In the recent few topics that dealt primarily with abortion, something that keeps coming up cought my attention. Namely, an opinion that pregnancy is the necessary consequence of sex. It is not - there are numerous methods to stop pregnancy from occuring. The failure rate ranges 1-4%, and the number decreases massively if more than one method is used. Abstinence has a 100% success rate in stoping pregnancy but is also somewhat difficult to achieve - especially among teenagers.

It appears that there is a raging controversy in the US (although I am not really privy to the facts and I would appreciate insight from US citizens) about the shape that sex education should take in schools. Some are in favour of teaching sexual abstinence while others accentuate the importance of making kids aware of contraceptive methods available.

On the other hand, the matter does not concern teenagers alone. Married couples or couples living together might not wish to have children - the advent of contraceptive methods allows them to engage in family planning and decide when (or if) they want to have kids.

Again, contraception allows the implementing of birth control in countries with high rates of birth - thus alleviating some of the economic problems.

I know that the topic is rather broad but I would love to hear the opinions of good denizens of SP...

From a purely statist perspective, neither contraception nor promiscuity are good - the former decreases the supply of hard-working citizens, the latter increases the supply of unstable, statistically-dangerous kids.

Morally, although abstinence is best (and 100% successful in preventing pregnancy!), contraception-guarded promiscuity is still better than abortion. Kinda like carjacking - if you're hellbent on stealing someone's car, better to do it in such a way that doesn't kill the driver. (But don't expect any moral kudos for stopping just short of murder.)

Practically, the "success" of either abstinence-only or contraception-promoting programs are dubious. It really depends on how people measure success. The abstinence side of the equation argues that teenagers may be taught to respect and love themselves and others enough to restrain their impulses. The contraception side has total contempt for teenagers, who are mere slaves of their hormones and can't possibly hope to learn self-restraint. Both tend to be "successful" with those teenagers that best fit their preconceptions. One thing is clear - it's easier to teach teenagers to be careful slaves than to be self-controlled free men.

Personally, I believe birth control is fine for married couples. It may not be wise, but it isn't immoral. But I suspect my Catholic friends will disagree...

/me brags about the 100% chance he got to not make his girlfriend pregnant, abstinence for everyone!! :D

Well, abstinance only programs have to shown to be total failures, while comprehensive programs are shown to have decent but not great results. So i say teach them everything to be responsible so they can be careful when they have sex. I mean WHEN because that is the largest failing of Abstinance only programs. They delay sex by about a year but are far less likely to wear condoms or use protection when they do. Ignorance is not bliss in this case.

I learned about contraception, what it does, how it works, etc in fifth grade Catholic school. Yep, you read that right. Now, there was emphasis on the fact that birth control is not condoned by the Church, but still, the school officials believed it important for the students to know.

Needless to say, I firmly believe in teaching children about birth control.

- What is the best contraceptive?
- A glass of cold water.
- Before or after?
- Instead.

I agree with Grey Magistrate when it comes to contraception vs abortion. While abstinence is better still, contraception is better than abortion in that it doesn't actually amount to murder.

The base of all argument in favour of abstinence is that sex is not oxygen, water or food. It is entirely possible for a human to lead a normal healthy life without any sex altogether.

However, here is where people will ask Why should I restrain myself?. This approach is very popular nowadays and just about any restriction is viewed as unduly hard.

But there is a reason why abstinence is favoured over contraception, apart from religious beliefs about illictness of meddling with conception.

Sex should not be reduced to a simple releasing of tension like, pardon the comparison, going to the toilet if the dinner presses on your intestines. Am I being vulgar? No more than life itself. For young people contraception is, after all, for a great part a means of making sure five minutes of purely physiological sex in disco club toilet won't bring kids about.

Relationships, from acquaintances to intimate sexual relations should be built on mutual respect. Mutual consent doesn't really make it. The other person isn't an item, it's a living human being, with dignity and rights, not only biological drives. There is more to sex than releasing tension or experiencing a moment of pleasure.

Rejecting abstinence altogether leads to situations where people simply have to have sex the moment they feel the urge. Like animals, they won't think a second even. Look at this conversation:

She: Do you really believe that betrayal is so bad in all circumstances?
Chev: Yes, I do. Circumstances may reduce moral guilt, but they don't make betrayal any less bad.
She: What if my guy is away?
Chev: You need to wait until he comes back.
She: What if he's away for, like, two weeks?

That's what you get when you teach in schools that abstinence is just sick babble of a couple of old priests.

The result is people addicted to sex who don't really mind who's on the receiving end so long as they're getting sex. Some doctors see it as a kind of masturbation.

Another convo:

Chev: Haven't you ever thought about sticking to one man who would stick to you as well?
She: Maybe one day...
Chev: You don't have anyone you love? Well... more than the other people?
She: I love many men.
Chev: Wouldn't it be better to have someone who would actually care for you, instead of trading pleasure for pleasure?
She: But... just one man... What if I feel I need to have sex and there's someone handsome about?
Chev: What about restraining yourself?
She: How?

Or, yet another one:

Chev: Why are you with him if you date other men and have sex with them?
She: I want to be with him.
Chev: Why?
She: I don't know. I want to be with him. May'be I'll love him one day. I want to be with him, but I don't want to restrict myself.

As a result, you have a generation of people who don't understand the word "fidelity". The world of promiscuity, cheating, begging for sex, demanding sex, unwanted pregnancy, unhappy marriages, single parents and stigmatised, neglected children.

Humans have drives, but they have will to control them and reason to guide will. Abandoning control over drives leads to losing it. Losing control makes people slaves of their drives. So much of freedom.

As a result, you have a generation of people who don't understand the word "fidelity". The world of promiscuity, cheating, begging for sex, demanding sex, unwanted pregnancy, unhappy marriages, single parents and stigmatised, neglected children.
Sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow. As a result of what?

That's what you get when you teach in schools that abstinence is just sick babble of a couple of old priests. Oh, is that what teaching teenagers about contraception is? That statement seems to me slightly more inflammatory than the situation merits. As far as I am aware abstinence is covered in sex ed classes like it deserves to be: the only 100% effective method of contraception.

For young people contraception is, after all, for a great part a means of making sure five minutes of purely physiological sex in disco club toilet won't bring kids about. Well, I can see that you have put a lot of serious thought into the subject and came up with that wonderfully even-minded and above all, representative example of young people using contraception. Seriously though, do you really think that somebody who is willing to have sex in a 'disco club toilet' (how very seventies...) will be put off from it by being taught abstinence at school? Even more seriously, do you think that their behaviour will change if they are not aware of contraception???

[ June 06, 2004, 14:48: Message edited by: Vukodlak ]

As far as I am aware abstinence is covered in sex ed classes like it deserves to be: the only 100% effective method of contraception.It also is the only 100% effective method of maintaining personal honor and integrity. But these seem to carry much less value today than years past.

It also is the only 100% effective method of maintaining personal honor and integrity ...which seems to imply that unmarried people who are sexually active lack honor and integrity. This is a view which I disagree with.

For the record, I don't have a problem with pre-marital sex. However, I also don't think that it is a matter to be taken lightly, or treated frivilously. IMO, there is a level of commitment implied by having sexual relations, and this commitment should be taken seriously. I also feel that it is essential that safe sex be practised.

...which seems to imply that unmarried people who are sexually active lack honor and integrity.It doesn't just seem to imply it, I meant it flat-out. My dictionary defines integrity as "incorruptibilty", "soundness", "completeness", and "honesty", all four of which are incompatible with premarital activity.

(Sorry, I was having so much fun as the "holier-than-thou" guy in the last thread, I can't resist continuing - please don't get mad, Splunge!)

However, I also don't think that it is a matter to be taken lightly, or treated frivolously. IMO, there is a level of commitment implied by having sexual relations, and this commitment should be taken seriously.I completely agree. The problem is that the commitment is, as you say, implied, so...

...well, this is going to sound REALLY religious, so everyone is free to discount it, but...

...I would posit (per both Christianity and the historic experience of the past several millennia) that sex is intended (among other things) to bond a man and woman together for life. Period. Y'know how people can say one thing aloud but communicate quite another with their body language? Well, sex is the ultimate body-language for promising a lifetime commitment. And when someone engages in (voluntary) sex beyond their life partner, it always involves fraud at some level - either self-delusion or deliberate deception.

Because if the two lovebirds really WERE committed for life, they could just get married like, oh, everyone ELSE in the history of the world. The only reason to stop short of absolute marriage is the (perhaps unspoken) assumption that the commitment stops just short of absolute, too. But that non-commitment coexists uneasily with sexual body language that screams commitment. It pits emotions vs. the mind vs. the body vs. the spirit in a psychic civil war - often "won" by throttling our love and sensitivity, so that sex becomes "just" physical or "just" a means to keep the significant other locked in the relationship.

That's the antithesis of integrity - a means to bond two people together becomes a wedge to divide a person within himself (or herself). What should be the private link between two individuals becomes a tool for men to prey on generic women and women to prey on generic men. And that's what's so disturbing - even revolting - about premarital (and extramarital) activity. It betrays - no, guts - one of the most beautiful and intense aspects of the human experience. And it can be done so carelessly that we hardly realize what we've lost.

Ugh...I really shouldn't write so close to midnight...OK, rant's over. Back to my lonely single life!

I think I have to side with Splunge on this one. I don't have a problem with premarital sex either. As long as both participants are a few years older than the age of consent. Old enough to take seriously their actions and also take the necessary precautions.

I also believe in marriage. The union of marriage means that you will only have sex with your spouse. What happens if you marry someone and then find out that you are sexually incompatible? I know very well that marriage is a lot more than just sex but sex is still very important in a healthy married relationship. Premarital sex with a boyfriend/girlfriend with whom a relationship has already been established can be an important test before the final commitment is made.

