PRE-MARITAL SEX? AGREE TO IT?

[Jenna TaIia]

Kyra Valdire

=_= That text is almost as bad as straight-out caps.
Anyway, I don't understand you're first sentence. It takes people to have pre-marital sex, whether they're teenagers or not.
And they're starting sex-ed in most middle schools now, so I have no idea what you're talking about for the rest of that post either. When were you a teenager? 30 years ago? Everyone in high school's already had sex ed.

Well then why bother asking a rhetorical question about how many teenagers have sex responsibly in the first place? I was simply stating that it's fine for responsible teenagers to engage in pre-marital sex, and because I'm not feeling like as much of b***h today, I'll make the rest of my post easier for you to understand :

-Teenagers aren't having adequate information on the topic of sex.
-Some parents discourage their children to engage in sexual interaction prior to marriage.
-Said parents generally also disagree with the schools teaching sex education due to conflicting religious/personal values; also, they can pull their children out of school if they don't want them to learn about sex, which negates the fact that the children who need it the most won't get it.

[Blood Valkyrie]

Sex without marriage?
Why the f**k not?

[Intoxicated Platypus]

I don't even understand why there should be an argument against pre-marital sex, unless it is a personal illogical reason. Sex, like many other things, should be enjoyed and trying to make it something special or saving yourself for it is a bit of a silly notion. It may improve the experience once, but overall it would cause you a lot more strife than the opposite.

[The Spellslinger]

Jenna TaIia

Kyra Valdire

=_= That text is almost as bad as straight-out caps.
Anyway, I don't understand you're first sentence. It takes people to have pre-marital sex, whether they're teenagers or not.
And they're starting sex-ed in most middle schools now, so I have no idea what you're talking about for the rest of that post either. When were you a teenager? 30 years ago? Everyone in high school's already had sex ed.

Well then why bother asking a rhetorical question about how many teenagers have sex responsibly in the first place? I was simply stating that it's fine for responsible teenagers to engage in pre-marital sex, and because I'm not feeling like as much of b***h today, I'll make the rest of my post easier for you to understand :

-Teenagers aren't having adequate information on the topic of sex.
-Some parents discourage their children to engage in sexual interaction prior to marriage.
-Said parents generally also disagree with the schools teaching sex education due to conflicting religious/personal values; also, they can pull their children out of school if they don't want them to learn about sex, which negates the fact that the children who need it the most won't get it.

I wasn't asking a rhetorical question, my point was that there's lots of teens having irresponsible sex. There were pregnant girls at my high school, and sex-ed is mandatory there.

[Jenna TaIia]

Kyra Valdire

I wasn't asking a rhetorical question, my point was that there's lots of teens having irresponsible sex. There were pregnant girls at my high school, and sex-ed is mandatory there.

Okay, well my point was that pre-marital sex is fine if done RESPONSIBLY.

[Spooky Electric]

Is that an offer?

[The Spellslinger]

Jenna TaIia

Kyra Valdire

I wasn't asking a rhetorical question, my point was that there's lots of teens having irresponsible sex. There were pregnant girls at my high school, and sex-ed is mandatory there.

Okay, well my point was that pre-marital sex is fine if done RESPONSIBLY.

._. We're back to where we started now. I'll just drop it.

[Maskani]

Sex-after-marriage supporter, here. I wouldn't push or expect this behaviour on others, but I'm going to state why I support it for my own life.

First of all, let's push the religious reasons aside, as what really made me decide to follow it was that I thought it was sensible for me to do. It was AFTER that when I agreed to it for faith sake. Starting with the feminist arguments, I disagree with any idea that staying a virgin until marriage, for just one man, makes me secretly 'oppressed' or 'objectified' or doesn't let the value of my female sexuality shine. On the contrary, I think that what I've got to give is important enough to me that I want to share it with one special guy. Like one might share a deep secret with one close friend I choose to share my sexuality with the man I'm close enough to spend the rest of my life with. A woman's sexuality is a precious gem, like the feminists say. My way of treating it like one is being selective about who gets to share it. If I'm being 'frigid', in whose eyes am I being so? It's mine to control and true liberation is being able to choose abstinence or promiscuity on whatever scale.

