Sex before Marriage.

Originally Posted by Sapphira

Virginity is sexist and heterosexist. I only use the terminology when discussing why I hate it so much.

Virginity is typically associated with women. It never matters, historically, if a man has "sown his wild oats" or not, but in order for a woman to be considered marriagiable material, she had to be "pure." Of course, some may argue that the hyman, the membrane that usually stretches across the vaginal opening and remains because of how the sex organs develop, is an easy indication of virginity. Of course, since the hymen has a hole or holes in it, and may either break before sex or NEVER break, I think it's pretty useless as an indicator.

And just think about virginity in high school. Men who weren't trying to get laid were pansies, or maybe gay. Women who WERE trying to get laid were sluts. What is UP with this?

And this whole mess is heterosexist. Virginity ONLY applies to vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman. At least, that's the only act people seem to agree on as a way to lose your virginity. And so if you aren't doing it in the vagina with the opposite sex, what ARE you doing?

The language surrounding virginity is another issue. I don't want to "lose" something when I have sex. I don't want something "taken" from me, and I'm certainly not "taking" anything. Eesh, I'm still a whole person, you know! I've just had a new experience.

And so, now let's apply all this to marriage. Some people think you should wait until marriage because then it's special, or because then you know that your partner loves you. Or maybe it's to ensure that you don't have a pregnancy before marriage, or because you don't want to worry about STDs. Great, fine, lovely.

But plenty of us avoid STDs by simply TALKING to our partners. And if you're not sure, get tested! Pregnancy can be prevented by proper use of contraception (one method or, recommended, a combination). And sex ANY time can be special. I've had kisses that were more special than my first kiss. How is sex different? And for the record, love and sex might intertwine, but they can also stand on their own. Having sex doesn't require love, and love doesn't mean screwing every chance you get (anyone who says, "You'll have sex with me if you love me" should be smacked in the face and then dumped unceremoniously).

Besides, good sex takes practice, communication, and some research. If you've never talked about sex, you have no idea what you like, and you have no knowledge of your partner's or your own anatomy, your wedding night is going to be unsatisfactory.

And finally:

1) Can I have sex if I never get married? Even if I'm thirty?
2) WHO says I can't have sex till I'm married? Which religion? Not mine? Well, then ...

I see where you're comming fron on the sexist thing, but the world has moved on from that. The thing about sex in schools, look at it this way. Teens are stupid, lets face that first of all. Pregnancy happens even today, when things like contraceptives are encouraged more. If a girl gets pregnant, she is pregnant, it shows, she feels it, and if she has moral/religious/financial issues against abortion, she has to stick through the whole thing. Yes, (in Canada at least, and I'm pretty sure the US) there is a legal obligation for men in this case. However, I've even known girls who get pregnant, the guy runs off, and they just don't do anything about it. So as you can see, there is a higher risk involved for women then men, this is probably where the idea of guys being hero and girls being sluts came from.

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

vir·gin /ˈvɜrdʒɪn/ [vur-jin]
–noun 1. a person who has never had sexual intercourse.

That is why people look at intercourse as the only way to loose virginity. It's the definition. This also would cover anal sex. Why do you"loose" it? What else are you going to call it? Gaining you unvirginity? Before sex you have your virginity, after you don't, you loose it.

There is nothing wrong with waiting untill a couple is maried, yes thier first time may not be as good, but as in my personaly story, my first time was with someone I found I realy didn't care about, and I kind of which it was. Part of the idea of each partner waiting is that they grow with each other, learn to satisfy thier partner and be satisfied. It's like the chance to get to know eachother all over again, and develope another new relationship.
But the bottom line of where the idea came from is religion. It was seen as something sacred because it made new life. It created what people could not figure out, it was a gift from god. And since mariage was a sacred undying bond, it was only natural that it should be saved for that.

Wait, wait, so if two people have sex, and the girl gets pregnant, it's her responsibility because, whoops, only girls can get pregnant? Hey, I'm a person, and if I have sex with another person, and pregnancy results, we were both equally involved.

Second of all the United States has no such laws. Wouldn't that be nice if we did?

