sex before marriage

[cacian]

Is sex before marriage a 'justified ' religious policy?
should any establishment including religion dictates what sex should not be?
monks and nuns practice it.




please discuss.

[PeterL]

What business is it of religion what people do. Religions are simply collections oc superstitions and opinions. If they want everyone to be a monk or a nun, then they can't have me.

Would you like to join religion, The House of the Eldest Gods and Goddesses?

[tonywalt]

I encourage sex before marriage (and not just with yourself).

[Lokasenna]

I think any couple who don't have sex before marriage are at best taking a massive gamble, and at worst being foolish. Knowing whether or not you are sexually compatible is important for most relationships.

[MANICHAEAN]

Sex before marriage ?

Yes.

And afterwards if you can get it.

[Ecurb]

Sexual taboos and restrictions are universal in human societies. It's all well and good to pooh-pooh them, but we can't really predict how society will change as the result of changing sexual mores.

It could be worse. We could be wolves, in which species only the Alpha Pair breeds.

Modern, Western society has dropped many sexual restrictions -- but we still have a great many. Incest taboos, the immorality of sex with children, moral censure for adultery (and even for "cheating" when there is no marriage) are some examples. In addition (if my inexpert memory serves) things weren't as strict in the past as some imagine. Wasn't Henry's marriage to (I think it was) Anne Bolyn scandalous because she had been engaged previously, and it was assumed that fiancees were sexually active.

[Paulclem]

I think there was an element of necessity in the restrictions on sexual activity in a way there isn't now. Since contraception, women are far less vulnerable and much more in control than they were in the past. It too simple and easy to just say that it was bad and wrong then.

A young unmarried woman was very vulnerable in the past to predatory males. It was also much more dangerous for them in terms of childbirth as well. Looking back from our well supported, medically secure society it is very easy to criticise. And as Ecurb said, there were transgressions then.

[Jack of Hearts]

Sex before marriage ?

Yes.

And afterwards if you can get it.

Lol classic

[Scheherazade]

Is sex before marriage a 'justified ' religious policy?
should any establishment including religion dictates what sex should not be?
monks and nuns practice it.

please discuss.I feel like I am at high school again! How many words are we required to write to get a pass?

And what does "should any establishment including religion dictates what sex should not be?" mean?

[cacian]

I feel like I am at high school again! How many words are we required to write to get a pass?

And what does "should any establishment including religion dictates what sex should not be?" mean?

five words will suffice :D
I mean should religion or any other sect/institutions/government policies dictate that sex should be practice after marriage or the age of consent 16 or other.
does one need a guideline on how to use it when there is common sense and adulthood to support it.
sex is a personal thing and should be left up to the individual to make their own choices.. to set a hierarchy or a boundary against it is to put a stigma around it so that It becomes the center of obsession or neglect for that matter.

[PeterL]

five words will suffice :D
I mean should religion or any other sect/institutions/government policies dictate that sex should be practice after marriage or the age of consent 16 or other.

And if either party has any common sense, then there is no need for an "age of consent" law either.


does one need a guideline on how to use it when there is common sense and adulthood to support it.
sex is a personal thing and should be left up to the individual to make their own choices.. to set a hierarchy or a boundary against it is to put a stigma around it so that It becomes the center of obsession or neglect for that matter.

Yes, let personal behavior be completely personal. Let government and religion stay out, except for the Goddess Frigga, if She's interested.

[Lokasenna]

Yes, let personal behavior be completely personal. Let government and religion stay out, except for the Goddess Frigga.

Speaking as a close friend of hers, I can promise you she ain't all that interested.

[PeterL]

Speaking as a close friend of hers, I can promise you she ain't all that interested.

No, but it's more her business than it is of any of those Canaanite gods.

[YesNo]

If one can do some sort of cultural transforming of the goddess Frigga into the various Hindu goddesses, I think she might be interested. For more information, see Sally Kempton, Awakening Shakti.

There is also a collection of essays under the title Kundalini Rising which describes some of the sexual associations with religious practice. It has been a while since I read it, but it gave me the feeling that sex and religion were intimately connected.

[Lokasenna]

If one can do some sort of cultural transforming of the goddess Frigga into the various Hindu goddesses, I think she might be interested. For more information, see Sally Kempton, Awakening Shakti.

They may well have been the same figure in the ancient past. Old Norse mythology and Hinduism have common ancestors, and there is a surprising amount of overlap...

[Paulclem]

five words will suffice :D
I mean should religion or any other sect/institutions/government policies dictate that sex should be practice after marriage or the age of consent 16 or other.
does one need a guideline on how to use it when there is common sense and adulthood to support it.
sex is a personal thing and should be left up to the individual to make their own choices.. to set a hierarchy or a boundary against it is to put a stigma around it so that It becomes the center of obsession or neglect for that matter.

Sex before marriage isn't a problem nowadays with the control that women can exercise over their lives.

The age of consent is a legal matter set up to protect children under the age of 16 from exploitation by older adults. You can feel sympathy for kids of 15 and 16 where one may be breaking the law. It is a different matter where one is 15 and the other is in their 30s. There's an imbalance of experience, status and the possibility of manipulation.

[cacian]

Sex before marriage isn't a problem nowadays with the control that women can exercise over their lives.

