POLL: Premarital Sex

Remove all ads!

HB: That could also have something to with aggressiveness and quantity of seed changing with age (along with frequency).

 

This sounds very Orwellian. In 1984 (which I'm sure most of you have read), the state wants to outlaw sex because it creates a period, even if brief, where people aren't thinking about the State, they just don't care while they're having sex.

 

Yes, but I don't think the State, or religious leaders are worried about what people are thinking while having sex: for politcial leaders, it's about the ballot box; for religious leaders, it is more about personal control.

 

the religious leaders and politicians could never oppress my sexuality. No I'm far to busy trying to be the one who oppresses my own sexuality... power starts from with in .

 

Oh, I won't deny the power of the individual to decide for him or herself; for me it's all about free choice. As far as "societal" sexual control, we have plenty of politicians and tele-evangelists doing that business.

 

Hmmm...I am compelled to post on behalf of my background.

They way I was raised (and the religion I was born in to) strictly says that sex is sacred and is only to be enjoyed by those that are married.

That said, I think that is a big, no, a HUGE mistake to wait until you're married to have sex with your partner. Sex is a personal matter that is decided upon by both partners of the relationship...and shouldn’t be influenced by a church or any other outside factor. If a church is going to stick its nose where it doesn’t belong, then it should teach that sex is to be respected, not to be abused, and that both partners should have the necessary education before engaging in sex.

When I was in middle school, there was a huge sense that the school was using a “scare tactic” while teaching sex ed. There was minimal education on sex itself, but more on STDs, and the consequences oh having sex. I mean, the only time they actually showed what the parts looked like; they were covered in Herpes sores. IMO they shouldn’t call that sex ed, it should have been called ‘Human Biology, specializing in STD education’.

 

@Chevalier: Finding out about your potentail life partner in respect to sex is part of finding out "as much as possible" about her/him. I agree that you should be able to love someone for the rest of their attributes, and not throw away someone wonderful just because she or he is bad in bed, but you cannot simply deny the physical side to a relationship. And I'm not just talking about how good the orgasm would be. I'm talking about every little physical action: how that person kisses you, how that person touch you, how that person makes you desire them physically. I mean, when you love someone enough to want to marry that person, you desire them. Mentally, you desire a lifetime of getting to know them better, of sharing your life alongside their unique and pleasing viewpoint on the world. Emotionally, you desire the comfort they give you, the sense of security and happiness they bring you. And physically you desire their unique way of bringing you pleasurable sensations, sensations that are intertwined with emotions. And emotions that are not just lust. People who are interested solely in lust have their porn and their prostitutes. But a physical relationship with someone combines your "primal urges" with emotions. Sex becomes a means of expressing how much you care for your significant other-the way you conduct it demonstrates the passion you feel for not only her or his body, but the rest of her/himself. Now it is fine if your traditions call for waiting until after you marry someone, because you can still develop a physical relationship without sex, but I believe that the physical relationship is important enough to allocate sex a place in the finding-out-everything you-can-about -the-person-you-marry category.

 

Well, I agree with Kitrax. But ultimately you have to ask: If God did not want us to have sex, then why did He make it so much fun? (oh, sorry for those of you who don't know about the fun part yet).

 

Kiltrax,

The course was designed to educate the youth because large numbers of adolecent teenagers were becoming pregnant before they could finish school. STDs are a reality. To be safe. If you are active, you should test yourself for them with a regularly schedualed doctors appointment. Of course you have a good point. I don't feel that the church really has a right to tell anyone one way or the other either. But the course was made with good intentions. It was meant to make people think before they got involved. Sexuality is not a casual thing, in my opinion it is a bond.
Eva

 

Enough of this forum with its boring topics and insane religious moderators. Good night.

[Insane religious moderators? What are you smoking? And if the topics here bore you, do us all a favour and don't post. It's that easy. -Tal]

[ March 02, 2006, 02:59: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Maybe it's me, but without sex and the intimacy that comes from sex, I couldn't be so devoted to the girl that I'd be willing to marry her.

