• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"No Sex Before Marriage" - As A Concept

Part of it. I was simply trying to point out that there are a number of pragmatic benefits to keeping sex inside of marriage. When you add "waiting until having sex makes better relationships" to "odds of divorce increase for couples that cohibit before marriage" I think the implications are fairly clear.

That makes no sense. Couples can delay their first sexual coupling *and* not cohhibit before marriage and still engage in pre-marital sex. You are making assumptions that those who delay sex and dont cohabitate do not engage in pre-marital sex, an assumption for which you have exactly zero evidence.


I think the reason why waiting long to have sex in a relationship improves the relationship is fairly obvious too.... if you wait to have sex, you have to find SOMETHING to do when you're together.... like oh, TALK to each other and actually get to know the person maybe. :mrgreen:

Again, delaying sex does not mean "no premarital sex". Again, you are making assumptions with no evidence

Really, my point was just that waiting until marriage and then keeping sex within the marriage only, is not only not insane, it has some distinct positives. I think it is a worthy ideal, even if it is one that a good many people can't or won't fulfill.

I know what your point is. My point, and Jredbarons', is that your evidence has nothing to do with your point.
 
I believe its different for everyone. Just like some are attracted to only brown eyes, dark hair, etc. Their are also some whom are attracted the sexual chemistry while others need only the physical and personality attraction. I for one dont believe in sex before marriage because I believe the sex wouldnt make me love someone more. Most times its because the couples horny. But with that said I wont dictate my kids lives to live like I did. The actual truth is if you want to view it in a general standpoint, guys have premarital sex more than girls do. I believe and I may be wrong in some cases, but I believe this because girls are "daddies girl," the dads most times dont even want their little girl dating, let alone have sex. Girls are more on watch by the fathers or parents because they dont want their little girl to have sex before marriage. In my family at least we werent allowed to date until we were 19 and we werent told to not have sex but we were trusted not to.

Many things play a factor
 
I think the reason why waiting long to have sex in a relationship improves the relationship is fairly obvious too.... if you wait to have sex, you have to find SOMETHING to do when you're together.... like oh, TALK to each other and actually get to know the person maybe. :mrgreen:

I really don't understand the idealization of "waiting" to have sex in general, because I think the concept of it being better to wait comes more from people's emotions than any kind of tangible evidence.

It's certainly not obvious to me why waiting improves a relationship, and your argument makes no sense. Do you honestly think that if people don't wait to have sex, that ALL they do is have sex and nothing else? Because that's what you're implying. You're saying that if people don't have sex, they have to come up with SOMETHING to do together (like talking and getting to know each other). But if they choose not to wait for sex, they DON'T talk or get to know each other??? The only time they spend together is having sex? It's just a ridiculous argument that doesn't stand up to the most basic logical scrutiny.
 
I for one dont believe in sex before marriage because I believe the sex wouldnt make me love someone more.

Perhaps, but I would also argue that sex before marriage could make you love someone less, don't you agree? Not everyone is sexually compatible. Sexual compatibility is often not something that is addressed and/or considered. It is often assumed that if there is sexual incompatibility, that the horny one needs to back off and become more sensitive (usually the man) or that "she done sold her ass to the devil" (the woman). Rarely have I heard it said that the best professional advice for a couple in the hell of sexual incompatibility is to get divorced and find a compatible mate before marriage number 2 begins. But often that might be the best advice.

In my family at least we werent allowed to date until we were 19 and we werent told to not have sex but we were trusted not to.

Many things play a factor

And you weren't allowed to shave your legs until you were 18? Esther, is that you? I think we went to school together.
 
I really don't understand the idealization of "waiting" to have sex in general, because I think the concept of it being better to wait comes more from people's emotions than any kind of tangible evidence.

It's certainly not obvious to me why waiting improves a relationship, and your argument makes no sense. Do you honestly think that if people don't wait to have sex, that ALL they do is have sex and nothing else? Because that's what you're implying. You're saying that if people don't have sex, they have to come up with SOMETHING to do together (like talking and getting to know each other). But if they choose not to wait for sex, they DON'T talk or get to know each other??? The only time they spend together is having sex? It's just a ridiculous argument that doesn't stand up to the most basic logical scrutiny.


Bud, you're either not thinking it through or deliberately being disingenous... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

When you start having sex, no it isn't ALL you do but it typically DOES become a major feature of the relationship for a period of time.... say anywhere from three or four months up to possibly two years.