One part of the commitment is not to make tests before committing. There are various other ways of checking compatibility and that compatibility relies on the same factor as the compatibility that can be experienced in sex. Whatever traits are displayed by the partner in bed, they aren't taken out of the moon - they are there always, all the time. Perhaps under a thin surface layer, granted, but that's how actually getting to know someone better works. There's no distinct sexual personality.

Pfffft.... you wanna have some fun in your life or is talking about commitment this and commitment that all that matters ?

Sometimes i have a feeling that most people get married just because it's seems interresting to do it. Maybe because of the party that's involved, or the romantic period after the wedding, but the fact remains that in a lot of cases the relationship goes downhill right after all that, ending in millions and millions of divorces worlwide. Wanna know why that is ? Because humans, by nature, aren't monogamous.

please don't get mad, Splunge! Grey, I find it almost impossible to get mad at you (although sometimes, I sure wish I could :p )
well, this is going to sound REALLY religious, so everyone is free to discount it You're right - it does. So I will. :p
My dictionary defines integrity as "incorruptibilty", "soundness", "completeness", and "honesty", all four of which are incompatible with premarital activity. That's odd - my dictionary says nothing about "incorruptibilty", "soundness", "completeness", and "honesty" being incompatible with premarital sexual activity. Yours must be one of them thar religious-type dictionaries.

[ June 07, 2004, 15:27: Message edited by: Splunge ]

Sex should not be reduced to a simple releasing of tension like, pardon the comparison, going to the toilet if the dinner presses on your intestines. You've either never had sex before, or you've taken some really good dumps.

I have got to remember not to drink coffee while reading ArtEChoke's posts.

/me rushes off to get paper towel to wipe coffee off of desk that I spit out all over.

Well, Pac Man, you raise some important points.

It's true that many people don't realise the meaning of marriage, let alone the meaning of the word commitment. Yeah, the romantic honey moon, the big party, the dazzling white dress and so on.

In that's the case, divorce is nearly inevitable result.

That's why the Catholic church, for instance, stresses in its teaching that choosing the right partner consciously and responsibly is very important and that acting on a whim when life time commitment is in question is... is not the way. There have been cases of marriages annulled because of a person getting married who lacks a grasp of what commitment or fidelity is and is thus unfit to marry. It may work the same in Protestant Churches, in Judaism and Islam, but they allow divorce, so I'm not sure if they stress the importance of making an informed choice this much.

Marriage isn't based on exclusive sex, or legalising sexual contacts with a person. It's meant to be based on love. Love isn't sustained by infatuation - infatuations come and go, and they pass quickly in most cases. A loving relationship is sustained by intimacy, closeness and friendship. It goes far beyond the physical. The idea is to think clearly when making decisions, especially ones involving other people or the whole of one's future life. A very emotion-laden moment isn't the right time to form one's views in the matter. It is crucial to value honour over lust. In a way, it means to value a concept more than tangible reality. But that's what humanity relies on.

Actually, when you forgo sex until a certain stage, you have more time to focus on each other, the values, the dreams that you share... or that make you different. It gives you time and opportunity to develop a lasting friendship, and create a solid base for a loving relationship.

It isn't gimping yourself. Non-marital sex produces a feeling of insecurity. The relationship is being reduced to sex and pleasing one another in this aspect - demands, demands, demands. The stress and pressure to meet the demands of the other person. To please and be pleased. To be good in bed. Not to appear unexperienced. To develop new techniques. To learn new positions. If it progresses this way (and in most cases it does), at the end of the tunnel there are one night stands and beating records... who's done more girls/boys, who's done the hat-trick, who's in the mile club and so on... Sounds impressive when talking over a couple of beers with friends, but is less impressive when one's on booty call.

Marriage removes the insecurity and gives a loving, faithful, exclusive and committed relation where things begin to make sense and to give what they're really supposed to give, instead of elusive (and often illusive) momentary pleasure. It removes the problem of lack of trust, of insufficient confidence, of unequality of feelings as well and those are the problems associated with non-marital sex. This, of course, doesn't mean they can't exist in a marriage. As I said, choosing wisely is key. Marriage doesn't free people from having to work on the relationship, still. However, that's the point of it - pursuing perfection.

The decision to have sex all too often results from low self-esteem in a girl who is afraid of her boyfriend leaving her if she doesn't complain with his sexual wishes. In this respect, she's being reduced to an item. Not like it doesn't apply to boys as well, though to a lesser extent, I believe. The idea of this is securing a long-term and committed relationship, paradoxically. But by what means? By giving or withholding sex, or by ways of playing on the other person's biological drives, perhaps by addicting the partner to oneself sexually? It's not worth it, and doesn't lead to anything good. The end never justifies the means and whatever good end achieved is always tainted by the means. Ultimately, it doesn't bring the intented results about fully, and the less than good means bounce and reflect back as skeletons in one's closet.

Pain, lack of trust, unequal feelings of love, insecurity, competing with other people for the partner, that's what people remember from past non-marital sexual relationships. Brief experience of elusive pleasure wasn't worth it. It can't compete with giving oneself completely to each other, completely and forever, with perfect consent.

At any rate, the idea of abstinence, or chastity, isn't to hold it against people who have or have had premarital or extramarital sex. That wouldn't achieve anything. Contrary, it's pursuing an ideal that, though difficult, isn't totally out of reach. Sometimes it saddens me to think how many people have been turned off from moral ideals by way those were used against them rather than in their favour.

Premarital sex gives a feeling of insecurity ? I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I don't feel insecure at all, just horny from time to time, and something needs to be done about that. :D

People should just do whatever the hell they want, if they get an STD or if someone gets pregnant, its their own damn stupid fault (unless it was planned).

As for no contraceptive method being 100% useful, i'm sure using four of them will be enough to curb the existence of another damned little miracle.

I have tried abstinence, and I feel it is vastly overrated.

Just to clarify, "abstinence", when properly defined, doesn't mean a quiet romantic evening with you and yourself ;) .

Abstinence is usually undermined by an attitude of promiscuity, that begins with the "liberties" you take with yourself...this is rarely taught in secular sex education programs...

thank god for martin luther, that's what i say...

no luther = no protestants = no protection

OK, my two cents.

To get back to the original topic first, I think we should teach both abstinance and contraception in schools. Sorry for the military background, but we like the idea of "redundant safety measures". In this case, the first safety measure is to not have sex at all. Failing that, I would much prefer a child to have protected rather than unprotected sex.

And this has nothing to do with unwanted pregnancies. The use of some methods of contraception (and I'm thinking condoms are probably the most used type) are very effective at not only preventing a pregnancy but also reducing the rate of transfer of STD's. Regardless of what your views are on contrapception from a moral standpoint, it's hard to argue against reducing the spread of a disease. (Also, as an aside, it's hard to argue against the use of a condom from a moral standpoint. The egg is never fertilized, so there never was a pregnancy, unlike the use of some birth control pills - which don't prevent STD's anyway.)

This is my views for minors only. I feel once you are legal adult, the choices are more of a personal one. I think it is much more difficult to tell someone who is a legal adult to abstain from sex than to tell a child to do so. There's simply no basis for it. I still support the use of contraception in this case, but I think it is far too idealistic to say that everyone should abstain from sex until they get married, especially since many people have no intention to get married (yes a minority of people are included here, but it is a non-zero number - somewhere around 5%).

The piont being, upon reaching adulthood, people want to start expanding their horizons and taking on added responsibilities. Having consensual sex is one of these responsibilities. The arguement of "waiting until your married" may work for some, but it argues intuitively against the expanding on one's life experiences, which is a very powerful motivator.

I do not regret having sex with my wife before we got married. We have been married for one year now, and are even happier together now than when we first met. I also lived with my wife before we got married. I felt that this was a very logical decision. I wanted to try out all the circumstances of being in a full-time relationship with someone before committing to it for the rest of my life. Heck, most people won't even buy a car without taking it for a test drive first - don't you want to be sure before making a life-long commitment? It may be a poor analogy, but I see no problem with taking your potential wife or husband for a "test drive" before buying.

I think it is much more difficult to tell someone who is a legal adult to abstain from sex than to tell a child to do so. There's simply no basis for it.The State orders adults to abstain from all kinds of behaviors - exploiting prescription drugs, speeding, stripping at the Super Bowl, etc. - which are legitimate in certain circumstances but illegitimate in others. The difference is that we've lost any sense of the value of sexual restraint.

The arguement of "waiting until your married" may work for some, but it argues intuitively against the expanding on one's life experiences, which is a very powerful motivator."Expanding on one's life experiences" is a motivator, but shouldn't trump quaint notions like "beauty" and "honor". There are lots of experiences - cocaine use, for instance - which we may be strongly "motivated" to try, but shouldn't. We can look at how others are affected by those experiences and draw our own conclusions. Me, I can look at the rates of divorce, abortion, and single parenthood and draw some pret' clear conclusions.

It may be a poor analogy, but I see no problem with taking your potential wife or husband for a "test drive" before buying.Actually, it's a perfect analogy. Why bother with love and mystery when you can "try before you buy"? Which is why it nauseates me but sounds A-OK to 99% of the population.

But glad to hear all is well with you and your lovely wife - sounds like you got lucky in more than one sense. One year down, just 69 more to go!

To weigh in with my own personal point of view. I believe that sex has been taken by religions and tied up with kids, marriage and other such things beyond what I personally find necessary. The aftermath of that domination of the subject is the continuum of taboos, repressions, freedoms, etc. that seem to ebb and flow like the tide.

I also think that there is nothing inherently "dirty" about premarital sex, nothing inherently "holy" about sex in general, and I find the attitude of many people telling others what to do or not to do with sexual activities to be repugnant. I don't want the government or anyone else in my bedroom.