 

I'm waiting for someone that I am in love with to have sex... most likely that will be before marriage. I do not want to get married at all (although, If I do love someone, and they want to get married, I might change), and I most certainly do not want kids (I dislike kids with a passion).

 

@Chandos: You're making it shallow. First, a statement that God doesn't want us to have sex is bad theology and same for a statement that it's only for kids. Sex is good and it's something to be enjoyed, except it's an expression of conjugal love. This is what you get in proper Christian theology. It's easy for people to understand that property and owning things is good and all but one shouldn't take what isn't his. It's surprising that this doesn't work so smoothly with sex.

@Kitrax: By the same logic, you can pick any morally-relevant area and say the church's nose doesn't belong there. Just because you like doing it.

Aldeth's turn.

It's putting sex ahead of commitment. People aren't interested in committing, they are interested in having sex. You say it's not a good idea to marry as a teenager, I say it's a bad idea to have sex as one. If you want to know, I would have a problem with a finding out approach in a person I would consider marrying and I wouldn't marry the person unless the person came to regret that. I would also have a problem with the looking for sex mentality or with a person seeing sex through the perspective of "needs".

There is plenty of people who approve of non-exclusive dating even if it includes kissing and other such romantic expressions. I actually swore to myself never to involve myself with any such person after one of my discussions with such groups... with the Catholic Church, preaching it around and calling proper teaching. I go further than you and I would expect every single act of cheating or polyamory to be reprobated and regretted and the concept condemned by any person previously involved in it in case of a relationship with me. Actually, I have a problem with a whole lot of things, such as flashing, posing nude, topless sunbathing on a public beach, playing spin the bottle, doing certain scenes as an actor... while they wouldn't automatically cross someone out, they would all need to have been regretted. Heck, I even think slow-dancing with strangers is tacky and unbecoming.

Polyamory can't really be defined as cheating if everyone knows of everyone and approves. According to some people, there's no cheating without a previous explicit promise of fidelity. At any rate, if someone had ever had more than one partner at a time (yes, a kissing date with John on Mon, Jack on Tue, then again John and Wed and Jack on Thu counts) and not regretted that, I would never have a relationship with the person.

As for previous partners, it depends. It's mostly not my problem, for one. I'm not God. And I mostly have a problem with things done with people who are not partners, because that's the kind of tendency that shows some real danger. I could probably have a relationship with someone not regretting having sex with previous partners (unless perhaps if that person belonged to a church condemning it, then it would be a bit different), but never with someone not regretting one night stands or friendly sex. I would need to see change there.

@Chandos again:

The Bible says clearly that sex outside of marriage is wrong, so is the Bible false or is God bent on controlling people or what? IIRC you're Christian yourself...

@T2Bruno: Yes, that's what I call responsibility and yes, in both cases. As for disease, there's the problem of people who have it and still decide to have sex with other people. Even if they tell, it's still willingly accepting the chance of inflicting a mortal illness on someone. It's slow murder and the fact the perpetrator already suffers from said disease is not mitigating.

 

I have to say that I think people shouldn't have sex unless they're willing to accept the consequences. Awareness of those consequences should lead them right to the array of protective products that Aldeth listed.

 

Chev - The last post was not a serious one. But my previous post about the political uses of sex was very serious. You have studied history and you are aware of the many abuses that have gone on in every church. Using sex is nothing new in this regard.

I respect and understand your personal outlook regarding sexual matters. Mine is somewhat different, and is built on experience, from inside real relationships. I have a wife of ten years and two girls. Do you think in my old age, while sitting in my wheelchair, I would like to see my daughters on "Girls Gone Wild?" Of course not. But by the same turn, do you think I want some fool telling me when I can have sex with my wife? Or how I should raise my girls. Of course not.

