MadMordigan

We used to kiss alot but gave it up a couple months before the wedding in order to make the abstinence part not as hard.



Thats has to be the funniest story i've heard this week.

Glory

Please provide examples of said ad hominems. Ooohhhs & ahhhhs I will own 'cause your arguments are so full of your assumptions and straw men that there can be no relevant responses outside of . I did not feign trauma, you ascribed it to me incorrectly. Melodrama is in the eye of the beholder so I'll let that go.

Now how does this relate to your insulting us with your first post?



The vast majority of women who require abortions did not use birth control. Most of the rest of the recipients of abortions did not use birth control correctly. Birth control has one of the highest success rates of all prescribed substances. I'm afraid it is you who is delusional regarding this.



(Tsk, tsk, even the moderators can spot an ad hom if you do them the favor of labeling it as such - deleted by The Other Michael)

( Now that's an ad hominem attack and it felt good.)



I explained that it could go either way depending on the situation. I then went on to provide you with an example, my "using" my husband for sex on occasion, which illustrated a situation in which it can be good. I am perfectly aware that you can come up with lots of situations in which it is bad so I fail to see why I should waste time filling in that blank. For some reason you are dissatisfied with my answer and insist on asking again and again in one guise or another. I explained that you would need to define your term if you wanted more specific information from me as I could not elaborate any further because your question was vague. Face it. You didn't like my answer and I am not going to change it. Move on.



Yes you did. You did not say what constituted treating someone like sex object. Is it not saying thankyou? Is it not calling again? Is it not staying over night to cuddle? Is it leaving a bad tip? Is it refusing to meet your friends? Is it forgetting your birthday? You see, some people feel used in certain situations in which other people would not. Intentionally treating someone badly is wrong. That's a no brainer. Determining accurately that it has happened is a lot more complex than you seem to think.



Some people have such a simplistic and polarized view of the world that any understanding of the complexities of human relations is beyond them.



I compared one aspect of losing my virginity to that.



I said I would have decided that if I hadn't had some knowledge of what was normal.



Black or white, good or bad, saint or sinner, madonna or whore? You are either being incredibly simplistic or deliberately obtuse because to do so suits your argument. You can disbelieve the truth if it helps you but it stands as the truth. The first time is, for a woman, painful no matter how careful and gentle the man may be.



I can advise you to talk some people as well but I have more manners than to do that. When a couple gets married, they make promises to each other. You sound as though you are talking about sexual rights which no one has to anyone. One may be granted favours, nothing more. Granted, it is ridiculous and cruel to get married with no intention of granting those favours but never the less, there are no rights to anything outside of financial matters. As to obligation, that's a bleak view of marraige.



Oh. So everyone who is chaste stays drug free? Everyone who is on drugs is a slut? Oh wait, I get it. Everyone who has self discipline acts like you. Arrogant much?



You know alot about what interested women in centuries past. Standards of beauty change. Men's desire for beautiful women remains constant as does women's desire to be beautiful. I'll wager a good number of those farm women would have been interested in fashion had it been available to them. Regardless, a corsette is an example. I challenge you to show me an example of a time when women did not desire beauty and men did not desire the most beautiful women.

I am confused about something, btw. The vast majority of American's are obsessed with sex. The majority of Americans are religious with a majority of those being christian. Logic dictates that there is a great deal of over lap between these groups. So, alot of christians are obsessed with sex. So much so that they make sure it is everywhere you look. Who's got the problem here?



That's not a shotgun wedding. A shotgun wedding is a couple being forced to marry by one or more their parents who are afraid that they will fornicate or already have. I am talking about couples who marry because they are horny and don't want to fornicate. They get married too soon because they can't wait when if they had simply slept together they would not have that particular urgency pushing them towards the alter.

My sister did that. She was going to wait until she had finished college but finally decided to get married so that she could have sex without fear of going to hell. Her husband was immature, unreasonable, slightly unbalanced and, ultimately, an asshole with whome she was miserable for some time. During this time she had three kids that she couldn't really afford to house. Birth control would have been silly and immoral, right? But she didn't fornicate! She really dodged a bullet there.



And getting rid of birth control is really helpful there. Women suffer when men seek to control them. Poverty is one of the forms the violence takes.

And then you saw a white rabbit who was late for an important date...

