What's wrong with sex out of wedlock?

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari
So why do you think women can release themselves from the responsibility of child rearing but men cannot? My guess is that is has to do with the feminist agenda that rules the Democratic party.

I thought it was ruled by the gay agenda? :roll:

Yes, it is nonsense that it doesn't go two ways, but that doesn't remove the hypocrisy you're throwing around. It takes two to make a child, so why should the man be able to run away?

Neither party should. But, currently one can.

Not up to you to decide.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: homercles337

I feel sorry for you. My question to you is, are you aware that you have been scared into abstinence? I guess im like DonVito in the promiscuous sense. Sex is great, sex with someone you JUST met a few hours prior? Great! Sex with someone youre in love with? Great! Sex with no strings? Great! Sex with an Ex? Great! Sex with ... aww, to hell with it. How old are you anyway? My guess is <14. There is a reason they call it "protection" ya know?

Yeah, I have to admit that I've sometimes found particular pleasure in having sex with women I really didn't know. I acknowledge that probably isn't the wisest act in the world, but it can be really thrilling. As Woody Allen once said (I believe it was in Manhattan), sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go, it's one of the best!

 

[Grunt03]

It feels the same to me😀 😛

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
Even without religion sex out of wedlock is a gamble.

STDs or pregnancy.

Common sense to me would say if you want neither, dont have sex.

You should be castrated immediately.

Why?

Your brain may get the natural urge for release which obviously would endanger you therfore if you get castrated that urge would no longer be there.

That is only way for you to be truly safe.

You should be getting it cut off right now.

Unlike you, I have some self control.

Shens

 

[Zontor]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Zontor

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Nothing as long as it is between caring, loving, responsible adults .... in my opinion. All else is religious and social dogma. I for one am not in favor of one night stands / promescuity.

I suspect most reponders here are male (surprise, surprise) -- if you're female and (possibly) have to carry a child - is the view different?

Its takes two to tango. I had sex outside of wedlock and we used birth control, always. Women enjoy sex as much as men, deal with it.

I don't disagree that women enjoy sex. Why the hostility?

You're male - I still think women have a different view of sex / relationships - look at all the YAGT threads.... Lets hear from some females?

Edit: Clarify thought.

 

[Zebo]

I don't know if it's realistic in modern societies to pratice abstinence since people marry so much later in life - all while biology beckons. But there are researched and documented psychological and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity beyond religious dogma. Google is your freind.

 

[Moonbeam]

I had electrodes implanted in my brain at an adjunct hospital to the University of Mexico and have an orgasm now whenever I want but typically after I post. The orgasms are longer and far more intense than physical ones and of course much less hassle. In the beginning there was a huge risk, though, because I would not bother to eat. The latest wrinkle is a sub-dermal battery pack setup with blue tooth. Walking around the block I collapsed on the ground when a neighbor opened her garage door. That is now fixed though I'm not sure I'm glad. Well it's time for some joy.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari
So why do you think women can release themselves from the responsibility of child rearing but men cannot? My guess is that is has to do with the feminist agenda that rules the Democratic party.

I thought it was ruled by the gay agenda? :roll:

Yes, it is nonsense that it doesn't go two ways, but that doesn't remove the hypocrisy you're throwing around. It takes two to make a child, so why should the man be able to run away?

Neither party should. But, currently one can.

It's official, we now need political parties to have sex and reproduce. :roll:

You can take the most non political topic and try to throw a political spin on it as if you had a monopoly on morals.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari
So why do you think women can release themselves from the responsibility of child rearing but men cannot? My guess is that is has to do with the feminist agenda that rules the Democratic party.

I thought it was ruled by the gay agenda? :roll:

Yes, it is nonsense that it doesn't go two ways, but that doesn't remove the hypocrisy you're throwing around. It takes two to make a child, so why should the man be able to run away?

Neither party should. But, currently one can.

It's official, we now need political parties to have sex and reproduce. :roll:

You can take the most non political topic and try to throw a political spin on it as if you had a monopoly on morals.

The word "party" there was not referring to political parties.

 

[rchiu]

Well, each person has different views on sex, and different culture, religion and belief systems have different views on sex. So really depending on each view, there can be nothing wrong to very wrong with sex out of wedlock. Personally I feel if the individuals are consenting adults and practice safe sex, there isn't really anything wrong. But I am not going to convince people with different views that my view is the correct one. It?s their body, it?s their life and as long as they don?t create problem in society like spreading diseases, or giving birth to baby that no one cares for, it?s really non of my business.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari
So why do you think women can release themselves from the responsibility of child rearing but men cannot? My guess is that is has to do with the feminist agenda that rules the Democratic party.

I thought it was ruled by the gay agenda? :roll:

Yes, it is nonsense that it doesn't go two ways, but that doesn't remove the hypocrisy you're throwing around. It takes two to make a child, so why should the man be able to run away?

Neither party should. But, currently one can.

It's official, we now need political parties to have sex and reproduce. :roll:

You can take the most non political topic and try to throw a political spin on it as if you had a monopoly on morals.

The word "party" there was not referring to political parties.

Then I apologize.

