What's your guys opinion in the issue of premarital sex (ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID)?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Bushyasta
Oh come on now!!
Using parts of your body? It doesn't sound very nice after all. Pleasure? Sex us only for reoroduction and for using body parts for pleasure
Using parts of your body? It doesn't sound very nice after all. Pleasure? Sex us only for reoroduction and for using body parts for pleasure
Bushyasta - When the Media took over as the main "influencer" of opinions, (and when the Church failed to fight back, thus making Christianity a mockery in the media and in society,), the idea that Sex was just a bit of fun amid strangers, was an idea that was pushed to the public endlessly. And it is an idea that alot of people still believe. Try being a religious person who wants "No sex before marriage", and also working for any Arts/Humanities/Media companies. You will be mocked for your chastity.
However, there are some film makers who stand up for purity - I remember a film called "Metropolitan" - and it was unusual in its respect for chastity.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by _gcx
I don't understand what the issue is.
The issues is that your sensuality is linked to the rest of your identity/personality.
So if you go through your life, fooling people into having sex and then discarding them in the morning, you will end up with severe problems. The problems are essential moral, but can also be physical and emotional, spiritual and mental.
The rise of the media as a main "influencer" denies this truth, and so many people do believe that promiscuity carries no price to pay. The major religious groups that warn against it are constantly mocked by the media - who - it seems to me - have a rather "evangelical" need to get people to destroy themselves via promiscuity.
Original post by QE2
Surely this is satire, yes? 
That’s exactly what the Bible did. Again I’d highly suggest looking into it.
As someone who isn't religious...
Pre-marital sex is not only fine but actually preferable and desired. As humans who are animals, we desire sex psychologically for well being. To me sex is a fairly big part of a relationship.
Sex isn't just a selfish physical pleasure for some people like me. It is both physical and emotional, a bonding experience, one that is worth experiencing with someone you love. I don't think it is good having to wait years for marriage before you engage in it with the person, you might find you are incompatible and can't connect well here. A happy sex life means a happier relationship.
Pre-marital sex is not only fine but actually preferable and desired. As humans who are animals, we desire sex psychologically for well being. To me sex is a fairly big part of a relationship.
Sex isn't just a selfish physical pleasure for some people like me. It is both physical and emotional, a bonding experience, one that is worth experiencing with someone you love. I don't think it is good having to wait years for marriage before you engage in it with the person, you might find you are incompatible and can't connect well here. A happy sex life means a happier relationship.
Original post by Bushyasta
No it is not a joke!
The Bible just like the all other religious books are mainly works of fiction. And although I like science fiction i don't like religious fiction.
So yes, Harry Potter is a much better book to read rather than the Bible or the Quran or any other religious book.
No! Jesus is not the must influential human being. Far from it. There are several doubts that any Jesus ever existed. He is not a King if anything and the Bible has predicted nothing.
The world wasn't civilised by Christianity or Islam. These two religions together with Judaism are responsible for all the dark ages humanity has gone through. They are stone age ideologies.
The Bible just like the all other religious books are mainly works of fiction. And although I like science fiction i don't like religious fiction.
So yes, Harry Potter is a much better book to read rather than the Bible or the Quran or any other religious book.
No! Jesus is not the must influential human being. Far from it. There are several doubts that any Jesus ever existed. He is not a King if anything and the Bible has predicted nothing.
The world wasn't civilised by Christianity or Islam. These two religions together with Judaism are responsible for all the dark ages humanity has gone through. They are stone age ideologies.
But you have not mentioned what parts of the actual bible are responsible for these “dark ages” many people claiming to be believers you’ll find did not follow scripture.
Jesus largely impacted individuals today, and the Bible is still the most sold book to ever exist. Majority of even secular stories are in agreement that Jesus did exist.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by _gcx
I don't understand what the issue is.
Is not really moral to have sex before marriage.
Original post by ShybutHi
As someone who isn't religious...
Pre-marital sex is not only fine but actually preferable and desired. As humans who are animals, we desire sex psychologically for well being. To me sex is a fairly big part of a relationship.
