Loren Pechtel

And virgins don't have breakups?

What I see is no premarital sex also means unhappy marriages not breaking up. I see it amongst my wife's relatives. No divorces but there's only one couple that's still happily together.

seebs

Yes, I think we should. A lot of people think that you necessarily have to marry, that this is just sort of an inevitable thing.

I don't buy this argument. Since not every person can find a consensual partner, isn't discouraging them from having sex bigotry?

Obviously not; there can exist reasons to say "this is a bad way to obtain sex".

I am fine with "advise of potential dangers", and I don't consider it "discouraging".

I would guess that we'd be better off encouraging people not to marry for bad reasons. Since "to have sex" is a bad reason, this could argue either for premarital sex, or for not believing that sex is a basic human entitlement.

This gets to the core of the issue; our entire concept of what marriage is or isn't, and what parenting should or shouldn't be, seems to be screwed up. America has a problem; we have multiple cultures with mutually exclusive sets of standards clashing. In many cases, any one of several options would work, but mixing and matching doesn't work so well.

Think of it as a vast experiment in producing hybrid vigor, with the attendant spurt of hopeless failures.

I didn't see that dichotomy. I merely observed that, *if* such a dichotomy existed, I'd prefer non-sex happiness. I have both at the moment, and I am quite the happy little camper. Now, if only I could have oodles-of-money happiness!

seebs

I'm not sure whether this ends up being a good thing or a bad thing.

The thing is, there's lots of options. There's trying to fix the marriage, there's divorce, there's Just Putting Up... all of these have different implications.

I tend to see divorce as marginally better than Just Putting Up with a poor marriage (but quite a bit better than Just Putting Up with a genuinely *bad* marriage), but working on a marriage as almost always a good bet, assuming both partners can be persuaded to try. Sometimes they can't.

JamesKrieger

Ummm, it's easy. You date him, you live with him, and you marry him. What is so hard to understand about that?

JamesKrieger

What are those predictable pathologies? What is the mechanism behind how they occur? Where is the evidence for this mechanism?

A no brainer? Again, what are those predictable pathologies? What is the mechanism behind how they occur? Where is the evidence for this mechanism? How does a sex life within the boundary of marriage prevent pathologies in society?

And you provided no evidence of a cause/effect relationship. Actually, you haven't even given any statistics for pre-sexual revolution and post-sexual revolution to support your case.

But social stability comes from having everyone's happiness maximized, so far to the point that it doesn't infringe on the happiness of others. So, in this case, isn't a "live and let live" philosophy the best? Thus, it is best to let individuals decide what is best for their sex lives.

JamesKrieger

Well, then, that would indicate that it's NOT multiple premarital sex partners in and of itself that leads to divorce. It's the personality traits of individuals who seek out multiple sex partners that would be the causative factor. These individuals have multiple partners because they have personality qualities that lead them to fail in relationships, which means if they fail in non-married relationships, they will fail in married ones as well. The premarital sex, then, isn't the cause here.

Rational BAC

Rational BAC

James--

You read more into my post than I intended. Of course I believe that sex will get better with time. ------Practice makes perfect in this case. (almost everyone has their best sex in their 30's) And of course I realize that with today's very late marriages, it is no longer feasible for most people to be virgins on their wedding night.

I was just responding to so many different posts making fun of virginal weddings. I know that that time is long past--as far as (2) very horny 18-20 year olds being virgins on their wedding night.-----------and just having a great and unforgetteable honeymoon---the memories of which can last a lifetime.

Just wanted to point out that there was a very good side and very unique side to that. Which our culture has now lost and which will probably never be recovered.

The one thing that saddens me somewhat is that the younger generation today will never have those same very unique and wonderful experiences so common to married couples of 40 plus years ago.

Weddings today can cost $20,000. Honeymoons are usually lavish. Everything is there today for honeymooners except for the great first time great experimentation and sex and wonderful first week of sex--of so many years ago---when 2 young people at one time would almost never leave their bedroom for a week.

I think it is a great loss------which cannot really be helped.


PS---My ex wife and I in that long ago time of 1962 eloped for a $3 justice of the peace fee (plus a 50 cent blood test) at the age of 18, stayed for our honeymoon in a $5 a night, very modest hotel---although in St Augustine Florida--actually a great honeymoon location. We lived on crackers and sardines and Tang for a week since we had spent almost all our money on bus fare to St Augustine----

----(-had to return many years later to actually visit St. Augustine since we almost never left the hotel room on our honeymoon. )--

And anytime I eat sardines, even today, over 40 years later, I still get awfully horny and have this very strange craving for Tang.


PSPS---

I probably shouldn't continue with this personal stuff---But hell, this is the internet and we are all anonymous.

The funny thing about that hotel. (which is actually now quite famous--on the historic preservation list)--------was at that time it was a rest home for old pharts. We did not know that at the time, since we just looked it up in the yellow pages and the rate sounded right.

