foreplay to get it up, with neither spouse using any contraceptive of any kind, for the sole purpose of procreation, resulting in pregnancy that is carried to term. And you have to get married unless you become a priest/monk/nun. And you have to have kids. And they have to be your own.

Really? The biggest rule of thumb is this - don't do anything stupid.
Negru-Voda
26-06-2007, 18:11
Carpe Diem !
The Alma Mater
26-06-2007, 18:13
Well, I am a Catholic, so that means that, technically, I believe that that only sex that is not sinful is within marriage, in the missionary position, with the lights out, with just enough foreplay to get it up, with neither spouse using any contraceptive of any kind, for the sole purpose of procreation, resulting in pregnancy that is carried to term. And you have to get married unless you become a priest/monk/nun. And you have to have kids. And they have to be your own.

Really? The biggest rule of thumb is this - don't do anything stupid.

Your final sentence contradicted most of the things you said above it ;)
Neo Bretonnia
26-06-2007, 18:24
I chose 'Joke Option' because while I do view premarital sex as a morally compromising act, I wouldn't state it as severely as option #2 did.

I have 3 kids, one of which is now a teenager and I imagine will soon start grappling with this issue. I have thought a lot about exactly what I'll tell him when he eventually asks me WHY it's immoral.

Here's what I'll tell him.

Sex is the most intimate act any two people can experience together short of a liver donation. It's something that once done, can't be undone. Who you choose to share that with is a decision of utmost importance. Why wait until marriage?

Imagine one day, years from now, when you've got a wife. Imagine that you both, in your younger days, had sex with other people that you were dating at the time. How will you feel about it? Good? Indifferent? Bad? Maybe a combination of the three? How will it feel to know that out there, there's one or more men who know your wife as intimately as you know it. That she has nothig left to share with you, her husband, that she hasn't already shared with someone else. And that goes both ways. You've given something to others that now only she gets from you, and in so doing, lost its special place as a way for a couple to express love for each other.

It's not about jealousy. It's not about posessiveness. It's about the fact that two people who are so committed to each other that they've decided to get married and establish a family together ought to be able to have a level of intimacy that is apart and above that which they'd have anywhere else. When you have sex with just a boyfriend or girlfriend, you cheapen the value of that intimacy.

My record on this issue is far from perfect. I judge nobody who disagrees with me. I speak from personal melancholy experience.
Smunkeeville
26-06-2007, 18:33
That she has nothig left to share with you, her husband, that she hasn't already shared with someone else.

BS there's always kink.;)

I just realized however that I didn't answer the OP. The truth of the matter is just about everything is a sin, really, nearly everything you do......and if it's not sinful, you probably aren't doing it right.

However, I don't really think that premarital sex is the best thing ever, nor do I think it's required for a "good sex life" during marriage. Sex isn't about who can do what so much as communication and having fun. Whatever consenting adults do behind closed doors really isn't any of my business nor do I feel the need to go around calling out sinners......because I am literally probably one of the worst on a mainstream scale of sins.

You ever notice that when people name off "the really bad sins" they start with the ones they are least likely to do at the top of the list? There is a reason for that. People who think they are doing something wrong automatically try to justify it, and if someone else says it's wrong, they will come out and say 'oh, no! it's right, you just suck!' and so it goes with every conversation about morality.

To recap

nearly everything is a sin
people put too much emphasis on prior experience
premarital sex or not, you still gotta figure out how to be responsible
consenting adult behavior is really none of my concern as long as it's legal
people can rationalize any choice they make and do so, often
Law Abiding Criminals
26-06-2007, 18:44
Your final sentence contradicted most of the things you said above it ;)

There's a big difference between all the dogmatic garbage fed down to us by the Vatican over 2,000 years and one simple rule to live by. Sadly, most people can't handle one simple rule, so that's when bureaucracy like the Vatican takes over.
Zarakon
26-06-2007, 18:47
Yes, as is love, reason, logic, art and happiness.
Zarakon
26-06-2007, 18:48
BS there's always kink.;)

I just realized however that I didn't answer the OP. The truth of the matter is just about everything is a sin, really, nearly everything you do......and if it's not sinful, you probably aren't doing it right.

However, I don't really think that premarital sex is the best thing ever, nor do I think it's required for a "good sex life" during marriage. Sex isn't about who can do what so much as communication and having fun. Whatever consenting adults do behind closed doors really isn't any of my business nor do I feel the need to go around calling out sinners......because I am literally probably one of the worst on a mainstream scale of sins.

You ever notice that when people name off "the really bad sins" they start with the ones they are least likely to do at the top of the list? There is a reason for that. People who think they are doing something wrong automatically try to justify it, and if someone else says it's wrong, they will come out and say 'oh, no! it's right, you just suck!' and so it goes with every conversation about morality.

To recap

nearly everything is a sin
people put too much emphasis on prior experience
premarital sex or not, you still gotta figure out how to be responsible
consenting adult behavior is really none of my concern as long as it's legal
people can rationalize any choice they make and do so, often


Smunkee: The best conservative Christian EVER.
Smunkeeville
26-06-2007, 18:56
Smunkee: The best conservative Christian EVER.

sigged. (or soon will be)
The Alma Mater
26-06-2007, 19:02
There's a big difference between all the dogmatic garbage fed down to us by the Vatican over 2,000 years and one simple rule to live by. Sadly, most people can't handle one simple rule, so that's when bureaucracy like the Vatican takes over.

But the bureaucracy you quoted actually serves to do the opposite of the simple rule you stated...
Dempublicents1
26-06-2007, 19:27
It's not about jealousy. It's not about posessiveness. It's about the fact that two people who are so committed to each other that they've decided to get married and establish a family together ought to be able to have a level of intimacy that is apart and above that which they'd have anywhere else. When you have sex with just a boyfriend or girlfriend, you cheapen the value of that intimacy.

Maybe I just define "intimacy" differently, but I have to disagree with this. The intimacy that my husband and I share isn't just about what our bodies are doing physically. There's more to it than that, something more personal and emotional. The fact that he has had other sexual contact doesn't bother me and the fact that I have doesn't bother him because none of that changes what he and I share. And we do have quite a bit to give that we didn't give to others.
Neo Bretonnia
26-06-2007, 19:35
Maybe I just define "intimacy" differently, but I have to disagree with this. The intimacy that my husband and I share isn't just about what our bodies are doing physically. There's more to it than that, something more personal and emotional. The fact that he has had other sexual contact doesn't bother me and the fact that I have doesn't bother him because none of that changes what he and I share. And we do have quite a bit to give that we didn't give to others.

Maybe you do, and it should also be noted that there are plenty of other people out there who just do it with it being no more intimate emotionally than a handshake.

...Which is even more tragic still.
The Alma Mater
26-06-2007, 20:02
Sex is the most intimate act any two people can experience together short of a liver donation.

I actually call marriage that. Sex is just one small part of it.
Marriage > sex. Not the other way around.

For me at least.
Phantasy Encounter
26-06-2007, 20:26
BS there's always kink.;)

I just realized however that I didn't answer the OP. The truth of the matter is just about everything is a sin, really, nearly everything you do......and if it's not sinful, you probably aren't doing it right.

However, I don't really think that premarital sex is the best thing ever, nor do I think it's required for a "good sex life" during marriage. Sex isn't about who can do what so much as communication and having fun. Whatever consenting adults do behind closed doors really isn't any of my business nor do I feel the need to go around calling out sinners......because I am literally probably one of the worst on a mainstream scale of sins.

You ever notice that when people name off "the really bad sins" they start with the ones they are least likely to do at the top of the list? There is a reason for that. People who think they are doing something wrong automatically try to justify it, and if someone else says it's wrong, they will come out and say 'oh, no! it's right, you just suck!' and so it goes with every conversation about morality.

To recap

nearly everything is a sin
people put too much emphasis on prior experience
premarital sex or not, you still gotta figure out how to be responsible
consenting adult behavior is really none of my concern as long as it's legal
people can rationalize any choice they make and do so, often



Smunkee is my hero. She is true to her beliefs but refuses to force them on others :D
Neo Bretonnia
26-06-2007, 21:02
BS there's always kink.;)


hehe :p
Neo Bretonnia
26-06-2007, 21:06
I actually call marriage that. Sex is just one small part of it.
Marriage > sex. Not the other way around.

For me at least.

The way I see it, Marriage is more a concept than a hard reality. if two people are committed for life and never get around to a ceremony, are they married? I wouldn't say no. Marriage ceremonies and definitions vary wildly from culture to culture.

IMHO Marriage is defined as a formal commitment between two people to one another. The actual procedure is irrelevant.

But while I agree that sex is only a part of marriage, I do maintain that it's ideally a part of marriage exclusively.

Just imagine a world where people consistently adhered to that. VD would be unheard of, Jerry Springer and Maury Povich would be unemployed and teen pregnancy wouldn't happen.

Not that I would support any measure to enforce that legally, mind you. (I just know someone would try and accuse me of that)
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 21:34
I chose 'Joke Option' because while I do view premarital sex as a morally compromising act, I wouldn't state it as severely as option #2 did.

I have 3 kids, one of which is now a teenager and I imagine will soon start grappling with this issue. I have thought a lot about exactly what I'll tell him when he eventually asks me WHY it's immoral.

Here's what I'll tell him.

Sex is the most intimate act any two people can experience together short of a liver donation. It's something that once done, can't be undone. Who you choose to share that with is a decision of utmost importance. Why wait until marriage?

Imagine one day, years from now, when you've got a wife. Imagine that you both, in your younger days, had sex with other people that you were dating at the time. How will you feel about it? Good? Indifferent? Bad? Maybe a combination of the three? How will it feel to know that out there, there's one or more men who know your wife as intimately as you know it. That she has nothig left to share with you, her husband, that she hasn't already shared with someone else. And that goes both ways. You've given something to others that now only she gets from you, and in so doing, lost its special place as a way for a couple to express love for each other.

It's not about jealousy. It's not about posessiveness. It's about the fact that two people who are so committed to each other that they've decided to get married and establish a family together ought to be able to have a level of intimacy that is apart and above that which they'd have anywhere else. When you have sex with just a boyfriend or girlfriend, you cheapen the value of that intimacy.

My record on this issue is far from perfect. I judge nobody who disagrees with me. I speak from personal melancholy experience.

Ok, I asked myself that question, just to go along with the argument. I think that I will someday have a husband, and I know for a fact that I won't be his first woman, nor his first serious relationship.
How do I feel about that? Happy. Content. I know that when that person decides to spend the rest of his life with me, he'll bring all his life, all his experiences both good and bad, all his being, and he'll give them to me for safekeeping. It makes me feel special, very special, that after living on his own and with others, I'll be the one he'll want to stay with. We'll have our entire lifes together to share whatever we want, every experience, every fantasy, every dream.

If he was a virgin, I'd be seriously worried. I think I would definitely encourage him to go and try others first, I don't feel I could handle somebody's first relationship and the resulting problems. I honestly don't want to. I want an adult person, a person who knows himself, his own body, his own reactions, as well as having a good idea about my body. It makes things so much easier and more interesting.

Marrying a virgin to me would be like starting a book club and having to teach the only member how to read first...
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 21:38
The way I see it, Marriage is more a concept than a hard reality. if two people are committed for life and never get around to a ceremony, are they married? I wouldn't say no. Marriage ceremonies and definitions vary wildly from culture to culture.

IMHO Marriage is defined as a formal commitment between two people to one another. The actual procedure is irrelevant.

But while I agree that sex is only a part of marriage, I do maintain that it's ideally a part of marriage exclusively.

Just imagine a world where people consistently adhered to that. VD would be unheard of, Jerry Springer and Maury Povich would be unemployed and teen pregnancy wouldn't happen.

Not that I would support any measure to enforce that legally, mind you. (I just know someone would try and accuse me of that)

*lol
Sorry, but all negative consequences aside, such a world would be horrible for me. And my BF. We've decided a long while ago to remain commited swingers for as long as we can. :D
SaintB
26-06-2007, 21:42
*lol
Sorry, but all negative consequences aside, such a world would be horrible for me. And my BF. We've decided a long while ago to remain commited swingers for as long as we can. :D

Swingers never bothered me.. cuckholds on the other hand kind of freak me out.
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 21:48
Swingers never bothered me.. cuckholds on the other hand kind of freak me out.

Same here. That's cheating and lying. Not something you ought to do to your partner. Ever.
SaintB
26-06-2007, 21:56
Same here. That's cheating and lying. Not something you ought to do to your partner. Ever.

