is this right that Pre-marital sex is ok

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you are alluding to the idea that there isn't "evils" within sex in marriage?

Not at all.

Originally posted by Digi
This post is entirely a strawman in relation to my post. Because, one, it paints a picture of only bad results of premarital sex. Which is selective bias in order to try to make a point. It fails.

I don't think so. The point was to point out the reasons why premarital sex was a bad idea, so obviously listing the reasons it was a bad idea was what was needed to make the point. I never, at any point, said that these problems are always there nor did I allude to the idea that premarital sex can't have positive effects.

Originally posted by Digi
And two, in saying "in no way is waiting for marriage/only having one partner a bad goal to shoot for," you're asserting something that is a tangent to the central point. I don't disagree with that statement. Of course it's not a bad goal. But neither is it the only "good" goal.

I guess I misunderstood. You said that the church, by teaching that sex should be in marriage, was sexually repressing people. Which sounds to me like you are saying that telling people they should only have sex in marriage is wrong.

Originally posted by Digi
You also ignore entirely the vast amounts of guilt that the Church's views create. People try to repress sexual thoughts, desires, and actions, often in personally destructive ways. If we're listing potential evils, you have to turn it both ways. Obviously this isn't always the case, but to ignore it is willful ignorance of an avoidable evil.

Guilt? Why is the fact that people may feel guilty listed as a reason against any sort of action? Should I avoid speaking out against stealing because it would make thieves feel guilty?

As for people who are personally destructive, I would say that isn't the church's fault, and there are likely ways of coping with it that don't involve premarital sex.

Originally posted by Digi
- You haven't addressed the problems with repressing sexual desires.

Above.

Originally posted by Digi
- You haven't provided evidence that premarital sex is always bad, or even usually bad.

In fact I listed some of the reasons premarital sex could be bad. I never said, at any point, that it always was.

Originally posted by Digi
- Or where the inherent bad is in the many, many cases where no discernible harm comes of mutually amicable premarital sex.

The fact that the negative results of something aren't always there means nothing. Many bad actions can be done without negative consequences coming about.

Originally posted by Digi
- You haven't conceded that abstaining can be good or bad for some, or that being more sexually permissive can be both good or bad depending on the situation, a point that should be blatantly obvious from a common sense perspective, and only becomes obscured when you try to adhere to an inflexible dogma.

Not a lot I can say about this without specific examples. Though it sounds like you are claiming there are problems that can ONLY be fixed by premarital sex, which I doubt.

But how is it inherently bad? Where is the evil, when the bad that occasionally comes from premarital sex is a situational thing, not an ingrained part of the practice? Because, make no mistake, the vast majority of cases of premarital sex hurt no one, ever.

Also, on the guilt aspect of it. No guilt is present in regards to sex as a default position. But, for many, if you introduce divine edicts that it is evil and suddenly the guilt, and therefore suffering, is present. Are there ways to cope? Sure. But at its core, you're still creating guilt where none was initially present. It's a net negative. Wouldn't it be healthier for all if we just said that you should be ready for sex emotionally, premarital or not, and left it at that?

Needless archaism wrapped in divine clothes. I'm not advocating some sort of sexual anarchy, just pointing out where the religious approach to sex is outdated.

Pre-marital sex restrictions were ways of controlling birth rates and preventing the spread of STDs. They're no longer necessary for those purposes so it's just hidebound nonsense.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Pre-marital sex restrictions were ways of controlling birth rates and preventing the spread of STDs. They're no longer necessary for those purposes so it's just hidebound nonsense.

I thought it was more about having stable social groups rather than birth rates? I thought it was literally a sex-agreement to ensure stable production of offspring? I thought I was an out-growth of property exchange?

It may have its origins in people "falling in love" and that love bond lasting longer than the 2-3 years. Some people romanticized that idea and the extension was permanent mating.

Originally posted by Digi
...the vast majority of cases of premarital sex hurt no one, ever.

I disagree. It seems that "pre-marital" sex is one the biggest problems for humans and their relationships. We just aren't monogamous enough. If the desire for sex were out of the equation, I am quite sure we would be much more monogamous.

I believe arranged marriages last much longer than volitional ones. It's more about society that keeps people together...not the desire for sex. The desire for sex is the main problem and shows up as the #1 problem, on all real lists on relationship failures, that I could find. (sexual dysfunction to cheating).

If people did not have sex until they were sure they wanted to spend the rest of their life with the person they started ****in', I am quite sure relationships would like much longer. We just can't do that, as humans. Religion be dammed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought it was more about having stable social groups rather than birth rates? I thought it was literally a sex-agreement to ensure stable production of offspring? I thought I was an out-growth of property exchange?

It may have its origins in people "falling in love" and that love bond lasting longer than the 2-3 years. Some people romanticized that idea and the extension was permanent mating.

I disagree. It seems that "pre-marital" sex is one the biggest problems for humans and their relationships. We just aren't monogamous enough. If the desire for sex were out of the equation, I am quite sure we would be much more monogamous.

I believe arranged marriages last much longer than volitional ones. It's more about society that keeps people together...not the desire for sex. The desire for sex is the main problem and shows up as the #1 problem, on all real lists on relationship failures, that I could find. (sexual dysfunction to cheating).

If people did not have sex until they were sure they wanted to spend the rest of their life with the person they started ****in', I am quite sure relationships would like much longer. We just can't do that, as humans. Religion be dammed.

Originally posted by Digi
But how is it inherently bad? Where is the evil, when the bad that occasionally comes from premarital sex is a situational thing, not an ingrained part of the practice? Because, make no mistake, the vast majority of cases of premarital sex hurt no one, ever.

I disagree that the vast majority of premarital sex is harmless. It may not always be physically harmful, but, as dadudemon pointed out, much of the breakdown of marriage and family we've seen recently has been attributed, in part, to premarital sex. There was a study I heard of that said that people who have sex before they get married are 30% more likely to get divorced.

Originally posted by Digi
No guilt is present in regards to sex as a default position. But, for many, if you introduce divine edicts that it is evil and suddenly the guilt, and therefore suffering, is present. Are there ways to cope? Sure. But at its core, you're still creating guilt where none was initially present. It's a net negative. Wouldn't it be healthier for all if we just said that you should be ready for sex emotionally, premarital or not, and left it at that?

But again, why is creating guilt where none was before treated as a reason not to do something? As with my example before, with me speaking out against stealing and thus making a thief feel guilty. In that example, I would say creating guilt where there wasn't any before was a positive thing, not a negative. The simple act of creating guilt is not necessarily a negative thing at all.

Originally posted by Digi
Needless archaism wrapped in divine clothes. I'm not advocating some sort of sexual anarchy, just pointing out where the religious approach to sex is outdated.

Outdated, maybe, in the sense that it isn't widely practiced anymore. But I would say that, religious reasons or no, the past generations had the right idea in this case.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I disagree that the vast majority of premarital sex is harmless. It may not always be physically harmful, but, as dadudemon pointed out, much of the breakdown of marriage and family we've seen recently has been attributed, in part, to premarital sex. There was a study I heard of that said that people who have sex before they get married are 30% more likely to get divorced.

I believe the study you are talking about is one of cohabitation before marriage, rather than not. It was something like 50% more likely to get divorced if they cohabitated before marriage. That's pretty dang significant.

Lemme google search to see if what your saying is directly supported.

Edit - One name keeps coming up: Teachman.

Apparently, there was a complicated study done with thousands of women.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract

"The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions. These findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation have become part of the normal courtship pattern in the United States. They do not indicate selectivity on characteristics linked to the risk of divorce and do not provide couples with experiences that lessen the stability of marriage."

There may be something more recent on PubMed.

The correlation there for men, a well, but it is not as strong as it is for women, for some reason. Does anyone with a sociology background have any input as to why?

I could have sworn there was a high divorce rate for young couples, too. I know Mormon couples marry young. Apparently, of all Americans, Mormons that marry each other are the least likely of all Americans to get divorced at 13%.

http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/1999-March/002043.html

So, it is apparent that religion can play a positive role in helping marriages last. I think the most important thing for a marriage to last (from a secular sense) is for both people to be selfless and kind with each other as much as often.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe the study you are talking about is one of cohabitation before marriage, rather than not

...

So, it is apparent that religion can play a positive role in helping marriages last. I think the most important thing for a marriage to last (from a secular sense) is for both people to be selfless and kind with each other as much as often.

Ah, thanks. Yeah, that must have been what I was thinking of. You should do my research for me more often. 😖hifty:

Originally posted by TheBigManRevo
is it right that Pre-Marital sex is ok

It is, glad I could clear that up for you. Enjoy!

You guys aren't getting it. Nothing you've said is justification for a dogmatic position against premarital sex. Pointing to the possible negative consequences doesn't suffice, because that would be justification for making all kinds of innocuous, everyday acts, sins and wrongful actions.

Is it the right choice for everyone? No, of course not. But is it wrong in an a priori sense? No, of course not. How is it so hard to grasp that right decisions are often a spectrum of possibilities, not a single path? At best, the view that premarital sex is wrong is painting with too broad a brush. At worst, it creates tension, guilt, and vitriolic reactions to natural tendencies and desires, villifies entire swaths of the population who neither intend to harm anyone nor actually harm anyone, and discount different approaches to sexuality that don't place as much importance on marriage, lifelong monogamy, and religion.

So, the stats are interesting, and reinforce my idea that we should instruct our youth to be cautious and to wait for sex until they're ready in every sense. But they don't support the disrespectful and repressive belief that premarital sex should be condemned or even looked down upon.

...

And frankly I'm a little shocked at Tac's unwillingness to really deal with anything negative that comes about as a result of religion. How many people are thrown out by their parents for doing something not aligned with their religious beliefs? How many are ostracized by friends and family for the same? How many struggle constantly between beliefs and inherent tendencies, thoughts, desires, and logic? How much depression and violence does that tension create? These are not hypothetical questions. They exist. And they could be avoided by removing the dogmatic aspect of religion's approach to sex.

Brushing it off with "well, there's ways to cope" or "they shouldn't feel that way" does not deal with reality. It just assumes that everyone should think like you do, and if they don't, their religion-induced problems aren't worth acknowledging.

It's a spectrum, boys. And, imo, everything I listed is exponentially worse than letting people have their sexual freedom.

Originally posted by Digi
Pointing to the possible negative consequences doesn't suffice, because that would be justification for making all kinds of innocuous, everyday acts, sins and wrongful actions.

Are you not familiar with religion? Lots of things you'd classify as "innocuous everyday acts" are counted as sins. Masturbating. Swearing. Looking at women. Having angry thoughts. Failing to grow figs.

Originally posted by Digi
Is it the right choice for everyone? No, of course not.

Bam. This is all I would ask you to admit. Anything above and beyond that would be obnoxious, on my part.

This is how I usually roll: if a religious teaching about what not to do is backed by science, I generally support it. If it is not, I don't.

Examples -

Premarital sex. Seems for many people (maybe even most), it shouldn't be practiced. Is that practical? NOPE! Only people with ultra-self-control can do it. So in terms of pragmatism, it is almost impractical. So for those that can and research shit, good for them. For those that can't, beware and try your best in your committed relationships.

Word of Wisdom (Mormons): Seems very logical and easy to understand. The 'rules' are supposed to be almost completely based off of science and very little on interpretation. The only gray area I am aware of is taking a medication or treatment that has bad side effects for your health. You must prayerfully consider it. Something like pain-meds, chemotherapy, etc. Coffee? Tons of positives and tons of negatives. Avoid that shit. Why drink coffee, anyway? There are plenty of better ways to "wake-up" in the morning like a good night's sleep and a decent breakfast. I am not too sure about the tea thing. Mormons speculated about the caffeine being the problem. That's okay for some but, really, it has been clarified that it is more about the health stuff. If you have a caffeine addiction, you should probably switch to decaf and I think this would be in line with the WoW. It's up to the individual. 🙂

Porn: Sorry, but I do not agree with the research. I have seen 3 different families torn apart but a man's porn addiction (only 1 was Mormon). I have personally been responsible for a portion of the report for 2 different people at work being fired over their addiction (seriously, leave that shit at home). I just do not know about this area as it seems destructive to some. Ban all of it? NO! I just don't think some people can handle it and they take it out of control. It is hard (pun?) to imagine a pious, kind, loving, spiritual person who has a routine porn habit, even if controlled. Maybe it is due to that type of person being associated with self-control and a master of his instincts rather than the other way around. Bottom-line...the occasional viewing is harmless. As long as you control yourself and don't let ti rule your life, rub one out. Make sure to clean up and wash yours hand. 😘 Generally, though, if one is trying to lead a pious life (any of the major religions), they should control themselves.

Gay Marriage: This is one a where I disagree with the teaching. I think any consenting adult should be able to marry however and whomever they want. This applies to multiple marriages, as well. If a woman wants to marry 3 men and they all consent, let them. If 5 men and 6 women want to have a massive marriage relationship, let them. If a man and a man want to get married, let them. Also, let the adopt as the research shows that children do fine.

Those are just some areas that come to mind about "religious rules"

Originally posted by Digi
So, the stats are interesting, and reinforce my idea that we should instruct our youth to be cautious and to wait for sex until they're ready in every sense.

I agree, here, as well. However, that's just not pragmatic/doable. Kids...lack self-control. The best people like you and I can do is instruct them to not be idiots and wrap that shit up. I am always very quick to instruct my nephews and younger male cousins to use a condom. My sister and aunts do NOT like it because they think that they should not have to make those decisions until they are married. That's in a perfect world, however. It is best that they hear it from me rather than from their doctor after they have contracted and STD or gotten a girl preggo.

Not a ton to disagree with there, though my points were mostly stemming from my debate with Tac, not dudemon. Seems like the big thing dudemon and I disagree on is the degree to which premarital sex is potentially harmful. Nearly everyone I know has had more than one sexual partner in their lifetime, and the majority of them are in completely healthy, committed relationships. The others are just single - they aren't dysfunctional in any way. Some I know have even rushed into marriage and regretted it, and it has nothing to do with premarital sex.

We know society's getting more liberal with sexual beliefs, and that includes a spike in divorce rates. But are we really worse off than we were 50 years ago? It seems to me like the liberation has been collectively healthy, especially for women.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you not familiar with religion? Lots of things you'd classify as "innocuous everyday acts" are counted as sins. Masturbating. Swearing. Looking at women. Having angry thoughts. Failing to grow figs.

Right. And each of those is just as ridiculous, as I'm sure you're aware (from the clearly over-the-top fig reference, if nothing else). Again, it's rigid dogma creating needless suffering in the world.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If people did not have sex until they were sure they wanted to spend the rest of their life with the person they started ****in', I am quite sure relationships would like much longer. We just can't do that, as humans. Religion be dammed.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Failing to grow figs.

Oh I see how it is, going right for the fig thing. That's low...

Originally posted by Digi
You guys aren't getting it. Nothing you've said is justification for a dogmatic position against premarital sex. Pointing to the possible negative consequences doesn't suffice, because that would be justification for making all kinds of innocuous, everyday acts, sins and wrongful actions.

I don't know what you mean here. It isn't like we are suppose to kill or beat people who have premarital sex. The Bible simply teaches it's wrong, and I tend to agree. Sure, not every case of premarital sex hurts people, but there are tons of negative effects that have already been listed. Am I saying premarital sex should be outlawed, and those who practice it be thrown in jail? No. Not at all. I'm simply saying that it would be better for everyone if there was less premarital sex in the world, and I don't think I am hurting ANYONE by saying "you shouldn't have premarital sex".

Originally posted by Digi
Is it the right choice for everyone? No, of course not. But is it wrong in an a priori sense? No, of course not. How is it so hard to grasp that right decisions are often a spectrum of possibilities, not a single path? At best, the view that premarital sex is wrong is painting with too broad a brush. At worst, it creates tension, guilt, and vitriolic reactions to natural tendencies and desires, villifies entire swaths of the population who neither intend to harm anyone nor actually harm anyone, and discount different approaches to sexuality that don't place as much importance on marriage, lifelong monogamy, and religion.

Again, I disagree with the notion that premarital sex harms no one. As I said before.

Originally posted by Digi
So, the stats are interesting, and reinforce my idea that we should instruct our youth to be cautious and to wait for sex until they're ready in every sense. But they don't support the disrespectful and repressive belief that premarital sex should be condemned or even looked down upon.

No one is saying people who have premarital sex should be looked down upon.

Originally posted by Digi
And frankly I'm a little shocked at Tac's unwillingness to really deal with anything negative that comes about as a result of religion. How many people are thrown out by their parents for doing something not aligned with their religious beliefs? How many are ostracized by friends and family for the same? How many struggle constantly between beliefs and inherent tendencies, thoughts, desires, and logic? How much depression and violence does that tension create? These are not hypothetical questions. They exist. And they could be avoided by removing the dogmatic aspect of religion's approach to sex.

I don't think I'm unwilling to deal with negative aspects of religion. I have admitted time and time again on this forum that there have been evils that have come about in the name of religion. As I said before, it's not the religions fault. If someone throws their kid out of the house, or ostracize someone who doesn't share their religion, it is the INDIVIDUAL who is causing the harm, not the religion. It is a common trend to blame the religion for the wrongs of the individual.

Also, why is this relevant?

Originally posted by Digi
Brushing it off with "well, there's ways to cope" or "they shouldn't feel that way" does not deal with reality. It just assumes that everyone should think like you do, and if they don't, their religion-induced problems aren't worth acknowledging.

I don't know why you say that. I did not intend to brush it off. I was merely denying the argument you seemed to be making that premarital sex was the one and only way to solve the problem, or that someone who hurts themselves when they don't have premarital sex can't get help in any other way than to have premarital sex. Which is false.

Originally posted by Digi
It's a spectrum, boys. And, imo, everything I listed is exponentially worse than letting people have their sexual freedom.

Using a term like "sexual freedom" sends the wrong message as to my stance. If someone goes around sleeping with anything that moves would you not say that's the wrong decision? Wouldn't it be a bad thing if everyone started doing that? Wouldn't you say it would be a good idea to teach our kids that's wrong? And wouldn't you say the world would be better off if people didn't behave in that manner?

Even if that example doesn't do it for you, pick one that does. That's all that is being said about premarital sex. It's teaching people not to do something they consider harmful, and for good reason.

I think we should teach people how to be safe when they have sex and to consider whether they truly want it and pressuring people is wrong.

If they know these things, and follow them, and still want to have sex with everything consensual that moves, I don't see anything wrong with it, perhaps we shouldn't even encourage it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Using a term like "sexual freedom" sends the wrong message as to my stance. If someone goes around sleeping with anything that moves would you not say that's the wrong decision? Wouldn't it be a bad thing if everyone started doing that? Wouldn't you say it would be a good idea to teach our kids that's wrong? And wouldn't you say the world would be better off if people didn't behave in that manner?

Maybe this is just more of a reflection of how sheltered I am, but I've never seen someone so adamantly against free love.

Originally posted by inimalist
Maybe this is just more of a reflection of how sheltered I am, but I've never seen someone so adamantly against free love.

There is no such thing as free love. 😉

i feel for you