This Silver Ring Thing.

[justaman]

Would it have? I'm not sure I see the connection. Your entire relationship strategy would be different, remember.

What strategy? I was in love and determined to never bother with finding another target for that emotion again.

I think I've worked out the sexual incompatibility thing though. I think that's where one libido is significantly higher than the other. That is not something you can tell just by talking before hand. And as it happened, that was probably a major problem with my relationship. Without that problem, other tensions wouldn't have arisen and she probably wouldn't have broken up with me. Ergo, we'd have gotten married, and all of that **** would have happened a year into the marriage. Not cool.

 

[seebs]

What strategy? I was in love and determined to never bother with finding another target for that emotion again.

Sure. That's a poor strategy for someone considering abstinence as a plan, just like it would be for anyone else.

I think I've worked out the sexual incompatibility thing though. I think that's where one libido is significantly higher than the other. That is not something you can tell just by talking before hand. And as it happened, that was probably a major problem with my relationship. Without that problem, other tensions wouldn't have arisen and she probably wouldn't have broken up with me. Ergo, we'd have gotten married, and all of that **** would have happened a year into the marriage. Not cool.

Hmm. An interesting possibility. I admit to not having had enough long-term relationships with different people to know how problematic it is. Also, I'm on the exceptionally flexible end with respect to frequency of sex. I will eventually notice if there isn't any for a long time, but apart from that, I'm too inattentive to have strong feelings. Typical for type, I guess.

 

[justaman]

People in homosexual relationships almost always cheat.

[sign]Huh?[/sign]

The social context? Of what? Committing to one person for a lifetime? I'm offended.

You're offended. You're offended by the suggestion that people might not like marriage. You're offended by something which has got nothing to do with you....but you have no qualms about saying....

People in homosexual relationships almost always cheat.

Riiiiiiiight.

 

[aeroz19]

Could you give a more concrete number here than "almost always"? Also, distinguish between "cheat" and "have relationships allowing multiple partners". There's a meaningful distinction there.

In fact, like most people spouting rhetoric without sources or study, you're making a gross error, which is to take studies of the behavior of a very narrowly defined group, and generalize. For reference, the lowest rate of infidelity among people in relationships is that of lesbians, most of whom never cheat. The majority of straight people who get married cheat on their spouses. The infidelity rate among gay men is, of necessity, less than twice that of straight men, because you can't have a rate of twice 60%.

Wrong, gays cheat more than any other group.

No. The social context of signing up for tax and health benefits with no intention whatsoever of committing for a lifetime. I have known people who chose to express their commitment by refusing to "get married", and honestly, I think they've shown more commitment in doing so than most people who get married fresh out of high school ever do.

Getting married is the ultimate example of committment; this is backward thinking.

Simply false. Most married people cheat. People who make commitments and consciously decide to reject the social norms are very likely to be making a careful and considered decision to commit, and they are comparatively unlikely to cheat or break up.

Most married people cheat? Tell that to my parents and my church.

If lots of married couples cheat, it's because they're simply continuing their tradition of unconfined, uncontrolled sex that they had before marriage.

 

[justaman]

Hmm. An interesting possibility. I admit to not having had enough long-term relationships with different people to know how problematic it is. Also, I'm on the exceptionally flexible end with respect to frequency of sex. I will eventually notice if there isn't any for a long time, but apart from that, I'm too inattentive to have strong feelings. Typical for type, I guess.

Quite.

Surely a good idea for a person susceptible to the emotive influences of sex would be to get into this relationship for a long time and then make the relationship a sexual one for a period of time before signing on the dotted line?

 

[justaman]

Wrong, gays cheat more than any other group.

Produce some figures showing that homosexual men and women who enter into agreed monogamous relationships cheat more than heterosexual men and women or else cease this deplorable display of hate-mongering.

 

[seebs]

Wrong, gays cheat more than any other group.

I believe the standing rule is that we are asked to cite sources. Any source which doesn't distinguish between gay men and lesbians is immediately very questionable. Furthermore, that omits the possibility that, just as some straight people are much more promiscuous than average, and others much less, that gay people may be reasonably divided into groups along cultural lines, with some groups more or less promiscuous than others.

Getting married is the ultimate example of committment; this is backward thinking.

Getting married in a culture where most marriages stay together and are faithful is a kind of commitment. In our culture, it's starting to look more like planning in advance to fail.

Most married people cheat? Tell that to my parents and my church.

Gladly. By phone or snail mail?

