# Sex Before Marriage?



## heterogeneous (Oct 10, 2011)

I know this is a mostly religious concept, and I'm sure there's been a thread like this somewhere before, but I want to ask your deep minds what you think about this.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

I'm not married and it's too late for me to not believe in it...


----------



## SoulShield (Jan 17, 2013)

I'd rather save myself for my wife, so that I can offer myself as a gift for her. Although I'm not married, I still feel responsible for thinking of my wife's feelings even prior to the fact.


----------



## LittleHawk (Feb 15, 2011)

Marriage wouldn't exist without procreation. 

I don't plan to marry and am fairly sure that many of the population feel the same but I should still have the right to express my feelings to another person and fulfill my needs.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

I think it's a horrible idea to wait until you're married before having sexual contact. Not only does this mean you'll have no sexual experience prior to entering a relationship that's planned to last the remainder of your life, it also means you'll have less experience at life in general. How do you know what you want in another person if you've never been intimate with anyone? 

There's nothing special about sex itself, the only thing that could give it a hint of uniqueness lies in the people involved, people that can only be known by being involved with them which you are denying yourself of by waiting.



SoulShield said:


> I'd rather save myself for my wife, so that I can offer myself as a gift for her. Although I'm not married, I still feel responsible for thinking of my wife's feelings even prior to the fact.


And what would this gift be exactly?


----------



## BlackMoonlight (Oct 16, 2012)

My thoughts on the subject are too strange to share, at least as they relate to my life. But I don't believe it's good or bad to have sex before marriage. Unless someone has statistics showing that couples who have sex before marriage end up getting divorced sooner, I don't think it matters much either way. Whatever someone chooses to do in those regards has no affect on me.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

*Sex Before Marriage? HELL YES!!!*

Sorry what was the question? Ok seriously some people take it the religious way, others from the -moral perspective-, mmm that's tricky because having sex before marriage doesn't mean you lie, cheat, etc. Many relate chastity to morals, very diff things in my opinion.

Now there is a big factor here... culture and perhaps human nature. It depends on the country and culture but women seem to tolerate better the fact that her man had sex with others... while men seem to have a problem with that at times. Is tricky....


In my opinion is very important to find compatibility, I don't talk about pleasure or how good a person is in bed, just compatibility.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Paradox1987:3424487 said:


> I'm not married and it's too late for me to not believe in it...


This.


----------



## Destiny Lund (Sep 2, 2011)

I don't believe in sex before marriage, but I most definitely don't believe in having sex as a child. If you can't wait til marriage, at least wait til you're with the right one & an adult. My target was marriage, but like many, I'm human & failed. It went great & still is great, but it would have been better to wait.


----------



## Destiny Lund (Sep 2, 2011)

SoulShield said:


> I'd rather save myself for my wife, so that I can offer myself as a gift for her. Although I'm not married, I still feel responsible for thinking of my wife's feelings even prior to the fact.


Great job! Wonderful perspective! It will be more magical & mean a lot more. You're connection will be stronger with your wife & with God. Don't listen to those who try to tear your beliefs down. I hope it works out for you! You shouldn't need "experience" prior to your soulmate. If you are soulmates, it will be wonderful no matter what & you will grow together.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Why not before and after? Maybe even during, if you're into that kind of stuff.


----------



## PhoenixRises (Sep 17, 2012)

For some people this question is religious; while my own religion supports abstinence before marriage, to me it is also a spiritual thing. I also don't think that just because you've had sex before doesn't mean you can't change your mind about having sex before marriage.

I slept with my then-very serious boyfriend before we even got to know each other that well, which was a huge mistake. Even after knowing him our relationship started to fall apart and become toxic; near the end the sex made things much worse and a lot harder to break away from it! I also in university enjoyed a casual relationship with someone only to seriously regret it later. It meant nothing and the experience was a hollow feeling. I know once I meet the love of my life that I want it to be special and unique. Other friends and family members have said the same thing; many of them wished that they had saved themselves for the person they ended up with.

As far as the argument of "testing the goods before you buy them", I can understand why people want to know if they are sexually compatible. There's nothing wrong with trying out certain things but having sex to me is so much more than a physical act. It involves fully giving yourself to someone and trusting them. That is the only way I can really enjoy it and anything less is extremely unsatisfying. Some of this depends on your personality type, I believe. NFs are diehard romantics and we tend to be deeply spiritual and/or religious, so sex isn't just sex. I don't judge anyone for having a different opinion than me though!


----------



## The King Of Dreams (Aug 18, 2010)

SoulShield said:


> I'd rather save myself for my wife, so that I can offer myself as a gift for her. Although I'm not married, I still feel responsible for thinking of my wife's feelings even prior to the fact.


THANK YOU. 

c:


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

I personally think it is smarter to at least wait until you're out of your teenage years. I have been thanking myself endlessly for having waited at least that long. The maturity I have now compared to the maturity I had before really can't be compared. My outlook on relationships is much healthier now that I'm older, and I have a lot more wisdom. Waiting has done a lot more good than harm. The benefits are awesome


----------



## SoulShield (Jan 17, 2013)

android654 said:


> I think it's a horrible idea to wait until you're married before having sexual contact. Not only does this mean you'll have no sexual experience prior to entering a relationship that's planned to last the remainder of your life, it also means you'll have less experience at life in general. How do you know what you want in another person if you've never been intimate with anyone?


I would know because I would have a deep emotional and spiritual connection with my partner. That is more important to me than the physical connection. Besides the body can only grow weaker over time whereas an emotional and spiritual connection can continue to grow. I already know such people who did wait for marriage. Like my mentor for example. He's been married for 58 years and he and his wife have a beautiful spiritual connection. That's what I'm seeking. 



> There's nothing special about sex itself, the only thing that could give it a hint of uniqueness lies in the people involved, people that can only be known by being involved with them which you are denying yourself of by waiting.


That's just a flat out lie of modern society. Do you think a woman who catches her husband in bed with another woman will just shrug her shoulders and say, "No big deal?" Any woman worth half her salt as a wife, would be heartbroken.


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

Well, now.

Look at what we have here.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)




----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

What consenting adults do really doesn't bother me.

Personally, I'd rather wait until I know someone tremendously well before we do the deed, but why wait until you've made a (supposedly) life-long commitment to someone to find out if you enjoy having sex with them or not? If other people want to wait then that's fine with me, as long as they don't start shaming or condemning people who don't share their views on marriage.


----------



## DandyAndCheese (Nov 16, 2012)

Having sex and making love is not the same thing.
If for you, love and marriage are mutually inclusive, then great, don't make love until marriage.
But having sex is like wearing a cute dress before prom. Sure its not THE dress, but you don't have to restrain yourself if you want to look good on other occasions before THE day. I'm so bad at analogies... but I think you get my point :laughing:


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

I don't really have a problem with sex before marriage, but I don't take sex lightly either... at least for myself. My first time was with someone I didn't necessarily care about -- it was quite an experience as far as sex goes, but later I regretted it because it wasn't really special and there was nothing emotional attached to it so it felt like a waste. I've actually only had sex with a few people ever, and the best times for me was when I cared about the other person.

I also think we try to separate sex from procreation, and nowadays we can actually do that to some degree, but I think part of the deepness of good sex for me is being together with someone in a place associated with that magic spark of creation, even if we're using control to avoid pregnancy. You're rather in the dark mystical core of each other's being, and that's a pretty mind-blowing place to be.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

I think that the idea of soulmates is too idealized... Being soulmates doesn't make everything alright. Soulmates are when you can connect deeply, and it can require lots of work and pain before you can even achieve that. As well as time, coz bonds are built by time.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

L said:


> Finally, for people that feel as though I'm some kind of horrible man whore or something, save it; I'm a virgin.


 Dude you don't know if you have a high than average sex drive until you have sex. It's just that your libido is screaming at you to have sex. 