Sexual intimacy is a powerful thing that affects brain chemicals, hormones, emotions.... all kinds of stuff. It changes your perception of things.

Man tends to think: "Woman gives me sex, therefore woman is good". It tends to make it harder to actually view the woman and her character and personality CLEARLY and objectively, because the desire to continue having sex with her clouds most men's thinking.

Women tend to "give sex to get love", and are more likely (generalization warning here, there are exceptions to every rule!) to see sexual intimacy and emotional intimacy as being connected. Thus she may believe that there is more EMOTIONAL intimacy going on here than there really is, and form expectations of the man that he may not wish to fulfill (ie committment, etc).

Human beings have a regrettable tendency to see others as we WISH to see them, when they are doing something FOR us that we like. We also have a regrettable tendency to hear what we want to hear, especially when we are content at the moment and don't want anything to change for the worse.

In other words I'm saying sex changes things. There's nothing crazy about it, and I think most experienced people would agree that sex tends to change your emotional view of a person.

Many a man has met a woman, started having sex, got emotionally entangled, got married or moved in or whatever.... and then woke up 6 mos or 2 years later and suddenly realize that he doesn't really know this person in his bed NEARLY as well as he thought he did... and vice-versa women/men. There's a reason for that, and I've been talking about it throughout this thread.
 
image012.jpg


:lol:

Isn't it a damn shame that that seems to happen with sad regularity? :(
 
Jesus. Imagine getting married to someone who was terrible in bed.

Now imagine your ENTIRE LIFE of bad sex.

Frightening isn't it?
 
Ok bud, whatever. I've beat my head against the brick walls of willful blindness enough today.



Bud, you're either not thinking it through or deliberately being disingenous... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. .

FYI - disagreeing with you is not an indication of dishonesty
 
Jesus. Imagine getting married to someone who was terrible in bed.

Now imagine your ENTIRE LIFE of bad sex.

Frightening isn't it?

But this doesn't mean that you (or your partner) must stay "terrible in bed". It amazes me that some people act like once we reach the age of sexual activity, we stop growing at all, and just settle for ho-hum. This seems a ridiculous idea to me.
 
But this doesn't mean that you (or your partner) must stay "terrible in bed". It amazes me that some people act like once we reach the age of sexual activity, we stop growing at all, and just settle for ho-hum. This seems a ridiculous idea to me.

Teaching your partner some new tricks can be a lot of fun
 
Teaching your partner some new tricks can be a lot of fun

Or learning some new ones. If I was still of the same mind and skill level sexually, as I was at the age of 18, I would have died from boredom or killed myself out of sheer frustration by now.
 
Perhaps, but I would also argue that sex before marriage could make you love someone less, don't you agree? Not everyone is sexually compatible. Sexual compatibility is often not something that is addressed and/or considered. It is often assumed that if there is sexual incompatibility, that the horny one needs to back off and become more sensitive (usually the man) or that "she done sold her ass to the devil" (the woman). Rarely have I heard it said that the best professional advice for a couple in the hell of sexual incompatibility is to get divorced and find a compatible mate before marriage number 2 begins. But often that might be the best advice.


And you weren't allowed to shave your legs until you were 18? Esther, is that you? I think we went to school together.


And you can argue that claim all you want and i wont label you a liar. You sir must have skimmed through my whole post because i actually agree with you to a point. Not everyone needs to "test" whether or not they are sexually compatible before marriage and so may have to. Theirs no right or wrong answer I believe its how you were raised, what your beliefs are, and how far ones limits are. But I dont think at least in my opinion that sex is the main factor to a strong and stable relationship.

Hahahaha that gave me a good laugh, babe my name is Ellie. But i give Esther credit for making her legs visible while they were hairy. I dont have that much guts!
 
Or learning some new ones. If I was still of the same mind and skill level sexually, as I was at the age of 18, I would have died from boredom or killed myself out of sheer frustration by now.

Haha - yep. Things that I must have now use to turn me off before.
 
The issue I see with pressuring people to wait until they are married to have sex is that it sends the message that everyone should want to get married. Getting married is not a goal of mine. I don't want children, so I certainly don't need to get married to build a family. It is strange to me that in a culture (so specifically talking about the U.S. here) in which marriages fail at a ridiculous rate, we still think that getting married is "ideal". I'm sex-positive. And because I do not know whether I will or will not ever get married (because it isn't a goal), I see no reason to forgo having sex.

