dk

dk: You asked what I meant by non-trivial. I answered the question forthright. Why do you feel resentment when I answer a question you asked of me? How can you complain about people “not wanting to talk about sex”, on a thread where premarital sex is being discussed. You seem to be more at odds with yourself, than with me.

dk: Sexual intercourse being an act of human procreation quintessentially comments on the dignity of human life. Premarital sex assumes the couple plans to marry, but not one another. We could talk about breakup sex, adulterous sex, divorce sex or post-menopausal sex, but of course that would be another thread.

dk: Can I surmise you don’t know the difference?

dk: I’ll say this, you have a flair for the melodramatic, but what you’ve described sounds more like a sexual dysfunction called Vaginismus, often associated with previous unwanted sexual experience like rape.

dk: The context of premarital sex differs from the Marital Act. A wife and husband have obligations and rights a single person doesn’t, both morally and legally.

dk:: Advertisers merchandise by associating objects (cars, booze, drugs) with sex, teenagers being the target and teenage girls the substance of the projected images. Girls grow up with an image unsuited to their body, so suffer their actual bodies in pursuit of an idealized image. Boys grow up to value girls as idealized objects absent substance. The tragedy plays out in premarital sex as kids try to rationalize the mix of unsuitable worldly expectations and raging hormones with sexual exploits. Its a prescription for disaster.

dk: Believe it or not, I’m not looking for a window into your psyche. I’m trying to focus attention upon serious issues that pertain to premarital sex. Teenage pregnancy, promiscuous sex, statutory rape, and dead beat dads are all serious issues and tragedies. You agree people need to be responsible but teenagers haven’t matured so tend to be irresponsible, and don’t have a clue what raising a kid entails. The ‘put a condom on it’ doesn’t address the issues except as a pretext.

dk: You’re the one that has dragged your personal life out on a discussion board like a badge. I’m sensitive to your personal experiences but your personal life isn’t at issue, unless you make it the issue.

dk: Yes, ok sex is like chastity, except a chaste person is abstinent. .

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

MadMordigan

You know, its no wonder some guys don't get laid.

Glory

Pay attention to what you read and write. I asked about your use of the term non-trivial because you used it in a grammatically incorrect way. You said that you wanted to raise the discussion "above the non-trivial. This indicates that our conversation was nontrivial and you wanted to go from there to something else. We got your meaning regardless and the not subtle insult dropped in along with us that our discussion of sex was "trivial". I find that rude and arrogant and that was what I was talking about. Sex is most definately the topic here and I have no problem with the topic. I have a problem iwth you coming here and insulting all of us with one fell swoop.



Sexual intercourse can be an act of procreation or, if one uses birth control or is already pregnant or is infertile it can be act of pleasure and tension release. It isn't always about having babies. I, for instance, have had sex many times but have only one child and have never had an abortion or a miscarraige.

Premarrital sex referrs to sex before marraige. My husband and I had alot of sex with each other before we got married. What do you think was if not premarrital You make some pretty wild assumptions.



The difference between what and what? I don't understand this. I am begging you. Give me an example that reveals what you think constitutes using someone for sex. If you are unwilling to do that, then get off the question because your vagueries are not answerable without my making some assumptions which I don't like to do.



Why are there so many men who seek to tell women what the sexual act should feel like? What I described is normal for virgin females. Every female I have discussed this with has described the same thing and I have talked to alot of women about it. We spend alot of time on this, actually. I hate to break it to you but virgin women experience pain from the sexual act, even the married ones.



What do you mean by rights? How does being married act to change the possible consequences of sex that you have referenced? The context of every sexual encounter is different. Marraige is one of a thousand variables. Why do you focus on that one?



You didn't answer my question. How does chastity help someone with a drug problem?

You refer to this "tragedy" as though it is inevitable and will happen to every single youth in the country. It doesn't. Also, life has never been easy for adolescents. Their behaviour has not changed substantially in thousand of years. They pursue the physical ideal, they make mistakes, they experience painful emotional growth and change.

Women have been idealised for a very long time. Where do you think the corsette came from? This isn't new and its not going away any time soon. The biological imperative causes youths to seek out the most desirable(fertile) mates. It's hard wired and was not a situation created by advertisers.

This prescription for disaster you describe is also played out in the marrital beds of people who married too young and foolishly because it was that or "fornication". Nothing like threatening someone with hell fire to get them to make well thought out and considered decisions.



You made no mention of teenagers in your original question. You made no mention of deadbeat dads or rape of any kind. You asked only how I feel if the father of my child asked for a DNA test. What has that got to do with any of these things? Stop dodging my questons. It would upset me very much. What do you get out of my answer?