There are people who are more committed and in love who engage in sex, than people who have been married for years. Just because it doesn't say so on some piece of paper, stuffed in a file cabinet somewhere, that it's wrong for them to do so. If I am understanding, you are saying that you need permission from the state, or from the Church to engage in sex. That's fine, if that's how you want it. You are a grown man and you should be able to make your own decisions, especially about something this personal. But in the end, the depth of the relationship should determine the amount of sexual intimancy.

 

Honestly I don't think that I could marry someone without having sex with them before. If I didn't like having sex with that person then I probably wouldn't want to be with them, just for the simple fact that it would complicate things. For a relationship to work there has to be a physical side, at least with everyone I know, and myself, because of the outletting of emotions, and emotions do make it much much more pleasurable. I also think that this is a way of renewing the...fire(cannot think of the term i wanted to use)...of a relationship.

tbh deepfae's post hits the nail right on the head for me.

 

@Aldeth; Not to meant to hijack the topic, but you seem to have a biut skewed view of polaymoryM polyamory involves all parties knowing what the others are up to, and agreeing to it; it does not involve dishonesty or braking relationsuip boundaries. (In theory, that is)

To be on topic; imo, one should not ecngage in sex unless they a) know what they are doing, b) know the potential consequences, c) know how to do their best to avoid said consequences and d) are willing to accept them if c) fails.

Marriage does not come into equation at all. Sure, if someone wants to wait till then, more power to him/hwer - someone's desicion to not to engage in premarital sexual activiity is none of my bloody business - jsut as it is none of their business if I do. In short, no one has the right to regulate anyone else's sex life - not the3 church, not the laws (Beyond the obvious banning rape, incest et cetera) and sure as hell not loud-mouthed-holier-than-thous. Sex = a wonderful thing, and we shopuld remember that no matter just what particulartr wonder we assign to it - physical pleasure, closeness to one's partmner, or little bundles of joy.

 

Well, didn't read the whole thread, but isn't this whole discussion a bit, urg, nonsensical? There is no practical reason to argue this point. Who waits to be married to get laid nowadays? Yeah, I know, common practice does not justify anything, but the point is that premarital sex is not 60% kind of majority. It is over 90% I am sure.
Not sure if this point was made already, but in case it was, I will have to agree with the liberals for once - and last I am sure. The old arranged marriages is hardly any more moral than premarital sex. A great deal of women were hardly adults when they got married anyway...

 

In an ideal world people would respect, love, and cherish those they sleep with. Sadly, it is not an ideal world. And that's not even bringing up the marriage part of things.

To address the religious element here, well, those of us who believe in God and the Bible (or Torah or Koran) know that God's law as set forth in all three texts says that sex is to be conducted within the bonds of matrimony. If you believe in the religion (there are several that fall under the catagories I've alluded to above) and that God is what he says he is (another, somewhat separate issue) then the question is moot. That said, and narrowing down the discussion to Christianity and in particular my belief system, rules like the one against sex outside marriage are often broken, and forgiveness is necessary, which brings us the sacrifice of Christ. Through him we can achieve forgiveness of our sins.

SOOOO, believing people are going to fall short and do it, and they're going to have to repent for it, and that repentance is between them and God. Heck, those who don't believe are going to answer to God, one way or another. They will not answer to us, even the sanctimonious ones like me . . . .

 

LKD, please help me understand what you just said. Are you saying that its bad to have sex out of marriage, because God as portrayed by Judaochristin and Islamic texts and traditions says its bad, but that through Christ one can achieve forgiveness for breaking this rule? And furthermore, those of us who don't believe that Christ is the right path to some sort of divinity will fail to achieve absolvement for breaking this rule, and thus will have to "answer to God?" Is someone who has sex outseide of marriage, but then prays for forgivness without really regretting the act higher in God's eyes than someone who has sex outside of marriage and then deeply regrets it, but is not Christian? Please correct me if I misunderstand you, because what I think you're saying seems completely illogical.