Does sex outside of marraige have negative side effects?

[achilles12604]

The question for debate is in the title. Jagalla wrote that one of the benefits of atheism is that they can enjoy sex outside of marriage without guilt.

I question the position that sex outside of marriage is actually beneficial. I have seen several downfalls.

These include but are not limited to:

1) Passing of STD's with multiple partners
2) Lack of emotional ties with specific partners leading to strained relationships and increased divorce
3) Lack of respect for women (and in some cases men). In essence they become "things" to play with rather than a person to respect and admire.
4) Unwanted pregnancies leading to further emotional stress with either forced marriage, split custody or abortion.

I could probably think of more but I'll let others chime in here.

[bernee51]

The question for debate is in the title. Jagalla wrote that one of the benefits of atheism is that they can enjoy sex outside of marriage without guilt.

I question the position that sex outside of marriage is actually beneficial. I have seen several downfalls.

These include but are not limited to:

1) Passing of STD's with multiple partners
2) Lack of emotional ties with specific partners leading to strained relationships and increased divorce
3) Lack of respect for women (and in some cases men). In essence they become "things" to play with rather than a person to respect and admire.
4) Unwanted pregnancies leading to further emotional stress with either forced marriage, split custody or abortion.

I could probably think of more but I'll let others chime in here.

Do you mean sex between consenting adults, neither of whom are married or in a committed relationship? Or are you talking adultery?

[achilles12604]

The question for debate is in the title. Jagalla wrote that one of the benefits of atheism is that they can enjoy sex outside of marriage without guilt.

I question the position that sex outside of marriage is actually beneficial. I have seen several downfalls.

These include but are not limited to:

1) Passing of STD's with multiple partners
2) Lack of emotional ties with specific partners leading to strained relationships and increased divorce
3) Lack of respect for women (and in some cases men). In essence they become "things" to play with rather than a person to respect and admire.
4) Unwanted pregnancies leading to further emotional stress with either forced marriage, split custody or abortion.

I could probably think of more but I'll let others chime in here.

Do you mean sex between consenting adults, neither of whom are married or in a committed relationship? Or are you talking adultery?

I meant two consenting, unmarried adults.

adultery adds a whole additional bag of worms.

[Furrowed Brow]

Well I'm 41 and have not married yet. So guess what answer I favour .

I think I have already discussed this with Easyrider a while back. Marriage in the UK is in severe decline and I believe that last year more kids were born out of wedlock than in. My son was born out of wedlock. I have no brothers or sisters but if I looked to my cousins, there are about 20 kids and about 3/4 of these were born out of wedlock.

After having kids and getting though a fair chunk of life marriage now seems to be used just as much as an affirmation of what has gone before as it is to announce a young couple setting off on life’s journey together. Its like we've had the kids, got them through school, lived together for twenty years, da ya think we need to tie up the loose end and tie the knot.

So I ain't got a problem with sex out of marriage.

[ST88]

1) Passing of STD's with multiple partners
2) Lack of emotional ties with specific partners leading to strained relationships and increased divorce
3) Lack of respect for women (and in some cases men). In essence they become "things" to play with rather than a person to respect and admire.
4) Unwanted pregnancies leading to further emotional stress with either forced marriage, split custody or abortion.

Items 2 - 4 assume that there is a standard that should be applied to all relationships to determine how "healthy" they are. What are the requirements for such relationships? For example, if you think that divorce is bad, then you will wince at the divorce rate rising. But does this mean that people are become more and more callous with each other, or does this mean that people are less willing to put up with all the crap that they used to in earlier eras? "Increased divorce" is not necessarily a bad thing, it is only as bad as one thinks it is. "Lack of emotional ties" is also an arbitrary standard applied to sexual partners. This is largely cultural. Sex can be arbitrarily intimate, as anyone who has gone through public high school in America will attest to.

