Re: Premaritial Sex
 

There is no way the reverse wheel is more economical than the sofabender. The energy used to maintain the calories necessary to sustain the acts of reverse wheelbarrowing and sexual intercourse are nearly double that of the sofabender and triple that of a standard missionary style. However, I understand your point if one does not own a sofa, in which case, it would be much more cost effective to utilize the reverse-wheelbarrow. However, I do believe there are more economical ways to get your rocks off, such as doggy style. Doggy style is arguably the first sexual position of man, and one of the best. Doggy style can be preformed just about anywhere (on the bed, in the woods, grandma's kitchen patio, etc.) I'd also like to add that primitive man was very economical. Life consisted of 1) getting food 2) populating the Earth. Modern man's life is very much the same way, but now we have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get food, like education and a job, and dates, seriously, what the hell. But I digress.

The point is, sex is always awesome for the man, and being a man, all my sexual experiences have been awesome...no matter the position or hole. If your choice is to abstain, awesome for you. I applaud your will power. As for me? I'm weak. I enjoy pleasure.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Sperm can never "pass through" a condom unless the condom has been degraded somehow or there is a hole in it. An ideal condom, like one kept in a drawer at a reasonable temperature that hasn't had holes poked in it and hasn't expired, used properly, has a MUCH lower risk rate than 17%. Less than 1%.

The "83%" that you hear is 1) a made up statistic, and 2) it's supposed to be the success rate of condoms used altogether. That means used by the average person. That means, used wrong.

Sperm don't "pass through" condoms. I don't know what they're teaching kids these days, but let me have a crack at them.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Sorry bout that.*BOWS*-ANY WAY THE CORRECT INFO-Condoms can prevent both pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Laboratory studies show that sperm and disease-causing organisms cannot pass through an intact latex condom. Epidemiologic studies of condom users confirm that condoms can be very effective. Most studies, however, find that couples relying on condoms are, on average, not as successful at preventing unwanted pregnancy as users of most other family planning methods. Similarly, a substantial number of people relying on condoms to avoid STDs contract them nonetheless.Laboratory studies prove that sperm and disease-causing organisms cannot pass through intact latex condoms. Most condoms are only about 0.3 to 0.8 mm thick. Yet they normally contain no holes, even of microscopic size. A sperm has a diameter of 3 microns (.003 mm). STD-causing organisms are much smaller--from 1/4 to 1/70 the size of sperm. Still, laboratory tests show that none can penetrate an intact latex condom. This includes HIV, which causes AIDS (67, 68, 185, 314, 354). In contrast, disease-causing organisms sometimes can pass through condoms made from lamb's intestine, often called natural skin condoms (237), but relatively few of these condoms are made.

Edit-Oh yea sorry for the Typo on Ur NaMe Chrissi

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Well, no one else has really attempted to counter-point your points, so I'll do that.

This is an odd way of phrasing it - I, as well as others who abstain, do not want to have sex before we are married. The urge and the compulsion is still there, yes, but abstinence is about putting what you know is best for you in the long term above the passions and desires of the moment. It is not about denying what you want - it is about putting what you want above your urges.

It's a lot more than just that, but yes.

Wrong! Utterly, utterly wrong. I do care about those things, but I don't see either meaningless sex, sex when you're not ready, or sex with people other than the one you love as being plausible means to those ends.


I don't think there's such a thing as "sexual compatibility" unless you're interested in nonmonogamous, short term relationships, in which case abstinence probably isn't the best choice for you (if you read my post you would have seen where I said that.) The elements of a good sexual relationship are communication, trust, physical attraction, compatible personalities, etc...these attributes are far more important than the geometry of the act.

You develop a good sex life with someone else based on a relationship that you already know contains those elements. Not the other way around.

And people who abstain are quite particular. If you're only going to have sex with one person for your entire life, you're going to make damn sure that you're compatible with them.

Bolded for emphasis, since premarital sex isn't a way to avoid this either! Yes, the more experience you have, the better you are at sex. But what's wrong with developing that experience, and learning the ins and outs of sexuality (no pun intended) with the person you plan on spending the rest of your life with? You make it seem like premarital sex is somehow a remedy for sexual inexperience, and it's not.

