Poll: Should people wait until they're married to have sex?

[Scarim Coral]

I only saying yes if people were somehow abide to it (having that much self control even if they want to have sex before marriage). I'm just tried of seeing news about teen pregancies.

 

[erefe]

My ex didn't believe in premarital sex... (My god that was horrible)

One would assume that's why she's your ex, eh? lol

Nope, he dumped me for a completely unrelated reason

 

[Ghengis John]

Where is the fucking "To each their own" button?

Doesn't make for good debating, haha.




OT:
I reckon as long as they've been together for a while and there's love between them, go for it.

Lol, true. And pretty much the way I feel Sigmar.

 

[tobyornottoby]

Legislation, societal pressures, and familial scorn shouldn't be reasons behind it, but I do think it is a good idea.

Maybe it's because I'm not a base hedonist, but chastity does display a great deal of discipline, and is very telling about the kind of personality the person has, regardless of their religious or philosophical leanings.


EDIT:

The only point of sex is to have children

If you had any grasp of the real world, you'd know that's an outright lie. Sex is partly for the purposes of having children, but also for the purposes of pleasure/connection between two people. I could easily say some rhetoric here about how animals have sex for pleasure as well, but that's part of the reason I didn't want to get into this argument.

No, sex is for the purpose of having children, it just feels good as an evolutionary measure to ensure creatures do it. It's the same reason creatures from reptiles-up fertilize internally rather than externally.

The way sex is USED in society is not just for that one intended purpose though.
There's a difference here between 'intended purpose' and, I guess, 'applied purpose'.
Cough medicine might have one intended purpose, but that doesn't exclude it from being used for other purposes, etc.

Sex is one avenue of pleasure people have been conditioned to hold in high regard. If there wasn't such an emphasis in Western, Left-Wing culture on sex as paramount, there'd be far fewer problems related to it.

The medical analogy, while logical, is inaccurate, because the implication is that the alternative interpretation of sex is positive.

Nature has put an emphasis on sex as paramount. If anything, social conditioning tries to slow us down mostly.

It was not my intent to imply any judgement with the analogy. I don't think it automatically implies any anyway, but I always seem to have trouble with analogies =p I'm trying to show a single isolated point, not that both situations are 100% comparable, but so far I have trouble communicating this.

Well, not really. In most creatures, and even humans as recently as the early Assyrian civilizations, there are certain times to do it, and then get on with your life. Sex is promoted as a necessity, the base of the Hierarchy of Needs is paramount.

Wait, I don't follow you, you're saying the base of the Hierarchy of Needs is paramount. Sex is part of the base, so sex is paramount. But you start your reply to my "sex is paramount" with "well, not really".

having children outside of marriage can cause serious problems

That's not marriage, that's relationship. What about a single ceremonial day makes two people more responsible? If you mean they should be in a proper relationship before they have children, then that's partly correct, but that's just an ideal - I have many friends with single parents through one of them dying who have turned out just fine. Honestly, I think the correlation between failed relationships and child upbringing lies more in the fact that if someone is irresponsible enough to have an unwanted child (not to offend anyone, I am aware that a lot of the time unwanted children occur ENTIRELY by accident) then they're not responsible enough to bring one up.

It's a matter of responsibility rather than outright banning.

Where I am from, this is simply not the case. As I said, its all about location, and my location, you would be hard pressed to find somebody in their 2+ marriage and/or havent been married 20+ years. So call me old fashion. I am. And I love it that way. Me and my girlfriend BOTH think this way:

No sex before marriage. Once married, you stay married except in extreme cases. You raise your children on these same principals, just as we were.

And pretty much the only way to GUAREENTE no unwanted children is just to abstain from sex until you want them.

The only way to GUAREENTE not getting hit by a car is just to never cross the road, but crossing roads is useful. Life is full of 1% risks all the time.

Why would you "hate society has made sex outside of marriage to be a good thing"? Shouldn't everyone just be free to live the way they wanted?

I just know Im not going to change your opinion, and your not changing mine. But sometimes, I like banging my head against a wall. So let the beating commence.

"The only way to GUAREENTE not getting hit by a car is just to never cross the road, but crossing roads is useful. Life is full of 1% risks all the time."

There is a difference between nessicary risk and unnessicary risk. If you can avoid a risk you should. Sometimes, you cant avoid crossing the road and must take that risk. Thus, it is nessicary. You can easily avoid sex. If you partake in something you can easily avoid that comes with risk, that is an unnessicary risk. I will avoid risk when I can thank you very much.