Agreed.

The freakeist ones are the ones who actually embraced the lifestyle and can't be gratified until they are humiliated by watching someone else have thier way with thier partners.
Zarakon
26-06-2007, 21:59
Agreed.

The freakeist ones are the ones who actually embraced the lifestyle and can't be gratified until they are humiliated by watching someone else have thier way with thier partners.

Hold on...What the hell is a cuckhold?
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 22:00
Agreed.

The freakeist ones are the ones who actually embraced the lifestyle and can't be gratified until they are humiliated by watching someone else have thier way with thier partners.

Huh? I love watching him, and he loves watching me even more... :confused:
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 22:01
Hold on...What the hell is a cuckhold?

Somebody who's been cheated on, as far as I understand it...
Dempublicents1
26-06-2007, 22:04
Somebody who's been cheated on, as far as I understand it...

I think he's referring to men who like to watch their wives sleep with other men. Or, that's what I thought after his last post (which took away the "cheated on" meaning) but until I found this in the Urban Dictionary:

A man that chooses/requests that a woman abuse him in any variety of ways. May or maynot include: physical, financial, sexual, or emotional. Rarely includes actual sex, which is the key seperation between a woman who has a cuckhold and your typical dominant-prostitute.
SaintB
26-06-2007, 22:04
Huh? I love watching him, and he loves watching me even more... :confused:

I ran into a couple, the man was absolutly unable to get sexual gratification until he was humiliated by his wife, or whomever was her lover at the time. They approached me (I don't know why) and treid to promt me to go witht hem and do some rather disturbing things. Things I shall not mention on a PG-13 type web forum.
Swingers share partners... this person wanted me to use his wife however I pleased and make him feel 2 inches tall. So he could pleasure himself...
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 22:06
I ran into a couple, the man was absolutly unable to get sexual gratification until he was humiliated by his wife, or whomever was her lover at the time. They approached me (I don't know why) and treid to promt me to go witht hem and do some rather disturbing things. Things I shall not mention on a PG-13 type web forum.
Swingers share partners... this person wanted me to use his wife however I pleased and make him feel 2 inches tall. So he could pleasure himself...

Ah, ok, that's different then. Humiliation doesn't do anything for either of us.
Bottle
26-06-2007, 22:09
Sex is the most intimate act any two people can experience together short of a liver donation.

BS. There are plenty of equally intimate or more intimate experiences two people can share. Don't encourage the over-blown and overly dramatic illusions about sex that kids are already innundated with.


It's something that once done, can't be undone. Who you choose to share that with is a decision of utmost importance. Why wait until marriage?

Imagine one day, years from now, when you've got a wife. Imagine that you both, in your younger days, had sex with other people that you were dating at the time. How will you feel about it? Good? Indifferent? Bad? Maybe a combination of the three?

Imagine one day, years from now, when you've got a wife. Imagine that you both, in your younger days, went out to dinner with other people that you were dating at the time. How will you feel about it?

Seriously, if you are so infantile that you actually feel BAD that your lover had pleasure in their life before they met you, you are not ready to be married. If you feel bad, in any way, shape, or form, that they had other people in their life before you, then you are not ready to be married. Heck, you're not ready to be holding hands.


How will it feel to know that out there, there's one or more men who know your wife as intimately as you know it. That she has nothig left to share with you, her husband, that she hasn't already shared with someone else.

What you share with your lover is unique, no matter how many other lovers either of you have had. Intimacy is a thing that two people make together, and it is as unique as the two individuals involved. You simply CANNOT share the same intimacy with two different people.

Sex is much the same. The sex I have with my lover is completely and totally different from the sex I've had with past lovers, because they're different people. It's a totally different experience. I have never shared with another person what I share with my current lover.

Short version: If you are having the same sex with everybody you fuck, you're doing it wrong.

And that goes both ways. You've given something to others that now only she gets from you, and in so doing, lost its special place as a way for a couple to express love for each other.

More BS. If you actually believe that you lose something by choosing to have sex with somebody, then you aren't ready to have sex. Refrain from doing so, for your sake as well as theirs.


It's not about jealousy. It's not about posessiveness. It's about the fact that two people who are so committed to each other that they've decided to get married and establish a family together ought to be able to have a level of intimacy that is apart and above that which they'd have anywhere else.

If you think sex with create that type of intimacy, you aren't ready to have sex. You're certainly not ready for marriage. And you are not remotely in any way close to being ready to be anybody's parent.


When you have sex with just a boyfriend or girlfriend, you cheapen the value of that intimacy.

Only if you choose to. You can make sex cheap, if you want, but there's no reason why you should. It won't gain you anything.


My record on this issue is far from perfect. I judge nobody who disagrees with me. I speak from personal melancholy experience.
Sounds like you had sex long before you were ready. That sucks, and I'm sorry for your "melancholy" experience. But I strongly urge you not to pass on your personal neuroses to young children. They still have a chance to build healthy relationships.
SaintB
26-06-2007, 22:10
Ah, ok, that's different then. Humiliation doesn't do anything for either of us.

Yeah, quite different. Me, I can be too jealous to adopt a swinger lifestyle with an actual serious relationship. And the kind of women I'm usually attracted to are monogamous by nature. And people like the ones I mentioned scare me...
Bottle
26-06-2007, 22:14
Maybe I just define "intimacy" differently, but I have to disagree with this. The intimacy that my husband and I share isn't just about what our bodies are doing physically. There's more to it than that, something more personal and emotional. The fact that he has had other sexual contact doesn't bother me and the fact that I have doesn't bother him because none of that changes what he and I share. And we do have quite a bit to give that we didn't give to others.
Bingo. It's complete horseshit to tell anybody that having had past sexual experience dimishes the intimacy you can share with a lover.

NB cites his own "melancholy" experience, so I'll cite my own experience:

I've never regretted any of my lovers. I'm still friends (or more) with every last one of them. If anything, my ability to love and to receive love has grown and matured because of my past experiences, and I am able to be more intimate with my partner because of these experiences.

Sex is what you and your partner(s) make of it. It is no more or less intimate than you make it. It is no more or less valuable than you make it. It can be harmless, friendly pleasure, or it can be passionate intimacy of a level that takes your breath away. It can be everything in between, and many things at the same time.
Smunkeeville
26-06-2007, 22:16
If he was a virgin, I'd be seriously worried. I think I would definitely encourage him to go and try others first, I don't feel I could handle somebody's first relationship and the resulting problems. I honestly don't want to. I want an adult person, a person who knows himself, his own body, his own reactions, as well as having a good idea about my body. It makes things so much easier and more interesting.

Marrying a virgin to me would be like starting a book club and having to teach the only member how to read first...

I keep getting the feeling reading your posts that sex to you is about "what can I get out of it?"

why bash virgins so? why do you care?
Bottle
26-06-2007, 22:17
I actually call marriage that. Sex is just one small part of it.
Marriage > sex. Not the other way around.

For me at least.
Word.

Saying that sex is the most intimate thing two people can share...yikes. That's just sad.

Sex can be a way to express intimacy, but it's not the source of intimacy. It can be an intimate act, but only if there's something more to it than the physical act itself.

One of the absolute worst messages kids in my culture receive is this idea that sex makes intimacy, or sex creates love.
Ultraviolent Radiation
26-06-2007, 22:21
sex to you is about "what can I get out of it?"

You mean, having an aim? Surely all human actions are taken with a mind to achieving some kind of intention? :confused:
Smunkeeville
26-06-2007, 22:23
You mean, having an aim? Surely all human actions are taken with a mind to achieving some kind of intention? :confused:

she goes on and on about how she would never have a relationship with a virgin, how she would never marry one, how she thinks that people who don't have lots of sex with lots of different people before they get married have "boring sex lives" how people who don't slut around and swing and have casual sex encounters daily "don't know themselves" and are "bad in bed"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11724798&postcount=43
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11725961&postcount=71
Neo Bretonnia
26-06-2007, 22:29
Ok, I asked myself that question, just to go along with the argument. I think that I will someday have a husband, and I know for a fact that I won't be his first woman, nor his first serious relationship.
How do I feel about that? Happy. Content. I know that when that person decides to spend the rest of his life with me, he'll bring all his life, all his experiences both good and bad, all his being, and he'll give them to me for safekeeping. It makes me feel special, very special, that after living on his own and with others, I'll be the one he'll want to stay with. We'll have our entire lifes together to share whatever we want, every experience, every fantasy, every dream.

If he was a virgin, I'd be seriously worried. I think I would definitely encourage him to go and try others first, I don't feel I could handle somebody's first relationship and the resulting problems. I honestly don't want to. I want an adult person, a person who knows himself, his own body, his own reactions, as well as having a good idea about my body. It makes things so much easier and more interesting.

Marrying a virgin to me would be like starting a book club and having to teach the only member how to read first...

Then you'd better hope you're a better experience than anyone he's been with before, or you may wonder sometimes who he's remembering when he's with you...
Bottle
26-06-2007, 22:33
Then you'd better hope you're a better experience than anyone he's been with before, or you may wonder sometimes who he's remembering when he's with you...
Do people actually worry about this sort of thing?

I thought that was just something from soap operas. "Egad, my True Love, Dakota, is secretly fantasizing about that time she and Spencer made sweet love at the boathouse! How will our love endure?!"
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 22:34
Then you'd better hope you're a better experience than anyone he's been with before, or you may wonder sometimes who he's remembering when he's with you...

*lol I don't think I am. But that's not the point at all.
It's not about comparing. It's about sharing experience.
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 22:38
she goes on and on about how she would never have a relationship with a virgin, how she would never marry one, how she thinks that people who don't have lots of sex with lots of different people before they get married have "boring sex lives" how people who don't slut around and swing and have casual sex encounters daily "don't know themselves" and are "bad in bed"

I think this is actually the first time I posted that I wouldn't want to have sex with a virgin. I've never even thought about it ever before :confused:

I don't think that people who don't have sex before marriage have "boring lifes", but I do onder why, out of all the things a couple shares, they pick the physical relationship as the most special bit that has to be saved till the last moment. It doesn't make sense to me.
I don't know how good or bad in bed virgins are, but I've got no desire to find out. Why? Cause I remember how I was in my first relationship, and during my first time, and to be honest, I don't want to have to put up with anybody like me in that situation.
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 22:39
I keep getting the feeling reading your posts that sex to you is about "what can I get out of it?"

why bash virgins so? why do you care?

I'm not bashing virgins, I'm simply stating my personal feelings.
And to quote Bottle, sex is what you make of it. I get out only as much as I put in. I hope that answers the question.
Smunkeeville
26-06-2007, 22:39
I think this is actually the first time I posted that I wouldn't want to have sex with a virgin. I've never even thought about it ever before :confused:

I don't think that people who don't have sex before marriage have "boring lifes", but I do onder why, out of all the things a couple shares, they pick the physical relationship as the most special bit that has to be saved till the last moment. It doesn't make sense to me.
I don't know how good or bad in bed virgins are, but I've got no desire to find out. Why? Cause I remember how I was in my first relationship, and during my first time, and to be honest, I don't want to have to put up with anybody like me in that situation.

it's interesting that you wouldn't want to "put up" with your partner if they were exploring their sexuality from a starting point earlier than you specify.
Smunkeeville
26-06-2007, 22:40
I'm not bashing virgins, I'm simply stating my personal feelings.
And to quote Bottle, sex is what you make of it. I get out only as much as I put in. I hope that answers the question.

it does....I just see a lot of 'you have to have a bunch of experience to have sex worth having' type of attitude in your posts in these types of threads.
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 22:42
it's interesting that you wouldn't want to "put up" with your partner if they were exploring their sexuality from a starting point earlier than you specify.

People are different at different stages in their lives. I love somebody now, I love him for his experiences and his potential. For his past, his present and his future.
But if I got to know him as a 16-year-old (yes, the very same person), I doubt I would have fallen in love with him.
Bottle
26-06-2007, 22:44
I think this is actually the first time I posted that I wouldn't want to have sex with a virgin. I've never even thought about it ever before :confused:

Maybe folks are thinking of my past posts about that. I have said, in the past, that I would not consider marrying a virgin, and that I don't choose to have sex with virgins.


I don't think that people who don't have sex before marriage have "boring lifes", but I do onder why, out of all the things a couple shares, they pick the physical relationship as the most special bit that has to be saved till the last moment. It doesn't make sense to me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Of all the things I share with my partner, sex is not the most important.