The age of consent is a legal matter set up to protect children under the age of 16 from exploitation by older adults. You can feel sympathy for kids of 15 and 16 where one may be breaking the law. It is a different matter where one is 15 and the other is in their 30s. There's an imbalance of experience, status and the possibility of manipulation.

sure I am not denying the protection of children at this age is most important.. 15/15/17/18 is still a child in my views.
I think 16 is takes the piss because it gives the idea that it is ok to have sex at a16. I think the age is very low.
however the point I was trying to make is that the age of consent does not stop people having sex affidavit they will do it regardless. the age of consent concept it just makes sex looks like a stigma more then anything.

[PeterL]

sure I am not denying the protection of children at this age is most important.. 15/15/17/18 is still a child in my views.
I think 16 is takes the piss because it gives the idea that it is ok to have sex at a16. I think the age is very low.
however the point I was trying to make is that the age of consent does not stop people having affidavit they will do it regardless. the age of consent concept it just makes sex looks like a stigma more then anything.

Sixteen is a middling sort of age. In oter times and cultures twelve or fourteen were thought to be fine, and there are reasons to think that 25 my be too young. You can't keep shackles on them too long.

[cacian]

Sixteen is a middling sort of age. In oter times and cultures twelve or fourteen were thought to be fine, and there are reasons to think that 25 my be too young. You can't keep shackles on them too long.
just because it is cultures it does not make it right.it it is what is correct that matters. 12/14 is an outrage and child abuse as far as I am concerned. children should be protected and not used for sex because the culture said so. adults are terrible when it comes to looking after children. children are to enjoy their childhood the longest they can that is the healthiest.
introducing them to sex because it is culture is robbing them from their childhood/innocence. anyway some cultures are worst then each other. it is bad.
25 is more then fine 16 is not in my opinion.

[PeterL]

just because it is cultures it does not make it right.it it is what is correct that matters. 12/14 is an outrage and child abuse as far as I am concerned. children should be protected and not used for sex because the culture said so. adults are terrible when it comes to looking after children. children are to enjoy their childhood the longest they can that is the healthiest.
introducing them to sex because it is culture is robbing them from their childhood/innocence. anyway some cultures are worst then each other. it is bad.
25 is more then fine 16 is not in my opinion.

Then you can explain to the 17 year olds tht they are young and the 18, 19, 20, 21, etc.

You may be right that marriage under 25 years should be forbidden, but I don't believe that people should be told how to live by some people who think they are authorities. ANd I'm not sure that anyone is old enough for marriage.

[cacian]

Then you can explain to the 17 year olds tht they are young and the 18, 19, 20, 21, etc.

19/20 is pushing it. I was 17/18 once and I know I was not ready for sex then. I did not enter into at this age therein.



You may be right that marriage under 25 years should be forbidden, but I don't believe that people should be told how to live by some people who think they are authorities. ANd I'm not sure that anyone is old enough for marriage.
marriage is the icing on the cake. no one should be pushed into it or told not to. but I agree no one should dictate but everyone should exercise their sense and logic and weigh out what is right or wrong for them.
but when it comes to children adult are to advise and be aware that sex and children do not mix.

[PeterL]

19/20 is pushing it. I was 17/18 once and I know I was not ready for sex then. I did not enter into at this age therein.

And there are some who are ready somewhat younger.


marriage is the icing on the cake. no one should be pushed into it or told not to. but I agree no one should dictate but everyone should exercise their sense and logic and weigh out what is right or wrong for them.
but when it comes to children adult are to advise and be aware that sex and children do not mix.

And the young will do what they want to do in any case. The young lack the background tht is necessary to truly enjoy youth. I think we should dictate that middle age starts at 12 and runs until 40. Then youth kicks in for the following twenty years after which there are another twenty years of middle age before old age starts. ;)

[Paulclem]

sure I am not denying the protection of children at this age is most important.. 15/15/17/18 is still a child in my views.
I think 16 is takes the piss because it gives the idea that it is ok to have sex at a16. I think the age is very low.
however the point I was trying to make is that the age of consent does not stop people having sex affidavit they will do it regardless. the age of consent concept it just makes sex looks like a stigma more then anything.

It simply means that it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor for very good reasons. Stigmas come with other social aspects, not the law.

[Ecurb]

Were sex not freighted with cultural meaning (and prohibitions, "rules", and mores constitute part of that meaning) it might be a lot less fun. Romance (for example) is associated with sex -- and also with prohibitions (like exclusiveness). The one may not be possible without the other -- or, at least, romance without sexual prohibitions (exclusivness) would differ from what it is now. Similarly, sex without romance would be very different.

So lets be careful what we wish for. It may be that love is a culturally constituted delusion -- but so what? If we throw out the bath water (our strange, culturally constituted notions about sex, including prohibitions), we may throw out the baby (romantic love, a great deal of good poetry, etc.).

[cacian]

It simply means that it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor for very good reasons. Stigmas come with other social aspects, not the law.

the force of every mind is to quit the task.
it is obvious an adult should not have sex wit a minor I do not need a law to tell me it but if some feel they have to be told then what else do they need to be told or not told? spoon feeding is reliance the temptation to go beyond the law is a flavour many savour.
the age of consent allows for sex to go ahead and it tells a sixteen year old that they can. a sixteen year old is still a child.
that is the double meaning of this consent law.
how do you by stigma come with social aspects??