 

[sandorski]

Physical Pleasure is "Sinful" for many Religions. Sex is a favorite target of this view, but some extend the view to other things such as Food(must be bland), any type of Alcohol/Drug, and the really extreme to Medicine(relief of suffering). Many Religious peoples in advanced societies manage to get over these type of hangups, but generally hang on to some of them in some way. One way old hangups still exist in todays world is the concept of Sex in Wedlock exclusively. One reason is that Sex is Natural, but the more poignant reason for the Religious(Judeo-Christian specifically) is that Sex is Wedlock(check your Bibles!). The concept of Sex out of Wedlock is unpossible(😉). By separating Wedlock from Sex, the Religious created a situation where "Sex out of Wedlock" could exist. IOW, they made it possible for people to be Promiscuous without consequence. They did this by creating the Artificial form of "Wedlock" and saying to people that if you succumb to Natural Processes before undertaking the Artificial Process of Wedlock, you are Sinful! Once that line is crossed, the "Sinner" can live in Shame induced by the Religious or they can accept their Fate of "Promiscuity" created by the misguided Religious Artificial Reality.

So again, No, there's nothing wrong with Sex out of Wedlock, because it does not exist!

 

[qoou]

Sex is pleasurable and not harmful at all. Its society's ill idea that sex is evil and that those who enjoy it or practice other sexuality's than their own are evil that are the cause of all of the harmful effects.

 

[shadow9d9]

Poor Zendari... he's never had sex... mommy and daddy tell him it is bad! Waaaa! Waaa!

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't know if it's realistic in modern societies to pratice abstinence since people marry so much later in life - all while biology beckons. But there are researched and documented psychological and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity beyond religious dogma. Google is your freind.

No there aren't.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Poor Zendari... he's never had sex... mommy and daddy tell him it is bad! Waaaa! Waaa!

Don't forget his buddy Generx.

They should have sex together, shirley they both would feel safe :laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: shira
Second, the "unintended consequences" argument is invalid. Frankly, it's just a rationalization to justify a position that's based on faith. I don't know ANYONE who advocates abstinence who thinks sex out of wedlock would be okay if there were no chance of getting pregnant or contracting an STD. Imagine a 21-year-old single woman who has had a hysterctomy and who is in a long-term monogamous relationship with a man: There's no more chance that this woman will get an STD than any married woman. And there's ZERO chance she'll get pregnant. And this couple addresses your "emotional cost" argument, too. Only those brought up to believe that sex is wrong will feel guilt. So is it okay for this couple to have sex? The religious fundies will STILL tell you it's not ok.

Of STDs, pregnancy, and pleasure, pleasure is the only outcome of sex without long-term implications. What if you removed your pleasure from sex but kept the pleasure for your partner? Would you still have sex outside of wedlock? What if all pleasure were removed but STDs and pregnancy were still possible outcomes - would you still have sex outside of wedlock? I'm guessing not, indicating selfish motivations, which is a telltale indicator of nearly all unethical behaviors.

Originally posted by: Zontor
Again - it is unintended consequence. Sex is pleasurable but one of the side effects is pregnancy.

I'll also propose the limit of evolution based on this discussion, since the most outspoken champions of evolution are those most vocally supporting sex for pleasure only. The propagation of superior genes will not occur if this is the case, since obviously the less educated will reproduce like rabbits, while the more educated will use contraception and have less offspring. It is clear from the theory of evolution that the purpose of sex is reproduction and that pleasure is a side effect, not the other way around. Thus, for the above-quoted statement to be true, the theory of evolution must be false. :Q

Originally posted by: rchiu
It?s their body, it?s their life and as long as they don?t create problem in society like spreading diseases, or giving birth to baby that no one cares for, it?s really non of my business.

But people do spread diseases and create babies that no one cares for, so it is your business. After all, you're paying for their actions with your tax dollars.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'll also propose the limit of evolution based on this discussion, since the most outspoken champions of evolution are those most vocally supporting sex for pleasure only. The propagation of superior genes will not occur if this is the case, since obviously the less educated will reproduce like rabbits, while the more educated will use contraception and have less offspring. It is clear from the theory of evolution that the purpose of sex is reproduction and that pleasure is a side effect, not the other way around. Thus, for the above-quoted statement to be true, the theory of evolution must be false.

You have it totally reversed. The reason sex is pleasurable, is an evolutionary adaptation meant to encourage people to do it, thus reproducing.

However, people who argue that contraception defeats that purpose in more highly technological societies, also neglect to realize that evolution is not about quantity. Not only that, but genetic evolution is now not the most important measure of natural selection, since it is far to slow to keep up with the development of civilization.

Before we continue this discussion, may I suggest that you read up on Memes.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
You have it totally reversed. The reason sex is pleasurable, is an evolutionary adaptation meant to encourage people to do it, thus reproducing.

No, nothing you said here contradicts what I said in any way. I said that the purpose is reproduction. Pleasure is an adaptation to encourage reproduction, not the purpose itself. This refutes the claim of the guy I quoted above who claimed that pleasure was the purpose and pregnancy was a side effect.