Sex isn't just a selfish physical pleasure for some people like me. It is both physical and emotional, a bonding experience, one that is worth experiencing with someone you love. I don't think it is good having to wait years for marriage before you engage in it with the person, you might find you are incompatible and can't connect well here. A happy sex life means a happier relationship.
Pre-marital sex is not only fine but actually preferable and desired. As humans who are animals, we desire sex psychologically for well being. To me sex is a fairly big part of a relationship.
Sex isn't just a selfish physical pleasure for some people like me. It is both physical and emotional, a bonding experience, one that is worth experiencing with someone you love. I don't think it is good having to wait years for marriage before you engage in it with the person, you might find you are incompatible and can't connect well here. A happy sex life means a happier relationship.
It depends where you find your spiritual and moral guidance - if indeed you feel the need for such guidance.
The BBC and other major TV companies, promoted sex outside marriage, but they also turned a blind eye to child abusers like Jimmy Saville and many others.
So to get any spiritual and moral guidance from the media is a mistake,
However, it is true to say that several Christian denominations preached "no sex before marriage",while hiding and protecting child abusers too.
My question is "Why do you think you have to wait years before marriage?" If you are in love with a person, why not marry them? People used to get married in their late teens, quite frequently, in the 70's and before.
Original post by JonkMoon
But you have not mentioned what parts of the actual bible are responsible for these “dark ages” many people claiming to be believers you’ll find did not follow scripture.
Jesus largely impacted individuals today, and the Bible is still the most sold book to ever exist. Majority of even secular stories are in agreement that Jesus did exist.
Jesus largely impacted individuals today, and the Bible is still the most sold book to ever exist. Majority of even secular stories are in agreement that Jesus did exist.
The entire religion of Christianity is responsible for the dark ages. The Bible is just a book reflecting the outdated and nonsensical views of those who follow the religion.
Original post by Bushyasta
Is not really moral to have sex before marriage.
Why?
Original post by ShybutHi
As someone who isn't religious...
Pre-marital sex is not only fine but actually preferable and desired. As humans who are animals, we desire sex psychologically for well being. To me sex is a fairly big part of a relationship.
Sex isn't just a selfish physical pleasure for some people like me. It is both physical and emotional, a bonding experience, one that is worth experiencing with someone you love. I don't think it is good having to wait years for marriage before you engage in it with the person, you might find you are incompatible and can't connect well here. A happy sex life means a happier relationship.
Pre-marital sex is not only fine but actually preferable and desired. As humans who are animals, we desire sex psychologically for well being. To me sex is a fairly big part of a relationship.
Sex isn't just a selfish physical pleasure for some people like me. It is both physical and emotional, a bonding experience, one that is worth experiencing with someone you love. I don't think it is good having to wait years for marriage before you engage in it with the person, you might find you are incompatible and can't connect well here. A happy sex life means a happier relationship.
No sex before marriage.
And no gayness please.
Original post by _gcx
Why?
Because it's the will of God.
Original post by Bunny-hop123
This is what the Gnostics believe, and much of the media is based on the teachings of Gnosticism.
It is also based on the teachings of Alistair Crowley's "Law of Thelema" - which is "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".
This, plus the "Kinsey report", introduced the world in the late 60's to what is known as "The Permissive Society". The idea was that you should have as much sex as possible with consenting adults, because your body was just there for such pleasure.
The idea was that your body is not linked to your emotions, your mind, your sanity, your integrity, your soul, and that promiscuity will not affect your mental and physical health.
Before the permissive society was "sold" via the media/films/music/literature etc, People were fully aware that their sexuality was 100% linked to the rest of them, and that to have sex with people they did not love, would bring on emotional and mental health issues, as well as STD's. They did it anyway, but they knew what they were doing.
It is also based on the teachings of Alistair Crowley's "Law of Thelema" - which is "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".
This, plus the "Kinsey report", introduced the world in the late 60's to what is known as "The Permissive Society". The idea was that you should have as much sex as possible with consenting adults, because your body was just there for such pleasure.
The idea was that your body is not linked to your emotions, your mind, your sanity, your integrity, your soul, and that promiscuity will not affect your mental and physical health.
