Sex before marriage is always wrong.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by tieyourmotherdown

Personally I really don't think it is. Marriage is merely a social construct, and if a couple have been together for years anyway but aren't legally married, I can't see how a piece of paper makes any difference whatsoever.

I can certainly see the value in no sex before a committed relationship, which personally I think makes sense, but no sex before marriage just seems illogical to me.

Marital rights especially concerning the female?

I know of cases of females that don't have the liberty at first to get married due to society norms where they are more or less expected to date & have sex within the short time of seeing one another as well as 'being too young for marriage' i.e. from age 16. After this, the relationship can either develop into a more serious one or just cut loose. With the latter, I have seen young females often gain negative reputation as being a promiscuous in the community. This is here and occurs in high schools in particular where rumours begin to spread that 'she had sex with so & so' after the supposed 'relationship' ends.

Reply 141

dreiviergrenadier

Original post by tieyourmotherdown

Is marriage merely a social construct? It seems to me that society generally organises itself into male-female child raising pairs anyway and (the very little anthropological literature I've read has said this explicitly) it seems to be ubiquitous. So it seems to me that marriage is a social norm that regulates and gives status to these natural pairings. It's not something that is constructed by society ex nihilo.

As for having sex only in committed relationships, why is it illogical to have marriage as the signifier and guarantor of those relationship types?

Reply 142

dreiviergrenadier

Original post by daisydaffodil

I suppose. I've never really thought about it a lot. I do know though that you can receive divorce counselling from a priest and go on to re-marry, as both my devout grandparents have done. I would intend to keep my virginity up until marriage just because it seems the right thing to do - it's something really special and not something I want to throw around, if that makes sense.

Really? I had always thought that the Catholic Church wouldn't allow people to remarry on their premises (or recognise the remarriage), unless it was for adultery (as in Matthew - I'm not trying to pry!). And that does make complete sense to me :smile:

Original post by daisydaffodil

I suppose it depends how literally you take the Bible - I mean, there are so so many laws in there that various churches just disregard, and then there are other things sort of added into churches that never existed in the Bible, I think. If you followed it down to the last word, there's rules relating to women and their period, none of us really follow that. I've never fully understood how we can disregard one thing but really try to follow another.

Original post by daisydaffodil

My gran's a very devout Catholic though (I'm Catholic) - and believes that sex is purely for the reproduction of children and nothing else - i.e. you only have sex in marriage, and only when you want a baby out of it. Orgasm apparently is an added bonus... Which I don't agree with - I think sex and sexuality is a gift from God.

As far as I'm aware, Catholic doctrine teaches rather that all sexual conduct 'should be of the type open to reproduction'. So it doesn't have to be done with the purpose of having a child, but one ought not to frustrate that possibility (by having other types of sex, using contraception etc). So on that basis it's perfectly permissible as a Catholic to have sex in order to enjoy and celebrate your sexuality with your [marital] partner.

Original post by daisydaffodil

It's sooo confusing though - I was sitting once with my Gran talking about stuff like this and she said Mary isn't literally a virgin (i.e. the Virgin Mary) - now how confusing is that? She tried to explain why but her explanation baffled me.

I'm baffled just reading it! The only thing I can thing of is if she means the Virgin Mary didn't stay a virgin after Christ's birth (which I would agree with, but some Catholics/Orthodox Christians wouldn't).

Reply 143

paddycy

you can't buy a car without test driving it 1st...

Reply 144

dreiviergrenadier

Original post by paddycy

you can't buy a car without test driving it 1st...

That's quite a silly analogy. The main purpose of having a car is to drive it. Is the main purpose of a marriage sex? Sure, it could be seen to be silly to get married without testing out some of its core functions first (trust, loyalty, respect), but there's no reason why all peripheral functions have to be taken for a 'test drive'. It's more like saying 'you can't buy a car without first going to the Co-op with it and getting all your shopping'. Which is silly. Of course you can.

Reply 145

kaosu_souzousha

75 people never had sex

Reply 146

daisydaffodil

Original post by dreiviergrenadier

I'd be careful not to characterise it as 'not following' rules, or how 'literally' one takes the Bible - different churches do have different views on how the biblical narratives fit together, but I wouldn't want to say that's because they've simply dismissed some bits. But that's a different discussion altogether (and one for the religion forum!)

As far as I'm aware, Catholic doctrine teaches rather that all sexual conduct 'should be of the type open to reproduction'. So it doesn't have to be done with the purpose of having a child, but one ought not to frustrate that possibility (by having other types of sex, using contraception etc). So on that basis it's perfectly permissible as a Catholic to have sex in order to enjoy and celebrate your sexuality with your [marital] partner.

I'm baffled just reading it! The only thing I can thing of is if she means the Virgin Mary didn't stay a virgin after Christ's birth (which I would agree with, but some Catholics/Orthodox Christians wouldn't).

Yeah I think she meant it along the lines that Mary couldn't possiby have been a virgin in order to conceive Jesus - but I really don't know where she got that from. She confused me further, by going on about how Mary herself would have been conceived without sin, i.e through her parents but it makes no sense to me.

No, adultery wasn't really the reason - I'm not sure how it worked. The only thing I can think of is that my biological grandfather was physically abusive towards my gran, mum and her siblings - maybe the divorce/remarriage was granted on that grounds. But then again maybe that's why she's so devout now because she's worried about past mistakes! You sort of think though, that my gran and biological grandfather, weren't meant to be together and that God would be OK with it, as they are clearly happier and better off apart.

Ah OK. It still confuses me. It does explain why so many people in Church seem to have lots of children - the contraception thing - but my mum used to be on the pill and she says she doesn't believe it's a sin. So Idk...

Reply 147

34253

Original post by Stefan1991

Please tell me this is a joke. Abstinence programs do not, and have never worked.

Teenagers are going to have sex, whether you tell them not to or not. It is pretty common knowledge that the abstinence program in America has completely failed.

Simply telling them not to do it and keeping them ignorant about contraception is possibly the most stupidest idea ever conceived of, how is this going to help them stop making each other pregnant accidentally and spreading STIs?

So to combat this we should repress our sexuality and defy human nature? How do you figure that one is going to work.

Got any evidence to support this?

Or do you really expect non-mentally retarded people to believe that MOST unplanned pregnancies occur with people actually USING contraception and not to people who don't use it.

How is that even logically probably? How exactly does using contraception makes you more likely to fall pregnant, do you even think before you write?

:lolwut:

I didn't say just tell them not to have sex and that's it. I would also have them taught the ins and outs of contraception, but tell them that they are being taught this for when they have sex within marriage. That way, if they do decide to have premarital sex they will have the knowledge. The research shows that sex education programs with a non-religious abstinence 'edge' to them are more successful than programs without them http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-02/news/17842497_1_abstinence-only-programs-comprehensive-sex-education-classes .

All unplanned pregnancies occur in people having sex, the majority are using contraception. BOO YA: http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontrol/a/effectivenessbc.htm
http://www.birthcontrolbuzz.com/blog/2006/07/why-does-birth-control-fail.html
"Fifty-three percent of unplanned pregnancies occur in women who are using contraceptives."

So I guess it's you who is mentally retarded?

It is logically possible because people who use contraception think they are safer than they actually are. Contraception when used perfectly has a general failure rate of about 1%. But people are stupid, myself included, and so the rate rises closer to 5-10%. Obviously compared to people having sex and not using contraception that's 90% better, but compared to people not having sex at all the odds of getting pregnant are infinitely higher. Using contraception gives a very false sense of security, no one thinks it's going to fail them, but for over 200,000 women every year it does; and most of these women are in lower socioeconomic areas, teenagers, or young adults.

Teenagers are going to have sex. I know this full well, because I was one of those teenagers. We need a two pronged approach, espousing the plus points of waiting until marriage, instilling them with the strength to fight the massive peer pressure to have sex, whilst simultaneously teaching them the ins and outs of contraception for when they do choose to have sex. But the fact remains that in the 60s and 70s when teenagers were having less sex and had absolutely no access to anything but condoms (teenagers found it notouriously difficult to obtain the pill, and so did adults if they didn't go private) the rate of unplanned pregnancy was lower than it is now where we have access to multiple contraceptions.

Reply 148

34253

Original post by Calumcalum

I imagine some of them would think the same of 346 people thinking it wasn't :tongue:

Do you not find it extremely difficult as a male to tell people you are abstaining? In my experience that instantly puts you into a 'loser' category among males. With women, it's like 'O, I can respect that, you can probably convince a man to hang on in there'. But for men, crossing paths with women who are on that same level seems rather difficult. Even if you go to a good church with a lot of youth affiliations you seem to dramatically reduce the pool of possible people to have relationships with. Now that I am grown up I can see my previous attitudes were rather foolhardy from both a rational level and a Christian level, but when you're in the thick of being a teenager/young adult the pressure from every direction to eat that apple is just amazingly great.

Reply 149

Calumcalum

Original post by Elipsis

Personally, not really :tongue:

the people I meet seem pretty accepting in general, though I think that's because they know a) it's because I'm choosing to, not because I'm an unwanted loser :tongue:

and b) I spend most of my spare time learning about important issues like this and am unlikely to just be uneducated or unreasonable on it :wink:

Reply 150

username310124

It's a penis going into a vagina before two names are written on a peice of paper...

Reply 151

Rant

The sentence is missing something, e.g:

Sex (with a family pet) before marriage is always wrong.

or

Sex before marriage (with children) is always wrong.

Other than that, no.

Reply 152

dreiviergrenadier

Original post by Elipsis

Teenagers are going to have sex. I know this full well, because I was one of those teenagers. We need a two pronged approach, espousing the plus points of waiting until marriage, instilling them with the strength to fight the massive peer pressure to have sex, whilst simultaneously teaching them the ins and outs of contraception for when they do choose to have sex.

What do you think about a three-pronged approach, the third focussing on reducing the social pressure?

Reply 153

Djordje

Premarital sex is wrong? *impliedfacepalm*.

Disagree WIN ! :smile:

Safe sex is always a good thing.

Reply 154

aeterno

Why do the things that are wrong feel so good! :nooo:

Ehh, whatever, I don't think it should be considered wrong provided it's between two consenting adults.

Now I'm going to go have sex because this forbidden fruit has made me hungry :colonhash:

Reply 155

34253

Original post by dreiviergrenadier

What do you think about a three-pronged approach, the third focussing on reducing the social pressure?

I think that a key part of the second prong of abstinence should probably include that, and if it is successful there should be a good support group of friends around the person who chooses to wait. The trouble at the minute is that most schools (mine included) it was pretty much expected that we were all going to have sex as soon as we could, and it was never even suggested that we might wait. So there was pressure from above, as well as each other, and the media.

Reply 156

34253

Original post by Calumcalum

Personally, not really :tongue:

the people I meet seem pretty accepting in general, though I think that's because they know a) it's because I'm choosing to, not because I'm an unwanted loser :tongue:

and b) I spend most of my spare time learning about important issues like this and am unlikely to just be uneducated or unreasonable on it :wink:

Ah, the joys of going to Oxford I guess? It was pretty much presumed in my school and college that if you weren't having sex the choice had been made for you by the opposite sex, rather than by you. Which is why I guess female abstainers were slightly more believable.