GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by C Elegans
IMO, physical and sexual intimacy is as important as emotional intimacy in a loving relationship - they should be united, and emotional closeness in not a guarantee for sexual closeness. Just like some people just don't fit each other emotionally, some people just don't fit each other sexually. I know several people who have had problems they would most probably not have overcome if they, or at least one of them, had previous sexual experience. Everybody is of course entitled to their opinions and I respect the choices MM and SS have done, it's their personal choices according to their personal values, but I certainly don't think other people's choices should be viewed as less good or less moral just because they don't coincide with biblical texts.

Obviously, you'll get no argument from me on these points. It's noteworthy that for hundreds of years, there was a tradition of European noblemen paying particularly trustworthy, clean and sympathetic ladies-of-the-evening to "initiate" their sons into the sexual realm. This was done so that they'd receive useful knowledge and a fine emotional memory in an angst-free environment: a good idea, IMO. Unfortunately, they did not do as much for their daughters, although it is certainly possible (even likely, in some cases) that personal maids took the honor upon themselves; at least, so several memoirs of the period recount. But this probably did little for providing a balance of knowledge useful in normal heterosexual relations.

This gets into an aspect of the virginity-before-marriage issue that we haven't really treated, yet: the idea that virginity is a feminine thing, suitable for women. I'm glad nobody here has yet suggested this, althouigh I'm inclined to wonder (on the basis of other threads we've had) whether in fact it might be believed by some among us. Typically, this is one of those cultural attitudes that are completely irrational, and therefore nearly impossible to argue with: a woman's virginity is a delicate bloom, which must be preserved for her husband. And her husband's virginity? Well, he's a man. He's expected to have a good time, before he settles down into marriage.

Why shouldn't women have a "good time?" Why shouldn't they bring a mature sexual knowledge to marriage that enhances married life for the couple? But if a woman does this, she's called "easy," and worse, while a man is "feeling his oats," "a sad rip," or whatever the local phrase might be at the moment wherever you are.

Fortunately, I think this lopsided, wholy bigoted approach to virgiinity is giving way to a more sophisticated, modern view of sexual relationships, at least in urban areas. It wouldn't surprise me to hear, however, that some of us have run into this notion from relatives or friends.

I think it goes back to some of our cultural biases. For instance, as you say, men who sleep around are "just being boys" while women who engage in the exact same behaviour are sluts or whores.

We also don't think twice about older men with younger women (ie-Eric Clapton and his bride, Harrison Ford and Callista Flockhart, etc.), but we think that a woman involved with a man ten years here junior is robbing the cradle.

I think that we expect certain things from people, but have recently found out that kids don't care. There was something in USA Today a week or so ago that claimed that the precentage of sexually active high schoolers was rising, both boys and girls. Clearly, we are seeing a cultural shift in our attitudes (if only through our actions) towards sex.

Originally posted by fable
a woman's virginity is a delicate bloom, which must be preserved for her husband. And her husband's virginity? Well, he's a man. He's expected to have a good time, before he settles down into marriage.

In my opinion, it is just as important for him to remain a virgin as it is for me to remain a virgin.

Originally posted by C Elegans


... but I certainly don't think other people's choices should be viewed as less good or less moral just because they don't coincide with biblical texts.

My choice is based on common sense as much as it on Holy Scripture. And on the basis on common sense alone, it is better, safer, and smarter, to save yourself for marriage. Now whether something better, safer, and smarter is equivalent to being morally good remains to be hammered out between us SYMians.

Originally posted by EMINEM
And on the basis on common sense alone, it is better, safer, and smarter, to save yourself for marriage.

How does common sense dictate that by not having premarital sex, it will be better or smarter? I can buy that it is safer, as absintenance is the only 100% sure way to avoid STDs, but your other assertions seemed to be based more in opinion than fact.

Originally posted by HighLordDave


How does common sense dictate that by not having premarital sex, it will be better or smarter? I can buy that it is safer, as absintenance is the only 100% sure way to avoid STDs, but your other assertions seemed to be based more in opinion than fact.

