PDA

View Full Version : Premarital Sex - Does it have moral implications?



erika
11-27-2006, 10:31 PM
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
11-27-2006, 10:34 PM
I don't believe premarital sex is a bad thing. Before religion people had sex to procreate the species called human.

Shadow_Ferret
11-27-2006, 10:35 PM
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
11-27-2006, 10:36 PM
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
11-27-2006, 10:36 PM
But we already are married! Or did you mean to each other?

erika
11-27-2006, 10:41 PM
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
11-27-2006, 10:42 PM
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
11-27-2006, 10:42 PM
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
11-27-2006, 10:43 PM
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
11-27-2006, 10:43 PM
I donít 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. :D

aghast
11-27-2006, 10:45 PM
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
11-27-2006, 10:46 PM
Promiscuity defined? Here's the "fun" definition - promiscuity is sleeping with someone whose last name you never asked and you'll never know.

aadams73
11-27-2006, 10:47 PM
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
11-27-2006, 10:48 PM
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
11-27-2006, 10:49 PM
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
11-27-2006, 10:50 PM
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
11-27-2006, 10:52 PM
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
11-27-2006, 10:59 PM
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 (http://www.nawtythings.com/penis.html) 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
11-27-2006, 11:01 PM
Personal life choices aside, our society has seen an increasing separation between the actions we enjoy, and the consequences of those actions.Bingo.

SpookyWriter
11-27-2006, 11:01 PM
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
11-27-2006, 11:01 PM
I am going straight toHell.. .


For other reasons than this though. .

Shadow_Ferret
11-27-2006, 11:02 PM
i love this argument.


What argument?

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

badducky
11-27-2006, 11:03 PM
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
11-27-2006, 11:05 PM
I wasn't speaking about children. I was speaking about disease. Unprotected sex leads to disease, very deadly disease.

SpookyWriter
11-27-2006, 11:05 PM
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?

Jongfan
11-27-2006, 11:06 PM
It all comes down to PERSONAL choices. Often we worry too much of what others think. Of course some things will always be taboo to some while others are more relaxed.

Pre-marital sex is often a good thing. Would you hop behind the controls of an aircraft without taking lessons first?

As for promiscuity, there are degrees of course. Wilt Chamberlain was promiscuous. Paris Hilton is curious. All those in between are just living their lives.

erika
11-27-2006, 11:11 PM
Who said anything about waking up in the morning?

Bravo
11-27-2006, 11:13 PM
Pre-marital sex is often a good thing. Would you hop behind the controls of an aircraft without taking lessons first?

i think that's the first time ive seen sex compared to learning how to fly an aircraft. :)



As for promiscuity, there are degrees of course. Wilt Chamberlain was promiscuous. Paris Hilton is curious. All those in between are just living their lives.

in the dictionary, promiscuous is simply defined as paris hilton.

and my dictionary plays the nelly furtado song along w it.

erika
11-27-2006, 11:14 PM
This is an interesting thread because if you ask a Christian this question, you'll get a unanimous, "premarital sex is a sin". I'm curious as to why there is often such a disparity in moral interpretation. But that's a whole other matter.

jbal
11-27-2006, 11:16 PM
I can't imagine marrying someone without having sex with them first. In fact, I think living together is a good idea. There's plenty of lifestyle adjustment after marriage without the problem of not really knowing your spouse well beforehand. And I consider myself a Christian.

jbal
11-27-2006, 11:19 PM
Let me add to this that the majority of all sex that occurs is premarital.

robeiae
11-27-2006, 11:20 PM
This is an interesting thread because if you ask a Christian this question, you'll get a unanimous, "premarital sex is a sin". I'm curious as to why there is often such a disparity in moral interpretation. But that's a whole other matter.I beg to differ. Please don't assume you can categorize all Christians into a convenient group of dogmatics.

Your question was about pre-marital sex in general, not about pre-marital sex through the prism of one's religion. I can freely seperate my religion from this discussion, as can many other Christians, I am sure.

SpookyWriter
11-27-2006, 11:23 PM
Who said anything about waking up in the morning?So what you're saying is that sex kills?

Shadow_Ferret
11-27-2006, 11:24 PM
i think that's the first time ive seen sex compared to learning how to fly an aircraft. :)


You must have missed Erica Jong's "Fear of Flying." ;)

Jongfan
11-27-2006, 11:26 PM
You must have missed Erica Jong's "Fear of Flying." ;)

Exactly

Bravo
11-27-2006, 11:26 PM
You must have missed Erica Jong's "Fear of Flying." ;)

lol.

who woulda thunk she wrote a book called that.

wow, im outta the loop.

badducky
11-27-2006, 11:49 PM
This is an interesting thread because if you ask a Christian this question, you'll get a unanimous, "premarital sex is a sin". I'm curious as to why there is often such a disparity in moral interpretation. But that's a whole other matter.

you didn't get that from me, did you?

And my response was -- I hope -- a little more thoughtful as to the way the church (mine, at least) interprets the matter.

Hm...

erika
11-27-2006, 11:52 PM
I beg to differ. Please don't assume you can categorize all Christians into a convenient group of dogmatics.

Your question was about pre-marital sex in general, not about pre-marital sex through the prism of one's religion. I can freely seperate my religion from this discussion, as can many other Christians, I am sure.

I'm curious. Are you separating your moral code from your Christian faith? Are they intertwined and does one influence the other? In most cases, the morality is derived from the religion or could it be that religion stems from an already engrained moral code? That's what I'm wondering.

Shadow_Ferret
11-27-2006, 11:55 PM
That's what I thought. That Man's morality is a direct extension of his religious beliefs.

badducky
11-28-2006, 12:12 AM
You're confusing "Morality" with "Ethics".

They are two different things, after all, even if you remove the word "religion" and replace it with the more appropriate term of "ethics".

aghast
11-28-2006, 12:13 AM
What argument?

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

we all know sex is all about procreation so women shouldnt enjoy sex unless they are ready to have babies and they shouldnt waste their limited number of eggs on mindless, condom-enabled sex that does not lead to pregnancy - yeah right

aghast
11-28-2006, 12:17 AM
I'm curious. Are you separating your moral code from your Christian faith? Are they intertwined and does one influence the other? In most cases, the morality is derived from the religion or could it be that religion stems from an already engrained moral code? That's what I'm wondering.

what christian faith and moral codes are you talking about? those told to you by whom? your clergymen? did god actually speak to you 'thou shalt not f*** anyone until youre married'? sorry, religion in that sense is stupid - and yes, religion could stem from already engrained moral codes and some of them are thousand years old and they are as relic as dinosaurs - lets not eat shellfish on friday - we should all goddamn follow that shouldnt we? while we are at it, i think women should quit all their jobs and follow 10 steps behind their men and children should be killed if they disobey their parents - yeah religion is very clear about that

Shadow_Ferret
11-28-2006, 12:19 AM
You're confusing "Morality" with "Ethics".

They are two different things, after all, even if you remove the word "religion" and replace it with the more appropriate term of "ethics".