Before the permissive society was "sold" via the media/films/music/literature etc, People were fully aware that their sexuality was 100% linked to the rest of them, and that to have sex with people they did not love, would bring on emotional and mental health issues, as well as STD's. They did it anyway, but they knew what they were doing.
Repression is worse in my opinion. Beating yourself up for not being "moral" enough, when you're not really hurting anyone else. You're only hurting yourself by holding yourself to standards that few other people probably hold you to. People who aren't religious have no real reason to hold them to a contrived moral code like that, since they will face no consequences other than feeling bad. It's obviously not that simple though.
I'm not saying people should entirely reject these standards, but they should feel free to construct those standards themselves.
STDs can be well protected against and don't really make sense as an argument against pre-marital sex. Not having pre-marital sex technically excludes the possibility of sex during very-long-term (~duration of a marriage) relationships because the union was never made "official" in any capacity, even though there is practically no difference.
Original post by Bunny-hop123
The issues is that your sensuality is linked to the rest of your identity/personality.
So if you go through your life, fooling people into having sex and then discarding them in the morning, you will end up with severe problems. The problems are essential moral, but can also be physical and emotional, spiritual and mental.
The rise of the media as a main "influencer" denies this truth, and so many people do believe that promiscuity carries no price to pay. The major religious groups that warn against it are constantly mocked by the media - who - it seems to me - have a rather "evangelical" need to get people to destroy themselves via promiscuity.
So if you go through your life, fooling people into having sex and then discarding them in the morning, you will end up with severe problems. The problems are essential moral, but can also be physical and emotional, spiritual and mental.
The rise of the media as a main "influencer" denies this truth, and so many people do believe that promiscuity carries no price to pay. The major religious groups that warn against it are constantly mocked by the media - who - it seems to me - have a rather "evangelical" need to get people to destroy themselves via promiscuity.
I mean if you "fool someone" (manipulate?) someone into sex, that's already sexual coercion so would fall out of "mutually agreeable" bit.
I don't really believe in purely "moral" problems. They are problems that are artificial, often deriving from the urge to conform to a moral code that clearly does nothing to aid them, just make them feel bad about a lot of harmless "wrongdoings". This isn't to say they shouldn't feel bad about it, but rather that they should construct their moral standards themselves, rather than feeling bad due to "societal expectations", which aren't really scrutinising them as hard as they may think.
Because the major religious groups often give frankly absurd reasons not to be promiscuous. It usually isn't just "some people might not want to be promiscuous", it very often descends into shaming people for having sex & fear-mongering about STDs.
We shouldn't equate "no sex before marriage" with "promiscuous" anyway. I would only really have long-term relationships, (ideally several years) one at a time. Plenty of people are the same. I wouldn't really call that promiscuous.
Original post by Bushyasta
Because it's the will of God.
That's what I mean - it's hard to understand sex outside marriage as immoral if you're not religious.
Original post by Bunny-hop123
It depends where you find your spiritual and moral guidance - if indeed you feel the need for such guidance.
The BBC and other major TV companies, promoted sex outside marriage, but they also turned a blind eye to child abusers like Jimmy Saville and many others.
So to get any spiritual and moral guidance from the media is a mistake,
However, it is true to say that several Christian denominations preached "no sex before marriage",while hiding and protecting child abusers too.
My question is "Why do you think you have to wait years before marriage?" If you are in love with a person, why not marry them? People used to get married in their late teens, quite frequently, in the 70's and before.
The BBC and other major TV companies, promoted sex outside marriage, but they also turned a blind eye to child abusers like Jimmy Saville and many others.
So to get any spiritual and moral guidance from the media is a mistake,
However, it is true to say that several Christian denominations preached "no sex before marriage",while hiding and protecting child abusers too.
My question is "Why do you think you have to wait years before marriage?" If you are in love with a person, why not marry them? People used to get married in their late teens, quite frequently, in the 70's and before.
Loving someone without being married to them is completely normal. Just because you love someone doesn't necessarily mean you should be married.
I'm not spiritual, I get moral guidance from rational thinking, common sense, and morals just inherited from living in a Christian country and having a good moral family. These things are really just common sense and you can rationalise these good things easily, like love thy neighbour, not commit murder, all that stuff.
