dk

dk: Amongst others, you’ve made ad hominem attacks against Christianity and Catholics. The ooohhs and ahhs include jumping your husbands bones, loosing your virginity, and educating virgins on the path to sexual bliss. Annually 15,000,000 new cases of STDs cost over $17bil per year (not including AIDs) is no straw man. Young adults (13-24) disproportionately suffer abortions and STDs precisely because so many practice premarital sex. You suffer under the delusion that personal stories constitute evidence, while the data and analysis collected by the NIH, CDC and MMWR pertain somebody else.

dk: The reference to ‘us’ appeals to another fallacious argument, ad populum,. A discussion board exists for disagreement so on a discussion thread arguments shouldn’t be misconstrued as personal insults. I didn’t intend to insult anyone, and many of the comments on this thread can only be categorized as trivial.

dk: The proposition, “birth control is very reliable except when it doesn’t work” is trivial. Supreme Court Justice O’Connor writes in Casey v. PA 505 U.S. 833, “people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.” Whatever personal bias towards women you hold, abortion remains the only statistically reliable means of birth control, so the frequency of abortion comments directly upon the reliability of preventive birth control. Finally, your personal experience carries little weight, because you’re one in 300 mil.

dk: If I’ve made an errant assumption then please substantiate the claim with the particulars. I’ve said and substantiated that people who elect to participate in premarital sex suffer disproportionately from STDs, unplanned pregnancy, and abortion. People that elect to live chaste lives practice self-discipline as a testimony of self worth, and don’t suffer STDs, unplanned pregnancy, or abortion.

dk: You didn’t answer the question, and you never intended to answer the question, but you pretended not to understand the question. Such tactics are duplicitous, and I’m glad you came clean.

dk: The question asks if treating someone like a sexual object is good, you’ve answered “sometimes”, but are unable to qualify your answer. I’ve implied treating your husband or anyone as a sexual object is bad, because a person isn’t an object and the unsuited to such treatment. To psychologically degrade a person to the status of a sex object deprives the relationship of intimacy essential to the marital union.

dk: Hey, if for some complex reason you find it gratifying to treat your husband like a sex object, fine, . Still your husband isn’t an object or a mere thing, which begs the question.
1) When did you start treating your husband as a sexual object?
2) Does your husband treat you like a sexual object?
3) Does the practice of premarital sex teach young people to be sex objects

• dk: In this thread you’ve alternately described loosing your virginity as (I paraphrase) “high impact aerobics after not working out for 5 years”.
  Glory: I compared one aspect of losing my virginity to that.
  dk: and an experience you “decided never to have sex again after the first time.”
  Glory: I said I would have decided that if I hadn’t had some knowledge of what was normal.
  dk: I hope you now understand its abnormal for a woman to be traumatized by the loss of her virginity. My experience and dictionary describes traumas as: “a disordered psychic or behavioral state resulting from mental or emotional stress or physical injury.” In fairness I applied the word trauma, but what you described was abnormal, traumatic and certainly unnecessary. If all your female friends confirmed, as you testified, then it’s a tragedy.
• Glory: Black or white, good or bad, saint or sinner, madonna or whore? You are either being incredibly simplistic or deliberately obtuse because to do so suits your argument. You can disbelieve the truth if it helps you but it stands as the truth. The first time is, for a woman, painful no matter how careful and gentle the man may be.
  dk: Now you’re melodramatically attributing to me words I haven’t said. I made the simple factual statement, a women loosing her virginity shouldn’t be a traumatic experience. It seems obvious to me that the trauma you experienced was in part due to the social pressures to have premarital sex. You have also said all the women you spoke with recalled similar traumas.

dk: You are mistaken, sexual intercourse defines marriage to this day. I could make a strong case that the normalization of premarital sex destabilizes marriage and family. Back on topic, marriage rights also include spousal wills, trusts, retirements, benefit plans, power of attorney, vehicle registration, child custody, property, tenancy, and any other similar thing.

dk: Quite with the melodramatics, I haven’t called anyone a slut. The attempt to divert focus away from substanative issues does however bring into question your integrity. Clearly a chaste person practices self discipline as a testament of self worth. It’s just as clear that sexual promiscuity and drugs are an entailment of low self esteem associated with a lack of self discipline, positive motivation and meaningful goals.

