Contraception, sex and abstinence. Any views?

Remove all ads!

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.

 

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.

"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.

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!

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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!

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 thread. (Or beat ME to death!)

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".

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.

 

Exactly - your poetic prose sums up much of what I've said. But even unselfish activity can be unwittingly dangerous.

 

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 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 “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.

 

Just before somebody jumps on Judas for this (good post, BTW):

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.

 

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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

 

*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

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 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.