dangin

What about people married to intraveneous drug users? What about people married to those who undergo transfusions, or surgery? What about accidents? Why do basketball players have to leave the game and change uniforms if they bleed on them?

Sex is not the only way to transmit blood born disease and marriage is not a "gold standard" of protection as you say. I will grant that the odds of most of the above (except the intravenous drug users)is pretty slim, but the chance exists none the less.

And you are still missing the point. We are animals, we evolved to use sex, want sex, need sex. No rationalizing about risks outweighs millions of years of evolutionary selection pounding away within our brains.

Wanting sex is hard wired into our brains and bodies. That hardwiring does not kick in only after marriage, it kicks in at puberty(if not before).

God's language must be nature. He wrote it. Part of nature is that we get horny. Don't complain to me, god did it. Horniness(I love talking like an academic) is not something that only happens after marriage(as I said above). God must have wanted us to be horny as soon as we are fertile. Just like all the other animals. (granted estrous also plays a part in particular for females, but estrous in female animals is not linked to marriage either)

C'mon tell me about the dangers of sex between cats, dogs, sloths, toads, and okapi because they are not married.

tronvillain

dk:
I see you didn't attempt to justify your use of the word "steroids." Now, that I did not comment on the effects (not affects) does not mean I have not given them much thought, and I did not even mention a "male pill." All I can say about the side effects of birth control is that if I was female I would probably consider them worth it.

So, interacting with someone for the sole purpose of obtaining sex. Do consider it a good or a bad thing? It depends on the context.

Ah, but what you asked was "Would you mind if the father of your child asked for a DNA test before signing the birth certificate?" which is simply about monogamy and trust, in both premarital and marital relationships. As I said, I fail to see why you are asking it here, and as you provided no justification for it in your response, I am not convinced that you have given it much thought.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

dk

<ol type="1">[*]lunachick: Thanks for recognising I have a good heart, but that's kinda beside the point.
dk: I don’t think so, I’ve seen to many people turn hard, so hard they become incapable of being vulnerable.[*]lunachick: The thing is I don't find the subject a difficult one. I'm very candid about sex and sexuality, and have no 'hang-ups' that I'm aware of. What I find bizarre is how people can get so uptight about sex. Sure risks are involved; there are risks to getting married, too.
dk: I’m not uptight. When Cain was questioned about Abel’s whereabouts after the murder he responded, “Am I my brothers keeper?”. Life is full of risk without trivializing the procreation or promulgating sexual myths that put innocent people into harms way.[*]lunachick: The thing is to go in with your eyes open. Good sex education from well before someone even reaches the legal age of consent.
dk: That’s nice but people are born blind and helpless, and they grow up in a world full of casualties. At the very least it seems to me all good people have an obligations to cover youth, not to secure personal liberty at the expense of innocents.[*]lunachick: Open dialogue between sexual partners, married or not. And none of this "woman who are sexual outside of marriage must be whores" crap".
dk: Seems to me you presume infidelity where none exists, married or not.[*]lunachick: Oh, and if you're wondering about the risks in marriage - how about battered wives, people living with broken hearts at a partners infidelty, a husband or wife that drinks or drugs all the money away, lots of things are risky business, dk. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that not only would partners benefit from having pre-marital sex, but if they are seriously considering marriage they should live together for a couple or years before they make that forever-contract step.
dk: Hey, some people think a healthy respect for animals comes from a good dog bite.[*]lunachick: But anyway, IMO it's the taboos and the moral high ground of some controlling people that do more damage than aware and responsible sexual practice - inside and outside of marriage.
dk: Safe Sex is an oxymoron in my opinion. I find fidelity and humility share a common theme. There’s no sense applauding a humble person, because they don’t stay humble very long. There’s no sense in plotting fidelity, because faithfulness isn’t a plan. I think there is a goodness in people that preserves us beyond the applause and plans we make, and therefore human sexuality fails as a plan that originates in the arrogance of people. Safe sex begets an arrogant plan that deprives people of the goodness that preserves.[/list=a]
Sorry to carve your post up, I just don't see openness as a solution to infidelity apart from the social intercourse we share as families, friends and neighbors. If carving up the post took the message out of context I apologize.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

tronvillain

dk to Glory:
I am not willing to agree that proponents of premarital sex do trivialize the potential side effects. We simply see them as risks we are willing to take, though we attempt to minimize them. Sexually transmitted diseases? Evaluate potential partners, abstinence or condom use before testing, and possibly condom use after testing as well. Pregnancy? Birth control, and possibly abortion.

dk to utbabya:
Of course, a lot of those will not be life threatening diseases, such as herpes. Now, what exactly is your point?

dk to Glory
I think the problem may be that we do not consider chastity a virtue, though that does not imply that we consider it a vice. Why do you think that our responses did not consider the fullness of human dignity and life? Perhaps because you feel that if we did we could only come down against pre-marital sex, but I am agraid that is not the case.