You've been watching way to many very special episodes of Seventh Heaven. That little scenario you have woven is called a strawman. It's big and ugly and easy to knock down but has no resemblance to reality whatsoever. It's scary though. I'm sure all us fornicators will be thinking about it when we are out there getting aids.



Yeah right. And saying that almost all unwed pregnant women would lie about the identity of their baby's father is not insulting to women everywhere. Just the ones who commit the sin of being human.

For the sake of all women I hope you never get laid.

Glory

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]</p>

dangin

DK is using me. I'm giving all these arguments and salacious details, and he only pays attention to Glory. Not that she is not doing exceptionally well. I really like her ad hominems, especially when she points them out as educational instruction for the master of repression we are debating.

DK, not only are you going to live a long life, but it is going to seem even longer due to the incredibly high magnitude of boringness that exists like an aura around you. And when it is all said and done. What will you have done? Loved the lord? What a crock, even god will tell you that you wasted what he gave you.

Harumi

What a crowd!

At the religious messageboards I see hostility toward those who partake in premarital sex (because to them, sex shouldn't be the only factor) and here I get the exact opposite...or at least that's the impression I'm getting after seeing all the heat being directed at ManM and everyone else.

I'm nonreligious, and before when I was a theist I had never been indoctrinated with the negatives of sex(As a Buddhist I never got around to talking about this anyways), so I'm not living in denial, or repressing my sexual drive in any way, although one could argue that I could be culturally inhibited due to my family background.

If someone engages in premarital sex, I have no issues about it. Indeed, ever since my change from theist to atheist, I've become far more accepting of it. I don't care if somebody has sex as much as they want. It's not my business. I've actually defended people like that to my friends.

The point is that I'm a virgin, female, and intending to remain a virgin until I'm married, to a (hopefully, but if not that's okay) virgin man. The painful fumblings beforehand isn't what I'm interested in. The physical contact isn't what I'm interested in either. And I'm getting the idea that this is somehow wrong. That I'm somehow horrible, not what nature desires (being of lower stock no doubt) and destined for marriage failures because of this.

The current boyfriend I have doesn't have that much of a sex drive either. When I asked him if he ever wanted sex, he told me quite firmly that he'd prefer it after marriage. Now whether this was to please me or not I don't know. All I know is that he loves me, complements me in so many ways that I can't even begin to describe the level of communication in which we engage in. My relationship is a long distance, and we manage to stay together despite weeks of no contact.

Sex is the foundation for marriage some of you say. Do any of you imply that sex is also a foundation for lovers too?

I'm merely curious to know, so that I can be cleared of any mistakened assumptions. This thread has disturbed me in the level of hostility directed at those who don't have sex drives, and I want to know if my impression is unfounded, incorrect, or wrong in any way.

Call me an idealist if you will, but I firmly believe that sex is not a must in marriage. If you had to choose between a marriage of love, but no sex, and a marriage of sex, but no love, which would you choose?

I hope I haven't offended anyone. I absolutely wilt at hostility, so it would be nice if you could bring your loathing and disgust of me at a gentler and slower pace.

brighid

Harumi,

I don’t find anything wrong with the decision to remain a virgin until your wedding day. I don’t believe anyone has contended that this is so terribly wrong, but what has been contended is that a sexless marriage, two partners with diametrically opposite sex drives won’t experience problems because sex isn’t ever important, and that sex plays NO important role in a marriage are simply wrong and naïve. People were asked if they regretted their pre-marital sex choices and most respondents came out with a resounding no and were thankful for having had the opportunity to explore themselves before committing to a life-long relationship.

Each relationship is unique and some people have no problem when their drives are relatively equal, but no argument from the pro-abstinence crowd has been made that this isn’t factually a problem in many relationships AND that it won’t be a divisive factor, but only that it isn’t in some relationships.

