Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

No orgasm until marriage?

Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 12:57:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
It seems to be a popular thing in conservative parts of the world that one is neither allowed to have premarital sex or even masturbate until you are married. This could only be something bad according to me.

First of all, this is ironical because those who promote this are the ones who are the most audible about the values of marriage. But really, how good marriages will come to being when people have to live like this? This sounds, at least to me, that some people will do extremely hastened choices about entering marriages, only because they wanted to have a sexual release. These people would hence enter such only because of ulterior motives. Then after the wedding night, they will wake up next to someone they have vowed to share their entire life with, all this only because of a wish of a sexual release. In some cultures, it would also be totally out of question of this couple to at any time divorce, rendering this hastened choice into a lifelong one. I'm not saying there will only be bad marriages though.

Second, I really wonder how healthy it could be to live like a monk for a long time. The positive health effects of orgasms are widely known ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ). The ability of finding the perfect woman and also get her to like you isn't really such an easy thing for everyone. Some people with borderline scientological opinions will now tell me that "you will succeed with that if you choose to succeed with that", but it's not always that easy. Thus, some people wouldn't succeed to find someone to marry until they would be 40 years old, and some people would never succeed to find anyone.

What do you say? Are these mentioned risks yet worth it, for the sake of valuing marriage in a society?
Outplayz
Posts: 1,264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 1:53:20 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 12:57:11 AM, Jovian wrote:
It seems to be a popular thing in conservative parts of the world that one is neither allowed to have premarital sex or even masturbate until you are married. This could only be something bad according to me.

First of all, this is ironical because those who promote this are the ones who are the most audible about the values of marriage. But really, how good marriages will come to being when people have to live like this? This sounds, at least to me, that some people will do extremely hastened choices about entering marriages, only because they wanted to have a sexual release. These people would hence enter such only because of ulterior motives. Then after the wedding night, they will wake up next to someone they have vowed to share their entire life with, all this only because of a wish of a sexual release. In some cultures, it would also be totally out of question of this couple to at any time divorce, rendering this hastened choice into a lifelong one. I'm not saying there will only be bad marriages though.

Second, I really wonder how healthy it could be to live like a monk for a long time. The positive health effects of orgasms are widely known ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ). The ability of finding the perfect woman and also get her to like you isn't really such an easy thing for everyone. Some people with borderline scientological opinions will now tell me that "you will succeed with that if you choose to succeed with that", but it's not always that easy. Thus, some people wouldn't succeed to find someone to marry until they would be 40 years old, and some people would never succeed to find anyone.

What do you say? Are these mentioned risks yet worth it, for the sake of valuing marriage in a society?

I think all of it is an illusion of religion demonizing sexual activity bc someone wasn't good looking enough to get their "love." I think it is jealousy, over-protective, obsession, etc, in people against others finding love the way they want. In my opinion, sexual activity is what it is to the person defining it... there is no objective definition...especially marriage. Who came up with that? Why does it have to be this fairy tale type thing? That was made up by people, and religion. This issue is something that i think even atheists have been brainwashed with thanks to religious morals/values. Sex, orgasm, is how you define it. If one wants to have 50 partners, then find one to be with for the rest of their life... then, okay. I, personally, would like to have one partner, but not bc of marriage or traditional views, more so bc i am introverted and i'd rather just have one best friend over many. That is how i ultimately define it, but to find the one i am aware i must go through many... which is what i do; one at a time lol. Why destroy, or tell someone they are wrong? Who is defining how we should sexually be? And, why? Why do people care how others are sexually? I would guess, jealousy, not being hot enough to be like the ones they want to be like, missing out in their youth, wanting to stick it to the pretty boy that got all the girls in high school... so on... it is all greed of personal bias. It is funny to me, the one arguably best pleasure we have on this rock, is demonized and given such strict rules on what it "should" be. I say fvvk that. I define my love/lust... not a book.