Original post by _gcx
That's what I mean - it's hard to understand sex outside marriage as immoral if you're not religious.
The accept Jesus in your heart.
Original post by Bushyasta
The accept Jesus in your heart.
I have no intention to. Honestly, I hardly think about religion anymore.
Original post by Bushyasta
The entire religion of Christianity is responsible for the dark ages. The Bible is just a book reflecting the outdated and nonsensical views of those who follow the religion.
Do you appreciate the social reforms of the UK, (if indeed you are based in the UK?) Do you appreciate the access to free education? Free medical care? End of Slavery, Social housing. Better prison conditions, Good sanitation, The rule of law, and the march towards civil rights for those in minority groups. All these things have been put into place, (over time) by people who were constantly reading the Bible, constantly praying to Jesus, engaged in a christian pilgrimage, and who felt that their Christian faith was the main reason for creating a more humane society.
May I suggest that you engage with those who charted this Christian-led march towards a more humane society, via the literature of the time? Victorian literature is the best, but there are other "era's" whereby the Christian faith/Biblical studies, produced a better set of living conditions for the poor, and a sense of moral responsibility for the rich.
One such Christian woman was Josephine Butler.
(to go back to the sex outside marriage debate)
She could see that the children of the poor were being bought, used for sex and dumped by rich men.
She started her fight against this, and won. Her fight was part of her Christian faith.
Original post by Bushyasta
The entire religion of Christianity is responsible for the dark ages. The Bible is just a book reflecting the outdated and nonsensical views of those who follow the religion.
This is the same religion that advocates loving your neighbour as you love yourself as the second greatest command. Rather Christianity took people out of the dark ages not just spiritually and also in the world a lot of practices in Europe etc. were stopped due to Christianity.
Original post by ShybutHi
Loving someone without being married to them is completely normal. Just because you love someone doesn't necessarily mean you should be married.
I'm not spiritual, I get moral guidance from rational thinking, common sense, and morals just inherited from living in a Christian country and having a good moral family. These things are really just common sense and you can rationalise these good things easily, like love thy neighbour, not commit murder, all that stuff.
I'm not spiritual, I get moral guidance from rational thinking, common sense, and morals just inherited from living in a Christian country and having a good moral family. These things are really just common sense and you can rationalise these good things easily, like love thy neighbour, not commit murder, all that stuff.
"Just because you love someone doesn't mean that you should be married".
It is up to the people concerned.
My heart and my sympathy always go out to the women who wait and wait and wait for the man to love her enough to marry her, and then they eventually give up. It is too humiliating for them. When the women leave, to try and their dignity back, the man can't work out what the problem was? As far as HE was concerned, sex with "no marriage" was fine.
This is of course, a generalization. Some women don't mind the "not married" situation. In my experience, most find it to be soul destroying and they grow increasingly resentful.
The feel they are being "used" until somebody better comes along. They are right. This is indeed the situation.
I'm not against premarital sex but I am against hypocrites who do premarital sex but expect their spouses to be virgin.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Does body count matter ?
- Why don't black girls like white guys the way black guys like white girls
- Not shaving down there stopping me getting a boyfriend?
- 18 year old having sex with a 56 year old?
- Am I gay?
- I'm 19 and i have urge to lose my virginity. What advice can you give me as a male
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Questions for the honest men real answers-anyone and all answering appreciated!
- Muslims and SFE
- Is it okay to ask for a % of your partners OF earnings?
- Unit 7 Btec Applied science
- Having a best friend of the opposite sex
- Oldest a 17 year old can date
- Casual sex with long-standing friend
- JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime law
- Am i handsome
- whats the normal amount of sex i should be gettiny at 17
- Girls find only 20% of guys attractive
- Can you have sex without pulling back the foreskin?
- Girls your opinion please
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 18 minutes ago
Learn Direct - Vet science Unit 9 HELPLast reply 27 minutes ago
LSE undergraduate accommodationLast reply 32 minutes ago
The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2025 Entry ThreadLast reply 32 minutes ago
Airbus degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 34 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 1 week ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 1 week ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceTrending
Last reply 18 hours ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 1 week ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 1 week ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choice