I'm also not saying that virginity means something other than it does. I'm saying that it's a word that carries sexist and heterosexist meanings, and it no longer has a place in modern society. I don't talk about "losing my virginity." Instead, I talk about the first time I had sex.

Sadly, you are quite wrong about the world having moved on from sexism. Even in nations where there's de jure equality, there's still discrimination based on sex. In the United States, women still make about 70 cents to the men's dollar. I wish I were lying or exaggerating (although it is worth noting that 70 cents is an average; of course, that means that sometimes, it's only 30 or 50 cents to the dollar). And subtle discrimination still exists in the media, and we tend to miss it because we're so used to it.

Anyway, I definitely think that if we could throw out the idea of virginity, sex before marriage wouldn't be such a heated debate. Of course, I fully respect any person's personal decision to wait until s/he is married to have sex. I have several friends who are waiting to be married first, and I respect it 100%. That means I don't make fun of them or pressure them or lie to them about why they shouldn't wait. Hey, it's their decision! And it's my decision to have sex when I want to have sex.

But I think it's important that we can all make an informed decision. And so if people are going to make it seem as if I'm impure or damaged if I choose to have sex before I'm married, that's not fair.

Originally Posted by Sapphira

I'm also not saying that virginity means something other than it does. I'm saying that it's a word that carries sexist and heterosexist meanings, and it no longer has a place in modern society.

If you hold the view that sex is an activity reserved for marriage (which I and others do), then virginity is simply the state of having made such a reservation. Virginity in the virtuous sense indicates a certain level of chastity before marriage. It is, when viewed in this sense, a banner of pride as to one's restraint in the context of his/her marital status and in that of commitment to a future spouse.

The state of premarital virginity certainly has benefits beyond the merely spiritual and personal. Since sex has certain side-effects beyond merely pleasure, such as STDs and pregnancy, abstinence is the safest way to both avoid contracting STDs and becoming pregnant outside of (or even within) wedlock. In this sense, sex, when taken outside of its intended context, does have negative consequences that potentially affect not only the two persons involved, but also any partners either party will have in the future.

The existence of birth control, condoms in particular, as they protect against STDs, does not eliminate this risk (insofar as a person can eliminate it)- nor does it even minimize it (as obviously abstinence would carry the minimal risk).

Sadly, you are quite wrong about the world having moved on from sexism. Even in nations where there's de jure equality, there's still discrimination based on sex. In the United States, women still make about 70 cents to the men's dollar.

Certainly job discrimination is quite unrelated to the topic at hand.

Anyway, I definitely think that if we could throw out the idea of virginity, sex before marriage wouldn't be such a heated debate.

Based on what I outlined above, "throwing out" the debate doesn't solve problems; it merely institutionalizes different problems- that is, the problems associated with in-exclusivity.

Of course, I fully respect any person's personal decision to wait until s/he is married to have sex. I have several friends who are waiting to be married first, and I respect it 100%. That means I don't make fun of them or pressure them or lie to them about why they shouldn't wait. Hey, it's their decision! And it's my decision to have sex when I want to have sex.

At the same time, given the risky nature of "loose" or even merely un-exclusive sex outlined at the beginning of my post, you can hardly blame people for being in stark opposition to it, and in terms that can hardly be considered religious.

Besides, good sex takes practice, communication, and some research. If you've never talked about sex, you have no idea what you like, and you have no knowledge of your partner's or your own anatomy, your wedding night is going to be unsatisfactory.

I'd just like to comment on this: no one who has not waited until marriage to have sex can presume to claim how abstinence affects the wedding night, as no one who has not waited until marriage to have sex can say what the "first time" is like when had in that context.

I place myself on the "no-sex-before-marriage" side of this question.

I'm not going to go all preacher on those who don't, though. It's their personal business to engage in pre-marital sex, just as it's mine not to. However, Mr. Lexxi Aileron was right in his statement in regards to being at a much higher risk for diseases. Anybody who partakes in premarital sexual activities should be well aware of those possibilities.

