Indepent article: Virgin territory (Love & Sex)

santing

I just read a week old article in the indepent on why Irish youngster wait with sex till they are married. Cehck it out!
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/independent-woman/love-sex/virgin-territory-1742012.html

PDN

Interesting article.

It's good to see young people who can think for themselves in the face of intense media brainwashing and the kind of peer pressure where the word 'virgin' is often used as a term of derision.

studiorat

Interesting to note that they are all Evangelical Christians and as such are open to their own particular brand of "brainwashing" outside of the "media".

It does not exactly display a great grasp on reality for 16 year old to say the next woman he meets he's going to marry. I'm also quite unimpressed by their snobbery and they actually do seem pretty quick to judge:

People who sleep around, you can see the fruit. I do maintenance work in council houses and you are forever seeing single mothers

Shock Horror!!! I suppose they never considered that a lot of these single mothers may in fact actually be married. Quite a few of the single Moms I know are. Personally I think 23 is far to young to get married.

Personally I'm more impressed by the "Straight-Edge" kids. This is a punk rock youth culture where adherents choose to refrain from alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs and sleeping around.

"no casual sex. or permiscous sex, ****ing around, no one nite stands,
diseases are spread, abortions happen, date rape, so no screwing
around, emotional baggage you dont need, so basicly you dont have sex
until you meet someone your comfortable with and that you'll take on
all the responsibilities or sex.

http://toefur.com/straightedge/articles/article1.html

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Personally I'm more impressed by the "Straight-Edge" kids. This is a punk rock youth culture where adherents choose to refrain from alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs and sleeping around.

http://toefur.com/straightedge/articles/article1.html

Those aren't real punks. Sid Vicious must be turning in his grave.

studiorat

You and I both know that doesn't happen...

He sold out anyway.

Nodin

studiorat wrote: »

He sold out anyway.

In fairness I think he died before the opportunity arose.

prinz

studiorat wrote: »

It does not exactly display a great grasp on reality for 16 year old to say the next woman he meets he's going to marry.

In fairness, that is a gross over-simplification of what he actually said/meant. It was 7 years before he did marry. This is something I feel really strongly about, the whole sexualisation of society from the top right down to kids as young as toddlers, and the view that people choosing to wait until marriage for sex are not normal/freaks/weird etc etc.


I know personally growing up I was never interested in relationships that I couldn't immediately see a long term future for, my faith had taken a back seat for most of my life so this wasn't (perhaps subconsciously) motivated by religion. I don't like wasting my own, or other people's time. If I didn't see a future I didn't get involved which basically ruled out any sort of relationship until I was in university. There were drunken one night stands, which I regret, but nothing meaningful, I always knew in the back of my mind that I would meet one girl who would be right for me.

If somebody is as sure as I know I was, that someday I would meet the right person, be they 16 or 36, then why is it not fair for them to say the person they want to have a relationship with is the person they will want to marry. What is the point in entering into relationships etc. and knowing that you wouldn't want to marry your partner?

Roughly 4 years ago I met my girl, and I knew within a few weeks that she was someone I could spend my life with and I pursued that relationship, and later this year we will be married. My fiancée is a girl who has waited until marriage for a sexual relationship and tbh we couldn't be happier together.

When I look at my friends, still chopping and changing boyfriend/girlfriend like a pair of shoes, going out on the pull, etc. Guess what they cannot find any sort of permanent steady relationship. I've tried to tell them that true love is not going to be found over your fourth double vodka in a niteclub but it falls on deaf ears. The media is bombarding people with the message.... more sex, more partners = happier, better life, without any sort of basis for it, except to prop-up their own industry which relies on the tenet of sex-sells.

(On a side note, it was meeting my fiancée which brought Christian faith into my life, so perhaps somebody was pulling some strings up above)

studiorat wrote: »

Personally I think 23 is far to young to get married.

Personally all experience has taught me otherwise. That is another message from the media tbh, telling people not to settle down, not to commit or they will miss out on so much. What exactly it is that you will miss out on is undetermined.

SteveDon

Sex is great, why would anyone want to deny themselves it.

Very strange article i thought. The guy himself is very preachy with his opinions.

