seebs

I think history shows us that morality is not "obvious". The idea that there's moral questions seems to occur to almost everyone fairly quickly; specific answers are harder, and people can easily live their whole lives rejecting principles that nearly everyone accepts.

jayh

Contrasting people who never talked against people who have talked but never had sex is a false dichotomy. Of course the more you communicate the better your chances for not making a mistake, and by extension the more you experience together before that massive commitment, the more prepared you are.

Note that I advocate not just sex, but even more critically living together, dealing with bills, housecleaning, issues of privacy, decision making etc. Even more than sex, these can be real marriage busters, and you don't get that experience when dating.

The sum of arguments seems to be that many things are more critical than sex (which is true, but see above) and that through careful planning one can compensate for lack of sexual experience. People have even had (rarely) successful arranged marriages having never met their mate. That does not make it a good thing.

What you HAVE NOT established is a rational reason to justify lack of sexual experience. For every argument you have about how one can succeed, the bottom line is it's still BETTER to be more prepared.

j

fatherphil

how is it a cop out? i'm willing to discuss premarital sex on a practical level.

opera nut & others, what then is the moral credo here on iidb?

scigirl

Well then discuss it already. You might need more than one or two lines per post to convince us here, though.

scigirl

JamesKrieger

But the warning label is so that the individual can make a personal decision in how to deal with his/her allergy. So, again, it comes back to the individual, not the food.



It's still a problem with you. You are the one who cannot survive without oxygen. Of course, this is a problem with EVERYBODY. This is why no person would build an airless environment in the first place.

Going to college can be harmful to some people because of the financial drain. Breathing in air, or touching an object, can be harmful to some people because bacteria/viruses that are present all the time. Where do we draw the line as to what we put a "warning label" on?

I do not see how that analogy is relevant at all.

Some people are more successful than others at coping with changes and experiences in life. That is a plain fact. A person can receive positive and/or negative effects from a pre-marital sexual experience, just as is true for many of life's experiences. Thus, it is the responsibility of the individual to decide whether he/she will receive positive benefits from pre-marital sex. But, the fact remains, people CAN receive positive benefits from it, and there are advantages to pre-marital sex which have been pointed out in this thread, and thus pre-marital sex should not be discouraged.

Going to school has the potential to create psychological stress. Getting involved in a relationship, sex or no sex, has the potential to create psychological stress. Every day living has the potential to create psychological stress. Do we put warning labels on everything?

You are beating up a strawman. Note that I am not saying that everyone should have pre-marital sex. What I am pointing out is that there are definite advantages, for many people, towards having pre-marital sex.

Relationships in general can screw up peoples' emotional lives or mental health. Do we recommend that people not get involved in relationships?

Rational BAC

I will admit that there are advantages to premarital sex for those few (I would say less than 20%--just a guess--probably more like 10%) ----

----of that minorilty of couples who find themselves attracted to each romantically (read sexually) by the many things (pheromones etc) that nature has so kindly provided for us to find a sexually compatible mate and "improve the species" as Darwin might say.------------

--------------And then find out after marriage, that they ARE sexually incompatible--whether due to size differences or differences in desire or any of the problems previously stated.

Of course some will find themselves incompatible sexually after marriage. There are always the exceptions to the rule. And, of course, there is always divorce.

What I am getting at is this--------For the VAST majority of couples who are virgins on their wedding night--it will be an UNFORGETABLE experience ALWAYS to be remembered. Think of 2 normal very horny and sexually compatible young people getting into bed on their wedding night

MAN---WHAT A BLAST.

Like I said before--for that very small minority of sexually incompatible couples---

---Hey--- that is what easy divorces are for.

I have heard a lot of very interesting and unusual stories on this thread. I assume you all do realize that those stories have not a thing to do with the VAST MAJORITY of couples.

I have not yet heard a good argument against my position.

Try a little harder please.

Thank you in advance.

cheetah

I have not yet heard a compelling reason against my position (which is for the record that anyone should have sex with anyone they want whenever and should have access and education about prophylactics and other ways to have responsible sex). All you've said is two virgins on the wedding night is FUN! Well, yay, my first time, as I have stated, with my partner was fun, too. It's still fun, in fact...maybe even more fun, and you know what? We aren't married! So, you have failed to convince me that premarital sex is inferior.

Try a little harder please.

Thank you in advance.

Opera Nut

Thank you, Cheetah.

Fun and commitment have nothing to do with that magic state-issued screwing license, although the Xtians here have made a great effort trying to convince us that it makes a difference.

Besides, you can be a NON virgin and be incredibly horny.....like two or three years of total deprivation and no dates and no relationships at allll!!

That will work just fine!

JamesKrieger

How do you know that this is true for the VAST MAJORITY of couples? How does your experience represent the vast majority? How can an n of 1 be extrapolated to an entire population? I suggest you get yourself a much larger sample size before you start making statistical inferences.

My first experience with sex with my partner, who I truly loved and still do, was NOT fun, despite the fact that we were both normal and VERY horny. The whole sexual weekend was not fun. It was awkward, and there were problems. It would've been awkward whether we were married or not. Now it is fun, and I love it, and have had very memorable experiences...but those memorable experiences came when the sex WASN'T planned, when we didn't make a big production out of it or tried to make a "special night" out of it. We've had some great, memorable sexual experiences...and you know what, we're NOT married.

Opera Nut

RatBAC is not a psychologist and is making an overbroad generalization.

As you have so kindly pointed out, JK, his sample size is insignificantly small.