Sex outside of marriage?

[truthseeker]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

One must admit though that the chance of becoming pregnant in these days of multiple methods of contraception are quite low.

Says who? As methods of contraception has increased, so has people's level of foolishness in this matter. Women are still getting knocked up to prove their undying devotion to the man. Men are still not using the latex because the woman isn't pressuring them to because she thinks that if he isn't bringing up issues of birth control that he must have her in his mind to start a family. All of these wonderful thoughts but not a word being said. Just the action, which means so much because both parties have great expectations and don't want them to be ruined by somebody saying what the reality is.

The capacity for diversity in human sexuality and marriage versus how one "should" behave is a fascinating question.

From an anthropological perspective, yes. Iceland is a newer settlement so I'm sure that those who have made a life there have gone with the idea of leaving behind old traditions and they want to figure out how things can work in other ways. There is no problem with people who have taken responsibility for their actions. Nobody's pointing the finger over there. From a political perspective, the person that is frowned upon is the woman who has six kids by four men and is seeking government aid. And most likely, this woman has never been married and is unaware of the whereabouts of three of the "baby's daddies". The one she knows of was at the government agency the day before seeking his own government aid. Of course, this is a worse case scenario of people who don't take responsibilty for their actions. But seeing that alot of people don't seem to care or be aware of what could happen to them, religion will instill values that will often make you take responsibility in the laws you believe in.

I completely agree, and I think this is more of an issue today than having kids out of wedlock. There are, after all, ways to avoid having kids. But it can be a lot harder to avoid feelings that can occur with physical intimacy. I've seen them sneak up on people, and watched it really hurt some people.

Our young people especially. They are a bag of nerves running around to get gratification. Nobody wants to talk about the feelings behind physical intimacy, we just want to stop unwanted pregnancies and HIV because it's costly and deadly. Feelings that aren't reciprocated can be costly and deadly too. And you can't take proper responsibility for actions and feelings that you don't understand. In a marriage setting, you can explore all of those things and be secure.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

Says who? As methods of contraception has increased, so has people's level of foolishness in this matter.

Some people's level of foolishness has increased. I know lots of people who have successfully avoided becoming pregnant, including me. It isn't that hard. It's just that some people are irresponsible. I know lots of married couples who have behaved tremendously irresponsibly and had kids they didn't want and couldn't care for, too. So marriage does not equal readiness for successful parenthood. I know really fantastic single parents and crummy ones, and also really fantastic married parents and crummy ones.

From an anthropological perspective, yes. Iceland is a newer settlement so I'm sure that those who have made a life there have gone with the idea of leaving behind old traditions and they want to figure out how things can work in other ways.

But there are many older settlements that also don't have these problems. Perhaps it is a U.S. problem, not a human one. Additionally, we have rates of divorce and such that are as high or almost as high among religious people in the U.S. as among the rest of the population. It seems that even if you have religious rules against sex outside marriage and divorce, it still happens. This points to a cultural norm rather than a religious ideology in people's practice, no matter what they say the ideal is.

And you can't take proper responsibility for actions and feelings that you don't understand. In a marriage setting, you can explore all of those things and be secure.

I would say in a good marriage you can explore these things and be secure. I know a lot of my friends married and were still incredibly hurt by their spouses, and regretted sharing sexual intimacy with their spouses. Considering the divorce rate is over fifty percent in the U.S. (and 65% where I come from) I'd say that we're practicing serial monogamy, not true monogamy. Marriage has become culturally a temporary union, no matter what ideals we have about it. As such, we have the capacity to be hurt in marriage just as we do outside of it. I think part of the problem stems from people being unprepared for the realities of marriage and sexual intimacy.

[truthseeker]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

But there are many older settlements that also don't have these problems. Perhaps it is a U.S. problem, not a human one.

Perhaps. In a place where you are milking the cows and taming the horses and gathering the hay and tilling the soil, you need all the help you can get. That's when kids are beneficial. But birth control is important in a society where you spend more time away from the children than you can around them. Humans are social. A baby that is never held or interacted with will not survive. It can be a U.S. problem, but it affects humankind across the board.