I mean if you dont have sex with a woman you are likely to marry before you actually do, how do you know that the relationship will ultimately work, it is known that good sex is essential for a healthy relationship.

The reason people have so much casual sex is because its good fun. Why try to move sexual liberation back 50 years or so.

SteveDon

Straight edge is a way for people to feel different but still belong to a group. And we all know teenagers love doing that.

prinz

SteveDon wrote: »

Sex is great, why would anyone want to deny themselves it.

They're not denying themselves, merely saying they believe there is a time and a place, in accordance with their religious convictions.

SteveDon wrote: »

I mean if you dont have sex with a woman you are likely to marry before you actually do, how do you know that the relationship will ultimately work, it is known that good sex is essential for a healthy relationship.

If you have a terrible marriage, but great sex - will the relationship ultimately work? Who judges great sex? Do you judge great sex with a partner in terms of other partners? Great sex is about two people communicating, learning, and giving themselves to each other to achieve great sex. Good sex is something you work out together. It's very rarely instantaneous.

SteveDon wrote: »

The reason people have so much casual sex is because its good fun. Why try to move sexual liberation back 50 years or so.

Yes it has brought some good things to the world, but it has also brought not some not so good. Frankly the healthy peak of 'sexual liberation' has come and gone, and western society have gone so far past the healthy level that we are starting to reap the social problems associated.

JimiTime

I met my wife when I was 21. I was married at 23, and have been for 5 happy years. Hoping for many, many more. I agree with Prinz about the big push for not getting married, and over-emphasis on the value of sex.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

They're not denying themselves, merely saying they believe there is a time and a place, in accordance with their religious convictions.

What??!!? You mean self-control??? How dare you suggest such a thing:);)

Yes it has brought some good things to the world, but it has also brought not some not so good. Frankly the healthy peak of 'sexual liberation' has come and gone, and western society have gone so far past the healthy level that we are starting to reap the social problems associated.

+1.

SteveDon

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the sex issue because its probably more a matter of personal opinion when it comes to sex.


ON the other issue of refraining to get married, i think this is an issue of flexibility. Not just sexual flexibililty but the kind of freedom you get from being on your own.

Im all for putting off responsibilites, Im currently about to go into my 3rd year of college of what ill hope will be 6 years, 6 years were i can have fun and not have to think about the real 9-5 world that will inevitably follow.

Same applys for marraige, I want to have the freedom to travel the world, make my own decisions, hang around with the lads when i want and not have to worry about a nagging wife.

studiorat

SteveDon wrote: »

Straight edge is a way for people to feel different but still belong to a group. And we all know teenagers love doing that.

I wouldn't just confine that to teenagers or punk rockers btw.

In reply to Prinz's excellent post I'd have to say I agree with the bulk of what he's saying. However one of his main points is that he came to this point of view without actually needing to be a Christian. Which is something which a few people I can think of should take note of.

Both Prinz's comments and the tone of the comments in the article though still appear to look down their noses at those who have not taken a similar route. One regarding Prinz's "friends" and the the other the kids who would scorn single mothers in council flats...

I'm not sure if it covers the whole sexualisation (sp?) of society but I was discussing this with GF the other day. Initiated oddly enough by a discussion of the apparent trend in the shaving or pubic hair. Was it infantising sex?
Anyway the discussion led to her dragging up this article which I may be of some interest to some here, it's by Naomi Wolf. It's about perceptions of sex and influence of media, particularly porn

I do think that media issues like this has polarized the young people in the Indo, article. And probably pushed them too far in the opposite direction. Making them, and I hesitate to use the word, more conservative, than is good for them.

JimiTime

SteveDon wrote: »

Same applys for marraige, I want to have the freedom to travel the world, make my own decisions, hang around with the lads when i want and not have to worry about a nagging wife.

I travelled the world with my wife, in fact I was in Thailand for a month back in December again. (Koh Phangnan for the record. Go there if you're travelling, tis fab.) I make my own decisions, and also have the benefit of another persons wisdom. A person who I love and respect. Also, I still have my time with the lads if I want it.

Sounds to me like you are pre-empting choosing the wrong woman tbh.

studiorat

JimiTime wrote: »

I met my wife when I was 21. I was married at 23, and have been for 5 happy years. Hoping for many, many more. I agree with Prinz about the big push for not getting married, and over-emphasis on the value of sex.

