# What's your view on premarital sex?



## NightinGale (Oct 27, 2005)

Personally, I'm against it. I'd like to wait until I marry.


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

I'd expect it. I would never shackle myself with a bunch of legal obligations to some person whom I only know in a limited manner.


----------



## itsmemaggi (Sep 26, 2005)

I used to be a firm believer in waiting until marriage, but I think that was because I was never in the position to think otherwise. Limited relationship experience makes it easier to have such opinions. Not that they're unfounded. It's a wonderful thing to believe in and follow. But now I'm more of the opinion that if two people are totally comfortable and happy with one another at that point in time, what does marriage matter in the whole scheme of things?

Of course, sex isn't *eveything,* either...

xoxo
Maggi


----------



## Meee (Oct 24, 2005)

I wouldn't mind either way really.


----------



## brygb217 (Dec 3, 2003)

If you want to wait for marriage (and you're the kind of couple that can get married), and it works for you, I say go for it. And if you don't want to wait, I say go for it, too. (Personally, I'm more of the latter's school of thought). 
So, basically, do whatever you feel like doing! Whether it's waiting, or not!


----------



## Shinji (Aug 13, 2005)

I feel the same way as you brygb217, I feel you should call it as you see it... if you want to wait then wait, if not, then don't.


----------



## escapethemilkyway (Nov 11, 2003)

Personally, I can't imagine marrying someone that I hadn't had sex with yet... And historically, waiting-until-marriage has been advocated to protect [potential] to children, but these days diligent use of birth control can take care of that.


----------



## Drella (Dec 4, 2004)

I never want to get married. If two consenting adults fall in love, I don't see any reason not to express it. I think it's more important to wait until both people judge it to be the right time.


----------



## rb27 (Jul 17, 2005)

The way marriage is going nowadays, I don't see any reason in waiting. Personally I think too many people place importance on marriage, anyways. Don't get me wrong, I want to get married one day, but in the end it's just a piece paper...it's the love that's the big thing.

But more importantly, what's your opinion on premarital sax?


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Well, I'm 30, haven't done a thing, so my view is skewed probably.

But, if sex is out of the picture, it leaves the chance to get to know the person in every other way. I would think it could speed up the process in getting married.

Having sex before marriage means both parties are comfortable with being active and not marrying at all - the goal doesn't seem to be there as much. There is a bigger chance of not wanting to progress the relationship becuase it is "fine the way it is"

With not having sex, there is still that one thing both people work towards - the one unknown, the mystery. The "one thing that you can't have"

There is also the disease/children aspect. If you're not doing it, there's nothing to worry about.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

> There is also the disease/children aspect. If you're not doing it, there's nothing to worry about.


That's not entirely true. They could always be getting it on the side.

I think it depends on how experienced the people are. If two virgins want to wait until they are married, that is fine. If one person has had a few partners and the other one hasn't, would they be able to hold out. And this wouldn't be an issue if both people have had previous partners.

Here is how I progressed in life:
Under 15: Sex is taboo, only married people who were in love had sex to make babies. Standard Christian upbringing.
16-19: I would only want sex after I was engaged to the girl I would marry
20-23: You have to love the girl enough to where you could have a long-term relationship
24-26: Everybody else has different standards placed on sex, and they are having a good time, having sex for fun and pleasure, and I have missed out.


----------



## Lincolnradiocat (Dec 10, 2005)

Sex is unbelievably overrated based on the importance our society puts on it. In high school it's if it was the holy grail of what mattered in life. I remember after my first time thinking...is that all? Don't get me wrong, it felt nice, but for me it was more emotional bonding with my girlfriend who I was very much into! Sex without love is equal to masterbation IMHO. 

As far as sex before marriage? I think that is purely a religious idea, and if it's against your religion than by all means don't do it. But for me personally, I think a commited, exclusive relationship is the prerequiste for sex.

But hell what do I know? I have spent most of my twenties without it...


----------



## CuteLindsey86 (Feb 8, 2004)

I'm waiting till marriage...just how my parents raised my sisters and me, my one sister just got married last August (she's 28 ) and she waited till then...but it's hard finding a guy who understand/respects that. My bf right now wants to go farther than I do, and it's drama drama drama...urgh..most of the time he's a good guy, but sometimes..grrr


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

depends on what you want to do. I don't really care. If you want to waste your seed, that's up to you.

:lol

*Every Sperm is Sacred*

There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists,
There are Hindus, and Mormons and then,
There are those that follow Mohammed, but,
I've never been one of them...

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I were born.
And the one thing they say about Catholics,
Is they'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer,
You don't have to have a great brain,
You don't have to have any clothes on,
You're a Catholic the moment Dad came.
Because...

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs on the dusty ground,
God shall make them pay for each sperm that can't be found.
Every sperm is wanted, every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed, in your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon, spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed, in your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is useful, every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's, mine, and mine, and mine.

Let the pagan spill theirs o'er mountain hill and plain,
God shall strike them down for each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed, in your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.


----------



## macready (Nov 6, 2005)

itsmemaggi said:


> But now I'm more of the opinion that if two people are totally comfortable and happy with one another at that point in time, what does marriage matter in the whole scheme of things
> Of course, sex isn't *eveything,* either...


pretty much sums it up, but leaves out the factor that saving sex for marriage is a vestament of puritanical chauvinistic society (men used to pay more in dowry for virgins, as it means more possibility for offspring - check out Foucault's history of sexuality...) which pretty much eliminates the love aspect from the whole 'saving it' thing. to play the opposing end though, and the end I feel more comfortable with... none of that really matters though, so long as you make your own choice and are sure you are doing it for you, and not because of some other persons wishes (whether married or un). and remember, whatever happens... the first is the worst.

ps. - from wituckius
"Hindu, Taoist, Mormon, spill theirs just anywhere, 
But God loves those who treat their semen with more care."