I know because myself and my friends thought the same before we had sex, when we began to have sex it was average when we compared our sex drives. (after we got over our initial enthusiasm)


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

AriesLilith said:


> I think that the idea of soulmates is too idealized... Being soulmates doesn't make everything alright. Soulmates are when you can connect deeply, and it can require lots of work and pain before you can even achieve that. As well as time, coz bonds are built by time.


It's kind of a give and take. 

I did the thing where I was with someone I DIDN'T have much connection with, and we did forge one that was deep... but not as deep as if we had had things in common that we could sync up with. Then again, just because you have a natural connection doesn't mean you'll stay together, if you don't work at things.

So there's a natural affinity for each other that is important, but to deepen the connection does take work. I have trouble thinking of anything deeply meaningful in life that is just dumped in our laps; usually we have to invest part of ourselves in it for it to become meaningful.


----------



## SoulShield (Jan 17, 2013)

android654 said:


> But if the connection is emotional and/or spiritual how does previous sexual experience taint it? How does sex somehow make you or your soul dirty enough to not be able to connect with a person you meet at a later point in your life?


I didn't mean that. You were asking how I would know if my connection with a woman were valid without premarital sex. My point was that it's unnecessary because the emotional and spiritual connection would be enough to know and to sustain the marriage in the twilight years of life. 



> How the hell did you get all the way here from what I said? Breaking someone's trust by cheating is nowhere near the same as someone having a life before they met you. Also, If you place so much importance on connection between people you would think that she'd be worth more than just a wife.


You said that sex is nothing special. If that were the case, then infidelity wouldn't matter like sex doesn't matter.
I don't think you mean worth "more than a wife," since a man's wife ought to have paramount importance to him in the first place. But if I understand what you mean, then yes indeed. She would be not only my wife, but also someone whom I respect and admire as a person.


----------



## SoulShield (Jan 17, 2013)

Isisx said:


> Yes, he is! I adore this line of thought..
> 
> I'm not one that believes anyone should necessarily wait until marriage unless they choose to (I don't exactly like the idea of marriage or think that its necessary if two people love each other), but the spiritual connection DOES outweight all other aspects to me too. Without it, sex is only a hollow, meaningless experience and one that I truly wish to avoid.
> I love that comment, SoulShield.. roud:


Thanks. I see that most people are ok with sex before marriage. I also see that most marriages end in divorce. My country (USA) is lined with single parent families, unprepared teenage mothers, and broken hearts from coast to coast. I'm not going to listen to the conventional wisdom that says sex is no big deal; do whatever you please. I'm going to take the more difficult path that requires patience, self-discipline, and sacrifice. I'm even willing to accept the scorn of the whole world should those in the majority opinion feel inclined to hate on me. But this I can say: my wife will not be left alone with children, my wife will never have to face the pain of divorce, and my wife will not be left feeling alone even in the midst of marriage like so many others. How do I know? Because I'm willing to set myself and my own desires aside for her sake. Celibacy is merely a symptom of dedicating myself to my wife mind, body, heart, and soul even before marriage. Just because I don't know her is no excuse to treat her any which way. Disagree with me if you want, but blessed will be my wife because I will make her feel loved more preciously than pearls.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> Dude you don't know if you have a high than average sex drive until you have sex. It's just that your libido is screaming at you to have sex.
> 
> I know because myself and my friends thought the same before we had sex, when we began to have sex it was average when we compared our sex drives. (after we got over our initial enthusiasm)


I suppose you do have a point...


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

SoulShield said:


> I didn't mean that. You were asking how I would know if my connection with a woman were valid without premarital sex. My point was that it's unnecessary because the emotional and spiritual connection would be enough to know and to sustain the marriage in the twilight years of life.


And if it is unnecessary why does sex before you even matter?



> You said that sex is nothing special. If that were the case, then infidelity wouldn't matter like sex doesn't matter.


Way to put words in my mouth. Sex doesn't exist in the vacuum of a relationship, so the act of sex is no big deal. Cheating on someone is another issue entirely.



> I don't think you mean worth "more than a wife," since a man's wife ought to have paramount importance to him in the first place. But if I understand what you mean, then yes indeed. She would be not only my wife, but also someone whom I respect and admire as a person.


That's *very* archaic way of looking at things. A "man" can value a woman just as much or more whether they're married or not. The title of wife is nothing special only ceremonial to those who care about it.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

SoulShield said:


> Thanks. I see that most people are ok with sex before marriage. I also see that most marriages end in divorce. My country (USA) is lined with single parent families, unprepared teenage mothers, and broken hearts from coast to coast. I'm not going to listen to the conventional wisdom that says sex is no big deal; do whatever you please. I'*m going to take the more difficult path that requires patience, self-discipline, and sacrifice. I'm even willing to accept the scorn of the whole world should those in the majority opinion feel inclined to hate on me. *But this I can say: my wife will not be left alone with children, my wife will never have to face the pain of divorce, and my wife will not be left feeling alone even in the midst of marriage like so many others. How do I know? Because I'm willing to set myself and my own desires aside for her sake. Celibacy is merely a symptom of dedicating myself to my wife mind, body, heart, and soul even before marriage. Just because I don't know her is no excuse to treat her any which way. Disagree with me if you want, *but blessed will be my wife* because I will make her feel loved more preciously than pearls.


You seem to be mythically hyped about yourself.


----------



## SoulShield (Jan 17, 2013)

If you say so @strangestdude .


----------



## SoulShield (Jan 17, 2013)

android654 said:


> And if it is unnecessary why does sex before you even matter?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well the term wife doesn't even mean anything to you. That says enough.


----------



## EternalNocturne (Nov 4, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> I personally think it is smarter to at least wait until you're out of your teenage years.


I would say it depends you your depends on what you mean by "teenage years".
Obviously I will not be marrying while still technically a "teen", as I am 19 already, but still.. I know people who get married at 18/19.


----------



## Destiny Lund (Sep 2, 2011)

Shinji Mimura said:


> It isn't a personal attack if I wasn't attacking somebody personally...:| (it also wasn't even an attack so much as it was levity)
> 
> Congrats on being "that one person." But my points still remains, and your belief itself is...well, ironic given that you didn't actually adhere to it.


Sorry, personal "group" attack. 
It's not that ironic, I have stolen before in my past, does that mean I shouldn't be against stealing?


----------



## Destiny Lund (Sep 2, 2011)

android654 said:


> If I think or feel that someone is so perfect, so uniquely crafted that I see them above all other persons and see them as a "soulmate," then concepts like wife are too pedestrian to compare to how I see that person. They would be more than just a wife.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're argument is that sex makes you dirty unless done with a specific person? That's insane, not to mention completely unfair to expect someone to put their life on hold, perhaps even decades at a time in order to meet you. With all this talk about soulmates you'd think the most important part about the person would be the person. If I hold you in such high regard that I'm not only willing to spend indefinite time with you but am desiring to do so why would my biggest interest be your sex life before I even knew you or before there were any feelings there? Why are people who are supposedly so concerned with emotions spend so much time thinking about someone's "sexual integrity?" There are more important things to knowing a person than who they had sex with in the past.


I wasn't referring to being bothered with "who" they had sex with or how many specifically. I was referring to the general concept of that special connection being shared with ANY one else beside with who it should be shared with.


----------



## Destiny Lund (Sep 2, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> So does that mean if a person gets married and the sex is bad they are not your soulmate?


WHAT? No, I think you're talking to the wrong person here. If they are your soulmate, they are your soulmate, nothing changes that. There is no better sex than with your soulmate, it shouldn't be bad & doesn't have to be bad. Sure, since you're not really experienced, I'm sure there is some fine-tuning needed when in comes down to personal preferences in the bedroom, but that was the whole point of my statement "grow together".


