seebs

I don't think you've shown convincingly that sexual experience is useful "preparation".

The rational reason is that, empirically, some people have greater emotional stress related to relationships when they turn sexual. This is not a particularly obscure thing; it happens frequently enough that I don't honestly think anyone isn't aware of it.

Anyway, this is not a purely rational matter; it involves human emotions, and there are good emotional reasons for this...

seebs

It's not an either-or. It's the combination.

So, we warn people that sex can create problems for them, and they make their own decisions.

What we don't do is say "this is just a problem with you, so anyone warning you that such a problem may exist is a control freak".

Well, when I see a bunch of people arguing that it is wrong to warn people that college may be very expensive, then I'll argue with them too.

And yet, if you tell someone "there is no downside to this", you are lying.

People CAN receive positive benefits from heroin addiction - after all, some great music has come from it. Should we not discourage it?

The "advantages" of pre-marital sex look, to me, mostly like flimsy rationalizations. You have nowhere near shown that premarital sex is a net win for the average person, let alone that it is likely to be a win for most people.

Warning people about possible risks may or may not "discourage" them, but it gives them better data with which to make decisions.

Not necessarily... but I think sex, by our very nature, is more likely to be stressful to us than many other things are.

You are making that claim; I'm not sure it's been very well supported.

My claim is that, for some people, the costs outweigh the benefits, and that, when people are making this decision, it is best that people have that information.

No, but we don't say "there is no risk to you, and anyone who doesn't want to deal with relationships has hang-ups and you should never listen to them".

seebs

Actually, at least one of us has pointed out regularly that the state-issued screwing license and the commitment are entirely separate, and that continuing to try to conflate them is a straw man argument.

JamesKrieger

By this line of reasoning, then, it would be better for some people to have premarital sex. The very act of marriage, or making a long-term commitment, will present emotional stress...it is a very significant decision involving an interweaving of emotions and rational thought. Now, to then add the sex on top of that, which you state gives emotional stress, will simply compound the amount of stress.

Actually, your line of reasoning makes little sense. If people have greater emotional stress in a relationship when it turns sexual, how does marriage or the commitment somehow alleviate or negate this stress? As soon as sex is added, will not this stress present itself whether or not the marriage is there?

cheetah

Yeah, but she was arguing against Rational BAC in that post you quoted and he DID claim it has to be marriage, or at least has not redefined it to "commitment" as others have, as far as I have seen, so her post was on topic and accurate as a response to him.

seebs

This may be the case, although, for various reasons, I find it unlikely... But yeah, it may be the case.

My objection isn't to the idea that someone, somewhere, would have premarital sex. It's to the "there cannot possibly be the slightest risk or concern, and anyone who says there is EVER ANY POSSIBILITY AT ALL that premarital sex would be a bad idea is a control freak" attitude.

When defending your freedoms, please remember that an important freedom is the freedom not to participate in something that other people want to do.

People are under a great deal of pressure to have sex when they personally are not ready for it, and a great deal of that takes the form of calling them "prudes" when they would rather wait until they have a committed relationship before beginning to have sex.

YMMV. For me, sex outside of a committed relationship is stressful, but sex within one is not.

Apparently you haven't read much of anything I've said.

It is not that sex, in and of itself, is stressful. It is that sex creates contexts which can be stressful.

Let's play with a hypothetical.

Two people go out on dates. In each case, the date basically goes well, and they think there's some interest in further dating. In each case, the date promises to call them in the next couple of days. One of them has sex with the date, one doesn't.

Does anyone here honestly think that the one who had sex will not be a bit more stressed if the date doesn't call?

How much more stressed? That depends. But it seems that, as a general rule, it *will* make a difference. Sex is a bonding activity in humans; it creates bonds. Some people may not form these bonds so easily, but it seems pretty clear that, in most people, sex does create a kind of bonding which doesn't just go away if it becomes inconvenient.

I'm not trying to tell people what to do. I'm trying to get the Atheists For Free Love society to stop telling people that they *SHOULD* be absolutely uninhibited in their sex lives, and that any personal qualms are just "hang-ups" that they wouldn't have if they "knew better". You're being just as pushy, judgemental, and arrogant as the fundies are.

A realistic, informed, decision is the ideal goal. Part of that information is that, in many cases, for many people, sex can have substantial psychological implications for relationships, and have consequences which people are often not ready for when they come up. You can do things to reduce these consequences, but some people will find that, emotionally, they are much happier not having sex. Trying to tell them that they're wrong to feel this way is just as stupid and arrogant as trying to tell people that they should never even kiss someone they haven't got a legal marriage to.

seebs

The claim was a general one about all the Christians, and seems to be part of a continued effort to debate only with a straw man of the position that people have been arguing.

