Contraception, sex and abstinence. Any views?

Remove all ads!

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

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

@Judas:

Marriage sustains those relationships through some level of dissolubility and the ties that the society associates with marriage.

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

Suppose I haven't mentioned I'm against divorce yet...

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

When it's harder to split, there's more chance people will actually work on making it work. Reconciliation is key, there's no way it works like charm all the time.

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

Hardly. The position of marriage in Roman law was strong. The specifics I mentioned here relied on according marriage status to factual unions when there were no impediments and no express dissent. From that institution follows what you mentioned - giving some of marital privileges to non-marital fixed and stable relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm referring to the whole of my posting in this thread as it's basically what I've been proposing whole time since the beginning.

It's hard to get any tangible evidence when we're speaking about feelings. There's a great chance we won't accept each other's evidence as well.

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

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

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

 

...?!?

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

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

 

Definition of moral, from MSN Encarta:

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

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

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

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

Ethics is defined in part as:

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

And I find the under-emphasis placed on sex equally strange. Which (briefly on-topic) seems to underlie a lot of sex education - a mess of biological details, and not much more. Like a course in English grammar that never mentions English literature.

Actually, abstinence (per Christianity) really rests upon the idea that sex is for more than reproduction. If it were only for reproduction, then an infertile married couple had may as well abstain - when, to the contrary, they're commanded NOT to abstain (I Cor. 7:3-5).

I wrote in my first post that I have no problem (morally) with contraception.

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

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

Oh, but wait...

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

 

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

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

That was well put up until the bit about aesthetic beauty. How does regarding sex as a response to biological desire prevent it from being beautiful? Clouds are the result of natural phenomena... can they not be beautiful?

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

 

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

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

 

Thanks for contributing to my point.

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

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

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

You're missing the point. Not only the associated right but also the name and status of marriage was accorded. Consequently, the union was no longer a non-marital sexual relationship. It was a marriage. Ta-daaaa, marriage.

Not much so. For instance, in the Catholic Church we believe sex is also a source of pleasure and that that pleasure is a gift from God, sort of. However, both reproduction and sexual pleasure belong in marriage.

Agreed, GM. There's an emphasis on sexual "freedom", but hardly on teaching people things. I've had people confessing the whole mass culture emphasis exerted pressure on them to have sex. When talking further and further, they realised and confessed accordingly that they didn't actually want all that sex. It was "cool", fashionable... or just the thing everyone was doing. So they adjusted, conformed to the group. Sort of. Sex ed too often relies on informing kids it's perfectly OK to have sex with whomever they want whenever they want etc and everyone should just shut up. And use condoms, especially if you haven't met the right person yet

Good point, GM.

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

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

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

Judas, that point has already been addressed in this thread. In fact, it was exhausted a couple of posts above:

 

@Chevalier

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

No one did.

Ok, let’s clear this one up. My original point was that there is no difference between a de facto relationship and a marriage, and that this view was shared by the law. You assert that marriage is an important sealing step, one that introduces a new level of commitment between two people… one that makes sex ok. You go on to say that under Roman law a de facto couple would eventually automatically be declared married. This circumvents the final committing step you maintain is present… there is no cake, no party, and there are no vows. As you put it, the government just says “Ta-daaaa, you’re married”. If this step makes people commit to each other more, you’re going to have to explain to me how.

I’m very familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church. But, to quote myself:

Moving along:

Yes, sex is cool in western culture, but that has nothing to do with sexual education programs. Maybe where you come from, but here, any sex education program that encouraged promiscuity would be torn to pieces by the public immediately. The various sex education programs I sat through in school were nothing but “how it all works”.

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

I’ve read Grey’s response, but was not happy with something that basically went along the lines of “because all that stuff has to do with feelings, whereas sex is driven by biological desire”. I recall saying

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

 

Oh well, I guess it's on topic now!

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

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

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

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

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

To which you responded:

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

Oh, but wait...

Maybe, rather, conception is taught to avoid angering the deity-du-jour - self-worship with scientific priests administering lust as its sacrament. Intriguing, non, that so many of the old pagan cults centered around religious prostitution and child sacrifice? Interesting tie to today's sex-and-abortion, hmm? I guess there are only so many ways to appeal to human spirituality...

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

Statistically that ain't the case. Even if the divorce rate hit 50% - no, 60%! 70%! 80%! - of marriages, that still doesn't match the rate of (completely legitimate) breakups of never-to-be-married boyfriend-girlfriend relationships. Is it that committed people get married, or that marriage makes people stay committed? Probably a bit of both. But that doesn't obviate marriage's role in that oh-so-useful "for richer or poorer, sickness and health, etc." proviso - or divorce's role in breaking down that age-old proviso.

 

First of all, formality does not equal institution. Formality is something that is required for the sake of form and otherwise has no meaning. Institution, on the contrary, has substance. It's a construct in the legal system, an established pattern of behaviour and is followed by a set of rights and obligations both legal and social, of various nature. Those are absent in non-marital relathionships, or at the very best are far less binding.

I'm not going to go through quotes for a page or two, but as scrolling up may show, supporters of free relationships (or opponents of marriage requirement if you prefer) have trouble deciding if marriage is an irrelevant formality or if there is such a difference as to create enough reasons to avoid obtaining it. Still, I'm not criticising anyone, just point out that those two can't be true at one time.

Sure I will. The law was publicly announced and publicly accessible for all people. That way, everyone knew (at least in theory) the consequences of living together for a period of time. Once that period had passed, both rights were accorded and obligations contracted. So no free lunch. The idea of that legal institution was to eliminate concubinage.

Hardly. Raw and physical is far from elevated. Perhaps some people will differ from me on this one, but it's a matter of aesthetic preference, anyway.

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

Just a technical remark to make things more clear.

 

@Chev

Consult your dictionary.

This comes back to my point regarding de facto relationships vs marriage in modern society (particularly Australia). To the best of my knowledge, no, marriage is not “far less binding” than long-standing de facto relationships. Assets are divided in the same manner, child support must still be paid where appropriate, etc. The law sees little difference.

I *DID* go through all the other quotes, and no one is having difficulty with this. Yes, I understand that you’re “just pointing it out”, but you needn’t have, as it’s irrelevant.

Again, consult your dictionary. “Elevating” in the context it was used means “elating”, which means “to make joyful”, which means “to make happy”. Happiness can come from something raw and physical… just ask drug users.

Correct. But I don’t think anyone claimed this. My own views are consistent: everything is physical.

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

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

Before I respond to this in full, is that statistical comparison between marriages and all non-marital relationships, or marriages and all long-standing de facto non-marital relationship? I suppose it doesn’t really matter… in all this arguing about the minimal difference between de facto relationships and marriage, I’ve forgotten to emphasise that I don’t see either as a pre-requisite for sex.

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

 

Well, time for me to jump on the other side of the fence for the moment, since I am one of those people.

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

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

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

 

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

@Judas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps English isn't your first language?

 

@ chev:

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

 

@Chev

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

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

I can be an honest, reliable, womanizing bastard who follows what he thinks and says to the letter. While no one will like me, I still have my reliability and integrity. I’m not advocating this, or saying it’s likely… just that it’s possible.

@Splunge

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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