|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Oct 29, 2004 16:53:22 GMT -5
Yeah, may as well start on a whopper here  So, what do you say? Is it ok? Is it justifiable? Is it morally wrong? Is it irresponsible? I personally say it's irresponsible. See, I know God is not some arbitrary cosmic killjoy and he has rules for a reason. And the whole sex-inside-of-marriage thing I think shows this - if you are responsible enough to be married, you are responsible enough to have sex, and therefore, responsible to have children. Sex is, in my opinion, an official signing that YOU are responsible enough to take care of kids. Hence the reason sex is also known as "reproduction". Also, though this may not be for all people, it is for many - having sex outside of marriage can have a lot of complications, i.e. pregnancy, being found out (which brings up the point if it was o-k you wouldn't need to worry about people finding out), and emotional problems. The last isn't the majority, but still possible. And, also, YES, I AM 14. But if I'm only 14 and I can point out these things, I wouldn't reccommend using my age against me. So, your call? |
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Oct 29, 2004 17:29:48 GMT -5
I don't think it's anyone's business, really. Two people can be "responsible" about sex and still not be married.
That's for adults, however. Kids having sex... wouldn't that just completely ruin your innocence? I'd feel dirty.
But premarital sex is advertised as the cool thing to do, with shows like "Sex and the City" and other comedies that show sex as a casual, laughable thing. And that, in turn, creeps into our society. It isn't really seen as wrong now. In fact, people are looked upon as strange if they DO wait until they are married.
Really, though, I don't care. If you're an adult, you can do what you want with your body, and it isn't my business.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rider on Oct 29, 2004 18:25:08 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Heh, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. I don't plan to get married, and I don't know if I want to die a virgin. I've been taught all my life that sex outside of marriage is bad, even if you're an adult.
I think that if I did get pregnant (as an adult, mind you,) I'd be able to handle it. And that's what matters, right? I mean, a responsible adult should be able to make her own choices. As long as you're not going around and doing it as a teenager...
(I'd make a more solid argument, but dinner calls.)[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Oct 29, 2004 18:35:06 GMT -5
As long as you use proper protection, it's fine. It's possible to be responsible about it. I actually never knew it was still considered a bad thing in modernised countries until quite recently ^^ I just took it as the norm. Marriage is, after all, a few words on a bit of paper and some legal/tax bonuses. It is also about long term commitment - commitment to forever, in fact. I see no reason why you need that to have sex. Besides, otherwise, how will you know your partner's good in bed before you marry them ? |
|
|
|
Post by TK on Oct 29, 2004 20:30:55 GMT -5
if you are responsible enough to be married, you are responsible enough to have sex, and therefore, responsible to have children. The thing is, though, it doesn't take any responsibility to get married. Go to any take-a-number "chapel" and the deed can be done that easily. So if you have the responsibility to get wasted, hitch a ride to Vegas and tie the knot, you therefore have the responsibility to raise a child? I basically agree with Oily. I've no qualm with premarital sex, and as long as they're being totally responsible with it as far as emotions and contraception goes, I've no problem. |
|
|
|
Post by issue100 on Oct 29, 2004 22:34:11 GMT -5
Woah. I highly disagree. It's the person who is engaging in intercorse who makes the decision whether they are mature enough to have sex.
But, seriously, having sex and concieving are not the same! Mostl people have sex without thinking about having children. You can't just say that. Besides, if they wear protection, I don't think it's a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Oct 30, 2004 0:06:28 GMT -5
I am wholly against premarital sex. Call me selfish. Call me whatever you like.
But you know, if I ever get married, I DO want my husband to be virgin. If he isn't, fine, I would still love him.... but not having met him yet I would hope that he was.
I want to share something with him I know no other woman has. I don't want someone else to have him first, I want him to be mine and mine only. So shouldn't I save myself for my husband, knowing that if he would save himself for me this is how I would feel?
If I had total assurance (and knowledge of the future) that I would marry my boyfriend, be his woman, his wife, have his children.... certainly I would have sex before marriage.
But I have no such assurance. I want him to take that next step, the boundary between girlfriend and wife. If I gave my body freely to whoever my boyfriend was.... I would feel like a part of me stayed with them, instead of belonging wholly to my husband. I would feel like I'd cheated him out of something he was entitled to.
I would feel like I had nothing deeper left to give him than I gave the men who passed through before he came.
