<p>Don't forget rubbers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Originally Posted by me
I'd also like to issue a reminder again that this isn't a black-and-white issue. It isn't a choice between virginity until marriage ("moral") and indiscriminate
sleeping around ("wickedness and dissolution"). I'll offer you a few scenarios along the spectrum; you may tell me where you draw the line.</p>
<p>Repeated hook-ups with multiple strangers.
One-time hook-up with a stranger.
One-time hook-up with a friend.
Repeated hook-up with same friend.
Sex within a short-term, not-terribly-serious relationship.
Sex within a serious long-term relationship.
Sex within marriage, and only then.
No sex at all, ever.</p>
<p>And that's not even covering everything that can be done short of intercourse (kissing, touching, certain kinds of dancing) or all possible permutations of it.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>I wasn't in love with my boyfriend the first time we had sex, or even the second or third or fourth. That didn't happen until two months later -- he said it first. I might marry him one day, but we're eighteen and in love, and we aren't waiting to find out. Does that make me immoral?
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Repeated hook-ups with multiple strangers = prostitution. You might as well be in the business rather than providing your services for free.</p></li>
<li><p>One-time hook-up with a stranger - do it once or twice or whatever. It still doesn't excuse you from your actions. You have loose morals and no self-respect.</p></li>
<li><p>One-time hook-up with a friend - fine if friend is ok with it and the two of you aren't really drunk.</p></li>
<li><p>Repeated hook-up with same friend - ok. at least there's commitment. </p></li>
<li><p>Sex within a short-term, not-terribly-serious relationship - immoral. Sometimes I feel such people deserve to get infected with herpes and never recover.</p></li>
<li><p>Sex within a serious long-term relationship - that's a personal decision, but I would rather wait until marriage, which shows you're more mature and responsible. As long as its with one person, it's not as bad as the other situations mentioned above.</p></li>
<li><p>Sex within marriage, and only then - Perfect.</p></li>
<li><p>No sex at all, ever - Personal decision. I wouldn't mind taking this route either, especially if I don't end up liking anyone for who they are (and NOT what they look like). I know most people would just hook up if they liked the person physically, but personality wise they're total opposites.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"i agree that they're a good saftey net, but shouldn't be the first plan"</p>
<p>Yeah, that's what we have the moneyshot for. </p>
<p>"you may call her a sex worker."</p>
<p>Sex worker? That's soooo much harder than "slut" or "whore" to rhyme in my rap songs...</p>
<p>What if you don't even plan on ever getting married? I mean, I'm open to the idea, but it isn't something that I'm planning on. If I followed your advice, I'd be abstinent for life.</p>
<p>What's so special about marriage, anyway? Some people that are married aren't even that committed and they just get married because it's what society tells them to. Yet others can have perfectly healthy, committed relationships without being married.</p>
<p>Not being married gives you an easy way out. If you fight with your partner, you're under no obligation to stay with him/her, even if you have a kid. It just seems like an immature and irresponsible way to deal with your problems. At least when you're married, you'll have to think long and hard before you make any stupid decision. It DOES make you more committed to your spouse - whether you believe that or not i'm not so sure, but it is true. If that weren't true, the institution of marriage wouldn't exist in the first place. </p>
<p>Besides, your argument that people can have perfectly healthy, committed relationships without being married. But it is proven that people that are married are much happier than those that aren't. Yes, there are people that are unmarried and quite happy in their committed relationship, but there are even more that are happy in their marriage. </p>
<p>And why I think sex before marriage is a big no no? It's because that will tell you how much your gf/bf loves you. If he/she can't wait, that should be a red signal and you shouldn't be marrying that person anyway. If both people consent, it's still an irresponsible action since you give sex the utmost importance in your relationship, and not to other things that are more important in a relationship, such as mutual respect and understanding. </p>
<p>The fact that premarital sex is so common these days is in my opinion a big factor in the high divorce rates. Call me stupid or whatever, but this can be seen how divorce rates were much lower in previous decades when premarital sex wasn't as common, or in other countries in which pre-marital sex is really looked down upon.</p>
