quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has there ever been an example of a pregnancy occuring where both the birth control pill and a condom are used both together and properly?
Though extremely rare, I'm sure it happens.
It does happen.... and that is why I'm an uncle.... 5 times over... one would think the my older sisters would have figured out that they BOTH are the most fertile women in the universe...
Posts: 20 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has there ever been an example of a pregnancy occuring where both the birth control pill and a condom are used both together and properly?
I'm sure it's happened to some poor soul, but you'd have to be ridiculously unlucky and/or ridiculously fertile to get pregnant while on two pretty effective means of birth control.
Then again, people win the lottery and get struck by lightning.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has there ever been an example of a pregnancy occuring where both the birth control pill and a condom are used both together and properly?
Though extremely rare, I'm sure it happens.
It does happen.... and that is why I'm an uncle.... 5 times over... one would think the my older sisters would have figured out that they BOTH are the most fertile women in the universe...
Condom AND birth control pill together every time, properly? Wow. Not to be gross or anything but I would almost want to see it happen to believe it. If its true, amazing.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Lyrhawn, where was I talking about legislation or criminalization? Did I not, in fact, state quite clearly that I'm stepping aside from that argument and instead addressing the more culturally-based attitudes that were being expressed in the thread?
quote:
quote:Am I only half a person, somehow, because I didn't do it, and am glad not to have?
Why are you placing that kind of value on sex?
That particular quote was aimed less at you and more at folks who were insinuating that there are certain things that "everybody" does. Since I haven't done those things, I have to wonder by what means have I been excluded from "everybody".
quote:It's about personal choice and freedoms, and the utterly silly nature of criminalizing this as a deterrent, especially when I've seen zero evidence that criminalizing it actually serves as a deterrent. This isn't something we should be solving with punishments and laws, this is something families should be dealing with, families have always traditionally been the ones who have taught their children about sex, why all of a sudden is it the state's job to do everything involved with it?
I agree with you. Like Scott, I'm against laws that mess around with what consenting adults can do in their own bedrooms, and I'm strongly in favor of comprehensive state-sponsored sex education.
I also believe that if we loosen up the legal restrictions (as we should) and disseminate libraries' worth of information on the subject (as we should), then we had bettermatch those things with cultural constraints and expectations that rein in abuse of the system by minors who aren't mature enough to know what they're doing to themselves and others. So far, we've only done step 1 and step 2, and it really bothers me that so many people who agree with me on the first two steps are unwilling to take this all the way and complete the third.
When folks declare that "kids will do it anyway", that can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sure, you can't control other people's choices, and there are a lot of ways you could attempt to do so that would result in more harm than good. But if we give up and tell our kids we expect no better of them than to simply behave like animals and react instinctively to every rush of hormones, then we are not doing our job of preparing them for civilized adult life, either.
That first part makes more sense then. I'm not adding any kind of "everyone is doing it" value (if that's even value) onto sex. It's a personal choice. If you don't regret decisions you made in high school and college or what not, then I don't think you missed anything. It's different for everyone.
Could you further elaborate on what I put in italics up there? I want to be sure of what you mean, but I think I get what you're saying.
I fully agree with what you're saying at the end there. Saying things like "oh boys will be boys" and what not are cop-outs from good parenting. Parents should demand responsible choices from their children, but, I disagree (I think with Scott) that teens are inherently incapable of making a responsible choice to partake in this specific act of love. I worry that the emotional damage from having society make teen sex into a taboo (which is unlikely almost to a point of absurd, I know) wouldn't be worth the benefits of such. I think that part of the problem needs to be handled within families, in discussions and conversations between teens and their parents about their lives. Parents need to be more involved. I think we can all agree on that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That does not make sense. Is there a Nanny at home who can look after the baby while mommy is away? Is the woman running an errand that required the child's presence? Like a haircut?
