quote:<insert any action> 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.
So basically doing anything is in some way irresponsible. 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.
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. [/QB]
In this thread the point I'm trying to make is that premarital sex CAN be done responsibly.
I agree that is it not a good thing that it happens so often irresponsibly.
I strongly believe that no amount of preaching, screaming, or enacting laws is going to stop it happening so often.
Because it CAN happen responsibly, I don't see the harm in creating many programs to encourage it be done responsibly for those who choose to engage in premarital sex.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have yet to show me how it is irresponsible. You keep making that assertion. How have I failed to answer for my actions? Been unwilling to face possible consequences?
Or if not me, how has my other example been irresponsible? How has she not met her obligations?
Swimming. Also very risky. People drown. Those olympic swimmers - very irresponsible.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, you continue to insist on making this personal and demanding judgement with yourself as the only knowledge source. It would be nice to discuss this in abstract instead of continually needing to soothe your ruffled feathers because you're taking it personally.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| 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.
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.
In this thread the point I'm trying to make is that premarital sex CAN be done responsibly.
I agree that is it not a good thing that it happens so often irresponsibly.
I strongly believe that no amount of preaching, screaming, or enacting laws is going to stop it happening so often.
Because it CAN happen responsibly, I don't see the harm in creating many programs to encourage it be done responsibly for those who choose to engage in premarital sex. [/QB]
OK, I think I understand you.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You have yet to show me how it is irresponsible.
[EDIT]No, I've just failed to convince you.
I'm okay with that.
quote: How have I failed to answer for my actions? Been unwilling to face possible consequences?
Megan pointed out that we're using different definitions of the word 'irresponsible.' I agreed with her; this shows the difference.
I believe it is possible to be irresponsible before the consequence becomes apparent. You seem to think that irresponsibility is only displayed post-consequence.
Also, really-- stop asking me to judge your life and character. I've got no interest in taking over from the Man whose job it already is.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think so, too.
I'm not willing to compromise on mine.
And that's your prerogative, of course.
But if you'd like for the discussion to become productive, I would suggest outlining what your definitions are (what, exactly, do you think makes all extra-marital sex irresponsible, for example, if you're not talking about possible consequences--what makes the risks of extra-marital sex so much worse than, say, the risks of driving a car or walking near a busy street, and what is it about marriage that makes those risks suddenly acceptable).
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| 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.
The ONLY grave consequence I faced was my girlfriend getting pregnant, which would have been far less likely then dying in a plane crash, or even less likely then having a misccarriage with a planned pregnancy.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
So different situations have different levels of risk and value that help determine how responsible a person is. Yet, you think that your personal assessment of these things based on your personal opinions should be used as a universal measuring stick for everyone regardless of their personal opinions?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet, you think that your personal assessment of these things based on your personal opinions should be used as a universal measuring stick for everyone regardless of their personal opinions?
I don't see where he's done that, unless expressing his opinion is construed as doing so.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet, you think that your personal assessment of these things based on your personal opinions should be used as a universal measuring stick for everyone regardless of their personal opinions?
No, I absolutely don't think that. Doing whatever I say just because I say it, without thinking for yourself, would be a terrible way to make decisions!
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I absolutely don't think that. Doing whatever I say just because I say it, without thinking for yourself, would be a terrible way to make decisions!
Ah, perhaps I misunderstood your position. Is this more accurate? You believe that doing z is irresponsible based on your values, but other values might lead to a belief that doing z can be done responsibly. Both opinions are valid depending on personal beliefs and values.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, as I have said, you are the one who decided to judge my behavior. You just do it in the abstract. All I have done is point out that it is mine. If your judgement is correct, why should putting a face on it bother you?
All you have done is assert your opinion; you haven't backed it up. How does my behavior - or if you prefer "Mary's" (the other woman I mentioned) behavior fit your definition of irresponsible?
