Metanet Forums

Is it a bad thing? Is it acceptable? Is it a good thing? Does it depend on the situation? Should it be illegal? Give your opinions and debate.

YUSE A KANDAM

To be honest, it depends on the person and the situation. First off, premarital sex can lead to all the bad things you hear about like STDs and pregnancies and whatnot. If you are careful, it shouldn't be a huge deal, but once again it depends on the person. If you sleep around, you increase your chances of an STD or a baby. Even if you only hold a long term relationship with one person, a baby kind screws your life up if you aren't ready for one. Even if you just try to skip that and get an abortion you have to deal with all kinds of possible stress, such as from your family, friends, and significant others. Not to mention the financial toll of bringing up a baby or getting rid of it.

Essentially, a lot of people do it and end up just fine, but it looks to me that two people in a marriage are more strongly connected than two people who are just dating. So if there happens to be a baby thrown into the situation, a married couple seems like a better foundation to deal with it than a non married couple. Unfortunately, this is a pretty vague rule to live by, judging from divorce rates.

I think the people who hold off on *ahem* relations before marriage are making a colossal mistake.
Repression of natural urges leads to neuroses. You'll be more stressed and frustrated. develop all manner of crazy fun psychoses and neuroticism if you can actually keep it up (ha!). Serial killers and rapists are raised in emotionally and sexually repressive environments.
Biologically, humans are most sexually active in their teens through their 20's, which is usually before marriage age. Abstaining from premarital sex is basically coordinating to screw yourself (ha!) over by doing the most psychological harm to yourself possible regarding your sexuality. People have a habit of choosing their actions poorly when faced with stress revolving around an unknown element. If you homeschool a kid and never let him interact with other children his age, and then put him in a public high school, he'll have a total nervous collapse. He'll rage, he'll start fights, and depending on how well you've repressed his libido, he might even try to rape someone. We throw ourselves into an extreme aggression when faced with circumstances like these, and this is exactly what abstaining from premarital sex does to you. Put simply, avoiding some element of interpersonal interaction does not preserve any sacredness associated with it; what it does instead is eliminate your capacity to understand it, and makes you uncomfortable around it.
If I can divert momentarily to more casual language for the humor of it, you're gonna get boners, bro. Pretending your little soldier isn't standing at attention and begging for the same is not going to make him stop trying. You'll wonder why it keeps happening to you, why it's so hard for you (ha!) to be decent, why your libido has it out for you so much. You'll feel dirty. And that will crush your self-esteem.

What are the reasons for abstaining from premarital sex, anyway?
I can think of two reasons:

• spiritual bullcrap
• decreasing your chances of getting a sexually transmitted disease that your spouse would have to live with

To which I only have to say:

• lol, sucks to be you
• condoms

The argument that it will be so much better if it's saved for a special occasion is complete and utter bull. Not only does sexual gratification simply not work that way in the long term, but the first time is always awkward as shit. You do not want to start a marriage with that.

Having premarital sex, on the other hand, has the distinct advantages of getting you comfortable with sex as well as giving you practice. Walking around without pent-up libido is also a plus, and frequently seeing the opposite sex naked does wonders to put you at ease with them while socializing.

From my perspective, it's a very one-sided issue. The only valid reason I can really see is religious beliefs, but even then I'd ask you to ask your god why he's doing this to you, and you should at the very least masturbate.

capt_weasle wrote:First off, premarital sex can lead to all the bad things you hear about like... pregnancies and whatnot.

Funny how married couples often have to have counseling and carefully-scheduled, repeated efforts to get conceive, but two teenagers can have a baby just by making eye contact from across the room.

Sexuality has quite a bit of weight for me. I would not give serious thought to it for myself, but promiscuous sex does tend to detract from the intimacy associated with the actions. And I would think that it would be better to keep that between two people who are committed. As for the strictly premarital part of it, I don't think premarital sex is wrong or negative. But I think that treating sexuality with a good deal of emotional weight is the best option. Unless one is able to entirely ignore the intimacy usually associated with such actions, and see only physical pleasure in it. I believe that is rare, however. Premarital sex is fine around two people who know what they are doing and know what they want.