It doesn't matter. The point being that people that are willing to engage in actions that have a certain amount of risk are not always considered irresponsible. Therefore, being willing to take risks does not in itself make someone irresponsible.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well to put it politely I don't agree with how you are viewing comments in this thread.
We must not be talking about the same comments, then. I'm talking about the discussion that's been happening over the last few pages.
So am I, go figure.
You might think you are, but you're not.
Since the top of page 3, 3 people have defended pre- or extramarital sex. Here are the caveats from each of them:
quote:Lyr I'm not saying that sex is good and that everyone SHOULD do it.
quote:kmbboots I am not saying that teenage sex is something we should trivialize.
quote:Stephan But I don't agree that sex before marriage is ALWAYS irresponsible.
(meaning he does SOMETIMES agree it is irresponsible)
Then comes your post:
quote:They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place, but taking my word as the sole authority on the incident, nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
So, I'll ask again -- who exactly, is saying this?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat -- I'm still not positive I understand what you were trying to say. Is there some significance to the Latin phrase that can't be communicated in English?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
She's saying she agree with you that romantic love shouldn't be the sole basis for marriage, but that a marriage without romantic love would be unfortunate.
quote:That does not make sense. Is there a Nanny at home who can look after the baby while mommy is away? Is the woman running an errand that required the child's presence? Like a haircut?
It doesn't matter. The point being that people that are willing to engage in actions that have a certain amount of risk are not always considered irresponsible. Therefore, being willing to take risks does not in itself make someone irresponsible.
Actually I think that is a good point. Does risk equal irresponsibility? According to the definition of responsible I posted earlier, it only requires that one is "able to answer for one's conduct and obligations". If my girlfriend (current wife) had gotten pregnant I would have been able and willing to marry her.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt, that make a great deal of sense to me. And, though I don't accept it as true, I won't argue with a "for us, God says so" reason. Scott, though has (I think) said (or at least) implied that his reasons are not religious.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tell my kids that marriage is not about love, it's about commitment. Yet, you should only make that sort of commitment to someone you love.
I think assuming romantic love and passion and the feelings they bring you must always be present for there to be a happy marriage, is a sure way to set oneself up for disappointment. I do not feel the exact same passion and fiery, romantic love I felt for my husband the first few months we dated. I still love him fiercely, but it's deepened and improved, in my mind, to a much better relationship over the years and a more fulfilling love. If I had believed from the beginning I must always feel the fiery passion, I would have thought the marriage was over years ago, and how sad that would have been.
So, while romantic love is a great thing, and yes one should marry someone that you share that romantic love with, I do not think one should always feel the exact same way throughout the years of marriage. Many people think if they no longer have the exact same all-consuming passion the love is gone, and leave in order to seek that all-consuming passion with another, If they do that, sometimes they are missing the crucial ingredient of commitment that I think should be the true foundation of all marriage.
This not to say that all marriages end for that reason, I know full well there are some excellent reasons for divorce and not every marriage should always stay together, but I think far too many end because one or both partners has valued romantic love over commitment.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Sure didn't have anything to do with God
Perhaps it should have.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [pop psychology mode] If Scott admits that it is possible to have responsible sex outside marriage, then he's going to have to admit that all those chances he turned down in his teens and early twenties were missed opportunities, not virtuous responsibility. Obviously he can't do that. [/pop psychology mode]
You realize, of course, that this can just as easily be turned in the other direction?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think keeping a firearm in your home, loaded, is about as irresponsible as having sex outside of marriage.
Now. There may be things that can be done to alleviate the harmful effects of that firearm, and that sex. Safeties abound; gun cabinets and so on. BUT the fact remains that you've got a weapon primed to kill in your home. You've made a conscious choice to retain it.
There are levels of irresponsibility to this; but as a guy who hates firearms I'm always going have a little tickle of...dismay, disappointment, etc, for the idea that keeping them in the home is a-okay, safe-as-long-as-you-do-X.
