Poll: A question for the guys . Sex on the first date, Yay or nay?

[Wayward Sean]

I've hit the spectrum, my friend. I've done it on the first date, and I've waited 6 (yes, that's a six) months. Here's the kicker most people are forgetting. They all ended in disaster (the relationships, not the sex). Follow your heart on it and feel the room. If it doesn't seem like it's happening, it isn't happening. If it feels like it might happen, it probably still isn't happening, but take the shot and ask. If it, for some weird reason, kills the relationship, chances are that something else would have done that eventually anyway. And I am happy for those of you who have chosen to wait until marriage, but I just want to give you something to think about. Sexual incompatibility might seem trivial and you might try to be a great person and pretend that it doesn't bother you, but subconsciously it will bring up other fights and frustrations. I would prefer to know if you are compatible in bed before tying the knot, because that would be a rude awakening if sex with your life partner is unpleasant. Sometimes it improves with repetition. Sometimes it doesn't.

 

[krazykidd]

So with the current thread trend being , dating , relationships and flirting , i decided to make this thread .

So most guys i ask this question to always say yes . Most women i ask this too always say no . However , what people say and what they do are not always the same . This is why i decided to make this thread for you guys .

Will/do you have sex on the first date?

I do and will whenever i get the chance , i have start a few ( sucessfull )relaships after having sex on the first date . Of course i don't bang everyone i go out with , but if they attraction is there , i usually try and steal home ( baseball reference). It doesn't always work , but hell if i'm not going to try . Ironically enough , some girls who told me they don't have sex on the first date , ended up having sex on the first date . I personally don't like setting boundaries like that , especially since sex, for me , is very enjoyable .

Your turn.

Edit:

I want to apologize ( i rarely do that , so appreciate it bitches) . I had two major oversights in creating this thread . The first are for the " wait until marriage guys" . I litterally forgot to include you guys because of my permiscuous nature , i forgot this was even an option. You're input is very appreciated .

Secondly i wrote " sex with a girl " when i meant partner . I did not want to alienate my homosexual homies ! You're imput is also greatly appreciated .

HA! Oh KK, you think I would even be in a situation where your question is relevant? Fortunately not i'm afraid, I find the whole "romantic relationship with females" thing dreadfully overrated and frankly not worth the effort.

Just for the thread's sake, nay. It would take me a considerable amount of time with this girl to get anywhere near that far. I don't really like phyisical intimacy y'know. Sex = highest intimacy possible = blehhhh :S

Relationship? Intamacy? Woah there buddy i'm just talking about sex . Fortunately for me , i no longer have the need for any of those , and can enjoy my lavishly permiscuous( spelling?) lifestyle! [small] (with big girls , cuz big girls do it better)[/small]

 

[BOOM headshot65]

I would like to state here, before going on to say anything at all, that it's anyone's decision to choose to wait until marriage to have sex. If it's a choice based on the belief that sex is 'sacred' then sure, I respect that and will not contradict anyone's beliefs. If it's a choice based on the misguided concepts, such as abstinence being the only truly safe way or not having sex before marriage being vital to the marriage itself... eh. Then I will bring up my own arguments, simply because I believe that there is way too much misinformation around concerning contraception, sex and sexuality. I believe NoeL is speaking along those same lines.

Anyhow, if there is one thing I believe, is that everybody has the right to their own attitude towards sex, whether it's "fun and a lot" or "something only to be shared with your future spouse", and everyone should be respected for their choice. As long as nobody gets hurt in the process. (Well, unless you get hurt due to experimenting in the bedroom... then you are excused) If after I lay down my arguments, you still tell me: "Ok, but I still don't want to because it's my choice and stand by it." All the more power to you. And if you want to raise your children to that mindset... fine. It's in a parent's right to pass on certain values to their children.

Well, I would still argue that abstinence IS the only completely safe option because it is 100% effective (again, unless your name is Mary Magdalene and you lived around 6 BC), but what NoeL seems to be glossing over is that Im not just going to throw my children into a storm of emotions with no life-raft. I will tell them about contraception and safe sex, and that if they are going to disobey me then at least be safe, but I will not in any way endorse the chose and will tell them to wait if not until they are married then at least until they live on their own and can therefore make their own rules.

Also, I can already tell you that there is very little that while change my opinion. My girlfriend at least partly loves me because I DONT want sex and in her mind that makes me much better than most men in the world today. I already know for a fact that trying to have sex with her is likely going to hurt our relationship badly, not make it stronger in any way, shape, or form.

Actually, yeah, my parents. My father never really cared, my mother actually told me, and I quote, "I am not going to tell you not to have sex before marriage. I think that's nonesense. The important things are that you love him, you make sure you are careful and stay safe."

In fact, I regularly had boyfriends over. Who slept in my room, in my bed, which was a single bed. I think they had a pretty good idea of what waas going on. Well, my father might have naively thought nothing was going on for a bit longer, but my mom certainly knew and certainly brought him up to date.

I never said they don't exist, I just said they are exceedingly rare (in my area anyway). I understand that there are parents who are ok with that, but they aren't many in my area and the idea does NOT jive well with me.

As someone whose family was very libreral towards sex, appear disproportionate to me. I'd much rather sit my kids down and give them a long lecture on STD's and contraception methods. Besides, if they really want to have sex, they will find a way without me knowing, somehow. That is however my personal opinion and my way of seeing it.