It's not exactly news. Most married people cheat. Indeed, most Christian married people cheat. Most of them keep it hush-hush; after all, most other Christians would look down on them for it, including (oddly enough) the ones who have also cheated.

If lots of married couples cheat, it's because they're simply continuing their tradition of unconfined, uncontrolled sex that they had before marriage.

Entirely false. People who had no premarital sex still cheat on their spouses, fairly often. Indeed, they are in some ways at higher risk; they are more likely to be curious about what other people are like.

 

[seebs]

Quite.

Surely a good idea for a person susceptible to the emotive influences of sex would be to get into this relationship for a long time and then make the relationship a sexual one for a period of time before signing on the dotted line?

You might think... But in many cases, the "trial" of having a sexual component to the relationship would be uncomfortable for such people. They might be happier signing on the dotted line, and accepting whatever comes.

Keep in mind, for some people, a very satisfying emotional relationship with mediocre sex is WAYYY better than breaking up. My wife could be pretty bad in bed and I'd still happily stay with her.

 

[aeroz19]

Source: http://www.metrokc.gov/health/APU/epi/epistats.htm

Residents of King County, WA who have AIDS:

Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM): 72%

Heterosexual: 7%

Looks like lots of cheating is going on, there.

 

[seebs]

Source: http://www.metrokc.gov/health/APU/epi/epistats.htm

Residents of King County, WA who have AIDS:

Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM): 72%

Heterosexual: 7%

Looks like lots of cheating is going on, there.

You have rather misunderstood this. The report is not that 72% of gay men have AIDS, but rather, that 72% of the cases reported are in men who have sex with men. This means that, for instance, the intravenous drug users should be counted among the straight victims, etcetera...

But... All you've done is establish that there exists some subset of gay men who are promiscuous. I think everyone knew that. What you haven't done is shown any basis for generalizing to "all gay men", or indeed, come even close to it. That, in the US, AIDS struck hardest among gay men is not news. What's more interesting is ongoing trends in new infections, where the rates are somewhat different. Likewise, consider the worldwide spread of the disease.

In short... You've shown that people who are specifically prohibited from forming legally committed relationships may be less likely to be in them than other people are. Woot.

 

[aeroz19]

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet6.html

 

[seebs]

familyresearchinst

Sorry, but no. Citations to people whose sole purpose is to advance a preselected agenda by picking and choosing which data to report, and which to misrepresent, do not count.

 

[justaman]

You might think... But in many cases, the "trial" of having a sexual component to the relationship would be uncomfortable for such people. They might be happier signing on the dotted line, and accepting whatever comes.

Well that's the risk analysis one must go through right there, I suppose. It seems to me, though, that people doing this would do so because they think there is less of a risk when in fact I'd argue there's more. That's why I think such people are uninformed.

Keep in mind, for some people, a very satisfying emotional relationship with mediocre sex is WAYYY better than breaking up. My wife could be pretty bad in bed and I'd still happily stay with her.

Sure, and that's fine, but I'd still argue these people are necessarily accepting a reduction in potential happiness by insisting on this course of action.

Still, I hear what you're saying. I've started volunteering at the children's hospital here in Brisbane thinking about how awesome I was for being so freaking magnanimous. Then I was talking to the co-ordinator who is this very pretty blonde girl about my age and she just dropped in the middle of the conversation, "Yeah, my boyfriend's a quadriplegic and...." and I suddenly realised quite how selfless some people must be.

 

[The Bellman]

Like I said in another post:

Sex ed reduces STDs and pregnanies (if it incorporates contraceptives).

Abstinence ed reduces sex, and can and does reduce STDs and pregnancies, although it might not be as effective in the latter area as sex ed.

Actually, that's false. Abstinence programs (without safe sex advise) INCREASE STDs and pregnancies.

A lot of you are going to get mad at this response, but I think that those who indulge in sex deserve the consequences. When you break the law, you get punished. When you harm someone or their property, you get punished. When you do something wrong, there is usually a punishment to pay. If you have sex with multiple partners (which is what people do outside marriage or in an affair or in gay relationships), you deserve the consequences.

And if you drive a car and die...it's your fault. You deserve the consequences, right? The idea here is to MINIMISE the possible consequences of the act. Pre-marital sex isn't aganist the law...it's merely against SOME people's morals.

This is the core of the idea of abstinence programs, and it's reprehensible. "Don't do it...and if you DO do it, we're not gonna tell you how to protect yourselves, so if you get a disease or pregnant, we can say 'Ha ha, it's your own fault!'" That's morally abominable. It's saying "there are certain facts which would mean you can undertake a certain activity with greater safety...but we don't think anyone should undertake that activity, so we're not gonna tell you what those facts are!" It's blackmail, pure and simple.

