Why Is Pre- and Extra-Marital Sex Wrong?

Again, if it's enough of a problem, seek a divorce, and then try to find someone who will fulfill everything you want in a relationship.

There is no justification, in my opinion, for violating the marriage contract through extra-marital sex. It creates complications for the 3 people involved, plus the married couple's children, if any.

If someone finds they can no longer live with their spouse, can no longer trust them, or whatever, it would be best to make a clean break and start over.

 

And what about witholding sex within a committed relationship or marriage?

That's as heinous as an extra-marital affair, in my book!

That's called female control. That has caused wars in the past with kings, you know. Tis proof women are the most vicious creatures to roam the Earth. I'd recommend not inflaming one.

-GAT

 

GAT, I agree - females can be (when given good reason) the most vicious creatures on earth, like the mother lioness, etc. protecting her cubs.

Truth be told, the secret, subconscious seat of real power in this world is that 'gold mine' that all women sit on (yet some don't know it).

Since women give birth to our race, seems only right that they decide if we send our sons and daughters off to war.
I'd vote for a good woman President. We need to add an OM to the 'WB' in the oval office (womb).

 

like the mother lioness, etc. protecting her cubs.

//forwards this to the local Women's Lib clique and falls over laughing as Runner is ripped to shreads.

- Scarlet.

 

Yay! Potshots at feminists, from a non-conservative no less!

As for the lions, females can be tough mammas when they're protecting their little ones. After all of the trouble of a long gestation, I wouldn't blame them. But males aren't left off the hook because when a new male takes over a pride, he kills the infants.

 

Actually, it was a bit of a pot shot at Runner, too.

I thought it a little... condescending that he should liken an angry woman to a lioness protecting her cubs. It's so very... stereotypical.

- Scarlet.

 

In all fairness, we can be

 

As to women holding all power, my wife likes to quote Rita Rudner:

"Men spend their first nine months trying to get out of the womb, and the rest of their lives trying to get back in."

 

"Men spend their first nine months trying to get out of the womb, and the rest of their lives trying to get back in."



Since the topic of multiple partners and open marriages has been discusses at some point, I'm curious. What about Polygamy (aka plural marriage)?

It's illegal in the US and western countries, but aside from that, do you have any pros or cons? It's a man or a woman with multiple spouses and they're all under "marriage" contract which I assume they agreed to. Would such an arrangement be wrong?

 

Well, both polygyny (a man with several wives), and polyandry (a woman with several husbands) exist in various societies. The former is of course most common, but one musn't assume that polygamy always means a man with several wives.

I think it's entirely up to the people involved, and has no more pro's and con's than monogamous marriage (except an interesting sex life as a pro and jealousy as a con).

But just as a note, strictly speaking, that wouldn't qualify as extra-marital sex (well, as long as they were all married).

- Scarlet.

 

TheVioletBurns said:
OOOOUCH!!! THAT'S HOT!!! No! She said:
"I have made my own decision to save myself for my husband, and nobody else."

The Genghis is wondering, why do women wear a pair of panties but only one bra? NO!! He was wondering, who are you?

"Also, even if I knew I was with the man I wanted to marry, I would not have sex until we had tied the knot - simply because I know that if he truly loves me for who I am as a person, the physical aspect of everything is secondary - it can wait."

If the physical is secondary, why is it so important to wait?

"If I'm choosing to spend the rest of my life with somebody, that is the most important factor, because the whole physical thing is going to die out later... not that the romance will. Romance is more than sex."

The Genghis agrees with you completely. Romance is much much more than sex. So why is sex such a big thing? The Genghis' girlfriend says that he has a [face_shocked] The Genghis had better not go any further than that

It is like you are saying that sex is so important that it's not important. This is something that confuses the Genghis. Even more than it confuses him that Avril Lavigne is called "punk."

 

It is like you are saying that sex is so important that it's not important.



You know, in an odd way, I think I understand that.

 

Some food for thought, from cnn.com:
Unmarried Sex Law Overturned

 

I'm frightened that I live in the United States sometimes with inane laws like that.

Though, I'm more frightened by Ghengis somedays...

*goes to hide in his corner, hugging his teddy(

-GAT

 

I think it's entirely up to the people involved, and has no more pro's and con's than monogamous marriage (except an interesting sex life as a pro and jealousy as a con).

Yeah, but that's a little unbalanced, isn't it? If one person gets a more interesting sex life, and a bunch of other people get jealousy, I think you have a net negative effect.

(I saw a video on polygamy - and specifically, polygyny - in an anthropology class. I found it interesting that some of the wives expressed frustration at having to share a husband and a home with a group of other women. Apparently they feel the same way I do about sharing ; they just feel they're powerless to do anything about it.)


Even more than it confuses him that Avril Lavigne is called "punk."

Perhaps it would help the Genghis to know that Avril Lavigne calls herself "skater punk" even though she can't skate [skateboard] and doesn't look or sound punk. Then again, maybe it wouldn't.

 

OHO!!! So Avril Lavigne is "punk" just like Vanilla Ice was "from the streets." Silly pop stars. Sillier pop star fans. Tasty pop tarts.

 

If I'm choosing to spend the rest of my life with somebody, that is the most important factor, because the whole physical thing is going to die out later... not that the romance will. Romance is more than sex.

This is the argument that confuses me the most about romantics that want to wait until marriage. If sex isn't that important, why do you worry about not having it? I can see where you're coming from and all, and it is romantic to a degree to wait, but it just seems to me that waiting and building it up turns sex into something much more important than it would be normally.