What do ethics have to do with sex?

SpookyWriter
11-28-2006, 12:20 AM
what christian faith and moral codes are you talking about? those told to you by whom? your clergymen? did god actually speak to you 'thou shalt not f*** anyone until youre married'? sorry, religion in that sense is stupid - and yes, religion could stem from already engrained moral codes and some of them are thousand years old and they are as relic as dinosaurs - lets not eat shellfish on friday - we should all goddamn follow that shouldnt we?OMG! Is that a law now? I am so screwed. I ate and ate until there weren't any shellfish on my plate. Oh wait, that was last Saturday. I'm good to go now...:tongue

aghast
11-28-2006, 12:20 AM
you should always say thank you after you ate someone out

Bravo
11-28-2006, 12:20 AM
we all know sex is all about procreation so women shouldnt enjoy sex unless they are ready to have babies and they shouldnt waste their limited number of eggs on mindless, condom-enabled sex that does not lead to pregnancy - yeah right

i hope that wasnt somehow directed at what i was saying. b/c:

1) my original post was in reference to the supposed double standard of men as studs, women as sluts.

2) sex doesnt have to be about procreation, but it does have consequences. the consequences can range from emotional to physical. in both ways, there are simply more consequences for women than there are for men.

women will always benefit more from committed relationships b/c it lessens the greater consequences they face w having sex.

if you dont like that conclusion, it's really irrelevant to me until you can back up something that contradicts this.

SpookyWriter
11-28-2006, 12:21 AM
What do ethics have to do with sex?I asked the medical examiner that same question. He didn't have a clue either. Hhahahaaa....:roll:

jbal
11-28-2006, 12:21 AM
Wow, vehement. You're right though, the Bible tells you not to do all kinds of things. Christians though are adherents to the teachings of Christ, which is New Testament and a whole different set of rules even from the Ten Commandments. I'll refer again to John 15:12
"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." (King James version). Nothing about premarital sex there.
ETA:referring to post #42.

SpookyWriter
11-28-2006, 12:22 AM
you should always say thank you after you ate someone outewwww....I'm a vegetarian, thank you.

aghast
11-28-2006, 12:24 AM
if you eat a vegetable without their consent wouldt that be rape

SpookyWriter
11-28-2006, 12:25 AM
Wow, vehement. You're right though, the Bible tells you not to do all kinds of things. Christians though are adherents to the teachings of Christ, which is New Testament and a whole different set of rules even from the Ten Commandments. I'll refer again to John 15:12
"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." (King James version). Nothing about premarital sex there.
ETA:referring to post #42.I ain't into that man-on-man bonding, no matter if he's a king or not. No thanks. I'll stick to my meatless hamburger.

SpookyWriter
11-28-2006, 12:28 AM
if you eat a vegetable without their consent wouldt that be rapeStop it! I hear their screams, pitiful crys, whilst they simmer in my pot. I can't be responsible for my needs of green thingys.

Bravo
11-28-2006, 12:34 AM
Wow, vehement. You're right though, the Bible tells you not to do all kinds of things. Christians though are adherents to the teachings of Christ, which is New Testament and a whole different set of rules even from the Ten Commandments. I'll refer again to John 15:12
"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." (King James version). Nothing about premarital sex there.
ETA:referring to post #42.

except that jesus also said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18)

Scarlett_156
11-28-2006, 12:44 AM
Back in the days before all people were in possession of the knowledge that sex leads to the birth of children, religion was the province mainly of females. Procreation was viewed as a miraculous event, and only the very wise knew that offspring could not occur without sexual congress. (There are still some areas of the world in which this is still the case, by the way, in case you doubt me.)

Once it became generally recognized that it took two people of opposite sexes to create offspring (and not so much an act of God per se) religion started to become the province of males. Now of course hardly anyone knows that women used to control society-- that's how efficiently the religion and government of females has been eradicated. (It's not like I really miss those days, let me add. Human sacrifice gets old after awhile.)

Once men had become the masters of the world, who was whose father became a much more important issue than before. With this came the institution we recognize as marriage, which was something that was only practiced in a ritualistic sense during matriarchal times.

Marriage is a legal contract. It has little to do with religion or morality, and much to do with control of procreation, and ensurance of familial line. This is a pancultural convention which has been sort of grafted onto religion-- because of course the societal control of female procreative powers must extend into every part of life, including the temple, or it won't be truly effective.

Like any tool or weapon, one's generative organs can be used to make others and oneself happy, to show love, and to create a wholesome environment that is conducive to tolerance and cooperation-- or they can be used to create quite an opposite effect, one of harshness, conflict, and insecurity.

It's not who one uses one's genitals on that determines the morality of their use-- it's HOW they are used. You can have sex with only one person in your life and that be your legally wedded spouse, and still create great harm thereby. Conversely, a human being can have sex with many partners and be quite indiscriminate in his or her sexual choices, and do good in the world thereby. Naturally, I recommend against experimentation along either of these lines without a great deal of thought.

I hope this was helpful!

robeiae
11-28-2006, 12:51 AM
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?

This is an interesting thread because if you ask a Christian this question, you'll get a unanimous, "premarital sex is a sin".Look carefully at your first post, then at your generalization about the Christian point of view. Do you see what you did?

You went from asking open-ended questions about society in general to a non-responsive assumption about what a Christian's answer would be.

As to the questions:

Societies are composites of many things. Morality in a society is, by definition, relative to that society. Necessarily, the idea of pre-marital sex will carry a moral judgment (good, bad, indifferent), as will any action that you care to name. Obviously, that judgment will depend greatly on individual opinion in any society where such can be freely expressed (for the most part). However, you can assume that the typical or majority opinion represents a given society's view in this regard, if you so desire. Now, assuming we are talking about a society that views pre-marital sex as bad, the "why" is less about specific religious dogma and more about social structures, with regard to the source of the idea. Pre-marital sex was not good for societies that lacked the structures to deal with the consequences of such, i.e. women forced to raise children on their own. So social norms and institutions develop to help a society function more efficiently over time. Like marriage. Fast forward to the present and this "why" may no longer be functionally true, like now. But the "why" became ingrained in society across time and one of the functions of religion can be to reinforce these kinds of social norms. Hence, "pre-marital sex is proscribed by my religion."


I'm curious. Are you separating your moral code from your Christian faith? Are they intertwined and does one influence the other? In most cases, the morality is derived from the religion or could it be that religion stems from an already ingrained moral code? That's what I'm wondering.Did the above answer these questions?

jbal
11-28-2006, 12:54 AM
except that jesus also said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18)
Ooh, a man who knows his Bible! Very good point. But as long as we're quibbling, Jesus is capitalized.

Really each individual views their own religious beliefs differently, and I think it's important to remember that the Bible was written by people speaking within the context of their time, which was well before modern birth control.

billythrilly7th
11-28-2006, 01:13 AM
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 (http://www.nawtythings.com/penis.html) 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.

SHHHHHH!!!!

What is wrong with you?

Let girls think it's just as okay for god's sakes.

