I do not believe in pre-marital sex. I will expect my children to abstain from it. I have never lived with someone before marrying them.
BUT, I don't think pre-marital sex necessarily equals social irresponsibility. I also don't think it's fair to judge people who don't have the same moral standards as me by my moral standards when mine are stricter than what appears to be the cultural norm. And I don't think it's right to condemn anyone for their sexual behavior, no matter what it is. Like, you know, what Fred Phelps does.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: If the government ceases to exist, does that invalidate marriages codified under that authority?
It's not a stupid piece of paper that keeps me married to my beloved, it's the fact that nothing in my life is more sacred to me than the bond we share. The piece of paper is hardly an impediment to our marriage dissolving, legally anyway.
It does make things like survivorship and so forth much easier, but it doesn't mean that much to me.
This is coming from a lifelong monogamist, and a person who took some serious precautions to save herself for marriage. I find it highly insulting to say that a peice of paper is the most important thing about my marriage and my decisions.
It's always an amazement to me how little regard is given to marriage by those lucky enough to be permitted to marry. I think that if you didn't have that option, you might value it somewhat higher.
The irony is overwhelming.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So have you chosen to abstain from sex as well? I mean, if you can have sex while living in different states, I don't get why you can't be married in different states. I'm not judging you, honestly. I'm just not understanding the explanation.
I'm not sure its relevant but yes, I have slept with my fiance'. I personally choose to wait until I got engaged but I think the right choice is different for different people. I could get married now and live apart first. However, I don't think it is a good start to a marriage for ME to live apart for a year first. I think I would be even lonelier. I want to be able to move into a house together and start things together when we can see each other every day.
I would also suggest that financially having sex is a lot easier than getting married. I also know several people who are better off financially to wait to get married for awhile. I don't think it is because they want out or don't value marriage.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa - I don't understand how your comment is directed my post.
My marriage is the most important thing in my life. It's more than a peice of paper. I just find it insulting that other people seem to be implying that the paper is the most important part of that equation.
As I said, I'm with ketchup, wholeheartedly. I agree with her statement completely.
I just don't feel up to judging everyone else's beans by own half a bushel, is all.
posted
And personally, I find it a little offensive when the 'sanctity of marriage' crew starts looking down their noses at everyone. This isn't directed at anyone specifically, that's just something that really ticks me off.
Marriage is an option, it's not the only option. And just because you choose to have sex doesn't mean you don't value marriage or that you don't intend to ever get married.
I respect peoples' decision to get married, even when it seems apparent to me that they're a match made in hell. Why can't they respect my decision not to get married until I'm sure about it.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a number of friends in committed relationships who say that the reason that they will not get married is to show solidarity with gay couples they know who cannot get married. When marriage is equally available to all the marriage-minded couples they know, then they too will get married.
If having non-marital sex is socially irresponsible, then it's no wonder that non-marital sex goes hand in hand with social irresponsibility. Seems like it's the defining characteristic of social irresponsibility.
quote:Bad things do not always result, but they happen too often and are often too severe to justify calling premarital sex healthy. This can range from abotion, undesired pregnancy, broken families, and STDs on the extreme end, to relationship difficulty, skewed value systems, and more general problems on the more subtle end of the spectrum. I've observed many go through these sorts of problems, with little to show in return other than a temporary satisfaction of desires and some sort of vague sense of having fulfilled a social expectation.
And none of these things ever happen to married folks?
In my experience, the vast majority of no-sex-before-marriage people get married young. This seems to me to potentially lead to any number of problems-- having kids before you're financially able to support them, choosing a partner too quickly from a too-limitted pool, being married before you've had much if any experience being independant, and potentially not fully knowing one's spouse to name a few.
Each option has its plusses and minuses. And it seems to me that the individual person is the best one to guage which minuses they're most worried about.
It seems to me that although the non-marital sex crowd regards members of the wait-until-marriage crowd as a little weird, they're generally more tolerant of their opposite than the wait-until-marriage crowd is.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that pressure to get married can be really negative. It can push people into marriages they aren't ready for and lead to divorce. Marriage is not the only way to have a commitment to someone. Emotional, financial, logistical, and familial relations can all play a role in when someone is ready to get married. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to be ready to deal with the consequences of sex but not be ready to or not want to be married at that point in time
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you have an alternate explanation for the simultaneous change in sexual morals, drop in the marriage rate and increase in single-mother households over the past 40 years, I'm listening.