 

I can see where you're coming from and all, and it is romantic to a degree to wait, but it just seems to me that waiting and building it up turns sex into something much more important than it would be normally.

I think it also has the effect of creating unrealistic expectations for the wedding night. Sadly enough, the first time for someone isn't usually all that romantic. It's painful for the woman, and the whole experience may begin and end so quickly that both parties are left with a "is that all?" feeling.

I'm not saying that this can't be overcome with love and patience, but the initial disappointment may cloud a couple's sex life for a while.

 

True enough, but I think that can be avoided without resorting to premarital sexual exploration. If I may note the words of C.S. Lewis, one of the 20th century's most important Christian writers, in his book The Four Loves:

We must not be totally serious about Venus. Indeed we can't be totally serious without doing violence to our humanity. It is not for nothing that every language and literature in the world is full of jokes about sex. Many of them may be dull or disgusting and nearly all of them are old. But we must insist that they embody an attitude to Venus which in the long run endangers the Christian life far less than a reverential gravity. We must not attempt to find an absolute in the flesh. Banish play and laughter from the bed of love and you may let in a false goddess.

And I further quote George Thorogood's cover of "Treat Her Right":

I wanna tell you a story
Every man oughta know
If you want a little lovin'
You gotta start real slow
She's gonna love you tonight
If you just treat her right

Squeeze her real gentle
You gotta make her feel good
Tell her that you love her
Like you know you should
She's gonna love you tonight
If you just treat her right

If you practice my method
Just as hard as you can
You're gonna get a reputation
As a lovin' man
Yeah, you'll be glad every night
That you treated her right

Playfulness and selflessness: while you can certainly learn these things "as you go," I don't think it's necessary. I myself am waiting for marriage, and I think I've already learned two of the biggest lessons - from such random sources as C.S. Lewis and George Thorogood.

 

It's painful for the woman,

Not always, nor does it have to be.

 

Well, I'm not an expert, but almost all the women I've talked to said it was painful the first time. Maybe I should have said "it's often painful for the woman."

 

Everyone has given your opinions and thoughts. That is all fine and great, but here is a question. Does anyone think that their beliefs should be pushed on anyone in the form of morals?

Yeah, you may wait till your wedding night before you physically enjoy your partner, but do you think that should be the law? Likewise you may sleep with a different people every night, should that be the norm?

Can anyone justify why their opinion should be morally right or simply correct?

I recently had this debate with a Christian friend, and it played out something like this. I said that marriage was either redundant or a lie, pending on how the couple already feels for each other. He said that even so, there are some actions (sex) that should be saved for marriage. But when I asked him 'if a couple is not committed to each other, yet still get married (the lie version of marriage) is sex morally acceptable then?' Unfortunately I had to go to class, so I didn't get a good answer.

Let me say my views once again. Marriage is redundant if the couple is already committed to each other, or a lie if the couple is not. Marriage is not what brings commitment, it is a decision made by the couple some time during their relationship. If marriage to you is more than reaffirming your commitment and love, then I truly fear for your marriage in the years to come. What does marriage change? You have a new name and a rock on your finger. You get a nice vacation and time to be alone with your husband/wife. Society now finds it acceptable for you to have sex. Whoopee do. How does it change the relationship outside of semantics?

However, I think that sex is best when in a committed relationship. That way, you can talk to your partner, feel love beyond physical, and talk about the experience, trust them enough to suggest how to improve and be better. If you sleep around, would your partner be as open to suggestions as easily as a more committed relationship? The only thing that may not have is that feeling of something new, of doing something bad that I am sure some people want.

As for the whole with God part, to me it just seems like you are telling God, "Don't send me to hell for what we are about to do tonight, we are doing it within your rules."

Also love is a very personal thing. In this case, it should be between the lovers and no one else. It is no one else's business, nor does it harm or affect anyone else. Not the parents, not the onlookers, and not God.

Also, sex can be wrong, but only if the two (or I guess in theory more) lovers feel it was wrong. To me, that is the only way people can see sex as a bad thing. Other peoples opinions do not matter if the people actually in the act are ok with what happened.

It DOES seem to pose a paradox. You're saying, if we give up such ridiculous concepts like "good" and "evil," then war and greed would cease. And that would be a good thing... except for the fact that you think "good" is a ridiculous concept.

There can be good and evil, but you must be able to justify and explain why to a reasonable person. Saying any action is absolutely right/wrong is extremely hard to justify (and attempting to define right/wrong through actions is the wrong way IMHO).

Saying god (using small case since I am talking about the concept of god) says so is not a good answer for what morals are. God has killed, He has done things that appear to show he has a very closed mind, and if He were a man with those powers, He would be very predictable and evil in many ways.

SECONDLY, in the Bible the 'God' depicted there is far more cruel and vengeful than this. He openly condones murders, sacrifice of first born humans, ect. If you ask me, I'd rather be a cruel joke than worship that God.

And like any 'good parent' of today, He let his own son die! Didn't even lift a finger to help till He was dead.

It seems rather contradictory to claim to be "open-minded" about everything, except for the fact of religious adherents. "Every belief sy

 

Nice post, Enforcer. As I'm in agreement, I won't post my comments at this time (they'd be redundant), but I'm interested to see what the opposing case has to say.

 

I agree with those sentiments.