Thought this might make for an interesting thread.
1)Sexual compatibility is important to the happiness of those in a marriage and is an important factor to consider when prospecting for a potential spouse. Just as one would not consider not finding out how a potential mate feels about children and money, or where they want to go in life, knowledge of a person's sexual appetite, or feelings about sex (only during a leap year/when the moon is full/only when you buy me something nice, etc) before tying the knot can help one decide whether or not to marry that person.
2)The only way to find out about sexual compatibility is to have sex.
3)Given the well known medical and emotional liabilities that come with having sex, this part of the information gathering period probably should not be done until the end of the non-sexual information gathering phase.
edit: Therefore, pre-marital sex may be seen to be a responsible part of finding a potential mate.
[ February 01, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I always wondered about that. If you're completely abstinent before you get married, what if you can't have a normal sexual relationship with your spouse? I'm not saying it's impossible or even unlikely, but I'm wondering what would happen if you loved someone, married them, and then realized that you weren't attracted to them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Boloney, Stormy. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Why, Kat? I think everyone would agree sex is an important aspect of marriage -- wouldn't it make sense to have an idea of the significant other's sexual compatibility before committing to a lifelong relationship?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
OK...so how many times must the couple have sex before determining compatibility? How many times does it take to learn about leap years, full moons, romantic quirks, etc?
And compatibility doesn't sound set in stone. People grow, change, develop new likes and quirks especially when young or trying out new relationships or new...activities.
I don't see how that mere act can make a couple learn anything that will make or break their relationship. Not if they are truly in love, have a strong relationship, and talk about things.
Stormy's suggestion makes me think about trivial tests like trying out different flavors of ice cream. I think important relationships last better if they have some sort of commitment, then experiment. Otherwise it is too easy to give up and reach for the next flavor. Just to see.
(edited to add last paragraph)
[ February 01, 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Theca ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Sexual compatibility is important to the happiness of those in a marriage and is an important factor to consider when prospecting for a potential spouse.
I agree.
quote:Just as one would not consider not finding out how a potential mate feels about children and money, or where they want to go in life, knowledge of a person's sexual appetite, or feelings about sex (only during a leap year/when the moon is full/only when you buy me something nice, etc) before tying the knot can help one decide whether or not to marry that person.
The consequences of having sex are a LOT more significant than discussing whether to have one bank account or two.
quote:The only way to find out about sexual compatibility is to have sex.
I'm not sure whether to laugh at this, act confused, or just shake my head and sigh.
So, what happens if the person who fulfills you intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally is terrible in bed?
Take care of the first three, and the last will work itself out.
quote:Given the well known medical and emotional liabilities that come with having sex, this part of the information gathering period probably should not be done until the end of the non-sexual information gathering phase.
I agree. I just add, 'And after marriage.'
[ February 01, 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Theoretically, a good marriage will weather sexual incompatibility. If you pick someone you love and communicate with, you should be able to work it out.
I think knowledge of your spouse's prior sexual experience in other relationships would be harder ot get over than current sexual incompatibility. And, besides, waiting until one's honeymoon with a nice hotel and an assurance of mutual love nad commitment is a way better way to start a sexual relationship than is having to sneak around and having sex with the attitude that "if you're not good enough in bed, this relationship is over".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was going to respond to this thread, but between ScottR, Theca, and Sachiko (and kat ), all my points have been made -- and better than I would have. Thanks guys.
*goes back to having a lazy Sunday*
[ February 01, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Stormy's suggestion makes me think about trivial tests like trying out different flavors of ice cream. I think important relationships last better if they have some sort of commitment, then experiment. Otherwise it is too easy to give up and reach for the next flavor. Just to see.
Is sex really trivial, though? Men and women are sexual creatures, and if either performs unsatisfactorily in bed, the other party's likely to try to find a better release for his or her sexual needs. Which leads to cheating, betrayal, a messy divorce, and emotional scarring. Isn't it healthier and smarter to find out each other's sexual compatibility before committing for life?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only way to find out about sexual compatibility is to have sex. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure whether to laugh at this, act confused, or just shake my head and sigh.
So, what happens if the person who fulfills you intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally is terrible in bed?
Take care of the first three, and the last will work itself out.
Well, no, it doesn't. I have good friends who fulfill me intellectually and emotionally, and I've refrained from asking them out specifically because I'm not at all attracted to them. Sexual attraction's a damn important aspect of any romantic relationship I know of.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given the well known medical and emotional liabilities that come with having sex, this part of the information gathering period probably should not be done until the end of the non-sexual information gathering phase. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. I just add, 'And after marriage.'
Heh. Scott, if there turns out to be some kind of serious medical or emotional problem regarding the married couple's sex lives, don't you think it's unfair to both of them to force them to discover it only after they commit to a lifelong relationship?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Theoretically, a good marriage will weather sexual incompatibility. If you pick someone you love and communicate with, you should be able to work it out.
There's no theoretically about it. I can tell you, when medical issues forced term abstinence in our marriage, we not only worked it out but it really posed no real problem. There is a lot more to a marriage than sex.
quote:And, besides, waiting until one's honeymoon with a nice hotel and an assurance of mutual love nad commitment is a way better way to start a sexual relationship than is having to sneak around and having sex with the attitude that "if you're not good enough in bed, this relationship is over".
There is no way I could have said this any better. Good on you, sachiko. And kat, and Scott, and Theca. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Theca said something very important: love changes.
However:
quote:
Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove: O no! it is an ever-fixed mark That looks on tempests and is never shaken; It is the star to every wandering bark, Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle's compass come: Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom. If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Is anyone denying that it's possible to fall in love without having sex? The question is not possibility, but practicality. Are there any logical reasons to avoid responsible sex before marriage?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Why do you have to have sex to discover whether or not you are attracted to each other?
I can recognize physical attraction to someone before I hop in bed with them, Lalo.
What about holding hands, sitting on the couch next to each other snuggling, walking arm in arm together? Those nonsexual physical touches can let you know pretty quickly if someone is attractive to you. You don't have to see them naked to know that might want to someday. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I’m thinking that the audition mentality is not how I would prefer to start a sexual relationship.
“Okay, I love and respect you enough to want to spend the rest of my life with you, but if you’re not good enough in bed, forget it” just doesn’t do much to get me in the mood.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Why do you have to have sex to discover whether or not you are attracted to each other?
I can recognize physical attraction to someone before I hop in bed with them, Lalo.
I'd hope you can. But nobody mentioned physical attraction -- the problem at hand is sexual compatibility, not attraction.
And I'm still rather curious. Are there any particularly compelling reasons to avoid responsible pre-marital sex? More to the point, are there any compelling reasons to postpone sex until after a lifelong commitment has been sealed?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sexual compatability involves more than a willingness to try different positions. At base, it involves libido. If someone is rotten in bed, but they otherwise want to have sex, that can probably be gotten over. However, if they have a very low libido, there's pretty much nothing you can do. If partner A wants to have sex 7 days a week and partner B does not, that is a very difficult problem to solve(as in, probably not solvable?) that is going to affect every other aspect of the marriage. It may very well kill the enjoyment of the other non-sexual aspects of the marriage.
The point that people change pretty much kills the validity of getting any sense of a person's character. Everything changes about someone if given enough time. So, what's the point in getting to know anything about them? Why not just let your parents arrange the marriage?
Everyone has different priorities. I'm not saying that you HAVE to sleep with people before marriage. However, if sexual compatability is a deal breaker for you, then it probably behooves you to find out about that part of your partner's persona before you marry them.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
It's not that if the sex is bad it's an automatic 'NO', which is what everyone on this thread is assuming. The situations I'm thinking about are different. I hate bringing this up, because it's going to release a firestorm, but what about people who marry their spouses and then years later they come out of the closet? Not that that's a situation that can be avoided if everyone has sex before marriage, but I'm sure there are some situations where the knowledge would be useful.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
By "compelling", Lalo means "non-religious".
Tristan, who is only trying to facilitate understanding.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:if sexual compatability is a deal breaker for you, then it probably behooves you to find out about that part of your partner's persona before you marry them.
Or you could change your attitude toward the importance of sex. . . which would probably make you a little less shallow.
(That's a general 'you,' BTW.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
First, I don't buy into your terms of shallow and deep. Is it more 'deep' to like someone because they are a good conversationalist than that they are good in bed?
Second, I think your assumption that people can change willy nilly to fit the needs of the moment is perhaps not valid for a lot of people. I think sexual desire is kind of hard wired into a lot of people. Not saying it can't be changed, just that it's very ingrained and that's it's not evident to me that it should be changed, necessarilly.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Ah hah! Yes, I agree with Stormy. (edit: What he said a few posts up, that is)
The thing is that there are some people who would be perfectly willing to get married to someone without talking about sex at all, and that's not healthy.
Scott R - The thing is, there are wildly different opinions on sex, and whether you like it or not, a lot of the time sex is a big deal. It's related to people's self-image. Even if you (general you) don't care about sex or don't consider it the most important issue, if your partner does and they can't please you, that hurts their self-esteem. If they're miserable, that hurts the relationship. Even if you get along wonderfully in every possible other way, even if it doesn't make as much difference to you, it can be a deal-breaker.
[ February 01, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ryuko-- I honestly believe that there are no 'deal-breakers' between two people who have a secure and loving attitude of communication with one another.
Yes, there will be pain, and frustration-- but that doesn't matter, because there's LOVE.
And good marriage counselling.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
...and yet, Scott, where is the problem with having responsible pre-marital sex -- which may have the convenient side effect of helping avoid future sexual problems?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The only way to find out about sexual compatibility is to have sex.
This isn't true. I could just as well say the only way to find out if one is into getting tattooed is to actually get tattooed.
Yes, that will be the most certain method to answer that question, but it's also very final. If I were going to get a tattoo, I'd first ask people of various ages and backgrounds how they liked their tattoo.
quote:Is sex really trivial, though? Men and women are sexual creatures...
Well, says you. Many people would disagree. Is sexuality a signifigant part of being human? Certainly. This doesn't equal sexual creature.
This is a pretty cut-and-dried argument. People who are inclined to believe there isn't anything wrong with premarital sex are almost certainly not going to have any problem with premarital sexual experimentation to determine sexual compatibility.
People who are inclined to believe there is something wrong with premarital sex are almost certainly not going to believe that humans are "sexual creatures", and that among the most crucial things to a successful and happy marriage, sex isn't the first one or even the second or perhaps the third.
So instead of arguing about the quote, just say whether or not you approve of premarital sex or have a problem with it. It'll save time Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Scott R - But not everyone is the same, and not everyone is good at communicating.
[ February 01, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Hey, I was addressing the topic, Rakeesh. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
So Storm, how about this scenario. I and the potential man of my dreams decide to try out the sex. We find out that we’re great together. The libido thing doesn’t exactly match up, but we compromise between my insatiability and his somewhat greater need for sleep and end up having sex 3-4 times a week. We get married. Two years later he’s diagnosed with prostate cancer requiring surgery, and for some reason Viagra isn’t effective. Should I divorce him? After all, the sex was a deal-breaker.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: But not everyone is the same, and not everyone is good at communicating.
And having sex before (or instead of) working on communication skills is a good way to make the participants feel they know each other far better than they actually do. Which is a sure way to undermine or even destroy a relationship.
If a couple is having trouble with communication, THAT is what should be getting worked on.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Lalo, I consider having pre-marital sex inherently irresponsible. There's too much emotional, psychological, and physical danger for it to be reasonably considered 'responsible' behavior.
EDIT to clarify.
[ February 01, 2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Took the words right outta my mouth, rivka.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stormy's suggestion makes me think about trivial tests like trying out different flavors of ice cream. I think important relationships last better if they have some sort of commitment, then experiment. Otherwise it is too easy to give up and reach for the next flavor. Just to see. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is sex really trivial, though? Men and women are sexual creatures, and if either performs unsatisfactorily in bed, the other party's likely to try to find a better release for his or her sexual needs. Which leads to cheating, betrayal, a messy divorce, and emotional scarring. Isn't it healthier and smarter to find out each other's sexual compatibility before committing for life? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, says you. Many people would disagree. Is sexuality a signifigant part of being human? Certainly. This doesn't equal sexual creature.
This is a pretty cut-and-dried argument. People who are inclined to believe there isn't anything wrong with premarital sex are almost certainly not going to have any problem with premarital sexual experimentation to determine sexual compatibility.
People who are inclined to believe there is something wrong with premarital sex are almost certainly not going to believe that humans are "sexual creatures", and that among the most crucial things to a successful and happy marriage, sex isn't the first one or even the second or perhaps the third.
So instead of arguing about the quote, just say whether or not you approve of premarital sex or have a problem with it. It'll save time
I should clarify -- by sexual creature, I mean creatures that, by and large, are hardwired to have sex. To put it in a modern context, I'm referring to the fact that married couples, by and large, have or desire to have frequent sex.
While sex may not be integral to the happiness of a marriage, it's often a significant contributor to a marriage's unhappiness -- and yet again, I ask, are there any particularly compelling reasons against responsible pre-marital sex?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
dkw, should people get divorced at all once they are in marriage?
Everyone has a deal breaker going into marriage. Everyone. This is why we shop for mates.
Now, does everyone have a deal breaker once they are in marriage? I would say so. For some people, it's infidelity. For some it's physical abuse. For some it's a lack of money. For some, it's sex. Which is 'most moral'? That's definitely debatable. In the end, though, unless the person is an absolutist (and let's not kid ourselves, even then, prolly) the individual is going to decide what they can tolerate. To bring another one of your high falutin' examples into the picture, if a person has throat cancer and can't talk any more and the person whom they are married to loves to talk with them and that's why they married them, and they are now denied this, should they get divorced? Where is the joy in marriage? Why stay married? To what end?
You bring the realm of absolutism into the picture, dkw. In the realm of absolutism, there is no reason, ever, to get divorced, except for certain clearly defined exceptions, and sometimes not even those.
So, the answer to your question is, for absolutists, no. For non-absolutists, it's going to depend on the individual.
(edited for clarity)
[ February 01, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Lalo, I consider having pre-marital sex inherently irresponsible. There's too much emotional, psychological, and physical danger for it to be reasonably considered 'responsible' behavior.
Give me some kind of reasoning, Scott, not rhetoric. I could say as much about driving a car.
What dangers are there to responsible pre-marital sex?
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
rivka - I agree that communication is possibly the most important part of any relationship. And communicating about sex is also important. If you marry someone without talking about sex at all, you may find that you don't like the situation you end up being in. And if in communicating about sex, you find that the both of you see a benefit in trying it out, I can't see anything wrong with that.
I'm not saying that it's absolute, that every person should have sex before getting in a relationship, but I feel like there are bad situations that could be avoided by more communication about sex.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: if the person with throat cancer can't talk any more and the person whom they are married to loves to talk with them and that's why they married them, and they are now denied this, should they get divorced? Where is the joy in marriage? Why stay married? To what end?
I'd consider this person almost as shallow as the person who married for the good sex. . .
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There is quite a difference between communicating -- verbally, with like, words -- about sex and "trying it out."
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:The consequences of having sex are a LOT more significant than discussing whether to have one bank account or two.
Not if sex and its consequences are now considered today as bargaining chips and commodities. Which they are.
quote:First, I don't buy into your terms of shallow and deep. Is it more 'deep' to like someone because they are a good conversationalist than that they are good in bed?
Not more 'deep', but it's easily debatable that if it's because they're good in bed, it's not them you really like, but their ability to get you off. Would you stay with a girl who could accomplish things you didn't think possible in bed, but was horrible at talking and could not think for herself?
quote:Well, no, it doesn't. I have good friends who fulfill me intellectually and emotionally, and I've refrained from asking them out specifically because I'm not at all attracted to them. Sexual attraction's a damn important aspect of any romantic relationship I know of.
Then no offense, but you sound like a 15 year old boy, and know very little about sex. A person who is not good at sex can learn to be good, as long as both that person and their partner are honest, open, and communicate their feelings and desires. It's really that simple, and anyone who tries to use the "bad in bed" thing as an excuse for premarital sex is seriously lacking in the ability to communicate with a partner on the most important and intimate of levels, not just in terms of sex, either.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sigh. Scott, I agree. I would hope that if I ever got married (ha, ha) that whomever I married would stay with me through thick and thin, and vice versa. But that doesn't mean that I don't recognize that in the 'real world' people don't work that way. Morals are all well and good until it's *you* that has to choose. People are what they are and, to again repeat my question, if there is no joy in your marriage and you feel like there is no way to resolve it, should one stay in the marriage? You speak of 'when two people *really* love each other and communicate, then all things can be resolved', yet this is...an ideal that can't always be achieved. To be honest, I think it's something of a platitude. One that I agree with, because it is obviously what it takes to make a marriage work, but it is a platitude that ignore the complexity of people. If only the divorcees on this board had this bit of wisdom, they wouldn't be divorced, eh? Or are they 'weak'? Or are they just human?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, I want to say that I appreciate the politeness and the (mostly) lack of snarkiness in this thread. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: You speak of 'when two people *really* love each other and communicate, then all things can be resolved', yet this is...an ideal that can't always be achieved. To be honest, I think it's something of a platitude. One that I agree with, because it is obviously what it takes to make a marriage work, but it is a platitude that ignore the complexity of people. If only the divorcees on this board had this bit of wisdom, they wouldn't be divorced, eh? Or are they 'weak'? Or are they just human?
Ouch.
Or maybe you're ignoring the fact that it takes TWO fully committed people to get a marriage through the rough spots.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No. You're pretty much repeating what I already typed in where you quoted me.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: There is quite a difference between communicating -- verbally, with like, words -- about sex and "trying it out."
But if both of the people in the relationship decide as consenting adults that they want to have sex, that is communication.
Of course it can backfire, and it can be done irresponsibly. Everyone should be able to make their own choice about it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But that doesn't mean that I don't recognize that in the 'real world' people don't work that way.
I realize that 'people' don't work that way.
But I do.
Or try.
So should everyone.
Not that I'm making policy, here. I also happen to think that mountain climbing without ropes and boots is inherently irresponsible. But far be it from me to make it illegal, or to make a personal condemnation against those that do such things.
It doesn't change the fact that they're irresponsible, though.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Haven't there been studies that have shown that people who are abstinent before marriage are more satisfied with their sex lives once they're married? Maybe I should see if I can find anything.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
...Scott, I'm losing count of how many times I've asked you for a shred of reasoning against responsible pre-marital sex. Can you not provide one? Your arguments look fairly weak if you can't even come up with any reasoning to support them.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If there were studies which showed that not to be true, JB, would you change your beliefs to match those studies?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:If partner A wants to have sex 7 days a week and partner B does not, that is a very difficult problem to solve(as in, probably not solvable?)
I don't see what's so tough about it. They might decide to have sex 5 days a week, or 4.
Nobody in a marriage gets 100% of what they want in regard to anything. Anybody who thinks otherwise is deluded.
I'd be interested in taking a poll on this thread.
2 questions. (1) Do you agree that premarital sex is an important part of determining compatibility? (2) Are you married?
My answers would be (1) No (2) Yes
[ February 01, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sigh.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Are you asking if I would acknowledge that responsible premarital sex is an important part of determining compatibility? No, I would not.
No, I'm saying that if studies showed that having premarital sex was beneficial for your marriage, would you change your mind regarding it?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Lalo: Don't get snarky. This thread was going so well.
I consider sex before marriage irresponsible-- see my mountain climbing quote above. The danger is inherent in the act.
Unwanted pregnancy.
Emotional/Psychological damage.
Venereal disease. Here are some studies for other people to dispute, and which help answer Lalo's question:
quote: If a couple abstains from sex before marriage, they are 29 to 47% more likely to enjoy sex afterward than those who cohabit . Sexual satisfaction rises considerably more after marriage (Hering 1994:4). More women cohabit than men, but men are more likely to cohabit serially (Bumpass & Sweet 1989; Teachman & Polanko 1990).
The majority of cohabitors either breakup or marry within two years (Bumpass 1994).
The risk of divorce after living together is 40 to 85% higher than the risk of divorce after not living together. In other words, those who live together before marriage are almost twice as likely to divorce than those who did not live together (Bumpass & Sweet 1995; Hall & Zhao 1995; Bracher, Santow, Morgan & Russell 1993; DeMaris & Rao 1992 and Glen 1990).
50% to 60% of first time cohabitors marry the person with whom they cohabit. 76% report plans to marry their partner, but a lower percentage actually do so (Brown & Booth 1996 and Bumpass & Sweet 1989).
10% to 30% of cohabitors intend to never marry (Bumpass & Sweet 1990).
Those who cohabit more than once prior to marriage have much higher rates of later divorce - 26% for women and 19% for men (Brown & Booth 1996; McManus 1993; Stets 1993; Thompson & Colella 1992).
[ February 01, 2004, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1. No, I do not agree with Stormy. I consider pre-marital inherently irresponsible, and all-around bad idea, and destructive in terms of building a happy marriage after.
2. No, I'm not married.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Storm, I’m not trying to bring absolutism into the discussion. I’m trying to bring reality into it. The fact is, there are a lot worse sexual difficulties for married couples to deal with than that one partner wants sex more often than the other. And yet they deal with them. So the idea that different libidos is a “probably not solvable” problem is, to me, laughable.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: If a couple abstains from sex before marriage, they are 29 to 47% more likely to enjoy sex afterward than those who cohabit . Sexual satisfaction rises considerably more after marriage
I just find this statement kind of amusing. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Folks, Rakeesh already answered the question.
quote:This is a pretty cut-and-dried argument. People who are inclined to believe there isn't anything wrong with premarital sex are almost certainly not going to have any problem with premarital sexual experimentation to determine sexual compatibility.
People who are inclined to believe there is something wrong with premarital sex are almost certainly not going to believe that humans are "sexual creatures", and that among the most crucial things to a successful and happy marriage, sex isn't the first one or even the second or perhaps the third.
So instead of arguing about the quote, just say whether or not you approve of premarital sex or have a problem with it. It'll save time.
This is one of those arguments where no one's position will be changed by skilled debating.
I have no problem with responsible premarital sex. I also have no problem with someone who doesn't believe in it. I honor their decision and that's the end of it.
People who truly love each other can have sex before marriage without undue harm and possibly with greater results. People who truly love each other can wait until after the ceremony without undue harm and possibly with greater results. Depends on the people involved. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K, dkw. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Also, premarital sex isn't the same as living together....
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote: Depends on the people involved. Your mileage may vary.
LOL. Does it ever!
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Mileage?
Wait, does everyone measure in miles? I use inches. And I'm suddenly overcome with a need to compensate with a big truck.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Well, that was limp . . . Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The problem with all these studies and premarital sex/cohabitation is that you run into a lot of problems with correlation and causation. Why do you get the results that you get? Is it the premarital sex that's causing the results or...God, or religion, or marital expectations? You see what I'm saying?
I respect what the studies say. I've seen them before.
There is also a rather large problem with those kinds of studies in that it doesn't answer the question of what to do with those annoying statistical minorities for whom, say , premarital sex is good for them. It's not 100%, see? That's why I asked JB my question. Even if the some study shows that some action is correct, some things are beyond discussion. Sexual morality is often one of those things. Just as you could never get JB to, if he were single, have premarital sex if it could be proven that it was most healthy, likewise, there are people for whom premarital sex is a necessity for their well being for various reasons that have nothing to do with what is objectively right or wrong. It's just who they are.
My contention isn't that having premarital sex is the 'best' way to go. My argument is that it is the 'responsible' thing to do for some people.
So, I guess I essentially agree with Mr. Rakeesh and Chris.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Where I disagree with Rakeesh and Chris is that this breaks down into whether or not you approve of pre-marital sex in general. I think using sex as a screening for marriage is a separate issue. (It might come from doing marital and pre-marital counseling, but maybe not. Could just be me.) IMO, if you are not sure that you want to spend the rest of your life with someone even if you encounter sexual problems then you shouldn’t be getting married either way.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:People who are inclined to believe there is something wrong with premarital sex are almost certainly not going to believe that humans are "sexual creatures", and that among the most crucial things to a successful and happy marriage, sex isn't the first one or even the second or perhaps the third.
Oh, I'm certainly not saying that we aren't sexual beings, or that sexual fulfillment isn't crucial to a successful and happy marriage. I just don't believe that you have to have sex before marriage to decide if you're compatible. If there are such huge differences in libido or tastes, they'll probably manifest themselves in other ways.
quote:The problem with all these studies and premarital sex/cohabitation is that you run into a lot of problems with correlation and causation. Why do you get the results that you get? Is it the premarital sex that's causing the results or...God, or religion, or marital expectations? You see what I'm saying?
But the fact is that there is some sort of correlation. That's gotta be worth something.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Where I disagree with Rakeesh and Chris is that this breaks down into whether or not you approve of pre-marital sex in general.
Then I didn't express myself well enough.
You can't approve of pre-marital sex in general, not if you're paying attention. There are people in the world who, for any number of reasons, should not have sex before marriage.
I can't even say I "approve" of pre-marital sex for any specific couple. It's not my call, I'm not either one of them. My wife and I were intimate for five years before we were married, and our son was six months old. I don't believe that it made any difference to our marriage, largely because our marriage ceremony was a declaration of an existing condition more than a new beginning. However, I have known friends who had sex before marriage and it was a mistake. In one instance it even soured the relationship. This doesn't mean we could handle it better, or were more well-adjusted or anything. It means that everyone is different and every relationship is a different dynamic.
Any declaration of "this is the only way to make a relationship work" is wrong.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Chris, are you asserting that the paragraphs you quoted from Rakeesh are not saying that the issues boils down to general approval or disapproval of pre-marital sex? Because that’s sure how I read what he said.
[ February 01, 2004, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
The logic here is astounding. I wonder: do the same people who are asserting that premarital sex makes for a better marriage, since it supposedly lets the partners get a better "understanding" of each other, think that living together also makes for a more successful marriage? Because the reasoning you are using to make the excuse for it is signifying that you would also feel the same about that. And if you do, can you provide statistical proof that this is so?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Statistics can be twisted to say what we want them to say.
I think questions like these belong to the realm of "common sense" and what works for one couple may or may not work for another.
Hopefully, the couple in question will talk these sorts of things over before acting impulsively, one way or the other.
(Shrugs)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Chris, are you asserting that the paragraphs you quoted from Rakeesh are not saying that the issues boils down to general approval or disapproval of pre-marital sex? Because that’s sure how I read what he said.
The quote suggests that your attitude towards pre-marital sex will determine your approval or disapproval, which to me seems pretty obvious.
My additional comments were added to emphasize that I don't think anyone can approve or disapprove of pre-marital sex for anyone besides themselves on a case-by-case basis. It's a fine sentiment to wait until marriage, but there will always be those couples who really should have become intimate beforehand, just as there will always be those people who should wait, even if they think it's a good idea. It. Depends. On. The. People. Involved.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
When the statistics agree with us, we say, "see, the statistics are right!" When they disagree with us, we say, "see? Anyone can say anything with statistics. They don't mean anything." It doesn't change the reality that people who are planning to enter a marriage who decide it's okay to share the intimacy of marriage before the committment is made are far more likely to have an unsuccessful marriage than not. It's not just dancing numbers around or twisting some kind of truth, nor is it trying to make some kind of moral argument. It simply is, and even psychologists aren't completely sure enough to give a definitive reason why without delving into ethics and morals, which people have enough trouble agreeing on. This is a pattern, an observed one, which is why arguing in favor of premarital sex to somehow "strengthen" the chances in marriage is downright ridiculous, totally ignoring the logic it is attempting to espouse. Not just statistically, but realistically, marriages that begin with intimacy first and committment later tend to fail more than committment first and intimacy after. It just is.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Afraid I can't offer statistics. Or charts, or studies, or graphs.
Thing is, my wife and I were intimate for quite some time before we married. We've been together 23 years and married 18 and are disgustingly happy with each other. There is no way I can be convinced that pre-marital sex is wrong in all cases, because my own personal experience says otherwise.
Advocate waiting for marriage all you like, and I'll support you. But I maintain that there will still be those - possibly a tiny minority, possibly not - who would benefit more from pre-marital sex than they would by waiting. Every social rule has an exception.
That said, I don't advocate sexual relations before a level of commitment exists that's pretty darn close to marriage anyway. Having sex to strengthen a relationship is stupid. You have sex after the relationship is strong enough to support and embrace it, not before. I just don't agree that a marriage license is the only demarcation point.
[ February 01, 2004, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Word, Chris.
As someone who engages in pre-marital sex, I'd like to say that I don't believe that sexual compatibility should ever be a determining factor in whether or not the relationship will work. I also don't think you need to have sex before marriage in order to make sure it's good. Or however you want to put it. My opinion is that sex can be, how to say this, "worked on" and improved over time. If it's bad at first, that doesn't mean it can't be fixed. If you truly care about and enjoy the company of the other person, or even love them, why the heck can't it be worked on? I'm reminded of the Ally McBeal episode where she broke up with Billy the Brit because he was bad in bed. Sad, sad, episode and annoying to me -- why couldn't she have just said "Ok, i'm not satisfied, let's work on this?" I think it's a ridiculous argument and detrimental to anyone trying to argue the case *for* pre-marital sex to say that its a determining factor in whether or not to marry. That's just silly. Sex is an amazingly intimate and pleasurable experience that I feel doesn't have to be, but can be shared between two partners at any stage of a relationship. I don't advocate casual sex, not my style at all, but if it's done responsibly and with a knowledge and acceptance of the possible consequences, then to each his own. But it's a moot point since as Chris and others have pointed out, the real issue is whether you approve of it in the first place.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I see sex as something that should happen only when a major life commitment has been made. To me, many marriages don't fall into that and many non-marriages do. However, this is my standard for me, and not for others, so I'm pretty much okay with people doing as they choose in the matter.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I've commited myself to having a happy, fulfilled life. Does that count? Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: The quote suggests that your attitude towards pre-marital sex will determine your approval or disapproval, which to me seems pretty obvious.
The obviousness of that conclusion is exactly what I am disputing.
I have been trying to make a point about marriage that absolutely nothing to do with my attitude toward pre-marital sex. I am disturbed that what I believe is a legitimate point is being dismissed as being an argument against pre-marital sex. It isn’t. If two adults who have no religious or other commitments that forbid them from engaging in pre-marital sex choose to do so, I have no opinion on it one way or another. But if two people aren’t sure enough that they want to be married that they would stay together regardless of whatever sexual problems might arise in their relationship THEY SHOULDN’T GET MARRIED. Before OR after engaging in sex.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I happen to agree with dkw's point.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I'm wondering who disagrees, exactly.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I don't think anyone disagrees with dkw's point.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You guys don’t think the original post in this thread disagrees with my point?
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
I'm not saying that people shouldn't have premarital sex. I'm not making that decision for them. I'm saying that trying to make an excuse for it that it will somehow strengthen a future marriage is bogus and flawed, just like the idea of cohabitating is. Have sex all you want; live together all you want. Just don't attempt to use poor justification to do it. Do it because you want to, and because you put no stake in the moral strictures against it, religious or no. Just don't try to make it look like you are doing it for a reason that has logically shown to be flawed reasoning.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Problems with premarital sex, in order of importance (in my view):
1. The effect on possible unborn babies - Premarital sex, no matter how safe you think you are, may force you into choosing between killing an unborn human fetus or bringing a child into a bad and/or unstable situation. This is a EXTREMELY serious ethical risk - in short, you may be risking a form of murder.
2. The effect on you, your present relationships, and your future relationships - I've seen many relationships destroyed by sex, and very few helped by it. I've also noticed that past sexual relationships tend to be big liabilities that cannot be erased.
3. The effect on society - People are more inclined to do what everyone else is doing, so if somone thinks everyone else is having sex, they will be much more likely to do it. Thus, your decision to have sex impacts others, and even if you somehow know how to avoid problems (1) and (2), your decision (when combined with the decisions of others) may lead someone less wise to make a huge mistake. And I would suspect it is the more foolish people who are more likely to blindly do what everyone else is doing - also the same people most likely not to take precautions to avoid the dangers of (1) and (2).
I believed these three problems far outweigh any "trying out a mate" benefits you might get from sex. If your marriage decision hinges so much on your partner's sexual capabilities that you'd be willing to risk so much, then you probably should NOT be getting married to them. Wait until you care about someone so much that you'd stick with them even if they weren't up to par sexually. After all, if your partner has a sexual problem once you tie the knot and can't perform as you'd expect them to, you are stuck.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: People are more inclined to do what everyone else is doing,
I will never be convinced by any argument stating that my doing something will effect society. People make decisions ON THEIR OWN. if they want to use society as a straw man (is that the correct usage of that term?) then they're just fooling themselves!
[ February 02, 2004, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I can't read the phrase "responsible adult" without thinking of H.I. McDunuh in "Raising Arizona."