They are potential side effects of the act - ommission of that qualifier implies that they always accompany the act, which they do not. That said, perhaps you could try responding to what Glory actually said, instead of merely typing whatever comes into your head, as you appear to have done.

Exactly what did Glory write that led you to say "the trauma of premarital sex almost left you frigid"? I am unable to locate any such statement on her part, but perhaps you noticed something I didn't. Now, it is not clear that youth in a culture "saturated with sexual imagery" learn to view one another as objects. Now, teens and young adults have problems, but again it is not clear that condemning pre-marital sex is the solution to them.

The connection between this response and what the response is to is extremely tenuous, as is its connection to the issue of pre-marital sex rather than sex in general.

No one consents to being killed or injured in a car accident, but those are the risks of being in an automobile. What is your point?

dk

<ol type="1">[*]dk: So you don’t give the affects much thought, but are curious about the affects of a male pill.
tronvillain: I see you didn't attempt to justify your use of the word "steroids." Now, that I did not comment on the effects (not affects) does not mean I have not given them much thought, and I did not even mention a "male pill." All I can say about the side effects of birth control is that if I was female I would probably consider them worth it.
dk: There’s nothing judgmental or taboo about the word ‘steroids’. I used the term correctly, in the correct context.[*]dk: You know like putting a quarter in candy machine, as a means to an ends.
tronvillain: So, interacting with someone for the sole purpose of obtaining sex. Do consider it a good or a bad thing? It depends on the context.
dk: Some people view human dignity as “an ends unto itself”, as such a human life becomes a gift not a biological machine with a coin slot and knobs that responds with goodies.[*]dk: : Women get pregnant from sex, even premarital sex. Obviously you haven’t given it much thought.
tronvillain Ah, but what you asked was "Would you mind if the father of your child asked for a DNA test before signing the birth certificate?" which is simply about monogamy and trust, in both premarital and marital relationships. As I said, I fail to see why you are asking it here, and as you provided no justification for it in your response, I am not convinced that you have given it much thought.
dk: Unplanned babies are an entailment of sex between the mother and father, no matter how many partners a women takes, or her marital status.[/list=a]

lunachick

No problem. This is the internet, I don't get to dictate how people respond to me. Carve up all you like!

I didn't really get what you were saying to me, though. Call me stupid, but I just felt confused after your response.

Also, I wasn't really talking about infidelity in my post - just sex in general - which infidelity is part of, sure, but it's not the only issue.

Hey, I'm sure we all know faithful, sexual unmarried couples as we know unfaithful married couples.

Anyway, I've gotta go out now - I'll be back to address issues of sex education and safe sex later in the day.

Have fun!

Glory

dk,



Chastity does not make me uncomfortable. I also do not see it as a virtue. It is a state of being, nothing more or less. It is not good or bad.

I resent your implication that i do not view the topic of sex in the "fullness of human dignity." Not everything has to be spoken of in hushed voices and and reverant tones. In fact, it is that attitude that leads to people not wanting to talk about sex at all. It's sex not transcendence.



Every discussion about sex has to be about the bad things that can happen or elses we are being disrespectful to the value of human life? I have plenty of respect for human life. I don't have to wear it like a badge.




Same answer, third time: sometimes its good, some times its bad. You still have not defined your terms. Until you give me a an example of what you think constitutes using someone for sex, I will not be able to give you any more detail than that.



I said it hurt alot and it was messy. I was not traumatised or nearly frigid(the second most misogynistic term I know of). You see the muscles of the vaginal area are extremely tight in virgins. The act of inserting the penis stretches those muscles and leaves the woman quite sore. Think of doing high impact aerobics afetr a 5 year hiatus from working out with out stretching or warming up. Its a fact of life for women. This experience would not have been any different for me had I been married to the guy I slept with.

You keep referring to premarrital sex as though its completely different from sex between married people. It is the same. Its a physical act. There is no mind melding or soul joining involved and if there were it would occur between unmarried people as well as married people. Marraige does not make the difference you seem to think it does. That's why I keep bringing up my husband and the fact that I am married. Because everything you keep talking about applies or doesn't to both married and unmarried people.



