• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Premarital sex

Originally Posted by Axismaster
I think that premarital sex is an abomination. Anyone who does it better not do it lightly and ask for forgiveness from God after doing it. God tells us several times in the Bible (my pastor once said how many times, but I forget) that premarital sex is wrong, and we as a society had best listen to that.

I agree that sex shouldn't be taken lightly. But not having sex at all is just not realistic.
 
Axismaster said:
I think that premarital sex is an abomination. Anyone who does it better not do it lightly and ask for forgiveness from God after doing it. God tells us several times in the Bible (my pastor once said how many times, but I forget) that premarital sex is wrong, and we as a society had best listen to that.

And, there are other belief systems that have no such injunction. So, I don't really see how this is relevent...
 
Look I believe in live and let live, I am by no means a Bible thumper, but I am a Christian. This is my own personal belief on the thing.
 
Axismaster said:
Look I believe in live and let live, I am by no means a Bible thumper, but I am a Christian. This is my own personal belief on the thing.

You just went from 'person I don't like' to 'person I respect' by saying that :mrgreen:
 
Axismaster said:
Look I believe in live and let live, I am by no means a Bible thumper, but I am a Christian. This is my own personal belief on the thing.

You are most definetly a card carrying bible thumper... Thats pretty obvious in your zero tolerance stance on everything. It's your way or your going ot hell and god hates you. Don't hurt your hand smacking that bible
 
Stace said:
George? Physical attraction and sexual attraction are two different things. You can be physically attracted, but not sexually attracted, and vice versa.

In order to be sexually attracted to someone, you must also be physically attracted to them. I know what you're trying to say but you're not thinking about it correctly. Just having sex with someone without being physically attracted to them just implies that you like sex in general, which isn't an, "attraction" per se but just a desire to have sex. It could mean the person is good in bed but it really just implies that you like sex and not the person. So you're not attracted to them but just the sex they offer you.

Not necessarily. If all you've got going there is that you think the person is attractive, there's no TRUE feelings there. That's just lust. Ever had a one night stand, George? Could be the best sex of your life, but the only feeling that would be attached would be lust.

Actually, I read about a theory in psychology once that suggested the reason why people find certain people attractive is because they remind people of their parents, something spiritual, or vague concept of the ideal mate they've had in mind since they were very young. See, Stace. You have, how can I say? Very, "elementary" views on the psychology of sex.


I've never slept with anyone I personally didn't find physically attractive. And most of the time, the sex was completely NOT worth it.

That's just your opinion, it doesn't mean anything. I would say myself and others have had different experiences. :::shrugs:::




Very good! You actually comprehended what I said.

The impudent statements really aren't neccessary, Stace.


I got to know him as a person before we slept together. I'm not saying that it's necessary to do that before you have sex with anyone - because it certainly isn't - but it brings about a completely different level of sexual satisfaction.

That's kind of what I was trying to imply. But when you said you would have left your husband after getting to know him if he wasn't good in bed sounded very, "superficial," the very same thing you accused me of being. If I really cared about a woman, I wouldn't leave her just because she didn't do certain things in bed. She could develop good sexual skills over time, as a lot of people do. If there was something I really wanted her to do but she refused, I would probably still stay with her, supposing I was very in love with her. Maybe though that's just the kind of person I am.
 
George_Washington said:
In order to be sexually attracted to someone, you must also be physically attracted to them. I know what you're trying to say but you're not thinking about it correctly. Just having sex with someone without being physically attracted to them just implies that you like sex in general, which isn't an, "attraction" per se but just a desire to have sex. It could mean the person is good in bed but it really just implies that you like sex and not the person. So you're not attracted to them but just the sex they offer you.

Wrong, George. First of all, you are not exactly the expert here....I'm not saying that I am, but your tone is really starting to get on my nerves. Anyway, all of that is merely your opinion. You can indeed be sexually attracted to someone you're not physically attracted to, and it has nothing to do with "liking sex in general".



Actually, I read about a theory in psychology once that suggested the reason why people find certain people attractive is because they remind people of their parents, something spiritual, or vague concept of the ideal mate they've had in mind since they were very young. See, Stace. You have, how can I say? Very, "elementary" views on the psychology of sex.

Whoop de doo. Not everything in life is learned through books and classes. Try getting some real life experience.

And how DARE you say that I have "very elementary views on the pschology of sex"? You don't know me, George, and you don't know the depths of my views - on this, or anything else. Don't ever presume that you do. And do not EVER talk to me like that again. I've already lost most of my respect for you for the way you talked to another member awhile back - I'd really hate to lose the shred that's remaining. You are NOT better than me, or anyone else here, so please stop acting like you are.




That's just your opinion, it doesn't mean anything. I would say myself and others have had different experiences. :::shrugs:::

That's funny, because I know many people that have found themselves in similar situations.

And this is ALL just your opinion, too, so I guess nothing you say means anything either, huh?

And tell me, if my opinion doesn't mean anything to you, then why are you still arguing with me? I'd prefer for you to just move on if my opinion means so little to you. I'm not a fan of wasting my time, there are other people I could be debating things with.



The impudent statements really aren't neccessary, Stace.

Perhaps you need to take a page out of your own book, George.


That's kind of what I was trying to imply. But when you said you would have left your husband after getting to know him if he wasn't good in bed sounded very, "superficial," the very same thing you accused me of being.

Uh, excuse me? WHERE did I say that I would have left him? Oh, that's right, I DIDN'T. I said that IF we had not been compatible in bed, some of the spark I felt would have been lost, but that in no way implies that I would have left.

If I really cared about a woman, I wouldn't leave her just because she didn't do certain things in bed. She could develop good sexual skills over time, as a lot of people do.

And a lot of people don't.

If there was something I really wanted her to do but she refused, I would probably still stay with her, supposing I was very in love with her. Maybe though that's just the kind of person I am.

I don't know what exactly you're trying to get at, George. Once again, you are way out in left field all by yourself. We're not talking about doing specific acts or positions....we are talking about the quality of your sex life overall.

And actually, that's not the point of this thread, either. It was supposed to be about discussing individual views regarding premarital sex. So, as the person who started this thread to begin with......if you have thoughts regarding that, great. Otherwise...thanks for playing.
 
George, I like you. Some of the things you have stated in the posts in this thread are a little strange. No one can know how they will feel if their partner was not good in bed or was unwilling to do certain things. What would you do if your wife said she was no longer interested in having sex period? She wanted nothing from you and didn't feel like doing anything to you, but that you were her best friend and she loved you unconditionally. Would you stick around? It sounds to me like you might lack experience in relationships because you seem unable to understand all the dynamics of a relationship.

I was surprised to read your telling Stace that she had elementary views on the psychology of sex and then state some theory you read in a book. What is said in your book would certainly apply to some people, but not all people, and based upon what Stace has said, I agree with her. Does that make my views on the psychology of sex "elementary" too? I'm 38 years old. I have been married for almost 8 years. I had multiple relationships with men before I met my husband. I think I have a pretty good idea of the psychology of sex. The whole parent thing sounds gross, by the way.

If anyone's theory sounds a little elementary, it's yours. I don't mean that in a mean way--I'm just being honest.
 
Its really a question of openes. I remember my teenage years many many years ago. I got all the freedom I wanted from my parents. That made me a very responsible person. Yes I remember I had sex. And with many. But after I got married I appriciate this. Because now I dont have to think "Did I miss anything???" And you know like Kevin Meinard said: "Problems are only pre-solutions". If you havent had time to make mistakes and learn, then you wont enjoy your marriage to the full potential.

PH
 
Poul Hanson said:
Its really a question of openes. I remember my teenage years many many years ago. I got all the freedom I wanted from my parents. That made me a very responsible person. Yes I remember I had sex. And with many. But after I got married I appriciate this. Because now I dont have to think "Did I miss anything???" And you know like Kevin Meinard said: "Problems are only pre-solutions". If you havent had time to make mistakes and learn, then you wont enjoy your marriage to the full potential.

PH

That's a great angle we haven't brought up yet, PH. I think this is where a large part of the problem with adulterers comes from.....they did NOT experience even one other sexual partner other than their spouse, and eventually, that may leave them wondering whether or not they missed out on something. While I know this certainly isn't the rule regarding adulterers, I'm certain it's responsible for many a cheater.

Welcome to the forum!
 
Its really a question of openes. I remember my teenage years many many years ago. I got all the freedom I wanted from my parents. That made me a very responsible person. Yes I remember I had sex. And with many. But after I got married I appriciate this. Because now I dont have to think "Did I miss anything???" And you know like Kevin Meinard said: "Problems are only pre-solutions". If you havent had time to make mistakes and learn, then you wont enjoy your marriage to the full potential.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. I have seen enough in my lifetime to know that I don't want to make that mistake. These things have a way of ruining lives. You make it sound like one can just pull out an eraser and the problem will go away.
 
Stace said:
That's a great angle we haven't brought up yet, PH. I think this is where a large part of the problem with adulterers comes from.....they did NOT experience even one other sexual partner other than their spouse, and eventually, that may leave them wondering whether or not they missed out on something.

I doubt that. seems more likely to me that people that cheat in marriage also probably cheated on previous partners before they got married.
 
aps said:
The whole parent thing sounds gross, by the way.


lol I was going by Sigmund Freud's theories...you know...one of the most profound psychologists of our time...I am surprised not many of you guys are familiar with his theories.

Anyway, having sex a lot of times doesn't mean you're an expert on sex and how sexual relationships work. That would be like saying that a professional golfer is an expert on the mechanics of golf just because he has hit a thousand golf balls. He isn't qualified to be a teaching professional just because he's good at golf. You can't always go by your own personal experiences or say that you have a superior knowledge of sex just because you've had sex more times than somebody else has. So that is the point I was trying to make to Stace. This is why people go to school to study psychology to develop theories of sex, they don't just go out and have a lot of sex. lol

If my wife couldn't have sex with me for some legitimate reason, suppose she was in an accident, I wouldn't leave her. If I really loved her, I'd stay with her. If she just refused to have sex just because she was angry at me or out of some spiteful reason...then I might leave. But my point was that I wouldn't leave her just because she didn't want to do certain things in bed.
 
George_Washington,


If my wife couldn't have sex with me for some legitimate reason, suppose she was in an accident, I wouldn't leave her. If I really loved her, I'd stay with her. If she just refused to have sex just because she was angry at me or out of some spiteful reason...then I might leave. But my point was that I wouldn't leave her just because she didn't want to do certain things in bed.

I agree!
 
George_Washington said:
lol I was going by Sigmund Freud's theories...you know...one of the most profound psychologists of our time...I am surprised not many of you guys are familiar with his theories.

I believe most of his theories were proved to be pretty much junk.

Anyway, having sex a lot of times doesn't mean you're an expert on sex and how sexual relationships work.

No one ever said such a person would be an expert.

That would be like saying that a professional golfer is an expert on the mechanics of golf just because he has hit a thousand golf balls. He isn't qualified to be a teaching professional just because he's good at golf.

Ummm....if he's a professional player, then yes, I'd say he's qualified to teach. If you've made it to the professional ranks, obviously you WOULD know a thing or two about the mechanics.

However, you can't exactly compare golf and sex, though I see what you're trying to get at.

You can't always go by your own personal experiences or say that you have a superior knowledge of sex just because you've had sex more times than somebody else has.

And no one said that, either.

So that is the point I was trying to make to Stace. This is why people go to school to study psychology to develop theories of sex, they don't just go out and have a lot of sex. lol

But, you know, actually having sexual EXPERIENCE would certainly be beneficial to developing said theories. I'd laugh at a theory proposed by a virgin, unless it related specifically to virginity.

If my wife couldn't have sex with me for some legitimate reason, suppose she was in an accident, I wouldn't leave her. If I really loved her, I'd stay with her. If she just refused to have sex just because she was angry at me or out of some spiteful reason...then I might leave. But my point was that I wouldn't leave her just because she didn't want to do certain things in bed.

You say that now, George.....but no one really knows what they would do in those sorts of situations, until they're in them. :cool:
 
Stace said:
I believe most of his theories were proved to be pretty much junk.

lol And where do you get this insight? Have a link?



Ummm....if he's a professional player, then yes, I'd say he's qualified to teach. If you've made it to the professional ranks, obviously you WOULD know a thing or two about the mechanics.

However, you can't exactly compare golf and sex, though I see what you're trying to get at.

Well, you show your ignorance right there, Stace. A professional athlete is NOT qualified to also be a teacher. This is why professional athletes go to certified instructors. Geezz, Stace, I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you. In golf, for example, a professional golfer on the PGA tour would have to go through training courses in order to be a certified USGA golf Instructor. Just being a PGA tour pro isn't enough.

This, Stace, is why every single professional golfer goes to an actual teacher for help. Knowing how to play the game and knowing how to instruct others are two different things. Professional golfers write books, yes, but that's because they make money off of them. Not because they're known as the best instructors in the world.



But, you know, actually having sexual EXPERIENCE would certainly be beneficial to developing said theories. I'd laugh at a theory proposed by a virgin, unless it related specifically to virginity.

It might help the individual develop theories but it is not a qualification in order to write an award winning doctoral paper. You may laugh at this idea but the idea is commonly held by 100% of our Universities. There is no requirement in getting into graduate school for sexual psychology based on how much sex you've had, lmao.



You say that now, George.....but no one really knows what they would do in those sorts of situations, until they're in them. :cool:

Well, I admit I like sex just like anybody does. It would probably be hard but if I really loved someone, I wouldn't leave them.
 
George_Washington said:
lo




Well, I admit I like sex just like anybody does. It would probably be hard but if I really loved someone, I wouldn't leave them.

Neither would I, but my vibrator must never run out of batteries!;)
 
Axismaster said:
Look I believe in live and let live, I am by no means a Bible thumper, but I am a Christian. This is my own personal belief on the thing.

But that's the problem, you're not just stating it as your personal belief.

You said that if people have premarital sex, they better ask God for forgiveness. You said that as a society, we had best listen to what the Bible tells us.

In no way does this look like an attitude of "live and let live". It looks a lot closer to "live like I tell you and you can live".
 
Back
Top Bottom