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Wouldn't one of the qualities of a 'responsible adult' be that they take into account the affect their actions have on society?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
how does two people having consentual sex(responsibly) out of wedlock affect society?
sorry, maybe this has been covered but i haven't read the whole thread.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: Wouldn't one of the qualities of a 'responsible adult' be that they take into account the affect their actions have on society
I'm sorry, but that argument washes about as well as the argument that you have to have sex before marriage to judge compatibility. It's such a lazy tactic to take, fighting on the side of "But if you do it, then this other person will do it, and then everyone they know will do it, and then society will falter and break!" I look at that with about as much disdain as I do the argument that homosexual marriage will destroy the institution of marriage. It's just poor logic.
I don't have pre-marital sex because it's socially acceptable, or because i know other people who do it. I have it because i want to. Novel concept, eh?
[ February 02, 2004, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I agree with the points that dkw, Leonide, and Chris Bridges have made.
On another note, I actually participated in a discussion! For a while, anyway. I have an opinion!! Whoa. Excuse me, I'm going to go sit down. All the blood is rushing into my head.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I only read the first ten posts, but here are a few questions:
What if one never had sex until after marriage? The would not have a "measuring stick" to see how good it was. It would simply be sex. They wouldn't know what better sex was because they have never had better sex. Why would one want try to find a better mate when in their eyes, their mate already suits them just fine?
Oh, and dkw, I know most--if not all--Christian Churches believe that premarital sex is against God's will, but is there somewhere in the Bible that specifically states it? I personally haven't seen it after much searching in my Bible.
[ February 02, 2004, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:People make decisions ON THEIR OWN.
That is very very untrue. It's been experimentally proven by psychologists that people in a group are much more inclined to do what other members of that group are doing. Plus, it just makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, haven't you noticed how all of a sudden a whole bunch of people in certain groups will dress in the same style, or will start talking the same way, or will act similarly? Haven't you heard of peer pressure or role models? Haven't you noticed that if you swear around a little kid, they might be inclined to use that word too?
The effect is there. If you do something, then you should expect it might cause your brother, or your friend, or your daughter to think about doing it too. It's your choice whether or not you wish to care about what sort of model you are for others, but that doesn't mean the choice not to care is any less wrong.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Tresopax said: That is very very untrue.
In any case, people really like to think that they make decisions on their own, especially important ones. And it's a little insulting to be told "You did X because of [insert all sort of external factors here]." I know I certainly like to think that I make my own decisions, and I got really mad at my parents when they accused me of doing things that were wrong because of societal pressure.
I like to think that I make the decisions that are right for me, not what's "right" for me to do, given what everybody tells me.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I think I'm going to weigh in, since I tend to poke around these kinds of threads.
Lets see. I'm a 23 year old female, who does not believe that pre-marital abstinence is the right choice for her. I certainly have friends who are abstaining. And it's their choice.
In my opinion, it is possible to truly know yourself with respect to sexuality and become comfortable with your body and with a partner before marriage. It's not mandatory for you to have pre-marital sex, and it likely isn't the best option for many people.
What's more important than this whole sex or no sex thing, are the underlying factors. Everyone in a sexual (even if it's "everything but that") relationship needs to learn about their own sexuality, their own bodies, and become happy with their selves. That's what needs to happen before marriage. Some people read that as meaning they have to have sex beforehand. Well, that works for some people.
I have had several "sexual relationships." They have taught me to love my body. And I appreciate those experiences. It is the right choice for me.
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only way to find out about sexual compatibility is to have sex. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not sure whether to laugh at this, act confused, or just shake my head and sigh.
So, what happens if the person who fulfills you intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally is terrible in bed?
Take care of the first three, and the last will work itself out." -------------------------------------------------
Well, I do recall someone once relating a quote about this, the quote went something like this, "When the sex in a relationship is good [compatable] it's a relatively minor part of a relationship, but when it's bad, it's everything."
Agree or disagree w/that quote as you will. I think it does mention the power that sex can wield in a relationship though. As I often am, I seem to have found myself firmly on Lalo's side in this argument, however I can certainly respect the other view point (something I can't always do)on this issue considering the powerful impact sex can have on a relationship. I just happen to essentially fall almost entirely (on what I've read) on Lalo's side of the issue.
Perhaps my being a lapsed Lutheran (at least in terms of attending Church) has something to do with it, and perhaps growing up in the bay area may also have heavily shaped my view points. It's always interesting to see how thoroughly different the perspectives are in here compared to what surrounds me.
Anyway in answer to: "2 questions. (1) Do you agree that premarital sex is an important part of determining compatibility? (2) Are you married?"
1.) Yes. Though the degree of importance I might be inclined to argue (I think it's important, but not enough to force a veto in a relationship I was very happy in, w/a few potential exceptions).
2.) No. Was engaged in college but that fell apart, so I've been single for a while now.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
You gotta admit that sex is by far the best bang for your buck (pardon the pun) as far as entertainment goes.
I have premarital sex for economic reasons. A movie costs about $9--way out of my price range. But condoms cost about 50 cents. Handcuffs, $2.99--and sometimes they're reusable.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: perhaps growing up in the bay area may also have heavily shaped my view points.
There a lot of different bays in the world. So I can better understand why your upbringing in the the "bay area" might effect your view, could you tell me which bay you're talking about please?
Frisco: Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Argent:
quote:It doesn't change the reality that people who are planning to enter a marriage who decide it's okay to share the intimacy of marriage before the committment is made are far more likely to have an unsuccessful marriage than not.
But is it because they cohabited or because the sort of people who'd consider cohabiting tend to be the sort of people who'd be more likely to divorce (for example, because they've got no religious community to disapprove of them, no god to tell them not to divorce, that marriage is holy and eternal, etc.)? If it's the mindset behind the decision and not the decision itself that's the cause of higher divorce rates, correlation is a weak argument against cohabitation.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Considering the different spreads of people over different social and economic backgrounds, ae, I would consider your question more wishful thinking than a realistic question. Like I said, I'm not saying to abstain or not, I'm just pointing out the flaw in trying to justify not by saying it somehow makes you a better candidate for mariage.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: It's been experimentally proven by psychologists that people in a group are much more inclined to do what other members of that group are doing.
I know. I took psychology. That doesn't mean I didn't think it was sad and pathetic that they did, even if it was a natural reaction, and even if I might have had the same one in similar circumstances. The point is, no one was forcing those people to do "what everyone else was doing." It was a choice, subconscious or not, to be influenced by the majority.
quote:The effect is there. If you do something, then you should expect it might cause your brother, or your friend, or your daughter to think about doing it too. It's your choice whether or not you wish to care about what sort of model you are for others, but that doesn't mean the choice not to care is any less wrong.
You know, I have a really good friend whose parents were less than ideal, and who blamed and pretty much continues to blame them for all her insecurity and self-doubt. Says there's nothing she can do, those insecurities were placed in her from childhood and their too ingrained...blahblahblah. There's comes a point in life where blaming other people just doesn't wash anymore. When you're a kid, you can't know any better, but once you realize what's going on you say: "Hey, I make my own decisions, and I'm deciding not to act out my parent's belittling of me." Doesn't make it easy, but it certainly makes it POSSIBLE. Even imperative.
That's like saying that we can't have movies depicting suicide (even though it happens) because it might make someone out there do it themselves. That's just poor. honestly, people -- if they were going to do it, they would have found a reason for it sooner or later. We all act in accordance with what we feel, and look for outside sources for *validation.* If we don't get it somewhere, we'll get it somewhere else. It's human nature -- but you can't go around blaming society or your mom or South Park for making you do "bad things." That's just irresponsible.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In my opinion, it is possible to truly know yourself with respect to sexuality and become comfortable with your body and with a partner before marriage.
In what way does 'knowing yourself' eliminate the dangers of premarital sex? That's like saying you know yourself, so it's okay for you to drink and drive.
quote:It is the right choice for me.
You say 'for me' as if the decision only effects you. Is it also the right choice for the baby you might end up having (or killing) as a result?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, from what I'm seeing, most of those arguing against pre-marital sex seem to view it as an inherently bad thing. Honestly, I think it's sad that we as a society teach our children from a very young age that sex is some kind of dirty, shameful thing.
Assuming that premarital sex _isn't_ an inherently "evil" or "dirty" thing, are there any studies about divorce rates vs. premarital sex? The only ones I've seen on this thread are about cohabitation, which is another matter altogether....
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Leonide,
You don't believe parents have any responsibility to be a good role model then?
[ February 02, 2004, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Nick, there is always a barometer for the effectiveness of sex. Your personal emotional/physical reaction to it. Sex isn't some objective task, that takes place separately from yourself.
Of course, people will respond differently (something I think that is woefully portrayed in our McSociety of lowest common denominator), and yes, you need maturity to deal with it regardless. Perhaps the institution of marriage is useful socially in this regard since once you "sign up" to conventional definitionS of marriage, one largely abdicates their personal involvement in that maturity. That is, while one wouldn't be mature by one's self, agreeing to marriage takes the choice out of your hands, and is therefore easier to follow (sorry, I've been thinking on Kierkegaard these past few weeks, so I'll probably use rhetoric that is a bit off the normal terms... Just because I seem to backhandedly denigrate the institution of marriage, that's NOT because I prefer some hedonistic alternative). I prefer the "own your choice" method, but I come from a much less structured social/religious/family background perhaps (yet I'm also a WASPy white boy from New England, so I don't know how that works out *shrug*)
I sympathize with both sides. One for the ideal it represents (though I admit to loathing some of the justifications of it, and some of the attitudes it can create), and the other for more personal reasons, as well as generally seeing as sex as not just an area of danger (which it is! I listened to a disheartening bit on NPR from a "teen correspondent" about the radical differences in definitions of "abstinence". I felt most parents were wrong [about half surveyed thought kissing and touching non sexual areas as not being abstinent!] as well as most of the kids, correspondent included [no, no, NO! oral SEX is, in fact sex. You are not abstinent if you have oral, anal, vaginal sex! Argh!]), but also an area of growth. I've learned some about who I am from the experiences (just one partner lifetime, mind you). It has added some difficulties, and some blessings.
Maybe I'll get into some of it in my landmark, in 2006 or something.
Anyway, I think this debate has needlessly been reduced (much because the thread topic, but everyone in the discussion seems to have bitten on the assumptions). People have various tolerances for all sorts of partner behavior. I would bet it's rarely one thing that cause a split in a relationship (except money, that seems to be the perpetual #1 reason for divorce). In fact, tie that in with the cohabitation statistics, and you can definitely come up with a much different reason why those marriages tend to fail. It's never that sex is the "deal breaker", more of the straw that breaks the camel's back. So Scott, people aren't "shallow", they are merely incomplete. Sex, or conversation may be the main rational given, but usually that's just the most recent "infraction".
I do concede that marriage can help from a societal pressure standpoint (which I think has implications in the legal gay mariage questions), but ultimately, I think that if we are relying on societal pressures, we'll never have the sexual mores, at least on the scale of the US population, say, that many more conservative folks hope. There will always be the "sneakers", the "rebels", and the "hypocrits". However, I don't know that we should raise up a situation that is essentially pervasive peer pressure as the ultimate ideal.
Sorry for the parenthetical tangents and such.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Considering the different spreads of people over different social and economic backgrounds, ae, I would consider your question more wishful thinking than a realistic question. Like I said, I'm not saying to abstain or not, I'm just pointing out the flaw in trying to justify not by saying it somehow makes you a better candidate for mariage.
Since this also could be used against my musings, do you have PROOF that the statistics were controlled for various social or economic backgrounds?
-Bok
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
My biggest beef about the entire "Statistics" issue is that most of the time, either direction, because the issue is so charged NONE of the "statistics" are reported in a rigorous scientific fashion. (This includes that latest pdf link that someone posted on this thread a couple pages back which I opened up hoping it would be something different.) Also, all of them end up quoting each other, and are often all basing their conclusions off of the same data set published in multiple places (generally none of which being a true peer-reviewed journal)
This is one of the cases, where there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
The only scientific data which I trust, in general is hard medical data which has been reviewed and re-reviewed such as actual rates of failure of birth control products. For some reason these are printed openly on sites like Planned Parenthood sites but completely lacking on the other side. Even if a couple is married and has been abstinent up until marriage, they just might want to know the statistics on contraceptive failure rates. It is pretty sad that they can't go to any "pro-life" site and actually get that info.
AJ
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: You don't believe parents have any responsibility to be a good role model then?
One has no correlation to the other. Of course I think parents should be "good role models" but come on, Tres, what exactly is that? To me, it's obviously something completely different than to you. Parents have a responsibility to raise their children to the best of their ability, and show their children every possible choice they can make. The children will decide, either immediately or when it feels right to them, what to believe and what path to follow. All i ever hope to do as a parent is show my child everything that's possible. I can only hope that they will choose the things that make them happiest....just because I don't believe in casual sex, doesn't mean I will rail against it if my child expresses an interest. It's ultimately their choice, and all I can do -- all a parent should ever do -- is be there to advise and give support. I will never "mold" my child's mind. I will never instill upon them my belief system, because it might not work for them. I want them to learn and grow and discover things for themselves, the way I did. My parents never sat down and explained religion to me, or sex, or morality. I discovered and shaped those things on my own. And i wouldn't trade that for anything in the world.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
quote:Honestly, I think it's sad that we as a society teach our children from a very young age that sex is some kind of dirty, shameful thing.
What if what we are actually teaching our children that sex is such a beautiful and intimate thing that we should only share it with the person we have chosen as our soulmate.
Ignoring proven physical dangers of premarital sex (getting pregnant and STDs, which we know cannot be %100 percent prevented if you are having sex), people have been asking for proven psychological reasons to not to abstain from sex. When studies are brought up, they simply say that 'those aren't scientific enough' and 'the numbers can be twisted any way you want'. And yet we have not seen competing studies that refute those studies. I should think there would be plenty of them out there, since it is an issue people do want to prove.
So I will ask for this: give me studies that show that premarital sex is statistically beneficial for marriage. And then I want some studies to show how premarital sex has benefited society.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Leonide, Who said anything about railing against anything though?
I said that you are a role model for other members of society and that by having sex you may influence others to have sex. Then you denied that and said your actions don't influence people, suggesting that "if they were going to do it, they would have found a reason for it sooner or later" regardless of what the role models around them do.
Now, you say you believe parents must be good role models for their kids. So I ask, doesn't that directly contradict what you were saying before about people acting on their own and how you should not base your actions on how they might influence others?
[ February 02, 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Amka, okay, here's one. The cohabitation numbers are flawed, in the sense that they corroborate the fact that money is the #1 divorce cause in the USA. Cohabitation is usually cheaper than living separately, so the study on cohabitation already somewhat preselects those who are of poorer means (since those who are poorer will try to reduce costs, and it is not unreasonable to think of sharing them with your current partner), and thus are at higher risk to have money problems, and therefore get a divorce.
Of course, it is arguable, but not unreasonable, right?
-Bok
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
Nick:
California.
Does anyone else w/a bay, refer to their region as the bay area? Whenever I hear sports announcers refer to the bay area, they're always refering to San Francisco-San Jose-Oakland, but I suppose you're right, it could mean anywhere, I just take it for granted, living here.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I agree with Amka. Decrying premarital sex is not the same as calling sex dirty and repulsive.
In fact, like Amka said, sex can be such a beautiful and intimate thing when it is part of the relationship between two people who have committed their lives to each other. An enriching part of the relationship that deepens and reaffirms their commitment. It's something of great value that you share, and have shared, only with your life's companion, and it's part of what makes your commitment so special.
That value and beauty is greatly diminished, IMO, outside of that bond, even when used to get to know each other. I'm not saying it's gone, but it doesn't have that same power of affirmation and intimate bonding. It can still be a great experience, I imagine, but then again you don't know what you're missing. And when sex is used primarily for physical gratification, then that's pretty much the value that it returns. In other words, you get what you wait for.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: Then you denied that and said your actions don't influence people, suggesting that "if they were going to do it, they would have found a reason for it sooner or later" regardless of what the role models around them do.
I didn't deny that my actions can influence people, I said that they SHOULDN'T influence people, and it's a stupid justification for banning pre-marital sex. Or whatever it is you're trying to convince us all to do. Of course my actions can and do effect people -- my point is, it's their choice to become affected by it. Their personal, individual choice. I never stood next to them and threatened them with bodily harm if they didn't join the ranks of the sinful premarital sexers...I simply lived my life, and they chose to become influence by that.
When I watch movies, I get really, really into them. I'll catch myself making facial reactions similar to the actors in the movie, and will often walk away from a movie with my mood completely altered according to whatever the movie was portraying. I've been really depressed after seeing a drama.....my point is, your argument is that everyone should think and double-think and think again and then rethink some more every possible action they make in their life to make sure no one can take anything they're doing in a bad way. Should the moviemakers not have made that depressing movie? OF COURSE NOT. It was my choice to let myself get that into it, and just because the characters in it were sad or down did not mean that I, in turn, had to feel that. It's a choice, Tres, there's always a choice -- and I'm sorry if i'll never agree that because sometimes people make decisions based on other people's actions that I should therefore stop doing anything "questionable" that might reflect poorly on "society" as a whole.
quote:Now, you say you believe parents must be good role models for their kids. So I ask, doesn't that directly contradict what you were saying before about people acting on their own and how you should not base your actions on how they might influence others?
In numerous rewrites of what I typed, I omitted a few lines I should have left in. Parents should live by whatever code they deem fit, and live to the best example of that code. But I think the term "good role model" is far too broad and arbitrary to be argued in this discussion, especially when it's so obvious that you and I have different views of what that constitutes. I think I explained pretty thoroughly what I thought parents were responsible for in regards to their children in my last post, though. I think parents are reponsible for the same things all human beings are responsible for -- to find out what they believe and to live it with all their heart. And if they can't figure that out, they keep learning. I don't see much of a difference between how men and women should act single and how they should act married with a child. If they're living their life in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, then they're just naturally "being a good role model" in my mind. I don't think it's something one has to actively try to be , unless they aren't happy with their life and choices at the present. Then they have to sort those things out, seek out the answers that make them happy, and live for those answers.
[ February 02, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Two notes on this.
1) The only true way to determine if you are sexually compatible is not by having sex, its by discussing sex.
Hence Premarital Sex is not important. It is not like Taking a Test Drive.
2) The only way you can discuss your sexual compatibility is to know what your sexuality is. The 20 year old who has never engaged in any kind of sexual behavior may think that having sex 7 times a week sound wonderful, only to discover that they really prefer more sleep or time chatting on Hatrack and after the honeymoon, would rather have sex only 3 times a week, meanwhile, their spouse who has had no trouble maintaining there sexual innocence may begin the discussion thinking that once weekly is fine--a special Saturday Night, only to discover they enjoy it so much they would prefer 3 times dailly. Hence, premarital sex in not a test drive of your partner, but more a test drive of your own true desires.
I think good communications about sex, through out your life, is the best way to handle it, but that's in a perfect world.
I don't live in a perfect world.
If you do, could I move in with you?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But what if someone _wants_ to view sex as something other than some kind of deep, intimate connection? I mean, sex is sex. Granted, I've never had it, but personally I'd rather know that any sort of special moment or connection I have with a husband/partner doesn't just come from the fact that he's the first person I will have had sex with. I think there are times when sex is just sex, and there's nothing wrong with that.
And unfortunately, though you may say that decrying sex before marriage is not the same as calling sex dirty...it's very, very difficult for almost anyone to make that distinction, especially when trying to explain his/her moral attitudes to children.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:In fact, like Amka said, sex can be such a beautiful and intimate thing when it is part of the relationship between two people who have committed their lives to each other. An enriching part of the relationship that deepens and reaffirms their commitment. It's something of great value that you share, and have shared, only with your life's companion, and it's part of what makes your commitment so special.
How about sex being a beautiful, intimate thing when it is part of a relationship where two people are deeply committed to each other, but not ready for marriage? I'm in college, I'm dirt poor, I can't afford to move into my own apartment even. Sex is something that I love sharing with my partner, something that, believe it or not (and i know most of you won't) brought us infinitely closer together. It's a fantastically intimate experience that we don't just frivolously engage in for pleasure. Of course there is that element, and it's certainly there, in spades, but it's a way for us to express our feelings at a deeper level, a physical, instinctual level. I sound like a freakin' Magic of Sex manual, but I don't know how else to put it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Frisco said: Handcuffs, $2.99--and sometimes they're reusable.
If you'd pony up a little more cash for a decent set they'd always be reusable.
Unless you try that thing where she...oh, wait, never mind... Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And unfortunately, though you may say that decrying sex before marriage is not the same as calling sex dirty...it's very, very difficult for almost anyone to make that distinction, especially when trying to explain his/her moral attitudes to children.
*wrinkles forehead* How?
No, it isn't. People and kids are perfectly capable of understanding what "special" means. They understand the concept of waiting for a new stereo until its their birthday - why would saving sex for the person you spend the rest of your life and longer with be hard to understand?
quote:Sex is something that I love sharing with my partner, something that, believe it or not (and i know most of you won't) brought us infinitely closer together.
Why wouldn't someone believe that? I completely, completely believe that. It would actually serve to make me more worried for you.
If you haven't made that committment, then there's a possibility you'll break up. I've had one or two major breakups, and they tore me apart. I can't even imagine how much harder it would have been if sex were one of the connections I had to break, and physically was yet another way I had to miss him.
[ February 02, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: If you haven't made that committment, then there's a possibility you'll break up
I have made a commitment, just not a life-long one. Not yet. I'm not ready for marriage, but I certainly am ready to commit to someone. Just because there's no wedding ring attached doesn't mean it's not lasting. Gay couples don't have that privilege yet manage to stay together for their lifetimes...I don't need marriage to make my relationship have meaning or longevity. When I am ready....when we're ready...then it'll happen naturally. If we realize at some point that we'll never be ready for that with each other, then we'll probably go our separate ways. I certainly won't regret the time I gave to him or the intimacy I shared. But I'll probably miss the conversation and his presence and smile and how he makes me laugh infinitely, infinitely more than the sex we shared. Because that's what we build our relationship on. Sex to me is like taking a romantic stroll down a sunset-lit beach, or swinging lazily in a hammock wrapped in each other. If our relationship ended, (and those things had actually happened) they'd be cherished beautiful memories to look back on, but never as meaningful as the connections, mental and emotional, we forged during our time together.
[ February 02, 2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
pH:
quote:And unfortunately, though you may say that decrying sex before marriage is not the same as calling sex dirty...it's very, very difficult for almost anyone to make that distinction, especially when trying to explain his/her moral attitudes to children.
When our kids are at that age when we can have that talk, we will explain it to them basically the same way I did in my post. We will also bring in aspects of our religious beliefs. We will not talk about sex as a dirty, repulsive act, and at the same time we will counsel our kids to save that part of their lives until after marriage. I do not think they will walk away thinking of sex as a dirty thing.
What does cheapen sex, IMO, is how it is portrayed so unbeautifully on TV, movies, language, conversations, etc. Our kids will be exposed to that over and over. We, as parents, will do everything in our power to counter that kind of portrayal, and encourage our kids, in our home, to wait until the full value, power, and beauty of sex can be realized.
[ February 02, 2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Leo, if it's a life-time committment, why not get married? If it isn't life-time thing - if you want to leave open a chance for an out - you can't actually call it a permamnent committment.
quote:If we realize at some point that we'll never be ready for that with each other, then we'll probably go our separate ways.
This is the part that's cloudy for me.
What do you think will be different - what's the change that you think will happen that will say "Now marriage is right"? What will time bring in terms of being ready for marriage that isn't there in terms of adoring someone committedly?
[ February 02, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The same types of things, only more so, that cause one to break up with someone they've dated a couple times, a month, or a year (or more), I would imagine. It sounds like a cop-out in the abstract, but in reality people are like this all the time, or so I've found.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bok, what do you mean?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If it's not a life-long commitment, it isn't enough of a commitment to have sex, because sex has life-long consequences (including the possibility of having a child).
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Leonide:
I appreciate your posts, and I am certainly happy that you have such a warm and loving relationship. If I were for some reason not with my wife anymore, I would still want to be able to cherish those moments and memories as well.
I am especially grateful that I am with my wife, for the memories we have shared, and for the hard times we have endured together. And we will see many more of those moments, good and bad.
I'm not sure if my commitment to her has been tested to the bone yet (knock on wood), but we have gone through trials that are definitely more than just the "drop of the hat" kinds of things that can break up weak relationships. And that's certainly not over. But often it's those trials that I look back on and cherish more than the sunset walks on the beach, because those have brought us much closer and brought us to understand each other so much more. They have also proven (to myself) my commitment and made it stronger. To me, that's the reward of our having made such a strong and long-term commitment to each other from the start. There is no "if" or "when" or "unless" in it. When the rough times come, and they will, we stick together and battle them together, and not just until we get tired of it.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:And unfortunately, though you may say that decrying sex before marriage is not the same as calling sex dirty...it's very, very difficult for almost anyone to make that distinction, especially when trying to explain his/her moral attitudes to children.
pH, you're incorrect. It's really not that difficult to make that distinction if taught properly. I am currently in the midst of sex education with my son. So far, I have not gotten any impression from him that he thinks that sex is "naughty" (which is probably the closest he'd get, at this point, to thinking sex is dirty). Rather, he's boundlessly curious about it and asks great questions. I've been anything but subtle about how sex should be reserved for marriage. That message has been integral to the discussion. We've talked about not only the physical mechanics, but about AIDS, homosexuality, abortion, STDs, sexual abuse, periods, the whole gamut. I want him to be informed and comfortable with all these concepts before puberty takes over and he may no longer be comfortable talking with me about these things. In every lesson, we talk about how God meant sex to be reserved for marriage -- that it was God's gift to married people to bond them closer than any other non-familial relationship. It is intended to be wonderful.
He *does* have an inkling that sex when used improperly, as with sexual abuse, is not only naughty (in the child's sense of the word -- BAD), but evil and wrong. I don't think he's confused about the difference.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: Leo, if it's a life-time committment, why not get married? If it isn't life-time thing - if you want to leave open a chance for an out - you can't actually call it a permamnent committment.
Because I don't have the same views on marriage as you do. I think it's something that can be entered into when two people feel they are secure enough in their own lives to make that feasible. I make about $300 a month, if i'm lucky. I go to college full-time, but hate it and don't know what I want to do with my life after this is all over, nor do I really trust what I'm work towards right now. I'm in a transitional phase in my life, and in no condition mentally, emotionally, financially, or otherwise to commit to a marriage. Marriage, like having kids, is a huge responsibility, and I'm just not ready for it.
I also think I have a different definition of "permanent" commitment...I'm committed to making my relationship last and work, to fix and mend any troubles that might come up along the way. I'm committed to being faithful, and truthful, and sharing myself with my partner. I'm committed to being happy and believing in my boyfriend. What i'm not committed to, is getting married right now because that's what the next logical step is in relationshipocity. I am happy and healthy in my relationship, but not happy and healthy in my separate life. I want to be stable and content financially and emotionally before I make a lifetime commitment to another person. I promise him all I have to give him right now, but I don't think I'm ready for more than that. I am committed to him, forever, right now. I have no desire to be with anyone else and he makes me happier and more content than any person I've ever known. But do you think I should be entering into marriage knowing that I am not self-supporting or aware of how i want to live my life? I'm not religious. I don't believe that marriage is a promise between me, my spouse, and God to do his work or whatever exactly that all entails. I believe that "marriage" is a legal commitment. I've already made the mental and emotional commitment, but I'm not mature enough or stable enough to make the legal one. I'll get back to you when I have a full-time job or win the lottery Or when I'm not nineteen!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I think it's something that can be entered into when two people feel they are secure enough in their own lives to make that feasible.
So do I.
Leo, I agree with every part of your post that you're not ready for the committments that come with marriage. You don't want the consequences of declaring yourself... done with getting ready for life.
But having a sexual relationship IS life. It's your life. You're not in transition in terms of that major adult committment. This isn't a comforting diversion while you're figuring out the rest of your life. This is your life.
Maturity doesn't come just from age. In a catch-22 I'm occasionally irritated with, growth comes from making decisions and committments and keeping them.
[ February 02, 2004, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'd just like to offer my experience.
(disclaimer: My husband and I did not wait to have sex until after marriage, a decision we have always regretted. I don't feel that this changes the importance of what I'm about to say.)
My husband and I were each other's firsts, and onlies. I'd like to point out that although we probably have a great degree of incompatibility sexually, we still really enjoy it, and consider ourselves to have a pretty good sex life. Why? I think it's because we don't have a million past relationships to compare it to. Maybe that sounds really lame, but we love it. He'll always be the best, and I will always be his. And because of our lack of experience going into the relationship, we were willing to compromise and learn in almost every situation. As a result, we have developed a sexual profile TOGETHER. There is no "Jesdog's sex life" and "PSI's sex life" there is only the one we built together. I think that's how it's supposed to be. Now, this is more of an argument for having only one partner than for waiting until you're married. The point is that it's called a sexual RELATIONSHIP, meaning that there will always be give and take. I believe that at least half of the passion comes from having a committed relationship with someone who loves and supports you. The rest is chemistry, which can be determined before sex has taken place.
At any rate, I don't think pre-marital sex is necessary for...anything.
[ February 02, 2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: There is no "if" or "when" or "unless" in it. When the rough times come, and they will, we stick together and battle them together, and not just until we get tired of it.
Look, I can't speak for my boyfriend here. I don't see there being any "if" or "when" or "unless" in our relationship, either. We've had to deal with a lot of tough stuff in the past year, from both sides. And each of us individually. It's not fair to say that because we haven't dealt with children or infidelity or a death in the family or going bankrupt and having to lose the house that we haven't faced "real" problems. We have. And we've come out all the stronger for it, and sworn to each other that we'll work through anything and everything that comes our way. Why can't that be enough? Why do we have to have a marriage certificate that proves that trust? I can assure you I'm not planning on using the fact that we're not married to jump ship if something life-altering ever arises. And i guarantee you he's not, either, although I really shouldn't speak for him. Look, from my standpoint, if everything else was in place in my life, I'd maybe be able to consider it. But those things aren't, and so I really can't. I'm just going to be happy with the way things are between us, because I trust and believe in him. It's not even hurtful that you don't see the same meaning in that, because I know you and others have different views on marriage than I do. But for me, that's where I stand
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And i guarantee you he's not, either, although I really shouldn't speak for him.
I think in a case where you're sharing your life with someone, you SHOULD be able to speak for his level of committment.
----
You've said that a piece of paper doesn't make a difference, but in another place, that you're ready for all the emtional and mental committments of marriage, but not the legal one.
If it's no big deal, why not?
[ February 02, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Well, then I know he's not either. We've discussed these things at length, i just always feel bad speaking for other people, from strangers to my mother...I'm always worried I misinterpreted something and got it just a little wrong
quote:You've said that a piece of paper doesn't make a difference, but in another place, that you're ready for all the emtional and mental committments of marriage, but not the legal one.
If it's no big deal, why not?
touche. My point is, my relationship has just as much meaning to me as were we married. I put the exact same amount of effort into it, and all of myself. But getting married would require me to move in with him. I also think that it would require me to have a full-time job, which I don't have. I also want to be stable and secure in my own life, as in, graduated from college, or with a job and life plan that I was happy with. The piece of paper *doesn't* mean anything to me at this point. When all those things are in place, and for him as well, then it will. Things only have meaning once you instill it in them, and I'm sure I will want that piece of paper at some point, to make the relationship have meaning legally. I don't want or need that now, though.
[ February 02, 2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That's a worry you could erase if you got married.
[ February 02, 2004, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Just to clarify, I'm really not bringing my religion's doctrine of marriage into this. I won't even pretend it doesn't affect me and my views, but I'm trying not to hold you to a standard that you haven't been assured is true.
Besides, trust me, marriage is the one topic in the Church I have had a hard time with and have mixed feelings about. I can promise you don't know how I feel about it. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
:applaudes leonide:
You are saying everything I would like to say beautifully.
I have been refining and reshaping my views on this over time. I definitely think that when children enter the picture marriage is much more necessary, just to protect both partners rights to the kid from a legal standpoint if nothing else.
People ask me all the time "Well you bought a house together why aren't you married?" My response takes a lot of them aback. "Well financially it was either a house or a ring and I chose the house." This is not what they expect a female to be saying, or expecting me to look at it from a financial standpoint at all. Yes I know you can get married without the ring however, I want a specific ring that I know we can't afford right now, and I don't feel like settling for a "temporary" one just becuase. Buying a house, as far as immediate cash out of pocket was the cheaper option and the one that makes more financial sense for our future, even if we were to break up somewhere down the road.