[cacian]

Were sex not freighted with cultural meaning (and prohibitions, "rules", and mores constitute part of that meaning) it might be a lot less fun. Romance (for example) is associated with sex -- and also with prohibitions (like exclusiveness). The one may not be possible without the other -- or, at least, romance without sexual prohibitions (exclusivness) would differ from what it is now. Similarly, sex without romance would be very different.

So lets be careful what we wish for. It may be that love is a culturally constituted delusion -- but so what? If we throw out the bath water (our strange, culturally constituted notions about sex, including prohibitions), we may throw out the baby (romantic love, a great deal of good poetry, etc.).

what type of romance are you talking about or referring to?

[Ecurb]

I'm referring to romantic love (as opposed to romance as adventure, long narratives, or extravagant lies). It seems obvious to me that sexual taboos and restrictions (along with other culturally constituted notions about sexual love) invest the sex act with meaning that it might not otherwise have. Having sex with someone (especially for the first time) is a highly romanticized experience. In a more promiscuous society, we might get to have more sex -- but lacking the romantic baggage we have tacked onto sex, it might not be as emotionally powerful an experience.

In certain subcultures (including my own) the notion is, "Fine. But what does marriage have to do with it. We can and should retain the idea that sex and romantic love should go together, without bringing marriage into the discussion."

Nonetheless, our ideas of romantic love are shaped by monogamy and marriage, and anticipation (and sexual frustration) may intensify our culturally constituted notions of romantic love.

[cacian]

It seems obvious to me that sexual taboos and restrictions (along with other culturally constituted notions about sexual love) invest the sex act with meaning that it might not otherwise have.
I don't understand this.
can you clarify this a bit more :)


Nonetheless, our ideas of romantic love are shaped by monogamy and marriage, and anticipation (and sexual frustration) may intensify our culturally constituted notions of romantic love.
love is romantic. monogamy is not.
monogamy intensify sexual frustrations.

[Ecurb]

I can't spell it out much more clearly. Which do you think is more romantic?

1) "I love you. I love nobody BUT you and I want to spend the rest of my life making you happy."

2) "I love you. I'll see you later, because I'm headed off to have sex with someone else right now."

I suppose polygamy can be romantic, too. The favorite wife of some polygamous sheik might think that being chosen (for one night) over 100 other potential sex partners is romantic. However, our Western notions of romantic love revolve around exclusivity.

"My beloved is mine, and I am his...." - The Song of Solomon.

[cacian]

I can't spell it out much more clearly. Which do you think is more romantic?

1) "I love you. I love nobody BUT you and I want to spend the rest of my life making you happy."

haha this of course. :D


2) "I love you. I'll see you later, because I'm headed off to have sex with someone else right now."

no of course not.
but these are not taboos. it is the norms non?


I suppose polygamy can be romantic, too. The favorite wife of some polygamous sheik might think that being chosen (for one night) over 100 other potential sex partners is romantic. However, our Western notions of romantic love revolve around exclusivity.

polygamy is not romantic it is 'free love and love for all' or whatever. it is not something that screems intimacy to me but it is not taboo it is what people do because they have their reasons. some cannot commit or cannot 'have an intimate' relationship and so they have many.


"My beloved is mine, and I am his...." - The Song of Solomon.
indeed i don't know this quote however it is not about
i am his
and he is mine
it is much more complex then this.

[Paulclem]

the force of every mind is to quit the task.
it is obvious an adult should not have sex wit a minor I do not need a law to tell me it but if some feel they have to be told then what else do they need to be told or not told? spoon feeding is reliance the temptation to go beyond the law is a flavour many savour.
the age of consent allows for sex to go ahead and it tells a sixteen year old that they can. a sixteen year old is still a child.
that is the double meaning of this consent law.
how do you by stigma come with social aspects??

We need the law to protect vulnerable young people from those who have no respect for the law, what anyone says or any social restraint. To think being told will do is naive.

Your point about the age of consent being a sudden permission to have sex - I just don't believe that youngsters work that way - marking off the days to when they can rush out one morning and have sex. I think protection is more important.

By stigma coming from social aspects I mean it is culturally driven through local expectations, or religion. The law is free from prejudice in this and supersedes culture. What might be a practice in Hindu culture - marrying children at 12 - becomes illegal.

[mal4mac]

By stigma coming from social aspects I mean it is culturally driven through local expectations, or religion. The law is free from prejudice in this and supersedes culture. What might be a practice in Hindu culture - marrying children at 12 - becomes illegal.

A quick Google search provides evidence of this law being flouted:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?79269-sex-before-marriage&p=1262629#post1262629

Along with recent reports of extremists taking over schools, this is more support for reducing the power of religion in society.

To make things better, you could insist that a civil marriage must take place - you could still have a religious ceremony, but the civil marriage would be the only one with legal validity.

[cacian]

We need the law to protect vulnerable young people from those who have no respect for the law, what anyone says or any social restraint. To think being told will do is naive.
I agree but I do not think the law is the way forward the ultimate task of law is imposition control and ultimately money.


Your point about the age of consent being a sudden permission to have sex - I just don't believe that youngsters work that way - marking off the days to when they can rush out one morning and have sex. I think protection is more important.
of course it does. it says so in the word 'consent'. a sixteen year old are told by the law that they are to consent and so they think it is Ok to have sex.
they are still at school learning and they are also consented for sex. there is something seriously wrong with this law.



