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?

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 #51

Post by wiploc »

RightReason wrote: [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.
Thanks. I try. But I'm also making the point that most people don't marry as virgins.



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.
Very strange.



What exactly is sexual incompatibility?
What is it exactly? I have no idea exactly. Some people have been very happy with me, and I've felt like a great lover, a great person. With other people, not so much. Wouldn't you rather make love with someone you feel good about making love with?



Is one of the partners missing their genitalia?
So it's all the same to you? You would find sex equally gratifying with anyone who has junk?



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.
Assure away, but that's so counter-intuitive as to make it sound like you're just making stuff up.

I can go this far with you: If a couple used to have good sex together, and then sex quits being good, the real problem probably isn't the 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.
What if your parents tried to arrange a marriage for you, and you said, "Can I at least have dinner with her; see if we enjoy each other's conversation; see how she treats the waiter; see if we like the same foods, music, politicians; see if we get along at all?" Would that mean you were missing the beauty and incapable of seeing the person?

And how is it sexist? I'd think you'd want to get to know someone before choosing him or her for your lifeboat, regardless of gender.


I can assure you being in a loving marital relationship is NOT dependent on sex prior to marriage
I can go this far with you: A lot of wonderful loving marriages result from virgins marrying.

But suppose that Sara and Joe know they enjoy each other physically but Karen and Mike have no clue. The odds of Sara and Joe having a wonderful loving marriage have to be higher than the odds of Karen and Mike achieving that.



and the fact that you think it is is part of the problem.
Be nice, be respectful.



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 . . .

No idea. Just something I read once.



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!
Suppose a guy with a vasectomy has sex with a woman past menopause. Suppose two guys do it, or two women, or seven women. Suppose a woman knows that if her other forms of birth control fail, she will abort.

The fact that you adamantly claim things that are patently false makes it hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.



It’s absolutely selfish and ignorant not to recognize this fact of life.
Strike two.

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

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #52

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to wiploc]
Thanks. I try. But I'm also making the point that most people don't marry as virgins.
Probably true, but those who do are not irregular.




Ha, ha, ha . . sexual incompatibly? I love how the culture today actually believes that is a thing.



Very strange.
I agree. Sexual incompatibility is one of those words that have come to describe some unhappiness within one’s sex life. Ironically, a good sex life is never simply about the sex. So, when one has concluded/rationalized that his/her relationship failed because they were sexually incompatible, what they really mean is something else was wrong in their relationship which of course results in sucky sex. So, IMO, sexual incompatibility is nonsense and doesn’t address the root problem.


Wouldn't you rather make love with someone you feel good about making love with?
Uuumm . . . so you have to have sex with someone to know whether you would feel good about having sex with them? You don’t think you could or should know that before?


Quote:

Is one of the partners missing their genitalia?


So it's all the same to you? You would find sex equally gratifying with anyone who has junk?
On the contrary . . . and my point . . .good sex doesn’t come down to the physical act. It’s about the relationship. The whole relationship – not just what happens in the bedroom. With your talk about sexual compatibility, the only thing that would matter would be we need to find the right size blow up doll.



I can go this far with you: If a couple used to have good sex together, and then sex quits being good, the real problem probably isn't the sex.
No kidding. And if you and your spouse are never able to find your mojo, the real problem isn’t sex either. Bad sex is the symptom.




What if your parents tried to arrange a marriage for you, and you said, "Can I at least have dinner with her; see if we enjoy each other's conversation; see how she treats the waiter; see if we like the same foods, music, politicians; see if we get along at all?" Would that mean you were missing the beauty and incapable of seeing the person?
What are you talking about? That would mean you are seeing the person. What would be not seeing the person would be to ask the girl if she would have sex with you so that you could see if you’re sexually compatible. Absurd.
I'd think you'd want to get to know someone before choosing him or her for your lifeboat, regardless of gender.
Yes, get to know them – We can get to know someone without undressing.




Quote:

I can assure you being in a loving marital relationship is NOT dependent on sex prior to marriage

But suppose that Sara and Joe know they enjoy each other physically but Karen and Mike have no clue. The odds of Sara and Joe having a wonderful loving marriage have to be higher than the odds of Karen and Mike achieving that.
I couldn’t disagree more and believe I have even seen research to support it. I submit Sara & Joe would more likely have a happy successful marriage because clearly they are both mature enough to not use each other, but rather have each other’s best interest in mind. Both willing to wait to engage in the marital act knowing that the act itself is a sign of their love and literally has life giving power. There waiting is a demonstration they are in it for the long haul and represents their commitment as well.

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 #53

Post by wiploc »

RightReason wrote:With your talk about sexual compatibility, the only thing that would matter would be we need to find the right size blow up doll.
I'm done with you.

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

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #54

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to wiploc]
RightReason wrote:

With your talk about sexual compatibility, the only thing that would matter would be we need to find the right size blow up doll.


I'm done with you.
My post explained my argument leading up to that comment. You suggest we need to know if we are sexually a good fit with another person prior to marriage by engaging in the sexual act. I am demonstrating the absurdity of your belief. Way too many factors involved that affect/influence sex that have nothing to do with the mechanics. So, the idea that if a couple could just have sex prior to marriage, it could help their marriage or give them some advantage is not well thought out.

SamanthaClarkson
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:01 pm

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #55

Post by SamanthaClarkson »

You can know before the marriage that the person is right for you. Real feelings contribute a lot to sexual compatibility. Young people now think that they have to have sex before marriage and that is wrong in my opinion. You can wait and you should because it is much more special if you do. I love my husband, we waited and we were compatible in all things.

(Note: moderator removed advertisement link)

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3354
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 927 times

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #56

Post by Miles »

SamanthaClarkson wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:04 pm You can know before the marriage that the person is right for you.
Perhaps, but there's no guarantee. How many couples divorce when one or both thought they knew the other person was right for them? Thousands upon thousands of them. So the matter of knowing is better phrased as a matter of believing.
SamanthaClarkson wrote: Young people now think that they have to have sex before marriage and that is wrong in my opinion.
Some of them maybe, but for the vast majority today they have sex because they simply enjoy it. There's no "have to have" attached to it.
SamanthaClarkson wrote:You can wait and you should because it is much more special if you do.
To reach such a conclusion you would have to both wait and not wait. Pretty much an impossibility, isn't it.
SamanthaClarkson wrote: I love my husband, we waited and we were compatible in all things. The problems start with years for men because there is a great chance of ED. We solve it by getting pills from espanolfarmacia.net
Ah, so you conjured up this post just to promote a pharmacy. Naughty, naughty, SamanthaClarkson.


.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 817 times

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #57

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to Slopeshoulder in post #1]
What is the case for abstinance before, outside of, or between marriage(s)?
What is the case for abstinance for any reason at all?
I'm not sure there needs to be any reason other than 'just 'cause'! Assuming it's the individual's choice, that is.
That said, there can be almost as many reason FOR as there are AGAINST.
Some people have problems with sex and want to avoid it to work on themselves for a while.
Some are afraid of diseases.
I saw an article where one woman was allergic to her husband's semen!
I think, something this personal needs to be made by the person or people involved, not some magician in the sky.
But some like to be control my invisible genies. To each their own I suppose.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

Post Reply