Is premarital sex a good, a bad, or a nuetral event in terms of ethics and of effect?

[Smoke]

Ideology has no place in the bedroom.

Your religious teachings are ideological as much as any other ideology. They're just not as well thought out.

 

[lombas]

Sex can be an ethical issue. Marriage, according to my opinion, is not.

Therefore, the question is irrelevant.

QED.

 

[McBell]

No, rather than debate numbers or semantics, I'd rather defend a firm position.

Then why did you start dropping from your backside statistics?

 

[Cosmos]

My Buddhist education stems from the Buddhist scholars on the matter. Not personal opinions made to conform around a religious facade. My homework are the Suttas. In them are the explicit moral instructions given by the Tathagata. Period. Flaunting your career achievements and success is... not how a disciplined Buddhist would approach any relevant subject by comparing who birthed more babies or who runs business more efficiently... or how versed one supposedly is. A mystic is a mystic--such as myself--regardless of their school of thought or religious orientation. You are, however, absolutely correct that Buddhist sects cannot agree on all doctrinal issues due to the schisms. So, if you like, I would be happy to narrate the Teachings of the Buddha in regards to sexuality, marriage, etc., which are clear, rather than, as I've mentioned before, argue mere statistics or semantics. Further, I can care less about frubals and points for making comments as this is of a tripe nature or who has surfed the forum longer, but I do care for standing behind my religious principles, including the core principles and teachings of the Buddha (may all life be a sacrifice unto Him).


What I really want, Sanghi, rather than to argue and create discord between the two of us:sad4: based on some gap of understanding maybe due to our age experience or personal lifestyles, I'd like to find common ground and interest that will harmonize one another. Does this sound reasonable? Again, my only emphasized point of view is that, yes, sex education should come from the moral instruction of the parents (or parent) and not institutions and government-sponsored propaganda that is in fact designed to manipulate our living and breeding patterns, not to educate us, and that religion is not the enemy--conservatism or fundamentalism is. So, maybe we can approach this subject in another manner? Again, I wish to be cordial and be friends to the extent that is mutual and not to be an antagonist, so please forgive me for also questioning your own faith, as that was something I said in anger.:sorry1:

What I truly sense is that you are a genuine person and you are not wrong in any sense that you know not whereof you speak.

 

[AxisMundi]

CDC is the same source that told the world there was a million people infected with swine flu, while keeping their statistics in the range of mere thousands. When using government statistics, it is good to first realize that these statistics are used for a propaganda machine and misinformation is common even when using said government sources. In any case, it is up for the researcher to choose whether to believe in statistics on a book or online, or personal experience. In my experience, teenage pregnancy and STD rates are an epidemic in this country.

Certainly when the actual facts contradict your unsupported opinion, attack the source.

BTW, nice ignoring the Guttmacher link. It contradicts you too, in case you didn't bother to read through the info.

As a stepfather and an adult who was a teenage a mere handful of years ago, my opinion stems from the consensus opinion of fellow adults--far superior in my seniority and life experiences. Middle aged, elderly, in-between. Again, comparing parenthood is an invalid argument. This is ideological. Further, I'd like to further emphasize "And yes, teens have been able to know better before" as my last comment had to do exactly with that: Mature young adults commit to relationships and not to sex. Having sex does not make anyone a mature or emotionally healthy adult. This is a myth in popular culture perpetuated by a Baby Boomer generation suffering from "self-imposed" pathologies where making void traditional norms is a new societal goal to achieve social liberation.

(Just so you know the vast majority of people I know and hang out with are ten plus years my senior.)

As a gradnfather myself who was in grade school when JFK was shot, and having supplied FACTS to contradict your unsupported opinion and statements, I can certainly, and confidently state, you are full of bull-poop.

A well rounded Sex Ed course, which you appearntly don't support, is the only thing that has helped lower teen pregnancy and STD rates, and they have been steadily declining as well.

Except, for note, for 2006 for a short while. Incidentally, I seem to recall the Bush administration pumping tax revenue into "Abstinence Only" training in '04 and '05 as well.

Targeted education is also responsible for lowering the abortion rate in the US to nearly pre-1973 numbers as well.

Ignoring a problem, and exagerating statistics, only serve to make the matter worse.

 

[AxisMundi]

No, rather than debate numbers or semantics, I'd rather defend a firm position. Sanghi, before touting anti-religious sentiments--what the hell are you doing as a Buddhist when Buddhism IS a religion and faith (saddhi) a core fundamental aspect of this religion? Have you read the Suttas? In fact, most of these opinions are not even from religious people! Sorry, but New Agers who refer to themselves as this or that while obviously possessing habits and morals contrary to the teachings of its Founders... are dumb.