----------



## countrygirl90 (Oct 11, 2012)

I don,t believe in having sex with any Tom ,Dick and Harry just for the sake of gaining sexual experience .For me love has to be an essential part of intimate relationship between lovers ,so it does not matters if you have sex before the marriage or after the marriage ,what matters is that it should be with someone who makes you feel cherished ,loved and special .


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Destiny Lund said:


> WHAT? No, I think you're talking to the wrong person here. If they are your soulmate, they are your soulmate, nothing changes that. There is no better sex than with your soulmate, it shouldn't be bad & doesn't have to be bad.


But according to numerous soulmate theories, every human person has more than one soulmate. Soulmates are simply a group of souls that belong to the same "soul family", and thus each soul in the group has a _literal_ spiritual link to the other. That is why according to lore, a soulmate can be one's parent, dog, cat, best platonic friend, lover, the asshole who keeps teasing you in math class, etc. There is no "The One" when it comes to soulmates. And because most people aren't going to marry all of their soulmates in one lifetime (or be in a committed relationship with each soulmate simultaneously), why should they deny the sexual connection that they could _mutually_ have with some of their soulmates around the specific time when they meet them? And because they are still having sex with their soulmate, it's still special right?

Btw, the concept that you're really talking about is a _Twin flame_ or _Twin soul connection_. While people have many soulmates, they only have *one* twin flame. According to legend anyways. And for the record, I support your desire to wait till marriage, or till you find someone that you're completely in love with before you have sex. It's your personal choice, and I do believe in choice. But I also think that for "some individuals" it can be dangerous to deny themselves sexual affection until marriage, because sometimes sexual suppression can lead to sexual obsession, and or impulsive marital decisions. But this depends on how high a person's sex drive is. I think everyone should do what is right for them.


----------



## Destiny Lund (Sep 2, 2011)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> But according to numerous soulmate theories, every human person has more than one soulmate. Soulmates are simply a group of souls that belong to the same "soul family", and thus each soul in the group has a _literal_ spiritual link to the other. That is why according to lore, a soulmate can be one's parent, dog, cat, best platonic friend, lover, the asshole who keeps teasing you in math class, etc. There is no "The One" when it comes to soulmates. And because most people aren't going to marry all of their soulmates in one lifetime (or be in a committed relationship with each soulmate simultaneously), why should they deny the sexual connection that they could _mutually_ have with some of their soulmates around the specific time when they meet them? And because they are still having sex with their soulmate, it's still special right?
> 
> Btw, the concept that you're really talking about is a _Twin flame_ or _Twin soul connection_. While people have many soulmates, they only have *one* twin flame. According to legend anyways. And for the record, I support your desire to wait till marriage, or till you find someone that you're completely in love with before you have sex. It's your personal choice, and I do believe in choice. But I also think that for "some individuals" it can be dangerous to deny themselves sexual affection until marriage, because sometimes sexual suppression can lead to sexual obsession, and or impulsive marital decisions. But this depends on how high a person's sex drive is. I think everyone should do what is right for them.


Well I've never heard of a twin soul/flame, but I have always heard soulmate referred to as "the one" & that's how I see it. I've never heard of this "lore". Thanx for your opinion though & getting me interested in looking up soul flame.


----------



## Destiny Lund (Sep 2, 2011)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> But according to numerous soulmate theories, every human person has more than one soulmate. Soulmates are simply a group of souls that belong to the same "soul family", and thus each soul in the group has a _literal_ spiritual link to the other. That is why according to lore, a soulmate can be one's parent, dog, cat, best platonic friend, lover, the asshole who keeps teasing you in math class, etc. There is no "The One" when it comes to soulmates. And because most people aren't going to marry all of their soulmates in one lifetime (or be in a committed relationship with each soulmate simultaneously), why should they deny the sexual connection that they could _mutually_ have with some of their soulmates around the specific time when they meet them? And because they are still having sex with their soulmate, it's still special right?
> 
> Btw, the concept that you're really talking about is a _Twin flame_ or _Twin soul connection_. While people have many soulmates, they only have *one* twin flame. According to legend anyways. And for the record, I support your desire to wait till marriage, or till you find someone that you're completely in love with before you have sex. It's your personal choice, and I do believe in choice. But I also think that for "some individuals" it can be dangerous to deny themselves sexual affection until marriage, because sometimes sexual suppression can lead to sexual obsession, and or impulsive marital decisions. But this depends on how high a person's sex drive is. I think everyone should do what is right for them.


I have heard of a kindred spirit though, which I believed to be like a soulmate, but maybe it's more like this twin flame thing you're speaking of? Who knows.


----------



## Destiny Lund (Sep 2, 2011)

Soulmate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is like the soulmate I speak of. I've never heard of multiple or a "family" of them.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

I've heard of twin flames and soulmates before, in a reincarnation belief point of view. A twin flame is the one that shares the other half of your soul, imagine a soul devided in two souls. Soulmates are more like people with whom you have karmic and spiritual connections, like the souls you have met for many lives and shared meaningful connections through it (see the movie "Cloud Atlas").


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> I didn't say that it was an observable fact.


So it's a presumption on your part? Have you ever thought these Conservatives are merely portraying what they observed in society?


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Enxu said:


> I do tend to have very strong opinions about things but no personal attack or offense meant in any way, really sorry if I came across that way.
> 
> Before I address your objections, allow me to explain why I use the phrase "to be chaste and to respect your own body and not treat it like a experimentational tool for gratifying lust". I know there are exceptions, but honestly speaking, how many of those people who engage in sexual intercourse before marriage did not do it for lust? It's a matter of self control, if someone really loves another person, there's no reason why he/she can't wait till after marriage before engaging in sex. Aries, ask yourself this, do you honestly think a man truly loves you if he is so eager to have sex that he can't wait for marriage to fulfill his base desires? I've done much reading of this, and many men who are like this are often players.
> 
> Futhermore, faithfulness to your ultimate partner is possible both BEFORE and AFTER marriage, and its as simple as not engaging in sexual intercourse with anyone else but your husband/wife, both BEFORE and AFTER marriage.* Again Aries, ask yourself as a fellow woman, if you're dating a man who had sex before marriage, can you really feel secure that he will not betray you after you're married? Will you really treat it as nothing if your husband went on carefree sex with other women, even if once or twice?* Everyone has a choice to resist temptations and remain virgin until their husband/wife come into their life. For me, someone without self control in matters like this can never be reliable partners in the long run.


Of course that if a man loves you then he can wait until you are ready. But it seems that you don't understand what sex can mean to men, it's not just simply about lust. Sex is one of the most intimate forms of affection. Without it the relationship is not complete, and it's just natural that people, including women, would want to be deeply intimate with their partners and express their affection, after knowing them for some time and have a stronger bond.

You asked me the question I marked in bold in the quote. My husband had sex with his previous exgf, and I trust him strongly. Having had sex with someone before marriage is not the same as having carefree sex, my husband never had carefree sex and he is no less than a man who can truly love and devote to his wife and hold on to his principles and moral codes.

But let me ask you - do you really believe that someone that can withhold sex 'till marriage will necessarily not cheat? Are you saying that marrying people who never had sex before can grant them to be devoted to you and that the relationship will certainly be perfect? That divorce would never happen in these cases? Do you really believe that it's just a matter of being able to hold the urges, to be the key for relationships' success?



Enxu said:


> Marriage is a way of protecting women and ensuring that men are at least financially responsible for women who bear them children. Anxiety comes from the pressure of raising up children, a woman who engages in sexual intercourse without the protection of marriage is taking a huge risk because the man she sleeps with has no legal responsibility to provide for her and her child. That in itself aggravates the situation of anxiety and puts women at a disadvantage. I don't say all relationships like this are not serious and loving, but lets be honest with ourselves, how secure can a relationship like this be when both partners are not yet ready for marriage, mentally and age wise, and do not have the financials and maturity to raise up offspring? Don't be naive, raising up children is a huge responsibility, marriage is also a way of saying "I'm ready to raise up offspring." Without the backing of a marriage certificate after a sexual intercourse, how can partners ensure that they have the means and determination to give in their all for the next generation?
> Trust me, I have seen very loving and serious partners breaking up after sex before marriage because neither of them are mature and financially capable enough to raise up children given their age and stages in life.
> 
> How big is that percentage of people you mentioned if I may know? It's a fact that sex before marriage is often unprotected sex and at least raise the vulnerability of contracting sexual diseases for both genders, I believe it's shown in the statistics somewhere. Shall we turn a blind eye to that, Aries?


Just coz women have sex before marriage doesn't mean they are irresponsible and doesn't use protection.

Also, marriage is not a golden guarantee for two people sticking together forever. They might as well break up if they find out that they are not happy with each other after all. There are couples that might try hard to work things out, but after a long time they just find it too hard and that they are too incompatible and unhappy together. Finding a compatible partner influences this success, but I don't see how one's capacity of withholding urges can guarantee the compatibility and changeability of the relationship.



Enxu said:


> Now lets not throw the baby out with the bath water shall we? Just because marriage does not guarantee faithfulness doesn't mean we just treat it as nothing and downplay its significance. Even if marriage itself does not guarantee faithfulness, someone who is able to wait until after marriage to have sex at least shows he/she had SELF CONTROL, a very big factor in determining faithfulness. Don't you agree with this?
> 
> Again, it's a matter of self control. I raised this point to alert men that if they cannot control themselves properly before marriage and become regular sexual partners with women not their wives, they will one day regret it when they lose their ability to procreate with their wife.


So you do acknowledge that marriage does not guarantee faithfulness. But who is treating it as nothing and downplay its significance? It seems that you are assuming that people who has sex before marriage is belittling sex and marriage. In response to self control, see my first paragraph.



Enxu said:


> Remember the golden rule of life: do to others what you want to be done to you. If you want a faithful partner, you yourself ought to be faithful. It's only fair this way.


Again, having sex before or after marriage has nothing to do with one's capacity of faithfulness.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Enxu said:


> So it's a presumption on your part? Have you ever thought these Conservatives are merely portraying what they observed in society?


More accurately a perspective.

Yeah I know they are, and there is truth to what they are saying. However they tend to paint a black and white picture regarding people's standards for sexual relationships.

The portrayal is;

Either A) Abstinence until marriage or B) Indiscriminate sexual encounters

When reality is (probably);

A) Abstinence until marriage B) Sex only in a committed relationship C) Sex only in a casual relationship or more D) Sex with only people you find attractive E) indiscriminate sexual encounters (realistically only drug addicted street sex workers are probably indiscriminate)


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Enxu said:


> So you're saying that its horrible to be chaste and to respect your own body and not treat it like a experimentational tool for gratifying lust? Sorry if I sound blunt, but that's the most unhealthy mindset I've came across. If we're all going to have such degrading outlook of life, we might as well give up on human civilization.


You know something, it's so irksome to hear people degrade someone's method of a consensual act because it doesn't fit into your narrow romantic interpretations. Degrading? Lust driven? The fall of civilization? If this is how you see things because some people choose to act differently than you then civilization isn't for you.



> And for those who think sex before marriage doesn't have it's consequences, here are just a few I've researched on:
> 
> 1. Sex before marriage are most damaging psychologically to women as the first sexual encounter is usually not pleasurable but rather unsettling and anxious for women. Most relationships turn for the worst when there's sex before marriage involved.


Any information you're basing this off of is coming from a survey or sets of surveys which only provides the broadest of pictures of the most blanketed of questions. Trends are good for tracking behavior but not so good at tracking reactions. Answer me this, how gratifying was sex for women three hundred years ago? You know, when the overwhelming majority of women were promised off in their prepubescence to men several years their senior and forced to live an existence like a servant that would produce a horde of children at the request of their owner. How much sexual gratification comes from that setting?



> 2. Due to lack of proper health checkup and general lack of responsibility of both partners during sex before marriage, both become vulnerable to transmission of all kinds of sexual diseases. There are even instances whereby women can no longer be pregnant due to improper sexual intercourse before marriage.


Right, because people in marriages never cheat on spouses or lie about previous sexual histories and transmit STDs to their partner. All this is, is the result of poor sexual education. The same kind of education that's fought tooth and nail by the people who promote this kind of sexual chastity. You don't want people to touch and don't want them to know how to properly protect themselves in the event they finally get to touch someone else. Not only that, but this is a big fat lie on your part. In the industrialized world unwanted pregnancies are down, transmissions of STDs are down and the use of contraceptives are up.



> More than 99% of women aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method. [...] Among women who are at risk of unintended pregnancy, 89% are currently using contraceptives.












People are protecting themselves better and in larger numbers so your assertion is blatantly false.

Contraceptive Use in the United States



> 3. Even for men, research has shown that too much sexual intercourse can decrease the ability to procreate.
> 
> Do your own research if you're not convinced.


If you're going to make assertions and claim they're fact, *you* need to provide the evidence.

Let me ask you this. There's a significant portion of the population that does not want to get married nor have children, what should they do? Do you think it's rational for them to remain abstinent for the remainder of their lives because it provides some unnamed benefit to society? Some benefit that you have yet to articulate would manifest as a result of being abstinent for the sake of it.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Enxu said:


> Futhermore, faithfulness to your ultimate partner is possible both BEFORE and AFTER marriage, and its as simple as not engaging in sexual intercourse with anyone else but your husband/wife, both BEFORE and AFTER marriage.* Again Aries, ask yourself as a fellow woman, if you're dating a man who had sex before marriage, can you really feel secure that he will not betray you after you're married? Will you really treat it as nothing if your husband went on carefree sex with other women, even if once or twice?* Everyone has a choice to resist temptations and remain virgin until their husband/wife come into their life. For me, someone without self control in matters like this can never be reliable partners in the long run.


This is so unrealistic and unfair that it's laughable. You're suggesting that someone be faithful to you before knowing you exist. They should deny their lives entirely in the hopes that they might one day meet a person they have no knowledge of. That's an unreasonable expectation of anyone, no one should expect it of you and you shouldn't expect it from anyone else.


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> Of course that if a man loves you then he can wait until you are ready. But it seems that you don't understand what sex can mean to men, it's not just simply about lust. Sex is one of the most intimate forms of affection. Without it the relationship is not complete, and it's just natural that people, including women, would want to be deeply intimate with their partners and express their affection, after knowing them for some time and have a stronger bond.
> 
> You asked me the question I marked in bold in the quote. My husband had sex with his previous exgf, and I trust him strongly. Having had sex with someone before marriage is not the same as having carefree sex, my husband never had carefree sex and he is no less than a man who can truly love and devote to his wife and hold on to his principles and moral codes.
> 
> But let me ask you - do you really believe that someone that can withhold sex 'till marriage will necessarily not cheat? Are you saying that marrying people who never had sex before can grant them to be devoted to you and that the relationship will certainly be perfect? That divorce would never happen in these cases? Do you really believe that it's just a matter of being able to hold the urges, to be the key for relationships' success?


I do understand full well that sex is a form of expressing true love, but it can well be used for lust and has been used so by men in many sexual intercourse before marriage. Sex in itself is designed to be a blessing to mankind, but that doesn't mean it can be used anyhow and anytime. There is a time for everything, including being intimate with a partner through sex. 

I will not go about commenting on your husband out of respect for you both, but still I hope to know, how BIG is the percentage of men who are faithful (like your husband is) after marriage despite having sex before marriage? Is it the majority? Just because your husband is a faithful man despite having sexual intercourse before marriage doesn't mean the majority of men who do this will be as faithful. Don't forget the statistics about abortion and how many women's life are ruined by irresponsible men who get away with illegitimate sex because there is no one to speak up against the ills of sex before marriage. The world out there is not a bed of roses, neither is everyone as lucky as Aries. 

I will admit that there will be no guarantee that a faithful person will always remain faithful, but I do know people who actively put self control into practice have a higher chance of REMAINING faithful. Self control can be trained, and not having sexual intercourse before marriage and having sex with only ONE partner are ways to train self control. 



AriesLilith said:


> Just coz women have sex before marriage doesn't mean they are irresponsible and doesn't use protection.
> 
> Also, marriage is not a golden guarantee for two people sticking together forever. They might as well break up if they find out that they are not happy with each other after all. There are couples that might try hard to work things out, but after a long time they just find it too hard and that they are too incompatible and unhappy together. Finding a compatible partner influences this success, but I don't see how one's capacity of withholding urges can guarantee the compatibility and changeability of the relationship.


What do you mean by protection? And how do you define responsible? If someone were to even think of the many negative consequences attached to sex before marriage, he/she would act responsibly and not partake in it.

Using an argument that revolves around "marriage isn't a guarantee to faithfulness or long term relationship" is really an excuse for not being responsible for one's actions. I'm not even mentioning things like compatibility, so why are you touching on it? We're talking about why sex before marriage is wrong and must be avoided, not compatibility and how effective marriage is at ensuring faithfulness. 



AriesLilith said:


> So you do acknowledge that marriage does not guarantee faithfulness. But who is treating it as nothing and downplay its significance? It seems that you are assuming that people who has sex before marriage is belittling sex and marriage. In response to self control, see my first paragraph.


Aries, when you constantly say marriage is not a guarantee of this and that and you view sex after marriage and sex before marriage as essentially the same, you are already downplaying the importance of marriage. It's the same with anyone who holds similar views as you. If you ever thought highly of marriage, you would have easily seen the difference between sex after and before marriage. In fact, you would honor sex after marriage much more because you view marriage and anything done with your partner after marriage as sacred. The fact that you see no difference is because marriage to you isn't that important and thus sex before marriage is fine. This is a simple reason of logic. 



AriesLilith said:


> Again, having sex before or after marriage has nothing to do with one's capacity of faithfulness


I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself: having sex only after marriage shows a person have self control, a big factor in one's capacity to be faithful and remain faithful.


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

android654 said:


> This is so unrealistic and unfair that it's laughable. You're suggesting that someone be faithful to you before knowing you exist. They should deny their lives entirely in the hopes that they might one day meet a person they have no knowledge of. That's an unreasonable expectation of anyone, no one should expect it of you and you shouldn't expect it from anyone else.


Similarly laughable is the assertion that encouraging people to exercise self control and not having sexual intercourse before marriage is actually considered asking them to "deny their lives ENTIRELY". Is life only about sex in your view?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Enxu said:


> Similarly laughable is the assertion that encouraging people to exercise self control and not having sexual intercourse before marriage is actually considered asking them to "deny their lives ENTIRELY". Is life only about sex to you sir?


It's an important part of it and staying celibate until your 30 or rushing to marry someone so you can fuck is way more harmful to a person rather than having sex when *you* are ready not when other people say you should be ready.


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

android654 said:


> It's an important part of it and staying celibate until your 30 or rushing to marry someone so you can fuck is way more harmful to a person rather than having sex when *you* are ready not when other people say you should be ready.


Ill take that as an exaggeration then. I guess we have no common points to begin with so let's stop this before it turns into a flame war. Hope life's lessons will wake you up though.


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

android654 said:


> You know something, it's so irksome to hear people degrade someone's method of a consensual act because it doesn't fit into your narrow romantic interpretations. Degrading? Lust driven? The fall of civilization? If this is how you see things because some people choose to act differently than you then civilization isn't for you.


Here we go again with all the finger pointing. If you're suggesting that we turn a blind eye to all the evils of sex before marriage just because you don't think it's wrong, sorry I CANNOT concur.



android654 said:


> Any information you're basing this off of is coming from a survey or sets of surveys which only provides the broadest of pictures of the most blanketed of questions. Trends are good for tracking behavior but not so good at tracking reactions. Answer me this, how gratifying was sex for women three hundred years ago? You know, when the overwhelming majority of women were promised off in their prepubescence to men several years their senior and forced to live an existence like a servant that would produce a horde of children at the request of their owner. How much sexual gratification comes from that setting?


Interpret my information whatever way you wish. But as for your question, the reason that women are even treated like servants and sex slaves is because men at that age refused to exercise self control and used sex to fulfill their lusts. Sadly this phenomenon hasn't changed even in today's society and thus women are always at a disadvantage. Thanks for proving my point. 



android654 said:


> Right, because people in marriages never cheat on spouses or lie about previous sexual histories and transmit STDs to their partner. All this is, is the result of poor sexual education. The same kind of education that's fought tooth and nail by the people who promote this kind of sexual chastity. You don't want people to touch and don't want them to know how to properly protect themselves in the event they finally get to touch someone else. Not only that, but this is a big fat lie on your part. In the industrialized world unwanted pregnancies are down, transmissions of STDs are down and the use of contraceptives are up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Impressive figures to prove your point. Now how about some figures to prove that sex before marriage has no harm to society? That way you'll prove your unbiasness and that you aren't arguing from one side - a brilliant way to prove me wrong. 



android654 said:


> If you're going to make assertions and claim they're fact, *you* need to provide the evidence.


You have my promise that I will provide the evidence as long as you provide the evidence that sex before marriage has no harm to society. 



android654 said:


> Let me ask you this. There's a significant portion of the population that does not want to get married nor have children, what should they do? Do you think it's rational for them to remain abstinent for the remainder of their lives because it provides some unnamed benefit to society? Some benefit that you have yet to articulate would manifest as a result of being abstinent for the sake of it.


A question for you instead: if two people don't intend to have children or be married and yet have sexual intercourse, what is the purpose of such sexual intercourse? I will give you the answer to your question when I receive your answer.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Enxu said:


> I do understand full well that sex is a form of expressing true love, but it can well be used for lust and has been used so by men in many sexual intercourse before marriage. Sex in itself is designed to be a blessing to mankind, but that doesn't mean it can be used anyhow and anytime. There is a time for everything, including being intimate with a partner through sex.


What if a couple that loves each other but is not married decides that it is time for them to get more intimate? Is the sex happening before marriage but between two loving partners not as much of a blessing as that between a married couple? Is after marriage the only time that is right to be intimate and enjoy the blessing of intimacy?



Enxu said:


> I will not go about commenting on your husband out of respect for you both, but still I hope to know, how BIG is the percentage of men who are faithful (like your husband is) after marriage despite having sex before marriage? Is it the majority? Just because your husband is a faithful man despite having sexual intercourse before marriage doesn't mean the majority of men who do this will be as faithful. Don't forget the statistics about abortion and how many women's life are ruined by irresponsible men who get away with illegitimate sex because there is no one to speak up against the ills of sex before marriage. The world out there is not a bed of roses, neither is everyone as lucky as Aries.


It doesn't matter if life is not a bed of roses and there are many people screwing around or are only there to use others for sex. There are many people who are into real loving relationships as well. Don't just group everyone together just coz they all had sex before marriage.



Enxu said:


> I will admit that there will be no guarantee that a faithful person will always remain faithful, but I do know people who actively put self control into practice have a higher chance of REMAINING faithful. Self control can be trained, and not having sexual intercourse before marriage and having sex with only ONE partner are ways to train self control.





Enxu said:


> I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself: having sex only after marriage shows a person have self control, a big factor in one's capacity to be faithful and remain faithful.


Again, of course that self control is important. But are people who has sex before marriage not capable of self control? For those who have sex with the partner they truly love before marriage, abstinence 'till marriage can be a pointless way of self control. This is coz they have self control anyways, but they don't see any reason to not get intimate when they are sure of their love and devotion for each other, even before marriage.



Enxu said:


> What do you mean by protection? And how do you define responsible? If someone were to even think of the many negative consequences attached to sex before marriage, he/she would act responsibly and not partake in it.


Protection -> the list @*android654* mentioned.
Responsible -> using protection during sex, if baby is not desired.

People who has sex before marriage can be responsible when doing it.
I don't see what are the many negative consequences attached to sex before marriage, when many people do use protection.



Enxu said:


> Using an argument that revolves around "marriage isn't a guarantee to faithfulness or long term relationship" is really an excuse for not being responsible for one's actions. I'm not even mentioning things like compatibility, so why are you touching on it? We're talking about why sex before marriage is wrong and must be avoided, not compatibility and how effective marriage is at ensuring faithfulness.


I've metnioned this coz you seem to hold to the idea that sex before marriage ruins women and relationships, which seems to imply that as long as people don't have sex before marriage, things would go well or at least much better chances.



Enxu said:


> Aries, when you constantly say marriage is not a guarantee of this and that and you view sex after marriage and sex before marriage as essentially the same, you are already downplaying the importance of marriage. It's the same with anyone who holds similar views as you. If you ever thought highly of marriage, you would have easily seen the difference between sex after and before marriage. In fact, you would honor sex after marriage much more because you view marriage and anything done with your partner after marriage as sacred. The fact that you see no difference is because marriage to you isn't that important and thus sex before marriage is fine. This is a simple reason of logic.


Let me tell you what a relationship and what marriage means to me - a relationship to me is a bond in which two people develop affection and devote to each other. And marriage to me means that I'm ready to build a life and family with my partner, as well as knowing for sure that my partner is the one I want as my life mate. Before marriage, I might not know for sure that he is the right person for me and for building a family together, although it doesn't mean that feelings and bond are less strong and special.

But not seeing marriage as a complete guarantee for people to be together forever is not the same as belittling the meaning of marriage. You already agreed that it's not a guarantee anyways, so I guess that I don't have to elaborate on this. But again, I've been stressing that marriage is not a guarantee coz you seem to think that having sex after marriage makes things go well or at least have better chances of success.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Enxu said:


> A question for you instead: if two people don't intend to have children or be married and yet have sexual intercourse, what is the purpose of such sexual intercourse? I will give you the answer to your question when I receive your answer.


For some people, it can be a very intimate and deep way to express their affections for each other... also, some people can love each other deeply but don't believe in marriage, as they might view it as just some papers to sign. But it doesn't mean that they are not capable of loving deeply and sincerely.

But honestly, while me and you hold values to marriage and exclusive commitment dearly, it doesn't mean that people who view sex in a more casual way are wrong... People can enjoy sex together just for the sake of pleasure, as long as both parties are honest with each other.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Enxu said:


> Here we go again with all the finger pointing. If you're suggesting that we turn a blind eye to all the evils of sex before marriage just because you don't think it's wrong, sorry I CANNOT concur.


How can you make that claim when the first thing you said was an attack on everyone who doesn't behave like you want them to?



> Interpret my information whatever way you wish. But as for your question, the reason that women are even treated like servants and sex slaves is because men at that age refuse to exercise self control and use sex to fulfill their lusts. Sadly this phenomenon hasn't changed even in today's society and thus women are always at a disadvantage. Thanks for proving my point.


So the issue isn't marriage. It's never been a remedy for anything and you just proved my point.



> Impressive figures to prove your point. Now how about some figures to prove that sex before marriage has no harm to society? That way you'll prove your unbiasness and that you aren't arguing from one side - a brilliant way to prove me wrong.


You're the one who made that assertion, you're the one who stated that sex ills society in some way, you have to provide the evidence. I backed up my points with information, I'm not going to do your homework for you.



> You have my promise that I will provide the evidence as long as you provide the evidence that sex before marriage has no harm to society.


You can't prove that something doesn't happen. Proving a negative is a paradox. You can never prove that something doesn't happen, you can only define what is and the probability of something to occur. What I have already provided does show that countries where contraceptives are in the highest use are also the countries where quality of life is better than countries where sex is more highly stigmatized and controlled. 



> A question for you instead: if two people doesn't intend to have children or be married and yet have sexual intercourse, what is the purpose of such sexual intercourse? I will give you the answer to your question when I receive your answer.


You are really audacious, you know that? You make assertions, point fingers and demand answers before you justify your claims. I'll play this time but I'm not playing anymore after this. 

Pleasure, intimacy, communication of affection, conflict resolution, stress release, physical health, emotional health, neurological health, expression, enjoyment... I could go on forever. The reasons for wanting and having sex are innumerable and can be met inside and outside of a relationship.


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

android654 said:


> How can you make that claim when the first thing you said was an attack on everyone who doesn't behave like you want them to?


If you have read what I wrote to other posters on here, you would know I didn't mean it as an attack on EVERYONE who got into sex before marriage. My strong words were only referring to those who used sex to fulfill their lusts at the expense of others and thus I disagree (not attack) strongly with this behavior in everyone because I see the harm there. It is rather strange that you would take such strong offense without really knowing why I am using such strong words and who I am really directing them to. It's not as though I'm making up fantasies and conjuring up conclusions that are not based on factual observations. I am opposing factual things observed in society, in case you still don't get my point. 



android654 said:


> So the issue isn't marriage. It's never been a remedy for anything and you just proved my point.


The issue is that without marriage, women would be even more vulnerable when men use them as tools to fulfill lust. Marriage puts some responsibilities on men and make them think twice before doing such irresponsible acts. Marriage with its responsibilities and legal obligations force a man to exercise self control. Am I clear enough? 



android654 said:


> You're the one who made that assertion, you're the one who stated that sex ills society in some way, you have to provide the evidence. I backed up my points with information, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
> 
> You can't prove that something doesn't happen. Proving a negative is a paradox. You can never prove that something doesn't happen, you can only define what is and the probability of something to occur. What I have already provided does show that countries where contraceptives are in the highest use are also the countries where quality of life is better than countries where sex is more highly stigmatized and controlled.


I was being polite when I said you have impressive figures. In true fact, your evidence holds little weight because you did not manage to prove to me that having sexual intercourse before marriage is harmless and thus is entirely acceptable. That is why I suggest you find evidence to prove that sex before marriage is harmless. Now to make things easier for you, you can just prove to me by researching properly and showing me that sex before marriage has more pros than cons and thus should be allowed for people who are not out to use sex to fulfill lusts. If you're fine with that, I'm happy to oblige and prove how sex before marriage has more cons than pros. 

Saying proving something doesn't happen is impossible is merely an excuse. If medicines can be proven to have no side effects, so can you prove that sex before marriage is harmless. The true fact is you cannot prove that sex before marriage is harmless because it is harmful. Can't you just admit it?

I will examine the statistics you gave more carefully again. But just wondering, what do you mean by "quality of life"?



android654 said:


> You are really audacious, you know that? You make assertions, point fingers and demand answers before you justify your claims. I'll play this time but I'm not playing anymore after this.
> 
> Pleasure, intimacy, communication of affection, conflict resolution, stress release, physical health, emotional health, neurological health, expression, enjoyment... I could go on forever. The reasons for wanting and having sex are innumerable and can be met inside and outside of a relationship.


I'm only waiting to see how much evidences you have before I dig up mine. Many of my assertions are common sense and don't need any or much statistics to prove, but you refuse to acknowledge them because they don't align with your personal tastes - isn't that audacious as well? 

Well you can use all the flowery language in the world to explain why people engage in sex before marriage, but that doesn't mean that kind of sex isn't lust driven. Lust as plainly defined in the dictionary is unrestrained desire of something, be it sex or not. Love however doesn't always involve sex but can merely be "a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection" for a person. Equating love to sex is not only false, it reduces a holy virtue to the base desires of wild beasts. 

It's really unfortunate that many people can't tell the difference between love in a marriage and lust, really sad.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Enxu said:


> The issue is that without marriage, women would be even more vulnerable when men use them as tools to fulfill lust. Marriage puts some responsibilities on men and make them think twice before doing such irresponsible acts. Marriage with its responsibilities and legal obligations force a man to exercise self control. Am I clear enough?


Women nowadays in may cultures can be independent, as well as equally capable of using men to fulfill their lusts as well. And marriage puts responsibility on both men and women. I can't agree that women are the weaker ones needing protection and men are the evil guys necessarily, unless for less developed countries I guess.

Also, it's not marriage papers than can really force men (or women) to be truly faithful anyways. But then people should be faithful not just for the sake of obligations but coz they feel that way.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Enxu said:


> The issue is that without marriage, women would be even more vulnerable when men use them as tools to fulfill lust. Marriage puts some responsibilities on men and make them think twice before doing such irresponsible acts. Marriage with its responsibilities and legal obligations force a man to exercise self control. Am I clear enough?


What's with talking about men like we are wild animals to be tamed?

Women aren't helpless sexual victims who are tricked into having sex with men. If a man coerces a women to have sex that's called rape!

You seem to be portraying them as sexual victims, paternity fraud (allowing a man to raise someone else's probable child) is a very real problem. Women enjoy sex too, can be just as manipulative, and commit infidelity. If you don't think so then you are naive.


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

Enxu said:


> Sex in itself is designed to be a blessing to mankind, but that doesn't mean it can be used anyhow and anytime. There is a time for everything, including being intimate with a partner through sex.


I damn well have the right to have sex anytime, anyhow and with whomever I please.


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> What's with talking about men like we are wild animals to be tamed?
> 
> Women aren't helpless sexual victims who are tricked into having sex with men. If a man coerces a women to have sex that's called rape!
> 
> You seem to be portraying them as sexual victims, paternity fraud (allowing a man to raise someone else's probable child) is a very real problem. Women enjoy sex too, can be just as manipulative, and commit infidelity. If you don't think so then you are naive.


Yah, and you suppose I support women who use men to fulfill their lusts? If so, you must have a very wrong idea of what I really think. It's still a fact that modern day culture views women who are no longer virgins when they marry more negatively than men, no matter what reason is used. So it's nothing strange or unfair when I speak up for women more. But if you then think I am biased towards women, then you are over stretching and I advise you to stop this.

It's actually strange that you and the others here oppose me so much when all I'm really opposing is sex driven by lust, which happens to occur most frequently before marriage and is for any other purpose other than procreation. Sex driven by lust can take many forms and be used for many purposes, but downright it's still lust and its wrong and ought to be opposed.


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

Arbite said:


> I damn well have the right to have sex anytime, anyhow and with whomever I please.


Then I have even more right to oppose sex driven by lust and speak out against its ills as long as I live.


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> Women nowadays in may cultures can be independent, as well as equally capable of using men to fulfill their lusts as well. And marriage puts responsibility on both men and women. I can't agree that women are the weaker ones needing protection and men are the evil guys necessarily, unless for less developed countries I guess.
> 
> Also, it's not marriage papers than can really force men (or women) to be truly faithful anyways. But then people should be faithful not just for the sake of obligations but coz they feel that way.


Aries, a simple question, do you want to have sex driven by love or lust?

If you can't tell the difference, here is the difference:

Sex driven by love is only one of the many ways of expressing affection and is used primarily for procreation. True love is not centered around sex but rather a deep connection that transcends the physical bond. When a partner driven by love does not find the sexual intercourse fulfilling, he/she sticks with the partner as he/she knows love isn't just about sex. He/she is more likely to remain faithful in a relationship when things get rough.

Sex driven by lust is often only to fulfill physical desires and may be totally void of true feelings of love. It is used for every and any purpose except for procreation. When a partner driven by lust does not find the sexual intercourse fulfilling, he/she loses all interest in the sexual partner and often betrays the relationship.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

@*Red Panda*, I guess that my views is similar to yours, as in I also feel that unless I can have a strong bond and intimacy with someone, I wouldn't really marry him. My husband is the only partner I've ever had, and we only decided to marry each other when we have that. Marriage for me is the confirmation of that, and that I want to spend the rest of my life with my husband, and that we are prepared to build our own family.

It's not that I think that people must have sex and full intimacy before marriage, just saying that it's up to people to have their relationships the way that feels most natural to them. It's more "each to their own".

@Enxu, I've been reading some of your posts here and in the INFJ thread (the moral crusade one), thought we might not agree in a few things, I think that I can understand your sense of honor and purity, and I admire that. 
I think that one of the things we might differ is that I see each person having their own paths and things they seek, different "destinies" and lessons, so that I can picture them pursuing different ways of relationships without that necessarily be damaging or empty. Also, I see each relationship/encounter as interactions with other individuals that may or may not last, but can still be meaningful and fulfilling. Also, I see possibilities of relationships flourishing without following the traditional ways.
There's a great beauty and honor in certain traditions and keeping one's purity, being an Eastern Asian I guess that I can understand that, thought it can blind us of seeing how relationships can also flourish outside traditions if we are too limited by this kind of cultural view. So that it's important for people to see relationships in a more natural way.


----------



## benfoldsfive dude (Nov 24, 2009)

Marriage? That won't happen for 'sinners' like me here in Alabama...


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

AriesLilith said:


> @Enxu, I've been reading some of your posts here and in the INFJ thread (the moral crusade one), thought we might not agree in a few things, I think that I can understand your sense of honor and purity, and I admire that.
> I think that one of the things we might differ is that I see each person having their own paths and things they seek, different "destinies" and lessons, so that I can picture them pursuing different ways of relationships without that necessarily be damaging or empty.* Also, I see each relationship/encounter as interactions with other individuals that may or may not last, but can still be meaningful and fulfilling.* Also, I see possibilities of relationships flourishing without following the traditional ways.
> There's a great beauty and honor in certain traditions and keeping one's purity, being an Eastern Asian I guess that I can understand that, thought it can blind us of seeing how relationships can also flourish outside traditions if we are too limited by this kind of cultural view. So that it's important for people to see relationships in a more natural way.


Your husband is a lucky man. You have strong values but you are incredibly diplomatic - that is rare.

It's also interesting that although you've only been with one man you are able to see that the bolded and underlined is true. I agree, simply because a relationship doesn't last until the death of a partner doesn't mean it can't be fulfilling.

I've had relationship that lasted just over a year and was a mutual gentle break up, but it was very memorable and I still smile when I think about it.


----------



## HorribleAesthete (Aug 5, 2010)

I do not believe in marriage. I do very much believe in sex, however (despite having been celibate for a bit over a year now). If I were to believe in marriage, I would say sex, before, during, and after (if it comes to that). Sex is an enjoyable, natural, healthy experience (with a few precautions).


----------



## Calla (Dec 3, 2012)

I waited till I was 22, had 9 boyfriends before that, but the last one felt so incredibly right I decided I'd do it with him after we had been together for two days - and I haven't regret it. I hope I never will.


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> The North Asian cultures then. Fair enough, I don't have any experience of those.
> 
> Also promiscuity is something all older generations are against, in the West and in the East.
> 
> Correlation and causation. I mean what, you want to say also that sexually prohibited societies are poorer because we have become richer as we have become more promiscuous?


I was trying to answer your question to the evidence of what I said earlier on here:



> And there's full evidence that the level of moral decline in the West has gone to immeasurable extent all for the sake of liberty (in all its different forms). Now, is liberty really worth the price of safety and peace? And what is liberty really, when you have to constantly be on guard against the damages people can do to you in their liberty?


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

milti said:


> I didn't read the whole thread because really tl;dr
> 
> Sexually prohibitive cultures have their own set of ills. Try eve-teasing, intolerance towards homosexuals, rape, lack of sex ed (more teen pregnancies), misogynistic attitudes, lower status of women, huge percentage of undetected/untreated STDs. The list goes on.
> 
> ...


I know there are problems in every country, but that doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to the ills of sexual liberty. I brought up gun crimes, gang wars etc to highlight that liberty without control creates problems in itself. Off topic but you get my point.


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> @Enxu, I've been reading some of your posts here and in the INFJ thread (the moral crusade one), thought we might not agree in a few things, I think that I can understand your sense of honor and purity, and I admire that.
> 
> I think that one of the things we might differ is that I see each person having their own paths and things they seek, different "destinies" and lessons, so that I can picture them pursuing different ways of relationships without that necessarily be damaging or empty. Also, I see each relationship/encounter as interactions with other individuals that may or may not last, but can still be meaningful and fulfilling. Also, I see possibilities of relationships flourishing without following the traditional ways.
> 
> There's a great beauty and honor in certain traditions and keeping one's purity, being an Eastern Asian I guess that I can understand that, thought it can blind us of seeing how relationships can also flourish outside traditions if we are too limited by this kind of cultural view. So that it's important for people to see relationships in a more natural way.


Nice to hear from you again, thank you for the respect and patience shown towards me. 

I agree that people seek different paths and establish relationships in different ways, and sometimes these ways do end in good results. I'm not an extreme traditionalist, or else I would probably advocate that people should seek their spouse through parental arrangement. 

I believe that for every decision or path we take, there ought to be a balance between freedom and temperance. Parental arrangement is one extreme that limits a person's freedom to assess for themselves their suitable mate. But total freedom in seeking relationships, without temperance, is yet another extreme that could lead to bad consequences. 

It is true that people don't always know immediately whether a relationship will last and even if it doesn't, it can still be meaningful. But there ought to be boundaries set in every relationship just like there are laws set in every country. Even if something is inherently good, it taken to the extreme can become harmful.


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> @_Enxu_: You say that sex done with love is better than lust, but you don't take into consideration that there can be no sex _without_ lust. You feel love for your parents, friends, siblings etc but don't want to have sex with them, and that's because you feel no lust for them (for various reasons). Your future husband will feel immense lust for you, and so will you for him and that's why you'll be able (physically) to have sex.


True, that is why lust needs to be contained and tempered. A relationship with love will bring that temperance in and that is why people can wait until after marriage to have sex. A relationship with nothing but lust is what I see as wrong, and it just happens that many such relationships result in sex before marriage, thus my opposition to sex before marriage. 

In fact, the reason why there are betrayals in marriage is because people don't contain/temper their lust. They fulfill it with their husbands/wives, and when their wives/husbands are no longer able to satisfy that lust, they seek new partners.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Enxu said:


> True, that is why lust needs to be contained and tempered. A relationship with love will bring that temperance in and that is why people can wait until after marriage to have sex. A relationship with nothing but lust is what I see as wrong, and it just happens that many such relationships result in sex before marriage, thus my opposition to sex before marriage.
> 
> In fact, the reason why there are betrayals in marriage is because people don't contain/temper their lust. They fulfill it with their husbands/wives, and when their wives/husbands are no longer able to satisfy that lust, they seek new partners.


I generally do not disagree that people should contain their lust, just like they should every other passion like greed, etc. But that doesn't mean that any relationship without marriage, that may be based in feelings of lust and passion is meaningless, or bad. Nor does it mean that any relationship without marriage is _only_ based in lust. There can be love without marriage, and before it. Not everyone seeks to marry, especially in the legal or religious sense, what do you think about that?

I don't believe that lust is the first reason someone becomes dissatisfied in their marriage. Being with the same person romantically for many years, living together, is not an easy thing at all. There are many obstacles that may appear without them ever considering that they could exist. That's why I do not support that people should marry immediately when they think they've found a suitable partner. People should firstly see if they are truly compatible, if they can accept each other, tolerate each other and still be in love even after passion has faded out. A general rule of thumb is that couples feel passion for the first 1-2 years of being together, then their "true" characters show and that's why so many couples break up after this period. And I believe that's why so many marriages break, when people rush to marry in their first year together. Yes sex may be one reason for failure of marriages, but that is something that both are at fault, not just the "lusty" person (usually).


----------



## Amore (Mar 10, 2013)

android654 said:


> I think it's a horrible idea to wait until you're married before having sexual contact. Not only does this mean you'll have *no sexual experience* prior to entering a relationship that's planned to last the remainder of your life, it also means you'll have less experience at life in general. *How do you know what you want in another person if you've never been intimate with anyone?*
> 
> *And what would this gift be exactly?*


You'll gain experience over time as anyone who puts time and effort into it. A couple of my married friends told me it's an adventure when it comes to sex within marriage. It's definitely hard but never boring. 

How do you know? You learn as anyone else would. The whole idea of having sexual experience is less important to some people.


----------



## isi1000 (Mar 31, 2013)

Mistress Sophie and me before our marriage

The first night we spent together, Mistress Sophie explained that she did not want sex before marriage and as we set a date for three months, she asked me to love her, wear a chastity.
Mistress Sophie I might place the cage after he had masturbated.
She said she would release me in a week to clear.
The following week, she set the rules.
I had to get naked on her knees masturbating while telling him my fantasies.
Mistress Sophie was dressed with sexy lingerie.
At each session, it was the same thing, but it decreased the time in which I could caress, so that on the eve of our wedding, I emptied 5 to 10 movements of the wrist.
Mistress Sophie had given me earlier and she said it was to prove my submission to her that she had made ​​earlier.
I thanked him for his gesture


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Enxu said:


> _(snip, snip) _Repeated gun related crimes, gang fights, dysfunctional families, school dropouts, street violence, sexual promiscuity and so much more. You can find them just by reading the news or doing a bit of research.


What you describe fits perfectly into this country called United Kingdom where even the primary school kids are sex-ting... just saying...

At any rate...



Before I met my SO I had sex... nowadays, I make love.

sex =/= making love

Sex happened when me and someone else fancied each other and went around for a bit. In a couple of occasions, it was just that one night or the quickie in the disco/pub/bar/whatever loo. _(One bar with dance floor that I used to go to solved this issue of people having sex in the loo quite well. First they got rid of the loo corridor and left just 2 stalls. Then, they swapped the full doors for saloon style doors *so anyone on the dance floor* could poke their head over the door and look at you doing your business or just open it and go in. Quite hilarious after you got over the first shock of knowing people could see you doing a nr 2) _

Making love happens when my and my SO want to.

I don't care if people are having sex or not before marriage, it's their choice and they have to live with the consequences of their actions, be they good or bad. Also, marriage is more than a piece of paper and a piece of flesh. Therefore, *to each their own*, I say. 

If people want to hang on to a piece of flesh until they're married, that's fine but don't try to push it on me or anyone else that doesn't agree to it and even less go about calling us impure, ill or worse. *We're not impure, ill or some kind of horrid disease* so people, kindly put a cork on the name-calling. 

For me, a piece of flesh doesn't define "virginity" or anything special. It's a piece of flesh that can be broken by gymnastics, horse ridding or any kind of activity that makes pressure/forces that area to distend. 

For me, "losing virginity" only happens when you give yourself to someone. I'm not talking about just the body here, mind you. I'm talking about a state of mind when you willingly surrender yourself to your significant other and vice-versa. When you give yourself completely; mind, soul and body... only then have you lost your "virginity". 

You can be with a lot of people and have sex with them... but none of them can have you unless you willingly give yourself away.


----------

