marriage vs. partnership

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 5:01 pm

Interesting article

Here is an interesting article from the start of the year, it states such statistics as "I'm certainly seeing a 25% rise in chlamydia over the last year with something like a 200% rise over the past few years."

I wonder if there is a connection between the cultural background of many children that have been brought up since the "Free love" decades. Many of these children were conceived in these times, does that have an effect on the responsibility of a child?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 5:02 pm

Originally posted by Nippy
[BWe live in a modern world Eminem. We don't have to get married to have sex and to say that matrimony will stop STI's from being spread is judgemental and ridiculous on the people who don't want to get married but have long term partners. [/b]

Argh, my previous reply on this just disappeard! However, in defense of MM I'd like to point out that he doesn't live in an equally "modern" world as you and I do in this particular respect

The US have more problems with STD:s and unwanted pregnancy than North West Europe and Canada, although the teens in all 5 countries have similar amounts of sex.

From this site, read the executive report:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/euroteen_or.html

"Easy access to reproductive health services and information, especially contraceptives, is a major contributor to lower teenage pregnancy rates in other developed countries.
A new cross-national study finds that levels of sexual activity among teenagers are similar in the United States, Sweden, France, Canada and Great Britain--yet rates of pregnancy and birth remain highest among U.S. teenagers. The study attributes these higher rates to a range of factors, including greater social and economic disadvantage, less public support for the transition to adult economic roles, lower societal acceptance of sexual
activity among young people, and less--and possibly
less-effective--contraceptive use among U.S. teenagers."

And another:

Ann N Y Acad Sci 1997 Jun 17;816:395-403 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

Adolescent sexuality.

Goldfarb AF.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Sex education is almost mandated in the United States. The data reviewing sexual activity in the adolescent population indicates that large numbers of women under the age of 19 who have unintended pregnancies are at risk for an increased frequency of sexually transmitted diseases which will affect their future. It is essential that good educational programs and preventive service programs be developed and mandated for the adolescent population. Experience in Western Europe demonstrates that the adolescent who has a proper education concerning sexual activity, sexually transmitted disease, and contraception is at lower risk for the many problems that we see in the United States. There must be cross-cultural data that can be translated for use in the entire world. As the population of this world ages, we must protect those who are entering adulthood from being exposed to the STDs and undertaking the responsibility of parenting without having reached full maturity. The cost in dollars of the sequelae of adolescent pregnancies are great. These costs are not only financial, but also emotional and social, and they have a negative impact on the country in which the adolescent lives. We have a heavy responsibility as physicians and health care professionals to see that the adolescents of the world are given the knowledge and models to use to reduce the risk for pregnancy and the acquisition of a sexually transmitted disease.

[posted by MM
Wow! This is good stuff! Thanks very much, CE. I really appreciate you taking some time off your busy schedule to put this up. Talk about food for thought. I'll let you know what I think of these abstacts as soon as find my dictionary![/b]

I'm actually doing Medline searchers right now for an article I'm writing, but I couldn't resist to check up the teenage risk behaviour area as well

Once I started reading it, I found it very interesting, to thanks for theleading me to it

As we both know we are not going to change each other's basic opinions, but I still it's an interesting discussion. Personally I don't think early sex is the cause of all these problems, but regardless of cause, the reported pattern of risk behaviours is serious and worth to look into. But now I really really must continue to work with some more focus!

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 5:10 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Suicide is not relevant to this discussion, could you leave it out so it does not dilute this conversation too far from it's original topic.

