Premarital Sex

[Minion_of_Pi]

Obsession with virginity leads to this.

tags at the bottom of the page: sex, women, weird

[yungerkid]

A close, even loving relationship with someone that has no component of physical intimacy... isn't that just being close friends? The whole social construct of "going out" is marking someone as engaged in an emotionally and physically intimate relationship; if it's not physically intimate, then that simply might be a "best friend."

"Close friends" as a phrase involves lack of physical intimacy by definition, and "romantic couple" as a phrase involves physical intimacy by definition? Oh, well that settles things. I just thought that romantic couple referred to more complex things besides a checklist of physical behaviors that need to be performed in order for people to fit into the category. If you're going to define the terms that way, then you can define them that way.

I think the case you're describing, in which a couple might consider themselves a romantic couple even though there is no physical intimacy, would be an extreme rarity and probably necessitate sociopathy for at least one of them.

I wasn't describing a case. I was merely saying that sex is not necessary for a romantic relationship. It may be good in most cases; I was simply saying that it is not always necessary. There will probably be a development of lust within a relationship; however, that lust is not by necessity part of a romantic relationship, unless that is how you define the term. But my point was that something darn close to a romantic relationship can occur without sex or lust - that sex is merely a physical function; that it serves as a medium for expression of higher qualities of a relationship; and that as such, a romantic relationship can form without any sex or lust. If you want to define a romantic relationship as being impossible without sex, then that is little more meaningful than as a linguistic device. Don't you see just as much reason to pursue kissing as an *absolutely necessary* part of a romantic relationship? It's intimate, pleasurable, etc., and yet not only does it not inherently follow from the other elements of a romance, the other elements are conceptually self-contained from such an expression, and such an expression would serve only to follow after the rest of what is already there. I don't see a concrete reason why it should not also be in the romance canon.

yungerkid: "Romance does not inherently require sex, because sex is only an expression of the other values of a romantic relationship, and is not itself an absolute component of such a relationship."
Tsukatu: "Romance requires sex because sex is on the romance checklist."
yungerkid: "Doesn't that seem a bit odd?"

You're a 16 year old boy who's speaking in absolutes about adult relationships he knows nothing about. Have your theories, sure, but you're ranting around like you have some defined perspective already.

Eh? I'm reasoning through the situation and thinking hypothetically about why sex would be *necessary* to have a romantic relationship. I simply don't see the connection - and the problem is not that I am not familiar with the other side of it. Adult relationships, child relationships, all right. They're relationships either way; their specific content is what matters; I can see adult relationships just as clearly as I can see child relationships - either around me or in hypothesis - and all that I require to hypothesize is a knowledge of the psychology of the subjects. But not even that is necessary to be able to maintain this position. All I'm saying is that people don't have to meat one another to like each other romantically, ideally, and tenderly. That's not friendship. I can see that clearly, even if such a relationship is "adult" and I am a "child", and apparently adult matters are out of the hands of the reasoning of children (which is apparently different from that of adults). I am speaking in absolutes to address your original statement that without sex, a relationship is frail and weak - that idea is wrong, and what matters is that in my defense I present reasonable argumentation. All of my situated ethos is irrelevant, and it should be obvious how the reasoning applies to the cases considered by the argument.

Sex purely for lust purposes. If you have not intention of becoming married, and are just doing it for the purpose of pleasure. Also, does age take a part in your opinion. If you had a teenager would you allow him/her to have sex?

Why would such a thing be wrong? If the person wants to do it, I'm not going to object. Having said that, age does matter. Teenagers are fine. If they want to damage themselves, let them. Wisdom should be distilled in other areas - such as considering all the weight of one's own values when making decisions (not to enter such a thing frivolously if one places a high weight on it), and considering the long-term implications and effects. In other words, we should discourage them from being stupid, but teenagers having sex just for lust purposes (ha!) is fine so long as they are informed and wise concerning the issue and its ramifications. It is more difficult to instill such values concretely in children, however - I do not believe that this is a very large issue, but children should be prevented from having sex. Anyway, the point is that sex is fine in all situations as long as the two people are informed, and wise regarding themselves and others.

[a happy song]

I simply don't see the connection - and the problem is not that I am not familiar with the other side of it.

Of course it's a problem.

Dude, you're sitting there saying you're an expert on the importance of sex in a relationship, yet you've not had a long term adult relationship, and you've not even had sex (right?). You honestly think this is a balanced view you're holding onto?

You can prance and pontificate all you like, but you're absolutely lacking the insight needed to dicuss this properly. Of course we can have opinions on things we haven't experienced, and we can theorise and make hypothesis, but until we get some first hand insight into something that is inherently so emotional and actually FEEL through it, we're lacking the ability to truly know that what we're saying is true.

I am a "child", and apparently adult matters are out of the hands of the reasoning of children (which is apparently different from that of adults).

Of course they are different. Children, hell, some adults even, haven't had the relevant experience to draw on to make these kind of judgements.

I am speaking in absolutes to address your original statement that without sex, a relationship is frail and weak - that idea is wrong

No, my argument was that without the intimacy that sexual contact brings between two people, a relationship is frail. You see sex as nothing more than a need, a biological rhythm, a lust, but in reality it is something that can be beautifully intimate and relationship affirming.

It's also something that, if not satisfied properly, can ruin care and make relationships seem unwelcome and cold.

Now, of course, there are anomalies, and I'm sure sexless relationships exist and thrive, but, I can guarantee you that those two people have similar sexual needs (ie: low or non) and they exist in tandem because of them.

As the majority of healthy adults are sexually active and aware of their need, sex plays a muxh more important part in relationships than you know.

Yet.

When you experience these things for yourself, you'll see.

and what matters is that in my defense I present reasonable argumentation. All of my situated ethos is irrelevant, and it should be obvious how the reasoning applies to the cases considered by the argument.

See, this is where we differ mostly. Unless I've had relevant experience in a matter, enough to have lived the thing and drawn a conclusion based on the way I felt and dealt with the situations, I would never draw a line like you've done and profess to know more than I do.

You theories are just that, theories, teenage theories no less, and I can assure you that growing up includes putting these theories into practice and realising just how little you really do know about most things.

[Kablizzy]

If you love each other and are both mature enough to know what you're doing, it's fine. 95% of people are not ready when they first decide to have sex.

[SlappyMcGee]

If you love each other and are both mature enough to know what you're doing, it's fine. 95% of people are not ready when they first decide to have sex.

I would argue that statistic, although I realize it's hyperbole. There's no time when you will be ready to have sex, I think, and I think saying that you weren't ready retroactively doesn't mean you weren't ready when you did the deed.

[scythe]

Sex is merely a physical function.

If we assume this, it invalidates every argument that every anti-premarital-sex dude or lady has made or will make in this thread.

You know that, right?

If you had a teenager would you allow him/her to have sex?

That's an excessively generic question. The answer is probably. I'd be inclined to apply the age / 2 + 7 creepiness rule.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

A close, even loving relationship with someone that has no component of physical intimacy... isn't that just being close friends? The whole social construct of "going out" is marking someone as engaged in an emotionally and physically intimate relationship; if it's not physically intimate, then that simply might be a "best friend."

"Close friends" as a phrase involves lack of physical intimacy by definition, and "romantic couple" as a phrase involves physical intimacy by definition? Oh, well that settles things. I just thought that romantic couple referred to more complex things besides a checklist of physical behaviors that need to be performed in order for people to fit into the category. If you're going to define the terms that way, then you can define them that way.

That's not just my way, buddy. The amount of "complex things" and items on that "checklist of physical behaviors" are the multitude of subtle elements of a romantic relationship that lead to physical intimacy. More than anything else, physical intimacy carries with it huge component of trust; it's not at all "just a physical function." The fact that you keep thinking of it that way makes me fully agree with brighter's assessment that you have clearly never been in a such a situation that would qualify you to be making the point you're trying to make. To anyone who has been in a romantic relationship, you are very, very much talking out of your ass. Nothing you say is at all sensible or applicable, and it betrays your lack of understanding of that realm of human experience.

I think the case you're describing, in which a couple might consider themselves a romantic couple even though there is no physical intimacy, would be an extreme rarity and probably necessitate sociopathy for at least one of them.

I wasn't describing a case. I was merely saying that sex is not necessary for a romantic relationship.

Of course you weren't; I was. Physical intimacy in a relationship is heavily laden with emotional components, and so those people who are able to somehow have a romantic relationship without romance, I'm saying, must have some kind of wacky sociopathy.

It may be good in most cases; I was simply saying that it is not always necessary.

The whole idea here is, how the fuck do you know that? Seriously, how are you at all qualified to say this? You've shown that you certainly aren't qualified through experience, and what you've been saying has otherwise made basically everyone else in this thread completely distrust your view of romantic relationships, so what is it you have supporting you here?

But my point was that something darn close to a romantic relationship can occur without sex or lust - that sex is merely a physical function; that it serves as a medium for expression of higher qualities of a relationship; and that as such, a romantic relationship can form without any sex or lust.

Objections over sex being "just a physical function" completely aside, you've still damned yourself with the phrase "something darn close to a romantic relationship." A romantic relationship without the romance is friendship, where the "romance" is the convoluted mixture of trust and love and all that bahooey that naturally leads to physical intimacy. Hell, I've had friendships with girls that were "darned close" to romantic relationships, except that we never did anything physically intimate because there was no element of romance, and so we were just damned good friends (practically siblings, in some cases).

yungerkid: "Romance does not inherently require sex, because sex is only an expression of the other values of a romantic relationship, and is not itself an absolute component of such a relationship."
Tsukatu: "Romance requires sex because sex is on the romance checklist."
yungerkid: "Doesn't that seem a bit odd?"

More like:
yungerkid: "Friendship + no romance = Friendship, and Friendship + romance = romantic relationship, but Friendship + no romance also = Friendship."
Tsukatu: "That last bit can't be true because it's indistinguishable from normal friendship."
yungerkid: "No, because Friendship + no romance also = Friendship."

I'm reasoning through the situation and thinking hypothetically about why sex would be *necessary* to have a romantic relationship.

Well, it's not so much that sex is a requirement as it is that sex is highly indicative of a romantic relationship. That aside, lust (as opposed to the direct result of unrepressed lust that is sex) is definitely a requirement in a romantic relationship. However it extends, be it only through 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th base, it has to be there, otherwise it's not a romantic relationship. It can be a close friendship, but not a romantic relationship.


Look, the idea I really want to stress here is that fine line between very close friend and romantic partner. I've had a few female friends in my time that were very close to me. We could hug, hold each other, whatever, and it wouldn't be because of any physical attraction to each other, and we could talk about extremely personal things, tell each other secrets, etc. They'd tell me that they loved me as a friend, and I'd happily say the same in response. These were people I would, in that point in my life, have risked my life or killed for. What we had was very close, and often quite physical, but no part of it was ever due to physical attraction. It was very clearly a close friendship, and in no way anything romantic, even though we had everything except for physical intimacy.
If at any point physical attraction had entered the equation, if we got drunk and made out at a party or something, then it'd have turned into a romantic relationship. And that's exactly what would have done it: the physical intimacy, or at the very least the desire for it, would have made tthe difference.
I've had enough of both kinds of relationships that I am very familiar with the difference, and with what constitutes close friendship versus a romantic relationship. This is something that I, and anyone else with an experience like mine, knows very well. And this isn't meant to offend you, but it's clear that you are not familiar with this realm of human interaction like some others of us here are, and it's obvious to us that this is why you think about this the way you do. I've always resented older people for telling me this when I was young, but as an older person now, I feel like it's very much the case: you will understand when you get some more experience in these matters.

[Aldaric]

You should probably stop while your behind youngerkid it is impossible to successfully argue against Suki and Brighter. Also, my last post was the last post on the first page, and I am not sure if people have seen it. This is kinda directed at you Suki.

Lets segue into: Sex purely for lust purposes. If you have not intention of becoming married, and are just doing it for the purpose of pleasure. Also, does age take a part in your opinion. If you had a teenager would you allow him/her to have sex?

[Mute Monk]

The theory that abstinence leads to neurosis is just that, a theory.

The theory that vaccines work is a theory, but you don't have smallpox.

Give me 10,000 cases of abstinence leading to neurosis and I will start to believe you. Besides, claiming that you understand how the human brain works is dangerous, and false. I am a virgin. Given 2 hours with a psychologist, I am 100% sure that I would not be classified as neurotic.

Freud was a very smart man, but I'm not about to accept the assertion that he knew everything about sex and it's repercussions on the human psyche.

Please take a psychology class!

Huh? So you're saying he did know everything about sex? Also a dangerous presumption. It's like saying Einstein knew everything about how the universe worked. He developed some interesting theories which have been (so far) proven to be true. But I'm not about to say he knew everything.

I don't think there's anything wrong with holding out, and I respect those that do it for religious reasons even more...it takes alot of willpower and faith to keep up with religion.

It would take me a lot of willpower to always walk up every staircase I came to backwards, but constantly doing that isn't admirable, it's idiotic. I freely look down on people who put restrictions on their life because of things that presumably don't exist.
Obsession with virginity leads to this.
And belief in magical guys in the sky? Yeah, that leads to this.

Firstly, it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, or any other deity. Secondly, you're making a comparison to a situation that's barely related. Walking up the stairs backwards has a good chance of causing you physical and social harm. Abstinence, in my experience, causes neither.

Both the articles are extreme cases that (in my experience...I can't know about the majority of the world population) don't really represent the kind of people you're talking about. For the first article, I didn't even say I was "obsessed with virginity", nor have I implied it. The woman in that article i) didn't listen to sound medical advice, and ii) was simply trying to give her husband the joy of "popping her cherry" (at least, I think that's one of the terms for it) year after year. Not really relevant. For the second article, I know of at least 9 girls (some Christian, some not) personally who are in their late teens and are still virgins...they are all sane and all pretty cool people.

On the other hand, I know of many girls who have been engaged sexually since their early teens who don't believe in God and may very well qualify as being neurotic. So perhaps I should start making generalizations based on them.

[SlappyMcGee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#Cocaine

[scythe]

Please take a psychology class!

Huh? So you're saying he did know everything about sex? Also a dangerous presumption. It's like saying Einstein knew everything about how the universe worked. He developed some interesting theories which have been (so far) proven to be true. But I'm not about to say he knew everything.

Please, take a psychology class! Goddamnit, man. Stop thinking about Freud.

It would take me a lot of willpower to always walk up every staircase I came to backwards, but constantly doing that isn't admirable, it's idiotic. I freely look down on people who put restrictions on their life because of things that don't exist.
Obsession with virginity leads to this.
And belief in magical guys in the sky? Yeah, that leads to this.

Firstly, it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, or any other deity. Secondly, you're making a comparison to a situation that's barely related. Walking up the stairs backwards has a good chance of causing you physical and social harm. Abstinence, in my experience, causes neither.

Walking up the stairs backwards doesn't cause any physical harm unless you're slightly less coordinated than the Three Stooges. Abstinence, similarly, leads to nothing of value whatsoever. Doing something unpleasant for no reason at all is dumb. Ergo, religious abstinence is dumb.

As for the "God" argument, all I have to say is Karl Popper.

For the second article, I know of at least 9 girls (some Christian, some not) personally who are in their late teens and are still virgins...they are all sane and all pretty cool people.

Yeah, I believe your anecdote over a large body of evidence. No, wait, I don't. Maybe you should read the article again. Hint: it's about pregnancy.

On the other hand, I know of many girls who have been engaged sexually since their early teens who don't believe in God and may very well qualify as being neurotic. So perhaps I should start making generalizations based on them.

Not believing in God is a sign of sanity. Also, are you sure all of them don't believe in the magical guy in the sky, or are you assuming that? I'm willing to bet you'll find that the Christians in the group are significantly less likely to know what they're doing and significantly less likely to use contraception.

I'd also like to point out that the last two paragraphs of your post were incredibly sexist, and urge you to find out why for yourself.

[otters~1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#Cocaine

He prescribed [cocaine] to his friend Ernst von Fleischl-Marxow to help him overcome a morphine addiction...

Lololol. No one takes Freud seriously any more, right?

Riiiiight?


EDIT: That creepy Russian thing had some amusing Chernobyl-related effects links on the same page.

[Aldaric]

Abstinence, similarly, leads to nothing of value whatsoever. Doing something unpleasant for no reason at all is dumb. Ergo, religious abstinence is dumb.

Religion would be the reason, and following a religion can bring people happiness. You could say, "I don't believe in God, so I am not going to let it prevent me from shagging," but you can't say that religion isn't a reason just because you don't think it is.

On a completely different point

I know of at least 9 girls (some Christian, some not) personally who are in their late teens and are still virgins...they are all sane and all pretty cool people.

Nice.

[Tanner]

There's no time when you will be ready to have sex, I think, and I think saying that you weren't ready retroactively doesn't mean you weren't ready when you did the deed.

QFE.

[Mute Monk]

Please, take a psychology class! Goddamnit, man. Stop thinking about Freud.

Then please explain the support for the assertion that abstinence directly causes neurosis.

Walking up the stairs backwards doesn't cause any physical harm unless you're slightly less coordinated than the Three Stooges. Abstinence, similarly, leads to nothing of value whatsoever. Doing something unpleasant for no reason at all is dumb. Ergo, religious abstinence is dumb.

Your assuming that those who practice abstinence find it unpleasant. I highly doubt it.

As for the "God" argument, all I have to say is Karl Popper.

I don't follow your point...but then I don't know much about him. Either way, this isn't a religious debate so lets agree to disagree.

Yeah, I believe your anecdote over a large body of evidence. No, wait, I don't. Maybe you should read the article again. Hint: it's about pregnancy.

And I was simply saying that all of the young Christian women I know are not pregnant. You're drawing absolutes from the article, I'm simply saying that there are exceptions.

Not believing in God is a sign of sanity. Also, are you sure all of them don't believe in the magical guy in the sky, or are you assuming that? I'm willing to bet you'll find that the Christians in the group are significantly less likely to know what they're doing and significantly less likely to use contraception.

I'm sure that most of them do not believe in God. Also, all of my Christian friends (both male and female) are well educated about conception and sex. And, how is not believing in God a sign of sanity? Do you have scientific support for this statement?

I'd also like to point out that the last two paragraphs of your post were incredibly sexist, and urge you to find out why for yourself.

I apologize to anyone I offended. My points in those paragraphs apply to the males I know as well...I guess I had just read the two articles so my mind was more focused on the female side of the issue.

As a side note, apparently practicing abstinence is a sign of intelligence. Or perhaps it's just that intelligent people tend to practice abstinence.

[scythe]

Then please explain the support for the assertion that abstinence directly causes neurosis.

I wanted you to take a psychology class because you kept referring to Freud, not because not having sex makes you schizophrenic. Although, sex is good for you.

Your assuming that those who practice abstinence find it unpleasant. I highly doubt it.

I suppose it's more of a "not doing something pleasant" rather than an "actively doing something unpleasant". As an analogy, consider an African child who's never been well-fed. Or a Jew who's never had bacon.

I don't follow your point...but then I don't know much about him. Either way, this isn't a religious debate so lets agree to disagree.

You'd do good to learn! Karl Popper is the father of the modern scientific notion of falsifiability.

there are exceptions.

So? There are people who take heroin and don't get addicted. Statistically speaking though, heroin is bad news bears.

I'm sure that most of them do not believe in God.

You'd be surprised.

And, how is not believing in God a sign of sanity? Do you have scientific support for this statement?

Yeah, there's no reason to believe God exists. Not believing in something that is unfalsifiable is a sign of sanity. I don't see how that's hard to understand.

As a side note, apparently practicing abstinence is a sign of intelligence. Or perhaps it's just that intelligent people tend to practice abstinence.

I'd like to draw your attention to the first line of that article:

There is strong and widespread support of teaching sexual abstinence to American teens.

Makes me want to discount the whole damn article right out the gate.
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/03/1 ... act-check/
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/article/623495
http://www.statesman.com/services/conte ... =ynews_rss
http://www.boston.com/news/health/artic ... _education
http://www.newsweek.com/id/220063?from=rss
http://www.openeducation.net/2009/01/05 ... he-coffin/
http://www.avert.org/abstinence.htm
http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x512370667 ... al-failure

Also, academic achievement != intelligence, correlation != causation, etc, without even having to refute the likely incorrect statistics in the article.

@Aldaric:

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion.

~Robert M. Pirsig

[otters~1]

Anyone see that highly relevant movie, Miss March?

It was really bad.

[Aldaric]

@Aldaric:

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion.

~Robert M. Pirsig

Written by a person who doesn´t beilieve in religion. Religion can bring people happiness. Saying that it doesn´t is just stupid. If religion makes you happy, then do it. If following your religion makes you happier than sex can, well that is your choice. The bacon thing is ridiculous though. Stupid Jews. (I am Jewish. I can say things like that.)

[SlappyMcGee]

The bacon thing is ridiculous though. Stupid Jews. (I am Jewish. I can say things like that.)

Hahahahaha! Calling an aspect of your faith ridiculous is like getting into a plane that is on fire and has no wings.

[otters]

The bacon thing is ridiculous though. Stupid Jews. (I am Jewish. I can say things like that.)

Hahahahaha! Calling an aspect of your faith ridiculous is like getting into a plane that is on fire and has no wings.

Well, depending on what aspect it is, it's kind of more like removing one of your blindfolds and throwing it into a grease fire.

[SlappyMcGee]

The bacon thing is ridiculous though. Stupid Jews. (I am Jewish. I can say things like that.)

Hahahahaha! Calling an aspect of your faith ridiculous is like getting into a plane that is on fire and has no wings.

Well, depending on what aspect it is, it's kind of more like removing one of your blindfolds and throwing it into a grease fire.

Yeah, that's more accurate than mine, but it's also staunchly atheist, which is what I was trying to avoid.

[Aldaric]

The bacon thing is ridiculous though. Stupid Jews. (I am Jewish. I can say things like that.)

Hahahahaha! Calling an aspect of your faith ridiculous is like getting into a plane that is on fire and has no wings.

Well, depending on what aspect it is, it's kind of more like removing one of your blindfolds and throwing it into a grease fire.

What type of grease fire? If it is pig grease I won't do it. I will eat bacon, but burning things in pig grease that is too far.

Edit: Oh wait. I'm helping this to get off topic. Sorry. I think that if you are religious you sholdn't be forced to have sex. Yeah if they don't do what with them then we should do it that we shouldn't make it do them.

[Tanner]

Sorry. I think that if you are religious you sholdn't be forced to have sex.

I agree with this but also think that people who are not religious shouldn't be forced to have sex. I am generally against rape, as a rule.

[Geti]

Oh damnit tsuki i had a good rebuke for yungerkid's initial argument and realised i'd missed a page :C
oh well.

I'm all for it, for the reasons everyone advocating it in this thread have put forward and meant. Especially every one one of Tsuki's points. All of them. In fact, go read them again, and pretend i was saying them to you. Especially his first post.

Its midnight, im going to sleep. I have an exam tomorrow <_<

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I have just a handful of things to say at this point...

Abstinence, in my experience, causes [no significant amount of harm].

To start off, I think a good deal of the disagreement here is coming from a deviation in the topic. The question was about holding off on premarital sex entirely versus feeling free to have premarital sex as an option. You're talking about abstinence versus lasciviousness. So where I'm concerned about what would cause someone to be opposed to premarital sex on principle, and saying that it shouldn't be a restriction, it seems to me that you're addressing an actual active encouragement to be lecherous and saying that it's okay to simply end up being a virgin. So my statements were tailored toward those who had some major overarching factor in their lives that would give them some serious trauma if they were to give in to their natural urges. I otherwise agree with you that there's nothing psychologically damaging about simply being a virgin. I was one all throughout high school, after all, and I don't consider myself particularly neurotic about sex.

Give me 10,000 cases of abstinence leading to neurosis and I will start to believe you. Besides, claiming that you understand how the human brain works is dangerous, and false. I am a virgin. Given 2 hours with a psychologist, I am 100% sure that I would not be classified as neurotic.

Because you probably interact with other people your age regularly and, y'know, help yourself out. But I actually find it surprising that someone wouldn't believe that total repression (as the point was being made about total repression) wouldn't lead to neuroses. Aside from being, like, the first and best accomplishment of the formal study of psychology, I thought it was quite intuitive.
From my perspective, if you're giving yourself release in the form of midnight drum solos, you're not "repressing your natural urges" and therefore not being "abstinent" as it's relevant in this thread. But maybe I misunderstood the thread topic.

Your assuming that those who practice abstinence find it unpleasant. I highly doubt it.

Since you brought up your experience, I have some of my own.
I attended religious private schools since middle school (which is right about the time puberty starts hitting you), and my middle school in particular was very heavily focused on the religiosity. It was the standard fare of super-conservative, authoritarian, guilt-obsessed Catholocism. We had masses once a month, other assorted religious events were highly ceremonial, and every year had mandatory brainwashing courses. For sex ed, we were taught that contraception is murder, that STD's are punishment for premarital sex, that abstinence was righteous, blah blah, but also that masturbation is a sin. Bible verses about spilled seed were mentioned, as were issues of resisting temptation and all that. They may as well have gone the hairy palms and blindness route.
And many of my classmates bought into it. Through years of knowing them, I've known that they do not, in fact, maintain proper rifle maintenance. They've always been extremely awkward around the subject of sex, and the look of guilt on their faces is just depressing as all hell when the subject is brought up. I can't imagine how much their misguided consciences torment them about why they have the urges they do, and why no amount of effort will keep those demons at bay. It's fuckin' awful, and I'm almost inclined to say that it should be a crime to indoctrinate children and give them that amount of self-loathing.
And all the kids who shrugged off the conditioning and attended regular mano-a-mano morale improvement seminars were just fine.

As a side note, apparently practicing abstinence is a sign of intelligence. Or perhaps it's just that intelligent people tend to practice abstinence.

It's important to draw a distinction between "abstinent" and "virgin." Some people are intentionally abstinent, while for others it's much less intentional.
I just spent a bit of time googling around for statistics related to abstinence, and while I did see a sizable number of correlations drawn between sexual activity in high school and involvement in all manner of terrible things as well as a higher drop-out rate, I didn't see how that could possibly be an honest portrayal of advantages of abstinence. For one thing, there's no causation; all that can be said is that people who do illegal things in high school and drop out also have a tendency to sleep around. That doesn't surprise me in the least. But I don't see any reason to think that abstinence is particularly indicative of intelligence. In fact, isn't there a stereotype around clever sons of bitches who are well-practiced at talking women into the sack? And Einstein was a total pimp, if I remember correctly.
I think it's important to compare these statistics with other telling statistical data, such as the much greater likelihood for a student of abstinence-only sex education of getting knocked up and misusing contraceptives, and the significantly higher rate at which less educated and less intelligent folk have children. So the statistics collected that favor virginal high schoolers (not abstinent high schoolers) is still quite consistent with the perspective I have of the matter.
As an aside, I've always seen the stereotypical no-sex-before-marriage girl to be the one who gives it up to her boyfriend after senior prom, pushes them into a doomed marriage, and ends up a single mother at 20 years old who can't afford an education.

And, how is not believing in God a sign of sanity? Do you have scientific support for this statement?

Yes.