FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-17-2003, 02:21 PM   #141
Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 24,524
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by JamesKrieger
Actually, a better way to look at is is this. What if there was no such thing as sexual intercourse at all? Would heterosexual and homosexual couples exist? Probably not, or there would be very few. Sexual attraction thus plays a HUGE role in relationships, and thus is very important, despite the fact that the time spent in intercourse is not a large percentage of time spent together. Also, hormones released during intercourse can affect feelings of closeness to one's partner.
Hmm. Mostly agreed, but there are couples out there who are happy, but don't have sex. I think there would be some couples in the absence of sex, but that depends on some very fuzzy theoretical questions about the nature of romance and love.
seebs is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 02:21 PM   #142
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,118
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by seebs
I don't think the piece of paper is what does it. Now, different people may get different results from the commitment... One thing that is often cited as possibly-true, but which I believe to be totally impossible to measure or verify, is that people who waited experience sex as more "special".
Yes, but I feel that waiting until you feel confident you are prepared or till you feel the relationship is worthy of it is different than waiting for an arbitrary time like the day you get a marriage certificate. You are talking about "waiting" in general, but in practice, aren't you actually speaking about waiting till marriage?
cheetah is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 02:28 PM   #143
Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 24,524
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by cheetah
Yes, but I feel that waiting until you feel confident you are prepared or till you feel the relationship is worthy of it is different than waiting for an arbitrary time like the day you get a marriage certificate. You are talking about "waiting" in general, but in practice, aren't you actually speaking about waiting till marriage?
Yes, no, and maybe. I think that marriage is the commitment, not the ceremony.

The point here is that treating a public ceremony as a clear, bright, line, distinguishing between two cases, ends up missing the point in any sense but the legal one.

However, waiting until you're sure that you're willing to commit to your partner for life, come what may, before having sex is not nearly as silly; it is a way of more closely associating sex specifically with pair-bonding.

The important part here is that every time you change from "commitment" to "piece of paper", you misstate my position substantially, and do so using very biased terms. "Piece of paper" is a term specifically chosen to reflect the *gap* between commmitment (which I was talking about) and civil marriage (which I wasn't).
seebs is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 02:39 PM   #144
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by fatherphil
sci girl, seebs pretty much explained what i meant.
In which post? Seebs posted a lot of things!

Quote:
my experience is that once the sex starts we begin overlooking issues in the other person that become huge in the long run after the "thrill" is gone.
Maybe some couples do that. Certainly not all. Isn't this true of a marriage as well? Sex can lose its meaning after a while - and the importance sex in a relationship changes over time. So what? That's life. What does this have to do with whether premarital sex is immoral, whereas marital sex is not?

Quote:
think of it this way. you are with your mate 10,080 minutes in a week.
Well when I had one, no I was not.

Quote:
how many of those minutes do you suppose will be spent having sex?
Sorry you don't get that information!

Anyway, again, what does this have to do with whether premarital sex is immoral, whereas marital sex is not?

Quote:
place the level of importance of sex within the context of the time you'll actually have to spend with this person.
Ok so a couple who chooses to engage in sex has to deal with how much sex they should have. This is true for any relationship. You still did not at all address my question as to what is special about marriage, and why it should be required in order to have sex.

Furthermore, if you decide to have casusal one-time sex with someone, NONE of your concerns listed above are relevant.

scigirl
scigirl is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 02:51 PM   #145
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,118
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by seebs
Yes, no, and maybe. I think that marriage is the commitment, not the ceremony.

The point here is that treating a public ceremony as a clear, bright, line, distinguishing between two cases, ends up missing the point in any sense but the legal one.

However, waiting until you're sure that you're willing to commit to your partner for life, come what may, before having sex is not nearly as silly; it is a way of more closely associating sex specifically with pair-bonding.

The important part here is that every time you change from "commitment" to "piece of paper", you misstate my position substantially, and do so using very biased terms. "Piece of paper" is a term specifically chosen to reflect the *gap* between commmitment (which I was talking about) and civil marriage (which I wasn't).
OK, but we still have a quibble over waiting till "pair bonding." I don't want to argue with people that do, but I don't see that as necessary either.I don't see why sex should be associated with pair-bonding unless you want to do that for yourself. But, as a general rule, I see no reason for it and certainly, human/hominid/hominoid history does not show this to be a natural phenomena
cheetah is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 03:04 PM   #146
Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 24,524
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by cheetah
OK, but we still have a quibble over waiting till "pair bonding." I don't want to argue with people that do, but I don't see that as necessary either.I don't see why sex should be associated with pair-bonding unless you want to do that for yourself. But, as a general rule, I see no reason for it and certainly, human/hominid/hominoid history does not show this to be a natural phenomena
Well, it seems to have been independantly invented a number of times in humans.