<p>Nick-- Have you seen studies that controlled for every variable but premarital sex and divorce rates? Or do you just see correlations on which you base notions of causation?</p>
<p>It wasn't an argument, mightynick. Arguing with people as conservative as you is crazy. I'm just discussing. I guess "easy way out" is the way that a closed minded individual like yourself would put it, but I don't see any reason to tie myself into a legal commitment like that. It doesn't make any sense. I'm a logical person and it doesn't seem logical to me.</p>
<p>Pre-marital sex hasn't caused the higher divorce rates. The changing society that has made things like pre-marital sex less taboo has also made women more equal and independent, which obviously would increase divorce rates. The increasing divorce rates are really nothing but proof that marriage is becoming outdated, anyway. It was more important in the past, because in order to get by, a woman needed a man to provide for her and the man needed a woman to raise his family, cook him dinner, and all that stuff. And considering the introduction of daycares and women into the workforce, a man doesn't need a woman to stay at home and raise his kids, either.</p>
<p>On average, married couples might be happier, but I know a lot of married couples that aren't. I would probably be miserable tied into a marriage that wasn't with the perfect woman and I don't believe in perfection. Lets just be realistic here. People change as they age and it's likely that two people will grow apart and become incompatible. It happens all the time.</p>
<p>The divorce rates of yesteryear were so low because of the fact that women were often unwilling to divorce even abusive or unfaithful husbands because of the anticipated societal scorn and the low probability of getting a job that paid enough to support her children in a male-dominated workforce. Divorced men also experienced a degree of societal disapproval--though not to the extent that women did--simply for putting their ex-wives in such an awful position.</p>
<p>I agree, though, that sexual desire often causes people to ignore more rationally desirable attributes in a spouse and get married when one or both partners are not really ready for a permanent commitment. On the other hand, finding out on your wedding night that your new spouse is irreparably bad in bed will lead to tensions down the road. After all, people in marriages tend not to be unfaithful if their spouse is fulfilling all their "needs." If you don't enjoy having sex with your spouse, that aspect of you will have to be suppressed for the rest of your life, which is not really an enticing thought.</p>
<p>
And why I think sex before marriage is a big no no? It's because that will tell you how much your gf/bf loves you. If he/she can't wait, that should be a red signal and you shouldn't be marrying that person anyway.
For me, at least, it wasn't about being unable to wait, and it wasn't about love. Mostly it was about trust and respect; some of it was curiosity. Later it became about love, which made it better, but it wasn't necessary at the beginning. I'd consider all of those except curiosity pretty good reasons to marry someone (not a complete list, of course, but it's a start).</p>
<p>
If both people consent, it's still an irresponsible action since you give sex the utmost importance in your relationship, and not to other things that are more important in a relationship, such as mutual respect and understanding.
I don't know where you get the idea that couples who are sexually active by default consider sex the most important aspect of their relationship, because it isn't. We spend more time talking about the news, playing ping-pong or Scrabble, laughing at silly jokes, or quietly studying together than we do having sex. The sex is spectacular, but it's hardly the pinnacle of our relationship.</p>
<p>I also don't think sex and "mutual respect and understanding" are at all incompatible, because in order for the former to be very good, it generally requires some of the latter -- that and honesty, communication, and attentiveness.</p>
<p>Which may seem like a condemnation of the much-derided random hookup, but it really isn't. If both parties respect each other, talk honestly about their expectations and comfort levels, and don't resort to to objectification, I imagine that it could be a very satisfying experience, not that I'd know.
On the other hand, finding out on your wedding night that your new spouse is irreparably bad in bed will lead to tensions down the road. After all, people in marriages tend not to be unfaithful if their spouse is fulfilling all their "needs." If you don't enjoy having sex with your spouse, that aspect of you will have to be suppressed for the rest of your life, which is not really an enticing thought.
</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>For whatever it's worth, my boyfriend and I don't sensationalize sex nearly as much as the virginity-until-marriage crowd seems to. It isn't the proverbial elephant in the room, and I for one think that is a relief.</p>
<p>Man what a worthless argument this is...</p>
<p>
[quote]
And why I think sex before marriage is a big no no? It's because that will tell you how much your gf/bf loves you. If he/she can't wait, that should be a red signal and you shouldn't be marrying that person anyway. If both people consent, it's still an irresponsible action since you give sex the utmost importance in your relationship, and not to other things that are more important in a relationship, such as mutual respect and understanding.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This argument doesn't make sense to me. Why does having sex, pre-marital or otherwise, imply that you're giving it the "utmost importance" in a relationship? Since when is sex are sex and respect and understanding mutually exclusive?</p>
<p>Also, your argument about it being a sign of readiness is totally arbitrary. You're saying don't do action x, not because action x is bad in itself, but because you should be able to wait for it to prove yourself. It has nothing to do with sex though; you can fill in the blank with anything you want.</p>
<p>You guys are crazy. </p>
<p>This is why I hate liberals. They're causing the decadence of our society.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It wasn't an argument, mightynick. Arguing with people as conservative as you is crazy. I'm just discussing. I guess "easy way out" is the way that a closed minded individual like yourself would put it, but I don't see any reason to tie myself into a legal commitment like that. It doesn't make any sense. I'm a logical person and it doesn't seem logical to me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I'm not a logical person? I believe I am, and what you said doesn't seem logical to me. It's rather immature. Well that's what I would expect on a forum full of teenagers that think they're the smartest people on earth.</p>
<p>I'm not a teenager (I'm 20). I never said that it wasn't logical for you to get married. I'm just saying that marriage isn't something that I value and that it'd be pretty illogical for me to get married just for the sake of conforming to tradition. Immature? Ironically, it's only recently that I've thought about the possibility of never getting married. In my earlier years, I thought that for sure I'd get married, everyone does! Almost like I couldn't think for myself, which is real immaturity.</p>
<p>MightyNick,</p>
<p>I've tried to be eminently rational. I haven't resorted to personal attacks and unsupported generalizations. I've asked questions; I've offered examples. I've tried to have a conversation and not a mudslinging contest.</p>
<p>And I can't. I can't do it. You won't even consider that there might be some legitimacy to anyone else's viewpoint.</p>
<p>I haven't wanted to call you names, I'm above that, but here it is: The fact that someone like you exists scares the hell out of me.</p>
<p>And I want you to apologize for calling me a promiscuous girl, silly, and someone who sleeps with men for money, and for calling others sluts and whores. Don't ever talk that way to or about a woman again. </p>
<p>If those are morals, I want no part of them.</p>
<p>Internet: Serious business</p>
<p>I don't care if you're conservative or close-minded or anything Nick. I only care for the the truth. Do you or do you not have anything other than your own personal beliefs or anecdotal evidence to support your viewpoint?</p>
<p>Internet: Risky Business <em>Tom Cruise Slides Across the Floor in his Underwear</em></p>
<p>Lets see if Nick's morals are logically coherent. </p>
<p>Nick. I want you to establish a logical proof on why your morals are correct or whether your statement that premarital sex is wrong follows as a logical consequence of your system of morals. </p>
<p>Here are some guidelines. </p>
<p>1)You need a hypothesis.( for you this would be "having premarital sex is immoral) </p>
<p>2) You need to state the most fundamental axioms that build your system of morals( usually the most fundamental ones for most religions are life and happiness.). Another thing is that any correct system of morals have to be logically coherent. For example, you can't have one axiom saying that its wrong to be happy,and another saying that its right. </p>
<p>3) You need to relate your axioms to your hypothesis in some way. An easy way is to use evidence and logic to show that your hypothesis is right as a result of your axioms. And don't rely on extreme cases and ad homenim attacks as they are irrelevant.</p>
<p>Let's not make a serious issue out of this, for reals.</p>
<p>MightyNick just wrote that because he has cobwebs in his nether regions.</p>
<p>
I don't care if you're conservative or close-minded or anything Nick. I only care for the the truth. Do you or do you not have anything other than your own personal beliefs or anecdotal evidence to support your viewpoint?
Well said.</p>