However, people who argue that contraception defeats that purpose in more highly technological societies, also neglect to realize that evolution is not about quantity. Not only that, but genetic evolution is now not the most important measure of natural selection, since it is far to slow to keep up with the development of civilization.

Fair enough. But, in a socialist system, the propagation of millions of 'less worthy' spawn will inevitably put a drain on those at the top of the food chain (noting that this is also the economic system of choice for the stereotypical 'liberal', this is why I implied contradiction). In a purely capitalist society, what you say may be correct, since the proud few could rise to their potential on the backs of the unwashed masses. Since we're in a hodgepodge of socialism and capitalism, the politics of the day could decide whether you're correct or not, depending on which way the pendulum is swinging at the time.

Before we continue this discussion, may I suggest that you read up on Memes.

Been there, done that. Not sure how this contradicts what I said, though maybe it adds an additional angle for people to consider. I'm very much a proponent of the idea of the meme (i.e. that 'nurture' plays a large role in personal development, though 'nature' is also important), but it's not really accounted for in the traditional theory of evolution.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't know if it's realistic in modern societies to pratice abstinence since people marry so much later in life - all while biology beckons. But there are researched and documented psychological and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity beyond religious dogma. Google is your freind.

No there aren't.

Isn't the occurance of prostate cancer higher in men who aren't sexually active?

edit - Only found this so far:

You probably increase your risk of prostate cancer if:

* You eat a lot of red meat and have a lot of fat in your diet

* You are sexually inactive

* You are overweight

* You have had a vasectomy (although medical research has not found a consistent link.)

Prostate Cancer Institute

 

[Zontor]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'll also propose the limit of evolution based on this discussion, since the most outspoken champions of evolution are those most vocally supporting sex for pleasure only. The propagation of superior genes will not occur if this is the case, since obviously the less educated will reproduce like rabbits, while the more educated will use contraception and have less offspring. It is clear from the theory of evolution that the purpose of sex is reproduction and that pleasure is a side effect, not the other way around. Thus, for the above-quoted statement to be true, the theory of evolution must be false.

You have it totally reversed. The reason sex is pleasurable, is an evolutionary adaptation meant to encourage people to do it, thus reproducing.

However, people who argue that contraception defeats that purpose in more highly technological societies, also neglect to realize that evolution is not about quantity. Not only that, but genetic evolution is now not the most important measure of natural selection, since it is far to slow to keep up with the development of civilization.

Before we continue this discussion, may I suggest that you read up on Memes.

I had planned to take the same road as Meuge but he did a better job than I would have.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The propagation of superior genes will not occur if this is the case, since obviously the less educated will reproduce like rabbits, while the more educated will use contraception and have less offspring.

So you believe the educated have superior genes? For the most part education is an environmental variable not a gift at birth. Contraception use and availability is as cultural as it is economic...I don't buy your argument.

 

[shadow9d9]

You know guys.. he's right.. tonight my wife and I were bored, so we went to hang out at the abortion clinic! Wow did it rock! Scraping fetus has never BEEN so good!!!! Rock on!

 

[Zontor]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
You know guys.. he's right.. tonight my wife and I were bored, so we went to hang out at the abortion clinic! Wow did it rock! Scraping fetus has never BEEN so good!!!! Rock on!

Wow! I didn't know 13 years olds could marry in your state...😉

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: shira
The fundamental purpose of sex, as practiced by virtually the entire human race, is NOT procreation. It is pleasure. Even devout Catholics and orthodox Jews - who believe that contraception is a sin - actively seek to AVOID pregnancy by engaging in sex when the woman is least likely to have a fertile egg. Clearly, Catholics and Jews engaging in this avoidance behavior are having sex SOLELY for pleasure.

So the question becomes: If 99+% of sex acts are NOT directed at procreation, why do so many people believe sex out of wedlock is a sin? What is so special about sex that it needs to be restricted to marriage? Why aren't single people entitled to the pleasures of sex?

If masturbation (sexual stimulation solely for the purpose of pleasure) is not a sin (and you're REALLY out there if you think it is), then why is mutual masturbation (aka, sexual intercourse) not also okay?

Let's not get into the whole "You can't get STDs if you're a virgin" pseudo-argument. This is NOT the real reason abstinence is advocated. To see this, imagine that there's a magic pill that provides 100% guaranteed lifetime protection against STDs. Is out-of-wedlock sex now okay for those who take this pill? I didn't think so.

I understand that people hold religious views, and much of what they believe is a matter of faith. But when faith butts up against common sense, faith needs to take a hike.

This foolishness called faith indeed needs to take a hike, along with the concept of God's judgement of sin, since how can it stand to the wisdom of men and their common sense?

Observe the dog, in its short life it eats, drinks, enjoys the many pleasures of life like sex with no remorse. It doesn't propose, go to the chapel or worry about things like procreation. It lives its life to the fullest to the extent of its abilities.

If a person wants to live their life like the dog who are we to judge them especially in their pursuit of sexual pleasure, since like the dog at the end of their life all they have to look forward to is death.

 

[judasmachine]

I think we are asking the wrong question...

What's right about sex in marriage..............ew.