You'll be recieving a very strongly worded PM from me on this issue.

NeuroFizz
11-28-2006, 01:15 AM
Ever since the development of the birth control pill, and its resulting emotional as well as physical decoupling (pun intended) of sex and reproduction, societal moralism on the subject has devolved with a dramatic leap. What I regret is that individuals should hold personal moral stands on this issue (this is where religions come in, but are not necessary), and it seems to me, many people don't give it a thought. What was once a societal instructional issue (through mores and peer pressure - what would the neighbors think type of thing) is now a familial instructional issue, and many families are failing in teaching some form of personal morality on this issue to their children. Many parents are actually doing the opposite via their actions. Admittedly, familial instruction will vary widely based on family background, religious preference (if any), and a number of other factors. If we want to make this really an interesting (possibly circular) argument, we can discuss the breakdown of the family structure in terms of the impact of decreasing societal morality. Maybe an example of a positive feedback loop?

Medievalist
11-28-2006, 01:22 AM
Back in the days before all people were in possession of the knowledge that sex leads to the birth of children, religion was the province mainly of females.

This is historically inaccurate in the extreme.

TrainofThought
11-28-2006, 01:36 AM
Iím laughing at the menís responses other than Neurofizz.

Shadow_Ferret
11-28-2006, 01:38 AM
Iím laughing at the menís responses other than Neurofizz.

Why? Which? Who?

whistlelock
11-28-2006, 01:45 AM
premarital sex as a sin is an idea created by various religions in an attempt to control it's population.

TrainofThought
11-28-2006, 02:00 AM
Why? Which? Who?Some are funny, some reek of chauvinism and some are anti-religion. All of them made me laugh for one reason or another.

Shadow_Ferret
11-28-2006, 02:00 AM
premarital sex as a sin is an idea created by various religions in an attempt to control it's population.
I thought it was all so we wouldn't enjoy ourselves. The whole Puritan attitude that if it's enjoyable it must be a sin.

billythrilly7th
11-28-2006, 02:05 AM
I think it's important to remember that the Bible was written by people speaking within the context of their time, which was well before modern birth control.

Yes. Like Chris Rock talking about how back then a piece of pork will kill you so...

Matthew 3:18: Don't eat pork! Just say no.


(God, just in case the bible and all that was your literal divine doing and I shouldn't be listening to modern day stand up comedians for interpretation, I'm sorry. Love, Billy. holla back)

Opty
11-28-2006, 02:32 AM
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.

No offense at all meant, but your questions seem intentionally naive.

Of course there is "moral baggage" attached to fornication, that is, it is attached to those people whose morals dictate that fornication is wrong. And, morals can be based on religion or they can not be. Morality is not an exclusively religious construct.

Is it "wrong" for everyone? Depends on your point of view. If you follow the edicts of a particular religion, and that religion says that fornication (or whatever) is wrong, then in your view, it is wrong for all people.

If you believe that fornication is wrong, then it is wrong for you and everyone else (in your eyes). If you don't believe it is wrong, then it is not wrong for you or anyone else (in your eyes).

Promiscuity is fornication, so if your morals (religious or otherwise) say that it is wrong, then it is wrong.

It's simple, really.

Also, people's "morals" are not always dictated by religion. So, fornication could be morally wrong to a person and it not have anything at all to do with his/her religious views. That person might not be religious at all.

Is behavior like this condemnable? Again, it depends on what your morals are. Some believe it is, some don't.

TsukiRyoko
11-28-2006, 02:39 AM
Yes, as a society, we attach many moral labels to things like premarital sex. If you don't have sex until you're married, you're a "good" person, and if you have premarital sex, you're a slut. Luckily, the standards are changing in modern times, but it still holds very strongly to the last few generations.

Yes the taboos are religiously motivated (they're ONLY religiously motivated) and premarital sex is considered bad because the old religious upholders were pricks. It was originally only upheld for the women to follow, so that the men can have a "prize" when they finally decide to settle down. It's follows the idea of obtaining a reward when you do what's "right" in a way, and it's an extremely old belief (centuries old) that has gone WAY past its expiration date.

Scarlett_156
11-28-2006, 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlett_156
Back in the days before all people were in possession of the knowledge that sex leads to the birth of children, religion was the province mainly of females.


This is historically inaccurate in the extreme.
Lol, no it's not! It's just that there's little evidence of such left in the world today. Hardly anyone knows it. There is a great deal of historical evidence that supports this, if one knows where to look. As well, a great many myths are made much easier in interpretation if one takes this into account. Please read "The Golden Bough" by Frazer and an excellent and well-researched book "The White Goddess" by R. Graves.

Men did not always rule the world, and it was not always such a big deal who your daddy was-- and people didn't used to associate sex with procreation. In the bible, that is how Jacob takes advantage of Laban; by careful observation he realizes that spotted goats dads make spotted goat babies; Laban doesn't know that, so Jacob takes advantage of him.

Medievalist
11-28-2006, 03:05 AM
Lol, no it's not! It's just that there's little evidence of such left in the world today. Hardly anyone knows it. There is a great deal of historical evidence that supports this, if one knows where to look. As well, a great many myths are made much easier in interpretation if one takes this into account. Please read "The Golden Bough" by Frazer and an excellent and well-researched book "The White Goddess" by R. Graves.

Both books are widely regarded as, well, folklore at best. Look, neither Graves nor Frazer are scholars; Graves is a super novelist, a decent poet, and an OK translator of Latin, but his Greek is not up to snuff.

Frazer is in no way a scholar. He has even less linguistic ability, and hence ability to deal with primary sources, than Graves, and a total inability to get his facts straight. He's sort of the National Enquirer for the Victorian gentleman.

Both make claims in particular about the ancient Celts that, quite frankly, are crap. Graves in particular is a twit; he's mucking about with languages he doesn't know, at all, and making incredibly bone headed translation errors. He frequently just makes stuff up; he wasn't presenting the book as anything more than his own attempt to understand his own muse, and he later abandoned the book altogether.

Lest you mistake me, I'm not talking out of my hat, particularly with respect to ancient Celtic cultures. I've done my time with respect to early I.E. and Near Eastern languages; Graves and Frazer are way off, as are the claims of a universal "mother goddess." There wasn't one.


Men did not always rule the world, and it was not always such a big deal who your daddy was

You show me a documented martriarchal versus a matrifocal (and even that's in doubt) or matrilineal culture and I'll eat my hat. You're not going to find one that's accepted by any genuine scholar; there isn't one to be found.

robeiae
11-28-2006, 03:06 AM
Some are funny, some reek of chauvinism and some are anti-religion. All of them made me laugh for one reason or another.
I can't see how what I said is particularly funny. Nor did I say anything negative about religion. That leaves me reeking of chauvinism, I guess. I'd like some help finding the source of that smell, if you please.

Really, it's kind of bad manners to generalize about a group of posters, when your conclusions are less than flattering. I can only speak for myself, of course.