For me, it's a sort of personal goodness thing, I guess. Setting aside my religious beliefs, I think that the idea of waiting till I'm married is nice. It gives the marriage that much more meaning. I'm happy living that kind of lifestyle, so that's why I do it. It makes me feel a little better about myself. =)

Also, I suppose I'd define losing your virginity as the point in which you engage in sexual intercourse. The breaking of the Hymen in women isn't necessarily a good indicator of virginity because it can be broken outside of sex (sport activities, tampons, etc). Likewise, it can even remain intact after intercourse.

As far as males are concerned, I'd give them the same perimeters. I think that virginity is directly related to sexual intercourse, and even if they don't orgasm during it, they still have lost their virginity. Likewise, masturbation, in my opinion, would not constitute a loss of virginity, because there was no penetration.

As far as homosexual virginity goes, I really have no idea. I know some who believe they'll always be virgin because they physically can't have sex, and others who regard their sexual activity as taking away from their virginity, so I suppose it's all up to personal opinion.

That's just my opinion, though.

Originally Posted by Mr. Lexxi Aileron

If you hold the view that sex is an activity reserved for marriage (which I and others do), then virginity is simply the state of having made such a reservation. Virginity in the virtuous sense indicates a certain level of chastity before marriage. It is, when viewed in this sense, a banner of pride as to one's restraint in the context of his/her marital status and in that of commitment to a future spouse.

The state of premarital virginity certainly has benefits beyond the merely spiritual and personal. Since sex has certain side-effects beyond merely pleasure, such as STDs and pregnancy, abstinence is the safest way to both avoid contracting STDs and becoming pregnant outside of (or even within) wedlock. In this sense, sex, when taken outside of its intended context, does have negative consequences that potentially affect not only the two persons involved, but also any partners either party will have in the future.

The existence of birth control, condoms in particular, as they protect against STDs, does not eliminate this risk (insofar as a person can eliminate it)- nor does it even minimize it (as obviously abstinence would carry the minimal risk).



Certainly job discrimination is quite unrelated to the topic at hand.



Based on what I outlined above, "throwing out" the debate doesn't solve problems; it merely institutionalizes different problems- that is, the problems associated with in-exclusivity.



At the same time, given the risky nature of "loose" or even merely un-exclusive sex outlined at the beginning of my post, you can hardly blame people for being in stark opposition to it, and in terms that can hardly be considered religious.



I'd just like to comment on this: no one who has not waited until marriage to have sex can presume to claim how abstinence affects the wedding night, as no one who has not waited until marriage to have sex can say what the "first time" is like when had in that context.

Well, within marriage or not, anyone who's had sex has had a first time. And the majority of women I've spoken to, whether they've waited for marriage or not, agree that the first time was really a downer.

Using a seatbelt while driving does not eliminate your risk of dying in a car accident. Refusing to attend frat parties does not eliminate your risk of being raped. And yes, wearing a condom and praying does not prevent you from becoming pregnant or contracting an STD.

However, if two people have never had sex before, or if people get tested, the STD issue is quite easily skirted. And in terms of pregnancy, using two highly effective methods in tandem does significantly reduce the risk of pregnancy. Could it still happen? Yes. But so what? It's a risk that you know you're taking, and you can take steps to reduce risk, although not eliminate it. You used the word "minimize" earlier--it either means "greatly reduce" or it means "eliminate," and clearly you use it for the latter and I use it for the former.

Don't claim spiritual benefits for waiting until marriage as if everyone has them. Again, I respect your decision to wait, and whatever reasons you may have for waiting. But I find nothing spiritual about sex. Maybe certain KINDS of sex, but not plain ol' sex. And that goes for ME. I speak for myself. But again, speaking for myself, I don't like when people presume to be purer than I am because of such a personal decision. If I refuse to believe in the institution of virginity, that is my decision, and it doesn't make me a bad person, or an impure person.

