Sexual morality

Remove all ads!

Nope sorry, I was fortunate to have an older woman who taught me the difference between straight-bore grunting sex and gentle sensual making love. It's a shame really that sex education does not involve practicals so that people can learn the basics, like women generally don't like their breasts mauled, but caressing them gets better results; that yanking a penis doesn't really make us blokes feel good, and the differing techniques dependent upon whether or not there is a foreskin.

I disagree with the repression of sex that is prevalent in countries which are predominantly christian, these 'moral' laws were usually laid down by men who were afraid of women, gay or not getting enough, there are studies that show the more open an attitude to sex the lower statistics of violent sex crimes, but the greatest letdown of 'moral' countries with regards to sex is the education which in most cases is farcical and bears no relation to what really goes on. Impressing on people the need for safe sex or abstinence until they are married is no real use on the mechanics, you can't expect people to be responsible teaching them half the story.

 

@Sleep:

There's a big problem here. Hunger is also one of the biggest driving forces in life, if not the biggest, but there are big problems when people stop placing restrictions on it. Hunger serves the purpose of providing fuel for the body, and if you don't need more fuel, then you should contain your hunger (to some degree). Problems develope if you don't (i.e. heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc.)

Likewise, sex serves the purpose of continuing the species. That means bringing healthy newborns into a viable situation. This means that any sex that does not bring a healthy newborn into a viable situation is not fulfilling the purpose of sex and, as such, up for restriction.

Now please understand that I'm not saying you should only have sex if you want a kid from it. I eat more than I need to because eating good food is fun, but I place restrictions on it. I only eat SO MUCH more than I need to, I work more than I probably need to to balance that out (plus I have a high metabolism ), and I watch what is in what I eat, just a little, just in case. In the same way, it's ok to have sex if you don't want to have a kid, so long as you take certain precautions. If you can't support a kid (no viable situation), then you probably shouldn't have sex at all, as no contraceptive or combination of multiple is 100%. At the same time, you need to take care of your own body (protection from STDs). The first condition alone pretty much limits it to marital or similar relationships, and so the second only needs to be applied if you or your mate have not lived by this standard in the past (or if one is cheating on the other).

That alone pretty much sums up my position, though it does leave a nagging option for extra-marital relations, since you are in a position to support the kid, just not with it's natural mother/father, but I'll go ahead and say that's immoral because I believe it is, and I think most people in the world will agree with me on some level (remember, this is cheating inside a stable romantic relationship).

@Ironmancal2131
While saving yourself for marriage may not be as easy as it seems sometimes, it isn't as hard as it often seems, either. I've been in a stable, long-term (we're going to get married as soon as I can support us) relationship for 4.5 years now with a VERY attractive woman. Savign myself for her hasn't been a problem. There have been other options both before and after meeting her, but I'm saving myself, so I said 'no' and it really wasn't that hard. Of course, I don't drink a lot, so I don't have to worry about my inhibitions being removed around said 'other options'.

@Shoshino
Are you so sure we're nothing less than animals? Most animals will stop eating when they're full. Most animals will clean themselves regularly. Most animals will either develop complex, if uniform, social groups or act independantly, one or the other. Humans don't do any of these naturally. We all know that humans will eat as much as they want and getting full has little to nothing to do with it, nor does real hunger. We all know that people (or at least men) are not inclined to regularly clean themselves unless there's a good reason to do so. Humans are capable of any number of types of social interactions, including the hermit that lives by him/herself for decades at a time. Different human societies have developed different social hierarchies based on different conditions.

Now we can look at humans (ourselves) and say that these things are based on desires and needs and rationality, but animals don't have the higher reasoning skills we do, nor do many of them posess the same 'pleasure' sources as we do (especially sex, but also eating). Saying we should because we are animals leaves much to be desired and vastly oversimplifies the human condition.

@DR
I understand your reasoning, and your premises, but the 'bad sex life' factor of so many divorces is based on SO much more than just 'how someone performs'. The truth is, it is usually based in an uncaring and even combative relationship where the woman, not being emotionally fullfilled, refuses to fulfill the man sexually, or the man, not being visually fulfilled, looses interest in the woman. In commited relationships, partners can learn to improve their sexual encounters by learning what the other partner likes and dislikes. A failure of the sex life is not the cause of divorce, but a symptom of much larger problems.