The teens in Texas are having just as much sex (actually, probably somewhat less) as the teens in WA, OR, CA, or anywhere. It's just that they're using a lot less condoms. They deserve what they're getting!

They're using a lot less condoms BECAUSE of abstinence programs, rather than sex education programs. Thank good ol' George Bush, who, when he was governor, pushed abstinence programs (a $10 million funding) rather than sex education programs.

People in homosexual relationships almost always cheat.

Any support at all for this allegation?

The social context? Of what? Committing to one person for a lifetime? I'm offended.

The social context of marriage, obviously. You can be offended all you like, but the fact remains that some people (a minority) do not like the social institution of marriage, and bond monogamously without it.

Wrong, gays cheat more than any other group.

Still no supporting evidence...

Getting married is the ultimate example of committment; this is backward thinking.

Nope. Getting married is the ultimate example of committment to YOU - not to everyone.

Most married people cheat? Tell that to my parents and my church.

Actually, repeated surveys show the rate to be abotu 50% for men and %20 for women in the west.

If lots of married couples cheat, it's because they're simply continuing their tradition of unconfined, uncontrolled sex that they had before marriage.

Completely unsupported.

Source: http://www.metrokc.gov/health/APU/epi/epistats.htm

Residents of King County, WA who have AIDS:

Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM): 72%

Heterosexual: 7%

Looks like lots of cheating is going on, there.

Sorry, but that's no evidence at all for cheating, for the simple fact that there is no statistics for the number of homosexuals vs heterosexuals who are in monogamous relationships.

 

[seebs]

Well that's the risk analysis one must go through right there, I suppose. It seems to me, though, that people doing this would do so because they think there is less of a risk when in fact I'd argue there's more. That's why I think such people are uninformed.

The problem is that any weighting of the risk depends substantially on other factors. For instance, it matters how well you are able to communicate with prospective mates. It matters how much emotional investment you will have to have to feel comfortable letting down your barriers enough to have sex, and it matters how much having sex will affect your emotions. It matters how important it is to you to have sex right now, and it matters how important it will be to you in the long run.

Sure, and that's fine, but I'd still argue these people are necessarily accepting a reduction in potential happiness by insisting on this course of action.

Perhaps. But then, they see you as necessarily accepting a reduction in potential happiness by insisting on another.

I think it is reasonably clear that, for some people, the "one sexual relationship in a lifetime, monogamous, and committed" policy is SO much better than the alternatives that any step away from it constitutes "a reduction in potential happiness". Perhaps not a reduction in expected outcomes, but certainly a reduction from the best possible to some less desirable alternative.

Still, I hear what you're saying. I've started volunteering at the children's hospital here in Brisbane thinking about how awesome I was for being so freaking magnanimous. Then I was talking to the co-ordinator who is this very pretty blonde girl about my age and she just dropped in the middle of the conversation, "Yeah, my boyfriend's a quadriplegic and...." and I suddenly realised quite how selfless some people must be.

And yet, to her, it's probably not especially selfless; most people don't do anything they see as especially selfless. Different people may have very different desires out of a relationship. If he's interesting to talk to, she may be a very happy woman indeed.

Let me put this in a bit of perspective. My wife and I were talking about two of her books, and we've always suspected that, perhaps, these books might be happening in the same world, just at different times. Well, we finally realized a reason for it. We realized that the one book, which was written long before the other, is almost perfectly adapted to being a side-plot in a major ongoing plot point of the newer book. We were discussing this over ICQ, and the conversation spent about 10 minutes with most of the things said being exclamations.

(01:05:30) Jesse: Oh my. This is... neat.
(01:05:49) Jesse: Wanna wanna play in this pool of shinies!
(01:06:20) seebachp: Everything ties together SO NEATLY.

But... We're both abstract thinkers. For us, a conversation like that is probably better than most sex. Even pretty good sex. I would never in a million years trade conversations for sex. Obviously, this has impacts on which relationship strategies might work for me. If I find someone to be really fun to talk to, I don't care whether or not we're "sexually compatible"; I'll adapt, but I'd hate to let good conversations get away from me.

 

[justaman]

But... We're both abstract thinkers. For us, a conversation like that is probably better than most sex. Even pretty good sex. I would never in a million years trade conversations for sex. Obviously, this has impacts on which relationship strategies might work for me. If I find someone to be really fun to talk to, I don't care whether or not we're "sexually compatible"; I'll adapt, but I'd hate to let good conversations get away from me.