Again, its not like I am going to make them think Abstinence is the only option, just that they will still get in trouble either way. Plus, part of living in a small town like I do (and will continue to do so until they put me 6 feet under) is that NOTHING escapes the eyes of the town. I have been on the receiving end of that, my parents found out from other in town that I speed (its probly the worst kept family secret that I drive too fast, my parents just don't have any hard evidence). So they decided to hid somewhere in town because they know that at the very least their mother will be home (my girlfriend loves kids and wants to take care of them, while working less), then most likely SOMEONE will see them and check it out, so they will be busted. Try to leave town? The guys living on the edge will likely let me know, and then even if I cant prove it, They will know that I know and will likely stop before they get caught.

snip

Ok, I admit that I *ahem* jumped the gun on that one. Really all I want is for the bastard to pay for what he did. Although if he willingly takes responsibility for his actions, that's great. At least hes a real man.

As an aside, the odds that a daughter could get a "secret abortion" is unlikely here. The ONLY abortion clinic in the state of Kansas is several hours away from where I live, and if she is under 18, she would need BOTH parents consent to get it done, which isn't happening (Her mother was the one who wanted the rule in the first place that she couldn't have an abortion). So she would have to resort to...."other"....methods, which are not only extremely dangerous, but are also very difficult to hide so someone would find out.

Also, I have a question out of honest and pure curiosity: you keep saying that you avoid sex because for you, the risks of pregnancy outweigh the physical benefits of sex. So, what is your attitude towards other forms of sex? Such as sexual activities that do not involve penetration, or oral sex?

Spoiler: Spoiled just in case

Not good. The options are "Not Good". We actually discussed it as just ideas for when we get married (since this kind of stuff is still sex to us, so it still falls into the "wait" category), and we decided that the ONLY thing we were interested in was Anal. Boob-jobs were out of the question because she has a sensitive chest and did not like the idea, we both found the idea of Oral to be completely and utterly revolting, Heavy Petting doesn't have enough stimulation, etc. Although, in the case of hypothetical children doing it, it would be about the same to porn: Its not endorsed or condoned, they would still get in trouble if found out, but not AS much trouble and it beats the heck out of the alternative.

Holy Shit!! I read all of that!

I get where your coming from, I really do, but this is just one of those things that I think its fine the way it is now. The reason I kept concentrating on High School Age in my post is because once they are 18 they can do things their way, and all I can hope for is that they stay on the path I set them on. I just believe that it is ENTIRELY possible to control your sexual urges, and is in fact one of the reasons I am waiting until Im married, so that I can prove to any children of mine it CAN be done. As long as they stay safe, its not like it will be the end of the world. I will still be mad, they will still be punished, but at least they were safe (and as I said to Bedbug, its not like I am going to throw them up the creek without a paddle). Just my opinion (that I had to cut short because I have to go to work soon)

EDIT: You seem to be under the impression that you DESERVE to be respected and your children are OBLIGED to obey you, but have you ever asked the question "Why should they?" Obviously there's much they can learn from you and there will be situations where doing as their told is actually beneficial for them (e.g. "Don't touch the stove."), but you seem to believe being a parent gives you a free pass to dominate your kids and have the final say over their choices in life, and anyone that disagrees with you is a bad person. I don't believe you have that authority, and I don't believe you have the right to the level of control you think you do. If I was your son, and you demanded that I "respect your authoritah", and I asked "Why should I?"... could you even give me a justifiable answer to that?

You know, reading your post, I am reminded of a Bill Engvall Skit:


I really dont see how telling my kids they cant have sex is a bad thing. I really don't. I am not going to make them be EXACTLY like me, and they can think for themselves on plenty of things while living with me, this just aint one of them. It will have to wait until they are married or at the very least in their own house where they can make their own rules. Parents make the rules, kids follow the rules, and like government, you can question the rules until you are blue in the face but if you break them you will feel the consequences.

Also, the answer "Why?" would be because I am your elder and I layed out these rules to keep you out of trouble, and set you on the path of the straight and narrow.

Actually, now that I am thinking about it, there is a man I am thinking of. Have you ever heard of a man named John Hickam. That right there is the kind of person that I would like as a father, and even if I have a bad relationship with my son, I would only hope it could still be along these lines. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzOH54GemVo]

 

[The Wykydtron]

So with the current thread trend being , dating , relationships and flirting , i decided to make this thread .

So most guys i ask this question to always say yes . Most women i ask this too always say no . However , what people say and what they do are not always the same . This is why i decided to make this thread for you guys .

Will/do you have sex on the first date?

I do and will whenever i get the chance , i have start a few ( sucessfull )relaships after having sex on the first date . Of course i don't bang everyone i go out with , but if they attraction is there , i usually try and steal home ( baseball reference). It doesn't always work , but hell if i'm not going to try . Ironically enough , some girls who told me they don't have sex on the first date , ended up having sex on the first date . I personally don't like setting boundaries like that , especially since sex, for me , is very enjoyable .

Your turn.

Edit:

I want to apologize ( i rarely do that , so appreciate it bitches) . I had two major oversights in creating this thread . The first are for the " wait until marriage guys" . I litterally forgot to include you guys because of my permiscuous nature , i forgot this was even an option. You're input is very appreciated .

Secondly i wrote " sex with a girl " when i meant partner . I did not want to alienate my homosexual homies ! You're imput is also greatly appreciated .

HA! Oh KK, you think I would even be in a situation where your question is relevant? Fortunately not i'm afraid, I find the whole "romantic relationship with females" thing dreadfully overrated and frankly not worth the effort.

Just for the thread's sake, nay. It would take me a considerable amount of time with this girl to get anywhere near that far. I don't really like physical intimacy y'know. Sex = highest intimacy possible = blehhhh :S

I useto make excuses like that "Oh I hate getting intimate, oh I hate love love is overrated." Its really sad because I know why you say those things

Hey, I did try the relationship thing before. I've kissed girls. :3

The one major turning point for me was just after the first major thing done with a girl, my very, very first thought was how underwhelmed I was and I quote "well that was a waste of time, could have finished my anime already."

GG relationships! I'm out!

