Seriously, it's just stupid.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Millions of people say otherwise every day Posted by QuinnM (Member # 6835) on :
Your views are yours, and just because someone else chooses to do otherwise doesnt mean that its stupid, its just a different choice. People in India dont eat cows... but how many americans could live without that? its not stupid, just different
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
This thread may be the forum equivalent of flypaper. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The frog will eat well tonight.
And having sex before marriage is stupid. It's been proven.
[ September 07, 2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
He was just testing out the troll waters.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Everybody always uses the word prude as an insult.
But I'll admit it right here -- I am a prude, and I don't think I want to change.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I wonder about the definition of a prude.
I think I'm only a prude outside of the home. Or when people that aren't my husband are in mine.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Scott -- I wan't aware that "stupid" is a provable concept. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, you can't prove to someone they're stupid. Knowing one is stupid is the beginning of wisdom, so once that's known they're not stupid anymore.
Which means they're wrong about being stupid, which probably makes them stupid again.
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What if you can't technically get married though? I for one hate the notion of having sex with a person you barely know, but when one is desparate... they do the most illogical things. But still, having sex with a total stranger seems so... icky.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Um. . .
quote:they do the most illogical things.
The essence of stupidity. . .
[ September 07, 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Calling them illogical is nicer than calling them stupid I guess.... Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Notice I haven't called anyone stupid.
I have said they've done stupid things.
Like have sex before marriage.
It's stupid.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
PSI - "people that aren't my husband are in mine."
In your...what?
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I meant me... I said illogical to not call them stupid...
How about making out before marriage?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Trevor -- I'm pretty sure that PSI is referring to other people in her home.
[ September 07, 2004, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Trevor:
In mine = In my home. The possessive pronoun "mine" obviously doesn't refer to husband or people, so you move to the next closest noun. Hmm, I see that it is "home". Since it's logical that "mine" could refer to "home" it's okay to assume that it does. : P
[ September 07, 2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
Did I cause this?
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
You know, some people would argue that it's stupid to get married to someone with the intent of spending the rest of your life with them, without first finding out if you're sexually compatible with each other. Your intended may be a cold fish in bed, and now you're stuck with a lifetime of bad sex because you didn't test the waters before you took the plunge.
Not that I'm supporting one course or the other, mind you. Just playing Devil's Advocate here.
(Edited to fix the unintentional and obnoxious repetition of 'advocate'.)
[ September 07, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Verily the Younger ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That's your fault for not talking with them deeply and comprehensively about sex.
Reminds me of people who get married and suddenly realize their spouse doesn't want kids but you do. It's like, Did you *talk* before you got married?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No. They were too busy having sex.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
But seriously, folks. Intelligent people can find out if they are "sexually compatible" without having sex. Anything you can't find out until after having sex should be unimportant and covered by love and compasion for your spouse.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm serious. It's easy to get sucked into the physical aspect of a relationship too early if you aren't committed to avoiding it, and getting physical is one of THE EASIEST ways to sidestep communicating. It's hard to think about politics and stuff when you're focused...well, focused is a bad word because it implies a use of the brain...but when you're too physically attentive.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You are *so* right. Been there, done that. Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:But seriously, folks. Intelligent people can find out if they are "sexually compatible" without having sex. Anything you can't find out until after having sex should be unimportant and covered by love and compasion for your spouse.
Not everyone's sole argument for having sex is for figuring out if they'll be a sexually compatible married couple. Many people do it because they want to.
quote:and getting physical is one of THE EASIEST ways to sidestep communicating.
I hope you aren't insinuating that people who have sex outside of marriage are always sidestepping communication. Sure, it's possible. It's possible to be in a non-sexual relationship and STILL be sidestepping communication. I have had no problems knowing and understanding my lovers beyond the physical sense.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Not everyone's sole argument for having sex is for figuring out if they'll be a sexually compatible married couple. Many people do it because they want to.
Psst. I think they use it as a justification because it *is* what they want to do. Alls I'm sayin' is that it is a pretty lame justification. Now, if you're just doing it because you want to, at least you are being honest.
[ September 07, 2004, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:But seriously, folks. Intelligent people can find out if they are "sexually compatible" without having sex. Anything you can't find out until after having sex should be unimportant and covered by love and compasion for your spouse.
Not to mention that theoretically, anyone who truly was the right spouse in all other ways could, with patience and compassion, be taught how to "behave" in bed.
I can understand (and argue for) both sides. Like I said, Devil's Advocate. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Suneun, I come from a position that, when you are thinking about sex, you aren't thinking about anything else.
Also, I believe that new lovers are generally going to be focused on sex. Now, as time wears on and sex wears out, you'll get back to the talking and learning. And there may even be a few nuggets of learning in the middle here and there. But I will defend the position that there isn't much thinking going on when one is worried about getting lucky.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Not to mention that theoretically, anyone who truly was the right spouse in all other ways could, with patience and compassion, be taught how to "behave" in bed.
Mmmmm, mmmmm. The lovely truth.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Mmmmm, mmmmm. The lovely truth.
Uh, forgive me but . . . was that agreement, or sarcasm? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm pretty sure that was agreement.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: when you are thinking about sex, you aren't thinking about anything else
Baloney. The amount of random and non-related items that pop into my head while making out or having sex (even if it is excellent sex) are truly staggering. (And it didn't matter whether the relationship was young or more mature either.) On the other hand few people have as much difficulty trying to stop thinking as I do, so maybe I'm the exception and not the rule.
AJ
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You GO, mph!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets work with a hypothetical here. You're either a guy with a vasectomy, or a girl with your tubes tied (as the latter still has a moderately high rate of failure, focus on the rather reliable former), and you only have sex with someone you're in a long term relationship with, with each of you being tested for STDs before having sex, and at regular intervals throughout. Furthermore, the pill and condoms are in use. So we've reduced the chance of getting pregnant, ever, to rather less than the chance of getting struck by lightning and dying (or any of several other really bad things). Is it still stupid to have sex before marriage? If so, why?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I mostly agree with PSI. If you get too physical too early on in a relationship, then the ability of the two to really get to know each other suffers.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I still feel like sex discourages thinking for the more enjoyable romanticizing. (sp?) Not just during sex, but in general. It's easy to think you're deep in love with the person, to the point where you are less concerned about how you'd fare in a marriage.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:I mostly agree with PSI. If you get too physical too early on in a relationship, then the ability of the two to really get to know each other suffers.
I think this is an insulting generalization. Even if you could set up a study and discover that X percentage of premarital sex couples have Y knowledge/understanding of each other while X+20 percentage of no-premarital couples have Y knowledge/understanding of each other, you will NEVER find that all couples of one are better than all couples of the other.
Does that make sense?
I totally and COMPLETELY disagree with your apparent statement that it is impossible for my relationship to be As Beautious as your relationship because I have premarital sex.
This is, in a nutshell, the same kind of argument seen in other places. That a gay loving relationship can not be As Beautious as a straight loving relationship. Bullocks.
Please realize you are holding a most incredible condescending viewpoint with sweeping generalizations.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Feel free to replace "as beautious" with any other descriptors you'd like. My contention still stands.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I didn't say the things you are apparently hearing.
Let me say again what I believe. If a relationship gets too phyical too soon, then that relationship tends to become mostly about the physical aspect, and the rest of the relationship suffered.
I made no judgement call anybody else's relationship. I never said my relationship is better than anybody else's.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*biting tounge to keep from saying things I'll regret*
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
ya know what's stupid?
buying a car without test-driving it first...
of course, I'm being realistic. I don't have the time or energy it takes to be zealously religious.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Mkay. I'll believe that you don't believe what I stated above. But there are others (not you) that _do_ believe that. And I'd like them to come forth if they're there.
So lets take the two situations:
a) You marry someone you've known for a year.
b) You have sex with someone you've been dating for three years. You get married after two more years.
How does the relationship in (b) suffer, especially when compared to (a)?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Very good Fugu. The main reasons why sex before marriage is/was taboo is because of STD's and children.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Verily, it was agreement. Just in case there was still any doubt. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
*shrug*
Sex before marriage is a pretty stupid thing to do. Lots of risks, no benefit other than pleasure. Also on this list are things like eating chocolate, holding it in during a movie, driving a few blocks instead of walking, etc. etc.
I've got no qualms with him thinking it's stupid. Huge qualms with him saying nobody should ever do it as he is in sole possession of the knowledge of the path to happiness. Fortunately he's not saying that.
Sadly he hasn't posted in this thread in a while and the Hatrack Moral Authority (TM) has taken over.
*leaves thread*
Posted by HenryW (Member # 6053) on :
Ok how bout this -
You (and your partner) are homosexual. Most states (and maybe soon even the federal constitution - geesh, couldn't do ERA but can do this) don't allow you to marry. What to do?
Or - say I am married, can I have sex with anyone I want?
I am so confused....
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
dabbler -- You don't know what I believe as far as the specifics of your points are concerned.
You've never seen me say that I believe or disbelieve those ideas.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Fugu, that is an interesting hypothetical. The answer depends on the person and their view of sex. It also has a great deal to do with their faith or lack thereof. Obviously there are plenty of people who don't think extra-marital sex is stupid.
If you want to know my own personal answer to your question, it is that I believe sex is a sacred gift from God, one that He intends for use between husband and wife. I believe it is both for reproduction and to bind husband and wife together in love and unity.
I also think that God knows how unrealistic it is to expect a large percentage of His children to actually live thus--given the powerful nature of the sex drive. But that doesn't change the fact that it is His requirement of those who would truly follow Him and receive His greatest blessings. He is also willing to forgive those who forsake and repent.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Uhm, what do you want me to say, MPH? Would you like me to couch the above in, "which you may or may not believe"? I thought it was perfectly reasonable to just say that perhaps you don't. After all, saying that you do when you just said that's not what you said would be rude. So sorry I tried for the apparent less rude approach.
You can still answer my hypothetical, though. It would help me in understanding the statement you did say.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The argument unmarried people shouldn't have sex because it discourages thinking about the relationship certainly seems to apply to married people as well if it applies at all. Do you think it only holds true for unmarried people? if so, why, and if not, why do you think it should change the decision for all unmarried people but if any only some married people?
Also, sex can help tighten emotional bonds between people, something I'm pretty sure most of you married people wouldn't argue with. If two people want to spend their lives together but just don't want to get married, isn't that closeness supportive of sex?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
How many healthy, long term relationships stem from people who jump into bed with each other the first chance they get?
I think the point here was hastiness. Someone who chooses to build a stable relationship before getting too physical gets similar benefits to the person who doesn't have sex until after marriage.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That wasn't what was said at all, what was said was that premarital sex was stupid.
For instance, I think there's a decent likelihood I'm going to have premarital sex at some point, but its only going to be with someone I'm in a committed, long term relationship with and would be willing to accept the consequences of sex with.
Lots of people wait until they're in a healthy, long term relationship before having sex yet still have premarital sex.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Fugu, I have a certain amount of respect for that. What I said before about my beliefs still stands, but I imagine if I were not religious at all, I would feel as you do. As for what Scott said, I think he was just trying to make people mad. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
He was trying to make people mad? I thought it was just another stupid dobie that somehow turned into a semi-serious thread. Guess I'm the stupid one here.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I know what Scott was about .
*pies Scott*
However, I think a lot of people were jumping on the bandwagon that premarital sex was obviously stupid without thinking through situations where no, it is not, unless one brings religious justifications into it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Who are all these people who jumped on the bandwagon?
Edit: Scott did repeat his statement a lot. If you weren't looking to see who was posting, you might have got the impression that people were jumping on the bandwagon. But I looked back, and not a single person appears to have done so.
[ September 07, 2004, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by gwan (Member # 6194) on :
Agreed, but I think that if you are in a committed-everythings-going-peachy relationship, one must keep in mind that even if the plan is to marry that person, it may not happen. That way if it ends your life isn't over.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
dabbler -- first you jumped all over me for saying something that I didn't say. I explained that I didn't say that. You than graciously accepted my correction and said "I'll believe that you don't believe what I stated above." I just didn't want to leave you thinking you know my views about this, because you don't.
As far as sharing how I feel about it, I'll decline the invitation for now.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Although, with how short marriages last these days, I could make a similar point about marriage! You don't know if it is going to last, so why bother?
Just playin' Devil's Advocate. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
As detailed in my landmark, I had sex after dating someone for two years (before marriage) and it stunk. On the other hand, I got married after dating for about two months, which was rapidly followed by normal marital relations. So I would tend against the natural law- don't jump into sex too hastily argument.
Anyway, I'm sure this thread was a dobie of the Rude thread and not associated in any way with my landmark. But in general I'd agree that pre-marital sex is stupid. Anyone who disagrees needs to watch "Bed of Roses" tonight. Not because it is a sobering moral tale. Just to savor the stupidity.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ahhhh, good movie with a bittersweet ending. Wisdom to be found there.
I will say this: for those of you in healthy, long-term relationships and for those of you who are not, and are planning on having sex, I sincerely hope you are prepared for the possibility of pregnancy. I am assuming that the guy has not had a vasectomy or the girl her tubes tied. But even with birth control, pregnancies happen.
So what would you do? Abort? Adopt out? Keep the child but not marry? Marry and raise the child? These are important issues. I hate the fact that pre-marital sex contributes so much to the high number of abortions that happen since I find abortion-for-convenience repugnant and vile.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't remembering much about Bed of Roses. All I really remember was that the message of the movie seemd to be that chicks dig stalkers.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I remember something about the girl abusing the guy's trust again and again to the point that he couldn't believe her feelings for him. In the end, he took her back, but things were not "hunky dory". He was very wary of being hurt again. The message I got was that trust is a precious thing and shouldn't be abused.
There were moments in our relationship that reminded me of that movie. I felt like I did to you what that girl did to that guy.
[ September 07, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
About homosexual people not being able to have sex because they aren't married:
These kinds of individuals would be religious, I expect, as the belief that "sex before marriage is wrong" is a religious belief.
Any such person would also have to align themselves with a religion in which homosexual relations were not sinful. There are quite a few Christion denominations for which this is true, and their pastors will perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples.
In the religious world, divine authority trumps government authority. Therefore, I feel it is silly to wait for the government to sanction your marriage. A homosexual person looking to marriage as a religious commitment to their spouse CAN get married to their beloved same sex partner. I was once acquainted with one couple like this, and currently know a different couple very well who is married under their religious law. Even their last name is the same, another sign of marriage.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Giving in to base desires without giving the requisite forethought qualifies for the stupidity label. Many things done in the heat of the moment are stupid. Assigning the stupidity tag exclusively to premarital sex is baiting the hook. Engaging in premarital sex carries no greater intellectual onus than any other emotion laden (influenced) decision.
Edit to qualify the term laden.
[ September 07, 2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There are quite a few religions that condemn me for eating pork. But I don't let it stop me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I do not go about the forum trying to make people mad.
Because if I did, this would be a pretty miserable place.
But I do believe that sex before marriage is stupid, and I think this topic's header made a fetching Dobbie.
So, there you go.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
pooka: Given that you had sex with the person you'd been dating for two years for admittedly unhealthy reasons, I don't exactly think that serves as a counterexample.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Encouraging lively debate doesn't qualify (in my book) as inciteful. I wasn't irritated I was just stating my opinion. If you thought my baiting the hook comment was critical I apologize. I enjoy exchanges like this.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I like all the above ideas.
Here's what I believe, Scott R, and according to it you're wrong...
Deep inside a pound there lives a conrolling force, which goes by the name Ar'MaNo. From it comes all the energy of living and life.
Now this force wants the following from us:
a) To have sex daily b) To offer it a cow every month
The force loves us with all its will. However, We are its Children and it is up to Us to prove Our devotion to It.
This force does realize that many do not believe in it. For those many individuals, there is a way out -- if they repent and realize the error of their ways.
If they don't, and refuse to accept the Sex/Offering combination of Godly love...then they will be distanced from the true Maker, and that is an unpleasent way to spend eternity.
The force *is* forgiving. So don't worry too much -- just accept its love, and you'll be saved.
[ September 07, 2004, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
o_O
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I agree that many people have sex for the "wrong reasons." Or, that there are wrong reasons to have sex. Ultimately, a reason is wrong (to me) if it will cause you or the other person physical or emotional harm.
So, lets say that in many cases, sex outside of marriage leads to a harmful outcome. Does this mean you should never have sex outside of marriage? I argue no.
Someone recently admitted that he's a sore loser. Many of us are sore loses at games. Some of us are even terrible losers who hurt people they're close to and themselves when they lose. Does this mean they should never play games with their friends? I don't think so. I think it would be to their benefit to learn how to deal with losing in a more appropriate manner, because it'll make them a better person than refusing to play games with people for the rest of his life.
Not everyone is a sore loser. Not everyone is harmed by having sex outside of a marriage.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Giving in to base desires without giving the requisite forethought qualifies for the stupidity label.
That, for me anyway, goes right to the heart of the issue and spells out exactly what the problem is. I (coming from my agnostic standpoint) don't think there is anything inherently "sinful" about pre-marital sex. I just think people rush into it too quickly. They should be in a loving, committed relationship before they climb into bed together, and they should both discuss it beforehand to make sure both partners are actually ready and are not just giving in to base lust.
But the same could be said for a lot of actions. I have exactly the same opinion about marriage itself, though you can change "lust" to "twitterpation" or whatever else you like. I think the divorce rate would go down dramatically if people were required to have a lengthy waiting period before they were allowed to be married. Then once the hormones wore off, if they found out they were a bad match after all, they wouldn't now be stuck in a marriage to get out of.
Basically, I think people should just slow down and not rush into things so much. Most of our worst mistakes come when we didn't give enough thought to what we were doing before we did it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*ahem*
And those having sex should be prepared for the possibility of pregnancy and parenthood. Accidents happen. Abortions-of-convenience shouldn't.
But no one wants to think about that, do they?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
It's impossible to mix two peoples sets of ideals to come up with a logical belief system.
My own beliefs concerning sex are consistent because I don't consider abortions evil. But you can't expect me to apply your belief that abortion should not be a matter of convenience to my belief that sex can be had outside of marriage.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:without first finding out if you're sexually compatible with each other
And sometimes all you find out is that you've just given it up to a wanker who only wanted to get off. I guess you could count that as knowledge gained. So we're not talking 100-percent stupid.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Giving in to base desires without giving the requisite forethought qualifies for the stupidity label.
Since when is it a "base desire" to want to give pleasure to someone else? Touching is a good thing.
Incidentally, don't be religious before death.
It's just stupid.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
"Touching is a good thing."
It is no more inherently good or evil than green is.
"Incidentally, don't be religious before death."
Are you saying that we should wait until after death?
Probably not -- I'm guessing that you are just saying that being religious at all is "just stuipid".
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'd simply like to point out that I'm more communicative with people I am physically close to... despite arguments earlier in the thread made that people having sex don't communicate as well.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:And those having sex should be prepared for the possibility of pregnancy and parenthood. Accidents happen. Abortions-of-convenience shouldn't.
Absolutely. As far as I'm concerned, as long as you're okay with the possible consequences (remote though they may be if multiple contraceptive methods are used in concert), go ahead and have all the sex you want.
I think "sex before marriage is stupid" is taking things much too far, though, particularly for people like me who don't have any plans to get married (but who ARE interested in maintaining stable, committed relationships at some juncture).
(I may get married someday, but it'll only be in a church if that's what my fiancée wants.)
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Since when is it a "base desire" to want to give pleasure to someone else?
Since when is the desire to give pleasure to someone else the primary motivation of pre-marital sex? I'm not saying no one ever has sex for that reason--I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that do--but I'd say selfish hedonism is a far more common reason for sex, at least outside a committed relationship.
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
To make "sex befor marriage" a "stupid thing," one would have to find importante significance in the consept of marrige, and sence I dont believe ther ahve been laws regulating virginity for a century, it would mostlikely be religious regulation.
Should all people be held to this regulation?
Why should it be anyone's buisness what two consenting adults want to do?
...intresting how this argument sounds simmiler to arguments for homosexual marriges as well...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
He never said that pre-marital sex should be regulated.
He just said that it's stupid.
But this is America, where everybody has the right to be stuipd.
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
quote: He just said that it's stupid.
and I repeat, why should he care what two consenting adults are doing?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Why does having an opinion mean he cares about what you do?
I think watching soap operas is stupid, but I don't really care if you watch them or not.
edit: I don't really think that watchin soap operas is much more stupid than some of the things I waste my time on.
[ September 07, 2004, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Vera (Member # 2094) on :
quote:"Incidentally, don't be religious before death."
Are you saying that we should wait until after death?
Probably not -- I'm guessing that you are just saying that being religious at all is "just stuipid".
Actually, I'm pretty sure what he was trying to do was to make an offensive statement similar in form to the one that started this thread in order to show why it (the statement that started this thread) could be hurtful to some people.
Maybe not the best way of going about that, but he does have a point.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can't imagine that anybody really would need to have it explained why that statment is offensive. I substantively agree with it, but I would never phrase it in such an offensive manner.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:But no one wants to think about that, do they?
bev, I don't mean this facetiously: a lot of people do. This is why many people support Planned Parenthood -- not because of access to abortions (which may or may not be provided at individual clinics), but because of the importance of family planning.
There is a reason why various other countries have a higher rate of birth control use, lower rate of teenage pregnancy, and lower rate of elective abortion.
If you were to be suggesting that engaging in any unnecessary action which may have dire consequences for others is immoral (and I realize you are not making this claim), then you would not be driving a car, and you would be active in abolishing individual car use. Over a period of five years, a sexually active, fertile, heterosexual couple using a condom with spermicide foam and birth control pills, both correctly (at least, as correctly as is viable for people -- not just in the lab) has a higher risk for one of them being in a car accident than of getting pregnant.
(I'm sure of that, but if anyone disbelieves it and it would make a difference to them, I could go through the calculations.)
Doesn't mean it's okay to jump like bunnies with the nearest stranger every night -- just that it is possible to have sex responsibly and with a reasonable certainty of not getting pregnant (a certainty much stronger than that of not being involved in a vehicular accident).
[ September 07, 2004, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Woohoo! Validation from Sara! Now to run out and pick up some sort of supreme hottie...
(Okay, so I'm kidding.)
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Go Sara go.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hey Eddie, is it just me, or does Sara have a legion of young, handsome, male fans?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Good grief. The last thing I want is to be symbolic of anything to anybody. But it so happens that you are right (about the pregnancy part), young man.
(I still don't think jumping into sex is a good idea, I don't think most people are ready to do it responsibly when they first do it, and I am convinced there is a plethora of extremely good reasons not to have sex before the age of thirty. But that's another story.)
[Y'all need a mother figure, that's all, and I'm safe because I'm 1)married 2)stern 3)aged and 4)rather feeble. S'okay, I know the score. ]
[ September 07, 2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
King of Men -- My statement holds true. Any action taken in the throes of heated emotion that isn't preceded by forethought qualifies for the tag stupid. I'm NOT religious and I don't have anything against premarital sex. My point was that any action taken while in the grip of heated desire will not be reasonably considered. Assigning the stupidity tag to premarital sex was a bit exclusive in my opinion. Having sex without considering the possibility of conception or life-threatening disease is idiotic. If a couple have discussed these issues and are aware of the consequences then (in my opinion) they are not behaving stupidly.
[ September 07, 2004, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
I don't necessarily think that religion and abstinence must go hand-in-hand - I know religious people who have had sex before marriage, and my own beliefs about virginity have nothing to do with marriage. I'm Catholic, but not so strongly Catholic that I would abstain from sex because the Church says it's wrong. My reasons would be purely personal. I believe that it's impossible to make the generalization of "Sex Before Marriage Is Stupid, Period." Everyone is different and relationships vary. Sex before marriage without preparation for the consequences, and without safety measures being taken, is stupid. I think too many immature people have sex without realizing the potential outcomes, but a few people do actually think about it, talk about it, and plan for what they will do if pregnancy occurs. It's stupid to be unprepared, but the act itself, given proper thought and not done rashly or without hesitation, can't be called stupid on a purely logical sense. By religious or moral standards, perhaps...but intelligent, good people DO have sex before marriage, and ARE prepared for what may happen, and deal with it in a responsible, mature manner. At the risk of sounding...old....I'll say: don't have sex AT ALL until you are prepared to deal with a child, married or not. Birth control is not infallible. Don't give it your complete trust. You should test for STD's before having sex with anyone anyway, so that shouldn't be a worry. Just make mature decisions, and for God's sake think them through and always have a Plan B, in case things DON'T go as planned.
That's just my take on it.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I don't know, but she sure as hell has us.
Though now that she's established herself as a mother figure, I feel dirty...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm in kind of a silly mood tonight. This thread, for all its seriousness, is fun. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Er. So, Jane, does this mean my propositions to you have a decent shot? Or what? Cuz I'll test for STDs beforehand if that's what it takes. No, no, no need to thank me, I just consider it my duty to help you feel comfortable. A gentleman, that's what I am. A noble in an age of savages. A man for others. Totally selfless! Utterly thoughtful! My god why hasn't that man had a statue made of him yet...
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
You are dirty, Lalo. No sex (with other people) before you're thirty. And wash behind your ears.
to twinky It's the hours before midnight that count in sleep, you know. Have you been eating your canned tomatoes?
Although if one were to really want to kill the sexual interest of silly young men, opening up the photographic Atlas of Sores and Rashes would do most nicely.
*fixes you, Lalo, with a stern eye
Be polite to Avardu. Home by seven. No vans. Or you will have to read aloud from the Atlas.
[You know, my mother used to make my brother and me read aloud from the letter of Revelation while on our knees, and for relatively small transgressions, like forgetting to put clothes in the laundry hamper. It was quite effective, even if terribly traumatic.]
[ September 07, 2004, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
We're talking about sex and Sara in the same breath. How could it not be fun?
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
In this case I believe bated breath would be the proper term.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:It's the hours before midnight that count in sleep, you know. Have you been eating your canned tomatoes?
It's WHAT? No wonder I'm tired all the time. I haven't had sleep that counts in years.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Well, I was channelling my mother there, but it does work for me, too.
Bed by eight and up at four am makes for a very productive day.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Ugh, I couldn't deal with that. I am NOT a morning person. I like the night time, it affords me quiet and solitude.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I haven't been to bed before midnight in years, either, and depressingly rarely for the fun reasons.
Sigh... Oh well. At least Sara's here to give us other fun reasons to be awake. Sexual innuendo to hot chicks with easy access to nurses' uniforms! I have a new purpose in life.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
"Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man stupid and blind in the eyes."
I never get to bed before midnight. I rarely get to bed before two. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
twinky, for me it's the wee hours that are most quiet and productive. I'm pretty sure it's a matter of individual temperment, though.
Lalo, I have access to scrubs, not "nurse uniforms" (whatever that may be) and -- as in all things -- the reality falls short of the fantasy. The scrubs are pee- and blood-splattered, the hair is matted, the teeth are unbrushed, and there is spit-up on the left earlobe. Eyes bloodshot. Numbers written on both arms like tattoos. Surly, hungry, and gripin' about my feet.
Sorry, dude. *grin That's the breaks. But you go and be young and pretty in your altogether, so long as you take care of yourself and be responsible. Have fun storming the castle!
[ September 07, 2004, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I feel like Sara has an older name?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:King of Men -- My statement holds true. Any action taken in the throes of heated emotion that isn't preceded by forethought qualifies for the tag stupid. I'm NOT religious and I don't have anything against premarital sex. My point was that any action taken while in the grip of heated desire will not be reasonably considered. (...)
My comment on religion was intended for comrade Scott. I don't object to your definition of stupidity, though I think it's a bit all-embracing; only to your automatic characterisation of desire as 'base.' It isn't necessarily.
On the subject of heated emotion, though, consider the mother who spots her child toddling out into the road, where a ten-ton trailer is advancing at fifty kilometres an hour. I think she is not entirely cool and collected when she rushes out to pick up her child; but I would hardly call her stupid.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Paul, it's ClaudiaTherese. Long story.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ok, thats what I thought. I just didn't want to make a mistake at some point by assuming, and then being wrong...
after all, you know what assuming does... makes an ass out of you...
Posted by delicate flower (Member # 6260) on :
quote:I think watching soap operas is stupid, but I don't really care if you watch them or not.
I believe it says something very sad about my priorities that this is the only statement I've read tonight that spiked my blood pressure. Or perhaps it just says that I take fiction more seriously than reality.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Actually, it makes an ass out of you and me, Paul. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: why should he care what two consenting adults are doing?
I care because I have personally taken care of two children whose mothers did not understand that sex before marriage is stupid.
Because I work with a number of young adults and children, I see the effects of sexual relations outside of a legal commitment just about every week.
I care, because self-control and discipline when it comes to sexual urges are ennobling arts, and they are being lost to the rising generations. So husbands who never learned to control Willie when they were horny eighteen-year-olds, suddenly find it VERY difficult to control him when they're married, and a partner is available but not always willing.
Society has to foot the bill, both the moral and the financial one, for people's stupidity.
Sex before marriage, or an equally binding social force, is stupid.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Comrade Scott, you are not arguing that sex before marriage is stupid. You are arguing that stupid people should not have sex. A point of view which opens up a whole new vista of interesting consequences.
Personally, and in somewhat the same vein, I feel that religious people should not have children. But that's just me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Compagno KoM-- thanks, but I still believe that sex before marriage is stupid.
I can judge an action very easily-- it's much more difficult to judge a person's intelligence.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Personally, and in somewhat the same vein, I feel that religious people should not have children. But that's just me.
That's the most bigoted thing I've heard in a long time.
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
quote: self-control and discipline when it comes to sexual urges are ennobling arts, and they are being lost to the rising generations. So husbands who never learned to control Willie when they were horny eighteen-year-olds, suddenly find it VERY difficult to control him when they're married, and a partner is available but not always willing.
ok, im confused about what the second sentence means, please help me.
As to the first, women, and espesually men (because it was more socaly acceptable) have always had pre-marital transgretions. If you were a woman and it resulted in pregencey you might, if you were rich, go to live in a nunnery, or go visit an "aunt" for a year or so. If you were poor, tough luck. In the Victorian age, brothles employed and entertained an increadably high number of people. The "moarl old days" never existed. Pre-marital daliances were just hushed up.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Damn, stormie didn't complete my joke Oh well Posted by Fiber (Member # 6836) on :
who want's bait-schmelly breathe anyhows?
fib
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I have enough ass for both of us, Paul.
(How's that?)
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Well, we KNOW you have a great ... oh, wait, thats not what we're talking about huh?
Sorry. Stupid joke my brother does..." And we all know assuming makes an ass out of you..." and other person is supposed to fill in "and me" so, calling self an ass twice.
Just for those who didn't figure it out.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
So ALL sex before marrige is stupid? Every single case?
I dont think so.
Dunno about anybody else but I want the sex on my honeymoon to be GOOD.(no before anybody says so, thats is NOT the only or the most important reason for sex before marriage) lol, not like most peoples first times, not so good...... But now I know it will be awesome for me and thats not what I'm gonna be worried about my whole wedding day.lol
In some cases people get married too quickly because they can't/don't want to have sex before marriage. I think sex is an important part of the relationship. But every relationship is different..... I just think its unfair of Scott R to slap every single case of sex before marriage together and say it's stupid. I don't regret it.
oh I think that just sounded dumb.Might not have been very clear .oh well.
Edit: lol, forgot a word and it sounded funny.hehe
[ September 07, 2004, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: stacey ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
All your mentions could as well be attributed to sex outside of emotional maturity and responsibility, Scott.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
fugu13 -- can you propose a better guidline to make sure that sex doesn't happen outside of emotional maturity and responsibility than having it only happen within marriage?
True, being married doesn't guarantee emotional maturity and responsibility, but it is sure better than nothing.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Eh, I know people are going to have extra-marital sex no matter what *I* say. I just want to do my part to make sure that people remember that sex *can* cause pregnancy in spite of efforts to avoid it. The only way to not make a baby is to not have sex. Or have your parts removed.
It is my opinion that anyone who is sexually active should be thinking about the possibility of making a baby. If you are fine with abortions of convenience, than that (unfortunately) is your legal right. As Sara pointed out, driving is dangerous. I try to do my part by driving safely and having insurance. I would greatly prefer that if people are going to be having sex they be willing to provide a good home to any resulting offspring. But there isn't much I can do about it but talk.
There are laws that protect people who are hurt in car accidents. There is no law that protects the pregnancies resulting from these unions.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Better guideline? sure. "Don't have sex unless you're ready to have kids."
Seems to encompass the issue nicely, though of course there are always problem cases. Fewer than for don't have sex before you're married, because while almost all married people are (hopefully) ready to have sex, there are a large number of unmarried people ready to have sex in the maturity and responsibility senses who the "none till married" guideline leaves off.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That's not a bad guideline, fugu. I think if I were married and I were determined not to have kids, I would have surgery or request my husband have it. Otherwise, I would always be prepared in the back of my mind to accept a "surprise" should it happen. Or adopt out. I wouldn't even consider abortion. But that's just me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If you ever feel that way, bev, you can have the surgery.
[ September 08, 2004, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
porter
After giving birth repeatedly, if there were a good reason to make *sure* we never had another (like a life-threatening condition) I think you ought to be magnanimous enough to volunteer to go under the knife.
[ September 08, 2004, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Stop talking about that!
<-- totally squicked out
edit: I really am a prude
[ September 08, 2004, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
Scott R, do you work in counselling or something like that? Don't you ever see a case where sex before marriage is not so stupid? where a couple have been in a relationship for some time and have decided that they are ready for sex? I'm sure there are many cases out there like that and i'm sad that you don't get to see it. What about people who don't believe in marriage but are just as commited to the relationship as a married couple is?
And I don't know if marriage is the best guideline anymore. Divorce statistics show that about 50% of all marriages end in divorce. so is it better than nothing for a few years until you divorce?
And having children out of wedlock isn't the worst thing in the world!!!! I was born out of wedlock:P and if you think I'm screwed up or something then you gotta be kidding, although Kylie may tell you otherwise but don't listen to her shes crazy. i had a great childhood... no sex before marriage = no me. lol and I can't tell my parents they were stupid can I?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*pokes hatrack to see if it is dead*
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*declares time of death to be 1:22*
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: if you think I'm screwed up or something then you gotta be kidding, although Kylie may tell you otherwise but don't listen to her shes crazy.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
my little brother was the result of a boctched vasectomy, so don't count your chickens prematurely, bev AJ
Posted by tt&t (Member # 5600) on :
quote: if you think I'm screwed up or something then you gotta be kidding, although Kylie may tell you otherwise but don't listen to her shes crazy.
I say nothing.
*shifty eyes*
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
AJ, a gal I know tells the story of her husband having three vasectomies and her still getting pregnant. She ended up having 7 children. Her husband who wanted no more than 2 committed suicide.
I can't vouch for the story behind the story, but at some point I began to wonder if there was another sperm-donor involved!
Edit: Though the family resemblance spoke for itself....
[ September 08, 2004, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Nobody's said this yet, so I thought I'd chime in.
I waited for sex until marriage for many of the reasons already stated here, but there was one other. I guess I may be considered old-fashioned, but I knew I wanted my husband to be my one and only for all time--I didn't want him to have to think of me being with anyone else and I didn't want to think of him as being with anyone else. And I meant the "for all time" part to include BEFORE I met him, as well. I would have considered having sex with someone else even before I met my husband as adultery against my husband. And it has made our marriage pretty wonderful. I know I made the right decision.
Oh, and perhaps the reason that there is a 50% divorce rate is BECAUSE of all the premarital sex--it is at LEAST a contributing factor.
This isn't the type of idea you can convince others of. If a person has waited for marriage, chances are they understand the value of it. If they haven't, then chances are that never experiencing the value of waiting, they can never understand it. There are exceptions, I'm sure. I suppose it could be said that since I've never experienced having sex with anyone other than my husband that I don't know what I'm missing--but that idea, to me, is stupid. I know exactly what I missed and I'm VERY happy I did.
That's my 2 1/2 cents.
-Katarain
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I disagree that premarital sex in and of itself causes a later divorce, except in very few cases.
Because premarital sex happens does not make it a cause. Correlation does NOT imply causation. Say this to yourself and understand it.
Factors that lead a person to choose premarital sex can also lead to a situation in which a couple divorces.
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
we might be putting to much of an emphasis on sex.
As stated earlier, it can pull people closer together emotionally, but putting sex up on a pedistal and makeing it such a big deal pulls people to extreams.
People can be married and hardly ever have sex, and people can have sex with many different people before they are married. In the end, both sets may end up with a un/happy marrige.
...what really can screw with a relationship (married or other wise) is haveing children, espesually in an attempt to save it.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
I'd like to add only this:
I'm probably stupid for many reasons, but I don't think having sex before marriage makes me stupid.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'd also like to put out, people make lots more life altering decisions, with lots less available data than the 99.997% non-pregnancy rate of birth control when used correctly.
Yeah, I feel safe in gambling on that. And I'm an engineer.
AJ
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
It's a sad day when a dobie spawns a serious discussion.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I take that risk myself, since I do not desire to be pregnant or make a baby right now. But I am willing to accept an unexpected "accident" pregnancy also.
My concern is with those who don't even think about it as a possible consequence. Same with those who don't consider the possible consequences of driving a car--damage to people and property and even death. Both attitudes make for reckless behavior. I agree with fugu, if you are going to be sexually active, be prepared for the possible consequence of pregnancy. That doesn't mean don't have sex until you want children, just be prepared for the possible consequence. Even engineers must plan for the unexpected and unlikely.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:do you work in counselling or something like that?
No, though I used to be a tracker, and before that I worked breifly in the mental health field. The work I do now is volunteer work.
quote:Don't you ever see a case where sex before marriage is not so stupid? where a couple have been in a relationship for some time and have decided that they are ready for sex? I'm sure there are many cases out there like that and i'm sad that you don't get to see it. I'm sure there are many cases out there like that and i'm sad that you don't get to see it.
Yeah. Poor benighted me.
I'll accept fugu's reasoning that couples should not have sex before they're ready to have children. However, this is a very difficult standard to point at and quantify. Define 'ready,' in other words.
Children who are born in a state sanctioned marriage are given protections that children born outside of legal marriage do not have. For example, an immediate claim on the father for financial support.
In my opinion, conceiving children outside of marriage is also stupid.
quote:What about people who don't believe in marriage but are just as commited to the relationship as a married couple is?
Don't believe in marriage? Wait, did you think I was talking about RELIGIOUS marriage?
Let's clear this up right now-- speaking secularly, speaking scientifically, speaking logically-- sex before marriage is stupid.
quote:And I don't know if marriage is the best guideline anymore. Divorce statistics show that about 50% of all marriages end in divorce.
Can you clarify your point here? As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with the idea that widespread, social acceptance of pre-marital sex is destructive to society.
quote:And having children out of wedlock isn't the worst thing in the world!!!!
No, it's not the worst thing. It's not even the stupidest thing. But, IMO, it's right up there with getting drunk and sticking yourself behind the wheel of a car. The potential for disaster is similar.
quote:no sex before marriage = no me
Um. . . prove it.
quote:perhaps the reason that there is a 50% divorce rate is BECAUSE of all the premarital sex--it is at LEAST a contributing factor.
I doubt it. As convenient as this would be for my arguments, the data just isn't there.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:Let's clear this up right now-- speaking secularly, speaking scientifically, speaking logically-- sex before marriage is stupid.
But if you don't intend to get married, ever?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Dabbler, I never said "that premarital sex in and of itself causes a later divorce." I do believe that it can be a contributing factor--if only for the reason that sex can sometimes create a false sense of intimacy and people get married when they really shouldn't. Maybe instead I should have said that "Perhaps pre-marital sex leads couples that normally wouldn't have gotten married to eventual divorce when they finally get to know each other."
Note that I still said Perhaps! I think some people missed that...
So maaaybe, your snide little comment "say this to yourself and understand it" was uncalled for and you should practice reading what people ACTUALLY say.
Enough bad things can and do happen as a result of having sex outside of marriage that it is at the very least unwise. And if I were to make a list, I do not think I would include children. I pity the poor child who is labeled a mistake. However, I would add not being able to take proper care of that child. I would include providing a family that includes a mother, father, and stability under "proper care," but even if you don't, I don't think there are many people who would argue that proper care should not include financially taking care of the child.
-Katarain
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
And I still think you're using anecdotal evidence to insinuate that this happens often/frequently/commonly.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
If I couldn't interpret your words properly, perhaps it's because I read it how it seemed to read:
quote:Oh, and perhaps the reason that there is a 50% divorce rate is BECAUSE of all the premarital sex--it is at LEAST a contributing factor.
So you say: Premarital sex is a contributing factor of divorce, possibly the reason we have 50% divorce rate.
And I say: I don't think that premarital sex can be said to be a cause (factor) of divorce in most cases, because it's impossible to prove such causation. It seems that your argument is that because A happened before B, A is a contributing factor to B. And I disagree.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
*sigh*
An anecdote involves telling a story or recounting an event or an incident.
I never used any anecdotal evidence.
It is my opinion. I never insinuated anything. I think you are misrepresenting my words in your rewrite of what I said.
Do I think premarital sex is the sole contributor to the high divorce rate? No. I don't even think it's on the top of the list as a direct cause.
I DO, however, believe that the "modern" attitudes about sex and marriage are the cause of the high divorce rate. And in a way, premarital sex could be said to be a part of that.
There's no way to PROVE this. There's no way to PROVE what you believe either. However, if someone were to do a study--NOT ME--I'd bet money that a correllation between divorce, STDs, ETC. and the sexual "revolution" could be found.
I'd be more likely to say that since A (Premarital sex) happened before B (Marriage), C (Complications) were caused that affected B, leading to D (Divorce). But it's not a MATH problem and it's not ALWAYS true.
You irk me.
-Katarain
[ September 08, 2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Katarain ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Everyone irks everyone today.
:pulls automatic pie-flinger from his pocket:
See? Guess I wasn't happy to see you after all.
:blasts TomDavidson into a dripping mound of lemon merengue goo:
[ September 08, 2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Did he deserve that?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Most definitely. Did you expect me to use the GOOD pie on him? No, the pecan pie is for OSC, if ever he'd pop his head out long enough for me to catch him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How on earth did so many people take a fairly lame dobie and get so riled up?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Katarain, you irk me too. I think you presented your initial point with the semblance that it was a strong cause. Now that I question that, you clarify that it's not the top cause or even perhaps in most cases. That's good enough for me and I thank you for that.
Sorry to have irked you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:wince:
Fairly lame?
:pout:
Of course, I can't pie YOU, Dag. You're a Christian. I'm a Christian. . .
Hm. . . well, actually, if I switch my viewpoint to looking at myself the way that some Protestants look at me, I'm not a Christian.
So, EAT CHOCOLATE CHESS, YOU CHRISTIAN DOG!
:flurry of pie-ing ensues:
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*small voice* Now I want some chocolate.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Juliette prefers tart, fruity pies. I prefer sweet, creamy pies. It's kind of sad, really.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You'll always get people riled up if you say something that can be interpreted as "X is a sin" because invariably someone on the list has X as a part of their way of life.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
According to Jack Chick, we're both in the Hell-express lane.
So how about some KEY LIME!
Dagonee *knows fairly lame dobies well. Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:You'll always get people riled up if you say something that can be interpreted as "X is a sin" because invariably someone on the list has X as a part of their way of life
That's because of the very real concern that X will become illegal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It is in at least one state...
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
BTW Katarain, because I was thinking that it's possible to imagine me saying the Sorry line in a snide way, I in no way mean it in a snide way. I'm sorry that my text voice is harsh in a way that I don't intend, and I'm sorry that I misunderstand the meaning behind certain people's posts (I tend to misread certain people more than others, due to various differences). I do hope I try my best to clarify and understand the real meaning, as I tried to do earlier with MPH.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sorry, kat, you are definitely Mormon. I cannot critisize, or otherwise malign a fellow Mo. It says so in the Book of Mormon, somewhere.
But if you rile TomD enough, he'll pie you. Maybe. He'll probably get all rational and serious though. He hasn't been doing many pie-ings lately. Pity.
I don't debate the fact that you could probably use a good pie to the face. Everyone could. Except me. I'm on a diet.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*pies Scott*
*repeatedly!*
Here, kat, have a chocolate cream! *lobs*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dagonee -- which state is it illegal to have pre-marital sex in?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
A Jew-born pie! Alas! I am entranced by its odd combination of tzimmes and zhug!!
:Yields to rivka's superior pie throwing capabilities:
[ September 08, 2004, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Also, I think that it is an completely unfair to respond to "X is wrong" as though they had said "X should be illegal". Many people have said that they feel premarital sex is wrong, but nobody has even hinted that it should be made illegal.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ooops.
Nobody said we couldn't use store-bought. Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I'm not responding as though you specifically want it to be illegal. But the reason people argue this point is many-fold. In the public, a concern that people have is that the fundamentalist viewpoint will become law. I believe TD agreed on this point in his thread.
You stated a generality, I answered with a generality. Was that excessive of me?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dabbler, it's cool. I didn't respond because I was picking up my husband. (In a car--not literally)
So I'm sorry for being unclear and so thin-skinned.
-Katarain
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Tzimmes and zhug?! Odd combination.
How bout a little za'atar with that? Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
@ Katarain.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dabbler -- I was also speaking in generalities, and then gave this thread as a specific example. We're cool.
Many times I have said something like "People shouldn't X" and people respond as though I said "People shouldn't be allowed to X".
I just think it sad that if you make a moral judgment about something, people jump up and down that you are trying to remove their rights.
It is for everybody's interest that we don't cry wolf when it comes to the infringing of rights.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Oooh, let's talk about making things legal!!!
hehe
-Katarain
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thanks for the link, Dag.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote: I cannot critisize, or otherwise malign a fellow Mo.
I once had a roommate named Mo. Well, her name was Maureen, but she went by Mo.
She was a tiny little thing with a Ralphiesque rack, so I'm pretty sure she triggered some inappropriate thoughts amongst unmarried persons.
I don't know what they did about that, though.
(Does this count as maligning Mo? or her admirers? I'm so confused! But since I am not a fellow Mo -- alas -- I shall not be troubled too much. And I can wear linen/wool mixed fabric, although I won't.)
[ September 08, 2004, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Remember to save some key lime for Ol' Scratch, I hear it's his favorite, so store up a batch.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's his favorite because more souls have been sold for a slice of real key lime pie than any other confection.
Soul donuts included.
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
Obviously different people have different points-of-view on sex. It has different meanings for different people. I think that everyone should just find people who have similar attitudes on sex, and date those people. Why concern yourself with other people’s sex lives?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Maybe people get riled up not because they are afraid of legislation, or because they think stupid = sinful, but because they simply don't like being called stupid.
quote: I care because I have personally taken care of two children whose mothers did not understand that sex before marriage is stupid.
Hey. I had sex before marriage. I was aware of the ramifications and prepared to deal with the consequences. I also used protection. And the sex came about as a result of our deeper communication, not as an impediment to it. Oh, and I personally take care of two children whose birth-mother and -father were married, so I'm not sure what this anecdotal evidence proves.
*shrug*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
mmmmm! Toasted meringue! Yum! Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Scott, going back to your post on page three, I think most of your points, even if completely accurate, suggest not that conceiving out of wedlock is stupid but that delivering out of wedlock is stupid (or at least, somewhat disadvantaged over conceiving in wedlock).
As the topic under discussion is sex, which does not necessarily lead to conception, much less delivery, this is somewhat of an unwarranted step. It assumes the two people having sex, ready to have a child, would not if having a child go through the process of getting married. I know it would be a step I'd almost certainly undertake, were someone I was having sex with conceive.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
*thinks marrying someone just because they're the father/mother of your baby is stupid*
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:*thinks marrying someone just because they're the father/mother of your baby is stupid*
Yes. But if you were in a situation like Russell is talking about, there would be ample reasons to get married apart from the appearance of a baby. Otherwise the couple in question wouldn't be having sex in the first place.
However, this is clearly not an ideal way of becoming engaged.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
to twinky![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
porter ![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)