Why do people have sex outside of marrige?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm twenty-five years of age, so I'm not worried about becoming a pregnant teen. Hmm, there might be one other thing beside my age which is holding me back from that. In any case, sex feel great.

I ask why anyone feels they need to be married to have sex. I don't want to limit myself because of a sacrament with some being which must exist despite being impossible to analyze or verify by any means,

Maybe you need to have sex, and u will find out whats so good about it... lol

and havent u ever heard of a condom??

There are many reasons but one of the more accurate ones was related to me by a German man who was trying to encourage me to sleep with his wife. He said, "Everyone wants to try different bodies" in heavily accented English. That mix of oddness and accuracy has been stuck in my head ever since.

If you don't understand his comment, the day may come when you will.

One important factor is MNCs. The less structured the society will be the more it will spend. Such kind of trend has started to happen here in India.

You seem to believe in victimless crime. I don't think that a feeling of revulsion, however irrational, is any reason to resort to religion. Go that way and you could justify hating a guy for not trimming the corners of his beard, if you didn't happen to like untrimmed beards.

Whenever a thing upset me, I used to reach for whatever I could find that would reinforce my prejudice that the thing was intrinsically evil. These days, I try to think about it, and when the thing in question doesn't seem to be doing any harm, I usually feel a lot better about it. That touchstone has saved me from a lot of unnecessary suffering.

I don't think it's surprising that humans seem to have an irrational attitude to certain kinds of sexual behaviour. Evolution has given us some very strong feelings about what happens sexually to our mates and offspring, because sexual matters are matters of survival. The advent of good contraception makes this more difficult to see.....in purely practical terms, as long as procreation isn't an issue, a logical mind might be forgiven for thinking that sexual jealousy is nothing but possessiveness. The reason it's still a big issue for most of us is that our brains haven't caught up with the new technology yet - we would seem to be hard-wired to feel extremely scared, hurt and angry if our spouse sleeps with another. And without a well-enforced rule preventing sexual infidelity, it's doubtful whether couples would be stable enough to raise their kids - jealousy would likely cause bitter conflicts, and the unfaithful partner would be more likely to desert the nest and set up with the lover....from a hedonistic, short-term point of view, a lover is nearly always 10 times more attractive than a mundane marriage.

Well, there are plenty of fallacious statements here. Anyone that thinks premarital sex is equal and commutative with statutory rape and pedophilia is terribly foolish or perhaps has an agenda.

Last edited by axeb on 04 Apr 2011, 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hell if I know. Sex isn't that great anyway so I don't see what the fuss is about. :/

My guess would be they have an agenda. It's the silliest argument against pre-marital sex I've ever seen.

Reminds me of those that claim legalizing same sex marriage will lead to child marriages and sister/brother lovin'.

Atheism is no more indicative of autonomy than theism. It is a label referring to a belief. However, due to current trends, atheists are thought to engage in a greater introspection and skepticism to arrive at their conclusion, living in a world where many will have been parented by the pious.

Everyone has a level of argumentative complexity they are capable of dismantling, regardless of what they believe. Some achieve impressive formulation with less work. Some have more intuitive function. Of course, it is in communicating with others that equal effort toward formulaic knowledge becomes key, as you indicated. Else we might as well keep what we "tout' to ourselves, and that is okay, too.

There remains an assumption here of monogamy without alternatives. What about an emphasis of attitudes that don't involve a person as that which strictly "belongs to someone else"?

I agree, however, that people should strive to keep their commitments.

Victimless crime? Hmmm... Well, what makes something criminal--that there is a law against it? There used to be laws against abortion. What makes it less a crime now than it was then? There are those who believe there is nothing wrong with smoking marijuana and persist in breaking the law. Are they criminals or not? If you remove legal codes protecting children and adults from sexual contact, wanted or unwanted, does that make it ok to have sex with someone who is underaged or who doesn't consent to it?

I don't know if there is such a thing as a victimless crime or not. Certain people in certain contexts probably wouldn't consider themselves victims even if the behavior towards them was wrong. When I was in 5th/6th grade or so, I had a "girlfriend" who was sexually active and younger than I was. That means she lost her virginity to someone who should have known better. I never had sex with her, but if I had I knew it wouldn't have been a big deal to her. She didn't think what happened to her at such a young age was a big deal, and a lot of the kids around where I grew up felt the same way and had similar experiences. Back then and there parents didn't keep their kids on so tight a leash like they do now, and that was back in the 1980s in rural Mississippi. It wasn't until 5 years or so later that all these people started coming out on talk shows about how hypnosis revealed what their daddies did to them when they were 4 years old. So why is it now all of a sudden a problem? Pull the same crap THESE days and you're lucky if you ever get to see the light of day again. What's worse is it has also been discovered that these so-called repressed memories were false memories accidentally planted through suggestion. But it remains that these things do happen and very often no one thinks its a big deal except adult parents. So, I mean, if it seems ok and you aren't really harmed in the process, are you really a victim, and has a crime really been committed? I'm not saying either way--it's just a difficult thing to try to judge without knowing other details.


Sure, I can understand that. You pick your battles.



No, it isn't surprising at all. But now, if we're talking in terms of evolution, it seems to me that sexual matters being matters of survival, you'd expect to see MORE rape and exploitation, not less. We men would kidnap adolescent girls and keep them until we knew they were pregnant and throw them away like yesterday's newspaper. The problem is that we value human beings, men and women, children and adults more than that. Evolution does not explain why this is, why we have developed mating for pure pleasure and not solely for reproduction. I wouldn't care about selling off my daughter or letting her sneak out at night any time with anyone she wants to or with anyone who wants her. Whatever happens to my daughter should be of no consequence to me at all. But most of us don't teach our daughters that way. We teach that there are negative consequences for acting out sexually at an early age and we generally try to discourage it.

Something that surprised me was when I once dated a young woman who lost her virginity to me. I come from a fairly straight, traditional family that highly discourages sexual deviance (hey, I'm not perfect, either), so my attitudes about discussing sex are pretty much closed. So when I came home with her and they are discussing birth control and ob/gyns at dinner--in front of me, of all things!!!--I was shocked and couldn't figure out how the night ended without her dad killing me. For her parents, it was a rite of passage, a sign that she had finally become a woman and something they were, well, PROUD of. It could have been because as a teenager she didn't get out much and had terrible difficulty socializing due to a genetic defect (NOT AS, btw). This is certainly in line with more relaxed, liberal thinking from the way I see it. But evolution would promote reproduction, not discourage it. A family discussion on how a woman should protect herself against unwanted pregnancy does not appear to me to be very "evolved." That we were both in college as music majors at the time doesn't reinforce any hunter/gatherer instincts, either!

As to "catching up" with technology--we have thousands of years of literary background. Our concerns over that span do not seem to have changed with technology at all. We value such things as love, adventure, philosophy, music, entertainment, and so forth. Heck, in spite of tv and film technology, people STILL like to go to theatrical productions, including operas. We're still singing opera from hundreds of years ago. In the grand scheme of things, our brains don't seem to be wired to really be all that progressive. We're not really doing anything new--we just have more STUFF to do with what we've always done. And somehow we STILL feel the same way we always have about the exploitation of women and the young. We've gotten better at improving their lot, of course, which is why in countries that have had a pervasive Christian influence women are much closer to a state of equality than in other areas of the world. Interesting, is it not? It actually makes MORE sense that our sense of morality derives from something outside evolutionary process, as naturalistic processes never seem to be very kind to the species. It makes much more sense if our morality is directed towards a purpose higher than merely "to survive."

OP.

I'll avoid unnecessary words and counter with....

If you never tried spegettio's, but suddenly married spegettio's. What would you do if you didn't like spegettio's... what would you do if spegettio's was a selfish tasteless/tactless product which left you feeling unfulfilled and hungry? Would you in fact live unhappily for all time with spegettio's? Or would you find alternatives perhaps in the same isle, but still - with different canned products?... Because in my personal opinion waiting for disappointment seems like a rash decision considering there are many ways to open a can.

That is what the world emphasis on marriage seems to propagate

Spegettio's, cambell's soup, juanita's pinto beans, canned hummus, canned olives... ALL seem to be thought of as signs of impurity and the devil. But the older marriages that lasted longer didn't last longer because they where more moral, they lasted longer because people stayed out of duty. Nothing can become of a incompatible marriage other than hate.

I agree to a point. But it doesn't take premarital sex to decide compatibility. I think it's just too easy and too convenient to have multiple sexual partners prior to marrying "the one."

Think about it: You spend all your life hopping from one bed to another, from one relationship to another, always seeking the one you MIGHT end up spending your life with. Do people usually "go back"? Not that I've ever seen. People in general hop from one to another until they find THE ONE who so totally rocks their socks in unimaginable, mind-blowing and mind-numbing ways, at which point they declare "FINALLY the search is over!! !" And they end up getting married.

I was with other women after I'd already been dating my future wife for a while. It seemed like a sure thing, but there was a lot going on in my life that really confused me. It wasn't something to take lightly. An old flame reentered my life, for one. I went over a thousand miles away for school, for another. But that doesn't really seem much the norm, and I'm curious how many people have had the experience of "going back" to a former love interest. Once it's over, it's over until that one magical experience that ultimately takes you off the market.

I don't think sex has anything to do with it. I think sex acts as an addictive drug and helps give you some leverage in the relationship, but that's not what matters in the end. Compatibility is much more than that.

I agree that perhaps the longest lasting and lifelong marriages result from a sense of duty rather than empty feelings of "love" and "happiness." Look, my wife and I are going through a thing right now because my current situation really has me down and I'm often too preoccupied to do anything around the house. She won't leave me. But she won't be happy either. An unhappy home might as well be as good as divorced. So what do I do? Anything and everything I can to start turning things around.

Happiness is fleeting and is a foolish bond for a marriage. Even more so are those feelings of infatuation. Your duty to do what you promised is more important anyway. I'll take safety and security over happiness any day. That many marriages are no more sturdy than the paper they're written on is a travesty.

Suit yourself, but I wouldn't buy the cow without trying the milk.

That's the rub........in a "virgins only" society your partner wouldn't have a purple past for you to get upset about, but you end up buying before you try. When I was young I'd have advocated the virgin way, but I seem to have learned how to stop images of the lady's sexual past from rattling around my head like they used to - either that or I've managed to keep away from women who crow to me about what they used to get up to, or want to retain "special friendship" with ex-partners. It's not so much the past itself that bothered me, it was the way they dragged the past into the present.

because there is no such thing as "marrige", so no one can get into it.