If correlation is good enough for you, I think we should blame the prevalence of polyester blends. The percentage of the population clothed in polyester and other synthetic fabrics is inversely correlated to the percentage of successful (i.e. lifelong) marriages, right? Perhaps that Biblical warning about not wearing two different types of fabric meant something.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would step in with my opinion here (which some of you may already know), but this place is too much of a hornets' nest at the moment. I'd prefer not to be stung just for offering my opinion.
EDIT: I may add comments regardless of possible stinging replies later when I have time and I don't have to go to class.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have a number of friends in committed relationships who say that the reason that they will not get married is to show solidarity with gay couples they know who cannot get married. When marriage is equally available to all the marriage-minded couples they know, then they too will get married.
I know this is just my opinion, but this is weirdest reasoning I have ever heard. It isn't accomplishing anything - it gives the desire for marriage less urgency, because the people who could get married don't think it is important enough to bother.
That may not be what they are saying, but that's the political statement being made. "I could, but I won't."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me try clarifying something... Are there actually people in this thread who do NOT believe that promiscuous sexual (casual) intercourse is "socially irresponsible"?
Not talking about "pre-marital sex" which may or may not be related, but the mentallity that the act of sex between two people is equivalent to going to the movies, or holding hands or going out to dinner.
I honestly don't think anyone here is actually saying that are they?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you have an alternate explanation for the simultaneous change in sexual morals, drop in the marriage rate and increase in single-mother households over the past 40 years, I'm listening.
If correlation is good enough for you, I think we should blame the prevalence of polyester blends. The percentage of the population clothed in polyester and other synthetic fabrics is inversely correlated to the percentage of successful (i.e. lifelong) marriages, right? Perhaps that Biblical warning about not wearing two different types of fabric meant something.
I take it you choose NOT to make any serious attempt at explaining it.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, or you could look at it as being so important that you refuse to participate in the "lame" (in the classical sense) form of marriage allowed now, as long as people who you believe are otherwise worthy are categorically disallowed.
posted
But it doesn't look like that. It isn't affecting any political change. It's me boycotting coffee because of the working conditions of the harvesters. It isn't going to change anything because it looks like I'm boycotting it for other reasons. So it's an empty gesture.
If the people who are refusing to get married until other people actually writing letters and being activists as opposed to just not-getting-married, that might be different.
But it still sounds kind of lame. There are much more effective ways, so it makes me think they have other reasons for not wanting to get married.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. But if men refused to vote because their wives couldn't, the 19th amendment woiuld never have floated... Meh, bad analogy.
So, like whites refusing to use the white-only restrooms? Or to eat at lunch counters wouldn't serve 'colored' people. That one makes sense because it has an impact on the restaurant.
Actually, on this I don't see any positive effect, other that a symbolic solidarity. It doesn't seem to have any 'legs'.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Undertaking or rejecting marriage for ill-thought-out reasons does seem...oh, don't make me say it. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amazed that a signed contract automatically makes you socially responsible.
Are you committed to your lover? Do you keep to any and all agreements made with your lover? Are you willing to sacrifice your personal interests when necessary to strengthen or improve your relationship? Are you committed to raising your children, if any, to be strong, healthy, smart, kind, productive people? Do you work to help others, to strengthen the community? If you do not have a steady lover, are you scrupulously honest with any other temporary or occasional lovers you may have, especially regarding your history and your plans for the future? Are you careful not to have sex with anyone with whom you would not be willing to raise children, should that occur accidentally? Are you careful not to spread disease? Do you vote? Do you vote intelligently? Are you active in local politics/PTA/charities?
