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.
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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
posted
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).
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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
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.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
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?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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!...."
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
So not all of us are actually doing it or trying to justify our actions.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