I don't know how good or bad in bed virgins are, but I've got no desire to find out. Why? Cause I remember how I was in my first relationship, and during my first time, and to be honest, I don't want to have to put up with anybody like me in that situation.
And again, perfectly put.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with somebody who's still at the point I was at when I lost my virginity. I wasn't prepared to be in a serious relationship. I still had a lot to learn. I had to work out my feelings and thoughts about sex, and I had to work out how they fit into my feelings and thoughts about myself, relationships, love, and all that jazz. That took me a while. I needed to get some experience under my belt before I could really understand what I felt. My culture is full of some bonkers messages about sex, and it took a while to sort through everything and figure out what I really believed.

At this point in my life, I'm looking for a kind of relationship that I simply don't think a virgin will be prepared for. That's okay, and I absolutely don't think there's anything wrong with virgins choosing when (and if!) they have sex. It simply means that our desires and our readiness for a relationship will not be compatible.

Not that I exactly have virgins breaking down my door or anything...
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 22:47
it does....I just see a lot of 'you have to have a bunch of experience to have sex worth having' type of attitude in your posts in these types of threads.

Horses for courses. Experience alone doesn't make a good lover, either. There's no never-fail recipe, I think. But I like to know that the person I'm with has an idea of what he/she's doing... makes me feel more secure in a way.
Smunkeeville
26-06-2007, 22:49
Horses for courses. Experience alone doesn't make a good lover, either. There's no never-fail recipe, I think. But I like to know that the person I'm with has an idea of what he/she's doing... makes me feel more secure in a way.

I guess I would rather teach. ;) There is no way some worn out trick they learned on someone else is ever going to work on me anyway. :p
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 22:53
I guess I would rather teach. ;) There is no way some worn out trick they learned on someone else is ever going to work on me anyway. :p

*lol See, that's the thing about some of those people who consider themselves "experienced". They believe that these tricks will work on just anyone, which makes them rather bad lovers indeed. ;)
Smunkeeville
26-06-2007, 22:54
*lol See, that's the thing about some of those people who consider themselves "experienced". They believe that these tricks will work on just anyone, which makes them rather bad lovers indeed. ;)

it's like I told someone the other day "half the fun is learning" and they said "what's the other half?" and I said "can't say, it's private" :D
Liberated Provinces
26-06-2007, 22:56
If it is a sin, I'm now guilty as of two hours ago. I'm fifteen and this is now officially my best summer ever.
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 23:02
If it is a sin, I'm now guilty as of two hours ago. I'm fifteen and this is now officially my best summer ever.

Congrats! I trust you used condoms, right? :)
Cabra West
26-06-2007, 23:05
it's like I told someone the other day "half the fun is learning" and they said "what's the other half?" and I said "can't say, it's private" :D

*lol
You know, if I was to do some self-reflection here, I think my main reason is simple curiosity. Not to find out if there's someone "better" out there, that's bolloks anyway. But I've been a very late starter (VERY late), and as a result I feel like there's a whole world out there I don't know enough of...
Dempublicents1
26-06-2007, 23:06
Then you'd better hope you're a better experience than anyone he's been with before, or you may wonder sometimes who he's remembering when he's with you...

If you don't trust your partner more than this, you definitely aren't ready for marriage.


Do people actually worry about this sort of thing?

I thought that was just something from soap operas. "Egad, my True Love, Dakota, is secretly fantasizing about that time she and Spencer made sweet love at the boathouse! How will our love endure?!"

Seriously. I'm a pretty jealous person, and that sort of thing has never crossed my mind. I used to occasionally have doubts about how my husband felt about his old crush, but I never worried at all about his past sexual experiences. Personally, the last thing I'm thinking about during sex is past sex. I'm rather focussed on the current sex...
Neo Bretonnia
26-06-2007, 23:36
Do people actually worry about this sort of thing?

I thought that was just something from soap operas. "Egad, my True Love, Dakota, is secretly fantasizing about that time she and Spencer made sweet love at the boathouse! How will our love endure?!"

That's the most naieve thing I've ever seen you type.
Neo Bretonnia
26-06-2007, 23:42
If you don't trust your partner more than this, you definitely aren't ready for marriage.

That's naieve, too. It's got nothing to do with trust. The issues are vastly more complex than that. Have you worked with people who are dealing with that stuff? Sometimes people are insecure. Sometimes they're bored. Sometimes people are great life partners but clumsy lovers. Sometimes people are intimidated by their spouse's experience. And yes, sometimes it's a lack of trust.

More often than not, it's a combination of factors. Do I personally have that problem? Gratefully, no. Does that mean I can't see it in others? Of course not. And if you're not having issues with it then good for you, but don't let it get to your head.



Seriously. I'm a pretty jealous person, and that sort of thing has never crossed my mind. I used to occasionally have doubts about how my husband felt about his old crush, but I never worried at all about his past sexual experiences. Personally, the last thing I'm thinking about during sex is past sex. I'm rather focussed on the current sex...

You're also a newlywed. Unless you've been married before, then I gently suggest you get some more years of marriage under your belt and then check yuor perspective.
Dobbsworld
26-06-2007, 23:51
Only for subscribers to organizations that seek to interpose themselves between individual adherents and the Godhead. For everybody else, well... no.
Nightwynd
26-06-2007, 23:58
Marriage is immoral. It leads to adultery and divorce. *sage*


In that subject, even tho I have never cheated on any girlfriend, I don't think I will ever marry by the simple fact that I don't consider it a necessity (except maybe if someone wants to move out of the country with me) and I don't think I would trust anyone to that point, considering my past relationships.
Sel Appa
27-06-2007, 00:10
oops I meant to click the first option. I don't think marriage will help anything.
Magic Sorcery
27-06-2007, 01:37
Pre-marital sex is a sin no matter what. It doesn't matter how you dress it up and all that crap it's a still a sin. And Adultry and sex before marriage are not the same thing. The bible even says a person who looks after a woman to lust with her has already comitted adultry in his heart. It doesn't say a Married Man, it just says man.
Dempublicents1
27-06-2007, 02:37
That's naieve, too. It's got nothing to do with trust.

Of course it does. I my husband wanted to be with someone else, he would tell me. I trust him to do so. We're close enough that I don't have to worry about it.

The issues are vastly more complex than that. Have you worked with people who are dealing with that stuff? Sometimes people are insecure.

Insecurity in your relationship means that you shouldn't get married. That's exactly my point.

Sometimes they're bored.

They're bored so they spend their time worrying about how much their partner might want someone else? That isn't boredom, darling, it's insecurity.

Sometimes people are great life partners but clumsy lovers.

Indeed, but this has nothing to do with a person wanting to be with someone else or thinking about it while with you. I can tell you straight up that I was a "clumsy lover" when I first started dating my husband. I still never needed to worry that he was thinking about someone else in bed, because I knew that I was the one he wanted to be with.

Sometimes people are intimidated by their spouse's experience.

Intimidation is not the same thing as worrying that their partner is thinking about someone else during sex.

And yes, sometimes it's a lack of trust.

In the end, all of these things boil down to a lack of trust - a feeling that there is something wrong in the relationship.

You're also a newlywed. Unless you've been married before, then I gently suggest you get some more years of marriage under your belt and then check yuor perspective.

Yes, I'm a newlywed - newly wed to a man I've been with for 6 years, and with whom I've been sexually active for 5 1/2. I've had plenty of time to worry about his past lovers or his past crushes. Interestingly enough, the worries went away with time, not strengthened.
Neo Bretonnia
27-06-2007, 03:16
Of course it does. I my husband wanted to be with someone else, he would tell me. I trust him to do so. We're close enough that I don't have to worry about it.


You're talking about fidelity. I'm talking about something entirely different.


Insecurity in your relationship means that you shouldn't get married. That's exactly my point.


No, I said insecure. Period. Some people just are. They are insecure about their social standing. Their job. their relationships. their appearance, etc etc etc. That spills over into everything.


They're bored so they spend their time worrying about how much their partner might want someone else? That isn't boredom, darling, it's insecurity.

No, darling, it's boredom. And that sometimes leads to fantasizing about the past. (It can also lead to fantasizing about new stuff, but that's beside the point.)

Please, do try and understand my meaning instead of mining for things to contradict.


Indeed, but this has nothing to do with a person wanting to be with someone else or thinking about it while with you. I can tell you straight up that I was a "clumsy lover" when I first started dating my husband. I still never needed to worry that he was thinking about someone else in bed, because I knew that I was the one he wanted to be with.


And just suppose you have a hypothetical couple in which one party once had a lover that was so good at giving oral that tey had to pull the bedsheets out of the crak of their butt after every experience. Now they're married to someone who just never got the hang of it.

See where I'm going with this, or do yuo want to keep pretending you don't?


Intimidation is not the same thing as worrying that their partner is thinking about someone else during sex.


..and?


In the end, all of these things boil down to a lack of trust - a feeling that there is something wrong in the relationship.


No they don't. You can't just shoehorn all of reality into a jar. It isn't even remotely that simple. It appears from your statements that you have a lot of trust in your relationship. Good. That's how it should be. But you need to recognize that not everybody is a carbon copy of your experience. And it's not all about trust. Not by a longshot.

There are plenty of issues that have nothing to do with trust.

No offense, but it looks to me like you've got no trust issues and so you're trying to shuffle all other kinds of issues into the same box so that you can tell yourself you'll never have to deal with any of it.

Sounds a little insecure to me.

No offense meant, I'm just sayin'.


Yes, I'm a newlywed - newly wed to a man I've been with for 6 years, and with whom I've been sexually active for 5 1/2. I've had plenty of time to worry about his past lovers or his past crushes. Interestingly enough, the worries went away with time, not strengthened.

Why do you always assume that just because YOU experience things a certain way, somehow that's representative of all of reality? No offense, but that's putting yuor head in the sand. My experiences don't come from just my own life but, as I said, what I've seen and studies about others as well as academic work. I'll trust that over one set of experiences any day.
Ashmoria
27-06-2007, 03:41
ya know neo, an insecure person always finds something to worry about.

someone who is with an experienced lover worries that she isnt good enough

someone who is experienced with a virginal spouse (on the wedding day) worries that her husband thinks she is a whore.

if both are experienced, they each worry that the other is thinking of a past lover.

if neither are experienced they worry that they arent "doing it right" and are missing out on the incredible sex they were promised on tv and in the movies.

the problem is insecurity not experience or the lack thereof
Neo Bretonnia
27-06-2007, 03:46
ya know neo, an insecure person always finds something to worry about.

someone who is with an experienced lover worries that she isnt good enough

someone who is experienced with a virginal spouse (on the wedding day) worries that her husband thinks she is a whore.

if both are experienced, they each worry that the other is thinking of a past lover.

if neither are experienced they worry that they arent "doing it right" and are missing out on the incredible sex they were promised on tv and in the movies.

the problem is insecurity not experience or the lack thereof

I would agree that's part of it. Maybe in some cases more than others.

All of which goes to underline my original point though.
Dempublicents1
27-06-2007, 03:47
You're talking about fidelity. I'm talking about something entirely different.

Not at all. Wanting someone else is not the same thing as going after someone else.

No, I said insecure. Period. Some people just are. They are insecure about their social standing. Their job. their relationships. their appearance, etc etc etc. That spills over into everything.

Then it has nothing to do with whether or not their partner had previous sexual contact.

No, darling, it's boredom. And that sometimes leads to fantasizing about the past. (It can also lead to fantasizing about new stuff, but that's beside the point.)

If you're that bored with your spouse, your marriage has serious problems that have nothing whatsoever to do with past sexual experience.

Please, do try and understand my meaning instead of mining for things to contradict.

I get your meaning. I still think it has more to do with problems within a marriage or problems that would cause me to believe someone is not ready to be married.

And just suppose you have a hypothetical couple in which one party once had a lover that was so good at giving oral that tey had to pull the bedsheets out of the crak of their butt after every experience. Now they're married to someone who just never got the hang of it.

See where I'm going with this, or do yuo want to keep pretending you don't?

Suppose I dated someone who made really great spaghetti and my spouse makes crappy spaghetti? It doesn't mean that, when I am sitting down to dinner with my spouse, I think, "Damn, I wish my ex was here to make me some spaghetti!"

..and?

And it is therefore irrelevant to the discussion, which was started when you said that having previous partners will mean that you have to worry about who your spouse is thinking about during sex.

