Premaritial Sex

[Cavernio]

Chardish: In response to evolutionary aspects of orgasm, you say it makes sense for a woman to be able to climax during intercourse. However, not climaxing during intercourse could also be evolutionarily adaptive. 1 stint of intercourse doesn't always result in pregnancy, and so it would be adaptive for a woman to remain aroused so she'll have more intercourse, with either the same partner or another one.
Of course, all this could simply be a by-product of the placement of the primary pleasure point on women being outside the body, where it is NOT stimulated much during intercourse, or it could be the other way 'round.
Evolutionarily speaking, you can hypothesize things like saying genocide is evolutionarily adaptive.

Originally Posted by devonin

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"

I think we've found that that depends on the person.

Originally Posted by Relambrien

nitpicking

You can tell the truth 100% of the time and still not have perfect communication if you're saying what you mean but saying it in a way that the other person can't understand, or you're (unintentionally) not saying all of what you mean, etc. You don't even have great communication if you feel like there's things you can't talk about. But I don't think that's really what's being debated here - or really what should be debated in here.

It is absurd and indefensible to say "Oh, we have great communication, we just routinely deceive one another in our most intimate moments." It's silly that you (and others) are obsessing over this point instead of actually dealing with the ramifications of what people like myself and Guido have said in earlier points.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by chardish

You can tell the truth 100% of the time and still not have perfect communication if you're saying what you mean but saying it in a way that the other person can't understand, or you're (unintentionally) not saying all of what you mean, etc. You don't even have great communication if you feel like there's things you can't talk about. But I don't think that's really what's being debated here - or really what should be debated in here.

It is absurd and indefensible to say "Oh, we have great communication, we just routinely deceive one another in our most intimate moments." It's silly that you (and others) are obsessing over this point instead of actually dealing with the ramifications of what people like myself and Guido have said in earlier points.

I'm really not trying to debate for myself, since being only 15, I don't feel I can say much more than anything I've already said (if I've said anything at all). I'm merely trying to point out things and attempt to clarify things so as to help others debate.

If you'd rather I just leave the debate to its course, then I can do that, too.

[Cavernio]

Waiting to have sex until you're married, although incredibly and undeniably romantic and utopian, seems silly because love, marriage, and sexual desire don't necessarily co-exist, despite the best of efforts sometimes. It seems like you're waiting for perfection, yet perfection, when you wait and expect it in such a precise way, never exists.

As an aside, Chrissi, I think you and I are very similar in that it's incredibly hard for someone else to get me to orgasm. I can only orgasm with clitoral stimulation, however, I've had what I could call largely vaginal orgasms, but they're just not the same purely clitoral ones. There's release, but they're not as good, not as over-the-top pleasurable, and, I'm easily turned-on again with immediate vaginal stimulation. It's good because if I masturbate while having sex, and miraculously orgasm before my partner does, I still want to continue intercourse.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Chardish

It's silly that you (and others) are obsessing over this point instead of actually dealing with the ramifications of what people like myself and Guido have said in earlier points.

I'm not sure what else to say to the ramifications of what you and Guido are talking about. Every precept that you've presented as being the best, or even the more desireable is not one I have ascribed to, and yet I have none of the issues or problems you suggest are inevitable from taking the courses of action that I have.

You're arguing from an ivory tower that living down in the village is no good. And while you might have an excellent view up there, and maybe even will have a nicer life in the long run, what we are getting at here is that you're talking about the dangers of village life to the villagers, having never actually gone down there for a look.

[toxicninja]

i found this interesting artical on wikipedia but i've heard things like it before that support my arguement of people cheating because they are bored sexually of each other:

Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive,[citation needed] much like hunger or thirst. Helen Fisher, a leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly-overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust exposes people to others, romantic attraction encourages people to focus their energy on mating, and attachment involves tolerating the spouse long enough to rear a child into infancy.

Lust is the initial passionate sexual desire that promotes mating, and involves the increased release of chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen. These effects rarely last more than a few weeks or months. Attraction is the more individualized and romantic desire for a specific candidate for mating, which develops out of lust as commitment to an individual mate forms. Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side-effects such as an increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has indicated that this stage generally lasts from one and a half to three years.

Since the lust and attraction stages are both considered temporary, a third stage is needed to account for long-term relationships. Attachment is the bonding which promotes relationships that last for many years, and even decades. Attachment is generally based on commitments such as marriage and children, or on mutual friendship based on things like shared interests. It has been linked to higher levels of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin than short-term relationships have.

[devonin]

As an additional aside, Chardish and Guido... Is your particular brand of abstinance simply that you will retain your virginity until you are married, or do you subscribe to the more orthodox and formal belief that in addition to waiting until marriage to start having sex, you will only engage in intercourse when you have the explicit plan and desire to concieve?

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by devonin

You're arguing from an ivory tower that living down in the village is no good. And while you might have an excellent view up there, and maybe even will have a nicer life in the long run, what we are getting at here is that you're talking about the dangers of village life to the villagers, having never actually gone down there for a look.

Actually, it took losing my virginity to truly appreciate abstinence.

