Sex before marriage?

[ZX81]

It's not based on any religion. It's based on moral values and some studies I read. When you are getting married won't you feel depressed to know that this is not the first woman you have sex with? How will your wife feel? (unless you don't tell her)

 

 

..and that would be why you posted/lamented your girlfriend is leaving you to go to the states?... to get some north american timber?

 

[james2mart]

I dont agree, I dont see how having sex with somebody before marriage determines whether the marriage suceeds or not, I honestly think that waiting to get married before having sex is too hyped up, its not a life/death thing, its just sex...

 

Im a virgin, twice removed (ive sleped with two women). One im still great friends with, one I dont talk to anymore. The previous sexual encounter doesnt get in the way of our friendship, thats in the past, its done now, time to move on, and when I do, ill find somebody who feels the same way about sex as I do, that its not really a big deal...

 

Heh, you've always got to disagree with me, don't you? lol. Waiting to have sex after you get married is quite rewarding, and almost all the people that did will tell you that - and that goes for both religious and non-religious people.

[Jeezoflip]

Heh, you've always got to disagree with me, don't you? lol. Waiting to have sex after you get married is quite rewarding, and almost all the people that did will tell you that - and that goes for both religious and non-religious people.

 

I agree it would be rewarding, but in this day and age, its almost rare to find a newly wed couple who are both virgins. Many people experience sex now adays a such a young age like my self, being 16. I believe that as long as your in love, or a very strong emotional relationship, no matter what age, its okay. As long as you or your lover doesnt have like gonorrhea, or siphilous. lol.

[Dr. Hurt]

..and that would be why you posted/lamented your girlfriend is leaving you to go to the states?... to get some north american timber?

 

Please DON'T mention my girlfriend here because she has nothing to do with that. I am just taking from my point of view. Please, if you want to comment, then comment about me, not her. I'm sure you'll feel the same if someone talks about your girlfriend or anyone that you know in that way.

[kday]

Sex is bad... mmmkay?

 

Seriously though. If you want to have sex, go and have sex. If you don't want to have sex, don't have sex. It's not a life or death choice, so don't worry so much. We're all just animals, and we are built to reproduce.

 

I guess I am just a simple minded person.

[gazasaurusu]

Sex is all there is to life, and marriage is for fools, thats all there is to it.

[SenVa]

Ok... All i'm going to say is that I agree with everyone that said sex before marriage is ok, aslong as it is "safe"... I also think that after marriage you're stuck with that person...(i guess that is'nt the best way to phase it, but you get what i mean.)

 

If sex before marriage is not allowed in your religion then it is a different story.

[bwhsh8r]

Sex is bad... mmmkay?

 

Seriously though. If you want to have sex, go and have sex. If you don't want to have sex, don't have sex. It's not a life or death choice, so don't worry so much. We're all just animals, and we are built to reproduce.

 

I guess I am just a simple minded person.

 

 

 

but that is exactly how it is, its like you hit the nail on the head in quite clear terms

 

 

 

max

[killbot1000]

Sex is gooooood!!!!!!

[rogabean]

OK I'm gonna chime in here.

 

My opinion is NOT having sex before getting married is a bad idea.

 

why?

 

While it's true that sex can not make a relationship (well not forever anyway *wink*). It can destroy one. You can not in good faith say that you can vow to stand beside someone in a marriage for the rest of your life without knowing if the two of you are sexually compatible. Everyone is different and people mesh on a sexual level with other people in different ways.

 

Sex is a healthy and normal part of life. It's not something that should be hidden away or shunned or hushed. It is a core part of being human and being in a marriage with someone also means you are (or should be at least if it is a healthy one) sexual with that person. However if you can not for some reason be sexual with that person that is grounds for that marriage/relationship to fail on it's own. Wouldn't it be better to have some idea before taking that plunge? I mean do you really want to spend the rest of your life with someone is is bad in bed? A happy marriage that does not make.

 

I would quite frankly refuse to marry anyone who I had not had sex with several times beforehand, and I would advise others to do the same.

 

It's no different then people who think you should not live together before marriage. You know what? That's messed up as well. Being in a relationship with someone and living with them are very different things. You need to have explored the things you are getting yourself into "as a life commitment" before you actual make that "life commitment".

 

And this is coming from a middle conservative Republican!

[killbot1000]

OK I'm gonna chime in here.

 

My opinion is NOT having sex before getting married is a bad idea.

 

why?

 

While it's true that sex can not make a relationship (well not forever anyway *wink*). It can destroy one. You can not in good faith say that you can vow to stand beside someone in a marriage for the rest of your life without knowing if the two of you are sexually compatible. Everyone is different and people mesh on a sexual level with other people in different ways.

 

Sex is a healthy and normal part of life. It's not something that should be hidden away or shunned or hushed. It is a core part of being human and being in a marriage with someone also means you are (or should be at least if it is a healthy one) sexual with that person. However if you can not for some reason be sexual with that person that is grounds for that marriage/relationship to fail on it's own. Wouldn't it be better to have some idea before taking that plunge? I mean do you really want to spend the rest of your life with someone is is bad in bed? A happy marriage that does not make.

 

I would quite frankly refuse to marry anyone who I had not had sex with several times beforehand, and I would advise others to do the same.

 

It's no different then people who think you should not live together before marriage. You know what? That's messed up as well. Being in a relationship with someone and living with them are very different things. You need to have explored the things you are getting yourself into "as a life commitment" before you actual make that "life commitment".

 

And this is coming from a middle conservative Republican!

 

I agree with you completely in everything you said , except for the conservative republican part! heheh

[gwprod12]

If you buy a car from the dealership on the sales-person's say so, without any test drive or doing any research online..... then marriage before sex is for you!

[killbot1000]

If you buy a car from the dealership on the sales-person's say so, without any test drive or doing any research online..... then marriage before sex is for you!

 

Exactly!

[killbot1000]

Im happy to see that the majority of people are sexy, and sexing it up, or atleast trying hehehe jk

[james2mart]

If you buy a car from the dealership on the sales-person's say so, without any test drive or doing any research online..... then marriage before sex is for you!

 

This argument is pointless. It's the same as saying "Don't knock it until you try it." Just like illegal drugs. You don't have to try it to know that its not right for you.

 

BTW, I don't plan on buying a new car anytime soon until the cars get 200 MPG or better.

[gwprod12]

Well, most people are reasonable enough to know that until you experience something, you dont "know" anything about it. You can suspect that sex isnt right for you, or that a Mac isnt right for you, or that owning a dog isnt right for you. But until you have sex, use a mac, or have a dog, you dont really know any of those things.

[james2mart]

Well, most people are reasonable enough to know that until you experience something, you dont "know" anything about it. You can suspect that sex isnt right for you, or that a Mac isnt right for you, or that owning a dog isnt right for you. But until you have sex, use a mac, or have a dog, you dont really know any of those things.

 

Not true in every case, gwprod12. I dont need to experience drugs to know that it isn't right for me. I don't need to experience sex to know that it isnt right for me *before marriage*. Sex is pleasing in every sense of human nature, but personally set morals can easily dictate what people know to be right for them. People know plenty about things they never do.

 

Judging from what you say, since you have never experienced evolution on the scale that you believe, you don't know anything about it.

[kday]

Well, most people are reasonable enough to know that until you experience something, you dont "know" anything about it. You can suspect that sex isnt right for you, or that a Mac isnt right for you, or that owning a dog isnt right for you. But until you have sex, use a mac, or have a dog, you dont really know any of those things.

C'mon, a blow up doll is enough experience to know what sex is like. It's almost the same thing (depending on the quality, features, interactivity, and material of the blow up doll). You can compare having sex with a blow up doll to owning a hackintosh. It's not exactly the same thing, but the experience with the hackintosh can still be good. You may not get as much pleasure running a hackintosh compared to running a Mac Pro, but with the right PC parts, it can still be a good enough enough experience to know what the real thing is like.

 

I don't understand your logic.

[gwprod12]

Well, those are kinda skewed examples ;-p

 

Let me put it this way. If you've never flown on an airplane before, how can you know you dont like flying on an airplane?

 

EDIT: Or. If you've never porked a blow-up doll, how do you know you dont like porking a blow-up doll?

 

You might easily suspect you wont like doing something, but until you do it, you cannot know you dont like it.

Just as owning a hackintosh would lead someone to believe that owning using a Mac Pro might be for them, or not for them, without using a Mac Pro, you dont know. Which is why you go to the Apple store, and use one before you buy.

[kday]

Well, those are kinda skewed examples ;-p

 

Let me put it this way. If you've never flown on an airplane before, how can you know you dont like flying on an airplane?

Haven't you ever played Microsoft Flight Simulator? I can do backflips with a 747. I love that game, and I love flying planes.

 

But I see your point. I would like a free 30 day trial before paying for the wedding (assuming the father of the bride is a cheap ass).

[baadc0de]

Good thread!

 

First off, a few prerequisite definitions. When I say a thing is "romantic" (in quotes) I mean that people react to it with oohs and aahs of longing and possibly denied pleasure, based on the moral standards imbued in them in their childhood.

 

I claim that sex after marriage is "romantic". A rather windy and overly long explanation is in order:

 

In ancient times, man feared lightning - a force of destruction he could not comprehend, leave alone tame or use. He succeeded with fire though, and those with guts that have learned to control fire were feared and respected. It is natural for human beings to assort themselves in a hierarchy and to strive to be at the far top of the hierarchy. But more than lightning, man feared the woman. Weaker as they may be in physical strength and less inclined to physical force, they had a talent man could not understand ... women gave birth, and that gave as much dread to ancient peoples as murder did. The creation and destruction of intelligent life was fearfull indeed.

 

People have soon found out about ownership - ownership of ideas, processes, materials, goods, and - eventually - women. The theory is very simple, the more you have, the better off you are in the hierarchy, because you can exchange the goods for position and because you gain respect becouse of the amount of goods in your ownership.

 

Anyways, with ownership came ownership conflicts - claims of goods and women being claimed by one and then again by someone else. The fear of being disowned of a particular item by someone else has resulted in an urge to defend it. The best defense possible is to eliminate the hostile force from the equation completely. This resulted in forced slavery (demoting people to goods) and, eventually war.

 

On the whole, people fear of death (of themselves) and death of another brings grief. If not for anything else, he who kills and wields the power over intelligent life, will kill again, and possibly with greater ease. As a result, such people have been identified as a thread to the well being of the community. A new idea has arisen - a set of prescriptions or laws have been given to the community by the top of the hierarchy. Slowly, the law made its reign on everything a human being does. We are fascinated by order, because it encourages stability and ensures us a lack of nasty surprises in our lives. When man got to know the extends and power of law, it has proven even more powerfull than lightning.

 

You see, people have come to conclusions that other people enjoy the order and stability that laws and prescriptions bring, and will obey and bend as a whole, if the laws have certain qualities. These qualities have soon been found to be on the lines of:

 

- if the law was seemed obvious, as in, it encouraged the normal behaviour on the subject

- if the law was given by someone who is respected, either because his deeds, position or ownership within the community

- if the law is enforced by bribes or physical force

 

Since then, it could be argued that "ownership over the community" strives from ownership over the law-making and law-enforcing power. What people can own, people will own, and strive to own. The laws have left the domain of community well-being and entered the domain of the well-being of the law-making and law-enforcing people.

 

The idea is, if you have law-enforcing people and the appetite to expand your law-making power (since you have put laws in motion that elevate your well-being, either simply because of respect or because of the ownership expansion) you have what it takes to take over smaller, in all possibility, "ungoverned" community and attach it to your existing community, naturally expanding your law-making power.

 

It's funny however, how things quickly turn about on themselves. When governed, people become dependant on the law. They do not settle affairs themselves, but wish, or even require that their affairs be settled by the law-making power. Thus, the law-making power must pursue law-making as a full-time occupation since the existence of their law-making ownership is at stake if they don't do their job right.

 

The law-making society needed a stable building block to make empires with. Some sort of a small organization that is self-sufficient in day-to-day matters, that contributes to the well-being of the community at large and works well in a governed community.

 

Soon, the patriarchical family has been identified as a prime example of a good "cellular" organization for governed communities. The parents perform jobs and educate their children, the current laws being a prime source of information on how and what to pass on to their children.

 

In a few generations, the moral compass of people is changed, because people become educated in their childhood about laws and limits that are set by them. Children get slapped for ogling women, for eating without a spoon, for not working when they don't want to, for listening to conversations they should not be listening to and so on.

 

Communication of feelings becomes frowned upon, the family becomes the building block of the community and marriage is being institutionalized as a requirement for a family. Because a family must be stable, the parents must stay together even if their dislike of each other is such that they would normally not continue the relationship. Because people are so dynamic and so adaptive, in the long run, the family as such has done its job. Even if parents found out their sexual or personal relationship has gone awry, they will continue, because the law required it. The law forbade the splitting of the family because of the fear of anarchy and because people are inclined to like something that works to some extent over something that works perfectly but the previous thing needs to be dismantled and effort made to create the new, perfectly working thing.

 

To sum all of this together, the law-making society passed laws that forbade the parents to divorce, and laws that forbade sex before marriage. The logic behind that is to get the family working as fast as possible, and enlarging the population of prospective tomorrow's fervent believers in the law, and thus prospective law-enforcers. The law-making society requires such members of the community in order to expand its power and pass new, better laws, because they will be accepted by the community more easily, if their minds are not "polluted" by the "old ways".

 

Thus, people believe in what is right through education and their moral compass is forced to behave as the laws require. Ideals are set in poetry and other literature to boost the "romaticism" of the laws in question, so that people don't feel like something was taken away from them, but more like something was given to them. We cling to order and to the ideals, and so the idea of sex during marriage has become not only the "romatic" ideal, but law-enforced neccessity. If you wanted to have sex, you had to get a family. If you wanted to get a family, you needed ownership over funds, and those came by a lot of work. A lot of work boosts the local economy, and thus you have paid the community to get laid.

 

Things like divorce, sex before or outside marriage, and so on and on have been marked progressively as indecent, taboo, and then banned, with law-enforcing society "encouragement" not to do such things.

 

So, my views are such that you should understand that the internal moral compass, and feeling wrong and such do not come from any grace of god or because we as humans were made or evolved as such. It comes from your education as a child and education of your parents, right down recursively to the appaled people, possibly somewhere in europe, as the local clan chief proclaimed that two people boogie-woogie is ok when he say so and not sooner.

 

This has watered down somewhat, because in all that strive to work and be productive and enhance the community, parents don't have enough time for parenting their children, thus they are forced to educate and parent themselves, thus gaining a much more natural and free perception of sexual and emotional attachment.

 

PS: Churches and other institutions are law-making bodies over a set of beliefs (and thus laws) that base a religion. Thus following a religion is base for membership in a church, thus making you a subject (willing or unwilling) of law-making and law-enforcing bodies of the religion in question.

 

PS: I don't agree with parents not having time for parenting. I want parenting to happen. I'm not against laws, I'm against family preservance laws and their impact on society. I know these laws have since been removed from country-level governance, but I seek that it be removed from religion-level governance as well, and want people to educate their children in a more free, loose manner when it comes to these matters.

[DrJägermeister]

Marriage: I´ll never do that, I don´t want to have only one girl for the rest of my life

 

Sex: I want to f*** as much girls as I can and I always want to do it

 

No Sex before marriage is only for old conservative or religious guys who don´t want to have fun in their life.

[OryHara]

I voted Yes. During modern times, we have more protections, and ways to prevent, and protect against STDs, and prevent girls/women from being pregnant. Birth control, condoms, and tests that can be done before sex to determine if there are any STDs present. I have sex with my gf weekly.

 

We were both tested a long time ago, and don't have anything. We still use a condom, and she takes birth control. Better to be safe than sorry. I plan on marrying her and having children in the future, but not quite yet. We've been seeing each other for over a year. Its the longest relationship I have been in, and I truely love her.

[killbot1000]

Honestly, I think its important to have sex with somebody you care about, but it doesnt have to be marriage, thats just my take on it anyway, seeing as marriage is only a word, and a document, in terms of the human condition, it really doesnt mean anything in and of itself...

[james2mart]

Let me put it this way. If you've never flown on an airplane before, how can you know you dont like flying on an airplane?

 

Flying on an airplane is not a moral issue. Sex is. To treat it as an activity and pretend that morals do not apply to it is selling sex short.

 

Sexual Abstinence before marriage is not only a good moral thing to do, but it is also a testimony to your wife- or husband-to-be of unconditional, willing, and patient love. As in 'I love you so much that I have waited to marry you before having sex with you.' Women are sexually aroused by emotions, while men are sexually aroused visually (true in most cases). That's why so many more men watch pr0n than women. If you tell that to a woman, she is going to be all over you. It's happened countless times, and its just plain instinct. Why do men give women flowers? To show how much we care. Sexual abstinence is like flowers on the best steriods money can buy.

 

Sure, we're still mammals. If you want to be a dog and hump everything that moves, thats fine. But keep in mind that dogs arent civilized. We are.