I also recognize that sex carries a lot of baggage and, furthermore, can be a powerful psychological agent given the flowing hormones.

Guess what? So can puberty. We deal with it.

I think that people need to be educated about every aspect of sex that the community deems appropriate. So no pornos in school (not this century anyway).

But, guess what? Most communities have decided that premarital sex is OK. They may not admit it on Sunday (or Saturday), but the prevalence of contraceptive sales at stores, the "Trojan Man" ads, the fact that porn is just about the only internet business that consistently makes money, all of these speak louder than our mouths.

Grey and Chev - As with just about everything we discuss here, I respect your positions and appreciate your thoughts on the topic. I just happen to disagree here.

I like sex. I liked it before I was married, I like it now. My wife and I know what each other likes. Part of that comes from the fact that we were hardly virgins when we got together. You can learn some amazingly fun and interesting things from others. And, if you're properly careful, there are no babies (until you're ready) and no STD's at all.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled flames, er, programs.

The State orders adults to abstain from all kinds of behaviors - exploiting prescription drugs, speeding, stripping at the Super Bowl, etc. - which are legitimate in certain circumstances but illegitimate in others. The difference is that we've lost any sense of the value of sexual restraint.
When is exploitation of persciption drugs, speeding, stipping at the Super Bowl, etc., considered legitimate behaviors? All of these things (except stripping) are illegal because of the inherent danger involved with them. Sex, on the other hand, is not illegal (last I checked) and can be performed safely.

There are lots of experiences - cocaine use, for instance - which we may be strongly "motivated" to try, but shouldn't. Again, I find your analogies puzzling. Cocaine use is inherently dangerous, instantly addictive, and quite possibly deadly.

Look, I'm not condoning young adults to go out to a club every single weekend and have sex with someone they just met that night. Chev has also made reference to such things in his posts as well. However, I think there's a big difference between doing something like that, and having sex with someone who you are in a committed relationship with.

We can look at how others are affected by those experiences and draw our own conclusions. Me, I can look at the rates of divorce, abortion, and single parenthood and draw some pret' clear conclusions.
That's fine, but what about people who have different experiences? I seem to have turned out OK and am in a traditional marriage - and happy mind you - with my wife. In fact, my wife and I actually started planning our wedding BEFORE we were officially engaged. We felt that our committment and love for one another was more important than the fact that I didn't have a few thousand dollars lying around to buy an engagement ring at that point. Because of that love and committment, we also didn't see the sense of refraining from other activities - including sex - that married couples engage in. If the love and committment are already there, why go through the dog and pony show? So, while we started planning the wedding in November of 2002, we didn't get formally engaged until December 2002.

Why bother with love and mystery when you can "try before you buy"? Grey, you are a very logical person. Does this action not seem logical to you? I didn't start having sex with my then-girlfriend, and then move in with her just because it was fun. It was in a very real sense, a test, or a dry-run (possibly poor choice of words) if you prefer. I'm not saying that your way won't work, but doesn't it make sense that you have a full sense of what you're getting yourself into (again maybe a poor choice of words) before you make a life-long committment? The "try before you buy" theory may actually serve to lower the divorce rate in some instances.

But glad to hear all is well with you and your lovely wife - sounds like you got lucky in more than one sense. One year down, just 69 more to go! That's at least 20 years more than I deserve, but I certainly would be happy to have it. Heck, if I live to be 99, great, but I don't think a specific time frame has to be assigned to a happy marriage. If I die in half that time - say 35 years from now, I don't think that will in any way cheapen my marriage to my wife.

EDIT: I realized I never tied this rant back to my original point. To summarize, the greatest benefit to society is to teach both abstinence and contraception. For people like Grey and Chev, the abstinence arguement will carry the most weight. However, for people like me who do not see all the benefits to abstinence as its proponents claim, being safe and responsible about your actions seems the best solution. Teach both, and leave it the individual to make the choice that fits in best with their own ideologies.

[ June 08, 2004, 17:03: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

Aldeth, I assure you I see a great difference between having quick sex with someone whose name isn't really relevant and making love to someone you care for. Even though I don't condone the latter. I wouldn't think about comparing stable, if still not married, relationships with having random sex.

The problem is, however, if the relationship is so loving and committed - why is not a marriage?

Next, try before buy leads to putting too much stress on sex. Sex compliments the non-physical aspect of connection and it isn't a matter of getting together two people appreciative of each other's technique. There's no such thing as a loving and committed relationship in which sex doesn't work. Unless sex is the most important part of it, which actually questions the love and commitment part.

It cannot be maintained that the high divorce ratio is caused by sexual dissatisfaction, let alone one resulting from sexual technicalia. Contrary, it's a matter of poor selection of partners. Absent try before buy, people have to pay more attention to what makes compatibility in the whole of a relationship, not only in bed. What is more, they don't have a baggage of various experience that makes them enjoy the intimacy with their married partner less. There are no other girls or guys lurking from the past, as well. Also, actually, divorce ratio is higher for those who did try before buy than for those who didn't do it.

In truth, I can't imagine how it could be possible to have a relationship perfectly compatible in all areas except, let's say, a minute technical detail like the fact that we want more action and our partner prefers it slow. Next, I can't imagine such an incompatibility not showing in any other aspect of a relationship, but for some reason, only in sexual contacts.

So what's the problem? Everything is bliss except she or he won't do Position X? The idea of committed and loving relationship is giving to each other and not demanding, taking. Compatibility in a relationship is something people have and are meant to work on.

Lastly, I really find it impossible to understand how in a loving and committed relationship a minuscule detail of sexual technique would decide the keeping or breaking of that relationship. As I said, major incompatibility issues are bound to make themselves visibles in the whole of relations between the partners, not just in sex.

[ June 08, 2004, 23:16: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Just remember to take everything I say with a huge grain of salt...I combine the worst of both hopelessly romantic and hopelessly single. Draw your own conclusions.

To summarize, the greatest benefit to society is to teach both abstinence and contraception. For people like Grey and Chev, the abstinence argument will carry the most weight. However, for people like me who do not see all the benefits to abstinence as its proponents claim, being safe and responsible about your actions seems the best solution. Teach both, and leave it the individual to make the choice that fits in best with their own ideologies.Agreed. An "ABC" program ("Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom") is preferable to the "CA" ("Contraception and Abortion") or "ABS" ("Abstain or Be Stoned") alternatives. However - major caveat! - falling short of abstinence or marriage should be considered just that, falling short. Contraception to subsidize premarital activity should be presented as a failure and concession to human weakness, not a morally-equivalent alternative.

We aren't saints, and shouldn't pretend everyone else is, either. But neither should we pretend that sexual morality is a fraud.

Anyway, back to our oh-so-shocking off-topic topic:

When is exploitation of persciption drugs, speeding, stipping at the Super Bowl, etc., considered legitimate behaviors? All of these things (except stripping) are illegal because of the inherent danger involved with them. Sex, on the other hand, is not illegal (last I checked) and can be performed safely...Again, I find your analogies puzzling. Cocaine use is inherently dangerous, instantly addictive, and quite possibly deadly...I think there's a big difference between doing something like that, and having sex with someone who you are in a committed relationship with.See, there's the uncrossable divide. I believe - along with every major monotheist religion, thousands of years of historical record, and most present-day statistical-sociological studies - that extramarital sex IS inherently dangerous. It can only be performed safely within the confines of marriage - and even then it ain't a sure thing.

I don't mean "safe" purely in terms of physical health - you can protect yourself against STDs pret' effectively with the appropriate tools and the self-discipline to use them. Safety includes emotional, mental, and spiritual health.

And it's not enough to say, "Hey, I don't feel bad, it worked fine for me." Maybe someone may feel fine - hey, let's not kid ourselves, they feel great! - afterwards. But just as AIDS is contracted in a moment but takes years to develop symptoms, spiritual and emotional damage may occur without immediate pain.

Sex lingers.

"We can look at how others are affected by those experiences and draw our own conclusions. Me, I can look at the rates of divorce, abortion, and single parenthood and draw some pret' clear conclusions."

That's fine, but what about people who have different experiences?There's no denying that some people - like y'self - don't seem to have negative experiences. Count yourself lucky. Anecdotes may speak volumes, but statistics scream - and the statistics on divorce, abortion, single parenthood, and good ol' fashioned regret are clear. But someone always beats the statistics. May that someone be you!

Because of that love and committment, we also didn't see the sense of refraining from other activities - including sex - that married couples engage in. If the love and committment are already there, why go through the dog and pony show? That assumes that marriage doesn't have any value except as an artificial symbol of the love and commitment. Because...oh, never mind, the Alley already beat this to death in the homosexual marriage (http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000628#000010) thread. (Or beat ME to death!)

Grey, you are a very logical person. Does this action not seem logical to you?Logical...and easily flattered! Thanks!

Anyway, your argument would be perfectly logical if we granted your position that (committed and loving) premarital sex is safe, even wise. But since I hold that it ain't safe, or wise, or even good, it'd be illogical to "try before I buy".

That's at least 20 years more than I deserve, but I certainly would be happy to have it. Heck, if I live to be 99, great, but I don't think a specific time frame has to be assigned to a happy marriage. If I die in half that time - say 35 years from now, I don't think that will in any way cheapen my marriage to my wife.Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that the best marriage lasts exactly 70 years...some good ones last only a year (tragically interrupted by death) and some bad ones last decades (happily interrupted by death). I was just trying to use a ridiculously large number (do either of us know ANYONE who has managed a 70-year anniversary?!?) to add a humorous spin. Like I told my brother after he proposed to his (future) wife - "You do realize that you'll have to live with her for the next seventy years, right?"

