POLL: Premarital Sex

Remove all ads!

I really don't know. The discussion went on in a newspaper which I don't normally read.

Maybe the whole process is more complicated than it looks. (Hey, it's the human brain we're talking about.)

The premise is "We want what we do". So, the motive of fasting is, say, loosing weight. The reason could be that the body says: "You're to heavy to be healthy. Eat less." It may not matter if the person is really too fat. It just needs the trigger.

In case of religious fasting, there could be societal reasons like group pressure for that. The same goes for loosing weight ("You're too fat to find a partner for having kids."), or Chev being chaste until he marries.
Societal 'instincts' could overrule or add themselves to primal instincts.

 

The reason, outside of religion, is that marriage is a ritual that confirms one's love for another. That is, it is a way for two people to say: "I love you so much that I want to vow, as part of a ritual that has personal meaning, and in front of my family/friends/god/goddess, to love you forever and to spend the rest of my life with you." Now this vow is less and less frequently upheld in modern society, but that doesn't mean it losses meaning for those who stay together. Also, as Drew pointed out, people do change, and sometimes that change is drastic enough to pull them apart, so that one two people can WANT to still love and be with one another, but just cannot force themselves to feel love when it is not there.

However, for all the meaning of marriage, it is jsut a ritual. When person A goes up on the alter and vows to love and share his/her life with person B, person A is not deciding, then and there, to make that commitment. Unless person A was pressured into marriage, person A would have decided quite a while ago that he/she loves person B to the point of wanting to get married. The love and the desire to commit comes before marriage, not during, not after. It is not as if marriage automatically creates a strong enough sense of commitment that makes sex suddenly ok, rather it affirms that commitment in front of whoever the people getting married consider valid witnesses. Thus, sex before marriage is not neccesarily done outside of a strong relationship that will last for the rest of the lives of those having sex, its only done outside of the ritual of marriage.

 

Deepfae, I like it. Nice explaination. In fact, it answers the question of why it is considered wrong to have sex before marriage, but as soon as you get married, it is alright. I would agree, though, that if it is a strong relationship, in which two people love each other, why do you need a stupid ceremony (which is usually blown out of proportion) to confirm it...

 

@Felinoid:

Adoption is by far better than abortion but it's still leaving behind your own child and dodging responsibility for your own actions. Besides, how many women carry to term and give up for adoption rather than aborting?

@Fabius:

It's a pathetic little creature who is unzipped before he or she can make any decision. That's not even sex, that's masturbation with a human tool. Your body reacts to your needs, but first of all, sex is not so primal as food, and you can't restrain yourself from stealing even unguarded food when you're hungry, so why not from having sex? It's always choosing the easier way and there's no compulsion in it. It's just a sheepish excuse if someone claims he can't control his or her having sex. Needless to say, such a person is incapable of normally functioning is the society as a spouse and parent, being unable to stay faithful to one person. Alternatively, if marriage is enough to prevent sex with other people, then the latter can actually be controlled. Some people tend to think that even a very slight primal impulse is unfair on them, placing them in duress and compelling them to acts they would never undertake otherwise. But that's rubbish.

Our bodies want a family with children and if that isn't coming, then it's probably better to move on and give up on the person. But this is no all-conquering force and nothing to prevail over the person's understanding of his or her situation precluding marriage in a given moment. Besides, chemistry tends to last one year, regardless of kids or lack thereof. It can occur again, even with the same other person, but it basically lasts a year.

And how productive is contracepted intercourse?

People use the body wants children argument to make allowance for premarital sex. But they rotate 180 degrees when it comes to contraception. So they engage in premarital sex because body wants children but they block said children with contraception in the act. That's hypocrisy.

Noted.

@Saber:

And on what do you base your arbitrary decision that a human egg fertilised with human sperm is somehow not human?

Besides, using the "neonaticide is worse" argument to make allowance for abortion is like telling people to shoot their enemies in the head because chopping with an axe is quite painful and gross.

@deepfae:

Sex is not like eating or sleeping because you won't die without it and you can still have a normal, meaningful and complete life. People often have sex out of boredom or because of not having a different field where to focus their energy. It's easy to notice that people who have work and hobbies have sex less than people who don't. I'm not denying the natural urge, far from it, but it's pathetic to treat it like something that can't be controlled. If someone can stick to a diet, he or she is more than capable of keeping some order in the sex life or even waiting for the right person.

More to come when I have more time to type.

 

I wasn't saying abortion is fine because it is better than killing children, I said that killing children is far worse. Killing something that is already alive, in this world, and making a difference is lower than killing something that is just a mass of DNA.

 

I know many of you don't know me since I've only been someone that is in the IRC channel. For those who know me, no introduction is necessary. For those who don't, I should clarify that I am a 25 year old man. I follow no religion, though I was originally brought up Catholic. Now that I've introduced myself, I would like to bring up an intersting point to ponder.

I find it interesting that in many east asian cultures, there is no prohibition on premarital sex¹. In fact, there is a current issue in Thailand with girls from poor rural families going to the big city (i.e. Bangkok) and working as prostitutes to earn money for their families. For them it is about attaining good karma for a later reincarnation by helping their family at the risk of their own health and societal standing. Of course, this is an extreme case, and does not reflect east asia as a whole. Nevertheless, some might use this to support their opinion on the importance of socio-religious prohibitions on premarital sex. Of course, then they would be neglecting the fact that east asia has done fine without such prohibitions for a very long time, and for the most part still does.
Now I'm not saying premarital sex is necessarily a good thing. In fact, I myself had a very bad experience that left me reeling for quite awhile. However, I'm also not one to say it is necessarily bad by concluding that it is so by my experience, or because any book that is supposedly the word of a creator being says so², or because a group of people say so. Absolutes of any kind are extremely dangerous. I believe every situation is different, so every response should differ as well. Remember, moderation, in all things.

On a related note, in some african cultures it is alright for a married woman to have sex with another married man who is not her husband in some instances.

As an aside, somewhat brought up by Abomination, the act often quoted from the bible against masturbation regarding Onan spilling his seed on the ground actually describes withdrawing³. I'm sure you don't care Abomination, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

All this is accurate to the best of my knowledge and is based on my own observations. Of course this should be read with a healthy amount of skepticism since I don't profess to be an expert on any subjet I brought up here.

Notes:
¹Also, from what I understand, the word "sin" as the primarily judeo-christian west understands it is fairly new (i.e. past few hundred years since extensive contact with the west) in east asian cultures. While I am just now starting to learn Japanese (as best I can before I find a real instructor), from what I understand the word used for sin is "fusei" and the online Japanese dictionary WWWJDIC translates it as meaning "injustice; unfairness; iniquity; impropriety; irregularity; dishonesty; illegality". Of course take what I say about this with a large dose of salt since I am by no means an expert on the Japanese language or any other east asian language (even if I am part Japanese).

²I'll leave discussions about any supposed holy text being a work of man or creator being to another discussion. Sufice to say that while I believe there is a higher power/supernatural force, I will not go so far as to give it a name, and I don't believe in the absolute truth of any supposed holy text because it is filtered through imperfect human beings.

³In fact if you read the whole passage, the "sin" was probably his resistance to the custom of providing offspring for his dead brother by impregnating his (dead brother's) widow.

 

@Abomination: Complete understanding of the relationship situation gives no guarantee for the future. Even with all the formal binding and strictures of marriage, you still can't guarantee the person won't go nuts at some point and leave or otherwise hurt you. In case of moving in and out as one damn well please, such hurts are a part of the system. Notice the link between the sexual revolution and the general willpower deficit in the population. People have sex at any opportunity, even just because they are alone together. They buy stuff they don't want because advertisement works like that. All those funny freedoms are only destructive.

@Susipaisti, Chandos: People who oppose the idea of marrying on formal grounds, calling it just a piece of paper etc, actually have a problem with the substance it contains because if marriage and divorce were just a formality, they wouldn't be so bothered by it. In essence, they don't want permanence or exclusivity. And I'm not even talking about abuse or fraud or whatever, where in the former case courts grant divorce and in the latter religious courts give a nullity decree. People simply don't want to tie their hands, to be bound. They want to be free from obligations. When a better model shows up and it's time to upgrade, they will most likely call upon the deficit of form and say there was no official marriage, so the whole thing was just an affair, just an adventure. Poof it goes.

If one is not religious, there is still secular, civil marriage, although the appeal is probably reduced somewhat. However, in case of people who "believe but don't practice" or some such, the lack of religious ceremony speaks for itself. They don't want a formal binding, they want, well, a sexual relationship. Or rather they want some happy lovin' without thinking of consequences. Which is bad.

@Drew: Most of such types are probably Catholic and in this case, marriage is simply invalid from the beginning if there is fraud or inability to undertake obligations of such a rank or inability to fulfill the duties of marriage (and I'm not talking just about "marital acts" here). If you know what you're doing, it's your choice and you are expected to stick to it. But if you're tricked into something, you obviously can't be held to it. People who can't stay faithful or live with a family without abusing them, such folks are incapable of valid marriage per Canon 1095.

@Felinoid: Do read Genesis, SVP.

@Fabius: Come on, give me some credit. It's not something "mum told you". I can think of many reasons and no nagging would suffice if I didn't believe in it.

 

@Chev: This difference in worldview, for whatever reason, is still going to jade any figures on whether or not sex before marriage has anything to do with divorce. For the most part, it is religious people who are going to see marriage as sacred and, by and large, it is mostly religious people who will wait until marriage. People who see marriage as sacred are going to have more resistance to the idea of terminating the marriage.

EDIT: and in my experience, Baptists, Pentacostals, and most (if not all) other protestant faiths tend to view divorce as a "really bad thing that you shouldn't ever do".

[ March 09, 2006, 01:34: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

And in other African cultures, they both get stoned.

 

I seem to have gotten side tracked a bit with my first post. (Somewhat understandable since I wrote it in the middle of the night when I should have been getting sleep. ) What I was intending to say is it's funny how for the most part you wouldn't see such a huge discussion on the rights or wrongs of premarital sex in and of itself among most east asian cultures.
An interesting resource I came upon while researching that you all may be interested in reading is a page that summarizes the views of 5 non-christian religions and 8 christian denominations regarding premarital sex.

 

No, well, at least that not my case, since I have been married for ten years (to the same woman no less.) We were together for 5 years before that (exclusively). That's 15 years. How old are you Chev? So, maybe it's something else...btw, I know you are not 15.

 

Can you translate that in an understandable language?

 

Chev is considerably younger than you and I Chandos, but he's no baby. I think I remember on a age thread a couple of years back that he stated he was 21. As that was a couple of years ago, I would estimate his current age to be around 23 +/- 1 year. As you have been in a committed relationship for 15 years, I have to assume you are at least a 30-something like me, and quite possibly older than that.

@ Zarakinthish,

That is an interesting site indeed, and it seems that the prevailing attitude of the vast majority of religions is that sex should be exclusive to marriage. In looking at the major religions, it seems like only Buddhism and a few select branches of Christianity allow for pre-marital sex. I'm surprised that they included Wiccans on that page as well. While Wiccans number in the millions, they aren't on par with the others that were listed. All of the other ones have followings at least in the 10s of millions, if not the 100s of millions, and a couple of those listed reach into the billions. It seems like there are a bunch of others you should include if you include Wiccans - the number of Taoists has to at least match the number of Wiccans I would imagine.

EDIT: Coincidently, we are now 0 for 66 concerning someone who has answered the poll that they waited until they were married to have sex. There are several people who intend to wait until after marriage to have sex, but of 66 respondents so far, there is no one who claims that they waited to marry to have sex. Similarly, there is still just one person who says they had sex before marriage and wish they had waited, and on the topic of children, we're still maintaining an approximate 3 to 1 ratio of people believing you could (or should) have sex without necessarily being ready to have the responsibility children.

[ March 09, 2006, 16:35: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

So basically, if I don't wish to take part in a religious ceremony, I don't want permanence or exclusivity. And of course I don't understand love or commitment either, since I operate on an animal level like a simple beast of burden.

I personally know a couple who have been together for 20+ years (don't know exactly how long, but they have adult children). They live together but are not married. They're not members of any church. While I'm no mind reader, they seem quite content.

 

That was my guess as well. That means he was eight when I started dating my wife. I was just trying to demonstrate the "permanence" of my relationship with my wife in a relative manner. And you are right, Aldeth, I probably am just a couple years older than you are...

 

That would mean that Chev was about 14 when I started dating the woman who was destined to become my wife. But it is good to get the views of people at various stages of their life on this topic.

 

That puts it in perspective indeed. Of course, a lot of things change in the course of 15 years. Heck, 15 years ago I was still in high school, and marriage was the furthest thing from my mind. In fact, now that I think about it, even when I was Chev's current age, marriage was the furthest thing from my mind. I never even considered getting married until the second half of my twenties, and as it turns out, I waited until I was nearly 30.

And assuming that I was right with Chev's age estimate, it means that he was 18 when I started dating my wife.

EDIT - HB and Chandos - I think you guys may be more than "just a couple of years" older than me - unless you both happened to marry your high school sweethearts.

 

I first went out on a date with my wife-to-be in 1997 and we got married in 2002. But we started living together in 1998, so lived for 4 years like a married couple before actually getting married. For us, getting married was an affirmation of our love, a formal recognition of her taking on my surname . . . . and a way of her being able to live in the UK with me by virtue of my British passport

 

More or less my reaction is the same as Susipasti's. You're quite simply talking cobblers Chev. I am more firmly bound to my partner through emotional ties than could ever be put on paper. Unless you have experienced it, there's no way to articulate the depth of feeling that two people can feel for each other.
For to you to attempt to demean that by claiming that, unless married, we are somehow "inferior" in our feelings, and likely to jump off if a better offer comes along shows that you really don't understand. Obviously you're entitled to your opinions but you lose all credance when you proclaim such blatently arrogant nonsense. It might not work for you, but it sure does for other people. Try and remember that.

Sorry, on re-reading, it come across stronger than intended, but hopefully it makes my point.

 

Hello there,

I think preserving our body as pure for the one we will marry is an act of virtue and our dedication towards that being of the opposing gender.

So in short I am not one for premarital sex .

Marriage for me is not only a paper but an alliance between a man and woman. A bond, like when you tie a "heal-twig" (probably not the correct english word) to a wounded branch. When you look at it half a year later, they've become one, completing each-other, inseparable since they're now one and the same, unless broken, which ends up wounding both sides of the now one branch.