POLL: Premarital Sex

Remove all ads!

I'm in my prime and there ain't no stopping me now! Hide your daughters and sister's men, I'm in town!

I always use condoms and I work like the British Railways (always pulls out on time) just to be sure. However I'm now in a long term relationship and frankly it could be my undoing (as a bachelor) so she's agreed to take the birth control pill yet even if we recieve and unwanted/unexpected blessing I'll be there to take care of my offspring.

Sex before marriage? Go right ahead. Don't waste your youth when your bodies are in their prime for this type of thing. Just be responsiable and if you do screw up, do the right thing.

Abortions? I think if the foetus (sp?) is under 3... or was it 2 months where it has no brain function... go ahead. It's not 'life' yet - it's just potential for life. But don't make a habit of aborting, it should be like a get out of jail free card: you can only use it once.

Use proper protection and you'll be fine.

 

I'm not married, and have no intention of having children, yet I've been in a very loving, stable and monogomous relationship with my girlfriend for almost 8 years. We've made a total and full commitment to each other and frankly I don't care if someone believes otherwise.

We use a method of contraception that means if it failed, we probably wouldn't find out until abortion was no longer an option, so yes we would have to live with those consequences.

 

Okay, Chandos. Sorry for that one. Having a bit of a headache wasn't helping my sense of humour yesterday.

You may be right to some extent when it comes to what leaders make out of tenets pertaining to sex but it doesn't invalidate the tenets and doesn't mean the Church should stop preaching the Biblical bans on premarital sex, cheating etc just because of a liberal concept of freedom. People say a lot about control and oppression but one doesn't have to belong to a church and if one does, one's expected to abide by the tenets. I'm not going to run a check of people's bedrooms unless it's my underaged children or something, but I'm never going to shut up.

That's correct but the commitment is easier to cancel. Basically, people may be extremely committed at a given moment but refusing to seal it with a permanent exclusive marital vow means not wanting it to be permanent or exclusive and leaving oneself a way out. Besides, if it's just a paper then why fear said paper so much? Especially if people are claiming to be intending the permanent and exclusive commitment? Obviously, there's more to it than simply disliking formalities.

Marriage doesn't exist because of a piece of paper or some such. It's not a permission to have sex, either. You see... to arrive at such a conclusion, one has to see sex as the base and marriage as a collateral thing. The Christian view is different. Marriage is there and sex belongs in it. Sex is good, as well. Using it outside of the proper context, which is marriage, is wrong. Incidentally, marrying someone just to be able to sleep with them is a sin (see Aquinas). In many cases, it won't be a valid marriage per Catholic rules, either. Also, marriage isn't permission from the state or church, either, at least in Catholicism. Marriage is contracted between the parties and the bans and restrictions the Church puts on it are minimal and mostly conditional (except you won't ever be allowed to marry a married person, an ancestor or descendant or sibling), which is less restrictive than in some secular laws, and the age requirement is lower as well (the Church however still prefers to abide by the local restrictions, so you're extremely unlikely to get a marriage illegal in your country). The Church isn't in favour of tying unfaithful spouses up in the house, either, she still however preaches that cheating is wrong and sex with a person you aren't married to is wrong as well (not as wrong as cheating or sleeping with a married person, obviously). That's not of the Church's invention but from the Bible.

That's what the Church says, adding that only marriage is of said depth. Everything in its proper time. In casu, some gestures of affection are improper when casual but proper in a loving relationship. Sex as the ultimate physical exspression, is marriage only. You can choose the right moment by deciding when is the right moment for you to marry, basing on the depth of what you have and all.

I don't see why the Church should ignore the Biblical bans on premarital sex, but where I think some people are right is that enforcement by secular law doesn't help religious moral rules unless it's a uniform society. This isn't to say that it would be wrong to ban people with STD from having sex, put up an age of consent and all this which secular states do. Marriage may belong here. Generally, the ten commandments are meant to be followed out of a willing heart, not under force.

 

1. I've had sex before marriage, and I still do. Me and my girlfriend waited for three years, then we decided that we are going to live together anyway, but we are not ready to get married, so let's rock the casbah instead.

2. Had sex.

3. Sex isn't just for kids, we are above animals in that part(except dolphins, they can have sex for fun too). If someone wants an abortion and it's still in the legal timeframe, LET THEM.

Now, get the **** out of my bedroom.

 

I think there's a certain amount of misunderstanding here.
I don't for one minute believe that people should just go around, banging everyone they like, unprotected. That's just STD City, nevermind possible conception.

I just think that when you've found a partner you really like, you should be able to have as much of each other as possible. Sex is just a way of enjoying each other and sharing each other. It's not some 'Ok, we're married, we're steady, let's have sex and have kids'. It doesn't work like that. Well, not unless you have absolute zero sex-drive.

 

Barmy, my thoughts completely.

 

The bonobo chimpanses in East Africa do this also. And it does not matter to them what gender the partner is.

@chev:

Sorry to disappoint you, chev, but we are slaves of our primal urges. From the first second on two people who feel attracted to each other, their bodies switch into "procreation mode". The reasons for this are rather complex, and how long they wait is a matter of societal and personal circumstances.
But the longer they wait, the higher is the chance that they loose interest in each other. Because it is not natural to wait, as far as procreation is the matter.

 

I think you're right Ara. I have to admit that I was unaware that this was even remotely common. So it would basically be if both my wife and I were OK with having other sexual partners even though we were married? I can't imagine this is a view shared by many people. And quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that once you do commit to someone for life, then you should not have other partners.

Maybe I'm still reading this wrong. Are you referring to things like "swinger parties"? These I have heard of, although I have never engaged in any, and I don't know anyone who has. However, I have heard enough about them to the point that it would be naive of me to deny their existence. I don't agree with these forms of activity either. I don't believe people should go around screwing everyone, and I don't think one night stands are OK either, but I do believe that there is nothing wrong with sex inside a stable relationship, regardless of whether you are married or not.

Based on the new information I have received from Ara, I need some clarification here. If you are referring to these polyamorous relationships or swinger parties, then yeah, I'd have a problem getting involved with someone like that too. However, if you mean you wouldn't marry someone who had sex with a previous boyfriend and didn't regret it, well, to me that's a pretty unrelenting viewpoint. Couldn't you accept that the woman simply felt afterwards that this wasn't someone she wanted to spend the rest of her life with, and now that she's met you, she's found someone that she IS willing to spend the rest of her life with? Keep in mind that we're assuming she was in a previous long-term relationship - not some guy she met at a bar and hopped in the sack with that same night.

I'm glad someone brought this up, because it reminds me of a conversation I had with a theology professor as an undergraduate at the Jesuit university I attended. It should be noted that this person was somewhat unusual in that he was one of the few members of the theology department who wasn't a Catholic priest. But he did have a doctorate in theology, so he is a theologian despite not being a priest.

Anyway, the conversation involved the interpretation of the ancient texts and their views on sex, and he says that the Church's official stance on the matter goes beyond a literal reading of the texts. In fact, the translated version takes a lot stronger stand on sexual conduct that the original texts, and that you have to assume a lot about the author's intentions to translate the texts in that manner. Like I said, this guy isn't a priest, and since I'm not capable of translating the ancient records myself, there's no way for me to verify if what he's saying is true.

The point is that the texts explicitly state that if you're not married you shouldn't have sex with someone who is. They also explicitly state that anyone who is married shouldn't be having sex with anyone other than their spouse. While those two points can be interpreted to mean that sex should only be conducted within a marriage, it certainly doesn't explicitly say this.

It makes no mention of two single people having sex with each other. Now, part of the reason it may not is that it was common for girls to marry in their early teens, while men tended to wait a bit longer. Therefore, while it was uncommon to see an unmarried 20 year old woman, an unmarried 20 year old man wasn't uncommon. It may be assumed that the passage is strictly addressing men, simply because for women, as soon as you reached sexual maturity you usually were married off to someone. The pool of single women was very small, and most girls were designated to marry someone even before they reached sexual maturity.

If this is the case, then the interpretation given by the Church is correct - you shouldn't be having sex at all before you get married, because most women of marrying age are already married. You should be going through the proper channels and get some 12 year old designated to marry you in a couple years once she reaches sexual maturity. The point of it is, you have to take the context of the era in which these writings took place. There weren't large numbers of single men and womenin their early 20s like there are today, and marriages aren't arranged anymore. The writing don't address two single people getting together and having sex, simply because it wasn't done at the time. However, it is a leap to then interpret those texts to mean that all pre-marital sex is bad today, when society is much different, because the Bible doesn't talk about two single people having sex at all. (That is, unless you read a translation that takes the writings to that next step - which may or may not be a logical conclusion.)

Well said, Barmy. That's what I was trying to get at up above. I don't believe it's right to engage in swinging, one night stands, or casual sex with anyone you may happen to meet at a bar or a night club. You're really asking for trouble if you don't use some form of protection when you do this. When I say I don't have a problem with pre-marital sex, I'm not trying to imply that I think it's fine in all circumstances. I'm assuming you have two people who are unmarried, but have been together for a while, are seeing each other exclusively, and they are both entertaining the possibility of marrying each other some day. That's a whole heck of a lot different than those other situations I mentioned above.

 

Do what the hell you like. this is not an area where anyone else is getting hurt. If you do, deal with the consequences (eg, pregnancy, STD). If not thats fine to. If not due to religion thats ok. Just don't try and impose your moralistic choices on anyone else.

 

It's always easy for a man to say 'do whatever you like.' It will be a least nine months before a paternaty suit can be filed and a few months after that before anything will be done about it. Most men assume the woman would rather have an abortion when faced with the alternative of giving birth and raising a child as a single parent.

Yeah, do whatever you like.

 

As of a year or two ago 85% of college students where having sex out of wedlock and they're statistically the most promiscuous sect of the population.

As of 2003 60% of young Americans (I forget the exact age statistic) engaged in premarital sex (that's a 10% increase from the 50s). The Midwest sort of anchors this stat and there is still a good percent of the population that marries by 18-22 (in which a good deal of this population percentage takes their virginity into marriage).

While this is no religious ideal, premarital sex within the United States isn't as prevalent as our sex based consumer culture would lead one to think.

 

Wow, I stand corrected. I have no sources that claim otherwise, so I will have to comply. How much is this source reliable anyway?
This is not something that saddens me though.

 

I know the 60% stat came from a study published in my state's local newspaper and I've seen similar studies in Newsweek and various other weekly news magazines in the past (specifically when Christianity was really starting to "re-blossum"). Because I can't tell you the age group of this study, I am unsure of the possible skew resulting from the age range.

85% number came out of a college magazine (I'm unsure of the group that ran the actual study). I've heard it from some of the religious groups on my campus as well.

 

Some interesting points to bring up. For one, of the 42 people who participated in the poll up to this point, NO ONE has waited until they were married to have sex. Of all the votes tallied, we have exactly ZERO votes in the two categories that refer to not having sex before they were married. Or to phrase it another way, EVERYONE in the poll who is married had sex prior to marriage. One point that I missed was I should have had another choice for sex before marriage, which would indicate that the only person you had sex with prior to marriage was the person you eventually married. Perhaps even more telling, of the 26 people who indicated that they had sex before getting married (which again is everyone who got married) only a single person states that it would have been better to wait.

I'm making a bit of an assumption when I say that I think the majority of those who have not yet had sex represent the younger members of our board (obviously that's not completely true, but they probably make up a good chunk of that voting block). And it appears that they have no illusions about what the future holds for them either. With a ratio of 5 in 6, these people think it is "more likely than not" or "near certain" that they will have sex before marriage. So the concept of remaining a virgin until marriage is certainly not common at all, and at this point, it doesn't even appear to be held as an ideal to be aspired to. Quite to the contrary, most people feel there's not much advantage to it.

The vote however that has surprised me the most at this point is that 1 in 4 people think you shouldn't have sex if you aren't prepared to have children. This is obviously a much greater percentage of people than one would think given the percentages on the first two questions. Since the vast majority of people either had sex or expect to have sex before they marry, and one would further assume that most people would prefer to be married prior to having children, it's strange that we didn't get more people voting for it's OK to have sex even if you aren't prepared for children.

 

Where did this idea of sexual desire as an uncontrollable natural urge come from? Ok, maybe no one's said it explicitly, but there have been a number of people hinting at the idea that if you're attracted to someone, and their attracted to you, you're gonna have sex.
As for the people that have commented on having sex in a deep relationship that isn't marriage, what do you think marriage is supposed to be? Marriage is a vow between two people, witnessed by God, to stay in that relationship. This is why God reserved sex for marriage. If you're dedicated enough to be having sex with the person, you should be dedicated enough to stick with that person.
I would also like to note that the divorce statistics among those that live together before marriage are drastically higher than those that don't, so sex befor marriage is NOT good for the relationship.

 

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that's pretty much how it goes.

 

That is a classic example of the sort of flawed logic used so often in the newspaper ("Eating shoe leather prevents cancer!"....because a man who ate shoes all his life never got cancer.). Statisticians refer to the 'lurking variable' to describe situations where A followed B but may actually have been caused by C.

There is absolutely no basis for the statement that sex before marriage IS bad for marriage. What is more likely, is that the people who don't have sex before marriage are conservative (and probably religious) types who see marriage as being a more sacred and unbreakable arrangement. Don't get me wrong - that's great - but it was probably not the fact of the absence of pre-marital sex that made their marriages last.

 

Children are one of the potential consequences of having sex. If a couple isn't prepared to address the issues of an unplanned pregnancy, then no, they shouldn't be having sex because no birth control method is 100% effective.

I tried to qualify my response to this question before. No one should do ANYTHING unless they're prepared to face the potential consequences. That goes for the lactose intolerant person who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry's as much as it does for the two hotpants teens who can't wait to jump each other.

 

I love it when Rallymama steps into the ring, because she is almost always right.

 

Well, perhaps 'shouldn't'. But there's not many people who don't do something because they 'shouldn't'.

I shouldn't drink a lot, because it's unhealthy, but I do.
People shouldn't have sex, protected or unprotected, unless they are willing to deal with a pregancy, but they do. Very, very few people are able to resist such a temptation.

I'm sorry, shoot me down if you like, but I'm sure I'm not alone here... if I'm out clubbing or whatever, and I get chatting to a girl and we go back to hers... I'm not thinking about saying 'no, I don't want to knock you up'. I don't really need to particularly like them all that much. Almost every single bloke I know is exactly the same.

Maybe it's just Britains culture, I don't know...