dk: Another ad hominem attack, followed by an irrelevant appeal to some mythical ‘standard of beauty’, contradicted by an appeal to man’s eternal pursuit of beauty. Men and women have always been attracted to beauty, self mutilation isn’t beautiful, but a warped shell of beauty. My point has been that the same underlying materialistic culture that drives people to mutilate themselves also leads teenagers to premarital sex. Premarital sex, self mutilation and using degrading people as sex objects demonstrate negative life lessons (immoral) destructive to personal happiness, health, family and social harmony.

dk: Christians aren’t immune to a “Culture of Death”, anymore than Christian children are immune to propaganda, indoctrination, social engineers, eugenics, child molesters, incest, random violence, war, burglary, pollution or cancer. When people participate in corruption, they become corrupted.

dk: Today the divorce rate hovers around 50%, up from under < 5% from 1900-50s. Between 1950 and 2000 the sexual revolution normalized premarital sex under an expansive interpretation of the Bill of Rights secured through the courts under the guise of civil liberties. In fairness this doesn’t establish a causal relationship between premarital and unstable families, failing public schools, and sexual dysfunction, but it does raise the possibility. For the last 10 years abstinence based programs motivated by a pandemic of incurable STDs, pushed through by Christians, have stabilized the downward spiral.

dk: Ok, I have a cousin that got married in 16, raised a family of 6, and today runs a business worth a small fortune. My sister got pregnant (raped) in the Spring of her HS Graduation, gave the kid up for adoption, graduated college, got married, started medical school, had 2 kids, graduated medical school, had 2 more kids, completed her internship and today has practiced medicine for the last 8 years. But hey I have 6 brothers and sisters, and about 70 cousins, so I have a plethora of antidotal stories. Glory these kinds of personal antidotes don’t prove anything.

dk: Again, the topic is premarital sex not birth control. Women suffer today in a materialistic society that values them in terms of sex, productivity and a feminist war hostile to female biology, family and men.

dk: What Strawman? Your response reduces to an ad hominem attack, followed by hateful pointless rhetoric. In fact you’re the one hiding behind a fence painted white/black.

dk: That’s not what I said. I implied a promiscuous pregnant woman that doesn’t know the paternity will lie to cover the baby, or feel compelled to abort the baby. I believe and hope very, very few women suffer such a horrible dilemma. I never said being human was a sin, but implied that people are imperfect. Were I to label you, it would be as a secular puritan because you identify chastity, femininity, and masculinity as a personal threat to individual autonomy. In the course of this thread you’ve[*]mocked chastity as ignorance and unnatural[*]ignore the plight of women culturally estranged from their own bodies, emotions and offspring[*] understand men to be the oppressors of women

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Dreamer_87

Hello everyone,

Need to share some comments before going to sleep hehe.

Allo Glory:

My understanding of atheism is that it is denouncing the existence of God/s for lack of *rational* evidence, and it promotes a life style governed by *rationality* rather than superstition or conjecture, which is why the findings of the sciences are favoured over what any religious scripture has to say.

With all that said, I think your attitude to the request for evidence is far from rational; if you aren't bothered to support it with evidence (which is basicly what you're saying in the reply) then why bother to make the claim in the first place then vent what seems to be disrespectful indifference when asked to support it?

I think the thread on a whole has become too aggressive for comfort, the ad hominems coming from both sides are unjustified and doing the conversation no good at all.

Aethari and DK have given the numbers of people with STDs and AIDS in the U.S. and have argued (from what I understood) that all the harm associated with sex (abortions, poverty of single mothers and inability to provide for children ect) and even AIDS and STDs would cease to exist if the *everyone* stopped having premarital sex. I both agree and disagree; As 99 said, to think that *all* premarital sex *isn't* monogamous is inaccurate. and From what I know drug use and sharing needles as well as drug transfusions can all cause AIDs. But, I think, if *Irresponsible* sex (my own personal definition of irresponsible is an act that is carried out without the participants even considering the possible consequences, which leads to carelessness ie not using birth control ect) were to stop happening then AIDs would become near non-existant, and I doubt many people disagree with me here. So the question is *why* is irresponsible sex still happening? Why have Sex Education (my assumption is that in most of the western world Sex Ed in schools in near identical, please correct me if i'm mistaken) and all the information young people are given about life-threatening diseases failed to make our youth think before they act? From what I understand approaches to Sex Ed have changed many times in attempts to deal with the growing problem - Are there any improvements? If not, why? And my last question, but by far I think the most important, are the civil liberties given concerning sexual relationships doing more harm than good, ie that its being misused and as a result both the individual and the society suffer? If so, what alternative is there to 'quench' the sexual desires (which, I agree with Dangin, are to some extent perfectly normal and whose existence is responsible for our species *not* dying out), if any?

Gotta go,
I'm extremely sleepy so I hope that made sense

Best regards,
Dreamer

Glory

Retsating your claim that I have made adhominem attacks other than the one I pointed out to you does not constitute providing an example of one. Please show me an example or shut up about it. Your disliking what I think about your dogma does not mean that that I have attacked you personally instead of your arguments.

You suffer under the delusion that a statistic is an argument. It is not. Furthermore statistics can be used to "prove" just about anything. How's this for a meaningful statistic? What percentage of the entire number of people in the world who are sexually active does that 15,000,000 constitute? Assuming that your numbers are even close to accurate. You have not provided the source of these stats I have no reason to assume that you are not pulling these numbers out of thin air to bolsetr your position.

Newsflash! You have said many times that sex is dangerous. I and alot of others have said, "yes it is. So what?" You just keep rattling off stats like a parrot asking for crackers and you keep implying that getting married will somehow fix the problems. You have made your point, such as it is. Move on. Sorry it didn't have the impact you were hoping for.



The reference to "us" refers to those that had contributed to this thread before you graced us with your presence. You are correct that dissenting oppinions do not constitute personal insults. What does consttitute a personal insult is commenting that the ongoing conversation is trivial in nature and that you would like to "raise the level of it". If you consider this thread trivial than I suggest you go find somewhere else to pointifcate. I can't help but notice that you have devoted quite a bit of time to these "trivialites".



Where are your impressive stats now? Why don't you post the percentages of birth control failure in contrast to the percentages of successes? I'm guessing that the fact that The Pill is better than 99% effective is not good for your argument. That condoms are better than 98% effective at preventing both pregnancy and disease must be a little awkward for you. The fact that stats indicate that most abortions are performed on women who did use any form of birth control speaks only to those people's misfortune and stupidity. It does not shed any light on the effectiveness of birth control. Your position here is just plain uninformed and wrong.



Yes, those who do not engage in sex spare themselves the problems associated with sex. Those that do engage in sex do not necessarily lack self discipline nor are they guaranteed the negative consequences you describe. Most people feel that the benefits of sex outweigh the benefits, if any, of chastity. Chastity as a method of preventing std's, unplanned pregnancy, and abortion is akin to using cyanide to cure a headache. It has a lot of negative consequences, there are other less drastic options, and people just don't like it.

You can attatch as much moral signifigance to chastity as you like. Just stop expecting us to. We have heard your argument and rejected it. Move on.



Now who's being delusional?



Says you. What evidence do you have to support this assertion? Why do you assume that this particular sexual dynamic between my husband and me is the defining chracteristic of our relationship? What makes you think that momentarily objectifying a person will damage the relationship?

I think it how the one being objectified feels about it has some bearing the outcome. You assume that your definition and idea of a healthy relationship is the only one. Have you ever considered that not everyone is like you? What works for you is fine for you. Why should it be assumed that it will work for anyone else?



If my husband has a problem with how I treat him, he'll let me know.

1) I don't know cause I don't really know what you mean by the term. In some ways it started from the first moment I decided I wanted to go to bed with him.

2) Sometimes.

3)That is utterly unanswerable. There are no absolutes when it comes to individuals. I wish you could get that through your head. Everyone is unique and learns different things from a given situtation. One person might learn to be a sex object. Another might learn that sex is different with each person you have it with. Still another might learn that they get off easier through masturbation than intercourse. Why do you think I have any insight into someone else's mind?



I have no hope whatsoever that you will ever understand that the only person who can know wether or not I was traumatised, raped, sexually abused or in anyway the victim of an abnormal experience is me. You can speculate until the cows come home. This has really gotten ridiculous. As with so may other aspects of this thread, I am asking you to let this go. We are not getting anywhere.



You have repeatedly illustrated that there is no room in your world view for shades of gray. Everything is good or bad, to you. You obtusely reiterate your meaningless questions which are so because you can't conceive of sometihing not fittng those extremes. Your notion that if a women experiences pain it must be traumatising and the result of violence is a perfect example of your thinking.



Uh, this was one of the trivial points that I was making to ManM before you decided that we neede to raise the level of our conversation.



Why start now?

Back on topic, those marraige rights are al legalities. I also stated previously that without sex a marraige consitutes little more than a financial agreement. Thanks for making my point.

Being married to someone does not give you sexual rights to them. Only an individual can grant sexual rights to someone and wether or not they are married to that person has no bearing on wether or not they have or will. In short, a person can rape their spouse, contrary to the oppinion of some judges and prosecutors.



You have certainly implied it and continue to do so. A person's reasons for practicing chastity are their own. I don't pretend to have a clue what their reasons might be. I can speculate about what leads people to drug abuse as well but it would be no more valid. I can admit that there are things I don't know. Can you? You continue to assume that everyone is like you. I think that some people practice chastity because they are afraid of going to hell. I also think that some people are chaste because they don't want to have sex. I think some people are chaste because they are afraid of their parents and priests finding out they are not and punishing them. [b]Not everyone in the world is like you!{/b]



Where? How is there an attack on you? I think you have persecution complex.



Yes, anything that contradicts you is irrelevant.



And you are the authority on what constitutes self mutilation and beauty?



Evidence please, Or admit that these are your oppinions and nothing more.

BTW, how successful has the Church been at fostering morality amongst its preists? Or anyone else for that matter? Their seem to be alot of christians in jail. Where is there any evidence that Christians are happy, healthy, and experiencing social and famillial harmony? There are alot of exchristians on these forums who have testified about the destructive and unhealthy ideas the The Church fosters. What makes your tesimony more valid than theirs? For that matter, the leadership of this culture that you condemn as being materialistic and over sexed is overwhelmingly christian. What am I to make of that? What am I to make of the massive amounts of money that these christian leaders draw from this "sick" culture?



Finaly we agree. I don't know what the relevance is but I cannot argue with ths statement.



Divorce is not the disaster that so many people assume it is. A high divorce rate simply indicates that people are making different choices than they used to and that states have finally stopped cruel restrictions on the dissolution of marraige. New York used to have legislation which required that in order to obatin a divorce one had to have proof of infidelity. Proof of spousal abuse or abuse of children would not get you a divorce. A person had to go through the expense and humilliation of getting pictures of their spouse having sex with someone else. They had to stand in open court and air the details of their humiliation in order to have the judge decide wether or not to grant the divorce at which point he still did not have to grant it. He could say no and there was no recourse. Causation and correlation are not always partners. Do you have any evidence that these programs are the reason that the divorce rate has stabilized?



Ordinarilly I agree. However, they do, in fact, prove one thing. No one is right all the time about everyone. There are no absolutes. For every person you claim is better off for being christian I can name one who was hurt by it and vice versa. The difference between us is that I don't claim that christians are immoral for believing and living as they do. I don't assume that my way is best for everyone and I don't take credit for things to which I have no claim.



Feminist war? Are you sure you want to go there?





This is so offensive, misogynistic and stupid I don't even know where to start. You're prejudice judgementalism, self righteousness, sanctimony and hostility is so clear I really don't have to say anything.



You are right about this one and brilliantly demonstrated why I know this to be the case.

Glory

Glory

Allo,



My definition of atheism is not believing in God. This includes those who are not sure wether or not there is a God. It includes those who think there might be. The key word is "think" as opposed to "know" or "believe" which are affirmative actions. There are a great number of athiests who are simply unconvinced by theists yet do not claim to know any more than theists do.[/quote][/b]



Disrespect garners disrespect. Aethari did not ask for evidence. He demanded it while angrily rejecting my idea. I don't have to put up with that kind of uncivil diatribe if do not wish to.

As for my reasons for making the assertion, it fits my observations and I thought it might provoke some thought and discussion. No one asked me why I thought it or how I came to the conclusion. They simply got pissy and started telling me what I can and can't do as if this were a class or a meeting of the senate or something. My response to that is "fuck you." If you expect me to be nice, you have to be nice to me or at least not overtly hostile.



That is my understanding of their basic arguments.



The incidences would drop dramtically.




Because people tend toward being irresponsible in most things. This irresponibility is augmented by denial and the result is people risking their lives and the lives of others. I wish I knew how to make them stop having irresponsible sex but then I wish I knew how to get them to stop using their cell phones while driving as well.



That is the 64,000 dollar question.



People do not enjoy civil liberties concerning sex. I believe they have a fundamental right to control their bodies and do with them what they like. The government is not our parents and even our parents lose their legal rights to tell us what to do on our eighteenth birthday. (I am of course referring to my government in my country) Attempts have been made to control sex. They have not worked out well. This may be a case of not acting so as to avoid a cure that is worse than the disease(in this case, literally). I believe the individual and the society would suffer more were an attempt made to further control sex nd individuals.



A safe alternative to intercourse that truly is an alternative? Sounds like something to work on though I have my doubts as to wether such a thing is possible.



