Pre-marital Sex - right or wrong?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 3:04 pm

"... still laughing from Guacamoli's post.."

... All right, Saturn, let me add something to your analogy which does touch upon the pre-marital discussion. If marriage is like the fusion of two metals (say, copper and brass) into one, then pre-marital sex is like a foreign ingredient that causes those metals to become less pure. Granted they will still meld given the right forge and temperature, but the impurities remain and cannot be wholly refined, giving rise to a weaker and less radiant alloy.

Do pre-marital sexual relations in one's past have any negative effects on a marriage relationship in one's future? I don't know for certain, not being married, but I would hazard a guess that indeed it does.

GO! DUBYA GO!

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 3:14 pm

Posted by Eminem -

... All right, Saturn, let me add something to your analogy which does touch upon the pre-marital discussion. If marriage is like the fusion of two metals (say, copper and brass) into one, then pre-marital sex is like a foreign ingredient that causes those metals to become less pure. Granted they will still meld given the right forge and temperature, but the impurities remain and cannot be wholly refined, giving rise to a weaker and less radiant alloy.

A good analogy, but the purer the metal, isn't it the softer/weaker the metal.

Look at gold. 9ct common and less expensive, but a hardy, lasting metal. 22ct harder to come by and easily worn.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 3:22 pm

Originally posted by Yshania:
A good analogy, but the purer the metal, isn't it the softer/weaker the metal.

Look at gold. 9ct common and less expensive, but a hardy, lasting metal. 22ct harder to come by and easily worn.

Yeah, but which would you rather have?

GO! CHENEY GO!

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 3:43 pm

@Eminem - by that analogy? 9ct.

He will need it

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 7:24 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM:


GO! CHENEY GO!

Gulp those undercooked steaks!
Go Cheney Go!

Finish the Cat in the Hat today!
Go Dubya go!

Azeroth · Post by **Azeroth** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 7:32 pm

It isn't premarital sex if you have no intention of getting married.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 7:51 pm

Originally posted by Azeroth:
It isn't premarital sex if you have no intention of getting married.

Premarital sex means you're having sex but have never been married.

Question: If you're divorced and you have sex, is that postmarital sex?

If you and your spouse have sex with other married couples, is that intermarital sex?

Is having sex with your spouse intramarital sex?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 7:55 pm

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:


Question: If you're divorced and you have sex, is that postmarital sex?

If you and your spouse have sex with other married couples, is that intermarital sex?

Uh... no. In both these cases, it's called adultery.

nael · Post by **nael** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 8:33 pm

why would it be adultery if you are divorced?
and yes, the correct term is intermarital for sex with someone outside the union.

and i also agree that if you have ZERO intention of gettign married, it isn't premarital. that would imply it is before a marriage, but if there is nto going to be marriage, how could it be "pre"?

Azeroth · Post by **Azeroth** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 8:42 pm

Originally posted by Azeroth:
It isn't premarital sex if you have no intention of getting married.

It says if YOU have no intention of getting married, implying that your partner may....

average joe · Post by **average joe** » Sat Sep 01, 2001 8:38 am

Originally posted by THE JAKER:
I'm goint to try to put down what I think about this topic really quick - it's something I feel strongly about.

I'm not in favor of promiscuity, but I believe that people should have sex before they get married. I say this because I know a lot of marriages are breaking up, but I think that if you get married you should try to make it work. I don't think there's any way of making it work if you're not happy and you and your spouse don't get along, and this means in a house as well as in bed.

So I think people should live together and have sex before they get married. My ex girlfriend who I used to live with says that if people live together, they'll never get married, but I say better to not get married then to get divorced after 3 or 4 years.

I think you should be married if you have kids, and if you have kids you owe it to them to stay together and give them a decent childhood. I've known too many kids with divorced parents. Once the kid turns 25, then get divorced if you must (it seems like no-one stays together anymore).

Anyway as far as sex before marriage goes, my experience is this - there are some people that you love, and you think are wonderful, but for whatever reason sex does not work out good with them. Better to find out before you're married.

Well, i would have to strongly disagree with this. I don't think relationships should be based on sexual compatibility. I think today's society has made sex into an audition. People have sex and rate one another on their love making. If you don't rate high enough, then you're outta luck.

Me being a virgin, most would say that I just don't understand. Well think about this. If both my future wife and i are virgins when we are married, we WON'T KNOW if we're uncompatible. The whole thing will be new for us. Will we be bad at love making when we first start...PROBABLY!!! But we won't know. And the fact that love has been the basis of our relationship up to that point--not sex--means that sucking at sex won't really matter. Mistakes will just be funny, and we'll learn as we go.

Sexual compatibility is just a term this society has made up to justify promiscuous sex. I find it hard to believe there are mass quantities of people out there that just don't enjoy sex, and that i will end up with one of them. Besides, not having sex doesn't mean not discussing sex. I'll know if the woman in question wants sex before it comes up.

T'lainya · Post by **T'lainya** » Sat Sep 01, 2001 8:59 am

Hmmm AJ..I think TheJaker meat compatibility of desire, not technique. If one person wants sex more frequently or one person has no interest it can cause tremendous problems.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Sat Sep 01, 2001 9:12 am

Originally posted by average joe:
Sexual compatibility is just a term this society has made up to justify promiscuous sex.

Pre-marital sex doesn't necessarily mean promiscuous sex...

average joe · Post by **average joe** » Sat Sep 01, 2001 9:15 am

You're right

average joe · Post by **average joe** » Sat Sep 01, 2001 9:17 am

Originally posted by T'lainya:
Hmmm AJ..I think TheJaker meat compatibility of desire, not technique. If one person wants sex more frequently or one person has no interest it can cause tremendous problems.

I think i covered that one.

You're right about what he was talking about, but it was his post that led to several other posts in which sexual compatibility was brought up. So, though i only referred to his post, i was actually replying to many. My bad, i suppose.

[ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: average joe ]

nael · Post by **nael** » Sat Sep 01, 2001 1:31 pm

as far as it goes if both people are virgin, it doesn't matter...you are either satisfied or not. so, if your wife has never had an orgasm, you would assume that she doesn't know what she is missing otu on, so all will be well...except everyoen talks, and she'll know what she is missing out on.

variety is the spice of life...

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Sat Sep 01, 2001 4:19 pm

Originally posted by Azeroth:
It isn't premarital sex if you have no intention of getting married.

Probably the best term for two people who have sex without any intention of getting married (to each other) wold be a-marital sex. But the term premarital sex is colloquially used to refer to most forms of extra-marital sex.

THE JAKER · Post by **THE JAKER** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 4:03 am

Originally posted by T'lainya:
Hmmm AJ..I think TheJaker meant compatibility of desire, not technique. If one person wants sex more frequently or one person has no interest it can cause tremendous problems.

I want to get back into this discussion, because like I said I feel pretty strongly about it, and I'm glad that people are thinking about their positions regarding sex and marriage.

Now I want to respond to what avg. Joe said a few posts back. Joe, what you said there has a lot of merit...I honestly and sincerely hope that your plans work out well for you. I don't want to be condescending - I really think that the important thing is for people to find someone they can be happy with, and you certainly can find out a lot about a potential mate/spouse WITHOUT having sexual intercourse.

I guess my statements about supporting pre-marital sex come partly from my intense dismay about the divorce rates these days and the number of broken homes and single parents etc that I see everywhere. I think these phenomenon are very damaging to people's lives and I try to figure out anything to make it better and make sure it doesn't happen to me. I guess I am also bitter because I was involved in a very serious relationship for several years which I wanted to lead to marriage, but which ended up self destructing because of conflicts which were NOT related to sex, but to personality. Anyway, I just want to say that it can be a struggle to stay with somebody, and I hope that everyone thinks over what they need in a relationship that will last, and trys to find it.

Regarding the interpretations as to what I meant when i said that people are sometimes sexually incompatible, well it's a delicate subject, and I don't really want to, you know, be too graphic or anything, but I'll just say this:

1. People sometimes don't have the same frequency or desire for sex.

2. People sometimes don't want the same type of sexual activities/are not satisfied by the things that satisfy their partner.

3. Sometimes people are incompatible physically in ways that make it hard for either person to be satisfied sexually.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 9:03 am

Except for harmful severe paraphilias where people actually hurt or risk to kill each other, I see nothing wrong at all in sex between conscending teenagers or adults as long as both (all) participants have made a conscious choice they want it.

Also, I see nothing wrong with abstinece until marriage or for life, if an individual thinks and feels this is right for him/her. The exception here, is when people view sexual acts and sex drive as something dirty and immoral, and even view themselves as disgusting for having such feelings.

A note about single parenthood: Contrary to popular belief in many other contries, recent studies by the Swedish national institute of health, shows that Swedish children living with single parents, are not more unhealthy, unhappy or are having more problems, than children living in households with two parents.

In an ideal world, I'd like all children to grow up not only with both their parents, but with the older generation around, with many other adults, and with many friends.

It is not so.

But split families does not need to be a problem for the kids, if the society doesn't stigmatise the phenomenon, and social and finacial support is available.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 12:03 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
A note about single parenthood: Contrary to popular belief in many other contries, recent studies by the Swedish national institute of health, shows that Swedish children living with single parents, are not more unhealthy, unhappy or are having more problems, than children living in households with two parents.

In an ideal world, I'd like all children to grow up not only with both their parents, but with the older generation around, with many other adults, and with many friends.

This is off-topic, but I found this interesting, and I had to add a bit of information. My wife did her PhD research in a couple of poor barrios in Cali, Colombia, looking at the relative heath statuses of women and children in male-headed households (i.e. two parents) vs. female-headed households (i.e. single mothers). In most indicators, she found no statistically significant differences. In the few indicators that did show significant differences, female-headed households always fared better. Even where the differences were not significantly different, the trends favored the women and children in the female-headed households. The women and children were healthier if there were no men around. This was odd, since male-headed households had a larger average per-capita income. Turns out, the men spent more of the family’s money on drink and lottery tickets.