The other more emotional reason for not getting married is the fact that I simply can't stand thinking about the actual wedding. The logistics in having a formal wedding are nightmarish, and if we went on a cruise or something, I then have to deal with the flak from relatives over not being able to attend. This flak will be horrible and much worse than the disapproving silence stance that they have been taking (other than psychograndma -TM) There is also the possiblity of hurting Steve's side of the family who I actually like by not including them either. I just don't want to deal with it, and it is easier not to think about it!
AJ
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Mhmm, Girl. Sing it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But getting married would require me to move in with him. I also think that it would require me to have a full-time job, which I don't have.
Well, why?
Who says you have to move in when you're married? Who says that being married means a house in the suburbs and a picket fence?
Why make getting married the capper to the end of childhood, but an exclusive, sexual relationship the beginnig of it?
It sounds to me that getting married IS a big deal to you. You can ignore the wait-for-marriage-before-sex part of the social contract, why pay attention to the rest of it?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Kat, does it really matter? She obviously knows what marriage means to her and where she plans to be in her life when she does get married. That's a heck of a lot more thinking than most people put forward. She's also told her boyfriend, and we're assuming he's fine with it. So the only 2 people who's opinions matter are cool with the situation... where's the problem?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:It sounds to me that getting married IS a big deal to you. You can ignore the wait-for-marriage-before-sex part of the social contract, why pay attention to the rest of it?
It's your social contract, not mine. And not that of a whole lot of people whom I know...socially. I'm paying attention to the rest of it because that's what I want when I get married. I never said married had no meaning to me. I said the meanings that it does have to me, I'm not ready for. When I get married, I want to move in with my husband, I want to be financially stable, I want both of us to be happy in our lives and jobs, or at least content. I want to be out of college, or at least living on my own (which i'm not, still in my parent's house and my childhood bed)
You're right, katharina. There's no reason that, given our non-conservative and therefore I guess non-conventional relationship beliefs, we couldn't just throw tradition to the wind and marry and never see each other and be poor. But i don't want that. There's things I want for myself, and things I don't. Being poor and married isn't one of them. I'm willing and eager to wait until we're both satisfied with our lives.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The question is, are you ready to have kids? Because if you aren't, you aren't ready to have sex because sex may result in kids.
And my personal belief is you really should at least be ready to be married before you're ready to have kids.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm surprised that so many people are ignoring the statistics that show that those who participate in premarital sex (especially when it's with multiple partners) are less sexually satisfied. You can go on and on about how loving and committed your relationship is, but the fact is that people who wait until marriage to have sex are more satisfied with their sex lives. To me, that seems like a pretty compelling reason to wait.
[ February 02, 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:The question is, are you ready to have kids? Because if you aren't, you aren't ready to have sex because sex may result in kids.
The question is, are you ready to kill people? Because if you aren't, you aren't ready to drive a car because driving may result in killing people.
I'm sorry, that logic doesn't wash with me. I'm doing everything I can and then some to ensure that I don't get pregnant, just like most responsible drivers get airbags and drive slowly in the rain and don't tailgate.
quote: I'm surprised that so many people are ignoring the statistics that show that those who participate in premarital sex (especially when it's with multiple partners) are less sexually satisfied. You can go on and on about how loving and committed your relationship is, but the fact is that people who wait until marriage to have sex are more satisfied with their sex lives. To me, that seems like a pretty compelling reason to wait.
Sorry, Jon Boy, but just because a statistic exists doesn't mean I have to immediately assume it's going to apply to me. Greg and I are both open and talkative and mutable and understanding and experimental (pardon the phrase, if it offends)with our sexual lives that I very much...*very much* doubt that will be the case. But hey, who am I to argue with statistics? I certainly don't know myself and my partner well enough to know without having scientists tell me so.
Okay, now, that's enough out of me. I have to do school work. So, yeah. I won't be responding for a bit if anyone has anything to say. If you want to, feel free to email me personally. I don't mind or i'll just come back later and respond
bye all
[ February 02, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I've never understood why people think it's more expensive to be married. Actually, it's only more expensive to have kids, which could happen to you at any moment, given the whole sex thing. It's less expensive to be married than to be single. You could get rich faster!
Leonide: The difference is that killing a person, while a tragedy, wouldn't result in a change in your lifestyle (assuming you don't go to jail.) We DO have insurance for that sort of thing, so at least there are preparations. When you have sex, you take the chance that it will drastically change your life. If you "accidently" get pregnant, you had better hope you're ready for it, because you aren't the only one who'll be affected anymore.
It would be sad if all your plans for things you want to do before getting married got tossed out because of a little "accident". If all those plans are so important to you that you're willing to hold off marriage, why aren't they important enough to hold off sex, which could result in a person that will REALLY change everything.
[ February 02, 2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:The question is, are you ready to have kids?
No. But we are ready to accept the possibility of that happening. And if we choose to have sex, not wanting children, but knowing that there is a small(extremely small) possibilty that a child may come of this, why must we get married to prove it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bob: I'd never, in a thousand years, simply offer my opinion of someone's situation. Not only would I not say it, but I promise - and you'll have to take my word on this - that I don't think it.
But it's a thread with the topic, and someone's brought in their personal experience as justification. That means it's under scrutiny.
If anyone's feeling upset, I'd like to take this opportunity to pull out some words of Slash and Olivia that they are probably going to regret saying: "She's much nicer in person."
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: And i guarantee you he's not, either, although I really shouldn't speak for him
no...go ahead. speak for me.
quote:If you do something, then you should expect it might cause your brother, or your friend, or your daughter to think about doing it too. It's your choice whether or not you wish to care about what sort of model you are for others, but that doesn't mean the choice not to care is any less wrong.
Well Tres, obviously if i'm doing something i choose to do, i don't see any wrong in it. And i probably even see good in it. And it'd be pretty hypocritical of me to go and do something and then tell other people it's wrong to do that same thing. So while i'm not going to go around saying, "hey everybody! look at what i'm doing! DO IT!", if someone sees what i do and chooses to also do the same, that is their choice. It may be right for *them* and it may be wrong for *them*, but that's not my decision to make. Those people also should know the risks and responsibilities involved with everything they do. Is that my job? I don't know. I believe that it's someone's own responsibility to learn about the affects or reprocussions of their choices. But I also believe that society should make learning about these issues readily available(and who doesn't know that sex can lead to babies...seriously). Because if we as a society engage in an activity that could have life altering reprocussions, then we should teach people about them. Do you want me to start holding a sex education class in my living room? i hope not. I made the decision to engage in premarital sex based on my learning about sex and my commitment to my partner. And if you have a problem with that and don't want your child or little brother to engage in the same activities, then you tell them why and let them make that choice. I am being the role model i want to be.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Sex can cause pregnancy? Well, sunbathing can cause cancer. High heels can cause back pain.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
AJ, you could do what my brother is doing: he's eloping, he's just invited close friends and family to be there if we like. This is his second marriage, so he didn't want to make a big thing about getting married to his very wonderful girlfriend. She didn't object at all, as this is the second marriage for her as well.
The only people objecting to them just running off to get married was the family. After talking with him a while about it (okay, I admit...it was closer to nagging), he conceded that as long as we didn't complain about how uneventful it was, he didn't mind if we came too. So this coming weekend, he and his fiancee are eloping to Las Vegas along with 25 members of the family. They're going to be married by Elvis in one of those chapels on the strip. Should be fun.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
jeni, I'm jealous. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat, I mean that people change, some personality traits to express themselves the first day, month, year, or even decade! By staying together, living together, with or without sex, you gain an ever increasing set of information that you can use to judge your partner, as well as build trust and a foundation to the relationship. Sex can be one more delta with which to gain this knowledge and trust. Yes, you can follow this line of thought forever, never committing, but that in itself is a sign of the relationship, particularly if both people in the relationship consider legal/religious marriage as a worthwhile place to be (I add that, because there are plenty of examples of common law marriages working out [heck, they have special laws on the books to deal with it!], where the people involved don't have strong feelings for religious or legal marriage). It comes down to the fact, I think, that given enough variation in upbringing and the like, the feelings and parameters that lead to marriage will be different, perhaps significantly, from others. I think this is glossed over, or outright rejected, by many of a Judeo-Christian conservative leaning, because they are immersed in a very homogenized social structure that evens out possible wrinkles in the groups. Which is not to say one way is preferable to another, I don't know, honestly. The Mormon way seems to work well with Mormons (though that is a bit of a tautology), etc, etc... What's really going on, in this thread, I think, is really more of a Rorschach Test of a person's tolerance for variability in sexual mores, more than anything else. I don't see anyone claiming US govt. official policy should deny one way or the other.
Just an observation (and maybe a bad one at that).
-- I'm of a similar mind as Leo, minus the financial hardships. It's very likely by this time next year I will be married to my girlfriend (short of that, I WILL be engaged), assuming I'm still with her. She is currently my only sexual partner, and I'm hers. So I'm a weird "middle case."
I'm not ready yet, not completely. I love her. I have fun with her. She doesn't annoy me in any but cute ways (which, after 1.5 years, and 4 months of living together, is kinda disgusting, I know ). She exhibits all the symptoms of loving me We've also been through lots of situations that have tested our relationship, a job loss, health issues, moving, and even *GASP* sexual issues, and they all made the relationship stronger. However, I don't believe that it was fated as such, and sure, there were times that maybe it could have gone either way.
I think a lot of it has to do with going into each relationship hoping for the best (that is, marriage), without mandating, especially to yourself, the outcome. It seems to work with me. A healthy goal to work towards, to test my mettle.
It could just be that my parents divorced when I was 16, or that both of my grandparents' marriages were of a cool and distant variety. If that's the case, it's working itself out at its own pace, with some contemplative poking and prodding.
Or maybe it's getting the money saved for a ring
I'm also a little different than Leo in that I do care about the religious aspects of marriage. I don't know that the metaphysical aspects exist, but I'd like them to exist. So I try to act as if they exist, even if I've never been called, chosen, inspired. My whole Kiekegaard fetish, wrapped in Vonneguttian whimsy (hey, at least I'm not a Satanist, or anything... Apologies to any Satanist Jatraqueros!).
I've been picked last enough times in playground games to have fair amount of patience in these things.
-Bok
EDIT: Man, you all type quickly.
[ February 02, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Sex can cause pregnancy? Well, sunbathing can cause cancer. High heels can cause back pain.
Do we really have to go down the road where someone has to point out that there is another life involved that has to be considered.....oh, I guess we do.
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
quote:Sex can cause pregnancy? Well, sunbathing can cause cancer. High heels can cause back pain.
Yes, but it turns out that sex is pretty much designed to cause pregnancy. That's what it's for, biologically speaking. That's why it feels so good; so that you'll want to do it and thus produce children.
It seems to me that if you engage in an act specifically designed to have a certain effect, you ought to have some sort of plan for dealing with that effect if your prevention fails.* It is amazingly easy for many people to get pregnant (in the irony of the universe, it seems to be easier the less you want it to happen sometimes). By engaging in sex, you're telling your body to do its very best to produce a baby. It's sometimes very good at that--so in my book, people who engage in it ought to be ready for the obvious possible consequences.
*My best friend, for example, is now having her third baby. They were all surprises of various kinds, though usually fairly welcome ones.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Excluding miscarriages, 49% of the pregnancies concluding in 1994 were unintended; 54% of these ended in abortion. Forty-eight percent of women aged 15-44 in 1994 had had at least one unplanned pregnancy sometime in their lives; 28% had had one or more unplanned births, 30% had had one or more abortions and 11% had had both.
If 1 in 2 people killed someone while driving, driving would carry serious ethical concerns as well.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Sex can cause pregnancy? Well, sunbathing can cause cancer. High heels can cause back pain.
pH, precisely. Even with sunblock, you can get cancer from sunbathing. The odds, I bet, however, are much lower for sunbathing=cancer than sex=pregnancy, even when you add sunblock and birthcontrol into the equation.
Kat, I hate LV, but I'm grateful enough that he's letting us be there to go despite how little I like LV. His lovely bride does not know it's this weekend. To keep the "eloping" feeling, he's just told her that sometime in the next couple of months they'll go find Elvis.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:so in my book, people who engage in it ought to be ready for the obvious possible consequences.
i don't think a single person on this thread disagrees with that. And if that is really what people against premarital sex have a problem with than i have to say you don't give unmarried people enough credit. We're unmarried...not stupid. And i'm pretty sure that this isn't the issue anyway.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Tres, those are some *seriously* depressing statistics.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
We're saying you don't need to be stupid to get accidently pregnant, and if you're not ready to even move out of your childhood bed and haven't found your life, then engaging in behavior that has the distinct possibility of creating another life is not a responsible thing to do.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Tres, who are you replying to and what's your point?
because 1/2 of pregnancies are unplanned and 1/2 of those are aborted i'm supposed to stop having sex? stand vigil until everyone else in the world realizes the seriousness of the act of sex?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
As I said before the proven statistics on birth control are a heck of a lot more reliable than those of the cohabitation/non-cohabitation debate.
As an engineer finding something that is 99.99% effective after years of data collection (which Depo-Provera is) is a pretty convincing stat. I personally would never use a condom only, simply because I don't like the statistics.
Even non-premarital sex marriages end in divorce more than 0.01% of the time. So should you not have kids just because your marriage has considerable statistical odds of ending in divorce. Of course not you say, because MY marriage is different. It is the same argument just turned around.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Forty-eight percent of women aged 15-44 in 1994 had had at least one unplanned pregnancy sometime in their lives
I'm surprised this isn't higher.
So this is what it boils down to.
You don't get married because you're not ready for it.
BUT, if you get pregnant, THEN you'll be ready for it?
Or will you not get married?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:because 1/2 of pregnancies are unplanned and 1/2 of those are aborted i'm supposed to stop having sex?
Yes!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
PSI, yes you do, actually, it's totally moot. My girlfriend, for instance is of the position that a fetus, at least 1st trimester is not equivalent to a fully gestated and birthed human life. I'm not so sure. But the point is, your argument holds no water unless you both hold the same assumptions. I also don't think you can convince my girlfriend differently any time soon.
JB, as for the multiple partners data, the common (and as far as I know yet refuted) criticism is that it could be something else, some emotional issue that causes these people to have multiple partners, and sexual inadequacy. The multiple partners are a symptom of something else.
-Bok
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:I'm surprised that so many people are ignoring the statistics that show that those who participate in premarital sex (especially when it's with multiple partners) are less sexually satisfied. You can go on and on about how loving and committed your relationship is, but the fact is that people who wait until marriage to have sex are more satisfied with their sex lives. To me, that seems like a pretty compelling reason to wait.
Simply because people who have no basis to judge their sexual experience by believe they're well-satisfied doesn't necessarily mean they're making an informed decision. Most teenagers love their cars, even if they're broken-down jalopies -- it's their first car, and even if it's not the fastest or strongest or most reliable, they've never driven a Ferrari to judge their jalopy-driving experience by.
Sure, a woman's likely to be more satisfied with her sex life if she doesn't know there's better out there -- and that's not necessarily a bad thing, really, especially if either party involved is insecure about his/her sexual ability. That doesn't mean sexual ignorance until marriage is the only way to conduct one's romantic life, nor does it at all imply ignorance is the smartest way to to live one's romantic life.
This isn't to say I don't see the benefits of sexual ignorance -- if a woman dates a sexually talented man and marries a sexually untalented one, she's probably going to be unhappier with her sex life than a woman who never knows anything else but one man's sexual inexperience. But I'm a firm believer in love triumphing over imperfection -- the woman I someday marry may not be as talented in bed as others I've slept with, but I don't need to pretend she's a sexual goddess in order to love her.
On the other hand, I can easily see this standard reversed. Sexually inexperienced or underequipped men may be extremely insecure about their sexual ability, to the point where they desire only virgins for the sake of their sexual pride -- women who don't know what they're missing may learn to appreciate a lacking man. Hell, we can see effects of this double standard for male and female sexual experience still lingering on today -- why is female sexual experience disdained and male sexual experience celebrated? Why are women whores and men pimps?
I'm really not convinced by your argument -- especially since your report, if I remember correctly, stems from the Methodist church. While I have nothing against the church, I doubt they exactly have a unbiased motive in gathering that information, nor an unbiased group they're gathering the information from.
You'll have to give me a better reason than sexual ignorance to give an argument against pre-marital sex any backbone.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
i have moved out of my childhood bed, i've graduated from college and live on my own. And again, just because i don't want a child doesn't mean i'm not ready to handle the responsibilty of dealing with one.
Is this thread an abortion issues or a premarital sex one? because while one can possibly be the result of the other one, they do not have a 1-1 relationship, and you can't throw the other one into the mix to try to boost your argument.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: As an engineer finding something that is 99.99% effective after years of data collection (which Depo-Provera is) is a pretty convincing stat. I personally would never use a condom only, simply because I don't like the statistics.
Not that I'm applying this to Leo and Strider, but I'd just like to point out that it isn't the Depo I don't trust. It's the ability of the person getting it to always make sure they go to their appointment and if they miss it, to not have sex.
I think everyone knows that it isn't usually the birth control that fails, it's the person. (Unless you're talking condoms...I don't have any experience there.)
Sorry Bok, I'm not sure which post you were replying to.
[ February 02, 2004, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Here's another aspect and viewpoint to consider.
I didn't get married at first, we lived together and we had sex before marriage because of one simple reason - I was afraid. I'd been abandoned by my father, and I'd seen the pain and devastation divorce wrought and I wanted to make sure he would "stick around" before I got married.
Now, you may be thinking why I'm against premarital sex and cohabitation if I've done it and things have pretty much turned out okay. I would seem to be one of those people who should be an advocate, right?
Wrong. Living together and having sex before marriage did not help our relationship. It hurt it. We've spent a lot of years having to work through the issues that came up because of it. The fact that I started our relationship with the fear and the idea in the back of my mind that "I'd better be careful here, he could leave me and abandon me so I need to check things out and hold back" meant that for years I was not wholly committed to this marriage.
I didn't accept the love my husband tried to offer me, because I was still holding back. It took years, and therapy, and the incredible patience and understanding of my husband before I was really able to participate completely in our marriage and be a devoted, committed partner to the degree that both of us wanted me to be.
Of course, it wasn't one-sided. He went through much of the same thing, but to a lesser degree. He also didn't have the same battle scars I did entering the relationship.
I'm standing here from experience, saying that having sex before marriage didn't increase our chances of having a happy marriage and in fact probably hurt it for some time.
I cannot even begin to tell you how much I wish I had remained celibate throughout our dating period and we had been each other's firsts and onlies beginning on our wedding night.
I truly believe our marriage would not have gone through the rocky periods it did in the beginning had we done that.
I lived and I learned, and I am blessed now with a husband and a family and a marriage that is everything I ever hoped marriage would be. I just wish it hadn't taken so long to get here, and I'm confident premarital sex was one of the reasons it was delayed.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I cannot even begin to tell you how much I wish I had remained celibate throughout our dating period and we had been each other's firsts and onlies beginning on our wedding night.
I truly believe our marriage would not have gone through the rocky periods it did in the beginning had we done that.
Everyone listen...Belle is speaking!
Seriously.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, who are you replying to and what's your point?
I'm replying to any of those who think it's okay to have sex before you're ready to have children, and my point is that it is not. You may claim you are safe, but I suspect the vast majority of the sexually active think they are safe. The statistics show that many are wrong.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: AJ, you could do what my brother is doing: he's eloping, he's just invited close friends and family to be there if we like. This is his second marriage, so he didn't want to make a big thing about getting married to his very wonderful girlfriend. She didn't object at all, as this is the second marriage for her as well.
Close friends are fine. The headache comes when I start trying to decide which family people are "close" and which think they deserve to be "close" even if they aren't to my mind. If my immdiate family were to come (my parents and brothers), they would bring my paternal grandfather because he can't stay by himself for long periods of time and he lives with the rest of my immediate family. If that grandfather comes, then psychograndma-TM will have a hissy fit if she isn't invited, since she wants to see me happily married and producing offspring before she dies (and she thinks she's on her deathbed.) Then all of the aunts will be unhappy blah, blah and so forth.
Steve's dad is actually going to the Carribean at some point in the next year to marry his third wife and Steve and I will probably tag along. Steve is his only child so it is nice and uncomplicated there. It would be easy to do a double wedding then, but Steve's mother would kill him if we did point since she wouldn't be there and his father would.
Like I said, it is a migraine waiting to happen.
AJ
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:I'm really not convinced by your argument -- especially since your report, if I remember correctly, stems from the Methodist church.
Yes, but the studies came from the University of Chicago, Parade magazine, Redbook magazine, the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, and more. Sounds pretty unbiased to me.
[ February 02, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
the statistics show that the vast majority are unsafe. yes. but you know what the statistics don't show. Whether *I'm* safe or not.
and like banna said, i'm willing to accept 99.9% reliability as pretty safe figures.
Should i give up alcohol completely because there are people out there who don't consume it safely. because Joe down the street gets in his car and drives drunk i'm supposed to abstain from alcohol?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Leonide and Strider -- Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
According to one site, there are 1 million new cases of skin cancer every year. Let's say that half of them are sun-related. That's about 1 in 600 chance of getting skin cancer. With SPF, let's thay that it's 1/10th as likely. And remember, all it takes is 1 burn, and you are at a higher risk for skin cancer.
Only at these assumptions do you get to the same order of magnitude of the chance of pregnancy as you do when a woman is using birth control correctly (1 in 1000, or 99.9% effective, 99.6% if used consistently, but not taken at the same time every day). Use a condom as well (which I have done even with my girlfriend on birth control), and the risk is closer to 1 in 10,000.
At this point we are comparing the likelihoods of very unlikely things. This isn't 50/50 we're talking about.
Yes, people aren't always careful, as they often aren't with cars or sun exposure. It's this lack of diligence that's the problem, not the sex itself, since there are highly effective and simple and accessible ways to be very safe.
-Bok
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Wrong. Living together and having sex before marriage did not help our relationship. It hurt it. We've spent a lot of years having to work through the issues that came up because of it. The fact that I started our relationship with the fear and the idea in the back of my mind that "I'd better be careful here, he could leave me and abandon me so I need to check things out and hold back" meant that for years I was not wholly committed to this marriage.
I didn't accept the love my husband tried to offer me, because I was still holding back. It took years, and therapy, and the incredible patience and understanding of my husband before I was really able to participate completely in our marriage and be a devoted, committed partner to the degree that both of us wanted me to be.
Belle, correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but are you saying that because you loved and lost someone you once lived with and made love to, you came to expect abandonment in your relationship with your soon-to-be husband as well?
If so, that's pretty normal. I'd actually fear for you were the type that'd throw herself whole-heartedly into a relationship without some reservations -- such types are rather doomed to failure.
Look at the man you lived and slept with. I assume you two were in love (or at least you were) -- had you two married, would your relationship had worked out? Would it have been easier to live with him if you weren't unmarried?
I'd like to submit that if your relationship was doomed, it was most likely doomed due to reasons other than sex out of wedlock. Maybe he cheated on you, maybe you grew to hate him, maybe he was just a bastard who was using you. But if you'd married, would you really be better off right now? Or would you be an divorcee? Or worse, trapped in a marriage with a man you wouldn't love?
Your example really isn't making the case against pre-marital sex, Adrian.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Strider, That sounds like my friend who, despite the statistics, somehow just knows he is one of the few who can drive drunk safely - as if the people in those statistics didn't think the exact same thing.
[ February 02, 2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As an engineer finding something that is 99.99% effective after years of data collection (which Depo-Provera is) is a pretty convincing stat. I personally would never use a condom only, simply because I don't like the statistics.
Not that I'm applying this to Leo and Strider, but I'd just like to point out that it isn't the Depo I don't trust. It's the ability of the person getting it to always make sure they go to their appointment and if they miss it, to not have sex.
I think everyone knows that it isn't usually the birth control that fails, it's the person. (Unless you're talking condoms...I don't have any experience there.)
Sorry Bok, I'm not sure which post you were replying to.
PSI, you're making the case against irresponsible pre-marital sex. Which I, and probably everyone else in this thread, agrees should be battled against. I like to believe the most reasonable method for fighting irresponsible pre-marital sex is sex education that teaches the dangers of sex and the dangers of straying from effective birth control methods.
Is there any argument against responsible pre-martial sex?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lalo, simply ignoring what everyone has said in the thread does not make it go away. That question has already been answered.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
PSI, the "do we really have to go down the road..." Too many people posting in the thread.
-Bok
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No, Lalo, I'm making the argument that pre-marital sex is irresponsible. That is different.
Oh yeah Bok, I found it. For some reason, when I first posted I didn't realize there were three pages in the thread, which got me all lost when I tried to find it.
I'd just like to say that the difference of opinion between you and your girlfriend are a really good reason not to have pre-marital sex.
[ February 02, 2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Lalo, did you read that article? Or did you just see that it was from a church and then disregard it?
quote:Two-thirds (67 percent) of all marrieds report that they are "happy with their sex life," while less than half (45 percent) of all singles report the same.
quote:The people most apt to report that they are very satisfied with their current sex life are marrieds who "strongly" believe sex outside of marriage is wrong. Specifically, 72 percent of the members of this group report being "very satisfied" with their sex life. This is roughly 31 percentage points higher than the level registered by singles who have no or only some objection to sex outside of marriage, and it is 13 percentage points higher than the levels registered by marrieds who do not strongly object to sex outside of marriage.
quote:According to the study, 87 percent of all monogamous marrieds report that the are "extremely" or "very" physically satisfied by their sexual relationship and 85 percent report that they are "extremely" or "very" emotionally satisfied. Those who are least satisfied sexually (both physically and emotionally) are those singles and marrieds who have multiple partners.
quote:Strongly-religious women are less likely to engage in sexual behavior prior to marriage and are more likely to describe their current sex lives a "good" or "very good" than moderately religious or non-religious women. The study also found that strongly religious women are "more responsive" sexually than other women.
quote:married couples are more satisfied with their sex lives than sexually active singles, partly because sexual satisfaction is enhanced by "the absence of sexual anxiety." That is, part of the reason monogamous married couples are more satisfied sexually is because they are free from sexual fears like disease, pregnancy before marriage, being used, failure, and rejection. They are also free from the guilt associated with violating one’s sexual standards – a factor which has been found to hinder sexual satisfaction among unmarried college students, according to research by University of Connecticut psychologists Donald Mosher and Herbert Cross.
quote:70 percent of those who "strongly" believe being a virgin at marriage is a good idea" report that they are "very satisfied" with their current sex life. This is 13 percentage points higher than the level registered by those who do not strongly support virginity at marriage.
quote:"Couples not involved before marriage and faithful during marriage are more satisfied with their current sex life than those who were involved sexually before marriage."
[ February 02, 2004, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Belle, correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but are you saying that because you loved and lost someone you once lived with and made love to, you came to expect abandonment in your relationship with your soon-to-be husband as well?
Very well. You are incorrect.
My fears had nothing to do with having been dumped by someone that I had previously had sex with. They had to do with me being a product of divorce and abandonment.
But you would be wrong to focus on my abandonment issues as the reason why I thought premarital sex hurt our marriage. My husband agrees with me, and he came from a loving, committed two parent home.
The fact is, when you have sex and move in together before marriage, most people do so because they have some fear and hesitation about getting married. For whatever reason. Otherwise, they'd get married to this person!
There is a part of you that says "I don't want to marry them because that's such a major commitment. So instead we'll just live together, because that way it will be easier to split up if things don't work out."
I'm telling you that when you try and transfer that relationship to a marriage, you are bringing some baggage with you. Both of you know that you are coming into this after having done a "trial run". That makes it hard for you to open yourself up completely to a person, because somewhere in your mind lurks the thought "Would he/she really have committed to me and married me if I hadn't slept with him/her first?"
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Whew. There are waaay too many posts too quickly for me to do anything more than scan. I'm sorry if I repeat important points.
I believe in the choice of the individual, that sex before marriage can be right or wrong for certain people. What is most important is self-esteem, self-love, communication between partners, and confidence in each other.
Belle, from what I read, I would suggest that the reason pre-marital sex was not a wise course of action for you is because you had Bad Stuff. Sex isn't an answer to Bad Stuff, and I would never suggest it to be.
Fallacy 1: That you shouldn't cohabitate because a higher percentage of marriages end in divorce, or pre-marital sex means lower satisfaction later. Statistics are an interesting guide, but certainly not the whole story. I could find the statistic that shows you clearly that the job you hold has a lower satisfaction rate than another job you're qualified for. Does this mean you should switch jobs immediately? No. What it does mean is that you should carefully examine yourself and make sure you're actually happy. Cause you might be. Unless 100% of cohabitators decide they were miserable, I'm not going to let that statistic scare me. I know who I am, and I know what my choices are.
Fallacy 2: That you shouldn't have sex unless you are willing to raise a child. Currently, I believe I do not want children, ever. My sister, who is 32, also believes she does not want children. Are we supposed to never _EVER_ engage in sex? Because I can tell you, that if I still have this intention, I'm taking a road that isn't Raising The Child if I were to become pregnant. Tubal ligation is not a good answer for me, because that would take away my future choices. As was pointed out, every action we take carries responsibilities and possible Unwanted Outcomes.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: That sounds like my friend who, despite the statistics, somehow just knows he is one of the few who can drive drunk safely - as if the people in those statistics didn't think the exact same thing.
Tres, that's fine. but I'm not "driving drunk". I'm driving completely sober with my seatbelt on and airbags all around. That comparison would be valid if I was having sex without any protection and saying, "it's cool, i can do it safely with no consequences, I have an in with my sperm and they abide by my will alone". I'm not saying that everyone is safe when they have premarital sex. I'm saying i'm safe. and willing to accept the responsibilties. and i'm asking you what is wrong with that. if you're still talking about the role model thing, I am engaging in safe(as much as possible) premarital sex. and if someone sees that and chooses to engage in unsafe premarital sex, i'm sorry for them.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Read my 2nd post, Sun.
If I had Bad Stuff, my husband didn't - and he feels the same way.
And considering how many people out there are children of divorce and/or abandonment or have other issues in their past that make relationships scary for them - if you think my issues were reason for me to abstain then I would submit that every other person on this board should abstain. I am not unique in what I went through as a child. If it affected me negatively, it would likely do the same to others.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"The statistics don't tell me about me."
True. Do your best not to become a statistic.
Be abstinent.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Sun, even if Belle reacted to her past, that doesn't mean it "messed her up" or anything. It could very well mean that she learned from it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Fallacy 1: That you shouldn't cohabitate because a higher percentage of marriages end in divorce, or pre-marital sex means lower satisfaction later.
Uh . . . exactly why is that a fallacy? Your analogy doesn't seem all that analogous to me.
quote:Fallacy 2: That you shouldn't have sex unless you are willing to raise a child. Currently, I believe I do not want children, ever.
So what happens if you accidentally get pregnant? You need to be willing to accept the possible consequences of your actions, even if they're unlikely.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I'm somewhat disappointed in the way this discussion has turned. It seems to me that Banna and Leonide and Strider, after submitting their experiences as evidence that premarital sex, if done responsibly by committed adults, can be fine. Their experiences were overlooked, they were told that if they were married, they'd understand. They stated the reasons that they didn't want to get married. They were pressured to get married.
Marriage is not the be-all and end-all of the world! It's important to some people, it's beneficial socially for some people, it's beneficial financially for others. But a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that getting married will fix everything. And a sexual incompatibility that was unknown can make things that were bad even worse. It behooves everyone to be careful and think about their situations before they consider sex or marriage. Or marriage or sex as the case may be.
It's good for the people who've experienced premarital sex to say that it wasn't worth it, in their experience. It's equally as good for the people who thought it was worth it to express their opinions. The thing is, there's no exact answer. Everyone's experiences are going to be different, no matter what.
Strider and Leonide think that they are having a good experience. Belle did not think she should have done what she did. In my opinion, these experiences are independent of the act of sex. People who have an open, healthy relationship and have few issues with relationships are going to have a different experience from people who have abandonment issues.
In my opinion, it is up to the individual person and their partner to decide whether it's right for them. I know some people I don't think should EVER have sex, because they have issues that could make it extremely unhealthy. But I know other people who have perfectly normal, healthy sexual relationships with their significant others and they're NOT married. It's not a black or white issue.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
One of the problems with those studies is that they lump all sorts of different populations together. There is pretty much one viewpoint that says premarital sex is bad. Whether they are Christian or Jewish or Muslim or atheist (although I'm not aware of any atheists who have argued against premarital sex, which I think is somewhat telling) or something else, the people who choose to abstain are pretty much homogenous in their beliefs on this issue. They all believe that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong, as far as I can tell from this thread. They all view marriage as a serious, ideally life-long commitment. They are, statistically speaking, a single population.