@Wordplay
The Christians invented marriage? You sure about that? Because I see it in the Old Testament (Hebrews) and in ancient Egypt, and Rome, and Greece, and China, and Japan, and India, and a ton of areas before Christianity even existed. Marriage is as old as history (intentional records of humanity and human activity). We don't know which came first, society or marriage, though we can rationalize how society could easily come before marriage. Either marriage was a natural development of human society that seems to be rather, if not totally, uniform; or the only one who invented it was God. Either way, you may want to pay a little more attention to it.

As far as 'first time performance' goes, everyone learns to get better at things with time, so we shouldn't expect the first time of anything to be perfect. While there may be ways to improve the first time, and I even agree with a few DS suggested, 'getting practice' is not a good idea.

I would also like to note that acceptance of pre-marital sex, and especially promiscuous sex, help to break down the standard family unit, the nuclear family, in society. This is either a direct cause, or a direct effect of the failing of a society. There was a book written by D.L. Moody, a prominent christian scholar, that took a look at the fall of societies and linked this to it almost EVERY SINGLE TIME (please note that societies can survive conquest by outsiders and thus this doesn't count as the fall of a society). He pointed out a number of warning signs, such as common acceptance of divorce, quick and no-fault divorces, high numbers of pregnancies outside of wedlock, high numbers of children being given up for adoption or abandoned, etc. This sounds a lot like the modern US and a number of other 1st world nations today, but that's pure co-incidence because the book was written in the early 1950's, when these problems were barely even recognizable yet. He came to these conclusions off the fall of great societies in history like Rome, Greece, Egypt, ancient China, etc.

 

Good point. I, however, am no virgin, even though I have fairly little experience as opposed to "regular" guys. I'm standing firm on my point about waiting though - sex remains a very special act that should be shared with someone just as special (chev, I see a free chance for a jab about marriage here... but I am no believer, remember ). There have been but two woman with which I've reached "that" level (I DID said I had little experience), and it's just fine this way. The next one will be just as special.

And you have my respect too.

Hehe. Everyone has a way of keeping their own mind occupied, mine is metalworking. When the urges makes one retrograde to the caveman era... there's a problem.

[ December 06, 2006, 06:31: Message edited by: Disciple of The Watch ]

 

If you do take precautions, why should we restrict ourselves? Why not have sex 2 times a day for a year?

I don't agree at all. How does having sex befor marriage change the family concept?

lol, yeah, I kind of got that impression when you were discussing what kind of condoms you use in the contraception thread... My bad, I misunderstood what you were saying...

 

Feel free to, just don't blame me when your willy falls off

 

@ NOG.

Interesting that you should mention the issue of food acquisition. Unfortuantly your relying heavily on two principles to underlie your argument. Firstly, that humans eat the food that we are designed to eat and , secondly, that the evolution of the human brain and the human body are somehow complimentary.
I'll briefly explain.

Evolution relies on a natural selection of beneficial random mutations in the structure of human DNA, therefore there is very slim cahnce of any animal being 'perfectly suited' to its environment. With humans, the gradual increase in brain size has occurred throughout the hominin development since the split with common chimpanzee ancestors because it is beneficial. Since humans reached cognitive modernity roughly 100-150 thousand years ago we have developed our ability to shape our environment around us. This has resulted in the human being creating an environment for which the brain is satisfied, but the body is not necessarily prepared for. Human stomachs are prepared to digest large quantities of food as fuel for those pursuing active lifestyles. (i.e hunting). The food we eat now is;
A) often vastly inferior in quality.
B)plentiful in elements that are not suited to the human digestive system (for example every human in the world is, to some degree, lactose intolerant).
C)Avialable to us in abundance, often without the excess burning of calories.
Humans don't contain their intake of fuel anymore because the body is capable of processing large amounts of food without realising that it is far richer and less healthy than what it has been designed for. The link between brain and body is imperfect.Unintelligently designed. Opportunistically designed, to be exact. As is all life.

Also, sex does not only serve the purpose of furthering the species. Sex serves to seal social bonds and create alliances. It can be used as a power tool and as a way of isolating others. humans are incredibly social creatures and we have adapted, as with many other areas of our natural urges, to use sex for more than just simple procreation.
For example, humans are one of the most nuturing creatures known, we look after our osspring incredibly well and part of the way to keep the family bond together is for the mother and father to copulate regurlarly. Sharing this intimacy is a way of keeping the family, dedicated to one another.