Marriage is for some people, and it isn't for other people. I would rather have an intimate, romantic relationship with someone which eventually ends in us both carrying on with our lives and other relationships, than pigeonhole myself into a marriage because it's the form society tells me romantic relationships should aspire to take.

As for the sexual compatibility thing, I think if you REALLY want to wait until marriage to have sex, but you are worried about sexual compatibility, that is a totally valid concern. Yes, you can work at it, and yes you can teach each other and develop your sexual maturity together. But none of that is going to matter if one person absolutely must get tied up, gagged, and whipped to get off, and the other person is horrified by that and will never be comfortable doing it. Same thing if one partner is really into pegging, anal, BDSM, roleplaying, or whatever else, and the other person has very serious objections to that activity. It would be great if we could all get past any of our reservations in order to please a partner who may need something more...eccentric...than we are used to doing. But that's not reality. Just because you care about someone, doesn't mean you are ever going to be comfortable with everything they like. So it is important that both partners feel comfortable putting all of their kinks, fetishes, fantasies, etc on the table to make sure that there isn't going to be a divorce five years later because someones essential foot fetish is not being tolerated.

So, I could see it working if you could honestly be that completely open about all of the things you are both into. For myself, if a guy sat there and told me all of his kinks and fantasies, I would be so moved by his honesty, openness, and comfort with his own sexuality that I would immediately veto any waiting to have sex and jump him right then and there. So this whole "no sex before marriage thing" would just not work at all. To each their own, I guess.
 
Bud, you're either not thinking it through or deliberately being disingenous... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

When you start having sex, no it isn't ALL you do but it typically DOES become a major feature of the relationship for a period of time.... say anywhere from three or four months up to possibly two years.

So my question again is, how does sex becoming a major feature of a relationship negatively affect how well you get to know a person? Are you trying to say there's less time for conversation or emotional bonding or what? Because I just don't get how introducing sex=you don't know a person as well you would without it.

Sexual intimacy is a powerful thing that affects brain chemicals, hormones, emotions.... all kinds of stuff. It changes your perception of things.

Man tends to think: "Woman gives me sex, therefore woman is good". It tends to make it harder to actually view the woman and her character and personality CLEARLY and objectively, because the desire to continue having sex with her clouds most men's thinking.

Women tend to "give sex to get love", and are more likely (generalization warning here, there are exceptions to every rule!) to see sexual intimacy and emotional intimacy as being connected. Thus she may believe that there is more EMOTIONAL intimacy going on here than there really is, and form expectations of the man that he may not wish to fulfill (ie committment, etc).

Human beings have a regrettable tendency to see others as we WISH to see them, when they are doing something FOR us that we like. We also have a regrettable tendency to hear what we want to hear, especially when we are content at the moment and don't want anything to change for the worse.

In other words I'm saying sex changes things. There's nothing crazy about it, and I think most experienced people would agree that sex tends to change your emotional view of a person.

Many a man has met a woman, started having sex, got emotionally entangled, got married or moved in or whatever.... and then woke up 6 mos or 2 years later and suddenly realize that he doesn't really know this person in his bed NEARLY as well as he thought he did... and vice-versa women/men. There's a reason for that, and I've been talking about it throughout this thread.

Sorry, but I just don't buy your fundamental argument that by introducing sex into the mix somehow you don't "know" the person as well as you would if you had waited. Again, you're implying that someone would wake up after a while and "realize" that they don't know the person they're with as well as they thought they did, and that is BECAUSE they have sex instead of waiting.

I get that sex can cloud your judgment in certain ways and certain instances, but trying to say that it can actually serve to limit how well it is possible get to know a romantic partner is illogical.
 
So my question again is, how does sex becoming a major feature of a relationship negatively affect how well you get to know a person? Are you trying to say there's less time for conversation or emotional bonding or what? Because I just don't get how introducing sex=you don't know a person as well you would without it.



Sorry, but I just don't buy your fundamental argument that by introducing sex into the mix somehow you don't "know" the person as well as you would if you had waited. Again, you're implying that someone would wake up after a while and "realize" that they don't know the person they're with as well as they thought they did, and that is BECAUSE they have sex instead of waiting.

I get that sex can cloud your judgment in certain ways and certain instances, but trying to say that it can actually serve to limit how well it is possible get to know a romantic partner is illogical.



:shrug: You can say that all you like and it bothers me not a whit; I know that it is certainly possible in many cases, because I've seen it many times.
 
There have been some pretty thorough studies done on the subject, and they indicate that for women born prior to 1900, about 26% had premarital sex. For those born after 1900, and through the mid 50's, that rose to 48%. By the late 70's, it was 70%. I don't doubt that some people lied about it, but our rates of those who have premarital sex have risen significantly.

We talked about this on the site before. There is a romanticized aura about the past, and how 'pure' people were. Its ridiculous. Humans want sex as soon as they start feeling the urge, and that was as true in 1920 or 1930 as it is now. Most of us submit to it before marriage, of course:



PREMARITAL SEX IS NEARLY UNIVERSAL AMONG AMERICANS, AND HAS BEEN FOR DECADES

The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports. Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.

Premarital Sex Is Nearly Universal Among Americans, And Has Been For Decades
 
The issue I see with pressuring people to wait until they are married to have sex is that it sends the message that everyone should want to get married. Getting married is not a goal of mine. I don't want children, so I certainly don't need to get married to build a family. It is strange to me that in a culture (so specifically talking about the U.S. here) in which marriages fail at a ridiculous rate, we still think that getting married is "ideal". I'm sex-positive. And because I do not know whether I will or will not ever get married (because it isn't a goal), I see no reason to forgo having sex.

Imo, the idea behind it is to help insure social stability and sustainability, via encouraging families to stay intact and therefore have a positive effect on society. There's no doubt in my mind that it is based in religion, as a general rule, as most of the world's religion stress great importance on fidelity in personal affairs. Although I don't necessarily believe it is essential for society's betterment, it does overall tend to make people more cognizant of the negative effects of their actions. There are always good points and bad points with any idea which is taken to an extreme black and white stance. As an example, if you believe in the idea that sex before marriage is wrong, and you get married to some guy who happens to be a sadistic SOB, and you had never seen that tendency before, alot of women of earlier generations would tend to try and make it work, beyond reasonable efforts, and would put up with abuse for the sake of sticking to their vows. To me, this is obviously NOT a good idea, as the children (if any) from that marriage relationship would likely grow up with a warped view on what marriage should be. To me, the idea that sex should be only after marriage puts women at a risk of being vulnerable to abuses, especially when they are young and unwary of the ways of the world.
 
So my question again is, how does sex becoming a major feature of a relationship negatively affect how well you get to know a person? Are you trying to say there's less time for conversation or emotional bonding or what? Because I just don't get how introducing sex=you don't know a person as well you would without it.

If there is another dimension to the relationship, before sex becomes the dominating factor, it seems more likely that the relationship could withstand the test of time. When you rush headlong into a sexual relationship, without other strong bonds present, it's a pretty shallow basis for stability, and no matter how good the sex is, it easily leads to emotional and intellectual boredom, unless you just happen to be compatible in those areas as well.
 
Imo, the idea behind it is to help insure social stability and sustainability, via encouraging families to stay intact and therefore have a positive effect on society. There's no doubt in my mind that it is based in religion, as a general rule, as most of the world's religion stress great importance on fidelity in personal affairs. Although I don't necessarily believe it is essential for society's betterment, it does overall tend to make people more cognizant of the negative effects of their actions.

I think the motivation for encouraging marriage or placing it on a sort of pedestal has a lot to do with the prevalence of God-based religions in the U.S. I mean, I don't really see people on an individual level considering marriage as increasing social stability etc. I'm getting a graduate degree in math, I'm going to teach in public schools, I pay my taxes, I donate to charities, I vote, etc. That all has a positive effect on society, and all occurs outside of the context of a marriage or a family structure. I don't think there is a really prevalent attitude in regards to marriage that we need it to stabilize or that we need marriage to positively effect our society.
 
Why does it seem there's a tendency to equate "sex before marriage" with animalistic whoreishness, and jumping straight into bed before even having a first kiss or making it past "hello"?

There's no time frame on how long people wait in a relationship before having sex prior to marriage.

Some people wait years before getting married.

Some people live together and really "test the longevity" of the relationship before getting married.

Is living together before marriage wrong as well?

It worked out quite nicely for me. I've just passed my 22 wedding anniversary. We lived together for 2 years before getting married and dated for two years before moving in together.
 
Back
Top Bottom