...
...
... that's just wrong.


----------



## NightinGale (Oct 27, 2005)

First of all...
Wituckius = Hilarious, thank you. And second,



millenniumman75 said:


> With not having sex, there is still that one thing both people work towards - the one unknown, the mystery. The "one thing that you can't have"


Agreed.



rb27 said:


> But more importantly, what's your opinion on premarital sax?


I played tenor sax for a few months in my Junior year. Now I just feel dirty and violated... :afr


----------



## cube (Jul 8, 2004)

I don't want to risk losing half of my stuff just to get a bit of nookie.


----------



## Bon1 (Jan 17, 2005)

Half the stuff, she probably worked for too in one form or another;-))))

It's up to the people invovled...........I think it would be wonderful, if you waited and found the right person, married, how romantic, what a bond. Yet, for me........That's not.............And I'm not wearing no chasity belt;-)

What's right for me, may not be right for you, too many variables. As long as what you do, doesn't effect me..........Who cares;-) Two (or what have you) consenting adults.


----------



## SpringViolet (Oct 23, 2005)

_Stuff_? Heck, if he leaves, he can _have _half my stuff. It's half of _me _I don't wanna lose! Personally, I fall too hard, too fast, and get hurt too easily. :fall So I hold back. :hide Waiting til marriage feels safer for me. In fact, it's such a habit that it would be hard to change now. :blush But at my age it's starting to look to guys like I'm not interested. Untrue!!! Anyway, there's both a religious and emotional component for me. I think the physical, emotional, and relational aspects all go together. The deeper the commitment, the fuller the expression. So if I love someone that much :mushy and want to live and sleep with him, then I want to marry him and _stay _married to him. Parental example, I suppose. If I just want to have fun, well, that's what roller coasters are for. Hey, I said "old" not "mature"! :lol


----------



## cube (Jul 8, 2004)

I suppose I just see marriage as being kind of pointless now. Things have changed quite a bit over the past 50 years and now it just seems like an unnecessary and outdated concept to me. I've seen it turn into life-ruining legal mess too many times to want to put myself through that hell. 

As far as people waiting until marriage, there's the whole thing about not knowing the person sexually until you've become legally bound to them. He might not have right size "equipment" to satisfy her or she might be the type who just lays on her back and contributes nothing but the occasional moan. I'm not trying to be graphic, I'm just saying that it's better to find this stuff out beforehand.


----------



## sprinter (Nov 22, 2003)

cube said:


> He might not have right size "equipment" to satisfy her or she might be the type who just lays on her back and contributes nothing but the occasional moan. I'm not trying to be graphic, I'm just saying that it's better to find this stuff out beforehand.


Experts say sexual incompatability is largely a myth. But the size issue can be dealt with easily enough without having sex. If the guy is worried about the futre wife being bad in bed well what can you say. Who's to say she might be great in bed before marriage and then change to being lowsy in bed some time after? Sex before marriage clearly doesn't solve any of these problems.

People do seem to have problems with the whole idea of marriage. Or is it more a problem with divorce? There's no denying that great marriages are extremely rare and will probably become even more rare in the near future. I don't think that necessarily proves there is something wrong with the idea of marriage but maybe more a problem with the people involved. IMO Studies do show that couple who refrain from pre-marital sex have longer lasting marriages for whatever reason. Dr Ruth says it's because they value marriage more and therefore put more effort into making it work.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

cube said:


> I've seen it turn into life-ruining legal mess too many times to want to put myself through that hell.


Marriage does have a bunch of problems, but I would still want to be sexually involved with someone that I was committed to and they are committed to me. I wouldn't want to lose them over one small fight, or have them cheat on me because I went away for a month or two.

I won't be getting married before I am 30 anyway, and the only time marriage is required, IMO, is when kids are involved. What is wrong with being engaged for 5-10 years? But, you would need to have a stable, sexual relationship if it would be perfect.


----------



## NightinGale (Oct 27, 2005)

My parents have been married for over twenty years and never fight and go on dates on Saturday and Sunday so they've been a good model as far as marriage goes. So I'm not afraid of waiting until marriage and fully commiting myself, mind, body, and soul to another, but I know for a fact that my parents did not wait until marriage because my sister was almost a year old in the wedding pictures!


----------



## pixiedust (Aug 11, 2005)

I would miss the intimacy in a relationship if there was no sex. I've only had sex with one person that I was not in a committed relationship with and it was fun but very unsatisfying, physically and emotionally. I think sex is important in a committed relationship, it's what makes romantic relationships different from all others. Basically what it comes down to is intimacy.


----------



## Imdateless (Nov 11, 2003)

In order to have a relationship one needs several types of intimacy - mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical - if the intimacy is lacking or not-present in any of the levels, then the relationship will be lacking. 

My question, is how can you have a proper relationship with someone and completely neglect the physical aspect of a relationship and still consider it a relationship?


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

I would guess there would be a lot of other physical aspects that would make up for the sexual part that is missing. Kissing, cuddling, hugging, massaging, holding hands...


----------



## SpringViolet (Oct 23, 2005)

:agree 
It's a progression, I think, like anything else. Ideally, a relationship moves along on all levels at roughly the same rate. So, to me, as the connection intensifies on one level, the others need to keep pace. Yeah, I know, that takes work! If I reach the point in a relationship where total intimacy on all fronts feels right, then it's time to get married. It's not like you sit around for a year going "Don't touch me!" and then march off the the altar and everything changes. I don't want a relationship of any kind that's terribly unbalanced betweeen the mental/emotional/physical aspects. Hopefully the whole progression is slow enough to allow for good decision making!


----------



## NightinGale (Oct 27, 2005)

:agree 

ImDateless, what's your definition of "physical neglect"?


----------



## Urkidding (Oct 12, 2005)

NightinGale said:


> Personally, I'm against it. I'd like to wait until I marry.


I applaud your decision. I may not have been in the same boat as you years ago, but nowadays, in retrospect, I think there are good reasons for waiting, just as one could argue there are good reasons not to wait.


----------



## dust (May 12, 2005)

I dun wanna get married. 

should I ever find myself in a nice healthy relationship- I will be SO down with some good ol' premarital sex. mmhmm. 

(and I won't feel a speck of guilt! I stick my tongue out at my aspiring indoctrinators.)

like this: :b , actually.


----------



## Hermit the Frog (Aug 4, 2004)

How was it I heard it put? "Why buy the cow before you try the milk?  

Seriously though, it seems so many problems in relationships occur because of sex: the one person wants it too much or too little, one person likes something the other one doesn't, maybe one of them has a fetish, etc. It just sounds like a good thing to get that out of the way beforehand.

Personally, I don't think I'd get married to a woman without having sex first just because of that. I'm not saying it as a matter of "I want to know if she's a good lay first!" but just that you should know everything about a person before tying the knot. It just appears to be the smart thing to me.


----------



## SpringViolet (Oct 23, 2005)

Hermit the Frog said:


> How was it I heard it put? "Why buy the cow before you try the milk?


 :lol 
The one I always heard was "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't think there's anything wrong with it if you're not harming anyone. Life's too short to abstain, plus I think it's unnatural


----------



## sprinter (Nov 22, 2003)

SpringViolet said:


> Hermit the Frog said:
> 
> 
> > How was it I heard it put? "Why buy the cow before you try the milk?
> ...


Ha ha yeah that's the right one. Why marry a girl if you can have sex with her without marrying her. Try the milk before you buy the cow? I don't know any dairy farmer who does that they just assume it will taste like milk is supposed to. :lol


----------



## Kimmyshell (Dec 4, 2005)

I would never marry until I was sure we were compatible in ALL ways - including sexually. Besides - how do you make up after a fight otherwise?? :lol


----------



## Hermit the Frog (Aug 4, 2004)

sprinter said:


> SpringViolet said:
> 
> 
> > Hermit the Frog said:
> ...


Hmm... maybe I'm mincing analogies. :con

:lol


----------



## Norske (Sep 21, 2005)

I'm torn, I think it would good for mankind's happiness if we moved towards menogamous lifetime relationships. 

On the other hand people marry so late these days. With the divorce rate as it is absitenence just doesn't make sense. Why wait so long to have sex and save it solely for an institution which has been so devalued and cheapend anyway? 

I would be more than willing to remain absitenent until marriage if I knew that I would find a fiance soon and remain married until death. As it is though marriage is a sociatel norm that seems to have lost most of it's meaning. We need "Marriage+" for the people that are really serious...


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

I want to have a long 5 to 10 year relationship with a girl before I get married. However, it will never get passed the first or second date if I don't think she is the right girl for me. If we get past the first month, I would treat the relationship as if we are married.

I would also like to be married a year or two before thinking about having kid(s).

I think that the people who wait until marriage rush into it just to get to the sex part. And then in 3-10 years, one person thinks 'I could do better' and they get divorced.


----------



## itsmemaggi (Sep 26, 2005)

Classified said:


> I want to have a long 5 to 10 year relationship with a girl before I get married. However, it will never get passed the first or second date if I don't think she is the right girl for me. If we get past the first month, I would treat the relationship as if we are married.
> 
> I would also like to be married a year or two before thinking about having kid(s).
> 
> I think that the people who wait until marriage rush into it just to get to the sex part. And then in 3-10 years, one person thinks 'I could do better' and they get divorced.


You make a lot of sense.

But according to Dr. Phil (who I hate, but he makes a good point), you shouldn't have sex too soon in a relationship either, because then "where do you go from there?" It sounds harsh, but that makes a lot of sense, too.

xoxo
Maggi


----------



## Hermit the Frog (Aug 4, 2004)

Ok! I remember what it was now! :yay "You should test drive a car before you buy it." That was it!

:evil


----------



## JohnnyEnnui (Jul 10, 2005)

Since I'll probably never get married, I'd have to vote in favor of pre-marital sex.


----------



## SimpleThings18 (Dec 13, 2005)

I'm only 18, and I haven't had sex yet, but I couldn't imagine marryinig someone when we hadn't had sex. As long as the people are two consenting adults, it doesn't bother me.


----------



## Imdateless (Nov 11, 2003)

Ok, this whole wait until married thing.

Back in the olden days, I mean really olden days, there was a rash of STD's floating around.

See, there was this guy, his name was Augustine, he was a real player - a mack daddy of his time. And he seemed to get around. But one day, he woke up with some nasty rash and, well, converted himself completely to Christianity. 

He came up with this notion that the body is holy and sex is sacred (remember, this is after he had his fair share of the maidens of the time). So, he institutes a policy saying that sex is bad and you should only have sex with your wife and marrige would be eternal.

See, before this time, sex was just sex, and the church really didn't think one way or another - priests were married, the idea of handmaidens and concubines were not unheard of - adultery, well, that was a stoneable offence, because you already had handmaidens and your concubines to run to, why would you need to mess with another's man's property?

Well, he gets published and turned into a big saint and the whole concept of Sex being bad comes out of the church (despite the fact that later in its history it decides to torture people using devious sex devices S&M anyone...)

You have to remember, that back when he wrote this, people were in arranged marriages, and were getting it on as young as 12. So waiting until marriage was a hop skip and jump away from the start of puberty.

Now a days, people progress all the way through puberty, and mostly through their twenties as well to even consider getting married - that 18 years later then the original writer intended, so the idea of purity until marriage, is, archaic at best, but then again, we do have to remember we are dealing with a 2000 year old institution, what is 800 years give or take the same policy...


----------



## NightinGale (Oct 27, 2005)

You guys do make interesting points and I'll see how my opinion changes in the future, but for now I'll just stick with abstinence. It's pretty easy to do when you have no one to get it on with.


----------



## sprinter (Nov 22, 2003)

> See, there was this guy, his name was Augustine, he was a real player - a mack daddy of his time. And he seemed to get around. But one day, he woke up with some nasty rash and, well, converted himself completely to Christianity.
> 
> He came up with this notion that the body is holy and sex is sacred (remember, this is after he had his fair share of the maidens of the time). So, he institutes a policy saying that sex is bad and you should only have sex with your wife and marrige would be eternal.
> 
> See, before this time, sex was just sex, and the church really didn't think one way or another - priests were married, the idea of handmaidens and concubines were not unheard of - adultery, well, that was a stoneable offence, because you already had handmaidens and your concubines to run to, why would you need to mess with another's man's property?


Imdateless I can't tell if you are serious about any of this or not because the New Testament was written well before Augustine so I presume this is all in jest? In which case a :lol is appropriate.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

Imdateless said:


> Ok, this whole wait until married thing.
> 
> Back in the olden days, I mean really olden days, there was a rash of STD's floating around.
> 
> ...


 :agree :agree :agree

Yes! Someone else who agrees with me that Augustine ruined sex for the rest of the world, just because he had a few problems of his own keeping it in his pants (er, under his tunic)!!

Sprinter: Auggie (as I affectionately call him. We have a long history. My birthday is his feast day.) found the answer to all of his problems by reading Corinthians, so yes, the NT was first and it's where Auggie got his info. But his interpretation, IMO, was much more radical and extreme than most people had considered up to that point. He had the biggest problem with sex (illegit kids and all) and because his problem was to the extreme, his solution was to the extreme.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

Hypatia said:


> Sprinter: Auggie (as I affectionately call him. We have a long history. My birthday is his feast day.) found the answer to all of his problems by reading Corinthians, so yes, the NT was first and it's where Auggie got his info. But his interpretation, IMO, was much more radical and extreme than most people had considered up to that point. He had the biggest problem with sex (illegit kids and all) and because his problem was to the extreme, his solution was to the extreme.


Exactly what was his solution? If the original poster is claiming that before Augustine it was okay in Christian circles to have concubines and sex out of wedlock then I'm going to call "BS" on that.


----------



## Imdateless (Nov 11, 2003)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/pcc/index.htm

A good summary on the interrelationship of Christian and Pagan rituals and such.

Before Augistine, the church was in somewhat of a state of dissarray - Ever since the foundation of the church, it served to integrate various new members, and as a result inherited innumerable pagan symbology and practices. One of those practices - the non-existant sexual taboo, was practiced and promoted all over the pre-augustian world. It isn't until he forcibly redefines the ideals set forth by Paul, Origin, and Constantine, that the whole concept of sex being truly evil takes shape in the church.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

Argo said:


> Exactly what was his solution? If the original poster is claiming that before Augustine it was okay in Christian circles to have concubines and sex out of wedlock then I'm going to call "BS" on that.


It was actually okay for priests to marry, have kids out of wedlock, concubines, etc. right up until the 11th century - long after Augustine.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## itsmemaggi (Sep 26, 2005)

NightinGale said:


> You guys do make interesting points and I'll see how my opinion changes in the future, but for now I'll just stick with abstinence. It's pretty easy to do when you have no one to get it on with.


That used to be my position. It's easy to have morals and standards when you have no one with whom to break them.

xoxo
Maggi


----------



## crazyfairyx (Aug 29, 2005)

I don't think there is anything wrong with pre-marital sex, I would never have a one night stand, or have sex with lots of people, but if others want to, then it's up to their own conscience.

Me and my boyfriend have been together for 2 and a half years, I'm 18 and he's 21 and we are each other's only sexual partners, neither of us have ever done anything with anyone else. To me, there is nothing wrong with our situation at all, we are deeply in love, best friends, and have no intention of breaking up. Neither of us want to marry until we are at least in our mid 20s (we want to go to university and sort our careers out first), but just because we don't want to sign a piece of paper saying we're officially a couple, doesn't mean we shouldn't have sex. In my opinion, we're doing nothing morally wrong, whether or not people agree with that is up to them 

I was brought up in a very strict religion, that led me to think sex before marriage was terrible. Even after we left the religion, I was still convinced that I would be a virgin on my wedding night lol, but I met my guy, and realised that it's not the ceremony, and announcing to the world that you're in love that's important, it's your own personal relationship with each other that truly counts. A lot of marriages end in divorce anyway, so even if you did lose your virginity on your wedding night, it doesn't mean that you're never going to sleep with anyone else.