I would say in a good marriage you can explore these things and be secure. I know a lot of my friends married and were still incredibly hurt by their spouses, and regretted sharing sexual intimacy with their spouses. Considering the divorce rate is over fifty percent in the U.S. (and 65% where I come from) I'd say that we're practicing serial monogamy, not true monogamy. Marriage has become culturally a temporary union, no matter what ideals we have about it. As such, we have the capacity to be hurt in marriage just as we do outside of it. I think part of the problem stems from people being unprepared for the realities of marriage and sexual intimacy.

Marriage is the committment to work through the troubles. Even the 'rain' is an exploratory process. I think alot of the problems of marriages are the expectations that people have when they get into it. Eventually either someone has changed or won't change. If we can accept and respect eachother and ourselves for who we are initially, then I can suspect that we shall always do that. Marriage should be a forum in which we can explore ourselves intimately as well as the other person. Not just sexually, but everything else that comes with that. Many people in failed marriages lose sight of who they are so any connection that was had with the partner is lost. In a marriage with you I should know you and you should know me so even if I lose myself you should be there to remind me. If you're mad because I've changed and I'm messing up your groove, then be strong and help me get my groove back; don't use it as an opportunity to make me into the person that you thought I should have always been in the first place. My point is no one wants to be intimate in any way with anyone that they have no connection with. For the person who has control of the genitalia, one will make better decisions about the connection and not back oneself into high risk failure.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

Perhaps. In a place where you are milking the cows and taming the horses and gathering the hay and tilling the soil, you need all the help you can get. That's when kids are beneficial. But birth control is important in a society where you spend more time away from the children than you can around them.

I agree, which is why I think family structure has changed and will continue to change- at minimum to encourage smaller families. Not only do we lack the capacity in our culture to spend a lot of time with our children and still pay the bills (at least for much of the working class population), our planet cannot sustain an indefinitely and exponentially growing population. We will run out of resources. In the early days of Biblical times, people were agricultural and pastoral, which requires a lot of labor, hence it was a great thing to have ten or twelve kids. But there were also a lot of fewer people on earth back then. Now we have way too many people and hardly anyone is farming anymore (at least in the first world). Even in the third world where lots of people still farm, they are running into the problem of labor shortage vs. resource shortage.

Marriage is the committment to work through the troubles. I think alot of the problems of marriages are the expectations that people have when they get into it. Eventually either someone has changed or won't change. If we can accept and respect eachother and ourselves for who we are initially, then I can suspect that we shall always do that. Marriage should be a forum in which we can explore ourselves intimately as well as the other person. Not just sexually, but everything else that comes with that. Many people in failed marriages lose sight of who they are so any connection that was had with the partner is lost.

I agree, but most people don't seem to be thinking this way. Unfortunately, it "takes two to tango" and I've seen a lot of marriages fail due to one partner being unwilling to work on the marriage, even if the other one will. That's why I was saying we are not preparing people for marriage and intimacy culturally. Marriage and gender roles have changed dramatically in the last fifty years and people now don't know what to expect. Lots of my friends dove into marriage without working out major issues ahead of time- like kids, career goals, etc. It's like people would rather sweep things under the rug of starry-eyed romantic love rather than deal with them, and that's setting the marriage up to be a failure when that "honeymoon" is over. It's the classic "I'm just not in love him/her anymore" line- love is action and choice every day, not just a feeling into which you stumble. Even when both people are willing to put serious effort into it, there are times that the two of them change so dramatically as people that they really have nothing in common anymore. They could stay married officially, but what kind of union is that? People can't always change back into who they were ten/twenty years ago, and it can be difficult to love the new person who isn't at all who one expected. It's a tough situation with no easy answers, but I think it is less likely to occur if one works consistently on their marriage from the beginning.

This is why marriage in this culture these days is not substantially different from non-married unions. When lots of marriages are so brief and people are not really committed to working through differences, what's the point of marriage?

[truthseeker]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Marriage and gender roles have changed dramatically in the last fifty years and people now don't know what to expect.

I don't think gender roles have changed, I think that we're having a bit of trouble in multi-tasking. It's great that women get equal rights (for the most part) in the workplace, but it's terrible that women now have to work. Women are far more independent now so in this age, the book has yet to be written on how a men should deal with women with their own purchasing power and how women should deal with men whose fathers were the bread winners and mom stayed at home.