How would I look my good friend in the face on my wedding day, remembering that I gave him my virginity and not the man who waited at the end of the aisle for me?
Religion plays an important part, certainly.
But my reasons for not having premarital sex are a great deal more personal, more selfish than just obeying what God says. If I didn't think this way I'd find it a great deal harder to obey.
And you know, when you're around teenage, you THINK you're responsible, you THINK you know. But actually, you don't. I know people who lost their virginity when they were younger than I am now...... will they regret it when they're older? I've done a lot of things when I was younger that I look back now and say "Oh God, I was such an ass. Why didn't I---?"
I don't really want to do that for something like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rishiy on Oct 30, 2004 2:52:45 GMT -5
I think it's inevitable. These days it really isn't as simple as love>marriage>sex>baby>yay! I don't know why people think that marriage must come first. What about love? If two people love each other why can't they have sex? Is there a check box on the marriage licence saying 'Now ready to have sex'? Marriage is a lot more complicated than topics like this make it seem, there is the cost to take into account, the venue, getting around schooling (as so many people seem to be getting married so young), getting families together, planning, living together first... It's all very confusing, and can take years, why should a couple who are devoted to eachother have to wait that long to express it?
And besides that. Why do they need to be commited to each other. If they are responsible enough to take precautions, they are responsible enough to have sex. There are so many more ways to prevent babies than condoms. Pills, opperations and a whole bunch of other devices that can be used by both men and women. We have tests for HIV, and it is the law that you have to tell any sexual partners about any diseases you may have.
Sex is a human impulse and a naural urge and I don't think it should be shut out just because of age. If parents give teens permission, and teens are mature enough to talk it through, I really don't see a problem. The same people who want teens not to have sex want to take sex ed out of schools, so really, we can't win.
All the evidence I have heard first hand (I'll serach for some sites when I get done) leads me to beleive that the first you have sex is not good. Yes if you wait until marriage there is the added benefit of having love there, but overall it can be awkward and uncomfortable, an experience than can shatter some relationships. Though having said that, if there really is love there, why does sex even matter at all? Should it even matter to your future spouse that you're not virginal? You tell me.
And I'm out...
|
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Oct 30, 2004 9:30:12 GMT -5
I'd have to side with TK and Oily here.
To say "Oh, if you're not married, you're not ready/mature enough/responsible enough to have sex!" is so blantantly inane. There really is no coaralation between people getting married and being responsible - expecially in the way TK pointed out.
Ultimately, the decision to have sex is a decision only you and you alone can make. If you decide to have sex before marriage, fine! It's your decision! You know the risks, you know the ways to lesson them, and you know the consequences and possible outcomes. Good luck.
And if you choose to wait until your married, good. Congrats. You have far more will power than most people.
I myself haven't made the decision whether or not I'm going to wait, yet. I'm still to young for that. When the time comes, I'll make the call how I see it. And not a moment before.
|
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Oct 30, 2004 9:30:54 GMT -5
The thing is, though, it doesn't take any responsibility to get married. Go to any take-a-number "chapel" and the deed can be done that easily. So if you have the responsibility to get wasted, hitch a ride to Vegas and tie the knot, you therefore have the responsibility to raise a child? I basically agree with Oily. I've no qualm with premarital sex, and as long as they're being totally responsible with it as far as emotions and contraception goes, I've no problem. If you get wasted/drunk/stoned, that's your problem. You are DRUNK. That is irresponsible. You don't know what you're doing. That is, basically, a mockery of marriage. Also, about being 'responsible' enough to wear protection: I spend a few bucks on a condom, and that makes me responsible? Don't think so. And just because something is an urge, is it right? If you have and 'urge' to go eat a lot of chocolate, but you're really fat and it can't help you, should you stop the urge? Yes! And, yes, Rishiy, it can shatter relationships when you are young. Some people - some - can find it traumatic. More, overwhelmed by guilt. Now, if you're married, do you honestly think sleeping with your spouse will ruin the relationship or make you feel guilty or unclean? No. And sex is what you do to conceive a child. Intent or no, that's what its for and it needs to be taken into account. And if you love someone, if you really care about them and what's good for them, are you going to chance getting them pregnant before marriage, or getting pregnant? What if your/their parents don't approve of that? Would like to feel obligated to marry them now that you made them pregant/you are pregnant? And if you love someone, don't you want to act and show responsibility and good judgment? And on a final note, condoms, pills, etc. are not 100% guarantees. As for operations... the lengthiness of that is about the same as getting married. The operation, the recovery, etc. etc. And also you should only do that if you NEVER want children, so it can't count for people who want to have sex, and eventually kids later on. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Oct 30, 2004 11:39:11 GMT -5