I'm not going to lie to you, this does sound pretty healthy. And certainly, I'm more or less convinced I'm never getting married because frankly, I could never settle down with anyone who didn't connect intellectually with me and I just don't see that happening.

But my problem is that if I see a very attractive girl, I feel a pang of desire. It doesn't matter if I know she is the dumbest thing on two legs, I want that ace. I have realised this and told myself countless times it would be better if I didn't desire such a woman, since they are generally unatainable and they almost certainly wouldn't fulfil my important intellectual criteria, but I can't stop desiring them.

Thus I have flings and court the pretty girls without ever needing to consider them for a long term thing. It's compromise, I guess. Eh, I don't even know what this means for my argument anymore.

 

[seebs]

I'm not going to lie to you, this does sound pretty healthy. And certainly, I'm more or less convinced I'm never getting married because frankly, I could never settle down with anyone who didn't connect intellectually with me and I just don't see that happening.

A familiar problem. Believe me, I felt the same way for a long time. I was totally shocked to discover that there existed, however rarely, people I could really connect with.

Thus I have flings and court the pretty girls without ever needing to consider them for a long term thing. It's compromise, I guess. Eh, I don't even know what this means for my argument anymore.

I don't know either. Honestly, to me, it doesn't sound like a very good thing, for you or for the pretty girls... While they may like the attention, how do you think it affects them to be seen a little less as people, and a little more as bodies? Probably not well.

I think in a way you've wandered away from what you wanted originally; you sound to have given up hope on achieving that perfect union. So, in this respect, I think you may be worse off even than people whose abstinence plans are ill-considered. They may get lucky; I'm not sure you're still trying.

I generally recommend that people keep sex at least to a context of serious emotional involvement... I believe that this insulates against the real danger of deadening or losing the capacity for full emotional involvement. And, believe me, sex-with-love is enough better than sex-without-love to be worth a great deal of sacrifice.

So... This may actually work against your argument.

 

[Nietzsche]

The Silver Ring Thing is being publicised as a health/safety movement, but really it seems to me as being run primarily by a Christian agenda. If you haven't heard of it, it is a program whereby teens specifically go to a seminar/trainnig session/whatever and learn about the evils of pre-marital sex, getting scared with all types of STD statistics (which, it must be said, are generally quite accurate and well sourced). At the end of the seminar, they receive a silver ring that they wear on their wedding finger and sign a vow of absitenence until they are married.

There may be some pros for this. Possibly. But to me, it just seems to be advocating sexual repression. It is my opinion that sexual immaturity is on of the biggest reasons why so many first-time marriages fail. It's like trying to compete in the olympics without ever having trained and expecting not to lose.

I may be in the minority though...

This is both good and bad. its good because its stop poor people from reproducing which is good and helping to stop young people from having kids. How ever its bad because its brainwashing people into seeing one thing and not allowign people to make there own choices but then again thats christianity in a nut shell and people like that.

 

[waterbear]

The Silver Ring Thing is being publicised as a health/safety movement, but really it seems to me as being run primarily by a Christian agenda. If you haven't heard of it, it is a program whereby teens specifically go to a seminar/trainnig session/whatever and learn about the evils of pre-marital sex, getting scared with all types of STD statistics (which, it must be said, are generally quite accurate and well sourced). At the end of the seminar, they receive a silver ring that they wear on their wedding finger and sign a vow of absitenence until they are married.

There may be some pros for this. Possibly. But to me, it just seems to be advocating sexual repression. It is my opinion that sexual immaturity is on of the biggest reasons why so many first-time marriages fail. It's like trying to compete in the olympics without ever having trained and expecting not to lose.

I may be in the minority though...

I would say that sex should be repressed until marriage. Any behavior should be repressed if it will do harm. Sex before marriage is, and I haven't really had anyone argue otherwise, infidelity if you don't happen to marry that person. Why not be faithful to the person with whom you plan on having children with? I cannot see how that would hurt the marriage - only strengthen it as you have been faithful to your marriage partner long before you actually met him/her. Additionally, sex with only your marriage partner improves the intimacy of the marriage - intimacy is based on exclusion and the ability to share everything with you marriage partner. Does you marriage partner want to hear about your prior infidelity?

 

[seebs]

Sex before marriage is, and I haven't really had anyone argue otherwise, infidelity if you don't happen to marry that person.

I'll argue that. Can't break a promise you haven't made yet, and promises cannot be retroactive.

Why not be faithful to the person with whom you plan on having children with?

I am, but that has nothing to do with what I did before we made our vows.