The "group" that is not opposed to premarital sex (or cohabitation) is in reality a large number of groups, being lumped together. It includes the people who believe that sex does not have any inherent moral ramifications. It includes those who do not believe in marriage at all. It includes those who believe love is itself a chemically-induced illusion with no real meaning. It includes those who believe in marriage, but don't aspire for it to be a life-long commitment. And it includes those who think sex is best when shared between two people who love each other and are committed to each other, but who simply don't think it needs to be done exclusively within matrimony for this to be the case.
Statistics that say that couples who live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced, or that couples who engage in premarital sex are more likely to get divorced, make the mistake of lumping together all the different people who cohabitate or engage in premarital sex. I'm sure that, if studied, all the different populations I'm describing (as distinguished by their attitudes toward sex and marriage) would have different divorce rates from each other.
Argèn†~, you correctly note that people are generally inclined to believe statistics that agree with their position and nitpick those that don't. And then you proceed to behave consistently with this observation of yours! I teach statistics, and it is absolutely true that statistics can easily lead to all sorts of inappropriate conclusions. Even when nobody is purposely spinning statistics, they can mislead. This does not mean that statistics are meaningless or invalid, but rather that it is absolutely legitimate and even necessary to scrutinize statistical studies to make sure that they indicate what we really think they indicate. So, rather than suggest that only intellectual dishonesty would lead one to nit-pick these studies, I would suggest the opposite.
In any case, people who disagree with the results of a study are more likely to scrutinize it closely. It's just human.
-o-
I would agree neither with the statement quoted in the title of this thread, nor with Storm's statement in his first post that premarital sex is, in fact, responsible.
I don't seriously believe that those of us who have or do engage in premarital sex actually believe that they are testing their compatibility with someone. I think that's just hogwash. People who have premarital sex have it because they want to, and either don't think there's anything wrong with it, or don't care. Certainly, as has been noted already, there is nothing at all romantic about the idea of one's first sexual encounter with a person being a test.
I personally like for sex to symbolize the commitment that my wife and I share. We did not have sex together until we were in what we viewed as a committed relationship, though we were not married. I think it makes sex more special for us, because it holds this additional meaning, and because it's an intimacy we share with only each other. We didn't see anything inherently right or wrong about having had sex before we got married. We were already committed. We were not testing our sexual compatibility; we were sharing intimacy.
My wife and I lived together before we got married. Frankly, I can't conceive of having done otherwise. Regardless of what the studies may or may not legitimately conclude, it always srikes me as foolhardy when I hear of people getting married without ever having lived together first. But that's just me. I realize that people who view marriage, sexual morality, and committment differently from me don't see it this way. (I do realize there's a chicken and egg paradox hidden in there somewhere . . . )
I personally don't view sex as having any intrinsic moral character. I think it has whatever meaning we attach to it as individuals and as a society. I suppose that makes me a relativist in this regard. *shrug* So I don't think promiscuity, extra-marital sex, or pre-marital sex are inherently right or wrong. I think risky sex is irresponsible. I do think that it's immoral to make and break a commitment. I think it's immoral to have premarital sex with someone who believes that this is a sign of a larger committment when you don't feel the same way. I don't think that my view of sex--as a private, symbolic intimacy that I share only with my wife--is intrinsic to the act. Rather, I think that viewing it this way makes it special to us.
-o-
And I started this post quite a long time ago, writing during pauses in work, so I apologize if I've rehashed something that somebody else has already said. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Wrong. Living together and having sex before marriage did not help our relationship. It hurt it. We've spent a lot of years having to work through the issues that came up because of it. The fact that I started our relationship with the fear and the idea in the back of my mind that "I'd better be careful here, he could leave me and abandon me so I need to check things out and hold back" meant that for years I was not wholly committed to this marriage.
Er...I'm actually with Suneun on this one. I'm not seeing how living together/premarital sex caused your fear, etc. Even if you had gotten married before having sex, you would still be the same person with the same fears.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Belle: I'd like to think that your husband didn't come out of the experience Pleased and Happy With Himself because he cares deeply about you, and things that affect you affect him.
If someone has had Bad Stuff in the past, I certainly don't mean they should abstain from sex. I'm saying that IMHO the healthiest sexual relationship they could have would be by working through their issues beforehand. That would be my recommendation, though not a rule.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: (although I'm not aware of any atheists who have argued against premarital sex, which I think is somewhat telling)
David Bowles is the poster child.
In other news, I think Tres may be, but I'm not sure.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The first table said to be from the U. of Chicago survey does not say what the margin of error was, and what the R-squared values are. The largest percent difference between "married" and "cohabitating" was 16.2% We have no idea whether that is in the margin of error for the survey or not. I hope the peer-reviewed study had better statistical justification than that, but I haven't seen it on the internet. (You have seen firsthand the news media get in trouble calling elections that have a 10-15% gap between the contenders!)
2) The second article is from the Family Research Council. While I actually philisophically agree with a lot of what they say. (I was raised on Dr. James Dobson) their science is almost always a travesty. This is unfortunate because there are a lot of gullible people out there that view their words right up there next to Gospel.
Redbook and Parade are not scientific, sorry.
3) most of the rest of the stuff has little to do with what is being discussed, like comparing married and divorced people. Teen pregnancy rates also do not have anything directly to do with the subject at hand.
I think those of us who are on the pro- to neutral- sex before marriage side are assuming a stable mature relationship, not a flash in the pan adolescent romance before bringing sex into the equation.
I would actually like to read the full U of Chicago study. However it is also dated by 10 years from where we are today as well. Please note that the majority of references are from 1994 or earlier!
AJ
[ February 02, 2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Lalo, I want to hear the sort of argument that would convince you that pre-marital absinence is the way to go. Obviously statistics, children, emotional well-being, trust, and the dozens of other excellent arguments don't count. What sort of thing are you looking for?
I'm not trying to be snarky. I really want to know.
My suspicion is that this thread isn't getting anyone anywhere, since those who do believe in sex before marriage like it so much they can't believe that waiting until marriage could be better. And those who wait until after marriage like that so much that they can't imagine not waiting could be any better.
I have religious reasons for what I believe. That's kind of irrelevant here.
The truth is, maybe only Belle is qualified to form any kind of opinion on this. Those who don't wait by definition can't know what it's like to wait, and those who do can't know what it's like not to.
When it comes down to it, the arguments are all getting anecdotal. I could tell you all that I am very happy with my decision, but that makes no difference to yours.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
As for Belle's story, I think it doesn't speak at all about the bad-ness of premarital sex, but rather her earlier emotional scars.
Even if you HADN'T had premarital sex, Belle, odds are you would have had different but equivalent issues, due to your childhood circumstances. I can understand the regret you have. For you it was wrong because it went against already-held beliefs that frowned on premarital sex, but you were undercut by some emotional issues.
To me, it seems you are combining some of the symptoms with the disease.
--- Myself, I'm glad I had sex with my girlfriend. If not, I can tell you flat out that my wedding night (and for a couple months after) would have been a disaster from the sexual POV, or my girlfriend would have been put through so much pain that it'd be understandable if she never wanted sex again.
(It had to do with a non-serious, but physical issue she had with sex. She really couldn't have had it no matter how much emotionally, spiritually she would have been ready for it).
We worked through it, without any sort of hightened pressure, and she's fine now. Maybe it would have been worked out in marriage, but there was a small chance it wouldn't have been, and it would have been much worse of a situation in that case, than it would have been had we broken up 3, four months in (why 3, 4 months? Because she wasn't on the pill, and all that comprehensive sex ed had me healthily scared enough to not want sex unless I had protection and she had protection).
As I say though, our way may not work for others, it could even be detrimental, I don't know.
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jon Boy, one way to look at those statistics is to simply conclude that people who are picky about good sex are more likely to make good sex an issue. In other words, for people for whom sex is not a big deal, sex is more likely to be satisfying.
As I've seen this same phenomenon with people who care about their stereo equipment, it doesn't surprise me.
[ February 02, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also while I realize anecdote is not data. dkw a United Methodist Minister, told me that the statistics she was taught showed that in relationships lasting over five years the breakup rate was identical for married vs. nonmarried monogamous couples.
AJ
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I am certainly willing to accept consequences of actions I choose to make. I think many of us who have engaged in pre-marital sex agree that we feel the same way.
Statistics leave out the individual. And what is important to me is the individual's right to make mistakes. This mistake may be in marrying the wrong person, or in having sex while still having enormous emotional baggage. The only thing any of us can do is gently recommend. Of course we all disagree horribly on what to recommend. But it comes down to personal choice. I truly believe I have taken the right actions in the past with respect to sexual relationships, have no regrets, and am a responsible human being.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Leonide:
Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the defensive. I was drawing a distinction between not yet wanting to commit for life and "taking the plunge." But I don't mean to belittle your relationship or your feelings. I'm happy for you, and I'm glad you have such a solid, loving relationship. I did not know before now that your s.o. is none other than Strider--that's just bonus. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:In other words, for people for whom sex is not a big deal, sex is more likely to be satisfying.
What makes you think sex isn't a big deal for people who practice abstinence? Or that people are abstinent if it isn't a big deal, and not abstinent if it is?
[ February 02, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In other news, I think Tres may be, but I'm not sure.
<-- not atheist, although lots of people assume I am
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Gah- Ignore!
My husband and I waited years before having sex, and there wasn't any fooling around before hand. The fact that we waited as long as we did made it so special, we wouldn't have noticed if it was bad. No one was hurt, everyone had fun. That's why I wished I had waited even longer...just a few weeks and it would have been our wedding night. How amazing would that night have been! (Not that our wedding night wasn't fun. )
Sorry if your first time wasn't great, But I don't think all first sexual experiences are bad, and I think the sheer sexual tension caused by waiting make it that much better. One more point for waiting, at least in my book.
(The first point was edited out because of the pointlessness and the fact that it showed a severe short curcuit in my brain. It was directed at Bok, but after reading all the posts after his I got my wires crossed and put down something....forget it. Bok, sorry if you saw it and wondered what the heck I was talking about, I can't explain it.)
[ February 02, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: I did not know before now that your s.o. is none other than Strider--that's just bonus
I keep trying to tell her that.
i can't think of anything new to add to this discussion now. And rather than just cutting and pasting Icarus's entire post, i'll just say I agree.
[ February 02, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Tom- But if sex isn't a big deal to someone, they're more likely not to notice it's bad. So by that we can tell that sex is only satisfying to people who don't care about it. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm pretty sure that's what Tom was saying...
Posted by Psycho Triad (Member # 3331) on :
*stumbles into thread*
*notices the circular path that has been worn deeply into the floor*
*stumbles out*
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Oh, I thought he was saying the opposite.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: if you're not ready to even move out of your childhood bed
You misread me, kat, I said I was still sleeping in my childhood bed. I certainly didn't say I wasn't ready to move out. Please! I've been trying to do that for a year now! If i had the money i'd be gone in a second. I'm totally ready to be on my own, I just don't have the means to do it!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Financially not-ready is still not-ready.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I'm confused. You say I should get married if i'm committed and in love with Strider, but then agree with me that I'm not ready (financially, which was my only argument anyhow) to move out of my house.
I have a feeling we agree a tad more than either of us is willing to admit, kat. I don't think I'm ready for marriage financially or stability-wise. I want to be financially and career-aly (made up word!) stable before I wed. Do you agree that I should wait until that time, or not?
quote: I did not know before now that your s.o. is none other than Strider--that's just bonus.
I keep trying to tell *him* that! And you didn't offend me at all, afr.
[ February 02, 2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
(scratches head after reading thread)
I don't know what works for other people or what's best. I'm one of those people you might call a "long-term cohabitator."
(For a giggle, I might have a go at having Diane and I trying to introduce ourselves that way.)
I don't know how it works for most people, but when sex entered the picture in this relationship I don't think either of us thought of it as "testing our compatability." We just thought we were ready for it with each other. Maybe part of it is we were both in 40ish when we got together and we knew from previous experience (it's not the first serious relationship for either of us) that "compatability" can be largely a matter of choices. For us, anyway.
FWIW, I've been with Diane longer now than the woman I was married to a lot more years ago than I care to remember. Don't know if Diane and I will ever get married - there are no pressing reasons for us to do so. But we both think of each other as partners in life - and we're viewed that way by our friends and family.
Not sure I have any point. Just felt an urge to hop in with my cent or two.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree. I don't think you're ready for the consequences of either being married or acting like you are. But if you're going to act like it, why not do it?
The marriage certificate isn't a magic bullet to make things better and will be perfect whether they are ready or not, but it isn't the last thing to take care of, once the rest of life is in place either.
I really do believe, based on my experience, that growth and maturity comes from making and keeping committments, and not making committments and doing actions until you are ready to deal with ALL the consequences of those committments and actions.
[ February 02, 2004, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: I don't think you're ready for the consequences of either being married or acting like you are.
explain to me why if you view sex as being "a part of marriage" i should also?
what does "acting like you're married" entail? should we not be in any sort of commited relationship at all because that puts us too close to the "acting like we're married" side of things?
you're trying to push on us a moral system dictated by your religion with no back up. We've gone over that we understand and accept the responsibilites and reprocussions of our decision. We are happy with our decision. So explain to me what's wrong about it again?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not just sex. I meant the mental and emotional committment.
Strider, I'm not trying to attack. I'd never, ever offer or even really formulate an opinion when it's none of my business. I know you're happy, I think you're both wonderful, and I honestly think you'll be fine.
But it's a Hatrack thread devoted to the topic, and your personal experience has been brought in.
[ February 02, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hatrack: Where sex lives are put under the intellectual microscope...
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Only if you bring it up.
I don't mean to make anyone unhappy. It's just that the personal lives were being used as a support for a thesis. Since they are being used as support, then their effectiveness as support is subject to scrutiny. But it's making people upset, and that's not worth it.
[ February 02, 2004, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Touche AJ
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
One wonders what Leo and Strider would do if Leo got pregnant. Not that it's any of my business, but reading the posts, I do wonder.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin*
I'd like to invoke my favorite Hatrack words again: "She's much nicer in person."
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Kat, i didn't mean to sound harsh, i know you're not attacking. But i've given all our personal experience here and explained the reasons for it, and have still yet to recieve a "well, while i personally wouldn't engage in sex before marriage, i feel you're being responsible in your decision and given that you're willing to accept the consequnces, i can't condemn you for it. But a bigger issue is the larger percentage of people who aren't careful and don't understand the consequences."
I'm still getting, "sex before marriage is wrong, because it's dangerous and you're not ready". if that's not the case then i just misread things. maybe what you're saying is "sex before marriage when the individuals involved aren't educated enough on the subject, aren't safe, and aren't willing to accept the consequences is wrong". and then i can agree with you. but even then i'd argue against using the word "wrong". because it's not wrong. it's just dangerous and may not be the best thing for the people involved. and may be an indicator of a larger scarier trend in our society.
edited to say: my feelings are not hurt and i don't wish to end the discussion at all. you can ask my girlfriend...it takes alot to get me mad or upset. it's not my personal experiences being brought into the thread that got me riled up, just what i viewed as my arguments being ignored.
[ February 02, 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In answer to your question, Jon Boy, I think I'm safe in postulating that those couples who most consider sex outside of marriage to be wrong are also those couples who a) have the least experience with sex and b) are less likely to place a high premium on sexual enjoyment in a relationship. The mere fact that they had a long-term relationship without sex, and believe that long-term relationships should universally be without sex until marriage, implies both.
It's not that the act of sex is less of a "big deal" to these people, but the ENJOYMENT of sex -- which is clearly the issue here -- obviously is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not true, Tom. It does NOT imply that they don't consider sex or enjoyment of sex important; merely that they consider OTHER things more important.
Deferred gratification -- a vanishing ideal.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Strider, you have my respect and good-will, but not sanction. I like you and Leo very much, but I don't think it's okay just because it's you. It's none of my business, but I'm worried, and I'm more worried for Leo because she's so young.
I'm worried because what if Leo does get pregnant? There's no way to say that if you're smart enough, it won't happen. I'm worried for her because y'all might break up, and while even marriages sometimes break up, it's more likely when you're not.
------
I can't even pretend that my religion doesn't have anything to do with my opinion, but I'm really trying not to hold you to a standard that you don't believe.
I can tell you that I fully believe the Lord has our best interest in mind when he comes up with commandments. So, in the answer of "What am I concerned about?", I'll add whatever it is that I don't understand or know of, but the Lord did.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: One wonders what Leo and Strider would do if Leo got pregnant. Not that it's any of my business, but reading the posts, I do wonder.
we'd probably come to Hatrack and post about how you were all right and how we want to repent for our evil ways, and if only we had just listened in the first place... Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
My main point Kat, which I made earlier but am reiterating.
Telling two people in a responsible (as far as contraception) monogamous relationship, oh you shouldn't have sex because you *might* have a kid.
Is exactly the same thing as telling a married couple, you shouldn't have children because you *might* get divorced.
The same moral standard is being applied in both cases.
The statistics say that the latter is much more likely to happen than the former.
Which is worse?
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Just saw your edit.
Okay... in that case, what do you do if Leo gets pregnant?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sigh*
Well, now I'm convinced you've thought about it and are being responsible...
[ February 02, 2004, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It does NOT imply that they don't consider sex or enjoyment of sex important; merely that they consider OTHER things more important."
Exactly. So, clearly, they consider sex to be less important than those for whom sex IS a major consideration in a relationship. Ergo, those people for whom enjoyable sex is more important can be assumed to place, self-evidently, a higher standard on enjoyable sex. It's practically recursive logic. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: Strider, you have my respect and good-will, but not sanction. I like you and Leo very much, but I don't think it's okay just because it's you. It's none of my business, but I'm worried, and I'm more worried for Leo because she's so young.
I'm worried because what if Leo does get pregnant? There's no way to say that if you're smart enough, it won't happen. I'm worried for her because y'all might break up, and while even marriages sometimes break up, it's more likely when you're not.
Well then I truly appreciate your concern Kat. But i'll tell you, it'll take a lot more than baby for Kira to get rid of me.
and, in response to you, why is it okay for a couple who are married to get pregnant(especially if it was unplanned)? Me and Kira might break up and that couple may get divorced. Because they have a written contract their bond is stronger?
[ February 02, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:I think I'm safe in postulating that those couples who most consider sex outside of marriage to be wrong are also those couples who . . . are less likely to place a high premium on sexual enjoyment in a relationship.
I'd disagree with you, and I think that University of Chicago study disagrees with you, too.
quote:It's not that the act of sex is less of a "big deal" to these people, but the ENJOYMENT of sex -- which is clearly the issue here -- obviously is.
I also wait until after dinner to have my dessert. Does this mean that the enjoyment of dessert is not as big of a deal to me as it is to others? No, it just means that I want to save it for later, when I can fully enjoy it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also, kat, Leo is 19, if I recall correctly, which is hardly "young". She is over the legal age of consent, and probably older than your great-great grandmother was when she started having children.
(I'm not singling out LDS culture here, it is just the age of having the first child was considerably lower a century ago than it is now, despite "teenage pregnancies")
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well, theoretically, they didn't get married until they were ready to be married and allow for the possibility of having a baby.
In other words, it may be unplanned, but if they're married, they are (theoretically) on their own and financially independent. It's not a disaster.
I'm serious, Strider. You could be a father. Leo could be a mother. How does that fit with the plan of getting your life together before making a legal committment?
Having a baby is even MORE of a commitment than marriage, because you can get divorced, but once you have a child with someone, you are attached for life.
Anna: I know. And this is Katie talking and not my culture or religion, but I think 19 is faintingly-young to get married.
[ February 02, 2004, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom, only if my "most important things" scale has the same gradations as yours does.
I submit that just because "mind-blowing sex" is not as high on my scale as yours (it seems), does not mean that I value it any less than you do.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Strider, it's not so much that getting pregnant would mean you'd jump ship. But I wonder, if the circumstances are not right for you two to marry right now -- even if you wanted to -- how much better would they be for a baby?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Exactly. So, clearly, they consider sex to be less important than those for whom sex IS a major consideration in a relationship. Ergo, those people for whom enjoyable sex is more important can be assumed to place, self-evidently, a higher standard on enjoyable sex. It's practically recursive logic.
So you're assuming that abstinent people don't consider sex to be a major consideration in a relationship? 'Cause I sure think it is. I really have no idea where you're getting the second half of your postulate. It certainly doesn't apply to me or any of my friends.
[ February 02, 2004, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Before I begin on a response to the many posts that have followed mine, perhaps a couple questions in the yea/nay format may make this thread's direction clearer.
1) There seem to be two camps here -- those who believe that sex should be reserved solely for marriage, and those who believe there's no problem with responsible pre-marital sex. Which camp do you belong to?
2) Those who are against pre-marital sex cite, among other things, happiness with a marriage sex life as a reason to remain abstinent. I posted a response to this, but beyond a selective nitpick by Jon, got no response to the meat of my post. To paraphrase, do you believe sexual ignorance really does lead to bliss in marriage? If so, how would you feel about postponing other things until marriage, like kissing? If not, do you believe your marriage will be cheapened if you have pre-marital sexual experience?
I'm not exactly sure what the points are of the anti-pre-marital sex camp are, beyond a) possible greater happiness in marriage and b) potential danger of pregnancy and/or venereal disease. Are there others? Those two reasons are pretty easily dealt with by maturity and responsibility.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
So you're just going to ignore all of those statistics, eh?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: One wonders what Leo and Strider would do if Leo got pregnant. Not that it's any of my business, but reading the posts, I do wonder.
Trust me, some of our most heated arguments and discussions have been about this very issue. I think people assume that because we're having premarital sex, and we really don't feel guilty about it, then we must not, in turn, be considering the consequences. We have though. Very, very thoroughly and in depth and with all our hearts, we've discussed this issue. No one's commented on my driving analogy, but honestly, how does it differ? I know that every day I get in my car could be my last, or the day that I might kill someone else. I waited two years to get my driver's license for that very reason -- I was scared, and worried, that i would be a poor driver, and also that some other poor driver might poorly drive right into me. But I wanted a car to get around in, to drive me to school and work, to my boyfriend's house (although that came later) and so I got one. I'm still very much aware of the possibility that any day I could be changing my CD player and accidentally drive into someone. I'm aware of that. It makes me more cautious, it makes me not change my CD player until a red light...the knowledge that every second I'm driving I literally am holding someone else's life in my hands if for one second I chose to slip into the other lane, or onto a sidewalk. How is this different? Because the statistics don't match up? Please. I do something -- we all do something every day which through every precaution we take might still might end up with our lives being turned upside down should an "accident" occur.
I don't want to get pregnant. I don't want a child right now. But if I got pregnant, I would try to do what's best for the child to the fullest extent of my abilities. There are plenty of people out there who I'm sure, if it was a dark night and and deserted street, might drive away from an accident because they weren't going to allow it to ruin their lives...kind of like I Know What you Did last summer, isn't that the plot? There are people in this world who do things which they know could cause serious ramifications but aren't willing to deal with the problem once it happens. Having sex when you don't want to get pregnant. Driving when you don't want to kill people. It happens, people, and I'm saying I'm willing to deal with it. We're both willing to deal with it, we know the consequences of our actions. What more, knowing that we don't agree with you religiously or morally, can you ask of us?
[ February 02, 2004, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I'm serious, Strider. You could be a father. Leo could be a mother. How does that fit with the plan of getting your life together before making a legal committment?
well it would be alot harder, more stressful i'm sure. But it's something that we've talked about in depth and are willing to deal with if it came to it. And whatever, maybe it's selfish of us, but we're willing to trade that chance for the enjoyment and closeness that adding sex to our relationship brings us. Everything in life is a risk and a gamble. you prepare as much as you can given what consequences you're willing to accept.
Anyway, i plan on being rich within a year so that would be just in time to fully support a mini Strider if anything happened.
[ February 02, 2004, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Wow. Jon, do you just not read what I write?
I've already written a response to the point you intended with those statistics, and you ignored it in favor of nitpicking over my suggestion that they may be skewed because they were published by the Methodist church. Then AJ comes in with a post refuting your stats, and again, you ignore them. Here it is below, in case you missed it the first time around:
The first table said to be from the U. of Chicago survey does not say what the margin of error was, and what the R-squared values are. The largest percent difference between "married" and "cohabitating" was 16.2% We have no idea whether that is in the margin of error for the survey or not. I hope the peer-reviewed study had better statistical justification than that, but I haven't seen it on the internet. (You have seen firsthand the news media get in trouble calling elections that have a 10-15% gap between the contenders!)
2) The second article is from the Family Research Council. While I actually philisophically agree with a lot of what they say. (I was raised on Dr. James Dobson) their science is almost always a travesty. This is unfortunate because there are a lot of gullible people out there that view their words right up there next to Gospel.
Redbook and Parade are not scientific, sorry.
3) most of the rest of the stuff has little to do with what is being discussed, like comparing married and divorced people. Teen pregnancy rates also do not have anything directly to do with the subject at hand.
I think those of us who are on the pro- to neutral- sex before marriage side are assuming a stable mature relationship, not a flash in the pan adolescent romance before bringing sex into the equation.
I would actually like to read the full U of Chicago study. However it is also dated by 10 years from where we are today as well. Please note that the majority of references are from 1994 or earlier!
AJ
And you now want me to write the same thing because AJ, apparently, isn't good enough to correct you? C'mon, Jon, give me a reason to respect you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lalo, you don't belong in an adult discussion if that's your debating technique.
No ad hominems.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: Since they are being used as support, then their effectiveness as support is subject to scrutiny. But it's making people upset, and that's not worth it.
kat, i'm not upset. it's something i'm quite used to hearing about on hatrack and i don't think either strider or i feel personally attacked. We're only frustrated because there doesn't seem to be an acceptance or compromise anywhere in sight.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
No ad hominems written or intended, only exasperation that he's going to ignore both my and AJ's posts in favor of insisting I write what we've already covered. I like Jon, and I'm rather curious why he feels the posts by AJ and myself are poorly written enough to deserve his dutiful ignoring.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Forgive me, but it sounds like your plan is to make some plans if it happens. That's not much of a plan. Or perhaps I've misread what you wrote.
With driving, yes there are risks. You do your best. Your best should mean, IMO, you get good insurance, and find out what to do in the event of an accident. You have some money in your savings account to cover the deductible. You take a class in defensive driving. And you get your license. That prepares for the eventuality of the accident that is statistically probable someday. In the same way, in preparing to have sex, it makes sense to prepare for the statistical probability that it will result in pregnancy. You make sure you're capable of dealing with with that eventuality. That means being married, IMO. And having medical insurance. And a little money in the bank to cover the deductible. Plus a million other things that are involved with having a child. Having a child, after all, is a lot more complicated than having a car accident.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:I've already written a response to the point you intended with those statistics, and you ignored it in favor of nitpicking over my suggestion that they may be skewed because they were published by the Methodist church. Then AJ comes in with a post refuting your stats, and again, you ignore them.
No, they were REFERENCED in an article published by the Methodist Church. The original study was published by the University of Chicago. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the original study (unless I run out and buy the book), so I can't comment on the lack of margin or errors and whatnot. I'll see if I can find some more direct references to that study online anywhere. AJ's second point I can agree with. The fact that Redbook and Parade aren't scientific journals doesn't make their findings worthless, especially since they corroborate the university study. The rest of the articles (the ones on teen sex and all that) aren't relevant, so I didn't mention them.
Your entire argument seems to be that all it takes to be sexually satisfied is maturity and responsibility. Since those engaging in premarital sex report lower sexual satisfaction, I can only assume that those who engage in premarital sex are less mature and responsible than those who engage in abstinence. How do you account for that?
[ February 02, 2004, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
"I'm still very much aware of the possibility that any day I could be changing my CD player and accidentally drive into someone. I'm aware of that. It makes me more cautious, it makes me not change my CD player until a red light...the knowledge that every second I'm driving I literally am holding someone else's life in my hands if for one second I chose to slip into the other lane, or onto a sidewalk."
Damn, of all the analogies to use, you used one that is directly the report some woman gave to cops as to why she drove down, and killed my best friends Dad this past september (he was riding his mountain bike on the shoulder of the road and she supposedly swerved out of control while changing CD's).
Personally, in my book, as long as you both love one another, and are acting responsibly, I couldn't care less what you do in your bedroom, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone else should care, friends or not as long as you are both honest w/one another and again deal with it responsibly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Leo, I don't think you're going to get acceptance or compromise.
I mean, I can discuss it without bringing in religious reasons, but any professed acceptance would either be a lie to you or a confession that I don't actually believe those religious reasons.
I can accept you are doing everything you can, but there's no way to debate into an acceptance of the actions as okay, no matter how much I like you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:No ad hominems written or intended,
Baloney.
Bend over backwards to show respect and consideration to those you are debating. You have a history of becoming insulting. I think it's so much of a habit you do it even when you don't mean to. Please be careful.
[ February 02, 2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Of course, there's always the wide variety of sexual actions that are certain to never result in a pregnancy...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I’m going to nit-pick a bit too, Lalo. The statistics were included by a local church, First UMC of Lancaster, in a newsletter that was published on the web. That does not equate to them being “published by the Methodist Church[sic].” There’s a pretty significant difference, and I’ll ask you to respect it.
Edit: Jon Boy, that goes for you as well.
[ February 02, 2004, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've already written a response to the point you intended with those statistics, and you ignored it in favor of nitpicking over my suggestion that they may be skewed because they were published by the Methodist church. Then AJ comes in with a post refuting your stats, and again, you ignore them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they were REFERENCED in an article published by the Methodist Church. The original study was published by the University of Chicago.
I know -- I've read the posts since my mistaken suggestion. However, my initial comment was that they were produced by the Methodist church, and I didn't want seem as though I were re-writing history.
Heh. Honest, Jon, I do read posts that disagree with what I say. I even occasionally learn from them.
quote:Unfortunately, I don't have access to the original study (unless I run out and buy the book), so I can't comment on the lack of margin or errors and whatnot. AJ's second point I can agree with. The fact that Redbook and Parade aren't scientific journals doesn't make their findings worthless, especially since they corroborate the university study. The rest of the articles (the ones on teen sex and all that) aren't relevant, so I didn't mention them.
Your entire argument seems to be that all it takes to be sexually satisfied is maturity and responsibility. Since those engaging in premarital sex report lower sexual satisfaction, I can only assume that those who engage in premarital sex are less mature and responsible than those who engage in abstinence. How do you account for that?
I've never once suggested that sexual satisfaction stems from maturity and responsibility -- in fact, I've written a post to the contrary, one of several that you've carefully ignored. I haven't written that many, Jon; is it so difficult to read them?
To recap what I've written, sexual ignorance entering into marriage may provide for greater sexual satisfaction, since neither party has any basis for judgement but each other. If anything, I'd expect those who engage in pre-marital sex to have higher standards from their experiences, and therefore report lower sexual satisfaction from their monogamous marriage. As I've written.
Honestly, dude. Read what I write before telling me what I've said.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: Damn, of all the analogies to use, you used one that is directly the report some woman gave to cops as to why she drove down, and killed my best friends Dad this past september (he was riding his mountain bike on the shoulder of the road and she supposedly swerved out of control while changing CD's).
i'm really sorry, graywolve.
jeniwren, do you have money set aside in case your husband decides to divorce you in a bloody legal battle where he tries to take away your house and kids? Do you have money set aside for if your husband cheats on you and impregnates another unmarried woman and then decides to use your household funds secretly to pay for an abortion or the baby's care? Do you have money set aside for the court and legal fees you'll have to pay if you hit an old lady with your car as you're walking across the street not looking one day? Do you have money set aside for when your child robs a department store, those legal fees and repayment of damages for possible vandalism?
Do you see my point? It's possible, but unbelievably unlikely that any of those things would happen, why prepare for them? Just like it's SO UNLIKELY, about as unlikely as getting hit by lightening, if I'm remembering those statistics correctly, that I will get pregnant given the precautions I'm taking. And continue to take. I'm taking even more precautions to ensure that I don't end up poor and unhappy in a marriage -- i'm not getting married! How am I being anything less that responsible in this scenario, given the likelihood of my birth control medication not working? I assure you, this isn't the pill, I got right off of that as soon as I realized I wasn't going to remember to take it. And got on depro-provera, which I've been constantly reminding myself that I have to call and make an appointment to renew in the next week. My three months aren't up until the end of February but I don't want to wait that long, as an extra precaution. Totally unecessary, a gynecologist might say to be. But i don't care, I want to make sure.
So much more information than I really want to give, but how else to prove I'm being reponsible?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Jon; is it so difficult to read them?
That's EXACTLY the kind of thing I mean, Lalo. It's insulting.
Are you capable of debating without doing it? Do you honestly not realize that you ARE doing it?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Since those engaging in premarital sex report lower sexual satisfaction,
THE DIFFERENCE WAS A MAXIMUM OF 16.2% (between premarital and non-premarital) WE HAVE NO IDEA IF THIS IS STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE STUDY IT CAME FROM.
