Sex before marriage..

[lawtonfogle]

Um thanks...?

If somebody wants to know if I'm sexually immoral, they can ask what my sexual values are.

The group of people I'm thinking about wouldn't even give you the courtesy of asking first.

If they write me off before that, then why would I care about their opinion any more than they do? (they obviously don't, if they don't care if it's informed or not).

As long as they have a vote in the laws I must live by, I give some concern over what their opinions about such things are. If you either don't mind new laws or think the threat from them is zero (or close enough not to concern yourself), more power to you.

If they write me off afterward, that's their right but I'd be really concerned about their sexual morality, in that case.

Ultimately, though--while there are things that can kinda-sorta help, like talking about fantasies and values--my main point is that thinking about sex is different than having it, and compatability should be established before marriage.

I could try to set it out that way, but it would look...odd.

Problem: sexual compatibility is a majorly important part of a marriage, and there is no way to establish that it exists without actually having sex. You can roll dice about how your sex life will turn out, or you can go into marriage informed.

Solution: the only solution is to have sexual experiences with each other, prior to getting married. Not necessarily every sex act you might ever want, but enough to get a sense for each other.

If you really, really don't want to do that, talking about hypotheticals can give you some idea about the other person's values and interests, but it's a poor substitute, given that so much of what happens during sex can't be easily predicted.

edit: I could use the Bible to back up my answer...and you could use the Vedas...but why would either of us do that?

Well, being a Christian forum, even when you are in a secular subsection, many viewers are likely to put some weight in the Bible. I was thinking your question poses a really big problem for the 'no sex before marriage crowd', and what I originally put was my first reaction to attempting to get the 'no sex before marriage' crowd to even pay attention to the problem.

 

[Mling]

Yeah, I like approaching problems from the opposite angle, from which they're normally approached. I like to think it will bring attention to how unbalanced the original assumptions are.

As a general rule, if somebody asks a question like, "Is it ok to X," I'll try to find a way to ask "Is it ok, not to X?"

 

[Mling]

The group of people I'm thinking about wouldn't even give you the courtesy of asking first.

That same group would write me off after I answered, too, though.

As long as they have a vote in the laws I must live by, I give some concern over what their opinions about such things are. If you either don't mind new laws or think the threat from them is zero (or close enough not to concern yourself), more power to you.

Fair enough, but I find it unlikely that a 'no sex before marriage' law is going to be passed in America anytime soon. The only things I'm interested in that might be illegal, already are.

Well, being a Christian forum, even when you are in a secular subsection, many viewers are likely to put some weight in the Bible. I was thinking your question poses a really big problem for the 'no sex before marriage crowd', and what I originally put was my first reaction to attempting to get the 'no sex before marriage' crowd to even pay attention to the problem.[/quote]

 

[SithDoughnut]

Nothing wrong with it at all.

 

[Penumbra]

Marriage isn't a part of my values. If I get married, I will only get a legal marriage in order for it to be recognized under the government. So, to me, marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper.

As long as it's consensual, along with a few other nuances, I don't have any issues with people having sex whenever they feel it is right to do so.

For me personally, sex outside of love is unappealing, and so I've never had sex outside of love. Love is important to me. Marriage is not.

-Lyn

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I was not raised in a Christian family but I have always been taught that modesty is important. I also believe myself that sex should be waited for until marriage, because it is so special... I am just wondering what each of your personal reasons are... I've hear varying ones... What is your personal reason for deciding to wait?

I think reading other people's personal reasons for waiting can be enlightning and motivating as to why others who are reading this should wait.

What rational reason is there for anybody not to wait?

Compatibility? Well, if sex is going to make or break a marriage then is that marriage really a rational choice?

 

[selfinflikted]

What rational reason is there for anybody not to wait?

Compatibility? Well, if sex is going to make or break a marriage then is that marriage really a rational choice?

Rational reason? Because I had the urge to have sex, and I wasn't involved with anyone enough to consider marriage yet? Seems rational enough to me.

 

[Mling]

What rational reason is there for anybody not to wait?

Compatibility? Well, if sex is going to make or break a marriage then is that marriage really a rational choice?

Depends on the person and the relationship. If somebody thinks of sex as a fun activity, then not having it probably wouldn't make or break anything.

If they think that making love is a beautiful way of expressing devotion to their loved one, and that loved one refuses to do it--rejecting their expressions of affection and devotion year after after--then it would probably have serious emotional consequences.

If one person makes the other think that their sexual desires are bad, dirty or wrong, for whatever reason, then it becomes a form of emotional abuse.

Nobody's ever died from lack of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], but plenty of people have felt like their lives were wasted, from lack of affection or connection, or from feeling like they were horrible people.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Rational reason? Because I had the urge to have sex, and I wasn't involved with anyone enough to consider marriage yet? Seems rational enough to me.

Since when is giving in to urges rational?

If I have the urge to pick somebody's pocket and I give in to that urge, is that rational?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Since when is giving in to urges rational?

If I have the urge to pick somebody's pocket and I give in to that urge, is that rational?

No, but no one suffers if you decide to have consensual sex with someone else.

A closer comparison would be whether deciding to give in to the urge to watch TV is rational or not.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Depends on the person and the relationship. If somebody thinks of sex as a fun activity, then not having it probably wouldn't make or break anything.

If they think that making love is a beautiful way of expressing devotion to their loved one, and that loved one refuses to do it--rejecting their expressions of affection and devotion year after after--then it would probably have serious emotional consequences.

If one person makes the other think that their sexual desires are bad, dirty or wrong, for whatever reason, then it becomes a form of emotional abuse.

Nobody's ever died from lack of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], but plenty of people have felt like their lives were wasted, from lack of affection or connection, or from feeling like they were horrible people.

Those are reasons to be careful about who you marry.

Again, if sex is going to make or break a marriage then entering that marriage is probably not a rational choice.

Think of it this way: If sex is going to make or break a marriage then it is not much of a marriage in the first place.

 

[selfinflikted]

Since when is giving in to urges rational?

If I have the urge to pick somebody's pocket and I give in to that urge, is that rational?

No, you shouldn't pick someone's pocket. That should go without saying. But I have the urge to eat several times a day. Good thing I give in to that urge.

 

[moonkitty]

I think people should wait until they are mature enough to handle any complications that comes with an active sex life. Not wait until marriage. I see a lot of immature 18 and 19 year olds getting married so they can have sex because the church says it's "ok."

 

[Zaac]

No, but no one suffers if you decide to have consensual sex with someone else.

So the standard for right or wrong is someone suffering?

So does that mean that all those horror stories we hear about parents throwing fits and kicking their kids out of the house, disowning them or worse when they find out their child is gay and having gay sex doesn't count as suffering?

 

[SithDoughnut]

So the standard for right or wrong is someone suffering?

So does that mean that all those horror stories we hear about parents throwing fits and kicking their kids out of the house, disowning them or worse when they find out their child is gay and having gay sex doesn't count as suffering?

The children are definitely suffering there. How would that not count as suffering? However, that suffering is not the fault of the children, but the parents.

 

[Zaac]

The children are definitely suffering there. How would that not count as suffering? However, that suffering is not the fault of the children, but the parents.

So should your statement read that the two adults having consensual sex aren't hurting each other? Because they might be hurting someone else.

 

[selfinflikted]

So should your statement read that the two adults having consensual sex aren't hurting each other? Because they might be hurting someone else.

Not even comparable.

 

[SithDoughnut]

So should your statement read that the two adults having consensual sex aren't hurting each other? Because they might be hurting someone else.

Like who? The parents are not being hurt, they're just being offended. That's their bigotry, and so it's their problem.

 

[Mling]

Those are reasons to be careful about who you marry.

Again, if sex is going to make or break a marriage then entering that marriage is probably not a rational choice.

Think of it this way: If sex is going to make or break a marriage then it is not much of a marriage in the first place.

The argument you're making doesn't argue against certain types of relationships becoming marriages. It argues against certain people getting married at all--those that value sex as more than a fun pasttime.

My point was not that certain relationships might involve unhealthy sexual dynamics. My point was that certain people might find sex extremely meaningful, and would be hurt if a relationship didn't include it.

And those people might not know that about themselves until after they have sex.

Personally, I think that people who value emotionally meaningful sex probably have other traits that would make them great marital partners, so I think they should find that out about themselves, and then find healthy relationships with strong connection, and marry those partners.

 

[Penumbra]

What rational reason is there for anybody not to wait?

Compatibility? Well, if sex is going to make or break a marriage then is that marriage really a rational choice?

One rational reason is that the body becomes able to reproduce in the early teens and reaches prime fertility in the early 20s (for guys at least, it's later for girls), yet the average marriage, at least in the US, occurs at around 26 I believe.

People long ago who thought that no sex before marriage was a good thing lived in a time when people lived half as long, got married in their teenage years, and had little way to protect against disease or pregnancy.

People following rules that are not aligned with biology and natural and healthy desire may indeed cause damage to themselves- either psychologically or by doing something stupid like getting married for sex when you're 19 and just can't wait anymore.

Since when is giving in to urges rational?

Since it keeps us alive and healthy. I eat when I'm hungry, I drink when I'm thirsty, and I rest when I'm tired.

It's illogical to define urge = bad. Really, urge = (it depends on the urge and the context).

If I have the urge to pick somebody's pocket and I give in to that urge, is that rational?

Not likely, and even more importantly it's immoral because it causes harm and shows that one is selfish.

-Lyn