Sorry to object mr Moderator, but I actually think that perhaps not suicide but at least "suicide ideation" (ie suicidal thoughts or wishes) and "suicidal behaviour" (ie self-injury, suicide attempts) have some relevance to the discussion since increased suidical ideation & behaviour has been reported as a part of this "risk behaviour pattern" we are discussing. Among white US teenagers, several studies support the idea of a behaviour pattern that also includes drug abuse, depression, early sex and low self esteem. I think there are also some correlations to not having two parents, and to parental substance abuse. This IMO is an interesting discussion about an important topic, and even if MM thinks this pattern may be caused by premarital sex, and I think it's caused by other factors, I think we can all respect each others different opinions.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 5:20 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans

Sorry to object mr Moderator, but I actually think that perhaps not suicide but at least "suicide ideation" (ie suicidal thoughts or wishes) and "suicidal behaviour" (ie self-injury, suicide attempts) have some relevance to the discussion since increased suidical ideation & behaviour has been reported as a part of this "risk behaviour pattern" we are discussing. Among white US teenagers, several studies support the idea of a behaviour pattern that also includes drug abuse, depression, early sex and low self esteem. I think there are also some correlations to not having two parents, and to parental substance abuse. This IMO is an interesting discussion about an important topic, and even if MM thinks this pattern may be caused by premarital sex, and I think it's caused by other factors,

If one feels like there is ground for discussion within this thread with reference to suicide then so be it, everyone be very careful where they tread, i personally don't appreciate conversations about suicide, and i think that deep a level of conversation is unecessary to this dicussion, but if you must talk about it then i will allow it for now.

I think we can all respect each others different opinions.

I hope so.

T'lainya · Post by **T'lainya** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 5:38 pm

Let me add to Sleeps comment,
We will respect each others differences or the offending post will be removed and the poster warned.
Tempers have flared once and I don't want a repeat.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 8:34 pm

I trust this timely expression of concern from my fellow moderators isn't going to stifle discussion--there was plenty of it, and all of it good, too. @CE has established some very clear parameters for any mention of suicide IMO, so there should be no difficulties in continuing from there; or in dealing with any of the many issues that have been raised, here, over the last couple of days. So carry on, keeping in mind what's been said.

Astafas · Post by **Astafas** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 8:39 pm

Originally posted by Nippy
We live in a modern world Eminem. We don't have to get married to have sex and to say that matrimony will stop STI's from being spread is judgemental and ridiculous on the people who don't want to get married but have long term partners.

Well said.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sun Mar 17, 2002 1:43 am

I forget who posted this
come come Beldin...for reasons above, we cannot just say 'I'm married, you're not so I know more than you.' and then discount one anothers arguments. I seriously doubt wether even you know the answer to this question just because MM doesn't.

I think Beldin was referring to the bit about being hopelessly in love with Viconia and Aerie, as opposed to the "I'm married and you're not so nyeh nyeh nyeh" bit. Besides, IIRC Beldin isn't married, which was exactly his point.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 7:50 am

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper

I think Beldin was referring to the bit about being hopelessly in love with Viconia and Aerie, as opposed to the "I'm married and you're not so nyeh nyeh nyeh" bit. Besides, IIRC Beldin isn't married, which was exactly his point.

Thank you "Odie" for defending me in my absence ! *hands over a little package with a little something*

Originally posted by Eminem
To use an ancient Indian proverb, "If you want to know how water feels like, don't ask the fish!"

@Eminem: So you're saying that you can only talk about marriage and sex until you've made the experience yourself, because once you've made love or married - you ARE one of the fish and therefore can not be "asked what water fees like " ?

Originally posted by Eminem
and since you didn't dispute that sex within marriage is safer than sex outside of marriage, I'll end here.

@Eminem: It hasn't been disputed by me because it IS THE SAME. That's the point I'm trying to get across. I'm living in a monogamous relationship with ONE woman and OUR risk of catching HIV or the clap is EXACTLY the same like in a marriage - it doesn'n matter if we're married or not. THATS MY POINT.

@Frogus: As stated above by O.t.a.G. - I wasn't reffering to me being married (which I am not) but to the fact that someone who didn't ever have the expierience of love or sex could not tell me anything about it.
It would be like a blind man talking about colours.

