Should sex be saved for marriage? Should sex involve intimate commitment but not necessarily with a marital vow? Should we say to ourselves we only live once and live for the moment whenever it comes? Etc.

The only sexual morality I see would be Respect. It's only decent to respect your sexual partner, as you would any other person in a social interaction. Besides that, if both adults consent, they can do whatever they want.

Any 2 consenting adults who are attracted to each other can have sex any which way they like. I don't see any point in depriving yourself to be honest, if you are attracted to someone and they are obviously attracted to you...

I agree with Barmy.

But I will wait for someone I love. I think. Maybe. Or maybe not. Eh.

Should sex involve intimate commitment but not necessarily with a marital vow? That's what I believe. I prefer to wait for "that special someone" and keep the urges in check (which is fairly easy, just occupy your mind somewhere else) than have a gal that comes over every now and then so that I relieve myself. It's not my type, and you can't be something you're not.

Besides, the more you wait for something... the sweeter it is when you get it.

Besides, the more you wait for something... the sweeter it is when you get it. There's a certain danger there. Well, danger is not really the appropriate word, but what I mean is it can also be a big letdown. Let's face it, everybody's first time is rather bad (unless your a porn addict and you wrote crib notes on how it's done). If you look at sex at something that will be wonderful and you wait until you meet the right person so it'll be all the sweeter, when you actually do it, you might feel like you've waited three hours for that cool new ride in an amusement park, but the ride turns out to be a boring little "cart on a big circle" type of thing. I'm not saying that people should sleep with anybody so they'll get experience, but juste not to hold it on a pedestral, nor to think about how it's going to be, etc..

But I really respect you, and if you want to wait, all the power to you! :) (Me, I think practice makes perfect... :p )

which is fairly easy, just occupy your mind somewhere else And occupy your hand 'elsewhere' too? :lol:

The answer is simple. Yes, it should be saved for marriage. The reasons are either because God said so or in one of the other threads that Beren has started...

The answer is simple. People should have sex whenever they want as long as both parties are concenting. The reasons are because you only live once and it's pointless to deprive yourself one of life's greatest pleasures...

It's good exercise too... ;)

I would venture that sex is one of the most fundamental driving forces behind human, and nearly all animal, life and should therefore not be subject to restriction. I personally could not imagine committing myself to the bonds of marriage, or even a long term relationship for that matter, without having slept with the person first because in the act of sex you come to know you're partner at a level that can only be achieved through physical intimacy. The enourmous danger is that you could marry someone without having slept with them and then discover that you are not physically and sexually compatable.
I suppose that religious people who save themselves until marriage would argue otherwise but i honestly don't think that they are in the position to do so without experience...

I suppose i must have had about 3 long term relationships since i was 16 (i am now 21) and all of those came about through knowing that i was compatable with the girl both in personality and intimately. I have been in a great deal more short term relationships where either one or the other has been disasterous and there was no way i would have been able to tell until i had actually experienced it.

As for the purely theoretical psoition of saving yourself until marriage. Well its going against the grain of what makes up a great proportion of your innate personality features, especially if you are male. And you don't have to be an evolutionary archaeologist to realise this, sex is incredibly influential in the behaviour of the human species. The fact that religious groups and teachings choose to oppress this particular drive is precisely how they work. They restrict the freedoms and rights of the masses by playing on their fears and thus establishing control. This method of control has been branded 'morality'.

It's good exercise too... Haha, it is. If you do it right, you'll be sore as you've never been sore before... :lol:

Hahaha, saving yourself for marriage isn't as easy as it seems, especially if there's an attractive female ready to go. I have been in one long term relationship in my life (I'm 19). I agree that if you don't know the person sexually, then how do you know if you're truly compatible. Also, it is GREAT exercise, lol. Just gotta make sure you're smart about it and aren't spreading offspring everywhere.

Also, it is GREAT exercise, lol. Just gotta make sure you're smart about it and aren't spreading offspring everywhere. Well, let's say you have fifteen babies with different women. Runing around to see every runt would technically give you a better excercice than having sex. So if you're overweight, have fifteen kids... :D

your an animal - act like it

sex and procreation is ultimately what our bodies are designed for, and the purpose for our existence.

in my opinion, having sex before marriage is good experience, it leaves you less likely to crave another in marriage because youve already been there, done that.

It's a fact that a catalyst for many unhappy marriages is poor sexlife. Waiting for marriage may be the religiously pure way to go, but it's naive and unrealistic. Sex is NOT universally good - believe me. Some people are terrible at it. IMO, the best thing to do is to "sample the milk before buying the cow," to use a crude expression.


That said, you should only sample the milk of the cows you seriously intend to buy. ;)

Some may wish to wait for marriage, and that's fine...if they want to risk having a crap sex life. I'm not much of a gambling man, myself. Since the possibility of divorce is something I'd like to avoid as much as I possibly can, I want to know what I'm getting into. Premarital sex within healthy, committed relationships is perfectly acceptable...and considering the 50% divorce rate in this country, argueably a necessary prerequisite.

Casual sex is not so much "immoral" as it is unwise, unsafe and unhealthy (both emotionally and physically). That's why I'm against it.

your an animal - act like it
Most animals are quite selective about whom they mate with, especially females. And thank God as it keeps a species strong and better able to handle what the universe throws at it. So the guys (and girls?) above who are waiting for the right someone or marriage are just being selective. I say more power to them.

@ Death Rabbit

You left out the option of sampling, but not buying. Don't forget that it's a two-way thing (okay, maybe three or four, if you're lucky), so there is no need for marriage. Marriage is just something the christian church invented to tie itself more tightly to the society.

Well, I personally disagree with you there. I believe a family unit is the best way to raise children (and there's mountains of clinical evidence to back that up), and marriage solidifies a lifelong committment to do so. That you believe marriage was invented by the church to tie itself to society is your opinion, and I can't say it's a theory that doesn't have merit. But to say that's the ONLY reason marriage exists is silly. Besides, marriage wasn't "invented" by the Christian church...it also existed in Judaism and Hinduism for example, both of which are much older than Christanity.

And I didn't leave out the option of sampling but not buying. Intent to buy is what's important as far as I'm concerned; if you sample and decide not to buy, that's great - at least you know what you would've gotten yourself into.

Sampling just to sample is promiscuity, which I addressed in my last line about casual sex. I personally believe casual sex to be harmful - and frankly, stupid - but that is of course my personal opinion, shaped from my personal experience and the experiences of the many people I know whose lives have been negatively affected as a result of their philandering. As I said, I don't consider this "immoral" so much as I consider it not worth the potentially life-ruining risks, which include unwanted pregnancy, STD's, jealousy, emotional and psychological imbalance, or quite often all of the above.

But hey - whatever floats your boat, Wordplay. Feel free to screw your brains out all you want if raising children isn't a priority to you. May you gleefully test the durability of many mattresses. :D I don't judge you in your life choices (unlike some) I just choose and believe something different for myself.

EDIT - wrote Islam when I meant Hinduism. Staying up all night has it's drawbacks... :coffee:

[ October 02, 2006, 17:01: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

Just to be nit-picky on the facts: Christianity is older than Islam.

Anyway - personally I see the whole idea of sex being immoral as a rather unfortunate one, and something which I really hope fades away with time. It doesn't make much sense to me that we should be ashamed of this rather integral part of being human...