I don't know whether to ascribe that comment to ignorance or cynicism, but suggestion that women who abstain will never achieve orgasm is not only factually incorrect, but insulting to countless men who abstained until marriage. If you cannot put the other person's sexual wants before yours, then you are not in a loving relationship.

No. You just know more about your perspective.

Since you attempted to find flaws in the concept of abstinence, if your points were valid, why wouldn't they be important to an abstainer?

What's wrong with that? In fact, doesn't that sound like the best thing ever? To enjoy sex, no matter what?


And for non-abstainers, too. I think that:
a) "awful" is a very subjective term. Most couples who abstain from sex talk about their sexual wants and expectations for a very long time. They know that the first time is not going to be the best time, so they get over it. They're not expecting sex to be some kind of magic pill that transforms their relationship forever, because they already know that they have a solid and loving relationship, so they're willing to spend decades learning how to have better sex. Thus, whereas a mediocre first time might disappoint people who don't abstain - who are expecting something out of sex - it doesn't disappoint abstainers.
b) I'd like you to produce one single source where it suggests that non-masturbators who abstain have more disappointing sex lives than masturbators who abstain. This seems like something that's just assumed by those who masturbate.


I made it clear in multiple posts that my comment was a joke. More indication that you didn't actually read what I said.

The part I bolded is absolutely true. Masturbation causes you to associate the sexual response with something that is inward, self-centered, and focused on individual pleasure, rather than something that is shared, altruistic, and focused on the other. It's like the idea of "set and setting" - I'd rather not make the set and setting for orgasm something that I do alone and bring upon myself.

And for the record: "pregnancy/STDs" is the worst argument against abstinence there could possibly be. Most people who have premarital sex either a) know about the risks and don't care, b) know about the risks and take precautions against them, and/or c) know about the risks and don't think it could ever happen to them. Yes, abstinence is the only way you can be completely certain you'll both be free from unwanted pregnancy or STDs, and that certainty is a good thing, but most people are willing to accept a diminished chance as "good enough."

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Abstinance is about putting what -you- think is best for you in the long term above the desires of the moment. You point to Chrissi's statements below and say "That's your personal opinion" but here you speak in absolutes as though they aren't -your- personal opinions as well.

The point made was "For some people, abstaining is what you -want- and for some people it is -not- what you want, and for those people, abstaining is just as bad personally for them as not abstaining would be for you.

Point 1, fair enough. Point 2, fair enough. Point 3: nonsense. You can love someone without being married to them, and be married to someone without loving them. Abstaining "until marriage" in no way guarentees that you will only have sex with the person you love, just the person you are married to.

No offense, but that is spoken exactly like someone who is abstaining.

They sure are, but that doesn't mean that geometry doesn't make a large difference in the enjoyment of the act. Something fumbling awkward and painful but with someone you really care about might not be "bad" per se, but you'll know once you know, that there is a surprisingly large amount of that "geometry" to work through.

Chrissi's argument is that for the aspects she is referring to, you can only know if you have that compatibility -after- you've had sex. Be a heck of a time to find out something like, she has a very shallow vagina, and you can't actually have sex with her without causing her a lot of pain and internal bruising (to pick a fairly extreme possibility, but one I've known women to have for a fact)

I get what you are -trying- to say, but actually, "Having sex" is absolutely a remedy for sexual inexperience, because it necessarily removes that inexperience.

And you about yours.

Well...personal accounts from women who abstained and never masturbated who claim to have never had an orgasm after getting married and having sex, contrasted with women who didn't abstain, and who did masturbate, and who report having frequent and strong orgasms.

Obviously the opposite is also true, but to deny that there could be -any- sources who support Chrissi is pretty absurd, just as Chrissi's claim that such is -always- the case is pretty absurd. You've got some cum hoc ergo propter hoc type stuff going on here and it isn't doing either of you any favours.