Specifically,
1) Use a freakin' condom.
2) Emotional ties do not need to be tied to sexual ties. This is an attitude forced on us in order to maintain what some people feel is a necessary institution for society to function.
3) If both parties want to act as playthings for one another, what's the problem?
4) Again, use a freakin' condom.

[MagusYanam]

Before we get started, I would personally like to say that I'm not against sex outside of marriage per se.

What I am against is sexual exploitation. ST88 asks, 'if both parties want to act as playthings for one another, what's the problem?', but I think this is to some extent avoiding the thrust of achilles12604's point. In sex as in anything, I believe it is important to see other people as people with the ability to think, feel and suffer, and to see them as ends in themselves. (Okay, I know I really need to stop channeling Kant in these kinds of discussions, but that's another problem.)

As such, I believe that having sex with the end being pleasure for oneself while disrespecting or disregarding the wishes, feelings and moral agency of one's partner is wrong. It's one of the reasons I'm against adultery but not against premarital sex in a mutual, consentual monogamous relationship.

In ages gone by, perhaps sex outside marriage was a form of sexual exploitation (especially in societies where women who had sex before marriage were socially stigmatised). Perhaps this is still the case in some places, but I think that premarital sex has become more of a norm now (in the United States), and our pragmatic approach to premarital sex should reflect the reality.

[ST88]

ST88 asks, 'if both parties want to act as playthings for one another, what's the problem?', but I think this is to some extent avoiding the thrust of achilles12604's point. In sex as in anything, I believe it is important to see other people as people with the ability to think, feel and suffer, and to see them as ends in themselves. (Okay, I know I really need to stop channeling Kant in these kinds of discussions, but that's another problem.)

That's all very well and good, but how much of the other person do you have to understand before getting to it? If you already see everyone as sufferable beings, then you're back to recognizing that "playthings" is a valid role to play for one another. For example, the one-night stand, in its Platonic ideal (as it were), is where two parties recognize that they are playing one part of the role of lover for a short period of time. How short is short enough to be valid?

I understand that achilles was trying to use the objectification argument, but I think that's much too simple and dismissive to describe any actual sexual situations going on. Consensual means consensual -- regardless of the motivations. Part of sex is objectification, whether we want to believe that or not. Some women objectify themselves. If there is consent, where is the harm? The harm is when one party is led to believe that it means something that it may not. Once again, the problem is the expectations that someone brings to the table because of the way things "ought" to be. Baggage. All the harm is in the moral overlay.

As such, I believe that having sex with the end being pleasure for oneself while disrespecting or disregarding the wishes, feelings and moral agency of one's partner is wrong.

You've just negated over half of sex going on within many marriages.

It's one of the reasons I'm against adultery but not against premarital sex in a mutual, consentual monogamous relationship.

So, does it become wrong if the wedding is called off?

[Greatest I Am]

The question should be a no brainer.
Not only religious groups but political groups have condemned such practice.
I do not think I need to give any examples of the harm that comes from this practice. You know what they are.

Both our political and spiritual nature condemn the practice.

Regards
DL

[ST88]

The question should be a no brainer.
Not only religious groups but political groups have condemned such practice.
I do not think I need to give any examples of the harm that comes from this practice. You know what they are.

Both our political and spiritual nature condemn the practice.

What you mean to say is that both our political and our spiritual institutions condemn this practice. Human nature celebrates sex in many forms, including outside the bounds of socially acceptable institutions. Please, the OP asked for negative side effects. Enlighten us.

[Greatest I Am]

The question should be a no brainer.
Not only religious groups but political groups have condemned such practice.
I do not think I need to give any examples of the harm that comes from this practice. You know what they are.

Both our political and spiritual nature condemn the practice.

What you mean to say is that both our political and our spiritual institutions condemn this practice. Human nature celebrates sex in many forms, including outside the bounds of socially acceptable institutions. Please, the OP asked for negative side effects. Enlighten us.

Jealousy.
Pregnancy.
Loss of pride.
Raising someone else's offspring.
Std's
Abortion.
All of these lead to divorce.

Good enough.

Regards
DL