To say that you should save sex until marriage because of your own personal beliefs is fine. But to suggest some sort of moral pressure upon others is totally wrong. Sex between two consenting people is their buisness and their buisness alone, it is their own body they can do what they like.

 

lol, well, the point I was trying to make was that the "willy" is not like a VHS tape. If you use it a whole lot, it doesn't break down..

Yes!! I knew there was a point to being friends with all those hot women... haha, I'm just kidding...

I'm also posting in the safety in sex thread, and there seems to be a lack of women participating in the discussion. Am I the only one who think that's wierd?

 

@ NOG,

That's an interesting point. But it doesn't disprove that premarital sex can be a good thing. In a way, what you said reinforces my point.

Just as bad sex can be a result or symptom of larger problems, it can also be the catalyst for them as well. Good sex improves emotional intimacy. So if the sex life is bad it - be it due to infrequency, one partner being uninterested in the other's needs, or just plain inability to do it properly - that can have a cascading effect on many other aspects of the relationship. Just as stress, lack of communication and inconsiderate behavior can have a negative impact on intamacy (and by extension, sex life).

Everything is connected. The dynamics of a romantic relationship are much more like a web than a mobile, if that makes sense. I'd prefer to know as much as I possibly can about the mate I'm choosing before committing my life to her. Part of the necessity of pre-marital sex is also to assess the potential for a happy sex life down the road. That way you can factor in potential problems before you're stuck with them.

 

You do not need to have a ceremony to have a family and you can, certainly, raise your kids in an open relationship too. I don't understand why you think that marriage makes the union eternal, remembering that almost 50% of the marriages end up to divorce. Marriage is just a symbolic proof of your intent, so church is not needed for that.

There aren't that many women on SP, or on board in general. Majority of the Internet-users are males, remember?

Unfortunately, the government doesn't see it exactly that way. The current legistlation does say a strong "nay" against casual sex (especially when there is money involved) and multiple partners (polygamy), but that's why you go to Thailand.

 

@Triactus:
Pre-marital and especially extra-marital sex help break down the family unit because sex is a bonding action, as Sleep said. Treating sex as a non-item (just something to have fun with) de-values it for those involved, thus you have just weakened a valuable bonding action. Think of it this way, if you've just met a girl, and she's willing to sleep with you, how much does actually doing it strengthen the relationship? How much closer do you feel to her. On the other hand, if you've dated her for several years, maybe even just married her, and she's refused to have sex until now, how valuable does that action seem now? Now consider how valuable it is in the first situation if you regularly have sex with random girls just because it's fun, and compare it to if you and the girl in the second example are virgins until that time.

@Sleep:
Actually, I wasn't comparing humans in their homes to animals in the wild, which is the comparison you're making. I was comparing humans in their homes to pets in the human homes. I know a lot of cat owners that leave food out for their cats 24/7, they come and eat when they want, and they aren't severely obese. On a side note, cats are the best example here because they have not lost their instincts or been bred for much of anything. My house cat is remarkably similar to wild cats in South America.

As for the purposes of sex, you're absolutely right, which means it belongs in long-lasting relationships that you intend to strengthen and preserve.

@Triactus again:

Well, it isn't how you use it or how often, it's what it gets exposed to when you do. STDs man, STDs...

@DR:
Actually, if you're talking about using pre-marital sex as a 'test-driving' method, it makes it a moot point, as the 'test-drive' you're getting isn't an accurate representation of her future performance.

If you're advocating extensive practice for both partners beforehand, then you have to consider the de-valuing of the bonding experience, as well as the various risks associated with said practice. It's up to you if you think it's worth it, but I'd say it isn't.

@Wordplay and others:
May I suggest that we remove the term 'marriage' from this discussion as it tends to inflame and confuse people. I suggest we have three relationship stages instead.
Stage one-> short-term or early dating
Stage two-> mid-term, those that you are seriously considering for the long term (i.e. engaged or talking about marriage/having kids)
Stage three-> long-term, a commitment has been made, such as marriage or having kids (can be adopted)

I suggest that sex belongs only in stage three. Sex in stage one devalues the act, as it is unlikely that it will only be with this partner and it doesn't seem special. Sex in stage two is more special, but still not as much as it could be, and it is less useful for preparing yourself for later on (ala 'test-driving'). Sex in stage three has achieved optimal bonding value and, since this is a long-term relationship, there is plenty of time for practice.