As someone who, I will freely admit, masturbates alone and with partners, has had sex with multiple partners, and, like most males who do masturbate, did so for a number of years before first having sex, your view of the connection between masturbation, self-centredness, and orgasm is (at least for me) completely false. If anything, the knowledge that I could move myself to orgasm pretty much any time I like actually allows me to spend -more- time ensuring I fulfill the needs of my partner.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

I'm going to jump on this one too. It's not like there is a "one size fits all" act. It's a lot like driving. While, at first, it seems like there is only one way to drive and everyone drives the same way. But anyone who is skilled at driving knows there is technique involved. There is much more to driving than stepping on the gas to go and stepping on the brake to stop. A person has to know how fast they can take a corner, or how much time they need to come to a complete stop, or how to wedge your way through a wall of traffic going 80 down the freeway.

Some people like waiting until the last minute to throw on the breaks. Some people are oblivious to others while they drive. Some people ride the gas pedal like there is no tomorrow. The point is, each driver is unique. Some are good, some are bad, some are really bad and end up crashing and dying.

Someone who likes to coast up to a stop light (to save gas and avoid using the brake) would not be compatible with a brake driver. A sexplorer would not be compatible with a prude.

I mean, it's not like it's just a hole that you stick it in and win a prize no matter what. There's technique involved. You really have to work it. You have to be able to pick up on your partners cues to see what he/she likes.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Simple answer is: Some people want to do all the discovery and learning with one person because they connect sex -solely- to the love and intimacy of making love. Some people connect sex with nothing but the physical appetite, and are happy to engage in the activity with any willing partner simply for the pleasure and experience. The middle path (And the one that I think is the correct one) is to combine both mentalities. Sex can be about pleasure and release and the meeting of an appetite, and sex can be about a deep and intimate expression of love and emotion.

To use a somewhat inaccurate metaphor, just because you eat McDonalds when you're hungry because it's fast and cheap and makes you not hungry doesn't mean you lose the ability to appreciate a homemade gourmet meal, made just for you by someone who knows your tastes.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

I'm imagining what McDonalds would be like if it were a girl. She's covered in bacon grease, fat, smells like rancid meat, and covered in hair.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Well I wasn't comparing food to girls. I was going for the difference, to use the usual terms, between ****ing because you're horny, and making love.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Hahaha, I know...but still..................nasty-ass mcdonalds girl...

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

i probably do not know alot about this subject, but if you ask me, marriage is just a scam to make alot of money. Even though people get married for love (sometimes) i see no reason for it so i have no problem with premarital sex

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

How is marriage a scam to make money? Couples filing joint income taxes generally pay less to the government, and there is a minimal charge to file marriage lisences with the state.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

if they pay less in tax money, they would probably save money, essentially having more money. not nesscarily proving my point, as i intended to point out that other companies (caterers and the like) would make money, but i also pointed out im rather ignorant on the subject.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

I hardly think that the cost of a -wedding reception- constitutes the entire institution of marriage being a scam. If you are ignorant of a subject, CT is not the place to post about that subject.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

in a critical thinking forum, i knew debate would be typical, but apparently ideas about it being a chance learning experience have been proven wrong

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

You don't learn by just jumping in and saying whatever occurs to you to say...you learn by watching, reading, and seeing how things work.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

to proceed furthur with this, i think a 1 on 1 discussion would b nessecary (but who wants that?)... this has gotten
rather off topic and doesnt apply to anything ive seen here...i regret posting at all and will probably regret posting this

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

I say as long as there is love. It is ok to have premarital sex if you are a religious freak.

Marriage is government issued and a fine line between how a couple is 'together'.

Gay couples cannot get married (kind of... depends where you are...), so they cannot 'have sex'?

...Although pre-marital sex is mostly a religious topic, and gay marriage is out of the subject.

But yeah. Refer to line one for my opinion.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

Hey, it's Zajac. Sup dude.

ps. I'm a mod, I can do whatever I want and this so happens to be important business.

pps. CT Version:

I think this has already been said, but sex is a personal choice shaped by cultural and personal experience. Different cultures view sex in a different way. Attitudes change. American went through a sexual revolution in the 1960s, setting the bar for generations to come. The sex orgies of the 70s and 80s were fueled on cocaine and by the time the 90s came around, premarital sex is accepted by most adults.

Re: Premaritial Sex
 

This is actually a really funny sentence.