I believe the 'morality' of the issue comes from the responsibility that sex can bring. Although birth control can be highly effective, it is not 100% effective. So birth control does not reduce the responsibilities associated with sex and having children (yes, the two are still linked).

In times not too long ago, an active sex life nearly always led to childbirth. The responsibilities of raising a child should be shared by both parents -- this is something which appears to be too lax in today's society. The advent of birth control has allowed sex to be viewed by some as a recreation instead of a serious matter. I believe that is a mistake.

A person should not become intimately involved with another unless they are willing to accept the consequences. Those consequences for a man are either being a parent or be willing to pay child support for 18-23 years. By the way, most courts in America determine child support on earning potential, not on actual earnings -- so consider an additional $500 per month expense while attending college just for that 'bit of exercise.'

@ Aik

ACK! You're right - I typed Islam and meant Hinduism. Changing...

Let's face it, everybody's first time is rather bad Nope sorry, I was fortunate to have an older woman who taught me the difference between straight-bore grunting sex and gentle sensual making love. It's a shame really that sex education does not involve practicals so that people can learn the basics, like women generally don't like their breasts mauled, but caressing them gets better results; that yanking a penis doesn't really make us blokes feel good, and the differing techniques dependent upon whether or not there is a foreskin.

I disagree with the repression of sex that is prevalent in countries which are predominantly christian, these 'moral' laws were usually laid down by men who were afraid of women, gay or not getting enough, there are studies that show the more open an attitude to sex the lower statistics of violent sex crimes, but the greatest letdown of 'moral' countries with regards to sex is the education which in most cases is farcical and bears no relation to what really goes on. Impressing on people the need for safe sex or abstinence until they are married is no real use on the mechanics, you can't expect people to be responsible teaching them half the story.

@Sleep:
I would venture that sex is one of the most fundamental driving forces behind human, and nearly all animal, life and should therefore not be subject to restriction. There's a big problem here. Hunger is also one of the biggest driving forces in life, if not the biggest, but there are big problems when people stop placing restrictions on it. Hunger serves the purpose of providing fuel for the body, and if you don't need more fuel, then you should contain your hunger (to some degree). Problems develope if you don't (i.e. heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc.)

Likewise, sex serves the purpose of continuing the species. That means bringing healthy newborns into a viable situation. This means that any sex that does not bring a healthy newborn into a viable situation is not fulfilling the purpose of sex and, as such, up for restriction.

Now please understand that I'm not saying you should only have sex if you want a kid from it. I eat more than I need to because eating good food is fun, but I place restrictions on it. I only eat SO MUCH more than I need to, I work more than I probably need to to balance that out (plus I have a high metabolism ;) ), and I watch what is in what I eat, just a little, just in case. In the same way, it's ok to have sex if you don't want to have a kid, so long as you take certain precautions. If you can't support a kid (no viable situation), then you probably shouldn't have sex at all, as no contraceptive or combination of multiple is 100%. At the same time, you need to take care of your own body (protection from STDs). The first condition alone pretty much limits it to marital or similar relationships, and so the second only needs to be applied if you or your mate have not lived by this standard in the past (or if one is cheating on the other).

That alone pretty much sums up my position, though it does leave a nagging option for extra-marital relations, since you are in a position to support the kid, just not with it's natural mother/father, but I'll go ahead and say that's immoral because I believe it is, and I think most people in the world will agree with me on some level (remember, this is cheating inside a stable romantic relationship).

@Ironmancal2131
While saving yourself for marriage may not be as easy as it seems sometimes, it isn't as hard as it often seems, either. I've been in a stable, long-term (we're going to get married as soon as I can support us) relationship for 4.5 years now with a VERY attractive woman. Savign myself for her hasn't been a problem. There have been other options both before and after meeting her, but I'm saving myself, so I said 'no' and it really wasn't that hard. Of course, I don't drink a lot, so I don't have to worry about my inhibitions being removed around said 'other options'.

@Shoshino
Are you so sure we're nothing less than animals? Most animals will stop eating when they're full. Most animals will clean themselves regularly. Most animals will either develop complex, if uniform, social groups or act independantly, one or the other. Humans don't do any of these naturally. We all know that humans will eat as much as they want and getting full has little to nothing to do with it, nor does real hunger. We all know that people (or at least men) are not inclined to regularly clean themselves unless there's a good reason to do so. Humans are capable of any number of types of social interactions, including the hermit that lives by him/herself for decades at a time. Different human societies have developed different social hierarchies based on different conditions.

Now we can look at humans (ourselves) and say that these things are based on desires and needs and rationality, but animals don't have the higher reasoning skills we do, nor do many of them posess the same 'pleasure' sources as we do (especially sex, but also eating). Saying we should because we are animals leaves much to be desired and vastly oversimplifies the human condition.

@DR
I understand your reasoning, and your premises, but the 'bad sex life' factor of so many divorces is based on SO much more than just 'how someone performs'. The truth is, it is usually based in an uncaring and even combative relationship where the woman, not being emotionally fullfilled, refuses to fulfill the man sexually, or the man, not being visually fulfilled, looses interest in the woman. In commited relationships, partners can learn to improve their sexual encounters by learning what the other partner likes and dislikes. A failure of the sex life is not the cause of divorce, but a symptom of much larger problems.

@Wordplay
The Christians invented marriage? You sure about that? Because I see it in the Old Testament (Hebrews) and in ancient Egypt, and Rome, and Greece, and China, and Japan, and India, and a ton of areas before Christianity even existed. Marriage is as old as history (intentional records of humanity and human activity). We don't know which came first, society or marriage, though we can rationalize how society could easily come before marriage. Either marriage was a natural development of human society that seems to be rather, if not totally, uniform; or the only one who invented it was God. Either way, you may want to pay a little more attention to it.

As far as 'first time performance' goes, everyone learns to get better at things with time, so we shouldn't expect the first time of anything to be perfect. While there may be ways to improve the first time, and I even agree with a few DS suggested, 'getting practice' is not a good idea.

I would also like to note that acceptance of pre-marital sex, and especially promiscuous sex, help to break down the standard family unit, the nuclear family, in society. This is either a direct cause, or a direct effect of the failing of a society. There was a book written by D.L. Moody, a prominent christian scholar, that took a look at the fall of societies and linked this to it almost EVERY SINGLE TIME (please note that societies can survive conquest by outsiders and thus this doesn't count as the fall of a society). He pointed out a number of warning signs, such as common acceptance of divorce, quick and no-fault divorces, high numbers of pregnancies outside of wedlock, high numbers of children being given up for adoption or abandoned, etc. This sounds a lot like the modern US and a number of other 1st world nations today, but that's pure co-incidence because the book was written in the early 1950's, when these problems were barely even recognizable yet. He came to these conclusions off the fall of great societies in history like Rome, Greece, Egypt, ancient China, etc.

There's a certain danger there. Well, danger is not really the appropriate word, but what I mean is it can also be a big letdown. Let's face it, everybody's first time is rather bad (unless your a porn addict and you wrote crib notes on how it's done). If you look at sex at something that will be wonderful and you wait until you meet the right person so it'll be all the sweeter, when you actually do it, you might feel like you've waited three hours for that cool new ride in an amusement park, but the ride turns out to be a boring little "cart on a big circle" type of thing. I'm not saying that people should sleep with anybody so they'll get experience, but juste not to hold it on a pedestral, nor to think about how it's going to be, etc..