No, I don't think that irresponsibility is only displayed post consequence. I haven't made that clear. I think responsibility is assessing the risks beforehand and making an informed decision beforehand to accept and prepare for those risks and consequences. My only purpose in mentioning that I haven't had any consequences that I regret is to show that my assessments have consistantly been correct.
kat, how, exactly, have you done anything to sooth my "ruffled feathers". Which, by the way, are not particularly ruffled. I use the example that I am most familiar with. Pretend it isn't me, if that makes you more comfortable.
And, as I have also said, if you are tired of my example, I have provided another.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Odd, this is exactly the same reaction I am having towards your arguments, Scott R. I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm just trying to understand how you can categorically make an assertion (that it is always irresponsible to engage in extramarital sex) without addressing Kate's counterexample (aside from simply saying "you are wrong") or camus's points about risk.
I'd also be very interested in hearing your answers to Megan's questions:
quote:Originally posted by Megan: But if you'd like for the discussion to become productive, I would suggest outlining what your definitions are (what, exactly, do you think makes all extra-marital sex irresponsible, for example, if you're not talking about possible consequences--what makes the risks of extra-marital sex so much worse than, say, the risks of driving a car or walking near a busy street, and what is it about marriage that makes those risks suddenly acceptable).
As it stands now, though, it sounds like you are saying "Anyone who doesn't live the way I do is irresponsible, and that's just the way it is." Is this indeed what you are saying?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, since every post is apparently all about you and you demand a personal judgement, it would be rude not to soothe your clearly ruffled and wonky feathers. Really - this isn't a personal judgment about you and it especially isn't all about you. Stop trying to make it one.
1) I'm not at all interested in your sex life, 2) It is impossible given these circumstances 3) It isn't my job in the first place.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You believe that doing z is irresponsible based on your values, but other values might lead to a belief that doing z can be done responsibly.
It would be more accurate to say this: I believe that doing z is irresponsible based in part on what I believe is valuable . If one disagrees with me on what is valuable, then that might also lead them to disagree with me on whether or not z is responsible.
However, it should be added that I am inclined to believe I am correct about what is valuable, and that those who disagree with me are mistaken, until I can see a good reason why I should believe otherwise (in which case I'd probably change what I believe to be valuable). I also think others should be inclined to believe they are correct about what is valuable, and should think I am mistaken if I disagree with them, until I can demonstrate some good reason to them that they should agree with me on what is valuable.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
So ya I mention the news in this thread to friends of mine.
Blayne: Hey guys apparently a 17 year old honor student got sentenced to 10 years in prison no parole.
Friends: What for?
Blayne: Having oral sex with a 15 year old.
Friends: Wait how old was he?
Blayne: 17.
Friends: *Shocked* And where is this?
Blayne: Georgia.
Friends: Ahhh thats right, that explains everything.
IP: Logged |
quote:However, it should be added that I am inclined to believe I am correct about what is valuable, and that those who disagree with me are mistaken, until I can see a good reason why I should believe otherwise (in which case I'd probably change what I believe to be valuable).
Why can't both sides be correct? We've already seen how the value of romantic love differs from person to person without there being a specific correct answer that applies to everyone. What's wrong with saying that what I value in life is different than what you value in life, yet neither of us are wrong.
To suggest that one side must be wrong would be like me saying that blue is my favorite color and you saying, "nope, sorry, red is actually your favorite color."
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Kate, since every post is apparently all about you and you demand a personal judgement, it would be rude not to soothe your clearly ruffled and wonky feathers. Really - this isn't a personal judgment about you and it especially isn't all about you. Stop trying to make it one.
1) I'm not at all interested in your sex life, 2) It is impossible given these circumstances 3) It isn't my job in the first place.
Again, the judgement was already made. It is a judgement about me. If I said, "all people who live in Washington are tranvestites" I would consider it reasonable of you to point out that, you do not in fact cross dress. That is all I am doing.
And I have offered you an alternative example. Demonstrate how that example is irresponsible if that is more comfortable for you.
Really not ruffled except by your possible implication that this is about my ego and your possible suggestion that I have no principles. And I decided in both cases to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was not what you meant.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You taking it personally is your responsibility. I really don't know why you insist on doing so.