When I first started having sex, I knew that my partner had also never before had sex, and the chances of either of us having an STD were so astronomical that it would have been a waste of money to get tested. He and I also discussed what having sex would mean for our relationship, and what we would do if I were to get pregnant. We discussed the birth control we wanted to use, and how we would do our best to prevent pregnancy. And it all worked out really well. Sex was a meaningful part of our relationship, but it was by no means the most important part. And now that we're not together, I'm not screwing every guy I meet (which is a personal decision, again).

And you say job discrimination is not part of the debate at hand, but I disagree. Earlier, when I said that I found virginity to be sexist (and heterosexist), another member said that s/he felt we've "moved on" from sexism. I was using job discrimination to point out that no, we haven't.

I'm a women's studies major, and I've really found that most issues surrounding sex are also issues surrounding sexism. And I think that recognizing sexism, especially when it's not so obvious, is an important step to eliminating it.

Originally Posted by Sapphira

Wait, wait, so if two people have sex, and the girl gets pregnant, it's her responsibility because, whoops, only girls can get pregnant? Hey, I'm a person, and if I have sex with another person, and pregnancy results, we were both equally involved.

Second of all the United States has no such laws. Wouldn't that be nice if we did?

I'm also not saying that virginity means something other than it does. I'm saying that it's a word that carries sexist and heterosexist meanings, and it no longer has a place in modern society. I don't talk about "losing my virginity." Instead, I talk about the first time I had sex.

Sadly, you are quite wrong about the world having moved on from sexism. Even in nations where there's de jure equality, there's still discrimination based on sex. In the United States, women still make about 70 cents to the men's dollar. I wish I were lying or exaggerating (although it is worth noting that 70 cents is an average; of course, that means that sometimes, it's only 30 or 50 cents to the dollar). And subtle discrimination still exists in the media, and we tend to miss it because we're so used to it.

Anyway, I definitely think that if we could throw out the idea of virginity, sex before marriage wouldn't be such a heated debate. Of course, I fully respect any person's personal decision to wait until s/he is married to have sex. I have several friends who are waiting to be married first, and I respect it 100%. That means I don't make fun of them or pressure them or lie to them about why they shouldn't wait. Hey, it's their decision! And it's my decision to have sex when I want to have sex.

But I think it's important that we can all make an informed decision. And so if people are going to make it seem as if I'm impure or damaged if I choose to have sex before I'm married, that's not fair.

I think you missunderstood me, I didn't mean some of that in that way. I didn't mean that the world has moved on from sexism, I meant it's more or less moved on from the idea of if a girl want to have sex she's a whore. I've found that people will just accept it, so long as she isn't going out screwing everything in sight, in which case, I even know guys who are known as whores for doing that. I do however think that men are still allowed more lineance for wanting sex, and there is a reason for it. Men, on average, naturaly have a higher labito then women because they can mate alot more then women can, for obvious reasons. This is true for most species on the plenet. This is not to say that women have no libeto, but it is usualy not as strong as males. (Although I know for a fact it can be). Also, I didn't say it's the women's responsibility, I said there is a higher risk because only women can get pregnant. Like I said, the guy can just say "screw this!" and run off, not be involved at all, but unless she is able to get an abortion, she has to stick through the whole thing, and like I stated, there are many limitations to that as well. I'm not saying it's right, but it does happen. I think the word can lead to sexism and the likes, but so can just talking about sex in general. In all actuality, it is just a shorter way of saying someone who has not had sexual intercourse. The meaning is all what an individual takes out of it.

Originally Posted by Sapphira

Sadly, you are quite wrong about the world having moved on from sexism. Even in nations where there's de jure equality, there's still discrimination based on sex. In the United States, women still make about 70 cents to the men's dollar. I wish I were lying or exaggerating (although it is worth noting that 70 cents is an average; of course, that means that sometimes, it's only 30 or 50 cents to the dollar). And subtle discrimination still exists in the media, and we tend to miss it because we're so used to it.

It may sound weird but I'd say this has atleast a little to do with height. (With men atleast) it's generally understood that for every inch taller you are that you make (on average) 2% more. Women, ofcourse, tend to be shorter then men. My sister is 5'3", I'm 6'1".