Secondly, I'd like to say... the figure of HPV in America and the high-risk of having that oh so sweet active sexual life comes from a BUDDHIST WORLD REKNOWN OBSTETRICIAN--Dr. Im! Look him up. This man has warned my fiance about the very dangers I am sharing with you all.

It's not our job to do your homework for you.

If you have numbers that contradict what has been offered, pony up.

 

[Cosmos]

I am sorry, but I do not for the life of me believe that it is a governmental agency's or administration's job to teach children about sex beyond a certain boundary. That is the job of responsible parents. It's insane to come off heatedly at me suggesting I am advocating that there should not be public education on BIOLOGY/PHYSIOLOGY, which is passed on as "Sex Ed", and that is okay--as long as contextual relevancy is established that sex is a moral responsibility with obligations that follow, and yes, it is ignorant to expect there to be mature young adults without an understanding of the human body, how it works, and at least directive on how where to establish guidance (i.e. family relations). Nor is George Bush remotely relevant to me, my way of life, beliefs, sentiments, or values. Again, I will sorely have to disagree on every single said report from just any governmental or government-sponsored medical source--as either one of us could do this till the cows come home, like the vaccination debate within the medical community, and my position is that I flat out do not fully trust in public education or in the government to properly educate the populous or that government agencies are looking out for our best interests and never disseminate misinformation.

 

[FluentYank3825]

Our sex drive is, in most cases, our strongest instinct by far.

Human beings will fornicate even when a clear and present danger is present.

While abstinence works on a personal level (whatever floats yer boat) expecting people to be abstinent, especially young people with raging hormons, is far from realistic.

Therefore, we need to lower your "abstinence" benchmark quite a bit.

Targeted education with a well rounded cirriculum is much more effective than abstinence, and has resulted not only in a steady decline of teen pregnancies, but AIDs/STD's and abortion rates as well.

Agreed. Human nature is far too complex for everyone to be abstinent. It is an ideal, not a wholly realistic, expectation.

 

[McBell]

I am sorry, but I do not for the life of me believe that it is a governmental agency's or administration's job to teach children about sex beyond a certain boundary. That is the job of responsible parents.

I completely agree.
Now if only we could get the parents to actually teach their kids about sex instead of using the age old, nonworking "abstinence only" bull ****.

 

[lombas]

I am sorry, but I do not for the life of me believe that it is a governmental agency's or administration's job to teach children about sex beyond a certain boundary. That is the job of responsible parents. It's insane to come off heatedly at me suggesting I am advocating that there should not be public education on BIOLOGY/PHYSIOLOGY, which is passed on as "Sex Ed", and that is okay--as long as contextual relevancy is established that sex is a moral responsibility with obligations that follow,

So in my country, SENSOA, a centre of expertise on sexual health, comes to schools to teach children about prevention, respect, &c. This, according to you, should not be made possible?

 

[DeitySlayer]

Personally, as a teenager speaking, I feel that abstinence doesn't work. Teenagers have sex. That's life. Get over it. Sex education is the only viable way to prevent the teen pregnancies, STDs, etc. I do not feel that this should be left up to parents; religious or cultural opinions may lead to an insufficient knowledge.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

My Buddhist education stems from the Buddhist scholars on the matter. Not personal opinions made to conform around a religious facade. My homework are the Suttas. In them are the explicit moral instructions given by the Tathagata. Period. Flaunting your career achievements and success is... not how a disciplined Buddhist would approach any relevant subject by comparing who birthed more babies or who runs business more efficiently... or how versed one supposedly is. A mystic is a mystic--such as myself--regardless of their school of thought or religious orientation. You are, however, absolutely correct that Buddhist sects cannot agree on all doctrinal issues due to the schisms. So, if you like, I would be happy to narrate the Teachings of the Buddha in regards to sexuality, marriage, etc., which are clear, rather than, as I've mentioned before, argue mere statistics or semantics. Further, I can care less about frubals and points for making comments as this is of a tripe nature or who has surfed the forum longer, but I do care for standing behind my religious principles, including the core principles and teachings of the Buddha (may all life be a sacrifice unto Him).

What I really want, Sanghi, rather than to argue and create discord between the two of us:sad4: based on some gap of understanding maybe due to our age experience or personal lifestyles, I'd like to find common ground and interest that will harmonize one another. Does this sound reasonable? Again, my only emphasized point of view is that, yes, sex education should come from the moral instruction of the parents (or parent) and not institutions and government-sponsored propaganda that is in fact designed to manipulate our living and breeding patterns, not to educate us, and that religion is not the enemy--conservatism or fundamentalism is. So, maybe we can approach this subject in another manner? Again, I wish to be cordial and be friends to the extent that is mutual and not to be an antagonist, so please forgive me for also questioning your own faith, as that was something I said in anger.:sorry1:

What I truly sense is that you are a genuine person and you are not wrong in any sense that you know not whereof you speak.

You know, I think I liked you better when you had an edge to you.

Ahhhhh, stop trying so hard. Apology accepted. People get angry and say silly things - my experience as a wife and mother has shown that.

Going back to your comment about the sutras and finding common ground...sutra study is a funny thing. Our tradition coordinates sutra study with a graduated/progressive approach called the Lam Rim. I wouldn't mind discussing with you in another thread if we want to explore how your studies and mine compare and contrast when it comes to Buddhist doctrinal assertions of sex and sexuality.

Keep in mind however that my tradition is for the most part very sex-friendly: with tantras explicitly proscribing consorts and visualizing with graphic thangkas during meditationof the yab-yum.

We still have a ways to go, since a lot of commentary is not kind to homosexuals, and I disagree (although I also find a LOT of scholarship to be misogynistic as well, but that's another story).

Btw, as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly acceptable to question my knowledge, my sincerity, and my compassion as it pertains to my beliefs and practices. I only go by what I perceive and how I've processed my observations, as well as how my perceptions match or don't match with the teachings. Buddhism here in the West isn't mired with a buttload of cultural baggage, so we have SOME advantage by not arguing over what essentially is all arbitrary anyway.

And now common ground: I can jive with that. Let me suggest that the means for finding common ground between two parties/viewpoints that are diametrically opposed are for them both to let go of their absolutes.

Just saying.

 

[AxisMundi]

I am sorry, but I do not for the life of me believe that it is a governmental agency's or administration's job to teach children about sex beyond a certain boundary. That is the job of responsible parents. It's insane to come off heatedly at me suggesting I am advocating that there should not be public education on BIOLOGY/PHYSIOLOGY, which is passed on as "Sex Ed", and that is okay--as long as contextual relevancy is established that sex is a moral responsibility with obligations that follow, and yes, it is ignorant to expect there to be mature young adults without an understanding of the human body, how it works, and at least directive on how where to establish guidance (i.e. family relations). Nor is George Bush remotely relevant to me, my way of life, beliefs, sentiments, or values. Again, I will sorely have to disagree on every single said report from just any governmental or government-sponsored medical source--as either one of us could do this till the cows come home, like the vaccination debate within the medical community, and my position is that I flat out do not fully trust in public education or in the government to properly educate the populous or that government agencies are looking out for our best interests and never disseminate misinformation.

Obviously, the "responsible parents' are few and far between, as a well rounded Sex Ed education has lowered abortions, STD's and kids having kids.

It never fails to amaze me how anyone can be resistant to proven programs that help lower those numbers.

What, exactly, do you think is contained within a Sex Ed course? Graphic "How To" movies?

BTW, Bush43 is quite relevant to this discussion, as his failure towards this Nation's youth by imposing the religiously based conservative idea of abstinence only illustrates beautifully exactly how failed the ideology is. Whether you "believe" the statistics offered or not, statistics are indeed facts.

Personal ancedotal "evidence" of an area laughable tiny compared to the rest of the US (you know how many people of the 300 million plus population?) is what is irelevant to this debate.

 

[Cosmos]

What, exactly, do you think is contained within a Sex Ed course? Graphic "How To" movies?

Point considered... so that we may progress this thread in a healthy manner. However, to my knowledge, it is true that some schools actually perform "How To" classes, such as in the UK where public schools are at least considering at the time I read the article that young adults not only need to learn about gay sex--but to visually ENACT it for them! Whether it is gay sex OR straight sex... I believe highly that this sort of involvement by any government is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Cosmos]

So in my country, SENSOA, a centre of expertise on sexual health, comes to schools to teach children about prevention, respect, &c. This, according to you, should not be made possible?

To be honest, I do not know how Sex Ed courses are practiced or promoted in your country, friend, so I cannot have a valid opinion on the matter.

My only emphasized point is that centralized governments are not valid participants in the moralizing of children or young adults in any society, period. For decades governments in Western countries in particular have been attempting to gradually diminish the rights of parents and raise state ward generations whose allegiance is to Big Brother rather than family and friends. We need to seriously combat this wheedling into our lives by agencies who only want more statistics, experiments, and narcs who will report anything 'illegal' to authorities as a justification for government interference programs.