I have no comment to make about 'better,' but as for smarter, wouldn't it be smarter to not risk getting STDs than to risk getting STDs?

it is better, safer, and smarter, to save yourself for marriage. Now whether something better, safer, and smarter is equivalent to being morally good remains to be hammered out between us SYMians.

this is my kind of talk . I think certainly saying something is 'better' is saying it is morally good. Good cannot be good if it is not moral, anything morally good is good. good good good they're the same thing. However, I think maybe you weren't being very precise in saying it's 'better', you were just saying it because that's what you think...But this raises the question, can something be better if it is not smarter and safer?

Firstly- smarter: Obviously abstaining from sex until marriage is only smart because it is right (in your opinion). I don not believe that it is possible to do something smart without it being right. I think being smart means doing what is right. Feel free to dispute this if you want.

Secondly- safer: I don't think there is any dispute that not having having sex is safer than having it.
I think that someone can do something morally wrong which is quite safe and it is also possible to do something morally right at great danger (no dispute there I hope).

So we know that it is safer to abstain from sex (as of course your life would be extremely safe if you abstained from EVERYTHING). We need to know if then doing something right is better than doing something safe. I hope we can all agree that there is nothing so great about acting safely if you're doing evil things, and that acting rightly is the only good thing one can do.

So all we have now is 'is sex before marriage right or wrong'

pretty much where we started. Anyway, I claim that for this reason, saying it is smarter and safer is no argument for abstainence's virtue over pre-marital sex...we can run through what I've just said and boil those down to the same thing: 'right'.

are there any other reasons why abstainence is better than non-abstainance?

Originally posted by HighLordDave


How does common sense dictate that by not having premarital sex, it will be better or smarter? I can buy that it is safer, as absintenance is the only 100% sure way to avoid STDs, but your other assertions seemed to be based more in opinion than fact.

The facts are there if you care to look, but I think this is just a question of semantics. Quite apart from the research, it's better "because" it's smarter and safer to go through life without carrying the baggage of a sexually transmitted disease, suffering an unwanted pregnancy (and perhaps even an abortion), and jeopardizing the emotional and physical welfare of your future husband or wife.

There are precautions you can take to avoid contracting STDs that provide a reasonable (but not 100%) amout of protection against infection. So on one level, if you equate smarter with lowering your risks for infection, then yes, it does make sense.

However, it is possible to contract some STDs without engaging in sexual activity, and not all of the ways involve high-risk activity (ie-drug use, intercourse, etc.). Ryan White got HIV from a blood transfusion. Hepatitis can be contracted by unborn children if their mother is infected.

Similarly, we take a reasonable amout of risk every day with our own personal safety and think nothing about it. For instance, when was the last time you split a can/bottle of soda with someone? You could have gotten mononucleosis (or any number of other bacterial and viral infections), but you risked exposure anyway.

By this reasoning, you should also avoid travelling by automobile (each year about 40,000 people are killed in auto accidents; about twice as many as were killed by AIDS in 1999) or even getting in bed (most people die in bed, you know; if you're moving it's harder for Death to get you).

Originally posted by frogus
this is my kind of talk . I think certainly saying something is 'better' is saying it is morally good. Good cannot be good if it is not moral, anything morally good is good. good good good they're the same thing. However, I think maybe you weren't being very precise in saying it's 'better', you were just saying it because that's what you think...But this raises the question, can something be better if it is not smarter and safer?

Firstly- smarter: Obviously abstaining from sex until marriage is only smart because it is right (in your opinion). I don not believe that it is possible to do something smart without it being right. I think being smart means doing what is right. Feel free to dispute this if you want.

Secondly- safer: I don't think there is any dispute that not having having sex is safer than having it.
I think that someone can do something morally wrong which is quite safe and it is also possible to do something morally right at great danger (no dispute there I hope).