It's a similar feeling with extramarital sex.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I haven't read all 5 pages of this thread, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet. If a 15 year old isn't mature enough to consent to sexual relations with another teenager, why should we believe that a 17 year old is mature enough to be charged and tried as an adult for a sexual crime?
You can't have it both ways. If teenagers aren't mature enough to make adult decisions like whether or not they engage in sex, then they are not mature enough to be held responsible for those decisions in the adult criminal system.
While I fully agree that this young man, by all reports, was behaving in a recklessly irresponsible and reprehensible manner, irresponsibility is one of the hallmarks of immaturity. The judgement centers in the brain of a 17 year old haven't matured. There are real biological reasons why it is unreasonable to hold minors to the same standard as adults. In another 3 to 5 years, most 17 year olds brains will have matured and they will begin to be have in a more responsible manner if they are given the chance. That is why they shouldn't simply be thrown into an adult prison.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That describes how you feel, but not why. Sex is not designed to kill people. Sex is a good thing. A powerful thing, of course, but it's purpose is not to harm people.
Even so, would you feel that a police office is irresponsible for having a gun? What about people in the army on active duty?
Sometimes it is responsible to deal with powerful, even dangerous things. How you do that is what determines if someone is being responsible.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Papa Moose: Kate, I think a better analogy to Scott's statement might be something like this:
Gambling with someone else's money you can't afford to lose is irresponsible. But I had a full house, and I won! I'm not talking about a specific hand.
I believe Scott is using one of those "veils of ignorance" -- before you knew that your birth control worked and that neither person suffered any emotional damage, it could be considered irresponsible. Less irresponsible than the actions of someone who takes no precautions, but still irresponsible.
Sorry, Papa, I didn't see this. My version of this analogy would be:
Two people together decide to pool their money and make an investment. They research the investment, they understand the risks and do what they can to minimize them, and risk no more than they can afford. Together decide that it is well worth the investment. Their investment pays off abundantly.
Repeat for 25 years.
Sure there is risk. There is risk in almost anything. Friendship, love, crossing the street. But you can still do those things with care and responsibility.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think far too many end because one or both partners has valued romantic love over commitment.
What value DOES romantic love have, then? At what point does someone in a marriage without it become justified in seeking it elsewhere, if they put a positive value on romance?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sometimes it is responsible to deal with powerful, even dangerous things. How you do that is what determines if someone is being responsible.
I completely agree with this. This concept is part of my understanding of why it is important to limit sex to within the confines of marriage. I think that what we believe actually isn't that far off from each other. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I put a big value on commitment as well in a marriage. I would also suggest that it is important to keep the romantic fire tended and burning. Agreed, it does deepen and mature as you pass the years together. But you should still be able to hold hands and, you know, nuzzle each other's cheeks with your noses 20 years after you went on your first date.
Should that romance die down too far, you are NOT automatically justified in seeking it elsewhere. Rather, your commitment should lead you to look for ways to rekindle it, and then stick to it.
I don't think you will ever know the full extent of the love you can have for each other if you do not stick with it through the tough times. And that love is one of life's chief rewards.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my experience, it is possible to be responsible without being married. No one has demonstrated to me yet why this can't be true. I am answerable for my actions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my experience, it is possible to be responsible without being married. No one has demonstrated to me yet why this can't be true. I am answerable for my actions.
In my experience, you're wrong.
:shrug:
Rabbit--
quote: If a 15 year old isn't mature enough to consent to sexual relations with another teenager, why should we believe that a 17 year old is mature enough to be charged and tried as an adult for a sexual crime?