Secondly, I've learnt from my friends. The number of them I've heard say, after the breakup with a boyfriend, "I wish he wasn't my first." Sex for women is more than just physical, it's emotional too. That's how we work. I don't want the regret of losing my virginity with a man who I might later dislike or distrust or perhaps be heartbroken by. Marriage, to me, and when done carefully, provides a security boundary. When going through a hard patch we're statistically more likely to get through it remaining as a couple. I'm less likely to have that regret and instead keep the special guy I selected for my bed. On that note, I think that marriage also provides a good boundary in case of unlikely but unfortunate events, e.g. if I accidentally fell pregnant and he ran off for not wanting to be a father. Or ran off for any reason. It's harder to split from a wife than a girlfriend, as you are legally bound together and divorce is rarely a pleasant process.

[SelenePhoenix]

XxAlodia GosiengfiaoxX

ANYONE? I WANT TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS..

Well, It differs really. I mean for some societies it's perfectly fine, while for the more religious ones it's a mortal sin. Personally I won't engage in premarital sex because of the whole "special one" speech. You know, first time, special someone, only them. It works for me. But I won't look down on someone who doesn't mind it or doesn't believe in marriage. It's a big deal to me, It's not to others. *shrug*

[SelenePhoenix]

Maskani

Sex-after-marriage supporter, here. I wouldn't push or expect this behaviour on others, but I'm going to state why I support it for my own life.

First of all, let's push the religious reasons aside, as what really made me decide to follow it was that I thought it was sensible for me to do. It was AFTER that when I agreed to it for faith sake. Starting with the feminist arguments, I disagree with any idea that staying a virgin until marriage, for just one man, makes me secretly 'oppressed' or 'objectified' or doesn't let the value of my female sexuality shine. On the contrary, I think that what I've got to give is important enough to me that I want to share it with one special guy. Like one might share a deep secret with one close friend I choose to share my sexuality with the man I'm close enough to spend the rest of my life with. A woman's sexuality is a precious gem, like the feminists say. My way of treating it like one is being selective about who gets to share it. If I'm being 'frigid', in whose eyes am I being so? It's mine to control and true liberation is being able to choose abstinence or promiscuity on whatever scale.

Secondly, I've learnt from my friends. The number of them I've heard say, after the breakup with a boyfriend, "I wish he wasn't my first." Sex for women is more than just physical, it's emotional too. That's how we work. I don't want the regret of losing my virginity with a man who I might later dislike or distrust or perhaps be heartbroken by. Marriage, to me, and when done carefully, provides a security boundary. When going through a hard patch we're statistically more likely to get through it remaining as a couple. I'm less likely to have that regret and instead keep the special guy I selected for my bed. On that note, I think that marriage also provides a good boundary in case of unlikely but unfortunate events, e.g. if I accidentally fell pregnant and he ran off for not wanting to be a father. Or ran off for any reason. It's harder to split from a wife than a girlfriend, as you are legally bound together and divorce is rarely a pleasant process.

I completely agree with every word you said. Just because premarital sex is allowed and extremely popular, doesn't mean a virgin is automatically medieval or undesirable. I'm honestly confused as to why people keep looking shocked and flabbergasted whenever they hear that someone is a virgin in her twenties. If she wants to save herself for this one perfect guy then it's fine, no questions asked.

[Maskani]

SelenePhoenix

Maskani

Sex-after-marriage supporter, here. I wouldn't push or expect this behaviour on others, but I'm going to state why I support it for my own life.

First of all, let's push the religious reasons aside, as what really made me decide to follow it was that I thought it was sensible for me to do. It was AFTER that when I agreed to it for faith sake. Starting with the feminist arguments, I disagree with any idea that staying a virgin until marriage, for just one man, makes me secretly 'oppressed' or 'objectified' or doesn't let the value of my female sexuality shine. On the contrary, I think that what I've got to give is important enough to me that I want to share it with one special guy. Like one might share a deep secret with one close friend I choose to share my sexuality with the man I'm close enough to spend the rest of my life with. A woman's sexuality is a precious gem, like the feminists say. My way of treating it like one is being selective about who gets to share it. If I'm being 'frigid', in whose eyes am I being so? It's mine to control and true liberation is being able to choose abstinence or promiscuity on whatever scale.