So we know that it is safer to abstain from sex (as of course your life would be extremely safe if you abstained from EVERYTHING). We need to know if then doing something right is better than doing something safe. I hope we can all agree that there is nothing so great about acting safely if you're doing evil things, and that acting rightly is the only good thing one can do.

So all we have now is 'is sex before marriage right or wrong'

pretty much where we started. Anyway, I claim that for this reason, saying it is smarter and safer is no argument for abstainence's virtue over pre-marital sex...we can run through what I've just said and boil those down to the same thing: 'right'.

are there any other reasons why abstainence is better than non-abstainance?

Frogman, you have the makings of a linguistics philosopher.

Originally posted by HighLordDave

However, it is possible to contract some STDs without engaging in sexual activity, and not all of the ways involve high-risk activity (ie-drug use, intercourse, etc.). Ryan White got HIV from a blood transfusion. Hepatitis can be contracted by unborn children if their mother is infected.

Similarly, we take a reasonable amout of risk every day with our own personal safety and think nothing about it. For instance, when was the last time you split a can/bottle of soda with someone? You could have gotten mononucleosis, but you risked infection anyway.

By this reasoning, you should also avoid travelling by automobile (each year about 40,000 people are killed in auto accidents; about twice as many as were killed by AIDS in 1999) or even getting in bed (most people die in bed, you know; if you're moving it's harder for Death to get you).

There is an "acceptable" ratio between the number of times people hop into their cars to go driving versus the number of automobile fatalities that occur in a given year. Otherwise, we would have stopped manufacturing cars long ago. 'Same goes for the number of people who go to bed, and the number who end up waking up the next morning, as well as the number of people who undergo a blood transfusion, and the number who accidentally contract a terminal virus during the procedure. In all these cases, and in many other normal life scenarios where death may be a factor, the benefits and chances for living outweigh the risks involved. The same thing cannot be said, however, about sexually transmitted diseases.

Frogman, you have the makings of a linguistics philosopher.

is that a compliment?

anyway...I thought it all sounded very stable? what was wrong with it?

EDIT: sorry to spam the thread, but MM does your avatar have no irises? it's freaking me out...

In all these cases, and in many other normal life scenarios where death may be a factor, the benefits and chances for living outweigh the risks involved. The same thing cannot be said, however, about sexually transmitted diseases.

@MM. What do you think the benefits of sex are?

Originally posted by HighLordDave
There are precautions you can take to avoid contracting STDs that provide a reasonable (but not 100%) amout of protection against infection. So on one level, if you equate smarter with lowering your risks for infection, then yes, it does make sense.

However, it is possible to contract some STDs without engaging in sexual activity, and not all of the ways involve high-risk activity (ie-drug use, intercourse, etc.). Ryan White got HIV from a blood transfusion. Hepatitis can be contracted by unborn children if their mother is infected.

Similarly, we take a reasonable amout of risk every day with our own personal safety and think nothing about it. For instance, when was the last time you split a can/bottle of soda with someone? You could have gotten mononucleosis (or any number of other bacterial and viral infections), but you risked exposure anyway.

By this reasoning, you should also avoid travelling by automobile (each year about 40,000 people are killed in auto accidents; about twice as many as were killed by AIDS in 1999) or even getting in bed (most people die in bed, you know; if you're moving it's harder for Death to get you).

I've been in a car wreck in the middle of the desert in New Mexico, the only other car around being the one that we got in a wreck with. I've also ridden through LA and Dallas traffic without so much as a fenderbender. I've never personally known anyone who ended up dying in a car wreck, though I have known people who got into car wrecks. My Uncle died of AIDS. I do not know how he got AIDS, nor do I care to know.

While it is possible to contract some STDs in other ways than through sex, they are called STDs because they can be contracted during sex. Your apparent reasoning, however, that this means it is pointless to abstain from sex for this purpose is flawed. While these STDs are cases where abstaining from sex will not reduce the chance of contracting the disease to 0%, it will reduce the chance by some amount. I have seen firsthand the effects of AIDS. If I can reduce my chance of getting AIDS by any amount then I'll give it a try. A 1% difference can mean the difference between contracting the disease and not contracting the disease.