You haven't read the whole thread, so let me let you know-- no one's arguing that the sentencing was just.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should be noted that pregnancy is not the only serious consequence related to the choice to have sex. If it were, then extensive birth control might be good enough to justify casual sex. That is not the case, though. I would think sex is riddled with possible serious consequences, including but not limited to:
-Pregnancy, as has been discussed on this thread -STDs -The potential for sexual abuse -Powerful emotional bonds/promises created by the act... Marriages have been ended because one partner had relations with someone outside the marriage. Relationships have been destroyed by it. People have been killed over it. To most people, it is emotionally far more than just a way to have fun. -Reputation issues... including the devaluation of women in subcultures where women with multiple partners in their past are looked down upon. -The potential dehumanization of the opposite sex... looking at them as sexual objects -Addiction to sexual behavior... which can be a problem when a partner is not available. (I would guess this might be related to the abuse issue.) -Legal issues, such as the incident being discussed on this thread... -A powerful influence on peers, especially for teenagers: Even if you are a responsible person having sex, that act is likely to encourage irresponsible people to have sex too. If it seems like "everyone is doing it" people feel pressured to do it, even when they would otherwise realize they aren't ready. -Religious issues above and beyond anything listed above.
All of these are issues that I know exist. Some only rarely become an issue; some are more common. Some are life-ruining; some are simply problematic. When added together, I think they represent a significant risk that is not resolved by anything as simple as taking a pill. Instead, to be able to deal with these potential issues if they arise requires a degree of responsibility and maturity that many people think they have, but which often they actually do not - particularly among teenagers. (That's the kicker. Most people think they are responsible, but how do you know you aren't one of those people who thinks they are but isn't? There is no surefire test for responsibility) Many of the issues, if you look through them, also tend to be resolved if you are in a permanent, committed relationship.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
One view of responsibility is not to look at it as being accountable for past actions, but as having the will to not act a certain way in the first place.
I'm a responsible citizen-- therefore I pay taxes vs. I'm responsible for my failure to pay taxes, therefore, I pay that which I owe to the IRS.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
One view of responsibility is not to look at it as being accountable for past actions, but as having the will to not act a certain way in the first place.
Ah, but now you are touching more on morality then on responsibility. If you are saying it is immoral to have pre-marital sex, I can deal with it. Look at the definition of the English word responsible I posted that we are all using. How were we not responsible?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Sure didn't have anything to do with God
Perhaps it should have.
Perhaps. But as much as I respect and honor it, unfortunately I don't quite have your level of faith.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What value DOES romantic love have, then? At what point does someone in a marriage without it become justified in seeking it elsewhere, if they put a positive value on romance?
It has enormous value. But to me, it's not the most important one. We probably would have to talk about specifics, because "romantic love" is probably defined differently by each of us.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:All of these are issues that I know exist. Some only rarely become an issue; some are more common. Some are life-ruining; some are simply problematic. When added together, I think they represent a significant risk that is not resolved by anything as simple as taking a pill...Many of the issues, if you look through them, also tend to be resolved if you are in a permanent, committed relationship.
All of those issues are also possible serious consequences of falling in love. Is falling in love outside of marriage also an irresponsible act?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Every part of that definition talks about accountability. We were accountable for our actions. The only part that mentioned morality talked about being capable of moral decision making.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: -Pregnancy, as has been discussed on this thread -STDs -The potential for sexual abuse -Powerful emotional bonds/promises created by the act... Marriages have been ended because one partner had relations with someone outside the marriage. Relationships have been destroyed by it. People have been killed over it. To most people, it is emotionally far more than just a way to have fun. -Reputation issues... including the devaluation of women in subcultures where women with multiple partners in their past are looked down upon. -The potential dehumanization of the opposite sex... looking at them as sexual objects -Addiction to sexual behavior... which can be a problem when a partner is not available. (I would guess this might be related to the abuse issue.) -Legal issues, such as the incident being discussed on this thread... -A powerful influence on peers, especially for teenagers: Even if you are a responsible person having sex, that act is likely to encourage irresponsible people to have sex too. If it seems like "everyone is doing it" people feel pressured to do it, even when they would otherwise realize they aren't ready. -Religious issues above and beyond anything listed above.
