Is it still relevant?
Yes
17.9% (28)
17.9% (28)
No
67.9% (106)
67.9% (106)
Sometimes (Details please)
12.8% (20)
12.8% (20)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Sex before marrage; is it still relevant?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

As we all (should) know that the bible, Quran, and many other books, state that sex before marrage is a bad thing. And for good reason, during the time of those books making, sex ment pregnency. In general you didnt random men to be fathers.

So now that a person getting pregnet from sex is no longer a generente, its a very small chance if there on birth control. Do you think that no sex before marrage is still relevent?

-Yes books say that its wrong.
-Yes certain religions say it goes agaist god.

But why do they tell people this? Is it cultural? Because it was relevent so long ago?
Does that mean its still relevant now?

I think it is relevant no matter who you are. If you are religious or for whatever other reason are waiting for marriage, it is relevant because it is a temptation to be avoided. If you are not in that camp, it is relevant because you likely want to have it. The only people who wouldn't care are those that have given up trying and the asexual.

I can only speak personally and for where I grew up, but in high school, when this was still an issue, aside from a small group of Christian kids, most people were having sex. It wasn't as though people were sleeping around really and aside from a small minority of promiscuous kids; people were mostly in monogamous, long relationships and just decided to go for it, I suppose.

Culturally, I would tend to think that the idea of staying abstnent untill marriage is no longer relevant, no.

Individually, mileage may vary.

Do what feels right to you. Don't expect others to conform to your choice.

Sex is an enjoyable experience, and it can be very different from partner to partner. If that's something you want to experience, experience it.

Sex can also be very rewarding when shared with a person that you love. It can be a very intimate and loving experience. If you only want to experience that, then more power to you.

There's nothing wrong with either, as far as I'm concerned, though I certainly don't understand the desire to deny oneself the opportunity to experience sex in a variety of contexts and with a variety of people.

But, to each their own. They aren't hurting me, so long as they don't tell me I have to wait.

It's relevant in that it matters to some people, not simply as a matter of not making a baby but in the sense of preserving one's honor (or innocence, or whatever term is used depending on who's saying it) for marriage. In some societies it's still a matter of great importance, but most of us don't live in such a society and it's not a big deal for most people in our society unless someone gets pregnant when they shouldn't, in which case there's still plenty of shit for everyone to step in.

it varies on a personal level, im not gonna tell someone to not have sex 'til they're married. i also don't think it should be pushed against either though. i have dated women that wanted to wait til they were married and i was fine with that, im not gonna force it upon them, i also dated women who didn't really mind so it was basically a bonus. either way unless you want kids use protection.

Nope. Now that we have contraception and being sexually active no longer equates to babies being produced, I think there's no logical link between sex and marriage at all.

Not that I believe that this should devalue marriage (or sex, for that matter) in any way, though. And if two people genuinely want to make a pact of celibacy until their wedding night... then wow, more power to them, I respect their self-control.

Batou667:
Nope. Now that we have contraception and being sexually active no longer equates to babies being produced, I think there's no logical link between sex and marriage at all.

Not that I believe that this should devalue marriage (or sex, for that matter) in any way, though. And if two people genuinely want to make a pact of celibacy until their wedding night... then wow, more power to them, I respect their self-control.

while i agree with your second point. the education on contraceptives and such is severely limited in the US. that and some people believe that it lowers your pleasure and refuse to use it, so there are still pregnancies its just not as overblown in society as it used to be.

Im all for getting laid when ever I can. A very hard thing for a guy to pull off sometimes and you just get lucky some days. When women start flooding the market with their vaginas, then I might reconsider. They keep those vertical smiles protected, the only way to get to them is with money and charm.

It is still very relevant. It prevents relationships from becoming fully about pleasure. Mentally a marriage Is much safer when the two wait till marriage for sex.

I see sex as a form of marriage. if you do it, you're married to them, maybe not by law, but you're still married.

'corse it's relevant. Sex always is =P

On a more serious note, though: Even with all the contraceptions in the world, You still always risk pregnancy. So it's best to discuss that very, very thoroughly before jumping under the covers.

Now, this is not necessarily about pre*marital* sex... just generally sex before being ready to face consequences, be those financial, emotional, or whatever's on the line.