Relationship? Intamacy? Woah there buddy i'm just talking about sex . Fortunately for me , i no longer have the need for any of those , and can enjoy my lavishly promiscuous (spellcheck OP) lifestyle! [small] (with big girls , cuz big girls do it better)[/small]

How though? How could you not feel intimate when you are literally, physically inside someone? Just the thought of it weirds me out. Ick.

[sub][sub]For the record it would ideally be with a flat chested chick. The cute-o-meter is off the fuckin' scale[/sub][/sub]

 

[krazykidd]

So with the current thread trend being , dating , relationships and flirting , i decided to make this thread .

So most guys i ask this question to always say yes . Most women i ask this too always say no . However , what people say and what they do are not always the same . This is why i decided to make this thread for you guys .

Will/do you have sex on the first date?

I do and will whenever i get the chance , i have start a few ( sucessfull )relaships after having sex on the first date . Of course i don't bang everyone i go out with , but if they attraction is there , i usually try and steal home ( baseball reference). It doesn't always work , but hell if i'm not going to try . Ironically enough , some girls who told me they don't have sex on the first date , ended up having sex on the first date . I personally don't like setting boundaries like that , especially since sex, for me , is very enjoyable .

Your turn.

Edit:

I want to apologize ( i rarely do that , so appreciate it bitches) . I had two major oversights in creating this thread . The first are for the " wait until marriage guys" . I litterally forgot to include you guys because of my permiscuous nature , i forgot this was even an option. You're input is very appreciated .

Secondly i wrote " sex with a girl " when i meant partner . I did not want to alienate my homosexual homies ! You're imput is also greatly appreciated .

HA! Oh KK, you think I would even be in a situation where your question is relevant? Fortunately not i'm afraid, I find the whole "romantic relationship with females" thing dreadfully overrated and frankly not worth the effort.

Just for the thread's sake, nay. It would take me a considerable amount of time with this girl to get anywhere near that far. I don't really like physical intimacy y'know. Sex = highest intimacy possible = blehhhh :S

I useto make excuses like that "Oh I hate getting intimate, oh I hate love love is overrated." Its really sad because I know why you say those things

Hey, I did try the relationship thing before. I've kissed girls. :3

The one major turning point for me was just after the first major thing done with a girl, my very, very first thought was how underwhelmed I was and I quote "well that was a waste of time, could have finished my anime already."

GG relationships! I'm out!

Relationship? Intamacy? Woah there buddy i'm just talking about sex . Fortunately for me , i no longer have the need for any of those , and can enjoy my lavishly promiscuous (spellcheck OP) lifestyle! [small] (with big girls , cuz big girls do it better)[/small]

How though? How could you not feel intimate when you are literally, physically inside someone? Just the thought of it weirds me out. Ick.

[sub][sub]For the record it would ideally be with a flat chested chick. The cute-o-meter is off the fuckin' scale[/sub][/sub]

Because i'm a boss like that

Because i realised that everything i was taught about love and relationships , by my parents and the media , is complete and utter bullshit . Once you realise that you were lied to your entire life , you kinda detach . That and realising the girls want to have sex just as much as guys do . And surprise , surprise , heterosexual girls have sex with heterosexual guys . All these people around us are having sex with someone . [small] (Well not EVERYONE , but you know what i mean )[/small]

 

[Echopunk]

I answered Nay, but with a caveat.

In my experience, the girls who wanted to rush into sex on first dates/first meetings were really not the type of people I needed to be in a relationship with in the first place. One I politely turned down ended up stalking me for several weeks, one I took up on the offer was bat-shit crazy (to the point of there being a tray in her bedroom with a blowtorch, various knives, and a snake cage). Another one decided it was a good idea to suggest a restaurant that turned out to be where her mom worked so that she could rub me in her face as proof the chick was over her ex - when it came time to say goodnight, she asked if I wanted to do any stuff with her, and I told her I felt like I'd been used enough for the evening.

So, I learned my lesson early. Now, if it just some casual arrangement and not an attempt at a committed relationship, then there isn't any harm in it, as long as protection is involved. I don't really go in for that sort of thing anymore, but I can see the appeal.

I would also say it is a bad idea to wait too long. If you've been dating a while and everything else is right, but sex hasn't happened yet, it probably should. I had one relationship end because I was trying to be respectful and patient and whatever else (to try and be the opposite of the way I'd acted in my previous relationship, based on how it ended). The result was that she friend-zoned me in her head because she figured I liked hanging out with her, and liked being around her, but didn't actually like her in that way. Big mistake on my part, and difficult to explain. It was a continuing series of backfires, each worse than the last. I tried to make it clear that I was interested in her in all ways possible, but by that point she didn't trust me because she thought I was trying to abuse our friendship.

So basically, it is the old Pandora's Box routine, and whether you open up that box is between you and your particular Pandora.

 

[Adultism]

So many virgins going "I totally wouldn't, I respect women and want them to be happy and maybe someday have a chance with them." ugh super sexism over here.

No I do not honestly because I never do one night stands. + I'm into men and you have to be more careful in that area.

Really? You have to be more careful? How so ? ( I'm genuinly curious). The gay men i know are the most liberal people i have ever met . Sometimes going on 3-4 differents dates in the same dah with different men , and sleeping with all of them ! I always thought being gay would be more fun ( and easy going ) than being heterosexual . Anyways that's what i hear.

STD's spread quicker around us, I've just met some gay men who had pretty nasty stuff. It is easier and more fun if you are careful but you ALWAYS have to be careful and use protection

 

[Tanakh]

Yes, why not? I run a tight boat however and any girl I have a prospect with will know I am not looking for a relationship before sleeping with her.