SpookyWriter
11-28-2006, 03:10 AM
You peeps are waaaaayyyyy too serious. Sex is like popping the cork on a bottle of cheap champaign. The bubbles only last for a couple of minutes and then it's flat.

jbal
11-28-2006, 03:11 AM
You're probably not doing it right.

SpookyWriter
11-28-2006, 03:16 AM
You're probably not doing it right.I ain't doing it at all, so it's got to be right.

ETAL: I need sex or a woman like I need hole in my head. I have a goal of writing, work (make money), family, and retire on the coast of Spain in five or so years. Doinking someone who will bleed me later for money ain't in my long term plans.

Ha!

jbal
11-28-2006, 03:17 AM
This is true of everyone, IMo.

*runs to duck the tomatoes form the ladies*

robeiae
11-28-2006, 03:41 AM
...and it was not always such a big deal who your daddy was-- and people didn't used to associate sex with procreation...Nah. That's always been a pretty big deal. Archeologically speaking, family units are evident as far back as we can go. And I think people have understood the relationship between sex and babies since just about day one, regardless of which calendar you're using.

robeiae
11-28-2006, 03:41 AM
You peeps are waaaaayyyyy too serious. Sex is like popping the cork on a bottle of cheap champaign. The bubbles only last for a couple of minutes and then it's flat.Flatulent mime.

Alan Yee
11-28-2006, 03:47 AM
In a few years, when I'm older and start looking for my very special person, I'll probably have to deal with two taboos: premarital sex (because my state at this moment won't let gay people marry, so until things change, it will forever remain premarital) and of course, just the fact of being gay. I do consider myself a Christian, though some people may say I'm not one if I believe being gay is perfectly fine.

If I do sleep with a man, we can't possibly get each other pregnant, but there's still the chance of spreading STDs. That's where the protected sex comes in. Of course, there's people who believe being gay is wrong, or that any sex that happens without the intention of procreating is wrong. So when I do start looking for my guy, I'll be having to deal with at least two or three taboos at once.

So no matter what, I would be breaking lots of "morals." And that really really sucks.

Bravo
11-28-2006, 04:51 AM
Ever since the development of the birth control pill, and its resulting emotional as well as physical decoupling (pun intended) of sex and reproduction, societal moralism on the subject has devolved with a dramatic leap. What I regret is that individuals should hold personal moral stands on this issue (this is where religions come in, but are not necessary), and it seems to me, many people don't give it a thought.....

so let's keep religion out of this & speak strictly of the scientific and sociological aspects of it.

even w the development of birth control and safer abortions, there are still a host of emotional & physical implications w/ sex.

as sexually active adults know, sex doesnt go as planned. in the heat of the moment, ppl might not be as prone to pull out a condom, or they might get bored w it during the course of the night, or they simply would not put it on right (and let's not mention how much less effective it is w/out a spermicide, which most ppl do not use).

this gets worse the younger the sexually active individual is.

the consequences for sex are still very real. even w the rise of safe sex. w/in the last 40 years, STDs & unwanted pregnancies, not only continue to rise, but they are affecting younger and younger ppl.

then there is the emotional implications.

ppl can try to have sex just to get off, but, as corny as it sounds, there's a reason why it's called "making love". whether this is just b/c our neurotransmitters are providing us w feeling of elation and happiness or there is some other reason ppl feel emotionally connected after sex.

many times, we convince ourselves that we love some1 we know is not good for us, simply b/c we lust after them, i.e. want to sleep w them.

the problem occurs when the relationship(s) doesnt work. in order to "move on" the person often times, convinces him/herself that the feelings werent as intense as they thought & they numb themselves from the pain of being emotionally attached to some1 who wasnt right.

and i will say, once again, that those emotional & physical implications are simply more severe/intense for women.

Bravo
11-28-2006, 05:02 AM
SHHHHHH!!!!

What is wrong with you?

Let girls think it's just as okay for god's sakes.

You'll be recieving a very strongly worded PM from me on this issue.

lol.

but no more negative rep points from you for this.

the thing is, no strings attached sex is the greatest thing ever for some men.

it's like: "now i can sleep w you and i dont have to call back? awesome. where the hell were you in high school?"

in the cost benefit analysis, its men who end up the winners w NSA sex.

women simply have more at stake w their sexual partners, and therefore, sex. and denying that, or trying to stop ppl from saying this by yelling "chauvanism" arent going to change those biological facts of life.

veinglory
11-28-2006, 05:09 AM
I don't think you can say that in an absolute sense. A sociopathic woman with a hysterectomy, for example, is at no more risk than a man of negative outcomes from sex. A non-romantic women with birthcontrol will be less effected than a sensitive new age metrosexual.

Gender difference are rarely absolute with all men being A and all women being B. I know plenty of 'ladettes' suffering no apparent ill effects (now hitting their forties)

Bravo
11-28-2006, 05:30 AM
I don't think you can say that in an absolute sense. A sociopathic woman with a hysterectomy, for example, is at no more risk than a man of negative outcomes from sex.

well, the reality is that every single statement has an exception - im sure there's even an exception to that. :)

but point taken.



A non-romantic women with birthcontrol will be less effected than a sensitive new age metrosexual.

im not sure if that's really true.

although, i have to wonder about any individual, male or female, who is able to be emotionally detached from sex, the simple fact is, women work harder than men to achieve an orgasm and therefore its likely that they might (this is my own speculation) place a higher value to it.

but outside of that, there is still the fact that there is a literal ticking clock w/ women, and delaying that biological urge by refusing to commit and engaging in casual sexual satisfication will inhibit their ability to procreate and possibly lead to greater dissatisfaction.



Gender difference are rarely absolute with all men being A and all women being B. I know plenty of 'ladettes' suffering no apparent ill effects (now hitting their forties)

like i said, i wonder about any1 who detaches themselves, or emotionally restricts themselves during and after sex.

aghast
11-28-2006, 06:16 AM
they certainly are emotionally involved in a sense that they enjoy the sex act but i doubt that being emotonally attached to the person they have sex with is a requirement and i know plenty of people men and women alike who dont get emotionally attached at all with their sex partners - its purely entertainment

CBeasy
11-28-2006, 06:26 AM
Since I was raised Pagan, I never really grew up with any kind of sexual stigmas. I knew it was how baby's happened. I knew it was something two consenting adults did, and I think I had a pretty good idea that it was a pleasurable act. I don't really recall factoring marriage into the equation much until I was a little older, and had been exposed to kids with more traditional values. When I was a teenager, the idea of abstaining until marriage was pretty distasteful. I mean, I just couldn't see denying myself for no good reason. That being said, now that I'm older, I can totally appriciate the idea of waiting until one is more mature, if only for the emotional implications of being that intimate with someone. As far as how long to wait in a relationship before having sex, I think it depends on the people involved. I've had girlfriends that I had to wait forever, and it didn't bother me because I really like them, and I just wanted them to be comfortable. My current girl however, didn't wait much past the first date (an hour's reasonable, right?) and we've been together for quite a while. We both liked each other, it felt right, so we went with it. I think almost every aspect of male/female interactions only relative to the particular couple in question.

SC Harrison
11-28-2006, 07:33 AM
In answer to the original questions re: do societies place labels on premarital sex, the answer is (of course) yes. Some have referenced STDs and out-of-wedlock childbirth as some of the reasons, and they are in there somewhere, but I believe a deeper and less observed reason has to do with generation after generation of male dominance/primacy.

Along with the virtue a woman brings to a marriage after remaining mostly chaste, she also carries with her inexperience and dependence. I'm not saying a virtuous woman is a bad thing, I'm saying the male-dominated society prefers them that way. This is also at the root of the difficulties women have in the workplace, imo, because the more successful they are, the less dependent they will be on the males in society.

I have a feeling this theory of mine will tick off both women and men, but I'm sure you'll eventually forgive me. :)

BottomlessCup
11-28-2006, 08:13 AM
Premarital sex is a little wrong.

That's why it's fun.


ETA: well. One of the reasons.

erika
11-28-2006, 08:19 AM
In a few years, when I'm older and start looking for my very special person, I'll probably have to deal with two taboos: premarital sex (because my state at this moment won't let gay people marry, so until things change, it will forever remain premarital) and of course, just the fact of being gay. I do consider myself a Christian, though some people may say I'm not one if I believe being gay is perfectly fine.

If I do sleep with a man, we can't possibly get each other pregnant, but there's still the chance of spreading STDs. That's where the protected sex comes in. Of course, there's people who believe being gay is wrong, or that any sex that happens without the intention of procreating is wrong. So when I do start looking for my guy, I'll be having to deal with at least two or three taboos at once.

So no matter what, I would be breaking lots of "morals." And that really really sucks.

For what it's worth, we're all breaking lots of "morals" so I wouldn't fret about your sexuality too much. I figure screw it (both literally and figuratively), we're all gonna do what we want anyway. Is there really a point in feeling guilty about it? Somehow I don't think that's the divine plan.

TsukiRyoko
11-28-2006, 08:39 AM
In a few years, when I'm older and start looking for my very special person, I'll probably have to deal with two taboos: premarital sex (because my state at this moment won't let gay people marry, so until things change, it will forever remain premarital) and of course, just the fact of being gay. I do consider myself a Christian, though some people may say I'm not one if I believe being gay is perfectly fine.

If I do sleep with a man, we can't possibly get each other pregnant, but there's still the chance of spreading STDs. That's where the protected sex comes in. Of course, there's people who believe being gay is wrong, or that any sex that happens without the intention of procreating is wrong. So when I do start looking for my guy, I'll be having to deal with at least two or three taboos at once.

So no matter what, I would be breaking lots of "morals." And that really really sucks.

Morals are crap, boy. I say follow the heart, and not what some old guy said years ago.

TwentyFour
11-28-2006, 08:51 AM
Pre-Mar. Sex is fun but the younger you are, the worse it is...you don't have the grown up organs and body to appreciate it. The younger a girl is, the most likely you will develop cervical cancer and so on....bad bad!

Moral--Very immoral no matter what religion (except the pagan one? I don't know pagan rel. much so I won't comment, just going by what someone above said).

erika
11-28-2006, 09:00 AM
Alright, here's the kicker. If by religious standards, promiscuity/premarital sex/gangbanging is immoral, why would God have made sex enjoyable? And it pretty much has to be enjoyable if people are gonna do it and sustain the species. I mean what kind of twisted divine love demands procreation, makes it fun to procreate and then sets boundaries for it? There must be an error in Biblical interpretation on this issue. And yes, this is off-topic for this thread and yes, I'm pissed about the Christian forum right now so that's why I'm asking it.

And no, I've never actually attended a gang bang but I went to one heck of a rugby party when I was in college. So that's close.

TsukiRyoko
11-28-2006, 09:11 AM
Alright, here's the kicker. If by religious standards, promiscuity/premarital sex/gangbanging is immoral, why would God have made sex enjoyable? And it pretty much has to be enjoyable if people are gonna do it and sustain the species. I mean what kind of twisted divine love demands procreation, makes it fun to procreate and then sets boundaries for it? There must be an error in Biblical interpretation on this issue. And yes, this is off-topic for this thread and yes, I'm pissed about the Christian forum right now so that's why I'm asking it.

And no, I've never actually attended a gang bang but I went to one heck of a rugby party when I was in college. So that's close.

It's not the divine power setting the boundaries, it's people. And when have people ever, ever been right?

erika
11-28-2006, 09:16 AM
You are correct sir. However, the reality is that the Bible does clearly condemn fornication. Paul beats this like a dead horse and Jesus himself addresses it when he confronts the adulteress.

But this concerns me less than the fact that despite what everyone says, do you all really want your daughter screwing a different guy every night? Do you want her to work as a stripper or a prostitute? If promiscuity is fine, then you shouldn't object to your daughter doing it. Right?

Bravo
11-28-2006, 09:19 AM
Alright, here's the kicker. If by religious standards, promiscuity/premarital sex/gangbanging is immoral, why would God have made sex enjoyable? And it pretty much has to be enjoyable if people are gonna do it and sustain the species. I mean what kind of twisted divine love demands procreation, makes it fun to procreate and then sets boundaries for it? There must be an error in Biblical interpretation on this issue. And yes, this is off-topic for this thread and yes, I'm pissed about the Christian forum right now so that's why I'm asking it.

And no, I've never actually attended a gang bang but I went to one heck of a rugby party when I was in college. So that's close.

eating is enjoyable also.

but you dont eat every thing you want, nor do you eat anytime you want to.

perhaps God felt that sex should be enjoyable, but it's also dangerous if done on a whim and best done w/in a committed relationship demonstrated by marriage.

:shrug:


p.s. personally, i prefer to leave God/religion out of discussions like this, but im trying to explain the possible logic of the commandment.

aghast
11-28-2006, 09:44 AM
Alright, here's the kicker. If by religious standards, promiscuity/premarital sex/gangbanging is immoral, why would God have made sex enjoyable? And it pretty much has to be enjoyable if people are gonna do it and sustain the species. I mean what kind of twisted divine love demands procreation, makes it fun to procreate and then sets boundaries for it? There must be an error in Biblical interpretation on this issue.

imo god didnt make sex dirty, humans did - sex is a divine, wonderful thing - the whole thing about making anything other than marrital sex sinful is about control - the more you tell someone something is wrong and they are going to burn in hell the more fear you have and the more you can control those people - imo organized religion is nothing more than a huge mind control and jesus would have denounced every single one of these religions if he were alive today and definitely frowned upon what we call christmas!!! - faith is a personal thing between god and the person - when jesus talked about his church he didnt have in mind what we now called christianity

aruna
11-28-2006, 09:51 AM
i

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.

OMG!!!! I FINALLY found someone who thinks like I do! I've thought this for decades but never said it out loud for fear of the PC backlash...

Now, I haven't read this whole thread but here are my arguments:

Sex is about a lot more than enjoyment. The purpose of sex is reproduction; just that we tend to forget that because we have birth control at our fingertipes. But our bodies and our cells and our unconsious minds remember. I think the double standard is programmed into us biologicaly.

