Is premarital sex moral or immoral?

[Shadow Wolf]

I have a friend who has an IQ high enough to dispute facts.

I possess a genius level IQ. But you don't need it to study basic undergrad psychology.

She says that especially child pornography, but also pornography and adultery, cause serious damage to society.

I don't think anyone other than NAMBLA members and pedophiles are going to defend child porn. And not too many people are fond of the idea of people cheating on their spouse. Regular porn though, study after study has shown it doesn't do any harm. Healthy adults do tend to realize it's a fantasy, and use it as they will from there (some couples even enjoy watching it together).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

justifying a sexually immoral lifestyle, with the excuse, "No one buys a "pig in a bag".

Such bronze age morality doesn't apply to massive chunks of the world. We've moved on.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A wise person doesn't buy an expensive pair of running shoes without first trying them on to be sure they will fit . Likewise, a wise person won't get married until he/she has premarital sex in order to be certain he/she is sexually compatible with his/her prospective spouse .

That's a pretty messed up analogy. You're comparing a romantic partner with a pair of shoes that you'll put back or return if they can't satisfy you sexually. Wtf.

 

[nPeace]

Such bronze age morality doesn't apply to massive chunks of the world. We've moved on.

Why am I not surprised... Oh. The Bible says...
But know this, that in the last days ...men will be lovers of themselves, ...having no natural affection, ...without self-control, ...without love of goodness, ...lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God. . .
But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled. (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 13)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why am I not surprised... Oh. The Bible says...
But know this, that in the last days ...men will be lovers of themselves, ...having no natural affection, ...without self-control, ...without love of goodness, ...lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God. . .
But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled. (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 13)

Of course the Bible says that about people who disagree with it. But, it is an insult to think we are narcissists, have no affection towards others, lack self-control, have no love of goodness, and are hedonists. Gotta prime the sheep to see the world as evil, after all.

 

[dianaiad]

Wearing you seat belt reduces the risk of injury and death in a car wreck, but the only way to not get hurt or die in a car is to never get in a car. Life inherently has risks and nothing is 100% safe. If you work in health care, you might still get an STI from an accidental poke from an infected needle.

Not if none of your patients have STD's, you won't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not if none of your patients have STD's, you won't.

That world doesn't exist, and you can't get there even if everyone forever stayed a virgin because sex isn't the only way many STIs are transmitted. And when you are a health care provider, you can't turn people away because they have an STI.

 

[nPeace]

Of course the Bible says that about people who disagree with it. But, it is an insult to think we are narcissists, have no affection towards others, lack self-control, have no love of goodness, and are hedonists. Gotta prime the sheep to see the world as evil, after all.

It is evident. Love = lust, or selfish interest, to those who "have moved on from bronze age morality". Ask anyone. It is evident to everyone except those that fit the description.
How could they agree, when they, are not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, ...without love of goodness, ...headstrong, puffed up with pride. . . (2 Timothy 3:3, 4) ?
They can't.

Care to answer my previous question, if I am wrong?
How can it be morally right to sex with anyone or anything, at any time?
How can it be right to sex with one person after another, if it is not lust? It's love - love for... not the person.

 

[nPeace]

Wow! Really?! Those are the phrases I read in articles supporting common descent!

Never read them in the Bible, or heard Christians utter them in relation to God.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is evident. Love = lust, or selfish interest,

Nah. We're pretty aware that love and lust aren't the same thing. It's telling, however, that you keep making accusations that are untrue and unfounded. Biblically supported, yes, but factually supported in the real world, no.

How can it be morally right to sex with anyone or anything, at any time?

Who's ever claimed that?

How can it be right to sex with one person after another, if it is not lust? It's love - love for... not the person.

Define "one person after another." Is this serial monogamy, or someone having sex with five different people in one day?
Serial monogamy there is nothing wrong with it as they are harming no one.
Five people a day, again, there's nothing wrong with that either as there is no harm being done.

They can't.

Only according to an ancient book that also says it's appropriate for a post-healing ritual to include bird's blood being slung all over the place.

 

[dianaiad]

That world doesn't exist, and you can't get there even if everyone forever stayed a virgin because sex isn't the only way many STIs are transmitted. And when you are a health care provider, you can't turn people away because they have an STI.

You are drifting away from the topic. You are correct; that world doesn't exist, and probably never will, but the sheer facts are, if one generation of humans could do this...come virgin to the 'marriage bed' (never mind the legalities...permanent partner) and stay monogamous after that, then very, very few people would have STD's. For those that do, those diseases would die with them.

However, of all those folks who MIGHT get STD's from ways other than sexual intercourse, just how many of them get those diseases from people who ALSO got STD's from ways unrelated to sexual intercourse? I can guarantee you that at least one person in that particular chain got that STD from sexual intercourse.

In terms of vaccinations for things like, oh, measles, etc., there is a concept about large scale protection. If MOST everybody gets vaccinated, then the ones who don't are still protected against the disease, because the folks who would spread it...are vaccinated against it, even if a few are not.

That's one of the reasons small pox was eliminated.

And it would work for STD's, as well. If nobody got them from sexual intercourse, then those folks couldn't pass those diseases on through blood contact. Nurses don't have to worry much about catching STD's in a pediatric unit.

 

[Salvador]

That's a pretty messed up analogy. You're comparing a romantic partner with a pair of shoes that you'll put back or return if they can't satisfy you sexually. Wtf.

A man waiting to consummate his marriage on his honeymoon where he finds out his newlywed bride is really a dude would be really awkward; this would be a really messed-up situation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A man waiting to consummate his marriage on his honeymoon where he finds out his newlywed bride is really a dude would be really awkward; this would be a really messed-up situation.

Wtf. How stupid and offensive.

Edit: I fixed your messed up quote tags.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are drifting away from the topic

I'm trying to explain why your idea is more based in fantasy than grounded in reality. Not only would you have to force everyone to remain a virgin (and it would be forced), you'd also have to simultaneously do away with recreational intravenous drug use (which requires it's own mountain range to climb).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

[/QUOTE="Saint Frankenstein, post: 6231862, member: 36975"]That's a pretty messed up analogy. You're comparing a romantic partner with a pair of shoes that you'll put back or return if they can't satisfy you sexually. Wtf.

A man waiting to consummate his marriage on his honeymoon where he finds out his newlywed bride is really a dude would be really awkward; this would be a really messed-up situation.

[/QUOTE]
Interesting how that's the first thing your mind jumped to. To analyze, or not to analyze?

 

[nPeace]

It's my schooling and professional background. If masturbation caused harm, I would know it. If having fantasies were inherently dangerous, I would know it. I've had people's health and well being in my hands. I'm not trying to say I know it all, but these are very basic 100 and 200 level psychology course topics. Professionally, even with clients in poor health there are no instructions for them to stop masturbating (unless they are too unhealthy for sexual activity). Fantasies being bad is not considered dangerous and unhealthy, but just a sign you're a living human being. We all have dreams about what we don't have. That's why we call them "dreams" and "fantasies."

Jan. 27, 2009 -- Frequent masturbation in young men is linked to higher risk of early prostate cancer, but it lowers prostate cancer risk for men in their 50s, a study shows. ... Sexual intercourse did not affect prostate cancer risk. But frequent masturbation did -- in different ways, at different times of life.
Source


A new study finds men who are sexually active in their 20s and 30s are more likely to develop prostate cancer — especially if they masturbate frequently.

The message, perhaps: Hold off until middle age.

The study also found that frequent sexual activity in a man's 40s appears to have little effect and even small levels of sexual activity in a man's 50s could offer protection from the disease. Most of the differences were attributed to masturbation rather than sexual intercourse.

However, some previous studies had generated much different findings. The bottom line: More study is needed to settle this one.
Source

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The bottom line: More study is needed to settle this one.
Source

Ever hear "all things in moderation?" More study isn't needed. And yours is a decade old. If that's the most recent, it probably hasn't been replicated.

 

[Salvador]

A man waiting to consummate his marriage on his honeymoon where he finds out his newlywed bride is really a dude would be really awkward; this would be a really messed-up situation.

Interesting how that's the first thing your mind jumped to. To analyze, or not to analyze?

Sorry, I messed up the quotes from Saint Frankenstein; I've now fixed the quote marks.

Please note for the record it was I, Salvador, who wrote "A wise person doesn't buy an expensive pair of running shoes without first trying them on to be sure they will fit . Likewise, a wise person won't get married until he/she has premarital sex in order to be certain he/she is sexually compatible with his/her prospective spouse ."

Please note for the record it was Saint Frankenstein who responded to me "You're comparing a romantic partner with a pair of shoes that you'll put back or return if they can't satisfy you sexually. Wtf."

Please note for the record it was I, Salvador, who then replied, "A man waiting to consummate his marriage on his honeymoon where he finds out his newlywed bride is really a dude would be really awkward; this would be a really messed-up situation."


Please clarify for the record it was you Shadow Wolf who which replied to me "Interesting how that's the first thing your mind jumped to. To analyze, or not to analyze?"

 

[Salvador]

Wtf. How stupid and offensive.

Edit: I fixed your messed up quote tags.

Sorry, Thanks for pointing this out. I edited out the messed up quote marks, which have now been replaced with corrected quote marks.

 

[dianaiad]

I'm trying to explain why your idea is more based in fantasy than grounded in reality. Not only would you have to force everyone to remain a virgin (and it would be forced), you'd also have to simultaneously do away with recreational intravenous drug use (which requires it's own mountain range to climb).

Oh, force wouldn't work. Shadow Wolf, you don't seem to be reading what I write about this. I have written, more than once or twice, that this would have to be an individual, willing choice; one cannot force this idea on anyone and have it work.

It IS airdreaming...and I've written that more than once or twice, too. I mean, if it were all that possible, then we humans would have done it already.

However, that does not make it untrue that if we COULD, and WOULD, it would solve the problem.

In a generation.

And this has nothing to do with drug use...except for this: again, it's about the fact that no matter how many other ways there are to contract an STD, if nobody was spreading them via sexual contact, there would be very, very few (if any) people contracting them any OTHER way.

After all, ...and we are back to the smallpox thing again...nobody worries about getting smallpox through blood transfusion/contact, or intravenous drug use, or toilet seats, or breathing 'bad humors,' or whatever, are they?

Because nobody has small pox in order to spread it in any manner whatsoever.