Lots of my friends dove into marriage without working out major issues ahead of time- like kids, career goals, etc. It's like people would rather sweep things under the rug of starry-eyed romantic love rather than deal with them, and that's setting the marriage up to be a failure when that "honeymoon" is over. It's the classic "I'm just not in love him/her anymore" line- love is action and choice every day, not just a feeling into which you stumble.

I think we come into this understanding round about the time we hit 30. Or if you've grown up with two parents who really love eachother.

When lots of marriages are so brief and people are not really committed to working through differences, what's the point of marriage?

To do the 'right' thing. Because my pastor/priest/rabbi says that is what I should do. Because my family really likes her/him and I keep seeing her at church. Because she's pregnant. Because he is a super-star and has a lot of money. Because she looks good and I don't want anybody else to have her. Because we got busted having sex and her daddy is gonna shoot me if I don't.

But maybe, just maybe because I know with her/him, I can live up to my full potential and (s)he will always be there for me, no matter what. My best friend.

I don't have any kids either. I was married once and we just weren't ready to have children so we didn't. Seeing that the relationship is over, that was a good thing. We got married because religiously, it was the right thing to do. Personally, it was the wrong thing to do. But now that I have control of my urges, I have a really good relationship with myself. I'm not so easy to release the energy in a way that has detrimental potential. Besides, it isn't nearly as great as when you have a sense of devotion with the partner (devoted to what? ). We will be learning these lessons for the rest of our lives - who's going to be there to pick you up when you fall? After all, everybody doesn't get to see you naked.

[InLove]

Hello, and peace to everyone here!

I have not read in depth any replies in this thread, and my cat is trying to sit in front of the monitor. After the last post I made, this one is easy. Infidelity leads to confusion and heartbreak. Commitment works. It is a matter of Love. Trust me on this one--would you break your best friend's heart? Would you break your own?

InPeace,
InLove (and in love--this is something I really do know. From all sides.)

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Originally Posted by InLove

Commitment works. It is a matter of Love. Trust me on this one--would you break your best friend's heart?

That is true InLove, but if you are in love with a person, is that not reason alone not to hurt that person. And if you are prepared to break the heart of someone you love, will being married change anything?

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

My view on this topic is that if I love someone, that is a bond stronger than any piece of paper or ceremony ratified by any God or state.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any reason to legislate love.

[InLove]

Hi, ATF--

Yes, I suppose I was just addressing the pain that can be caused by an extramarital affair. But I certainly do know that there are many couples who are very committed to one another without the piece of paper, and if one or the other broke that committment, it would be painful as well.

I will take some time later to really read through this thread so as to understand the conversation a bit more.

InPeace,
InLove

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

Iceland is a newer settlement so I'm sure that those who have made a life there have gone with the idea of leaving behind old traditions and they want to figure out how things can work in other ways.

New compared to whom? Certainly not compared to the US - Iceland was settled around AD 900, and according to the CIA World Factbook website, "boasts the world's oldest functioning legislative assembly, the Althing, established in 930." Besides, from what I've seen of the rest of Scandinavia, they consider babies born out of wedlock to be just as much of a non-issue as Iceland does.

[habibi2000]

I would have to say a piece of paper does not make a marriage, what makes a marriage is two people who are commited to their relationship and one another.

In the case of sex out side of marriage I think it has it's place, however I believe each party of the union must understand their emotional nature and the circumstances that brought them together like sexual frustration which could be diverted into other activities until the right partner comes along.

Then there is the waiting sometimes a person needs someone when the one you want to be with denies you then occassionaly when the waiting is too much and one has not good access to other activites then if done in the right spirit I think it is okay.

But in general I think marriage or a commited relationship is best.

[Faithfulservant]

From a Christian perspective.. We are to love God more than anyone.

[truthseeker]

True, Faithfulservant.

So what does that have to do with sex outside of marriage?

[Faithfulservant]

My view on this topic is that if I love someone, that is a bond stronger than any piece of paper or ceremony ratified by any God or state.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any reason to legislate love.

Sorry for not quoting it before.. but it was my response to this.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

FaithfulServant,

If I understand correctly, you are saying that we should love God more than our partner and so obey Gods ruling to marry before having sex, yes?

This sounds right for christians at least, except that Im not sure we've yet ascertained whether or not God has made any such ruling.