Love, Dating, Sex, and Marriage

[Grave_n_idle]

Absolutely. But even if both partners (yes, I assumed just two) are celibate till marriage, and only sexually interact with one another - they can still have sexually transmitted diseases, and transfer diseases to one another.

There are so many other possible vectors, the 'monogamy prevents STD' argument is ridiculous.

This is true; I should have thought of it given I'm of a demographic quite likely to get those kinds of diseases out of sexual contact. I guess it wouldn't be transmitted sexually in those cases though. Something like, say, chlamydia, how often do people get that from something other than sex?

But yeah point taken.

Chlamydia can be passed from mother to child at birth. For example.

[Tecknoko]

Well, I don't find it particularly important to have gone on an official date with someone, so long as I know them well and I think they feel the same way I do, sex is a great way to kick off a relationship.

Exactly my thoughts and actions.

[Tokos]

No absolutely incorrect!

There are diseases and conditions that can be acquired in one way and then transmitted sexually. AIDS for example. A monogamous Intravenous drug user can pass AIDS to their faithful spouse AND KILL THEM.

I know, I admitted I was wrong earlier and as someone who's needed plasma injections before really should have known this. However, the risk is, controlling for other variables, hugely lessened. It's not for nothing that raising awareness about, say, the clap, is done with specific reference to sex.

Not that this sways my opinion on monogamy in favour (I'm not against ftr), as many good things in life are risky and condemning something purely because it can be bad for your health is something Nietzsche's "Last Man" would do.

Chlamydia can be passed from mother to child at birth. For example.

I thought it caused infertility.

[Grave_n_idle]

No absolutely incorrect!

There are diseases and conditions that can be acquired in one way and then transmitted sexually. AIDS for example. A monogamous Intravenous drug user can pass AIDS to their faithful spouse AND KILL THEM.

I know, I admitted I was wrong earlier and as someone who's needed plasma injections before really should have known this. However, the risk is, controlling for other variables, hugely lessened. It's not for nothing that raising awareness about, say, the clap, is done with specific reference to sex.

Not that this sways my opinion on monogamy in favour (I'm not against ftr), as many good things in life are risky and condemning something purely because it can be bad for your health is something Nietzsche's "Last Man" would do.

Chlamydia can be passed from mother to child at birth. For example.

I thought it caused infertility.

It certainly can, especially if left untreated (which is a real risk, because it progresses, often, without presenting noticeable symptoms).

But until it has rendered a woman infertile, she may well pass it to her offspring if she reproduces.

[SaintB]

Question: Is the physical aspect of a relationship as important as the emotional aspect and will your viewpoints change as you get older? What if anything does this show? Realistically the physical aspect is a transient thing, your wife or whoever is not going to be the same when you get to 70. But the emotional aspect should still be around. Thats the unavoidable way of things.

Emotional is more important than physical but physical is very important. I couldn't stay in a relationship with someone who wasn't compatible with me in the bedroom.

[SaintB]

Reduces the risk. Not prevents.

You know what the S stands for, aye? If two people are having sex with each other only they aren't spreading STDs. This is not opinion, it's logic.

There are a million and one ways to get and STD that are not sex. Sex is just the most common way.

[Mosasauria]

lol seeing as I'm 16 years old an never had a girlfriend (I really don't 'love' anyone, never have really) and the fact every female in my age group that I have met in person I tend to be lacking in the smarts area. Well, so far, no sex, dates, crushes, nuthin'. Hopefully in college I'll meet someone who looks good and is smart.

Lucky...

[Tokos]

It certainly can, especially if left untreated (which is a real risk, because it progresses, often, without presenting noticeable symptoms).

But until it has rendered a woman infertile, she may well pass it to her offspring if she reproduces.

Oh, I thought it quickly and normally resulted in infertility.

I guess I learned something today.

[Grave_n_idle]

It certainly can, especially if left untreated (which is a real risk, because it progresses, often, without presenting noticeable symptoms).

But until it has rendered a woman infertile, she may well pass it to her offspring if she reproduces.

Oh, I thought it quickly and normally resulted in infertility.

I guess I learned something today.

It's not that it leaps in and does massive damage immediately - it's that it's generally invisible. It often goes without noticeable symptoms up until it's really screwed shit up - which explains why it can often result in infertility - it's been sneaking around ravaging the body for a while before it gets caught.

[Saiwania]

As for sex before marriage, I view the entire notion of people "saving sex for marriage" to be offensive. To me, that is a naive and childish concept that makes the sex act more important than love, honor, respect, and any bond that might form between two people. I believe that people who believe in saving sex for marriage are too immature to honestly enter a true marital relationship...but, fortunately, there are people of all genders who hold that belief, so as long as they only marry each other I consider the damage to be contained. Their unions have little meaning in my eyes, but at least they aren't harming anybody, so I don't mind them in any major way. It often worries me that they will produce children and try to impart their beliefs to those children, but I know that lots of people teach their children lots of lousy things, and there is no pragmatic way to stop this. I content myself with knowing that, thanks to the internet, their children will encounter many alternative beliefs and will be free to decide whether or not to stick with what their parents taught them.

I view it as precisely the opposite. I view casual/promiscuous sex to be offensive. The person who partakes in such is not mature enough to handle the commitment or dedication of a monogamous relationship and will merely have sex for temporary self gratification and not as part of anything meaningful such as a long term relationship. Choosing to further expose themselves to the risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease. Someone who chooses to have sex with just about anyone has no respect for their body in my eyes. That said, I believe waiting for marriage to have sex is a laudable goal for anyone with moral/religious convictions but not required for a great relationship.

[Barringtonia]

As for sex before marriage, I view the entire notion of people "saving sex for marriage" to be offensive. To me, that is a naive and childish concept that makes the sex act more important than love, honor, respect, and any bond that might form between two people. I believe that people who believe in saving sex for marriage are too immature to honestly enter a true marital relationship...but, fortunately, there are people of all genders who hold that belief, so as long as they only marry each other I consider the damage to be contained. Their unions have little meaning in my eyes, but at least they aren't harming anybody, so I don't mind them in any major way. It often worries me that they will produce children and try to impart their beliefs to those children, but I know that lots of people teach their children lots of lousy things, and there is no pragmatic way to stop this. I content myself with knowing that, thanks to the internet, their children will encounter many alternative beliefs and will be free to decide whether or not to stick with what their parents taught them.

I view it as precisely the opposite. I view casual/promiscuous sex to be offensive. The person who partakes in such is not mature enough to handle the commitment or dedication of a monogamous relationship and will merely have sex for temporary self gratification and not as part of anything meaningful such as a long term relationship.

*snip*

Speak for yourself, otherwise I don't see why sex is somehow tied to long term commitment as though it's some gift bestowed as a reward. What a controlling means by which to have a relationship. If anything it harks back to when women were essentially property and their virginity a seal on that property.

[Saiwania]

Speak for yourself, otherwise I don't see why sex is somehow tied to long term commitment as though it's some gift bestowed as a reward. What a controlling means by which to have a relationship. If anything it harks back to when women were essentially property and their virginity a seal on that property.

I do speak for myself. I choose not to have sex until I'm engaged. Way to take what I said out of context, I don't see why the decision to have sex should be taken lightly given the health risks involved. And how is believing in family values controlling when the same limitations apply to me as well and the woman I'm seeing agrees to it?

While I might not approve of casual sex and is disgusted by it, that is only my personal belief and people are welcome to disagree. By no means do I think waiting for marriage to have sex is ideal. However, for those who genuinely hold such tenets I say more power to them.

[Barringtonia]

I do speak for myself. I choose not to have sex until I'm engaged.

I wrote 'speak for yourself' in terms of your statement..

The person who partakes in such is not mature enough to handle the commitment or dedication of a monogamous relationship and will merely have sex for temporary self gratification and not as part of anything meaningful such as a long term relationship.

Speak for yourself, meanwhile..

Way to take what I said out of context, I don't see why the decision to have sex should be taken lightly given the health risks involved. And how is believing in family values controlling when the same limitations apply to me as well and the woman I'm seeing agrees to it?

While I might not approve of casual sex and is disgusted by it, that is only my personal belief and people are welcome to disagree. By no means do I think waiting for marriage to have sex is ideal. However, for those who genuinely hold such convictions I say more power to them

..the idea that sex is related to 'family values' and 'fidelity' is closely tied to the concept of women as property, whether you know where your ideals come from or not.

[Risottia]

I view it as precisely the opposite. I view casual/promiscuous sex to be offensive. The person who partakes in such is not mature enough to handle the commitment or dedication of a monogamous relationship and will merely have sex for temporary self gratification and not as part of anything meaningful such as a long term relationship. Choosing to further expose themselves to the risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease. Someone who chooses to have sex with just about anyone has no respect for their body in my eyes.

Feeling a bit judgmental today, uh?

[Saiwania]

I wrote 'speak for yourself' in terms of your statement..

The person who partakes in such is not mature enough to handle the commitment or dedication of a monogamous relationship and will merely have sex for temporary self gratification and not as part of anything meaningful such as a long term relationship.
Speak for yourself, meanwhile..

Yes, that is my opinion of people who sleep around. That is speaking for myself, it's not to be taken literally. It is my "stance" on this issue.

..the idea that sex is related to 'family values' and 'fidelity' is closely tied to the concept of women as property, whether you know where your ideals come from or not.

So in other words, you believe that sexual promiscuity is a good thing? I view it as negative and no amount of discussion is going to change that. I don't view women (or anyone) as property so I've no idea how you come to such a conclusion. While sex doesn't need to include fidelity, I choose to live by that for myself and associate with others who do so as well. I'm done here, this has gotten tiresome and I'm ready for another thread.

[Barringtonia]

So in other words, you believe that sexual promiscuity is a good thing? I view it as negative and no amount of discussion is going to change that. I don't view women (or anyone) as property so I've no idea how you come to such a conclusion. While sex doesn't need to include fidelity, I choose to live by that for myself and associate with others who do so as well. I'm done here, this has gotten tiresome and I'm ready for another thread.

Is sex alone in this bracket, what if I watch a movie or eat a meal or share any experience with someone of the opposite sex, casually, and outside a monogamous relationship. Perhaps dancing is innapropriate, or walking together in public without a chaperone.

While you might say I'm being trivial, all these are punishable in various societies if not all given time periods. The association of male and female is tainting the female's honour, making her unmarriagable, unsuitable.

This idea that sex outside of a monogamous relationship or marriage is somehow wrong stems from property ownership and although you might not think that this applies in your case, the 'moral' values that you've taken on due to the company you keep, the environment you live in, is directly inherited from such older 'values'.

One wonders which is truly disgusting.

[Arkinesia]

You mock someone's viewpoint as being disgusting, and then make generalizations.

Great, reasonable debate tactics, guys. Really classy

Personally I think it is important to not have sex before marriage but I'm not going to beat someone over the head for it. Wrong, but I'm not immediately going to think you're an awful person just for that. More often than not I see the defense of casual sex being something closer to greed than anything, while the defenders of such claim to rail against such greed. It's ironic, and it makes me giggle incessantly.

That said I'm merely going to point out to you (generically speaking) that I think it's wrong, and after that, in my opinion, it's up to you to decide if you want to take that advice or not. I can't control you. Making personal decisions is a part of life.

[The Parkus Empire]

"Love, Dating, Sex, and Marriage." One of these things does not belong.

[Bottle]

The person who partakes in such is not mature enough to handle the commitment or dedication of a monogamous relationship and will merely have sex for temporary self gratification and not as part of anything meaningful such as a long term relationship.

Odd, then, that after all the promiscuous sex I had, I'm in a 9-year long term monogamous relationship. My partner and I were non-manogamous for an entire year when we first met, yet our relationship has already out-lasted the relationships of several of our friends who opted to wait to have sex until they married (we have seen two such marriages end in divorce).

I believe that commitment is MORE important than sex, not less. Perhaps that is where you are confused.

Choosing to further expose themselves to the risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease.

My friend Sarah waited to have sex until she married, and promptly got hepatitis from her husband. I, meanwhile, have fucked a bunch of people and never contracted an STD.

