posted
Uhm, what do you want me to say, MPH? Would you like me to couch the above in, "which you may or may not believe"? I thought it was perfectly reasonable to just say that perhaps you don't. After all, saying that you do when you just said that's not what you said would be rude. So sorry I tried for the apparent less rude approach.
You can still answer my hypothetical, though. It would help me in understanding the statement you did say.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The argument unmarried people shouldn't have sex because it discourages thinking about the relationship certainly seems to apply to married people as well if it applies at all. Do you think it only holds true for unmarried people? if so, why, and if not, why do you think it should change the decision for all unmarried people but if any only some married people?
Also, sex can help tighten emotional bonds between people, something I'm pretty sure most of you married people wouldn't argue with. If two people want to spend their lives together but just don't want to get married, isn't that closeness supportive of sex?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many healthy, long term relationships stem from people who jump into bed with each other the first chance they get?
I think the point here was hastiness. Someone who chooses to build a stable relationship before getting too physical gets similar benefits to the person who doesn't have sex until after marriage.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That wasn't what was said at all, what was said was that premarital sex was stupid.
For instance, I think there's a decent likelihood I'm going to have premarital sex at some point, but its only going to be with someone I'm in a committed, long term relationship with and would be willing to accept the consequences of sex with.
Lots of people wait until they're in a healthy, long term relationship before having sex yet still have premarital sex.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I have a certain amount of respect for that. What I said before about my beliefs still stands, but I imagine if I were not religious at all, I would feel as you do. As for what Scott said, I think he was just trying to make people mad. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was trying to make people mad? I thought it was just another stupid dobie that somehow turned into a semi-serious thread. Guess I'm the stupid one here.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
However, I think a lot of people were jumping on the bandwagon that premarital sex was obviously stupid without thinking through situations where no, it is not, unless one brings religious justifications into it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who are all these people who jumped on the bandwagon?
Edit: Scott did repeat his statement a lot. If you weren't looking to see who was posting, you might have got the impression that people were jumping on the bandwagon. But I looked back, and not a single person appears to have done so.
posted
Agreed, but I think that if you are in a committed-everythings-going-peachy relationship, one must keep in mind that even if the plan is to marry that person, it may not happen. That way if it ends your life isn't over.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
dabbler -- first you jumped all over me for saying something that I didn't say. I explained that I didn't say that. You than graciously accepted my correction and said "I'll believe that you don't believe what I stated above." I just didn't want to leave you thinking you know my views about this, because you don't.
As far as sharing how I feel about it, I'll decline the invitation for now.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although, with how short marriages last these days, I could make a similar point about marriage! You don't know if it is going to last, so why bother?
Just playin' Devil's Advocate. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As detailed in my landmark, I had sex after dating someone for two years (before marriage) and it stunk. On the other hand, I got married after dating for about two months, which was rapidly followed by normal marital relations. So I would tend against the natural law- don't jump into sex too hastily argument.
Anyway, I'm sure this thread was a dobie of the Rude thread and not associated in any way with my landmark. But in general I'd agree that pre-marital sex is stupid. Anyone who disagrees needs to watch "Bed of Roses" tonight. Not because it is a sobering moral tale. Just to savor the stupidity.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhhh, good movie with a bittersweet ending. Wisdom to be found there.
I will say this: for those of you in healthy, long-term relationships and for those of you who are not, and are planning on having sex, I sincerely hope you are prepared for the possibility of pregnancy. I am assuming that the guy has not had a vasectomy or the girl her tubes tied. But even with birth control, pregnancies happen.
So what would you do? Abort? Adopt out? Keep the child but not marry? Marry and raise the child? These are important issues. I hate the fact that pre-marital sex contributes so much to the high number of abortions that happen since I find abortion-for-convenience repugnant and vile.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't remembering much about Bed of Roses. All I really remember was that the message of the movie seemd to be that chicks dig stalkers.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember something about the girl abusing the guy's trust again and again to the point that he couldn't believe her feelings for him. In the end, he took her back, but things were not "hunky dory". He was very wary of being hurt again. The message I got was that trust is a precious thing and shouldn't be abused.
There were moments in our relationship that reminded me of that movie. I felt like I did to you what that girl did to that guy.
posted
About homosexual people not being able to have sex because they aren't married:
These kinds of individuals would be religious, I expect, as the belief that "sex before marriage is wrong" is a religious belief.
Any such person would also have to align themselves with a religion in which homosexual relations were not sinful. There are quite a few Christion denominations for which this is true, and their pastors will perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples.
In the religious world, divine authority trumps government authority. Therefore, I feel it is silly to wait for the government to sanction your marriage. A homosexual person looking to marriage as a religious commitment to their spouse CAN get married to their beloved same sex partner. I was once acquainted with one couple like this, and currently know a different couple very well who is married under their religious law. Even their last name is the same, another sign of marriage.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Giving in to base desires without giving the requisite forethought qualifies for the stupidity label. Many things done in the heat of the moment are stupid. Assigning the stupidity tag exclusively to premarital sex is baiting the hook. Engaging in premarital sex carries no greater intellectual onus than any other emotion laden (influenced) decision.
posted
pooka: Given that you had sex with the person you'd been dating for two years for admittedly unhealthy reasons, I don't exactly think that serves as a counterexample.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Encouraging lively debate doesn't qualify (in my book) as inciteful. I wasn't irritated I was just stating my opinion. If you thought my baiting the hook comment was critical I apologize. I enjoy exchanges like this.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Here's what I believe, Scott R, and according to it you're wrong...
Deep inside a pound there lives a conrolling force, which goes by the name Ar'MaNo. From it comes all the energy of living and life.
Now this force wants the following from us:
a) To have sex daily b) To offer it a cow every month
The force loves us with all its will. However, We are its Children and it is up to Us to prove Our devotion to It.
This force does realize that many do not believe in it. For those many individuals, there is a way out -- if they repent and realize the error of their ways.
If they don't, and refuse to accept the Sex/Offering combination of Godly love...then they will be distanced from the true Maker, and that is an unpleasent way to spend eternity.
The force *is* forgiving. So don't worry too much -- just accept its love, and you'll be saved.
posted
I agree that many people have sex for the "wrong reasons." Or, that there are wrong reasons to have sex. Ultimately, a reason is wrong (to me) if it will cause you or the other person physical or emotional harm.
So, lets say that in many cases, sex outside of marriage leads to a harmful outcome. Does this mean you should never have sex outside of marriage? I argue no.
Someone recently admitted that he's a sore loser. Many of us are sore loses at games. Some of us are even terrible losers who hurt people they're close to and themselves when they lose. Does this mean they should never play games with their friends? I don't think so. I think it would be to their benefit to learn how to deal with losing in a more appropriate manner, because it'll make them a better person than refusing to play games with people for the rest of his life.
Not everyone is a sore loser. Not everyone is harmed by having sex outside of a marriage.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Giving in to base desires without giving the requisite forethought qualifies for the stupidity label.
That, for me anyway, goes right to the heart of the issue and spells out exactly what the problem is. I (coming from my agnostic standpoint) don't think there is anything inherently "sinful" about pre-marital sex. I just think people rush into it too quickly. They should be in a loving, committed relationship before they climb into bed together, and they should both discuss it beforehand to make sure both partners are actually ready and are not just giving in to base lust.
But the same could be said for a lot of actions. I have exactly the same opinion about marriage itself, though you can change "lust" to "twitterpation" or whatever else you like. I think the divorce rate would go down dramatically if people were required to have a lengthy waiting period before they were allowed to be married. Then once the hormones wore off, if they found out they were a bad match after all, they wouldn't now be stuck in a marriage to get out of.
Basically, I think people should just slow down and not rush into things so much. Most of our worst mistakes come when we didn't give enough thought to what we were doing before we did it.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's impossible to mix two peoples sets of ideals to come up with a logical belief system.
My own beliefs concerning sex are consistent because I don't consider abortions evil. But you can't expect me to apply your belief that abortion should not be a matter of convenience to my belief that sex can be had outside of marriage.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:without first finding out if you're sexually compatible with each other
And sometimes all you find out is that you've just given it up to a wanker who only wanted to get off. I guess you could count that as knowledge gained. So we're not talking 100-percent stupid.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
It is no more inherently good or evil than green is.
"Incidentally, don't be religious before death."
Are you saying that we should wait until after death?
Probably not -- I'm guessing that you are just saying that being religious at all is "just stuipid".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd simply like to point out that I'm more communicative with people I am physically close to... despite arguments earlier in the thread made that people having sex don't communicate as well.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And those having sex should be prepared for the possibility of pregnancy and parenthood. Accidents happen. Abortions-of-convenience shouldn't.
Absolutely. As far as I'm concerned, as long as you're okay with the possible consequences (remote though they may be if multiple contraceptive methods are used in concert), go ahead and have all the sex you want.
I think "sex before marriage is stupid" is taking things much too far, though, particularly for people like me who don't have any plans to get married (but who ARE interested in maintaining stable, committed relationships at some juncture).
quote:Since when is it a "base desire" to want to give pleasure to someone else?
Since when is the desire to give pleasure to someone else the primary motivation of pre-marital sex? I'm not saying no one ever has sex for that reason--I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that do--but I'd say selfish hedonism is a far more common reason for sex, at least outside a committed relationship.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To make "sex befor marriage" a "stupid thing," one would have to find importante significance in the consept of marrige, and sence I dont believe ther ahve been laws regulating virginity for a century, it would mostlikely be religious regulation.
Should all people be held to this regulation?
Why should it be anyone's buisness what two consenting adults want to do?
...intresting how this argument sounds simmiler to arguments for homosexual marriges as well...
Posts: 264 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Incidentally, don't be religious before death."
Are you saying that we should wait until after death?
