Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 10-23-2002, 07:23 PM

Glory:

Quote:

I hate to break it to you but virgin women experience pain from the sexual act, even the married ones.

Well, I suppose it depends how you define "virgin." Are you a virgin if you've never been penetrated by a dick, or do you have to have never been penetrated by anything (i.e. fingers)?

Glory · 10-23-2002, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
Glory:

Well, I suppose it depends how you define "virgin." Are you a virgin if you've never been penetrated by a dick, or do you have to have never been penetrated by anything (i.e. fingers)?

I don't know. It seems it would depend on how large the non-dick object is. I'll say yes, you are a virgin if you have not been penetrated by a dick all other objects not withstanding. Any object of a certain width is going to cause discomfort, though. "Slender" tampons are made for virgins, generally. They look like "Virginia Slims".

Glory

Aethari · 10-23-2002, 07:40 PM

Glory-

Of course, premarital sex is not always irresponsible sex, but I think you need to realize that it very often is just that. If you have high standards, I applaud that. But you know as well as I do that the general nature of premarital sex is not one of dutiful contemplation of risks.

Second, I think you have some serious work to do to justify your proposition. It's easy enough to throw out something like that, and make a few weak ad-hoc justifications, but you have some very serious proof if you want to assert something like that.

Third. Sex IS an important part of a relationship, but I think you're drawing a lot of wrong conclusions from your entire sex-centric approach to human existence. There really ARE more motivations in life than base sexual instinct. Kant didn't write because he had some subconcious inclination 'A Critique of Pure Reason' was going to get him laid. I think this entire approach of yours is causing your argumentative problems, and your perception of any disagreement as soap-box self-righteousness.

~Aethari

never been there · 10-23-2002, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godless Dave:
Do you regret having sex before marriage, either with your current spouse or with other people?

No. In fact, I'm so happy that after seven years together, we're still having pre-marital sex! <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=001847" target="_blank">more here</a>

Quote:

Do you think you would be happier if you had only ever had sex with this one person?

No. I wouldn't be the mature and experienced lover I am today.

Quote:

Would it have been more special if you had waited until your wedding night to do it?

Hey, seven years of abstinence would suck, especially since we live together.

Quote:

Pre-marital sex - a serious question

I seriously can't believe anyone's still seriously questioning pre-marital sex. Be honest, be kind, don't be stupid. That's all.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: never been there ]

Glory · 10-23-2002, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aethari:
Glory-

Of course, premarital sex is not always irresponsible sex, but I think you need to realize that it very often is just that. If you have high standards, I applaud that. But you know as well as I do that the general nature of premarital sex is not one of dutiful contemplation of risks.

Why do I need to realise that? Is it my responsibility to agree with you and change the world? Personally, I don't know any details about the vast majority of premarrital sex. It's happening between people I have never and will never meet. Why is it so hard for you to accept that not every conversation about sex is going to center on such heavy topics? Why are those topics so important to you right now?

You want me to admit that sex can be full of negative consequences. Okay.

Sex can be full of negative consequences. Oh How I wish that people would be more responsible and treat each other with more respect and kindness.

Are you happy now?

As I said, if you want to rant about the dangers confronting those who engage in casual sex, i'll give you an earfull. That wasn't what I was talking about, though.

Quote:

Second, I think you have some serious work to do to justify your proposition. It's easy enough to throw out something like that, and make a few weak ad-hoc justifications, but you have some very serious proof if you want to assert something like that.

No I don't. This isn't a class, you are not a teacher or a review board, my theory is not a thesis and I am not looking for money to finance my research. If I was concerned with proving my assertion to you, I would have to scramble but I am not. I am perfectly okay with the notion that you don't believe my theory. It's just an oppinion.

Lighten up.

Quote:

Third. Sex IS an important part of a relationship, but I think you're drawing a lot of wrong conclusions from your entire sex-centric approach to human existence. There really ARE more motivations in life than base sexual instinct. Kant didn't write because he had some subconcious inclination 'A Critique of Pure Reason' was going to get him laid.

No, Kant wrote because he wasn't getting laid at all.

There are plenty of other motivations some of them base some of them not. Look down deep enough, though, and you'll find sexual desire every time. It's not always the sole motivation but it's there.

Why do you think Kant wrote? Why do you think men do anything? Why don't you share some of your vast wisdom with me.

Why does my "sex centric approach to life" bother you so much?

Quote:

I think this entire approach of yours is causing your argumentative problems, and your perception of any disagreement as soap-box self-righteousness.

I never said anyone was being self righteous nor did I accuse anyone of standing on a soap box. You seem to have me confused with someone else.
The only problems I have is that you and other people seem to assume that casual sex is synonomous with premarrital sex and that you know everything there is to know about me based on one conversation.

Glory

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]

dk · 10-23-2002, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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..[/quote]

dk: Nobody's disputing the goodness of sex, but the reality of > 1 in 5 people >13 years carrying an incurable STD changes the game plan. Premarital sex poses a threat to the health and progeny of the entire nation. This isn't politics or even morality, its simple math.

Quote:

dangin: 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.)

dk: The scientific evidence says 65,000,000 adults in the USA suffer an incurable STD. Only a nut cake pits evidence against science, in fact the evidence contains the science.