Imagine life without birth control. Imagine that every time you have sex, you risk conceiving a child or impregnating a woman.

If you are the man impregnating, it doesn't really matter, You can move on to the next woman. Your body is perfectly happy to sow its seeds.
However, at some point in your life you may want to actually care for and nurture your children. Your OWN children. Remember, there's no birth control...

So, if the woman has been doing the same as you, how the hell do you know that you are raising your own kids? You don't. So you want to be sure that your woman was a virgin before she was with you, and is faithful to you afterwards.

But it's not just a man thing.

If you're a woman, you know that once you have a child you're tied down. You can't do it alone. You need help. You need the help of the man who impregnated you. You need to convince him that he is the father - even if he isn't. You need to make him want to stay with you, commit to you, and help you reaise your children. So you refrain from sleeping around. You give him love and nourishment, youmake his life comfortable. You have to make sure that YOU alone are the one he wants, that he stops straying.

If there were no birth control - ie, in our natural, biological condition - and women slept around as easily as men, think of the chaos that would ensue in society - no child would ever know its father. No father would know his child. The double standard is a protective measure; and even WITH birth control, somehow it's still there inside us.

It makes perfect sense.

Apart from that, I personally don't see the point of sleeping around. It's pleasure? No way. Sex is such an intimate connection - for me, it has to be a part of love. If there is no love there can never be pleasure. But that's not a moral issue; it's a psychological or spiritual one.

I've tried to convince my daughter, who is 16, of the same, and so far it's working. My arguments are thus: our instinct as women is to connect love with sex. When we have sex without love, our mind plays a trick on us, convincing us it WAS love. But it wasn't.

Young relationships hardly ever last. So we break up. Our hearts are broken. We try again. Our hearts are broken again. Breaking up is painful, so we learn to numb our minds against love. Over time, we begin to see that love can be separated from sex. We have sex without love. We grow cynical about love and sex. We think it's only for pleasure. We stop believing in love, Finally, we lose the ability to love permanently. Love becomes like sex - it comes and goes.

So I am for saving sex - not necessarily for marriage, but for love. It has nothing to do with religion or morals, but with finding lasting happiness and relationships with depth. And that's a question of love, not sex. And I think it's what men want as well as women, in the final analysis.

aruna
11-28-2006, 10:08 AM
Gender difference are rarely absolute with all men being A and all women being B. I know plenty of 'ladettes' suffering no apparent ill effects (now hitting their forties)

Well, the key word here is "apparent". Sometimes the ill effects of lack of love can be well hidden - from others, and from oneself.

rhymegirl
11-28-2006, 04:36 PM
I'm wondering if the term "premarital sex" is even accurate/applicable these days.

I'm not sure what the statistics are, but aren't there many couples who never actually get married? And to think they're living together and NOT having sex is kinda ridiculous. So you can't really call it "premarital sex" if they never intend to get married.

And then there are people who get divorced. Perhaps they are pretty bitter about the whole thing and never want to get married again. But they don't want to live the rest of their lives alone, so they seek out someone to spend time with and end up in a sexual relationship. Since they don''t want to get married again, you can't really call that "premarital sex" either.

I just think the term is kinda archaic these days.

aruna
11-28-2006, 04:44 PM
I don't think the word "marriage" needs to be taken literally, as in "having a marriage certificate". I think what is meant here is commitment.


In my own experience there's certainly a difference between sex with or without commitment. But it's not a "moral" difference.

dahmnait
11-28-2006, 05:09 PM
There was a study done a while back regarding sex and intimacy. They found that a when a woman has sex, something is kicked off in her brain that stimulates the portions dealing with emotional attachment. Basically, the study says that women are biologically programmed to feel emotionally intimate because of sex.

I wish I could find the study. I tried, but a search on "sex" brings up some interesting links. ;) I know a reputable organization conducted the study, but there are many of those reputable organizations too.

IMO - sex without love dehumanizes a person, man or woman. The most intimate you can get with a person, in a positive manner, is through sexual contact. When there is sex without intimacy, you kill off a portion of what makes you human. The marital concept is where the problem comes in with regards to morality. Our society helps mold our moral codes. So, if a society deems that marriage is the norm, and sex should only be conducted within that norm, then for the majority of society premarital sex would be morally wrong.

For me, it is not sex before marriage that is wrong, but rather sex without intimacy.

robeiae
11-28-2006, 06:01 PM
Sex between two consenting adults has no moral implications. Are we really discussing the difference between sex with a piece of paper in a sock drawer somewhere or sex without the piece of paper. Let's grow up, shall we. Marriage is a piece of paper. Sex between two consenting adults is merely something to do. Morality should not come into the discussion.I agree that sex is a mundane activity, but it's really not the same thing as going fishing, insofar as it's raison d'etre is, as Spooky noted, is procreation.

And again, every action has a moral component within a given society, by defintion.

Obviously, there is unlikely to be much agreement here on what the nature of that moral component is. My personal opinion is that sex between consenting adults is their business, but both should be responsible enough to accept whatever consequences there are for their actions. In that regard, the essential purpose of sex cannot be set aside, so one should use discretion when picking partners. to From that standpoint, I would hope my children grow up understanding that they have the freedom to choose their own path, but must be prepared to take full responsibility for all of their choices.

Shadow_Ferret
11-28-2006, 06:35 PM
Sex is like popping the cork on a bottle of cheap champaign. The bubbles only last for a couple of minutes and then it's flat.

I pity you, Spooky. Writing goal or not, sex is more than cheap champagne. Sex is like a fireworks display working up to the grand finale. Sex is like a beautiful piece of classical music moving toward the crescendo. Sex is like a wonderfully written book with a mind-blowing climax.

Oops. I was trying to avoid the word climax.

robeiae
11-28-2006, 06:36 PM
Writing goal or not, sex is more than cheap champagne. Sex is like a fireworks display working up to the grand finale.Okay, Bobby Brady.

Shadow_Ferret
11-28-2006, 07:01 PM
Who?

I stand by what I said. Sex is like writing. If you're not enjoying it, why do it then?

aghast
11-28-2006, 08:28 PM
But this concerns me less than the fact that despite what everyone says, do you all really want your daughter screwing a different guy every night? Do you want her to work as a stripper or a prostitute? If promiscuity is fine, then you shouldn't object to your daughter doing it. Right?

you must let your daughter to live her own life and if she wants to screw a different guy every night or become a prostitute its her choice and you can only hope that you raise her well enough that she is responsible and can find the right choice for 'her'

Shadow_Ferret
11-28-2006, 08:46 PM
eating is enjoyable also.

but you dont eat every thing you want, nor do you eat anytime you want to.



Why don't I? I eat whatever I want whenever I want. I'm missing your point. You like to starve yourself for some reason? You like to deprive yourself?

SpookyWriter
11-28-2006, 09:00 PM
I pity you, Spooky. Writing goal or not, sex is more than cheap champagne. Sex is like a fireworks display working up to the grand finale. Sex is like a beautiful piece of classical music moving toward the crescendo. Sex is like a wonderfully written book with a mind-blowing climax.

Oops. I was trying to avoid the word climax.Hey, I got a twenty in my wallet that says you're wrong. :D

MyFirstMystery
11-28-2006, 09:16 PM
When I was doing my undergraduate work I took a very interesting class from the Anthropology department called "Women and Culture" It had interesting things to say about the concept of "virginity" which is closely aligned to pre-marital sex.

The idea is this: Virginity is a relatively recent invention on the human time spectrum. It is actually a concept that was invented to control the sexual access to females. Much of this early focus on sexual access had to do with inheritability of property. Men wanted to make sure it was their own sons who inherited thier lands and property, and for that reason they wanted to control who had sex with what women so the inheritance would be thier own biological children without question.

Interesting eh?

MFM

BTW: I kind of miss pre-marital sex. I've been together with my husband since we were 15 and 17, and sometimes I turn to him and say wistfully "remember when we could fornicate?" Ah. Those were the days.

Bravo
11-28-2006, 09:37 PM
Why don't I? I eat whatever I want whenever I want. I'm missing your point.

so now we're ready to argue that gluttony is really just okay as long as it feels good?

look, there's a time and place to do these things. if you eat what you want when you want, as often as you want, you end up destroying yourself. you take care of yourself, you control yourself so that you dont eat those dozen chocolates you so desperately crave even if itll make you feel better.

b/c, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, for humans there's more to just fulfilling our base desires. for humans, at the end of the day, being hedonistic is gonna make you feel empty (and fat w/ the case of eating too much).

this whole idea of "if it feels good do it" that youre espousing is really just a blanket demonstration of not loving yourself enough.

sex is selfish. love is selfish. you dont love just anyone or everyone, nor do you sleep w any1.

ive already explained the reasons for this multiple times in this thread. in general, for most human beings, there are very real physical and emotional consequences w/ sex and love.

you dont do either on a whim, b/c youre setting yourself up for not only STDs, pregnancy, emptiness, and heartbreak, but youre setting yourself up for an inability to commit to anyone for a long period of time.

Scarlett_156
11-28-2006, 09:51 PM
LMAO! It's typical of threads that mention sex and/or religion in their subject lines to turn into this kind of long, rambling discussion.

Even people who profess to no religious belief whatsoever generally frown upon what most humans refer to as "cheating" (sex outside a committed relationship). Jealousy is a human trait that is beyond the boundaries of culture or religion.

Shadow_Ferret
11-28-2006, 09:51 PM
No ones talking about gluttony, but studies have shown that eating several small meals a day -- grazing -- instead of the traditional 3 meals and starving in between, is healthier for you.

Just as I doubt anyone is talking about having sex 24/7 (as nice as that might be).

Don't psychoanalyze me. I love myself plenty. I'm not eating out of emptyness. I don't have sex out of a feeling of incompleteness. That's what writing is for.

But I do believe in if it feels good, do it, but in moderation. That's my motto.

And the idea that sex is selfish seems rather archaic to me.

How old are you?

Bravo
11-28-2006, 10:02 PM
Sex between two consenting adults has no moral implications. Are we really discussing the difference between sex with a piece of paper in a sock drawer somewhere or sex without the piece of paper. Let's grow up, shall we. Marriage is a piece of paper. Sex between two consenting adults is merely something to do. Morality should not come into the discussion.

as if finding the magical "one" or just being in love is more real than that piece of paper?

cmon.

we construct feelings of love in order to explain our natural impulses, and those feelings would not last by themselves. you can easily love the wrong person, but the reason why some relationships work and others dont is b/c of compatability, commitment, and respect for one another.

this whole thing that all you really need is love is just a bogus catch phrase that causes ppl to never be satisfied. they believe that once those feelings, that elation, those pleasure neurotransmitters stop, that means the relationship wont work.

marriage helps not only b/c its a contract where you promise to stick to one another, even really, when the going is rough and youre spouse is annoying you, but b/c it protects both parties & their kids legally.

Bravo
11-28-2006, 10:07 PM
No ones talking about gluttony, but studies have shown that eating several small meals a day -- grazing -- instead of the traditional 3 meals and starving in between, is healthier for you.

and i would agree w those studies, but i was talking about something rather specific w/ the "you dont eat whatever/whenever you want".



Just as I doubt anyone is talking about having sex 24/7 (as nice as that might be).

no we're talking about having sex when you want even if it's w some1 youre not actually emotionally attached to, vis a vis promiscuious behavior. which, if you remember from the beginning of this thread is what you were defending.


Don't psychoanalyze me.

i didnt mean to, i was just basing that off of what you were saying.


I love myself plenty. I'm not eating out of emptyness. I don't have sex out of a feeling of incompleteness. That's what writing is for.

good.


But I do believe in if it feels good, do it, but in moderation. That's my motto.

well, id add in moderation and at the right time and place.


And the idea that sex is selfish seems rather archaic to me.

how is it archaic? if anything, its a pretty new way of looking at it.

Shadow_Ferret
11-28-2006, 10:18 PM
no we're talking about having sex when you want even if it's w some1 youre not actually emotionally attached to, vis a vis promiscuious behavior. which, if you remember from the beginning of this thread is what you were defending.


Right. And I still am defending that. Aren't I?

I'm getting confused.

Bravo
11-28-2006, 10:29 PM
Right. And I still am defending that. Aren't I?

I'm getting confused.

umm... well since i didnt see you back off from that statement i assumed you were.

but that's good.

let's call it a day then.

:)

Medievalist
11-28-2006, 10:45 PM
Sex is like writing. If you're not enjoying it, why do it then?

Because it pays well.

:D

Oh, you meant sex . . . well, frankly, I wouldn't compare it to writing; generally there's just one climax per book, you know?

Shadow_Ferret
11-28-2006, 11:04 PM
I must write different books. :D

aruna
11-29-2006, 11:04 AM
The idea is this: Virginity is a relatively recent invention on the human time spectrum. It is actually a concept that was invented to control the sexual access to females. Much of this early focus on sexual access had to do with inheritability of property. Men wanted to make sure it was their own sons who inherited thier lands and property, and for that reason they wanted to control who had sex with what women so the inheritance would be thier own biological children without question.

.

I said something similar in one of my first posts on this thread (that men wanted to be sure the kids they raised were theor own), but it wasn't the result of any study, it's something I figured out myself. And I don't see it as a soley "men want to dominate women" thing. Historically, it's also been to women's advantage to remain virginal and loyal to her husband. It's a protection for her and her children. I as a woman DO want to know who is the father of my children, because that's the man I want to raise them with, the man I want to commit to. I do NOT want to fill myself with the seed of various men and never know which one should be responsible for my children. This set-up of nature is actually pretty wise.

When I was a teenager I had nothing of what everyone insists as "raging hormones". I did not want to have sex. I had no desire whatsoever to sleep with a man. But I did have a very, very strong urge to fall in love. I was romantic down to the tips of my toes! I fell in love at the drop of a hat! He just had to be a little bit good looking and take an interest in me - maybe dance with me a few times at a party - and I was in love!

I was lucky that, back then (the 60's) the old morals were still in place in my country (Guyana) which stated that you didn't have sex before marriage. It was a very strong taboo, but I am pretty sure that if it wasn't in place I'd have been mating like a rabbit - not because I felt any sexual urge, but because that's what boys wanted and the attention, for a young girl, is flattering; and I was so eager to have a boyfriend of my own. But of course, doing it would have been setting myself up for heartbreak at a very young age.

"No premarital sex" (at least as regards teenagers) is a very sensible taboo as a protection for girls, and I'm sorry it's disappeared. The benefit has gone primarily to men/boys. I don't know what it's like in the US but in England the age for first sex is dropping year by year. The rate for underage pregnancy is shocking; the worst in Europe. There have been cases of 11 and 12 year old girls having kids!

My daughter's two best friends had first sex when they were 14. In both cases they thought they were in love. In both cases the girls enbded up devastated - in one case, they went steady for a few months then the boy wanted to break up. The girl didn't. She got hysterical, threatened to commit suicide if he left her, etc. He was a nice boy so he stayed with her out of pity, but after a few months they did break up. She went on a rampage after that, sleeping with almost anything on two legs - even 30 year old men, my daughter says.

The other girl also got dumped. The boy told all his friends; she was called all sorts of names (yes, boys still do that). Thank goodness, she decided not to have any more boyfriends for a long time. However, she gained a lot of weight. She is an incredibly beautiful girl. Totally stunning; adopted from Sri Lanka, with a celebrity smile. But she got very fat, and I wonder if it's maybe a result of what happened.

PeeDee
11-29-2006, 11:14 AM
Do whatever you want with sex (who am I to decide?) but I think that ultimately, if I decree you an "idiot," then you shoudl not be allowed to reproduce.

Seriously. There should be a bar exam to have children.

robeiae
11-29-2006, 04:15 PM
Seriously. There should be a bar exam to have children.Like at a pub? I think it's already in place, but it's ridiculously easy to pass...

aruna
11-29-2006, 04:26 PM
Do whatever you want with sex (who am I to decide?) but I think that ultimately, if I decree you an "idiot," then you shoudl not be allowed to reproduce.

Seriously. There should be a bar exam to have children.

here's the story on Britain's youngest mother (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=385968&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source&ct=5), aged 11 when she got pregnant (while drunk). She smoked 20 cigarettes a day during pregnancy, and claimed her cigarette habit was not harming the health of her unborn child. She said: "I can give up smoking at any time, but I don't find it affects my pregnancy."

SpookyWriter
12-02-2006, 04:05 AM
Originally Posted by aruna
So I am for saving sex - not necessarily for marriage, but for love. It has nothing to do with religion or morals, but with finding lasting happiness and relationships with depth.
Why is it that women always look for depth in a relationship? I thought size didn't matter. :D

TrainofThought
12-02-2006, 04:12 AM
I thought size didn't matter. :DWho lied to you?:)

Scarlett_156
12-02-2006, 04:20 AM
as if finding the magical "one" or just being in love is more real than that piece of paper?

cmon.

we construct feelings of love in order to explain our natural impulses, and those feelings would not last by themselves. you can easily love the wrong person, but the reason why some relationships work and others dont is b/c of compatability, commitment, and respect for one another.

this whole thing that all you really need is love is just a bogus catch phrase that causes ppl to never be satisfied. they believe that once those feelings, that elation, those pleasure neurotransmitters stop, that means the relationship wont work.

marriage helps not only b/c its a contract where you promise to stick to one another, even really, when the going is rough and youre spouse is annoying you, but b/c it protects both parties & their kids legally.
Jeez you guys. Get a room already.

aruna
12-02-2006, 10:07 AM
Jeez you guys. Get a room already.

What's THIS supposed to mean now? Bravo's post you quoted is one of the wisest posts in this whole thread - IMO. If you disagree why not raise your objection instead of resorting to insult.

aruna
12-02-2006, 01:57 PM
Other family members have different viewpoints, and my mother let us make our own decisions. While my sister, for example, can comfortably have one-night stands, I've never really been able to, so I've done what was right for me. I think it's really an individual choice, but I do often think of something my brother-in-law said - that he had sex with other girls, but once he met my sister, he felt he'd been wasting his time with other people - he only wanted to be with her. Corny, maybe, but sweet.

.

My mother let me make my own decisions, too, I had practicaly no guidance or advice; she was about 20 years before her time, agnostic, freethinking and all the rest. I had to find my own way. At first i simply adopted society's "good girls don't do it" dictate, but then the wild 60's and 70's were upon us and I began - again - doing what everyone else was doing. Girls just wanna have fun, right??? You bet. I felt totally miserable because I still knew that all I wanted was love.

It took a terrible shock to wake me up.

The trouble with one-night-stands - for women - is that it's OK when you're young and attractive but it's hardly a lifestyle you can keep up with later in life. Let's face it, in your 50's and 60's, not to mention your 70's and 80's, the pool of suitable - and desirable - partners for one-night-stands has shrunk considerably. Because even the men your own age are looking for younger women; and the men who would screw anything - well - do you really want to do it with them?

(Not being insulting to 50 and 60 year olds - I'm one myself, and I love it! And I know we can be very attractive. Yet I think what we can offer men at our age is hardly the stuff of one-night-stands)

That's why when I had a daughter I knew I'd do it differenlty. None of this "make your own choices" copout! I gave her some very strongly supported guidelines, and made sure she took the subject seriously. I made sure she knew where I stood, and why, and that what I said made sense, and was believable. She believed me. And now? she's 16, and she and my son are living together, alone - in a different country to me. She's free to do whatever she likes; and it's OK, because she knows what she wants and does not follow the crowd.

tourdeforce
12-02-2006, 02:57 PM
There was a study done a while back regarding sex and intimacy. They found that a when a woman has sex, something is kicked off in her brain that stimulates the portions dealing with emotional attachment. Basically, the study says that women are biologically programmed to feel emotionally intimate because of sex.


Didn't they also find that chocolate has the same effect on women?

Opty
12-02-2006, 07:42 PM
Chocolate has that effect on everyone.

And, who is "they?"

tourdeforce
12-02-2006, 07:58 PM
"They" is a cashier lady named Beatrice at Hershey Park and she seemed to know what she was talking about.

Bravo
12-02-2006, 07:59 PM
did you at least call her the next day?

aruna
12-02-2006, 08:12 PM
Didn't they also find that chocolate has the same effect on women?

Yes, but what are the moral implications of chocolate?

tourdeforce
12-02-2006, 08:15 PM
Yes, but what are the moral implications of chocolate?


On its own or when used during premarital sex?

MajorDrums
12-02-2006, 08:42 PM
On its own or when used during premarital sex?

what are the dermatological implications of both?

Opty
12-04-2006, 06:04 AM
On its own or when used during premarital sex?

I like the way you think.