I have already shown how your theoretical example is useless - you are defining the example to have no negative consequences then asking someone to point out the negative consequences.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I think we are finally getting somewhere with this. By page 20 we might come to a conclusion.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I'm not sure what I can do to make this clear to you.
If someone says, "wearing pants always means a woman is "loose". If you wear pants and were not "loose" wouldn't you dispute that assertion? Why would you think that "always" exempted you?
Scott is defining irresponsible. I have given a couple of examples that don't fit his definition of irresponsible. As his assertion is "always", these examples would disprove his assertion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You haven't given examples. You have stated that you weren't irresponsible because nothing bad happened (according to your report). 1) The determination of an irresponsible action does not come AFTER the consequences have occurred, and 2) your report is both biased and incomplete.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you have yet to show, first, what the bad consequences could have been; kmb has explained why none of the ones mentioned so far would have applied to her case; and second, why these bad consequences are so horrible that risking them counts as irresponsible. As was pointed out, nobody calls you irresponsible for getting in a car, although certainly that's a risk.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: kat, I'm not sure what I can do to make this clear to you.
If someone says, "wearing pants always means a woman is "loose". If you wear pants and were not "loose" wouldn't you dispute that assertion? Why would you think that "always" exempted you?
Scott is defining irresponsible. I have given a couple of examples that don't fit his definition of irresponsible. As his assertion is "always", these examples would disprove his assertion.
For what it's worth, I totally agree with this, and the loose/pants analogy really is fairly good. So how WOULD you defend yourself against such an assertion?
For the record, I also take it "personally", although that has a connotation of drama and apparently ruffled feathers ; I'm an unmarried sexually active person, and my actions are not irresponsible. I am not irresponsible. I am prepared, careful, and committed. I have nothing to hide.
I have no feathers, as far as I know. But when you (generic you) say "all people who have extramarital sex are behaving irresponsibly", well, you do mean me. Defending myself/disagreeing is not having a hissy fit.
Edited to add a fairly important slash.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I can already tell you what the conclusion is.
"I think you're wrong."
"And I think you're wrong."
I'd put it as, "We're both right, but we define the word 'right' in completely separate ways."
ScottR, you realize that the vast majority of sex throughout human history is irresponsible under your definition? I imagine that you know that and don't care, but I thought I'd bring it up. In case you're interested in the fact that you've defined 'responsibility' so narrowly as to make it functionally useless.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, what I have demonstrated with my examples is not that there were no bad consequences. I demonstrated my willingness before taking on those risks to prepare for them and to accept the consequences of them. I have also demonstrated that, for many of the possible risks mentioned that the risk didn't not exist or was slight.
Take the example of "Mary". In a monogamous relationship. Caring, with her partner, for their child, having mutual powers of attorney etc.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) The determination of an irresponsible action does not come AFTER the consequences have occurred, and 2) your report is both biased and incomplete.
quote:1) The determination of an irresponsible action does not come AFTER the consequences have occurred, and 2) your report is both biased and incomplete.
If sex was not spontaneous, protection was planned, and consequences considered and acceptable, how is that not responsible?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:ScottR, you realize that the vast majority of sex throughout human history is irresponsible under your definition?
I don't think you really mean to make this particular argument.
Our ancestors did a lot of things much worse than dallying with the milkman. Should we hold those things up as mitigating factors in chauvanism, racism, classism, etc.?
Not sure how it's pertinent at all, JT. And possibly counter to what you want to argue.
quote:I have given a couple of examples that don't fit his definition of irresponsible.
You gave the example of a woman, living unmarried to a man, raising their child together.
If they were to get married, their relationship would gain legal rights that they don't currently have.
Such a couple, in terms of social responsibility, would really not be that irresponsible. There's nothing, in terms of their relationship's health, that I can see that's any worse than a comparable marriage.
So, while I would encourage them to get married, and take advantage of the social support for married couples, it's not like I'd grimace at them for their situation.