Come back to us in 15...

JimiTime

studiorat wrote: »

Come back to us in 15...

If that is a humourous comment fair enough.
If not, then it does show the negative stereotype pushed these days. I have 'no' doubt, that if we are still alive, we'll still be as happy in 15 years. In fact if our 7 years together are anything to go by, we will be more happy and deeper in love. There seems to be a fear of marriage these days.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Come back to us in 15...

23 years happily married. We abstained from sex before marriage and have never regretted that decision.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

23 years happily married. We abstained from sex before marriage and have never regretted that decision.

Come back to us in 30 years:)

prinz

studiorat wrote: »

Both Prinz's comments and the tone of the comments in the article though still appear to look down their noses at those who have not taken a similar route. One regarding Prinz's "friends" and the the other the kids who would scorn single mothers in council flats...

I don't look down my nose at anyone.I know how my life and relationship has panned out and I look at others and see how (a) they go about finding partners and (b) how they look at relationships in the light of the media reflection. All you need do is check out the Relationship Issues forum to see pages and pages of "issues", 99% of which could be solved through basic communication, compromise and understanding of your partner, not sex. And all of the aforementioned skills are developed most in a relationship based on getting to know your partner, not getting into his/her pants. My friends are my friends by virtue of the fact that they are people I obviously do NOT 'look down my nose at', if I think on the other hand that they are misguided in how they pursue meaningful relationships I have no qualms about saying it.

However when one girl posted her issue on R.I. about her boyfriend not wanting sex before marriage, despite the rest of the relationship being wonderful and both of them loving each other - by her own admission, the consensus was that she should dump him, give him an ultimatum, etc.
There was no rational thought put into why a young man in today's world might want to abstain, regardless of the fact that the poster said it was due to religious reasons, people said he was probably gay, a victim of sexual abuse, repressed, hormonally deficient, weird, etc. I have incurred the wrath of the Mods on that forum for this very reason. Apparently a relationship based on abstention until marriage is not a 'real' relationship but so called 'f*ck-buddies' is regarded as perfectly legitimate. That is my problem with how people view sexuality today.

If I say I think the route I followed is best, then immediately I am accused of looking down my nose at someone. If on the other hand, I said sex before marriage is the be all and only way, would the same people accuse me of 'looking down my nose' those who abstain? No. Why? Because that's the society in which we live.

prinz

studiorat wrote: »

Come back to us in 15...

I have a brother who married when he was 21, at the time against my parents and her parents wishes as they thought the couple were 'too young'. They are still together, happily married and 2 kids, celebrated 15 years of marrige last year.

,8,1

"I would be shocked if I found someone who decided to keep themselves pure apart from those with strong religious beliefs," he says. "I'm sure there are some, but I would be very shocked to find them. I've lived in the world, I know the pressures on young people; it's everywhere, it's in music videos and it's in advertising."

"It's a whole package, really, it's not just staying pure," he continues, "it's about keeping your eyes pure as well." He does concede that this is a difficult task. "Hollywood is no friend to keeping men pure, not at all. I think it's a miracle that anyone does stay pure in this society. If you listen to rap music, that kind of genre, they treat women like a piece of meat, a woman is just there for their pleasure and you have this influencing men today."

And of course the women in said music videos are just helpless, passive victims of the Patriarchy; with no agency of their own in the matter.

David O'Brien's analysis - quite in common with feminist critiques of pornography and "the media" - also ignores the fact that the CEO of MTV is a woman.

PDN

,8,1 wrote: »

And of course the women in said music videos are just helpless, passive victims of the Patriarchy; with no agency of their own in the matter.

David O'Brien's analysis - quite in common with feminist critiques of pornography and "the media" - also ignores the fact that the CEO of MTV is a woman.

Why does it make any difference that the CEO of MTV is a woman? Women also play an active role in people trafficking, prostitution etc. That doesn't alter the fact that such practices treat women as objects and pander to the basest most selfish aspects of human nature.

,8,1

Why does it make any difference that the CEO of MTV is a woman? Women also play an active role in people trafficking, prostitution etc. That doesn't alter the fact that such practices treat women as objects and pander to the basest most selfish aspects of human nature.

If there is agency and agreement on the part of the woman involved, I don't see how it constitutes "abuse".

Why does it matter that the CEO of MTV is a woman? Because the usual dialogue is that women in music videos are being "exploited" by "men".

Sorry: female CEO, that's not the case.

You are right in saying that pornography and prostitution pandering to base aspects of human nature.

But can it be assumed that women working in these industries are ipso facto abused? No.

"Sexual objectification" is yet another feminist "loose concept".

The term is defined and redefined, seen as positive and negative, according purely to feminists' whim. Your dealing with an amorphous political term.

I don't think anyone who wants to discuss these subjects seriously is doing themselves justice by employing such debased language.

MatthewVII

These children seem dangerously misinformed, as in

it's the only way to keep from getting Aids or any sexual disease

Hrm. Has a slightly scaremongering tone to it

also

maybe some people think it's OK and it's fun, but it's going to hurt you in the end. I think you'll have guilt

I can't say I know an awful lot of sexually active people outside of wedlock who get hurt or guilty from their practices.

Even though I admire these children for standing up for what they believe in, I think they have a very fantasized view of morality and reality.

prinz

MatthewVII wrote: »

These children seem dangerously misinformed....

Why are they misinformed exactly? The only sure-fire way not to contract an STD, or get pregnant is to abstain from sexual activity.

MatthewVII wrote: »

I can't say I know an awful lot of sexually active people outside of wedlock who get hurt or guilty from their practices.

I do.Sexual activity is only one aspect of this. Other aspects are far more destructive - the sexualisation of people of all ages, the media portrayal of what is normal re teens, relationships, sexual behaviour etc., body image in the light of the mass media, etc etc.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Even though I admire these children for standing up for what they believe in, I think they have a very fantasized view of morality and reality.

What fantasy would that be?

Coriolanus

Hrm. Didn't the find in America that abstinence education and groups like the silver ring delay a teens first incidence of full sexual incidence but increased the chances of that first incidence being unprotected? Hence why the red states have a higher incidence of teen pregnancy than the blues.

Now I'd be the first to say correlation isn't causation but...

PDN

Nevore wrote: »

Hrm. Didn't the find in America that abstinence education and groups like the silver ring delay a teens first incidence of full sexual incidence but increased the chances of that first incidence being unprotected? Hence why the red states have a higher incidence of teen pregnancy than the blues.

Now I'd be the first to say correlation isn't causation but...

Initiatives like the silver ring thing, IMHO, simply try to substitute one form of peer pressure for another. That is bound to fail.

The Indo article is talking about something quite different - young people making decisions that go against the flow of peer pressure but are based on deeply held convictions.

prinz

Nevore wrote: »

Hrm. Didn't the find in America that abstinence education and groups like the silver ring delay a teens first incidence of full sexual incidence but increased the chances of that first incidence being unprotected? Hence why the red states have a higher incidence of teen pregnancy than the blues.

Now I'd be the first to say correlation isn't causation but...

No. What they found in America that Abstinence-Only education programmes had no concrete result vis-a-vis teenage pregnancies, teenage sexual activity etc.

However the issue is not that abstinence-only should be taught, but that people who do choose to follow this route should not be singled out as some sort of freakshows for not conforming to the social/media 'ideal'.
Already see here the kids in the article are described as somehow 'misinformed fantasist idealists who have broken from reality'.

The problems arise when abstinence is not even considered as a legitimate course to take, so that when some youg person does decide to abstain they are considered deluded, or damaged in some way.

pts

prinz wrote: »

The problems arise when abstinence is not even considered as a legitimate course to take, so that when some youg person does decide to abstain they are considered deluded, or damaged in some way.

Do you not think that the reason they are treated this way is because they base their choice (mostly) on religious beliefs which most of their peers do not adhere to. I don't want to get into an argument if that religious belief is right or wrong, just wanted to point out why I believe they are treated that way.

prinz

pts wrote: »

Do you not think that the reason they are treated this way is because they base their choice (mostly) on religious beliefs which most of their peers do not adhere to. I don't want to get into an argument if that religious belief is right or wrong, just wanted to point out why I believe they are treated that way.

The majority I believe are religiously motivated, but religion aside, I believe that it is just as normal for someone to choose to abstain, as it is for someone to sleep around, regardless of the motivations behind the decision. Everyone is talking about sexual liberation this, and real world that, it appears that open-mindedness and acceptance only applies if your a libertine liberal. If someone wants to be sexually conservative then that's their equal right, and if they want to promote that then more power to them. Their choosing the life they want to follow and shouldn't be outcast or shunned because of it.

pts

prinz wrote: »

The majority I believe are religiously motivated, but religion aside, I believe that it is just as normal for someone to choose to abstain, as it is for someone to sleep around, regardless of the motivations behind the decision.

Not sure if I agree with that, I think we're born with certain "biological urges" which are a lot harder to ignore than to give in to.

prinz wrote: »

Everyone is talking about sexual liberation this, and real world that, it appears that open-mindedness and acceptance only applies if your a libertine liberal. If someone wants to be sexually conservative then that's their equal right, and if they want to promote that then more power to them. Their choosing the life they want to follow and shouldn't be outcast or shunned because of it.

It's not that I completely disagree with what you are saying, but I think you're missing an important point. Humans form clusters, based on one or more features. In an ideal world people would have opinions and all opinions would be respected. Unfortunately most human clusters (including religious ones) tend to focus a disproportionate amount of time criticising those who are not part of that group.

MatthewVII

prinz wrote: »

Why are they misinformed exactly? The only sure-fire way not to contract an STD, or get pregnant is to abstain from sexual activity.

There is no surefire way to avoid all STIs that doesn't involve mass genocide

I do.Sexual activity is only one aspect of this. Other aspects are far more destructive - the sexualisation of people of all ages, the media portrayal of what is normal re teens, relationships, sexual behaviour etc., body image in the light of the mass media, etc etc.

I agree that sexuality in the media can be harmful. However, sexual liberation has had its upsides too, namely consensual couples being able to enjoy sexually fulfilling relationships in a safe environment.

What fantasy would that be?

That abstinence makes you an objectively better person.

gcgirl

+1 from me there

SteveDon wrote: »

Sex is great, why would anyone want to deny themselves it.

Very strange article i thought. The guy himself is very preachy with his opinions.

I mean if you dont have sex with a woman you are likely to marry before you actually do, how do you know that the relationship will ultimately work, it is known that good sex is essential for a healthy relationship.

The reason people have so much casual sex is because its good fun. Why try to move sexual liberation back 50 years or so.

prinz

pts wrote: »

Not sure if I agree with that, I think we're born with certain "biological urges" which are a lot harder to ignore than to give in to.

Nobody denies the biological urge, or advocates ignoring it. It is how that urge should be channeled to best effect for the people involved and for society in general, which people are talking about. The easy road is not always the road worth taking.

pts wrote: »

Unfortunately most human clusters (including religious ones) tend to focus a disproportionate amount of time criticising those who are not part of that group.

That is exactly the point. And in our society today sex is everywhere, it's almost impossible to get through a single day without sex being used to influence you, it's become so all-pervasive that people don't even notice it anymore. People have become almost immune to it and the abuse of sexuality, from Fritzl in Austria, to the child abuse scandals here, to rapists before he courts on a daily basis etc.

Sex and sexuality has been so distorted lately that generations are growing up with a completely warped view of it. I am not criticising anyone, if people want to have sex before marriage that's their business. On the other hand if other people don't that equally is their business. However nothing good can come from the abuse of sexuality, ever.

prinz

MatthewVII wrote: »

There is no surefire way to avoid all STIs that doesn't involve mass genocide

I don't have any. My fiancée doesn't have any. Unless one should spontaneously erupt after we marry I don't foresee any actions on our part which would lead to either of s acquiring one.

MatthewVII wrote: »

I agree that sexuality in the media can be harmful. However, sexual liberation has had its upsides too, namely consensual couples being able to enjoy sexually fulfilling relationships in a safe environment.

Definitely it has had upsides. My point is that the balance has started to swing in the opposite direction. The apex of positives to be gained has come and gone imo, and the new negatives remain to emerge.

MatthewVII wrote: »

That abstinence makes you an objectively better person.

I didn't say that. I didn't see anyone in the article alluding to that. A better Christian perhaps.

pts

prinz wrote: »

Nobody denies the biological urge, or advocates ignoring it. It is how that urge should be channeled to best effect for the people involved and for society in general, which people are talking about. The easy road is not always the road worth taking.

Again, not disagreeing, the point I made was in regards to your quote where you said it was as "normal" to choose to abstain, as it is for someone to sleep around. I don't think it is as biology doesn't want us to abstain.

I'm not arguing what should be considered normal, I'm pointing out what is normal (in a statistical sense), which is once you get to a certain age the majority of humans want to have sex.

prinz wrote: »

That is exactly the point. And in our society today sex is everywhere, it's almost impossible to get through a single day without sex being used to influence you, it's become so all-pervasive that people don't even notice it anymore. People have become almost immune to it and the abuse of sexuality, from Fritzl in Austria, to the child abuse scandals here, to rapists before he courts on a daily basis etc.

Sex and sexuality has been so distorted lately that generations are growing up with a completely warped view of it. I am not criticising anyone, if people want to have sex before marriage that's their business. On the other hand if other people don't that equally is their business. However nothing good can come from the abuse of sexuality, ever.

I do agree that society has become more sexualised, but you seem to have some idea of what sex should be, which most people don't agree with. Which is why you might feel marginalised. You have every right to have your opinion but I don't think you can demand respect for your opinion from society.

prinz

pts wrote: »

I don't think it is as biology doesn't want us to abstain.

Using biology as an a reason cannot be applied to humans, any fully developed humans anyway.

pts wrote: »

I'm not arguing what should be considered normal, I'm pointing out what is normal (in a statistical sense), which is once you get to a certain age the majority of humans want to have sex.

Of course... 100% agree. Wanting and doing are different things. Wanting to have sex with your spouse is just as normal as wanting to have casual sex with someone you pick up in a bar. However if this article was about three teenagers who want to have one night stands, would the same people be posting here that they would be fantasist, idealist, detached from reality?

pts wrote: »

I do agree that society has become more sexualised, but you seem to have some idea of what sex should be, which most people don't agree with. Which is why you might feel marginalised. You have every right to have your opinion but I don't think you can demand respect for your opinion from society.

I don't feel marginalised. I don't care what other people think about how I live my life - unfortunately most young people do, which results in a vicious circle involving many things, including sex.
I do on the other hand feel that perfectly reasonable, responsible and legal opinions on personal conduct should be respected and not dismissed out of hand as misinformed fantasy.

pts

prinz wrote: »

Using biology as an a reason cannot be applied to humans, any fully developed humans anyway.

I think it's a perfectly valid default position. If we feel biologically inclined to do something and we can't think of a good enough reason not to do it then why not do it. What separates us on this issue is what constitutes a good reason. I don't think "because God said so" isn't a good reason.

prinz wrote: »

Of course... 100% agree. Wanting and doing are different things. Wanting to have sex with your spouse is just as normal as wanting to have casual sex with someone you pick up in a bar. However if this article was about three teenagers who want to have one night stands, would the same people be posting here that they would be fantasist, idealist, detached from reality?

Again same point as above, they think there is a sufficiently good reason not to have sex, others don't.

prinz wrote: »

I don't feel marginalised. I don't care what other people think about how I live my life - unfortunately most young people do, which results in a vicious circle involving many things, including sex.
I do on the other hand feel that perfectly reasonable, responsible and legal opinions on personal conduct should be respected and not dismissed out of hand as misinformed fantasy.

What I don't agree with is the reason they want to abstain. Further I still think that you can't demand that people respect your opinion when it comes to religion any more than I think someone can demand that you respect their opinion on say music.

prinz

pts wrote: »

What separates us on this issue is what constitutes a good reason. I don't think "because God said so" isn't a good reason.

As opposed to what...... because the mass media/our peers/etc tell us it's ok, therefore it is ok? Or because we are biologically designed to procreate therefore I have no control over my sexual actions?

pts wrote: »

Again same point as above, they think there is a sufficiently good reason not to have sex, others don't.
What I don't agree with is the reason they want to abstain. Further I still think that you can't demand that people respect your opinion when it comes to religion any more than I think someone can demand that you respect their opinion on say music.

Again I haven't demanded anything. However your assertion that an opinion based on religion can be disregarded immediately is just as ridiculous. So if these kids in the article said what they said from a non-religious background you would be the beacon of understanding?

As far as I'm concerned the reason behind the decision is irrelevant, it is a decision which affects nobody but themselves and as such they should not be pilloried/ have their sanity questioned because of it.

Sounds to me like you have an issue with religiosity in general, without any thought of the social aspects to their decision.

PDN

pts wrote: »

I don't think "because God said so" isn't a good reason.

And "because biology says so" is? (I'm assuming the double negative was unintentional)

pts

I don't want to drag this thread into a conversation between only the two of us, but since you asked.

prinz wrote: »

As opposed to what...... because the mass media/our peers/etc tell us it's ok, therefore it is ok? Or because we are biologically designed to procreate therefore I have no control over my sexual actions?

No, again I said exactly what my opinion was in my previous post. Biology is a good default. If I can think of a sufficiently good reason not to do something I won't do it.

prinz wrote: »

Again I haven't demanded anything. However your assertion that an opinion based on religion can be disregarded immediately is just as ridiculous. So if these kids in the article said what they said from a non-religious background you would be the beacon of understanding?

As far as I'm concerned the reason behind the decision is irrelevant, it is a decision which affects nobody but themselves and as such they should not be pilloried/ have their sanity questioned because of it.

Sounds to me like you have an issue with religiosity in general, without any thought of the social aspects to their decision.

You seem to be asking that their opinions on sex should not be open to ridicule, criticism, etc. It reminds me a lot about the miss california opposite marriage "scandal". Sure she's allowed to be have opinions, but shouldn't be surprised if people disagree with them they may make fun of them.

I think they are fully entitled to their abstinence, in fact I think it would be better if children were not sexualised so early. I just think their opinions should be open to debate.

pts

PDN wrote: »

And "because biology says so" is? (I'm assuming the double negative was unintentional)

Yes it was unintentional. No, again I said exactly what my opinion was in my previous post. Biology is a good default. If I can think of a sufficiently good reason not to do something I won't do it. Going to jail would be a good reason not to steal food even though I'm hungry.

prinz

pts wrote: »

You seem to be asking that their opinions on sex should not be open to ridicule, criticism, etc. It reminds me a lot about the miss california opposite marriage "scandal". Sure she's allowed to be have opinions, but shouldn't be surprised if people disagree with them they may make fun of them.

(a)people weren't just disagreeing with her, she was apparently penalised because of her views [as stated by some of the judges she was to that point favourite to win] and (b) people did not just disagree with her and make fun of her, the judge who asked the question went on national tv and called her a b*tch and a c*nt. That's not disagreeing with someone's opinion, that's just being ignorant.

The same people mocked her for giving a 'political' answer, they tend to forget it was a loaded political question.

pts wrote: »

I think they are fully entitled to their abstinence, in fact I think it would be better if children were not sexualised so early. I just think their opinions should be open to debate.

Of course open to debate. That's why it was in the newspaper, to get people talking. But a debate does not consist of labelling them misinformed, fantasists, disconnected from the real world, and saying because they are Christian, that their religion is not a good enough reason for them to choose abstinence.A debate should be based on rational arguments.

I know I for one would be very interested i a revisit to the triplets in 10 years to see how things panned out after.

prinz

pts wrote: »

Going to jail would be a good reason not to steal food even though I'm hungry.

Personal beliefs (primarily social, and then religious) are a good enough reason for me not to have sex*) until marriage....... even though I am biologically urged to do so.


*and to encourage that choice in others

pts

prinz wrote: »

(a)people weren't just disagreeing with her, she was apparently penalised because of her views [as stated by some of the judges she was to that point favourite to win] and (b) people did not just disagree with her and make fun of her, the judge who asked the question went on national tv and called her a b*tch and a c*nt. That's not disagreeing with someone's opinion, that's just being ignorant.

The same people mocked her for giving a 'political' answer, they tend to forget it was a loaded political question.

She was judged by a panel of judges. In their opinion she wasn't suited to win. It is very likely that her answer to that question influenced their judgement. However that is beside the point, she took a stance on an issue which backfired on her. As it turns out there was probably a majority in the judging panel that didn't agree with her on that issue. That happens all the time in life, I don't think that qualifies her for victim status.

I do agree with you that the judge in question is ignorant though.

prinz wrote: »

Of course open to debate. That's why it was in the newspaper, to get people talking. But a debate does not consist of labelling them misinformed, fantasists, disconnected from the real world, and saying because they are Christian, that their religion is not a good enough reason for them to choose abstinence.A debate should be based on rational arguments.

I think most people would admit that they have in the past labelled other people things because of their beliefs even though they shouldn't have. For example I might label conspiracy theorists a bit odd. If a label is "over the line" the law can be used. That's what it's there for.

prinz wrote: »

I know I for one would be very interested i a revisit to the triplets in 10 years to see how things panned out after.

I would be very interested in that too, as far as I remember a report was published recently in America on a related matter. It would be interesting, but not scientifically useful (as the sample size is very small) to see what the triplets get up to.

prinz wrote: »

Personal beliefs (primarily social, and then religious) are a good enough reason for me not to have sex*) until marriage....... even though I am biologically urged to do so.


*and to encourage that choice in others

It also looks like you have superhuman posting stamina, maybe the two are related, in fact I'm starting to wonder if you might be on to something

prinz

pts wrote: »

As it turns out there was probably a majority in the judging panel that didn't agree with her on that issue. That happens all the time in life, I don't think that qualifies her for victim status.

But a majority of Americans that do It was a ridiculous storm in a teacup anyway, on top of a ridiculous pageant in the first place. I'll never understand the American love of all things pageant-related. The only thing she is a victim of is looking and acting like a deer in headlights with her answer.

pts wrote: »

I would be very interested in that too, as far as I remember a report was published recently in America on a related matter. It would be interesting, but not scientifically useful (as the sample size is very small) to see what the triplets get up to.

We mentioned the American report somewhere back a bit, about the abstinence-only education programmes, and other chastity groups. Neither of which are very effective, and neither of which I support.

pts wrote: »

It also looks like you have superhuman posting stamina, maybe the two are related, in fact I'm starting to wonder if you might be on to something

Maybe it's sexual frustration :pac:
that or just avoiding what I am supposed to be doing.

pts

prinz wrote: »

But a majority of Americans that do It was a ridiculous storm in a teacup anyway, on top of a ridiculous pageant in the first place. I'll never understand the American love of all things pageant-related. The only thing she is a victim of is looking and acting like a deer in headlights with her answer.

It might be a majority in some parts of America, but when you enter a beauty pageant you're in gay man's land

prinz wrote: »

that or just avoiding what I am supposed to be doing.

I know that feeling

MatthewVII

prinz wrote: »

I don't have any. My fiancée doesn't have any. Unless one should spontaneously erupt after we marry I don't foresee any actions on our part which would lead to either of s acquiring one.

Rape, blood transfusions, needlestick injuries etc. STIs aren't only transmitted by sex.

Definitely it has had upsides. My point is that the balance has started to swing in the opposite direction. The apex of positives to be gained has come and gone imo, and the new negatives remain to emerge.

The positives are always there. We've just stopped noticing them and started taking them for granted.

I didn't say that. I didn't see anyone in the article alluding to that. A better Christian perhaps.

The article was laced with undertones of how abstinence was superior. The fruit bearing analogy in particular.

pts

A challenger appears!

prinz

MatthewVII wrote: »

Rape, blood transfusions, needlestick injuries etc. STIs aren't only transmitted by sex.

yes, but someone engaging in casual sex is far far more likely to contract one.tbh now you're clutching at straws. Like I said, an act on our part is not going to give either of us a sexually transmitted anything.

MatthewVII wrote: »

The positives are always there. We've just stopped noticing them and started taking them for granted.

The positives are there Did I say they weren't. What I said is that IMO we've pretty much achieved the peak of positives to be got from 'sexual liberation'.

MatthewVII wrote: »

The article was laced with undertones of how abstinence was superior.

That's an issue with the journalist.