As an additional aside, Chardish and Guido... Is your particular brand of abstinance simply that you will retain your virginity until you are married, or do you subscribe to the more orthodox and formal belief that in addition to waiting until marriage to start having sex, you will only engage in intercourse when you have the explicit plan and desire to concieve?

I feel the question is a bit misleading, so I'll hit a few points in trying to answer it.

If you mean, "only when you have the explicit plan and desire to conceive" like my great grandmother, who "had sex four times and had four kids", then no. I plan on having a whole lot more sex than that. If I do not want to conceive immediately, I'll be taking steps toward avoiding it (natural family planning), but refuse to engage in contraception.

So, to answer the literal question, no. To answer what I think you were trying to ask, yes. The act of intercourse is a reproductive one, and the chance of conception should always be recognized, but that's getting more into religious beliefs...

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by chardish

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.

1. Sex can be extremely, exceedingly pleasurable, without orgasm.

2. It doesn't matter if you buy the idea or not - most women are unable to achieve orgasm through intercourse. It's a simple matter of physiology. The clitoris is not directly stimulated through intercourse. The clitoris is the major factor in orgasm; after all, it is analogous to the penis in terms of pleasure centres. Imagine having an orgasm without having your penis touched. Well, maybe I'm asking the wrong guy...

3. Biological sense or not, it still doesn't happen to most women. They need other stimulation to achieve orgasm. It doesn't mean that they don't enjoy sex. Speaking personally, I greatly enjoy sex but find it impossible to orgasm through intercourse alone. I require extra stimulation, usually administered by myself. Lots of women are like this.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

If I do not want to conceive immediately, I'll be taking steps toward avoiding it (natural family planning), but refuse to engage in contraception.

Why? What is your 'natural family planning' exactly? Will it involve only engaging in intercourse at specific times of the month when your spouse is probably fertile? How is it more acceptable to you as a contraceptive method than using a condom, pulling out, having your partner use an inter-uteran device, having her use birth control or freezing a bunch of your sperm and having a visectomy?

If you answer 'it's more natural', I'll argue against it. If your answer is that you don't like any of the other options for health or cost reasons, then that's alright.

[Cavernio]

Ok, I just found these points raised by Chardish earlier, and I'd like to address each of them.

Originally Posted by chardish

Assumptions: Your long-term goal is a committed, monogamous, loving relationship. You see sex as very important in such a relationship, but you don't see it as the most important thing - living a happy life with your significant other is the most important thing. Sex is an expression of your love, not the centerpiece of it.

Ok, so maybe this makes everything else moot since they're assumptions you're using, but I can pretend that they apply fairly well, since that's my culture. Personally, I'm not sure where I fall into things in terms of actually wanting a long-term relationship, mainly, because I get bored easily, and staying with 1 person is fairly boring, even if we've got good communication. The only person who hasn't become boring for me is my sister, someone I grew up with. Besides sex and other physical contact, I don't think I could ask for something better in terms of long-term relationships. We've got a lot in common and understand each other without having to spell it out. We argue and fight, and then it's OK. We accept each other's flaws more readily than I have yet to do with a bf, probably because, again, we're so similar.

Originally Posted by chardish

1) Chemical effects. An extremely powerful hormone called oxytocin (look it up) is released during orgasm that basically makes you trust the other person and want to stay with the other person. The problem with this is that if you've had sex before you really get to know the person - really really get to know the other person - this chemical is going to kick in and override your judgment of the other. So basically if you've spent years getting to know the other person and love the time you spend together, the sex is an affirmation of those feelings you already have. If you've had sex too early in your relationship, the hormone might dupe you into thinking you should be with someone who's actually wrong for you. Basically, the hormone tells forces your brain to think "I love this person and I need to spend the rest of my life with them." If you already think that, then it's very desirable. If you don't think that, it's very undesirable and may lead you to making a dangerous mistake. Another note: Though it's present in both sexes, it's much much more present in women than it is in men. This is the primary reason women are willing to stick around with men who treat them like dirt - their brains have been rewired to think that the man is worth sticking with. If you ask me, volunteering to rewire your brain to love someone requires a much deeper commitment.

You've made the assumption that oxytocin will immediately cause you to bond to the other person. My personal experience (you don't have any if you've never orgasmed around someone else, Also, it is not the same as abstinance, which is merely stopping intercourse.) tells me that there's no way on god's green earth that I'll ever fall in love with someone from the chemical release after orgasm. Now, your point isn't lost though, because I've experienced pretty negative feelings when I orgasm around someone whom I don't love. It's hard to describe, and is very, very personal, but I've felt like I've thrown myself away at someone whom I don't love, by letting them see something of me that I don't actually want to share with them. That 'something' is the feeling I get, which has been linked with attachment, and then I think, well, in reality, they don't experience what's in my head. They don't feel my emotions, so I've in fact shared nothing. This itself has caused me other psychological issues, the fact that what I want to share with someone I love, I never can actually share it, everything from the feeling a song I like gives me, to a joke, to sex. But that's something else.
In any case, I strongly disagree that sex will ever cause me to fall in love with someone who I don't intellectually already love.

Originally Posted by chardish

2a) Meaningfulness. What do you tell the other person with your act? If you say "yes" to everyone, your "yes" doesn't mean that much. If you've determined beforehand that you're only going to say "yes" to one person, ever, then saying "yes" to that one person means an enormous deal. The fact that you've remained abstinent - the fact that you've let them know that only one person gets to have sex with you - lets the other person know that you value yourself (otherwise, you wouldn't value your virginity so highly) and, when you're ready to say "yes", lets them know that you value them more than anyone else in the world, for now and for ever.

I've always thought of this argument as giving into jealousy. Firstly, no one has sex with everyone. Secondly, just because you love 1 person, doesn't mean that you haven't loved someone else in the past, or will love someone else in the future. You're expecting to have your cake and eat it too when you only want a person to love just you.
Another point though, is that you could easily replace sex with virtually anything else symbolic to you, and let that person know what that means. That could be marriage, that could be the words "I love you", or anything else you choose to do only with or for that special person. Why do you feel the need to stop yourself from experiencing sexual pleasure?

Originally Posted by chardish

2b) Emotional considerations. Basically, it's easy to have sex with someone, especially since pretty much every fiber in your being is telling you to do it when you're in a serious romantic relationship. It's an impulse - and engaging in it is as easy as giving into "what's natural." On the other hand, it's very difficult to tell someone that you want to spend the rest of your life together. It's even more difficult to get all of your friends and family together and swear in front of all of them that you will spend the rest of your lives together. Personally, I can't think of any more convincing statement that you really, honestly love someone.

Ok, so holding out on having sex with other people means that much more when you do have sex because you have to try hard not to. Basically, you're giving up on something that you want realllly badly, and which would be reallllly satisfying immediately, all banking it for 1 person, which may or may not exist for you ever. And as you say, there's other symbols, like marriage, which you can give someone else, which can be independent of sex.

Originally Posted by chardish

3) Relationship considerations. Given the above, it's important to understand where sex lies in the relationship. If sex is at the center of the relationship, the relationship is likely to fall apart if the sex gets boring. If learning about each other and spending time with each other is at the center of the relationship, the relationship will endure. If you've committed your life to someone who you've never had sex with, you can virtually guarantee that sex is not the most important thing in your relationship. It may come as a surprise, but couples who abstain before marriage report more satisfying sex lives than those who didn't. With communication being such an important element of sex, the activity naturally favors those who have established a strong ability to openly communicate their needs and wants. Again, you don't declare you're willing to spend the rest of your life with someone you don't think you can communicate with. Forever.

Just because you eventually want to have a monogamous, long-term relationship, doesn't mean that that's the only relationship you want. Because of that, there's not problem if sex is the center of a relationship and it breaks up. Also, a relationship that starts with sex can end up being centered around other things too, so it's not like you're ultimately choosing either sex or marriage from the get-go either. Furthermore, people can get more than sexually bored. Boredom exists for all activities and thoughts, and therefore, the possibility of boredom even in a very well communicated relationship is possible, especially if it were once centered around common interests, and someone develops different ones which aren't compatible with the other person's anymore.

Originally Posted by chardish

4) Enjoyment considerations. There's the aforementioned happier sex lives of those who abstained. Furthermore, most people don't enter into marriage without some level of financial security. Regardless of the method of family planning used (natural family planning users report even more satisfying sex lives, by the way), the lack of fear of pregnancy or STDs is an intense benefit.

I don't suffer from fear of pregnancy. I also don't believe your statistics about happier sex lives.

Originally Posted by chardish

5) Statistical considerations. Couples where both people abstain before marriage have an astonishingly low divorce rate. It's even lower (I don't have the numbers on me, but I believe it's under 5%) if both people abstained before marriage and both wait until they're out of college to marry. Couples who abstained also report happier sex lives than those who didn't. Furthermore, from personal experience, I don't know a single couple who waited and regretted it - but I know well over a dozen who didn't wait and regretted it.

Well, there're lots of confounds to be considered here. The biggest one I can think of is that strongly religious people are most likely the ones to abstain. That also means they're unlikely to divorce, even in bad situations. It could also mean that because they're unwilling to divorce, they're also willing to put more effort into their relationships to make them last. Even then though, that's not abstinence itself which is causing the marriage to last. In fact, abstinence itself causing marriages to last longer seems ludicrous. If someone were going to be that upset that their bf/gf weren't a virigin, then they wouldn't get married to them, would they? And, I question the usefulness of putting marriage first in some abusive situations, particularly if they involve drug addiction or something.
About knowing couples who weren't upset they waited...You're only asking couples. What about those people who aren't married yet? There's no guarantee you'll find the right person. Also, you're neglecting abstaining couples who have broken up since either. Obviously, if you ask happily married couples about regret, they're likely to not have many because they're happily married!

[Paperleaf]

I don't think waiting until you're married necessarily means a whole lot (though I think it's good for practicing self dicipline and control), but if people do consider such a personal and risky act, they should do it on their own terms (I mean, not feel pressured by the other person) and be fully aware of the consiquences, and they should know the person that they plan on doing it with well and trust them.

That's why I would never even consider it... I have no desire, the cons out weigh the pros, and I don't trust anyone. :B