The case for sexual abstinance

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Slopeshoulder
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: San Francisco

The case for sexual abstinance

Post #1

Post by Slopeshoulder »

In another thread..
His Name Is John wrote: Sexual activity should be reserved until marriage (I can explain why if you so want).
I'd be curious to see that. I can't imagine why. Every argument I've seen for abstinance falls flat IMO. Joyfully, I've never been impressed by them. But bring it on...

Assuming consent exists, puberty is in the past, and laws are upheld...
What is the case for abstinance before, outside of, or between marriage(s)?
What is the case for abstinance for any reason at all?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #41

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: This saddens me that a person really wouldn’t know this. First, to reduce sex to the rubbing together of the genitals is to seriously dismiss the reality of sex – and that is based on science. The ability to literally create new life – another human being is one of the natures of the sexual act. Not exactly “No big deal� In addition to that sociology shows the emotional and psychological significance of sex to the human person. Studies after studies show the difficulty (especially for women) is separating the physical from the emotional when it comes to sex. Research also shows increased happiness/satisfaction in loving committed sexual relationships. Then of course there is the emotional as well as physical health consequences regarding the increased number of sexual partners.

So, yeah . . . quite a few cases for abstinence. LOL!
So you are saying sex is great, these are cases against abstinence, surely?

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #42

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 41 by Bust Nak]
So you are saying sex is great, these are cases against abstinence, surely?
Only if you think it perfectly ok to toy with people’s emotional and physical well being. Or only if you think it perfectly ok to create a human life that you have no plans or desire to raise and love.

Like I said, sex is huge – but hardly simply because of the physical pleasure – so why would anyone encourage or support the sexual act not being between two, mature, committed, loving people who are ready and willing to be responsible for bringing another human being into this world?

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #43

Post by wiploc »

McCulloch wrote: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
I'm more into democracy than kingdoms anyway.



Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?
I am the penis of a god!



Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute?
May it never be!



May it never be!
We think alike, you and I.



Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her?
The beast with two backs.



For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.�
Three times, on weekends.



But the one who joins himself to the Lord
Watch your mouth!



is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality.
I read once that, "Of all forms of sexual deviation, chastity is the most perverse."



Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.
That makes no sense. To sin is to doubt or disobey gods. To sin against a body--instead of against a god--would be to doubt or disobey the body. My body definitely wants to have sex.



Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you,
Right, I do not know that.



whom you have from God,
I watched a panel of experts discuss the Trinity. None of them would accept anything that the others said.

Except they all wanted us to agree that the Trinity is true--even if it doesn't have a known meaning.

How can something without meaning be true?

That makes no sense.



and that you are not your own?
Nuts to that.



For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
I went to this restaurant and ordered a glass of water. The waiter gave me the water and said, "That will be a million billion trillion dollars."

I said, "I can't pay that."

He said, "It's okay. I killed the busboy to cover your debt."

That's a stupid system. I don't agree to the debt. I don't agree to the price.



Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Kingdoms again, eh?
King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays...]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
What you want is a system that makes sense. It has to make more sense than the moistened bint system being made fun of above. Claiming I'm your slave because you killed the busboy or crucified part of a monotheistic god, that's not going to sell. Only perverts would get onboard for that.

Seriously, you'd be better off with an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #44

Post by wiploc »

Felix wrote:Sex provides only a moment of pleasure
You're doing it wrong.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #45

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: Only if you think it perfectly ok to toy with people’s emotional and physical well being. Or only if you think it perfectly ok to create a human life that you have no plans or desire to raise and love.
I don't see why non-abstinance is being assocated with either toying with people's emotions and well being, or creating human life that one does not want. Sex outside of marriage need not be one-night-stands.
Like I said, sex is huge – but hardly simply because of the physical pleasure – so why would anyone encourage or support the sexual act not being between two, mature, committed, loving people who are ready and willing to be responsible for bringing another human being into this world?
Because regular sex is benefitical to the emotional and psychological well being of the human person.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #46

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 45 by Bust Nak]
I don't see why non-abstinance is being assocated with either toying with people's emotions and well being, or creating human life that one does not want. Sex outside of marriage need not be one-night-stands.
I am associating non abstinence with an inferior outcome because the statistics support it. Even couples that are supposedly “committed� and even living together fair worse than married couples. Statistics show non married couples who co habitate are more likely to report being less happy/fulfilled, have increased rates of domestic violence, increased rates of infidelity in their relationship, more unstable environment for children and as a result children suffer more problems.

As much as we would like to, most human beings cannot detach themselves from the negative emotional, physical, and psychological effects of sexual activity outside of marriage. Research shows this to be particularly true for women.

As for associating non abstinence with creating human life that one does not want . . . uummm . . . only abstinence can 100% prevent this. Just because one does not “want� children does not mean pregnancy will not occur, so again there is alot at stake when we are talking about sex outside of marriage. It is never simply about raising one's heart rate and orgasm.

Because regular sex is benefitical to the emotional and psychological well being of the human person.
Wishful thinking on your part. The statistics don’t support this.

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #47

Post by wiploc »

RightReason wrote: [Replying to post 45 by Bust Nak]
Even couples that are supposedly “committed� and even living together fair worse than married couples.
If you compare regular married people to those who never had sex before marriage, I'll bet the regular ones are happier. For one thing, they'll tend not to marry people they're sexually incompatible with, but virgins won't have any way to know whether they're compatible with their prospective spouses.


Statistics show non married couples who co habitate are more likely to report being less happy/fulfilled, have increased rates of domestic violence, increased rates of infidelity in their relationship, more unstable environment for children and as a result children suffer more problems.
Statistics also show that the happiest people are women whose husbands have died. Not sure what you want to make of that.

They further show that people in sexually repressive religions are the most likely to be child molesters.

And people in more religious areas of the United States are far more likely to get divorced.


As much as we would like to, most human beings cannot detach themselves from the negative emotional, physical, and psychological effects of sexual activity outside of marriage. Research shows this to be particularly true for women.
I'm beginning to question the quality of that research.


As for associating non abstinence with creating human life that one does not want . . . uummm . . . only abstinence can 100% prevent this.
Also true within marriage.

I read of one study that said many women have kids out of wedlock because they have reached the age that they want kids but they haven't found a keeper of a man. So they have the kid and keep looking for the man. I conclude that not all out-of-wedlock childbirth is to be considered tragedy.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #48

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to wiploc]
If you compare regular married people to those who never had sex before marriage, I'll bet the regular ones are happier.
Regular married people? So, are those of us who wait until marriage irregular? LOL! You’re funny.

For one thing, they'll tend not to marry people they're sexually incompatible with, but virgins won't have any way to know whether they're compatible with their prospective spouses.
Ha, ha, ha . . sexual incompatibly? I love how the culture today actually believes that is a thing. What exactly is sexual incompatibility? Is one of the partners missing their genitalia? When couples have marital problems, I can assure you the root cause is not sexual incompatibility, rather they are having sexual problems because of things having nothing to do with sex. Seriously? It’s not rocket science dude. The old, “you gotta test drive the car before you buy one� thought is sexist and flawed. Why? Because to even consider/view the other as an object to be “tested� means one is incapable of seeing the person and missing the beauty of love and marriage. I seriously don’t have time to correct this mis thinking on your part.

I can assure you being in a loving marital relationship is NOT dependent on sex prior to marriage and the fact that you think it is is part of the problem.

Statistics also show that the happiest people are women whose husbands have died. Not sure what you want to make of that.
LOL! Are you referring to this study . . . Women are happier after they reach 85 and their partners have died? https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 10061.html

Hmmmmmm . . . does that take into account the difficulty of caring for an aging spouse and all that that entails? When I’m over 85, it might be easier if I didn’t have the worry/concern about my spouse’s well being – I’ll admit that. Beyond that . . . such a study is a meaningless. And I love how the article says . . .

“The survey consisted of 12 questions which prompted participants to rate their levels of self-confidence, anxiety, sleep disturbance.� Well, as long as they were asking 12 questions and rated self confidence and sleep disturbance. Gee, I hope at 85 I have more self confidence than I did in my 20’s – or atleast I would think I do, LOL! And I guess after my sick spouse died yeah I would be having less sleep disturbance. Glad to see that translates to me being happier now that my spouse is dead. Oh brother . . .

They further show that people in sexually repressive religions are the most likely to be child molesters.
What religions would that be?
And people in more religious areas of the United States are far more likely to get divorced.
Hmmmm . . . you might want to take another look at some of those studies . . .

Both of the following statements are true:
�The most conservative Christian areas of our country have the highest divorce rates.
�Churchgoing Christians are the least likely of our citizens to get divorced.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/l ... id-french/


I read of one study that said many women have kids out of wedlock because they have reached the age that they want kids but they haven't found a keeper of a man. So they have the kid and keep looking for the man. I conclude that not all out-of-wedlock childbirth is to be considered tragedy.
This has nothing to do with anything. The point remains in any amount of sexual intercourse there remains the possibility of conception – the possibility of bringing a new human being into this world – so like I said – kind of a big deal! It’s absolutely selfish and ignorant not to recognize this fact of life.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #49

Post by bluethread »

RightReason wrote:
Hmmmm . . . you might want to take another look at some of those studies . . .

Both of the following statements are true:
�The most conservative Christian areas of our country have the highest divorce rates.
�Churchgoing Christians are the least likely of our citizens to get divorced.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/l ... id-french/
Yes, one refers to a region and the other refers to a behavior. Behavior is generally a better determiner of ones beliefs than where they live. It is definitely more accurate than surveys that ask various questions regarding how one feels.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #50

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: I am associating non abstinence with an inferior outcome because the statistics support it...
Are the result adjusted for age? The one study I am aware of cohabiting couples tends to be under 30.
As much as we would like to, most human beings cannot detach themselves from the negative emotional, physical, and psychological effects of sexual activity outside of marriage.
You mean detach themselves from the negative emotional, physical, and psychological effects of casual sex.
As for associating non abstinence with creating human life that one does not want . . . uummm . . . only abstinence can 100% prevent this.
There is also abortion.
Because regular sex is benefitical to the emotional and psychological well being of the human person.
And yet there you were telling us of the increased happiness/satisfaction in loving committed sexual relationships.

Post Reply