But I really respect you, and if you want to wait, all the power to you! [Smile] (Me, I think practice makes perfect... [Razz] ) Good point. I, however, am no virgin, even though I have fairly little experience as opposed to "regular" guys. I'm standing firm on my point about waiting though - sex remains a very special act that should be shared with someone just as special (chev, I see a free chance for a jab about marriage here... but I am no believer, remember :heh: ). There have been but two woman with which I've reached "that" level (I DID said I had little experience), and it's just fine this way. The next one will be just as special.

And you have my respect too. :heh:

And occupy your hand 'elsewhere' too? Hehe. Everyone has a way of keeping their own mind occupied, mine is metalworking. When the urges makes one retrograde to the caveman era... there's a problem.

[ December 06, 2006, 06:31: Message edited by: Disciple of The Watch ]

In the same way, it's ok to have sex if you don't want to have a kid, so long as you take certain precautions. If you do take precautions, why should we restrict ourselves? Why not have sex 2 times a day for a year?

I would also like to note that acceptance of pre-marital sex, and especially promiscuous sex, help to break down the standard family unit, the nuclear family, in societyI don't agree at all. How does having sex befor marriage change the family concept?

I, however, am no virgin lol, yeah, I kind of got that impression when you were discussing what kind of condoms you use in the contraception thread... :p My bad, I misunderstood what you were saying...

If you do take precautions, why should we restrict ourselves? Why not have sex 2 times a day for a year?Feel free to, just don't blame me when your willy falls off :p

@ NOG.

Interesting that you should mention the issue of food acquisition. Unfortuantly your relying heavily on two principles to underlie your argument. Firstly, that humans eat the food that we are designed to eat and , secondly, that the evolution of the human brain and the human body are somehow complimentary.
I'll briefly explain.

Evolution relies on a natural selection of beneficial random mutations in the structure of human DNA, therefore there is very slim cahnce of any animal being 'perfectly suited' to its environment. With humans, the gradual increase in brain size has occurred throughout the hominin development since the split with common chimpanzee ancestors because it is beneficial. Since humans reached cognitive modernity roughly 100-150 thousand years ago we have developed our ability to shape our environment around us. This has resulted in the human being creating an environment for which the brain is satisfied, but the body is not necessarily prepared for. Human stomachs are prepared to digest large quantities of food as fuel for those pursuing active lifestyles. (i.e hunting). The food we eat now is;
A) often vastly inferior in quality.
B)plentiful in elements that are not suited to the human digestive system (for example every human in the world is, to some degree, lactose intolerant).
C)Avialable to us in abundance, often without the excess burning of calories.
Humans don't contain their intake of fuel anymore because the body is capable of processing large amounts of food without realising that it is far richer and less healthy than what it has been designed for. The link between brain and body is imperfect.Unintelligently designed. Opportunistically designed, to be exact. As is all life.

Also, sex does not only serve the purpose of furthering the species. Sex serves to seal social bonds and create alliances. It can be used as a power tool and as a way of isolating others. humans are incredibly social creatures and we have adapted, as with many other areas of our natural urges, to use sex for more than just simple procreation.
For example, humans are one of the most nuturing creatures known, we look after our osspring incredibly well and part of the way to keep the family bond together is for the mother and father to copulate regurlarly. Sharing this intimacy is a way of keeping the family, dedicated to one another.

To say that you should save sex until marriage because of your own personal beliefs is fine. But to suggest some sort of moral pressure upon others is totally wrong. Sex between two consenting people is their buisness and their buisness alone, it is their own body they can do what they like.

Feel free to, just don't blame me when your willy falls off lol, well, the point I was trying to make was that the "willy" is not like a VHS tape. If you use it a whole lot, it doesn't break down.. ;)

Sex serves to seal social bonds and create alliances. Yes!! I knew there was a point to being friends with all those hot women... :banana: haha, I'm just kidding... ;)

I'm also posting in the safety in sex thread, and there seems to be a lack of women participating in the discussion. Am I the only one who think that's wierd?

@ NOG, @DR
I understand your reasoning, and your premises, but the 'bad sex life' factor of so many divorces is based on SO much more than just 'how someone performs'. The truth is, it is usually based in an uncaring and even combative relationship where the woman, not being emotionally fullfilled, refuses to fulfill the man sexually, or the man, not being visually fulfilled, looses interest in the woman. In commited relationships, partners can learn to improve their sexual encounters by learning what the other partner likes and dislikes. A failure of the sex life is not the cause of divorce, but a symptom of much larger problems.That's an interesting point. But it doesn't disprove that premarital sex can be a good thing. In a way, what you said reinforces my point.

Just as bad sex can be a result or symptom of larger problems, it can also be the catalyst for them as well. Good sex improves emotional intimacy. So if the sex life is bad it - be it due to infrequency, one partner being uninterested in the other's needs, or just plain inability to do it properly - that can have a cascading effect on many other aspects of the relationship. Just as stress, lack of communication and inconsiderate behavior can have a negative impact on intamacy (and by extension, sex life).

Everything is connected. The dynamics of a romantic relationship are much more like a web than a mobile, if that makes sense. I'd prefer to know as much as I possibly can about the mate I'm choosing before committing my life to her. Part of the necessity of pre-marital sex is also to assess the potential for a happy sex life down the road. That way you can factor in potential problems before you're stuck with them.

I believe a family unit is the best way to raise children (and there's mountains of clinical evidence to back that up), and marriage solidifies a lifelong committment to do so. You do not need to have a ceremony to have a family and you can, certainly, raise your kids in an open relationship too. I don't understand why you think that marriage makes the union eternal, remembering that almost 50% of the marriages end up to divorce. Marriage is just a symbolic proof of your intent, so church is not needed for that.

there seems to be a lack of women participating in the discussion. Am I the only one who think that's wierd?There aren't that many women on SP, or on board in general. Majority of the Internet-users are males, remember? ;)
But hey - whatever floats your boatUnfortunately, the government doesn't see it exactly that way. The current legistlation does say a strong "nay" against casual sex (especially when there is money involved) and multiple partners (polygamy), but that's why you go to Thailand. :D

@Triactus:
Pre-marital and especially extra-marital sex help break down the family unit because sex is a bonding action, as Sleep said. Treating sex as a non-item (just something to have fun with) de-values it for those involved, thus you have just weakened a valuable bonding action. Think of it this way, if you've just met a girl, and she's willing to sleep with you, how much does actually doing it strengthen the relationship? How much closer do you feel to her. On the other hand, if you've dated her for several years, maybe even just married her, and she's refused to have sex until now, how valuable does that action seem now? Now consider how valuable it is in the first situation if you regularly have sex with random girls just because it's fun, and compare it to if you and the girl in the second example are virgins until that time.

@Sleep:
Actually, I wasn't comparing humans in their homes to animals in the wild, which is the comparison you're making. I was comparing humans in their homes to pets in the human homes. I know a lot of cat owners that leave food out for their cats 24/7, they come and eat when they want, and they aren't severely obese. On a side note, cats are the best example here because they have not lost their instincts or been bred for much of anything. My house cat is remarkably similar to wild cats in South America.

As for the purposes of sex, you're absolutely right, which means it belongs in long-lasting relationships that you intend to strengthen and preserve.

@Triactus again:
lol, well, the point I was trying to make was that the "willy" is not like a VHS tape. If you use it a whole lot, it doesn't break down.. Well, it isn't how you use it or how often, it's what it gets exposed to when you do. STDs man, STDs...

@DR:
Actually, if you're talking about using pre-marital sex as a 'test-driving' method, it makes it a moot point, as the 'test-drive' you're getting isn't an accurate representation of her future performance.

If you're advocating extensive practice for both partners beforehand, then you have to consider the de-valuing of the bonding experience, as well as the various risks associated with said practice. It's up to you if you think it's worth it, but I'd say it isn't.

@Wordplay and others:
May I suggest that we remove the term 'marriage' from this discussion as it tends to inflame and confuse people. I suggest we have three relationship stages instead.
Stage one-> short-term or early dating
Stage two-> mid-term, those that you are seriously considering for the long term (i.e. engaged or talking about marriage/having kids)
Stage three-> long-term, a commitment has been made, such as marriage or having kids (can be adopted)

I suggest that sex belongs only in stage three. Sex in stage one devalues the act, as it is unlikely that it will only be with this partner and it doesn't seem special. Sex in stage two is more special, but still not as much as it could be, and it is less useful for preparing yourself for later on (ala 'test-driving'). Sex in stage three has achieved optimal bonding value and, since this is a long-term relationship, there is plenty of time for practice.

@ Virne/Wordplay,
You do not need to have a ceremony to have a family and you can, certainly, raise your kids in an open relationship too. I don't understand why you think that marriage makes the union eternal, remembering that almost 50% of the marriages end up to divorce. Marriage is just a symbolic proof of your intent, so church is not needed for that.I didn't say it's the only way, I just think it's the best way. I believe it's important for kids to grow up with parents who are committed to each other and their children for life, and a marriage is a great way to illustrate and solidify that commitment. If you don't like the idea of the institution of marriage, fine - that's just semantics as far as I'm concerned. What's important is the commitment and the example of that commitment as viewed by the children.

The idea of an "open relationship" is not one a lot of people can handle well. People get jealous, neglected...there are a multitude of problems created by non-commitment.

EDIT - @ NOG, Actually, if you're talking about using pre-marital sex as a 'test-driving' method, it makes it a moot point, as the 'test-drive' you're getting isn't an accurate representation of her future performance.Not if she's incapable of reaching orgasm, or has some kind of hang up due to a past experience or abuse that she can't get past, or hates a particular "maneuver" that happens to be your favorite, or a host of other common issues that plague people for life yet can't seem to get past. Believe me, there's plenty to be learned if pre-marital sex doubles as a fact-finding mission. Not everything can be uncovered by merely asking questions. If you're advocating extensive practice for both partners beforehand, then you have to consider the de-valuing of the bonding experience, as well as the various risks associated with said practice. It's up to you if you think it's worth it, but I'd say it isn't.I do consider that - but in my case the experience has been improved, not devalued. The experience is only devalued if you're doing it just to do it. It depends on your intent and state of mind. I'm also not necessarily advocating "extensive" practice, just enough to know the lay of the land (pun intended). Special occasions are generally enough I would say.

[ October 03, 2006, 22:45: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

The idea of an "open relationship" is not one a lot of people can handle well. People get jealous, neglected...there are a multitude of problems created by non-commitment.Perhaps we have a misunderstanding. I meant "stage three" without the christian ceremony. Not having kids and swapping mothers every week. :p

Yeah, I think that's it. We're essentially in agreement then.

Well, it isn't how you use it or how often, it's what it gets exposed to when you do. STDs man, STDs...
If you read my previous post, I was saying that in context with protection. Yes, of course, there's not a method which is 100%. But combining enough will get you to 99.9%. And don't start talking about how there's still a chance. There's a better chance that you contract a disease via your food than your sexual parter at those odds..

Treating sex as a non-item (just something to have fun with) de-values it for those involved, thus you have just weakened a valuable bonding action. Think of it this way, if you've just met a girl, and she's willing to sleep with you, how much does actually doing it strengthen the relationship? I don't see the relevance of it. Sex is as much a bonding experience after 4 dates than after 4 years. I would say that sex brings a certain closeness that builds a romantic relationship differently than waiting. Furthermore, I juste want to say that I think your argument that it's more valuable when you wait is tedious. You think that quantity is the exact opposite of quality, and these are your choices. Well you can have both. They're complimentary.

I still don't understant how pre-marital sex disentergrate the family unit. Like DR said previously, sex can very well strenghten a relationship.

@DR:
I don't even know it's possible for a physically standard (i.e. not scarred, deformed, or having serious nerve dammage in that area) to be totally incapable of reaching orgasm. I know something like 1/3 of all women are incapable of orgasm through vaginal stimulation alone, but there are other factors. Abuse, or scarring,etc. is something she should tell you about before you get to stage three, as you should tell her about anything like that with you, so it's something of a moot point. The other things you mentioned, such as favorite positions, seem to be results of having pre-marital sex. I, as a virgin, have no favorite positions at all, no 'special moves', nothing, and I am fully expecing to learn with my partner what works for both of us, which will then get re-enforced by repetition and become favorites. Hang-ups with particular actions won't become an issue because I don't want any particular actions yet, just general ones. In other words, these are moot points, too. The action you are advocating to seek them out actually causes the things you're seeking.

That's another point about pre-marital (pre-stage-three is too long) sex, it builds up standards and expectations that won't carry on from one relationship to the next.

I do consider that - but in my case the experience has been improved, not devalued. So you're saying that in your current sexual relationship (assuming there is a current one), sex is more emotionally meaningful to you because you have had sex with other women in the past? Or maybe we're talking about two different things here.

I'm assuming that (and this is not accurate, but for implications it works) our hypotheticals have had several stage ones, more than one stage twos, and are currently in their only stage three to-date. This means if you have sex before stage three, then you had sex in every stage two or possibly stage one you have had, hypothetically.

This means by your current stage three, you have had sex with other women. If you wait for sex until stage three, then you've only had one. Basically, I'm assuming that having sex in stage two or one, but only in the one relationship that actually develops into stage three is a quirk and not the norm.

If there's been no misunderstanding, then I'm thinking that your actual relationship may be the quirk and not the norm. For me, the knowledge that my girlfriend/wife has slept with other men in the past would bug me. It wouldn't be a killer, but it would be one more count against the relationship. I'm sure she'd say the same thing about me having had sex with other women in the past.

@Triactus:
I'd say ditto the above to you, but two in just a few hours makes me think maybe it's more than a quirk. Or maybe this place attracts quirky people.
*glances innocently at his sword collection*
...

Anyway, I know for me that wouldn't be true. If a girl's willing to have sex with me after four dates, that means she's willing to have sex with most any guy that lasts four dates, which means I'm nothing special. On the other hand, if she insists on waiting until we're in a stag three relationship, that means she's waiting for someone special. Remember, sex is only as much of a bonding experience as you see it as, and on that issue, it is very one-sided. Meaning you can have sex with someone and you think it was a special bonding experience and they think it was only a fun time.

My thoughts on this are pretty much the same as DR's comments. (I especially enjoyed the "sample the milk" comment.) To relate to the above referenced stages, I would start having sex in stage two. I have said this in the past, but it bears repeating: The difference between having sex with someone before you marry them and waiting to have sex after you marry them is a temporal difference. I had sex with my (now) wife prior to getting married, and it hasn't hurt us in the least. And neither of us were virgins when we met either.

I also can't see why it would be much of an issue to meet and eventually marry someone who had sex with other people before they met you. How could you fault someone for this? They obviously like you better than previous partners, or they would still be with that other partner. Something like this is, at least for me, a total non-issue.

It's not like I'm saying that we should go around screwing as many people as we can, and hook up with as many people as possible on one-night stands - quite to the contrary. My past partners have all been women who I had been with for a very long time. (And by long I mean usually on the time scale of at least a few months.)

While I can't say this is a hard and fast rule, I generally think it's OK to start having sex inside a committed relationship as soon as think that you would be willing to marry that person at some future point. I'm not saying that you run out and buy an engagement ring at that moment, but you have reached a point where you would seriously consider making a life-long commitment. Now, obviously, things can change from there, and you certainly can reconsider later and not marry that person for whatever reason. However, I don't see how changing your mind about marrying once new information becomes available makes the initial decision to have sex wrong. I certainly wouldn't expect someone to go and marry someone simply because they had sex with them. //oh I can't resist, I have to say it// After all, we've seen how poorly a decision to "stay the course" can turn out.

Whaoh, totally forgot about this thread.

@ NOG, I don't even know it's possible for a physically standard (i.e. not scarred, deformed, or having serious nerve dammage in that area) to be totally incapable of reaching orgasm. I know something like 1/3 of all women are incapable of orgasm through vaginal stimulation alone, but there are other factors. Abuse, or scarring,etc. is something she should tell you about before you get to stage three, as you should tell her about anything like that with you, so it's something of a moot point.Yes, it's possible for otherwise normal women not to have orgasms - and while I wouldn't call it common, I wouldn't call it rare either. But it's not just a consideration for women, as there are a lot of impotent guys out there. Also (this kind of crosses over into the other thread that I'm now done with) many closeted homosexual Christians believe that once they marry a woman their temptations for men will entually go away with devotion both to the wife and to the faith...yet divorce - on account of one partner revealing to the other after many years of marriage that they are in fact gay - happens all the time. I can think of one that happened to a Mormon bishop I knew, so devout he makes Gnarff look like a potzer.

Point is, of course they SHOULD tell you about stuff like this before you get married. But that rarely happens, especially if it's something one is ashamed of. They want this person to marry them, after all - so making them believe they aren't getting damaged goods is a very understandable motivation for not disclosing everything. Many people don't even realize that abuse or whatnot can even cause sexual disfunction. In fact, abuse is generally considered a factor only once couples seek counseling for a solution to sexual problems.

So it's hardly a moot point. That's another point about pre-marital (pre-stage-three is too long) sex, it builds up standards and expectations that won't carry on from one relationship to the next.Everything builds up standards and expectations. Such as expecting that if a woman is a virgin when we marry her (standard) then she must not have anything wrong with her sexually (expectation). It's naive to think this is true. Even virgins can be f*cked up. The other things you mentioned, such as favorite positions, seem to be results of having pre-marital sex. I, as a virgin, have no favorite positions at all, no 'special moves', nothing, and I am fully expecing to learn with my partner what works for both of us, which will then get re-enforced by repetition and become favorites. Hang-ups with particular actions won't become an issue because I don't want any particular actions yet, just general ones. In other words, these are moot points, too. The action you are advocating to seek them out actually causes the things you're seeking.I sometimes forget that there are people out there who remain virgins and only seek out other virgins as potential spouces. In this case you'd be right, theoretically you'd be making hangups in order to find them. For the other 99% of the rest of western society who've had sex at least once before settling down, this would not apply.

So again - it's only a moot point in a personal sphere populated by virgins. And even then I'd still advocate sex in stage two for the reasons Aldeth stated. As you are a virgin, I must recognise a certain degree of naivety into your viewpoint. I'm going on personal experience here, where you're going on hypotheticals. So you're saying that in your current sexual relationship (assuming there is a current one), sex is more emotionally meaningful to you because you have had sex with other women in the past? Or maybe we're talking about two different things here.No, what I'm saying is our bond has improved to the point that I'm more sure that I want to marry her, not less so, as a result of our pre-marital intimacy. The other women aren't a factor, though I do admit to having a few stage ones (if oral sex counts, that is). None of which I really regret, I might add, because they helped me to see what's important to me. If there's been no misunderstanding, then I'm thinking that your actual relationship may be the quirk and not the norm. You're thinking about this the wrong way. I think we all want a relationship to be hunky dory and perfect and move straight to stage three. But that's rarely the case. What's a quirk and what's the norm depends entirely on the person. I don't advocate casual sex, so repeated stage ones are certainly the quirk for me. I didn't intend for them to be stage ones, they just ended up that way for a variety of reasons. For me, the knowledge that my girlfriend/wife has slept with other men in the past would bug me. It wouldn't be a killer, but it would be one more count against the relationship. I'm sure she'd say the same thing about me having had sex with other women in the past.The answer I have for this is...EVERY guy is at some level bothered by the men who've come before them in their woman's life. In my case, when my current fiance and I got together, she was a virgin and I'd had 2 other partners (by this I mean intercourse). However, just because she was a virgin doesn't mean she hadn't done other things with other guys (making out, heavy petting, and a few more serious things I won't mention). What she's done with other guys bothers me just as much as if she'd gone all the way with them. It's not the sex that's the problem, but the intamacy with other guys. It doesn't bother me THAT much, because I have fewer sexual insecurities than most guys and am not the jealous type. I am a guy, so of course I don't want to think about the other guys. But letting that stuff get to you is pointless. She's with YOU now, after all.

In short, if you only seek out women who are 100% physically pure (i.e., not even a makeout session) then you'll never have any issues about her past. But most guys find a 100% physically pure woman to be undesirable, which is a direct function of their rarity. That's also a standard very few of us are willing to hold ourselves to...if no other reason than the drastic limitation in the potential dating pool. I'd prefer to keep my options open, and not exclude a woman from her potential as being "the one" just because she's of a different faith, culture, or sexual history than myself.

[ October 12, 2006, 02:22: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

Such as expecting that if a woman is a virgin when we marry her (standard) then she must not have anything wrong with her sexually (expectation). It's naive to think this is true. Even virgins can be f*cked up. I'd even take that a step further and say that they can be even more messed up than non-virgins a lot of times. For some virgins, it's because of some personal insecurities they have concerning sex, and that makes it even more of a problem. Now, if you abstain from sex due to some religious ethos, I can respect that. (I can't say that I agree with it, but I can at least see why you would hold that view.) However, I have known women that have all kinds of itimacy issues, and at least one who has remained a virgin because of it. I also have a male friend who, due to one particularly poor past experience, has found it difficult to become intimate with any woman any more. Poor guy.

As you are a virgin, I must recognise a certain degree of naivety into your viewpoint. I'm going on personal experience here, where you're going on hypotheticals. You know, now that you mention it, that's a very valid point. I won't go so far as to call it naive, but it's almost not possible for one of us to "stand in the other's shoes". People like DR and I can't go back in time and know what our viewpoints would be like now if we had decided to remain virgins, no easier than NOG can see how his viewpoint might have been different if he had decided not to remain a virgin. So if there is any naivety involved here, it is mutual. I honestly can't say how my personal relationships would have changed if I had decided to wait until I was married to have sex. In fact, if I was hell-bent on marrying a virgin, I wouldn't be married to my wife.

What she's done with other guys bothers me just as much as if she'd gone all the way with them. It's not the sex that's the problem, but the intamacy with other guys. DR is being particularly intelligent today, and I agree with just about everything he's saying, including this point. To be honest, while I know my wife wasn't a virgin when we met, to this day I have no idea how many partners she may have had before me, and I really have no desire to ever hear than information. (I realize in reading that last sentence that I should elaborate or risk misrepresenting my intent. I'm not saying my wife was some whore who was sleeping around with everyone before we met. What I mean when I say I don't know how many partners she's had, I mean I don't know if it's 3 or 5 or 7 - I'm not wondering if it's 50 or 60 or 70 - just to be clear.)

The point is, I really don't want to think about my wife being intimate with other guys. Regardless of what the number is, any guy would drive themselves nuts if they get hung up on this. So I don't want to hear about it. I knew my wife was STD-free before we got married, and that was good enough for me.

In short, if you only seek out women who are 100% physically pure (i.e., not even a makeout session) then you'll never have any issues about her past. But most guys find a 100% physically pure woman to be undesirable, which is a direct function of their rarity. I don't think men find them undesirable because of their rarity, I think we find them undesirable because we're not sure if they really know what they're looking for in a guy. Someone who's so sheltered that they've never even kissed a guy before, I mean, how could they know what they really want in a prospective spouse? I couldn't handle that. You learn from any and all intimate relationships you have, and most people have several before they decide on a spouse. I think those previous relationships, regardless of how poorly they may have ended, serve a very useful purpose of teaching you what you want and don't want in a future spouse. That information is invaluable, and marrying someone with absolutely no experience seems very strange to me.

By "a function of their rarity" I meant that because a goody-twoshoes, complete sexual novice is often a turn-off especially to teenage boys, the girls often try to at least get in some experience to make themselves more "with it," if that makes sense. Therefore, pure girls are rare BECAUSE they don't want to be excluded for their lack of experience. Your first two sentances on the last point are essentially what I meant. You know, now that you mention it, that's a very valid point. I won't go so far as to call it naive, but it's almost not possible for one of us to "stand in the other's shoes". People like DR and I can't go back in time and know what our viewpoints would be like now if we had decided to remain virgins, no easier than NOG can see how his viewpoint might have been different if he had decided not to remain a virgin. So if there is any naivety involved here, it is mutual. I honestly can't say how my personal relationships would have changed if I had decided to wait until I was married to have sex. In fact, if I was hell-bent on marrying a virgin, I wouldn't be married to my wife.That is a good point, but I wouldn't say that's entirely true. You and I were virgins once, so we've seen in both ways. Nog hasn't. Also, I wanted to wait for marriage when I was younger. Because of this (I'm 26 now), I didn't lose my virginity until I was 21, when I ultimately changed my mind about what I wanted (coincidentally, several mormon couples who were friends of mine and who'd waited for marriage were very unhappy sexually, some going through divorces) and how I wanted to go about finding "the one." Yes, I've always been a bit of a dorky romantic. So the virgin/not a virgin viewpoint is still pretty fresh on my mind, unlike most American guys who dip their wick sometime around age 16. In my case I was an adult for both. DR is being particularly intelligent todayMy sincere apologies, it won't happen again. Poop! Boobs! There, we're back to normal. :p

[ October 12, 2006, 20:38: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

I actually don't think it matters either way whether you have sex before marriage or not. Both options are valid and acceptable to me. There are pros and cons for both approaches.

@DR:
Point is, of course they SHOULD tell you about stuff like this before you get married. But that rarely happens, especially if it's something one is ashamed of. My point isn't that it is morally right to do so, but rather that if you're thinking about marriage, either you are ready to tell the person everything, or its too soon to be thinking about marriage. I realize that people don't always do things like that, and that's part of why the divorce rate is so high today, but only part.

Everything builds up standards and expectations. Such as expecting that if a woman is a virgin when we marry her (standard) then she must not have anything wrong with her sexually (expectation). It's naive to think this is true. Even virgins can be f*cked up. 1.) then it only makes sense to avoid behaviors that build these up as much as possible, making them as few as possible.
2.) Like I said, the other person should have told you before you got married.

In this case you'd be right, theoretically you'd be making hangups in order to find them. For the other 99% of the rest of western society who've had sex at least once before settling down, this would not apply. But we're talking about why the other 99% of western society should be different, so it does apply. This is the sexual morality thread, after all.

No, what I'm saying is our bond has improved to the point that I'm more sure that I want to marry her, not less so, as a result of our pre-marital intimacy. But I didn't say it negated the value of the action, just lessened it.

You're thinking about this the wrong way. I think we all want a relationship to be hunky dory and perfect and move straight to stage three. But that's rarely the case. No, I'm assuming it progresses through each stage, spending due time in each. I've been in stage two with my gf for about 3 years now, maybe more. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

What's a quirk and what's the norm depends entirely on the person. Actually, here, it depends on the society. The relationship I thought you described would be unusual to our society, maybe to humanity as a whole, and thus a quirk, whereas the norm would be what happens most frequently.

What she's done with other guys bothers me just as much as if she'd gone all the way with them. And that's what I mean. Sexual activity, and by this I mean much more than just vaginal intercourse, but anything that involved heightened states of arrousal, like heavy petting, or even light petting, automatically produces intimacy of a stage that bothers future partners. That level of intimacy should, ideally, only happen once.

In short, if you only seek out women who are 100% physically pure (i.e., not even a makeout session) 1.) I'm not counting makeout sessions, though I understand how you could.
2.) I never said I was restricting myself to it, rather than it is better. If my gf wasn't a virgin, I would be bothered, but I'd still be dating her so long as she had repented from that kind of lifestyle, and that's between her and God.

That's also a standard very few of us are willing to hold ourselves to...if no other reason than the drastic limitation in the potential dating pool. I think the vast majority of people have other reasons for not holding themselves to that standard. :eek:

@Aldeth:
For some virgins, it's because of some personal insecurities they have concerning sex, and that makes it even more of a problem. You're assuming that's a sizable portion of the virgin community, which it may be today, but I'm talking from the religious ethos position, and others, so what I'm advocating doesn't fall into this.

People like DR and I can't go back in time and know what our viewpoints would be like now if we had decided to remain virgins, no easier than NOG can see how his viewpoint might have been different if he had decided not to remain a virgin. A very good point, and while both of us may be able to imagine it, there's no real way of knowing how accurate our imagined responses would be to reality.

I don't think men find them undesirable because of their rarity, I think we find them undesirable because we're not sure if they really know what they're looking for in a guy. Interesting how you connect physical experience with personal experience. Either that or you're placing an aweful lot of value on what they want physically and not allowing much room for maleability. On the one hand, some degree of physical experience usually does go hand in hand with personal experience. Though I didn't even kiss my gf until we had been dating 6 months, I imagine that was the quirk this time, and the norm is much shorter than that. Hell, there are people ready to marry after that time. I won't say anything about how long those marriages usually last. Physical experience isn't actually NEEDED for her to know what kind of a guy (personality, humor, intellect, etc.) she is looking for. At the same time, however, intimate experience isn't absolutely neccessary to know what you're looking for, it just helps to identify problems ahead of time. My gf and I are perfect for each other. Neither of us had ever been in an intimate relationship before and I don't think we knew what to look for, but we know there aren't any problems. I'd also imagine a woman without any experience will have problems identifying exactly what the problems are, but not knowing that they're there. She may also not notice these problems until later in the relationship, but it should still be long before you consider marrying.

@HB:
I actually don't think it matters either way whether you have sex before marriage or not. Both options are valid and acceptable to me. There are pros and cons for both approaches. Then it does matter. Maybe one isn't inherrantly better than the other, but there are differences and it does matter.

It just doesn't matter to ME. Clearly it matters to a lot of you, otherwise you wouldn't be having this lengthy debate. If you stay a virgin before marriage, that's cool. If you have several partners before marriage, I can live with that. If you don't get married, that's also fine.

Considering how I'm not married yet and I honestly have no idea when I'll get married - 4 years at the least it's going to take me - but I know I won't hold a sexual history issue as a requirement (not being a virgin/being a virgin). However, don't think I could co-exist with somebody who wants to be a virgin till they are married, because our mindsets would most probably differ on so many other issues. Those last two statements might be viewed as conflicting, but I'm talking about before meeting the girl/having relations with her. I can imagine no end of strife if her virginity is based on religious reasoning, dare say I'd never marry a devout member of any religion. Not to mention I'd most probably want to have sex with her before I even pop the question... last thing I want to find out was that "she" used to be a he or something.

last thing I want to find out was that "she" used to be a he or something. It most assuredly would be the "last" thing you find out. Can't imagine you would stick around to find out much more after that.......

Unless you're into that sort of thing...

1.) then it only makes sense to avoid behaviors that build these up as much as possible, making them as few as possible.
2.) Like I said, the other person should have told you before you got married.1) I would agree with this, but it's also true that having sex also cures many of the hangups people tend to have about sex, and thus makes them more comfortable with it. The arguement can be made both ways, but at the end of the day I still contest that what you're saying is not universal and depends on the individual. Sex brings different pressures to different people.
2.) And like I said, not if they aren't aware of any problems to begin with, which a virgin wouldn't necessarily be. It's kind of like when a flight-school cadet doesn't disclose a childhood facial injury to his superiors because he isn't even aware that his peripheral vision is impaired. This will be uncovered only through practice or professional physical examination, neither of which the "wait till marriage" approach would likely afford you. That level of intimacy should, ideally, only happen once.Eh, I still think this is one area where we'll disagree. Though I don't like thinking about my lady's past, I'm grateful that she HAS a past. That she's had that life experience. She's told me over and over that being with so many "wrongs" has convinced her that I'm her "right," if you get my drift. Life experiences, good or bad, strengthens all of our character. Believe it or not, character can be attained through means other than religious discipline. But I didn't say it negated the value of the action, just lessened it.
And I say that if you really think my choices have lessened the action, then I can categorically say you have no idea what you're talking about and couldn't be more wrong. I think the vast majority of people have other reasons for not holding themselves to that standard. Definitely true in a general sense. I should have clarified that I was referring to men like me who don't engage in casual sex, but who are only interested in monogamous relationships. But you're right - most people just want to git bizzay. 2.) I never said I was restricting myself to it, rather than it is better. If my gf wasn't a virgin, I would be bothered, but I'd still be dating her so long as she had repented from that kind of lifestyle, and that's between her and God.I can appreciate that. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

So the virgin/not a virgin viewpoint is still pretty fresh on my mind, unlike most American guys who dip their wick sometime around age 16. In my case I was an adult for both.You're correct with that one. I was assuming that you were like most people where the phrases "adult life" and "still a virgin" are mutually exclusive. While it's true that you say that I was once a virgin as well, I haven't been since I've been 17, and as a result, I don't think I can say that I have an adult perspective on it.

Even in the your case, DR, I know my priorities and lifestyle changed a lot between when I was 21 and 26. So many things happened in those five years. I got both my undergraduate and graduate degrees, got my first real job, moved out of my parent's house and became financially independent. So just because you were 21 instead of 17, I'm not sure that's even old enough to say you have a sound adult perspective on it. NOG sounds like he's around 30 or so, and as such has done all that other stuff you need to do to reach adulthood.

You're assuming that's a sizable portion of the virgin community, which it may be today, but I'm talking from the religious ethos position, and others, so what I'm advocating doesn't fall into this. No, I'm not talking about a sizeable portion of the virgin community, but rather a subset of that population. Specifically, it's the f'ed up subset of the virgin population.

Interesting how you connect physical experience with personal experience. Either that or you're placing an aweful lot of value on what they want physically and not allowing much room for maleability. On the one hand, some degree of physical experience usually does go hand in hand with personal experience. The second part is what I mean. While physical experience isn't the only aspect of personal experience, I do not think you can completely seperate the two either. As you say, the two do go hand in hand. So I wasn't saying that the one is the same as the other, but rather the physical aspect does in fact make up a piece of the total personal aspect.

Though I didn't even kiss my gf until we had been dating 6 months, I imagine that was the quirk this time, and the norm is much shorter than that. Hell, there are people ready to marry after that time. I won't say anything about how long those marriages usually last.I proposed to my wife five months after I met her, we were married eight months after that, and currently we have been married for 3.5 years and are just as happy now (arguably happier) than the day we met.

It most assuredly would be the "last" thing you find out. Can't imagine you would stick around to find out much more after that....... :lol: Can I get an amen to that brother...

I'm just observing that a topic that is headed up "Sexual Morality" has spent 90% of two pages talking about sex and 10% about the morality of it. :p

I think the fact of my future wife being a virgin is possible, even in my mid thirties, because of my religion. It is not mandatory though. It is possible that she will be a widow or divorced. She could have a past that's not pure either. It's less about the past, more about the future we make for ourselves...

@HB and Abomination:
I can respect your positions in your last few posts.

@DR:
1) I would agree with this, but it's also true that having sex also cures many of the hangups people tend to have about sex, and thus makes them more comfortable with it. But that suggests that these things would be equally cured if you waited for marriage or not. Again, it isn't a real reason to waid, but its no reason to not wait either.
2.) And like I said, not if they aren't aware of any problems to begin with, which a virgin wouldn't necessarily be. You're right here that it is possible to have problems that could only by uncovered through the act. I have no idea how common it is, but I'd guess its rather rare. Ideally, sex shouldn't be a pass/fail issue in a marriage, meaning the marriage shouldn't live or die on how good the sex is, but I can see how it could be an issue.
Believe it or not, character can be attained through means other than religious discipline. Are you suggesting I might get a little fanatical with my religious views? :rolleyes:
Yes, I know that hard experiences build character and, believe it or not, being religious and going to church doesn't always build character. I know plenty of christians with characters weaker than dust bunnies.

@Aldeth:
NOG sounds like he's around 30 or so, and as such has done all that other stuff you need to do to reach adulthood. :eek: ..... :aww: ..... :confused: ..... :skeptic: ..... :hmm: ..... :heh: ;)
I'm . . . I'm not really sure if I should take that as a compliment or not. I'm actually 22, still living with my parents, working on my masters degree and am about to start my professional career. In other words, I'm on the verge of doing all those things you said start an adult life. Wow. This is kind of embarassing. :o
...And funny. :D
I'm glad to hear I sound so mature.

The second part is what I mean. While physical experience isn't the only aspect of personal experience, I do not think you can completely seperate the two either. As you say, the two do go hand in hand. So I wasn't saying that the one is the same as the other, but rather the physical aspect does in fact make up a piece of the total personal aspect. Ok, I'm confused now. That was the first part of what I said, not the second. The first part wat that you connect physical experience with personal experience, which is what you seem to have said. The second possibility was that you were placing a lot more emphasis on physical experience than I, and assuming the human sex drive was more or less immaleable. If you could just clear that up...

I proposed to my wife five months after I met her, we were married eight months after that, and currently we have been married for 3.5 years and are just as happy now (arguably happier) than the day we met. Wow. I'm glad I elected not to say anything. :D Seriously, though, that's very uncommon. Most people today rush into relationships like that (I understand the two of you may have just hit it off like that, but most people don't) don't last long in marriage before they find out they actually drive eachother nuts. I guess congrats on finding the right one are in order.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I proposed to my wife five months after I met her, we were married eight months after that, and currently we have been married for 3.5 years and are just as happy now (arguably happier) than the day we met.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow. I'm glad I elected not to say anything. Seriously, though, that's very uncommon. Most people today rush into relationships like that (I understand the two of you may have just hit it off like that, but most people don't) don't last long in marriage before they find out they actually drive eachother nuts. I guess congrats on finding the right one are in order.I've heard of stories where these marriages do work out. In my religion, they aren't that uncommon. I have at least three cousins that married within 6 months of meeting their spouse. One couple has been married 14 years...

It may have something to do with the environment you grew up in. In the end, it isn't how long you date as much as it is how well you get to know the person in that time. If you live in a close-knit society, you probably share many of your beliefs and opinions already, which hastens the process, or you may have just been brought up to make better use of the time than most Americans today. This is quite believable as most Americans today are very superficial.

The belief structure is the same in all three cases I know personally. But that belief system helps immensely (but not perfectly) in making marriage work.

I thought this conversation was about sexual morality, not time before getting married?

I believe that when you have sex with someone, you commit yourself to that person, whether that's called marriage or not. (I think I would call that marriage, though)
I don't need a piece of paper from my church or alderman (?) to be allowed to have sex. I do so as I please, with love and respect, bearing in mind that having sex is something special and not just a thing to consume with 'all the world and his wife' (that sounds weird...), but only with the one you really love.

Well, if you are going to a church or alderman for marriage, that suggests a religious belief system, which you should follow. This means that if you are a christian, or muslim, or jew, or any other religion that defines marriage and proper sexual practices, you should follow those laws. If you aren't, I don't think anyone will suggest you have to follow those laws.

On the contrary: religious systems should not be followed by the faithful, since those are often erected by regular priests and whatever moral way *they* see to represent the church (an organization).

So, if you are a christian, or muslim, or jew, or any other religion that defines marriage and proper sexual practices, you should follow only what their corresponding holy book says about the matter and use your common sense (so if the advice is seriously outdated, it leaves you to your own devices).

@Wordplay:
First of all, 'those laws' was meant to refer to the laws in the holy text, sorry if that wasn't clear. Second of all, I'd be careful applying your logic to God's laws. Sure it's a good idea, but be careful. Your logic is dependant on what you know. Just because you don't know anything is wrong with X doesn't mean nothing is wrong with X, just that you can't see anything wrong with X. If you know something is wrong with X, and it would have been terrible at the time, but we can now work arround that, then you can carefully consider it, but still don't assume that was the only reason. Assumptions are your worst enemy in anything, especially religion.

I'm not really sure if I should take that as a compliment or not. I'm actually 22 The reason that I assumed you were closer to 30 is that you said you were already with your fiance for several years (I don't remember the exact number, but I thought you said it was somewhere around 4 years). While I'm certainly aware of people that meet the person they marry in college, it usually doesn't work out that way, because after college you pursue different career paths, may have to go to different areas of the country to find jobs, etc. I'm certainly not implying that something like this is going to happen to you, I'm just saying that I had a gf of 4.5 years who I was willing to marry move half way across the country which basically caused us to break up, and yeah, that sucked.

However, in your case, because you were planning on getting married already, I had assumed that you met this woman after getting out of college, finding a career, acheiving financial independence, etc. I would recommend to everyone to acheive those things before getting married, as I feel you have to be able to take care of yourself first before you can worry about others. Since most people don't do that until around 25, and you said you had been with your fiance for several years already, I guessed that your age was approaching 30. In hindsight, all I can say is - my bad.

That was the first part of what I said, not the second. Yeah, that's what I was talking about too - I don't know why I said the second part.

Seriously, though, that's very uncommon. Most people today rush into relationships like that (I understand the two of you may have just hit it off like that, but most people don't) don't last long in marriage before they find out they actually drive eachother nuts. I guess congrats on finding the right one are in order. Let me tell you a quick story about me. I have been engaged twice. (And this is a different woman than the above referenced one that I spend 4.5 years of college life with.) The first woman I was engaged to I did everything the "right way" - we didn't co-habitate, we kept all of the bills and everything seperate, etc. About the only thing you likely would have had a problem with about our courtship is we did have sex. We had been together for a little over 3 years. Due to a confluence of events, it became necessary to move in together about 2 months before we got married. We both found jobs in an area out of state, and it was senseless for us to get seperate apartments for two months before getting married. The thing was, it wasn't until after we moved in together that we realized we drove each other crazy. So with about 6 weeks to go before the wedding, she called it off.

With my current (and only) wife, everything moved very quickly. We did move in together shortly after I proposed, and everything worked out just fine. So I'm living proof that doing everything "by the book" is not the only way the guarantee success. For that matter, I'm also living proof that doing everything "by the book" does not guarantee success either.

Just because you don't know anything is wrong with X doesn't mean nothing is wrong with X, just that you can't see anything wrong with X. If you know something is wrong with X, and it would have been terrible at the time, but we can now work arround that, then you can carefully consider itThere are things we know, things we don't know, and things we don't know don't know. Didn't one of the rather infamous presidents of US say something along those lines a while ago? Answer nonsense with nonsense and you are safe. At the street, though, you would be considered just a raving lunatic. Would you be so safe then, against the hard realities of the world? :shake:

@Aldeth:
RE:Fiance:
Well, she's working on a counseling master's degree, which means she can get a job in any city, town, or county in America, probably, and she wants to stay at home to raise our kids (when we have them) so that really helps. We met out senior year of HS. Additionally, the only thing keeping us from getting married right now is the lack of a job and financial independance. That's the next stage in my life. Also, we aren't technically engaged yet, I don't think either of us feel comfortable with an indefinite engagement period, so she isn't actually my fiance.

So I'm living proof that doing everything "by the book" is not the only way the guarantee success. For that matter, I'm also living proof that doing everything "by the book" does not guarantee success either. Oh, I never said it was the only way to get success, or that it guaranteed success. Nothing guarantees success except a strong and driving commitment to the other person, and even then I'm not sure I'd say 'guarantee'. I do feel the 'by the book' method leads to the best results in general, however.

@Wordplay:
Answer nonsense with nonsense and you are safe. At the street, though, you would be considered just a raving lunatic. Would you be so safe then, against the hard realities of the world? What I said was far from nonsense. What I said was essentially 'don't assume you know everything that could possibly be a reason for rule X'. In other words, lack of evidence (for a reason for rule X) is not evidence of a lack (of a reason for rule X). Did that make any more sense to you? This is a basic rule of logical analysis.

Okay, I understood you, but still a regular street-guy would say you are a raving lunatic. :grin:

I hope that we have a better caliber of intelect than that here.

Unfortunately, it's the regular street-guys who make the decisions with their votes and peer-pressure. If you can't convince them, it's just fancy wordplay no one understands. Isn't that what morality is, in the end? Peer-pressure to follow the norm?