To what degree? A mysophobe or an agoraphobe will go to great lengths to avoid risks, but that might not be healthy. What I'm saying is, every single thing has risks attached to it, so you will always have to live with some. As everything in life, it's not black-and-white, you can't just say if you can avoid a risk you should.

What's more the issue here is how a person weights the risk and rewards, but that of course is something subjective, personal.

 

[Eumersian]

I was thinking of answering either option 2 or option 3 on the poll. Then I decided that it's none of my business to say when people should have sex. I personally am waiting for someone very special before I lose my virginity (which means I'll probably be waiting an awfully long time, nyuk nyuk) so my personal values fall under option 3. But I wouldn't say that people should have to, so maybe option 2?

But like I said, it's none of my business to say when people should have sex.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Without touching on the same sex marriages only just becoming legal...

Why should they wait until marriage? Arranged marriages and the like cause just as many problems.

And how are you going to stop them? Even the Catholic Church gave up on that idea.

If you're seriously proposing abstinence before marriage, you're going to have a lot more violence. Hormones are very "persuasive". And once you're married, can you have sex with anyone else?

 

[lobster1077]

It is each individuals disposition that regards their stance in this matter and that stance isn't relevant to anyone but them. In other words don't ask pointless questions you plank.

 

[Rin Little]

Doesn't make much difference to me, I just kind of see it as "Test-drive before you buy" type deal.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

If you're seriously proposing abstinence before marriage, you're going to have a lot more violence. Hormones are very "persuasive".

Actually, that is exactly what I am doing. I am no more violent now than I used to be. I am 18, and I am still a virgin.

So apparently, I have slapped my hormones silly and said "I am in charge here."

 

[The Hero Killer]

Well I may not ever get married so that means I cant experience sex? I dont thing the two even have to be related. I DO believe that you should be married or have some kind of permanant bond to have children. There are too many people without either a mother or a father under one roof, including myself.

 

[Thaluikhain]

"Should" is a value call, implying you/we are in a position to judge what it is best for other people to do.

In our society, we must accept that the vast majority of the time, we have no excuse for taking that position, however much we might like to.

That seems like a somewhat hypocritical statement. It implies you know what is best for us to do when you say we must accept that. Stronger than just 'should'.

There's an element of that, however it is something everyone needs to do to live under the societies we have at the moment. It's certainly not true in an absolute sense.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Legislation, societal pressures, and familial scorn shouldn't be reasons behind it, but I do think it is a good idea.

Maybe it's because I'm not a base hedonist, but chastity does display a great deal of discipline, and is very telling about the kind of personality the person has, regardless of their religious or philosophical leanings.


EDIT:

The only point of sex is to have children

If you had any grasp of the real world, you'd know that's an outright lie. Sex is partly for the purposes of having children, but also for the purposes of pleasure/connection between two people. I could easily say some rhetoric here about how animals have sex for pleasure as well, but that's part of the reason I didn't want to get into this argument.

No, sex is for the purpose of having children, it just feels good as an evolutionary measure to ensure creatures do it. It's the same reason creatures from reptiles-up fertilize internally rather than externally.

The way sex is USED in society is not just for that one intended purpose though.
There's a difference here between 'intended purpose' and, I guess, 'applied purpose'.
Cough medicine might have one intended purpose, but that doesn't exclude it from being used for other purposes, etc.

Sex is one avenue of pleasure people have been conditioned to hold in high regard. If there wasn't such an emphasis in Western, Left-Wing culture on sex as paramount, there'd be far fewer problems related to it.

The medical analogy, while logical, is inaccurate, because the implication is that the alternative interpretation of sex is positive.

Nature has put an emphasis on sex as paramount. If anything, social conditioning tries to slow us down mostly.

It was not my intent to imply any judgement with the analogy. I don't think it automatically implies any anyway, but I always seem to have trouble with analogies =p I'm trying to show a single isolated point, not that both situations are 100% comparable, but so far I have trouble communicating this.

Well, not really. In most creatures, and even humans as recently as the early Assyrian civilizations, there are certain times to do it, and then get on with your life. Sex is promoted as a necessity, the base of the Hierarchy of Needs is paramount.

Wait, I don't follow you, you're saying the base of the Hierarchy of Needs is paramount. Sex is part of the base, so sex is paramount. But you start your reply to my "sex is paramount" with "well, not really".

having children outside of marriage can cause serious problems

That's not marriage, that's relationship. What about a single ceremonial day makes two people more responsible? If you mean they should be in a proper relationship before they have children, then that's partly correct, but that's just an ideal - I have many friends with single parents through one of them dying who have turned out just fine. Honestly, I think the correlation between failed relationships and child upbringing lies more in the fact that if someone is irresponsible enough to have an unwanted child (not to offend anyone, I am aware that a lot of the time unwanted children occur ENTIRELY by accident) then they're not responsible enough to bring one up.

