Poll: Should people wait until they're married to have sex?
- Thread starter MajorTomServo
- Start date
Oh yes, media and others are quick to tap into our nature to sell. But that's what they do. They tap into desires already existing within us, they do not create them.KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life said:
And yes, sex does not have procreation as primary purpose for us. However, all these artificial constructs we have are still founded on that primal part, deeply buried as it may be.
Perfect. There should be no "should" about what people want to do.fenrizz said:
I personally see no reason why not, sex has no inherent value at all. Like none. As long as it is safe. It has as much value as you apply to it. I apply quite a bit, enough to want to love the person i do it with but not so much as to wait for marriage. What others choose to value it as is none of my concern unless we want to sleep together.
Because me and someone else practicing safe sex has LITERALLY ZERO impact on anyone except me and her. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Null. Murder has MANY impacts on MANY people. Therefor society deems it wrong. Society doesnt allow things that harm others. Safe sex with anyone i want doesnt hurt anyone, so its no ones business. Theres no objective reason i cant do whatever i want as long as it doesnt affect anyone unless by concent.Gubernaculum said:
No marriage is a stupid thing in the first place, it's a large waste of money, and normally adds a whole unnecessary issues to the relationship, as many people get the feeling of a claustrophobic relationship.MajorTomServo said:
Sex is something, that not only helps create and reinforce a good relationship but also help the actual health of the person due to excessive, and the chemicals released when someone orgasms.
So in short, there are medical and financial reasons against it, and to top it off it help your relationships.
... Wait I am forgetting something... Oh yer it feels really good as well
Uff, no, I'm about to turn 33, and I have no intention of getting married (or really doing anything that could risk my bachelorhood. Wrap it every-damn-time boys, that's the only wise advice you'll really ever need). Having to be a virgin would make being a bachelor a bloody awful lifestyle choice, and quite possibly a breach of the Geneva convention. Just because I'm not someone who can be around people all-day every-day doesn't mean I should be punished by being denied the pleasure of a woman's (or a man's if that's your bag, baby) touch.
[Edit] Sorry for that last line, I still had Austin Powers on the brain after watching the Big Picture.
[Edit] Sorry for that last line, I still had Austin Powers on the brain after watching the Big Picture.
Guess its each persons choice what they do. But me, i would hate for my wedding day to finish with an embarrassing immature fumbling with my new wife. Kind of a damp squib ending to a great day.
I think most people have already done sufficient quibbling over the "should" bit of this, which'd be about half of my answer, so I'll just cut to my point of view.
Sex really does feel nice, and honestly I don't think it's hedonistic to say this is something if done right/safely everyone should be allowed to enjoy it. Restrictions on to who and when that are completely personal.
Sex really does feel nice, and honestly I don't think it's hedonistic to say this is something if done right/safely everyone should be allowed to enjoy it. Restrictions on to who and when that are completely personal.
People should have the right to choose, always. If their faith or general thoughts on life dictate that they wait, then fine.
Mind you, I always thought that waiting until marriage/some other committal bond would be favourable for a number of reasons:
If everyone (ideal scenario) waited until marriage, then the risk of STI contraction is severely reduced.
Same concept as above but for unexpected/unwanted pregnancies.
On a minor note, relationships and friendships would be at a reduced risk of collapse as people (again in the ideal scenario) wouldn't cheat with other people's spouses or partners.
But back to my first point. Choice first, always choice first.
Mind you, I always thought that waiting until marriage/some other committal bond would be favourable for a number of reasons:
If everyone (ideal scenario) waited until marriage, then the risk of STI contraction is severely reduced.
Same concept as above but for unexpected/unwanted pregnancies.
On a minor note, relationships and friendships would be at a reduced risk of collapse as people (again in the ideal scenario) wouldn't cheat with other people's spouses or partners.
But back to my first point. Choice first, always choice first.
I say no, but begrudgingly. I've known a lot of people who got fucked over (not even just by unplanned pregnancy) having pre-marital sex, but hey, if you're gonna be smart about it, go for it. If not, whatever.
Just because people are married doesn't necessarily mean they'll be in a better place to have children.
I think people should do whatever the heck they want, personally. If you think sex is for marriage, cool. Even if you want to meet someone once and then marry them, that's your deal. But I don't think either way leads to fixing the world's problems. In fact, people might end up getting married and divorcing more if it was the norm to wait for marriage, or getting married too quick and ending up in unhappy marriages.
I think people should do whatever the heck they want, personally. If you think sex is for marriage, cool. Even if you want to meet someone once and then marry them, that's your deal. But I don't think either way leads to fixing the world's problems. In fact, people might end up getting married and divorcing more if it was the norm to wait for marriage, or getting married too quick and ending up in unhappy marriages.
Well there should be some sort of commitment involved, what you want to call that commitment is up to you. At the very least the relationship should be above the level of a "fling" or "just dating."
I'm not going to rub your religion in your face, I don't think there's anything automatically wrong with religion just for being religion. However, religion allows for a lot of things that make no logical sense, and the marriage issue is one of them.
Obviously people can have sex without commitment and commitment without sex, and either one of those things with or without marriage. To argue for the sanctity of marriage in a country where Kim Khardashian can be married for 72 days (or Britney spears for 24 hours, anyone remember that?) is obviously retarded as well.
There are many religious couples that live with commitment and no sex, and many couples that have sex all the time with no commitment to each other. They are obviously not mutually exclusive and there is no logical correlation between the two. I don't understand why holding off on sex is a requirement to prove one's commitment, especially when, as you yourself stated, "intimacy is an extremely important factor of a long term relationship, and if something doesnt "work out," and you dont learn about it until you're married, that can ruin the whole thing."
There is no way to know how many marriages have been ruined due to those issues. And furthermore, it is an ABSOLUTE FALLACY to assume there would be fewer cases of unplanned children or STDs. The only way to decrease these is through education and safe sex practices, or through people simply having LESS SEX, not less UNMARRIED sex.
Frankly, and I'm just being real, the majority of "religious sex abstainers" I've known had no clue about safe sex or birth control, or their religion PREVENTED the use of birth control. I have known religious couples who had unplanned children because of their lack of education about birth control, and committed celibate couples that have passed on STDs they got through non-intercourse means like at a hospital or simply making out with a sick person.
Be ethical all day long if you want, but there is only one thing that will ever increase your preparedness for anything, and that is education. Also, admit that commitment, sex, marriage, and love are NOT consequences of each other nor are they reliant on each other.
Obviously people can have sex without commitment and commitment without sex, and either one of those things with or without marriage. To argue for the sanctity of marriage in a country where Kim Khardashian can be married for 72 days (or Britney spears for 24 hours, anyone remember that?) is obviously retarded as well.
There are many religious couples that live with commitment and no sex, and many couples that have sex all the time with no commitment to each other. They are obviously not mutually exclusive and there is no logical correlation between the two. I don't understand why holding off on sex is a requirement to prove one's commitment, especially when, as you yourself stated, "intimacy is an extremely important factor of a long term relationship, and if something doesnt "work out," and you dont learn about it until you're married, that can ruin the whole thing."
There is no way to know how many marriages have been ruined due to those issues. And furthermore, it is an ABSOLUTE FALLACY to assume there would be fewer cases of unplanned children or STDs. The only way to decrease these is through education and safe sex practices, or through people simply having LESS SEX, not less UNMARRIED sex.
Frankly, and I'm just being real, the majority of "religious sex abstainers" I've known had no clue about safe sex or birth control, or their religion PREVENTED the use of birth control. I have known religious couples who had unplanned children because of their lack of education about birth control, and committed celibate couples that have passed on STDs they got through non-intercourse means like at a hospital or simply making out with a sick person.
Be ethical all day long if you want, but there is only one thing that will ever increase your preparedness for anything, and that is education. Also, admit that commitment, sex, marriage, and love are NOT consequences of each other nor are they reliant on each other.
No, especially since gay people can't get married.
But hey, religious people claim marriage as their own.
That's not true, but if it were...
I believe nobody should get married. Because nobody should be religious.
You can be monogamous without having nasty religion in your life. And you can be monogamous with government contract.
But hey, religious people claim marriage as their own.
That's not true, but if it were...
I believe nobody should get married. Because nobody should be religious.
You can be monogamous without having nasty religion in your life. And you can be monogamous with government contract.