Look, you can't have it both ways. If sex is so unimportant in a loving and caring relationship, and is nothing more than a purely mechanistic side-effect, than why is loveless sex in a 'disco club toilet' any worse? And of course, sex can be just about satisfying your own sexual urges.

However, sex with a person you care about is ... different. It is not selfish, and is as much (if not more) about satisfying your partner, sharing an affection and closeness, a feeling of security and happiness. At the same time, you are at your most vulnerable with another person placing yourself completely at their mercy, seeking acceptance and ready to offer and recieve complete affection, uninhibited by words and language. I defy you to belittle sharing such intimacy by reducing it to 'technique' or 'position X'.

If you feel that you require a contract of commitment before trusting someone to get that close physically than so be it.

However, sex with a person you care about is ... different. It is not selfish, and is as much (if not more) about satisfying your partner, sharing an affection and closeness, a feeling of security and happiness. At the same time, you are at your most vulnerable with another person placing yourself completely at their mercy, seeking acceptance and ready to offer and recieve complete affection, uninhibited by words and language. I defy you to belittle sharing such intimacy by reducing it to 'technique' or 'position X'.Exactly - your poetic prose sums up much of what I've said. But even unselfish activity can be unwittingly dangerous.

However, sex with a person you care about is ... different. It is not selfish, and is as much (if not more) about satisfying your partner, sharing an affection and closeness, a feeling of security and happiness. At the same time, you are at your most vulnerable with another person placing yourself completely at their mercy, seeking acceptance and ready to offer and recieve complete affection, uninhibited by words and language. I defy you to belittle sharing such intimacy by reducing it to 'technique' or 'position X'.No, that I don't reduce to technique or position X.

What I reduce to technique or position X is the Try Before Buy excuse, ie "we're all so loving and committed, so that's why we decide to have sex, but we still need to check the technicalities first lest we condemn ourselves to a life of boring sex". That thing contains a contradiction and, at any rate, there's no need for any sexual Try Before Buy if the love and commitment is real, because love and commitment, as we all agree, isn't about the partner feeling uncomfortable about position X we like, or about the partner preferring to switch the light on or off, or whatever minutiae we could think of.

If it's not purely technical minutiae, it will be visible not only in sex but in the whole of the relationship.

@Chev

Marriage is not a necessary consequence of a committed relationship. It is a formality. In some ways the law sees it this way, too; if you live with someone for a period of time (with or without children) and then separate, you are subject to similar laws regarding the division of assets. At least in Australia, you are.

“Try-before-you-buy” doesn’t put too much stress on sex, sex has just been singled out here. You don’t just walk up to a complete stranger, marry them, and then start finding out about each other. You “try” aspects of each other out beforehand. Courting is the “try-before-you-buy” of all sorts of traits, not all of them non-physical (for surely you at least assess their physical attractiveness at some point). I fail to understand why sex has been arbitrarily declared as something that can only exist inside a committed relationship.

@Grey
Integrity? Honor?

Integrity is defined by www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) to be “steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code”. Because we’re each entitled to invent our own moral and ethical codes, integrity really comes down to one thing: it’s saying, thinking, and doing the same thing. If you have integrity you think what you say, and do what you think. Engaging in sexual activity only violates integrity if your own ethos prohibits it. Likewise, if I think and say that I’d like to be promiscuous, I’m compromising my integrity if I don’t follow it up with action.

According to www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) “honor” has many different meanings, the first among which is “To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem”. Given that “esteem” means “respect”, you’re somehow saying I don’t respect myself and/or my partner if I engage in sexual activity outside of wedlock. I don’t understand your reasoning at all. If I am acting with integrity, how could my respect for either myself or my partner possibly be affected by having sex?

Grey, Chev, do you ever go out for fun? Do you ever *gasp* drive a car? People die driving cars! Despite advances in technology making vehicles safer, no matter how carefully people drive, some of them still die in car accidents. The only way to guarantee you won’t be injured in a traffic accident is to stay out of traffic. If you drive to the cinema with a friend to see a movie you are engaging in something dangerous (with controlled risks) for the purpose of pleasure, with someone you are not in a committed relationship with.

Unofficial point keeper awards Judas 2 points for a takedown!

Picking up a different part, you guys do need to get out more. You obviously think dating is OK (at least I know you do, Chev), so that is just as much try before you buy as sex. You're trying out your compatibility with that object of your affection. I assume that you think it's OK to kiss as well -- now we're getting closer. By the way, I knew one gal in college who absolutely refused to date guys who couldn't kiss her the way she expected to be kissed -- instant failure (no, she was neither shallow nor an idiot -- Merit Scholar actually -- she just couldn't handle guys who slobbered like a Mastiff).

The thing is that sex takes on a mystical or super-important quality to you. (It did for me too, but only into my late teen years, then it was just reverence, where it stays now :) )

I think the rambling point is that somewhere in your particular upbringing, sex took on a meaning and an importance of far greater magnitude than for others, like me and, apparently, my clone Splunge.

Just before somebody jumps on Judas for this (good post, BTW):
Because we’re each entitled to invent our own moral and ethical codes I'll just add (and I'm sure Judas didn't bother saying it because it's pretty obvious) that we are only free to do so within the confines of our society's laws. Pre-marital sex doesn't break any laws in any Western nation that I know of (subject to age of consent laws).

And I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about because I'm a lawyer...no, wait! That's dmc. I get confused sometimes. :p

The problem is, however, if the relationship is so loving and committed - why is not a marriage?
Because if you want to do a formal wedding, the timeframe of the process of deciding you want to get married and actually getting married, takes at least 6 months. In the case of my wife and I, it took 8 months.

Lastly, I really find it impossible to understand how in a loving and committed relationship a minuscule detail of sexual technique would decide the keeping or breaking of that relationship. I wasn't talking about the technique. My point was that if you love someone, and want to spend the rest of your life with someone, and that someone feels the same way, then why should that six month minimum window of making those vows "official" be so important. I do value marriage, insofar as a state condoned procedure that legally pairs two people together (it is certainly a very convenient way to handle these things), but I can't view it in my case as much more than a rubber stamp. My committment and fidelity to my wife started long before we took our marriage vows.

See, there's the uncrossable divide. I believe - along with every major monotheist religion, thousands of years of historical record, and most present-day statistical-sociological studies - that extramarital sex IS inherently dangerous. The funny part here is we don't even define the terms the same way. To me, extramarital sex is when you are married and having sex with someone other than your wife/husband. I am certainly against that. However, I am not necessarily against pre-marital sex (defined by me as having sex with someone when neither of the people involved are married) as being OK in the confines of a committed relationship. You seem to use the term of extramarital sex to define both types of sex, which I suppose, technically, is a correct definition. Extramarital sex is literally defined as sex outside of marriage, so your definition is accurate, but colloquially my definitions are what are typically used.

As far as this goes:

That assumes that marriage doesn't have any value except as an artificial symbol of the love and commitment. I already addressed that earlier in my message. My committment and fidelty to my wife did not begin on the day we got married. In fact, most women would probably not want to marry you if you felt you were not committed to her long before you were married. The concept of committment "starting" on the wedding day is an old and tired tradition and notion dating back to when weddings were arranged. In those cases, it actually DID start that day as you had limited contact with your spouse before the wedding.

[ June 09, 2004, 15:50: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

No no no, commitment is not supposed to start with the moment of marriage. Marriage is supposed to seal it, that's what I stress here.

You can have a loving and committed relationship that isn't marriage, and you can be faithful as well and have a practically normal family. The problem is, such commitment can end at any given moment. Marriage removes this. Even divorce allowed, it's still much harder to get a divorce, especially the spouse not willing to grant it, than to end a relationship.

If a couple want to commit to each other for life, why would they be opposed to marriage? Because it seals it for them? That shows they don't want to commit fully and they want a free way out of it. That's why sex is for marriage and not for a relationship that isn't marriage.

The cost of a wedding party is not an argument: the wedding party doesn't have to follow the wedding immediately.

If the wedding is pending, why don't wait till it happens? After all, it's not yet sealed and can be cancelled, anyway.

Please don't take it as if I were comparing premarital sex in the strict sense (ie a couple that is going to get married) to random fornication, even if I oppose the idea. I assure you I see the difference.

My point was that if you love someone, and want to spend the rest of your life with someone, and that someone feels the same way, then why should that six month minimum window of making those vows "official" be so important.As I said, the reason is for it to be sealed. A "life-time commitment" can be broken any time at a whim. Marriage removes that.

If the couple want to commit fully and for life, there's no reason not to marry. Unless the reason is a certain margin of freedom, but that margin of freedom is actually why sex is for married couples.

Marriage is not a necessary consequence of a committed relationship. It is a formality. In some ways the law sees it this way, too; if you live with someone for a period of time (with or without children) and then separate, you are subject to similar laws regarding the division of assets. At least in Australia, you are.That's not a new thing. It worked in Roman law the same way. If a couple lived together for some time, they were considered married and divorce was required to split them up unless they parted for too long. Oh well, you surely don't want to listen to me babbling about various forms of marriage in Roman law :shake: :lol:

“Try-before-you-buy” doesn’t put too much stress on sex, sex has just been singled out here. You don’t just walk up to a complete stranger, marry them, and then start finding out about each other. You “try” aspects of each other out beforehand. Courting is the “try-before-you-buy” of all sorts of traits, not all of them non-physical (for surely you at least assess their physical attractiveness at some point). I fail to understand why sex has been arbitrarily declared as something that can only exist inside a committed relationship.That is something I understand. But that's not what we consider here with regard to abstinence, contraception and the like.

I made it clear I am against try before buy in sex. Not in getting to know each other better.