Because i realised that everything i was taught about love and relationships , by my parents and the media , is complete and utter bullshit . Once you realise that you were lied to your entire life , you kinda detach . That and realising the girls want to have sex just as much as guys do . And surprise , surprise , heterosexual girls have sex with heterosexual guys . All these people around us are having sex with someone . [small] (Well not EVERYONE , but you know what i mean )[/small]

Ehh... you build and get out of the relationship what you want... more or less. Well, maybe I have just been very blessed in that regard, but personally I have been able to get passion, love, just sex, commitment, etc; and even if some of it is decided by luck and timing, think got a bit of knack to bend the odds to whatever I am looking for.

 

[DeimosMasque]

I will have sex on the first date, and have often honestly. Out of all the first dates I've had I think only twice did we not have any sort of sex during or after. Sexual compatibility is important and honestly I was dumped after a first date for the reason of "the sex wasn't all that great" I agreed with her so I didn't feel that bad. We stayed friends and actually did have sex a second time and it went better but we really weren't interested in dating each other at the time.

That said, I would never pressure someone or force the issue. And it will always be safe sex the first time. Condoms and anything else we can think of.

 

[NoeL]

As an aside, the odds that a daughter could get a "secret abortion" is unlikely here. The ONLY abortion clinic in the state of Kansas is several hours away from where I live, and if she is under 18, she would need BOTH parents consent to get it done, which isn't happening (Her mother was the one who wanted the rule in the first place that she couldn't have an abortion). So she would have to resort to...."other"....methods, which are not only extremely dangerous, but are also very difficult to hide so someone would find out.

All the more reason to not threaten punishment on the issue IMO.

Also, I have a question out of honest and pure curiosity: you keep saying that you avoid sex because for you, the risks of pregnancy outweigh the physical benefits of sex. So, what is your attitude towards other forms of sex? Such as sexual activities that do not involve penetration, or oral sex?

Spoiler: Spoiled just in case

I get where your coming from, I really do, but this is just one of those things that I think its fine the way it is now. The reason I kept concentrating on High School Age in my post is because once they are 18 they can do things their way, and all I can hope for is that they stay on the path I set them on. I just believe that it is ENTIRELY possible to control your sexual urges, and is in fact one of the reasons I am waiting until Im married, so that I can prove to any children of mine it CAN be done. As long as they stay safe, its not like it will be the end of the world. I will still be mad, they will still be punished, but at least they were safe (and as I said to Bedbug, its not like I am going to throw them up the creek without a paddle). Just my opinion (that I had to cut short because I have to go to work soon)

I don't see how showing that something can be done is a valid reason for doing it. You can choose to walk 10 miles to and from work every day to prove to your children that it CAN be done, but it would be utterly senseless to punish them for driving. Likewise, you could go your whole life without taking painkillers, but that doesn't mean your children should be forced to do the same. There are things that make life easier and or more enjoyable that have few or no negative consequences (e.g. a blowjob). It's ridiculous to forbid them from enjoying those things just because they CAN go without. How would you feel if your vegetarian father told you you weren't allowed to enjoy a big juicy steak? Hey, HE went without it, so so can you, right?

EDIT: You seem to be under the impression that you DESERVE to be respected and your children are OBLIGED to obey you, but have you ever asked the question "Why should they?" Obviously there's much they can learn from you and there will be situations where doing as their told is actually beneficial for them (e.g. "Don't touch the stove."), but you seem to believe being a parent gives you a free pass to dominate your kids and have the final say over their choices in life, and anyone that disagrees with you is a bad person. I don't believe you have that authority, and I don't believe you have the right to the level of control you think you do. If I was your son, and you demanded that I "respect your authoritah", and I asked "Why should I?"... could you even give me a justifiable answer to that?

You know, reading your post, I am reminded of a Bill Engvall Skit:

Sorry, I only watched the first minute before I had to turn it off. There's only so much "I beat my kids!" followed by laughter and applause that I can take. If you can't see why I find him so utterly repulsive, try replacing 'kid' with 'slave' and listen to him again.

I really dont see how telling my kids they cant have sex is a bad thing. I really don't. I am not going to make them be EXACTLY like me, and they can think for themselves on plenty of things while living with me, this just aint one of them. It will have to wait until they are married or at the very least in their own house where they can make their own rules. Parents make the rules, kids follow the rules, and like government, you can question the rules until you are blue in the face but if you break them you will feel the consequences.

1) You're not the government.
2) The government (mostly) only prohibits things that are demonstrably harmful to society (and premarital sex isn't).
3) The drive for sex is very strong in the vast majority of people. The drive to steal, murder, or break the law in just about any other way isn't.
4) Sex brings with it a great deal of pleasure, with minimal negative consequences if you're playing it safe. It's my opinion that forcing someone to abstain from sex until they are married is overall detrimental to their quality of life (and I'm all for giving people the best possible time they can have before they die).
5) Marriage is an arbitrary limiter for deciding when someone should or shouldn't be having sex. Do you believe an unmarried couple that have been together for 5 years should still practice abstinence, while a person that marries a stranger in Vegas is free to fuck them to their heart's content? If so, why? What is it about a cultural ceremony that makes it have, in your eyes, such a profound impact on a person's life?

Also, you may have answered this in response to someone else but I'd like you to clarify: If you had a homosexual son/daughter, and sex between them and their partners carried zero chance of accidental pregnancy, and same-sex marriage remained illegal despite opposition, and they couldn't afford to move somewhere where it WAS legal, would you expect them to remain abstinent their entire lives? Why/why not?

Also, the answer "Why?" would be because I am your elder and I layed out these rules to keep you out of trouble, and set you on the path of the straight and narrow.

