Home - List All Discussions

Abstinence is good and safe

Abstinence is not bad

by: sweet

Abstinence can protect you from abortion, pregnancy, and STDs.

reply from: Spock

Question: Do I have to prove I'm a virgin to be allowed to purchase one of your 15$ virgin pencils? Will one of these pencils protect myself and my loved ones in any way? What if I pay 25 cents for a regular pencil, then write "virgin" on it myself? Will it still have all the function of the 15$ ones?

reply from: Rhiannontex

Eh, I hope that website is just a joke. Honestly, who's gonna pay $300 for a cheesy headband?

reply from: LexIcon

Well, as the site says, "Purity i$ pricele$$, yet it i$ maintained at high co$t."

reply from: Shenanigans

Well, as the site says, "Purity i$ pricele$$, yet it i$ maintained at high co$t."
Well, its sh1t loads cheaper then an abortion or raising a child.
Granted, I dont' agree with such shameless promotion, certainly not at those prices.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I might.
I think that the top half of my skull may be the only part of my body that's still virginal.
I'd wear that headband PROUDLY as a display of my virtue.

reply from: Shenanigans

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I might.
I think that the top half of my skull may be the only part of my body that's still virginal.
I'd wear that headband PROUDLY as a display of my virtue.
Well, Maybe you could just buy a head band for 10$ and a needle and thread for about $5 and you could stitch it yourself.
Not only would your skull's virginal integrity be intact, everyone would be wooed and impressed with your feminine sewing skills. You'd be beating the guys off with a stick as they yearn to stroke your skully skullness.

reply from: LexIcon

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I might.
I think that the top half of my skull may be the only part of my body that's still virginal.
I'd wear that headband PROUDLY as a display of my virtue.
Would that make you 95% virginal, more or less?
I didn't see any headbands at the site that deal in percentages, but I'm sure that a custom order like yours could be handled, for a small additional fee, of course.

reply from: sweet

OF COURSE! I actually have to examine you. (LOl)
sure...it can shield you from an abortionists scapel...you didn't hear about that??
NOT A CHANCE...has to be this one. Lol
SERIOUSLY...you know the answer to your own questions...WE both know that it is not about the PRICE nor PRODUCT. Virginity/Abstinence/Purity is Priceless.
Thanks for your analysis. I'm always open to suggestions and feedback. Have a wonderful day!

reply from: sweet

Well some people do like cheese!

reply from: LexIcon

Well some people do like cheese!
I actually sent an e-mail to the webmasters of http://yhst-94024788441277.stores.yahoo.net/
This is what I asked:
I'll post here any response that I get.
*UPDATE*
This morning (March 16) I received an e-mail from Takesha Trevino, on behalf of ivirgini.com, who wrote:
So, no "obscenely expensive headbands" in stock, which doesn't mean that you can't still get the $300 "new" and "used" ones.

reply from: sweet

Again, Abstinence outside of marriage is not a bad thing. Those of us who have children are not telling our children anything bad by saying save yourself for marriage. Even for adults who are not married. I understand all won't agree, however, who is willing to tell others...especially our new generation...the truth about sex outside of marriage and the dangers involved? How many of us would have benefited from being taught this?
Those who choose to save themselves for marriage are what? wrong? bad? evil? not by far. Those who are married and are faithful to their spouse are what? wrong? bad? evil? not by far. This is a good, positive, safe lifestyle.

reply from: Shenanigans

The excessive fiscal requests from that site aside, you are correct Sweet.
I find it so odd, and a terribly pathetic that there are those who think teaching and encouraging abstinence is wrong in some way or "unnatural".
It protects children from heart ache, disease, unplanned pregnancies, social stigma, and it protects their self esteem and self confidence.
Anyone who thinks that is bad, is a dunce.

reply from: Banned Member

These leftist goons up here have already been screwed by their faulty ideology so none of them are virgins, except to the truth.

reply from: SpitMcGee

It protects children from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Heartache? Self-esteem? I wouldn't call that a given.
Abstinence is a great choice to make, and I applaud those who refrain from sex until marriage. That being said...I don't think it's a realistic thing to be preaching to teenagers.
When you tell kids to "say no" to sex and leave it at that, you leave the impression of sex as a bad thing, as in just "say no" to drugs, stealing, etc. Sex isn't a crime. It's completely natural. What's wrong with teaching how to do it responsibly?

reply from: joueravecfous

Sure, it's a nice enough idea. But no one's doing it....
Almost all Americans Have Sex before Marriage and Have for Decades
Even 9 of 10 of today's senior women born in 40's did it
December 21, 2006 - When you were young and thought you were the only one that didn't do it - have premarital sex, that is - you were probably right. Almost all Americans have sex before marrying, says a new study. Contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage. Unfortunately, the study did not include much about senior citizens born before 1940.
Public opinion polls over the last 20 years have consistently shown that about 35% of adults say premarital sex is always or almost always wrong, according to the author. In the same vein, there is a common popular perception that most or all of those who came of age before the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s and 1970s waited until they married to have sex, and that it is necessary to revert to the behaviors of that earlier time in order to eliminate the problems of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
However, research has questioned whether such a chaste period ever existed.
According to this analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.
The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to "Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954 - 2003," by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports.
Highlights
? The results of the analysis indicate that premarital sex is highly normative behavior.
? Almost all individuals of both sexes have intercourse before marrying, and the proportion has been roughly similar for the past 40 years.
? The increase seen beginning with the 1964 - 73 cohort may be partly due to increased availability of effective contraception (in particular, the pill), which made it less likely that sex would lead to pregnancy; but even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in ten had had premarital sex by age 44.
? Among those who did not have sex at all during their teen years, eight in ten eventually had premarital sex.
? Premarital sex as normative behavior is not surprising in an era when men and women typically marry in their mid-to-late twenties. Indeed, not only is premarital sex nearly universal by age 30, but it is also very common at much younger ages.

reply from: lukesmom

Don't forget, teaching abstance also teaches self control, responsibility and integrity among many other valuble attributes. Heaven knows these attributes seem to be in short supply in today's society.

reply from: sweet

well, there's always uvirginu Brand, for Non-Virgins!

reply from: sweet

It protects children from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Heartache? Self-esteem? I wouldn't call that a given.
Abstinence is a great choice to make, and I applaud those who refrain from sex until marriage. That being said...I don't think it's a realistic thing to be preaching to teenagers.
When you tell kids to "say no" to sex and leave it at that, you leave the impression of sex as a bad thing, as in just "say no" to drugs, stealing, etc. Sex isn't a crime. It's completely natural. What's wrong with teaching how to do it responsibly?Sex is bad, outside of marriage. I guess I can use some examples on how to word the teaching of safe/resposible sex outside of marriage...How would you put it into words? It reminds me of saying lying is bad, but do it responsibly...it can't be both ways...By the way, I think an 18 yr old is better off with pregnancy than BC pills...why? pregnancy is a true, natural consequence of sex, as it should be for the man and woman involved...where as BC cover up that consequence which encourages the irresponsible behavior.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: sweet
By the way, I think an 18 yr old is better off with pregnancy than BC pills
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Gee, I'm an American taxpayer and I think you're insane.

reply from: sweet

i wouldn't doubt that it is common-unfortunately-so what are we to do? throw our hands up and say oh well, smoking is common too, as is drinking and gangs.

reply from: lukesmom

Pot calling the kettle black? Heck, I'm an American taxpayer and funding your abortions IS insane.

reply from: Rosalie

You are, of course, free to teach your children whatever your desire. I will not, however, teach my children to 'save' themselves for marriage; I find the cult of virginity and purity to be harmful, degrading, inappropriate and disgusting and I have no desire to teach my children that their sex organs are the most important thing about them. My children will hopefully place value on more important things.
I pity everyone who looks at sex this way. You're missing out.
Good god. That's just... horrible. But of course, feel free to force your daughters to carry to term, feel free to make pregnancy a punishment. I wouldn't expect any better from people like you.
Meanwhile, I will continue having children because I WANT to have them, not as a consequence or punishment, and I will encourage my children to do the same.
Premarital sex of other people is none of your business. It's creepy and gross that you feel entitled to stick your nose into it.

reply from: Banned Member

No one ever reaches their later years, perhaps after they are married and thinks to themselves, "I wish I'd had more sex partners".

reply from: Rosalie

Says who, you? LOL. Shows how much you know about real people and their lives.

reply from: Banned Member

Says who, you? LOL. Shows how much you know about real people and their lives.
Poor Rosalie, wishes she'd slept around more. Poor girl. You're what, not yet 25?

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It's probably the basis for half the male mid-life crises in America.
How many people know a guy who went off-beam in his 40s and decided to sow all of those wild oats he'd missed sowing in his 20s?

reply from: lukesmom

Actually those who advocate and try to teach their child/ren abstance are actually teaching them they are more than their sex organs. They are teaching them responsible sexuality and respect for self as well as respect for others. Seems you are teaching your children their sex organs and selfishness toward pleasuring themselves with no regard toward themselves and others is a good thing but to each his own. My job, as a parent, is to teach my kids enough self respect to be able to deal with your std, sexual perverted offspring in a safe way that maintains their health and integrety.

reply from: B0zo

Why is this digusting and harmful? I don't get it.
And how is teaching a child to wait until marriage to use their reproductive organs telling them that that is the "most important" thing about them.
Actually, it's telling them that there are other things more important and that heartbreak, unwanted pregancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and the callousness of using someone else as a toy are all negatives that can keep someone from being happy, healthy, and productive. (Let alone preventing the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy that could lead to the unjust destruction of their own child).

reply from: Rosalie

Says who, you? LOL. Shows how much you know about real people and their lives.
Poor Rosalie, wishes she'd slept around more. Poor girl. You're what, not yet 25?
Poor Augustine, he can't read. Poor, inexperienced virgin. And I'm 29, but I fail to see how it's relevant.

reply from: Rosalie

Actually those who advocate and try to teach their child/ren abstance are actually teaching them they are more than their sex organs. They are teaching them responsible sexuality and respect for self as well as respect for others. Seems you are teaching your children their sex organs and selfishness toward pleasuring themselves with no regard toward themselves and others is a good thing but to each his own. My job, as a parent, is to teach my kids enough self respect to be able to deal with your std, sexual perverted offspring in a safe way that maintains their health and integrety.
I don't agree with you on anything , obviously.
The only thing I can say here is that you're obviously a brainwashed, stupid excuse for a woman who drags my children into this debate because she's not intelligent or competent enough to do any debating without such disgusting attacks. Not that it surprises me, you have proven time and time again that you have no morals whatsoever.

reply from: Rosalie

Why is this digusting and harmful? I don't get it.
And how is teaching a child to wait until marriage to use their reproductive organs telling them that that is the "most important" thing about them.
It's disgusting and harmful because it teaches young women (and also men, but women are usually singled out as target audience for the virtue preaching) that all their worth lies within their sexual organs. That it is the most precious thing they can give to another person - which is ridiculous and demeaning.
Oh please. You can experience genuine heartbreak without even having sex. And if you teach your children responsibility, there's actually a chance that they will avoid unwanted pregnancies and STDs. I know many who have, including myself.
You also completely disregard the fact that many people do not CARE about that piece of paper. It is NOT important to many of us at all and therefore waiting until the paper's signed to have sex is just arbitrary.
Your comment about being used for sex is just plain ignorant and offensive. I don't know and don't want to know what kind of sex you've had in your life but consentual, recreational sex is very beautiful, powerful, fun experience and trying to make a bad thing out of it means that you've either somehow failed in this area or you don't know what you're talking about - or, alternatively, you are being guilt-tripped by whatever religion you subscribe to.
That's how YOU see it. Not how I see it.

reply from: lukesmom

Actually those who advocate and try to teach their child/ren abstance are actually teaching them they are more than their sex organs. They are teaching them responsible sexuality and respect for self as well as respect for others. Seems you are teaching your children their sex organs and selfishness toward pleasuring themselves with no regard toward themselves and others is a good thing but to each his own. My job, as a parent, is to teach my kids enough self respect to be able to deal with your std, sexual perverted offspring in a safe way that maintains their health and integrety.
I don't agree with you on anything , obviously.
The only thing I can say here is that you're obviously a brainwashed, stupid excuse for a woman who drags my children into this debate because she's not intelligent or competent enough to do any debating without such disgusting attacks. Not that it surprises me, you have proven time and time again that you have no morals whatsoever.
LOL! You are more fun than I anticipated. Easy too in more ways than one, obviously. My BAD! LOL!

reply from: Shenanigans

I'm not a fan of the programmes that "just say no, ya little pervs" and that's that.
It'd be like saying "Don't wear a blind fold when you drive".
Why? Why not wear a blind fold when driving?
Well, cos you'd cause a stinkin' accident is why!
Kids need to be given the risks, not patted on the back and given a couple of condoms because "kids are gonna do it anyway".
I think it was Spin or Queen or someone once here posted a lengthy fiscal outline of raising a child.
Give the hormonal squeakers that, tell them how much it costs to raise a child, tell them about the emotional roller coaster of adoption, tell them how embarrassing it's going to be dropping their pants to show a doctor the festering boils on their schlong, tell them about stretch marks and back aches of pregnancy, tell them about the risks of abortion, the emotional distress and nightmares it can cause, tell them about how they could spend the rest of their lives regretting killing that child, give them the facts about foetal development, give them EVERYTHING.
I don't agree with birth control, but I'm not stupid or arrogant enough to think everyone believes the same. Tell them how it works, tell them all about the risks of the pill, the "benefits", them about the failure rates of condoms, inform them about natural family planning.
I believe in America they have programmes were young drunk drivers are taken into morgues and shown the results of high speed MVAs. Do that with the kiddies, show them picks of abortion, of STDs, of vaginal tears after a difficult child birth.
Kids these days are not stupid, not are they squeamish, they have the Webs at their fingertips pretty much 24/7, we can't delude ourselves into thinking they haven't seen pictures of GSW vs. head, or porn.
People in this argument seem to want the extreme of one side of the coin. Either no information and a bible thumping or too much contraception with none of the risks, just all the "benefits" of sexual activity early.
Yet, we need to be cautious, the teenage brain isn't properly mature yet, they can't quite connect the dots between action and reaction. That's why we need to get them to hold off, that's why we need to scare the sh1t out of them. But then, its all gotta be done in a way that's not "information overload" else they'll simply shut off and ignore everything.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Maybe we should all listen to Lukesmom's lectures on abstinence and responsibility. After all, she IS an expert:
Lukesmom:
"Finally, we had our first and second when I was going through nursing school and working part time. Yes, it can be done. When I was pg with our 3rd our insurance was closed down. We found out 2 days after delivering that we had no coverage for any of the pregnancy and got a years worth of medical bills dropped on us at once. Both dh and I are uninsurable and he was self employed and I couldn't work enough hours due to the kids to qualify for insurance. Then I became pg again and cried forever because we just couldn't do it financially and I mc. Oops #2 and we were elated and somehow everything worked out and were able to qualify for assistance finally."

reply from: Shenanigans

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Maybe we should all listen to Lukesmom's lectures on abstinence and responsibility. After all, she IS an expert:
Lukesmom:
"Finally, we had our first and second when I was going through nursing school and working part time. Yes, it can be done. When I was pg with our 3rd our insurance was closed down. We found out 2 days after delivering that we had no coverage for any of the pregnancy and got a years worth of medical bills dropped on us at once. Both dh and I are uninsurable and he was self employed and I couldn't work enough hours due to the kids to qualify for insurance. Then I became pg again and cried forever because we just couldn't do it financially and I mc. Oops #2 and we were elated and somehow everything worked out and were able to qualify for assistance finally."
Do you guys have like some pre-existing library of pro-life quotes that you can just pull up at a moment's notice?
Or is the search function on this forum just that easy?
If not, I commend your memory.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: Shenanigans
Give the hormonal squeakers that, tell them how much it costs to raise a child, tell them about the emotional roller coaster of adoption, tell them how embarrassing it's going to be dropping their pants to show a doctor the festering boils on their schlong, tell them about stretch marks and back aches of pregnancy, tell them about the risks of abortion, the emotional distress and nightmares it can cause, tell them about how they could spend the rest of their lives regretting killing that child, give them the facts about foetal development, give them EVERYTHING.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Be careful.
Last time I suggested that young women should be shown the grisly side of pregnancy and childbirth, I was slammed for "promoting" abortion.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: Shenanigans
Do you guys have like some pre-existing library of pro-life quotes that you can just pull up at a moment's notice?
Or is the search function on this forum just that easy?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
The Google search function works that well.
I just dig this stuff up when my hypocrisy meter starts smokin'.
The latest and greatest?
It had to be when Nancyu slammed Bossmomma for having her tubes tied after three children. Nancyu called her lazy and chided her for avoiding responsibility.
Nancyu has only two kids.