Also, the idea of not being sexual at all with someone, and then suddenly having sex on your wedding night, seems like a horrible idea. If you have no idea how to please each other and you are completely uncomfortable cos you've never been naked together before, I think it would quite possibly end up being a huge disappointment.

Just my tired ramblings he he 

Naomi x


----------



## sprinter (Nov 22, 2003)

Hypatia said:


> Argo said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what was his solution? If the original poster is claiming that before Augustine it was okay in Christian circles to have concubines and sex out of wedlock then I'm going to call "BS" on that.
> ...


I would agree that it was okay for priests to marry but I don't see anything were pre-marital sex was ever *okay* for christians based on the writings of the NT. I don't believe there is any mention of concubines in the NT. And if you go by just the gospels then Jesus taught the original definition of marriage as found in Genesis..."and the *two *shall become one flesh". As far as the OT Abraham was not a polygamist, Isaac had only one wife and following his conversion Jacob had but his one original wife since God took Rachel and it seems as though David repented of polygamy.

To the original question though about premarital sex, if the goal is to get married eventually and have a good long marriage(isn't the whole idea of marriage that it's supposed to last?) then maybe all one has to do is look at how often the goal of a good long marriage is being or has been achieved in the past 25+ years since premarital sex has been the norm to see if it really works best that way.


----------



## SimpleThings18 (Dec 13, 2005)

Ok, I've already posted what I think, but I just wanted to add, sometimes it can be really sweet if people wait. I know one of my friends wants to wait until she's married just because she believes it would be a nice gift for her husband. Sometimes I think 'aw, that's so sweet!" I mean, it can be a beautiful thought & idea.


----------



## Norske (Sep 21, 2005)

sprinter said:


> I would agree that it was okay for priests to marry but I don't see anything were pre-marital sex was ever *okay* for christians based on the writings of the NT. I don't believe there is any mention of concubines in the NT. And if you go by just the gospels then Jesus taught the original definition of marriage as found in Genesis..."and the *two *shall become one flesh". As far as the OT Abraham was not a polygamist, Isaac had only one wife and following his conversion Jacob had but his one original wife since God took Rachel and it seems as though David repented of polygamy.
> 
> To the original question though about premarital sex, if the goal is to get married eventually and have a good long marriage(isn't the whole idea of marriage that it's supposed to last?) then maybe all one has to do is look at how often the goal of a good long marriage is being or has been achieved in the past 25+ years since premarital sex has been the norm to see if it really works best that way.


I completely agree. This is brutally realistic but a simple glance at history shows that premarital sex doesn't do any favours for society as a whole. Societies with a permissive and liberal sexual ethic have often been extremely opressive to women. Men in these societies only had sexual freedom because the entirity of sexual responsibility was placed on the shoulders of women. Note that the Roman upper class still valued _female_ virginity.

Basing advocacy of a more liberal sexual ethic based upon a return to Greco-Roman seems a bit insane in that respect. I suppose it could work now though without oppressing women because women are freed from reproductive responsibilty through abortion and the use of contraception.

At the same time it seems that any increase in sexual permissiveness comes hand in hand with a rising divorce rate and falling birthrate. Western society is extremely dysfunctional in this respect. If things continue this way (1 child per woman in Europe + immigration) our sexual mores won't matter in the slightest. We'll all be overrun by Muslims and Mexicans and their culture and values will dominate.


----------



## VoxPop (Nov 9, 2003)

sprinter said:


> Ha ha yeah that's the right one. Why marry a girl if you can have sex with her without marrying her.


Eh? So marriage is really just a contract for a lifetime of convenient sex ??? That's what your analogy makes it sound like.


----------



## Imdateless (Nov 11, 2003)

*Wow*



> To the original question though about premarital sex, if the goal is to get married eventually and have a good long marriage(isn't the whole idea of marriage that it's supposed to last?) then maybe all one has to do is look at how often the goal of a good long marriage is being or has been achieved in the past 25+ years since premarital sex has been the norm to see if it really works best that way.


Two words: western civilization (is not thie only moral ethos in the world - look at asian countries where pre-marital sex is commonplace, and has been commonplace for millenia - look at their civil marriage rate - lots highter and lots longer then any western culture)...

I think some people forget that there is a whole other non-christian world out there :/


----------



## sprinter (Nov 22, 2003)

******


----------



## sprinter (Nov 22, 2003)

*Re: Wow*

******


----------



## VoxPop (Nov 9, 2003)

sprinter said:


> Nanook said:
> 
> 
> > sprinter said:
> ...


It was obvious you're against pre-marital sex, and I didn't imply you view women as cows. I'm _not_ against pre-marital sex and I didn't misread your post. I know the saying is most often used in favour of premarital sex but I've seen it used by people who don't believe in premarital sex as if to say "If you have sex before you're married, he'll never want to marry you!" which I felt was the context in which you were using it. Maybe I was wrong.

Anyways the cited sources which ascribe to the view of pre-marital sex as a bad thing having a negative impact on a future marriage come from sources with a religious agenda.

I was educated in Catholic schools and even then I disagreed with their stance on the matter.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

sprinter said:


> I would agree that it was okay for priests to marry but I don't see anything were pre-marital sex was ever *okay* for christians based on the writings of the NT. I don't believe there is any mention of concubines in the NT. And if you go by just the gospels then Jesus taught the original definition of marriage as found in Genesis..."and the *two *shall become one flesh". As far as the OT Abraham was not a polygamist, Isaac had only one wife and following his conversion Jacob had but his one original wife since God took Rachel and it seems as though David repented of polygamy.


Well, I don't see how the fact that something being in the Bible meant that it was universally embraced. You're speaking about a pre-Augustinian (Is that a word? No? Then I just made it up!) period, before Christianity had _really_ caught on.

I agree with a lot of what Norske said, but I don't think a "liberal" sexual society can be one which oppresses women and their sexuality. If the social rules aren't "liberal" for all, then they can't be considered liberal for anyone. So, no I don't think Roman society was liberal sexually.



> To the original question though about premarital sex, if the goal is to get married eventually and have a good long marriage(isn't the whole idea of marriage that it's supposed to last?) then maybe all one has to do is look at how often the goal of a good long marriage is being or has been achieved in the past 25+ years since premarital sex has been the norm to see if it really works best that way.


I think the situation is much more complicated than that. After all, divorce has become much easier to get. People aren't forced to stay in marriages that are unhealthy or abusive or whatever anymore. Legally, divorces are easier and the social stigma about getting them has been (mostly?) removed. Plus, remarriage is easier since people (I mean women) aren't branded as "tainted" for having had sex in their previous marriage, which ties into premarital sex.

Perhaps a more appropriate study would be to see if "healthy" marriages of whatever length were created, not just long marriages. After all, having or not having sex before marriage wouldn't matter if the divorce was over money (the number one reason for marital problems, according to marriage statistics flaunted on daytime talk shows that I watch.) So the study would also have to focus on marriages and divorces that hinge around "sexual incompatibility" as the main reason for problems. Then look at whether the people in those marriages engaged in premarital sex with each other, with other people, or not at all...

Just thinking out loud. Hope this makes sense.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

Hypatia said:


> It was actually okay for priests to marry, have kids out of wedlock, concubines, etc. right up until the 11th century - long after Augustine.


Happened? Sure. Okay? I doubt it. In any case, you're talking about things long after Augustine supposedly made all this evil, which does not seem to answer the point.


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

Imdateless said:


> Before Augistine, the church was in somewhat of a state of dissarray - Ever since the foundation of the church, it served to integrate various new members, and as a result inherited innumerable pagan symbology and practices. One of those practices - the non-existant sexual taboo, was practiced and promoted all over the pre-augustian world. It isn't until he forcibly redefines the ideals set forth by Paul, Origin, and Constantine, that the whole concept of sex being truly evil takes shape in the church.


What were Paul's, Origen's, and Constantine's (the emperor's????) sexual ideals, and how did Augustine redefine them? Origen is supposed to have castrated himself, Paul in his letters certainly gives no indication of being a sexual free lover, so I'm having a hard time seeing how Augustine really radicalized the church to the extent that you're ascribing.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

Argo said:


> What were Paul's, Origen's, and Constantine's (the emperor's????) sexual ideals, and how did Augustine redefine them? Origen is supposed to have castrated himself, Paul in his letters certainly gives no indication of being a sexual free lover, so I'm having a hard time seeing how Augustine really radicalized the church to the extent that you're ascribing.


Origen castrated himself in order that women would be allowed to come to his school. It had nothing to do with his views on sex, but with society's views on men and women being in the same space.

But yeah, it seems that sex was less important to him than educating women at least. I don't know that he tried to have EVERYONE castrated, like Auggie tried to have everyone follow his own personal ideas about sex.

Don't know about Paul personally, but Auggie got his ideas from reading Paul and then applied them, so it seems that he was in alliance with his ideas.

Constantine himself was never really versed in Christian doctrine. He was an emperor, not a scholar. It's still up for debate how Christian he was and which ideas he embraced and rejected and even the extent of his participation at the Council of Nicaea. I doubt he ever said anything about sex.

However, the point isn't that Augustine was the FIRST person to embrace restrictive ideas about sexuality, but that he was the first influential person to take these restrictive ideas and apply them not only to specific cases (i.e. himself), but the first person to apply them generally and as something that was of primary importance.

So you could say, very few early Church leader's encouraged sexual promiscuity, so Auggie is no different, but you can't say that he wasn't the most influential one to make the issue one of his number one issues. Plus, other people after him embraced his writings in the same way he embraced Paul's, so his ideas had much more staying power than Origen's. Auggie was an intellectual juggernaut.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

Hypatia said:


> Origen castrated himself in order that women would be allowed to come to his school. It had nothing to do with his views on sex, but with society's views on men and women being in the same space.


No, he did it for private reasons, thinking it would put him in accord with Matthew 19:12. The explanation you give is only recorded as a secondary reason, which obviously arose after the deed was done, since Origin initially tried to keep his act secret. Read Eusebius.



> Don't know about Paul personally, but Auggie got his ideas from reading Paul and then applied them, so it seems that he was in alliance with his ideas.


Then this puts a kink in the idea that Augustine radically altered Christian views on sex, doesn't it?



> Constantine himself was never really versed in Christian doctrine. He was an emperor, not a scholar. It's still up for debate how Christian he was and which ideas he embraced and rejected and even the extent of his participation at the Council of Nicaea. I doubt he ever said anything about sex.


I agree. That's why I'm confused why anyone would mention him in this context.



> However, the point isn't that Augustine was the FIRST person to embrace restrictive ideas about sexuality, but that he was the first influential person to take these restrictive ideas and apply them not only to specific cases (i.e. himself), but the first person to apply them generally and as something that was of primary importance.


That may well be true, but it's quite a retreat from the initial claim which started all this.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

Argo said:


> Then this puts a kink in the idea that Augustine radically altered Christian views on sex, doesn't it?


Not necessarily. Like I said, Auggie highlighted it and stressed it much more than everyone else. He made it a primary point in his writings. With everyone else, it was a secondary reason - a way to make people live better lives. With Auggie it was an essential core doctrine vital to the success of Christianity. It wasn't a matter of being a good Christian or a bad Christian. It was a matter of heaven or hell where the person's soul was at stake.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

Hypatia said:


> Not necessarily. Like I said, Auggie highlighted it and stressed it much more than everyone else. He made it a primary point in his writings. With everyone else, it was a secondary reason - a way to make people live better lives. With Auggie it was an essential core doctrine vital to the success of Christianity. It wasn't a matter of being a good Christian or a bad Christian. It was a matter of heaven or hell where the person's soul was at stake.


What is "it"? That's a serious question, because in all this I've never seen it actually explained. Really, what were Augustine's ideas on sex, and how did they differ from those before him? What did it mean in one's life to live pre- and post-Augustinian? Saying that "it" was an essential core vital to Christian success, etc., is meaningless if it continues to be spoken of in nothing but vague terms.

And if Paul and Augustine's ideas were "in alliance," as you say, I really don't see how any of this follows. This would all be easier to agree with or reject if those arguing that Augustine radically restructured Christianity when it came to sex would begin offering specifics and citations.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

"It" being repressive views on sexuality.

Have you read his _Confessions_? If you want direct quotes, I would start there. It's throughout the whole text.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

sex values should be like those in Brave New World.


----------



## crystallizedtear (Feb 9, 2005)

I am not against the idea...but I really believe that waiting until after marriage would be best.


----------



## FreeSoul (Jan 1, 2006)

If the couple understand each other regarding sex, been together for a reasonable time, trust and love each other, then sex would be something expected as their relationship naturally evolves. 

It's an issue I've thought about before, and I came to the conclusion that premartial sex is permissible. But if a person chooses to wait, then I'll respect that choice.

There are some reasons for it I know of. It is actually possible for people not to "fit" right. Other issues can sometimes affect sexual intimacy and I have heard of divorces on claims of sexual inadequecy before. Frankly, to me, I'd like to be aware of such things before marriage. The more you know, the better a decision you can make.

On the flip side, obvisouly I don't think most people are going to have premartial-sex to have children. I assume most would agree that a stablized permanent relationship needs to form before such happens.

Besides, with all the contraceptive options out there, there's little excuse why a sexually active couple would risk unwanted pregancy now. I think sex should be a fun and enjoyable thing to do for any loving couple as long as it's still respected as a means to create life.


----------



## McFly (Jul 15, 2014)

Shouldn't be frowned upon because that's one of the most important deciding factors for a relationship. Don't really care if they wait, from what I've seen it looks like the religious couples that do often end up with long term marriages. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

Heavens, when would anybody have sex? There aren't people still getting married, are there?

Nice necro @McFly.


----------



## SaladDays (Nov 26, 2013)

a thread from 2005? :O Ancient relic of the past. Mods if you delete this the UN will sue you for destruction of ancient relics. ****posters I'm looking at you too, do not descecrate this holy thread


----------



## 629753 (Apr 7, 2015)

millenniumman75 said:


> Well, I'm 30, haven't done a thing, so my view is skewed probably.
> 
> But, if sex is out of the picture, it leaves the chance to get to know the person in every other way. I would think it could speed up the process in getting married.
> 
> ...


Hello millenniumman from 2005 haha


----------



## AllTheSame (Mar 19, 2016)

Talk about reviving a dead thread, omfg.

I wouldn't wait until we were married. It's not that she (or I) is not worth waiting for, it's that too many divorces are caused by problems in the bedroom. It's never been a problem with myself and any of my exes, but I've heard it is in so many cases. Sex isn't everything but let's be honest it's a very big ****** deal, sexual intimacy is a huge part of any marriage, or it would be for myself and her anyway. If she / he is a selfish lover or in your eyes just really lame, or does things that are annoying or are just a turnoff lmao, or your just not compatible at all in the bedroom then how are you ever going to resolve that? I guess you could work on it, obviously. I guess you could go to some kind of counseling or something. What an awesome way to start off your marriage together though...in counseling.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

impedido10 said:


> Hello millenniumman from 2005 haha


 ......and I remember most of the people in this thread from back then, too. :yes



AllTheSame said:


> Talk about reviving a dead thread, omfg.
> 
> I wouldn't wait until we were married. It's not that she (or I) is not worth waiting for, it's that too many divorces are caused by problems in the bedroom. It's never been a problem with myself and any of my exes, but I've heard it is in so many cases. Sex isn't everything but let's be honest it's a very big ****** deal, sexual intimacy is a huge part of any marriage, or it would be for myself and her anyway. If she / he is a selfish lover or in your eyes just really lame, or does things that are annoying or are just a turnoff lmao, or your just not compatible at all in the bedroom then how are you ever going to resolve that? I guess you could work on it, obviously. I guess you could go to some kind of counseling or something. What an awesome way to start off your marriage together though...in counseling.


You wouldn't need to do her to find out that information. That's premarital counseling stuff. By the time you get to that point, I would think that stuff like that would have already been discussed.


----------



## 629753 (Apr 7, 2015)

millenniumman75 said:


> ......and I remember most of the people in this thread from back then, too. :yes


What happened to em?


----------



## AllTheSame (Mar 19, 2016)

millenniumman75 said:


> You wouldn't need to do her to find out that information. That's premarital counseling stuff. By the time you get to that point, I would think that stuff like that would have already been discussed.