No they don't. You can't just shoehorn all of reality into a jar. It isn't even remotely that simple. It appears from your statements that you have a lot of trust in your relationship. Good. That's how it should be. But you need to recognize that not everybody is a carbon copy of your experience.

Anyone who doesn't have that trust shouldn't be married.

And it's not all about trust. Not by a longshot.

The original issue you brought up is.

There are plenty of issues that have nothing to do with trust.

No offense, but it looks to me like you've got no trust issues and so you're trying to shuffle all other kinds of issues into the same box so that you can tell yourself you'll never have to deal with any of it.

Sounds a little insecure to me.

No offense meant, I'm just sayin'.

Oh, I've got all sorts of trust issues, and I'm well aware of it. I'm a pretty insecure person as well. I'm emotionally pretty high maintenance. I'm aware of all of these things. However, if I had not yet worked through them with my spouse - if I did not trust him or our relationship, if I was insecure about him or his feelings for me, or if I was not able to realize that the little things don't mean his feelings have changed (or he was not able to realize that I need more reassurance than some) - I would have no business being married to him. Getting married when these sorts of issues are present because it's "the next step" or other such reasons is a big part of the reason for the high divorce rate. People think these things will magically go away with the signing of a marriage license. These are the sorts of issues you need to have worked through before you get married.

Why do you always assume that just because YOU experience things a certain way, somehow that's representative of all of reality? No offense, but that's putting yuor head in the sand. My experiences don't come from just my own life but, as I said, what I've seen and studies about others as well as academic work. I'll trust that over one set of experiences any day.

It's not a matter of my experience (and I don't "always assume" any such thing). It's a matter of the signals that a couple is ready for marriage. A person who is insecure in their relationship should not be getting married. A person who becomes insecure during the marriage needs to figure out what is going wrong in that relationship.
Dempublicents1
27-06-2007, 03:50
ya know neo, an insecure person always finds something to worry about.

someone who is with an experienced lover worries that she isnt good enough

someone who is experienced with a virginal spouse (on the wedding day) worries that her husband thinks she is a whore.

if both are experienced, they each worry that the other is thinking of a past lover.

if neither are experienced they worry that they arent "doing it right" and are missing out on the incredible sex they were promised on tv and in the movies.

the problem is insecurity not experience or the lack thereof

Exactly. The issue in that case isn't "ZOMG! You had sexual partners before me!" The problem is, "I'm insecure and I need to work through that."


I would agree that's part of it. Maybe in some cases more than others.

All of which goes to underline my original point though.

Eh? So the opposite of your point (ie. "The problem is insecurity not experience or the lack thereof) somehow goes to underline your point (ie. The problem is prior experience)??????
Neo Bretonnia
27-06-2007, 04:03
Eh? So the opposite of your point (ie. "The problem is insecurity not experience or the lack thereof) somehow goes to underline your point (ie. The problem is prior experience)??????

I said part of it. It feeds on itself.
Photo-Ninjas
27-06-2007, 04:13
Hmm...there's not an option on the poll that describes my belief...

Yes, I believe, for religious reasons, that sexual conduct outside of marriage is wrong. My beliefs are based not on the Ten Commandments, or even really the Old Testament (though it supports it), but on several statements throughout the New Testament.

On the other hand, I don't believe that sex itself is evil and wrong. It's a part of human existence and God created it. He wants us to enjoy it, but in the way He specified, which being the Person who came up with the idea, I figure He has the right to expect.

Perhaps this has been stated earlier in the thread and I'm retreading old ground. Whatever. But saying an action is wrong doesn't mean that I'm criticizing those who do it. Obviously, they don't believe it's wrong. It's not my job to come after them -- they deal with the consequences of their actions, whatever they may be.
Neo Bretonnia
27-06-2007, 04:16
Not at all. Wanting someone else is not the same thing as going after someone else.

I didn't say wanting someone else. I said thinking.

I'm not trying to be mean, but it's getting kinda tiresome, having to keep restating myself. I really think it's because you're trying to manipluate words to dismiss my opinion. I never pushed my opinion on others, why do you have a problem with it?


Then it has nothing to do with whether or not their partner had previous sexual contact.

But what happens when you combine the two? Would it be worse or better of both people had been with only each other?

See what I'm getting at?


If you're that bored with your spouse, your marriage has serious problems that have nothing whatsoever to do with past sexual experience.


In 20 years you can speak with authority on this.

I didn't say bored with spouse (here we go again) I said bored. Period. It happens to people every single day. It happens in good relationships and bad ones.


I get your meaning. I still think it has more to do with problems within a marriage or problems that would cause me to believe someone is not ready to be married.

I'm guessing you're very proud of your long engagement and are being this judgemental about others' rediness for marriage as a result.

Try not to judge. It's better to try and understand. (I had to learn that the hard way, myself.)


Suppose I dated someone who made really great spaghetti and my spouse makes crappy spaghetti? It doesn't mean that, when I am sitting down to dinner with my spouse, I think, "Damn, I wish my ex was here to make me some spaghetti!"

It happens every single day.



And it is therefore irrelevant to the discussion, which was started when you said that having previous partners will mean that you have to worry about who your spouse is thinking about during sex.


I said might.


Anyone who doesn't have that trust shouldn't be married.


Judge not.

Are you suggesting that people ought to get a divorce immediately upon the occurrence of any issue that brings trust into question?


The original issue you brought up is.


You've just re-stated the point of disagreement. That's really not an argument.
There are plenty of issues that have nothing to do with trust.



Oh, I've got all sorts of trust issues, and I'm well aware of it. I'm a pretty insecure person as well. I'm emotionally pretty high maintenance. I'm aware of all of these things. However, if I had not yet worked through them with my spouse - if I did not trust him or our relationship, if I was insecure about him or his feelings for me, or if I was not able to realize that the little things don't mean his feelings have changed (or he was not able to realize that I need more reassurance than some) - I would have no business being married to him. Getting married when these sorts of issues are present because it's "the next step" or other such reasons is a big part of the reason for the high divorce rate. People think these things will magically go away with the signing of a marriage license. These are the sorts of issues you need to have worked through before you get married.

It's not a matter of my experience (and I don't "always assume" any such thing). It's a matter of the signals that a couple is ready for marriage. A person who is insecure in their relationship should not be getting married. A person who becomes insecure during the marriage needs to figure out what is going wrong in that relationship.

I agree with this, except that what you seem to be forgetting is that not all marital issues exist at the start. often, people are completely unaware of them at first, or they creep up later. (Boredom, for example. Somtimes insecurities also go undetected for great lengths of time.) You seem to want to blame people with these marital issues for rushing into things, but I'm telling you from what I've experienced and observed that it's just not that simple.

I'm not making this stuff up.

It's flippant to just say that anytime people have a marital crisis that relates back to a previous relationship that it must be that they were simply unprepared for marriage. We don't live in a perfect world, and there are no perfect relationships. Love can go a long way toward overcoming problems, as can communication, honesty, enthusiasm and so on.

Bottom Line: In my view, premarital sex is something that places undue stress on marriages. It's not the cause of ALL problems, but it causes enough. IMHO it's just not worth it.

And now I'm going to go pick up my wife from work.
The Gay Street Militia
27-06-2007, 04:28
Calling something "sinful" is how authority figures try to control their subordinates' behaviour. They say sex-- premarital sex, gay sex, sex for fun-- is "sinful" and "immoral," so that if you do any of them you'll become guilt-ridden and turn to them for forgiveness and approval. It's all about controlling the flock, regulating their behaviour, limiting their minds so that they're subservient to the heirarchy. Screw 'sin.'

As for morality; if you have sex and it's consentual, with someone in a position to give their consent (not uninformed about the possible consequences, not drunk or drugged up out of their minds, not coerced through an abuse of power), then it isn't "immoral." The only immoral sex is sex-- that through negligence or malice-- or hurtful to someone involved.

Ultimately, though, sex between consenting, informed adults (or between young adults, whatever) is no one else's business to judge. Society should STFU and butt out.
Dempublicents1
27-06-2007, 04:38
I didn't say wanting someone else. I said thinking.

Hmmm. Thinking about someone else while having sex with your partner. You're right, that would have nothing to do with what you want....

I'm not trying to be mean, but it's getting kinda tiresome, having to keep restating myself. I really think it's because you're trying to manipluate words to dismiss my opinion. I never pushed my opinion on others, why do you have a problem with it?

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you had to "push your opinion on others" for me to disagree with it.

I suppose, in that case, you shouldn't be arguing with me, since I never said that someone in an unhealthy relationship can't get married, only that I think they shouldn't.

But what happens when you combine the two? Would it be worse or better of both people had been with only each other?

Neither. As has been pointed out, a person who is insecure will find something to be insecure about. If it isn't past partners, it could be insecurity about whether or not the partner is satisfied with only one person. It could be insecurity about the way their spouse looked at the neighbor. Or any other issue. If a person is insecure in the relationship, they're going to find some cause to attach to that insecurity.

In 20 years you can speak with authority on this.

I see. So I have to be nearly half a century old to hold an opinion.

I didn't say bored with spouse (here we go again) I said bored. Period. It happens to people every single day. It happens in good relationships and bad ones.

If it isn't a matter of boredom with the spouse, there is no reason that the spouse would be thinking about someone else during sex.

I'm guessing you're very proud of your long engagement and are being this judgemental about others' rediness for marriage as a result.

It wasn't a very long engagement. A little over a year. We didn't get engaged until we were already sure of our relationship.

Try not to judge. It's better to try and understand. (I had to learn that the hard way, myself.)

I'm not judging. I'm not saying, "ZOMG! People who rush into marriage are bad, bad people!" I'm simply saying that there is a level of commitment that should already be there when someone decides to enter into marriage.

If I were to say, "One should not drive on the freeway until one has become comfortable with driving a vehicle," would that be judging others?

It happens every single day.

So does divorce.

I said might.

Indeed. And I pointed out that I don't think someone with that sort of worry is ready for marriage in the first place.

Judge not.

You have a very odd definition of the word judge. I suppose saying that blind people shouldn't drive cars is equally judgmental?

Are you suggesting that people ought to get a divorce immediately upon the occurrence of any issue that brings trust into question?

Not at all. In fact, I think that people within a marriage should never "get a divorce immediately." Such a decision should be a long, well thought out, and difficult one. I'm saying that people who already have trust issues in their relationship should not get married until such a time as they have worked through them. And I'm saying that people who develop trust issues during their marriage should work on the underlying trust issue, not look for an excuse to prop it up.

You've just re-stated the point of disagreement. That's really not an argument.
There are plenty of issues that have nothing to do with trust.

Of course there are issues that have nothing to do with trust. We are not, however, discussing any of those.

I agree with this, except that what you seem to be forgetting is that not all marital issues exist at the start. often, people are completely unaware of them at first, or they creep up later. (Boredom, for example. Somtimes insecurities also go undetected for great lengths of time.) You seem to want to blame people with these marital issues for rushing into things, but I'm telling you from what I've experienced and observed that it's just not that simple.

Oh, I'm not disputing that. I won't be surprised if issues creep up between my husband and myself that we never foresaw. But those issues will be a problem within our relationship - issues that we'll have to deal with.

The original discussion started here:


Then you'd better hope you're a better experience than anyone he's been with before, or you may wonder sometimes who he's remembering when he's with you...

If you don't trust your partner more than this, you definitely aren't ready for marriage.

I'd say this makes it pretty clear that the original comment was restricted to trust issues that exist prior to getting married.

It's flippant to just say that anytime people have a marital crisis that relates back to a previous relationship that it must be that they were simply unprepared for marriage.

I didn't say that. But the type of problem you brought up isn't something that would be caused by a previous relationship. It is something that would be caused by underlying problems in the marriage itself. A person who was unsatisfied with their spouse and didn't have previous sexual experience would simply find themselves thinking about being with a celebrity, a fictional character, or an unnamed fantasy person. The problem would be the lack of satisfaction with the spouse, not a previous relationship.

In fact, previous sexual contact wouldn't even be necessary. A person may begin to imagine sex with a past crush or someone they dated before, but never had sex with. Either way, the issue isn't that they had such a relationship or crush, it is their lack of satisfaction with their own partner - something that will need to be worked out no matter how many (or how few) sexual partners either spouse had to begin with. It may "relate back to" previous sexual experience, but that is simply the particular manifestation of the problem, not the actual cause.

We don't live in a perfect world, and there are no perfect relationships. Love can go a long way toward overcoming problems, as can communication, honesty, enthusiasm and so on.