And since I do NOT want to get down to the ridiculous level of :

MM: Marriage is right !
Beldin: No it isn't !
MM: Yes it is.
Beldin : I don't believe you !
MM: NO, I don't believe YOU !
.
.
.
and so on... -> I will continue to lurk in this thread until I come up with something worth saying, which I can't now because C Elegans, Astafas, yourself, fable, Nippy and Maharlika have said everything I could've said - and you've said it better and in the case of C Elegans more professional than I ever could.

Therefore - I rest my case - until the need arises for me to speak again on that topic.

No Worries,

Beldin

PS: In case anybody missed that:
Keep cool altogether... it's just a discussion !

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:18 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
Argh, my previous reply on this just disappeard! However, in defense of MM I'd like to point out that he doesn't live in an equally "modern" world as you and I do in this particular respect

I agree with you in a sense C Elegans, but on the flipside, because Eminem isn't in our 'modern' world as you put it, how can he define what is right or wrong in a modern society?

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:46 pm

ahh gosh this one's really coming along.

I think I can add a couple of vital points though to sort out the non-scientific side of the debate (which is what I'm interested in

)
@MM (and everyone else I guess) I think Beldin's point

I'm living in a monogamous relationship with ONE woman and OUR risk of catching HIV or the clap is EXACTLY the same like in a marriage - it doesn'n matter if we're married or not. THATS MY POINT.

sums this up, but here you go.

-MARRIAGE does not make sex safer. Having a monogamous relationship may do this, but one can be had outside amrriage.
-MARRIAGE does not make a relationship more loving. Many married relationships are more loving than non-married, but this is because the people who have the most loving relationships then decide to get married, not because the people who decide to get married then suddenly have more loving relationships.
-MARRIAGE does not happen to everyone when they get old enough just like that. People can have pre-marital sex at any age and underage sex will not stop if nobody has sex until they get married, because many (most?) people never do get married.

my point is just this. You are mistaking the causes of marriage for the effects of marriage.

You are saying, look, this person is deeply in love and has a stable sex life! It must be because she is married! What a great thing marriage is!

where as you should be saying:

This person is deeply in love and has a stable sex life! No wonder she got married!

I wasn't reffering to me being married (which I am not) but to the fact that someone who didn't ever have the expierience of love or sex could not tell me anything about it.

yeah, I know you are not married. You're rejection of MM's opinions on the grounds of him not having experienced love or sex is wrong, because then I can just say, well you haven't experienced anybody elses love or sex, so you don't know anything about it. One love is as different to another as it is to non-love.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I will be forever in complete disagreement with you on this one.

@MM..this is bad debating practice. I will carry on for now just because I enjoy the dabate, but coming into a discussion and saying 'You will never persuade me that your opinion is right even if you prove it beyond all doubt' is not going to get you anywhere. Why would anyone bother trying to say anything to you in that case?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:50 pm

Originally posted by Nippy

I agree with you in a sense C Elegans, but on the flipside, because Eminem isn't in our 'modern' world as you put it, how can he define what is right or wrong in a modern society?

Well, if by "modern" you mean the rejection and/or ridicule of God's teachings on this issue, and the wilful acceptance of promiscuity and unrestrained sexual indulgence by kids as young as 15 who are not ready for it, while their parents and guardians nonchalantly shrug their shoulders and refuse to teach them the difference between right and wrong because they themselves have no moral backbone, a platform on which to stand, or a personal example in which to inspire patience and self-control in their children, then you're absolutely right - I do not live (nor do I wish to live) in this "modern" world. I grew up in a community where abstinance and self-control is promoted, premarital sex shown for what it is, and marriage is honored and upheld over common-law or same-sex relationships. As "non-modern" as this may sound to secular ears, it's the kind of environment I intend to raise my children if and when I get married and start a family, because I think it is a thousand times better than the empty, relativist and do-whatever-you-feel-like attitude that this "modern" world has to offer.