reply from: Shenanigans

I happen to agree with you on the negative annoyances of targetting young women. If anything, young men need to be targetted as a top priority as they're usually the ones thinking with their sex organs.
However, there is no harm or moral repugnance in teaching purity until marriage. I think you are not focussing on the whole issue. People are not valuable because of their hymens, they're valuable because of their minds and their hearts and their thoughts and feelings and opinions et cetera. Their virginity is just part in parcel. To maintain virginity until marriage is a sign of self control and love for their future spouse, it shows that they had hope of a life long committement to one person and it shows they respect their body. It shows a great love for their future spouse because they are also protecting them from the mess premartial sex can cause. No diseases and no other children out there that require support, or no dead children in the dumpster behind the abortion mill, and none of that emotional nuclear testing ground that comes with jealous ex-lovers.
Its an expression of fidelity.
Statistically yes. Just like stastiscally someone can drink drive their entire life and not have a prang.

reply from: joueravecfous

What about those who choose not to marry? If they don't want a future spouse, they should just plan on dying a virgin? For what? The notion that sex is only appropriate within marriage is an outdated religious concept to most, even the religious!
There are plenty of people in healthy committed relationships without marriage and sex is an integral part of it. There are also plenty of people whose past sexual partners have no effect on their current one.

reply from: spinvortex

We all know that a man won't buy the cow if he can get the milk for free, and that sex is the only real control we have over our husbands. They're not made like us. We have a duty to give them sex after they marry us, and a duty to God to be fruitful. That's our purpose in this world according to the Bible, to have kids and care for them, to submit to our husbands.
Young girls need to be made to understand this. They should be happy to put this off until marriage not only because it's what God wants, but because they'll get all they can stand of it afterward. We may quickly tire of the way it is, but that's our cross to bear. If we refuse to have sex, our husbands will get it somewhere else, and then it will be partly our fault for not doing our duty as good Christian wives.
Yes, contraception is wrong, because God wants us to be fruitful and multiply. If we can't afford more kids, it can be like a test from God and dealing with it can make us stronger.
It's not about what we want, but what God wants. We really don't matter anyway. Women should never have sex outside of marriage, even though nearly all of us do (whether we admit it or not). I don't think it's too much to expect our kids to do what we were unable to do ourselves, and when they do it, they should have to pay like we did. If we do it right, they will feel guilty about it at least, just like we do.
Then God can punish us further by making our lives difficult if He sees fit, and we shouldn't try to avoid that by attempting to avoid the natural consequences of sex. If you have 13 kids and are forced to go on welfare, then the other Christians call us leeches on society or underachievers and make us feel bad, or even cut our benefits and say we deserve our poverty, it is God's will, and we should accept it gladly. After all, we were put on this world to suffer, and that's God's plan for those who do what's right as well as those who do not. None of us do what's right anyway, so we really deserve it because we're all sinners.
This is just the way it is, and God expects us to accept it gracefully because that's the kind of God He is.

reply from: spinvortex

I would like to add that, while premarital sex and promiscuity are both wrong, they are not the same thing, and do not necessarily go hand in hand. Some of you don't seem to understand this. Married people are not always monogamous (perhaps usually not), and unmarried people are sometimes monogamous. I don't think everybody here gets that.

reply from: LexIcon

Yours is the strangest post I've read in this Forum so far!
Submit to your husband even if he is an abusive tyrant about sex, and if you decline his "overtures" for good reason and he gets his nooky elsewhere, it's all YOUR fault!
Have as many kids as possible even if you can't afford it, because it's a test, not that it matters how you handle it, because you don't matter anyway, even though you have been put on this earth to suffer because you are a sinner, while God is just waiting for an opportunity to punish you and your kids because you and they DESERVE IT.

reply from: lukesmom

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Maybe we should all listen to Lukesmom's lectures on abstinence and responsibility. After all, she IS an expert:
Lukesmom:
"Finally, we had our first and second when I was going through nursing school and working part time. Yes, it can be done. When I was pg with our 3rd our insurance was closed down. We found out 2 days after delivering that we had no coverage for any of the pregnancy and got a years worth of medical bills dropped on us at once. Both dh and I are uninsurable and he was self employed and I couldn't work enough hours due to the kids to qualify for insurance. Then I became pg again and cried forever because we just couldn't do it financially and I mc. Oops #2 and we were elated and somehow everything worked out and were able to qualify for assistance finally."
I am a little confused by your posting a part of my story. How does any of this have anything to do with my condoning the teaching of abstinence to teens and accepting responsibility for your actions? Ahhhh, I know now, you have advocated for the death of my children in the past and for some reason are really bugged they are still alive and all you have to love and give you love is a goat. Good try though in again twisting words.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: lukesmom
I am a little confused by your posting a part of my story. How does any of this have anything to do with my condoning the teaching of abstinence to teens and accepting responsibility for your actions?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You should have practiced abstinance when you couldn't care for the children you already had, and responsibility dosn't mean going on assistance because you can't keep your legs shut.
You shouldn't be lecturing ANYBODY.

reply from: lukesmom

We couldn't take care of the kids we had? News to me! WOW, you really need to get your crystal ball or cauldren fixed because you have the facts wrong. We paid our bills and provided for our kids but did need help paying for our prenatal care after becoming unexpectedly pregnant. That is one thing Medicaid is for, people going through an unexpected bad stretch. Actually, if our HMO would have let us, we would have gradually paid on our own but that wasn't good enough for them so it was the HMO who pushed the Medicaide so they could get paid in one lump sum. We also weren't unemployed teens as both of us were working. I know you would have preferred for us to use your (and our) tax money to kill our unborn child instead of having Medicaid pay for his prenatal care and delivery. I do believe we have paid much more in taxes ourselves than the $3-4000 Medicaid provided us for our son's prenatal care and birth. I know, you wish you could have used this money on your goat but, shrug, your goat isn't a person.
I know I have explained this before, but obviously you have a problem retaining and understanding or maybe it is a desire to slander? HMMMM

reply from: Banned Member

Damn Spinny.. just when I discover some redeeming qualities in you, you go off on someone about something that is none of your business. What has made you so bitter? Did you get dealt a bad hand or have you just played it badly? I'm sorry to ask such a personal question in an open forum but I don't PM people unless they PM me first. You're welcome to do so if you'd like.

reply from: lukesmom

She's just jelous as I have 4 wonderful living kids. The one Medicaid paid for is now 11 and currently making himself a chocolate chip shake! Yup, we pay for his groceries and everything else he needs but evidently he should have been aborted according to the great Spinny along with all my other kids who she doesn't deem acceptable to live.

reply from: B0zo

I believe people should remain chaste until they find a life-long partner, but that doesn't mean I believe that "all their worth lies within their sexual organs."
How do you make that leap?
It's demeaning to suggest it's better to wait until marriage, but not demeaning to tell someone to have fun and hop in bed with as many partners as possible and have as much fun as possible?
You do realize there are some people who regret lives of promiscuity.
My experience has been that there is regret at not waiting, and for having had multiple partners, but it's a new idea to me that someone would regret not having been MORE promiscuous.
I've had good and bad, but only with one partner. Is it a "failure" that I did not have multiple partners?
I've sired two children, so I do understand how it all works and what it feels like, etc.
My religion and my conscience tell me that the ideal is to have no sexual contact outside of a marriage commitment. That's the idea to which most Christians ascribe, and probably most fail in some way, but that's the standard, and anything outside of that does warrant feelings of guilt, which can lead to repentance and making corrections.

reply from: sweet

I have NEVER heard it said better than this- from a man nor woman! Can i have your permission to use this quote please?...i'll put our name under it.

reply from: sweet

Why are you striking out in such anger? Why are you angry? Seriously.

reply from: lukesmom

I have never had sex outside of mariage and never would intentionally hurt another in that way. That said, I am ashamed to say my sexual life before marriage was pretty wild. It lead to std's and infertility problems. More than likely was for the best to have been infertile as I would have had difficulty dealing with an accidental pregnancy at that time. Unfortunantly when I was ready for pregnancy, I was unable to become pregnant. Not only does sexual premescuity lead to possible pregnancy, std's but also to the loss of integrety and emotional pain because of misuse and disrespect of ones own body and others bodies. Yea, it was great fun at the time but not worth the pain it caused down the road. I was lucky. We were eventually able to have children, the std's were mainly treatable and we totally missed contracting Aides, something no one knew existed at that time.
NEVER would I EVER tell my kids sex is a pleasurable pastime for anyone to engage in at any time with multiple partners. Sex is for responsible adults and in this day and age can be detrimental to your health. I try to teach my kids to think with their heads and not with their sex organs.

reply from: Spinwubby

Why are you striking out in such anger? Why are you angry? Seriously.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I'm promoting abstinance and responsibility.
Is that only OK when pro-lifers do it?

reply from: sweet

Now this is educational, helpful info. I might have to borrow this quote from you.

reply from: lukesmom

Nope, you promote lies and death to the innocent.

reply from: lukesmom

Now this is educational, helpful info. I might have to borrow this quote from you.
No problem. I should add that reversing infertility is also physically painful and expensive. For me, it was worse because I knew it was my lifestyle that caused the problem in the first place.

reply from: Shenanigans

I have NEVER heard it said better than this- from a man nor woman! Can i have your permission to use this quote please?...i'll put our name under it.
Knock yourself out.

reply from: Banned Member

I find Christian ladies to be a real comfort. Reading this thread has cheered me right up. Thanks ladies.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: leftsnemesis
Damn Spinny.. just when I discover some redeeming qualities in you, you go off on someone about something that is none of your business.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Excuse me?
EXCUSE ME?
You godbots are forever lecturing everybody on when they should be allowed to have sex, what kind of sex they should be allowed to have, what their sexual partner's gender should be, what kind of documentaion should be required before they have sex, and then you get all up in everyone's uterus after the fact.
Once, ONCE I suggest that somebody ought to control their sex life and you tell ME that it's none of my business?
That's right. It IS none of my business, abd other people's crotches are none of YOUR business either. I'll quit if you will.

reply from: Hidari

while I can agree that some interesting points have been raised in this post I'd like to add that recent findings suggest abstinence is not always a good thing. Both medically and psychologically. I certainly don't personally agree with sex only within marriage,and don't live my life according to outdated christian sexual moors. I could care less if that's how an individual chooses to live there life, but then I'm all about choice.
I remember my sister mentioning this study to me a while back( she's almost finished her PHD in psychology)
some food for thought.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=3932047&page=1

reply from: Banned Member

I hate to nitpick.. but I'm going to anyway. The expression is; I couldn't care less. If you could care less, then apparently, you must at least care a little,.. and what's it matter if you care a little? Why bother mentioning it?
Additionally, nobody; "lives there life". They live their life. Apparantly, your sister's determination to stay in school has paid off.. for her!
As for the rest of your post, I skipped it. Sorry, it's just a thing I have about the inarticulate articulating.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I didn't lose my virginity until I was 21, and that was to a guy I'd been dating for almost two years. My shortest "fling" was just under five years. I'm a serial monogamist, have had three sexual partners in 47 years, and plan to grow old and die with my current squeeze.
I think that sex is really important. There's no greater stress-buster. Fortunately, I've always had amazing partners - including my current one who would romp with me when I was doing chemo and looked like a balding, eyebrowless, puking Klingon.
Intimacy will save your life.

reply from: BortSimpson

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I didn't lose my virginity until I was 21, and that was to a guy I'd been dating for almost two years. My shortest "fling" was just under five years. I'm a serial monogamist, have had three sexual partners in 47 years, and plan to grow old and die with my current squeeze.
I think that sex is really important. There's no greater stress-buster. Fortunately, I've always had amazing partners - including my current one who would romp with me when I was doing chemo and looked like a balding, eyebrowless, puking Klingon.
Intimacy will save your life.
Well, to be fair, the problems may arise due to unhealthy views of human sexuality in those who were raised to feel guilt and shame as a result of normal sexual appetites and behaviors.
Some of these people apparently don't understand that promiscuity and premarital relations are two different things. They seem unwilling to concede even the most obvious facts.
Some of them simply will not acknowledge that unmarried couples can be monogamous, and that married couples are not always faithful, much less the implications of these facts, which should be obvious to any reasonable and intelligent person.

reply from: sweet

"There is no harm or moral repugnance in teaching purity until marriage. I think you are not focussing on the whole issue. People are not valuable because of their hymens, they're valuable because of their minds and their hearts and their thoughts and feelings and opinions et cetera. Their virginity is just part in parcel. To maintain virginity until marriage is a sign of self control and love for their future spouse, it shows that they had hope of a life long committement to one person and it shows they respect their body. It shows a great love for their future spouse because they are also protecting them from the mess premartial sex can cause. No diseases and no other children out there that require support, or no dead children in the dumpster behind the abortion mill, and none of that emotional nuclear testing ground that comes with jealous ex-lovers.
Its an expression of fidelity."Originally posted by: Shenanigans

reply from: Shenanigans

The thing with this, is well, what is the histories, both parental and academic of these people?
Were they raised by extremely strict religious parents? Was there a history of abuse? Were they "burned" in love at an earlier stage of life? Is there a self-esteem issue or a mental health issue underlying all of this? A person can avoid sex without ever being raised in a strict religious household.
Chances are, people who are brought up seeing sex as "dirty" and "sinful" without it being in the correct context of a religious and theological education are going to have problems.
They need to be educated that sex itself is not sinful, sex out of marriage is sinful. Sex is supposed to feel good and be a great union of husband and wife. Husband and wife are supposed to explore their bodies and their union together.
And by "sexual experience" it means, what? Multiple sexual partners?
As I said above, sex between a husband and wife is the ideal, it is where the couple learn about each other and sex together, in wedlock.
Furthermore, there's bound to be a mental block of sorts when a sexually experienced partner is coupled with a sexually inexperienced partner. The sexually inexperienced partner may be quite taken back by the experienced partner, they may feel as if they're not as good as they shoudl be and that the partner with experience may be judging them.
And that's another reason why people should wait till marriage. Chances are a person with sexual experience might get bored very quickly with someone who is not, as they will be expecting or wanting their inexperienced partner to do something, this frustration will be realised by the other partner.
Which is why we need programmes that educate within the correct context, giving all the ifs, buts and maybes. We need to build up the confidence of people without relying on what they look like under their clothes or what they can do in the sack.
This is a mess made by the over sexual society we live in, not by over religous parents telling their kiddies that sex is sinful. Society has told people that they have to be good in bed, that they have to have multiple partners. Just look at Friends, that disaster is played early in the evening where kids and young people can see it, and it has Joey who is always on the prowl for sex. The only one who seems to have not gotten a lot of sex is Chandler, and it seems to be pushed that he's got "standards" or he's "awkard" or "geeky". Even Ross, the nerdy professor gets more sex, sometimes with students.
Of course people are going to have sexual issues when they watch sh1t like that.

reply from: newfag

LOL @ virgins teaching us about sexual relationships!

reply from: newfag

Exactly right. This is true whether the hymen is intact or not. How does it feel to draw a correlation between virginity and "purity?" (Implying that all the women who have had sex are not "pure," are essentially "damaged goods?) That must be tough to live with for women who believe it.

reply from: Shenanigans

And?
Its no different then a non-smoking doctor teaching patients to not smoke.

reply from: Hidari

Thank you for your corrections. I will accept my error in spelling "their", but the expression "could care less" is correct in spoken English. Grammatically it of course incorrect, but it is so often used that way in spoken English that pointing it out is akin to the idiotic 'may I' can I' correction.
You hate to nitpick? Somehow I doubt that. But since you were SOOO helpful I suppose you are aware that you used double punctuation twice? Unless you were trying to use periods as thought extenders; in which case the proper amount would be three not two. Also it's "what does it matter?", not " What's it matter". You Forgot capital letters after a period( unless those double punctuation marks are something other than periods of course but it is hard to tell when someone is being articulate. I'm sure you know since you have a 'thing' about being inarticulate)
You also spelled "apparently" incorrectly. But then I'm sure you knew all that. I just had to point it out, it's a 'thing' I have about grammar Nazi's on the internet correcting posts when their own is far from flawless.
Feel free to correct this post as you see fit

reply from: Hidari

All very good points and thank you for raising them. I don't have the answers to them but I admit they are valuable perspective questions.
However, it is not a secret that sex negative upbringings do tend to be more predominate in religious families. Also I am not saying that it is not a good thing for husbands and wives to explore each other in marriage, however I also don't think it's a bad thing ( or sinful if you wish since I am not religious myself) if a couple chooses to have sex outside of marriage. I really don't. Sex is natural and beautiful, and I honestly do not think only having it within marriage is a solution to society's problems.
Perhaps. It could also refer to those who do not have sex before marriage and find themselves sexually incompatible after making a legal, and often religious, commitment to each other. I can imagine few fates worse than marrying someone I love only to find later that we will never be sexually compatible. You know that "why buy the cow when the milk is free" question? Well I've always hated it. If I was that farmer I might not buy the cow if the milk was free, but I also wouldn't buy it before tasting the milk...what if it was sour? Mastitis is a nasty thing you know.
Why is this the ideal? It horrifies me to be honest. As I was trying to show with my article there are other viewpoints that waiting for marriage, especially if you don't find a partner until later in life, can have consequences that no one on "the virgin till marriage team" has ever seemed to care about.
Chances are also that if two sexually inexperienced people waited till marriage and were unsatisfied with eachother, or even just curious about sex with someone other than their partner, that they might seek partners outside their marriages to fill those.
I agree, which is why I do not think religious or abstinence only sexual education is a good thing. Education should cover all aspects of sexual health. The good and the bad, without moral judgements.
This I completely disagree with. I think that laying the problems of society at the feet of a TV show or video game is a cop out. Our society is not "overly sexual" in fact I would argue that it needs to become far more sexually accepting. Young people watch these shows( with their parents permission implicit or otherwise) and are curious to try the things they see because sex is a taboo subject in families. Sex is embarrassing in real life. And controversial in schools. If parents don't want to talk honestly and schools don't teach comprehensively then those are the true roots of problems, not a 'sh1t' tv show