Indeed.

Bottom Line: In my view, premarital sex is something that places undue stress on marriages. It's not the cause of ALL problems, but it causes enough. IMHO it's just not worth it.

I don't see how it causes stress. It can be the excuse for stress and it can be the manifestation of that stress, but I don't see how it would be the stress itself.
Cabra West
27-06-2007, 09:05
I would agree that's part of it. Maybe in some cases more than others.

All of which goes to underline my original point though.

Your original point being that insecure people should stay virgins until marriage?
Cabra West
27-06-2007, 09:09
But what happens when you combine the two? Would it be worse or better of both people had been with only each other?

See what I'm getting at?


Now, let's just assume that we're looking at two insecure people who were both virgins when they got married. Growing up with an emotionally highly insecure mother, I think I can tell you what they'll be thinking when having sex : "He only enjoys it cause he doesn't know any better, after all he has no comparison"...
Sade-chan
27-06-2007, 10:38
Oh my. I have to thank you guys (or gals). I don't necessarily agree with much you've posted, but you actually solved my massive problems with perfectionism.

So, Thank You, Neo Bretonnia and Dempublicents1. Now I actually understand my biggest problem :D
Bottle
27-06-2007, 12:10
You're also a newlywed. Unless you've been married before, then I gently suggest you get some more years of marriage under your belt and then check yuor perspective.
Just so we all are clear, how long do we have to have been in a relationship before our "perspective" will pass muster?
Bottle
27-06-2007, 12:11
That's the most naieve thing I've ever seen you type.
"Naieve" = "Does not share NB's personal hangups about sex and relationships"?
Kryozerkia
27-06-2007, 12:15
Just so we all are clear, how long do we have to have been in a relationship before our "perspective" will pass muster?

*insert random asinine number + obligatory BS comment here*
Bottle
27-06-2007, 12:16
Exactly. The issue in that case isn't "ZOMG! You had sexual partners before me!" The problem is, "I'm insecure and I need to work through that."

YES.

NB said it himself: "Some people just are [insecure]. They are insecure about their social standing. Their job. their relationships. their appearance, etc etc etc. That spills over into everything."

The problem is THEIR INSECURITY, not the fact that their partner had past lovers.

The insecurity is going to be a problem regardless of how virginal their partner is, it will just manifest itself in some other way.

Well, actually, they probably will continue to be insecure about sex, and will be more likely to become very controlling about their partner's friends and social behavior because they're paranoid about their partner sneaking off to cheat and have better sex with somebody else.


Eh? So the opposite of your point (ie. "The problem is insecurity not experience or the lack thereof) somehow goes to underline your point (ie. The problem is prior experience)??????
The logic is dizzying...
The Plenty
27-06-2007, 12:16
"Naieve" = "Does not share NB's personal hangups about sex and relationships"?

This kind of reminds me of the previous thread about the exact same topic. Apparently, paranoia and insecurity are healthy character traits.
Kryozerkia
27-06-2007, 12:18
This kind of reminds me of the previous thread about the exact same topic. Apparently, paranoia and insecurity are healthy character traits.

They are? And here I always thought that it was a sign that you're so fucked up even your mama is lookin' at you cock-eyed. ;)
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
27-06-2007, 12:19
Calling something "sinful" is how authority figures try to control their subordinates' behaviour. They say sex-- premarital sex, gay sex, sex for fun-- is "sinful" and "immoral," so that if you do any of them you'll become guilt-ridden and turn to them for forgiveness and approval. It's all about controlling the flock, regulating their behaviour, limiting their minds so that they're subservient to the heirarchy. Screw 'sin.'


Not all religious people obey or even recognize any authority figure, beyond their god or sense of truth, you know. ;) I've seen it many times, among followers of a few different religions.
Bottle
27-06-2007, 12:21
I see. So I have to be nearly half a century old to hold an opinion.

Well we can solve that problem right now, in that case!

When Demi has been saying is pretty much exactly what my parents taught me about relationships. Their 31st wedding anniversary is in July.

Since the Old People With Experience have now given their seal of approval to Demi's opinions, I'd say the matter is closed.
Kryozerkia
27-06-2007, 12:24
Since the Old People With Experience have now given their seal of approval to Demi's opinions, I'd say the matter is closed.

Oh, but NB hasn't... :rolleyes:
Bottle
27-06-2007, 14:03
This kind of reminds me of the previous thread about the exact same topic. Apparently, paranoia and insecurity are healthy character traits.
Don't forget, it's "naieve" to expect your adult relationships to involve, you know, adults.
Bottle
27-06-2007, 14:06
Now, let's just assume that we're looking at two insecure people who were both virgins when they got married. Growing up with an emotionally highly insecure mother, I think I can tell you what they'll be thinking when having sex : "He only enjoys it cause he doesn't know any better, after all he has no comparison"...
People who are already insecure about sex should not be encouraged to further over-emphasize sex by making it this big bruhaha about "purity" and "intimacy" and all that other stuff. They already are having issues, so why make it worse by choosing the primary subject of their insecurity and making it into The Special Thing that you are saving for marriage? That's just going to amplify the existing problem.
Compulsive Depression
27-06-2007, 14:11
I think a lot of people get a lot more worked up over sex than it deserves.
Smunkeeville
27-06-2007, 14:15
People who are already insecure about sex should not be encouraged to further over-emphasize sex by making it this big bruhaha about "purity" and "intimacy" and all that other stuff. They already are having issues, so why make it worse by choosing the primary subject of their insecurity and making it into The Special Thing that you are saving for marriage? That's just going to amplify the existing problem.

I totally and completely agree. I do not agree however with some people who go to the complete opposite end of the sex weirdness spectrum and say 'it's not a big deal, it's just like anything else, and if you get emotional over it you suck'

I like your thing Bottle, about how it's as important as you make it or whatever. That way it can be to me what it is, but I don't have to expect that from anyone else, and most important I have to know that I can't expect that from anyone else.
Cabra West
27-06-2007, 14:16
People who are already insecure about sex should not be encouraged to further over-emphasize sex by making it this big bruhaha about "purity" and "intimacy" and all that other stuff. They already are having issues, so why make it worse by choosing the primary subject of their insecurity and making it into The Special Thing that you are saving for marriage? That's just going to amplify the existing problem.

Agreed.
People who are insecure about sex need to be taught it's not such a big deal. And saving it for marriage if you're unsecure about your sexuality in any way is just postponing the problem.
Ogdens nutgone flake
27-06-2007, 14:19
Its only a sin if you keep the lights on or do some position apart from the missionary!
Cabra West
27-06-2007, 14:21
I totally and completely agree. I do not agree however with some people who go to the complete opposite end of the sex weirdness spectrum and say 'it's not a big deal, it's just like anything else, and if you get emotional over it you suck'

I like your thing Bottle, about how it's as important as you make it or whatever. That way it can be to me what it is, but I don't have to expect that from anyone else, and most important I have to know that I can't expect that from anyone else.

*lol
Now you just made my post look bad. You've been using your psychic powers against me, admit it!

What I meant by "not a big deal" is that it is never anything that deserves being insecure about. Comparing yourself to others when it comes to sex is completely pointless, you can't compare any two people in bed. People either harmonise or they don't, there's no such thing as "the perfect oral sex that works for all".

But I do think that sex is only as emotional as you want it to be... it can just as easily be a friendly afternoon fuck as the most intense and amazingly intimate thing ever. If you expect it to be emotional and want it to be emotional, then that's what you'll get. Sure, that's the best kind, as far as I'm concerned. But if you want to have it casual, there's not going to be an emotional rush with amazingly deep moments.
Kryozerkia
27-06-2007, 14:22
Agreed.
People who are insecure about sex need to be taught it's not such a big deal. And saving it for marriage if you're unsecure about your sexuality in any way is just postponing the problem.

Precisely. Waiting on sex because you don't feel you're ready is one thing. One should not be pressured into sex unless they feel they're ready emotionally and physically.

It's fine to be nervous during one's first time because even if you know about sex, you don't know what to expect because the actual experience is different from person to person.
Grave_n_idle
27-06-2007, 14:27
Then you'd better hope you're a better experience than anyone he's been with before, or you may wonder sometimes who he's remembering when he's with you...

This is nonsensical.

It doesn't matter how 'good' or 'bad' any previous or present experience is.

Sex with a committed partner NOW, is always 'the best sex you ever had'.

There is no comparison of intimacy. And, if there is, you're doing it wrong. Someone is lying to someone, and it's probably you lying to yourself.
Cabra West
27-06-2007, 14:28
Precisely. Waiting on sex because you don't feel you're ready is one thing. One should not be pressured into sex unless they feel they're ready emotionally and physically.

It's fine to be nervous during one's first time because even if you know about sex, you don't know what to expect because the actual experience is different from person to person.

Maybe that's why I have such a hard time understanding why people would want to be married first.
My first time, I was nervous as hell. Technically, I knew all I had to know, but the real thing was scary....
Making a life-long comittment is even more scary. There's so much can go wrong, there's so much to consider, so much to get together. It's scary, and it's a mountain of work. How much more scary must that be if you combine both events!
You commit yourself for a lifetime, you've got all the work to do and to sort out, and in addition to that you suddenly have a fixed date on when you will have sex for the first time... if that doesn't give me a nervous breakdown, nothing would.
Bottle
27-06-2007, 14:29
I totally and completely agree. I do not agree however with some people who go to the complete opposite end of the sex weirdness spectrum and say 'it's not a big deal, it's just like anything else, and if you get emotional over it you suck'

Yeah, this gets back to what I've been saying: sex is what you and your partner make of it. You must take responsibility for the "you" part of that equation, but you also must recognize the contribution of your partner.

Just because you are very casual about sex doesn't mean everybody else will be. You should select partners who have views on sex which are compatible to your own; you should not expect every potential partner out there to automatically go along with your perspective.


I like your thing Bottle, about how it's as important as you make it or whatever. That way it can be to me what it is, but I don't have to expect that from anyone else, and most important I have to know that I can't expect that from anyone else.
Exactly!
Grave_n_idle
27-06-2007, 14:30
I guess I would rather teach. ;) There is no way some worn out trick they learned on someone else is ever going to work on me anyway. :p

The idea that there are 'tricks' that work on anyone is ridiculous anyway. Good sex is learning a partner, and helping them activate the personal triggers that work for them.

For some that might be 'sex over the covers', for others it might ba a particular form of intimacy. For others, it might be no more than being honest with them in intimacy.
Kryozerkia
27-06-2007, 14:31
Just because you are very casual about sex doesn't mean everybody else will be. You should select partners who have views on sex which are compatible to your own; you should not expect every potential partner out there to automatically go along with your perspective.

Sadly there are people who think that everyone should have the same skewed perspective on sex that they do, and that if those people don't, they are somehow misguided and are in need of "moral guidance".
Bottle
27-06-2007, 14:35
What I meant by "not a big deal" is that it is never anything that deserves being insecure about. Comparing yourself to others when it comes to sex is completely pointless, you can't compare any two people in bed. People either harmonise or they don't, there's no such thing as "the perfect oral sex that works for all".

A friend and I once visited a Tantra class where there was a sign over the door that read, "Sex comes in as many flavors as people do."

(And yes, I believe the pun was absolutely intended.)
Cabra West
27-06-2007, 14:36
A friend and I once visited a Tantra class where there was a sign over the door that read, "Sex comes in as many flavors as people do."

(And yes, I believe the pun was absolutely intended.)

That is SO sigged!!! :D
Dundee-Fienn
27-06-2007, 14:36
A friend and I once visited a Tantra class where there was a sign over the door that read, "Sex comes in as many flavors as people do."

(And yes, I believe the pun was absolutely intended.)

Whats a tantra class like? Sounds a little bit intimidating
Grave_n_idle
27-06-2007, 14:37
And just suppose you have a hypothetical couple in which one party once had a lover that was so good at giving oral that tey had to pull the bedsheets out of the crak of their butt after every experience. Now they're married to someone who just never got the hang of it.


So - we should limit our experiences just in case our choices of life-partners turn out to be shit in the sack?

Wouldn't a better plan to be learning what your body, mind (soul?) needs in a partner and HOW to get it, so you can teach a future partner to help you get there?
Cabra West
27-06-2007, 14:39
So - we should limit our experiences just in case our choices of life-partners turn out to be shit in the sack?

Wouldn't a better plan to be learning what your body, mind (soul?) needs in a partner and HOW to get it, so you can teach a future partner to help you get there?

Good point. Everybody can learn, but you need to know what you have to teach them.
Bottle
27-06-2007, 14:45
Whats a tantra class like? Sounds a little bit intimidating
It was actually less graphic than I expected. Though we were in a beginner class, so I don't know what the "advanced" folks work on.

For the guys, there is apparently a type of clenching of nether-muscles that can diffuse an incipient ejaculation. With practice, the teacher said that a man can learn to use this to stop himself if he feels that he's going to finish sooner than he wants. (Not being a guy, I do not know if this really works or how difficult it is, but a male friend has told me that it does work...if you can actually summon the willpower to do it! :D)

For the girls, we mostly did some kegel stuff, but we also discussed clenching of buttocks and abdominal muscles. The main thing I took away from it was that I started paying attention to what muscles I was clenching normally during sex, and how changing my muscle movements would change the sensations. I'd never really thought about that sort of thing before (I just tended to go with the flow, as it were), so it was interesting to me.

Aside from that, there was a bunch of breathing exercises and some meditation-type stuff. It was surprisingly mild, really. I was expecting something out of The Meaning Of Life by Monty Python, but that's nothing like what the class turned out to be.
Dundee-Fienn
27-06-2007, 14:46
Aside from that, there was a bunch of breathing exercises and some meditation-type stuff. It was surprisingly mild, really. I was expecting something out of The Meaning Of Life by Monty Python, but that's nothing like what the class turned out to be.

Sounds like a laugh, or an experience at least. Hmmmm something to add to my to do list
SaintB
27-06-2007, 16:19
Pre-marital sex is a sin no matter what. It doesn't matter how you dress it up and all that crap it's a still a sin. And Adultry and sex before marriage are not the same thing. The bible even says a person who looks after a woman to lust with her has already comitted adultry in his heart. It doesn't say a Married Man, it just says man.

The statement don't make much sense MS...

First you say that pre-marital sex is a sin, thats your opinion, fine.

Second you say that Adultry and sex before marriage are not the same... ok Mr. Webster and 98% of the people reading this whole heartedly agree.

Third, you say any man who has ever lusted after a woman has committed adultry. Technically, that just reverses your second statement. It also makes God sound like a bad diety to worship since lust is a completly natural and unhelpable chemical reaction.

If someone is going to make us a certain way and then hate us for acting the way they designed us they don't deserve our respect or love; you just made the whole post sound like the perfect argument for satanism. He already decided we are going to hell because we can't resist being the way he made us. Or maybe only men, because it seems to not include women lusting after men in that statement.

It may have been mistyped but even then it deserved to be picked at.
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 16:21
So, I basically think religous folk should not even care about such things, as the purpose of marriage is to create a relationship where two partners commit to one another to raising a family together, not just when the two can have sex. Anyway, what do you think?

The problem is creating either bastard children who statistically have a harder and less successful life or a lot of abortions.
Dundee-Fienn
27-06-2007, 16:22
The problem is creating either bastard children who statistically have a harder and less successful life

Link?
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 16:42
Link?

Type "statistics fatherless children" into any search engine. I defy you to find a link that says fatherless children are equal or above fathered children in any area.

This is the top one on yahoo search:

http://www.geocities.com/ethnicbaby/FamilyParenting/WhyWeNeedDads.html


85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come fromfatherless homes.

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.

70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes.

85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in fatherless homes.

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.

These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders

9 times more likely to drop out of high school

10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances

9 times more likely to end up in state operated institutions

20 times more likely to end up in prison

10 times more likely to commit rape ... and

32 times more likely to run away from home


And before someone says "Use birth control" look up the actual failure rate of your favorite type. No the pill isn't fool proof by any measure. But everything else is worse.
Cabra West
27-06-2007, 16:43
It also makes God sound like a bad diety to worship

I, too, think that god is a bad diet indeed. No fiber at all. *nods*
Bottle
27-06-2007, 16:49
Type "statistics fatherless children" into any search engine. I defy you to find a link that says fatherless children are equal or above fathered children in any area.

Given the wide range of confounding factors involved, I think you're going to have to do a lot more work to demonstrate that absence of a husband is the problem in those situations.

For instance, let's look at the poverty rates among "fatherless" families. Maybe that might impact the kids' futures.

Or how about the likelihood of domestic abuse? Women who have left the father of their children quite frequently have actual reasons for doing so. Maybe having witnessed or experienced abuse is impacting the kids in these homes.

Maybe the continued second-class-citizen status of women is impacting their ability to rear children.
Maybe the fact that "bastards" are still stigmatized in our society will impact how these kids grow up.

And what, pray tell, does marriage even have to do with this? Are you actually suggesting that a man cannot be a father unless he is married to the mother of the children in question? Perhaps there's a serious problem with the idea that a man has to be hitched in order for him to be an equal participant in his childrens' lives.

Frankly, I think you've got it all ass-backwards.

The problem in our society isn't the existence of bastards, it's the fact that people who have children out of wedlock--and specifically women who decide to parent without a husband in the picture--face all sorts of totally unnecessary bullshit.

It's quite possible for a single woman (or single man) to rear a child successfully, and it's quite possible for a married couple to be piss-poor parents.

Marriage isn't magic, folks. People who are shitty parents will remain shitty parents even if they get hitched. People who are great parents will be great parents even if they divorce or never get married in the first place.

And fathers who are actually worth having in a child's life will not disappear simply because they are not married to the child's mother.
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 17:15
Given the wide range of confounding factors involved, I think you're going to have to do a lot more work to demonstrate that absence of a husband is the problem in those situations.

For instance, let's look at the poverty rates among "fatherless" families. Maybe that might impact the kids' futures.

Or how about the likelihood of domestic abuse? Women who have left the father of their children quite frequently have actual reasons for doing so. Maybe having witnessed or experienced abuse is impacting the kids in these homes.

Maybe the continued second-class-citizen status of women is impacting their ability to rear children.
Maybe the fact that "bastards" are still stigmatized in our society will impact how these kids grow up.

And what, pray tell, does marriage even have to do with this? Are you actually suggesting that a man cannot be a father unless he is married to the mother of the children in question? Perhaps there's a serious problem with the idea that a man has to be hitched in order for him to be an equal participant in his childrens' lives.

Frankly, I think you've got it all ass-backwards.

The problem in our society isn't the existence of bastards, it's the fact that people who have children out of wedlock--and specifically women who decide to parent without a husband in the picture--face all sorts of totally unnecessary bullshit.

It's quite possible for a single woman (or single man) to rear a child successfully, and it's quite possible for a married couple to be piss-poor parents.

Marriage isn't magic, folks. People who are shitty parents will remain shitty parents even if they get hitched. People who are great parents will be great parents even if they divorce or never get married in the first place.

And fathers who are actually worth having in a child's life will not disappear simply because they are not married to the child's mother.

A lot of things happen that impact everyone. And statistics are basically "odds" of something happening. I can roll 7 on the dice 20 times in a row but the odds are it won't happen often.

The fact is a bastard child has a far less chance of rolling 7. I again defy you to show that that statement is wrong.
Compulsive Depression
27-06-2007, 17:21
Um, "sex outside marriage" and "fatherless children" aren't equivalent, y'know...
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 17:23
Um, "sex outside marriage" and "fatherless children" aren't equivalent, y'know...

Look up the actual failure rate of birth control. There's only one safe way.
Minaris
27-06-2007, 17:25
Look up the actual failure rate of birth control. There's only one safe way.

"Safe" is relative.
Dundee-Fienn
27-06-2007, 17:25
Look up the actual failure rate of birth control. There's only one safe way.

Gay sex?
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 17:30
"Safe" is relative.

"relative" is a good term to describe it.

It's not those that do the action that suffer the most. It's the "relative".
Compulsive Depression
27-06-2007, 17:30
Look up the actual failure rate of birth control. There's only one safe way.

Yeah, I have. I'm probably considered pretty paranoid on the subject. But how do you define "safe"? Zero risk? No such thing, ever. Not even "not having sex" has zero risk of pregnancy.

Besides, even if contraception fails, and no abortion is had, it doesn't imply a fatherless child. You're assuming that every unwed father of a child will flee, and every married father of a child will stay. You're also assuming that no woman will ever flee her child.
None of those assumptions are true.
Cabra West
27-06-2007, 17:30
Look up the actual failure rate of birth control. There's only one safe way.

It's called abortion, right?
Compulsive Depression
27-06-2007, 17:32
It's called abortion, right?

Actually, not even abortion is 100%. See, said I was paranoid ;)
Phantasy Encounter
27-06-2007, 17:36
Gay sex?

I think I just pissed myself! :D
Dempublicents1
27-06-2007, 17:42
Well we can solve that problem right now, in that case!

When Demi has been saying is pretty much exactly what my parents taught me about relationships. Their 31st wedding anniversary is in July.

Since the Old People With Experience have now given their seal of approval to Demi's opinions, I'd say the matter is closed.

Awesome! hehe

When do I get my official "old people approval" seal?


You commit yourself for a lifetime, you've got all the work to do and to sort out, and in addition to that you suddenly have a fixed date on when you will have sex for the first time... if that doesn't give me a nervous breakdown, nothing would.

Personally, I wanted to be in a committed relationship before having sex. But what I didn't want was some sort of fixed date. It seems rather unromantic to set a date and say, "We will have sex for the first time on this day." I knew when I was ready, and then waited for the opportune moment. =)
Dundee-Fienn
27-06-2007, 17:44
Personally, I wanted to be in a committed relationship before having sex. But what I didn't want was some sort of fixed date. It seems rather unromantic to set a date and say, "We will have sex for the first time on this day." I knew when I was ready, and then waited for the opportune moment. =)

Exactly my experience too :)
Cabra West
27-06-2007, 17:47
Personally, I wanted to be in a committed relationship before having sex. But what I didn't want was some sort of fixed date. It seems rather unromantic to set a date and say, "We will have sex for the first time on this day." I knew when I was ready, and then waited for the opportune moment. =)

I wanted someone I could trust, and that's what I got for my first time. And I was still nervous as hell... ;)
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 17:52
Yeah, I have. I'm probably considered pretty paranoid on the subject. But how do you define "safe"? Zero risk? No such thing, ever. Not even "not having sex" has zero risk of pregnancy.

Besides, even if contraception fails, and no abortion is had, it doesn't imply a fatherless child. You're assuming that every unwed father of a child will flee, and every married father of a child will stay. You're also assuming that no woman will ever flee her child.
None of those assumptions are true.

I guess there was one failure in the history of the world of not having sex.

We are talking statistics---odds of something happening. In all statistics you can point out the exceptions where a bastard child becomes the richest and happiest person in the world.

Statistically a married man is more likely to be a dad than an unmarried father. And children statistically do better when the dad is living with mom, not just a "strange uncle" that shows up every other week. And children do even better when dad and mom have the permanence of marriage rather than shacking up.

No one has shown where there odds are in favor of the bastard, either surviving the womb or living a better life after. Why would a person not want to give their child the best odds in life. The best odds won't guarantee success and the worst won't guarantee failure, but why ask your child to run the race of life with a ball and chain attached to his leg?
Dundee-Fienn
27-06-2007, 17:58
I guess there was one failure in the history of the world of not having sex.

We are talking statistics---odds of something happening. In all statistics you can point out the exceptions where a bastard child becomes the richest and happiest person in the world.

Statistically a married man is more likely to be a dad than an unmarried father. And children statistically do better when the dad is living with mom, not just a "strange uncle" that shows up every other week. And children do even better when dad and mom have the permanence of marriage rather than shacking up.

No one has shown where there odds are in favor of the bastard, either surviving the womb or living a better life after. Why would a person not want to give their child the best odds in life. The best odds won't guarantee success and the worst won't guarantee failure, but why ask your child to run the race of life with a ball and chain attached to his leg?

Methinks you need to read Bottles post about the other possibilities which could be attributed to this result. I don't think you really understood it the first time judging by your reply to it
JoJoWorship
27-06-2007, 17:58
Personally I think sex should only ever be used as a means of having a child. I think it's immoral to have sex if it isn't for this purpose. Sex for fun should be illegal.
Grave_n_idle
27-06-2007, 18:00
Type "statistics fatherless children" into any search engine. I defy you to find a link that says fatherless children are equal or above fathered children in any area.

This is the top one on yahoo search:

http://www.geocities.com/ethnicbaby/FamilyParenting/WhyWeNeedDads.html


85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come fromfatherless homes.

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.

70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes.

85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in fatherless homes.

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.

These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders

9 times more likely to drop out of high school

10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances

9 times more likely to end up in state operated institutions

20 times more likely to end up in prison

10 times more likely to commit rape ... and

32 times more likely to run away from home


And before someone says "Use birth control" look up the actual failure rate of your favorite type. No the pill isn't fool proof by any measure. But everything else is worse.

Even if the site can be trusted (I have no real reason to either believe nor doubt), link doesn't equate to causality.

This site suggests a causative function ('why we need dads') but doesn't demonstrate that at all. Just as likely the lack of a father in a home, and the behaviours referenced may ALL be caused by something other.

(An example would be the correlation between 'broken' homes and drug usage... the home may have been 'broken' BECAUSE of drug usage, not be the cause of it).
Grave_n_idle
27-06-2007, 18:04
"relative" is a good term to describe it.

It's not those that do the action that suffer the most. It's the "relative".

An appeal to emotion? That's the strongest argument you can muster?

It is worth pointing out... 'suffer' is a relative term, too.
Dempublicents1
27-06-2007, 18:05
I wanted someone I could trust, and that's what I got for my first time. And I was still nervous as hell... ;)

I, unfortunately, had a partner whose thought on the matter was, "It's going to suck for any girl her first few times and there's nothing I can do about it so I'm not really going to try." This, of course, meant that he did little to calm my nerves or ensure that I was having a good time. Lucky for me, we broke up soon after. I didn't try again until my husband and I first started dating, and he was much more sensitive to what was going on with me.


None of those assumptions are true.
I guess there was one failure in the history of the world of not having sex.

More than that. "Fooling around" without any type of penetrative sex can and has led to pregnancy, although it is rare.

We are talking statistics---odds of something happening. In all statistics you can point out the exceptions where a bastard child becomes the richest and happiest person in the world.

Statistics are funny things. Did you know that the odds of a person who uses a telephone often getting cardiovascular disease are very high? Do you think this means that cardiovascular disease is actually caused by telephone usage?

Statistics can show correlation, but correlation and cause are not the same thing.

Statistically a married man is more likely to be a dad than an unmarried father.

So marriage is magic now? What is it about marriage that you thinks causes a man to be a better parent?

And children statistically do better when the dad is living with mom, not just a "strange uncle" that shows up every other week. And children do even better when dad and mom have the permanence of marriage rather than shacking up.

Why can't "shacking up" be permanent?

No one has shown where there odds are in favor of the bastard, either surviving the womb or living a better life after. Why would a person not want to give their child the best odds in life. The best odds won't guarantee success and the worst won't guarantee failure, but why ask your child to run the race of life with a ball and chain attached to his leg?

"Odds" mean nothing if you can't show causation.
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 18:16
Even if the site can be trusted (I have no real reason to either believe nor doubt), link doesn't equate to causality.

This site suggests a causative function ('why we need dads') but doesn't demonstrate that at all. Just as likely the lack of a father in a home, and the behaviours referenced may ALL be caused by something other.

(An example would be the correlation between 'broken' homes and drug usage... the home may have been 'broken' BECAUSE of drug usage, not be the cause of it).

I gave the top site. I could have given you a hundred more. No one can give me one that says that a bastard child is statistically equal or better off than a child in a married family.

No one can prove that cigarettes cause cancer. All of the evidence is statistical. If you smoke you are more likely to get cancer. There are some that smoke like a chimney and never get cancer. Plus there are many other factors in getting cancer. So is smoking cause or effect?

I am talking the same thing and you are talking like tobacco companies in the 1960's.

Show me where a bastard child is statistically equal or ahead of a child with a mom and dad. Show me where a child with a visiting dad is equal to a child with a live in mom and dad. Show me where a shack up family is equal to a child with a married mom and dad.

You can protest all you want but the statistics are against you in every way.
ASyndicate
27-06-2007, 18:17
No one has shown where there odds are in favor of the bastard, either surviving the womb or living a better life after. Why would a person not want to give their child the best odds in life. The best odds won't guarantee success and the worst won't guarantee failure, but why ask your child to run the race of life with a ball and chain attached to his leg?

And the best odd in life is marriage?

Look up statistics on domestic violence then please...and how happy married people tend to be with their relationship after 10/20/30 years.
As far as i know marriage tends to cool down love very quickly. What children stem from icecold parents?
And did it ever came to your mind that children who come from single-households are socially handicapped because we live in a society that prefers married couples, be it in taxes, rights, status and so on?
A single mom has a really hard time that is not necessary, because she is discriminated by law.

And marriage...this oh so holy institution. What a tool of violence it can be. In islamic or hinduist regions marriage may be hell...because its not born of love but of oppression. And until the sixties it was the same in the west...until marriage got broken up. The right to divorce is crucial. If you don`t love someone then get the hell out of it. And you`ll do the kids a favor trust me, because kids that get raised in an atmosphere of hate would be better off with just one parent.

Oh and yeah, the theme was sex well? If you really don`t want this until marriage, your decision. We others have a lot of fun more, i guess.

And children are never raised only by the parents. This are just the most important relation-persons. There are grandparents, friends and so on. The quetion is if society sticks together or breaks up and not couples.
Minaris
27-06-2007, 18:19
I gave the top site. I could have given you a hundred more. No one can give me one that says that a bastard child is statistically equal or better off than a child in a married family.

No one can prove that cigarettes cause cancer. All of the evidence is statistical. If you smoke you are more likely to get cancer. There are some that smoke like a chimney and never get cancer. Plus there are many other factors in getting cancer. So is smoking cause or effect?

I am talking the same thing and you are talking like tobacco companies in the 1960's.

Show me where a bastard child is statistically equal or ahead of a child with a mom and dad. Show me where a child with a visiting dad is equal to a child with a live in mom and dad. Show me where a shack up family is equal to a child with a married mom and dad.

You can protest all you want but the statistics are against you in every way.

I smell straw...
Grave_n_idle
27-06-2007, 18:22
I gave the top site. I could have given you a hundred more. No one can give me one that says that a bastard child is statistically equal or better off than a child in a married family.

No one can prove that cigarettes cause cancer. All of the evidence is statistical. If you smoke you are more likely to get cancer. There are some that smoke like a chimney and never get cancer. Plus there are many other factors in getting cancer. So is smoking cause or effect?

I am talking the same thing and you are talking like tobacco companies in the 1960's.

Show me where a bastard child is statistically equal or ahead of a child with a mom and dad. Show me where a child with a visiting dad is equal to a child with a live in mom and dad. Show me where a shack up family is equal to a child with a married mom and dad.

You can protest all you want but the statistics are against you in every way.

You are talking out of your arse.

We can show the presence of carcinogens in smoked materials. We can show the causative effect of carcinogens on tissue. Thus, we can show a clear causal link between smoking and cancer - just as we can for eating white bread and cancer, and a million other things.

On the other hand - the link you provided shows no such thing. Indeed, the link you provided is a biased source (and thus, fails to even ADDRESS data), which states as an assumption something that is simply not supportable by the data.

Sure - you can show correlation. And I can show you a correlation between girls being cheerleaders, and later being mothers. Does it mean that cheerleading makes you more likely to conceive?
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 18:27
I smell straw...

You need to study what strawman is. Strawman is when you take one small minor part of the other's argument and try to make it into the entire argument, then destroy it because it's the only part that has a weakness. Basically picking our the weakness, saying it's the entire argument then destroying it. If you want to hear real strawman listen to Sean Hannity 3 hrs. per day.

Show me where my overall argument is incorrect. That's what I've been asking for. I have shown where the opposition has no strength in the argument that a bastard is equal to a child in a married family.
Compulsive Depression
27-06-2007, 18:28
Show me where a bastard child is statistically equal or ahead of a child with a mom and dad
Gah, still with the false dichotomy!

Unmarried parents != missing either parent.
Married parents != having both parents.
Grave_n_idle
27-06-2007, 18:31
Show me where my overall argument is incorrect.

Simple. There is no proven causality.

Thus, your assertion of cause is (at best) pure speculation.
Captain Skittle
27-06-2007, 18:31
Type "statistics fatherless children" into any search engine. I defy you to find a link that says fatherless children are equal or above fathered children in any area.

This is the top one on yahoo search:

http://www.geocities.com/ethnicbaby/FamilyParenting/WhyWeNeedDads.html


85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come fromfatherless homes.

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.

70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes.

85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in fatherless homes.

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.

These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders

9 times more likely to drop out of high school

10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances

9 times more likely to end up in state operated institutions

20 times more likely to end up in prison

10 times more likely to commit rape ... and

32 times more likely to run away from home


And before someone says "Use birth control" look up the actual failure rate of your favorite type. No the pill isn't fool proof by any measure. But everything else is worse.



Okay, then, let's have a look at this.

I am a 'fatherless child'. I do not have behavioural disorders. I am not a high school dropout. I have never taken chemical substances, and, in fact, find the idea quite abhorrent. I'm sure you can guess where this is going - yes, I can deny everything on that list.

But, of course, I am just one person. So here's some food for thought: out of three hundred students in my year, roughly 75% come from 'fatherless homes'. Very few of those, although I do not know the exact percentage, are anything on that list. In fact, in my experience, it tends to be the children (teenagers is a more apt description) that live in a house with both parents that are more disruptive.

Of course, there is always the possibility that my year is the one exception.


Anywayyy. I have never really had the opinion premarital sex is sinful or immoral. Different things suit different people. I, for one, don't really believe that you need to be married. Other than a public display of faith, it's basically a certificate that says if we break up, I can have half the loot.

I think the immorality opinion comes from a subconscious theory that you have to be married to be in love. Basically, I think that if you love the person, or if you have no problem with it, go for it. It shouldn't be anyone's decision but yours.
Minaris
27-06-2007, 18:32
Show me where my overall argument is incorrect. That's what I've been asking for. I have shown where the opposition has no strength in the argument that a bastard is equal to a child in a married family.

Equating tobacco usage to non-"traditional" homes...

Tobacco usage -> Cancer, etc.: Single-variable causational evidence found

Not following your narrow-minded idea of what a family should be -> Child-raising problems:

-Multiple variables presented as one
-No causational link
-Bias source
-Oversight of external influence

=/=

Single-variable causational evidence


Therefore, you phail.
Dempublicents1
27-06-2007, 18:34
No one can prove that cigarettes cause cancer. All of the evidence is statistical. If you smoke you are more likely to get cancer. There are some that smoke like a chimney and never get cancer. Plus there are many other factors in getting cancer. So is smoking cause or effect?

You are incorrect that "all of the evidence is statistical." The mutagenic properties of cigarette smoke, as well as its other mechanisms of causing lung damage, have been tested.

I medical research, we distinguish between "causes" and "risk factors." If our data is purely correlative, we are talking about risk factors. Risk factors may or may not cause any disease, but we have noticed a correlation. The risk factors may, in fact, be caused by the disease, rather than the other way around. They may be related to other disease factors. They may be completely unrelated. If, on the other hand, we have further testing, we may move to calling those factors "causes."
Mirkana
27-06-2007, 18:35
Personally I think sex should only ever be used as a means of having a child. I think it's immoral to have sex if it isn't for this purpose. Sex for fun should be illegal.

Before anyone uses this quote to attack the entire anti-premarital sex faction, allow me to state that this is not my opinion (assuming this guy means what he says). I believe that sex is for pleasure between husband and wife.
Tatarica
27-06-2007, 18:36
Sorry, I can't help to say this...



Yes, it is a mortal sin, and you will spend the rest of your days in the darkest depths of hell. Or not, your pick.


So this is my take..
Umdogsland
27-06-2007, 18:40
Maybe you do, and it should also be noted that there are plenty of other people out there who just do it with it being no more intimate emotionally than a handshake.

...Which is even more tragic still.Sex is physically intimate not emotionally. The only way the intimacies are connected are due to English conceptual metaphors.
Marriage is immoral. It leads to adultery and divorce. *sage*


In that subject, even tho I have never cheated on any girlfriend, I don't think I will ever marry by the simple fact that I don't consider it a necessity (except maybe if someone wants to move out of the country with me) and I don't think I would trust anyone to that point, considering my past relationships.QFT

Sadly there are people who think that everyone should have the same skewed perspective on sex that they do, and that if those people don't, they are somehow misguided and are in need of "moral guidance".Sadly, some people are like this about lots of things.