Contrary, all over this thread, I keep pointing out that it's crucial to know each other really well before starting a relationship, let alone a committed lifetime one involving sex.

I even said compatibility showed in all relations and not just sex. So sex is not something you need to try before marrying someone.

According to www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) “honor” has many different meanings, the first among which is “To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem”. Given that “esteem” means “respect”, you’re somehow saying I don’t respect myself and/or my partner if I engage in sexual activity outside of wedlock.You're correct, that's what Grey implies. He doesn't mean it in a way disrespectful to you or anyone. His view, as mine, sticks to acts. Sex in something that doesn't marriage disrespects the people and whatever relationship they're having. Reasons and arguments are in my posts above, I already write too much ;)

If the couple want to commit fully and for life, there's no reason not to marry. *sigh* My wife and I DID want to get married, and eventually we did. I also understand that it is possible to get a marriage license and arrange a church ceremony within a few days, so the process does not necessarily have to take a minimum of six months.

However, her parents are extremely traditional, and extremely Catholic. While they had other sons and daughters, all of them got married to people who weren't Catholic. As it so happens, I am also Catholic. So, this was cause for a major celebration. Doing a small time wedding and having the party some months later was an unacceptable scenario. No, it all had to be done on one day - big church ceremony - big party afterwards. Of course, since her parents also ended up paying for the majority of the wedding (which is only fair considering they were the ones who demanded something grandiose) I really didn't complain.

The point is, the run-out-and-get-married approach was not a valid option for us unless we wished to greatly anger her parents, and let's just say that arguments with the in-laws are better to avoid when possible.

I agree with you in principle that if a couple wants to commit to each other for life, there's no reason that they shouldn't marry. What I'm saying is that sometimes it takes some time to get all the details fully prepared. And I certainly don't see a difference beyond a rubber stamp of a couple that has committed, but just hasn't had the wedding yet. Believe it or not, I didn't feel any differently after I married my wife than I did beforehand.

@Chev

A committed relationship is not the necessary consequence of marriage. Your statement that marriage somehow stops a committed relationship meeting a sudden end rests upon the assumption that marriage sustains such relationships through some means. It does not. While divorce might be more complicated than a “simple” breakup, divorce does not prevent the breaking of commitments. If I decide I don’t like my wife, I can just get up and leave at any time. Sure, at some point I’m going to have to sign some divorce papers, but you can hardly argue that the relationship still exists just because of the marriage.

You can babble about Roman marriage law all you want; you’re reinforcing my point.

I wasn’t suggesting you should refrain from getting to know your partner before you wed. I’ll rephrase: You’re ok with some aspects of try-before-you-buy, but not with sex. Why not? Why is sex a special case? Why is it ok to kiss someone, but not sleep with them?

Yes, I know Grey is saying sex outside marriage damages my respect (although whether it is self-respect, respect for my partner, or both has yet to be established). What I want to know is how and why this occurs. You suggest that such reasons can be found in your previous posts. I assume your referring to the post that contains


“Non-marital sex produces a feeling of insecurity.”
While your post does make your position clear, it doesn’t provide logical links between aspects of that position. While you state that non-marital sex produces a feeling of insecurity, you don’t back that up with any evidence. You also say that in most cases non-marital sex leads to attempts at feats of promiscuity. That is something you’re going to have to back up with statistics. All of the other points in the vicinity of the one mentioned above are in need of supporting evidence.

We're getting a bit :yot: here, not that I really mind, but I do have another question:

Regardless of whether or not you support abstaining or contraception, at what age should this be taught to children? My wife is an elementary school teacher - 5th grade to be precise - and they have their first exposure to this topic this year. They refer to the program as "Family Life" I assume because it has a better conotation that "Sexual Education". The point being, children in 5th grade are typically 10 years old. Depending on when their birthdays are, some are 11 at the most.

Thinking back to my younger years, I wasn't in any way physically capable of having sex with someone. I know girls mature quicker that boys, but 10 seems to be too young for them as well. I guess you have to start early, because presumably you want to get the education in before the first one hits puberty, but doesn't 10 seem to be considerably younger than when people hit puberty?

For girls it happens when? Maybe 12? Boys a little longer? All I can say is I don't know of anyone who was capable of sexually reproducing at 10 years of age.

[ June 10, 2004, 16:46: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

At ten I was way more interested in cartoons than girls.

@Aldeth: It varies per individuals when they get able to breed. And it's still not everything, anyway. When there was some official sex-ed, it was so boring I slept during it. The real sex-ed was totally unofficial and started when I was 10 or something.

Don't know what the right age is. Has to be soon enough. Can't be too late, really, or it's only going to be bad.

@Judas:

A committed relationship is not the necessary consequence of marriage. Your statement that marriage somehow stops a committed relationship meeting a sudden end rests upon the assumption that marriage sustains such relationships through some means. It does not. Marriage sustains those relationships through some level of dissolubility and the ties that the society associates with marriage.

Sure, it's no magic. Humans can screw up anything.

While divorce might be more complicated than a “simple” breakup, divorce does not prevent the breaking of commitments.Suppose I haven't mentioned I'm against divorce yet...

At any rate, divorce is harder to achieve than a simple break-up. Also, some of the results of marriage still remain.

If I decide I don’t like my wife, I can just get up and leave at any time. Sure, at some point I’m going to have to sign some divorce papers, but you can hardly argue that the relationship still exists just because of the marriage.When it's harder to split, there's more chance people will actually work on making it work. Reconciliation is key, there's no way it works like charm all the time.

And divorce isn't so easy. You have to divide estates, chattels and other property, and children custody and so on. In case one of the ex-spouses gets in a poor financial condition, the other has to pay alimony (maybe not in all countries) and so on.

You can babble about Roman marriage law all you want; you’re reinforcing my point.Hardly. The position of marriage in Roman law was strong. The specifics I mentioned here relied on according marriage status to factual unions when there were no impediments and no express dissent. From that institution follows what you mentioned - giving some of marital privileges to non-marital fixed and stable relationships.

I wasn’t suggesting you should refrain from getting to know your partner before you wed. I’ll rephrase: You’re ok with some aspects of try-before-you-buy, but not with sex. Why not? Why is sex a special case? Why is it ok to kiss someone, but not sleep with them?Good you bring this up. It's important to make some distinction between biological drive and feelings. Things such as holding hands, kissing or whatever are more of an expression of feelings than a means of satiating biological desires. Not always? Granted. That's the point - there's that difference and that difference is what matters.

Doing some things while avoiding it doesn't make it. It doesn't really make much sense, either. The idea is honing some virtue, in this case chastity, working on it and improving it more than simply focusing on avoiding things.

The problem with sex is that, although it in some cases is an expression of feelings too, it's inseparable from sexual drive and appeasing desire. However, people aren't items and aren't means of getting sexual satisfaction.

How can I treat her/him like an item if she's consenting?

You can. Consent doesn't prevent it. You can even treat yourself like an item, e.g. when you masturbate. Exchange of services isn't how it's supposed to work.

Yes, I know Grey is saying sex outside marriage damages my respect (although whether it is self-respect, respect for my partner, or both has yet to be established). What I want to know is how and why this occurs. You suggest that such reasons can be found in your previous posts. I assume your referring to the post that contains “Non-marital sex produces a feeling of insecurity.”I'm referring to the whole of my posting in this thread as it's basically what I've been proposing whole time since the beginning.

While your post does make your position clear, it doesn’t provide logical links between aspects of that position. While you state that non-marital sex produces a feeling of insecurity, you don’t back that up with any evidence. You also say that in most cases non-marital sex leads to attempts at feats of promiscuity. That is something you’re going to have to back up with statistics. All of the other points in the vicinity of the one mentioned above are in need of supporting evidence.It's hard to get any tangible evidence when we're speaking about feelings. There's a great chance we won't accept each other's evidence as well.

The insecurity comes, as I've already said, from the fact that such a relationship is subject to a whim and it requires constant competition and a risk of the partner leaving at some point and moving on. Non-marital unions don't typically last so long as a marriage (even with divorce allowed), and they rarely are one in whole life. Most typically, people get a couple of them before finally marrying someone.

As the border is extended farther and farther, the margin of tolerance broadens as well. With marriage being considered not really relevant, relationships lose a certain level of stability and certainty, resulting in people having a couple of them throughout life, as I said. The more of them, the less clear the distinction becomes and ultimately sex with new crushes stops being such a big problem. Then it's enough to "feel something" to someone barely known. Ultimately one night stand becomes acceptable et voila, we're in the realm of promiscuity. Not like it stops here, there's always something new to discover.

Well, and before anyone asks, the things that make non-marital sex bad are also bad if they happen in marriage. Lots of bad things, from simple neglect to violent rape, can happen in marriage too. I can surely imagine some non-marital relationships with sex included healthier than some marriages. What I mean here is a rule. Still, without allowing exceptions. Love? Want to commit? Marry.

Because we’re each entitled to invent our own moral and ethical code... Unofficial point keeper awards Judas 2 points for a takedown!...?!?

Y'know, this pret' well sums up why I find so many of these threads inexplicable. Literally inexplicable. (And why, I'm sure, so many find my own positions ridiculous!) A question: How is morality separate from sincerely selfish sociopathy or raw animal instinct if ethics are purely subjective?

"To thine own self be true" refers to being true to your SELF, not to your appetites. The two are distinguishable - or, at least, they should be.

Grey - my tongue-in-cheek point keeper line had nothing to do with the statement you put above it. It concerned, instead, Judas' points concerning dictionary definitions, the strange over-emphasis placed on sex as compared to other courting elements, and the clever movie argument in the post.

How is morality separate from sincerely selfish sociopathy or raw animal instinct if ethics are purely subjective?
Definition of moral, from MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/moral.html):

1. involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individuals should behave

2. derived from personal conscience: based on what somebody’s conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what the law says should be done

"Selfish sociopathy or raw animal instinct" don't involve differentiating right from wrong.

Also note the second definition - it's up to the individual.

Ethics (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/ethics.html) is defined in part as:

2. code of morality: a system of moral principles governing the appropriate conduct for an individual or group

Again, since morals can be decided by an individual, so can ethics.

My opinion (That of a postless n00b), is that if you can stand the puss, don't pop the zit. If you can't be able to take the possible consequences of having sex, then don't do it. Protections and contraceptions are never 100% safe. That's it plain and simple.

@Aldeth
You’re right, I’m slipping off topic. I’ll tidy up my mess and address the topic squarely.

@Chev
Mate, people don’t give relationships another shot because they want to avoid a trip to an office to sign some papers. Divorce is hard, but not because of legal formalities… it’s hard because the relationship (which predates the marriage) is falling apart.

Again you expand upon your knowledge of Roman marriage law to the benefit of my point. If marriage status is automatically accorded to people living in a committed relationship, that final, sealing step you insist is so important is removed.

I make no distinction between biological drive and feelings. Everything I do is driven by biological desire. This is the point where people start introducing gods / souls / forms / absolute moral/ethical values. This is off-topic, so I won’t address it here, but I’m happy to address it in another topic or in private messages.

@Topic
Sex has two functions: as a reproductive mechanism, and as a source of pleasure. The acceptance of contraception relies upon the acceptance of sex for the purpose of pleasure. Abstinence really rests upon the idea that sex is only for reproduction.

It has been argued by others that sex is inherently dangerous, and so should not be permitted for the purpose of pleasure (which implies that contraception is out). With my “going to the movies” analogy, I attempted to point out that there are other examples of dangerous activities we engage in for the purpose of pleasure. If riding motorcycles, abseiling, and playing a contact sport are ok, the argument that sex should be avoided because of the associated danger will not hold up.

We are self-aware machines, and we don’t come with manuals. Humans often become distressed in unfamiliar circumstances, especially when blood is involved. I remember a girl in my class getting her first period in year 7 (age 11 or 12), but I’ve heard of much earlier cases. Some of my friends are primary school teachers, and one of them has said she has comforted a distressed young girl who had just had first period… at age 6 or 7. After some research, I’ve found that this isn’t quite as unusual as I thought it was. According to http://www.morehead.org/wellconnected/000101.htm , menstruation may begin at age 7 in Caucasian girls, and at age 6 in African American girls. By providing adequate education, we can attempt to minimize any distress that might arise from the unfamiliarity associated with these changes. Such education could be provided in a tiered, gradual approach, though, introducing sex (the act) at a later point, if it’s more appropriate. I’m in no way qualified to provide information about what should be taught at what age, but I am of the opinion that the right education at the right time can make the process of puberty less distressing.

If sex education (including details about the act itself) is to commence at a young age, perhaps abstinence should be taught initially. Children are curious, and do not have the same grasp of consequence that adults do. I have heard it suggested that engaging in sex at too young an age can lead to physical, developmental problems, thought I haven’t confirmed this as fact. However, once the (now young adults) have a firm grasp of consequence, the choice should be their own. By all means, teach them that abstinence is the only sure-fire way to avoid conception, but also teach them that conception and disease can be controlled extremely effectively through the correct and diligent application of contraception.

I’ll rephrase: You’re ok with some aspects of try-before-you-buy, but not with sex. Why not? Why is sex a special case? Why is it ok to kiss someone, but not sleep with them? It concerned...the strange over-emphasis placed on sex as compared to other courting elements.And I find the under-emphasis placed on sex equally strange. Which (briefly on-topic) seems to underlie a lot of sex education - a mess of biological details, and not much more. Like a course in English grammar that never mentions English literature.

Sex has two functions: as a reproductive mechanism, and as a source of pleasure. The acceptance of contraception relies upon the acceptance of sex for the purpose of pleasure. Abstinence really rests upon the idea that sex is only for reproduction.Actually, abstinence (per Christianity) really rests upon the idea that sex is for more than reproduction. If it were only for reproduction, then an infertile married couple had may as well abstain - when, to the contrary, they're commanded NOT to abstain (I Cor. 7:3-5).

It has been argued by others that sex is inherently dangerous, and so should not be permitted for the purpose of pleasure (which implies that contraception is out). With my "going to the movies" analogy, I attempted to point out that there are other examples of dangerous activities we engage in for the purpose of pleasure. If riding motorcycles, abseiling, and playing a contact sport are ok, the argument that sex should be avoided because of the associated danger will not hold up.I wrote in my first post that I have no problem (morally) with contraception.

Per dangerous activities, I'd previously mentioned prescription drugs, speeding, and stripping in public. All of these are legitimate in certain contexts (e.g., drugs when you're sick, speeding on the NASCAR track) and illegitimate (even dangerous) in others. The range of legitimate uses is much narrower than the spectrum of illegitimate uses.

There are plenty of physically dangerous, perfectly legitimate activities that we engage in solely for pleasure - and you present good examples (cycling, sailing, climbing, etc.). And there are lots of dangerous activities (driving, flying, etc.) that we engage in just to get on with life, pleasure aside. But these are questions of wisdom and skill, not morality.

Oh, but wait...

I make no distinction between biological drive and feelings. Everything I do is driven by biological desire. This is the point where people start introducing gods / souls / forms / absolute moral/ethical values....so sex is merely a utilitarian response to biological desire, indistinguishable from raw emotions, devoid of spiritual value, and stripped of aesthetic beauty. Ironic, non, that secular sex should prove so frigid?

@Grey
You’re mixing my words with dmc’s, and you don’t appear to be addressing my question. I know you think sex should be emphasized more than other aspects of courting… BUT WHY? I want you to say “talking, holding hands, assessing your partner’s physical attractiveness, and kissing are ok because of X, but sex is not ok because of Y”.

I’m leaving Christianity and all its baggage out of this one. Abstinence is taught in non-religious schools as a method to avoid conception, not as a method to avoid angering a deity.

...so sex is merely a utilitarian response to biological desire, indistinguishable from raw emotions, devoid of spiritual value, and stripped of aesthetic beauty.That was well put up until the bit about aesthetic beauty. How does regarding sex as a response to biological desire prevent it from being beautiful? Clouds are the result of natural phenomena... can they not be beautiful?

Ironic, non, that secular sex should prove so frigid?I see no irony here. Given that secular means “worldly rather than spiritual” and that frigid is used colloquially to mean “without feeling”, if you believe that feelings involve more than biological drive (i.e. that feelings are spiritual, rather than physical), this makes perfect sense. From my point of view (where feelings are physical, not spiritual), your statement doesn’t makes sense, because I can have non-spiritual sex that involves feelings. Irrespective of which view is adopted, I find no irony.

Out of respect for myself, my future partner, and my religious beliefs I've chosen the path of abstinence. I'm not out to condemn people who have premaritial sex, that's not my business. But common guys and gals, as archaic as it may seem, it's just downright cool to honestly tell your spouse that they are the only person you have ever been with, regardless if they can say the same. That statement carries emotional punch. And while the physical parts of sex are good, nothing packs a punch like the right emotions.

And besides, I'm 23. I'd have to kick myself in the butt if I screwed up now. I'm in too deep, might as well see it all the way through, that'll make it all the more sweeter.

Mate, people don’t give relationships another shot because they want to avoid a trip to an office to sign some papers. Divorce is hard, but not because of legal formalities… it’s hard because the relationship (which predates the marriage) is falling apart.Thanks for contributing to my point.

Basically: Marriage is EITHER a formality OR a specific institution which has a place in the social structure.

One cannot at the same time claim that marrying is just signing some meaningless paper and that he has various important reasons for avoiding marriage. There's a contradiction.

Now, I'm not saying that you fall in this contradiction. I'm saying that the whole topic and the whole issue of non-marital sexual relationships is tainted by this very basic contradiction.

Again you expand upon your knowledge of Roman marriage law to the benefit of my point. If marriage status is automatically accorded to people living in a committed relationship, that final, sealing step you insist is so important is removed.You're missing the point. Not only the associated right but also the name and status of marriage was accorded. Consequently, the union was no longer a non-marital sexual relationship. It was a marriage. Ta-daaaa, marriage.

The acceptance of contraception relies upon the acceptance of sex for the purpose of pleasure. Abstinence really rests upon the idea that sex is only for reproduction.Not much so. For instance, in the Catholic Church we believe sex is also a source of pleasure and that that pleasure is a gift from God, sort of. However, both reproduction and sexual pleasure belong in marriage.

And I find the under-emphasis placed on sex equally strange. Which (briefly on-topic) seems to underlie a lot of sex education - a mess of biological details, and not much more. Like a course in English grammar that never mentions English literature.Agreed, GM. There's an emphasis on sexual "freedom", but hardly on teaching people things. I've had people confessing the whole mass culture emphasis exerted pressure on them to have sex. When talking further and further, they realised and confessed accordingly that they didn't actually want all that sex. It was "cool", fashionable... or just the thing everyone was doing. So they adjusted, conformed to the group. Sort of. Sex ed too often relies on informing kids it's perfectly OK to have sex with whomever they want whenever they want etc and everyone should just shut up. And use condoms, especially if you haven't met the right person yet :rolleyes:

...so sex is merely a utilitarian response to biological desire, indistinguishable from raw emotions, devoid of spiritual value, and stripped of aesthetic beauty. Ironic, non, that secular sex should prove so frigid?Good point, GM.

On a purely logical basis, sex can EITHER be just a purely biological raw physiological activity, OR something great, spiritual, elevated, full of beauty and aesthetic pleasure.

However, people say that free sex is all right because it's just biology and how could one outlaw such a natural physiological thing.

When it gets to married and non-marital relationships, we hear all the babbling about how sex is spiritual and how the connection between those people transcends pure biology and so on and so forth.

You’re mixing my words with dmc’s, and you don’t appear to be addressing my question. I know you think sex should be emphasized more than other aspects of courting… BUT WHY? I want you to say “talking, holding hands, assessing your partner’s physical attractiveness, and kissing are ok because of X, but sex is not ok because of Y”.Judas, that point has already been addressed in this thread. In fact, it was exhausted a couple of posts above:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn’t suggesting you should refrain from getting to know your partner before you wed. I’ll rephrase: You’re ok with some aspects of try-before-you-buy, but not with sex. Why not? Why is sex a special case? Why is it ok to kiss someone, but not sleep with them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good you bring this up. It's important to make some distinction between biological drive and feelings. Things such as holding hands, kissing or whatever are more of an expression of feelings than a means of satiating biological desires. Not always? Granted. That's the point - there's that difference and that difference is what matters.

Doing some things while avoiding it doesn't make it. It doesn't really make much sense, either. The idea is honing some virtue, in this case chastity, working on it and improving it more than simply focusing on avoiding things.

The problem with sex is that, although it in some cases is an expression of feelings too, it's inseparable from sexual drive and appeasing desire. However, people aren't items and aren't means of getting sexual satisfaction.

@Chevalier
Basically: Marriage is EITHER a formality OR a specific institution which has a place in the social structure.
Rubbish. “Formality” and “institution” have extremely similar meanings (both mean “custom”). Marriage is both a formality and a specific institution which has a place in the social structure. Irrespective, I’m not arguing that marriage doesn’t have a place in the social structure; I’m arguing that it doesn’t make two people commit to each other more than they do in a de facto relationship. They have no additional obligations to one another other than to obtain a divorce when the relationship ends.

One cannot at the same time claim that marrying is just signing some meaningless paper and that he has various important reasons for avoiding marriage.
No one did.

You're missing the point. Not only the associated right but also the name and status of marriage was accorded. Consequently, the union was no longer a non-marital sexual relationship. It was a marriage. Ta-daaaa, marriage.
Ok, let’s clear this one up. My original point was that there is no difference between a de facto relationship and a marriage, and that this view was shared by the law. You assert that marriage is an important sealing step, one that introduces a new level of commitment between two people… one that makes sex ok. You go on to say that under Roman law a de facto couple would eventually automatically be declared married. This circumvents the final committing step you maintain is present… there is no cake, no party, and there are no vows. As you put it, the government just says “Ta-daaaa, you’re married”. If this step makes people commit to each other more, you’re going to have to explain to me how.

Not much so. For instance, in the Catholic Church we believe sex is also a source of pleasure and that that pleasure is a gift from God, sort of. However, both reproduction and sexual pleasure belong in marriage.
I’m very familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church. But, to quote myself:
I’m leaving Christianity and all its baggage out of this one. Abstinence is taught in non-religious schools as a method to avoid conception, not as a method to avoid angering a deity.
Moving along:
There's an emphasis on sexual "freedom", but hardly on teaching people things. I've had people confessing the whole mass culture emphasis exerted pressure on them to have sex. When talking further and further, they realised and confessed accordingly that they didn't actually want all that sex. It was "cool", fashionable... or just the thing everyone was doing. So they adjusted, conformed to the group. Sort of. Sex ed too often relies on informing kids it's perfectly OK to have sex with whomever they want whenever they want etc and everyone should just shut up. And use condoms, especially if you haven't met the right person yet.
Yes, sex is cool in western culture, but that has nothing to do with sexual education programs. Maybe where you come from, but here, any sex education program that encouraged promiscuity would be torn to pieces by the public immediately. The various sex education programs I sat through in school were nothing but “how it all works”.

On a purely logical basis, sex can EITHER be just a purely biological raw physiological activity, OR something great, spiritual, elevated, full of beauty and aesthetic pleasure.
This has been addressed, but it obviously requires further treatment. Running from the dictionary definitions of the words, something being “raw physiological activity” does not preclude it from being “great”, “elevated”, or “full of beauty and aesthetic pleasure”. It does stop it from being spiritual. Please see one of my previous posts for a treatment of this “logic”, and a counter-example.

Judas, that point has already been addressed in this thread. In fact, it was exhausted a couple of posts above:
I’ve read Grey’s response, but was not happy with something that basically went along the lines of “because all that stuff has to do with feelings, whereas sex is driven by biological desire”. I recall saying
I make no distinction between biological drive and feelings.
For Grey’s response to be considered complete, an explanation of how feelings differ from and are separate to biological drive must be provided. I have indicated that this will likely involve a broader philosophical discussion, and have invited any and all to pursue it with me either in a fresh topic or through private messages. That it’s not appropriate to discuss in this topic does not give extra credibility to the point itself; it must be resolved for the point to stand.

For Grey’s response to be considered complete, an explanation of how feelings differ from and are separate to biological drive must be provided. I have indicated that this will likely involve a broader philosophical discussion, and have invited any and all to pursue it with me either in a fresh topic or through private messages. That it’s not appropriate to discuss in this topic does not give extra credibility to the point itself; it must be resolved for the point to stand.Oh well, I guess it's on topic now!

Feelings are both separate from, and connected to, the biological drive.

An example: suppose I get emotionally depressed. Result: sudden urge to eat ice cream. Thus, feelings prompt appetite. Another example: suppose I eat nothing but ice cream for a month. Result: my unending stomachache makes me grumpy and grouchy. Thus, biological drive prompts emotions.

[As an aside, is "stomachache" the only English word to have the "ach-ach" combination?]

Obviously I can't prove that feelings have reality beyond their accompanying physical processes. Not when nigh-on everything that happens to us as humans - spirituality, emotions, beauty - is observed and understood only in physical ways. For example, what we call feeling "sad" is the culmination of a thousand chemical reactions that we lump together under a single emotional heading. But just because a feeling consists of biological reactions doesn't reduce it to such - any more than the fact that this post consists only of ones and zeroes reduces its meaning, and existence, to mere ones and zeroes.

I prefer to look at the human being as a whole - physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual - rather than merely physical, or broken up into neat categories ("this part is physical, this part intellectual, and never the twain shall meet"). But what does this have to do with our discussion? Uh...oh, that's right, I intemperately wrote:

...so sex is merely a utilitarian response to biological desire, indistinguishable from raw emotions, devoid of spiritual value, and stripped of aesthetic beauty.To which you responded:

That was well put up until the bit about aesthetic beauty. How does regarding sex as a response to biological desire prevent it from being beautiful? Clouds are the result of natural phenomena... can they not be beautiful?And your bit about the clouds was well-put, too. Christian spirituality isn't anti-material, and the material world was created good and beautiful. That includes clouds. But...why are clouds beautiful? Only for pragmatic reasons - because they're useful for carrying rain and shielding us from the sun? Or do they also carry a hint of something transcendent that we can tap into when we see them? Same with sex - is it merely a useful device for relieving the appetite and enjoying other humans, or does it also tap into something deeper?

Oh, but wait...

I’m leaving Christianity and all its baggage out of this one. Abstinence is taught in non-religious schools as a method to avoid conception, not as a method to avoid angering a deity.Maybe, rather, conception is taught to avoid angering the deity-du-jour - self-worship with scientific priests administering lust as its sacrament. Intriguing, non, that so many of the old pagan cults centered around religious prostitution and child sacrifice? Interesting tie to today's sex-and-abortion, hmm? I guess there are only so many ways to appeal to human spirituality...

Anyway, I can't resist one more trifling reply...

Irrespective, I’m not arguing that marriage doesn’t have a place in the social structure; I’m arguing that it doesn’t make two people commit to each other more than they do in a de facto relationship. They have no additional obligations to one another other than to obtain a divorce when the relationship ends.Statistically that ain't the case. Even if the divorce rate hit 50% - no, 60%! 70%! 80%! - of marriages, that still doesn't match the rate of (completely legitimate) breakups of never-to-be-married boyfriend-girlfriend relationships. Is it that committed people get married, or that marriage makes people stay committed? Probably a bit of both. But that doesn't obviate marriage's role in that oh-so-useful "for richer or poorer, sickness and health, etc." proviso - or divorce's role in breaking down that age-old proviso.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically: Marriage is EITHER a formality OR a specific institution which has a place in the social structure.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rubbish. “Formality” and “institution” have extremely similar meanings (both mean “custom”). Marriage is both a formality and a specific institution which has a place in the social structure. Irrespective, I’m not arguing that marriage doesn’t have a place in the social structure; I’m arguing that it doesn’t make two people commit to each other more than they do in a de facto relationship. They have no additional obligations to one another other than to obtain a divorce when the relationship ends.First of all, formality does not equal institution. Formality is something that is required for the sake of form and otherwise has no meaning. Institution, on the contrary, has substance. It's a construct in the legal system, an established pattern of behaviour and is followed by a set of rights and obligations both legal and social, of various nature. Those are absent in non-marital relathionships, or at the very best are far less binding.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One cannot at the same time claim that marrying is just signing some meaningless paper and that he has various important reasons for avoiding marriage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one did.I'm not going to go through quotes for a page or two, but as scrolling up may show, supporters of free relationships (or opponents of marriage requirement if you prefer) have trouble deciding if marriage is an irrelevant formality or if there is such a difference as to create enough reasons to avoid obtaining it. Still, I'm not criticising anyone, just point out that those two can't be true at one time.