Hakunah Matata,

The Real Slim Shady

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:57 pm

Originally posted by frogus

@MM..this is bad debating practice. I will carry on for now just because I enjoy the dabate, but coming into a discussion and saying 'You will never persuade me that your opinion is right even if you prove it beyond all doubt' is not going to get you anywhere. Why would anyone bother trying to say anything to you in that case?

C'mon frogus, get real. Debates and discussions about topics like these will change no one's minds, no matter how effective and logical the arguments. I didn't write anything new, or anything most of us didn't already know after having spent nearly a year here at SYM. Why would anyone bother to say anything to me in this case? I don't know, but so far it doesn't seem to be preventing them from doing so!

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:02 pm

Originally posted by Nippy
I agree with you in a sense C Elegans, but on the flipside, because Eminem isn't in our 'modern' world as you put it, how can he define what is right or wrong in a modern society?

I think MM reasons like this: God has set absolute rules human should follow, and these rules are what is best for us. The rules are objective and absolute, ie they include all people, in all times, in all societies and cultures. Therefore, MM believe these by god given rules are always the best, he doesn't need to know something about a society to know god's rules are the best. Forgive me MM for presenting a schematic description of your beliefs, but in principle, this is how perceive MM:s reasoning.

Of course I don't agree with MM, and my reasoning is like this:
Premarital sex might be correlated to a pattern of problem behavior. In order to establish what causes what, we must study each factor one at the time. If premarital sex is the reason for all those bad things, then other countries with as much or more premature sex as in the US, should also have these problems. As I posted above, the US has much more problems than Sweden although premarital sex is more accepted here. Thus, premarital sex can't be the major factor for this problem.

I just read than Dubbayah had granted more money to "abstinece funds" in the US. Abstinence is of course one way to get rid of STD:s and unwanted pregnancy. You would also get rid of the date-rapes and date-abuse if everybody was abstinent. You will however not get rid of depression, drug abuse, low self esteem and suicidal behaviours among teenagers. We have no idea if sexual abstinence would have any effect at all on these areas.
Personally, I think sexual abstinence is a superficial, inefficient way of solving the problem with teenagers behaving destructively and having health problems. It's a typical politician's solution - it's not founded on research, it doesn't address the deeper, underlying problems in society that contribute to the problems and it's cheap and simple compared to the large scale intervention I think is needed to decrease drug use, depression and other destructive behaviours among teens.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 5:13 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM

C'mon frogus, get real. Debates and discussions about topics like these will change no one's minds, no matter how effective and logical the arguments.

But it would be nice to think that people who post information which is factually inaccurate, upon having it corrected, learn something in the process; and that we all stand to gain from discovering how other individuals think and feel, even if those opinions and feelings are pretty alien to our own. Who knows: we may all discover that some of the truths we hold are pretty minor glass specimens, next to the truths we learn by interacting with the world.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 5:32 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM
Well, if by "modern" you mean the rejection and/or ridicule of God's teachings on this issue...<snip>

Heh, with "modern" I was referring to Nippy's statement that we don't need to get married, and to the interventions Nippy described has been implemented in Britain, ie the increase of information and education of sex and contraception.

I hope you noticed the

I put after "modern", I certainly didn't mean anything offensive with this, I just meant to point out that we come from very different backgrounds, and that the US and Europe differs in policy and values. (Note that there are many things I personally dislike with the modern world if modern is implicating "our current Western society". However, free sex and decrease of marriage is not one of the things I object to, and religion is not the solution I believe in. )

Did you see my little statistics post above, with the comparisons between Sweden and the US? From your point of view MM, how do you explain that Sweden has considerably less problems with unwanted teenage pregnancies and STD:s? We also have less problems with drugs, violence and crime among youths here, of course there are problems here too, but less than in the US (in %). Doesn't this demonstrate that lack of christianity or other religious beliefs and free sex is possible without the society falling into more depravation than a christian society?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 7:01 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans

Did you see my little statistics post above, with the comparisons between Sweden and the US? From your point of view MM, how do you explain that Sweden has considerably less problems with unwanted teenage pregnancies and STD:s? We also have less problems with drugs, violence and crime among youths here, of course there are problems here too, but less than in the US (in %). Doesn't this demonstrate that lack of christianity or other religious beliefs and free sex is possible without the society falling into more depravation than a christian society?

It's too early to tell, so I can't make any conclusions, and neither can you. There are many forms of decline; some more gradual than others. I am aware, however, that since 1995 Sweden's birthrate has been at a dismal 1.50, which is significantly below the replacement level of 2.10, which the United States despite its "depravation" has been able to maintain. By 2050, a child-starved Europe, along with Sweden, will have to import over a billion immigrants (which will not happen because your political system will not stand for it) to maintain its current standard of living. Therefore, either Europe raises taxes and radically downsizes pensions and health benefits for the elderly, or Europe becomes a Third World continent. There is no precedence in history for a collapsing birth-rate of this magnitude. Personally (and I'm speaking here simply as a History major), I can't recall any time in the past, except perhaps during the waning years of the Roman Empire, when immorality (of which "free sex" is the modern euphemistic term) has been so rampant and widely accepted. Now is there a correlation between low birth rates, rejection of the institution of marriage, and sexual promiscuity on a national scale? I can only speculate, but I'm willing to bet that there is. Unwanted pregnancies, drugs, violence, and STDs are serious problems, and I'm genuinely glad that Swedish youth are avoiding these better than their American counterparts. But any comparison between our respective societies are superfluous if, in fifty years, America still exists as a nation, while Sweden has ceased to exist as a country.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 8:11 pm

@Eminem: Sexual promiscuity and pre-marital sex are not the same thing at all, as people keep pointing out. It is entirely possible to only ever have sexual relations with one partner in your life, and yet not be married to them.

And a declining birth rate is hardly moral depravity.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 9:04 pm

Originally posted by Georgi
[B
And a declining birth rate is hardly moral depravity. [/b]

I never said it was. I did imply, however, that a society like Sweden which openly tolerates, and even encourages, sexual immorality over sexual restraint, and rejects marriage for common-law or same-sex relationships, as the proper place in which to raise children, is in the long run doomed to decline and degeneracy - culturally, demographically, economically, and spiritually. But keep in mind that this is just my POV.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 1:54 am

Originally posted by EMINEM

It's too early to tell, so I can't make any conclusions, and neither can you. There are many forms of decline; some more gradual than others. I am aware, however, that since 1995 Sweden's birthrate has been at a dismal 1.50, which is significantly below the replacement level of 2.10, which the United States despite its "depravation" has been able to maintain. By 2050, a child-starved Europe, along with Sweden, will have to import over a billion immigrants (which will not happen because your political system will not stand for it) to maintain its current standard of living. Therefore, either Europe raises taxes and radically downsizes pensions and health benefits for the elderly, or Europe becomes a Third World continent. There is no precedence in history for a collapsing birth-rate of this magnitude. Personally (and I'm speaking here simply as a History major), I can't recall any time in the past, except perhaps during the waning years of the Roman Empire, when immorality (of which "free sex" is the modern euphemistic term) has been so rampant and widely accepted. Now is there a correlation between low birth rates, rejection of the institution of marriage, and sexual promiscuity on a national scale? I can only speculate, but I'm willing to bet that there is. Unwanted pregnancies, drugs, violence, and STDs are serious problems, and I'm genuinely glad that Swedish youth are avoiding these better than their American counterparts. But any comparison between our respective societies are superfluous if, in fifty years, America still exists as a nation, while Sweden has ceased to exist as a country.

So--are you saying that the solution to Sweden's "problem" should not only be for everyone there to get married, but for the women to have more children than they want?