Probably not -- I'm guessing that you are just saying that being religious at all is "just stuipid".
Actually, I'm pretty sure what he was trying to do was to make an offensive statement similar in form to the one that started this thread in order to show why it (the statement that started this thread) could be hurtful to some people.
Maybe not the best way of going about that, but he does have a point.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't imagine that anybody really would need to have it explained why that statment is offensive. I substantively agree with it, but I would never phrase it in such an offensive manner.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But no one wants to think about that, do they?
bev, I don't mean this facetiously: a lot of people do. This is why many people support Planned Parenthood -- not because of access to abortions (which may or may not be provided at individual clinics), but because of the importance of family planning.
There is a reason why various other countries have a higher rate of birth control use, lower rate of teenage pregnancy, and lower rate of elective abortion.
If you were to be suggesting that engaging in any unnecessary action which may have dire consequences for others is immoral (and I realize you are not making this claim), then you would not be driving a car, and you would be active in abolishing individual car use. Over a period of five years, a sexually active, fertile, heterosexual couple using a condom with spermicide foam and birth control pills, both correctly (at least, as correctly as is viable for people -- not just in the lab) has a higher risk for one of them being in a car accident than of getting pregnant.
(I'm sure of that, but if anyone disbelieves it and it would make a difference to them, I could go through the calculations.)
Doesn't mean it's okay to jump like bunnies with the nearest stranger every night -- just that it is possible to have sex responsibly and with a reasonable certainty of not getting pregnant (a certainty much stronger than that of not being involved in a vehicular accident).
[ September 07, 2004, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good grief. The last thing I want is to be symbolic of anything to anybody. But it so happens that you are right (about the pregnancy part), young man.
(I still don't think jumping into sex is a good idea, I don't think most people are ready to do it responsibly when they first do it, and I am convinced there is a plethora of extremely good reasons not to have sex before the age of thirty. But that's another story.)
[Y'all need a mother figure, that's all, and I'm safe because I'm 1)married 2)stern 3)aged and 4)rather feeble. S'okay, I know the score. ]
[ September 07, 2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men -- My statement holds true. Any action taken in the throes of heated emotion that isn't preceded by forethought qualifies for the tag stupid. I'm NOT religious and I don't have anything against premarital sex. My point was that any action taken while in the grip of heated desire will not be reasonably considered. Assigning the stupidity tag to premarital sex was a bit exclusive in my opinion. Having sex without considering the possibility of conception or life-threatening disease is idiotic. If a couple have discussed these issues and are aware of the consequences then (in my opinion) they are not behaving stupidly.
posted
I don't necessarily think that religion and abstinence must go hand-in-hand - I know religious people who have had sex before marriage, and my own beliefs about virginity have nothing to do with marriage. I'm Catholic, but not so strongly Catholic that I would abstain from sex because the Church says it's wrong. My reasons would be purely personal. I believe that it's impossible to make the generalization of "Sex Before Marriage Is Stupid, Period." Everyone is different and relationships vary. Sex before marriage without preparation for the consequences, and without safety measures being taken, is stupid. I think too many immature people have sex without realizing the potential outcomes, but a few people do actually think about it, talk about it, and plan for what they will do if pregnancy occurs. It's stupid to be unprepared, but the act itself, given proper thought and not done rashly or without hesitation, can't be called stupid on a purely logical sense. By religious or moral standards, perhaps...but intelligent, good people DO have sex before marriage, and ARE prepared for what may happen, and deal with it in a responsible, mature manner. At the risk of sounding...old....I'll say: don't have sex AT ALL until you are prepared to deal with a child, married or not. Birth control is not infallible. Don't give it your complete trust. You should test for STD's before having sex with anyone anyway, so that shouldn't be a worry. Just make mature decisions, and for God's sake think them through and always have a Plan B, in case things DON'T go as planned.
That's just my take on it.
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Er. So, Jane, does this mean my propositions to you have a decent shot? Or what? Cuz I'll test for STDs beforehand if that's what it takes. No, no, no need to thank me, I just consider it my duty to help you feel comfortable. A gentleman, that's what I am. A noble in an age of savages. A man for others. Totally selfless! Utterly thoughtful! My god why hasn't that man had a statue made of him yet...
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are dirty, Lalo. No sex (with other people) before you're thirty. And wash behind your ears.
to twinky It's the hours before midnight that count in sleep, you know. Have you been eating your canned tomatoes?
Although if one were to really want to kill the sexual interest of silly young men, opening up the photographic Atlas of Sores and Rashes would do most nicely.
*fixes you, Lalo, with a stern eye
Be polite to Avardu. Home by seven. No vans. Or you will have to read aloud from the Atlas.
[You know, my mother used to make my brother and me read aloud from the letter of Revelation while on our knees, and for relatively small transgressions, like forgetting to put clothes in the laundry hamper. It was quite effective, even if terribly traumatic.]
[ September 07, 2004, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
to twinky
