Premarital sex: bad or good? Or neither?

[MystyGlyttyr]

I don't see how "premarital" is a synonym for "not prepared to have a child if contraception fails," which is how you seem to be using it.

Like I said, I just can't come up with a better word. "Careless" sex isn't right. "Casual" isn't right. It's kind of a lot to type in that whole phrase every single time. If I get a word that works, I'll use it.

Cunnilingus? Fellatio? Anal? BDSM without P-in-V intercourse?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. If there is any chance of even the slightest bit of sperm coming anywhere close to the vaginal openings, then pregnancy is possible. Ask a couple thousand people a year who find that out the hard way. If that doesn't happen, if the couple makes absolutely sure it doesn't happen, then all right, I suppose that would be pregnancy proof. But most people don't line themselves in anticipation for it.

Only if the people using them don't bother to use use them correctly.

Which is kind of my point. People don't always do the correct things. They can buy wrong sizes, apply wrong, etc., even if they read the directions. Shit just happens sometimes.

[McDreidel09]

I say sex before marriage is fine...so long as it doesn't hold up the ceremony and keep all your guests waiting.

That..is...AMAZING!! May I use that as my signature? I will give you credit and everything.

[The Shadow]

Absolutely!

[Flyndaran]

The premarital part is meaningless. Marriage is just a cultural and sadly legal ritual.
Sex is a natural evolutionarilly demanding urge. It will happen unless one makes it their life to abstain for extreme periods of time, and that often causes all sorts of life problems aside from the overalll silliness of such an anti-fun attitude.

Sex is like eating things with sugar. It's techniically possible to live without them, but anyone trying to do so will have to modify their lives to such a degree as to make life a whole lot less enjoyable.

(Remember, manufacturers put sugar in nearly EVERYTHING whether the food is considered "sweet" or not. Before my medication, I had to survive on an extremely limited diet that required no sugar up to and including the avoidance of fruits, and caramel coloring as that was simply burnt sugar.)

...
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. If there is any chance of even the slightest bit of sperm coming anywhere close to the vaginal openings, then pregnancy is possible. Ask a couple thousand people a year who find that out the hard way. If that doesn't happen, if the couple makes absolutely sure it doesn't happen, then all right, I suppose that would be pregnancy proof. But most people don't line themselves in anticipation for it.
....

Oh please. You're one of those if it's technically possible we must run around panicked that it's going to happen soon.
It is technically possible for H.I.V. to be transmitted via saliva alone.... BUT not one incident of such has ever been reported.
One has to evalute probabilities rationally. Sadly this is very hard for most people to do, especially when considering the media's terror alert of the day while always ignoring the FAR more common threats that are so common and real that they don't make "good news".

Do you or anyone consciously minimize their average hours spent driving? Car accidents are much more often deadly than most other activities.
Do you or anyone avoid peanut butter because it very very slightly increases your risk of certain types of cancer?
Do you or anyone avoid dogs, because they are far more likely to cause injury than wild black bears?

If you breathe, you take risks. It's all about only taking reasonable risks and when considering potential rewards adjust behavior accordingly.
Remember, it's living, no one gets out alive.

[Greenday]

The premarital part is meaningless. Marriage is just a cultural and sadly legal ritual.
Sex is a natural evolutionarilly demanding urge. It will happen unless one makes it their life to abstain for extreme periods of time, and that often causes all sorts of life problems aside from the overalll silliness of such an anti-fun attitude.

Sex is like eating things with sugar. It's techniically possible to live without them, but anyone trying to do so will have to modify their lives to such a degree as to make life a whole lot less enjoyable.

Wow, that could have been the best explanation of how I feel on it. That's like the best comparison ever!

[anriana]

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. If there is any chance of even the slightest bit of sperm coming anywhere close to the vaginal openings, then pregnancy is possible. Ask a couple thousand people a year who find that out the hard way. If that doesn't happen, if the couple makes absolutely sure it doesn't happen, then all right, I suppose that would be pregnancy proof. But most people don't line themselves in anticipation for it.

Seriously? You shouldn't have cunnilingus because the guy might have bits of sperm floating around his mouth? You shouldn't have fellatio because... uh... the vagina and mouth are somehow connected? You shouldn't play naughty schoolgirl and strict headmaster because... canes are made out sperm? I am quite confused.

[MadMike]

)

and on the second part... I am married... sex is completely mythological now

I know that feeling all too well.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Seriously? You shouldn't have cunnilingus because the guy might have bits of sperm floating around his mouth? You shouldn't have fellatio because... uh... the vagina and mouth are somehow connected? You shouldn't play naughty schoolgirl and strict headmaster because... canes are made out sperm? I am quite confused.

Actually, I can kind of see by what Mysty meant. As anyone who's ever done it knows, the heat of passion can really stir things up and logic tends to take a backseat to the primal urge of "OMG must fuck now!" (Which is why it's so important to plan beforehand for when the heat index shoots up, but I digress) So if a couple is rolling around having a good time, even if the man's penis itself is nowhere near the woman's vagina, if there's fresh ejaculate or pre-ejaculate (which still contains viable sperm) anywhere that somehow gets inside the vagina (and I can see a possible scenario where that might happen, like ejaculate on a guy's fingers that then get put inside the vagina), the woman is in deep shit if that swimmer makes it to the egg.

Granted, these scenarios that don't involve PIV sex may or may not be as common as they may sound. But it is a possibility, however remote. And as Mysty also mentioned, birth control can and does fail, even with sterilization. That's another big reason why I'm not interested in sex: I NEVER EVER want to be pregnant, not for any reason at all, and the only way I'd even remotely consider having sex is if I and the guy were both sterilized and he wore a rubber and I was still on the Pill. And frankly, even then, if an accident somehow happened, nothing on earth would compel me to go through with a pregnancy I didn't want. (Mind you, this is my own decision; YMMV) Birth control is great and I highly recommend it, whatever the method, but it isn't yet a 100% failsafe, and I wouldn't wish accidents on anybody because it's such an intensely personal decision fraught with a lot of high emotion no matter what takes place.

Does this take away a potentially fun experience? Maybe, but then again I've often been of the thought that you can't really miss what you never had when it comes to some things in life. For me, sex - or the lack thereof - just happens to be one of those things.

(What I REALLY want in life is money. Ooh yeah. Whoever said that money doesn't buy happiness was full of shit. Money can buy me a helluva lot of happiness, mwaahahaha)

[anriana]

Actually, I can kind of see by what Mysty meant. As anyone who's ever done it knows, the heat of passion can really stir things up and logic tends to take a backseat to the primal urge of "OMG must fuck now!" (Which is why it's so important to plan beforehand for when the heat index shoots up, but I digress) So if a couple is rolling around having a good time, even if the man's penis itself is nowhere near the woman's vagina, if there's fresh ejaculate or pre-ejaculate (which still contains viable sperm) anywhere that somehow gets inside the vagina (and I can see a possible scenario where that might happen, like ejaculate on a guy's fingers that then get put inside the vagina), the woman is in deep shit if that swimmer makes it to the egg.

So... some people are ignorant idiots, therefore it's immoral for any couple who would abort a pregnancy to have sex?

I've had sex plenty of times and I've never let any "heat of passion" override my strong desire to not be infected with a parasite. Even when my partner and I were stupid, horny teenagers, we were careful enough to avoid any possible chance of sperm/vaginal contact. And I still haven't seen any argument as to why BDSM that doesn't involve genital contact would be wrong.

[Amethyst Hunter]

So... some people are ignorant idiots, therefore it's immoral for any couple who would abort a pregnancy to have sex?

Not exactly. There ARE ignorant idiots out there who don't bother to use any sort of precautions because they think they're somehow invincible, and those people I wanna slap (Or at least give a stern talking-to!). Those people who are generally consistent with the use of protection and who may occasionally slip up do not fall under the category of ignorance though. Now, I may never have had sex, but I DO understand the "gottahaveitNOW" impatience to some extent (thank you mental illness). So in that context I can see where a couple who is normally vigilant about things might get carried away in the heat of the moment and forget their stuff, or apply it haphazardly in such a way that it fails to do its intended job. People are only human.

Is it stupid? Probably. But then we've all done dumb things, so who can really point fingers there? But it's not immoral for those who would choose abortion to have sex, IMO.

As far as the whole abortion topic itself goes, that's a whole 'nother bag of worms but suffice it to say that I firmly believe it is a personal decision that belongs to no one except the person involved, hence why some people would do it and others would not. That's why Mysty said she personally has a hard time with it, yet she would not bug anybody else about it. Nothing wrong with that.

And I still haven't seen any argument as to why BDSM that doesn't involve genital contact would be wrong.

I haven't seen any argument that BDSM sans genitals (or even just in general) *is* wrong... (Though I admit that I am the type of person who can't fathom purposely causing someone else pain without due cause (i.e., being pissed off for a justifiable reason). But that's just me and if that's your kink, hey, have at it.)

[MystyGlyttyr]

If you breathe, you take risks. It's all about only taking reasonable risks and when considering potential rewards adjust behavior accordingly.
Remember, it's living, no one gets out alive.

You know, this is not the first time you've said something disparaging to me about how I approach risk, and I'm pretty sure that the last time, I told you pretty much this exact same thing. It depends on the risk.

Look, I'm a pro wrestler. That's a ridiculously risky business to be in, and unless you're one of only 100 or so in the very top of the business, there's almost no rewards save pure enjoyment of it. But those are risks that I've weighed and that I have taken preparations for. I have life insurance if I crack my head open and die. I have disability insurance if I break my neck and get paralyzed. Not cheap insurance, either, but I have it, because I'm PREPARED.

It's not that I refuse to take any risk, anywhere, anyway, ever. It's that there are some things I just won't risk. Yeah, the risks of my nieces or nephew getting mauled by a dog are minimal, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just smile and wave while they vault into a fence where any kind of strange animals are. And yeah, loading them into the car has it's dangers, but that's why cars are designed more and more everyday to protect the passengers. Yes, everything IS dangerous and everything carries risk. EVERYTHING. That was EXACTLY my point. The part that got missed was that this particular danger is one that I choose not to expose myself to.

The question was asked why I'm against this type of sex, and I said why...because sex is probably one of the least prepared-for activities that humans engage in. If someone goes fucking SKYDIVING, they get two different cords to pull. How many people in the general population use more than one type of protection? Some, sure, but I'd be willing to bet a sizeable amount of money that the percentage is less than a quarter. And the fact that STDs are still spreading like wildfire shows that there are still people using absolutely squat for protection. I mean, go to Snopes and look at the number of crazy things people still believe about sex and pregnancy and how it works and what prevents it and all the magical ways to "take it back".

So far as suppressing urges, as I've mentioned many times, I am asexual. I have no urges. I thought I had some once, but no, I never have. It requires no effort from me to not have sex. So I don't have the emotional connection to it and I can and do simply analyze it for the action it is and the results that can come from every variety of it, and not the feelings that go into it. So sorry to be the exception to evolution's rule.

[Flyndaran]

...
So far as suppressing urges, as I've mentioned many times, I am asexual. I have no urges. I thought I had some once, but no, I never have. It requires no effort from me to not have sex. So I don't have the emotional connection to it and I can and do simply analyze it for the action it is and the results that can come from every variety of it, and not the feelings that go into it. So sorry to be the exception to evolution's rule.

This right here is something that would have been very important to know at the beginning.
If there are no perceived benefits, say from a complete and inborn lack of sex drive, then of course even the tiniest miniscule risk of bad outcomes from the most safe form of sex would be too much.

Just hearing your opinion sans background made you look a little paranoid. Knowing your history makes me understand that from your perspective you are simply staying with a rational outlook.

As to no sex drive, it must be strange to have never had it. I had it, but because of my much needed Paxil, I am down to 5% normal drive. Having had it and lost it, I must admit that I feel calmer and more rational for longer periods of time... But good lord do I miss it, and so does my life mate even more than I do.

[DrT]

AS I've said above, I am against forcing the 'abstinence only' idea on people, because I do believe that forcing your belief on others is simply wrong, unless that belief has something to do with health or immediate danger (for instance, I have nothing against you forcing on me the belief that the bombs are coming and I should get to a shelter, especially if you can prove it)

That mean I'm also against the fact that people diminish others because they happen to think sex before mariage is a bad thing. Leave them to their belief, don't force the issue.
As one who had a 'surprise' thing happen (ie: wife pregnant, not prepared for it, certainly didn't want it) I can perfectly see why people would shy away from the risk of having children. However I will point out that the B (nickname of the third son in question) is one of the joy of my life and makes me very happy, so it turned out to be a very agreeable surprise.
But if you don't wanna, tis fine. I won't force it upon you and will stand with you if others are trying to force it upon you or belittle you.

Beside, quite frankly: tis fun indeed, but it's not the best thing out there, nor the longest, nor the cleanest.

Lastly: having children is the most life changing experience there is. period.
in extenso: the risk of having children is one of the greatest and most frightening risk ever, period.

A child is a lifelong engagement, and from the day you have him/her your life stops being about you, and will not be until they are capable of taking care of themselves (a good 25-30 years). Sure, you'll get moments to yourself, but that's barely significant. So it's nothing to scoff at.
And if you disagree with that last paragraph, I will feel very sorry for you and that child.

[powerboy]

There is nothing wrong with having pre marital sex. I like to get to know my partner and what she may or may not like.

[anriana]

I haven't seen any argument that BDSM sans genitals (or even just in general) *is* wrong... (Though I admit that I am the type of person who can't fathom purposely causing someone else pain without due cause (i.e., being pissed off for a justifiable reason). But that's just me and if that's your kink, hey, have at it.)

MystyGlitter said yes to it being wrong (along with anal/oral) on page 2.

There are plenty of non-pain based BDSM activities. Like... peeing on people! I'm sure that's much more understandable. =)