We walk in the hotel to register walking right past all these OLD people in wheelchairs etc. and wondered what the hell are we going to do with this?. But what helped us from cancelling the reservation and finding other digs (besides the fact that we were pretty much broke.) was all the smiles on all the old pharts as we 18 year olds walked past them.

And the old beds were about as squeaky as can be imagined. We didn't care after we got "interested" in each other. We kept telling each other that the walls in old hotels are VERY thick------but we both found out that the walls were not really that thick.

And the few times we did leave the hotel (to buy more sardines and tang and crackers and also to get a vaque idea of what St Augustine was so if anyone asked later --we could say something about the town.)

Those old pharts we had to walk past were always just FULL OF SMILES looking at us walk by them going out of the hotel.

And those old pharts were always full of smiles, when we would come running back to the hotel overflowing with horniness in the middle of the day and had to walk past them again.

scigirl

Hey seebs,

But who is actually doing this? The only population I can think of that does this, is those that don't believe in pre-marital sex.

Think of it this way. Since I don't believe that premarital sex is wrong, then if all I want is sex, I can have it without being married and screwing up society with a messy divorce. However, if it did think it was wrong (say I was a mormon or cathlic like most of my hometown!) than perhaps I might get married for the wrong reasons.

If there are certain kinds of people who are only interested in sex, then I doubt "warning them about the dangers of premarital sex" is going to help. Seems for these people, discouraging marriage would be way better than discouraging non-marital sex.

I think what's getting in the way, seebs, is the title of the thread. Many of us believe that having sex before you marry someone is a good idea. I think you are interpreting this as "we think sex is more important and are marrying because of great sex." However, I see sex as a great indicator of how our "soul" feels, if you will. You know how you can list all the qualities of your mate and say, "See this is why I love him (or her)." But that's not it. Love is this mysterios thing that is very hard to get at - and any form of intimacy will bring out those feelings.

Like I mentioned earlier, oftentimes when a man is impotent, it's due to emotional barriers. It's an indicator that something's wrong. Same with females and the ability to have orgasms. When a couple partakes of those types of activities, everything is there - their financial problems, their fears in the back of their minds, their trust issues - get played out eventuallly during sex. It's unavoidable. So if a couple doesn't have great sex - there needs to be a discussion, possibly counseling - to figure out why. And if the sex is really bad, or traumatic (perhaps the woman was raped once and hasn't told her boyfriend), these issues DEFINITELY need to be worked out. What if there's just some conflicts that can't be resolved, even with the best attempts at counseling or effort? Wouldn't it be better to know these things before you get married? Maybe this is why atheists have the lower divorce rate than theists - the relationships that were doomed for failure were indicated earlier, because they were living and sleeping together - so when the atheists finally did get married, they were bound to succeed more often.

Yes, yes it is. And I wonder what role religion has played in that framework. I don't mean you personally seebs, or your church personally. I mean the whole history of the church which frowned on any type of sex that wasn't supposed to produce offspring, and frowned on birth control as well.
Sorry if my post wasn't clear. That comment was directed at luvluv's post.

scigirl

P.S. And yes I think that having sexual pleasure is a basic human 'right,' as long as no one else is hurt in the process. Why? Because I think that having romantic relationships is a very basic human desire, and sex is a part of that for most romatic relationships. Remember, I'm not the one who keeps separating sex out. It's intertwined with all the other components of the relationship. I think there's danger in making it a bigger deal than it is - which is exactly what this whole "premarital sex is bad" mentality does. It separates it out and says it's bad. The media on the other hand separates it out and glorifies it. The truth about sex, however, is probably found in neither philosophy.

scigirl

Yes - something the "no premarital sex" crowd seems to ignore.

I don't think it's gone - it's just replaced. Nowadays, people who have sex for the first time still grin - they just can't be as obvious about it. I think that's a good thing, personally!

Nostalgia - well 40 years ago I wouldn't have got into medical school because I don't have a Y chromosome. And what about people who have more melanin? :EEK:
Societies change - and you just can't get nostalgic about one part, and ignore all the bad stuff, because these things all change together.

Which is just fucking ridiculous if you ask me.


Do you have proof, other than your own opinions, that this is no longer occuring? So couples now have sex, and a cultural experience - which they can do because they already knew how to please each other before they got married. What is the big deal? How is that ruining society?

Well you are entitled to your opinion, but I just don't see that it is a loss. You can't prove that people don't have as much fun on their honeymoon as they used to. For all those starry eyed stories you are thinking about, how do you know there weren't just as many horror stories? From my christian friends who did wait until marriage, I have heard both good and bad experiences from honeymoons. From my atheist friends - it's all good. Who's missing out now?

scigirl

PS--your wedding and honeymoon sounds cool.