Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pip210)
    I do think that it is personal choice, and when two people are in love but not married, it is their choice to express their love through physical means. But it has to be said that the act of sex is far too lightly thought of in society, perhaps an indication of the perversion of society. I'm not saying that I'm completely innocent, or blaming society, it is always down to the individual, but I would most certainly advise my children against sleeping around, or 'trying the shoe to see if it fits'. If they are in love, then there are no obstacles on the physical side of things too great.
    There is a difference between sleeping around and abstaining till marriage. Would you think less of someone who had had sex before marriage and would you be prepared to marry someone who had done that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't think any less of someone who has had sex outwith marriage, and yes I would marry someone who has had sex before. But, I would think more of someone if they had saved themselves, as it shows willpower and steadfastness in their religion if they happen to be religious. I would also think more of someone if they didn't consider sex so lightly in a society where it really is. I wouldn't hold anyone in a lower respect than myself, as I've made stupid mistakes, and I do regret them everyday.

    I have friends who save themselves till marriage, and those who dont, I dont consider either above the other, but I am supportive of those who wish to abstain, and am proud of them. I don't know if that makes sense, but I never want to fall into the 'holier than you' perspective.

    Could I also bring up another point, which is concerning marriage and religion. I reckon that the reason every religion brought marriage into the equation, and the no sex before marriage rule, was to prevent the spread of aids and the HIV virus. If you sit back for a minute, and imagine that the majority of the world took marriage seriously, and did not consider sex so lightly, then do you really think that aids would be as big a problem as it is now? would millions be dying in places like Africa?

    I know that we shouldn't be thinking 'what if', but it' just a thought.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    littleone are you asian? (don't feel you have to answer if you don't want to)
    yeh
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pip210)
    Could I also bring up another point, which is concerning marriage and religion. I reckon that the reason every religion brought marriage into the equation, and the no sex before marriage rule, was to prevent the spread of aids and the HIV virus. If you sit back for a minute, and imagine that the majority of the world took marriage seriously, and did not consider sex so lightly, then do you really think that aids would be as big a problem as it is now? would millions be dying in places like Africa?
    I see where you are coming from but abstaining from marriage personally doesn't protect you from HIV/AIDS all together. I mean I have seen more than one can on the tv when looking at AID's cases in Africa where the women (it is usually the women) is a virgin on their wedding night and then contracts HIV from her partner that she thought was a virgin. Or cases I learnt about in Geography when migrant workers sleep with prostetutes and bring the Virus back to their wives.

    The sad fact is that in Africa even abstaining from sex until marriage doesn't protect you from AIDs because you can never know what your partner or husband/wife has done before they knew you and they can lie.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I see where you are coming from but abstaining from marriage personally doesn't protect you from HIV/AIDS all together. I mean I have seen more than one can on the tv when looking at AID's cases in Africa where the women (it is usually the women) is a virgin on their wedding night and then contracts HIV from her partner that she thought was a virgin. Or cases I learnt about in Geography when migrant workers sleep with prostetutes and bring the Virus back to their wives.

    The sad fact is that in Africa even abstaining from sex until marriage doesn't protect you from AIDs because you can never know what your partner or husband/wife has done before they knew you and they can lie.
    CONDOMS!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I see where you are coming from but abstaining from marriage personally doesn't protect you from HIV/AIDS all together. I mean I have seen more than one can on the tv when looking at AID's cases in Africa where the women (it is usually the women) is a virgin on their wedding night and then contracts HIV from her partner that she thought was a virgin. Or cases I learnt about in Geography when migrant workers sleep with prostetutes and bring the Virus back to their wives.

    The sad fact is that in Africa even abstaining from sex until marriage doesn't protect you from AIDs because you can never know what your partner or husband/wife has done before they knew you and they can lie.
    like you say, sex before marriage doesnt necessarily mean you wont have aids. it is a disease that is passed on. also i know that many young girls in LEDCs are captured and used as prostitutes. they would be around 8+ and the lower the age, the more money the owner of the prostitute would make. the age is irrelevant but the point is that there are different ways people can have aids before getting married
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neha p)
    like you say, sex before marriage doesnt necessarily mean you wont have aids. it is a disease that is passed on. also i know that many young girls in LEDCs are captured and used as prostitutes. they would be around 8+ and the lower the age, the more money the owner of the prostitute would make. the age is irrelevant but the point is that there are different ways people can have aids before getting married
    before being born too
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    CONDOMS!
    Yes I am aware of that. I am not saying that this happens all the time just that there are more than a couple of cases. I have also looked at the actions of the catholic church. In some areas of rural areas the catholic nuns are the main source fo health care for the people. They are teaching married couples that the condoms are a wronge and shouldn't be used. This means than some married couples don't use condoms because they can't afford them or they think that they are wronge in gods eyes. This doesn' help the spread of AIDs. Like I have said this isn't happening all over africa just in some normally rural areas.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    that's a v.valid point in the talk about aids, the way the catholic church is trying to deal with it. I'm not condemning their actions, but I do think they're being v.nieve.