All of these are issues that I know exist. Some only rarely become an issue; some are more common. Some are life-ruining; some are simply problematic. When added together, I think they represent a significant risk that is not resolved by anything as simple as taking a pill. Instead, to be able to deal with these potential issues if they arise requires a degree of responsibility and maturity that many people think they have, but which often they actually do not - particularly among teenagers. (That's the kicker. Most people think they are responsible, but how do you know you aren't one of those people who thinks they are but isn't? There is no surefire test for responsibility) Many of the issues, if you look through them, also tend to be resolved if you are in a permanent, committed relationship.
Pregancy - addressed already
STDs - also addressed
Potential for sexual abuse - not sure what you mean by that. I am talking about consensual sex with adults.
Powerful emotional bonds - Thank goodness for powerful emotional bonds. I would hate to live without them. I have powerful emotional bonds with many people, sisters and brothers, parents, friends, nieces and nephews, lovers - all of them fraught with risk, all of them well worth it. Sex, for me, isn't just about having fun; it is about forming powerful emotional bonds.
Reputation issues - I am not ashamed of anything (clearly). My friends and family don't have a problem with it. Except for you all, the people with whom I associate think I am pretty tame. This includes the ladies from church choir.
I neither dehumanize people, nor am I addicted to sex. People can become addicted to anything. Eating for example.
Legal Issues - As I am not having sex with minors.
Pressure on others - my peers are grown ups. At any rate, I am answerable for my conduct, not the conduct of others.
Religious issues - Scott has said that this isn't about religion and I am taking him at his word. And I have addressed the religious issues, for me, about a zillion times on other threads.
I get that there are risks. I agree that many people don't handle those risks responsibly. I especially agree that this is often true of teenagers. Sex is not a trivial thing and it shouldn't be treated as trivial. I don't agree that marriage is the only way ever to be responsible about it. Hence my objection to "always".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my experience, it is possible to be responsible without being married. No one has demonstrated to me yet why this can't be true. I am answerable for my actions.
In my experience, you're wrong.
:shrug:
So we have two different kinds of experiences. Which means not always.Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:All of those issues are also possible serious consequences of falling in love. Is falling in love outside of marriage also an irresponsible act?
No, only two of those issues are consequences of falling in love, if you don't have sex. Falling in love does create powerful bonds (although of a different sort than sex) and it can put you at risk of sexual abuse (though a smaller risk if you aren't having sex). It doesn't normally by itself lead to any of the other things I listed though.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well to put it politely I don't agree with how you are viewing comments in this thread.
We must not be talking about the same comments, then. I'm talking about the discussion that's been happening over the last few pages.
So am I, go figure.
You might think you are, but you're not.
Since the top of page 3, 3 people have defended pre- or extramarital sex. Here are the caveats from each of them:
quote:Lyr I'm not saying that sex is good and that everyone SHOULD do it.
quote:kmbboots I am not saying that teenage sex is something we should trivialize.
quote:Stephan But I don't agree that sex before marriage is ALWAYS irresponsible.
(meaning he does SOMETIMES agree it is irresponsible)
Then comes your post:
quote:They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place, but taking my word as the sole authority on the incident, nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
So, I'll ask again -- who exactly, is saying this?
Well for one thing that comment was mostly formed by kmbboots description of her own "responsible" sexual encounter. But you will note that right next to that post Stephan said,
quote:"I guess that goes back to are views on the human race. I think 75% are either incapable of keeping it in their pants or are responsible (the vast MINORITY of the 75%) enough to not need to..."
I could be wrong but that SOUNDS like saying, the majorit of the human race will do it, so etc...
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:At any rate, I am answerable for my conduct, not the conduct of others.
Actually, I'd say in order to be truly responsible, one should be considering the way one's conduct impacts the conduct of others.
Consider, for instance, that although your peers may be adults, there may be several people on this forum reading this thread who are not adults.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you only do things that you think everyone should do? What if a 10 year old sees you drive a car and decides to try driving. Are you being irresponsible by driving?