You are, of course, right that it is not obviously necessary, and different rules may be used in differnt cultures.

However, for people who do, for whatever reason, like the idea of monogamous pair-bonding, the rule that sex occurs only within pair-bonds may be a helpful one.
seebs is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 03:49 PM   #147
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,118
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by seebs

However, for people who do, for whatever reason, like the idea of monogamous pair-bonding, the rule that sex occurs only within pair-bonds may be a helpful one.
Agreed! Basically, people should examine their own feelings about what they expect from sex and from their partner and see if they are consistent prior to sex.
cheetah is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 04:27 PM   #148
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: burbank
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by seebs
I suspect he's arguing, rather, that having sex can cloud judgement.
this one sci girl.

and i know better than to argue morality on a forum where there is really no moral foundation. i would only argue the practicality of an issue like this.
fatherphil is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 06:29 PM   #149
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 1,671
Default

Uh oh Fatherphil just threw a bomb!

He thinks there is no "moral foundation" on a board full of atheists! He's askin for it.

[[[operanut steps aside to get out of flak range]]]]

=========
Speaking of the effect on kids, my daughter said she was glad she was only 3 when we separated, because she was too young to blame herself for the divorce, as kids often do. She grew up in two households and she is a happy, independent girl of 17 now.

==========
In my case it was literally either divorce or die. When I filed for divorce I had been working for two weeks with bronchitis and felt like hell. Then that holiday weekend I went to see my parents and my mom put a thermometer on me and the OUTSIDE of my cheek registered 102 degrees.

They put me in the hospital with pneumonia up there. They gave me antibiotic IVs for 5 days and let me out, I was still sick. I was gravely ill for FIVE YEARS from this SOB nagging me.
I was in and out of the ER and the hospital constantly with sinus infections, bronchitis, and bacterial pneumonia, because he had nagged me so much that my immune system had broken down.

The only reason I lived was that four times in that five years, my doctor rinsed my lungs out. I was drowning in my own pus-filled lungs and my mucosa was bright red. Sorry to be so graphic, but that's how sick I was. I would have died had he not been able to wash my lungs out. My parents and I were not sure I was going to live, several times, and once my mom took me to the ER because I was vomiting violently from a sinus infection, and she said I turned purple. I was 33 years old when all this started.

My parents took me to the ER many times to because I was vomiting violently from a sinus infection drainage.

My parents lived with me for two years taking care of me and taking care of my sister, who was sick at the same time with a fatal brain cancer.

For two years my parents and I coughed at night, because we all were sick, they got the bugs from me. Mom said "We sounded like a goddam TB ward". One of us would wake up and cough, the other one would wake up and cough later in the night, and we could hear each other in different parts of the house.

I have never smoked and I do not drink alcohol. My parents did not smoke or drink either. The respiratory therapists could not believe that I did not smoke, because i was sick. I told them "No, I'm not stupid enough to smoke."
I even lost my formerly-healthy sex drive for several years! Which was fine in my condition.

And thru all this, my ex thought I made up the pneumonia just to go to the hospital and get attention, and he also thought that I bribed the doctor to put me in the hospital because he was a quack that would do that. My ex thought that I faked it all just to run up his insurance bills.

My doctor is board certified in Internal Medicine and Pulmonary Disease.

Now I don't think anybody with any sense can deal with a man who makes up his own bullshit, and believed it all!!
Opera Nut is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 08:53 PM   #150
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by fatherphil
and i know better than to argue morality on a forum where there is really no moral foundation. i would only argue the practicality of an issue like this.
You know what I think? I think you realize that your religious beliefs, such as the one about premarital sex, have no basis in reality. So that's your cop-out answer.

Tell me something, fatherphil. If morality dictated from God through the Bible really is the best way to live, shouldn't it be obvious, defendable, and applicable to everyday life? If not, than what good is it? If the only reason to do something is "because the bible says so," than it can't really be that good of a reason.

scigirl
scigirl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:44 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.