POLL: Premarital Sex

Remove all ads!

I didn't want to hijack Barmy's topic on religion, but this needs to be addressed. It was suggested by one that will remain unnamed that people shouldn't have sex until they're married, and that you shouldn't have sex unless you're willing to have kids. I thought such thinking went out of style sometime around 40 years ago with the advent of birth control pills, but evidently I was mistaken. The poll follows, and should be self explanatory.

Poll Information
This poll contains 3 question(s). 84 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Premarital Sex (84 votes.)

If you've already had sex... (Choose 1)
* I had sex before I was married, and it was a good decision. - 55% (46)
* I had sex before I was married, but I wish I had waited. - 2% (2)
* I waited to have sex until after I was married, and I'm glad I did. - 0% (0)
* I waited to have sex until after I was married, and I wish I didn't. - 0% (0)
* I have not had sex yet. - 43% (36)

If you haven't had sex... (Choose 1)
* I can say with near certainty that I'll have sex before I get married. - 13% (11)
* If I meet the right person, it's more likely than not that I'll have sex before I'm married. - 21% (18)
* It is not likely at all that I'll have sex before I marry. - 10% (8)
* I have already had sex. - 56% (47)

On sex and kids, regardless of how you answered the first two... (Choose 1)
* I believe you shouldn't have sex unless you are prepared to accept potential consequences, such as having children. - 33% (28)
* I believe that with the availability of contraceptives, birth control, and abortion, one can (or should) have sex even if they are not prepared to have children. - 67% (56)

 

Meh, whatever people want to do. If you want to have sex before marriage, go ahead but do it responsibly. None of this "But I didn't want kids" cr@p if you didn't take proper precautions like contraceptives. If, OTOH, you're opposed to sex before marriage, well that's great for you. Denying a primal urge takes a lot of self-control and I respect that.

Myself, it matters mostly what the woman wants. If she wants to have sex before marriage, I'm probably not going to turn her down. But I'll also respect her beliefs if she doesn't want to. I'm not enough of a horndog to break a relationship on something as unimportant as delaying gratification, and I don't think badly enough of any of you guys to think that you would either.

 

Whoops, I already hijacked Barmy's thread with this line of thought.

Anyway, to continue, my point is that sex has two purposes. One is to have kids. The second is to help maintain the bond between a loving couple. You should be able to do the second without having to the first.

 

You don't consider "having fun" a purpose?

 

in response to the third question, and I'm not modelling a moral position (I'm socially radical when it comes to other people's sexual morals, your body, you do what you want with it, I'll forgive any mistakes you make and even use my tax dollars to help remedy your mistakes), but honestly, without a willingness to use abortion as birth control, you really can't take the stance of "I'm using birth control so I don't have to worry about getting pregnant/making someone pregnant.". Had a cousin who tried that approach... had her first kid before 20, despite the use of the pill and her boyfriend taking care of his end of things.

From a biological position sex has only one purpose and your body will try hard to over come any boundary in its way, birth control is just one obstacle in the way of genetics goal.

 

Hmmm... I have a potential incongruous statement in my poll. Evidently there are more people who believe you shouldn't have sex if you don't want kids, than believe that they'll wait to have sex until after they are married. Which suggests that at least some people are in favor of having kids out of wedlock, as opposed to waiting until after you are married to have kids.

 

Look at it this way.
If a good looking chick wanted a bit, I'd nail her to the bedpost, not say 'No sorry sweetheart, we're not married yet... wanna nip down the registry office?'

I wonder how many men who believe in no sex before marraige have actually turned it down when offered...

We're all human beings, sex is the most basic primal urge.

 

I can honestly say I've turned down sex with the girl in my bed, in my dorm room with the roomate out. Philosophy is more powerful biology I tell you...

Though marriage isn't the thing that makes me stop... it seems I can hardly live outside my brain.

 

Like I've said before, I wouldn't even purchase a CAR before I test-drove it. I'm certainly not making a life-long commitment without knowing what I'm getting into (pun intended).

 

Aldeth, your reasoning is like that:

1. People shouldn't be expected to be ready to have children when having sex because there is contraception.

But then would you say that if contraception fails, then people should be allowed abortion because they couldn't have been expected to be ready for children?

That would be like allowing someone to benefit from his own wrongdoing. First it says that contraception is so flawless people shouldn't be expected to be ready for children. Second, however, it says that when contraception falls, it wasn't people's fault, yadda yadda. So ultimately foeti are being killed because people don't want to take responsibility for their bodies and their urges.

In turn, I believe that you are not ready for sex with the given person if you want a "try before buy". You are only truly committed when you are ready to spend your life with the person without first finding out if he or she is good in bed.

 

Yeah, I doubt anyone else would buy a car before they bought it either. Perhaps you mean "test-drive"?

 

Well, guys, with that kind of vocabulary and phrasing you use with reference to sex: car, ride, test-drive etc, it doesn't really surprise me that you wouldn't share your life with a woman without a pretaste of her bed arts. Sorry, but that's how it looks to me. I am not saying you're only in for sex, but it looks like everything else takes a second seat to it when it comes to having a relationship.

Besides, people enjoy contraception's low 3% failure rate until it actually comes true. Which is, mathematically, roughly every 33 intercourses.

 

I'm sure you'll see what we're talking about, chev... you can't hold out forever!

As I say, sex is a primal urge stronger than any other. It's the reason we're on this planet; to pro-create.

 

Not at all, sex is not our goal. Humans should rather see humans as goals, not their own urges. If they do the latter, they become slaves of primal urges, which is a step back in the animal direction.

I've held out for 23 years so far and I'm going to put up with a couple more.

 

@ Fel - ummm... yeah. Edited previous comment.

That's it in a nutshell. Oral contraception has over a 99% success rate when used properly. I honestly know of no one who has got pregnant when using the pill - which means taking it every day. Now obviously, if you forget to take it, then all bets are off regarding not getting pregnant. However, I do believe that if you are part of that less than 1% category, that abortion should be an option available to you. It should be noted that I personally would not take that option, but I am not opposed to others having it available to them.

Great, but at least with me, the sex option presented itself long before either of us were ready to commit to marriage. It's not like sex only becomes an option once you decide to marry said person. I don't only mean with my wife. With other women I've dated, we had sex before either of us were prepared to make a marriage committment. You make it sound like you decide to marry someone, and then the decision simply comes down to whether or not you want to have sex before or after you get married. Most people I know have had multiple partners (I mean a few - I'm not talking like 20 or 30 or something like that), prior to getting married. Most people view sex as a lesser committment than marriage (which I agree with) and therefore don't give as much weight to having sex.

It actually surprises me that some people would. I mean, don't you think full disclosure is a good idea? Wouldn't you want to know as much as possible before making such a commitment? Putting morals to the side for a moment, isn't it logical to find out as much as possible about someone before making a life-altering decision?

 

Aldeth, you are saying people give less weight to sex because they have it outside of a firm commitment. But the true conclusion is that they don't give as much commitment. For example, sex comes ahead of commitment. Sex is always an option at any stage you are able to enact it. But there's always the option not to have sex.

Full disclosure of what? You make it sound like you want full benefits without making full commitment. Wouldn't it be better to love a person so much that you don't care if he or she is a good bed player or not?

And I do find out as much as possible. I wouldn't marry anyone without knowing the person's views on important matters, including but not limited to sexual matters. I actually try to find out as soon as possible, as I am decided to give a pass to anyone with a polyamorous or cheating history which isn't properly regretted or learnt from. For instance.

 

I guess I'm misunderstanding you, because this is exactly my point. People are capable of having sex as soon as they reach puberty. In most cases, people are not capable of getting legally married as soon as they reach puberty. In fact, most people think it's a pretty bad idea to get married when you're still a teenager. Therefore, you have several years of sexual maturity before you would even consider marriage. And if for no other reason than curiosity, people are going to want to find out. I see no problem with this, and I don't see how this could possibly lessen your commitment to the person you eventually marry. Heck, most people have not even MET the person they will eventually marry the first time they have sex. How is that breaking or lessening any commitment?

Apples and oranges. Unless of course you are using the words differently than I do. I define polyamorous and cheating as the same thing - it's being with two or more members of the opposite sex at the same time, which the intentional deception factor of not wanting the individuals you are with to find out about the others. I don't know anyone who tolerates that, and I certainly don't know anyone who would be willing to marry someone and be OK with the other person continuing to act that way - because marriage is considered a greater commitment.

In fact, regarding cheating, that's pretty much the ONLY definition you can have. If you definte polyamorous as having prior sexual partners, then it's obviously different that how I view it, and I never had a problem with it.

 

The two choices in question three were not mutually exclusive. I personally believe a person should be mature enough to accept responsibility for any action they do -- that includes sex. Abortion is not an option for everyone (many women I know would never have an abortion, no matter the circumstance). I have two sisters who became pregnant at 17 (out of wedlock) -- one kept her child, the other gave the child up for adoption. Both took responsibility for their actions. I've never viewed either as a bad person for their choices.

For some women the way they accept responsibility for having sex and getting pregnant is going to a clinic and taking care of 'the problem.' I personally disagree with that choice in most cases, but I do not believe it is right of me to impose my ethics on others.

Birth control only reduces the chance of pregnancy as Chev mentioned -- although the example is mainly correct for the physical methods of birth control. Other examples:

- Condoms are 85% effective when used by adults -- this drops to ~60% for teens. The teens just get impatient and don't use them correctly.

- Birth control pills are effective for ~99.7% of women (in other words it is entirely effective for 99.7% and not effective AT ALL for 0.3%). This implies that they are used correctly, in reality they are less than 99% effective because some women do not take them as prescribed.

Quite often, not getting pregnant is simply luck. A woman is fertile approximately 10% of the time -- it has to be the right time, the method of birth control has to be ineffective, and the seed needs to find the garden. All these combine to give even higher odds against pregnancy and (in my opinion) a false sense of security.

STD's on the other hand are scary enough to make me celibate. Something about contracting a disease that CAN KILL YOU, just takes the air right out of the balloon.

 

Good point, but it always seems to be that it is the teenagers who get 'unlucky' and the married couples who really want kids who also get 'unlucky' (but in a different way).

 

Religious leaders have known throughout history that if one can control people's sex lives, then they can be controlled in any other number of ways. Political leaders are just catching on to this idea, and to control basic functions of the individual also translates into larger political control. In other words, if you can regulate people's sex lives (something so basic) then you can pretty much control them. Such are the political uses of sex.