As for the insecurity, it seems to me that the people with the most experience are generally the least insecure. That's how i am with friends. I've not had many so when I started making friends more recently, I was cautious and insecure about it.

As for the OP, the only way I see sex to be wrong is if it's in any way non-consensual.
Minaris
27-06-2007, 18:44
Before anyone uses this quote to attack the entire anti-premarital sex faction, allow me to state that this is not my opinion (assuming this guy means what he says). I believe that sex is for pleasure between husband and wife.

Just one question:

How does a piece of paper affect the relationship?
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 18:46
http://www.fathersloveletter.com/Ministry/statistics.html

http://www.liamsdad.org/topics/fatherless_children.shtml

http://www.fathermag.com/news/2756-suicide.shtml

http://www.stolenchildren.net/evidence/Fatherless.html

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

http://www.boonecountyfathers.org/home/statistics.html

www.unmc.edu/Community/ruralmeded/fedstloc/fatherless.htm

www.avoidingevil.com/blog/archives/001971.htm

www.fathersunite.org/statistics_on_fatherlessnes.html

www.deltabravo.net/custody/stats.php

www.childrensjustice.org/fatherlessness2.htm

www.childcustody.org/visitation/_disc86/00005b5b.htm

childwelfare.gov/calendar/cbconference/fourteenth/.../sld014.cfm

www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/stats.htm

www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st267/st267b.htm




I still haven't heard one proof from anyone beyond "I don't agree", or "You're wrong". Give me at least one logical argument that says a bastard child is equal or better than the child of a married family.
Dundee-Fienn
27-06-2007, 18:58
I still haven't heard one proof from anyone beyond "I don't agree", or "You're wrong". Give me at least one logical argument that says a bastard child is equal or better than the child of a married family.

You might want to rephrase that last sentence
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 19:08
You might want to rephrase that last sentence

Ok, I left out "statistically" better off than the child of a married family.
Dundee-Fienn
27-06-2007, 19:10
Ok, I left out "statistically" better off than the child of a married family.

Yeah I meant the bit where you ask us to say whether one person is better than another not whether they have a better chance in life than another
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 19:19
Yeah I meant the bit where you ask us to say whether one person is better than another not whether they have a better chance in life than another

It's hard to ask the same question over and over in different ways, always needing to put in that we are considering overall odds and not individual persons. No one seems to want to research enough to find a source that says I'm wrong. Maybe there's a reason they haven't come up with one, maybe one doesn't exist. All I get is argumentation theory, which, since I have a Master's in Speech-Communication, I understand far better than they do.

Because it feels good to have sex, does not change the results of scientific study. And scientific study is all based on odds and statistics.
Compulsive Depression
27-06-2007, 19:29
Because it feels good to have sex, does not change the results of scientific study. And scientific study is all based on odds and statistics.

And your argument is all based on a false dichotomy, which you keep ignoring.

And the false assumption that any woman who has sex outside of marriage will a) get pregnant and b) stay pregnant. Fortunately, between contraceptives and abortions, that's not the case.

You can't just go from "Unmarried sex" to "bastard child", it doesn't work.
Edit: And to "single-parent family" works even less well.
Johnny B Goode
27-06-2007, 19:30
I've thought about this for some time now, and I've reached the conclusion that sex outside of a marriage, so long as neither party, isn't (or shouldn't be, any way) something immoral. Yes, of course, I realize that many people have come to that final thought before me, but what I'm driving at is that it also shouldn't be counted as a religous sin.

For Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought, ultimately, the final major guidelines are the 10 commandments, unless you are one of those people who just happen to beleive they're obsolete. Anyway, the majority of the Abrahamic religions view extra-marital sex quite negatively, but it is only adultery that is forbidden in the 10 commandments. Adultery, according to the all-mighty wikipedia, is defined as sex where either one or both of the involved parties are actually involved in monogamous marriage.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery)

So, if two single people, of whom neither is married, decided to have sex, according to the commandments, that cannot be a sin.

Myself, I lean to Buddhism, where the only regulation about this sort of thing for normal non-monk/nun people is to not commit 'sexual misconduct', which is open to debate, but is generally considered to be sex with negative implications. Two people in a relationship, thought not married, is generally accepted in Buddhism, I beleive. The thing is, with Buddhism, the act of sex itself is not bad or good, it's the desire for sex that is bad. Anyway, that's more to do with the general philosophy of Buddhism of desire being the cause of suffering and all that jazz.

So, I basically think religous folk should not even care about such things, as the purpose of marriage is to create a relationship where two partners commit to one another to raising a family together, not just when the two can have sex. Anyway, what do you think?

They just say that because they act like pleasure is something sinful.So, yeah, it's not immoral.
Dempublicents1
27-06-2007, 19:34
I still haven't heard one proof from anyone beyond "I don't agree", or "You're wrong". Give me at least one logical argument that says a bastard child is equal or better than the child of a married family.

You're the one making an assertion here and not backing it up, my dear. You haven't shown a single piece of evidence that would point to causation. By your logic, being black makes causes poverty, because black people are statistically more likely to be poor.
Grave_n_idle
27-06-2007, 19:35
I still haven't heard one proof from anyone beyond "I don't agree", or "You're wrong". Give me at least one logical argument that says a bastard child is equal or better than the child of a married family.

None of those sources show CAUSE.

Your argument is based on cause. Those sites you choose also often argue as though cause HAS been established... but it hasn't.

A statisitcal correlation does not equate to cause.

That's the ONLY logical argument that need be made. And, it's the one argument you consistently fail to address, because there simply is NO evidence of cause.
Grave_n_idle
27-06-2007, 19:38
It's hard to ask the same question over and over in different ways, always needing to put in that we are considering overall odds and not individual persons. No one seems to want to research enough to find a source that says I'm wrong. Maybe there's a reason they haven't come up with one, maybe one doesn't exist. All I get is argumentation theory, which, since I have a Master's in Speech-Communication, I understand far better than they do.


Pulling your alleged qualifications into it is irrelevent and silly. You can't prove your credentials... and they don't relate to the matter even if you could.

Not to mention, a 'Master's in Speech-Communication' seems pretty disposable if this is your idea of presenting an argument.

Was it 'issued from a small roll in a cubicle housing a toilet? That's seems to be the value we can attach...


Because it feels good to have sex, does not change the results of scientific study. And scientific study is all based on odds and statistics.

No. It isn't. You fail at science.
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 19:47
Just one question:

How does a piece of paper affect the relationship?

Obviously, the paper is a symbol. A paper can't do anything. But the commitment that goes into signing the paper is statistically more binding than "Let's jump into bed and make babies", or "Let's shack up".

This commitment is a mental, psychological thing but is real when it comes to how much one is willing to do to keep the family together. Yes we have a 50% (or something like that) divorce rate, but that is low compared to shack up families splitting. And when it comes to "Wham, Bam Thank You Ma'am" sex the odds of the father being around in 20 years is slight (not nonexistent).

A part of that mental thing that happens is the peer pressure from friends and family. Of course that has also lessened with the increase of divorce and the more common shack up relationships, but it is still there. The idea that "I failed in front of God and all my friends and family" vs. "Oh well, we weren't married anyway, let's just split".

No one likes to lose a game so if we don't call it an official game we can't lose, we also can't win. Of course in the game of life it's the kids who fail not those playing the game. Why do we have a World Cup or Super Bowl? Because there is joy in winning and in trying to win. There is far less joy and commitment if all one does is play a practice game every day. It's far easier to get tired of constant practice and no real game. It's far easier to walk away from the practice field.
Minaris
27-06-2007, 19:51
Obviously, the paper is a symbol. A paper can't do anything. But the commitment that goes into signing the paper is statistically more binding than "Let's jump into bed and make babies", or "Let's shack up".

Source/facts/support?

This commitment is a mental, psychological thing but is real when it comes to how much one is willing to do to keep the family together. Yes we have a 50% (or something like that) divorce rate, but that is low compared to shack up families splitting. And when it comes to "Wham, Bam Thank You Ma'am" sex the odds of the father being around in 20 years is slight (not nonexistent).

Support/source/facts?

A part of that mental thing that happens is the peer pressure from friends and family. Of course that has also lessened with the increase of divorce and the more common shack up relationships, but it is still there. The idea that "I failed in front of God and all my friends and family" vs. "Oh well, we weren't married anyway, let's just split".


1) Not everyone believes in God.
2) Not everyone is pressured in such a way.
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 19:57
No. It isn't. You fail at science.

Show me one scientific study that doesn't use statistical analysis?

While you're at it show me one scientific study that shows a bastard child has better odds than a child in a married family. It matters not if that is the only statistical contributor (which of course it isn't) or if it is one of several contributors. All of the other things mentioned in this thread can be contributing but that doesn't eliminate a missing father as contributing to the problem.
Minaris
27-06-2007, 20:00
Show me one scientific study that doesn't use statistical analysis?

While you're at it show me one scientific study that shows a bastard child has better odds than a child in a married family. It matters not if that is the only statistical contributor (which of course it isn't) or if it is one of several contributors. All of the other things mentioned in this thread can be contributing but that doesn't eliminate a missing father as contributing to the problem.

1) Umm... the tobacco -> cancer link doesn't.

2) Burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Zasqdddas
27-06-2007, 20:03
So, if two single people, of whom neither is married, decided to have sex, according to the commandments, that cannot be a sin.


Just to clarify- The Ten Commandments aren't an all inclusive list of all wrong things. Breaking someone's legs for no reason, for example, isn't mentioned in the Commandments, but that doesn't make it not a sin. They simply outline the bare minimum. Although sex outside of marriage isn't technically adultery, it is considered to fall under that category, just as beating someone within an inch of their life violates "You shall not kill." It doesn't make it acceptable simple because the commandments don't specifically and technically say that it's wrong.
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 20:05
And your argument is all based on a false dichotomy, which you keep ignoring.

And the false assumption that any woman who has sex outside of marriage will a) get pregnant and b) stay pregnant. Fortunately, between contraceptives and abortions, that's not the case.

You can't just go from "Unmarried sex" to "bastard child", it doesn't work.
Edit: And to "single-parent family" works even less well.

If you will read the thread you will notice that this has been answered.

A. If you will study the actual failure rates of birth control you will find that even for the pill they are rather high. I am not talking about the rates on the package that are based on controlled use, I'm talking about failure rates in the actual population. The odds are a woman that has regular sex will become pregnant.

B. I have mentioned several times the well being of the child both in the womb and outside. Both are worse for the bastard child.
Minaris
27-06-2007, 20:08
If you will read the thread you will notice that this has been answered.

A. If you will study the actual failure rates of birth control you will find that even for the pill they are rather high. I am not talking about the rates on the package that are based on controlled use, I'm talking about failure rates in the actual population. The odds are a woman that has regular sex will become pregnant.

B. I have mentioned several times the well being of the child both in the womb and outside. Both are worse for the bastard child.

A1) The pill isn't the last line of defense.
2) Multiply the condom's rate of failure by the pill's.

B) Proof?
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 20:08
1) Umm... the tobacco -> cancer link doesn't.

2) Burden of proof is on the prosecution.

1. Of course it does. Put a chemical on a mouse, what are the odds that the mouse will get cancer? It's not 100%. It's a statistical odds.

2. The prosecution has provided many sources. The defense has provided none.
Good Lifes
27-06-2007, 20:12
A1) The pill isn't the last line of defense.
2) Multiply the condom's rate of failure by the pill's.

B) Proof?

The condom is about the worst method but if you want to use two types I won't object. How often does that happen in the real world?

B. Proof that abortion isn't good for the bastard child in the womb? You are really reaching.
Minaris
27-06-2007, 20:16
The condom is about the worst method but if you want to use two types I won't object. How often does that happen in the real world?

B. Proof that abortion isn't good for the bastard child in the womb? You are really reaching.

A) I dunno, but there's probably some sort of study...

B) THERE IS NO CHILD IN A WOMB. It's a fetus. Fetus =/= Child. If a child never exists, I can't see how it could have a bad life. And you say I'm reaching...
Dempublicents1
27-06-2007, 20:20
While you're at it show me one scientific study that shows a bastard child has better odds than a child in a married family. It matters not if that is the only statistical contributor (which of course it isn't) or if it is one of several contributors. All of the other things mentioned in this thread can be contributing but that doesn't eliminate a missing father as contributing to the problem.

Show me a scientific study that shows that being black doesn't cause poverty. After all, people who would suggest that something about being black makes people poor are using the exact logic you are using - that correlation = causation. So, show me the study.