Topic concerning all teenagers

[Anticrombie0909]

Okay, your original statement had nothing to do with the Bible,

Not because of some bullshit morals a 2000 year old book tells me to believe in,

My point was that the media and our government are so closely related to the bible, since christiantiy is such a huge part of our culture.

Media? Telling you it is bad? Since when? TV and the Internet are 2 of the biggest problems.

Just because they feature it a whole lot doesn't mean they advocate it. The newscasters are always talking about "horrible tragedies" and "violent killings" and how horrible they are, but they'd be lying if they said they didn't thrive off of it.

[User6773]

My point was that the media and our government are so closely related to the bible, since christiantiy is such a huge part of our culture.

This would explain why "Desparate Housewives" got ABC's annual Sunday showing of "The Ten Commandments" booted to Saturday.
This would also explain why courts have gotten monuments of the Ten Commandments, crosses, etc. removed from essentially any public-owned land.

Ok buddy. Don't even try to tell me that Christianity (the biggest by far religion in America/Europe) doesn't beat down sex in every single way they can. They'd make castration mandatory if they could. And don't start in with that whole WELL THE BIBLE DOESN'T REALLY SAY THAT crap, because that's how the church interpets it, and so that's how everyone else follows it.

On the contrary, Christianity (especially Catholicism) very much embraces sex. What Catholicism (I'll speak for my own religion) says is that sex is a great, wonderful, beautiful thing, but that there is a proper time, place, and environment for it - between a married couple. Then, the Church actually condones, encourages, and even mandates sexual intercourse.

Instead of believing what you've been told the Church believes, read it straight from the Catechism:

#2361 Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray..." So she got up, and they began to pray... Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers.... You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support... I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.

#2362 "he acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: The Creator himself ... established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them.

With all the talk surrounding the Pope's death, few have mentioned a book he wrote when he was still Archbishop Karol Wojtlya called "Love and Responsibility." While it talks in detail Its chapter on sex containins many things you wouldn't expect to find in a book written by a Catholic bishop - particularly, it attests that husbands have a responsibility to ensure that their wives reach orgasm(!). It's got a bunch of other sex advice in thee too - surprisingly. This isn't your fire-and-brimstone, body-is-evil kind of teaching you would have heard hundreds of years ago.

Does the Church claim that chastity and abstinance are easy? Of course not!

#2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy. Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end.

#2342 Self-mastery is a long and exacting work...

#2350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.

The Catechism is a very inspiring and uplifting work. It's not a book about WHAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO OR ELSE YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, it's a book about the way to experience an ideal and rewarding life the way God meant for us.

Then you married one shallow bimbo, if she's going to look down on you because you experimented in high school.

WARNING: OBJECTIVE MORALITY ALERT
I want to marry someone with a strong moral character. Often one indicator of a moral failing is an indicator of a generally weaker character as a whole. This isn't always the case - and people can definitely change. The fact that someone did something immoral a long time ago doesn't rule them out, but it's going to make me think twice and look deeply.

Sex is nothing more than an act of passion and mutual enjoyment between two partners that are, if nothing else, at the very least attracted to one another. If we're gonna discuss it at face value, might as well look at it at face value.

The interesting thing about sex is that it is exactly as meaningful as you want it to be. For a hooker, it's not meaningful at all. For someone who's only had sex with one or two people, it's meaningful, but not meaningful enough that they were willing to hold out, etc. For someone who swears to only have sex with one person and sticks to it, it's very meaningful. But for someone who swears their life and their soul over to someone else through marriage, and only after that returns home to swear their body over to them, it's intensely, passionately, movingly meaningful. So meaningful it gives me chills to think about it.

(Yes, I know about divorce. Divorce is the result of a mistake I do not plan on making. Divorce is another thing avoided by self-mastery, patience, etc.)

So that's my point of view.

[GuidoHunter]

Thank you for making the post I couldn't.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Anticrombie0909]

This would also explain why courts have gotten monuments of the Ten Commandments, crosses, etc. removed from essentially any public-owned land.

So wait...you're saying Christianity ISN'T a big part of our culture? Or that we actually go to lengths to SUPRESS IT?

Dont' even start, Chard. You're grasping at straws, and you know it. You can go as far out on a limb as you want, but if you even try to say that Christianity doesn't come into play when it comes to our government, you're lying to yourself (or to the forums).