Seemed to. Let me know if my responses seem as though I understood you.

Glory

southernhybrid

Not if you're postmenopausal and your partner has had a vasectomy. Sexual intercourse if for fun and it's sad that you don't get it.

I don't agree with everything that's been said on either sider here but sex is for fun and responsible, intelligent adults know quite well how to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy. It's the most fun in a good marriage but that's not mandatory. You can stamp your feet all day and tell us how virtuous you think it is to abstain from sex. You can delude yourself into believing that you've scored a few extra brownie points with god but at the end of the day, we human primates enjoy sex and we're going to keep on getting as much as we can because life is short and sex is one of life's great pleasures.

So, why not just start having people take responsibility for their actions as individuals instead of pretending that moralizing based on some musty old religious myths is going to change the fact that we are sexual creatures and while sex was once necessary for impregnation, that's not even true anymore.

I can assure you that it's not for procreation for me. I have one grown child who I conceived at the age of 20. For the past thirty three years of my life, I've had sex for the pure pleasure of it. I've been married twice, currently for 20 years but I had many partners between my marriages and I never had an STD, an unwanted pregnancy nor did it mess up my head, make my life any less desirable or leave me with any regrets.

If you and some of the others don't want to have sex, or don't get what all the fuss is about, fine. Just don't try to convince us that you are on some moral high ground because that is just silly. Sex for procreation....as if


Sorry for ranting. I just couldn't watch this trainwreck anymore and keep quiet.

lunachick

<a href="http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Sex+is+good+for+you%22" target="_blank">Sex is Good for You!</a>

<a href="http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Sex+is+bad+for+you%22&btnG=Google+Search" target="_blank">Sex is Bad for You!</a>

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: lunachick ]</p>

Kenny

I realize that I’m entering into this discussion late, but, having skimmed through the posts, I thought it might be helpful if I share my own experience.

I just recently got married four months ago. My wife and I are both conservative Christians and we were both virgins on our wedding night. It was awkward the first time, but we both expected that; I think that both of us had fairly realistic expectations of how it was going to be. Because of our commitment to one another, however, there was a certain beauty in the awkwardness. We both knew that the other would still be there the next day and the day after that and the next… no matter how good or bad things were. We were able to take our time and get acquainted to this brand new dimension of our lives together, and there was a certain intimacy that came from that process of mutual discovery that I think would be difficult to create otherwise. I personally am very glad that we both waited and were able to share the experience of our first time together in the context of the commitment marriage brings. And, really, we’re still learning and exploring, but that brings an excitement with it all its own.

No moralizing, just my experience…

God Bless,
Kenny

GeoTheo

Some of you people here seem to imply there is no way to know if someone is very sexual or not without having sex with them.
You also seem to imply that a couple that married as virgins would not be able to improve their sex life. Practice makes perfect you know.

Glory

I am skeptical of anyone's ability to fully know their own sexuality before they have had sex. I am also skeptical of anyone's ability to ever really know alot about someone else's sexuality.

I am uncomfortable with notions like degree of sexuality. What does it mean to be very sexual or less sexual? As far as I know there is no meter or scale to measure sexuality.

I certainly know that couples can improve their sex lives regardless of wether or not one or both of them were virgins before they started. My position is that sexual incompatibility can (note I did not say "definately will") destroy a relationship. Big mistakes can be avoided by sleeping together before making a lifelong commitment.

It's not just about sex. It's about love. It's about finding out how the two of you, as a couple, deal with disagreement over a fundamental aspect of your relationship. Luvluv commented that he would not dump someone he loved over bad sex. I am not suggesting that he should. I think that the future of that hypothetical relationship is dependant upon what the problem is and what each person is willing to do to fix it or live with it. Sex is a complex thing and so is a relationship. Each one has its own peculiar dynamic. One of the trickiest parts of that dynamic is that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to predict how one is going to react to given problem with a given person. I think it's a little dangerous to blithely assume that you know yourself that well. I have been surprised by myself enough times to know that I can't predict what I'm going to want to wear tomorrow let alone anything more important. I think it's either naive or callous to assume that any problems can be worked through. That just isn't the case.

Glory

lpetrich

When I read dk's remarks, I think of the reception of Ben Franklin's lightning rod:
That may be why he screeches so loudly about the evils of birth control and abortion -- to him, they are like lightning rods, tools for evading the consequences of sin.

Also, dk seems to think that married people never have unwanted pregnancies. I'm not sure how loud a laugh this is worthy of.