From a moral point of view? In the words of Stephen Fry: We like it, it's good, it's jolly. Why should it be immoral? Mutually consentual orgasms hurt noone. It doesn't have to go hand in hand with lifelong commitment. And while it can be a bond-forging, almost transcendental experience, it's not like it's like that all the time, ffs. I've had rock band sessions which were an emotionally deeper experience than some specific instances of sexual intercourse[1]. Context's everything.

It's a bit like extreme sports, I guess: Leaves You all worked up and sweaty, but feels awesome, and even with the best protective gear, there's always the risk of royally fucking up Your future. Still, some people think it's totally worth it ;)

~Sylv

[1] Not to say that the latter weren't still fun, though. Also, if You're reading this: Love You! =]

But why do they tell people this? Is it cultural? Because it was relevent so long ago?
Does that mean its still relevant now?

You answered your own question here:

craftomega:
As we all (should) know that the bible, Quran, and many other books, state that sex before marrage is a bad thing. And for good reason, during the time of those books making, sex ment pregnency. In general you didnt random men to be fathers.

It's still bad for random men to be fathers, and you can't always prevent that.

It's still bad to catch STDs, condoms can't always prevent that.

craftomega:
As we all (should) know that the bible, Quran, and many other books, state that sex before marrage is a bad thing. And for good reason, during the time of those books making, sex ment pregnency. In general you didnt random men to be fathers.

So now that a person getting pregnet from sex is no longer a generente, its a very small chance if there on birth control. Do you think that no sex before marrage is still relevent?

-Yes books say that its wrong.
-Yes certain religions say it goes agaist god.

But why do they tell people this? Is it cultural? Because it was relevent so long ago?
Does that mean its still relevant now?

Truth is it comes down to your conviction the Bible crealy states that those who have sex before marriage are of the highest sinners. Sex is a gift of being married and respecting Jehovahs purpose for it. When we take away the beauty of sex in a clean matter it makes people lokk at it in a bad way as if its your right to have sex with people without consequences. That why STD's get spread so badly.

Well, wouldn't personal preference make it relevant to the individual at least?

If you decide you don't want to have sex before marriage, then it's relevant.
If you decide you want to have sex before marriage, then it's relevant.

Beyond that, I'm not sure. It doesn't really seem all that relevant where I live, but that's just a guess.

Having sex like a one-night stand doesn't mean you have to propose the next morning, the churches influence has waned significantly and sex outside of marriage is not considered taboo by most people anymore.

Sylvine:
'corse it's relevant. Sex always is =P

On a more serious note, though: Even with all the contraceptions in the world, You still always risk pregnancy. So it's best to discuss that very, very thoroughly before jumping under the covers.

Unless neither party has a vagina or uterus, in which case, there's no chance of a pregnancy and everything is fucking awesome.
Yes, there's serious STIs to consider. But no babies. Phew. Those things are gross.

On topic: As a gay man in a dirty socially conservative backwater country, I really can't even consider this idea. I mean, if I had the chance to get married, maybe I'd consider doing so before bumping uglies. Nah, who am I kidding? Even if it was legal, I wouldn't be bothering with that nonsense.

Skullkid4187:
It is still very relevant. It prevents relationships from becoming fully about pleasure.

As opposed to what they should be about; suffering?

Skullkid4187:
Mentally a marriage Is much safer when the two wait till marriage for sex.

Says who? Is it really a good thing to not discover until you're married whether or not you are actually compatible in bed? That seems like kind of a biggie, because your marriage will be completely fucked, though you won't be, if things don't work out in the sack.

An unprofessional history of marriage without any sources

Muhammad married a girl who was only 6 years old.

When do I want to marry?
When I've got my house.
When do I want to buy a house?
When I've got a job.[1]
When do I want to get a job?
When I've finished college.
When will I have finished college?
In a few years, when I'm 22 or something.

Marriage, and rules regarding sex and marriage, were made in a time when you married when you were 16. Or 14. Or 12. Or 9. Or 6.
I'm gonna marry when I'm 22 or something. Those rules completely do not apply to me or any reasonable person anymore.