Frankly, the marriage contract does not, to me, confer respectability. Attention to any and all of the above does. And yes, CStrohman, I'm saying it. It is possible to treat sex as a friendly nonmarital recreation and still be socially responsible. It requires honesty and like-minded partners with the same goals and expectations. To say otherwise is to say that humans must either be monogamous or celibate to be socially responsible, and I don't believe in either/or situations where humans are involved.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this point in my life (a six year monogomous relationship) the reasons for getting married are getting fewer and fewer. At six years, your statistical odds of the relationship deteriorating are identical whether married or unmarried.
If you need a piece of paper to cement the trust not to cheat on each other, your trust relationship has a problem.
1) Children. We don't want children. If we did, we'd get married to simplify legalities. Even then I wouldn't change my name so the kids would still be scarred for life.
2)Health benefits for the partner in retirement... a long way off for either of us.
3)A big party to see friends. This would be a good reason to actually, because I know I'd get to see a bunch of friends then. However I don't want to see my family.
4)Religous reasons. Currently not an issue with either parties conscience.
So at this point, if we did get married, it would probably be most likely for (2) sorts of reasons, and we would do it extremely quietly. I likely wouldn't even tell anyone but my closest friends.
Biggest reason for not getting married: Getting married publically is a giant hassle and expense.
posted
Bok -I agree that they are earnest. I can appreciate that. I do and say pointless things all the time for noble reasons. I just found myself wanting to defend them for practical reasons and finding I couldn't.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are there actually people in this thread who do NOT believe that promiscuous sexual (casual) intercourse is "socially irresponsible"?
*raises hand*
I don't think it is, inherently, though it certainly turns out that way a lot of the time.
Consenting adults, with regular testing and using the amount of protection they're willing to risk, are okay by me.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you careful not to have sex with anyone with whom you would not be willing to raise children, should that occur accidentally?
and
quote: It is possible to treat sex as a friendly nonmarital recreation and still be socially responsible.
I think that in the vast majority of cases, these two statements are incompatible. I'm sure there's exceptions, but most people that I know in casual relationships wouldn't be willing to deal with any accidental babies.
I believe very strongly in the first statement. In fact, I wish that society as a whole would redefine sex to include sexual activity that can't produce a baby. Hopefully then, people wouldn't feel such a strong urge to "go all way" and could be content that they were at the height of physical intimacy without engaging in behavior for which they're not ready to accept the consequences.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ, you and Steve are as committed to not being married as many people I know are committed to their marriages. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yes, CStrohman, I'm saying it. It is possible to treat sex as a friendly nonmarital recreation and still be socially responsible. It requires honesty and like-minded partners with the same goals and expectations. To say otherwise is to say that humans must either be monogamous or celibate to be socially responsible, and I don't believe in either/or situations where humans are involved.
So are the current fatherless child/single parent statistics in this country acceptable or unacceptable? What about Abortion Rates? Acceptable, unacceptable or non-issue? Aids rates? Acceptable? Unnacceptable? If they go higher, oh well? STD's of any kind? Acceptable?
So what are the negatives of premiscuous sex (casual) Mr. Bridges that you can see in this country at least right now? Or are there no negatives that can be associated with it.
I am honestly curious how you arrive at your morality on sexuality. I don't pretend to know your personal sexual lifestyle, etc. and don't really think it's my business unless you feel it is or write about it publicly.
And, I'm personally ok with a 99.99% contraceptive risk rate. But suggesting responsible use of contraceptives always seems to drive people even more up a wall.
Hmmm, maybe it's because a lot of people actually do have a consequence based moral system.
Hey Frisco, before birth control when sex had more certian baby production as a significant consequence, do you think that casual sex was less moral than it is today? Or that casual sex should have been treated more gravely then?
posted
All of those listed problems are the result of people who are not responsible about their sex lives. I never said there were no negatives. I said that promiscuity was not automatically evidence of social irresponsibility.
I could easily whomp up all the ills of society produced by deadbeat dads, abusive spouses, adulterous couples, etc, but I don't present them as evidence that married couples are socially irresponsible.
A person who chooses to spend their life sleeping with a large number of people does not instantly, in my mind, get the label "irresponsible." How they go about it, and how responsible they are about the possible results, that does.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Chris and Frisco have a point. Just because sexual promiscuity is often irresponsible and can lead to many bad consequences, it doesn't mean that it is impossible to have multiple partners responsibly.
Not that I'm advocating anything.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Teres and I have never married, just continued on with our pre-marital ways, and we still stayed together and raised our children and lived in our community the same way we have, would we then be socially irresponsible?
I'm really curious. Is it that cut and dried, that either/or?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, in my own life, and relationship with Steve, the only time at which I actually wanted to get married, was the point at which I was insecure with *myself*. Marriage at that point would have done absolutely nothing to solve my insecurity issue, and quite possibly exacerbated it. I'm extremely glad that even then I didn't press the issue, and Steve concentrated on helping me straighten out my issues, rather than going "ok, you're insecure, let's get marrried!"
Maybe that is part of the visceral reaction that Steve and I both have. Marriage as a contract in many relationships often seems to be an "insecurity band-aid".
I know many marriages where it isn't. I'm not saying the "security band aid" is universal. But the healthy marriages, for the most part, to me, seem like they would have been healthy trustworthy relationships regardless of whether the legal contract existed or not.
quote:Hey Frisco, before birth control when sex had more certian baby production as a significant consequence, do you think that casual sex was less moral than it is today? Or that casual sex should have been treated more gravely then?
I think the morality is the same, but maybe the percentage of people going about it the right way was higher. Course we don't really have many statistics on how many people supported the children they conceived (and got married because of them) or how many abortions were performed, so it's hard to say.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have a point, Jon Boy. Still, if you're of a mind to have a wedding that a substantial number of people attend (so that Aunt Mary won't get offended because you didn't invite her, for example), why not wait until you're at the point where you can afford that kind of wedding?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, thanks Chris for being honest. And those who agreed.
I am a little stunned at the straight faced responses.
God help us if that mentallity becomes the "norm". Actually, God help us already... even though we don't deserve it.
See I tend to look at the ROOTS of those issues that I consider as "negative". Promiscuity is certainly one of those root causes. If you don't believe so, then I guess I'm talking to a brick wall as that mentallity is that Promiscuity is NOT the root cause of sexually transmitted diseases and/or unwanted pregnancies and that it doesn't lead to the moral degredation of a society and create excessive burdens on it's citizens.
posted
You know... maybe that's part of the problem. Really. This whole idea that a wedding has to be some kind of lavish affair.
I have friends who, during the preparations for their weddings, kept muttering, "The wedding is for the parents; the marriage is for us. The wedding is for the parents; the marriage is for us."
It was the only way they could keep from going bonkers as their parents took over the whole thing.
Weddings are very often a total nightmare. I wonder how much of the anti-/non-marriage culture in the US is due to that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
edit: i just reread your post, and see that you were saying promiscuity was the root of STD's, etc. Regardless, i think my point is a valid one, in that the reason those things happen in such shocking numbers is not because casual sex is such a bad thing, but because some of the people engaging in it are irresponsible and under-educated.
CStroman, do you really think "promiscuity" is one of the ROOT causes?
Promiscuity doesn't make those things happen, promiscuity...or I'd rather use the term "casual sex" is just something that can show evidence of deeper issues.
But the fact that someone has had multiple partners doesn't automatically make them callous, irresponsible, flighty, ignorant, or any of the myriad personality traits one thrusts on those of that leaning.
The truth of it is, those traits ALREADY EXISTED. Period! All "promiscuity" does, is give them another medium to shine. Kids are irresponsible with their pets. Does this mean that you shouldn't allow children to own pets? Of course not. SOME children shouldn't be given pets, of course, because they couldn't really handle what comes along with it. SOME children will get them anyway, because parents are lenient. So out there in the world, there are children who CAN take care of pets, and children who CAN'T. Should the children who CAN be penalized because their peers are too immature to handle the responsibility?
posted
Leonide take your arguement and apply it to NAMBLA. Or apply it to drinking/smoking and age limits.
Because your speaking of the MINORITY that can have multiple partners and not cause problems. EXTREME MINORITY. American Society has already proven that promiscuity is a proven root.