If you get wasted/drunk/stoned, that's your problem. You are DRUNK. That is irresponsible. You don't know what you're doing. That is, basically, a mockery of marriage. But it is a legal marriage. Even if you're sober, you could run off to a chapel, get hitched quickly and have sex. For the sake of a few hours, sex suddenly becomes OK? You haven't changed in the marriage, neither has your partner. You've just got a piece of paper, not a mark of responsibility. What about long term couples who don't get married, but are totally and faithfully commited to each other? What about homosexual couples, who legally CAN'T get married? Can they love each other, but never physically show their love? Yeah, cos you can be irresponsible enough not to bother. Responsibility is making sure there are no unwanted pregnancies or diseases. You can be irresponsible within marriage too, ie, by not using protection if you have a sexual disease. But sexual drive is extremely strong for some people. Do you want them to quickly marry in order to have sex and discover they are totally unsuited as a couple. Maybe after they've got pregnant even. The marriage and divorce rate would skyrocket. If you've got an urge for chocolate, it's OK to have some. It's if you constantly fulfill that urge that you're endangering your health. The only reason I could see for you to feel guilty was if you didn't believe in pre-marital sex anyway. Nor would you see yourself as unclean. And I don't understand how it could be traumatic, unless you were pressurised into it before you are ready, which is a whole different ball game. I really don't see why sleeping with your spouse would be any different than sleeping with anyone else, unless you already held strong no-sex-before-marriage views At risk of seeming crude as well, there are many things other than sex that a couple can do that could be construed as damaging or unclean. Even nasty words. It's a question of where to draw the line then. Yes, but people do it all the time for recreation. What about a married couple who don't want children yet? Sex is an expression of love or, sometimes, a quick way of self gratification. Being pregnant before marriage is not such a terrible thing. If you truly worry about your parents' views, you wouldn't be having sex before marriage (I can't think of a parent who would be against births out of wedlock but for pre-marital sex, so I'm making an assumption here) The thing to consider is then the relationship. Would or should you marry them? I think it is VERY important to consider this if you're having sex without protection. But there is much protection available. You show that love and responsibility and good judgement by using proper protection, thus the possibility of being pregnant is next to none. No, they're not 100%. But I believe they are somewhere around 98% for condoms, and 96% for the pill. You could use both, and the chance becomes tiny. Not mentioning other devices such as coils. And there's always the morning after pill. |
|
|
|
Post by TK on Oct 30, 2004 12:54:59 GMT -5
If you get wasted/drunk/stoned, that's your problem. You are DRUNK. That is irresponsible. You don't know what you're doing. That is, basically, a mockery of marriage. Exactly - it is irresponsible, proving responsibility is not needed to get married. Contradicting your previous point. Also, about being 'responsible' enough to wear protection: I spend a few bucks on a condom, and that makes me responsible? Don't think so. Exactly what Oily said. Responsibility isn't defined by time-consuming, uber-thoughtful feats. Something as simple as that is responsible. And just because something is an urge, is it right? If you have and 'urge' to go eat a lot of chocolate, but you're really fat and it can't help you, should you stop the urge? Yes! Perpetual chocolate binging will, eventually, be your death. Sex won't kill you. Not the greatest analogy. And, yes, Rishiy, it can shatter relationships when you are young. Some people - some - can find it traumatic. More, overwhelmed by guilt. Now, if you're married, do you honestly think sleeping with your spouse will ruin the relationship or make you feel guilty or unclean? No. I agree with you about it being traumatic for people, which is why, as I stated earlier, responsibility as far as emotions should be taken, too. You should stop to this about the repercussions on your emotions and relationship - is it worth it? Will you come to regret it deeply later on? And sex is what you do to conceive a child. Intent or no, that's what its for and it needs to be taken into account. What Oily said. And if you love someone, if you really care about them and what's good for them, are you going to chance getting them pregnant before marriage, or getting pregnant? What if your/their parents don't approve of that? Would like to feel obligated to marry them now that you made them pregant/you are pregnant? And if you love someone, don't you want to act and show responsibility and good judgment? Which is why it's a consensual affair. These risks should be heavily brought into consideration. It's up to the two parties whether or not it's worth it to them, whether or not what their parent's want should make a difference. And on a final note, condoms, pills, etc. are not 100% guarantees. As for operations... the lengthiness of that is about the same as getting married. The operation, the recovery, etc. etc. And also you should only do that if you NEVER want children, so it can't count for people who want to have sex, and eventually kids later on. Which is the point of using more than one means of contraception. The use of multiple condoms, male or female, is a bad idea, but spermicidal agents as well as the standard pill and, I suppose, the emergency contraceptive pill - the "morning after" one, which really shouldn't be used as a planned contraceptive method - can be used together to almost entirely elminate chances. It's their decision as to whether or not the "almost" will suffice. And the length of the procedure is almost the same time it takes to get married? So? They've entirely different results, so that comparison makes absolutely no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2004 14:19:08 GMT -5
I'm personally waiting until I get married, for the same reason as Crystal. In my viewpoint, sex is supposed to be something that you share with one other person; the person you're going to spend the rest of your life with. I'm not going to force other people to have the same view as me though. I'm entitled to my opinion, you're entitled to yours, and I respect that.
Another one is because even with the use of contreceptives, there still is that chance, a very small chance, of it failing and becoming pregnant. Myself being born out of teen pregnancy, I don't want to take that risk and end up pregnant, because I don't want my child(ren) to have to go through what I went through growing up.
And more later when I can remember the rest of what I was going to say XDD
|
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Oct 30, 2004 15:25:46 GMT -5
But it is a legal marriage. Even if you're sober, you could run off to a chapel, get hitched quickly and have sex. For the sake of a few hours, sex suddenly becomes OK? You haven't changed in the marriage, neither has your partner. You've just got a piece of paper, not a mark of responsibility. Legal or not, that doesn't make it responsible or right. What I'm trying to say is not so much as the piece of paper as the actual promise of being loyal. And yes, I take the marriage vows very seriously, so, if you don't, you just broke a vow, which isn't a good thing either. I have often wondered - why the devil, if you are faithful and loyal, don't you get married? What is the point? Like you said, just a few hours to get a piece of paper and be legally married if you think you can't afford a wedding. In all honesty, the entire thing makes no sense to me. And I'm against homosexual marriage to begin with, but that's a different debate. You can also be irresponsible enough to not prove yourself worthy and/or loyal. I really, really don't care how strong it is. I really don't. It's an urge, not an end-all. Unless you have something attached to your brain FORCING you to have sex, you do not HAVE to have it. It's a little virtue called self-control. And no, not some-quickie marriage. If they have been together for so short a period that they don't even know where their relationship is headed, don't get married! That's why I said some people - peer pressure and whatnot. And how wouldn't sleeping with your spouse be different? You love this person, you're not just wanting to get hot and heavy with some chick/dude for a night. Whole new story - it's not all about you. I'm against that as well. Draw the line where nature drew it, basically. Not going any further.  Good question. Like I said, it must be considered. And the couples should either a) abstain for a little while or b) use the aforementioned protection. But I don't know exactly what age you need to be to take good care of children; which is a reason I discourage people who are 18 or 19 getting married. Chances are they're probably not ready for that sort of commitment in the first place. But what about those urges you brought up? For the chance to fulfill that many people may through reason out the window. And I say it's important to consider whether you want to marry them or not before you even have sex in the first place. But the chance is still there, and wouldn't it be better to show the responsibility but not chancing it? I thought condoms were closer to 90%, and I haven't a clue about the pill. And, again, chance is there however you cut it. For TL: You are telling me because some fool went and got stoned, responsibility is not needed for marriage - a working marriage, not some jacked-up mockery? In that case, responsibility is needed for absolutely nothing - they can get stoned and carry it out. You won't die, but that doesn't make it good. Chocolate makes you fat, then diabetic, then you die. Sex does none of the three, but does have the whole emotional ride. But just how often are they? If most people did that, there would be less aborion, less premarital sex, and less teenage pregnancies. You pointed out how those few hours or days didn't prove responsibility; I'm saying that time in operation or ordering some condoms is that same. As for your other pieces, it was pretty much what Oily said. |
|
|
|
Post by issue100 on Oct 30, 2004 15:29:13 GMT -5
I will wait until marriage too (most likely), but if somebody wants to have sex before marriage, and if they are responsible enough to use a condom and emotionally stable enough to go through with it, then that's really up to them.
|
|