 

@ Virne/Wordplay,

I didn't say it's the only way, I just think it's the best way. I believe it's important for kids to grow up with parents who are committed to each other and their children for life, and a marriage is a great way to illustrate and solidify that commitment. If you don't like the idea of the institution of marriage, fine - that's just semantics as far as I'm concerned. What's important is the commitment and the example of that commitment as viewed by the children.

The idea of an "open relationship" is not one a lot of people can handle well. People get jealous, neglected...there are a multitude of problems created by non-commitment.

EDIT - @ NOG,

Not if she's incapable of reaching orgasm, or has some kind of hang up due to a past experience or abuse that she can't get past, or hates a particular "maneuver" that happens to be your favorite, or a host of other common issues that plague people for life yet can't seem to get past. Believe me, there's plenty to be learned if pre-marital sex doubles as a fact-finding mission. Not everything can be uncovered by merely asking questions.

I do consider that - but in my case the experience has been improved, not devalued. The experience is only devalued if you're doing it just to do it. It depends on your intent and state of mind. I'm also not necessarily advocating "extensive" practice, just enough to know the lay of the land (pun intended). Special occasions are generally enough I would say.

[ October 03, 2006, 22:45: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding. I meant "stage three" without the christian ceremony. Not having kids and swapping mothers every week.

 

Yeah, I think that's it. We're essentially in agreement then.

 

If you read my previous post, I was saying that in context with protection. Yes, of course, there's not a method which is 100%. But combining enough will get you to 99.9%. And don't start talking about how there's still a chance. There's a better chance that you contract a disease via your food than your sexual parter at those odds..

I don't see the relevance of it. Sex is as much a bonding experience after 4 dates than after 4 years. I would say that sex brings a certain closeness that builds a romantic relationship differently than waiting. Furthermore, I juste want to say that I think your argument that it's more valuable when you wait is tedious. You think that quantity is the exact opposite of quality, and these are your choices. Well you can have both. They're complimentary.

I still don't understant how pre-marital sex disentergrate the family unit. Like DR said previously, sex can very well strenghten a relationship.

 

@DR:
I don't even know it's possible for a physically standard (i.e. not scarred, deformed, or having serious nerve dammage in that area) to be totally incapable of reaching orgasm. I know something like 1/3 of all women are incapable of orgasm through vaginal stimulation alone, but there are other factors. Abuse, or scarring,etc. is something she should tell you about before you get to stage three, as you should tell her about anything like that with you, so it's something of a moot point. The other things you mentioned, such as favorite positions, seem to be results of having pre-marital sex. I, as a virgin, have no favorite positions at all, no 'special moves', nothing, and I am fully expecing to learn with my partner what works for both of us, which will then get re-enforced by repetition and become favorites. Hang-ups with particular actions won't become an issue because I don't want any particular actions yet, just general ones. In other words, these are moot points, too. The action you are advocating to seek them out actually causes the things you're seeking.

That's another point about pre-marital (pre-stage-three is too long) sex, it builds up standards and expectations that won't carry on from one relationship to the next.

So you're saying that in your current sexual relationship (assuming there is a current one), sex is more emotionally meaningful to you because you have had sex with other women in the past? Or maybe we're talking about two different things here.

I'm assuming that (and this is not accurate, but for implications it works) our hypotheticals have had several stage ones, more than one stage twos, and are currently in their only stage three to-date. This means if you have sex before stage three, then you had sex in every stage two or possibly stage one you have had, hypothetically.

This means by your current stage three, you have had sex with other women. If you wait for sex until stage three, then you've only had one. Basically, I'm assuming that having sex in stage two or one, but only in the one relationship that actually develops into stage three is a quirk and not the norm.

If there's been no misunderstanding, then I'm thinking that your actual relationship may be the quirk and not the norm. For me, the knowledge that my girlfriend/wife has slept with other men in the past would bug me. It wouldn't be a killer, but it would be one more count against the relationship. I'm sure she'd say the same thing about me having had sex with other women in the past.

@Triactus:
I'd say ditto the above to you, but two in just a few hours makes me think maybe it's more than a quirk. Or maybe this place attracts quirky people.
*glances innocently at his sword collection*
...

Anyway, I know for me that wouldn't be true. If a girl's willing to have sex with me after four dates, that means she's willing to have sex with most any guy that lasts four dates, which means I'm nothing special. On the other hand, if she insists on waiting until we're in a stag three relationship, that means she's waiting for someone special. Remember, sex is only as much of a bonding experience as you see it as, and on that issue, it is very one-sided. Meaning you can have sex with someone and you think it was a special bonding experience and they think it was only a fun time.