Sex is not, nor does it have to be the lynch-pin of a marriage but to devalue it’s importance in the exclusively intimate relationship marriage is (as well as relationship to the cyclical nature of that drive), is more then a bit naïve in my opinion. Do satisfying sexual relationships between two virgins work? Absolutely. Do dissatisfying sexual relationships between two virgins occur? Absolutely. The converse is also true. The answer to this debate is somewhere in between and dependent on the unique dynamics of any given relationship. The majority of human males and females have a natural, biological need for sexual interaction. Our minds and bodies are surging with hormones that induce our bodies to want to copulate. So in a majority of relationships (but not all) sex plays and important role in the satisfaction and intimate bond of a relationship! Sexual intimacy is not exclusive to actual penetration and a strong, vibrant sexually intimate relationship is so much more then that. It encompasses a great degree of human emotion that often times culminates in sexual intercourse, but isn’t dependent upon it.

I personally feel the most totally satisfying (including the emotional and physical pleasures of sex) happen between two people who love each other. This isn’t to say that purely sexual relationships aren’t satisfying, but there is a level of emotional and physical intimacy that just cannot be achieved without a great deal of trust … IMHO … or at least that is what I personally prefer.

Marriage is difficult, even between two compatible, like-minded, faithful people. Marriage requires enormous amounts of communication, negotiation and sometimes personal sacrifice on the part of both partners. Love is not enough to hold a marriage together and sex is not enough either. There must be love, trust, communication, emotional and physical intimacy, self and mutual respect and a whole slew of other important ingredients. The emotional and physical intimacy you share with your husband is built on many things. It is fragile and must be honored and guarded.

I personally feel men and women should explores themselves (and other partners) sexually before ever making a life time, serious commitment. I also think it is okay to be uncomfortable with that and choose a different path, but I think those who don’t understand the rather unexplainable dynamics of a sexual relationship shouldn’t say yay or nay.

As to your question – what would I choose … I would chose neither. There are many people I love, male and female but there is a difference between loving a family member or friend and loving ones partner. I do not want to be married to someone I love, but feel no desire to be more then just good friends. I would personally rather be alone.

Brighid

tronvillain

Harumi:
I do not see hostility towards those who do not partake in premarital sex, but I do see hostility towards those who assert that premarital sex is wrong or inherently bad. We could care less whether ManM, dk, or anyone has sex before marriage - it's when they start telling us we're wrong to not condemn premarital sex that we get annoyed.

Harumi

Thanks for the clarification, that was all I needed to know. I'm glad that's what you really meant, although some of the "Yeah, go sex!" stuff was disturbing to 'mine poor innocent virgin ears'. I've never been really exposed to it, although I can write very very good Lemons (if you don't know what a lemon is, go to an anime site and find the definition).

So, if both the girl and the guy don't have much of a sex drive, would it hurt the relationship very much? Would that be morally okay then?

What do you feel about getting a guy/girl just for sex? I'm thinking of a person being used situation.

That's all.

Glory

Harumi,

I think people should do what they think is right for them.

I really can't add anything to what Tronvillain and Brighid have already said except to add my personal feelings. I have no hostility toward those who would make different choices than mine. I have tremendous hostility toward those who seek to condemn the choices of others and insult me and countless others in the process.

I tend to get pretty heated on birthcontrol and family planning as well. I consider these issues too important to let go.

Glory

brighid

If both partners have low sex drives I don’t see anything wrong with that, especially not morally. Is a low sex drive immoral? NO! It just IS. I have no problem with two consenting adults “using” each other for nothing more then sexual gratification IF there is no deception involved. I had a great sexual relationship with a guy with that intention only. He was fine with it and I was fine with it. I was very physically attracted to him (and vice versa) and had been for many years. We were both single at the same time so badda bing, badda boom. No STD’s, no pregnancy (as we used multiple forms of birth control. Pill for me and condom for him.) It was GREAT fun and I will always have very fond memories of that time. We both knew we weren’t emotionally ready for a relationship (he just divorced) and I knew from the get go that he wasn’t the “one.” He’s a great guy, just not compatible as a life long partner. I don’t regret it for a second, just the opposite … I am very glad I did. Plus, I seduced him … and that is so much fun

Brighid

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

Glory

I can't see how it would. Sexual compatibility is what I think is key. It is not as though there are minnimun weekly requirements for sexual encounters in a marraige or realtionship. The only things I see as morally wrong is doing something you don't want to do, pushing or forcing someone else to do same or being dishonest about what you want or intend to do.



If one is honest about their intent, I see nothing wrong with getting together just for sex. However, misleading someone for the purpose of getting into their pants is definately wrong, in my book.

Glory

That's all.[/QB][/QUOTE]