Sexual compatibility is more important than getting along.

Tsukatu wrote:Repression of natural urges leads to neuroses.

You can please those natural urges by masturbating. You don't have to have sex.
Edit: Opinions on masturbating? Another controversial subject.

The only reason I haven't yet had sex is that I haven't found a girl who I care about enough to do it with.

The theory that abstinence leads to neurosis is just that, a theory. 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. 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 do keep up with religion.

Mute Monk wrote:The theory that abstinence leads to neurosis is just that, a theory.

*glare*

Promiscuous, frivolous, sexual behaviours aside (and I'm not condemning that, just pushing it away for the time being)....

SlappyMcGee wrote:Sexual compatibility is more important than getting along.

Every single relationship I've had shreds this statement entirely. 3 years, 4 years, 9 months, 3 months, 1 month... every single one of these experiences has shown me that if you don't have a strong sexual compatibility as well as a strong set of shared interests and goals, your relationship is frail.

Not exploring your sexuality with another person before you marry them would be a colossal mistake. The intimacy that sexual contact between two people who deeply care about each other is not something that can be found any other way. It doesn't matter how well you get along, how much interest you share, how closely rooted your ideals and future goals are, if you don't share this kind of intimacy and share it well, your relationship will never grow as deep.

So, a lack of sexual compatibility would be a massive detriment to the growth of a long term relationship. So finding out that your prospective long-term relationship (a relationship that you may one day want to bring new life into) is potentially lacking in a very important foundation is something that's massively important.

It's such a shame that religious doctrine inspires such awful acts, even in this modern age: The condemnation of contraception even in Aids infected countries, the insistence that homosexuality is a sin, the insistence that sex before marriage is anything but an exploration of a couples devotion to each other on a level that isn't explorable in any other way....

Go ahead and tempt the misery of your future family if you want.

Aldaric wrote:Edit: Opinions on masturbating? Another controversial subject.

I think it's okay for two people in a relationship to still masturbate. It really doesn't need to be offensive to the other person, and I imagine it could be a good solution if the desires of one partner don't perfectly line up with the other. And hey, everybody likes some alone time every now and then. Sometimes there's a lot of pressure involved in sex, so masturbating is a way to get pleasure just focused on you, without having to worry about your partner. As long as it doesn't drive the couple apart, there's nothing wrong with it. Also, mutual masturbation can be an interesting thing to explore in your sex life.

brighter wrote:It's such a shame that religious doctrine inspires such awful acts, even in this modern age: The condemnation of contraception even in Aids infected countries, the insistence that homosexuality is a sin, the insistence that sex before marriage is anything but an exploration of a couples devotion to each other on a level that isn't explorable in any other way....

Also 'virginity'. Abusing and devaluing women since forever. :(

brighter wrote:

SlappyMcGee wrote:Sexual compatibility is more important than getting along.

Every single relationship I've had shreds this statement entirely. 3 years, 4 years, 9 months, 3 months, 1 month... every single one of these experiences has shown me that if you don't have a strong sexual compatibility as well as a strong set of shared interests and goals, your relationship is frail.

You mean "backs up what I said entirely", right?

Mute Monk wrote: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.

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!

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 do 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 don't exist.
Obsession with virginity leads to this.
And belief in magical guys in the sky? Yeah, that leads to this.

SlappyMcGee wrote:

brighter wrote:

SlappyMcGee wrote:Sexual compatibility is more important than getting along.

Every single relationship I've had shreds this statement entirely. 3 years, 4 years, 9 months, 3 months, 1 month... every single one of these experiences has shown me that if you don't have a strong sexual compatibility as well as a strong set of shared interests and goals, your relationship is frail.

You mean "backs up what I said entirely", right?

I guess I should have emphasised the part where I wrote:

"if you don't have a strong sexual compatibility as well as a strong set of shared interests and goals, your relationship is frail."

You need both. Just as important as each other.

Relationship without the intimacy sexual contact brings = friendship.
Sex without the togetherness that shared ideals and goals brings = fuck buddy.

brighter wrote:Relationship without the intimacy sexual contact brings = friendship.
Sex without the togetherness that shared ideals and goals brings = fuck buddy.

Man, oh, man, if Obby were here to see this.
We went on and on about where God fit into the Friendship / Lover situation, and I'm happy to see that other people independently come to the same model I've adopted.
Friendship + no Lust = friendship
no Friendship + Lust = fuck buddy
Friendship + Lust = lover
(...and God can take a fucking hike.)

brighter wrote: You need both. Just as important as each other.

Oh, then I agree with you, I was, (once again) being dramatic to prove a point.

No, no, no. Sexuality is one small part of a relationship. It is merely one physical function. Saying that missing the intimacy of sex would damage the relationship is like saying that missing the intimacy of urinating on one another would do the same thing (particularly if you both enjoyed the act). Each relationship has its own goals, and its own ideals that are shared between the two people, both for each other, and for themselves. Sexuality can be an important part of a living, healthy relationship, but it does not need to be. It is merely one physical function amongst others that provide intimacy, and provide pleasure; but intimacy and pleasure can most certainly come primarily not from any physical function at all, but from the minds of the two people and from their interactions. Relationship without the intimacy sexual contact brings can still have high intimacy; trust, reliance, understanding, all in excellently balanced proportions, will bring more health to a relationship than sex will usually bring. In the first place, sex is not really inherently related to a romantic (emotional) relationship. Sure, it is good to explore various activities together, and it will be healthy to explore sex, but sex in itself is not really related with a relationship of this type. And while it may be healthy and good to explore sex, it is not necessarily bound to the idea of such a relationship.

All I'm saying, really, is that sex doesn't have to tag along, because it's not there in the first place, and it is merely a secondary tool used for a primary goal - which is itself mental in origin. That goal might be intimacy, pleasure, exploration, etc., but it is itself the goal, and sex is not necessary to that goal.

Tsukatu wrote:Funny how married couples often have to have counseling and carefully-scheduled, repeated efforts to get conceive, but two teenagers can have a baby just by making eye contact from across the room.

Oh, man, yeah, I've heard the craziest stuff about couples trying to get conceive and failing to obtain any. Apparently conceive is abundant when you're a teenager but the stuff starts running out after your early 20s...

On the topic at hand, I personally don't disapprove of premarital sex (and I was homeschooled for several years and then thrust (ha!) into a public-school environment and I didn't rape anyone!), but depending on exactly what "sex" connotes, there are better things to do (ha!) with your time. Waiting until you're married to check and see if you're sexually compatible? Bad idea. There are ways to have fun--I'm not speaking from experience here--that have a much lower chance of producing babbies. Like whoever said it before (probably Tsukatu) I support condom use, unless of course you're trying to get yourself some conceive, in which case you should be married or the equivalent anyway.

So...er...yeah. Premarital sex is okay. I think.

/me makes a mental note to better organize the stupid paragraphs in Debate

yungerkid wrote:No, no, no. Sexuality is one small part of a relationship. It is merely one physical function. Saying that missing the intimacy of sex would damage the relationship is like saying that missing the intimacy of urinating on one another would do the same thing (particularly if you both enjoyed the act). Each relationship has its own goals, and its own ideals that are shared between the two people, both for each other, and for themselves. Sexuality can be an important part of a living, healthy relationship, but it does not need to be. It is merely one physical function amongst others that provide intimacy, and provide pleasure; but intimacy and pleasure can most certainly come primarily not from any physical function at all, but from the minds of the two people and from their interactions. Relationship without the intimacy sexual contact brings can still have high intimacy; trust, reliance, understanding, all in excellently balanced proportions, will bring more health to a relationship than sex will usually bring. In the first place, sex is not really inherently related to a romantic (emotional) relationship. Sure, it is good to explore various activities together, and it will be healthy to explore sex, but sex in itself is not really related with a relationship of this type. And while it may be healthy and good to explore sex, it is not necessarily bound to the idea of such a relationship.

All I'm saying, really, is that sex doesn't have to tag along, because it's not there in the first place, and it is merely a secondary tool used for a primary goal - which is itself mental in origin. That goal might be intimacy, pleasure, exploration, etc., but it is itself the goal, and sex is not necessary to that goal.