Ok, let’s clear this one up. My original point was that there is no difference between a de facto relationship and a marriage, and that this view was shared by the law. You assert that marriage is an important sealing step, one that introduces a new level of commitment between two people… one that makes sex ok. You go on to say that under Roman law a de facto couple would eventually automatically be declared married. This circumvents the final committing step you maintain is present… there is no cake, no party, and there are no vows. As you put it, the government just says “Ta-daaaa, you’re married”. If this step makes people commit to each other more, you’re going to have to explain to me how.Sure I will. The law was publicly announced and publicly accessible for all people. That way, everyone knew (at least in theory) the consequences of living together for a period of time. Once that period had passed, both rights were accorded and obligations contracted. So no free lunch. The idea of that legal institution was to eliminate concubinage.

This has been addressed, but it obviously requires further treatment. Running from the dictionary definitions of the words, something being “raw physiological activity” does not preclude it from being “great”, “elevated”, or “full of beauty and aesthetic pleasure”. It does stop it from being spiritual. Please see one of my previous posts for a treatment of this “logic”, and a counter-example.Hardly. Raw and physical is far from elevated. Perhaps some people will differ from me on this one, but it's a matter of aesthetic preference, anyway.

In the very essence, the point is that sex can't be both "just physical" and "not only just physical" at the same time as one precludes the other.

Just a technical remark to make things more clear.

@Chev
First of all, formality does not equal institution.
Consult your dictionary.

It's a construct in the legal system, an established pattern of behaviour and is followed by a set of rights and obligations both legal and social, of various nature. Those are absent in non-marital relathionships, or at the very best are far less binding.
This comes back to my point regarding de facto relationships vs marriage in modern society (particularly Australia). To the best of my knowledge, no, marriage is not “far less binding” than long-standing de facto relationships. Assets are divided in the same manner, child support must still be paid where appropriate, etc. The law sees little difference.

I'm not going to go through quotes for a page or two, but as scrolling up may show, supporters of free relationships (or opponents of marriage requirement if you prefer) have trouble deciding if marriage is an irrelevant formality or if there is such a difference as to create enough reasons to avoid obtaining it.
I *DID* go through all the other quotes, and no one is having difficulty with this. Yes, I understand that you’re “just pointing it out”, but you needn’t have, as it’s irrelevant.

Hardly. Raw and physical is far from elevated. Perhaps some people will differ from me on this one, but it's a matter of aesthetic preference, anyway.Again, consult your dictionary. “Elevating” in the context it was used means “elating”, which means “to make joyful”, which means “to make happy”. Happiness can come from something raw and physical… just ask drug users.

In the very essence, the point is that sex can't be both "just physical" and "not only just physical" at the same time as one precludes the other.
Correct. But I don’t think anyone claimed this. My own views are consistent: everything is physical.

@Grey
No, I really did intend to take this to another topic. I’ll start a thread when I have time. We still have to resolve the whole “beauty is/is not purely subjective” argument, too.

I don’t know about stomachache, but I’d almost put money on it. I think there are a couple of places in the world actually named Achach (one in Scotland, one in Micronesia), but they don’t count.


Statistically that ain't the case. Even if the divorce rate hit 50% - no, 60%! 70%! 80%! - of marriages, that still doesn't match the rate of (completely legitimate) breakups of never-to-be-married boyfriend-girlfriend relationships.
Before I respond to this in full, is that statistical comparison between marriages and all non-marital relationships, or marriages and all long-standing de facto non-marital relationship? I suppose it doesn’t really matter… in all this arguing about the minimal difference between de facto relationships and marriage, I’ve forgotten to emphasise that I don’t see either as a pre-requisite for sex.

I’ll take a step back and ask those who believe that a committed relationship is a requirement for sex to explain exactly why. I know points were raised involving feelings, insecurity, honour/respect, and integrity, but they haven’t been explained to my satisfaction yet. I’ve dealt with each either by dismissing them on a basis of their definitions, or requesting further explanations of the mechanisms that make it so.

I’ll take a step back and ask those who believe that a committed relationship is a requirement for sex to explain exactly why. Well, time for me to jump on the other side of the fence for the moment, since I am one of those people.

Judas, to me, the only reason that a level of commitment is necessary is because our society says it is, and in a lot of cases, one or the other participants will have an expectation of some sort of commitment. Having said that, just as society’s standards can change with the mindset of its citizens, so can its views on non-marital sex.

I’m going to wing this totally, and admit that I might not know what I’m talking about (as usual), but perhaps the idea of commitment derives from this: Sex is first and foremost a means of procreation – the fact that it is enjoyable is a bonus (and probably necessary; otherwise, who the heck would want to do it? Yuck!) Procreation means raising children, and that’s a lot easier to do with both a mother and father. In order for the mother and father to stay together to raise the children, a level of commitment to each other is useful. So: Sex --> procreation --> mom & dad --> commitment.

Of course, if you take procreation out of the equation with some means of birth control, and just look at the enjoyment aspect, commitment is no longer necessary. And then we just come back to societal standards. Call me old-fashioned, but personally I share those standards. But at the same time, I'm not going to get too judgemental of those who don't, as long as they're being safe.

@Splunge: Procreation is one of the reasons. However, it's not only that. Whether people like it or not, sex creates ties and produces expectations. All too often sex without obligations ends up in one party getting sorely disappointed in the end when being dumped and replaced with a better sexual object. Here we enter the reliability and integrity stage much in the lines of what GM has said so far.

@Judas:

I see you are all so very eager to refer me to a dictionary, but it's you who should renew the friendship with one. Your definitions are vastly incomplete and the level of your knowledge doesn't justify your attitude:

Elevate: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=elevate

Institution: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=institution

Formality: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=formality

The basic meaning of formality is form without substance and maintained solely or almost solely for the sake of form alone.

The basic meaning of institution is an established custom or pattern of behaviour in the society, or in any given order in which it belongs.

If those two mean the same to you, then I strongly suggest that you enrol on a humanities course rather than refer people to dictionaries.

The basic meaning of elevate is to lift. To raise. You can raise many things, mood included, but the context in which the word "elevating" or "elevated" clearly suggests one meaning of the word elevate and that meaning is to move to a higher position, to exalt or, in a way, ennoble.

Again, as I have said, performing purely physiological acts of body (purely physiological as deprived of any metaphysical or otherwise "high" connotations, as it was implied) may seem exalted and ennobling to you, but I'm afraid most people wouldn't share the opinion.

Perhaps English isn't your first language?

@ chev:
sex creates ties and produces expectations Which is pretty much what I said in my post. But to me, those ties are a result of society's standards rather than any pre-defined characteristic of sex if procreation is removed from the equation.

@Chev

No, unfortunately English is the only language I speak. I’m a bit confused right now, though, because I consulted www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) for the meaning of all three of those words prior to posting, have done so again upon reading your post, and still believe those words, taken on the majority of their definitions, can be regarded as synonyms.

From the venom in your response, I clearly offended you. This wasn’t my intention… I wasn’t having a dig at your ability with the language by referring you to a dictionary; I just didn’t want to post complete definitions (because of their bulk). I still don’t want to, because I’d have to post at least five or six definitions in their entirety to satisfy you. I urge you to follow the links you have posted, read the definitions in full, and also look up “form”, “instituting”, and “custom”. If you still believe that “formality” and “institution” can’t be taken to mean the same thing based on the majority of their definitions, PM me and I’ll provide a complete breakdown of the words. As for “elevate”, while spirituality is mentioned in some of the definitions, not a single one relies on an association with a spirit. If needed, look up “elate”, which is probably the clearest synonym in this context. I disagree that the appropriate definition in the context is “exalt” / “ennoble”. If taken to mean “exalt”, it doesn’t really make sense. If taken to mean “ennoble”, I agree, purely physical sex won’t make you more noble. I can’t really see how sex would ever ennoble you, though, whichever way you view it. Which virtue would it hone?

Here we enter the reliability and integrity stage much in the lines of what GM has said so far.
I can be an honest, reliable, womanizing bastard who follows what he thinks and says to the letter. While no one will like me, I still have my reliability and integrity. I’m not advocating this, or saying it’s likely… just that it’s possible.

@Splunge

I agree that the entrenched opinion that commitment is necessary for sex stems from the fact that (more so in the past, and less so in the present) you’re liable to find yourself responsible for raising children with your partner. I think this was woven into the fabric of religions to promote social stability and the happiness (and controllability) of citizens. That last sentence is purely my opinion, though – I can’t back that up with facts, and won’t attempt to convince other people that that’s actually the case. It’s just my own way of explaining the hang-up modern religion has with sex.

Today, there is an additional consideration: disease. Having unprotected sex with strangers on a regular basis carries some pretty serious health risks.

However, both conception and disease will eventually fall completely under our control, and won’t be factors. I’m not saying we should discount them now because of that, I’m just saying that there will be fewer arguments for commitment as a requirement for sex in the future.

I like your attitude, Splunge. I’m not a fan of wanton fornication, either, but I can’t make a rational argument against sex purely for the sake of pleasure with whomever you choose.

As an interesting aside (not that this topic needs to wander any further) you remarked that

Sex is first and foremost a means of procreation
I wonder how much this will change in the future, when we have alternative methods of procreation available (like cloning, for example). Maybe sex will eventually be regarded as a risky method of procreation, since which genetic information is passed on is effectively random.

In my experience, teaching abstinence is very ineffective. In my school, sex ed didn't occur until our freshman year, long after many students had already had sex. A passing reference to various contraceptives was made, mostly just to tell us that they are "bad" because sex is "bad". No explanations were given regarding why sex was viewed as bad by the local school board. Perhaps at an earlier age this would have been effective, I don't know. All this accomplished for me was to increase confusion while at college. :confused:

This may or may not be true of other abstinence teaching programs, but if it is I think it needs to change.