All the terrible situations that can happen in a marriage can happen in your example--but there's fewer legal protections to fall back on.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem here is that boots is arguing that sex outside marriage can be (and frequently is) undertaken by adults in relationships as committed and responsible as those of married couples.
However, Scott has defined sex outside marriage as intrinsically irresponsible, irrespective of context.
posted
kat, I am not understanding you unless you either haven't read what I have written or you are asking me to predict future irresponsible acts. I can only tell you what has already happened. Except to say that, in the future, I have no intention of behaving irresponsibly.
How can there be an example that isn't biased and incomplete (since none of us knows everything)? I have given an example that isn't me. So has Sharpie. (Thanks, Sharpie.)
What kind of an example would be valid?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kate, I notice that once again you seem to be applying this to your own experiencs. I've run out of ways of telling that it's inappropriate and personalizing it in a way that stops the conversation. I must conclude that you have no other method of discussing the issue and thus our conversing on it is pointless.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't made a lot of blanket statements. I'm about to.
Having a kid when the parents are not committed to each other and together the family they may be creating is short-changing the kid. No matter who willing someone is to bear the price of it, they CAN'T - it's the kid who has to pay the price. Saying it'll be fine is very irresponsible, inherently.
In other words, there is potentially and often is another, innocent life or lives involved.
I also, and this is the religious point of view of course, think it's incredibly damaging to your soul, and it's something that takes the Atonement to reconcile. Saying it's completely responsible and you'll bear the consequences ignores the need for the Atonement later. There are consequences that you yourself are not able to bear. Blithely saying it's fine is irresponsible.
That's not everything. That's just some of what falls outside your "I was totally careful" scenario.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: kate, I notice that once again you seem to be applying this to your own experiencs. I've run out of ways of telling that it's inappropriate and personalizing it in a way that stops the conversation. I must conclude that you have no other method of discussing the issue and thus our conversing on it is pointless.
My experience, too. And I don't find it in the least inappropriate.
You are probably correct that it is pointless for the two of us to converse on it :-). However, there are other people in the conversation who seem fine with conversing about it.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, it hasn't seemed to be stopping the conversation. And if it is inappropriate to you, feel free to either not comment or to use the other example (as Scott has).
My last post to you was in response to your post that my example was biased and incomplete. Hence referring to the example I assumed you were citing.
I don't know a better way to refute an assertion than to provide examples that disprove it. There have been four so far (including Sharpie and Stephen).
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having a kid when the parents are not committed to each other and together the family they may be creating is short-changing the kid.
Who said they aren't committed? What if a couple has sex a week before they get married? Is that inherently irresponsible?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
camus: I am not talking about a specific example. It is a blanket statement. If you say "Maybe they were committed" then they inherently do not fall under the blanket statement.
-- Kate: *shrug* Fine. I'm done discussing it with you. -------
I think in the case of this boy that the justice system was out of balance and ill-served. I also devotedly hope that true justice was served in the acquittal for the alleged gang rape and I am devastated for all of the young people involved, especially the 17-year-old girl. It sounds like a horrible night for everyone.
Is there anyone here saying that having sex with strangers at a party after drinking is a good thing?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: You might not grimace at their situation, but you would still call them irresponsible?
I think it's a bad idea to hold up extramarital relationships as approaching married relationships in terms of appropriateness or social value. This is one reason why I'm hesitant to talk specific examples-- and I'm not willing to legislate against the practice anyway.
Would I call THEM irresponsible? No. But neither do I think it's responsible behavior to emulate.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To add to the commpleteness of the "Mary" example. She and her partner are committed to their relationship and to their child.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of people are committed to their relationship NOW.
Marriage helps protect individuals (legally, socially, etc) for when that commitment isn't as strong.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage is different than committment (see any pro same sex marriage argument for reasons why).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
; I'm an unmarried sexually active person, and my actions are not irresponsible. I am not irresponsible. I am prepared, careful, and committed. I have nothing to hide.