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: Hidari
This I completely disagree with. I think that laying the problems of society at the feet of a TV show or video game is a cop out.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I agree.
I remember when a rock star said something to the effect of "If I can nullify 16 years of your parenting with a 3-and-a-half minute song, then you have completely failed as a parent."
I also remeber when Charles Barkley was critisized for being a bad role model, and was then raked over the coals for suggesting that parents should raise their own children, and that he would raise his.

reply from: EpicFailguy

Wow, I've seen the show a couple of times, but I'm nowhere near as familiar with it as you appear to be! I take it you watch this "sh1t" regularly?

reply from: Shenanigans

Not only do you not have said answers, but the people who did the study dont' seem to address them. I'd like to get my hands on the actually published full version, but something tells me my questions would still be unanswered.
I'm probably going to get an arse whupping for saying this, but too bad.
You have to be careful with broad statements like "sex is natural and beautiful"., and here comes the part where I rile everyone.
Rape is sex.
Sure, rape is about more then sex, its about power, but rape is still sex. And if all sex is natural and beautiful then rape is natural and beautiful, is it not, by your logic?
Sex is natural, yes, as is taking a crap, but you can't take a crap on your neighbour's front doorstep, or in a church, or in a hospital foyer, or in Obama's office.
Sex is beautiful, well, okay, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I know what your'e getting at, but I'm expressing to you that sex is only beautiful in certain circumstances. Its defintely not beautiful in rape, but sex is beautiful within the confines of the marriage.
Do you agree it will at least dispense some of society's ills?
A marriage should be built on more the sexual compatibility. If you marry someone only to find out their sexual appetite is different to your own and you divorce them because of taht, what does it say about you and your priorities? How long will a marriage based on great sex last? People get old and dry and crusty and tired.
Not to mention, what are people supposed to do, shag, shag, shag and shag until they find the right person to marry? Then what, tell their new spouse "Oh, BTW, I had sex with 104 people to make sure we were compatible sexually, congratulations! You were 105!!"
Furthermore, marriage these days is too often rushed into. People need to sit down and talk about all these little issues BEFORE they walk down the isle or registry office or whatever.
Everything has consquences, having sex, not having sex, but which is worse? The sex outside of marriage, where disease and pregnancy can screw your life over seven ways from Sunday?
Its about the least sh1tty situation. And having sex within the safety of a stable marriage is the ideal.
And yeah, I admit, the "virgin patrol" peeps don't seem to want to acknowledge the problems their opinions have. Its about balance, its like the pro-life movement and its "oh, babies are great, have heaps, because all the health problems and fiscal burdens, won't mean anything when you look into your baby's big blue eyes and that baby's first words are "i wubs you mummy".
The world is a harsh place filled with harsh realities. We can either take the reality with the smallest sh1t storm or we can drown in manure.
I'm quite outraged that people try to pin teen violence, et al, at the foot of video games like GTA and the likes, but the difference between violence in video games and sex on tv, is one is peddled as "normal" and "cool".
No one says the actions of GTA in real life are acceptable, cool or legal. Sex, on the other hand, any moron with a reptilian brain can engage in a sexual act, which, is pushed as acceptable, "cool" and legal.
That's really the same thing, you know. Its like desensistisation, if someone is afraid of dog you slowly introduce them to dogs, show them pictures of puppies, then stand them in front of a cage with a puppy, then get the puppy out of the cage, then they hold the puppy, and then when they're comfortable with said puppy you go intro them to a Rotti.
For society to have become "overly sexual" it has started gradually.
Now, I'm not naive enough to think society hasn't always had premartial sex, just look at the ancient human cultures of Greece and Rome, Romans had pictures of orgies in their dining room.
But, in our society, we have a vaste amount of information at our fingertips, its everywhere, its used to sell, to publisize, we're interested in celeb's sex lives, everything. And so, people see that wh0r3 Angelina shagging a married man and think since she's doing it, and rich and famous, they want to have a little part of that life, and since they can't be an actress or have money, they take what they can have, the sex.
You're absolutely correct. Parents need to grow a set and do their damn job instead of leaving it to sh1ty shows.

reply from: Shenanigans

I had to do an English assignment on it once, my sister and a lot of my friends are big fans - I got most of the info from them. I hate the bloody thing, it clashed with the news!
See, you can know a lot about something and not actually have to be subjected to it.

reply from: QueenJ

Doctors who perform abortions use scalpels? That's news to me.
How so? Why?

reply from: QueenJ

What exactly would these dangers be?

No. Who has ever said anything of the sort?

No. Who has ever said anything of the sort?
Yes. For those who choose this lifestyle.

reply from: QueenJ

And that's as far as I could make it into this post.
(That's what she said!)

reply from: B0zo

LOL @ people who have money trying to teach those who are broke and who blew it all, how to use money wisely.

reply from: Shenanigans

LOL @ people who have money trying to teach those who are broke and who blew it all, how to use money wisely.
LOL @ the toothbrush I saw lying on the ground outside the McD's I passed on the way home.

reply from: Hidari

I'm going to make this a separate post and respond to this part alone.
So here is the arse whupping.
This is by far one of the more offensive things I've read on this board. And that is saying A LOT. I know you have said in other posts that you don't believe one has a right to not be offended and that is fine, but I do need to say it because I believe that by not confronting offensive things we are giving those who spout them our tacit approval. While I do not expect you to change( although I can hope) your viewpoint, but I will not simply ignore it.
I'll start off by saying that I am a survivor of child rape, so I am particularly sensitive regarding the topic. I've dealt with my demons, but the sheer ignorance of your post angers me beyond belief.
Rape is not sex. Period. The end.
Rape is a vicious attack on another person. It can take many forms but all of them are ugly, and beyond evil.
Sex is beautiful and natural. To me. You don't have to agree I don't care. But rape is not now, nor will it ever be sex. It is a sexual assault yes. They are VERY different things.
As for your comparison of sex to taking a crap. Really now. Who is talking about exhibition? Certainly not me. I said it is natural and beautiful. Not that we should strip nekkid and fukc on the neighbors lawn. I see what you are trying to say about sex only being beautiful in certain situations, But we disagree that sex is beautiful only within the confines of marriage. I think that sex is beautiful with or without a marriage certificate between consenting adults. My belief that one should be having sex in private is more about a desire to be considerate to other's sensibilities, than any sort of disgust with the act itself. I'm sure I would not have to look very hard to find an exhibitionist community that would be perfectly happy if all public indecency laws/taboos/ ect were to disappear overnight!
But then you believe that no one has a right to not be offended right? I mean if I and my boyfriend decide to get it on in a public park you don't have to watch right? If my brother and his Boyfriend decide to discuss their sex life at the table next to you in a restaurant you can always leave right? Afterall you have not right to not be offended.

reply from: Hidari

No. I'm sorry I don't. If you'd like we could discuss marriage in another thread that's fine but I'm afraid explaining here would be pretty long and off topic ( more so than I usually get)
Of course a marriage should be built on more than sexual compatibility. But ignoring or downplaying sex in a marriage is a mistake. Sex is, I would argue, one of the most important parts in a romantic relationship. Many marriages break up not just due to the lack o sex, but lack of sexual communication, openness, fidelity, and compatibility. All of these things are linked and I honestly think that couples who have never had a partner outside of their spouse or wait until marriage, are setting themselves up against some pretty bad odds. Are they doomed? Not necessarily but the opposite is also true, having many partners before marring, does not mean that one is incapable of having a commit stable marriage.
How long will a marriage based on great sex last? I don't know but I do know that a great sex life is usually a sign of a couple that can communicate their needs in an intimate way and communication is key to most relationships. Married or otherwise. So I have a question for you. How long with a marriage last where no matter how much counseling or compromises they each make they are simply incompatible sexually?
No one is saying that they MUST shag, shag, shag and shag, but if they want to so what? I really think what consenting adults do between them should be up to them alone. Whether its 0,or 1 or, 10000+
If their 'new spouse' has a problem with their history they likely won't be a good match as their values will likely be clashing. But for me, if my partner told me that I would think hmmm he's had sex with all these people,( and is as a result hopefully a pretty good, confident and communicative lover),but it's me he wants to commit to and be with in marriage. I'd rather be the last in a line of lovers that stops with me, than the wife of a cheating unsatisfied partner. I have had a boyfriend who was a virgin. We ended up breaking up because I turned down his marriage proposal. There were several reasons but one of the reasons I did so was my concerns over his lack of experience.
I fail to see how these things are any less prevalent inside marriage. An unwanted, unplanned or medically difficult pregnancy can stress any relationship. Married or otherwise. I'm sure there are plenty of marriages that break up over pregnancy issues. Or do you really think that married women never get abortions? Or STD's?
I disagree with it being the Ideal. I think that there is a greater benefit to having sex, especially with the one you intend to commit to, before the wedding. Contraception, safer sex and a little personal responsibility are all things every adult needs to be cognizant of. Married or not.
Little aside cause I've actually done exactly what you've described with dogs I use to own a Rottweiler that was a trained therapy dog.
But just like a fearful person facing their irrational fears that are damaging them, I think society becoming more open sexually is a good thing. Is it necessary for survival? Nope. We could be like the person fearful of dogs and cower before out fear. Or we can accept that although interacting with dogs has some risks, it is worth it. Sex is the same way. We do not need to cower in the 'sex is only acceptable and safe in marriage' (a fallacy anyway) fear.
yup. And I hope it continues. Society is still way to sexually oppressed.
Glad we could agree on at least one point
It's interesting debating with you. Some of the things you say make me react viscerally with disagreement so profound I have to stop myself from typing an immature angry response. Yet you also say things that I agree with totally.

reply from: Shenanigans

Why, thank you! I'm flattered!
I'm sorry for your past, I am, but the reality is, if you don't want to get offended you shouldn't come on a pro-life forum, as rape is bound to come up in the discussions, and its eventually going to be heightened by someone saying something outrageous.
Depends on your defintions.
Rape involves sex. Period. It wouldn't be rape if sex wasn't involved in some way, shape or form. Rape wouldn't be nearly as horrific it was just some slap on the arse or some guy forcing a kiss.
Agreed.
But as I said, rape involves sex. You cannot get around that. Rape is used as a tool to oppress another, to attack and belittle another, the intentions of the rapists, the distress of the victim, nothing chances the brutal truth that rape involves sex.
They are different in intention, not in action.
So, what about two drunks on a Friday night, where neither know the other's name?
Or the sleezy old man hiring a prostititute?
Or the woman shagging her boss to get a promotion?
Are all those sex acts "beautiful"?
I have no right to be offended by your public sexual congress. And quite frankly, if you were sitting next to me in a resturant, you'd leave, especially if I was talking shop. I've made people go green and run to the bathroom with my work stories.
However, the law and the local police might have something to say about it.

reply from: B0zo

What about a sleazy old man who finds a sleazy old woman who will do it for free?
There's at least some beauty in being resourceful.
What about a woman who finds more satisfaction in a dildo than a man? Do you think that's beautiful? (Or is it at least somewhat cute?)

reply from: Hidari

I'm fully aware that people will say stupid, hurtful and untrue things. This is the internet afterall. But as I said I will call them on it, when I can. Because to not take a stand for what you believe is giving approval, however small, to those that spew sh1t. It is this one thing that I can understand about the pro-life movement. I disagree with almost everything pro-lifers have to say, but I do have to respect them for standing for their beliefs, however different they are from mine.
No it does not depend on my definitions. I'd rather not play the dictionary game with you. is there a sexual component to rape? of course! is rape sex? no it is not. the comparison you made is not all sex is beautiful because rape is sex. If you had simply said something like 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and left it at that I would concede the point. But you seem to think rape is sex which makes sex ugly. It is not.
is any penetration a sex act? is my gynecological exam a sex act? it involves a sexual organ and penetration by another......see how silly that sounds?
Rape and sex are different in both intention and action. If you don't know that I really wonder ( and feel sad about) your sex life. Rape often ( but not always) involves the sexual organs. This does not make it sex, anymore than my yearly gyno appointment is a sex act.
Were they consenting adults using their own bodies freely as they choose? Then yes. Simply because the people in your scenarios are not having the kind of sex you approve of, does not make the act itself less beautiful. You don't have to think so, but it's not for you to decide for them anyway. you life, your choices and values; their lives, their choices and values.
I wasn't talking about authorities tho was I? As for making me leave I highly doubt you could no matter what you were talking about. My aunt is a nurse, my mother works in health care, and I have numerous relatives in law enforcement( jail guards and RCMP) there is nothing you could say that would squick me out I worked for 7 years in a high volume animal shelter and attended many horder warrants and puppymills. After living through some of the things I've seen in my work and hearing war stories from my family quiet frankly nothing you could say would even be able to come close to turning me green, but hey I'm always game wanna play who has the nastier story?

reply from: Shenanigans

Actually, while there aren't a lot of studies on this, its actually false that virgins have a higher rate of dirvoce.
People who are virgins at marriage have LOWER rates of divorce.
I've seen stats as low as 1% divorce rate for marriages where both parties are virgins, but I havne't been able to find that study. So I found this one, its quite lengthy, but interesting. Although, it tends to focus on the sexual experience of wives as opposed to husbands:
http://www.ncfr.org/pdf/press_releases/PRESS%20RELEAS2.pdf

A few points of interest: marriages of people who cohabitated before marriage resulted in a 50% divorce rate. The study also points to how pre-marital sex coincides with cohabitation. But because it doesn't give too much attention to men, it "found" that pre-martial sex or not didn't seem to affect whether a man committed adultery or not. But non-virgin women at marriage appeared to venture from the marriage bed.
The following I didn't think was well set out or referenced, and it was rather lengthy, but the refs. are at the bottom. It mentions that people who cohabitate or who have premarital sex have a 50% higher divorce rate.
http://www.marriageromance.com/stories/10802697703.htm

Granted, I'm sure a few of you will p1ss rage out your ears when you see that its posted on a Christian site.
Same sort of thing, different web site:
http://www.medindia.net/news/Divorce-Rates-are-Twice-as-High-for-Women-Who-are-Serial-Cohabiters-43844-1.htm

This website sets it out a bit better:
http://www.revelife.com/717979099/waiting-until-marriage-pays-off/

The scary thing, I actually found reading through these studies is that women are more likley to suffer domestic abuse if they co-habitate.
The other thing to look at is divorce rates between countries, the rates are higher in more "liberal" countries where the value of virginity has been lost. Of course, the countries with the lower rates of divorce and place more value on virginity do have other issues going on, stricter religious adherence et cetera.
I don't know. There aren't enough studies out there that even begin to scratch the surface. But really, if a couple is willing to divorce because they can't get it right in the sack, well, they're complete and utter failures, they obviously rushed into marriage. Even a virgin knows what their sexual appetite is.
Wouldn't you be concerned with STDs?
What if you discovered he had hep, or HIV from all his sexual antics. Would you still marry him?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and think those other reasons were biggies. But you could have taught him what you like and what you don't and helped him build up experience. Guys are hard wired for sex, he would of picked up it pretty quickly.
A married couple is more able to deal with said issues than a non-married couple. In the above links there are mentions of the majority of co-habitation relationships ending over pregnancies. How many marriages end over a pregnancy?
Also, it stands to reason that since people are waiting till they're older and more fiscally sound, that a pregnancy isn't going to destory their finances or the marriage.
Seriously, this is why people need to NOT rush into marriage. THey need to get to know each other (clothes in situ) before they go down the isle.
Of course. And STD within the confines of a marriage would express that someone has done something naughty. Abortions? Sure. Just because people are married doesn't make them any less selfish than an unmarried person who doesn't want kids. But statistics show abortions happen in the majority in the younger, single women.
I really like rottis! My mum never let me have one though... T_T
Seriously, I wont' hold it against you if you have at it with the nasty words. I can assure you've I've seen some doozeys!
I wubs a good ole debate, and getting riled is a good motivator to go look for those studies and those opiniosn that back up yours.

reply from: Shenanigans

You mean Brad and Angelina?
Please dont' ruin the attractiveness of fiscal prudency for me.
Well, I suppose it will put bowls of rice in the hands of Chinese sweat shop orphans.

