MadMordigan

dk: You know like putting a quarter in candy machine, as a means to an ends.

You know, like posting on an internet website. As a means to an end.

Ut

This happens a lot with circumcised men who think they need to circumcise their condoms.

If the other party is aware of what's going on and is consenting, sure. Why not?

By the way, if you want to use "objects" for sexual gratification, I'd recommend you dildos.

dk

dk: My questions were meant to elevate the discussion above the non-trivial. Why do you think proponents of premarital sex, as was evident in this thread, trivialize the side affects when they are so fundamentally life altering?

dk: Obviously people use one another all the time, the question was do you think its 'good'.

dk: Are you suggesting a pre-sex contract? The law already enforces child support, the contract being the birth certificate.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

dk: There are around 75 million adults in the US that carry an incurable STD.

dk: First, many people are pressured or pressure others into having premarital sex with lies, drugs, false promises and worse, and nobody consents to an unplanned pregnancy or STD, and you didn’t answer the question. Is it good? Second the topic is premarital sex not masturbation.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

I don't think you were being silly at all, the subject is difficult. Its the nature of love that makes all of us vulnerable or hard hearted. You obvously have a good heart.

jasonpiao

Sorry, I just can't take it anymore:

dk, the word is EFFECTS! Side EFFECTS! You are trying to say people are not thinking about the EFFECTS of the sex they have!

Breathe jasonpiao, breathe.......

Whew, ok, sorry for all that shouting. Continue on with your daily business, nothing to see here.

On a more calm note, you seem to be referring to pre-marital sex and the potential problems. Yet I don't see anything here that marriage will magically stop. How does marriage stop STDs? Unless you are both virgins, someone is at risk of a little surprise after their wedding night. And just cause you are married, doesn't mean every pregnancy is wanted.
Is it bad for wives to use husbands as sexual objects?
Is it bad for husbands to use wives as sexual objects?
So as long as you love each other some of the time, it's ok to just simply lust each other on other occasions?
Is this what you are trying to suggest? I am not accusing, just trying to understand what you are querying.

Glory

dk,



Above the non-trivial? First of all, you joined our discussion and I resent your implication that you can or should "raise" it to any level of your choosing. Take your sanctimnoy elsewhere. Second, what is above the non-trivial? Did you mean above the trivial?

What makes you think anyone is trivialising the impact of sex on our lives? Where has anyone said, "I don't care if I ruin my life with unwanted pregnancies and deadly diseases. I want to get laid!"?

Perhaps it would help if you recognised the difference between casual sex and unsafe and irresponsible sex. Not everyone who has sex outside of marraige experiences these "side effects" and being married does not necessarily insulate one from them. Alot of people manage to get pregnant while they are married.



I clearly answered your question. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I can't know what is good for other people's sex lives. I know what works for me. I think you need to define your terms. What contstitutes "using" someone? For instance, I have been known to want to jump into bed with my husband for a romp without thinking much about what I want from him beyond the physical. It seems to me that I am using him for sex at that point.



You can't get out of parental responsibility by refusing to sign the birth certifcate. I am confident that alot of men have tried that.

I am suggesting that your while a woman cannot suspect that a baby is not hers, she can suspect that the baby's father will not fulfill his financial responsibility. I think it would be pretty shitty for a woman to say "I don't trust you to take care of your child." Almost as shitty as saying, "I don't believe you when you say you have been faithful to me. I think you would pass off someone else's child as mine?"

Look hard enough and you can find ways to be hurtful. Why would you do that?



What is your point?

Glory

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

dk

The subject is premarital sex, and I’m not suggesting anything. As a gold standard the Marital Act eliminates all STDs, and to the degree people deviate from the Gold Standard everyone suffers, women and children more than men. But you stumbled upon the logic all alone.

I’m not sure what percent of pregnancies are unplanned, but the number of abortions pronounces the as number significant. This doesn't speak well for the reliablity of birth control.

Yes, it s wrong for husbands and wives to treat one another as objects, apart from and inclusive of sex. I find the idea of love and using someone as an object inconsistent, even a violence to love. The Marital Act can infuse an entire family with fidelity, intimacy, trust, respect and love; or it can destroy a family. But again, the topic is premarital sex, not marriage and family.

lunachick

Thanks for recognising I have a good heart, but that's kinda beside the point. The thing is I don't find the subject a difficult one. I'm very candid about sex and sexuality, and have no 'hang-ups' that I'm aware of. What I find bizarre is how people can get so uptight about sex. Sure risks are involved; there are risks to getting married, too. The thing is to go in with your eyes open. Good sex education from well before someone even reaches the legal age of consent. Open dialogue between sexual partners, married or not. And none of this "woman who are sexual outside of marriage must be whores" crap". Oh, and if you're wondering about the risks in marriage - how about battered wives, people living with broken hearts at a partners infidelty, a husband or wife that drinks or drugs all the money away, lots of things are risky business, dk. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that not only would partners benefit from having pre-marital sex, but if they are seriously considering marriage they should live together for a couple or years before they make that forever-contract step.
But anyway, IMO it's the taboos and the moral high ground of some controlling people that do more damage than aware and responsible sexual practice - inside and outside of marriage.

dk

dk: I apologize if the virtue of chastity makes you uncomfortable. Such was not my intent. By non-trivial I mean viewing the topic in the fullness of human dignity and life, as opposed to a narrow discussion limited to civil liberties, recreational sports or meat markets.

dk: When the side affects of act abruptly and forever alters the path of a person’s life, and the life of a future family, the full context of the act requires respect. Any other context trivializes the value of human life.

dk: You keep bringing your husband into the conversation, which has nothing to do with pre-marital sex, seriously. You still haven’t answered the question, except to say the Marital Act is good, and sometimes. You yourself admitted the trauma of premarital sex almost left you frigid. Clearly youth in a culture saturated with sexual imagery, like our culture, learn to view one another as objects. Clearly self esteem, body image, emotional health, obesity, cosmetic surgery, eating disorders, run always, drugs, rape, teen pregnancy and a host of other ‘side affects’ indicate a serious problem amongst teens and young adults. I’m a little surprised a person of you obvious intellect and sensitivity has nothing more to say on the subject, than “sometimes”.

dk: I don’t know if you, or anyone in your family have been dragged through family court, but they do garnish wages. But its little comfort to a mother bled dry financially and emotionally by a dead beat dad, or visa versa. While a pregnant women can be assured she is the mother, a man has virtually no assurance except fidelity. Just the possibility of a man (statutory rapist) dropping off a teenager, alone, to face an abortion should be enough to make people’s blood run cold. People do shitty things all the time.

dk: I’m not trying to be hurtful, but the issue requires people to look past their immediate endorphins, and ego.

dk: The point is nobody consents to contract an STD, many have no symptoms and are incurable, and can leave a women with cancer, PID, infertile, or a life threatening ectopic pregnancy. Ignoring the hard facts is hurtful, and I don’t mean to be hurtful.