Stupidity doesn't lead to unwanted pregnancies/std's etc. It is a CAUSE of sexual promiscuity (which puts sexual promiscuous people in the same category as majority stupid people who are promiscuous because they are stupid). Believe me there are plenty of stupid people who do NOT have unwanted children. Why?
See there's this process called Sexual Intercourse that has to happen for a baby to be made. You can be as mentally challenged as possible, and unless you have SEX, you aren't going to get pregnant.
But hey, let's promote promiscuity as viable and acceptable. That's smart. As long as you foot the bill for any of it's effects and not me.
Healthy Society = Low/No promiscuity in my book.
The only place I think it doesn't is in Pornoland, which I guess is reality TV for some people.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Purely and simply, all of the problems you have put forward are, at their root, due to selfishness.
A person who is promiscuous without being responsible about it is being selfish - he or she is not thinking about consequences, or plans to avoid them if they come up. He or she is thinking only of their own pleasure. A person who abuses his or her spouse is also being selfish. No thought is given to the other person's feelings or worth. All that matters is the abuser's side of things. A person who loots in times of disaster is being selfish. He or she is taking for themselves out of a mistaken sense of entitlement, or just because he or she feels that laws do not really apply to someone as special as him or her.
A person who sleeps with multiple partners, or engages in serial monogamy, but takes care to be open and honest about the relationships and to be responsible with any results, is not being selfish. Promiscuous, possibly, but in a way that honors the feelings and worth of others. A person who loves and cherishes his or her spouse does so not only because of the personal satisfaction, but out of a desire for the other person to be happy and for any offspring to be healthy and loved. A person who steps up in hazardous times to maintain order or help others at cost to him or herself is putting the well-being of others above his or her own.
If you are not selfish, you are likely to be socially responsible regardless of your marital status. If you are selfish, you are likely to be socially irresponsible whether you're married or not. I agree that for a certain percentage of the population, the weight society places on the marriage contract may act as a deterrant against irresponsible behavior, but I submit that such is not true for everyone.
I do not advocate promiscuity. I don't speak out against it, either. I do advocate pesonal responsibility. After that I don't really care what you do with your life, as long as you remain resposible about it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: OK, but it's my impression that OSC's article was talking particularly about promiscuity more than monogamous relationships that merely lack a marriage license.
I disagree. I think OSC's religious beliefs are that all pre-marital sex is wrong. I respect him for that. I do think that his idea of what "most Americans" are doing before they get married is wrong. I think there are plenty of people who are having sex before marriage.
quote: I also think that there is a distinction between "casual sex" and premarital sex. All casual sex is premarital sex but not all premarital sex is casual sex.
I agree and this is not always a religious issue. I also agree that SOMETIMES casual sex and social irresposibility go hand in hand (you just can't say ALWAYS in these types of debates).
I speak from my own personal experience. I am now in my early 30's. While in my late teens and early 20's I had casual sex. I married at 21 and divorced at 23. I was socially irresponsible but more importantly, I was miserable. By the time I was in my late 20's I had grown up, found my way to God, and was much happier with my life. I met my now husband and we lived together and had sex (gasp!) before we got married. But this was serious, committed relationship. It certainly means something different (to me anyway) to have casual sex than to have monogamous pre-marital sex with someone you know you want to spend your life with (married or not). Does that make any sense?
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I didn't have strong morals, I'd be all over Chris's argument:
"Honey, I'm just sharin' myself with other people sexually for the good of society. I'm bein' selfless. I really don't want to have sex with other people on a casual basis, but I'm willing to do it, for the good of AMERICA.
Yes UNCLE SAM, this sex act is for you!" :thumbs up:
Reminds me of a "Real men of Genius" commercial.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, is being "selfish" a new invention since the 1950's? How about "stupidity"? People are dumber now?
See all of those things existed back then as well. But the rates for all the ills of our current society were MUCH, MUCH lower.
Trust me, there were lots of selfish people before our new "sexual freedom/anarchy" that you espouse, but the unwanted child rate was MUCH lower, STD's were MUCH lower oh and no one had decided to be promiscuous with a monkey (from what I understand) to bring AIDS into the picture.
Sorry Chris, Promiscuity is a problem and should be taught as such and discouraged as such for the benefit of our society.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