Quote:

dangin: 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.

dk: In fact the government regulates cars, airplanes, buildings, air quality, and contagious disease to control the risks. Are you suggesting the government should regulate reproduction?

Quote:

dangin:: 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.

dk: People need to evaluate the evidence, and act responsibly, or the government will, or the nation will be ruined.

Quote:

dangin:: 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.

dk: Do you understand I�m not talking about religion, but must admit the Catholic Church said from the beginning birth control would ruin people and be the cause of great suffering back in the 1960s. .

Quote:

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

dk: Seems to me influential people have played politics under the guise of science to merchandize a lifestyle that causes great suffering and pain. Clearly technology, biological or mechanical, is no substitute for morality and ethics.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

lunachick · 10-24-2002, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aethari:
*sigh*

Yes, lunachick, I would think that is incredibly obvious. Why write something like that other that, unless you're either A) trying to come across as possessed of some witty repartee,

I wasn't attempting to be witty at all. That is a true story. It broke my family into pieces and I don't think my mother has ever fully recovered emotionally from that, even after what must be damned near 25 years now.

Quote:

or B) completely ignorant as to how irrelevant the comment actually is.

Why is it so irrelevant?

Quote:

Think about it for a second- if everyone stopped having premarital sex, STDs would die out, period.

No. STD's would die out if everyone used barrier contraceptives. Condoms are the key.

Quote:

Is that unclear, or what?

Only to you.

Whether you like it or not, people (by and large) are sexual creatures. This is normal. There are, of course those who are abnormally low in libido, just as there are those who are abnormally high (even to the point of dangerous) in their libido. That's just the way it goes. Generally speaking though, sexual repression is a time bomb for many people. The recent Catholic priests sex scandal is indicative of that. And this is just one example. Men are horny. Women are horny. We are sentient, sensual, sexual beings. To think otherwise is naive.

You really wanna stop STD's & unwanted pregnancies in their tracks? Then you should be promoting sex education, widely and cheaply available barrier contraceptives, and open and honest sexual dialogue. Take away the taboos, take away the moralising (which only gives the young incentive for yet another mode of rebellion), and teach with honest science - causes/effects/consequences. Make sure your entire population is not so poverty stricken or drug-addled (damned near impossible, btw) to have to resort to prostitution. Even then, I'm sure many of the men who visit young, uneducated sex workers on their Thailand business trips are married!

Humans are way too complex to just simply try and solve all social ills by saying nothing should happen until you are married - or in church - or over 21 - or whatever simplistic remedies you prescribe to whatever social ill you see.

The only other alternative is to live on a small island by yourself.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: lunachick ]

Ut · 10-24-2002, 01:53 AM

If I play football, I could get hurt really bad or similarly I could hurt someone else.

Government doesn't regulate football.

End of story.

dangin · 10-24-2002, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aethari:


Secondly, the constant "it's natural" rhetoric is becoming deafening and wholly ridiculous. It is in the nature of humans to do many 'bad' and harmful things- yet we don't. I don't see certain people standing on their own soapboxes advocating murder-on-a-whim or rape. Just because sex is 'natural' and 'a part of life' does NOT mean it is something that should be embraced whole-heartedly. In order to form society, we have to repress many of our instincts (Social Contract Theory). Why should sex not be one of them?

~Aethari

Rape and murder are not natural. Competition between idividuals is natural. Rape and murder is a sure way to lose access to your own society, the society from which you draw benefit. Consensual sex is not. Sex is not only natural, it is required. We want it because if we didn't we'd die out. This makes sex just about the most important thing there is. Trying to stop our sexual programming, is like trying to make microsoft word into photoshop. It's just not programmed that way. Giving microsoft word a marriage license doesn't make it photoshop anymore than not having a marriage license makes us able to ignore how we were built.

dangin · 10-24-2002, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
dangin:

Do you really believe this?

(parentheticals added)

Some pre-Christian societies had some pretty wicked prohibitions on sex outside of marriage of any kind.

Oh well, I'm sure jesus approves of the systems of these other cultures. He just came here to hang out and drink wine, not to write a new covenant or anything. Nice argument. You reduce the value of your savior by saying presavior societies were doing the same thing he did.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-23-2002, 07:40 PM	#153
Aethari Veteran Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 1,635	Glory- Of course, premarital sex is not always irresponsible sex, but I think you need to realize that it very often is just that. If you have high standards, I applaud that. But you know as well as I do that the general nature of premarital sex is not one of dutiful contemplation of risks. Second, I think you have some serious work to do to justify your proposition. It's easy enough to throw out something like that, and make a few weak ad-hoc justifications, but you have some very serious proof if you want to assert something like that. Third. Sex IS an important part of a relationship, but I think you're drawing a lot of wrong conclusions from your entire sex-centric approach to human existence. There really ARE more motivations in life than base sexual instinct. Kant didn't write because he had some subconcious inclination 'A Critique of Pure Reason' was going to get him laid. I think this entire approach of yours is causing your argumentative problems, and your perception of any disagreement as soap-box self-righteousness. ~Aethari

10-24-2002, 01:53 AM	#158
Ut Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Quebec, Canada Posts: 828	If I play football, I could get hurt really bad or similarly I could hurt someone else. Government doesn't regulate football. End of story.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.