By stigma coming from social aspects I mean it is culturally driven through local expectations, or religion. The law is free from prejudice in this and supersedes culture. What might be a practice in Hindu culture - marrying children at 12 - becomes illegal.
hindu culture or not the reason why it gest away with it it is because the rest of the world does not give a dam.
there should be international laws in place to protect children around the world. that is the point.
it is not just about my society and the rest can do one. it is about everyone one under one roof as far as children are concerned.

[Paulclem]

A quick Google search provides evidence of this law being flouted:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?79269-sex-before-marriage&p=1262629#post1262629

Along with recent reports of extremists taking over schools, this is more support for reducing the power of religion in society.

To make things better, you could insist that a civil marriage must take place - you could still have a religious ceremony, but the civil marriage would be the only one with legal validity.

The purpose of the law is to protect the vulnerable and prosecute those who would exploit youngsters. it's not really about a prohibition. It's not perfect - what law is/

What has the school thing got to do with this? Religious power is subservient rightly to the law. Religious thought is useful in being another commentator on society - for example the imposition of benefit laws which have made the poor poorer.

People should get married in the way they want, so long as the law is being followed.

I agree but I do not think the law is the way forward the ultimate task of law is imposition control and ultimately money.

Not in this case. Money is one of the levers which could be used to exploit young and vulnerable.

a sixteen year old are told by the law that they are to consent

No they're not told to consent.

there should be international laws in place

You are being inconsistent. You don't like a law that is in place in the UK, but you want to impose an impossible law.

[mal4mac]

What has the school thing got to do with this? Religious power is subservient rightly to the law...


Religious organisations and schools *should be* subservient to the law, but the Tories have shown themselves inadequate in applying the law. In the case of schools, they have let headmasters & governors run schools and thereby have insufficient controls in place to make sure they are not taken over by extremist headmasters and governors. In the case of marriage they have never had sufficient control, hence the repeating scandals of forced & under-aged marriage. This is all down to religion - as Hitchens said, "it poisons everything."

It is up to our elected representatives to reduce the conditions in which extremists can operate, and actually make sure that justice works in schools and marriage halls. A start would be to reduce religion's controlling influence on these institutions.



It's not perfect - what law is


It's not just "not perfect" it's "very bad" on this issue. Just read a few of the newspaper reports!

[Paulclem]

Religious organisations and schools *should be* subservient to the law, but the Tories have shown themselves inadequate in applying the law. In the case of schools, they have let headmasters & governors run schools and thereby have insufficient controls in place to make sure they are not taken over by extremist headmasters and governors. In the case of marriage they have never had sufficient control, hence the repeating scandals of forced & under-aged marriage. This is all down to religion - as Hitchens said, "it poisons everything."

It is up to our elected representatives to reduce the conditions in which extremists can operate, and actually make sure that justice works in schools and marriage halls. A start would be to reduce religion's controlling influence on these institutions.



It's not just "not perfect" it's "very bad" on this issue. Just read a few of the newspaper reports!

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the Birmingham OFSTED results. I think the question of the age of consent is more complex in itself. I don't think the law is intended as a prohibition to teenagers having sex. I think it's primary aim is the protection of youngsters from exploitative individuals including those who would impose their own cultural/ religious values in this country. The age of consent isn't intended to stop young ones themselves having sex. How could it? That is a social matter for education, parenting etc

Religion is subservient to the law. The implication of it is another matter. Child brides taken from the UK is a scandal that should be better policed.

I don't need to read any newspaper reports to know that we have the highest numbers of teen pregnancies is Europe, but, again, that's down to poor sex education policy, parenting etc etc

[DocHeart]

I agree with cacian, 16 is definitely too young. I started having sex at 16 and never was able to stop. Young boys and girls, if you're reading this, please take your uncle DocHeart's advice: stay off this stuff, it's extremely addictive.

[cacian]

Not in this case. Money is one of the levers which could be used to exploit young and vulnerable.

well yes it is. if someone has sex with a minor under sixteen, which happens all the time, then one has broken the law, in this case the age of consent law. they go to court and then pay the consequences and one of them is a fine they would have to pay.

laws are always broken the more of it and the more breakage and then the more fines/money.
that is the ultimate point of a law is to make money because the law knows it will be broken.
that is the flip side of the law.



a sixteen year old are told by the law that they are to consent

No they're not told to consent.

no?? the clue is in the title the age of consent . this suggest to me that sex is allowed to go on.
it is like deploying sweet shots around the city. people will go them.
the age of consent is a set up. it says go and have sex at sixteen.


there should be international laws in place

You are being inconsistent. You don't like a law that is in place in the UK, but you want to impose an impossible law.
I am not being inconsistent I am being fair. instead of deploying age consents randomly instructing sex at sixteen or thirteen deploy laws that prohibit children being used for sex at a very early age.

[Paulclem]

well yes it is. if someone has sex with a minor under sixteen, which happens all the time, then one has broken the law, in this case the age of consent law. they go to court and then pay the consequences and one of them is a fine they would have to pay.

laws are always broken the more of it and the more breakage and then the more fines/money.
that is the ultimate point of a law is to make money because the law knows it will be broken.
that is the flip side of the law.




no?? the clue is in the title the age of consent . this suggest to me that sex is allowed to go on.
it is like deploying sweet shots around the city. people will go them.
the age of consent is a set up. it says go and have sex at sixteen.


I am not being inconsistent I am being fair. instead of deploying age consents randomly instructing sex at sixteen or thirteen deploy laws that prohibit children being used for sex at a very early age.

The age of consent laws are not about fines and making money. Sex with a minor is likely to result in a prison sentence. It's not the same as driving offenses.

It's true - the clue is in the term age of consent. This refers not to the permission to say yes when a teen is 16, but to the fact that legally a child under 16 cannot consent to sex with an adult even if they say yes. What this means in effect is that the whole responsibility remains with the adult, making them culpable to a charge of sex with a minor or statutory rape.

As for consistency - on one hand you can't disagree with a law and then suggest it should be applied internationally. I might even agree with you on that except that there are problems with who would make and enforce it. There are different versions of the law in different countries and so the first problem would be to agree on an age.

[hannah_arendt]

I agree with cacian, 16 is definitely too young. I started having sex at 16 and never was able to stop. Young boys and girls, if you're reading this, please take your uncle DocHeart's advice: stay off this stuff, it's extremely addictive.

I agree with you. However, there are young people starting at the age of 13. It can be addictive but also have very bad influence on psyche.

[togre]

I am incredibly hesitant to jump into this conversation for a number of reasons, but I'll try to add some insight.

The Christian Bible doesn't treat sexual intimacy merely with a list of don'ts (No ding-ding without a wedding ring). Rather it starts with at an even more basic place--What is sex?

Seriously, what is sex? And no, I'm not talking about a biological description of that act. What does it mean? What does it express? What does it cause? Can we all agree it is a more meaningful act than shaking hands or sleeping? Can we agree that it can be a powerful bond in a relationship or can cause feelings of betrayal or guilt or shame?

The Bible first speaks of sexual intimacy in Genesis 2:24,25 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." Sex is not dirty or wrong. It is intended by God to be a blessing and a joy. Yet, as he is the one who gives the gift, he is the one who tells us how it is to be used--Within the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman. This is his plan and will for this blessing. As the two are joined in this union, they join together in physical intimacy as well.

Well, sin happens. So much sin is selfish. I don't want to use God's blessings the way he designed them. Food is yummy, I think. Forget moderation--I'm headed to the buffet. And so, I'm fat. It leads to regrets, ailments and so on. No surprise there. Using God's blessings in a selfish manner often seems enjoyable, but so often causes negative things.


Apply this to the gift of sex. What God intends as a blessing, sinful humans (myself included) want without the guidelines. So the whole gambit of sexual sins--ranging from lustful thoughts in the heart to outwards acts--are really different attempts to use a blessing in a way it was not intended by God. Is it surprising that this leads to emotional turmoil, abuse, etc....?

[mal4mac]

Can we agree that it [sex] can be a powerful bond in a relationship or can cause feelings of betrayal or guilt or shame?

Why do Christians never talk about sex without linking it to sin, betrayal, guilt and shame. It can involve these things, but surely not all the time! Any human activity can lead to these negative feelings, if you burn the dinner you might feel shame. But when you bring up cooking, the first feeling that come to mind inspires isn't shame! So why is that when sex comes up that "sin" and "shame" springs to mind? It's the pernicious effect of Christianity, and especially "celibate but not yet" St Augustine. As Hitchens says, "Religions poisons everything", and Christianity especially poisons sexual relationships.



It is intended by God to be a blessing and a joy. Yet, as he is the one who gives the gift, he is the one who tells us how it is to be used--Within the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman. This is his plan and will for this blessing. As the two are joined in this union, they join together in physical intimacy as well.


Why listen to this old tyrant? Why not listen to the elders of Hawaiian society instead?

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2004-sexual-behavior-in-pre-contact-hawaii.html


ranging from lustful thoughts in the heart to outwards acts--are really different attempts to use a blessing in a way it was not intended by God. Is it surprising that this leads to emotional turmoil, abuse, etc....?

You see a beautiful woman in a summer dress, have a lustful thought, then say it's a shame, sinful, against God, etc, then indeed you will have emotional turmoil! If you have a natural feeling and declare that feeling to be awful you are heading for a great deal of anguish. Me, I just enjoy the feeling. (With some regret that she's quickly out of view! And no I don't stare... you can have the feeling, how can you stop it, but you can choose not to act on it in such a way as to upset anyone else in any way... that's just being civilised...)

[Paulclem]

I am incredibly hesitant to jump into this conversation for a number of reasons, but I'll try to add some insight.

The Christian Bible doesn't treat sexual intimacy merely with a list of don'ts (No ding-ding without a wedding ring). Rather it starts with at an even more basic place--What is sex?

Seriously, what is sex? And no, I'm not talking about a biological description of that act. What does it mean? What does it express? What does it cause? Can we all agree it is a more meaningful act than shaking hands or sleeping? Can we agree that it can be a powerful bond in a relationship or can cause feelings of betrayal or guilt or shame?

The Bible first speaks of sexual intimacy in Genesis 2:24,25 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." Sex is not dirty or wrong. It is intended by God to be a blessing and a joy. Yet, as he is the one who gives the gift, he is the one who tells us how it is to be used--Within the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman. This is his plan and will for this blessing. As the two are joined in this union, they join together in physical intimacy as well.

Well, sin happens. So much sin is selfish. I don't want to use God's blessings the way he designed them. Food is yummy, I think. Forget moderation--I'm headed to the buffet. And so, I'm fat. It leads to regrets, ailments and so on. No surprise there. Using God's blessings in a selfish manner often seems enjoyable, but so often causes negative things.


Apply this to the gift of sex. What God intends as a blessing, sinful humans (myself included) want without the guidelines. So the whole gambit of sexual sins--ranging from lustful thoughts in the heart to outwards acts--are really different attempts to use a blessing in a way it was not intended by God. Is it surprising that this leads to emotional turmoil, abuse, etc....?

Your views aren't a problem to a christian, but society is made up of more than Christians and we need a law that applies to all. What you're talking about is down to parents, church leaders etc, but has little application in a wider sense. That's one of the West's advantages - there are laws that can fairly be applied to preserve the rights of anyone, whatever their religion or lack of.

[YesNo]

Sex is not dirty or wrong. It is intended by God to be a blessing and a joy. Yet, as he is the one who gives the gift, he is the one who tells us how it is to be used--Within the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman. This is his plan and will for this blessing. As the two are joined in this union, they join together in physical intimacy as well.

Well, sin happens. So much sin is selfish. I don't want to use God's blessings the way he designed them. Food is yummy, I think. Forget moderation--I'm headed to the buffet. And so, I'm fat. It leads to regrets, ailments and so on. No surprise there. Using God's blessings in a selfish manner often seems enjoyable, but so often causes negative things.


Based on the Young and Alexander summary, The Chemistry Between Us (http://www.amazon.com/The-Chemistry-Between-Us-Attraction/dp/B00D9TCPDO) we have bodies that encourage pair-bondings after repeated sexual activity. Pair-bonding is not a cultural phenomenon. It is biological. Even species such as prairie voles have this. What culture adds on to this are various institutions of marriage and expectations of monogamy such as the one you have presented, togre.

Since pair-bonding is not biologically deterministic, there are also mechanisms for divorce. Governments provide protections when those pairs break up. Because religions provide community assistance and traditional wisdom for people going through marriage and divorce, I don't see anything wrong with them either.

[Paulclem]

Based on Young and Alexander summary, The Chemistry Between Us (http://www.amazon.com/The-Chemistry-Between-Us-Attraction/dp/B00D9TCPDO) we have bodies that encourage pair-bondings after repeated sexual activity. Pair-bonding is not a cultural phenomenon. It is biological. Even species such as prairie voles have this. What culture adds on to this are various institutions of marriage and expectations of monogamy such as the one you have presented, togre.

Since pair-bonding is not biologically deterministic, there are also mechanisms for divorce. Governments provide protections when those pairs break up. Because religions provide community assistance and traditional wisdom for people going through marriage and divorce, I don't see anything wrong with them either.

Haha
Whatever would we do without science to prove it. It does many things well but not the bleedin obvious.

[mal4mac]

]... we have bodies that encourage pair-bondings after repeated sexual activity. Pair-bonding is not a cultural phenomenon.

Then how do you explain Don Giovanni and his many followers, e.g. Georges Simenon with his 10 000 lovers?

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20075701,00.html

[YesNo]

It is obvious that pair-bonding has some biological features or we wouldn't see if all over the place nor would we see in in other species. This same kind of research also showed that homosexuality has biological correlations to the way the brain is organized prior to birth and it is not culturally determined. Similar research also showed that gender has a biological component. Doctors used to think all you had to do was change the physical feature of the genitals and apply cultural conditioning and you could turn a boy into a girl or a girl into a boy. It doesn't work.

At the same time, at least with pair-bonding, the biological reward-punishment systems involved are not deterministic. That means there can be Don Giovannis and Georges Simenons as well as people who refuse to have sex altogether.

One of the features of pair-bonding that I recall from the book is that without this feature we would not be able to distinguish who it was we had sex with the night before. Sure, we would know that we had sex and even know the gender of the other person. We just could not tell if it was that male or that female--and frankly, if we didn't have this pair-bonding feature as part of our bodies, we wouldn't care to know one way or the other.

[Ecurb]

Polygamy has been accepted in most societies throughout most of history and prehistory (as far as we can tell). So pair-bonding can't be all THAT powerful a force. If we assume that humans around the world (and throughout our recent history and prehistory) are of the same species and are similar biologically, how can a theory like this (I assume it's some sort of evolutionary psychology) explain the variation in marriage (and pairing) customs?

Even very recent changes in Western Culture have dramatically altered sexual norms. So it seems that medical advances, the dimunition of religiosity, and economic factors (women making more money and the elimination of gender-determined economic roles) are more important in determining sexual norms than biological factors. In addition, marriage has become less significant economically, politicaly, and socially in our complex, capitalist society than it was in simpler, pre-market societies. We read every day about the break-down of the institution of marriage -- but I doubt our biological impulse for pair-bonding has changed much in the last 100 years. Instead, changing economic roles, better birth control, changing laws and moral norms, and a market economy that largely ignores kinship seem the likely factors in the high divorce rate.

[Paulclem]

It is obvious that pair-bonding has some biological features or we wouldn't see if all over the place nor would we see in in other species. This same kind of research also showed that homosexuality has biological correlations to the way the brain is organized prior to birth and it is not culturally determined. Similar research also showed that gender has a biological component. Doctors used to think all you had to do was change the physical feature of the genitals and apply cultural conditioning and you could turn a boy into a girl or a girl into a boy. It doesn't work.

At the same time, at least with pair-bonding, the biological reward-punishment systems involved are not deterministic. That means there can be Don Giovannis and Georges Simenons as well as people who refuse to have sex altogether.

One of the features of pair-bonding that I recall from the book is that without this feature we would not be able to distinguish who it was we had sex with the night before. Sure, we would know that we had sex and even know the gender of the other person. We just could not tell if it was that male or that female--and frankly, if we didn't have this pair-bonding feature as part of our bodies, we wouldn't care to know one way or the other.

I'm not sure what this is bringing that ordinary description doesn't already bring. A couple become intimate and decide to stay together. But also they might not. A person can resist having just one partner or can have many or none.

And what does that last paragraph mean? If we didn't have the capacity to form relationships then it wouldn't register with whom we had slept. Is that useful? We do form relationships and we do recognise. Did we need a study for this?

[Paulclem]

Polygamy has been accepted in most societies throughout most of history and prehistory (as far as we can tell). So pair-bonding can't be all THAT powerful a force. If we assume that humans around the world (and throughout our recent history and prehistory) are of the same species and are similar biologically, how can a theory like this (I assume it's some sort of evolutionary psychology) explain the variation in marriage (and pairing) customs?

Even very recent changes in Western Culture have dramatically altered sexual norms. So it seems that medical advances, the dimunition of religiosity, and economic factors (women making more money and the elimination of gender-determined economic roles) are more important in determining sexual norms than biological factors. In addition, marriage has become less significant economically, politicaly, and socially in our complex, capitalist society than it was in simpler, pre-market societies. We read every day about the break-down of the institution of marriage -- but I doubt our biological impulse for pair-bonding has changed much in the last 100 years. Instead, changing economic roles, better birth control, changing laws and moral norms, and a market economy that largely ignores kinship seem the likely factors in the high divorce rate.

Isn't serial monogamy the most common type of relationship rather than polygamy?

[cacian]

It is obvious that pair-bonding has some biological features or we wouldn't see if all over the place nor would we see in in other species. This same kind of research also showed that homosexuality has biological correlations to the way the brain is organized prior to birth and it is not culturally determined. Similar research also showed that gender has a biological component. Doctors used to think all you had to do was change the physical feature of the genitals and apply cultural conditioning and you could turn a boy into a girl or a girl into a boy. It doesn't work.

At the same time, at least with pair-bonding, the biological reward-punishment systems involved are not deterministic. That means there can be Don Giovannis and Georges Simenons as well as people who refuse to have sex altogether.

One of the features of pair-bonding that I recall from the book is that without this feature we would not be able to distinguish who it was we had sex with the night before. Sure, we would know that we had sex and even know the gender of the other person. We just could not tell if it was that male or that female--and frankly, if we didn't have this pair-bonding feature as part of our bodies, we wouldn't care to know one way or the other.

the concept of sex may be immortalised or made immoral but the act is not.
I understand what you mean by not knowing what it may be we had sex with I had the same conversation with my hubby about gender and sex.
se is an act not a serial number. we associate feelings not gender when it comes to intimacy/sex.
I am a female and so I visualise sex but for a man it is about the feeling rather then the looks it is what it feels right.
for me as a female it is what looks right. in other words I need to know who I am having sex with and why.
a man it does not matter because it is about how it feels or register gender is neither here or there.

[Ecurb]

Most societies have found polygamy morally normative, but it has never been the statistical norm. Most men have only one wife even in societies that fully accept polygamy. One Polynesian group (I forget the name) practices universal female marriage. Girls are married at birth (although they don't move in with their husbands until they are teenagers). The society is a gerontocracy -- the old men rule. Since men aren't rich enough to get young wives until they are 30 or 40, they may be in their 50s by the time their wives start living with them. Of course, there are a great many widows, since the husbands may be 40 years older than their wives. Like the infants, they marry immediately. The powerful, old men don't want them -- so they marry the young men who can't get infant wives (or who are waiting for them to grow up).

That is one example of serial monogamy -- as is our society, in practice. I don't know about modern "hook-up" culture --but in my dating days everyone had sex with his girlfriend, which was a non-permanent position. And of course the divorce rates are such that our marriage system is a form of serial monogamy.

[YesNo]

I'm not sure what this is bringing that ordinary description doesn't already bring. A couple become intimate and decide to stay together. But also they might not. A person can resist having just one partner or can have many or none.

And what does that last paragraph mean? If we didn't have the capacity to form relationships then it wouldn't register with whom we had slept. Is that useful? We do form relationships and we do recognise. Did we need a study for this?

What these studies show is something that should be obvious, especially today after the research has been done, but something that was not obvious say three or four decades ago. At that time people believed that sex or gender was chiefly a cultural invention. At that time one believed that changing the toys boys and girls played with would change their gender roles. It doesn't. One believed that homosexuality was something that one could alter through cultural conditioning. One can't.

I hear remnants of this old way of thinking in the criticism of religion and government, which can be viewed as forms of cultural conditioning. For example, the tendency toward monogamy, serial, temporary or permanent, is not caused by a religion or government that is oppressing us. It is part of our biology. Nor will some "enlightened", "rational", or "scientific" cultural approach change our biological tendency to pair-bond.

I brought up the last paragraph to emphasize that pair-bonding, when a species has this, brings with it advantages. One of those advantages is the ability to distinguish between different sexual partners. Another advantage is the way the young are treated. With pair-bonding, the offspring are better cared for.

