Premarital sex-- any logical arguments against it? (moral, birth control, procreation)

[Noirhaired]

Are there any substantial, logical, and non-religious related arguments against having sex outside of marriage? Arguments that DO NOT involve having children out of wedlock, STDs, and abortions, which I believe are the products of either irresponsibility, lack of birth control use and access, unsafe sex, and lack of resources, but not necessarily marriage.

If someone can give me a logical argument that doesn't involve the Bible or any religious text against it, I'll rethink my views on it.

[Sunstone]

What are the "logical, substantial" arguments for it? Just curious.

[!Fluffy!]

Originally Posted by Noirhaired

Are there any substantial, logical, and non-religious related arguments against having sex outside of marriage? Arguments that DO NOT involve having children out of wedlock, STDs, and abortions, which I believe are the products of either irresponsibility, lack of birth control use and access, unsafe sex, and lack of resources, but not necessarily marriage.

If someone can give me a logical argument that doesn't involve the Bible or any religious text against it, I'll rethink my views on it.

Having unfortunately experienced both, I would have to say fornication is to full on married sexuality what comic books are to great literature.

Fun maybe, but not really in the same league (and at its worst, devastating for those involved in unequally-vulnerable type couplings of which there are too many).

[Noirhaired]

So um, what does that mean?


I said substantial and reasonable because I hate fluff arguments that only appeal to emotion.

[Sunstone]

When we have sex, our bodies release certain neurochemicals that cause us to bond with the person we have sex with. For instance, our bodies release oxytocin. Oxytocin is a neurochemical that does a number of things in humans, but it should be noted here that it is addictive. That is, oxytocin is as much of an addictive substance as is alcohol or nicotine.

Most people readily describe the emotional effects of oxytocin as having "a warm and fuzzy feeling towards someone". If you gave someone a shot of pure oxytocin, they would experience a rush of warm and fuzzy feelings, among other things.

So what does all this mean? It means that when you have sex with a person, your body releases an addictive chemical that you come to associate with that person. If you cease having sex with that person, you will be able to go a few days with no problem. Then the withdrawl symptoms will set in and you will yearn for him or her (you are really yearning for more oxytocin, but your mind doesn't know that).

This pattern is why so many couples break up, are happy with their break up for a few days, and then plummet into yearnings for each other. Not realizing that they are chemically addicted to each other, they think their yearnings mean they are in love with each other. So, they get back together again. Only to face the same problems that caused them to break up in the first place.

The moral of the story, if there is one, is this: Be careful who you sleep with. If you sleep with them often enough, whether inside marriage or outside of marriage, you will become addicted to them.

I am not making an argument here for restricting sex to marriage, but rather am merely saying that sex has consequences we don't always think about, but should. Sex, after all, is something that evolved in us not just for procreation, but (at least in humans) also for bonding us to each other.

[!Fluffy!]

Originally Posted by Noirhaired

So um, what does that mean?


I said substantial and reasonable because I hate fluff arguments that only appeal to emotion.

I'm sorry, I thought I was being quite clear. There was not one ounce of "fluff" nor emotionalism in my post. I meant every word I said.

If you can't take it seriously, perhaps we have a comprehension gap.

Extramarital sex (fornication) is an incomplete act by its very nature, something done outside the confines of its intended context which is within a committed lifelong relationship. It is therefore doomed to be less than satisfying.

It's a big turnoff for the healthy and completely honest woman, IMO.

If I eat expensive Belgian chocolate wafers for dinner, I will experience the same kind of hunger one will experience who has sex outside of (a healthy loving) marriage. I love chocolate but it's not meant to be a meal, it is incomplete, it is unsatisfying. If I eat it inappropriately I'll get sick.

If a sexual relationship is not full and complete emotionally and psychologically, it's comparatively empty and devoid of meaning, thus, unfulfilling.

Not everyone's needs are the same, but we are all constructed pretty much the same chemically and neurologically. Close enough anyway, just like with the digestive 'chocolate' example I just used. We are created to bond through sex, and lifelong loving commitment (comfort/mutual vulnerability/nurturing/trust) encourages freedom of expression, freedom opens the door to and enhances true passion, which is the key to sexual fulfillment.

[Sunstone]

I don't see sex with and without committment as a matter of one being superior to the other, but just as a matter of their being different.

For instance, it seems true enough to me that for many people sex without committment is more passionate, in its way, than is sex within the context of a long term committment. Does that make it superior or inferior to the deep connectedness that many people in a long term committment feel? I don't think so. I just think it's different.

[Ðanisty]

Originally Posted by Moon Woman

Having unfortunately experienced both, I would have to say fornication is to full on married sexuality what comic books are to great literature.

Fun maybe, but not really in the same league (and at its worst, devastating for those involved in unequally-vulnerable type couplings of which there are too many).

Exactly what are you trying to say about comic books??? Some of them are very thought-provoking. There are comic book authors out there that are as good, if not better, than some classical authors.

[JMoum04]

Originally Posted by Ðanisty

Exactly what are you trying to say about comic books??? Some of them are very thought-provoking. There are comic book authors out there that are as good, if not better, than some classical authors.

To be fair Danisty, I think he was using the stereotypical and commone held perception of comic books vs. award winning novels. He's not trying to say that comic books are necessarily bad, he's just trying to make a basic comparision.