And, yes... it is unhealthy for a person, and the world. We should be coming together with this blessing. People should be able to find someone to love whenever... but no... it must have so many rules... well, okay... but rape, forced sex, perversions beyond consent will happen... and i would say of course they'll happen... we are hungry wolves being shoved to a corner... there will be bites. You can't objectively define a primal instinct, that has got us to this point, in one way (especially religiously); except, if that one way means you can define it however you want... no laws, no one view, on what sexuality is.

I didn't look to much into it, but it is estimated that 25% of sexual crime would decrease if prostitution was legal in the U.S.
http://prostitution.procon.org...
I believe that to be true. I believe the less laws and iron clad views we have about sex... crimes and damage from sexual ways would decrease... It is a pleasure; not a duty.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 6:26:25 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 12:57:11 AM, Jovian wrote:
It seems to be a popular thing in conservative parts of the world that one is neither allowed to have premarital sex or even masturbate until you are married. This could only be something bad according to me.

First of all, this is ironical because those who promote this are the ones who are the most audible about the values of marriage. But really, how good marriages will come to being when people have to live like this? This sounds, at least to me, that some people will do extremely hastened choices about entering marriages, only because they wanted to have a sexual release. These people would hence enter such only because of ulterior motives. Then after the wedding night, they will wake up next to someone they have vowed to share their entire life with, all this only because of a wish of a sexual release. In some cultures, it would also be totally out of question of this couple to at any time divorce, rendering this hastened choice into a lifelong one. I'm not saying there will only be bad marriages though.

Second, I really wonder how healthy it could be to live like a monk for a long time. The positive health effects of orgasms are widely known ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ). The ability of finding the perfect woman and also get her to like you isn't really such an easy thing for everyone. Some people with borderline scientological opinions will now tell me that "you will succeed with that if you choose to succeed with that", but it's not always that easy. Thus, some people wouldn't succeed to find someone to marry until they would be 40 years old, and some people would never succeed to find anyone.

What do you say? Are these mentioned risks yet worth it, for the sake of valuing marriage in a society?

I would say have all the orgasms you can before you get married (be safe about it). You can't expect someone else to please you sexually when you don't even know what you like. If your only experience with sex is one other inexperienced person, then somebody is probably not going to be satisfied which can lead to overall dissatisfaction in the marriage and even divorce.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 6:59:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 12:57:11 AM, Jovian wrote:
It seems to be a popular thing in conservative parts of the world that one is neither allowed to have premarital sex or even masturbate until you are married. This could only be something bad according to me.

First of all, this is ironical because those who promote this are the ones who are the most audible about the values of marriage. But really, how good marriages will come to being when people have to live like this? This sounds, at least to me, that some people will do extremely hastened choices about entering marriages, only because they wanted to have a sexual release. These people would hence enter such only because of ulterior motives. Then after the wedding night, they will wake up next to someone they have vowed to share their entire life with, all this only because of a wish of a sexual release. In some cultures, it would also be totally out of question of this couple to at any time divorce, rendering this hastened choice into a lifelong one. I'm not saying there will only be bad marriages though.

Second, I really wonder how healthy it could be to live like a monk for a long time. The positive health effects of orgasms are widely known ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ). The ability of finding the perfect woman and also get her to like you isn't really such an easy thing for everyone. Some people with borderline scientological opinions will now tell me that "you will succeed with that if you choose to succeed with that", but it's not always that easy. Thus, some people wouldn't succeed to find someone to marry until they would be 40 years old, and some people would never succeed to find anyone.

What do you say? Are these mentioned risks yet worth it, for the sake of valuing marriage in a society?

All that and more. Both my wife and me virgins when we married in our 30s. The complete trust that you have in the other person is without compare. The fact that your sexuality is an expression only between the two of you means that you don't compare you only share.

We can trust each other completely because we showed that we could put it all on the line while waiting to find each other.

If more people were like this more people would find someone and be happy in marriage.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 7:57:13 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 6:59:58 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/10/2016 12:57:11 AM, Jovian wrote:
It seems to be a popular thing in conservative parts of the world that one is neither allowed to have premarital sex or even masturbate until you are married. This could only be something bad according to me.

First of all, this is ironical because those who promote this are the ones who are the most audible about the values of marriage. But really, how good marriages will come to being when people have to live like this? This sounds, at least to me, that some people will do extremely hastened choices about entering marriages, only because they wanted to have a sexual release. These people would hence enter such only because of ulterior motives. Then after the wedding night, they will wake up next to someone they have vowed to share their entire life with, all this only because of a wish of a sexual release. In some cultures, it would also be totally out of question of this couple to at any time divorce, rendering this hastened choice into a lifelong one. I'm not saying there will only be bad marriages though.

Second, I really wonder how healthy it could be to live like a monk for a long time. The positive health effects of orgasms are widely known ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ). The ability of finding the perfect woman and also get her to like you isn't really such an easy thing for everyone. Some people with borderline scientological opinions will now tell me that "you will succeed with that if you choose to succeed with that", but it's not always that easy. Thus, some people wouldn't succeed to find someone to marry until they would be 40 years old, and some people would never succeed to find anyone.

What do you say? Are these mentioned risks yet worth it, for the sake of valuing marriage in a society?

All that and more. Both my wife and me virgins when we married in our 30s. The complete trust that you have in the other person is without compare. The fact that your sexuality is an expression only between the two of you means that you don't compare you only share.

We can trust each other completely because we showed that we could put it all on the line while waiting to find each other.

You and your wife seem like a perfect match because you have similar ideals, and not necessarily because you were virgins when you were married.

If more people were like this more people would find someone and be happy in marriage.

Perhaps, but that is not the only way IMO. Where many people fail is taking the importance of sex in marriage too seriously. When you're young, sex seems SO important, but as you get older it is not a do or die activity. Thus, building a marriage around that short sighted view of sex is not a good idea. So, I agree with you to an extent, but I don't agree avoiding sex altogether before marriage is the only way (or even the best way) to encourage prioritizing sex into a lifelong context.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 8:18:08 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 12:57:11 AM, Jovian wrote:
It seems to be a popular thing in conservative parts of the world that one is neither allowed to have premarital sex or even masturbate until you are married. This could only be something bad according to me.

First of all, this is ironical because those who promote this are the ones who are the most audible about the values of marriage. But really, how good marriages will come to being when people have to live like this? This sounds, at least to me, that some people will do extremely hastened choices about entering marriages, only because they wanted to have a sexual release. These people would hence enter such only because of ulterior motives. Then after the wedding night, they will wake up next to someone they have vowed to share their entire life with, all this only because of a wish of a sexual release. In some cultures, it would also be totally out of question of this couple to at any time divorce, rendering this hastened choice into a lifelong one. I'm not saying there will only be bad marriages though.

Second, I really wonder how healthy it could be to live like a monk for a long time. The positive health effects of orgasms are widely known ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ). The ability of finding the perfect woman and also get her to like you isn't really such an easy thing for everyone. Some people with borderline scientological opinions will now tell me that "you will succeed with that if you choose to succeed with that", but it's not always that easy. Thus, some people wouldn't succeed to find someone to marry until they would be 40 years old, and some people would never succeed to find anyone.

What do you say? Are these mentioned risks yet worth it, for the sake of valuing marriage in a society?

On the other hand, treating a member of the opposite sex as a sexual plaything by engaging in premarital sex can't be healthy either.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Gentorev
Posts: 2,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 9:37:50 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 7:57:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Perhaps, but that is not the only way IMO. Where many people fail is taking the importance of sex in marriage too seriously. When you're young, sex seems SO important, but as you get older it is not a do or die activity. Thus, building a marriage around that short sighted view of sex is not a good idea. So, I agree with you to an extent, but I don't agree avoiding sex altogether before marriage is the only way (or even the best way) to encourage prioritizing sex into a lifelong context.

I have to agree with you. The wife and I, who are both in our middle seventies, have been married for well over 50 years. In our younger life we had a fantastic sex life, But now, because of our age, it's all oral sex. we just talk about it all night long.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:04:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 6:59:58 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/10/2016 12:57:11 AM, Jovian wrote:
It seems to be a popular thing in conservative parts of the world that one is neither allowed to have premarital sex or even masturbate until you are married. This could only be something bad according to me.

First of all, this is ironical because those who promote this are the ones who are the most audible about the values of marriage. But really, how good marriages will come to being when people have to live like this? This sounds, at least to me, that some people will do extremely hastened choices about entering marriages, only because they wanted to have a sexual release. These people would hence enter such only because of ulterior motives. Then after the wedding night, they will wake up next to someone they have vowed to share their entire life with, all this only because of a wish of a sexual release. In some cultures, it would also be totally out of question of this couple to at any time divorce, rendering this hastened choice into a lifelong one. I'm not saying there will only be bad marriages though.

Second, I really wonder how healthy it could be to live like a monk for a long time. The positive health effects of orgasms are widely known ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ). The ability of finding the perfect woman and also get her to like you isn't really such an easy thing for everyone. Some people with borderline scientological opinions will now tell me that "you will succeed with that if you choose to succeed with that", but it's not always that easy. Thus, some people wouldn't succeed to find someone to marry until they would be 40 years old, and some people would never succeed to find anyone.

What do you say? Are these mentioned risks yet worth it, for the sake of valuing marriage in a society?

All that and more. Both my wife and me virgins when we married in our 30s. The complete trust that you have in the other person is without compare. The fact that your sexuality is an expression only between the two of you means that you don't compare you only share.

Great for you then. It's not any problem at all that people value virginity, the only thing grinding my gears is when people call others for "sluts" or "whores" for not conforming to their world. One could perfectly let others live how they want but still prefer virgins in ones personal dating life. Just like one could let the preference of dating a violin player be a personal thing instead of wanting everyone of the opposite sex to play the violin.

We can trust each other completely because we showed that we could put it all on the line while waiting to find each other.

Well, people have different aspects of trust. How one gets to the thing of mutual trust is different for anyone.

If more people were like this more people would find someone and be happy in marriage.

As I said, not everyone puts importance in virginity. Also, as I've showed you there is a flipside of the coin here which you couldn't ignore to talk about, the thing that people will enter marriages only for the "YES! Now I'm allowed to have sex!".
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:07:23 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 8:18:08 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 1/10/2016 12:57:11 AM, Jovian wrote:
It seems to be a popular thing in conservative parts of the world that one is neither allowed to have premarital sex or even masturbate until you are married. This could only be something bad according to me.

First of all, this is ironical because those who promote this are the ones who are the most audible about the values of marriage. But really, how good marriages will come to being when people have to live like this? This sounds, at least to me, that some people will do extremely hastened choices about entering marriages, only because they wanted to have a sexual release. These people would hence enter such only because of ulterior motives. Then after the wedding night, they will wake up next to someone they have vowed to share their entire life with, all this only because of a wish of a sexual release. In some cultures, it would also be totally out of question of this couple to at any time divorce, rendering this hastened choice into a lifelong one. I'm not saying there will only be bad marriages though.

Second, I really wonder how healthy it could be to live like a monk for a long time. The positive health effects of orgasms are widely known ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ). The ability of finding the perfect woman and also get her to like you isn't really such an easy thing for everyone. Some people with borderline scientological opinions will now tell me that "you will succeed with that if you choose to succeed with that", but it's not always that easy. Thus, some people wouldn't succeed to find someone to marry until they would be 40 years old, and some people would never succeed to find anyone.

What do you say? Are these mentioned risks yet worth it, for the sake of valuing marriage in a society?


On the other hand, treating a member of the opposite sex as a sexual plaything by engaging in premarital sex can't be healthy either.

Why is marriage a protection against this objectification? By your logics, there wouldn't be such a thing as marital rape. A view that still exists in approximately 50 countries https://en.wikipedia.org...
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:08:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 9:37:50 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/10/2016 7:57:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Perhaps, but that is not the only way IMO. Where many people fail is taking the importance of sex in marriage too seriously. When you're young, sex seems SO important, but as you get older it is not a do or die activity. Thus, building a marriage around that short sighted view of sex is not a good idea. So, I agree with you to an extent, but I don't agree avoiding sex altogether before marriage is the only way (or even the best way) to encourage prioritizing sex into a lifelong context.

I have to agree with you. The wife and I, who are both in our middle seventies, have been married for well over 50 years. In our younger life we had a fantastic sex life, But now, because of our age, it's all oral sex. we just talk about it all night long.

Ehm, now you mean verbal sex. Oral sex is fellatio or cunnilingus :P
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:41:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 2:07:23 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 8:18:08 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 1/10/2016 12:57:11 AM, Jovian wrote:
It seems to be a popular thing in conservative parts of the world that one is neither allowed to have premarital sex or even masturbate until you are married. This could only be something bad according to me.

First of all, this is ironical because those who promote this are the ones who are the most audible about the values of marriage. But really, how good marriages will come to being when people have to live like this? This sounds, at least to me, that some people will do extremely hastened choices about entering marriages, only because they wanted to have a sexual release. These people would hence enter such only because of ulterior motives. Then after the wedding night, they will wake up next to someone they have vowed to share their entire life with, all this only because of a wish of a sexual release. In some cultures, it would also be totally out of question of this couple to at any time divorce, rendering this hastened choice into a lifelong one. I'm not saying there will only be bad marriages though.

Second, I really wonder how healthy it could be to live like a monk for a long time. The positive health effects of orgasms are widely known ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ). The ability of finding the perfect woman and also get her to like you isn't really such an easy thing for everyone. Some people with borderline scientological opinions will now tell me that "you will succeed with that if you choose to succeed with that", but it's not always that easy. Thus, some people wouldn't succeed to find someone to marry until they would be 40 years old, and some people would never succeed to find anyone.

What do you say? Are these mentioned risks yet worth it, for the sake of valuing marriage in a society?


On the other hand, treating a member of the opposite sex as a sexual plaything by engaging in premarital sex can't be healthy either.

Why is marriage a protection against this objectification? By your logics, there wouldn't be such a thing as marital rape. A view that still exists in approximately 50 countries https://en.wikipedia.org...

It's obviously a hedge against it, as most rapists don't wish to marry their victims. Rapists are normally the type who are ok with being told no. So the type of person willing to wait a year (or however long the courtship lasts), isn't probably going to be a rapist.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:43:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 2:41:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 1/10/2016 2:07:23 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 8:18:08 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 1/10/2016 12:57:11 AM, Jovian wrote:
It seems to be a popular thing in conservative parts of the world that one is neither allowed to have premarital sex or even masturbate until you are married. This could only be something bad according to me.

First of all, this is ironical because those who promote this are the ones who are the most audible about the values of marriage. But really, how good marriages will come to being when people have to live like this? This sounds, at least to me, that some people will do extremely hastened choices about entering marriages, only because they wanted to have a sexual release. These people would hence enter such only because of ulterior motives. Then after the wedding night, they will wake up next to someone they have vowed to share their entire life with, all this only because of a wish of a sexual release. In some cultures, it would also be totally out of question of this couple to at any time divorce, rendering this hastened choice into a lifelong one. I'm not saying there will only be bad marriages though.

Second, I really wonder how healthy it could be to live like a monk for a long time. The positive health effects of orgasms are widely known ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ). The ability of finding the perfect woman and also get her to like you isn't really such an easy thing for everyone. Some people with borderline scientological opinions will now tell me that "you will succeed with that if you choose to succeed with that", but it's not always that easy. Thus, some people wouldn't succeed to find someone to marry until they would be 40 years old, and some people would never succeed to find anyone.

What do you say? Are these mentioned risks yet worth it, for the sake of valuing marriage in a society?


On the other hand, treating a member of the opposite sex as a sexual plaything by engaging in premarital sex can't be healthy either.

Why is marriage a protection against this objectification? By your logics, there wouldn't be such a thing as marital rape. A view that still exists in approximately 50 countries https://en.wikipedia.org...

It's obviously a hedge against it, as most rapists don't wish to marry their victims. Rapists are normally the type who are ok with being told no.

Indeed they could want to. Being a rapist wouldn't necessarily only mean to be anti-monogamy.

So the type of person willing to wait a year (or however long the courtship lasts), isn't probably going to be a rapist.

Anyone in the couple could still be a very abusive one abusing the other one just for sex and self-interest.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:19:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 2:08:26 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 9:37:50 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/10/2016 7:57:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Perhaps, but that is not the only way IMO. Where many people fail is taking the importance of sex in marriage too seriously. When you're young, sex seems SO important, but as you get older it is not a do or die activity. Thus, building a marriage around that short sighted view of sex is not a good idea. So, I agree with you to an extent, but I don't agree avoiding sex altogether before marriage is the only way (or even the best way) to encourage prioritizing sex into a lifelong context.

I have to agree with you. The wife and I, who are both in our middle seventies, have been married for well over 50 years. In our younger life we had a fantastic sex life, But now, because of our age, it's all oral sex. we just talk about it all night long.

Ehm, now you mean verbal sex. Oral sex is fellatio or cunnilingus :P

http://weknowmemes.com...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:32:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 2:43:30 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 2:41:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 1/10/2016 2:07:23 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 8:18:08 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 1/10/2016 12:57:11 AM, Jovian wrote:
It seems to be a popular thing in conservative parts of the world that one is neither allowed to have premarital sex or even masturbate until you are married. This could only be something bad according to me.

First of all, this is ironical because those who promote this are the ones who are the most audible about the values of marriage. But really, how good marriages will come to being when people have to live like this? This sounds, at least to me, that some people will do extremely hastened choices about entering marriages, only because they wanted to have a sexual release. These people would hence enter such only because of ulterior motives. Then after the wedding night, they will wake up next to someone they have vowed to share their entire life with, all this only because of a wish of a sexual release. In some cultures, it would also be totally out of question of this couple to at any time divorce, rendering this hastened choice into a lifelong one. I'm not saying there will only be bad marriages though.

Second, I really wonder how healthy it could be to live like a monk for a long time. The positive health effects of orgasms are widely known ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ). The ability of finding the perfect woman and also get her to like you isn't really such an easy thing for everyone. Some people with borderline scientological opinions will now tell me that "you will succeed with that if you choose to succeed with that", but it's not always that easy. Thus, some people wouldn't succeed to find someone to marry until they would be 40 years old, and some people would never succeed to find anyone.

What do you say? Are these mentioned risks yet worth it, for the sake of valuing marriage in a society?


On the other hand, treating a member of the opposite sex as a sexual plaything by engaging in premarital sex can't be healthy either.

Why is marriage a protection against this objectification? By your logics, there wouldn't be such a thing as marital rape. A view that still exists in approximately 50 countries https://en.wikipedia.org...

It's obviously a hedge against it, as most rapists don't wish to marry their victims. Rapists are normally the type who are ok with being told no.

Indeed they could want to. Being a rapist wouldn't necessarily only mean to be anti-monogamy.

It's possible, but less likely.

So the type of person willing to wait a year (or however long the courtship lasts), isn't probably going to be a rapist.

Anyone in the couple could still be a very abusive one abusing the other one just for sex and self-interest.

It's possible, but less likely.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax