<a https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=7467335'> Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

If sex before marriage and adultery were illegal, it would help with many problems

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Somepersonhere

Real dumb idea, in the Past people got married at the age of 15 usually , so Nothing has changed in society except marriage age increasing to 27 on average or so

Sex hasnt changed, marriage has

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 21

Notoriety

Original post by claireestelle

If you ban intimacy before marriage then surely the divorce rate will get worse as people won't realise they aren't compatible physically until they are married? A marriage is more likely to work if you know the other person as best as possible before getting married rather than rushing into it because you can't have sex before hand.

This presupposes that couples who marry know they are sexually compatible.

People often lie about their sexual fantasies to their partners for fear of not being accepted. It is only when the mid-life crisis looms after 10 years of marriage, when a person's ****s to give quota is fully depleted, do they announce their freakier side.

Reply 22

Unown Uzer

Original post by Beth_H

On the contrary - look at the extensive education and access to contraception in countries like the Netherlands and the success it's had there, compared to the absolute farce that is abstinence only education in the US. The vague and misogynistic idea of "purity" also gets society nowhere.

On the contrary - look at the absence of sex ed or education on contraception in countries like South Korea, Japan, or Hong Kong and the success it's had there, compared to the absolute farce that is comprehensive sex education and overwhelming emphasis on the use of contraception in places like the UK and New Zealand, which has over six times the prevalence of teen pregnancy of South Korea according the UN Statistics Division. The overhyped idea of liberalism only encourages risky behaviour that gets society nowhere - in fact, it creates more problems and places a greater burden on society.

Reply 23

It's****ingWOODY

•

Lower STI/STD rates.

•

Lower unwanted pregnancy rates.

•

Lower amount of abortions.

People will do whatever they like in their own homes whether it's against the law or not. Doubt there would be police raids for people having sex without a marriage certificate.

•

Lower divorce rates.

•

Happier marriages.

•

A more functioning society.

More people getting married just so they can have sex when they have no plans of staying together forever = a higher percentage of unhappy marriages and therefore higher divorce rates. Marriage will just become a meaningless document, basically a sex permit.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 24

ashaxo99

if people were not allowed to partake in sex til marriage then this would increase demand for pornography, potentially child pornography, as well as potentially also increase scale of rape cases. there's nothing wrong with sex before marriage.

Reply 25

tazarooni89

Original post by Beth_H

Indeed, since banning premarital sex would also likely mean that contraception would become harder to access, I would expect that such a policy would cause STI infections, unwanted pregnancies and abortions to increase.

There are several countries which already ban pre-marital sex, presumably on religious grounds. But there is no evidence that they all suffer from a higher STI, unwanted pregnancy abortion rate or divorce rate than we do.

Reply 26

tazarooni89

Original post by claireestelle

If you ban intimacy before marriage then surely the divorce rate will get worse as people won't realise they aren't compatible physically until they are married?

What exactly do you mean by "aren't compatible physically"?

A marriage is more likely to work if you know the other person as best as possible before getting married rather than rushing into it.

I'm my experience (of being married myself) it's not really as simple as that. To me it seems that a marriage is most likely to work if both partners are flexible, easy going and happy to deal with whatever unexpected challenge may come their way, recognising that these are part and parcel of marriage.

Knowing the other person from beforehand is a good thing of course, but care needs to be taken to ensure that it doesn't lead to "judging a book by its cover", creating a false sense of security and unrealistic expectations that can't be met later on.

People behave differently with different people, depending on the nature of their relationship, and people change over time too. Nobody will remain exactly the same throughout marriage as they were before it. So for the most part, it's very difficult to predict what kind of husband or wife someone will be until you've actually experienced life with them as their spouse. I would say at least 95% is going to be luck of the draw in terms of what kind of spouse you get. Knowing them from beforehand just scratches the surface, and unexpected challenges/surprises are inevitable.

If you are given a chance to put your hand in a mystery box and receive whatever prize is waiting for you in there, you're more likely to be satisfied with the outcome if you're expecting nothing in particular and then find a teddy bear, than if you thought the box contained a diamond ring but open it to realise it only contains a teddy bear.

The same psychology applies to marriage too. To be satisfied with marriage it's far more important to expect little from beforehand and be happy with whatever you do end up getting, than to think you know someone very well from beforehand, expect them to be a certain way and then realise that your expectations aren't fully met.

Reply 27

username2053059

Original post by Unown Uzer

Why are you comparing us to Japan or South Korea when we're actually pretty different culturally?

Reply 28

applesforme

I think all those things would happen and society would be better if most people wanted to wait till marriage by choice (like in the amish community?). But enforcing a law doesn't make people abide by that law. We've all broken the law I'm sure in small ways, and some people get a thrill from breaking the law so that would just spur them on. Enforcing a law that is so against indiviudal freedoms like that would lead to a backlash from the people to the government and to conformists in society. You'd get rebellion, anarchy, violence etc. until it gets overthrown - basically the sexual revolution of the 60s, which came out of the prudery and rigidity of the 50s.

Reply 29

Perksy121

Original post by tazarooni89

If you are given a chance to put your hand in a mystery box and receive whatever prize is waiting for you in there, you're more likely to be satisfied with the outcome if you're expecting nothing in particular and then find a teddy bear, than if you thought the box contained a diamond ring but open it to realise it only contains a teddy bear.

The same psychology applies to marriage too. To be satisfied with marriage it's far more important to expect little from beforehand and be happy with whatever you do end up getting, than to think you know someone very well from beforehand, expect them to be a certain way and then realise that your expectations aren't fully met.

So the way this reads is that if you go into a marriage assuming you'll be disappointed, you might be pleasantly surprised with how ok it is?

If I'm going to marry someone, I want to know whole heartedly that I love her and want to spend the rest of my life with her, which involves taking the time to get to know her. It is true that you don't necessarily know what married life will be like but that's why, in the west, we usually live with our significant other for a while before popping the question. Studies have shown that this is actually leading to a decrease in divorces in the up and coming generation.

I'm sorry mate but what you described sounds pretty miserable!

Reply 30

Good bloke

Original post by tazarooni89

Knowing the other person from beforehand is a good thing of course, but care needs to be taken to ensure that it doesn't lead to "judging a book by its cover",

Bending over backwards to defend a non-western cultural practice - the arranged marriage - is one thing, but the whole point of intimacy before the marriage is that you are not judging the book by its cover - you have actually read it thoroughly.

Arranged marriages, on the other hand, rely on the book having been judged by someone who isn't even going to read it.

Reply 31

CuriousSherlock

Original post by Perksy121

Extremely sensible way of thinking, don't see why the other poster thinks otherwise.

Choosing your life partner shouldn't be done with a mentality of off-chance happiness. If you truly believe that such a person is who you'd want to spend the rest of your life with, and then grow old together with, then only then should one tie the knot. Different people come to this conclusion with surety at different times of their life though. Not saying that it still can't end badly, but at least you're going in with a spirited positive attitude, not dooming it to fail before it has even begun properly.

Reply 32

Tiger Rag

How would "no sex before marriage" be enforced?

Reply 33

_gcx

Study Forum Helper

Easy.

People wouldn't observe the law.

Reply 34

Good bloke

Original post by Tiger Rag

How would "no sex before marriage" be enforced?

Well, of course, you cannot. Even one in three of the famously anti-extra-marital-sex Puritans' women were pregnant when they got married, according to research.

Reply 35

tazarooni89

Original post by Perksy121

I don't think you're reading it right. By all means I agree it is important to know someone before marriage, rather than just picking entirely at random.

But at the same time, it is also important to realise that knowing someone before marriage doesn't mean you know much about how they will be in a marital relationship and what a married life with them will actually be like.

Because of this, a more crucial factor in having a successful marriage is, not "assuming you'll be disappointed from beforehand", but being flexible, open minded and happy with whatever kind of spouse you might end up getting (obviously within reason), rather than having fixed expectations for a particular type from beforehand.

I'm not saying that knowing someone from beforehand is useless. I just think that flexibility, compromise, tolerance (as opposed to specific prior expectations) are far more important for a successful marriage. Even arranged marriages where people marry a total stranger often turn out to be very happy ones. But marriages where both parties have fixed expectations and are unwilling to budge from them can never be.

Reply 36

mojojojo101

Original post by _gcx

Easy.

People wouldn't observe the law.

This.

Or the government would spend billions of pounds putting hundreds of thousands of people in jail who pose no threat yo anyone and depending on sentencing, may mean removing children from both their parents which would incur huge costs of them having these children looked after by social services...

Sounds like a brilliant plan...

Reply 37

tazarooni89

Original post by Good bloke

But you are not reading it thoroughly at all; you only think that you are. In reality you are just reading its cover, thinking that is the whole book. It is not. There is a world of difference between a pre-marital relationship and a legally committed relationship in which there is cohabitation, offspring, financial dependence, family integration etc. The pre-marital relationship only scratches the surface.

Arranged marriages, on the other hand, rely on the book having been judged by someone who isn't even going to read it.

I agree - I'm not in favour of "arranged marriages", where the parties don't meet from beforehand and essentially get married to a total stranger.

I think it is important to read the cover of the book before buying it. But it is also important to be aware that it is indeed only a cover. It is far more important to have a high tolerance and open-mindedness for whatever the book may contain, in order to be satisfied with it - as opposed to hyping up expectations which are later not met.