I referenced my personal life. You made insulting assumptions about it and me. The sad thing is you don't seem to even realise that your assumptions are just that. You recite your personal beliefs as facts and condemn other's behaviour without any knowledge of them or their situations. This is supremely arrogant as well as counterproductive behaviour. You may want to rethink your attitudes before engaging in discussion with people who don't parrot your views.

Glory

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

jasonpiao

Wow, this thread has degraded into a soap box for the self righteous sex haters. No thanks.

I haven't read so much uninformed reactionary tripe since video games were blamed for the actions of 'magically' heavily armed kids using guns for something other than peacekeeping.

Premarital sex causes disease, rape, pregancy, and dear lord, promiscuity. And they are all smoking 'wacky tobaccy' and listening to that rock and roll music.
Somehow there was no sex before Jesus came along and brought holy matrimony and saved us from the dirty acts we were designed to commit for survival. And of course dead beat dads only refers to unmarried people, not the husbands who refuse to pay. They are called...? And the holy sanctity of marriage erases all sins, like spousal abuse, sexual abuse, rape. It seems to me that the most heinous acts committed to people I care about happened within the confines of marriage, where they were exactly that: confined.
Your words do not fall on deaf ears. People just don't need the blind to describe the world to them.

dk

The numbers published by the CDC make the reality hard to ignore.

Background
Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs),including HIV, are common, important, and preventable causes of morbidity, mortality, disability, lost-productivity, and health care costs. In the United States, more than 65 million individuals are living with an STD, the majority of which are incurable viral infections. Approximately 15 million new sexually transmitted infections occur annually in the U.S.In the United States, approximately 493, 000 individuals have died from AIDS, and 800, 000-900, 000 people are living with HIV disease. Many sexually transmitted infections can cause adverse pregnancy outcomes including miscarriages, stillbirths, intrauterine growth restriction and perinatal (mother-to-infant)infections.Some STDs can cause infertility or lead to ectopic pregnancy among women and one, the human papillomavirus, can cause cervical and anogenital cancer.Furthermore, other STDs facilitate HIV transmission.

Glory

AND YOUR POINT IS?

What is this inescapable reality?

Stop dancing around and admit what you are implying.

You think premarrital sex is bad and those that engage in it are bad. Good for you.

Glory

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

dk

Hey, no kidding, I think a person has to be a nut cake to promote premarital sex. Of the 65,000,000 Americans with an STDs, most incurable, nary a one consented.

Stephen Maturin

No.

I can't imagine how.

Not just no, but hell no. Better to get all that first-time awkwardness out of the way before even considering marriage.

Not at all. The men who honked me off were the ones she boinked after we got married.

dangin

Not always those who were gymnasts, or competitive horse back riders as young girls. But I'm just being silly, I agree with you fully.

dangin

I'm a nutcake, I'm a nutcake, I'm currently painting murals on myself with my own feces, while furiously masturbating with a cheese grater, and I think premarital sex is great.

OK, it's not great, it just IS. Sometimes it's great. Just ask the last 15 women who had premarital/extramarital sex with me. (I can't vouch for the first 5, I didn't know what I doing so well then)

OK, but seriously, who is the "nutcase" here?

Could it be those of us who are simply pointing out that there are natural reasons for sex among consenting humans of a sexually mature age, and that repressing said natural, dare I say urges, is possibly more harmful than the dangers of sex.

Or is the nutcase the one who, because of an unprovable invisible alleged force, who provided scriptures, written by failable men, organized by failable men, and written in a time when humans had less scientific understanding of the natural world than a 3-year-old amish kid has today, decides that what is utterly natural, and has been for millenia before his invisible sky daddy was even invented, is sinful. (how's that for a run on? I'm going for the record.)

Let's examine the facts.

There are dangers involved in sex. True.

There are dangers in riding in cars. True.

There are dangers in flying in airplanes. True

It is dangerous to go to work in high rises in new york because psychotic religionists, with repressed sexuallity might fly planes into them. True.

Breathing oxygen eventually leads to death. True.

Airborn diseases are passed by breathing. True.

Eating to much, or the wrong kind of food kills. True.

This shit just goes on and on. You need to admit that your health statistics are simply a cover for your puritanical, christianity induced view that sex out of wedlock is wrong. Even though every other animal does it, and every human did it before christianity, and even before judaism for 20,000 years. Further back if you want to throw in Neanderthals, austrolopithecines, and the homos and count them as humans.

Do you understand the pitance of time your religion has existed, let alone claimed moral superiority where it is in fact simply repressing natural behavior. Behavior that must have been created by god if you believe in him.

Your faith may be strong, but your logic and motivation are WEAK.