reply from: B0zo

You must think Tiger Woods is quite the artist then.
Seems to me all this "beauty" hurt a lot of people.

reply from: Hidari

Dang it you would go and find a bunch of stuff I wanna read when I have t go out now wouldn't you
tell ya what I will read these tomorrow and get back to you
Those are hard questions. I'd like to say yes but truthfully I'd have to think about it. But then again it wouldn't be his sexual past that would bother me, but the risk I'd have to accept to my own health. We all accept risks everyday to a certain point, so I'd have to weigh my desire and love for him against that risk. Honestly I kinda hope I never have to but who knows what life will throw at you.
let me put a question to you. If your husband( or wife sorry I think your a woman but I might just be assuming) contracted an std( like HIV) from a source outside of sexual contact. like say a bad blood transfusion, or a junkie stabs him/her with a dirty needle. Something along those lines. would you ever have sex with him/her again? would you hesitate? have to consider your options? because for me they are the same thing.
Thank you. They were. He was not a bad guy and he really loved me but I knew in the long run our differences would drive us apart. religion, kids, jobs, so many things we didn't agree on and were not willing to compromise on. I do disagree about sex. its not that he wouldn't have learned how, or I couldn't have taught him, it was that I honestly do believe that those who get married never having had any sexual experience will always wonder what else is out there. the grass is always greener if you've never been over the fence. This COMBINED with the other reasons made a lifelong commitment like marriage something I felt would be doomed to fail.
why?
gasp! common ground! I better keep an eye on you noone who like rottis can be entirely evil

reply from: B0zo

I'm in my 50's and have been with only one woman my entire life.
I have "wondered" what others would be like. I have also wondered what it would be like to rob a bank or snort cocaine.
It's natural to wonder about things and is not necessarily harmful. So what if I've "wondered"? It didn't lead to adultery or to bank robbery or drug use.
I don't buy for a second that we need to "test the waters" or any nonsense about making sure there is "sexual compatiblity." If there is truly a loving relationship, these things will take care of themselves.

reply from: B0zo

I agree with you that rape is not truly sex and that shenanigans is wrong on this point, however, I think you're being grossly unfair and insulting to attribute her error to what is (in your mind) something that is lacking in her "sex life."

reply from: Hidari

I'm in my 50's and have been with only one woman my entire life.
I have "wondered" what others would be like. I have also wondered what it would be like to rob a bank or snort cocaine.
It's natural to wonder about things and is not necessarily harmful. So what if I've "wondered"? It didn't lead to adultery or to bank robbery or drug use.
I don't buy for a second that we need to "test the waters" or any nonsense about making sure there is "sexual compatiblity." If there is truly a loving relationship, these things will take care of themselves.
How wonderful for you. Do you also agree on things such as religion? politics? children? parenting? ect? because I'm not saying that JUST sexual inexperience will lead to problems, but that it can contribute to it.
I disagree that these things will' take care of themselves' if that were true, we would never have infidelity or divorce. Sexual health and compatibility in a relationship is important.
That you lucked into a stable relationship with someone who meets your needs and who you are capable of meeting the needs of, does not mean that all marriages should follow your path to success.

reply from: Hidari

I agree with you that rape is not truly sex and that shenanigans is wrong on this point, however, I think you're being grossly unfair and insulting to attribute her error to what is (in your mind) something that is lacking in her "sex life."
hmm I can see your point and I worded that poorly. what I meant is, that based on the way I am reading her opinion, she thinks sex and rape are the same physical act. Therefore every time she has sex( according to my understanding) it is the same physical act. only the intention differs to make it rape. If this understanding of her view is true then I do stand by my statement that it makes me sad to think that she equates the exact same physical act she would engage in willingly to the same act taken in rape.

reply from: B0zo

I won't say I "lucked out." I have had good times and horrible times in my marriage.
Infidelity is not because of sex but other issues.
Infidelity is often because of a lack of love or understanding, and someone else comes along and begins to fill that void, and that leads to an emotional connection which leads to sex. Unless someone is just a pig looking for gratification, there is a lot more to it than looking for "good sex" because it is not at home.
I didn't "luck out" anymore than others who have had lifelong commitments. I will not say I have never strayed in my thoughts, but I have (so far) not strayed in deed, and that is because I made a vow.
My only regret is that I did not date more and have more experiences with women socially, but I do not regret that I did not whore around, and would not look back on such experiences as "beautiful" but as "mistakes" or "sins."

reply from: B0zo

I agree with you that rape is not truly sex and that shenanigans is wrong on this point, however, I think you're being grossly unfair and insulting to attribute her error to what is (in your mind) something that is lacking in her "sex life."
hmm I can see your point and I worded that poorly. what I meant is, that based on the way I am reading her opinion, she thinks sex and rape are the same physical act. Therefore every time she has sex( according to my understanding) it is the same physical act. only the intention differs to make it rape. If this understanding of her view is true then I do stand by my statement that it makes me sad to think that she equates the exact same physical act she would engage in willingly to the same act taken in rape.
She can speak for herself of course, but I know enough about her to know that she is a practicing Catholic who is waiting for the right man and for marriage and that a sex life before marriage is out of the question.
But being chaste doesn't mean she's stupid or that it leads to incorrect ideas. Someone who is married or otherwise is sexually active could have made what we both consider to be an error in her thinking that rape is sex.

reply from: Hidari

I'm sure she can speak for herself, and I did mention that the topic does tend to get me riled up which is why I did try to respond as calmly as I could. If she is offended I'm sure she will not be shy about setting me straight I kind of enjoy that about our debates so far.
As for her being stupid because she is chaste( a fact I was not even aware of) I have never, nor would I ever say that. If she ( or anyone) wishes to be chaste until marriage then power to them. fly atter. But the minute those people start telling me I (or anyone else who doesn't share their feelings) should only have sex in marriage or sex as we have it is 'wrong' ect for others, I will speak up because I simply don't believe that.
I understand Catholicism. It might surprise you to know I was raised catholic. 12 years private catholic school. bible study. church every Sunday. first communion and confirmation. the whole bundle. I rejected the church utterly and completely as have most of my family. I thought long and hard about my decision before reaching it and did quite a bit of research. However I do understand those that still have faith and respect them. All I ask is the same respect for myself and my veiwpoint.

reply from: Hidari

I disagree. Sometimes infidelity is absolutely about meeting sexual needs. ( or as you put it 'pig looking for gratification') is infidelity a good thing? no of course not, but denying that individuals who are denied sexual satisfaction within their marriages, will not SOMETIMES seek it elsewhere is a little naive IMHO
That is your prerogative and you are welcome to it. If I had not had the sexual experiences I have had I would feel my life has not been as complete as it could have been. I'm not saying I went out and found an orgy every night ( in fact I can count my partners in the single digits) But each relationship I've been in has taught me something and I have gained and given though each one. This to me is invaluable.

reply from: QueenJ

Rosalie did.
Quotes or it didn't happen.

reply from: QueenJ

People are allowed to be offended. People are even allowed to express their offense to those that have offended them!

Rape is about asserting control and power over another individual. It's not about sex.

A "slap on the arse" and "some guy forcing a kiss" are both examples of sexual assault.

If by sex, you mean penetration by an uninvited body part or foreign object, then yes, rape involves sex.

The sex involved in rape is very different between the sex involved between consenting individuals.
If they're able to give consent, sure it is. How about sex between two drunks who are married or in a monogamous relationship? Does this somehow make the sex more beautiful to you?
Because all men who seek prostitution are "sleezy."
I'm sure a man who hasn't gotten any in awhile will definitely find sex with a prostitute beautiful. And the prostitute may even find it beautiful if the man is polite and/or able to pleasure her as well as himself.
Let me guess ... you don't think prostitution should be decriminalized?
Now here is a sleazy situation - someone using their position of power to obtain sex.
It all depends on your definition of "beautiful." You obviously find sex between the unmarried/uncommitted/nonmonagamous wrong and bad and ugly.
About people conversing about sex?

reply from: Hidari

Because all men who seek prostitution are "sleezy."
I'm sure a man who hasn't gotten any in awhile will definitely find sex with a prostitute beautiful. And the prostitute may even find it beautiful if the man is polite and/or able to pleasure her as well as himself.
Let me guess ... you don't think prostitution should be decriminalized?
Now here is a sleazy situation - someone using their position of power to obtain sex.
unless she is in the sex industry and giving an example of her skills I try to reserve judgment cause I just dont see consensual sex in any form as wrong. So what if he/she gets a benefit? no different then prostitution in my mind( which I have no problem with in consenting adults). If he doesn't want to accept the trade( sex for a promotion) then no one is forcing him to sleep with her, if there is force or coercion then we move into rape territory IMO.
It all depends on your definition of "beautiful." You obviously find sex between the unmarried/uncommitted/nonmonagamous wrong and bad and ugly.
which I find kinda sad. She is welcome to her opinion of course but still, kinda sad for me to think that some people can really see such a beautiful act in such a negative light except within their narrow set of parameters.
About people conversing about sex?
I think she was more talking about me fornicating in public in front of her then conversing about sex to be fair not that I would I was just curious what she would say regarding the offense aspect of it.

reply from: Hidari

btw QueenJ I like your signature

reply from: QueenJ

Gracias. You would be one of the very few around here. Perhaps, even, the only one. Imagine that!

reply from: B0zo

Rosalie did.
Quotes or it didn't happen.
I'm not going to look for them, so let's pretend it didn't happen.
You win the point.

reply from: B0zo

Infidelity is not a good thing, but the adulterous acts are "beautiful"?
All Tiger Woods' romps were "beatiful," correct?
Beauty can hurt a wife and children?

reply from: QueenJ

The only problem here is that someone is using their position of power to, essentially, coerce someone else with, presumably, less power into having sex with them. If a woman is propositioned for sex from a superior she may feel as though she has to do it in order to prevent experiencing negative repercussions (i.e. loss of her job or the superior creating a hostile work environment for her or a demotion or being given more work than is manageable/being given work that is beneath her in an effort to demean her and "put her in her place," etc.). So, she says yes (because she feels she can't say no), but really isn't giving actual consent because of the power imbalance inherent in a superior/subordinate relationship.
Exactly. I, too, have no problem with people holding certain views regarding sex specific to their religious beliefs or just their own personal mindset. I don't, for instance, look down on someone who believes that sex is something that should be saved for marriage. I do, however, have a problem with said person forcing their personally-held beliefs onto others, who don't subscribe to the same set of beliefs, by way of judgment or derogatory monikers and statements. In my opinion, any and all sex is a-okay so long as consent can be given by all parties involved (i.e. no pedophilia, no bestiality, and no statutory rape that involves an age gap so great that there is an inherent power imbalance between the two individuals).
Ah, well that makes more sense.
No one should have to watch others have sex when they have not expressed a desire to do so and/or are not in a venue where such behavior is the norm.

reply from: B0zo

What if she comes on to the boss?
What if she throws herself at him?
What if he doesn't have an iron will and gives in?
On the other hand, I think it's probably more like you say, which is why I think David Letterman is a super-sleaze.

reply from: sweet

You must think Tiger Woods is quite the artist then.
Seems to me all this "beauty" hurt a lot of people.LOL...(sorry to laugh because it's really sad)

reply from: sweet

I'm going to make this a separate post and respond to this part alone.
So here is the arse whupping.
This is by far one of the more offensive things I've read on this board. And that is saying A LOT. I know you have said in other posts that you don't believe one has a right to not be offended and that is fine, but I do need to say it because I believe that by not confronting offensive things we are giving those who spout them our tacit approval. While I do not expect you to change( although I can hope) your viewpoint, but I will not simply ignore it.
I'll start off by saying that I am a survivor of child rape, so I am particularly sensitive regarding the topic. I've dealt with my demons, but the sheer ignorance of your post angers me beyond belief.
Rape is not sex. Period. The end.
Rape is a vicious attack on another person. It can take many forms but all of them are ugly, and beyond evil.
Sex is beautiful and natural. To me. You don't have to agree I don't care. But rape is not now, nor will it ever be sex. It is a sexual assault yes. They are VERY different things.
As for your comparison of sex to taking a crap. Really now. Who is talking about exhibition? Certainly not me. I said it is natural and beautiful. Not that we should strip nekkid and fukc on the neighbors lawn. I see what you are trying to say about sex only being beautiful in certain situations, But we disagree that sex is beautiful only within the confines of marriage. I think that sex is beautiful with or without a marriage certificate between consenting adults. My belief that one should be having sex in private is more about a desire to be considerate to other's sensibilities, than any sort of disgust with the act itself. I'm sure I would not have to look very hard to find an exhibitionist community that would be perfectly happy if all public indecency laws/taboos/ ect were to disappear overnight!
But then you believe that no one has a right to not be offended right? I mean if I and my boyfriend decide to get it on in a public park you don't have to watch right? If my brother and his Boyfriend decide to discuss their sex life at the table next to you in a restaurant you can always leave right? Afterall you have not right to not be offended.
Sorry Hidari,Shenanigans is 100% right on this one...I might not get along with Shenanigans all the time, but uuuh, 'you got served' BIG TIME on this one...and if one could ever hear stuttering in a voice through typing...the time might be now, in YOUR typing...just from person to person Hidari, your response on here is stuttering littered jibba jabba....sorry....and i'm not attacking or trying to be mean. seriously.

reply from: Shenanigans

And there in lies a problem, people have different defintions of sh1t in context of spewing.
Frankly, I think every ounce of "argument" the pro-aborts use is sh1t, actually not really, its worse than sh1t, at least sh1t can be useful. Especially on gardens.
Yeah, I think the dictionary game would simply result in us circling the mulberry bush.
However, rape is sex, a very violent, ugly form of sex.
Rape utilises sex as a weapon, not as a tool or object for mutual and consented gratification.
For example, say I have a hammer. A hammer is a tool. I can use the hammer to build a house or a school, such an action can be self-serving in the case of a house, or it can be noble in the case of a school. Many would praise me more than the hammer for a beautiful house or school. But, without the hammer, I could not have built the school or house. So, the hammer requires as much praise.
Now, say I decide to use the hammer on my neighbour's skull?
The hammer is still a hammer, the only thing that has changed about the hammer is how I utilised it. I can either use it for good or evil.
Sex is a tool. It can be used to give pleasure and can be "beautiful" in your opinion, or it can used for evil, as in the case of rape.
On a side note, I view sex between married couples as [an act of] "love" not sex, the word sex is what I view as a technical description, which removes the warmth and nuturing of the act of love between spouses.
That's why I can view some sex acts as dispicable, evil, immoral, or giving, loving and "beautiful".
Sex is a tool. It is how that tool is utilised that determines its adjective.
I should have been clearer.
Intention is required.
A gynae exam involves penetration, yes, but the intent of said pentration is for sexual gratification. [unless there's something wrong with one of the parties -_-']
See above ramble about sex being a tool of the rapist.
I'm not married, ergo, no sex life.
Legally, rape is defined as a penetrative act of one of the bodily orificies.
Sexual assault can include rape, but includes other forced sexual connections, touching, et cetera.
Again, intention.
So, then, what is it about sex that you find so beautiful?
I mean, really, the fact you think such beauty can be purchased, or bargined for, or black mailed for, such things lessen the beauty of the sexual act. It makes it selfish and demanding, with no intention to give to the other.
Do you think the physics of the act is beauty?
That consent is all that makes sex beautiful?
Frankly, that's really sad.
Doesn't matter if you were or not, if you and your mister were having a shag in the park, the fuzz aren't going to stand there taking pictures on their cell phones.