It's not just how much fucking you do, it's HOW you fuck and WHO you fuck. If you fuck one person your whole life, but that person has herpes, then you're at risk for herpes; if I fuck 100 people and not a single one of them has herpes, then I am not at risk for herpes. Make sense?

Someone who chooses to have sex with just about anyone has no respect for their body in my eyes.

It's odd that you see only two choices: have sex with NOBODY except your spouse, or have sex with "just about anyone." I've never met any sexually experienced person who saw only those two options. It's only been self-righteous virgins or "wait til marriage" types. I think the lack of experience really has a big psychological impact. Once you've had more than one partner, you learn from experience that it's quite possible to be very picky about your partners even if you have more than one partner. You also learn that sharing closeness, affection, and butt-nekkid grinding with one person doesn't make it any less special if you later share such experiences with another person, because every partner is so different.

The fear of many wait-til-marriagers is that it's only special the first time or with the first person, and they want to reserve that specialness for just the right person. Happily, sex doesn't work that way, but you only find that out with experience.

[St George of England]

I view it as precisely the opposite. I view casual/promiscuous sex to be offensive. The person who partakes in such is not mature enough to handle the commitment or dedication of a monogamous relationship and will merely have sex for temporary self gratification and not as part of anything meaningful such as a long term relationship. Choosing to further expose themselves to the risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease. Someone who chooses to have sex with just about anyone has no respect for their body in my eyes. That said, I believe waiting for marriage to have sex is a laudable goal for anyone with moral/religious convictions but not required for a great relationship.

That is fucking bullshit of the highest order. Who are you to judge the relationships of others? Who are you to judge my relationship? You are as mature as you act. No more, no less. And what the fuck does 'promiscuous' mean anyway? Beyond giving moralfags yet another word to use in their bullshit faux-superiority (that, fyi, only exists in your head), it means nothing.

[Bottle]

I view it as precisely the opposite. I view casual/promiscuous sex to be offensive. The person who partakes in such is not mature enough to handle the commitment or dedication of a monogamous relationship and will merely have sex for temporary self gratification and not as part of anything meaningful such as a long term relationship. Choosing to further expose themselves to the risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease. Someone who chooses to have sex with just about anyone has no respect for their body in my eyes. That said, I believe waiting for marriage to have sex is a laudable goal for anyone with moral/religious convictions but not required for a great relationship.

That is fucking bullshit of the highest order. Who are you to judge the relationships of others? Who are you to judge my relationship? You are as mature as you act. No more, no less. And what the fuck does 'promiscuous' mean anyway? Beyond giving moralfags yet another word to use in their bullshit faux-superiority (that, fyi, only exists in your head), it means nothing.

He's got as much right to judge as anybody. I don't have a problem with people judging me or my relationship, as long as they make a good job of it. My beef with Sai is simply that he's NOT exercising solid judgment. He's making a bunch of (incorrect) assumptions about sex and relationships, probably due to his own lack of information and experience with them.

[Ifreann]

I suppose I'm a bit late for a "Baby don't hurt me" post.

[Bottle]

I suppose I'm a bit late for a "Baby don't hurt me" post.

...

I hate you.

[Ifreann]

I suppose I'm a bit late for a "Baby don't hurt me" post.

...

I hate you.

But what is hate?










Bottle don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more

[Ethel mermania]

No absolutely incorrect!

There are diseases and conditions that can be acquired in one way and then transmitted sexually. AIDS for example. A monogamous Intravenous drug user can pass AIDS to their faithful spouse AND KILL THEM.

I know, I admitted I was wrong earlier and as someone who's needed plasma injections before really should have known this. However, the risk is, controlling for other variables, hugely lessened. It's not for nothing that raising awareness about, say, the clap, is done with specific reference to sex.

Not that this sways my opinion on monogamy in favour (I'm not against ftr), as many good things in life are risky and condemning something purely because it can be bad for your health is something Nietzsche's "Last Man" would do.

Chlamydia can be passed from mother to child at birth. For example.

I thought it caused infertility

.

While not a big fan of Nietzsche, (ok i hate the little bastard). I will agree that monogamy is over rated.