It's a matter of responsibility rather than outright banning.

Where I am from, this is simply not the case. As I said, its all about location, and my location, you would be hard pressed to find somebody in their 2+ marriage and/or havent been married 20+ years. So call me old fashion. I am. And I love it that way. Me and my girlfriend BOTH think this way:

No sex before marriage. Once married, you stay married except in extreme cases. You raise your children on these same principals, just as we were.

And pretty much the only way to GUAREENTE no unwanted children is just to abstain from sex until you want them.

The only way to GUAREENTE not getting hit by a car is just to never cross the road, but crossing roads is useful. Life is full of 1% risks all the time.

Why would you "hate society has made sex outside of marriage to be a good thing"? Shouldn't everyone just be free to live the way they wanted?

I just know Im not going to change your opinion, and your not changing mine. But sometimes, I like banging my head against a wall. So let the beating commence.

"The only way to GUAREENTE not getting hit by a car is just to never cross the road, but crossing roads is useful. Life is full of 1% risks all the time."

There is a difference between nessicary risk and unnessicary risk. If you can avoid a risk you should. Sometimes, you cant avoid crossing the road and must take that risk. Thus, it is nessicary. You can easily avoid sex. If you partake in something you can easily avoid that comes with risk, that is an unnessicary risk. I will avoid risk when I can thank you very much.

To what degree? A mysophobe or an agoraphobe will go to great lengths to avoid risks, but that might not be healthy. What I'm saying is, every single thing has risks attached to it, so you will always have to live with some. As everything in life, it's not black-and-white, you can't just say if you can avoid a risk you should.

What's more the issue here is how a person weights the risk and rewards, but that of course is something subjective, personal.

Huh. I hadn't looked at the Hierarchy in a while. I could have sworn sex was a level up from the physiological needs.

And really, it should be. People will look for a toilet, sandwich, house, or cup of water before they'll look for sex.

So, yeah, what I should have said is "Survival needs are paramount".

 

[Nimzabaat]

I had a friend who didn't have sex with his fiancee until they were married. It was a bad way to find out that they had no physical chemisty. It was also the shortest marriage i've seen. So by all means, no sex before the first marriage. It'll teach you a valuable life lesson.

 

[Batou667]

If there's one thing I think religion should have absolutely no jurisdiction over, it's peoples personal sex lives.

What's so immoral about premarital sex? Marriage is virtually worthless as a concept these days anyway.

 

[The Aimless One]

Well.....
I don't plan on getting married and neither does my partner....
So....I'm gonna have to go with "nope" here.

But.... "To each his own" is what I always say.

 

[tobyornottoby]

Huh. I hadn't looked at the Hierarchy in a while. I could have sworn sex was a level up from the physiological needs.

And really, it should be. People will look for a toilet, sandwich, house, or cup of water before they'll look for sex.

So, yeah, what I should have said is "Survival needs are paramount".

Yeah, that's true, but Survival is no longer an issue in modern society. That's why there can be a greater emphasis on sex. The way for a lot of companies to get our money is to tap into those primal needs.

 

[Muspelheim]

I love the '50s, and blame the '60s for societys current problems. Only 2 steps forward I have seen in society are the "end" of racism and sexism, and the rise of technology. Almost everything else are society has become is a step backward to me.

You are well aware that everything wasn't simply better back then, right? Even if the '50s certainly had their grand moments, it's still worth remembering that it was a time with some serious problems of its own. Gender equality were still mostly a frightening boogeymen, with the majority of women having nothing to look forward to than to take their place in the kitchen. This was while racial segregation was still an unchallenged concepts, with services and places designated between white and coloured.

Furthermore, the idea of eugenics still blossomed, taking one interesting form when many who protested against interracial marriage claimed that they were "simply defending the sanctity of marriage", which is what they say when they protest against same-sex marriages today.

And so on, and so on... The '50s weren't perfect, and not an age to hanker back to. There are many things and ideas springing from the '50s worth remebering and celebrating, but the age itself is not.

 

[Snoozer]

It's not what to believe or not, it's rather to actually care about your religion or not. Hardly anyone could have sex before marriage due of their religion - just nobody cares.
Also in case of christianity marriage is something invented by the curch in the dark age to bind people to christianity. They simply made a promise for themselves before that - christian or not.
I really don't think it's that important to be married, you should know what you are doing. That is what's important and can get you in troube - married or not.