Secondly, I've learnt from my friends. The number of them I've heard say, after the breakup with a boyfriend, "I wish he wasn't my first." Sex for women is more than just physical, it's emotional too. That's how we work. I don't want the regret of losing my virginity with a man who I might later dislike or distrust or perhaps be heartbroken by. Marriage, to me, and when done carefully, provides a security boundary. When going through a hard patch we're statistically more likely to get through it remaining as a couple. I'm less likely to have that regret and instead keep the special guy I selected for my bed. On that note, I think that marriage also provides a good boundary in case of unlikely but unfortunate events, e.g. if I accidentally fell pregnant and he ran off for not wanting to be a father. Or ran off for any reason. It's harder to split from a wife than a girlfriend, as you are legally bound together and divorce is rarely a pleasant process.

I completely agree with every word you said. Just because premarital sex is allowed and extremely popular, doesn't mean a virgin is automatically medieval or undesirable. I'm honestly confused as to why people keep looking shocked and flabbergasted whenever they hear that someone is a virgin in her twenties. If she wants to save herself for this one perfect guy then it's fine, no questions asked.

Although pre-marital sex does not equal promiscuity, look what I found in a men's magazine (not the T and A type, mind). Even the (male) author is saying that on the part of women, they should hold back their sexuality because of its value.

Quote:

An object that has value is worshipped, respected, cherished, and shared with very few deserving people. As soon as you start sharing that object with anyone and without care, the object starts to lose value. The more people use the object, the more it depreciates and the less bargaining power it has: this is a plain psychological fact of life.

The point is, men do respect a woman who doesn't share easily. Waiting until marriage, or at least waiting a long time, has meaning for both me and him: I'll know he's serious about me as a person because he's been willing to wait for me and chase me even without sex. If he only wanted that, he'd have left for someone 'easier'. I love loyalty, it's high up in my books. As for him, the fact that I have denied other men my sexuality and allowed only him to access something so precious, well, I reckon that would make him feel pretty special!

[SelenePhoenix]

Maskani

Although pre-marital sex does not equal promiscuity, look what I found in a men's magazine (not the T and A type, mind). Even the (male) author is saying that on the part of women, they should hold back their sexuality because of its value.

Quote:

An object that has value is worshipped, respected, cherished, and shared with very few deserving people. As soon as you start sharing that object with anyone and without care, the object starts to lose value. The more people use the object, the more it depreciates and the less bargaining power it has: this is a plain psychological fact of life.

The point is, men do respect a woman who doesn't share easily. Waiting until marriage, or at least waiting a long time, has meaning for both me and him: I'll know he's serious about me as a person because he's been willing to wait for me and chase me even without sex. If he only wanted that, he'd have left for someone 'easier'. I love loyalty, it's high up in my books. As for him, the fact that I have denied other men my sexuality and allowed only him to access something so precious, well, I reckon that would make him feel pretty special!

You know, I didn't want to say this because I really never discussed this with a lot of people and everyone has their own opinion on the matter and I don't like talking on anyone's behalf especially after I read the not-so-supporting male comments in this forum; but I would think that the husband/wife would appreciate it more if their partner was their first.
Knowing that they kept themselves intact and saved their virginity for their sake is really something. I once touched upon the issue with a cousin, and he said that he would always prefer a woman who had enough control to have her first time with him as her husband. That he knew a lot of boys his age that just did it for fun and then they really lose some of that respect for the girl they're with. not always, mind. But like you said, it's harder to dump a wife than a girlfriend.

It's not like it's the easiest thing to do either. I mean with the entire world hooked up on sex and all the films/music/media obsession with sex and sexuality it's admirable that girls resist that temptation and insist on having that special night with one person once and for all. It means so much more if it's with a sensible, respectable adult who is sure enough of his feelings for this woman that he decided to marry her for the rest of his life. You know by now it's not for the looks or whatever shallow reason people have casual sex, it's this emotional link and mutual commitment that really makes all the difference.