If you want to talk about all these problems, fine. They are not caused by sex alone, however. It is not at all clear what causes some people to view other people as objects nor is it clear that living in a culture saturated with sexual imagery is bad. I rather enjoy some aspects of it. Each of the problems you mention have causes both numerous and complex. How exactly does chastity help someone with a drug problem?



Okay we agree on something. People who don't take responsibility for their behaviour are heinous. The question is what is your point with a question about a man asking for a dna test? Is this the consequence that harlotts should be prepared for should they engage in premarrital sex? The question was inflamtory but I still cannot ascertain the reason you asked it. Of course I would be upset if a man did that to me. What do get from that answer? What window into my psyche is opened by that?



Where do you get off assuming that I don't or didn't look past my immediate endorphins and ego? Or that the men I slept with before I was married did not? Get over your assumptions and prejudices.

Sex is just like chastity in that it is not inherently good or bad. It has the potential to go either way and that potential is present at every moment of every sexual encounter at any time.

You spend a lot of time on the negative aspects of sex. Ever thought about the postives?

Glory

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

tronvillain

dk:
If anyone reading this thread believes that, have I got a deal for them... The word "steroid" does have a negative connotation as a result of anabolic steroid use, and the question could be asked far more clearly without reference to them.

As I said, in my opinion whether or not interacting with someone for the sole purpose of obtaining sex is "a good thing" depends on the context(if it involves deception or coercion I probably do not). It isn't necessarily any different from interacting with someone for the sole purpose of obtaining a meal. Oh, and that scenario only occurs in a limited number of the total number of premarital sexual encounters.

Which does not explain why you felt it necessary to ask ""Would you mind if the father of your child asked for a DNA test before signing the birth certificate?" with specific reference to premarital sex. Perhaps you intended to imply that there is less trust or monogamy in premarital sexual relationships?

Ut

Many people are pressured into buying products or investing in stocks with lies, false promises and worse and end up being defrauded. Would you argue that buying products or investing in the stock market is therefore bad?

This topic is about premarital sex, not about the use of lies, drugs or false promises. I didn't need any of these to get my premarital sex, and people who are mature about their sexuality and are not ashamed of it usually get their sex without any of these.

Unplanned pregnancies and STDs are a risk inherent to having sex (not just premarital sex) just like dying or getting crippled in a car crash is a risk inherent to driving a car. This does not stop me from driving a car.

brighid

Luvluv,

Sorry I have been unable to respond sooner but I have been unexpectedly detained and unable to get to a computer.

I understand what you are saying, but I believe the reality of a waxing and waning sex life has been addressed within the context of this discussion. That natural cycle is to be expected over the length of a long-term relationship regardless of the couple is married. Young children require a lot of time and energy and it is pretty normal for the sex life of parents to be put on hold, or to wane significantly during that time. Surely there are some people who naturally have very low sex drives. There is nothing inherently wrong with this natural state. It becomes a problem when the needs of ones partner are different and if those needs are constantly negated, or are unable to be met. It DOES become a major point of divisiveness in any relationship regardless of marital status. Eventually, that waning cycle will change and things may not resume to their honeymoon phase, but an agreed upon and satisfying relationship can and should be achieved.

However, I would disagree that most women (regardless of their current religious status) in this country haven't been indoctrinated to believe that sex is dirty, isn't for the enjoyment of a woman and have repressed sexual appetites because of the psychology behind the indoctrination/social conditioning AND lack of proper sexual education.

The majority of women in the US, brought up in Abrahamic religious households are sent very clear messages regarding their sexuality from early on in life. Even those of us who have shed the mental shackles of that upbringing still struggle with the ideas that women are not to be sexual as men are, that our purpose is to serve and submit to our husbands and our duty is to bear and raise children.

I have counselled too many female friends in regard to these things and their inability to enjoy sex (and do it more as a wifely duty) or even achieve orgasm because of their views about their body and sex in general. This is purely anecdotal of course, but my experience is reflective of what occurs in general.

I have absolutely NO problem with anyone abstaining from sexual experiences. I fully understand the consequences of sex before or during marriage.

But for those who have never had sex to factually discuss how they believe sex will or will not actually have on a marriage is a bit naive perhaps. You cannot actually know or understand that very specific dynamic if you have not had the opportunity to explore it. I certainly did not understand what all the fretting was about when I was a virgin

I think you have very good intentions luvluv. I also think you have some romanticized ideas about sex and marriage that will hopefully not bring you shock, disappointment of heartbreak in your future as it has to millions of others. Maybe you will be the exception. Regardless, you shall live and learn just like the everyone else.

Brighid