 

My thoughts on this are pretty much the same as DR's comments. (I especially enjoyed the "sample the milk" comment.) To relate to the above referenced stages, I would start having sex in stage two. I have said this in the past, but it bears repeating: The difference between having sex with someone before you marry them and waiting to have sex after you marry them is a temporal difference. I had sex with my (now) wife prior to getting married, and it hasn't hurt us in the least. And neither of us were virgins when we met either.

I also can't see why it would be much of an issue to meet and eventually marry someone who had sex with other people before they met you. How could you fault someone for this? They obviously like you better than previous partners, or they would still be with that other partner. Something like this is, at least for me, a total non-issue.

It's not like I'm saying that we should go around screwing as many people as we can, and hook up with as many people as possible on one-night stands - quite to the contrary. My past partners have all been women who I had been with for a very long time. (And by long I mean usually on the time scale of at least a few months.)

While I can't say this is a hard and fast rule, I generally think it's OK to start having sex inside a committed relationship as soon as think that you would be willing to marry that person at some future point. I'm not saying that you run out and buy an engagement ring at that moment, but you have reached a point where you would seriously consider making a life-long commitment. Now, obviously, things can change from there, and you certainly can reconsider later and not marry that person for whatever reason. However, I don't see how changing your mind about marrying once new information becomes available makes the initial decision to have sex wrong. I certainly wouldn't expect someone to go and marry someone simply because they had sex with them. //oh I can't resist, I have to say it// After all, we've seen how poorly a decision to "stay the course" can turn out.

 

Whaoh, totally forgot about this thread.

@ NOG,

Yes, it's possible for otherwise normal women not to have orgasms - and while I wouldn't call it common, I wouldn't call it rare either. But it's not just a consideration for women, as there are a lot of impotent guys out there. Also (this kind of crosses over into the other thread that I'm now done with) many closeted homosexual Christians believe that once they marry a woman their temptations for men will entually go away with devotion both to the wife and to the faith...yet divorce - on account of one partner revealing to the other after many years of marriage that they are in fact gay - happens all the time. I can think of one that happened to a Mormon bishop I knew, so devout he makes Gnarff look like a potzer.

Point is, of course they SHOULD tell you about stuff like this before you get married. But that rarely happens, especially if it's something one is ashamed of. They want this person to marry them, after all - so making them believe they aren't getting damaged goods is a very understandable motivation for not disclosing everything. Many people don't even realize that abuse or whatnot can even cause sexual disfunction. In fact, abuse is generally considered a factor only once couples seek counseling for a solution to sexual problems.

So it's hardly a moot point.

Everything builds up standards and expectations. Such as expecting that if a woman is a virgin when we marry her (standard) then she must not have anything wrong with her sexually (expectation). It's naive to think this is true. Even virgins can be f*cked up.

I sometimes forget that there are people out there who remain virgins and only seek out other virgins as potential spouces. In this case you'd be right, theoretically you'd be making hangups in order to find them. For the other 99% of the rest of western society who've had sex at least once before settling down, this would not apply.

So again - it's only a moot point in a personal sphere populated by virgins. And even then I'd still advocate sex in stage two for the reasons Aldeth stated. As you are a virgin, I must recognise a certain degree of naivety into your viewpoint. I'm going on personal experience here, where you're going on hypotheticals.

No, what I'm saying is our bond has improved to the point that I'm more sure that I want to marry her, not less so, as a result of our pre-marital intimacy. The other women aren't a factor, though I do admit to having a few stage ones (if oral sex counts, that is). None of which I really regret, I might add, because they helped me to see what's important to me.

You're thinking about this the wrong way. I think we all want a relationship to be hunky dory and perfect and move straight to stage three. But that's rarely the case. What's a quirk and what's the norm depends entirely on the person. I don't advocate casual sex, so repeated stage ones are certainly the quirk for me. I didn't intend for them to be stage ones, they just ended up that way for a variety of reasons.

The answer I have for this is...EVERY guy is at some level bothered by the men who've come before them in their woman's life. In my case, when my current fiance and I got together, she was a virgin and I'd had 2 other partners (by this I mean intercourse). However, just because she was a virgin doesn't mean she hadn't done other things with other guys (making out, heavy petting, and a few more serious things I won't mention). What she's done with other guys bothers me just as much as if she'd gone all the way with them. It's not the sex that's the problem, but the intamacy with other guys. It doesn't bother me THAT much, because I have fewer sexual insecurities than most guys and am not the jealous type. I am a guy, so of course I don't want to think about the other guys. But letting that stuff get to you is pointless. She's with YOU now, after all.