In most scientific articles I've seen 16.2% is pretty close. If it was 30% or greater, I'd be inclined to believe it. As is 16.2% is diddly squat and appears to be grasping at straws in the realm where most research data (of any sort, human or non-human) can be altered by that much for SUNSPOTS for crying out loud.
AJ
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've never once suggested that sexual satisfaction stems from maturity and responsibility -- in fact, I've written a post to the contrary, one of several that you've carefully ignored. I haven't written that many, Jon; is it so difficult to read them? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's EXACTLY the kind of thing I mean, Lalo. It's insulting.
Are you capable of debating without doing it? Do you honestly not realize that you ARE doing it?
If anything, Kat, that's self-deprecating -- I'm asking him if my writing's too badly written for him to read.
But while you're busy pointing fingers, I'm rather interested: Do you realize the irony in you condemning other people's behavior? I don't see that I'm misbehaving in any fashion, least of all malicious -- and certainly not intentional, as you are extraordinarily prone to resorting to on homosexual threads. Please cut it out with the blame game. You're not impressing me, and it doesn't further the discussion.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Sorry, Lalo. I misread the bit about maturity and responsibility in one of your posts further up the last page. I thought you were referring to the problem of sexual satisfaction, not pregnancy or venereal disease.
quote:Sexual ignorance entering into marriage may provide for greater sexual satisfaction, since neither party has any basis for judgement but each other.
Fallacy of post hoc. Several other people have pointed out that the greater sexual satisfaction experienced by those who haven't had sex prior to marriage cannot be attributed to the fact that they hadn't had sex prior to marriage.
So does anyone have access to that University of Chicago study? My university library doesn't have it.
[ February 02, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm sorry for being steamed in the above post, but I'm not retracting my capital letters either.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lalo, just be careful. If you feel the urge to be snarky, suppress it. If you wonder if you were too nasty, then answer is probably yes. Just be careful.
[ February 02, 2004, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
PSI, it wasn't that it would have been bad, per se, (in the sense of clumsy and inexperienced, we both expected that). I mean that she literally couldn't have sex, physically. It would have been too painful physically for her to have sex that first time. And she isn't a masochist.
BTW, I should mention that this is not boasting on my part... This was a physical condition that would have made sex with any man extremely painful at first.
I know it's not the case with everyone, and that's cool. I'm fine with that. I'm glad the wait added to your relationship, and I'm sorry that you regret not waiting until the wedding night. But do you see the difference going on with the people in this thread, the premarital sex supporters aren't saying everyone should have it, rather that it is a judgment call for each person to make, and one that should be made after educating one's self, and reflecting on one's one and one's partner's feelings on the matter. It doesn't seem to me that the other side is willing to provide the same allowance. I have a sneaking suspicion (sp) that, knowingly or not, they are worrying for my soul or equivalent. Which is comforting, I admit
-Bok
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
Don't sweat it Leonide, it's just amazing that your analogy was a spot on, by the numbers, depiction of the woman's excuse for killing Bruce five months ago. Amazing, and still smarts a bit (it was the year of death for my family, 7 family members and friends died in the space of 5 months), and congrats on being very civil in this debate. I tend to stay out of these as it just brings out the worst in me (in terms of attitude, particularly in regards to tone).
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Sorry, Lalo. I misread the bit about maturity and responsibility in one of your posts further up the page. I thought you were referring to the problem of sexual satisfaction, not pregnancy or venereal disease. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sexual ignorance entering into marriage may provide for greater sexual satisfaction, since neither party has any basis for judgement but each other. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallacy of post hoc. Several other people have pointed out that the greater sexual satisfaction experienced by those who haven't had sex prior to marriage cannot be attributed to the fact that they hadn't had sex prior to marriage.
...which is, ultimately, a paradox. If you don't attribute sexual ignorance to marital-sexual bliss, what do you attribute it to?
Not that your claim that married sex lives are better or happier necessarily has legs to stand on, but for now, let's assume it does.
And no problem.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
99.99% effective is pretty darn effective. Think about it.
People who try to find fault in Depo-controlled, committed, mature premarital sex by citing the inevitable doom of pregnancy seem to me to be grasping at straws. It's just so statistically unlikely that there's really no point in lecturing someone about it. Unless you're also lecturing them about the importance of duct-taping your windows to protect yourself from the Solar Flare That Will Kill Us All.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'd like to add as one of the premarital sex supporters that I personally am planning on waiting for marriage. So not all of us are actually doing it or trying to justify our actions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
pH, can I ask you why?
*honestly curious*
I mean, if you don't see a problem with it, what's the value in waiting?
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
quote:To recap what I've written, sexual ignorance entering into marriage may provide for greater sexual satisfaction, since neither party has any basis for judgement but each other. If anything, I'd expect those who engage in pre-marital sex to have higher standards from their experiences, and therefore report lower sexual satisfaction from their monogamous marriage.
Okay, this may be true. Does that make it less valid? If monogamous married couples enjoy sex more because they lack any frame of reference, does that diminish the fact that they enjoy it more?
[ February 02, 2004, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Brinestone ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I have two major thoughts so far from the thread, but I think they might be more New Thread ideas.
1. Are you, the reader, happy with your body and your self? Do you think this has an impact on sex?
2. I have come to believe that the majority of Hatrack pagans believe in the idea of individuals' choice and sovereignty, while the majority of Hatrack Christians believe in the idea of moral codes to restrict that choice based on their belief system. Can you really disagree?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:If you don't attribute sexual ignorance to marital-sexual bliss, what do you attribute it to?
I think you've got that backwards. Do you mean "attribute marital-sexual bliss to sexual ignorance"? If that's what you're asking, then I would probably attribute it to the quality and security of the relationship.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To recap what I've written, sexual ignorance entering into marriage may provide for greater sexual satisfaction, since neither party has any basis for judgement but each other. If anything, I'd expect those who engage in pre-marital sex to have higher standards from their experiences, and therefore report lower sexual satisfaction from their monogamous marriage. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, this may be true. Does that make it less valid? If monogamous couples enjoy sex more because they lack any frame of reference, does that diminish the fact that they enjoy it more?
The question's whether sexual ignorance is really enough of a dubious benefit in marriage to sacrifice a lifetime's worth of experience for the sake of marrying someone who barely understands how to perform sexually. I'm fond of believing that a marriage that necessitates sexually inexperienced lovers is weaker than a marriage in which the partners love each other despite not being each other's most talented sexual partner.
My question still stands unanswered. Brine, would you prefer that you waited until marriage to kiss Jon? After all, it would be that much more special to you that way -- just as sex is. Right?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
btw brinestone, what is your defnition of monogamy? Because to me it is having one sexual relationship at a time. So that serial monogamy would still be monogamy.
I'm not actually sure what the dictionary definition is.
AJ
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you don't attribute sexual ignorance to marital-sexual bliss, what do you attribute it to? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you've got that backwards. Do you mean "attribute marital-sexual bliss to sexual ignorance"? If that's what you're asking, then I would probably attribute it to the quality and security of the relationship.
Heh. Yes, I typoed -- my mistake.
And good. So you're willing to acknowledge that Greg and Kira's relationship, despite being pre-marital, has roughly the same sexual bliss as a married commitment? It seems, after all, to be a quality and secure relationship all around, despite (presumably) former partners on at least one side of the relationship.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:I'm fond of believing that a marriage that necessitates sexually inexperienced lovers is weaker than a marriage in which the partners love each other despite not being each other's most talented sexual partner.
But you don't actually know that, do you? As you said, you're fond of the idea, which is far from a logical foundation for an argument.
quote:Brine, would you prefer that you waited until marriage to kiss Jon? After all, it would be that much more special to you that way -- just as sex is. Right?
But sex and kissing aren't equivalent, just as marriage and dating aren't equivalent.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Wow this thread got long fast. Anyhoo. . .
There was recently a very interesting discussion about this topic on the radio program "Justice Talking." The show, which includes a moderated debate before a studio audience, was on the topic of sex education in public schools. You can listen here.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:So you're willing to acknowledge that Greg and Kira's relationship, despite being pre-marital, has roughly the same sexual bliss as a married commitment?
No. Marriage is a much greater commitment than steady dating with the hope or intent of getting married.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Hey, I want all the prayers. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, whatever. I appreciate the thought and the faith.
I mean I pray for everyone in the world almost every night. It's true. It's my own concoction... Starts with the old children's prayer "Now I lay me down to sleep...", and ends with a heart felt "Thank you God, Amen." And my only request is that God blesses every single person on earth... I'm waiting to hear back from the rovers before I add the solar system proper.
The above shows that I am obviously not a Universalist. Though it'd be nice.
-Bok
EDIT: For the record, I'm not pagan. I'm still a member of a small Congregationalist Church in my hometown. I mean that seriously too. Not that I'm a great Christian... Funny, when I was 14 or so, everyone thought I should be a doctor or a minister.
[ February 02, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
As a side note....
I have to say, the culture of premarital sex, specifically premarital sex in a stable, mature relationship, doesn't bother me. How could it?
What does bother me is the culture wherein abstinence until marriage is so paramount, it drives scarily young people to commit to spend their entire lives together before they are mature enough to see the difference between love and lust.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I figured the choice of a responsible adult would be to stay out of this thread, but I couldn't. Then again, who said I was responsible?
Anyway, Lalo, the following is by no means the entirety of my reasoning for abstaining from sex until I was married, but it's a part. I don't recall ever having met anyone who, after getting married, said they regretted having waited. I've known many people who did not wait, and after getting married said they regretted not having waited. It's almost Pascal's-Wager-ish, I admit, and if it were my only reason it probably wouldn't stand up. But it's something.
Another part of my personal reasoning is that I have a really good memory. Or at least I did. And sex with anyone other than my wife isn't a memory I wanted to take into marriage. Where to draw the line? There are times when I wish I'd never kissed another girl/woman, and I have known people (two, precisely) who never kissed until their wedding night. I don't think that's necessary, and probably wouldn't go so far as to encourage it. But if my son chooses that path for himself, I probably wouldn't discourage it, either, though I'd encourage it to be thought through rather than be assumed.
When my son is old enough to be thinking about sex, he's then too old to make his choices solely based on "Dad told me." Therefore, I will encourage him to think through the types of questions you are so fond of asking. I'll also encourage him to realize that just because he doesn't think something is a good enough reason doesn't mean that it's not a good reason. You, I believe, mean to express that the reasoning given for pre-marital abstinence in this thread isn't good enough for you, but what you say is that the reasoning isn't good enough period.
We all work from a different set of experiences and unspoken assumptions. But disagreeing with such an assumption is different from invalidating that assumption -- you often claim the latter, and I think sometimes you do so inaccurately.
The reason for you to wait should be obvious. What woman will ever be satisfied anywhere else? You'd be doing nothing but causing widespread suffering. How inconsiderate are you, anyway?
--Pop
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm fond of believing that a marriage that necessitates sexually inexperienced lovers is weaker than a marriage in which the partners love each other despite not being each other's most talented sexual partner. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you don't actually know that, do you? As you said, you're fond of the idea, which is far from a logical foundation for an argument.
It's actually quite logical, if you think about it. A marriage in which one knows the other person's flaws and still loves him or her seems far stronger than a marriage in which one tries to push away all basis for comparison on a certain trait, be that trait sexual or not.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brine, would you prefer that you waited until marriage to kiss Jon? After all, it would be that much more special to you that way -- just as sex is. Right? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But sex and kissing aren't equivalent, just as marriage and dating aren't equivalent.
Heh. That wasn't the question, Jon. If you're going to say that reserving sex for marriage made it more special, why not also reserve kissing for marriage? Wouldn't you want your kisses to be special as well?
Or is it possible that your kisses now are special, despite (presumably) both of you kissing other people? Despite neither of you (hypothetically) being the most talented kissing partner either of you have had? Doesn't the same translate through to sex, also?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you're willing to acknowledge that Greg and Kira's relationship, despite being pre-marital, has roughly the same sexual bliss as a married commitment? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Marriage is a much greater commitment than steady dating with the hope or intent of getting married.
So commitment = sexual satisfaction?
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Yeah, I think I used it wrong. I was typing pretty fast. *goes back to edit post*
Now, Lalo-
Even though I don't think your analogy holds any weight whatsoever, I'll address it anyway.
No, I don't think waiting to kiss Jon would have made it "more special." That's because I see kissing in somewhat the same way you see sex: as a way to find out whether you "see sparks" sexually with each other. Kisses are a way to show affection and even love, but they are not the sublime act of love, commitment, and procreation that sex is. They're nowhere near it, enjoyable as they may be.
On the other hand, I treasured my kisses too. There were a few guys who wanted to kiss me (I know) who never got a chance, because I didn't want to waste them on just anybody.
Finally, I'm irritated that you assume all (or most) married couples who enjoy sex do so because they are ignorant of how much better it could be. How is experimenting with your spouse and communicating what you think would be fun or fulfilling different from doing the same with multiple different people?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I have known people (two, precisely) who never kissed until their wedding night.
Three, actually.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Possibly more, I suppose, but, as of now, I knowingly know three. *smile*
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:It's actually quite logical, if you think about it. A marriage in which one knows the other person's flaws and still loves him or her seems far stronger than a marriage in which one tries to push away all basis for comparison on a certain trait, be that trait sexual or not.
I know my wife and her flaws, and I still love her. I don't see how sex before marriage or with multiple partners would have changed that. I think Papa Moose said it well: I don't want the memory of having sex with other women to be an issue in my marriage.
quote:That wasn't the question, Jon. If you're going to say that reserving sex for marriage made it more special, why not also reserve kissing for marriage? Wouldn't you want your kisses to be special as well?
Sorry—my point wasn't very clear. Kissing doesn't carry the same sort of emotional and psychological weight that sex does. Thus, you don't have to wait till you're married to kiss people. So I think it's a good idea to wait until you're dating before you kiss, and to wait until you're married before you have sex.
quote:So commitment = sexual satisfaction?
Not necessarily, but I think it's a factor. I only have my own experience and the claims of that study to rely on (and some other anecdotal evidence in this thread).
[ February 02, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'd just like to say something about this:
quote:I have come to believe that the majority of Hatrack pagans believe in the idea of individuals' choice and sovereignty, while the majority of Hatrack Christians believe in the idea of moral codes to restrict that choice based on their belief system. Can you really disagree?
Yes, I disagree. The point of a moral code is to tell you which choices are bad choices. But that's a discussion for a different thread, probably.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
But Jon Boy, I don't see how what you said disagrees.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:I figured the choice of a responsible adult would be to stay out of this thread, but I couldn't. Then again, who said I was responsible?
Anyway, Lalo, the following is by no means the entirety of my reasoning for abstaining from sex until I was married, but it's a part. I don't recall ever having met anyone who, after getting married, said they regretted having waited. I've known many people who did not wait, and after getting married said they regretted not having waited. It's almost Pascal's-Wager-ish, I admit, and if it were my only reason it probably wouldn't stand up. But it's something.
Another part of my personal reasoning is that I have a really good memory. Or at least I did. And sex with anyone other than my wife isn't a memory I wanted to take into marriage. Where to draw the line? There are times when I wish I'd never kissed another girl/woman, and I have known people (two, precisely) who never kissed until their wedding night. I don't think that's necessary, and probably wouldn't go so far as to encourage it. But if my son chooses that path for himself, I probably wouldn't discourage it, either, though I'd encourage it to be thought through rather than be assumed.
When my son is old enough to be thinking about sex, he's then too old to make his choices solely based on "Dad told me." Therefore, I will encourage him to think through the types of questions you are so fond of asking. I'll also encourage him to realize that just because he doesn't think something is a good enough reason doesn't mean that it's not a good reason. You, I believe, mean to express that the reasoning given for pre-marital abstinence in this thread isn't good enough for you, but what you say is that the reasoning isn't good enough period.
We all work from a different set of experiences and unspoken assumptions. But disagreeing with such an assumption is different from invalidating that assumption -- you often claim the latter, and I think sometimes you do so inaccurately.
The reason for you to wait should be obvious. What woman will ever be satisfied anywhere else? You'd be doing nothing but causing widespread suffering. How inconsiderate are you, anyway?
Heh!
My apologies if I'm implying universal law in my posts -- by saying I don't think a certain proposition has enough reason behind it to convince me, I don't mean to say it can't convince anyone else. Though I will admit I don't understand why a rational or intelligent person would desire sexual ignorance for marriage in order to avoid basis for comparison against their husband or wife.
This isn't to say I can't respect waiting for marriage -- Pearce, as she's posted, intends to wait until marriage to have sex, and I respect the hell out of her. I can also understand choosing to wait until marriage for the sake of proving one's love to another in form of sacrifice. I can agree with several reasons for self-denial -- but I find it ridiculous that such sacrifices should be held as universal law or even entirely logical thought. Dating shouldn't necessarily be sexless as a default, though I have no problem with those who choose to date without any intention of a pre-marital sexual relationship.
If I've rambled too much to be coherent, I'll try to be express it in a short paragraph -- there's nothing necessarily wrong with mutual self-denial when it comes to a relationship, and in many cases, I'm sure it's actually strengthened relationships. But declaring that all pre-marital sex is wrong, especially when performed in the bounds of a committed relationship, is absurd and self-righteous to the point of caricature. I prefer to think of abstinence as a sacrifice, not a default, and I'm sure most married couples will agree that the entire point of their sacrifice of a sexual relationship before marriage was to help them become more eager for indulgence after the vows.
Truth be told, if I ever meet a woman whom I fall in love with, I'll probably abstain for whatever amount of time seems appropriate in order to ensure our relationship's about each other, not our bodies. But in the meantime, I see no harm -- and plenty of good -- in dating to experience and enjoy the world. I'm rather amused and confused by insistence that I'm committing sin by having responsible sex, and I still have yet to hear a rational reason why responsible sex would be dubbed thus.
Well, that wasn't a short paragraph at all...
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
From Lalo,
quote: I'm fond of believing that a marriage that necessitates sexually inexperienced lovers is weaker than a marriage in which the partners love each other despite not being each other's most talented sexual partner.
So your hope is, that by engaging in premarital sex and then getting married, your marriage will actually be stronger because it can withstand prenuptual unfaithfulness?
What is your definition of a weak marriage? You think that people who engage in premarital sex are more likely to be faithful to their spouse than those who keep themselves faithful to a spouse they don't even yet know?
What you are really saying is that for a successful marriage, you and your spouse are actually required both have a stronger and deeper commitment to each other. You, and your spouse must at the outset be less jealous of eachother's past. So, IF you have a successful marriage, it will be YOU that is stronger, not the marriage. The strength of the marriage will depend on your commitment which must be greater at the outset than the commitment of someone who was already faithful to a stranger they hoped to meet in the future.
IF you have that kind of strength, kudos. Yes, it proves you are better at marriage than others.
But if a person doesn't have that kind of strength, why stack the odds against them? Why not teach them the easiest way to have a successful marriage?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Suneun, I believe very strongly in the idea of choice and personal sovereignty. The idea is that we're told which choices are good and which are bad, and then we choose which we think is best. The idea is not to restrict choices, but to inform them. It seems to me that the difference between the pagans and the Christians is that the pagans rely mostly on themselves to decide what's right, while the Christians rely on themselves and on their churches. But like I said, that's a discussion for another thread, and I'm feeling too tired and lazy to start such a discussion.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
quote:Couples who were members of different denominations when engaged but later affiliated with the same church had a divorce rate of only 6 percent, compared with 14 percent for couples of the same denomination and 20 percent for those who maintained membership in different denominations.
The research was presented by Barbara Markey, PhD, at the Smart Marriages conference in Washington, DC July 1-4. Tape #509 "Dealing With Risk Factors of Inter-Faith Marriages."
quote:And that comes from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--specifically, from those Mormons who marry in a temple. While other Mormons divorce at the usual rate, only 6% of those who undergo the demanding temple marriage break up, according to Brigham Young University professor Daniel K. Judd.
quote:Percentage of people that married under the age of 20 who eventually get divorced as of 1995: 40%
Percentage of people that married over the age of 25 who eventually get divorced as of 1995: 24%
Okay. So now lets insist that people only marry after age 25 and then become affiliated with the same church, or get a Mormon temple wedding. Because then, suddenly, our divorce rate will be 6% and everyone will be happier.
Except if we forced such things on people, I bet the divorce rate would be the same as the current average.
If you took everyone who engaged in pre-marital sex and used a time machine so that you enacted a rule that they had to marry without such pre-marital sex, i bet the divorce rate wouldn't magically move to 6%. People are people. We divide ourselves up based on who we are. Suddenly making me Mormon doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to stay in my marriage 94% of the time.
What am I trying to say? That maybe pre-marital sex and divorce rates are a symptom of something else. That the simple act of sex doesn't make or break a marriage. Life is more complicated than that, and I don't think the vague benefit of a few percentage points is worth the self-righteous act some people take on.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I would like to point out that “pagan” is a descriptor for a group of religions, and thus probably not the right word to use for non-religious types.
Also that rivka has been posting on this thread, and she is neither pagan(nor non-religious) nor Christian.
[ February 02, 2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Or maybe people could choose to do all of those things to lower the divorce rate. And who ever said that sex was a simple act?
dkw: I know, and I apologize. I was just using Suneun's terms for the sake of argument.
[ February 02, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
actually dkw, there are several definitions of pagan, one of them being "non-christian."
quote:One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
One who has no religion.
A non-Christian.
A hedonist.
A Neo-Pagan.
But I clarify. I suppose I mean non-Christian, though I think my "majority" might be more of a majority if it simply included agnostics and atheists.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
You are right, Suneun. People are people. The fact that temple marriages have a higher success gives us an interesting bit.
People who engage in the lifestyle required to go to the temple are more likely to have a successful marriage.
Of course you can't force it on people. People MUST make their own choice.
But I think those statistics pretty much prove that the conservative lifestyle advocated by the religious results in a greater chance of having a strong marriage.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Jon, you could also choose to move to Sri Lanka. Their divorce rate per 1000 population is 0.15 which is 1/30th of the US rate.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
strong marriage?
I agree they're IN a marriage longer. But that statistic says nothing about the actual strength of the marriage (unless you define it as being IN a marriage), or the actual happiness of people inside and outside of said marriage.
Shrug. I think divorce is not a bad thing, just something abused occasionally.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
quote:I don't understand why a rational or intelligent person would desire sexual ignorance for marriage in order to avoid basis for comparison against their husband or wife.
I love you, Lalo, but I think that statement says more about your understanding than about someone else's rationality or intelligence.
My opinions on sex are certainly tainted by my religion and faith. However, another part of my choice is because I view sex not as a destination but a process, and becoming sexually active as such as well. I want to share every moment of that with my wife. I do not claim that it is the case for anyone else, but pre-marital sex would have been selfish for me. My aim was not ignorance per se, but the opportunity to share something with my wife.
I also have difficulty believing that you'll find any reasoning against pre-marital sex to be rational, especially when you refer to it as a sin. Speaking of something as a sin to someone who doesn't believe there is such a thing is fruitless. My tendency is to speak of the wisdom of various choices, and the awareness of their consequences. You've already determined what the consequences are likely to be, and thus what wisdom is inherent in the various choices. I doubt you'll be swayed.
--Pop
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Divorce rates are a convenient indicator, something that probably correlates with success of a relationship. But just as people are people, divorce rates can mean a great deal.
Maybe someone gets a divorce because they were too "young and stupid" when they got married (see under 25, over 25 divorce rates). Maybe someone gets a divorce because they are less likely to take abuse within a marriage than another population. Maybe someone gets a divorce because they're a polygamist at heart. Who knows.
We'd have to do the Mother of All Epidemiological Studies and look at everything. But no matter what we find out, making arbitrary changes in Rules or Obligations will likely make little effect.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
rivka, from page one:
quote:And having sex before (or instead of) working on communication skills is a good way to make the participants feel they know each other far better than they actually do. Which is a sure way to undermine or even destroy a relationship.
Yep.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
quote:The proportion of married Americans that are not happy with their marriage has not changed, but the [proportion] that are happy has dropped sharply from more than half to less than two-fifths.
The Abolition of Marriage, by Maggie Gallagher page 107, citing Norvall Glenn, "The Social and Cultural Meaning of Marriage," in The Retreat from Marriage, Bryce Christensen, ed.
So what does that tell us?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:jeniwren, do you have money set aside in case your husband decides to divorce you in a bloody legal battle where he tries to take away your house and kids? Do you have money set aside for if your husband cheats on you and impregnates another unmarried woman and then decides to use your household funds secretly to pay for an abortion or the baby's care? Do you have money set aside for the court and legal fees you'll have to pay if you hit an old lady with your car as you're walking across the street not looking one day? Do you have money set aside for when your child robs a department store, those legal fees and repayment of damages for possible vandalism?
Actually, as it happens, we do have plans to deal with weird "probably never going to happen" possibilities. We have umbrella liability insurance to make sure that if we're sued, we have the money to cover it and protect our assets. We keep a year's worth of expenses in liquid assets to make sure that if we need it, it's there. We've made plans. Even plans for the possibility that our kids will make very bad decisions, ones that require legal fees and that sort of thing. Our current project is estate planning. The next one is to come up with a long term budget, and assess whether our financial planning to date will suffice for the retirement lifestyle we'd like to have someday. I'm only 35, so we're talking 30 years in advance kind of planning.
Leonide, you said that you had deep, heartfelt talks about the possibility of pregnancy. And now you've said (essentially) that there isn't any point in making plans for things that aren't going to happen. The point is that in cases where the consequence could be devestating, it is wise to make plans, even when the chances are slim the plans will be necessary. And where the the consequence could be devestating, it's downright foolish *not* to have a plan.
Deep, heartfelt talks don't replace making concrete plans. I don't think my house is going to burn down, and the chances are *very* slim, but I still have smoke detectors and an escape plan just in case. I don't think an earthquake will hit, but I have jugs of water in my crawlspace and other contingency plans just in case. You get the picture.
So, I've heard you guys talk about how responsibly you've gone about this, and I want to be on your side about it, I really do. Tell me you've got a plan, what you'll do if you get pregnant, and I'll shut up. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
kat: Why do I see a point in waiting? Because I _personally_ am not comfortable with the idea of sex right now. And I personally would like to save that for someone who I know will value it. You can learn a lot from the way a guy reacts to not getting any, as well.
But my friends are sexually active, and they practice safe sex and seem to be perfectly happy with their choices. I even told my best friend that I'm jealous of her because she can enjoy that aspect of a relationship with her boyfriend, and I just don't feel ready for it yet.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Jeni, did you have all of that "emergency fund" saved up when you GOT married? or did it accumulate over time? Was there scraping along and "making do" in the meantime?
I don't think that is a fair comparison to make. Admittedly part of choosing not to have children at anytime is due to other goals needing to be met. If in the context of marriage though, a child unexpectedly happened, the parents would "make do" the best they could, possibly delaying other goals. Undoubtedly this is what would happen in the strider leo relationship, goals and priorities would be rearranged but they would make do, and not be bad parents either!
AJ
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:I personally would like to save that for someone who I know will value it. You can learn a lot from the way a guy reacts to not getting any, as well.
I think that's pretty smart, pH. I wish I'd felt that way when I was your age.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Thanks, jeni.
My friends and I have a "Lame Lines Hall of Fame" consisting solely of things frustrated guys have said to me. Among them: "Well, you have to lose it to _somebody_, and I'm a nice guy...." "I don't have any interest in having sex with you, anyway. When you've had as much sex as I have, you can tell things about people, and I'm sure you'd be miserable in bed." "But I've been good for four days!...."
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, see what happens when I go be a Mommy and take my kids to dance and spend time with them.
You've moved beyond it now but I'm taking up issue with things that were said and assumed about me back on page four.
I love how you, who do not know me, can presume to tell me what caused the problems in my marriage. Do you think I just made this story up to make a point on this thread?
I am the only person (besides my husband and my therapist) who knows what effect premarital sex and cohabitation had on my marriage. Who the &*%^ do you think you are to presume to know otherwise? To tell me it was something else. Like you know my emotional health and history better than I do?
This is why I quit hatrack and why I'm going to do it again.
No one LISTENS to people. They immediately dismiss what they don't want to hear. You want to have sex without consequences, so when people bring up consequences like the chances of pregnancy (and I have a birth control child conceived while I was taking those 99.9% effective pills), and the emotional wounds that can result you find some reason to ignore what we're saying.
I am a person who fully supported the idea of cohabitation and then came to regret it later after marriage. Not that many people here have the perspective I do on it and yet YOU DON'T GIVE A %^$& ABOUT WHAT I'M SAYING BECAUSE IT ISN'T WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.
Gah. I'm done. I should have known better.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:But do you see the difference going on with the people in this thread, the premarital sex supporters aren't saying everyone should have it, rather that it is a judgment call for each person to make, and one that should be made after educating one's self, and reflecting on one's one and one's partner's feelings on the matter. It doesn't seem to me that the other side is willing to provide the same allowance.
But that's not the impression I get from this thread, especially the beginning. There are a few who have posted, and like you, have a "it's your choice" motif, but the only ones I have said anything against are those saying it is something that should be done or is for some ungiven and unsupported reason better. It's not "better" in any justifiable way, it's just something you choose to do because you want to do it. Any other attribution to it would be dishonest. I certainly don't feel that everyone should abstain, but that they should be honest about why they either are or are not. It works both ways.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: Leonide, you said that you had deep, heartfelt talks about the possibility of pregnancy. And now you've said (essentially) that there isn't any point in making plans for things that aren't going to happen. The point is that in cases where the consequence could be devestating, it is wise to make plans, even when the chances are slim the plans will be necessary. And where the the consequence could be devestating, it's downright foolish *not* to have a plan.
We're planning on dealing it the best way we know how when it happens. We don't know where either of us will be at that point, and while both of us is adverse to the idea of abortion, we still don't know whether adoption or keeping the child would be the best course of action, because we don't know how we'll both be financially at that point. Or stability-wise -- neither of us has a full-time job at this point, and we might decide it'd be unfair to bring a child into that scenario. Just because we've had deep, heartfelt talks about this doesn't mean that we laid out a plan. We know each other's feelings on abortion and acknowledge that at this point in our lives we're probably neither of us adequately equipped to parent a child. But we still don't know how we'll feel in that exact situation, so we haven't agreed on anything in stone. We know that we'll help each other and support each other and come to a mutual decision that hopefully encompasses what's best for everyone involved, and not just ourselves. I can't tell you right now what I would do if I got pregnant, because I'm not and I can't tell you that how I feel about it now would be my feelings if I actually was. To assure you that I would know my feelings would be a lie, and I don't think you'll accept anything less then a protestation of certainty. I'm not certain. Neither is Greg. Honestly neither of us can tell you right now what exactly we'd do. I'm sorry, neither of us is willing to make promises right now that we might not be able to keep.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
FOR THE LOVE OF PETE! Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
"I personally would like to save that for someone who I know will value it. You can learn a lot from the way a guy reacts to not getting any, as well."
I imagine you're certainly right, but you could certainly turn the statement around, and suggest that one could learn a lot about one's partner if they found out a primary reason for a non-sexual relationship was to test him to see if he was a lustful, self-interested --- or not. I believe quite a few guys, both sleazy and not wouldn't react well to that.
I can certainly respect the saving it for someone who will value it, but the rest of that while sort of cynically useful, also could be destructive to relationships. I don't know many men who like to jump through hoops, most prefer straight honesty on matters like this (as I imagine women prefer as well).
[ February 02, 2004, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: graywolfe ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
AJ, nope, I had to have disasters fall on my head before I caught on to the value of judicious planning. And no, between us, when we got married, we had our 401(k)'s and a little in the bank. Part of our planning has been to live way below our means, making the emergency fund necessary. We met our goal as of about 3 months ago. But all while we were saving, we made sure that *if* disaster struck, we had some sort of plan in place, even without the assets we were working to build. We still tried to make some sort of plan.
I'm *not* saying it's easy. I have been procrastinating planning for the possibility of my death. I don't want to think about it. But the truth I cannot deny is that if I died right now, there would be some very serious repercussions for my children, especially my son (who is mine by my first marriage and is not adopted by my current husband) -- and I *have* to plan for that, however slim the possibility that the plans are necessary. I feel bad that I've put it off as long as I have, and am grateful that it hasn't been necessary.
In Leo and Strider's case, I suspect that a pregnancy would be just a little more concerning than it would if they were married. Since they aren't married, and the effects of a pregnancy is concerning enough to trigger deep, heartfelt talks, I think not having a real plan is irresponsible. Sorry, but there it is.
Just as irresponsible as my not having my will done.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:In Leo and Strider's case, I suspect that a pregnancy would be just a little more concerning than it would if they were married. Since they aren't married, and the effects of a pregnancy is concerning enough to trigger deep, heartfelt talks, I think not having a real plan is irresponsible. Sorry, but there it is.
