Does losing your virginity before marriage really matter?

karaokeman

Like a growing number of people I believe in sex before marriage. My friend thinks the reason the Catholic church in general disagrees with it is because you won't get STD's by only having one sexual partner.

Thing about it is, when couples get married there is no guarantee it will work out and thus they may find someone else and have sex with them after their first marriage.

It should also be noted that sometimes at a certain point in a relationship, even before marriage a couple would end up having sex as if they waited till marriage they would be lacking in experience.

So whats your view, is having sex before marriage/with multiple partners really a big deal?

Crazy Horse 6

No. Try before you buy.

prinz

Is it a big deal? Not necessarily.

craggles

No.

Sex "before" marriage assumes that everyone can/will/wants to get married.

Might as well pick some other arbitrary cutoff point

Penn

Sex feels good. Why wait until you're married?

seamus

karaokeman wrote: »

Like a growing number of people I believe in sex before marriage.

A "growing" number of people? 99% of people under 40 at this stage have no problem with pre-marital sex. Most people would consider it essential to ensure sexual compatibility before you pledge yourself for life to someone.

My friend thinks the reason the Catholic church in general disagrees with it is because you won't get STD's by only having one sexual partner.

The catholic church disagrees with it because the catholic church believes that sex is for procreation only, and any enjoyment of the act is wicked and sinful.

Micky Dolenz

Burn in hell, sinners. Burn in a hot sexy hell.

Johnny Bitte

No, in fact I'd highly recommend it. Like, a lot!!

jester77

Would you purchase a car without giving it a test drive?

Chris Hansen

Hi I'm Chris Hansen, why dont you take a seat over there?

2 stroke

Yes. It's absolutely essential.

CardBordWindow

Virginity and respect for the Catholic Church have a lot in common.

You're bound to lose them at some stage in your life.
People make a big deal about them.
Having them reduces the amount of fun in your life.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

The catholic church disagrees with it because the catholic church believes that sex is for procreation only, and any enjoyment of the act is wicked and sinful.

Not quite, but a common mistake.

mackg

Yes, you should lose your virginity to "the one"

How many people are actually going to meet Keanu reeves?

Also its hardly fair on straight men and lesbians is it.

ted1

people don't get married at 14 anymore. at the tiem the rule came in the average age was somethign like that. so yes it applied back then. (nto many young ones were gettign the freak on)

but now a days its a ridicolous thing to ask people.

MitchKoobski

Are you offering?

El Weirdo

mackg wrote: »

Also its hardly fair on straight men and lesbians is it.

You'd better get on to the Catholic Church as I'm sure they'd want to correct this oversight.

Gummy Panda

Do whatever you wanna do, OP?

getz

El Weirdo wrote: »

You'd better get on to the Catholic Church as I'm sure they'd want to correct this oversight.

the catholic church keeps on telling me to use the rythm method,but where can i find a ceili band at four in the morning ?

Delirium

prinz wrote: »

Not quite, but a common mistake.

really? so they no longer consider masturbation, contraception or homosexual sex a grave sin?

koth

koth wrote: »

really? so they no longer consider masturbation, contraception or homosexual sex a grave sin?

I think it was the "enjoyment of the act is sinful" part he was correcting, I don't think they mind that as long as you're doing it for procreation

prinz

koth wrote: »

really? so they no longer consider masturbation, contraception or homosexual sex a grave sin?

That's not what I said.

Delirium

prinz wrote: »

That's not what I said.

apologies, prinz. bluewolf cleared up my misunderstanding.

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

I think it was the "enjoyment of the act is sinful" part he was correcting, I don't think they mind that as long as you're doing it for procreation

Also not quite true. If you go to the Catechism of the RCC you will find mentioned that the role of sex in a marriage is twofold, one being procreation, one being for the "good of the spouses themselves", you will also find it said that sexuality between the spouses is a source of "joy and pleasure" and that expressing this sexuality is not something which is "simply biological".

Also contraception based on the bodies own natural cycle is not against the Catechism and can actually be something positive :eek:

"Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom"

If they believed sex was for procreation only shouldn't they be saying that you should avoid sex during the infertile periods and restrict it to the fertile?

So all in all to say that the Catholic Church believes that "sex is for procreation only, and any enjoyment of the act is wicked and sinful." is nonsense.

Anyway enough said. It's not really going to change anyone's opinion on here

mackg

El Weirdo wrote: »

You'd better get on to the Catholic Church as I'm sure they'd want to correct this oversight.

To the Vatican!!!
*mounts steed*

Scanlas The 2nd

IMO marriage and religion was invented at least partially as a means for men to control women sexually and to ensure that that their children were biologically theirs. This is why women were made to feel guilty for enjoying sex. They had to be controlled, they couldn't be free to have sex with whoever they wanted. Honeymoon apparently refers to the first month after marriage were the man takes a woman away for a full cycle of the moon which is a full menstrual cycle and has lots of sex with her. The point of this is to get her pregnant while "knowing" the baby must be his.

This all came into to play IMO as a result of the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago. Men learned about the concept of property as they became settled on their piece of land and began to regard women as property. Women IMO are naturally promiscuous especially in estrus when they are ovulating and I believe men back then realised this so these new farmers had to think of a way to ensure that they could work hard and earn a woman without her going off and sleeping with someone else when she was in estrus. So they designed forms of religions with elements in it designed to control women's sexuality. Just look at some of the commandments. Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shall not covet thy neighbours wife.

So if you are against sex before marriage IMO you have been fooled by the manipulative early agriculturalists.

prinz

mackg wrote: »

To the Vatican!!!
*mounts steed*

I hope you married that steed before you mounted it.

Kevin Duffy

Lots of Catholic priests didn't get married before they lost their virginity, why should I?

Son Of A Vidic

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Burn in hell, sinners. Burn in a hot sexy hell.

If this is hell? Then bring it on!

orourkeda

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

If this is hell? Then bring it on!

why does she still have her clothes on?

getz

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Lots of Catholic priests didn't get married before they lost their virginity, why should I?

bottoms are OK,before you start shouting if it was sanctioned by the church for the knights templars it must be OK

mackg

CardBordWindow wrote: »

Virginity and respect for the Catholic Church have a lot in common.

You're bound to lose them at some stage in your life.
People make a big deal about them.
Having them reduces the amount of fun in your life.

You lose both in a vestry when your ten:eek:

FloatingVoter

orourkeda wrote: »

why does she still have her clothes on?

The dress hides the third horn. That's the hell part.:)

Rabidlamb

**** everything that moves & do the most filthy depraved stuff that would have got your family evicted from the village 50 years ago.
Then when you find the one you will have a wankbank to keep you going in the downtime.
What has the church got to do with any of this ?, well **** them too.

Shenshen

karaokeman wrote: »

Like a growing number of people I believe in sex before marriage. My friend thinks the reason the Catholic church in general disagrees with it is because you won't get STD's by only having one sexual partner.

Thing about it is, when couples get married there is no guarantee it will work out and thus they may find someone else and have sex with them after their first marriage.

It should also be noted that sometimes at a certain point in a relationship, even before marriage a couple would end up having sex as if they waited till marriage they would be lacking in experience.

So whats your view, is having sex before marriage/with multiple partners really a big deal?

I think your friend needs to inform him/herself about how STDs can get transmitted.
Very few require full sexual intercourse, most are happy enough with a deep kiss.

Caraville

It only matters if it's something you want to do, which in this day and age most people do.

I have to say, if I started seeing someone who wanted to wait til marriage- it's not that I'd judge them for it, I mean, whatever they're into- but I'd find it very difficult to deal with. Times are different now, relationships are generally longer before marriage and people get married later in life. And some people don't marry at all. I just don't think it'd be something I'd be ok with for any potential relationship, unless I was absolutely crazy about him, and even then, I dunno......

But if two like-minded people met and wanted to wait, then grand, whatever suits them.

_blank_

only sluts have sex before marriage. have some self respect and keep it under wraps until you get married.

People with low self esteem are out riding without thinking of the consequences.

krudler

Des wrote: »

only sluts have sex before marriage. have some self respect and keep it under wraps until you get married.

People with low self esteem are out riding without thinking of the consequences.

if not serious, lol

if serious, lol

RichieC

Des wrote: »

only sluts have sex before marriage. have some self respect and keep it under wraps until you get married.

People with low self esteem are out riding without thinking of the consequences.

Oh you poor man, did you fall on your head? :c

Biggins

Where is the "No" option without particular opinions attached?
Poll fails.

bnt

Here's another case in which a bit of history helps explain why. Think back to a time before modern medicine, before understanding of sexuality, before religion, even. Remember, religion did not create the cultures of ancient peoples - it latched on to existing cultures and co-opted them. So, if you think this emphasis on virginity is a religious thing, you're not thinking back far enough!

In simple terms:
- two tribes: boy from one tribe wants to shack up with girl from another tribe.
- Girl will become member of boy's tribe: girl's tribe will receive some kind of benefit for this
- girl is therefore an asset with a value. She must be clean and healthy (no STDs), and not pregnant with by a man not of her new tribe.
- How to check this? Check that she is a virgin, of course. If she has never had sex, she can't be pregnant or carrying a STD. It's a quick check, to be done by any woman of the new tribe.
- ergo: virgin = more valuable tribal commodity

That's the basic explanation. It's been complicated and fetishised by all manner of cultures and religions over the centuries, but virginity was valuable before there were cultures or religions. Virginity = "clean" because it means no STDs, and it's quick and easy to check without requiring any technology. There was no equivalent STD test for men then - though there is now, of course.

philologos

I think it makes good sense to wait. Others might find this archaic, but I can think of a number of benefits. Firstly one can be assured that there is a love in the relationship before there is sexual activity. Secondly it puts both people on the same page in respect to sexual expectations. It means that one person who values sex highly won't be crushed when they find out that the other regarded it as just a biological function alá eating and drinking. I think it also makes good sense to wait because it ensures that one won't be put in a situation where they can catch an STD, it also ensures that if there was an unplanned pregnancy one will more likely be able to deal with it and be able to keep the child once they are in a secure marriage rather than seeking an abortion.

Those are just a few, but I do think it makes better sense ultimately.

Malari

philologos wrote: »

I think it makes good sense to wait. Others might find this archaic, but I can think of a number of benefits. Firstly one can be assured that there is a love in the relationship before there is sexual activity. Secondly it puts both people on the same page in respect to sexual expectations. It means that one person who values sex highly won't be crushed when they find out that the other regarded it as just a biological function alá eating and drinking. I think it also makes good sense to wait because it ensures that one won't be put in a situation where they can catch an STD, it also ensures that if there was an unplanned pregnancy one will more likely be able to deal with it and be able to keep the child once they are in a secure marriage rather than seeking an abortion.

Those are just a few, but I do think it makes better sense ultimately.

Wait, what exactly is the benefit of this?

Also, people have abortions within marriage and some people never get married. Your points don't make any sense to me.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I think it makes good sense to wait. Others might find this archaic, but I can think of a number of benefits. Firstly one can be assured that there is a love in the relationship before there is sexual activity.

If you need a legal document to assure love, "you're doing it wrong"

Secondly it puts both people on the same page in respect to sexual expectations.

Communication does that, marriage or no marriage.

It means that one person who values sex highly won't be crushed when they find out that the other regarded it as just a biological function alá eating and drinking.

eh ok

I think it also makes good sense to wait because it ensures that one won't be put in a situation where they can catch an STD

No, it really doesn't

, it also ensures that if there was an unplanned pregnancy one will more likely be able to deal with it and be able to keep the child once they are in a secure marriage rather than seeking an abortion.

Firstly see above re: communication, and secondly plenty of married people have abortions, and thirdly plenty of unmarried people keep the child.

Those are just a few, but I do think it makes better sense ultimately.

As usual, you really don't...

stovelid

Of course.

In 1955.

philologos

I'm just saying that people can be assured that there is a love in a relationship before they engage sexually. I'd personally like to love someone for who they are inside, rather than just lusting after them sexually. I'd also like to feel as if I was loved before engaging sexually with anyone. I'd like to know the person first, indeed I'd like to love the person first. Perhaps that's crazy but I think there is an advantage in that.

As for abortions in marriage. I'm suggesting that the abortion rate is considerably lower within a marriage because married couples have the means and the security to be able to bring a pregnancy into full fruition.

Malari

I don't see any benefit of being in love before you have sex (for the first time).

Plus your second point says that one person may just view it as a biological function, therefore not everyone thinks they have to be in love to have sex (your first point). It only helps people who puts their first sexual experience on a pedestal to wait.

Waiting reduces risk of STDs? How? Talking and communication about sex would though.

And like I already said about abortion - it happens within marriage. Some people never marry, so what...they shouldn't have sex??

stovelid

philologos wrote: »

I'd personally like to love someone for who they are inside, rather than just lusting after them sexually.

I adored my mot's pancreas from afar before I slept with her.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

If you need a legal document to assure love, "you're doing it wrong"

Who said that? I think marriage is valuable as a commitment in and of itself.

bluewolf wrote: »

Communication does that, marriage or no marriage.

See my previous post to Malari.

bluewolf wrote: »

eh ok

??

bluewolf wrote: »

No, it really doesn't

Why?

bluewolf wrote: »

As usual, you really don't...

I really don't think it makes better sense? Interesting. Do you want to share the psychology behind that one?

Edit: It's important to note that I have no interest in casting aspersions on other peoples relationship structures. All I'm doing is stating why I believe my position on the subject is most reasonable.

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

If you need a legal document to assure love, "you're doing it wrong"

I think the point is that it's more likely that the two people will actually be in love with each other as opposed to two randomers having a few drinks and getting off after a night in coppers/whatever teen disco is happening these days.