dangin

Quite brave of you actually. Your entire post I mean. I think sex is the foundation of sexual relationships. If you stay with your current boyfriend, and are engaged, or betrothed, or simply planning to get married, and it never becomes sexual, at some point you must fall into the category of friends talking about getting married, and not lovers.

To me, being lovers, implies love making. And yes, I don't care who never has sex, I do care about someone repressing their own desires, telling me mine are evil. You seem to be just fine, but you don't need my judgement to tell you that.

Godless Dave

Wow, this topic really took off!

Ah to be in New Zealand....

To tell the truth, while there have been many times I thought that was what I wanted, it really isn't. I can't get physically intimate with a woman without wanting to be emotionally intimate too. I've only had one one-nighter in my life, and while I don't regret it and it was enjoyable, it was awkward the next day.

Of course! What's important is that you and your partner are making the decision together - not your religious leaders, the government, your peers, or your parents (especially not your parents ).

When I say I enjoy sex, I don't mean everyone else has to enjoy or want sex as much as I do.

As I stated above, it's not what I'm looking for, although sometimes I think it is. If both parties are aware and willing then I think it's OK, but that can be a pretty big if. Coercion and deception, which maybe you were implying with the word "used", are definitely immoral.

These responses were pretty much as I expected. I had been wondering if there were some unspoken resentment among women about how much sex men expect these days. I'm glad that doesn't appear to be the case.

Me, I've been in a series of monogamous sexual relationships. I'm 32, unmarried, not ready to get married, and I can't imagine being this age and a virgin. I don't have a problem with premarital sex (obviously), but I have a big problem with irresponsible sex.

Many of the problems dk and ManM listed are the result of irresponsible sex, not premarital sex per se. But I think their viewpoint is that a cultural prohibition on premarital and extramarital sex would greatly reduce the instances of irresponsible sex. I agree, but only partially. Syphilis was rampant in the 19th Century, when European and American culture strongly disapproved of non-marital sex. Theoretically, if everyone followed the rules, marriage-only sex would completely eliminate STDs. It would not eliminate unwanted pregnancy - birth control is just as useful to married people as to unmarried people.

My view on this is twofold: It wouldn't work because you would never get 100% compliance, even if you had a police-state level of enforcement. But also the desired goal, a lack of STDs, is not worth the restriction placed on sexual freedom. That goal is a very important one, but in my opinion we should strive for it by insisting on responsible sex, not marriage-only sex. There are obviously many people who can't handle the freedom offered by the sexual revolution, just as there are many people who can't handle the freedom offered by the right to bear arms or the ability to drink alcohol. But there are many of us who can, and we deserve to be able to exercise that freedom. And I submit that the same people who can't handle the responsibility of nonmarital sex also cannot handle the responsibilities of marriage and married sex.

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

Secular Bitch

I second (or third, or whatever point my post comes at) what brighid said.

In addition, in case this :

was a reference to this:
,
which I hurrahed, well, I cheered for the back-in-your-face retort to the poster at whom this was directed, and didn't mean to second a blanket statement condemning anyone who prefers chess to chests as genetically inferior.

Not that you were feeling that picky about the details.

dangin

I don't even mean they are genetically inferior. I just mean for whatever reason, chance most likely if it truly is genetic, they didn't get what nearly every one of their millions of ancestors had. A drive to procreate.

But also, some people without that drive still procreate, and some people who don't have that drive today, may have it in spades tomorrow.

The Other Michael

Glory, thanks for making it clear that you considered your comment earlier an ad hom - it makes it a lot easier for the mods to find and delete it.

Play nice, people.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

dangin

ahh dad, can't we keep the good ones. . .

The Other Michael

I don't care if it did follow you home, you can't keep it!

cheers,
Michael

Aethari

Of course I can't resist lurking, Glory- but I've never drank a cup of coffee in my life. I'm naturally wired

~Aethari

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

Glory

Your Welcome. I try to make it as easy as possible for you when I misbehave.

Glory

XGuilt

I've never understood anyone's hangups about sex - premarital or otherwise. Sex is a natural bodily function not at all unlike any other. Wrapping some 'commitment' around it like so many people like to do (usually because of all their many insecurities) does not alter the fact that sex is pleasurable, that sex and procreation can be mutually exclusive, and that one need not be emotionally involved with someone to experience great sex - and without any insipid guilt. And the idea that two people should 'save' themselves for marriage is just too archaic and stupidly religious for words. I've never wanted a 'virgin' and never understood why any man would. There is no substitute for experience, and the more the better when it comes to human sexuality.

Speaking from CONSIDERABLE experience after half a century, consenting-adults should enjoy as much sex - GUILT FREE - as they can while they can because they'll be a long time dead...