The link you posted backs this up. If a woman is having sex with everyone and anyone, you would automatically lose respect for her and same goes to men. If he tells me he slept with too many women I wouldn't be sure if I'm just another conquest or something real. I wouldn't know if he'd cheat on me or be true. Honesty appreciated, but it's a feeling that you can't shake. And sex should be a really bigger deal than just a stress reliever...

[MasterZodiac89]

I don't think its a good idea but...what can you do?

[Maskani]

SelenePhoenix

Maskani

Although pre-marital sex does not equal promiscuity, look what I found in a men's magazine (not the T and A type, mind). Even the (male) author is saying that on the part of women, they should hold back their sexuality because of its value.

Quote:

An object that has value is worshipped, respected, cherished, and shared with very few deserving people. As soon as you start sharing that object with anyone and without care, the object starts to lose value. The more people use the object, the more it depreciates and the less bargaining power it has: this is a plain psychological fact of life.

The point is, men do respect a woman who doesn't share easily. Waiting until marriage, or at least waiting a long time, has meaning for both me and him: I'll know he's serious about me as a person because he's been willing to wait for me and chase me even without sex. If he only wanted that, he'd have left for someone 'easier'. I love loyalty, it's high up in my books. As for him, the fact that I have denied other men my sexuality and allowed only him to access something so precious, well, I reckon that would make him feel pretty special!

You know, I didn't want to say this because I really never discussed this with a lot of people and everyone has their own opinion on the matter and I don't like talking on anyone's behalf especially after I read the not-so-supporting male comments in this forum; but I would think that the husband/wife would appreciate it more if their partner was their first.
Knowing that they kept themselves intact and saved their virginity for their sake is really something. I once touched upon the issue with a cousin, and he said that he would always prefer a woman who had enough control to have her first time with him as her husband. That he knew a lot of boys his age that just did it for fun and then they really lose some of that respect for the girl they're with. not always, mind. But like you said, it's harder to dump a wife than a girlfriend.

It's not like it's the easiest thing to do either. I mean with the entire world hooked up on sex and all the films/music/media obsession with sex and sexuality it's admirable that girls resist that temptation and insist on having that special night with one person once and for all. It means so much more if it's with a sensible, respectable adult who is sure enough of his feelings for this woman that he decided to marry her for the rest of his life. You know by now it's not for the looks or whatever shallow reason people have casual sex, it's this emotional link and mutual commitment that really makes all the difference.

The link you posted backs this up. If a woman is having sex with everyone and anyone, you would automatically lose respect for her and same goes to men. If he tells me he slept with too many women I wouldn't be sure if I'm just another conquest or something real. I wouldn't know if he'd cheat on me or be true. Honesty appreciated, but it's a feeling that you can't shake. And sex should be a really bigger deal than just a stress reliever...

3nodding I think the complaint that promiscuous men get called studs while women are called sluts kindof ignores the fact that this view exists within either the media or male social groups. If I were to meet a man whom I knew had slept with lots of women, I wouldn't see him as a prize stallion but as a user. Like I said, loyalty is high in my books, and like you said, how can I trust such a man to be faithful? No woman wants to be just a sex toy for the man, and even those who have sex for fun aim to do it through their initiative, not just his. Because women bond more easily to the person they're sleeping with, promiscuity is more likely to leave us hurt or unsatisfied in the long run.

Not to say that men don't bond either. The 'bonding' hormone oxytocin is released equally in both genders during sex, but as women are generally more emotionally sensitive, I think we have that extra acting against us. Still, the fact that people are not mere animals (though even some animals mate for life), and are social and emotional creatures as well as sexual, shows that yes, sex is a bigger deal than just a stress reliever or quick chemical pleasure fix.

[Maskani]

susie rapture

no
not just because its outdated, but because it takes women back to the dark ages.

this is an idea from before a time when we had effective means of controlling reproduction, and is based on the idea that an invisible man in the sky says that sex is bad.

If sex is so bad then why does the church love it so much?

and before someone says that's an unsubstantiated claim don't, because its happened before and you cant deny it.

It's happened before, but you're taking a select number of cases and using that brushstroke to cover not just the whole of the Catholic church, but the whole of the Christian church. THAT is an unsubstantiated claim.