Premaritial Sex

[devonin]

To add to that.. You shouldn't have sex until you can support a child, anyway. There is no safe sex.

There's plenty of safe sex. The phrase you are looking for is "There is no 100% guarentee" but honestly, when you consider the odds simply of unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy (Given the very short span in which a woman can actually concieve) when you add in birth control, and a condom, you get the odds down pretty negligable.

I imagine large swaths of the community can report that they've had sex a not small number of times without a resulting pregnancy. Simply being careful is enough to give you a -virtually- zero chance of unexpected pregnancy, and "Well, you might end up with a pregnancy" is a terrible reason to simply never have sex, for the same reason that "you might have a heart attack" is a terrible reason to never eat a baconator.

[macgravel]

I'll be waiting until marriage, not just because of my religion, but because I feel it holds more to wait. After reading Chardish's post, that's how I feel about everything, so he basically hit it on the head with me.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

It's mainly a Christian thing. It's immoral to do, thus I won't do it. It's part of my faith.

[Tokzic]

I'm told I have some, uh, interesting views on premarital sex.

Basically, I think that sex is just something that can be had for fun, even between friends. If you're careful about what you're doing, there's no reason that it should cause any problems for either party (STDs, pregnancy). I don't see why people put so much unnecessary meaning and obligation into it, especially when such a high percentage of the population masturbates - it's just shared masturbation.

On the other hand, no matter how badly I want it, I absolutely refuse to have sex with anyone who has a pro-life stance on birth control. I don't care how low the chances of a pregnancy occurring are; if my partner won't abort a baby on the extremely off-chance it happens, then I'm not putting myself in a position to have a responsibility for it before I'm prepared.

needless to say this part of my stance has killed many moments and caused many arguments

Originally Posted by macgravel

After reading Chardish's post, that's how I feel about everything, so he basically hit it on the head with me.

Cool, but...what post?

[mike2727]

alot of people say waiting is the "right" thing to do but people can make their own decisions for what they do and don't do.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I can't stress individuality enough. If a person wants to have premarital sex, what kind of person would you be if you are trying to stop what the person at the time believes is either true love or a passion? Would any sincere god want you to not have your own liberty? I could understand if one person was thinking there would be a serious relationship while the other partner would just be using the other person, but we shouldn't need the government or anyone else to baby us around and tell us how to be "responsible" just because some people aren't. I believe that the only thing people can do in their power is to just inform us of the risks of premarital sex or how that would impact your life.

Edit: Also, I pretty much have the same views as specifically described in Tokzic's last post in this topic.

[macgravel]

Originally Posted by chardish

Cool, but...what post?

Oh, this one.

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...=56956&page=33

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster

Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I can't stress individuality enough.

How does that at all come into play?

If a person wants to have premarital sex, what kind of person would you be if you are trying to stop what the person at the time believes is either true love or a passion?

Someone who cares enough about that person to try to prevent them from possibly making a big mistake. Someone who at least wants that person to fully understand the consequences of his or her actions before he or she takes such an important step in life.

Would any sincere god want you to not have your own liberty?

Holy hell, man, you make so many off-the-wall assumptions, it's ridiculous. When did God become the prime focus of this thread? He didn't; you're just trying to dig up a reason to go on an antireligion rant again.

Anyway, God did indeed give us free will and the liberty to do evil. That certainly doesn't mean he condones our doing evil. Instead, he wants us to listen to him and make good decisions.

but we shouldn't need the government or anyone else to baby us around and tell us how to be "responsible" just because some people aren't.

Who ever said this? Where are you getting these ridiculous ideas?

I believe that the only thing people can do in their power is to just inform us of the risks of premarital sex or how that would impact your life.

Well, yeah. Nobody's arguing otherwise. Did you actually miss the entire point of this thread?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

If threads aren't about life, liberty and property, they get made about life, liberty and property. That's the MotF way.

[windsurfer-sp]

Excuse the late resonse, posted last night and logged on today at school.

Originally Posted by devonin

You've committed about three seperate logical fallicies here.

Originally Posted by devonin

First of all: You've presented a false dilemma, that the choice is between solely "A Christian marriage" and "A marriage where premarital sex took place." I know of many non-christians who chose to abstain from premarital sex, and many Christians who didn't.

[/quote][quote=devonin;1723475]

Well assume the ideal circumstances like from a theoretical POV. I know it?s the real world but I base my thoughts around the ideal.

Secondly: You've used the package deal fallacy, grouping together things that don't -necessarily- go together, but only go together some of the time, namely that marriages are all monogomous, that all instances of premarital sex end in "scarring" or that premarital sex is necessarily more likely to end in STDs or pregnancy than a monogamous one.

Premarital sex with more then one partner is more likely to need in STD's. That?s how STD's work you get it from one person and give it to another.

You're also trying to appeal to consequences, saying that premarital sex is -wrong- in itself simply because you find some of the potential consequences undesireable.

No I was arguing that sex is designed for you and only one other person and that marriage is the line that tells you that that particular person is the one.

[devonin]

Well assume the ideal circumstances like from a theoretical POV. I know it?s the real world but I base my thoughts around the ideal.

You can't assume a theoretical ideal in a discussion about the realities of a situation.

Premarital sex with more then one partner is more likely to need in STD's. That?s how STD's work you get it from one person and give it to another.

Not if you are discerning in whom you sleep with.

No I was arguing that sex is designed for you and only one other person and that marriage is the line that tells you that that particular person is the one.

You didn't do a very good job in -proving- your argument that sex is designed for you and only one other person.

[Chrissi]

Oh boy. Where do I begin.

Well, as resident sexpert, I should have a lot to say on this, but I'm going to be very brief. Because I am brief, you might think that I didn't read Chardish's post - no, I did read it. However, I can't elaborate, because the fact is that I'm much too lazy. Take this as a measure toward self-preservation if you will - maybe it is and I just don't know it. Could happen. I'm going to suppose that it's not, and I really am just too lazy to spout off a novel.

First of all, sex means different things to different people. For some, the best option is to abstain. For others, the best option is to have sex whenever you want. It partially depends upon what's important to you.

If obtaining an intense personal connection while proving that your devotion to your love allows you to resist all temptation is important to you, you might value the benefits that abstaining brings.

If, however, you would like to expand your committed relationship beyond all boundaries and enjoy yourself together, and attain the highest level of sexual satisfaction is important to you, you probably don't care about abstaining.

Personally I'm on the latter side. If you abstain until marriage, here are some downfalls that stare me straight in the face:

1) You don't know yet that you and your partner are compatible sexually. Some people just aren't. And if you think "all people are sexually compatible", you are too vanilla and naive. It just ain't true. Different people have different wants, needs, sizes, size preferences, and etc. Of course, if you are the abstaining type, you probably aren't very particular anyway, so it's really only of concern to those who don't abstain. Like trying to tell an atheist they will go to hell if they don't believe in a God who is non-existent to them.

2) The more sexual experience you have, the better you are at sex. Period. There is no magical thing that happens when two people are in "love" that automatically makes them have good sex. There isn't a magical "connection" in this sense. It doesn't exist. Your first time will be bad - guaranteed - if you both abstained, and particularly if you have never masturbated. Man will last about 10 seconds and woman will wonder if it's supposed to hurt like that. There isn't really a way to avoid this. It's even worse if you don't masturbate. Then the man doesn't even know when he's going to ejaculate and the woman has no idea what an orgasm is. And honestly, she probably never will.

That's my side. Take from it what you want. I probably know more on this topic than anyone else who will ever visit these forums, but, that doesn't make me authority and also, the points I addressed are probably not important to an abstainer.

I'm not trying to indicate that abstainers don't care about having good sex. I'm saying that they will probably value the sex no matter what, just because they love their partner, so the sex will be "good" to them. And they'll learn, and they'll get better, and it will build. But honestly, the first time is going to be awful especially for non-masturbators. Remember, kids: masturbation is practice for sex. You can't lose your virginity to your hand. The idea is ludicrous.

Masturbating causes you to have harmless sexual excitement, which can lead to a harmless orgasm, the chemicals released by which will fade away in a matter of minutes and leave no permanent harm or chemical inbalance in your brain. You will not be defiled. The next morning, the only part of you which has changed is your long-term memory. You cannot earn an STD or any sort of injury from this activity. You only gain pleasure and experience, and lose between 1 minute and a few hours of your time.

[_Adrian_]

lols talisman, heck i never had sex but it looks hella fun, so why not, wear a condom, and happy time! =)

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by _Adrian_

lols talisman, heck i never had sex but it looks hella fun, so why not, wear a condom, and happy time! =)

May I just remind you that this is the critical thinking forum.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by _Adrian_

lols talisman, heck i never had sex but it looks hella fun, so why not, wear a condom, and happy time! =)

Why not? A few reasons...

(Yes, I'm aware that that link has been posted on this page)

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[jewpinthethird]

Sex kills time and it's free.

Instead of taking her out to a movie and buying her popcorn, bend her over the arm of a couch. It's very economical. Just make sure you are using the proper protection, because then it can become VERY, VERY GOD DAMN UNECONOMICAL if she pops a baby 9 months down the road.

[The_Q]

Originally Posted by Jewp

Sex kills time and it's free.

Instead of taking her out to a movie and buying her popcorn, bend her over the arm of a couch. It's very economical. Just make sure you are using the proper protection, because then it can become VERY, VERY GOD DAMN UNECONOMICAL if she pops a baby 9 months down the road.

I have no idea what you're talking about. This is utter nonsense.

You can maximize utility even more efficiently by doing the reverse wheelbarrow instead of the sofabender.

On a much more serious note, I'm not for abstaining. I think that there is a proper time and a place for you to do just about anything, as long as you feel it's ok to do so. When you feel comfortable enough with somebody to have sex with them, that's your choice. Knowing the risks involved with sex is important, yes, and knowing when's the right time, who's the right person and which is the right 79' Volvo is incredibly important.

Marriage is a great method of insurance for this. If you're married to someone, you've spent the time, money and effort to get to know them and be sure you'll spend at least a good deal of time together (getting tax breaks). It would be wonderful to abstain until marriage if this is your goal, but if you feel you can behave responsibly and carefully, all power to you.

Q

[MrRubix]

I'd just stress that if you're going to have sex, read up on it as much as possible. Know everything about everything and make sure you do it with someone who is understanding enough in case something goes wrong or you mess up. Communication is key, and without it, sex can cause more harm than good.

[leadafro]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

How does that at all come into play?



Someone who cares enough about that person to try to prevent them from possibly making a big mistake. Someone who at least wants that person to fully understand the consequences of his or her actions before he or she takes such an important step in life.



Holy hell, man, you make so many off-the-wall assumptions, it's ridiculous. When did God become the prime focus of this thread? He didn't; you're just trying to dig up a reason to go on an antireligion rant again.

Anyway, God did indeed give us free will and the liberty to do evil. That certainly doesn't mean he condones our doing evil. Instead, he wants us to listen to him and make good decisions.



Who ever said this? Where are you getting these ridiculous ideas?



Well, yeah. Nobody's arguing otherwise. Did you actually miss the entire point of this thread?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Dude you killed it.You are now on my "Godly" list.
(u 2 Chrissy)

Um and what I have to say is...Do whut you think is right guys because when it comes down to it....Somtimes there is no one there to give you advice.
+condoms only reduce the risk by like 83%.Some sperm still pass through.(I HOPE IM SCARING YOU! HAHAHAHAHA!!!)