Re: Premaritial Sex
 

People who have those components will still cheat out of sexual desire, you cant just fix all sexual incompatilbillity just by talking about it. Even if there's communuication and trust people still cheat because they dont want to hurt the person they love. If they didnt still love them in this situation they wouldnt be with them in the first place and carry on wanting to be with them.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

The Church supports families, so it kind of goes two ways, Guido.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Yes, which is why it stands so strongly against premarital sex.

I don't get your point.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

>_> Statistically, the average age of an American non-virgin to have lost their virginity is currently hovering aroound 14-15, given that it is an -average- that puts a reasonably large number of 12-15 year olds having sex.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Hey, I've got an idea.

Why don't we consult the Church's teachings!




Oh.

Now enough about this, Luxord. Premarital sex may be in accord with your personal views, but from one Catholic to another, I beg you not to misrepresent the Faith.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Note to Chardish: I'm sorry, I must have accidentally skipped that page.

Note to Guido: Once again, missed the page in the Bible, or "Catechism of the Catholic Church," about PmS.

Note to Devonin: That may be true, but America is a place where freedom to that is kind of allowed, hm? But in the Philippines (I'm half Filipino), most people aren't allowed that freedom, so it doesn't happen very much, so guess what? A person my age wouldn't!

2nd note to Chardish: So, your Catholic, hm? Where did you get that book?

WAIT A MINUTE!!! Where did I put falsehoods? Did you change my post?


Lastly, I think that Guido is right. Let's get religion out of the discussion now. I guess I got us all off topic. Sorry...

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

I got that book from a bookstore. I don't remember which one. It's not really a secret book or anything; in fact, it's kind of a masterpiece of theology. Try your local Catholic bookstore; I guarantee you they'll have a copy. I'm kind of surprised you've never heard of it.


Oh, and your falsehoods were saying that Catholicism doesn't have anything against premarital sex.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Though the Catechism is more like the collected policies of various church leaders on issues over the years, so depending on your particular view of Catholicism, those who lean more towards the orthodoxy are usually happy to point out that the Catechism is written wholly by man without divine inspiration, and thus is questionable.

To KH: Please explain to me how a concept like "Here, you aren't allowed the freedom to have sex" could possibly work. Do your teenagers wear chastity belts or something? I'm pretty positive that even if it is more frowned upon there, you would be perfectly -able- to go have sex if you were so inclined.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

No, when you have a mature and honest love for someone, you want to share your sexual experiences with them, those acts being an expression of your love. If you can't communicate your sexual needs to the other person, and if the other person isn't willing to help you fulfill your sexual needs, then you do not have the components of a healthy marriage.

Furthermore, you have a naive view of sexuality that ignores the emotional component. When a spouse cheats, it is rarely out of mere sexual dissatisfaction, but rather out of a general feeling of being unloved. Sexual dissatisfaction can contribute to this (and may even stem from this, as an unloving spouse would likely be sexually frigid), but is rarely the root cause that destroys an otherwise happy relationship.

What I find really hard to buy about your idea that most women are unable to climax from intercourse are the evolutionary reasons behind orgasm. The biological purpose of intercourse is reproduction, which is one of the primary biological impetuses of all species. We are compelled to participate whether we want to or not. As such, it seems only natural that a pleasurable would be associated with it.

Can you imagine if the majority of people found eating, drinking, or breathing to be uncomfortable and/or disappointing? As intercourse is a voluntary rather than compulsory action, it would seem from a biological standpoint that the reward associated with intercourse would need to be far stronger than compulsory actions in order to create a good reason to perform the associated action. In both sexes.

Furthermore, given the nine months of discomfort and pain and the day of agony that a woman endures as a direct, natural result of intercourse, I would imagine that the female should naturally require an even stronger reward from the action that brings that upon her. (I by no means think that having children is a decision adjudicated by pleasure and pain, but we're looking at this from a biological/evolutionary perspective here.)

As a result, it would seem that orgasm in both sexes should be a natural and expected result of intercourse. Hence, when you say...

...I don't buy that at all from a biological perspective. Perhaps it's a psychological obstacle, but there's no way it's a physiological one.

Now, if the barrier to climax is psychological rather than physiological, it would seem like a number of psychological conditions would help remove that barrier. Namely:

- trust in the other
- willingness to put the other's needs above your own
- absence of fear
- absence of doubt
- absence of communication barriers
- absence of anxiety/nervousness/pressure
- absence of expectations
- confidence that no matter what comes of tonight, you'll still love each other

All of which are elements of a healthy, loving, and stable marriage. And again, I'm not saying that healthy, loving, and stable marriages are free of sexual difficulties. I'm just saying that all of them have the capacity to be sexually satisfying, and if they are not, then it is a sure sign that the marriage is not not healthy, loving, and stable.

Because of this, abstinence is actually a protection against sexual dissatisfaction - it requires couples to determine with certainty and conviction that their relationship is strong enough to sustain a satisfying and lifelong sexuality, rather than risking failure by attempting it themselves.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Well said, Chardish. Well said.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

First you say sex is an important part of a healthy marriage, then you say its rarely the cause of destroying an otherwise happy one? what if one of the two is unable to fulfill the other sexually? People can get bored of each other sexually too, no matter how well they communicate and trust each other. It's not always a communication problem so much as a biological one sometimes. You can still be emotionally attached to your spouse and not want them to find out, there are also people who get off on watching other people pleasure their spouse in a way they cannot.

Love is an opinion that changes from person to person. Some don't even believe in it. Personally i believe love is mostly chemical in a way that relates to sex. I believe that emotions in a relationship such as feeling wanted and wanting someone are mostly down to chemical and psychological things that also relate to sex. Please dont call me naive for my beliefs and opinions.

Also i believe that if you get on with someone in an emotional and psychological way, it wont guarantee you will sexually. This is my main problem with abstinence.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Emphasis mine. We're not talking about Britney Spears and Nick Lachey here.

By virtue of what sex between married people is, yes, there should be no reason why it should destroy a happy marriage.

Actually, that's pretty much the very definition of a communication problem. There's nothing biological keeping you from saying, "Honey, that's not really doing it for me. Can we try something else?"

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Which is the stronger pull on someone then? "This doesn't do it for me, I'd rather say so, so we can do something that does" or "I don't want to upset them by implying that they don't know what I like"

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

I would certainly hope the former, considering the latter is deceitful.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

You underestimate how likely someone is to keep quiet rather than upset somebody they care about.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Since we're dealing with a scenario involving great communication between the spouses, "they can't communicate X to each other" is not an appropriate counter-argument, for any X.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Why not? Unless by "great" communiction you are instead wanting to say "Perfect and complete" communication.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

I don't know what your definition of "great communication" is, but if you're actively lying to or deceiving the other person, you don't have great communication.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Errr...religion aside...

I think it's better to wait. It shows that you respect yourself...and your partner. It also would be more special to wait instead of just giving it up for fun. Self dicipline and respect are hard to come by now, and I think it may be what corrupts society to some extent. Society is based on pleasure alone now, and whats that going to get us? If you cant control yourself with sex, how can people control themselves with other important things?

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Which means your definition of "great" communication is, as devonin said, "perfect and complete" communication. Since after all, you're saying that any lies or deceit results in your definition not fitting. It seems to me that this means the only thing that fulfills your definition is total truth, 100% of the time, hiding nothing (since hiding something would be deceitful, according to you).