Let's see. Gay marriage, abortion, partial-birth abortions, legalized suicide/euthanasia, stem cell research, unborn fetus rights...pretty much every major hot-ticket social issue of the last DECADE has had to do with Christianity in some way (and again, don't start with the whole BUT THE BIBLE DOESN'T SAY THAT thing, because again, you're going to hear people rallying their causes FOR the bible, so might as well hold it responsible).

Secondly, go ahead and quote as much as you'd like. My point is, and I've said this twice now, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE ACTUAL BIBLE SAYS. Or, in this case, what the actual CHURCH says. What MATTERS is how people interpret this information.

Take Grammar, for example. Half the grammatical laws are exceedingly stupid and rarely used anymore. Teachers cry all the time about incorrect grammar, but only when somebody says "I did good." If you look really in-depth, you'll see most of grammar is ignored, on the whole, and only the big things are paid attention to (or misinterpreted). Regardless of what's CORRECT, it's more important that we pay attention to what people actually SAY, since you can piss and moan all you'd like about what's right, but chances are nobody's going to give half a damn.

Same principle when it comes to religion. You think the Qu'ran preaches that its followers should strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in a street full of innocent people? Of course not. But this doesn't matter at all. Why? Beacuse that's how people interpret it. Scholars can scream until they're purple about how it's actually a peaceful religion (which it is), only thing is that nobody knows that because the news keeps blaring about another suicide bombing from some asshole extremist.

The interesting thing about sex is that it is exactly as meaningful as you want it to be. For a hooker, it's not meaningful at all. For someone who's only had sex with one or two people, it's meaningful, but not meaningful enough that they were willing to hold out, etc. For someone who swears to only have sex with one person and sticks to it, it's very meaningful. But for someone who swears their life and their soul over to someone else through marriage, and only after that returns home to swear their body over to them, it's intensely, passionately, movingly meaningful.

Good point. I touched this in my post, but didn't really go into it. It's your CHOICE to make it as meaningful as you want it to be. So if sex is nothing to you, go ahead and do it three times a day. If you want to wait until marriage, go ahead and do that (I realize your situation was a hypothetical, but don't put numbers on something- I might feel that you could have sex 200 times and still have it be meaningful, or feel that if you've had sex once it no longer means anything). Unfortuantely, that section had a lot less weight to it as it was basically nothing but a contradiction from an earlier point where you say,

I want to marry someone with a strong moral character. Often one indicator of a moral failing is an indicator of a generally weaker character as a whole. This isn't always the case - and people can definitely change. The fact that someone did something immoral a long time ago doesn't rule them out, but it's going to make me think twice and look deeply.

Wherein you basically prove my point by stating SEX = IMMORAL, THUSLY, IT IS BAD.

[banditcom]

WARNING: OBJECTIVE MORALITY ALERT
I want to marry someone with a strong moral character. Often one indicator of a moral failing is an indicator of a generally weaker character as a whole. This isn't always the case - and people can definitely change. The fact that someone did something immoral a long time ago doesn't rule them out, but it's going to make me think twice and look deeply.

What the fuck? You people live in a FANTASY WORLD.

How is a person weaker for having sex? You're treating it as a sin. A lot of you are not having sex because you think you're stronger because of it. Why? A person who is smart about sex is the strong one. People who are against sex because of the many reasons you all are listing are ignorant.

I don't think a person should be having sex until they're at least old enough to be smart and mature about it. Protection is not 100% effective because of the human element to it. If protection didn't count on us using it properly, then it'd be very close to 100% effective to where only extreme cases someone would get pregnant.

People have sex for multiple reasons. Sometimes a person might want to have sex because they want to. Sometimes that same person might want to hold off on it until he finds someone special. As long as a person is smart about sex, they're fine. They're not "immoral" or "weaker". That's a stupid, idealistic way of thinking.

The physical aspect of a relationship is very important, even if you don't believe so. Having sex can mean many things. It can be just for fun. It can be an expression of love. What matters is that both people are doing it for the same reasons. Many of you fail to realize that. A healthy sexual life is as important as a healthy emotional life with a person. To do that, you need to know if your partner is right for you. Would you marry someone that you didn't know for sure you were connected to emotionally? No. So why would you do it not knowing them physically? That's ignorance. You're living in a fantasy world believing that if you love each other then sex will be great and that love will keep you together. Wrong. Obviously yes, it can work out. Some people make the marriage work. Often times they're not happy though. And there is no avoiding divorce other than either sticking through an unhappy marriage (or obviously being happily married).

If you want to wait until it's with someone you care about, cool. That's how I feel at the moment. I want it to mean something at least, even if it's just a little bit. Again, sex can mean different things. You just have to be smart about sex and know what you want it to mean and know what the other person wants it to mean.

Most people are stupid when it comes to sex. This thread reinforces that. Not in the "I'm careless" stupid, but the "I have no clue what I'm talking about" stupid.

[Privateer]

I just don't understand what a marriage does to make sex that much better. If you are going to limit when you have sex, why is marriage the point where it's ok?

Very few of you understand what sex can mean to a relationship. Just because someone has regular sex doesn't mean the relationship is just lust. Love and all of the other strong positive emotions from the best of relationships are even more easily found in relationships with more sex.

[User6773]

So wait...you're saying Christianity ISN'T a big part of our culture? Or that we actually go to lengths to SUPRESS IT?

I'm saying that due to the 50/50 secular/religious split in the country (and the numbers show that it's very close to 50/50), it's unfair to claim that the Christians are running the show. There are too many Christians who don't believe in legislating morality for any Christian leader to get away with trying to do it. And I'm not talking about "morals most Christians hold" on issues like abortion, drug use, etc., I'm talking about an attempt to unseparate church and state. Because pretty much every law we have right now is based on moral judgments of a particular person or group. But let's not turn this into a political argument.

(and again, don't start with the whole BUT THE BIBLE DOESN'T SAY THAT thing, because again, you're going to hear people rallying their causes FOR the bible, so might as well hold it responsible).

Wait, wait, wait...hold the Bible responsible for the beliefs of a religion which pretty much states that the Bible isn't completely infallible in every word? You're essentially saying I'm not allowed to argue what my religion believes, and trying to use the beliefs of others as a surrogate way of attacking my beliefs.

Same principle when it comes to religion. You think the Qu'ran preaches that its followers should strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in a street full of innocent people? Of course not. But this doesn't matter at all. Why? Beacuse that's how people interpret it. Scholars can scream until they're purple about how it's actually a peaceful religion (which it is), only thing is that nobody knows that because the news keeps blaring about another suicide bombing from some asshole extremist.

Your arguments are beginning to fall apart more and more. You claimed "The Church teaches X", I told you what the Church actually teaches, and now you're saying that what the Church teaches doesn't matter. If what the Church teaches doesn't matter, then it would appear that you are angry not at the Christian faith, but at individual Christians. This is known as "ideological bigotry."

You don't seem to have a very solid view of what Christians believe if you honestly think that we are anti-sex, or think that sex is inherently wrong.

I want to marry someone with a strong moral character. Often one indicator of a moral failing is an indicator of a generally weaker character as a whole. This isn't always the case - and people can definitely change. The fact that someone did something immoral a long time ago doesn't rule them out, but it's going to make me think twice and look deeply.

Wherein you basically prove my point by stating SEX = IMMORAL, THUSLY, IT IS BAD.

Once again, objective morality alert. Premarital sex is immoral, sex within the constraints of marriage is not.

I just don't understand what a marriage does to make sex that much better. If you are going to limit when you have sex, why is marriage the point where it's ok?

Very few of you understand what sex can mean to a relationship. Just because someone has regular sex doesn't mean the relationship is just lust. Love and all of the other strong positive emotions from the best of relationships are even more easily found in relationships with more sex.

Of course not. It's what I discussed earlier in my first post today, where I said that sex is as meaningful as you want to make it.

Sex will be a lot more meaningful to me after I get married because marriage is really the ultimate expression of love, not sex. When you marry someone, you're swearing that you're going to provide for them, live with them, stay by their side, love them, share your children with them, share your future with them, grow old together, etc. That's not an easy promise to make. And I don't want to have sex with someone until I've made that promise to them. More meaningful that way.

How is a person weaker for having sex? You're treating it as a sin.

No, I was referring to premarital sex.

To do that, you need to know if your partner is right for you. Would you marry someone that you didn't know for sure you were connected to emotionally? No. So why would you do it not knowing them physically? That's ignorance. You're living in a fantasy world believing that if you love each other then sex will be great and that love will keep you together. Wrong.

You know if you're physically attracted to the other person. If your emotional bond is strong, you'll figure out how to have good sex together. This is especially true for people who are more concerned about emotional and spiritual togetherness than physical pleasure.

[zildjian133]

I was going to post this earlier but decided not to.. But seriously, sex is treated like drugs, labelled as dangerous... The general idea of sex is negative primarily because of religion, not what the bibel says but what religious leaders and people say. To me it's disgusting that no one believes that one person is able to make a right choice for themself and be responsible for themselves, whether it be to choice to have sex or do drugs/alcohol. But if you're smokin' up in your bedroom with your friends or having sex with your girlfriend/boyfriend, it's not potentially hurting anyone else except yourselves. I'm not advocated drugs here, I'm just saying it's treated with the same principals as sex, which is not right. As long as you're not hurting anyone and you realise you're potentially hurting yourself and you're responsible for those decisions, is it right for someone else to say "You cannot do that."? I personally think that as long as you don't hurt anyone else in the process of drugs, alcohol, or sex, it's your right to be able to do whatever you want as long as you hurt no one else... Everyones opinion is different, but because of someone thinking something is bad why should it interfer with me?

[stretchypanda]

I just don't understand what a marriage does to make sex that much better. If you are going to limit when you have sex, why is marriage the point where it's ok?

Very few of you understand what sex can mean to a relationship. Just because someone has regular sex doesn't mean the relationship is just lust. Love and all of the other strong positive emotions from the best of relationships are even more easily found in relationships with more sex.

In my experience, a person needs a very high level of maturity for this to be true. With (almost) all the men I've dated, sex has been the cornerstone of the relationship -- the only "love," was the love my exfiance accused me of not having if I DIDN'T want to have sex with him, or the love the ex before him promised to have for me, even though we were still broken up, as long as I'd keep sleeping with him.

I, personally, have decided to wait from this point, onward (and several months prior to "this point") until I am married to have sex again. I was once told that when you sleep with someone, you give away a little piece of yourself every time, and someday you'll meet someone to whom you want to give everything, and you'll wish you had everything to give.

This relationship without sex is seriously the best I've ever had, because I know that Guido's not just saying, "I love you," to get into my pants. He's not going to get emotionally abusive if I say I don't want to have sex. He's not going to dump me and then come crawling back every time he needs some ass, telling me he still loves me, only to break my heart again a few minutes later. He's just going to sleep beside me on the weekends we get to see each other, and he's just going to hold me and make me feel safe.

Someone recently told me that my relationship with Guido is "refreshing." I agree.

[JurseyRider734]

By the way, no penetration and she might be pregnant? What the hell was going on there? Remember, sperm dies very quickly when exposed to the environment outside of that comfortable body of yours.

I just wanted to say that this statement is wrong. Sperm does not die off quickly. Outside of the body sperm can live 2-3 days, inside the body up to 5 days. If a woman even sits on a spot where there is ejaculation(still wet) she can get pregnant because the sperm travels.


Anyways...we have to understand that tons of people come from tons of different backgrounds and beliefs. Privateer obviously is in a place where sex isn't exactly looked down upon compared to other places where it is practically shunned. People are different, some are responsible and some are not. Don't get on my back about supporting it, I am abstinent until marriage, or until I am at least out of highschool.

If people are responsible enough to have sex and have been together a long enough time and are safe about it, sure, it will be okay if it's a mutual agreement and both of them are committed and want to face the consequences if such a thing will arise.

I was just talking with my sister in the car about how bad the society today is. Kids at 14 years old are not only having sex, but sex with people they are not even dating. (Trust me, I know people who are doing this.) It really is sad, considering how people only a few decades ago looked down upon this so highly for teens of such a young age. I'm astounded at the face that I know 6th and 7th graders that are smoking pot. I'm Straight Edge, and I try to be outspoken about it to some. The thing is I kind of have to be an undercover Straight Edge because almost all of the people on my school are on pot. (They have a nickname for the school that has to do with drugs), and about 85% of the girls are on birth control. It's quite sad, once you think about it.

I really tend so soak up information i'm given, especially during lectures or presentations for Sex ed., so Privateer, if you tell me that what I said in response to your post was wrong, it isn't. It's a proven fact that people have gotten pregnant from doing exactly what I said could happen.

Waiting until marriage is an extremely responsible decision, and i'm proud that the majority of people who are posting in this thread have made that decision. That's why I can relate to a lot of the people on here, they're just like me and not like the 15 year old sluts and idiots in my school. Again, I believe it's okay if a couple who has been dating for a long time and are both mature, responsible, and safe to have sexual intercourse, but abstinence is the only way to protect against unplanned pregnancies. Condoms and birth control are NOT 100% effective, and there IS a chance that you can get pregnant even with that protection.

Okay, go ahead and flame me if you disagree. My opinions will not change.

[ddrruler]

Well im not excatly sure which path I will end up taking but,it will most likely be not having sex till marriage....

[banditcom]

You know if you're physically attracted to the other person. If your emotional bond is strong, you'll figure out how to have good sex together. This is especially true for people who are more concerned about emotional and spiritual togetherness than physical pleasure.

Like I said, you're living in a fantasy world. That does not hold true most of the time.

I just wanted to say that this statement is wrong. Sperm does not die off quickly. Outside of the body sperm can live 2-3 days, inside the body up to 5 days. If a woman even sits on a spot where there is ejaculation(still wet) she can get pregnant because the sperm travels.

*sighs* You're dead wrong. Well, not quite dead wrong. But even wet, most of the sperm die when exposed to the air. They are very sensitive to temperature. All the sperm die when the seminal fluid dries, however.

This relationship without sex is seriously the best I've ever had, because I know that Guido's not just saying, "I love you," to get into my pants. He's not going to get emotionally abusive if I say I don't want to have sex. He's not going to dump me and then come crawling back every time he needs some ass, telling me he still loves me, only to break my heart again a few minutes later. He's just going to sleep beside me on the weekends we get to see each other, and he's just going to hold me and make me feel safe.

What is it with women and these "tests"? It's bullshit. You got with assholes Amanda, that's all. I'm assuming you didn't want to have sex those times because you weren't in the mood or just didn't want to, and not as a form of power over them.

However, just because a guy wants sex a lot and gets upset over it doesn't mean they're dicks. I know I would be upset if a girl whom I was intimate with refused sex. I would feel like I was unwanted. Obviously there are some variables like how often I wanted it, how often she did, how often she turned me down, reasons (or excuses) why, etc. I'm a very reasonable guy, but if a girl kept not wanting to, I'd be heartbroken, just as if she stopped showing affection. Again, I don't know the variables of your situation but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming they were just dicks. The sex thing is a trust issue that should get over. You're just delaying it and want to rely on the marriage vows to show that there's trust.


My suitemate's friend from Austria visited for a week. She told me something when I brought her back to the airport. She said "It's easy to have sex with someone, but hard to have a relationship with them".

[Tasselfoot]

Number of times I've had sex: 500+
Number of times I've worn a condom: 10?
Number of times I've gotten a girl pregnant: 0, Priceless.
There are some things money can't buy, for everything else there is your hand.


PS - I definately was like one of those ex's of yours Amanda in my past serious relationship... then again, the girl still believes that we're "best friends" when I haven't called her in about 2 years, and am very curt on the occasions she calls me (including about 10 minutes ago). She is also currently married, and has been for over a year.

[User6773]

You know if you're physically attracted to the other person. If your emotional bond is strong, you'll figure out how to have good sex together. This is especially true for people who are more concerned about emotional and spiritual togetherness than physical pleasure.

Like I said, you're living in a fantasy world. That does not hold true most of the time.

Can you please back this up? Because the statistics I've heard seem to support that people who stay abstinent before marriage have a lower divorce rate than those who don't.

I understand you might think it hypocritical of me to ask for you to cite statistics when I don't have any statistics I can cite right now. I'm just interested in where you're getting this from.

[Tasselfoot]

One more thing to add.... this ties in with my story back earlier in the thread.... and, I'm willing to bet those who aren't virgins can back me on this. Sex gets better with practice. Sex sucked that first time. And like any activity, the more you do it, the better you get at it.

Then again, if you ask Whorli, all of Israel heard her moaning our first time. Guess I'm just that good.