[YesNo]

the concept of sex may be immortalised or made immoral but the act is not.
I understand what you mean by not knowing what it may be we had sex with I had the same conversation with my hubby about gender and sex.
se is an act not a serial number. we associate feelings not gender when it comes to intimacy/sex.
I am a female and so I visualise sex but for a man it is about the feeling rather then the looks it is what it feels right.
for me as a female it is what looks right. in other words I need to know who I am having sex with and why.
a man it does not matter because it is about how it feels or register gender is neither here or there.

Men and women approach sex differently as you mentioned. I don't understand what you mean by "visualise sex", but perhaps I'm missing something obvious.

The Young and Alexander research summary suggested that women view the men as their "babies" and men view women as their "property".

[mal4mac]

It is obvious that pair-bonding has some biological features or we wouldn't see if all over the place nor would we see in in other species.

Maybe, but you see Don Juans all over the place as well! The biological imperative to make every sperm count leaves men permanently "all over the place".



At the same time, at least with pair-bonding, the biological reward-punishment systems involved are not deterministic. That means there can be Don Giovannis and Georges Simenons as well as people who refuse to have sex altogether.


I agree with this.



One of the features of pair-bonding that I recall from the book is that without this feature we would not be able to distinguish who it was we had sex with the night before... this pair-bonding feature as part of our bodies, we wouldn't care to know one way or the other.

I'm not sure about this. Imagine if Simenon met a beggar woman on the street dragging a little child, if it was his child then he'd be likely to relieve her poverty, if not, he might just walk by and give her nothing. So even though George might just have met this woman once it benefits his genes if he can recognise this woman.

[mal4mac]

I hear remnants of this old way of thinking in the criticism of religion and government, which can be viewed as forms of cultural conditioning. For example, the tendency toward monogamy, serial, temporary or permanent, is not caused by a religion or government that is oppressing us. It is part of our biology.

This is too simplistic. Christianity takes one tendency of our biology and turns it into a rule that everyone must obey. And it pretends some white beard in the sky lays down punishments if you prefer to follow another biological tendency. The sensible person's reaction to homosexuality, George Simenon and Polynesian's society is to say, "fair enough, we're all free to do what we want as long as we don't hurt anybody." But I don't expect anyone poisoned by Christianity to be sensible.

[YesNo]

This is too simplistic. Christianity takes one tendency of our biology and turns it into a rule that everyone must obey. And it pretends some white beard in the sky lays down punishments if you prefer to follow another biological tendency. The sensible person's reaction to homosexuality, George Simenon and Polynesian's society is to say, "fair enough, we're all free to do what we want as long as we don't hurt anybody." But I don't expect anyone poisoned by Christianity to be sensible.

The position I am taking does not necessarily agree with traditional Christianity. I see potential differences on the following points:

1) I understand that some practitioners of Christianity are opposed to homosexuality. The studies reported by Young and Alexander do not support this position and I also think this position is misguided from a religious perspective.

2) The mechanism for encouraging sexual behavior is a reward mechanism. You don't give a deterministic machine a reward to do something. Because of that, my view is that free will exists in some form in whatever species one finds this reward system. This position is in conflict with some Christian philosophical positions that only claim that the human species can have free will.

You mentioned the following:


The biological imperative to make every sperm count leaves men permanently "all over the place".

The existence of homosexuality falsifies this "biological imperative". At the very least, there is no "imperative" involved.

All we get from this biological reward system is that our bodies encourage us to reach out to others. Reproduction may well be a side-issue beneath a stronger need to establish ties to those others who are our offspring especially as biologically favored pair-bonding, whether heterosexual or homosexual, motivates us to relate to others.

This is where I see religion becoming important when it comes to sex. This biologically motivated reaching out to others through sexuality is culturally enhanced by religion into reaching out to something or someone higher than ourselves.

[cacian]

Men and women approach sex differently as you mentioned. I don't understand what you mean by "visualise sex", but perhaps I'm missing something obvious.

women visualise sex they are aware of the gender is what I mean.
men are the opposite they visualise sex the gender is secondary.


The Young and Alexander research summary suggested that women view the men as their "babies" and men view women as their "property".
and what do you think YesNo do you think there is truth in this?

[YesNo]

women visualise sex they are aware of the gender is what I mean.
men are the opposite they visualise sex the gender is secondary.


and what do you think YesNo do you think there is truth in this?

When Young and Alexander are saying that women treat men like their babies and men treat women like their property they are trying to get a reaction out of their readers. They know some readers will consider this sexist. They know other readers would not want to be treated in that way.

What do I think? Well, I got the book out of the library and I plan to reread parts of it because I'm not sure about the details anymore. Overall, however, I think they are right.

Edit: Rather than "property" as I remembered it, Young and Alexander use the term "territory".

[YesNo]

women visualise sex they are aware of the gender is what I mean.
men are the opposite they visualise sex the gender is secondary.


In rereading some of Young and Alexander, I think you are right about the visualization especially for females who need to see the beloved. However, I don't see how it all fits together with their description of oxytocin,dopamine and opiods delivered to the right portion of a female-organized brain. The additional chemical for the male would be vasopressin. It motivates the male to defend his territory.

In any case, when it comes to sex before marriage, our bodies will influence us more than any religion, non-religion or government. However, when they are misguided and powerful, they can cause a lot of damage.