    It would work, the whole non-condom thing, if everyone in the world was truthfull, honest, and willing to abstain, but in reality, this aint the case. Then again, if two people abstain from having sex until they are married, then there is minimal risk of aids, I'm not saying that there isn't, because it can be spread via blood too, as in needles and such, but if that happens, I'm sure someone will not be untruthfull about it. There was a case on the nbews not so long ago about a man who had full knowledge he had aids, and intentionally infected several ladies, well, maybe not intentionally, but he failed to inform them, I'm not sure of the full facts, but the point is that he was sentenced for his actions. If theses woman had not had sex with him, and instead waited till the right time when they were in love with him, and him back, you would hope that he would be honest enough to reveal to them that he has a disease, and then they would simply use contraception, or if they are in the catholic chruch, they wouldn't be havin sex until they were married anyway, so the infection, god forbid it did spread, is only to one person.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pip210)
    god forbid it did spread, is only to one person.
    and to the offspring and what if they were a blood donor? whoa people would get AIDS everywhere! ¬_¬
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    and to the offspring and what if they were a blood donor? whoa people would get AIDS everywhere! ¬_¬
    To offspring yes and anyone who shared a needle with them. But blood donations are checked for HIV before transfusion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    To offspring yes and anyone who shared a needle with them. But blood donations are checked for HIV before transfusion.
    not in every country ¬_¬
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    huh? i might sound dumb but most STDs are not like rhesus, if both partners are AIDs free and are virgins then surely they cant catch anything together?
    so isnt this a good reason to wait?

    incidentally, did you know, all bird spiecies carry chlamidiya? mor likely to catch std in an aviary!

    and is it true that AIDs was developed by human scientisets testing viruses on monkeys? cos it had to come from somewhere?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magiccarpet)
    huh? i might sound dumb but most STDs are not like rhesus, if both partners are AIDs free and are virgins then surely they cant catch anything together?
    so isnt this a good reason to wait?

    incidentally, did you know, all bird spiecies carry chlamidiya? mor likely to catch std in an aviary!

    and is it true that AIDs was developed by human scientisets testing viruses on monkeys? cos it had to come from somewhere?
    who cares anyways, virgin or not, you can always go to the STD clinic and find out. loads of conspiracy theories behind AIDs too...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pip210)

    Could I also bring up another point, which is concerning marriage and religion. I reckon that the reason every religion brought marriage into the equation, and the no sex before marriage rule, was to prevent the spread of aids and the HIV virus. If you sit back for a minute, and imagine that the majority of the world took marriage seriously, and did not consider sex so lightly, then do you really think that aids would be as big a problem as it is now? would millions be dying in places like Africa?
    But AIDS started off as a disease prevalent mainly in homosexual men, and did not become so common amongst heterosexuals until more recently. It's only in the last few months that the number of women with the HIV virus has equalled the number of men. So no sex before marriage wouldn't have helped, as homosexuals can't marry anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarah101)
    But AIDS started off as a disease prevalent mainly in homosexual men, and did not become so common amongst heterosexuals until more recently. It's only in the last few months that the number of women with the HIV virus has equalled the number of men. So no sex before marriage wouldn't have helped, as homosexuals can't marry anyway.
    it was very common amongst the scum of american society.

    homosexuals and certain races in america... that's why people think it's a conspiracy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magiccarpet)
    huh? i might sound dumb but most STDs are not like rhesus, if both partners are AIDs free and are virgins then surely they cant catch anything together?
    so isnt this a good reason to wait?
    I don't think it should be the only reason that you wait. I mean if you genuinly feel that waiting until your wedding night is the right thing to do then by all means. However I think that saying things like sex before marriage will lead you to get an STD like some schools in America teach is worrying because then you are scaring people into a decision which may not be right for them. Yes when two virgins get married then the chances of aids are low. But one of them may a caught Aid through drug taking and then pass it on to the partner. Or one of the partners may be lieing about their sexual past. It is fair enough to state that you are less likely to get Aids if you wait untill marriage but it is still not a fail safe means of protections.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _tobi_coker07_)
    Do you believe that people should not have sex before marriage?
    What age do you think is legal for someone to have sex?
    i think that sex before marriage will more likely destroy people relionship (sexual that is) if we they get married there other half is not as good as the person that they used to slepp with.

    and as for sex being legal, i think it should be legal at puberty, but in this case, where childern are just being born and thrown, well, to be honet at around 18 to be honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think 18 may be a little too late to make it legal. Teenagers feel strong sexual urges at puberty, and I think that when they reach the age of 16, the majority of teenagers, who are not wishing to abstain, even those who try, go looking for sex, and it would be a complete waste of time for the police, if they had to charge 16 year olds with 'illegal sex' if there is such a thing.

    I have much respect for people who wish to abstain, and no matter what people keep saying about aids and such, it does make it safer, and would decrease the spread of the HIV virus. It also makes it better financially for a couple to be married, if they are planning on having a child for instance. In the end, waiting until you are in love, or married, is the logical choice, of course its not always the case, but its always good to try.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pip210)
    Could I also bring up another point, which is concerning marriage and religion. I reckon that the reason every religion brought marriage into the equation, and the no sex before marriage rule, was to prevent the spread of aids and the HIV virus. If you sit back for a minute, and imagine that the majority of the world took marriage seriously, and did not consider sex so lightly, then do you really think that aids would be as big a problem as it is now? would millions be dying in places like Africa?

    Those religious dogmas were around long before HIV. A more generally accepted socio-biological cause for the veneration of marriage is male control of female sexuality, resulting from evolutionary adaptations that would have originally increased mens chances of successfully reproducing. Hence the greater seriousness attributed to female adultery than male.

    If everyone was monogamous, it would save many lives (due to AIDs). The other side of the coin is that if every society contained easily accessible protection and the provision of sexual health education, that would also address the problem.
 
 
 

2,107

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.