In the past, when you were 12, you got a spear and your own tent. And than you could marry someone and have sex wit her. But due to technological progress, we need a long education, and it takes a long time before we can enter 'the real world'. So while society changed, and the time when you entered the 'real world' and were self-sustainable got later and later, our biology didn't change, and interest in sex is as early as always.

But... this doesn't mean you can just suddenly f*ck anyone. We're still jealous humans.
Nearly all males prefer a virgin who promises to be loyal for ever over a girl who has experienced over 9000 gangbangs.[2]

So I'm just going to have the exact same view as my parents...
-we don't give a shit if you have sex before you're married
-but we would like to see long-term relationships

[1] A real, full-time job
[2] Although the latter can make the brain think that this girl can be easily impregnated, and thus, would like to have sex wit her. But they don't want to marry her.

In the past, keeping sex within marriage was a pretty sound idea. It reduced child illegitimacy, which caused problems when it came to land inheritance. Furthermore, it kept the working husband tied to the wife who needed time not to work so she can be pregnant and raise a child. In an age before comprehensive welfare schemes this was important.

Nowadays, we have contraception, we don't live in an economy fundamentally based around inherited land ownership and we have welfare so single mums can still survive. So, it's important to emphasise that when these holy texts were written the no sex before marriage idea was very sound, but now it's very much out-dated, so we can have sex whenever we want.

It makes no difference at all. Sex before marriage is fine, in fact it's healthy (as long as it's consensual and safe).

Want to know why? You "save" yourself till marriage, and you end up sexually incompatible with your partner. Bit of an issue there isn't it? That in turn leads to infidelity and divorce. Look at the US where "saving yourself till marriage" is considered a good thing, and look at the divorce rate.

Do yourself a favour, have a healthy enjoyable sex life before you get married.

I think that there's kind of a spectrum, with "sex all anytime, anywhere, with anyone" at one end, and "no sex ever" on the other. "After marriage" falls pretty far into the "no sex" side, and I think our society falls somewhere between that, and whatever the middle would be.

Sex before marriage isn't a social concern, but sex before a certain age, or many partners, in sequence or simultaneously, still seem to be stigmatized. So, our society still favors some conditions, "three dates" or "I love you". There are still milestones and qualifications for most of society, just not marriage.

The deal is, forget society, figure out what you want and go with that. It depends on the value you place in sex.

Full disclosure: I've only ever had one partner, my wife, but we had sex before we were married (on several occasions and for some time before).

I don't think we've suffered for it.

The answer is no, IF AND ONLY IF sexual encounters are handled responsibly.

All too many people fail to think about, much less counter, the possible consequences of such actions.

I do NOT approve of sex before marriage...AT ALL! Than again, I also dont approve of sex for pleasure, so that apparently buts me into an EXTREMELY small minority (before anyone ask, yes, I actually possess the self-control to keep these tenants)

I've always favoured monogamy to casual sex with strangers, just because it's less risky in many ways. That being said, I'd be a complete hypocrite to say that one MUST wait until marriage before doing it : \
It's ideal that people have some level of commitment to each other when they do it.... but hell, I'm no prude.

It is relevant if you personally want to make it relevant. I don't care if you are promiscuous or if you rock abstinence. Just don't trumpet your choice as the "correct" choice. Then I do care.

Personally, I don't much care about sex before marriage. At my age finding a virgin to date is like finding a unicorn to do my taxes. I'm not sure they are even around, and if they are it still may be more trouble than it's worth.

But I have a lot of sympathy for women in theocratic Muslim countries who are under this rule. Because their options for a self-supporting career are quite limited. Realistically speaking due to the cultural gender roles imposed upon them, they need to be married in order to achieve economic survival. If virginity valued as a desirable commodity in marriage for women over their work competence, then I support women doing everything they can to protect it. It's fun to imagine the repressed women of the world throwing off their shackles and their knickers, but there are practical consequences for these women that cannot be ignored.

Rather than attack the religion (which would entail attacking these women who often still sincerely believe it, as well as creating a need for members of the religion to defend themselves as the conflict turns from right-vs.-wrong to us-vs.-them), I think the solution is to push for education, work opportunities, and civil rights for women. If a woman in a Muslim country for example, has the ability to work in a rewarding career and support herself without the need of a husband, then she will naturally have sex as she chooses.

CulixCupric:
I see sex as a form of marriage. if you do it, you're married to them, maybe not by law, but you're still married.

Perhaps in very specific and very strong relationships this might be true, and it might be true for you. Unfortunately, if sex is an indication of a marriage i think our actual marriage failure rate of 1:2 is optimistic.

We are much more likely to have callous and empty sex than we are to have a callous and empty marriage.

RedEyesBlackGamer:
It is relevant if you personally want to make it relevant.

This is as close to the truth as it gets though.

Yes, I would say so. Western culture has not moved to the point where it is no longer relevant (at least where I live. Might be different in Europe). Is it less relevant in the past? Yes, but that does not mean it is no longer relevant. Anyway, the day when sex before marriage does become irrelevant is when we will have stuff that prevents STDs and pregnancy 100% of the time, with everyone using those 100% of the time they should/want to. So far, we are not even close to that, so I do not see sex before marriage becoming irrelevant anytime soon.

In my nation? No, absolutely not, especially when last I checked roughly 80% of teens these days lose their virginity before turning 18. And given the massive isolationist I am, that's kind of all I need to completely discard the notion that a significant enough percentage of people actually give a shit for it to qaulify as culturally relevant. Most of Europe seems to be on the same train of thought, the more socially liberal states in the US I imagine too, I can't really say how much of an influence that kind of mentality still holds over there, but as aforementioned I don't really give a shit either.

Not really, it's not such a risky deal these days anymore, as there are good contraceptives around & diseases are treatable, plus there's less of a social stigma. Really there's no good reason to artificially restrict yourself from doing something that you'd do naturally, unless you feel really strongly about it, or haven't found anyone you like. It just seems to build a lot of unnecessary tension in relationships, from what I've seen.

BOOM headshot65:
I do NOT approve of sex before marriage...AT ALL! Than again, I also dont approve of sex for pleasure, so that apparently buts me into an EXTREMELY small minority (before anyone ask, yes, I actually possess the self-control to keep these tenants)

<obligatory "can't get any" joke>

I still don't get why anyone could be against sex for pleasure, especially when you consider that on a list of "things that are pleasurable", sex is the golden standard to which all else is compared.

Stagnant:
<obligatory "can't get any" joke>

????? I really dont know what to say to that, because I already have a girlfriend, and she thinks the way I do on this matter, heck, pretty much on most matters.

I still don't get why anyone could be against sex for pleasure, especially when you consider that on a list of "things that are pleasurable", sex is the golden standard to which all else is compared.

I dont know. Maybe because I have different priotities, such as firearms and video games to have pleasure/entertainment? Because my ENTIRE family pounded into me since I was 15 "Sex before marriage is bad."? Maybe because I believe the only point of sex is for reproductive purposes?

Sex before marriage isn't moral or immoral. It's just something people can do if they want. Of course, sometimes that leads to shitty situations like teenage pregnancy, but that's not really harmful to anybody but the individuals involved. I would like for our education system to have better sex education classes to help prevent that sort of thing, but I consider it primarily the people's responsibility to research safe sex.

BOOM headshot65:
????? I really dont know what to say to that, because I already have a girlfriend, and she thinks the way I do on this matter, heck, pretty much on most matters.

A joke along the lines of "Oh, he can't get any" is quite literally obligatory as a response to anyone who claims they don't have self-control problems in terms of abstinence. =P

I dont know. Maybe because I have different priotities, such as firearms and video games to have pleasure/entertainment? Because my ENTIRE family pounded into me since I was 15 "Sex before marriage is bad."? Maybe because I believe the only point of sex is for reproductive purposes?

Ladies and gentlemen: why religion scares the crap out of me.
Ladies and gentlemen: why conservative christians scare the crap out of me.

Stagnant:
<obligatory "can't get any" joke>

I still don't get why anyone could be against sex for pleasure, especially when you consider that on a list of "things that are pleasurable", sex is the golden standard to which all else is compared.

Whenever anyone says "sex for procreation" I envision those scenes in 1984 when Winston reflects on how terrible sex was with his state-indoctrinated wife. It just seems so clinical. Sex is so much more than that man.

BOOM headshot65:
Maybe because I believe the only point of sex is for reproductive purposes?

That's going to be rather tragic for you once your wife hits menopause.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked