Premarital Sex - Does it have moral implications?

erika · Nov 27, 2006

I am very curious as to everyone's opinion on this two-part question. First, do we as societies (whichever you're part of) attach moral labels to premarital sex and if so, why? Are the taboos (if there are taboos)religiously motivated and why would religions characterize premarital sex as bad?

I know, a tough one.

SpookyWriter · Nov 27, 2006

I don't believe premarital sex is a bad thing. Before religion people had sex to procreate the species called human.

Shadow_Ferret · Nov 27, 2006

Personally, I think the whole concept of pre-marital sex is kind of an outmoded idea. Marriage isn't the revered institution is was 100 or even 50 years ago. Since the advent of Women's Lib, Playboy, increased incidents of divorce, Woodstock and Free Love, that all fell by the way side.

Say your eulegies and lets get on with life.

aghast · Nov 27, 2006

its sad that in 2006 in a highly developed society that people still care and scrutinize what two consenting adults do in their bedrooms (i am not talking about adultery here, just premarital sex) its sad to make 'marriage' such as big thing and then not let some people have it

jbal · Nov 27, 2006

But we already are married! Or did you mean to each other?

erika · Nov 27, 2006

Okay, so there's no moral baggage with it. At least, that's what I'm hearing from everyone. What about promiscuity? Is that condemnable by any standard? Again, not advancing a point. Trying to understand varied mindsets.

TrainofThought · Nov 27, 2006

I don’t attach a moral label on premarital sex, but I do put limitations and apply reasons to the action. This applies to me and anyone I might consider.

SpookyWriter · Nov 27, 2006

erika said:
Okay, so there's no moral baggage with it. At least, that's what I'm hearing from everyone. What about promiscuity? Is that condemnable by any standard? Again, not advancing a point. Trying to understand varied mindsets.

Define promiscuity.

jbal · Nov 27, 2006

I have too many friends who ended up stuck for life with less than desirable partners because they had kids. I've always been very picky, but not for moral reasons, just because I don't need a lot of hassle. And good women are hard to find. (Yes,yes, men too, I know.)

SpookyWriter · Nov 27, 2006

TrainofThought said:
I don’t attach a moral label on premarital sex, but I do put limitations on it. This is applies to me and anyone I might consider.

Watch out folks, you could be next.

aghast · Nov 27, 2006

live and let live - the only people who should care about what the others are doing with their sex lives are the ones involved - partners spouses etc - everyone else should just butt out - but to answer the question, yes, i think people do have value judgment especially on those who do not confirm to their ideas of 'good behaviors" - we have all kinds of ugly names to call others, tramp, loose, whore, nympho, and i think its the name callers who are stupid

erika · Nov 27, 2006

Promiscuity defined? Here's the "fun" definition - promiscuity is sleeping with someone whose last name you never asked and you'll never know.

aadams73 · Nov 27, 2006

I had some really fantastic pre-marital sex. I don't regret any of it.

But I also believe in "sowing your wild oats" when you're young, so if you do get married/commited/whateveryouwanttocallit, you won't be sitting around wishing you'd had more sex with other people and wondering what it would be like.

Let Jessica Simpson be a cautionary tale, folks. And practise safe-sex.

aghast · Nov 27, 2006

thats called anonymous sex and trust me it could be fun but risky but people do risky things all the time like jumping off a cliff with only a rope on your ankles but guess what people can do waht they want as long as they can live with the consequences

Shadow_Ferret · Nov 27, 2006

As far as promiscuity, I would like to think we've advanced further than thinking that women who sleep around are tramps and men who do it are just sowing their oats.

If you enjoy sex you enjoy sex. What's wrong with that?

If you enjoy sex and don't use protection in this day and age, then you're stupid, but there's nothing wrong with enjoying sex.

MajorDrums · Nov 27, 2006

I have too many friends who ended up stuck for life with less than desirable partners because they had kids. I've always been very picky, but not for moral reasons, just because I don't need a lot of hassle. And good men are hard to find. (Yes, yes, women too, I know.)

badducky · Nov 27, 2006

Personal life choices aside, our society has seen an increasing separation between the actions we enjoy, and the consequences of those actions.

Thus, we can take diet pills and heart pills, and/or go get surgery, and "fix" our desire to eat rich, fattening foods like gluttons. Also, we have separated the act of sex from the natural result through various procreative inhibitors.

Mankind has toyed with all kinds of birth control -- including abortion -- since the dawn of time just as we have with all kinds of cosmetics and body-alterations to change our nature. The only sudden occurance we've seen in recent history is that science brought them out of the seedy back alleys and into the laboratories. Science made them work really good.

The true question, to me, involves choosing whether separating the ecstatic action (sex, gluttony, etc.) from nature's biological results is either a bad thing or a good thing.

So, do you think separating our species from our primal biology is bad or good?

If you know me -- and many of you do -- you'll know what I think on this issue.

Bravo · Nov 27, 2006

Shadow_Ferret said:
As far as promiscuity, I would like to think we've advanced further than thinking that women who sleep around are tramps and men who do it are just sowing their oats.

If you enjoy sex you enjoy sex. What's wrong with that?

If you enjoy sex and don't use protection in this day and age, then you're stupid, but there's nothing wrong with enjoying sex.

i love this argument.

it's so wrong and yet it's perpetuated so often in society.

sex is simply more expensive for women.

the average female produces 10-15 dozen eggs w/in a 15-20 year fertility period.

men produce about 14 gallons of sperm their entire lives, and can still remain reproductively viable at an old age.

furthermore, as any 5 year old knows, mommy's carry babies, not daddies. and if the person doesnt want to have a baby, women are the ones who have to deal w abortion &/or the morning after pill.

and finally, women are at a higher risk for STDs than men b/c the vagina is more prone to bacteria/viral infection than the penis.

so no, having a double standard w/ regards to sex is not illogical or ancient.

thinking that b/c men are able to sleep around (even when they shouldnt either) automatically means women should be able to sleep around is just nonsense.

robeiae · Nov 27, 2006

badducky said:
Personal life choices aside, our society has seen an increasing separation between the actions we enjoy, and the consequences of those actions.

Bingo.

SpookyWriter · Nov 27, 2006

erika said:
Promiscuity defined? Here's the "fun" definition - promiscuity is sleeping with someone whose last name you never asked and you'll never know.

Does that include dream lovers?

WerenCole · Nov 27, 2006

I am going straight toHell.. .

For other reasons than this though. .

Shadow_Ferret · Nov 27, 2006

Bravo said:
i love this argument.

What argument?

People enjoy sex. What's there to argue about?

badducky · Nov 27, 2006

Shadow_Ferret said:
If you enjoy sex and don't use protection in this day and age, then you're stupid, but there's nothing wrong with enjoying sex.

Ethically-speaking, it is quite possible that one can be both "smart" and "unethical", as well as "stupid" and "ethical".

It is stupid to engage in unprotected sex if you do not desire children. It is also smart to use protection to prevent children.

It is potentially unethical to engage in protected sex because it is an act contrary to the design of our biological nature. We are cheating nature. Beware that nature might not take her pound of flesh in return. (edit: I know the wording here sounds severe, unintentionally. I had actually considered a second paragraph, but chose not to unnecessarily illuminate the opposing side. Ultimately, this is one of those moral choices that is usually made in the heat of a moment, and not in a stoic resolve. personally, i think it makes the issue a heck of a lot more fun to explore because of it...)

Also, as to the original poster's titular question, every action has moral implications. Every single one. Whether you are chewing gum, or walking down the street, or killing someone.

Shadow_Ferret · Nov 27, 2006

I wasn't speaking about children. I was speaking about disease. Unprotected sex leads to disease, very deadly disease.

SpookyWriter · Nov 27, 2006

Shadow_Ferret said:
What argument?

People enjoy sex. What's there to argue about?

Yeah, but then you have to wake up the next morning and actually talk to the person lying next to you. Or do you?

Premarital Sex - Does it have moral implications?

erika

SpookyWriter

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester

aghast

jbal

erika

TrainofThought

A flowering bud of bitchiness

SpookyWriter

jbal

SpookyWriter

aghast

erika

aadams73

A Work in Progress

aghast

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester

MajorDrums

Kidnapper

badducky

No Time For Chitchat, Kemosabe.

Bravo

Socialitest

robeiae

Touch and go

SpookyWriter

WerenCole

Funny what? Do I amuse you?

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester

badducky

No Time For Chitchat, Kemosabe.

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester

SpookyWriter