Meh. I guess we can agree to disagree then, MM. I could not disagree with you more on this issue lol.


----------



## xxDark Horse (May 13, 2015)

If that's something you believe in and you can pull it off, good for you.


I'm pretty sure like 97-99% of people are not virgins by the time they get married.


----------



## ravens (Aug 31, 2011)

I personally wouldn't wait to get married to have sex. Since I don't see ever getting married and if I wanted to wait then I would end up a virgin for life. 

Oh wait.:lol:flush:dead


----------



## Kanova (Dec 17, 2012)

How do people even did so deep to find a 10 year old thread


----------



## The Vegan Warrior (Dec 23, 2015)

It's good, have as much of it as you can possibly get 👌


----------



## Blue2015 (Jul 3, 2015)

There is no use for marriage.


----------



## Kevin001 (Jan 2, 2015)

Velorrei said:


> It's a good idea to take a car out for a test drive before you buy it.


This ^^


----------



## Invisiblehandicap (Jul 31, 2011)

Not sure that you can buy a car without trying it out. I mean what if it keeps breaking down whenever you try to use it and there is no option for a replacement? And then im not allowed to get a rental car . So I have no car and I can't get anywhere. I'm left with a car that does not work, and I can't go anywhere. Why did I buy car in the first place? I could have just visited it occasionally to say hello and got a different car that actually works.


----------



## Hayman (Dec 27, 2014)

I appreciate this is a very old thread, but the question is perfectly valid.

Personally speaking, I have no issue with sex before marriage. Times have changed and have been for some time, now. I don't have any issue with people who wait - that's their choice. I'm not personally bothered, though.

It seems everyone does it, except for me :bah, who remains a dateless virgin and turns 31 next week&#8230;

The only issue I have are serial 'carousel riders'. Those who seem to have a new partner every couple of months or at least a different one a year. Those who seem to be close to or at double-digits in terms of flings/partners at my age. They clearly show an inability to settle down and aren't worried about the feelings of the other person. Sadly, it's these sorts of people who seem to gain the most positive attention and therefore seem to get practically the whole cake, rather than just a slice.

People like me? We can't even get the left-over crumbs, told to try harder (harder than everyone else, that is) and they genuinely wonder why we're so 'negative'. :um

I discuss a very similar subject in my wordpress blog - here: https://haymansafc.wordpress.com/20...more-sexual-partners-make-you-more-desirable/


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

I'd say most people have a pretty good view of premarital sex these days.

What with all the amateur porn.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

To me sexual compatibility is pretty critical to a healthy relationship, so only finding out if you truly are after you've made such large commitments to each other seems pretty silly.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

Advisable. 

(Unless you plan on never having sex even after marriage.)


----------



## HilarityEnsues (Oct 4, 2012)

Not so much against it. I wait until I'm in the relationship phase before any sexual activity. However I am very much against one nighters and FWB. Men and women who do that crap disgust me.


----------



## harrison (Apr 14, 2012)

I would have thought that waiting to get married before you had sex went out of fashion about 100 years ago. It's a ridiculous concept - who in God's name actually cares? (other than the Amish?)


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

I usually view it from my computer chair.


----------



## AThomas23 (Mar 12, 2016)

I was raised in a religious family, but my parents socialize and mix well with all kind of people. They didn't go around shoving religion in people's faces. The religion we practice (like other religions) believe in staying away from sexual immorality. I followed it. In retrospect, I think people place too high importance on sexual purity. In my opinion sexual purity teaching in any religion is just society's way of protecting people from getting into problem situations (like teenage pregnancy). Or protecting vulnerable people who end up feeling taken advantage of when they sleep with someone who deceive them of love and commitment. Some people can handle it, some people can't.
I don't think it's fair to say "get with the times". I think respect need to be shown to different perspective on the issue. 
Personally, I think it's up to individuals. But I think that decision should be kept private. I think it's TMI if a co-worker or an acquaintance discuss this sort of topic. I MO, it should only be between the people who are in that sexual relationship - discretion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AThomas23 (Mar 12, 2016)

My own thoughts on whether it is right or wrong, I think people should be free to choose. I just think that they need to think it through. That's all. I think people need to figure out for themselves if it's something they think they will regret, or if it's something they don't take too seriously.
I just don't like that people have no sense of what to keep private between them and their boyfriend/girlfriend/fiancé(e)/lover.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Dark Jewel (Jul 18, 2014)

I'm against it.


----------



## Wings of Amnesty (Aug 5, 2015)

I have a hard time seeing marriage and sex as related. Outside of the religious perspective, they really don't seem to have anything to do with each other. Marriage is about planning your life, future, and family. Unless you're strongly against birth control/abortion, sex is something that you will mostly do for the feeling, not for family building.


----------



## AllTheSame (Mar 19, 2016)

It's an interesting thought-provoking question though, for myself anyways. I mean, if the woman you were head-over-heals in love with did not believe in sex before marriage, would you wait? I'd really have to think hard about it. I mean I would wait, there's no question about that, for myself. But would it work out? Would you want to go into a serious, long-term relationship not knowing if you're compatible with each other in the bedroom? Sexual intimacy isn't everything but it's a huge, huge part of (almost) any relationship. To deny that it is, is to set yourself up for some serious problems going forward. To downplay that and say "meh, it will all work itself out when we're married" is to deny that it's a serious part of any relationship. You're almost asking to have problems later on, in my mind.

I just have a difficult time even thinking about doing that.


----------