I think you're misinterpreting what i mean by "deep, heartfelt talks" Strider and I have deep, heartfelt talks about *everything.* I'm also going through some emotional "stuff" right now which causes me to get overly upset about just about everything. Plus the talks were mainly before I started taking the Depro-provera. Pravera. Prevera. whatever. Primavera. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
mmmm...primavera. *drool*
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
graywolfe: That's not the _only_ reason for it by a long shot. But lately, all I've been meeting are sleazy guys with additions to the Lame Lines Hall of Fame...
Anyways. There is a lot more to it, but I also haven't been in a long-term relationship yet. Any guy who thinks he should get laid after four days....
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Well, see what happens when I go be a Mommy and take my kids to dance and spend time with them.
You've moved beyond it now but I'm taking up issue with things that were said and assumed about me back on page four.
I love how you, who do not know me, can presume to tell me what caused the problems in my marriage. Do you think I just made this story up to make a point on this thread?
I am the only person (besides my husband and my therapist) who knows what effect premarital sex and cohabitation had on my marriage. Who the &*%^ do you think you are to presume to know otherwise? To tell me it was something else. Like you know my emotional health and history better than I do?
This is why I quit hatrack and why I'm going to do it again.
No one LISTENS to people. They immediately dismiss what they don't want to hear. You want to have sex without consequences, so when people bring up consequences like the chances of pregnancy (and I have a birth control child conceived while I was taking those 99.9% effective pills), and the emotional wounds that can result you find some reason to ignore what we're saying.
I am a person who fully supported the idea of cohabitation and then came to regret it later after marriage. Not that many people here have the perspective I do on it and yet YOU DON'T GIVE A %^$& ABOUT WHAT I'M SAYING BECAUSE IT ISN'T WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.
Gah. I'm done. I should have known better.
Yeah, Adrian, chill out.
You've cited your unhappiness with pre-marital co-habitation based on your history, but you have yet to provide substantial reasons beyond heartbreak against pre-marital sex -- and heartbreak's available in all forms of love, not solely co-habitation.
The problem here is that you're not listening to people. You're so intent on believing that pre-marital sexual relationships are wrong that you're refusing to consider the alternative -- after all, if you had a bad experience, all pre-marital relationships are doomed to failure?
Your past is unconvincing when you try to apply it to everyone else. While I certainly feel for you, and regret that you went through a bad experience, it's not indicative of everyone else's lives or futures.
The only two concrete reasons brought up in this thread have been post-marital satisfaction (which is steadily being dismissed as unscientific and unrealistic) and risks of pregnancy or venereal disease. Which, while real risks, can be avoided and prevented with responsible, mature birth control. Your reason of emotional hurt is an inherent risk in all relationships that run the risk of love and failure, and isn't a convincing argument for or against pre-marital sex -- though it is a rather obvious argument against premature marriage.
Again, dude, relax. We are listening -- but listening doesn't necessarily lead to conviction and agreement, especially when your arguments are supported by little else than anecdotal evidence. Please come up with some reasonable or scientific arguments, and no doubt you'll be able to sway some minds -- at least, more minds than you would with this-happened-to-me-so-it's-representative-of-premarital-relationships.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Leo, I was writing when you posted. What you said is fair. I understand not wanting to put in concrete that you'd have an abortion -- the reality could very well change your mind and I do understand that. I'd call "well, right now I think we'd have an abortion, but unless we are actually there, I don't think I could commit to Greg that's what I'd do" as much of a plan as you could make under the circumstances. Me, I couldn't have an abortion under any circumstances, and having that choice right out, I'd have to either not have sex (not an option either) or start figuring out what we would do with another baby. We had a vasectomy to make it as certain as we could. Still, in the back of my mind, I know the possibility exists, and am okay with it. Sounds like you are too, and that's really what I was looking for...to make sure you were actually looking at it full in the face.
I'll shut up now. Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: "well, right now I think we'd have an abortion, but unless we are actually there, I don't think I could commit to Greg that's what I'd do"
I think that chances are, although again I can't speak for the actual occurrence, I would chose adoption over abortion any time. And maybe, if circumstances were more favorable, I'd chose to keep the child. Committing to Greg is not an issue I consider meshed in with the choosing what to do with a surprise pregnancy -- I think we could weather that as we've weathered our other relationship storms. I'm already committed to Greg, the issue would be what we would do with our baby.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sorry Belle.
-Bok
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:pH, can I ask you why?
*honestly curious*
I mean, if you don't see a problem with it, what's the value in waiting?
Maybe, kat, it's because she judges what is right for her, but understands that her decisions may not be the right ones for someone else.
I have to be honest here, people, this is a personal issue. I don't care about statistics, or your religion or your moral values. Sex is an intimate act between two people and it needs to *stay* between two people. If they have a child, it is their responsibility to care properly for the child or accept the other consequences of their actions. It is none of your concern. Maybe this *is* a Hatrack thread...but in my opinion, it shouldn't be.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Kasie, for my part, I knew how this would go, I knew I was going to have to defend my experience, as kat noted multiple times. I reap what I sow.
-Bok
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
"graywolfe: That's not the _only_ reason for it by a long shot. But lately, all I've been meeting are sleazy guys with additions to the Lame Lines Hall of Fame...
Anyways. There is a lot more to it, but I also haven't been in a long-term relationship yet. Any guy who thinks he should get laid after four days...."
Oh, alright. I'm sympathetic, I understand where you're coming from, as I was rather unusual growing up (found the seemingly "one for me" when I was 15, and the relationship lasted for 7 years until it imploded)and was deeply familiar w/the guys you are no doubt running into. It's not fun trying to suss out the players from the genuinely trustworthy guys, at least that's what I'd presume.
Good luck to you, I fully understand the motivation, I just wish people could be more straight w/one another, but for many, that would eliminate the fun of the chase and "the game" and what not. That's not true of myself, but it does seem true of a lot of people I knew growing up and over the past decade since finishing High School.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
When I asked pH, it was very honestly a sincerely curious question.
pH had made a decision that she felt was right for her, and it didn't seem to have anything to do with general beliefs. I wondered what those specific reasons would be.
Thank you for answering. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
No problem. I don't mind explaining at all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I also wait until after dinner to have my dessert. Does this mean that the enjoyment of dessert is not as big of a deal to me as it is to others?"
Yes. Because, clearly, it was more important to those others than whatever factors would have otherwise made them wait to eat dessert. In the same way, waiting to have sex implies that the pleasure of sex is a lower priority for you than other considerations.
This isn't a bad thing, by any stretch of the imagination. However, it DOES suggest that, as you don't place as high a priority on it, you can't be expected to value it as much.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not a big believer in "absence makes the heart grow fonder," Tom?
I'm sorry, but I have difficulty believing that you're equating lack of self-control and giving something higher priority.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I would hardly call deciding to have pre-marital sex exercising a lack of "self-control", rivka, but I would call you saying that slightly insulting. Or did i misread you?
[ February 02, 2004, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Not a big believer in "absence makes the heart grow fonder," Tom?
I'm sorry, but I have difficulty believing that you're equating lack of self-control and giving something higher priority.
I kinda sorta agree with Rivka -- holding off sex implies greater self control, not lower priority.
Whether that self-control is reasonable or practical is the real question.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Whoa, whoa! I was strictly talking about the dessert metaphor!
And I apologize for my poor phrasing.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Implies is a sticky word, there, Eddie. Maybe those who are abstaining considers themselves to be exercising self-control, but I certainly don't have any uncontrollable passions that need satiating or I'll explode. I have sex because I want to. It was a conscious decision, and not a shedding of my self-control. Trust me, I have a hard enough time controlling my emotions as it is --I am able to recognize when I'm doing just that.
edit: ah, sorry I misread, rivka but Eddie! *shakes fist*
[ February 02, 2004, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't like Tom's implication that if something is important, it needs to be sought after and done right away, or else its obviously not important.
Not a big believer in delayed gratification?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Tom, I'm really not sure how you're reaching that conclusion. When I was single, having sex was not a huge priority to me. That's because, to me, sex was important and valuable enough to wait until later, when I could enjoy it with my wife. And whatever my sexual priorities were when I was single, they're different now that I'm married. I especially dislike the claim that since I wanted to wait until marriage to have sex, I don't value it as much. I'm sure I value it as much as anyone else who values sex.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Here's a question I've been wondering: why do those of you with religious moral reasons against pre-marital sex consider it a wonderful, beautiful, intimate thing? Is it because it's a highly pleasurable and personal experience that you save for your partner? Or is it because of what you're hoping to create with it?
[ February 02, 2004, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not that I don't believe in delayed gratification. I just don't believe that most people who choose to wait to have sex do so because they think the physical act will be improved by the delay.
In my anecdotal experience, the vast majority of such people abstain from premarital sex because something else -- like, for example, the regard of God -- matters more to them.
Since this is clearly not the case for those who do NOT abstain, we can conclude that those people who wait to enjoy sex place less importance on the physical pleasure of sex, relative to their actions, than those who do not.
It's a matter of priority. If I wait to buy a stereo -- even though I can currently afford the stereo -- because I want to keep a certain nest egg safe, I clearly value my nest egg more than I value the stereo; someone who goes out and buys the stereo immediately, then, obviously places a higher relative value on the stereo itself.
-----
That said, I'm certainly aware that, having had sex, someone who had previously abstained from sex might suddenly place a higher value on sexual enjoyment once he or she experienced it. Barring a return to single status, though, I don't think there's any way to judge how much more important sex might become to any such individual.
[ February 02, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Leonide: Both.
Tom: I think I'm understanding you now. But I would say that people who wait to enjoy sex place less importance on the physical pleasure of sex right then. Once married, I think they value it as much as anyone else.
[ February 02, 2004, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I have a hard time believing the latter doesn't take priority, Jon, since time and again the religious-minded on this board have said that sex is supposed to be only for procreation, as ordained by God.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Honestly? I see it as the emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual merging of two people in an act of pure, unselfish love and pleasure that unites those two people in all aspects of their lives.
I also see it as a beautiful act of creation of a human life. That's amazing to me.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Really, Leonide? It seems to me that time and again, the religious Jatraqueros have said that sex is both things.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: I see it as the emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual merging of two people in an act of pure, unselfish love and pleasure that unites those two people in all aspects of their lives.
I don't see a marriage stipulation there, yet I know you believe that that has to come first. Why can't this apply to Greg and I? There's nothing selfish about our love making -- it's emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual in our own way, though not religiously so...and it unites us in ways really impossible in my eyes without close, intimate contact. Yet somehow it's considered sub-par because we don't have a certificate claiming that it's legal?
quote: It seems to me that time and again, the religious Jatraqueros have said that sex is both things.
But the latter must still take precedence, because you're only to engage in the act if a child is the goal, am I right? I freely acknowledge I could be totally off on this one, it's just been my general impression.
[ February 02, 2004, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
We believe that the ultimate expression of physical love goes hand-in-hand with the ultimate expression of commitment—marriage.
quote:But the latter must still take precendence, because you're only to engage in the act if a child is the goal, am I right? I freely acknowledge I could be totally off on this one, it's just been my general impression.
Nope. I think you have to accept the possibility that you could have a child before you have sex, but I don't think that you should only have sex if you're planning on having a child. I'm sure there are other religions that disagree, but that's what my church says (other Mormon Jatraqueros, feel free to correct me).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Speaking strictly in terms of (Orthodox) Judaism (simply because I don't know enough to answer for anyone else), procreation is NOT seen as the primary goal of sex.
quote: At its highest use, the sexual union brings holiness into the world, as it bonds husband and wife together, spiritually, physically and emotionally.
Closeness between a husband and wife is not just a nice thing, but rather, it is the re-creation on a physical plane of a deeper spiritual reality. According to Jewish thought, a husband and wife were originally one soul before birth, split into two halves when the younger [I think she means older] of the two was conceived. When they reunite in marriage, their bond is unique because it represents the recreation of a single entity, of one soul.
Posted by Polly (Member # 6044) on :
quote:But the latter must still take precedence, because you're only to engage in the act if a child is the goal, am I right? I freely acknowledge I could be totally off on this one, it's just been my general impression.
Nope, you're totally off on this one.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
My opinion on this thread: the people who were telling Belle that they know better than she does about an experience that she LIVED THROUGH, instead of actually believing her account, have some nerve. She knows what happened to her and why. Her analysis of her own situation is valid, even if you think it does not apply to your particular case.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Debates like this end up polarizing the issue of sex in a strange way. It's not like a couple either gets sexual or doesn't. There's a continuum of acts, from kissing up to vaginal intercourse, and one of the things I see missing in the 'abstinence' agenda is an acknowledgement of the fact that physical intimacy takes a number of forms.
Is oral sex too personal to undertake before marriage? What about petting? What about dry-humping?
quote:My opinion on this thread: the people who were telling Belle that they know better than she does about an experience that she LIVED THROUGH, instead of actually believing her account, have some nerve. She knows what happened to her and why. Her analysis of her own situation is valid, even if you think it does not apply to your particular case.
Seems to me that's exactly what Lalo said: her analysis is valid, but it doesn't apply to other people.
[ February 03, 2004, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:But all while we were saving, we made sure that *if* disaster struck, we had some sort of plan in place, even without the assets we were working to build
What if there was no change you could ever save enough money, or make any plan whatsoever? I know for sure, if a disaster struck my family, from the moment my parents got married, up until now, there would be no means to deal with it. If they wanted to wait, I would have never been born. For 25 years of marriage, they never got a chance to make any kind of planning possible. So were they supposed to spend their lives separately, not having sex and not having children because they couldn't deal with an unexpected accident?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I agree, I know several married couples who would argue quite positively that their premarital sex has not harmed their relationship at all. Does this mean their example applies to everyone? Of course not. Same with Belle's.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yozhik, it has worked both ways in this thread. Could you add the same indignation for Leonide and Strider?
-Bok
EDIT: Sorry, ignore the above, it was ill-thought out. Leonide and Strider made it clear that they weren't going to take it personally. Belle did not, and we should have acted appropriately.
[ February 03, 2004, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yozhik,
She has yet to explain exactly how premarital sex harmed her marriage. Understanding requires more than someone saying "Because it's so." If Belle wants to get angry at someone,she should be angry at herself for not bothering to take the time to try and elaborate what it is she means, rather than walking away in a huff when people say they don't agree with, or understand, her analysis.
quote: Wrong. Living together and having sex before marriage did not help our relationship. It hurt it. We've spent a lot of years having to work through the issues that came up because of it. The fact that I started our relationship with the fear and the idea in the back of my mind that "I'd better be careful here, he could leave me and abandon me so I need to check things out and hold back" meant that for years I was not wholly committed to this marriage.
I didn't accept the love my husband tried to offer me, because I was still holding back. It took years, and therapy, and the incredible patience and understanding of my husband before I was really able to participate completely in our marriage and be a devoted, committed partner to the degree that both of us wanted me to be.
Of course, it wasn't one-sided. He went through much of the same thing, but to a lesser degree. He also didn't have the same battle scars I did entering the relationship.
I'm standing here from experience, saying that having sex before marriage didn't increase our chances of having a happy marriage and in fact probably hurt it for some time.
I cannot even begin to tell you how much I wish I had remained celibate throughout our dating period and we had been each other's firsts and onlies beginning on our wedding night.
If you can pick out a cause and effect here where living together is the culprit, my hat is off to you, but I know I can't. And without that, all I can see is mental problems------->living together/problems in marriage, not living together------->problems in marriage.
Edited for politeness: Also, to make it clear, I will take the blame for not explaining myself well enough in my post referring to the above quoted. I'm not discounting Belle's experiences. As has been mentioned, her perception of them is her own. I'm saying that they don't make sense to me. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
[ February 03, 2004, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have come to believe that the majority of Hatrack pagans believe in the idea of individuals' choice and sovereignty, while the majority of Hatrack Christians believe in the idea of moral codes to restrict that choice based on their belief system. Can you really disagree?
I really tried to stay out of this one, namely because my ideals and my actions in this matter have not matched up perfectly. But this mischaracterization finally stirred me to participate.
Anyway, yes, I can really disagree with this. There is no forced dichotomy between “individual choice” and “moral codes to restrict that choice.” I believe most of the Christians would say that moral codes do not restrict choice so much as guide them.
Nobody here has advocated making pre-marital sex illegal or taking that choice away from others. In fact, for a large part of the thread, I’ve seen people on both sides (although there’s really at least 4 sides here) trying to convince other people why a particular choice is better than others. Saying to someone, “You should do X” does not deny them individual choice or sovereignty – the mere phrasing of the statement assumes such things exist.
It is true that Christian’s (and believers of many other religions) do not think that the simplistic “if it doesn’t hurt another person, it’s OK” mantra is valid. In that sense, “individual sovereignty” is not an idea to be believed in because it ignores duty owed to God and to Self.
But in a larger sense, individual sovereignty is given far more respect, because every choice made by a person matters to someone else who has the power to change those choices but refrains from doing so.
Everyone thinks that some choices made by someone else are wrong. The difference is where the line is drawn. For simplicity’s sake, lets divide all the available moral choices into 4 categories (what goes into each category will vary from person to person):
Actions so wrong that the coercive power of the state should be used to prevent and/or punish them (murder, rape, etc.).
Actions so wrong that the beneficent power of the state should be used to discourage them. (Via anything from education to outright bribery). (Some people see this as inherently coercive as well.)
Actions that are wrong but must be left to the individual conscience of the actor. (I.e., no punishment
Actions that are not wrong.
I know there are many possible gradations between these – for example, where does social stigma belong as a coercive force? But go with me for a minute on this. Suppose:
X is any action.
A believes X belongs in the third category.
B believes X belongs in the fourth category.
Is it “wrong” for A to attempt to convince B that X belongs in the third category? In other words, to what category does the action “Attempt to convince someone that an action belongs in a different category” belong? Assume that the attempt has been made in an unquestionably acceptable forum (such as Hatrack) in a reasonably polite manner. I think the vast majority of this discussion has been people attempting to assign premarital sex (or refraining from premarital sex) to the third or fourth category. In general, it’s been interesting and well-mannered.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It's a matter of priority. If I wait to buy a stereo -- even though I can currently afford the stereo
Well, there's the problem.
I see pre-marital sex credit as buying the stereo on credit and hoping the bills don't catch up with you until you can afford to pay them.
---
As a side note: Leo, I really think that some of the confusion comes from misconceptions. You've been mistaken both about the purpose of sex for many people here, and about attitudes towards marriage for at least me.
[ February 03, 2004, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I see pre-marital sex credit as buying the stereo on credit and hoping the bills don't catch up with you until you can afford to pay them."
If this is your concern, let's use a hypothetical: is it okay for a completely sterile person engage in monogamous sex with a partner? Given the elimination in this case of most potential risk, would that also eliminate your objections?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, come on. No tricksy questions that I've already answered and you already know the answers to.
There aren't merely physical and tangible consequences. There are psychological and spiritual consequences as well, and being physically sterile would not protect someone from those.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I've put off posting in this thread for a bit, as it was getting heated.. but I changed my mind.
To be blunt: I have had pre-marital sex. I am currently living with my boyfriend. He was not my first sexual partner (but not far from the first either). I do plan to get married to my current boyfriend, and probably within the next year or so.
I do not regret my choice to have pre-marital sex at all. I have never had sex with a partner I did not love, and never in a way that did not complement, or intensify, my relationship. I have always been extremely careful. I have never fallen pregnant. If I did now, I know my relationship would handle it. Scythrop and I have talked about it - it would be having kids earlier than we planned, but we would deal.
Why have I not gotten married earlier, if I was ready to have sexual relations? Well, I wasn't ready. I do believe that sex must be very special between two people. From my own personal experience, I know that a sexual relationship for me does not necessarily equate to a "forever" commitment. I had a wonderful relationship with my first boyfriend, including the sexual side. We lasted over 3 years, till I broke it off because it wasn't working. I am to this day glad I did that. I am extremely glad we weren't married. But I have never regretted turning our relationship sexual. I guess I do view a sexual relationship as less of a committment than marriage.
With Scythrop - we will get married. But we will also wait for the right time: financially, in terms of our extended families, in terms of our careers, and in terms of ourselves. The fact that we will have had sexual relations before our marriage, and that both of us had sexual partners before we met each other has never caused us problems, and I don't think it will.
quote:You've been mistaken both about the purpose of sex for many people here, and about attitudes towards marriage for at least me.
Katie, I have appreciated how you have tried to be non-judgmental and not to hold others to the standard of your religion throughout this thread. I admire the fact that you recognise your standard is not everyone else's standard. I understand that this is something that you feel deeply about, and I do thank you for keeping your comments calm.
However, I think your comment to Leonide also applies in the reverse: your veiws about sex and marriage are not mine, and indeed I think that some of your veiws about the purpose and role of sex would not belong to the majority (or at least the overwhelming majority ) of those on this forum. Of course, I can't know this: I guess all I'm saying is be careful telling someone else they've misunderstood attitudes, as you may be equally guilty!
Overall I agree with dkw from about 6 pages back: what I believe about sex before marriage only applies to me. If anyone is thinking about getting married, and would call off that marriage based on the sexual prowess (or lack of) of the other partner; well, marriage was a bad idea in the first place!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
imogen, thank you.
I guess the difference is that I don't think what I believe applies only to me.
It's back to there's no way to both believe in universal consequences and give sanction for actions that court them because the actors do not believe in them. To give sanction would be saying that I don't actually believe what I believe. Somewhere, I'd be lying.
[ February 03, 2004, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I have come to believe that the majority of Hatrack pagans believe in the idea of individuals' choice and sovereignty, while the majority of Hatrack Christians believe in the idea of moral codes to restrict that choice based on their belief system. Can you really disagree?
I can't find who said this originally, but Dagonee quoted it again above.
I don't think it is quite that cut-and-dried.
I am a Christian. As a Christian, I believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong - it is sin. That is part of my belief structure.
HOWEVER -- I would never get married again without having sex with my partner first. This is based on past personal experience with serious sexual incompatitibilities.
So I guess it looks like I am saying I would rather commit sin, against my beliefs, than be put in a sexually incompatible relationship for long-term.
Which is one of the seriously-long list of reasons why I don't even allow myself to date at this point. All these internal wars -- it is just easier to not have to deal with it at all, by not getting attached to anyone enough to want to have sex.
But, then again, I'm middle-aged. I can have a stance like this because I'm fully prepared to deal with any consequence of my own good or bad choices.
Farmgirl
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Edit: this is to Katie's post on the last page..
I do understand that. I guess though in that way, you can never separate your 'religous' beliefs from your 'non-religous' ones - in terms of a universal application of your beliefs springing from your faith.
I don't think people are necessarily asking for your sanction though. I personally would never ask you to approve or sanction my relationships because I know they are, in some ways, directly against some religous teachings.
All I can ask, and I think you do deliver is a "I believe this, but I respect your right to believe that". And I do the same back to you.
[ February 03, 2004, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I think if I thought it were cut and dried, I would have said "all" (I'm the original). Instead, I simply think "majority," "most" "over half," "the general leaning." Which I still think is true.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Farmgirl, I fear you and Bob will never make it to Chicago. Hopefully, the Motel 6 will let you make long-distance calls so you can get ahold of us to express regrets for not being present.
[ February 03, 2004, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay. I don't think my respect for someone else's right to think differently is in question. Yes, everyone has a perfect right to think whatever they want. *grin* It doesn't make it right, though.
There was a semi-request for sanction somewhere back.
-----------
I swear, I do understand. If it were one-on-one, I think there would be a whole lot more love and listening and much less line-drawing. Not because the line-drawing is less important, but because my individual reaction would be more important.
*laugh* I distinctly once telling my dad that I needed his love more than he needed to take a stand again. That the line was clear, but my feeling of being accepted and loved was not.
"Am I supposed to lie about my feelings about your actions?" "Yes!"
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I missed the semi-request: my apologies. I wouldn't make one, just as I wouldn't expect you to ask me to sanction your beliefs.
I agree the one-on-one would be more "loving" but I guess that's maybe something we have to take into account posting here: after all, a lot of people (including you Kat... I read your 10 000th.. ) bare their souls in this forum. Maybe we should try and treat them with as much love and respect as we would do if they did so face to face.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think if I thought it were cut and dried, I would have said "all" (I'm the original). Instead, I simply think "majority," "most" "over half," "the general leaning." Which I still think is true.
Now two people have disagreed with you, giving different reasons, and yet all you've done is restate your position with no support. I'm interested in why you think this - can you please give us some of your reasoning?
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
imogen, I appreciate that.
I hope I haven't shown disrespect, and I love love love that Hatrack is a place that's safe (usually!) to share scary and important things.
There is a difference between personal threads and issue threads, though. I'd never, ever pass express an opinion on someone's personal thread - that's SO tacky. But on an issue thread, where a personal experience is used as evidentiary support of a thesis or argument, it's not ... off-limits to questioning or invalidation anymore. If it were, that means there'd be no way to disagree. It works both ways. Two people have gotten upset because their personal experiences that were used as evidentiary support were not seen as either/both off-limits or/and argument-clinching. Interestingly enough, the two were on opposite sides of the issue.
----
I have to admit that, in accordance with Kat Rule of Life #8, I never bring up my current love life, or really anything from the previous three years, on Hatrack for precisely the reason that I couldn't handle the scrutiny. It isn't fair of me to ask people to tiptoe.
Except Lalo. That's fair.
[ February 03, 2004, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Frisco!!!! you're naughty!!
Remember, I'm bringing my daughter with me on the trip to Chicago. (I've successfully hid behind my children for 13 years now, I'm sure it will work to keep me in line once again).
Farmgirl
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Dagonee, because generally in threads such as Abstinence Instead of Safe Sex or Homosexuality
Most of the people who insist on abstinence-only education are Christian. And most who insist on safe-sex-ed aren't. Most of those who insist that marriage should not include gays are Christian. And most who insist on allowing gays to marry aren't.
I see these issues as being boiled down to Allowing Fewer Choices, and Allowing More Choices. So I'm guessing that if the majority of people who believe X are Christian, maybe the majority of Christians believe X. (It's not a proof, it's just a feeling)
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I understand the distinction, Kat. Sometimes though, I get so pulled into an issue thread, I make personal revelations in responding.
Which are sort of meant in a evidentiary way, but sort of not... basically I want my to have my cake and eat it too!
[ February 03, 2004, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And most who insist on safe-sex-ed aren't.
No, this is not true. I'm emphatically in favor of structured education about everything, including sex, and most of the people I know who post on Hatrack are as well.
[ February 03, 2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Though you know, I'm perfectly fine to be wrong. In that case,
then the Majority of Christians believe that More Choices is better. And I think no one's arguing that the Majority of Non-Christians feel that More Choices is better.
Well.... I know that numbers don't make it right, but I hope it says something good about the idea that restricting personal freedoms is unwanted and unnecessary.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* "Don't trouble me with facts. I like my theory."
Sun, you've set up a false dichotomy. The evidence does not fit a Christian vs. Non-Christian and Fewer Choices vs. More Choices model.
I'm actually a few fan of more choices. There's no growth in having choices restricted. That doesn't mean all choices are equally ... beneficiary.
[ February 03, 2004, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Safe-sex ed.. I know a lot of Christian institutions (including my old high school) which taught safe-sex as part of the curriculum.
In fact all Anglican, Methodist and Prodestant high schools in Australia do so. Catholic schools vary (due to the contraception sin issue), but increasing numbers teach safe sex.
I think the view is that regardless of what the institution (or in a personal case, the person) veiws as correct pre-marital sexual behaviour, no-one wants teenagers (or anyone) put at unnecessary risk.
Edit: too-slow typing.. the issue was sorted by the time I posted. But by golly I'l have my 2 cents!
[ February 03, 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
yeah well I'm not trying to make it national, I really geared my first comment to Hatrack population who posts, because that's what I can base this on.
We could start a count of individuals, take a poll. Then I'd have facts =)
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Kat, I just said that maybe it doesn't. Maybe the Majority of Christians do believe what you believe, that Restricting Choice is wrong. I still think that no one's disagreed that the Majority of Non-Christians believe that Restricting Choice is wrong.
then the majority of hatrackers believe that restricting choice is wrong. And I said okay, then.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
And we all agree!
(sort of. And it only took 8 pages)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Absitnence-only education (which I'm against, by the way) does not restrict choice - it makes a distinction between acts that should be encouraged by government and acts that shouldn't be.
Preventing homosexual marriage (which I'm also against in a civil forum) does limit the availability of certain civil priveleges based on individual choice, and in that sense restricts or penalizes choice.
But you still haven't addressed the distinction that between thinking that morality labels some actions as wrong and thinking that morality "limits choice." Nor have you justified such beliefs as a limitation on individual sovereignty.
Dagonee
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
fine with me, I'm on the winning side.
Lets go dig up those Homosexuality Should Be Illegal and Everyone Must Eat Asparagus threads and tell them they'r wrong Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
quote:That said, I'm certainly aware that, having had sex, someone who had previously abstained from sex might suddenly place a higher value on sexual enjoyment once he or she experienced it. (TomD)
*grin* I do wonder though how often it goes the other way. I've come across many cases where the blissfully ignorant had this enormous expectation, only to find out, when they finally had their chance, that it was, well, just sex.
Of course, placing this extraordinary value on sex (while the act remains purely theoretical) also gives the abstinent crowd an excuse to feel special-righteous and saint-like, as they have succeeded in avoiding something sooooo terribly looming and beckoning... If they had an early way to realize how much LESS of a BIG deal it is, the reduced buildup would not only prevent some disappointment but also decrease the feeling of self-importance that often goes along with the argument of abstinence.
*shrug* I can't help but be cynical about this discussion. I grew up in a society that endorsed almost diametrically opposite views on sex than what most of you have been subjected to. If I didn't feel so sad about the efficiency of externally imposed opinion-forming, I'd celebrate our considerable diversity at this point. Just keep in mind, please, that there are plenty cultures other than "puritan"-American out there in the world, with very different habits that have rarely caused more harm, if not less, than what your upbringing made you think is right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: HOWEVER -- I would never get married again without having sex with my partner first. This is based on past personal experience with serious sexual incompatitibilities.
So I guess it looks like I am saying I would rather commit sin, against my beliefs, than be put in a sexually incompatible relationship for long-term.
*points to Jon Boy* In your face, Space Coyote! j/k
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Hmmm okay so making homosexuality illegal restricts choice, check.
Abstinence.. I suppose it's more a question of Restricting Knowledge? So that doesn't fit.
what about making Prostitution Illegal? that's about Restricting Choice. I think you'll see similar breakdown there, but it gets very messy. Personally I think that some of the problems people have with prostitution can be solved with enforcing labor laws and drug laws.
Anyhow, my thoughts on personal sovereignty are that the government should have the fewest number of laws so that an individual can make choices when the result ultimately primarily affect the individual. We can argue day-in and day-out on societal effects. Maybe the Christian/NonChristian divide would be more pronounced if this were a question of Individual versus Society.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
"Everyone Must Eat Asparagus Threads"??????
I have never gotten nasty and personal on Hatrack, but I'll make an exception if anyone tries to tell me I have to eat that foul-smelling, overrated weed!! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Suneun, it's not that simple.
Restricting prostitution certainly increases the choices of the usual victims of prostitution - teenage girls.
There's a larger picture. In the larger picture, a little self-restraint enables many more choices.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: Leo, I really think that some of the confusion comes from misconceptions. You've been mistaken both about the purpose of sex for many people here, and about attitudes towards marriage for at least me.
I don't think either of my misconceptions about those subjects affected the way I argued for my beliefs. And I never asked for a sanction, I said we were frustrated that no one was willing to just say, as I believe Strider pointed out at one point: "Well, we don't agree with pre-marital sex, but you're being as safe and as reponsible as you can be given that you don't have the same beliefs as me." We're always frustrated in threads like this because the religious aspect of them almost always makes it impossible for anyone with those leanings to say even that. If it seemed, or if I worded anything in a way that appeared that I was looking for approval...I didn't mean approval in the sense of a personal sanction. I meant, being okay with how we're handling it, given our beliefs. Perhaps that's impossible. I was merely stating that that's why we were frustrated, not really asking for it.
quote: Nope, you're totally off on this one.
unfortunately, telling me i'm wrong doesn't really help this situation, and your comment seems more inflammatory than helpful.
Are Mormon's allowed to engage in birth control during marriage?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Maybe the Christian/NonChristian divide would be more pronounced if this were a question of Individual versus Society.
I doubt it. I think you’ll find Christians and non-Christians on both sides of that line too.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Are Mormon's allowed to engage in birth control during marriage?
Yes, but you wouldn't guess it by walking around in Utah.
[ February 03, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Are Mormon's allowed to engage in birth control during marriage?