 

[Smoke]

My Buddhist education stems from the Buddhist scholars on the matter. Not personal opinions made to conform around a religious facade. My homework are the Suttas. In them are the explicit moral instructions given by the Tathagata. Period. Flaunting your career achievements and success is... not how a disciplined Buddhist would approach any relevant subject by comparing who birthed more babies or who runs business more efficiently... or how versed one supposedly is. A mystic is a mystic--such as myself--regardless of their school of thought or religious orientation. You are, however, absolutely correct that Buddhist sects cannot agree on all doctrinal issues due to the schisms. So, if you like, I would be happy to narrate the Teachings of the Buddha in regards to sexuality, marriage, etc., which are clear, rather than, as I've mentioned before, argue mere statistics or semantics. Further, I can care less about frubals and points for making comments as this is of a tripe nature or who has surfed the forum longer, but I do care for standing behind my religious principles, including the core principles and teachings of the Buddha (may all life be a sacrifice unto Him).

Well, I think we're all very relieved to have a 21-year-old Baha'i put Heather in her place and tell us all how to be proper Buddhists. There is an urgent need for this, and such enlightened teaching has been sadly lacking in the Buddhist community. While some of us have studied Buddhism longer than you've been alive, it would be folly to imagine that anybody here has studied with a depth, intelligence or perception approaching your own.

However, as eager as I am for you to narrate the Teachings of the Buddha, I must ask you to do so carefully and patiently and preferably on a third-grade reading level, in order to bring your vast wealth of understanding down to the pitiable level of Heather's intelligence, experience and understanding, so that she can benefit more fully from your correction.

 

[Cosmos]

Well, I think we're all very relieved to have a 21-year-old Baha'i put Heather in her place and tell us all how to be proper Buddhists. There is an urgent need for this, and such enlightened teaching has been sadly lacking in the Buddhist community. While some of us have studied Buddhism longer than you've been alive, it would be folly to imagine that anybody here has studied with a depth, intelligence or perception approaching your own.

However, as eager as I am for you to narrate the Teachings of the Buddha, I must ask you to do so carefully and patiently and preferably on a third-grade reading level, in order to bring your vast wealth of understanding down to the pitiable level of Heather's intelligence, experience and understanding, so that she can benefit more fully from your correction.

...No disrespect, friend, but I cannot tell whether that was sarcastic or if you're merely being less than a Buddhist at the moment. In regards to who has lived longer or who has studied more, I find that highly irrelevant, as how many of us dare challenge pastors during their sermons even though they've studied the Bible longer than you or I? You forget that the Buddha was a celestial Youth Who conquered all of the learned by reason that recitation and rituals does not make one knowledgeable OR spiritual! Rather, why not focus on the fact I have rescind my own very rude comment to Heather, apologized, and recognize her genuineness and wisdom. So, too, if I have offended you.

 

[Smoke]

...No disrespect, friend, but I cannot tell whether that was sarcastic or if you're merely being less than a Buddhist at the moment. In regards to who has lived longer or who has studied more, I find that highly irrelevant, as how many of us dare challenge pastors during their sermons even though they've studied the Bible longer than you or I? You forget that the Buddha was a celestial Youth Who conquered all of the learned by reason that recitation and rituals does not make one knowledgeable OR spiritual! Rather, why not focus on the fact I have rescind my own very rude comment to Heather, apologized, and recognize her genuineness and wisdom. So, too, if I have offended you.

I don't get angry that easily. Sometimes mockery is an attempt to get someone to be a bit more real. Sometimes it's just for fun.

 

[AxisMundi]

Point considered... so that we may progress this thread in a healthy manner. However, to my knowledge, it is true that some schools actually perform "How To" classes, such as in the UK where public schools are at least considering at the time I read the article that young adults not only need to learn about gay sex--but to visually ENACT it for them! Whether it is gay sex OR straight sex... I believe highly that this sort of involvement by any government is fundamentally wrong.

Firstly, I agree. "How To" graphic images are uncalled for, even in the scenario you mention which, by your own wording, enver occured.

A well rounded Sex Ed class contains not only the biology portion, and I do agree abstinence should be touched upon, but also contains lessons on STD's, unwanted pregnancy, and contraceptive use.

 

[AxisMundi]

To be honest, I do not know how Sex Ed courses are practiced or promoted in your country, friend, so I cannot have a valid opinion on the matter.

My only emphasized point is that centralized governments are not valid participants in the moralizing of children or young adults in any society, period. For decades governments in Western countries in particular have been attempting to gradually diminish the rights of parents and raise state ward generations whose allegiance is to Big Brother rather than family and friends. We need to seriously combat this wheedling into our lives by agencies who only want more statistics, experiments, and narcs who will report anything 'illegal' to authorities as a justification for government interference programs.

Firstly, this "gment indoctrination of the youth" has been occuring for centuries, not decades. It is no different if public schools teach Sex Ed or the bible, it is still indoctrination.

Secondly, Sex Ed isn't about morality. Morality is still left up to the parents.

Recognizing a problem and then addressing that problem with targted education is in no way an endorsement of that problem.