More people may die in car wrecks than from AIDS, but there is a simple explanation for this. I'm guessing that it's pretty safe to say that more people risk their lives by driving/riding in cars than there who have sex.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a reasonable amount of risk when it comes to possibly contracting or transmitting an STD.

Originally posted by frogus
is that a compliment?

... MM does your avatar have no irises? it's freaking me out...

... gooood, it's working!

@linguistic philosopher... it's a compliment. JRR Tolkien himself was such a one (but then again, so was Friedrich Nietzche! )

I found the avatar quite good, personally. It's a photo of Eminem in a cathedral looking sideways at a crucifix.

His expression says it all.

Originally posted by frogus
@MM. What do you think the benefits of sex are?

Too many to count, but I think the benefits are enjoyed best in a marriage relationship.

posted by MM
My choice is based on common sense as much as it on Holy Scripture. And on the basis on common sense alone, it is better, safer, and smarter, to save yourself for marriage. Now whether something better, safer, and smarter is equivalent to being morally good remains to be hammered out between us SYMians.

MM, you know as well as I do that appeal to "common sense" is not a valid argument in any debate - that's just equal to saying "this is my personal opinion". Appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy, just as Appeal to popularity. I know you know this.

What is defined as common sense differs between times, cultures, and individuals. That one person defines A as common sense, does not necessarily demonstrate that A is true.

I do not argue against the fact that total abstinecy give safer protection against STD:s than having sex does. However, I hop you know that it doesn't give total protection. HIV can be transferred in other ways, and people can be born with the virus. A majority of people have herpes virus, and you can also get herpes from non-sexual sources. The most common way to get herpes is to get it from your parents when you are a child. Just a few examples.

However, I agree with "safer", but I certainly don't agree with "better and smarter". Safety is only one factor, no the only factor.

Originally posted by EMINEM

The facts are there if you care to look, but I think this is just a question of semantics. Quite apart from the research, it's better "because" it's smarter and safer to go through life without carrying the baggage of a sexually transmitted disease, suffering an unwanted pregnancy (and perhaps even an abortion), and jeopardizing the emotional and physical welfare of your future husband or wife.

I have looked through your arguments and your links, and I have found no such facts. What I have found is your personal opinions and a website with propaganda material that I assume reflect other people's personal opinions. What facts are you referring to? Or is this also a question of sematics, that the word "fact" to you does not, as it does for me, include "objectively demonstrated, not falsified and consistent"?

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn
More people may die in car wrecks than from AIDS, but there is a simple explanation for this. I'm guessing that it's pretty safe to say that more people risk their lives by driving/riding in cars than there who have sex.

I'm really sorry to hear your uncle died in AIDS, it's a horrible and cruel disease. I have known people who have died both from car wrecks and AIDS. Also, Sweden's largest neurosurgery clinic is in the same house as my lab, so I often see tragic victims of car and bike accidents.

You are right in your guess, according to risk analysis based on US statistics, the risk to die in a car wreck is about 1/6000 and the risk to get AIDS is about 1/11000. The risk do die from homicide is about 1/10000. What risks we think is worth it and not is a highly individual choice, and if people protect themselves correctly, the risk to get AIDS is IMO neglible, just as if we try behave in a "safe" way, the risk to get murdered in the street exists, but it's neglible.

Too many to count, but I think the benefits are enjoyed best in a marriage relationship.

Do you mean they are best enjoyed in a marriage, or in a longterm commited relationship?
sorry to keep coming back to this point. anyway, if it has to be a marriage, then what exactly changes during the matrimonial service to make one better equipped to enjoy sex.
What is it that 'clicks' during the marriage rite?

Originally posted by EMINEM


Too many to count

How very convenient for you...