That's not a justifiable answer. Sticking your dick in someone and making a baby doesn't mean you know what's best for them, or that they would benefit from blind obedience to you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting you don't know what's best for them (in most cases you probably do), but saying "I'm your elder" doesn't justify claiming authority. If they specifically ask you why X is prohibited, and the best reason you can come up with is "Because I said so", why would they assume you're correct? If YOU don't even know why they shouldn't do something, why the hell should they stop doing it?

EDIT: And what about people that are, plain and simply, bad parents? Is a child still obliged to respect the authority of a parent that abuses them? If a parent says "You better eat them greens, boy, or else I'll be rapin' that tight little butthole til it bleeds!" should a child respect that ruling or should they be calling the police? Where do you draw the line between harsh punishment and child abuse?

Actually, now that I am thinking about it, there is a man I am thinking of. Have you ever heard of a man named John Hickam. That right there is the kind of person that I would like as a father, and even if I have a bad relationship with my son, I would only hope it could still be along these lines. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzOH54GemVo]

I haven't seen the movie and that clip doesn't give enough context, so I can't comment. If he just loves his dad despite them having nothing in common, sure that's sweet. Also shows how potentially wrong your grandparents were to dismiss your mother's boyfriend just because he didn't like hunting.

 

[Phantom Kat]

If it's the first time I've met them, probably not unless I'm really attracted to them.

I don't tend to go on "dates" though as I tend to just... end up in relationships.

 

[ultrabiome]

if the two of you are into each other at the moment and are both comfortable going ahead with it, why not?

just be careful. it's easy in the moment to forget that sex can cause pregnancy or other problems, as instinct takes over some of the rational parts of our brain, causing both involved to overlook warning signs (like a condom popping... happened to me). but if the risks are negligible, you're both prepared, go for it.

and sex can be anything that is more than just kissing, so go as far as you're comfortable.

btw, i met my wife through friends at a bar, and we ended up having a lot of fun that night and next morning together. i feel sex is an extremely important part of a romantic relationship, and if there isn't mutual sexual attraction immediately, i don't want to spend my time trying to get a girl to be attracted to me. its either there or not, and i'm not saying everyone should be sluts, but attraction should be there and be apparent. waiting isn't the issue, but sex or sexual activity is validation of mutual compatibility, at least in some form or another, and essentially vital in most romantic relationships. i'd never want to be in a sexless marriage.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

All the more reason to not threaten punishment on the issue IMO.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this here?

I don't see how showing that something can be done is a valid reason for doing it. You can choose to walk 10 miles to and from work every day to prove to your children that it CAN be done, but it would be utterly senseless to punish them for driving. Likewise, you could go your whole life without taking painkillers, but that doesn't mean your children should be forced to do the same. There are things that make life easier and or more enjoyable that have few or no negative consequences (e.g. a blowjob). It's ridiculous to forbid them from enjoying those things just because they CAN go without. How would you feel if your vegetarian father told you you weren't allowed to enjoy a big juicy steak? Hey, HE went without it, so so can you, right?

But this is different. Its just something I cant wrap my mind around, letting teenagers and kids have sex. Not having sex isnt going to kill them or make it so they cant get a job, and it will be better if they just wait until they are with the person they will stay with, as well as being safer (since STD are still a threat with even a blowjob). I just really dont see what is the big deal. I know that its cool now adays to say there is no such thing as objective morality, but on this issue, I WILL be teaching my children that while other options exist, they should wait, and there is very little that will change my mind on the subject.

Sorry, I only watched the first minute before I had to turn it off. There's only so much "I beat my kids!" followed by laughter and applause that I can take. If you can't see why I find him so utterly repulsive, try replacing 'kid' with 'slave' and listen to him again.

Then you missed the point I was trying to make, which he actually outlined the part you saw ("Children dont have respect for anything anymore because parents dont disipline them")

1) You're not the government.
2) The government (mostly) only prohibits things that are demonstrably harmful to society (and premarital sex isn't).
3) The drive for sex is very strong in the vast majority of people. The drive to steal, murder, or break the law in just about any other way isn't.
4) Sex brings with it a great deal of pleasure, with minimal negative consequences if you're playing it safe. It's my opinion that forcing someone to abstain from sex until they are married is overall detrimental to their quality of life (and I'm all for giving people the best possible time they can have before they die).
5) Marriage is an arbitrary limiter for deciding when someone should or shouldn't be having sex. Do you believe an unmarried couple that have been together for 5 years should still practice abstinence, while a person that marries a stranger in Vegas is free to fuck them to their heart's content? If so, why? What is it about a cultural ceremony that makes it have, in your eyes, such a profound impact on a person's life?

1) No Shit, Sherlock. But then, Im sure you remember my "Family is a dictatorship" sentiment that I stated before.
2) It can be dangerous, and thus I believe it should wait, and that is what I am going to tell my children.
3) It can be controlled, and if not, you might want to see someone about that.
4) Tell that to my girlfriend, she will be very cross. Not having sex isnt going to reduce your quality of life and while for some it may make their relationship stronger, in my case it would be detrimental to my relationship.
5) Well, in that case, I would say that in that case, it would be fine to not waint until marriage, assuming those invovled are adults (still saying no to teenagers). As for the why, I would say that if you are married in all but the paperwork (ie, commited to eachother, wont run around on them, plan on staying with them, maybe living in the same house) then its fine. As for the impact of marriage, its SUPPOSED to be the ultimate sign of your commitment to someone else. I of course realize that the divorce rate is insane today, but I say that people are marrying for stupid reasons like sex and money, not because they actually love the other person (which is alien to me, as the divorce rate in Kansas is still pretty low, and its easy to find long term, happy marriages around here out in rural America).

Also, you may have answered this in response to someone else but I'd like you to clarify: If you had a homosexual son/daughter, and sex between them and their partners carried zero chance of accidental pregnancy, and same-sex marriage remained illegal despite opposition, and they couldn't afford to move somewhere where it WAS legal, would you expect them to remain abstinent their entire lives? Why/why not?