Actually, driving is pretty risky. I could think that all of you who drive cars are irresponsible. People get killed everyday while driving.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well to put it politely I don't agree with how you are viewing comments in this thread.
We must not be talking about the same comments, then. I'm talking about the discussion that's been happening over the last few pages.
So am I, go figure.
You might think you are, but you're not.
Since the top of page 3, 3 people have defended pre- or extramarital sex. Here are the caveats from each of them:
quote:Lyr I'm not saying that sex is good and that everyone SHOULD do it.
quote:kmbboots I am not saying that teenage sex is something we should trivialize.
quote:Stephan But I don't agree that sex before marriage is ALWAYS irresponsible.
(meaning he does SOMETIMES agree it is irresponsible)
Then comes your post:
quote:They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place, but taking my word as the sole authority on the incident, nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
So, I'll ask again -- who exactly, is saying this?
Well for one thing that comment was mostly formed by kmbboots description of her own "responsible" sexual encounter. But you will note that right next to that post Stephan said,
quote:"I guess that goes back to are views on the human race. I think 75% are either incapable of keeping it in their pants or are responsible (the vast MINORITY of the 75%) enough to not need to..."
I could be wrong but that SOUNDS like saying, the majorit of the human race will do it, so etc...
I don't think I ever said general premarital sex is just fine. I'm saying responsible premarital sex is fine.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It doesn't normally by itself lead to any of the other things I listed though.
The fact that most of the things you listed are potential or possible consequences means that there needs to be something else that facilitates it, such as attitudes and other outside factors. Acknowledging, understanding and dealing with those factors, imo, is a better indicator of responsibility than the person that abstains for no valid reason.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I don't think I ever said general premarital sex is just fine. I'm saying responsible premarital sex is fine. [/qb]
So when you said, "What I am trying to get at is that I have serious doubts that humanity as a whole is capable of being strictly monogamous, and wait for marriage," you believe it will happen generally but that so far as it's done irresponsibly that is not a good thing? Do you think that most instances of premarital sex are responsible? If most people are going to do it, does the blame that it is not done responsibly rest on the adults for not preparing them?
Just want to make sure I am not making responses to arguements that do not exist.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dare say most people think in a situation they are right and the exception to all the bad consequences and of course responsible, unlike all those other people. That's why we have principles in the first place.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are incapable of giving an impartial assesment of your life. That's not an insult - that applies to everyone.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you only do things that you think everyone should do?
No, I consider how my behavior might impact other people, but there are many other considerations too. When I drive my car, I consider my need to get whereever I'm going to far outweigh the relatively tiny danger that some kid is going to get hurt trying to imitate me.
But, at least when it comes to particularly risky things, the impact on others should at least be considered. In certain cases, where the need to do something is minor and the danger that it might negatively influence someone is very great, that by itself might be reason not to do that thing. For instance, do you consider it irresponsible to curse a lot around little kids? I'd say it is irresponsible, because there is little need for you to do it, and because little kids are very likely to imitate things like that.
I would not say premarital sex is one of those certain cases like cursing around little kids, because I doubt (at least in your case) your choice by itself is going to radically influence anyone else's behavior. But collectively our decisions influence the behavior of those in our society enough that it should at least be some small consideration.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
People have to meet certain socially mandated requirements in order to be licensed to drive. This is because we recognize that a certain mindset, and certain circumstances must be met for safety's sake.
Was this the point you wanted to make?
quote:So we have two different kinds of experiences. Which means not always.
No. Having sex before marriage is always irresponsible to some degree. One may never be forced to face the grave consequences, but that doesn't make the action LESS irresponsible.
Our different experiences only lead us to different conclusions. They don't change the reality of the above statement.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are incapable of giving an impartial assesment of your life
But I am in a better position than anyone else when it comes to assessing my own life. I may not be able to assess my life impartially, but then, no one else can impartially assess my life either.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