reply from: Shenanigans

I have to admit, I was rather aggrieved that I couldn't find anything more succinct.
Yeah, I'm a chick.
If it took place during marriage, and I discovered he had an injectable drug problem, I'd be very concerned, not so much from the disease standpoint, but from the obvious addiction issues. I'd want him to get help, immediately. As for sex, well, probably never again as I don't beleive in the use of contraceptives and so far the Church hasnt' really decided if spouses of individuals infected with a communiable disease can use condoms (I read somewhere they had decided but somewhere else they hadn't, so I'm still waiting).
If it was a blood transfusion, well, that would be incredibly rare, but if it did happen, again, no more rude stuff. It'd be quite unpleasant I'm sure, but I wouldn't marry someone who didn't share the same strength of faith I have. So, he'd understand.
I mean, I could contract those illness too through my job.
Well, I'm glad there's people like you out there. I've met many a person who's marriage has turned to custard because they didn't sit down and have "what faith do we raise the kids" conversation before they married.
Even knew a couple who the guy was pro-abortion and didn't want kids, ever, and the wife thought he was kidding, she got pregnant, refused to abort, he walked out. Quite messy.
This could apply to most aspects of life. But as is so common, people always find out the grass ISN'T greener.
And with everything, you're viewing it from your own sexual experience is good prespective. With the stats I posted above, in their lengthy hard to read format, those studies show people are less likely to stray from the marriage bed if they've not had sexual experiences pre-marriage.
It stands to reason, its like asking me if I ever wonder about going to Greenland. I've never been to Greenland. So, while I can imagine going to Greenland, I'm not going to regret not going to Greenland if I haven't been because I haven't been.
Basically, you can't miss something you haven't had.
And those who have had sexual experiences pre-marriage, they are more likely to desire those other sexual experiences, those studies show they tend to get bored with one partner and seek others on the sly.
My Poppa told me how he met my Nana. They met at a function for soliders who were to depart for WWII, they got to talking, and had a lot in common. He offered her a walk home. When they arrived, she said to him "I would have asked you in, but my parents are away and they expected me not to let any person in, especially a strange man". He said he was so impressed, and pursued her in the fashion of the time.
Both were virgins when they married.
Their marriage lasted for over 60 years, until my Nana died a few years back.
My other grandparents were also married as virgins, and their marriage lasted over 60 years until my grandfather popped his clogs.
My Sittee will rant and rave about the reason people's marriages are failing now days in such large numbers is a) they're "shacking up" before they marry and b) they don't realise marriage is something you work at. If you have a problem, you sort it out, you don't just ignore it, or get someone else to do the dirty work.
If people really want their marriage to work, sexual appetite difference isn't going to be the dooming factor.
why?
As I said in the other post, people are getting married later due to fiscal stability, they are older, thus more mature (usually). And because of that later in age with better fiances, they half expect a pregnancy to occur, unless they go out of their way to prevent it with something like a tube tying.
Two students shacking up in a hostel is less likely to deal with a pregnancy as well as a fiscally stable older couple.
Granted, not all married couples are fiscally sound, but a husband and wife are supposed to be a team, they're together in a union that "no man should tear asunder". They already have that over the "friends with benefits" couple.
They tried to ban them down here about a decade or two ago because of a few stupid kids beating on strange rottis with sticks (dont' need to be a genius to figure out what happened there). And my neighbour had one, he looked all surly and gruff, but he was such a nice dog, and I think he had a crush on my Huntaway X. That's how I learnt what "spade" meant, because I thought it'd be neat if they got dog married and had pups.

reply from: Shenanigans

My brother decided to "test the waters" once, against the advice of his wife.
He ended up putting his toes through the back of a hellishly angry jelly fish.

reply from: sweet

My brother decided to "test the waters" once, against the advice of his wife.
He ended up putting his toes through the back of a hellishly angry jelly fish.lol at least it wasn't a crab

reply from: B0zo

My brother decided to "test the waters" once, against the advice of his wife.
He ended up putting his toes through the back of a hellishly angry jelly fish.
I meant testing the waters BEFORE marriage.
BTW, what did your sister-in-law think of the "beautiful" act performed by your brother and his friend?
Or doesn't she have an artistic side?

reply from: Shenanigans

I said I was sorry she had suffered as she had. Meaning, sorrow as in empathy.
Expressing sorrow or empathy is not a sign of offense.
But I'm glad you're learning that people have no right to be offended. ^_^
As I mentioned in an above post, yes, rape is about power et al, but it uses sex as a tool to express that power.
Rape is usually legally defined as an act of penetration involving any of the bodily orifices, regardless of object use (though rape with object has its own legal standig), rape is classed as sexual assault. However, while a slap on the arse is not rape, it is still classed as a sexual assault. Its one of oranges are fruit but not all fruits are oranges things.
Yip.
But it is still sex, nonetheless.
For sex acts I class as beautiful, I refer to them as "love" [making].
The term "sex" for me is based on the biological process, is simply a technical term.
Because all men who seek prostitution are "sleezy."
I'm starting to wonder if my accent of my words when typed on a screen are causing difficulties of comprehension for those who do not share my quirks of vocalisation.
I could have said "an sleezy old man going to church".
Not all men who go to church are sleezy and old, as not all men who go to prosititutes are sleezy and old.
I was implying that in this situation it was a man who happened to be sleezy and old seeking the services of a hooker.
If I wanted to say a sexy rich man going to a hooker, I would have.
But yeah, I do question the moral fortitude of men who frequent hookers.
(I'm going to use the word hooker from now on because its stinking easier to spell).
Actually, the b@stards we call politicans legalised hookering down here a few years ago.
Its been an absolute legal debacle, because they rushed it through to appease a certain group of the population. I wont' get into details, but it's passage through the parliament system was legally questionable. That, and it only passed by one vote.
Not to venture far from this topic, but I feel hookering demeans women.
But, if according to others, all sex is beautiful, so, this sex act is beautiful, right? Unless of course a sex act can be beautiful but sleezy at the same time.
Yeah, that about sums it up, actually.
I mean the shagging in the park.
Although, there is a law against "offensive language" down here. I actually discovered the other day, NZL doesn't actually have a freedom of speech law. We dont' have a consititution as such so its not really protected.
But I've seen cops tell people who were having rude conversations near children to depart the locality.

reply from: Shenanigans

That's what happened to me.
I actually saw it, thought it was dead, and decided to be a smart arse and pick it up with my foot and throw it at my sister.
Didn't work out like I planned. Still have the scars.

reply from: sweet

Gracias. You would be one of the very few around here. Perhaps, even, the only one. Imagine that! you might be right about that...especially because most of us know the true reading of the signature is
'Until every woman, everywhere is able to easily access safe, legal, private, affordable murdering of her child, for whatever reason, at any time, on demand, without interference from outside parties and most importantly - without apology or shame.'

reply from: Shenanigans

She's a vegan.
She wasn't impressed.

reply from: Hidari

Sorry Hidari,Shenanigans is 100% right on this one...I might not get along with Shenanigans all the time, but uuuh, 'you got served' BIG TIME on this one...and if one could ever hear stuttering in a voice through typing...the time might be now, in YOUR typing...just from person to person Hidari, your response on here is stuttering littered jibba jabba....sorry....and i'm not attacking or trying to be mean. seriously.
I got served? really where? I have a very different viewpoint on sex and rape than shenanigans as we have bee discussing that. But I wasn't aware we were 'fighting'
In fact in this I don't think there can be a 'right' or wrong...especially 100%.
Unless of course you are saying there is no difference between rape and sex?
I'm sorry you don't like my writing style. I know I tend to be a bit wordy. It's a fault I will try to work on it. how about you try to work on your reading comprehension and originality because it seem to me the are a bit lacking....sorry....and im not attacking or trying to be mean.seriously.

reply from: Hidari

Infidelity is not a good thing, but the adulterous acts are "beautiful"?
All Tiger Woods' romps were "beatiful," correct?
Beauty can hurt a wife and children?
What is the obsession with Tiger woods? you've mentioned him specifically twice now.
Is the sex act beautiful between two consenting adults? yes. they shared pleasure and a connection. I wont speculate on how deep that connection is/was cause really it is irrelevant to anyone but them. He risked alot seeking that connection. was it worth it? I don't know I'm not him. Maybe both him and his family do think it was worth it because now they have to work on the problems within the marriage or end it. Maybe the act of in fidelity will bring them closer...or maybe it will tear them apart and give them a chance to move on and heal their emotional wounds( some of which I would believe came way before the cheating)
Was the fact that he lied, cheated and hurt is family through infidelity( not the sex act itself) beautiful? no it was not. But to me it was not the sex act itself that was wrong, but the lies, and hurt surrounding it.
let me ask you this if he and his wife had an open marriage( permission from the other spouse to sleep with people outside of the marriage) would you consider those sex acts ugly?

reply from: Hidari

hmmm breed banning is always such a silly thing. Bunch of reactionary people try to take an easy fix. but people that will abuse and misuse a dog will simply move on to another breed if you ban one. In BC the pitbull is slowing losing popularity...but drug dealers and other idiots have moved to keeping corso's, presa's and dogo's....lovely solution.
You had a huntaway? that's the one breed that managed to fool me on breed tests! I misidentified it as a cross....not a common breed in canada at all. in fact the only time I've ever seen one was in a petting zoo in Japan
I'm going to spend a few hours this afternoon reading through the links you gave me so I'll respond to your posts later. Thanks for such a civil discourse

reply from: BortSimpson

RE: "rape is sex"
I think it was Hidari who asked if a vaginal examination is "sex." In law, any non consensual vaginal (or anal) penetration is generally considered "rape." If a gyno inserted a finger in your vagina or anus without your consent, that would be rape/sexual assault in most, if not all states. If a someone inserted a suppository in your rectum without your consent, that would be rape/sexual assault.
So, if you give yourself an enema, insert a suppository, or in any way penetrate yourself anally or vaginally, is that "sex?" Is that masturbation?
I'm not convinced that "rape" has to involve sex or vice versa.
If I'm in a knife fight, stabbing blindly at a person who is trying to kill me, and I inadvertently stab that person in the anus, am I guilty of rape? Was that "sex" because I penetrated that person's anus? According to a strict reading of the law, it might indeed be argued to be "rape," but I'm not sure a reasonable person would conclude that I had sex with that person.
So, does rape = sex? Once more, I'm not convinced it does. It is an interesting question, and no doubt opinions will differ, but I'm certainly not alone in considering rape to be an act of violence but not necessarily a sexual act.

reply from: Shenanigans

When an individual is married, they have no right to seek sexual gratification outside their vows. Now, while adultery is dispicable enough, it is even more so in this situation given the amount of women he sought sex with and the fact he has children.
Adultery is so distructive, and given the response of his wife, I doubt they had an "open marriage".
This idea that Mr. Woods has some kind of "sex addiction" is a crock. He's simply a rich man with a lot of freedom and a mindset that he can get away with anything. The damage he's done might not be repairable.
Mrs. Woods would be a strong woman if she could forgive her husband for what he did. One woman, okay, maybe two, but the amount he shagged, porn stars and what not? Sure, I bet some of those women are just out for their 15 minutes, but really, its one great big debacle and in no way,shape or form, beautiful.
But hey, maybe they weren't "sexually compatible", wonder if they had sex before marriage, right?
This is the problem with your logic, hence why I'm butting in to this post, you say the sex act is beautiful, then the reality is, your logic demands that ALL sex acts are beautiful, regardless of the circumstances.
How can something beautiful cause so much pain and grief?
My father committed adultery, and it destoryed my mother. There were lies, absolutely, but it was the fact he f**ked some other woman that broke my mother's heart.
Something that causes so much pain cannot be beautiful. SOmethign that destorys marriages and breaks up families cannot be beautiful. A lot of people don't get the crotch ripped out of their undies when their spouse has conversations or hangs out with another individual of the opposite gender, spouses tend to get a bit riled when their partner has sex with another person.
So, then, how can a sex act be beautiful when it causes so much desolation?
The reality is, it can't, which means, not all sex acts are beautiful.

reply from: Shenanigans

They've moved on from trying to ban Rottis and are going after those pit bulls and various X's. Its kinda stink, because my friend has a pit bull X with a masta (sp?) and its the nicest dog you'd ever meet. He's not a very fluffy pooch, but he's a loyal chap and a great pig dog.
Its not the dog's fault its owner was a douche, sadly, its the dog who pays. And parents have to own a lot of the responsibilty, there was a huge fuss, and I mean HUGE fuss last year when some dog bit a kid's face off. Why did the dog bite the kid's face off? Because the kid was pulling on the dog's balls! And he'd been told by his uncle (who owned the dog) to stop, but the mum was like "Don't you tell my boy what to do", and the kid kept doing it, and he had a history of doing it, so at some point, he obviously tugged a bit too hard and the dog didn't like that. Then the mum was making out her son was the victim and the dog was out of control! Thankfully, there was a such a public outrage over the woman's whinges that the dog was spared death row. Although, it wasn't too good for the boy - who then ended up in his father's custody.
I also want an alsatian and a dobberman. Dogs are great! Especailly the big scary ones that have neat personalities.
As for our Huntaway X, she was a pound puppy, so we were never sure what the X was. My dad's friend who was a dog breeder thought it was maybe a lab because she was so friendly and approachable, damn loud though! Instead of that brown/tan covering Huntaways have, she had this nice greyish colouring.
They're not really kept as pets anyway, they were meant as working dogs - and we defintely saw that breeding in her when she was around the sheep, but she was such an approachable friendly dog, so much so that when the dog control officers picked her up after she went for a wander, they couldn't bring themselves to lock her up, they brought her back to us - hehe, we ended up on a first name basis with those guys.
THe only person who didn't like Sally was our hellishly surly matriarch cat, Tinker.

reply from: Shenanigans

I've covered this already, but maybe it was lost in the quagmire of semantics.
In medicine the vaginal or anal penetrations are medical exams and not covered under the premise of sexual assault.
However, if consent was not gained, or resindered, then they become "rape" or at the very least, sexual assault.
Yes, if someone inserted a supp. into your backside without explicit consent either the patient's or their power of attorney or without urgent medical need or reason, then yes, it is a form of sexual assault.
I've noticed this in a lot of people's responses to a lot of discussions, what is it about intention that people don't seem to understand?
If you shove a supp. up your backside because you're constipated, the purpose of that supp. isn't to gain sexual gratification, its to get your bowels going.
If your intent is to gain sexual pleasure from it (and its an odd way to do it, but who am I to judge, right?) then yes, its a form of masturbation.
It all boils down to intention that classes the action.
A doctor doing a pap smear is not raping the patient if the patient has given full consent. If the patient doesn't consent or rescinds consent then it is sexual assault and rape with an object.
The doctor either has the intention to [object] rape the patient, or he has the intention to medically assess the patient.
Rape doesn't have to involve sex, legally it can involve an object.
Again, intention.
In said knife fight, was it your intention to stab the guy up the arse? No.
If it was your intention to stab him up the backside, then yes, it is rape with an object.
I'll break this down.
Sex is a tool.
It can be used for good or for evil.
it can be used to give pleasure to yourself and to your partner.
Or it can be used for evil, to give pleasure to yourself through the violation of the other.
In a rape, sex is used as a tool to harm the victim. It can either be sex in the traditional sense or it can be sex with an object.
Rape is also a form, the most serious form actually, of sexual asault, but not all sexual assault is rape.
Its like how oranges are fruit, but not all fruits are oranges.

reply from: BortSimpson

But only if the assailant's intent was to get sexual gratification, right? If his intent was to hurt and degrade, control, intimidate, or anything other than sexual gratification, then it wasn't sex at all, by your own admission...
You say inserting a suppository against someones will is rape (and therefore "sex?", but inserting it yourself is not masturbation because your intent is not sexual gratification, right? What if sexual gratification was not your primary intent, but you still derived pleasure from the insertion? Think about that...
I don't think your assertion that "rape is sex" is as clear cut as you may have thought.

reply from: BortSimpson

In rape, would you say the rapist is having sex, but the victim is not? Because the victim is not doing it for sexual gratification? Because that is not her intent? Just because she has a penis in her vagina doesn't mean she's having sex? So why would it have to be "sex" for him? Just because his penis is in a vagina? No, you said it was about intent... Do you understand my point now?

reply from: BortSimpson

Perhaps, but in rape, I would say the penis is the tool, and it could be used with intent other than to gain sexual satisfaction. It wouldn't even necessarily have to be erect as long as it can still be inserted, and it wouldn't matter if the rapist got off or not, or even whether he enjoyed it, or intended to (sexually as opposed to psychologically, since we must assume he expects some form of gratification, just not necessarily sexual gratification).
I disagree. The penis or the object that is inserted is the "tool." The rape is not necessarily "sex."

reply from: Shenanigans

But only if the assailant's intent was to get sexual gratification, right? If his intent was to hurt and degrade, control, intimidate, or anything other than sexual gratification, then it wasn't sex at all, by your own admission...
Please explain to me what your problem is, you don't seem to be able to understand things, or you are purposefully taking my statements out of context. I want to help you understand. What about multiple posts about multiple topics is hurting your brains?
Let me attempt to clear things up for you, please try and pay attention, and if you feel the need to take things out of context, please post what it is that is driving you to do so:
The comment about intention was directed at the situation of a doctor performing a medical exam or an individual inserting their supps. It was NOT directed at the rape situation.
Rape: Is legally defined as a force of sexual intercourse, either with in the traditional sense of sexual congress, or with an object. The intention of rape can range from the rapist's desire to gain sexual gratification, or an intention to humiliate or subjugate the victim. The intentions of the rapist's can vary, and are too lenghty for me to construct a exhaustive list.
What makes it rape is the refusal by the victim of the sexual interaction the rapist is forcing on them.
So, if a person says no to the sex act, and the rapists forces the sex act on the victim, then it has become rape.
Now, if a doctor says to a lady "I need to do a pelvic exam as part of your routiene care, or because I suspect cervical cancer", and it is medically acceptable for the doctor to do the exam, and the woman consents, then it is not rape.
If however, the doctor knows the woman does not need a pelvic exam or he is lying to her, and he knows damn well he doesn't suspect cervical cancer then he has illicted consent under false pretenses, thus, making it sexual assault/rape.
If the woman decides she doesn't want the exam, or she wants a second opinion, and she says no, and he forces her, then it is rape.
Do you grasp this concept?
That intention is quite moot for the average rapist as he's going to get sex/power/his jollies from the victim against their will.
That intention is required for a medical exam to go from being a medical exam to being rape.
That intention is required for self adminstration of supps to go from being for a medicinal assistance to a mastubatory aide.
You really are an interesting person.
Again, you have not only taken my comments out of context, you seem to added to them for your own gain.
Think about that, and come back with your semantical squiggles when you can grasp these concepts without taking me out of context.
Again, you are taking my statements out of context.
Come back later when you learn not to do this, its worse then burning a strawman.

reply from: Shenanigans

Explain to me, if you wouldn't mind, where it is you picked up this nasty habit of taking things out of context?
I really didn't think I was going to have to explain this so simply and in such detail as its lengthy and I always give people the benefit of the doubt in regards to their comprehension.
So, please, please try to keep up, but let me know if you can't.
Rape:
Rape is, as I have said over and over, is legally defined as an act of sexual penetration either in the tradiational sense or with an object.
Rape utilises sex as a tool for which to demean, harm and whatever emotional or physical distress that gets the rapists "off".
The other thing that I wasn't going to bring in, because I really did think you guys would accept this as standard, is consent.
If you refuse consent to sex with someone, and that someone has sex with you anyway, that is rape.
So, that is another variable to the concept of rape.
Now, is the victim having sex when they are raped?
Of course they're having sex, sex is defined as, a man inserting his penis into the woman's vagina. (Or as above, the legal definition of object rape).
I'm talking about the physics of sex. I'm not talking about all the pink, girly feelings and rose pedals on white bed spreads. I'm talking about sex as a biological interaction with another, which results in biological responses.
Does the fact the victim is physically having sex limit her innocence in this matter?
Of course not, she is a victim, nothing she has done justifies her rape. The fact that she is involved in a sexual act does not put added guilt on her. Her intention is not to be raped. But it is happening, which is the point of rape. A sexual interaction is being forced on her.
If someone murders you, does that mean you intended to be murdered because someone murdered you? Of course not. That's utter stupidity.
So, what does all this mean:
Rape is a sexual act forced on another.
Rape is intended by one, and not the other, hence the term "rape".
Rape is where one forces and one refuses consent.
Rape involves sex either in the traditional sense or with an object.
The victim is technically "having sex" when she is raped.
The technical nature of the sexual act of rape does not in any way, mean the victim intended the sex act to take place - hence why its rape!
If I smashed your brains in with a hammer, just because your brains end up smashed in, does not mean you intended for me to smash, or your brains to be, smashed in? Do you understand?
With regards to supps.
If the intention at adminstration of supps is to gain sexual gratification from such administration, well, that's strange, but it is classes as a mastubatory action.
If the intention at administration of supps is to warrent a bowel movement (or other medicinal purpose) then it is NOT an act to gain sexual gratification.
If at the onset of adminstration of supps is to warrent a bowel motion, but the individual gains from it sexual pleasure of some description, the initial intention is what stands, the subsquent gain of sexual pleasure was simply a biological reaction that the individual did not forsee and did not orginally desire. If they got their jollies from it, well, meh.
There have been murder cases where the intention was to harm the person, not kill them. Say an individual shot his boss and he only intended to hurt his boss, say, by shooting in the leg, so the boss couldn't play golf. But instead, the boss bled to death because the shooter nailed the femoral. (but then of course you get a whole list of variables thrown around by the prosecutor along the lines of "well, you'd have to be an idiot not to think you could kill the person by shooting them in the leg, as there is the risk of striking the femoral... but yeah, that's the role of the prosecutor, to convince the jury that the orginal intention was nastier then what the person actually intended).
In these cases, usually its the primary intention that wins out. Any subsequent mental reaction is moot. Its the first intention that is the most important.
The long and short of it, and I'll bold it up for you:
If the guy puts his penis [or object] into the girl's vagina its sex. If the girl doesn't want the guy's penis in her vagina its rape. This sort of interaction is still sex. Sex is the insertion of the man's penis into the woman's vagina. ERGO all rape is sex but not all sex is rape [insert the same stuff about objects, legalities, consent, et al].

reply from: Shenanigans

Perhaps, but in rape, I would say the penis is the tool, and it could be used with intent other than to gain sexual satisfaction. It wouldn't even necessarily have to be erect as long as it can still be inserted, and it wouldn't matter if the rapist got off or not, or even whether he enjoyed it, or intended to (sexually as opposed to psychologically, since we must assume he expects some form of gratification, just not necessarily sexual gratification).
I disagree. The penis or the object that is inserted is the "tool." The rape is not necessarily "sex."
Here's how it works, if there's a penis in a vagina, its sex.
No ifs, buts or maybes about it.
Go look it up in a biology text book.

reply from: B0zo

Both sides of this discussion are making perfect sense to me.
I'm sooooo confused.

reply from: Shenanigans

You understand the other side of the coin?
Then can you explain, since no one else has so far, why it is, that something that is technically sex is not sex when it is rape?
All the biology books (and God knows I have a few) say penis in vagina = sex. No mention of pink flowers and girly feelings and bonding and beauty. Just cold, hard facts.
Why are cold, hard, biological facts being...
Oh wait, I'm in a discussion with pro-choicers, never mind.

reply from: BortSimpson

This has been explained in detail, and it was even shown to be true according to precepts that you clearly accepted, despite apparently getting all butthurt and going on a long rant where you really just repeated the same assertions that have already been addressed in what amounts to a game of internet "no, u."

reply from: BortSimpson

Oh, and the argument is not that "something that is technically sex is not sex when it is rape," it's that intent determines whether it is sex. Odd that you wouldn't get that, since you were the one who originally worded it so concisely!

reply from: BortSimpson

It's priceless that you got so excited about it though...

reply from: B0zo

You understand the other side of the coin?
Then can you explain, since no one else has so far, why it is, that something that is technically sex is not sex when it is rape?
All the biology books (and God knows I have a few) say penis in vagina = sex. No mention of pink flowers and girly feelings and bonding and beauty. Just cold, hard facts.
Why are cold, hard, biological facts being...
Oh wait, I'm in a discussion with pro-choicers, never mind.
I don't know if I understand it--just that it makes sense, but so does what you are saying.
Maybe it's just semantics.

reply from: Shenanigans

No it hasn't.
You people ascertain that rape is not sex.
Biologically it is.
Explain to me why something that is technically sex is not sex.
And yeah, my butt does hurt, cos I've been sitting on the floor for a few hours.

reply from: Shenanigans

I'm all about other people's amusement! ^_^

reply from: Shenanigans

One of my many talents is making EVERYTHING about semantics!!

reply from: Shenanigans

Again, with the taking out of context thing.
Intent cannot determine whether something is physically something.
Intent is a component.
If you have a cake, all your intention in the world won't make it a pie.

reply from: B0zo

One of my many talents is making EVERYTHING about semantics!!
I think the problem is in how each of you are defining sex.
They are seeing "consent" as part of the definition and you are not.
I would say you are both right in your own way.
There are no winners or losers this time.
Nobody gets a prize.

reply from: BortSimpson

No it hasn't.
You people ascertain that rape is not sex.
Biologically it is.
Explain to me why something that is technically sex is not sex.
And yeah, my butt does hurt, cos I've been sitting on the floor for a few hours.
How about this?
But if it was consensual, it wasn't sex. right? Based on intent? It's only "sex" if the intent was to get sexual gratification, right?
So what part of this do you not understand? (after explaining it soooo well?)

reply from: B0zo

How is she not?
She is seeing the victim as having sex against her will, but still having sex.
(I think).

reply from: B0zo

How is she not?
She is seeing the victim as having sex against her will, but still having sex.
(I think).

reply from: BortSimpson

How is she not?
She is seeing the victim as having sex against her will, but still having sex.
(I think).
Did you miss her speech about intent?

reply from: Shenanigans

"...then yes, it is a form of sexual assault"
See the difference?
Read above.
You're taking things I've said out of context, it is you who don't seem to understand - evidenced by the fact you're taking out of context.
Oranges and fruit, bort, oranges and fruit.

reply from: Shenanigans

How is she not?
She is seeing the victim as having sex against her will, but still having sex.
(I think).
Yip.

reply from: Shenanigans

Something can be made of many different variables.
You can't make a cake with just flour, no matter what your intention is.
If you don't have intention, but have flour, eggs, milk, butter, sugar, baking powder, coco, those things aren't magically going to morph into a cake.

reply from: BortSimpson

If it's not "sex" if consensual, how can it be "sexual assault" if non consensual? Wouldn't it just be regular assault?
No, I'm afraid I don't see any "difference" here that would negate your arguments regarding "intent" determining a sexual connotation. I think your argument was spot on in that respect, but only have a problem with the ensuing contradiction where you refuse to apply the same reasoning when the "tool" is a penis.

reply from: newfag

ITT:
Much ado about nothing really important and very much stating of what should be obvious. That's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

reply from: B0zo

I'm in agreement with you on this one.
You really should have taken me up on my "knock knock" joke instead, but I'll give you a rain check if you like.

reply from: SkipperEd

"Abstinence is good and safe"
"Abstinence is not bad"
This is so true! Just think if nobody ever had sex. Then there would never be a unwanted pregnantsy or abortion, a STD or any bad stuff that happens from having sex. We should just outlaw sex then we would avoid all that stuff. Blowing up the world would work to or killing all the people some other way or any way that would make us die off. You know why to its because even if only married people have sex there would still be pregnantsy and sometimes they would be unwanted. And some of the woman that have unwanted pregnatsy would want to abort because even married women gets abortions sometimes. And where does STD come from because somebody got to get it first don't they? If everybody had to catch it from somebody else where did the first person get it from anser me that one if you can.

reply from: Shenanigans

If it's not "sex" if consensual, how can it be "sexual assault" if non consensual? Wouldn't it just be regular assault?
No, I'm afraid I don't see any "difference" here that would negate your arguments regarding "intent" determining a sexual connotation. I think your argument was spot on in that respect, but only have a problem with the ensuing contradiction where you refuse to apply the same reasoning when the "tool" is a penis.
I just had a brain fart and think I"ve figured out what the problem in interpretation is.
You brought up the example of the non-consenting patient to compare with rape.
I expressed that in the case of the non-consenting patient or the supps adminstration what makes it a case of sexual assault is the intention.
The difference between that and rape, is in rape the only variable needed to make it rape is the lack of consent of one of the parties.
A pelvic floor exam is medically not intended to be somethign one derives sexual pleasure from, which is where intent comes in.
Rape is rape because of non-consent.
A medical exam or supp. adminstration's primary role is not to gain sexual pleasure. It becomes sexual assault if the patient is coerced, does not consent, or the doctor intends it to be a form of sexual assault.
There was a case in NZL a few years ago about a virgin who was coerced into a pelvic exam by her doctor. Virgins should not have pap smears, especially 18 year old virgins. She didn't know any better, and so put up with the exam. When the doctor got stung for something similar, this woman came forward and described how this doctor rubbed a certain part of her anatomy, inserted the spectulum multiple times in a "sex" like fashion et al. Only then did she realise upon discussion with the investigators that she had been sexually assaulted.
You've provided the example of the supp adminstration or the assault on the patient, and I've expressed to you what makes those sexual assault or what not, is firstly lack of consent and secondly intention.
What makes rape rape, is lack of consent. Intention is moot.
You're trying to compare apples and oranges, they're both fruit, but no amount of red paint is going to make an orange an apple.

reply from: Shenanigans

What would you have done with it?

reply from: sweet

If it's not "sex" if consensual, how can it be "sexual assault" if non consensual? Wouldn't it just be regular assault?
No, I'm afraid I don't see any "difference" here that would negate your arguments regarding "intent" determining a sexual connotation. I think your argument was spot on in that respect, but only have a problem with the ensuing contradiction where you refuse to apply the same reasoning when the "tool" is a penis.
I just had a brain fart and think I"ve figured out what the problem in interpretation is.
You brought up the example of the non-consenting patient to compare with rape.
I expressed that in the case of the non-consenting patient or the supps adminstration what makes it a case of sexual assault is the intention.
The difference between that and rape, is in rape the only variable needed to make it rape is the lack of consent of one of the parties.
A pelvic floor exam is medically not intended to be somethign one derives sexual pleasure from, which is where intent comes in.
Rape is rape because of non-consent.
A medical exam or supp. adminstration's primary role is not to gain sexual pleasure. It becomes sexual assault if the patient is coerced, does not consent, or the doctor intends it to be a form of sexual assault.
There was a case in NZL a few years ago about a virgin who was coerced into a pelvic exam by her doctor. Virgins should not have pap smears, especially 18 year old virgins. She didn't know any better, and so put up with the exam. When the doctor got stung for something similar, this woman came forward and described how this doctor rubbed a certain part of her anatomy, inserted the spectulum multiple times in a "sex" like fashion et al. Only then did she realise upon discussion with the investigators that she had been sexually assaulted.
You've provided the example of the supp adminstration or the assault on the patient, and I've expressed to you what makes those sexual assault or what not, is firstly lack of consent and secondly intention.
What makes rape rape, is lack of consent. Intention is moot.
You're trying to compare apples and oranges, they're both fruit, but no amount of red paint is going to make an orange an apple.In staying on topic...i actually like apples better...actually, if the paint is food coloring, it might help the orange...just saying.

reply from: Shenanigans

You know, its really hard to find good apples these day. Mainly because all our good stuff is exported to American and overseas markets. We get left with all the sh1t.

reply from: EpicFailguy

Good point. Kiwis are sofa king retarded, amirite?

reply from: sweet

"Abstinence is good and safe"
"Abstinence is not bad"

reply from: Shenanigans

Good point. Kiwis are sofa king retarded, amirite?
Well, I'm currently sitting on the floor, but I do know to which you're referring. Probably.
Although, there's an ad campaign at current that apparently some BK "King" is coming.
That and Deritos. I assume its some sort of chip crafted from corn powder and sprinkled with dehydrated cheese flavoured yellow powder?

reply from: Rosalie

I sure as hell am not, never have been and never will be required to provide sex to my husband. He's not a sick, rapist pig in order to demand sex when I don't want to. If you use sex to control your husband, then you've landed yourself a pitiful, dysfunctional relationship and you should get help.
I would never submit to any male and I wouldn't want any male, least of all my husband, to submit to me. It's humiliating and degrading and it doesn't belong into a healthy relationship.
I will do my best to make sure that the girls AND boys I'll raise will feel as repulsed at beliefs like yours. I sincerely hope that no children of mine will ever feel like they have to submit to their significant other.
Yeah, blame the rebellious whores!
You're sick.
I neither believe in nor care about your god. Therefore what your mythical creature wants is irrelevant.
I think it's a good thing if they DO have sex before marriage, men and women alike.

reply from: Rosalie

You have no idea how much I pity you.

reply from: sk1bianca

so should a woman be allowed to force her husband to be abstinent? of course, just to prove he's not staying with her for sex...
isn't that a form of forcing him into submission by denying the satisfaction of a biological need?

reply from: Rosalie

I disagree. I think it's potentially harmful and degrading.
Yes. And none of what you have stated here has anything to do with whether they have sex before marriage or not.
I disagree completely. To have sex before marriage doesn't mean you've lost self-control. First of all, your opinion presumes the notion that everyone wants to get married, which is simply not the truth. Second, it is possible to love more than one person in a lifetime and there's nothing wrong with having several relationship which include the sexual element. It's a part of life, it's nothing shameful or wrong.
Where did this even came from? It has absolutely no logical foundation whatsoever.
I respect my husband for many things and I couldn't care less about his sex life before I came along. It has nothing to do with respect. You saying it does basically supports my previous statement about how harmful and degrading the virginity myth is - because to say that to have sex with someone means that you're disrespecting your potential future spouse is illogical and asinine.
As for the other part of your post: marital sex can cause exactly the same problems as premarital sex.
Fidelity to what? To a hazy image of a future maybe husband/wife you haven't even met yet?
I don't believe in being faithful to an imaginary future spouse (and honestly, it's mind boggling to me that anyone would). I believe in being faithful to the person who's in your life at the moment and who you want to be there forever.

reply from: Rosalie

You realize that by saying that a woman should have sex with her husband whether she wants or not you're advocating rape, right?
You just reached a new low... and that's sayin something.

reply from: Rosalie

Sorry it took me so long to get to you. Real life is very busy these days.
It's not a leap at all. First of all, what makes you believe that you are somehow entitled to pass judgment on other people's sexual lives? Is that your religion? Because if so, it's a pretty weak reason to do that.
By saying that people should wait for their husband/wife/life-long partner you are basically saying that there's something wrong with having sexual relations with other people, even if the spouse/life-long partner is not even in the picture. I cannot accept that conclusion, because I think it's demeaning and wrong.
Not to mention that there's no way to say your husband/wife/life-long partner will remain your life-long companion, but that's yet another thing.
But that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that everyone should do what they feel is best for them and ideally not be judged by others for it. I do NOT care if anyone decides to wait until marriage, just like I don't care if anyone decides to have multiple partners; I do not believe that one is better than the other, I don't believe that one is more respectful of themselves and their future partner(s) than the other - unlike you and other people on this forum.
Yes, I do realize that. And generally, I think people should learn to live with their regrets. I believe that they should, at all times, be able to make their own choices. Every healthy adult should be aware that every single choice will necessarily have consequences and none of us can see all ends - perhaps it will turn out right, perhaps not. We take those risks every single day. And if you end up doing something you regret, you should always make sure that you don't hurt others - and if you did, make it up to them and then move on.
It's not easy, it's NEVER easy, but such is life. And usually, when you look back, what seemed so bleak and desperate a couple months or years ago doesn't seem all that bad now.
THIS IS LIFE. This is how it's supposed to be. Good choices, bad choices, consequences... to learn to deal with them is one of the things we all have to learn. Preventing others from making choices YOU think might prove harmful for them (while you base your opinion on your religion or other personal beliefs) is wrong.
Honestly, I think it's sad that it is a new idea to you. But I'm not very surprised. Maybe you need to listen to other people more. You could learn a lot.
Just the fact that you call having more than one sexual partner promiscuous gives away how distorted your view is. It is NOT promiscuous to have sex with someone you fancy, even if you are not married to that person.
Nope, not at all - as long as it's been your choice. Do YOU feel as though it's been a failure? Do YOU regret it?
When it comes to you, it's YOUR feelings that matter, not anyone else's. I do not think, however, that you should base your opinion solely on your experience and your feelings on that matter. It is close-minded to think that the way you chose to do things is the only good way to do it.
Good for you. I'm about to have my second child so I understand how it all works, too. And yet my opinions remain so much different from yours.
And you know what? I think it's great. One of the things I had to learn to do my job efficiently was that just because things work one way for me doesn't mean they'll work the same way for other people. I just wish more people were aware of that - because many say they are but when it comes to it, they don't behave like they understand the concept at all.
Yes, but what you have to understand that this is your private, personal thing. Why do people think that their way to do things is the only right and good way? There is not only one good way to raise children, there is not only one good and proper way to go about having a relationship, there's not only one good way to do anything. There are different ways because people are different, because situations are different and because we are humans and we need choices that we can make, and that's what makes us different from animals.

reply from: Rosalie

No one "needs" to be taught that, as far as I'm concerned.
For me it is important to learn about most aspects of the person I'm seeing BEFORE I agree to live with them/marry them. Not afterwards. That's too late. That's why I strongly believe in premarital sex, in living together before marriage (full-time, spending weekends together don't count) etc.
I guess that depends on how much you care for the other person. It can be a gratifying experience to show the less experienced person the wonders of good sex.
Oh come on, it's different. A non-smoker can teach you about harms of smoking but he can't tell you what it feels like when you're out of breath right after you start running or how even after a shower others can smell the cigs off you. Theory is one thing, real life experience is another. Sometimes, theory is enough. Sometimes it is not.
Or are you trying to tell me that someone who's never had an orgasm in their life can tell others what it feels like?

reply from: Rosalie

Rosalie did.
I'm disappointed in you. I did not say that you are evil or wrong if you wait. I said that if you say that waiting until marriage is the only way you can keep yourself valuable for your future spouse or that having sex before you've even met someone you feel like you want to spend the rest of your life with means you don't respect yourself or him/her, then you are is wrong.
Please don't twist my words. If you don't understand what I'm saying, just ask. But don't lie about what I said or didn't say.

reply from: Rosalie

Generally, anyone who refers to consentual premarital sex as 'whoring around' has some sort of issues. I don't know you personally, I don't know what your issues are, but you're being incredibly brash, close-minded and bigoted saying that having premarital sex = whoring around. Maybe you just don't understand it, but that's no excuse for what you have just said.

reply from: Rosalie

Rosalie did.
Quotes or it didn't happen.
LOL. It didn't happen. I said that saying that it is wrong to say that waiting until marriage is the only way you can keep yourself valuable to your future spouse or that by having premarital sex you are disrespecting yourself and your potential future spouse.
Gracias. You would be one of the very few around here. Perhaps, even, the only one. Imagine that!
love your signature, too. If you have a fanclub, count me in.

reply from: Shenanigans

The problem with "getting to know" a person by co-habitation or through pre-martial sex is instead of building a stronger relationship with the person, you're busy looking for their faults.
Marriage and life long committement isn't about complying a list of faults about your spouse or partner, its about knowing the faults but loving them regardless.
If you love someone enough that you want to live with them, you should marry them, because really, co-habitation is only really meant for one thing, to determine what aspects of the person you can nit pick at.
Marriage isn't easy, its not a walk in the park, its a journey where you work together as a team, you love each other regardless of any fault.

reply from: B0zo

Rosalie did.
I'm disappointed in you. I did not say that you are evil or wrong if you wait. I said that if you say that waiting until marriage is the only way you can keep yourself valuable for your future spouse or that having sex before you've even met someone you feel like you want to spend the rest of your life with means you don't respect yourself or him/her, then you are is wrong.
Please don't twist my words. If you don't understand what I'm saying, just ask. But don't lie about what I said or didn't say.
My apologies.
Until I read your responses to my post, I thought that's what you meant.
I wouldn't presume to tell you how you should live your life or what you should believe--just sharing my beliefs, which I thought you were criticizing. You did say it was "demeaning" or "degrading" to teach sexual purity until marriage. Why be so critical of what someone does with their own beliefs within their own family?
I don't get how that is "demeaning."

reply from: Shenanigans

Because.........?
I don't presume everyone wants to get married. I'm just saying people shouldn't have sex outside of marriage.
I'm not saying its shameful to love different people, I'm denouncing the sexual ramifications that come with pre-martial sex.
I bet you'd care a whole lot if he had 10 kids out there, or if he had a raging case of herpes.
And you're welcome to view my opinions as asinine if it makes you feel better about your own views of sex.
Really, though, what's worse the "virginity myth", or the "have all the sex you want and to hell with anyone else" mentality?
If marital sex is within a marriage that was rushed into and not thought out.
Marriage isn't like going to McD's and choosing what burger you want, there's a lot more thought that needs to go into the process.
Yeah.
You don't have to like it.
You think its mind boggling because you can't comphrehend that other people have differen't opinions that are radically different to your's, and it seems to me, you don't like that a great deal.

reply from: sk1bianca

why would a woman marry a man she DOESN'T WANT to have sex with?!?! (i'm not talking about forced marriages. those are evil)
marriage is something sacred, something you do with someone special, with someone you want to spend your life with. sex is a NORMAL part of it. that doesn't change just because some people abuse marriage and use it for selfish purposes.
and you haven't answered my question: should a woman be allowed to force her husband to be abstinent? (when i say "abstinent", i mean no sex at all) should she be upset if he has sex with someone else?

reply from: CaptainJamesTKirk

I'm down with that!
cough*whore*cough

reply from: Hidari

Sorry about the late reply shenanigans, I got some good news on Friday and decided to go into the city with my friends since it was a long weekend.
Anyway I read through the sites you provided. Yes I will have to comment that none of them look to come from peer reviewed academic sources , which makes them suspect to me. Also, in the second one I read on revelife(Christian site) the most recent studies they cited was 1998 with most falling in the 1984-88 range.
I googled many of the authors cited In first article Is Premarital Sex Worth It? on , marriageRomance.com, and found them to be writing for places like focus on the family. A decidedly biased group. In fact 4 of the cited authors came from this online research site troubledwith.com which is a focus on the family site. Why so many from the same source group? If these are true results why are there not numerous peer reviewed studies easily found?
The article cites these authors quoting 'research'...but never gives the source research..why is that?
The majority of the statement and assertions I read are Christian based moral assumptions, with no supporting evidence. For example( my responses in bold)
"Your virginity is the most precious thing you have to give to your spouse. Once you lose it, nothing in the world can bring it back. Don't lose something so precious in a thoughtless way."(Hanna)
My virginity is the most precious thing about me huh? Guess as a rape survivor I was screwed from the get go. My personality, thoughts, partnership and all other aspects of me are so much less important than a hymen.
Do you really want your future spouse to have tried "finding a compatible partner" by having many different sex partners?
Yes. I do. If you don't then don't marry someone with sexual experience. Simple solution but don't tell me my morals are lacking and I won't judge you as sexually naive in return how's that sound?
Also, "If one gives in to moral temptation before marriage, what's to stop him or her from giving in to moral temptation once married?"(Why)
Having sex with a partner before you are married does not equal infidelity in marriage. Especially if having sex before marriage is not against your moral code but infidelity is.
A major problem of premarital sex that often leads to divorce is one will always be comparing his or her partner's or partners' sex in the past to his or her spouse's sex and his or her spouse will always be worried about performing their sex as good as the last partner's or partners'. "Suppose you are sexually active, and do not find the love of your life, and they are your soulmate, but they are not the best sex you've ever had. If you had nothing to compare them to, they would be the best sex you've ever had because they would be the only sex you've ever had."(Benefits)
where is the proof that this often leads to divorce? So basically what they're saying is the old " lay back and think of England" routine. Yeah sorry your sex life might suck....But if it does you won't know any better anyway so its fine!
In the article
Divorce Rates are Twice as High for Women Who are Serial Cohabiters the study asserts that : divorce rates are twice as high for women who cohabited only with their eventual husbands.
But in this article http://www.ncfr.org/pdf/press_releases/PRESS%20RELEAS2.pdf
The very first sentence is
"Premarital sex and cohabitation, if limited to the future husband, do not increase the risk of divorce for women, according to new research by Jay Teachman, sociologist,
at Western Washington University."
So which is it? Seems a bit contradictory to me. Both source articles were published by the same journal the; Journal of marriage and family.
I could go on but really I think you get the point that I consider these studies, biased, outdated and simply contradictory.
I'd also like to point out that divorce is not the same taboo that it once was. Marriage is no longer just a religious binding and when a couple is unhappy in their marriage they do not simply have to endure because of religious and social shame. Perhaps the same is said for sex. If one knows that they can divorce an unhappy, unsatisfying marriage and find another partner( as there is less and less taboo regarding marrying a divorcee) then why stay in an unhappy or sexually unsatisfying union that shows no signs of improving? I don't see this as a problem to be frank. I think the fact that people can leave an unhappy union is a good thing. I agree that it can be difficult for any children involved, but then so can growing up in a household where there is infidelity, fighting, and discord among the parents who stay together "for the children" So were kind of arguing circles here because I really don't see divorce as the horrible thing you do.
if you do I'd be interested in reading it.

reply from: Hidari

I assume you refer to the MarriageRomance article which site only 1 study based on statical date from 1979-87?
from the article
Dr. Jan Stats of Washington State University, one of the most noted researchers on the issue of cohabitation found evidence 'that aggression is at least twice as common among cohabiters as it is among married partners."(Psychological) "A survey conducted by the U.S. Justice Department shows that of all crimes against women by their relatives or intimate partners between 1979 and 1987, about 65 percent were committed by either a boyfriend or ex-husband, while only 9 percent were committed by husbands." (Psychological)
you'd think that with all the research into domestic violence there would be more evidence then one survey conducted but the justice department almost 25 years ago.

reply from: Hidari

I'm olnly going to quote this small part of you post but I completely agree. I see no reason to be absitnate waiting for some fairy tale partner to come along. I also don't believe in a 'one true love" you can love many people in your life and sometimes that love will fade, and you wish to decouple/divorce/ whatever. sometimes it will grow and you will stay together for the rest of your lives.
And despite what shenanigans claims cohabitation before marriage is not about finding faults in a partner, but loving the one you are with. yes sometimes you will break up. But there is no perfect path to marital success. for every 50yr+ successful marriage where the partners were virgins before marriage, anecdote you find I'm sure I can find a 50yr + marriage where the partners were not virgins before marriage and succeeded. My great aunt and uncle have been married 47 years. she had a child out of wedlock before they ever met. doesn't seem to have been a case of doomed to fail.
Or a marriage where two virgins marry and divorce before the year is out. My best friend married her boyfriend (both virgins) at 25 and they were divorced within the year.

reply from: Shenanigans

Yeah, nah, ay, no worries.
Yeah, its a pain in the arse, I've spent a lot of time searching for studies, and its been tough. I mean, the reality is without a strongly secular based research, most people won't take it seriously. But I'd wager, even with a secular based research people would still nit pick. Like the pro-abortion professor who found that abortion increases mental health risks, and a follow up study backed it up. But still, the pro-abortion crowd don't take it seriously.
Anyway, I found a few others, but I'm sure you'll say the same in regards to lack of peer review or biased sources.
http://www.chastity.com/chastity-qa/dating/shacking-up/why-are-divorce-rates-so-high

Source at the bottom from 2004, so at least a little more recent.
There's a few other sources throughout the Q&A section if you wish to read through at your lesiure, but you'd probably just think them all biased.
Of course, with research into such subjects, there's always going to be a bias. I mean, if you posted an Unplanned Parenthood study saying staying a virgin was deteremential, that'd sure as heck be a bias.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of studies on this subject regardless. And those that exist have some form of bias either way.
According to the Catholic church, individuals who loose their virginity through rape are still considered virgins.
Doesn't really worry me how you judge me. And I am sexually naive, and that's just fine and dandy with me. Though, I do think its a dangerous road to traverse indeed to be so allowing of a partner who's sexual experience is... how shall we say... "excessive".
I proved the "rule of three" with one of my former male flat mates, when he told me he told his brother he had slept with only 48 girls. I said, flippantly, that I bet it was closer to 150. He was suprised I had hit so close to the mark. The real number is 152.
He took great pride in the fact that he'd taken four different girls to the same abortion clinic in the same day, and all without any of them seeing each other. He had caught and spread numerous STDs and was, quite frankly, an absolute pig, telling me stories about locking one of his naked conquests outside after sex, yelling "should of saved yourself for marriage, huh, *****?"
But then I'd see him "woo" the ladies he'd meet about the place and he looked a real gentleman.
Of course, some men are just pigs regardless of their sexual activities. But I'd rather be with a jerk virgin than a guy like my flatmate.
Well, depending of course on if you acknowledge said "biased" statistics, its one of the factors in divorce rates.
But, I do have to wonder, if there's such an pro-sex before marriage mindset out there, you'd think someone would have done further studies in an effort to refrute these claims made by the other above mentioned studies. I mean, just because something is old, doesn't mean its wrong, I mean, Newton's theory of gravity still stands... ah... drops.
Well, what if you did find your soul mate? What if he was everything you could have ever hoped for, who adored you above all others? But he was lousy in the sack?
Would you leave him?
If you do, what does that say about your priorities?
I once met a girl, a staunch pro-abortion feminist, who'd embarrass the likes of Queen and Rosalie, who came to me for advice. She wanted to know how to get her boyfriend to stop hitting her. I told her the same as her other friends. Leave the bastard. But she wouldn't, why? He was the best sex she'd ever had. She couldn't bring herself to leave the guy who beat her, demeaned her and basically treated her like sh1t because he was such a good lay. She'd met him through her fiancee, who was her "soul mate", she had a shag on the side with this abusive fella, and left her fiancee for the guy who put her in the hospital a few times.
All that pain for good sex?
I'm not saying all good sex has one partner wailing on the other, I'm just saying there's a certain twisted mentality out there that is leaving people to suffer for a few minutes of nakedness in a bed with someone.
Well, unless someone gets off their ring and does a really good sizable study, then we're not going to get anythign really solid to go on. It usually just boils down to a few outdated studies and what we see in society.
That's not neccesarily a good thing.
I mean, really, marriage is a relationship that isn't all flowers and pink floral dresses. Its hard work. The fact marriage is so easy to get out of just shows our society is truly stuck on the "me, me, MEEEEE!!!" mentality. Gone are the days where people consider others.
I'm no fan of divorce for the sake of divorce, but when its a marriage where there's physical abuse, or just general horrific behaviour on part of one of the spouses, it should be considered.
But people need to really work on their marriages instead of jsut going for this 'oh well, smell you later" and move on to the next thing.
if you do I'd be interested in reading it.
I'd be interested in finding it, I've been looking for years! I saw it in 1999 on a physical piece of paper my cousin's then fiancee had. She was in one of those groups that go to Africa and discuss the value of abstience.
To be honest, and this is the cynical part of me, it was probably a biased load of crap. Mind you, my cousin's then fiancee did say the programme had a very high success rate.

reply from: speck

The problem with "getting to know" a person by co-habitation or through pre-martial sex is instead of building a stronger relationship with the person, you're busy looking for their faults.
Marriage and life long committement isn't about complying a list of faults about your spouse or partner, its about knowing the faults but loving them regardless.
If you love someone enough that you want to live with them, you should marry them, because really, co-habitation is only really meant for one thing, to determine what aspects of the person you can nit pick at.
Marriage isn't easy, its not a walk in the park, its a journey where you work together as a team, you love each other regardless of any fault.
Am I reading this right? Ignore your partners faults and only focus on the good?
Are you aware that this is how MANY women end up in abusive relationships?
If I am to be married, I want/need to know ALL of my partners faults and he to know mine before I make a choice to say I do or I don't.
How can you be building a strong relationship if it is based on falsehoods? Just because someone does not lie about something does not mean that withholding truths is not as equally detrimental to a relationship.
When starting a relationship it normally starts at the "honeymoon period". Where both people fluff their feathers and primp themselves and put the best foot forward.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you are saying that this is all one should focus on; the best. So when you say "I do", and realize the bad you cannot live with you are now judged for not being mature and thinking things through and getting to REALLY know someone and how compatible you are with them.
You are faced with being miserable with a man/woman you cannot stand, chances are with kids who have a miserable mom and dad which destroys children or you get a divorce which can also destroy children.

reply from: Hidari

That would be bias and I'm sure you would point it out. I don't envy you trying to find stats and article to back up you beliefs and arguments because not only are they un popular in today's society, they tend to be very difficult to prove/disprove conclusively.
However the article I cited regarding sexual dysfunction in those who remain abstinent quotes a peer review journal and a university based study and an AIDs study center. Both of whom we can assume likely have no ulterior religious motive to promote or discourage any particular behavior based on a previously held religious belief.
when I get the time I'm going to track down the actual article and have a read through it.
I was raised catholic so I'm well aware of dogmatic dancing. Not that I disagree morally speaking for those that practice the faith and such things are important to their happiness, but if your going to assert to me that all sex can't be beautiful because rape is( biologically speaking) a sex act. Then( biologically speaking ) after one has sex for the first time, consensual or not, they are no longer a virgin. right?
sorry I just want to be clear that I'm not judging you or your beliefs. just debating and trying to see your viewpoint.
See that's the difference. I wouldn't marry or date a man like your flatmate OR a jerk virgin. To me it's not the amount of sex or partners you've had but WHO you are that's important to me. The kind of person you describe is lacking in the qualities I would seek in a mate, not because of his sexual past, but because of how he treats his partners.
Possibly. But keep in mind that not only do I not believe in the "soulmate/ one true love " myth, The person I adored above all others WOULD meet my sexual needs( an I his) hence our full compatibility. Anything less would be settling. I might settle and he might settle for less than 'perfect' but we would have to acknowledge the lack and compensate for it in our marriage, or else it(dissatisfaction and resentment) would fester and grow into what would likely lead to a divorce.
That they are clearly very different than yours? not that there is anything wrong with either of us but I do resent the implication that since I place a high( and I'd like to think realistic) value on sex in marriage, that my priorities are somehow lacking.
without going into a complex discussion of abusive relationships(this thread is complex enough) I have a very different feel on that. To e it seems that she traded a emotional( or financial ect I don't know what the soulmate fiancee was in comparison besides not abusive) but sexually unsatisfying relationship for a sexually satisfying( presumably) but otherwise lacking. I would say neither one was a 'true soulmate" to the girl. In one she was unhappy because her sexual needs were not met. This was a big enough problem to lead her to leave the non abusive relationship. In the other her sexual needs were met but not her other relationship needs( not the least of which would be security)
sad all round.
I don't think staying in an unhappy marriage is a good thing. yes marriage is work but staying simply to avoid being selfish? is that really what you want marriage defined as? People make mistakes. They grow apart. It happens.

reply from: Rosalie

No need to apologize. I suppose I should've made myself clearer.
Again, that's not what I met at all. It is mostly my nature and partly a learned skill to respect other people's opinons, lifestyles and choices. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem when somebody's lifestyle becomes the best lifestyle ever ((((tm)))) in their head; when it becomes the only way to succesfully live a life and when you expect everybody else to agree - and if they don't, you just declare that they're wrong. That's moral superiority I despise and cannot support.
I did say that - and I think that's where I should've been clearer. It is naturally all right if you want to teach it to your children - you have the right to do that, just as I have the right to teach my kids the opposite. It is not okay if you say that this is the ideal standard for everyone and everyone who doesn't subscribe to your beliefs is automatically wrong and disrespectful of their own body and their (future) spouse. It's not all right to ignore facts as well as opinions in order to preach your beliefs as the ultimate truth
As for how it's demeaning, I tried to explain that before. It is demeaning because it teachers people that once they have sex, they're automatically less worthy than they'd been before they had sex.
It teaches people that the only way someone you love can respect and value you fully is if you've never had sex before.
It teaches people that it doesn't matter, ultimately, whether you are a good person or not, because what matters the MOST to the other person if whether you've had sex before or not. I could never support anything like that.
How is that NOT demeaning? Do you not care about the actual qualities of the person?
The literature also suggests that many men who insist on having a virginal bride are giving into their own insecurities. They fear that women with previous sexual experience would judge the size of their assets or their skillfullness in bed - while virgins, they think, will just accept what they're given because they don't know any better. How's that for a healthy relationship?

reply from: Rosalie

why would a woman marry a man she DOESN'T WANT to have sex with?!?! (i'm not talking about forced marriages. those are evil)
marriage is something sacred, something you do with someone special, with someone you want to spend your life with. sex is a NORMAL part of it. that doesn't change just because some people abuse marriage and use it for selfish purposes.
By saying "Have sex with me or I will go and get it somewhere else," the man or woman is trying to blackmail their significant other with the intent to force them to have sex. Forced sex = wrong. I really can't make it any more simple. It's rape. But you obviously don't really mind rape that much.
I'm sorry, I didn't notice there was a question in there; your grammar and syntax are so horrible that I just missed that.
People should absolutely marry someone they want to have sex with. But no one wants to have sex 24/7. In functioning relationships, when either of them doesn't want to have sex, the other one accepts it because they know that they're not in mood for sex all the time, either.
If it worries the man or the woman, then the one who's more in favor of having sex should find out why the other person is not keen on that - and help out if he or she can. Maybe it's something at work, maybe it's just being too tired to actually have sex - it can be number of things and many of them can be worked out if the couple communicates.
If it's a long-term problem, then the couple shouldn't be ashamed to ask for professional help.
Not being in mood for sex ALL THE TIME is normal. FORCING anyone to have sex against their will and threatening them that in case it doesn't happen, they'll be 'forced' to seek sex somewhere else is sick and abusive. I don't condone abusive behavior.

reply from: Rosalie

Did you miss it the first 50 times I pointed it out? So once again, just for you: it is demeaning and harmful because it forces the notion that virginity is the most important thing a woman (or a man, for that matter) can offer to someone they love, that it is something you can found a relationship on - when in reality it's not, nor it is (or should be) even in the top 20 most important things that actualy matter in a relationship.
Is this clear enough for you?
Because YOU say so? What makes you think your opinions should have any bearing on what other people do? What makes you think that your opinion is superior to the opinions of other people and why should they pay any attention to what YOU think when it comes to THEIR sex lives?
It's not the premarital sex that causes problems. It's irresponsibility that causes problems and marriage doesn't automatically make you more responsible. It's sad that you think that marriage magically resolves these issues.
Well, first of all, given the fact that both my husband and I strongly believe in quality over quantity, this is a moot point. And if he DID have herpes, we'd have to find a way to work this out, too... many couples do.
He's always been responsible when it came to sex, none of these things have ever been an issue. He didn't just luck out, and neither did I; we were both responsible. Shock, horror - it happens.
What I mostly find asinine is your backhanded attempt at an insult. It may come as a shock to you but I don't need to feel better about my views on sexuality because I have no problems with it.
You still didn't tell me why it is that you think it makes sense to 'keep yourself pure' for a mythical, potential future spouse that may or may not come around?
Food for thought: what if this future spouse of yours will actually love you unconditionally and therefore he won't care about whether you slept with anyone before or not because it will simply not matter at all to him?
Nice try, but I don't believe that „to hell with anything" part. Either you haven't been paying attention or you're purposefully ignoring what I say because you don't like it.
Ooh, don't you wish it was so. But if you could only see all those couples in counseling who are now facing problems of this nature... you'd definitely think differently.
No *****, Sherlock.
I don't, but that's beside the point because I respect your right to have this opinion. But I do NOT think you should be able to say that this is the ideal for everyone and that this is the only good and right way to go about having a relationship.
And like I pointed out above, you still have given no actual reason for why you even think this way, which I find strange.
Well, I do believe that you gave this backhanded insult your best shot. Thing is, you're still missing the point.

reply from: Rosalie

If this is how YOU choose to view this situation, then of course it is so. I'm afraid, however, that you really don't understand how it works for other people - because you are too busy presuming how it would work (or not work) for you.
Have you ever lived with anyone other than your immediate family? Friends, roomies at college, a boyfriend? Because if not, there's no way you could grasp how important it is.
There are so many things roommates of any kind can agree upon, even if they'd do them differently if they were on their own. But everyone's got their limits, everyone draws the line somewhere. Usually, when you are in love, you are willing to compromise. But you can never compromise on EVERYTHING because that would just mean that you both would end up unhappy.
Also it's one thing to be in love and see each other for a couple of hours every week and being in love and being in close proximity of that person 24/7.
It's not nitpicking, it's being realistic and responsible.
I don't nitpick. I am committed for life and have been for years. Are you?
You are an incredibly judgmental individual, Shenanigans. Why do you find it so hard to believe that what works for you is not what will necessarily work for everyone else? Do you think you've got some sort of superior morality or experience that makes you an expert on everybody else's relationships and lifestyles?
Considering I have been in a committed relationship for years and I have been married for some time, too, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that cohabitation before marriage is not about nitpicking or finding faults, but rather about trying to find the best possible way to make things work with someone you love. Like I said above, in MY opinion it is what responsible people should do, if they are serious about their relationship and want to give it their best shot.

reply from: B0zo

The intent is to help them do what is best for themselves and their marriage.
The greatest sinner can become the greatest saint, so it's not as if someone who failed to live up to the ideal is doomed to being "less worthy."
Most have failed in this regard--even Christians--yet they they marry and love each other. There is no Christian teaching that I know of that says if someone is not a virgin that they are not to be loved, valued, or respected. And this is just one aspect of life and is not everything. There are ways to fail regarding anger, theft, lust, being kind to one's neighbor, etc. etc. We all fail in some ways and we all can recover and be a better person and move on past our mistakes and failings.
But we need to do the best we can considering our situation and what we know and understand.
That's not true, of course.
Are you referring on to "the literature," which I don't know anything about, or the principle of sexual purity?
If the literature is as you are saying above, then there is a double standard, and the focus should not be on the woman.

reply from: Rosalie

Oh, the arrogance. What makes you think you or anyone else are qualified to say what's best for somebody else's marriage?
Not to mention it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that what YOU think might be the best would work for every single marriage. It doesn't work that way.
No offense but I don't care about what your religion says about this matter. I DO care when people of your (or any other) religion profess their religious beliefs to be the only right, proper way and claim that everything else is wrong and attempt to degrade relationships between people on the basis of their own religious beliefs.
See, it's still there. The underlying conception that sex is something wrong and dirty.
It's probably your religion that forces this thought into your head. I'm really sorry, because by this your religion tries to taint something really precious and good.
Well, it's good and dandy if you don't believe that but it changes nothing about the fact that forcing the idea of virginity until marriage reinforces this very sentiment.
Both.
It's not my fault that you know nothing about the topic except for what the church tells you. I'm really sorry that it's enough for you.
Wow, double standards and sexism in our culture and society. Say it isn't so!
Sadly, you clearly missed the point of why I even mentioned that.

reply from: B0zo

First you say you understand that I can have my own beliefs and that I can teach them to my children, and then whe I elaborate, you call it "arrogant."
Believe whatever you want, do whatever you want, teach whatever you want to your children.
But at least be respectful of the beliefs of others--especially when I in no way was forcing that belief on you or anyone else. I was just sharing what I believe.

reply from: Shenanigans

Yeah, what is it with that? We discuss our beliefs in an open discussion forum and we're "forcing our beliefs down people's throats"?
I'm not asking people to agree with me, or to change their lives because of what I think. I mean, really, forcing beliefs down a persons throat would usually require law change and serious punishment for those who break said new anti-pre-martial sex laws.
Seriously, it makes people sound like a bunch of cry babies. Oh, waaa waaaaa waaaaaaaaaa, some people on the internet don't think like I do!! WAAAA!!!
In closing: suck it up princesses.

reply from: B0zo

Lastly but not leastly, many of us believe premarital sex is a serious sin, which could lead to going to hell. We teach this to our children and our religion teaches it to us, because that's our job. It's the job of our Church to help people get to Heaven, and likewise for parents with their children.
I'm not preaching that to you Rosalie, or saying you have to believe that, or trying to be superior in any way--just am sharing what I believe and why. It's not arrogant to have a belief that is different than yours, and not arrogant to explain it.

reply from: SpitMcGee

Things I've learned from this thread:
Abstinence is good and safe.
Sex is not rape...but rape might be sex.
Sex is dirty.
Virginity is demeaning.
Forced abstinence is abusive.
It's possible to accidentally stab someone in the butthole when fighting.
Shenanigans doesn't like crybabies.

reply from: B0zo

Shenanigans likes zombies, though. I know that for a fact.

reply from: Rosalie

Nope. I said that it's arrogant to presume that you know what's best for somebody else's marriage. It has nothing to do with my belief that you have the right to teach your children whatever you want. These are two separate things.
I respect your right to have that belief but I don't have to respect your belief, especially if I believe it to be harmful to the society.

reply from: Rosalie

That's your prerogative. I believe it is my job to teach my children the very opposite and I'll certainly do that. I reject your religion and the very idea of hell, too.
It is NOT your job to try to force your beliefs on the rest of your society because you believe it will save them and help them get to Heaven. That's where I see the arrogance I mentioned before. Your beliefs are your own. Keep them to yourself. They have no place in the lives of others, no matter what you believe.

reply from: BossMomma

True but why should a child free by choice husband and wife deny each other?

reply from: BossMomma

Birth control and sex education are good too, suppose your daughter is raped? If she is educated she'll go to the doctor and get the MAP then go on with her abstinant life style.

reply from: B0zo

That's your prerogative. I believe it is my job to teach my children the very opposite and I'll certainly do that. I reject your religion and the very idea of hell, too.
It is NOT your job to try to force your beliefs on the rest of your society because you believe it will save them and help them get to Heaven. That's where I see the arrogance I mentioned before. Your beliefs are your own. Keep them to yourself. They have no place in the lives of others, no matter what you believe.
Is stating my beliefs on an open forum somehow pushing them on someone else?
You've stated your beliefs--which I disagree with--but I don't say you're arrogant or pushy.

reply from: BossMomma

Ditto, an 18 year old has no business with a baby, seriously, most 18 year olds are so damned stupid and, most 18 year olds can't get anything higher than minimum wage, whose going to pay for that prenatal care and child care, everyone else.
There is absolutely nothing in the world wrong with good birth control and I get so damned sick of this "quiverful" mentality that reduces women to broodmares. If Andrea Yates hadn't been kept under the thumb of a religious nut job I'm willing to bet those 5 kids wouldn't have been drowned in a tub!

reply from: BossMomma

Don't forget, teaching abstance also teaches self control, responsibility and integrity among many other valuble attributes. Heaven knows these attributes seem to be in short supply in today's society.
Well, frankly I wouldn't buy a car without taking it for a test drive. Suppose you hitch yourself up to a guy whose a lousy lay? I'd rather my girls be on birth control and have a knowledge of sex and the possible consequences that come with it than just hope that they'll fight it, despite that t.v., magazines and, peer pressure all scream HAVE SEX!

reply from: BossMomma

Yeah, apparently wanting my children to go to a respectable college and have six to eight figure salaries is a horrible selfish thing. I'd be so much the better mother if I cranked out babies, raised 'em up to legal working age then made them pay my bills. Sorry, but my three kids each have a college fund that gets added to each month until my fat tax return hits my Visa then, a nice chunk of that earned income credit goes into their college funds.
My son Tristan is in Soccer, Rowynn is in ballet and, Isabelle loves her baby sign language class. I have happy kids who would not be as fortunate if momma didn't know her financial and reproductive limits. Then there are my health issues, I suffer low blood pressure, a sever sciatica, a bulging disk, osteoarthritis and, a severe bi-polar disorder..do I really need a quiverfull?

reply from: Rosalie

Goodness, no. But we're not talking about stating your beliefs on an open forum. At least I'm not. I'm talking real life.
You're still not getting it. I don't know if you're arrogant or pushy in real life. I don't know you. But I firmly believe that even the greatest people can have opinions that may come across as arrogant, but that fact alone doesn't make them as people arrogant.
Your faith is your own, as are your beliefs. What I'm opposed to is not your right to have them; I'm opposed to you people trying to pass your religious doctrines off as the truth that superceeds even medical/sociological/psychological facts (e.g. preaching about the harmfulness of masturbation, which may be a deed that's 'harmful' when it comes to your religious beliefs but that's about the extent of its harmfulness etc.)
It doesn't matter WHAT your beliefs are or if you are an arrogant person. Claiming moral superiority on the grounds of personal religious beliefs comes off as arrogant. It's not about YOU personally. It's about everyone who claims just that.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics