Pre marital Sex - Why or Why not?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by aaqucnaona, Dec 24, 2011.


Read OP first! Pre-Marital Sex, yes or no? [Explain Below]

  1. Yes

  2. No

  1. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Ok. So Sex. You dont see that discussed around here now do you.
    Pre marital sex - yes or not?
    And give your reasons.

    I would say No.

    Because 'going all the way' takes the relationship to a whole new level. If you aren't going to stay together [at least for a very very long time], marriage or no marriage, I would rather no do it. It similiar to the difference between your first crush and your first girlfriend. Crush= Easy to get over. GF= Not so much.

    Second, I think once your become sexually active, if you do so before marriage, you would be have physical experiences without the geniune emotional underpinnings that are crucial difference between horny teens and adult couples. I would rather have physical + emotional together.

    In summary: [forgive the popular slang]
    1 and 2nd base - Yes
    3 rd - Maybe
    4 th - Not before marriage.

    What do you think?
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2011
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    The motivations for sex may differ between the male and the female, I am contemplating.

    Historically, it has often been a trade, where the woman has commitment as her objective, while the male, traditionally, would rather have the milk for free than buy a cow. (The same analogy has been drawn suggesting why buy a boar when you only need a bit of sausage.)

    Although I am being a bit naughty with my metaphors, I do appreciate the earnestness of your presentation. The recognition that there is a considerable difference between building a foundation for a respectful and lasting relationship and merely being the vehicle for raging hormones is an important distinction.

    There are consequences for every action taken, which is a lesson that needs be taught before sexual maturity is reached, in my opinion, because once those hormones kick in.....the law of the jungle can very quickly take over.

    Biology is hardwired to propagate. The ability to make an executive decision in overriding that programming is a choice that we all have as an option.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    It's not the sex that's the problem, but the unplanned pregnancies. I say teach the kids how to have responsible safe sex when they are ready and let the marriage be for raising a family.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    I don't care for marriage as much as mutual, real commitment and love for a long time, a lifetime perhaps. It can be a live in, it can be anything as long as its not a six month [or 3 yr] hormone satisfaction kind of thing.
  8. domesticated om Stickler for details Valued Senior Member

    Vote yes

    The sex that you have wouldn't technically be considered "pre-marital if you never get married.
  9. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    I don't believe it has to be an either or choice. A lot of relationships that start out as friends with benefits can become very attached long term relationships. I've also seen long term friendships ruined when they became sexual. I just don't think there's any one right answer for everybody, and whatever answer is right for you now may change over time. So being flexible and tolerant to how others want to manage their love life can be very helpful.
  10. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    I understand that relationships can start and end up in many ways. What I want to emphasise is that it should not be a spur of the moment thing. One should wait until certain that it is the 'real thing' and that it will last. Relationships without sex are much more easier to disentangle than ones with sex.

    Think about it, as the dominant species on this planet, we have standards to live up to. Everything we do, from group and social behaviour, learning and discovery of knowledge to relationships and child care is disctinctly human. There is a level of subtlety, complexity, sophistication and pre thought that is lacking in all other species on earth. Why should sex alone be a matter of animalistic instincts and pre-emption? Should we not work with it with the same level of intellectuality as we do with the rest of human endeavours?
  11. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Indeed. The very first thing you teach a child is: not the sky god, you teach him causality. Then critical thinking, then some basic kindergarten science, then let him have the traditions and culture and religion and social stuff. It would be totally unfair to tell a child something without first teaching him how to decide whether or not to believe it.

    So, down the same line, once be begins to ask questions and learn of sexuality, the same causal and critical thinking applied to sexual relationships so that when the little guy gets a mind of its own, he knows who's in charge.

    Indeed, its a problem similiar to obesity, while the availabilities have increasing and hardships decreased expotentially in the last few thousand years, our instincts [like sugar rush or sexual heat] have not yet caught up, hardly having evolved at all. And they never will, considering how hard we work to prevent natural selection in humans today. So proper thought to it is indeed necessary.
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    And of course, get women okay with the thought to have abortions for the case that contraceptives fail.
  13. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Safe sex isn't as safe as it seems. There are many problems even when birth control pills are available, which women should take to insure they do not get pregnant. STD's are always going to be with those who take pills or use condoms for diseases have many ways to transfer themselves between consenting people. The spread of STD's has increased over the years and hasn't slowed as many still don't understand anything about those diseases and how they spread. So until people can actually prevent STD's from happening I'd say that they should abstain from being sexually active until they have both been checked out for diseases at least on a yearly basis but monthly if they are sexually active for their own well being.

    Here was some statistics in 2007, I don't have any newer ones, I didn't look very much:

    The federal government recently came out with its 2007 figures on sexually transmitted disease. As one might expect, the news is not good.

    First some numbers, then some thoughts about why our nation seems unable to give this epidemic the royal smackdown it deserves.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Division of STD Prevention, our massive STD problem is still growing.

    Chlamydia infections hit a record 1.1 million in 2007 — and those are just the reported cases; the total number of chlamydia cases is probably closer to 3 million, public health experts say.

    There were 353,000 reported cases of gonorrhea in 2007. This is sad because the gonorrhea rate peaked in the late 1970s and fell steadily for 20 years. In fact, we were wiping out gonorrhea so efficiently that the federal government set a goal of a mere 19 gonorrhea cases per 100,000 population by 2010. With a current gonorrhea rate of 119 cases per 100,000, we can kiss that 2010 goal goodbye.

    The story of syphilis is even sadder. I attended “eradication of syphilis” news briefings in the late 1990s because this ancient disease’s end seemed at hand. But syphilis began rebounding in 2001 (especially among gay men), and its 2007 rate of 3.8 cases per 100,000 marks its seventh increase.
  14. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    I think the better (and more pertinent) question is "What about sex after marriage?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No, I would first teach him/her how to use the toilet, then next how to wipe their own butt. But then, I have the experience of actually being a parent to draw on.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    I will give u a hint : Lemmings.

    Oh of course.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Bells Staff Member

    Whose standards?

    Whose standards should we be following exactly?

    Actually no, it is not distinctly human. The traits you just described are found in animals as well as humans.


    Ever watched a pod of whales? Dolphins? How about ape species? Meerkats? Beavers? The social structure of a range of mammals is all that you described and more. In fact, in some instances, I would say it is more complex than what you deemed "distinctly human".

    If you are a teenager who is unsure? Then yes, I would agree with you to wait until one is sure. But terms such as "going all the way" an "crush" are very teenage terms.

    I think that as you grow older, it is important to step out of the 'happily ever after' fantasy and discover yourself sexually. To figure out what you like and do not like.

    I also think that viewing "sex" as instant "relationship" is going to lead to heartache in the long term. And really, the whole "base" thing in the OP? If you're 12, sure.

    Err no, it's not.

    The first thing you teach them is drink and then eat solids, then how to use a cup (sipper and then non-sipper) and a spoon, toilet training and hand washing, then how to wipe their own backsides and handwashing, not to touch certain things (hot oven door and the like), and so on and so forth. The part where you get to teach them that picking their nose and flicking it at their brother or sister is a real joy.

    Then again, like Stoniphi, I draw from personal experience of raising two children.

    Ah, grand and noble schemes.

    Get back to us and let us know how you go.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'd personally suggest teaching them to eat by themselves and toilet training should be the priority. But hey, to each their own. But do get back to us and let us know how well you get on with that grand plan!


    The first question I got was 'where do babies come from?'. Then I got the 'hey look mummy, if I poke my willy it stands up!'...

    There is no "causal or critical thinking" to apply to these very pertinent and sexual questions. And believe me, they ask as soon as they notice anything. You'd be game to try, but I can assure you, trying to implement your scheme of child raising in 4-6 year olds will be an exercise in frustration and hilarity.
  17. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Our biology was meant to be capable of performing the primary function (reproduction) without much direction or thought. Our bodies are capable of making babies long before we have gained sufficient knowledge to care properly for ourselves, never mind a dependent.

    The youngest mother on record is a 5 1/2 year old Peruvian girl, Lina Medina. From Snopes, this link

    While there are a few other cases of girls under the age of ten giving birth, it is more common for them to be slightly older, as in 11 or 12.

    I admire your thinking that sex is of sufficient importance that one should reserve practicing same until one has selected their partner with care and then reserve one's energies for the maintenance of this relationship. That you also claim to be non-theist makes this line of thinking even more interesting, IMO.

    I can think of several females who might like to have you cloned,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    as lasting commitment is not always the strongest attribute of many gentlemen, or of all women, to be fair to both genders. :bugeye:
  18. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Could you please, for the love of DNA, stop telling women they SHOULD take birth control pills.

    They're not sweets. They're hormones which affect much of your physiology. They do a whole lot more than just prevent babies.

    If a woman wants to and they cause her no adverse side effects, great. That's not the case for everyone, and if I hear one more person preach about how all women ought to take them I swear I'll drop one of my 15kg plates on the offender's head. (Ok, not really. Lol.)
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    This is true only for "modern" societies.

    The more "primitive" societies actually prepared children for real life - unlike the "modern" one.

    It was Freud who came up with the theory that "satisfying the sex drive" automatically leads to sanity and good relationships, and that sex is the essential cure for all neuroses. He also thought that "romantic relationship" between the man and a woman is the most a human could ever strive for or attain.

    Somehow, this theory then became an obligatory doctrine that was not to be questioned and to be blindly followed.

    In Solitude, Anthony Storr did question this doctrine, though.
    He points out that the fixation on relationships and sex as the highest or even sole source of happiness and sanity is a relatively new and limited phenomenon.
  20. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    I would presume this part was addressed to me. I not, I might just be able to live with the embarrassment.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    How and why?:scratchin:

    Well thank you. There is nothing gentlemanly about my view though. Its a purely eclectic decision based on my reasoning on this subject.
  21. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    The standards of the very best of our species currently present - the best of artists, leader and the intelligencia.

    Of course, but not as much or as developed as in humans.

    Yes, and they can do just fine. But tell me, could they even come close the amount of capability and success rate as a special forces army unit?

    I am a teen [17], so forgive me for acting my age. And I already apologised for the base thing, its helpful, though. And sex usually is in a relationship. If its not, well I am not one of the swingers or players, so I wouldn't know about it from that perspective.

    Come, taking metaphors literally, that too, coming from a mod! :wallbang:

    I know the drill, guys. Thank you.

    Come on, so you let a child assimilate random useless facts and a lot of bullshit in his early years?

    I would try, anyway its quite some time away [I am a student now!]. I hope you are wrong, but if not [being a father, you probably wouldn't be], well, you still have got the formative years [7-12] in which to go through with my 'grand plan'.
  22. Anti-Flag Pun intended Registered Senior Member

    It's down to the people involved. I don't see why people shouldn't, if they're old enough and are up front about their intentions.

    It doesn't seem right for me, but they have their own lives. So long as they aren't deceiving someone then they can go ahead, and they can live with the consequences too. I feel the same about 1st base though, quite frankly either it means something to you or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then why do it? :shrug:
  23. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    My apologies for not addressing you by name. Yes, it was addressed to you.

    Theists do not hold the market on moral values although some would ascribe a total lack of same to any who dare profess to be non-theist. Abstinence from sex prior to marriage is more often a position promoted by theists.

    I use the term 'gentleman' lightly on occasion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page