Yes, no problem.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
dkw: don't you think there's at least one issue that can split hatrack into two different opinion groups based on an arbitrary line as christian/non-christian?
I think you're ignoring the ability of statistics to truly say anything they want. If I split Hatrack between People with Black Hair and People with Non-Black Hair, I assure you that I could find a majority split in one way and the other way for issues like Society versus the Individual or Dem/Republican, or Asparagus/No Asparagus.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kat legalizing prostutiution wouldn't necessarily increase "teenage prostitutes" generally because the age of consent is 18. And what if they raised the prostitution age up to 21, the drinking age?
<just food for thought>
AJ
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Suneun, I’m sure you could. And it would be just as invalid and/or arbitrary as the Christian-non-Christian division you are proposing now.
[ February 03, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The age of consent is lower than 18, often much, in most states.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shakes head*
Sadly, prostitution is not a career choice that solidly-educated, clear-thinking women choose, Aaron Sorkin's fantasy not-withstanding.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok I worded that wrong. How about "legal adulthood" rather than "age of consent"?
AJ
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
dkw, I'll agree forthright that statistics mean crap, especially with arbitrary lines.
I was just curious for curiosity's sake. Though I do find it helpful if the majority of A and Not-A both believe X.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
kat I know you couldn't watch it because of its rating, but if you watched HBO's "Real Sex Live" it might make you change some of those sterotypical ideas about "educated clear thinking women"
AJ
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Sadly, prostitution is not a career choice that solidly-educated, clear-thinking women choose, Aaron Sorkin's fantasy not-withstanding.
I'd add to this 'financially-independant'. Sadly, some women choose prostitution as a way of paying their way through University.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Kat: I'd argue that prostitution IS a career choice that many women do make with a clear understanding of what it is. I can point you to relevant articles if you'd like, I believe I've posted them on prior prostitution threads.
Prostitution is legal in small towns in Nevada. The prostitutes get a license, and get regularly tested for STD's. There are many articles written by intelligent prostitutes discussing their career choice.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Sadly, prostitution is not a career choice that solidly-educated, clear-thinking women choose, Aaron Sorkin's fantasy not-withstanding.
And you base this assumption on, what, Lifetime movies? I've known plenty of intelligent and clear-thinking strippers.
Sadly, I have no prostitute aquaintances.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I seriously doubt a show called "Real Sex Live" is going to show anyting other than an idealized version of it. Same with the "paying through university" scheme. I mean prostitutes that aren't vying for Oscars.
*misses Kayla*
I'll be right back.
----
I miss Kayla. I don't know how to search for this. I keep getting links for porn sites.
[ February 03, 2004, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*sighs* Actually Real Sex Live is one of my favorite shows, precisely because it DOESN'T show an idealized version of a lot of things. It actually doesn't focus on prostitutes specifically, but sex, creativity in sex, and society's reactions to it, including on the street interviews in various parts of the country. It is rather educational in a way, in that things are discussed matter of factly without a lot of squickiness in most cases.
If it is biased, it is biased towards those people who are open and willing to talk about their sexuality, rather than those who aren't.
A show you should watch sometime is the little old canadian lady that does a call in sex ed talk show. I suspect that that would be within your realm of propriety.
[ February 03, 2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't actually have a television...
---
Okay, my google skills suck, and I don't have to time to search. But a rudimentary scan shows that a signifigant portion of prostitutes are drug addicts, the median age of entry is 16 - 21, and a signifigant portion have been abused. Can anyone really argue that a life of prostitution is giving these women MORE choices?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I've done a lot of work on prostitution, sexual slavery and trafficking.
Most women who choose to be prostitutes do not actually have that "choice". Some of the arguments behind this are very feminist in nature, but the general thrust is that the work is degrading. It affirms that women are, above all, a sexual tool to be used by men (and, in this circumstance, paid for).
Don't you wonder that you never (or hardly ever) get the articles from intelligent male prostitutes defending their line of business? Why not - because male prostitution is not a thriving business.
The social norm is that men have certain needs that women do not. Men can fulfill those needs by going to a prostitute. In doing so, she is affirmed as a sexual object, only existing to fulfill those male desires.
Women aren't seen, in a social context, to have the same sex drive. They don't *go* to prostitutes. They *are* the prostitutes.
Prostitution is, in the most part, a system which degrades women and affirms the sexual stereotypes which both genders have been struggling to escape.
And that's just a purely feminist/social criticism....not even going into the religous/moral side.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Why not - because male prostitution is not a thriving business.
I would submit that depends on where you are. San Fransisco, Los Angeles and Las Vegas do have thriving male prostitute businesses. Not to mention Japan where they have clubs where Japanese men can be transvestites, they provide the clothing etc.
AJ
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Prostitution in large parts of the US are illegal. The statistics on illegal prostitutes doesn't correlate to legal prostitutes.
I'm looking for statistics on prostitutes in the Netherlands, will tell you when i find 'em.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kat that is unregulated prostitution. If they were regulated, other than just "against the law" there would be minimum working conditions set, just like any other employment and drug screenings would have to be passed like everywhere else.
This is an old argument though. Suffice to say as with any other job, that the clear thinking, college-educated prostitutes, do have much higher income levels in their chosen employment, than the 16 year olds, probably because they have better business acumen.
AJ
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Except, AJ, in those cases male prostitution tends to be geared towards the homosexual market.
The difference is that the buyer of sex is still male (and thus reinforcing the more dominant sexual constructs) while the seller of sex is effectively feminised... to the point of being transexual. (I should clarify: I mean feminised not in the sense that all gay men who use prostitutes think of their partner as a woman, but more in the dominance/submission model of gender: in society, men are often constructed as dominant, and women as submissive. Where in prostitution the prostitute is a gay male, he is mostly the submissive partner, as is often feminised further than that - in terms of transsexualism, as stated before).
What is rare is a a woman client picking up a male (straight) prostitute. It does happen, but not very often.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
quote:Abolitionism criminalizes the activities of those seen as exploiting or coercing prostitutes (so-called "pimping" and "procuring" laws) while leaving prostitutes themselves free from regulation. This is the system endorsed by the UN in its Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. [122] This strategy sees prostitutes as victims rather than criminals and therefore not an appropriate target for the Criminal Code.
Here's one step towards a solution. Still looking for stats, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Like migrant workers?
Do you have a response to imogen? I agree with her completely.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
ok imogen I see your point. However, in the US while females soliciting male prostitutes may not be high, male strippers are in increaslingly high demand.
AJ
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I see a big difference between stripping and prostitution - not sure if that's just me though.
(And of course, I ban my boyfriend from buck's nights which involve either!)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:*points to Jon Boy* In your face, Space Coyote!
Space Coyote?
Of course some people want to have sex with someone before they marry them. I never disputed that. The original question was whether premarital sex is necessary or helpful in any way. No matter how much people picked at the statistics I linked to, nobody has provided links to studies or statistics that show the opposite.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Shrug. As a woman, I could decide that I wanted sex, and have sex in the next couple days. Force of will, you might call it. It's true, it happens. Women can choose sex.
My male friends, on the other hand, have a lot less say in determining they're "going to have sex now." Instead, they exchange money for favors (strippers, prostitutes). You could say that the Man benefits because the woman is being "used." But these people believe they have a right to their career choice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Isn't it funny what pushes buttons?
The whole idea of prostitution being treated as a high-paying career choice when it's instead most often practiced by abused, addicted teenagers who feel they have no hope is upsetting me more than anything in weeks (months?). Imogen knows what she's talking about - I'll defer to her.
[ February 03, 2004, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"No matter how much people picked at the statistics I linked to, nobody has provided links to studies or statistics that show the opposite."
I think this is because it's actually impossible to control for other relevant factors that are not measured by the studies. It's like that classic "cohabitation makes people more likely to divorce" study, which completely ignores some very relevant data en route to its flimsy conclusion.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm sorry it is upsetting kat. Just there is a vast difference between the two ends of the spectrum. I am as anti-teenage prostitution in general as you are. Most of the girls who worked for Heidi Fleiss for example were on the other extreme in education from the down and out types.
I just wonder if legalization and regulation would be a way to prevent some of the vulnerable girls from being taken advantage of.
On the other hand those who are vulnerable are probably always going to be taken advantage of in some way, but some we just inherently view as more dispicable than others.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Jon Boy, I love you (platonically, of course) and I would never, ever dream of correcting you on a grammar issue. Can't you at least try to respect my mathematically educated assesment of that particular websites statistics?!
Ask Mackillian what a rigorous sociological study paper looks like. I'm sure she can give you some good examples of what a scientific treatment of a sociological subject is.
AJ
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Thanks Kat.
Suneun: I'm too tired right now to respond properly. But the whole "I'm a woman so I can ask for sex" is very indicative of the social norms that cause the degredation of prostitution in the first place.
Why shouldn't men and women be treated as equal sexually? Why shouldn't it be equally easy for a man to have sex as a woman (whether inside or out of marriage, depending on your view... and it is still an issue inside some marriages!)? Why are men always seen as "wanting it" and women are not?
Basically men are seen as sexual beings, who can demand sex as a matter of course. You can see that in marital rape laws: up until 30 years ago, (much less in some states) it was not a crime to rape your wife: she 'owed' the sexual duty to her husband. Women who decide to have sex bestow a 'favour', not demand a right.
In prostitution, women are denied a choice through their personal background (many are abused), their socio/economic backgrounds (drug dependancy, as Kat pointed out) and finally by society: sexual relations are seen in a light where it is "ok" for a woman to sell herself to a man: it is naturalised, because that man has 'needs' he doesn't get fulfilled elsewhere. Sex is a commodity, and women are firmly on the selling end.
[ February 03, 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Jon Boy, I think I put out some reasonable criticisms of the conclusions drawn from the data. If any of us had access to that data, we could see if your conclusion or my conclusion is correct, or, more likely, what mixture of rightness each of our conclusions have. What you are doing is accepting the data and the conclusion given based on someone's interpretation of the data, and making it as though you have to do both. I accept the data as likely valid, but the conclusions drawn I don't see as compelling, without more proof that they controlled against other possibilities, or even then, as Banna pointed out, that the variation is actually statistically significant.
After all, there are wonderful stats out there that say uncircumcised men have a 50%!!! higher chance of urinary infection before the age of 2 than circumcised men. What isn't mentioned is that the chance for circumcised men is 1-2%, which means uncircumcised men's chances are 2-3%. In this context, the 50% looks a less impressive.
All that said, your conclusion is certainly possible, given the data. It isn't the only conclusion possible though, I hope you'd agree?
-Bok
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
AJ, I know what a scientific study looks like. I know that without the margin or error values, it's impossible to know how valuable those numbers are. I'm just saying that nobody has found anything better.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
JB, I honestly didn't think of trying to find "studies" to refute yours. Part of the problem is that when you do searches that you find so much bogus crap on both sides that trying to actually glean to find the rigorous ones is an extremely daunting task. Also then we get into a war of "studies" which isn't profitable.
AJ
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
You know, even in countries where prostitution is legal and regulated, it is done in large part by poor women from wrecked countries who are abused and exploited. Sexual slavery is alive and well in the Netherlands and Denmark.
There is a professor here in my town who studies sex slavery (and has a very hard time doing so, due to the gangs and whatnot). If anyone is interested, I can try to find some of her work.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Actually haven't gotten into it too far, but this appears to be a reasonably legit study that is covering all the arguments we've seen here.
quote: A sum of analysis is done about the question on the influence of premarital cohabitation on the stability of a following marriage of the cohabiting couple. Common result of the work done in the last 25 years is that a relationship between cohabitation and marital stability exists. Estonishing enough, relationships in both directions are presented. On the one hand the data show that premarital cohabitation weakens a following marriage, that means the divorce risk is positively influenced by the premarital cohabition (Bentler and Newcomb 1978; Watson 1983; Bennett, Blanc and Bloom 1988; Thomson and Colella 1992). This seems to be the case in Germany, too (Brüderl, Diekmann and Engelhardt 1997). On the other hand premarital cohabitation seems to decrease the divorce risk of a following marriage, the divorce risk is negatively influenced by premarital cohabitation (White 1987; Klijzing 1992).
2.1 Kinds-of-people-hypothesis A positive influence of premarital cohabitation on the divorce risk of a following marriage confirms “that those who cohabit are a select group of people for whom relationships in general – both nonmarital and marital – are characterized by a lack of commitment and stability (Bennett, Blanc and Bloom 1988: 128). This is the general argument underlaying the “kinds-of-people-hypothesis”.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
The safety and rights of sex workers should be upheld. For some people, the solution is to ban sex work (or at least, prostitution). For others, the solution is to increase the effectiveness of labor laws, abuse laws, and drug laws.
None of us want to see people abused. It's just that we have different solutions. I want to allow people the right to accept money for sex, just like I accept money for a circus performance*. I see nothing inherently wrong with that exchange. I definitely see a lot of problems with abuse and drugs in that industry. But making it illegal hasn't made all the problems go away in the US.
* Performing is dangerous, though different emotionally. Every time I perform, I run the risk of serious injury in exchange for cash. You may not see the two as equivalent, but many sex workers would.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
After getting to the bottom and looking at the numbers the statistics appear to be rigorous.
Yes, it is talking about Germany and not here, but the data is much better than any US generated data I have seen to date.
They ran two models. The second one takes into years spent searching for the partner and how long they have known the person.
quote: After changing the operationalization of the variables indicating societal change, years spend to search a partner and the possibility to achieve knowledge about the partner (model 2) premarital cohabitation has no longer a meaningful and significant effect on the divorce risk of a following marriage.
Model 1 which does not take those variables into account, only has a 30% increase in failure of the marriage, which isn't nearly high as projected in other studies. Model two says there is a 3% difference which isn't statistcally significant.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sunenun... anyone who can actualy walk in stiletto heels much less dance has a definite talent I don't have!
quote:We use data from two waves of the National Survey of Families and Households to investigate changes in mothering behavior associated with union formation among single mothers. We consider three dimensions of mothering: (1) time and supervision; (2) discipline and decisionmaking; and (3) relationship quality. Our major finding is that union formation and/or the disruption of new unions have very few effects on mothering. Mothers’ and children’s reports sometimes produce different results, but the patterns do not suggest that children’s reports are any more or less accurate than those of mothers. The most consistent effects of union change indicate that the presence of a partner reduces mothers’ time with children but also inhibits mothers’ harsh discipline.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shakes head*
I can't believe y'all are defending prostitution as a nuetral and/or positive career choice.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I think it's not that hard when I've read articles by prostitutes defending their career choice.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
AJ, the point of the study I cited wasn't that cohabitation leads to divorce, but that premarital sex—especially when there are multiple partners—leads to lower sexual pleasure and satisfaction. My point in citing that study was that Storm's original claim about premarital sex could be wrong.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sun: I can direct you to a couple R&B stations where thugs and criminals defend their "careers" too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sun: What do YOU think? Do YOU consider it a neutral and/or positive career choice?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Yes, I agree with them. Prostitution can be a neutral, or even positive job. There are abuses, but just as there are abuses in many criminalized areas of society today. There are abuses just like there are in homes where alcohol is abused. Alcohol is not the issue, abuse is the issue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is there any job you would consider damaging to the person holding it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Fast food work. Definitely.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*ties Tom's shoelaces together* Why is that, Tom?
------
Anything?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Any job CAN be damaging. But I believe that there are people who can make those decisions without being called a criminal.
Being a pediatric oncologist must be one of the most rewarding and emotionally scarring specialties in medicine. I don't think I'm emotionally capable of doing it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because any job that turns the individual into a commodity -- and I include prostitution and most menial labor in this category -- disassociates that person from his sense of self and from his connection with the larger community. I think we see this with media celebrities, too, unless they consciously take steps to avoid it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
JB, I'm looking for sexual satisfaction stats. I 'm mostly putting up sites that appear to have rigorous mathematical treatments of data, in the mean time.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tom so would you include "tech support" in that discription?
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sun: *shrug* You're convinced. I think you need to either (1) rethink this, or (2) actually work with some prostitutes before spreading that around.
--------
Tom: Up until a hundred years or so ago, acting was seen as being synonymous with prostitution. I think... the superbowl bit makes that make a bit more sense.
Although I don't agree about the fast food. The laborors are indeed interchangable and their hands are needed, not their personal input, but what is being sold is still the quickly-made food.
Unless you consider all service industries to be forms of prostitution.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Because any job that turns the individual into a commodity -- and I include prostitution and most menial labor in this category -- disassociates that person from his sense of self and from his connection with the larger community.
Uh, the vast majority of jobs fit this description.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Wow. Nine pages about whether or not pre-marital sex is good for your marriage. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I think i'd give this thread a little more credit than that. It's jumped around a good few hot topics and has remained relatively civil the whole time as well. And has covered much more than the thread title suggests.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
[Edit: Whoops! I was responding to PSI.]
Not really. 4-5 pages on the actual topic at hand; 1-2 pages of personal attacks and reactions to same; 2-3 pages of tangentially (or not so tangentially) related topics.
Yup, definitely a Hatrack thread.
[ February 03, 2004, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
imogen said:
quote: Why shouldn't it be equally easy for a man to have sex as a woman (whether inside or out of marriage, depending on your view... and it is still an issue inside some marriages!)? Why are men always seen as "wanting it" and women are not?
Well, because we can always have it. Kinda like having a pool table in your basement, and you never play it much because now that you know it is always there, always available, there isn't the same draw.
I could easily think of two men right off the top of my head that I could call at ANY time (maybe during lunch hour today! ) and say "let's go have sex" and they would be at my side in seconds. I mean really! So since it is so easily obtainable for women, I think that is why the public perception is such that men are always seen as the panting dog wanting it, and women are not. Now, this has nothing to do with sexual drive -- some women have a higher sexual drive -- it is just that they can more easily fulfill it.
It is interesing that this conversation took a turn from the original idea to this one on prostitution -- it has made for interesting reading. However, remember there are many ways that women have been known to prostitute themselves than just those who walk the street for money. Some use sex as a tool (manipulation). That's an entirely different kind of prostitution.
Farmgirl
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Farmgirl, you are totally the woman for saying that. Have I mentioned what a great addition to the forum you are?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I could easily think of two men right off the top of my head that I could call at ANY time (maybe during lunch hour today! ) and say "let's go have sex" and they would be at my side in seconds. I mean really! So since it is so easily obtainable for women, I think that is why the public perception is such that men are always seen as the panting dog wanting it, and women are not.
Isn't this circular though? Men are after sex more because it is easier for women to get sex, but it is easier for women to get sex because men are always after it?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Kat, I think it's cute that you find my opinion absolutely wrong.
This resource list is absolutely full of people who believe in protecting women in the sex industry by seeing the actual abuse, not the vocation as the problem.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Isn't this circular though? Men are after sex more because it is easier for women to get sex, but it is easier for women to get sex because men are always after it?
Agreed. There is something else going on here.
imogen: Do you really think these gender differences are entirely cultural? Or even primarily cultural? Or do you advocate creating a culture that represses any hint of the natural differences between women and men?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"It's not the job, it's the exploitation, drugs, abuse, and degradation that go with it."
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
And well gosh, kat, I still think the best way of reducing that abuse is by legalization and some form of safeties set by the government. Have you checked any of the dozens of links on that resource page?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Suneum, would you do it?
$200 - $300 bucks a night, maybe four nights a week, lots of condoms, regular checkups, a 401k, free stylists?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
You forgot about the feeling that everyone loves you!
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
kat, that's not a fair question. there are lots of jobs i wouldn't do reguardless of whether i though they should exist.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Kat, leave me out of this. And please spell my handle correctly (you, too, Banna).
Have you gone to the link? I have, and am working my way through dozens of different groups working to support sex workers and their rights. I just read a testimonial from a woman who survived the Khmer Rouge but now works as a sex worker and sees mountains of abuse. From the pimps, from the clients, from the police. Criminalization is not the answer. Here is what she suggests is the answer:
quote:Formulation of legislation that protects us sex workers, so we can profit 100% from our work.
Formulate legislation that those who exploit us and feed from us are eliminated and arrested, and cannot operate.
Recognition of our work as a legitimate occupation: sex work is work.
End to police harassment, abuse and violence.
Human rights for sex workers.
Legalize sex work so we can have power to protect ourselves and use condoms 100% of the time.
Legalizing sex work will minimize trafficking because people can no longer profit from the sex industry.
If we have power and control we can protect the young children who are brought to the brothels. We can help in the fight to protect the children.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why leave you out of this? I'm asking for your opinion. You've said you see it as a postive choice of a career if the conditions are controlled.
Do you see it as a positive choice, or do you see it as a positive choice for other people, one that you would never, of course, choose for yourself.
[ February 03, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Well Kat, what would this accomplish? Lets say...
1. I say that yes, I could consider accepting cash for sex or sexual favors. Suddenly, you have to pray for my soul and convince me of the depths of my immorality.
2. I say that no, I consider it something I could never do, just as I said I could never become a pediatric oncologist. Suddenly I'm not good enough to work to protect sex workers' rights because I'm not a sex worker.
I've asked you twice, and now a third time. Have you started to read the resources on the page I linked to, which list dozens of groups working for prostitutes' rights and health? Along with thousands (if not millions) of people, I believe that decriminalization is one step in making their lives safer.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
If either answer would only leave you feeling triumphant and self-righteous, then I ask why you ask that question. I find it a very personal one, and certainly not one I'm willing to discuss with Hatrack.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Right. You're advocating a career and a lifestyle for other people that you refuse to claim as a possibility for yourself. And yeah, if you think it's great for other people but refuse for yourself, I'd love to hear the reasons.
It's your credibility at stake. I think your theory has no connection to actual reality, and if it ever did, you would quickly change your mind.
So, you say it's a positive career choice. Would you do it?
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
well, gee, instead of prostitution, i'll go with my sister's current job, nurses assistant.
would i want it? goodness no. i don't like the hours, i don't like people, and i don't have the patience for patients at all.
kat, would you suggest i am in some way destroying my credibility in being proud of my sister for doing it?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kat, if proper protection was always used and I knew I would earn $300/night working 5 days a week, I'd definitely consider it. That would be $78,000 a year, and is far more than I make as a lower level engineer.
If I earned $200/night, I'd be making $52,000 a year about what I'm making now. And I wouldn't have had to sit through the tortures of Momentum Heat and Mass Transfer I and II, and Partial Differential Equations! If I wasn't mathematically inclined, why not? Heck some people sleep around more than that for fun, why not get paid for it?
AJ
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
As a graduate student in Heat Transfer, I'm taking that bit quite seriously. AJ, you wound!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Suneun, I'm sorry for spelling your name wrong. I was typing it from memory and I often reverse vowels. I don't believe in using spell or grammar check on a conversational forum like this because to me those mistakes preserve humanity. (I would however run it on any formal document!) How do you pronunce your handle anyway? Is it Sunny Un or Sew Kne Oon?
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Am I the only one who's giggling at the linking of prostitution and heat transfer?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm just getting the feeling that this discussion has entered the realm of "all other things being equal and reality ignored, $200 a night isn't bad."
If that's the case, then I'll ignore it, but if it isn't, I seriously want to know how someone could claim of life of prostitution to be a valid, positive career choice in the face of it's history and details.
It is so incomprehensible that I suspect either naiveté or disingenuousness.
----------
Edit: *sigh* Type too slow.
Okay. We don't have enough in common to discuss it.
I'm chalking it up to naivete. I'd love for everyone who thinks it's easy, consequence-less money to turn off the first season of the West Wing and work with some.
[ February 03, 2004, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Celia is that hitting below the belt? Actually one of my favorite classes was turbulence. Unfortunately due to health issues I didn't finish it and took an incomplete. I still regret it though because I really had fun with the PDEs in that class.
Which brings me to an interesting tangent. Why not work at a job you have fun with? There is nothing saying a prostitute can't have fun on the job? A very few wierd people like me occasionally think partial differential equations are fun, though sometimes we think we are just crazy because they are hard too. But I wouldn't have become an engineer if I didn't think the work at some level was fun.
When people ask me why I became an engineer, one of my answers, is well because I could, and the money was good. That rationale could easily be applied to the high end of prostitution as well.
AJ
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
No, rivka, you're not.
Kat, my old roommate is making $78,000 working for Microsoft. I'll be pretty darn lucky if I ever make that much. The problem is that I'm not a computer programmer, and I have absolutely no interest in ever being a computer programmer. But it's a great choice for him.
I don't agree with Suneun's defense, but I can see how it's possible for her to defend it without wanting to do it herself.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
rivka!
edit: yeah, what jon boy said.
[ February 03, 2004, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Well Kat, I find it naive that you would believe in the suffering of every sex worker in the world. And I find it offensive that you refuse to look at material I link to, or refuse to acknowledge that you did. Please don't pretend you know what my answer to that question is. I'd rather you take Banna's acceptance of the possibility of working there. I repeat, I find it an extremely personal question that I request you refrain from pressing.
Banna: It's alright... I get it more often than not. Unfortunately, some people (two?) misspell my name then ignore any requests to spell it correctly. Which is perhaps an attempt to hurt me, but not one I find worthy of Hatrack. My name is my middle name, it's Korean. It's pronounced sun-uhn, mostly. The 'eu' is hard to transliterate. It's been my handle since I was eight.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Some would say making $78,000 a year working for Microsoft is worse (morally speaking) than making the same amount from prostitution. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Have you ever worked with any? Known them? Ex-prostitutes? I mean, have you ever encountered the reality of it?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
As far as career choices, prostitution in France in an earlier time, was one of the ways women could influence politics. There were immensely powerful courtesans and courtesan guilds. You may say well, but they had to go through men in order to do it. This may be true but many of them got exactly what they wanted.
If you also look at history you will find that often prostitutes had far more financial freedom than women in other classes as well. So it is a far more complex issue than just "men taking advantage of women" or "women taking advantage of men"
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
O:)
Yes, celia?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Amen to that, Mike. It's just a different kind of prostitution.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kat, yes and not ex- prostitutes either. Though they were in CA.
I knew one stripper in Oklahoma.
AJ
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
quote:All prostitution is inherently exploitative and degrading to women and girls. 24%
Prostitution is an occupation like any other and can be an empowering form of liberation for women. 18%
Prostitution is best addressed by decriminalization which allows prostitutes access to services and legal remedy in the event of violence. 58%
I've met strippers and talked to them about their work. I watched a documentary of unionizing sex club dancers in San Francisco. You can argue that strippers have nothing to do with prostitutes, but they're in the same industry.
I have not met a prostitute. I have spent hundreds of hours reading material written by women in the sex industry about their jobs, the abuses, and the solutions they are working towards. It's a personal hobby of mine, you could say. What proof do you want? I can find two dozen testimonials for you from prostitutes who will tell you that it's a job, and all they want are laws to protect their safety.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you look at history, then you can see the prostitutes is what makes possible the illusion that women were sexless paragons of virtue symbolized by a white debutante dress and desperately in need of protection.
The culture of accepted prostitution pulled men from their families. I am NOT blaming prostitutes for this - it's the idea that men can't control themselves and have the right to pay someone for them. It's instituting an acceptance of adultery. It's perpetuating women as sexual objects. And the joke that it would be the greatest job in the world for a woman to fulfill fantasies and get to have sex with strangers.
And whether or not you believe in the spiritual damage, the psychological damage of being placed up for the highest bidder, for having no part of yourself that is not for sale, has not been acknowledged at all.
Either you don't know about it, or it's inconvenient for the argument.
I'm serious. This makes me so sad.
And has anyone advocating this "career" actually spent some time with prostitutes when they weren't getting paid?
--------
Edit: Choices one and three from above are not mutually exclusive.
[ February 03, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As someone who's dated both strippers and prostitutes -- from the "just paying my way through college" types to the "I need money for my crack habit" types -- I believe that prostitution, like fast food employment, is as degrading as the worker is willing to let it be.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
So, Katharina, have you read any of those links? *realizes that passive-aggressiveness is a hard urge to stifle (as I'm struggling with it unsuccessfully at this very moment)*
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat, needing personal contact is not necessary to argue something rationally. The whole "plural of anecdote is not data" thing.
On an emotional level, yes, it can make a subjective, but overwhelming difference. That's irrelevant to this discussion, at the level of public policy creation; should we keep it illegal, or legalize but regulate it.
In fact, all talking to a prostitute under the current situation really says is that prostitution under the curent conditions is nasty, dangerous, and ugly. Where we go from there (increased enforcement of current laws, or some other policy) is something that can be rationally discussed.
-Bok
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Clearly the women Suneun is describing, are also literate. From bits I have read some are quite articulate as well. The two I am thinking of from personal acquaintance were. There is a vast difference in spectrum here though. These are not whatsoever the inner-city crack whores with pimps taking advantage of them that you are picturing and cringing about kat.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom... *thinks* You've talked about that time in your life as not being the happiest time.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: And has anyone advocating this "career" actually spent some time with prostitutes when they weren't getting paid?
yes
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And you think it's a great idea? A positive career choice? One you'd be proud of your sister for choosing?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
In a Nevada brothel? Yes. Even though the legal-brothel system has a few kinks, it's reasonably decent.
On the street in an alleyway? No. But none of us want that. We just see the way of destroying alleyway prostitution by decriminalizing it and making standards/laws to help the sex worker.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You've talked about that time in your life as not being the happiest time."
It was unhappy for completely different reasons, kat, unrelated to the professions in question. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I mean someone who is dealing with the consequences of that life. Someone not "on the job."
----
I wish Coccinelle were here. She was roommates with a prostitute - one of the infamous "working her way through college/non-crack whore" ones. She has a much personal perspective.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
So. . . what are the general benefits for society if prostitution is legalized?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Ok, Kat. What you're saying is that they only "data" that matters on this issue is a personal story that backs up your feelings on the subject from someone you've met online? And that other personal stories from other people that you know online don't matter and that pages of personal online testimonials also don't matter?
I'm not even involved in this discussion and I'm getting frustrated.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can think of a hundred reasons why prostitution is detrimental for those who practice it. About half would be solved by perfectly-run brothels with doctors and investment planners.
The other half wouldn't.
----------
So, besides money=not-starving, why would it be a positive choice?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
This is just an opinion, but I don't think legalizing and putting restrictions on prostitution would move it out of the alleyways.
1. If it's legal, it's seen as less of a "bad thing", over time making it less of a shock to see it out in the open. They won't be deterred by the fact that doing it in the alley will be illegal, because obviously that isn't stopping them now.
2. The "I need it now" mentality will still be out there. I don't think this is the sole reason that sex is being sold and performed on the street, but I'm sure it's part of it, and won't go away with time. It will increase.
I refer to what dangermom said about Amsterdam. If you go there, you will see that sex is right out in the open, and it's driving much of the lifestyle around there. They made it legal. As a result, you can't walk down the street without seeing it sold, or used to sell. Things are bad enough that I can't take my kids to the mall because of the Victoria's Secret ads. I don't want to have to keep them home until they're sixteen.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
It allows someone to practice artistic expression in their chosen field.
Have you read Shogun? Being a prostitute in Japan, was a respected form of being an artist.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Here's a question, where else in history, pre-Puritans, times has prostitution EVER been outlawed?
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're holding up shogun-era Japan as a society model? That's like saying slavery was a good thing in the South because we got some fabulous spirituals from it. ---------
There have been two questions asked:
1. What's the benefit to society? 2. What are the benefits to the practitioners?
[ February 03, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
As far as prostitution in and of itself goes, I am firmly in camp with imogen. I think relegates women to being sexual objects, and I think that's wrong.
But the United States is very different from countries like Thailand and India in this particular regard. One of the things the United States is doing is threatening to cut of aid to countries who are given a certain rating in accordance with their sexual abuse rates. Countries who have a problem but are willing to prosecute known pimps and sex rings are able to raise their ratings and continue receiving aid so long as they continue their positive activities. Thailand, I believe, is currently under threat of losing aid if they don't improve their practices. India, on the other hand, is a very important trading partner for the U.S., and even though they have approximately the same problem as Thailand, the U.S. refuses to put them on the list to stop receiving aid.
So there are some positive steps being taken...but they are political, as always.
To be honest, my major concern with prostitution isn't the women who choose to do it or the women who are caught in the cycle. My concern is for the children who become sex slaves before they even reach puberty. I'm not sure what the best way is to help them, but I think legalization of prostitution in certain countries is something that should be considered. (I think all of it is abhorrent, but in this case I guess just I have a priority on fixing the most-abhorrent.) Kat & imogen, I'd honestly like to know what you think. Yes, prostitution is terrible...but how do we go about fixing it in countries where it is so rampant and destructive? (Suneun, feel free to respond as well, but I think I'm pretty clear on where you stand .)
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Response to "artistic expression":
Oooh, then they should be a porn star instead. They'd get paid alot more, and more people could see their art!
