posted
I've been married for 18+ years, and, yes, sex is still a big deal. I think is it best saved for marriage, or, failing that, a very serious, monogamous relationship.
It has got to be awfully nice to go to bed with someone on your wedding night and not be jaded, and not have your partner be jaded.
And if the inexperience on both sides makes the inital experimentation less than perfect, fine. You will have a lifetime together to work on improving things.
If, however, due to the combination of lots of practice and lots of youthful exuberance early encounters in your long-term relationship are rockets-to-the-moon awesome, then, 10 years into marriage, you will only look back and wonder why it can't be as wonderful as it was then.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Angiomorphism, I think it was already pretty clear that I made that number up, also thinking it's a little too low.
I don't know you. You may be screwed up. How should I know? But it's not always about being screwed up. It's about finding that ONE girl you love above all others and wanting to marry her and dealing with the fact that you already gave a part of yourself to someone in high school. Maybe it won't bother you. Maybe it won't bother her. Or maybe it will and you'll just lie to yourself--or maybe you won't. I don't know.
You just might end up marrying someone who did wait for you, and it just might hurt her that you didn't. It might not.
I'm not comfortable saying "You" in the examples... I'm just trying to reply to your own example.
You see, to me, it's not about how healthy the relationship is at the moment--it's the fact that all but one relationship ends (if you're lucky), and you go into marriage with memories of another. In this sort of society, where sex outside of marriage is more the norm than the exception, most people probably don't even realize how it could be.
posted
And that's a huge reason why I think 16 is way too young to make the decision. Because most 16 year olds don't think that far ahead.
I've been married to my husband for about a year and a half--but in regards to sex, I've been married to him a lot longer than that. I would have considered sex with anyone else even BEFORE him as adultery against him. I don't expect ANYONE else to have that sort of attitude, because I understand it is extreme, but it is how I chose to live my life.
I just think 16 year olds need to wait so they can decide when they understand life and love a little better.
And the argument about 16 year olds marrying throughout history--So what? Someone already made the good distinction between marriage and sex for 16 year olds, and I add to that... we don't live THEN. We live NOW. It is a very different world. 16-year-old's can't get a job capable of supporting a family now. Many teenagers lack responsibility. (Note, I said MANY.. not ALL. I'm perfectly aware that there are responsible teenagers, and given the nature of this board, the teenagers here are more likely to fall into that category.) Anyway.. it's a different world.
posted
Yeah, but I while I read the posts aloud in my head, I just glance at who wrote it. If I'd ever bothered to pronounce either one, I'm sure I would've noticed.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: how bout this, the abstinence approach towards sexual education is not 100% effective, just as the sexual education approach isnt 100% effective, but at least when kids taught the sexual education approach have sex, they know what they are doing, and how to protect themselves, where as the abstinence approach kids DONT
Sorry, I was talking practical versus theoretical.
Every woman's body responds to drugs a little differently and 99.99% is still not 100%, allowing for ideal conditions.
If you want a guarantee you won't get pregnant or impregnate someone else, don't have sex. Short of Divine Intervention, you don't have to worry about waking up pregnant.
"Well, just this once" is a load of garbage because you sure as all freaking hell can get pregnant during the first time (yet another fun myth). And, for the record, then you're not abstaining anymore. It's like trying to be a member of AA between trips to the bar.
Condoms are theoretically effective if, as you've noted, they are used correctly and remain intact. And the material isn't flawed, crabs (pubic lice and skin to skin transmissions that are not specifically blocked with a barrier such as a condom) aren't involved and other factors to be considered. The CDC does offer a fact sheet about Male Latex Condoms.
As for the effectiveness of teaching methods - "Just say no" versus "this is what sex is and these are ways you can practice in relative safety", I dunno. I don't think there is one fixed delivery system that will reach every child listening.
posted
What effect do crabs have on condom effectiveness? I searched the link, but didn't see anything.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's talking about the fact that you can get crabs even if you use a condom if your partner has them.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: how bout this, the abstinence approach towards sexual education is not 100% effective, just as the sexual education approach isnt 100% effective, but at least when kids taught the sexual education approach have sex, they know what they are doing, and how to protect themselves, where as the abstinence approach kids DONT
Sorry, I was talking practical versus theoretical.
Every woman's body responds to drugs a little differently and 99.99% is still not 100%, allowing for ideal conditions.
If you want a guarantee you won't get pregnant or impregnate someone else, don't have sex. Short of Divine Intervention, you don't have to worry about waking up pregnant.
"Well, just this once" is a load of garbage because you sure as all freaking hell can get pregnant during the first time (yet another fun myth). And, for the record, then you're not abstaining anymore. It's like trying to be a member of AA between trips to the bar.
Condoms are theoretically effective if, as you've noted, they are used correctly and remain intact. And the material isn't flawed, crabs (pubic lice and skin to skin transmissions that are not specifically blocked with a barrier such as a condom) aren't involved and other factors to be considered. The CDC does offer a fact sheet about Male Latex Condoms.
As for the effectiveness of teaching methods - "Just say no" versus "this is what sex is and these are ways you can practice in relative safety", I dunno. I don't think there is one fixed delivery system that will reach every child listening.
-Trevor
Edit: For clarification.
i agree with you, there are different ways to reach children and to ensure that they do not get pregnant or diseased. that being said, the point i was making is that everyone always talks about how birth control and condoms arent 100% effective, but neither is teaching a pro-abstinence approach. there are always kids who will break the pledge they make to not have sex until marriage, and these kids will have a much higher chance of getting pregnant or catching an STD, as they will have had little if any sexual-education.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just graduated high school and it seems to me that the incoming freshman are more sexually active than my class (05') was at that age.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to be clear that I'm not discussing what educational approach will or won't be effective.
What I am discussing are the particulars of what is and isn't effective in a literal sense - the mechanics involved, if you will.
When I say "abstinence", I'm not talking about the educational push based on moral/religious values - I'm saying that if you want a 100% guarantee you won't be pregnant, don't have vaginal intercourse. Not even once.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Angiomorphism, I think it was already pretty clear that I made that number up, also thinking it's a little too low.
I don't know you. You may be screwed up. How should I know? But it's not always about being screwed up. It's about finding that ONE girl you love above all others and wanting to marry her and dealing with the fact that you already gave a part of yourself to someone in high school. Maybe it won't bother you. Maybe it won't bother her. Or maybe it will and you'll just lie to yourself--or maybe you won't. I don't know.
You just might end up marrying someone who did wait for you, and it just might hurt her that you didn't. It might not.
I'm not comfortable saying "You" in the examples... I'm just trying to reply to your own example.
You see, to me, it's not about how healthy the relationship is at the moment--it's the fact that all but one relationship ends (if you're lucky), and you go into marriage with memories of another. In this sort of society, where sex outside of marriage is more the norm than the exception, most people probably don't even realize how it could be.
-Katarain
i think that you are taking this issue much too seriously. i do not feel as if i "gave a part of myself" to anyone in relation to sex. if you were talking about love, then yes, but certainly not sex. sex is a manifestation of the love between two people. just because you are married doesn't make your love worth anything more than two people in a committed relationship. so yes, if i am in love with someone, and then the relationship ends, and i get into a new one, i will have the memory of past love, but why is that a bad thing if you are happy in your new relationship? sex for me is just as special the thousanth time i do it as the first time. It is just as special (if not more) with the person i am with right now and love incredibly, then it was with any of my past loves (there was only 1).
i would agree with you completely if you were to change the work "marrage" to "a committed relationship". i do not think that casual sex is right, as it can hurt people deeply, but there is absolutely 100% nothing wrong with having sex with someone you sincerely love, and who sincerely loves you, regardless of age (within certain parameters, i would say 16-18 and up, and if it was not rushed), or maritial status.
in fact, seeing as how sex is such an important part of any relationship (there is no denying this), i think it is stupid to wait until you are married to have sex with someone. what if you just dont "work" sexually? when you date someone with the intent of pursuing a serious relationship, its like you're trying them out, so see if you could live with them for the rest of your life. sex is part of that life.
would you test drive a car without trying the brakes, and then buy it? i doubt it
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TMedina: I just want to be clear that I'm not discussing what educational approach will or won't be effective.
What I am discussing is the particulars of what is and isn't effective in a literal sense - the mechanics involved, if you will.
When I say "abstinence", I'm not talking about the educational push based on moral/religious values - I'm saying that if you want a 100% guarantee you won't be pregnant, don't have vaginal intercourse. Not even once.
-Trevor
unfortunately, that is an unrealistic objective for many youth
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ang:"in fact, seeing as how sex is such an important part of any relationship (there is no denying this), i think it is stupid to wait until you are married to have sex with someone. what if you just dont "work" sexually? when you date someone with the intent of pursuing a serious relationship, its like you're trying them out, so see if you could live with them for the rest of your life. sex is part of that life.
would you test drive a car without trying the brakes, and then buy it? i doubt it"
I have never understood this argument. I don't get the idea that there could be some marriage that is 100% perfect for both parties except that they just aren't sexually compatible. What kind of sexual compatibility is being talked about here? I honestly can't imagine.
Are there actually couples that say to each other, "You know, I really love you. In fact, I love absolutely everything about you, except for one thing -- I don't like it when we're in bed and you do *this*. Sorry, but that's a deal-breaker. Good bye."?
It boggles my mind.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not trying to advocate a lifestyle or what teens or adults, for that matter, should or shouldn't do.
Hell, my point doesn't even fall under the "Abstinence approach to sex ed", but moreso under the "these are the facts of life" approach.
Condoms are not 100% effective against pregnancy - however, not having sex guarantees you won't get prengant.
Condoms are not 100% effective against all STDs because a condom will only protect against one of two possible infection methods.
Granted, if you're gonna have sex and don't want to be pregnant and want to avoid contracting the STDs that condoms can help protect against, by all means use them and use them correctly.
But make informed decisions with good information, not locker room gossip and urban myths.
But don't assume just because you've got a rubber involved you're 100% safe from everything.
-Trevor
Edit: For clarity.
Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by UofUlawguy: Ang:"in fact, seeing as how sex is such an important part of any relationship (there is no denying this), i think it is stupid to wait until you are married to have sex with someone. what if you just dont "work" sexually? when you date someone with the intent of pursuing a serious relationship, its like you're trying them out, so see if you could live with them for the rest of your life. sex is part of that life.
would you test drive a car without trying the brakes, and then buy it? i doubt it"
I have never understood this argument. I don't get the idea that there could be some marriage that is 100% perfect for both parties except that they just aren't sexually compatible. What kind of sexual compatibility is being talked about here? I honestly can't imagine.
Are there actually couples that say to each other, "You know, I really love you. In fact, I love absolutely everything about you, except for one thing -- I don't like it when we're in bed and you do *this*. Sorry, but that's a deal-breaker. Good bye."?
It boggles my mind.
how many people have you had sex with? also, i have heard of stories where people broke up because the sex wasn't good. its sad, but it happens
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It has got to be awfully nice to go to bed with someone on your wedding night and not be jaded, and not have your partner be jaded.
You know, sex doesn't have to get worn out or dull. It can actually be enjoyabe for years, and with multiple partners.
quote:And if the inexperience on both sides makes the inital experimentation less than perfect, fine. You will have a lifetime together to work on improving things.
And if it's closer to perfect due to experience.....well, good.
quote:If, however, due to the combination of lots of practice and lots of youthful exuberance early encounters in your long-term relationship are rockets-to-the-moon awesome, then, 10 years into marriage, you will only look back and wonder why it can't be as wonderful as it was then.
So, after a few years of marriage when the sex becomes awesome, you can start the timer on the ten years. It really just buys time.
I think for your average person, waiting until marriage is just going to have them wondering what they're missing, since they have nothing to compare to. Not that I don't think it's good to be choosy and safe, but saying that waiting until marriage will make sex more enjoyable is not entirely accurate.
And man, this thread is way tame compared to our sex threads on Sakeriver. A good thing, I suppose.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TMedina: I guess I'm just not being very clear.
I'm not trying to advocate a lifestyle or what teens or adults, for that matter, should or shouldn't do.
Hell, my point doesn't even fall under the "Abstinence approach to sex ed", but moreso under the "these are the facts of life" approach.
Condoms are not 100% effective against pregnancy - not having sex is.
Condoms are not 100% effective against all STDs because a condom will only protect against one of two possible infection methods.
Granted, if you're gonna have sex and don't want to be pregnant and want to avoid contracting the STDs that condoms can help protect against, by all means use them and use them correctly.
But make informed decisions with good information, not locker room gossip and urban myths.
But don't assume just because you've got a rubber involved you're 100% safe from everything.
-Trevor
yeah for sure, thats why i would argue that you should only have sex when you;re in a committed and loving relationship, where you know your partner's sexual history, and have been both tested for STDs
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it such a good thing that we raise teenagers to be less mature nowadays? Even the story The Postman told of the 14-year-old and the 12-year-old would not be at all surprising a hundred years ago. Even the story of the five year old who gave birth happened a hundred years ago. I remember reading that in the early days of the US, they practiced something called "Bundling" where if two young people wanted to get married, they would go to bed (to sleep) together to decide if it would work out, and plenty of them had "premature" babies.
Sixteen year olds have just as many hormones as their ancestors, and their ancestors had a perfectly acceptable way to work them out-- they were married. Humans are designed to start having sex and babies well before sixteen, and maybe any kind of solution for teen sex needs to take into account that it's really an abberation that people are waiting into their twenties (and beyond) to get married in our time. We aren't designed to wait that long. Our ancestors who made the rules about no pre-marital sex didn't have to wait that long. Perhaps they would have made more sensible rules if they had had to.
The truth is that European countries have way more pre-marital sex than the US and they have fewer incidences of unwanted pregnancies and fewer people get STDs.
I suggest doing whatever it is they do if we want the same result.
I also really don't understand the whole, "The more sex you have with the more partners the more jaded you'll be" thing. I've had a few partners in my time, and I must say that while my attitude towards sex has changed somewhat, it has been all for the better. My first few years of experiences of sex were all so awful that if I had been married when I first had sex, well it doesn't bear thinking about, but I'm sure that if I had waited for it as the most magical and sacred thing that could ever happen to me, not only would I've been incredibly disappointed, but it would most likely have ruined my marriage as well.
By now, though, I think sex is awesome. If I got married and the sex wasn't so great, well, I'd know what to do to work it out or at least I'd have some ideas. And if it never worked out, oh well. It's no longer THE thing about marriage, it's one thing among many about marriage.
Too many people who are utterly determined to wait until marriage get married with their nads and not with their heads. Or get married too soon after getting emotionally involved with a person to know if it's for-real-the-one. Of course this isn't true of everyone who waits. Of course. But it seems to me to be something akin to having a baby with your emotions and not with your head. Certainly far worse than having one as-safe-as-possible sexual encounter with your nads than with your head.
I wouldn't want to get married with a blindfold on. So I have had some pre-marital sex. I think it just makes sense.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:unfortunately, that is an unrealistic objective for many youth
I think a little more highly of human beings than that.
well then you are naive. i don't mean that offensively, just that you must face reality, and the reality is that many kids taught abstinence approaches towards sex are not faithful to their teaching, infact, many kids taught safe-sex aren't faithful either, but at least those that do have safe sex, where as those that do who are taught abstinence approaches do not know how to have safe sex
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ang:"how many people have you had sex with?"
Absolutely none of your business.
Ang:"also, i have heard of stories where people broke up because the sex wasn't good. its sad, but it happens"
People might break up who otherwise might have stayed together longer if the sex was better. However, I am very skeptical that ANYBODY breaks up what otherwise was/would be a beautiful relationship simply because of sex. If everything else is working just right, the sex will take care of itself. It is not the keystone of the relationship, without which the whole thing crumbles.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Good thing being in a committed relationship means you can't get pregnant.
Wait...
i don't belive i ever said that, but by the same token, being married doesn't mean you cannot get pregnant either, so i fail to see your logic
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by UofUlawguy: Ang:"how many people have you had sex with?"
Absolutely none of your business.
Ang:"also, i have heard of stories where people broke up because the sex wasn't good. its sad, but it happens"
People might break up who otherwise might have stayed together longer if the sex was better. However, I am very skeptical that ANYBODY breaks up what otherwise was/would be a beautiful relationship simply because of sex. If everything else is working just right, the sex will take care of itself. It is not the keystone of the relationship, without which the whole thing crumbles.
the sex will take care of itself? well obviously you dont have alot of experience with this issue
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
TM's point was that there is NO amount of precautions that will absolutely keep you STD-free and avoid pregnancy when you have sex. Abstinence will.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: He didn't say it would take care of itself at all. Where did he imply that?
read his post please
as per your statement about abstinence, it still has nothing to do with what ive been saying over and over again. THEORETICALLY, abstinence, as well as completely safe sex (that involves knowing your partner's history, being on good birth control, using condoms, etc..) are 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and STDs.
BUT, we do not live in a theoretical world, and in our REAL world, people dont practice completely safe sex, and people who take abstinence vows don't respect them all the time. so in our world, where people have sex, regardless of what you tell them to do, which is better? being informed about it, or not being informed about it?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't been following the whole thread, but I can say that I believe that sexual compatability is a notable part of a relationship--one of a few things that can make or break a relationship in many cases.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it's arrogant of me to assume I have a handle on everyone's view, but it seems to me that some people are of the opinion that
1)Abstinence is the only way to keep from getting pregnant
While others say that
2)That's true, however, abstinence is tough to maintain in a real life setting.
And we all agree that either
3)Sex isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be
Or
4)People don't take sex seriously enough, and this is the source of a lot of our current moral degredation.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then how are so many people able to remain abstinent until marriage and then have a happy marriage? And when those people do get divorced, is it because of sexual compatibility? Probably not, I'd guess.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I know it's arrogant of me to assume I have a handle on everyone's view, but it seems to me that some people are of the opinion that
1)Abstinence is the only way to keep from getting pregnant
While others say that
2)That's true, however, abstinence is tough to maintain in a real life setting.
And we all agree that either
3)Sex isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be
Or
4)People don't take sex seriously enough, and this is the source of a lot of our current moral degredation.
so what's your point?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Then how are so many people able to remain abstinent until marriage and then have a happy marriage? And when those people do get divorced, is it because of sexual compatibility? Probably not, I'd guess.
where are these numbers (or lack thereof) coming from? over 50% of marriages in the states end in divorce. do you know what % of those were people who waiting until marriage to have sex? i don't
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you're saying that sex is better the more partners you've had? And since I had no partners before my husband, I'm really missing out on some good sex. And really, I should have tried him out before hand to see if we could make it work.
Yeah. And we're naive.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by UofUlawguy: Ang:"how many people have you had sex with?"
Absolutely none of your business.
Ang:"also, i have heard of stories where people broke up because the sex wasn't good. its sad, but it happens"
People might break up who otherwise might have stayed together longer if the sex was better. However, I am very skeptical that ANYBODY breaks up what otherwise was/would be a beautiful relationship simply because of sex. If everything else is working just right, the sex will take care of itself. It is not the keystone of the relationship, without which the whole thing crumbles.
the sex will take care of itself? well obviously you dont have alot of experience with this issue
read this please
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have. I don't think you are reading it closely, and are making incorrect assumptions about what people are saying.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: So, your saying that sex is better the more partners you've had? And since I had no partners before my husband, I'm really missing out on some good sex. And really, I should have tried him out before hand to see if we could make it work.
Yeah. And we're naive.
i didnt say sex was better the more partners you had, that was someone else. all i ever said was that sex between married ppl is no different than between two people in a committed relationship, and that sex in an important part of a relationship, and would be something to consider before vowing to spend the rest of your life with someone
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
No point, just thought I could clarify for the newcomers.
Why so touchy?
im sorry if that came off that way, i just meant what is your point. nothing more, i just wanted to know if you were trying to add something to the discussion
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that early sex causes lack of capitalization, and you are the proof.
That being said, I still doubt you were as ready as you would have been if you waited a few years. I know very few, if any, people who could raise a child and still have a decent life for themselves at that age, and even those that can probably would have been better served by waiting.
Do what you want, but I still think most people would be better off waiting until they mature a bit beyond that.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
A good thing, I suppose.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