Ofcourse I'm not saying that there's not sexism against women still in the first world. It'd be ignorant to say that, but there's also sexism against men, mainly when it comes to divorce (if the man's getting the kids that means that the mom's a crank junkie or mentally insane). Also, while society tends to be sexist against women, generally, this also just means that there's an unfair expectations for men when compared to women.

Here is my opinion. I am all for people abstaining until they are married. In this day and age, however, more people are choosing not to get married at all, so as to deny them sex would be ridiculous. My cousin has just finished building her house with her boyfriend. They are in the 25-ish area, and have absolutely no plans to marry. They obviously love each other, if they went through all that trouble of building a house (which is very nice, I may add) for themselves.

What I'm saying is: Marriage means nothing in terms of sex. Two people who are not married, but who love each other as much as any other couple who are married, deserve to have sex as much as any other couple. This applies to any (reasonable) age. (reasonalbe age meaning the age to make life changing decisions responsible. Varies from person to person.)

Originally Posted by DarKnite92

It may sound weird but I'd say this has atleast a little to do with height. (With men atleast) it's generally understood that for every inch taller you are that you make (on average) 2% more. Women, ofcourse, tend to be shorter then men. My sister is 5'3", I'm 6'1".

There is absolutely no reason that a person should make more money because they are taller. That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Originally Posted by Sapphira

There is absolutely no reason that a person should make more money because they are taller. That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

There is absolutly no reason there should be wage differences depending on sex either, but it still happens. I've seen these two statistics on the same news report, both of them have been show to be true, although there are no 100% for sure answers.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

There is absolutly no reason there should be wage differences depending on sex either, but it still happens. I've seen these two statistics on the same news report, both of them have been show to be true, although there are no 100% for sure answers.

Right, but I'm saying that we shouldn't put up with such ridiculous wage differences.

Originally Posted by Sapphira

Well, within marriage or not, anyone who's had sex has had a first time. And the majority of women I've spoken to, whether they've waited for marriage or not, agree that the first time was really a downer.

Considering you're a women studies major, I'd guess most of the "women you've spoken to" you met through your studies?

Using a seatbelt while driving does not eliminate your risk of dying in a car accident.

I suppose "eliminate" was a poor word choice, as risks are always present due to circumstances entirely outside of one's control.

"Eliminates all reasonable responsibility" would be a better word choice.

However, if two people have never had sex before, or if people get tested, the STD issue is quite easily skirted.

Again, I'm arguing in favour of exclusivity, so I should thank you for affirming my argument.

You used the word "minimize" earlier--it either means "greatly reduce" or it means "eliminate," and clearly you use it for the latter and I use it for the former.

Actually, in my case, I used it for what it literally means--the least possible risk (as far as circumstances within one's control, of course).

Don't claim spiritual benefits for waiting until marriage as if everyone has them. ... But I find nothing spiritual about sex. Maybe certain KINDS of sex, but not plain ol' sex. And that goes for ME. I speak for myself.

You can't possibly appreciate any spiritual benefits of sex if you're convinced they don't exist. More than likely a large part of said benefits are a natural part of sex, and you simply don't consider them spiritual (probably related to other beliefs or lack thereof).

I don't like when people presume to be purer than I am because of such a personal decision.

If someone has not in any way engaged in anything sexual, then that person has most definitely safeguarded him/herself from any of the sexual vices, which is why virginity is placed on such a pedestal in the first place. Of course, it's completely possible for people to avoid these vices while not being virgins, but consecrated virginity shows a certain kind of avoidance that is held at high regard, at least in many religions and societies.

And you say job discrimination is not part of the debate at hand, but I disagree. Earlier, when I said that I found virginity to be sexist (and heterosexist), another member said that s/he felt we've "moved on" from sexism. I was using job discrimination to point out that no, we haven't.

I'm a women's studies major, and I've really found that most issues surrounding sex are also issues surrounding sexism. And I think that recognizing sexism, especially when it's not so obvious, is an important step to eliminating it.

I can hardly see how continuing to hold restraint from sexual vices, particularly virginity in which such restraint exists in a sort of manifest way (particularly for women), is an "issue" at all.

It's hardly a matter of dis-empowering women to say that retaining virginity (among both sexes) is something to be respected. I cannot even see where you are drawing the connection to sexism, unless you are looking at a fringe demographic that I've probably never heard of or rewinding the clock considerably.

Originally Posted by Mr. Lexxi Aileron

If someone has not in any way engaged in anything sexual, then that person has most definitely safeguarded him/herself from any of the sexual vices, which is why virginity is placed on such a pedestal in the first place. Of course, it's completely possible for people to avoid these vices while not being virgins, but consecrated virginity shows a certain kind of avoidance that is held at high regard, at least in many religions and societies.

I also greatly repect people who can do this for thier show of self controll over such a strong natural instinct.

Yeah, most of the women I've spoken to about their first times with sex were friends, and most of my friends are not women's studies majors.

What, pray tell, is a sexual vice? And how are we in danger of having sexual vices by having sex before marriage?

Sex is an act, and it means what you think it means. And I don't think it has anything to do with marriage or spirituality. I reserve my spirituality for services and those things that I do as part of my faith. Besides, sex on Shabbas is a double mitzvah.

I don't see virginity as any sort of restraint. My sexuality hasn't changed one bit since having sex. And I also don't see having sex as any loss of any sort of control.

Look, I'm afraid that we've been butting heads in several topics, and since I'm new to this forum, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot and seem like a total *****. However, I've been arguing the same thing over and over: I have no desire to tell people how they should live their lives, and I don't appreciate being told that the way I live is bad.

Originally Posted by Sapphira

Look, I'm afraid that we've been butting heads in several topics, and since I'm new to this forum, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot and seem like a total *****. However, I've been arguing the same thing over and over: I have no desire to tell people how they should live their lives, and I don't appreciate being told that the way I live is bad.

this will happen a lot on the serious discussion threads. (even on the masturbation thread *coughcough*) I usually just pretend I'm playing devils advocate all the time so it makes things easier for me not to get too steamy. or I just convince myself I'm arguing for an ideology/truth not my actual soul.

I like the general chit chat as well, or the musicians corner

I was just curious as to whether your friends were in the same area of study, as, if they were, their bad experiences could very well have played a part in that decision. As it seems they are not, then simply you know a lot of people who were dissatisfied with the first time they had sex (I know I was).

Originally Posted by Sapphira

What, pray tell, is a sexual vice? And how are we in danger of having sexual vices by having sex before marriage?

A sexual vice is the same as any other vice, but can be most likened to gluttony and is often referred to as lust.

Sex is an act, and it means what you think it means. And I don't think it has anything to do with marriage or spirituality.

I suppose that depends on how you think sex should be used.

Certainly, if sex has a subjective meaning, then you are perfectly justified.

I, however, see sex in a spiritually (literally "personally") unitive light, as signified by the fact that life can be conceived through it. This is not to say that sex is exclusively for the purpose of child-bearing; this unitive effect exists in all consensual sexual acts (even vicious ones- as in, those "full of vice").

I reserve my spirituality for services and those things that I do as part of my faith.

I suppose this is another point on which we differ.

I see the spiritual as having a profound effect upon my existence, its very reason and sustenance, and thus, the spirituality pervades all aspects of my day-to-day life. Every experience is a spiritual one- a reflection, whether pale or bright, of the Kingdom.

I don't see virginity as any sort of restraint.

To be a virgin after the age of sexual maturity is quite literally to restrain oneself from sex (when desire kicks in, of course).

My sexuality hasn't changed one bit since having sex. And I also don't see having sex as any loss of any sort of control.

Originally Posted by Myself

Of course, it's completely possible for people to avoid these vices while not being virgins, but consecrated virginity shows a certain kind of avoidance that is held at high regard, at least in many religions and societies.

Look, I'm afraid that we've been butting heads in several topics, and since I'm new to this forum, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot and seem like a total *****.

Don't worry; I don't see you that way at all. Sure, some of your views and your expressions of them somewhat frustrate me, but none of that in any way diminishes your value as a person. If you'd like, I could add you to my friends list so we could talk about something a little less heated.

However, I've been arguing the same thing over and over: I have no desire to tell people how they should live their lives, and I don't appreciate being told that the way I live is bad.

I differ from you on this as well: I see certain moral standards as essential to how people "should live their lives," and so I make an effort to inform so as to hopefully attain some success in helping others to better themselves.

I should say as well that no one likes being told that the way they live is bad, but it is true that some ways of life are bad, and some people do need to be told. With that in mind, if I think a way of life is bad, can you think of any reason why I shouldn't speak out against it? I don't mark you yourself as a bad person, certainly- that is not for me to know or decide- and I cannot fault you for doing what you think is right. I can hardly ask you to do otherwise; I cannot ask you to go against your conscience.

On the flip side, can you fault me for trying to what in my view would be seen as bettering your moral compass? I'm not forcing you to do anything. I'm disagreeing with you and telling you how and why. That's a pretty neutral act, I'd say.

Originally Posted by Sapphira

There is absolutely no reason that a person should make more money because they are taller. That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

The normal explanation is that taller people are more intimidating and look more "boss-like" so they give the illusion that they're better at business. There's a better way to phrase it, but I'm recovering from a concussion so I can't think of it. But, just think of your a typical big-bussiness person, most likely they'll be a taller middle-aged male.

Originally Posted by Sapphira

Look, I'm afraid that we've been butting heads in several topics, and since I'm new to this forum, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot and seem like a total *****. However, I've been arguing the same thing over and over: I have no desire to tell people how they should live their lives, and I don't appreciate being told that the way I live is bad.

Then you have a long way to go before your can appreciate religious fundamentalists.

I kind of like these threads! I find these discussions interesting

But yeah, as we all know, I'm firmly pro-premarital. Partly because my moral beliefs lead me to that conclusion, partly because I do not want to get married and I'm not going to just abstain because of it, and partly because I see no purpose in 'saving myself'.

That said, I can't really sleep with just anyone (not that people are lining up to sleep with me, I mean this hypothetically ). The idea of casual sex with people who I don't know just doesn't work for me. Recent events have led me to decide that for me to sleep with a person, I do have to care for them a fair bit, know them, adore them physically at least, and probably appreciate them mentally.

It's why the idea of sex with strangers is completely uninteresting for me, and probably why things like porn do absolutely nothing for me. It's all too detatched. Sexual interactions are, for me, about the intimacy, the exploration of a body that fascinates me and the sharing of a deeply personal experience. I need that affection, and that personal involvement. It's all about the person in front of me and what they mean to me.

That doesn't mean I have to have known this person for a long time, or that I intend to spend a long time with with the person. I just need to feel close to them.

Of course, that's just my personal outlook. I'm cool with other people sleeping with whoever they want. Sex is as sex does, and I'm pretty sure it means something different to everyone.

(Also, the STD/pregnancy thing is a problem, but it doesn't have to be a big one. Communication, testing, and extensive use of contraceptives pretty much fixes that. Unless you're sleeping with random people all the time, it shouldn't be a convincing argument for abstinence in my eyes)

Originally Posted by Sapphira

Look, I'm afraid that we've been butting heads in several topics, and since I'm new to this forum, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot and seem like a total *****. However, I've been arguing the same thing over and over: I have no desire to tell people how they should live their lives, and I don't appreciate being told that the way I live is bad.

Trust me, getting off on the wrong foot with people is half the fun of the forum. When you come to a nice comprosmise, the whole argument seems satisfying. On that note, so long as you don't flame, respect other people's views, and don't just ignor points other people make that you have no response to (as Aw...some members do), then no one should see you as a *****.

Religious and moral guidelines aside, I have always wanted to save myself for whoever I'm going to marry. It's more of a personal "delayed gratification" thing more than anything, but I feel strongly about that. Any mention of casual sex just sickens me. It always has, even in my atheist days. Then there's always that big ol' STD cloud hanging over your head each time you have sex with another person. Not only do I disagree with it, I think it's stupid and disgusting. I could go on and be all critical, but I'd rather not provoke angered reactions aimed at me.