[ February 03, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No, I'm not. I was answering your question:
quote: So, besides money=not-starving, why would it be a positive choice?
and giving an example of an entire society where being a practioner of exotic forms of sex was viewed as a legitimate art form. Many people in the sexual industry today also view it as an art.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Kat & imogen, I'd honestly like to know what you think. Yes, prostitution is terrible...but how do we go about fixing it in countries where it is so rampant and destructive?
*unhappy* I don't know.
It's like the drug trade. As long as there is a demand, an industry will arise to supply it.
The average prostitute may begin when she's 16, but the average customer is a middle-aged, middle-class man.
--------
Banna, I'm giving context. It was considered an art in a society when other choices were eliminated.
What are the benefits of prostitution now?
[ February 03, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Here's an analogy I just thought of.
Comparing all prostitutes to crack whores is like comparing all priests/ministers to pedophiles.
Both are gross injustices.
Suneun and I are NOT advocating child prostitution. We are saying you CAN be a responsible adult (to tie back into the thread title) and be a prostitute. There is a huge difference.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think I agree with Kasie.
There are a lot of things people could say to support their lifestyle, whatever it may be. But, cliche as it may sound, one thing that's more important than all that would be protecting the children of our country. They need to see less pointless violence, and especially less meaningless sex. The more we allow these kinds of things in our society, the more we run the risk of it severely negatively impacting children, no matter how many restrictions you put on it.
We have all tried to make our country what we want it to be, and then we break our backs trying to keep our kids from seeing any of it. Shouldn't we have laws that help our kids to be free to grow up without the fear that something could scar them...something that we made legal? I'd rather have to sacrifice to live in a world that's safe for my kids, rather then make them sacrifice to live in the world that I enjoy.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Katharina:
quote:There have been two questions asked:
1. What's the benefit to society? 2. What are the benefits to the practitioners?
1. The benefit to legalizing prostitution is that it will make lower-end prostitution (ie. sex-slavery and crack-whoredom, the really awful kinds) less common. At least in theory -- obviously we need research to satisfy this question fully.
2. Relates to question 1, mostly. Better working conditions, better pay, other things that people here have mentioned.
-----
So now that I've answered your questions (though perhaps not to your satisfaction), please consider answering mine: have you looked at any of the links that Suneun posted on the previous page (or was it the page before that)? A simple "no" will suffice, if that's your answer; no explanation required.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Wow...$78,000 a YEAR?!
I make $25,000 (and that's with the 2% raise I got last week).
I work at a job I love, but I sure get paid crap for it. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yeah. When he told me that, I wanted to kick him. Good thing he's in Seattle, so I couldn't. And this is his first job out of college.
Punk.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Banna, I'm giving context. It was considered an art in a society when other choices were eliminated.
What other choices were eliminated? From what I have seen Japan at that time was a artistically rich society, in many areas. There were definite opportunities for women to suceed in business and in the context of family. They handled the money for most things. The treatment of women in that society was no worse, if not better than most of the rest of the world at that time.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Wow mack! I raise AND a big bed. You sure are moving up in the world!
"Well I'm movin' on up (movin' on up) to the East side (movin' on up)..."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mike,
I mean specifically.
1. You hope. This would only be true of the trade was then LIMITED to the legal brothels. It hasn't worked in Amsterdam and Thailand. There's no reason to believe it would be different here.
2. This relates to the first. And making better conditions for some prostitutes is not an argument for prostitution being a positive choice in and of itself.
Like Banna's... It's an Art Form. That's an argument for the profession itself.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
*wonders how a pre-marital sex thread turned into an abortion^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H prostitution thread*
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
PSI, by that rationale, no child should ever live on a farm. They will see too much violence and sex. (and be scarred for life)
And the pioneers should have never ever migrated with their kids accross the prairie because they were worried about the kids being scarred for life by the things they saw along the way
AJ
[ February 03, 2004, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Banna, do you not believe there is any such thing as innapropriate context?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That's why I made absolutely sure to say "pointless" and "meaningless".
There are things that occur in life that you cannot and should not shield your child from. It could be argued that frontiersmen were making a better life for their children, not a more enjoyable life for themselves.
Banna...you know I love you right?
[ February 03, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Katharina: true, which is why legalization alone is not enough to solve the problem (I'm not the first to say as much in this thread). And hey, I'm not entirely convinced legalization is even part of the perfect solution (as if such a thing existed).
But you still haven't answered my question.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What question? *scrolls back* ---
No, I haven't. I'm still trying to wrap my head around whether or not "positive career choice" was sincere.
----
Considering up above the analogy was made of crack whore:pedophile::whore:minister, I'm thinking no.
*thinks* Is that spelled right?
[ February 03, 2004, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Hoo boy, this thread is going fast. Will check in later. *waves*
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kat I'm not sure what you mean by "inappropriate context".
I think that someone stripping in my lab is inappropriate context. Not because of the nudity, but because of the saftey issues. Also because the company has certain codes of conduct that you are expected to follow on company time. This code of conduct is put in place so that people who are sensitive to issues (for whatever reason religious or otherwise) are not offended.
I don't have a problem with nudity or sex around children (as long as it is clear that sex is an adult privelege and the children are properly educated on the subject). I think children should be exposed to such things, and won't be scarred for life by them.
Children and violence is a different topic. Wittnessing actual physical harm being done to a person is much different. IMO.
My Mennonite uncle, runs a pig farm. His family lived with on the premesis and his children were often in the barns with him. When we visited back there, he took us on a tour. One of the mother pigs had stepped on a baby pig. He thought nothing of fishing the bleeding baby pig out from the litter, throwing it down to the ground with a crack, stomping on it head, and throwing the entire thing (still twitching) into a slop bucket that happened to be handy. My citified brothers and I were somewhat shocked by the violence, but it didn't bother his children in the least. This same uncle and his family are devout Mennonites. He also thinks nothing of shooting the all of the puppies in a litter he doesn't want to keep. I admit it bothers me. His children however seem happy and well adjusted and not scarred for life.
But my own reactions makes me wonder if as a society, we are becoming too "soft". And over reacting and trying to protect our kids from ordinary facts of life.
AJ PSI!
[ February 03, 2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
PSI, well I guess you could say, "a better life for the children that lived". Concerning what infant mortality rates were back then, I really have no desire to go back <grin>
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think I agree that sex *in and of itself* is not harmful to children. But there are a lot of "grey area" things that go on during sex that are not appropriate for a child. I don't think I need to go into a lot of detail (I'm embarrassed...it might give too much detail about myself ), but there are things that could be considered normal by most couples that could confuse and possibly harm kids, and it would be tough for them to tell the difference.
Sex today isn't portrayed as the pure and loving thing that IMO it's supposed to be. Can you say that it's okay for a kid to see sex, but not light bondage? Or maybe bondage, but not extreme S&M? Where would this line be drawn? And who decides? Maybe your idea of what is okay would jive with my idea, but that isn't going to be what we get if we open this floodgate. If you start something, it always goes beyond where you intended for it for it to go.
I think it's better for all concerned to be a little conservative so that, when things explode, they'll be closer to where you think they should be. That's just my opinion.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:Have you ever worked with any? Known them? Ex-prostitutes? I mean, have you ever encountered the reality of it?
Sure, my ex-fiance. Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
These are all from here but if you're too lazy to click that, then:
This took me a while to convert, so I do hope that people take me seriously and read some of the links. I've read through about 8 or 9 of them so far.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
holy poo, that's some research. Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
* winks at Mackillian *
[ February 03, 2004, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What's your thesis, Sun?
You've listed a whole bunch of links. What's your thesis?
[ February 03, 2004, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
There exist people in the sex industry who want to continue their work in the sex trade. To end the abuse, they believe it is most effective to decriminalize prostitution and work toward ending the abuses themselves, not the vocation.
Many of those links are to organizations of sex workers who work towards such goals.
Some of the links show the happier side of the sex industry. People who are happy to be involved in it, choose to be involved in it, and are currently working to improve working conditions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So... you believe the sex trade is a positive thing for the people involved and for society as a whole.
[ February 03, 2004, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
It can be a positive thing. This doesn't mean that every prostitute is happy, or that everyone would be happy to be a prostitute. But there are a large number of people who are happy in the sex industry. I can point out the most vocal ones, if you'd like.
I also believe that the sex industry has a place in society, as a decriminalized business with certain protections by the government.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What's that place?
Imogen can, I'm sure, provide a great deal more about this, but I see it as the same justification that people used to do with slavery.
But they are happy as prostitutes. I wouldn't do it, but they like it. Some people are hurt, but that's just bad owners (pimps). This way, they are taken care of. That's better than starving on their own. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Legalizaiton of prostitution has the same place in society as the legalization of cocaine.
So. . . what benefits can society expect to derive from the legalization of prostitution?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
** raises hands up in complete disgust **
Kat, I can't believe that you haven't acknowledged any of the links I have put forth as evidence for the concerns of sex workers and their suggested solutions.
Prostitution has a place in society as a job. A legitimate service that is governmentally regulated to the same extent as all jobs to protect the health and safety of the workers. Sex for money is simply not abhorrent to me. If someone wishes to pay money to a stranger for a sexual favor, I would rather them do so in a safe place than in the back seat of a car.
Sex is not Holy to everyone. I think society should allow for those that see sex as recreation and sex as a job.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Damn, Suneun. You go, girl.
Here's a less research-intensive thread I made on Ornery about Legalized Prostitution -- I think a good discussion was had all around. Here's my first post on the topic. I think I could've done a far better job writing it, and I'm not sure I like how elementary some of the points I made are, but they're at least coherent and straightforward.
quote:Continuing from the discussion in the Musings thread, I've long held that prostitution across the United States should be legal.
In the first place, there's no particular logical argument I know of that allows free sex, but bans the sale of it. I don't believe this holds true for any other product or service in the United States. Secondly, even if there were cause to ban prostitution, it will still exist. "Mankind's oldest profession" exists in poor neighborhoods with runaway or poor girls, virtually enslaved to their pimps. Most are infected with STDs, and spread them to each of their customers (who in turn do a domino effect with each woman they sleep with). The girls are abused, physically and psychologically, and cannot report their abuses to the police, who are forced to arrest them for their confessions of being prostitutes in the first place.
Why not legalize it? We can award brothels permits to establishments that give disease tests to both the customer and the professional before each session, stemming the outbreak of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Therapists can be on hand to counsel and treat the girls. Thorough age and background checks will be required for each employee, and each employee can refuse any customer for any reason. Summary: safe and counseled women, suppression of STDs, destruction (or at least minimalization) of the black market prostitutes, and possibly even a boost to the economy.
I can't see any downsides to legal brothels. Have I missed any glaring errors in my wondering? I can see a possible conflict in prices between legal brothels and pimps, with the black market undercutting the legal version, but I find it easy enough to imagine a solution, such as a sudden and total crackdown on prostitutes, so that customers are driven to the legal brothels -- and the far more attractive prospect of disease-free sex.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Prostitution has a place in society as a job. A legitimate service that is governmentally regulated to the same extent as all jobs to protect the health and safety of the workers.
That's it?
Not to sound incredulous, but. . .I'm incredulous.
In other words, the only reason the government should legalize prostitution is to protect prostitutes?
I think tax payer money would be better spent on protecting these women by providing services as Lalo outlined above (health-care, therapy, etc.) WITHOUT the brothel.
Prostitution, as it is understood today, is anonymous sex. No community is built (as may happen in sports or entertainment); no product is rendered. Prostitutes satisfy a desire, but that is not reason enough to state that their work legitimately adds to society.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"you believe the sex trade is a positive thing for the people involved and for society as a whole."
Surely it's no more harmful than, as I've mentioned before, the fast food industry. Both are degrading. Both sell products of questionable value. And both demand menial labor which doesn't require a specialized education.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Imogen can, I'm sure, provide a great deal more about this, but I see it as the same justification that people used to do with slavery.
Tomorrow.... Too late and tired now.
Suneun, I am very impressed by your research. Good on you for taking the time to substantiate your arguments. It's one of my pet peeves when people make arguments based on nothing except 'I just know it' (a trap I fall into, no matter how hard I try otherwise).
My background in the subject is a 5 month intensive law unit looking at prostitution, forced prostitution and sexual slavery from a legal and social veiw (intensive being almost every day, 8-5), plus another 6 month unit on prostitution and gender issues in a feminist jurisprudence class. I have as part of that background read many of the articles you posted - but I'll have a look at the ones I haven't before I post again.
I should say here that while I do think prostitution, in current gender contexts, is inherently degrading, I do differ from Kat's opinions in that I am not convinced legislation would not help the current situation overall, and I am sure it would provide more protection for the women involved.
-Woo, double negative city!-
[Kat I think you and I agree to a suprising extent given our different backgrounds. I personally don't think prostition is valuable to society. But I recognise that legalising it could solve some problems that already exist (and numero uno being the safety of the workers themselves). It's a little like my veiw on abortion (oh, no, not the a-word!): I don't think I would ever have it done but I strongly believe in legalising it, if nothing else to minimise the real harm that is caused by backyard abortions etc. I still think you, and everyone else in this thread is remaining remarkably calm and non-antagonistic, given the emotional nature of the subject ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: I do differ from Kat's opinions in that I am not convinced legislation would not help the current situation overall, and I am sure it would provide more protection for the women involved.
Actually, I'm not exactly sure what the CBA concerning legalization would be. I see no value in legitimizing it as a profession - it's inherently degrading, the benchmark and standard for the ultimate in betrayal of self, and promoting it as a necessary evil that other people get to satisfy is the same justification used for slavery - but I'm worried about the individuals that are currently being victimized because they have no legal recourse to report abuse. So, I'm not sure.
Imogen, that must have been a powerful experience. I have very limited contact, and nothing formal, and I think have caught only a trace of what you must have encountered, but what I did see horrified and touched me. I'll bet we do agree on many, many things.
*grin* "She's much nicer in person." I'd just like to re-emphasize that.
[ February 04, 2004, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
With the amount of disrespect you have shown to me in this thread, Kat, I never want to meet you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's too bad. You're missing out.
--------
And that hurt, by the way. I haven't passed judgement on your worth as person or declared meeting you to be anathema. Back off.
[ February 04, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
This world's not going to be around long enough for that desire to never be fulfilled.
My Implaccable Engine of Ultimate Destruction (tm)is almost ready.
You're all doomed.
EDIT: Forgot the TM. And that's gonna be important.
[ February 04, 2004, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Oh no! Not that!
*Lowers voice*
Psst, I wouldn't worry much, folks, he still needs to work on the name!
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Are you kidding?
The marketing department assures me that you are. . .
No matter. The IEUD will finish your nonsense once and for all.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I guess kat, part of the reason you view prostitution as inherently evil is because you view sex outside of marriage as a sin. While I realize you believe this is a "universal law", a lot of people don't.
If you don't view sex outside of marriage as a sin, then prostitution isn't a sin, and there is nothing more 'inherently degrading' about someone providing a service selling sex, than it is to hire a muscular guy to dig a ditch in your backyard. Both are providing a service for you with their bodies that you can't have by yourself.
Suneun and I have said repeatedly that "being a prostitute" voluntarially is drastically different then "being abused". The two are NOT synonomous. You are equating those to things in your mind just like some people have done with "homosexual" and "child molester" in the past.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can't even pretend I can discuss outside the sex-outside-marriage-is-a-sin belief, but I really don't think that's what's getting to me.
I think it's the idea of buying someone. It keeps reminding me of slavery.
The difference between manual labor, fast food, and prostitution is in the first two, what's is purchased is labor. In the last, what is purchased is a body, which is part of a person.
Not the product of the labor of that body. Not a person's time. Not even an image of the body. A person's body itself.
In order for a person to sell their body, they are selling themselves. Selling themselves into slavery for an hour. If they DON'T think of it that - that they have kept their inner self separate from their body, then that implies a powerful and deeply-disturbing disconnect between their inner selves and the world/shell they are living in.
-------
I really think that's it. I know this is in the pre-marital sex thread, but this touches on a different chord. The only idea in here that upset is that it's okay to legitimize temporary slavery. I see a person's body has intrinsically connected to their sense of self. Even under absolutely perfect circumstances - and compared to the imperfect, how often will that happen? - it's still a selling of self.
[ February 04, 2004, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Equating ditch digging with prostitution is a little disingenuous. If someone desperately needs a job, few would respect his refusing to accept a job digging a ditch that would allow him to feed his family and keep his house (assuming he’s physically capable of it). Even people who think sex outside of marriage is OK are unlikely to similarly condemn a woman who refuses to become a prostitute in a similar situation.
I’m still not sure where I stand on legalization, but you can’t pretend prostitution doesn’t carry a different set of issues with it.
Dagonee *posting against his better judgment.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
By that logic, kat, then any sort of performance done by the human body to earn money is out. Football, ballet, paying a dollar to thumbwrestle someone at a county fair.
All the same thing, if you take out moral squickiness factors.
AJ
[ February 04, 2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So the only problem with slavery is a moral squickiness?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* kat, your argument would seem to equate all physical performance of any kind with immorality. Certainly, modeling and acting are clearly forms of prostitution under that reasoning.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think you’re only half-right, Banna. There are at least two beliefs that I think would be necessary to see prostitution as a legitimate career choice. The first, as you’ve pointed out is a belief that recreational sex, even between strangers, is acceptable. The second involves a complete acceptance of capitalism – that any item or service can be sold.
I support and encourage organ donation, but I’m completely against ever allowing organs to be sold. I support and encourage adoption, but I’m completely against ever allowing a market in babies. I think it would be possible to have no moral or intellectual problem with pre-marital sex for free, but still oppose allowing it to become a commodity.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Certainly, modeling and acting are clearly forms of prostitution under that reasoning.
The end product of modeling and acting are pictures and film. I really think that's different.
[ February 04, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Now that is a good argument dkw. I need to think about it some, but here are my first impressions:
Organ donation and adoption are both legal. If they were illegal, a black market would arise that would be even worse than they are now, where people do pay money for such things.
I think part of the issue is whether an action is voluntary or not. In all of the cases you mentioned above including prostitution there is potential for abuse. If a person chooses to allow organs to be used for transplant upon their death, and no medical treatment was witheld,(and there were no religious objections) I guess I dont see anything wrong with the family selling those organs instead. It would be a nice way to defray funeral costs, and leave a nest egg for my heirs if I didn't have a lot of financial resources in life.
On the other issues, private party adoptions right now often do give the mother lots of money. The same can be said for surrogate mothers, and egg donors as well, and there is nothing illegal about any of it.
If you look at it from most actual abuse to least actual abuse, I would say that organ donation is the least abused. Why? because it is the most highly regulated activity of all the ones mentioned. So I'm not for true capitalism because without regulation there is abuse.
AJ
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Organ donation and adoption are both legal. Selling organs and babies are not. Sex is legal. Prostitution is not. Seems parallel to me.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kat, apply your own logic to paying for a haircut then. The end product that you recieve in payment is shorter hair. That is something done by someone else to YOUR body. Yes you could cut your hair yourself. However odds are you will have a more pleasant experience if someone else does it for you.
Now replace "hair" [and haircut ] above with sex. The logic can still hold.
AJ
[ February 04, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The end product of modeling and acting are pictures and film."
Again, you can argue that the purpose of prostitution is to provide sexual release, NOT to own an individual. But if the ownership of the individual is the source of the complaint, surely you'd object to valets?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I would never pay for a sexcut.
Unfair editing in Banna's post above!
[ February 04, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
dkw Look at it not from the stand point of the "donor" but the "reciever" in the cases of organ donations and adoptions the parties on the recieving end ARE spending substantial amounts of money on medical and legal fees(even if some are covered by insurance can be later written off as tax deductions) even if the "donor" recieves nothing. Monetary Value is clearly attached to both organs, and babies. Maybe it is a good thing because it makes the reciever value the item that much more.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
<grin> If you made people (young and old) pay $50 every time they had irresponsible sex, I bet they would start valuing sex more and being more responsible!
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That's similar to paying for various services or items to improve sex, but still not paying for the sex itself.
You can pay for the doctor to do a good job implanting the organ, you still aren't paying for the organ.
added: yes, but then you'd have people on Hatrack debating about whether or not their sex was irresponsible.
[ February 04, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Maybe it is a good thing because it makes the receiver value the item that much more
I totally and completely reject the idea that someone should value their life or their child based on how much money it cost them.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I agree,dkw, however the fact is, a lot of people DO value stuff by the money it cost them. Part of the reason I think adoption is costly is because that makes it obvious that the parents are willing to sacrifice for their prospective child.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also in adoption the line is crossed between a business relationship and a personal relationship.
Prostitution is clearly a business relationship and not a personal relationship.
A personal relationship can include sex, but not necessarily (as in a friendship or parent-child relationship).
If sex is included, I would hope, it is done for mutual personal pleasure. But in fact, the reasons for having sex in a personal relationship are often much less straight forward, and more ulterior than that of paying for sex as a commodity. Which is more honest?
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
It may be a purely business relationship for the prostitute, but not always so for the client.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
That's what I was going to say, PSI. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*sigh* PSI, there you've got me. My response would be, well if you can't separate the physical and emotional acts from each other you shouldn't be paying a prostitute in the first place.
But the fact is most people aren't that coldly analytical to begin with and aren't capable of actually making that distinction. I forget that my mind is too machine-like at times than the average persons.
Interestingly one of the links on one of the pages Suneun posted, is by an adjunct physics prof who was a physics teacher at USC by day and a call boy by night. I'm sure he had the analytical capability of making that distinction.
AJ
[ February 04, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I don't think that it is completely true that the end results of modeling and acting are pictures and motion pictures.
These things, in and of themselves provide nothing useful. It is in the responses that people have to these things that the real result of the labor of modeling/acting is. The pictures are used to cause a person to respond to buy or do something. The motion pictures are there to cause a person to feel a certain way. The media they are on are irrelevant. After all, if a movie stinks, that is, people don't respond favorably to it, the creators will likely not get another chance to create.
And if religious issues are not relevant, prostitution is a job that can be seen as a way to cause a person to feel a certain way. I think that if we can safely create a situation where this worldview can coexist, we should, as a society that recognizes the variety of views citizens of this country have. Not every worldview can be accomadated for safely.
Of course, this sentiment is partially predicated on the idea that allowance is not tacit approval, one that is certainly arguable.
However, a reality of the ongoing and ever evolving culture of prostitution is that it breeds contempt for these women in the johns (probably in small part an echo of the contempt society has for people who feel compelled to pay to have sex, wrongly or rightly), and many of the women transfer this, in different ways, onto themselves. This is terrible, and I think that a solution like Eddie's has a chance to stop this terrible emotional feedback system.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
PSI, that is true, but I think this has more to do with the expectations of various levels of prostitution.
After all, you never heard much in the way of Heidi Fleiss' high-society brothel, in the sense of customers wanting to go beyond the working relationship. Pretty woman makes for a good story, but not a good fact. I think this is due to the the perception of what that type of prostitution entails.
Streetwalkers and pimps and that segment of the prostituion culture don't have that perception, for probably a large number of reasons. I bet a good portion of this is the fact that it is illegal, and therefore "dangerous" (above and beyond the real dangers, which are never mentioned), and the pimps or equivalent do not worry about treating their employees roughly, since they are all doing something illegal anyway.
Another, perhaps more illuminating cousin occupation to prostitution might be massage. It has, to some degree, all the same emotional entanglement problems. How do people feel about massage?
-Bok
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
AJ, a Dr. Laura feature yesterday was a letter from a woman who had been a prostitute in her younger years. She said that 90% of her business wasn't even physical...it was listening, spending time, showing interest. She had a regular client for 3 years who never touched her. He just wanted someone to talk with, who made him feel important. When she asked him why he never wanted his money's worth (her words), he replied that he could get sex from his wife. He had a harder time getting her attention than her body.
I'd say that at least for him (and it sounded like the majority of her clients), it was anything but strictly a business arrangement.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
By the way, did you guys know that Barbershops are a front for prostitution in Taiwan? I think that is so funny (in light of getting a sexcut.) That's why there's a barbershop on every corner.
I have no opinion on massage. Up until a few months ago, I had no idea that it had anything to do with anything other than the relaxation of sore muscles.
Jeni- Of course, that looks bad for psychiatrists.
[ February 04, 2004, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Dr. Laura isn't actually a psychiatrist from what I remember. She might be an MD.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But what do you think of the letter?
quote:Jeni- Of course, that looks bad for psychiatrists.
I think it more implies that prostitutes occasionally act like psychiatrists than than psychiatrists are prostitutes.
And transference is an ever-present concern for therapists. Mack?
[ February 04, 2004, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
She has an unrelated PhD, iirc -- relevance?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No, I meant, you could say a psychiatrist is selling themselves because they are allowing someone to build a sort of "false" emotional relationship with them in the same way that this prostitute's clients did with her, if that's what we are using to draw our boundary in this particular discussion.
I just meant there are a lot of different angles to this I suppose.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Her degree is in physiology.
She calls herself a "licensed psychotherapist"; her only certification that would even slightly suggest that is her one in marriage/family/child counseling.
But what about the letter?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
For the record, I was talking about massage that is, primarily, for soothing aching muscles. You still hear stories of clients becoming too attached to a massuese (sp). Also, it is a purely physical job, whose only result is a person who feels better, no photos, video, or any other intermediary.
Prostitution is fraught with some more serious perils (STDs and pregnancy), but I think this should be addressed, at least when dealing with public policy, at a pragmatic level, rather than trying to stop the idea of legalized prostitution at a religious-specific level (unless you are talking to others in your professed faith).
-Bok
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
This is completely based on information I have seen online, so you can call the validity into question. I was under the impression that massage and prostitution often go hand in hand, depending on where you are. (Notice I said often, not always.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: And transference is an ever-present concern for therapists. Mack?
I can confirm that inappropriate emotional entanglement (not just transference) is an ever present concern. I hope not as much for Mack, since she works with kids. But that’s a big part of the reason that it is not generally considered ethical (and in many states it’s not legal) for a therapist/counselor/psychiatrist/pastor to have a romantic relationship with someone they have previously counseled. (I’m not familiar with the code of ethics for masseuses. [Edit -- but I know there are such, particularly when there are liscencing agencies involved.)
[ February 04, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I was under the impression that massage and prostitution often go hand in hand, depending on where you are.
And that is why my friend who is a LICENSED massage therapist gets so ticked off by public stereotypes of her profession. For the record, it just isn't so!
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Actually, it *really* looks bad for wives, which was the point of the letter. The guy just wanted someone to talk to and he couldn't get it from his wife so he went to a prostitute. For three years. Yikes.
edited to add that massages from a licensed massage therapist are heaven on earth. I've got a friend who recently got licensed, and during his training he had to have lots of people to practice on. It's good to be friends with such people.
[ February 04, 2004, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I know that this isn't so for licensed massage therapists. Isn't it sometimes true in other situations (esp. other areas of the world)? Isn't there a difference between a "massage parlour" and a salon?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
In response to Jeni: It's possible that his wife would have been surprised to find out that he was going to a prostitute because she wasn't communicating with him. Maybe she would have listened more if she'd known this.
I know it's not possible to extrapolate on this situation given what little we know about it. I can say that my Dad said the exact same thing about my mom when he began cheating on her. (He insisted it usually consisted of talking to someone who "cared") I think it's a cop-out.
Oops, double post. Speak of prostitution, and a whore appears.
[ February 04, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Oh, I wasn't saying the guy was *right*.
But I'll admit, that at the end of the day, after listening to complaining and whining from customers and kids, I don't have a lot of tolerance for it left for my husband, who has more of a right to my ear than just about anyone.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I know.
and...
Oh, boy, do I know. Luckily, my husband is a very quiet man.
[ February 04, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
PSI, even if some massage places do overlap prostitution, that certainly doesn't mean most are. THe ones that are sketchy are obviously so. Believe me, there are lots of places (up here in MA at least), that are totally legitimate, and provide a variety of different massage techniques, from general therapuetic, to deep tissue, to injury-focus.
These are the places I am talking about. These are the places my previous job had someone come from, once a monce, on-site, to provide massages to people who wanted them (and paid the 15 bucks for 15 minutes).
No hanky-panky going on, believe me. However it is a profession that has many of the same issues as prostitution, and its end result is much the same as prostitution's.
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think the difference is self evident, Bok;
Sex and rubbing someone's shoulders are different acts.
Sex is intimate (supposedly).
A massage needn't be.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Scott, then you have never had a full body massage. A full body massage includes the buttocks and groin muscles and breast areas. One of the things they train professional massuses in is strategic towel wrapping and towel tucking for locations as they go through their routine. This is for two reasons, one to make the patient feel more comfortable, and secondly to establish boundaries so that the patient maintains emotional distance.
(Says AJ who is in need of a massage)
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Incidentally hairdressers deal with emotional entanglement issues all the time. Why do you think it is that they are known for knowing all the gossip, whether or not they choose to divulge it. Before there were therapists, their were hairdressers.
AJ
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Not everyone thinks every act of sex is intimate, Scott. You and I can be unable to view or participate in the act under anything but intimate circumstances, but I don't think we can speak for everyone.
-Bok
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
edit: sheesh! i didn't even realize i'd missed the whole last page! *smacks head*
quote:It may be a purely business relationship for the prostitute, but not always so for the client.
Regardless of how the client views the relationship, they still use money to pay for services. That is a dictionary definition "business" dealing.
You also have to consider, dkw, organs and babies can't think for themselves, or decide whether or not to sell themselves to others. Grown-ups can
[ February 04, 2004, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think that, for myself, there's nothing wrong with massage. I wouldn't want to be massaged in any intimate areas. If for some reason I had a legitimate injury requiring massage in one of those areas, I would encourage my husband to get trained to do it.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Leonide: Neither can Beanie Babies. Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I'm so confused by the comparison, PSI, I don't even know what to say!
edit: ah, i get it now. Well then, I take back my own comparison. My main point was that an adult making the decision to hire themselves out as a commodity, using talents or abilities they possess -- happens everywhere, every day. A woman in my area is looking for a vocalist to travel around with her to venues and sing while she plays the piano. I think this would be a fantastic oppurtunity for me -- using my vocal (physical) talent for money and to provide entertainment. How is it any different than if I were to decide to sell my sexual talents instead?
[ February 04, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm assuming you are making a point regarding the selling of organs and babies verses the selling of sex, ie, a woman can choose to sell herself, but a baby or and organ cannot. My response to that is, nothing that we sell or trade can decide whether or not it wants to be sold. I guess I don't really know what point YOU were trying to make.
added: Okay.
I think they covered most aspects of the talent and ability argument somewhere in the last page or two. I don't think I was around for most of it.
[ February 04, 2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hey, all I’m trying to do is point out that the issue is more complicated than whether or not one approves of pre-marital sex. Which, come to think of it, is what I’ve been doing through this whole thread. There aren’t only two camps here – it is possible to accept pre-marital sex while deploring the idea that anyone would use it as a “deal-breaker” for a life partner. It is possible to accept pre-marital sex but not legalized prostitution. It is possible to not approve of pre-marital sex for reasons other than “because God says so.”
As soon as people start lumping other people’s arguments in to groups – “well, you believe “x” so you must also believe “y” I get antsy. When anyone starts saying, “the only reason you have a problem with “x” is because you believe “y” I get even more antsy. All I’m saying is that we need to look at each issue individually, and not dismiss someone’s position on one because we think we know their position on something else.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Dana, you are great for shades of grey!!! You are right it is a delicate issue at an individual level. I am not by any means endorsing prostitution as a life style for everyone.
A lot of it hinges on individual responsiblilty.
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I've really been avoiding the word "position" in this thread. I prefer "stance" . . .
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
"Stance", like karate?
My Kung Fu is stronger than yours!
Heeeee-YAAAAAA!
Ouch! I pulled a groin muscle!
Is there a massage therapist in the house?
-Bok
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Banna, I prefer to think of it as “multi-faceted” rather than shades of grey.
(It’s prettier that way.)
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Actually, dana, your very point is the reason I started posting on this thread in the first place -- to show that not everyone who supported pre-marital sex viewed it as something that should be used to test out prospective partners for sexual compatibility and thus, relationship compatibility.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), all my points have been made -- and better than I would have. Thanks guys. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Whoa. Excuse me, I'm going to go sit down. All the blood is rushing into my head.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I don't mean to make anyone unhappy. It's just that the personal lives were being used as a support for a thesis. Since they are being used as support, then their effectiveness as support is subject to scrutiny. But it's making people upset, and that's not worth it.![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
No tricksy questions that I've already answered and you already know the answers to.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
), but there are things that could be considered normal by most couples that could confuse and possibly harm kids, and it would be tough for them to tell the difference.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
And that is why my friend who is a LICENSED massage therapist gets so ticked off by public stereotypes of her profession. For the record, it just isn't so!