In short, if you only seek out women who are 100% physically pure (i.e., not even a makeout session) then you'll never have any issues about her past. But most guys find a 100% physically pure woman to be undesirable, which is a direct function of their rarity. That's also a standard very few of us are willing to hold ourselves to...if no other reason than the drastic limitation in the potential dating pool. I'd prefer to keep my options open, and not exclude a woman from her potential as being "the one" just because she's of a different faith, culture, or sexual history than myself.

[ October 12, 2006, 02:22: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

I'd even take that a step further and say that they can be even more messed up than non-virgins a lot of times. For some virgins, it's because of some personal insecurities they have concerning sex, and that makes it even more of a problem. Now, if you abstain from sex due to some religious ethos, I can respect that. (I can't say that I agree with it, but I can at least see why you would hold that view.) However, I have known women that have all kinds of itimacy issues, and at least one who has remained a virgin because of it. I also have a male friend who, due to one particularly poor past experience, has found it difficult to become intimate with any woman any more. Poor guy.

You know, now that you mention it, that's a very valid point. I won't go so far as to call it naive, but it's almost not possible for one of us to "stand in the other's shoes". People like DR and I can't go back in time and know what our viewpoints would be like now if we had decided to remain virgins, no easier than NOG can see how his viewpoint might have been different if he had decided not to remain a virgin. So if there is any naivety involved here, it is mutual. I honestly can't say how my personal relationships would have changed if I had decided to wait until I was married to have sex. In fact, if I was hell-bent on marrying a virgin, I wouldn't be married to my wife.

DR is being particularly intelligent today, and I agree with just about everything he's saying, including this point. To be honest, while I know my wife wasn't a virgin when we met, to this day I have no idea how many partners she may have had before me, and I really have no desire to ever hear than information. (I realize in reading that last sentence that I should elaborate or risk misrepresenting my intent. I'm not saying my wife was some whore who was sleeping around with everyone before we met. What I mean when I say I don't know how many partners she's had, I mean I don't know if it's 3 or 5 or 7 - I'm not wondering if it's 50 or 60 or 70 - just to be clear.)

The point is, I really don't want to think about my wife being intimate with other guys. Regardless of what the number is, any guy would drive themselves nuts if they get hung up on this. So I don't want to hear about it. I knew my wife was STD-free before we got married, and that was good enough for me.

I don't think men find them undesirable because of their rarity, I think we find them undesirable because we're not sure if they really know what they're looking for in a guy. Someone who's so sheltered that they've never even kissed a guy before, I mean, how could they know what they really want in a prospective spouse? I couldn't handle that. You learn from any and all intimate relationships you have, and most people have several before they decide on a spouse. I think those previous relationships, regardless of how poorly they may have ended, serve a very useful purpose of teaching you what you want and don't want in a future spouse. That information is invaluable, and marrying someone with absolutely no experience seems very strange to me.

 

By "a function of their rarity" I meant that because a goody-twoshoes, complete sexual novice is often a turn-off especially to teenage boys, the girls often try to at least get in some experience to make themselves more "with it," if that makes sense. Therefore, pure girls are rare BECAUSE they don't want to be excluded for their lack of experience. Your first two sentances on the last point are essentially what I meant.

That is a good point, but I wouldn't say that's entirely true. You and I were virgins once, so we've seen in both ways. Nog hasn't. Also, I wanted to wait for marriage when I was younger. Because of this (I'm 26 now), I didn't lose my virginity until I was 21, when I ultimately changed my mind about what I wanted (coincidentally, several mormon couples who were friends of mine and who'd waited for marriage were very unhappy sexually, some going through divorces) and how I wanted to go about finding "the one." Yes, I've always been a bit of a dorky romantic. So the virgin/not a virgin viewpoint is still pretty fresh on my mind, unlike most American guys who dip their wick sometime around age 16. In my case I was an adult for both.

My sincere apologies, it won't happen again. Poop! Boobs! There, we're back to normal.

[ October 12, 2006, 20:38: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

I actually don't think it matters either way whether you have sex before marriage or not. Both options are valid and acceptable to me. There are pros and cons for both approaches.