As I outlined above, as long as they are married in all but paperwork and they are adults, then I am willing to look the other way.

That's not a justifiable answer. Sticking your dick in someone and making a baby doesn't mean you know what's best for them, or that they would benefit from blind obedience to you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting you don't know what's best for them (in most cases you probably do), but saying "I'm your elder" doesn't justify claiming authority. If they specifically ask you why X is prohibited, and the best reason you can come up with is "Because I said so", why would they assume you're correct? If YOU don't even know why they shouldn't do something, why the hell should they stop doing it?

I have given you plenty of reasons, but you keep saying those dont count, so F*** it, I just going to use those anyway. Tell you what: I will be seeing my girlfriend Saturday, and we will work out the reason while reading this thread and saying how crazy people are. After that, I will let you know what it is, and then that will be our story and we are sticking to it.

EDIT: And what about people that are, plain and simply, bad parents? Is a child still obliged to respect the authority of a parent that abuses them? If a parent says "You better eat them greens, boy, or else I'll be rapin' that tight little butthole til it bleeds!" should a child respect that ruling or should they be calling the police? Where do you draw the line between harsh punishment and child abuse?

No, the example you outlined is abuse. My view on it is spanking or thunk to the head is fine for harsher end of the spectrum, but beyond physically is abuse. However, when it comes to confisaction for punishment, anything is on the table as long as its not a vital life function (ie, food, water, shelter, sanitation, medicine, warmth when applicible), but other than that, you can strip thier room to nothing but the walls and a blanket and that would be fine.

]I haven't seen the movie and that clip doesn't give enough context, so I can't comment. If he just loves his dad despite them having nothing in common, sure that's sweet. Also shows how potentially wrong your grandparents were to dismiss your mother's boyfriend just because he didn't like hunting.

Spoiler: Context for that scene

For the whole Movie, John Hickam had wanted his son Homer to take over as the Coal Mines head foreman, but after seeing Sputnik, he was inspired to build rockets instead, which his father was not too happy about. He was willing to walk 60 miles just to fire his rockets since his father said not to do it on company property. He eventually made it to the National Science Fair with his rocket but it was stolen the day before the judging, so he called his dad for help. After his wife convinced him by threating to leave him, he swallowed his pride and did something he didnt want to: Made a deal with the unions to stop a strike so that one of his employees could get a new rocket built. Homer won first place and started shacking hands, and then found out that one of them was Warner Von Braun, one of the people who inspired him. That sceen took place after he got back.

Also, my mom just wasnt that invested in the guy anyway. It was only the first date, and after getting on this man got on her dads bad side in a big way (since he hunts for hobby and food), she didnt want to put in the effort to try and fight uphill with it.

 

[Zen Bard]

I'm going to have to go with "It depends".

Once in my wild and boyish youth, I went all the way with a girl on the first date only to have her become my very own stalker!

Likewise, I've missed some amazing opportunities because I was too prudish.

As I got older, I tried to read the vibe as best as I could. If it was a "hey, let's just have fun and see where this goes" attitude, I'd be game.

But if she started asking me about my long-term career plans and what names I'd pick out for our children...I might hold off.

But I'm married now. So I pretty much get sex any time I ask...

(Operative word being "ask")

 

[AperioContra]

I like think of myself as a gentlemen. I like to think that I have enough self-control, that when given the opportunity to sleep with a person that I just met, I can just say, "No, I'd like to get to get to know you, first." But, considering my track-record, I'm just not very good at the whole, "Waiting" thing. So, I'm just going to say, yes, because I know myself. I want to be the whole "Old School" guy, but I... just am not.

That being said, this has gotten me in a whole mess of trouble in the pass, and landed me in relationships I found out later I didn't want. So, I suggest for all you young folk, that waiting for a bit to make sure you want this, will in the end lead to more happiness.

DFTBA

 

[Lt._nefarious]

Yes... No... Maybe! Am I dating her for her personality or her body? Or both!? Is she really enthusiastic or is she just like "Yeah, what evs..."!? Will it affect whether or not there's a second date!? Will I have to awkwardly go and buy a condom? God damn it, it's too hard!

Fuck it, I'll toss a fucking coin.

 

[J Tyran]

Depends

Is this a first date with someone I only recently met? Or one with an individual I've known for months or years, and are just now looking into a romantic relationship?

If the former, the answer is no, at least for the time being. If the latter, yes

The exact opposite of this holds true for me, casual sexual relationships are what they are. Simply people just looking for some fun, if I knew someone for a while I would be a lot more careful about diving into bed with them. That kind of thing can get awkward and embarrassing fast, especially if its a spontaneous thing but less so if its been brewing for a while.

 

[Syzygy23]

Nope, I'm old school. I like to think self-control is a sign of intelligence and class. That, and the extra dates offer a buffer for both parties to do a little background research on eachother. Don't want to risk catching any of that VD, y'know what I mean?

 

[NoeL]

All the more reason to not threaten punishment on the issue IMO.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this here?

If you limit her choices to a) have a baby she's not prepared for and ruin her life, or b) go through an incredibly dangerous procedure that may lead to infertility or death for the chance to save it, it's not likely going to end up well for her. If, on the other hand, you realise she's not ready to raise a child and consent to her getting a legal abortion, she will have more than learned her lesson without having to throw away her future or risk death. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

I don't see how showing that something can be done is a valid reason for doing it. You can choose to walk 10 miles to and from work every day to prove to your children that it CAN be done, but it would be utterly senseless to punish them for driving. Likewise, you could go your whole life without taking painkillers, but that doesn't mean your children should be forced to do the same. There are things that make life easier and or more enjoyable that have few or no negative consequences (e.g. a blowjob). It's ridiculous to forbid them from enjoying those things just because they CAN go without. How would you feel if your vegetarian father told you you weren't allowed to enjoy a big juicy steak? Hey, HE went without it, so so can you, right?

But this is different. Its just something I cant wrap my mind around, letting teenagers and kids have sex. Not having sex isnt going to kill them or make it so they cant get a job, and it will be better if they just wait until they are with the person they will stay with, as well as being safer (since STD are still a threat with even a blowjob).

As I've said before, taking a shower carries the risk of slipping, but you still shower. Going for a swim carries the risk of drowning, or being attacked by a shark, but people still happily swim. Hell, going hunting carries the risk of being gored by a deer or accidentally shot by your buddies, but it sounds as though you're an active hunter (or at least see nothing prohibitive about it). So clearly you understand there's a difference between "carries risk" and "carries prohibitive risk". Swimming at the beach is ok (the pleasure of swimming outweighs the low risk of a shark attack). Swimming in a gator-infested lagoon is not ok (the high risk of having your leg bitten off outweighs the pleasure of swimming). What I'm trying to explain to you, and what you're refusing to consider, is that the risks involved with safe sex (i.e. using condoms at least) are manageable enough so as not to make the act prohibitively risky. You risk shooting and killing yourself every time you pick up a gun, but you (I assume/hope) take precautionary measures to minimise that risk as much as possible.

We can actually calculate that risk (using the data from here [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html]). Looking at Kansas, in 2008 there were 43-49 women per 1000 aged 15-44 that became pregnant unexpectedly (~4.5%). Let's be incredibly conservative and say that only 50% of women of child-bearing age were sexually active, so 9% of sexually active women became pregnant unexpectedly (I can't find the figures but I'd wager WAY more than 50% are getting laid, which would bring that 9% down lower). Only 5% of unexpected pregnancies occurred while consistent contraception was used (though 65% of sexually active women use consistent contraception, which means that consistent contraception only carries a 3.25% failure rate, not a 5% failure rate). This means that of all sexually active women, only 0.45% (5% of 9%) became pregnant unexpectedly whilst on birth control (compared to the 8.55% that fell pregnant using no or infrequent contraception), meaning you're (factoring in the difference in propensity of use) 30 times less likely to get pregnant unexpectedly using consistent contraception, compared to no or infrequent use. It also means that if you're using consistent contraception you'd need to be sexually active for more than 200 years before you became statistically likely to fall pregnant unexpectedly (and remember, that's being conservative). What I find surprising is that even if you're not using consistent contraception you can still only statistically expect one unexpected pregnancy every 11.7 years. But I guess that's only an average and doesn't account for whether you're having sex once a day or once a year, and also doesn't account for wanted pregnancies, so sounds about right. But then again my math may be off, since "By age 45, more than half of all American women will have experienced an unintended pregnancy" despite 65% using contraception. I can only assume that 65% are using contraception in any given year, rather than 65% of the population using contraception their entire lives. I guess if a woman was using no/infrequent contraception for 30% of her reproductive life she'd expect one unexpected pregnancy (using the 1 in 11.7 years calculated before), so only 15% on average to see 50% unwanted pregnancies across the board. I guess that makes sense - I can easily see the average woman relaxing on contraception for 4.5 of her 30 child-bearing years, which would account for half of them experiencing an unexpected pregnancy.

Sorry if I rambled a bit, but the statistics show that if you're prudent about contraception you're going to be fine.

As for STDs, they're really only a threat if you decide to let some filthy stranger have their way with you. If someone has an STD they are almost certainly aware of it, and if they respect you at all they'll tell you about it and take precautions as not to affect you. They're also not that common (though still common enough that you should take preventative measures regardless). It's also ridiculously simple to both see a doctor and get screened for STDs, and provided you both come back clean you can give each other head to your heart's content. For a monogamous couple STDs are a non-issue, so your objection on those grounds barely holds (it's comparable to my "Don't take a shower in case you slip" analogy).

EDIT: There's also something very important that many people have brought up in this thread, and that's sexual attraction/compatibility. Since you haven't had sex it's not something I expect you to understand, but believe people when they tell you it is a thing, and it's typically an important thing. Though you may deny it, sex can make or break a relationship. You can be completely in love with someone but abhor the idea of having sex with them, which can be rough if you're one of the 99.9% of humans with a sex drive. You don't want to break up with them but you also don't want to be miserable, so what do you do? Agree to get the sex elsewhere? Prostitutes? It's a tough position to be in. But even before that situation arises you can often tell - even as early as the first time - whether or not you're going to enjoy sex with this person. And if the sex is shit, no matter how much you might like them in other ways it's not likely to go far. That's when people tend to become really close friends. So it can be a huge risk to save yourself for "the one", because as much as you want to deny it sex is a crucial aspect of any romantic relationship (excluding asexuals, of course), and it's almost impossible to tell whether or not you enjoy having sex with someone until you do it.

I just really dont see what is the big deal. I know that its cool now adays to say there is no such thing as objective morality, but on this issue, I WILL be teaching my children that while other options exist, they should wait, and there is very little that will change my mind on the subject.

Good to see you readily admit to being closed-minded on the issue. For the record though, I absolutely believe in objective morality - I just don't accept divine command as a justifiable source of it (see Euthephro's dilemma to find out why). Things can be objectively wrong, but nothing is objectively wrong solely because someone says so.

Sorry, I only watched the first minute before I had to turn it off. There's only so much "I beat my kids!" followed by laughter and applause that I can take. If you can't see why I find him so utterly repulsive, try replacing 'kid' with 'slave' and listen to him again.

