posted
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. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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... Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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")
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
Of course, there's always the wide variety of sexual actions that are certain to never result in a pregnancy...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Not sure I have any point. Just felt an urge to hop in with my cent or two.
![[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.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