JamesKrieger

So, what is the downside, and how does it outweight the upside? You haven't been very specific about that, other than saying something vague like, "It causes emotional stress."

That is an irrelevant analogy. First, the people receiving the benefits of the heroin addiction are the people listening to the music...not the heroin addict himself (other than it might bring him in cash if he/she is lucky in the U.S. music industry). Second, I could go through an entire of demonstrable ill-health effects that are a result of heroin addiction, and how these effects will outweigh a potential benefit. I have yet to see you give a list of demonstrable ill-effects of premarital sex, other than "it may cause emotional stress."

Flimsy rationalizations?

We've given much more concrete examples of how premarital sex can be beneficial...more specific than a vague like "it causes emotional stress."

The line of reasoning is actually very clear.

Premise 1: A healthy, satisfying sex life is one important component of many relationships

Premise 2: Marriage represents a very serious commitment

Premise 3: To try to prevent problems during marriage, a couple should ensure that compatibility issues important to the relationship are worked out before marriage

Conclusion: A couple should have sex before marriage to ensure that this important component is worked out

What is wrong with this line of reasoning? Why is it a flimsy rationalization?

So what are these costs, specifically, and exactly how do they outweight the benefits?

JamesKrieger

I don't see anyone here taking that attitude.

I don't see anyone here who is against the freedom to not participate in something other people want to do.



What level of commitment are we talking about here? There are different levels. Exclusive dating? Life-time commitment?

I, personally, am not comfortable with casual sex...having sex with partners who I barely know or don't know. That doesn't mean I'm against other people doing it. However, I have had sex with my girlfriend, who I am dating exclusively and who I love. Is there a life-time commitment there? Not yet. But I am sure glad that we have had sex BEFORE that life-time commitment, because it gives me more confidence in my ability to know down the road of whether I want to make the life-time commitment or not. If I did not have sex with her, I would not have this information.

You are beating up a strawman. I am not telling everyone that they should be absolutely uninhibited in their sex lives, and I haven't seen anyone in this forum who has said that, either.

Exactly. I had sex with my girlfriend to that I would be better able to make a realistic, informed decision on whether I want to make a lifetime commitment to her.

seebs

Some people come to regret their early sexual experiences. You can't take 'em back, though, so they're stuck with them. For many people (most?), having sex with someone creates a bond which it hurts to break; having sex with someone you don't stay with can, thus, be very painful.

It frankly seems unbelievable to me that anyone who knows people old enough to fuck could *NOT* be aware of the kinds of things involved. We hear about them all the time.

You have yet to offer *demonstrable* "benefits".

All of the costs and benefits in this are essentially subjective, with the exception of diseases and unwanted pregnancies (both of which are clearly costs, but can mostly be avoided with care).

Can you offer a "demonstrable" benefit of having sex at all, apart from a vague "It feels good"?

You've given hand-waving rationalizations. You have offered very little in the way of concrete cause-and-effect; it's all supposition.

Sure.

Yup.

Sure.

This, however, does not follow at all. Fucking does not ensure sexual compatibility; many sexual compatibility problems come up only a long ways into a relationship.

Secondly, you can get most of this information many other ways; the sex experiment may not add any data you couldn't have otherwise, and it needs to offer a benefit *you cannot otherwise obtain* to be seen as necessary or useful.

Thirdly, in most cases, if the first few sexual experiences are going to make or break your commitment, then you weren't ready to get married anyway, so the information isn't doing anything.

What's wrong with it is that you've taken a problem statement, found one possible solution, and asserted that it is necessarily always a successful solution, and that no other solution works.

You have not yet *demonstrated* any benefits. You've asserted 'em. Great for you. You haven't shown them to be real, or to be benefits of "premarital sex" rather than benefits of "learning about your prospective partner". You're confusing one particular method for approaching a goal with the goal itself.

As to the costs, I honestly can't believe that anyone can't see these things. Don't you ever have to comfort friends who had sex with a guy who turned out to be a jerk? Have you never noticed how much more this bothers people than just going out on a few dates with someone who turns out to be a jerk?

There comes a point where it's hard for me to believe you're honestly considering the question, because this is NOT rocket science. Anyone who knows anyone who fucks should be able to spot these things immediately.

Which leads to hypothesis #2: Flimsy rationalizations.

Frankly, the best argument for premarital sex always has been, and probably always will be, "I'm horny and I want to get laid." It's honest, it's often true, and it isn't an appeal to false noble goals. The noble goals are all bullshit, and everyone knows it; people are having premarital sex because they want to get laid, pure and simple.

Which, frankly, is fine by me, as long as they don't try to dress it up as a special moral virtue.