Just curious, how old are you and how many long-term sexually active relationships have you been a part of?

If the answer is too young, or not many, or none, then I'm not sure you're ready to comment. Of course, you can theorise, but unless you've lived through these situations and seen just how a lack of physical intimacy (and yes, I mean sex) can harm even the most caring relationships you really won't be able to understand.

Also to remember, some people have varying biological needs for sex, and if there's an imbalance in a relationship (ie: not enough for one, too much for another) then the relationship will be under very heavy strain.

This is all pretty simple physiology and psychology.

-

EDIT: Profile says you're 16, I'm pretty sure you're blowing steam here.

yungerkid wrote:...sex is not really inherently related to a romantic (emotional) relationship.

I'm sorry, what?

Eh, humans work differently. All I was saying was that sex is not a *necessary* part of a romantic relationship. Now, practical experience is by nature excluded from such a statement, because the statement addresses a logical or psychological necessity. What I was saying was that sex is not a necessity. Practical experience on anyone or even everyone's part cannot prove me wrong, because I was discussing the theory behind it. Sex is merely a physical function. It drives at certain aspects of a relationship that transcend the function. I know that in real life, people tend to place a lot of emphasis on sexual contact as a heavy symbol of such higher qualities, but the fact is that sex is not the same thing as those higher qualities. And as a result of that fact, sex is not necessary. It is necessary, to be sure, if such a high value is placed on sex by one or both partners of a relationship, but a high value does not need to be placed on sex itself. You assume even in your practical demonstrations that a high value is placed either conciously or subconciously on sex. This is not always the case between two people, and it is especially not the case where the values behind sex (intimacy etc.) are expressed in other means (which would be neither unreasonable nor strange). Such a pairing could be called a mere friendship, but what a strange friendship it would be. But the point is that sex does not need to be an underlying value in itself behind a romantic relationship. Experience cannot change that. Not your experience, and not mine. You have assumed that the partners psychologically or physically need or place value on sex; that is not necessarily the case; the most caring relationships can place value on the caring, and not necessarily sex. You skirted the issue.

Oh, and Skyling: you bet. Sex is merely a physical function that happens to be socially associated with romantic relationships, that people find pleasurable, that people place value on, and that is intimate. Its intimacy is derived from a mental intimacy, and in that way it is connected with romantic relationships. But that connection is merely two similar elements that happen to line up. The fact that people place value on it comes from the people; a romantic relationship in itself still does not lead to any expression of sexuality, necessarily. People find sex pleasurable, I'm sure, but when I consider a romantic relationship in its ideal sense, I still see pleasure as coming from one another, and not necessarily the activation of any particular physical functions together - such functions may derive value for the people, but that value still comes from the people and their relationship, not from the function itself, as an inherent cause and effect. Intimacy is really the only way sex is connected to romantic relationships. But a romantic relationship, and an associated desire for intimacy, still does not lead a couple necessarily into sexual activities. They are intimate, but there are so many more intimate and more intimate things out there. There simply isn't a connection.

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."
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.
But if there is some amount of physical intimacy, even if it's not quite to the extent that is sex, then that lust is in the relationship. And as the relationship develops, it could only be exceedingly rare that that lust never ends up as sexual intimacy at some point. Y'know, with the exception of a couple where both parties were sexually abused extensively as children and have nervous breakdowns when they hug too long.


EDIT:
Oh, and on the side-topic of masturbation: Do it. It's good for you.

Being a Christian, I do think that waiting until marriage is the right thing to do. However, it certainly shouldn't be illegal (not everybody is Christian, so why should our beliefs be enforced upon others?). As for the notion that not having sex makes you a serial killer, this is entirely untrue for the vast majority of virgins.

yungerkid wrote:Experience cannot change that. Not your experience, and not mine. You have assumed that the partners psychologically or physically need or place value on sex; that is not necessarily the case; the most caring relationships can place value on the caring, and not necessarily sex.

What I find strange is that 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. I cant' see that being good for much...

Since everyone pretty much agrees. 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?