Then you missed the point I was trying to make, which he actually outlined the part you saw ("Children dont have respect for anything anymore because parents dont disipline them")

You can discipline children without beating them.

1) You're not the government.
2) The government (mostly) only prohibits things that are demonstrably harmful to society (and premarital sex isn't).
3) The drive for sex is very strong in the vast majority of people. The drive to steal, murder, or break the law in just about any other way isn't.
4) Sex brings with it a great deal of pleasure, with minimal negative consequences if you're playing it safe. It's my opinion that forcing someone to abstain from sex until they are married is overall detrimental to their quality of life (and I'm all for giving people the best possible time they can have before they die).
5) Marriage is an arbitrary limiter for deciding when someone should or shouldn't be having sex. Do you believe an unmarried couple that have been together for 5 years should still practice abstinence, while a person that marries a stranger in Vegas is free to fuck them to their heart's content? If so, why? What is it about a cultural ceremony that makes it have, in your eyes, such a profound impact on a person's life?

1) No Shit, Sherlock. But then, Im sure you remember my "Family is a dictatorship" sentiment that I stated before.
2) It can be dangerous, and thus I believe it should wait, and that is what I am going to tell my children.
3) It can be controlled, and if not, you might want to see someone about that.
4) Tell that to my girlfriend, she will be very cross. Not having sex isnt going to reduce your quality of life and while for some it may make their relationship stronger, in my case it would be detrimental to my relationship.
5) Well, in that case, I would say that in that case, it would be fine to not waint until marriage, assuming those invovled are adults (still saying no to teenagers). As for the why, I would say that if you are married in all but the paperwork (ie, commited to eachother, wont run around on them, plan on staying with them, maybe living in the same house) then its fine. As for the impact of marriage, its SUPPOSED to be the ultimate sign of your commitment to someone else. I of course realize that the divorce rate is insane today, but I say that people are marrying for stupid reasons like sex and money, not because they actually love the other person (which is alien to me, as the divorce rate in Kansas is still pretty low, and its easy to find long term, happy marriages around here out in rural America).

1) Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. You don't gain authority by saying "I have authority."
2) It's not prohibitively dangerous. It's ironic for someone who admittedly speeds while driving to be scared of sex.
3) Can =/= should. I explained this earlier.
4) With all due respect, I really don't give a fuck what your girlfriend has to say on the matter. She's not involved in this conversation (and if she is, hello girlfriend!), and even if she were she'd need to support her belief that having a sex drive is a bad thing before I took her opinion seriously. If she is just asexual and has no interest altogether that's fine, but understand that makes her a massive exception to the rule and doesn't change the fact that probably 99.9% of people would prefer to be in a sexual relationship if there were no social pressure to practice abstinence - and the vast majority of them would likely be happier for it. When I look at the massive number of happy couples worldwide that engaged in premarital sex I find it ridiculous to claim that those who wait are better off. And even if you can show that they are better off in the long run, I still wouldn't necessarily be convinced it would be worth missing out on experiencing sex earlier and/or with multiple partners.
5) Cool, so you admit that marriage is irrelevant - it's the commitment that traditionally accompanies marriage that's important. While I still don't agree, I find that position a million times more reasonable than making marriage the be-all end-all.

Also, you may have answered this in response to someone else but I'd like you to clarify: If you had a homosexual son/daughter, and sex between them and their partners carried zero chance of accidental pregnancy, and same-sex marriage remained illegal despite opposition, and they couldn't afford to move somewhere where it WAS legal, would you expect them to remain abstinent their entire lives? Why/why not?

As I outlined above, as long as they are married in all but paperwork and they are adults, then I am willing to look the other way.

Awesome.

That's not a justifiable answer. Sticking your dick in someone and making a baby doesn't mean you know what's best for them, or that they would benefit from blind obedience to you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting you don't know what's best for them (in most cases you probably do), but saying "I'm your elder" doesn't justify claiming authority. If they specifically ask you why X is prohibited, and the best reason you can come up with is "Because I said so", why would they assume you're correct? If YOU don't even know why they shouldn't do something, why the hell should they stop doing it?

I have given you plenty of reasons, but you keep saying those dont count, so F*** it, I just going to use those anyway. Tell you what: I will be seeing my girlfriend Saturday, and we will work out the reason while reading this thread and saying how crazy people are. After that, I will let you know what it is, and then that will be our story and we are sticking to it.

Actually you've given me that same reason, plenty of times - and each time I've told you why I reject it, but I guess it's still not sinking in.

I guess I can go back to Euthephro again and bring that argument into this context: is an action wrong because you forbid it, or do you forbid it because it's wrong? If the former, what makes you the author of right and wrong? You implied you believe in objective morality, but isn't you dictating right and wrong subjective? If the latter, how do you know it's wrong? If you can't justify the immorality of something to yourself, how can you expect others to obey you when you claim it's wrong?

EDIT: And what about people that are, plain and simply, bad parents? Is a child still obliged to respect the authority of a parent that abuses them? If a parent says "You better eat them greens, boy, or else I'll be rapin' that tight little butthole til it bleeds!" should a child respect that ruling or should they be calling the police? Where do you draw the line between harsh punishment and child abuse?

No, the example you outlined is abuse. My view on it is spanking or thunk to the head is fine for harsher end of the spectrum, but beyond physically is abuse. However, when it comes to confisaction for punishment, anything is on the table as long as its not a vital life function (ie, food, water, shelter, sanitation, medicine, warmth when applicible), but other than that, you can strip thier room to nothing but the walls and a blanket and that would be fine.

Yes, of course my example is abuse. My question is where do you draw the line, and when is it ok for a kid to disrespect their parents? Then there's the argument that physical punishment teaches kids to solve their problems with violence, but I think that's only a problem with regular and or severe punishment (kids from bad homes tend to be bad eggs).