posted
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.
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?
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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?
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.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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 ]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
posted
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).
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
(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.
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
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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!
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Or when I'm not nineteen!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
